Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
iMac to Come in Both Dual-Core and Quad-Core Configs?
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I've been predicting this for some time now.
I think thermal limitations on the 20" iMac do not permit a 65 W quad-core to go in them, but the 24" iMac's do. Price isn't the issue, since 65 W quads are quite cheap compared to some of the high-end notebook CPUs. And I don't think cannibalization is the issue either since a quad-core in the 20" iMac would further distinguish it from the Mac mini. Not to mention the differences in the 2.33/2.67/2.83 GHz CPUs are fairly large.
Dual-cores do go cheaper though, but those CPUs have lower GHz than the current lowest in the iMacs, 2.4 GHz. Apple could do a "value" model like the old Combo Drive GMA 950 iMac in September 2006.
..ly fake.
I think thermal limitations on the 20" iMac do not permit a 65 W quad-core to go in them, but the 24" iMac's do. Price isn't the issue, since 65 W quads are quite cheap compared to some of the high-end notebook CPUs. And I don't think cannibalization is the issue either since a quad-core in the 20" iMac would further distinguish it from the Mac mini. Not to mention the differences in the 2.33/2.67/2.83 GHz CPUs are fairly large.
Dual-cores do go cheaper though, but those CPUs have lower GHz than the current lowest in the iMacs, 2.4 GHz. Apple could do a "value" model like the old Combo Drive GMA 950 iMac in September 2006.
Mac Pro CPU options come to mind. This is probably why Apple waited 5 months after Clovertown's initial launch for a 3.0 GHz model before adding it (and only it) to the Mac Pro.
That's real...I found this in another thread. They said the Apple store servers went down for a little last night and a couple of refreshes showed this. Looks like a fake.
..ly fake.
Very True masternile. I forgot on my wishlist list for the new iMac the OLED screen.
Keep dreaming...
I'd rather dream of a Cube Reloaded
They could eventually close the gap in their lineup with neither biting too much into Mac Pro sales (less expandibility, non-"pro" components like 2,5" HD's and standard Ram - not to mention number of CPU cores) nor taking away too much substance from the iMac line, but rather expanding its attractiveness (All-in-One computers are currently intensely being looked at in the PC sector, so more competition may come up).
Instead it could be an upsell less steep than currently from the iMac to the Mac Pro at twice the price. People may rather take this than switching back to PC's and/or Hackintosh's (some will continue to complain anyway).
And not to forget possible synergies (economies of scale) between the two iMac lines: Housing, PSU, Speakers, I/O logic, optical drive etc. etc.
Similar to today's setup, only with the iMac Pro offering more features compared to current top-of-the-line iMacs (while the normal iMac is downsized a bit to meet a lower entry price point - Apple claimed that they wanted to price "aggressively"):
mini (Entry performance): $400 - $700
iMac (Lower Midrange): $800 - $1200
iMac Pro (Higher Midrange): $1300 - $2200
Mac Pro (Professional): $2400+
In my books it's never been 'cool' to be green. It's a moral decision, just like choosing not to drop your litter, but instead keeping it in your pocket to put in a bin when you see one. It's like saying the guy who calls 911 when he sees a mugging is 'cool.' He should do it anyway, not do it based on kudos he/she may receive for doing so.
But back to my original post, yes, you missed the point. But the moment is gone.
Man I should get in on this speculation lark, even I could have guessed that there could be dual and quad imac, the quads being build to order at the very least.
I can also kind of understand the 8/16 core mac pro, the nehalem chips have hyperthreading again (meaning 2x the cores visible etc) so in theory the 16 could be 2x quads with hyperthreading meaning 2x8 or 16 cores visible to the system.
So my predictions for the next apple releases are going to be
-mac pro with nehalem 2x dual core or 2x quads to give the 8/16 core mac pro
-the imac will come with dual core and quad core (might need to bto) - geforce 9400 on the lower, 9600 on the higher models
-the mac mini will get a newer system based on the macbook.
-the apple tv will go atom plus 9400 - ie nvidia ion platform based, its the perfect platform for itunes media playback.
I can also kind of understand the 8/16 core mac pro, the nehalem chips have hyperthreading again (meaning 2x the cores visible etc) so in theory the 16 could be 2x quads with hyperthreading meaning 2x8 or 16 cores visible to the system.
