Apple Waiting on Quad-Core Desktop CPUs for January?

[MacRumors]

http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com/2008/11/19/apple-waiting-on-quad-core-desktop-cpus-for-january/)

DigiTimes reports (http://www.digitimes.com/news/a20081119PD209.html) that Apple is amongst the vendors who are awaiting the release of three new low-power desktop CPUs due in January from Intel.Intel will launch the Core 2 Quad Q8200s (2.33GHz/4MB L2), Core 2 Quad Q9400s (2.66GHz/6MB L2) and Core 2 Quad Q9550s (2.83GHz/12MB L2) with prices at US$245, US$320 and US$369, respectively in thousand-unit tray quantities. These CPUs will have the same specifications as standard CPUs with the same model number, but will see their TDP drop from 95W to 65W.Apple is reported to have decided to launch products based on these CPUs. The most obvious destination for the new chips is Apple's iMac line which has been rumored for revision.

While the iMac's processor speeds would not increase with the use these chips, it would increase the number of CPU cores from two to four.

Article Link: Apple Waiting on Quad-Core Desktop CPUs for January? (http://www.macrumors.com/2008/11/19/apple-waiting-on-quad-core-desktop-cpus-for-january/)

[AidenShaw]

:cool:The quad mini-tower finally arrives!

(below)
Wishful thinking.

A quad-core iMac would get me to replace my iMac G5.

Imac doesn't use desktop CPUs, so this would be a major motherboard revision for the Imac.

[rdowns]

:cool:The quad mini-tower finally arrives!

Wishful thinking.

A quad-core iMac would get me to replace my iMac G5.

[Umbongo]

:cool:The quad mini-tower finally arrives!

I guess using older technology would be the way to avoid the issue of Nehalem single socket desktops invalidating Nehalem Mac Pros for most potenial Mac Pro owners. Then again that would have its own negative reaction.

[daneoni]

Quad core in that tiny case?

[kntgsp]

These procs have been out for a while now.

[smartaleck]

There should be more discussion of the actual advantages what a specific processor means in a real world sense.

I don't think people really understand what a quad-core versus dual core proc would mean in their computers.

Megahertz and gigahertz don't seem to matter much anymore, people have moved onto duals and quads. It strikes me as just chasing trends without any real point.

In any context it's important to talk about what matters.

[GSMiller]

Do we need Quad-Core processors already? Most software developers haven't even fully embraced Dual-Core.

[themoonisdown09]

Imac doesn't use desktop CPUs, so this would be a major motherboard revision for the Imac.

I was thinking the same thing.

[iParis]

This is as I expected.

I would be really happy if they put this in like the high end upgraded Mini.

Even though that's more likely to only happen in the 24 in iMac.

[odedia]

:cool:The quad mini-tower finally arrives!



Imac doesn't use desktop CPUs, so this would be a major motherboard revision for the Imac.

These new chips will use the same amount of Watts, and that's the important thing. It is possible.

[arn]

Do we need Quad-Core processors already? Most software developers haven't even fully embraced Dual-Core.

What do you think Snow Leopard is for?

arn

[Shiner]

:cool:The quad mini-tower finally arrives!



Imac doesn't use desktop CPUs, so this would be a major motherboard revision for the Imac.

What this guy says. Mac uses laptop processors in imac line. This is a desktop CPU. Hopefully apple has some sort of plan to use this older technology for some sort of good.

[Clive At Five]

Wait, what? Apple + desktop-class CPUs?

Either Steve is going soft or I've died.

[jaw04005]

So while the rest of the PC world has moved to the new i7 desktop processors, the iMac will get re-released Quad-core processors from a year ago just with a lower TDP?

Yippee.

[poundsmack]

So while the rest of the PC world has moved to the new i7 desktop processors, the iMac will get re-released Quad-core processors from a year ago just with a lower TDP?

Yippee.

regaurdless of when it was released these are really good processors, and while i7 would have been nice, this is by no means a bad release. 10.6, being better suited for multi core, would really shine on these. oh who am i kidding, it does really shine on these ;)

[m1stake]

Wait, what? Apple + desktop-class CPUs?

Either Steve is going soft or I've died.

More likely that Jobs is dead, and someone popped up and said "OK LETS MAKE A PRODUCT PEOPLE WANT!" :p

So while the rest of the PC world has moved to the new i7 desktop processors, the iMac will get re-released Quad-core processors from a year ago just with a lower TDP?

The Core i7 CPUs that have been released so far are high end parts that bottom out at about $300. Mid range Nehalem cores won't be released until Q2 2009. The only computers using i7 silicon would destroy the iMac performance wise with or without the Nehalem parts.

[goldeneye]

if they're going to use desktop class processor, why aren't they adopting nehalem.:confused:

[poundsmack]

if they're going to use desktop class processor, why aren't they adopting nehalem.:confused:

price, avalibility, the fact that apple gets the current procs they are going ot be using for much much cheaper, the list kinda goes on and on :)

[wizard]

There should be more discussion of the actual advantages what a specific processor means in a real world sense.

The problem with such discussions is that the answer depends to much on your point of view. If you are happy with the behavior of a single core chip then going dual or quad will mean nothing to you. If however you find your machine to be bogged down executing your normal work load a low cost quad core could be the right solution.

The reality is that quad core can be a huge advantage to some even with todays software and OS. A better OS and to a lesser extent better apps only spread the utility of quads to more people.


I don't think people really understand what a quad-core versus dual core proc would mean in their computers.

Maybe you don't and maybe a lot of people don't or don't care to know the details. That however doesn't mean that there isn't a minority of people out there that do. In any event enlighten us with your understanding.

Megahertz and gigahertz don't seem to matter much anymore, people have moved onto duals and quads. It strikes me as just chasing trends without any real point.

That seems to be your defect in thought not the user population in general. GHz will always be important but the issues come in how much speed is practical on a given process. Also it is the processes that give people like Intel lots of room to add more cores. They do so becuase more cores offer the best way to address performance issues the majority of users have. Very few people these days are complaining about single thread performance. Rather proof is in the pudding and multiple cores have demonstrated to produce a much more responsive machine.


In any context it's important to talk about what matters.

Quad cores do matter!! It is not something you can dismiss at all, even a modest user can benefit from the system being more responsive. But again enlighten us as to what matters.



Dave

[Jimmdean]

This story doesn't make a whole lot of sense. At 65W, they're still too hot for the imac, and still being current-gen architecture, they're not cutting-edge enough for the Mac Pro. This just stokes the mid-range mac fires again...

[demosthenes496]

The Core i7 920 is reportedly available to OEMS for $284 US. According to the article, that compares favorably in terms of price to the $245 bottom end price of the chips Apple is planning to use anyway.

I really don't see why they wouldn't use Core i7 in the iMac. It seems as if it would be a massive leap in terms of performance for not very much more.

Compare the i7 920 to the "high-end" Q9550 which is priced higher at $364, the Core i7 absolutely destroys it in all benchmarks. For me it would be a no-brainer to use the Nehalem in the next iMac.

[Eidorian]

:cool:The quad mini-tower finally arrives!



Imac doesn't use desktop CPUs, so this would be a major motherboard revision for the Imac.

Wait, what? Apple + desktop-class CPUs?

Either Steve is going soft or I've died.I agree it is bizarro world. We should have had Conroe and Penryn all along if the iMac is pushing 65W TDP processors. Keep in mind TDP is a cooling suggestion and not an absolute.

Do we need Quad-Core processors already? Most software developers haven't even fully embraced Dual-Core.You sound just like the people that questioned a slower dual core over a faster single core.

Quad core in that tiny case?A G5 in that tiny case?

What do you think Snow Leopard is for?

arnOlder operating systems handle multiple core just fine. Snow Leopard just makes it easier for developers with scheduling and wonderful APIs. Doesn't that mean developers are lazy? :D Kidding...

if they're going to use desktop class processor, why aren't they adopting nehalem.:confused:Considering Nehalem is only being sold in 130W TDP batches on the X58 chipset it's not prime time for the iMac. Do some more research about Nehalem first. You can't just go about saying that you want an i7 when it's not even in cooler standard desktop and mobile variants.

