Haswell iMacs 2013

Discussion in 'iMac' started by TwoBytes, Feb 14, 2012.

  1. TwoBytes macrumors 68020

    TwoBytes

    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2008
    #1
    Just a couple of questions. I know the processors aren't out but thinking ahead for those who do their reading!

    -how much of a performance increase will we roughly see? 5% 10% More?

    - Will we finally see 6 cores in the iMac?

    -it's an intel 'tock' but will it be a major jump over the ivy bridge iMacs?

    Thanks!
     
  2. dreilly1982 macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2011
    #2
    As the 2012 ivy bridge iMacs arent even out yet, we don't really have anything to even base guesses on. At this point your guess is as good as anyone's.
     
  3. alksion macrumors 68000

    alksion

    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2010
    Location:
    Los Angeles County
    #3
    My best guess is that Ivy will be faster than Sandy and Haswell will be faster than Ivy.. Take that with a grain of salt though... :rolleyes:
     
  4. prism macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2006
    #4
    Isn't IVY just a shrunk version of Sandy with pretty much the same architecture? If that is the case, I really dont see a big leap in performance. Haswell, on the other hand is a new architecture and the performance leap should therefore be similar to between Santa Rosa and Sandy Bridge.
     
  5. leman macrumors 604

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2008
    #5
    10-15% is a big leap in my book. IB will use the new tri-gate transistors which would allow it to be clocked faster. What is probably even more interesting: the IGP performance. I am looking forward to the time where GPUs will be relicts of the past...
     
  6. camardelle macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2011
    Location:
    Texas
    #6
    It makes sense that each processor will be faster than the previous one. Can you wait or is patience not one of your virtues? I can relate. LOL
     
  7. jwm2 macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2012
    #7
    Honestly i don't care. I use less than 5-10% of my current processing power 99.9% of the time, with the last .01% going rarely above 40-50%. So an upgrade does me no good but reduce boot time by a fraction of a second for a machine i may reboot once every few weeks.
     
  8. Bear macrumors G3

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2002
    Location:
    Sol III - Terra
    #8
    I think the real question you're asking is when should you upgrade? And the answer is when your current machine no longer can do what you want.

    That is a bit of a subjective question depending on what you use your system for.

    In my case, video capability will drive my next upgrade. CPU is fine. Memory I can add more. Disk Space? Firewire disks if needed. Of course once my iMac is off of AppleCare, any repair needed will make me consider (and probably get) an upgrade.

    What would be tempting for me, even if it was otherwise the same as now, would be the 23" iMac (2GB vram) with 512GB SSD plus a HD. Partially because I am hitting the limits of the video in my iMac. Otherwise, I expect iMacs to last 3 to 6 years for the average person. (And bess, a SSD would be noticeable for me in my general usage.)
     
  9. paulrbeers macrumors 68040

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2009
    #9
    Aren't we getting a little ahead of ourselves worrying about what the 2013 iMac's are going to have when we don't even know what the 2012's will be? Good lord. Let's see the next generation performance before we see the next NEXT generation...
     
  10. Bear macrumors G3

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2002
    Location:
    Sol III - Terra
    #10
    This. Also, schedules change.

    Right now if I were looking at upgrading my system, the questions would be, what improvements would I see in the next model versus the current iMacs. And is it worth waiting for the next iMacs.

    To me, it seems that IvyBridge is a much bigger thing for laptops than it is for desktop cpus.
     
  11. leman macrumors 604

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2008
    #11
    The speed of a CPU and that often misunderstood 'CPU usage' indicator don't have much to do with each other. Your software would still run 100% faster on a 100% faster CPU, even when the CPU usage is 5% (well, if the software is not bottlenecked by the memory access).

    And BTW, boot time is mostly constrained by the speed your storage device can transport the data into RAM, so you are unlikely to see a significant improvement by picking a faster CPU.
     
  12. thekev macrumors 604

    thekev

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2010
    #12
    Quite a lot of the gains from sandy bridge revolved around features that trickled down from the Xeons and i7 extremes. It didn't see any massive gains at equivalent clock speeds. Turboboost and higher base clocks on desktop cpus provided most of the gains. Basically it was clocked higher rather than achieving massive gains per clock cycle.

