I figured it'd be a cleaner setup though I must admit having an external PS hasn't caused me any grief.
Also 24 should be the new baseline. I'm starting to think that Apple should just kill anything smaller as far as the iMac goes. I just bought a low cost Viewsonic 24" and trust me it's not going to compete with Apple's LED CD on any day but it was 220 bucks.
However if eIPS is really that good and costs can even approach TN panels Apple likely just needs to make the iMac 24" and perhaps larger if there are other options.
Yeah, but if you think about it you either have a direct power cable to the computer or a cable with a huge bulge (the PSU) in the middle. It's not any more cables in reality. The main advantage is taking a heat source out of the computer enclosure, always a good thing.
I kind of think that if they did this with the iMac, it may afford them some advantages with the insides, maybe letting them use better processors and graphics.
Yeah, but if you think about it you either have a direct power cable to the computer or a cable with a huge bulge (the PSU) in the middle. It's not any more cables in reality. The main advantage is taking a heat source out of the computer enclosure, always a good thing.
I'm very mixed on external supplies as I tend to believe internal supplies lead to more reliable machines with cleaner installation characteristics. On the otherhand one of the really nice things about the external supply is that it provides for very easy external supply swaps.
What this means is that if you want to integrate a Mini into an auto or RV an external DC to DC converter will do the trick. The use of an external supply simply provides for simple alternative energy delivery.
Quote:
I kind of think that if they did this with the iMac, it may afford them some advantages with the insides, maybe letting them use better processors and graphics.
I truely doubt that. Let's face it their is more space in an iMac than in many 1U servers. I don't see the power supply as being a significant space or power issue on the iMac. Besides the higher power levels seen in the iMac would demand fairly hefty DC currents and this heavier cabeling and terminations. It would be better to keep the DC close to the load from an engineering standpoint.
The mini should grow slightly and incorporate an internal power supply.
The iMac should come in a svelte enclosure and more beefy and rugged enthusiast model where you can put 95W procs in it.
They need a mini tower Mac that I dub Mac Prosumer. It should have three 2.5" drive internal drive bays and have a single socket enthusiast chip. It should have at least enough PCI Express ports for two graphics cards. It would not have an aluminum chassis and come with only one optical bay.
Frankly my dear, Apple doesn't appear to give a damn.
But, you're right...of course. Apple have stopped innovating in the desktop space. Blind are they. Limited. That's how I'd describe their desktop offerings. Out of date. Over priced. But they look Kool.
Also 24 should be the new baseline. I'm starting to think that Apple should just kill anything smaller as far as the iMac goes. I just bought a low cost Viewsonic 24" and trust me it's not going to compete with Apple's LED CD on any day but it was 220 bucks.
However if eIPS is really that good and costs can even approach TN panels Apple likely just needs to make the iMac 24" and perhaps larger if there are other options.
I'm not sure if you know what you are talking about here. i7 concentrates the power budget in one place but it is not excessive bad. If you consider that the memory controller is on die as is one of the bridges, you would realize that i7 is more of a 100 watt processor (subtracting out the built in functionality). Maybe not even a 100 watt processor as some of Intels bridges are extremely power hungry. All that happens with i& is that the power is concentrated onto one device instead of being spread out over two or more..
So what does that mean for iMac? I7 is a real possibility and might actually lower overall power dissipation. It really depends upon what Apple and Nvidia come up with for the GPU/Bridge chip. I actually could see over all power usage actually being lower than many here seem to suspect. Part of that comes from thermal design power being difficult to hit in a quad core for normal desktop duties.
Couple all of this with the rumors that Apple has looked at new heat sinking technology and one wold have to suspect that they are at least considering i7 in iMac. Of course they could have an entirely different machine under development too. As many have pointed out Apple needs an i7 solution to fill the widening gap between this processor and the hardware that came before it. Even the new Quads for small form factor machines won't fill the gap, though they would make an ideal Mini (Hint Apple).
Dave
honestly im ignorant on the hardware side of computing nearly completely. (get that out of the way)
but what if it does run a little hotter, and its too hot, could they not just do a liquid cooling system? or would that cut too deep into their pockets, or is that just not a reasonable fix for this kind of system? not knowing very much about it, it looks to me that if they want to keep it small, but also keep up at least with $1200 dells for apples $2200 price tag, they would need to shift to full Desk Top components, and cooling it with liquid is the only way i can imagine that happening (unless im over estimating how much a liquid cooled system works)
I don't see why Apple wouldn't use the Xeon version of Nehalem for single processor workstations (the X3500 series). They are the same price and have some advantages like ECC (fairly important for workstations) and DDR3 1,600MHz support.
