I find it very funny that people think another ten watts from the CPU will suddenly cause an iMac to melt down. Boys there is a lot more to the power budget than the CPU. Stick modern hardware in an iMac and you might actually lower overall power disapation due to new RAM and a system chip.
As a point load the ten extra watts on what was a 55 watt load isn't impossible to deal with either. Sure a different heat sink is required but does that surprise anybody. Or is anybody surprised that Apple would try new technology here? They could be looking at anything from carbon fiber to heat pipes to a woman with strong lungs. The point us that ten watts on a point load is not a significant problem.
If this is in fact an iMac in a new generation case then it should be obvious to everyone that thermal considerations will be taken into account to address any thermal issues that may exist. With the iMac line now focused on larger and wider screens thermal management should become easier not harder.
As to why Apple needs to deal with more heat in an iMac it is pretty simple, they lack a midrange solution. That is they need a platform that offers better than laptop performance to fill out the middle of the line. That big hole between the iMacs and the Mac Pros performance level that everyone talks about.
In any event Apple could put an i7 in the iMac easy, it is nothing more than an engineering problem. I'd be happy if they did but also surprised. Surprised because of the priceing structure that would result. Maybe the top end. The problem is in a few months everybody will have i7 on their check off lists for acceptable hardware. Apple needs an i7 play even if it is not the iMac.
I find it very funny that people think another ten watts from the CPU will suddenly cause an iMac to melt down. Boys there is a lot more to the power budget than the CPU. Stick modern hardware in an iMac and you might actually lower overall power disapation due to new RAM and a system chip.
As a point load the ten extra watts on what was a 55 watt load isn't impossible to deal with either. Sure a different heat sink is required but does that surprise anybody. Or is anybody surprised that Apple would try new technology here? They could be looking at anything from carbon fiber to heat pipes to a woman with strong lungs. The point us that ten watts on a point load is not a significant problem.
If this is in fact an iMac in a new generation case then it should be obvious to everyone that thermal considerations will be taken into account to address any thermal issues that may exist. With the iMac line now focused on larger and wider screens thermal management should become easier not harder.
As to why Apple needs to deal with more heat in an iMac it is pretty simple, they lack a midrange solution. That is they need a platform that offers better than laptop performance to fill out the middle of the line. That big hole between the iMacs and the Mac Pros performance level that everyone talks about.
In any event Apple could put an i7 in the iMac easy, it is nothing more than an engineering problem. I'd be happy if they did but also surprised. Surprised because of the priceing structure that would result. Maybe the top end. The problem is in a few months everybody will have i7 on their check off lists for acceptable hardware. Apple needs an i7 play even if it is not the iMac.
Dave
Dave,
It's a bit more then just adding 10 watts of power. Apple would be going from two cores on one dye to four which doubles the heat. It would also have to go from a mobile chipset to a desktop chipset which also creates more heat. The northbridge on these quads also runs hot. It would also require moving from moble memory to desktop memory.
Also this is not new technology I have been running a Q9550 for most of 2008. The Yorkfield chips have been around for a while.
On my gaming system I run an extended Antec case and a Zalman 9700 copper heatsink just to keep this chip at 50c idle. Not to mention there is no way you could balance a system like this with a nice GPU because the heat would simply be too much.
To make this work Apple would need to go with a watercooling solution which im not sure is even possible because both the cpu and gpu would have to be watercooled in that small of a space.
An Nvidia 200 series card wouldn't even fit in an iMac nor would an ATI 4870.
They use mobile processors and chipsets in AIO for a reason.
It's a bit more then just adding 10 watts of power. Apple would be going from two cores on one dye to four which doubles the heat.
All your other comments aside, this part isn't quite true if the numbers in the story are right. The max heat dissipation of a 65W chip is 18% higher than the max heat dissipation of a 55W chip. It doesn't matter how many cores or transistors there are, a watt is a watt, 1W of electricity consumed by a chip becomes 1W of heat dissipated. The difference can come in frequency selection, or binning because fab processes do have some variation. Using two dual core notebook dies could get you the same result. There may be some aggressive circuit power optimizations for the lower power versions.
I find it very funny that people think another ten watts from the CPU will suddenly cause an iMac to melt down. Boys there is a lot more to the power budget than the CPU. Stick modern hardware in an iMac and you might actually lower overall power disapation due to new RAM and a system chip.
As a point load the ten extra watts on what was a 55 watt load isn't impossible to deal with either. Sure a different heat sink is required but does that surprise anybody. Or is anybody surprised that Apple would try new technology here? They could be looking at anything from carbon fiber to heat pipes to a woman with strong lungs. The point us that ten watts on a point load is not a significant problem.
