iMac to Come in Both Dual-Core and Quad-Core Configs?

[MacRumors]

http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com/2009/02/02/imac-to-come-in-both-dual-core-and-quad-core-configs/)

Following up a report we had questions about (http://www.macrumors.com/2009/01/26/analyst-speculates-on-imac-delays-quad-vs-dual-core/) from last week, Analyst Shaw Wu now claims (http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/09/02/02/analyst_now_says_imacs_likely_in_both_dual__and_quad_core.html) that the upcoming iMacs will come in both dual core and quad core variants:In his note to clients today, Wu now claims to be hearing from his sources "that both types of processors will likely be used," which would "makes sense as this helps Apple create better tiers within the iMac family, utilizing quad-core for the high-end, and dual-core for mid-range and low-end."If true, this would be the first time that Apple would be adopting a quad-core processor into their consumer desktop machine. Wu's track record (http://guides.macrumors.com/Shaw_Wu_%28Analyst%29) for accurate predictions are quite poor, however.

Another reason to doubt the report are its expecations that "upcoming Intel 'Nehalem' 8-core processors (and with two enabling a 16-core)" will be used in the new Mac Pro. While Intel will be detailing an 8-core Xeon (http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/cpu/display/20090129051758_Intel_Set_to_Detail_Octa_Core_Xeon_Processor_at_Forthcoming_Conference.html) at next week's ISSCC conference, most published reports don't expect such a chip until at least until late 2009. Meanwhile, Xbitlabs even states (http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/cpu/display/20090129051758_Intel_Set_to_Detail_Octa_Core_Xeon_Processor_at_Forthcoming_Conference.html) that recent confidential Intel documents didn't even have any mentions of an 8-core Xeon due in 2009. The March 29th Nehalem Xeons we reported on (http://www.macrumors.com/2009/02/02/mac-pro-suitable-xeon-nehalem-processors-due-march-29th/) earlier today are only expected to max out at 4-cores per chip.


Article Link: iMac to Come in Both Dual-Core and Quad-Core Configs? (http://www.macrumors.com/2009/02/02/imac-to-come-in-both-dual-core-and-quad-core-configs/)

[miketcool]

Let the exponential expectations begin!

[Zenor]

In his note to clients today, Wu now claims to be hearing from his sources "that both types of processors will likely be used," which would "makes sense as this helps Apple create better tiers within the iMac family, utilizing quad-core for the high-end, and dual-core for mid-range and low-end."

Uhm, dual core for mid-range and low-end?
I thought that's what the current iMacs are, so why should the "new ones" include c2d?:o

[Eidorian]

It's sad to still see a dual core in the iMac.

[wrkngclasshero]

Well based on track record this guy's "sources" must involve an eight ball and an ouiji board. Definitely not getting my hopes up on any of these imac rumors

[dohardthings]

my guess is that they will update to quad core but continue to sell the low end models discounted the same way as the mac books

[Kilamite]

Cool.

Wonder if the Quad-Core will be slightly thicker or only available in the 24" model.

[Diode]

It's only about time ... you can walk into best buy and get a quad-core with a monitor for around $700 .....

While I know the computer is not as "pretty" as an imac .... but for half the cost and 2x the processors having a quad-core is all Apple can do to keep up.

I personally love my current imac ... having a quad-core would just make using handbrake much much better.

[iParis]

Uhm, dual core for mid-range and low-end?
I thought that's what the current iMacs are, so why should the new ones include c2d?:o

Yes, the iMacs are the midrange Macs but when they say midrange they probably mean for just the iMacs.
Probably something like this... if what is mentioned happens.
iMac 20 inch - 2.8GHz C2D
iMac 20 inch - 3.06GHz C2D
iMac 24 inch - x.xGHz Quad Core
iMac 24 inch - x.xGHz Quad Core

[talkingfuture]

Nothing like hedging your bets and saying they will come as both. This way he must be at least half right.

[tbealmear]

I am in agreement with others stating that the 24" variant will be the one seeing the Quad-core options. It will allow for more cooling and will get people to spend more money to get it! Now if I only REALLY needed to replace my first gen aluminum iMac...

[Neodym]

Thats it! The often demanded "headless Mac" aka "xMac" aka "Cube reloaded" which should fill the gap between Mac Pro and current iMac will be a souped up iMac Pro sporting a quad core CPU, while the "standard" iMac will stick to Dual-Cores.

In its Pro incarnation it would have 2 or even 4 hard drive bays for 2,5" harddrives, which allows for RAID-Setups and easily swappable drives.
Ideally, the graphic card would sit in its own PCIe slot (size limits apply though).

Memory can be upgraded up to (theoretically) 16 GB, however with only 4 Ram slots available and "standard" Ram modules (i.e. no ECC, no FB-DIMMs or RDIMMs as in the Mac Pro series).

Finally Apple takes care of the prosumer again =)

Flame on! :D

[EmperorDarius]

I hope that the Quad Core machines won't be too expensive.

:apple:

[hakr]

Thats it! The often demanded "headless Mac" aka "xMac" aka "Cube reloaded" which should fill the gap between Mac Pro and current iMac will be a souped up iMac Pro sporting a quad core CPU, while the "standard" iMac will stick to Dual-Cores.

In its Pro incarnation it would have 2 or even 4 hard drive bays for 2,5" harddrives, which allows for RAID-Setups and easily swappable drives.
Ideally, the graphic card would sit in its own PCIe slot (size limits apply though).

Memory can be upgraded up to (theoretically) 16 GB, however with only 4 Ram slots available and "standard" Ram modules (i.e. no ECC, no FB-DIMMs or RDIMMs as in the Mac Pro series).

Finally Apple takes care of the prosumer again =)

Flame on! :D

Gee, I hope the new iMacs are available in different color and texture cases. White and aluminum are soooo boring. :rolleyes:

[dohardthings]

Thats it! The often demanded "headless Mac" aka "xMac" aka "Cube reloaded" which should fill the gap between Mac Pro and current iMac will be a souped up iMac Pro sporting a quad core CPU, while the "standard" iMac will stick to Dual-Cores.

In its Pro incarnation it would have 2 or even 4 hard drive bays for 2,5" harddrives, which allows for RAID-Setups and easily swappable drives.
Ideally, the graphic card would sit in its own PCIe slot (size limits apply though).

Memory can be upgraded up to (theoretically) 16 GB, however with only 4 Ram slots available and "standard" Ram modules (i.e. no ECC, no FB-DIMMs or RDIMMs as in the Mac Pro series).

Finally Apple takes care of the prosumer again =)

Flame on! :D

what about all of those people whining that the imac was held back to "force" mac pro sales

by the way they always whine that they are too far apart or too close together

and for all those that want more models just remember the 90's ok?

[mjtomlin]

I don't think Apple has the option of comparing the iMacs with the just the MacPros. Since switching to Intel, the iMacs also compete against systems from other manufacturer's and such need to be comparable to those offerings.

The MacPro is "pro" for reasons other then just the CPU type, the most important of which is expandability. Apple could still offer a quad-core CPU in the iMac and still have enough leeway to differentiate their "pro" systems by offering dual quad-core on the low end and dual 8-core on the high when they are available.

I personally don't care if they stick with the dual-core CPU, having a quad-core would be nice though. I'm more interested in a system that's going to let Snow Leopard scream. My iMac is the original Intel Core Duo iMac and while it is actually still a very good system, performance wise, it is 3 years old now and probably can't take advantage of all the architectural changes being made in Apple's next Mac OS X, especially the 64-bit optimizations.

[Warbrain]

Not a bad move - but it would probably come the same way as the MacBook where they keep the old model around for a little while.

[iParis]

Thats it! The often demanded "headless Mac" aka "xMac" aka "Cube reloaded" which should fill the gap between Mac Pro and current iMac will be a souped up iMac Pro sporting a quad core CPU, while the "standard" iMac will stick to Dual-Cores.

In its Pro incarnation it would have 2 or even 4 hard drive bays for 2,5" harddrives, which allows for RAID-Setups and easily swappable drives.
Ideally, the graphic card would sit in its own PCIe slot (size limits apply though).

Memory can be upgraded up to (theoretically) 16 GB, however with only 4 Ram slots available and "standard" Ram modules (i.e. no ECC, no FB-DIMMs or RDIMMs as in the Mac Pro series).

Finally Apple takes care of the prosumer again =)

Flame on! :D

Keep dreaming... :rolleyes:
I gotta say.. it's be pretty dumb if this were the line up:
- Mac mini
- iMac
- iMac Pro
- Mac Pro

And what the hell would the price area be??

[Jetson]

Go quad-core, go!

[dam0dred]

If Shaw Wu is so spectacularly and consistently wrong with his predictions, why do MacRumors and other sites insist on reporting everything he says?

[Eidorian]

Keep in mind that Core 2 (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=644410) just won't die.

[eiprol]

The question is "when!!!??"

I hope tomorrow... (But I doubt it)

[Eric S.]

So now Apple has stopped "figuring out" which processor to use and has decided to use both? Wu is an idiot, and obviously talking out of his butt.

[BenRoethig]

Uhm, dual core for mid-range and low-end?
I thought that's what the current iMacs are, so why should the new ones include c2d?:o

Prediction:
-iMac 20" 2.0 ghz C2D 9400M replaces the long neglected 17" education model, but is available to the public. DDR2 memory. More or less a iMac version of the white iBook. $999

-iMac 20" 9400M 2.4ghz C2D. $1199.

-iMac 24" 2.66ghz C2Q. $1699. Upgrade to 2.33 and 2.83ghz. Modified Geforce 9400 or Intel P45 platform using mobile chipset with SO-DIMMs for memory but socket 775. Geforce 9600 and 9800S (New SFF model introduced with HP Firebird) via MXM-III socket (as current 24 iMac use). 8GB maximum memory, possibly more easily user upgradable as this is now Apple's "Prosumer model".

30" iMac Pro $2000+? Core i7? Twin hard drives? Possible dual 9800S via SLI? Very unlikely, but stranger things have happened. Who saw the 24" model coming in september of 2006?

[dohardthings]

I don't think Apple has the option of comparing the iMacs with the just the MacPros. Since switching to Intel, the iMacs also compete against systems from other manufacturer's and such need to be comparable to those offerings.

The MacPro is "pro" for reasons other then just the CPU type, the most important of which is expandability. Apple could still offer a quad-core CPU in the iMac and still have enough leeway to differentiate their "pro" systems by offering dual quad-core on the low end and dual 8-core on the high when they are available.

very well said even though every one will rip this to shreds

[nickcliborne]

Prediction:
-iMac 20" 2.0 ghz C2D 9400M replaces the long neglected 17" education model, but is available to the public. DDR2 memory. More or less a iMac version of the white iBook. $999

-iMac 20" 9400M 2.4ghz C2D. $1199.

-iMac 24" 2.66ghz C2Q. $1699. Upgrade to 2.33 and 2.83ghz. Modified Geforce 9400 or Intel P45 platform using mobile chipset with SO-DIMMs for memory but socket 775. Geforce 9600 and 9800S (New SFF model introduced with HP Firebird) via MXM-III socket (as current 24 iMac use). 8GB maximum memory, possibly more easily user upgradable as this is now Apple's "Prosumer model".

30" iMac Pro $2000+? Core i7? Twin hard drives? Possible dual 9800S via SLI? Very unlikely, but stranger things have happened. Who saw the 24" model coming in september of 2006?

A 30" iMac would be an easy purchase IMO.

[xgman]

The only thing that seems certain is that buying an imac now at what will be seen in some weeks as an overpriced, possible somewhat underpowered system doesn't make much sense. This in fact is a big reason why Apple is so hushed up about new products until they hit. Waiting is hard but seems like the only choice here based on the amount fo time that has already gone by since the imac was refreshed.

[BenRoethig]

The only thing that seems certain is that buying an imac now at what will be seen in some weeks as an overpriced, possible somewhat underpowered system doesn't make much sense.

If they stick with mobile CPUs instead of going with the SFF Quad cores for purely aesthetic reasons, it might end up being a overpriced underpowered machine that doesn't make much sense anyhow.

[LagunaSol]

Single core, dual core, quad core, octo core - I don't care. JUST RELEASE THE THINGS ALREADY!!!

My original Intel iMac is long in the tooth and the max 2G of RAM is killing me. I need an upgrade, and I need it NOW.

And Apple, would it kill you to throw some extra USB ports and a media card reader on the thing so I can clear my desktop of these ugly devices (hub & media card reader)? You're kind of killing the whole All-In-One vibe with your lack of on-board connections...

[dwl017]

Enough with the millions of rumors and predictions already, until Apple starts sending out press releases regarding new hardware these post are just pathetic!

[RebootD]

It's sad to still see a dual core in the iMac.

You say things before I think of them. I agree, at this point it would be quite sad to have quad only available to the $1,899 model of the imac when other companies offer quads on $700 models.

[preservative]

ooooooow no atom processor for the eco warriors :(

[Theophany]

ooooooow no atom processor for the eco warriors :(

Lol. I'd love to see all environmental agencies in the world switch to Atom-based computers. See how long it takes them to find out what's going on to protest about it. :rolleyes:

[urbanj]

Is apple good on doing anything for someone that just bought one days ago?
reason I ask is because my dad just converted to mac cause his pc died and didn't have a computer for 3 weeks and he couldn't wait any longer. I told him to wait it out but the mac geniuses told him they weren't out for awhile, he took their word and bought one this saturday. If the new imacs come out this week for example would apple do anything for him cause that doesn't leave a good taste in a newly converted user.

[dohardthings]

You say things before I think of them. I agree, at this point it would be quite sad to have quad only available to the $1,899 model of the imac when other companies offer quads on $700 models.

and could you give me the number of problems that those initial computers with the new processors have because they were rushed?

[Eidorian]

and could you give me the number of problems that those initial computers with the new processors have because they were rushed?None? Rushed?

Core 2 Quad is ancient.

[Yvan256]

New aluminium MacBooks? Updated white plastic MacBook?

Rumors of Mac Pro and iMac updates?

What about the Mac mini? What's going on? :confused:

[Eric S.]

Is apple good on doing anything for someone that just bought one days ago?
reason I ask is because my dad just converted to mac cause his pc died and didn't have a computer for 3 weeks and he couldn't wait any longer. I told him to wait it out but the mac geniuses told him they weren't out for awhile, he took their word and bought one this saturday. If the new imacs come out this week for example would apple do anything for him cause that doesn't leave a good taste in a newly converted user.

Within 14 days he can exchange it. If he has opened it he'd have to pay a restocking fee.

[LagunaSol]

30" iMac Pro $2000+? Core i7? Twin hard drives? Possible dual 9800S via SLI? Very unlikely, but stranger things have happened. Who saw the 24" model coming in september of 2006?

The "plus" part of your $2000 price tag and the "very unlikely" wording in your post were, unfortunately, probably the only things anywhere close to accurate.

Since Apple charges $1,800 just for their 30" cinema display alone, you can bet that a 30" iMac with all the goodies you mentioned would be priced out of the stratosphere. Sad, but true. Try $3000+.

One would hope that with all the cash in the bank and bad economic times that Apple would scale back, even slightly, on their "premium pricing" tradition, but we all saw with the new aluminum MacBook that wouldn't be the case. :(

And Apple has made it clear for years that they don't want to provide real power in the iMac line (along with their refusal to offer a mid-tower that falls into the prosumer price range).

Not trying to be a Debbie Downer here, but I'm trying to keep my own expectations for the new iMac low so I won't be terribly disappointed.

[MasterNile]

Wow, and I thought some of the other iMac threads were full of impossible expectations. People wonder why Apple dropped out of conferences/expos, this is why, people throw out expectations based on PCs whenever they are expecting a release, then they don't get what is expected and their stock drops, I believe they're trying to minimize this effect by not having any publicly anticipated releases.

[Umbongo]

Yes, the iMacs are the midrange Macs but when they say midrange they probably mean for just the iMacs.
Probably something like this... if what is mentioned happens.
iMac 20 inch - 2.8GHz C2D
iMac 20 inch - 3.06GHz C2D
iMac 24 inch - x.xGHz Quad Core
iMac 24 inch - x.xGHz Quad Core

With quads comming at 2.33, 2.66 and 2.83GHz he idea of Apple selling faster processors with lower cores on lower end models doesn't seem likely me. I'm not saying it won't happen, but it is very un-Apple like.

[diamond.g]

Wow, and I thought some of the other iMac threads were full of impossible expectations. People wonder why Apple dropped out of conferences/expos, this is why, people throw out expectations based on PCs whenever they are expecting a release, then they don't get what is expected and their stock drops, I believe they're trying to minimize this effect by not having any publicly anticipated releases.

