Apple to Use Newly Released Quad-Core Desktop Processors?

[Sun Baked]

Even if they only go quad desktop of the top of the line iMac, the switch to desktop CPUs and RAM should make things a bunch easier come upgrade time.

Likely still see underclocked GPUs on the iMac especially if they switch to desktop units, but likely may stay mobile.

Would be nice to see 4 DIMM slots show at the same time along with a MacBookish HD/RAM bay. Long shot on those.

 

[BenRoethig]

This processor will not be in the iMac without making it dramatically thicker for cooling, which Apple won't do.

Nor will it be in the Mac Pro since they use Xeons.

End of.

Just might be the end of...Mac desktops if they continue with mobile platforms when small form factor platforms are available. By this summer the vast majority of desktop machines will be quad core including all of the competing all in ones. If Apple keeps these out for purely aesthetics reasons, they better hope that Mac OS X is as big a selling point to the general public and consumers are ill-informed as they think they are or Apple is going to being facing a very tough time selling iMacs. The traditional PowerMac users who is already not exactly pleased with being shoe horned into buying an all in one is going to be completely alienated if the iMacs fall as far behind desktop CPUs as the mobile products show.

 

[JGowan]

Weren'we supposed ot have a 3.0 Mhz machine by like june of 2004?

We have that now -- BTO options of Two 3.0GHz Quad-Core Intel Xeon's (Add $800) or Two 3.25GHz Quad-Core Intel Xeon's (Add $1,600) -- pricey, but we've got 'em and Steve has made on on his word…

… in fact …

Even the iMacs now have an BTO with 3.06GHz Intel Core 2 Duo processors, which I bought for the wife back in March of '08. It's quite zippy.

 

[Chuck Fadanoid]

A midi tower does make some sense to me, speaking subjectively.

Q: Why do people buy Apple? A: It's Mac OS X, not the hardware anymore.

As a G5 owner, when the leaky coolant of Damocles falls and burns my PSU (I'm resigned to fact that it's inevitable), I'd really love to buy another Mac (because I've only ever owned Macs) but there's a gap in the hardware lineup where I fit. The Mac Pro is much more "pro" than the G5 which basically has consumer parts in it, and too expensive. And the iMac ... what to do with all my expansions, not least the eSATA stuff? I'm sure I'm not alone, and I think a fair few people in the PC world would like to switch but also don't fit in.

After the G5 coolant issues, I'm not such a blind Mac fan any more that I'd buy Apple hardware that doesn't fit me.

 

[IlluminatedSage]

I've never understood Apple's desktop strategy. Offering a consumer level tower wouldn't require them to have to sit on too much excess inventory (usually a reason a company reduces their offerings.)

I think its plausible to see a new product that marries the Apple TV and Mac Mini, but seeing Apple's long time strategy on desktops, I think we'll all be disappointed with the outcome. I doubt it would be anything along the lines of the old G4 tower.

no way i see apple tv and mac mini lines merging, no way to keep the price point for apple tv low if that happens.

 

[Peace]

well, the Mac Pros traditionally use server class processors, not desktop-class. It's possible I suppose, but I'm not sure if these processors are much better than what's currently shipping in the Mac Pros.

arn

Didn't read through the whole thread but t's possible the iMac will have the single Quad-core while the Mac Pro will use the 8-core and 16-core configuration.

Video cards will be bumped a lot also.

 

[AidenShaw]

Dell *creams* Mac Pro on price/performance

Sure, but the current Mac Pro is now a year 'stale' and Dell still hasn't really beaten it on price/performance.

          Dell Studio XPS             Apple Mac Pro
          -------------------------   -------------------------
Price     $949                        $2299
CPU       Core i7-920 (2.66 GHz quad) 2.8 GHz Quad Xeon
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 

(For $2289 in the Dell, you get Core i7-940 (2.93GHz), 
    12 GiB, Blu-ray, 750 GB, ATI Radeon HD 4850 512MB)

The Dell would blast the Mac Pro away, not even close.

 

[LagunaSol]

Windows 7 is looking pretty sweet anyways.

