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.
.
The low power desk top penryn cpus and nehalem i7 cpus are under $400.
iMacs aren't that inexpensive. Hell they're $1100- over $2000.
It's not the cpu that makes the iMac as expensive as it is.
The low power desk top penryn cpus and nehalem i7 cpus are under $400.
iMacs aren't that inexpensive. Hell they're $1100- over $2000.
It's not the cpu that makes the iMac as expensive as it is.
When I was admiring my iMac the other day while setting it up, I couldn't help but wonder how much better and cheaper it could have been if they had just made it a cm thicker. It would have taken a bigger CPU cooler, desktop CPUs and chipsets, etc.
The CPU is generally the most expensive single part in the machine. Apple has never used desktop Intel chips in the iMac, I'm not sure why you would expect them to ever begin.
From a strategic business stand point. To introduce a new desktop in the middle of this severe recession when desktop sales are projected to be down 31% year over year would not be the most prudent plan.
A much better plan is to wait until we've come towards the end of the recession when money begins to flow. Introduce a radical new desktop to meet the money and pent up demand for new machines.
Quote:
Originally Posted by backtomac
The low power desk top penryn cpus and nehalem i7 cpus are under $400.
iMacs aren't that inexpensive. Hell they're $1100- over $2000.
It's not the cpu that makes the iMac as expensive as it is.
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.
I wouldn't use the word "profound".
But we already have good evidence that Quartz has made a big difference in some areas. If you use an old graphics card on a G4 machine that wasn't programmable, such as one before the 9800 ATI Pro board, you would find many slowdowns, and the lack of graphical niceties that Quartz made possible. So nice, that MS copied the idea for themselves. Open CL relies on the fact that the new boards aren't just designed for game programmers to program some functions, but are designed to be a much more general purpose computer in its own right, making a significant speedup possible for many tasks.
GC is also a breakthrough, assuming that it works well.
While you're right that we won't know how much we'll get from these OS features, the fact that Open CL has been accepted as a standard by just about everyone except MS, shows that there are a lot of companies out there that consider this to be significant.
It's assumed that some programs will get some boost from GC right away, if they're properly threaded, but that a much greater boost will come from programs tweaked to work with GC, so that might take more time.
I suspect though, that companies are already playing with it in the beta's, and that they will be able to have something ready by the end of the year, at the latest.
Nope, quad core wouldn't help this situation. iPhoto cannot take advantage of four cores. A 2.66GHz quad core would not be able to process those faces any faster. Faster processors would only help that situation.
TenoBell this really isn't true.
Any task that can be broken up into chunks that aren't predicated on the results of other pieces of data that may precede or follow them are ideal candidates for parallel processing.
Say you have an iPhoto library as Outsider does and you want to rip through the processing of the faces. Since each individual photo is processed with no input from any other photo it would be a great opportunity to run such a task on a quad core.
Sadly video, as you know, is more difficult to parallel processes because encoders always have to know what frames are coming before and after for efficient encoding and correct motion compensation and yadda yadda yadda.
I think we're just not there yet. Quad Core cpu are becoming mainstream and even though Apple has been shipping SMP systems for years there was never a real thrust into multi-core processing.
It'll be interesting to see what developers "get it" and which struggle. Going forward it's all about analyzing code and finding bits and pieces that can be parallel processed.
The low power desk top penryn cpus and nehalem i7 cpus are under $400.
iMacs aren't that inexpensive. Hell they're $1100- over $2000.
It's not the cpu that makes the iMac as expensive as it is.
It's not just the cost of the chip, but that the iMac would have to be completely redesigned for several reasons. Bigger power supply, more cooling, possible repositioning of the parts, etc.
One of the biggest is that the machines are designed around the low power draw, and heat output of the mobile chips. Using a current i7 would be a great choice to replace another desktop chip, but for an iMac, it wouldn't work. The current iMacs, even the 3.06 GHz models with the big HDDs and the best graphics chip, are totally silent, and pretty cool. I can personally attest to that.
The old G5 machines, even though they were bigger, and heavier, were hotter, and noisier as well.
I don't think Apple wants to go back to that. Too many of these machines are in the living room these days.
