Apple Mid-Tower

1234579

Comments

  • Reply 121 of 173
    tenobelltenobell Posts: 7,014member
    Which processor does Intel currently offer you feel that Apple should use in the iMac and Mac mini?



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by backtomac View Post


    Of course not.



    But Apple keep adding features that are more resource intensive. It's only natural that users would then desire more powerful machines to do these tasks.



    Apple can and arguable should provide better tools to do this. The technology already exists. They don't have to go to the drawing board to develop the cpus to do this. They *already* exist.



     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 122 of 173
    backtomacbacktomac Posts: 4,579member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by TenoBell View Post


    Which processor does Intel currently offer you feel that Apple should use in the iMac and Mac mini?



    You know good and well I feel the iMac should be using the low power desk top Peryn cpus.



    I'd make it simple.



    20" 2.6 ghz Quad

    24" 2.6 ghz Quad

    24" 2.8 ghz Quad



    If you like you can have a dual core 20" at 2.8 ghz.



    The mini ought to have 2.0 ghz quad core mobile cpu asa BTO for the high end, IMO.



    These machines would give as good performance in most if not all applications and in those able to take advantage of multiple cores it would be superior to what we now have to choose from.



    If SL fulfills its promise with GC, these machines would see a marked improvement with SL and would then be a great incentive to upgrade to SL.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 123 of 173
    tenobelltenobell Posts: 7,014member
    Those processors run too hot to fit into the current iMac/mini enclosures.



    Do you not think that Apple knows what Intel will have coming for the rest of the year and has fully planned its road map?



    Quote:

    You know good and well I feel the iMac should be using the low power desk top Peryn cpus.



     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 124 of 173
    backtomacbacktomac Posts: 4,579member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by TenoBell View Post


    Those processors run too hot to fit into the current iMac/mini enclosures.



    Dell fits them (QCLP) in their AIOs. Are there engineers better than Apple's?



    Why couldn't the 2.0 gh mobile cpu run in the mini. What's the TDP?
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 125 of 173
    tenobelltenobell Posts: 7,014member
    The Del AIO uses a 2.33GHz quad which actually is the opposite of what you ask for. In the majority of cases that will be slower than a faster dual core.



    I haven't found a mobile 2.0 quad.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by backtomac View Post


    Dell fits them (QCLP) in their AIOs. Are there engineers better than Apple's?



    Why couldn't the 2.0 gh mobile cpu run in the mini. What's the TDP?



     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 126 of 173
    backtomacbacktomac Posts: 4,579member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by TenoBell View Post


    The Del AIO uses a 2.33GHz quad which actually is the opposite of what you ask for. In the majority of cases that will be slower than a faster dual core.



    Yeah and its a low power desk top cpu.



    There are 2.6 and 2.8 ghz frequency cpus of that family. Those wouldn't be slower.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 127 of 173
    backtomacbacktomac Posts: 4,579member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by TenoBell View Post


    I haven't found a mobile 2.0 quad.



    It's here. The TDP is 45 watts. I don't know if that's too hot for a mini or not. Could be.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 128 of 173
    tenobelltenobell Posts: 7,014member
    Why do you think Dell is not using those in its AIO?



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by backtomac View Post


    Yeah and its a low power desk top cpu.



    There are 2.6 and 2.8 ghz frequency cpus of that family. Those wouldn't be slower.



     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 129 of 173
    backtomacbacktomac Posts: 4,579member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by TenoBell View Post


    Why do you think Dell is not using those in its AIO?



    I don't know. The TDP for all of them is 65 watts.



    Its also important to note that the raison d'être for these cpus is AIOs.





    PS Info on the TDP of these cpus is on the first page of that article.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 130 of 173
    tenobelltenobell Posts: 7,014member
    Looking at the situation at hand. I think its a better choice to use faster dual processors in AIO and small form factor than slower quad core.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by backtomac View Post


    I don't know. The TDP for all of them is 65 watts.



    Its also important to note that the raison d'être for these cpus is AIOs.





    PS Info on the TDP of these cpus is on the first page of that article.



     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 131 of 173
    backtomacbacktomac Posts: 4,579member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by TenoBell View Post


    Looking at the situation at hand. I think its a better choice to use faster dual processors in AIO and small form factor than slower quad core.



    A 2.6 ghz Quad isn't going to be slower than a 2.6 ghz dual core cpu.



