I agree. They need to upgrade the whole line and continue to differentiate the iMac and Mac Pro by putting more power in the Pro too. I guess at some point though even the lowest configuration is going to be plenty powerful enough for 90% of the buyers. Only video editors, engineers or scientists will have a need for high end super computers.
Pros are the only viable option for any designer, not just vid editors. I know graphic designers who won't touch Photoshop or InDesign without 8GB of memory--one of them I know has to keep all 3 CS apps launched all the time pretty much and with only 4GB her old desktop was paging constantly. The iMac maxes out at 4GB. Plus a lot of creative software, like Adobe's, is fairly well written, and can take advantage of all 8 cores, so the more CPUs/cores the better.
The new Penryn 4 core processors just introduced are actually comparable to the Harpertowns Apple is including in the Mac Pro. The Mac Pro would be faster, but not enough to justify $1200 price difference--and in some cases, the Penryn might edge the Mac Pro due to the Mac Pro's lower speed memory bus. That's probably why Apple is holding back. They just need to bite the bullet and put an i7 into the Mac Pro already--the server Nehalem variants are going to be a long ways away still it looks like.
They just need to bite the bullet and put an i7 into the Mac Pro already--the server Nehalem variants are going to be a long ways away still it looks like.
Can't. The desktop Core I7 stuff is single socket only.
Can't. The desktop Core I7 stuff is single socket only.
True but at least they're faster/cheaper than the Harpertowns. You won't have an 8 core option anymore, but at least you wont be worried about your $1200 computer cannibalizing your $2800 computer. Rumors are that Gainestown and Lynnfield may be delayed by a quarter so the economy woes don't bring Intel's financials down further. If that's true, Mac Pros may be another 6 months off, and if Apple waits until the Mac Pro is updated to release updated iMacs, that would mean 12 months between iMac refreshes.
Of course the i7 is out now, is much faster than Penryn and cheaper than the Harpertown procesors Apple uses in the Pro. Too bad Apple can't use them in any "desktop" they have...
I wouldn't even *think* about number 3 below. Number 1 is good enough to tie you over. Get an external DVD burner, just swap out the hard disk in the MacBook to a 7200rpm and put 2GB RAM there. You will be *surprised* that it is quite a reasonable Intel Mac even driving 24" (just don't go nuts on the graphics side)... Run CS4 instead of CS3, CS4 is not bad, actually.
I'm also really waiting for clear indication on the iMac and Mac Mini front. I'm just saving cash now.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BlueDjinn
I have a 2.0 GHz 20" iMac G5 and a 1.86 GHz MacBook (first generation combo drive).
The iMac is getting quite long in the tooth; I need an Intel machine for decent performance of software (Office '08, Adobe CS3) as well as for running Parallels. I also want a 24" display.
I was planning on replacing the G5 iMac with whatever new 24" iMac they came out with at MacWorld, and was thrown for a loop when they didn't do so. Now I'm in a holding pattern. My options include:
1. Upgrade current MacBook w/larger 3rd-party hard drive & DVD burner, get a 24" LCD, and sell the G5 iMac on eBay.
COST: appx. $300 for upgrades, $300 for LCD, minus $500 for the iMac sale = appx. $100, but with a lot of nervousness about ripping apart the MacBook. Dirt cheap but the system would still be very low-end by MacIntel-era standards.
2. Replace current MacBook with the new $1,000 model + LCD; sell off *both* the iMac and current MacBook.
COST: appx. $1,000 MacBook, $250 AppleCare, $100 for HD upgrade, $300 for LCD = $1,650, minus perhaps $500 each for the two systems = around $650.
3. Say "screw it" and buy the *current* 24" iMac, sell the G5 iMac and keep the current MacBook.
COST: appx. $1,550 (refurb) + $250 AppleCare = $1,800 - $500 for selling off the G5 iMac = around $1,300.
The third option has the ever-present risk that they'll release the iMac upgrade after all a couple of weeks after I buy it, of course.
If Apple is having a hard time shoehorning the Quad into the 20" form factor, could the LG deal be about Apple looking to source a 22" screen to replace it?
I don't see the 20" having quad-core at all. I think if there is a "decision" waiting to be made, it's whether the higher-end 24" iMac will have a quad-core and how to do some more cooling for that.
Also with the Nvidia 9800 S or something going into the 24" higher-end iMac, again, decisions on GPUs and cooling.
I just want 20" LED iMac with Nvidia 9600GT for just over USD$1,000. Is that too much to ask for?
...Apple's iMac is very much behind the competition in terms of spec and power. Core 2 Duo might be enough for email, iPhoto, Safari and Photobooth, but a computer at that price MUST have a quad core system considering what the competition offers. In PC world, quad is the new standard. Apple has a long history of innovation and providing high performance computers, they should go quad on all desktops
I'd really rather the PC world realise GPU power is more important than Quadcores, but the Intel juggernaut outweighs Nvidia + AMD-ATI.
