In real-life benefits, what does the quad give you that the C2D 3.06 does not?
Depends on what you do.
It will always give better performance when multitasking.
It will give better performance on the growing number of programs that are multi-core aware.
It will even give some benefit, though not much, on two core programs, as the OS and its housekeeping can use other cores.
In addition, unlike older machines with two cores, when more programs go to using Grand Central, and thus four cores, they will be faster then than they are now, actually giving your year or two old machine better performance than when you first bought it.
This will enable you to keep that machine longer than you would otherwise have done, saving you some money down the line.
So for a given period, where you would have bought three machines, you now might only buy two.
That's never happened before.
In addition, the Nehalen chips are much better GHz to GHz when compared to the older Core 2 designs because of the built-in memory management, rather than the older FSB. They are better at power management resulting in good cooling. They also scale up in speed more when not all cores are needed, resulting in higher performance for one or two core programs. A 2.80 GHz chip can actually be faster than a 3.0.6 GHZ Core 2 design.
Lots of advantages to these chips beyond the number of cores.
Yea, wait for the graphics benchmarks too. Previous iMac's had lousy 3D graphics which so many people complained they couldn't 3D game well that Apple came up with a BTO upgrade option for a better graphics card. They might be fearing cannibalizing sales from the Mac Pro.
Well, I'm a few imac revs back, so it may be 'better than what I have' - but a good point as something else to compare as well.
I think I will wait for the second batch release ... on the other hand would have been nice if Apple included a eSATA port as well, since most of us would need to use an external hard drive and (firewire scanner at least in my case).... any case it looks like a great computer...
I think I will wait for the second batch release ... on the other hand would have been nice if Apple included a eSATA port as well, since most of us would need to use an external hard drive and (firewire scanner at least in my case).... any case it looks like a great computer...
The lack of ESATA support from Apple so far is a sore point.
Having released a 27" iMac, which looks fantastic, how long can it be until Apple take a throw at the TV market, building something like Apple TV into a living room display?
When I saw this message I had a check on whether my i7 had been shipped and noticed on the Apple online store that the order had ben cancelled but there was still an entry there.
I gave the UK store a call and the operator said that they had received lots of calls as they had changed the part number and therefore had to cancel all the orders and then re-order them. He reckoned that this wouldn't delay the shipment.
I ordered mine pretty much as soon as the new system was available on the store. He couldn't advise when it may come (November!!) but am certainly looking forward to taking delivery of my first Mac!
The two 24" models I bought for my family in early 2008 have pretty decent graphics with the upgrade offered then.
As you know, you can't go wrong with getting as much graphics and processor power as you can (afford) with a enclosed box. Makes the machine and your computing experience last so much better and longer between upgrades.
As you know, you can't go wrong with getting as much graphics and processor power as you can (afford) with a enclosed box. Makes the machine and your computing experience last so much better and longer between upgrades.
Absolutely! I always buy them with the best hardware available at the time, so I bought those with the 3.0.6 GHz processor, and the upgraded card. I upgraded the RAM from OWC.
This year's machines are a big leg up, with really good displays, and let's not get into the glossy/matte debate. I'm talking about the LED backlit IPS panels.
I think these are great machines. Good value, good looking, good specs. The software guys at Apple however need to lift their game.
For example look at what Microsoft has been doing with GUI. They have replaced text-only menus with a system where clicking a menu title changes out the Toolbar. And the Windows 7 dock has some nice features Apple should have thought of. It is a lot riskier for MS to make major GUI changes than Apple, and yet they are the ones doing it.
I am not saying that the advances in 10.6 were nothing, they were great. But they were not enough, they need to pick up the pace. MS is moving fast all of a sudden.
It will always give better performance when multitasking.
It will give better performance on the growing number of programs that are multi-core aware.
It will even give some benefit, though not much, on two core programs, as the OS and its housekeeping can use other cores.
In addition, unlike older machines with two cores, when more programs go to using Grand Central, and thus four cores, they will be faster then than they are now, actually giving your year or two old machine better performance than when you first bought it.
This will enable you to keep that machine longer than you would otherwise have done, saving you some money down the line.
So for a given period, where you would have bought three machines, you now might only buy two.
That's never happened before.
