[quote name="RBR" url="/t/149531/intel-launches-next-gen-ivy-bridge-processors-with-3d-transistors/40#post_2101133"]You truly are from a different universe if you did not realize Steve was at war with Adobe which makes further comment redundant.
Out.
[/Quote]
I really don't think you know what you are talking about. Adobe has always been an I,portent part of Apples business. It isn't about being in a different universe but rather realizing that the goals of two companies dont always align. Apple focusing on Cocoa going forward with Mac OS development is not a case of waging war on Adobe. For that matter keeping Flash off of iOS devices was not waging war on Adobe either.
The Mac Pro was never updated to Sandy Bridge E either.
You really should look at shipping dates and volumes. Dell and HP have announced their machines based on these cpus over the past few days, but even they are not shipping yet.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin
Intel should just skip Ivy Bridge altogether for the Xeons and go right to Haswell next year and Apple can redesign the Pro around that.
While I don't have any way of confirming this, I'm really not expecting a full Ivy Bridge E lineup assuming that haswell development isn't pushed way back as well.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69
First if a Mac Pro or it's replacement where to come out it would most likely use Sandy Bridge E. Since Ivy Bridge brings little in the way of processor improvements there is no reason to even target Ivy Bridge XEONs. If there is any sense at all at Intel they will target Haswell as the next XEON platform.
As to your wishing for a statement from Apple - are you out of your mind? Seriously why would you even expect such a thing from Apple knowing their history and secrecy. Beyond that it is just bad business to tip your hand when you are in a leadership position. From the standpoint of a computer user if you aren't willing to wait for new Apple products to hit you really are on the wrong platform to begin with. If you are expecting detailed product preannouncements, that on the face are stupid, you are doing business with the wrong vendor.
In any event if Apple was to give up on the Pro completely they would say something ahead of time just like they did with XServe. The thing is this doesn't mean the the current Mac Pro has a future but rather that Apple has options. The fact that nothing has been said is a good thing because it means that something is coming.
As to new laptops it could be as long as two months. Apple could wait until WWDC. They have done it before where hardware updates dragged for months after Intel hardware arrived. Usually this is a sign of waiting on other tech.
In any event I just don't get this "Apple must do this or I'm leaving" mentality. Especially from people claiming to be professionals, you buy into Apple you buy into their practices. Anybody claiming to be a professional should have realized Apples nature before laying down the cash.
There have been suggestions that Ivy Bridge E next year would bump the core count. I'm not sure if Sandy Bridge E is really lacking much in the way of features relative to consumer Ivy. I wouldn't be surprised if they scrap it or offer a very limited release. It's likely that you'd see it work in the same board design, so you might see something if Haswell development is still far out at that point. I have to wonder when they will catch up there. It doesn't surprise me to see Xeons ship later in a given year than some of the mainstream cpus, but seeing them pushed this far out is strange. I don't recall them announcing hardware at WWDC in recent years.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RBR
You repeat my earlier comment that, should the Sandy Bridge Xeons be delayed, as appears to be the case, it would make sense to focus on its replacement (Haswell) as the basis for the new Mac Pro, if there is to be one.
Not sure if I'm missing something here, but consumer Haswell will be out long before the correct socket type for the mac pro.
You truly are from a different universe if you did not realize Steve was at war with Adobe which makes further comment redundant.
Out.
I really don't think you know what you are talking about. Adobe has always been an I,portent part of Apples business. It isn't about being in a different universe but rather realizing that the goals of two companies dont always align. Apple focusing on Cocoa going forward with Mac OS development is not a case of waging war on Adobe. For that matter keeping Flash off of iOS devices was not waging war on Adobe either.
<p> </p><div class="quote-container"> <span>Quote:</span> <div class="quote-block"> Originally Posted by <strong>wizard69</strong> <a href="/t/149531/intel-launches-next-gen-ivy-bridge-processors-with-3d-transistors/40#post_2101208"><img alt="View Post" class="inlineimg" src="/img/forum/go_quote.gif" /></a><br /> <br /> <div class="quote-container"> <span>Quote:</span> <div class="quote-block"> Originally Posted by <strong>RBR</strong> <a href="/t/149531/intel-launches-next-gen-ivy-bridge-processors-with-3d-transistors/40#post_2101133"><img alt="View Post" class="inlineimg" src="/img/forum/go_quote.gif" /></a><br /> <br /> You truly are from a different universe if you did not realize Steve was at war with Adobe which makes further comment redundant.<br /> Out.</div> </div> I really don't think you know what you are talking about. Adobe has always been an I,portent part of Apples business. It isn't about being in a different universe but rather realizing that the goals of two companies dont always align. Apple focusing on Cocoa going forward with Mac OS development is not a case of waging war on Adobe. For that matter keeping Flash off of iOS devices was not waging war on Adobe either.</div></div><p> </p><p> You really have led a sheltered life.</p>
Then enlighten me as you seem to have a perspective that doesn't jive with my perception of reality. I've seen nothing to indicate that Apple or Steve had warlike intentions with respect to Adobe. They may not have agreed on certain things but that is not a justification for saying they where at war.