The CPU is generally the most expensive single part in the machine. Apple has never used desktop Intel chips in the iMac, I'm not sure why you would expect them to ever begin.
.
Because as the manufacturing process has shrunk, desk top cpus now are close in TDP to mobile cpus.
These Low Power Desk top cpus have but one purpose, to go into AIO form factors. Please look at the review of them at Anand. They don't make sense otherwise.
If Apple were to ever adopt low power desk top cpus for the iMac it would potentially make them cheaper and more powerful. What's not to like?
Do I think Apple will ever adopt these in the iMac,... NO. It's obvious that the iMac is married to mobile cpus and that's not going to ever change. The next update for the iMac is now likely in the fall when Intel release the 32nm Arrandale cpus. This will likely be a nice improvement.
But its important now to recognize that Apple aren't the only game in town for AIO machines. Dell are willing to look at desk top cpus for their machines and it's likely that if the current trends continue that the Dell AIOs will be the most powerful on the market. While the iMac has a dual core, 4 thread cpu the Dell could easily have a quad core, 8 thread cpu. It may give the Mac Pros a run for their money.
Perhaps that will impact sales of iMacs, perhaps it won't. The debate about which AIO is the best though won't be a one way discussion. The Dell machines will be competitive if not better in certain respects.
Yes in theory this is possible and would speed up the efficiency of the process. But as I stated in my post iPhoto is currently not capable of doing this. So having a quad core right now would not make much difference.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hmurchison
TenoBell this really isn't true.
Any task that can be broken up into chunks that aren't predicated on the results of other pieces of data that may precede or follow them are ideal candidates for parallel processing.
Say you have an iPhoto library as Outsider does and you want to rip through the processing of the faces. Since each individual photo is processed with no input from any other photo it would be a great opportunity to run such a task on a quad core.
It's not just the cost of the chip, but that the iMac would have to be completely redesigned for several reasons. Bigger power supply, more cooling, possible repositioning of the parts, etc.
One of the biggest is that the machines are designed around the low power draw, and heat output of the mobile chips. Using a current i7 would be a great choice to replace another desktop chip, but for an iMac, it wouldn't work. The current iMacs, even the 3.06 GHz models with the big HDDs and the best graphics chip, are totally silent, and pretty cool. I can personally attest to that.
The old G5 machines, even though they were bigger, and heavier, were hotter, and noisier as well.
I don't think Apple wants to go back to that. Too many of these machines are in the living room these days.
I recognize that a Nehalem cpu isn't practical for the iMac.
Any task that can be broken up into chunks that aren't predicated on the results of other pieces of data that may precede or follow them are ideal candidates for parallel processing.
Say you have an iPhoto library as Outsider does and you want to rip through the processing of the faces. Since each individual photo is processed with no input from any other photo it would be a great opportunity to run such a task on a quad core.
Sadly video, as you know, is more difficult to parallel processes because encoders always have to know what frames are coming before and after for efficient encoding and correct motion compensation and yadda yadda yadda.
I think we're just not there yet. Quad Core cpu are becoming mainstream and even though Apple has been shipping SMP systems for years there was never a real thrust into multi-core processing.
It'll be interesting to see what developers "get it" and which struggle. Going forward it's all about analyzing code and finding bits and pieces that can be parallel processed.
That's nice, except that iPhoto can't do it. That doesn't mean that Apple won't rewrite it, but for now, it can't.
But, as with all 2 core capable programs, it will get a bit faster on a four core machine simply because the OS will don much of its work on another core, leaving more cycles for the program itself. We see that with the other major 2 core limited program (though there are some ways around this at times) Photoshop. It works about 15% faster on a four core machine.
Because as the manufacturing process has shrunk, desk top cpus now are close in TDP to mobile cpus.
These Low Power Desk top cpus have but one purpose, to go into AIO form factors. Please look at the review of them at Anand. They don't make sense otherwise.
If Apple were to ever adopt low power desk top cpus for the iMac it would potentially make them cheaper and more powerful. What's not to like?
Do I think Apple will ever adopt these in the iMac,... NO. It's obvious that the iMac is married to mobile cpus and that's not going to ever change. The next update for the iMac is now likely in the fall when Intel release the 32nm Arrandale cpus. This will likely be a nice improvement.