The biggest fix against it is to stop using PC parts. Going back to custom PowerPC CPU's would allow for all this speculation (everytime Intel releases a new chip) to go away. Of course Apple instantly gives up most switchers in this plan, but hey you got to give up something to move forward (right??!).

[gregorsamsa]

New aluminium MacBooks? Updated white plastic MacBook?

Rumors of Mac Pro and iMac updates?

What about the Mac mini? What's going on? :confused:

Whatever's going on, it surely won't continue much longer. :rolleyes: To any spec-savvy prospective buyer, the current Mini just isn't a serious option. I imagine Mini sales must be fairly negligible by now with most prospective buyers holding back for an update.

[umbilical]

I want it!! a quadcore but I dont 24 inch, I want on 20, I dont think that apple release on 20, but well I have a mac pro here, and I want change for imac quadcore! oh yes! :D

what about led display and more ram expansion 8gb ???

[RebootD]

and could you give me the number of problems that those initial computers with the new processors have because they were rushed?

I really have no idea what you are talking about because quad core 2 have been out for a looong time.

[Eric S.]

As for Wu's latest report, it doesn't take a genius prognosticator to predict that the next revision of iMacs will offer both dual-core and quad-core. That's been likely since Day 1.

[rylin]

Who saw the 24" model coming in september of 2006?

I did.
Specifically, I saw the TNT truck approach, and I stood by the door with a grin on my face as 8 24" iMacs showed up :D

[MasterNile]

Unless they're giving me a super duper iMac for under $2K I don't care, just bring them out so the refurbs drop in price so I can get one for even less.

[oldwatery]

Well based on track record this guy's "sources" must involve an eight ball and an ouiji board. Definitely not getting my hopes up on any of these imac rumors

I'm with you.
Who needs Wu?
Put him on page two :D

[BlizzardBomb]

Hmm... I hope 20-incher gets some form of Quad-core config. I'm also hoping they stick with Radeons (like the HD 4670) for the iMac seeing as ATi's drivers are much better than NVIDIA's, especially when it comes to Core Image performance (see here (http://www.barefeats.com/harper21.html), 3870 wins despite being significantly weaker).

[arlung]

haha, new imac is coming, maybe in tmr, Tue right

[Lesser Evets]

If Shaw Wu is so spectacularly and consistently wrong with his predictions, why do MacRumors and other sites insist on reporting everything he says?

Because it is ultra entertaining to stoke the needy-nerdies into slavering, squealing, thrashing, deluded fan boys. I love it, love watching it.

Here, let's stoke those fires as well:

I BET THE NEXT iMAC IS COMING TOMORROW AND HAS QUAD CORE DUAL PROCESSORS WITH ULTRA-SEX FOR $999!

^-^ Ah. So refreshing.

[MasterNile]

I would like to see Apple do an update every other Tuesday for the 1st 3 months of 2009, so far (the 1st month) they've met that but I would like to see them release either iMacs or Mac Minis this tuesday, the other one on Feb 17th, and Mac Pros on March 3rd (assuming they could get the processors early as they've been known to do before) but I don't know about March 17th and March 31st....Displays and AppleTV perhaps? or perhaps some new products.

[preservative]

Lol. I'd love to see all environmental agencies in the world switch to Atom-based computers. See how long it takes them to find out what's going on to protest about it. :rolleyes:

I did hear that the new 'cool' is green? Or am I missing a point?

[DaBrain]

If Shaw Wu is so spectacularly and consistently wrong with his predictions, why do MacRumors and other sites insist on reporting everything he says?

It may have something to do with web site hits? :eek::rolleyes:

[hiimamac]

It may have something to do with web site hits? :eek::rolleyes:

Still missing is a $699-$899 model that features Mac OS, Nvidia GPU, Firewire and screen or not...for $699 or so, would expect a duo core ONLY since the iMAc will ship with duo still, otherwise, for $600, you can build a quad that stomps the present Mac Pro with a HACK.

Haven't tried it but the so called EFIX allows you to update without editing plist/kext files, otherwise you have to go to OSX86.org and see what is needed to do in order to run latest OS.

Not so bad once you know how to edit.

Apple needs to keep up.

[MasterNile]

Still missing is a $699-$899 model that features Mac OS, Nvidia GPU, Firewire and screen or not...for $699 or so, would expect a duo core ONLY since the iMAc will ship with duo still, otherwise, for $600, you can build a quad that stomps the present Mac Pro with a HACK.

Haven't tried it but the so called EFIX allows you to update without editing plist/kext files, otherwise you have to go to OSX86.org and see what is needed to do in order to run latest OS.

Not so bad once you know how to edit.

Apple needs to keep up.

As I see it all they have to do is take the parts in the current white MB and put it in a Mac Mini case, subtract the price for monitor and battery, and you have yourself the new low end Mac Mini

[PuckDaddy]

A 30" iMac would be an easy purchase IMO.

for those with $5000

[MasterNile]

for those with $5000

more like $3K-$4K

[PuckDaddy]

Single core, dual core, quad core, octo core - I don't care. JUST RELEASE THE THINGS ALREADY!!!

My original Intel iMac is long in the tooth and the max 2G of RAM is killing me. I need an upgrade, and I need it NOW.

And Apple, would it kill you to throw some extra USB ports and a media card reader on the thing so I can clear my desktop of these ugly devices (hub & media card reader)? You're kind of killing the whole All-In-One vibe with your lack of on-board connections...

me ? a 2ghz G5 PowerPC / 2gb RAM

had money saved up since forever

one idea (which I've only heard myself mention) is an Express Card/34 slot . t6hey've got all kinds of add ons (readers / EVDO, etc..) an eSata connection would be nice

[PuckDaddy]

more like $3K-$4K

yeah, right !!!!
go back and look at what he listed as configurables

if Apple lets loose one of those for $3000, it's a done deal

[gianly1985]

Me want Quad Core MacMINI.
Me want it NOW.
grunt

[MasterNile]

yeah, right !!!!
go back and look at what he listed as configurables

if Apple lets loose one of those for $3000, it's a done deal

Ah yes I didn't see that, those might as well be $1M cause that's not gonna happen anytime soon. Maybe 2-5 years.

[PuckDaddy]

Ah yes I didn't see that, those might as well be $1M cause that's not gonna happen anytime soon. Maybe 2-5 years.


30" iMac Pro $2000+? Core i7? Twin hard drives? Possible dual 9800S via SLI? Very unlikely, but stranger things have happened. Who saw the 24" model coming in september of 2006?

hahaha, yeah. I'd guess $5,000 as a starting point

[avionicsman]

OOOOH the endless possiblities!! Quad-core, 8 gig of ram, bluray dvd, snow leopard. Now all we need will be the usb 3.0 and we are set....

[barkmonster]

With quads comming at 2.33, 2.66 and 2.83GHz he idea of Apple selling faster processors with lower cores on lower end models doesn't seem likely me. I'm not saying it won't happen, but it is very un-Apple like.

Surely they'd just have core 2 duo on the entry level and drop the 3.06Ghz model?

I'm sure a 2.83Ghz C2Q with 12Mb Cache and 8Gb of 1066Mhz RAM would be faster overall than a 3.06Ghz with 6Mb Cache and 4Gb of 800Mhz RAM just because it would have more bandwidth to keep it fed with data.

The worse case scenario would mean a 10% drop in clock speed with twice the cache and over 25% more memory bandwidth would probably just end up breaking even but that wouldn't be the case for a lot of threaded tasks like video encoding, audio work, in fact ANY kind of multitasking!

Personally, I'd like to think they're shoving the 2.4Ghz and 2.66Ghz Core 2 Duos in the Mac Mini and moving the WHOLE iMac line to Core 2 Quad processors, leaving the "high end" iMac with the same CPU as the model below it but with a better, 512Mb GPU, 4Gb standard and a 500Mb - 1TB Hard Drive so you still have an incentive to buy it over the model below or BTO up to it as you see fit.

On a personal note. I hope I have at least £800 saved by mid august whatever apple come out with by then. If I had enough for a 20" iMac, I'm sure my parents wouldn't mind giving me the additional cash to go up to a 24" model seeing as I buy a new mac about every 6 or 7 years at present

[MasterNile]

OOOOH the endless possiblities!! Quad-core, 8 gig of ram, bluray dvd, snow leopard. Now all we need will be the usb 3.0 and we are set....

Endless possibilities? Are we talking about the same Apple, Inc. here? BR will 1st show up in the Mac Pros, new Mac Pros won't be out till March, so if you are waiting for a iMac with BR you will be waiting till at very least till March, however Snow Leopard will probably not be out till June and with it BR support so you're probably looking at waiting till June, USB 3.0 consumer devices won't be out till 2010, you're looking at a long wait for your perfect iMac, I would hope they'd release a new one before 2010.

[maxprice]

You can easily tell that Wu is getting on these forums for his "predictions". The whole offered in duel core and quad core being options was on the "Limited iMac Availability Suggests Possible Refresh" forum board posted by us days ago. So everyone wave and say hi to Mr. Wu ;)

[dohardthings]

I really have no idea what you are talking about because quad core 2 have been out for a looong time.

that is why apple is now about to release the quad core imacs in the coming months

Because it is ultra entertaining to stoke the needy-nerdies into slavering, squealing, thrashing, deluded fan boys. I love it, love watching it.

Here, let's stoke those fires as well:

I BET THE NEXT iMAC IS COMING TOMORROW AND HAS QUAD CORE DUAL PROCESSORS WITH ULTRA-SEX FOR $999!

^-^ Ah. So refreshing.

ah love it this 'll make em squeal:cool:

I would like to see Apple do an update every other Tuesday for the 1st 3 months of 2009, so far (the 1st month) they've met that but I would like to see them release either iMacs or Mac Minis this tuesday, the other one on Feb 17th, and Mac Pros on March 3rd (assuming they could get the processors early as they've been known to do before) but I don't know about March 17th and March 31st....Displays and AppleTV perhaps? or perhaps some new products.

I could win a lot of money off of people on this site

Me want Quad Core MacMINI.
Me want it NOW.
grunt

isn't going to happen

[BlizzardBomb]

Surely they'd just have core 2 duo on the entry level and drop the 3.06Ghz model?

I'm sure a 2.83Ghz C2Q with 12Mb Cache and 8Gb of 1066Mhz RAM would be faster overall than a 3.06Ghz with 6Mb Cache and 4Gb of 800Mhz RAM just because it would have more bandwidth to keep it fed with data.

Well I'd assume Apple is trying to stay clear of a marketing nightmare. Having purely Quads would work wonders for marketing, but it could raise the price of the low-end models (something I don't think Apple is too keen on). Dual on entry-level does make more sense, but the catch is that a lot of dual-cores are clocked higher than the available quads, so marketing would have their work cut out. However Apple could go to Mobile processors on the entry-level, or use custom made (or underclocked) processors.

[BenRoethig]

Hmm... I hope 20-incher gets some form of Quad-core config.

Unlikely as the 20"models would have trouble with the 65w SFF quadcores and 2.0ghz mobile quadcore costs as much as the 2.83ghz SFF ship.

[BlizzardBomb]

Unlikely as the 20"models would have trouble with the 65w SFF quadcores and 2.0ghz mobile quadcore costs as much as the 2.83ghz SFF ship.

Considering Apple made 17" iMacs which could handle toasty G5s and the current processors have a 55W TDP, I'm sure Apple's engineers could work some magic. Some people don't really need (or have the room) to put a 24" beast on their desk, but want some decent power.

[WeegieMac]

Hopefully we get some form of announcement sometime soon since I have earmarked March 23rd in my calendar as the day I go and buy my new iMac. Obviously Apple do not revolve their releases around WeegieMac's calendar though!

In all seriousness though, I have £900 set aside for a new iMac, which works out at around $1,280 going by the current exchange rate. Now, assuming Apple go for a fair currency conversion, $1,280 (£900) covers the current entry level 20" model. My concern is that Apple put the prices up for the entry level 20" model when they introduce these new chipsets, much like they did when the new Aluminum Macbook came into effect (in comparison to the "old" white/black Macbook they replaced), although I appreciate that the Unibody design also contributed to the cost.

As I explained in another iMac thread, my budget is locked at £800-£900 due to the recession, my wife being made redundant and the only reason I have this money set aside is from my Freelance Web Design work.

Fingers crossed the refresh doesn't see a £1000+ entry level iMac due to the Quad Core being implemented.

[Outsider]

I found this in another thread. They said the Apple store servers went down for a little last night and a couple of refreshes showed this. Looks like a fake.

http://s153350075.onlinehome.us/Picture-1.png

[MasterNile]

I found this in another thread. They said the Apple store servers went down for a little last night and a couple of refreshes showed this. Looks like a fake.

http://s153350075.onlinehome.us/Picture-1.png

LMAO, so the new Mac Mini is going to be $999 same as the white MacBook which has a screen and battery? Yes I agree with you fake for sure.

[MrZebra]

Looks like a fake.


Looks like ugly, for the most part :p

[iMacmatician]

I've been predicting this for some time now.

I think thermal limitations on the 20" iMac do not permit a 65 W quad-core to go in them, but the 24" iMac's do. Price isn't the issue, since 65 W quads are quite cheap compared to some of the high-end notebook CPUs. And I don't think cannibalization is the issue either since a quad-core in the 20" iMac would further distinguish it from the Mac mini. Not to mention the differences in the 2.33/2.67/2.83 GHz CPUs are fairly large.

Dual-cores do go cheaper though, but those CPUs have lower GHz than the current lowest in the iMacs, 2.4 GHz. Apple could do a "value" model like the old Combo Drive GMA 950 iMac in September 2006.

With quads comming at 2.33, 2.66 and 2.83GHz he idea of Apple selling faster processors with lower cores on lower end models doesn't seem likely me. I'm not saying it won't happen, but it is very un-Apple like.Mac Pro CPU options come to mind. This is probably why Apple waited 5 months after Clovertown's initial launch for a 3.0 GHz model before adding it (and only it) to the Mac Pro.

I found this in another thread. They said the Apple store servers went down for a little last night and a couple of refreshes showed this. Looks like a fake.

http://s153350075.onlinehome.us/Picture-1.pngThat's real...

..ly fake.

[avionicsman]

Endless possibilities? Are we talking about the same Apple, Inc. here? BR will 1st show up in the Mac Pros, new Mac Pros won't be out till March, so if you are waiting for a iMac with BR you will be waiting till at very least till March, however Snow Leopard will probably not be out till June and with it BR support so you're probably looking at waiting till June, USB 3.0 consumer devices won't be out till 2010, you're looking at a long wait for your perfect iMac, I would hope they'd release a new one before 2010.

Very True masternile. I forgot on my wishlist list for the new iMac the OLED screen.

[Marx55]

Apple, be ECOLOGICAL! What is needed is a headless miniTOWER. Displays last for much longer that computers!

[Neodym]

Keep dreaming... :rolleyes:


I'd rather dream of a Cube Reloaded :D


I gotta say.. it's be pretty dumb if this were the line up:
- Mac mini
- iMac
- iMac Pro
- Mac Pro


They could eventually close the gap in their lineup with neither biting too much into Mac Pro sales (less expandibility, non-"pro" components like 2,5" HD's and standard Ram - not to mention number of CPU cores) nor taking away too much substance from the iMac line, but rather expanding its attractiveness (All-in-One computers are currently intensely being looked at in the PC sector, so more competition may come up).
Instead it could be an upsell less steep than currently from the iMac to the Mac Pro at twice the price. People may rather take this than switching back to PC's and/or Hackintosh's (some will continue to complain anyway).
And not to forget possible synergies (economies of scale) between the two iMac lines: Housing, PSU, Speakers, I/O logic, optical drive etc. etc.


And what the hell would the price area be??


Similar to today's setup, only with the iMac Pro offering more features compared to current top-of-the-line iMacs (while the normal iMac is downsized a bit to meet a lower entry price point - Apple claimed that they wanted to price "aggressively"):

mini (Entry performance): $400 - $700
iMac (Lower Midrange): $800 - $1200
iMac Pro (Higher Midrange): $1300 - $2200
Mac Pro (Professional): $2400+

[Theophany]

I did hear that the new 'cool' is green? Or am I missing a point?

In my books it's never been 'cool' to be green. It's a moral decision, just like choosing not to drop your litter, but instead keeping it in your pocket to put in a bin when you see one. It's like saying the guy who calls 911 when he sees a mugging is 'cool.' He should do it anyway, not do it based on kudos he/she may receive for doing so.

