Every Mac takes maybe 10 minutes to upgrade the ram with cheap after market memory. $100 bucks and your done, even on the iMac and the Mini.
For most that maxes out at 4GB. The 4GB SO-DIMMs are roughly 10x the price of the 2GB SO-DIMMs.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hyperscribble
Haha yeah, I guess you're right. That is the purpose of Grand Central Dispatch. I mean, it's true that a Quad core configuration in a new iMac is the most obvious forward step left to be taken in terms of any major performance boosting. That would be very nice.
The mobile quad cores are too expensive and might even be too hot for the iMac.
Can you provide a link that has information where four cores will benefit more than any multi-core processor?
With an API that is designed for SMP. Two core will be faster than one, four cores faster than two, six cores faster than four, etc. Its simple logic and math.
Now that laptops with i7s, and BD drives, not to mention other delights such as eSATA ports are coming out there's absolutely NO excuse for Apple to release another comically underpowered iMac.
I have money to hand, I'm ready to buy, but I won't accept anything less than an i7, BD burner, a high end GPU, and an LED matte screen.
You'd have to go back to 2007 to find any Mac that would only support 4 GB or less. The exception is the Mac Mini which only supported up to 3 GB in 2007, and 4 GB in the 2009 model.
There's a handy Freeware app you can download that gives you the skinny on every Mac model available, as well as the official max amount of supported ram and the real supported amounts. Very handy if your planning an upgrade or your curious about the hardware components of various models.
10 times the price? You're exaggerating a bit. You can get 4GB for about twice the price of a 2 GB stick with about 30 seconds of effort on google.
And if you would have done another 30 seconds on google you'd realize that is a 2 SO-DIMM kit (2x2GB). iMacs, like laptops, only have to slots. Looking at the current prices, they have come down a bit. Now you can have a 4GB kit for $90 while the single 1x4GB SO-DIMM costs $260 or $520 for the kit (at OWC, the cheapest prices I can find). Its come all the way down to triple for the high density SO-DIMMs. To spend that you either have to be desperate or have an idol of Steve Jobs above your bed.
Now that laptops with i7s, and BD drives, not to mention other delights such as eSATA ports are coming out there's absolutely NO excuse for Apple to release another comically underpowered iMac.
I have money to hand, I'm ready to buy, but I won't accept anything less than an i7, BD burner, a high end GPU, and an LED matte screen.
There was no excuse last time not to use the small form factor quad cores over mobiles, and to everybody's surprised, they sticked with the laptop CPUs. Don't underestimate Apple's push for form over function. They will take steps backwards in the internals to take steps forward in the design.
With an API that is designed for SMP. Two core will be faster than one, four cores faster than two, six cores faster than four, etc. Its simple logic and math.
That's not the point. He's implying that SL and Grand Central are really only beneficial for quad-core or higher processors and that it's wasted on the current dual-core implementation all of the Mac's except of course for the quad and dual-quad Mac Pro's. I can only assume this argument is to try to reinforce the idea that iMac needs a quad-core to properly utilize SL, which is untrue. Any multi-core processor will benefit from SL's Grand Central, including a dual-core processor.
Of course one would expect qaud-core or dual-quad core's to be faster than a dual-core alone. That was never in question. I actually look forward to quad-core for the entire line, but passing on disinformation, even if it's just implied, doesn't help.
And if you would have done another 30 seconds on google you'd realize that is a 2 SO-DIMM kit (2x2GB). iMacs, like laptops, only have to slots. Looking at the current prices, they have come down a bit. Now you can have a 4GB kit for $90 while the single 1x4GB SO-DIMM costs $260 or $520 for the kit (at OWC, the cheapest prices I can find). Its come all the way down to triple for the high density SO-DIMMs. To spend that you either have to be desperate or have an idol of Steve Jobs above your bed.
The memory for my 2008 iMac is about $370 for 2x4GB, but it's older DDR2
Now that laptops with i7s, and BD drives, not to mention other delights such as eSATA ports are coming out there's absolutely NO excuse for Apple to release another comically underpowered iMac.
I have money to hand, I'm ready to buy, but I won't accept anything less than an i7, BD burner, a high end GPU, and an LED matte screen.
