Imac 21.5inch QUAD CORE ? ?

[sebsimone]

Hello,

I am aware there are not any rumors regarding this, however, if quad core i5/i7 etc is now in the MacPros, for the next update should i expect to see quad core capabilities in the smaller screen size in Imacs?

This is purely because i do not need a 27 inch screen, the graphics and processor would be sufficient in screen similar to the 21.5...

Any information on the matter appreciated.

Thanks

Seb

 

[Hellhammer]

No, because quad cores are too hot and expensive for 21.5"

 

[sebsimone]

How can the technology be to hot for a 21.5 inch when its suitable for a MacPro? My proposed idea is that surely the technology will become more compact and kept cooler as it progresses?

As for the price, again, the price of quad core technology will inevitably drop over the fourth coming months.

I will wait and see i suppose, although, would you recommend waiting until the next Imac update to buy?

 

[Hellhammer]

How can the technology be to hot for a 21.5 inch when its suitable for a MacPro? My proposed idea is that surely the technology will become more compact and kept cooler as it progresses?

Mac Pro is a full size tower while iMac is all-in-one... There are quads suitable for 21.5" but they cost way too much and don't even perform that well due low clockspeed

As for the price, again, the price of quad core technology will inevitably drop over the fourth coming months.

Any source of this? There are no new CPUs coming from Intel thus prices will remain the same

I will wait and see i suppose, although, would you recommend waiting until the next Imac update to buy?

21.5" will likely get Clarkdale (i3, i5) which is high clocked dual, so I would wait, it should be a nice boost in performance

 

[TMRaven]

How can the technology be to hot for a 21.5 inch when its suitable for a MacPro?

I assume you meant macbook pro? i3,5,7 does not mean quad core, it just signifies intel's latest cpu architecture, nehalem.

The new i5/7s in the macbookpros are only dual core. Besides, Clarkdale would most likely outperform clarksfield by a long shot.

 

[Hellhammer]

Besides, Clarkdale would most likely outperform clarksfield by a long shot.

At the moment, yes, because software isn't designed to be multicore so frequency matters more. In the future, more and more apps will take advantage of quad core and thus in long run, Clarksfield would be faster

By the way, MBPs use Arrandale (mobile version of Clarkdale) and iMac will likely get Clarkdale (desktop version of Arrandale). Clarksfield is mobile quad-core, which would be suitable for 21.5" but it's a lot slower as it tops out at 2GHz

 

[TMRaven]

And also costs 1000usd for 2ghz!

 

[sebsimone]

I did mean the Macbook Pro's yes, i was mistaken for the new models having quad core, my bad. So in terms of wanting to get quad core technology, im looking at having to get the 27inch, i cant do with going for the duo core, so you would suggest waiting until the next update and having to go ahead with the 27 inch?

Thanks for the help

 

[Hellhammer]

I did mean the Macbook Pro's yes, i was mistaken for the new models having quad core, my bad. So in terms of wanting to get quad core technology, im looking at having to get the 27inch, i cant do with going for the duo core, so you would suggest waiting until the next update and having to go ahead with the 27 inch?

Thanks for the help

21.5" won't get quad core before next year. If you can afford quad core now, go for it, the update won't really change it. i5 is only 1699$ from refurb store

 

[DdMac679]

21.5" won't get quad core before next year.

How do you know that?

[Edit] Never-mind, I missed one of your posts.

 

[Stealthipad]

How do you know that?.

Sometimes stuff just leaves one's mouth with no proof!

I have owned both the 21" and not 27" iMacs and the 21" holds it's own under normal use. I like my 27" i7 but it is TOO BIG for the distance I have it on my desk. I am actually thinking of going back to a 21" iMac 3.3Mhz.

 

[sebsimone]

21.5" won't get quad core before next year. If you can afford quad core now, go for it, the update won't really change it. i5 is only 1699$ from refurb store

So you dont imagine there will be any updates in the new Imacs whether that be 21.5 or 27" thats worth waiting 6 months?

 

[Apple Knowledge Navigator]

I imagine that the 21.5" iMac's will receive i5 updates (definitely not i7's!), but whether or not they go with the Quad variant is debatable. Remember - the 27" iMac is 27"s just so that they could have enough heat management for the i7's.

The 21.5" models are really lovely computers, I hope they get an update by June. My guess is that they'll get the NVIDIA 320 graphics and i5's. I don't mind if there's little speed bump in the CPU - its the fact that its newer technology thats attractive. But also, Apple will want to put the 320 in their lineup a.s.a.p and make it the baseline graphics, just as the 9400 was before.

I'd buy one in a heart-beat if they updated to i-series CPU's.

 

[blinkin182]

I imagine that the 21.5" iMac's will receive i5 updates (definitely not i7's!), but whether or not they go with the Quad variant is debatable. Remember - the 27" iMac is 27"s just so that they could have enough heat management for the i7's.

