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.
I think by then the Mac Pro will be updated with a Xeon Gulftown (6 core). And the Mac Pro will always have something you can't get in the iMac; expandability.
Look I'm not wanting to get into a pissing match but SL will likely be out his year.
I guess if you keep your machine for 6 months then getting an iMac now makes sense.
I'm sorry, but SL just isn't coming to mind.
I'm not saying to buy a new machine now, and another in 6 months.
I'm saying, as others are, that the new machines are good ones, and will serve well for most people.
If you want to take a chance that in 6 months, the one of your dreams will be here, then wait. We really don't know when that will happen. The new chips will be here sometime in the forth quarter as far as we know. When in the forth quarter, is up for grabs right now. We won't have a better timeline for a few months yet. It's possible that they will be ready for the Christmas shopping period.
I think by then the Mac Pro will be updated with a Xeon Gulftown (6 core). And the Mac Pro will always have something you can't get in the iMac; expandability.
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by backtomac
The Clarksfield cpus are 45 watt TDP.
They would make an ideal cpu for the iMac. 4 Cores and 8 threads.
Arrandale will not be fully available before Q1 2010. It's a dual-core cpu + igp on the same die. There are not even plans for the replacement of the penryn 2.93/3.06GHz cpus yet.
Clarkfield cpus will have a TDP of 55W not 45W. Those will replace the current mobile quads at the same price point ($350/$850/$1,040), speeds are not yet known. Of course those would be nice in an iMac, but much more expensive than the current custom dual-cores (estimated at $210 (2.66GHz) up to $530 (3.06GHz).
The beauty of the 65W desktop quads is that not only their TDP is just +10W vs the current one of the custom C2D, but that they are also cheaper ($245/$320/$370).
Now if you put this in perspective:
custom dual-core 2.66/2.93/3.06GHz $210/$350/$530
mobile quad-core 2.00/2.26/2.53GHz $350/$850/$1,040
Would you prefer Apple to keep using mobile cpus and move to quads with a potential price increase of about $500 on certain models, or would you be OK with slightly hotter cpus (some noise from the fans, sometimes) but at the same price as the current dual-core models even a little cheaper.
If Apple stays with dual-core in the Mac mini and the 20" iMac, they can move the 24" to quad-core cpus, the single cpu Mac Pro with 4C/8T and the dual-cpu Mac Pro with 8C/16T, that's a nice progression. Even if it's too nice for Apple these days.
In 2010, the dual-core models will be replaced by 2C/4T models (Arrandale), the 24" iMac could move to 65W Lynnfield (4C/8T), and the Mac Pro could move to 6C/12T and 12C/24T (single and dual Gulftown cpus).
Now if the iMac had an ExpressCard slot (or 2) or AMD/ATI's XGP connector, there will probably be less talks about an xMac. The same if Apple had released the single cpu Mac Pro at a more affordable/realistic price.
The Anandtech article says that Clarksfiled/ Arrendale were originally supposed to have igp on die but will not in Q4 2009. That feature will come later.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mjteix
Arrandale will not be fully available before Q1 2010. It's a dual-core cpu + igp on the same die. There are not even plans for the replacement of the penryn 2.93/3.06GHz cpus yet.
Arrandale will not be fully available before Q1 2010. It's a dual-core cpu + igp on the same die. There are not even plans for the replacement of the penryn 2.93/3.06GHz cpus yet.
Clarkfield cpus will have a TDP of 55W not 45W. Those will replace the current mobile quads at the same price point ($350/$850/$1,040), speeds are not yet known. Of course those would be nice in an iMac, but much more expensive than the current custom dual-cores (estimated at $210 (2.66GHz) up to $530 (3.06GHz).
The beauty of the 65W desktop quads is that not only their TDP is just +10W vs the current one of the custom C2D, but that they are also cheaper ($245/$320/$370).
Now if you put this in perspective:
custom dual-core 2.66/2.93/3.06GHz $210/$350/$530
mobile quad-core 2.00/2.26/2.53GHz $350/$850/$1,040
Would you prefer Apple to keep using mobile cpus and move to quads with a potential price increase of about $500 on certain models, or would you be OK with slightly hotter cpus (some noise from the fans, sometimes) but at the same price as the current dual-core models even a little cheaper.
If Apple stays with dual-core in the Mac mini and the 20" iMac, they can move the 24" to quad-core cpus, the single cpu Mac Pro with 4C/8T and the dual-cpu Mac Pro with 8C/16T, that's a nice progression. Even if it's too nice for Apple these days.