[guzhogi]

I'm another person sad that the iMacs probably won't get the Core i7s, but I can at least understand Apple wanting to wait to put Nehalem into the Mac Pros first. But, why can't Apple release both new Mac Pros & new iMacs @ the same time, both w/ Nehalem? Though I am glad to see lower TDP & possibly a desktop proc in an iMac.

[CWallace]

Could this lead to (slightly) less expensive iMacs?

Moving to desktop CPUs and chipsets would save Apple significant money per machine (especially at the quad-core level). Tied with Apple's claims that they are willing to accept lower margins, maybe $999 to $1999 with 2.66GHz (E8200) dual-core on the low-end and 2.8 or 3.0GHz (Q9550 or Q9650) quad-cores on the top?

[demosthenes496]

Considering Nehalem is only being sold in 130W TDP batches on the X58 chipset it's not prime time for the iMac. Do some more research about Nehalem first. You can't just go about saying that you want an i7 when it's not even in cooler standard desktop and mobile variants.

Ah, alright, this makes sense. I just find it unfortunate that they have to use such dated chips in a new release.

Can we have a midrange Mac desktop with Core i7 yet?

[poundsmack]

Ah, alright, this makes sense. I just find it unfortunate that they have to use such dated chips in a new release.

Can we have a midrange Mac desktop with Core i7 yet?

how dated exactly do you think they are? its not like they are P4's with HyperThreading :)

[Eidorian]

Could this lead to (slightly) less expensive iMacs?

Moving to desktop CPUs and chipsets would save Apple significant money per machine (especially at the quad-core level). Tied with Apple's claims that they are willing to accept lower margins, maybe $999 to $1999 with 2.66GHz (E8200) dual-core on the low-end and 2.8 or 3.0GHz (Q9550 or Q9650) quad-cores on the top?I can imagine a $100 price drop but Apple is reaping more profits using cheaper desktop processors. The E8200 is rather depressing in the enthusiast community with its stillborn launch compared to the Q6600.

Ah, alright, this makes sense. I just find it unfortunate that they have to use such dated chips in a new release.

Can we have a midrange Mac desktop with Core i7 yet?I don't think you took my advice as stated earlier to do some research on Nehalem. You're looking at H2 2009 for anything even close to a 65W TDP. Then again the loss of the northbridge might offset the sllightly higher CPU thermals.

[localoid]

Could this lead to (slightly) less expensive iMacs?

Moving to desktop CPUs and chipsets would save Apple significant money per machine (especially at the quad-core level). Tied with Apple's claims that they are willing to accept lower margins, maybe $999 to $1999 with 2.66GHz (E8200) dual-core on the low-end and 2.8 or 3.0GHz (Q9550 or Q9650) quad-cores on the top?


http://www.xbitlabs.com/images/news/2008-11/intc_core2quad_65w_specs_.png

"The novelties will not be inexpensive: computer makers will have to pay 16%, 20% or even 33% price premium for energy efficiency of the new chips compared to quad-core processors with similar specs, but with higher power consumption."

Intel to Unveil Desktop Quad-Core Chips with Lowered Power Consumption (http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/cpu/display/20081119034328_Intel_to_Unveil_Desktop_Quad_Core_Chips_with_Lowered_Power_Consumption.html)

[SpinThis!]

price, avalibility, the fact that apple gets the current procs they are going ot be using for much much cheaper, the list kinda goes on and on :)

Exactly Nahalem will be great when it arrives but it's still quite new for Apple to adopt it yet. You don't transition from Mac OS 9 to X overnight; the same is true for Nahalem. Let the other vendors work out the imminent bugs, driver and board issues, etc and let Intel ramp up production when they're ready.

Bring on the extra cores. Take a look at the number of processes Mac OS 9 spawned by itself then compare that to Mac OS X. In particular, UNIX is all about doing one job well; that evidently means more processes and threads to spread out over the OS—you almost need a processor core just for the OS to do its business. A quad core iMac/Mini (if Apple goes that route) would definitely be beneficial to businesses who want to virtualize Windows on Mac—dual core is good but quad is better.

[Eidorian]

http://www.xbitlabs.com/images/news/2008-11/intc_core2quad_65w_specs_.png

"The novelties will not be inexpensive: computer makers will have to pay 16%, 20% or even 33% price premium for energy efficiency of the new chips compared to quad-core processors with similar specs, but with higher power consumption."

Intel to Unveil Desktop Quad-Core Chips with Lowered Power Consumption (http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/cpu/display/20081119034328_Intel_to_Unveil_Desktop_Quad_Core_Chips_with_Lowered_Power_Consumption.html)Wow, that is a megaton from Intel. I really like where this is going. P43 in my iMac? It's more likely then you think!

[wizard]

Do we need Quad-Core processors already? Most software developers haven't even fully embraced Dual-Core.

I keep hearing messages of this tone, in threads about multiple cores, and have to wonder if you have a clue? Frankly I don't give a rats ass about what software developers do.

First, you have to realize that not all programs will end up being threaded or multi core optimized any time soon. It is just not worth the trouble for many programs. Second, on apps that do benefit many developers simply don't have the skill thus their app eventually gets replaced with the more modern. Third, for many it isn't an issue of single app performance anyways but rather what they can do with the system and keep it responsive.

In a nut shell you whine about developers means nothing. The reasons for multiple core are many and go beyound the focus you have on single apps.

By the way I'm not sure I believe this story completely. The problem is one of power and the fact that that is a big selling point in the Minis case and to a lesser extent the iMacs. These would still be significantly hotter processors.


Dave

[demosthenes496]

how dated exactly do you think they are? its not like they are P4's with HyperThreading :)

They're an improvement certainly on the previous generation. My first Mac was a G3 iBook, so I'm used to Apple not being on the bleeding edge of CPU tech. I was just hoping that the switch to Intel would also mean that Apple would be able to adopt more aggressive upgrade cycles.


I don't think you took my advice as stated earlier to do some research on Nehalem. You're looking at H2 2009 for anything even close to a 65W TDP. Then again the loss of the northbridge might offset the sllightly higher CPU thermals.

I didn't say that I wanted it now, just eventually. Other manufacturers do have desktops with Core i7 available already.

[Eidorian]

I didn't say that I wanted it now, just eventually. Other manufacturers do have desktops with Core i7 available already.You meant every other manufacturer that sells gaming ATX midtowers with the proper cooling to handle a 130W TDP processor, the hot X58 chipset, a Radeon HD4850, and overclock on right?

[localoid]

...

By the way I'm not sure I believe this story completely. The problem is one of power and the fact that that is a big selling point in the Minis case and to a lesser extent the iMacs. These would still be significantly hotter processors.


Apple using these new LGA775 CPUs in totally new small form factor box makes sense. Putting them in an iMac? Err, maybe.

[SpinThis!]

Cube, baby, Cube!

[demosthenes496]

You meant every other manufacturer that sells gaming ATX midtowers with the proper cooling to handle a 130W TDP processor, the hot X58 chipset, a Radeon HD4850, and overclock on right?

I'm not trying to be adversarial. I'm just saying that it would be nice if Apple were to release a desktop for under $2000 that was competitively specced. Dell (http://www.dell.com/content/products/productdetails.aspx/desktop-studioxps-435mt?c=us&cs=19&l=en&s=dhs&~ck=mn) has desktops that aren't sold as "gaming computers" that match these specifications. Luckily for Apple I don't want to use Windows, so I'm forced to hope for Apple to release a similar product.

[Clive At Five]

I agree it is bizarro world. We should have had Conroe and Penryn all along if the iMac is pushing 65W TDP processors. Keep in mind TDP is a cooling suggestion and not an absolute.

The G5s that Apple used in its most recent white iMacs had (iirc) roughly 80W TDP... We most definitely could have been using desktop processors all along...