I'm seeing so many "high end" or so-called "gaming" desktops coming out of Dell and HP, but their graphics are fairly crippled, you can't even really play Crysis on the higher settings.
My personal bias is forget the quadcore, give me an ATI 4870 or Nvidia 9800GT. In the next few years I'd rather have more powerful GPUs than more CPU cores.
Badaboomit.com using Nvidia CUDA absolutely destroys the CPU in terms of encoding speed.
A shift in thinking, design, and budgeting, and I would rather have more powerful GPUs if the software development and OpenCL / CUDA can keep up.
But the massive marketing and mindshare in four CPU cores is really making PC systems makers pushing CPU hard and then saying "oh it has Directx10" graphics but only with limp cards like a Nvidia 9300 or 9400 or the weaker ATI's nowhere near even the ATI 3870.
I agree with you 100%. I built one because I switched to a mbp and wasn't using my windows desktop, even though it was still pretty fast, which seemed really wasteful. Getting that thing to be stable is frustrating, though it's a dream once you get it working. The thing is that although Apple's tight integration is really helpful in a LOT of ways, it also seems to be fairly well compatible with a wide range of hardware, when people write the drivers. Driver's aren't necessary with a processor upgrade from what I've seen. As long as it has the same pin pattern as your motherboard, it seems pretty plug and play (can't say if Logic Boards have restrictions that plain jane motherboard don't, since I haven't done that yet). I'm confused as to why it's thought that you'd need to get an Apple approved processor... I'm not definite, but it looks like if it fits, it works. Can't say that if they add new features to it, but it should at least run faster.
On a side note, I think an i7 Mac Pro is the one to go for, and if they can scale more easily, maybe we can see even more cores, and have them be accessible through Snow Leopard.
Core i7 does work with Leopard though it will be somewhat gimped. Benchmarks I have seen are comparable if not a tad slower than a similarly clocked Q9XXX. That is because Leopard doesn't include all of the code to take advantage of the Core i7's new architecture.
Leopard will recognize any Core 2 and prior Intel, but will misidentify a Core i7. Snow Leopard should add full support for Core i7 as well as support for 4870 and maybe even a future 5870/RV870 which I am personally waiting for (40nm process, possibly 512-bit GDDR5).
I do believe it will take some time for folks like Netkas to get Snow Leopard working on PC hardware because Snow Leopard will need all new driver support (fully 64-bit) and it may not be a guarantee that our older parts will work.
True but at least they're faster/cheaper than the Harpertowns. You won't have an 8 core option anymore, but at least you wont be worried about your $1200 computer cannibalizing your $2800 computer. Rumors are that Gainestown and Lynnfield may be delayed by a quarter so the economy woes don't bring Intel's financials down further. If that's true, Mac Pros may be another 6 months off, and if Apple waits until the Mac Pro is updated to release updated iMacs, that would mean 12 months between iMac refreshes.
Of course the i7 is out now, is much faster than Penryn and cheaper than the Harpertown procesors Apple uses in the Pro. Too bad Apple can't use them in any "desktop" they have...
I like the "desktop" comment because it's true that Apple doesn't produce any desktop computers, only a bunch of notebooks and a Xeon based machine that's starting to look really old next to i7's with only half as many cores.
I know Apple doesn't want a repeat of the G3 incident where consumer priced desktops managed to keep up with much more expensive models that used an older chip design, but I think they have to do something. The PC desktop world is already onto its third generation of quad core chips while Apple debates the use of another dual core chip. The graphics chips in Mac desktops are all 2-4 years old too. Don't get me started on "pro" towers with 320GB hard drives, it's enough to make a grown man cry. If Apple gets any further from the leading edge they won't even be on the wing anymore.
Hmmm. Apple has typically held back lower models to prop-up the higher models. iBooks have been stifled to keep Powerbooks appearing to be faster. iMacs have had slower ships to keep PowerMacs the speediest.
The problem with the Mac Pro is it is a PRO machine with a PRO price. But i feel you get better bang for your buck when you buy a top-of-the-line iMac more often than spending the same amount of money (over time) on a Mac Pro.
The iMac isn't cheap, but is still is the best all-in-one machine out there (overall, looks especially).
My iMac is now 3-years old. I really want a 24" 64-bit machine, but if I can wait another year for a quad core that supports 4-8GB of RAM, I will wait.
If Apple play the waiting game to get all 5 lines of computers "aligned" for every CPU/GPU upgrade we have had our last upgrade ever
If they can boost the high end iMac with a quad core Nehalem or not they should do it, Pro sales or not. The money they make on additional iMac sales more than make up for the loss of the aggrevated slump in MacPro sales.
