Those make sense, but I think the low end 20" iMac will probably come with a Core 2 Duo and then the higher-end models getting the 3 Core 2 Quad chips.
Then I'd assume the 20" iMac would be going to $999 and even then it's a stretch to call it value.
Apple's not even using an IPS monitor in the 20" iMac anymore which means it's worth $250 tops. If PC vendors are delivering Quads $800 well appointed Apple needs to be at $1199 w/quad or $999 with 2.4Ghz or better Core 2 Duo IMO
Well I think this point is already almost beaten to death, but ...
That's the only processor upgrade I have heard about (I knew about it already).
It's "provided" by a third party (it's actually more of a surprise than a supported feature)
I don't have that machine I have the newer model
My point is not about how I can get x, y, or z for my Mac Pro. It's the more general point that Apple sells this machine as an "upgradeable computer" and crows about it to some extent whenever people hit them for their sealed-box type computers (the rest of the product line).
It is *technically* upgradeable, but Apple does not plan for it, does not suggest it, does not point the user to any manufacturers or upgrades, nor does it provide any "branded" or approved solutions for upgrading.
The perfect example of this is the link you yourself provided. that processor *should* work when it's fitted to the first MacPro. The web site in question reports that it does. Apple however is silent on the issue. Any other computer company would at least publish a bulletin saying something to the effect of: "<processor x> can be bought from <company y> and dropped in as a replacement CPU." But apple is silent on the issue. They should also offer to upgrade it for you for a price just like any other computer place IMO.
I'm not really pissed off or anything, I am happy with the machine as it is right now.
I am a bit trepidatious however as to what will happen in the near future though as it seems from the rumour mill that Apple might (again!) be leaving this very capable and normally very upgradeable computer in yet another technological backwater.
I don't mean to be confrontational, but I sincerely hope you aren't serious with that last post. Do yourself a favor. Go to dell.com, hp.com, acer.com or any of the major PC manufacturers and find me a single link to where any of them tell you how to upgrade your processor after purchase. Back when I used to have to use dell PCs for work I would upgrade my own computers. Upon removing the processor on EVERY occasion, I had to break a seal that said "Warranty void if damaged." Dell wouldn't even look at the computer after that. In some cases, the same even went for hard drive upgrades. The instruction book for my 8x3.0GHz Mac Pro tells me how to upgrade the memory, graphics, hard drive and optical drives. What more do you want? Of course, they could tell me how to upgrade the CPUs, but a quick google search reveals that two of the same processors I have now would run about $1800 total. Hardly a very practical upgrade for a $3000 computer. Beyond that, (with the exception of expansion cards, several of which are in fact recommended by apple) I don't even know what I could upgrade. It's not from lack of knowledge either, I still build PCs.
I'm really not sure what you are asking for. Do you want to go to the online apple store and find apple branded graphics and sound card or CPU upgrades? Should they begin manufacturing more of their own proprietary hardware? Does the PC market provide services like this?
I'm hardly about to defend apple to the grave either. It annoys me to no end that I cannot pick up any random ATi Radeon to upgrade my dual 7300s, but in general I have found it very easy to upgrade my basic Mac Pro (now has SSD, three hard drives in RAID, dual graphics, eSATA, dual optical drives...)
EDIT: oh, and yes, those were rhetorical questions...I think this point has now been comprehensively beaten to death
I don't see how that release precludes the possibility of a hardware release on the same day. I'm not saying a hardware release tomorrow is likely, I'm just saying I don't think the software release is an indicator either way.
Amen. Now Apple just has to ship any one of them. Please.
+++
Solipism's scenario is reasonable as well.
I said in another thread that I thought Apple would just wait until March and have a special event where they update all the desktop machines at one time. That prediction is looking more and more likely.
Apple's not even using an IPS monitor in the 20" iMac anymore which means it's worth $250 tops. If PC vendors are delivering Quads $800 well appointed Apple needs to be at $1199 w/quad or $999 with 2.4Ghz or better Core 2 Duo IMO
There are some major differences in components and size that make these items hard to do a direct comparison, but value in different. The new iMacs will have DDR3 RAM while that Dell has DDR2, but most importantly is the value difference between a tower and an AIO. If we are jsut comparing CPUs then the Dell would win, but that is very narrow view in which to make a purchasing decision.
'How do we maximise the profit margin on each sale?'
In the past, this has meant important sought-after features appearing exclusively in the high-end, with the low-end simultaneously being crippled.
The rationale, is that the penny pinching buyers actually end up paying over the odds for the crippled kit, whilst the value-for-money buyers end up paying more than they had intended to in order to secure the best investment. Either way, Apple wins.
