Apple iMac 2010 - What would you like to see changed? [Archive] - Page 3

seveej

Apr 2, 2010, 04:43 AM

I guess we're about half way to a new iMac release, so what would you like changed or improved in iMac 2010?

As a first time iMac owner (27" i7) i have a few lousy suggestions, which would really make the machine ergonomically better and easily give it more (but limited) expandability:

1) 1X Easily accessible USB port
- as it's a pain blindly inserting USB dongles in the back, so my 8 weeks old machine already has scuffmarks. Alternatively an external USB HUB does not really fulfill the iMac's Idea of minimizing cables.

2) 1X user serviceable 2,5" Sata expansion slot
- SSD's are clearly the next step in extending performance and the amount of pain people are going through (and voiding their warranties) is absurd.

3) 1 X eSATA port.

4) 1 X easily accessible headphones port.

RGDS,
Pekka

Hellhammer

Apr 2, 2010, 05:07 AM

1) Better quality control and a complete redesign and/or fix of screen/noise issues.

I agree but no redesign

2) External speakers (I loved the little clear globes my 2002 iMac had. I think that was my favorite iMac of the 3 I've owned).

That would break the design of iMac and most people use external speakers anyway because they are a lot better

3) 8GB of Ram standard

Trust me, you don't want this. Apple now charges 200$ extra for additional 2x2GB (8GB total) so the original 2x2GB is also 200$ meaning that you would pay 400$ for RAM in the iMac plus that would cause prices to go up. 400$ is twice as much as it would cost to buy it from 3rd party and install is yourself. I would rather take iMac without RAM and save 200$.

Mac Pros ship with low RAM as standard because people want to add it themselves, not to pay horrible extra for Apple RAM.

1) 1X Easily accessible USB port
- as it's a pain blindly inserting USB dongles in the back, so my 8 weeks old machine already has scuffmarks. Alternatively an external USB HUB does not really fulfill the iMac's Idea of minimizing cables.

The wired KB has two USB ports. I also have 7-port USB hub which has all my USB stuff connected and it goes nicely under my table and clipboard, leaving me 2+2 free USB ports (2 in iMac, 2 in KB).

It would be nice if there were two USB ports in the e.g. left-hand-side for fast access but it would look ugly to have something in there all the time

2) 1X user serviceable 2,5" Sata expansion slot
- SSD's are clearly the next step in extending performance and the amount of pain people are going through (and voiding their warranties) is absurd.

Steve doesn't want consumers to deal with hardware, that's why. If you want to add something, you pay Apple to do it

Just my opinions :p

MadMitch89

Apr 2, 2010, 05:26 AM

Upgraded graphics - ATI 5000 series atleast, please?

Improved quality control on the 27 inch model

eSata and possibly, but doubtful USB 3.0

HDMI in and out

Backlit, wireless keyboard

Hellhammer

Apr 2, 2010, 05:39 AM

Upgraded graphics - ATI 5000 series atleast, please?

ATI Mobile Radeon 5000 series is actually slower than 4000 series

http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=875286

seveej

Apr 2, 2010, 06:54 AM

In response to wishing default RAM being 8 Gigs:
Mac Pros ship with low RAM as standard because people want to add it themselves, not to pay horrible extra for Apple RAM.

SNIP
In response to making it easy to add a 2,5" HD:
Steve doesn't want consumers to deal with hardware, that's why. If you want to add something, you pay Apple to do it

IMHO, those two comments are slightly contradictory. If correctly designed (e.g. Thinkpad T4x, T6x and X4x -series) HD replacement is as easy, if not easier then adding RAM.
Furthermore, I was suggesting a 2,5" expansion bay, not ease of replacing the main HD. Considering that my local service providers will currently not, even if asked and paid for it, install an SSD into a 27" iMac there is IMO a very real need to make this work.

Hellhammer's in my hoods, so I'd assume he's cognizant of the issue.

The wired KB has two USB ports. I also have 7-port USB hub which has all my USB stuff connected and it goes nicely under my table and clipboard, leaving me 2+2 free USB ports (2 in iMac, 2 in KB).

It would be nice if there were two USB ports in the e.g. left-hand-side for fast access but it would look ugly to have something in there all the time

The wired KB, which in my experience:
- does not come in the package, so that you either have to buy it separate or CTO your purchase.
- Does in my empirical experience not supply enough juice for anything trickier than an input device (mouse or barcode scanner). Memory stick? hardly; external HD? never; Memory card reader? dream on.

Come on ppl, Naturally i won't plug in and plug out my printer every 10 minutes, but when I'm working with memory cards, external HD's, memory sticks and the likes (which also are known to hamper successful sleeping) I sure as he** want to plug them in and out almost all the time.

And having bought an iMac at least partially because it looks so damn good, I still feel that hiding one usb port and one speaker port in the left hand side or right hand side (already mired by the DVD slot) would have been a very sensible thing to do.

RGDS,
Pekka

EDIT P.S.A few weeks ago I inquired and the answer I got from my local Apple service is, that they have guidelines from Apple (did not ask whether the guidelines came straight from Cupertino or somewhere in between) which, forbid them to make non-standard modifications, such as installing 2,5" SSD's into my iMac i7 (did not ask whether it was only the new iMac, all machines under warranty or all Mac's). So I started wondering whether these guidelines were local (Finland) or widely encompassing. So I'll ask: has anyone had his iMac fitted with an SSD at an authorized Apple service (or has everyone done it him-/herself)?

kazmac

Apr 2, 2010, 07:40 AM

I agree but no redesign

That would break the design of iMac and most people use external speakers anyway because they are a lot better

Trust me, you don't want this. Apple now charges 200$ extra for additional 2x2GB (8GB total) so the original 2x2GB is also 200$ meaning that you would pay 400$ for RAM in the iMac plus that would cause prices to go up. 400$ is twice as much as it would cost to buy it from 3rd party and install is yourself. I would rather take iMac without RAM and save 200$.

Mac Pros ship with low RAM as standard because people want to add it themselves, not to pay horrible extra for Apple RAM.

The wired KB has two USB ports. I also have 7-port USB hub which has all my USB stuff connected and it goes nicely under my table and clipboard, leaving me 2+2 free USB ports (2 in iMac, 2 in KB).

It would be nice if there were two USB ports in the e.g. left-hand-side for fast access but it would look ugly to have something in there all the time

Steve doesn't want consumers to deal with hardware, that's why. If you want to add something, you pay Apple to do it

Just my opinions :p

And good opinion it is. Thanks HH. I may buy a new Mac tonight if the mood strikes, as the usage of Disk Warrior and now the iMac is hanging on - but I'll see. A part of me wants to wait until Sandy Bridge, being that the old iMac is responsive and not groaning as it was early last month.

It's a shame Steve doesn't want us to tinker, I'd like to know how to change memory and drives.

Okay, the noob is coming out here: I asked for a redesign because the aluminum iMac had ran very, very hot. I don't know if this was part of the issues with the machine, but that concerned me. Completely different from my 2006 model.

Hellhammer

Apr 2, 2010, 09:37 AM

IMHO, those two comments are slightly contradictory. If correctly designed (e.g. Thinkpad T4x, T6x and X4x -series) HD replacement is as easy, if not easier then adding RAM.
Furthermore, I was suggesting a 2,5" expansion bay, not ease of replacing the main HD. Considering that my local service providers will currently not, even if asked and paid for it, install an SSD into a 27" iMac there is IMO a very real need to make this work.

Hellhammer's in my hoods, so I'd assume he's cognizant of the issue.

The wired KB, which in my experience:
- does not come in the package, so that you either have to buy it separate or CTO your purchase.
- Does in my empirical experience not supply enough juice for anything trickier than an input device (mouse or barcode scanner). Memory stick? hardly; external HD? never; Memory card reader? dream on.

Come on ppl, Naturally i won't plug in and plug out my printer every 10 minutes, but when I'm working with memory cards, external HD's, memory sticks and the likes (which also are known to hamper successful sleeping) I sure as he** want to plug them in and out almost all the time.

And having bought an iMac at least partially because it looks so damn good, I still feel that hiding one usb port and one speaker port in the left hand side or right hand side (already mired by the DVD slot) would have been a very sensible thing to do.

RGDS,
Pekka

EDIT P.S.A few weeks ago I inquired and the answer I got from my local Apple service is, that they have guidelines from Apple (did not ask whether the guidelines came straight from Cupertino or somewhere in between) which, forbid them to make non-standard modifications, such as installing 2,5" SSD's into my iMac i7 (did not ask whether it was only the new iMac, all machines under warranty or all Mac's). So I started wondering whether these guidelines were local (Finland) or widely encompassing. So I'll ask: has anyone had his iMac fitted with an SSD at an authorized Apple service (or has everyone done it him-/herself)?

You have a point there and it's a good one. The ugly truth just is that Apple cares more about the look than the actual usability which is shame. I'm not saying that it's impossible because I don't know more than you but seeing the past and what Apple has done, we should be happy to have a user-serviceable RAM because Apple could solder it into the mobo.

I would definitely buy an iMac with free 2.5" SATA slot, desktop GPU, etc. but it just feels that it's not gonna happen. As long as Steve is around, the only upgradeable Mac is Mac Pro and as it's name and price says, it's meant for users who know how to deal with hardware (not that iMac owners don't).

I wish you designed it...

BTW, why don't you replace the HD with SSD yourself? It's not that hard and will void the warranty anyway

Hellhammer

Apr 2, 2010, 09:40 AM

.

Okay, the noob is coming out here: I asked for a redesign because the aluminum iMac had ran very, very hot. I don't know if this was part of the issues with the machine, but that concerned me. Completely different from my 2006 model.

Aluminum = Great conductor
Plastic = Great isolator

That means that aluminum conducts the heat inside to outside while plastic keeps it inside, meaning that aluminum is a lot better for your Mac even if you feel that you could fry eggs on it.

LesQQmorePewPew

Apr 2, 2010, 09:59 AM

quad core clarkdale
6gig ram
ati radio 5770 1 gig
256gig ssd
hdmi in/out
sata 3
usb 3 x 4
blu-ray

mystikjoe

Apr 2, 2010, 10:03 AM

quad core clarkdale
6gig ram
ati radio 5770 1 gig
256gig ssd
hdmi in/out
sata 3
usb 3 x 4
blu-ray

hdmi in would be nice. paying 150 for the kanex adapter is not so nice!

mystikjoe

Apr 2, 2010, 10:04 AM

quad core clarkdale
usb 3 x 4
blu-ray

just installed a usb 3.0 card and sata 6 card in my htpc. boy is it sick that would be a nice feature as well. i download about 50gb of movies a day i know longer have to wait all night for them to copy over to my pc. :)

Caspercdn

Apr 2, 2010, 10:24 AM

I'd like a multi card reader (unlike the MBP version), blueray dvd, and my two front teeth...

seveej

Apr 2, 2010, 11:42 AM

You have a point there and it's a good one.

Why thank you.

As long as Steve is around, the only upgradeable Mac is Mac Pro and as it's name and price says, it's meant for users who know how to deal with hardware (not that iMac owners don't).

And the Mac Pro's meant for users who have a far bigger budget than most... Sadly.
My previous desktop was a G5 PM (2,3DP), which I bought used and loved, but which (surprise) was too sluggish. Buying a new MacPro was simply out of the question. Hence, the iMac i7 was a good price-power compromise. Honestly I would otherwise have been forced to switch back to the Wintel world.

BTW, why don't you replace the HD with SSD yourself? It's not that hard and will void the warranty anyway

You touch a sore point there. When i was at a local retailer I specifically inquired whether the service shop would upgrade the HD to a SSD (I keep all non-active work files on a network disk anyway), and the answer was a definite yes. So i placed my order, waited 5 weeks (which was not bad), got a problem free sample (which was not bad either), then contacted the service and got the bad news, fittingly only hours after i activated my AppleCare. So right now I'm just concentrated on not voiding my warranty.