Ivy Bridge i5 and i7 desktop processors are now in stock at Newegg, topping out at 3.5Ghz (3.9 turbo boost). No Ivy Bridge Xeon chips yet. So the stage is set for new iMacs at any rate. I would imagine mobile processors should be along by summer.
Ivy Bridge i5 and i7 desktop processors are now in stock at Newegg, topping out at 3.5Ghz (3.9 turbo boost). No Ivy Bridge Xeon chips yet. So the stage is set for new iMacs at any rate. I would imagine mobile processors should be along by summer.
To be precise, some Ivy Bridge Xeon chips have already been announced, I'm just not sure exactly when they will be available (to OEMs or general public), but before the summer for sure. Those are the Xeon E3-1200 v2 series and they have similar specs as the Ivy Bridge i5 and i7 desktop processors with similar prices. The fact is: they would be good cpus for the iMacs, because many models don't have integrated gpus (lower TDP, lower cost) and all iMacs offer dedicated ones.
Model
Cores
Threads
Frequency
Turbo Frequency
L3 cache
TDP
Price
Xeon E3-1220 v2
4
4
3.1 GHz
3.5 GHz
8 MB
69 Watt
$189
Xeon E3-1220L v2
2
4
2.3 GHz
3.5 GHz
3 MB
17 Watt
$189
Xeon E3-1225 v2
4
4
3.2 GHz
3.6 GHz
8 MB
77 Watt
$209
Xeon E3-1230 v2
4
8
3.3 GHz
3.7 GHz
8 MB
69 Watt
$215
Xeon E3-1240 v2
4
8
3.4 GHz
3.8 GHz
8 MB
69 Watt
$250
Xeon E3-1245 v2
4
8
3.4 GHz
3.8 GHz
8 MB
77 Watt
$266
Xeon E3-1265L v2
4
8
2.5 GHz
3.5 GHz
8 MB
45 Watt
$294
Xeon E3-1270 v2
4
8
3.5 GHz
3.9 GHz
8 MB
69 Watt
$328
Xeon E3-1275 v2
4
8
3.5 GHz
3.9 GHz
8 MB
77 Watt
$339
Xeon E3-1280 v2
4
8
3.6 GHz
4.0 GHz
8 MB
69 Watt
$612
Xeon E3-1290 v2
4
8
3.7 GHz
4.1 GHz
8 MB
87 Watt
$884
Apple could offer the 21.5" iMac with QC 3.1, 3.3 and 3.5GHz cpus, and up to 3.7GHz in the 27" iMac (at a higher price). I'm not sure they can do better with Ivy Bridge i5 and i7 desktop processors.
Apple could offer the 21.5" iMac with QC 3.1, 3.3 and 3.5GHz cpus, and up to 3.7GHz in the 27" iMac (at a higher price). I'm not sure they can do better with Ivy Bridge i5 and i7 desktop processors.
You have practically no chance of seeing Xeon types in the imac, but you might see i5/i7 equivalents to some of these. Xeon types typically require a slightly different board design, but the underlying hardware is mostly the same. The ones in the mac pro are a different socket type though. Assuming they stay with similar margins, the top imac will use something in the $300 ish range like the 1270. Obviously I can't predict Apple, but I'm just projecting from what they've done in the past. I can tell you it's not the cpu that keeps me away from an imac. The cpu in the top one would most likely meet my needs for a couple years. The rest of the design is terrible in many ways.
<p> </p><div class="quote-container"> <span>Quote:</span> <div class="quote-block"> Originally Posted by <strong>mjteix</strong> <a href="/t/149531/intel-launches-next-gen-ivy-bridge-processors-with-3d-transistors/40#post_2102644"><img alt="View Post" class="inlineimg" src="/img/forum/go_quote.gif" /></a><br /> <br /> <p> <br /> </p> <p> Apple could offer the 21.5" iMac with QC 3.1, 3.3 and 3.5GHz cpus, and up to 3.7GHz in the 27" iMac (at a higher price). I'm not sure they can do better with Ivy Bridge i5 and i7 desktop processors.</p> </div></div><p> </p><p> You have practically no chance of seeing Xeon types in the imac, but you might see i5/i7 equivalents to some of these.
I would never approach zero with regards to the potential of XEON chips in iMacs.
Xeon types typically require a slightly different board design, but the underlying hardware is mostly the same. The ones in the mac pro are a different socket type though. Assuming they stay with similar margins, the top imac will use something in the $300 ish range like the 1270. Obviously I can't predict Apple, but I'm just projecting from what they've done in the past.
Considering the state of the desktop line up I wouldn't look to the past. The desktop lime up has becomes extremely stagnant and is in dire need of an overhaul.
I can tell you it's not the cpu that keeps me away from an imac. The cpu in the top one would most likely meet my needs for a couple years. The rest of the design is terrible in many ways.</p>
Many many ways. I'm with you on this score, the IMac really needs an overhaul that addresses many of the more common concerns. Even then the concept sucks more than an overhaul could ever completely correct.
