The thread topic is about the iMac. It's a mid-range computer, just like the Dell, so in that respect it does make them comparable.
They are comparable in that sense, but it is a bit disingenuous on here knowing that the iMac is at the EoL for the current model while the Dell offering is fairly new.
They are comparable in that sense, but it is a bit disingenuous on here knowing that the iMac is at the EoL for the current model while the Dell offering is fairly new.
That's fair enough but unless Apple has some amazing cooling technology up it's sleeve, it looks like even the new, refreshed Imac is gonna be using yesterdays technology.
I have it on good authority that the new iMac will have beer cooler built into the back.
I know you were joking but....
More like an oven built into the back. Current ones get pretty hot as it is...at least my 24" iMac does. Sometimes it gets so hot you can't leave your hand on the top of the case. That being said, the CPU's aren't reading very hot at all. Around 120-130º F at most. Far less than my iMac G5 ever did. I would attribute some of the heat to the display. If I remember to turn down the brightness a little the case doesn't get no where near as hot.
More like an oven built into the back. Current ones get pretty hot as it is...at least my 24" iMac does. Sometimes it gets so hot you can't leave your hand on the top of the case. That being said, the CPU's aren't reading very hot at all. Around 120-130º F at most. Far less than my iMac G5 ever did. I would attribute some of the heat to the display. If I remember to turn down the brightness a little the case doesn't get no where near as hot.
That's great! That means that alu case is doing just what it's supposed to. Pull heat away from the CPU and motherboard and spread it throughout the case. I can deal with a hot case but I just can't have the CPU going supernova.
Are you using the iSlayer stuff to monitor CPU thermals?
That's great! That means that alu case is doing just what it's supposed to. Pull heat away from the CPU and motherboard and spread it throughout the case. I can deal with a hot case but I just can't have the CPU going supernova.
Are you using the iSlayer stuff to monitor CPU thermals?
I use a program called Temperature Monitor. Gives the temps of the CPUs, GPUs, wireless card, HD Temp, Ambient Temp, and a few other things.
The temp doesn't concern me. It never locks up or shuts off on my when its hot like that. My iMac has AppleCare until 2010 so if it dies...well its all under warranty!
I'm not sure its possible to run a Q9550 in a iMac. I have one running in my gaming system right now and with an extended size case and a massive heatsink/fan it get about 50c with no load and as high as 74c gaming. I just don't see anyway the iMac design could keep this chip cool.
Also didn't Apple try the transfer to the outer shell theory way back with the Apple 2?
In any case I do not see the Q9550 making into an iMac. I just don't believe they can keep the chip under the recommended temp of 71.4 c.
1 - My Mac Mini runs much hotter.
2 - Your system is running over the rec'd temp
I would, however, tend to go with the middle chip as is is similar to the higher speed one, but should run cooler.
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.
No, not performance gap between the iMac and the MP, but between the iMac and PC competition. The iMac and MP aren't really competing. Apple really only has two choices, well three: go 3.2/3.33 GHz dual-core, go 2.66 GHz quad-core, or radical design for the iMac. The MP will take care of itself as they can put a 2-socket i7 system in it, but the iMac is at a huge performance disadvantage right now to quad PC systems, and it's design advantages isn't enough to make up for it.
Apple's desktop strategy doesn't really offer a "range" per se. It's really a high-end specialty consumer desktop (AIO form factor), a workstation specifically targeted towards audio/video/graphics professionals, and an upsell machine in the form of the Mac mini. If you want to go all Apple, a mini+Apple monitor has a horrible price/performance, and the iMac is basically you're only choice for a desktop. Heck, a Mac mini + 3rd part monitor ain't great, but I digress. It's really 3 specialty computers that Apple has in it's lineup. They don't play the margins game by going with a simple box + monitor, and they always go the route of selling something close in price/perf and make up for the rest in design.
So, Apple is sticking with the iMac AIO design and putting a CPU/GPU in that'll be a little more expensive than the competition, whether it's high GHz dual-core, quad-core, or radical design, who knows. I doubt radical design.