Hellhammer

Apr 2, 2010, 11:52 AM

You touch a sore point there. When i was at a local retailer I specifically inquired whether the service shop would upgrade the HD to a SSD (I keep all non-active work files on a network disk anyway), and the answer was a definite yes. So i placed my order, waited 5 weeks (which was not bad), got a problem free sample (which was not bad either), then contacted the service and got the bad news, fittingly only hours after i activated my AppleCare. So right now I'm just concentrated on not voiding my warranty.

Aaah, I understand. General opinion still is that it's not voided if nothing is broke during the installation but why to play with fire?

Anyway, enjoy your Easter. Cheers,

miniroll32

Apr 2, 2010, 04:05 PM

Icaras

Apr 3, 2010, 12:44 AM

I think have missed some ultimately easy changes.

They should place the Headphone jack on the right side of the machine, below the SD Card slot. But I know they won't, because as usual, the design comes first - that jack simply has to be next to the Input jack... Shame, but oh well.

Again, hypothetically, I would also love to see the Power Button being placed on the side of the machine, rather than the back, seeing as Apple have decided to make the button flat rather than giving it a concave in the previous generation.

Only other thing I could think of (aesthetically) would be a god damn Sleep Light. I understand its difficult with this aluminium, and that the White iMacs could get away with having an LED shine through it, but even the MacBook Pro's have space for a nice slim light to shine through without compromising their 'special look'.

I mean, it's really not asking much, is it? :(

I woudn't at all want the audio output to be jutting out on the side like that. The last thing you want is some cable sticking out of the side. And I'm not just talking about headphones either. Many people have speaker systems permanently plugged in. You begin to realize that the design makes absolute sense. Physical media slots on the side are the only things that really make sense int he iMac's case because they are more frequently used and dissapear once inserted. The SD card may not be flush with the design, but it's tiny enough that it is hardly distracting.

As for the Power button, my parents have never had to use the button on theirs since they had it in Christmas of last year, and you really shouldn't need to power on and off your machine at all unless you're leaving for an extended trip.

Your third feature sounds like it could be practical enough, but isn't a blacked out screen evidence enough that your Mac is sleeping?

seveej

Apr 3, 2010, 06:55 AM

I woudn't at all want the audio output to be jutting out on the side like that. The last thing you want is some cable sticking out of the side. And I'm not just talking about headphones either. Many people have speaker systems permanently plugged in. You begin to realize that the design makes absolute sense. Physical media slots on the side are the only things that really make sense int he iMac's case because they are more frequently used and dissapear once inserted. The SD card may not be flush with the design, but it's tiny enough that it is hardly distracting.

It wouldn't Be the first machine with two hadphone jacks. Almot every Pc workstation designed in this millenium has had two: one in the front for non-permanent access and one in the back.

Your third feature sounds like it could be practical enough, but isn't a blacked out screen evidence enough that your Mac is sleeping?

Nope. The amount of ambient light the 27" iMac produces lights up the entire room. I suspect I'm not the only one who blacks out his display every time I stand up.

BeamWalker

Apr 3, 2010, 07:39 AM

I would like to see:

- Clarkdale CPUs in the Base Models (i5-650, i5-660)
- ATi 5450 in the Base, ATi 5750 in the other models
- USB & extra Headphone Jack on the side
- SD Slot & Optical Disc Slot further apart
- eSATA Port on all Models
- BLU-Ray Drive & Burner optional (unlikely, but I still want it)
- HD iSight Camera

I don't think that is too much to ask.

What would be really cool (but I doubt something like this will make it into an iMac)

for the 27" Imac: 2,5" SATA Multi-Purpose Slot
for Harddrive, SSD, Adapter to CF, ExpressCard, SD & so on.

seveej

Apr 3, 2010, 01:49 PM

As long as Steve is around, the only upgradeable Mac is Mac Pro and as it's name and price says, it's meant for users who know how to deal with hardware (not that iMac owners don't).

This Forum is called "iMac, eMac, Mac mini - discuss Apple's desktop consumer Macs" and I know I'm slightly peeved by it. I do not consider a machine costing 2000€ (e.g. iMac 27" i7) to be a consumer machine. Anyone ready to shell out that much money either has at least a serious enthusiast/professional usage intent or waaay too much spare cash.

My previous preconceptions, based partially on what i myself have seen was verified by a school (MBA student) training assignment I did in january, targeting about 40 friends and former colleagues in the video/audio/graphics/photo industries. In this quick report I have intentionally omitted mentions of non-Mac hardware.

Now I know these findings should not be overly generalized or held as uniformly valid, but they illustrate an interesting point:

AUDIO (n=9)
The audio industry is clearly divided by the need for accessories and peripherals. If they are needed (and they wont fit a USB or FW port) then the weapon of choice is the Mac Pro (and in many cases still elder G5 PM's). The rest is evenly divided between MBP and iMac users.

VIDEO (n=7)
The Video industry has clearly been the Mac Pro's domain. Very few performance, storage and expandability -hungry professionals have found another valid alternative. What I heard, this might be changing, as many see the price difference between the iMac 27" to be too big an incentive compared with a MP and a 30" ACD (or 2X23"). Naturally as one agency's production manager pointed out, they are waiting to see what the next MP generation brings, but they are prepared to phase out one generation of MP's (1.1) with and replace them with iMac's in all cases when expandability is not an absolute necessity.

GRAPHICS (n=21)
The graphics/DTP industry has since the advent of the 24" iMac totally deserted all other alternatives. Based on my poll the iMac totally rules this field (> 90% in machines less than 3 years old), the exception being those who need mobility, who have gone the MBP 17" way.

PHOTO (n=3)
The sadder note came from the three photographers i questioned. They all hail the new iMac display to be a marked improvement, but state that they can't function without a display at least the quality of the 23" ACD (which they say the iMac's is not... Two of them used Mac Pro's coupled to dual FullHD displays (Apple's and Eizo's), one used a latest generation Mini with coupled with a 30" ACD (This was a surprise).

Based on some (somwehat unreliable) quantitative questions it seems that numerically the iMac now covers about half the professional Mac users in this quick poll, and whereas 27 said they expect to see even more iMac's in the near future. No one voiced the opposite expectation.

So I'd like to state that the iMac is very much an important workhorse in those professional fields, which have traditionally been Apple's stronghold.
The main reason stated for this by many of the interviewed parties is that the price differential between the Pro and the iMac has grown too big, and that the Mac Pro thus is the number one option only in those uses where expandability is paramount.

Naturally this places Apple in a precarious position... Tune up the iMac on the expense of the Pro or tune it down??? As the above mentioned production manager said: "Apple's gotta make the right moves. We spend more on software than hardware every year. We're constantly on the lookout for signals from Apple and will make the switch (to Windows PC's) the moment we do not see Apple moving into the right direction."

Slightly OT, but someone might be interested.

Pekka

Icaras

Apr 3, 2010, 01:58 PM

It wouldn't Be the first machine with two hadphone jacks. Almot every Pc workstation designed in this millenium has had two: one in the front for non-permanent access and one in the back.

You're talking about the company who is so minimal that they squeezed both the audio input and output to just one port on the MBP 13". Apple isn't going to play the redundant game. Do you see the Apple Cinema Display having USB ports on it's side when Dell is doing it too? Nope.

Nope. The amount of ambient light the 27" iMac produces lights up the entire room. I suspect I'm not the only one who blacks out his display every time I stand up.

So set your display to dim after about 5 minutes.

In the words of Jobs, "It's no big deal."

Edit: Actually, everytime I stand up to go away from the computer, I use a hot corner for my screen saver, which reduces the lighting greatly. So yea, I do it.

seveej

Apr 3, 2010, 02:11 PM

You're talking about the company who is so minimal that they squeezed both the audio input and output to just one port on the MBP 13". Apple isn't going to play the redundant game. Do you see the Apple Cinema Display having USB ports on it's side when Dell is doing it too? Nope.

Last time I looked My old G5 PM had Headphone jacks both front and back, just as the current Mac Pro has a lot of "redundant" jacks in the front.

So set your display to dim after about 5 minutes.

In the words of Jobs, "It's no big deal."

That's BS. (No personal offense intended) Apple's vision of perfection is in the details, not so much the big picture. Who came up with computers having a sleep indicator? Unless I remember wrong the PM G4 was the first machine to do that. I haven't seen a Mini sleep, but AFAIK the current iMac is the only Mac which does not indicate in anyway whether it's sleeping.

Pekka

P.S. I've configured my machine to dim the screen after one minute, black it out after three, but i still notice myself hitting the keyboard combination to shut it off right away, every time my behind leaves the chair. Hence I do not see whether it's sleeping or not (and yes, my sample is that silent that I have to bring my ear pretty close to know the difference).

Hellhammer

Apr 3, 2010, 02:30 PM

Last time I looked My old G5 PM had Headphone jacks both front and back, just as the current Mac Pro has a lot of "redundant" jacks in the front.

You can't really compare iMac and Mac Pro...

If iMac wasn't so limited, there would be no Mac Pro anymore but as iMac is AIO and can't be expended with e.g. PCI cards or internal SATA HDs.

Most money is made in consumer products (Minis, low-end iMacs, MacBooks, low-end MBPs) so it's not surprise that Apple doesn't really care about pro users. Apple is still a company and its main aim is to make profit. If they made iMac more pro machine by adding ports, SATA slots, PCI slots etc, it wouldn't "be a Mac". Also, fitting all that in an AIO is very hard.

I wouldn't be surprised if Apple invented a port which would combine USB, FW, audio, HDMI, MDP, LightPeak etc. Apple wants everything in "consumer" machines to be simple, very simple so that nobody has to think what the heck is that.

As I would love to see "xMac", it's not going to happen. Hackintosh is the closest you can go without buying a Mac Pro

Icaras

Apr 3, 2010, 02:31 PM

Last time I looked My old G5 PM had Headphone jacks both front and back, just as the current Mac Pro has a lot of "redundant" jacks in the front.

Ok firstly, the PowerMac and Mac Pro are in a completely different tier than the imac, both aesthetically and marketing wise. Pros are obviously going to want ports and connectivity every chance they get so you get them both front and back. And secondly, iMacs are obviously being targeted towards the consumer market where exterior design takes more center stage. I really don't see the cause for ambiguity here. The Mac Pro is a beast of a tower, with a price tag aimed specifically for prosumers and professionals. Hence why you get all the ports needed.

That's BS. (No personal offense intended) Apple's vision of perfection is in the details, not so much the big picture. Who came up with computers having a sleep indicator? Unless I remember wrong the PM G4 was the first machine to do that. I haven't seen a Mini sleep, but AFAIK the current iMac is the only Mac which does not indicate in anyway whether it's sleeping.

Pekka

P.S. I've configured my machine to dim the screen after one minute, black it out after three, but i still notice myself hitting the keyboard combination to shut it off right away, every time my behind leaves the chair. Hence I do not see whether it's sleeping or not (and yes, my sample is that silent that I have to bring my ear pretty close to know the difference).

Again, I would point out that PowerMac and iMacs are different....headless mac vs. mac w/ display. How are you going to tell if your PM tower is asleep if your habit is to turn off your display every time you leave the computer? So a sleep indicator on a tower in this case makes sense, because people actually do have the the option of turning off their external display with a hard wired button at any time they wish.

Now you could argue that the Macbooks have a sleep indicator light and also come with a built in display like the iMac. The difference here is that Macbooks can close in clamshell mode, which gives reason for the sleep indicator light.

With the mini, there's a light on the front too. Why does it have a light? Headless mac.

As for your issues knowing when your iMac is sleeping. I still really don't see the issue in this because as you mentioned, your screen is already blacked out. I walk away from the iMac every time, knowing full well it's automatically set to go to sleep in a few minutes anyway. And as long as you have it automatically set, why is there cause for concern? It WILL go to sleep, no matter what.

miniroll32

Apr 3, 2010, 05:39 PM

Since the mid-2000's, the distinction between Apples 'Consumer' and 'Pro' products has blurred significantly. Thats through a combination of faster moving technology and Apple's sales objectives.

