Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Why can't you say that? You're basically paying for multiple cpu potential.

Which we'll actually be able to take advantage of with Snow Leopard.

What is 'faster' anyway? 95% of apps won't be any quicker with 8 cores over 2.

Snow Leopard.

Go back to telling people about fsb speeds, cache, googling "mhz myth" etc, it's more entertaining than your 'new mac pro' authority speeches!

If you don't see the value of a Mac Pro, don't get one.
 
It is pretty well known that Intel's Core chips have been able to run near 4 Ghz on air for a while. With liquid cooling over 4 Ghz and with phase change cooling at or around 5 Ghz.

Intel doesn't have any competition forcing them to up the clock rate. Now it is all about how many cores one can stuff on a die. Intel so far can do 6.
Exactly, why go through the effort and quality control to bin out higher clocked chips?
 
Which we'll actually be able to take advantage of with Snow Leopard.

What is 'faster' anyway? 95% of apps won't be any quicker with 8 cores over 2.

Snow Leopard.



If you don't see the value of a Mac Pro, don't get one.

But what happens when you need more than 8 cores?
 
On Monday, Intel dropped prices on existing desktop Quad-Core processors and introduced three new power-efficient Quad-Core desktop processors:According to a report from November, Apple was said to be specifically waiting for these Quad-Core processors to launch new machines.
Oh, they were released now? I thought they were released last month (must have confused them with some other CPUs). That might be why we haven't seen an iMac yet.

Despite their "power efficient" designation, the new processors still use significantly more power then their mobile counterparts currently found in the iMac.
65 W vs. 55 W, an increase, but not a very big one. I think quad-cores will be confined to the 24" iMac, and it may have an upgraded cooling system.

And I don't think, given the CPUs in the Mac Pro, that Apple will use lower-clocked quad-cores and higher-clocked dual-cores in the same lineup. So that would mean that the four iMacs would likely be 2.53 dual / 2.67 dual / 2.67 quad / 2.83 quad.

Why is this necessary anyway? Intel already makes Quad core mobile processors, so isn't it much more likely that some version of that processor will be the one eventually finding itself into the mainstream Apple lineup?
Possible, but quad-core mobile CPUs cost way more than these ones. The 65 W quad-cores aren't far from equivalent-GHz mobile dual-cores in price.

I think Apple is preparing the iMac to use the Core i7 CPU
Core i7 CPUs have 130 W TDP.

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.
There have been many silent updates in the past.
 
Hi everyone;

I'm thinking about buying an iMac 20" 2.66GHZ right now... Should I?

I'm hearing that a new imac is coming out soon.. But how soon? Do you think It will be shown at the end of January? Or we should wait until March? In that case, I think I would buy the imac right now, because I can't wait anymore :p!
 
By the way, your edit says "the one year old Mac Pro with server class processors that already has the strongest procs available of it's class".

You must not realize that Intel is selling 3.4 GHz Penryn Xeons these days, and Apple is only using 3.2 GHz.

http://www.intel.com/products/processor/xeon5000/specifications.htm?iid=products_xeon5000+tab_specs
Oh, don't forget the 6 core CPU's they are selling as well.
You messed the quotes up, so I don't know who you're quoting here...
Yeah, noticed that after the posting. Fixed
 
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 Xexon 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

Maybe it's different in other countries, but I can buy a dual socket xeon workstation off dell starting at just over £700 (after clicking the first workstation link on there site) or the cheapest mac pro for just over £1700 - I'm not sure what apple offer, but dell have loads of different systems, special offers, honoured misprices, redeemable cashbacks and you don't 'have' to buy a substandard extended warranty. It's easy to pick a random system, add a few customizable options and escalate the price to something that makes the mp look like great value for money, and seeing some peoples comparisons is very frustrating - do you have any idea how to shop?




Which we'll actually be able to take advantage of with Snow Leopard.


If you don't see the value of a Mac Pro, don't get one.

Last time I checked, snow leopard wasn't out and the software optimized for the (niche?) osx libraries hasn't been written. Last time I checked, the open libraries and cuda and chums were little use for anything other than number crunching and brute forcing passwords. We've had multiple core systems with powerful gpus and lots of libraries to use for many years and little to show for it. If some slightly more unified libraries do make a difference on all the os', maybe we'll get a few luxuries, but I doubt they'll be huge changes instantly like a fair few people seem to think.

I bought my mac pro just to mess about on by the way (since sold it now - osx86 is perfectly mature), how many workstations do/have you owned and what's their value to you?
 
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.
I understand that, but where does the gamer category fall? I guess for apple it goes as far as iphone/ipod touch.

I am not a hardcore gamer, but I do enjoy a few games sometimes (like crysis or NBA 2K9) especially when I play with friends. If I get an iMac I am stuck with a graphics card that cannot run anything new (I am talking about the 2600 here). Of course even when they update the iMac I don't believe there will be something more than the 9600 in there maybe an IGP from Nvidia which could SLI (but not many chances for that SLI) and give a small boost. Then again in 2-3 years the 9600 will be outdated (right now it's just a normal graphics card that will be all games but not anything special) and probably it won't run crysis 3 :p.

On the other hand the Mac pro is not for gaming or normal usage (internet,word,spreadsheets, programming, music - that's all I need)
 
The Dell would blast the Mac Pro away, not even close.

