23-inch iMac on September 12th?

[Balli]

On a side note, does anyone else think that this new 23" iMac will come in a new black case?

I think a glossy black iMac would look pretty sweet.

 

[jesteraver]

One thing I am still holding my breath for a 30" Quad-core mac. Now that would be something!

One thing how long did it take Apple to come out with the 23" version?

Hopefully sometime in 2007 we will see a Quad-core version of the iMac.

I am guessing they do not want to take away money from the PowerMac, but I sort of dont have like $7000 to spend on a PowerMac and 30" screen.

Thats my 2 cents.

 

[CJM]

I'm extremly happy if Apple chooses to use Merom in the imac. If they would have gone for Conroe, it would surely have been one of the lesser models with 2MB of Cache vs. the 4MB in the Merom models they will be using.

While Apple has used a G5 in the Imac, which happens to produce a bit LESS (according to IBM documents linked to at macnn forums) heat then the Conroe does at full blast, it was really hard to cool down. Conroe features better powersaving features then the G5 did, but as soon as you would do something taxing with the computer it would start whining bigtime.

I find even my macbook pro to be too loud. I understand it can be hard to cool down such a hot processor in such a thin case, but that's the exact reason Apple should be using the Merom in the imac. Having a bit of a thicker chassis allows Apple to cool down the processor fairly silently even when you are doing something heavy which lasts for a longer time then a few minutes. For me this is extremly important (I'm allergic to noise).

People are really exagerating the differance in performance between the Conroe and Merom. Actually I'm getting a feeling people are confusing Merom to be some future offspring of the current Core Duo which is certainly not the case. The biggest differance is the lower fsb, which will NOT make a big differance in most applications. Merom has a LARGER L2 cache in the lower end models, with Conroe you have to go up to 2.4Ghz before you receive 4MB of L2, Merom gets it alot sooner.

I do appreciate the idea of having cheaper cpu's that are available at higher speeds (the only valid reason to pick Conroe over Merom), but this is not your normal desktop computer, and in my opinion that would have been a halfbaked solution.

What most people here seem to be wanting is a small Cube or similar, and I can understand that well. Both the Conroe and Merom offer well enough performance for me, but if Apple would have gone with Conroe I would have gotten one of the current Imacs to be sure it's not noisy.

Don't you think Apple would have thought this through? Sure they would like to have a better profit margin / higher sales by using the Conroe of they felt it was feasable, and coolable in the imac case...

No.

You know why? Instead of just looking at the numbers, read the speed comparisons. Conroe out-performs Merom by a large amount. I'd prefer something that is cheaper and more powerful in my iMac. Thanks.

 

[TheManOfSilver]

All I can say is that I'm looking forward to my black 23" HD iMac with 2.66 GHz (or better) Conroe, glossy screen and Leopard that I hope to be buying in March or April.

I'll wait ...

 

[Multimedia]

I Apologize For Making Headless iMac Post

Hey, I know what these forums are for...I've been here for a long time. It's just funny (not really) that I'm still reading headless iMac rants and the power vs. style comments. I had to check the date on your post--I thought a post from 2003 got thrown in here somehow.

You're right. I never should have posted that about a headless iMac. After reading several thoughtful posts above, I see how out of touch with the market I am due to GEEKY Miopia. My bad. Please forgive me.

 

[Jetson]

If people can demand a chinless iMac, why not go for the whole enchilada with a headless iMac?

 

[dropadrop]

No.

You know why? Instead of just looking at the numbers, read the speed comparisons. Conroe out-performs Merom by a large amount. I'd prefer something that is cheaper and more powerful in my iMac. Thanks.

Ok... How about a link to a comparison? The one presented before was not comparing the Conroe and Merom, it was comparing the Merom and Yonah. I have yet to see a comparison everyone is talking about, ofcourse it might excist... But I get the feeling everyone is just confused.

 

[Multimedia]

Conroe/Merom performance comparison summary

Ok... How about a link to a comparison? The one presented before was not comparing the Conroe and Merom, it was comparing the Merom and Yonah. I have yet to see a comparison everyone is talking about, ofcourse it might excist... But I get the feeling everyone is just confused.

