iMac i7-27 vs. Originial iMac - Interesting Ratios

[Inno]

So, I am getting myself worked up in a tizzy while waiting on my i7 iMac to ship, and I watched the original iMac unveiling on youtube.

It really drove home how much has changed looking at the numbers. Just some simple observations. iMac stats from here...

Processor - 12x Clock Speed (233 vs 2800), and there are 4 of them. Also, the i7 is probably also faster clock for clock per core (proving that would be an interesting test, though!) Would take benchmarks to know the true speed difference, but its probably > 12x

Standard RAM - 128x (32 vs 4096), and of course, its much faster DDR3 and faster clock speed. iMac Bondi RAM was rated at 66 Mhz, Single Data Rate! Max RAM for both models is precisely 4x the standard.

HD - 256x (4GB vs 1024GB), and that was the only option, you could get a 2TB now, for 512x the space

Display Area - 4.68x the Pixels - 1024*768 = 786K, 2560*1440 = 3.7M, 15" vs. 27" (note: it was optimized to run at 800x600, but was fine at 1024x768 75hz)

Video RAM - 256x (2 vs 512). Would be fun to see a benchmark that could compare the Rage IIc with the 4850 lol. (In fairness, it says the iMac could take 6MB VRAM, but I don't think many ever bothered)

USB - From 2x1.1 ports to 4x2.0 ports and a FireWire port. It would have been nice if USB 3.0 was fully ready in time for these new ones.

Important Changes (non numeric) - Modem vs. WiFi, Bluetooth vs. Infrared, OS 8.1 v. Snow Leopard (A much more advanced OS, including more advanced graphics and audio in addition to stability and memory management and other guts improvements)

 

[QCassidy352]

Processor - 12x Clock Speed (233 vs 2800), and there are 4 of them. Also, the i7 is probably also faster clock for clock per core (proving that would be an interesting test, though!) Would take benchmarks to know the true speed difference, but its probably > 12x

Um, ya think?? The difference is far greater than 12x.

 

[Inno]

So, if you purely extrapolate forward 11 years to 2020 you get some hilarious numbers on the 2020 Fall iMac Refresh

33 GHz - 16 Core Processor
512 GB RAM
256 TB Drive
48 '' Screen running at 5540*3110 (17 MP in 16:9)
128 GB Video Memory
A video card that is to the ATI 4850 what the 4850 is to the Rage IIc

Now, huge disclaimer, these are just extrapolations, and aren't based on anything else, like actually looking at the market or technology or what would even make sense. This was just for fun to look forward at just the numbers.

Looking over the numbers, I am *pretty* sure we are going to start hitting the practical limits of what you would need for a home computer barring some change to the paradigm, but who knows!

 

[Salavat23]

So, if you purely extrapolate forward 11 years to 2020 you get some hilarious numbers on the 2020 Fall iMac Refresh

33 GHz - 16 Core Processor
512 GB RAM
256 TB Drive
48 '' Screen running at 5540*3110 (17 MP in 16:9)
128 GB Video Memory
A video card that is to the ATI 4850 what the 4850 is to the Rage IIc

Now, huge disclaimer, these are just extrapolations, and aren't based on anything else, like actually looking at the market or technology or what would even make sense. This was just for fun to look forward at just the numbers.

Looking over the numbers, I am *pretty* sure we are going to start hitting the practical limits of what you would need for a home computer barring some change to the paradigm, but who knows!

Yeah, we are already hitting limits. We won't be seeing any CPUs much greater than 4GHz, if not lower. RAM in the next ten years will most likely progress to DDR5-7, but will stay within 16GB IMO.

HDDs will be out, and SSDs will be in. But in 10 years, I think we'll be running 1-2TB SSDs. So size will stay about the same, but speed and form factor will change.

Monitor resolutions won't change much I think. Otherwise it will be impossible to read anything on the screen without a magnifying glass.

As for VRam, I doubt in 10 years anything more than 4GB will be necessary.

But then again, who knows what will happen. The rate of PC progression is slowing way down, while development on mobile devices is increasing like crazy. But who knows?

 

[sir. mac]

Yeah, we are already hitting limits. We won't be seeing any CPUs much greater than 4GHz, if not lower. RAM in the next ten years will most likely progress to DDR5-7, but will stay within 16GB IMO.

HDDs will be out, and SSDs will be in. But in 10 years, I think we'll be running 1-2TB SSDs. So size will stay about the same, but speed and form factor will change.

Monitor resolutions won't change much I think. Otherwise it will be impossible to read anything on the screen without a magnifying glass.

As for VRam, I doubt in 10 years anything more than 4GB will be necessary.

But then again, who knows what will happen. The rate of PC progression is slowing way down, while development on mobile devices is increasing like crazy. But who knows?

We already have thumbdrives reaching for the terabyte mark, and you believe in 10 years time the desktop SSD´s will be 1-2 TB? Try something like 20-50TB and I will say you are at least in the ballbpark.

 

[skye12]

The new iMac's with that new 27" screen are amazing. With resolutions
rising, why can't the "stuff" become larger. In other words, all text etc. is
optimized for much lower resolutions?

 

[Salavat23]

We already have thumbdrives reaching for the terabyte mark, and you believe in 10 years time the desktop SSD´s will be 1-2 TB? Try something like 20-50TB and I will say you are at least in the ballbpark.

Maybe. But I think as soon as prices start to drop further, and consumers become more aware of the tech in SSDs, we may see a transition from MLC to SLC tech. The latter, of course, is much more expensive.