But back to my original post, yes, you missed the point. But the moment is gone. :)

[LeviG]

Man I should get in on this speculation lark, even I could have guessed that there could be dual and quad imac, the quads being build to order at the very least.

I can also kind of understand the 8/16 core mac pro, the nehalem chips have hyperthreading again (meaning 2x the cores visible etc) so in theory the 16 could be 2x quads with hyperthreading meaning 2x8 or 16 cores visible to the system.

So my predictions for the next apple releases are going to be :)
-mac pro with nehalem 2x dual core or 2x quads to give the 8/16 core mac pro
-the imac will come with dual core and quad core (might need to bto) - geforce 9400 on the lower, 9600 on the higher models
-the mac mini will get a newer system based on the macbook.
-the apple tv will go atom plus 9400 - ie nvidia ion platform based, its the perfect platform for itunes media playback.

[Hellhammer]

I hope it comes before June Q. It'd too long time to wait anymore and would be the longest time without update for iMac.

[commander.data]

I can't believe it's such a startling revelation that Apple could decide to use both dual cores and quad cores in the iMac. And if Apple is going quad core, the only ones I can see them using are the new 65W TDP desktop quad cores. The mobile quad cores are just too long clock speed and too expensive. And if Apple is switching to a desktop platform for the quad cores, they are almost certainly switching to a desktop platform across the iMac for dual cores too.

Just product selection necessitates the use of dual cores. Intel only carries 3 65W TDP quad cores and the lowest model at 2.33GHz is slow and is crippled with only 4MB of L2 cache. I really hope that Apple doesn't choose to use such a low-end product, since it's whole point is to draw in the non-tech savy people who think 4-cores automatically means better. That only leaves 2 quad cores, which isn't enough to base the entire iMac product line on. Dual cores also make a lot of sense considering, desktop dual cores now top out at 3.5GHz at 65W TDP compared to 2.83GHz for quad cores. For most users, even with Snow Leopard, a 3.5GHz dual core makes a lot more sense.

The models may well look like:
High-end 24" BTO: 2.83GHz Q9550s quad core 12MB L2 cache, 3.5GHz E8700 dual core 6MB L2 cache may also be a separate BTO.

Low-end 24": 2.66GHz Q9450s quad core 6MB L2 cache

High-end 20": 3.33GHz E8600 dual core 6MB L2 cache

Low-end 20": 2.83GHz E8300 or 3GHz E8400 dual core 6MB L2 cache

And in regards to concerns about 65W TDP parts being in the 20" iMacs, I don't think it's much of a concern for 65W TDP dual core parts since I don't think they really push the upper range of the 65W limit whereas the quad core parts probably do.

The other possibility I see is that the low-end 24" gets a fast dual core, the high-end 24" gets the 2.66GHz Q9450s, and a new 28"+ iMac gets the 2.83GHz Q9550s.

And I wish Macrumors would stop talking about the possibility of an 8-core Mac Pro. As far as I've read, the 8-core Xeons are only for multisocket use in the Xeon MP to replace the 6-core Dunnington in H2 2009. They are not for dual socket use.

[preservative]

In my books it's never been 'cool' to be green. It's a moral decision, just like choosing not to drop your litter, but instead keeping it in your pocket to put in a bin when you see one. It's like saying the guy who calls 911 when he sees a mugging is 'cool.' He should do it anyway, not do it based on kudos he/she may receive for doing so.

But back to my original post, yes, you missed the point. But the moment is gone. :)

Maybe it 'should' be cool to be green is my point :)

[diamond.g]

Man I should get in on this speculation lark, even I could have guessed that there could be dual and quad imac, the quads being build to order at the very least.

I can also kind of understand the 8/16 core mac pro, the nehalem chips have hyperthreading again (meaning 2x the cores visible etc) so in theory the 16 could be 2x quads with hyperthreading meaning 2x8 or 16 cores visible to the system.

So my predictions for the next apple releases are going to be :)
-mac pro with nehalem 2x dual core or 2x quads to give the 8/16 core mac pro
-the imac will come with dual core and quad core (might need to bto) - geforce 9400 on the lower, 9600 on the higher models
-the mac mini will get a newer system based on the macbook.
-the apple tv will go atom plus 9400 - ie nvidia ion platform based, its the perfect platform for itunes media playback.

All of it hinges on how Apple handles hyperthreading. In Windows it sees it as an additional CPU. Sometimes this can get sticky as all hyperthreading really is a second thread handler (I guess you could say execution unit). Not everything that makes a core a core is duplicated. Thus some stalling can take place if certain resources are already in use.

If OS X sees it as another core then yeah I guess you could say that it is an 8/16 core system (talking about the Mac Pro).

[AidenShaw]

I can't believe it's such a startling revelation that Apple could decide to use both dual cores and quad cores in the iMac.

What's startling to me is that Apple is considering putting the old generation Penryn quads in their first quad desktop - rather than using the current Nehalem Core i7 quads....

Of course, cooling a Core i7 in the Imac would be a problem.

Maybe they'll introduce a Core i7 mini-tower instead (or at the same time), and stick with mobile Penryns in the all-in-one with its cooling problems.


All of it hinges on how Apple handles hyperthreading. In Windows it sees it as an additional CPU. Sometimes this can get sticky as all hyperthreading really is a second thread handler (I guess you could say execution unit).

Don't say "execution unit" - the "second CPU" in a hyperthreaded pair is more like a processor (registers, program counter, other state) with no execution units. There are two sets of processor states, but only one set of execution units.


Not everything that makes a core a core is duplicated. Thus some stalling can take place if certain resources are already in use.

The system scheduler should be aware of the topology - it needs to know which pairs of CPUs share execution units. It should not schedule two threads on the "pair" if other pairs are idle.


If OS X sees it as another core then yeah I guess you could say that it is an 8/16 core system (talking about the Mac Pro).

It sees it as a logical CPU (or a hardware thread). Please don't call it a "core" - that is pretty clearly defined.

A dual Gainestown system would have:
2 sockets
4 cores per socket
8 cores total
2 threads per core
8 threads per socket
16 threads per system


Sun has been shipping systems with 4 threads per core, 8 cores per socket. The nomenclature is already established.

[tom.]

Apple, be ECOLOGICAL! What is needed is a headless miniTOWER. Displays last for much longer that computers!

People have been wishing this to happen for so long. I think I am going to go insane!

[DoubleU]

Given the worsening global economic climate, how does Shaw Wu still manage to have clients?

[LeviG]

All of it hinges on how Apple handles hyperthreading. In Windows it sees it as an additional CPU. Sometimes this can get sticky as all hyperthreading really is a second thread handler (I guess you could say execution unit). Not everything that makes a core a core is duplicated. Thus some stalling can take place if certain resources are already in use.

If OS X sees it as another core then yeah I guess you could say that it is an 8/16 core system (talking about the Mac Pro).
I wasn't really talking about the way the os sees the processor etc, it's more about how hyperthreading is explained to the less tech savvy people :)

[Theophany]

Apple, be ECOLOGICAL! What is needed is a headless miniTOWER. Displays last for much longer that computers!

Yes, but more raw materials are used to make two housings, then double the packaging to ship them out. Also, the chipset required to build a headless tower would mean a greater power draw. In short, your argument is specious.

[winterspan]

This guy doesn't have a clue what he is talking about...

For the last time, the future 8-core Xeon CPU codenamed "Beckton" is ONLY COMPATIBLE WITH HIGH-END 4-SOCKET SERVERS (NOT THE MAC PRO) AND WILL NOT EVEN BE RELEASED UNTIL 2010.

The (Nehalem-based) dual-processor Xeon is a native quad-core CPU codenamed "Gainestown" and will be available in the spring!

God I'm sick of people without even a basic knowledge of the market spreading all this crap! I'm certainly no expert and don't work in the industry, but for god sakes all it takes is 10 minutes with Google to get an understanding of future products...

[diamond.g]

Don't say "execution unit" - the "second CPU" in a hyperthreaded pair is more like a processor (registers, program counter, other state) with no execution units. There are two sets of processor states, but only one set of execution units.




The system scheduler should be aware of the topology - it needs to know which pairs of CPUs share execution units. It should not schedule two threads on the "pair" if other pairs are idle.
Right, my bad. The execution unit thing tends to get me (in the explaination of hyperthreading).



It sees it as a logical CPU (or a hardware thread). Please don't call it a "core" - that is pretty clearly defined.

A dual Gainestown system would have:
2 sockets
4 cores per socket
8 cores total
2 threads per core
8 threads per socket
16 threads per system


Sun has been shipping systems with 4 threads per core, 8 cores per socket. The nomenclature is already established.

Right, for most people it is easier to call it a CPU/core than it is to realize that it is just SMT (on top of SMP).

That is why I bring up Beckton when ever someone says 8/16 core Mac Pro.

[WeegieMac]

I found this in another thread. They said the Apple store servers went down for a little last night and a couple of refreshes showed this. Looks like a fake.

http://s153350075.onlinehome.us/Picture-1.png

Ouch, that's a painful Photoshop job if ever I seen one.

I don't believe for a moment that the Mac Mini will be rebranded simply "Mac" and look like a fat, cube sized version of it's current iteration.

And the iMac photo is hilarious ... it's a "Mac" with an Apple Cinema display! This goes against the idea of iMac, which has always been marketed as "the ultimate all-in-one" desktop machine.

Good find though.

[Shivetya]

I think it would be best for Apple to modify the bottom end iMac to be 9400GM, 2gb stock, 250g drive, with the 20" screen and get it to 999. Keep the 2.4 C2D

They really need an iMac under 1K, preferably 799 but 899 would be a great shot across the bow.


Still I predict and quad will cost over 2K and that goes doubly for any unit with 512mb video card.


Now, I would pay 1499 for a headless Mac. Bring that name back. Just Mac. Give it one card slot for video and ports out the wahzoo. Throw in 2 extra slots for the wanna be a pro crowd but can't cut the bill. Use an Intel Quad core in it.


Simply put, I cannot sell these machines to any of my friends. Apple is just so out of line with the market and the market is so poor that most won't take the "risk".

Best approach in my book?

Subsume the mini into iTv (or whatever it is called) with DVR functionality. Reintroduce the Mac line - complete with keyboard and mouse to the PC world saying "keep the screen, let us show just what it can do". Price from 699 to 1599 with differing configurations - all must have rw dvd.



Reality? More 1900 iMacs that make us scream "what were you thinking"

[MattInOz]

Keep dreaming... :rolleyes:
I gotta say.. it's be pretty dumb if this were the line up:
- Mac mini
- iMac
- iMac Pro
- Mac Pro

And what the hell would the price area be??

If anything wouldn't they re-bring back the eMac.
The main point of keeping a low end offering would be to attract education dollars. If the Dollars are shrinking and Apple wants to make sure they stay in touch with that space then an eMac makes sense.

Then you a clear break eMac for school or home it's the computer for education. Which protects the iMac branding.

[MattInOz]

You can easily tell that Wu is getting on these forums for his "predictions". The whole offered in duel core and quad core being options was on the "Limited iMac Availability Suggests Possible Refresh" forum board posted by us days ago. So everyone wave and say hi to Mr. Wu ;)

Hi Mr. Wu:)

[JayLenochiniMac]

Apple, be ECOLOGICAL! What is needed is a headless miniTOWER. Displays last for much longer that computers!

Perhaps in terms of lifespan and usability, but I would say only a little bit longer in terms of display technology. H-IPS (currently used in the 24" iMac) is an improvement over S-IPS, built-in iSight and mini DisplayPort is included, LED backlit all across the board is coming soon, OLED is further down the road, touchscreen may be incorporated, etc. With an all-in-one you'd at least have the benefits of the latest display technology/features along with the computer.

[Eric S.]

What's startling to me is that Apple is considering putting the old generation Penryn quads in their first quad desktop - rather than using the current Nehalem Core i7 quads....

Why would it be startling for Apple to stick with laptop chips in the iMac? I'd say it would be startling if they made it an actual desktop-class machine.

Maybe they'll introduce a Core i7 mini-tower instead (or at the same time), and stick with mobile Penryns in the all-in-one with its cooling problems.


The holy grail!

[BenRoethig]

Considering Apple made 17" iMacs which could handle toasty G5s and the current processors have a 55W TDP, I'm sure Apple's engineers could work some magic. Some people don't really need (or have the room) to put a 24" beast on their desk, but want some decent power.

Apple hadn't embarked full blown into their thinness obsession yet. Cooling and features were still their number one priority in those days.

[podgeorge]

Anybody think, the base models's screen size will be 24" now? and the higher end have a 28" screen?

[BenRoethig]

The current crop of 24 and 28" displays have the same resolution.

[Dagless]

I'll take a Quad-core please.

Still quite amazed to see the dual core still on the cards given the price and performance of quad systems now.

[ThomasJL]

Apple is lame if they don't include a quad-core. Why not? It's not as if battery life is an issue for iMacs!

[diamond.g]

Apple is lame if they don't include a quad-core. Why not? It's not as if battery life is an issue for iMacs!

Well for the past 8 months (where C2Q really started picking up steam) everyone kept saying it was a cooling issue. :confused:

[MattInOz]

The current crop of 24 and 28" displays have the same resolution.
Yep it would have to be 24 and 30.
Although not expecting a 30" this round.
Maybe 6-8 months out with a CPU/GPU bump.
Then the 20" would be dropped with the next case revision.

[podgeorge]

Although, it would be nice this time around to have say a 22 and 26", although personally i think 30" is just to big! Also my desk would sit a 20-22" iMac perfectly, although a 24, i think would be rather overpowering, also as i would be seeting about 3 feet from the screen i would have to phisically move my eyes to se both sides of the screen!

[iMacmatician]

Apple is lame if they don't include a quad-core. Why not? It's not as if battery life is an issue for iMacs!Excessive heat, probably.

[DaBrain]

I'd rather dream of a Cube Reloaded :

Similar to today's setup, only with the iMac Pro offering more features compared to current top-of-the-line iMacs (while the normal iMac is downsized a bit to meet a lower entry price point - Apple claimed that they wanted to price "aggressively"):


I've said it before and I'll say it again when Apple says aggressive pricing beware! Think Aggressive as in "aggressively deeper in your pocket book"! ;)

[mikewoodld]

The question is "when!!!??"

I hope tomorrow... (But I doubt it)


Okay, I'll bite and ask - what is tomorrow? I've noticed people talking about "tuesday" a lot, but no idea what for.

[TheAshMan]

It's sad to still see a dual core in the iMac.

I think it's a good idea if it brings the price down in some models. If they keep the C2D in the iMac, they are still in line with AIOs offered by HP and Dell. HP doesn't even have a quad core option, though Dell does with their 24" .

The CPU sleeps all the time for most people anyway. More important that they bump the RAM and video up, buy maybe cut the pricing. My guess is Apple ups the RAM and video and cuts the price a little for newer C2D models. Then for a quad 24" you get more RAM and the better processor for the same price they currently charge.

If they increase the price of a 24" for a quad from where it is now, I may take my $2,200 elsewhere. I have been waiting for this upgrade, but if it is too much I may reconsider.

[Eric S.]

Okay, I'll bite and ask - what is tomorrow? I've noticed people talking about "tuesday" a lot, but no idea what for.

Apple tends to release new products on Tuesdays. You'll see a lot of "I hope tomorrow" messages every Monday, not necessarily based on anything else.

[mikewoodld]

Apple tends to release new products on Tuesdays. You'll see a lot of "I hope tomorrow" messages every Monday, not necessarily based on anything else.

Ah, so it's basically another wild rumor with no substance.

Which reminds me, I heard yesterday that Apple will be releasing a 32-core iPro (new model) this Thursday. Don't tell anyone though.

[Yamcha]

No brainer, I knew that the iMac would come with both Dual Core and Quad Core specs.

[Sehnsucht]

Thats it! The often demanded "headless Mac" aka "xMac" aka "Cube reloaded" which should fill the gap between Mac Pro and current iMac will be a souped up iMac Pro sporting a quad core CPU, while the "standard" iMac will stick to Dual-Cores.

Perhaps. :D Maybe.

In its Pro incarnation it would have 2 or even 4 hard drive bays for 2,5" harddrives, which allows for RAID-Setups and easily swappable drives.
Ideally, the graphic card would sit in its own PCIe slot (size limits apply though).

