Mhmm. It just so happens that the topic on which I commented pertains to the fictitious cannibalization of the Mac Pro, and that warrants a "Gainestown lovefest" comment...
Yep. Totally enamored by that thing.
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.
Analyst Speculates on iMac Delays: Quad vs Dual Core?
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Mhmm. It just so happens that the topic on which I commented pertains to the fictitious cannibalization of the Mac Pro, and that warrants a "Gainestown lovefest" comment...
Yep. Totally enamored by that thing.
I am waiting for a quad core iMac. I think that will perform better for the general user then a dual core with more local cache.
Ries
Ries
Amen those statements. If Photoshop/Illustrator/Indesign would show a substantial increase in speed with 8 cores etc (ram is usually needed right now over cores/ghz) then I could justify it but right now the software I use daily isn't anywhere near utilizing that power.
My dream would have been a 24in iMac/Quad Core/4 RAM slots for up to 8GB. The MacPro would still be justifiable for 3D/HD Editors because they can pump 32GB of ram into it and with 4 more cores would make it worthwhile for those who actually use that power.
Hold on a sec...
What good will all that Gainestown power serve with no display to view said 'power?'
If you go back and add Apple's 24" LED display to your equation, that $600 difference quickly jumps to $1,500. That, to me, is a completely different conversation.
And I'm not up on my Gainestown performance specs. Is it really 4x more powerful? Can you link me on that info?
Thanks.
Apple is already at the top tier speeds for mobile Penryn chips in the iMac. With dedicated graphics already, the move to 9400M wouldn't be a huge improvement over the existing graphics.
The only new "make the consumers think they must have it" would be quad core + LED displays. Mobile nehalem is likely a year away and desktop sales have flattened or starting to decline. The only delay I can think of is processor availability and acceptability of their cooling designs.
I frankly, hate the black back on the current design, make the darn thing out of aluminum and put some heatpipes to channel some of the heat to the rear casing.
The only new "make the consumers think they must have it" would be quad core + LED displays. Mobile nehalem is likely a year away and desktop sales have flattened or starting to decline. The only delay I can think of is processor availability and acceptability of their cooling designs.
I frankly, hate the black back on the current design, make the darn thing out of aluminum and put some heatpipes to channel some of the heat to the rear casing.
But then it wouldn't be thin! Sorry couldn't resist but it would have to be fatter again to fit a desktop chip in there even if it had some hefty passive cooling system? I'd gladly give up thinness to have a better desktop cpu stuffed in there but I don't know if they want to go back to a bigger G5esqe size.
I loved the comment about Apple's desktop business is primarily 'imac'.
Of course it is..... they dont actually sell any other affordable desktop worth buying.
The mini is 18 months old and out of date technology for full price, and the mac pro is so stupidly expensive that unless the machine earns you money, its a non starter. The mythical affordable desktop xMac doesnt exist..
that leaves the iMac... whether you want a screen or not.
Apple's product line up for those that dont want a laptop is the WORST its ever been.
Of course it is..... they dont actually sell any other affordable desktop worth buying.
The mini is 18 months old and out of date technology for full price, and the mac pro is so stupidly expensive that unless the machine earns you money, its a non starter. The mythical affordable desktop xMac doesnt exist..
that leaves the iMac... whether you want a screen or not.
Apple's product line up for those that dont want a laptop is the WORST its ever been.
The general user wont notice the difference. Quad Core is overkill for the 'general user' by a mile.
Maybe they should just have the top end model being Quad Core instead. There you go.. choice.
But WAIT !!! Apple hates to give us too much choice, so it probably wont happen.
Quad core, dual core, what does it matter? Im in the camp that says quad core is more. When Snow Leopard comes out, in particular. But, what I really want is better graphics and please, please give us a 16X superdrive for the love of ....chrikey. You can't even buy an 8X any more can you? 
Rich
Rich
Top speeds although the 3.07 GHz CPU in the iMac is 55 W compared to the 45 W 3.07 GHz CPU that is out right now. So I would think 3.2 GHz is possible at 55 W. But Intel is moving towards quad-core on the high-end, so who knows.
Even a "general user" would pick a quad-core over a dual-core at a similar GHz and price. That's what's so appealing about the 65 W desktop quad-cores.
For graphics, we would expect similar GPUs to the MacBook lines. If Apple uses mobile GPUs:
- Low-end 20" iMac: 9400M
- High-end 20" iMac, 24" iMacs: 9600M GT
- 24" iMacs: 9800M (BTO)
If Apple uses desktop GPUs (like they did with the white 24" iMac), then in the iMacs with desktop GPUs would probably have a GPU one "range" down (like low-end instead of midrange) than what it would have been if it was a mobile GPU.
I think drive speeds are limited due to the drive being placed vertically instead of horizontally.and please, please give us a 16X superdrive for the love of ....chrikey. You can't even buy an 8X any more can you?
I thought when Apple went with Intel that would be the end of the long delays for upgrades. Back in the PowerPC days it did take a long time to get new chips, but with Intel Apple should be able to upgrade models every six months without delay.
Agreed. That's why I'm still making do with my 1.0GHz Power Mac G4 for desktop work. Ah, for the mythical midrange tower!
I couldn't agree more...
My first mac was an entry level G3 Desktop
My second mac was an entry level G4 Mini-tower
Even with more than 3 x the RAM, twice the bus speed and a G4 almost 3 x the clock speed, I had trouble actually playing back some larger Pro Tools LE sessions I'd made on the G3 because of the overhead of OS X and Protools 7 compared with PT5 under OS 9.