The Mini would be better of slightly larger, adding an inch in with and lenght would make it possibel to have a fast 3.5" driver, better graphics etc. My dream would be a "Cube 2" with a PCI express card that can be upgraded etc
Hmmm. Apple has typically held back lower models to prop-up the higher models. iBooks have been stifled to keep Powerbooks appearing to be faster. iMacs have had slower ships to keep PowerMacs the speediest.
The gap was at least within reason in the past. Now it seems the MacPro is getting progressively higher end while the iMac is getting progressively lower end.
[qutoe]The problem with the Mac Pro is it is a PRO machine with a PRO price. But i feel you get better bang for your buck when you buy a top-of-the-line iMac more often than spending the same amount of money (over time) on a Mac Pro.[/quote]
I would disagree. In fact, I would say I feel seriously ripped off when it comes my aluminum iMac compared to my previous PowerMac. When the iMac G5 first came out, you had a desktop class CPU that was the same as the PowerMac, a desktop class GPU, an easily replaceable hard drive all in a slim enclosure with that used VESA standard mounting at $1499. At the same price, you had the PowerMac with the same CPU and GPU, but you added a replaceable full size optical drive, two hard drive bays, two additional DIMM slots, and your choice of upgrade cards through an 8x AGP graphics slot and three PCI slots. You had the choice of the machine you wanted: slim space saver design or maximum expandability and both were good choices.
Now, the PowerMac option is gone as are the desktop class CPU, desktop class GPU, easily accessible hard drive, and VESA mounting from the iMac. All for purely aesthetic reasons. If you want a better video card, you're paying $1950 minimum. What want better storage and expansion options? They require taking your iMac completely apart and/or populating your desk and power strip with external devices.
Quote:
The iMac isn't cheap, but is still is the best all-in-one machine out there (overall, looks especially).
If you factor in the huge OS advantage and asthethics, yes. If you go on the pure practicality of the design, I would say the XPS One has the edge. It has an additional USB2.0 port on back, TV tuner, better speakers, easily access side ports for the single slot multipurpose card reader, 2 USB 2.0, headphone/line in jacks, and the power button, proximity activated hidden front controls, and an indicator for the optical drive. Like the original iMac G5, its also designed to be user serviceable. I would sell my soul to have those on the current iMac. If It had a TV tuner with front row support, I wouldn't need a TV. With the additional ports and the card reader, I wouldn't need my hub/card reader combo. With the user upgradable hard drive, I wouldn't have to worry about how fast the 320GB hard drive is filling up with video.
Quote:
My iMac is now 3-years old. I really want a 24" 64-bit machine, but if I can wait another year for a quad core that supports 4-8GB of RAM, I will wait.
Do the right thing, Apple. Do the right thing.
I would definitely wait, and not become impatient and get the wrong thing. Then again, knowing how willing Apple is to remove features for design reasons, you might end up in a worse position then you would be if you bought one now.
I would definitely wait, and not become impatient and get the wrong thing. Then again, knowing how willing Apple is to remove features for design reasons, you might end up in a worse position then you would be if you bought one now.
Very true. It's not natural to keep this in mind, when buying a new computer, but one must do so when waiting for a new Mac.
Apple doesn't need to remove any features. No matter how fast they are, Most machines bought this spring-fall will become instantly outdated by early 2010.
USB 3 will almost certainly arrive in early 2010, if not before. And it will likely extend the bus' reach on hard drives, iPods, camcorders and other devices. It will seem restrictive to have a computer that doesn't have it. If Firewire 3200 sees any significant market acceptance, that will mean the machines will be even more outdated.
As a general rule, I find the granularity of Shaw Wu's analysis kind of ridiculous. How does this knowledge (garnered in a vague and clandestine manner) benefit his clients. Simultaneously, it harms Apple and (its shareholders, his clients) by spreading rumors about unannounced products that might affect overall sales. The best thing he could do is shut the ____ up.
As Mr Rogers might have said, boys and girls, can you say "Speculators"?
The reason why every time there is a discussion about the iMac, the Mac Pro is dragged into it is because there no Mac model in between the iMac and Mac Pro. The Mac Mini is not that model. It should have been, and that's what people were hoping for. But clearly it isn't. If you admit admit that the Mac Pro is not for everyone, then you should also be able to admit that the iMac is not for everyone either. Furthermore, it does not necessarily mean that people who don't need a Mac Pro will automatically be better off with an iMac. If you don't like Mac Pro owners forcing themselves on everyone, then iMac owners shouldn't do it either. It's ironic that people who like to preach tolerance for those with different needs are also the ones who get dismissive every time someone asks for a midrange Mac tower or an iMac without a built in monitor.