In what way? Simply because it doesn't suck as much as Vista? Because they incorporated an OS X-style dock? Because the media say so?

I've been playing with the beta in Fusion and I'm not seeing anything I would define as "pretty sweet." It still lags far behind OS X IMO.

 

[Umbongo]

          Dell Studio XPS                  Apple Mac Pro
          -------------------------   -------------------------
Price     $949                        $2299
CPU       Core i7-920 (2.66 GHz quad) 2.8 GHz Quad Xeon
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 

(For $2289 in the Dell, you get Core i7-940 (2.93GHz), 
    12 GiB, Blu-ray, 750 GB, ATI Radeon HD 4850 512MB)

The Dell would blast the Mac Pro away, not even close.

          Dell T7400                  Apple Mac Pro
          -------------------------   -------------------------
Price     $6023                       $5198
CPU       Dual 3.2GHz Xeon            Dual 3.2GHz Xeon
RAM       4 GiB 800 MHz FB-DIMM       4 GiB 800 MHz FB-DIMM
Disk      500 GB 7200 RPM SATA        500 GB 7200 RPM SATA
Optical   16X Superdrive              16X Superdrive
Blu-ray   $470 option                 not available
Graphics  Nvidia NVS 290 256MB        Radeon HD 2600 XT 256MB 
Warranty  3 Years next day            3 Years Applecare

I'd have a blast with $800!

Your go again.

 

[Tallest Skil]

          Dell T7400                  Apple Mac Pro
          -------------------------   -------------------------
Price     $6023                       $5198
CPU       Dual 3.2GHz Xeon            Dual 3.2GHz Xeon
RAM       4 GiB 800 MHz FB-DIMM       4 GiB 800 MHz FB-DIMM
Disk      500 GB 7200 RPM SATA        500 GB 7200 RPM SATA
Optical   16X Superdrive              16X Superdrive
Blu-ray   $470 option                 not available
Graphics  Nvidia NVS 290 256MB        Radeon HD 2600 XT 256MB 
Warranty  3 Years next day            3 Years Applecare

I'd have a blast with $800!

Your go again.

Epic, man. Also, don't the Core i7 chips still suck eggs compared to the current line of Xeons?

 

[lanceh5]

Looking for a quad core iMac

I have my money ready for a quad core iMac with OS 10.6. I need to replace the old G5 iMac 1.8Ghz.

The temperatures in the Macs running now are:

17" G5 iMac 1.8Ghz, CPU 153ºF, CPU Fan 2000 rpm.

13" MacBook 2.1 Ghz, CPUA 158ºF, Exhaust Fan 6192 rpm.

20" iMac 2.4 Ghz, CPUA 151ºF, GPU Diode 169ºF, GPU Heat Sink 158ºF
Exhaust Fan 1372 rpm

 

[PeterQC]

          Dell Studio XPS             Apple Mac Pro
          -------------------------   -------------------------
Price     $949                        $2299
CPU       Core i7-920 (2.66 GHz quad) 2.8 GHz Quad Xeon
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 

(For $2289 in the Dell, you get Core i7-940 (2.93GHz), 
    12 GiB, Blu-ray, 750 GB, ATI Radeon HD 4850 512MB)

The Dell would blast the Mac Pro away, not even close.

You're comparing a Nehalem desktop class processors, which are now out, to the one year old Mac Pro with server class processors that already has the strongest procs available of it's class.

If you want a fair comparison, find a desktop with server processors. The Mac Pro is still one of the best offering for the price for this kind of hardware.

 

[Marx55]

It would have to have at least 1 PCI slot. Otherwise what GPU would it use?

nVidia Ion Platform!

 

[Umbongo]

Epic, man. Also, don't the Core i7 chips still suck eggs compared to the current line of Xeons?

No, Aiden is right in that the XPS will outperform the Mac Pro he listed, but it isn't comparable if you can use 8 cores or needs lots of memory. 3.2GHz Penryn is about equal to 2.66GHz Nehalem.