If the xMac happens, I predict the iMac will die. I don't think those two can live in harmony in Apple's budget.
No, not performance gap between the iMac and the MP, but between the iMac and PC competition. The iMac and MP aren't really competing. Apple really only has two choices, well three: go 3.2/3.33 GHz dual-core, go 2.66 GHz quad-core, or radical design for the iMac. The MP will take care of itself as they can put a 2-socket i7 system in it, but the iMac is at a huge performance disadvantage right now to quad PC systems, and it's design advantages isn't enough to make up for it.
Apple's desktop strategy doesn't really offer a "range" per se. It's really a high-end specialty consumer desktop (AIO form factor), a workstation specifically targeted towards audio/video/graphics professionals, and an upsell machine in the form of the Mac mini. If you want to go all Apple, a mini+Apple monitor has a horrible price/performance, and the iMac is basically you're only choice for a desktop. Heck, a Mac mini + 3rd part monitor ain't great, but I digress. It's really 3 specialty computers that Apple has in it's lineup. They don't play the margins game by going with a simple box + monitor, and they always go the route of selling something close in price/perf and make up for the rest in design.
So, Apple is sticking with the iMac AIO design and putting a CPU/GPU in that'll be a little more expensive than the competition, whether it's high GHz dual-core, quad-core, or radical design, who knows. I doubt radical design.
If the xMac happens, I predict the iMac will die. I don't think those two can live in harmony in Apple's budget.
Apple's budget dwarfs Dell's. I think you're trying to express the notion that the mid-tower would cannibalize iMac sales. It won't.
The problem people are facing is that the Core i7 is an LGA1366 versus the LGA775 which would top out with the Core2Quad.
Would people feel cheated that their Mid-tower would basically be a one-off? Should Apple wait to do the Mid-tower when it moves to LGA1366? I'm betting they'd rather wait and then produce them when the LGA1366 is offered on their entire line.
No, not performance gap between the iMac and the MP, but between the iMac and PC competition. The iMac and MP aren't really competing. Apple really only has two choices, well three: go 3.2/3.33 GHz dual-core, go 2.66 GHz quad-core, or radical design for the iMac.
.
If they don't use the low power desk top quad core cpus, why not use the mobile quad core cpus?
They're all 35 watt cpus. No need for radical redesign although that wouldn't be a bad idea IMO if it was done to accommodate 65 watt cpus. I suspect that the low power desktop cpus will always be a bit cheaper and will get released sooner than the comparable mobile cpu part . It's a smart move for the future IMO.
Nevertheless, the iMac should get quad core cpus at the next refresh.
Apple's budget dwarfs Dell's. I think you're trying to express the notion that the mid-tower would cannibalize iMac sales. It won't.
The problem people are facing is that the Core i7 is an LGA1366 versus the LGA775 which would top out with the Core2Quad.
Would people feel cheated that their Mid-tower would basically be a one-off? Should Apple wait to do the Mid-tower when it moves to LGA1366? I'm betting they'd rather wait and then produce them when the LGA1366 is offered on their entire line.
Or Apple could be waiting for the Core i5 that uses LGA1056(was LGA1060). It's better suited for midrange systems. It has an integrated dual channel DDR3 memory controller, a built in 16x PCIe bus for graphics, and the chipset, the P55, will be a single chip design.
Or Apple could be waiting for the Core i5 that uses LGA1056(was LGA1060). It's better suited for midrange systems. It has an integrated dual channel DDR3 memory controller, a built in 16x PCIe bus for graphics, and the chipset, the P55, will be a single chip design.
That's a rational approach. I'd like to make the correction that the socket is the LGA 1160.
i5? i5! Core i5 would be the brand name Intel's mainstream desktop derivatives of the Nehalem architecture based on the Lynnfield core would carry. It is similar to its big brother, the Core i7 for the most of the part except for a few differences:
A current generation Direct Media Interface (DMI) Interconnect as chipset interface
A 128-bit wide DDR3 memory interface (Dual Channel) instead of triple-channel
Some more machinery from the northbridge migrated to the CPU, such as the PCI-Express root complex
If they don't use the low power desk top quad core cpus, why not use the mobile quad core cpus?