The price premium for these new S-parts is huge. The Q9550S costs $103 more than the non-S, the Q9400S will set you back another $107 and the Q8200S is the most affordable with only an $82 premium. Note that in the case of the Q9550S and Q9400S you're actually more expensive than the entry level Core i7-920.
I hope we don't get these quad cores in the upper tiers of the iMac. That would be outrageous. Dell and Co. had i7s in their line ups ages ago.
And it adds fuel to the fire that we should have a desktop cpu option for the Mac Tower with a price cut to reflect this. It would render the debate moot.
Cube 2? Or 'Desktop' Mac Pro. Whatever Apple.
Also, there are some great gpus at good prices. Hopefully Apple will include the best in their Towers and iMac.
Why limit the design of the iMac to underperforming over priced components and fleece iMac buyers? I'd put a proper mid-tower alongside it. They'd still make money on Cinema displays.
Apple should be there by now. Quad core. Decent gpus. They've been available ages now. These machines haven't had an update in over a year, just under a year or years in the case of the Mac Mini.
Their desktop line up is flawed. It's go holes in it. And the fact that Mac Pro sales are taking a hammering says that iMac cannibilization is underway.
Apple could go a long way to keep buyers buying in this economic climate. A desktop mid-tower. A Cube shaped mini-tower. And allow us to pick better gpus and i7s in our desktop machines.
The design is good, Apple. But it's not excellent is it? Otherwise, we'd be able to pick our own components or a broader choice of components. The current desktop is embarrassing, out of date, a bean counter's wet dream and politically etched with Steve Jobs stubborness.
Jeeze. The industry moved to quad core ages ago Apple. And even PC world has decent 1 gig GPUs in their 'mid-towers' at around a £1000 or less. And we're still waiting. I thought post PPC we'd be getting the best of performance at all levels. Design is getting in the way of consumer wants. They need to pull their finger out of their iPhone...
Over the past few pages of performance, power and efficiency graphs we’ve proved that the Q9550S offers lower power, but also lower efficiency than other Intel CPUs. In particular, the Core i7 is a far more power efficient processor thanks to its significant performance advantage. Then why on earth would anyone ever consider the Q9550S or any of the other new 65W parts for that matter?
?
Quote:
For most users this doesn’t matter, the Core i7-920 would spend more time at idle (31.3C) than the Q9550S since it can complete tasks faster. Where this does matter however is if you’re running in a thermally constrained environment; for example, an all-in-one PC.
The Q9550S and the other 65W quad-cores are designed for OEMs or anyone trying to cram as much power into a very small space. I’d expect that these CPUs would be better suited for something like an iMac rather than a normal sized desktop. The problem is that in a normal desktop you’ve got more than enough room to keep even a Core i7 cool, but in some of these OEM designs (like the iMac or Dell XPS One 24) there’s hardly enough room for a normal heatsink and fan.
The S-series looks like it’s designed to allow OEMs to offer higher clocked quad-core CPUs in smaller form factors. If you’ve got a normal sized case however, there’s no reason to pay the price premium for one of these processors. If you do care about energy efficiency, you’d be much better off spending the extra $100 on a Core i7 system instead.
Guess that's the iMac then. I hope there's a high end iMac with i7.
Jeeze. The industry moved to quad core ages ago Apple. And even PC world has decent 1 gig GPUs in their 'mid-towers' at around a £1000 or less. And we're still waiting. I thought post PPC we'd be getting the best of performance at all levels. Design is getting in the way of consumer wants. They need to pull their finger out of their iPhone...
What industry moved entirely to 4-core mobile CPUs? You like to compare Apple's mini-desktop and AIOs and then cry foul, but you never want to acknowledge that these are a differnt class of machine than towers. Apple currently only wants to make a tower that is a higher-end workstation. What choice do you have but to accept that?
Guess that's the iMac then. I hope there's a high end iMac with i7.
Lemon Bon Bon.
I don't think that's going to happen. The i7 puts out a lot of heat. Read the last page of the article at Anand.
Right Intel are making i7 so affordable because desk top sales are cratering. Laptops sales now exceed desk top sales. I think Intel are doing all they can to make desk tops as appealing as they can. Pricing i7 like they are and getting desk tops out there with i7 around $1000 looks like their strategy.
Still the s class penryns are basically being made for AIO machines. Its almost seems like a part made specifically for Apple. I welcome the s class quad core cpus for iMacs even if they aren't as powerful as Nehalem. They'll still be a nice improvement over the dual core cpus currently available.
Frankly I wouldn't be surprised to see Intel drag their feet rolling out mobile Nehalem cpus and low power Nehalem cpus. AMD don't challenge Intel in this market very much at all and i7 may help stimulate desk top sales with its superb performance.
Comments
I agree. They need to upgrade the whole line and continue to differentiate the iMac and Mac Pro by putting more power in the Pro too. I guess at some point though even the lowest configuration is going to be plenty powerful enough for 90% of the buyers. Only video editors, engineers or scientists will have a need for high end super computers.