So my predictions for the next apple releases are going to be
-mac pro with nehalem 2x dual core or 2x quads to give the 8/16 core mac pro
-the imac will come with dual core and quad core (might need to bto) - geforce 9400 on the lower, 9600 on the higher models
-the mac mini will get a newer system based on the macbook.
-the apple tv will go atom plus 9400 - ie nvidia ion platform based, its the perfect platform for itunes media playback.
I hope it comes before June Q. It'd too long time to wait anymore and would be the longest time without update for iMac.
I can't believe it's such a startling revelation that Apple could decide to use both dual cores and quad cores in the iMac. And if Apple is going quad core, the only ones I can see them using are the new 65W TDP desktop quad cores. The mobile quad cores are just too long clock speed and too expensive. And if Apple is switching to a desktop platform for the quad cores, they are almost certainly switching to a desktop platform across the iMac for dual cores too.
Just product selection necessitates the use of dual cores. Intel only carries 3 65W TDP quad cores and the lowest model at 2.33GHz is slow and is crippled with only 4MB of L2 cache. I really hope that Apple doesn't choose to use such a low-end product, since it's whole point is to draw in the non-tech savy people who think 4-cores automatically means better. That only leaves 2 quad cores, which isn't enough to base the entire iMac product line on. Dual cores also make a lot of sense considering, desktop dual cores now top out at 3.5GHz at 65W TDP compared to 2.83GHz for quad cores. For most users, even with Snow Leopard, a 3.5GHz dual core makes a lot more sense.
The models may well look like:
High-end 24" BTO: 2.83GHz Q9550s quad core 12MB L2 cache, 3.5GHz E8700 dual core 6MB L2 cache may also be a separate BTO.
Low-end 24": 2.66GHz Q9450s quad core 6MB L2 cache
High-end 20": 3.33GHz E8600 dual core 6MB L2 cache
Low-end 20": 2.83GHz E8300 or 3GHz E8400 dual core 6MB L2 cache
And in regards to concerns about 65W TDP parts being in the 20" iMacs, I don't think it's much of a concern for 65W TDP dual core parts since I don't think they really push the upper range of the 65W limit whereas the quad core parts probably do.
The other possibility I see is that the low-end 24" gets a fast dual core, the high-end 24" gets the 2.66GHz Q9450s, and a new 28"+ iMac gets the 2.83GHz Q9550s.
And I wish Macrumors would stop talking about the possibility of an 8-core Mac Pro. As far as I've read, the 8-core Xeons are only for multisocket use in the Xeon MP to replace the 6-core Dunnington in H2 2009. They are not for dual socket use.
Just product selection necessitates the use of dual cores. Intel only carries 3 65W TDP quad cores and the lowest model at 2.33GHz is slow and is crippled with only 4MB of L2 cache. I really hope that Apple doesn't choose to use such a low-end product, since it's whole point is to draw in the non-tech savy people who think 4-cores automatically means better. That only leaves 2 quad cores, which isn't enough to base the entire iMac product line on. Dual cores also make a lot of sense considering, desktop dual cores now top out at 3.5GHz at 65W TDP compared to 2.83GHz for quad cores. For most users, even with Snow Leopard, a 3.5GHz dual core makes a lot more sense.
The models may well look like:
High-end 24" BTO: 2.83GHz Q9550s quad core 12MB L2 cache, 3.5GHz E8700 dual core 6MB L2 cache may also be a separate BTO.
Low-end 24": 2.66GHz Q9450s quad core 6MB L2 cache
High-end 20": 3.33GHz E8600 dual core 6MB L2 cache
Low-end 20": 2.83GHz E8300 or 3GHz E8400 dual core 6MB L2 cache
And in regards to concerns about 65W TDP parts being in the 20" iMacs, I don't think it's much of a concern for 65W TDP dual core parts since I don't think they really push the upper range of the 65W limit whereas the quad core parts probably do.
The other possibility I see is that the low-end 24" gets a fast dual core, the high-end 24" gets the 2.66GHz Q9450s, and a new 28"+ iMac gets the 2.83GHz Q9550s.