I don't see why Apple wouldn't use the Xeon version of Nehalem for single processor workstations (the X3500 series). They are the same price and have some advantages like ECC (fairly important for workstations) and DDR3 1,600MHz support.
Lynnfield is a bit different from Bloomfield as the QPI controller has been replaced by a PCIe 2.0 generation controller. The memory controller has also been stripped of one channel, which leaves two DDR3 64-bit channels, which also means that it only need 1160 pins instead of the 1366 pins Bloomfield requires. It still sports 8MB shared L3 cache and 256KB L2 cache per core.
It's one matter to differentiate pin options between the Mac Pro and the iMac, Mac mini and more.
It's an entirely different matter to differentiate pin options [thus motherboard changes] within a single line.
Apple wants one motherboard design for the Mac Pro. It will stick with the 1366 pin configuration; hence LGA1366.
I personally think the most likely CPU for the new iMacs will be the Core 2 Quad Q9400S and Q9550S models with the 65 W thermal design power rating. This will allow Apple to keep its iMac case design to something similar to the current design because the cooling needs will be reasonable.
I personally think the most likely CPU for the new iMacs will be the Core 2 Quad Q9400S and Q9550S models with the 65 W thermal design power rating. This will allow Apple to keep its iMac case design to something similar to the current design because the cooling needs will be reasonable.
Agreed. The iMac and mini/whatever replaces it, won't get a Nehalem until early next year when the 65w Core i5/Lynnfield (or whatever they end up calling it) comes out.
I personally think the most likely CPU for the new iMacs will be the Core 2 Quad Q9400S and Q9550S models with the 65 W thermal design power rating. This will allow Apple to keep its iMac case design to something similar to the current design because the cooling needs will be reasonable.
I don't dismiss this other than to ask what is taking them so long to get the product out the door. Is it a case of waiting on intel or some secret sauce? I'm actually thinking it is some sort of secret sauce myself, the reason being that a new Mini could have been delivered weeks ago now. I'm going to stretch here and suggest that Apple may have teamed up Nvidia and the remains of PA Semi to produce a custom integrated GPU. Why; well simple to incorporate things like Firewire 1600 or 3200 in the chip and other interfaces that Nvidia might not have experience with.
If these chips are Quick Path based the current legal wrangling between intel and Nvidia may be causing delays. After all Apple doesn't want to have new hardware announced and then not shipable due to some sort of law suit. Of course that implies a new chipset to work with intels new interface, aapple could still target the old bus instead with other holdups inplace.
In any event I'm looking for excuses here that seem to work with Apple speak about new systems the competition can't touch. The only way that is going to happen is if Apple can integrate custom electronics into the new machines. Tradeing off OpenCL is possible but that is an OS enhancement the competition could easily leverage also. So I see custom hardware as the only way for Apple to make good on all the BS we have heard from them of late.
NOTE:
I'm fully aware that Apple has said that PA was purchased to make cell phone chips. That could be the RDF at work. Especially when Apple has indicated that PA was attached to a completely different division than the iPod one. I'm still thinking that PA has desktop hardware on it's mind right now. PA has a portfolio of tech that would be very useful in a desktop machine.
By the way, with the price of hard disk storage and RAM cheap nowadays, I wouldn't be surprised that the new iMacs will sport 500 to 1,000 GB SATA-II hard drives and up to 8 GB of RAM standard--this will allow Apple to keep its "premium" pricing.
The mini should grow slightly and incorporate an internal power supply.
The iMac should come in a svelte enclosure and more beefy and rugged enthusiast model where you can put 95W procs in it.
They need a mini tower Mac that I dub Mac Prosumer. It should have three 2.5" drive internal drive bays and have a single socket enthusiast chip. It should have at least enough PCI Express ports for two graphics cards. It would not have an aluminum chassis and come with only one optical bay.
I forgot to say. I could have written this myself. Give H' a cigar.
This reminds me of Apple skipping the much better valued Conroe processors when they came out and opted for the more expensive and slower mobile equivalents usually used in laptops. Looking around at some benchmarks sites, the i7 is very impressive. Since you can already buy or build a i7 computer for about $1,000 I am just wondering how long Apple can buck the trend with older/slower desktop computers at around twice the price of newer and significantly faster PC with i7's. This obsession with ultra slim and the AIO form factor seems to have boxed them into a corner in terms of not being able to offer comparable speed or value. If there was ever a need for a Mac Mid tower, this would seem to be it.