    A 2.8 ghz quad may be slightly slower in some functions than a 3.0 ghz dual core but will be much faster in others.



    I don't know if a 2. ghz mobile quad can go in the mini.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 132 of 173
    tenobelltenobell Posts: 7,014member
    No one uses a 2.6 or 2.8 in AIO. Dell doesn't offer these as an upgrade option. As far as we can tell these are not practical in real world use.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by backtomac View Post


    A 2.6 ghz Quad isn't going to be slower than a 2.6 ghz dual core cpu.



    A 2.8 ghz quad may be slightly slower in some functions than a 3.0 ghz dual core but will be much faster in others.



     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 133 of 173
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 33,717member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Outsider View Post


    I'm sorry but I don't agree with some of your examples. iPhoto, especially the last release with Faces, can use more power. Even on my dual 2.66GHz imac, it took 180 minutes to process the whole library. When importing a full 4GB card full of images from our camera it takes a couple minutes to process those faces. I'm sure a quad core or faster machine would benefit.



    iMovie can be sped up greatly and don't get me started on iDVD. It's torture to make home movies or creating DVD slideshows. Any speedup they can get the better.



    Let the mini be the started machine and have 2 levels of upward transition; the iMac and the xMac.



    180 minutes is too long. That's surprising. But even if one or two activities do take too long, such as that, it's not a good enough reason to say the entire machine must be much faster.



    Besides, that's what Open CL will help with. Get a new iMac with the 4850 card, that will help a lot in a few months.



    We have two 3.06 GHz iMacs here, and they're pretty fast.



    You've got to remember that if this 180 minutes is not an oddity, then you would need a full blown Mac Pro to do much better. An iMac thats 20% faster, which would be a lot, would still make you wait 144 minutes.



    Right now, iPhoto only uses 2 cores, and is not well threaded.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 134 of 173
    outsideroutsider Posts: 6,008member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by melgross View Post


    180 minutes is too long. That's surprising. But even if one or two activities do take too long, such as that, it's not a good enough reason to say the entire machine must be much faster.



    Besides, that's what Open CL will help with. Get a new iMac with the 4850 card, that will help a lot in a few months.



    We have two 3.06 GHz iMacs here, and they're pretty fast.



    You've got to remember that if this 180 minutes is not an oddity, then you would need a full blown Mac Pro to do much better. An iMac thats 20% faster, which would be a lot, would still make you wait 144 minutes.



    Right now, iPhoto only uses 2 cores, and is not well threaded.



    Well it is over 10,000 photos. On the G5 imac we replaced it took so long that in the end it would fail and never complete.



    Would you not think that even it it was poorly threaded, a Nehalem Mac would do much better? All the benchmarks I've seen seem to indicate that it would. At this point Nehalem on the consumer level Mac platform is at least a year away.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 135 of 173
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 33,717member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by backtomac View Post


    I believe he's saying that current machines aren't powerful enough (or more powerful machines would be welcomed) for some of these common tasks that an average ordinary consumer could be expected to do.



    Its a false claim by many that the average Mac user could never benefit from machines more powerful than the ones we have today. That's just not true.



    It'll be interesting to see if Apple will harness the power of GC and Open Gl in their own apps. Certainly some of them would benefit greatly. Lets hope they take the lead and show the benefits of GC and Open Cl.



    You're adding the word "never", which isn't a part of this conversation.



    Only a fool would say that we will never need more power. In fact all of these upgrades, in one way or another, are faster than the preceding models. When 10.6 comes out, the faster graphics cards will give them a nice boost, assuming, of course, that it works as well as we think.



    I believe that these upgrades have been released the way they are as a consequence of the recession. That is to say, little that would raise the prices, and much that would lower them. The graphics upgrades are just that, optional. A four core chip would be a whole new machine. possibly that's not something Apple thinks it could sell right now, and if they did, people here would just complain about the price.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 136 of 173
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 33,717member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Outsider View Post


    Well it is over 10,000 photos. On the G5 imac we replaced it took so long that in the end it would fail and never complete.



    Would you not think that even it it was poorly threaded, a Nehalem Mac would do much better? All the benchmarks I've seen seem to indicate that it would. At this point Nehalem on the consumer level Mac platform is at least a year away.



    You're asking for too much. Really, you are.



    This is not a time for Apple to come out with a consumer computer that would be noticeably more expensive than what they have now. That's what an i7 model would be, as would a 4 core.



