Apple isn't using the mobile 3.06ghz CPU. They're using what basically amounts to a slightly more efficient version of the desktop core 2 duo in a socket P package. Its a hybrid, and possibly a prototype for the Small form factor desktop chips coming out in the not too distant future.
Well, the only major difference between the Mobile and Desktop CPUs are the socket and the TDP, and I believe the high-end iMac still has Socket P. Intel is releasing a range of 35W desktop processors later this year too.
Is there any software that takes advantage of the quad core processors?
Photoshop, Final Cut Pro and Compressor and I'm sure many more. Just running the Finder, Safari, Mail and iTunes at the same time will use 4 cores. Add Photoshop, Dreamweaver, Adobe Reader or any other apps for creating a web site, and you can see why even a 8 core MacPro can be kept busy just doing a web site.
Photoshop, Final Cut Pro and Compressor and I'm sure many more. Just running the Finder, Safari, Mail and iTunes at the same time will use 4 cores. Add Photoshop, Dreamweaver, Adobe Reader or any other apps for creating a web site, and you can see why even a 8 core MacPro can be kept busy just doing a web site.
Will it make MobileMe any faster?
(Sorry, couldn't resist after noticing that recently non-email syncs to the cloud are taking forever to complete.)
The above power supply specs mean nothing! First, new hardware would be redesigned around the correct power supply. Really that is what engineering is all about, figure out your power budgets and craft a machine to meet those losses. Second, the power dissipation of the processors is only part of the equation, even if they kept the same power supply the over all power budget will change with the rest of the hardware implemented.
For example if they can save 5 watts on the support chipset /GPU that is 5 more watts that can be budgeted for the CPU. More so if they drop a few ports, like Firewire they can save a lot more power. Power that can go to the CPU and its cooling.
Quote:
E = Desktop (~65W); X6... = Desktop (~75W); X = Mobile (extreme) (~44W); T - Mobile (standard voltage) (~35W); P - Mobile (medium-voltage) (~25W); L - Mobile (low voltage) (~17W); U - Mobile (ultra-low voltage) (~10W)
Like I said earlier the Min and to lesser extent the iMac have a reputation as being power stingy. I'm hoping that Apple leaves us with at least one desktop computer that can support low power operation. So I'm not sure what is up, I just hope Apple has a range of computers in mind.
Ha! I was right. I saw those chips on Intel's roadmap for a January release and said to myself, "iMac." No one would want those processors more than Apple.
They can't be any hotter than the G5 processors the iMac used before Intel.
Ha! I was right. I saw those chips on Intel's roadmap for a January release and said to myself, "iMac." No one would want those processors more than Apple.
They can't be any hotter than the G5 processors the iMac used before Intel.
They probably aren't, but the G5s were never in the current, extra-thin iMacs.
They probably aren't, but the G5s were never in the current, extra-thin iMacs.
Are they really that much thinner, though? The iMac G5 was redesigned with an iSight, and the first Core Duo iMacs used that same body. Then they switched to aluminum... but they aren't much thinner except at the edges.
I don't understand Apple's obsession with thin. Slimming notebooks is good because it makes them lighter, but on the desktop it makes no sense. Who looks at their iMac from the side? Who would really care if it was another inch thicker? A little bit bigger case would allow a lot of very positive things:
- larger power supply to power quad core variants
- larger heat sinks to dissipate the heat from more powerful chips
- space to re-design the insides so the display wouldn't have to come out just to find the hard drive
- space to stack components so the 24" model could sport two hard drives
Just by making the iMac a little thicker Apple could probably provide many features the xMac people want. We'd still be stuck with Steve Jobs' choice of display and be forced to replace it every time we upgrade, but it might be good enough for some.
Unless there's an xMac this year I'll stick with used Pro towers because I need room for a lot of hard drives. I keep my apps, data and multimedia on separate drives and I try to replace two of them annually. I currently have 9 hard drives split between active duty, primary backup, off-site backup and archival storage, and I have no interest in switching to a machine with only one internal hard drive because that would mean having even more external drive cases littering the place.
I wish Apple would use more efficient copper heat sinks. I don't see Apple allowing two hard drives in the iMac, but it sure could make it a tiny bit thicker for the more powerful processors and required cooling. The first generation iMac G5 you could take the back panel off and get to the hard drive, optical drive and fans and RAM easy enough. I wish they brought back a bit of that.
