So if quad core iMacs are eventually released then...

[XLR8]

While researching my potential iMac (still can't decide between the GT 120 or 130) purchase I've ran across a lot of whining about the current iMacs not being updated to quad core processors and better video cards.

Some of these people should have been around when we paid $5K for a whimpy SE/30 running @ 16 MHz!

Anyway, one of the things attractive about the dual core iMacs is less heat and less noise. Do we really want a fan running and all that heat coming out in our face or am I wrong in thinking the quads would produce more heat and noise? Also, in my analysis of how these newish processors actually work, most iMac users won't even be taking advantage of the extra cores. Right?

 

[IWantItThatWay]

Apple will not release a Quad Core iMac. Apple prefers to sell underpowered overpriced hardware.

 

[old-wiz]

a quad core iMac can come out when Intel works out the heat issues.

 

[spinnerlys]

Mobile Quad Core CPUs based on the Nehalem architecture are expected to be released between Q3/2009 and 2010.

I couldn't find any specifics on Intel's homepage (lack of proper search terms maybe), but Wiki (yes, Wiki) states here, that the Clarksfield will only consume 35-45 W, which is the current power used on the T9400 (2.53 GHz MBP).

So fan speeds will stay the same.

 

[Tallest Skil]

Apple will not release a Quad Core iMac.

And you're completely wrong.

 

[Tallest Skil]

How about when quad core laptop components actually exist with a TDP that won't melt the case?

Say... Arrandale.

 

[XLR8]

No, how about when quad core laptop components actually exist with a TDP that won't melt the case?

Say... Arrandale.

It seems it could be a while before this can be stuffed inside one of these iMacs.

 

[Tallest Skil]

It seems it could be a while before this can be stuffed inside one of these iMacs.

Q1 2010... when the chip itself begins existing.

 

[FoxHoundADAM]

I too was thinking the same about dual core vs. quad core issue while waiting for the recent update. While I would prefer a quad core mac I wasn't expecting a quad core until 2010 at the soonest and I'm already WAY over due for an update (I just ordered the 2.93 with 4850). I say that because I don't believe quad core mobile processors even exist and Apple will probably be about 6 months behind the first of the quad core users.

With that said I wouldn't worry too much as most computers with quad cores rarely user the cores beyond dual cores. Now that will change as developers get better (and I hear SL will take extra good use of multi cores) but again it looks like it will be mid to late 2010 before that is the case.

So if you can wait till then, do so, but if you can't don't put too much stock in quad core vs. dual core.

 

[XLR8]

I too was thinking the same about dual core vs. quad core issue while waiting for the recent update. While I would prefer a quad core mac I wasn't expecting a quad core until 2010 at the soonest and I'm already WAY over due for an update (I just ordered the 2.93 with 4850). I say that because I don't believe quad core mobile processors even exist and Apple will probably be about 6 months behind the first of the quad core users.

With that said I wouldn't worry too much as most computers with quad cores rarely user the cores beyond dual cores. Now that will change as developers get better (and I hear SL will take extra good use of multi cores) but again it looks like it will be mid to late 2010 before that is the case.

So if you can wait till then, do so, but if you can't don't put too much stock in quad core vs. dual core.

ClubMac has:

Intel Core 2 Duo 3.06GHz,
4GB DDR3,
1TB SATA,
24" Display,
NVIDIA GeForce GT 130

for $2094

or

Intel Core 2 Duo 2.93GHz,
4GB DDR3,
640GB SATA,
24" Display,
NVIDIA GeForce GT 120

for $1694

My heart says go for the top! My head says save $400 because I don't plan on playin games just photo editing and full screen streaming vid from the internet.

I have the money now in my pocket and I can't get over my small johnson disease and fact that I could build a i7 quad core for $600.

I'm a big wussy.

 

[SnowLeopard2008]

I have the money now in my pocket and I can't get over my small johnson disease and fact that I could build a i7 quad core for $600.

No you can't. A motherboard alone costs more than half of that. The CPU unit itself costs $200-$400. Add in other hardware like an audio card, graphics card, power supply, hard drive(s), optical drive(s), and an OS would add more to the final cost. Let's not forget a display, keyboard/mouse, speakers, webcam, and a good computer case.

Aside from that fantasy, quad core iMacs will not be available until Arrandale. Just as Tallest Skil mentioned earlier. Intel/AMD/IBM needs to lower the heat and power in order for these chips to make the iMac possible. iMacs use notebook components so it will take a while.

 

[XLR8]

No you can't. A motherboard alone costs more than half of that. The CPU unit itself costs $200-$400. Add in other hardware like an audio card, graphics card, power supply, hard drive(s), optical drive(s), and an OS would add more to the final cost. Let's not forget a display, keyboard/mouse, speakers, webcam, and a good computer case.

Aside from that fantasy, quad core iMacs will not be available until Arrandale. Just as Tallest Skil mentioned earlier. Intel/AMD/IBM needs to lower the heat and power in order for these chips to make the iMac possible. iMacs use notebook components so it will take a while.

Sure I can. I have much of the other stuff you mention but I do get your point.

