Why no iMac with Core2Quad?

Discussion in 'iMac' started by mac.andy, Mar 4, 2009.

  1. mac.andy macrumors member

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2009
    #1
    Everything updated in the new iMac's is great, the 4 GB of DDR3 RAM, the option of getting an ATi 4850.

    But

    I can't understand why Apple chose not to go to the Core2Quad (mobile) processors for the highest end iMac's :confused:

    Please help me understand.
     
  2. Tallest Skil macrumors P6

    Tallest Skil

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2006
    Location:
    1 Geostationary Tower Plaza
    #2
    The Mac Pro went back to quad-core, and Apple doesn't care?
     
  3. mac.andy thread starter macrumors member

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2009
    #3
    But the Mac Pro is based on Nehalem (i7). What I want to know is why no Core2Quad options for iMac. I think it will come, my bet is that another refresh will take place for the release of OS X 10.6 - and will include a Core2Quad.
     
  4. GazH macrumors newbie

    GazH

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2009
    Location:
    Staffordshire, UK
    #4
    So many people on these forums have been disappointed by the current refresh because they were hoping that a quad core would be an option on the new Imac so you are probably better off presuming the quad core won't happen.

    Don't get your hopes up mate.

    If 10.6 can run on core 2 duo processor then why would apple even need to release a quad core option.

    Personally I hope they do as I am looking to switch to IMac later this year (from a lifelong Windows user) but I certainly am not banking on this happening.

    Take care

    Gaz
     
  5. Hellhammer Moderator

    Hellhammer

    Staff Member

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2008
    Location:
    Finland
    #5
    Mac Pro sales would drop... Quad-core Pro = gone, and Apple would have to offer 8-core for cheaper.

    Maybe next time
     
  6. svndmvn Guest

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2007
    Location:
    Italy
    #6
    with this philosophy they'd have to update every single product when 10.6 is out which would definitely be a suicide. The OS update probably won't change a thing in Apple's product cycle, so 6, 8 or even more months for a mobile quad core in any product, or they could even just wait for mobile i7?
     
  7. Zyniker macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2008
  8. mac.andy thread starter macrumors member

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2009
    #8
    Thanks for everyone's replies.
    Just using a work iMac ('08 Aluminium Rev) and it's amazingly fast with just 2GB RAM (DDR2) / 2.8GHz - so the new '09 Aluminium Rev iMac's with double the RAM and DDR3 seems like it will be more than adequate for me for a long time. Amazing computers.

    Three more months and I will be migrating away from my trusty old iMac G4 :D
     
  9. Tallest Skil macrumors P6

    Tallest Skil

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2006
    Location:
    1 Geostationary Tower Plaza
    #9
    Fixed. The 3500s are quads. There is a perceived cannibalization, however nonexistent it may be.
     
  10. TrapOx macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2008
    Location:
    Denver
    #10
    Too bad its not an actual reason.
     
  11. queshy macrumors 68040

    queshy

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2005
    #11
    Apple couldn't care less about the rest of the industry. Go to best buy - a good portion of their computers have 4 GB ram, 320 GB HD, blu ray, etc. Why should they put quad core in if their sales are as good as they are? Why risk competing with the Mac Pro? Besides, for what the iMac is meant to do, quad core wouldn't even help that much.
     
  12. lewchenko macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2004
    #12
    In my desktop PC (a gaming rig) I recently swapped out my e6750 dual core running at 3.4Ghz for a Q9550 quad core @ 3.6Ghz. Both are overclocked to this level.

    In everything other than two games it has been a complete waste of time and money. The games are Supreme Commander Forged Alliance and Left 4 Dead , both of which have received a welcome boost.

    Im sure if I spent my days 'encoding' or 'rendering' then I would see a difference worthy of the money it cost, but for people who ilife/iwork/web/program/design non pro material etc (i.e. most iMac users) a dual core is more than enough.

    People are easily sucked into wanting the best and greatest even if they dont need it!

    recently Ive been toying with buying my ultimate computer despite the fact that Apple had priced them out of the stratosphere.. It would have been an Octo 2.26Ghz Mac Pro with an LED 24" screen. Im not a pro, nor do I depend on my comp to make a living. It was just going to be a once in a life time purchase etc.

    However, I sat down and thought about what exactly I was going to use this computer for and in the end today I ordered a 2008 top end 3.06Ghz iMac for a bargain clearance price of £1235 with 4GB memory. Thats a hefty discount on the new 2009 top end model at £1800.

    The 'dream machine' with bells and whistles (pre software) was going to cost me £3500! Fortunately, Im a few grand better off now!

    buy what you need (and can afford!)...not what you think you deserve LOL! simple as that.
     