If you recall the Macworld introduction of the very first MacBook Pro (the first with Intel chips, I think?), Jobs then said that there was a change in thought - one of them being that they dropped the 'Power' from 'PowerBook' because "its not all about power". To some extent, this is very true - the Pro products now are much more suited to the professional (in producing a package of what he/she would want) rather than offering simply better numbers in the spec department.

But this has had an adverse effect on the 'consumer' line-up, as it is named. The iMac's have always since then have been tactically spec'ed so that if you wanted more choice in performance, you essentially had to pay for less. This equals buying the awesome power of the Mac Pro and the expandability, but on the basis of not having a screen, speakers, or even AirPort as standard. You're not paying for the technology - you're paying for the fact that, despite being the best tower-computer on the market, it's going to last much, much longer than any other Mac.

The Mac Mini, even proved by Jobs's very pessimistic pitch at Macworld, was just a low cost way of creating a Halo Effect in their computer line-up. In many respects, the Mac Mini is one of the highlights of the 2000's, but again, you're paying more for less when it should have a much lower price tag to encourage a purchase from new buyers in particular to the world of Mac's, rather than the world of Apple Pricing.

Put it into perspective this way:

MacBook Air = £1174
Mac Mini = £510

iPad = From $499 (about £380)
iPhone 3GS = £449

Is their even any place for the MacBook Air anymore when its that price? Makes me realise why they changed the 'Affordability' column to 'Compact'. But surely, aren't the iMac and Mac Mini both compact, given they are just as minimalistic in nature? If anything the iMac is more compact with just one cable.

The iMac is easily Apples best value computer when compared to other products. But because of its purposeful compact/soldered design, expandability is always crippled because Apple want you to pay more and buy a Mac Pro if this your field. And even then, the price of RAM is not in the same league as the consumer...

The only solution to get better value across the whole board of their computers is to clean up the product paradigm and make it simple again. Separate the Computing paradigm from the Consumer one.

Have two rows running downwards;
Desktop
Portable

And running across on top, from left to right;

Compact Consumer (Mac Mini & iMac)
Compact Semi Pro (PowerCube-esqe product)
Professional (Mac Pro)

With regards to the MacBooks, I would quite simply ditch the M.B Air and have the standard White MacBook sitting below Compact Consumer, and the MacBook Pro would sit below Professional. The gap below Compact Pro? Who gives a crap!

I have little interest in Apples' fad-gadgets like the iPad, as to me this only blurs the distinction of value between their computers and shiny little devices. But although the iPad has generally impressed me, it still bewilders me how the MacBook Air is supposedly worth twice as much, when in all honestly, the iPad is going to nestle much nicer in my bag to work and will work with my iMac's wireless keyboard...

[EDIT - RE. Sleep lights: Even the Mac Pro and Mac Mini can produce the awesome power of a small LED to indicate the computer is asleep. The iMac doesn't deserve one, huh?]

rombe3jr

Apr 12, 2010, 04:07 PM

I'd like to see two things added to the 21.5" iMac in 2010 (or 2011)...

1) Quad Core Processesor
2) Blu Ray Burner

That's it... then I'll definitely buy one.

Xtremehkr

Apr 12, 2010, 07:27 PM

I'd like to see an iMac-G, as in iMac-Gaming version as a BTO option for people who incessantly complain about the GPU.

I would also like to see a complete redesign of the box for the iMac. Whenever I take it anywhere I put it back in the original box. The last time I did that the plastic handle on the top of the box came loose and I nearly dropped the entire computer. That's not acceptable.

G-Force

Apr 13, 2010, 02:45 AM

The box is not really meant to be a traveling case for the iMac though...

miniroll32

Apr 13, 2010, 06:03 AM

Does anyone know of any good iMac travelling cases, or sleeves for when not in use?

GregGebhardt

Apr 13, 2010, 07:03 AM

I would like to see some holes in the back of my iMac to let it BREATH!:o

peakchua

Jun 1, 2010, 09:13 AM

I would like to see some holes in the back of my iMac to let it BREATH!:o

agreed, they should put heat sinks on the sides like top, then right side the bottom. I would also like to see speakers on the sides or where the mic is. i want 3 ghz quad core processor, ati radeon mobility 5870 or desktop 5770, higher ram standard, a more ergonomic magic mouse, dvi or vga connections and 1 more fan.

TMRaven

Jun 1, 2010, 09:31 AM

The current iMacs have a heat sink all around them.

Willdta

Jun 1, 2010, 10:56 AM

i have to admit the guy who began this thread wasn't too far off,but my 27inch is hug enough, no need for a 30inch

deyan

Jun 8, 2010, 07:28 PM

-A Definite 30" Full HD LED Monitor
-A Blu Ray Drive/Burner !!
-1TB HDD

Plus all the rest of the nice perks apple provides...Ppl will be going insane with these perks.

FOR GOD SAKE NO TOUCHSCREEN !!!!!

Fallenman

Jun 8, 2010, 08:26 PM

I'm pretty easy to please...

SSD's would be nice, but I don't think they have the capacity just yet. Blu-Ray I can take or leave.

Being currently "in the market for an iMac" and just waiting - I'd put my vote in for any upgrade to the GPU.

If they did that tomorrow, they'd have my order the day after.

xXFLuffeeXx

Jun 9, 2010, 01:44 PM

-ATI Radeon 4850 on the 21.5"
-I really don't care about quad-cores being standard, but it would be a nice customization option.
-HDMI-in :D Or a Mini-DVI to HDMI adaptor made by Apple. I don't want to buy a $300 TV if I have a 1080p LED monitor.

Only fails for the current iMacs would be the crappy GPU and no HDMI-in. Also, about the touch screen, if Apple thinks about doing it they should definitely make a seperate computer and OS.

After reading other responses. I love the gaming iMac idea. Apple should release a whole gaming line, 330M 13" MacBook Pro, 330M Mac Mini, 4850 21.5" iMac, 5XXX 27" iMac (Personally hate the giant screens), gaming Mac Pro with a slightly less amazing processor and hard drive but great video cards. Maybe MacBook Air 320M or 330M.

How bout an alternate color option. All black iMac?

GeorgeN111

Jun 9, 2010, 01:49 PM

Hellhammer

Jun 9, 2010, 01:53 PM

Is there any chance that the entire 27" iMac range would all have quad cores and be the same price as they are now meaning the base model 27" would have a quad core and be the same price as the base model 27" iMac now?

It's possible but I doubt it. I can see Apple using Clarkdale instead but even that will provide better performance, even better than quad core in apps that support less than 4 threads.

xXFLuffeeXx

Jun 9, 2010, 02:00 PM

Hellhammer

Jun 9, 2010, 02:03 PM

More than likely would be too hot.

How could it be hot? :confused: 27" can handle quad core fine, no matter what model. 21.5" on the other hand cannot

dontwalkhand

Jun 9, 2010, 06:47 PM

Does anyone know of any good iMac travelling cases, or sleeves for when not in use?

Yes, a MacBook Pro :D

maczana

Jun 10, 2010, 02:01 PM

I'd like, because a lot of people like me need it: matt screen, at least in option. Even paying.

A wireless keyboard with numeric keypad.

And, why not a bit of colour again. New iPhone 4 has panels of aluminosilicate glass. Chemically strengthened to be 20 times stiffer and 30 times harder than plastic, the glass is ultradurable and more scratch resistant than ever. It’s also recyclable.

TMRaven

Jun 10, 2010, 05:03 PM

Anodized aluminum in the color of copper. I'm a big fan of copper.

maf2k8

Jun 10, 2010, 05:16 PM

I would also like to see a complete redesign of the box for the iMac. Whenever I take it anywhere I put it back in the original box.

Your kidding, Right?

Good Lord........:rolleyes:

TMRaven

Jun 10, 2010, 05:35 PM

Apple definitely went wrong with the design of the box of the latest iMac. I can't speak for other iMacs before the latest revision, but the box that came with my G5 iMac was perfectly acceptable for carrying around, it had a latch that wouldn't allow for the top to pop open upon carrying-- something very convenient, considering I moved my old G5 iMac around a couple times a year, sometimes even a couple of times a week.

mattnotis

Jun 10, 2010, 07:30 PM

Blu-ray
Better graphics card
Higher-res iSight
Bigger hard drive
more RAM!

d Fusion b

Jun 11, 2010, 03:19 AM

I'd buy one tomorrow if they announced

1. Updated GPU
2. HDMI in

These features I would enjoy, but could live without

1. Blu-ray
2. Improved heat distribution
3. Back lite keyboard
4. Updated web cam
5. Ability to read Steve Job's thoughts

acousticsz

Jun 11, 2010, 04:49 AM

gto55

Jun 11, 2010, 06:25 AM

1st review of the TRUE core duo family evolution with new kind of instructions (VX Advanced Vector Extensions):
The sandybridge
http://translate.google.fr/translate?js=y&prev=_t&hl=fr&ie=UTF-8&layout=1&eotf=1&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.coolaler.com%2Fshowthread.php%3Fs%3D0a95d79a1d8e72d382a812a5964139fc%26t%3D240598&sl=auto&tl=en

According to the different test the new plateform is a little better the best Core i7 965X but you should notice that the motherboard and the drivers weren't optimized at all.

aurichie

Jun 11, 2010, 09:18 AM

henrikrox

Jun 11, 2010, 09:26 AM

- I'd like to see Windows 7 only iMacs. (i.e. pre-installed with Windows 7 as the default OS)
- USB 3.0.
- Fix the CD/DVD scratching on slot load/eject that has been a problem for years.
- Fix the yellow tint.

And next year we'll probably see the start of the death of Mac OS with iOS touchscreen computers.

Haha, i dont quite understand the point of w7 only imacs. That's not going to happen. Also you can have w7 now in bootcamp, which i think is great, then i get to play games etc. Then you have beautiful osx for every other need. Also w7 can be your default boot into OS with current macs.

usb 3.0 wont happen until intel implements it into their MB.

And no, macos wont die, i cant believe anyone who thinks that, when all those professional people, music people, movie people, and so on use it. And think about this.

Lets say its a 20" touchscreen, do you really want to sit that close to it so you can touch it. HELL NO. And what about back pains because of leaning forward...

Sorry thats just plain wrong. I cant believe all the bizzare changes people would like to see. i mean, come an..

Eric-PTEK

Jun 13, 2010, 09:51 AM

Better video...

ATI had kicked around the idea for a long time of extending the PCIx slot into an external box. The reason being the power demands of faster video cards were becoming too great for internal power supplies so they were going to go external.

The idea died off when PC power supplies really went up in wattage but that would instantly make the iMac, or even the Mac Mini a viable PC replacement for those who want to do high end graphics/gaming.

I'm looking at a 27" iMac right now and will build a small Core i5 box with a decent video card in it just for gaming.

Also fix Bootcamp...Bootcamp drivers still blow for Win7 and BC is still slower than a regular PC of the same specs for some reason, it just doesn't act right.

antster94

Jun 13, 2010, 11:29 AM

I just want an HDMI imput sooo sooo bad. And the ability to support 1080p through either that or the MDP. Would be sooo much easier to be able to just plug in my PS3 instead of having to buy adaptors etc.

TMRaven

Jun 13, 2010, 11:47 AM

The 21.5inch version will get the raedeon 4850 mobility that the current imac 27inch version has, an the 27 will get the 5850 Mobility.
I highly doubt it. Mobility 4850 is a high end card with rather high tdp rating for 21.5 inch. In fact Apple would probably be better off putting mobility 5850 in their 21.5 inch for less heat production-- as it stands, mobility 5850 can either be worse than 4850 or just barely better, not much of an upgrade. Apple will most likely just use mobility 5670 or mobility 5750 for their next lineup of 21.5 inch iMacs.

flopticalcube

Jun 13, 2010, 12:57 PM

I'd like the next iMac to have a user-serviceable 2nd hard drive in the 2.5" form factor perhaps accessible from the bottom next to the RAM. This would allow easy upgrade to an SSD or hybrid boot drive or simply more disk space without the painful and possible warranty-destroying removal of the glass and LCD. Won't happen but it would be nice.

gb1631

Jun 13, 2010, 04:56 PM

peakchua

Jun 20, 2010, 03:30 AM

nehalem processors in the 2 high end models, (21.5, 27 low end) faster ati radeon hd 5750 mobility graphics or 5650 graphics with 512MB. Ati mobility 5850 or 5870 high end imac 1GB? 768mb would be fine but i want 1gb, its time to break the barrier for the imac and the mac pro :). Also, i want better speakers, a blu ray drive or at least a 16x superdrive unlike this old 8x superdrive, better cooling system/sensor, last of all, a quad core speed bump. and in the obvious, nvidia geforce 320m graphics with a 330m option. :apple::apple::apple::apple::apple:

kazmac

Jun 20, 2010, 07:50 AM

of three monitor sizes again. 21", 27" and maybe 30". I'd go for the smallest screen as that is best for my peepers.