But its important now to recognize that Apple aren't the only game in town for AIO machines. Dell are willing to look at desk top cpus for their machines and it's likely that if the current trends continue that the Dell AIOs will be the most powerful on the market. While the iMac has a dual core, 4 thread cpu the Dell could easily have a quad core, 8 thread cpu. It may give the Mac Pros a run for their money.
Perhaps that will impact sales of iMacs, perhaps it won't. The debate about which AIO is the best though won't be a one way discussion. The Dell machines will be competitive if not better in certain respects.
There is still a big difference. The low TDP desktop chips aren't much better than the mobile chips Apple uses now. An i7 chip uses a LOT of power. So much power that it isn't even a remote dream, aside from the possible cost of the chips currently.
That's the only chip that would give an immediate large boost to the iMac overall.
The power use for the 920 through the 975? 130 watts. Yes, that's right 130 watts.
The new Xeons only use 80 or 95 watts. It would be easier using one of them.
And this is why the foolishness some people here about having an i7 iMac should stop. It's an impossible dream until the mobile versions come out. I know you're not looking for that right now, but too many here are.
Screw the Dells, they really don't compete with the iMac.
Apple may be waiting for the Lynnfield or Clarksfield Nehalems for iMacs. Although the 95w cited for the Lynnfield TDP is on the high side. But I wonder if that can be mitigated because the entire memory controller and PCI-E controller will be included in that figure.
Yeah I think Apple is waiting for mobile Core i7 to do a big refresh.
Its not very likely that the Dell AIO will have some big sales boost between now and the fall.
Quote:
Originally Posted by backtomac
The next update for the iMac is now likely in the fall when Intel release the 32nm Arrandale cpus. This will likely be a nice improvement.
But its important now to recognize that Apple aren't the only game in town for AIO machines. Dell are willing to look at desk top cpus for their machines and it's likely that if the current trends continue that the Dell AIOs will be the most powerful on the market. While the iMac has a dual core, 4 thread cpu the Dell could easily have a quad core, 8 thread cpu. It may give the Mac Pros a run for their money.
Perhaps that will impact sales of iMacs, perhaps it won't. The debate about which AIO is the best though won't be a one way discussion. The Dell machines will be competitive if not better in certain respects.
.... The low TDP desktop chips aren't much better than the mobile chips Apple uses now.
Sure they would if you believe in GC and is a 2.8 ghz quad core cpu going to be that much slower than a 3.0 ghz dual core cpu in applications that aren't able to take advantage of 4 cores?
People want to espouse the virtues of Open Cl and how much better the Macs will be when comes with SL and yet want to ignore the benefits that GC may bring.
Apple may be waiting for the Lynnfield or Clarksfield Nehalems for iMacs. Although the 95w cited for the Lynnfield TDP is on the high side. But I wonder if that can be mitigated because the entire memory controller and PCI-E controller will be included in that figure.
The Clarksfield cpus are 45 watt TDP.
They would make an ideal cpu for the iMac. 4 Cores and 8 threads.
But will Apple use them with the low end Mac Pro having only a single quad core cpu? Somehow I doubt it. Especially with Arrandale coming along in a few months. That will give the iMac a nice performance boost and not encroach on the Mac Pro's market.
Apple may be waiting for the Lynnfield or Clarksfield Nehalems for iMacs. Although the 95w cited for the Lynnfield TDP is on the high side. But I wonder if that can be mitigated because the entire memory controller and PCI-E controller will be included in that figure.
Hah, they'll wait for the mobile chips. The old G5's they used had, from what I remember, a TDP of 65 watts, and even with the bigger case, and better cooling required, it ran noisy and hot.
Sure they would if you believe in GC and is a 2.8 ghz quad core cpu going to be that much slower than a 3.0 ghz dual core cpu in applications that aren't able to take advantage of 4 cores?
People want to espouse the virtues of Open Cl and how much better the Macs will be when comes with SL and yet want to ignore the benefits that GC may bring.
I'm not ignoring anything. I'm saying that for now, its not a good choice.
They would make an ideal cpu for the iMac. 4 Cores and 8 threads.