The 21.5" models are really lovely computers, I hope they get an update by June. My guess is that they'll get the NVIDIA 320 graphics and i5's. I don't mind if there's little speed bump in the CPU - its the fact that its newer technology thats attractive. But also, Apple will want to put the 320 in their lineup a.s.a.p and make it the baseline graphics, just as the 9400 was before.

I'd buy one in a heart-beat if they updated to i-series CPU's.

Same here... I am REALLY hoping there will be an update in June! I'd love to upgrade my 20 inch Core2duo to i-series CPUs and as others have said in this thread, 27 inch is really too big for my desk, plus I already have a second screen hooked up to my 20 inch.

I'd find it surprising that they wouldn't upgrade them as current laptop lineup performance is quite close to 21.5 inch desktop performance.

 

[zedsdead]

I imagine that the 21.5" iMac's will receive i5 updates (definitely not i7's!), but whether or not they go with the Quad variant is debatable. Remember - the 27" iMac is 27"s just so that they could have enough heat management for the i7's.

The 21.5" models are really lovely computers, I hope they get an update by June. My guess is that they'll get the NVIDIA 320 graphics and i5's. I don't mind if there's little speed bump in the CPU - its the fact that its newer technology thats attractive. But also, Apple will want to put the 320 in their lineup a.s.a.p and make it the baseline graphics, just as the 9400 was before.

I'd buy one in a heart-beat if they updated to i-series CPU's.

They can't have both the i5 and the NVIDIA 320 due to the depute between Apple and Intel (same reason the 13" Macbook Pro stuck with Core2Duo).

I can see Apple sticking with Core2Duo with the NVIDIA chip in the 21.5" iMac and upping the base clock speed to 3.33. They might then offer the upper model with an i5 and desecrate ATI or NVIDIA card.

The 27" will definitely get the Clarksdale Dual Core chips, and likely higher locked quad cores in the upper end (if these are available). They may not get updated till August though, as they seem to still be selling well (they only recently were able to keep up with demand as there was shipping delays). Plus the iMac has had an average of 8-10 months over the past four cycles I think.

 

[Apple Knowledge Navigator]

That was be an interesting update. Plus, they online store usually offers upgrades for the CPU, so I'd just max the b!tch out!

 

[iamthedudeman]

Sometimes stuff just leaves one's mouth with no proof!

I have owned both the 21" and not 27" iMacs and the 21" holds it's own under normal use. I like my 27" i7 but it is TOO BIG for the distance I have it on my desk. I am actually thinking of going back to a 21" iMac 3.3Mhz.

I also have a 27 inch and it is BIG. I have alot of them at my business and had a i5 at home and now have a C2D 27. This monitor makes my eyes water and gives me a headache sometimes.

I was also contemplating going to a 21.5 with a 3.33 C2D.

I read up on the C2D E8600 3.33 and this processor is a beast for a dual core. The culmanation of all of the best the C2D line has to offer. It beats the i3 and i5s and hangs with the i5 750 on more than it's fair share of tests when multi-threaded is not needed. In other words it is faster than most when using everday apps like word processing and internet browsing. Which most of the population does.

"Many users thought that the Core i5-600 would be like Core 2 Duo, just better -- a very fast processor for single and dual-threaded tasks. Unfortunately, we have to disappoint them: multi-threading is meat and drink for these CPUs, they need it as much as higher-end processors do. As soon as older non-optimized applications become involved, it turns out that the Core 2 Duo E8000 series remains unconquered. "

Is it as good as a Quad i5 750. No. Can it more than hold it's own against the new i3's and i5's dual core in everday computing tasks. Yes.

I think that the C2D is too easily dismissed as old tech and that just isn't the case. It is worlds better than the E7600 3.06. 1333 FSB, and large 6MB cache. Now i hear that they are going to rebadge some of the E8000 series line to i3 processors.

I can see Apple sticking with the C2D line with the 3.33 for the refresh as it provides most of the performance of the i3 and i5 dual cores while waiting for AMD or intel to get their act together.

http://ixbtlabs.com/articles3/cpu/intel-ci5-660-p1.html

 

[Hellhammer]

*snip*

I agree. People are underestimating C2D now because it's "old". i3 isn't faster in other than multithreaded tasks such as video encoding but in gaming, E8600 is still a beast. Issue with C2D is that it's pretty expensive. i3 is cheaper than the cheapest reasonable clocked C2D, that's why it's dying.

 

[iamthedudeman]

I agree. People are underestimating C2D now because it's "old". i3 isn't faster in other than multithreaded tasks such as video encoding but in gaming, E8600 is still a beast. Issue with C2D is that it's pretty expensive. i3 is cheaper than the cheapest reasonable clocked C2D, that's why it's dying.

