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
That makes a lot of sense
That would be a good strategy I think, getting well under the <$1000 price point would bring them a lot of business, that is a big psychological barrier for a lot of people. Adding an iMac Pro is a great idea, great way to bring in a quad for 24" and differentiate without muddling their lines. I think the iMac Pro would start higher though, like 1,500 and up. I hope they are doing something like you show here.
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+
That would be a good strategy I think, getting well under the <$1000 price point would bring them a lot of business, that is a big psychological barrier for a lot of people. Adding an iMac Pro is a great idea, great way to bring in a quad for 24" and differentiate without muddling their lines. I think the iMac Pro would start higher though, like 1,500 and up. I hope they are doing something like you show here.
From a cost perspective, the 3.06ghz probably costs more than the q9550s C2Quad. So the low end costs more than the high end. If they are going to come up with a new "cooling module" that supports 65W TDP, theoretically they could lower R&D and new tooling costs by putting it in all iMacs. Streamline development by using desktop nvidia 9400 chipsets on all imacs to support the LGA775 socket and cut a deal with intel to buy a whole bunch of desktop quads.
The mobile dual core chips are just as, if not more expensive than the desktop quads. Come'on apple what are you waiting for, a win-win, quads in all imacs and lower bill of materials.
I can't imagine that they would use the 9400m on all iMacs, that would be it would be a downgrade for most of the iMacs. There is also no need for dual GPU's as there is not the power saving need that there is in notebooks. I aslo think that if it was much cheaper for Apple to make quad iMacs they would have been doing it already.
I reckon that they may very well be a duo core and a quad core in both the 20 and 24 inch screen sizes...
Low end 20 inch: 2.8 GHz C2D 250 GB HD 2GB RAM (4GB total) 9400m 256 MB.
High end 20 inch: 2.66 GHz C2Q 320 GB HD 2GB RAM (4GB total) 9600m 256 MB.
Low end 24 inch: 3.06 GHz C2D 500 GB HD 4GB RAM (8GB total) 9600m 256 (or 512 MB).
High end 24 inch: 2.83 GHz C2Q 1TB HD 4GB RAM (8GB total) 512 MB.
Low end 20 inch: 2.8 GHz C2D 250 GB HD 2GB RAM (4GB total) 9400m 256 MB.
High end 20 inch: 2.66 GHz C2Q 320 GB HD 2GB RAM (4GB total) 9600m 256 MB.
Low end 24 inch: 3.06 GHz C2D 500 GB HD 4GB RAM (8GB total) 9600m 256 (or 512 MB).
High end 24 inch: 2.83 GHz C2Q 1TB HD 4GB RAM (8GB total) 512 MB.
Did anybody save that picture?
That's a very interesting idea. I could almost see that happening.
I'm pretty sure Apple wants to keep the iMac an all-in-one though, whether or not there will be a mini-tower for it to pair up with.
I think this is the most likely outcome…
(There has been at least one fake C&D letter in the past.)…but then again I might end up being wrong.
A mini-tower may have more space for a hotter CPU. I can't wait!
Intel quad-cores up to this point have been 95 W or hotter. I don't think there has been any 65 W ones up until recently.
As shokunin says above, the dual core processors are more expensive than the quad cores. They will also be faster at many tasks so it makes a rather confusing product line. The current prices are $851 for the 3.06GHz and $530 for the 2.8 with the quads costing $369 and $320.
It will be interesting to see how Apple approach it as the options do seem to conflict with the ideology they have with regards to processor clock speeds.
Why on earth...
Why on earth have the artificial restriction of 4 GiB max in the 20" systems?
It's like you expect Apple to abuse you with crippled configurations, so that you'll upgrade to a more expensive model. It's been happening so long that it feels natural.
Why on earth have the artificial restriction of 4 GiB max in the 20" systems?
It's like you expect Apple to abuse you with crippled configurations, so that you'll upgrade to a more expensive model. It's been happening so long that it feels natural.
As shokunin points out and I've mentioned in a previous post, I don't really see the logic in going through all the effort to redesign the iMac to incorporate 65W TDP chip, just to limit it's use in a one-off, low-volume, high-end model. If Apple is going quad core, it should go all desktop, and include dual cores for the low-end. Realistically, desktop dual cores are highly viable, with the E8700 running at 3.5GHz and priced cheaper than the 2.83GHz Q9550s and faster for the average consumer.
And the use of the 9600M GT in the High-end iMac would be a definite downgrade from the 8800GS (rebranded mobile 8800M GTS). Personally, I think the use of the desktop 9400M chipset may be marketing savvy in having 2 GPUs, but is a waste of time on a desktop, and better invested in a better dedicated GPU and a cheaper regular Intel desktop P45 chipset. And I think the emphasis on nVidia GPUs is also a mistake, when nVidia's Mac drivers consistently underperform ATI's, and nVidia continues to support their proprietary C for CUDA implementation, while ATI has abandoned their own Brook+ language in favour of OpenCL.
