Next iMac refresh
I know they've only just seen a new form factor but when's the earliest you think we can expect a refresh? I have the original alu-iMac and don't want to upgrade until the new systems have Blu-Ray as I have several discs and don't want a system (like my current one) in which some of my film library isn't playable.
Comments
BluRay is anybody's guess... though personally, I don't see it coming to the iMacs anytime soon.
Two areas to fix. Cpu and gpu.
Gpu. Out of date. And it's low end.
Better gpu as standard. Though history isn't on our side. 4850 as standard would be nice. But an option for at least a mid-range card would be good to push the resolution on the 27 inch. And with a gig of Vram as machines £700 cheaper now have that.
Cpu? Value equation.
And the i5 should be standard on the entry machines.
And the i7 should be standard on the upper two.
They're not expensive cpus.
Paying 3-4 times as much to get a quad core processor as a PC equivalent is a massive p*ss take by Apple.
Lemon Bon Bon.
And as for form factor, Apple's probably not going to change the iMac design in 2010. We'll see though. They could make it more curvy around the edges to make it ever so thinner.
...............................
**Based on ATI's latest achievements with 40nm and the 5-series, I'd say in 2010 the next refresh should be 21" standard with ATI 5750 512MB (about the level of a 4850 but much less heat) and 27" standard with ATI 5770 1GB (about the level of a 4870 1GB but much less heat). There should be an option for the ATI 5850 1GB for the 27", that is twice as good as the 4870 at really workable heat levels.
Although, I'm coming from a gaming perspective, though these would all have OpenCL/ etc. benefits.
And, I could be too optimistic here.
However, on the CPU side, if the next iMac refresh comes around middle of 2010, then Core 2 is pretty much phased out so the 21" will get Arrandales (Core i5 mobile) and the 27" would be Clarkdales (Core i5/i7 branded).
The iMac and MacBook/Pro refreshes will all depend on two major factors. First is how Apple is going to play with the CPUs they are most definitely going to have to use, Arrandale for mobile, some iMacs and Clarkdale for desktop (some iMacs).
What CPUs are they going to use? What will they put in their Mac models? When? Arrandale launches in a few weeks time, Apple may not have any shipping Arrandale-based products for a few months.
The second factor is, of course GPU. Here most clearly ATI's 40nm 5-series offers some great promise. But yields at TSMC are still poor and they are not really keeping up with demand. There's always the 55nm or 40nm lower-end Nvidia GPUs which will be the "fallback" strategy.
There's actually a third factor, which is the chipset. Once Apple takes on Arrandale and Clarkdale, bye bye 9400M chipset and all the goodness it had/has. Welcome to Intel integrated graphics on the CPU package and a whole different Northbridge/Southbridge thingy. Not such a big deal maybe, Apple's already using a different chipset (probably the Intel P55(???)) for the Core i5 and i7 iMacs (though remember, these are 45nm Lynnfields not 32nm Arrandale or 32nm Clarkdale).
2010 is Intel's next big move in the CPU space and this is going to cause a huge wake in the PC industry. Apple's going to have to ride the waves and keep up (though at their own mysterious pace).
Blu-Ray will start to become more important, I hope Apple gets on board. Though they really might ignore Blu-Ray for the whole of 2010.
April refresh I'm guessing.
Two areas to fix. Cpu and gpu.
Gpu. Out of date. And it's low end.
Better gpu as standard. Though history isn't on our side. 4850 as standard would be nice. But an option for at least a mid-range card would be good to push the resolution on the 27 inch. And with a gig of Vram as machines £700 cheaper now have that.
Cpu? Value equation.
And the i5 should be standard on the entry machines.
And the i7 should be standard on the upper two.
They're not expensive cpus.
Paying 3-4 times as much to get a quad core processor as a PC equivalent is a massive p*ss take by Apple.
Lemon Bon Bon.
But I have to agree with the way you put things. Core i5 and ATI 4850** standard on the "entry-level" 27" with Blu-Ray would go off like a frog in a sock.
That should have been the entry level model. No doubt about it. Both the gpu and cpu are dirt cheap. And it's the primary reason I'm critical of Apple and the iMac this time around. That would be a lovely entry model.