And I wish Macrumors would stop talking about the possibility of an 8-core Mac Pro. As far as I've read, the 8-core Xeons are only for multisocket use in the Xeon MP to replace the 6-core Dunnington in H2 2009. They are not for dual socket use.
In my books it's never been 'cool' to be green. It's a moral decision, just like choosing not to drop your litter, but instead keeping it in your pocket to put in a bin when you see one. It's like saying the guy who calls 911 when he sees a mugging is 'cool.' He should do it anyway, not do it based on kudos he/she may receive for doing so.
But back to my original post, yes, you missed the point. But the moment is gone.
Maybe it 'should' be cool to be green is my point
Man I should get in on this speculation lark, even I could have guessed that there could be dual and quad imac, the quads being build to order at the very least.
I can also kind of understand the 8/16 core mac pro, the nehalem chips have hyperthreading again (meaning 2x the cores visible etc) so in theory the 16 could be 2x quads with hyperthreading meaning 2x8 or 16 cores visible to the system.
So my predictions for the next apple releases are going to be
-mac pro with nehalem 2x dual core or 2x quads to give the 8/16 core mac pro
-the imac will come with dual core and quad core (might need to bto) - geforce 9400 on the lower, 9600 on the higher models
-the mac mini will get a newer system based on the macbook.
-the apple tv will go atom plus 9400 - ie nvidia ion platform based, its the perfect platform for itunes media playback.
All of it hinges on how Apple handles hyperthreading. In Windows it sees it as an additional CPU. Sometimes this can get sticky as all hyperthreading really is a second thread handler (I guess you could say execution unit). Not everything that makes a core a core is duplicated. Thus some stalling can take place if certain resources are already in use.
If OS X sees it as another core then yeah I guess you could say that it is an 8/16 core system (talking about the Mac Pro).
What's startling to me is that Apple is considering putting the old generation Penryn quads in their first quad desktop - rather than using the current Nehalem Core i7 quads....
Of course, cooling a Core i7 in the Imac would be a problem.
Maybe they'll introduce a Core i7 mini-tower instead (or at the same time), and stick with mobile Penryns in the all-in-one with its cooling problems.
Don't say "execution unit" - the "second CPU" in a hyperthreaded pair is more like a processor (registers, program counter, other state) with no execution units. There are two sets of processor states, but only one set of execution units.
The system scheduler should be aware of the topology - it needs to know which pairs of CPUs share execution units. It should not schedule two threads on the "pair" if other pairs are idle.
It sees it as a logical CPU (or a hardware thread). Please don't call it a "core" - that is pretty clearly defined.
A dual Gainestown system would have:
- 2 sockets
- 4 cores per socket
- 8 cores total
- 2 threads per core
- 8 threads per socket
- 16 threads per system
Sun has been shipping systems with 4 threads per core, 8 cores per socket. The nomenclature is already established.
People have been wishing this to happen for so long. I think I am going to go insane!
I wasn't really talking about the way the os sees the processor etc, it's more about how hyperthreading is explained to the less tech savvy people
Yes, but more raw materials are used to make two housings, then double the packaging to ship them out. Also, the chipset required to build a headless tower would mean a greater power draw. In short, your argument is specious.
This guy doesn't have a clue what he is talking about...
For the last time, the future 8-core Xeon CPU codenamed "Beckton" is ONLY COMPATIBLE WITH HIGH-END 4-SOCKET SERVERS (NOT THE MAC PRO) AND WILL NOT EVEN BE RELEASED UNTIL 2010.
The (Nehalem-based) dual-processor Xeon is a native quad-core CPU codenamed "Gainestown" and will be available in the spring!
God I'm sick of people without even a basic knowledge of the market spreading all this crap! I'm certainly no expert and don't work in the industry, but for god sakes all it takes is 10 minutes with Google to get an understanding of future products...
For the last time, the future 8-core Xeon CPU codenamed "Beckton" is ONLY COMPATIBLE WITH HIGH-END 4-SOCKET SERVERS (NOT THE MAC PRO) AND WILL NOT EVEN BE RELEASED UNTIL 2010.
The (Nehalem-based) dual-processor Xeon is a native quad-core CPU codenamed "Gainestown" and will be available in the spring!
God I'm sick of people without even a basic knowledge of the market spreading all this crap! I'm certainly no expert and don't work in the industry, but for god sakes all it takes is 10 minutes with Google to get an understanding of future products...
