- there's nothing much to gain in staying with mobile dual-core cpus for all the iMacs,
- going mobile quad-core will increase the costs but not much the performances (quad 2.26 vs dual 3.06 for the same price?)
- moving to 65W desktop cpus would increase the overall performances and would generate some cost savings (especially in the high-end) that would allow some other enhancements (like LED-BL displays) without increasing the price. But, a new cooling system may be required and that's what the rumor is about.
nvidia is also offering desktop versions of its single chip chipset in 9300 & 9400 flavors that support Intel's quad-core desktop cpus...
65W for the processor shouldn't really be that much of an issue anyhow. If Apple makes the back alu -> better heat dissipation
LED screen -> less power drain -> less heat, CCFL screens can get pretty warm
I don't know about memory and chipsets, I don't know if the necessary chipsets and/or memory would drain more heat but I don't see this as a real isue. What was the tdp of the original iMac G5's? Those had to fit in a 17 inch all-plastic enclosure, much less advantegeous than the current 20 inch alu.
65W for the processor shouldn't really be that much of an issue anyhow. If Apple makes the back alu -> better heat dissipation
LED screen -> less power drain -> less heat, CCFL screens can get pretty warm
I don't know about memory and chipsets, I don't know if the necessary chipsets and/or memory would drain more heat but I don't see this as a real isue. What was the tdp of the original iMac G5's? Those had to fit in a 17 inch all-plastic enclosure, much less advantegeous than the current 20 inch alu.
Plus the current iMac's 2600 Pro and 8800 GS graphics chips have a tdp of 45w and 105w respectively. If they go with the mobile versions of the 9600M and 9800M then they can make a cooler design.
A quad-core "Penryn" iMac would obviously be welcomed, but for gods sake PC's already have quad-core Nehalems.. The iMacs will have old technology and they aren't even out yet!
I'm a little late getting back into this thread but if Apple does indeed go with an iMac update with what Intel has reasonably available for it right now we are in a world of hurt. The problem of course is that big gap in performance vs the Mac Pro.
It is a reality that Intel doesn't have the optimal solution available for the iMac for a January rev. So what I'm expecting to see is very little if anything changed on the iMac except fora processor bump to carry Apple through until they can design in suitable i7 hardware.
It is one thing to rev the Mini as it is obviously far behind the rest of the lineup and there is a good selection of hardware available to give it a decent boost. This however would round out the low end and Apple would have zip available for the mid range. This is why I see a Mini update in January as a certainty.
No, not performance gap between the iMac and the MP, but between the iMac and PC competition. The iMac and MP aren't really competing. Apple really only has two choices, well three: go 3.2/3.33 GHz dual-core, go 2.66 GHz quad-core, or radical design for the iMac. The MP will take care of itself as they can put a 2-socket i7 system in it, but the iMac is at a huge performance disadvantage right now to quad PC systems, and it's design advantages isn't enough to make up for it.
Every thing you say above is valid to an extent but for anybody in the Mac fold already the point remains that the gap between the iMac and the Mac Pro just gets wider and wider. The whole point revolves around the fact that hte Mac Pro is an easy upgrade to i7 when the right chip set combinations come out. The feasibility of putting i7 in the iMac is a bigger question and a valid one in many minds. If Apple decides the engineering effort isn't worth it then we will not see the type of performance increase that is really needed to keep any of the iMacs in the mid range area of performance.
Quote:
Apple's desktop strategy doesn't really offer a "range" per se. It's really a high-end specialty consumer desktop (AIO form factor), a workstation specifically targeted towards audio/video/graphics professionals, and an upsell machine in the form of the Mac mini.
I constantly see the Mini referred to as an upsell machine and frankly don't think that is valid at all. Each time a freshly revved machine comes out it is a good value for the money. It is a machine that many have adopted as their home machine, even a few businesses have been known to standardize around the Mini. If nothing else it has been a stable platform for Apple and the industry types that use it.
Quote:
If you want to go all Apple, a mini+Apple monitor has a horrible price/performance, and the iMac is basically you're only choice for a desktop. Heck, a Mac mini + 3rd part monitor ain't great, but I digress. It's really 3 specialty computers that Apple has in it's lineup.