 

[AidenShaw]

No, Aiden is right in that the XPS will outperform the Mac Pro he listed, but it isn't comparable if you can use 8 cores or needs lots of memory. 3.2GHz Penryn is about equal to 2.66GHz Nehalem.

At least somebody understands.

The Mac Pro is a decent value for a maxed out 8 CPU workstation.

It's a horrible value if you need something more than a Mini or Imac, but less than a maxed out 8 CPU workstation.

Tallest Skil, you are losing credibility if you continue to call the current Core i7 "crap". They're significantly faster clock-for-clock than Core 2, with much higher memory bandwidth.

...and cheap.

You're comparing a Nehalem desktop class processors, which are now out, to the one year old Mac Pro with server class processors that already has the strongest procs available of it's class, which are a lot more expensive and powerful then the one on the XPS.

If you want a fair comparison, find a desktop with server processors.

> which are a lot more expensive

Yes.

> and [a lot more] powerful then the one on the XPS

No.

Check the Core i7 performance - core for core it blows the Xeon away.

CFP2006:  i7-920: [B]27.7[/B]      i7-965: [B]31.7[/B]
   Xeon 2.83 GHz: [B]19.3[/B]   Xeon 3GHz: [B]23.4[/B]

CINT2006: i7-920: [B]25.7[/B]      i7-965: [B]30.2[/B]
   Xeon 2.83 GHz: [b]22.0[/b]   Xeon 3GHz: [B]24.2[/B]

And what's with the myth about "server processors"? They're virtually the same chip, with extra pins so that they'll work in dual socket configurations. And, let's not compare FB-DIMM latency and bandwidth to DDR3.

 

[Tallest Skil]

Tallest Skil, you are losing credibility if you continue to call the current Core i7 "crap". They're significantly faster clock-for-clock than Core 2, with much higher memory bandwidth.

You can't say that desktop and Xeon chips have the same power, though. That's why I asked whether or no they're faster; I didn't state it.

 

[gianpan]

I want to believe that the new iMac's will be at least core 2 quad - mobile version or not. I don't think there is any point in upgrading the line if they are to put dual core again.

i7 would rock but I am sure it won't happen, I mean come on it's Apple we know they are slow to adopt new tech let alone now that there is not even a mobile version of i7 that could maybe fit in the iMac (if they are to continue with the mobile parts).

For me it's more important that we can upgrade graphics cards than having an i7 in there though, but as someone else stated it's Steve he doesn't want us to mess his hardware!

 

[ChrisA]

this might not be really on topic, but i just need to ask, because i am expecting to buy a new machine...

i would like to video edit with the iMac. is the last iMac good enough for Final Cut Pro?

maybe you guys could give a short answer to this. thanks.

Yes. FCP works well on the iMac (even my older 2.16Ghz White iMac) if you are doing "normal" work. It really depends on the video format and how many streams of video. Then you would need not really four core but a faster disk system than you could get for the iMac.

The eight core Mac Pro would make the final rendering go quicker but you only do that once and you cut for hours

 

[charlituna]

this might not be really on topic, but i just need to ask, because i am expecting to buy a new machine...

i would like to video edit with the iMac. is the last iMac good enough for Final Cut Pro?

maybe you guys could give a short answer to this. thanks.

yes. although I would keep it to shorter projects. don't try to FCP a feature length project.

and that's mainly because of hard drive etc. you'll have to attach externals and they would never be as snappy as a SATA or eSATA drive even if you are using firewire 800.

but for short stuff and learning the program, the top imac, especially with the ram max, would be fine. then when you know the program you can justify stepping up to a mac pro, used or hopefully by then the entry price will be lower

why the iMac? this is definetly a processor for the MacPro, isn't it?
is there another excuse not to launch a new MP?

I could see a high-end 24" iMac with quad-cores coming. I don't see all iMacs going quad-core right now. The price points don't make sense.

both lines need an upgrade. and I agree that the 20" imacs aren't as likely to go for this kind of power. give them what the current 24" has and quad up the 24" does have a logic to it.

iMac is a home machine though and I suspect home users do prefer glossy as it makes the colours pop more than a matte. I'm with you as I do a lot of photography and a glossy screen makes colour accuracy more difficult.

more like home users don't notice the diff and aren't bothered by moving a light to correct it.

still, I don't see them making the matte option avail to everyone.

