An Intel Quad in iMac soon?
I am turning to the dark side (or enlightened side, however you look at it) and am switching from a PC to a Mac, iMac specifically. Unless I overlooked it, I have not seen a thread on this topic, so... A co-worker of mine claimed that iMacs in September?ish will ship with one of Intel?s quad cores. Anyone know if that is true?
I thank you in advance for your input.
I thank you in advance for your input.
Comments
I am turning to the dark side (or enlightened side, however you look at it) and am switching from a PC to a Mac, iMac specifically. Unless I overlooked it, I have not seen a thread on this topic, so... A co-worker of mine claimed that iMacs in September?ish will ship with one of Intel?s quad cores. Anyone know if that is true?
I thank you in advance for your input.
You haven't said who your co-worker is, is it Steve Jobs? If not, then your co-worker probably knows less than you do, if possible.
You haven't said who your co-worker is, is it Steve Jobs? If not, then your co-worker probably knows less than you do, if possible.
So to become a Mac person do I have to be an prick too?
So to become a Mac person do I have to be an prick too?
Of course not! Perhaps a better way of stating the situation would be that predicting future Apple hardware is always a dicey proposition. I would not assume that what your co-worker told you has strong merit. Obviously there's a chance he's right but who knows?
So to become a Mac person do I have to be an prick too?
Do you really think that your co-worker has all of this inside info that escapes everyone else? Look up "gullible".
Of course not! Perhaps a better way of stating the situation would be that predicting future Apple hardware is always a dicey proposition. I would not assume that what your co-worker told you has strong merit. Obviously there's a chance he's right but who knows?
Thank you Hudson, I really appreciate your input.
Of course not! Perhaps a better way of stating the situation would be that predicting future Apple hardware is always a dicey proposition. I would not assume that what your co-worker told you has strong merit. Obviously there's a chance he's right but who knows?
Only those that believe in WAGs believe everything they hear.
Do you really think that your co-worker has all of this inside info that escapes everyone else? Look up "gullible".
And I would know that it "escapes everyone else" because? Like I said before, I am not up to speed with the Mac world. Gullible no, ignorant to this topic.. probably so. (you will probably have to look up ignorant for an accurate definition)
And I would know that it "escapes everyone else" because? Like I said before, I am not up to speed with the Mac world. Gullible no, ignorant to this topic.. probably so. (you will probably have to look up ignorant for an accurate definition)
Look up "naive" too.
What these companies are going to do is proprietary information, until they decide otherwise. Try finding out ANY particulars on a yet to be released camera. It will be the same story as the Macs, if they wanted you to know, they would tell you. Some folks know, but they've all signed NDAs, so that are going to tell you either.
Letting info out ahead of time gives the competition an unnecessary advantage. IOW, basic good business.
Look up "naive" too.
What these companies are going to do is proprietary information, until they decide otherwise. Try finding out ANY particulars on a yet to be released camera. It will be the same story as the Macs, if they wanted you to know, they would tell you. Some folks know, but they've all signed NDAs, so that are going to tell you either.
Letting info out ahead of time gives the competition an unnecessary advantage. IOW, basic good business.
Good information. Thank you. Guess waiting isn't worth it.
BTW, naive is not a good descriptor either, not from a "defending myself" stand point but from a true defination.
Good information. Thank you. Guess waiting isn't worth it.
BTW, naive is not a good descriptor either, not from a "defending myself" stand point but from a true defination.
Waiting for a quad core iMac would be your choice, but it could be a long wait. In the meantime, I'm using a new iMac, instead of worrying about what may, or may not, be coming, and at what particular time. The main problem with that is that there's always something new in the wings, and if you keep waiting for it, then you never actually have anything to use. OTOH, I will have been using a modern machine all of that time.