Agreed. They need to bring the price down of the E8600. I was quite surprised at the benchmark results. The C2D E8600 marks the pinnacle of the C2D line. Alot of people on these forums say, get the i7 get the i7 or i5. C2D duo sucks. Well these bench marks prove other wise. The E8600 has performance on par with the best dual core i5 has to offer. Surpasses the i3 in dual core performance and even out performs the quad core i5 on some of the tests.

That is very, very impressive.

Since multi-threaded apps are not really supported as much as they will be the C2D E8600 is a processor that is looking mighty good.

 

[Hellhammer]

Agreed. They need to bring the price down of the E8600. I was quite surprised at the benchmark results. The C2D E8600 marks the pinnacle of the C2D line. Alot of people on these forums say, get the i7 get the i7 or i5. C2D duo sucks. Well these bench marks prove other wise. The E8600 has performance on par with the best dual core i5 has to offer. Surpasses the i3 in dual core performance and even out performs the quad core i5 on some of the tests.

That is very, very impressive.

Since multi-threaded apps are not really supported as much as they will be the C2D E8600 is a processor that is looking mighty good.

It doesn't win the fastest i5 which is 3.6GHz and goes up to 3.86GHz with Turbo i5 is usually faster due Turbo but E8600 wins i3 but then we drive into the second problem which is that E8600 costs 233$ while i3 is 113$.

iX is the way to go but C2D isn't a bad chip, not at all.

 

[peakchua]

C2D in the next imac if used should get a clock bump... maybe 3.16 ghz for the base. the others, i think i would see dual core i5s running at 3.2 or 3.33 ghz. high end would remain i5 or the present i5. i really hope imac comes soon.. the whole iphone thing is getting really annoying *check macrumors, headline, :IPHONE IPHONE!!!, MYSELF, -_-*

 

[Hellhammer]

C2D in the next imac if used should get a clock bump... maybe 3.16 ghz for the base. the others, i think i would see dual core i5s running at 3.2 or 3.33 ghz. high end would remain i5 or the present i5. i really hope imac comes soon.. the whole iphone thing is getting really annoying *check macrumors, headline, :IPHONE IPHONE!!!, MYSELF, -_-*

E8500 costs as much as E8600, 233$. That's more than i5 750 in high-end iMac...

 

[iamthedudeman]

It doesn't win the fastest i5 which is 3.6GHz and goes up to 3.86GHz with Turbo i5 is usually faster due Turbo but E8600 wins i3 but then we drive into the second problem which is that E8600 costs 233$ while i3 is 113$.

iX is the way to go but C2D isn't a bad chip, not at all.

When it comes to non-multi threaded tasks such as every day web browsing and word processing it beats it. It even beats the i5-750 in alot of tests that don't stress all four cores. Now that is impressive. Right now for every day computing the E8600 is one of the fastest out there.

The E8600 is a impressive chip. No doubt.

http://ixbtlabs.com/articles3/cpu/intel-ci5-660-p2.html

"As soon as older non-optimized applications become involved, it turns out that the Core 2 Duo E8000 series remains unconquered. Even the new architecture and Turbo Boost doesn't help, because 4MB of 2.13 GHz cache is not the same as 6MB of 3+ GHz cache. Besides, Hyper-Threading is a disadvantage under these conditions."

 

[iamthedudeman]

It doesn't win the fastest i5 which is 3.6GHz and goes up to 3.86GHz with Turbo i5 is usually faster due Turbo but E8600 wins i3 but then we drive into the second problem which is that E8600 costs 233$ while i3 is 113$.

iX is the way to go but C2D isn't a bad chip, not at all.

And it's 3.33 base clock with 3.6 for turbo. Not 3.6 to 3.86. The highest is 3.46 GHz 3.73. We don't know how the E8600 would do against that one since it was not tested. With the lower cache than the E8600 for every day tasks the turbo does not help much. The i5 is the better chip but since Apple only offers the C2D 3.33 it isn't a bad choice and not overmatched against the i3 and most of the i5 series.

http://www.guru3d.com/article/core-i5-650-660-661-review-test/2

 

[Hellhammer]

And it's 3.33 base clock with 3.6 for turbo. Not 3.6 to 3.86. With the lower cache than the E8600 for every day tasks the turbo does not help much.

http://www.guru3d.com/article/core-i5-650-660-661-review-test/2

Wrong. There is i5-680 which is 3.6GHz and 3.86GHz with Turbo. There is also i5-670 which is 3.46GHz and 3.73GHz with Turbo. Cache isn't that important when we are talking about raw performance, all i5s win C2Ds anyway.

http://ixbtlabs.com/articles3/cpu/intel-ci5-660-p2.html
http://ixbtlabs.com/articles3/cpu/intel-ci5-660-p3.html

E8600 is faster in some tests which are more cache intensive but generally, i5 wins