+++
I cannot tell a lie. This is quite true.
The Amiga cudda been a contendah..
Commodore shudda shifted its focus..
And then came the MACS..!
+++
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
I cannot tell a lie. This is quite true.
The Amiga cudda been a contendah..
Commodore shudda shifted its focus..
And then came the MACS..!
+++
Waiting...
Same. And the waiting is KILLING me. Still using a 4 year old G5. Not a bad machine, but since I have money sitting around waiting to be used for a new machine, the anticipation is unbearable.
Same. And the waiting is KILLING me. Still using a 4 year old G5. Not a bad machine, but since I have money sitting around waiting to be used for a new machine, the anticipation is unbearable.
They have? So that could mean we will see iMacs earlier rather than later.
Oops. Completely forgot they were 1333 FSB.
"Soon" means early 2010 with Westmere Xeons.
G5 1.9 GHz or higher, I think.
Basically I agree with the whole multi-core thing, but there are three major limitations on an all-quad-or-more lineup.
- Price - Mobile quad-cores are still fairly expensive compared to many dual-cores
- Heat - All current quad-cores have TDPs of 45 W or higher
- Differentiation - Apple may want to differentiate the lines by core count, which may mean that some models do not get quad-core even if they could technically
There won't be 6-core Nehalems until Westmere in early 2010, and there won't be 8-core CPUs until Ivy Bridge or Haswell in 2012 or so. Still, the upcoming Mac Pro would have 8 Nehalem cores while the upcoming iMac would have 4 Penryn cores.
Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa... whoa.
Whoa... whoa, whoa... whoa.
I could have sworn that you weren't one for optimism. We had... 518 days in between Woodcrest and Harpertown. That's 518 days between the die shrinks.
And you're saying that the Westmere Xeons will be out only six months after the Nehalem Xeons?
I'm seeing more of a late Q3 2010 for Westmere, and then Q1 2012 for Sandy Bridge.
I agree, but not every gamer is the one wanting the Mac Tower with desktop CPU and multi GPU and RAID.
It's also the freelancers and midrange Pros that don't need the raw power of the Mac Pro, just the expandability and desktop (not laptop) performance.
My G5 tower is chugging along just fine with the heaviest of RAWs I can throw at it, even running Aperture and other apps at the same time thanks to UBER cheap RAM. The next machine I get doesn't have to be a Mac Pro, just one that gives me desktop power with the same expansion I am used to, not the server class and price of the Mac Pro that has the same expansion of a machine a quarter the price.
I find it a little disturbing (if this analyst is correct--which they probably aren't) that there would even be a debate about this.
Now that there are 65W TDP desktop quads out there, why wouldn't you use them? They are less expensive than some of the duals that are in the current iMacs, no?
I'm not asking for i7's in the thing...but at least one BTO option?
Now that there are 65W TDP desktop quads out there, why wouldn't you use them? They are less expensive than some of the duals that are in the current iMacs, no?
I'm not asking for i7's in the thing...but at least one BTO option?
Most of my lack of optimism relates to Apple product release dates. On other hardware it's not as much.
Early 2010's almost a year from Gainestown… (read on)
Westmere, the Bloomfield successor, used to be scheduled for late 2009, but was pushed back a quarter or so to Q1 2010. And Q1 2010 (for both Bloomfield Westmere and Gainestown Westmere) were from articles from last year, so things may have changed since then. When those articles were released, both Bloomfield and Gainestown were planned for Q4 2008 release. I haven't heard of any changes to Westmere (any variant) release dates since then, but I haven't kept up much on roadmaps and other stuff.
Anyway, despite the recent info on Gainestown delays, I forgot to put two and two together, and so I still thought that Gainestown Westmere was to be released in Q1 2010. But after reading your post, I think Q2 2010 or so is more likely, depending on 32 nm production etc.
Heat and differentiation/cannibalization.
The first one can't really be avoided except by better cooling, and the second is just something where Apple has to improve the Mac Pro.
Eight-core Gainestown Xeon with desktop GPU or quad-core LAPTOP CHIP with MOBILE GPU.
HMMM... Which will I choose?
Because clearly no-one could possibly have requirements that exceed that of a dual-core iMac but don't reach an 8-core workstation. It's not like anyone's needs would sit between a machine of speed X and a machine of speed 4X.
As always, the proper solution to this "problem" is a tower machine with half the specs of a Mac Pro. But since Apple knows that most people who buy Mac Pros don't really need everything it has to offer, they won't sell it because they know it would cannibalise Mac Pro sales.
Because to price it reasonably for the typical "gamer" (that is to say, less than an iMac), would result in a machine that slaughtered Mac Pro (or equivalent, from the day) sales.