If this is in fact an iMac in a new generation case then it should be obvious to everyone that thermal considerations will be taken into account to address any thermal issues that may exist. With the iMac line now focused on larger and wider screens thermal management should become easier not harder.
As to why Apple needs to deal with more heat in an iMac it is pretty simple, they lack a midrange solution. That is they need a platform that offers better than laptop performance to fill out the middle of the line. That big hole between the iMacs and the Mac Pros performance level that everyone talks about.
I agree. Its doable either by beefing up the cooling or perhaps having other components that generate less heat than current components do.
And the reality is that Apple is running out of ways to freshen up the iMac lineup without adding quad core chips. I guess the could just add the NVIDIA chipset but that would hardly be an update worth mentioning. They're really at the megahertz ceiling with dual core chips. Moving to quad core chips is the natural progression at this point.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69
In any event Apple could put an i7 in the iMac easy, it is nothing more than an engineering problem. I'd be happy if they did but also surprised. Surprised because of the priceing structure that would result. Maybe the top end. The problem is in a few months everybody will have i7 on their check off lists for acceptable hardware. Apple needs an i7 play even if it is not the iMac.
Dave
IIRC the currently available i7 chips are power hungry 120 watt chips. With some engineering they could adapt them to iMacs but it would likely require some extreme measure to cool like heavy duty fans or a much larger enclosure. I don't think that's necessary with the new low power desk top quad core chips or the mobile quad core chips.
I agree that in 7 months Nehalem CPUs will be a must have item for a new machine. But around that time I expect Intel to release either low power Nehalem desk top CPUs, mobile Nehalem CPUs, or both.
Also this is not new technology I have been running a Q9550 for most of 2008. The Yorkfield chips have been around for a while.
On my gaming system I run an extended Antec case and a Zalman 9700 copper heatsink just to keep this chip at 50c idle.
Your hot Yorkfield (either the C1 or E0 stepping) has a 95 watt TDP. The new one's TDP will be 65w.
Intel labels e.g. "Q9550" are assigned to chips with the same performance/clocks/cores -- stepping variants can have, among other things, different powerdraw.
Your hot Yorkfield (either the C1 or E0 stepping) has a 95 watt TDP. The new one's TDP will be 65w.
Intel labels e.g. "Q9550" are assigned to chips with the same performance/clocks/cores -- stepping variants can have, among other things, different powerdraw.
Yes I understand that I am running a chip with E0 stepping. However even if we go with Jeff last post of increased heat of 18% that is alot for an iMac. Also what GPU is going to be used to balance out this system? Can't fit a performance desktop GPU in an iMac.
Even HP and Sony have not attempted to use desktop components in their AIO and HP has more room to do so because they build an AIO with a 25.5 inch screen.
However what will most likely happen in this situation is what Apple always does and that is build a system that is heavy on the CPU end and then put something like a 9600 gpu. Mac Pro is a perfect example running eight cores and still comes standard with a 2600xt card.
SJ has yet to figure out how to build a balanced system. He starts out with a corvette and works his way down to a 1970 pinto.
Actually I just went back and read they are going to use a 9800s which has 64 cores. And they are calling this a gaming machine. Thats a bit shy of the 240 cores most gamers are using in a 280gtx.
It's a bit more then just adding 10 watts of power. Apple would be going from two cores on one dye to four which doubles the heat. It would also have to go from a mobile chipset to a desktop chipset which also creates more heat. The northbridge on these quads also runs hot. It would also require moving from moble memory to desktop memory.
The power numbers are for the entire processor, it is not per core. If that was the case we would be talking about a processor using more than 250 watts of energy. That certainly isn't the case although with intel hardware you do have the potential to go over thermal design power intermittantly.
The north bridge won't run any hotter with a quad connected than with a dual given the same data transfers. Besides there is a good potential that Apple could use a variant of the 9400M in the Mac Books. This is obviously a lower power chip and it would be interesting to see if the chip can scale to quasi desktop performance. Considering the leaked info I wouldn't be surprised if Apple has something like this lined up.
As to memory the latest desktop technology uses less power than the old. This is another element in lowering the platforms overall power draw. What I'm trying to highlight here is that even with the processor drawing 10 watts more, it is possible to power the platforms overall power draw. It all depends on the actual components used and the clock rates choosen by Apple.
Quote:
Also this is not new technology I have been running a Q9550 for most of 2008. The Yorkfield chips have been around for a while.
