Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

What actions do you want?


  • Total voters
    576
If you're coding, then you want the biggest screen possible. You could just connect the 13" to a monitor, but I would strongly suggest for you to consider the hi-res antiglare 15" for your coding. Take it from someone who has learnt their lessons.

its just too pricey for the 15 + hi res. I could prob get a imac.

Only reason I want a mbp is cause i'm lazy to sit at a desk. quite a price to pay. Not sure, i'll see whats up adter the update. They might increase the res as base unit....or maybe the MBA 15" will be more affordable
 
Video Graphics Adapter is not the same as GPU.
GPU is the core unit of a VGA.
VGA is the whole device (circuits, capacitors, GPU, VRAM, connectors etc.) doing graphics processing.

"Archaic way" LOL. I forgot that I'm in a Mac forum.

I know what you were talking about. I was being sarcastic with the "archaic" comment, because I am older than the typical Macrumors user and I grew up with VGA cards, hence I thought it was funny that someone didn't understand what you meant by VGA.

----------

Now that you mention it I do remember some having issues with dust getting under the glass cover of the iMac. Hopefully anyone taking one apart would do it in a space that can allow for safe placement and easy cleaning.
I am normally not OCD when it comes to my computers, I do think that having dust under the screen would be annoying.

I think the cooling is there, the engineering and the will is going to be the question for Apple. If HP can stick any Quadro card in their Z1 I know Apple can do it and still meet their design requirements.

I don't keep up with GPUs as much as I do CPUs and storage but the current 27" iMac's GPU with 2GB of RAM shouldn't be a slouch. intense 3D gaming? I hope it does excellent. High end 3D modeling? I doubt it, but then one in that market wouldn't find much in the Mac ecosystem to meet their needs.
The main problem is that the GPU in the iMac is a mobile one. I think it's ok to run today's games at mid settings with a low resolution, but that seems a shame when you have a big, high resolution monitor. It would be great if they could somehow shoehorn a desktop graphics card.
 
I'm not waiting for the following reasons...

1. I need it now
2. New versions are prone to problems
3. The current model is powerful enough, how much power do you need!
 
first Ivy Bridge chips -high-end quad-core

Intel's first Ivy Bridge chips will be high-end quad-core parts

http://www.computerworld.com/s/arti...ill_be_high_end_quad_core_parts?taxonomyId=12


according to this article/ statements from Intel CEO, "PCs with the new quad-core chips will be announced shortly after the chip launch, Otellini said."

*Note, PC here likely just means computers, not solely windows OS. we all knowApple claims early stakes in new intel chips.

OR he said PC, because he does means Windows OS, but also knows/ can't cite Apple as coming out first
IMAC here we come
 
Last edited:
Intel's first Ivy Bridge chips will be high-end quad-core parts

http://www.computerworld.com/s/arti...ill_be_high_end_quad_core_parts?taxonomyId=12


according to this article/ statements from Intel CEO, "PCs with the new quad-core chips will be announced shortly after the chip launch, Otellini said."

*Note, PC here likely just means computers, not solely windows OS. we all knowApple claims early stakes in new intel chips.

OR he said PC, because he does means Windows OS, but also knows/ can't cite Apple as coming out first
IMAC here we come
This isn't news.

Even the most recent rumor that predicted new iMacs wouldn't ship until June or July still pegged the Ivy Bridge quads launch date as late April (link, read the last paragraph). And I haven't heard anything about any current iMac models being constrained yet which in my experience always happens several weeks before a new product launch.
 
alright, way to be negative over here.. your right about supply constrains, but i still say May.



This isn't news.

Even the most recent rumor that predicted new iMacs wouldn't ship until June or July still pegged the Ivy Bridge quads launch date as late April (link, read the last paragraph). And I haven't heard anything about any current iMac models being constrained yet which in my experience always happens several weeks before a new product launch.
 