Blue-Ray. May become 'more' relevant. But I think that's degrees. Blue ray is expensive in terms of consumer players. So are teh discs. Who wants to have something that is slightly better/sharper for lots more money. DVD 'will do' many people. Hi-Def. They whole thing is a bit chicken and egg. I don't even expect Hi-Def to go mainsteam in 2010 though previously I said it would. Sky aren't offering HD as standard. You're still paying a premium for it. BLue ray isn't standard. You're still paying a premium for it. And download Hi-Def content is still sluggish on the net. Although Hi-Def sets seem to being sold... I'd expect we're some way off critical mass for Hi-Def. The planets aren't quite aligned on this one for me.
Apple and blue ray? They want you to 'down load' hi-def content from their store. That's my guess. That's why they're hampering it's adoption in computers. Maybe they also don't want sony to have the power they had in consumer mind share with video and dvds? Also, Apple are, politically emerging as the new 'Sony' in consumer electronics. Why should they adopt blue ray? Apple haven't just broken Sony...they're jumping up and down on the remains of a wounded competitor. A 'kicking' in short. Blue Ray? It's a game of politics to me.
Lemon Bon Bon.
**Based on ATI's latest achievements with 40nm and the 5-series, I'd say in 2010 the next refresh should be 21" standard with ATI 5750 512MB (about the level of a 4850 but much less heat) and 27" standard with ATI 5770 1GB (about the level of a 4870 1GB but much less heat). There should be an option for the ATI 5850 1GB for the 27", that is twice as good as the 4870 at really workable heat levels.
If you put the ati 5850 as an option in the i7 iMac. It's good night Vienna for a mid-tower argument if it isn't already. That would really drive the resolution on the LED beast. But the 5770 would suffice as long as Apple lets us have the whole bloody vram (1 gig please!!!!) Why Apple trims the vram in higher end models I don't know.
Yeah. The next refresh of iMac is the sweet spot. i5 performance and 4850 gpu on the entry models.
i7 standard on the top models with 4870 equivalent performance minimum.
That would be the model I would upgrade to...from my current core 2 duo model with 8800 GS.
Lemon Bon Bon.
If you put the ati 5850 as an option in the i7 iMac. It's good night Vienna for a mid-tower argument if it isn't already. That would really drive the resolution on the LED beast. But the 5770 would suffice as long as Apple lets us have the whole bloody vram (1 gig please!!!!) Why Apple trims the vram in higher end models I don't know.
Yeah. The next refresh of iMac is the sweet spot. i5 performance and 4850 gpu on the entry models.
i7 standard on the top models with 4870 equivalent performance minimum.
That would be the model I would upgrade to...from my current core 2 duo model with 8800 GS.
Lemon Bon Bon.
Yeah the 5770 mostly comes with 1GB of VRAM, 512MB of VRAM would be very naughty of Apple.
You are a little spoilt in the sense that the 8600, 8800 range from Nvidia (now rebranded to 9600, 9800, 200-something) was a watershed in Nvidia's history and probably their best desktop+mobile GPU solution.
I would skip the ATI 4000 series and accept nothing less than a ATI 5770 1GB in your next iMac, definitely. That and a Clarkdale 2.8ghz-ish Core i5 would last you another good few years (though while waiting for many more apps to leverage that power as we discussed LOL).
That should have been the entry level model. No doubt about it. Both the gpu and cpu are dirt cheap. And it's the primary reason I'm critical of Apple and the iMac this time around. That would be a lovely entry model.
Blue-Ray. May become 'more' relevant. But I think that's degrees. Blue ray is expensive in terms of consumer players. So are teh discs. Who wants to have something that is slightly better/sharper for lots more money. DVD 'will do' many people. Hi-Def. They whole thing is a bit chicken and egg. I don't even expect Hi-Def to go mainsteam in 2010 though previously I said it would. Sky aren't offering HD as standard. You're still paying a premium for it. BLue ray isn't standard. You're still paying a premium for it. And download Hi-Def content is still sluggish on the net. Although Hi-Def sets seem to being sold... I'd expect we're some way off critical mass for Hi-Def. The planets aren't quite aligned on this one for me.
Apple and blue ray? They want you to 'down load' hi-def content from their store. That's my guess. That's why they're hampering it's adoption in computers. Maybe they also don't want sony to have the power they had in consumer mind share with video and dvds? Also, Apple are, politically emerging as the new 'Sony' in consumer electronics. Why should they adopt blue ray? Apple haven't just broken Sony...they're jumping up and down on the remains of a wounded competitor. A 'kicking' in short. Blue Ray? It's a game of politics to me.
Lemon Bon Bon.