If that's true this will be a very expensive week for me. ut I don't think the iphone will be available until June.
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.
Apple Releases New iMacs
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
If that's true this will be a very expensive week for me. ut I don't think the iphone will be available until June.
Sigh...why couldn't they just include the HD 3xxxx series in to the rest of the line. Why why why?
Is it safe to presume Apple will bump the GPU to HD 3xxx, bump CPU by 100 MHz and bundle it as the 'winter'/holiday update at the end of the year or is this it till Macworld 09?...after all we did get Montevina early suggesting no significant update for a while right?
That argument might be valid if they hadn't gone Montevina but they did so the only thing i can see them doing is a slight CPU/GPU bump for the holiday season. There wont a redesign for another few years thats for sure. So there
Either they used desktop processors or they are using Montevina
Is it safe to presume Apple will bump the GPU to HD 3xxx, bump CPU by 100 MHz and bundle it as the 'winter'/holiday update at the end of the year or is this it till Macworld 09?...after all we did get Montevina early suggesting no significant update for a while right?
Similar to the G5 White iMac, this model is a filler and the model that will be released in Aug-Oct timeframe for Christmas will have some integrated features, similar to the iSight and Remote. (for those who remember some history).
That argument might be valid if they hadn't gone Montevina but they did so the only thing i can see them doing is a slight CPU/GPU bump for the holiday season. There wont a redesign for another few years thats for sure. So there
Either they used desktop processors or they are using Montevina
Fan Noise
I am curious as to the noise levels on the new graphics card and updated processor. I am planning on purchasing an iMac for audio recording, and I would like to configure it for lowest noise/highest performance. My guess is that I will probably have to wait for user reports on the noise levels.
I am curious as to the noise levels on the new graphics card and updated processor. I am planning on purchasing an iMac for audio recording, and I would like to configure it for lowest noise/highest performance. My guess is that I will probably have to wait for user reports on the noise levels.
Ask nVidia or Apple.
It's looking more like Apple might have just slapped on 8800 GS for the sake of comparison for the average consumer.
Well that makes sense. They say the 8800GS has 384 MB of ram not 512 MB. That would account for the connection. Apple is saying they are using 512 MB which makes having a 192 bit bus impossible.
Also note the original 8800GTX had 768 MB of ram cause it has a 384 bit bus.
No they are based on Cantiga Chipset.
New laptop chips early? Or under-clocked desktop chips?
Sorry, didn't read all 11 pages, but though I'd chime in with my opinion.
Intel currently lists zero 1066 MHz front side bus chips with 6 MB of L2 cache, desktop or mobile. The 6 MB of L2 cache means it is a new 45 nm part, but the only 1066 MHz front side bus 45 nm part Intel has is a desktop chip with 3 MB L2 cache at 2.53 GHz. Obviously not in use on these new iMacs.
It has been widely known that Intel will be releasing a new mobile chipset in May or June that will bump the front side bus to 1066 MHz.
So that leaves us with two options: Either Apple is under-clocking desktop chips, or they have gotten the new laptop chipset and processors early.
While I really hope the iMac has moved to desktop chips, I have a feeling Apple just got the new laptop parts early. (Maybe they are getting what "should" have been engineering sample chips that run too hot to release as an actual laptop chip, but Intel is letting Apple have them since they know they'll go into a desktop computer.)
Sorry, didn't read all 11 pages, but though I'd chime in with my opinion.
Intel currently lists zero 1066 MHz front side bus chips with 6 MB of L2 cache, desktop or mobile. The 6 MB of L2 cache means it is a new 45 nm part, but the only 1066 MHz front side bus 45 nm part Intel has is a desktop chip with 3 MB L2 cache at 2.53 GHz. Obviously not in use on these new iMacs.
It has been widely known that Intel will be releasing a new mobile chipset in May or June that will bump the front side bus to 1066 MHz.
So that leaves us with two options: Either Apple is under-clocking desktop chips, or they have gotten the new laptop chipset and processors early.
