Apple to Use Newly Released Quad-Core Desktop Processors?

MacRumors · Jan 20, 2009, 05:04 AM

On Monday, Intel dropped prices on existing desktop Quad-Core processors and introduced three new power-efficient Quad-Core desktop processors:

Quote:

Intel also introduced three power-efficient quad-core chips with the "s" moniker. The Core 2 Quad Q9550s processor includes 12MB of L2 cache, runs at 2.83GHz and draws 65 watts of power. The chips are priced at $369. The chip is power-efficient version of the Core 2 Quad Q9550 chip, which draws 95 watts of power.

Intel also introduced the Core 2 Quad Q9400s processor, which runs at 2.66GHz, and the Core 2 Quad Q8200s, which runs at 2.33GHz. This chips are priced at $320 and $245 respectively.

According to a report from November, Apple was said to be specifically waiting for these Quad-Core processors to launch new machines.

While the overdue iMac still seems the most likely target, such a move would break Apple's tradition of using mobile processors in their iMac line. Despite their "power efficient" designation, the new processors still use significantly more power then their mobile counterparts currently found in the iMac.

While there has been some speculation that Apple may have reworked the cooling module in the new iMac, there have been no evidence that this is actually true.

Article Link: Apple to Use Newly Released Quad-Core Deskop Processors?

natebookpro · Jan 20, 2009, 05:08 AM

Not sure I see it happening. Would be pretty cool if it did though!

MattInOz · Jan 20, 2009, 05:10 AM

Well the current iMac's do run quiet but hot. So if they can ramp up the cooling system as big enough to these puppies in that would be one fine machine.

mangis · Jan 20, 2009, 05:12 AM

Weren'we supposed ot have a 3.0 Mhz machine by like june of 2004?

SimonTheSoundMa · Jan 20, 2009, 05:14 AM

The old iMac G5's were power hungry desktop CPUs. New aluminium iMacs have far better cooling, so it should be fine for desktop processors.

SimonTheSoundMa · 05:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mangis

Weren'we supposed ot have a 3.0 Mhz machine by like june of 2004?

That came in the late 1980's / early 1990's.

I know you mean GHz. At the moment the aim is to reduce power consumption and heat through design, if they carried on ramping up the clock speed with te old Pentium 4, within 5 years time the processor would be as hot as the surface of the sun.

talkingfuture · Jan 20, 2009, 05:18 AM

I'd file this under plausible with the rumour of upgraded cooling in the new iMacs.

SFStateStudent · Jan 20, 2009, 05:26 AM

New iMacs would be pretty nice with these new quad-core processors...

redAPPLE · Jan 20, 2009, 05:26 AM

this might not be really on topic, but i just need to ask, because i am expecting to buy a new machine...

i would like to video edit with the iMac. is the last iMac good enough for Final Cut Pro?

maybe you guys could give a short answer to this. thanks.

eXan · Jan 20, 2009, 05:27 AM

Increased power requirements make iMacs with these Q cores hard to believe ... But if new cooling system won't make iMacs louder, I would seriously consider a new iMac.

zedsdead · Jan 20, 2009, 05:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by redAPPLE

this might not be really on topic, but i just need to ask, because i am expecting to buy a new machine...

i would like to video edit with the iMac. is the last iMac good enough for Final Cut Pro?

maybe you guys could give a short answer to this. thanks.

More than good enough to run Final Cut Pro. If you plan to do heavy transcoding, you are going to want either a Mac Pro, or wait and see if Apple puts a Quad-Core processor in the next release.

arn · Jan 20, 2009, 05:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by talkingfuture

I'd file this under plausible with the rumour of upgraded cooling in the new iMacs.

that's the thing. the "upgraded cooling" system rumor was plucked out of thin air. It shouldn't even be considered a rumor. someone misread the original report.