I'd also like the larger/more powerful speakers back in the iMac. Yes I realize this takes up more valuable interior real estate, but the difference in speaker power between the early and late 2009 iMacs was astonishing.

I'd keep the memory plate as is, to allow for easy upgrades.

Not sure, what else I'd change but it would be cool if more processor options were available for each size (not just the mighty 27") .

nlr

Jun 20, 2010, 08:43 AM

HDMI
High-End Graphics Cards
USB 3.0
30" Monitor
Better Speakers

Section147

Jun 26, 2010, 12:34 PM

Nishi100

Jun 26, 2010, 12:54 PM

Hello all.
Brand new here, but certainly not new to Macs.
Looking to replace my iMac 1.8 PPC G5 at some point...wondering if anyone
had any educated guesses as to when we can expect the next generation of
iMacs to be available. Thanks in advance!

Any time fro now to September; however, it will only be a minor update to the GPU and dual core "i"'s for the 21.5 inch. If you need it buy it if not wait for September.

Or, if you are like me, and don't need a computer untill the end of 2011, the wait for Sandy Bridge to come in to the iMac's in May 2011. (not you Section147)

aiqw9182

Jun 26, 2010, 04:00 PM

I highly doubt it. Mobility 4850 is a high end card with rather high tdp rating for 21.5 inch. In fact Apple would probably be better off putting mobility 5850 in their 21.5 inch for less heat production-- as it stands, mobility 5850 can either be worse than 4850 or just barely better, not much of an upgrade. Apple will most likely just use mobility 5670 or mobility 5750 for their next lineup of 21.5 inch iMacs.

Apple managed to get the 4850 in the 24" iMac, doubt it has too high of a TDP for the 21.5". Only way I could see Apple putting a 4850 in the 21.5" iMac is if they use the 5870 in the higher end iMacs instead of the 5850 which has virtually identical performance to the 4850.

I think it would be wise for Apple to just drop the 4XXX line from their iMacs completely with the next refresh, but we'll see what they do.

Hellhammer

Jun 26, 2010, 04:03 PM

Apple managed to get the 4850 in the 24" iMac, doubt it has too high of a TDP for the 21.5". Only way I could see Apple putting a 4850 in the 21.5" iMac is if they use the 5870 in the higher end iMacs instead of the 5850 which has virtually identical performance to the 4850.

I think it would be wise for Apple to just drop the 4XXX line from their iMacs completely with the next refresh, but we'll see what they do.

Manufacturing of ATI 4xxx stopped like 8 months ago so it's pretty impossible for Apple to offer them in next gen

24" had 45W CPU while 21.5" has 65W so that has some matter too.

aiqw9182

Jun 26, 2010, 04:09 PM

Manufacturing of ATI 4xxx stopped like 8 months ago so it's pretty impossible for Apple to offer them in next gen

24" had 45W CPU while 21.5" has 65W so that has some matter too.

Well clearly Apple is still using them in their iMacs so it's not like they are completely out of commission as far as manufacturing goes but it doesn't really matter at this point. Better off just making everything simple with a full 5XXX line, with the 320M possibly tossed in if Apple decides to stick with C2D in their entry model for another round.

Hellhammer

Jun 26, 2010, 04:12 PM

Well clearly Apple is still using them in their iMacs so it's not like they are completely out of commission as far as manufacturing goes but it doesn't really matter at this point.

Apple just bought the last chips what were available, they are no longer manufactured but that doesn't stop Apple from using them. Same applies to ATI 4870 used in Mac Pro.

aiqw9182

Jun 26, 2010, 04:40 PM

Apple just bought the last chips what were available, they are no longer manufactured but that doesn't stop Apple from using them. Same applies to ATI 4870 used in Mac Pro.

I'm sure ATI still has warehouses full of their 4XXX line for Apple to use.

Hellhammer

Jun 26, 2010, 04:44 PM

I'm sure ATI still has warehouses full of their 4XXX line for Apple to use.

No, they don't. There are only couple models available in NewEgg for example. Most stores don't have them anymore. There is a lot discussion about them in Mac Pro forum because people want to flash them but they are harder and harder to find.

aiqw9182

Jun 26, 2010, 05:08 PM

No, they don't. There are only couple models available in NewEgg for example. Most stores don't have them anymore. There is a lot discussion about them in Mac Pro forum because people want to flash them but they are harder and harder to find.

Mhm, because everyone knows NewEgg sells mobile GPU's.

Hellhammer

Jun 26, 2010, 05:13 PM

Mhm, because everyone knows NewEgg sells mobile GPU's.

They are based on same chips.... Unless Apple has warehouses full of 48xx, we won't see them. After few months, they can't say that they ran out of GPUs and you now have to wait couple of months for new iMac. iMacs are popular enough to need plenty of GPUs and because the manufacturing has stopped ages ago, there is not enough quantity of them. Plus, it's completely useless to use them if a new chip is better and will available for several months

BTW, aussie Store has no 4870 anymore because Apple ran out of it...

aiqw9182

Jun 26, 2010, 05:17 PM

They are based on same chips.... Unless Apple has warehouses full of 48xx, we won't see them. After few months, they can't say that they ran out of GPUs and you now have to wait couple of months for new iMac. iMacs are popular enough to need plenty of GPUs and because the manufacturing has stopped ages ago, there is not enough quantity of them. Plus, it's completely useless to use them if a new chip is better and will available for several months

BTW, aussie Store has no 4870 anymore because Apple ran out of it...
Being based on the same chip has little to do with how many are still available. You mentioned NewEgg which serves little relevance. It's like saying they must be out vanilla ice cream because they are out of chocolate.

Hellhammer

Jun 26, 2010, 05:21 PM

Being based on the same chip has little to do with how many are still available. You mentioned NewEgg which serves little relevance. It's like saying they must be out vanilla ice cream because they are out of chocolate.

It was just an example of their availability, nothing more. If ATI had warehouses full of them, they would just be chips and they could be used as mobile or desktop. Or do you have proofs that Apple or ATI has warehouses full of them? Apple would need hundreds of thousands of them

aiqw9182

Jun 26, 2010, 05:23 PM

It was just an example of their availability, nothing more. Or do you have proofs that Apple or ATI has warehouses full of them? Apple would need hundreds of thousands of them

Do you have proof that says otherwise that directly relates to the mobile GPU's? You brought up availability, not me.

Hellhammer

Jun 26, 2010, 05:30 PM

Do you have proof that says otherwise that directly relates to the mobile GPU's? You brought up availability, not me.

You questioned the availability and the proof I provided, not me. If the manufacturing was stopped months ago, it's expected that the quantity is low, also in mobile segment. Apple would need enough chips to fulfill the orders for the next ~10 months anyway. That's not thousand chips, it's several hundred thousands.

aiqw9182

Jun 26, 2010, 05:37 PM

You questioned the availability, not me. If the manufacturing was stopped months ago, it's expected that the quantity is low, also in mobile segment. Apple would need enough chips to fulfill the orders for the next ~10 months anyway. That's not thousand chips, it's several hundred thousands.

Bull ****. You brought up the availability when you responded to me. I never said anything about how available they are. Your claim of them no longer being in production is completely baseless as Apple requests a steady supply for the GPU's as long as their product is still there. If production was over 8 months ago like you said it was then Apple would be in deep **** right now.

Hellhammer

Jun 26, 2010, 05:45 PM

Bull ****. You brought up the availability when you responded to me. I never said anything about how available they are. Your claim of them no longer being in production is completely baseless as Apple requests a steady supply for the GPU's as long as their product is still there. If production was over 8 months ago like you said it was then Apple would be in deep **** right now.

They are no longer produced, if you don't believe, search. Apple bought a huge stock when new iMacs were introduced (http://www.geek.com/articles/chips/apple-gulps-the-entire-holiday-supply-of-ati-radeon-4000-series-gpus-20091021/). Why would ATI produce old GPUs, especially when demand for new ones is very high?

And by the way, no Mac (excluding Mini with GMA950) has used the same GPU for longer than two generations...

aiqw9182

Jun 26, 2010, 05:52 PM

They are no longer produced, if you don't believe, search. Apple bought a huge stock when new iMacs were introduced (http://www.geek.com/articles/chips/apple-gulps-the-entire-holiday-supply-of-ati-radeon-4000-series-gpus-20091021/). Why would ATI produce old GPUs, especially when demand for new ones is very high?

And by the way, no Mac (excluding Mini with GMA950) has used the same GPU for longer than two generations...

http://www.garysky.net/apple-to-juice-up-the-imac’s-graphics-with-ati-radeon-hd-5750.html

"steady supply of Radeon HD 4850 chips until the end of June"

Why would ATI produce old GPU's? Because Apple can demand them.

Just for kicks to really blow away that last statement of yours, here's a list of GPU's Apple has used again after a refresh of the machine, some of these have gone for three or more refreshes:
Radeon X1600
Radeon HD 2400 XT
Radeon HD 2600 PRO
GeForce 8600M GT
GeForce 9400M
GeForce 9600M GT
GMA 950
GMA X3100

Hellhammer

Jun 26, 2010, 06:14 PM

http://www.garysky.net/apple-to-juice-up-the-imac’s-graphics-with-ati-radeon-hd-5750.html

"steady supply of Radeon HD 4850 chips until the end of June"

Where is the 5750 then?

Why would ATI produce old GPU's? Because Apple can demand them.

Apple can't demand AMD to do anything

Radeon X1600

Was used in early 2006 and late 2006 MBP (there was slight CPU bump in mid 2006 but nothing more) and in early and late 2006 iMac (two real generations per Mac)

Radeon HD 2400 XT

Was used in 2007 and 2008 iMacs (two generations)

Radeon HD 2600 PRO

Same as above

GeForce 8600M GT

Was used in mid 2007 and early 2008 MBP (two generations)

GeForce 9400M

Was used in early and late 2009 Mac Mini and iMac, late 2008 and mid 2009 MBP, late 2008 and early and late 2009 MacBook, late 2008 and mid 2009 MBA (used in two generations in other than MacBook)
GeForce 9600M GT

Late 2008 and mid 2009 MBP (2 gens)

GMA 950

Early and late 2006 and mid 2007 Mac Mini, mid and late 2006 and mid 2007 MacBook (used in up to 3 gens)

GMA X3100

Late 2007 and early and late 2008 MacBook

So, out of the 8 GPUs you listed, only 3 have been used in more than two generations and all those GPUs are integrated and were used in low-end Macs while 27" iMac is high-end... Do your research before posting then

aiqw9182

Jun 26, 2010, 06:30 PM

Where is the 5750 then?
Is June over? No? Get a calendar.

Apple can't demand AMD to do anything
Apple can't demand AMD to do anything yet they got them to keep pumping out their older series of cards supposedly 8 months after? This is getting pathetic.