In addition, the Nehalen chips are much better GHz to GHz when compared to the older Core 2 designs because of the built-in memory management, rather than the older FSB. They are better at power management resulting in good cooling. They also scale up in speed more when not all cores are needed, resulting in higher performance for one or two core programs. A 2.80 GHz chip can actually be faster than a 3.0.6 GHZ Core 2 design.
Lots of advantages to these chips beyond the number of cores.
Exactly, you can't go wrong with more power upfront as you don't know what software bloat will occur later on. Desktops last much longer and have better performance/heat control than laptops usually and quad cores may become the norm for all computers shortly.
It might be worthwhile to note that even though we are getting 4 cores in the new iMac's, some way and some how it will be hobbled so the performance will be only slightly greater than the duo cores instead of the assumed 2x rate with 2x the amount of cores.
There is no way in hell they are going to greatly prolong the upgrade cycle by giving consumers a fantastic deal with a machine with twice the power of the previous one. The PowerMac G5 dual processor machine did that (two computers in one box basically and sold like hotcakes too), but we didn't know that Apple was going to drop PPC and later on OS X for PPC.
So I would wait to see the benchmarks.
Apple or Intel might be hobbling the first issue of quad cores and then later on issuing newer versions with ever faster speeds by reducing the hobbling.
Giving a consumer a unrestricted quad core is a lot of performance punch, there's got to be a trick somewhere in there.
I think these are great machines. Good value, good looking, good specs. The software guys at Apple however need to lift their game.
For example look at what Microsoft has been doing with GUI. They have replaced text-only menus with a system where clicking a menu title changes out the Toolbar. And the Windows 7 dock has some nice features Apple should have thought of. It is a lot riskier for MS to make major GUI changes than Apple, and yet they are the ones doing it.
I am not saying that the advances in 10.6 were nothing, they were great. But they were not enough, they need to pick up the pace. MS is moving fast all of a sudden.
You're making the mistake of forgetting what the 10.6 upgrade was all about. It WASN'T about making wide ranging feature upgrades to consumers. Those wide ranging feature upgrades were made for developers this time around. The streamlined OS is also a major feature upgrade, but you don't notice it as much.
What major upgrades did MS make for Win 7? I don't see any. Minor upgrades yes, such as what you've mentioned.
You also notice that Apple is charging a pittance for the upgrade, while MS is still charging full price for their too many versions, with overpriced consumer versions. Even their copy Apple with a family pack pricing is much higher than Apple's. And that $29 student pack upgrade doesn't seem to be working.
When 10.7 comes out, no doubt Apple will add all the features and consumer aware upgrades they held back from offering this time, as well as others made possible by what they DID do this time. And even at full price again, it will still cost much less than MS charges.
Exactly, you can't go wrong with more power upfront as you don't know what software bloat will occur later on. Desktops last much longer and have better performance/heat control than laptops usually and quad cores may become the norm for all computers shortly.
It might be worthwhile to note that even though we are getting 4 cores in the new iMac's, some way and some how it will be hobbled so the performance will be only slightly greater than the duo cores instead of the assumed 2x rate with 2x the amount of cores.
There is no way in hell they are going to prolong the upgrade cycle by giving us consumers a fantastic deal with a machine with twice the power of the previous one. The PowerMac G5 dual processor machine did that (two computers in one box and sold like hotcakes too), but we didn't know that Apple was going to drop PPC and later on OS X for PPC.
So I would wait to see the benchmarks.
Apple or Intel might be hobbling the first issue of quad cores and then later on issuing newer versions with ever faster speeds by reducing the hobbling.
Giving a consumer a quad core is a lot of performance punch, there's got to be a trick somewhere in there.
There's such a thing as scaling. You don't get 400% the performance of a one core chip with a four core chip. But the Nehalen designs are better at scaling than older chips have been. One reason is the new QPI (Quickpath) technology for interchip communications.
Apple isn't about to do anything to limit the benefits of these new chips. This is their path to the future, and they'll want it to look good.
These are nice enough that I almost want to get a desktop for my main machine… almost, but I’ll hold out until the next MBPs drop, hopefully with i5s.
PS: I would like to know the display input is wired to the display. This function is not part of the regular specs for these video cards so I wonder if there is a driver limitation or even a HW issue with the cards that is preventing even DP feeds from non-Mac PCs not working.
Comments
In real-life benefits, what does the quad give you that the C2D 3.06 does not?
Depends on what you do.
It will always give better performance when multitasking.
