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

Apple Releases New iMacs

Good Update, I wish Apple would dump Crappy ATI and start using Nvidia. I know this is not only Apple but also Nvidia and their lack of low power low heat GPU.
 
Couple of Questions

Long time lurker on this forum... I've been eagerly awaiting since the 2008 MacWorld for the iMac refresh... The only thing I was waiting on from Apple was a graphics card bump and my wishes were answered :D. That being said, I must temper my technolust with some hard facts before plunking down the cash.

1) There seems to be some confusion about whether this is a Montevina chipset or simply the old Santa Rosa chipset with some tricked out new Penryn processors from Intel. Having read these forums pretty consistently for the past months, it would seem unlikely that Apple somehow got their mitts on the Montevina platform ahead of Intel's publicized schedule. I'm fine with it not being Montevina, regardless, but knowing definitively would help.

2) The whole FSB discrepancy is throwing me for a loop too. I wish Apple's site would have more technical specs than it currently does. Does only the top end 3.06 GHz chip have the 1066 FSB and the others on down only have 800 FSB? The RAM upgrade to 4 GB is an extra $180 which at first glance seems somewhat reasonable considering a) Apple has earned a reputation for gouging its customers on RAM before and b) similarly spec'd out RAM at crucial.com sells for between $150-$300 and c) you'd be throwing out the RAM that came with the computer. I guess my question is does this iMac's chipset support RAM clocked at 1066? A previous poster was mentioning that the bottleneck isn't in the memory but rather the FSB - I was wondering if there could be any more insight to this.

Anyways, thanks for any replies... Eagerly awaiting to be a Mac convert.
 
Wild-Bill said:
Probably not worth 150 bucks. I'll bet you anything that it's a downclocked 8800GS, like its ATI 2600 and 2400 predecessors.
Click to expand...

Assuming it's an actual 8800GS, it thrashes the hell out of the ATI 2xxx and 3xxx series. I'll wait for benchmarks, but it's potentially a huge, huge GPU upgrade.
 
iFizz said:
Got it. So would this eliminate the need for a North Bridge?
What about the GPU? Would it use this new technology too?
Click to expand...
I believe there would be no more northbridge/southbridge as well as no more front-side bus - all of these things would be replaced by QPI links. As for the GPU, it would still sit in a PCI Express slot like it always has, but this would be connected to the motherboard by another QPI link, instead of a dedicated PCI Express bus connected to the northbridge or southbridge.

Basically, what all this means is that communications between the different hardware parts in a computer will be a heck of a lot faster than they used to be.
 
You get the advantages of both the 2400xt and the 8800gs ;)


Picture%204.png
 
wrldwzrd89 said:
I believe there would be no more northbridge/southbridge as well as no more front-side bus - all of these things would be replaced by QPI links. As for the GPU, it would still sit in a PCI Express slot like it always has, but this would be connected to the motherboard by another QPI link, instead of a dedicated PCI Express bus connected to the northbridge or southbridge.

Basically, what all this means is that communications between the different hardware parts in a computer will be a heck of a lot faster than they used to be.
Click to expand...

Right on! I'm all for that. I can't wait to see a Mac Pro rocking a system board that fast!
 
Rocketman said:
Now that the iMac has reached 3 Ghz, isn't this really the defining moment for Intel where Jobs forsaked IBM and the G5 because they did not reach 3ghz when promised, back a couple of years?

It might be.

Looks like IBM and Intel were both limited by technology and materials at the same time.

Rocketman
Click to expand...

Really it is 3x2 = 6 GHz

Even at the time of IBM to Intel switch, iMac was able to run over 3 GHz 'aggregate' speed
 
Enuratique said:
Long time lurker on this forum... I've been eagerly awaiting since the 2008 MacWorld for the iMac refresh... The only thing I was waiting on from Apple was a graphics card bump and my wishes were answered :D. That being said, I must temper my technolust with some hard facts before plunking down the cash.

1) There seems to be some confusion about whether this is a Montevina chipset or simply the old Santa Rosa chipset with some tricked out new Penryn processors from Intel. Having read these forums pretty consistently for the past months, it would seem unlikely that Apple somehow got their mitts on the Montevina platform ahead of Intel's publicized schedule. I'm fine with it not being Montevina, regardless, but knowing definitively would help.

2) The whole FSB discrepancy is throwing me for a loop too. I wish Apple's site would have more technical specs than it currently does. Does only the top end 3.06 GHz chip have the 1066 FSB and the others on down only have 800 FSB? The RAM upgrade to 4 GB is an extra $180 which at first glance seems somewhat reasonable considering a) Apple has earned a reputation for gouging its customers on RAM before and b) similarly spec'd out RAM at crucial.com sells for between $150-$300 and c) you'd be throwing out the RAM that came with the computer. I guess my question is does this iMac's chipset support RAM clocked at 1066? A previous poster was mentioning that the bottleneck isn't in the memory but rather the FSB - I was wondering if there could be any more insight to this.

Anyways, thanks for any replies... Eagerly awaiting to be a Mac convert.
Click to expand...
1) I have no idea... I'm just as confused as you are.