I know if flies in the face of common wisdom but I'm still hoping for an XMac type machine. That is something midrange between the Mini and the Pro. The thought of Ivy Bridge being compact enough to make such a machine impressive is a driving force here.
Many many ways. I'm with you on this score, the IMac really needs an overhaul that addresses many of the more common concerns.
I know if flies in the face of common wisdom but I'm still hoping for an XMac type machine. That is something midrange between the Mini and the Pro. The thought of Ivy Bridge being compact enough to make such a machine impressive is a driving force here.
Oh? Such as? Apple have 'X-Mac' type machines. The 'Pro' waaaay too much. The 'Mini' wayyyyy too little. (Though the Ivy Bridge is set to make the little guy even more 'impressive.' Perhaps you'll buy one of them. You can swap the ram...and uhm...bit tricky to get to the HDs...I hear.) But yes. No 'Cube'/tower/smaller Pro' model in the middle. That's where the iMac is camped. Which offers mid to high range power with a screen included...good value to me. Better so than the Mini or Pro.
Quote:
Even then the concept sucks more than an overhaul could ever completely correct.
AIO concepts 'suck.' (No more so than the original Mac? The iMac's spiritual precursor) How so? The iPad is a great AIO. (Looks like Apple didn't have to make a 'net book' with 'keyboard' afterall. Oh. They did. It was the Air. Apple...bless 'em. Always doing what they 'think' and not what we 'think.' (Most of the machines Apple makes are AIO. Aka. They sell millions of those beloved laptops of yours...and no small amount of iMacs. So, having actually owned an AIO I can testify that it doesn't suck unless you have a rigid view of what it takes to actually get some work done vs swapping out HDs all the time.)
Quote:
I know if flies in the face of common wisdom but I'm still hoping for an XMac type machine.
Nothing wrong with hoping. (But you've been hoping for that machine for the last ten years. Where is it?) But your 'wisdom' certainly isn't Apples. And it's been that way since the iMac and the 'Blue and White' tower 'moved on up....and they tried to put the Cube in it's place. And, sure enough, it backfired. Badly implemented perhaps. But years later the power between laptops and 'desktops' has narrowed. Revolutionary(?) makeovers to the desktop line have stalled (though, you could argue, where do they go from a little box with alot of power, the best AIO and the out of date honking 12 core beast with a timeless but 'irrelevant' to the average consumer design?) and Apple are chasing down miniaturisation in it's iOS devices. Apple appear to be going with the greater numbers. 'Money isn't everything.' Steve Jobs. (Hmmm. Quite. But the huge premiums, the expensive smart covers, giving 45 Billion to shareholders and charging £2045 for a quad core suggest that isn't entirely true. Still, the iPad entry model is very affordable.)
Apple's only 'easy access' machine is something that costs over £2000. (It wasn't always this way...that price used to be just over £1000 for the old 'Blue and White.') Now? If you can add some ram and add a HD with a 'plug' count yourself lucky. 'Tinker fetish' boxes look like going the way of the dinosaurs. I'd say look for Macs to become more 'iPad' like as we move forward. (Not meeting your needs five years later? Give it your gran and buy a new one...)
Quote:
That is something midrange between the Mini and the Pro.
That used to be the battle ground held by the old 'Blue and White' tower. Now it's the iMac. That's Apple's 'middle ground.' You don't have to like it of course. Which it seems you don't. The current iMac is wayyyy more powerful than the old 'Blue and White' tower. Odd to say such a thing? Not really, the iMac design merely foretells the design direction Apple is going with their machines in general. And as you've previously mentioned, expect computer power to become 'more' SoC based over time. How long before an SSD drive is standard...and Apple drops the optical...and puts in a retina screen....a touch screen (as hinted at in some patents...) further iOS amalgamation...and...whatcha got? A giant iPad.
The iMac is only going to get more powerful going forwards. Despite a luke warm performance bump with Ivy Bridge, the 7790m GPU (if Apple has it in the top end iMac) only makes the iMac middle to top end even more appealing. If Apple go 'Retina' (HiDPI) in the next year or so and include SSD drives as standard the iMac only becomes a more appealing viewpoint. Less desktop clutter, more power vs a nest of wires. Not power absolute at any cost. But who'd have thought we'd have the power in the iPad ten years ago? Anyone?
Quote:
The thought of Ivy Bridge being compact enough to make such a machine impressive is a driving force here.
*shrugs. There's more likelihood of an ARM processor to make some thing like the ATV a powerful little box that you can...wait a second... (The ATV, the 'mini' Mac Mini...)
Being less obtuse (or merely reading from Apple's current line up...) the one chance of the 'Cube' headless 'Blue and White' Tower cross hybrid swap out access box you're after...is a mere shrinkage of the Pro. Given the opportunity to create a paradigm shift, Apple gave us the Atv little black box. Wayyyy smaller than the previous Atv.
If we're lucky, such a 'Pro' or Mac (as I like to think of it...) will have access to ram, HDs and Gpus. ...ram, check. We can buy that. HDs. Check. We can buy those. GPUs? Er.....no third party market. Oh...