Err yes it is new technology. In fact Intel just release info this morning on the processors that could potentially go into the Mac. Plus we don't know exactly what Apple is up to with Nvidia. It is very possible next week Apple will release an iMac based on todays intel release and the mystery Nvidia chip.
Not to sideline the thread but this ought to be a sign that the large MBP will be delivered.
Quote:
On my gaming system I run an extended Antec case and a Zalman 9700 copper heatsink just to keep this chip at 50c idle. Not to mention there is no way you could balance a system like this with a nice GPU because the heat would simply be too much.
I feel like asking when was the last time Apple delivered a balanced system when talking about GPUs. But I will point out again that the recent iMacs are very wide providing plenty of room for cooling. In fact I wouldn't be surprised to see Apple put two GPUs into the new iMac.
Quote:
To make this work Apple would need to go with a watercooling solution which im not sure is even possible because both the cpu and gpu would have to be watercooled in that small of a space.
No they wouldn't. First your imagination has ran away with this idea that the processor will be drawing hundreds of watts. It is just ten watts more.
Now like before I will admit that the point load is higher. This just takes a different heat sink and attention to air flow. By the way the thin aluminum enclosure is an advantage in managing heat removal.
Quote:
An Nvidia 200 series card wouldn't even fit in an iMac nor would an ATI 4870.
So?
Really what card does Apple use now. The iMac isn't slotted for standard cards. So Apple would likely need to contract for a special card.
Quote:
They use mobile processors and chipsets in AIO for a reason.
Ahh but the iMac right now is sort of a hybrid with 55 watt processors. To call it a machine built with laptop parts is a bit misleading. What Apple builds the new iMac around is unknown at the moment but it is not impossible for Desktop parts to be used in the new platform. Or again they could take a hybrid approach. The only requirement is that when the parts are all on the motherboard that power remains manageable. At this point it would be a bit of a guess as to exactly what the power profile of any system chips used will be.
Yes I understand that I am running a chip with E0 stepping. However even if we go with Jeff last post of increased heat of 18% that is alot for an iMac. Also what GPU is going to be used to balance out this system? Can't fit a performance desktop GPU in an iMac.
I don't know how to get this across other than to repeat that 65watts is manageable.
Also look at the MBP as an example of the advantages of an integrated chipset. Apple could use the 9400M as is or they might have an enhanced 9400M. Either way they could add a number of discrete GPUs to get the level of performance wanted. Choosing the MBPs GPU however would be underwheming.
Quote:
Even HP and Sony have not attempted to use desktop components in their AIO and HP has more room to do so because they build an AIO with a 25.5 inch screen.
We don't even know what sizes the new iMacs will come in. But again cooling is an engineering challenge, if Apple wanted to they could install a performance GPU and vent it directly out the top of the iMac. Let's face it if a new case is coming they can do what ever they want for ventilation. It is a mistake to assume that current case limitations will remain.
Quote:
However what will most likely happen in this situation is what Apple always does and that is build a system that is heavy on the CPU end and then put something like a 9600 gpu. Mac Pro is a perfect example running eight cores and still comes standard with a 2600xt card.
Unfortunately this is likely to be what happens. It is honestly something I'd like to see Apple overcome and become more flexible with. They need to have at least one performance machine.
Quote:
SJ has yet to figure out how to build a balanced system. He starts out with a corvette and works his way down to a 1970 pinto.
Actually I just went back and read they are going to use a 9800s which has 64 cores. And they are calling this a gaming machine. Thats a bit shy of the 240 cores most gamers are using in a 280gtx.
Well hopefully that is just somebodies speculation as that would not improve upon the current systems much. The only thing to say here is that an integrated chip set might work out well to help accelerate things.
There are some interesting systems on this list but a quote about Apple and SJ.
"According to most accounts, Jobs insisted that the machine be built without a cooling fan; instead, the system's aluminum case served as a heat sink. (A mistake Apple repeated with the Mac G4 Cube in 2000.) Worse, the Apple III crammed too many components into too small a case. As the system overheated, circuit boards warped and chips popped out of their sockets; users were supposed to pick up the machine and drop it to re-seat the chips. List prices between $4300 and $7400, depending on configuration, only added to the misery. "
"Apple was forced to replace the first 14,000 Apple IIIs it shipped, and it redesigned the system twice, but the machine never lost its reputation as a stinker"
Also this is not new technology I have been running a Q9550 for most of 2008. The Yorkfield chips have been around for a while.
On my gaming system I run an extended Antec case and a Zalman 9700 copper heatsink just to keep this chip at 50c idle. Not to mention there is no way you could balance a system like this with a nice GPU because the heat would simply be too much.
