Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
and of course... apple wont replace all their laptops with quad-core at the same time!!

they will leave the base/mid range MBPs as duals, and the high end 15"/17" as Quad.
Hopefully Apple does this or at least uses better CPUs on the MacBook Pro since the 13" MacBook Pro is using OEM and $200 CPUs, and Sandy Bridge may or may not go down that far.

The other thing I'm wondering is why the iMac doesn't even have an option for a quad-core.
 
Hopefully Apple does this or at least uses better CPUs on the MacBook Pro since the 13" MacBook Pro is using OEM and $200 CPUs, and Sandy Bridge may or may not go down that far.

hopefully! could you imagine the price increase??

The other thing I'm wondering is why the iMac doesn't even have an option for a quad-core.

impedes too much on the base MP? would the performance be comparable??

come to think of it:: i wouldnt mind this..

a high end iMac, its performance of CPU goes past the base MP by a tiny bit, that way if people want a small desk machine they could (for a price of course), and if they need the expandability of the MP they could do that for a tad less....eh
 
impedes too much on the base MP? would the performance be comparable??
The Mac Pro would still have a higher clock speed and a better microarchitecture, so I think there would still be a significant gap. Also, having the 2.27 GHz as BTO instead of the 2.53 GHz would increase the performance gap between it and the Mac Pro while still being ahead of the 2.93/3.07 GHz dual-core in multithreaded tasks.

come to think of it:: i wouldnt mind this..
Neither would I. That's one thing I like about the current Mac Pro, it has clock speed options within core count options. It's not a straight line unlike with most other specs.

Code:
Expandability
|
|    Mac Pro 4C    Mac Pro 8C
|
|
|
|iMac  iMac Pro
 ----------------- Performance

Core count (multithreaded performance)
|
|8C 2.27  8C 2.67  8C 2.93
|
|
|
|         4C 2.67  4C 2.93
 ----------------- Clock speed (single-threaded performance)
 
The Mac Pro would still have a higher clock speed and a better microarchitecture, so I think there would still be a significant gap. Also, having the 2.27 GHz as BTO instead of the 2.53 GHz would increase the performance gap between it and the Mac Pro while still being ahead of the 2.93/3.07 GHz dual-core in multithreaded tasks.

ahh yes true good point! the fact that the MP has a higher cache and faster FSB (because it has no FSB ;)) would really give it that "pro" feel even though there are the same amount of cores.

Neither would I. That's one thing I like about the current Mac Pro, it has clock speed options within core count options. It's not a straight line unlike with most other specs.

could you explain this a tad more?? my brain cant comprehend that at this hour!

Code:
Expandability
|
|    Mac Pro 4C    Mac Pro 8C
|
|
|
|iMac  iMac Pro
 ----------------- Performance

Core count (multithreaded performance)
|
|8C 2.27  8C 2.67  8C 2.93
|
|
|
|         4C 2.67  4C 2.93
 ----------------- Clock speed (single-threaded performance)

im not following that diagram AT ALL.. hahaha
 
Why is it impossible to use desktop cpu's? Didn't they do that with the G5 imac? (Still have one of those, and yes it's hot, but it still works after all those years)

With some new cooling tech, they could do it if they wanted to.

I'm tempted to make a comparison between apple's computer designs and the fashion industry....where both seem to place their primary emphasis on having thin, almost gaunt, models.

It's reminiscent of a David Spade Hollywood Minute bit on SNL where he suggests letting fashion designers choose male models and letting all the straight men choose the ladies...
 
could you explain this a tad more?? my brain cant comprehend that at this hour!
You can choose how many cores you want (4 or 8) and then what clock speed you want the cores to be at (2.67 GHz or 2.93 GHz, plus 2.27 GHz 8-core). So you can go for a lower-clocked 8-core for multithreaded applications, a higher-clocked 4-core for single-threaded applications, or a higher-clocked 8-core for the best of both worlds.

Previous Mac Pros (and the Power Mac G5) didn't offer you this kind of choice. As you moved up in price, both clock speeds and core counts increased. For example, the 2008 Mac Pro.

2.8 GHz 4-core
2.8 GHz 8-core
3.0 GHz 8-core
3.2 GHz 8-core

If you want a higher clock speed than 2.8 GHz, you can only go for an 8-core model. And you can't have a lower clock speed for an 8-core than 2.8 GHz.

The charts visually represent these points.

The first one gives performance on the horizontal axis and expandability on the vertical axis. So as you go further right, you get more performance, and as you go further up, you get more expandability. The iMac is quite low on both axes since it doesn't have much performance or expandability. The 4-core Mac Pro (4C) is high on the expandability axis since it has a lot of expandability, but is a bit on the left side on the performance axis (more performance than the iMac though). The "iMac Pro" still has low expandability like the iMac, but since it is a bit further to the right on the performance axis than the 4-core Mac Pro, it has more performance than the 4-core Mac Pro. The 8-core Mac Pro (8C) is high on the expandability axis and is to the far right on the performance axis, which means that it has a lot of performance and expandability.

So, if you wanted performance but not much expandability, you'd go for the iMac Pro, and if you wanted expandability but not much performance, you'd go for the 4-core Mac Pro. That was what you were talking about in post #28 (I decided to expand on it).

