Quadcore iMacs [Archive] - MacRumors Forums

Tallest Skil

Mar 29, 2009, 06:29 PM

lol he doesnt...its all speculative:cool:

Based on what we've been told by the companies in question. I don't make predictions if no data exists. I'll look for what people are doing, have planned for the future, or have said will happen in the future, and predict from that.

Usually right. :p

stownsend3

Mar 29, 2009, 06:35 PM

Based on what we've been told by the companies in question. I don't make predictions if no data exists. I'll look for what people are doing, have planned for the future, or have said will happen in the future, and predict from that.

Usually right. :p

I'm going to have to agree with Tallest on this one. Pretty much close to spot on. And it is easier to look at hardware providers and see what their future products / announcement dates are.

Tallest Skil

Mar 29, 2009, 06:44 PM

If you need it now, buy it now. If you don't, wait.

If you have work to do, buy it and NEVER look back.

FlintAlt2

Mar 29, 2009, 06:45 PM

I'd wait just to get OS X Snow Leopard pre installed on the iMacs to save some money for other things.

Hopefully by fall it the new OS will be out.

dukebound85

Mar 29, 2009, 06:45 PM

the op says he needs it for school in fall 09..

Hellhammer

Mar 30, 2009, 05:18 AM

I'd wait just to get OS X Snow Leopard pre installed on the iMacs to save some money for other things.

Hopefully by fall it the new OS will be out.

It'll take time to get Mac with pre-installed SL. Maybe something like they did with iLife '09, pay little more and you'll get it.

Q4 2009 is my guess. Apple wants 'em for christmas sales.

wesleyh

Mar 30, 2009, 06:56 AM

Why does everyone say arrandale and not clarksfield?

Arrandale is only 2 cores, I doubt they would use that for the imac.

So in conclusion, I think new imacs = sept-oct of this year.

Ambrose Chapel

Mar 30, 2009, 07:11 AM

Why does everyone say arrandale and not clarksfield?

Arrandale is only 2 cores, I doubt they would use that for the imac.

So in conclusion, I think new imacs = sept-oct of this year.

This is my hope as well, but given that the Mac desktops are only seeing annual (at best) updates, I've pretty much resigned myself to waiting until 2010 for the next rev. I'll be thrilled if I can buy a Clarksfield iMac this year!

spcdust

Mar 30, 2009, 07:14 AM

Why does everyone say arrandale and not clarksfield?

Arrandale is only 2 cores, I doubt they would use that for the imac.

So in conclusion, I think new imacs = sept-oct of this year.

I too was wondering this as I thought the Clarksfield chip would find it's way (hopefully) into the next iMac revision. I too was speculatively hoping for a iMac revison around September - November 2009.

I'm sure Tallest Skil will fill us in on this as I assumed the Clarksfield was superior to the Arrandale and ideally suited to the iMac.

Tallest Skil

Mar 30, 2009, 07:16 AM

Why does everyone say arrandale and not clarksfield?

Arrandale is only 2 cores, I doubt they would use that for the imac.

So in conclusion, I think new imacs = sept-oct of this year.

The power draw is too high. They'd have to reengineer the cooling (and therefore the case) to get them to work. The quad-core Penryns pull the same wattage as Clarksfield, and we haven't used them.

spcdust

Mar 30, 2009, 07:28 AM

The power draw is too high. They'd have to reengineer the cooling (and therefore the case) to get them to work. The quad-core Penryns pull the same wattage as Clarksfield, and we haven't used them.

I thought the Clarksfield drew 45/55W TDP (accordding to Wikipedia). Also surely this would be the maximum heat with the chip running at full tilt. Surely the iMac, with some minor heat venting changes, could handle this? What is the TDP of the current Core 2 Duo chips in the current iMacs?

Tallest Skil

Mar 30, 2009, 07:30 AM

I thought the Clarksfield drew 45/55W TDP (accordding to Wikipedia). Also surely this would be the maximum heat with the chip running at full tilt. Surely the iMac, with some minor heat venting changes, could handle this? What is the TDP of the current Core 2 Duo chips in the current iMacs?