Oh, I don't know...look how long they left the mini out in the cold for...I'm surprised it didn't die of exposure.
honestly im ignorant on the hardware side of computing nearly completely. (get that out of the way)
but what if it does run a little hotter, and its too hot, could they not just do a liquid cooling system? or would that cut too deep into their pockets, or is that just not a reasonable fix for this kind of system? not knowing very much about it, it looks to me that if they want to keep it small, but also keep up at least with $1200 dells for apples $2200 price tag, they would need to shift to full Desk Top components, and cooling it with liquid is the only way i can imagine that happening (unless im over estimating how much a liquid cooled system works)
The thing is there is no need for liquid cooling! As many posters have mentioned if you're talking about making the 20" or 22" or 24" iMac slightly thicker, and having an actual "desktop" Mac, there's some pretty amazing stuff you can do with copper heatpipes and all copper heatfins driven by low-noise fans.
Look, in between a big ugly PC box and the iMac has to be something that can reasonably handle power, upgradeability and a good GPU and that sits nicely on a desk. Unless Apple is going to declare the desktop is dead...
Apple being able to be run without Steve? My ass. There's a bit of confusion going on. The Mac Mini notwithstanding, this iMac stagnation is starting to become shocking.
By the way, with the price of hard disk storage and RAM cheap nowadays, I wouldn't be surprised that the new iMacs will sport 500 to 1,000 GB SATA-II hard drives and up to 8 GB of RAM standard--this will allow Apple to keep its "premium" pricing.
Except they'll give you half of that and still charge you a "premium" pricing. 8GB of RAM standard in a new iMac? Wow, I'll see it when I believe it.
well i wouldnt mind a thicker mac. even if it was an inch or more thick and apple could easily do something to make it look like it wasnt as thick, but i do need something that is an all in one. either way i dont think the iMac is going anywhere, hopefully they just find a way to keep it relevant.
how big would a 8800GTS be with todays tech? sure its slower than what is on the market right now, but couldnt they create a smaller more efficient version for the Mac? that card is pretty old, and its still plenty powerful enough for just about any new game. then the i7, or a variant of it...
i dont know enough about it, but if they want to keep selling them (and not see more 25% sales declines) then they need to do a completely new version that is better at removing heat, and can hold more powerful components.
problem i see with apple is they wont do it if it doesnt *look* perfect.
The new iMac: an amazing 1 inch thick computer! Uses all new Intel Atom processors running at a blazing 1.6GHz, 2GB or memory soldered on the motherboard and a up to a 200GB 1.8" drive! Did we mention it's only ONE INCH THICK?!
Comments
I figured it'd be a cleaner setup though I must admit having an external PS hasn't caused me any grief.
Also 24 should be the new baseline. I'm starting to think that Apple should just kill anything smaller as far as the iMac goes. I just bought a low cost Viewsonic 24" and trust me it's not going to compete with Apple's LED CD on any day but it was 220 bucks.
However if eIPS is really that good and costs can even approach TN panels Apple likely just needs to make the iMac 24" and perhaps larger if there are other options.
Still waiting to get pricing on these panels. I think they're going to be wonderfully affordable
Yeah, but if you think about it you either have a direct power cable to the computer or a cable with a huge bulge (the PSU) in the middle. It's not any more cables in reality. The main advantage is taking a heat source out of the computer enclosure, always a good thing.
I kind of think that if they did this with the iMac, it may afford them some advantages with the insides, maybe letting them use better processors and graphics.
Yeah, but if you think about it you either have a direct power cable to the computer or a cable with a huge bulge (the PSU) in the middle. It's not any more cables in reality. The main advantage is taking a heat source out of the computer enclosure, always a good thing.
I'm very mixed on external supplies as I tend to believe internal supplies lead to more reliable machines with cleaner installation characteristics. On the otherhand one of the really nice things about the external supply is that it provides for very easy external supply swaps.
What this means is that if you want to integrate a Mini into an auto or RV an external DC to DC converter will do the trick. The use of an external supply simply provides for simple alternative energy delivery.
I kind of think that if they did this with the iMac, it may afford them some advantages with the insides, maybe letting them use better processors and graphics.
I truely doubt that. Let's face it their is more space in an iMac than in many 1U servers. I don't see the power supply as being a significant space or power issue on the iMac. Besides the higher power levels seen in the iMac would demand fairly hefty DC currents and this heavier cabeling and terminations. It would be better to keep the DC close to the load from an engineering standpoint.
