Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
23-inch iMac on September 12th?
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
also i thought Conroe had some cooling issue. i think i read a report about disappointing cooling result or something.
if that's the case, iMac's cooling may not be enough to take conroe.
i will give appleinsider a benefit of doubt and believe iMac will come with Merom.
if that's the case, iMac's cooling may not be enough to take conroe.
i will give appleinsider a benefit of doubt and believe iMac will come with Merom.
Matt T said:
Tell me what the differance is between the Conroe and Memron. Can you list them and can you explain how each will effect a running application.
Here is my take on an answer to the above: Memron uses less power but is otherwise the same. Effect. Less fan noise, less heat.
There is also the memory buss speed. But you have to think about the L2 cache hit ratio and mutliply the differance in buss cycle times by the inverse of the L2 hit ratio. You will get a very small number I bet.
Next about pice: The moble procesor is mre expensive. If they wanted to build a cheapper machine they use the Conroe. But they choose to build a col and quiet machine.
What a REALLY suspect is Apple wants to minimize the number of designes they have to sell and support so they make the imac and the MBP use the same internal design and the Mac Mini and Macbook share the same design and use memron all around
Spanky Deluxe said:
I think there are also a lot of people, which will look alternatives from the PC/Windows world if Apple doesn't have a good solution to offer. Sure Apple can "force" customers to buy a Mac Pro or an iMac, but then they must take a risk that customer doesn't want to buy either of them.
Mac Pro was too expensive for me, iMac wasn't expandable enough and I don't like the all-in-one form factor... so I ordered a nice new PC with Conroe.
Multimedia said:If iMacs don't get Conroe inside that is going to be SO WEAK. The Power GAP between all Macs and the Mac Pro would be so wide you could drive a truck through it. Makes no sense to me for Conroe to not go into something. Right now that's only iMac. Market for Conroe headless Mac has got to be huge.
I guess we are going to hear this complaint until the end of time...remember when Apple released the Mac mini? Jobs said, "...if they'd only sell one without the monitor..."
Where is this "huge" market for a conroe headless mac? Gamers? People who don't want an integrated computer/monitor?
Guess what? Apple doesn't care about this market. I hate to assign every decision in the company to Steve Jobs but I think it has a lot to do with him. Steve wants to make the whole widget. He still has the vision of a computer like a toaster. He is not interested in non-elegant designs. He views mid-range as non-elegant.
Apple sees more and more people buying notebooks. They definetly want (and have) a big piece of this market. Notebooks are elegant and entirely self-contained.
They make the towers for the pros, because the pros bring in a lot of revenue thru hardware, software and services.
They make iMacs and minis for who ever is left. I bet there were months and months of arguments before the mini was released and it still isn't the headless iMac that people were asking for.
teme said:
then the truth of the matter is this: You are not one of us. You aren't sold on the Mac platform, and therefore you sold out to PC. I look sometimes over the fence at the PC platform and the deals i can get, and then I actually bought one 2 months ago, and sold it in 2 weeks since I despised the OS. I applaud you for making a choice, I am just sad to see a person on MacRumors who wasn't 100% sold on Mac.
Grrr
Would I like a 23" iMac? If it was cheap enough, yeah. Would I prefer a Conroe based mini tower and 23" Cinema display? Definitely!
Displays don't get obsolete nearly as quickly as computers. It's going to take another huge leap in display technology to make today's LCDs look bad. Even then an old LCD will be good enough for at least 75% of the market.
In my family there is a 14 year old display still in daily use. While I realize that's an anomoly, when I get a display I expect it to last at least half that long. Seven years from now a 23" LCD is still going to be a nice display. By then the 23" Merom iMac is going to look like a 266MHz strawberry iMac looks today: pathetically slow for anything but word processing.
So if somebody at Apple reads this, take note of some facts that should be very troubling to your company: I've owned close to a dozen Macs since 1992, I work for a Mac-centric business and want to buy a new Mac. Since the release of OS X I've upgraded computers three times, but only one of those was purchased new (the others were used machines). Why? The lack of a mid-priced desktop with more than 2 RAM slots, a second HD bay and a real video card I can connect to my choice of display.
Would I like a 23" iMac? If it was cheap enough, yeah. Would I prefer a Conroe based mini tower and 23" Cinema display? Definitely!
Displays don't get obsolete nearly as quickly as computers. It's going to take another huge leap in display technology to make today's LCDs look bad. Even then an old LCD will be good enough for at least 75% of the market.