Bwhahahahahaha........um, no. FOUR hard drives?! No way. MAYBE, MAAAAYBE there will be the main drive with an option to add a smaller solid-state drive, such as a 128 or 256GB, but no way would there be RAID arrays. The PCIe video card is somewhat more likely, IMVHO. :D

Memory can be upgraded up to (theoretically) 16 GB, however with only 4 Ram slots available and "standard" Ram modules (i.e. no ECC, no FB-DIMMs or RDIMMs as in the Mac Pro series).

They'll still use laptop-sized SO-DIMMS. DDR3, yes, but still laptop-sized, and no more than 8GB.

Finally Apple takes care of the prosumer again =)

Steve: "The what?" :D

Flame on! :D

That's what she said! :D

[brisbaneguy29]

This guy is a prime candidate for splinters in his arse. Nice way to sit on the fence, that way he can claim he is right both ways. I personally would love to see a quad core iMac, but I am not hopeful. It is a consumer machine with home users in mind, not a workstation. It never uses the latest and greatest processors or GPU.

An for those people who doubt Apple knows what it is doing with the product lineup, and missing sales by not having an xMac, I remind you of the near $10bn last quarter. Seems like they know what they are doing to me.

[WATCHDOG]

Wonder if the Quad-Core will be slightly thicker or only available in the 24" model. +++

I should hope so.. Thick is in.. ;)

It's about time too..

I'd shopped on Apple's site and configured a totally maxed-out MacPro,
and when it totaled up, we were talking over $27,000.00..!!! :eek:

I said, "forget it!",
and quickly started thinking about that new laptop from India for $10. :apple:
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/technology/article5639463.ece

But, the word "Quad" does something to me.. :p

"QUAD...
Say it LOUD and I hear Steve Jobs Braying...
Say it <soft> and it's almost like Praying..." :D

:cool:

+++

[iMacmatician]

I think it's [dual-cores] a good idea if it brings the price down in some models.The thing about these quad-cores is that they're similar in price to mobile dual-cores with similar clock speeds. So there's not much reason besides heat to use these quads in the iMac, unless Apple's releasing a cheap iMac that uses a cheaper CPU, like one of the 2.0/2.2/2.27 GHz mobile CPUs.

If they increase the price of a 24" for a quad from where it is now, I may take my $2,200 elsewhere. I have been waiting for this upgrade, but if it is too much I may reconsider.Doubt they'll increase the prices, for the above reason. The 2.83 GHz quad-core ($369) costs a bit more than a 2.53 GHz mobile dual-core ($316) and less than a 2.8 GHz one ($530) (I don't know how much the "special" ones cost for Apple though), so unless Apple considerably beefs up the rest of the specs (which may not be a bad thing), I don't see the price going up.

I can see Intel making a "special" 3.0 GHz 65 W quad-core for the iMacs, as long as they can handle the heat. In that case we could see the 2.83 GHz in the $1799 version and the 3.0 GHz in the $2199 version.

[Eric S.]

I personally would love to see a quad core iMac, but I am not hopeful. It is a consumer machine with home users in mind, not a workstation. It never uses the latest and greatest processors or GPU.

Well, quad-core Penryns aren't the latest and greatest, so that should be about right.

[winterspan]

Well, quad-core Penryns aren't the latest and greatest, so that should be about right.

exactly, is that person serious?? Intel Core 2 Quad chips have been around since early 2007 for god sakes! That's ancient in computer terms.. "latest and greatest".. lol ...

[Neodym]

Ouch, that's a painful Photoshop job if ever I seen one.


Hmmm - why did Apple request removal of this "Photoshop job" picture (according to your post on the previous page in this thread)? Wanting to "protect" their brand (Online store et al)? Or will there indeed be a "headless Mac", which may even pair up with an iMac to double processing power and co-use that iMac screen?

Or is this all a bigger fake with a faked "Removed on Apple's request" picture now in place of the original Applestore-wannabe?

Might be an interesting tuesday today (or tomorrow - depending on your timezone :-D

[ditzy]

With absolutely no solid evidence, here are my predictions.

Low end 20" 2.66Ghz C2D, 2GB RAM, upgradable to 4GB, 250GB HD, 9400m

High end 20" 2.8GHz C2D, 2GB RAM, upgradable to 4GB, 320GB HD 9600m 256

Low end 24" 3.06GHz C2D, 2GB RAM upgradable to 8GB, 500GB HD 9600m 256 upgradable to 512.

High end 24" 2.83GHz C2Q, 4GB RAM upgradable to 8GB, 1TB HD 9600m 512.

I know that these aren't very optimistic upgrades, and I'm very likely very wrong but here's my guess.

[iParis]

With absolutely no solid evidence, here are my predictions.

Low end 20" 2.66Ghz C2D, 2GB RAM, upgradable to 4GB, 250GB HD, 9400m

High end 20" 2.8GHz C2D, 2GB RAM, upgradable to 4GB, 320GB HD 9600m 256

Low end 24" 3.06GHz C2D, 2GB RAM upgradable to 8GB, 500GB HD 9600m 256 upgradable to 512.

High end 24" 2.83GHz C2Q, 4GB RAM upgradable to 8GB, 1TB HD 9600m 512.

I know that these aren't very optimistic upgrades, and I'm very likely very wrong but here's my guess.

Very nice predictions! Kudos! :D

Although, I don't think it would come standard with 1TB for the high end 24 inch.

Maybe... low end 750GB if not then 500GB.

[mattcube64]

With absolutely no solid evidence, here are my predictions.

Low end 20" 2.66Ghz C2D, 2GB RAM, upgradable to 4GB, 250GB HD, 9400m

High end 20" 2.8GHz C2D, 2GB RAM, upgradable to 4GB, 320GB HD 9600m 256

Low end 24" 3.06GHz C2D, 2GB RAM upgradable to 8GB, 500GB HD 9600m 256 upgradable to 512.

High end 24" 2.83GHz C2Q, 4GB RAM upgradable to 8GB, 1TB HD 9600m 512.

I know that these aren't very optimistic upgrades, and I'm very likely very wrong but here's my guess.

There will be at least a 9800 in the high-end. Otherwise, this would be a downgrade on the GPU end...

[ditzy]

Very nice predictions! Kudos! :D

Although, I don't think it would come standard with 1TB for the high end 24 inch.

Maybe... low end 750GB if not then 500GB.

I think that you are right, the high end 24" would be more likely to have 750GB than 1TB. I'd forgotten that 750GB HD's existed :o And thought that the high end would have a larger hard drive than the low end 24".

[ditzy]

There will be at least a 9800 in the high-end. Otherwise, this would be a downgrade on the GPU end...

Fair play. I just took the card from the top end MBP.

[TheAshMan]

I'd rather dream of a Cube Reloaded :D

They could eventually close the gap in their lineup with neither biting too much into Mac Pro sales (less expandibility, non-"pro" components like 2,5" HD's and standard Ram - not to mention number of CPU cores) nor taking away too much substance from the iMac line, but rather expanding its attractiveness (All-in-One computers are currently intensely being looked at in the PC sector, so more competition may come up).
Instead it could be an upsell less steep than currently from the iMac to the Mac Pro at twice the price. People may rather take this than switching back to PC's and/or Hackintosh's (some will continue to complain anyway).
And not to forget possible synergies (economies of scale) between the two iMac lines: Housing, PSU, Speakers, I/O logic, optical drive etc. etc.

Similar to today's setup, only with the iMac Pro offering more features compared to current top-of-the-line iMacs (while the normal iMac is downsized a bit to meet a lower entry price point - Apple claimed that they wanted to price "aggressively"):

mini (Entry performance): $400 - $700
iMac (Lower Midrange): $800 - $1200
iMac Pro (Higher Midrange): $1300 - $2200
Mac Pro (Professional): $2400+

That would be a good strategy I think, getting well under the <$1000 price point would bring them a lot of business, that is a big psychological barrier for a lot of people. Adding an iMac Pro is a great idea, great way to bring in a quad for 24" and differentiate without muddling their lines. I think the iMac Pro would start higher though, like 1,500 and up. I hope they are doing something like you show here.

[shokunin]

With absolutely no solid evidence, here are my predictions.

Low end 20" 2.66Ghz C2D, 2GB RAM, upgradable to 4GB, 250GB HD, 9400m

High end 20" 2.8GHz C2D, 2GB RAM, upgradable to 4GB, 320GB HD 9600m 256

Low end 24" 3.06GHz C2D, 2GB RAM upgradable to 8GB, 500GB HD 9600m 256 upgradable to 512.

High end 24" 2.83GHz C2Q, 4GB RAM upgradable to 8GB, 1TB HD 9600m 512.

I know that these aren't very optimistic upgrades, and I'm very likely very wrong but here's my guess.

From a cost perspective, the 3.06ghz probably costs more than the q9550s C2Quad. So the low end costs more than the high end. If they are going to come up with a new "cooling module" that supports 65W TDP, theoretically they could lower R&D and new tooling costs by putting it in all iMacs. Streamline development by using desktop nvidia 9400 chipsets on all imacs to support the LGA775 socket and cut a deal with intel to buy a whole bunch of desktop quads.

The mobile dual core chips are just as, if not more expensive than the desktop quads. Come'on apple what are you waiting for, a win-win, quads in all imacs and lower bill of materials.

[ditzy]

From a cost perspective, the 3.06ghz probably costs more than the q9550s C2Quad. So the low end costs more than the high end. If they are going to come up with a new "cooling module" that supports 65W TDP, theoretically they could lower R&D and new tooling costs by putting it in all iMacs. Streamline development by using desktop nvidia 9400 chipsets on all imacs to support the LGA775 socket and cut a deal with intel to buy a whole bunch of desktop quads.

The mobile dual core chips are just as, if not more expensive than the desktop quads. Come'on apple what are you waiting for, a win-win, quads in all imacs and lower bill of materials.

I can't imagine that they would use the 9400m on all iMacs, that would be it would be a downgrade for most of the iMacs. There is also no need for dual GPU's as there is not the power saving need that there is in notebooks. I aslo think that if it was much cheaper for Apple to make quad iMacs they would have been doing it already.

[KissStephanie]

I reckon that they may very well be a duo core and a quad core in both the 20 and 24 inch screen sizes...

Low end 20 inch: 2.8 GHz C2D 250 GB HD 2GB RAM (4GB total) 9400m 256 MB.
High end 20 inch: 2.66 GHz C2Q 320 GB HD 2GB RAM (4GB total) 9600m 256 MB.

Low end 24 inch: 3.06 GHz C2D 500 GB HD 4GB RAM (8GB total) 9600m 256 (or 512 MB).
High end 24 inch: 2.83 GHz C2Q 1TB HD 4GB RAM (8GB total) 512 MB.

[iMacmatician]

Hmmm - why did Apple request removal of this "Photoshop job" picture (according to your post on the previous page in this thread)? :eek: :eek:

Did anybody save that picture?

Or will there indeed be a "headless Mac", which may even pair up with an iMac to double processing power and co-use that iMac screen?That's a very interesting idea. I could almost see that happening. :cool:

I'm pretty sure Apple wants to keep the iMac an all-in-one though, whether or not there will be a mini-tower for it to pair up with.

Or is this all a bigger fake with a faked "Removed on Apple's request" picture now in place of the original Applestore-wannabe?I think this is the most likely outcome… :rolleyes: (There has been at least one fake C&D letter in the past.)

…but then again I might end up being wrong. :D A mini-tower may have more space for a hotter CPU.

Might be an interesting tuesday today (or tomorrow - depending on your timezone :-DI can't wait!

I aslo think that if it was much cheaper for Apple to make quad iMacs they would have been doing it already.Intel quad-cores up to this point have been 95 W or hotter. I don't think there has been any 65 W ones up until recently.

[macmee]

Will Apple just hurry up and release these already? I want to see a redesign:mad:.

[Umbongo]

I reckon that they may very well be a duo core and a quad core in both the 20 and 24 inch screen sizes...

Low end 20 inch: 2.8 GHz C2D 250 GB HD 2GB RAM (4GB total) 9400m 256 MB.
High end 20 inch: 2.66 GHz C2Q 320 GB HD 2GB RAM (4GB total) 9600m 256 MB.

Low end 24 inch: 3.06 GHz C2D 500 GB HD 4GB RAM (8GB total) 9600m 256 (or 512 MB).
High end 24 inch: 2.83 GHz C2Q 1TB HD 4GB RAM (8GB total) 512 MB.


As shokunin says above, the dual core processors are more expensive than the quad cores. They will also be faster at many tasks so it makes a rather confusing product line. The current prices are $851 for the 3.06GHz and $530 for the 2.8 with the quads costing $369 and $320.

It will be interesting to see how Apple approach it as the options do seem to conflict with the ideology they have with regards to processor clock speeds.

[AidenShaw]

Low end 20" 2.66Ghz C2D, 2GB RAM, upgradable to 4GB, 250GB HD, 9400m

High end 20" 2.8GHz C2D, 2GB RAM, upgradable to 4GB, 320GB HD 9600m 256

Low end 24" 3.06GHz C2D, 2GB RAM upgradable to 8GB, 500GB HD 9600m 256 upgradable to 512.

High end 24" 2.83GHz C2Q, 4GB RAM upgradable to 8GB, 1TB HD 9600m 512.

Why on earth have the artificial restriction of 4 GiB max in the 20" systems?

It's like you expect Apple to abuse you with crippled configurations, so that you'll upgrade to a more expensive model. It's been happening so long that it feels natural.

[commander.data]

With absolutely no solid evidence, here are my predictions.

Low end 20" 2.66Ghz C2D, 2GB RAM, upgradable to 4GB, 250GB HD, 9400m

High end 20" 2.8GHz C2D, 2GB RAM, upgradable to 4GB, 320GB HD 9600m 256

Low end 24" 3.06GHz C2D, 2GB RAM upgradable to 8GB, 500GB HD 9600m 256 upgradable to 512.

High end 24" 2.83GHz C2Q, 4GB RAM upgradable to 8GB, 1TB HD 9600m 512.

I know that these aren't very optimistic upgrades, and I'm very likely very wrong but here's my guess.
As shokunin points out and I've mentioned in a previous post, I don't really see the logic in going through all the effort to redesign the iMac to incorporate 65W TDP chip, just to limit it's use in a one-off, low-volume, high-end model. If Apple is going quad core, it should go all desktop, and include dual cores for the low-end. Realistically, desktop dual cores are highly viable, with the E8700 running at 3.5GHz and priced cheaper than the 2.83GHz Q9550s and faster for the average consumer.

And the use of the 9600M GT in the High-end iMac would be a definite downgrade from the 8800GS (rebranded mobile 8800M GTS). Personally, I think the use of the desktop 9400M chipset may be marketing savvy in having 2 GPUs, but is a waste of time on a desktop, and better invested in a better dedicated GPU and a cheaper regular Intel desktop P45 chipset. And I think the emphasis on nVidia GPUs is also a mistake, when nVidia's Mac drivers consistently underperform ATI's, and nVidia continues to support their proprietary C for CUDA implementation, while ATI has abandoned their own Brook+ language in favour of OpenCL.

As reference:
ATI's Mac drivers are such that the HD3870 has nearly equal CoD4 performance between OS X and Windows, while the 8800GT (which shares a driver stack with the 8800GS, 9600M GT, and 9400M) is decidedly slower in OS X than Windows.
http://www.barefeats.com/harper22.html

Similarly, the HD3870 continues to have beat the 8800GT in Core Image acceleration, despite the 8800GT being theoretically faster. nVidia GPUs can't keep up in Apple's own apps, making it hard for me to believe that Apple has thrown so much support behind nVidia.
http://www.barefeats.com/harper21.html

In light of this, I strongly hope that Apple doesn't lock out ATI GPUs from most of their product line. In notebooks, the synergy between the 9400M and 9600M GT makes sense to go all nVidia, but that doesn't apply for desktops. I believe people have actually found kexts in OS X for the ATI 46xx series, so I hope for the use of the Mobility HD4670, which should be faster than the 9600M GT. ATI's HD3xxx and HD4xxx series also support 64-bit floats for OpenCL while nVidia's 8xxx and 9xxx series don't.

