Quad Core iMac?

[jbg232]

gah they both have the same GPU.... do your research please.

Ummm... no.

The GPU is underclocked in the 2600 Pro and although there are mupltiple threads on the iMac actually having a 2600 XT they are still underpowered and freeze if you put them to XT clockspeeds. Thus, to be completely accurate the iMac uses an underclocked XT but will not perform at XT speeds and thus is an inferior video card. Not to mention dual DVI in the Pro version... overall a much better card.

 

[4God]

Don't you get that it is not currently possible.

1. iMac uses mobile processor.

2. Intel does not yet supply quad core mobile processors.

3. The iMac won't be redesigned as a thicker, hotter machine in order to fit a desktop CPU in it.

4. Until there are quad core mobile processors, the iMac won't have one.

Exactly right, but if I may append #4...Until there are quad core mobile processors (and quad core is no longer an option for the MacPro) the iMac won't have one.

 

[DoFoT9]

Ummm... no.

The GPU is underclocked in the 2600 Pro and although there are mupltiple threads on the iMac actually having a 2600 XT they are still underpowered and freeze if you put them to XT clockspeeds. Thus, to be completely accurate the iMac uses an underclocked XT but will not perform at XT speeds and thus is an inferior video card. Not to mention dual DVI in the Pro version... overall a much better card.

1. the GPU in the iMac is underclocked in the 2600XT. my standard clocked iMac does not freeze when put up and beyond the 2600XT speeds.

2. i seem to have forgotten that one card is a mobile card, while the other is a desktop...

 

[DoFoT9]

I can imagine a Fall update to Montevina with a quad core option but if MWSF 2009 doesn't turn out to be another disappointment then I can see it there as well.

uumm what months are fall?? im in the sthrn hemisphere and cant remember what your months r lol.

 

[Eidorian]

1. the GPU in the iMac is underclocked in the 2600XT. my standard clocked iMac does not freeze when put up and beyond the 2600XT speeds.

2. i seem to have forgotten that one card is a mobile card, while the other is a desktop...

The desktop and mobile variants use the same graphics core. The clock speeds are just different. I'm sure you can clock the iMac up but I wouldn't want to deal with that furnace.

uumm what months are fall?? im in the sthrn hemisphere and cant remember what your months r lol.

http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&resnum=0&q=montevina&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wn

May? 2H 2008?

Consider yourself lucky because many of them do get graphical errors (or don't display anything at all) under the heat of correctly clocking them in an insufficiently cooled case. But because the Mac Pro can correctly utilize the power of the GPU (especially without having to hack it) I would still call it a better video card.

Was this ever specifically GPU core related?

 

[jbg232]

1. the GPU in the iMac is underclocked in the 2600XT. my standard clocked iMac does not freeze when put up and beyond the 2600XT speeds.

Consider yourself lucky because many of them do get graphical errors (or don't display anything at all) under the heat of correctly clocking them in an insufficiently cooled case. But because the Mac Pro can correctly utilize the power of the GPU (especially without having to hack it) I would still call it a better video card.

 

[DoFoT9]

1.The desktop and mobile variants use the same graphics core. The clock speeds are just different. I'm sure you can clock the iMac up but I wouldn't want to deal with that furnace.

2.http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&resnum=0&q=montevina&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wn

May? 2H 2008?

1. yes sure they may use the same core. but im sure that if you compare preformance between the mobile and desktop cards they would be fairly different.

2. oh thanks

Consider yourself lucky because many of them do get graphical errors (or don't display anything at all) under the heat of correctly clocking them in an insufficiently cooled case. But because the Mac Pro can correctly utilize the power of the GPU (especially without having to hack it) I would still call it a better video card.

oh i do .

 

[sas76]

Thanks for the attitude. People that post responses like yours are always very helpful.

Even though I don't think it needs to be said, I will: The MacPro is overkill for most consumers, and out of an affordable price range.

Now, this will not turn into a debate on if Apple is more expensive than the likes of HP, Dell, etc. For comparably spec'd computers, the pricing comes out fairly equal.