You really think that a 9 pound, 2 inch thick laptop with desktop grade Core i7 processor running at 130W is the business Apple is in, or do you think that Apple?among all PC vendors?can magically make that same machine that is half the thickness, half the weight and one third the wattage of anyone else?
Alienware designs gaming machines for a niche clientele. The behemoths they create do not satisfy the needs of the average consumer. If you are looking for such a machine, that is great, and Windows is the way to go since these are semi-portable gaming machines, but lets nt kid ourselves into thinking that Apple can use those same parts in a much smaller space.
You really think that a 9 pound, 2 inch thick laptop with desktop grade Core i7 processor running at 130W is the business Apple is in, or do you think that Apple?among all PC vendors?can magically make that same machine that is half the thickness, half the weight and one third the wattage of anyone else?
Alienware designs gaming machines for a niche clientele. The behemoths they create do not satisfy the needs of the average consumer. If you are looking for such a machine, that is great, and Windows is the way to go since these are semi-portable gaming machines, but lets nt kid ourselves into thinking that Apple can use those same parts in a much smaller space.
But I believe you're missing his point.
If pc makers can fit nehalem cpus into laptops, Apple should be able to get a nehalem cpu in the iMac.
If pc makers can fit nehalem cpus into laptops, Apple should be able to get a nehalem cpu in the iMac.
Agreed.
I expect to see next year, dual core Arrandale with integrated graphics for the mini and Clarksfield for the iMac with discrete graphics. Hopefully ATI mobile 4800 series class.
If pc makers can fit nehalem cpus into laptops, Apple should be able to get a nehalem cpu in the iMac.
Sure, they CAN, but at what cost? The iMac already runs pretty hot with a 44W CPU so I don?t see how a 130W CPU would be possible without Apple making it thicker and/or having a major cooling breakthrough. It?s not just the CPU that now needs to be considered, but larger fans, larger power supply, etc. We know Apple doesn?t like to go thicker?even though they CAN if they wanted to?so that option shouldn?t be considered as it?s not part of of their core philosophy. McDonald?s could make a steak burger using Kobe beef if they wanted to, but a $20 burger isn?t part of their business model.
Remember that Apple?s desktop line is growing faster than the industry. I doubt it?s because of the Mac Pro or the Mac Mini so I have to think it?s because of the iMac. Apparently Apple is doing something right. Even their notebooks are underpowered when you look at the larger notebooks from other vendors using cheaper components that run hotter than Apple?s notebooks, yet Apple is still selling more and dominating the high end market.
PS: Check out the last section of the link below regarding Clarksfield. These are the mobile i7 chips that using 45W and 55W. But now there is a marketing problem with these chips as their clock speed is significantly lower than the previous dual-cores. Most cnsumer use clocks peed as a baseline for determining value, they don?t read charts to determine overall performance. Eventually we?ll see quad-cores in everything, but it?s s tricky time for PC vendors.
Sure, they CAN, but at what cost? The iMac already runs pretty hot with a 44W CPU so I don?t see how a 130W CPU would be possible without Apple making it thicker and/or having a major cooling breakthrough. It?s not just the CPU that now needs to be considered, but larger fans, larger power supply, etc. We know Apple doesn?t like to go thicker?even though they CAN if they wanted to?so that option shouldn?t be considered as it?s not part of of their core philosophy. McDonald?s could make a steak burger using Kobe beef if they wanted to, but a $20 burger isn?t part of their business model.
Remember that Apple?s desktop line is growing faster than the industry. I doubt it?s because of the Mac Pro or the Mac Mini so I have to think it?s because of the iMac. Apparently Apple is doing something right. Even their notebooks are underpowered when you look at the larger notebooks from other vendors using cheaper components that run hotter than Apple?s notebooks, yet Apple is still selling more and dominating the high end market.
Does the 2009 iMac run hotter than the 08 model? My 08 seems to run decently cool (3.06 / 24"). Unless I'm doing video work the fans rarely kick on. I would be psyched if they could squeeze a quad in there. Dunno if I'd upgrade immediately as mine still has a lot of life left in it, but it would be a shoe-in for my next Mac upgrade.
