2.8 GHz iMac?

[MiningGab]

New iMac in July?

 

[I'mAMac]

This doesn't say anything about a 2.8 ghz iMac but it is expected that they will upgrade the imac. This is more about intel and they're intel laptop processors.

 

[Mundy]

This doesn't say anything about a 2.8 ghz iMac but it is expected that they will upgrade the imac. This is more about intel and they're intel laptop processors.

I think his point is that iMacs use laptop processors...

 

[flopticalcube]

They might but I think the Extremes will be VERY expensive.

 

[siurpeeman]

i'm going to guess new imacs will come in 2.2 ghz and 2.4 ghz varieties. one only needs to look at the macbook pro line to see this.

 

[iW00t]

$3000 iMac?

 

[WizardHunt]

i'm going to guess new imacs will come in 2.2 ghz and 2.4 ghz varieties. one only needs to look at the macbook pro line to see this.

Man I hope not, 2.6 ghz or 2.8 ghz would be so much better.

 

[brandon6684]

Don't hold your breath.

 

[amc382]

2.8 seems a little much... i'm also betting on using SR MBP parts.

 

[superlatic]

2.6 and/or 2.8 wouldnt hurt as a built to order option??

 

[rainydays]

2.6 and/or 2.8 wouldnt hurt as a built to order option??

Might be that they need to build a better cooling system for those though. Especially if they are going to use a thinner case (which I hope not).

 

[Cabbit]

perhaps they will surprise us and go back to using desktop processors such as the core2quad 2.40 or 2.66. Or even Core2duo 3.0

 

[toru173]

Didn't apple factory overclock the g5 to get the 2.7's? Surely something would be possible in the near future, assuming they'd want to. Personally, I see no need for a 2.8ghz iMac. If you are really missing that sort of processing power, you should be looking at a mac pro. Apple clearing tells us that as consumers (and, therefore, those who would buy an iMac) we don't need gobs of power, we need a small quiet art piece.

I see a 2.8Ghz iMac being only slightly more likely as a resurgence of the cube. A lot of the arguments against the cube would apply to this as well. It would eat into the Mac Pro market share. What we already have is "good enough." It would complicate the product spread. Not to mention Intel doesn't presently produce a 2.8Ghz chip unless you go back to the aging netburst architecture - which, I believe, is very close to being phased out.

 

[Henri Gaudier]

Booooo to the OP! What a let down. I agree with others here 2.2 & 2.4 is all that we can expect. It would be a great machine though and I think feasible in Apple's line up of consumer/professional hierarchy. A mid range pro-sumer iMac.

 

[vtprinz]

How much of a noticeable difference is there for a 0.2ghz jump? Would you see any real world advantage with 2.4 over 2.2, or 2.6 over 2.4? (not being sarcastic here, it's an honest question)

 

[WizardHunt]

How much of a noticeable difference is there for a 0.2ghz jump? Would you see any real world advantage with 2.4 over 2.2, or 2.6 over 2.4? (not being sarcastic here, it's an honest question)

Actually now that you think about it , it would not be much of a difference. Only slight i would say. But every bit helps!

 

[WizardHunt]

perhaps they will surprise us and go back to using desktop processors such as the core2quad 2.40 or 2.66. Or even Core2duo 3.0

I think that is wishful thinking my friend, But it would be nice.