2) My understanding is that all of the iMac offerings have 1066 MHz front side buses and use 800 MHz RAM - but this RAM is installed in a matched pair, for dual-channel operation - this means it operates at an effective 1600 MHz, faster than the FSB. Therefore, there's no real need for 1066 MHz RAM in these machines - you would see zero speedup.
 
what to doooooo

ok so i got my imac in november and i will finish paying for it next week :rolleyes:

thats at the girlfriends house and im mostly there but i have an old emac at home that could do with getting a new home.. :cool:

should i try and persuade the burd to let me get the updated imac or should i hold off for a new laptop for my crimbo???? :confused: new design for the laptops are rumored....
 
dynamicv said:
Quick question about this 800MHz RAM. The system bus speed on the Penryn MBPs is 800MHz. If some of this faster RAM were to be installed in a Penryn/Santa Rosa machine would it run at 800MHz or scale back to 667?

Have to know as I need to update the RAM on my MBP, but can wait a couple of months if it means a speed increase.
Click to expand...
http://guides.macrumors.com/Understanding_Intel_Mac_RAM

Careful DDR2-800 RAM has some timing issues when clocked back to 667 on Penryn Macs.

johnnyjibbs said:
So are these Montevina chips?
Click to expand...
The majority of the specifications point to it.

gloss said:
Assuming it's an actual 8800GS, it thrashes the hell out of the ATI 2xxx and 3xxx series. I'll wait for benchmarks, but it's potentially a huge, huge GPU upgrade.
Click to expand...
The 8800GS is a nice video card and competes nicely with the Radeon HD3850. The limitation is the 192-bit memory interface but it's much better then 128-bit.
 
processor type

last time i asked a mac store person about the TYPE of intel processor they use, they said iMac's use one that is not available to the public... not sure if they were accurate about this or not, but that's what they said...
 
wrldwzrd89 said:
2) My understanding is that all of the iMac offerings have 1066 MHz front side buses and use 800 MHz RAM - but this RAM is installed in a matched pair, for dual-channel operation - this means it operates at an effective 1600 MHz, faster than the FSB. Therefore, there's no real need for 1066 MHz RAM in these machines - you would see zero speedup.
Click to expand...

Well if that's the case then why bump the RAM to 800 at all?

(667 x 2) > 1066
 
crappy screens for the 20inch still?

does somebody know whether the 20inch models have been upgraded to 8bit like the other models screens or are they still 6 bit?
 
Boy, am I glad I got a new 2.4GHz 20" yesterday!! : (

Actually it was a warranty replacement as I managed to fry the last one by unplugging it in the middle of the recent firmware update...but wonder if I had waited til today to collect it I would have been given a 2.66GHz replacement instead???

Do I have a case in the 28 day return window??

Nice bump but not kicking myself too much.
 
Anyone have any real world thoughts on the speed differences of the older 2.8 iMac vs this newer one? The FSB is the only spec difference assuming you don't upgrade to the newer vid card.

The older one has a 500 gig hard drive vs the standard 320 gig on the new model. I'm wondering if this new one will be noticeably faster than the older model. I'm trying to debate if the extra $200 is worth it or not.
 
Display?

What is the story w/ the cheap glossy display?

It is so hard to read!!!

Come on apple, let me get a real display.

.V
ps: Also, no need for dvd anymore, we can install os via USB stick.
 
Enuratique said:
<snip>

2) The whole FSB discrepancy is throwing me for a loop too. I wish Apple's site would have more technical specs than it currently does. Does only the top end 3.06 GHz chip have the 1066 FSB and the others on down only have 800 FSB? The RAM upgrade to 4 GB is an extra $180 which at first glance seems somewhat reasonable considering a) Apple has earned a reputation for gouging its customers on RAM before and b) similarly spec'd out RAM at crucial.com sells for between $150-$300 and c) you'd be throwing out the RAM that came with the computer. I guess my question is does this iMac's chipset support RAM clocked at 1066? A previous poster was mentioning that the bottleneck isn't in the memory but rather the FSB - I was wondering if there could be any more insight to this.

Anyways, thanks for any replies... Eagerly awaiting to be a Mac convert.
Click to expand...

The 'Tech Spec' section on the Apple US site clearly shows the 1066 FSB for all models. As for installed ram, it either comes with one 1 gb so-dimm or two 1 gb so-dimms, depending on the model ordered, so, yes, you would have the old ram left over for use elsewhere...?
 
Eidorian said:
The 8800GS is a nice video card and competes nicely with the Radeon HD3850. The limitation is the 192-bit memory interface but it's much better then 128-bit.
Click to expand...

I'd say it's highly unlikely this is a "normal" 8800GS. Underclocked at least...

Edit:
Not that that's a major issue, it's just that you have to pay quite a bit to get this card. I would bet it gets outperformed by the 9600GTs, which I think would have been a better choice (and for a cheaper price, of course).

It's obvious Nvidia had some older parts to clear out, and we all know Apple likes their margins a certain way...
 
If only they would have thrown a ExpressCard/34 slot in the top end model. Unfortunately I don't think this machine will cut it for large Pro Tools sessions using a Firewire 400 based interface. To be fair though, I think this is Digidesign's fault as I've read that Logic doesn't have the same 400/800 issues.

And refurb 2.8 extreme drops to $1599. Wow.
 
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