Sidebar Sidebar
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?

I hope you are wrong, and no tower+display will be released to replace the iMac. In that case, I would buy the actual all-in-one iMac with no doubt.
 
charlituna said:
I can speak to the 'soon' but we will know when it is going to happen. They will call up the media and invite to the Apple Campus just like with the notebooks and ipods. So a few days ahead of time, we'll know that something is about to drop and pocketbooks can be tucked away for a bit longer.

They are not going to just keep mum and suddenly everything has changed. It's not Apple's style unless it's something way tiny like a couple of weeks ago when they decided to bump the ram in the white macbooks to 2GB. that wasn't worry of a huge media to do.



if Apple really did make that request it was likely because the whole thing was fake. by cutting off the circulation of that photograph they are saving their stores a world of hurt when folks come in acting for details about machines that were produced in someone's buttocks.

it is Tuesday morning 8:10 am in California. I just pulled up the Apple Store,even refreshed the page to be sure I was current. nada on new stuff or 'down for maintenance' or any of the other signs they are about to release something on the QT.



stop and think for a moment. does that really sound like Apple. no it doesn't.
Click to expand...

+1

Exactly my thoughts.
 
SactoGuy18 said:
They may not have much of a choice, especially given how expensive the 24" iMac is nowadays. You can get a well-equipped Dell or HP computer with latest Core 2 Duo CPU's, 6 GB of RAM, 640 SATA-II hard drive, nVidia GeForce 9300 graphics, keyboard and mouse for just over US$1,000, and you can get a good 22-24" widescreen monitor for around US$300 more.

That's why I do see Apple having that "fallback" position (if necessary) of a minitower machine to replace the iMac given the current economic situation.
Click to expand...

Actually it is worse than that.

I can go to HP's site, buy a QUAD core 6GB Vista 64bit Blu Ray playing machine for around 650 after instant rebates. If I were to buy the off the shelf crap at Best Buy I could get a quad core 3gb with 22" monitor for less than 800.


I think the biggest push to get out of the current iMac as the only desktop computer from Apple is warranty costs. Take out the screen element and suddenly their warranty cost per unit drops like a rock. It also doesn't hurt that people can't bitch about being forced into glossy displays
 
Assuming that the iMac contiunes to use "notebook" cpus.... are the current models using the lastest C2Ds?

Also, is there a quad core notebook cpu yet?
 
Grasbak said:
Assuming that the iMac contiunes to use "notebook" cpus.... are the current models using the lastest C2Ds?

Also, is there a quad core notebook cpu yet?
Click to expand...

No, they are using custom cpus/chipset. E8x35 series. Intel has updated some of them, there is now a 2.93GHz model (just like in the regular mobile C2D series). Those cpus have a higher TDP (55W) and are probably less expensive than the regular mobile C2D that have a TDP of 35W/45W.

Mobile quads have been available for quite some time: 3 models now, quad 2.00 ($348), quad 2.26 ($851) and quad 2.53 ($1,038). They are very expensive vs the dual-core (the 45W dual 3.06GHz cost $851 and the 55W version probably much less).

If Apple can use the desktop 65W cpus in the iMac, they would get a more powerful computer (up to quad 2.83GHz) at a lower cost (less than $369 per cpu).
 
No, they are using custom cpus/chipset. E8x35 series. Intel has updated some of them, there is now a 2.93GHz model (just like in the regular mobile C2D series). Those cpus have a higher TDP (55W) and are probably less expensive than the regular mobile C2D that have a TDP of 35W/45W.

Mobile quads have been available for quite some time: 3 models now, quad 2.00 ($348), quad 2.26 ($851) and quad 2.53 ($1,038). They are very expensive vs the dual-core (the 45W dual 3.06GHz cost $851 and the 55W version probably much less).

If Apple can use the desktop 65W cpus in the iMac, they would get a more powerful computer (up to quad 2.83GHz) at a lower cost (less than $369 per cpu
Click to expand...

So, again, assuming they dont change their policy on using the notebook stuff, there isnt any particularly new chips available. & presumably a redesign isnt in the offing

So a refresh would be more about LED screens,mini display port, maybe removal of FW400 and maybe the NVIDIA graphics platfrom like Macbook/Macbook Pro?

Whats next on the roadmoap for mobile cpus?