But there are gaps in the product line. One of those gaps is a AFFORDABLE quad core desktop. Most other PC makers have them, so Apple can, too.

I would have to disagree,
What do yuo want your quad core multiple hard drive computer to do ?
Apple are not making a computer just for you. They have there range and I think it covers what the majority of consumers want.

Anyway I do apologise about the attitude,


Cheers
ss

 

[jcvmf214]

I'd also like to see the option of being able to put two HDD drives in the iMac instead of just one.

I would like to see more video options. I prefer nvidia. one of the many reasons why I am getting the mac pro optons is because you can upgrade. or get a more suitable to your needs configuration

 

[DoFoT9]

I would like to see more video options. I prefer nvidia. one of the many reasons why I am getting the mac pro optons is because you can upgrade. or get a more suitable to your needs configuration

hhhmmm its just not possible to fit another hard drive pay into the iMac.
a GPU upgrade could and should be possible.. but u kno apple lol

 

[Eidorian]

I would like to see more video options. I prefer nvidia. one of the many reasons why I am getting the mac pro optons is because you can upgrade. or get a more suitable to your needs configuration

hhhmmm its just not possible to fit another hard drive pay into the iMac.
a GPU upgrade could and should be possible.. but u kno apple lol

I think we'd all agree on more build to order options from Apple. Apple has oversimplified their products which does ostracize their older and more technically literate user base.

[sarcasm]All about dem' "dumb" switchers who can't figure out Dell's order page and Windows Vista. Right boys? [/sarcasm]

Switcher bait at the cost of giving us enough headaches to take our money elsewhere. Sadly...

 

[srt42b]

It would be nice to see. I would also like to see a PRO-ish version of the iMac.

 

[DoFoT9]

WRONG

yes i had already established that, about a week ago..

 

[Yixian]

It's.. well.. pretty mind blowingly ridiculous that Apple doesn't allow BtO on those puny GPUs in the iMac.

 

[KurtangleTN]

And here's the entire problem with the notebook chips. You have to wait so long to get the newer desktop technology, and you end up paying more for last years desktop product.

I don't think people would complain as much about crap like this if they offered a decent priced tower, for around $1500.

 

[Eidorian]

And here's the entire problem with the notebook chips. You have to wait so long to get the newer desktop technology, and you end up paying more for last years desktop product.

I don't think people would complain as much about crap like this if they offered a decent priced tower, for around $1500.

Proof that it's last years. The original Merom and Conroe parts barely showed a performance difference. The same can be said of certain X7900 vs. Xeon ones as well.

 

[Yixian]

A desktop is not a laptop. Form factor is NOT anywhere NEAR as important in a desktop to me as it is a laptop.

Next thing you know Apple will replace the iMac with an iMac Air:

OMG look what we made! Just what you always wanted! We know how much you loved our underpowered but pointlessly thin iMacs, now introducing he iMac Air! Core Duo with GMA950 and thin enough to fit in your bag!!!




Seriously no, make it bigger and more powerful. If I want portability I'll get a freaking notebook, alright?!?!

 

[bluedoggiant]

It would be nice to see. I would also like to see a PRO-ish version of the iMac.

Mehem, there already is one. They call it the 24" iMac with the 2.8ghz Core 2 Extreme Mobile Processor. It's MORE than anyone would really need for basic tasks, and is also a pro processor, If I'm not wrong, Steve Jobs pointed out that the 2.8ghz iMac was for the PROsumer industry, I think he actually said that twice in the keynote.


As for the GPU fight. The Mac Pro has an AMD-ATI Radeon 2600 Series XT (standard), but apple put in 256mb of vram instead of 512mb.


The iMac (been established ages ago) has an AMD-ATI Radeon 2600 Series Mobility XT. With 256mb of ddr3 vram.