-Clive

[Eidorian]

I'm not trying to be adversarial. I'm just saying that it would be nice if Apple were to release a desktop for under $2000 that was competitively specced. Dell (http://www.dell.com/content/products/productdetails.aspx/desktop-studioxps-435mt?c=us&cs=19&l=en&s=dhs&~ck=mn) has desktops that aren't sold as "gaming computers" that match these specifications. Luckily for Apple I don't want to use Windows, so I'm forced to hope for Apple to release a similar product.Sadly a mini/midtower isn't the Apple we know and love.

You're cutting it rather close with a XPS Studio that can handle a Radeon 4850 on the enthusiast X58 chipset.

The G5s that Apple used in its most recent white iMacs had (iirc) roughly 80W TDP... We most definitely could have been using desktop processors all along...

-CliveI'm sure we remember the changes between the Revision B iMac G5 and the iSight one. Not to mention the clamoring of Conroe in the iMac to only be let down withe Merom. I just wonder what cool chipset they're going to use in the iMac. One with PCI-Express 2.0 is going to be hotter then a 1.1 one. I'm guessing P41 for the sake of keeping things cool but ICH7 is a step back.

[wizard]

Apple using these new LGA775 CPUs in totally new small form factor box makes sense. Putting them in an iMac? Err, maybe.

The heat can be made manageable in all current Apple products. We may not like the fans but the point is the processors are not so hot that they couldn't go into an iMac for example. After all we had a G5 in one.

What I was trying to say is that one big attraction of the Mini is it's very low power usage for a desktop. For green people this is a selling point as it is for the stingy like me! ;)

Let's face it the Mini enjoyed a lot of success as a small form factor, low power PC. I would hate to see Apple walk away from that success just when the issues associated with power usage are becoming more pronounced. For me it is a rising expense to keep old PCs powered up, this due to the rising cost of power. Ideally Apple will continue to address this with at least one product.

Dave

[puckhead193]

wow if true that would be a lot of power for the avg. user.

[KindredMAC]

Quad Cores in higher end iMacs are the way to go.
A lot of pro users are going to the iMac due to cost in this economy.

The only problem with this right now is that the iMac is in a place right now in the market that it is eating away at potential Mac Pro sales and not even letting the Mac mini get the scraps from the meal. It's starving two lines.

If Apple wants the Mac Pro to shine they need to do something better with it. Add Blu-Ray, add eSATA, change the case up a bit, lower the price back down to where the PowerMacs used to reside.

If Apple REALLY wants the Mac mini to survive there is only one thing that it can do..... lower the price. $399 for a Dual Core Intel running at 2.0GHz with a Super Drive, WiFi and Bluetooth. That is the system that could sell like hot cakes in Best Buys and WalMarts across the country. But then again does Apple really want that kind of customer base.... most likely not.

[Clive At Five]

I'm sure we remember the changes between the Revision B iMac G5 and the iSight one. Not to mention the clamoring of Conroe in the iMac to only be let down withe Merom. I just wonder what cool chipset they're going to use in the iMac. One with PCI-Express 2.0 is going to be hotter then a 1.1 one. I'm guessing P41 for the sake of keeping things cool but ICH7 is a step back.

Since Apple (if they even mention it) will argue that "most people won't even notice the difference," I'd almost guarantee it'll be ICH7.

[Eidorian]

wow if true that would be a lot of power for the avg. user.$400-500 quad core desktops reported in last year. Quad core isn't an amazing leap with the Q6600 around.

Since Apple (if they even mention it) will argue that "most people won't even notice the difference," I'd almost guarantee it'll be ICH7.ICH7 doesn't bother me. I have it on my G31 motherboard and it works perfectly.

[Clive At Five]

ICH7 doesn't bother me. I have it on my G31 motherboard and it works perfectly.

Likewise. I might complain, but when I really face the facts, I wouldn't notice the difference in practice.

[happydude]

are these going to find their way into a new mini?

[miketcool]

What do you think Snow Leopard is for?

arn

The forthcoming longest, coldest winter to go on record of course!:D

I am going to need those 95W babies to heat my office!

[AidenShaw]

are these going to find their way into a new mini?

These are going to find their way into the new mini-tower !!


(below)

The current MacBook line chipset from Nvidia was stretched to include mobiles, but was more of a mini-ATX desktop chipset.

Apple making use of esentially the same chipset with the desktop CPU socket variant for the iMacs isn't a huge stretch.

But, as I said, that's a completely new version of the motherboard. Since the Imac already has discrete graphics, IMO it would make little sense to redo it to use the Nvidia chipset.

One the other hand, using this CPU in a new SFF or mini-tower that replaces the mini would be interesting.

[Sun Baked]

:cool:The quad mini-tower finally arrives!

Imac doesn't use desktop CPUs, so this would be a major motherboard revision for the Imac.

The current MacBook line chipset from Nvidia was stretched to include mobiles, but was more of a mini-ATX desktop chipset.

Apple making use of esentially the same chipset with the desktop CPU socket variant for the iMacs isn't a huge stretch.

Sort of makes one wonder what the GPU will be, a PCIe slot with a mobile GPU or the MXM slot.

[tonyl]

Wow, great news if it is true. But will this decrease mac Pro sales?

[tonyl]

These are going to find their way into the new mini-tower !!

I really want one too, but please be real.

[Clive At Five]

These are going to find their way into the new mini-tower !!

ehm..... I'd LOVE to believe you... but I would NOT hold my breath!

I hope you're right though!

[Pigumon]

Yeah it would be great if this could find its way into a new sort of mini. Seems like they could cut the mini in half vertically, and extend it horizontally to compensate for the extra heat. Wouldn't be as cute, but Apple can make anything look good!

Why don't they just stick a dedicated Blu-Ray chip and HDMI in while they're at it! :p

[twoodcc]

maybe a new imac and mac mini?

[~Shard~]

Since I have never previously spoke of the matter at all here on MacRumors, I would just like to say that I would love to see a Mac mini-tower with these desktop chips - I know some of you will find this shocking.

:p :D :cool:

[mjteix]

The current MacBook line chipset from Nvidia was stretched to include mobiles, but was more of a mini-ATX desktop chipset.

Apple making use of esentially the same chipset with the desktop CPU socket variant for the iMacs isn't a huge stretch.

Sort of makes one wonder what the GPU will be, a PCIe slot with a mobile GPU or the MXM slot.

I agree, Apple could use the new 9300 desktop chipset from nvidia (since they will probably use dedicated gpus too), it has all the components needed for the iMac (excluding the FW controller).

While using the new 65W quad-core cpus would allow for a price decrease on most models, I think that Apple will also choose to offer the new iMacs with LED-BL displays (increasing the cost). On another forum, I suggested the following that is a mixed bag of price cuts and speedbumps:

$1199 20" iMac dual-core 2.66GHz (E8200 $163), 2GB RAM, HDD, ODD, low-end GPU
$1399 20" iMac quad-core 2.33GHz (Q8200s $245), 2GB RAM, HDD, ODD, midrange GPU
$1699 24" iMac quad-core 2.66GHz (Q9400s $320), 2GB RAM, HDD, ODD, midrange GPU
$1899 24" iMac quad-core 2.83GHz (Q9550s $369), 2GB RAM, HDD, ODD, high-end GPU

This way, there would be more room for a lower-end Mac Pro (or two), starting at $1999...


Mac mini, dual-core (2 threads), under $1,000
iMac, dual-core (2 threads) and quad-core (4 threads), $1199-1899
Uni-processor Core i7 Mac Pro, quad-core (8 threads), $1999-2499
Dual-processor nehalem Xeon Mac Pro, eight cores (16 threads), $2999 and up

[cube]

What do you think Snow Leopard is for?

arn

Snow Leopard is not magic.


Midrange tower or bust!

[Sun Baked]

Snow Leopard is not magic.

Midrange tower or bust!

