Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Why can't we have Core 2 Quads?

Shake 'n' Bake

Shake 'n' Bake

macrumors 68020
Original poster
Mar 2, 2009
2,186
2
Albany
I was looking around my desk and I remembered my Studio 540 has a Core 2 Quad. I thought "Why can't Apple put a C2Q or i7 in an iMac?" Really, why can't they? Is it because it isn't a laptop component? I'd rather have a computer that's a bit thicker and have better performance than a thin one with lower performance.

If Apple can't put a C2Q or i7 in the iMac, why not put one in the Mac Pro and have it cost less than $2500 so the average person can afford it?

I hope WWDC brings the C2Q or i7 to Apple, though it is very unlikely to happen.

What are your thoughts?
 
Tallest Skil said:
1. Heat
2. Apple doesn't use desktop processors.

3. Heat.

/thread
Click to expand...

Apple could perforate the back of the iMac like the Mac Pro is. That would be neat.

And how hot does it really get? My Studio 540 barley gets hot at all, and my G4 is just the same.
 
Your Studio 540 is a Mini Tower. The heatsink and cooling fan attached to its CPU would never fit into an iMac.
iMacs use notebook processors to maintain their form factors. When a decent quad core notebook processor is available, you will see quad core iMacs.
 
Darth.Titan said:
Your Studio 540 is a Mini Tower. The heatsink and cooling fan attached to its CPU would never fit into an iMac.
iMacs use notebook processors to maintain their form factors. When a decent quad core notebook processor is available, you will see quad core iMacs.
Click to expand...

I know that. I used SpeedFan and took the temperatures. The hottest was 51 C (123 F) with the fans at about 1500 RPM. My mini gets up to over 160 F with fans at 2000 RPM! If the Core 2 Duo in the mini gets that hot, I see no reason, other than it wouldn't be super thin, why a Core 2 Quad can go in the iMac.

But again, why can't Apple put a C2Q or i7 in the Mac Pro? Dell does it in an enclosure smaller and less ventilated than the Mac Pro.
 
Shake 'n' Bake said:
I know that. I used SpeedFan and took the temperatures. The hottest was 51 C (123 F) with the fans at about 1500 RPM. My mini gets up to over 160 F with fans at 2000 RPM! If the Core 2 Duo in the mini gets that hot, I see no reason, other than it wouldn't be super thin, why a Core 2 Quad can go in the iMac.
Click to expand...

Don't forget that the heat comes from power so more heat would require a bigger power supply (which itself would add more heat). As much as I and many others would trade off a thicker iMac for desktop components, I don't see Apple moving in that direction.
 
flopticalcube said:
Don't forget that the heat comes from power so more heat would require a bigger power supply (which itself would add more heat). As much as I and many others would trade off a thicker iMac for desktop components, I don't see Apple moving in that direction.
Click to expand...

The Q8200 uses 95 watts, the T7200 uses 34 watts, but this is a desktop. The power consumption doesn't really matter. How much more heat could it make? My mini just doing some Keynote work and playing music gets up to 160 F.

Here's an idea that I'm sure nobody will like: Put the power supply outside the computer. Apple does it with the mini, why not the iMac? It'll be even thinner!
 
Shake 'n' Bake said:
The Q8200 uses 95 watts, the T7200 uses 34 watts, but this is a desktop. The power consumption doesn't really matter. How much more heat could it make? My mini just doing some Keynote work and playing music gets up to 160 F.
Click to expand...

Power consumption is directly related to heat. The power is converted into either heat or light. Since the CPU emits no light (obviously), it must come out as heat. Even with a T7200, the form factor of the mini is so restrictive that the temps rise and the fans spin high. A mini tower, even with a 95W chip, would have better airflow. This doesn't mean that the chip would be producing less heat just that the heat it does produce would be removed more efficiently.

Shake 'n' Bake said:
Here's an idea that I'm sure nobody will like: Put the power supply outside the computer. Apple does it with the mini, why not the iMac? It'll be even thinner!
Click to expand...

I would expect that to happen if the iMacs power consumption lowered to the point that the PS could be as small as the mini's.
 
flopticalcube said:
Power consumption is directly related to heat. The power is converted into either heat or light. Since the CPU emits no light (obviously), it must come out as heat. Even with a T7200, the form factor of the mini is so restrictive that the temps rise and the fans spin high. A mini tower, even with a 95W chip, would have better airflow. This doesn't mean that the chip would be producing less heat just that the heat it does produce would be removed more efficiently.
Click to expand...

The fans spin high? My mini must be defective! Even at 160 F, the fans stay at about 1500 RPM.

