Don't they have better things to worry about?
I totally expect the new iMacs to have the new quad-core processors. And hopefully, Apple will receive ample supply of them for their launch next week to have them available upon announcement.
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.
Next-Generation iMac: Quad-Core Processors? No Blu-Ray?
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I totally expect the new iMacs to have the new quad-core processors. And hopefully, Apple will receive ample supply of them for their launch next week to have them available upon announcement.
That's not what I'm saying at all.
What I'm saying is that people aren't flocking to replace all of their DVDs (like they did with VHS tapes) with Blu-ray. And that was what drove the DVD industry. But a lot has changed since then. DVRs, OnDemand and HD content available else where is hurting Blu-ray. As well as improved bandwidth.
One thing I don't understand, is why they call it 1.73, when its 2.00 at four cores... what circumstance does it equal 1.73 then? When all 8 SMT are firing?
There's only a Turbo bin at all four cores if there's enough of a thermal overhead to allow it. The processor will otherwise run at the base clock speed with all four cores.
Some applications use different portions of the core differently so there will be overhead left to add clock speed. With others you'll be limited to the base clock due to the heat.
In the latest version of my Gigabyte P55M-UD2 BIOS on my desktop it will just force the Turbo bins regardless now. Keeping my Core i5 750 cool at stock is a joke though. The base will be the same but at full load it will just force the bin. Your EFI/BIOS can force those multipliers but the processor has the final say if things get too hot in the end.
I wouldn't force the Turbo bin on a notebook/thin all-in-one.
Actually. I was not aware about that. I didn't know the clock speeds increased. well then. BRING ON THE QUADS
I wonder how often it actually dips below 2 Ghz in practice.
On one hand sub 2 Ghz performance is scary, otoh, if there is really that much 4 core traffic that means a lot of parallelism is present which is a good thing.
Hey I very much agree with you. The blu-ray industry and the download industry hasn't really tried to take any real advantages they have and try to put it to use. Funny thing is, some movies still look decent unconverted like comedies and some dramas.
I'm on Comcast and have a 250 gig cap, so that's easily 5 blu-rays at full quality being downloaded over some time. Let alone even if I have a TB of hard drive space to put them to, 20 movies only? I honestly can't wait for content on demand, I have quite a few of my DVDs fully ripped to a server and access them, its DAMN convenient. Hopefully one day we'll get there for full HD with supplements. If we just settle for a movie with sub par 720p processing, the industry isn't going to have any motivation to innovate.
Still the adoption rate of blu-ray is constantly increasing. I don't know if studios are ready now to have all the servers to meet the demand of everyone to deliver a 50 gig movie (yes I know there are special features included but hey I want everything). Blu-ray is also slowly paving the road to the download age with its internet connectivity. So until bandwidth caps, and actual speed jump up tremendously, disc based media will always be ahead in terms of AV quality. (and at the speed of innovation, the roadblocks of content on demand need to increase a lot more).
When the roadblocks are gone, and digital downloads become clearly better in terms of quality, I'll jump and so will the average consumer. I know Apple doesn't want blu ray to compete with its iTunes service. I'm just surprised that they don't give you the choice, or at least allow watching. With the increase in HD video camcorders, I'd like to be able to put that content somewhere.
There are probably plenty of people that would like blu-ray to at least make it an option.
Almost all PCs being sold today have blu-ray as an option.
Apple could do it easily if they wanted to, and it is just lame that they haven't. Just because you might not want it doesn't mean that there aren't a lot of others that do.
Almost all PCs being sold today have blu-ray as an option.
Apple could do it easily if they wanted to, and it is just lame that they haven't. Just because you might not want it doesn't mean that there aren't a lot of others that do.
Snow leopard has come.
New laptops have come
new desktops soon to come
NO BLU-RAY
this is getting ridiculous. i really used to love Apple, a leader in technology and innovation, now it feels like the blinders are on and they don't want customers to be able to choose.