Regarding Merom Vs. Conroe AnandTech writes "Compared to the desktop Core 2 Duo (Conroe), the mobile version is architecturally no different. Obviously clock speeds (both CPU and FSB) are lower because these things will be going in notebooks where power consumption is more of a concern, but other than that the architectures are identical."

Here's one using pre-release versions back in Mid-May. Trouble is the PC Perspectives Editor's Choice Award Article shows a radical difference between pre-release processors and the released ones.

Conroe/Merom performance comparison summary:

SuperPI_1m
Conroe: 17.125
Merom: 17.344

CPUmark99
Conroe: 418
Merom:413

SiSoft Sandra Dhrystone/Whetstone/Integer/FP/MemInt/MemFloat
Conroe: 27395/18882/163122/88312/7367/5871
Merom: 27515/18720/163693/88016/5478/5481

SiSoft Sanrda Memory Latency Linear/Random/Cache
Conroe: 60ns/14ns/31390
Merom: 78ns/12ns/28816

CineBench 2003 32-bit 1CPU/xCPU
Conroe: 509/941
Merom: 509/940

TMPGenc
Conroe: 15:34
Merom: 16:39

SuperPi_32M
Conroe: 16:36.797
Merom: 18:04.672

3DMark06CPU
Conroe: 2523
Merom: 2574

 

[sbarton]

Ok, I'm 37 so I'm guessing I'm not the oldest fart around here, but I'm reasonably matured. I don't mind the iMac form factor, but in my view your already starting out with a mid-range graphics card in the ati 1600 and it's only going to get slower from there. How is the Mac ever going to climb above 4-5% if even at the MID RANGE you can't play even the few games that are ported to the Mac without reducing the graphics settings. It's hard to get past the fact that after you spend almost $2000.00 on an admittedly beautiful and stylish computer that your still only par for entertainment.

I pretty certain there will be a midrange Mac that fits between the iMac and MacPro. At the very least you'll be able to upgrade the video card.

 

[vansouza]

Thank you...

It's nice to see somebody gets it! The type of user that actually chat on this board is probably less than 5% of Apple's target market. Professionals included. I've worked at more than my fair share of ad agencies in my day and my mother was a school teacher (Macs were huge in her education market). Anyway, I would say less than 1% of them would have a clue what Mermom or Conroe meant. They don't follow update cycles. They would never dream of upgrading a hard drive, adding a second monitor or swapping a processor. Lets face it... Most of us on here are GEEKS. I mean that in a nice way. However, us geeks represent a VERY small maket for Apple. Don't believe me? Just go to your local store and talk to the people who are shopping there.

Apple's whole strategy has always been simplicity.... to provide a simple shopping experience, with logical choices and a good, well-rounded consumer machine that does everything well. For the average user, all of the options available in the PC market can be overwhelming. Imagine creating a BTO computer on Dell if you're not really sure what a GB, RAM, or Ghz are.

If you want a high-performance machine with all the latest bells and whistles, upgradable, etc, Apple has one. It's called the Mac Pro. If you want a consumer-level machine that doesn't force you into using a built-in Apple display, Apple has that too. It's called the Mac Mini.

Very well put, you said it for me... half geek/half normal user... Someone understands that some of us do very much want that 23 inch iMac. I have stand alones and laptops... now I want that 23 inch machine... NOW!!

 

[dropadrop]

Thanks for the link, it was an intresting thread. So basicly, the only differance between the two is the higher fsb on the Conroe. Looking through these results, we can see how this relates to the "real world". If anyone is intrested in reading the whole thread through, you can find it here.

SuperPI_1m
Conroe: 17.125
Merom: 17.344

SuperPi_32M
Conroe: 16:36.797
Merom: 18:04.672

SuperPi is like a hotrodding app for computers. I can appreciate how the top overclockers use it to fight out their systems, but it does not really reflect itself to any realworld apps. I'm suprised there is such a small differance with the 1MB run, but maby it fits into the cache completly so it does not end up suffering from the lower bandwidth.

