2009 made the upgrade from core 2 duo to quad core i5 and i7's, 2010 will introduce the dual core 'i' series and an update to the GPU. In 2011 the iMac will get sandy bridge.
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.
Organized next iMac speculation
- Thread starter Commenter
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
2009 made the upgrade from core 2 duo to quad core i5 and i7's, 2010 will introduce the dual core 'i' series and an update to the GPU. In 2011 the iMac will get sandy bridge.
Hmm, well damn, lets just say I ordered a 27 i5 tonight, and lets also say that your large intestine is pretty good at predicting Apple releases, am I completely SOL or would it be possible to return for a newer model?
I know the updates probably won't be big, but to be off by 3 days is kinda disheartening. When my dad bought his Macbook he was a week short of the new aluminum ones.
The base exchange on Eglin Air Force Base had several boxes of brand new iMacs out in the open with extra signs highlighting the price, almost as if they were making a bigger push to get rid of stock. Never seen them do that before.
Just thought I'd share.
Just thought I'd share.
I think all imacs will get i5s and i7s with the top end skus getting the 9XX i7 cpus. The low end imac is $1199. The low end i5 is definitely at a price point to go in a $1199 imac. I know the sales numbers for Apple aren't hurting but to continue to put a C2D in a machine costing over $1k is so insulting. I also think all models deserve a gpu with dedicated memory and this is not a costly item these days.
But why wouldn't they put in better processors that are now the same price and fit? Or do you mean that the i5-760 and i7-950 are not really significant updates?
My colon says hi, and that you can return a Mac with no fuzz up to 14 days after purchase if the model's updated.
I hear ya on the C2Ds and GPUs, but what i5 costs not much more than the $133 they've been spending on base procs?
i still think base model = c2d. 320m 750 gb hard drive.. boom. i think core i5 dual core 3.2 ghz is fine though i dont know the possibility of the stupid intel chips sets (get them from asus dude!). i think bto for base is 330m 512mb or 256 mb.. then the next model will have a dual core i5. i dont think i3s are justified.. apple usually uses the same processors as their macbooks (so dual core nehalem e.g. i5) apple likes to flash (WE IMPROVED THIS BALH) so a new better processor would be better. i3 is sometimes slower than c2d. the i5 760 isint even released yet.. its unlikely apple will get exclusivity. i7- 860 would be standard. as for the base 27 inch.. i5 dual core.. high end 21.5 also i5 dual core.. then.. it would be the for the gpus.. ati 5750, ati 5750, ati 5850 probably all gddr5. i dont like the i3
I agree with your point about the current i3, but if they put in the new i3-560...
apple likes to do the advertising WITH THE NEW NEHALEM TURBO BOOST!
so i5
I somehow doubt they will put a Bloomfield in the upcoming iMac. Heat and a different chipset come to mind.
I'm thinking the most likely possibility is a simple speed bump, but that wouldn't really be "better" than a Bloomfield in the performance area.
I think the C2D is too old and slow compared to the same-price alternative, boom, but it's possible
The i5-760 will be released in two weeks, and as I said, they would release the quads a month after, just like they did the last time
The possible i5s are not considerably faster than the i3 for this use case and are more expensive
The i3-560 won't be out till Aug 29, which would make it available in enough quantity for a model as popular as the iMac even later than that, and as far as I can tell it's just the same as the i3-550 but 0.13GHz faster (my first Mac had a 0.016GHz processor, but still ), and it'll also be more expensive
I'll be happy to be wrong on either count, though
Another reason to expect the specs (and date) I'm proposing:
With this HP TouchSmart all-in-one runnin around, I don't think the market will allow the iMac's current specs, or anything less than I'm suggesting, and especially not for several more months
HP TouchSmart 200xt
(21.5" LED 1920 x 1080 screen, webcam, mic, "Integrated premium stereo speakers")
Genuine Windows 7 Home Premium 64-bit
Intel(R) Core(TM) i3-550 dual-core processor [3.2GHz, 512KB L2 + 4MB shared L3 cache, DMI 2.5GT/s]
4GB DDR3-1333MHz SODIMM [2 DIMMs]
FREE UPGRADE! 750GB 7200 rpm SATA 3Gb/s hard drive from 640GB
512MB NVIDIA GeForce G210
Slim-tray DVD burner with LightScribe
Wireless-N LAN card and Bluetooth(R )
6-in-1 memory card reader, 6 total USB, audio
HP wireless keyboard and wireless optical mouse
Microsoft Office Starter 2010
$969.99 (after instant rebate on hp.com)
PLUS, it has touch (which I think is just a gimmick, but it's probably a selling point with the average consumer), and it can be configured way beyond what the base iMac can.