My speculation:

Low end 20" 3.0Ghz E8400 C2D (dual core) 6MB L2, 2GB RAM DDR3 upgradable to 8GB, 320GB HD, Mobility HD4670 256MB GDDR3

High end 20" 3.33GHz E8600 (dual core) 6MB L2, 2GB RAM DDR3 upgradable to 8GB, 500GB HD, Mobility HD4670 512MB GDDR3

Low end 24" 2.66GHz Q9450s (quad core) 6MB L2, 4GB RAM DDR3 upgradable to 8GB, 500GB HD, Mobility HD4670 512MB GDDR3

High end 24" 2.83GHz Q9550s (quad core) 12MB L2, 4GB RAM DDR3 upgradable to 8GB, 1TB HD, 9800M GT 512MB GDDR3 (rebranded 8800M GTX)

These would be all desktop parts, and the CPU choices are actually cheaper than using mobile CPUs, even though they are quite a bit faster. Apple will most likely not pass on most of the cost savings to consumers and will keep most of it to itself. The dual core desktop parts have a 65W TDP, but they shouldn't really push the upper end of it, so should be okay in the 20" enclosure. The 9800M GT (8800M GTX) is to throw nVidia a bone and will be faster than the current 8800GS which is actually a 8800M GTS. Although a Mobility HD4850 would probably be a bit faster.

[Umbongo]

My speculation:

Low end 20" 3.0Ghz E8400 C2D (dual core) 6MB L2, 2GB RAM DDR3 upgradable to 8GB, 320GB HD, Mobility HD4670 256MB GDDR3

Low end 24" 2.66GHz Q9450s (quad core) 6MB L2, 4GB RAM DDR3 upgradable to 8GB, 500GB HD, Mobility HD4670 512MB GDDR3



So the low end 20" iMac is going to be faster than the low end 24" for many things, especially games? Apple are not going to offer faster dual core CPUs on the low end, if at all than any quad core options.

[commander.data]

So the low end 20" iMac is going to be faster than the low end 24" for many things, especially games? Apple are not going to offer faster dual core CPUs on the low end, if at all than any quad core options.
Well that was the conundrum that I ran into when picking my choices. The fact is, all this whining about Apple not using quad cores in the iMacs or not using Nehalem is overblown for most users. Higher-clocked dual cores still make a lot of sense. I can't see Apple using all quad cores since the 2.33GHz Q8200s is crippled with only 4MB of L2 cache between 4 cores, so they will have to use some dual core models to fill out the product line. I can't see them splitting supply chain resources to maintain a separate mobile platform based iMac, with more expensive mobile parts. And the 3GHz E8400 is already dirt cheap at $183 compared to the the $241 2.4GHz mobile processor that Apple uses in the current low-end iMac.

The more presentable compromise would be for the low-end 24" iMac to use the new 3.5GHz E8700 dual core, the high-end 20" iMac to use the 3.33GHz E8600, and the high-end 24" to be the only quad core with the 2.83GHz Q9550s. Officially there is only 1 24" model, and the "high-end" 24" is actually "just" a BTO, so a BTO option to a quad core albeit a lower-clocked one, is a reasonable choice to present to those that want it, that way there isn't an official "model" that is more expensive with lower clock speed.

EDIT:
http://www.apple.com/ca/imac/specs/
Apple's spec chart showing only 3 iMac models (2 20", 1 24")

[erok]

If that was indeed the case, Apple could simply use the c2d 2.66GHz on the baseline 20" imac (the one wich is currently used on the top 20" imac. The GPU memory diference (256 vs 512) would do the rest.

[commander.data]

If that was indeed the case, Apple could simply use the c2d 2.66GHz on the baseline 20" imac (the one wich is currently used on the top 20" imac. The GPU memory diference (256 vs 512) would do the rest.
I think there was concern that the thermal constraints on the 20" iMac would be tighter than the 24" making it more difficult to put in a quad core. While all mainstream desktop CPUs have a 65W TDP, the heat output from quad cores would be more likely to push the envelope of the spec than the dual cores, especially the newer E0 stepping dual cores which are more efficient than the original C0 stepping Penryns.

[RebootD]

Well that was the conundrum that I ran into when picking my choices. The fact is, all this whining about Apple not using quad cores in the iMacs or not using Nehalem is overblown for most users.

Wow I love your thinking. You have an opinion, that varies from the majority of the viewpoints found in this thread, so you come in here and whine about us whining?

If you have facts/data/links to prove your opinion then post it here, otherwise you are just as much whining as the rest of us.

[powers74]

My prediction for Tuesday, February third two thousand and nine.

No major hardware updates.

Probably no minor ones at that.

[erok]

My prediction for Tuesday, February third two thousand and eight.

No major hardware updates.

Probably no minor ones at that.


I really think you should adjust your clock settings... wrong year :p
(I think you meant two thousand and NINE...) :p

[NYCMacFan]

A 30" iMac would be an easy purchase IMO.

Would be great to me as it would double as a TV with a digital antenna or converter. I'd actually do that if its offered due to the layout of my apartment and a desk sitting in just the right spot.

[powers74]

I really think you should adjust your clock settings... wrong year :p
(I think you meant two thousand and NINE...) :p


Thanks! Fixed.

[commander.data]

Wow I love your thinking. You have an opinion, that varies from the majority of the viewpoints found in this thread, so you come in here and whine about us whining?

If you have facts/data/links to prove your opinion then post it here, otherwise you are just as much whining as the rest of us.
http://www.techreport.com/articles.x/16147/4

In a run off between the processors in question, the 3.33GHz E8600 dual core and the 2.83GHz Q9550 quad core (95W TDP version):

Games:
E8600 wins 3 of 4, Q9550 wins 1 of 4 + the Source Particle Simulation which really isn't a game (the E8600 won in HL2 itself)

Productivity, General Use:
E8600 wins 5 of 6, Q9550 wins 1 of 6

Image Processing:
E8600 wins 1 of 3 (Photoshop), Q9550 wins 2 of 3 (Panorama Factory, picColor)

Media Encoding and Editing:
E8600 wins 4 of 7 (although 2 were LAME with different compilers), Q9550 wins 3 of 7 (although 2 are x264 with different settings)

3D Modeling and Rendering:
E8600 wins 1 of 6, Q9550 wins 5 of 6

There were also scientific apps like folding@home and fluid dynamics simulations that I don't think many people specifically bought their Mac for. These are threaded better though and the Q9550 wins.

In any case, if you look at the apps, there is still something to be said for higher clocked dual cores. The 3.33GHz E8600 dual core is the ideal choice for gaming, general productivity, music encoding (aren't as well threaded), and Photoshop (I guess not all functions/plugins are well threaded yet). The 2.83GHz Q9550 quad core is ideal for video encoding, editing, rendering, and image processing if the app is well threaded like Panorama Factory.

The other thing to note is that the 3.5GHz E8700 is replacing the 3.33GHz E8600 and still looks to be cheaper than the 2.83GHz Q9550. As well, with OpenCL putting more emphasis on the GPU, especially for video encoding and rendering, which is currently the quad core's stronghold, things may still tighten up between quad cores and dual cores, although this may be balanced out as more games become multithreaded rather than just dual threaded. My point is that the relevance of dual cores hasn't yet diminished even if the focus of the future is quad cores.

[RebootD]

My point is that the relevance of dual cores hasn't yet diminished even if the focus of the future is quad cores.

Right... I meant show data pertaining to quad core being sold in other systems versus dual core. I can go to a tech site and copy/paste tons of benchmarks as well but that isn't the point. Everyone else = Quad core options for non workstations. Apple = No.

But good job on the copy/paste, it was nice to read honestly.

[Santabean2000]

I would love to see an iMac with a sub US$1000 price, but that's not going to happen; see new/old whitebook for that entry puppy.

I would love to see a 30" iMac with a C2Q and dual HDDs, but that's not going to happen (yet?).

I guess I'll take all of my high hopes and expectations and chop them down, and then chop them down again. And only then perhaps I'll be getting close to the reality.

Apple only really make incremental improvements from one generation to the next. Still, they make sweet machines though, and that's why they've got me.:D (funny how I can hate and love the same thing)

My prediction: iMac to get a chin reduction, moderate spec increases with C2Q for high end 24" machine, and bto on midrange 20" and 24".

[commander.data]

Right... I meant show data pertaining to quad core being sold in other systems versus dual core. I can go to a tech site and copy/paste tons of benchmarks as well but that isn't the point. Everyone else = Quad core options for non workstations. Apple = No.

But good job on the copy/paste, it was nice to read honestly.
Well you did specifically ask for data/links to back up my suggestion that higher clocked dual cores still fit the usage patterns of the general user.

If you are saying that Apple should be offering quad cores as a choice for non-Mac Pro computers and the faster the better, then I have no disagreement with that.

[BenRoethig]

I think it's a good idea if it brings the price down in some models. If they keep the C2D in the iMac, they are still in line with AIOs offered by HP and Dell. HP doesn't even have a quad core option, though Dell does with their 24"

Those are the 2008 models. The 2009 models will most likely be using the SFF chips.

They'll still use laptop-sized SO-DIMMS. DDR3, yes, but still laptop-sized, and no more than 8GB.

There's not a whole lot of difference between desktop DIMMs or mobile SO-DIMMs anymore when it comes to price or capacity.

With absolutely no solid evidence, here are my predictions.

Low end 20" 2.66Ghz C2D, 2GB RAM, upgradable to 4GB, 250GB HD, 9400m

High end 20" 2.8GHz C2D, 2GB RAM, upgradable to 4GB, 320GB HD 9600m 256

Low end 24" 3.06GHz C2D, 2GB RAM upgradable to 8GB, 500GB HD 9600m 256 upgradable to 512.

High end 24" 2.83GHz C2Q, 4GB RAM upgradable to 8GB, 1TB HD 9600m 512.

I know that these aren't very optimistic upgrades, and I'm very likely very wrong but here's my guess.

Incredibly disappointing, but realistic.

[RebootD]

Well you did specifically ask for data/links to back up my suggestion that higher clocked dual cores still fit the usage patterns of the general user.

If you are saying that Apple should be offering quad cores as a choice for non-Mac Pro computers and the faster the better, then I have no disagreement with that.

Okay phew because I didn't see that coming to be honest. My only frustration is I need a new computer for print/web, Mac Pro is out of my needs/price range and I'm not paying for less again, hence the iMac anger. I'm a guy who can build PC's so knowing I can build a quad/12GB ram system for $600 less than an iMac is just wrong.

[charlituna]

a guy with a record for being pretty much dead wrong that makes claims that are ripped off of all the rumors sites.

yeah, i'm buying his 'sources'. NOT!

[twoodcc]

well this makings sense. but i still don't believe what Wu says though

[MattInOz]

I really think you should adjust your clock settings... wrong year :p
(I think you meant two thousand and NINE...) :p

No he got it right...
It's always easier to predict the past.

[Icaras]

Damnit, I wan't my quad core imac already. I really hope they put one in a 20" model. As beautiful as they are, I'm really not in the market for something that gargantuan.

[ditzy]

If there are updates today, I know big IF, what time do they usually happen?

[megastuff999]

If there are updates today, I know big IF, what time do they usually happen?

There is no 'set' time. But I wouldn't worry. They won't be released today. If the stock notification was due to new models coming today, they would have issued it earlier to resellers and the like.

If a significant update, I think they would also have staged a press event for maximum exposure.

Maybe next week or the week after though. Let's hope so...

[ditzy]

There is no 'set' time. But I wouldn't worry. They won't be released today. If the stock notification was due to new models coming today, they would have issued it earlier to resellers and the like.

If a significant update, I think they would also have staged a press event for maximum exposure.

Maybe next week or the week after though. Let's hope so...

I guess I'm not expecting a significant update. Just a speed bump.

[WeegieMac]

I must say I am a little concerned that the image of the "Apple Store" showing the new Mac line-up has been "removed at Apple's request".

If the iMac turns into nothing but a souped up Mac Mini with an Apple Cinema Display bolted alongside it then I will be extremely disappointed. That "redesign" certainly comes across more as a backwards step compared to a sleek all in one design. Although, IF those images are real, could it signal that Apple are now unable to utilise high end compoents (ie: Quad Core) in something as compact as an iMac including display, etc?

And the "starting from $1,799" has me extremely worried ... if the "new iMac" turns out to be real.

[antominus]

I think this reflects the fact that hyper threading is back, and Apple is going to use it in their model pricing... which they have to. This guy is hearing that a 4 core xeon has 8 cores... which it does virtually, and I bet that is the story people are sticking to.

As I discussed in the Pro thread, the 2.66GHz xeon comes in at $150 over the old 2.8 Harpertown. So the mac pro with 2 of them will be around $3299, not $2799. The base model will probably be a single xeon with 4 cores that can do 8 threads, or a 4 (8 virtual) core chip... it looks to the OS like 8 cpu's just like the old ones. Of course it isn't, but it doesn't matter from a price/performance angle.

Apple is going to sell a 4 (8) machine and an 8 (16) machine... and the 4(8) will probably be almost as fast (faster for apps using less than 4 streams) as the old ones until grand central is out... at which point it will haul and be faster all around because it will optimize hyperthreading. I think a quad (8 threads) will be $2499 and dual $1000 BTO. They may go to $2999 with a $600-500 deletion, but that will severely constrain their profit margin compared to the old machines... which they may be willing to do to get them on the market (but I doubt it). They are going to sell quads as octo's because they can hyperthread, he just didn't clarify virtual vs actual cores and neither will Apple, I betcha. That's what he's hearing, and it makes sense.

[LeviG]

snip
They can't exactly sell a 4/8 core chip (which even with hyperthreading it is) as a 8/16 core chip as (in atleast my opinion) its false advertising and as such apple could get sued for lots of money.

[iMacmatician]

Damnit, I wan't my quad core imac already. I really hope they put one in a 20" model. As beautiful as they are, I'm really not in the market for something that gargantuan.I don't see why they wouldn't (or at least a really fast 65 W dual-core, since those duals are cheaper than quads), unless there were heat problems.

If the stock notification was due to new models coming today, they would have issued it earlier to resellers and the like. Agreed. I can see late February now as a likely release date.

I must say I am a little concerned that the image of the "Apple Store" showing the new Mac line-up has been "removed at Apple's request".Although the removal notice could be a fake too.

Has Apple pulled Apple Store leaks before? I'm not sure.

If the iMac turns into nothing but a souped up Mac Mini with an Apple Cinema Display bolted alongside it then I will be extremely disappointed. That "redesign" certainly comes across more as a backwards step compared to a sleek all in one design. I don't think even the xMac supporters advocated it as a replacement of the iMac (more like an addition to the Mac lineup). Definitely a backwards step. And, if the iMac is just a "Mac" with a Cinema Display, why call it an iMac?

The weird thing is that I think the "Mac" + ACD concept makes sense from a certain point of view (not the xMac POV), but then again the iMac concept also does from a similar point of view.

Although, IF those images are real, could it signal that Apple are now unable to utilise high end compoents (ie: Quad Core) in something as compact as an iMac including display, etc?Probably, although this isn't new (PowerBook G5).

And the "starting from $1,799" has me extremely worried ... if the "new iMac" turns out to be real.This could be evidence to suggest that the picture is real. Most people are expecting a price drop or similar prices.

[Sehnsucht]

+++

I should hope so.. Thick is in.. ;)

It's about time too..

I'd shopped on Apple's site and configured a totally maxed-out MacPro,
and when it totaled up, we were talking over $27,000.00..!!! :eek:

I said, "forget it!",
and quickly started thinking about that new laptop from India for $10. :apple:
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/technology/article5639463.ece

But, the word "Quad" does something to me.. :p

"QUAD...
Say it LOUD and I hear Steve Jobs Braying...
Say it <soft> and it's almost like Praying..." :D

:cool:

+++

:D :D :D :D :D :D :D Bwhahahahahahahahah :D :D :D :D :D Funniest ****** evahhhh!!! :cool:

[charlituna]

Is apple good on doing anything for someone that just bought one days ago?
reason I ask is because my dad just converted to mac cause his pc died and didn't have a computer for 3 weeks and he couldn't wait any longer. I told him to wait it out but the mac geniuses told him they weren't out for awhile, he took their word and bought one this saturday. If the new imacs come out this week for example would apple do anything for him cause that doesn't leave a good taste in a newly converted user.

your question begs the question, why does he need it. what is dad doing that is so important for him to have the latest and the greatest technology and makes his just bought imac now totally worthless.

Because if this is just some status thing that Dad, or you on Dad's 'behalf', just has to have the latest and greatest even though its likely no one is going to know that it is 'last year's model' unless you say something, is that really worth the hassle of packing it up, taking it in, picking a new one, fighting with manager over the restocking fee, being without a computer at least one more night so the store techs can clone the old one onto the new 'better' one etc.

[lazyrighteye]

Bah!
Again with this guy...

<rant>
C'mon Arn - you, the mods & the macrumors community work way too hard nurturing what I consider the most legit Mac rumor site on the interwebs to have all of that hard work possibly jeopardized/discredited by one individual.