I suspect that Apple doesn't really care whether or not a quad-core iMac will cannibalize Mac Pro sales. What they are interested in, is whether they can sell a quad-core iMac and still retain the profit margin associated with a Mac Pro sale.
One way of doing this, would be to introduce a new über-iMac, which featured the quad-core processor, but which also forced you to purchase the integrated 28" LED backlit display, 8GB of RAM, 1.5TB drive, graphics card upgrade and wireless keyboard & mouse.
Back when I worked all day with Windows I bought myself a new PC almost every year. I also upgraded my Macs every year with RAM, HD, video cards, processors, etc. The Macs got upgrades because it was easy, affordable and buying a whole new Mac cost way too much. I could have upgraded the PCs too, but upgrading the processor usually meant a new motherboard and RAM and sometimes a new power supply. It made more sense to simply buy a whole new PC.
I've since stopped buying PCs, but I have kids now so my disposable income is much lower than it was. Apple killed the upgrade market so all I could do to keep my Macs useful was add RAM and put in larger, faster hard drives. Both Macs are many years old and in need of replacement.
Given that Apple will probably never offer an expandable desktop under $2000, even for the home server market, my hopes rest on the next generation iMac.
Unfortunately the iMac is a crippled design. Only the processor is reasonably modern and only if you don't compare it with PC desktops.
In order to sell me an iMac Apple will need to provide the following:
- Quad core processor (Core2Quad or Corei7)
- OpenCL compatible graphics (preferably current generation, but nVidia 9800 would be acceptable)
- FireWire 800 - otherwise I have to replace all my external storage
The reason why every time there is a discussion about the iMac, the Mac Pro is dragged into it is because there no Mac model in between the iMac and Mac Pro. The Mac Mini is not that model. It should have been, and that's what people were hoping for. But clearly it isn't. If you admit admit that the Mac Pro is not for everyone, then you should also be able to admit that the iMac is not for everyone either. Furthermore, it does not necessarily mean that people who don't need a Mac Pro will automatically be better off with an iMac. If you don't like Mac Pro owners forcing themselves on everyone, then iMac owners shouldn't do it either. It's ironic that people who like to preach tolerance for those with different needs are also the ones who get dismissive every time someone asks for a midrange Mac tower or an iMac without a built in monitor.
I don't feel any confidence in Shaw Wu's original report. The statement that iMac can cannibalize Mac Pro sales sound ridiculous. Also, I do not trust his supply sources.
However, I do agree that Apple may have some reasons to hesitate:
Considering the current economic situation, a new model will help the sales, especially qurter over quarter percent growth, but the actual numbers will be lower than they could be under normal conditions. It might make sence to swallow the lower sales for now, but set up a stage for a bigger jump alongside Snow Leopard release. (Introducing a new model, no matter 2-core or 4-core, will help the sales anyway)
Leopard can handle 4 cores just fine but you would hardly notice the difference when running a couple of average Joe applications, say, a web brouser and a word processor. The benchmarks (both internal and those usually published by third parties soon after a product release) will give better results for 2-core chips with higher clock speed and larger cache than for a 4-core chip. And this is what the web will discuss, including these forums.
If they release 4-core hardware now and Snow Leopard later, the benchmarks could be much more confusing, especially if they are intentionally used to downplay HW or SL performance. For example, one could compare both systems under 10.5 Leopard - "to make the comparison on equal basis" - and then Leopard and SL on the same harware. If they release 4-core iMac alongside SL, it will simply not run Leopard. A direct comparison with the old model running Leopard would look more natural and will give better results and might help marketing a lot. You need to consider that, besides Grand Central and OpenCL, SL will come with new, presumably faster, WebKit and QuickTime X (more efficient media decoding/playback). If Apple decides to take this route, they will trumpet the performance jump to advertise both the new iMac AND the new OS version.
Or, to put it in different perspective:
Even if the new hardware is more impressive, it might not be enough to convince people to buy it now (those who really need will buy whatever is available, and those who are just waiting for a new model to be introduced, will buy whatever new model is introduced). When the people get ready to buy, it will be old news.
I don't really get this statement. Apple has never offered processor updates, they were always third party. If they aren't offered any more, how is that apple's fault?
And with many of the macs, you can just buy a processor and swap it in if you can get the box apart. It just isn't worth it most of the time because of the way intel chips have been - often, by the time faster chips are out they have moved to a different motherboard or socket.
Then I'd assume the 20" iMac would be going to $999 and even then it's a stretch to call it value.