Dave
Frankly I think Apple's lineup needs to change.
The mini should grow slightly and incorporate an internal power supply.
The iMac should come in a svelte enclosure and more beefy and rugged enthusiast model where you can put 95W procs in it.
They need a mini tower Mac that I dub Mac Prosumer. It should have three 2.5" drive internal drive bays and have a single socket enthusiast chip. It should have at least enough PCI Express ports for two graphics cards. It would not have an aluminum chassis and come with only one optical bay.
Frankly my dear, Apple doesn't appear to give a damn.
But, you're right...of course. Apple have stopped innovating in the desktop space. Blind are they. Limited. That's how I'd describe their desktop offerings. Out of date. Over priced. But they look Kool.
Lemon Bon Bon.
Also 24 should be the new baseline. I'm starting to think that Apple should just kill anything smaller as far as the iMac goes. I just bought a low cost Viewsonic 24" and trust me it's not going to compete with Apple's LED CD on any day but it was 220 bucks.
However if eIPS is really that good and costs can even approach TN panels Apple likely just needs to make the iMac 24" and perhaps larger if there are other options.
I'd say so.
Lemon Bon Bon.
I'm not sure if you know what you are talking about here. i7 concentrates the power budget in one place but it is not excessive bad. If you consider that the memory controller is on die as is one of the bridges, you would realize that i7 is more of a 100 watt processor (subtracting out the built in functionality). Maybe not even a 100 watt processor as some of Intels bridges are extremely power hungry. All that happens with i& is that the power is concentrated onto one device instead of being spread out over two or more..
So what does that mean for iMac? I7 is a real possibility and might actually lower overall power dissipation. It really depends upon what Apple and Nvidia come up with for the GPU/Bridge chip. I actually could see over all power usage actually being lower than many here seem to suspect. Part of that comes from thermal design power being difficult to hit in a quad core for normal desktop duties.
Couple all of this with the rumors that Apple has looked at new heat sinking technology and one wold have to suspect that they are at least considering i7 in iMac. Of course they could have an entirely different machine under development too. As many have pointed out Apple needs an i7 solution to fill the widening gap between this processor and the hardware that came before it. Even the new Quads for small form factor machines won't fill the gap, though they would make an ideal Mini (Hint Apple).
Dave
honestly im ignorant on the hardware side of computing nearly completely. (get that out of the way)
but what if it does run a little hotter, and its too hot, could they not just do a liquid cooling system? or would that cut too deep into their pockets, or is that just not a reasonable fix for this kind of system? not knowing very much about it, it looks to me that if they want to keep it small, but also keep up at least with $1200 dells for apples $2200 price tag, they would need to shift to full Desk Top components, and cooling it with liquid is the only way i can imagine that happening (unless im over estimating how much a liquid cooled system works)
I don't see why Apple wouldn't use the Xeon version of Nehalem for single processor workstations (the X3500 series). They are the same price and have some advantages like ECC (fairly important for workstations) and DDR3 1,600MHz support.
http://www.nordichardware.com/news,8101.html
Lynnfield is a bit different from Bloomfield as the QPI controller has been replaced by a PCIe 2.0 generation controller. The memory controller has also been stripped of one channel, which leaves two DDR3 64-bit channels, which also means that it only need 1160 pins instead of the 1366 pins Bloomfield requires. It still sports 8MB shared L3 cache and 256KB L2 cache per core.
It's one matter to differentiate pin options between the Mac Pro and the iMac, Mac mini and more.
It's an entirely different matter to differentiate pin options [thus motherboard changes] within a single line.
Apple wants one motherboard design for the Mac Pro. It will stick with the 1366 pin configuration; hence LGA1366.
I personally think the most likely CPU for the new iMacs will be the Core 2 Quad Q9400S and Q9550S models with the 65 W thermal design power rating. This will allow Apple to keep its iMac case design to something similar to the current design because the cooling needs will be reasonable.
Agreed. The iMac and mini/whatever replaces it, won't get a Nehalem until early next year when the 65w Core i5/Lynnfield (or whatever they end up calling it) comes out.
I personally think the most likely CPU for the new iMacs will be the Core 2 Quad Q9400S and Q9550S models with the 65 W thermal design power rating. This will allow Apple to keep its iMac case design to something similar to the current design because the cooling needs will be reasonable.