If Wu were just your average contributor in the forums - that's one thing. There, all are welcome to speak their minds, make wacky predictions, state the obvious, lurk, whatever. But regularly sourcing Wu in Front Page articles is totally different. IMHO, doing so (especially considering his consistently deplorable track record) discredits not only himself, but more importantly you, Macrumors, the Mac community, Apple, etc.

Trickle...

Down...

You're better than that.
We're better than that.

If for some reason Wu's illuminating observations must be included on macrumors - and that is an easily debatable "if" - Page 2 (or "Page Wu" - No! No! Just a silly play on words!) might be more appropriate. Again, "if."
</rant>

[iMacmatician]

If for some reason Wu's illuminating observations must be included on macrumors - and that is an easily debatable "if" - Page 2 (or "Page Wu" - No! No! Just a silly play on words!) might be more appropriate. Again, "if."
</rant>"Page Wu" :D :D

Might as well put all the recent MacOSRumors rumors over there too. :p

[charlituna]

Hopefully we get some form of announcement


I can speak to the 'soon' but we will know when it is going to happen. They will call up the media and invite to the Apple Campus just like with the notebooks and ipods. So a few days ahead of time, we'll know that something is about to drop and pocketbooks can be tucked away for a bit longer.

They are not going to just keep mum and suddenly everything has changed. It's not Apple's style unless it's something way tiny like a couple of weeks ago when they decided to bump the ram in the white macbooks to 2GB. that wasn't worry of a huge media to do.

I must say I am a little concerned that the image of the "Apple Store" showing the new Mac line-up has been "removed at Apple's request".


if Apple really did make that request it was likely because the whole thing was fake. by cutting off the circulation of that photograph they are saving their stores a world of hurt when folks come in acting for details about machines that were produced in someone's buttocks.

it is Tuesday morning 8:10 am in California. I just pulled up the Apple Store,even refreshed the page to be sure I was current. nada on new stuff or 'down for maintenance' or any of the other signs they are about to release something on the QT.


If the iMac turns into nothing but a souped up Mac Mini with an Apple Cinema Display bolted alongside it then I will be extremely disappointed. That "redesign" certainly comes across more as a backwards step compared to a sleek all in one design. Although, IF those images are real, could it signal that Apple are now unable to utilise high end compoents (ie: Quad Core) in something as compact as an iMac including display, etc?

stop and think for a moment. does that really sound like Apple. no it doesn't.

[BlizzardBomb]

Apple hadn't embarked full blown into their thinness obsession yet. Cooling and features were still their number one priority in those days.

I'm pretty sure at their thickest point, the Rev. C iMac G5s were about the same as the current batch of iMacs. The only difference is the current ones are more "pinched" at the corners. Plus the iMac G5s were around when the original iPod nano came out so they definitely were obsessed with thin then.

As shokunin says above, the dual core processors are more expensive than the quad cores. They will also be faster at many tasks so it makes a rather confusing product line. The current prices are $851 for the 3.06GHz and $530 for the 2.8 with the quads costing $369 and $320.

The current iMacs use modified desktop processors and not the mobile version of the 3.06 GHz processor. Therefore, in theory they are significantly cheaper than the mobile processors.

For those of you who want to see Apple's possibilities look here (http://files.shareholder.com/downloads/INTC/539541826x0x263413/01C3886C-4880-401F-9448-8EAE2559FF35/Jan_18_09_1ku_Price.pdf).

Apple could use the slowest, cheapest dual-core Wolfdale they can get their hands on for the low-end. Which is currently the E7400 at 2.8 GHz, 3 MB L2, 1066 MHz ($113). They could for marketing purposes want to underclock/ or use a slower/ different version than that one. Then from there, use the Quad-cores.

[iMacmatician]

The current iMacs use modified desktop processors and not the mobile version of the 3.06 GHz processor. Therefore, in theory they are significantly cheaper than the mobile processors.I was under the impression that they used overclocked (http://www.electronista.com/articles/08/04/28/imac.cpu.origins/) Penryn mobile CPUs.

[BlizzardBomb]

I was under the impression that they used overclocked (http://www.electronista.com/articles/08/04/28/imac.cpu.origins/) Penryn mobile CPUs.

Hmm... could be then. I always thought that because the iMac's processors were designated as E8xxx (E8435 is the 3.06 GHz, E8235 is the 2.8 GHz etc.) they were modified desktop ones.

[Eidorian]

Hmm... could be then. I always thought that because the iMac's processors were designated as E8xxx (E8435 is the 3.06 GHz, E8235 is the 2.8 GHz etc.) they were modified desktop ones.That's what CPU-Z spit out ages ago.

[shanmugam]

The current iMacs use modified desktop processors and not the mobile version of the 3.06 GHz processor. Therefore, in theory they are significantly cheaper than the mobile processors.

For those of you who want to see Apple's possibilities look here (http://files.shareholder.com/downloads/INTC/539541826x0x263413/01C3886C-4880-401F-9448-8EAE2559FF35/Jan_18_09_1ku_Price.pdf).

Apple could use the slowest, cheapest dual-core Wolfdale they can get their hands on for the low-end. Which is currently the E7400 at 2.8 GHz, 3 MB L2, 1066 MHz ($113). They could for marketing purposes want to underclock/ or use a slower/ different version than that one. Then from there, use the Quad-cores.

--removed, see the listing below ...

[AidenShaw]

Hmm... could be then. I always thought that because the iMac's processors were designated as E8xxx (E8435 is the 3.06 GHz, E8235 is the 2.8 GHz etc.) they were modified desktop ones.

http://www.intel.com/Consumer/Learn/Notebook/core2duo-detail.htm?iid=learn_proc+c2d_notebook

[Eidorian]

http://www.intel.com/Consumer/Learn/Notebook/core2duo-detail.htm?iid=learn_proc+c2d_notebookSo they finally showed up on Intel's listings?

[shanmugam]

So they finally showed up on Intel's listings?

hmmm, we do not know the price for these then ... these CPUs never listed in price list pdf from intel (apple/oem exclusive special cpus)

[shanmugam]

http://www.intel.com/Consumer/Learn/Notebook/core2duo-detail.htm?iid=learn_proc+c2d_notebook

thanks for the links ...

it may also means, there may be special quad core CPUs from intel for Apple/OEM use which we may not know yet, we know the quad core from the price list pdf only

[Eric S.]

"Page Wu" :D :D

Might as well put all the recent MacOSRumors rumors over there too. :p

Once upon a time that was a worthwhile site. :(

[patricem]

Hmmm - why did Apple request removal of this "Photoshop job" picture (according to your post on the previous page in this thread)? Wanting to "protect" their brand (Online store et al)? Or will there indeed be a "headless Mac", which may even pair up with an iMac to double processing power and co-use that iMac screen?

Or is this all a bigger fake with a faked "Removed on Apple's request" picture now in place of the original Applestore-wannabe?



WHAT EXACTLY WAS IN THE PICTURE?

[BlizzardBomb]

http://www.intel.com/Consumer/Learn/Notebook/core2duo-detail.htm?iid=learn_proc+c2d_notebook

Nice find. Although doesn't really make sense in the Power-Optimized section seeing as it consumes more power than the norm :p

[shokunin]

Hmmm - why did Apple request removal of this "Photoshop job" picture (according to your post on the previous page in this thread)? Wanting to "protect" their brand (Online store et al)? Or will there indeed be a "headless Mac", which may even pair up with an iMac to double processing power and co-use that iMac screen?

Or is this all a bigger fake with a faked "Removed on Apple's request" picture now in place of the original Applestore-wannabe?



WHAT EXACTLY WAS IN THE PICTURE?

A lineup of Apple desktops, but the mini was gone and replaced with 'Mac' starting at $999. Think aluminum cube. The iMac was the the same 'Mac' Cube with the 24" LED Cinema display next to it at $1799. the iMac doesn't make any sense as why have a Mac and an iMac is a Mac cube + LED Cinema Display?

[iMacmatician]

it may also means, there may be special quad core CPUs from intel for Apple/OEM use which we may not know yet, we know the quad core from the price list pdf onlyI'm thinking we may see a special 3.0 GHz CPU.

Nice find. Although doesn't really make sense in the Power-Optimized section seeing as it consumes more power than the norm :pOptimized for using more power than regular mobile CPUs. :p

[dorenthe]

Hi,
I don't want to open a new discussion but
I'm interested if a new IMAC update is
coming today or tmrw ?

cheers

[dwl017]

When will Apple finally lift this stupid veil of OZ and just announce what new products are coming out? They make the only boxes that can legally run OS X so I don't understand the reason for not letting the public know what is coming and when.

Marketing 101 create a buzz by announcing what is coming.

Will they finally stop this whole secret thing once SJ buys the farm?

[Lesser Evets]

I'm glad that new iMac came out today...

Oh. It didn't.
At least Wu was smart enough to not predict the date. He can always say he is right, because sooner or later those quad cores will come out.

It's like saying, "Sometime soon, someone at Apple will breathe."

[Xtremehkr]

Alright, new iMac already.

http://i.gizmodo.com/5145151/iphone-4g-concept-is-a-macbook-in-a-phone

Something like that would be even better than a quad-core. Let's go Apple.

[Eric S.]

Alright, new iMac already.

http://i.gizmodo.com/5145151/iphone-4g-concept-is-a-macbook-in-a-phone

Something like that would be even better than a quad-core. Let's go Apple.

Exactly how is this a "MacBook In a Phone"? Where's my terminal window? Can I run XP with Boot Camp?

[albusseverus]

Traditionally, iMacs have come in lower specced than MacBook Pros. That was the biggest disappointment of the October MacBook updates...

"look shiny new body... ignore that fact that you didn't get quad cores"

So on what planet does anybody expect the iMacs to be better specced than MacBook Pros and come with quad cores?

Don't get me wrong, nobody wants quad core iMacs more than me. And the longer Apple waits to update the iMac (the Al iMacs got their first update after 6 months, so they should have been updated again in AUGUST!), the higher expectations become.

Apple's desktop sales slumped over the last quarter because everyone is holding off for Mac Pro, iMac and Mini updates... all of which are WAY overdue and so far behind Windows machines available.

Back to iMacs - not only will the processors be lower specced than MacBook Pros, but the GPUs are traditionally lower specced as well.

So what's the best we can expect? Sub 3GHz, 'new, improved, cooler' C2D and GeForce 9400M + something less than 9600M GT ??

I think it's Apple starting rumours of 'maybe C2D' to dampen expectations. It's clear everyone is expecting quad cores and Apple needs to lower expectations, like when they went back to the old design for the iPod Nano, they made sure pictures got out early, so everyone would be over the fact that they used a retro design and focussed on what wasn't known - the accelerometer and new software...

I'm sad to say, I don't think we'll see any quad cores in iMacs this time around. If the MacBook Pros get quad cores later in the year, maybe then iMacs will get them.

Meanwhile, look forward to "look, shiny unibody design!" or its equivalent to take the heat off the lacklustre CPUs and GPUs.

[shokunin]

Traditionally, iMacs have come in lower specced than MacBook Pros. That was the biggest disappointment of the October MacBook updates...

"look shiny new body... ignore that fact that you didn't get quad cores"

So on what planet does anybody expect the iMacs to be better specced than MacBook Pros and come with quad cores?

Why do you say that iMacs come lower specced that MBPs?

The 24" imac can be outfitted with a 3.06ghz processor, the standard is 2.8ghz. All iMacs even the 20", have C2D processors with 6MB of L2 Cache.

Both the 15 and 17" MBP come standard with a lesser speed processor. The base 15" MBP at 2.4ghz has 3MB of L2 Cache versus 6MB on the base 20" 2.4ghz iMac. While the graphics aren't the greatest, all iMacs have dedicated graphics and usually the same options as those on the MBPs.

Quad core laptops are still a rare breed out in the wild. IIRC, Our company could only begin ordering of the 10lb+ monster Lenovo back in late October '08 with a 2-3 week turnaround. I'm not in the market for a monster notebook, but it would have been killer if Apple made a CTO option for a quad on the 17" MBP, even if the battery could only last say 3-4 hours versus 7.

On the other hand, quad-core desktops are out and have been for a long time. I think Dell even has an all-in-one with a quad core option.

[Eidorian]

So on what planet does anybody expect the iMacs to be better specced than MacBook Pros and come with quad cores?It's a desktop even if it is an iMac.

[iMacmatician]

Traditionally, iMacs have come in lower specced than MacBook Pros. iMac G5. White Intel iMacs.

We are talking about the high-end iMac vs. the high-end MacBook Pro right? Because it could be said that there's less expectation for the lower-end iMacs to have quad-core than the higher-end ones.

That was the biggest disappointment of the October MacBook updates...

"look shiny new body... ignore that fact that you didn't get quad cores"They didn't get quad-cores (or the Extreme dual-core) due to heat. The MacBook Pros got BTOs for the fastest 35 W CPUs available.

So on what planet does anybody expect the iMacs to be better specced than MacBook Pros and come with quad cores?The planet where the iMac G5 was faster than the PowerBook G4, and where the 24" iMac were (and still are) better specced than the MacBook Pro. I have also heard that that planet is where the iMacs have better cooling than the MacBook Pros.

Back to iMacs - not only will the processors be lower specced than MacBook Pros, but the GPUs are traditionally lower specced as well.Not since they went to Intel (don't know about before).

So what's the best we can expect? Sub 3GHz, 'new, improved, cooler' C2D and GeForce 9400M + something less than 9600M GT ??LOL, the iMacs already have a 3.07 GHz CPU and a 8800 GS GPU. You expect them to downgrade in the high-end?

I think it's Apple starting rumours of 'maybe C2D' to dampen expectations. It's clear everyone is expecting quad cores and Apple needs to lower expectations, like when they went back to the old design for the iPod Nano, they made sure pictures got out early, so everyone would be over the fact that they used a retro design and focussed on what wasn't known - the accelerometer and new software...You have a point there…but that doesn't mean the iMacs will be worse specced than the MacBook Pros. Even with mobile dual-core, I'd say that Intel may be able to give Apple a "special" 3.33 GHz CPU.

[BenRoethig]

Exactly how is this a "MacBook In a Phone"? Where's my terminal window? Can I run XP with Boot Camp?

Not a macbook in a phone, but I like it.

[BenRoethig]

LOL, the iMacs already have a 3.07 GHz CPU and a 8800 GS GPU. You expect them to downgrade in the high-end?

Wouldn't be the first time unfortunately.

[iMacmatician]

Alright, new iMac already.

http://i.gizmodo.com/5145151/iphone-4g-concept-is-a-macbook-in-a-phone

Something like that would be even better than a quad-core. Let's go Apple.I'm expecting something like that for the rumored mini-tablet.

[Eric S.]

I'm expecting something like that for the rumored mini-tablet.

You should add that one to your signature. Cause I think you're going to be waiting a long time. ;)

[MattInOz]

Traditionally, iMacs have come in lower specced than MacBook Pros. That was the biggest disappointment of the October MacBook updates...

"look shiny new body... ignore that fact that you didn't get quad cores"

So on what planet does anybody expect the iMacs to be better specced than MacBook Pros and come with quad cores?

Don't get me wrong, nobody wants quad core iMacs more than me. And the longer Apple waits to update the iMac (the Al iMacs got their first update after 6 months, so they should have been updated again in AUGUST!), the higher expectations become.

Apple's desktop sales slumped over the last quarter because everyone is holding off for Mac Pro, iMac and Mini updates... all of which are WAY overdue and so far behind Windows machines available.

Back to iMacs - not only will the processors be lower specced than MacBook Pros, but the GPUs are traditionally lower specced as well.
.....

Meanwhile, look forward to "look, shiny unibody design!" or its equivalent to take the heat off the lacklustre CPUs and GPUs.

Brrr.....?!?!

When have iMac been lower speced than the MacBookPro?
the low end maybe but the high end has generally been faster. Quite a bit faster at times. Like G5 iMac starting the infamous "G5 powerbook next tueday". iMac where early in the intel transition as well.

[SactoGuy18]

http://www.thestandard.com/news/2008/12/18/beginning-end-apple-imac

If you read this posting, with the current deep economic recession and the increasingly demanding power needs of the newest Intel CPU's, this could possibly spell an end to the entire iMac line.

I would not be surprised that Apple has a "fallback" position. The fallback position will go like this:

1) Apple phases out the iMac.

