Sidebar Sidebar
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?

gnasher729 said:
There is also the saying: If you don't cannibalise your sales, someone else will. Keeping one product line down to support another one is a bad long-term decision, because competitors won't respect the limits that you set yourself.
Click to expand...

Bingo. Apple does not offer any desktops with affordable desktop quad cpus, 6-8GB memory, TB HDs or current generation video cards.
 
SimonMW said:
Just out of interest, if they did release an iMac with a quad core processor, would it make my quad core Mac Pro tower seem like it is taking up a lot of space for no good reason?
Click to expand...

No the Quad core tower would be taking up a lot of space for the one reason it should take up space. So you can put stuff inside it.

I wonder if you have a Quad-core iMac if you wouldn't merge the MacPro MacXserve Lines in to one.

Is screen sharing good enough for people doing the high end work that these machines could be in a server room always ticking away at next to full speed with a number of users logged in, then each have there own Laptop or iMac for busy work (email, filing, writing reports) and screen?
 
"Cannibilisation"? How can one compare quad cores to 8 cores? Put the quads into the iMac, Apple and blow away the other competition.
 
Simpler Question - where are imac sales now...

Businesses that attempt to stymie the quality of one model to create clear segmentation between their models rarely succeed. Witness the US auto industry. Granted Apple is better at this than almost any other company, but even still...

But my question is simpler. What are imac sales like right now?

It seems very expensive for what it offers and in real need of a refresh. Has anyone seen estimates of how imac sales are doing post holidays?

Also, there is so much talk of an "imminent" imac upgrade, who would buy? I realize the average buyer doesn't troll macrumors or applesider, but almost anyone with friends that are mac people has got to be hearing to wait...
 
riesvantwisk said:
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
Click to expand...

What is the tangible difference for the average user? Where would the performance gain be present?

-Startup time?
-HD video viewing?

Trying to think about a user using office, firefox, imovie, garageband or typical stuff.
 
Quad core, Dual core, either one is "too much" for the average Apple user.
My biggest hope is that Apple goes with Atom processors across thier product range from Mac Mini to iMac, and including all notebooks.
Anything more might cannibalise Mac Pro sales. :)
 
numbersyx said:
"Cannibilisation"? How can one compare quad cores to 8 cores? Put the quads into the iMac, Apple and blow away the other competition.
Click to expand...

Blow away the $950 Dell with a Core i7 quad?

You really should look around at systems from other makers. Quad cores are in some $600 system, and common when you hit $800.

Nobody is going to be "blown away" if Apple puts a quad in an $1800 Imac. Nobody.
 
In my opinion, Apple will likely do the following:

iMac: Intel Core 2 Quad in 65W versions (Q9xxxS models)

Mac Pro: Intel Xeon E5500 series (Gainestown core)

Why the iMac go to quad core CPU? The reason is simple: iLife '09. Three components of iLife '09--iMovie, iPhoto and GarageBand--will benefit from a quad-core CPU because multimedia editing programs tend to require a LOT of CPU power.
 
Cole Slaw said:
Quad core, Dual core, either one is "too much" for the average Apple user.
My biggest hope is that Apple goes with Atom processors across thier product range from Mac Mini to iMac, and including all notebooks.
Anything more might cannibalise Mac Pro sales. :)
Click to expand...
I seriously hope that was sarcasm.
 
iMacmatician said:
The 65 W desktop quad-cores have similar clock speeds to similarly-priced mobile dual-cores. The 3.07 GHz dual-core doesn't have a quad-core equivalent (in GHz), but that's not a CPU a regular consumer would be looking at.

On cannibalization... there are a few points to keep in mind.
  • The fastest quad-core iMac, 65 W desktop (2.83 GHz 1067 FSB) or 45 W mobile (2.53 GHz 1067 FSB), would still lag behind the slowest dual-core Mac Pro (2.8 GHz dual 1600 FSB)
  • The Mac Pro is due for an update a few months after the iMac, with Nehalem CPUs that will increase the gap between it and the iMac
  • The Mac Pro has many more advantages over the iMac that are not CPU-related
The three 65 W quad-cores (2.33 GHz, 2.67 GHz, 2.83 GHz) may be enough to span the whole iMac line, although thermal limitations may mean that the 20" models get mobile dual-cores. Apple also seems to not put quad-cores with higher-clocked dual-cores in the same line, so that may play a part in the speeds of CPUs in the iMacs.
Click to expand...

Thank you, you saved me the trouble of writing exactly that. :p The only thing holding Apple back from releasing one design based on both mobile and desktop chips is the fact that they use separate sockets.

