iMac to Come in Both Dual-Core and Quad-Core Configs?

[SACD02]

I for one am ready to drink the Mac Kool-Aid. I am not so concerend for the price of the $1100, Mac OS gets you features you can not get with the PC like iLife etc. I would rather spend the same $1100 for a better tower than to spend the $1100 for the iMac. It gives me better choices for memory, hard drive etc. any thoughts?

You have 2 choices:

1) Let Apple make the decision for you in terms of what you need as a customer. You buy the iMac and you are happy with it. Apple thinks C2D is enough for you. Screw all the quad core computers out there with the lesser price and more features. C2D is the king

2) Apple thinks if iMac is not enough, then get a Mac Pro. It's 2 cores or 8 cores. It's about $2700 (base model), uses the expensive FB-DDR2 RAM (which are ECC but they are notorious for their latency), uses the ancient FSB system and it also loses to the i7 systems in benchmarks (including X264 encoding) with 1/3 of the price of Mac Pro. The additional $2000 buys you OSX, better looking case and ECC memory. If these three features cancel out better performance, DDR3 memory, on chip memory controller and more upgrade options, then Mac Pro is an excellent option for you

 

[DeepIn2U]

Ddr3?

So will this refresh of the upcoming iMac have the following?

* DDR3-SDRAM memory?
All the notebooks and Pro machines have them now.
* TouchScreen?
Not likely, but it WOULD be extremely prudent (Win7 has it natively supported), and the smart way to go. It would give Mac something to finally universally use Inkwell for and something to kill off the now appealing HP TouchSmart IQ series all in one's; something I've been eyeing due to the comparable price but performance is sub-par vs the iMac.

One feature that I'm sure many long time MacIntosh users loved was the long missing TV tuner with coaxial input that used to be in the US MacIntosh "SE" series. Why can the iMac not have this? Bump the screens up to 30", bump the cpu's to the new C2D desktop units, and finally use DDR3 memory?

 

[SACD02]

So will this refresh of the upcoming iMac have the following?

* DDR3-SDRAM memory?
All the notebooks and Pro machines have them now.
* TouchScreen?
Not likely, but it WOULD be extremely prudent (Win7 has it natively supported), and the smart way to go. It would give Mac something to finally universally use Inkwell for and something to kill off the now appealing HP TouchSmart IQ series all in one's; something I've been eyeing due to the comparable price but performance is sub-par vs the iMac.

One feature that I'm sure many long time MacIntosh users loved was the long missing TV tuner with coaxial input that used to be in the US MacIntosh "SE" series. Why can the iMac not have this? Bump the screens up to 30", bump the cpu's to the new C2D desktop units, and finally use DDR3 memory?

DDR3 is possible but it doesn't offer any significant benefit to C2D/C2Q processors because the FSB is already saturated with DDR2. DDR3 is important in case of using a chip like Geforce 9400 which uses shared memory. DDR3 shines when it is paired up with i7 (which operates at triple channel bandwidth)

It's quiet plausible to think iMac will use DDR3. If they use the mobile chips and incorporate Geforce 9400, then DDR3 is a given. It also helps to streamline their product line and their accessories

 

[SactoGuy18]

That makes no sense. The economic crisis has hit a lot of people hard that's for sure, but that doesn't suddenly mean everyone now cannot spend over $1000 on a computer. I'm guessing that iMac demand has dropped a little recently, but not because of lack of people out there with money, but the fact that it's gone a while without an update. Killing the iMac would be equivalent to Sony killing the BRAVIA or Samsung killing their phones, or McDonald's killing the Big Mac , or whatever, it doesn't make sense.

However, when a 24" iMac costs over US$2,000--and that's not with a large amount of memory or larger hard disk! You can get a Dell or HP desktop with a 1 TB hard disk and 8 GB of RAM for just over US$1,000, and you can get a good 24" LCD widescreen monitor for around US$360. That's still way under the cost of a 24" iMac.

 

[woodgear]

There will be no new tower!

It will never happen despite all the millions of rumors across the net. Apple has been there and done that with the Power Mac G4/G5 line. History will never repeat it self! Its not going to happen no matter how many people try to dream it onto the shelf! They have had almost two years to update the Mini and have not done so. While Steve is alive you can forget it!

Buy the Mac Pro or give it up!

I know that there are a lot of rumors and even some mock-up pictures of such a item. If you look at the sales of Apple and the increase of MacBook model sales compared iMac and the MacPro you will see the sales decrease. Some people beleive that this is a due to a lack of update. I some what disagree in that it is because of the lack of flexibility/cost ratio. With the home consumer being more interested in the internet and the use of picures/movies/facebook etc. it is important to have large hard drives/back-up and memory options. I know that this is what I am looking for and what most of my colegues are looking for. I am just having a hard time to swallow the $2100 for the MacPro. Either make the iMac more flexible, make the Mini into a TurboMini or make a MacPro-lite to bridge the gap and I guarantee that you will get many more PC conversions to Mac

 

[dwl017]

I know that there are a lot of rumors and even some mock-up pictures of such a item. If you look at the sales of Apple and the increase of MacBook model sales compared iMac and the MacPro you will see the sales decrease. Some people beleive that this is a due to a lack of update. I some what disagree in that it is because of the lack of flexibility/cost ratio. With the home consumer being more interested in the internet and the use of picures/movies/facebook etc. it is important to have large hard drives/back-up and memory options. I know that this is what I am looking for and what most of my colegues are looking for. I am just having a hard time to swallow the $2100 for the MacPro. Either make the iMac more flexible, make the Mini into a TurboMini or make a MacPro-lite to bridge the gap and I guarantee that you will get many more PC conversions to Mac

You can dream it, wish it and guarantee it all you want it aint going to happen! don't you know that the first requirement of being an Apple fan is not to think on your own! Apple will tell you what you need when you need it and how much to pay for it.

You must always obey your lord Steve Jobs and never question his authority to give you what you need. You will buy what ever the next product is they put out and love it!

I have a great idea when ever Lord Jobs is well enough to give a public speech someone in the audience should stand up and start throwing Mac Mini's at him how hilarious would that be

 

[Yamcha]

Meh, I have decided finally, if the new iMacs don't come by March and if there aren't any significant updates, then I will go ahead and build myself a i7 Quad Core system :]

 

[dwl017]

Meh, I have decided finally, if the new iMacs don't come by March and if there aren't any significant updates, then I will go ahead and build myself a i7 Quad Core system :]

Smart man!

 

[SACD02]

Meh, I have decided finally, if the new iMacs don't come by March and if there aren't any significant updates, then I will go ahead and build myself a i7 Quad Core system :]

Another thing to remember is the implementation of Hyper Threading in i7. While HT existed in P4s, it was mostly a gimmick rather than a performance boost because of P4's inefficient architecture. The memory subsystem wasn't fast enough to supply the processor with enough information. It resulted in HT being a non-factor in many applications. Only those few apps who were designed for P4 with HT in mind could take advantage of that functionality. Even in those few apps, Athlon 64 could still beat P4s

HT in i7 however is actually a great feature. Not only the memory subsystem is vastly improved and efficient, the architecture greatly enhances the use of HT. There are lots of benchmarks (including real world situations) where HT gives a nice boost in performance

 

[lanceh5]

Ready to buy a quad core iMac/OS10.6

For me a 20 inch quad core iMac with OS10.6 would be perfect. The G5 iMac is barley adequate in audio internet streaming and handling large numbers of photos. I anticipate OS10.6 will help solve these problems with a quad core iMac.

 

[chadley_chad]

Lets be real ...

Listen,

Whilst I appreciate no manufacturer wants to curtail sales by saying ‘hey, we’re bringing out new models in xweeks’, I think that of all manufacturers, Apple should have some responsibility/business sense to keep its installed ‘fan base’ informed – at least to a point? I choose to use the word fan base rather than customer as, let’s face it, (imo) no other manufacturer has such a following for its products.

I also feel that in the current economic climate, those who are in the market for a new computer will more than likely choose to go the PC route; because however lovely iMacs are, it can’t be argued that they represent excellent value for money against what’s available today (how can they be when we haven’t seen a refresh or price drop for xmonths!) Therefore, it’s my opinion that the majority of people who are going to stump up large amounts of cash for an old spec iMac are, in the main, existing Apple buyers; and as such, the majority of these are well versed in how ‘Apple work’ (i.e. no one is going to buy anything until we see the next update that we’re all waiting for). Hence we return to my original statement that, based on this assumption, Apple should at least give some indication (even if it is just via weblog sites like MacRumours) of when new products will be available - even if it is only a statement saying ‘Updated models will be available from March 09, buy accordingly’.

Of course this will never happen but at the best, its gonna cost Apple some sales (and lost fans!) I say this as I sold my white iMac in December in anticipation of new models that never arrived (and how shocked were we that nothing came!); and I’m afraid to say even I’m starting to look at alternative PC based machines - not just because they’re so much cheaper and I’m fed up of waiting, but a lot based on the principle that if Apple cant even be a****d to offer updated machines after how long (?), I’ll give my business to someone that doesn’t rest on their (wilting) laurels.

To add my two pence worth to the debate, I cannot see how Apple could (sensibly!) choose to go with anything other than quad core machines. Despite the various mass debated benefits of dual core over quad, public perception has to be taken into account and not having a quad core option in today’s market seems crazy when all other manufacturers are (or soon will) be doing so … and where else can they go from 3GHz duals other than down!
Forget slim cases, I don’t give two hoots if my iMac is 1 inch thicker if it means using the latest technology. If I wanted size over substance I’d buy a laptop!