    It's a big leap in real performance. This kind of performance may not actually be fully realized over the previous generation. I'm also not sure where they're grabbing the performance gains.
     
  13. leman macrumors 604

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2008
    #13
    More efficient transistors, faster clocks?
     
  14. thekev macrumors 604

    thekev

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2010
    #14
    Somehow I'm not expecting clock speed to ramp up by much. Perhaps we'll see higher base clock with comparable turbo boost or chips that can run turbo boost for longer periods of time? It's still likely to be a smaller bump. I didn't word the previous post properly. A 15% boost in application performance would be significant. 15% in terms of theoretical performance could be far less significant depending on how it's realized in actual use. Intel always talks things up anyway. I wouldn't expect anything too special this year, and if Apple does a redesign on anything, I'll pass on the first generation. I really dislike their public beta tests:cool:.
     
  15. alksion macrumors 68000

    alksion

    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2010
    Location:
    Los Angeles County
    #15
    This being my point in the earlier post.. Lol
     
  16. harcosparky macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2008
    #16
    I am more concerned with the specs of the Early/Late 2015 iMacs?

    Anyone have any ideas?

    My Apple Care on this iMac will expire on February 15, 2015 and I will be looking to replace it around that time?
     
  17. TwoBytes thread starter macrumors 68020

    TwoBytes

    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2008
  18. Neodym macrumors 68000

    Neodym

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2002
    #18
    Nothing that 99% of the average users would be able to notice unless they run a benchmark program or crunch huge videos for hours. Normally you would need around at least 50% improvement (some even claim 100%) to really notice in everyday use...
     
  19. Bear macrumors G3

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2002
    Location:
    Sol III - Terra
    #19
    I agree here. It depends on what you're running. Another issue becomes will that faster processor be wasted because your disk isn't fast enough?

    I'm thinking my next iMac will have (based on current configs and 3rd party prices) 12 GB of RAM and SSD+HD. WIthout the SSD, I won't get real speedups for much of what I do. And I currently have 8GB which is actually fine for most of what I do. But at the current (third party) memory prices, might as well buy an 8GB kit instead of a 4GB one.

    And of course looking too far in the the future, dates get real slippery anyway. There's a rumor now that IvyBridge will be delayed. so that could trickle down to delaying what is after it.
     
  20. leman macrumors 604

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2008
    #20
    Sure. This is also the reason why an ultra-low power CPUs like ones in MBA are sufficient for the majority of the users. However, I do heavy numerical computations, so any CPU bump is a big deal for me (my iMac can do most simulations about 6-8 times faster than my older MBP and thats a lot if the simulation takes around 2 hours).
     
  21. xplnusa macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2009
    Location:
    Idaho
    #21
    The way rumors fly I won't be able to replace my late 09' (first 27") iMac until we hit about 2022 if I just keep waiting for the latest and greatest...
     
  22. Bear macrumors G3

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2002
    Location:
    Sol III - Terra
    #22
    That's why I've tended to buy systems when the new models are announced. At least they're the latest and (hopefully) greatest.

    Yeah waiting on rumors means you never buy. The only rumors I wait on (if possible) is based on probable imminent announcement of a new model of the system type I want. Like right now, I would wait for the new iMacs before buying as long as the current system still worked. As it is, unless I start using my system for something heavier than it can handle, my next upgrade wouldn't be until sometime next year probably.
     
  23. Yellowstone2012 macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2011
    #23
    Semi-Off Topic:

    Another reason to wait: 802.11ac.

    My first router: G
    My second and current router draft-N
    My third router: top of the line AC.

    For me, I only upgrade my iMac when the new standards (AC, USB 3.0, etc) get implemented.
     
  24. macmastersam macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2011
    Location:
    Essex, england
    #24
    i always get computer models every 2 years, when there is new architecture in the intel platforms, not the shrunk version of the processor:cool: so i am definatly gonna be one of the buyers of the new haswell proccessors from intel one one of these 27" babys in 2013! :D


    i wish :D and then we will see quad-core on the 2013 MBAS ;)
     
  25. Ccrew macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2011
    #25
    Totally new series GPU (4000) in Ivy Bridge, and claims that it alone is 125% increase over Sandy Bridge. Bodes well for the mobile platform, what it means for the iMac is unclear.
     

Share This Page