Core i9 on the way

LondonGooner

macrumors 6502
Oct 14, 2006
264
5
Well done for summing up how technology works.

Enjoy your fictional imac for 6 months, while I enjoy my lovely i7 that exists.
 
Aug 26, 2008
1,339
1
Not only that, Gulftown is being branded as extreme edition CPU's (at least right now it is), which means it's going to be VERY expensive. It seems like it would even be cost prohibitive for all but the most expensive mac pro's. I think the current iMac's should be good until Sandy Bridge is released. They would be "good" after that of course, but they should be relatively top of the line for 12 months or so.
 

jonwd7

macrumors member
Nov 19, 2009
58
0
To the extent of current technology, iMacs can never have 6-core CPUs as this relies on more than 1156 pins to a socket and they will probably not (if ever) release an iMac with socket 1366. This is pretty obvious since Intel has branded their 1156 chips as "Mainstream" and iMacs are mainstream consumer computers.

Also, anything above a 4-core CPU becomes bandwidth limited unless you're using QPI. I don't think Intel ever plans on having QPI be a "mainstream" feature.

So I think it's safe to say that as long as Intel's current strategies remain the same, we may never see 6- or 8-core iMacs. What I see happening first is all iMac models eventually becoming 4-core standard, and eventually after a newer architecture comes out with a "mainstream" 8-core CPU solution, a high-end 8-core option. Maybe in a few years? :)

I don't like non-2^N cores anyway... "Hexacore" sounds nice, but I think it has been shown that some multithreaded apps scale poorly with six as compared to four cores. I'll wait to make my next gaming rig once they come out with 8-core chips. :)
 

Hellhammer

Moderator emeritus
Dec 10, 2008
22,166
581
Finland
To the extent of current technology, iMacs can never have 6-core CPUs as this relies on more than 1156 pins to a socket and they will probably not (if ever) release an iMac with socket 1366. This is pretty obvious since Intel has branded their 1156 chips as "Mainstream" and iMacs are mainstream consumer computers.

Also, anything above a 4-core CPU becomes bandwidth limited unless you're using QPI. I don't think Intel ever plans on having QPI be a "mainstream" feature.

So I think it's safe to say that as long as Intel's current strategies remain the same, we may never see 6- or 8-core iMacs. What I see happening first is all iMac models eventually becoming 4-core standard, and eventually after a newer architecture comes out with a "mainstream" 8-core CPU solution, a high-end 8-core option. Maybe in a few years? :)

I don't like non-2^N cores anyway... "Hexacore" sounds nice, but I think it has been shown that some multithreaded apps scale poorly with six as compared to four cores. I'll wait to make my next gaming rig once they come out with 8-core chips. :)
You sound like Bill Gates when he said 640KB of RAM is everything that home user will ever need :rolleyes:

Computing technology develops very rapidly so we can't even imagine what we will see in 2020. Haswell should be out in 2012 and it should provide 8-core mobile CPUs and +4GHz clock speeds.

Something new is always "high-end only" for certain time because it's expensive but when time goes by and new techs are developed, it becomes a standard. When dual-cores came, I doubt anybody thought we will see dual-core iMac soon because they were so expensive and "new" but now we have QUAD-core iMacs..
 

johnrs

macrumors 6502a
Jul 7, 2008
527
8
Nottingham - UK
Before you get too excited about i7, the next imac update will have the core i9:D
and before you get too excited about the i9 there is going to be abother bigger, faster chip on the way.... In fact why bother to buy anything knowing that there is always something better just around the corner....... :rolleyes:
 

MH01

Suspended
Feb 11, 2008
12,107
9,298
Before you get too excited about i7, the next imac update will have the core i9:D
No way!!!! You mean CPU development will not stop with i7 .... must cancel my order for i7 imac... but how can i buy the latest and greatest if they keep bringing out new chips each year... aaarrghhhhh!!!!
 

300D

macrumors 65816
May 2, 2009
1,284
0
Tulsa
When is the projected release date of the Core i20? I think I'll wait for that. Maybe that iMac will come with a Blu-Ray drive too!
 

johnrs

macrumors 6502a
Jul 7, 2008
527
8
Nottingham - UK
When is the projected release date of the Core i20? I think I'll wait for that. Maybe that iMac will come with a Blu-Ray drive too!
but if you have waited that long you might as well wait for the CPU or perhaps the one after that just to make sure to bang up to date with the latest tech
 

Jiten

macrumors 6502a
Jul 16, 2008
581
0
One's lifetime is never enough for waiting for the latest and greatest. :)
 

Jpoon

macrumors 6502a
Feb 26, 2008
502
8
Los Angeles California
The iMac is completely IO bottlenecked. I would MUCH prefer an eSATA port today rather than a faster CPU, no matter how fast.
Don't use / need FireWire? hehe..