Pros are the only viable option for any designer, not just vid editors. I know graphic designers who won't touch Photoshop or InDesign without 8GB of memory--one of them I know has to keep all 3 CS apps launched all the time pretty much and with only 4GB her old desktop was paging constantly. The iMac maxes out at 4GB. Plus a lot of creative software, like Adobe's, is fairly well written, and can take advantage of all 8 cores, so the more CPUs/cores the better.
The new Penryn 4 core processors just introduced are actually comparable to the Harpertowns Apple is including in the Mac Pro. The Mac Pro would be faster, but not enough to justify $1200 price difference--and in some cases, the Penryn might edge the Mac Pro due to the Mac Pro's lower speed memory bus. That's probably why Apple is holding back. They just need to bite the bullet and put an i7 into the Mac Pro already--the server Nehalem variants are going to be a long ways away still it looks like.
They just need to bite the bullet and put an i7 into the Mac Pro already--the server Nehalem variants are going to be a long ways away still it looks like.
Can't. The desktop Core I7 stuff is single socket only.
Can't. The desktop Core I7 stuff is single socket only.
True but at least they're faster/cheaper than the Harpertowns. You won't have an 8 core option anymore, but at least you wont be worried about your $1200 computer cannibalizing your $2800 computer. Rumors are that Gainestown and Lynnfield may be delayed by a quarter so the economy woes don't bring Intel's financials down further. If that's true, Mac Pros may be another 6 months off, and if Apple waits until the Mac Pro is updated to release updated iMacs, that would mean 12 months between iMac refreshes.
Of course the i7 is out now, is much faster than Penryn and cheaper than the Harpertown procesors Apple uses in the Pro. Too bad Apple can't use them in any "desktop" they have...
I'm also really waiting for clear indication on the iMac and Mac Mini front. I'm just saving cash now.
I have a 2.0 GHz 20" iMac G5 and a 1.86 GHz MacBook (first generation combo drive).
The iMac is getting quite long in the tooth; I need an Intel machine for decent performance of software (Office '08, Adobe CS3) as well as for running Parallels. I also want a 24" display.
I was planning on replacing the G5 iMac with whatever new 24" iMac they came out with at MacWorld, and was thrown for a loop when they didn't do so. Now I'm in a holding pattern. My options include:
1. Upgrade current MacBook w/larger 3rd-party hard drive & DVD burner, get a 24" LCD, and sell the G5 iMac on eBay.
COST: appx. $300 for upgrades, $300 for LCD, minus $500 for the iMac sale = appx. $100, but with a lot of nervousness about ripping apart the MacBook. Dirt cheap but the system would still be very low-end by MacIntel-era standards.
2. Replace current MacBook with the new $1,000 model + LCD; sell off *both* the iMac and current MacBook.
COST: appx. $1,000 MacBook, $250 AppleCare, $100 for HD upgrade, $300 for LCD = $1,650, minus perhaps $500 each for the two systems = around $650.
3. Say "screw it" and buy the *current* 24" iMac, sell the G5 iMac and keep the current MacBook.
COST: appx. $1,550 (refurb) + $250 AppleCare = $1,800 - $500 for selling off the G5 iMac = around $1,300.
The third option has the ever-present risk that they'll release the iMac upgrade after all a couple of weeks after I buy it, of course.
If Apple is having a hard time shoehorning the Quad into the 20" form factor, could the LG deal be about Apple looking to source a 22" screen to replace it?
I don't see the 20" having quad-core at all. I think if there is a "decision" waiting to be made, it's whether the higher-end 24" iMac will have a quad-core and how to do some more cooling for that.
Also with the Nvidia 9800 S or something going into the 24" higher-end iMac, again, decisions on GPUs and cooling.
I just want 20" LED iMac with Nvidia 9600GT for just over USD$1,000. Is that too much to ask for?
...Apple's iMac is very much behind the competition in terms of spec and power. Core 2 Duo might be enough for email, iPhoto, Safari and Photobooth, but a computer at that price MUST have a quad core system considering what the competition offers. In PC world, quad is the new standard. Apple has a long history of innovation and providing high performance computers, they should go quad on all desktops
I'd really rather the PC world realise GPU power is more important than Quadcores, but the Intel juggernaut outweighs Nvidia + AMD-ATI.
I'm seeing so many "high end" or so-called "gaming" desktops coming out of Dell and HP, but their graphics are fairly crippled, you can't even really play Crysis on the higher settings.
My personal bias is forget the quadcore, give me an ATI 4870 or Nvidia 9800GT. In the next few years I'd rather have more powerful GPUs than more CPU cores.
Badaboomit.com using Nvidia CUDA absolutely destroys the CPU in terms of encoding speed.