Apple's not even using an IPS monitor in the 20" iMac anymore which means it's worth $250 tops. If PC vendors are delivering Quads $800 well appointed Apple needs to be at $1199 w/quad or $999 with 2.4Ghz or better Core 2 Duo IMO
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism
There are some major differences in components and size that make these items hard to do a direct comparison, but value in different. The new iMacs will have DDR3 RAM while that Dell has DDR2, but most importantly is the value difference between a tower and an AIO. If we are jsut comparing CPUs then the Dell would win, but that is very narrow view in which to make a purchasing decision.
I'll start by pointing out to hmurchison that 20" displays with TN panels retail for $179 these days. I'll then agree with solipsism on the hardware comparison, but I have to wonder what he's saying about the value of an AIO compared with separate components.
Separate display and tower is much better value than an AIO.
The display is going to last two or three times as long as the computer so packaging them together makes no sense at all.
The tower allows easy upgrades of every component and has PCIe slots for adding new technology. These things extend the useful life of the tower at low cost. The iMac only allows easy RAM upgrades. Getting to all the other components is a nightmare.
I'll then agree with solipsism on the hardware comparison, but I have to wonder what he's saying about the value of an AIO compared with separate components.
Separate display and tower is much better value than an AIO.
But that isn't how value is defined. In a cost-per-performance or your cost-per-use comparison there is no AIO is can have a lower total cost of ownership than the desktop equivalent. But being cheaper or having a lower TCO does not define its value. If it did, than there would be no notebook that is ever a better value over a desktop, but that is not the case. I travel 100% of the time so having a desktop of any sort is of zero value to me.
I don't really get this statement. Apple has never offered processor updates, they were always third party. If they aren't offered any more, how is that apple's fault?
And with many of the macs, you can just buy a processor and swap it in if you can get the box apart. It just isn't worth it most of the time because of the way intel chips have been - often, by the time faster chips are out they have moved to a different motherboard or socket.
Why do people see the word "upgrade" and automatically prepend "processor"? Upgrade is a broad word that encompasses things like video cards and optical drives too.
For what it's worth, the death of the processor upgrade market was driven by Apple. After the Quicksilver G4 they made changes to their computer architecture that made it difficult for 3rd parties to design reasonably priced upgrades and they also put pressure on their suppliers to restrict access to the parts.
Since the Intel transition bare processor upgrades have been possible, but to get a significant boost it's almost always necessary to get a newer design that's not pin-compatible with the previous generation. PC people can buy a new motherboard to support a new processor, but that's not possible on the Mac side.
Back to my broader point. You can't buy a modern Mac compatible video card because the only machine that even accepts video cards is $2800 and thus ships in such low volumes that Mac driver development is uneconomical.
Apple has made it somewhat easy to upgrade the hard drive in the MacBook and MBP, but it's still a nightmare on a Mac mini or iMac. Even getting to the RAM is a nightmare in the Mac mini.
The fact that Apple doesn't already realize that the iMac is cutting into Mac Pro sales is kind of disturbing, but at the same time this is Apple's own doing.
When I update from my PowerMac G5 I am seriously looking at the 24" iMac. The Mac Pro has nothing really special to it except for the extra HDD bays and the ability to have more than 2 displays hooked up to it. Most of the software out there won't take advantage of 4 cores let alone 8.
A Quad Core iMac makes the most sense for a computer that Apple appears to only want to sell. The mini and pro were left out to pasture a long time ago.[/QUOTE]
Oh, they know and its very much intentional. Apple wants you buying all in ones whether you actually want one or not. Why do you think they raised the PowerMac/Mac Pro starting price $900 from what it was four years? Partly due to their preference for the aesthetics of the design and partly because a sealed all in one is going to have a shorter lifespan and they can get more money out of you than they would a comparable tower.
Quote:
Originally Posted by davesmall
When it was rumored that Apple migh switch from PowerPC to Intel processors, Shaw Wu weighed in.:
<p>Wu believed a switch to Intel could backfire and alienate some of Apple's most loyal customers, turning the Mac into a less differentiated and more commoditized platform. He said an often overlooked reason behind consumers choosing the Mac was its high-performance provided by PowerPC processors.
So far he's been right. Apple's been moving all its efforts towards the switcher/iPod crowd and alienating its formerly very loyal middle to high end customers along the way.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hmurchison
It shouldn't be difficult if a few rumors come to pass.
The cooling system needs to happen. The new iMacs need to dissipate 65 Watt TDP
Again if they want to go Core 2 Duo that's fine but it needs to be $999 or less.
If they go core 2, I'm going to have a very hard time staying on this platform. Coolness and good looks don't make up for increasingly lost capability. So far, they're falling further behind competing desktops using mobile chips than they were using PowerPCs.
Again if they want to go Core 2 Duo that's fine but it needs to be $999 or less.