I don't think we need to be worrying ourselves about Core i9 ANY time soon on the Mac Pro... Much less on the iMac. Apple was what, at least six months behind getting the i7's into anything that wasn't a Mac Pro???

I doubt few people on this forum actually need the i9 for anything unless you're doing high-end video / audio work..... or something with Photoshop :D

The i7 iMacs are pretty nice machines, and will be for a long time.
 

Goldie009

macrumors member
Oct 29, 2009
72
0
No way!!!! You mean CPU development will not stop with i7 .... must cancel my order for i7 imac... but how can i buy the latest and greatest if they keep bringing out new chips each year... aaarrghhhhh!!!!
Hang in there till 2040 (ish).

If we follow moores law, and the laws set out by quantum mechanics, the rate of improvement wont slow down until about 2040.

However, by that time I reckon that either:

A). Biological computing will have been invented, leading to yet further massive boosts in speed.

B). Optical computing will pave the way for even greater speeds.

C). Robots will be in overall control of the earth, and as such a Personal Computer would not be needed / allowed.

D). WW3 will have just ended, leaving the worlds supply of existing computer chips rendered useless, and computers will be the lest of your worries.

E). We will have run out of reasons for a 'faster computer'. As the one we have will do anything we ever need it to whilst running pretty much at idle.



Personally I hope for option E, B or A. Preferably E though, as that's the cheapest.
 

Techhie

macrumors 65816
Dec 7, 2008
1,160
0
The hub of stupidity
Hang in there till 2040 (ish).

If we follow moores law, and the laws set out by quantum mechanics, the rate of improvement wont slow down until about 2040.

However, by that time I reckon that either:

A). Biological computing will have been invented, leading to yet further massive boosts in speed.
At the current rate, the next few die shrinks will render silicon unable to semiconduct. The barrier was already hit by Seagate in flash memory density (IIRC). Biological computing won't happen unless scientists figure out a way to arrange carbon on an atomic level, which I don't see happening anytime in the near future.
 

patrickdunn

macrumors 6502a
Apr 16, 2009
982
83
St. Louis, MO
At the current rate, the next few die shrinks will render silicon unable to semiconduct. The barrier was already hit by Seagate in flash memory density (IIRC). Biological computing won't happen unless scientists figure out a way to arrange carbon on an atomic level, which I don't see happening anytime in the near future.
A little off topic, but this is why I love MR. People are smart as hell here. The typical trip to MR is: me laughing a someone funny, me laughing at some whiny complainer, then learning something on my way out.
 

Goldie009

macrumors member
Oct 29, 2009
72
0
At the current rate, the next few die shrinks will render silicon unable to semiconduct. The barrier was already hit by Seagate in flash memory density (IIRC). Biological computing won't happen unless scientists figure out a way to arrange carbon on an atomic level, which I don't see happening anytime in the near future.

Yep, that's a fair point. I was talking more in theoretical terms though rather than practical terms. There is a good chance that the practicality of fitting so many transistors into such a small space will far outweigh the advantages gained.

We are beginning to see a general slowdown in market demand anyway. I mean, every day, thousands of computers are being sold new with processor speeds that have been around now for well over 4 years. Granted these are netbooks but for a lot of people this is now plenty fast enough. Hopefully in a few years time the latest tech then will be plenty fast enough even for those of us who are into heavy video editing or multimedia based work....

Until then though, let's wait with excitement and start saving for the newer, faster, more powerful, more energy efficient, smaller and (probably more expensive) iMac 34 inch i12......
 

xraydoc

macrumors demi-god
Oct 9, 2005
7,551
1,744
192.168.1.1
Hang in there till 2040 (ish).

If we follow moores law, and the laws set out by quantum mechanics, the rate of improvement wont slow down until about 2040.

However, by that time I reckon that either:

A). Biological computing will have been invented, leading to yet further massive boosts in speed.

B). Optical computing will pave the way for even greater speeds.

C). Robots will be in overall control of the earth, and as such a Personal Computer would not be needed / allowed.

D). WW3 will have just ended, leaving the worlds supply of existing computer chips rendered useless, and computers will be the lest of your worries.

E). We will have run out of reasons for a 'faster computer'. As the one we have will do anything we ever need it to whilst running pretty much at idle.



Personally I hope for option E, B or A. Preferably E though, as that's the cheapest.
Where's the option for All The Above?
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.