Was used in early 2006 and late 2006 MBP (there was slight CPU bump in mid 2006 but nothing more) and in early and late 2006 iMac (two real generations per Mac)

Was used in 2007 and 2008 iMacs (two generations)

Same as above

Was used in mid 2007 and early 2008 MBP (two generations)

Was used in early and late 2009 Mac Mini and iMac, late 2008 and mid 2009 MBP, late 2008 and early and late 2009 MacBook, late 2008 and mid 2009 MBA (used in two generations in other than MacBook)

Late 2008 and mid 2009 MBP (2 gens)

Early and late 2006 and mid 2007 Mac Mini, mid and late 2006 and mid 2007 MacBook (used in up to 3 gens)

Late 2007 and early and late 2008 MacBook

So, out of the 8 GPUs you listed, only 3 have been used in more than two generations and all those GPUs are integrated and were used in low-end Macs while 27" iMac is high-end... Do your research before posting then
LMAO!

This is just getting started. Where the hell did you learn how to count?

Radeon X1600 (2 gens)
Radeon HD 2400 XT (2 gens)
Radeon HD 2600 PRO (2 gens)
GeForce 8600M GT (3 gens)
GeForce 9400M (3 gens)
GeForce 9600M GT (2 gens)
GMA 950 (3 gens)
GMA X3100 (3 gens)

So out of the 8 GPU's I listed, 4 of them were used for two generations and the other 4 were used for three generations.

And all of these GPU's are integrated and used in low-end Macs? LOLWTF

The following GPU's have been the cream of the crop for Apple's line of MacBook Pro's at some point: 8600M, 9600M and X1600.

The iMac is Apple's CONSUMER desktop.

peakchua

Jun 27, 2010, 03:10 AM

if desktop 5750 is used.. then great! but if mobility.. then i would advise everyone to get the old model if it ever happens. i want 5850 1gb gddr5 mobility with 20% higher clocks (the 5870 has the same specs other than clock speeds) then again.. apple sometimes makes the wrong choices relaying to long waiting imac fans :( i really hope other than imac, and radeon that all gpus can support physx, and that apple will suport directx 11, 10 and 9 and also support crossfire.. i think that a impossible solution to support crossfire is to make USb or mdp gpu connectors lol jk :D

Hellhammer

Jun 27, 2010, 03:46 AM

This is just getting started. Where the hell did you learn how to count?

You should ask yourself

Radeon X1600 (2 gens)
Radeon HD 2400 XT (2 gens)
Radeon HD 2600 PRO (2 gens)
GeForce 8600M GT (3 gens)
GeForce 9400M (3 gens)
GeForce 9600M GT (2 gens)
GMA 950 (3 gens)
GMA X3100 (3 gens)

Where was 8600M GT used for three generations? It was used in mid 2007 and early 2008 MBP, that's two gens

And all of these GPU's are integrated and used in low-end Macs? LOLWTF

All GPUs that were used for longer than two generations were integrated and used in low-end Macs

The following GPU's have been the cream of the crop for Apple's line of MacBook Pro's at some point: 8600M, 9600M and X1600.

But they were only used twice and iMac has never used them or had the same GPU for longer than two generations

aiqw9182

Jun 27, 2010, 03:59 AM

You should ask yourselfReally? You sure about that?

Where was 8600M GT used for three generations? It was used in mid 2007 and early 2008 MBP, that's two gensMid 2007, Late 2007 and Early 2008(late 2008 17" if you want to count that also). Maybe YOU should do your research.

All GPUs that were used for longer than two generations were integrated and used in low-end MacsHAHAHAHA! Now I see why you are trying to get the 8600M out of the argument. Get a clue.

But they were only used twice and iMac has never used them or had the same GPU for longer than two generationsThe 4850 in the early 2009 iMac was the first time the iMac even had an upgrade option for the GPU that wasn't the standard one.

Hellhammer

Jun 27, 2010, 04:09 AM

Mid 2007, Late 2007 and Early 2008(late 2008 17" if you want to count that also). Maybe YOU should do your research.

You really count that slight difference in CPU as a new gen? EveryMac nor MacRumors list it as a new generation

The 4850 in the early 2009 iMac was the first time the iMac even had an upgrade option for the GPU that wasn't the standard one.

It doesn't matter, it was still used and iMac hasn't used the same GPU for longer than two generations, no matter was it an option or standard.

aiqw9182

Jun 27, 2010, 04:20 AM

You really count that slight difference in CPU as a new gen? EveryMac nor MacRumors list it as a new generation
CPU bump as new gen? Maybe you missed the larger hard drives, more VRAM and more RAM(in the 17")? :rolleyes:

It doesn't matter, it was still used and iMac hasn't used the same GPU for longer than two generations, no matter was it an option or standard.

LOL, it doesn't matter? Why? Because Apple can't do something they haven't done before, when in reality they have done it before with the MacBook Pro? You've gone from saying no GPU other than the GMA 950 was used more than twice, to not learning how to count and claiming that "all those GPUs are integrated and were used in low-end Macs while 27" iMac is high-end" when the iMac is a consumer product and the MacBook Pro is a pro product, and finally you're trying to save yourself by dwindling your argument to Apple never doing it on the iMac. They also never had an exclusive build-to-order GPU on the iMac, that didn't stop them from offering the 4850 in the early 2009 iMac.

Hellhammer

Jun 27, 2010, 04:32 AM

CPU bump as new gen? Maybe you missed the larger hard drives, more VRAM and more RAM(in the 17")? :rolleyes:

That happened in early 2008. Late 2007 isn't count as its own generation, it was just very minor update

LOL, it doesn't matter? Why? Because Apple can't do something they haven't done before, when in reality they have done it before with the MacBook Pro? You've gone from saying no GPU other than the GMA 950 was used more than twice, to not learning how to count and claiming that "all those GPUs are integrated and were used in low-end Macs while 27" iMac is high-end" when the iMac is a consumer product and the MacBook Pro is a pro product, and finally you're trying to save yourself by dwindling your argument to Apple never doing it on the iMac. They also never had an exclusive build-to-order GPU on the iMac, that didn't stop them from offering the 4850 in the early 2009 iMac.

8800 GS and 7600GT (+X1600 with 256MB) were all BTOs... (8800 GS was online only i.e. BTO)

aiqw9182

Jun 27, 2010, 04:37 AM

That happened in early 2008. Late 2007 isn't count as its own generation, it was just very minor updateNo ****, that's why I mentioned the 17" from late 2008 that you are ignoring.

8800 GS and 7600GT (+X1600 with 256MB) were all BTOs... (8800 GS was online only i.e. BTO)
X1600 - upgrading VRAM is not a new BTO GPU
7300GT - upgrading VRAM is not a new BTO GPU
8800GS - it wasn't build to order on the 3.06GHz model from 2008, therefore it is irrelevant, as the 4850 wasn't standard on ANY models.

Hellhammer

Jun 27, 2010, 04:46 AM

No ****, that's why I mentioned the 17" from late 2008 that you are ignoring.

What late 2008 17"? Not even a word about it anywhere. Oh, or are you talking about that tiny update with more RAM and HD? Didn't have any more VRAM than early 2008 did nor better CPU, i.e. not a new generation

7300GT - upgrading VRAM is not a new BTO GPU

7300GT to 7600GT is more than just a VRAM upgrade....

aiqw9182

Jun 27, 2010, 04:56 AM

What late 2008 17"? Not even a word about it anywhere. Oh, or are you talking about that tiny update with more RAM and HD? Didn't have any more VRAM than early 2008 did nor better CPU, i.e. not a new generation

7300GT to 7600GT is more than just a VRAM upgrade....

Late 2008 17" from previous model:
1680x1050 screen to 1920x1200
2GB of RAM to 4GB
250GB HDD to 320GB HDD
SuperDrive: 4× DVD+R DL writes, 8× DVD+/-R read/write, 4× DVD+/-RW writes, 24× CD-R, and 10× CD-RW recording to 4× DVD+R DL writes, 8× DVD+/-R read/write, 8× DVD+RW writes, 6× DVD-RW writes, 24× CD-R, and 16× CD-RW recording

Tiny upgrade? Where did you pull that out of your ass from? :rolleyes:

As for the 7600GT, it still stands that Apple did something they haven't done before no matter when they started doing it. You make it seem like Apple must always follow the status quo of what they've done in the past which is the dumbest thing I've ever heard, especially when Apple has done it in their other models.

Hellhammer

Jun 27, 2010, 04:58 AM

Late 2008 17" from previous model:
1680x1050 screen to 1920x1200
2GB of RAM to 4GB
250GB HDD to 320GB HDD
SuperDrive: 4× DVD+R DL writes, 8× DVD+/-R read/write, 4× DVD+/-RW writes, 24× CD-R, and 10× CD-RW recording to 4× DVD+R DL writes, 8× DVD+/-R read/write, 8× DVD+RW writes, 6× DVD-RW writes, 24× CD-R, and 16× CD-RW recording

Tiny upgrade? Where did you pull that out of your ass from? :rolleyes:

Okay, maybe that was little more but it's still only one example, it doesn't mean Apple is going to stick with 4850...

As for the 7600GT, it still stands that Apple did something they haven't done before no matter when they started doing it. You make it seem like Apple must always follow the status quo of what they've done in the past which is the dumbest thing I've ever heard.

With that logic, we may see dual ATI 5970 in iMac along with dual i7 980Xs :rolleyes:

aiqw9182

Jun 27, 2010, 05:08 AM

Okay, maybe that was little more but it's still only one example, it doesn't mean Apple is going to stick with 4850...It doesn't mean they are going to, it means they can if they want as they've done it before. Glad you finally see you were wrong. :rolleyes:

With that logic, we may see dual ATI 5970 in iMac along with dual i7 980Xs :rolleyes:Yeah, because something being physically impossible is totally related to Apple using a GPU for three generations that is still the second/third best option for them to use in their iMac. :rolleyes:

DoFoT9

Jun 27, 2010, 05:08 AM

With that logic, we may see dual ATI 5970 in iMac along with dual i7 980Xs :rolleyes:

in the iMac? HA!

as per the GPU upgrade, i think they will continue with the 4850 as BTO when they upgrade it later this year. then next year we will see a bigger CPU/GPU upgrade to whatever that may be (hexacore maybes?)

Hellhammer

Jun 27, 2010, 05:16 AM

It doesn't mean they are going to, it means they can if they want as they've done it before. Glad you finally see you were wrong. :rolleyes:

With that logic, we may not see iMac anytime soon as Mini was without an update for over 1.5 years. It happened before, why can't it happen now? That really is bad justification.

Yeah, because something being physically impossible is totally related to Apple using a GPU for three generations that is still the second/third best option for them to use in their iMac. :rolleyes:

It's not physically impossible if they make it bigger. You just said that they can do whatever they want, what they of course can. If they can, then anything is possible, including dual 5970 + dual 980X. You again used bad justification because you were wrong in 7600GT. If the past is irrelevant, then nobody knows what will happen.

The past is showing that it's unlikely that we'll see 4850 in next gen but if you ignore that, then 9400M might be the high-end BTO option, ANYTHING can be :rolleyes:

aiqw9182

Jun 27, 2010, 05:33 AM

With that logic, we may not see iMac anytime soon as Mini was without an update for over 1.5 years. It happened before, why can't it happen now? That really is bad justification.
This is really getting pathetic and you're grasping at straws simply because you know you're wrong and trying to get the last word in. It's in Apple's best interest to use the 4850 again if they don't want to write drivers, they've used the 8600M for three generations. You were wrong. You keep changing your story and trying to come up with terrible analogies. Go back to thinking the Intel GMA 950 was the only GPU that Apple used twice, it really shows how much knowledge you have.

It's not physically impossible if they make it bigger. You just said that they can do whatever they want, what they of course can. If they can, then anything is possible, including dual 5970 + dual 980X. You again used bad justification because you were wrong in 7600GT. If the past is irrelevant, then nobody knows what will happen.Yeah, Apple is suddenly going to make a 40" iMac. At least my predictions aren't completely retarded and make sense. The 4850 in the early 2009 iMac likely isn't even considered to be there for the generation as it was BTO and hardly anyone outside of those that followed closely knew it existed as an option. Oh and where did I say the past was irrelevant? I've been using Apple's past 8600M use of generations for this entire time, Mr. iMac is high-end but the MacBook Pro isn't. :rolleyes:

The past is showing that it's unlikely that we'll see 4850 in next gen but if you ignore that, then 9400M might be the high-end BTO option, ANYTHING can be :rolleyes:You apparently can't grasp your head around the fact the the 4850 is still the second/third best GPU Apple can use.