They're all 35 watt cpus. No need for radical redesign although that wouldn't be a bad idea IMO if it was done to accommodate 65 watt cpus. I suspect that the low power desktop cpus will always be a bit cheaper and will get released sooner than the comparable mobile cpu part . It's a smart move for the future IMO.
Nevertheless, the iMac should get quad core cpus at the next refresh.
They could. The problem with Intel's mobile quads is that they are really expensive. Especially for the speeds they run at compared to desktop CPUs at the same price.
They could. The problem with Intel's mobile quads is that they are really expensive. Especially for the speeds they run at compared to desktop CPUs at the same price.
Yes the mobile quad cores are insanely expensive. Maybe they've come down in price. They did release one with a smaller cache that was much more reasonable though, $348 for a 2.5 ghz qc chip.
I wonder if Apple couldn't get special mobile quad core chips that are overclocked but with higher TDP? Maybe they'd run at 45 or 50 watts.
Or they could just use the low power desk top (quad core) parts. That's the best move IMO.
Yes the mobile quad cores are insanely expensive. Maybe they've come down in price. They did release one with a smaller cache that was much more reasonable though, $348 for a 2.5 ghz qc chip.
I wonder if Apple couldn't get special mobile quad core chips that are overclocked but with higher TDP? Maybe they'd run at 45 or 50 watts.
Or they could just use the low power desk top (quad core) parts. That's the best move IMO.
According to Intel's specs, all mobile quad cores have a TDP of 45W (not 35 nor anything else). Models are:
- there's nothing much to gain in staying with mobile dual-core cpus for all the iMacs,
- going mobile quad-core will increase the costs but not much the performances (quad 2.26 vs dual 3.06 for the same price?)
- moving to 65W desktop cpus would increase the overall performances and would generate some cost savings (especially in the high-end) that would allow some other enhancements (like LED-BL displays) without increasing the price. But, a new cooling system may be required and that's what the rumor is about.
nvidia is also offering desktop versions of its single chip chipset in 9300 & 9400 flavors that support Intel's quad-core desktop cpus...
- there's nothing much to gain in staying with mobile dual-core cpus for all the iMacs,
- going mobile quad-core will increase the costs but not much the performances (quad 2.26 vs dual 3.06 for the same price?)
- moving to 65W desktop cpus would increase the overall performances and would generate some cost savings (especially in the high-end) that would allow some other enhancements (like LED-BL displays) without increasing the price. But, a new cooling system may be required and that's what the rumor is about.
nvidia is also offering desktop versions of its single chip chipset in 9300 & 9400 flavors that support Intel's quad-core desktop cpus...
As usual you're correct.
This CNET article suggests that the new mobile qc chip was at 2.5 ghz which it clearly is not.
I get the the impression from your post that you would like to see the iMac start using low power desk top cpus and I'm completely with you on that.
Comments
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.
The thread topic is about the iMac. It's a mid-range computer, just like the Dell, so in that respect it does make them comparable.
The thread topic is about the iMac. It's a mid-range computer, just like the Dell, so in that respect it does make them comparable.
They are comparable in that sense, but it is a bit disingenuous on here knowing that the iMac is at the EoL for the current model while the Dell offering is fairly new.
They are comparable in that sense, but it is a bit disingenuous on here knowing that the iMac is at the EoL for the current model while the Dell offering is fairly new.
That's fair enough but unless Apple has some amazing cooling technology up it's sleeve, it looks like even the new, refreshed Imac is gonna be using yesterdays technology.
I have it on good authority that the new iMac will have beer cooler built into the back.
I know you were joking but....
More like an oven built into the back. Current ones get pretty hot as it is...at least my 24" iMac does. Sometimes it gets so hot you can't leave your hand on the top of the case. That being said, the CPU's aren't reading very hot at all. Around 120-130º F at most. Far less than my iMac G5 ever did. I would attribute some of the heat to the display. If I remember to turn down the brightness a little the case doesn't get no where near as hot.
I know you were joking but....
