Rumored iMac refresh..

Discussion in 'iMac' started by 76ShovelHead, Mar 31, 2011.

  1. 76ShovelHead macrumors 6502a

    76ShovelHead

    Joined:
    May 30, 2010
    Location:
    Florida
    #1
    I just read about the rumored iMac Refresh, and how they will have Intel Sandy Bridge. But what disappoints me is that, Apple's going lower on their clock speeds. Seriously, what use is a Quad Core i7 running at only 2.3 Ghz? And that will be the high end 27 inch. They also did this in the Macbook Pro line up. You'd think they would go with 3 Ghz by now, in fact they used to have 3.06 Ghz iMacs. It's just making it easier and easier to just want to Install Mac OS X on deserving hardware rather than paying a premium for theirs. As it is, My PC is running 10.5.8 with an OC'd processor (You can't do that with a mac) and it's lightning fast compared to Windows 7.
     
  2. Hellhammer Moderator

    Hellhammer

    Staff Member

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2008
    Location:
    Finland
    #3
    MBPs use mobile CPUs, thus the low clock speed. iMacs use desktop chips and will likely go up to 3.4GHz (Core i7-2600).
     
  3. 76ShovelHead thread starter macrumors 6502a

    76ShovelHead

    Joined:
    May 30, 2010
    Location:
    Florida
  4. iMikeT macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2006
    Location:
    California
    #5

    Uh ok, good for you? Are we supposed to be impressed? :confused:
     
  5. bellman macrumors member

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2011
  6. 76ShovelHead thread starter macrumors 6502a

    76ShovelHead

    Joined:
    May 30, 2010
    Location:
    Florida
    #7
    No, just making an observation. Windows 7 seems to drain all my Ram.
     
  7. cinek macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2011
    #8
    can't see that happening....... sandy bridge temps are excellent (I get around 30*C), no need to underclock the cpu......

    I hope you have more then 1GB :cool:
     
  8. profets macrumors 68040

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2009
    #9
    You do understand what Windows 7 is doing right? Instead of letting unused ram sit idle it caches most of it and has it ready with data from the disk that would most likely be needed based on previous usage patterns.
     
  9. coolspot18 macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2010
    Location:
    Canada
    #10
    Windows 7 IS supposed to drain all your ram - it's loading all the data into its memory cache. Working as expected - you'll notice applications should open up very quickly.

    The memory cache works best with at least 4GB of RAM, ideally 8GB or more.
     
  10. CaoCao macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2010
    #11
    The iMac is probably going to have the 3.4 GHz i7-2600 as the max
     
  11. themac23 macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2011
    #12
    Do you need more than what you have? For what?

    Do you not realize that the new Macbook Pros will smoke most desktop PC's on the market? That's right. We are getting to a point where most people aren't going to notice a difference between lasts years unit and this years unit. You can only get so fast for certain tasks.
     
  12. 76ShovelHead thread starter macrumors 6502a

    76ShovelHead

    Joined:
    May 30, 2010
    Location:
    Florida
    #13
    Yeah, see i only have 2 gigs. I'm also running 64 Bit if that has anything to do with it.
     
  13. 76ShovelHead thread starter macrumors 6502a

    76ShovelHead

    Joined:
    May 30, 2010
    Location:
    Florida
    #14
    I've actually read an article (can't remember where it was) talking about how the latest Macbook pros aren't performing right in terms of speed. It described them as sluggish. Some kind of bug.

    In a matter of fact i do need more than what i have, I'm a web student and casual gamer (GTA IV, Sims 3) and while my PC will run GTA IV with very little lag or Sims 3 with a little bit of choppiness if i am to quit one of them my computer becomes unresponsive. It's unresponsive when I'm trying to send a file across my network! to a computer right in the other room! I haven't a clue why it runs so terribly given it's specs.
     
  14. cinek macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2011
    #15
    what are the specs?
     
  15. 76ShovelHead thread starter macrumors 6502a

    76ShovelHead

    Joined:
    May 30, 2010
    Location:
    Florida
    #16
    I've got an Intel Pentium Dual-Core E5200 OC'd to 3.20 Ghz, 2 GB of Ram, a Sata Hard Drive and an HIS Radeon HD 4670 1 GB.
     
  16. onthecouchagain macrumors 604

    onthecouchagain

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2011
    #17
    I would love to see a 24" base model for the price of the current 21".
     
  17. 76ShovelHead thread starter macrumors 6502a

    76ShovelHead

    Joined:
    May 30, 2010
    Location:
    Florida
    #18
    ditto, i never understood why they went with such an odd screen size... They need to bring back the 24's and keep the 27's.
     
  18. cinek macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2011
    #19
    upgrade is long overdue
     
  19. Badger^2 macrumors 68000

    Badger^2

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2009
    Location:
    Sacramento
    #20
    10 years later and people still fall for the "mhz myth"? ugh.

    I dunno why they switched from 1920 X 1200 to 1920 X 1080 -- (probably to say it 1080p or something) -- but you do realize you guys are bitching about 120 pixels of height.

    about 1" physically if the panels are the same width.
     
  20. Hellhammer Moderator

    Hellhammer

    Staff Member

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2008
    Location:
    Finland
    #21
    16:9 panels are cheaper to manufacture (better yields). It's 10% less pixels though so it's not just nothing.
     
  21. themac23 macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2011
    #22
    Of course you forgot where this mystery article is. Geekbench scores show the current Macbook Pros on par, or even beating the current iMac's. Take note that the current iMacs will absolutely murder what you use now. What does this mean? It means the current Macbook Pro would murder your current computer, punch it in the face, dig a hole, and then bury it without a tombstone.

    Get the point?
     
  22. 76ShovelHead thread starter macrumors 6502a

    76ShovelHead

    Joined:
    May 30, 2010
    Location:
    Florida
    #23
    Why don't you Get A Life? Obviously you must be such a miserable person to TROLL around picking fights on Macrumors. I am not some Illiterate computer user, and furthermore I do not appreciate you talking down to me and Insinuating that I'm a liar. What you need is to find God, Ask Jesus to be your savior, and maybe - just maybe Satan will leave you be. What does this mean? DUHHHH.

    PS: You don't think I know a Macbook pro would, as you say, murder my current computer? Your something else. Your worse then something else. Now get outta here.
     
  23. Vassius macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2011
    Location:
    Sweden
    #24
    You can't simply compare clock speeds between architectures like that. GHz isn't everything, and there's not a 1:1 correlation between models.

    Sandy Bridge has a superior architecture compared to the "old" i3-7 CPUs, which makes them a lot faster even at lower GHz.
     
  24. cinek macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2011

Share This Page