I believe the ones they're using are only 35W.

spcdust

Mar 30, 2009, 07:41 AM

I believe the ones they're using are only 35W.

Well, my fingers are crossed that Apple do a little work on cooling to allow them to install the Clarksfield. Also, by using the Clarksfield would they be able to loose other heat generating components (GPU?) that would reduce the overall heat output of the iMac?

Ambrose Chapel

Mar 30, 2009, 07:42 AM

The power draw is too high. They'd have to reengineer the cooling (and therefore the case) to get them to work. The quad-core Penryns pull the same wattage as Clarksfield, and we haven't used them.

A redesign is certainly possible...the current iMac is already on its third revision, plus three revisions of the iMac G5, which was essentially the same design. I guess it depends on whether Apple thinks that quad-core is suited for a consumer Mac (though since the Intel transition they've been talking up the 24" iMac as a pro machine, or at least that pro customers love it, etc). Does anyone know what the expected clock speeds of quad-Clarksfield or dual-Arrandale are expected to be? Maybe Apple is wary of putting in a lower-clocked chip into a Mac where its intended users will benefit more from speed than cores.

Bye Bye Baby

Mar 30, 2009, 07:49 AM

Wouldn't it be better to wait for Nahelem to go mobile?

Tallest Skil

Mar 30, 2009, 07:50 AM

A redesign is certainly possible...

It would have to look exactly the same on the outside; Apple wants consistency with the look of their line and they JUST migrated the laptops to be so.

Does anyone know what the expected clock speeds of quad-Clarksfield or dual-Arrandale are expected to be...

I don't believe they've been announced yet, particularly Arrandale, as it's a Westmere variant.

Wouldn't it be better to wait for Nahelem to go mobile?

That's what we're talking about...

Clarskfield is the mobile Nehalem, Arrandale is the mobile Westmere.

wesleyh

Mar 30, 2009, 08:00 AM

Clarksfield are mobile chips... So I assume for use in laptops? Why else would they make them? So to say that the imac couldn't handle it is laughable.

Tallest Skil

Mar 30, 2009, 08:03 AM

Clarksfield are mobile chips... So I assume for use in laptops? Why else would they make them? So to say that the imac couldn't handle it is laughable.

The power draw is higher than Penryn. It is very possible that the iMac cannot handle them.

spcdust

Mar 30, 2009, 08:17 AM

The power draw is higher than Penryn. It is very possible that the iMac cannot handle them.

Which kind of suggests that Apple have backed themselves into a corner design wise if their consumer desk top range cannot even handle a modern mobile chip. This is why I think we could see Apple do some heat venting work in the next revision whilst still maintaining current design form.

Ambrose Chapel

Mar 30, 2009, 08:30 AM

Which kind of suggests that Apple have backed themselves into a corner design wise if their consumer desk top range cannot even handle a modern mobile chip. This is why I think we could see Apple do some heat venting work in the next revision whilst still maintaining current design form.

I hope so. I totally agree about the iMac being designed into a corner...

One thing I don't get is that the G5 used in the iMac surely ran hotter than quad-Penryn or Clarksfield will (right? I don't know the numbers but I can't imagine that's wrong) and the iMac G5 wasn't too much thicker than the current aluminum model. So even if Clarksfield runs a little hotter than Arrandale will, do we know for sure that the current case couldn't handle it? Maybe heat was not the reason the newest iMacs didn't use quad-Penryn; maybe Apple is waiting for Snow Leopard so that they can claim real-world performance increases with quads, particularly if they will have a lower clock speed than duals.

Or maybe I am just grasping at straws so that I can have my iMac Clarksfield :D

spcdust

Mar 30, 2009, 08:40 AM

Or maybe I am just grasping at straws so that I can have my iMac Clarksfield :D

I'll join you on that straw grasping:D:D

iMacmatician

Mar 30, 2009, 11:09 AM

Hello

I'm just wondering when quadcore iMacs are said to be released. I'm starting school in the fall and I'm not sure if I should buy a core2 model now, or wait it out. Any news when the new models might come out?

