Intel's Merom to power Apple's next-gen iMacs

168101112

Comments

  • Reply 141 of 237
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 33,028member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Flounder


    Are there no speed increases to merom planned? I really don't know anything about intels roadmap. At any rate, now that the days of Moto/IBM are behind us, I really doubt apple would wait an entire year. They'll work something out. Have a little faith



    Supposedly to 2.65 GHz (or so).
  • Reply 142 of 237
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 33,028member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by PB


    Sources to cite? You are joking, right? It appears that the same rumor comes from MacOSXrumors too, that has been pretty accurate in many cases. Their server does not respond for the moment, they get probably some heavy traffic right now.



    macosrumors...ha, ha, ha!
  • Reply 143 of 237
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 33,028member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by backtomac


    I think you are trivializing the faster FSB that conroe and woodcrest have as well as the much higher clock speeds they achieve. The performace of Merom is good but only modestly(generally on the order of 5-10%) better than current Yonah chips. The lack of a more substantial increase in performance (the 20% Intel told us to expect) has been attributed to Meroms slow (relatively speaking) FSB which is felt to hamper performance. Quiet and cool are nice and desirable features for laptop chips but not essential for desktop chips IMO.



    See link below

    http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets...spx?i=2808&p=1



    When Intel comes out with their new platform for the Merom 2nd quarter next year, we will see much better performance. The chip is capable of it, but the current platform isn't sufficient to allow all of that performance to be utilized.



    This platform will also entail a new socket, so those Meroms will NOT fit in current machines.



    This is standard Intel/AMD practice, and why the older Mac's (up to the G5's, of course) were so much more upgradable than PC's.
  • Reply 144 of 237
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 33,028member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by PB


    Incredible, still not responding. DoS attack from Apple Legal?



    No, complete incompetence on their part.



    Over the years they have often gone offline, never explaining just why. Sometimes they have disappeared for weeks at a time. They never answer questions about their schedule either.



    They also lie about the frequency of their reporting, promising reports that never see the light of day.



    It's best to read what they post with amusement, rather than with credulity.
  • Reply 145 of 237
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 33,028member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by PB


    No, the numbers I am quoting are approximate maximal power requirements. Look for example here. It is no wonder why the iMac never got a 2.2 GHz G5 FX. From the table you can place the 2.1 GHz G5 it got in its last PPC incarnation well below 60 Watts (max. power). So no, even the 20" model cannot handle the heat of a Conroe without killing its silence.



    Well, yes, they are quoting the 2.2. The 2.5 uses much more power. Typical is 65 watts. The quessed max is 90.
  • Reply 146 of 237
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 33,028member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Zandros


    It does not as far as I can tell. The FSB seriously hampers it's performance compared to the Conroes 1066 MHz bus. And it's way more expensive.



    In any case, the Santa Rosa Socket P versions of Merom will have a 800MHz bus and will reach 2.4 GHz. Not much improvement in my eyes for a year and more.



    We should see that 2nd Quarter. The Merom is scheduled to reach 2.65 GHz.
  • Reply 147 of 237
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 33,028member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by a_greer


    Wow, what a strange responce: Apple doesnt want customers who want common sence solutions? A 23 inch display is not a cheap, disposable item, nor is a semi-high end computer: The 17 inch iMac is cool, as is the 20, but there comes a certin point where it becomes sort of foolish; all I want is non-integrated video, desktop HDDs and a little more I/O in a formfactor that will alow me to use a seperate display, many folks already have lots of displays, not to mention, LCDs go bad, I do not want to lose my whole computer because the display dies, I want to grab the backup and get back to work.



    Reports are that LCD panels, after having fell 1/3rd in price this year, will be falling another 1/3rd in price before too long.



    So the 23 could end up costing what the 20 costs now. Apple can maintain the same price structure.



    Remember when Apple went to the 20 lamp iMac, they maintained the 15 for some time. When the G5 models came out, the 15 was no more. Perhaps the same will happen here, with the 17, if the case design does change.
  • Reply 148 of 237
    wilcowilco Posts: 985member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Mr. Jeff


    No sources to cite or anything. Where did the information come from?



