Santa Rosa chipset and the new iMac

Discussion in 'iMac' started by carrollf, Aug 8, 2007.

  1. carrollf macrumors regular


    Aug 8, 2007
    I remember all the hype a while back being that the new iMac would (hopefully) use the Santa Rosa chipset - well has it??
  2. Jasonbot macrumors 68020


    Aug 15, 2006
    The Rainbow Nation RSA
    Yes it does, note the faster FSB and new processors up to 2.8Ghz.
  3. Matek macrumors 6502a

    Jun 6, 2007
    Is there any official statement about this?

    Immediately after the presentation i was under the impression that the iMacs use old desktop Core 2 Duo CPUs that had the same FSB, but after some reading it became obvious that they are actually using the Santa Rosa platform with mobile CPUs. The CPU models/frequencies match and the other obvious reason are the dimensions of the computer. The only funny thing is that Apple does not clearly say that anywhere (at least i couldn't find the info, if anyone has, please link).

    Too bad they didn't include the newest Intel desktop processors and chipsets, but I understand they had to sacrifice some performance for the amazing design.
  4. Mollemand macrumors regular

    Aug 1, 2007
    I'm not so sure that there is that big a performance sacrifice in using the Intel mobile technology. If you look at the 3DMark06 CPU, posted on Intel's website for the core 2 Extreme X7800 (which is a 2.66GHz) you will find that it scores 2252.

    Comparing that to the CPU chart at Toms Hardware, it looks like the mobile is keeping up pretty darn decently:

    Obviously this is only one of many benchmark tests. It is however pure multi-thread, so it gives a good worst case picture of 2 core vs. 4 core.
  5. Matek macrumors 6502a

    Jun 6, 2007
    You got me there, my rational side agrees with you completely. The only performance differences are FSB/memory speeds. Santa Rosa's frequencies are 266 / 333 (CPU / RAM), while the desktop platform runs at 333 / 400, otherwise processors are practically the same.

    But while the performance difference may not be big, it's just the feeling you're not getting the latest and the greatest that I'm missing. Apple used to define the technology, (their notorious LetsLoseTheFloppy move comes to my mind) they often used bleeding-edge stuff in their machines and so on.

    While PC users are currently enjoying brand-new-just-out-of-the-factory 1333 mhz quad pumped FSB processors on P35 motherboards with DDR3 support, the new iMac has C2D chips comparable to the ones we've seen on desktops a year ago (of course they are the newest on the laptop market, but that's just an excuse in the eyes of an average customer - iMac is a desktop machine and should be treated that way).

    But I'll stop there. Must be just my sensibility :D.
  6. Mollemand macrumors regular

    Aug 1, 2007
    I can't but agree with you. The Intel 6XXX series is my choice of today - I am pure PC - I just ordered the Q6600 in a setup including the 8800 Ultra and a P35 Mobo. I believe the 6XXX beat the Xeon core-by-core due to better chip-set and FSB options - though I haven't sought evidence to back that up. However, the little benchmark I have found on the X7800 says that it is not chopped liver compared to the (?)?6XXX series.

    Apple has neglected that brilliant and cheep CPU completely, and I think it is wrong. But if you want bleeding edge CPU performance (or possibly just bleeding) go Mac Pro. The iMac is bleeding edge on the desktop marked in CPU power per cubic inch (Please lets not get into the GPU discussion).

    I sorely agree that there is a need for a single CPU Mac in a tower. I do sooooo much want to se a Mac with a BTO GPU to match the CPU. But I don't see it coming. I could go for the Quadro option in a Mac Pro - but I just don't like the bleeding part all that much.

Share This Page