Thanks2011. Mid-2010 at the earliest.

Arrandale, Q1 2010.Dual-core.

The power draw is higher than Penryn. It is very possible that the iMac cannot handle them.Except that Clarksfield is 45/55 W (35/45 W in Penryn terms) and the 3.07 GHz Penryn used in the 2008 iMac is 55 W. So I don't see any technical reason why the iMacs can't handle some sort of quad-core, now or next year.

I think Apple is purposely holding back on quad-core for some reason, since quads have been available since last year.

11800506

Mar 30, 2009, 11:49 AM

I think Apple is purposely holding back on quad-core for some reason, since quads have been available since last year.

It's likely a result of the low clock speeds that Quad-core machines currently have. The current Penryn quad cores have speeds of only 2.26 GHz and 2.53 Ghz and I think Apple, from a marketing perspective, fears that people would only compare speeds clock to clock and not take into account the full benefits of quad core processors. Hopefully the Clarksfield chips will have higher clock speeds to allow for a better comparison clock to clock with dual core chips.

txnoob

Mar 30, 2009, 12:18 PM

Based on what we've been told by the companies in question. I don't make predictions if no data exists. I'll look for what people are doing, have planned for the future, or have said will happen in the future, and predict from that.

Usually right. :p

This is anticipated availability in the iMac correct? But most likely won't be across the board. Will probably only be in the high end first. I'll probably only be able to afford the C2 Quad when it's standard in the base model! LOL:D And by then Intel will have some 6 or 8 core chip.

wetrix

Mar 30, 2009, 03:02 PM

Speculation aside, just buy an iMac when you need it with your education discount, then buy SL when it's available. Just before the quad iMacs are tipped to come out next year, you'll be able to sell your Snow Leopard iMac for heaps as it will still have its warranty and you paid less for it to start with.

In my experience macs don't devalue anywhere near as fast as they should.

txnoob

Mar 30, 2009, 03:18 PM

In my experience macs don't devalue anywhere near as fast as they should.

I'll agree with you there. Look at this:

http://houston.craigslist.org/sys/1090553168.html

Guy is asking $1500 for a G4 450Mhz, 1.5 G of RAM, original 30GB and a 175GB hard drive, along with a 21" CRT, Zip drives. Loaded with design software but no disks included.

People are seriously smoking something.

Tallest Skil

Mar 30, 2009, 03:20 PM

Dual-core.

So is there a quad-core mobile Westmere variant, or have they just not announced one yet?

iMacmatician

Mar 30, 2009, 04:10 PM

It's likely a result of the low clock speeds that Quad-core machines currently have. The current Penryn quad cores have speeds of only 2.26 GHz and 2.53 Ghz and I think Apple, from a marketing perspective, fears that people would only compare speeds clock to clock and not take into account the full benefits of quad core processors. Hopefully the Clarksfield chips will have higher clock speeds to allow for a better comparison clock to clock with dual core chips.Precisely. I also believe that the iMac (and other lines) will go straight to all-quad-core, rather than have some periods where there is a mix of dual-core and quad-core.

Clarksfield is 45 nm and Arrandale is 32 nm, so Clarksfield is at a disadvantage there. Also I've heard (back before Havendale/Arrandale were canceled) that Lynnfield was to have 2.xx GHz while Havendale was to have 3 GHz or so. Doesn't favor Clarksfield…

So is there a quad-core mobile Westmere variant, or have they just not announced one yet?Intel roadmaps haven't shown anything yet, although a 32 nm version of Lynnfield/Clarksfield may be released in mid-2010. It's also possible that Lynnfield/Clarksfield will stay 45 nm until Sandy Bridge.

tranceport

Mar 30, 2009, 05:03 PM

performance is all well and good...but....what are these framma jamma new chips gonna cost....and further, will the buyers for imacs want to pay it (ala new ms commercials)

iMacmatician

Mar 30, 2009, 05:28 PM

performance is all well and good...but....what are these framma jamma new chips gonna cost....We can use this (http://pc.watch.impress.co.jp/docs/2008/0922/kaigai_5.pdf) for reference.