Xeon Cube 'workstations.' Or a 'slim line' tower. Or an iMac 'Z'. Or a mere continuation as we are. Place yer bets.
To be precise, some Ivy Bridge Xeon chips have already been announced, I'm just not sure exactly when they will be available (to OEMs or general public), but before the summer for sure. Those are the Xeon E3-1200 v2 series and they have similar specs as the Ivy Bridge i5 and i7 desktop processors with similar prices. The fact is: they would be good cpus for the iMacs, because many models don't have integrated gpus (lower TDP, lower cost) and all iMacs offer dedicated ones.
Model
Cores
Threads
Frequency
Turbo Frequency
L3 cache
TDP
Price
Xeon E3-1220 v2
4
4
3.1 GHz
3.5 GHz
8 MB
69 Watt
$189
Xeon E3-1220L v2
2
4
2.3 GHz
3.5 GHz
3 MB
17 Watt
$189
Xeon E3-1225 v2
4
4
3.2 GHz
3.6 GHz
8 MB
77 Watt
$209
Xeon E3-1230 v2
4
8
3.3 GHz
3.7 GHz
8 MB
69 Watt
$215
Xeon E3-1240 v2
4
8
3.4 GHz
3.8 GHz
8 MB
69 Watt
$250
Xeon E3-1245 v2
4
8
3.4 GHz
3.8 GHz
8 MB
77 Watt
$266
Xeon E3-1265L v2
4
8
2.5 GHz
3.5 GHz
8 MB
45 Watt
$294
Xeon E3-1270 v2
4
8
3.5 GHz
3.9 GHz
8 MB
69 Watt
$328
Xeon E3-1275 v2
4
8
3.5 GHz
3.9 GHz
8 MB
77 Watt
$339
Xeon E3-1280 v2
4
8
3.6 GHz
4.0 GHz
8 MB
69 Watt
$612
Xeon E3-1290 v2
4
8
3.7 GHz
4.1 GHz
8 MB
87 Watt
$884
Apple could offer the 21.5" iMac with QC 3.1, 3.3 and 3.5GHz cpus, and up to 3.7GHz in the 27" iMac (at a higher price). I'm not sure they can do better with Ivy Bridge i5 and i7 desktop processors.
That makes a lot of sense. I would not be surprised though if the entry level 21" iMac comes just with IGP.
They've done it before. The iMac I'm typing this from has the NVIDIA 9400 IGP. Same as what was in the mini at that time. The IGP becomes a tool to upsell to the $1200 iMac
Apple would need to "spend" $225 to get decent integrated graphics with a desktop cpu, and only $209 to get decent integrated graphics with a Xeon E3-1225 v2 cpu, and while the Core i5 is slightly faster (3.4 vs 3.2), the Xeon has more cache at a lower cost. In any case, I'd rather "spend" $189 on the 3.1GHz Xeon E3-1220 v2 and up to $36 on a dedicated gpu.
That used to be the battle ground held by the old 'Blue and White' tower. Now it's the iMac. That's Apple's 'middle ground.' You don't have to like it of course. Which it seems you don't. The current iMac is wayyyy more powerful than the old 'Blue and White' tower. Odd to say such a thing? Not really, the iMac design merely foretells the design direction Apple is going with their machines in general. And as you've previously mentioned, expect computer power to become 'more' SoC based over time. How long before an SSD drive is standard...and Apple drops the optical...and puts in a retina screen....a touch screen (as hinted at in some patents...) further iOS amalgamation...and...whatcha got? A giant iPad.
The iMac is only going to get more powerful going forwards. Despite a luke warm performance bump with Ivy Bridge, the 7790m GPU (if Apple has it in the top end iMac) only makes the iMac middle to top end even more appealing. If Apple go 'Retina' (HiDPI) in the next year or so and include SSD drives as standard the iMac only becomes a more appealing viewpoint. Less desktop clutter, more power vs a nest of wires. Not power absolute at any cost. But who'd have thought we'd have the power in the iPad ten years ago? Anyone?
The same can be said for their other machines. The imac looks like it'll just be a bit ahead of the macbook pros in cpu power. GPU and ram capacity still provide differentiation. As I suggested, the thunderbolt display increased the popularity of a laptop plugged into a larger display. It needed an easy connection and a few features to be practical, but it obviously works for many people. The hard drive thing annoys me, as Apple charges several hundred dollars to change a drive, and the 3.5" drive requires a proprietary part. They also chose a nice display panel and implemented it poorly.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemon Bon Bon.
AIO concepts 'suck.' (No more so than the original Mac? The iMac's spiritual precursor) How so? The iPad is a great AIO. (Looks like Apple didn't have to make a 'net book' with 'keyboard' afterall. Oh. They did. It was the Air. Apple...bless 'em. Always doing what they 'think' and not what we 'think.' (Most of the machines Apple makes are AIO. Aka. They sell millions of those beloved laptops of yours...and no small amount of iMacs. So, having actually owned an AIO I can testify that it doesn't suck unless you have a rigid view of what it takes to actually get some work done vs swapping out HDs all the time.)
