Power vs Size

Discussion in 'iMac' started by jgbhardy, Apr 1, 2009.

?

Power vs Size

  1. I'm satisfied with the current size and power

    10 vote(s)
    27.0%
  2. I want a better CPU and don't mind the imac being slightly bigger

    24 vote(s)
    64.9%
  3. I want the imac to be even thinner

    3 vote(s)
    8.1%
  1. jgbhardy macrumors 6502

    jgbhardy

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2008
    Location:
    England
    #1
    How many people would rather have an imac that was a few cm's thicker to allow for a better cooling system, thus allowing to have better CPUs, e.g. the i7.
    It is most likely that Apple would never make a product thicker (what with the obsession over thinness) but it would good to get an overview of what people would like?
     
  2. Tallest Skil macrumors P6

    Tallest Skil

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2006
    Location:
    1 Geostationary Tower Plaza
    #2
    *presses button that raises ten thousand hands simultaneously*

    Yep, that'd do. They could go back to the thickness of the white G5 iMac and put Bloomfield in there.
     
  3. dukebound85 macrumors P6

    dukebound85

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2005
    Location:
    5045 feet above sea level
    #3
    yea id love to have better cpus in the imac at the expense of thickness
     
  4. Prabz26 macrumors regular

    Prabz26

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2009
    Location:
    Toronto, Canada
    #4
    that would be awesome:)

    but i assume that Apple
    tend to make things
    thinner nut larger thickness wise

    i mean they take up little space anyway compared to any PC
    cuz theres no Tower

    but i hope they did or would:rolleyes:
     
  5. Tallest Skil macrumors P6

    Tallest Skil

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2006
    Location:
    1 Geostationary Tower Plaza
    #5
    Dude... not even today.:p

    At least Cassie's was tasteful and readable. :D
     
  6. ~Shard~ macrumors P6

    ~Shard~

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2003
    Location:
    1123.6536.5321
    #6
    I understand the need for a thin, lightweight machine when you're dealing with laptops. However when it comes to desktops, I'd rather have more power, better cooling and easier accessibility for upgrades than a machine which is designed with the smallest footprint possible in mind and therefore uses mobile, not desktop components. I'm definitely willing to sacrifice size for power when it comes to my iMac.
     
  7. bchreng macrumors 65816

    bchreng

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2005
    #7
    You're forgetting about the Mac Pro! CPU aside, it's about as powerful as most custom-built gaming PCs.
     
  8. dukebound85 macrumors P6

    dukebound85

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2005
    Location:
    5045 feet above sea level
    #8
    and 4 times the cost!!!!! woohoooooooo!
     
  9. jgbhardy thread starter macrumors 6502

    jgbhardy

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2008
    Location:
    England
    #9
    :)

    Glad to see such as quick response and similarly held view about this.

    The Mac Pro is not an option for a lot of people due to cost, considering the imac is a Desktop, and not exactly that portable anyway, they should be using desktop CPU's :rolleyes:
     
  10. Prabz26 macrumors regular

    Prabz26

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2009
    Location:
    Toronto, Canada
    #10
    lol true

    im juss saying there's eventually a point
    where thin and small should stop

    like wtf is the new Shuffle peice of garbage imo
     
  11. iMacmatician macrumors 601

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2008
    #11
    From more power to less power…

    Apple could have improved the cooling of the iMacs (or at least the 24") to put the 65 W desktop quad core CPUs in (3.07 GHz mobile Penryn was 55 W).

    Apple could have put quad cores in the higher-end iMacs, which give more performance (in multi-threaded applications).

    Apple could have put the 2.53 GHz quad core as a BTO option, since people may still want the higher single-threaded performance of dual-core.

    Apple could have asked Intel to give them a 55 W 3.2 GHz dual core, like they did the last update (except it was 3.07 GHz).

    But they didn't. Conclusion? The iMac doesn't need to be that powerful in CPU. :rolleyes:
     
  12. ditzy macrumors 68000

    ditzy

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2007
    #12
    Please say that you using this colour as an April fool gag! :eek:
     
  13. bchreng macrumors 65816

    bchreng

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2005
    #13
    I'd love to see Apple release a low end Mac Pro that uses a C2D CPU. Of course, that's not thinking differently and Apple will likely never release such a thing. :(
     
  14. ~Shard~ macrumors P6

    ~Shard~

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2003
    Location:
    1123.6536.5321
    #15
    Although I know they will eventually head that way, technology being what it is, I still don't see why desktops would need to be much tihinner than the iMac. It's a desktop, it's not meant to be portable, and by making it thin you run into cooling issues and are required to use mobile/lower horsepower components. I'd sacrifice a couple inches if it meant true desktop hardware inside which was easier to access and upgrade (specifically HDD, opttical drive and GPU)
     
  15. flopticalcube macrumors G4

    flopticalcube

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2006
    Location:
    In the velcro closure of America's Hat
    #16
    Pretty much agree with most. The white iMac thickness would be fine (even slightly thicker) if it would mean:

    A) Desktop CPU
    B) Desktop, Replaceable GPU
    C) Easy Replaceable HD

    or any combo of the above.
     
  16. Hellhammer Moderator

    Hellhammer

    Staff Member

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2008
    Location:
    Finland
    #17
    +1!

    Why desktops have to be thin? I have only cables behind my iMac and at least 30cm of free space.
     
  17. kastenbrust macrumors 68030

    kastenbrust

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2008
    Location:
    North Korea
    #18
    Am i missing something? I thought the whole point was Intel processors are getting smaller, using less power, emitting less heat and getting smaller? So surely its more logical to want/predict a thinner iMac and even MORE powerful CPU?

    Theres other reasons for the iMac to ue a notebook architecure anyway other than size, such as component costing etc which is why Apple haven't made them slightly thicker to adpot i7's.
     
  18. JeepGuy macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Location:
    Barrie
    #19
    Yeah but with dual quad cores !!
     
  19. ~Shard~ macrumors P6

    ~Shard~

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2003
    Location:
    1123.6536.5321
    #20
    That is all well and good but there is a difference between more powerful mobile CPUs and more powerful desktop CPUs - again, I'd rather have the increased performance which desktop chipsets can bring over mobile ones - this gets back to the whole Merom vs Conroe debate.

    Thinner is fine as long as other factors aren't compromised in the process. Regardless though, there is always the desire by many for better user-accessibility which only comes which larger enclosures and then flows into the whole "headless xMac" debate. ;) :cool:
     

Share This Page