Clarksfield (2.xx GHz) is set to replace the three quad-core Penryns (2.0/2.27/2.53 GHz) and Auburndale is set to replace the 25 W dual-core Penryns (I would presume Arrandale will too, now that Auburndale's gone). The prices of Clarksfield/Auburndale seem to be similar to the Penryns they replace, since they are on the same rows.

Interestingly enough, the page isn't sure what, if anything, will replace the (faster and more expensive) 35 W dual-core Penryns.

If there ends up to be no replacement, hopefully that means that Apple is forced to deliver quad-core to the iMac and MacBook Pro lines. But then again Apple could pull a 2009 Mac Pro and put lower-end CPUs in those lines under the headline of "more performance."

and further, will the buyers for imacs want to pay it (ala new ms commercials)They have had BTO CPU options on the high-end iMac before, so it's possible.

tranceport

Mar 31, 2009, 02:46 PM

thank you for the link and info imacmatician. I like yur insight into Apple marketing as well.:)

I pulled the trigger and went with a local store 'old' 2.8mhz/320g/2600 machine today and saved a few (hundred) bucks.

what I should do is take the money I 'saved', put it in the bank for a quadcore down the road. But, in all reality, I'll buy more eelectronic stuff.

Moocher

Mar 31, 2009, 02:59 PM

Maybe you should use some of the money saved for a Livescribe pen. {http://www.amazon.com/Livescribe-2GB-Pulse-Smartpen-APA-00002/dp/B001AAN4PW/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=electronics&qid=1238529148&sr=8-1}

If I was going to school I'd buy one in a minute. As a retired professor I'm tempted to go back to school just to use all the cool tools that weren't available when I was in school: computers, multi-function printers, iPods, iPhones, Livescribes, etc.

Mooch

blackhawk08

Mar 31, 2009, 03:34 PM

this is driving me nuts because i can wait but i would really really like an imac within the next few months. Also would the jump in speed from duo to quad be crazy or just a slight bump?

Tee.Nutter

Mar 31, 2009, 04:15 PM

When/If we get Quad Core iMacs, do you think that they will replace the duo cores or run along side them?

I am about to get my 1st Mac and don't want to get it, for it then to be replaced 6 months down the line :eek:

p.s how do you delete a double post?

iMacmatician

Mar 31, 2009, 04:41 PM

this is driving me nuts because i can wait but i would really really like an imac within the next few months. Also would the jump in speed from duo to quad be crazy or just a slight bump?The clock speed will probably decrease by a few hundred MHz.

When/If we get Quad Core iMacs, do you think that they will replace the duo cores or run along side them?The later quad-core comes the more likely they will replace dual-cores. It's hard for me to speculate beyond that, but I do expect the iMacs to be all quad-core at or before 2011.

p.s how do you delete a double post?Report it using the Report Post button.

awpitchy

Mar 31, 2009, 04:43 PM

You would probably expect to see them around September... maybe :S

Tallest Skil

Mar 31, 2009, 04:44 PM

I am about to get my 1st Mac and don't want to get it, for it then to be replaced 6 months down the line :eek:

Welcome to computers. :confused: This is how the entire industry works. This happens ALWAYS. NOTHING is ever the newest for six months.

Tee.Nutter

Mar 31, 2009, 04:59 PM

hehe thanks Tallest, been using then for the last 15 years. Was a gripe rather than a question because this will be my 1st MAC.

Just a little confused about sticking to the iMac I have just ordered or to wait for a Quad Core iMac, which I honestly thought were going to be announced earlier this month .. have already been waiting since Oct/Nov last year

iMacmatician

Mar 31, 2009, 07:30 PM

a Quad Core iMac, which I honestly thought were going to be announced earlier this monthI think many of us were. But all we got was a regular speed bump to half the iMac line.