More like an oven built into the back. Current ones get pretty hot as it is...at least my 24" iMac does. Sometimes it gets so hot you can't leave your hand on the top of the case. That being said, the CPU's aren't reading very hot at all. Around 120-130º F at most. Far less than my iMac G5 ever did. I would attribute some of the heat to the display. If I remember to turn down the brightness a little the case doesn't get no where near as hot.
That's great! That means that alu case is doing just what it's supposed to. Pull heat away from the CPU and motherboard and spread it throughout the case. I can deal with a hot case but I just can't have the CPU going supernova.
Are you using the iSlayer stuff to monitor CPU thermals?
That's great! That means that alu case is doing just what it's supposed to. Pull heat away from the CPU and motherboard and spread it throughout the case. I can deal with a hot case but I just can't have the CPU going supernova.
Are you using the iSlayer stuff to monitor CPU thermals?
I use a program called Temperature Monitor. Gives the temps of the CPUs, GPUs, wireless card, HD Temp, Ambient Temp, and a few other things.
The temp doesn't concern me. It never locks up or shuts off on my when its hot like that. My iMac has AppleCare until 2010 so if it dies...well its all under warranty!
So how long till PHOTOS? This is only weeks away now???!???
You can have the photos you want next week IF its released. The event is next week, earlier than normal.
I'm not sure its possible to run a Q9550 in a iMac. I have one running in my gaming system right now and with an extended size case and a massive heatsink/fan it get about 50c with no load and as high as 74c gaming. I just don't see anyway the iMac design could keep this chip cool.
Also didn't Apple try the transfer to the outer shell theory way back with the Apple 2?
In any case I do not see the Q9550 making into an iMac. I just don't believe they can keep the chip under the recommended temp of 71.4 c.
1 - My Mac Mini runs much hotter.
2 - Your system is running over the rec'd temp
I would, however, tend to go with the middle chip as is is similar to the higher speed one, but should run cooler.
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.
No, not performance gap between the iMac and the MP, but between the iMac and PC competition. The iMac and MP aren't really competing. Apple really only has two choices, well three: go 3.2/3.33 GHz dual-core, go 2.66 GHz quad-core, or radical design for the iMac. The MP will take care of itself as they can put a 2-socket i7 system in it, but the iMac is at a huge performance disadvantage right now to quad PC systems, and it's design advantages isn't enough to make up for it.
Apple's desktop strategy doesn't really offer a "range" per se. It's really a high-end specialty consumer desktop (AIO form factor), a workstation specifically targeted towards audio/video/graphics professionals, and an upsell machine in the form of the Mac mini. If you want to go all Apple, a mini+Apple monitor has a horrible price/performance, and the iMac is basically you're only choice for a desktop. Heck, a Mac mini + 3rd part monitor ain't great, but I digress. It's really 3 specialty computers that Apple has in it's lineup. They don't play the margins game by going with a simple box + monitor, and they always go the route of selling something close in price/perf and make up for the rest in design.
So, Apple is sticking with the iMac AIO design and putting a CPU/GPU in that'll be a little more expensive than the competition, whether it's high GHz dual-core, quad-core, or radical design, who knows. I doubt radical design.
If the xMac happens, I predict the iMac will die. I don't think those two can live in harmony in Apple's budget.
No, not performance gap between the iMac and the MP, but between the iMac and PC competition. The iMac and MP aren't really competing. Apple really only has two choices, well three: go 3.2/3.33 GHz dual-core, go 2.66 GHz quad-core, or radical design for the iMac. The MP will take care of itself as they can put a 2-socket i7 system in it, but the iMac is at a huge performance disadvantage right now to quad PC systems, and it's design advantages isn't enough to make up for it.
Apple's desktop strategy doesn't really offer a "range" per se. It's really a high-end specialty consumer desktop (AIO form factor), a workstation specifically targeted towards audio/video/graphics professionals, and an upsell machine in the form of the Mac mini. If you want to go all Apple, a mini+Apple monitor has a horrible price/performance, and the iMac is basically you're only choice for a desktop. Heck, a Mac mini + 3rd part monitor ain't great, but I digress. It's really 3 specialty computers that Apple has in it's lineup. They don't play the margins game by going with a simple box + monitor, and they always go the route of selling something close in price/perf and make up for the rest in design.