Hellhammer

Jun 27, 2010, 05:45 AM

Go back to thinking the Intel GMA 950 was the only GPU that Apple used twice, it really shows how much knowledge you have.

I've said from the beginning that it's one of the GPUs that have been used fore more than twice

Early and late 2006 and mid 2007 Mac Mini, mid and late 2006 and mid 2007 MacBook (used in up to 3 gens)

Yeah, Apple is suddenly going to make a 40" iMac. At least my predictions aren't completely retarded and make sense. The 4850 in the early 2009 iMac likely isn't even considered to be there for the generation as it was BTO and hardly anyone outside of those that followed closely knew it existed as an option. Oh and where did I say the past was irrelevant? I've been using Apple's past 8600M use of generations for this entire time, Mr. iMac is high-end but the MacBook Pro isn't. :rolleyes:

8600M GT is the rule breaker, all other dedicated GPUs haven't made it for longer than two generations. 4850 still was there, no matter was it BTO or not. If it wasn't there, where was it then? In your ass? :rolleyes: And do you think my prediction (http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=10114635&postcount=5) really is retarded and impossible?

You apparently can't grasp your head around the fact the the 4850 is still the second/third best GPU Apple can use. Get your head out of your ass.

Where did I say it isn't? It's a great GPU, I've said it in at least 10 threads. 5850 isn't an upgrade but it at least is being produced. The issue is that it's unlikely that it's still in production. Even though ATI might be able to supply them, it doesn't mean that they are still made, ATI has warehouses where they can be stored. And if they still are in production, it'll cost Apple a nice $ to keep them coming as that same line could be making 5xxx GPUs which could be used in PCs too. To be honest, ATI is coming up with new mobile GPUs in this half of the year so maybe Apple is waiting for them? Imagine Cypress based GPU in iMac!

Can we stop this now? Neither of us knows what's going to happen

aiqw9182

Jun 27, 2010, 06:04 AM

I've said from the beginning that it's one of the GPUs that have been used fore more than twice LOL, and you were wrong either way.

8600M GT is the rule breaker, all other dedicated GPUs haven't made it for longer than two generations. 4850 still was there, no matter was it BTO or not. If it wasn't there, where was it then? In your ass? :rolleyes: And do you think my prediction (http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=10114635&postcount=5) really is retarded and impossible?8600M GT is now the rule breaker. Before it wasn't. Now it is. Make up your mind. A rule breaker means that rule is no longer in effect and the argument of the 4850 not being allowed in three generations is now void. :rolleyes:

As for your prediction that a two year old could conjure up, the only thing that anyone cares about right now is the GPU, Apple could easily put a 4850 in the high end 21.5" and 27" in replace of that weaker 57XX card, then put the 5870 in the high end iMac.

Where did I say it isn't? It's a great GPU, I've said it in at least 10 threads. 5850 isn't an upgrade but it at least is being produced. The issue is that it's unlikely that it's still in production. Even though ATI might be able to supply them, it doesn't mean that they are still made, ATI has warehouses where they can be stored. And if they still are in production, it'll cost Apple a nice $ to keep them coming as that same line could be making 5xxx GPUs which could be used in PCs too. To be honest, ATI is coming up with new mobile GPUs in this half of the year so maybe Apple is waiting for them? Imagine Cypress based GPU in iMac!

Can we stop this now? Neither of us knows what's going to happen
You can't keep a steady supply of something till June and onwards with it supposedly being out of production for 8 months. :rolleyes:

Hellhammer

Jun 27, 2010, 06:14 AM

LOL, and you were wrong either way.

No, I was not

As for your prediction that a two year old could conjure up, the only thing that anyone cares about right now is the GPU, Apple could easily put a 4850 in the high end 21.5" and 27" in replace of that weaker 57XX card, then put the 5870 in the high end iMac.

So Apple puts 65W GPU in 21.5" and 50W in 27"? Why on earth would they do that? 4850 is almost twice as hot as the 4670.

You can't keep a steady supply of something till June and onwards with it supposedly being out of production for 8 months. :rolleyes:

Why? The article you linked fights again what you are saying. It said supply till June 2010. What's after that? How can they use 4850 if it's no longer supplied? :confused: Decide already! First you said they cannot use 4850 if it's not supplied. Now you're saying that they can even though the supply will end in few days.... Desktop 4xxx are still available, even though they are no longer produced

aiqw9182

Jun 27, 2010, 06:21 AM

No, I was notYes you were. Four of the GPU's I listed were used three times. You were wrong.

So Apple puts 65W GPU in 21.5" and 50W in 27"? Why on earth would they do that? 4850 is almost twice as hot as the 4670. Why on earth would they do that? Does Apple advertise how many watts their GPU's use? They don't even advertise that their mobile. They advertise performance, in which the 4850 takes a dump all over any other 5000 card with the exception of two. One of which is equivalent in performance.

Why? The article you linked fights again what you are saying. It said supply till June 2010. What's after that? How can they use 4850 if it's no longer supplied? Decide already! First you said they cannot use 4850 if it's not supplied. :confused:Now you're saying that they can even though the supply will end in few days.... Desktop 4xxx are still available, even though they are no longer producedIf ATI is still making 4850's for Apple, who's to say Apple can't ask them to keep making them? It's not that difficult of a concept. You keep saying they are no longer produced but have posted no concrete evidence that they aren't being produced. I posted an article that explicitly stated that they are still giving steady supply to Apple, which can only be done when still in production. Apple extends the contract with ATI and there you go, problem solved.

Hellhammer

Jun 27, 2010, 06:28 AM

Why on earth would they do that? Does Apple advertise how many watts their GPU's use? They don't even advertise that their mobile. They advertise performance, in which the 4850 takes a dump all over any other 5000 card with the exception of two. One of which is equivalent in performance.

Watts are physical facts and with current design and cooling system, it's highly unlikely that 4850 could be used in 21.5". People think 5xxx is better because the first number is bigger even though the second number is the most important. So many people have been ranting about why no 5850 even though it's not even better. IF 4850 can be sticked into the 21.5", it would be great but 5850 would go there better because it's a lot cooler.

peakchua

Jun 27, 2010, 06:35 AM

Watts are physical facts and with current design and cooling system, it's highly unlikely that 4850 could be used in 21.5". People think 5xxx is better because the first number is bigger even though the second number is the most important. So many people have been ranting about why no 5850 even though it's not even better. IF 4850 can be sticked into the 21.5", it would be great but 5850 would go there better because it's a lot cooler.

+1 the only reason why 4850 is better is the 256bit memory bus. 5850 is only (gddr5) 2-5% faster due to GDDR5. the 4850 would kick ass if it had gddr5 :)

aiqw9182

Jun 27, 2010, 06:35 AM

Watts are physical facts and with current design and cooling system, it's highly unlikely that 4850 could be used in 21.5". People think 5xxx is better because the first number is bigger even though the second number is the most important. So many people have been ranting about why no 5850 even though it's not even better. IF 4850 can be sticked into the 21.5", it would be great but 5850 would go there better because it's a lot cooler.Apple got the 4850 in the 24" iMac which had worse cooling and heat sinks than the 21.5", hence why they are now able to use desktop processors. I highly doubt it's physically impossible for them to use it in the 21.5". People do think the 5XXX series of cards is better, but so begins the Apple upsale. Not to mention they already have the drivers for the 4850 rolling and ready to go(obviously).

Hellhammer

Jun 27, 2010, 06:47 AM

+1 the only reason why 4850 is better is the 256bit memory bus. 5850 is only (gddr5) 2-5% faster due to GDDR5. the 4850 would kick ass if it had gddr5 :)

Lets keep our thumbs up for the 4870 then ;):p

Apple got the 4850 in the 24" iMac which had worse cooling and heat sinks than the 21.5", hence why they are now able to use desktop processors. I highly doubt it's physically impossible for them to use it in the 21.5". People do think the 5XXX series of cards is better, but so begins the Apple upsale. Not to mention they already have the drivers for the 4850 rolling and ready to go(obviously).

But 24" used mobile CPUs (well custom but they were 45W). Currently, the 21.5" is using 35W GPU so at least I wouldn't expect anything significantly hotter like 4850. I'm basing my speculation what is currently used, that's why it was impossible to predict 27" with quad core :D 4850 has been sticked into 15" lappies so of course it's not impossible but that would require some improvement in the cooling so that iMac won't sound like an airplane when in use :p

If Apple can stick 4850 in 21.5", then I'll raise my hat for them as that's great job and will definitely stop the whining about games. 5850 in 21.5" is much easier job as it's only 4W hotter than 4670 but provides more or less the same performance as 4850. I really hope they put a good GPU in 21.5" as that's the best gaming Mac IMO due it's normal resolution and acceptable price

aiqw9182

Jun 27, 2010, 07:02 AM

But 24" used mobile CPUs (well custom but they were 45W). Currently, the 21.5" is using 35W GPU so at least I wouldn't expect anything significantly hotter like 4850. I'm basing my speculation what is currently used, that's why it was impossible to predict 27" with quad core :D 4850 has been sticked into 15" lappies so of course it's not impossible but that would require some improvement in the cooling so that iMac won't sound like an airplane when in use :p I said that they now use desktop processors in the 21.5" which implies the 24" used mobiles CPU's.

Just because Apple used the 4670 doesn't mean that's the max TDP GPU the thing can use.

If Apple can stick 4850 in 21.5", then I'll raise my hat for them as that's great job and will definitely stop the whining about games. 5850 in 21.5" is much easier job as it's only 4W hotter than 4670 but provides more or less the same performance as 4850. I really hope they put a good GPU in 21.5" as that's the best gaming Mac IMO due it's normal resolution and acceptable price
The 24" with the 4850 is still the best gaming iMac at the moment. If they put the 4850 in the 21.5" it would still be a toss up between the two though(higher resolution vs led backlight).

Hellhammer

Jun 27, 2010, 07:13 AM

Just because Apple used the 4670 doesn't mean that's the max TDP GPU the thing can use.

I know but it's the only reasonable way to predict what is coming. If the TDP is ignored, then it's nothing more than a wild guess with zero facts backing it up, anything is possible then. 57xx has lower TDP than 4670 thus it's possible in terms of heat and power consumption. 4850 would run hotter than 4670, that you can't beat. Whether it would be too hot with current cooling system, nobody knows. That's the question ;)

aiqw9182

Jun 27, 2010, 07:21 AM

I know but it's the only reasonable way to predict what is coming. If the TDP is ignored, then it's nothing more than a wild guess with zero facts backing it up, anything is possible then. 57xx has lower TDP than 4670 thus it's possible in terms of heat and power consumption. 4850 would run hotter than 4670, that you can't beat. Whether it would be too hot with current cooling system, nobody knows. That's the question ;)
It really isn't that reliable considering the fact that the only GPU that was better at the time than the 4670 was the 4830.

Hellhammer

Jun 27, 2010, 07:29 AM

It really isn't that reliable considering the fact that the only GPU that was better at the time than the 4670 was the 4830.

Of course it's not reliable nor water-proof evidence but that's all we got. All this is just speculation, i.e. guessing. 21.5" would also need more powerful PSU if 4850 was used. Nobody has switched the GPU for hotter one so we don't know what it could really handle. I've built mini-ITX boxes with quad core (95W) and desktop ATI 4850 but they were not very silent nor cool but they had no heat heat issues

aiqw9182

Jun 27, 2010, 07:37 AM

Of course it's not reliable nor water-proof evidence but that's all we got. All this is just speculation, i.e. guessing. 21.5" would also need more powerful PSU if 4850 was used. Nobody has switched the GPU for hotter one so we don't know what it could really handle.
It still isn't worth arguing the TDP usage factor when we again have no idea what it's capable of. If you are going to suggest something that has a TDP that is orders of magnitude larger, then sure. But otherwise the point is moot.

