Ah, alright, this makes sense. I just find it unfortunate that they have to use such dated chips in a new release.
Can we have a midrange Mac desktop with Core i7 yet?
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 Waiting on Quad-Core Desktop CPUs for January?
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Ah, alright, this makes sense. I just find it unfortunate that they have to use such dated chips in a new release.
Can we have a midrange Mac desktop with Core i7 yet?
how dated exactly do you think they are? its not like they are P4's with HyperThreading
I can imagine a $100 price drop but Apple is reaping more profits using cheaper desktop processors. The E8200 is rather depressing in the enthusiast community with its stillborn launch compared to the Q6600.
I don't think you took my advice as stated earlier to do some research on Nehalem. You're looking at H2 2009 for anything even close to a 65W TDP. Then again the loss of the northbridge might offset the sllightly higher CPU thermals.
"The novelties will not be inexpensive: computer makers will have to pay 16%, 20% or even 33% price premium for energy efficiency of the new chips compared to quad-core processors with similar specs, but with higher power consumption."
Intel to Unveil Desktop Quad-Core Chips with Lowered Power Consumption
price, avalibility, the fact that apple gets the current procs they are going ot be using for much much cheaper, the list kinda goes on and on
Exactly Nahalem will be great when it arrives but it's still quite new for Apple to adopt it yet. You don't transition from Mac OS 9 to X overnight; the same is true for Nahalem. Let the other vendors work out the imminent bugs, driver and board issues, etc and let Intel ramp up production when they're ready.
Bring on the extra cores. Take a look at the number of processes Mac OS 9 spawned by itself then compare that to Mac OS X. In particular, UNIX is all about doing one job well; that evidently means more processes and threads to spread out over the OS—you almost need a processor core just for the OS to do its business. A quad core iMac/Mini (if Apple goes that route) would definitely be beneficial to businesses who want to virtualize Windows on Mac—dual core is good but quad is better.
Wow, that is a megaton from Intel. I really like where this is going. P43 in my iMac? It's more likely then you think!
"The novelties will not be inexpensive: computer makers will have to pay 16%, 20% or even 33% price premium for energy efficiency of the new chips compared to quad-core processors with similar specs, but with higher power consumption."
Intel to Unveil Desktop Quad-Core Chips with Lowered Power Consumption
Who really cares about what software developers do?
I keep hearing messages of this tone, in threads about multiple cores, and have to wonder if you have a clue? Frankly I don't give a rats ass about what software developers do.
First, you have to realize that not all programs will end up being threaded or multi core optimized any time soon. It is just not worth the trouble for many programs. Second, on apps that do benefit many developers simply don't have the skill thus their app eventually gets replaced with the more modern. Third, for many it isn't an issue of single app performance anyways but rather what they can do with the system and keep it responsive.
In a nut shell you whine about developers means nothing. The reasons for multiple core are many and go beyound the focus you have on single apps.
By the way I'm not sure I believe this story completely. The problem is one of power and the fact that that is a big selling point in the Minis case and to a lesser extent the iMacs. These would still be significantly hotter processors.
Dave
I keep hearing messages of this tone, in threads about multiple cores, and have to wonder if you have a clue? Frankly I don't give a rats ass about what software developers do.
First, you have to realize that not all programs will end up being threaded or multi core optimized any time soon. It is just not worth the trouble for many programs. Second, on apps that do benefit many developers simply don't have the skill thus their app eventually gets replaced with the more modern. Third, for many it isn't an issue of single app performance anyways but rather what they can do with the system and keep it responsive.
In a nut shell you whine about developers means nothing. The reasons for multiple core are many and go beyound the focus you have on single apps.
By the way I'm not sure I believe this story completely. The problem is one of power and the fact that that is a big selling point in the Minis case and to a lesser extent the iMacs. These would still be significantly hotter processors.
Dave
how dated exactly do you think they are? its not like they are P4's with HyperThreading
They're an improvement certainly on the previous generation. My first Mac was a G3 iBook, so I'm used to Apple not being on the bleeding edge of CPU tech. I was just hoping that the switch to Intel would also mean that Apple would be able to adopt more aggressive upgrade cycles.
I didn't say that I wanted it now, just eventually. Other manufacturers do have desktops with Core i7 available already.
You meant every other manufacturer that sells gaming ATX midtowers with the proper cooling to handle a 130W TDP processor, the hot X58 chipset, a Radeon HD4850, and overclock on right?
Apple using these new LGA775 CPUs in totally new small form factor box makes sense. Putting them in an iMac? Err, maybe.
I'm not trying to be adversarial. I'm just saying that it would be nice if Apple were to release a desktop for under $2000 that was competitively specced. Dell has desktops that aren't sold as "gaming computers" that match these specifications. Luckily for Apple I don't want to use Windows, so I'm forced to hope for Apple to release a similar product.