    Apple's machines are designed very well, and cleverly. They get the most from what they have, and they're pretty good performers.



    If you look, you'll notice that the iMac pricing has gone down, not up, for what you get since I bought two last year.



    Unless your model is several years old, and was the fastest when it first came out, which doesn't look to be the case from the speed you mentioned, you chose to buy a slower machine than Apple was delivering at the top.



    These are choices. it wasn't a wrong choice, unless you're regretting it now.



    I can tell you without exaggerating, that the 3.06 GHz models I bought, with the optional graphics, are a lot faster than the one you have. It would shave that 20%, or slightly more, off those times.



    But, really, how do you propose to shave the time to, what would you want, half?



    That would require at least a 2.66 i7, with a much faster drive, memory, and everything else.



    You would be willing to pay $500 more for that, say $2,600 for an iMac, over the top price now?



    Forget the xMac stuff, it ain't gonna happen soon, if ever. We can only talk about the possibilities that might occur.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 137 of 173
    outsideroutsider Posts: 6,008member
    I had really hoped we would have quad core iMacs by now, but they appear to be a ways off now. I did by one of the new generation imacs and am pretty happy with it none the less. Of course it could be faster. Quads would be leveraged when Snow Leopard comes and more software gets optimized for multi-thread operation. I still have hopes for a low power mobile quad I can upgrade to in a years time. But it doesn't look like Intel will have 32nm Mobile Core 2's at all.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 138 of 173
    backtomacbacktomac Posts: 4,579member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by melgross View Post


    180 minutes is too long. That's surprising. But even if one or two activities do take too long, such as that, it's not a good enough reason to say the entire machine must be much faster.



    Besides, that's what Open CL will help with. Get a new iMac with the 4850 card, that will help a lot in a few months.



    We have two 3.06 GHz iMacs here, and they're pretty fast.



    You've got to remember that if this 180 minutes is not an oddity, then you would need a full blown Mac Pro to do much better. An iMac thats 20% faster, which would be a lot, would still make you wait 144 minutes.



    Right now, iPhoto only uses 2 cores, and is not well threaded.



    Everyone is assuming that Open Cl and GC are going ot have an immediate and profound impact when SL is released.



    That may or may not be true. In fact there is a thread at Ars where many programmers are quite skeptical of this belief.



    Let's see what Apple can do with their own apps and SL.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 139 of 173
    outsideroutsider Posts: 6,008member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by melgross View Post


    You're asking for too much. Really, you are.



    This is not a time for Apple to come out with a consumer computer that would be noticeably more expensive than what they have now. That's what an i7 model would be, as would a 4 core.



    Apple's machines are designed very well, and cleverly. They get the most from what they have, and they're pretty good performers.



    If you look, you'll notice that the iMac pricing has gone down, not up, for what you get since I bought two last year.



    Unless your model is several years old, and was the fastest when it first came out, which doesn't look to be the case from the speed you mentioned, you chose to buy a slower machine than Apple was delivering at the top.



    These are choices. it wasn't a wrong choice, unless you're regretting it now.



    I can tell you without exaggerating, that the 3.06 GHz models I bought, with the optional graphics, are a lot faster than the one you have. It would shave that 20%, or slightly more, off those times.



    But, really, how do you propose to shave the time to, what would you want, half?



    That would require at least a 2.66 i7, with a much faster drive, memory, and everything else.



    You would be willing to pay $500 more for that, say $2,600 for an iMac, over the top price now?



    Forget the xMac stuff, it ain't gonna happen soon, if ever. We can only talk about the possibilities that might occur.



    Unfortunately it would cost that much for a nehalem iMac. And Apple pretty much destroyed any notion that they might introduce a consumer mini tower if you think about it. Unlike before, it would directly compete with the quad core Mac Pro.

    We have the mini, iMac, and Pro and that's the way it is for a long while. I don't regret getting the iMac over any other model, I think it was a good value. I do regret getting it over my first plan, build a compatible hackintosh. But the wifey wanted a pretty iMac like before
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 140 of 173
    backtomacbacktomac Posts: 4,579member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by melgross View Post


    You're adding the word "never", which isn't a part of this conversation.

    .



    That was perhaps an exaggeration. Yet there are many posters here who simply cannot understand why users would want more powerful machines(iMacs) than we currently have now.



    Its not *that* difficult to find the limits of a dual core machine.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
Sign In or Register to comment.