 

[Tallest Skil]

Sure I can. I have much of the other stuff you mention but I do get your point.

Spec one out on Newegg for that price, then.

 

[XLR8]

Spec one out on Newegg for that price, then.

So are you people always so unpleasant and defensive over here on this board?

I think I just got done saying a few posts ago that I was thinking of buying a Mac.

Relax. We're all friends.

 

[Tallest Skil]

So are you people always so unpleasant and defensive over here on this board?

I think I just got done saying a few posts ago that I was thinking of buying a Mac.

Relax. We're all friends.

The only thing of which I am defensive is the truth. Such a computer cannot be made, but I don't blindly support what Apple does.

We are all friends, save the trolls and the fanboys.

 

[Hellhammer]

Mac Pros got Nehalems before they were released...

iMacs uses laptop components which are much more expensive than equilevant desktop components.

 

[spcdust]

No, how about when quad core laptop components actually exist with a TDP that won't melt the case?

Say... Arrandale.

I thought Arrandale was a dual core processor? Let's hope Apple give the iMac Clarksfield.

 

[Moriarty]

I thought Arrandale was a dual core processor? Let's hope Apple give the iMac Clarksfield.

Yes Arrandale is dual-core, TDP 18/25/35 W. That will go in Macbooks.

iMacs use CPUs with a TDP of up to 55W at the moment. That fits the spec for Clarksfield, due in Q3 this year. But the Clarksfield processors are $1054 for 2 GHz, $546 for 1.73 GHz and $364 for 1.6 GHz.

WAY to slow for Apple to put in their iMacs. Consumers are too ignorant to realise that a 1.73 GHz Nehalem quad-core is better in the long run than a 2.93 GHz Core 2 Duo.

I'm banking on the next revision of the iMacs still being dual-core Nehalems. Perhaps Intel will do another custom chip for Apple... the quad-cores are just getting within the iMacs thermal envelope late this year but they are still too slow.

 

[itommyboy]

And you're completely wrong.

This. I still call quad cores out and ready to be bought by end of Q4. Apple has historically gone into Q4 strong and wrapped up even stronger. 2 years in a row of abysmal Q4 desktop sales just seems to me an unlikely pill for them to swallow. Yes Skil I know the hardware is not really "available" yet but you and I both know that has not been an issue for Apple in the past.

 

[flopticalcube]

I agree that the "publicly available" hardware doesn't seem to be a limit for Apple sometimes. Let's hope we are surprised by them. There haven't been many surprises in the hardware department lately.

 

[itommyboy]

I agree that the "publicly available" hardware doesn't seem to be a limit for Apple sometimes. Let's hope we are surprised by them. There haven't been many surprises in the hardware department lately.

Very true surprises have been few and far between the last year and a half. I know I'm mostly pipe dreaming but I just have this feeling (and maybe even an "insdier" tip? ) that they are already working on trying to "whoooooa" us end of this year for the first time in awhile.

 

[QuantumLo0p]

Very true surprises have been few and far between the last year and a half. I know I'm mostly pipe dreaming but I just have this feeling (and maybe even an "insdier" tip? ) that they are already working on trying to "whoooooa" us end of this year for the first time in awhile.

I hope so. My power needs have definitely dropped since I bought my old Power Mac dual 2.7 G5. (still not blown its coolant!) I cannot justify a Mac Pro but I have a problem spending serious money on a dual core setup.

I think the iMac is a solid machine and a quad will make it better. I am not a all-in-one fan but a new quad proc should be a big boost unless Apple hamstrings the speed like they did with the Mini. At least they upgraded other Mini aspects and the current Mini is the best Mini yet.

Maybe I am a closet Mini fan. Jeez.

 

[RichardI]

Whenever Apple releases an iMac with a quad core processor (and they will eventually), I will upgrade mine. For now, it's not worth the money.

Rich

 

[VulnoX]

Yeah, I am running a Quad Core computer right now that with the exception of the video card, blows the highest end iMac out of the water, and I built it a year ago for a lot less money.

BUUUTTT, its not nearly as quiet, good looking, and has no warranty or any of that fun stuff. I also rarely ever put that power to use. Video games now, even at their highest settings, don't put a quad core to 100% usage on all 4 cores, if they are, then you have some issues. The main thing for a quad core to do seems to be video encoding/transcoding, and even then you need to be working with some nice size videos and a fast hard drive (Velociraptor, how I love you).

I am fine with them taking their time with the iMac, I have never viewed it as a high performance machine any more than I would the Mac Mini, they have independent purposes.

Apple really needs to release a Mid Tower PC that isn't a Mac Pro and has some standard components in it. I think they would get a lot more sales, including from me because then it would be easier to upgrade my parents, grandparents, etc, who don't need another monitor and high cost iMac.

 

[XLR8]

Apple really needs to release a Mid Tower PC that isn't a Mac Pro and has some standard components in it. I think they would get a lot more sales, including from me because then it would be easier to upgrade my parents, grandparents, etc, who don't need another monitor and high cost iMac.

This is what I expect will happen. I do not ever see a quad processor fitting into the iMac design....ever.