Why can't we have Core 2 Quads?

Discussion in 'iMac' started by Shake 'n' Bake, May 31, 2009.

  1. Shake 'n' Bake macrumors 68020

    Shake 'n' Bake

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2009
    Location:
    Albany
    #1
    I was looking around my desk and I remembered my Studio 540 has a Core 2 Quad. I thought "Why can't Apple put a C2Q or i7 in an iMac?" Really, why can't they? Is it because it isn't a laptop component? I'd rather have a computer that's a bit thicker and have better performance than a thin one with lower performance.

    If Apple can't put a C2Q or i7 in the iMac, why not put one in the Mac Pro and have it cost less than $2500 so the average person can afford it?

    I hope WWDC brings the C2Q or i7 to Apple, though it is very unlikely to happen.

    What are your thoughts?
     
  2. flopticalcube macrumors G4

    flopticalcube

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2006
    Location:
    In the velcro closure of America's Hat
    #2
    Desktops are such a small part of Apple's business now that even their desktops are laptops. :)
     
  3. Tallest Skil macrumors P6

    Tallest Skil

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2006
    Location:
    1 Geostationary Tower Plaza
    #3
    1. Heat
    2. Apple doesn't use desktop processors.

    3. Heat.

    /thread
     
  4. Shake 'n' Bake thread starter macrumors 68020

    Shake 'n' Bake

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2009
    Location:
    Albany
    #4
    Apple could perforate the back of the iMac like the Mac Pro is. That would be neat.

    And how hot does it really get? My Studio 540 barley gets hot at all, and my G4 is just the same.
     
  5. Darth.Titan macrumors 68030

    Darth.Titan

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2007
    Location:
    Austin, TX
    #5
    Your Studio 540 is a Mini Tower. The heatsink and cooling fan attached to its CPU would never fit into an iMac.
    iMacs use notebook processors to maintain their form factors. When a decent quad core notebook processor is available, you will see quad core iMacs.
     
  6. Shake 'n' Bake thread starter macrumors 68020

    Shake 'n' Bake

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2009
    Location:
    Albany
    #6
    I know that. I used SpeedFan and took the temperatures. The hottest was 51 C (123 F) with the fans at about 1500 RPM. My mini gets up to over 160 F with fans at 2000 RPM! If the Core 2 Duo in the mini gets that hot, I see no reason, other than it wouldn't be super thin, why a Core 2 Quad can go in the iMac.

    But again, why can't Apple put a C2Q or i7 in the Mac Pro? Dell does it in an enclosure smaller and less ventilated than the Mac Pro.
     
  7. flopticalcube macrumors G4

    flopticalcube

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2006
    Location:
    In the velcro closure of America's Hat
    #7
    Don't forget that the heat comes from power so more heat would require a bigger power supply (which itself would add more heat). As much as I and many others would trade off a thicker iMac for desktop components, I don't see Apple moving in that direction.
     
  8. Shake 'n' Bake thread starter macrumors 68020

    Shake 'n' Bake

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2009
    Location:
    Albany
    #8
    The Q8200 uses 95 watts, the T7200 uses 34 watts, but this is a desktop. The power consumption doesn't really matter. How much more heat could it make? My mini just doing some Keynote work and playing music gets up to 160 F.

    Here's an idea that I'm sure nobody will like: Put the power supply outside the computer. Apple does it with the mini, why not the iMac? It'll be even thinner!
     
  9. flopticalcube macrumors G4

    flopticalcube

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2006
    Location:
    In the velcro closure of America's Hat
    #9
    Power consumption is directly related to heat. The power is converted into either heat or light. Since the CPU emits no light (obviously), it must come out as heat. Even with a T7200, the form factor of the mini is so restrictive that the temps rise and the fans spin high. A mini tower, even with a 95W chip, would have better airflow. This doesn't mean that the chip would be producing less heat just that the heat it does produce would be removed more efficiently.

    I would expect that to happen if the iMacs power consumption lowered to the point that the PS could be as small as the mini's.
     
  10. Shake 'n' Bake thread starter macrumors 68020

    Shake 'n' Bake

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2009
    Location:
    Albany
    #10
    The fans spin high? My mini must be defective! Even at 160 F, the fans stay at about 1500 RPM.

    Excellent explanation.
     
  11. flopticalcube macrumors G4

    flopticalcube

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2006
    Location:
    In the velcro closure of America's Hat
    #11
    Somethings not right. I use smcFanControl on my mini and the fans are at over 4000RPM at those temps.
     