When they go to Core 2 Quad, I hope they put the innards of the top iMac model in a mini-tower with say, 2 PCI slots, 2 drive bays, 2 pairs of RAM slots, 1 optical drive bay and sell it for the same as the entry level 24" iMac.
That's the "Magic" price point the entry level tower used to sit at.
If we don't get an entry level tower, I could live with a 2.8Ghz Core 2 Quad iMac and an external firewire 800 drive but I'd be hoping for up to 8Gb RAM now it's possible with the new Macbook.
My first mac was an entry level G3 Desktop
My second mac was an entry level G4 Mini-tower
Even with more than 3 x the RAM, twice the bus speed and a G4 almost 3 x the clock speed, I had trouble actually playing back some larger Pro Tools LE sessions I'd made on the G3 because of the overhead of OS X and Protools 7 compared with PT5 under OS 9.
When they go to Core 2 Quad, I hope they put the innards of the top iMac model in a mini-tower with say, 2 PCI slots, 2 drive bays, 2 pairs of RAM slots, 1 optical drive bay and sell it for the same as the entry level 24" iMac.
That's the "Magic" price point the entry level tower used to sit at.
If we don't get an entry level tower, I could live with a 2.8Ghz Core 2 Quad iMac and an external firewire 800 drive but I'd be hoping for up to 8Gb RAM now it's possible with the new Macbook.
...unless the 'general user' is running virtual machines, that is.
If you run VMs most of the time, four cores will (and more than 4 GiB of RAM) will make a big difference.
No, you shouldn't hope for that.
Hope for a proper mini-tower using cheaper, faster desktop parts. Don't put a laptop motherboard in a mini-tower.
Note what you can get for $800 in a mini-tower using desktop parts:
For less than $1000, you can get a Core i7 that will give the octo-core Mac Pro a scare:
Code:
Dell Studio XPS Apple Mac Pro
------------------------- -------------------------
Price $949 $2799
CPU Core i7-920 (2.66 GHz quad) Dual 2.8 GHz Quad Xeons
RAM 3 GiB 1066 MHz DDR3 2 GiB 800 MHz FB-DIMM
(8 GiB add $250) (8 GiB add $1500)
Disk 500 GB 7200 RPM SATA 320 GB 7200 RPM SATA
Optical 16X Superdrive 16X Superdrive
Blu-ray $120 option not available
Graphics ATI Radeon HD 3450 256MB Radeon HD 2600 XT 256MB
SPECrate 2006 Performance (Multi-core)
Integer [B]102[/B] [B]98.8[/B]
Floating [B]76.0[/B] [B]68.5[/B]
(For $2289 in the Dell, you get Core i7-940 (2.93GHz),
12 GiB, Blu-ray, 750 GB, ATI Radeon HD 4850 512MB)
The X5492 says hi
Faster GPU's would be nice in the iMac.
I still want CableCard support in a 30" iMac...
This is a great point. In the 3D/design/desktop publishing market, a mini tower would be ideal for those that just need RAM for CS3, or GPU power for CS4. Neither app taxes the CPU cores much unless you are processing 16 bit files with extensive filters.
The biggest benefit from cutters is going to be in encoding and rendering. Compressor being core aware was a great move, and I see hour to two hour long differences in rendering on my Power Mac G5 compared to the job's Rev A Quad 3.0 GHz Mac Pro.
Saving two hours is worth the extra cash, but when it comes to the still photo side of my job, the difference is negligible when working with even the highest rez RAWs from Canon shooters.
Add to that rendering and encoding in HD. If Apple ever does decide to give Apple users HD output other than burning HiDef content onto regular or dual layer DVDs then the average user is going to want quad core. Or an expresso machine to stay awake during the hours it will take to render HD content on a dual core laptop board.
Quoted for truth and undeniably accurate assessments of the Apple product line.
It's also the most uninspiring lineup as well. With other PC makers catching up on the innovative design front, and still blowing Apple away in terms of standard hardware, Apple just doesn't have the edge it had in 2000-->2004. Some thing are nice, even with their limitations, but a lot of it (for the price) is just ridiculous.
seeing how SICK i am for waiting for a damn new mac revision.
and also amazed at the 1k plus i could save by NOT buying a macpro octo.
i just priced up a model i am thinking of purchasing, although i would like xp and i still would need a screen my price would still be under 2.2k with everything i want.
2.5k for current octocore mp
plus hd's i need
plus new screen
easily over 3k.
That would have required a completely different logic board while using the same technology.
logic board nonsense
Let's drop the idea that laying out a logic board is a big deal.
It was during the PPC days, when Apple was actually designing some of the support chips.
Today, though, Apple is paying contractors to assemble stuff using off the shelf parts.
Look at motherboard companies like Gigabyte, Supermicro, and Asus - they pop out dozens of different mobos for each chipset. They can't be expensive to design and build.
Newegg has 87 motherboards under $75. Asus has 7 different motherboards with the X58 chipset for Core i7 alone.
With Apple's prices and margins, the cost to layout a new motherboard would be noise.
Let's drop the idea that laying out a logic board is a big deal.
It was during the PPC days, when Apple was actually designing some of the support chips.
Today, though, Apple is paying contractors to assemble stuff using off the shelf parts.
Look at motherboard companies like Gigabyte, Supermicro, and Asus - they pop out dozens of different mobos for each chipset. They can't be expensive to design and build.
Newegg has 87 motherboards under $75. Asus has 7 different motherboards with the X58 chipset for Core i7 alone.
With Apple's prices and margins, the cost to layout a new motherboard would be noise.