IrishBritish

Mar 31, 2009, 08:40 PM

I'm quite happy with the performance and stability of the 3.06ghz duo core and think it is more than ample for most uses.
So for me the quad core is moreover overkill.

jmpage2

Mar 31, 2009, 11:52 PM

I'm quite happy with the performance and stability of the 3.06ghz duo core and think it is more than ample for most uses.
So for me the quad core is moreover overkill.

overall clock speed will probably continue to rule the roost until this time next year when Apple can make good on the quad core promises that SL will offer.

Grand Central should, theoretically make it so that many applications will run much faster on a lower clocked quad core cpu than a higher clocked dual core cpu, but it's going to take a while for all of that to fall into place.

Far better to get a dual core machine now, and upgrade it in a year or so if you really feel the need as the quad core machines should be pretty standard across the Apple lineup by then.

Tee.Nutter

Apr 1, 2009, 08:08 AM

Ambrose Chapel

Apr 1, 2009, 09:04 AM

How far in advance does Intel announce concrete details about its new processors? If Clarksfield is still on track for 2H of this year, when will Intel tell us the clockspeeds and other technical info?

I went back and looked through that Intel PPT presentation from February when the accelerated 32nm roadmap got announced, and it has a fair amount of info, though not the nitty-gritty details. As an Apple-watcher I'm unaccustomed to such an open roadmap :p

jmpage2

Apr 1, 2009, 09:13 AM

I'm gonna be using my machine for video/photo editing with photoshop etc ... Going to get Adobe CS5 when it comes out too.

Will the 3.06 processor be enough, or will the quad core work out better for me?

CS5 will probably use as many cores as you can throw at it. Also, Photoshop is notorious for using vast amounts of RAM.

Depending on how complex your work is you might be better served saving up some more dinero and getting yourself an octo core Mac Pro.

iMacmatician

Apr 1, 2009, 10:18 AM

Ambrose Chapel

Apr 1, 2009, 10:46 AM

I think clock speeds and other info are known (either from Intel or from leaks) a few months before release.

Thanks. Maybe when that info is announced there will also be a tidbit about a major OEM hoarding them for use in its flagship consumer desktop ;)

One other question - is the performance increase from Penryn to mobile Nehalem (and I guess now Westmere) expected to be as impressive as Core i7 over Penryn? Or do people just not know anything concrete at this point?

iMacmatician

Apr 1, 2009, 01:41 PM

One other question - is the performance increase from Penryn to mobile Nehalem (and I guess now Westmere) expected to be as impressive as Core i7 over Penryn? Or do people just not know anything concrete at this point?Mobile Nehalem will lack the 3-channel RAM and QuickPath support of Core i7 and Gainestown. But, since Arrandale will go straight to 32 nm (rather than 45 nm), that'll help its performance.

mastershakess

Apr 1, 2009, 02:42 PM

iMacmatician

Apr 1, 2009, 02:44 PM

Probably be released years after the rest of the computer industry . . . .Unfortunately even if the last update had quad-cores this statement would still be true.

blackhawk08

Apr 1, 2009, 04:02 PM

I am going to be using my mac for audio programs. I will be using pro tools most of the time, should i wait for the quads in the imac or would it be fine to get one now?

mastershakess

Apr 1, 2009, 04:07 PM

I am going to be using my mac for audio programs. I will be using pro tools most of the time, should i wait for the quads in the imac or would it be fine to get one now?

you maybe waiting forever, whos to say the iMac ever gets quads

Ambrose Chapel

Apr 2, 2009, 08:37 AM

Mobile Nehalem will lack the 3-channel RAM and QuickPath support of Core i7 and Gainestown. But, since Arrandale will go straight to 32 nm (rather than 45 nm), that'll help its performance.

Thanks for the info. I guess now the only thing left to do is wait and see what Apple decides to do. Though if Clarksfield arrives and there's no iMac refresh, it'll be a pretty safe bet that we'll be waiting for Arrandale. Hopefully I can tolerate my G5 until then...and hopefully it'll last!