Note also that desktop quads won't work in laptop motherboards like the one in the Imac.
Desktop CPUs and desktop chipsets tend to produce more heat than their mobile counterparts.
These two factors could interfere with Apple's current anorexic design focus. I don't think Apple realizes how many people really want a more capable, more powerful Imac that might happen to be a centimetre or two thicker. Perhaps now that we're in the post-Jobs era somebody will notice that.
Or perhaps the next Imac will use an Atom processor and an Ipod hard drive, and be an amazing .7" thin. And nearly useless.
I was extremely interested in purchasing a new iMac, however, after reading an article on Anandtech regarding the CPU's that would most likely end up in the the iMac update (http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/intel/showdoc.aspx?i=3505) I think I am going to skip the update and wait for Nehalem. There seems to be a significant performance and efficiency gap between the current gen CPU's and the Core i7 CPU and platform.
Got Watts?
I don't see spec sheets that show that the Nvidia LGA775 parts with support for 4 DDR3 DIMMs are the same or lower wattage than the laptop versions... At any rate, the CPU is higher wattage.
Anyway, the main point is that putting a desktop quad into an Imac involves far more than loosening the screw on the ZIF CPU socket, removing the laptop dual core, and inserting the desktop quad.
(Upgrading my Yonah Latitudes and Thinkpads to Merom consisted of exactly loosening the screw and swapping the CPUs.)
I don't see spec sheets that show that the Nvidia LGA775 parts with support for 4 DDR3 DIMMs are the same or lower wattage than the laptop versions... At any rate, the CPU is higher wattage.
Anyway, the main point is that putting a desktop quad into an Imac involves far more than loosening the screw on the ZIF CPU socket, removing the laptop dual core, and inserting the desktop quad.
(Upgrading my Yonah Latitudes and Thinkpads to Merom consisted of exactly loosening the screw and swapping the CPUs.)
There can be a huge difference.
On the SPEC multi-core benchmark, a single quad core 2.66GHz i7 ($949 at Dell) outperforms a octo-core 2.8 GHz Xeon ($2799 at Apple). (See this post for numbers.)
The performance on the programs important to you may vary - but unless you really need a faster computer right now it would be wise to wait for Apple to shift to Core i7.
Of course, maybe Apple will shock us all by announcing a Core i7 quad core mini-tower on Tuesday.
Traditionally yes Desktop parts have used too much power, but recently both nVidia and Intel have been making newer parts for desktops that learn from the laptop experience and push them to use less power, either form factor you want to use the power you have to deliver results not just heat. We also know that Apple have good channels to what is coming up from both Intel and nVidia (keeping the competitive pressure on both).
iMacs in the past have a tick tock design program. Case one revision, internals overhauled the next to set them up for the next case revision. So really the whole motherboard is up for grabs. Not that Apple ever shies away from redesigning a mobo at any time to suit the product, they own design for themselves so to flush inventory is just the final products.
If the next step is quad core low power desktop CPU and nVidia combined North/South Bridge and MXM carded GPU. Then don't let the past get in Apples way of doing it.
One can only dream...... a "Mac Pro Mini"
Others have been saying a "Mac Mini Pro"...
Just a "Mac", IMO. Apple has so completely misused the word "Pro" that it no longer means anything but "more expensive than the other Mac".
As I've said in other threads, the "Mac" should be available in several form factors. Identical specs except for size and expansion.
Dell has the idea right with the Optiplex series - three systems with essentially the same motherboard/CPU options, but differing in expansion:
The smallest one is a step up from the Mini - standard desktop quad CPU, 3.5" disk. The middle one adds additional disk slots and a PCIe graphics slot. The larger one multiple disk/optical options, and full size PCIe graphics.
Not to mention that the quad Penryn runs at 45W TDP vs 35W for the duo. If it is a desktop chip it cranks out 65W, and even that should be manageable in the imac 24". The 45W chips won't really go in a notebook, but the imac will easily handle it since it doesn't have to lose 20% of it's battery life. It will be a BTO option, it's just a matter of time. And no, this guy has no idea what he's talking about because you can't cram peripherals and processing cards into an imac, which is what the pro is for. If you don't need audio/video/native storage you don't need the processing power either. One is a desktop, one is a workstation. And a quad desktop can't be a workstation.
You ain't kiddin. Unfortunately, the mobile chips won't be out until Q3. So around August there might be something in the pipeline for the mac book pro. Chances are the imac is going to get it's last core 2 update here soon, and it won't be updated along with the laptops the minute the fabs are cranking out nehelem. I would guess based on roadmaps you'll see nehelem books in august if the chips are ready (or sept-oct if not), and imacs in oct/nov but probably... not until about this time '10. And yes, they will seriously scream (next year!).