Unless that processor is overclocked like a bat out of hell, you need to re-do your cooling system. A Q9550, at stock speeds with a third-party cooler, should idle in the 30's C.
Unless that processor is overclocked like a bat out of hell, you need to re-do your cooling system. A Q9550, at stock speeds with a third-party cooler, should idle in the 30's C.
Not with E0 stepping, C1 is even worse. I can overclock this chip no problem to 3.4 and run memory at a 1:1 ratio. Even with Vista x64 I can do a full reboot in about 37 seconds.
I have to admit when I first got this chip it drove me nuts because I couldn't get the temps below 46 idle. The first Q9550 simply run hot. However I have had zero issues with this system.
Even at 3.4ghz I can run Prime95 for 72 hours with no errors.
There are some interesting systems on this list but a quote about Apple and SJ.
It is hard to dismiss these high temp issues with certain Apple products. The AIR being the most recent example. The iMac for the most part have not had a problem.
Over this day I've seen offered up all sorts of claims that the iMac runs hot but for the meet part the claims are worthless.
I've seen people claim that because the case is hot to the touch the iMac is running too hot. First one has to realize that the metal case will transfer heat quickly. The second thing is that "hot to the Touch" says nothing, anything above 30deg C could be precived as hot. Another person seems to think that a burning smell from the iMac is a sign of overheating. Obviously something got hot but anybody that has uafld a power supply go bad realizes that sometimes things fail even with plenty of cooling.
The point is if you want to claim that the IMac overheats then show us some numbers. That is temperature readings from the processor core or the GPU core.
As to the thin case that is actually an advantage as it keeps air flowing over parts. One of the problems with ATX based computers is air flow which is very difficult to establish over parts of the interior. Thin is not bad as long as the design supports air flow over the hot sections.
I still haven't seen anything to convince me that 65 watts isn't doable. Unless Apple has a mid range box planned it is almost a minimal requirement. The problem is simple, if they can't get significantly better performance out of the iMac, they will have an incredible performance gap between iMac and Mac Pro. That when the Mac Pro goes i7, the gap is bad now but i7 will make it a lot worst.
Maybe that is a poor arguement - "Apple has to" but I see it becoming a reality if they don't add a midrange product to the lineup. The gap is large enough right now that people want to fill it with hackentoshes and pystars. Make it much wider and people might just punt and go the DIY mode in mass.
A quad-core "Penryn" iMac would obviously be welcomed, but for gods sake PC's already have quad-core Nehalems.. The iMacs will have old technology and they aren't even out yet!
A quad-core "Penryn" iMac would obviously be welcomed, but for gods sake PC's already have quad-core Nehalems.. The iMacs will have old technology and they aren't even out yet!
I think he probably means for an equivilently priced desktop PC, not specifically an AIO. Look at the Dell XPS desktops... Core i7, 6GB RAM, 640GB hard drive and 23" monitor for about the same price as the bottom end iMac. No comparison at all really.
I think he probably means for an equivilently priced desktop PC, not specifically an AIO. Look at the Dell XPS desktops... Core i7, 6GB RAM, 640GB hard drive and 23" monitor for about the same price as the bottom end iMac. No comparison at all really.
The thread topic is the iMac. It is an All-in-One.
One should make a topic on the Mac Pro, but that wouldn't work because the Xeons are there.
One then should make a thread on the much desired Mid-tower and watch it turn into a cesspool of wish in one hand and s*** in the other.
Comments
As a point load the ten extra watts on what was a 55 watt load isn't impossible to deal with either. Sure a different heat sink is required but does that surprise anybody. Or is anybody surprised that Apple would try new technology here? They could be looking at anything from carbon fiber to heat pipes to a woman with strong lungs. The point us that ten watts on a point load is not a significant problem.
If this is in fact an iMac in a new generation case then it should be obvious to everyone that thermal considerations will be taken into account to address any thermal issues that may exist. With the iMac line now focused on larger and wider screens thermal management should become easier not harder.
As to why Apple needs to deal with more heat in an iMac it is pretty simple, they lack a midrange solution. That is they need a platform that offers better than laptop performance to fill out the middle of the line. That big hole between the iMacs and the Mac Pros performance level that everyone talks about.
In any event Apple could put an i7 in the iMac easy, it is nothing more than an engineering problem. I'd be happy if they did but also surprised. Surprised because of the priceing structure that would result. Maybe the top end. The problem is in a few months everybody will have i7 on their check off lists for acceptable hardware. Apple needs an i7 play even if it is not the iMac.