In my family there is a 14 year old display still in daily use. While I realize that's an anomoly, when I get a display I expect it to last at least half that long. Seven years from now a 23" LCD is still going to be a nice display. By then the 23" Merom iMac is going to look like a 266MHz strawberry iMac looks today: pathetically slow for anything but word processing.
So if somebody at Apple reads this, take note of some facts that should be very troubling to your company: I've owned close to a dozen Macs since 1992, I work for a Mac-centric business and want to buy a new Mac. Since the release of OS X I've upgraded computers three times, but only one of those was purchased new (the others were used machines). Why? The lack of a mid-priced desktop with more than 2 RAM slots, a second HD bay and a real video card I can connect to my choice of display.
gnasher729 said:
Hmmm, yeah, right ... Check Anandtech links:
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2808&p=6
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2795&p=8
Check your facts. How do you think a mobile chip can beat a desktop one? Give me strength
Conroe Is NOT For Mobiles Nor mini
Conroe is too hot for mini and MacBooks. Have you not been reading anything? Merom only in mobiles and mini. Not likely in an educational iMac either.Object-X said:
Chupa Chupa said:
Hmmm...
Gaming computer with an ATI X1600...
Any real gamer, and anyone (like me) who knows any real gamers knows that an awesome CPU doesn't really help you play games.
It's all the GPU above a few gigahertz CPU. Why waste money on a dual 2.93 or 3.2 when a 2.4 would be just as good, and leave plenty of money for a real GPU?
Just look at some benchmarks. Processors are rarely the bottleneck for any gaming platform.
Replace your CPU with a C2D 2.4, and whack in an X1800 or X1900, and it would perform far, far better, and probably be cheaper.
Erasmus said:
Apple have never designed their machines with 'serious gamers' in mind. It's not about gaming on the mac (too few games, OpenGL too slow vs Direct X). But, maybe things might change with Bootcamp. More people might be using OS X for day to day stuff, then boot into XP via Bootcamp to play games. But then gamers are always going to want a tower over an iMac
Deciding between a Mac Pro and an iMac just got a bit harder for my next desktop. But thats not until after Leopard is out, perhaps way after.
I'm saving up for the macbook black right now, but the thing is, if all the people say they want all this wicked fast processors on the low end macs, SAVE UP FOR A HIGHER END MACHINE. In my opinion, I don't think apple's gonna put all the best specs in a $1000 machine (please don't correct the price im trying to make a point)
But anyway, I'll take a 23" iMac right now. I'm stumbling right now in a 2.8 ghz pentium 4 dell PC. Although I kind of doubt it, it would still be freakin insane!
As for the distinction between the Mac pro's and the 23 inch imac, one thing is that i mac has really no room for upgrades. It has one slot loading drive, while the mac pro has two drives plus 4 hard drive bays, 16 gb possible ram, etc.
Another thing is, pro people can use two 30 inch displays with their mac pro with the right graphics card, which is 60 inches total, compared to 23 inch? Yeah, there's a little difference.
Anyway, this topics about the 23 inch imac, and people are talking about how they want to see like xeon in the freakin mac mini's by december (joke) it seems a little off topic
But anyway, I'll take a 23" iMac right now. I'm stumbling right now in a 2.8 ghz pentium 4 dell PC. Although I kind of doubt it, it would still be freakin insane!
As for the distinction between the Mac pro's and the 23 inch imac, one thing is that i mac has really no room for upgrades. It has one slot loading drive, while the mac pro has two drives plus 4 hard drive bays, 16 gb possible ram, etc.
Another thing is, pro people can use two 30 inch displays with their mac pro with the right graphics card, which is 60 inches total, compared to 23 inch? Yeah, there's a little difference.
Anyway, this topics about the 23 inch imac, and people are talking about how they want to see like xeon in the freakin mac mini's by december (joke) it seems a little off topic
I think they're OLED displays, whether or not the pictures are legit, I think it is possible. And, yeah, it would rock!syklee26 said:
As for the 23" iMac, it would be cool but I'm personally not interested in it so it doesn't affect me one way or the other.
Now if they release an iPhone I'll be all over it!
See?
What Erasmus wants, Erasmus gets.
I seem to have a little cult of followers who also want an iMac Ultra.
Maybe I can expect a letter alerting me to an imminent court appearance soon?
iMac getting Merom makes me sad. It's almost an insult to the legacy of iMac Ultra. So is the continuation of X1600s or even X1650s. iMacs, and MBP's if I'm going to mention it, deserve at least X1800s. They are cheap now anyway.
iMac 23" requires Conroe, a chin amputation, and an X1900XT or even XTX. It requires 4 RAM slots, and user upgradeable CPU, GPU, HD and RAM. I vote AU$3500 for this, allowing me to buy a Merom Macbook when they come out for doing uni work at uni, while still shelling out under 5 grand.