In 2010, the dual-core models will be replaced by 2C/4T models (Arrandale), the 24" iMac could move to 65W Lynnfield (4C/8T), and the Mac Pro could move to 6C/12T and 12C/24T (single and dual Gulftown cpus).
Now if the iMac had an ExpressCard slot (or 2) or AMD/ATI's XGP connector, there will probably be less talks about an xMac. The same if Apple had released the single cpu Mac Pro at a more affordable/realistic price.
From the article at Anand, Arrandale have been 'moved up' and are due in q4 09.
I thought I read somewhere that Clarksfield would have a TDP of 45 watts. Even if its 55 watts is probably too hot for Apple's laptop lineup but probably could be fit into an iMac if there is a desire on Apple's part to do so.
While I believe that the LPQC desk top cpus or Clarksfield would be excellent in an iMac, i doubt that Apple will do so. I suspect that Apple will use the Arrandale cpus in the laptops and carry them over into the iMac. That's the sort of measured improvement that people who follow Apple should come to expect. Apple may get a discount on the Arrandale cpus by purchasing them to use in several models. Apple only seems to chase performance with the Mac Pros and MBPs (even here they'll fall behind pc makers who will adopt quad core mobile cpus).
Whether Apple should or should not use the LPQC desk top cpus or Clarksfield, surely you're seen where I've argued for precisely this with Mel and Teno. Its getting epic.
Whether Apple should or should not use the LPQC desk top cpus or Clarksfield, surely you're seen where I've argued for precisely this with Mel and Teno. Its getting epic.
I'm not arguing with you that Apple shouldn't do it. I'm saying that for most of its user base, it's not necessary, and so Apple likely wouldn't do it.
I'm not arguing with you that Apple shouldn't do it. I'm saying that for most of its user base, it's not necessary, and so Apple likely wouldn't do it.
Bingo!
That's probably the best reason why Apple's offerings are a mess right now. Their user based moved from creative people to the average joe (in computer terms not in financial terms) that main uses of a computer is email, facebook, prOn, ripping CD/DVD, etc... I agree that THIS user base doesn't need anything more than an AIO (notebook/desktop) with a dual-core cpu and integrated graphics.
Would it be wise for Apple to release a Mid tower? After the updates yesterday and plenty of people disappointed with the lack of a sizable upgrade, should Apple just release one? I know it would sell but where would it fit in? Between the Mini and the iMac? Between the iMac and the Mac Pro? If it is in between the Mini and the iMac it would most likely be under powered and over priced but if it is in between the iMac and the Mac Pro, it would be too expensive and under powered!
What specs would you like to see in a Apple mid-tower if they were to release one?
2.66 Intel Core2Quad with 6MB of Cache (an optional 3GHz)
2GB of 1GHz DDR3 RAM (upgradeable to 8GB)
The Integrated graphics from NVIDIA or a selection of ATI cards
20 or 24 inch LED Display
and all the other goodies that comes with Macs (bluetooth, Airport, etc.)
The ideal price point would be $1,599. Seems expensive but i would like it to include a screen bundled with it.
Sounds like you just need the big iMac, upgraded a bit. Towers are overrated. If I could get those specs in a Mac Mini-type unit, I'd be happy. Who really needs a 40 pound G5/MacPro to be a graphics designer. I run a 13" MacBook with VMware for Windows/Linux. 2.16GHz and 2GB memory. My second display is a 40" 1080i LCD TV. The MacPro is overkill for anyone not heavily rendering 3D or video. If you don't like the Apple Tax, there's always OSx86... It's just a (pretty) box anymore...
Sounds like you just need the big iMac, upgraded a bit. Towers are overrated. If I could get those specs in a Mac Mini-type unit, I'd be happy. Who really needs a 40 pound G5/MacPro to be a graphics designer. I run a 13" MacBook with VMware for Windows/Linux. 2.16GHz and 2GB memory. My second display is a 40" 1080i LCD TV. The MacPro is overkill for anyone not heavily rendering 3D or video. If you don't like the Apple Tax, there's always OSx86... It's just a (pretty) box anymore...
Comments
I'm not ignoring anything. I'm saying that for now, its not a good choice.
Look I'm not wanting to get into a pissing match but SL will likely be out his year.
I guess if you keep your machine for 6 months then getting an iMac now makes sense.
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.
I think by then the Mac Pro will be updated with a Xeon Gulftown (6 core). And the Mac Pro will always have something you can't get in the iMac; expandability.