Just thinking things through as my iMac has died, so I need a new one. I can wait for a bit, but not sure for how long!
 
I've been using Windows 7 lately, and this thing is awesome!! its like a mixture of Leopard + Vista.. I really like it! I may not buy an iMac now :p still mulling it over though, an iMac or i7 Quad Core system..:rolleyes:
 
SactoGuy18 said:
That's why I do see Apple having that "fallback" position (if necessary) of a minitower machine to replace the iMac given the current economic situation.
Click to expand...

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 :p, or whatever, it doesn't make sense.
 
MattInOz said:
Let me get what saying here.

Apple is going to kill one the worlds most recognizable computers and one of the recognized products around. For a box you put under the desk connected to a monitor that is as big as the iMac they just killed and doesn't carry their logo.

You think that makes sense?*
Click to expand...

It makes sense to me, because I would never buy an iMac but I would certainly buy a midrange tower if it were configured adequately.
 
Eric S. said:
It makes sense to me, because I would never buy an iMac but I would certainly buy a midrange tower if it were configured adequately.
Click to expand...

Killing the iMac doesn't really make sense.

Adding a midrange headless system AND leaving the iMac would make sense from a consumer choice point of view.

Making the Mac mini more powerful with more features (3.5" HDD for the millionth time) and offering a cheaper configuration of the Mac Pro and leaving the iMac makes more sense from a business point of view.
 
Grasbak said:
Whats next on the roadmoap for mobile cpus?

Just thinking things through as my iMac has died, so I need a new one. I can wait for a bit, but not sure for how long!
Click to expand...

Next in the mobile front are nehalem version of quad-core cpus (late Q3, so probably october if used in the iMacs). Don't know much about the specs and the prices of those, yet. quad-core/eight threads, 55W or so. Not for Apple notebooks, unless they change the design back to thicker notebooks.
 
Am I the only one who is surprised by Apple's seeming 2 year refresh rate on desktops?
I thought when they went to Intel we'd be seeing speed bumps, CPU/chipset updates, etc., a lot more often than this.
If you're going to charge premium prices on your hardware, Apple, make sure you always have the latest, or close to the latest, on offer.
It's ridiculous when $800 PCs out-spec a $2000 Mac.
 
Grasbak said:
So, again, assuming they dont change their policy on using the notebook stuff, there isnt any particularly new chips available. & presumably a redesign isnt in the offing
Click to expand...
Quad cores... and Intel could deliver "special" speed bumped versions of existing CPUs. Both are not necessarily new, but are enough for an update. I doubt there will be a redesign either, but a small design change is possible.

Grasbak said:
Whats next on the roadmoap for mobile cpus?
Click to expand...
  • April 2009: Speed bumps to some CPUs (don't know which)
  • Q3/Q4 2009: Mobile quad-core Nehalem (Clarksfield), 45/55 W (Penryn equivalent = 35/45 W)
  • March 2010: 32 nm mobile dual-core Nehalem (Arandale)
 
Cole Slaw said:
Am I the only one who is surprised by Apple's seeming 2 year refresh rate on desktops?
I thought when they went to Intel we'd be seeing speed bumps, CPU/chipset updates, etc., a lot more often than this.
If you're going to charge premium prices on your hardware, Apple, make sure you always have the latest, or close to the latest, on offer.
It's ridiculous when $800 PCs out-spec a $2000 Mac.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Anybody else think that Core 2 Quad chips are massively unrealistic? I can't really see Apple weathering the furore of new Macbook Pro owners asking why they're 'Pro' product has a lesser chip than the consumer-level desktop.
 
Theophany said:
Anybody else think that Core 2 Quad chips are massively unrealistic? I can't really see Apple weathering the furore of new Macbook Pro owners asking why they're 'Pro' product has a lesser chip than the consumer-level desktop.
Click to expand...

But...the MBP already has a lesser chip than the top of the line 9 month old iMac, the only thing the top of the line MBP beats the iMac in is max RAM and maybe graphics (? I'm not familiar with GPUs so I don't know)
 
iMac or possible new Mac tower

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?
 
woodgear said:
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?
Click to expand...


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!
 
dwl017 said:
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!
Click to expand...

I think I will keep hoping for another model in the lineup personally. The iMac is losing its luster, the mini is all but dead and the Mac Pro is an expensive niche' beast of a machine.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back