Also, thumbdrives should not be compared to SSDs. They lack many of the features that make an SSD what it is. Take, for example, cache. Many SSDs today have up to 128MB of onboard cache. That alone makes up for a beefy fraction of the cost. Also, SSDs have very complex controllers on them. Very different that pendrives.

50TB? What could possibly be the motive for that? In the late 90's and early 2000s, we knew that resolutions of photos and movies would increase dramatically. And they did. But now what do we look forward to that will require that much space? Most high-def movies will stay at 1080p. Cameras should stay at ~8-12MP. Program install sizes are going up, albeit very slightly. There is nothing really coming out anytime soon that will need that much more space. IMO, the industry will focus much more on speed than size in the coming years. Maybe I was a bit too conservative with the 1-2TB, but no more than 5-8 IMO.

 

[Salavat23]

The new iMac's with that new 27" screen are amazing. With resolutions
rising, why can't the "stuff" become larger. In other words, all text etc. is
optimized for much lower resolutions?

Resolutions aren't rising at all. 2560x1600 has been around for on the market for half a decade now.

If "stuff" becomes larger, than the purpose of high resolutions becomes obsolete. The main goal behind high res is to fit more "stuff" on the screen. Quality is more of a side-effect, not really the main motive why higher resolutions were developed.

 

[sir. mac]

Maybe. But I think as soon as prices start to drop further, and consumers become more aware of the tech in SSDs, we may see a transition from MLC to SLC tech. The latter, of course, is much more expensive.

Also, thumbdrives should not be compared to SSDs. They lack many of the features that make an SSD what it is. Take, for example, cache. Many SSDs today have up to 128MB of onboard cache. That alone makes up for a beefy fraction of the cost. Also, SSDs have very complex controllers on them. Very different that pendrives.

50TB? What could possibly be the motive for that? In the late 90's and early 2000s, we knew that resolutions of photos and movies would increase dramatically. And they did. But now what do we look forward to that will require that much space? Most high-def movies will stay at 1080p. Cameras should stay at ~8-12MP. Program install sizes are going up, albeit very slightly. There is nothing really coming out anytime soon that will need that much more space. IMO, the industry will focus much more on speed than size in the coming years. Maybe I was a bit too conservative with the 1-2TB, but no more than 5-8 IMO.

You just answered your own question. A backup-rip from a 1080p movie could easily land you somewhere between 5-30 GB.

I already have 5TB of data in my home and I´m not even trying to collect anything. Maybe in 5 years it will be 5-8TB as standard for a desktopdrive IMO.

 

[300D]

We'll be stuck around 3ghz for some time to come.

The Pentium 4 hit 3GHz in 2003, and there is yet to be a single consumer/workstation CPU to break 4GHz in the 6 years since. Thats the entire reason Intel is pushing more cores, they know pushing GHz is a lost cause with transistor technology.

I have a 1TB and 500GB drive in my G5. I also have 3 external 1TB storage drives that are 100% full with video and several 120/250/320gb drives scattered around the house in static bags. And I'm not by any means a "pro", so I can only imagine what the people that work with HD video for a living need in storage!

 

[Rapmastac1]

It's interesting to go back and see what used to be "fast" in the technology industry. Back when we thought the iMac G4 was a super fast machine is now relatively slow for most tasks and very slow compared to the previous and new generation of iMacs.

What we think will be the limits for tomorrow will always be lower than what we can actually achieve (on most things). Back in the day I don't think anyone would have seen the need for a 1TB hard drive, more than 4GB of ram, etc. And now we have an all in one computer that comes stock with that and can be upgraded to a much larger amount.

Times change and so do people. When the iPod first came out it was deemed to be a failure. Take a look at the thread somewhere around here about people talking about the rumor and the launch of the first iPod and you will see what I mean. People thought it wasn't necessary and it would fail.

 

[parakiet]

We'll be stuck around 3ghz for some time to come.

as long the 2,66 ghz from 2010 does it faster than the 2008 2,66 ghz i'll be happy

 

[dukebound85]

Resolutions aren't rising at all. 2560x1600 has been around for on the market for half a decade now.

If "stuff" becomes larger, than the purpose of high resolutions becomes obsolete. The main goal behind high res is to fit more "stuff" on the screen. Quality is more of a side-effect, not really the main motive why higher resolutions were developed.

hence RI that will be implemented y the next 10 years for sure

 

[Bryan Bowler]

Awesome thread! I like the way the OP has looked at the numbers...

As a reminder, growth in technology is not on a linear scale. It accelerates rapidly on an upward scale. We may not be able to comprehend the need for 50TBs of storage, but it absolutely will happen, and probably sooner than later. It is very easy to get stuck in the here and now.

For example, just a few posts ago, someone said that picture files will not go above 6-8 megapixels. Well, it's not uncommon for me to come home from a day of shooting and download 450 photos that are 25-40mb each. (RAW files from a Canon 5D Mark II) I'm not knocking the person that said this. I'm just pointing out that technology and enthusiasts are always reaching forward and the result is phenomenal growth.

Look at the size of Blu-Ray. 40-50 GBs. Granted, the United States is very behind on our infrastructure, but one day, we will be downloading 50GB files in a matter of a few minutes. There are many other countries that are years ahead of us in that regard.

In the scheme of things, it wasn't long ago that Bill Gates thought that 640K would be enough...

It is only a matter of time...

Bryan

 

[Moriarty]

Monitor resolutions won't change much I think. Otherwise it will be impossible to read anything on the screen without a magnifying glass.

Not when Apple finally implements resolution independence, which will allow super-high resolution screens to still have a very readable (and scalable) UI.

AFAIK it was originally promised in Leopard... no sign of it yet. Well, it is there in Terminal commands, but is still buggy.