But will Apple use them with the low end Mac Pro having only a single quad core cpu? Somehow I doubt it. Especially with Arrandale coming along in a few months. That will give the iMac a nice performance boost and not encroach on the Mac Pro's market.
Comments
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.
Profound impact on OS X and Apple Apps? Yes.
Profound impact on OS X 3rd party Apps? Depends on the developer.
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.
.
The low power desk top penryn cpus and nehalem i7 cpus are under $400.
iMacs aren't that inexpensive. Hell they're $1100- over $2000.
It's not the cpu that makes the iMac as expensive as it is.
The low power desk top penryn cpus and nehalem i7 cpus are under $400.
iMacs aren't that inexpensive. Hell they're $1100- over $2000.
It's not the cpu that makes the iMac as expensive as it is.
When I was admiring my iMac the other day while setting it up, I couldn't help but wonder how much better and cheaper it could have been if they had just made it a cm thicker. It would have taken a bigger CPU cooler, desktop CPUs and chipsets, etc.
From a strategic business stand point. To introduce a new desktop in the middle of this severe recession when desktop sales are projected to be down 31% year over year would not be the most prudent plan.
A much better plan is to wait until we've come towards the end of the recession when money begins to flow. Introduce a radical new desktop to meet the money and pent up demand for new machines.
The low power desk top penryn cpus and nehalem i7 cpus are under $400.
iMacs aren't that inexpensive. Hell they're $1100- over $2000.
It's not the cpu that makes the iMac as expensive as it is.
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.
I wouldn't use the word "profound".
But we already have good evidence that Quartz has made a big difference in some areas. If you use an old graphics card on a G4 machine that wasn't programmable, such as one before the 9800 ATI Pro board, you would find many slowdowns, and the lack of graphical niceties that Quartz made possible. So nice, that MS copied the idea for themselves. Open CL relies on the fact that the new boards aren't just designed for game programmers to program some functions, but are designed to be a much more general purpose computer in its own right, making a significant speedup possible for many tasks.
GC is also a breakthrough, assuming that it works well.
While you're right that we won't know how much we'll get from these OS features, the fact that Open CL has been accepted as a standard by just about everyone except MS, shows that there are a lot of companies out there that consider this to be significant.
It's assumed that some programs will get some boost from GC right away, if they're properly threaded, but that a much greater boost will come from programs tweaked to work with GC, so that might take more time.
I suspect though, that companies are already playing with it in the beta's, and that they will be able to have something ready by the end of the year, at the latest.
Nope, quad core wouldn't help this situation. iPhoto cannot take advantage of four cores. A 2.66GHz quad core would not be able to process those faces any faster. Faster processors would only help that situation.
TenoBell this really isn't true.
Any task that can be broken up into chunks that aren't predicated on the results of other pieces of data that may precede or follow them are ideal candidates for parallel processing.
Say you have an iPhoto library as Outsider does and you want to rip through the processing of the faces. Since each individual photo is processed with no input from any other photo it would be a great opportunity to run such a task on a quad core.
Sadly video, as you know, is more difficult to parallel processes because encoders always have to know what frames are coming before and after for efficient encoding and correct motion compensation and yadda yadda yadda.
I think we're just not there yet. Quad Core cpu are becoming mainstream and even though Apple has been shipping SMP systems for years there was never a real thrust into multi-core processing.
It'll be interesting to see what developers "get it" and which struggle. Going forward it's all about analyzing code and finding bits and pieces that can be parallel processed.
The low power desk top penryn cpus and nehalem i7 cpus are under $400.
iMacs aren't that inexpensive. Hell they're $1100- over $2000.
It's not the cpu that makes the iMac as expensive as it is.
It's not just the cost of the chip, but that the iMac would have to be completely redesigned for several reasons. Bigger power supply, more cooling, possible repositioning of the parts, etc.
One of the biggest is that the machines are designed around the low power draw, and heat output of the mobile chips. Using a current i7 would be a great choice to replace another desktop chip, but for an iMac, it wouldn't work. The current iMacs, even the 3.06 GHz models with the big HDDs and the best graphics chip, are totally silent, and pretty cool. I can personally attest to that.
The old G5 machines, even though they were bigger, and heavier, were hotter, and noisier as well.
I don't think Apple wants to go back to that. Too many of these machines are in the living room these days.