Look I'm not wanting to get into a pissing match but SL will likely be out his year.
I guess if you keep your machine for 6 months then getting an iMac now makes sense.
I'm sorry, but SL just isn't coming to mind.
I'm not saying to buy a new machine now, and another in 6 months.
I'm saying, as others are, that the new machines are good ones, and will serve well for most people.
If you want to take a chance that in 6 months, the one of your dreams will be here, then wait. We really don't know when that will happen. The new chips will be here sometime in the forth quarter as far as we know. When in the forth quarter, is up for grabs right now. We won't have a better timeline for a few months yet. It's possible that they will be ready for the Christmas shopping period.
I think by then the Mac Pro will be updated with a Xeon Gulftown (6 core). And the Mac Pro will always have something you can't get in the iMac; expandability.
Exactly.
I'm sorry, but SL just isn't coming to mind.
.
SL=Snow Leopard
Sorry if my abbreviation confused you.
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.
The Clarksfield cpus are 45 watt TDP.
They would make an ideal cpu for the iMac. 4 Cores and 8 threads.
Arrandale will not be fully available before Q1 2010. It's a dual-core cpu + igp on the same die. There are not even plans for the replacement of the penryn 2.93/3.06GHz cpus yet.
Clarkfield cpus will have a TDP of 55W not 45W. Those will replace the current mobile quads at the same price point ($350/$850/$1,040), speeds are not yet known. Of course those would be nice in an iMac, but much more expensive than the current custom dual-cores (estimated at $210 (2.66GHz) up to $530 (3.06GHz).
The beauty of the 65W desktop quads is that not only their TDP is just +10W vs the current one of the custom C2D, but that they are also cheaper ($245/$320/$370).
Now if you put this in perspective:
custom dual-core 2.66/2.93/3.06GHz $210/$350/$530
mobile quad-core 2.00/2.26/2.53GHz $350/$850/$1,040
desktop quad-core 2.33/2.66/2.83GHz $245/$320/$370
Would you prefer Apple to keep using mobile cpus and move to quads with a potential price increase of about $500 on certain models, or would you be OK with slightly hotter cpus (some noise from the fans, sometimes) but at the same price as the current dual-core models even a little cheaper.
If Apple stays with dual-core in the Mac mini and the 20" iMac, they can move the 24" to quad-core cpus, the single cpu Mac Pro with 4C/8T and the dual-cpu Mac Pro with 8C/16T, that's a nice progression. Even if it's too nice for Apple these days.
In 2010, the dual-core models will be replaced by 2C/4T models (Arrandale), the 24" iMac could move to 65W Lynnfield (4C/8T), and the Mac Pro could move to 6C/12T and 12C/24T (single and dual Gulftown cpus).
Now if the iMac had an ExpressCard slot (or 2) or AMD/ATI's XGP connector, there will probably be less talks about an xMac. The same if Apple had released the single cpu Mac Pro at a more affordable/realistic price.
Arrandale will not be fully available before Q1 2010. It's a dual-core cpu + igp on the same die. There are not even plans for the replacement of the penryn 2.93/3.06GHz cpus yet.
Arrandale will not be fully available before Q1 2010. It's a dual-core cpu + igp on the same die. There are not even plans for the replacement of the penryn 2.93/3.06GHz cpus yet.
Clarkfield cpus will have a TDP of 55W not 45W. Those will replace the current mobile quads at the same price point ($350/$850/$1,040), speeds are not yet known. Of course those would be nice in an iMac, but much more expensive than the current custom dual-cores (estimated at $210 (2.66GHz) up to $530 (3.06GHz).
The beauty of the 65W desktop quads is that not only their TDP is just +10W vs the current one of the custom C2D, but that they are also cheaper ($245/$320/$370).
Now if you put this in perspective:
custom dual-core 2.66/2.93/3.06GHz $210/$350/$530
mobile quad-core 2.00/2.26/2.53GHz $350/$850/$1,040
desktop quad-core 2.33/2.66/2.83GHz $245/$320/$370
Would you prefer Apple to keep using mobile cpus and move to quads with a potential price increase of about $500 on certain models, or would you be OK with slightly hotter cpus (some noise from the fans, sometimes) but at the same price as the current dual-core models even a little cheaper.
If Apple stays with dual-core in the Mac mini and the 20" iMac, they can move the 24" to quad-core cpus, the single cpu Mac Pro with 4C/8T and the dual-cpu Mac Pro with 8C/16T, that's a nice progression. Even if it's too nice for Apple these days.