Dave
No way, they are too hot for the iMac form factor. I would bet they use the Lynnfield Nehalems in the iMac (in Q3-4 2009).
Perhaps, but this article is about a new cooling module. Maybe that is what is needed for the new i7's?
I find it very funny that people think another ten watts from the CPU will suddenly cause an iMac to melt down. Boys there is a lot more to the power budget than the CPU. Stick modern hardware in an iMac and you might actually lower overall power disapation due to new RAM and a system chip.
As a point load the ten extra watts on what was a 55 watt load isn't impossible to deal with either. Sure a different heat sink is required but does that surprise anybody. Or is anybody surprised that Apple would try new technology here? They could be looking at anything from carbon fiber to heat pipes to a woman with strong lungs. The point us that ten watts on a point load is not a significant problem.
If this is in fact an iMac in a new generation case then it should be obvious to everyone that thermal considerations will be taken into account to address any thermal issues that may exist. With the iMac line now focused on larger and wider screens thermal management should become easier not harder.
As to why Apple needs to deal with more heat in an iMac it is pretty simple, they lack a midrange solution. That is they need a platform that offers better than laptop performance to fill out the middle of the line. That big hole between the iMacs and the Mac Pros performance level that everyone talks about.
In any event Apple could put an i7 in the iMac easy, it is nothing more than an engineering problem. I'd be happy if they did but also surprised. Surprised because of the priceing structure that would result. Maybe the top end. The problem is in a few months everybody will have i7 on their check off lists for acceptable hardware. Apple needs an i7 play even if it is not the iMac.
Dave
Dave,
It's a bit more then just adding 10 watts of power. Apple would be going from two cores on one dye to four which doubles the heat. It would also have to go from a mobile chipset to a desktop chipset which also creates more heat. The northbridge on these quads also runs hot. It would also require moving from moble memory to desktop memory.
Also this is not new technology I have been running a Q9550 for most of 2008. The Yorkfield chips have been around for a while.
On my gaming system I run an extended Antec case and a Zalman 9700 copper heatsink just to keep this chip at 50c idle. Not to mention there is no way you could balance a system like this with a nice GPU because the heat would simply be too much.
To make this work Apple would need to go with a watercooling solution which im not sure is even possible because both the cpu and gpu would have to be watercooled in that small of a space.
An Nvidia 200 series card wouldn't even fit in an iMac nor would an ATI 4870.
They use mobile processors and chipsets in AIO for a reason.
It's a bit more then just adding 10 watts of power. Apple would be going from two cores on one dye to four which doubles the heat.
All your other comments aside, this part isn't quite true if the numbers in the story are right. The max heat dissipation of a 65W chip is 18% higher than the max heat dissipation of a 55W chip. It doesn't matter how many cores or transistors there are, a watt is a watt, 1W of electricity consumed by a chip becomes 1W of heat dissipated. The difference can come in frequency selection, or binning because fab processes do have some variation. Using two dual core notebook dies could get you the same result. There may be some aggressive circuit power optimizations for the lower power versions.
I find it very funny that people think another ten watts from the CPU will suddenly cause an iMac to melt down. Boys there is a lot more to the power budget than the CPU. Stick modern hardware in an iMac and you might actually lower overall power disapation due to new RAM and a system chip.
As a point load the ten extra watts on what was a 55 watt load isn't impossible to deal with either. Sure a different heat sink is required but does that surprise anybody. Or is anybody surprised that Apple would try new technology here? They could be looking at anything from carbon fiber to heat pipes to a woman with strong lungs. The point us that ten watts on a point load is not a significant problem.
If this is in fact an iMac in a new generation case then it should be obvious to everyone that thermal considerations will be taken into account to address any thermal issues that may exist. With the iMac line now focused on larger and wider screens thermal management should become easier not harder.
As to why Apple needs to deal with more heat in an iMac it is pretty simple, they lack a midrange solution. That is they need a platform that offers better than laptop performance to fill out the middle of the line. That big hole between the iMacs and the Mac Pros performance level that everyone talks about.
I agree. Its doable either by beefing up the cooling or perhaps having other components that generate less heat than current components do.
In any case Intel are now releasing mobiloe quad core chips with prices that fit within the iMacs budget. I'm now convinced that one way or the other the iMac (at least some configurations) will go quad core at the next refresh. I hope that the 20 " machine at least gets the BTO option if it isn't a standard configuration.
And the reality is that Apple is running out of ways to freshen up the iMac lineup without adding quad core chips. I guess the could just add the NVIDIA chipset but that would hardly be an update worth mentioning. They're really at the megahertz ceiling with dual core chips. Moving to quad core chips is the natural progression at this point.
