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.
Quad-Core iMac
- Thread starter mashinhead
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Don't think so ....... the heat would probably be too much in such an enclosed space. (I could be wrong, I usually am
)
Zero. Unless they've developed Quad - core mobile processors.
EDIT: Which apparently they are doing, but as already stated they have heat issues.
I'd say slim to none. First off, where are they going to put the heat sinks? There is a reason why the iMac uses the mobile chips- Yonah and Merom, and that is heat discipation, and no need for major heat sinks. It also allows them to make the computer thin and slick. Second of all, what exactly is a cosumer going to need 4 cores for? Surfing the web? Playing around with iPhoto? If you are a pro, then you will need the expandibility of a MacPro, and thus you will invest in one, rather than settle for an all-in-one.
I think the iMac is subject the to same limitations that the Powerbook and now MBP have. There just isn't a way to really distribute the heat safely so that the machine isn't a firecracker of heat. In truth, a quad core imac 24" seems like it would be that so-called mid-range tower that everyone is looking for though the overall design would be the imac.
I doubt people are seeking a specific design (perhaps I am wrong) but they're seeking something that is in-between the iMac and the Mac Pro that would perform and yet not be too much. Something in the $2000 range maxed out would really be great for a pro-sumer model of those advanced amateur photographers and designers alike. While I could really see a Mac Pro in my near future, I am hesitant to really drop $3-$4k on a computer that is not even maxed out with all the great features
has to offer.
I doubt people are seeking a specific design (perhaps I am wrong) but they're seeking something that is in-between the iMac and the Mac Pro that would perform and yet not be too much. Something in the $2000 range maxed out would really be great for a pro-sumer model of those advanced amateur photographers and designers alike. While I could really see a Mac Pro in my near future, I am hesitant to really drop $3-$4k on a computer that is not even maxed out with all the great features
has to offer.
I don't see how we can't get a Quad into an iMac.
Let's remember we were able to fit a G5 into that same enclosure...
Let's remember we were able to fit a G5 into that same enclosure...
The G5 design was actually a bit thicker to accomodate the G5, but they thinned it out a bit for the CD/C2D design.
The G5 design was actually a bit thicker to accomodate the G5, but they thinned it out a bit for the CD/C2D design.
The last revision of the G5 remained the same when the transformation to Intel took place.
David
The iMac could handle it perfectly if it were based on the conroe desktop chip. Until there is a mobile quad core it will never happen though.
Also despite what anyone says, the desktop C2D is actually quite cool running. It wouldn't be a problem for the iMac.
Also despite what anyone says, the desktop C2D is actually quite cool running. It wouldn't be a problem for the iMac.
Personally, I wouldn't care if it was a little thicker in order to accomodate options/upgrades such as dual drives, Quad core, etc. However, this would drive the price up on something that is already out of range for a lot of people. Maybe. I think Macs are too expensive. But I'll still buy one.
It's true what someone said about "What do most consumers actually do..etc" but for me, I hope to buy a new mac that will still be useful, reasonable fast, and still be working long after applecare runs out. I want and hope to "future-proof" somewhat by buying something that has all the current bells and whistles. I could but a 24 imac now, but I would hate to be cringing in two months time every time I log on here.
That, and I've been renewing my interest in video and music, and hey, why not get something that is more than you need, rather than have something that you outgrow quickly?
And what jessica said.
It's true what someone said about "What do most consumers actually do..etc" but for me, I hope to buy a new mac that will still be useful, reasonable fast, and still be working long after applecare runs out. I want and hope to "future-proof" somewhat by buying something that has all the current bells and whistles. I could but a 24 imac now, but I would hate to be cringing in two months time every time I log on here.
That, and I've been renewing my interest in video and music, and hey, why not get something that is more than you need, rather than have something that you outgrow quickly?
And what jessica said.
Don't think so ....... the heat would probably be too much in such an enclosed space. (I could be wrong, I usually am
They could do it...the iMac G5 was a hot chip. But Apple wants a nice looks, low noise, Mac...not one that will slow sales of the Mac Pro
Right now the iMac is a LAPTOP in a desktop configuration.
So you are limited to what can be used in laptops.
When Apple adds a desktop chipset to the lineup, it will plug a lot of holes between the laptop- and workstation-based machines.
Until then, you can dream ... or try hacking a C2D Centrino laptop to Quad core.
>mashinhead
Basically, you are asking what the chances Apple will switch to a desktop chipset for the iMacs.
Which will likely happen, but maybe not this next generation.
In order to grow their sales they will have to add some more machines and adding a true desktop for that gamer demographic will be something they will try -- which should mean a desktop-based iMac.
I disagree, what we are asking is will Apple not only start using a desktop chip, but will the pick one that is a Quad Core Chip.
A high end Conroe, which IMO is even less likely then Apple using a Dual Core Conroe, since the Quad core wouldn't cut prices, will the Dual core Conroe would cut cost for Apple, and still possibily get a speed increase(worse case would be the same speed)
When Apple makes the desktop switch, it may end up quad core in almost every machine -- except the education and Mini models.
50W TDP Clovertown processors are available. The iMac can handle that amount of heat but you're get a lot more fan noise.
You'd just need Intel to provide it in Socket M/P configurations.
You'd just need Intel to provide it in Socket M/P configurations.
I would be all over that especially since, "These processors can be coupled with Intel's existing "Bensley" server platform and have been designed to be "drop-in" compatible with the existing Dual-Core and Quad-Core Intel Xeon processor families."
here: http://www.intel.com/pressroom/archive/releases/20070312comp.htm
There wouldn't that much of an increase in fan noise. After all, the current chips are about 35 W, and that is only "maximum" spec. The quad-core chips at idle only draw marginally power power than dual-core desktop chips in testing. It's only at maximum CPU usage that it draws noticeably more.
It'd be much more noisy at 100% load then Yonah and Merom. I know the fans can hit 5000 RPM inside the iMac. I've never seen them go over 2000 though.
How far does Xeon clock down in when idle?
