Why can't we have Core 2 Quads?

[zachkowalchuk]

Because a notebook quad core is like $1000. Then there's the heat issues and what not, the quad core will use way more power and apple won't put a a desktop quad core in an imac.

And apple only puts server grade CPU's in the Mac pro's.

 

[iMacmatician]

1. Heat
2. Apple probably thinks that the iMac is better suited to higher clocked dual cores than lower clocked quad cores

Because a notebook quad core is like $1000.

The 2.0 GHz is $348.

Then there's the heat issues and what not, the quad core will use way more power and apple won't put a a desktop quad core in an imac.

Mobile quad cores are 45 W, a lower TDP than the 55 W the iMac's dual cores use.

 

[DavidR91]

Why can't we have Core 2 Quads?

Higher clocked dual cores will beat lower clocked quads in most cases. The exception being the tech. being developed for i7 LGA 1366 (Which doesn't treat quads as two dual core dies shoved together, it has them on a single die + better transport between them)

 

[zachkowalchuk]

1. Heat
2. Apple probably thinks that the iMac is better suited to higher clocked dual cores than lower clocked quad cores

The 2.0 GHz is $348.

Mobile quad cores are 45 W, a lower TDP than the 55 W the iMac's dual cores use.

Okay I was wrong about the power consumption thing, But its about $1000 CAD for a decently clocked Mobile quad core at about 2.4ghz. I will not use a quad core that's clocked under 2.4ghz. So thats pretty much what I was basing the price off of.

 

[Hellhammer]

Higher clocked dual cores will beat lower clocked quads in most cases. The exception being the tech. being developed for i7 LGA 1366 (Which doesn't treat quads as two dual core dies shoved together, it has them on a single die + better transport between them)

Only in games and single applications that doesn't support quad-core. Most of the games which doesn't support quad-core, playing them with quad-core is nightmare cause it can only use 2 cores which has lower frequency than same priced dual core has.

Multi cores are coming and more applications will support 'em

 

[kasakka]

The majority of iMac users have absolutely no use for a quad core. It won't run 90% of your typical applications any better than a dual core.

So it boils down to:

• No significant performance increase in anything but properly multithreaded apps, most of them being professional rendering apps etc, which are used by the Mac Pro's target audience
• More heat
• More expensive

 

[DavidR91]

Only in games and single applications that doesn't support quad-core. Most of the games which doesn't support quad-core, playing them with quad-core is nightmare cause it can only use 2 cores which has lower frequency than same priced dual core has.

Only rendering (as in, 3ds Max etc.) and encoding tasks exploit parallelism enough to overcome the 25% speed deficit between the dual and quad core CPUs.

 

[TwoBytes]

something i read as a main reason is that there are not any mobile quad core processors. Mobile processors are the ones apple use so this is the reason we don't have quads...because there are no processors yet! (in the eyes of the imac line...) Someone correct me 😕


don't worry, in enough time of course the imac's will have quads. Next revision or 2 max.

 

[Shake 'n' Bake]

The majority of iMac users have absolutely no use for a quad core. It won't run 90% of your typical applications any better than a dual core.

So it boils down to:

• No significant performance increase in anything but properly multithreaded apps, most of them being professional rendering apps etc, which are used by the Mac Pro's target audience
• More heat
• More expensive

You know a lot of those who either prefer the iMac or can't afford the MP get an iMac for pro apps.

Which again raises the question: why can't Apple put a C2Q or i7 in the MP and make it cost less? Or better yet a mid-range tower?

 

[BlizzardBomb]

Higher clocked dual cores will beat lower clocked quads in most cases. The exception being the tech. being developed for i7 LGA 1366 (Which doesn't treat quads as two dual core dies shoved together, it has them on a single die + better transport between them)

If Apple used the S series quads, they'd get a faster FSB and more L2 cache (on the high end) than these odd mobile but not mobile processors they use now. Sure the TDP is 10W higher, but I'm sure Apple could save 10 W on the TDP easily by changing the graphics card. In fact, some of the new 40nm graphics cards coming out have significantly lower TDPs.