You'd have to go back to 2007 to find any Mac that would only support 4 GB or less. The exception is the Mac Mini which only supported up to 3 GB in 2007, and 4 GB in the 2009 model.
Please show me where I can buy a MacBook Air with 4GB or more ram.
Please show me where I can buy a MacBook Air with 4GB or more ram.
Ok, make that 1 current model. That one only supports up to 2 GB. I wasn't aware of that until I looked that one up. Odd choice as higher capacity DDR modules don't take up any more space.
I have to agree with you there. I don't understand the need to have a ultra thin iMac. It's a desktop unit (granted it's packed full of laptop parts). It's not going anywhere, and you never see the back unless you turn it around. I wish they would ditch the laptop parts and stick with desktop components when possible. They are certainly cheaper for aftermarket upgrades.
I think the graphic card does a capable job for the games I play, but none of them are bleeding edge type stuff. I'm not FPS crazy where I must have 100 FPS on whatever the latest 3D action shooter is, but it would be nice to be able to just pop in a replacement when the current one gets outdated after a year or three.
Sure, they CAN, but at what cost? The iMac already runs pretty hot with a 44W CPU so I don’t see how a 130W CPU would be possible without Apple making it thicker and/or having a major cooling breakthrough. It’s not just the CPU that now needs to be considered, but larger fans, larger power supply, etc. We know Apple doesn’t like to go thicker—even though they CAN if they wanted to—so that option shouldn’t be considered as it’s not part of of their core philosophy. McDonald’s could make a steak burger using Kobe beef if they wanted to, but a $20 burger isn’t part of their business model.
Remember that Apple’s desktop line is growing faster than the industry. I doubt it’s because of the Mac Pro or the Mac Mini so I have to think it’s because of the iMac. Apparently Apple is doing something right. Even their notebooks are underpowered when you look at the larger notebooks from other vendors using cheaper components that run hotter than Apple’s notebooks, yet Apple is still selling more and dominating the high end market.
PS: Check out the last section of the link below regarding Clarksfield. These are the mobile i7 chips that using 45W and 55W. But now there is a marketing problem with these chips as their clock speed is significantly lower than the previous dual-cores. Most cnsumer use clocks peed as a baseline for determining value, they don’t read charts to determine overall performance. Eventually we’ll see quad-cores in everything, but it’s s tricky time for PC vendors.
Take into account that the Northbridge currently handles a lot, like memory control, something the Clarksfield would take over. I'm thinking in terms of what a [i7+PM55+gfx] would stack up against a [C2D+M9400+gfx] in terms of power consumption and heat.
Also, Apple shouldn't worry too much about what consumers will think about the drop in MHz. All vendors will be dealing with the same exact issue when dealing with this, admittedly mobile, CPU.
If Apple markets the turbo speed then all should be good on that end and I’m certain they can get 45W and 55W work in the iMac, but should they still use mobile-grade CPUs or go with Intel’s desktop-grade CPUs that are designed for AIOs and run at 65W?
If Apple markets the turbo speed then all should be good on that end and I?m certain they can get 45W and 55W work in the iMac, but should they still use mobile-grade CPUs or go with Intel?s desktop-grade CPUs that are designed for AIOs and run at 65W?
I think they should use the latter desktop grade CPUs. The motherboard will have to be redesigned from scratch anyway. With the past AL iMacs, the Core2 boards were tweaked and modified to accommodate different, but similar components. Now is a good time to reinvent the iMac.
Comments
Every Mac takes maybe 10 minutes to upgrade the ram with cheap after market memory. $100 bucks and your done, even on the iMac and the Mini.
For most that maxes out at 4GB. The 4GB SO-DIMMs are roughly 10x the price of the 2GB SO-DIMMs.
Haha yeah, I guess you're right. That is the purpose of Grand Central Dispatch. I mean, it's true that a Quad core configuration in a new iMac is the most obvious forward step left to be taken in terms of any major performance boosting. That would be very nice.
The mobile quad cores are too expensive and might even be too hot for the iMac.