Conroe is 8% faster on the 32MB run, 1% faster on the 1MB run

CPUmark99
Conroe: 418
Merom:413

Conroe is 1% Faster

CineBench 2003 32-bit 1CPU/xCPU
Conroe: 509/941
Merom: 509/940

0.1% faster?

TMPGenc
Conroe: 15:34
Merom: 16:39

6% faster

3DMark06CPU
Conroe: 2523
Merom: 2574

Merom is 2% faster

Even in a memory Intensive program like SuperPi the differance is less then 10%, and as somebody allready tried to mention earlier in the thread, normal programs won't come even close to that differance.

 

[50548]

In other words, the tests above quoted state the obvious...Merom is neck and neck with Conroe, and there is not a SINGLE reason to bash Apple if it decides to use Merom on its new iMacs...at least as normal people who couldn't care less about a 1% academic improvement in performance.

 

[dropadrop]

I've turned to mac fairly recently, even though I did use them at work I would always have a pc at home. I found that even overclocking my computer 20% would hardly make a noticable differance in most tasks I was doing. With old computers this was a bit differant though, it could mean the differance between usable and unusable.

With this in mind I don't care one bit if I'm losing 5% of performance (in most apps it will be less though) to gain a computer that produces less then half the noise (because the imac will subjectively be alot more silent with a Merom). It will make it a more balanced computer, and I give Apple alot of respect if they have the balls to do it. Most manufacturers would take the obvious route for profit without taking enough pride in their product to really make it as it should be (gamers will ofcourse have a differant view on what it should be )

Ofcoures if you take the route of speculating that Apple could have put a higher clocked Conroe for teh same price, or had a cheaper price tag you are correct. Personally speed is not the only thing I base my computer purchase on.

 

[Rickay726]

gosh with all these new macs coming out me and my iMac G5 are begining to feel a bit out dated ahaha

 

[MacSA]

In other words, the tests above quoted state the obvious...Merom is neck and neck with Conroe, and there is not a SINGLE reason to bash Apple if it decides to use Merom on its new iMacs...at least as normal people who couldn't care less about a 1% academic improvement in performance.

I thought some people were hoping Apple would use Conroe because it was cheaper.

 

[jwdsail]

This basically confirms that Apple will release the "Mac".

A mini/mid tower with a Conroe, upgradeable video card maybe 1 or 2 open PCI slots, 2 HDD slots, 1 DVD slot and 4 ram slots.

This would position it directly between the iMac and the Mac Pro.

Even with a 3 GHz Conroe it would still be slower at well threaded apps than 2 - 2 GHz Woodcrests (Xeons). Apple has intentionally left this gap in its line.

So you will now have:

MacBook - "basic" laptop
MacBook Pro - Fully loaded laptop

Mac Mini - low end machine good for offices as a small server or low end word processing workstation.
iMac - All in one consumer machine - no upgradeability
"Mac" - Prosumer gamer machine - some upgradeablity
Mac Pro - Full fledged workstation for those who need all the power they can get.

iPod nano - the iPod perfect for music.
iPod - Great as a music player, can also watch movies.
iPod video - Large screen iPod intended for watching videos etc... may develop some PDA/gaming functionality if rumors are true.

It all seems pretty obvious.

Obvious to you and me, perhaps.. The only person that matters in this case.. is Jobs.

I'd go a bit farther tho with the position of the "Mac".. Lets call it Mac mini+, or mini Extreme, or Mac cube neo, it won't just be "Mac" for reasons posted earlier.. Too much "Who's on 1st" potential..

The entry model, slowest speed Conroe (user upgradable) w/o any PCIe graphics card (user upgradable), just the Intel Integrated *spit* graphics, FW 400 + 800, Digital audio in and out, 120 GB SATA HD, 512MB ram (4 slots), should cost $999.99. Add BTO Processor (up to 2.9GHz Conroe) and graphics and ram to suit your wants/needs/budget, just like the Mac Pro allows now. But, I think the $999.99 base price would be important.