Snow Leopard and new software will certainly make good use of more cores. That, and higher clocked dual cores will probably win on some benchmarks, but benchmarks are with one application open at a time, many people have several apps on the go, all wanting a share of the processor.

 

[jav6454]

1. Heat
2. Mac OS X is not Vista Pig and doesn't require twice the computing power.
3. Cost
4. Higher power consumption (Watts)

 

[Eidorian]

Heat has been a non-issue since Intel shipped the mobile quads. I don't know why people keep bringing it up.

If Apple only cares about showing off clock speeds then they're going to get a rude awakening when Clarkfield and Arrandale rolls out.

 

[andiwm2003]

You know a lot of those who either prefer the iMac or can't afford the MP get an iMac for pro apps.

Which again raises the question: why can't Apple put a C2Q or i7 in the MP and make it cost less? Or better yet a mid-range tower?

you're trying to restart a discussion that is 10years old.

i'm sure a midrange tower would sell and also a quadcore imac that is thicker would sell.

but these sales would take away from the imac and mac pro sales.

apples market research must have determined that not enough new customers can be gained by a midrange tower or a quad imac to offset the costs of development of a new product line. apples market research must have also determined that the image of macs as superslim stylish machines would suffer and that would damage the brand more than the few additional customers are worth. this is the only reasonable explanation i can see.

I have to say that this explanation makes sense in my view because most people i know would rather buy a mid performance machine that is quiet and stylish than a highpower machine that they don't need. in my use the limiting factor is hard drive speed. a quad core would not help me one bit. many people think that way. and that is what apple bases its strategy on. gamers are left behind.

but all of this has been discussed for ten years over and over.

 

[Sehnsucht]

 

[jav6454]

... img snip ..

Hilarious!!

Heat has been a non-issue since Intel shipped the mobile quads. I don't know why people keep bringing it up.

If Apple only cares about showing off clock speeds then they're going to get a rude awakening when Clarkfield and Arrandale rolls out.

My bad, I forgot Apple used mobile CPUs for their iMac line.

 

[Shake 'n' Bake]

you're trying to restart a discussion that is 10years old.

i'm sure a midrange tower would sell and also a quadcore imac that is thicker would sell.

but these sales would take away from the imac and mac pro sales.

apples market research must have determined that not enough new customers can be gained by a midrange tower or a quad imac to offset the costs of development of a new product line. apples market research must have also determined that the image of macs as superslim stylish machines would suffer and that would damage the brand more than the few additional customers are worth. this is the only reasonable explanation i can see.

I have to say that this explanation makes sense in my view because most people i know would rather buy a mid performance machine that is quiet and stylish than a highpower machine that they don't need. in my use the limiting factor is hard drive speed. a quad core would not help me one bit. many people think that way. and that is what apple bases its strategy on. gamers are left behind.

but all of this has been discussed for ten years over and over.

1. How would a quad core iMac take away from iMac sales 🙄?

2. All Apple needs to do to develop a mid-range tower is get an new logic board and maybe a case for the Mac Pro. How much could that cost? $750,000? That's just a drop in the bucket.

3. True, but Apple could have so much more market share if they had a tower the price of the iMac.

 

[iMacmatician]

They could have offered a mobile quad-core(s) as a BTO for those who needed it, but for some reason they didn't.

If Apple used the S series quads, they'd get a faster FSB and more L2 cache (on the high end) than these odd mobile but not mobile processors they use now.

I don't know how much Apple is paying for their 55 W mobile dual-cores but the 35 W mobile dual-cores are around the same price ranges as the 65 W desktop quad-cores with the same GHz.

Heat has been a non-issue since Intel shipped the mobile quads. I don't know why people keep bringing it up.

If Apple only cares about showing off clock speeds then they're going to get a rude awakening when Clarkfield and Arrandale rolls out.

I at least was thinking of the desktop quad-cores and the Core i7 when I brought up the heat point. With Clarksfield topping out at 2.0 GHz I think we know what CPUs Apple won't be using.