The April 2008 update appears to put the iMac 1/2 step ahead of the notebooks in terms of CPU. If it is updated again soon, it would have new CPUs like 2.67/2.93 GHz, which would continue the 1/2 step.
But if the iMac goes 65 W quad-core, then it becomes more interesting. Quad-core desktop Nehalem is 95 W, too hot for the iMac. Dual-core desktop Nehalem apparently replaces both dual-core Penryn and low-end quad-core Penryn. So if Apple goes the 65 W route, then the only Nehalem quad-cores (at least in late 2009, as far as I know) that could fit in the iMac will be mobile (more expensive, slower), which may not be faster than the Penryn quads for the price. Dual-core Nehalems would be a downgrade, unless Apple PR pushes threads strongly, and there most likely won't be a performance improvement.
So Apple may wait until March or so to update (with 65 W), and update again with 65 W quad-core Nehalems (whenever they come in 2010). Or if Intel updates the 65 W Penryn quads later this year, Apple could update twice in 2009 (and maybe wait until Westmere for the next update).
August is pretty optimistic. Mobile quad-core Nehalem's due in Q3 2009 or Q4 2009, depending on the source. Mobile dual-core is due early next year.
I wouldn't expect Apple to update twice this year in this recession economy. I expect your first scenario is most likely.
Timing...
It could be that Apple is waiting for an iMac/Mac Pro update happening at the same time.
Regarding i7: We sell Intel and we had the 'training' for the i7. Their parting shot was 'sell the crap out of these chips and boards' to which I said 'What chips? What boards? We could get only one SKU of the chips and NO motherboards through our two distributors. Maybe things have gotten easier but the distro proce for the i7 was, if I remember correctly, somewhat north of $1,100! Yeah. Sell me that one...
I use a quad core processor right now with Vista (I know...) and I see very little difference and at the time, the price was not much more than a standard C2D. It's not 'server grade' but neither is the i7. According to the training from Intel: don't use the i7 for servers.
Regarding the Mac Pro: It needs an update but it's still pretty damn fast system. For those that need the extra expansion and the dimming of the lights processors due to the power draw, there aren't any other options.
Regarding cooling the C2Q: It came with a somewhat larger but standard heatsink. No extra BS from what I can remember. No huge fans, no water cooling, no exotic anything. More copper than I've seen but nothing exotic.
Apple will ship them when they want to. If they can't keep the prices down, they will continue to have problems selling them...
How about a huge show with new iMac, Mini and Pro's at the same time... That will be a hellofa show... (And Snow Leopard too)
It could be that Apple is waiting for an iMac/Mac Pro update happening at the same time.
Regarding i7: We sell Intel and we had the 'training' for the i7. Their parting shot was 'sell the crap out of these chips and boards' to which I said 'What chips? What boards? We could get only one SKU of the chips and NO motherboards through our two distributors. Maybe things have gotten easier but the distro proce for the i7 was, if I remember correctly, somewhat north of $1,100! Yeah. Sell me that one...
I use a quad core processor right now with Vista (I know...) and I see very little difference and at the time, the price was not much more than a standard C2D. It's not 'server grade' but neither is the i7. According to the training from Intel: don't use the i7 for servers.
Regarding the Mac Pro: It needs an update but it's still pretty damn fast system. For those that need the extra expansion and the dimming of the lights processors due to the power draw, there aren't any other options.
Regarding cooling the C2Q: It came with a somewhat larger but standard heatsink. No extra BS from what I can remember. No huge fans, no water cooling, no exotic anything. More copper than I've seen but nothing exotic.
Apple will ship them when they want to. If they can't keep the prices down, they will continue to have problems selling them...
How about a huge show with new iMac, Mini and Pro's at the same time... That will be a hellofa show... (And Snow Leopard too)
"There aren't any options" is the key here. If there were other options, Mac Pro sales would suffer. This is what Apple's computer line has become over the past several years: a continually shrinking number of options.
Huh?
Shrinking? How so? Macbook, Macbook Air, Macbook Pro, Mini, iMac, Mac Pro.
Out of those, you have 3 Macbooks, 5 Macbook Pros, 3 Macbook Airs, (currently) 2 Mini's, 5 different iMacs and 4 different Mac Pro models. 22 DIFFERENT models.
You can go hog wild in the number of selections... Uh, err... 'Options'...
Shrinking? How so? Macbook, Macbook Air, Macbook Pro, Mini, iMac, Mac Pro.
Out of those, you have 3 Macbooks, 5 Macbook Pros, 3 Macbook Airs, (currently) 2 Mini's, 5 different iMacs and 4 different Mac Pro models. 22 DIFFERENT models.
You can go hog wild in the number of selections... Uh, err... 'Options'...