  13. Cheffy Dave macrumors 68020

    Cheffy Dave

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2007
    Location:
    Sunny Florida, on the Gulf Coast in Homosassa Fl
    #13
    Pretty much:cool:
     
  14. lastochka macrumors member

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2008
  15. Sebby macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2008
    Location:
    London, UK
    #15
    From what I've read, it's probably because there's no need. In their notebooks it's largely for the reduced power benefit. In the cinema displays, it's for accuracy. The iMacs are just fine with CFL.
     
  16. Eidorian macrumors Penryn

    Eidorian

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2005
    Location:
    Indianapolis
    #16
    Right, I'll just ignore the drop-in mobile Core 2 Quads entirely too. :D
     
  17. iMacmatician macrumors 601

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2008
    #17
    They probably didn't use the 65 W desktop quad-cores due to heat and lower GHz.

    They probably didn't use the 45 W mobile quad-cores due to Apple generally not wanting lower-clocked quad-cores in the same line as higher-clocked dual-cores. If this is true, then we may not see quad-core in the iMacs until 2011.

    And no, I don't really understand the "Mac Pro cannibalization" argument.
     
  18. Eidorian macrumors Penryn

    Eidorian

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2005
    Location:
    Indianapolis
    #18
    Show the average joe the performance bars of a quad core over a dual core. They're more than happy to sell a slower octo over a faster quad. :rolleyes:

    That's a single vs. dual socket mess I'd rather not get into either.
     
  19. galaxydefender macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2009
    #19
    imac unchanged

    hmm..the 3.06 is still the leader in the semi-pro imac department - why replace an nvidia 8800 (which is a gaming card) - i usually dont rely on atis and smaller nvidias for gaming - so they saved money there -
    the 8GB should be coming soon for that model as well, in an upgrade...what do you think? like for the macbook pro 15'4" - that was just limited to 4.
    are they just making same product cheaper by using lesser or identical components ?
    i assume 3.06 is the highest speed right now, due to heat reasons.
    a true upgrade would be an i7 quad. that's what a gorgeous 24" monitor is there for. video work. and that requires 4 cores for rendering .
    in essence on the new 3.06 it is just a price drop. glad i am still holding the top 3.06 imac. but will sell before the i7 comes.
     
  20. Eidorian macrumors Penryn

    Eidorian

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2005
    Location:
    Indianapolis
    #20
    I'm sure a 45W Core 2 Quad wouldn't be a better solution right now? Considering the current E8435 drops in at 55W already.
     
  21. m1stake macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2008
    Location:
    Philly
    #21
    good work ;p
     
  22. MagnusVonMagnum macrumors 601

    MagnusVonMagnum

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2007
    #22
    Get a Hackintosh and you'll have the mid-range quad-CPU computer you've been dreaming about and it'll cost 1/3 to 1/2 of what Apple wants to charge. My next computer will be a quad-core Hackintosh tower. It'll also be able to run Windows/Blu-Ray/Gaming(SLI) all in one box for one low price. Screw Apple's uncompetitive prices, features and desire to monopolize the hardware for their operating system. It's time they learn the hard way that if you snooze you lose. The only reason they've been able to get away with offering less for more for so long is they have no competitors for their hardware if you want OS X. That needs to change. Hopefully, Psystar will win their court case and then you'll be able to easily buy any hardware you want with any operating system you want without some company trying to stop you with an invalid (should be illegal) licensing agreement. I can guarantee one thing. If Psystar does win, Apple WILL start being competitive and start offering the kind of hardware you WISH they would offer for the kinds of prices you want or they will go out of business, pure and simple. That's the way it SHOULD be. Monopolies of any type (pseudo or otherwise) are always BAD for the consumer and only good for the greed-driven corporations driving them.

    Apple's OS is great, but it's the *OS* that makes it great, not Apple's hardware, which is still comprised of off-the-shelf parts mounted on a custom motherboard. If they need to charge more for the OS, fine, but don't sell me sub-standard hardware at 2x its value and then try to justify it with court cases designed to prevent any and all competition. That totally defeats the point of capitalism and freedom of choice. If Apple's hardware really IS as great as some would have us believe then they will have absolutely no trouble selling it even with competitors' products out there. The problem is history has shown Apple put out inferior, overpriced products in the past when cloning was licensed and it nearly killed them. It wasn't because of the licensing but because Apple put out inferior overpriced drivel! Imagine if Chevrolet was the only car company you could buy from in the U.S. That might be good for Chevrolet, but there is a REASON they are failing right now and companies like Hyundai are not failing. Apple needs a good swift kick in the pants on the hardware side of things. If they cannot or simply will not deliver then they should get out of the hardware side of things and become a software only company like Microsoft (in terms of Macs at least). Not having to compete with other companies is not an excuse; it's a crutch.
     

Share This Page