The CPU is generally the most expensive single part in the machine. Apple has never used desktop Intel chips in the iMac, I'm not sure why you would expect them to ever begin.
.
Because as the manufacturing process has shrunk, desk top cpus now are close in TDP to mobile cpus.
These Low Power Desk top cpus have but one purpose, to go into AIO form factors. Please look at the review of them at Anand. They don't make sense otherwise.
If Apple were to ever adopt low power desk top cpus for the iMac it would potentially make them cheaper and more powerful. What's not to like?
Do I think Apple will ever adopt these in the iMac,... NO. It's obvious that the iMac is married to mobile cpus and that's not going to ever change. The next update for the iMac is now likely in the fall when Intel release the 32nm Arrandale cpus. This will likely be a nice improvement.
But its important now to recognize that Apple aren't the only game in town for AIO machines. Dell are willing to look at desk top cpus for their machines and it's likely that if the current trends continue that the Dell AIOs will be the most powerful on the market. While the iMac has a dual core, 4 thread cpu the Dell could easily have a quad core, 8 thread cpu. It may give the Mac Pros a run for their money.
Perhaps that will impact sales of iMacs, perhaps it won't. The debate about which AIO is the best though won't be a one way discussion. The Dell machines will be competitive if not better in certain respects.
TenoBell this really isn't true.
Any task that can be broken up into chunks that aren't predicated on the results of other pieces of data that may precede or follow them are ideal candidates for parallel processing.
Say you have an iPhoto library as Outsider does and you want to rip through the processing of the faces. Since each individual photo is processed with no input from any other photo it would be a great opportunity to run such a task on a quad core.
It's not just the cost of the chip, but that the iMac would have to be completely redesigned for several reasons. Bigger power supply, more cooling, possible repositioning of the parts, etc.
One of the biggest is that the machines are designed around the low power draw, and heat output of the mobile chips. Using a current i7 would be a great choice to replace another desktop chip, but for an iMac, it wouldn't work. The current iMacs, even the 3.06 GHz models with the big HDDs and the best graphics chip, are totally silent, and pretty cool. I can personally attest to that.
The old G5 machines, even though they were bigger, and heavier, were hotter, and noisier as well.
I don't think Apple wants to go back to that. Too many of these machines are in the living room these days.
I recognize that a Nehalem cpu isn't practical for the iMac.
The low power desktop cpus on the other hand....
TenoBell this really isn't true.
Any task that can be broken up into chunks that aren't predicated on the results of other pieces of data that may precede or follow them are ideal candidates for parallel processing.
Say you have an iPhoto library as Outsider does and you want to rip through the processing of the faces. Since each individual photo is processed with no input from any other photo it would be a great opportunity to run such a task on a quad core.
Sadly video, as you know, is more difficult to parallel processes because encoders always have to know what frames are coming before and after for efficient encoding and correct motion compensation and yadda yadda yadda.
I think we're just not there yet. Quad Core cpu are becoming mainstream and even though Apple has been shipping SMP systems for years there was never a real thrust into multi-core processing.
It'll be interesting to see what developers "get it" and which struggle. Going forward it's all about analyzing code and finding bits and pieces that can be parallel processed.
That's nice, except that iPhoto can't do it. That doesn't mean that Apple won't rewrite it, but for now, it can't.
But, as with all 2 core capable programs, it will get a bit faster on a four core machine simply because the OS will don much of its work on another core, leaving more cycles for the program itself. We see that with the other major 2 core limited program (though there are some ways around this at times) Photoshop. It works about 15% faster on a four core machine.
Because as the manufacturing process has shrunk, desk top cpus now are close in TDP to mobile cpus.
These Low Power Desk top cpus have but one purpose, to go into AIO form factors. Please look at the review of them at Anand. They don't make sense otherwise.
If Apple were to ever adopt low power desk top cpus for the iMac it would potentially make them cheaper and more powerful. What's not to like?
Do I think Apple will ever adopt these in the iMac,... NO. It's obvious that the iMac is married to mobile cpus and that's not going to ever change. The next update for the iMac is now likely in the fall when Intel release the 32nm Arrandale cpus. This will likely be a nice improvement.