As Intel did just release (officially; they've been available to OEMs for a couple months now,) 65W quad-core desktop processors; I would hope to see the range of those available on the new iMac. (All of the new desktop 65W quad-cores use the 1333 MHz bus, not the 1066, like the mobile chips.) I figure the 2.33 GHz/4 MB cache chip on the 20"er, with the 2.66 GHz/6 MB chip optional; and the 2.66 GHz chip on the 24"er, with the 2.83 GHz/12 MB chip optional.

Of course, I'd rather see the iMac get Core i7 chips; but that's a longshot, which would require a massive rethink of the iMac's cooling system.

One other thing that this report mentions, "quad core, or larger-cache dual core" is impossible. On the mobile side, the only quad-cores all have more cache than any of the mobile dual-cores. And on the desktop side; well, they'd use the top-of-the-line 65W quad-core, which has double the cache of the most well-cache-endowed dual-core chip. Yes; the three low-watt desktop chips have 4, 6, and 12 MB cache, respectively, so it is possible for them to offer a 4 MB cache quad-core vs. a 6 MB cache dual-core; that would be a silly differentiation.
 
ehurtley said:
One other thing that this report mentions, "quad core, or larger-cache dual core" is impossible. On the mobile side, the only quad-cores all have more cache than any of the mobile dual-cores. And on the desktop side; well, they'd use the top-of-the-line 65W quad-core, which has double the cache of the most well-cache-endowed dual-core chip. Yes; the three low-watt desktop chips have 4, 6, and 12 MB cache, respectively, so it is possible for them to offer a 4 MB cache quad-core vs. a 6 MB cache dual-core; that would be a silly differentiation.
Click to expand...
This is what bugged me as well about the report. You're maxed out at 6 MB for a dual core and 6 MB x 2 for Intel's quads.

You're not going any higher.
 
I can see Quad-core iMacs coming soon. Like I see six-core Xeons in Mac Pros - That means the top model will be 12-core.

Soon.
 
Cole Slaw said:
Quad core, Dual core, either one is "too much" for the average Apple user.
My biggest hope is that Apple goes with Atom processors across thier product range from Mac Mini to iMac, and including all notebooks.
Anything more might cannibalise Mac Pro sales. :)
Click to expand...

Heck, let's go back to the MOS Technology 6502 microprocessor running at 1 MHz used in the Apple ][ for old times' sake.
 
SimonMW said:
Just out of interest, if they did release an iMac with a quad core processor, would it make my quad core Mac Pro tower seem like it is taking up a lot of space for no good reason?
Click to expand...

:eek: :eek: Whuuuut?? To borrow an earlier statement from Tallest Skil, a quad-core iMac would use a laptop-class CPU, whereas your Mac Pro contains server-class chips. Hang on to it, dude!! :D
 
lftrghtparadigm said:
The product lines are defined as:

PRO

and

CONSUMER
Click to expand...

I really think this simple classification is a thing of the past.

Look how the iMac has evolved. The G3 iMac was a low price entry level machine. But later there were G5 iMacs with nearly the same specs as the low end PowerMac G5 sold at the same time. The so called "consumer" iMac started to be more powerfull than the "professional" PowerBook (G5 vs. G4!).This time the iMac was still limited in artificial ways, there was no real dual display support and some pro apps where not supported. Both could be hacked away easily.

Today even these barriers have fallen. The iMac (at least the 24 inch) is a supported and recommended platform for _all_ Apple pro apps and it is also recommended for a lot of non Apple pro apps like Maya. It has a display (H-IPS) that is not commonly found in consumer products, it is often used for professional graphical work. Anyone been at Photokina? I can tell you: iMacs everywhere! iMacs are also used by many software developers as their primary development machine.

The Mac Pro still offers much more options to expand it and it offers power that is probably only needed for a few very extreme tasks. But what the iMac (and also the MacBook) offers today is more than enough for many kinds of very professional work.

Christian
 
QuarterSwede said:
Are you kidding me? Have you used iMovie 08/09 on anything less than a C2D proc? Does it even let you run it on a G5?

Just so we're clear, iMovie 08/09 is made for the average user.
Click to expand...

I have used iMovie 08 on a first gen MacBook (Core Duo, not C2D) , it worked well even with HDV. I still prefered iMovie06 because I was looking for something to edit video not for a "video family album". Even iMovie09 still runs on G5 iMacs. Only if you want to use non tape based HD camcorders ( "AVCHD" ) you must have an Intel Mac.

Christian
 
Really Apple needs to blow out the market and Apple user's with a big spread of new products to cover all price points...

Bottom end would be a the Mini, then Mini Pro (two expansion slot tower), and then iMac.

I have the best iMac made (7600GT white ones - sorry but the matte screen rules) and I am not moving to just a "faster" 24 with a shiny screen. So either go 27 or 30 or give me a tower. Good monitors are CHEAP now. If I had a $1500 range Pro that had room for two or more slots I would be a happy camper..
 
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