I'm sure that many would love a quad core iMac, but maybe not as many as you think. The current iMac 24" model does photo editing with PS CS 3, Aperture 2, and Nikon Capture NX, as fast as I can hit the keys, so I don't need more speed. However, I'm not a gamer, and don't do any video work, both of which would benefit more from a quad machine.
http://www.macrumors.com/2008/03/17/...or-in-q3-2008/
They might use them as there's a possibility they cost the same as the 3GHz dual-core chips in the iMac. They might not use them for the reason that real world benchmarks show that in a lot of cases, a quad 2.53GHz chip won't be significantly faster than a dual 3GHz chip.
But if it runs cooler and Snow Leopard shows more significant gains with better use of multi-core chips then there's a chance they could use them. There's usually a chance Apple could do anything though such as update the Mac Mini more often but they don't always take it for whatever reason.
I am turning to the dark side (or enlightened side, however you look at it) and am switching from a PC to a Mac, iMac specifically. Unless I overlooked it, I have not seen a thread on this topic, so... A co-worker of mine claimed that iMacs in September?ish will ship with one of Intel?s quad cores. Anyone know if that is true?
I thank you in advance for your input.
It's possible. There are two quad-core mobile processors on Intel's roadmap that the next iMac revision will be able to use. There's no telling if Apple will offer them or not. If they do, it will probably be as options and not standard.
I am turning to the dark side (or enlightened side, however you look at it) and am switching from a PC to a Mac, iMac specifically.
Great to hear it and welcome.
'm sure that many would love a quad core iMac,
... However, I'm not a gamer, and don't do any video work, both of which would benefit more from a quad machine.
As of yet, gamers do not really benefit from quads. There have been rumors of this or that upcoming game (Supcom, Crysis, Alan Wake come to mind) liking >2 cores for ages now, and not a single one that is out actually turned out that way. Video hardware remains the bottleneck. I just built a gaming PC with 8800GTS graphics, and my choice of processor was the rock bottom dualcore Penryn, costing just half of the video card's price. I haven't even overclocked it and it's perfectly fine.
As things stand, I think in the vast majority of cases it would not be worth it to order a quad in an iMac even if they offered one. Either dualcore is enough for you (90+% of users), or your workloads are seriously parallelizable and large, in which case the 2.8 octocore Mac Pro makes sense and has by far the best bang for buck in the current lineup.
I'll take an iMac with a 3.0 ghz dual core Nehalem cpu with hyperthreading.
I think that is going to be worth waiting for. Come on Intel, bring it on!
I'm holding out for Nehalem.
I'll take an iMac with a 3.0 ghz dual core Nehalem cpu with hyperthreading.
I think that is going to be worth waiting for. Come on Intel, bring it on!
Yes, but it may take a lot of time. Look, it's very big transmutation or modification (sorry I'm not English) and in 2008 will be relese only one chip (bloomfield with 1x QPI), it's high-end desktop, I love it, it's cool, but Apple uses mobile chips ;(
http://members.shaw.ca/virtualrain/n...alem-chart.png
Will Apple use clarksfield (release Q2 2009)? It has integrated GPU, so I hope not!
It's new architecture with memory controller (AMD has it since 2003), with QPI (something like HyperTransport from AMD, FSB is dead), native quad-cores (on one die), very nice, but we can wait confounded long time, man.
So I am going to get 24" iMac with Penryn (mobile Intel Core architecture, Yorkfield is quad-core - two Penryns, not good solution and not increase power)
Macbook, Macbook Pro, AirBook, MacMini, iMacs all dual cores
Mac Pro and Server Octacores uneless you downgrade
I am dreaming of an Xmac, a small tower in the same price range as the iMacs but no screen but room for two HDs and 2-3 cards (Graphics) and then a single quad core
I am turning to the dark side (or enlightened side, however you look at it) and am switching from a PC to a Mac, iMac specifically.
Switching is always good. At least in recent years with XP stagnating and Vista is shambles. I'm not sure why you are going the iMac route, maybe it is the large screen. I say that because I recently entered the Apple fold by purchasing a Mac Book Pro which I've been very pleased with. Portability is something new to me and frankly I'm glad I went this route as I can have my PC wherever I want.