It will give better performance on the growing number of programs that are multi-core aware.
It will even give some benefit, though not much, on two core programs, as the OS and its housekeeping can use other cores.
In addition, unlike older machines with two cores, when more programs go to using Grand Central, and thus four cores, they will be faster then than they are now, actually giving your year or two old machine better performance than when you first bought it.
This will enable you to keep that machine longer than you would otherwise have done, saving you some money down the line.
So for a given period, where you would have bought three machines, you now might only buy two.
That's never happened before.
In addition, the Nehalen chips are much better GHz to GHz when compared to the older Core 2 designs because of the built-in memory management, rather than the older FSB. They are better at power management resulting in good cooling. They also scale up in speed more when not all cores are needed, resulting in higher performance for one or two core programs. A 2.80 GHz chip can actually be faster than a 3.0.6 GHZ Core 2 design.
Lots of advantages to these chips beyond the number of cores.
I am typing this on my 3.06 GHz C2D with the 4850 right now... for what it's worth...
When/where did you get yours? They've always been listed as shipping in "November" on the Apple Store until just the other day.
When/where did you get yours? They've always been listed as shipping in "November" on the Apple Store until just the other day.
Received my iMac on Oct 26th and have been loving it to death since!
Yea, wait for the graphics benchmarks too. Previous iMac's had lousy 3D graphics which so many people complained they couldn't 3D game well that Apple came up with a BTO upgrade option for a better graphics card. They might be fearing cannibalizing sales from the Mac Pro.
Well, I'm a few imac revs back, so it may be 'better than what I have' - but a good point as something else to compare as well.
I think I will wait for the second batch release ... on the other hand would have been nice if Apple included a eSATA port as well, since most of us would need to use an external hard drive and (firewire scanner at least in my case).... any case it looks like a great computer...
The lack of ESATA support from Apple so far is a sore point.
Would seem like a sensible move to me.
I gave the UK store a call and the operator said that they had received lots of calls as they had changed the part number and therefore had to cancel all the orders and then re-order them. He reckoned that this wouldn't delay the shipment.
I ordered mine pretty much as soon as the new system was available on the store. He couldn't advise when it may come (November!!) but am certainly looking forward to taking delivery of my first Mac!
The two 24" models I bought for my family in early 2008 have pretty decent graphics with the upgrade offered then.
As you know, you can't go wrong with getting as much graphics and processor power as you can (afford) with a enclosed box. Makes the machine and your computing experience last so much better and longer between upgrades.
As you know, you can't go wrong with getting as much graphics and processor power as you can (afford) with a enclosed box. Makes the machine and your computing experience last so much better and longer between upgrades.
Absolutely! I always buy them with the best hardware available at the time, so I bought those with the 3.0.6 GHz processor, and the upgraded card. I upgraded the RAM from OWC.
This year's machines are a big leg up, with really good displays, and let's not get into the glossy/matte debate. I'm talking about the LED backlit IPS panels.
For example look at what Microsoft has been doing with GUI. They have replaced text-only menus with a system where clicking a menu title changes out the Toolbar. And the Windows 7 dock has some nice features Apple should have thought of. It is a lot riskier for MS to make major GUI changes than Apple, and yet they are the ones doing it.
I am not saying that the advances in 10.6 were nothing, they were great. But they were not enough, they need to pick up the pace. MS is moving fast all of a sudden.
Depends on what you do.
It will always give better performance when multitasking.
It will give better performance on the growing number of programs that are multi-core aware.
It will even give some benefit, though not much, on two core programs, as the OS and its housekeeping can use other cores.
In addition, unlike older machines with two cores, when more programs go to using Grand Central, and thus four cores, they will be faster then than they are now, actually giving your year or two old machine better performance than when you first bought it.
This will enable you to keep that machine longer than you would otherwise have done, saving you some money down the line.
So for a given period, where you would have bought three machines, you now might only buy two.
That's never happened before.
In addition, the Nehalen chips are much better GHz to GHz when compared to the older Core 2 designs because of the built-in memory management, rather than the older FSB. They are better at power management resulting in good cooling. They also scale up in speed more when not all cores are needed, resulting in higher performance for one or two core programs. A 2.80 GHz chip can actually be faster than a 3.0.6 GHZ Core 2 design.
Lots of advantages to these chips beyond the number of cores.
