The new iMac: How long can Apple hold off on the Quad Core i7?

[Chris7]

2011 for quad-core in the iMac. That's my prediction.

I looked back at Wik. I think you're right -- that's when the lower power Lynnfield comes out. Wonder what it's be clocked at...

3. Apple doesn't think that the doubling of cores outweighs the low clock speeds of current mobile dual-cores for the iMac segment at this time, plus Apple doesn't want to put higher-clocked dual-cores with lower-clocked quad-cores.

Again, I think you're right on here. Perhaps much of the iMac crowd would not really understand how a chip with a lower clock speed could be faster (this is not meant to be a slight on anyone, just a marketing speculation). Kind of like lines of resolution in Blue Ray, for example -- 1080p for Blue Ray is something the consumer can understand and be excited about. If you start talking about the problems with Blue Ray's long GOP, interframe compression, and 8-bit, 4:2:0 color resolution, these concepts are too complected to stick for the average consumer.

There are already 65 W desktop Penryn quad-cores out there. Low-power Lynnfield might hit 45 W but that's only a maybe.

Mobile Penryn quad-cores are 45 W, cooler than the 55 W dual-cores used in the iMac.

What are these clocked at, and how much do they cost?

Thanks,
Chris

 

[iMacmatician]

What are these clocked at, and how much do they cost?

2.0 GHz ($348), 2.27 GHz ($851), 2.53 GHz ($1038). Much more expensive than mobile dual-cores or 65 W desktop quad-cores with similar GHz.

Upcoming Clarksfield quad-core mobile CPUs are 1.6 GHz ($364), 1.73 GHz ($546), 2.0 GHz ($1054), and they are cooler (35 W).

On an optimistic note, I hope that Apple will use the upcoming 45 W Lynnfield (if they are released).

 

[Michaelgtrusa]

More likely Apple is waiting to introduce a 16-core (32-virtual) Mac Pro, so then the 8-core becomes low end Mac Pro, the iMac can step up to 4, along with the MacBook, Air and MacBook Pro, leaving the Mac Mini at 2.

Anyway, just my 2 cents.

I hope that this is as soon as this fall.

 

[Chris7]

There are already 65 W desktop Penryn quad-cores out there.

2.0 GHz ($348), 2.27 GHz ($851), 2.53 GHz ($1038). Much more expensive than mobile dual-cores or 65 W desktop quad-cores with similar GHz.

Thanks for the info on the laptop Penryn. I was actually wondering about clock speed/pricing of those 65 W desktop Pynryn chips you mentioned. Could they perhaps fit into the iMac with a little extra attention to placement and fans?

I, too wonder about this more efficient Lynnfield -- what it will be clocked at, and what it will cost (it's mentioned on the Nahelm chart on Wik, but missing clock speed and cost, and not sure if it'll be 65 or 45 W).

Also, if there's some trouble with the link I posted. If anyone's interested, to get to the Nahelm page on Wik, go to Wik and type "Sandy Bridge", click "Sandy Bridge (microarchitecture), and click on "Nahelem" within the text.

More likely Apple is waiting to introduce a 16-core (32-virtual) Mac Pro, so then the 8-core becomes low end Mac Pro, the iMac can step up to 4, along with the MacBook, Air and MacBook Pro, leaving the Mac Mini at 2...

Sounds likely, to me. I thought the next chip due out would be the 6 core Gulftown, in about a year. What do you think, maybe summer 2011 for an 8-core Nahelm or Sandy Bridge?

 

[alphaod]

We'll probably get a quad-core i7 iMac when they release a i7 mobile chip.

 

[Eidorian]

To be honest it feels like Apple has abandoned their computers.

I do want to see Core 2 Quad in the iMac this year if we see Snow Leopard.

 

[nutritious]

i7s pump a lot of heat. they'll likely never put one in the imac till some mobile version is out...

 

[kasakka]

3. Apple doesn't think that the doubling of cores outweighs the low clock speeds of current mobile dual-cores for the iMac segment at this time, plus Apple doesn't want to put higher-clocked dual-cores with lower-clocked quad-cores.

This seems like the most likely reason. Apple knows that most programs aren't multithreaded so adding more cores will yield no performance improvement. Those who DO use programs that benefit from 4 cores are exactly the folks who buy Mac Pros.

When extra cores won't give any benefit, higher clock speeds will be much more beneficial. I recently moved from an old Core2Duo E6400 overclocked to 3.2 GHz to a Q9550 which I overclocked to 3.4 GHz. The only difference is that a few programs and games run much better on the dual core, but there was no difference in the every day apps most people run. The difference between having the E6400 at the stock 2.13 GHz vs 3.2 GHz is noticeable though.

 

[iMacmatician]

Thanks for the info on the laptop Penryn. I was actually wondering about clock speed/pricing of those 65 W desktop Pynryn chips you mentioned.

2.67 GHz ($245, 4 MB L2), 2.67 GHz ($320, 6 MB L2), 2.83 GHz ($369, 12 MB L2). The $245 one used to be 2.33 GHz but it was updated recently.

Could they perhaps fit into the iMac with a little extra attention to placement and fans?

I don't know how much extra heat the desktop chipset would use.

I, too wonder about this more efficient Lynnfield -- what it will be clocked at, and what it will cost (it's mentioned on the Nahelm chart on Wik, but missing clock speed and cost, and not sure if it'll be 65 or 45 W).

There will be 2 models that replace the 2.83 GHz and 2.67 GHz (6 MB L2) CPUs, so I would expect similar prices.

 

[Chris7]

2.67 GHz ($245, 4 MB L2), 2.67 GHz ($320, 6 MB L2), 2.83 GHz ($369, 12 MB L2). The $245 one used to be 2.33 GHz but it was updated recently.

I don't know how much extra heat the desktop chipset would use.

There will be 2 models that replace the 2.83 GHz and 2.67 GHz (6 MB L2) CPUs, so I would expect similar prices.

Interesting.
Many thanks,
Chris