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
brianus said:
In the US of course. I trust AI too. Remember, most Mac users wanting TV can use Elgato's solutions.
Matt T said:
I, sir, agree with you.
"You, Merom, the Accused, stand before the court on three charges. One, impersonating a desktop chip. Badly. Two, being slow. Three, being outrageously expensive. How do you plead?"
If we take a trip to the Macrumors Guide, more specifically "Core 2 Duo" we can grab some prices.
2.16 Merom -> $423
2.33 Merom -> $637
Big gap. About 50% more cash for just 166 more Mhz. Now if we look at Conroe prices:
2.40 Conroe -> $316
2.67 Conroe -> $530
and
2.93 Conroe Extreme -> $999 (Same price for 3.2 when its released, everything gets shunted down)
"Guilty"
So we have a FASTER Conroe (2.4) for HALF the cost of the fastest Merom(2.33) And then, Conroe only gets faster... A full 333Mhz faster per core than 2.33 Merom for $107 LESS... Therefore Apple could spend that cash in sticking in a better cooling system, or put it towards more standard RAM, or a better GPU.
"Guilty"
So 14% faster, PLUS faster bus speeds, for $100 less.
If apple doesn't use Conroe for at least the high end 23" iMac, they need to reconsider, and keep reconsidering until they decide to use Conroe.
23" internal space, even without a chin, is more than enough space to house either 2.4 or 2.67 Conroe, an excellent GPU, more RAM, a few more extras, and cooling more than sufficient to keep iMac running silently. Plus Apple has an extra $100 to make the iMac better than it would have been without, sealing the case against Merom.
"I, Erasmus, find the accused guilty on all charges. Punishment is termination, effective immediately, of all Merom processors in any iMac design"
Erasmus said:I am all for a screenless Mini Mac Pro style computer, Multimedia, as well, as I see that something like this would be excellent for your, and many others, needs.
I personally, do not have a decent screen. My 6 year old 15" LCD screen is really starting to show its age. 1024x768 will soon be too small, it's starting to happen already. Some websites don't support this size, making text hard to read. The really cool promo pic of the 30" Mac Pro earlier on this thread doesn't fit on my screen. It's only a small inconvenience at the moment, but it's only going to get worse.
This is one reason why I want a 23" iMac. Someone with a 24" Dell screen or a 30" ACD can go and buy a Mac Pro for a few grand. I would have to go and buy a screen with it, and as I've said before, suddenly an already expensive AU$4G really cool computer costs well over six grand. This is one reason why I hope this rumour comes true (except for the Merom part). With Apple's recent trend with Macbook and Mac Pro having expandability options (however somewhat limited with the Macbook) maybe we will see an iMac with customisability more on line with the Mac Pro, than the completely locked MBP. There would of course be plenty of room for non-soldered and upgradeable parts in an 23" iMac.
IMO, the only way Apple can justify using Merom in their computers is to get rid of the iMac chin (So would look something like Engadget's pic, but even better look more like the 30" Mac Pro which really does look SCORCHINGLY HOT (in a good way)) and put in an awesome GPU, or at least have it as an option. If not, Apple's design will be about 2mm thick, and I'm sure yo all agree that that's a tad excessive
SO: It would be cool if Apple could create this better iMac for people like me, and design a "Cube" or "Pizza box" with similar specs minus the screen for people like Multimedia, both which were very user upgradeable. People like me don't really need Firewire 800, or four HD bays. Multimedia might. Multimedia doesn't want a cutting edge graphics card, I do. Two lines of computers, for different people, and which won't impact on Mac Mini or Mac Pro sales.
Lo and behold, another of Erasmus' notoriously long posts!
I like the way you think. It's pretty cool that you've been living with a 6 year old cube. I guess you like to get all the bang out of your systems
AidenShaw said:You should switch to working with Windows - I have a 25K CHF limit on my UBS EuroCard....
No, man, I just started working in CH and my bank is very strict about the credit limit/salary link...so I am cool with 10,000...especially since I am not gonna spend that dough in one single month...but maybe on a new 23" iMac, the best desktop in the universe...