I suspect that the 17 got it cause that was where the most mattes were bought the last go around. if it sells then they will possibly move it to the 15 inch and maybe to the LED displays as the Cinema's drop off. by then the calibration meters should be adjusted to deal with glossy or matte.

I pick these items because they are the ones designed for professionals and prosumers. the mac book and imac (at least the smaller) are likely to stay glossy and green all the way.

Today's Tuesday- who thinks the new iMac will ship today?

they wouldn't do it without a big announcement. and there was none and no change to the store. so that would be a no.

besides. the media is all out covering that Obama dude and his thang. so they are too busy to attend another tea party at Steve's right now. and will probably be covering the Big O all week. Apple would be risking coming off as classless by doing anything this week.

now next week is fair game.

besides they have ilife and the 17inch laptops to get out to the stores. get that hype out of the way and then hit folks with the next fun.

I say mid February at the earliest for another announcement.

I want to switch from a Windows XP system to a Mac + get Windows 7 in dual boot when that comes out, but have been holding off due to the rumors of the new iMacs being right around the corner.

there will always be rumors. if your current machine is working I would wait until Win 7 is out and maybe by then there will be something real on a new iMac.

Yup, all twelve of them

If that's the case, then the solution is a Mac Pro. If you can't afford a new one, then simply do the same thing that people who want a Porsche for 1/2 the MSRP: buy used.

here's the thang. most of the whining I hear about wanting a mini tower isn't so much cause of the size of the tower but the price to get started. for what you get out of the box it is rather pricey. but component prices are dropping so we might see the same tower but with a lower starting point come out. same upgrade possibilities though. which for many is still a win.

But if the problem is canabalization, then not reducing the total number of 'close contenders' will solve the problem ... how?

too many choices leds to consumer confusion. Apple figured this out. the Windows world hasn't completely. this is one of the dangers of clones etc.

even in the professional world, the issue isn't choices so much as upgrades possible when you need them, without having to start over with all new equipment every time, at a cost that is high value (ie, the most bang for your buck). that's why a tower is what the professionals are looking at.

iN OTHER NEWS APPLE TO USE THE NEW MAC OS OPERATING SYSTEM ON NEW COMPUTERS.

I know you are being silly on purpose, but you may have hit the nail.

The last go around, Apple released hardware that wasn't in sync with the OS of the time. It wasn't until Leopard came out a few weeks later that things were really grooving.

Apple is likely about to repeat this with Snow Leopard. It is a system that will move Apple into 64 bit computing. Perhaps not across the board but certainly on the higher machines like the Pro, the MacBook Pro and perhaps the higher level iMacs. For now, the system might have built in both 32 and 64 modes, much like the early Mac OS X had classic for carry folks over as their apps upgraded.

If Apple has examined and tested the processors just now hitting the market looking for the bits to put in these new machines, the delay makes total sense. And I think that is the case.

Snow Leopard, by best estimates, is due in mid to late summer and I think it will be THE item at WWDC. New machines will be released or announced by then as well. And Apple's stock will go through the roof again, just like when the first iphone came out.

no way i see apple tv and mac mini lines merging, no way to keep the price point for apple tv low if that happens.

well you have to look at what folks are talking about. they are considering a machine much like the one that HP just put out.

basically a headless home server that could be used for media or files. So think of a multipurpose box that could be set up as a time capsule (personally I think that should be in the equation as well), a shared drive for files or even a shared media drive. you could have the whole families itunes library on one box that anyone can listen to or watch on any computer. the Apple TV as we know it would be just a streaming converter. the translator for the wifi received data into a tv/receiver signal.

so you have this mini computer/drive with an airport extreme perhaps and then a small receiver about the size of a cable box (and perhaps half the price of the current Apple tv)

given that this is what a lot of folks are basically doing with the mini already, I could see it being a viable option. and they don't really have to change much.