Just my $0.02US


jwd

 

[Multimedia]

No PCIe Slots? • Seems Like There Should Be Two To Me

Obvious to you and me, perhaps.. The only person that matters in this case.. is Jobs.

I'd go a bit farther tho with the position of the "Mac".. Lets call it Mac mini+, or mini Extreme, or Mac cube neo, it won't just be "Mac" for reasons posted earlier.. Too much "Who's on 1st" potential..

The entry model, slowest speed Conroe (user upgradable) w/o any PCIe graphics card (user upgradable), just the Intel Integrated *spit* graphics, FW 400 + 800, Digital audio in and out, 120 GB SATA HD, 512MB ram (4 slots), should cost $999.99. Add BTO Processor (up to 2.9GHz Conroe) and graphics and ram to suit your wants/needs/budget, just like the Mac Pro allows now. But, I think the $999.99 base price would be important.

I don't see why there can't be a pair of PCIe card slots with one occupied with a low cost ATI or NVIDEA DVI + Dual DVI ports coming out of it at that price point. Having Integrated Graphics would really be a crippling "feature" don't you think? Seems like it would be in Apple's interest to be able to sell 30" Displays for these less expensive mini Towers. A BTO Page like the Pro has would keep the lines simple while giving customers a lot of choices how to customize their "Little Pro".

Maybe this is what September 12 is all about - besides the new MBP of course. Perhaps Steve will introduce this new class of Mac to fill the headless void between the mini and the Pro.

 

[ffakr]

I think it could happen

I'm partially influenced by the fact that I predicted Apple would never release a 20" iMac when they did so take this for what it's worth.

I think it will happen. Why?

• LCD prices (retail not even bulk bare pricing) have decreased by 50% over the last 6 months. I've seen Dell 24" LCDs on sale in the low $600s recently. I don't buy bulk LCDs but given some basic economic background I would suspect that the industry would strongly resist lowering retail prices faster than component prices fall. If anything, they would lower retail prices only fast enough to keep sales up. If anything, I would strongly suspect that component prices have fallen faster than retail prices.
• The resolultion on a 23" LCD computer monitor is 1080p HighDef. Apple's been pushing the Macintosh as Entertainment Center more and more so a 23" iMac would actually make a respectable high-def TV and media center in one package (for a small room at least)
• The market is moving to larger monitors in general. 19" LCDs are showing up Dell discount bundles. 20" LCDs are actually pretty common now, especially when they can be had for $269 on sale. Now would be a good time to 'push the envelope' some more.
• Apple needs to release a Core2 or Core2 Duo machine soon. Apple can't be seen as being significantly behind other x86 vendors in releasing new CPUs. Since it should be a 'sure thing' that Apple would rev machines (likely the first ones to go Intel) then it's also likely that it's reasonable this would be the time to roll out a new model that might have been in R&D (until market forces justified a release).
• Ship times in the Apple EDU store for iMacs are now 2-3 weeks for all models. It does appear a bump is coming. I suspect we'll see changes in the other stores in the near future too. (interestingly, upgrading the video to 256MB VRAM ups the ship time more than other custom build features in the Developer store)

I suspect we'll see one of the following, keep in mind CoreDuo2 is pin compatible with CoreDuo:
- A 23" iMac with Core2 Duo or possible Core2 cpu. I'd love to see it with a CableCard slot for HDTV content. This would make sense but Apple doesn't always seem to make sense. I also suspect we'll see Core2Duo across the line.
or
- At a minimum, Core2Duo, maybe Core2 as an option across the iMac line.

Of course, I could be totally wrong AGAIN but I can always hope.
What I'd really like to see but I really doubt would be a better video card in a high end iMac. I'd personally go buy one right away if I could get a Core2 and an Nvidia 7900GS with a 23" monitor. Granted, a 7900GS isn't the best card out but it's still a pretty damn nice card considering it's an upper mid-range gaming card and it runs cool for a decent gaming card.
Core Duo, 2GB RAM, a good monitor and a 7900GS would make this a very very nice gaming machine.. especially now that it runs Windows. It'd also be perfect for LAN parties since it would be the ultimate in power/mobility.