In any event Apple could put an i7 in the iMac easy, it is nothing more than an engineering problem. I'd be happy if they did but also surprised. Surprised because of the priceing structure that would result. Maybe the top end. The problem is in a few months everybody will have i7 on their check off lists for acceptable hardware. Apple needs an i7 play even if it is not the iMac.
Dave
IIRC the currently available i7 chips are power hungry 120 watt chips. With some engineering they could adapt them to iMacs but it would likely require some extreme measure to cool like heavy duty fans or a much larger enclosure. I don't think that's necessary with the new low power desk top quad core chips or the mobile quad core chips.
I agree that in 7 months Nehalem CPUs will be a must have item for a new machine. But around that time I expect Intel to release either low power Nehalem desk top CPUs, mobile Nehalem CPUs, or both.
Then it'll be time fro a new refresh.
Also this is not new technology I have been running a Q9550 for most of 2008. The Yorkfield chips have been around for a while.
On my gaming system I run an extended Antec case and a Zalman 9700 copper heatsink just to keep this chip at 50c idle.
Your hot Yorkfield (either the C1 or E0 stepping) has a 95 watt TDP. The new one's TDP will be 65w.
Intel labels e.g. "Q9550" are assigned to chips with the same performance/clocks/cores -- stepping variants can have, among other things, different powerdraw.
Your hot Yorkfield (either the C1 or E0 stepping) has a 95 watt TDP. The new one's TDP will be 65w.
Intel labels e.g. "Q9550" are assigned to chips with the same performance/clocks/cores -- stepping variants can have, among other things, different powerdraw.
Yes I understand that I am running a chip with E0 stepping. However even if we go with Jeff last post of increased heat of 18% that is alot for an iMac. Also what GPU is going to be used to balance out this system? Can't fit a performance desktop GPU in an iMac.
Even HP and Sony have not attempted to use desktop components in their AIO and HP has more room to do so because they build an AIO with a 25.5 inch screen.
However what will most likely happen in this situation is what Apple always does and that is build a system that is heavy on the CPU end and then put something like a 9600 gpu. Mac Pro is a perfect example running eight cores and still comes standard with a 2600xt card.
SJ has yet to figure out how to build a balanced system. He starts out with a corvette and works his way down to a 1970 pinto.
Actually I just went back and read they are going to use a 9800s which has 64 cores. And they are calling this a gaming machine. Thats a bit shy of the 240 cores most gamers are using in a 280gtx.
Dave,
It's a bit more then just adding 10 watts of power. Apple would be going from two cores on one dye to four which doubles the heat. It would also have to go from a mobile chipset to a desktop chipset which also creates more heat. The northbridge on these quads also runs hot. It would also require moving from moble memory to desktop memory.
The power numbers are for the entire processor, it is not per core. If that was the case we would be talking about a processor using more than 250 watts of energy. That certainly isn't the case although with intel hardware you do have the potential to go over thermal design power intermittantly.
The north bridge won't run any hotter with a quad connected than with a dual given the same data transfers. Besides there is a good potential that Apple could use a variant of the 9400M in the Mac Books. This is obviously a lower power chip and it would be interesting to see if the chip can scale to quasi desktop performance. Considering the leaked info I wouldn't be surprised if Apple has something like this lined up.
As to memory the latest desktop technology uses less power than the old. This is another element in lowering the platforms overall power draw. What I'm trying to highlight here is that even with the processor drawing 10 watts more, it is possible to power the platforms overall power draw. It all depends on the actual components used and the clock rates choosen by Apple.
Also this is not new technology I have been running a Q9550 for most of 2008. The Yorkfield chips have been around for a while.
Err yes it is new technology. In fact Intel just release info this morning on the processors that could potentially go into the Mac. Plus we don't know exactly what Apple is up to with Nvidia. It is very possible next week Apple will release an iMac based on todays intel release and the mystery Nvidia chip.
Not to sideline the thread but this ought to be a sign that the large MBP will be delivered.
On my gaming system I run an extended Antec case and a Zalman 9700 copper heatsink just to keep this chip at 50c idle. Not to mention there is no way you could balance a system like this with a nice GPU because the heat would simply be too much.
I feel like asking when was the last time Apple delivered a balanced system when talking about GPUs. But I will point out again that the recent iMacs are very wide providing plenty of room for cooling. In fact I wouldn't be surprised to see Apple put two GPUs into the new iMac.