But its important now to recognize that Apple aren't the only game in town for AIO machines. Dell are willing to look at desk top cpus for their machines and it's likely that if the current trends continue that the Dell AIOs will be the most powerful on the market. While the iMac has a dual core, 4 thread cpu the Dell could easily have a quad core, 8 thread cpu. It may give the Mac Pros a run for their money.
Perhaps that will impact sales of iMacs, perhaps it won't. The debate about which AIO is the best though won't be a one way discussion. The Dell machines will be competitive if not better in certain respects.
There is still a big difference. The low TDP desktop chips aren't much better than the mobile chips Apple uses now. An i7 chip uses a LOT of power. So much power that it isn't even a remote dream, aside from the possible cost of the chips currently.
That's the only chip that would give an immediate large boost to the iMac overall.
The power use for the 920 through the 975? 130 watts. Yes, that's right 130 watts.
The new Xeons only use 80 or 95 watts. It would be easier using one of them.
And this is why the foolishness some people here about having an i7 iMac should stop. It's an impossible dream until the mobile versions come out. I know you're not looking for that right now, but too many here are.
Screw the Dells, they really don't compete with the iMac.
I recognize that a Nehalem cpu isn't practical for the iMac.
The low power desktop cpus on the other hand....
I just did that with your last post.
Its not very likely that the Dell AIO will have some big sales boost between now and the fall.
The next update for the iMac is now likely in the fall when Intel release the 32nm Arrandale cpus. This will likely be a nice improvement.
But its important now to recognize that Apple aren't the only game in town for AIO machines. Dell are willing to look at desk top cpus for their machines and it's likely that if the current trends continue that the Dell AIOs will be the most powerful on the market. While the iMac has a dual core, 4 thread cpu the Dell could easily have a quad core, 8 thread cpu. It may give the Mac Pros a run for their money.
Perhaps that will impact sales of iMacs, perhaps it won't. The debate about which AIO is the best though won't be a one way discussion. The Dell machines will be competitive if not better in certain respects.
.... The low TDP desktop chips aren't much better than the mobile chips Apple uses now.
Sure they would if you believe in GC and is a 2.8 ghz quad core cpu going to be that much slower than a 3.0 ghz dual core cpu in applications that aren't able to take advantage of 4 cores?
People want to espouse the virtues of Open Cl and how much better the Macs will be when comes with SL and yet want to ignore the benefits that GC may bring.
Apple may be waiting for the Lynnfield or Clarksfield Nehalems for iMacs. Although the 95w cited for the Lynnfield TDP is on the high side. But I wonder if that can be mitigated because the entire memory controller and PCI-E controller will be included in that figure.
The Clarksfield cpus are 45 watt TDP.
They would make an ideal cpu for the iMac. 4 Cores and 8 threads.
But will Apple use them with the low end Mac Pro having only a single quad core cpu? Somehow I doubt it. Especially with Arrandale coming along in a few months. That will give the iMac a nice performance boost and not encroach on the Mac Pro's market.
Apple may be waiting for the Lynnfield or Clarksfield Nehalems for iMacs. Although the 95w cited for the Lynnfield TDP is on the high side. But I wonder if that can be mitigated because the entire memory controller and PCI-E controller will be included in that figure.
Hah, they'll wait for the mobile chips. The old G5's they used had, from what I remember, a TDP of 65 watts, and even with the bigger case, and better cooling required, it ran noisy and hot.
Sure they would if you believe in GC and is a 2.8 ghz quad core cpu going to be that much slower than a 3.0 ghz dual core cpu in applications that aren't able to take advantage of 4 cores?
People want to espouse the virtues of Open Cl and how much better the Macs will be when comes with SL and yet want to ignore the benefits that GC may bring.
I'm not ignoring anything. I'm saying that for now, its not a good choice.
The Clarksfield cpus are 45 watt TDP.
They would make an ideal cpu for the iMac. 4 Cores and 8 threads.
But will Apple use them with the low end Mac Pro having only a single quad core cpu? Somehow I doubt it. Especially with Arrandale coming along in a few months. That will give the iMac a nice performance boost and not encroach on the Mac Pro's market.
It's possible, the line-up right now:
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets...spx?i=3513&p=5