  12. Shake 'n' Bake thread starter macrumors 68020

    Shake 'n' Bake

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2009
    Location:
    Albany
    #12
    Interesting. I use smcFanControl too and it says mine is at 140 F with the fans at 1600 RPM. I've also noticed that it'll go to about 1560 RPM for the 140s but it must get tired or something because at 160 F, it just drops to 1500 RPM.

    Did a bit of Googling and found that a bunch of people have been complaining about high fan RPMs. I wonder if my mini has that, but in reverse? Like NyQuil makes some people stay awake?
     
  13. MultiFinder17 macrumors 68000

    MultiFinder17

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2008
    Location:
    Tampa, Florida
    #13
    My mini does the same thing; it stays at about 1500 pretty much no matter what; if there's a high load, it might to up to 2000-2500, but that's about it. Inside it usually hangs around 60C.
     
  14. Shake 'n' Bake thread starter macrumors 68020

    Shake 'n' Bake

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2009
    Location:
    Albany
    #14
    Maybe I'll give my neighbor a ring later. He's a genius at the Apple Store.

    Have you upgraded your mini's RAM?

    If anybody's interested in the Mac mini fan issue, I've posted on Apple's discussion board here and the MR board here.
     
  15. NoSmokingBandit macrumors 68000

    NoSmokingBandit

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2008
    #15
    Its more important that computer computer looks good, according to apple.

    Keeping the iMac on Duos helps sell Pros too because you have no choice but to spend $2500 to get a quad core mac.
     
  16. Eidorian macrumors Penryn

    Eidorian

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2005
    Location:
    Indianapolis
    #16
    Don't forget about the 65W S Series desktop Core 2 Quads and the 35W mobile ones.

    I've said this before...

     
  17. Shake 'n' Bake thread starter macrumors 68020

    Shake 'n' Bake

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2009
    Location:
    Albany
    #17
    I didn't even know a mobile C2Q even existed. I hope with SL come C2Q/i7 Macs.
     
  18. tekio macrumors regular

    Joined:
    May 31, 2009
    #18
    Other companies already make quad core laptops, I assume Apple don't want to take sales away from the MP by making a quad core iMac.
     
  19. Shake 'n' Bake thread starter macrumors 68020

    Shake 'n' Bake

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2009
    Location:
    Albany
    #19
    Who wants a non-upgradable, integrated screen? Until it is LED backlit and IPS, I won't get one.

    And before everyone starts the "hate mail" let me say this: I never said I wanted an iMac. I asked why we can't we have a C2Q.

    And what company make a C2Q laptop?
     
  20. tekio macrumors regular

    Joined:
    May 31, 2009
    #20
    I don't, that's why I built a C2Q hackintosh :D. Acer & Asus make quad core laptops, neither are thin or light but prove that you can have a quad core in a laptop form factor.
     
  21. sven- macrumors member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2009
    #21
    What are you talking about? The current Mac Pro has the new Nehalem processors in it. Yeah, it's not the desktop Core i7, but that's because the Mac Pro always uses Xeon server processors, and not desktop versions.
     
  22. J&JPolangin macrumors 68030

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2008
    Location:
    Thule GL @ the TOW
    #22
    ...cause then we'd all be buying hackintosh's from pystar:eek:....
     
  23. Shake 'n' Bake thread starter macrumors 68020

    Shake 'n' Bake

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2009
    Location:
    Albany
    #23
    I'm saying why can't Apple put in a C2Q or i7 and make it cheaper?
     
  24. blackhand1001 macrumors 68030

    blackhand1001

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2009
    #24
    Whats the point of selling it with the Xeon when they are mostly selling Single procesor versions now. Why don't they use the xeon for the 8 core and use the cheaper ones for the 4 core. I doubt apple makes it easy to get a hold of upgrade cpus for these machines. The Xeon isn't any faster and the only advantage it has is MP setups. I'd like to see a core 2 quad setup or better yet a Phenom II one so they pull their memory bandwidth comparison like they did with Nehalem like when they claimed it was 3 times as fast.
     
  25. Shake 'n' Bake thread starter macrumors 68020

    Shake 'n' Bake

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2009
    Location:
    Albany
    #25
    Great idea!

    Xeon doesn't even have an advantage in a Mac Pro unless it is working as a server.

    But Apple will never use AMD until they surpass Intel.
     

Share This Page