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
ehm..... I'd LOVE to believe you... but I would NOT hold my breath!
I hope you're right though!
Yeah it would be great if this could find its way into a new sort of mini. Seems like they could cut the mini in half vertically, and extend it horizontally to compensate for the extra heat. Wouldn't be as cute, but Apple can make anything look good!
Why don't they just stick a dedicated Blu-Ray chip and HDMI in while they're at it!
Why don't they just stick a dedicated Blu-Ray chip and HDMI in while they're at it!
Since I have never previously spoke of the matter at all here on MacRumors, I would just like to say that I would love to see a Mac mini-tower with these desktop chips - I know some of you will find this shocking.
I agree, Apple could use the new 9300 desktop chipset from nvidia (since they will probably use dedicated gpus too), it has all the components needed for the iMac (excluding the FW controller).
While using the new 65W quad-core cpus would allow for a price decrease on most models, I think that Apple will also choose to offer the new iMacs with LED-BL displays (increasing the cost). On another forum, I suggested the following that is a mixed bag of price cuts and speedbumps:
- $1199 20" iMac dual-core 2.66GHz (E8200 $163), 2GB RAM, HDD, ODD, low-end GPU
- $1399 20" iMac quad-core 2.33GHz (Q8200s $245), 2GB RAM, HDD, ODD, midrange GPU
- $1699 24" iMac quad-core 2.66GHz (Q9400s $320), 2GB RAM, HDD, ODD, midrange GPU
- $1899 24" iMac quad-core 2.83GHz (Q9550s $369), 2GB RAM, HDD, ODD, high-end GPU
- Mac mini, dual-core (2 threads), under $1,000
- iMac, dual-core (2 threads) and quad-core (4 threads), $1199-1899
- Uni-processor Core i7 Mac Pro, quad-core (8 threads), $1999-2499
- Dual-processor nehalem Xeon Mac Pro, eight cores (16 threads), $2999 and up
Easy answer -> Chipsets
My guess, if this is at all true, is that the i7 in and of itself doesn't mean much. That is it can't operate without a chipset to support it of some sort. If Apple believes that its tie in with Nvidia offer a better overall experience then I would imagine they would stick with chips that Nvidia currently supports.
Notably too the new iMacs likely are already designed and close to validated for production at this point. While Apple would certainly get pre release hardware it isn't likely that this prerelease hardware is widely supported outside a couple of Intel chip sets. Chipsets that might not have been stable at the time Apple had to commit to something.
In any event the new Core 2 chips if actually used look pretty impressive to me. At least for a an upgrade to the low end iMacs. You get 2 more cores and what looks like a lot more cache. Not bad, but then again who says these aren't for the Mini's replacement?
In a nut shell I'd jump at a Mini, with the GPU like is used in Mac Book and one of these processors. Power wise it is doable in a slightly redesigned Mini. It would be one nice little machine.
Dave
My guess, if this is at all true, is that the i7 in and of itself doesn't mean much. That is it can't operate without a chipset to support it of some sort. If Apple believes that its tie in with Nvidia offer a better overall experience then I would imagine they would stick with chips that Nvidia currently supports.
Notably too the new iMacs likely are already designed and close to validated for production at this point. While Apple would certainly get pre release hardware it isn't likely that this prerelease hardware is widely supported outside a couple of Intel chip sets. Chipsets that might not have been stable at the time Apple had to commit to something.
In any event the new Core 2 chips if actually used look pretty impressive to me. At least for a an upgrade to the low end iMacs. You get 2 more cores and what looks like a lot more cache. Not bad, but then again who says these aren't for the Mini's replacement?
In a nut shell I'd jump at a Mini, with the GPU like is used in Mac Book and one of these processors. Power wise it is doable in a slightly redesigned Mini. It would be one nice little machine.
Dave
Let's not call the new mini-tower a "Mac Pro" - perhaps "Mac Amateur" or something.
And, of course, it wouldn't have the humonguous, expensive maxi-tower that the current Mac Pro uses. An SFF or mini-tower with a few internal expansion options (2nd disk or optical, x16 PCIe graphics card, x1 PCIe tuner,...).
Expansion would separate the Amateur from the Pro.
And yes, the base system should have integrated graphics - X3100 is fine. Have a couple of graphics card options, but don't force the majority of people who's needs are met by an X3100 to pay for a big card.
NO NO NO ! ! !
When the retail price of a 2.4GHz quad Core 2 Duo, 6 GiB, 640 GB system (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16883113079) is $680, a $2K price tag for a similar Apple system would be crazy.
The mini-tower should be in the $699 (dual-core) to $1599 range, with BTO options that could push the price up.
i just bought mine
iphone , aluminium macbook i dont have time to bread or read with so many updates in last months , i just bought my new imac 2,66 it smells like new , ok i will wait for the 8 core processor.
iphone , aluminium macbook i dont have time to bread or read with so many updates in last months , i just bought my new imac 2,66 it smells like new , ok i will wait for the 8 core processor.
Desktop CPUs eh?
Now that's an upgrade worthy of Macworld (I'm assuming other changes besides the core count increase)! Although we may see only the 24" move to quad-core. 65 W TDP vs. 130 W TDP.
Thankfully some of us do remember those days with the venerable PowerPc 970.
We currently have the 55W TDP E8435 in the iMac already. Like I've said before the 65W TDP rating is a cooling solution suggestion from Intel. I've had an E2180 and a E6550. Both are rated at a 65W TDP. The E2160 was much cooler then the E6550. Only when I overclocked the E2160 to 2.4 GHz was it giving off the heat of the more expensive and faster processor.
It's not an absolute.
Correct - Intel CPUs will drop power and frequency to avoid damage in the event that the cooling system can't get rid of the heat.
An old Tom's Hardware story ran some Intel and AMD CPUs without their heat sinks - the result is in the picture.
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/hot-spot,365-2.html
"We wanted to find out how well the latest processors from AMD and Intel are able to cope with the worst-case scenario - a sudden complete removal of the heat sink.
...
The next picture shows the four processors after our heat survival test. As you will find out soon, only two survived."
...
The next picture shows the four processors after our heat survival test. As you will find out soon, only two survived."
Attachments
I remember that rather ancient article but the videos of the AMD processors frying are always fun to show off to friends with little hardware experience.
I did a bad job installing a heatsink once and gamed for 2 hours on it. The CPU downclocked itself the entire time and it was noticeable in game when the frame rates plummeted. Not that you want to have a poorly cooled processor but yes they're smart enough to try to save themselves or just hard reboot.
Quality video, especially with the Project-X theme tune:
http://www12.tomshardware.com/images/thg_video_1_cpu_cooling.zip
I'm sure you realize this, but for the record the interesting thing about TDP and cooling is that sometimes you do want a "poorly cooled processor".
TDP is basically a nearly theoretical worst case scenario of heat production in the CPU. In normal use, even under heavy load, that amount of heat is never reached.
For example, different operations generate heat in different units. If you do heavy floating point, the FP unit gets hot - but the integer circuits and the MMX/SSE units are cool. You need a careful balance of integer/FP/MMX/SSE operations to heat them all up at once.
Intel's TDP is that "worst case" load of everything busy at once.
So, it's reasonable to build cooling system that handles the "usual" heavy load (say 10 or 15 watts below TDP). If the user manages to push the chip past that, it may run a little slower - but no damage will occur.