Erasmus said:
You also need to factor in the cost of other components....
... which in this case would be desktop chipset and memory.
Which also just happens to be less expensive than the mobile versions used in the curent iMac.
So Apple could provide a slightly faster iMac (2.13 and 2.4 say - don't want to crowd the Mac Pro after all) for the same price we see now, but increase their margins on each iMac they sell.
Conroe in an iMac sounds like a very very good business move.
The Core Duo was always a stop-gap for Apple. Only now are we beginning to see the systems they wanted to build with Intel components.
MacsAttack said:
Hmmm... Good point. Had forgotten about Motherboard and RAM.
I disagree however. If conroe is used, I doubt Apple would not use the 2.67. I do doubt whether they would go to the Extreme processors, because they probably would be too hot for the computer, and too expensive anyway. I think 2.13 for the bottom 17" if it remains (or edu version), 2.13 or 2.4 for 20", and 2.4 or 2.67 for 23". It would be really cool if Apple could sell them how they sell Mac Pros, that is one baseline, ie. 20" with 2.4 Conroe, and people can upgrade/downgrade whatever they want, get it delivered, or pick it up a few days later at their local Apple store.
And They Must Have Decent GPUs And Be Upgradeable!
BTW, does Apple still have that stupid policy on dead pixels in LCD screens?
PS I do not believe dual 2.67 can compete with quad 2.00. (5.33 as opposed to 8, and don't give me anything about "Four 2's does not equal 8!" It's the idea, not the exact figures!)
BTW, we gotta see if we can get this thread to over 1000 posts!!! (Everyone around the world, come-on! (*let's celebrate!*))
vansouza said:
Do you really have a black Amex? I thought they were for celebrities and mega-millionaires only, so which one are you?
savar said:Do you really have a black Amex? I thought they were for celebrities and mega-millionaires only, so which one are you?
Oh, boy, what have I started here..? I just wanted to say that I had enough credit to buy an iMac...not that I have a lot of money...let's stop the show-off, people...
A 23" iMac Core 2 Duo would be totally cool
If Apple does bring this out (and from the sounds of it) this could be highly likely, I would definately buy one.
If Apple does bring this out (and from the sounds of it) this could be highly likely, I would definately buy one.
During the last 6 months Apple have been wowing us with some great intel machines, eg:
The macbook: a lot of us thought the core solo or 1.66 duo would be used. but we got 1.83 and 2.0 core duo
The Mac Pro: Quads all round.
At this moment the iMac features either a 1.83 or 2.0 ghz processor. So at the very least the iMac will feature speed bumps (which is normal for Apple's Rev B models). The trouble is even the 2.13 Merom is pricey and the 2.33 especially so.
So if Apple went with Merom, they would be forced into using the same speed or put the price up. This makes no sense. What would the selling point be? The Merom? No, by using Intel processors they can't hide behind the Mhz myth and will need to offer faster cpus.
On a cost and selling point, the Conroe just makes far more sense.
The macbook: a lot of us thought the core solo or 1.66 duo would be used. but we got 1.83 and 2.0 core duo
The Mac Pro: Quads all round.
At this moment the iMac features either a 1.83 or 2.0 ghz processor. So at the very least the iMac will feature speed bumps (which is normal for Apple's Rev B models). The trouble is even the 2.13 Merom is pricey and the 2.33 especially so.
So if Apple went with Merom, they would be forced into using the same speed or put the price up. This makes no sense. What would the selling point be? The Merom? No, by using Intel processors they can't hide behind the Mhz myth and will need to offer faster cpus.
On a cost and selling point, the Conroe just makes far more sense.
Don't Let A $300 Screen Affect Your Power Choice Myth: Screens Are Expensive - NOT!
Even the 1920 x 1200 24" Dell instead of Apple is only $700 during 20% off sales at Dell - which happen about every two weeks.
But that's a luxury you don't need to get with the Mac Pro program.
You can even dumb down the Mac Pro at the Educational store (160GB HD) to make a 2GHz version only $1962. Or the 2.66GHz model is only $2232 Ed and well worth the extra $270.