I think you will be looking silly with the DDs. :p

[wizard]

The Core i7 920 is reportedly available to OEMS for $284 US. According to the article, that compares favorably in terms of price to the $245 bottom end price of the chips Apple is planning to use anyway.

I really don't see why they wouldn't use Core i7 in the iMac. It seems as if it would be a massive leap in terms of performance for not very much more.

Compare the i7 920 to the "high-end" Q9550 which is priced higher at $364, the Core i7 absolutely destroys it in all benchmarks. For me it would be a no-brainer to use the Nehalem in the next iMac.

My guess, if this is at all true, is that the i7 in and of itself doesn't mean much. That is it can't operate without a chipset to support it of some sort. If Apple believes that its tie in with Nvidia offer a better overall experience then I would imagine they would stick with chips that Nvidia currently supports.

Notably too the new iMacs likely are already designed and close to validated for production at this point. While Apple would certainly get pre release hardware it isn't likely that this prerelease hardware is widely supported outside a couple of Intel chip sets. Chipsets that might not have been stable at the time Apple had to commit to something.

In any event the new Core 2 chips if actually used look pretty impressive to me. At least for a an upgrade to the low end iMacs. You get 2 more cores and what looks like a lot more cache. Not bad, but then again who says these aren't for the Mini's replacement?

In a nut shell I'd jump at a Mini, with the GPU like is used in Mac Book and one of these processors. Power wise it is doable in a slightly redesigned Mini. It would be one nice little machine.


Dave

[randomlinh]

Snow Leopard is not magic.


Midrange tower or bust!

Been wanting this for ages. The temptation for a hackintosh is strong though.

[AidenShaw]

This way, there would be more room for a lower-end Mac Pro (or two)...

Let's not call the new mini-tower a "Mac Pro" - perhaps "Mac Amateur" or something. ;)

And, of course, it wouldn't have the humonguous, expensive maxi-tower that the current Mac Pro uses. An SFF or mini-tower with a few internal expansion options (2nd disk or optical, x16 PCIe graphics card, x1 PCIe tuner,...).

Expansion would separate the Amateur from the Pro.

And yes, the base system should have integrated graphics - X3100 is fine. Have a couple of graphics card options, but don't force the majority of people who's needs are met by an X3100 to pay for a big card.


... lower-end Mac Pro ... starting at $1999...

NO NO NO ! ! !

When the retail price of a 2.4GHz quad Core 2 Duo, 6 GiB, 640 GB system (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16883113079) is $680, a $2K price tag for a similar Apple system would be crazy.




Mac mini, dual-core (2 threads), under $1,000
iMac, dual-core (2 threads) and quad-core (4 threads), $1199-1899
Uni-processor Core i7 Mac Pro, quad-core (8 threads), $1999-2499
Dual-processor nehalem Xeon Mac Pro, eight cores (16 threads), $2999 and up


The mini-tower should be in the $699 (dual-core) to $1599 range, with BTO options that could push the price up.

[couto27]

iphone , aluminium macbook i dont have time to bread or read with so many updates in last months , i just bought my new imac 2,66 it smells like new , ok i will wait for the 8 core processor.

[kabunaru]

This will be good news. iMac can be more "Pro" than a MacBook Pro.

[iMacmatician]

DigiTimes reports (http://www.digitimes.com/news/a20081119PD209.html) that Apple is amongst the vendors who are awaiting the release of three new low-power desktop CPUs due in January from Intel. Apple is reported to have decided to launch products based on these CPUs. The most obvious destination for the new chips is Apple's iMac line which has been rumored for revision.

While the iMac's processor speeds would not increase with the use these chips, it would increase the number of CPU cores from two to four. Desktop CPUs eh? :cool: Now that's an upgrade worthy of Macworld (I'm assuming other changes besides the core count increase)! Although we may see only the 24" move to quad-core.

I really don't see why they wouldn't use Core i7 in the iMac. It seems as if it would be a massive leap in terms of performance for not very much more.65 W TDP vs. 130 W TDP.

[jackfrost123]

This story doesn't make a whole lot of sense. At 65W, they're still too hot for the imac, and still being current-gen architecture, they're not cutting-edge enough for the Mac Pro. This just stokes the mid-range mac fires again...

best post. Exactly. Way too hot for the iMac.

[Eidorian]

best post. Exactly. Way too hot for the iMac.Do you remember PowerPC 970FX?

[Speedy2]

Do you remember PowerPC 970FX?


Yeah, it had a TDP of 49W at 2GHz.

[morespce54]

A quad-core iMac... that could be interesting... Lets only hope the heat wont be a problem... ;)

[Le Big Mac]

Quad core in that tiny case?

I know, I know! Remove firewire to make space . . .

:D

[Eidorian]

Yeah, it had a TDP of 49W at 2GHz.Thankfully some of us do remember those days with the venerable PowerPc 970.

We currently have the 55W TDP E8435 (http://valid.x86-secret.com/show_oc.php?id=353588) in the iMac already. Like I've said before the 65W TDP rating is a cooling solution suggestion from Intel. I've had an E2180 and a E6550. Both are rated at a 65W TDP. The E2160 was much cooler then the E6550. Only when I overclocked the E2160 to 2.4 GHz was it giving off the heat of the more expensive and faster processor.

It's not an absolute.

[AidenShaw]

Like I've said before the 65W TDP rating is a cooling solution suggestion from Intel.

Correct - Intel CPUs will drop power and frequency to avoid damage in the event that the cooling system can't get rid of the heat.

An old Tom's Hardware story ran some Intel and AMD CPUs without their heat sinks - the result is in the picture.

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/hot-spot,365-2.html

"We wanted to find out how well the latest processors from AMD and Intel are able to cope with the worst-case scenario - a sudden complete removal of the heat sink.
...
The next picture shows the four processors after our heat survival test. As you will find out soon, only two survived."

[Eidorian]

Correct - Intel CPUs will drop power and frequency to avoid damage in the event that the cooling system can't get rid of the heat.

An old Tom's Hardware story ran some Intel and AMD CPUs without their heat sinks - the result is in the picture.

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/hot-spot,365-2.html

"We wanted to find out how well the latest processors from AMD and Intel are able to cope with the worst-case scenario - a sudden complete removal of the heat sink.
...
The next picture shows the four processors after our heat survival test. As you will find out soon, only two survived."I remember that rather ancient article but the videos of the AMD processors frying are always fun to show off to friends with little hardware experience.

I did a bad job installing a heatsink once and gamed for 2 hours on it. The CPU downclocked itself the entire time and it was noticeable in game when the frame rates plummeted. Not that you want to have a poorly cooled processor but yes they're smart enough to try to save themselves or just hard reboot.

[RemarkabLee]

I remember that rather ancient article but the videos of the AMD processors frying are always fun to show off to friends with little hardware experience.

Quality video, especially with the Project-X theme tune:

http://www12.tomshardware.com/images/thg_video_1_cpu_cooling.zip

[macall75]

This is great News!, Iam definately going to wait for macworld now before I buy my new imac, these things will fly on snow leopard now, hope they get the LED display too and more Ram, so I can do video and gaming

[AidenShaw]

Not that you want to have a poorly cooled processor but yes they're smart enough to try to save themselves or just hard reboot.

I'm sure you realize this, but for the record the interesting thing about TDP and cooling is that sometimes you do want a "poorly cooled processor".

TDP is basically a nearly theoretical worst case scenario of heat production in the CPU. In normal use, even under heavy load, that amount of heat is never reached.

For example, different operations generate heat in different units. If you do heavy floating point, the FP unit gets hot - but the integer circuits and the MMX/SSE units are cool. You need a careful balance of integer/FP/MMX/SSE operations to heat them all up at once.

Intel's TDP is that "worst case" load of everything busy at once.

So, it's reasonable to build cooling system that handles the "usual" heavy load (say 10 or 15 watts below TDP). If the user manages to push the chip past that, it may run a little slower - but no damage will occur.