Is there any software that takes advantage of the quad core processors?
A good question. But it is also important if there are any usage patterns that take advantage of quad core processors.
My 2' iMac is also my TV. In the evenings I work on the computer and have HD television running in the background. Decoding a full HD stream from an OTA antenna is pretty processor intensive. It consumes an entire core of my 2.16mhz core2duo. This leaves only one core for everything else. Merely running iPhoto at the same time as EyeTV is enough to bring an iMac to its knees. Attempting to run iPhoto, iWeb, and EyeTV at the sametime is an exercise in patience. A quadcore chip would help in a scenario such as this.
With that in mind...
Are we likely to see a quadcore core 2 duo with the same or lower heat disipation as what is currently in the iMac?
I would like to drop a quadcore into my iMac eventually but am skeptical if this will ever be possible. Hell, the GPU is socketed as well but I don't have high hopes for that either.
Apple buys stock CPU's, so TDP 65w is what current iMac's use. That is for both cores. However; Windows doesn't have the energy saving features OS X has.... Simply using the "Automatic" CPU in energy saver cuts power unless you require it.
These are quad core chips @ the same rating with hyperthreading ( looks like 8 cores -performs like 8!) Memory is built in, and did they include graphics as well? Will it still need an nVidia GPU?
iPhone, same OS X energy settings - runs 400MHz unless you need power - then shoots to 700MHz.
Not exactly, Apple has used pre-production or custom CPUs before. Some of those CPUs, like the smaller package Core 2 for the MBA have proven to be successful enough to develop into a new line.
Apple buys stock CPU's, so TDP 65w is what current iMac's use. That is for both cores. However; Windows doesn't have the energy saving features OS X has.... Simply using the "Automatic" CPU in energy saver cuts power unless you require it.
These are quad core chips @ the same rating with hyperthreading ( looks like 8 cores -performs like 8!) Memory is built in, and did they include graphics as well? Will it still need an nVidia GPU?
iPhone, same OS X energy settings - runs 400MHz unless you need power - then shoots to 700MHz.
While you're right about the energy savings features. You're wrong on the rest: The current iMac uses custom-made cpus with a TDP of 55W. The new 65W quad-core cpus are not nehalem but still penryn. That means no hyperthreding, no memory controller built-in, etc... Just regular desktop chips with a lower TDP, hence slightly more expensive than the regular parts, but much more affordable than mobile 45W quad-core cpus.
If Apple can find a way to use them on the iMacs, it will be a great speedbump.
Apple buys stock CPU's, so TDP 65w is what current iMac's use. That is for both cores. However; Windows doesn't have the energy saving features OS X has.... Simply using the "Automatic" CPU in energy saver cuts power unless you require it.
These are quad core chips @ the same rating with hyperthreading ( looks like 8 cores -performs like 8!) Memory is built in, and did they include graphics as well? Will it still need an nVidia GPU?
iPhone, same OS X energy settings - runs 400MHz unless you need power - then shoots to 700MHz.
Is there any software that takes advantage of the quad core processors?
3D. Video. Production. Encoding. Handbrake. VERY FEW games. Some scientific apps. They're out there. And usually people on the edge of 'making' or 'discovering/figuring' out things. Guesses: global warming and weather modelling/predictions?
*Shrugs.
Once Open CL parcels code into parcels 'instead'(?) of threads then maybe most of everything will be able to take advantage of Quad core. You can render some 3D now. Get that going, do some Photoshop action work while browsing the Internet while playing iTunes. I'm sure that would give a Quad Core machine a work out?
Still. Apple shouldn't be waiting on quad-core chips. Use the ones that are out there now. The Conroe Penryns should be dirt cheap to use.
I get the laptops. But the Mini should be a Cube and I can't see why the iMac should wait on laptop Quad cores. To me? Flaws in their designs? Still, seeing as most apps are dual-core aware at best, Apple's technically getting away with it. But the customer will still see quad core desktops on the market 'NOW' for less than a grand with a better gpu than the iMac has. It's embarrassing to be behind in this respect.
Comments
Apple isn't using the mobile 3.06ghz CPU. They're using what basically amounts to a slightly more efficient version of the desktop core 2 duo in a socket P package. Its a hybrid, and possibly a prototype for the Small form factor desktop chips coming out in the not too distant future.
Well, the only major difference between the Mobile and Desktop CPUs are the socket and the TDP, and I believe the high-end iMac still has Socket P. Intel is releasing a range of 35W desktop processors later this year too.
