Power vs Size

[jgbhardy]

How many people would rather have an imac that was a few cm's thicker to allow for a better cooling system, thus allowing to have better CPUs, e.g. the i7.
It is most likely that Apple would never make a product thicker (what with the obsession over thinness) but it would good to get an overview of what people would like?

 

[Tallest Skil]

*presses button that raises ten thousand hands simultaneously*

Yep, that'd do. They could go back to the thickness of the white G5 iMac and put Bloomfield in there.

 

[dukebound85]

yea id love to have better cpus in the imac at the expense of thickness

 

[Prabz26]

that would be awesome

but i assume that Apple
tend to make things
thinner nut larger thickness wise

i mean they take up little space anyway compared to any PC
cuz theres no Tower

but i hope they did or would

 

[Tallest Skil]

yea id love to have better cpus in the imac at the expense of thickness

Dude... not even today.

At least Cassie's was tasteful and readable.

 

[~Shard~]

I understand the need for a thin, lightweight machine when you're dealing with laptops. However when it comes to desktops, I'd rather have more power, better cooling and easier accessibility for upgrades than a machine which is designed with the smallest footprint possible in mind and therefore uses mobile, not desktop components. I'm definitely willing to sacrifice size for power when it comes to my iMac.

 

[bchreng]

that would be awesome

but i assume that Apple
tend to make things
thinner nut larger thickness wise

i mean they take up little space anyway compared to any PC
cuz theres no Tower

but i hope they did or would

You're forgetting about the Mac Pro! CPU aside, it's about as powerful as most custom-built gaming PCs.

 

[dukebound85]

You're forgetting about the Mac Pro! CPU aside, it's about as powerful as most custom-built gaming PCs.

and 4 times the cost!!!!! woohoooooooo!

 

[jgbhardy]

Glad to see such as quick response and similarly held view about this.

The Mac Pro is not an option for a lot of people due to cost, considering the imac is a Desktop, and not exactly that portable anyway, they should be using desktop CPU's

 

[Prabz26]

and 4 times the cost!!!!! woohoooooooo!

lol true

im juss saying there's eventually a point
where thin and small should stop

like wtf is the new Shuffle peice of garbage imo

 

[iMacmatician]

From more power to less power…

Apple could have improved the cooling of the iMacs (or at least the 24") to put the 65 W desktop quad core CPUs in (3.07 GHz mobile Penryn was 55 W).

Apple could have put quad cores in the higher-end iMacs, which give more performance (in multi-threaded applications).

Apple could have put the 2.53 GHz quad core as a BTO option, since people may still want the higher single-threaded performance of dual-core.

Apple could have asked Intel to give them a 55 W 3.2 GHz dual core, like they did the last update (except it was 3.07 GHz).

But they didn't. Conclusion? The iMac doesn't need to be that powerful in CPU.

 

[ditzy]

and 4 times the cost!!!!! woohoooooooo!

Please say that you using this colour as an April fool gag!

 

[bchreng]

Glad to see such as quick response and similarly held view about this.

The Mac Pro is not an option for a lot of people due to cost, considering the imac is a Desktop, and not exactly that portable anyway, they should be using desktop CPU's

I'd love to see Apple release a low end Mac Pro that uses a C2D CPU. Of course, that's not thinking differently and Apple will likely never release such a thing.

 

[jtgotsjets]

thinnrrr

 

[~Shard~]

thinnrrr

Although I know they will eventually head that way, technology being what it is, I still don't see why desktops would need to be much tihinner than the iMac. It's a desktop, it's not meant to be portable, and by making it thin you run into cooling issues and are required to use mobile/lower horsepower components. I'd sacrifice a couple inches if it meant true desktop hardware inside which was easier to access and upgrade (specifically HDD, opttical drive and GPU)

 

[flopticalcube]

Pretty much agree with most. The white iMac thickness would be fine (even slightly thicker) if it would mean:

A) Desktop CPU
B) Desktop, Replaceable GPU
C) Easy Replaceable HD

or any combo of the above.

 

[Hellhammer]

Although I know they will eventually head that way, technology being what it is, I still don't see why desktops would need to be much tihinner than the iMac. It's a desktop, it's not meant to be portable, and by making it thin you run into cooling issues and are required to use mobile/lower horsepower components. I'd sacrifice a couple inches if it meant true desktop hardware inside which was easier to access and upgrade (specifically HDD, opttical drive and GPU)

+1!

Why desktops have to be thin? I have only cables behind my iMac and at least 30cm of free space.

 

[kastenbrust]

Am i missing something? I thought the whole point was Intel processors are getting smaller, using less power, emitting less heat and getting smaller? So surely its more logical to want/predict a thinner iMac and even MORE powerful CPU?

Theres other reasons for the iMac to ue a notebook architecure anyway other than size, such as component costing etc which is why Apple haven't made them slightly thicker to adpot i7's.

 

[JeepGuy]

and 4 times the cost!!!!! woohoooooooo!

Yeah but with dual quad cores !!

 

[~Shard~]

Am i missing something? I thought the whole point was Intel processors are getting smaller, using less power, emitting less heat and getting smaller? So surely its more logical to want/predict a thinner iMac and even MORE powerful CPU?

That is all well and good but there is a difference between more powerful mobile CPUs and more powerful desktop CPUs - again, I'd rather have the increased performance which desktop chipsets can bring over mobile ones - this gets back to the whole Merom vs Conroe debate.

Thinner is fine as long as other factors aren't compromised in the process. Regardless though, there is always the desire by many for better user-accessibility which only comes which larger enclosures and then flows into the whole "headless xMac" debate.