Can you provide a link that has information where four cores will benefit more than any multi-core processor?
With an API that is designed for SMP. Two core will be faster than one, four cores faster than two, six cores faster than four, etc. Its simple logic and math.
Can you provide a link that has information where four cores will benefit more than any multi-core processor?
I'm not saying that, so no, I have no link.
Now that laptops with i7s, and BD drives, not to mention other delights such as eSATA ports are coming out there's absolutely NO excuse for Apple to release another comically underpowered iMac.
I have money to hand, I'm ready to buy, but I won't accept anything less than an i7, BD burner, a high end GPU, and an LED matte screen.
For most that maxes out at 4GB. The 4GB SO-DIMMs are roughly 10x the price of the 2GB SO-DIMMs.
The mobile quad cores are too expensive and might even be too hot for the iMac.
10 times the price? You're exaggerating a bit. You can get 4GB for about twice the price of a 2 GB stick with about 30 seconds of effort on google.
DDR2 - http://eshop.macsales.com/shop/memory/MacBook/DDR2/
DDR3 - http://www.ramseeker.com/
You'd have to go back to 2007 to find any Mac that would only support 4 GB or less. The exception is the Mac Mini which only supported up to 3 GB in 2007, and 4 GB in the 2009 model.
There's a handy Freeware app you can download that gives you the skinny on every Mac model available, as well as the official max amount of supported ram and the real supported amounts. Very handy if your planning an upgrade or your curious about the hardware components of various models.
http://mactracker.dreamhosters.com/
10 times the price? You're exaggerating a bit. You can get 4GB for about twice the price of a 2 GB stick with about 30 seconds of effort on google.
And if you would have done another 30 seconds on google you'd realize that is a 2 SO-DIMM kit (2x2GB). iMacs, like laptops, only have to slots. Looking at the current prices, they have come down a bit. Now you can have a 4GB kit for $90 while the single 1x4GB SO-DIMM costs $260 or $520 for the kit (at OWC, the cheapest prices I can find). Its come all the way down to triple for the high density SO-DIMMs. To spend that you either have to be desperate or have an idol of Steve Jobs above your bed.
http://www.engadget.com/2009/09/23/d...-i7-confirmed/
Now that laptops with i7s, and BD drives, not to mention other delights such as eSATA ports are coming out there's absolutely NO excuse for Apple to release another comically underpowered iMac.
I have money to hand, I'm ready to buy, but I won't accept anything less than an i7, BD burner, a high end GPU, and an LED matte screen.
There was no excuse last time not to use the small form factor quad cores over mobiles, and to everybody's surprised, they sticked with the laptop CPUs. Don't underestimate Apple's push for form over function. They will take steps backwards in the internals to take steps forward in the design.
With an API that is designed for SMP. Two core will be faster than one, four cores faster than two, six cores faster than four, etc. Its simple logic and math.
That's not the point. He's implying that SL and Grand Central are really only beneficial for quad-core or higher processors and that it's wasted on the current dual-core implementation all of the Mac's except of course for the quad and dual-quad Mac Pro's. I can only assume this argument is to try to reinforce the idea that iMac needs a quad-core to properly utilize SL, which is untrue. Any multi-core processor will benefit from SL's Grand Central, including a dual-core processor.
Of course one would expect qaud-core or dual-quad core's to be faster than a dual-core alone. That was never in question. I actually look forward to quad-core for the entire line, but passing on disinformation, even if it's just implied, doesn't help.
And if you would have done another 30 seconds on google you'd realize that is a 2 SO-DIMM kit (2x2GB). iMacs, like laptops, only have to slots. Looking at the current prices, they have come down a bit. Now you can have a 4GB kit for $90 while the single 1x4GB SO-DIMM costs $260 or $520 for the kit (at OWC, the cheapest prices I can find). Its come all the way down to triple for the high density SO-DIMMs. To spend that you either have to be desperate or have an idol of Steve Jobs above your bed.
The memory for my 2008 iMac is about $370 for 2x4GB, but it's older DDR2
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...-599-_-Product
DDR3 is a bit more as you pointed out yet neither is 10 times the price of 2 GB stick.
http://www.engadget.com/2009/09/23/d...-i7-confirmed/
Now that laptops with i7s, and BD drives, not to mention other delights such as eSATA ports are coming out there's absolutely NO excuse for Apple to release another comically underpowered iMac.
