Processors for potential new imacs

[celi8071]

If apple is indeed releasing new imacs soon what processors do you guys think they are going to use. How many different variants of the core 2 duo are available. They are already pushing 2.93, 3.06 ghz. I think core 2 may have come to the end of its life. Is it possible it may have a processor from the core series? Core I7, or I5?

 

[thermodynamic]

If apple is indeed releasing new imacs soon what processors do you guys think they are going to use. How many different variants of the core 2 duo are available. They are already pushing 2.93, 3.06 ghz. I think core 2 may have come to the end of its life. Is it possible it may have a processor from the core series? Core I7, or I5?

As a dual core, likely. Even Dell has consumer-end machines sticking with 2 cores.

Xeons would not be used.

I'm skeptical about quad cores in iMacs; the Mac Pros would be faster anyway but that would be a conflict of interest and most high-end consumer PCs with that sort of set-up are $2000 -- nearly Mac Pro level, though not Xeon - to say the least.

 

[MacMini2009]

High end core 2 duos for now since arrandale was not released yet. Maybe Clarksfield.

 

[Hellhammer]

There are no faster Core 2 Duos available, so unless Intel makes a special ~3.5GHz C2D, I think C2D is at the end of its life. Arrandale is now in production so Apple may get them earlier and use them in next gen iMacs. I can't see Clarksfield because it's expensive and low clock speed may confuse buyers when there are 3GH C2Ds and 1.8GHz Core i7s (Megahertz Myth)

 

[Techhie]

I don't see Apple going into the Core i7 line yet, as the mobile variant is still to new. Unfortunately we probably won't be seeing quads in the iMacs until 8 core becomes standard in the Mac Pro; Apple doesn't like cannibalistic sales.

 

[yanquis]

As a dual core, likely. Even Dell has consumer-end machines sticking with 2 cores.

Xeons would not be used.

I'm skeptical about quad cores in iMacs; the Mac Pros would be faster anyway but that would be a conflict of interest and most high-end consumer PCs with that sort of set-up are $2000 -- nearly Mac Pro level, though not Xeon - to say the least.

the PCs are probably faster, since the i7s run at higher clockspeeds than those available for the mac pro's. they might suffer in reliability or something, but ive never had a processor burn out on me & i do pretty intensive stuff. running @ 100% overnight, etc.

this is why we will definitely not see desktop i7s in imac even if it were possible. the machine wouldn't be upgradable like a pro is, but it would be just as fast at the base level. can u imagine apple selling an imac i7 for $2499 when a quad pro costs that without the display? but mobile i7s are quite a bit slower, & would make for a very nice mid-range machine, so i'm still hopeful we'll see quad mobiles.

 

[mrsir2009]

Apple is going to stick with Core Duo 2 until the Mac Pro's get better processors

 

[MacMini2009]

There are no faster Core 2 Duos available, so unless Intel makes a special ~3.5GHz C2D, I think C2D is at the end of its life. Arrandale is now in production so Apple may get them earlier and use them in next gen iMacs. I can't see Clarksfield because it's expensive and low clock speed may confuse buyers when there are 3GH C2Ds and 1.8GHz Core i7s (Megahertz Myth)

I meant like 2.8GHz, 2.93GHz, and 3.06GHz standard.

 

[zedsdead]

There are no faster Core 2 Duos available, so unless Intel makes a special ~3.5GHz C2D, I think C2D is at the end of its life. Arrandale is now in production so Apple may get them earlier and use them in next gen iMacs. I can't see Clarksfield because it's expensive and low clock speed may confuse buyers when there are 3GH C2Ds and 1.8GHz Core i7s (Megahertz Myth)

I agree, but there are apparently some new Xeon chips that are similar to the Clarksfield in terms of speed and heat requirements isn't there? I know there have been threads about them.

 

[MacHamster68]

why does it have to be a intel processor


i mean ...ibm`s still there

and the power 6 sounds good to me dual-core design, reaching 5.0 GHz at 65 nm

or the still in development power 7 with 4 ,6 or 8core and clock speed of 4.04ghz at 45nm

amd does also produce quiet good processors

top end is i think now Phenom II 42 TWKR black edition overclocking potentials to 7ghz for all the mhz myth fans

sorry never been and never will be a intel fan

 

[Hellhammer]

I meant like 2.8GHz, 2.93GHz, and 3.06GHz standard.

That would mean no difference again

I agree, but there are apparently some new Xeon chips that are similar to the Clarksfield in terms of speed and heat requirements isn't there? I know there have been threads about them.

The newest rumors are saying it will be thinner, so Xeons are not possible. BTW Xeons are server CPUs so I can't see them in AIO

why does it have to be a intel processor


i mean ...ibm`s still there

and the power 6 sounds good to me dual-core design, reaching 5.0 GHz at 65 nm

or the still in development power 7 with 4 ,6 or 8core and clock speed of 4.04ghz at 45nm

amd does also produce quiet good processors

top end is i think now Phenom II 42 TWKR black edition overclocking potentials to 7ghz for all the mhz myth fans

sorry never been and never will be a intel fan

Because Apple has contract with Intel and I haven't seen IBM CPUs in consumer level computers for years.

 

[MacHamster68]

a contrakt yes ..but does that mean its a liftime contract ,even if there may be better options , i dont know if the ibm, or the amd`s are really better
i just did want to mention that there are some other`s out there , and some , not the above mentioned, could be used for a mid range/low range mac ,
in business i was never ideal to rely only on one supplier for parts