Cmon Apple, give us blu-ray. let your customers decide
New laptops have come
new desktops soon to come
NO BLU-RAY
this is getting ridiculous. i really used to love Apple, a leader in technology and innovation, now it feels like the blinders are on and they don't want customers to be able to choose.
Cmon Apple, give us blu-ray. let your customers decide
If you ever look at your process list you probably have more than 30 things running at once.
CPUID's TMonitor Beta under Windows is the only application that I know of that can monitor the clocks and the Turbo bins.
Why go with mobile processors? The Lynnfield i5 and i7 are cheaper. Sure the Clarksfields only use 45w (55w for 2GHz) compared to the current processors at 65w, but even at 95w the Lynnfields should still be a better choice. The 1.6GHz (2.8GHz max) Clarksfield costs $364, 1.73GHz (3.066GHz) costs $546, and 2.0GHz (3.2GHz) costs $1054. Now compare that to the Lynnfield: i7-870 2.93GHz (3.6GHz max) for $562, i7-860 2.80GHz (3.46GHz) for $284, and i5-750 2.66GHz (3.2GHz) for $196.
Because Apple has to use the lower Thermal Design Points (TDP) for the thin enclosure that is used with the iMacs. Also, a lower TDP means that you don't have to run the fans as often or as hard. By all accounts, the Core 2 Duos used in the current iMacs have a TDP of between 35W and 44W. Thus, to keep the current design they need to stay fairly close to those numbers and the Core i7 Mobile 720QM and 820QM are the only quad-core processors that can achieve those numbers.
Well, we dont know what the current iMac design can handle. It could very well be able to take the 920QM in the 24 model.
Not to mention, there are so many minor things they could do to increase the chassiss maximum TDP (different cable and component placement, additional vents, different fans, etc).
I wouldnt count anything out at this point.
Completely wrong. Windows 7 plays back and can edit AVCHD completely smoothly (and Vista can edit it great as well). It destroys OSX in this area, and it's embarrassing for Apple (especially when they tried to tell people they eliminated firewire on the old macbooks because most video cameras are USB now...why can't we edit the usb based video then?!)
I'd agree that it could be possible to put the 920XM in a redesigned iMac (55W TDP), but as many have previously noted it would be far too expensive at $1054 per processor. Thus, regardless of TDP it seems like the 720QM and 820QM are the only reasonable choices.
It's worth noting, however, that the new PM55 chipset that would be mated with the Core i7 Mobile designs only adds 3.5W to the system TDP. This is in contrast to the Intel chip set used with the Core 2 Duo systems that adds 9.5W. Thus, we have the following from one of my previous posts:
Give the above we can add this to the mix:
Core i7 Mobile 920XM + PCH = 58.5W
But that price, wow! I'd guess that at best a 24" iMac with a 920XM BTO would be around $2700 (more likely nearing $3000).
Umm, I think you'll find that if your software is multicore aware it will use all cores. Programmers don't generally make their software only use 2 cores on a quad core 'just in case' you need to use other software on the other two cores.
Wrong. There is no real benefit to HD if you sit further than 4 screen heights away from the screen. Any further than that and the advantages of HD disappear. That's why technologies in development that offer even higher resolution than current HD are a bit pointless on all but the most massive of screens. You'd have to sit with your face up to the screen to see the benefit.
Too few to make it worth it? You mean like pretty much everyone who professionally edits on a Mac with FCP? Sure I could buy a burner, but the only software that allows me to properly design a BluRay disc with full menus and features is Adobe CS4. I already have FCS, so why would I want to spend all that money on the CS4 suite just to get one piece of software, Adobe Encore?
Even Sony Vegas allows BluRay disc creation. All the FCP has now is a really basic video only burn option. To be frank it is pathetic and completely removes any ability for FCP users to compete with others in their market who offer BluRay mastering.
Take it easy with that font size. There is a limited amount of black coulor in the macrumors paint pot. You have to use it sparingly otherwise the other members won't be able to answer your question
Take it easy with that font size. There is a limited amount of black coulor in the macrumors paint pot. You have to use it sparingly otherwise the other members won't be able to answer your question
Oh great its almost ran out.