New iMacs Shipping January 2009?

[heisetax]

30" iMac

Hmm...

Darn it, the last post of mine that I can easily find only goes back to December 8th.

I was going to link to one of my posts where I got the specs of the new MacBook Pro correct with only one difference (no 500GB hard drive option).

And then where I got the specs of the current iMacs correct with only one difference.

And then where I got the specs of the Early 2008 MacBook Pro correct, with two differences.

I may not work for Apple, but I'm pretty darn good at figuring specs.

When I'm off, I'm off optimistically, which is really a shame for everyone wanting incredible specs...

A 30" iMac would be incredible, but when they're that big, you start to get into Mac Pro territory, price-wise. A 30" iMac would be purchased by professionals instead of the Mac Pro.

Also, with the new iMacs getting LED backlighting, the price would be particularly prohibitive, since the standalone 30" Cinema Display, when updated, will remain at its current price point.

A 30" iMac would be great. I'm not sure that the 30" iMac would be purchased by Intel MacPro people though at any higher rate than they purchase the 24" Intel iMac. The difference between the iMac & Intel MacPro is not really anything to do with screen size. It has more to do with the fact that the Intel MacPro has slots in it that allows the owner to make changes & additions to their computer. This could be RAID arrays, capture cards, multiple networks, up to 32 GB of memory & many, many more things. Maybe the number of screens as I have had 4 hooked up to my Intel MacPro over 27 months now.

The same can be said about the Intel MacBook Pro. It has a PCI/e slot that the Intel MacBook & Intel iMac does not have. The PCI buss on my PPC 17" PowerBook has allowed me to add eSATA, 802.11n & other items.

 

[NC MacGuy]

This is a surprise to anyone?

 

[Airforcekid]

Organic screens

I wish that we could see something like this iMac with a see through screen. It is obviously fake and would never happen, but that would be a cool design for the future. This is what the actual 20-in iMac that is coming out should have:
-2.4GHz Intel Core 2 Duo
-2GB memory
-320GB HD
-NVIDIA GeForce 8800 GS with 256MB memory
-$1099

IT CAN HAPPEN with sonys organic tvs in 20 years that will probley be the new monitors.

 

[Umbongo]

I found something that managed to give me some hope of a Quad-MBP/iMac. Take a look:

Link

Running with that a bit:
Link

How different are the iMac/Mac Mini chips from the notebook chips? If they both are mobile, couldn't they be placed in a MBP? This would give something for a Rev. B update before WWDC 09.

If the Digitimes rumour is correct, and I believe it is, then we should see quad core iMacs. If Intel haven't developed quad cores for all in ones, then there isn't much Apple can do. The iMac can use a custom desktop chipset if Apple want to and that's what the 9400 chipset was designed for anyway. The mini and MBP will continue to use mobile processors.

 

[BenRoethig]

I found something that managed to give me some hope of a Quad-MBP/iMac. Take a look:

Link

Running with that a bit:
Link

How different are the iMac/Mac Mini chips from the notebook chips? If they both are mobile, couldn't they be placed in a MBP? This would give something for a Rev. B update before WWDC 09.

The Mac Mini uses stock 35w mobile chips as did the iMac until the April revision. Those chips are 55w custom order chips sort of half way between mobile merom and desktop wolfdale chips.

 

[147798]

As a non-pro, I "upgraded" recently to a 20" 2.16 intel white imac. No interest in sub-par, glossy screens, and 24" is too big for my desk space. If they want to give more options and improve the screen colors and technology, I'll consider getting a new one.

I would, however, be much more interested in a mini that can drive a 1080p HDTV.

 

[mastershakess]

As a non-pro, I "upgraded" recently to a 20" 2.16 intel white imac. No interest in sub-par, glossy screens, and 24" is too big for my desk space. If they want to give more options and improve the screen colors and technology, I'll consider getting a new one.

I would, however, be much more interested in a mini that can drive a 1080p HDTV.

I love my glossy screen

 

[fleshman03]

If the Digitimes rumour is correct, and I believe it is, then we should see quad core iMacs. If Intel haven't developed quad cores for all in ones, then there isn't much Apple can do.

Well the problem with the DigiTimes report is that those chips aren't on the Intel roadmap. The Yorkfield chips flip the bill, but they are desktop units. Would they work in a iMac/Mac Mini? They are Quads.

As for notebooks, there are Penryn XE's. They would be 45nm and could work. But we're still in 2-core territory with those. Penryn QC might be a contender.

 

[Umbongo]

Well the problem with the DigiTimes report is that those chips aren't on the Intel roadmap.

I think when we consider Apple are the number one all in one manufacture (probably shipped over 3 million last year), Intel's relationship with Apple and Apple's secracy issues I think that these could be comming despite no roadmap information. I mean they are probably all going the three companies cited in the article anyway so it's not like Intel need to be making much of a deal about it.