I don't like having to take it to Apple for that. I don't think the display implementation is good enough. It takes up a fair amount of desktop real estate at 27", so it's problematic trying to use that as a secondary screen. The display itself can't be adjusted for height. Thunderbolt is still fairly limiting in terms of available hardware. Anyway.... most people aren't very smart on their purchases. It's easy to buy something and not realize that something is an issue until later. Swapping a drive would be a common thing there. I've also seen way too many long term display issues with those things. It's always purple corners, excessive backlight degradation, etc. It's not unaffordable for me. It's just expensive enough that I find compromise to be unappealing.
Comments
Did you really have to quote that whole thing? How about trimming it to the relevant single paragraph?
Out.
[/Quote]
I really don't think you know what you are talking about. Adobe has always been an I,portent part of Apples business. It isn't about being in a different universe but rather realizing that the goals of two companies dont always align. Apple focusing on Cocoa going forward with Mac OS development is not a case of waging war on Adobe. For that matter keeping Flash off of iOS devices was not waging war on Adobe either.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aizmov
The Mac Pro was never updated to Sandy Bridge E either.
You really should look at shipping dates and volumes. Dell and HP have announced their machines based on these cpus over the past few days, but even they are not shipping yet.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin
Intel should just skip Ivy Bridge altogether for the Xeons and go right to Haswell next year and Apple can redesign the Pro around that.
While I don't have any way of confirming this, I'm really not expecting a full Ivy Bridge E lineup assuming that haswell development isn't pushed way back as well.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69
First if a Mac Pro or it's replacement where to come out it would most likely use Sandy Bridge E. Since Ivy Bridge brings little in the way of processor improvements there is no reason to even target Ivy Bridge XEONs. If there is any sense at all at Intel they will target Haswell as the next XEON platform.
As to your wishing for a statement from Apple - are you out of your mind? Seriously why would you even expect such a thing from Apple knowing their history and secrecy. Beyond that it is just bad business to tip your hand when you are in a leadership position. From the standpoint of a computer user if you aren't willing to wait for new Apple products to hit you really are on the wrong platform to begin with. If you are expecting detailed product preannouncements, that on the face are stupid, you are doing business with the wrong vendor.
In any event if Apple was to give up on the Pro completely they would say something ahead of time just like they did with XServe. The thing is this doesn't mean the the current Mac Pro has a future but rather that Apple has options. The fact that nothing has been said is a good thing because it means that something is coming.
As to new laptops it could be as long as two months. Apple could wait until WWDC. They have done it before where hardware updates dragged for months after Intel hardware arrived. Usually this is a sign of waiting on other tech.
In any event I just don't get this "Apple must do this or I'm leaving" mentality. Especially from people claiming to be professionals, you buy into Apple you buy into their practices. Anybody claiming to be a professional should have realized Apples nature before laying down the cash.
There have been suggestions that Ivy Bridge E next year would bump the core count. I'm not sure if Sandy Bridge E is really lacking much in the way of features relative to consumer Ivy. I wouldn't be surprised if they scrap it or offer a very limited release. It's likely that you'd see it work in the same board design, so you might see something if Haswell development is still far out at that point. I have to wonder when they will catch up there. It doesn't surprise me to see Xeons ship later in a given year than some of the mainstream cpus, but seeing them pushed this far out is strange. I don't recall them announcing hardware at WWDC in recent years.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RBR
You repeat my earlier comment that, should the Sandy Bridge Xeons be delayed, as appears to be the case, it would make sense to focus on its replacement (Haswell) as the basis for the new Mac Pro, if there is to be one.
Not sure if I'm missing something here, but consumer Haswell will be out long before the correct socket type for the mac pro.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69
Quote:
Originally Posted by RBR
You truly are from a different universe if you did not realize Steve was at war with Adobe which makes further comment redundant.
Out.
I really don't think you know what you are talking about. Adobe has always been an I,portent part of Apples business. It isn't about being in a different universe but rather realizing that the goals of two companies dont always align. Apple focusing on Cocoa going forward with Mac OS development is not a case of waging war on Adobe. For that matter keeping Flash off of iOS devices was not waging war on Adobe either.
You really have led a sheltered life.
Ordinarily I would have "trimmed", but this disjointed post places everything in context in my view. Sorry.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Evilution
OK Apple, as quickly as you can. throw this into a super slim 30" iMac and send me the bill.
Never mind.... Decided I dont want one...
Then enlighten me as you seem to have a perspective that doesn't jive with my perception of reality. I've seen nothing to indicate that Apple or Steve had warlike intentions with respect to Adobe. They may not have agreed on certain things but that is not a justification for saying they where at war.
Ivy Bridge i5 and i7 desktop processors are now in stock at Newegg, topping out at 3.5Ghz (3.9 turbo boost). No Ivy Bridge Xeon chips yet. So the stage is set for new iMacs at any rate. I would imagine mobile processors should be along by summer.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Conrail
No Ivy Bridge Xeon chips yet.
