Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

First Intel Penryn Chips Due in 2007?

too HOT

I think these desktop processors are too hot for iMac. It's true, in past they used the 70-80W G5 processors, but they were not silent as actual 34W-Merom based iMacs.
They will discontinue 17" models, but new 20-24" are expected to be thinner so no room for use these desktop processors.

I think the TDP point (mantaining silence of actual models) for (desktop 8500-8600 gpu's based) iMacs is:

35-50W for 20" model.
50-80W for 24" model.
100W+ for (non-existent) 30" model.

So, the theoric best thing is: Merom (mobile 2-core 34W 1.8-2.4GHz) for 20" iMac, Conroe (desktop 2-core 65-75W 2.33-3.00GHz) for 24" and Kentsfield (desktop 4-core 95-120W 2.4-2.67GHz) for 30".
But I think they will use only one hardware platform for all (20 and 24") coming models. So Merom now, mobile Penryn in 2008.

There are howevere some 40-50W 4-core Penryn based Xeon processors coming in 2008, but these are expensive and require custom chipsets (no, there is no room for a FB-DIMM based iMac!!).
 
ncbill said:
Didn't those G5 iMacs get hotter than blazes?

Wonder if that had anything to do with the rash of power supply failures on that model.

I think the other poster hit on it: much cheaper/easier for Apple to stick with the cooler mobile option across the consumer lineup, with only a couple of graphics options (apart from the integrated graphics)

They obviously aren't paying anything near list for the mobile CPUs. :)

Any rumor site going to post leaked specs before Tuesday?
Click to expand...

Regardless the Intels are cooler and continue to get cooler as the die shrinks to 45nm and beyond. Should Apple do it? I don't care. I don't buy iMacs for myself and never will. For most people they are fine though. I don't think heat and power should be a major concern with desktops though.

You say it is much cheaper, yet I just pointed out a number of cases where that isn't true. RAM, CPUs and chipsets are faster and cost less or about the same.

They are paying close to oem price (retail). Apple doesn't have the volume anywhere near that of Dell and others. Their prices aren't far off from 1000 chip purchases. They aren't getting those chips at 50% if that is what you are implying.

My point is that it is possible and it would iMacs stand out more in terms of performance and design. If you want to believe it comes out cheaper for Apple that is fine. But the iMac is being crippled with its mobile solutions.

Just of note to the above poster, the X3220 Kentsfield 2.4GHz would be a better choice for an iMac due to its single CPU only operation, making it cheaper than its Clovertown counterparts. Also, your scenarios would imply way more cost for Apple. 3 different chipsets on one model is murder.
 
suneohair said:
There is no reason to cripple the iMac with mobile CPUs, memory, and chipsets. The cost would be virtually the same but performance would increase by at least 20%. They got around the G5, I am sure they can around the Conroes.
.
Click to expand...
The biggest complaint everyone had about the G5 iMac was the heat. You stick your hand above one of those and you can feel how hot the exhaust is. Leave it in a closed bedroom and that room is 5 deg hotter then the rest of the house.

The mobile quad-core processors are just around the corner, that is what will go into the iMac. I'm sure Apple gets much better prices then anything listed there. They are purchasing in the 100,000's instead of the 1000's.
 
Marx55 said:
What about power consumption?

Could the Penryn be used for the new Mac mini in 2008 or so?

I want the performance of the Mac Pro and I would pay for it, but I use Mac mini because it is extremely quiet. My priorities are:

1. Quiet.
2. Performance.
3. Connectors (idealky eSATA II and FireWire 800).
5. Size.

Thanks.
Click to expand...

The first and last of your requirements would make it difficult for desktop parts to be used. Heat requires fans and space to dissipate. Not likely to be used in a mini.
 
Penryn in time for MWSF?

Anyone hear word on whether Apple will release a Penryn Mac Pro at MWSF? I was going to buy a new machine this summer, but figured I'd wait until Leopard comes out. Then I figured I may as well a few more months and wait to see what MWSF brings. I mean, by the time the convention rolls around, it will have been almost a year and a half since introducing the current Mac Pro.

I'm running an eight-year-old G4 400 system. It still runs great, but I do a lot of Photoshop work on large color files and the machine grinds to a crawl, often with a several-second delay for even the simplest things like cloning. When it comes to basic filters, it can take several minutes to finish the task, and so taxes the CPU that I can't do anything else while the filter is running.