I certainly wouldn't be suprised to see the iMacs using these with a desktop version (Socket 775) of the 9400 chipset in January.

 

[DYER]

Yes. It is ready to buy. From a PC vendor. And never from Apple.

Never ever ever under any circumstances use the word never
You may just regret it.

As for new imacs not too botherd but bring them on...

 

[rickdollar]

Mac Pro??

A little OT but...No Mac Pro rumors yet? It's nearly as overdue as the iMac. Sheesh.

On the Blu-Ray topic....It wasn't too long ago (about 10 years if I remember correctly) that every PC manufacturer was selling machines with built in CD burners and the Mac was almost 2 years behind in offering that option. I remember Jobs saying at one point that they "missed the boat with the CD burning." It was like, "duh". I remember having to pay $269 for an external 4x CD burner. I used a Mac. I had no choice.

It seems the same thing may be happening again with BR.

 

[Tallest Skil]

Never ever ever under any circumstances use the word never
You may just regret it.

Except that in no conceivable future do I see Apple using desktop chips in the iMac, thereby negating the possibility of the current Nehalem chips going into the next iMac.

And... whatever else he said. I don't remember.

A little OT but...No Mac Pro rumors yet? It's nearly as overdue as the iMac. Sheesh.

More overdue, actually. They won't be updated until late February at the earliest.

 

[winterspan]

I found something that managed to give me some hope of a Quad-MBP/iMac. Take a look:

Yeah a lowpower quadcore penryn is not unexpected. We were talking about intels nehalem/i7. In my mind it is ridiculous... We are talking about a $2000 'desktop' computer that still doesn't have a quadcore from the old generation of chips when PCs now have quadcore nehalems!! Penryn to nehalem is a big leap too... This is not merom->penryn...

 

[Umbongo]

A little OT but...No Mac Pro rumors yet? It's nearly as overdue as the iMac. Sheesh.

The processors they will use (Xeon 5500 series) are probably not comming until the end of March. So expect new Mac Pros from the middle of May to early June.

 

[Umbongo]

Yeah a lowpower quadcore penryn is not unexpected. We were talking about intels nehalem/i7. In my mind it is ridiculous... We are talking about a $2000 'desktop' computer that still doesn't have a quadcore from the old generation of chips when PCs now have quadcore nehalems!! Penryn to nehalem is a big leap too... This is not merom->penryn...

The iMacs aren't going to have the latest processors anytime soon unless the laws of physics suddenly change. They just put out too much heat.

 

[wizard]

IMac is certainly ready for an update!

Hi folks;

It should be obvious that iMac is ready for a major revision, the question is is intel ready with the required chips. If they aren't I would expect much more than a speed bump.

To me the key to a totally redesigned IMac is Intel having a suitable i7 processor available for release in Janurary. If not there is little reason for Apple to do more than a speed bump. I7 simply offers the incentive to go whole hog into the innovation cycle. Let's face it throwing a 9400M into an iMac and adding a slightly faster CPU isn't exactly going to fill people with excitement.

I still think the bigger revision will be the Mini. Of course that machine is so old just about any revision would look huge. Here a quad core and a 9400M are very likely along with some unexpected innovation.

In any event MWSF is very close and all this stuff is being offered up for the poorest month of the year.


Dave

 

[fleshman03]

The Mac Mini uses stock 35w mobile chips as did the iMac until the April revision. Those chips are 55w custom order chips sort of half way between mobile merom and desktop wolfdale chips.

Take a look at this one: Penryn QC-6M
Highlights are:

Four cores @ 2.0 GHz
6mb Cache
45W.
1333 MHz FSB (can throttle down to 1066 MHz)
$350
Release Date: 1Q 09


Maybe there was a special order of these. I could see Apple ordering these in 5,000 unit bulk and getting them for $200. There would need to be some special ordering to get them to 2.33, 2.4 and 2.5.

Or I could see those chips being used in the iMacs and the Penryn-3M in the Mac Mini. That has:

Two cores @ 2.53 GHz
3mb Cache
25W
1066 MHz FSB
$241
Release Date: 1Q 09

 

[BenEndeem]

Hopefully these rumours are right, I've been holding off buying an iMac and waiting for the next revision for quite a while.

 

[Tallest Skil]

...i7...

What part of "It's a desktop chip, it's too hot, and they don't use desktop chips." didn't you get?

 

[eastcoastsurfer]

I've heard that argument before. At first glance it sounds valid. But, then you have to realize that even "HD" downloads that we have today are uber-compressed 720p. Think of the bandwidth required for the bitrates you'll get from a full quality, Blu-ray movie... 1080p video with a kick-butt audio profile like DD+ 7.1.

When I can rent something of that quality for 99 cents to $1.99 from a kiosk at the grocery store on the corner and be done with it, why would I want to fuss with letting something download for hours, or more likely, days?