They aren't out until next year.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Conrail
Ivy Bridge i5 and i7 desktop processors are now in stock at Newegg, topping out at 3.5Ghz (3.9 turbo boost). No Ivy Bridge Xeon chips yet. So the stage is set for new iMacs at any rate. I would imagine mobile processors should be along by summer.
To be precise, some Ivy Bridge Xeon chips have already been announced, I'm just not sure exactly when they will be available (to OEMs or general public), but before the summer for sure. Those are the Xeon E3-1200 v2 series and they have similar specs as the Ivy Bridge i5 and i7 desktop processors with similar prices. The fact is: they would be good cpus for the iMacs, because many models don't have integrated gpus (lower TDP, lower cost) and all iMacs offer dedicated ones.
Model
Cores
Threads
Frequency
Turbo Frequency
L3 cache
TDP
Price
Xeon E3-1220 v2
4
4
3.1 GHz
3.5 GHz
8 MB
69 Watt
$189
Xeon E3-1220L v2
2
4
2.3 GHz
3.5 GHz
3 MB
17 Watt
$189
Xeon E3-1225 v2
4
4
3.2 GHz
3.6 GHz
8 MB
77 Watt
$209
Xeon E3-1230 v2
4
8
3.3 GHz
3.7 GHz
8 MB
69 Watt
$215
Xeon E3-1240 v2
4
8
3.4 GHz
3.8 GHz
8 MB
69 Watt
$250
Xeon E3-1245 v2
4
8
3.4 GHz
3.8 GHz
8 MB
77 Watt
$266
Xeon E3-1265L v2
4
8
2.5 GHz
3.5 GHz
8 MB
45 Watt
$294
Xeon E3-1270 v2
4
8
3.5 GHz
3.9 GHz
8 MB
69 Watt
$328
Xeon E3-1275 v2
4
8
3.5 GHz
3.9 GHz
8 MB
77 Watt
$339
Xeon E3-1280 v2
4
8
3.6 GHz
4.0 GHz
8 MB
69 Watt
$612
Xeon E3-1290 v2
4
8
3.7 GHz
4.1 GHz
8 MB
87 Watt
$884
Apple could offer the 21.5" iMac with QC 3.1, 3.3 and 3.5GHz cpus, and up to 3.7GHz in the 27" iMac (at a higher price). I'm not sure they can do better with Ivy Bridge i5 and i7 desktop processors.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mjteix
Apple could offer the 21.5" iMac with QC 3.1, 3.3 and 3.5GHz cpus, and up to 3.7GHz in the 27" iMac (at a higher price). I'm not sure they can do better with Ivy Bridge i5 and i7 desktop processors.
You have practically no chance of seeing Xeon types in the imac, but you might see i5/i7 equivalents to some of these. Xeon types typically require a slightly different board design, but the underlying hardware is mostly the same. The ones in the mac pro are a different socket type though. Assuming they stay with similar margins, the top imac will use something in the $300 ish range like the 1270. Obviously I can't predict Apple, but I'm just projecting from what they've done in the past. I can tell you it's not the cpu that keeps me away from an imac. The cpu in the top one would most likely meet my needs for a couple years. The rest of the design is terrible in many ways.
Many many ways. I'm with you on this score, the IMac really needs an overhaul that addresses many of the more common concerns. Even then the concept sucks more than an overhaul could ever completely correct.
I know if flies in the face of common wisdom but I'm still hoping for an XMac type machine. That is something midrange between the Mini and the Pro. The thought of Ivy Bridge being compact enough to make such a machine impressive is a driving force here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by not1lost
Never mind.... Decided I dont want one...
well maybe I do...
Quote:
Many many ways. I'm with you on this score, the IMac really needs an overhaul that addresses many of the more common concerns.
I know if flies in the face of common wisdom but I'm still hoping for an XMac type machine. That is something midrange between the Mini and the Pro. The thought of Ivy Bridge being compact enough to make such a machine impressive is a driving force here.
Oh? Such as? Apple have 'X-Mac' type machines. The 'Pro' waaaay too much. The 'Mini' wayyyyy too little. (Though the Ivy Bridge is set to make the little guy even more 'impressive.' Perhaps you'll buy one of them. You can swap the ram...and uhm...bit tricky to get to the HDs...I hear.) But yes. No 'Cube'/tower/smaller Pro' model in the middle. That's where the iMac is camped. Which offers mid to high range power with a screen included...good value to me. Better so than the Mini or Pro.
Quote:
Even then the concept sucks more than an overhaul could ever completely correct.
AIO concepts 'suck.' (No more so than the original Mac? The iMac's spiritual precursor) How so? The iPad is a great AIO. (Looks like Apple didn't have to make a 'net book' with 'keyboard' afterall. Oh. They did. It was the Air.
Quote:
I know if flies in the face of common wisdom but I'm still hoping for an XMac type machine.