Excellent explanation.
 
flopticalcube said:
Somethings not right. I use smcFanControl on my mini and the fans are at over 4000RPM at those temps.
Click to expand...

Interesting. I use smcFanControl too and it says mine is at 140 F with the fans at 1600 RPM. I've also noticed that it'll go to about 1560 RPM for the 140s but it must get tired or something because at 160 F, it just drops to 1500 RPM.

Did a bit of Googling and found that a bunch of people have been complaining about high fan RPMs. I wonder if my mini has that, but in reverse? Like NyQuil makes some people stay awake?
 
My mini does the same thing; it stays at about 1500 pretty much no matter what; if there's a high load, it might to up to 2000-2500, but that's about it. Inside it usually hangs around 60C.
 
MultiFinder17 said:
My mini does the same thing; it stays at about 1500 pretty much no matter what; if there's a high load, it might to up to 2000-2500, but that's about it. Inside it usually hangs around 60C.
Click to expand...

Maybe I'll give my neighbor a ring later. He's a genius at the Apple Store.

MultiFinder17 said:
My mini does the same thing; it stays at about 1500 pretty much no matter what; if there's a high load, it might to up to 2000-2500, but that's about it. Inside it usually hangs around 60C.
Click to expand...

Have you upgraded your mini's RAM?

If anybody's interested in the Mac mini fan issue, I've posted on Apple's discussion board here and the MR board here.
 
Its more important that computer computer looks good, according to apple.

Keeping the iMac on Duos helps sell Pros too because you have no choice but to spend $2500 to get a quad core mac.
 
Don't forget about the 65W S Series desktop Core 2 Quads and the 35W mobile ones.

I've said this before...

Eidorian said:
My guess is that more Macs will go quad core when Snow Leopard launches and Apple will extol unto us unworthy masses the glory of more than two cores.

Then again it'll feel like 2007 again for me and old friend the Q6600.
Click to expand...
 
Other companies already make quad core laptops, I assume Apple don't want to take sales away from the MP by making a quad core iMac.
 
tekio said:
Other companies already make quad core laptops, I assume Apple don't want to take sales away from the MP by making a quad core iMac.
Click to expand...

Who wants a non-upgradable, integrated screen? Until it is LED backlit and IPS, I won't get one.

And before everyone starts the "hate mail" let me say this: I never said I wanted an iMac. I asked why we can't we have a C2Q.

And what company make a C2Q laptop?
 
I don't, that's why I built a C2Q hackintosh :D. Acer & Asus make quad core laptops, neither are thin or light but prove that you can have a quad core in a laptop form factor.
 
Shake 'n' Bake said:
But again, why can't Apple put a C2Q or i7 in the Mac Pro? Dell does it in an enclosure smaller and less ventilated than the Mac Pro.
Click to expand...
What are you talking about? The current Mac Pro has the new Nehalem processors in it. Yeah, it's not the desktop Core i7, but that's because the Mac Pro always uses Xeon server processors, and not desktop versions.
 
sven- said:
What are you talking about? The current Mac Pro has the new Nehalem processors in it. Yeah, it's not the desktop Core i7, but that's because the Mac Pro always uses Xeon server processors, and not desktop versions.
Click to expand...

I'm saying why can't Apple put in a C2Q or i7 and make it cheaper?
 
sven- said:
What are you talking about? The current Mac Pro has the new Nehalem processors in it. Yeah, it's not the desktop Core i7, but that's because the Mac Pro always uses Xeon server processors, and not desktop versions.
Click to expand...

Whats the point of selling it with the Xeon when they are mostly selling Single procesor versions now. Why don't they use the xeon for the 8 core and use the cheaper ones for the 4 core. I doubt apple makes it easy to get a hold of upgrade cpus for these machines. The Xeon isn't any faster and the only advantage it has is MP setups. I'd like to see a core 2 quad setup or better yet a Phenom II one so they pull their memory bandwidth comparison like they did with Nehalem like when they claimed it was 3 times as fast.
 
blackhand1001 said:
Whats the point of selling it with the Xeon when they are mostly selling Single procesor versions now. Why don't they use the xeon for the 8 core and use the cheaper ones for the 4 core. I doubt apple makes it easy to get a hold of upgrade cpus for these machines. The Xeon isn't any faster and the only advantage it has is MP setups. I'd like to see a core 2 quad setup or better yet a Phenom II one so they pull their memory bandwidth comparison like they did with Nehalem like when they claimed it was 3 times as fast.
Click to expand...

Great idea!

Xeon doesn't even have an advantage in a Mac Pro unless it is working as a server.

But Apple will never use AMD until they surpass Intel.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back