The way I see it, you only need another $600 including the same 20" wide 1680 x 1050 monitor that's on the iMac to have a significantly more powerful Mac that you will so much more enjoy than you would that iMac toy.
I totally 100% agree with and backup AppleNewbie's position. You radically overestimate how much it will cost you to come up with a good screen for the Mac Pro - $300 for the same screen that's on the iMac made by Samsung - Apple's supplier.APPLENEWBIE said:
No Way. You have not done your screen research. You can buy an excellent 20" Dell 1600 x 1200 for less than $400 new. That's more pixels than the Apple 20" including 150 pixels HIGHER. You can even find a 20" like what's on the iMac for less than $300 new all the time at Fry's made by Apple & Dell's source Samsung. So please don't give us that "screens are expensive" nonsense. That is a total crock. You are dead wrong on that front Erasmus.Erasmus said:
Even the 1920 x 1200 24" Dell instead of Apple is only $700 during 20% off sales at Dell - which happen about every two weeks.
But that's a luxury you don't need to get with the Mac Pro program.
You can even dumb down the Mac Pro at the Educational store (160GB HD) to make a 2GHz version only $1962. Or the 2.66GHz model is only $2232 Ed and well worth the extra $270.
The way I see it, you only need another $600 including the same 20" wide 1680 x 1050 monitor that's on the iMac to have a significantly more powerful Mac that you will so much more enjoy than you would that iMac toy.
I understand you are in a foreign country where LCD screens cost more. Then buy a CRT instead.Chundles said:
A Summary and analysis of the Mac Store and the 23" iMac
Ok, I've read the first 3 pages of this thread, and I've read the last page...everybody seems to be harping on the same thing. Although, the discussion of the HOW as to using the Merom is intreguing.
IF there is a release of a 23" iMac, I FEEL (not know) that it would have options for white and then black (maybe a couple more hundred for a speed boost and a bigger hard drive). Or maybe, no speed boost, look at the Mac Book.
Secondly, the price would HAVE to start at $1999 (unless we talk price reductions on the imac line). $1999 for the white one and lets just say $2199 or so for the black. When has the iMac EVER come close to the price of the PowerMac (now the Mac Pro)? I mean people are saying that maybe it would be like 2300 or 2500. Think people! THINK! And on another personal note, those of you that are like "I would never pay over $2000 for an iMac" Think of how much you paid for your first computers! (Do i need to post an old computer add link here?)
Finally, as far as specs go for the speed. Currently iMac is at 2.0 GHz and the Mac Pro is at 2.66. The new iMac would probably go for about 2.16 GHz and the black might be the same speed (see Mac Book) but just a bigger HDD and hey ITS BLACK! (Apple pulls is off for the Mac Book, why not for the Black iMac?)
Sorry if this is all repeat. But I feel this is a good summary of the matter.
Let's hope all this hullibaloo GOES SOMEWHERE. At LEAST an iTUnes movie store at the very least.
Ok, I've read the first 3 pages of this thread, and I've read the last page...everybody seems to be harping on the same thing. Although, the discussion of the HOW as to using the Merom is intreguing.
IF there is a release of a 23" iMac, I FEEL (not know) that it would have options for white and then black (maybe a couple more hundred for a speed boost and a bigger hard drive). Or maybe, no speed boost, look at the Mac Book.
Secondly, the price would HAVE to start at $1999 (unless we talk price reductions on the imac line). $1999 for the white one and lets just say $2199 or so for the black. When has the iMac EVER come close to the price of the PowerMac (now the Mac Pro)? I mean people are saying that maybe it would be like 2300 or 2500. Think people! THINK! And on another personal note, those of you that are like "I would never pay over $2000 for an iMac" Think of how much you paid for your first computers! (Do i need to post an old computer add link here?)
Finally, as far as specs go for the speed. Currently iMac is at 2.0 GHz and the Mac Pro is at 2.66. The new iMac would probably go for about 2.16 GHz and the black might be the same speed (see Mac Book) but just a bigger HDD and hey ITS BLACK! (Apple pulls is off for the Mac Book, why not for the Black iMac?)
Sorry if this is all repeat. But I feel this is a good summary of the matter.
