OMG Quad Core iMac

[Sneakz]

http://www.apple.com/imac/specs.html Looks like Lynnfield to me. And IPS screens. 16GB of memory. Apple didn't disappoint.

[Eidorian]

Core i5 750 and i7 860 option at that. You definitely have the volume to do it at 27".

The MacBook lost FireWire 400 too.

[powderd]

http://www.apple.com/imac/specs.html Looks like Lynnfield to me. And IPS screens. 16GB of memory. Apple didn't disappoint.

anyone see a price for the quad core 27"?

[frick]

A desktop CPU, but still with piddly laptop graphics?

[iLog.Genius]

Core i5 750 and i7 860 option at that. You definitely have the volume to do it at 27".

The MacBook lost FireWire 400 too.

I guess it's a difference factor for you to go MacBook Pro. Apple needs to seriously stop doing that. Look you already have it on the 13" MBP, so space isn't a factor considering they probably have similar parts.

I'll be honest, the new MacBook looks better than the MacBook Pro and would probably get it over the 13" MacBook Pro given the very similar specs.

[QCassidy352]

anyone see a price for the quad core 27"?

store is not up yet. But do you mean the i5 or the i7?

[Eidorian]

I guess it's a difference factor for you to go MacBook Pro. Apple needs to seriously stop doing that. Look you already have it on the 13" MBP, so space isn't a factor considering they probably have similar parts.

I'll be honest, the new MacBook looks better than the MacBook Pro and would probably get it over the 13" MacBook Pro given the very similar specs.The 2.26 GHz MacBook Pro has a good chance of disappearing today. Making FireWire an upsell is just stupid though.

store is not up yet. But do you mean the i5 or the i7?http://www.apple.com/imac/specs.html

27-inch models only, one of the following:

* 2.66GHz quad-core Intel Core i5 processor with 8MB shared L3 cache; Turbo Boost dynamic performance up to 3.2GHz
* 2.8GHz quad-core Intel Core i7 processor with 8MB shared L3 cache; Turbo Boost dynamic performance up to 3.46GHz; Hyper-Threading for up to eight virtual cores
The 27" model has 4 RAM slots too or is it all of them?

[powderd]

store is not up yet. But do you mean the i5 or the i7?

Well, I guess either. I'm going to buy a new comp and considering i'll be keeping this for close to 5 years i'll likely go to the quad core. Wondering what the big difference would be vs cost.

This is my first mac, as i've had pcs for 15 years, and finally gave up on the POS. My main uses are cutting and editing home movies(the clean kind..:cool:), home pictures, some games but not serious gaming and a lot of work(spread sheets, presentations, word processing, etc)

[Sneakz]

I'll be honest, the new MacBook looks better than the MacBook Pro and would probably get it over the 13" MacBook Pro given the very similar specs.
Agreed. MacBook is easily at this point the better buy over the 13" Pro.

[jamin100]

quad core i7

taken from http://www.apple.com/imac/performance.html

[QCassidy352]

The 27" model has 4 RAM slots too or is it all of them?

from the page you linked, it looks like all of them have 4 RAM slots because that feature isn't indented under the bullet that says "27" models only"

[Eidorian]

from the page you linked, it looks like all of them have 4 RAM slots because that feature isn't indented under the bullet that says "27" models only"I thought so too.

[Quad 2.5 G5 =)]

Well, I wonder what everyone who said "iMac will never get Quad Core Processors."
Are they in a socket? (LGA-1156)?

[jav6454]

Well, I wonder what everyone who said "iMac will never get Quad Core Processors."
Are they in a socket? (LGA-1156)?

Have to be... otherwise, how else to explain the Core i5?

[Eidorian]

Well, I wonder what everyone who said "iMac will never get Quad Core Processors."
Are they in a socket? (LGA-1156)?I've said it before. With the specifications it looks like the Core i5 750 and i7 860.

[Animalk]

Does the i7 cpu have hyperthreading enabled? That is will the OS see 8 cores instead of 4?

[rnb2]

Does the i7 cpu have hyperthreading enabled? That is will the OS see 8 cores instead of 4?

Yes.

[Aegelward]

As awesome as a quad imac is, i can't help feeling 27" is too big for me, it's bigger than my television (26")

Hopefully the next rev (3-6 months or so?) will bring it down into the 21" model

[katyoshi]

i would get 27"

[Bryan Bowler]

These updates are freaking awesome. Apple has really hit it out of the park with these updates!

Thanks Steve!
Bryan

[300D]

No bluray and low/mid range graphics.

[Skweeky]

If anyone has that killer line that convinces their wife that it is absolutely imperative they get the new 27" iMac now, please share.

[rdowns]

As awesome as a quad imac is, i can't help feeling 27" is too big for me, it's bigger than my television (26")

Hopefully the next rev (3-6 months or so?) will bring it down into the 21" model


Obviously you need a 27" iMac and a new TV. I would have thought this was obvious. :D

[Eidorian]

Obviously you need a 27" iMac and a new TV. I would have thought this was obvious. :DA USB TV Tuner away from goodness.

[TennisandMusic]

Well, I guess either. I'm going to buy a new comp and considering i'll be keeping this for close to 5 years i'll likely go to the quad core. Wondering what the big difference would be vs cost.

This is my first mac, as i've had pcs for 15 years, and finally gave up on the POS. My main uses are cutting and editing home movies(the clean kind..:cool:), home pictures, some games but not serious gaming and a lot of work(spread sheets, presentations, word processing, etc)

Hmmm....are you doing HD home movies? I've been doing HD movies for years and tried to get along with them ok on the Mac, but truth be told, it absolutely sucks for HD editing. Maybe if you were using a mac pro with final cut studio, and you were a pro then sure. But if you're doing home AVCHD work, it's near impossible. The time and space it takes to do this makes you just want to stop. There are far far better solutions on PC for AVCHD, that completely trounce ANYTHING on the Mac unfortunately. Plus Windows 7 plays AVCHD natively, and it's beautiful. Even using Clipwrap 2.0 on the Mac (I'm a beta tester for them) it still completely sucks.

If you're using HDV it's better for sure, but HDV is pretty much a dead format these days for HD if you're getting something new.

I would just say be careful if you are getting a new machine FOR video editing. iMovie is complete garbage. That leaves you with some incarnation of Final Cut, or Premiere Pro. Video editing is one thing that, in general, a PC does leagues better (unless you're doing editing for Hollywood movies, then final cut pro is a good choice, but you aren't I'm pretty sure) and for much much cheaper. It's not even a contest unfortunately.

[TennisandMusic]

Does the i7 cpu have hyperthreading enabled? That is will the OS see 8 cores instead of 4?

Yeah the i7 does, the i5 does not.

[Achiever]

If anyone has that killer line that convinces their wife that it is absolutely imperative they get the new 27" iMac now, please share.

Honey, this will go GREAT with that new [fill in the blank] that I ordered for you!

[Quad 2.5 G5 =)]

Have to be... otherwise, how else to explain the Core i5?

So, if somebody has the need to get the Core i7-870, or something in the future that is more powerful, it's as easy as opening it up and popping a new one in, right?

[Eidorian]

So, if somebody has the need to get the Core i7-870, or something in the future that is more powerful, it's as easy as opening it up and popping a new one in, right?Do you want to open an iMac up to replace the processor?

[Quad 2.5 G5 =)]

Do you want to open an iMac up to replace the processor?

Good point, but what about the new C2D iMacs, are they LGA-775?

[icedmocha]

Hmmm....are you doing HD home movies? I've been doing HD movies for years and tried to get along with them ok on the Mac, but truth be told, it absolutely sucks for HD editing. Maybe if you were using a mac pro with final cut studio, and you were a pro then sure. But if you're doing home AVCHD work, it's near impossible. The time and space it takes to do this makes you just want to stop. There are far far better solutions on PC for AVCHD, that completely trounce ANYTHING on the Mac unfortunately. Plus Windows 7 plays AVCHD natively, and it's beautiful. Even using Clipwrap 2.0 on the Mac (I'm a beta tester for them) it still completely sucks.

