Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Argggh! Where are the new Imacs?/So who thinks we're getting new iMacs?/etc [Merged]
- Thread starter pale9
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Ok so it's now 10/20 at the EARLIEST. If there's no event..Glad we saw a little bit more information from AppleInsider today..Hopefully we get a slew of rumors on Monday regarding potential releases on Tuesday.
No way Apple releases anything on W7 release day..Not a chance. No one will even go to that event, it's W7 day.
So hopefully it's 10/20 and that's when I'll purchase a Quad iMac!
No way Apple releases anything on W7 release day..Not a chance. No one will even go to that event, it's W7 day.
So hopefully it's 10/20 and that's when I'll purchase a Quad iMac!
Just a question, will a 1.6ghz quad core be faster than a 2.66ghz dual core? If so how much faster.
absolutely. The i7 can overclock itself so the clock speed is much faster on single core and dual core. And it's around 2GHz on quad I think.
Also, there is no northbridge, which means all the controllers, etc. are integrated on the chip now..
It will be MUCH faster.
Seems like we're entering phase two of the rumours:
Phase 1 - Overtly optimistic predictions/rumours of what the iMac will have.
Phase 2 - More realistic predictions/rumours of what the iMac will and won't have. Softening the blow for when we get to phase three.
Phase 3 - Crushing disappointment when we realise that we were all wildly off the mark with our hopes of what the iMac revision would be and we actually get another moribund update like the last one.
Oh yes, wait about eight months and repeat the above Ad infinitum. Hope I'm wrong but I'm getting a sense of déjà Vu.
Phase 1 - Overtly optimistic predictions/rumours of what the iMac will have.
Phase 2 - More realistic predictions/rumours of what the iMac will and won't have. Softening the blow for when we get to phase three.
Phase 3 - Crushing disappointment when we realise that we were all wildly off the mark with our hopes of what the iMac revision would be and we actually get another moribund update like the last one.
Oh yes, wait about eight months and repeat the above Ad infinitum. Hope I'm wrong but I'm getting a sense of déjà Vu.
Dont hold your breath, you will turn blue faster than you think!
and somebody wrote:
Join Date: Aug 2007
Just a question, will a 1.6ghz quad core be faster than a 2.66ghz dual core? If so how much faster.
and somebody answered:
absolutely. The i7 can overclock itself so the clock speed is much ...
I am pretty sure that is incorrect. The faster dual will blow alway the much slower quad because 98% of the software cannot use 4 cores....
You're absolutely right. For most of today's software, a higher clock speed is better, but I think what the respondent was trying to say is that some of the new Quad Core chips (I know Nahelem has this) have TURBO. For example, in the 2.93Ghz quad core Mac Pro, the system can automatically switch to a dual core 3.3GHz processor to speed up the task if it senses that you aren't using all 4 cores.
To answer the first person's question, a 1.6 would probably still be slower than a 2.66 because even with boost, it won't actually overclock to 2.66. Quad cores today are for the prosumer and professional market. Any consumer buying a quad system should consider it an investment for the next few years. (at least 1 year out).
Then why would apple want to put it in a consumer PC when most will not be using it, also why don't they optimize Snow Leopard so it does take advantage of the 4 cores. Also if I ordered the 2,66 ghz imac should I be mad as it is on hold and I get stuck with a slow 4 core?
The 1.6 GHz is quoted as Turbo speeds of 2.8GHz - and 3.066 for the 1.73 version
How that relates to actual speed i have no idea
The 1.6 GHz is quoted as Turbo speeds of 2.8GHz - and 3.066 for the 1.73 version
How that relates to actual speed i have no idea
So maybe this means that it is faster than the 2.66 dual core which is the current low end iMac??!?
The 1.6 GHz is quoted as Turbo speeds of 2.8GHz - and 3.066 for the 1.73 version
How that relates to actual speed i have no idea
Where did you see this? Sorry I don't mean to be rude, but if the Nahelem processors in the Mac Pro can go from 2.93 to 3.3, I really want to know how a consumer/prosumer level version of Intel's quad core chips would be able to boost that much. 1.6GHz to 2.8GHz is A LOT!!! The Mac Pro's speed going from 2.93 to 3.3 is actual clock speed boost.