[Eidorian]

I'm sure you realize this, but for the record the interesting thing about TDP and cooling is that sometimes you do want a "poorly cooled processor".

TDP is basically a nearly theoretical worst case scenario of heat production in the CPU. In normal use, even under heavy load, that amount of heat is never reached.

For example, different operations generate heat in different units. If you do heavy floating point, the FP unit gets hot - but the integer circuits and the MMX/SSE units are cool. You need a careful balance of integer/FP/MMX/SSE operations to heat them all up at once.

Intel's TDP is that "worst case" load of everything busy at once.

So, it's reasonable to build cooling system that handles the "usual" heavy load (say 10 or 15 watts below TDP). If the user manages to push the chip past that, it may run a little slower - but no damage will occur.I see your point about CPU heat generation. I'm surprised that it didn't hit me as well.

Picture is related.

[alphaod]

This could help with a revised Mac Mini; since desktop chips are usually cheaper than their mobile counterparts in the same frequencies, this would be quite suitable for a cheap Mac like a Mini.

[Speedy2]

We currently have the 55W TDP E8435 (http://valid.x86-secret.com/show_oc.php?id=353588) in the iMac already. Like I've said before the 65W TDP rating is a cooling solution suggestion from Intel.


Still, that custom made, overclocked 3.06GHz CPU is a mobile CPU paired with a mobile platform. And it is surely an exception. The other iMac CPUs have a TDP of 25W and 35W, respectively.

The quad cores mentioned in the article are desktop CPUs.
Either Apple will switch to a desktop platform in the iMac, or we will see an entirely new product. Or this is just one of these completely unfounded rumours coming from and going nowhere ...
Btw, there are mobile quad cores announced for 2H09. It is more likely that these will end up in the iMac. It's not really the case that the typical iMac user is craving for more CPU power, is it. The GPU is the weak spot.

[kabunaru]

This could help with a revised Mac Mini; since desktop chips are usually cheaper than their mobile counterparts in the same frequencies, this would be quite suitable for a cheap Mac like a Mini.

They should re-design the Mac Mini or discontinue it and make Mac Pros with desktop processors and standard RAM for $1000 less than the current Mac Pro as an option.

[epilef987]

This is as I expected.

I would be really happy if they put this in like the high end upgraded Mini.

Even though that's more likely to only happen in the 24 in iMac.

Would be very strange to see them switch from ignoring the Mini for over a year to giving it better hardware that's even offered on the MBP.

[Eidorian]

This could help with a revised Mac Mini; since desktop chips are usually cheaper than their mobile counterparts in the same frequencies, this would be quite suitable for a cheap Mac like a Mini.Unless you make the Mac mini bigger I don't think you'll be seeing a revised 45nm 65W quad core in it. I'm surprised that Intel isn't going to deliver 45W desktop dual cores alongside these new cooler quads. I know that the Celeron E1xxx is rated for 45W TDP.

You're also going to run into more things. These desktop processors require a desktop chipset as well since this is LGA775. The E8345 runs into a gray area of a E series on the PM965 chipset. Finally the number of LGA775 boards that have SODIMM RAM. Not that it's impossible but we know Apple its clever logicboards.

[AidenShaw]

They should re-design the Mac Mini or discontinue it and make Mac Pros with desktop processors and standard RAM for $1000 less than the current Mac Pro as an option.

The Mini is interesting, but it needs to be updated.

The Mac Pro is interesting - an expensive workstation for those who need 8 cores and lots and lots of RAM.

What's missing is the mini-tower - it should be added as a third headless option, rather than shrinking the Mac Pro.

[Eidorian]

Still, that custom made, overclocked 3.06GHz CPU is a mobile CPU paired with a mobile platform. And it is surely an exception. The other iMac CPUs have a TDP of 25W and 35W, respectively.

The quad cores mentioned in the article are desktop CPUs.
Either Apple will switch to a desktop platform in the iMac, or we will see an entirely new product. Or this is just one of these completely unfounded rumours coming from and going nowhere ...
Btw, there are mobile quad cores announced for 2H09. It is more likely that these will end up in the iMac. It's not really the case that the typical iMac user is craving for more CPU power, is it. The GPU is the weak spot.I'm sure Apple could convince Intel to make a special run of these quad cores like the E8435. ;)

[shaolindave]

too bad it's desktop CPUS. i was kinda hoping for one that'd be compatible with the current imac.

then again, maybe it'd be better to just get a new imac rather than upgrade my current one. anything other than the RAM is extremely difficult (but not impossible.)

[Sun Baked]

I still see Apple using the other socket in the iMac, with the same 9400 Nvidia chipset.

Especially since the mobile socket version of the chipset is hard to find a picture of, which this is everywhere.

[retroneo]

Do we need Quad-Core processors already? Most software developers haven't even fully embraced Dual-Core.

go to terminal and type "top" without quotes.

look at the top line and you'll see how many threads you are running right now. Each of these can run on a different core.

All versions of Mac OS X benefit from multiple cores if you are running multiple programs at once. I'm running 518 threads right now on my dual core MacBook Pro.

[Eidorian]

I still see Apple using the other socket in the iMac, with the same 9400 Nvidia chipset.

Especially since the mobile socket version of the chipset is hard to find a picture of, which this is everywhere.In the past 3 posts I've forgotten each time to mention that the 9400 all-in-one IGP chipset has a desktop version as well. :(

This is also an option alongside Apple finalizing Hybrid SLI in OS X. A low end iMac with the 9400 chipset for under $1,000 isn't that bad of a solution.

[Winni]

Do we need Quad-Core processors already? Most software developers haven't even fully embraced Dual-Core.

Handbrake, Aperture and also some PhotoShop filters easily max out my Quad Core Mac Pro, meaning that all cores are running at full load, so the simple answer is: Absolutely, yes, we need more CPU cores.

With Snow Leopard and the next generation of software optimized for Snow Leopard, computing might become real fun again: 32 GPU cores plus four or eight CPU cores that can be used by software... Huh-Hah! ;-)

[PostTribber]

a 17 inch Quad MBP?

[kjs862]

Hopefully we will see these in a new headless mac at MWSF - be so nice =D

[Hak]

"The Khronos group was present to celebrate the launch of the upcoming OpenCL specification which Apple is planning to implement in Mac OS X 10.6 Snow Leopard."

Apple is not planning to implement Open CL in Snow Leopard, it has already done it!! It has so, because Apple developed Open CL. But because they submitted their technology for standardization, Apple needs to wait until the API is fully standardized (that the full specifications are defined among all actors) before to ship Snow Leopard.

"While few details were revealed, Khronos' president Neil Trevett explained how quickly the OpenCL specification had come together."

It happened like this because the API was well designed and because Apple has worked with the hardware guys in order to produce a first draft for the specifications to become standard.

"Trevett was very optimistic about the prospects of OpenCL specifically implemented in Snow Leopard:"

Well Open CL defines an standard API, and all software vendors are responsible for the implementation. But given that Apple created Open CL, their implementation in Snow Leopard will be probably second to none.


@ChrisA
"No, apaerently Apple didn't do this all by themselves. What they did is work or a long time with Intel, nvidia, AMD and other before going to Kronos with their draft OpenCL spec in hand. They did the work in a small club.
"

More precisely Apple developed the technology and worked with Intel, Amd and Nvidia in in order to create a first draft for standardization of the API, which of course makes sense for such an API that is supposed to talk to the hardware, so working with the hardware guys is normal.

[Speedy2]

a 17 inch Quad MBP?


With a 65W CPU?
I sure wouldn't want that nuclear reactor on my lap.

[kabunaru]

What's missing is the mini-tower - it should be added as a third headless option, rather than shrinking the Mac Pro.

The Mac Pro will be great without the workstation hardware in it. An $1499 Mac Pro with DDR3 RAM and Desktop (not Workstation CPU) CPU would fly off the shelves. There is a market for that.