TMRaven

Jun 27, 2010, 09:39 AM

peakchua

Jun 27, 2010, 11:19 AM

I think arguing over TDP is quite frankly a splendid idea. Other companies don't fret over it as much, as they'd simply make their laptops thicker or use a tower and crank the fans up when necessary. Apple on the other hand is on the constant race to make their products slimmer and quieter day by day.

i wouldnt really care about thiness. just as long as my mac doesent look like crap or is only 1mm thiner than a pc, its fine... a 2 inch mac vs a 4 inch pc is fine. (macbookline). imac needs more heat outtake and cool air intake. as i said, i wouldnt care just as long my macbook pro doesent overheat, apple in their high end model using a gtx 285 + gpu and a extremely high end mobile cpu and also at 100$ cheaper every model is now. i think imac should get intake and outtake heat improvements, so that apple can put 130w tdp cpus + higher tdp gpus (21.5 inch) for general macs, APPLE needs to make prices more reasonably,,, honestly, the 50% barrier that people are keeping themselves from buying a mac :0 is price. i think it is worth it but would like to be nice to my wallet... dont you agree ? :D

thepominlaw

Jun 27, 2010, 11:20 AM

Personally for me I am happy with my first mac the late 2009 21.5" base model. But if I really had to be picky then these would be my reasons to upgrade.

1) More USB ports, say 5 on the back and two on the left hand side of the unit.
2) A user removable hard drive bay. Better still 2 hard drives bays.
3) Better graphics capability with dedicated memory (i know i could have bought 4670 but i wasn't sure i would like the mac so went base model)
4) 27" screen is too big for me how about a 24" widescreen?
5) A wireless keyboard with numeric keypad

TMRaven

Jun 27, 2010, 11:33 AM

Apple doesn't need to alter the design of the iMacs to accommodate for 130tdp cpus at all. Lynnfields are already high-end cpus, and the 9xx line of nehalems that Intel produces are far from efficient, and extreme edition of those are severely gouged in price for only offering some of intel's own overclocking.

People like to argue over the triple channel memory interface being better for gaming and general computing on the 9xx series nehalems, but that's far from true. Actual benchmarks show the lynnfields and bloomfields to be on par with each other per clock.

Apple will wait for sandy-bridge's release to update its top of the line lynnfield iMacs.

Hellhammer

Jun 27, 2010, 11:37 AM

i wouldnt really care about thiness. just as long as my mac doesent look like crap or is only 1mm thiner than a pc, its fine... a 2 inch mac vs a 4 inch pc is fine. (macbookline). imac needs more heat outtake and cool air intake. as i said, i wouldnt care just as long my macbook pro doesent overheat, apple in their high end model using a gtx 285 + gpu and a extremely high end mobile cpu and also at 100$ cheaper every model is now. i think imac should get intake and outtake heat improvements, so that apple can put 130w tdp cpus + higher tdp gpus (21.5 inch) for general macs, APPLE needs to make prices more reasonably,,, honestly, the 50% barrier that people are keeping themselves from buying a mac :0 is price. i think it is worth it but would like to be nice to my wallet... dont you agree ? :D

That would need holes in the case and Apple doesn't compromise the design in order to get better performance. All Apple products are expensive and it doesn't look like Steve would be offering wallet friendly Macs anytime soon. We got desktop CPUs now, after years of whining.

TMraven had it right, Apple is currently more interested about making them slimmer and quieter than satisfying the fairly small group of people who are after the performance. Maybe the introduction of Steam to OS X will make some difference and Apple starts to offer decent GPUs but I can't see them changing the design in order to do that

peakchua

Jun 27, 2010, 09:40 PM

[QUOTE=Hellhammer;10352967]Lets keep our thumbs up for the 4870 then ;):p

:) the 4870 is sadly... higher clocked and has no difference :S in terms of specs. I REALLY HATE 128 BIT BUSSES. other than that, i think amd needs to stop providing max 800 strem procesccors and **** little bits of texture units, rops (16!! you need 24) and more. AMD needs to revamp stream processing and make it more comparable with cuda which is obviously more powerful than stream. the perfect mobility card would be

ati mobility radeon 6850 :P
1000 stream processors
1.5 billion 32nm or 40nm transitors
64 texture units
72 ROP/Z stencil units
24 rop units
600 - 800 mhz shader/memory clocks etc.
TDP: 40 :)

peakchua

Jun 27, 2010, 09:44 PM

That would need holes in the case and Apple doesn't compromise the design in order to get better performance. All Apple products are expensive and it doesn't look like Steve would be offering wallet friendly Macs anytime soon. We got desktop CPUs now, after years of whining.

TMraven had it right, Apple is currently more interested about making them slimmer and quieter than satisfying the fairly small group of people who are after the performance. Maybe the introduction of Steam to OS X will make some difference and Apple starts to offer decent GPUs but I can't see them changing the design in order to do that

for the imac, it would be possible.. instead of one line. there would be three one like a staple shape. i would be overdoing the cooling though apple would be able to put 130w desktop processors from intels nehalem architecture. i really hate the idea of apples slimness. my macbook burns without a fan speed of 3600 rpm which drains my batteries :( my macbook needs heatsinks coming out of the SIDES!!! not a place where you need airflow. (chasis)

DoFoT9

Jun 27, 2010, 09:53 PM

Hellhammer

Jun 28, 2010, 02:34 AM

TMRaven

Jun 28, 2010, 08:56 AM

for the imac, it would be possible.. instead of one line. there would be three one like a staple shape. i would be overdoing the cooling though apple would be able to put 130w desktop processors from intels nehalem architecture. i really hate the idea of apples slimness. my macbook burns without a fan speed of 3600 rpm which drains my batteries :( my macbook needs heatsinks coming out of the SIDES!!! not a place where you need airflow. (chasis)
What's so important about the bloomfield nehalems when compared to the lynnfield nehalems?

The current 27 inch iMacs do not have the problem of burning without higher rpm. In fact I'm typing this message right here, and my cpu is at 37c while cpu fan is at 940rpm.

It has GDDR5, that's the main difference.
GDDR5 and 256bit bus width. Mobility 4870 is what Apple should have put in the current top of the line iMacs.

diegobgr

Jun 28, 2010, 09:50 AM

Should we expect a great update concerning gaming?

I will like to enjoy the iMac in summer. Thinking about wait till September or October kills me...

Hellhammer

Jun 28, 2010, 10:38 AM

Should we expect a great update concerning gaming?

I will like to enjoy the iMac in summer. Thinking about wait till September or October kills me...

Depends on what GPUs Apple decide to use. If they are bitchy and just use the 5xxx counterpart, no as they aren't that great but if we see e.g. 5870 and 5770, then it'll be a good update for gaming

DisMyMac

Jun 28, 2010, 11:05 AM

I don't care whether it's USB 3, FW1600/3200, or Light Peak - it must have at least one of them, or no sale.

I would even consider a mac pro if it had new ports.

diegobgr

Jun 28, 2010, 03:05 PM

Depends on what GPUs Apple decide to use. If they are bitchy and just use the 5xxx counterpart, no as they aren't that great but if we see e.g. 5870 and 5770, then it'll be a good update for gaming

5770 will be a really great improvemente for gaming. It will really worth the wait.

The question is, WHEN???:(

Hellhammer

Jun 28, 2010, 03:08 PM

5770 will be a really great improvemente for gaming. It will really worth the wait.

The question is, WHEN???:(

They are mobile chips, thus the improvement isn't that great when comparing to desktop chips (4670 to 5770 is major upgrade in desktops but only ~20% in mobile)

DoFoT9

Jun 28, 2010, 05:51 PM

They are mobile chips, thus the improvement isn't that great when comparing to desktop chips (4670 to 5770 is major upgrade in desktops but only ~20% in mobile)

its just a name for the GPUs right? they dont correlate back to the desktop GPUs :(

Hellhammer

Jun 28, 2010, 05:57 PM

its just a name for the GPUs right? they dont correlate back to the desktop GPUs :(

Well, sometimes like in ATI 4xxx series it goes like the mobile version is based on the same chip as the desktop counterpart i.e. mobility 4850 is based on the desktop 4850. In 5xxx series, that doesn't unfortunately apply as mobility 58xx is based on desktop 57xx called "Juniper". The best 5xxx chip called "Cypress" is not used in any mobility cards as of now. That applies to almost whole series, 5650 and 57xx are both based on the desktop 56xx chip called "Redwood".

That's why most people are so confused. They think 5850 would be huge upgrade as it is in desktop models but in mobility cards, the difference is fairly small

DoFoT9

Jun 28, 2010, 06:54 PM

Well, sometimes like in ATI 4xxx series it goes like the mobile version is based on the same chip as the desktop counterpart i.e. mobility 4850 is based on the desktop 4850. In 5xxx series, that doesn't unfortunately apply as mobility 58xx is based on desktop 57xx called "Juniper". The best 5xxx chip called "Cypress" is not used in any mobility cards as of now. That applies to almost whole series, 5650 and 57xx are both based on the desktop 56xx chip called "Redwood".

That's why most people are so confused. They think 5850 would be huge upgrade as it is in desktop models but in mobility cards, the difference is fairly small

makes total sense - pretty smart move from ATi to LOSE fans ;)

so when are 5xxx mobility chips set to come out? or even 6xxx?

ermir4444

Jun 28, 2010, 07:46 PM

peakchua

Jun 28, 2010, 09:32 PM

Are we going to see a 5650 in the next 21.5? I mean i was really surprised Apple did not include this card in the high end MBP. Highly efficient with a TDP of 15-19W and better than the 330m and the 4670 for that matter. Looking at AMD's 5 series line up the 5650 is the best choice for the mainstream user and casual gamer in my opinion considering the low TDP and the great performance. I'm not sure about the price but with what i read somewhere it was on par with the 330m. It would be a great contender to replace the 4670.

I see some opinions here pointing to the 57xx for the medium range iMacs but i dont really see the point. It would be a mediocre gain (almost 5%) over the 5650 with a much higher TDP and probably price as well and because they are both based in the same 56 series desktop architecture.Sometimes Apple's choices really amaze me...

apple likes to keep up to date with products and this has primarily made it a competitor in the industry. the reason why 5750 is a good choice over the 5650 is because it uses gddr5 memory which is faster, more advanced than GDDR3, DDR3 DDR2, DDR and so on. 5750 would have a significant increase of about 20-30% over the current 4670 due to gddr5, a better architecture, and higher clocks, + 80 additional stream processors. it is not on par with the 330m. the 330m sucks. 330m is somewhere in the middle of class 2 mobility gpus according to notebook check.

peakchua

Jun 28, 2010, 09:35 PM

Well, sometimes like in ATI 4xxx series it goes like the mobile version is based on the same chip as the desktop counterpart i.e. mobility 4850 is based on the desktop 4850. In 5xxx series, that doesn't unfortunately apply as mobility 58xx is based on desktop 57xx called "Juniper". The best 5xxx chip called "Cypress" is not used in any mobility cards as of now. That applies to almost whole series, 5650 and 57xx are both based on the desktop 56xx chip called "Redwood".

That's why most people are so confused. They think 5850 would be huge upgrade as it is in desktop models but in mobility cards, the difference is fairly small

if they can put a 5850 in there.. desktop edition.. i would sell my imac and get an 27 inch imac. btw if apple was to upsize the imac.. how big would the screen be due to the 16:9 ratio pixel count etc.

peakchua

Jun 28, 2010, 09:38 PM

as for cypress :D will the 6xxx have cypress based mobility gpus? :apple::apple::apple::eek:

TMRaven

Jun 28, 2010, 09:47 PM

I think apple could very well put a desktop 5750 in their next iMacs, given they'd probably found a way to shrink their logic board, and found a new way to place their components for maximum efficiency.

http://s1.guide-images.ifixit.net/igi/TLfSqZEZWnTwKylR.huge

There's also currently a good amount of space behind the heat pipes that lead to the gpu heatsink on the current 27 inch iMac. (the space between the disk drive and hard drive)

DoFoT9

Jun 28, 2010, 10:02 PM

as for cypress :D will the 6xxx have cypress based mobility gpus? :apple::apple::apple::eek:

i think it would be a mix, just like the current ones (e.g. some 5xxx mobility use 4xxx desktop, and some 5xxx mobility use 5xxx desktop technology).