A shift in thinking, design, and budgeting, and I would rather have more powerful GPUs if the software development and OpenCL / CUDA can keep up.
But the massive marketing and mindshare in four CPU cores is really making PC systems makers pushing CPU hard and then saying "oh it has Directx10" graphics but only with limp cards like a Nvidia 9300 or 9400 or the weaker ATI's nowhere near even the ATI 3870.
I agree with you 100%. I built one because I switched to a mbp and wasn't using my windows desktop, even though it was still pretty fast, which seemed really wasteful. Getting that thing to be stable is frustrating, though it's a dream once you get it working. The thing is that although Apple's tight integration is really helpful in a LOT of ways, it also seems to be fairly well compatible with a wide range of hardware, when people write the drivers. Driver's aren't necessary with a processor upgrade from what I've seen. As long as it has the same pin pattern as your motherboard, it seems pretty plug and play (can't say if Logic Boards have restrictions that plain jane motherboard don't, since I haven't done that yet). I'm confused as to why it's thought that you'd need to get an Apple approved processor... I'm not definite, but it looks like if it fits, it works. Can't say that if they add new features to it, but it should at least run faster.
On a side note, I think an i7 Mac Pro is the one to go for, and if they can scale more easily, maybe we can see even more cores, and have them be accessible through Snow Leopard.
Core i7 does work with Leopard though it will be somewhat gimped. Benchmarks I have seen are comparable if not a tad slower than a similarly clocked Q9XXX. That is because Leopard doesn't include all of the code to take advantage of the Core i7's new architecture.
Leopard will recognize any Core 2 and prior Intel, but will misidentify a Core i7. Snow Leopard should add full support for Core i7 as well as support for 4870 and maybe even a future 5870/RV870 which I am personally waiting for (40nm process, possibly 512-bit GDDR5).
I do believe it will take some time for folks like Netkas to get Snow Leopard working on PC hardware because Snow Leopard will need all new driver support (fully 64-bit) and it may not be a guarantee that our older parts will work.
True but at least they're faster/cheaper than the Harpertowns. You won't have an 8 core option anymore, but at least you wont be worried about your $1200 computer cannibalizing your $2800 computer. Rumors are that Gainestown and Lynnfield may be delayed by a quarter so the economy woes don't bring Intel's financials down further. If that's true, Mac Pros may be another 6 months off, and if Apple waits until the Mac Pro is updated to release updated iMacs, that would mean 12 months between iMac refreshes.
Of course the i7 is out now, is much faster than Penryn and cheaper than the Harpertown procesors Apple uses in the Pro. Too bad Apple can't use them in any "desktop" they have...
I like the "desktop" comment because it's true that Apple doesn't produce any desktop computers, only a bunch of notebooks and a Xeon based machine that's starting to look really old next to i7's with only half as many cores.
I know Apple doesn't want a repeat of the G3 incident where consumer priced desktops managed to keep up with much more expensive models that used an older chip design, but I think they have to do something. The PC desktop world is already onto its third generation of quad core chips while Apple debates the use of another dual core chip. The graphics chips in Mac desktops are all 2-4 years old too. Don't get me started on "pro" towers with 320GB hard drives, it's enough to make a grown man cry. If Apple gets any further from the leading edge they won't even be on the wing anymore.
The problem with the Mac Pro is it is a PRO machine with a PRO price. But i feel you get better bang for your buck when you buy a top-of-the-line iMac more often than spending the same amount of money (over time) on a Mac Pro.
The iMac isn't cheap, but is still is the best all-in-one machine out there (overall, looks especially).
My iMac is now 3-years old. I really want a 24" 64-bit machine, but if I can wait another year for a quad core that supports 4-8GB of RAM, I will wait.
Do the right thing, Apple. Do the right thing.
If they can boost the high end iMac with a quad core Nehalem or not they should do it, Pro sales or not. The money they make on additional iMac sales more than make up for the loss of the aggrevated slump in MacPro sales.
The Mini would be better of slightly larger, adding an inch in with and lenght would make it possibel to have a fast 3.5" driver, better graphics etc. My dream would be a "Cube 2" with a PCI express card that can be upgraded etc
Hmmm. Apple has typically held back lower models to prop-up the higher models. iBooks have been stifled to keep Powerbooks appearing to be faster. iMacs have had slower ships to keep PowerMacs the speediest.
The gap was at least within reason in the past. Now it seems the MacPro is getting progressively higher end while the iMac is getting progressively lower end.