Youtube it with the clarks thing that was in the rumor he is doing a speed test and it jumps to 2.8
Well nobody knows for sure that Apple is putting quad core processors in the consumer level PCs. Additionally, Apple generally views the highest-end iMac as a prosumer level computer. Not professional, but prosumer. So I would not be shocked if they gave that option. But based on Apple's past, I wouldn't expect to see it.
Anyhow, you ask why Apple didn't optimize SL to take advantage of all four cores? That's precisely what Grand Central Dispatch does. Remember the main part of our computing is not within the OS, but the apps on top of it. SL has resources to allow developers to make software that will take advantage of the cores. Until they do, we won't be seeing too much advantage out of the quad core systems.
As for your order of the dual core system, how long has your order been on hold for? If in fact the rumors of a new or updated iMac are true (which is very likely), and if in fact Apple does put quad cores into every single iMac model, they won't just ship it to you. In a scenario like this, they will certainly ask you if are okay with that system. Since we don't know exactly what processor they would use (if they were to go quad), we wouldn't be able to say whether that processor would actually be better or worse than today's Core2Duo offerings.
For example, if they were going to upgrade a 2GB RAM and 200GB hard drive to 4GB RAM and 320GB hard drive, I wouldn't be surprised if they just shipped the buyer an updated system. However, in a situation where the part is changing with something that may be faster or slower depending on user's task, they would definitely ask you first.
My order has been on hold for a week. If I do some video editing and alot of video conversion (Convert my videos to Xbox 360 and iPod) with handbrake, what would you recommend? The Dual or the Quad. If there was a blu-ray, there would be no question and I'd get that immediately regardless of the processor.
I couldn't find the vid, but the 1.6 quad would jump to 2.8 with only one single core running. It would be significantly less, with 2 cores running. Since we are comparing dual to quad, I think it would be fair to keep clock speeds at the same number cores. It does not seem feasible for a 1.6GHz to get boosted to close to a Core2Duo 2.66Ghz when 2 cores turn off.
The lower the base clock speed the higher they can Turbo. For example, the ULV dual-core CPUs at 1.2 GHz or so can Turbo to almost twice their frequency with one core.
With 2 cores the Turbo is less but also remember that Nehalem is higher performing than Penryn for the same clock speed.
Well I'm no expert, but trust me when I say this is an expert answer: We don't know what chip Apple is putting in the new iMacs. If they do put in quad chips, we don't know what they will be. Based on that, it is IMPOSSIBLE to accurately estimate what will be a better choice. What I can say for sure: when Handbrake puts out an update to take advantage of quad core processors, a quad will leave many/most dual cores in the dust.
The following is PURELY MY OPINION:
From a business/marketing standpoint, it doesn't make much sense for them to be putting in a quad processor in place of their lowest-end iMac processor. I'm no insider, analyst, or anyone else, but based on the market for a low-end iMac, it would make more sense for them to put a slightly updated processor in there (maybe a 2.8?) and just lower the price by a bit. In my opinion, for their target market for the base level iMacs, they need lower prices, not faster hardware. 2.66 is good enough for most people who need that computer, 4GB is more than enough, and a 640GB is overwhelming. Keep in mind that iMac has a 9400M, so its users will be consumers. An average consumer (there will be outliers, but I'm talking average) will get excited for $100-$200 price drop more than modest performance bumps to an already powerful (for them) iMac.
I see. Alright well that's basically demoing a 2.0GHz going to 3GHz using just one core for that task.
Clarksfield and Turbo Boost:
Code:
Base Turbo
4 cores 3 cores 2 cores 1 core
2.00GHz 2.27GHz 2.27GHz 3.07GHz 3.20GHz
1.73GHz 2.00GHz 2.00GHz 2.80GHz 3.07GHz
1.60GHz 1.73GHz 1.73GHz 2.40GHz 2.80GHzMakes me weary of getting the 4 core, say I end up with the 2.66ghz Dual Core, does it use both cores for one process/application or will it use only one, thus being faster than the quad but if it only uses one per app, then the quad core with a 1 core turbo would be faster
After Oct 22 ...
I agree with many here that Apple will wait until after Microsoft has had its party and then pounce with new equipment and targeted advertising.
Snow Leopard will take down the bull (that's Ballmer btw)
I agree with many here that Apple will wait until after Microsoft has had its party and then pounce with new equipment and targeted advertising.
Snow Leopard will take down the bull (that's Ballmer btw)