Well we could discuss that all day. The point is they are a good value at introduction and remain a stable platform for long periods of time. Many of Apples customers like that!
Is it an ideal machine for the consumer looking for something cheap. Certainly not. It is however a good machine for somebody that wants a bit of quality, flexibility and low cost Apple platform. Not to mention that the Mini can effectively operate with little power which is a quality all on its own.
Quote:
They don't play the margins game by going with a simple box + monitor, and they always go the route of selling something close in price/perf and make up for the rest in design.
So, Apple is sticking with the iMac AIO design and putting a CPU/GPU in that'll be a little more expensive than the competition, whether it's high GHz dual-core, quad-core, or radical design, who knows. I doubt radical design.
If the xMac happens, I predict the iMac will die. I don't think those two can live in harmony in Apple's budget.
I doubt the iMac will die anytime soon as it suits a particular customer base very well. But it will quickly end up with a performance problem relative to the Mac Pro. Peopel expect the Mac Pro to be fast, that is what they are paying for. What they won't be happy with is a huge gap between the iMac and the Pro when the markets are ful of PC hardware that could easily fill the role of a midrange machine.
This is why I would not be surprised to see at least one iMac with an i7 processor. If not then maybe XMac is coming after all.
One thing that has to be dealt with if you heat load goes up on a device is the heat removal system. This is commonly refereed to as a CPU cooler, or by the electronically minds a heat sink. At least back in the day we refereed to them as heat sinks.
What prompted this discussion is the use of carbon fiber in heat removal systems. In this case the heat was being removed from gun barrels but the point is it may be possible for Apple to use some new tech here that may be far more efficient at pulling heat away from the processor than copper or aluminum. A system that is solid sate as opposed to fluid.
So I'm wondering has anybody heard about carbon fiber being used in the heat sink industry? I would imagine this would be a composite type of heat sink, which would be dramatically different than the standard aluminum job.
If a heat sink can be developed that transfers heat dramatically faster than cooper over a wide area then Apple can stay with a low velocity air stream. This would manage the noise and considering the width of the iMacs there would be plenty of space for a wide heat sink. Just thinking here.
Plus the current iMac's 2600 Pro and 8800 GS graphics chips have a tdp of 45w and 105w respectively. If they go with the mobile versions of the 9600M and 9800M then they can make a cooler design.
Sorry to revive this thread, but I had to address this point. The 8800 GS GPU in the iMac is not a real 8800 GS (the 8800 GS has only 384MB of RAM), its a rebranded 8800M GTS GPU with a TDP of 35W. According to this.
Also the power supply of the 20" iMac is only 200W (280W for the 24" iMac) so unless Apple wants to change this, they have to work within a defined power envelop and that probably means still using mobile (low TDP) GPUs even if the rest of the platform is "desktop".
As far a the Apple's desktop range is concern, my wish for 2009 would be something like that:
Sorry to revive this thread, but I had to address this point. The 8800 GS GPU in the iMac is not a real 8800 GS (the 8800 GS has only 384MB of RAM), its a rebranded 8800M GTS GPU with a TDP of 35W. According to this.
Interesting.
Also, Nvidia released some new mobile GPUs, the GeForce GT 130M in particular is about 17% faster than the 9600M.
I'm going to buy an iMac sometime in the next few months. Are we likely to see an update to the iMac lineup say before the end of April and if so is it likely that the Australian price would increase with the new models considering how much the exchange rate tanked shortly after the ipod announcements in September of last year.
Come to think of it is there any website that tracks the international cost and release dates of imac/ipod models over time?
Comments
All this rumor really means, if true, is that the iMac is getting an internal redesign. Speculating on what form that will take is impossible.
Apparently it's easier to speculate on it than you think. Whether or not any of it is correct is a different matter.