Whatever Mac Pro is available in January, I'll most likely buy it, but the Penryn would be nice.
 
danielwsmithee said:
The biggest complaint everyone had about the G5 iMac was the heat. You stick your hand above one of those and you can feel how hot the exhaust is. Leave it in a closed bedroom and that room is 5 deg hotter then the rest of the house.

The mobile quad-core processors are just around the corner, that is what will go into the iMac. I'm sure Apple gets much better prices then anything listed there. They are purchasing in the 100,000's instead of the 1000's.
Click to expand...

All Intel CPUs (as far as I know) offer a speed step feature. Meaning voltage can vary just like mobile CPUs.

As far as price no one knows what Apple is paying. I still don't see the point in sicking mobile CPUs in them. Their flagship could be faster and designed better the competition. A Dell desktop would smoke an iMac at say the price of a 20" model. But meh.

I don't think they will change. I just think they could have more steam behind their flagship if they use desktop CPUs.
 
That was the point.

It is cheaper and easier to stick with a single chipset for the consumer models for service and support (isn't that 7 years minimum by law?)

Your argument appears to be that Apple should stick the cutting edge into its models and pass the savings on to you.

Clearly, given Apple's history, that's never going to be the case.

iMac performance, based on mobile chips, is "good enough" for Apple.

Though I'm all for quad-core mobiles in next week's iMac lineup! :)

You could always build your own generic tower, running on desktop chips, and try to hack OS X to run on it.

suneohair said:
3 different chipsets on one model is murder.
Click to expand...
 
The whole world would welcome a redesign of the iMac to be able to use the Penryns.
Maybe even a non-mobile version of a good grfx card, and the iMac will finally be a superb desktop class über-multi purpose consumer Mac.

The iMac looks gr8 at the moment, but it was designed around the G5. I understand the fact Apple purposely not redesigning the iMac once the Intels were placed.
I just wonder if the G5-iMac-case was the reason for Apple having to put a laptop interior inside it. I hope so, because if it were the case, and now Apple can freely design a brand new iMac around a real desktop-class interior, we're in with a treat!

Of not: here we go again.... No desktop class Mac around... :rolleyes:
 
suneohair said:
They are paying close to oem price (retail). Apple doesn't have the volume anywhere near that of Dell and others. Their prices aren't far off from 1000 chip purchases. They aren't getting those chips at 50% if that is what you are implying.
Click to expand...

Please do not talk about things you otherwise would not know unless you worked for Apple or have a clear knowledge about manufacturing and logistics. The fact is that pricing on components is not only affected by the quantity purchased. This 1000 chip rule mainly applies to retailers like newegg and other computer part retailer.

Company's like Apple and Dell have contracts and other agreements that dictate what they pay per chip.
 
We're not talking waiting game here. Yes I've been waiting since spring to get an iMac. Almost bought a 24" last year but my discount was taking too long so I got a 1.66 Mini refurb to hold me over. Been chomping at the bit for new iMacs and will order one next week. But here's the issue, if Apple doesn't go Quad-Core or Core 2 Duo Extreme 2.6/2.8, is the rev. A of the new iMac almost a waste considering the Penryn Jan-Mar update could be somewhat significant. I want a new iMac, but can still get by with my Mini another 6-8 months easily.
 
Sigh.

Every day I edge closer and closer back to building my own because Apple doesn't offer the computer I want to buy.

I want my motherboards "desktop", my CPUs "fast" and I don't want style to sacrificially massacre performance anymore.

Nobody DARE point me in the direction of a Mac Pro! ;)
 
ncbill said:
That was the point.

It is cheaper and easier to stick with a single chipset for the consumer models for service and support (isn't that 7 years minimum by law?)

Your argument appears to be that Apple should stick the cutting edge into its models and pass the savings on to you.

Clearly, given Apple's history, that's never going to be the case.

iMac performance, based on mobile chips, is "good enough" for Apple.

Hey, I'm all for quad-core mobiles! :)

You could always build your own generic tower, running on desktop chips, and try to hack OS X to run on it.
Click to expand...

I figured you one quote that one line and take it out of context. :rolleyes: The post was suggesting 3 different chipsets in the iMac line alone. Clearly that is foolish. However, sticking with one chipset be it mobile or desktop is cost effective.