 

[azentropy]

At least somebody understands.

The Mac Pro is a decent value for a maxed out 8 CPU workstation.

It's a horrible value if you need something more than a Mini or Imac, but less than a maxed out 8 CPU workstation.

Right... The real issue that matters to many is something like this:

User already has a wonderful 24" LCD (non-glossy). Has about $1250 budgeted to spend on a new system (could afford to spend more but could afford to spend $60K on a car and chose not to).

Adding the previous generation Quad core to an iMac doesn't help with that issue.

 

[PeterQC]

> and [a lot more] powerful then the one on the XPS

No. Check the Core i7 performance - core for core it blows the Xeon away.

Nah nevermind, edited my message. I need to tighten the lease of my inner fanboy

 

[charlituna]

but as someone else stated it's Steve he doesn't want us to mess his hardware!

keep in mind that the iMac was designed for consumers more than for professionals. Consumers don't generally know how to safely mess with the internals of a computer. They are the ones that try cool things and break things. Thus why the iMac is a closed box.

the Mac Pro is for those that want to play. many more options available there.

 

[VoR]

You can't say that desktop and Xeon chips have the same power, though. That's why I asked whether or no they're faster; I didn't state it.

Why can't you say that? You're basically paying for multiple cpu potential.
What is 'faster' anyway? 95% of apps won't be any quicker with 8 cores over 2. Go back to telling people about fsb speeds, cache, googling "mhz myth" etc, it's more entertaining than your 'new mac pro' authority speeches!

 

[kingtj]

Interesting point ....

I started tossing around the idea of switching our office from PC to Mac, myself. (With what we were paying our outside consulting firm and system supplier for new PCs, we could have been buying lower-end iMacs or refurbished higher-end versions.)

Some of the new LCD monitors I've purchased in recent months have come with glossy screens, though - and nobody I've given them to has seemed to mind. I think that would become an issue for a few people who sit by windows. (They've requested anti-glare filters for their old CRT monitors before.)

The Mac Mini, as under-spec'd as it is, would probably still be just fine for daily office use, EXCEPT for the fact that people here would want to run a few native Windows apps on it. (I think it would feel too sluggish using Parallels or VMWare.)

Like you said though, the Mac Pro is total overkill for 90% of the people in the office. (It might make sense for the people we've got here who do estimating and bidding on building projects, since they tend to work with large blueprint drawings.)

I guess I used to always think of the people begging for Apple to make a headless iMac tower as home users, whining because they were too cheap to replace their existing monitors. (Well that, or they're fixated on wanting multiple internal hard drives. Nevermind the iMac + good-looking external drive enclosure still looks FAR neater/cleaner than a regular tower and all the cable mess it involves for the monitor, speakers, etc. etc.)

But this really IS a valid request for corporate use, and Apple might do well to consider it.

Apple used these processor for a "Mac midi". Where I work, we've started to exchange Windows PCs for macs, but most users don't want the glossy screens, besides, we have lots of good, large screens that we could reuse if Apple only had a sensible screen-less model. The current mac mini is an underspecified joke of a computer, and the Mac Pro is total overkill for the intended office use.

 

[-hh]

You're comparing a Nehalem desktop class processors, which are now out, to the one year old Mac Pro with server class processors that already has the strongest procs available of it's class.

If you want a fair comparison, find a desktop with server processors. The Mac Pro is still one of the best offering for the price for this kind of hardware.

My apologies for "starting" this tangent. What we need to remember is that it is inevitable is that there will be changes in technologies, and that "The Lead" is always transient: it will shift back and forth based on factors (which often can be non-technical) such as who gets their product to market first.

In this case, my point wasn't really to compare new, different CPUs that's just fallen from the Intel tree to existing CPUs, but to merely to compare same CPUs from Intel that are being delivered to the market by different systems manufacturers (Apple, Dell).

As such, my statement stands that if you want a PC with two quad core Xeon CPUs, the one from Apple costs less than from Dell, despite the Mac Pro now effectively being "due" for an update/refresh (since this invariably improves its overall value).


-hh