For those that said TDP was reason for waitng


Ivy Bridge gets 95W TDP, worse overclocker than Sandy Bridge

CPU / Chipset - Published on Saturday, 14 April 2012 20:13 Written by Marcus Heinemo



The launch of Intel's next generation processores is getting closer, and now the first results with air cooling is coming in. The TDP is higher than expected though, and max frequencies when overclocking is lower than anticipated.

We have already seen what Ivy Bridge can do with liquid nitrogen, so it is with mixed feelings we read the first results with air cooling. A user that has managed to acquire an Ivy Bridge processor reports sky-high temperatures making it impossible to reach the same frequencies as with Sandy Bridge. When overclocking the processor hits over 90 degrees, despite expensive after-market cooling.

At 4.6 - 4.7 Ghz the temperature gets so high the processor throttles, meaning it clocks down to protect the processor from permanent damage. Comparing with Core i7-2600k that in many cases can do 4.8 - 5.0 GHz stable with a good after-market cooler, Ivy Bridge looks to be 200 - 300 Mhz worse than Sandy Bridge.

It is Intel's new 22 nanometer technology with Tri-gate transistors that has brought these limitations. The transistorsare extremely tightly packed and the die size is so small compared to earlier processors, that the heat cannot be removed fast enough with air and water cooling. Rumors has it Intel is not entirely on the mark with the new 22 nanometer technology and a box shot of a Core i7-3770k shows a higher TDP than earlier expected.
 
A box shot for a Core i7-3770k showing 95W TDP, higher than the expected 77W

A European retail NordicHardware has been in contact with can confirm that all boxes are marked 95W, which was higher than expected. However we reserve the right that there may be a misprint on a larger batch of processors, but as of now we can't confirm wether that's the case or not. Even if performance is better at the same frequency it is a surprise for those with high clocked Sandy Bridge processors intending to switch for Ivy Bridge.
 
Albei it says over clocked but boxes ship standard with 95tdp so it's fair to say that's standard and not over clocked. Here is another article

Core i7-3770K “Ivy Bridge” Has Higher TDP Than Expected, Runs Hot

The launch of Intel’s third generation of Core-series processors, code-named “Ivy Bridge”, has been marred by mystery, but as we get closer to the expected launch date of later this month we’re seeing more and more information leaks. The latest tidbit may come as bad news for those with unrealistically high expectations, but for the rest of you it actually isn’t that bad.


Click for larger image

Late last year, we reported that Ivy Bridge processors would have a TDP of no more than 77 watts, but pictures of the retail box as shown by a European retailer have 95w printed on the information sticker. This will partly explain the heat issue, which we will cover shortly. There is an unlikely possibility that the TDP is a misprint, but from the looks of things it wasn’t possible to keep the expected speeds while staying within the 77w TDP.


Click for larger image

The second bit of information is a trend that has been picked up. Ivy Bridge chips run hotter than second-generation “Sandy Bridge” at any given clock-speed – much hotter. So hot in fact, that a user by the alias “RawZ” on the Aria.co.uk forums found that by 4.7 GHz his chip had begun to throttle due to high temperatures, and by 4.6 GHz he was in the 90′c range even though he was using a Corsair H100 closed-loop water cooling system. Conventional air or water cooling definitely won’t be enough to hit the same high clock-speeds that were seen on Sandy Bridge processors.


Click for larger image

Ironically enough, the reason for the increased temperatures stems from Intel’s new 22 nm Tri-gate technology which was expected to lower both power consumption and temperatures. With 22 nm technology, the transistors are more densely packed than on the older 32 nm process used by Sandy Bridge. With that comes a smaller die area, and as such a larger heat-load that needs to be dissipated for any given unit of area. It is also rumored that Intel is still trying to perfect their 22 nm technology, which would explain the higher TDP.

The 200 to 300 MHz lower clock speeds may discourage owners of 4.8 GHz Sandy Bridge processors from upgrading, especially when you consider the fact that Ivy Bridge isn’t promising massively higher IPC (instructions per clock) performance. For the extreme overclockers, however, Ivy Bridge promises to be a haven of fun for both RAM and CPU overclocking.