Nothing wrong with hoping. (But you've been hoping for that machine for the last ten years. Where is it?) But your 'wisdom' certainly isn't Apples. And it's been that way since the iMac and the 'Blue and White' tower 'moved on up....and they tried to put the Cube in it's place. And, sure enough, it backfired. Badly implemented perhaps. But years later the power between laptops and 'desktops' has narrowed. Revolutionary(?) makeovers to the desktop line have stalled (though, you could argue, where do they go from a little box with alot of power, the best AIO and the out of date honking 12 core beast with a timeless but 'irrelevant' to the average consumer design?) and Apple are chasing down miniaturisation in it's iOS devices. Apple appear to be going with the greater numbers. 'Money isn't everything.' Steve Jobs. (Hmmm. Quite. But the huge premiums, the expensive smart covers, giving 45 Billion to shareholders and charging £2045 for a quad core suggest that isn't entirely true. Still, the iPad entry model is very affordable.)
Apple's only 'easy access' machine is something that costs over £2000. (It wasn't always this way...that price used to be just over £1000 for the old 'Blue and White.') Now? If you can add some ram and add a HD with a 'plug' count yourself lucky. 'Tinker fetish' boxes look like going the way of the dinosaurs. I'd say look for Macs to become more 'iPad' like as we move forward. (Not meeting your needs five years later? Give it your gran and buy a new one...)
Quote:
That is something midrange between the Mini and the Pro.
That used to be the battle ground held by the old 'Blue and White' tower. Now it's the iMac. That's Apple's 'middle ground.' You don't have to like it of course. Which it seems you don't. The current iMac is wayyyy more powerful than the old 'Blue and White' tower. Odd to say such a thing? Not really, the iMac design merely foretells the design direction Apple is going with their machines in general. And as you've previously mentioned, expect computer power to become 'more' SoC based over time. How long before an SSD drive is standard...and Apple drops the optical...and puts in a retina screen....a touch screen (as hinted at in some patents...) further iOS amalgamation...and...whatcha got? A giant iPad.
The iMac is only going to get more powerful going forwards. Despite a luke warm performance bump with Ivy Bridge, the 7790m GPU (if Apple has it in the top end iMac) only makes the iMac middle to top end even more appealing. If Apple go 'Retina' (HiDPI) in the next year or so and include SSD drives as standard the iMac only becomes a more appealing viewpoint. Less desktop clutter, more power vs a nest of wires. Not power absolute at any cost. But who'd have thought we'd have the power in the iPad ten years ago? Anyone?
Quote:
The thought of Ivy Bridge being compact enough to make such a machine impressive is a driving force here.
*shrugs. There's more likelihood of an ARM processor to make some thing like the ATV a powerful little box that you can...wait a second... (The ATV, the 'mini' Mac Mini...)
Being less obtuse (or merely reading from Apple's current line up...) the one chance of the 'Cube' headless 'Blue and White' Tower cross hybrid swap out access box you're after...is a mere shrinkage of the Pro. Given the opportunity to create a paradigm shift, Apple gave us the Atv little black box. Wayyyy smaller than the previous Atv.
If we're lucky, such a 'Pro' or Mac (as I like to think of it...) will have access to ram, HDs and Gpus. ...ram, check. We can buy that. HDs. Check. We can buy those. GPUs? Er.....no third party market. Oh...
Xeon Cube 'workstations.' Or a 'slim line' tower. Or an iMac 'Z'. Or a mere continuation as we are. Place yer bets.
Lemon Bon Bon.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mjteix
To be precise, some Ivy Bridge Xeon chips have already been announced, I'm just not sure exactly when they will be available (to OEMs or general public), but before the summer for sure. Those are the Xeon E3-1200 v2 series and they have similar specs as the Ivy Bridge i5 and i7 desktop processors with similar prices. The fact is: they would be good cpus for the iMacs, because many models don't have integrated gpus (lower TDP, lower cost) and all iMacs offer dedicated ones.
Model
Cores
Threads
Frequency
Turbo Frequency
L3 cache
TDP
Price
Xeon E3-1220 v2
4
4
3.1 GHz
3.5 GHz
8 MB
69 Watt
$189
Xeon E3-1220L v2
2
4
2.3 GHz
3.5 GHz
3 MB
17 Watt
$189
Xeon E3-1225 v2
4
4
3.2 GHz
3.6 GHz
8 MB
77 Watt
$209
Xeon E3-1230 v2
4
8
3.3 GHz
3.7 GHz
8 MB
69 Watt
$215
Xeon E3-1240 v2
4
8
3.4 GHz
3.8 GHz
8 MB
69 Watt
$250
Xeon E3-1245 v2
4
8
3.4 GHz
3.8 GHz
8 MB
77 Watt
$266
Xeon E3-1265L v2
4
8
2.5 GHz
3.5 GHz
8 MB
45 Watt
$294
Xeon E3-1270 v2
4
8
3.5 GHz
3.9 GHz
8 MB
69 Watt
$328
Xeon E3-1275 v2
4
8
3.5 GHz
3.9 GHz
8 MB
77 Watt
$339
Xeon E3-1280 v2
4
8
3.6 GHz
4.0 GHz
8 MB
69 Watt
$612
Xeon E3-1290 v2
4
8
3.7 GHz
4.1 GHz
8 MB
87 Watt
$884
Apple could offer the 21.5" iMac with QC 3.1, 3.3 and 3.5GHz cpus, and up to 3.7GHz in the 27" iMac (at a higher price). I'm not sure they can do better with Ivy Bridge i5 and i7 desktop processors.