T9800\t2.70 GHz\t6MB\t\t 1066 MHz \t $530
Q9000\t2.00 GHz\t6MB\t \t 1066 MHz $348
P9600\t 2.66 GHz\t 6MB\t 1066 MHz\t$348
T9550\t 2.66 GHz\t 6MB\t 1066 MHz\t$316
P9600\t 2.53 GHz\t 3MB\t 1066 MHz\t$241
Is there any software that takes advantage of the quad core processors?
Snow Leopard will.
Is there any software that takes advantage of the quad core processors?
Photoshop, Final Cut Pro and Compressor and I'm sure many more. Just running the Finder, Safari, Mail and iTunes at the same time will use 4 cores. Add Photoshop, Dreamweaver, Adobe Reader or any other apps for creating a web site, and you can see why even a 8 core MacPro can be kept busy just doing a web site.
Photoshop, Final Cut Pro and Compressor and I'm sure many more. Just running the Finder, Safari, Mail and iTunes at the same time will use 4 cores. Add Photoshop, Dreamweaver, Adobe Reader or any other apps for creating a web site, and you can see why even a 8 core MacPro can be kept busy just doing a web site.
Will it make MobileMe any faster?
(Sorry, couldn't resist after noticing that recently non-email syncs to the cloud are taking forever to complete.)
Intel has a few categories; All Core2 Duo desktop cpu's are 65W TDP (xtreme 75w) All standard mobile are 35watts- (xtreme 44w) low 25w
These are MAX power displacement - like setting your CPU to Highest, or running some CPU intensive apps. Automatic would lower average etc.
Quad are ~95 or extreme ~130w
but at IDF intel had an experimental quad at 48w 2.66GHz
Mac mini has a maximum 110Watt power supply
only chips meeting the specs are:
T5600\t1.83 GHz\t34 W\t2MB (FSB 667) (65nm Merom)
T5750\t2.0 GHz\t35 W\t2MB (FSB 667)
20" iMac has 200W power supply
24" iMac has 280 watt PS
these chips are desktop
E7200\t2.53 GHz\t65 W\t3MB (FSB 1066) (Wolfdale-3M)
Macbook Pro 15" has 85w power supply
T9400\t2.53 GHz\t35 W \t6MB (FSB 1066)
The above power supply specs mean nothing! First, new hardware would be redesigned around the correct power supply. Really that is what engineering is all about, figure out your power budgets and craft a machine to meet those losses. Second, the power dissipation of the processors is only part of the equation, even if they kept the same power supply the over all power budget will change with the rest of the hardware implemented.
For example if they can save 5 watts on the support chipset /GPU that is 5 more watts that can be budgeted for the CPU. More so if they drop a few ports, like Firewire they can save a lot more power. Power that can go to the CPU and its cooling.
E = Desktop (~65W); X6... = Desktop (~75W); X = Mobile (extreme) (~44W); T - Mobile (standard voltage) (~35W); P - Mobile (medium-voltage) (~25W); L - Mobile (low voltage) (~17W); U - Mobile (ultra-low voltage) (~10W)
Like I said earlier the Min and to lesser extent the iMac have a reputation as being power stingy. I'm hoping that Apple leaves us with at least one desktop computer that can support low power operation. So I'm not sure what is up, I just hope Apple has a range of computers in mind.
Dave
They can't be any hotter than the G5 processors the iMac used before Intel.
Ha! I was right. I saw those chips on Intel's roadmap for a January release and said to myself, "iMac." No one would want those processors more than Apple.
They can't be any hotter than the G5 processors the iMac used before Intel.
They probably aren't, but the G5s were never in the current, extra-thin iMacs.
They probably aren't, but the G5s were never in the current, extra-thin iMacs.
Are they really that much thinner, though? The iMac G5 was redesigned with an iSight, and the first Core Duo iMacs used that same body. Then they switched to aluminum... but they aren't much thinner except at the edges.
They probably aren't, but the G5s were never in the current, extra-thin iMacs.
No, but the 970FX was in the thinner front row iMacs for a couple of months before the core duo iMacs arrived.
- larger power supply to power quad core variants
- larger heat sinks to dissipate the heat from more powerful chips
- space to re-design the insides so the display wouldn't have to come out just to find the hard drive
- space to stack components so the 24" model could sport two hard drives
Just by making the iMac a little thicker Apple could probably provide many features the xMac people want. We'd still be stuck with Steve Jobs' choice of display and be forced to replace it every time we upgrade, but it might be good enough for some.