To make this work Apple would need to go with a watercooling solution which im not sure is even possible because both the cpu and gpu would have to be watercooled in that small of a space.
No they wouldn't. First your imagination has ran away with this idea that the processor will be drawing hundreds of watts. It is just ten watts more.
Now like before I will admit that the point load is higher. This just takes a different heat sink and attention to air flow. By the way the thin aluminum enclosure is an advantage in managing heat removal.
An Nvidia 200 series card wouldn't even fit in an iMac nor would an ATI 4870.
So?
Really what card does Apple use now. The iMac isn't slotted for standard cards. So Apple would likely need to contract for a special card.
They use mobile processors and chipsets in AIO for a reason.
Ahh but the iMac right now is sort of a hybrid with 55 watt processors. To call it a machine built with laptop parts is a bit misleading. What Apple builds the new iMac around is unknown at the moment but it is not impossible for Desktop parts to be used in the new platform. Or again they could take a hybrid approach. The only requirement is that when the parts are all on the motherboard that power remains manageable. At this point it would be a bit of a guess as to exactly what the power profile of any system chips used will be.
Dave
Yes I understand that I am running a chip with E0 stepping. However even if we go with Jeff last post of increased heat of 18% that is alot for an iMac. Also what GPU is going to be used to balance out this system? Can't fit a performance desktop GPU in an iMac.
I don't know how to get this across other than to repeat that 65watts is manageable.
Also look at the MBP as an example of the advantages of an integrated chipset. Apple could use the 9400M as is or they might have an enhanced 9400M. Either way they could add a number of discrete GPUs to get the level of performance wanted. Choosing the MBPs GPU however would be underwheming.
Even HP and Sony have not attempted to use desktop components in their AIO and HP has more room to do so because they build an AIO with a 25.5 inch screen.
We don't even know what sizes the new iMacs will come in. But again cooling is an engineering challenge, if Apple wanted to they could install a performance GPU and vent it directly out the top of the iMac. Let's face it if a new case is coming they can do what ever they want for ventilation. It is a mistake to assume that current case limitations will remain.
However what will most likely happen in this situation is what Apple always does and that is build a system that is heavy on the CPU end and then put something like a 9600 gpu. Mac Pro is a perfect example running eight cores and still comes standard with a 2600xt card.
Unfortunately this is likely to be what happens. It is honestly something I'd like to see Apple overcome and become more flexible with. They need to have at least one performance machine.
SJ has yet to figure out how to build a balanced system. He starts out with a corvette and works his way down to a 1970 pinto.
Actually I just went back and read they are going to use a 9800s which has 64 cores. And they are calling this a gaming machine. Thats a bit shy of the 240 cores most gamers are using in a 280gtx.
Well hopefully that is just somebodies speculation as that would not improve upon the current systems much. The only thing to say here is that an integrated chip set might work out well to help accelerate things.
http://www.pcworld.com/article/12985..._all_time.html
There are some interesting systems on this list but a quote about Apple and SJ.
"According to most accounts, Jobs insisted that the machine be built without a cooling fan; instead, the system's aluminum case served as a heat sink. (A mistake Apple repeated with the Mac G4 Cube in 2000.) Worse, the Apple III crammed too many components into too small a case. As the system overheated, circuit boards warped and chips popped out of their sockets; users were supposed to pick up the machine and drop it to re-seat the chips. List prices between $4300 and $7400, depending on configuration, only added to the misery. "
"Apple was forced to replace the first 14,000 Apple IIIs it shipped, and it redesigned the system twice, but the machine never lost its reputation as a stinker"
Also this is not new technology I have been running a Q9550 for most of 2008. The Yorkfield chips have been around for a while.
On my gaming system I run an extended Antec case and a Zalman 9700 copper heatsink just to keep this chip at 50c idle. Not to mention there is no way you could balance a system like this with a nice GPU because the heat would simply be too much.
Unless that processor is overclocked like a bat out of hell, you need to re-do your cooling system. A Q9550, at stock speeds with a third-party cooler, should idle in the 30's C.
Unless that processor is overclocked like a bat out of hell, you need to re-do your cooling system. A Q9550, at stock speeds with a third-party cooler, should idle in the 30's C.
Not with E0 stepping, C1 is even worse. I can overclock this chip no problem to 3.4 and run memory at a 1:1 ratio. Even with Vista x64 I can do a full reboot in about 37 seconds.
I have to admit when I first got this chip it drove me nuts because I couldn't get the temps below 46 idle. The first Q9550 simply run hot. However I have had zero issues with this system.
Even at 3.4ghz I can run Prime95 for 72 hours with no errors.