The i5-760 will be released in two weeks, and as I said, they would release the quads a month after, just like they did the last time
The possible i5s are not considerably faster than the i3 for this use case and are more expensive
The i3-560 won't be out till Aug 29, which would make it available in enough quantity for a model as popular as the iMac even later than that, and as far as I can tell it's just the same as the i3-550 but 0.13GHz faster (my first Mac had a 0.016GHz processor, but still ), and it'll also be more expensive
I'll be happy to be wrong on either count, though
Another reason to expect the specs (and date) I'm proposing:
With this HP TouchSmart all-in-one runnin around, I don't think the market will allow the iMac's current specs, or anything less than I'm suggesting, and especially not for several more months
HP TouchSmart 200xt
(21.5" LED 1920 x 1080 screen, webcam, mic, "Integrated premium stereo speakers")
Genuine Windows 7 Home Premium 64-bit
Intel(R) Core(TM) i3-550 dual-core processor [3.2GHz, 512KB L2 + 4MB shared L3 cache, DMI 2.5GT/s]
4GB DDR3-1333MHz SODIMM [2 DIMMs]
FREE UPGRADE! 750GB 7200 rpm SATA 3Gb/s hard drive from 640GB
512MB NVIDIA GeForce G210
Slim-tray DVD burner with LightScribe
Wireless-N LAN card and Bluetooth(R )
6-in-1 memory card reader, 6 total USB, audio
HP wireless keyboard and wireless optical mouse
Microsoft Office Starter 2010
$969.99 (after instant rebate on hp.com)
PLUS, it has touch (which I think is just a gimmick, but it's probably a selling point with the average consumer), and it can be configured way beyond what the base iMac can.
It's not like the MBP 13, where they had serious space constraints - they can put a discrete GPU in the 21 inch case, they just skimp on the low-end model. An ATI Radeon HD 4670 graphics with 256MB doesn't cost that much, so they can go discrete in all the models ditching the C2D.
A ATI Radeon 5870 is possible on the high-end, unless that's there for the MacPro.
What really would interest me - a touchscreen monitor. Most companies would mess up touchscreen desktops (as the ergonomics are terrible), but Apple might be able to find a solution. Perhaps the monitor could recline, like a MS Surface thingy that actually works?
A ATI Radeon 5870 is possible on the high-end, unless that's there for the MacPro.
What really would interest me - a touchscreen monitor. Most companies would mess up touchscreen desktops (as the ergonomics are terrible), but Apple might be able to find a solution. Perhaps the monitor could recline, like a MS Surface thingy that actually works?
Gpu
For the 27" iMac why not
this http://www.notebookcheck.net/NVIDIA-GeForce-GTX-480M-SLI.32129.0.html
or
this http://www.notebookcheck.net/ATI-Mobility-Radeon-HD-5870-Crossfire.29486.0.html
Power consumption is not an issue and the 27" should be big enough since they are notebook GPU...
For the high-end 21.5" single versions of one of the above should also fit...
For the 27" iMac why not
this http://www.notebookcheck.net/NVIDIA-GeForce-GTX-480M-SLI.32129.0.html
or
this http://www.notebookcheck.net/ATI-Mobility-Radeon-HD-5870-Crossfire.29486.0.html
Power consumption is not an issue and the 27" should be big enough since they are notebook GPU...
For the high-end 21.5" single versions of one of the above should also fit...
I don't see them putting the 480 this refresh in anything other than the Mac Pro--- but I can hope!
And if they do put the 5870 it won't be the cross-fire one but the single version of the card.
A new Mac update on July 13th
I have posted this in several threads and I think my logic is sound. Look for a new iMac soon - within six weeks if my logic holds up.
Based on Apple's update methodology this summer a Mac computer has been updated every month on the Tuesday that falls closest to the middle of the month...
April 13th - MacBook Pro
May 18th - MacBook
June 15th - Mac Mini
July 13th - ????
August 17th - ????
September 14th - ????
My money is on the MacAir in July and the iMac in August. Both of those computers would benefit from being on sale prior to the start of school this fall. The MacPro is surely to get updated after the other two...so I will peg September for the MacPro release.
I purchased a MacBook Pro for my wife last month and am holding out for an iMac for myself and want the latest version due in the next 5-6 weeks if my timeline above is correct. I have the cash for an i7 27" iMac and intend on purchasing one as soon as they are updated. Come on Apple - don't disappoint!!!
I have posted this in several threads and I think my logic is sound. Look for a new iMac soon - within six weeks if my logic holds up.
Based on Apple's update methodology this summer a Mac computer has been updated every month on the Tuesday that falls closest to the middle of the month...
April 13th - MacBook Pro
May 18th - MacBook
June 15th - Mac Mini
July 13th - ????
August 17th - ????
September 14th - ????
My money is on the MacAir in July and the iMac in August. Both of those computers would benefit from being on sale prior to the start of school this fall. The MacPro is surely to get updated after the other two...so I will peg September for the MacPro release.
I purchased a MacBook Pro for my wife last month and am holding out for an iMac for myself and want the latest version due in the next 5-6 weeks if my timeline above is correct. I have the cash for an i7 27" iMac and intend on purchasing one as soon as they are updated. Come on Apple - don't disappoint!!!
I would love the option for an iMac Pro. 27'' or 30'' display, multiple 2.5'' user serviceable HDDs, an additional FW800 port....