The original report (from digitimes) never said there was a new cooling system. Just that some company was making the iMac's cooling system. which may have simply been the existing one.

arn

Theophany · Jan 20, 2009, 05:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SimonTheSoundMa

if they carried on ramping up the clock speed with te old Pentium 4, within 5 years time the processor would be as hot as the surface of the sun.

It already was by the time they discontinued those el crappo chips

madrag · Jan 20, 2009, 05:42 AM

why the iMac? this is definetly a processor for the MacPro, isn't it?
is there another excuse not to launch a new MP?

arn · Jan 20, 2009, 05:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by madrag

why the iMac? this is definetly a processor for the MacPro, isn't it?
is there another excuse not to launch a new MP?

well, the Mac Pros traditionally use server class processors, not desktop-class. It's possible I suppose, but I'm not sure if these processors are much better than what's currently shipping in the Mac Pros.

arn

SirOmega · Jan 20, 2009, 05:52 AM

I still think this is unlikely. It would be a lot of heat in that small chassis. Apple is far more likely to use the Q9000 - a 45W QC CPU.

talkingfuture · Jan 20, 2009, 05:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by arn

that's the thing. the "upgraded cooling" system rumor was plucked out of thin air. It shouldn't even be considered a rumor. someone misread the original report.

The original report (from digitimes) never said there was a new cooling system. Just that some company was making the iMac's cooling system. which may have simply been the existing one.

arn

Quote:

Originally Posted by talkingfuture

I'd file this under plausible with the rumour of upgraded cooling in the new iMacs.

Ah, I didn't realize that. Probably less plausible then.

JGeorge07 · Jan 20, 2009, 05:59 AM

First, the rumored cooling system would need to be valid. Then if that's valid, this rumor could plausibly come to fruition.

It just seems like speculation built on top of speculation to me.

Why is this necessary anyway? Intel already makes Quad core mobile processors, so isn't it much more likely that some version of that processor will be the one eventually finding itself into the mainstream Apple lineup?

Michael CM1 · Jan 20, 2009, 06:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mangis

Weren'we supposed ot have a 3.0 Mhz machine by like june of 2004?

That 3 GHz number is just a number. It means nothing but clock speed.

A quad-core 2.3 Ghz CPU will run much faster than a 2.3 Ghz dual-core. It won't be twice as fast, especially without the right OS, but you're gaining a lot of speed without having to jack up the clock speed.

madrag · Jan 20, 2009, 06:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by arn

well, the Mac Pros traditionally use server class processors, not desktop-class. It's possible I suppose, but I'm not sure if these processors are much better than what's currently shipping in the Mac Pros.

arn

ok, sorry for my ignorance

even so, the heat problem led me to think of this as a possible candidate for the MP. Is this possible?

gazonk · Jan 20, 2009, 06:10 AM

Apple used these processor for a "Mac midi". Where I work, we've started to exchange Windows PCs for macs, but most users don't want the glossy screens, besides, we have lots of good, large screens that we could reuse if Apple only had a sensible screen-less model. The current mac mini is an underspecified joke of a computer, and the Mac Pro is total overkill for the intended office use.

Tallest Skil · Jan 20, 2009, 06:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by madrag

ok, sorry for my ignorance

even so, the heat problem led me to think of this as a possible candidate for the MP. Is this possible?

NO!

Read this: http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=635530

To know why these worthless things won't be in the Mac Pro.

billystlyes · Jan 20, 2009, 06:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gazonk

but most users don't want the glossy screens

I hate them in the worst way, especially in an office environment. Apple really needs to do something with the Mac mini or come out with an affordable tower…otherwise they are dead to me. To be honest, Windows 7 is looking pretty sweet anyways. Plus...you have tons of hardware options going that route.

alexbates · Jan 20, 2009, 06:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by madrag

why the iMac? this is definetly a processor for the MacPro, isn't it?
is there another excuse not to launch a new MP?

I think this new quad-core processor will only be in the next update of the Mac Pro. Apple needs to stick with the Core 2 Duo for the iMac.