Click for larger image

As previously reported, the chips will appeal greatly to the extreme overclocking crowd. XtremeSystems owner Charles “FUGGER” Wirth had the following to say about his CPU: “-40c (single stage) will be enough to topple the best. -100c (cascade) and you will see numbers worthy of showing off. -180c upper 6′s. > -200c lower 7′s.” What this means is that with a chip such as his, single-stage phase-change cooling or dry ice will be enough to beat the best current scores; moving on to multiple-stage phase-change cooling will give results in a completely different league to what we have now; liquid nitrogen will get you close to 7 GHz; colder will take you past 7 GHz. Jonathan Horne
 
For those that said TDP was reason for waitng


Ivy Bridge gets 95W TDP, worse overclocker than Sandy Bridge

CPU / Chipset - Published on Saturday, 14 April 2012 20:13 Written by Marcus Heinemo

...

If you already repost something from another page at least have a decency to leave a link. NordicCafe later explained that they were mistaken about the factual TDP and that Intel chose to artificially raise the specification, while in fact the real TDP is 77W.

Linky

And to how good or bad IB overclocks - why would anyone care except overclockers? The IB will be around at least 10% faster than comparable SB CPUs which is ok.
 
I'm not waiting for the following reasons...

1. I need it now
2. New versions are prone to problems
3. The current model is powerful enough, how much power do you need!

Those are the only reasons I'd buy now too save for the 3rd one. Users torn between and AIO and a workstation can always use more power.


The main problem is that the GPU in the iMac is a mobile one. I think it's ok to run today's games at mid settings with a low resolution, but that seems a shame when you have a big, high resolution monitor. It would be great if they could somehow shoehorn a desktop graphics card.

I would even beg for mobile workstation GPUs like the ones in the Dell Covet and the HP Elitebooks. However, I don't think Apple will ever get over it's GPU issues.
 
If you already repost something from another page at least have a decency to leave a link. NordicCafe later explained that they were mistaken about the factual TDP and that Intel chose to artificially raise the specification, while in fact the real TDP is 77W.

Linky

And to how good or bad IB overclocks - why would anyone care except overclockers? The IB will be around at least 10% faster than comparable SB CPUs which is ok.

10 percent increase is minimal to say the least I posted from my phone so couldnt post link. Why the anger? Was just posting as people said they were waiting due to lower TDP. It's clear intel have problems with new ivy. plus some calling for thinner, will just lead to more iMac problems. That's all

----------

I'm not waiting for the following reasons...

1. I need it now
2. New versions are prone to problems
3. The current model is powerful enough, how much power do you need!


Agreed some just want to say they have latest 2012 model to browse Facebook,twitter etc. SMH. Ask how many are pros waiting. You'll see it just one need to satisfy their ego.
 
Last edited:
Agreed some just want to say they have latest 2012 model to browse Facebook,twitter etc. SMH. Ask how many are pros waiting. You'll see it just one need to satisfy their ego

I wouldn't say I'm a pro nor would I say I only use my iMac for Facebook, but the new iMac will bring some welcome changes for me.

Bluetooth 4.0 will be standard soon enough
USB 3 is standard n most case
Ivy bridge processors will be faster then sandy bridge.

All of which will allow me to keep the iMac longer. Once I get this, I don't plan on upgrading computer for a few years.
 
I'm not waiting for the following reasons...

1. I need it now
2. New versions are prone to problems
3. The current model is powerful enough, how much power do you need!

Uh, I have a "new version" of the 2011 iMac and it is not prone to problems. I purchased it on release day.

The iMac can always be more powerful. One thing I've noticed about my 2600k is that it never registers more than 50C in intensive CPU tasks, which means the cooling mechanism in the iMac can certainly take on a 4.5-5ghz chip.

The GPU on the other hand, is 2 generations behind. It already gets up to 77-80C on games, I so I assume Apple wants to keep that thermal limitation. A 50-100% performance bump here is needed.
 