As I think someone may have commented, it wouldn't be surprising if the iMac has models using both duo and quad core processors. Perhaps quad core on a 24" model? Just one possibility but all of this is purely speculative which makes me wonder why me (or anyone) has spent the time typing this out.
I don't really get this statement. Apple has never offered processor updates, they were always third party. If they aren't offered any more, how is that apple's fault?
And with many of the macs, you can just buy a processor and swap it in if you can get the box apart. It just isn't worth it most of the time because of the way intel chips have been - often, by the time faster chips are out they have moved to a different motherboard or socket.
Yes, they did offer processor upgrades. And I'm not talking about 3rd party ones either.
They made a Mac 128K and 512K upgrade to the Plus that involved replacing the whole motherboard. Part# M2518
They made a similar upgrade for the SE to SE/30. M1102LL/A
Same for the II or IIx to IIfx (M0375LL/B), the IIci to Quadra 700 (M5950LL/A), and IIvx or Centris 650 to PowerMac 7100/66 (M2474LL/A).
The LC could be upgraded to the LCIII.
More recently, 604 upgrades to upgrade the PowerMac 8500 and 9500 to a 233MHz 604e (M6223LL/A) and other 604 upgrades.
then they stopped with the G3 and let 3rd parties deal with upgrades.
Yes, they did offer processor upgrades. And I'm not talking about 3rd party ones either.
They made a Mac 128K and 512K upgrade to the Plus that involved replacing the whole motherboard. Part# M2518
They made a similar upgrade for the SE to SE/30. M1102LL/A
Same for the II or IIx to IIfx (M0375LL/B), the IIci to Quadra 700 (M5950LL/A), and IIvx or Centris 650 to PowerMac 7100/66 (M2474LL/A).
The LC could be upgraded to the LCIII.
More recently, 604 upgrades to upgrade the PowerMac 8500 and 9500 to a 233MHz 604e (M6223LL/A) and other 604 upgrades.
then they stopped with the G3 and let 3rd parties deal with upgrades.
I stand corrected, but those were a LONG time ago. At this point, it has been more than ten years, and current macs barely resemble the ones from back then, hardware and software. It seems odd to still be complaining about that now, particularly when Apple has switched to standard PC chips meaning in most models they don't have to offer anything for users to upgrade.
There are some major differences in components and size that make these items hard to do a direct comparison, but value in different. The new iMacs will have DDR3 RAM while that Dell has DDR2, but most importantly is the value difference between a tower and an AIO. If we are jsut comparing CPUs then the Dell would win, but that is very narrow view in which to make a purchasing decision.
DDR3 provides no benefit for Core 2 Quad systems. In fact 1066 DDR3 memory performs worse compared to 1066 DDR2 because of the increased latency in the memory chip. Core 2 processors are bandwidth starved due to the memory architecture and using the ancient FSB way of accessing the memory. No matter how much you increase the memory speed, it will not the overcome the bottleneck created by FSB. All of benchmarks done on websites prove that DDR3 offers no benefit on Core 2 platform. Plus any DDR3 speed above 1066 will require extra voltage and iMac cannot afford that
Core i7 benefits from DDR3. It leaves the FSB concept behind and instead uses on chip memory controller which significantly increases the memory bandwidth and reduces memory latency.In fact, according to benchmarks, a single channel DDR3 on i7 is able to match and exceed dual channel configuration on Core 2 platforms. It also uses DDR3 in triple channel configuration which also helps to increase performance even more. Also truth to be told, the triple channel offers little improvement in real world situations such as games or programs. This is why (besides the architectural benefits) the lower end i7 is able to outperform the Core 2 Quad Extreme Editions (at 4X the price)
Apple's iMac is very much behind the competition in terms of spec and power. Core 2 Duo might be enough for email, iPhoto, Safari and Photobooth, but a computer at that price MUST have a quad core system considering what the competition offers. In PC world, quad is the new standard. Apple has a long history of innovation and providing high performance computers, they should go quad on all desktops
Comments
Those make sense, but I think the low end 20" iMac will probably come with a Core 2 Duo and then the higher-end models getting the 3 Core 2 Quad chips.
Then I'd assume the 20" iMac would be going to $999 and even then it's a stretch to call it value.
Dell Q8200 Quad system
Apple's not even using an IPS monitor in the 20" iMac anymore which means it's worth $250 tops. If PC vendors are delivering Quads $800 well appointed Apple needs to be at $1199 w/quad or $999 with 2.4Ghz or better Core 2 Duo IMO
Well I think this point is already almost beaten to death, but ...
- That's the only processor upgrade I have heard about (I knew about it already).