Tallest Skil

Apr 2, 2009, 08:45 AM

you maybe waiting forever, whos to say the iMac ever gets quads

The fact that Intel will stop producing dual-core processors in the next few years.

iMacmatician

Apr 2, 2009, 09:17 AM

The fact that Intel will stop producing dual-core processors in the next few years.Would that be for the regular (25-35 W) mobile segment or across all segments?

Because non-high-end versions of Sandy Bridge may have 2-4 cores too.

Hellhammer

Apr 2, 2009, 09:32 AM

The fact that Intel will stop producing dual-core processors in the next few years.

I can't see why they would do that. Of course depends did you mean 2-4 years or 6-9 years with "few years". For people who just uses email and surfs in the web there's no need for quad-core or better. There are still PCs with single core sold in the stores...

spcdust

Apr 2, 2009, 10:44 AM

JeepGuy

Apr 2, 2009, 11:21 AM

2011. Mid-2010 at the earliest.

Dual-core.

Except that Clarksfield is 45/55 W (35/45 W in Penryn terms) and the 3.07 GHz Penryn used in the 2008 iMac is 55 W. So I don't see any technical reason why the iMacs can't handle some sort of quad-core, now or next year.

I think Apple is purposely holding back on quad-core for some reason, since quads have been available since last year.

The only reason would be that it would directly compete with the Power Mac Quad Core, it would bring the price pretty close less a monitor.

iMacmatician

Apr 2, 2009, 02:36 PM

Reading this thread, amongst others, it really would be beneficial if someone such as Tallest Skil or iMacmatician could do a definitive guide (possibly as a sticky Mods?) to the differences, definitions and technical specs of the future chips / chip sets. It seems, and I include myself in this, that we all get cross wires on the definitions of Nehalem, Core i7, Clarksfield, Arrandale chips which kind of confuses the matter.

Just a thought?It's the Intel Mobile Road Map (MacRumors Guide) (http://guides.macrumors.com/Intel_Mobile_Road_Map), but the last time it was updated was…well…in August 9 of last year by…me. :o

I'll update it now. EDIT: Updated. Feel free to add more stuff to it since I don't have time to include a lot of details in it. EDIT 2: Created Intel Workstation Road Map (http://guides.macrumors.com/Intel_Workstation_Road_Map) article.

The only reason would be that it would directly compete with the Power Mac Quad Core, it would bring the price pretty close less a monitor.Could be. I wonder if the SP Mac Pro would even exist if half or all the iMacs went quad-core in one form or another.

spcdust

Apr 2, 2009, 02:50 PM

It's the Intel Mobile Road Map (MacRumors Guide) (http://guides.macrumors.com/Intel_Mobile_Road_Map), but the last time it was updated was…well…in August 9 of last year by…me. :o

I'll update it now.

Could be. I wonder if the SP Mac Pro would even exist if half or all the iMacs went quad-core in one form or another.

Many thanks iMacmatician for pointing the article out and for any updates you apply.

mastershakess

Apr 2, 2009, 03:37 PM

The fact that Intel will stop producing dual-core processors in the next few years.

Where did you get this information and how long is a few years? Why make only quad+ when it isn't necessary for most people's computing purposes?

MacAndy74

Apr 2, 2009, 04:52 PM

Thanks Tallest Skil for your informative posts :cool:

I got to admit that at least at the moment, for general usage / everyday computing there is very little advantage that I have been able see in Quad Core processing.

Actually with the advancements in 10.6 it seems, at least imho - that the road forward is offloading processing to video graphic processors and therefore harnessing their power. Quad Core or > may be important for Pro App users and video / renderers but that's really where their usefulness seems to end.

Intel is innovating and moving onto more cores, they have to. They're a business and they must keep proving themselves - whether or not the market really needs... Oct Core processing... :D

iMacmatician

Apr 2, 2009, 05:39 PM

Larrabee. :D

Anonymous Freak

Apr 2, 2009, 05:46 PM

Intel presently offers quad-core processors that are of the same 'family' that the current iMac uses. However, they top out at 2.53 GHz. Apple hasn't been a big fan of releasing more cores at slower speed. And 500 MHz is quite a speed cut.