I think we may see the dissappearance of the 17", with its delegation to Educational status. No love lost. I doubt whether we will see a 30" iMac for at least a year. More likely sometime in 2008. But it would be nice to have iMacs having the same LCD's as the 20" and 23" Apple Cinema Displays.
I still hold out that Apple need a high powered iMac, and am really sick of people saying "That is what the Mac Pro is for". I configured the lowest Mac Pro with the highest iMac (So they were reasonably comparable) and the Mac Pro was a full 60% more expensive. Most people do not need four hard disk bays, two DVD drive bays and Quad CPUs which cannot be "downgraded" from the Mac Pro. Remember, the Mac Pro may be priced close to the iMac, but it doesn't include a screen. Buy an ACD, and that's AU$2000 that you could have spent on a Macbook, with change to spare.
There is a market out there for Conroe iMacs with big screens, fast CPUs and great GPUs, and it will not encroach on the Mac Pro customer base.
What Erasmus wants, Erasmus gets.
I seem to have a little cult of followers who also want an iMac Ultra.
Maybe I can expect a letter alerting me to an imminent court appearance soon?
iMac getting Merom makes me sad. It's almost an insult to the legacy of iMac Ultra. So is the continuation of X1600s or even X1650s. iMacs, and MBP's if I'm going to mention it, deserve at least X1800s. They are cheap now anyway.
iMac 23" requires Conroe, a chin amputation, and an X1900XT or even XTX. It requires 4 RAM slots, and user upgradeable CPU, GPU, HD and RAM. I vote AU$3500 for this, allowing me to buy a Merom Macbook when they come out for doing uni work at uni, while still shelling out under 5 grand.
I think we may see the dissappearance of the 17", with its delegation to Educational status. No love lost. I doubt whether we will see a 30" iMac for at least a year. More likely sometime in 2008. But it would be nice to have iMacs having the same LCD's as the 20" and 23" Apple Cinema Displays.
I still hold out that Apple need a high powered iMac, and am really sick of people saying "That is what the Mac Pro is for". I configured the lowest Mac Pro with the highest iMac (So they were reasonably comparable) and the Mac Pro was a full 60% more expensive. Most people do not need four hard disk bays, two DVD drive bays and Quad CPUs which cannot be "downgraded" from the Mac Pro. Remember, the Mac Pro may be priced close to the iMac, but it doesn't include a screen. Buy an ACD, and that's AU$2000 that you could have spent on a Macbook, with change to spare.
There is a market out there for Conroe iMacs with big screens, fast CPUs and great GPUs, and it will not encroach on the Mac Pro customer base.
Object-X said:
I think you are quite off your rocker if you believe that. Conroe will not exist in any of those.
memory limits?
When apple releases the MBP with the merom (notice "when", not "if", I'm crossing my fingers for sept 5th) the 64 bit arch lends itself to a higher memory limit, do you forsee the BTO options for memory going up? do they even make 2gb so-dimm cards? more slots?
When apple releases the MBP with the merom (notice "when", not "if", I'm crossing my fingers for sept 5th) the 64 bit arch lends itself to a higher memory limit, do you forsee the BTO options for memory going up? do they even make 2gb so-dimm cards? more slots?
quadgirl said:
You may be correct but I don't see anything in your links that compares a 2.13 conroe to a 2.33 merom.
The 2.33 merom scored an overall sysmark 2004 test of 260. The only Conroes that they show are 1.86, 2.4, and 2.66.
The 1.86 scored 255 which is less than the merom 2.33. And the 2.4 conroe scored 322 which is more than the 2.33 merom. So how does this dispute that a 2.33 merom is faster than a 2.13 conroe? It might be but this doesn't really confirm it. In fact it makes me think that the Conroe and Merom perform pretty similar with the Conroe most likely being faster in this particular benchmark.
Besides this is just one benchmark test under windows. It would be better to see real world tests under OSX.
Personally if the two chips run close to the same performance I would rather have a mobile chip in the iMac. Ultimately it will run a lot cooler and be a lot more reliable over time.
hyroboarder said:
OK, I'm just going to annoy you and point out that two 30" screen is NOT equivalent to a 60" screen. Four 30" screens is equivalent to a 60" screen.
But that's not your point. I agree with your point, that a 23" iMac, hoever it is specced, is not going to compete with a Mac Pro.