Tallest Skil · Jan 20, 2009, 06:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by alexbates

I think this new quad-core processor will only be in the next update of the Mac Pro. Apple needs to stick with the Core 2 Duo for the iMac.

It won't, sorry.

(be in the Mac Pro)

Jan 20, 2009, 05:08 AM	#2
natebookpro macrumors 6502 Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: Maryland	Not sure I see it happening. Would be pretty cool if it did though! __________________ Alu MacBook 2.4 4GB 500GB \| 32GB White iPhone 3G S\| Time Capsule 500GB \| TV

Jan 20, 2009, 05:18 AM	#7
talkingfuture macrumors 6502a Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: The back of beyond.	I'd file this under plausible with the rumour of upgraded cooling in the new iMacs. __________________ Futuristical bloggery with a twist.

Jan 20, 2009, 05:26 AM	#8
SFStateStudent macrumors Demi-God Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: San Francisco California, USA	New iMacs would be pretty nice with these new quad-core processors... __________________ MBP 2.5GHz 250GB Mac Pro 3G S⃣ iPhone 32GB Black

Jan 20, 2009, 05:26 AM	#9
redAPPLE macrumors 68020 Join Date: May 2002 Location: 2 Much Infinite Loops	this might not be really on topic, but i just need to ask, because i am expecting to buy a new machine... i would like to video edit with the iMac. is the last iMac good enough for Final Cut Pro? maybe you guys could give a short answer to this. thanks. __________________ "Real men FTP/SSH their files around anyway." -- generik

Jan 20, 2009, 05:27 AM	#10
eXan macrumors 68040 Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Near Korea, Japan and China.	Increased power requirements make iMacs with these Q cores hard to believe ... But if new cooling system won't make iMacs louder, I would seriously consider a new iMac. __________________ My Web-Site 20" iMac alu 2 GHz \| 4 GB \| 250 GB \| Radeon 2400 XT 15" MacBook Pro classic 2.4 GHz \| 4 GB \| 250 GB \| GeForce 8600m GT

Jan 20, 2009, 05:10 AM	#3
MattInOz macrumors 6502a Join Date: Jan 2006	Well the current iMac's do run quiet but hot. So if they can ramp up the cooling system as big enough to these puppies in that would be one fine machine.

Jan 20, 2009, 05:12 AM	#4
mangis macrumors member Join Date: Jan 2002	Weren'we supposed ot have a 3.0 Mhz machine by like june of 2004?

Jan 20, 2009, 05:14 AM	#5
SimonTheSoundMa macrumors 6502 Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Birmingham, UK	The old iMac G5's were power hungry desktop CPUs. New aluminium iMacs have far better cooling, so it should be fine for desktop processors.

Jan 20, 2009, 05:42 AM	#14
madrag macrumors member Join Date: Nov 2007	why the iMac? this is definetly a processor for the MacPro, isn't it? is there another excuse not to launch a new MP?

Jan 20, 2009, 05:52 AM	#16
SirOmega macrumors 6502a Join Date: Apr 2006	I still think this is unlikely. It would be a lot of heat in that small chassis. Apple is far more likely to use the Q9000 - a 45W QC CPU.

Jan 20, 2009, 05:59 AM	#18
JGeorge07 macrumors newbie Join Date: Jan 2009	First, the rumored cooling system would need to be valid. Then if that's valid, this rumor could plausibly come to fruition. It just seems like speculation built on top of speculation to me. Why is this necessary anyway? Intel already makes Quad core mobile processors, so isn't it much more likely that some version of that processor will be the one eventually finding itself into the mainstream Apple lineup?

Jan 20, 2009, 06:10 AM	#21
gazonk macrumors newbie Join Date: Jan 2009	It would be cool if Apple used these processor for a "Mac midi". Where I work, we've started to exchange Windows PCs for macs, but most users don't want the glossy screens, besides, we have lots of good, large screens that we could reuse if Apple only had a sensible screen-less model. The current mac mini is an underspecified joke of a computer, and the Mac Pro is total overkill for the intended office use.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode