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.
Last Minute Specs: iMac, Mac Minis, Airport Extreme, Time Capsule and Mac Pros?
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I haven't bought an iMac so it doesn't bother me, was just saying that I'd feel bad if I had bought one. Apple's updates have absolutely no link to my personal satisfaction, so, thank you, but I'm fully in control of my 'grip'.
For one thing, as of this post, this isn't official yet so you still have time that this doesn't pan out. Second, maybe it's just me, but why do a lot of people seem to have these illusions of grandeur when it comes to Apple updates? When has Apple ever put the top of the line ANYTHING in an iMac? As I've said in another post (my only other post in fact) I'm not a pro at all things Apple, but I understand business and I've paid attention to them over the years and Apple has made it pretty apparent that the iMac is not a top of the line machine - it's a top of the line middle class machine. Not once has it had top of the line parts in it - at least not when you compare it to a PC at a similar price. Even feeding through this thread you can see people are dieing just to get an 9800M GT in an iMac and that is by no means the top of the line card available today. Granted, it's a good part, but it's not even close to being in the top performers. In a PC at this same price you'd get a card 4x as strong as that and probably a blu-ray drive to boot. That's proof enough that top of the line and iMac are not in the same sentence.
In fact, my friends thought I was crazy when I told them that "at best" I said I expected the next iMacs to get ONLY what the 17" Macbook Pro has to make them more in line with each other. When I saw all these Core i7 talk in an iMac I just sort of laughed cause that's not happening any time soon.
First off, most consumers don't need an i7. In fact, I'd argue that what's in the current iMacs are actually overkill for most consumers needs. People just want it, but most will never use the power of what's even in a C2D. I'm sure Apple understands this and they see little value in adding this to a mainstream lineup.
Second, a Core i7 in an iMac before a Mac Pro got them? Are you kidding me? The Mac Pro is the top of the line for Apple. Why would they put a Core i7 in an iMac? Even though the Mac Pro would be a Xeon i7, having a cheaper iMac alternative with a Core i7 (overkill again) would still lessen the impact of the Mac Pro and I'm sure its sales would suffer as a result.
Now, I say this before any of this info is official so I could just end up coming off and looking like a complete deuche if Apple does something "unthinkable" and actually gives people what they want. But, I stand by my previous statements and in all honesty this is literally what people should have expected, as Apple has never given them any reason in the past to think otherwise. The most I could see is a Quad Core in an iMac. But, given that the Quad's haven't exactly lived up to their performance expectations, I see no reason to jump on board unless Apple has had Intel reinvent them for better performance.
In fact, my friends thought I was crazy when I told them that "at best" I said I expected the next iMacs to get ONLY what the 17" Macbook Pro has to make them more in line with each other. When I saw all these Core i7 talk in an iMac I just sort of laughed cause that's not happening any time soon.
First off, most consumers don't need an i7. In fact, I'd argue that what's in the current iMacs are actually overkill for most consumers needs. People just want it, but most will never use the power of what's even in a C2D. I'm sure Apple understands this and they see little value in adding this to a mainstream lineup.
Second, a Core i7 in an iMac before a Mac Pro got them? Are you kidding me? The Mac Pro is the top of the line for Apple. Why would they put a Core i7 in an iMac? Even though the Mac Pro would be a Xeon i7, having a cheaper iMac alternative with a Core i7 (overkill again) would still lessen the impact of the Mac Pro and I'm sure its sales would suffer as a result.
Now, I say this before any of this info is official so I could just end up coming off and looking like a complete deuche if Apple does something "unthinkable" and actually gives people what they want. But, I stand by my previous statements and in all honesty this is literally what people should have expected, as Apple has never given them any reason in the past to think otherwise. The most I could see is a Quad Core in an iMac. But, given that the Quad's haven't exactly lived up to their performance expectations, I see no reason to jump on board unless Apple has had Intel reinvent them for better performance.
Did you guys all forget about Nehalems? And how they have yet to appear in any Mac? Not trying to sound mean but hasn't there been articles on this very own site talking about this? Let me shed some light on those specs:
The dual-socket server version of nehalem aka, Xeon's are finally coming out....Cebit is this week...Apple is announcing new Pros...Come on guys...Put it together. The current pro's use the "old" Core 2 architecture. The reason why you're seeing reduce clocked speeds because Nehalem's in pairs+ ARE RIDICULOUS! Sure they're only about 10-20% better on a good day, but that's 1 cpu vs 1 cpu. Where Nehalem shines, and was designed to catch up in (AMD's opteron's still dominate intel in multi socket setups because BANDWIDTH = WIN ) is the server space, aka 2+ sockets aka MAC PRO. Its the same exact CPU that's already out, the core i7 but with one more QPI link enabled, allowing it to talk to another socket/cpu. 8 nehalem cores running @ 2.66 ghz would spank 8 yorkfield (Core 2 xeons) running at 3.2 ghz. I mean SPANK! And if I have to explain why, go read up on the Nehalem arch, its self explanatory.. And plus, even the pricing on this page has been posted before, the chips are rediculously priced, the 2.66 is the only affordable version. The other speeds, 2.8, 2.93 and 3.2 don't offer that much more performance benefit for how much more expensive they are. We're talking a $1,000s here, not 100s. SO for it to be affordable in a mac pro around $3k give or take, you cant have more than a $1000 cpu x 2 stuffed into one these. The 2.66 version is the Xeon x5550, and its $958! The others are $1172, $1386 and $1600. Times that by 2... Not going to happen unless you want your mac pros to approach $5k..