I’m sad really as Apple used to be innovators; yet today we have a company that yes, supplies lovely products, but is certainly not innovative. What do I call innovation? Well, if Apple wants to re-establish themselves as the cool market leaders they used to be, not the mass market disorganised company they seem to be today (I say that as they cant even supply a PC with matching mouse, keyboard or remote, or look at their ageing Mac Mini range and honestly say ‘Value for money’!), they need to bring out (IMO) the following spec’d machine (please excuse my lack of exactness on specs but you get the point):

28” LCD with no chin (like the new 24” display)
(Non glare option would be great!)
Quad Core 2.8Ghz min
1333 FSB
4GB RAM expandable to 8 min
750GB HDD
512MB Graphics (a good desktop card, not bodge job laptop chip!)
Blue Ray option (not even cutting edge anymore!)
TV Tuner
Matching accessories!

I think with the above type specs people will once again view the iMac as cutting edge (not just a looker!) and, along with the usual software/virus argument, justify its higher price (because the exclusivity that used to account for some of the cost disappeared a long time ago!) I’ve got my money waiting now and although I could buy a similar spec’d PC for half the price, I’d happily pay more for the exclusivity/design. For the above spec I’d pay $2,000.

Let’s just hope the delays are down to Snow Leopard; because at this rate, by the time we get a new machine, others will be using newer CPU’s! So, Apple, look at your appalling range, your competitor offerings, what people want, the current climate and give us either good value, cutting edge at a cost … or just something!!!

 

[diamond.g]

28” LCD with no chin (like the new 24” display)
(Non glare option would be great!)
Quad Core 2.8Ghz min
1333 FSB
4GB RAM expandable to 8 min
750GB HDD
512MB Graphics (a good desktop card, not bodge job laptop chip!)
Blue Ray option (not even cutting edge anymore!)
TV Tuner
Matching accessories!

I think with the above type specs people will once again view the iMac as cutting edge (not just a looker!) and, along with the usual software/virus argument, justify its higher price (because the exclusivity that used to account for some of the cost disappeared a long time ago!) I’ve got my money waiting now and although I could buy a similar spec’d PC for half the price, I’d happily pay more for the exclusivity/design. For the above spec I’d pay $2,000.

For that spec Apple would want you to pay at least 3k....

 

[Shivetya]

Not so ridiculous if you buy a $2000 Mac to have it superceded every time Intel launches a speedbumped chip. That would royally piss me off and is part of the reason I stopped using PCs.

The nice thing about PC's is that for the most part I can use the new chip in my machine without issue.

That and the fact that I would have spent less than $1000 for the machine ... so having it superseded each time Intel launches a speed bumped chip would not hurt as much

 

[Shivetya]

Meh, I have decided finally, if the new iMacs don't come by March and if there aren't any significant updates, then I will go ahead and build myself a i7 Quad Core system :]

I've already decided to never buy an iMac again. I have my initial one simply because I got it on e-bay from someone who had to always have the current model. Still when comparing Apples to .... it is clear that I am just pissing away money on a fancy case. I have an equivalent 24" on my upstairs PC.

After sitting down and looking at their offerings all I see is a fancy case penalty. Hell people beat on Alienware for crap like that, why not beat on Apple.

So I figure its off to hackintosh land come March if the only option is another iMac. Apple is keeping their market small because of greed

 

[bengal85]

GO quad core

 

[Theophany]

The nice thing about PC's is that for the most part I can use the new chip in my machine without issue.

That and the fact that I would have spent less than $1000 for the machine ... so having it superseded each time Intel launches a speed bumped chip would not hurt as much

Uh-huh, but new chip, new chipset and new graphics quickly adds up. Just updating one part of the PC creates bottlenecks, it's not as simple as so many people seem to think. It's electronics, not Lego.

 

[iMacmatician]

Well, if Apple wants to re-establish themselves as the cool market leaders they used to be, … they need to bring out (IMO) the following spec’d machine (please excuse my lack of exactness on specs but you get the point):
…
Quad Core 2.8Ghz min
1333 FSB

Quad-core 2.83 GHz max. Unfortunately that's due to the iMac's thermal limitations and a probable maximum CPU TDP of 65 W. Those limitations might also mean that the 20" is limited to dual-core or a mobile quad-core (if so will likely be 2.0 GHz). Intel might, though, give Apple a "special" 3.0 GHz 65 W quad-core for a premium price.

4GB RAM expandable to 8 min
750GB HDD

Probable on the high-end…

512MB Graphics (a good desktop card, not bodge job laptop chip!)

The white 24" iMac in 2006 had desktop GPUs (low-end and midrange though). But they were faster than the midrange mobile GPUs in the other iMacs. We may see something like that this time too. The VRAM is likely to be 256 MB on the low-end and 512 MB on the higher-end.