As reference:
ATI's Mac drivers are such that the HD3870 has nearly equal CoD4 performance between OS X and Windows, while the 8800GT (which shares a driver stack with the 8800GS, 9600M GT, and 9400M) is decidedly slower in OS X than Windows.
http://www.barefeats.com/harper22.html
Similarly, the HD3870 continues to have beat the 8800GT in Core Image acceleration, despite the 8800GT being theoretically faster. nVidia GPUs can't keep up in Apple's own apps, making it hard for me to believe that Apple has thrown so much support behind nVidia.
http://www.barefeats.com/harper21.html
In light of this, I strongly hope that Apple doesn't lock out ATI GPUs from most of their product line. In notebooks, the synergy between the 9400M and 9600M GT makes sense to go all nVidia, but that doesn't apply for desktops. I believe people have actually found kexts in OS X for the ATI 46xx series, so I hope for the use of the Mobility HD4670, which should be faster than the 9600M GT. ATI's HD3xxx and HD4xxx series also support 64-bit floats for OpenCL while nVidia's 8xxx and 9xxx series don't.
My speculation:
Low end 20" 3.0Ghz E8400 C2D (dual core) 6MB L2, 2GB RAM DDR3 upgradable to 8GB, 320GB HD, Mobility HD4670 256MB GDDR3
High end 20" 3.33GHz E8600 (dual core) 6MB L2, 2GB RAM DDR3 upgradable to 8GB, 500GB HD, Mobility HD4670 512MB GDDR3
Low end 24" 2.66GHz Q9450s (quad core) 6MB L2, 4GB RAM DDR3 upgradable to 8GB, 500GB HD, Mobility HD4670 512MB GDDR3
High end 24" 2.83GHz Q9550s (quad core) 12MB L2, 4GB RAM DDR3 upgradable to 8GB, 1TB HD, 9800M GT 512MB GDDR3 (rebranded 8800M GTX)
These would be all desktop parts, and the CPU choices are actually cheaper than using mobile CPUs, even though they are quite a bit faster. Apple will most likely not pass on most of the cost savings to consumers and will keep most of it to itself. The dual core desktop parts have a 65W TDP, but they shouldn't really push the upper end of it, so should be okay in the 20" enclosure. The 9800M GT (8800M GTX) is to throw nVidia a bone and will be faster than the current 8800GS which is actually a 8800M GTS. Although a Mobility HD4850 would probably be a bit faster.
So the low end 20" iMac is going to be faster than the low end 24" for many things, especially games? Apple are not going to offer faster dual core CPUs on the low end, if at all than any quad core options.
Well that was the conundrum that I ran into when picking my choices. The fact is, all this whining about Apple not using quad cores in the iMacs or not using Nehalem is overblown for most users. Higher-clocked dual cores still make a lot of sense. I can't see Apple using all quad cores since the 2.33GHz Q8200s is crippled with only 4MB of L2 cache between 4 cores, so they will have to use some dual core models to fill out the product line. I can't see them splitting supply chain resources to maintain a separate mobile platform based iMac, with more expensive mobile parts. And the 3GHz E8400 is already dirt cheap at $183 compared to the the $241 2.4GHz mobile processor that Apple uses in the current low-end iMac.
The more presentable compromise would be for the low-end 24" iMac to use the new 3.5GHz E8700 dual core, the high-end 20" iMac to use the 3.33GHz E8600, and the high-end 24" to be the only quad core with the 2.83GHz Q9550s. Officially there is only 1 24" model, and the "high-end" 24" is actually "just" a BTO, so a BTO option to a quad core albeit a lower-clocked one, is a reasonable choice to present to those that want it, that way there isn't an official "model" that is more expensive with lower clock speed.
EDIT:
http://www.apple.com/ca/imac/specs/
Apple's spec chart showing only 3 iMac models (2 20", 1 24")
I think there was concern that the thermal constraints on the 20" iMac would be tighter than the 24" making it more difficult to put in a quad core. While all mainstream desktop CPUs have a 65W TDP, the heat output from quad cores would be more likely to push the envelope of the spec than the dual cores, especially the newer E0 stepping dual cores which are more efficient than the original C0 stepping Penryns.
Wow I love your thinking. You have an opinion, that varies from the majority of the viewpoints found in this thread, so you come in here and whine about us whining?
If you have facts/data/links to prove your opinion then post it here, otherwise you are just as much whining as the rest of us.