[qutoe]The problem with the Mac Pro is it is a PRO machine with a PRO price. But i feel you get better bang for your buck when you buy a top-of-the-line iMac more often than spending the same amount of money (over time) on a Mac Pro.[/quote]
I would disagree. In fact, I would say I feel seriously ripped off when it comes my aluminum iMac compared to my previous PowerMac. When the iMac G5 first came out, you had a desktop class CPU that was the same as the PowerMac, a desktop class GPU, an easily replaceable hard drive all in a slim enclosure with that used VESA standard mounting at $1499. At the same price, you had the PowerMac with the same CPU and GPU, but you added a replaceable full size optical drive, two hard drive bays, two additional DIMM slots, and your choice of upgrade cards through an 8x AGP graphics slot and three PCI slots. You had the choice of the machine you wanted: slim space saver design or maximum expandability and both were good choices.
Now, the PowerMac option is gone as are the desktop class CPU, desktop class GPU, easily accessible hard drive, and VESA mounting from the iMac. All for purely aesthetic reasons. If you want a better video card, you're paying $1950 minimum. What want better storage and expansion options? They require taking your iMac completely apart and/or populating your desk and power strip with external devices.
The iMac isn't cheap, but is still is the best all-in-one machine out there (overall, looks especially).
If you factor in the huge OS advantage and asthethics, yes. If you go on the pure practicality of the design, I would say the XPS One has the edge. It has an additional USB2.0 port on back, TV tuner, better speakers, easily access side ports for the single slot multipurpose card reader, 2 USB 2.0, headphone/line in jacks, and the power button, proximity activated hidden front controls, and an indicator for the optical drive. Like the original iMac G5, its also designed to be user serviceable. I would sell my soul to have those on the current iMac. If It had a TV tuner with front row support, I wouldn't need a TV. With the additional ports and the card reader, I wouldn't need my hub/card reader combo. With the user upgradable hard drive, I wouldn't have to worry about how fast the 320GB hard drive is filling up with video.
My iMac is now 3-years old. I really want a 24" 64-bit machine, but if I can wait another year for a quad core that supports 4-8GB of RAM, I will wait.
Do the right thing, Apple. Do the right thing.
I would definitely wait, and not become impatient and get the wrong thing. Then again, knowing how willing Apple is to remove features for design reasons, you might end up in a worse position then you would be if you bought one now.
I would definitely wait, and not become impatient and get the wrong thing. Then again, knowing how willing Apple is to remove features for design reasons, you might end up in a worse position then you would be if you bought one now.
Very true. It's not natural to keep this in mind, when buying a new computer, but one must do so when waiting for a new Mac.
USB 3 will almost certainly arrive in early 2010, if not before. And it will likely extend the bus' reach on hard drives, iPods, camcorders and other devices. It will seem restrictive to have a computer that doesn't have it. If Firewire 3200 sees any significant market acceptance, that will mean the machines will be even more outdated.
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets...oc.aspx?i=3505
As a general rule, I find the granularity of Shaw Wu's analysis kind of ridiculous. How does this knowledge (garnered in a vague and clandestine manner) benefit his clients. Simultaneously, it harms Apple and (its shareholders, his clients) by spreading rumors about unannounced products that might affect overall sales. The best thing he could do is shut the ____ up.
As Mr Rogers might have said, boys and girls, can you say "Speculators"?
The reason why every time there is a discussion about the iMac, the Mac Pro is dragged into it is because there no Mac model in between the iMac and Mac Pro. The Mac Mini is not that model. It should have been, and that's what people were hoping for. But clearly it isn't. If you admit admit that the Mac Pro is not for everyone, then you should also be able to admit that the iMac is not for everyone either. Furthermore, it does not necessarily mean that people who don't need a Mac Pro will automatically be better off with an iMac. If you don't like Mac Pro owners forcing themselves on everyone, then iMac owners shouldn't do it either. It's ironic that people who like to preach tolerance for those with different needs are also the ones who get dismissive every time someone asks for a midrange Mac tower or an iMac without a built in monitor.
Agreed.
Processor Clock Speed L2 Cache L3 Cache TDP Price
Intel Core i7-965 Extreme Edition 3.20GHz 1MB 8MB 130W $999
Intel Core i7-940 2.93GHz 1MB 8MB 130W $562
Intel Core i7-920 2.66GHz 1MB 8MB 130W $284
Intel Core 2 Quad Q9650 3.00GHz 12MB - 95W $316
Intel Core 2 Quad Q9550S 2.83GHz 12MB - 65W $369
Intel Core 2 Quad Q9550 2.83GHz 12MB - 95W $266
Intel Core 2 Quad Q9400S 2.66GHz 6MB - 65W $320
Intel Core 2 Quad Q9400 2.66GHz 6MB - 95W $213
Intel Core 2 Quad Q8300 2.50GHz 4MB - 95W $183
Intel Core 2 Quad Q8200S 2.33GHz 4MB - 65W $245
Intel Core 2 Quad Q8200 2.33GHz 4MB - 95W $163
The price premium for these new S-parts is huge. The Q9550S costs $103 more than the non-S, the Q9400S will set you back another $107 and the Q8200S is the most affordable with only an $82 premium. Note that in the case of the Q9550S and Q9400S you're actually more expensive than the entry level Core i7-920.