I wouldn't say I'm a pro nor would I say I only use my iMac for Facebook, but the new iMac will bring some welcome changes for me.

Bluetooth 4.0 will be standard soon enough
USB 3 is standard n most case
Ivy bridge processors will be faster then sandy bridge.


All of which will allow me to keep the iMac longer. Once I get this, I don't plan on upgrading computer for a few years.

See this is what get up my nose sometimes what you mentioned is very very minor bluetooth 4.0! No benefit to me although it might you. The current bluetooth on iMac is fine, I only use it to connect the Mouse and keyboard/trackpad. USB 3 although good i would still prefer TB once prices come down.

Sandy Bridge V IVY Bridge will see minimal gains you might not see it in real world usage, SO NOT THAT FASTER AT ALL MATE, again if you needed major work done or even minor, these reason would not be MAJOR to making most wait. If you're talking GPU integrated then reports are there will be major performance boost thats for laptops though.

Even if there was a redesign I would not buy now, I would buy on next refresh (2013) when all the problems had been ironed out on the 2012 model. Thats my take on things
 
Last edited:
If I'm not mistaken, the main advantage of Bluetooth 4.0 is that it uses less power, therefore you're changing the batteries on your wireless keyboard/mouse less often?
 
If I'm not mistaken, the main advantage of Bluetooth 4.0 is that it uses less power, therefore you're changing the batteries on your wireless keyboard/mouse less often?

Exactly why I'm waiting I've read numerous times that battery life on the keyboard and muse/trackpad is not the best
 
10 percent increase is minimal to say the least I posted from my phone so couldnt post link. Why the anger? Was just posting as people said they were waiting due to lower TDP. It's clear intel have problems with new ivy. plus some calling for thinner, will just lead to more iMac problems. That's all


Again: the TDP of desktop Ivy Bridge is 77W. Intel simply advertises them as 95W. The "anger" is because you post a three days old article while the same website already released a clarification with a refutal yesterday.

As to performance, nobody was expecting stellar increases anyway. Ivy Bridge is more about power savings than much higher performance. 10% is a good figure for an incremental update.
 
If I'm not mistaken, the main advantage of Bluetooth 4.0 is that it uses less power, therefore you're changing the batteries on your wireless keyboard/mouse less often?

Fair point but if you can spend the big money on an iMac that you do surly battery shouldn't be a problem, Right? How much difference will it make? Don't think that much to warranty waiting, Just for minor/minimal gains.

Not arguing or disputing anything just my views!!

----------

Again: the TDP of desktop Ivy Bridge is 77W. Intel simply advertises them as 95W. The "anger" is because you post a three days old article while the same website already released a clarification with a refutal yesterday.

As to performance, nobody was expecting stellar increases anyway. Ivy Bridge is more about power savings than much higher performance. 10% is a good figure for an incremental update.

Power savings for MacBooks yes. Not desktop, so you lose again/ 10% increase is very minor. Go do your research then come at me correctly. Base model 21.5 2.5 ghz now v 21.5 2.7ghz is 10% increase even that is minor!! DAMMMMMMMM

Considering i went through 3 iMacs before getting high end 27" I should know!! went through base 21.5 done geekbeenh etc and the higher end 21.5 the performance increase was very small but i needed 1tb if not base was best deal as the gains were not that impressive CPU wise despite 10% gains.

Without that report its clear Ivy Bridge has problems. simple. If not why has it taken them so long to release? Haswell will be out in less than a year now!!! Again if you're talking laptops etc then power saving is correct, desktops then g do your research again
 
Last edited:
Power savings for MacBooks yes. Not desktop, so you lose again/ 10% increase is very minor. Go do your reproach then come at me correctly. Base model 21.5 2.5 ghz now v 21.5 2.7ghz is 10% increase even that is minor!! DAMMMMMMMM

What are you talking about? Ivy Bridge uses less power than Sandy Bridge and is faster per Ghz. So what are you trying to say? That its not really meaningful to wait for IB? I agree with that — but that was not the topic, was it? The topic was you falsely claiming that Ivy Bridge factual TDP is 95W.
 