In 2010, the dual-core models will be replaced by 2C/4T models (Arrandale), the 24" iMac could move to 65W Lynnfield (4C/8T), and the Mac Pro could move to 6C/12T and 12C/24T (single and dual Gulftown cpus).
Now if the iMac had an ExpressCard slot (or 2) or AMD/ATI's XGP connector, there will probably be less talks about an xMac. The same if Apple had released the single cpu Mac Pro at a more affordable/realistic price.
From the article at Anand, Arrandale have been 'moved up' and are due in q4 09.
I thought I read somewhere that Clarksfield would have a TDP of 45 watts. Even if its 55 watts is probably too hot for Apple's laptop lineup but probably could be fit into an iMac if there is a desire on Apple's part to do so.
While I believe that the LPQC desk top cpus or Clarksfield would be excellent in an iMac, i doubt that Apple will do so. I suspect that Apple will use the Arrandale cpus in the laptops and carry them over into the iMac. That's the sort of measured improvement that people who follow Apple should come to expect. Apple may get a discount on the Arrandale cpus by purchasing them to use in several models. Apple only seems to chase performance with the Mac Pros and MBPs (even here they'll fall behind pc makers who will adopt quad core mobile cpus).
Whether Apple should or should not use the LPQC desk top cpus or Clarksfield, surely you're seen where I've argued for precisely this with Mel and Teno. Its getting epic.
SL=Snow Leopard
Sorry if my abbreviation confused you.
Yeah. I was thinking of an acronym for some specific technology, and couldn't come up with one.
Whether Apple should or should not use the LPQC desk top cpus or Clarksfield, surely you're seen where I've argued for precisely this with Mel and Teno. Its getting epic.
I'm not arguing with you that Apple shouldn't do it. I'm saying that for most of its user base, it's not necessary, and so Apple likely wouldn't do it.
I'm not arguing with you that Apple shouldn't do it. I'm saying that for most of its user base, it's not necessary, and so Apple likely wouldn't do it.
Bingo!
That's probably the best reason why Apple's offerings are a mess right now. Their user based moved from creative people to the average joe (in computer terms not in financial terms) that main uses of a computer is email, facebook, prOn, ripping CD/DVD, etc... I agree that THIS user base doesn't need anything more than an AIO (notebook/desktop) with a dual-core cpu and integrated graphics.
Would it be wise for Apple to release a Mid tower? After the updates yesterday and plenty of people disappointed with the lack of a sizable upgrade, should Apple just release one? I know it would sell but where would it fit in? Between the Mini and the iMac? Between the iMac and the Mac Pro? If it is in between the Mini and the iMac it would most likely be under powered and over priced but if it is in between the iMac and the Mac Pro, it would be too expensive and under powered!
What specs would you like to see in a Apple mid-tower if they were to release one?
2.66 Intel Core2Quad with 6MB of Cache (an optional 3GHz)
2GB of 1GHz DDR3 RAM (upgradeable to 8GB)
The Integrated graphics from NVIDIA or a selection of ATI cards
20 or 24 inch LED Display
and all the other goodies that comes with Macs (bluetooth, Airport, etc.)
The ideal price point would be $1,599. Seems expensive but i would like it to include a screen bundled with it.
Sounds like you just need the big iMac, upgraded a bit. Towers are overrated. If I could get those specs in a Mac Mini-type unit, I'd be happy. Who really needs a 40 pound G5/MacPro to be a graphics designer. I run a 13" MacBook with VMware for Windows/Linux. 2.16GHz and 2GB memory. My second display is a 40" 1080i LCD TV. The MacPro is overkill for anyone not heavily rendering 3D or video. If you don't like the Apple Tax, there's always OSx86... It's just a (pretty) box anymore...
Sounds like you just need the big iMac, upgraded a bit. Towers are overrated. If I could get those specs in a Mac Mini-type unit, I'd be happy. Who really needs a 40 pound G5/MacPro to be a graphics designer. I run a 13" MacBook with VMware for Windows/Linux. 2.16GHz and 2GB memory. My second display is a 40" 1080i LCD TV. The MacPro is overkill for anyone not heavily rendering 3D or video. If you don't like the Apple Tax, there's always OSx86... It's just a (pretty) box anymore...
Yes. We want. But with i7 2.66. And...4870.
Stick a fork in it.
Cooked.
Lemon Bon Bon.