And you know what? When/if residential broadband does catch up with Blu-ray bit rates, a new format will exist that doubles or quadruples Blu-ray capability... and it will be back to playing catchup for broadband. And remember, even when major cities in places like America, Australia, etc. catch up, there are still plenty of rural areas that will lag because of cost and demand issues.

I hope you are right. I like Blu-Ray but it doesn't seem to be catching on with the masses. The idea of paying $30-35 for a new Blu-Ray where the new DVD is $15-20 just doesn't seem practical right now. Cheapest Blu-Ray player is $150ish? Where the cheapest DVD player maybe $20 or so.

Just doesn't seem like it is latching on to me.

For most people regular DVDs are good enough. I don't have stats handy, but I would guess that most of the HDTVs purchased are in the 32"-40" range. In that range 1080p makes very little visual difference, but often a huge price difference. If you want to talk about sound 7.1 surround, etc... isn't cheap either.

I'm not going to say that BR will never be adopted by the masses or that what we have now is all we'll ever need, but few people feel the push to go from DVD to BR like the push they had from VHS to DVD. The benefits aren't as large, the cost is more prohibitive, and there are many more ways to deliver content to the home now.

 

[fleshman03]

What part of "It's a desktop chip, it's too hot, and they don't use desktop chips." didn't you get?

I think it's the "desktop" part. iMacs are mobile so people tend not to think of them as using mobile chips.

 

[Bonte]

Jobs made it clear he had no interest in Blu-Ray

He said 'BlueRay is a pain'
He most probably meant the special software, DRM and licenses.

 

[wizard]

For the iMac i7 is exactly what it needs!

Yeah a lowpower quadcore penryn is not unexpected. We were talking about intels nehalem/i7. In my mind it is ridiculous...

It isn't rediculous if you consider that such a processor means a whole new generation iMac.

As to the constantly whined about heat yeah the are hot but no where as bad as the G5s. Notably they are very hot for the fastest models but Apple doesn't need the fastest in an IMac they only need faster than what they have today. Go i7 today and Apple can leverage Intels process improvements and shrinks for at least a couple of years. In any event the G5 was possible so an intel processor that uses less power overall is possible.

As to the cost in a $2000 computer it is managable and is not excessive compared to mobile CPUs. Plus we have to remember that Apple isn't paying list price or even 1000 piece lot prices for it's CPUs.

We are talking about a $2000 'desktop' computer that still doesn't have a quadcore from the old generation of chips when PCs now have quadcore nehalems!! Penryn to nehalem is a big leap too... This is not merom->penryn...

Well obviously if Apple wants to go quad core Penryn it can. Let's be honest though that is nothing more than a speed bump. Further if they go with Penryn and a 9400M as some have suggested just what will be the life span of that machine. Let's face it, the machine would hardly make it to summer before people start to complain about it's hardware.

In any event it is a stretch to go i7 but it does allow Apple to significantly overhaul the machines. Frankly the mechanical desgin really could use more work than the electronic. At times I really think Apple has swallowed a dumb pill when it comes to it's all in one products. For example why is the LCD screen not on a hinge to allow for quick and easy maintenance? From the standpoint of large companies this could make Apple hardware far more appealing. Even me as a lowly individual would rather have a desktop Mac that was easy to service. I know a major reconsideration on Apples part would be required but if we don't suggest they likely will never consider.


Dave

 

[Tallest Skil]

He said 'BlueRay is a pain'
He most probably meant the special software, DRM and licenses.

If that's all that he meant, we would have seen Blu-ray drives that could natively burn data disks in Macs back in 2005.

 

[fleshman03]

It isn't rediculous if you consider that such a processor means a whole new generation iMac.

As to the constantly whined about heat yeah the are hot but no where as bad as the G5s. Notably they are very hot for the fastest models but Apple doesn't need the fastest in an IMac they only need faster than what they have today. Go i7 today and Apple can leverage Intels process improvements and shrinks for at least a couple of years. In any event the G5 was possible so an intel processor that uses less power overall is possible.

As to the cost in a $2000 computer it is managable and is not excessive compared to mobile CPUs. Plus we have to remember that Apple isn't paying list price or even 1000 piece lot prices for it's CPUs.

Well obviously if Apple wants to go quad core Penryn it can. Let's be honest though that is nothing more than a speed bump. Further if they go with Penryn and a 9400M as some have suggested just what will be the life span of that machine. Let's face it, the machine would hardly make it to summer before people start to complain about it's hardware.

In any event it is a stretch to go i7 but it does allow Apple to significantly overhaul the machines. Frankly the mechanical desgin really could use more work than the electronic. At times I really think Apple has swallowed a dumb pill when it comes to it's all in one products. For example why is the LCD screen not on a hinge to allow for quick and easy maintenance? From the standpoint of large companies this could make Apple hardware far more appealing. Even me as a lowly individual would rather have a desktop Mac that was easy to service. I know a major reconsideration on Apples part would be required but if we don't suggest they likely will never consider.


Dave

What notebook chipsets would support an i7 chip?