The G5s that Apple used in its most recent white iMacs had (iirc) roughly 80W TDP... We most definitely could have been using desktop processors all along...
-Clive
Sadly a mini/midtower isn't the Apple we know and love.
You're cutting it rather close with a XPS Studio that can handle a Radeon 4850 on the enthusiast X58 chipset.
I'm sure we remember the changes between the Revision B iMac G5 and the iSight one. Not to mention the clamoring of Conroe in the iMac to only be let down withe Merom. I just wonder what cool chipset they're going to use in the iMac. One with PCI-Express 2.0 is going to be hotter then a 1.1 one. I'm guessing P41 for the sake of keeping things cool but ICH7 is a step back.
I'm thinking more green here as in power waste.
The heat can be made manageable in all current Apple products. We may not like the fans but the point is the processors are not so hot that they couldn't go into an iMac for example. After all we had a G5 in one.
What I was trying to say is that one big attraction of the Mini is it's very low power usage for a desktop. For green people this is a selling point as it is for the stingy like me!
Let's face it the Mini enjoyed a lot of success as a small form factor, low power PC. I would hate to see Apple walk away from that success just when the issues associated with power usage are becoming more pronounced. For me it is a rising expense to keep old PCs powered up, this due to the rising cost of power. Ideally Apple will continue to address this with at least one product.
Dave
The heat can be made manageable in all current Apple products. We may not like the fans but the point is the processors are not so hot that they couldn't go into an iMac for example. After all we had a G5 in one.
What I was trying to say is that one big attraction of the Mini is it's very low power usage for a desktop. For green people this is a selling point as it is for the stingy like me!
Let's face it the Mini enjoyed a lot of success as a small form factor, low power PC. I would hate to see Apple walk away from that success just when the issues associated with power usage are becoming more pronounced. For me it is a rising expense to keep old PCs powered up, this due to the rising cost of power. Ideally Apple will continue to address this with at least one product.
Dave
Quad Cores in higher end iMacs are the way to go.
A lot of pro users are going to the iMac due to cost in this economy.
The only problem with this right now is that the iMac is in a place right now in the market that it is eating away at potential Mac Pro sales and not even letting the Mac mini get the scraps from the meal. It's starving two lines.
If Apple wants the Mac Pro to shine they need to do something better with it. Add Blu-Ray, add eSATA, change the case up a bit, lower the price back down to where the PowerMacs used to reside.
If Apple REALLY wants the Mac mini to survive there is only one thing that it can do..... lower the price. $399 for a Dual Core Intel running at 2.0GHz with a Super Drive, WiFi and Bluetooth. That is the system that could sell like hot cakes in Best Buys and WalMarts across the country. But then again does Apple really want that kind of customer base.... most likely not.
A lot of pro users are going to the iMac due to cost in this economy.
The only problem with this right now is that the iMac is in a place right now in the market that it is eating away at potential Mac Pro sales and not even letting the Mac mini get the scraps from the meal. It's starving two lines.
If Apple wants the Mac Pro to shine they need to do something better with it. Add Blu-Ray, add eSATA, change the case up a bit, lower the price back down to where the PowerMacs used to reside.
If Apple REALLY wants the Mac mini to survive there is only one thing that it can do..... lower the price. $399 for a Dual Core Intel running at 2.0GHz with a Super Drive, WiFi and Bluetooth. That is the system that could sell like hot cakes in Best Buys and WalMarts across the country. But then again does Apple really want that kind of customer base.... most likely not.
Since Apple (if they even mention it) will argue that "most people won't even notice the difference," I'd almost guarantee it'll be ICH7.
$400-500 quad core desktops reported in last year. Quad core isn't an amazing leap with the Q6600 around.
ICH7 doesn't bother me. I have it on my G31 motherboard and it works perfectly.
Likewise. I might complain, but when I really face the facts, I wouldn't notice the difference in practice.
These are going to find their way into the new mini-tower !!
But, as I said, that's a completely new version of the motherboard. Since the Imac already has discrete graphics, IMO it would make little sense to redo it to use the Nvidia chipset.
One the other hand, using this CPU in a new SFF or mini-tower that replaces the mini would be interesting.
Imac doesn't use desktop CPUs, so this would be a major motherboard revision for the Imac.
The current MacBook line chipset from Nvidia was stretched to include mobiles, but was more of a mini-ATX desktop chipset.
Apple making use of esentially the same chipset with the desktop CPU socket variant for the iMacs isn't a huge stretch.
Sort of makes one wonder what the GPU will be, a PCIe slot with a mobile GPU or the MXM slot.