Well without adding any quotes in this thread I am going to let history speak for itself. SJ has a habit of building systems that overheat.
http://www.pcworld.com/article/12985..._all_time.html
There are some interesting systems on this list but a quote about Apple and SJ.
It is hard to dismiss these high temp issues with certain Apple products. The AIR being the most recent example. The iMac for the most part have not had a problem.
Over this day I've seen offered up all sorts of claims that the iMac runs hot but for the meet part the claims are worthless.
I've seen people claim that because the case is hot to the touch the iMac is running too hot. First one has to realize that the metal case will transfer heat quickly. The second thing is that "hot to the Touch" says nothing, anything above 30deg C could be precived as hot. Another person seems to think that a burning smell from the iMac is a sign of overheating. Obviously something got hot but anybody that has uafld a power supply go bad realizes that sometimes things fail even with plenty of cooling.
The point is if you want to claim that the IMac overheats then show us some numbers. That is temperature readings from the processor core or the GPU core.
As to the thin case that is actually an advantage as it keeps air flowing over parts. One of the problems with ATX based computers is air flow which is very difficult to establish over parts of the interior. Thin is not bad as long as the design supports air flow over the hot sections.
I still haven't seen anything to convince me that 65 watts isn't doable. Unless Apple has a mid range box planned it is almost a minimal requirement. The problem is simple, if they can't get significantly better performance out of the iMac, they will have an incredible performance gap between iMac and Mac Pro. That when the Mac Pro goes i7, the gap is bad now but i7 will make it a lot worst.
Maybe that is a poor arguement - "Apple has to" but I see it becoming a reality if they don't add a midrange product to the lineup. The gap is large enough right now that people want to fill it with hackentoshes and pystars. Make it much wider and people might just punt and go the DIY mode in mass.
Who knows maybe Apple will ship an xMac at MWSF.
Dave
A quad-core "Penryn" iMac would obviously be welcomed, but for gods sake PC's already have quad-core Nehalems.. The iMacs will have old technology and they aren't even out yet!
All-in-One PCs have QuadCore Core i7?
Gateway One: http://www.gateway.com/systems/product/529668183.php
Yes? NOPE.
HP TouchSmart IQ816t series: http://www.shopping.hp.com/webapp/sh...=IQ816t_series
Yes? NOPE.
Dell XPS One 24: http://configure.us.dell.com/dellsto...ktop-xps-a2420
Yes? QuadCore 8200. http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16819115055
Thermal Power\t95W
Price? USD $1899+ tax.
You can compare the parts yourself.
--------------------
So far I'm seeing one with an extremely hot CPU.
The Thermal Power of the Core i7 is 130W for the lowest cost model:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16819115202
Best of luck to you.
Copy & Paste, 4MP camera with flash, 32GB storage, MMS, OLED display on the iPhone that's all I want.
and HOW does that help the iMac/mini keep cool?
agree with the 32GB though, but them my contract doesn't run out till 2010 so might struggle on until theres a 64Gb version.
and if they stick a 4Mp camera in it, at least give it the ability to record video!
actually could have used C&P this morning, but thats the first time in about a month.. so.. meh
All-in-One PCs have QuadCore Core i7?
Gateway One: http://www.gateway.com/systems/product/529668183.php
Yes? NOPE.
HP TouchSmart IQ816t series: http://www.shopping.hp.com/webapp/sh...=IQ816t_series
Yes? NOPE.
Dell XPS One 24: http://configure.us.dell.com/dellsto...ktop-xps-a2420
Yes? QuadCore 8200. http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16819115055
Thermal Power\t95W
Price? USD $1899+ tax.
You can compare the parts yourself.
--------------------
So far I'm seeing one with an extremely hot CPU.
The Thermal Power of the Core i7 is 130W for the lowest cost model:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16819115202
Best of luck to you.
I think he probably means for an equivilently priced desktop PC, not specifically an AIO. Look at the Dell XPS desktops... Core i7, 6GB RAM, 640GB hard drive and 23" monitor for about the same price as the bottom end iMac. No comparison at all really.
I think he probably means for an equivilently priced desktop PC, not specifically an AIO. Look at the Dell XPS desktops... Core i7, 6GB RAM, 640GB hard drive and 23" monitor for about the same price as the bottom end iMac. No comparison at all really.
The thread topic is the iMac. It is an All-in-One.
One should make a topic on the Mac Pro, but that wouldn't work because the Xeons are there.
One then should make a thread on the much desired Mid-tower and watch it turn into a cesspool of wish in one hand and s*** in the other.