Let's hope all this hullibaloo GOES SOMEWHERE. At LEAST an iTUnes movie store at the very least.
quadgirl said:
Bullcrap.
The G5 is hot, but it is tiny - under 70mm^2, so the heat/area is as high as a P4, but it's 1/2 to 1/3rd of the size. You need a good system to get rid of the heat quickly, but you don't have a lot of total heat to evacuate.
OTOH Merom and Conroe are quite large, however they're quite cool, and Conroe probably generates as much heat as the G5, but spread over the greater area. I don't think that putting Conroe in the iMac would be a major task, but it would require better cooling than Merom, which would add to the cost and weight, and effort. Merom is going to be a drop-in replacement for Yonah. Expect a more major iMac revision in 2007.
BlizzardBomb said:
Yes they do. Mine does, at least. I got it three days after they released the new specs (a few weeks ago). I bought it from apple.com, so it SHOULD be the latest one. Anyway, I was able to calibrate it to remove 90% of the tint. However if you put on a solid gray desktop wallpaper, you can still notice a pink hue on the left-third of the screen.
Multimedia said:I totally 100% agree with and backup AppleNewbie's position. You radically overestimate how much it will cost you to come up with a good screen for the Mac Pro - $300 for the same screen that's on the iMac made by Samsung - Apple's supplier.No Way. You have not done your screen research. You can buy an excellent 20" Dell 1600 x 1200 for less than $400 new. That's more pixels than the Apple 20" including 150 pixels HIGHER. You can even find a 20" like what's on the iMac for less than $300 new all the time at Fry's made by Apple & Dell's source Samsung. So please don't give us that "screens are expensive" nonsense. That is a total crock. You are dead wrong on that front Erasmus.
Even the 1920 x 1200 24" Dell instead of Apple is only $700 during 20% off sales at Dell - which happen about every two weeks.
The way I see it, you only need another $600 including the same 20" wide 1680 x 1050 monitor that's on the iMac to have a significantly more powerful Mac that you will so much more enjoy than you would that iMac toy.
Once again you miss the most important point. Erasmus doesn't live in the US, he, like myself live in a whole different country.
Dell's 20" 4:3 display is currently $999 in the online store ($765 of your funny money) that's a little more than "less than $400 new."
Erasmus is posting according to the conditions around him, make yourself aware of those conditions before replying with your crazy amero-centric reasoning. You know I love to kid ya.
LCDs are way more expensive down here though, the Dell 24" is currently $200 off and costs $1199 including that discount. That's US$918.
Hattig said:
My thoughts exactly.
They can get away using Merom for the moment, but the next upgrade down the line (barring simple speed bumps) shoul come around early-mid 2007 (specifically, close to April) when Santa Rosa chipsets should be released. They will need to build a new logic board for the new socket/chipset for the 800 FSB Merom anyways, and may just go Conroe there.
Bravo! Merom Is Guilty Of Misrepresenting The Core2 Family Book 'Em Dano
You are talking about paying through the nose for a screen married to a computer with no possability of divorce in future. Makes absolutly no sense to me whatsoever. I don't get it. What is with the fascination with the computer behind the screen? I'm sorry but I am starting to lose it. Forgive me.
I'll second or third that.Matt T said:
You know when you get to talking about this much money for a Merom or even a Conroe iMac it starts to really look like PT Barnum was right. I mean it's absurd to not buy a Mac Pro, put it on the floor and attach a 20" if your broke for $300 or a 23" for $700 if you're not. Or both for $1000. This whole iMac-at-any-cost thing is starting to really bug me.Erasmus said:
You are talking about paying through the nose for a screen married to a computer with no possability of divorce in future. Makes absolutly no sense to me whatsoever. I don't get it. What is with the fascination with the computer behind the screen? I'm sorry but I am starting to lose it. Forgive me.
Bingo!Silentwave said:
I'm not buying any hardware until after Leopard comes out. My ugly 2.5Ghz Pentium 4 Dell will make it until then. There is a lot of goodies in the Apple product pipeline (probably more than ever before) so I'm waiting to see what is out there. I'm definately going to get Leopard so I'm not going to throw $130 down the toilet. I'm pulling the trigger within 2 weeks after Leopard is out and see what are my options are then.