Sandy Bridge will provide some increase in clock for clock, core for core performance so it'll be a nice upgrade but as usual, it won't be more than ~20%. Of course we don't know that before there are more specs available (clocks, TDPs, prices, real world benches).
Touch screen on a Imac would be interesting.
280m would be good. 12000 points in 3dmark 06. slurp slurp.
but I doubt we will see better i5's and i7's. average consumers will just see the current i7 and think its billions of lightyears faster than C2D. they can sell the low end for a premium price still.
backlit keyboard please!!! it really needs backlit keys. I cant see anything in the dark.
and why not 30''? 30'' would be the ideal. could they do it without increasing price? would it be possible to not suffer in image quality?
280m would be good. 12000 points in 3dmark 06. slurp slurp.
but I doubt we will see better i5's and i7's. average consumers will just see the current i7 and think its billions of lightyears faster than C2D. they can sell the low end for a premium price still.
backlit keyboard please!!! it really needs backlit keys. I cant see anything in the dark.
and why not 30''? 30'' would be the ideal. could they do it without increasing price? would it be possible to not suffer in image quality?
My longstanding issue with iMacs has been graphics power to screen resolution ratio. The screen resolution of the 27" iMac is so great that gaming on it is not a real possibility unless you go to non-native resolutions. I really wish they could redesign it and put a real graphics card in it- unfortunately it seems like the power/space/cooling requirement is too great and Apple will not redesign the iMac to that great of an extent.
I have wondered how well games would run at 1280x720- which is exactly half the resolution in each dimension of the native resolution of the screen. Theoretically that means you could simply pixel double everything and still get a sharp display. Problem is even 1280x720 is a bit low (lower even than the 13" MBP).
It all comes down to the fact that I would not mind buying an iMac if I could effectively game on it at a reasonable level. Especially with the release of Steam, it really serves to highlight the deficiencies in the Apple lineup for gaming unless you go full-on Mac Pro. I hope that Steam on the mac is not relegated to casual puzzle games, and that real titles get real mac support.
I have looked at building a new PC for gaming but it would be nice both financially and space-wise to be able to get a Mac that is competent at gaming. Doesn't need to be able to run triple display eyefinity or whatever, but get the iMac good enough that I no longer feel the desire to build a PC to do some every-now-and-then gaming.
Perhaps if they made an i7 21.5" with a 58xx graphics card- 1920x1080 is not too unreasonable of a resolution to drive with what usually ends up being mid-end graphics capability (because it's all mobile chipsets). Would also be easy on the desk space- where a 27" iMac is probably too large to reasonably fit on my desk.
I have wondered how well games would run at 1280x720- which is exactly half the resolution in each dimension of the native resolution of the screen. Theoretically that means you could simply pixel double everything and still get a sharp display. Problem is even 1280x720 is a bit low (lower even than the 13" MBP).
It all comes down to the fact that I would not mind buying an iMac if I could effectively game on it at a reasonable level. Especially with the release of Steam, it really serves to highlight the deficiencies in the Apple lineup for gaming unless you go full-on Mac Pro. I hope that Steam on the mac is not relegated to casual puzzle games, and that real titles get real mac support.
I have looked at building a new PC for gaming but it would be nice both financially and space-wise to be able to get a Mac that is competent at gaming. Doesn't need to be able to run triple display eyefinity or whatever, but get the iMac good enough that I no longer feel the desire to build a PC to do some every-now-and-then gaming.
Perhaps if they made an i7 21.5" with a 58xx graphics card- 1920x1080 is not too unreasonable of a resolution to drive with what usually ends up being mid-end graphics capability (because it's all mobile chipsets). Would also be easy on the desk space- where a 27" iMac is probably too large to reasonably fit on my desk.
Most games run fine at native res, just not at the highest settings. 4850 is a great card, nearly as good as desktop 4850. Also, 1280x720 is a quarter of 2560x1600 (3 686 400 vs 921 600). LCDs look horrible when at non-native res
Video benchmarks.
I could run GLView benchmarks on my i7 27" this afternoon and see where it fares compared to my nVidia 7800gs in my G5 2.5 dual (the fastest video card I've ever owned).
Stay tuned.
I could run GLView benchmarks on my i7 27" this afternoon and see where it fares compared to my nVidia 7800gs in my G5 2.5 dual (the fastest video card I've ever owned).
Stay tuned.
I think people blow the extra resolution way out of proportion. So far I've been able to get very good performance out of the mobility 4850 at the 27 inch's native resolution and high-ultra settings (starcraft2, dirt2, modern warfare 2 etc) In fact, the added resolution doesn't play that large of a role for some games (take starcraft2, where going from 1920x1080 to 2560x1440 only means losing 6fps) If apple introduces mobility 5870 in the next iMac, those machines would have enough power to run all of today's most demanding games, and next year's most demanding games with high-ultra settings on native resolution. People like to downplay the recent iMac's gaming prowess for some reason.
1280x720 being half of 2560x1600 doesn't make sense either. 1280 is half of 2560, but 720 is not half of 1600.
Do your math again
1280x720 being half of 2560x1600 doesn't make sense either. 1280 is half of 2560, but 720 is not half of 1600.