2) Apple releases what looks Mac Pro with about 1/3 to 1/2 the height of the Mac Pro, with six USB 2.0/3.0 connectors (four in back, two in front), two FireWire 400 ports (one in back and one in front) and two FireWire 800 ports (one in back and one in front). It will come with the current Apple Mac keyboard and the Mighty Mouse mouse pointer, both connected to the USB ports (as current iMac practice). The new machine will have either DVI-D or Mini DisplayPort connectors.

3) Apple gets out of the LCD display panel business (saving itself a lot of money!) and instead provides a common spec to monitor manufacturers like LG, NEC, Samsung, Viewsonic, etc. to provide "Apple certified" monitors that meet Apple's requirements for picture quality. The monitor manufacturers can stay with DVI-D connections, since the smaller tower Macs will include DVI-D monitor connections to keep the system cost down.

Why replace the iMac with a minitower machine? It would allow Apple to use more standardized parts and also with a minitower design, it may make it easier for proper CPU cooling, which may open the way for Apple to use the Core i7 CPU for these lower end machines and the Gainestown-core Xeon CPU for the high-end Mac Pro models.

[Eric S.]

I would not be surprised that Apple has a "fallback" position. The fallback position will go like this:

1) Apple phases out the iMac.

2) Apple releases what looks Mac Pro with about 1/3 to 1/2 the height of the Mac Pro [...]

This makes so much sense, there's no way Apple will ever do it. :rolleyes:

Seriously, I don't see this happening unless Steve Jobs is no longer calling the shots at Apple. It goes against his entire philosophy of self-contained products.

[iPhoneJoe]

a 24" quad core imac would be nice

[SactoGuy18]

This makes so much sense, there's no way Apple will ever do it. :rolleyes:

Seriously, I don't see this happening unless Steve Jobs is no longer calling the shots at Apple. It goes against his entire philosophy of self-contained products.

However, while Jobs may like the self-contained product idea, if the price of the resulting product costs too much money, that could put an end to the iMac as we know it. As such, Apple will need a fallback position to cover potential iMac users, and my suggested small tower machine (which may cost around US$700 to US$800 minus monitor) will likely cover the market that the iMac used to cater to.

[MattInOz]

http://www.thestandard.com/news/2008/12/18/beginning-end-apple-imac

If you read this posting, with the current deep economic recession and the increasingly demanding power needs of the newest Intel CPU's, this could possibly spell an end to the entire iMac line.


Let me get what saying here.

Apple is going to kill one the worlds most recognizable computers and one of the recognized products around. For a box you put under the desk connected to a monitor that is as big as the iMac they just killed and doesn't carry their logo.

You think that makes sense?*

If Apple are going to use the i7 anywhere it will be in MacPro SP instead of the current SP which is the Xeon DP model missing one socket. Seeing after an update there would be just as much difference in between the Mobo's any way.

That might make sense and may allow a price drop on that model. Also that would fit with any information these guys may have heard that lead to a remarkably bad conclusion.


*ignoring all the technical reason they sight as most have been discussed and are non-issues in the end.

[SactoGuy18]

Let me get what saying here.
Apple is going to kill one the worlds most recognizable computers and one of the recognized products around. For a box you put under the desk connected to a monitor that is as big as the iMac they just killed and doesn't carry their logo.


They may not have much of a choice, especially given how expensive the 24" iMac is nowadays. You can get a well-equipped Dell or HP computer with latest Core 2 Duo CPU's, 6 GB of RAM, 640 SATA-II hard drive, nVidia GeForce 9300 graphics, keyboard and mouse for just over US$1,000, and you can get a good 22-24" widescreen monitor for around US$300 more.

That's why I do see Apple having that "fallback" position (if necessary) of a minitower machine to replace the iMac given the current economic situation.

[eiprol]

I hope you are wrong, and no tower+display will be released to replace the iMac. In that case, I would buy the actual all-in-one iMac with no doubt.

[mudenza]

I can speak to the 'soon' but we will know when it is going to happen. They will call up the media and invite to the Apple Campus just like with the notebooks and ipods. So a few days ahead of time, we'll know that something is about to drop and pocketbooks can be tucked away for a bit longer.

They are not going to just keep mum and suddenly everything has changed. It's not Apple's style unless it's something way tiny like a couple of weeks ago when they decided to bump the ram in the white macbooks to 2GB. that wasn't worry of a huge media to do.



if Apple really did make that request it was likely because the whole thing was fake. by cutting off the circulation of that photograph they are saving their stores a world of hurt when folks come in acting for details about machines that were produced in someone's buttocks.

it is Tuesday morning 8:10 am in California. I just pulled up the Apple Store,even refreshed the page to be sure I was current. nada on new stuff or 'down for maintenance' or any of the other signs they are about to release something on the QT.



stop and think for a moment. does that really sound like Apple. no it doesn't.

+1

Exactly my thoughts.

[Shivetya]

They may not have much of a choice, especially given how expensive the 24" iMac is nowadays. You can get a well-equipped Dell or HP computer with latest Core 2 Duo CPU's, 6 GB of RAM, 640 SATA-II hard drive, nVidia GeForce 9300 graphics, keyboard and mouse for just over US$1,000, and you can get a good 22-24" widescreen monitor for around US$300 more.

That's why I do see Apple having that "fallback" position (if necessary) of a minitower machine to replace the iMac given the current economic situation.

Actually it is worse than that.

I can go to HP's site, buy a QUAD core 6GB Vista 64bit Blu Ray playing machine for around 650 after instant rebates. If I were to buy the off the shelf crap at Best Buy I could get a quad core 3gb with 22" monitor for less than 800.


I think the biggest push to get out of the current iMac as the only desktop computer from Apple is warranty costs. Take out the screen element and suddenly their warranty cost per unit drops like a rock. It also doesn't hurt that people can't bitch about being forced into glossy displays

[Grasbak]

Assuming that the iMac contiunes to use "notebook" cpus.... are the current models using the lastest C2Ds?

Also, is there a quad core notebook cpu yet?

[iMacmatician]

Assuming that the iMac contiunes to use "notebook" cpus.... are the current models using the lastest C2Ds?No, although they have similar GHz and the same FSB speed.

Also, is there a quad core notebook cpu yet?Yes: 2.0 GHz, 2.27 GHz, and 2.53 GHz.

[mjteix]

Assuming that the iMac contiunes to use "notebook" cpus.... are the current models using the lastest C2Ds?

Also, is there a quad core notebook cpu yet?

No, they are using custom cpus/chipset. E8x35 series. Intel has updated some of them, there is now a 2.93GHz model (just like in the regular mobile C2D series). Those cpus have a higher TDP (55W) and are probably less expensive than the regular mobile C2D that have a TDP of 35W/45W.

Mobile quads have been available for quite some time: 3 models now, quad 2.00 ($348), quad 2.26 ($851) and quad 2.53 ($1,038). They are very expensive vs the dual-core (the 45W dual 3.06GHz cost $851 and the 55W version probably much less).

If Apple can use the desktop 65W cpus in the iMac, they would get a more powerful computer (up to quad 2.83GHz) at a lower cost (less than $369 per cpu).

[Grasbak]

No, they are using custom cpus/chipset. E8x35 series. Intel has updated some of them, there is now a 2.93GHz model (just like in the regular mobile C2D series). Those cpus have a higher TDP (55W) and are probably less expensive than the regular mobile C2D that have a TDP of 35W/45W.

Mobile quads have been available for quite some time: 3 models now, quad 2.00 ($348), quad 2.26 ($851) and quad 2.53 ($1,038). They are very expensive vs the dual-core (the 45W dual 3.06GHz cost $851 and the 55W version probably much less).

If Apple can use the desktop 65W cpus in the iMac, they would get a more powerful computer (up to quad 2.83GHz) at a lower cost (less than $369 per cpu

So, again, assuming they dont change their policy on using the notebook stuff, there isnt any particularly new chips available. & presumably a redesign isnt in the offing

So a refresh would be more about LED screens,mini display port, maybe removal of FW400 and maybe the NVIDIA graphics platfrom like Macbook/Macbook Pro?

Whats next on the roadmoap for mobile cpus?

Just thinking things through as my iMac has died, so I need a new one. I can wait for a bit, but not sure for how long!

[Yamcha]

I've been using Windows 7 lately, and this thing is awesome!! its like a mixture of Leopard + Vista.. I really like it! I may not buy an iMac now :P still mulling it over though, an iMac or i7 Quad Core system..:rolleyes:

[BlizzardBomb]

That's why I do see Apple having that "fallback" position (if necessary) of a minitower machine to replace the iMac given the current economic situation.

That makes no sense. The economic crisis has hit a lot of people hard that's for sure, but that doesn't suddenly mean everyone now cannot spend over $1000 on a computer. I'm guessing that iMac demand has dropped a little recently, but not because of lack of people out there with money, but the fact that it's gone a while without an update. Killing the iMac would be equivalent to Sony killing the BRAVIA or Samsung killing their phones, or McDonald's killing the Big Mac :p, or whatever, it doesn't make sense.

[Eric S.]

Let me get what saying here.

Apple is going to kill one the worlds most recognizable computers and one of the recognized products around. For a box you put under the desk connected to a monitor that is as big as the iMac they just killed and doesn't carry their logo.

You think that makes sense?*

It makes sense to me, because I would never buy an iMac but I would certainly buy a midrange tower if it were configured adequately.

[BlizzardBomb]

It makes sense to me, because I would never buy an iMac but I would certainly buy a midrange tower if it were configured adequately.

Killing the iMac doesn't really make sense.

Adding a midrange headless system AND leaving the iMac would make sense from a consumer choice point of view.

Making the Mac mini more powerful with more features (3.5" HDD for the millionth time) and offering a cheaper configuration of the Mac Pro and leaving the iMac makes more sense from a business point of view.

[Eric S.]

Adding a midrange headless system AND leaving the iMac would make sense from a consumer choice point of view.

You mean give the customer more options? What a concept! Too bad it contradicts the Jobs doctrine - "fewer choices, fewer choices, fewer choices."

[mjteix]

Whats next on the roadmoap for mobile cpus?

Just thinking things through as my iMac has died, so I need a new one. I can wait for a bit, but not sure for how long!

Next in the mobile front are nehalem version of quad-core cpus (late Q3, so probably october if used in the iMacs). Don't know much about the specs and the prices of those, yet. quad-core/eight threads, 55W or so. Not for Apple notebooks, unless they change the design back to thicker notebooks.

[Cole Slaw]

Am I the only one who is surprised by Apple's seeming 2 year refresh rate on desktops?
I thought when they went to Intel we'd be seeing speed bumps, CPU/chipset updates, etc., a lot more often than this.
If you're going to charge premium prices on your hardware, Apple, make sure you always have the latest, or close to the latest, on offer.
It's ridiculous when $800 PCs out-spec a $2000 Mac.

[iMacmatician]

So, again, assuming they dont change their policy on using the notebook stuff, there isnt any particularly new chips available. & presumably a redesign isnt in the offingQuad cores... and Intel could deliver "special" speed bumped versions of existing CPUs. Both are not necessarily new, but are enough for an update. I doubt there will be a redesign either, but a small design change is possible.

Whats next on the roadmoap for mobile cpus?

April 2009: Speed bumps to some CPUs (don't know which)
Q3/Q4 2009: Mobile quad-core Nehalem (Clarksfield), 45/55 W (Penryn equivalent = 35/45 W)
March 2010: 32 nm mobile dual-core Nehalem (Arandale)

[Theophany]

Am I the only one who is surprised by Apple's seeming 2 year refresh rate on desktops?
I thought when they went to Intel we'd be seeing speed bumps, CPU/chipset updates, etc., a lot more often than this.
If you're going to charge premium prices on your hardware, Apple, make sure you always have the latest, or close to the latest, on offer.
It's ridiculous when $800 PCs out-spec a $2000 Mac.

Not so ridiculous if you buy a $2000 Mac to have it superceded every time Intel launches a speedbumped chip. That would royally piss me off and is part of the reason I stopped using PCs.

[Yamcha]

So are the new iMacs coming in March???

[MasterNile]

So are the new iMacs coming in March???

The answer to that is a very definite maybe

[Theophany]

Anybody else think that Core 2 Quad chips are massively unrealistic? I can't really see Apple weathering the furore of new Macbook Pro owners asking why they're 'Pro' product has a lesser chip than the consumer-level desktop.

[Eidorian]

Anybody else think that Core 2 Quad chips are massively unrealistic? I can't really see Apple weathering the furore of new Macbook Pro owners asking why they're 'Pro' product has a lesser chip than the consumer-level desktop.Swing and a miss.

http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=7049275&postcount=188

http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=7049300&postcount=189

[MasterNile]

Anybody else think that Core 2 Quad chips are massively unrealistic? I can't really see Apple weathering the furore of new Macbook Pro owners asking why they're 'Pro' product has a lesser chip than the consumer-level desktop.

But...the MBP already has a lesser chip than the top of the line 9 month old iMac, the only thing the top of the line MBP beats the iMac in is max RAM and maybe graphics (? I'm not familiar with GPUs so I don't know)

[woodgear]

I for one am ready to drink the Mac Kool-Aid. I am not so concerend for the price of the $1100, Mac OS gets you features you can not get with the PC like iLife etc. I would rather spend the same $1100 for a better tower than to spend the $1100 for the iMac. It gives me better choices for memory, hard drive etc. any thoughts?

[dwl017]

I for one am ready to drink the Mac Kool-Aid. I am not so concerend for the price of the $1100, Mac OS gets you features you can not get with the PC like iLife etc. I would rather spend the same $1100 for a better tower than to spend the $1100 for the iMac. It gives me better choices for memory, hard drive etc. any thoughts?


There will be no new tower!

It will never happen despite all the millions of rumors across the net. Apple has been there and done that with the Power Mac G4/G5 line. History will never repeat it self! Its not going to happen no matter how many people try to dream it onto the shelf! They have had almost two years to update the Mini and have not done so. While Steve is alive you can forget it!

Buy the Mac Pro or give it up!

[Theophany]

Swing and a miss.

http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=7049275&postcount=188

http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=7049300&postcount=189

Oops, maybe I should put the crackpipe down for a few hours :p

[RebootD]

There will be no new tower!

It will never happen despite all the millions of rumors across the net. Apple has been there and done that with the Power Mac G4/G5 line. History will never repeat it self! Its not going to happen no matter how many people try to dream it onto the shelf! They have had almost two years to update the Mini and have not done so. While Steve is alive you can forget it!

Buy the Mac Pro or give it up!

I think I will keep hoping for another model in the lineup personally. The iMac is losing its luster, the mini is all but dead and the Mac Pro is an expensive niche' beast of a machine.

[SACD02]

I for one am ready to drink the Mac Kool-Aid. I am not so concerend for the price of the $1100, Mac OS gets you features you can not get with the PC like iLife etc. I would rather spend the same $1100 for a better tower than to spend the $1100 for the iMac. It gives me better choices for memory, hard drive etc. any thoughts?

You have 2 choices:

1) Let Apple make the decision for you in terms of what you need as a customer. You buy the iMac and you are happy with it. Apple thinks C2D is enough for you. Screw all the quad core computers out there with the lesser price and more features. C2D is the king

2) Apple thinks if iMac is not enough, then get a Mac Pro. It's 2 cores or 8 cores. It's about $2700 (base model), uses the expensive FB-DDR2 RAM (which are ECC but they are notorious for their latency), uses the ancient FSB system and it also loses to the i7 systems in benchmarks (including X264 encoding) with 1/3 of the price of Mac Pro. The additional $2000 buys you OSX, better looking case and ECC memory. If these three features cancel out better performance, DDR3 memory, on chip memory controller and more upgrade options, then Mac Pro is an excellent option for you

[Prom1]

So will this refresh of the upcoming iMac have the following?

* DDR3-SDRAM memory?
All the notebooks and Pro machines have them now.
* TouchScreen?
Not likely, but it WOULD be extremely prudent (Win7 has it natively supported), and the smart way to go. It would give Mac something to finally universally use Inkwell for and something to kill off the now appealing HP TouchSmart IQ series all in one's; something I've been eyeing due to the comparable price but performance is sub-par vs the iMac.

One feature that I'm sure many long time MacIntosh users loved was the long missing TV tuner with coaxial input that used to be in the US MacIntosh "SE" series. Why can the iMac not have this? Bump the screens up to 30", bump the cpu's to the new C2D desktop units, and finally use DDR3 memory?

[SACD02]

So will this refresh of the upcoming iMac have the following?