 

[hitekalex]

@Shake - the "why can't Apple offer mid-tower" question has been literally beaten to death on this and other forums. Just do some searches. The answer to this question is pure marketing and product positioning. It has nothing to do with the costs for Apple to "develop" such product, there isn't much there to develop.

C2Q vs C2D is along the similar lines. There are no technical reasons why it couldn't be done. I think we *might* see C2Q iMac at some point, when the clock speeds / price point combination get to where Apple wants it to be.

Apple is very careful with their product offerings & they don't offer every permutation of processor/desktop/laptop/all-in-one form factor. Just because they *can* put together a certain configuration of a Mac - doesn't mean they will.

I would say, if you're unhappy with it - your best bet is build a Hackintosh, and configure it however you want to. It's not that difficult any more.

 

[Shake 'n' Bake]

@Shake - the "why can't Apple offer mid-tower" question has been literally beaten to death on this and other forums. Just do some searches. The answer to this question is pure marketing and product positioning. It has nothing to do with the costs for Apple to "develop" such product, there isn't much there to develop.

C2Q vs C2D is along the similar lines. There are no technical reasons why it couldn't be done. I think we *might* see C2Q iMac at some point, when the clock speeds / price point combination get to where Apple wants it to be.

Apple is very careful with their product offerings & they don't offer every permutation of processor/desktop/laptop/all-in-one form factor. Just because they *can* put together a certain configuration of a Mac - doesn't mean they will.

I would say, if you're unhappy with it - your best bet is build a Hackintosh, and configure it however you want to. It's not that difficult any more.

I know we will get a C2Q iMac sooner or later, probably later, but it is possible now.

And here's a good Hackintosh article. It is really easy now.

 

[Shake 'n' Bake]

Waiting for the C2Qs is like waiting for the switch to Intel, except we know it'll happen.

 

[Tallest Skil]

Waiting for the C2Qs is like waiting for the switch to Intel, except we know it'll happen.

*chuckle* Do we, now?

Oh, I'm sure that Sandy Bridge counts...😛

 

[Hellhammer]

Heat has been a non-issue since Intel shipped the mobile quads. I don't know why people keep bringing it up.

If Apple only cares about showing off clock speeds then they're going to get a rude awakening when Clarkfield and Arrandale rolls out.

But consumers only look at clock speed, they have no idea about multi-core systems and even less the gap between 45nm and 32nm. Frequency sells machines and those "High speed dual-core processor for multimedia and gaming" advertisements but when you check the its specs there's a 1.6GHz AMD 65nm processor.

1. How would a quad core iMac take away from iMac sales 🙄?

2. All Apple needs to do to develop a mid-range tower is get an new logic board and maybe a case for the Mac Pro. How much could that cost? $750,000? That's just a drop in the bucket.

3. True, but Apple could have so much more market share if they had a tower the price of the iMac.

Again discussion is going towards xMac discussion... Mid-tower from Apple will never exist

 

[Shake 'n' Bake]

*chuckle* Do we, now?

Oh, I'm sure that Sandy Bridge counts...😛

Yes, we do. It is inevitable that we will eventually get C2Qs or better, just like Apple went from PPC to Intel and from Core Duo to Core 2 Duo. 😛

 

[iMacmatician]

I know we will get a C2Q iMac sooner or later, probably later, but it is possible now.

I'm guessing 2011 for quad-core. I don't think any later but I can see 2010.

 

[hitekalex]

Yes, we do. It is inevitable that we will eventually get C2Qs or better, just like Apple went from PPC to Intel and from Core Duo to Core 2 Duo. 😛

Actually, it's far from inevitable. Apple will likely be moving iMac to Arrandale processors next year, retiring current Penryn lineup. And even then we may only see dual-Core systems, not the quads. Arguably Arrandale will offer enough of a performance bump over Penryns, even in dual-Core configuration. But the quad-Core iMac is not guaranteed by any stretch of imagination.