So, Apple is sticking with the iMac AIO design and putting a CPU/GPU in that'll be a little more expensive than the competition, whether it's high GHz dual-core, quad-core, or radical design, who knows. I doubt radical design.
If the xMac happens, I predict the iMac will die. I don't think those two can live in harmony in Apple's budget.
Apple's budget dwarfs Dell's. I think you're trying to express the notion that the mid-tower would cannibalize iMac sales. It won't.
The problem people are facing is that the Core i7 is an LGA1366 versus the LGA775 which would top out with the Core2Quad.
Would people feel cheated that their Mid-tower would basically be a one-off? Should Apple wait to do the Mid-tower when it moves to LGA1366? I'm betting they'd rather wait and then produce them when the LGA1366 is offered on their entire line.
No, not performance gap between the iMac and the MP, but between the iMac and PC competition. The iMac and MP aren't really competing. Apple really only has two choices, well three: go 3.2/3.33 GHz dual-core, go 2.66 GHz quad-core, or radical design for the iMac.
.
If they don't use the low power desk top quad core cpus, why not use the mobile quad core cpus?
They're all 35 watt cpus. No need for radical redesign although that wouldn't be a bad idea IMO if it was done to accommodate 65 watt cpus. I suspect that the low power desktop cpus will always be a bit cheaper and will get released sooner than the comparable mobile cpu part . It's a smart move for the future IMO.
Nevertheless, the iMac should get quad core cpus at the next refresh.
Apple's budget dwarfs Dell's. I think you're trying to express the notion that the mid-tower would cannibalize iMac sales. It won't.
The problem people are facing is that the Core i7 is an LGA1366 versus the LGA775 which would top out with the Core2Quad.
Would people feel cheated that their Mid-tower would basically be a one-off? Should Apple wait to do the Mid-tower when it moves to LGA1366? I'm betting they'd rather wait and then produce them when the LGA1366 is offered on their entire line.
Or Apple could be waiting for the Core i5 that uses LGA1056(was LGA1060). It's better suited for midrange systems. It has an integrated dual channel DDR3 memory controller, a built in 16x PCIe bus for graphics, and the chipset, the P55, will be a single chip design.
Or Apple could be waiting for the Core i5 that uses LGA1056(was LGA1060). It's better suited for midrange systems. It has an integrated dual channel DDR3 memory controller, a built in 16x PCIe bus for graphics, and the chipset, the P55, will be a single chip design.
That's a rational approach. I'd like to make the correction that the socket is the LGA 1160.
http://www.techpowerup.com/78383/Pre...Conducted.html
Excerpt:
i5? i5! Core i5 would be the brand name Intel's mainstream desktop derivatives of the Nehalem architecture based on the Lynnfield core would carry. It is similar to its big brother, the Core i7 for the most of the part except for a few differences:
A current generation Direct Media Interface (DMI) Interconnect as chipset interface
The Socket B background: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socket_B
If they don't use the low power desk top quad core cpus, why not use the mobile quad core cpus?
They're all 35 watt cpus. No need for radical redesign although that wouldn't be a bad idea IMO if it was done to accommodate 65 watt cpus. I suspect that the low power desktop cpus will always be a bit cheaper and will get released sooner than the comparable mobile cpu part . It's a smart move for the future IMO.
Nevertheless, the iMac should get quad core cpus at the next refresh.
They could. The problem with Intel's mobile quads is that they are really expensive. Especially for the speeds they run at compared to desktop CPUs at the same price.
They could. The problem with Intel's mobile quads is that they are really expensive. Especially for the speeds they run at compared to desktop CPUs at the same price.
Yes the mobile quad cores are insanely expensive. Maybe they've come down in price. They did release one with a smaller cache that was much more reasonable though, $348 for a 2.5 ghz qc chip.
I wonder if Apple couldn't get special mobile quad core chips that are overclocked but with higher TDP? Maybe they'd run at 45 or 50 watts.