While I really hope the iMac has moved to desktop chips, I have a feeling Apple just got the new laptop parts early. (Maybe they are getting what "should" have been engineering sample chips that run too hot to release as an actual laptop chip, but Intel is letting Apple have them since they know they'll go into a desktop computer.)
Cute
But my EYES are using the same technology since 1990. And 8-bit LCD displays have been out for a long time. Hey, didn't the old iMac 20" have these? There are even 10-bit panels now...
Dithering...we've had that with 16-bit displays and even with 8-bit displays ever since 32-bit Quickdraw was released. It's been around for a long time, but not once did the old Apple pretend that a 256 color display dithering in a 24-bit color space was as good as "direct color". Til now. Dithering sucks.
I don't think it is unreasonable to expect a brand new LCD display made this century be able to easily display the same number of colors in 2008 than a CRT made in 1990. It's been 18 years! Some newer LCDs are quite excellent now. And this isn't exactly new.
For example, my new Sony LCD Bravia has no trouble generating 16.7 Million colors with its 8-bits per color. Looks fantastic, even though high-end CRTs still have the edge in color gamut so the experts tell me. My eyes can't tell the difference here; the Bravia is extremely color rich from what I can tell, with no color banding. There are even higher end Bravias that have 10-bit color ranges per color, for 30-bit color---billions of colors. My old SE/30 couldn't do that. So somewhere, progress does march on.
Apple just chose to use some low end 6-bit displays for larger profit margins. I am not impressed with the TN display in my wife's MacBook...definitely a little weak in the visuals. Some of the text looks positively faded compared to a higher-end LCD I use. But she didn't want to spend the cash on a MacBook Pro to get the superior display. Not my Mac to worry about..I put the savings towards the Sony Bravia ;-)
But as I'd be using a new iMac, I would insist upon technology that exceeded or equaled what I had 18 years ago...and yes it is available, Apple USED it in the all white iMac 20" and no once bitched about it. And in terms of the display technology alone, it IS an Apple to Apple comparison, only the older Apples were just plain more tasty...as are the 24" iMac displays.
You are comparing completely different technologies, and you are arriving at completely wrong conclusions.
That SE/30 had a cathode ray tube...
The six bit LCD display uses the same principle...
But my EYES are using the same technology since 1990. And 8-bit LCD displays have been out for a long time. Hey, didn't the old iMac 20" have these? There are even 10-bit panels now...
Dithering...we've had that with 16-bit displays and even with 8-bit displays ever since 32-bit Quickdraw was released. It's been around for a long time, but not once did the old Apple pretend that a 256 color display dithering in a 24-bit color space was as good as "direct color". Til now. Dithering sucks.
I don't think it is unreasonable to expect a brand new LCD display made this century be able to easily display the same number of colors in 2008 than a CRT made in 1990. It's been 18 years! Some newer LCDs are quite excellent now. And this isn't exactly new.
For example, my new Sony LCD Bravia has no trouble generating 16.7 Million colors with its 8-bits per color. Looks fantastic, even though high-end CRTs still have the edge in color gamut so the experts tell me. My eyes can't tell the difference here; the Bravia is extremely color rich from what I can tell, with no color banding. There are even higher end Bravias that have 10-bit color ranges per color, for 30-bit color---billions of colors. My old SE/30 couldn't do that. So somewhere, progress does march on.
Apple just chose to use some low end 6-bit displays for larger profit margins. I am not impressed with the TN display in my wife's MacBook...definitely a little weak in the visuals. Some of the text looks positively faded compared to a higher-end LCD I use. But she didn't want to spend the cash on a MacBook Pro to get the superior display. Not my Mac to worry about..I put the savings towards the Sony Bravia ;-)
But as I'd be using a new iMac, I would insist upon technology that exceeded or equaled what I had 18 years ago...and yes it is available, Apple USED it in the all white iMac 20" and no once bitched about it. And in terms of the display technology alone, it IS an Apple to Apple comparison, only the older Apples were just plain more tasty...as are the 24" iMac displays.