Unless there's an xMac this year I'll stick with used Pro towers because I need room for a lot of hard drives. I keep my apps, data and multimedia on separate drives and I try to replace two of them annually. I currently have 9 hard drives split between active duty, primary backup, off-site backup and archival storage, and I have no interest in switching to a machine with only one internal hard drive because that would mean having even more external drive cases littering the place.
Is there any software that takes advantage of the quad core processors?
A good question. But it is also important if there are any usage patterns that take advantage of quad core processors.
My 2' iMac is also my TV. In the evenings I work on the computer and have HD television running in the background. Decoding a full HD stream from an OTA antenna is pretty processor intensive. It consumes an entire core of my 2.16mhz core2duo. This leaves only one core for everything else. Merely running iPhoto at the same time as EyeTV is enough to bring an iMac to its knees. Attempting to run iPhoto, iWeb, and EyeTV at the sametime is an exercise in patience. A quadcore chip would help in a scenario such as this.
With that in mind...
Are we likely to see a quadcore core 2 duo with the same or lower heat disipation as what is currently in the iMac?
I would like to drop a quadcore into my iMac eventually but am skeptical if this will ever be possible. Hell, the GPU is socketed as well but I don't have high hopes for that either.
Is there any software that takes advantage of the quad core processors?
Handbrake. Check out the benchmarks forum at the HB website. More cores is more better for HB.
These are quad core chips @ the same rating with hyperthreading ( looks like 8 cores -performs like 8!) Memory is built in, and did they include graphics as well? Will it still need an nVidia GPU?
iPhone, same OS X energy settings - runs 400MHz unless you need power - then shoots to 700MHz.
Apple buys stock CPU's, so TDP 65w is what current iMac's use. That is for both cores. However; Windows doesn't have the energy saving features OS X has.... Simply using the "Automatic" CPU in energy saver cuts power unless you require it.
These are quad core chips @ the same rating with hyperthreading ( looks like 8 cores -performs like 8!) Memory is built in, and did they include graphics as well? Will it still need an nVidia GPU?
iPhone, same OS X energy settings - runs 400MHz unless you need power - then shoots to 700MHz.
While you're right about the energy savings features. You're wrong on the rest: The current iMac uses custom-made cpus with a TDP of 55W. The new 65W quad-core cpus are not nehalem but still penryn. That means no hyperthreding, no memory controller built-in, etc... Just regular desktop chips with a lower TDP, hence slightly more expensive than the regular parts, but much more affordable than mobile 45W quad-core cpus.
If Apple can find a way to use them on the iMacs, it will be a great speedbump.
Apple buys stock CPU's, so TDP 65w is what current iMac's use. That is for both cores. However; Windows doesn't have the energy saving features OS X has.... Simply using the "Automatic" CPU in energy saver cuts power unless you require it.
These are quad core chips @ the same rating with hyperthreading ( looks like 8 cores -performs like 8!) Memory is built in, and did they include graphics as well? Will it still need an nVidia GPU?
iPhone, same OS X energy settings - runs 400MHz unless you need power - then shoots to 700MHz.
Nothing in this post is correct.
Is there any software that takes advantage of the quad core processors?
3D. Video. Production. Encoding. Handbrake. VERY FEW games. Some scientific apps. They're out there. And usually people on the edge of 'making' or 'discovering/figuring' out things. Guesses: global warming and weather modelling/predictions?
*Shrugs.
Once Open CL parcels code into parcels 'instead'(?) of threads then maybe most of everything will be able to take advantage of Quad core. You can render some 3D now. Get that going, do some Photoshop action work while browsing the Internet while playing iTunes. I'm sure that would give a Quad Core machine a work out?
Still. Apple shouldn't be waiting on quad-core chips. Use the ones that are out there now. The Conroe Penryns should be dirt cheap to use.
I get the laptops. But the Mini should be a Cube and I can't see why the iMac should wait on laptop Quad cores. To me? Flaws in their designs? Still, seeing as most apps are dual-core aware at best, Apple's technically getting away with it. But the customer will still see quad core desktops on the market 'NOW' for less than a grand with a better gpu than the iMac has. It's embarrassing to be behind in this respect.
Lemon Bon Bon.