Ignoring that lets say you want a iMac, but one with four cores. The obvious problem of course is that Apple doesn't have such a model on offer. So the question really comes down to can you wait until the next hardware rev when ever that might be?
Unless I overlooked it, I have not seen a thread on this topic, so...
You likely overlooked it. I'm not in buying mode so I haven't even followed such threads. Don't ask why I picked up on this one.
A co-worker of mine claimed that iMacs in September?ish will ship with one of Intel?s quad cores.
As has been pointed out that is pure speculation. There is no way anyone outside a few people at Apple would know for sure. However there are things to consider:
1.
The next rev of OS/X (Snow Leopard) will be much more optimized for multi core systems than it is currently. This straight from the horses mouth. I consider it good form to buy hardware with as many cores as you can reasonably afford. Right now this means four cores in the PC world. Apple, via Mac hardware, simply doesn't have a low cost solution greater that two cores. Given this you have to realize that Apple simply doesn't have a low cost computing platform that could be considered a long term investment.
2.
As mentioned above I consider 4 cores the sweet point for PC hardware if you are buying hardware you expect to keep for a few years. This due to the price points and the reality that software and usage patterns to take advantage of such are quickly developing. It isn't always the single app taking advantage of several cores that make multicore so attractive, but rather to have more than one CPU taxing app running at the same time. Due to this I completely discount any posts about the value of multicore systems that people post that allude to the lack of software. Sure there is a limited amount of software out there that can use four cores right now, that simply isn't part of the equation. It is the ability to run multiple taxing apps at the same time that makes multicore worthwhile.
3.
Intel is certainly going it the direction of making Quad cores available everywhere. Since the iMac uses laptop chip sets right now they simply haven't had the parts to build Quad core iMacs. Thus the delay in the introduction on Apple low end. To get a better idea of how, where and when one needs to tune themselves into Intels release schedules and projections. Apple may be extremely secretive but Intel is a different beast, so speculation can be had that has at least some basis in reality. To an extent any ways, trouble is Apple has a lot of pull as can be demonstrated with their AIR product. So yeah Intel will likely soon have Quad core processors suitable for the iMac, that does not imply Apple using what is publicly documented right now.
Anyone know if that is true?
See the above. It is very likely that the iMac will get such a processor at some point in the future. The question is when in the future.
I thank you in advance for your input.
No problem!
Note: one should buy a PC for business use when needed. For personal use that is another issue altogether, sometimes it can be justifiable to wait. Even if you have a "need" for one right now. The problem of course is that most people don't use their personal computer acquisitions to make money off them. Well that and they may need to keep them for a long time. So for personal use I say it pays to be careful and sometimes it pays to suffer a bit.
For example I went with a MBP as alluded to above. I specifically waited 2 months for the Penryn based models to come out after make the decision to buy at all. It was well worth the wait in my opinion but would have been a stupid thing to do if the PC was needed to make money. What I got out of that wait is a MBP that runs a bit cooler most of the time. The point is two months was worth it to me to wait but eight or so months to wait for the next round of Intel laptops chips was not. Sure the next round of Intel chips will be faster and have other neat features but it is the difference between a couple of months and almost a year.
One last thing when making a decision to buy now or wait try to understand how the software apps and your work flow might operate under the speculated hardware. In other words would the combo of your chosen apps and the work flow you currently make use of benefit greatly from going to quad core hardware. Obviously you are trying to project performance on to hardware that doesn't exist , but if you don't know how or if such hardware would be of benefit them you don't really have a reason to wait.
Confused?
Dave
My next PC will be a quad-core, and even though most apps don't utilize them, a Q9300 is only about $270, about as much as a high-end C2D. And also I figure with quad-core and greater than 4 GB of RAM, I'll be set for another 5 years, Vista and Linux would fly on such a machine.
However, I don't see Apple getting around to it, before the end of the year, unless Intel has got something hidden. Maybe around the time Apple updates the GPUs in the iMacs again.