Probably b/c Macs use EFI and PCs use BIOS. That's what most people have said anyways.
FINALLY!!!
been waiting for this update for months and its finally here!
will be putting my order in for the high end model tonight maybe tomorrow.
finally getting rid of my 6-year old PC... going to some douche on craigslist, haha
cant wait to get this in my home!!
been waiting for this update for months and its finally here!
will be putting my order in for the high end model tonight maybe tomorrow.
finally getting rid of my 6-year old PC... going to some douche on craigslist, haha
cant wait to get this in my home!!
Same here but just got blinded-sided with the comment, "We're going to put this toward the wedding fund, right?"
Fiancees must think the same way....now just if I can talk the photographer down in price, a new iMac will be mine!!!!
Oh boy another fanboy who can't get his head out of his a$$. Sorry if your another to bury your head in the sand. Their machines are good for 90% of the people? Oh, so you must be brain dead like all the rest.
Why would I buy a windows machine when they suck? That's not an option. I'm sorry but I've had an Apple machine for the last 20 years. It's only been recently that they have been pulling this kind of garbage. The base model is crap right out of the gate. Once again another who can't hear anyone say bad things about Apple. Get a clue. If you've ever done any computer repair work, then you'd know how much the parts cost and what kind of crap they are putting into their machines these days. All you can do is point to someone who has something critical to say and spout some gibberish. Please. And how about you just piss off, mr. crappy Tibook and POS iMac owner.
That's completely wrong. The money is an advance on a tax break that takes effect next year. You won't be taxed on it (not that I think that justifies this sleazy move on the part of the Republicans to win everyone over with a ridiculous cash hand-out.)
Plus since when was Apple the company for the 90%. This is still a good update though.
Don't MBP use 6 bit displays too and all laptop screens for that matter? But agreed, MBP screen is better than MB's.
Sehnsucht
I'm not! Purchased my iMac a few weeks ago, and I (and my family) love it. And for at least a couple weeks, I did have the latest and greatest. While the top end 24" iMac is nice, especially with a 512MB video card, I don't regret my purchase in the least.
Now, perhaps in 3 - 5 years I'll be wanting a 4GHz machine with 1GB of VRAM, but my current iMac (20" Al iMac w/ 2GB of RAM and 256MB of VRAM) is very nice, powerful, and speedy.
oh wow, now i'm starting to regret (just a tiny bit) my purchase last february.
I'm not! Purchased my iMac a few weeks ago, and I (and my family) love it. And for at least a couple weeks, I did have the latest and greatest. While the top end 24" iMac is nice, especially with a 512MB video card, I don't regret my purchase in the least.
Now, perhaps in 3 - 5 years I'll be wanting a 4GHz machine with 1GB of VRAM, but my current iMac (20" Al iMac w/ 2GB of RAM and 256MB of VRAM) is very nice, powerful, and speedy.
or should i say, other than the wireless modules, iMac are build with Montevina platform's chipset and CPU?
That would be hilarious if I didn't think you were serious. I've been using Macs for 15+ years and the level of fanaticism and self-delusion amongst my chosen platform's user base never fails to amaze.
If the current product range is fine for 90% of the people as you assert, why aren't 90% of the people using Macs?
It's true that Apple's market share has increased, but clearly the consumer-level offerings are weak and today's half-hearted iMac refresh alongside the continued neglect of the Mini doesn't do a whole helluva lot to fix that. My apologies, however, if this simple but logical response to your outta-yer-ass theory about 90% of the market spoils the party.
Hm, but it was the extreme chip. Not the normal TDP model at all. Most laptop makers don't ship with the extreme chips unless it is like Alienware (or something of that caliber).
Much better. We are all pretty sure that is the case. As none of Intels desktop CPU's use that low of a FSB with those speeds and those cache sizes. So it would leave the mobile chips as the likely answer. Which is cool cause Apple hadn't used new chipset before anyone else before (well as far as I know). The real test will be when someone actually gets their hands on a system for testing. We should know by the end of the week assuming the ship dates don't get pushed back.