What are you talking about? Ivy Bridge uses less power than Sandy Bridge and is faster per Ghz. So what are you trying to say? That its not really meaningful to wait for IB? I agree with that — but that was not the topic, was it? The topic was you falsely claiming that Ivy Bridge factual TDP is 95W.

Again, please do your research the higher end models may be 77TDP but the base and above will run at current/same TDP as Sandy bridge, 65 TDP. Its all over this thread. The only ones that will run lower than current high end iMac sandy bridge will be high end imac. at 77 TDP

Peace
 
Again, please do your research the higher end models may be 77TDP but the base and above will run at current/same TDP as Sandy bridge, 65 TDP. Its all over this thread. The only ones that will run lower than current high end iMac sandy bridge will be high end imac. at 77 TDP

Peace

Yes, I think everyone understands this, or at least I hope. The only thing I seem to be growing tired of is the "Sandy Bridge Evangelists" throughout these iMac forums.

Yes, those of you who bought SB iMacs should be quite satisfied with your purchase for the coming years. Those of you who are buying Ivy Bridge iMacs will also be satisfied for years to come.

SB iMac owners should not be discouraging those who excited to be purchasing IB iMacs. The same should be said for future IB owners, SB iMacs are still more than capable machines and I believe everybody should just be happy with what they have.

Enough said...
 
Power savings for MacBooks yes. Not desktop, so you lose again/ 10% increase is very minor. Go do your research then come at me correctly. Base model 21.5 2.5 ghz now v 21.5 2.7ghz is 10% increase even that is minor!! DAMMMMMMMM

Considering i went through 3 iMacs before getting high end 27" I should know!! went through base 21.5 done geekbeenh etc and the higher end 21.5 the performance increase was very small but i needed 1tb if not base was best deal as the gains were not that impressive CPU wise despite 10% gains.

Without that report its clear Ivy Bridge has problems. simple. If not why has it taken them so long to release? Haswell will be out in less than a year now!!! Again if you're talking laptops etc then power saving is correct, desktops then g do your research again

losing? is this some sort of competition? arent you something...

there are power savings in desktpo cpu too, from 95 to 77 watts. but its not about the battery, its about heat. less heat is always a good thing.

of course it has problems. it has a whole new generation of transistors, tri-gate. if you do something new, you'll have problems. they've been trying to do those tri-gate transistors since 2002.

and haswell is coming out in 'March to June 2013', so possibly more than a year?

and you know its not all about cpu? what about kepler or gcn and cca 50% gains there with lower tdp/heat?

usb 3?

possible anti-reflective screen, redesign?

no odd? better cooling? smaller footprint?

why all the anger? are you dying or something? girl left you? small tool in your pants? take it easy ;)
 
Yes, I think everyone understands this, or at least I hope. The only thing I seem to be growing tired of is the "Sandy Bridge Evangelists" throughout these iMac forums.

Yes, those of you who bought SB iMacs should be quite satisfied with your purchase for the coming years. Those of you who are buying Ivy Bridge iMacs will also be satisfied for years to come.

SB iMac owners should not be discouraging those who excited to be purchasing IB iMacs. The same should be said for future IB owners, SB iMacs are still more than capable machines and I believe everybody should just be happy with what they have.

Enough said...

Agreed. Not discouraging anyone as its not my money. Just breaking down facts that people saying they are waiting for minor improvements is just not on for me.

Is it worth the wait? Well this all depends on what you want to get out of the processor. Although it has been improved there isn’t much of a performance upgrade on the desktop side of things for gamers. If you are building a HTPC or Small form factor pc of any kind the Ivy Bridge will be worth waiting for. If you are after a gaming powerhouse you can stick with your Sandy Bridge for now, because until the release of the Haswell line up I don’t think you will notice much of a performance difference. If you currently have a Sandy Bridge processor is it worth going out and getting an Ivy Bridge for an alleged 8%-15% performance increase? Personally I don’t think so.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.