Or they could just use the low power desk top (quad core) parts. That's the best move IMO.
Yes the mobile quad cores are insanely expensive. Maybe they've come down in price. They did release one with a smaller cache that was much more reasonable though, $348 for a 2.5 ghz qc chip.
I wonder if Apple couldn't get special mobile quad core chips that are overclocked but with higher TDP? Maybe they'd run at 45 or 50 watts.
Or they could just use the low power desk top (quad core) parts. That's the best move IMO.
According to Intel's specs, all mobile quad cores have a TDP of 45W (not 35 nor anything else). Models are:
Q9000 2.00GHz 6MB cache FSB1066 45W $348 *new Dec. 28
Q9100 2.26GHz 12MB cache FSB1066 45W $851
QX9300 2.53GHz 12MB cache FSB1066 45W $1,038
The desktop 65W offerings are (will be on Jan. 18):
Q8200s 2.33GHz 4MB cache FSB1333 65W $245
Q9400s 2.66GHz 6MB cache FSB1333 65W $320
Q9550s 2.83GHz 12MB cache FSB1333 65W $369
The mobile dual-core parts (in the same price range) are the following:
P8700 2.53GHz 3MB cache FSB1066 25W $241 *new Dec. 28
T9550 2.66GHz 6MB cache FSB1066 35W $316 *new Dec. 28
P9600 2.66GHz 6MB cache FSB1066 25W $348 *new Dec. 28
T9800 2.93GHz 6MB cache FSB1066 35W $530 *new Dec. 28
X9100 3.06GHz 6MB cache FSB1066 45W $851
IMO,
- there's nothing much to gain in staying with mobile dual-core cpus for all the iMacs,
- going mobile quad-core will increase the costs but not much the performances (quad 2.26 vs dual 3.06 for the same price?)
- moving to 65W desktop cpus would increase the overall performances and would generate some cost savings (especially in the high-end) that would allow some other enhancements (like LED-BL displays) without increasing the price. But, a new cooling system may be required and that's what the rumor is about.
nvidia is also offering desktop versions of its single chip chipset in 9300 & 9400 flavors that support Intel's quad-core desktop cpus...
According to Intel's specs, all mobile quad cores have a TDP of 45W (not 35 nor anything else). Models are:
Q9000 2.00GHz 6MB cache FSB1066 45W $348 *new Dec. 28
Q9100 2.26GHz 12MB cache FSB1066 45W $851
QX9300 2.53GHz 12MB cache FSB1066 45W $1,038
The desktop 65W offerings are (will be on Jan. 18):
Q8200s 2.33GHz 4MB cache FSB1333 65W $245
Q9400s 2.66GHz 6MB cache FSB1333 65W $320
Q9550s 2.83GHz 12MB cache FSB1333 65W $369
The mobile dual-core parts (in the same price range) are the following:
P8700 2.53GHz 3MB cache FSB1066 25W $241 *new Dec. 28
T9550 2.66GHz 6MB cache FSB1066 35W $316 *new Dec. 28
P9600 2.66GHz 6MB cache FSB1066 25W $348 *new Dec. 28
T9800 2.93GHz 6MB cache FSB1066 35W $530 *new Dec. 28
X9100 3.06GHz 6MB cache FSB1066 45W $851
IMO,
- there's nothing much to gain in staying with mobile dual-core cpus for all the iMacs,
- going mobile quad-core will increase the costs but not much the performances (quad 2.26 vs dual 3.06 for the same price?)
- moving to 65W desktop cpus would increase the overall performances and would generate some cost savings (especially in the high-end) that would allow some other enhancements (like LED-BL displays) without increasing the price. But, a new cooling system may be required and that's what the rumor is about.
nvidia is also offering desktop versions of its single chip chipset in 9300 & 9400 flavors that support Intel's quad-core desktop cpus...
As usual you're correct.
This CNET article suggests that the new mobile qc chip was at 2.5 ghz which it clearly is not.
I get the the impression from your post that you would like to see the iMac start using low power desk top cpus and I'm completely with you on that.