For the above spec I’d pay $2,000.

You'll likely pay a few hundred dollars more, but then again the 65 W quads are much cheaper than the high-end mobile CPUs.

 

[AidenShaw]

Meh, I have decided finally, if the new iMacs don't come by March and if there aren't any significant updates, then I will go ahead and build myself a i7 Quad Core system :]

From the Mac Pro thread...

Haha. They are making progress in the Hackintosh community with the Studio XPS.

http://www.insanelymac.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=151117&mode=threaded

OS X can now see all 8 (4 real, 4 virtual) cores.

You'd be hard-pressed to build a system to match the Dell Core i7 Studio XPS - $899 for a complete system with warranty.

...and it looks like it will soon be Hackintosh™ Certified®

 

[Eric S.]

Whilst I appreciate no manufacturer wants to curtail sales by saying ‘hey, we’re bringing out new models in xweeks’, I think that of all manufacturers, Apple should have some responsibility/business sense to keep its installed ‘fan base’ informed – at least to a point?

I agree with you. I don't know how much it's hurting sales yet, but my feeling is that Apple fans are losing enthusiasm simply because Apple is not offering more information on its future roadmap.

 

[sa gringo]

Confused

I don't understand why Dell can have a product out that is very similar to the imac and has the quad core already but mac can not ?

 

[Theophany]

I don't understand why Dell can have a product out that is very similar to the imac and has the quad core already but mac can not ?

Any number of reasons. I'd still rather have the iMac though and maybe that's part of the problem. I imagine there is a smaller number of people switching back to PCs after owning Macs than vice versa. Apple likely exploits that.

 

[Shivetya]

Uh-huh, but new chip, new chipset and new graphics quickly adds up. Just updating one part of the PC creates bottlenecks, it's not as simple as so many people seem to think. It's electronics, not Lego.

That isn't true and you know it.

The first thing is, I can keep up with video card changes instead of having to upgrade the whole machine to keep pace. I can replace my monitor to the latest and greatest without buying a new machine. DAMHIK but I can still use it when the screen goes dark.

The current pc bottlenecks have been the same for many years... and only until last year did Intel acknowledge what AMD did by integrating the memory controller with the chip.

As for the costs adding up, I think I can update twice before I run into the same original cost of going the other way.

 

[BenRoethig]

I don't understand why Dell can have a product out that is very similar to the imac and has the quad core already but mac can not ?

A couple reasons. First, they're using desktop CPUs. The iMac used mobile CPUs and and now uses a custom in between CPU.

Second, the speakers are side mounted. I would assume that would allow for better top to bottom airflow.

Third, they don't have Ive. The XPS one is a lot like the original iMac G5 where the case is designed to be rear accessible for servicing and upgrade and have a more consistent thickness. The iMac has progressively gotten thinner, especially around the edges, for aesthetic and PR reasons to the point where it has effectively become a sealed system.

Fourth, they're trading off graphics power for CPU power. Dell's designs use integrated graphics in the 20" model and mid-range mobile graphics in the 24" model. Apple uses Low end and mid-range mobile graphics in the 20" and mid-range and higher end graphics in the 24". I'll clear this up now, Apple uses mobile graphics chips in the iMac, but uses the branding of a desktop chip that would give similar performance. The 2600Pro is actually a mobility 2600XT and the 8800GS is actually an 8800M GTS.

 

[sa gringo]

A couple reasons. First, they're using desktop CPUs. The iMac used mobile CPUs and and now uses a custom in between CPU.

Second, the speakers are side mounted. I would assume that would allow for better top to bottom airflow.

Third, they don't have Ive. The XPS one is a lot like the original iMac G5 where the case is designed to be rear accessible for servicing and upgrade and have a more consistent thickness. The iMac has progressively gotten thinner, especially around the edges, for aesthetic and PR reasons to the point where it has effectively become a sealed system.

Fourth, they're trading off graphics power for CPU power. Dell's designs use integrated graphics in the 20" model and mid-range mobile graphics in the 24" model. Apple uses Low end and mid-range mobile graphics in the 20" and mid-range and higher end graphics in the 24". I'll clear this up now, Apple uses mobile graphics chips in the iMac, but uses the branding of a desktop chip that would give similar performance. The 2600Pro is actually a mobility 2600XT and the 8800GS is actually an 8800M GTS.

Thank you that is the type of info I was looking for...so I continue to wait...

 

[dwl017]

I don't understand why Dell can have a product out that is very similar to the imac and has the quad core already but mac can not ?

Because Apple designs everything around teenage girls who want the computer to match the design of the dorm room etc. Take away the shinny aluminum casing and all the parts inside are still made by the same little Asian children who make all computer components.