[TuffLuffJimmy]

The Mac Pro will be great without the workstation hardware in it. An $1499 Mac Pro with DDR3 RAM and Desktop (not Workstation CPU) CPU would fly off the shelves. There is a market for that.

With how powerful computers are getting today there is a smaller and smaller pro segment that actually needs the xeon server processors. So I'd imagine that eventually they will have to start offering desktop grade CPU's since if the pros aren't given a choice they'll switch over to Windows since the hardware is so much cheaper yet be able to do all they could ever want.

[kabunaru]

With how powerful computers are getting today there is a smaller and smaller pro segment that actually needs the xeon server processors. So I'd imagine that eventually they will have to start offering desktop grade CPU's since if the pros aren't given a choice they'll switch over to Windows since the hardware is so much cheaper yet be able to do all they could ever want.

Don't you think Xeons are overkill?

[TuffLuffJimmy]

Don't you think Xeons are overkill?

That's my point. They're too much money for what the majority of creative professionals need. I'm sure there are some really mathy guys who need to xeons, or people using their Mac Pros as website servers, but the vast majority of the 'pro market' would be more than content with desktop chips.

[kabunaru]

That's my point. They're too much money for what the majority of creative professionals need. I'm sure there are some really mathy guys who need to xeons, or people using their Mac Pros as website servers, but the vast majority of the 'pro market' would be more than content with desktop chips.

And don't the workstation CPUs use more power than desktop CPUs? If Apple is going to make a "green" Mac Pro, they need to move to desktop CPU.

[Karpfish]

They really should offer at least one desktop CPU inside the same mac pro case....

[kabunaru]

They really should offer at least one desktop CPU inside the same mac pro case....

Or all Desktop CPUs for the Mac Pros. Xeons should be only in the Xserve. That is it.

[hiimamac]

I thought they already used the Quad core or are there 4 cpu's in the Mac Pro?

The sad thing, but great for PC users is, with it's lower wattage, these things are going to overclock way, WAY upward in the area of 3.8 or more with 4 CORES.

To bad we can never see the price cuts (intel) reflected on the hardware - similar to the UNI BODY - same thing (just about) for MB and MBP yet price differential is same with more $$$$ in Apples pocket and none for consumer.

Hmm, might be a good time to think about X-EFI, especially if they are that low and can clock that high. (or free with OSX86). I know it sounds like a hassle but if the new quad clocks high and can be twice (almost) as fast as NEW MACHINE and 4X faster than PRESENT day machine, then it really is hard to argue as a complete rig, 4 GB ram and all sets you back $600-$800 and you get performance (especially with EFI-X) that trumps apple.

Fine if you're doing AT HOME rendering/video work - some speculate they (EFI) are working on a laptop device.

Apple needs a price cut in the PRO markets.

Needed a good entry level headless mac, OR iMAC with matte, expansion slot.

[kabunaru]

I thought they already used the Quad core or are there 4 cpu's in the Mac Pro?


That is a Server/Workstation CPU not a Desktop CPU.

[hiimamac]

I see your point about CPU heat generation. I'm surprised that it didn't hit me as well.

Picture is related.

I know people mac fun of WINDOWS but without us switchers, can you imagine? Ever meet a real MAC APPLE lifer? They have no idea about FSB, cooling, wattage, scripts LOL- but sometimes wonder as the market grows - will we someday see overclocking and FSB bumps on macs? One would think it should be here now -

Some say if you run bootcamp and OC, then it will stay for OSX. Not sure about that - only possible in a DIY kit as you change the bios.

Thoughts?

[hiimamac]

That is a Server/Workstation CPU not a Desktop CPU.

No, the MAC PRO - did I read it wrong? Aren't the MAC PRO's quad core now?
I thought there were 8 cpu's in a Mac Pro -?

Now that the 8 core is a year away - imagine? WOW! 16 core laptop! 2012.
Better - 32 CORE DESKTOP -
Gotta wonder how digidesign stays in business.
Nice.

[kabunaru]

No, the MAC PRO - did I read it wrong? Aren't the MAC PRO's quad core now?


The quad core in the Mac Pro is still a workstation/server CPU Xeon

[TuffLuffJimmy]

The quad core in the Mac Pro is still a workstation/server CPU Xeon

I disagree with you on only having the server CPUs in the the xserve. The xserve is a very different machine than the Mac Pro. Some people need a server grade CPU in their workstation for big calculations and things like 3D modeling, and these things are not possible with servers, especially since there isn't really a viable graphics card option for the XServe.

[Eidorian]

Don't you think Xeons are overkill?The only magic of a Xeon is muti processor support, ECC RAM, and slightly different thermals from time to time. Pit a Core 2 Duo/Quad against an indentical Xeon, you'll get nearly identical results. In fact Intel sells single socket Xeons that are just relabeled Core 2 processors.

I know people mac fun of WINDOWS but without us switchers, can you imagine? Every meet a real MAC APPLE lifer? They have no idea about FSB, cooling, wattage, scripts - but sometimes wonder as the market grows - will we someday see overclocking and FSB bumps on macs? One would think it should be here now -

Some say if you run bootcamp and OC, then it will stay for OSX. Not sure about that - only possible in a DIY kit as you change the bios.

Thoughts?Let me tell you a tale of PowerPC 750 upgrade cards, Power Mac G3 overclocking, DIP switch multiplier fun, upgrade PowerPC 74xx cards with dual processors, G4 Cube processor upgrades, flashing PC video cards with Mac BIOS, overclocking ATI GPUs, soldering eMac logicboards, PowerBook G4 2.0 GHz, and ATITool.

Sadly I wasn't around for the 68000 days.

[SirOmega]

How would one fit a desktop socketed CPU in that thin iMac case? Its one thing to have a desktop CPU with a low TDP, but unless Intel is making a surface mount BGA version that is attached to the mobo, the socket itself will take up a good amount of vertical space in the case, reducing the possible vertical profile of the heatsink.

I'm voting for cheap Mac Pro. It was said that desktop sales are lagging, maybe Steve realized that he needs a "prosumer" desktop that doesn't involve a monitor. Plus, buying an iMac with a new monitor every time you want to upgrade isn't exactly "sustainable" or "green".

How much? Specs? Who knows. I'd put the cheapest one at $899 on the Nvidia GF9400 platform and the most expensive at $1499 with a 4650/9800GT video card.

[kabunaru]

I disagree with you on only having the server CPUs in the the xserve. The xserve is a very different machine than the Mac Pro. Some people need a server grade CPU in their workstation for big calculations and things like 3D modeling, and these things are not possible with servers, especially since there isn't really a viable graphics card option for the XServe.

Why not this?:
Two varients of the Mac Pro:
1 Dekstop oriented Mac Pro with standard RAM, 2GB RAM standard, ATI Radeon HD 4850 standard (other high-end Nvidia and ATI video cards as BTO).
$1499
1 Workstation orientated Mac Pro:
8-core workstation CPU (no quad core at all) with low-end Nvidia Quadro video card or ATI FireGL video card as standard, 4GB RAM standard, basically all the workstation orientated stuff.
$2799 but wish the price would be back to $2499

[Eidorian]

How would one fit a desktop socketed CPU in that thin iMac case? Its one thing to have a desktop CPU with a low TDP, but unless Intel is making a surface mount BGA version that is attached to the mobo, the socket itself will take up a good amount of vertical space in the case, reducing the possible vertical profile of the heatsink. Hint: The iMac has always had a socketed processor since the switch to Intel

[kabunaru]

How much? Specs? Who knows. I'd put the cheapest one at $899 on the Nvidia GF9400 platform and the most expensive at $1499 with a 4650/9800GT video card.

Nice idea but I can see that "Mac Pro" being smaller. Something half-way size between the Mac Mini and Mac Pro. Maybe it should be called: "Mac Mini Pro" if it starts at $899.

[Sun Baked]

How would one fit a desktop socketed CPU in that thin iMac case? Its one thing to have a desktop CPU with a low TDP, but unless Intel is making a surface mount BGA version that is attached to the mobo, the socket itself will take up a good amount of vertical space in the case, reducing the possible vertical profile of the heatsink.