Exactly, you can't go wrong with more power upfront as you don't know what software bloat will occur later on. Desktops last much longer and have better performance/heat control than laptops usually and quad cores may become the norm for all computers shortly.
It might be worthwhile to note that even though we are getting 4 cores in the new iMac's, some way and some how it will be hobbled so the performance will be only slightly greater than the duo cores instead of the assumed 2x rate with 2x the amount of cores.
There is no way in hell they are going to greatly prolong the upgrade cycle by giving consumers a fantastic deal with a machine with twice the power of the previous one. The PowerMac G5 dual processor machine did that (two computers in one box basically and sold like hotcakes too), but we didn't know that Apple was going to drop PPC and later on OS X for PPC.
So I would wait to see the benchmarks.
Apple or Intel might be hobbling the first issue of quad cores and then later on issuing newer versions with ever faster speeds by reducing the hobbling.
Giving a consumer a unrestricted quad core is a lot of performance punch, there's got to be a trick somewhere in there.
I think these are great machines. Good value, good looking, good specs. The software guys at Apple however need to lift their game.
For example look at what Microsoft has been doing with GUI. They have replaced text-only menus with a system where clicking a menu title changes out the Toolbar. And the Windows 7 dock has some nice features Apple should have thought of. It is a lot riskier for MS to make major GUI changes than Apple, and yet they are the ones doing it.
I am not saying that the advances in 10.6 were nothing, they were great. But they were not enough, they need to pick up the pace. MS is moving fast all of a sudden.
You're making the mistake of forgetting what the 10.6 upgrade was all about. It WASN'T about making wide ranging feature upgrades to consumers. Those wide ranging feature upgrades were made for developers this time around. The streamlined OS is also a major feature upgrade, but you don't notice it as much.
What major upgrades did MS make for Win 7? I don't see any. Minor upgrades yes, such as what you've mentioned.
You also notice that Apple is charging a pittance for the upgrade, while MS is still charging full price for their too many versions, with overpriced consumer versions. Even their copy Apple with a family pack pricing is much higher than Apple's. And that $29 student pack upgrade doesn't seem to be working.
When 10.7 comes out, no doubt Apple will add all the features and consumer aware upgrades they held back from offering this time, as well as others made possible by what they DID do this time. And even at full price again, it will still cost much less than MS charges.
i have own ed 3 of these imac's
my latest one is two long yrs old
some how i wish my wife by mistake would knock it over
so I would be forced to get the new imac quad 27
unibody heaven
How do you deal with glare? Did you put the anti-glare stickers?
Exactly, you can't go wrong with more power upfront as you don't know what software bloat will occur later on. Desktops last much longer and have better performance/heat control than laptops usually and quad cores may become the norm for all computers shortly.
It might be worthwhile to note that even though we are getting 4 cores in the new iMac's, some way and some how it will be hobbled so the performance will be only slightly greater than the duo cores instead of the assumed 2x rate with 2x the amount of cores.
There is no way in hell they are going to prolong the upgrade cycle by giving us consumers a fantastic deal with a machine with twice the power of the previous one. The PowerMac G5 dual processor machine did that (two computers in one box and sold like hotcakes too), but we didn't know that Apple was going to drop PPC and later on OS X for PPC.
So I would wait to see the benchmarks.
Apple or Intel might be hobbling the first issue of quad cores and then later on issuing newer versions with ever faster speeds by reducing the hobbling.
Giving a consumer a quad core is a lot of performance punch, there's got to be a trick somewhere in there.
There's such a thing as scaling. You don't get 400% the performance of a one core chip with a four core chip. But the Nehalen designs are better at scaling than older chips have been. One reason is the new QPI (Quickpath) technology for interchip communications.
Apple isn't about to do anything to limit the benefits of these new chips. This is their path to the future, and they'll want it to look good.
How do you deal with glare? Did you put the anti-glare stickers?
We have two 24" machines here at home, and glare isn't a problem.
Minor adjustments in the angle of the machines is enough to put that problem to rest.
PS: I would like to know the display input is wired to the display. This function is not part of the regular specs for these video cards so I wonder if there is a driver limitation or even a HW issue with the cards that is preventing even DP feeds from non-Mac PCs not working.
We have two 24" machines here at home, and glare isn't a problem.
Minor adjustments in the angle of the machines is enough to put that problem to rest.
Does your home face North?