I hope we don't get these quad cores in the upper tiers of the iMac. That would be outrageous. Dell and Co. had i7s in their line ups ages ago.
And it adds fuel to the fire that we should have a desktop cpu option for the Mac Tower with a price cut to reflect this. It would render the debate moot.
Cube 2? Or 'Desktop' Mac Pro. Whatever Apple.
Also, there are some great gpus at good prices. Hopefully Apple will include the best in their Towers and iMac.
Why limit the design of the iMac to underperforming over priced components and fleece iMac buyers? I'd put a proper mid-tower alongside it. They'd still make money on Cinema displays.
Apple should be there by now. Quad core. Decent gpus. They've been available ages now. These machines haven't had an update in over a year, just under a year or years in the case of the Mac Mini.
Their desktop line up is flawed. It's go holes in it. And the fact that Mac Pro sales are taking a hammering says that iMac cannibilization is underway.
Apple could go a long way to keep buyers buying in this economic climate. A desktop mid-tower. A Cube shaped mini-tower. And allow us to pick better gpus and i7s in our desktop machines.
The design is good, Apple. But it's not excellent is it? Otherwise, we'd be able to pick our own components or a broader choice of components. The current desktop is embarrassing, out of date, a bean counter's wet dream and politically etched with Steve Jobs stubborness.
Jeeze. The industry moved to quad core ages ago Apple. And even PC world has decent 1 gig GPUs in their 'mid-towers' at around a £1000 or less. And we're still waiting. I thought post PPC we'd be getting the best of performance at all levels. Design is getting in the way of consumer wants. They need to pull their finger out of their iPhone...
The desktop line has flies over the carcass.
Lemon Bon Bon.
Final Words: So Who Should Buy This Thing?
Over the past few pages of performance, power and efficiency graphs we’ve proved that the Q9550S offers lower power, but also lower efficiency than other Intel CPUs. In particular, the Core i7 is a far more power efficient processor thanks to its significant performance advantage. Then why on earth would anyone ever consider the Q9550S or any of the other new 65W parts for that matter?
?
For most users this doesn’t matter, the Core i7-920 would spend more time at idle (31.3C) than the Q9550S since it can complete tasks faster. Where this does matter however is if you’re running in a thermally constrained environment; for example, an all-in-one PC.
The Q9550S and the other 65W quad-cores are designed for OEMs or anyone trying to cram as much power into a very small space. I’d expect that these CPUs would be better suited for something like an iMac rather than a normal sized desktop. The problem is that in a normal desktop you’ve got more than enough room to keep even a Core i7 cool, but in some of these OEM designs (like the iMac or Dell XPS One 24) there’s hardly enough room for a normal heatsink and fan.
The S-series looks like it’s designed to allow OEMs to offer higher clocked quad-core CPUs in smaller form factors. If you’ve got a normal sized case however, there’s no reason to pay the price premium for one of these processors. If you do care about energy efficiency, you’d be much better off spending the extra $100 on a Core i7 system instead.
Guess that's the iMac then. I hope there's a high end iMac with i7.
Lemon Bon Bon.
Jeeze. The industry moved to quad core ages ago Apple. And even PC world has decent 1 gig GPUs in their 'mid-towers' at around a £1000 or less. And we're still waiting. I thought post PPC we'd be getting the best of performance at all levels. Design is getting in the way of consumer wants. They need to pull their finger out of their iPhone...
What industry moved entirely to 4-core mobile CPUs? You like to compare Apple's mini-desktop and AIOs and then cry foul, but you never want to acknowledge that these are a differnt class of machine than towers. Apple currently only wants to make a tower that is a higher-end workstation. What choice do you have but to accept that?
Guess that's the iMac then. I hope there's a high end iMac with i7.
Lemon Bon Bon.
I don't think that's going to happen. The i7 puts out a lot of heat. Read the last page of the article at Anand.
Right Intel are making i7 so affordable because desk top sales are cratering. Laptops sales now exceed desk top sales. I think Intel are doing all they can to make desk tops as appealing as they can. Pricing i7 like they are and getting desk tops out there with i7 around $1000 looks like their strategy.
Still the s class penryns are basically being made for AIO machines. Its almost seems like a part made specifically for Apple. I welcome the s class quad core cpus for iMacs even if they aren't as powerful as Nehalem. They'll still be a nice improvement over the dual core cpus currently available.
Frankly I wouldn't be surprised to see Intel drag their feet rolling out mobile Nehalem cpus and low power Nehalem cpus. AMD don't challenge Intel in this market very much at all and i7 may help stimulate desk top sales with its superb performance.