    Your momma.
  • Reply 149 of 237
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 33,028member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by aegisdesign


    Where it's fugly.



    Like on the PowerMac, and the Mac Pro?



    A tower can't be moved easily. Also, many of us keep these large beasts on the floor. That's why the optical slots are on the top, rather than on the bottom.





    Quote:

    How much of a chore is it really to swivel the iMac around on it's slippy base? They even made it easy for you by using the same slippy plastic they use on the bottom of mice.



    It's little chore at all with the iMac, because it was designed to do this.



    Quote:

    Very minor inconvenience once a month maybe v staring at fugly ports all day?



    I don't think the ports look bad. At least not on Apple's machines. and when the machines are on the floor, you don't look at them at all. And...Oops! Style over substance, right?
  • Reply 150 of 237
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 33,028member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by orange whip


    I suspect there must be some technical reason why you can't daisy chain usb in a manner that will supply sufficient power



    The reason is because each USB bus has a total of 500 milliwatts. That's the spec.



    Apple puts each of its ports on a separate bus, so you get a total of 1 watt for two. I don't know what they do with the new machines with several ports, I haven't looked it up. Not all PC's are made that way though.
  • Reply 151 of 237
    pbpb Posts: 4,234member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by JeffDM


    Apple sells so many iMacs that they can probably more than pay for the redesign in less than month with just the difference in chip costs alone.



    I am not saying otherwise. I say that they try to get as much profit as they can by retaining the same design (internal and external) while keeping heat and noise down. Merom seemed always like the sweet spot for the next iMac.
  • Reply 152 of 237
    engadgets new imac design is very cool.
  • Reply 153 of 237
    just to help keep this thread focused on the imac itself, i'd really like to squash this complaint about the so-called 'chin' of the imac. there is no chin, its called a computer.



    if there's a chin where's the mouth? the eyes? this gripe makes no sense. the design of the machine is elegant, and simple. the shape helps to identify it as being more than just a monitor so as to not cause confusion. its a good looking, practical and minimal design. this myth needs to be busted.



    but for the merom rumors, 40% faster at the same clock speed as the core duo it replaces isnt slow or anywhere near a minor upgrade. a 2ghz core duo stomps all over a 3.4ghz p4, nevermind what a core2 or merom system does (but to be fair to the core chips, the p4 was a lousy chip design).



    by the way, here's my bet for apple's new mac slogan once they move the entire line over to woodcrest and merom in 2 weeks:



    64bit. Now comes standard.



    i'll be looking for my royalty check, apple.
  • Reply 154 of 237
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Chucker


    For fuck's sake, can we have one single iMac thread that doesn't get derailed into headless bullshit?



    Shows how much people want a headless Mac instead of an iMac.
  • Reply 155 of 237
    pmjoepmjoe Posts: 565member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Silencio


    By the time the iMac is outdated, the display will be cheap enough to be easily replaced. That's happened pretty much down the line ever since the first iMac was released. Even if you think the 20" iMac G4 is obsolete, high quality 20" LCDs can be had for under $300 nowadays.



    The Mac mini rumors appear to point to modest speed bumps, and that's fine. If they could just drop the price by $100, that would be killer.



    And what's your point? If you buy a 23" iMac today, you'll pay a premium for the latest display, not "outdated, cheap enough" prices. When I buy a monitor, I plan to get 5+ years use out of it; it's only the computers that are outdated by next year. I have a 10 year old 20" CRT, that I still use from time to time, which has about the same resoultion as the 23" cinema display. Let's say I paid $1000 for it 10 years ago. If in the meantime, I had bought 4 iMacs, I'd have thrown away ~$2000 just on the throw-away built-in displays. You can't even hook anything up to them. For about the same price today, you can buy up to 1080p LCD TV monitors with HDCP that connect to everything and will for years to come. That's what I upgraded to. Buy a good monitor today and you can keep it for years to come. Buy an iMac today and you'll want a new one next year. This is just even more absurd with a 23" display that could easily do HDTV and have plenty of other uses.



