Second!
I'm sure we'll see it eventually, but I wouldn't count on seeing it until the entire Mac Pro line is octo-core based, so at least a year or two I figure.
I just wanna see the lamp again!
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.
Quad-Core iMac
- Thread starter mashinhead
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Second!
I'm sure we'll see it eventually, but I wouldn't count on seeing it until the entire Mac Pro line is octo-core based, so at least a year or two I figure.
I just wanna see the lamp again!
The multi core systems (besides the C2Ds) are in high end machines. Possible once consumer based computers start getting close to the 4 core mark.
how long do we have to wait until this release? I want to buy an iMac and I'm told to wait
Wait until WWDC in June, where you will find what the updates are, at least you should get Leopard and iLife '07. Its a while, but especially if there are hardware updates, it will be worth it...
Intel Gilo is the only thing left that could turn out to be a mobile quad core. I still DO NOTexpect one this year.
quad core iMac
Actually, this would be easy. Make the entire back panel of metal, anodised black resting on the processor (we've had the black macbook, why not a black imac?)
Actually, this would be easy. Make the entire back panel of metal, anodised black resting on the processor (we've had the black macbook, why not a black imac?)
I think the problem is that the iMac is supposed to be silent (i.e., no fan blowing) except under heavy use. My quad-core hackintosh processor (Q6600 at 3.2 gHz) shuts down two cores when they're not used. (They're probably in a sleep mode of some kind.) However, when I do something that requires a lot of cpu horse power (e.g., 3d gaming, handbrake), all 4 cores come back on. My setup isn't silent, but it's pretty darn quiet.
Apple needs to get away from using notebook components in a iMac.
Apple needs to get away from using notebook components in a iMac.
Using lower power-draw and heat-generating mobile components allows Apple to make many of their machines smaller and quieter then their Windows PC counterparts.
I also suspect the longer "shelf life" (in terms of being updated by Intel) of mobile components helps by not requiring Apple to update their product lines every three months when Intel comes out with a new desktop CPU or chipset.
This may be why they also went with Xeons in the Mac Pro and never offered a desktop Core2 Quad option.
I'm not such a believer in this assertion. My MBP routinely runs over 90 C - so hot that I cannot use it as a "laptop". My Hackintosh rarely exceeds 70 C, even when running handbrake (which is about the most taxing app for OS X). In addition, my MBP is louder than my hackintosh when its fan comes on (which is more often than not). The claim that the mobile components generate less heat is BS, if you ask me. I know Apple likes to tout it, but it just ain't real, my friend.
That I can believe.
And this I don't understand (not you, but why Apple went this route). How many of us need server-grade cpus? I sure don't. These cpus are really interchangeable. No other engineering is required.
How large, by volume, is the case of your Hackintosh? How many case fans does it have, and what are there diameters? Do you have fans in the front drawing in cool air and fans in the back blowing out hot air? Does your CPU have a fan? And the GPU? And the power supply? What is the square area of the airflow grills in your machine at the back and the front?
An iMac has three (?) small-diameter fans that can only exhaust hot air. There are no fans that draw in cool air to help lower the inside temperature of the case. And the volume inside that case is likely significantly smaller then the volume of your Hackintosh case, so there is less volume of air to disperse what heat is built up and less volume to assist circulation of that hot air. An iMac also only as that slim "exhaust line" at the top of the machine to vent air. And also, it has the LCD display built into it which it also has to vent the heat from, whereas the display on your Hackintosh is in it's own separate case outside the system.
As hot as it is now, think of what having a CPU with another 20-30 watts and a GPU with another 50 would do to those temperatures...
The biggest reason would be that the Xeon family is the only one that can support more then one CPU per motherboard. So if Apple had chosen to go with the Core 2 Quad desktop models, we'd be limited to only a single CPU.
Now, for many people this is perfectly fine, which is why Apple offers the single CPU model (even if the price is much higher due to the component costs). But for many others, they need all the horsepower they can shove in there and as technologies like Grand Central and QuickPath Interconnect leverage those extra cores and CPUs, it will become even more valuable to them.
Yes, all good points. I think it gets back to me wanting a mid-tower aimed at the prosumer market. I have three fans in my enclosure - ps, case and copper fins on the cpu. While they do make noise constantly, they are quieter than my MBP when its fans come on.
I was unaware that no mobos could take more than one cpu, other than the cpus for the MP. That makes sense, too. It's just that there is a glaring hole in Apple's lineup, IMO.
I was unaware that no mobos could take more than one cpu, other than the cpus for the MP. That makes sense, too. It's just that there is a glaring hole in Apple's lineup, IMO.
Two of the big issues that would affect the QX9300 being offered on the iMac is:
We might be able to answer the first without Apple's help, but as for the second...
- Can it work in the "Santa Rosa Special" systemboards used in current iMacs?
- If it cannot, how soon will Apple transition to a systemboard that it can?
We might be able to answer the first without Apple's help, but as for the second...