- It's "provided" by a third party (it's actually more of a surprise than a supported feature)
- I don't have that machine I have the newer model
My point is not about how I can get x, y, or z for my Mac Pro. It's the more general point that Apple sells this machine as an "upgradeable computer" and crows about it to some extent whenever people hit them for their sealed-box type computers (the rest of the product line).It is *technically* upgradeable, but Apple does not plan for it, does not suggest it, does not point the user to any manufacturers or upgrades, nor does it provide any "branded" or approved solutions for upgrading.
The perfect example of this is the link you yourself provided. that processor *should* work when it's fitted to the first MacPro. The web site in question reports that it does. Apple however is silent on the issue. Any other computer company would at least publish a bulletin saying something to the effect of: "<processor x> can be bought from <company y> and dropped in as a replacement CPU." But apple is silent on the issue. They should also offer to upgrade it for you for a price just like any other computer place IMO.
I'm not really pissed off or anything, I am happy with the machine as it is right now.
I am a bit trepidatious however as to what will happen in the near future though as it seems from the rumour mill that Apple might (again!) be leaving this very capable and normally very upgradeable computer in yet another technological backwater.
I don't mean to be confrontational, but I sincerely hope you aren't serious with that last post. Do yourself a favor. Go to dell.com, hp.com, acer.com or any of the major PC manufacturers and find me a single link to where any of them tell you how to upgrade your processor after purchase. Back when I used to have to use dell PCs for work I would upgrade my own computers. Upon removing the processor on EVERY occasion, I had to break a seal that said "Warranty void if damaged." Dell wouldn't even look at the computer after that. In some cases, the same even went for hard drive upgrades. The instruction book for my 8x3.0GHz Mac Pro tells me how to upgrade the memory, graphics, hard drive and optical drives. What more do you want? Of course, they could tell me how to upgrade the CPUs, but a quick google search reveals that two of the same processors I have now would run about $1800 total. Hardly a very practical upgrade for a $3000 computer. Beyond that, (with the exception of expansion cards, several of which are in fact recommended by apple) I don't even know what I could upgrade. It's not from lack of knowledge either, I still build PCs.
I'm really not sure what you are asking for. Do you want to go to the online apple store and find apple branded graphics and sound card or CPU upgrades? Should they begin manufacturing more of their own proprietary hardware? Does the PC market provide services like this?
I'm hardly about to defend apple to the grave either. It annoys me to no end that I cannot pick up any random ATi Radeon to upgrade my dual 7300s, but in general I have found it very easy to upgrade my basic Mac Pro (now has SSD, three hard drives in RAID, dual graphics, eSATA, dual optical drives...)
EDIT: oh, and yes, those were rhetorical questions...I think this point has now been comprehensively beaten to death
And since Apple has preemptively disclosed what's shipping tomorrow, I guess Feb. 3 becomes the new favourite.
I don't see how that release precludes the possibility of a hardware release on the same day. I'm not saying a hardware release tomorrow is likely, I'm just saying I don't think the software release is an indicator either way.
Amen. Now Apple just has to ship any one of them. Please.
+++
Solipism's scenario is reasonable as well.
I said in another thread that I thought Apple would just wait until March and have a special event where they update all the desktop machines at one time. That prediction is looking more and more likely.
Then I'd assume the 20" iMac would be going to $999 and even then it's a stretch to call it value.
Dell Q8200 Quad system
Apple's not even using an IPS monitor in the 20" iMac anymore which means it's worth $250 tops. If PC vendors are delivering Quads $800 well appointed Apple needs to be at $1199 w/quad or $999 with 2.4Ghz or better Core 2 Duo IMO
There are some major differences in components and size that make these items hard to do a direct comparison, but value in different. The new iMacs will have DDR3 RAM while that Dell has DDR2, but most importantly is the value difference between a tower and an AIO. If we are jsut comparing CPUs then the Dell would win, but that is very narrow view in which to make a purchasing decision.
'How do we maximise the profit margin on each sale?'
In the past, this has meant important sought-after features appearing exclusively in the high-end, with the low-end simultaneously being crippled.
The rationale, is that the penny pinching buyers actually end up paying over the odds for the crippled kit, whilst the value-for-money buyers end up paying more than they had intended to in order to secure the best investment. Either way, Apple wins.
I suspect that Apple doesn't really care whether or not a quad-core iMac will cannibalize Mac Pro sales. What they are interested in, is whether they can sell a quad-core iMac and still retain the profit margin associated with a Mac Pro sale.
One way of doing this, would be to introduce a new über-iMac, which featured the quad-core processor, but which also forced you to purchase the integrated 28" LED backlit display, 8GB of RAM, 1.5TB drive, graphics card upgrade and wireless keyboard & mouse.