I have money to hand, I'm ready to buy, but I won't accept anything less than an i7, BD burner, a high end GPU, and an LED matte screen.
You really think that a 9 pound, 2 inch thick laptop with desktop grade Core i7 processor running at 130W is the business Apple is in, or do you think that Apple?among all PC vendors?can magically make that same machine that is half the thickness, half the weight and one third the wattage of anyone else?
Alienware designs gaming machines for a niche clientele. The behemoths they create do not satisfy the needs of the average consumer. If you are looking for such a machine, that is great, and Windows is the way to go since these are semi-portable gaming machines, but lets nt kid ourselves into thinking that Apple can use those same parts in a much smaller space.
You really think that a 9 pound, 2 inch thick laptop with desktop grade Core i7 processor running at 130W is the business Apple is in, or do you think that Apple?among all PC vendors?can magically make that same machine that is half the thickness, half the weight and one third the wattage of anyone else?
Alienware designs gaming machines for a niche clientele. The behemoths they create do not satisfy the needs of the average consumer. If you are looking for such a machine, that is great, and Windows is the way to go since these are semi-portable gaming machines, but lets nt kid ourselves into thinking that Apple can use those same parts in a much smaller space.
But I believe you're missing his point.
If pc makers can fit nehalem cpus into laptops, Apple should be able to get a nehalem cpu in the iMac.
But I believe you're missing his point.
If pc makers can fit nehalem cpus into laptops, Apple should be able to get a nehalem cpu in the iMac.
Agreed.
I expect to see next year, dual core Arrandale with integrated graphics for the mini and Clarksfield for the iMac with discrete graphics. Hopefully ATI mobile 4800 series class.
But I believe you're missing his point.
If pc makers can fit nehalem cpus into laptops, Apple should be able to get a nehalem cpu in the iMac.
Sure, they CAN, but at what cost? The iMac already runs pretty hot with a 44W CPU so I don?t see how a 130W CPU would be possible without Apple making it thicker and/or having a major cooling breakthrough. It?s not just the CPU that now needs to be considered, but larger fans, larger power supply, etc. We know Apple doesn?t like to go thicker?even though they CAN if they wanted to?so that option shouldn?t be considered as it?s not part of of their core philosophy. McDonald?s could make a steak burger using Kobe beef if they wanted to, but a $20 burger isn?t part of their business model.
Remember that Apple?s desktop line is growing faster than the industry. I doubt it?s because of the Mac Pro or the Mac Mini so I have to think it?s because of the iMac. Apparently Apple is doing something right. Even their notebooks are underpowered when you look at the larger notebooks from other vendors using cheaper components that run hotter than Apple?s notebooks, yet Apple is still selling more and dominating the high end market.
PS: Check out the last section of the link below regarding Clarksfield. These are the mobile i7 chips that using 45W and 55W. But now there is a marketing problem with these chips as their clock speed is significantly lower than the previous dual-cores. Most cnsumer use clocks peed as a baseline for determining value, they don?t read charts to determine overall performance. Eventually we?ll see quad-cores in everything, but it?s s tricky time for PC vendors.
Sure, they CAN, but at what cost? The iMac already runs pretty hot with a 44W CPU so I don?t see how a 130W CPU would be possible without Apple making it thicker and/or having a major cooling breakthrough. It?s not just the CPU that now needs to be considered, but larger fans, larger power supply, etc. We know Apple doesn?t like to go thicker?even though they CAN if they wanted to?so that option shouldn?t be considered as it?s not part of of their core philosophy. McDonald?s could make a steak burger using Kobe beef if they wanted to, but a $20 burger isn?t part of their business model.
Remember that Apple?s desktop line is growing faster than the industry. I doubt it?s because of the Mac Pro or the Mac Mini so I have to think it?s because of the iMac. Apparently Apple is doing something right. Even their notebooks are underpowered when you look at the larger notebooks from other vendors using cheaper components that run hotter than Apple?s notebooks, yet Apple is still selling more and dominating the high end market.