JMHO, FFAKR.

 

[ergle2]

Thanks for the link, it was an intresting thread. So basicly, the only differance between the two is the higher fsb on the Conroe.

At like clock-speeds, that's the difference in performance.

Conroe, obviously, is cheaper at like clockspeeds and there's models at much higher clockspeeds, Merom runs at lower voltages, and the packages are different (479 vs 775).

Likewise, Woodcrest is the same arch. The big plus for the Xeon is it's multiprocessor-capable.

 

[50548]

I thought some people were hoping Apple would use Conroe because it was cheaper.

This makes no difference, as Apple would charge the same price for them anyway...Conroe or Merom.

 

[50548]

I don't see why there can't be a pair of PCIe card slots with one occupied with a low cost ATI or NVIDEA DVI + Dual DVI ports coming out of it at that price point. Having Integrated Graphics would really be a crippling "feature" don't you think? Seems like it would be in Apple's interest to be able to sell 30" Displays for these less expensive mini Towers. A BTO Page like the Pro has would keep the lines simple while giving customers a lot of choices how to customize their "Little Pro".

Maybe this is what September 12 is all about - besides the new MBP of course. Perhaps Steve will introduce this new class of Mac to fill the headless void between the mini and the Pro.

I still can't see the point...provided we have a good GPU, enough HD, enough RAM and all ports...WHY THE HELL would ya need a PCI slot for? To install those old OrangeMicro PC Emulation boards?

 

[ergle2]

In other words, the tests above quoted state the obvious...Merom is neck and neck with Conroe, and there is not a SINGLE reason to bash Apple if it decides to use Merom on its new iMacs...at least as normal people who couldn't care less about a 1% academic improvement in performance.

... well, except for the fact that Merom tops out at 2.33GHz and costs $637, whereas Conroe *starts* at 2.4GHz, costing $316. (The cheaper Core 2 Duo desktop chips are the 2MB L2 Cache model known as Allendale).

So, slightly higher clockspeed for less than half the price. The 2.67GHz Conroe it still cheaper than the 2.33GHz Merom at $530.

Do you really want to pay more for less?

 

[ergle2]

I still can't see the point...provided we have a good GPU, enough HD, enough RAM and all ports...WHY THE HELL would ya need a PCI slot for? To install those old OrangeMicro PC Emulation boards?

So that in, say, 2 years time I can upgrade the current rather poor GPU to something that will run the games that are out then well. Or perhaps so I can add in a decent EAX-compatible sound card. Or one of the many other thousands of PCI cards that are out there. Expandibility is good, and there's a large enough gamers market where the lack of an upgradable GPU kills the deal stone-dead. Alienware made a living focussing on that market alone...

 

[50548]

... well, except for the fact that Merom tops out at 2.33GHz and costs $637, whereas Conroe *starts* at 2.4GHz, costing $316. (The cheaper Core 2 Duo desktop chips are the 2MB L2 Cache model known as Allendale).

So, slightly higher clockspeed for less than half the price. The 2.67GHz Conroe it still cheaper than the 2.33GHz Merom at $530.

Do you really want to pay more for less?

The Merom has bigger cache, and you are quoting the low-end of Conroe...besides, I already said that Apple will NOT charge less for the consumer...forget it.

 

[50548]

So that in, say, 2 years time I can upgrade the current rather poor GPU to something that will run the games that are out then well. Or perhaps so I can add in a decent EAX-compatible sound card. Or one of the many other thousands of PCI cards that are out there. Expandibility is good, and there's a large enough gamers market where the lack of an upgradable GPU kills the deal stone-dead. Alienware made a living focussing on that market alone...

In 2 years time you will be buying a new machine, or playing good games still...I am happy with CoD on my iMac G5, and I couldnt care less about spending 100 dollars for each new game out there...that's the majority of the market.