I've since stopped buying PCs, but I have kids now so my disposable income is much lower than it was. Apple killed the upgrade market so all I could do to keep my Macs useful was add RAM and put in larger, faster hard drives. Both Macs are many years old and in need of replacement.
Given that Apple will probably never offer an expandable desktop under $2000, even for the home server market, my hopes rest on the next generation iMac.
Unfortunately the iMac is a crippled design. Only the processor is reasonably modern and only if you don't compare it with PC desktops.
In order to sell me an iMac Apple will need to provide the following:
- Quad core processor (Core2Quad or Corei7)
- OpenCL compatible graphics (preferably current generation, but nVidia 9800 would be acceptable)
- FireWire 800 - otherwise I have to replace all my external storage
- An easy way to replace the internal hard drive
- LED backlit IPS display
The reason why every time there is a discussion about the iMac, the Mac Pro is dragged into it is because there no Mac model in between the iMac and Mac Pro. The Mac Mini is not that model. It should have been, and that's what people were hoping for. But clearly it isn't. If you admit admit that the Mac Pro is not for everyone, then you should also be able to admit that the iMac is not for everyone either. Furthermore, it does not necessarily mean that people who don't need a Mac Pro will automatically be better off with an iMac. If you don't like Mac Pro owners forcing themselves on everyone, then iMac owners shouldn't do it either. It's ironic that people who like to preach tolerance for those with different needs are also the ones who get dismissive every time someone asks for a midrange Mac tower or an iMac without a built in monitor.
The Cube was that model.
However, I do agree that Apple may have some reasons to hesitate:
- Considering the current economic situation, a new model will help the sales, especially qurter over quarter percent growth, but the actual numbers will be lower than they could be under normal conditions. It might make sence to swallow the lower sales for now, but set up a stage for a bigger jump alongside Snow Leopard release. (Introducing a new model, no matter 2-core or 4-core, will help the sales anyway)
- Leopard can handle 4 cores just fine but you would hardly notice the difference when running a couple of average Joe applications, say, a web brouser and a word processor. The benchmarks (both internal and those usually published by third parties soon after a product release) will give better results for 2-core chips with higher clock speed and larger cache than for a 4-core chip. And this is what the web will discuss, including these forums.
- If they release 4-core hardware now and Snow Leopard later, the benchmarks could be much more confusing, especially if they are intentionally used to downplay HW or SL performance. For example, one could compare both systems under 10.5 Leopard - "to make the comparison on equal basis" - and then Leopard and SL on the same harware. If they release 4-core iMac alongside SL, it will simply not run Leopard. A direct comparison with the old model running Leopard would look more natural and will give better results and might help marketing a lot. You need to consider that, besides Grand Central and OpenCL, SL will come with new, presumably faster, WebKit and QuickTime X (more efficient media decoding/playback). If Apple decides to take this route, they will trumpet the performance jump to advertise both the new iMac AND the new OS version.
Or, to put it in different perspective:Even if the new hardware is more impressive, it might not be enough to convince people to buy it now (those who really need will buy whatever is available, and those who are just waiting for a new model to be introduced, will buy whatever new model is introduced). When the people get ready to buy, it will be old news.
Apple killed the upgrade market...
I don't really get this statement. Apple has never offered processor updates, they were always third party. If they aren't offered any more, how is that apple's fault?
And with many of the macs, you can just buy a processor and swap it in if you can get the box apart. It just isn't worth it most of the time because of the way intel chips have been - often, by the time faster chips are out they have moved to a different motherboard or socket.
Then I'd assume the 20" iMac would be going to $999 and even then it's a stretch to call it value.
Apple's not even using an IPS monitor in the 20" iMac anymore which means it's worth $250 tops. If PC vendors are delivering Quads $800 well appointed Apple needs to be at $1199 w/quad or $999 with 2.4Ghz or better Core 2 Duo IMO
There are some major differences in components and size that make these items hard to do a direct comparison, but value in different. The new iMacs will have DDR3 RAM while that Dell has DDR2, but most importantly is the value difference between a tower and an AIO. If we are jsut comparing CPUs then the Dell would win, but that is very narrow view in which to make a purchasing decision.
I'll start by pointing out to hmurchison that 20" displays with TN panels retail for $179 these days. I'll then agree with solipsism on the hardware comparison, but I have to wonder what he's saying about the value of an AIO compared with separate components.
Separate display and tower is much better value than an AIO.
The display is going to last two or three times as long as the computer so packaging them together makes no sense at all.
The tower allows easy upgrades of every component and has PCIe slots for adding new technology. These things extend the useful life of the tower at low cost. The iMac only allows easy RAM upgrades. Getting to all the other components is a nightmare.