* DDR3-SDRAM memory?
All the notebooks and Pro machines have them now.
* TouchScreen?
Not likely, but it WOULD be extremely prudent (Win7 has it natively supported), and the smart way to go. It would give Mac something to finally universally use Inkwell for and something to kill off the now appealing HP TouchSmart IQ series all in one's; something I've been eyeing due to the comparable price but performance is sub-par vs the iMac.

One feature that I'm sure many long time MacIntosh users loved was the long missing TV tuner with coaxial input that used to be in the US MacIntosh "SE" series. Why can the iMac not have this? Bump the screens up to 30", bump the cpu's to the new C2D desktop units, and finally use DDR3 memory?

DDR3 is possible but it doesn't offer any significant benefit to C2D/C2Q processors because the FSB is already saturated with DDR2. DDR3 is important in case of using a chip like Geforce 9400 which uses shared memory. DDR3 shines when it is paired up with i7 (which operates at triple channel bandwidth)

It's quiet plausible to think iMac will use DDR3. If they use the mobile chips and incorporate Geforce 9400, then DDR3 is a given. It also helps to streamline their product line and their accessories

[SactoGuy18]

That makes no sense. The economic crisis has hit a lot of people hard that's for sure, but that doesn't suddenly mean everyone now cannot spend over $1000 on a computer. I'm guessing that iMac demand has dropped a little recently, but not because of lack of people out there with money, but the fact that it's gone a while without an update. Killing the iMac would be equivalent to Sony killing the BRAVIA or Samsung killing their phones, or McDonald's killing the Big Mac :p, or whatever, it doesn't make sense.

However, when a 24" iMac costs over US$2,000--and that's not with a large amount of memory or larger hard disk! You can get a Dell or HP desktop with a 1 TB hard disk and 8 GB of RAM for just over US$1,000, and you can get a good 24" LCD widescreen monitor for around US$360. That's still way under the cost of a 24" iMac.

[woodgear]

There will be no new tower!

It will never happen despite all the millions of rumors across the net. Apple has been there and done that with the Power Mac G4/G5 line. History will never repeat it self! Its not going to happen no matter how many people try to dream it onto the shelf! They have had almost two years to update the Mini and have not done so. While Steve is alive you can forget it!

Buy the Mac Pro or give it up!

I know that there are a lot of rumors and even some mock-up pictures of such a item. If you look at the sales of Apple and the increase of MacBook model sales compared iMac and the MacPro you will see the sales decrease. Some people beleive that this is a due to a lack of update. I some what disagree in that it is because of the lack of flexibility/cost ratio. With the home consumer being more interested in the internet and the use of picures/movies/facebook etc. it is important to have large hard drives/back-up and memory options. I know that this is what I am looking for and what most of my colegues are looking for. I am just having a hard time to swallow the $2100 for the MacPro. Either make the iMac more flexible, make the Mini into a TurboMini or make a MacPro-lite to bridge the gap and I guarantee that you will get many more PC conversions to Mac

[dwl017]

I know that there are a lot of rumors and even some mock-up pictures of such a item. If you look at the sales of Apple and the increase of MacBook model sales compared iMac and the MacPro you will see the sales decrease. Some people beleive that this is a due to a lack of update. I some what disagree in that it is because of the lack of flexibility/cost ratio. With the home consumer being more interested in the internet and the use of picures/movies/facebook etc. it is important to have large hard drives/back-up and memory options. I know that this is what I am looking for and what most of my colegues are looking for. I am just having a hard time to swallow the $2100 for the MacPro. Either make the iMac more flexible, make the Mini into a TurboMini or make a MacPro-lite to bridge the gap and I guarantee that you will get many more PC conversions to Mac

You can dream it, wish it and guarantee it all you want it aint going to happen! don't you know that the first requirement of being an Apple fan is not to think on your own! Apple will tell you what you need when you need it and how much to pay for it.

You must always obey your lord Steve Jobs and never question his authority to give you what you need. You will buy what ever the next product is they put out and love it!

I have a great idea when ever Lord Jobs is well enough to give a public speech someone in the audience should stand up and start throwing Mac Mini's at him how hilarious would that be :D

[Yamcha]

Meh, I have decided finally, if the new iMacs don't come by March and if there aren't any significant updates, then I will go ahead and build myself a i7 Quad Core system :]

[dwl017]

Meh, I have decided finally, if the new iMacs don't come by March and if there aren't any significant updates, then I will go ahead and build myself a i7 Quad Core system :]

Smart man!

[SACD02]

Meh, I have decided finally, if the new iMacs don't come by March and if there aren't any significant updates, then I will go ahead and build myself a i7 Quad Core system :]

Another thing to remember is the implementation of Hyper Threading in i7. While HT existed in P4s, it was mostly a gimmick rather than a performance boost because of P4's inefficient architecture. The memory subsystem wasn't fast enough to supply the processor with enough information. It resulted in HT being a non-factor in many applications. Only those few apps who were designed for P4 with HT in mind could take advantage of that functionality. Even in those few apps, Athlon 64 could still beat P4s

HT in i7 however is actually a great feature. Not only the memory subsystem is vastly improved and efficient, the architecture greatly enhances the use of HT. There are lots of benchmarks (including real world situations) where HT gives a nice boost in performance

[lanceh5]

For me a 20 inch quad core iMac with OS10.6 would be perfect. The G5 iMac is barley adequate in audio internet streaming and handling large numbers of photos. I anticipate OS10.6 will help solve these problems with a quad core iMac.

[chadley_chad]

Listen,

Whilst I appreciate no manufacturer wants to curtail sales by saying ‘hey, we’re bringing out new models in xweeks’, I think that of all manufacturers, Apple should have some responsibility/business sense to keep its installed ‘fan base’ informed – at least to a point? I choose to use the word fan base rather than customer as, let’s face it, (imo) no other manufacturer has such a following for its products.

I also feel that in the current economic climate, those who are in the market for a new computer will more than likely choose to go the PC route; because however lovely iMacs are, it can’t be argued that they represent excellent value for money against what’s available today (how can they be when we haven’t seen a refresh or price drop for xmonths!) Therefore, it’s my opinion that the majority of people who are going to stump up large amounts of cash for an old spec iMac are, in the main, existing Apple buyers; and as such, the majority of these are well versed in how ‘Apple work’ (i.e. no one is going to buy anything until we see the next update that we’re all waiting for). Hence we return to my original statement that, based on this assumption, Apple should at least give some indication (even if it is just via weblog sites like MacRumours) of when new products will be available - even if it is only a statement saying ‘Updated models will be available from March 09, buy accordingly’.

Of course this will never happen but at the best, its gonna cost Apple some sales (and lost fans!) I say this as I sold my white iMac in December in anticipation of new models that never arrived (and how shocked were we that nothing came!); and I’m afraid to say even I’m starting to look at alternative PC based machines - not just because they’re so much cheaper and I’m fed up of waiting, but a lot based on the principle that if Apple cant even be a****d to offer updated machines after how long (?), I’ll give my business to someone that doesn’t rest on their (wilting) laurels.

To add my two pence worth to the debate, I cannot see how Apple could (sensibly!) choose to go with anything other than quad core machines. Despite the various mass debated benefits of dual core over quad, public perception has to be taken into account and not having a quad core option in today’s market seems crazy when all other manufacturers are (or soon will) be doing so … and where else can they go from 3GHz duals other than down!
Forget slim cases, I don’t give two hoots if my iMac is 1 inch thicker if it means using the latest technology. If I wanted size over substance I’d buy a laptop!

I’m sad really as Apple used to be innovators; yet today we have a company that yes, supplies lovely products, but is certainly not innovative. What do I call innovation? Well, if Apple wants to re-establish themselves as the cool market leaders they used to be, not the mass market disorganised company they seem to be today (I say that as they cant even supply a PC with matching mouse, keyboard or remote, or look at their ageing Mac Mini range and honestly say ‘Value for money’!), they need to bring out (IMO) the following spec’d machine (please excuse my lack of exactness on specs but you get the point):

28” LCD with no chin (like the new 24” display)
(Non glare option would be great!)
Quad Core 2.8Ghz min
1333 FSB
4GB RAM expandable to 8 min
750GB HDD
512MB Graphics (a good desktop card, not bodge job laptop chip!)
Blue Ray option (not even cutting edge anymore!)
TV Tuner
Matching accessories!

I think with the above type specs people will once again view the iMac as cutting edge (not just a looker!) and, along with the usual software/virus argument, justify its higher price (because the exclusivity that used to account for some of the cost disappeared a long time ago!) I’ve got my money waiting now and although I could buy a similar spec’d PC for half the price, I’d happily pay more for the exclusivity/design. For the above spec I’d pay $2,000.

Let’s just hope the delays are down to Snow Leopard; because at this rate, by the time we get a new machine, others will be using newer CPU’s! So, Apple, look at your appalling range, your competitor offerings, what people want, the current climate and give us either good value, cutting edge at a cost … or just something!!!

[diamond.g]

28” LCD with no chin (like the new 24” display)
(Non glare option would be great!)
Quad Core 2.8Ghz min
1333 FSB
4GB RAM expandable to 8 min
750GB HDD
512MB Graphics (a good desktop card, not bodge job laptop chip!)
Blue Ray option (not even cutting edge anymore!)
TV Tuner
Matching accessories!

I think with the above type specs people will once again view the iMac as cutting edge (not just a looker!) and, along with the usual software/virus argument, justify its higher price (because the exclusivity that used to account for some of the cost disappeared a long time ago!) I’ve got my money waiting now and although I could buy a similar spec’d PC for half the price, I’d happily pay more for the exclusivity/design. For the above spec I’d pay $2,000.

For that spec Apple would want you to pay at least 3k....

[Shivetya]

Not so ridiculous if you buy a $2000 Mac to have it superceded every time Intel launches a speedbumped chip. That would royally piss me off and is part of the reason I stopped using PCs.

The nice thing about PC's is that for the most part I can use the new chip in my machine without issue.

That and the fact that I would have spent less than $1000 for the machine ... so having it superseded each time Intel launches a speed bumped chip would not hurt as much

[Shivetya]

Meh, I have decided finally, if the new iMacs don't come by March and if there aren't any significant updates, then I will go ahead and build myself a i7 Quad Core system :]

I've already decided to never buy an iMac again. I have my initial one simply because I got it on e-bay from someone who had to always have the current model. Still when comparing Apples to .... it is clear that I am just pissing away money on a fancy case. I have an equivalent 24" on my upstairs PC.

After sitting down and looking at their offerings all I see is a fancy case penalty. Hell people beat on Alienware for crap like that, why not beat on Apple.

So I figure its off to hackintosh land come March if the only option is another iMac. Apple is keeping their market small because of greed

[bengal85]

GO quad core

[Theophany]

The nice thing about PC's is that for the most part I can use the new chip in my machine without issue.

That and the fact that I would have spent less than $1000 for the machine ... so having it superseded each time Intel launches a speed bumped chip would not hurt as much

Uh-huh, but new chip, new chipset and new graphics quickly adds up. Just updating one part of the PC creates bottlenecks, it's not as simple as so many people seem to think. It's electronics, not Lego. ;)

[iMacmatician]

Well, if Apple wants to re-establish themselves as the cool market leaders they used to be, … they need to bring out (IMO) the following spec’d machine (please excuse my lack of exactness on specs but you get the point):
…
Quad Core 2.8Ghz min
1333 FSBQuad-core 2.83 GHz max. Unfortunately that's due to the iMac's thermal limitations and a probable maximum CPU TDP of 65 W. Those limitations might also mean that the 20" is limited to dual-core or a mobile quad-core (if so will likely be 2.0 GHz). Intel might, though, give Apple a "special" 3.0 GHz 65 W quad-core for a premium price.

4GB RAM expandable to 8 min
750GB HDD Probable on the high-end…
512MB Graphics (a good desktop card, not bodge job laptop chip!)The white 24" iMac in 2006 had desktop GPUs (low-end and midrange though). But they were faster than the midrange mobile GPUs in the other iMacs. We may see something like that this time too. The VRAM is likely to be 256 MB on the low-end and 512 MB on the higher-end.

For the above spec I’d pay $2,000.You'll likely pay a few hundred dollars more, but then again the 65 W quads are much cheaper than the high-end mobile CPUs.

[AidenShaw]

Meh, I have decided finally, if the new iMacs don't come by March and if there aren't any significant updates, then I will go ahead and build myself a i7 Quad Core system :]

From the Mac Pro thread...

Haha. They are making progress in the Hackintosh community with the Studio XPS.

http://www.insanelymac.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=151117&mode=threaded

OS X can now see all 8 (4 real, 4 virtual) cores.

You'd be hard-pressed to build a system to match the Dell Core i7 Studio XPS - $899 for a complete system with warranty.

...and it looks like it will soon be Hackintosh™ Certified® ;)

[Eric S.]

Whilst I appreciate no manufacturer wants to curtail sales by saying ‘hey, we’re bringing out new models in xweeks’, I think that of all manufacturers, Apple should have some responsibility/business sense to keep its installed ‘fan base’ informed – at least to a point?

I agree with you. I don't know how much it's hurting sales yet, but my feeling is that Apple fans are losing enthusiasm simply because Apple is not offering more information on its future roadmap.

[sa gringo]

I don't understand why Dell can have a product out that is very similar to the imac and has the quad core already but mac can not ?

[Theophany]

I don't understand why Dell can have a product out that is very similar to the imac and has the quad core already but mac can not ?

Any number of reasons. I'd still rather have the iMac though and maybe that's part of the problem. I imagine there is a smaller number of people switching back to PCs after owning Macs than vice versa. Apple likely exploits that.

[Shivetya]

Uh-huh, but new chip, new chipset and new graphics quickly adds up. Just updating one part of the PC creates bottlenecks, it's not as simple as so many people seem to think. It's electronics, not Lego. ;)

That isn't true and you know it.

The first thing is, I can keep up with video card changes instead of having to upgrade the whole machine to keep pace. I can replace my monitor to the latest and greatest without buying a new machine. DAMHIK but I can still use it when the screen goes dark.

The current pc bottlenecks have been the same for many years... and only until last year did Intel acknowledge what AMD did by integrating the memory controller with the chip.

As for the costs adding up, I think I can update twice before I run into the same original cost of going the other way.

[BenRoethig]

I don't understand why Dell can have a product out that is very similar to the imac and has the quad core already but mac can not ?

A couple reasons. First, they're using desktop CPUs. The iMac used mobile CPUs and and now uses a custom in between CPU.

Second, the speakers are side mounted. I would assume that would allow for better top to bottom airflow.

Third, they don't have Ive. The XPS one is a lot like the original iMac G5 where the case is designed to be rear accessible for servicing and upgrade and have a more consistent thickness. The iMac has progressively gotten thinner, especially around the edges, for aesthetic and PR reasons to the point where it has effectively become a sealed system.

Fourth, they're trading off graphics power for CPU power. Dell's designs use integrated graphics in the 20" model and mid-range mobile graphics in the 24" model. Apple uses Low end and mid-range mobile graphics in the 20" and mid-range and higher end graphics in the 24". I'll clear this up now, Apple uses mobile graphics chips in the iMac, but uses the branding of a desktop chip that would give similar performance. The 2600Pro is actually a mobility 2600XT and the 8800GS is actually an 8800M GTS.

[sa gringo]

A couple reasons. First, they're using desktop CPUs. The iMac used mobile CPUs and and now uses a custom in between CPU.

Second, the speakers are side mounted. I would assume that would allow for better top to bottom airflow.

Third, they don't have Ive. The XPS one is a lot like the original iMac G5 where the case is designed to be rear accessible for servicing and upgrade and have a more consistent thickness. The iMac has progressively gotten thinner, especially around the edges, for aesthetic and PR reasons to the point where it has effectively become a sealed system.

Fourth, they're trading off graphics power for CPU power. Dell's designs use integrated graphics in the 20" model and mid-range mobile graphics in the 24" model. Apple uses Low end and mid-range mobile graphics in the 20" and mid-range and higher end graphics in the 24". I'll clear this up now, Apple uses mobile graphics chips in the iMac, but uses the branding of a desktop chip that would give similar performance. The 2600Pro is actually a mobility 2600XT and the 8800GS is actually an 8800M GTS.

Thank you that is the type of info I was looking for...so I continue to wait...

[dwl017]

I don't understand why Dell can have a product out that is very similar to the imac and has the quad core already but mac can not ?

Because Apple designs everything around teenage girls who want the computer to match the design of the dorm room etc. Take away the shinny aluminum casing and all the parts inside are still made by the same little Asian children who make all computer components.