I'm thinking around 3 years. I'm hoping my sarcasm will provoke Apple into making a quad core cpu available in the iMac at least only one year after billions of $700 pee cees have already had them.
The 45 W QX9300 is 2.53 GHz. The 35 W Q9100 (Q4 2008) is 2.27 GHz. Current iMac dual-cores are 2.4/2.67/2.8/3.07 GHz.
hmm. I would guess that many, many users would actually see better performance with higher clocked duals than lower clocked quads. Of course, that could change in the future, as snow leopard and apps make better use of multiple cores.
I totally agree. And Apple most likely won't even give the option of a higher clocked dual-core.
Does anyone know whether iPhoto/iMovie makes use of multiple cores?
I doubt Apple will put quad core mobile processors in their desktop iMacs until they have a faster clock speed. It could still happen faster than you'd think though. When the Mac Pro went Octo-core, the fastest quad core Xeon processors available from Intel were 2.66GHz (or maybe 2.8GHz) but Intel supplied them with 3GHz processors that nobody else had access to.
When the iMac does go quad core (and it will), it'll probably be dual core for all models but the top model. Traditionally, Apple has been willing to sacrifice a small percentage of GHz numbers in favour of more cores (Dual G5 2.7 -> Quad G5 2.5) but only very rarely and a very small amount number of Hz.
Personally, I reckon the first iMac Quad core's will come out in early 2009 - maybe at Macworld 2009. I'd guess they'll have 2 core processors running at speeds from about 2.5-3.0 with a 4 core option (maybe as standard on the top model) at 3.0 or maybe up to 3.2 GHz. The 3GHz mark has always been something Apple has been particularly interested in, after all. I doubt they'd introduce any quad cores slower than that.
When the iMac does go quad core (and it will), it'll probably be dual core for all models but the top model. Traditionally, Apple has been willing to sacrifice a small percentage of GHz numbers in favour of more cores (Dual G5 2.7 -> Quad G5 2.5) but only very rarely and a very small amount number of Hz.
Personally, I reckon the first iMac Quad core's will come out in early 2009 - maybe at Macworld 2009. I'd guess they'll have 2 core processors running at speeds from about 2.5-3.0 with a 4 core option (maybe as standard on the top model) at 3.0 or maybe up to 3.2 GHz. The 3GHz mark has always been something Apple has been particularly interested in, after all. I doubt they'd introduce any quad cores slower than that.
Probably because 2.67 GHz was lower than the 3.0 GHz dual-core Apple was using. And yes, I am taking into account both "Apple only" CPUs and the 55 W TDP ceiling, and I've come to the conclusion that for quad-core to come to the iMac with Montevina (or maybe even Nehalem), there would need to be extensive "Apple only" CPUs to minimize the price gap between a dual-core and an equivalently clocked quad-core.
The Quad 2.5 was still clocked higher than the dual-core 2.3, which was below it in the lineup.
This may be why Apple has moved from using fastest and second fastest CPUs in the MacBook Pro to second fastest and third fastest CPUs. It would allow for a smoother transition to quad-core, GHz wise, when it happens.
I highly doubt it. 2.53 GHz quad-core is 45 W, so 55 W would give 2.67/2.8 GHz (or a cheaper 2.53 GHz). iMacs already have 2.4/2.67/2.8/3.07 GHz dual-cores. So there's not much room for the quad-core without breaking the "GHz Rule." Nehalem would (I think) just move the problem from the high-end to the midrange.
This is why I say early 2009. Six months is enough time to release faster chips. I don't think 45W would be much of a problem in the iMac's casing. In the MacBook Pro it could be but not in the far bigger and far better ventilated iMac - particularly the 24" one.
Assuming a 2.67 GHz speed bump in early 2009 would give 2.8/2.93 GHz quad-core 55 W.
So the iMacs could go Dual 2.53/2.8/2.93 GHz / Quad 2.93 GHz. Now I see how quad-core is possible in the iMac. Thanks.
Never say never
never say never;
Watson, 1943, "I think there is a world market for maybe five computers"
I dont think the current iMac housing could cope with quad at all, but computers are improving rapidly (running cooler, faster, more efficiently etc). In the future 'all-in-one' apple desktops will run faster than quad core there's no doubt about it, especially with all the processor developers focused on heat emission so heavily.
You can discuss the topic but the outcome is inevitable. Anyone who says they wont get faster is naive and ignorant.
never say never;
Watson, 1943, "I think there is a world market for maybe five computers"
I dont think the current iMac housing could cope with quad at all, but computers are improving rapidly (running cooler, faster, more efficiently etc). In the future 'all-in-one' apple desktops will run faster than quad core there's no doubt about it, especially with all the processor developers focused on heat emission so heavily.
You can discuss the topic but the outcome is inevitable. Anyone who says they wont get faster is naive and ignorant.
Quad core iMacs
Seems like the chatter about quad core iMacs has really died down. Is the consensus now that it's not likely to happen anytime soon??
Seems like the chatter about quad core iMacs has really died down. Is the consensus now that it's not likely to happen anytime soon??