If you're using HDV it's better for sure, but HDV is pretty much a dead format these days for HD if you're getting something new.

I would just say be careful if you are getting a new machine FOR video editing. iMovie is complete garbage. That leaves you with some incarnation of Final Cut, or Premiere Pro. Video editing is one thing that, in general, a PC does leagues better (unless you're doing editing for Hollywood movies, then final cut pro is a good choice, but you aren't I'm pretty sure) and for much much cheaper. It's not even a contest unfortunately.

Thanks A LOT for this post! You helped me immensely!

[TennisandMusic]

Thanks A LOT for this post! You helped me immensely!

Wow really? Well that's good, if you have any other questions regarding HD video editing on any platform feel free to ask. I've done a lot on both and could likely answer any question you might have.

[Mactuary]

Hmmm....are you doing HD home movies? I've been doing HD movies for years and tried to get along with them ok on the Mac, but truth be told, it absolutely sucks for HD editing. Maybe if you were using a mac pro with final cut studio, and you were a pro then sure. But if you're doing home AVCHD work, it's near impossible. The time and space it takes to do this makes you just want to stop. There are far far better solutions on PC for AVCHD, that completely trounce ANYTHING on the Mac unfortunately. Plus Windows 7 plays AVCHD natively, and it's beautiful. Even using Clipwrap 2.0 on the Mac (I'm a beta tester for them) it still completely sucks.

If you're using HDV it's better for sure, but HDV is pretty much a dead format these days for HD if you're getting something new.

I would just say be careful if you are getting a new machine FOR video editing. iMovie is complete garbage. That leaves you with some incarnation of Final Cut, or Premiere Pro. Video editing is one thing that, in general, a PC does leagues better (unless you're doing editing for Hollywood movies, then final cut pro is a good choice, but you aren't I'm pretty sure) and for much much cheaper. It's not even a contest unfortunately.

This post is a huge help for me as well. I just registered on this site so I could ask about exactly this topic.

So what do you recommend? I want something with a display in the same ballpark as the 24" iMac, and will allow me to do video and photo editing quickly and easily. My wife wants to work with it, so we were tempted by the iMac's simplicity. Sounds like video is a different matter...

[Mactuary]

Quick follow-up question: Might the iMac be worth it if I waited to buy a camcorder that works with the iFrame format? I know that's lower def, but might it be good enough? I just bought a Canon HF200, but I can return it and wait for better iFrame models than the two Sanyo has released.

[lssmit02]

Would there be a significant increase in performance going from a 2.66 Mac Pro (2006) to the high end iMac with the Core i7? What ifyou have the Nvidia 8800 GT?

[Eidorian]

Would there be a significant increase in performance going from a 2.66 Mac Pro (2006) to the high end iMac with the Core i7? What ifyou have the Nvidia 8800 GT?Stick with the Mac Pro for a little longer. The 8800GT still has some teeth.

What do you use your current desktop for?

[bbydon]

I think every computer sucks at HD.
I do AFX animation. HD is like using a 5 year old computer to do SD.

[DoFoT9]

so i take it that the new iMac quad core uses both desktop CPUs??

do we know about the GPU?

[TennisandMusic]

This post is a huge help for me as well. I just registered on this site so I could ask about exactly this topic.

So what do you recommend? I want something with a display in the same ballpark as the 24" iMac, and will allow me to do video and photo editing quickly and easily. My wife wants to work with it, so we were tempted by the iMac's simplicity. Sounds like video is a different matter...

I've gone through so many headaches and "switched platforms" so many times my girlfriend thinks I'm partially insane. The problem is that one platform does things better than the other.

If an iMac can suit your needs, it might be the better way to go. I'm a fairly heavy "power user" and I just can't justify the price of a Mac Pro at all, so I use a Windows desktop and a Macbook Pro. Just install Windows 7 with bootcamp, and use that for video editing if you don't mind needing to reboot.