If you start with the lowest performance and expandability (iMac), you have the choice to move up or to the right depending on whether you wanted more expandability or more performance.

The second chart is the same thing, except that now clock speed (related to single-threaded performance) is on the horizontal axis and core count (related to multithreaded performance) is on the vertical axis.

Starting at the lowest priced one (4-core 2.67 GHz), you can move up, to the right, or to the upper-left depending on how much single-threaded and multithreaded performance you wanted. With the 2008 Mac Pro, there is only one direction you can go from the 4-core 2.8 GHz, and that is up.
Code:
Core count (multithreaded performance)
|
|8C 2.8   8C 3.0   8C 3.2
|
|
|
|4C 2.8
 ----------------- Clock speed (single-threaded performance)
If my explanation made it more complicated (as I often do), then I apologize… :eek:
 
Interesting post from another forum:

Nehalem running at 70W is roughly equal to a Penryn running at 55W because the Penryn also needs a northbridge chip that can consume 10-15W. It wouldn't take much re-design for Apple to squeeze an 80W CPU into the iMac.

Apple is currently using the T9900 (3.06GHz dual core, 2 threads) in the top iMac. It has a list price of $530. That's a lot of money to pay for a CPU particularly when it requires the manufacturer to buy the accompanying northbridge to go with it.

If you look at the Intel price list you'll find a pair of Nehalem based Xeon chips with a list price of $530. The E5530 (2.4GHz quad core, 8 threads) draws 80W while the L5520 (2.26GHz quad core, 8 threads) draws only 60W and would easily fit into the existing iMac case.

The iMac already offers discrete graphics in all but one model so moving from the 9400M to an X58 based motherboard wouldn't be a big deal (the low end iMacs would be sticking with dual core Penryn chips for a while anyway) and might wind up costing less than the current architecture.

Convincing users that a 2.26GHz 8 thread processor is better than a 3.06GHz 2 thread one would be a heck of a lot easier than trying to sell a 1.73GHz 4 thread one as an improvement.

So Apple, Intel makes the chip you need at a price you can afford. What's the hold-up?

http://macsimumnews.com/macosgforums/viewtopic.php?p=101786#p101786
 

iMac does not have T9900... It's E8435. Clarkdale, hmm, with redesign yes, but I'm still little suspicious because then Apple would use Clarkdale in high-end and Arrandale in low mid iMacs. That makes no sense! Making a redesign and then putting desktop CPU to high-end and very low TDP Arrandale to other models. And socket is different also which means that it needs its own logic board, same with Nehalem Xeons.
 
iMac does not have T9900... It's E8435. Clarkdale, hmm, with redesign yes, but I'm still little suspicious because then Apple would use Clarkdale in high-end and Arrandale in low mid iMacs. That makes no sense! Making a redesign and then putting desktop CPU to high-end and very low TDP Arrandale to other models. And socket is different also which means that it needs its own logic board, same with Nehalem Xeons.

Well, same thing, according to wikipedia the E8435 first revision (2008 used in the imac) had 55w, only the revision this year has 45w.
 

Nehalem running at 70W is roughly equal to a Penryn running at 55W because the Penryn also needs a northbridge chip that can consume 10-15W. It wouldn't take much re-design for Apple to squeeze an 80W CPU into the iMac.
Thank you for the northbridge TDP. I suspected this a while ago but didn't mention it until I could get precise numbers.

iMac does not have T9900... It's E8435. Clarkdale, hmm, with redesign yes, but I'm still little suspicious because then Apple would use Clarkdale in high-end and Arrandale in low mid iMacs. That makes no sense! Making a redesign and then putting desktop CPU to high-end and very low TDP Arrandale to other models. And socket is different also which means that it needs its own logic board, same with Nehalem Xeons.
Reminds me of the 65 W desktop Penryns in the iMac speculation early this year. We all know how that turned out…

I think it's just a question of whether or not Apple wants to go the extra step(s). With overclocked "special" CPUs. With quad-core. With 65 W desktop quad-core. With different boards. With Xeons. And after the last CPU bump, I'm not being too optimistic.

On the other hand, if we see a 28" iMac (or another large iMac), that would mean more room for cooling which could mean a faster and hotter processor.
 
Thank you for the northbridge TDP. I suspected this a while ago but didn't mention it until I could get precise numbers.

Reminds me of the 65 W desktop Penryns in the iMac speculation early this year. We all know how that turned out…

I think it's just a question of whether or not Apple wants to go the extra step(s). With overclocked "special" CPUs. With quad-core. With 65 W desktop quad-core. With different boards. With Xeons. And after the last CPU bump, I'm not being too optimistic.

On the other hand, if we see a 28" iMac (or another large iMac), that would mean more room for cooling which could mean a faster and hotter processor.

65W desktop quads would be awesome but looks like Apple likes "mobile iMac". QxxxxS series were available before March update and Apple chose against them. And I think Apple wants some kinda special CPUs, so all models could use the same logic board. Xeons are out of discussion in my opinion. No way Apple would use server grade CPUs in their consumer level desktop. If bigger iMac exist, it's 30" because 28" is 1920x1200 so it's basically 24". The worst thing is, nobody here knows what Apple is going to do :confused:
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.