Predictions
My prediction for Tuesday, February third two thousand and nine.
No major hardware updates.
Probably no minor ones at that.
My prediction for Tuesday, February third two thousand and nine.
No major hardware updates.
Probably no minor ones at that.
I really think you should adjust your clock settings... wrong year
(I think you meant two thousand and NINE...)
Would be great to me as it would double as a TV with a digital antenna or converter. I'd actually do that if its offered due to the layout of my apartment and a desk sitting in just the right spot.
Absurdo City
Thanks! Fixed.
I really think you should adjust your clock settings... wrong year
(I think you meant two thousand and NINE...)
Thanks! Fixed.
http://www.techreport.com/articles.x/16147/4
In a run off between the processors in question, the 3.33GHz E8600 dual core and the 2.83GHz Q9550 quad core (95W TDP version):
Games:
E8600 wins 3 of 4, Q9550 wins 1 of 4 + the Source Particle Simulation which really isn't a game (the E8600 won in HL2 itself)
Productivity, General Use:
E8600 wins 5 of 6, Q9550 wins 1 of 6
Image Processing:
E8600 wins 1 of 3 (Photoshop), Q9550 wins 2 of 3 (Panorama Factory, picColor)
Media Encoding and Editing:
E8600 wins 4 of 7 (although 2 were LAME with different compilers), Q9550 wins 3 of 7 (although 2 are x264 with different settings)
3D Modeling and Rendering:
E8600 wins 1 of 6, Q9550 wins 5 of 6
There were also scientific apps like folding@home and fluid dynamics simulations that I don't think many people specifically bought their Mac for. These are threaded better though and the Q9550 wins.
In any case, if you look at the apps, there is still something to be said for higher clocked dual cores. The 3.33GHz E8600 dual core is the ideal choice for gaming, general productivity, music encoding (aren't as well threaded), and Photoshop (I guess not all functions/plugins are well threaded yet). The 2.83GHz Q9550 quad core is ideal for video encoding, editing, rendering, and image processing if the app is well threaded like Panorama Factory.
The other thing to note is that the 3.5GHz E8700 is replacing the 3.33GHz E8600 and still looks to be cheaper than the 2.83GHz Q9550. As well, with OpenCL putting more emphasis on the GPU, especially for video encoding and rendering, which is currently the quad core's stronghold, things may still tighten up between quad cores and dual cores, although this may be balanced out as more games become multithreaded rather than just dual threaded. My point is that the relevance of dual cores hasn't yet diminished even if the focus of the future is quad cores.
Right... I meant show data pertaining to quad core being sold in other systems versus dual core. I can go to a tech site and copy/paste tons of benchmarks as well but that isn't the point. Everyone else = Quad core options for non workstations. Apple = No.
But good job on the copy/paste, it was nice to read honestly.
I would love to see an iMac with a sub US$1000 price, but that's not going to happen; see new/old whitebook for that entry puppy.
I would love to see a 30" iMac with a C2Q and dual HDDs, but that's not going to happen (yet?).
I guess I'll take all of my high hopes and expectations and chop them down, and then chop them down again. And only then perhaps I'll be getting close to the reality.
Apple only really make incremental improvements from one generation to the next. Still, they make sweet machines though, and that's why they've got me. (funny how I can hate and love the same thing)
My prediction: iMac to get a chin reduction, moderate spec increases with C2Q for high end 24" machine, and bto on midrange 20" and 24".
I would love to see a 30" iMac with a C2Q and dual HDDs, but that's not going to happen (yet?).
I guess I'll take all of my high hopes and expectations and chop them down, and then chop them down again. And only then perhaps I'll be getting close to the reality.
Apple only really make incremental improvements from one generation to the next. Still, they make sweet machines though, and that's why they've got me.
(funny how I can hate and love the same thing)My prediction: iMac to get a chin reduction, moderate spec increases with C2Q for high end 24" machine, and bto on midrange 20" and 24".
Well you did specifically ask for data/links to back up my suggestion that higher clocked dual cores still fit the usage patterns of the general user.
If you are saying that Apple should be offering quad cores as a choice for non-Mac Pro computers and the faster the better, then I have no disagreement with that.
Those are the 2008 models. The 2009 models will most likely be using the SFF chips.
There's not a whole lot of difference between desktop DIMMs or mobile SO-DIMMs anymore when it comes to price or capacity.
Incredibly disappointing, but realistic.
Okay phew because I didn't see that coming to be honest. My only frustration is I need a new computer for print/web, Mac Pro is out of my needs/price range and I'm not paying for less again, hence the iMac anger. I'm a guy who can build PC's so knowing I can build a quad/12GB ram system for $600 less than an iMac is just wrong.