My argument is that Apple provide desktops, not laptops with big screens, to compete in the desktop market. Their mobiles are clearly selling extremely well. Desktops, not quite so well. I am not going to turn this into the headless iMac thing, but I am sure you can see hints of that here. I don't care what they sell it at or whether or not they pass savings (you said "to you" but I don't buy iMacs). As I said, we aren't talking a lot cheaper in some ways, but for the same cost and a little more engineering Apple could have some very competitive desktops.

And please, don't insult me by suggesting I build a generic tower. As I said, I don't buy iMacs due to their limited ability and longevity for my needs. So I couldn't care less.
 
For the love of god can somebody please sticky a topic that says that 8800s will not work in a small enclosure, not now and not ever.

The cards are too long, double height, they require lots of power, and they run HOT.

Forget about the cpu heat for a minute.
45nm quad mobiles? Sure thing. It'll happen sooner than later. Intel recently started showing their upcoming quad mobile (65nm I believe), which will pave the way for the 45nm mobile quad [probably] Q2 2008.

8800 cards? NOT GONNA HAPPEN.

You may.. MAY see 8600 get a mobile chipset. But no way on the 8800s.

An 8800 GTS will probably end up in a Mac Pro revision. (320 meg highly likely, with a 640 meg a good possibility)
8800 GTX is slim to none, 8800 Ultra is slimmer to none.

If you want an 8800 + quad cpu, go build a Windows box like I'm doing. ;)
 
Lets remember something here, top of the line desktop CPUs and GPUs have a lot of disadvantages for something like the iMac that is so compact.. Desktop parts run a lot hotter, they're a lot louder, they're bigger, and they take more power. Using desktop parts in the iMac is sort of pointless. A casual user isn't going to need the extra power anyways. And that's the market the iMac is pretty much aimed at. Casual computer users who don't really care about the best processor/graphics card..
 
zero2dash said:
For the love of god can somebody please sticky a topic that says that 8800s will not work in a small enclosure, not now and not ever.

The cards are too long, double height, they require lots of power, and they run HOT.

Forget about the cpu heat for a minute.
45nm quad mobiles? Sure thing. It'll happen sooner than later. Intel recently started showing their upcoming quad mobile (65nm I believe), which will pave the way for the 45nm mobile quad [probably] Q2 2008.

8800 cards? NOT GONNA HAPPEN.

You may.. MAY see 8600 get a mobile chipset. But no way on the 8800s.

An 8800 GTS will probably end up in a Mac Pro revision. (320 meg highly likely, with a 640 meg a good possibility)
8800 GTX is slim to none, 8800 Ultra is slimmer to none.

If you want an 8800 + quad cpu, go build a Windows box like I'm doing. ;)
Click to expand...
What about the 8800M? :D
 
Shinjinho said:
The 8600GTS performs better than a 8800M. Look at comparisions between new MacBookPro M8600GT and 24" iMac's 7600GT: the iMac's 7600 is faster in all tests... Desktop GPU's run better and have a lower price.
Click to expand...
Could you point me to the 8800M benchmarks?

Obviously, the desktop version would be a better value.
 
I've only had my 24" iMac for a few weeks and love the way it looks. It works very well for me but if the new iMac is Quad Core I will upgrade in 6 months. I could go buy an 8 core Mac Pro and not even need to eat just beans for a month but I want a nice, compact and quiet machine that I can use for photography and light HD video editing. I just hope that if there is a new design that the Hard Drive is accessible so that it's more easilly replaced and that it can take more RAM etc.
 
theheyes said:
Sigh.

Every day I edge closer and closer back to building my own because Apple doesn't offer the computer I want to buy.

I want my motherboards "desktop", my CPUs "fast" and I don't want style to sacrificially massacre performance anymore.

Nobody DARE point me in the direction of a Mac Pro! ;)
Click to expand...
Phhsst. Who cares about speed? As long as I look good when using my Mac, that's all that makes me happy.

Signed,

Joe Consumer

:eek:
 
ncbill said:
Your argument appears to be that Apple should stick the cutting edge into its models and pass the savings on to you.
Click to expand...



Not necessarily. Don't reduce the price at all. Apple can buy Conroe chips that are $100 cheaper and are still a little faster than what is in the current machines. I'm happy because I get a faster machine at the same price, Apple's happy because they have a larger profit margin.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back