I don't dismiss this other than to ask what is taking them so long to get the product out the door. Is it a case of waiting on intel or some secret sauce? I'm actually thinking it is some sort of secret sauce myself, the reason being that a new Mini could have been delivered weeks ago now. I'm going to stretch here and suggest that Apple may have teamed up Nvidia and the remains of PA Semi to produce a custom integrated GPU. Why; well simple to incorporate things like Firewire 1600 or 3200 in the chip and other interfaces that Nvidia might not have experience with.
If these chips are Quick Path based the current legal wrangling between intel and Nvidia may be causing delays. After all Apple doesn't want to have new hardware announced and then not shipable due to some sort of law suit. Of course that implies a new chipset to work with intels new interface, aapple could still target the old bus instead with other holdups inplace.
In any event I'm looking for excuses here that seem to work with Apple speak about new systems the competition can't touch. The only way that is going to happen is if Apple can integrate custom electronics into the new machines. Tradeing off OpenCL is possible but that is an OS enhancement the competition could easily leverage also. So I see custom hardware as the only way for Apple to make good on all the BS we have heard from them of late.
NOTE:
I'm fully aware that Apple has said that PA was purchased to make cell phone chips. That could be the RDF at work. Especially when Apple has indicated that PA was attached to a completely different division than the iPod one. I'm still thinking that PA has desktop hardware on it's mind right now. PA has a portfolio of tech that would be very useful in a desktop machine.
Dave
Frankly I think Apple's lineup needs to change.
The mini should grow slightly and incorporate an internal power supply.
The iMac should come in a svelte enclosure and more beefy and rugged enthusiast model where you can put 95W procs in it.
They need a mini tower Mac that I dub Mac Prosumer. It should have three 2.5" drive internal drive bays and have a single socket enthusiast chip. It should have at least enough PCI Express ports for two graphics cards. It would not have an aluminum chassis and come with only one optical bay.
I forgot to say. I could have written this myself. Give H' a cigar.
Lemon Bon Bon.
This reminds me of Apple skipping the much better valued Conroe processors when they came out and opted for the more expensive and slower mobile equivalents usually used in laptops. Looking around at some benchmarks sites, the i7 is very impressive. Since you can already buy or build a i7 computer for about $1,000 I am just wondering how long Apple can buck the trend with older/slower desktop computers at around twice the price of newer and significantly faster PC with i7's. This obsession with ultra slim and the AIO form factor seems to have boxed them into a corner in terms of not being able to offer comparable speed or value. If there was ever a need for a Mac Mid tower, this would seem to be it.
Oh, I don't know...look how long they left the mini out in the cold for...I'm surprised it didn't die of exposure.
Lemon Bon Bon.
honestly im ignorant on the hardware side of computing nearly completely. (get that out of the way)
but what if it does run a little hotter, and its too hot, could they not just do a liquid cooling system? or would that cut too deep into their pockets, or is that just not a reasonable fix for this kind of system? not knowing very much about it, it looks to me that if they want to keep it small, but also keep up at least with $1200 dells for apples $2200 price tag, they would need to shift to full Desk Top components, and cooling it with liquid is the only way i can imagine that happening (unless im over estimating how much a liquid cooled system works)
The thing is there is no need for liquid cooling! As many posters have mentioned if you're talking about making the 20" or 22" or 24" iMac slightly thicker, and having an actual "desktop" Mac, there's some pretty amazing stuff you can do with copper heatpipes and all copper heatfins driven by low-noise fans.
Look, in between a big ugly PC box and the iMac has to be something that can reasonably handle power, upgradeability and a good GPU and that sits nicely on a desk. Unless Apple is going to declare the desktop is dead...
Apple being able to be run without Steve? My ass. There's a bit of confusion going on. The Mac Mini notwithstanding, this iMac stagnation is starting to become shocking.
By the way, with the price of hard disk storage and RAM cheap nowadays, I wouldn't be surprised that the new iMacs will sport 500 to 1,000 GB SATA-II hard drives and up to 8 GB of RAM standard--this will allow Apple to keep its "premium" pricing.
Except they'll give you half of that and still charge you a "premium" pricing. 8GB of RAM standard in a new iMac? Wow, I'll see it when I believe it.
how big would a 8800GTS be with todays tech? sure its slower than what is on the market right now, but couldnt they create a smaller more efficient version for the Mac? that card is pretty old, and its still plenty powerful enough for just about any new game. then the i7, or a variant of it...
i dont know enough about it, but if they want to keep selling them (and not see more 25% sales declines) then they need to do a completely new version that is better at removing heat, and can hold more powerful components.
problem i see with apple is they wont do it if it doesnt *look* perfect.
(external Super Drive sold separately)