Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Core2Duo > Core2Quad upgrade?

The "quality" of a genuine apple? PCs and macs all use the same parts, Apple just puts on a prettier exterior. Examples of this apparently massive quality difference would be good too.
 
Quad Core

EdbBob said:
Hi all you geeks,

I was just wondering if anyone knows if it's possible to change my core2duo in my iMac7,1 to a core2quad?

I know it's not a simple operation (more like a challenge), but does anybody know any compatibility issues? The sockets (775) are the same, and let's face it: We're basicly running on PC hardware now ;) (In a pretty box though...)

The chip is available at about 200$, and double as many cores, should double the speed in some (multithreaded) applications... :)
Click to expand...

You Know,
I think the real question is: WHY HASN'T APPLE DONE IT?

Regards;
Larry
 
Just wondering why Apple didn't use desktop processors in iMac and Mac Mini, these chips run pretty cool, even G5 was used in iMac.
 
tonyl said:
Just wondering why Apple didn't use desktop processors in iMac and Mac Mini, these chips run pretty cool, even G5 was used in iMac.
Click to expand...
Core Duo came out early enough and with enough of a performance gain over the old G5 to provide Apple with a quick, easy, and cool upgrade path in early 2006. Conroe was slated for July 2006 but I guess Apple didn't want to wait for Conroe and placed its bets on Yonah/Merom and so on.

The original batch of Intel Macs could have been entirely 64-bit if Apple had waited for Conroe/Merom. Before people start about the 65W TDP that's a suggestion and not an absolute on cooling.
 
Eidorian said:
Core Duo came out early enough and with enough of a performance gain over the old G5 to provide Apple with a quick, easy, and cool upgrade path in early 2006. Conroe was slated for July 2006 but I guess Apple didn't want to wait for Conroe and placed its bets on Yonah/Merom and so on.

The original batch of Intel Macs could have been entirely 64-bit if Apple had waited for Conroe/Merom. Before people start about the 65W TDP that's a suggestion and not an absolute on cooling.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the reminder :rolleyes:, it's a pitty, otherwise, Apple would've probably use Conroe in iMac lines, for more power and cheaper.
 
IroquoisPliskin said:
I have yet to see one accomplish that goal.
Click to expand...

You most certainly aren't looking hard enough. There's a whole gaggle of people over at insanelymac with systems that were less expensive to build and perform better. I'm one of them. See my sig. Built for $1300 one year ago. Outperforms the current quad core Mac Pro and comes pretty close to the performance of the octo-core Mac Pros in Geekbench.

In fact, my single threaded performance is better than the single threaded performance of the 3.2GHz Mac Pro which translates to better performance in just about every application and in general OS use. The only instances a Mac Pro outperforms my system is in heavily multithreaded operations like encoding or rendering and only when they have twice the number of cores. Also, there's a user on these forums whose quad core Hack actually matches the performance of an octo-core Mac Pro in Geekbench. That's pretty amazing.

Hell, the earlier generation Intel Mac Pros are still selling for more than it cost me to build this system a year ago and my system absolutely wipes the floor with them.

Additionally, my wife's Hack cost around $800 with a 24" LCD monitor. It's a 3.1GHz C2D, with 4GBs of RAM, a 500GB SATA HD, and a 9600GT 512MB. It performs better than the $2349 24" iMac with the bonus of being easily upgradable in every way.
 
DoFoT9 said:
in short. NO

reasons

1) imacs use mobile CPU's, your looking at desktop CPUs, a mobile chip will therefore cost you upwards of $1000.
2) correct me if im wrong, but they are soldered on.
3) goodluck doing it all by your onsies even if you can work a solder very well!
Click to expand...

You're assuming a lot.

1. $1,000 seems WAY over actual price
2. Many of them are ZIF not soldered
3. I wouldn't hit that with a soldering iron either, but I'm not convinced it's needed.

It MAY be possible.
 
DoFoT9 said:
in short. NO

reasons

1) imacs use mobile CPU's, your looking at desktop CPUs, a mobile chip will therefore cost you upwards of $1000.
2) correct me if im wrong, but they are soldered on.
3) goodluck doing it all by your onsies even if you can work a solder very well!
Click to expand...
Intel iMacs (particularly from that vintage) use a class of mobile CPU that would go in higher-end PC laptops. Usually the types that would go in either gamer or mobile workstation class laptops or Intel NUC/Gigabyte BRIX type of desktops. If I'm not mistaken, all 27" iMacs used full desktop CPUs, whereas 21.5", 24", 20", and 17" Intel Macs all used this particular class of Intel CPU (save for the earlier Core Duo and Core 2 Duo generation models).

I'm pretty sure that most Intel iMacs used socketed CPUs. The lower end ones that would reuse the MacBook Air's Intel U-series CPUs, I believe, WERE soldered. But those were basically MacBook Airs with a 21.5" 1080p display.

If it's socketed, it ought to not be a hard job. Similarly, if there's a compatible Core 2 Quad part, the worst the OP will have to do is modify a few files, if that much. The worst part of it is getting into the main logic board itself because iMacs are annoying to work on.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back