Wow, Aiden, way to compare Apples to oranges. I'll bet your Chrysler minivan has more cupholders than a Mercedes S class - and way cheaper too. :D

That said, I doubt anyone here will deny that Apple has a huge gaping hole in its product lineup - the consumer/mid-range tower. I for one miss the days of the sub-$1500 Power Mac.

Pull your heads out, Apple - there's a huge market segment here you're completely ignoring. To your peril.

Maybe with Jobs on leave for a while, Cook can take advantage and slip in some products and features that consumers are begging for but Jobs has been too stubborn to offer?

If not, I may be building my own Hackintosh.
 
I'm thinking about buying an iMac 20" 2.66GHZ right now... Should I?

With the amount of time that has passed since the last iMac refresh, I think buying one now would be a crazy move. A refresh has to be right around the corner. Whether that means February or March who knows, but either way, you'd be kicking yourself if you bought now.

I'm buying a new 24" iMac the minute Apple announces a refresh.
 
So, would a weaker Quad Core processor be better than a more powerful Dual Core processor? For ex, Quad 2.5 GHz vs Dual 3.0 GHz?
And how much more would the iMacs cost, roughly? I mean a quad X.Y would cost how much more than a Dual X.Y?
 
So, would a weaker Quad Core processor be better than a more powerful Dual Core processor? For ex, Quad 2.5 vs Dual 3.0?
And how much more would the iMacs cost, roughly? I mean a quad X.Y would cost how much more than a Dual X.Y?

Apparently someone wants me to say this: "Megahertz Myth, man; Megahertz Myth!"

It depends on the relative costs of the current processors with the hypothetical ones.
 
Different CPU class.
I know. Gotta think positive :D

Aha. I messed up the quote there...:p

So you go buy a Beckton box running Linux.
Honestly I am hoping to turn my network over to Mac's. The biggest thing I need is a box that can take the place of the R900's I am using.

Personally I want a 30" iMac with CableCard support so I can finally replace my bedroom TV. C2Q would be nice for conversion of the HD Mpeg2 stream to HD H.264 realtime. But I am sure that won't help as much as offloading the encoding to the GPU.
 
I am not a hardcore gamer, but I do enjoy a few games sometimes (like crysis or NBA 2K9) especially when I play with friends. If I get an iMac I am stuck with a graphics card that cannot run anything new (I am talking about the 2600 here). Of course even when they update the iMac I don't believe there will be something more than the 9600 in there maybe an IGP from Nvidia which could SLI (but not many chances for that SLI) and give a small boost.
Is there a reason you can't get the 8800?

With the update the 20" will likely have 9400M/9600M and the 24" will probably have 9600M/9800M or low-end/midrange desktop GPUs.
 
Pull your heads out, Apple - there's a huge market segment here you're completely ignoring. To your peril.

What I find amazing is that Apple is performing much better than the rest of the market, and these comments still appear. It's one thing to want Apple to meet your specific need -- it's another to claim to have better insight into the market than Apple. Don't you agree?
 
Pull your heads out, Apple - there's a huge market segment here you're completely ignoring. To your peril.

Not really a narrow product lineup might lose you some sales, but acting like the auto companies chasing all those niche markets can bite you in the ass during lean times -- when all those product lines become expensive to update.
 
after reading the forums for a couple of months I have finally registert. I am waiting since october for a imac update, because my parents want to buy a new computer. we decided to buy a mac, but the problem is that my parents want to buy a new computer before februari:mad:!?!!? So, will there be a update in the next 2 weeks??? everybody is waiting for a new imac, or mac mini. and I dont want to buy a imac and find out that it is already outdated after a few weeks. so please, what should I do? :(:confused:
 
after reading the forums for a couple of months I have finally registert. I am waiting since october for a imac update, because my parents want to buy a new computer. we decided to buy a mac, but the problem is that my parents want to buy a new computer before februari:mad:!?!!? So, will there be a update in the next 2 weeks??? everybody is waiting for a new imac, or mac mini. and I dont want to buy a imac and find out that it is already outdated after a few weeks. so please, what should I do? :(:confused:

Don't be silly!there is absolutely no reason in the world why a current iMac should not fit your parents needs unless they plan to do heavy video rendering with FCP etc. this is a rumors web site no one here has any credible information on when anything new will come out. So buy what you want and enjoy it! who said everyone was waiting for new iMacs? do you realize how many millions of people have never heard of this web site? do you think they are waiting? NO! Unless your parents are graphic artist or web designers or using FCP what difference does it make?

There will always be something new coming out no matter when you buy it.
 
Is there a reason you can't get the 8800?

With the update the 20" will likely have 9400M/9600M and the 24" will probably have 9600M/9800M or low-end/midrange desktop GPUs.

I think the 8800 is only available on high-end model and well the only reason I could think is money :p

Although the 8800 is ok for me, if the high-end iMac have something like 9800GT I may go for it.
 
The old iMac G5's were power hungry desktop CPUs. New aluminium iMacs have far better cooling, so it should be fine for desktop processors.


No. The old PowerMac had better cooling than the current iMac. The reason the PowerMacs ran hotter was the CPU, not the design of their cooling system. Conversly, the reason the current iMac run cooler is not because they have 'far better cooling', its because they have a much cooler CPU.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.