Does the 2009 iMac run hotter than the 08 model? My 08 seems to run decently cool (3.06 / 24"). Unless I'm doing video work the fans rarely kick on. I would be psyched if they could squeeze a quad in there. Dunno if I'd upgrade immediately as mine still has a lot of life left in it, but it would be a shoe-in for my next Mac upgrade.
You'd have to go back to 2007 to find any Mac that would only support 4 GB or less. The exception is the Mac Mini which only supported up to 3 GB in 2007, and 4 GB in the 2009 model.
Please show me where I can buy a MacBook Air with 4GB or more ram.
...
Seriously though, i'd happily accept the iMac putting a little weight on if it means a good CPU.
http://www.engadget.com/2009/09/23/i...re-for-laptop/
Please show me where I can buy a MacBook Air with 4GB or more ram.
Ok, make that 1 current model. That one only supports up to 2 GB. I wasn't aware of that until I looked that one up. Odd choice as higher capacity DDR modules don't take up any more space.
obviously the next imac is going to be 12mm thick, and run from an Atom processor using intel's new on-dye GPU.
...
Seriously though, i'd happily accept the iMac putting a little weight on if it means a good CPU.
http://www.engadget.com/2009/09/23/i...re-for-laptop/
I have to agree with you there. I don't understand the need to have a ultra thin iMac. It's a desktop unit (granted it's packed full of laptop parts). It's not going anywhere, and you never see the back unless you turn it around. I wish they would ditch the laptop parts and stick with desktop components when possible. They are certainly cheaper for aftermarket upgrades.
I think the graphic card does a capable job for the games I play, but none of them are bleeding edge type stuff. I'm not FPS crazy where I must have 100 FPS on whatever the latest 3D action shooter is, but it would be nice to be able to just pop in a replacement when the current one gets outdated after a year or three.
Sure, they CAN, but at what cost? The iMac already runs pretty hot with a 44W CPU so I don’t see how a 130W CPU would be possible without Apple making it thicker and/or having a major cooling breakthrough. It’s not just the CPU that now needs to be considered, but larger fans, larger power supply, etc. We know Apple doesn’t like to go thicker—even though they CAN if they wanted to—so that option shouldn’t be considered as it’s not part of of their core philosophy. McDonald’s could make a steak burger using Kobe beef if they wanted to, but a $20 burger isn’t part of their business model.
Remember that Apple’s desktop line is growing faster than the industry. I doubt it’s because of the Mac Pro or the Mac Mini so I have to think it’s because of the iMac. Apparently Apple is doing something right. Even their notebooks are underpowered when you look at the larger notebooks from other vendors using cheaper components that run hotter than Apple’s notebooks, yet Apple is still selling more and dominating the high end market.
PS: Check out the last section of the link below regarding Clarksfield. These are the mobile i7 chips that using 45W and 55W. But now there is a marketing problem with these chips as their clock speed is significantly lower than the previous dual-cores. Most cnsumer use clocks peed as a baseline for determining value, they don’t read charts to determine overall performance. Eventually we’ll see quad-cores in everything, but it’s s tricky time for PC vendors.
Take into account that the Northbridge currently handles a lot, like memory control, something the Clarksfield would take over. I'm thinking in terms of what a [i7+PM55+gfx] would stack up against a [C2D+M9400+gfx] in terms of power consumption and heat.
Also, Apple shouldn't worry too much about what consumers will think about the drop in MHz. All vendors will be dealing with the same exact issue when dealing with this, admittedly mobile, CPU.
AnandTech just put out an article on the new mobile Clarksfield: Nehalem.If Apple markets the turbo speed then all should be good on that end and I?m certain they can get 45W and 55W work in the iMac, but should they still use mobile-grade CPUs or go with Intel?s desktop-grade CPUs that are designed for AIOs and run at 65W?
I think they should use the latter desktop grade CPUs. The motherboard will have to be redesigned from scratch anyway. With the past AL iMacs, the Core2 boards were tweaked and modified to accommodate different, but similar components. Now is a good time to reinvent the iMac.