    A speed bump and a price drop on the mini would be great, but Apple can do that anytime without slowing their delivery schedule (which is the cause for the rumors).
  • Reply 156 of 237
    flounderflounder Posts: 2,674member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by melgross


    I can't believe you said that!



    I thought the exact same thing when I read his post.



    You and me Melgross, fighting the good fight!
  • Reply 157 of 237
    jeffdmjeffdm Posts: 12,951member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by pmjoe


    And what's your point? If you buy a 23" iMac today, you'll pay a premium for the latest display, not "outdated, cheap enough" prices. When I buy a monitor, I plan to get 5+ years use out of it; it's only the computers that are outdated by next year.

    ...



    Let's say I paid $1000 for it 10 years ago. If in the meantime, I had bought 4 iMacs, I'd have thrown away ~$2000 just on the throw-away built-in displays.



    That's excessive. If you are "throwing away" a computer every year, then let's just say that you are not the typical iMac buyer. Throwing away any hardware so soon is wasteful if that is literal. The typical iMac buyer probably isn't replacing their computer every year. To the target market, the actual computers are useful for probably five years or longer. Besides, the LCD and Apple brand helps retain the value so you sell the AIO for a decent amount.



    Quote:

    I have a 10 year old 20" CRT, that I still use from time to time, which has about the same resoultion as the 23" cinema display.



    While you might be able to drive that CRT to a scan rate for WUXGA scan rate, I'm skeptical that a ten year old CRT will actually be able to resolve that. I am still a hanger-on to CRTs but they tend to smear and blur with age. I think LCDs age too, the color quality seems to go down some, it's not bad at five years though.
  • Reply 158 of 237
    aplnubaplnub Posts: 2,605member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by JeffDM


    That's excessive. If you are "throwing away" a computer every year, then let's just say that you are not the typical iMac buyer. Throwing away any hardware so soon is wasteful if that is literal. The typical iMac buyer probably isn't replacing their computer every year. To the target market, the actual computers are useful for probably five years or longer.







    While you might be able to drive that CRT to a scan rate for WUXGA scan rate, I'm skeptical that a ten year old CRT will actually be able to resolve that. I am still a hanger-on to CRTs but they tend to smear and blur with age.



    That is true. My G5 iMac 1st generation is serving my needs just fine, puchased late November of 2004. However, the Intel dual core thing has really thrown a wrench into the fact that these computers last a long time for those of us who use FC Studio, and other demanding programs.



    Now, if I had an Intel iMac, I have a MBP and Intel Mini dual core, Final Cut Studio becomes more than two times faster for me. This would not be the case if Apple was still with G5 chips. So it is like we jumped ahead in time 3 years overnight. This now requires me to wait as long as possible and then make the jump.



    The jump is only being made because of the great strides made in CPU choices we now have. I decided that for a notebook I couldn't wait any longer so I jumped on the first MBP 2 GHz that came out. My mini was needed because I could do away with my KVM switch and run windows inside the Mac with parallels in my office and this was a great space saving and clutter free way to do it. The 23" iMac is a dream come true, minus no Conroe, and will allow me to speed up my FCS editing more than two times (Memrom) and increase my screen realestate quite a bit up from my 20" iMac. Who knows, I may appreciate the Memrom cpu's because the fan noise on my 20" is getting old. At least my new Boise Quiet Comfort 2 noise cancellations head phones are working miracles by getting rid of the fans.



    So it is like I waited five years in two years.



    At least, that is how I am justifing ordering a 23" iMac. hahahaha
  • Reply 159 of 237
    It would be a great promotion for Apple if they would give a nice discount for Apple owners to bring in their working G3, G4 or G5 computer in trade for a new MacIntel. I'd take that offer in a heartbeat (I still have all of the above ).
  • Reply 160 of 237
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Chucker


    iMac is not a high-end desktop.



    at apple it is the there best system before the workstation level.
Sign In or Register to comment.