Doubt Apple would use the intel heatsinks, they'd probably continue to use their heatpipes and a fan like they do now to reduce the thickness.

http://210.157.201.118/~kodawarisan/imac_2007_mid/DSC_3841L.JPG

[SirOmega]

Hint: The iMac has always had a socketed processor since the switch to Intel

Yes, but I would assume the dimensions of LGA775 sockets are much larger (2x) than the 478-pin socket P.

[TuffLuffJimmy]

Nice idea but I can see that "Mac Pro" being smaller. Something half-way size between the Mac Mini and Mac Pro. Maybe it should be called: "Mac Mini Pro" if it starts at $899.

Your breaking things up too much and your naming scheme proves it. Apple is all about simplicity. Sure at one point they might offer desktop CPUs in their Pro line, but they will never break it into little pieces like you suggest.

[kabunaru]

Your breaking things up too much and your naming scheme proves it. Apple is all about simplicity. Sure at one point they might offer desktop CPUs in their Pro line, but they will never break it into little pieces like you suggest.

A mid-range tower is not simplicity?

[SirOmega]

Doubt Apple would use the intel heatsinks, they'd probably continue to use their heatpipes and a fan like they do now to reduce the thickness.

The LGA775 socket would add height to that, in addition to thicker heatpipes for the 65W TDP.

[TuffLuffJimmy]

A mid-range tower is not simplicity?

Nope. Try explaining to the consumer why they need the midrange tower, or why they need the mac mini, or why they need an iMac, or why they need a Pro. If you have all those machines things will just get cluttered and confusing.

[Eidorian]

Yes, but I would assume the dimensions of LGA775 sockets are much larger (2x) than the 478-pin socket P.I can't find an image right now but I know that several review sites have placed Conroe/Merom and Wolfdale/Penryn side by side. Maybe it was the heatspreader that threw you off?

Mobile processors can come in socketed variants and the iMac uses them.

Edit: I know it's either Anandtech or Tom's Hardware but here's something that I found quick.

[kabunaru]

Nope. Try explaining to the consumer why they need the midrange tower, or why they need the mac mini, or why they need an iMac, or why they need a Pro. If you have all those machines things will just get cluttered and confusing.

Unless you discontinue the iMac and Mac Mini and sell just the Mac Pro mid-range tower and Mac Pro workstation. :D

Mid-range towers are meant for geeks then you think?

[TuffLuffJimmy]

Unless you discontinue the iMac and Mac Mini and sell just the Mac Pro mid-range tower and Mac Pro workstation. :D

Mid-range towers are meant for geeks then you think?

It would make Apple just another PC manufacturer if they cut the iMac and the mini.

As for being just for geeks: I think that some form of a cheaper Mac Pro would be great for just about anyone. The geek part comes in when people start wanting to upgrade their computers, and since for the most part Macs aren't user upgradable I don't see this being too geeky. Moral of the story, Macs are for people who don't know how a computer works, nor do they care, they just want to look cool in a coffee shop.

Remember when Macs used to be about creativity and work? Now they're about facebook and syncing the iPhone...

[kabunaru]

Remember when Macs used to be about creativity and work?

I want Apple to return back to that philosophy.

I also think that a Quad core desktop CPU iMac would be great for anyone. Maybe there is no need for a mid-range tower then if the iMac gets that upgrade.

[Eidorian]

Anandtech (http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/intel/showdoc.aspx?i=3461) has a nice article up on Lynnfield/ Havendale.

[Bubba Satori]

Nope. Try explaining to the consumer why they need the midrange tower, or why they need the mac mini, or why they need an iMac, or why they need a Pro. If you have all those machines things will just get cluttered and confusing.

A four model range of computers is more confusing than a three model range ? Are they idiots that they can't understand the difference of another model ? Who do you think you're fooling in this feeble defense of Apple's glaring holes in their product line and their limited hardware choices. Absurd. :rolleyes:

[Umbongo]

A four model range of computers is more confusing than a three model range ? Are they idiots that they can't understand the difference of another model ? Who do you think you're fooling in this feeble defense of Apple's glaring holes in their product line and their limited hardware choices. Absurd. :rolleyes:

Yes it is more confusing. It may not be confusing for people on here, but the macrumors community, especially those likely to be posting in a thread about processors, represent a very small portion of mac buyers. If Apple released a full range of single socket i7 systems (using the Bloomfield processors that are out now) and dual socket Nehalem Xeon systems there would be a thread every day on here asking which someone should buy for their specific use.

For example, let's say Apple offered a Nehalem based range with the following:

2.66GHz x 4 @ $1,499
2.93GHz x 4 @ $1,999
3.20GHz x 4 @ $2,499

2.66GHz x 8 @ $2,999
2.93GHz x 8 @ $3,999 (Apple will probably go with 2.8GHz @ $3,799)
3.20GHz x 8 @ $4,599

Which would be better for photoshop? What about Finalcut? Logic? What if I like to browse the web, edit photos and video and want to play some games? Should I spend extra to get more cores? Do I need more cores? Should I get the faster 3.2GHz quad or spend that extra $500 for 20% less speed but double the cores?

Other companies don't care about such things and offer a full range of products so that every angle is covered, but Apple aren't like that, have said they won't become like that and haven't shown any signs they would.

If this article is accurate and the intended use of this processor is for all-in-ones the I would think it is guaranteed that Apple as the biggest all-in-one manufacturer had a hand in this.

[Umbongo]

With how powerful computers are getting today there is a smaller and smaller pro segment that actually needs the xeon server processors. So I'd imagine that eventually they will have to start offering desktop grade CPU's since if the pros aren't given a choice they'll switch over to Windows since the hardware is so much cheaper yet be able to do all they could ever want.

I would think most "Pros" who have money invested in OSX applications and are happy with OSX itself are just going to keep buying competitvely priced dual socket workstations even if they could get by on a Windows system for $1,500-$2,000 less.

[hiimamac]

The only magic of a Xeon is muti processor support, ECC RAM, and slightly different thermals from time to time. Pit a Core 2 Duo/Quad against an indentical Xeon, you'll get nearly identical results. In fact Intel sells single socket Xeons that are just relabeled Core 2 processors.

Let me tell you a tale of PowerPC 750 upgrade cards, Power Mac G3 overclocking, DIP switch multiplier fun, upgrade PowerPC 74xx cards with dual processors, G4 Cube processor upgrades, flashing PC video cards with Mac BIOS, overclocking ATI GPUs, soldering eMac logicboards, PowerBook G4 2.0 GHz, and ATITool.

Sadly I wasn't around for the 68000 days.


That's pretty cool there.

Here is a 2.66 running at 3.8 on air (meaning fan) - wondering what these new chips will do and if the motherboard used here"
http://legionhardware.com/document.php?id=790
can be used with EFI-X as this would be worth it - having a MAC EFI-X running at 3.8 duo core, quad core. For video, photoshop, audio (plug-ins) would be almost 100 fold for a fraction of the cost - lasting at least 3-4 years.

If the new chips are that cool, then the chips could last a lifetime as they will not be that hot.
:eek::apple:

[AidenShaw]

For example, let's say Apple offered a Nehalem based range with the following:

2.66GHz x 4 @ $1,499
2.93GHz x 4 @ $1,999
3.20GHz x 4 @ $2,499

How about if Apple offered a Penryn-based range at half those prices? Perhaps dual-core with integrated graphics for the lowest model.

In 6 to 12 months, when desktop/mobile Nehalems are cheap - then upgrade the mobo to Nehalem.

This gives even better differentiation with the Mac Pro.

If performance/expandibility are important and price is no object - get the humonguous maxi-tower with the 8 core Nehalem.

If not, get the mini-tower.

[MacTraveller]

So while the rest of the PC world has moved to the new i7 desktop processors, the iMac will get re-released Quad-core processors from a year ago just with a lower TDP?

