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 spencecb
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
DoFoT9
macrumors P6
The current mac mini/imac/macbook processors are in the 35w range; current desktop and server processors are in the 80-130w range.
Intel's ULV mobile processors are in the 5-10w range.
The current low voltage Xeons are rated around 50w.
From what I can tell, the earliest "low voltage" Xeon was the "Prestonia" which was based on Netburst tech and was rated at 35-40w back in 2003.
It appears that what Intel calls "low voltage" depends the comparison to its normal bretheren, so the low voltage Xeon is close to the same TDP as a normal mobile Core 2 Duo. Of course, I'm just parroting what I found on Wikipedia.
Eidorian
macrumors Penryn
I'll just ignore all the $80 G33 motherboards then that are capable of supporting 8 GB.
It's not terribly expensive to get 8 GB of DDR2 RAM at this time. I got 4 GB for $80 for my laptop.
Father Jack
macrumors 68020
My point was that people needing 8 Gb of ram (usually pro's or very serious image / video editors) are most unlikely to choose an iMac even if it was capable of taking that amount of ram.
Eidorian
macrumors Penryn
Am I a professional with 4 GB or does it need to be 8 GB? We'll all have a laugh when Macs come with 8 GB of RAM stock.
Father Jack
macrumors 68020
For what? LOL
I can't see the iMac ever being thought of as a serious rival for the Mac Pro. (especially with it's glossy screen and the heat problem, and I don't just mean from the processor)
Father Jack
macrumors 68020
DoFoT9
macrumors P6
bluedoggiant
macrumors 68030
1gb stock has been around for a while, so it cant jump to 8gb when 4gb is barely in, 2gb is it now. i can see 8gb stock in 2015.
DoFoT9
macrumors P6
Eidorian
macrumors Penryn
Apple is still behind the curve. 3-4 GB is standard for other PC manufactuers. 😛
bluedoggiant
macrumors 68030
I know that, thats why i said 4gb is barely in, its there, but barely, a lot of pc's actually use 2-3gb, 4gb is rare, from what i see, but i think apple needs to step it up on the MP and make the standard 4gb, that just seems like a given.
Sorry for the late reply, but I get into some trouble RAM-wise now on my MBP with 4Gb running Parallels, Aperture and some other programs (Safari, Mail, iTunes, etc.).
So hardly "pro" apps, I wonder what will happen if I also want to run FCE next to that. Call me lazy, but I like to have a lot of apps open at the same time.
The processor is not the problem though, that still runs lower than 200%, unless I start scrolling really fast through RAW images in Aperture. Tried that on a MacBook also and the lack of separate videocard really showed up in the fact that the processor was running high much more often.
For the other reactions: yes, a Mac Pro 1xquad would suit my needs much better than a maxed-out iMac, for about the same price. Somehow the possibility to upgrade to 32Gb of RAM (around 2500) and 4TB (around 900) of storage in one box seems much more future-proof than having a computer that's already at its limit when you buy it. I remember my old iMac G3 that is still usuable nowadays due to the (then) high amount of RAM, 768Mb if I'm not mistaken.
DoFoT9
macrumors P6
yes it is 768mb, i believe it originally came with 128mb?? mine did anyway. i really wish apple would still have the more expandability options, in terms of cpu/gpu/RAM anyways. the HD is easy. it kinda peeved me off when i maxed out my gpu/RAM on my mbp when i bought it. bit depressing.
Intel just announced a quad-core mobile chip due out this fall with less heat and power requirements than the current duel-core. It's only $190 more than the 2.8 extreme and perfect for the top end BTO iMac. I'm sure you'll see it happen, so this new chip blows your analysis to hell.