Conroe for me , thanks!
What is this nonsense that ONLY a Pro Machine with 4 cores CAN be better than a laptop?
Who thinks that stuff? ...
A Conroe machine with a 1.83 MHz is almost as productive as the fastest (2.33 MHz) Merom Intel is going to produce in a year !
The almost equivalent Conroe system (2.40 MHz) to the fastest Merom is about a 30% more productive, and for much less $!
If Apple does not go Conroe then it is really cheating their clients ...
The iMac is a desktop machine, not a laptop on a stick ! Cheez
What is this nonsense that ONLY a Pro Machine with 4 cores CAN be better than a laptop?
Who thinks that stuff?
... A Conroe machine with a 1.83 MHz is almost as productive as the fastest (2.33 MHz) Merom Intel is going to produce in a year !
The almost equivalent Conroe system (2.40 MHz) to the fastest Merom is about a 30% more productive, and for much less $!
If Apple does not go Conroe then it is really cheating their clients ...
The iMac is a desktop machine, not a laptop on a stick ! Cheez
Waiting For OctoCore With Leopard Only 8 More Months
Apple is struggling to end the Core Duo success story so they can get on with the Core 2 Duo success story on the way to the Core 2 Quadro success story along with the Core 2 OctoCore success story and Santa Rosa and oh yeah a new 64-bit centric OS success story in about 8 months from now. They've gotta be drunk with success by now already.
Very entertaining. I just hope I can maintain my patience. It's so tempting to pull the trigger on something before then.
That headline autofilled for me. Reminded me how soon 8 cores are coming. Man there is just an aweful lot of churn going on right now.macintel4me said:
Apple is struggling to end the Core Duo success story so they can get on with the Core 2 Duo success story on the way to the Core 2 Quadro success story along with the Core 2 OctoCore success story and Santa Rosa and oh yeah a new 64-bit centric OS success story in about 8 months from now. They've gotta be drunk with success by now already.
Very entertaining. I just hope I can maintain my patience. It's so tempting to pull the trigger on something before then.
javierbds said:What is this nonsense that ONLY a Pro Machine with 4 cores CAN be better than a laptop?
Who thinks that stuff?
A Conroe machine with a 1.83 MHz is almost as productive as the fastest (2.33 MHz) Merom Intel is going to produce in a year !
The almost equivalent Conroe system (2.40 MHz) to the fastest Merom is about a 30% more productive, and for much less $!
If Apple does not go Conroe then it is really cheating their clients ...
The iMac is a desktop machine, not a laptop on a stick ! Cheez
You said it chief
How 'Bout A Dual DVI iMac Without A Screen Required
This Merom continuing in iMacs is nothing less than a NIGHTMARE.
I say separate the computer from the screen for the next iMac design so folks can choose their screen apart from the computer - even provide two DVI ports including one Dual DVI like on the Pro models. That way everyone can pick and choose their screens, Apple can sell more monitors, and even allow people to buy an iMac without a screen. How's that for a radical idea?
Right on javierbds . A sensible member of the Latin persuasion. Go Ibiza!javierbds said:What is this nonsense that ONLY a Pro Machine with 4 cores CAN be better than a laptop?
Who thinks that stuff?
A Conroe machine with a 1.83 MHz is almost as productive as the fastest (2.33 MHz) Merom Intel is going to produce in a year !
The almost equivalent Conroe system (2.40 MHz) to the fastest Merom is about a 30% more productive, and for much less $!
If Apple does not go Conroe then it is really cheating their clients ...
The iMac is a desktop machine, not a laptop on a stick ! Cheez
This Merom continuing in iMacs is nothing less than a NIGHTMARE.
I say separate the computer from the screen for the next iMac design so folks can choose their screen apart from the computer - even provide two DVI ports including one Dual DVI like on the Pro models. That way everyone can pick and choose their screens, Apple can sell more monitors, and even allow people to buy an iMac without a screen. How's that for a radical idea?