According to Intel's specs, all mobile quad cores have a TDP of 45W (not 35 nor anything else). Models are:
Q9000 2.00GHz 6MB cache FSB1066 45W $348 *new Dec. 28
Q9100 2.26GHz 12MB cache FSB1066 45W $851
QX9300 2.53GHz 12MB cache FSB1066 45W $1,038
The desktop 65W offerings are (will be on Jan. 18):
Q8200s 2.33GHz 4MB cache FSB1333 65W $245
Q9400s 2.66GHz 6MB cache FSB1333 65W $320
Q9550s 2.83GHz 12MB cache FSB1333 65W $369
The mobile dual-core parts (in the same price range) are the following:
P8700 2.53GHz 3MB cache FSB1066 25W $241 *new Dec. 28
T9550 2.66GHz 6MB cache FSB1066 35W $316 *new Dec. 28
P9600 2.66GHz 6MB cache FSB1066 25W $348 *new Dec. 28
T9800 2.93GHz 6MB cache FSB1066 35W $530 *new Dec. 28
X9100 3.06GHz 6MB cache FSB1066 45W $851
IMO,
- there's nothing much to gain in staying with mobile dual-core cpus for all the iMacs,
- going mobile quad-core will increase the costs but not much the performances (quad 2.26 vs dual 3.06 for the same price?)
- moving to 65W desktop cpus would increase the overall performances and would generate some cost savings (especially in the high-end) that would allow some other enhancements (like LED-BL displays) without increasing the price. But, a new cooling system may be required and that's what the rumor is about.
nvidia is also offering desktop versions of its single chip chipset in 9300 & 9400 flavors that support Intel's quad-core desktop cpus...
65W for the processor shouldn't really be that much of an issue anyhow. If Apple makes the back alu -> better heat dissipation
LED screen -> less power drain -> less heat, CCFL screens can get pretty warm
I don't know about memory and chipsets, I don't know if the necessary chipsets and/or memory would drain more heat but I don't see this as a real isue. What was the tdp of the original iMac G5's? Those had to fit in a 17 inch all-plastic enclosure, much less advantegeous than the current 20 inch alu.
65W for the processor shouldn't really be that much of an issue anyhow. If Apple makes the back alu -> better heat dissipation
LED screen -> less power drain -> less heat, CCFL screens can get pretty warm
I don't know about memory and chipsets, I don't know if the necessary chipsets and/or memory would drain more heat but I don't see this as a real isue. What was the tdp of the original iMac G5's? Those had to fit in a 17 inch all-plastic enclosure, much less advantegeous than the current 20 inch alu.
Plus the current iMac's 2600 Pro and 8800 GS graphics chips have a tdp of 45w and 105w respectively. If they go with the mobile versions of the 9600M and 9800M then they can make a cooler design.
A quad-core "Penryn" iMac would obviously be welcomed, but for gods sake PC's already have quad-core Nehalems.. The iMacs will have old technology and they aren't even out yet!
I'm a little late getting back into this thread but if Apple does indeed go with an iMac update with what Intel has reasonably available for it right now we are in a world of hurt. The problem of course is that big gap in performance vs the Mac Pro.
It is a reality that Intel doesn't have the optimal solution available for the iMac for a January rev. So what I'm expecting to see is very little if anything changed on the iMac except fora processor bump to carry Apple through until they can design in suitable i7 hardware.
It is one thing to rev the Mini as it is obviously far behind the rest of the lineup and there is a good selection of hardware available to give it a decent boost. This however would round out the low end and Apple would have zip available for the mid range. This is why I see a Mini update in January as a certainty.
Dave
No, not performance gap between the iMac and the MP, but between the iMac and PC competition. The iMac and MP aren't really competing. Apple really only has two choices, well three: go 3.2/3.33 GHz dual-core, go 2.66 GHz quad-core, or radical design for the iMac. The MP will take care of itself as they can put a 2-socket i7 system in it, but the iMac is at a huge performance disadvantage right now to quad PC systems, and it's design advantages isn't enough to make up for it.
Every thing you say above is valid to an extent but for anybody in the Mac fold already the point remains that the gap between the iMac and the Mac Pro just gets wider and wider. The whole point revolves around the fact that hte Mac Pro is an easy upgrade to i7 when the right chip set combinations come out. The feasibility of putting i7 in the iMac is a bigger question and a valid one in many minds. If Apple decides the engineering effort isn't worth it then we will not see the type of performance increase that is really needed to keep any of the iMacs in the mid range area of performance.