That makes a lot of sense. I would not be surprised though if the entry level 21" iMac comes just with IGP.
Quote:
Originally Posted by backtomac
That makes a lot of sense. I would not be surprised though if the entry level 21" iMac comes just with IGP.
Mmmm...I'm going to guess not. You still want the base iMac to be better than the base mini in pretty much every aspect.
Is it me or is 21.5" just kinda small these days. I wish the 24" was still in the line up somewhere.
I agree. 24 inch should be the new entry.
What happened to it, anyhow?
I think the 21 inch entry iMac should be a couple of hundred cheaper too.
Lemon Bon Bon.
They've done it before. The iMac I'm typing this from has the NVIDIA 9400 IGP. Same as what was in the mini at that time. The IGP becomes a tool to upsell to the $1200 iMac
Quote:
Originally Posted by backtomac
That makes a lot of sense. I would not be surprised though if the entry level 21" iMac comes just with IGP.
I hope not, but it's a possibility. I'd rather see it with a Xeon E3-12x5 v2 (P3000 with 12 EU) than with a Core i5-3xx0 with HD 2500 graphics (6 EU).
Core i5-3450 (6M cache, 4 Cores, 4 Threads, 3.10 GHz, HD 2500) - $184
Core i5-3550 (6M cache, 4 Cores, 4 Threads, 3.30 GHz, HD 2500) - $205 -
Core i5-3570K (6M cache, 4 Cores, 4 Threads, 3.40 GHz, HD 4000) - $225 -
Core i7-3770 (8M cache, 4 Cores, 8 Threads, 3.40 GHz. HD 4000) - $294
Core i7-3770K (8M cache, 4 Cores, 8 Threads, 3.50 GHz. HD 4000) - $332 -
Apple would need to "spend" $225 to get decent integrated graphics with a desktop cpu, and only $209 to get decent integrated graphics with a Xeon E3-1225 v2 cpu, and while the Core i5 is slightly faster (3.4 vs 3.2), the Xeon has more cache at a lower cost. In any case, I'd rather "spend" $189 on the 3.1GHz Xeon E3-1220 v2 and up to $36 on a dedicated gpu.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemon Bon Bon.
That used to be the battle ground held by the old 'Blue and White' tower. Now it's the iMac. That's Apple's 'middle ground.' You don't have to like it of course. Which it seems you don't. The current iMac is wayyyy more powerful than the old 'Blue and White' tower. Odd to say such a thing? Not really, the iMac design merely foretells the design direction Apple is going with their machines in general. And as you've previously mentioned, expect computer power to become 'more' SoC based over time. How long before an SSD drive is standard...and Apple drops the optical...and puts in a retina screen....a touch screen (as hinted at in some patents...) further iOS amalgamation...and...whatcha got? A giant iPad.
The iMac is only going to get more powerful going forwards. Despite a luke warm performance bump with Ivy Bridge, the 7790m GPU (if Apple has it in the top end iMac) only makes the iMac middle to top end even more appealing. If Apple go 'Retina' (HiDPI) in the next year or so and include SSD drives as standard the iMac only becomes a more appealing viewpoint. Less desktop clutter, more power vs a nest of wires. Not power absolute at any cost. But who'd have thought we'd have the power in the iPad ten years ago? Anyone?
The same can be said for their other machines. The imac looks like it'll just be a bit ahead of the macbook pros in cpu power. GPU and ram capacity still provide differentiation. As I suggested, the thunderbolt display increased the popularity of a laptop plugged into a larger display. It needed an easy connection and a few features to be practical, but it obviously works for many people. The hard drive thing annoys me, as Apple charges several hundred dollars to change a drive, and the 3.5" drive requires a proprietary part. They also chose a nice display panel and implemented it poorly.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemon Bon Bon.
AIO concepts 'suck.' (No more so than the original Mac? The iMac's spiritual precursor) How so? The iPad is a great AIO. (Looks like Apple didn't have to make a 'net book' with 'keyboard' afterall. Oh. They did. It was the Air.
I don't like having to take it to Apple for that. I don't think the display implementation is good enough. It takes up a fair amount of desktop real estate at 27", so it's problematic trying to use that as a secondary screen. The display itself can't be adjusted for height. Thunderbolt is still fairly limiting in terms of available hardware. Anyway.... most people aren't very smart on their purchases. It's easy to buy something and not realize that something is an issue until later. Swapping a drive would be a common thing there. I've also seen way too many long term display issues with those things. It's always purple corners, excessive backlight degradation, etc. It's not unaffordable for me. It's just expensive enough that I find compromise to be unappealing.