As for future roadmaps? Sorry, can't talk about those. I know nothing about what Apple is doing; but I can't even speculate on general Intel release schedules. (Of course, as we know from recent experience, it's possible that Apple could get things early (Nehalem-EP in the Mac Pro a month before anyone else,) or they could release them four months after everyone else (the original Quad-core CPU-equipped Mac Pro.))

Macole

Apr 5, 2009, 03:27 AM

Apple hasn't been a big fan of releasing more cores at slower speed. And 500 MHz is quite a speed cut.

they did it with the 2.26ghz Mac Pro.

BlizzardBomb

Apr 5, 2009, 04:00 AM

The power draw is too high...

Except that Clarksfield is 45/55 W (35/45 W in Penryn terms) and the 3.07 GHz Penryn used in the 2008 iMac is 55 W...

Bingo. Actually all the processors in the iMac are 55W TDP.

Technically speaking, the Radeon 4850 they are offering as a BTO option has a TDP of 110W. Now I'm guessing Apple's underclocked that a bit, but that's still going to be a very high (for the iMac) TDP, showing us that the iMac can handle some hot parts. There's nothing obvious stopping Apple from updating in Fall/Autumn and using say a quad-core Penryn processor (65W TDP) with the new 40nm Radeon 4770 (70W TDP).

Intel presently offers quad-core processors that are of the same 'family' that the current iMac uses. However, they top out at 2.53 GHz.

If you're talking about the S series quad-cores, they actually top out at 2.83 GHz with a juicy 12 MB L2 (up from 6 MB) and 1333 MHz FSB (up from 1066 MHz). They just have a 10W TDP increase.

Here's a list of 'em for your reading pleasure.

Q8200S - 2.33 GHz, 2x 2 MB L2 cache, 1333 MHz ($245, may be phased out or dropped to $213)
Q8400S - 2.66 GHz, 2x 2 MB L2 cache, 1333 MHz ($245, about to be released)
Q9400S - 2.66 GHz, 2x 3 MB L2 cache, 1333 MHz ($320, may drop to $277)
Q9550S - 2.83 GHz, 2x 6 MB L2 cache, 1333 MHz ($369, may drop to $320)

Gregintosh

Apr 5, 2009, 07:41 AM

I'll agree with you there. Look at this:

http://houston.craigslist.org/sys/1090553168.html

Guy is asking $1500 for a G4 450Mhz, 1.5 G of RAM, original 30GB and a 175GB hard drive, along with a 21" CRT, Zip drives. Loaded with design software but no disks included.

People are seriously smoking something.

LOL!!!!!!! Someone would have to be seriously dumb to buy this thing. For the same money ($1499) you can get the 24" iMac which would have far better performance and specs.

Just because people try to SELL macs for high prices doesn't mean they are finding buyers for these machines. I know from personal experience that macs do lose value (if you want to find a buyer at least in a reasonable time frame). Don't get the impression that if you buy a $1500 machine now you'll be able to take no more than a $100 hit. It will probably be more like a $400-$500 hit (sure its less than PCs, but its substantial).

Anyway, I think quad cores are coming sooner than later. Probably with SL or soon after so that its more of a splash (steal the spotlight from Windows 7)

Anonymous Freak

Apr 6, 2009, 01:36 PM

they did it with the 2.26ghz Mac Pro.

However they have the fastest speed available as CTO. In this case, they have just lowered the 'entry' point for a system that is likely to be CTO more often than bought stock.

Yes, it has happened, but most often when switching cores. Switching from the current Core 2 Duo 3.06 GHz to the current Core 2 Quad 2.53 GHz will be a 500 MHz drop, but no 'core' improvement in speed. So single and dual-thread apps will be noticeably slower. On the move from the previous Xeon to the Nehalem-EP Xeon, even the 2.26 GHz Nehalem-EP is roughly equal to the previous entry-level 2.66 GHz system. And the new 2.93 GHz Nehalem-EP blows the old 3.2 GHz out of the water by a mile.