Photo's? Lightroom works on either platform. Generally the Adobe stuff works better on Windows however. iPhoto is kinda "eh" if you are serious about it. It's better than iMovie is for videos though. Look at all the editing solutions on Windows. Cyberlink PowerDirector, the Avid HD Studio stuff. Some offerings from Corel. Pretty powerful, yet easy to use solutions. Mac has...iMovie (seriously, what is this?!), Final Cut Studio (steep learning curve, try doing it with AVCHD ugh) and Premiere Pro (better on windows from what I hear). That's it. Trust me I would love it if Mac's perfectly suited my needs in this area. It is pretty much unusable for me because I use a modern AVCHD cam. And Quicktime X just pales in comparison to Media Player 12, along with Media Center.

If you are attracted to the all in one nature of the iMac, nothing on the Window's side really compares. Dell has some hilarious "all in ones" if you look for them on their site, you would know it if you found them.Despite all my PO'd ness with Apple over what they do with their products, I don't think there is any arguing they lead the industry in design. Nothing is going to look as nice as a Mac sitting on your desk.

If you want overall functionality though, you really can't beat a Windows 7 machine, and there are much better deals and still great hardware to be had in that field. You can do more with Windows 7, like it or not really. My macs make me feel kinda hamstrung, and that I'm trapped in a little ecosystem, where I HAVE to do things the way Steve Jobs wants me too. I don't get that feeling at all on Windows, and to be frank, compared to Snow Leopard, Windows 7 "just works." Snow Leopard has been terrible overall for me, but I'm sure that will be straightened out in a future update. But it shouldn't have gone out the door in the shape it was in.

Just beware that you are paying a very very large premium for an Apple, that generally cannot be upgraded and can ONLY be fixed by taking it into a mall. That's not exactly my thing. On the other hand, if what they offer fits what you need you would be hard pressed to find something nicer to use.

That seems like a rambling response to me. Let me know if there are any other pointed issues you are wondering about. But I have to say, if you get nice hardware on either side, both OSX and Windows 7 are "good." Each OS has their strong and weak points, and they tend to be the opposite things for each one (which is what makes it so frustrating to me! haha).

[TennisandMusic]

Would there be a significant increase in performance going from a 2.66 Mac Pro (2006) to the high end iMac with the Core i7? What ifyou have the Nvidia 8800 GT?

Significant? No not at all. I would stick with the Mac Pro for the expandability, easily. I mean, especially if you already have one.

[TennisandMusic]

Quick follow-up question: Might the iMac be worth it if I waited to buy a camcorder that works with the iFrame format? I know that's lower def, but might it be good enough? I just bought a Canon HF200, but I can return it and wait for better iFrame models than the two Sanyo has released.

The HF200 is a nice camera isn't it? I can't imagine wanting to use the iFrame format over what that offers, it would be of significantly less quality than what you have. However editing your HF200 video on the iMac will be a nightmare, compared to how it could be if Apple got their stuff together.

It would however, be easier if you used a program like Clipwrap 2.0 (not out yet). The i7 would probably make handling those conversions much nicer than the current core2duo stuff.

That should be an addendum to my previous post. If you want to use final cut express, it's possible it could work great with Clipwrap 2.0, so in that sense AVCHD editing could be much better. But I'm still not sure about playback. It doesn't appear that OSX uses the GPU the same way Windows does for video acceleration. Just try watching AVCHD on OSX, and then on W7 on a Mac Mini. See which one flies, and see which one dies. :-P

[lssmit02]

Stick with the Mac Pro for a little longer. The 8800GT still has some teeth.

What do you use your current desktop for?
That's what I was thinking. Photo editing and gaming are the two most demanding things I do on a regular basis (Occasionally work with video, but that's rare). Well, and rosetta@home :p

[Eidorian]

That's what I was thinking. Photo editing and gaming are the two most demanding things I do on a regular basis (Occasionally work with video, but that's rare). Well, and rosetta@home :pIt sounds like a great machine like my Q6600 was. :D

I barely do video work too but I like to have the power. Unless you're making money on those videos wait it out. The next iMac revision might be what you're looking for.

[Mactuary]

Thanks, TennisAndMusic! I really appreciate all the insights. Plus, you may have just helped me talk my wife into the top-of-the-line iMac! :-)