Right, my bad. The execution unit thing tends to get me (in the explaination of hyperthreading).
Right, for most people it is easier to call it a CPU/core than it is to realize that it is just SMT (on top of SMP).
That is why I bring up Beckton when ever someone says 8/16 core Mac Pro.
I found this in another thread. They said the Apple store servers went down for a little last night and a couple of refreshes showed this. Looks like a fake.
Ouch, that's a painful Photoshop job if ever I seen one.
I don't believe for a moment that the Mac Mini will be rebranded simply "Mac" and look like a fat, cube sized version of it's current iteration.
And the iMac photo is hilarious ... it's a "Mac" with an Apple Cinema display! This goes against the idea of iMac, which has always been marketed as "the ultimate all-in-one" desktop machine.
Good find though.
I think it would be best for Apple to modify the bottom end iMac to be 9400GM, 2gb stock, 250g drive, with the 20" screen and get it to 999. Keep the 2.4 C2D
They really need an iMac under 1K, preferably 799 but 899 would be a great shot across the bow.
Still I predict and quad will cost over 2K and that goes doubly for any unit with 512mb video card.
Now, I would pay 1499 for a headless Mac. Bring that name back. Just Mac. Give it one card slot for video and ports out the wahzoo. Throw in 2 extra slots for the wanna be a pro crowd but can't cut the bill. Use an Intel Quad core in it.
Simply put, I cannot sell these machines to any of my friends. Apple is just so out of line with the market and the market is so poor that most won't take the "risk".
Best approach in my book?
Subsume the mini into iTv (or whatever it is called) with DVR functionality. Reintroduce the Mac line - complete with keyboard and mouse to the PC world saying "keep the screen, let us show just what it can do". Price from 699 to 1599 with differing configurations - all must have rw dvd.
Reality? More 1900 iMacs that make us scream "what were you thinking"
They really need an iMac under 1K, preferably 799 but 899 would be a great shot across the bow.
Still I predict and quad will cost over 2K and that goes doubly for any unit with 512mb video card.
Now, I would pay 1499 for a headless Mac. Bring that name back. Just Mac. Give it one card slot for video and ports out the wahzoo. Throw in 2 extra slots for the wanna be a pro crowd but can't cut the bill. Use an Intel Quad core in it.
Simply put, I cannot sell these machines to any of my friends. Apple is just so out of line with the market and the market is so poor that most won't take the "risk".
Best approach in my book?
Subsume the mini into iTv (or whatever it is called) with DVR functionality. Reintroduce the Mac line - complete with keyboard and mouse to the PC world saying "keep the screen, let us show just what it can do". Price from 699 to 1599 with differing configurations - all must have rw dvd.
Reality? More 1900 iMacs that make us scream "what were you thinking"
Keep dreaming...
I gotta say.. it's be pretty dumb if this were the line up:
- Mac mini
- iMac
- iMac Pro
- Mac Pro
And what the hell would the price area be??
If anything wouldn't they re-bring back the eMac.
The main point of keeping a low end offering would be to attract education dollars. If the Dollars are shrinking and Apple wants to make sure they stay in touch with that space then an eMac makes sense.
Then you a clear break eMac for school or home it's the computer for education. Which protects the iMac branding.
You can easily tell that Wu is getting on these forums for his "predictions". The whole offered in duel core and quad core being options was on the "Limited iMac Availability Suggests Possible Refresh" forum board posted by us days ago. So everyone wave and say hi to Mr. Wu
Hi Mr. Wu
Perhaps in terms of lifespan and usability, but I would say only a little bit longer in terms of display technology. H-IPS (currently used in the 24" iMac) is an improvement over S-IPS, built-in iSight and mini DisplayPort is included, LED backlit all across the board is coming soon, OLED is further down the road, touchscreen may be incorporated, etc. With an all-in-one you'd at least have the benefits of the latest display technology/features along with the computer.
Why would it be startling for Apple to stick with laptop chips in the iMac? I'd say it would be startling if they made it an actual desktop-class machine.
The holy grail!
Apple hadn't embarked full blown into their thinness obsession yet. Cooling and features were still their number one priority in those days.