For example, Apple seemed hesitant to move from the single-core 2.7 GHz G5 to the 2.5 GHz dual-core G5. And when the dual-capable G4s were out, they didn't *replace* the faster single processor rig with the slower dual processor; they added the dual-processor in. (Dual 500 MHz vs. single 800 MHz, IIRC.)

Cave Man

Apr 6, 2009, 04:52 PM

Anonymous Freak

Apr 7, 2009, 01:09 AM

I really wonder if a quad-core iMac (or Mini, or MB, or MBP) will even be needed if Snow Leopard can really leverage the 9400m's gpu for general computing tasks. After all, it has 16 processing cores - who'd need a puny little quad-core cpu? :)

(And this is why Intel and nVidia are in court - nVidia's kicking their proverbial @$$.)

Except the 9400M isn't for "general computing" tasks. It can do a limited set of tasks well, but others... Not so well. Some scientific computing, video transcoding, and encryption/decryption, yes. As well as, obviously, rendering graphics. I haven't yet seen a public ray-tracer that uses a GPU acceptably well.

On the tasks it does well, it does them *VERY* well. For example, I occasionally run the distributed computing application "distributed.net". A Core i7 overclocked to 3.8 GHz gets about 40 million keys per second. A fully-loaded four-socket, six-cores-per-socket server at work (a $20,000+ server, four Xeon X7460s at 2.66 GHz,) gets me in the neighborhood of 150 million. However, a $600 nVidia GeGorce GTX 295 gets me about 1 billion. So I know where GPGPU works. (GPGPU = General Purpose Graphics Processing Unit)

But there are just some tasks that truly *CANNOT* be performed on a GPU as it stands now.

kasakka

Apr 7, 2009, 01:18 AM

JeepGuy

Apr 8, 2009, 09:59 AM

Not even close to the same thing. GPUs, unlike CPUs, are not general purpose processors so the number of cores is not at all comparable.

For most people quad cores wouldn't give any real performance improvements since most programs can't use all cores properly and also don't need to do so. Thus there is little need for Apple to include them on the iMacs. People who truly need quad core power are the target audience for the Mac Pro.

You're forgetting the game crowd, they would like a quad core, also even if the application can't use all the cores, the OS will distribute applications to other cores, I can see dedicating 2 core to VM Fusion, and have 2 core for OSX tasks.

Ambrose Chapel

Apr 8, 2009, 10:17 AM

For most people quad cores wouldn't give any real performance improvements since most programs can't use all cores properly and also don't need to do so. Thus there is little need for Apple to include them on the iMacs. People who truly need quad core power are the target audience for the Mac Pro.

This is where Grand Central comes in though. Right now it's just vaporware but if it really does optimize multiple cores like Apple says it will, having a quad-core processor in a consumer Mac may be smart.

iMacmatician

Apr 8, 2009, 10:37 AM

If you're talking about the S series quad-cores, they actually top out at 2.83 GHz with a juicy 12 MB L2 (up from 6 MB) and 1333 MHz FSB (up from 1066 MHz). They just have a 10W TDP increase.I think he was talking abut the mobile quad-cores.

I would really like to see the S series quad-cores. Not much drop in GHz compared to mobile dual-cores and twice the cores. If Apple wanted to use these quads while maintaining GHz, they might have asked Intel for a custom 3.0 GHz part.

For most people quad cores wouldn't give any real performance improvements since most programs can't use all cores properly and also don't need to do so. Thus there is little need for Apple to include them on the iMacs. I see your point, but why didn't Apple have even an option for a quad-core?

jmpage2

Apr 8, 2009, 10:44 AM

I see your point, but why didn't Apple have even an option for a quad-core?

I agree. Apple will look foolish without a mainstream quad core option this year, since nearly all Wintel offerings over $500 have quad core chips.

This makes them look especially bad with the launch of SL in the fall that will play up Apple being able to squeeze the most out of Intels new quad core architecture.