I'll then agree with solipsism on the hardware comparison, but I have to wonder what he's saying about the value of an AIO compared with separate components.
Separate display and tower is much better value than an AIO.
But that isn't how value is defined. In a cost-per-performance or your cost-per-use comparison there is no AIO is can have a lower total cost of ownership than the desktop equivalent. But being cheaper or having a lower TCO does not define its value. If it did, than there would be no notebook that is ever a better value over a desktop, but that is not the case. I travel 100% of the time so having a desktop of any sort is of zero value to me.
The cooling system needs to happen. The new iMacs need to dissipate 65 Watt TDP
procs.
Then you shoehorn in these procs.
- Q8200S: 65 W TDP, 2.33 GHz, 1333 MHz FSB, 4 MB L2 cache, $245
- Q9400S: 65 W TDP, 2.66 GHz, 1333 MHz FSB, 6 MB L2 cache, $320
- Q9550S: 65 W TDP, 2.83 GHz, 1333 MHz FSB, 12 MB L2 cache, $369
Again if they want to go Core 2 Duo that's fine but it needs to be $999 or less.I don't really get this statement. Apple has never offered processor updates, they were always third party. If they aren't offered any more, how is that apple's fault?
And with many of the macs, you can just buy a processor and swap it in if you can get the box apart. It just isn't worth it most of the time because of the way intel chips have been - often, by the time faster chips are out they have moved to a different motherboard or socket.
Why do people see the word "upgrade" and automatically prepend "processor"? Upgrade is a broad word that encompasses things like video cards and optical drives too.
For what it's worth, the death of the processor upgrade market was driven by Apple. After the Quicksilver G4 they made changes to their computer architecture that made it difficult for 3rd parties to design reasonably priced upgrades and they also put pressure on their suppliers to restrict access to the parts.
Since the Intel transition bare processor upgrades have been possible, but to get a significant boost it's almost always necessary to get a newer design that's not pin-compatible with the previous generation. PC people can buy a new motherboard to support a new processor, but that's not possible on the Mac side.
Back to my broader point. You can't buy a modern Mac compatible video card because the only machine that even accepts video cards is $2800 and thus ships in such low volumes that Mac driver development is uneconomical.
Apple has made it somewhat easy to upgrade the hard drive in the MacBook and MBP, but it's still a nightmare on a Mac mini or iMac. Even getting to the RAM is a nightmare in the Mac mini.
The fact that Apple doesn't already realize that the iMac is cutting into Mac Pro sales is kind of disturbing, but at the same time this is Apple's own doing.
When I update from my PowerMac G5 I am seriously looking at the 24" iMac. The Mac Pro has nothing really special to it except for the extra HDD bays and the ability to have more than 2 displays hooked up to it. Most of the software out there won't take advantage of 4 cores let alone 8.
A Quad Core iMac makes the most sense for a computer that Apple appears to only want to sell. The mini and pro were left out to pasture a long time ago.[/QUOTE]
Oh, they know and its very much intentional. Apple wants you buying all in ones whether you actually want one or not. Why do you think they raised the PowerMac/Mac Pro starting price $900 from what it was four years? Partly due to their preference for the aesthetics of the design and partly because a sealed all in one is going to have a shorter lifespan and they can get more money out of you than they would a comparable tower.
When it was rumored that Apple migh switch from PowerPC to Intel processors, Shaw Wu weighed in.:
<p>Wu believed a switch to Intel could backfire and alienate some of Apple's most loyal customers, turning the Mac into a less differentiated and more commoditized platform. He said an often overlooked reason behind consumers choosing the Mac was its high-performance provided by PowerPC processors.
<p>Source: http://www.appleinsider.com/articles..._unlikely.html
So far he's been right. Apple's been moving all its efforts towards the switcher/iPod crowd and alienating its formerly very loyal middle to high end customers along the way.
It shouldn't be difficult if a few rumors come to pass.
The cooling system needs to happen. The new iMacs need to dissipate 65 Watt TDP
procs.
Then you shoehorn in these procs.
- Q8200S: 65 W TDP, 2.33 GHz, 1333 MHz FSB, 4 MB L2 cache, $245
- Q9400S: 65 W TDP, 2.66 GHz, 1333 MHz FSB, 6 MB L2 cache, $320
- Q9550S: 65 W TDP, 2.83 GHz, 1333 MHz FSB, 12 MB L2 cache, $369
Again if they want to go Core 2 Duo that's fine but it needs to be $999 or less.If they go core 2, I'm going to have a very hard time staying on this platform. Coolness and good looks don't make up for increasingly lost capability. So far, they're falling further behind competing desktops using mobile chips than they were using PowerPCs.