Apple's desktop strategy doesn't really offer a "range" per se. It's really a high-end specialty consumer desktop (AIO form factor), a workstation specifically targeted towards audio/video/graphics professionals, and an upsell machine in the form of the Mac mini.
I constantly see the Mini referred to as an upsell machine and frankly don't think that is valid at all. Each time a freshly revved machine comes out it is a good value for the money. It is a machine that many have adopted as their home machine, even a few businesses have been known to standardize around the Mini. If nothing else it has been a stable platform for Apple and the industry types that use it.
If you want to go all Apple, a mini+Apple monitor has a horrible price/performance, and the iMac is basically you're only choice for a desktop. Heck, a Mac mini + 3rd part monitor ain't great, but I digress. It's really 3 specialty computers that Apple has in it's lineup.
Well we could discuss that all day. The point is they are a good value at introduction and remain a stable platform for long periods of time. Many of Apples customers like that!
Is it an ideal machine for the consumer looking for something cheap. Certainly not. It is however a good machine for somebody that wants a bit of quality, flexibility and low cost Apple platform. Not to mention that the Mini can effectively operate with little power which is a quality all on its own.
They don't play the margins game by going with a simple box + monitor, and they always go the route of selling something close in price/perf and make up for the rest in design.
So, Apple is sticking with the iMac AIO design and putting a CPU/GPU in that'll be a little more expensive than the competition, whether it's high GHz dual-core, quad-core, or radical design, who knows. I doubt radical design.
If the xMac happens, I predict the iMac will die. I don't think those two can live in harmony in Apple's budget.
I doubt the iMac will die anytime soon as it suits a particular customer base very well. But it will quickly end up with a performance problem relative to the Mac Pro. Peopel expect the Mac Pro to be fast, that is what they are paying for. What they won't be happy with is a huge gap between the iMac and the Pro when the markets are ful of PC hardware that could easily fill the role of a midrange machine.
This is why I would not be surprised to see at least one iMac with an i7 processor. If not then maybe XMac is coming after all.
Dave
What prompted this discussion is the use of carbon fiber in heat removal systems. In this case the heat was being removed from gun barrels but the point is it may be possible for Apple to use some new tech here that may be far more efficient at pulling heat away from the processor than copper or aluminum. A system that is solid sate as opposed to fluid.
So I'm wondering has anybody heard about carbon fiber being used in the heat sink industry? I would imagine this would be a composite type of heat sink, which would be dramatically different than the standard aluminum job.
If a heat sink can be developed that transfers heat dramatically faster than cooper over a wide area then Apple can stay with a low velocity air stream. This would manage the noise and considering the width of the iMacs there would be plenty of space for a wide heat sink. Just thinking here.
Dave
Apparently it's easier to speculate on it than you think. Whether or not any of it is correct is a different matter.
I should have said "impossible to predict." Obviously, speculation is all we got.
Plus the current iMac's 2600 Pro and 8800 GS graphics chips have a tdp of 45w and 105w respectively. If they go with the mobile versions of the 9600M and 9800M then they can make a cooler design.
Sorry to revive this thread, but I had to address this point. The 8800 GS GPU in the iMac is not a real 8800 GS (the 8800 GS has only 384MB of RAM), its a rebranded 8800M GTS GPU with a TDP of 35W. According to this.
Also the power supply of the 20" iMac is only 200W (280W for the 24" iMac) so unless Apple wants to change this, they have to work within a defined power envelop and that probably means still using mobile (low TDP) GPUs even if the rest of the platform is "desktop".
As far a the Apple's desktop range is concern, my wish for 2009 would be something like that:
- Mac mini dual-core ? $999
- iMac quad-core ? $1999
- Mac Pro quad-core (8 threads) ? $2499
- Mac Pro eight-cores (16 threads) ? $2499
Have a nice year, everybody.
Sorry to revive this thread, but I had to address this point. The 8800 GS GPU in the iMac is not a real 8800 GS (the 8800 GS has only 384MB of RAM), its a rebranded 8800M GTS GPU with a TDP of 35W. According to this.
Interesting.
Also, Nvidia released some new mobile GPUs, the GeForce GT 130M in particular is about 17% faster than the 9600M.
Come to think of it is there any website that tracks the international cost and release dates of imac/ipod models over time?