Yippee.

Uhhh, your expectations are un-realistic wishful thinking. Apple cannot have Intel's i7 CPUs inside iMacs by January. That's not going to happen.

Therefore, this is the next best thing.

[theBB]

It seems Intel is not going to release mobile or low power/mainstream desktop versions of i7 until the summer, so if iMac is going to have any updates, this might be it.

Similarly, the Xeon class version of i7 is not going to be out until January(?), so Mac Pros will not be updated until, I'd say, at least Macworld.

[Bye Bye Baby]

Uhhh, your expectations are un-realistic wishful thinking. Apple cannot have Intel's i7 CPUs inside iMacs by January. That's not going to happen.

Therefore, this is the next best thing.

Ah why?

[Eidorian]

Ah why?I'm sure you read all these posts...

http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=6631864&postcount=23

http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=6631993&postcount=34

http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=6633451&postcount=64

[kabunaru]

even if they could get by on a Windows system for $1,500-$2,000 less.

Is the Mac Pro really that expensive compared to the competition? :confused:

[Umbongo]

Is the Mac Pro really that expensive compared to the competition? :confused:

For the actual components you get in the Mac Pro the hardware is a good price. As an individual buyer you'd be paying a lot from HP or Dell for the same specs and roughly the same price if you built it yourself.

If you don't need 8 cores it is a lot to pay for the hardware and that is why people want a single socket solution. I doubt most Mac Pro owners would be buying dual processor workstations if Apple weren't around. Two 2.8GHz Xeons and a systemboard similar to the Mac Pro's will run you $2,000 right now, the same sort of performance with half the cores (and less memory support) can be had for $500.

[hiimamac]

For the actual components you get in the Mac Pro the hardware is a good price. As an individual buyer you'd be paying a lot from HP or Dell for the same specs and roughly the same price if you built it yourself.

If you don't need 8 cores it is a lot to pay for the hardware and that is why people want a single socket solution. I doubt most Mac Pro owners would be buying dual processor workstations if Apple weren't around. Two 2.8GHz Xeons and a systemboard similar to the Mac Pro's will run you $2,000 right now, the same sort of performance with half the cores (and less memory support) can be had for $500.

Not sure about that.

If the new chips are that fast (see latest Macrumors article), one can buy EFI-X, a motherboard ($149), RAM (4GB), $200, tower/PSU ($150 for steel), CPU ($350), and use a GPU they have lying around, and you have a desktop for $800 that trumps todays MAC PRO -

I think that's pretty significant for a $2000 price cut. Especially given that EFI-X makes for no tweaking at all - pure install plus bootable to windows when needed (in AUDIO, sometimes a better option) even Avid schools are using PC's now more than mac (BURBANK Avid Sypmhony which is the biggest AVID school in California), was told they went 80% PC a few years ago.

[Cheffy Dave]

This is as I expected.

I would be really happy if they put this in like the high end upgraded Mini.

Even though that's more likely to only happen in the 24 in iMac.

Boy that would be a long awaited update, that was worth waiting for a Quad Mac mini!!:eek:

What do you think Snow Leopard is for?

arn

You are right, I can see a hole under the tree to be filled in January with a Quad Core i-Mac:rolleyes: Honey, I really really love you;)

[Umbongo]

Not sure about that.

If the new chips are that fast (see latest Macrumors article), one can buy EFI-X, a motherboard ($149), RAM (4GB), $200, tower/PSU ($150 for steel), CPU ($350), and use a GPU they have lying around, and you have a desktop for $800 that trumps todays MAC PRO -

I think that's pretty significant for a $2000 price cut. Especially given that EFI-X makes for no tweaking at all - pure install plus bootable to windows when needed (in AUDIO, sometimes a better option) even Avid schools are using PC's now more than mac (BURBANK Avid Sypmhony which is the biggest AVID school in California), was told they went 80% PC a few years ago.

I'm not sure what you are disagreeing with there. As I said if you don't need 8 cores, as most Mac Pro owners probably don't, then you are wasting a lot as far as hardware is concerned.

I think your example pricing is a bit misleading as the the EFI-X dongle is $199, Nehalem boards are well above $150 ($300 for a decent one), OSX is $129 and most people don't have graphics cards (or hard drives) laying around. The case remains of course that you can get better performance for a lot less if you don't need 8 cores or the official Appleness.

[sneezymarble]

For the actual components you get in the Mac Pro the hardware is a good price. As an individual buyer you'd be paying a lot from HP or Dell for the same specs and roughly the same price if you built it yourself.

If you don't need 8 cores it is a lot to pay for the hardware and that is why people want a single socket solution. I doubt most Mac Pro owners would be buying dual processor workstations if Apple weren't around. Two 2.8GHz Xeons and a systemboard similar to the Mac Pro's will run you $2,000 right now, the same sort of performance with half the cores (and less memory support) can be had for $500.

Of course, the savvy builder can build an 8 core current Xeon system that's compatible with OSX and that performs the same or better than the current 8 core Mac Pros for significantly less. All you need is a Skulltrail board two $275 e5410s. Those things go up to 2.8GHz with stock cooling. If you pay just $100 more per chip and get the e5420 you can easily get to 3.0GHz or even 3.2GHz with some fancier air cooling.

As a preconfigured system from a manufacturer the barebones Mac Pro isn't too bad. If you add extra components from Apple you're getting screwed. But, it's probably the same from HP or Dell. Nevertheless, if you're comfortable building a system then the savings is quite significant in doing it yourself.

Once the dual socket 1366 boards start rolling out and given how easily the i7s overclock, it'll be easy to build a system that outperforms Apples best i7 offering for quite a bit less. I'm excited.

[tom53092]

Nice idea but I can see that "Mac Pro" being smaller. Something half-way size between the Mac Mini and Mac Pro. Maybe it should be called: "Mac Mini Pro" if it starts at $899.

I'll buy whatever headless desktop they come out with, as long as it has video to handle HD. If it's a mini without Firewire, I'll be happy. If it's a Mac Mini Pro, me and millions of others will be in Mac heaven.

[kabunaru]

If it's a Mac Mini Pro, me and millions of others will be in Mac heaven.

See, Apple does need to release that mythical mid-range tower. A lot more people would buy Apple products.

[DakotaGuy]

Wishful thinking.

A quad-core iMac would get me to replace my iMac G5.

It would get me to replace my Core Duo iMac. I have always said that I won't upgrade until the iMac has 4 cores. I guess we will see what happens.

[AidenShaw]

It would get me to replace my Core Duo iMac. I have always said that I won't upgrade until the iMac has 4 cores. I guess we will see what happens.

What if OSX 10.6 drops x86 support, and only runs on 64-bit x64 systems? Upgrade then?

[NintendoFan]

What if OSX 10.6 drops x86 support, and only runs on 64-bit x64 systems? Upgrade then?

If it dropped X86 support it couldn't run on any Intel processor.

[Joe The Dragon]

If it dropped X86 support it couldn't run on any Intel processor.

They still need the code to run to 32 bit apps.

[AidenShaw]

If it dropped X86 support it couldn't run on any Intel processor.

"x86" == 32-bit Intel support
"x64" == 64-bit Intel/AMD support

Not true - Windows Server 2008 R2 is x64 only. It's 64-bit only and will not run on a 32-bit Intel processor like a Core Duo.

If Snow Leopard goes 64-bit kernel only, it would not run on a 32-bit Core Duo. If Apple wants 10.6 to be "lean and mean", one good way would be to drop the 32-bit kernel cruft and go x64-only.


They still need the code to run to 32 bit apps.

Yes, the 64-bit kernel would need to run x86 apps.

This doesn't mean that Apple needs to ship a 32-bit kernel that will run on a Core Duo. (W2K8 R2 runs 32-bit apps, but only on a 64-bit CPU. Vista/Win7/XP 64-bit runs 32-bit apps with a 64-bit kernel on x64 hardware.)