It shouldn't be difficult if a few rumors come to pass.
The cooling system needs to happen. The new iMacs need to dissipate 65 Watt TDP
procs.
Then you shoehorn in these procs.
- Q8200S: 65 W TDP, 2.33 GHz, 1333 MHz FSB, 4 MB L2 cache, $245
- Q9400S: 65 W TDP, 2.66 GHz, 1333 MHz FSB, 6 MB L2 cache, $320
- Q9550S: 65 W TDP, 2.83 GHz, 1333 MHz FSB, 12 MB L2 cache, $369
Again if they want to go Core 2 Duo that's fine but it needs to be $999 or less.As I think someone may have commented, it wouldn't be surprising if the iMac has models using both duo and quad core processors. Perhaps quad core on a 24" model? Just one possibility but all of this is purely speculative which makes me wonder why me (or anyone) has spent the time typing this out.
I don't really get this statement. Apple has never offered processor updates, they were always third party. If they aren't offered any more, how is that apple's fault?
And with many of the macs, you can just buy a processor and swap it in if you can get the box apart. It just isn't worth it most of the time because of the way intel chips have been - often, by the time faster chips are out they have moved to a different motherboard or socket.
Yes, they did offer processor upgrades. And I'm not talking about 3rd party ones either.
They made a Mac 128K and 512K upgrade to the Plus that involved replacing the whole motherboard. Part# M2518
They made a similar upgrade for the SE to SE/30. M1102LL/A
Same for the II or IIx to IIfx (M0375LL/B), the IIci to Quadra 700 (M5950LL/A), and IIvx or Centris 650 to PowerMac 7100/66 (M2474LL/A).
The LC could be upgraded to the LCIII.
More recently, 604 upgrades to upgrade the PowerMac 8500 and 9500 to a 233MHz 604e (M6223LL/A) and other 604 upgrades.
then they stopped with the G3 and let 3rd parties deal with upgrades.
Yes, they did offer processor upgrades. And I'm not talking about 3rd party ones either.
They made a Mac 128K and 512K upgrade to the Plus that involved replacing the whole motherboard. Part# M2518
They made a similar upgrade for the SE to SE/30. M1102LL/A
Same for the II or IIx to IIfx (M0375LL/B), the IIci to Quadra 700 (M5950LL/A), and IIvx or Centris 650 to PowerMac 7100/66 (M2474LL/A).
The LC could be upgraded to the LCIII.
More recently, 604 upgrades to upgrade the PowerMac 8500 and 9500 to a 233MHz 604e (M6223LL/A) and other 604 upgrades.
then they stopped with the G3 and let 3rd parties deal with upgrades.
I stand corrected, but those were a LONG time ago. At this point, it has been more than ten years, and current macs barely resemble the ones from back then, hardware and software. It seems odd to still be complaining about that now, particularly when Apple has switched to standard PC chips meaning in most models they don't have to offer anything for users to upgrade.
There are some major differences in components and size that make these items hard to do a direct comparison, but value in different. The new iMacs will have DDR3 RAM while that Dell has DDR2, but most importantly is the value difference between a tower and an AIO. If we are jsut comparing CPUs then the Dell would win, but that is very narrow view in which to make a purchasing decision.
DDR3 provides no benefit for Core 2 Quad systems. In fact 1066 DDR3 memory performs worse compared to 1066 DDR2 because of the increased latency in the memory chip. Core 2 processors are bandwidth starved due to the memory architecture and using the ancient FSB way of accessing the memory. No matter how much you increase the memory speed, it will not the overcome the bottleneck created by FSB. All of benchmarks done on websites prove that DDR3 offers no benefit on Core 2 platform. Plus any DDR3 speed above 1066 will require extra voltage and iMac cannot afford that
Core i7 benefits from DDR3. It leaves the FSB concept behind and instead uses on chip memory controller which significantly increases the memory bandwidth and reduces memory latency.In fact, according to benchmarks, a single channel DDR3 on i7 is able to match and exceed dual channel configuration on Core 2 platforms. It also uses DDR3 in triple channel configuration which also helps to increase performance even more. Also truth to be told, the triple channel offers little improvement in real world situations such as games or programs. This is why (besides the architectural benefits) the lower end i7 is able to outperform the Core 2 Quad Extreme Editions (at 4X the price)
Apple's iMac is very much behind the competition in terms of spec and power. Core 2 Duo might be enough for email, iPhoto, Safari and Photobooth, but a computer at that price MUST have a quad core system considering what the competition offers. In PC world, quad is the new standard. Apple has a long history of innovation and providing high performance computers, they should go quad on all desktops