Hellhammer

Jun 29, 2010, 03:14 AM

makes total sense - pretty smart move from ATi to LOSE fans ;)

so when are 5xxx mobility chips set to come out? or even 6xxx?

5xxx has been out for like 6 months :D 6xxx is expected to be released sometime this year

if they can put a 5850 in there.. desktop edition.. i would sell my imac and get an 27 inch imac. btw if apple was to upsize the imac.. how big would the screen be due to the 16:9 ratio pixel count etc.

Next 16:9 that exists is 3840x2160 but iMacs resolution was custom, it didn't exist before, now it does. Plus, I doubt we'll see bigger iMac any time soon

as for cypress :D will the 6xxx have cypress based mobility gpus? :apple::apple::apple::eek:

Eidorian linked me the roadmaps some time ago but I can't fine them. If the memory bus width is 256-bit, then it likely is. we'll see.

i think it would be a mix, just like the current ones (e.g. some 5xxx mobility use 4xxx desktop, and some 5xxx mobility use 5xxx desktop technology).

Mobility 5xxx doesn't use any desktop 4xxx silly :) 4xxx is 55nm while 5xxx is 40nm plus it supports DirectX 11 etcetc. ;)

DoFoT9

Jun 29, 2010, 03:51 AM

5xxx has been out for like 6 months :D 6xxx is expected to be released sometime this year
hmm ok damn maybe not then lol.

Mobility 5xxx doesn't use any desktop 4xxx silly :) 4xxx is 55nm while 5xxx is 40nm plus it supports DirectX 11 etcetc. ;)
hmm. I'm not learning well enough then. So the 5xxx mobility uses desktop 5xxx gpus?

Hellhammer

Jun 29, 2010, 04:03 AM

hmm. I'm not learning well enough then. So the 5xxx mobility uses desktop 5xxx gpus?

They are all based on same chips. There is no mobile only GPUs as far as I can tell. Mobility 5850 is based on desktop 57xx "Juniper". Mobility 5xxx isn't just renamed 4xxx ;) It's more but because the high-end chip (desktop 58xx "Cypress") is not used in any mobility GPU due some reason, the high-end uses the second best chip (desktop 57xx "Juniper").

This is the usual way, it's not common that mobility chips are based on their desktop counterparts, usually one model down like in 5xxx series. It's extremely confusing and unless you do your homework, you won't know these :p

ermir4444

Jun 29, 2010, 04:22 AM

apple likes to keep up to date with products and this has primarily made it a competitor in the industry. the reason why 5750 is a good choice over the 5650 is because it uses gddr5 memory which is faster, more advanced than GDDR3, DDR3 DDR2, DDR and so on. 5750 would have a significant increase of about 20-30% over the current 4670 due to gddr5, a better architecture, and higher clocks, + 80 additional stream processors. it is not on par with the 330m. the 330m sucks. 330m is somewhere in the middle of class 2 mobility gpus according to notebook check.

I don't think Apple ever used GDDR5 in their cards at any point in the past. 4850 used in the iMac right now has a variant with GDDR5 but Apple chose to use the one with GDDR3. Its the same with the amount of VRAM as well. While other companies are moving to 1.5 and 2 GB VRAM Apple is still stuck at 512 Mb tops. That was great like 5 years ago. So dont expect Apple to offer a card with 1 GB DDR5 anytime soon. Hence the 57xx series wout GDDR5 is really not better than the 5650. The main reason Apple would choose the 5650 is the extremely low TDP considering the performance. And you are right 330M really sucks...I mean it is rebranded almost 4 year old technology...

Hellhammer

Jun 29, 2010, 04:45 AM

I don't think Apple ever used GDDR5 in their cards at any point in the past. 4850 used in the iMac right now has a variant with GDDR5 but Apple chose to use the one with GDDR3. Its the same with the amount of VRAM as well. While other companies are moving to 1.5 and 2 GB VRAM Apple is still stuck at 512 Mb tops. That was great like 5 years ago. So dont expect Apple to offer a card with 1 GB DDR5 anytime soon. Hence the 57xx series wout GDDR5 is really not better than the 5650. The main reason Apple would choose the 5650 is the extremely low TDP considering the performance. And you are right 330M really sucks...I mean it is rebranded almost 4 year old technology...

Just because Apple hasn't used it in the past, doesn't mean that they never will. Apple didn't use quad core CPUs in iMac before, now they do. GDDR5 is the future, I'm sure Apple will use it in high-end, otherwise they shouldn't even update it.

VRAM is nothing more but a marketing trick. Mobility 5650 cannot take advantage of all 1GB, heck it can barely utilize half of it, especially with resolution like 1600x900. iMac has such great resolution thus it needs more VRAM, it's currently a bottleneck. If Apple wants to get rid of the bottleneck, they must use more VRAM.

57xx is better than 5650, no matter what GDDR it uses. They are all based on "Redwood" chip but obviously, 57xx has higher clocks. The TDP is irrelevant in iMac as it has no battery. All 57xx have lower TDP than 4670 thus, heck, 5850 has 39W, that's 4W more than 4670. Plus, 4670 was the fastest non-48xx chip so we don't know how much the 21.5" can handle, 5850 should fit there fine. There is no need for Apple to put over two times cooler GPU in iMac, it handles the heat fine.

330M ain't 4 years old. It's just renamed GT 240M with little higher clocks and 240M is based on GT216 core which is used in desktop GT 220. The 240M came about a year ago so it's not old chip, not at all when knowing NVidia's standards

DoFoT9

Jun 29, 2010, 05:36 AM

They are all based on same chips.
then why rename the whole line to 5xxx? they should still be 4xxx naming schemes. lazy ATi lazy.

There is no mobile only GPUs as far as I can tell. Mobility 5850 is based on desktop 57xx "Juniper". Mobility 5xxx isn't just renamed 4xxx ;) It's more but because the high-end chip (desktop 58xx "Cypress") is not used in any mobility GPU due some reason, the high-end uses the second best chip (desktop 57xx "Juniper").

This is the usual way, it's not common that mobility chips are based on their desktop counterparts, usually one model down like in 5xxx series. It's extremely confusing and unless you do your homework, you won't know these :p
so you are saying that the 4850 desktop GPU will have the similar if not identical performance as the 4870 mobile GPU? (as you say they are similar chips/technologies). if they were matched clock for clock/etc, would they be identical?

I don't think Apple ever used GDDR5 in their cards at any point in the past. 4850 used in the iMac right now has a variant with GDDR5 but Apple chose to use the one with GDDR3. Its the same with the amount of VRAM as well. While other companies are moving to 1.5 and 2 GB VRAM Apple is still stuck at 512 Mb tops. That was great like 5 years ago. So dont expect Apple to offer a card with 1 GB DDR5 anytime soon. Hence the 57xx series wout GDDR5 is really not better than the 5650.

just look at the performance increases from doubling the RAM of the GPU - from 256MB->512MB you are looking at something like a 5%-10% increase, i think its better off investing the money into something else.

i think its also wise to bring up the speed benefits from such GDDR technology, in real world how much faster will GDDR5 be over GDDR4/3??

Hellhammer

Jun 29, 2010, 05:49 AM

then why rename the whole line to 5xxx? they should still be 4xxx naming schemes. lazy ATi lazy.

I meant mobility chips are based on desktop chips, not that 5xxx is based on 4xxx silly :p

so you are saying that the 4850 desktop GPU will have the similar if not identical performance as the 4870 mobile GPU? (as you say they are similar chips/technologies). if they were matched clock for clock/etc, would they be identical?

Mobility 4850 and 4870 are just underclocked desktop 4850/4870. The only difference is the clock speeds so if you underclocked desktop 4850 to the level of mobility 4850, the performance should be identical. Difference between 4850 and 4870 is the GDDR and the clocks, in both mobility and desktop versions.

i think its also wise to bring up the speed benefits from such GDDR technology, in real world how much faster will GDDR5 be over GDDR4/3??

I've read GDDR5 is 2-3 times faster at same clock speed. It's almost more efficient thus consumes less power. It's up to the GPU too, it must be fast enough to take advantage of GDDR5

DoFoT9

Jun 29, 2010, 06:10 AM

I meant mobility chips are based on desktop chips, not that 5xxx is based on 4xxx silly :p
haha oh. you are confusing.

I've read GDDR5 is 2-3 times faster at same clock speed. It's almost more efficient thus consumes less power. It's up to the GPU too, it must be fast enough to take advantage of GDDR5

interesting to know. i wonder how that equates in real world tests :) have never checked

TMRaven

Jun 29, 2010, 08:53 AM

GDDR5 is a big step up from GDDR2/3 and 4. Think of GDDR2/3 and 4 being on one tier, then GDDR5 being on a whole tier above them.

peakchua

Jun 29, 2010, 10:48 AM

(roadmap of ati 2010-2011) 128 bit busses still here :( whats the possibility of a 356 bit bus :(

http://forum.notebookreview.com/gaming-software-graphics-cards/490727-ati-mobility-hd-6000-series-roadmap.html

peakchua

Jun 29, 2010, 10:52 AM

I've read GDDR5 is 2-3 times faster at same clock speed. It's almost more efficient thus consumes less power. It's up to the GPU too, it must be fast enough to take advantage of GDDR5[/QUOTE]

which means mobility 5850 blows with gddr3 or ddr3 :D its weird though how from the 5830 to the 5850 400 stream processors are added! come on.. amd needs 600-800 stream procesors in their mobility gpus and the high end.. needs 1200 stream processors. + more rop s +maybe terascale 3? :confused::confused: and gddr5 version STANDARD

pmboos

Jul 26, 2010, 12:31 PM

Dual Boot: current MacOS line and iOS; or even better, the ability to have an iOS emulator running on the MacOS
Touchscreen for use with iOS
iOS being able to access files on the MacOS side
Backlit keyboard
1TB drive as an option
Compact Flash, SDD slots
Blue-ray would be nice, but I'm not to the point of using my computer for much vid, so remaning with DVD is fine for me

My G4 system had a motherboard go bad; I still want to move all my data and apps onto the new system, so I certainly don't want an iOS system only, but having it as a boot option would be sweet. For what I would be using iOS for (EverNote, Flipboard, web browsing), this would be ideal.

iMacmatician

Jul 26, 2010, 01:14 PM

I've read GDDR5 is 2-3 times faster at same clock speed. It's almost more efficient thus consumes less power. It's up to the GPU too, it must be fast enough to take advantage of GDDR5Effective clock of GDDR5 is double that of GDDR3.

(roadmap of ati 2010-2011) 128 bit busses still here :( whats the possibility of a 356 bit bus :(Granville, Capilano, and Robson appear to be Evergreen GPUs.

Blackcomb, Whistler, and Seymour appear to be Southern Islands GPUs. Blackcomb is probably the mobile version of Barts, the Southern Islands desktop successor to Juniper (note the 256-bit bus).

DoFoT9

Jul 26, 2010, 06:37 PM

Dual Boot: current MacOS line and iOS; or even better, the ability to have an iOS emulator running on the MacOS
are you deadly serious? what advantages could having iOS on a computer could there possibly be?
Touchscreen for use with iOS
there is noway i am putting my grubby hands on that gorguz screen ;)
iOS being able to access files on the MacOS side
not gonna happen.
Backlit keyboard
now we're talking :) ive been wanting this for a while!
1TB drive as an option
option? you want 500GB as standard?
Compact Flash, SDD slots
SDD slot wow. that would be like an express slot on the side. me likey! too bad it wont happen :(

Blue-ray would be nice, but I'm not to the point of using my computer for much vid, so remaning with DVD is fine for me

haha dont get that one started.

Effective clock of GDDR5 is double that of GDDR3.
interesting. what is that due to?