And finally you say the "MAC PRO 2.26_8CX" is a mystery. It's one of two things. It's a mislabeled/inconsistent label of 2 quad cores (8c) or its the 8core beckton. If you remember, you scale cores, you can't scale the clocks as linearly. When the dual cores were at 3-3.2 ghz the first quads were at 2.66+. Now that quads are at 3-3.2ghz, the octo's will definately release at lower speed bins. The one thing going against this speculation is that beckton's have been just delayed to Q1 2010."
Questions?
The dual-socket server version of nehalem aka, Xeon's are finally coming out....Cebit is this week...Apple is announcing new Pros...Come on guys...Put it together. The current pro's use the "old" Core 2 architecture. The reason why you're seeing reduce clocked speeds because Nehalem's in pairs+ ARE RIDICULOUS! Sure they're only about 10-20% better on a good day, but that's 1 cpu vs 1 cpu. Where Nehalem shines, and was designed to catch up in (AMD's opteron's still dominate intel in multi socket setups because BANDWIDTH = WIN ) is the server space, aka 2+ sockets aka MAC PRO. Its the same exact CPU that's already out, the core i7 but with one more QPI link enabled, allowing it to talk to another socket/cpu. 8 nehalem cores running @ 2.66 ghz would spank 8 yorkfield (Core 2 xeons) running at 3.2 ghz. I mean SPANK! And if I have to explain why, go read up on the Nehalem arch, its self explanatory.. And plus, even the pricing on this page has been posted before, the chips are rediculously priced, the 2.66 is the only affordable version. The other speeds, 2.8, 2.93 and 3.2 don't offer that much more performance benefit for how much more expensive they are. We're talking a $1,000s here, not 100s. SO for it to be affordable in a mac pro around $3k give or take, you cant have more than a $1000 cpu x 2 stuffed into one these. The 2.66 version is the Xeon x5550, and its $958! The others are $1172, $1386 and $1600. Times that by 2... Not going to happen unless you want your mac pros to approach $5k..
And finally you say the "MAC PRO 2.26_8CX" is a mystery. It's one of two things. It's a mislabeled/inconsistent label of 2 quad cores (8c) or its the 8core beckton. If you remember, you scale cores, you can't scale the clocks as linearly. When the dual cores were at 3-3.2 ghz the first quads were at 2.66+. Now that quads are at 3-3.2ghz, the octo's will definately release at lower speed bins. The one thing going against this speculation is that beckton's have been just delayed to Q1 2010."
Questions?
oops! sorry, my sarcasm monitor seems to be broken
I've heard that they're pretty much equal. I think it's a lower end newer card (if that makes any sense!)
I'm hoping that these rumors are wrong and we get a big event on the 27th - the realist in my says this isn't going to be the case
Apparently not, BUT you may get a better deal on a closeout or refurbished top-end 24". It'll essentially be the same as the new top-end 24", just a slightly better graphics card (maybe) and DDR3 RAM instead of DDR2. If I decide to buy a Mac, I'll probably go that route or wait another 6-12 months
At least we know what the packaging will look like
Apple remote included......
http://i.gizmodo.com/5162911/what-is-inside-this-huge-mystery-box
What else could it be....
Apple remote included......
http://i.gizmodo.com/5162911/what-is-inside-this-huge-mystery-box
What else could it be....
New Zealand Store DOWN!
http://store.apple.com/0800-MY-APPLE/WebObjects/nzstore
This is the first store to be updated for apple usually!!!
YESSSS ZOMGGGGGG
http://store.apple.com/0800-MY-APPLE/WebObjects/nzstore
This is the first store to be updated for apple usually!!!
YESSSS ZOMGGGGGG
I think from the CPUs we are seeing, this is a new headless Mac... I don't think the Mac Pro would take this turn, unless it's a new low end Mac Pro to be sold in addition to the others.
Any of you guys think these are a headless Mac instead of Mac Pros?
I just don't know about the CPU numbers we got. Maybe they are Mac Pros and the clock speeds are not reported accurately? Do we really see a slower Mac Pro?
Haven't they been Octacore 3.2 GHz dual Xeons?
I guess at the end of the day, I could be wrong...
Any of you guys think these are a headless Mac instead of Mac Pros?
I just don't know about the CPU numbers we got. Maybe they are Mac Pros and the clock speeds are not reported accurately? Do we really see a slower Mac Pro?
Haven't they been Octacore 3.2 GHz dual Xeons?
I guess at the end of the day, I could be wrong...
****, Australia store down as well. just wanted to take a screengrab of the old prices to check if they raise them once again...
You are wrong. You need to read up on your stuff, you can't just compare #s, it doesn't work that way. As a computer enthusiast you should know this.
Read my post please. It's a completely different architecture. Remember Pentium 4's were 3.8ghz 3-4 years ago? And we're 'only' at 3.2 now?