The imac does not have a 2600 pro, number one is because there is no such thing as a mobility PRO, thats why apple adopted the 2600 mobility XT. the imac does not have a 2600 xt either, it has a the mobility version of that except with 256mb of vram. Apple is being gay and calling it a 2600 pro, they just don't want to get complicated with it real name, so called it a pro, and they also needed that because of the (at the time) future mac pro, they new they were going to put a 2600xt standard, and wanted to make money off the MP, as of these forums,  was unsuccessful with their attempt to make people buy the MP cuz of the Vcard. Basically, Apple lied, and yes, you can sue. In windows, device manager shows it as the card above. In the mac/apple system (blah), its recognized as the pro. Apple just relabeled it like that. plus the model number (0x9583), has nothing to do with the pro, if you search, duh you will get results about the imac having a pro cuz everyone is talking about this confusion.

If you want info on the vcard in your imac look here:
http://ati.amd.com/products/mobilityradeonhd2600xt/index.html

for your MP:
http://ati.amd.com/products/radeonhd2600/radeonhd2600xt/index.html (except with 256mb)

And finally, the quad core discussion. We all know that HP's and stuff have Quad-cores, But have you ever tried compared a 2.8ghz amd quad (in a pc) to the 2.8ghz c2e in the imac, the mac os does not need all the processing power a PC does. PC's demand more processing power, especially for vista. I don't see any difference between my dual core and my friend's quad, there is, but not much, don't see any boosts, As a matter of fact, i think my imac is faster.

EDIT: this is what is in the iMac:

Mac Pro:

 

[DoFoT9]

Mehem, there already is one....(very long post)

wow incredible post mate. that will keep people quite for a long time to come. you have convinced me even more (even though i assumed it was already a XT). very well done *applause*

 

[bluedoggiant]

wow incredible post mate. that will keep people quite for a long time to come. you have convinced me even more (even though i assumed it was already a XT). very well done *applause*

Really? All I did was point out that there was a "proish" version of the imac. Settle the GPU argument, and bring this thread back on topic with the quad core discussion that I am enjoying. I also gave my thoughts on a 4 core imac, and also displayed images of the GPU's.

But I learned a lot from this, i thought a mobile gpu was a normal vcard except with slower clock speeds. I thought the imac had the cool card with the flames!!! But oh well, we get this dumb processor looking thing, like intel graphics accelerators.

So continue.

 

[jbg232]

For the millionth time, the 2600 XT in the imac is not clocked at current 2600 XT speeds available on the market. When clocked at the correct speed many of the cards will display graphical errors due to overheating in the imac case. Apple intentionally underclocked the 2600 XT that is in the imac so as not to produce a computer that was unstable. Thus, they had an underclocked 2600 XT that doesn't run at 2600 XT speeds so they couldn't advertise it as an 2600 XT chip and thus called it a 2600 Pro.

You can clock them correctly with software but it will not work for all users.

 

[Digital Skunk]

It might be the same price, but as you said, it doesn't include one key thing: a 24" display.

So its not the same, not the same at all. The iMac puts everything in an awesome all-in-one configuration, which is what I want.

Oh..!

You want your cake and to eat it to.

Not to be all those negative comments that people here call us nerds, but that's just not ready to happen yet, and as most people do that want an iMac's looks, but not the price or the perceived limitations, they "don't agree" with what is being read on the web page.

Apple won't put a desktop chip in the iMac, there is no Intel quad core cpu. The machine your boyfriend bought is garbage because it runs Vista, and it's fatter and larger than the iMac either way.

Why do you want a machine like his, but in a package like the iMacs? If you want a quad core machine like his, then get the MacPro. If you want it for the same price then I am sorry, but the MacPro is a workstation, so the price will be justifiable to many, but not to some.

If you want an all-in-one then understand that many of them have something missing to get them that small. For the iMac, it's the desktop CPU.

 

[bluedoggiant]

For the millionth time, the 2600 XT in the imac is not clocked at current 2600 XT speeds available on the market. When clocked at the correct speed many of the cards will display graphical errors due to overheating in the imac case. Apple intentionally underclocked the 2600 XT that is in the imac so as not to produce a computer that was unstable. Thus, they had an underclocked 2600 XT that doesn't run at 2600 XT speeds so they couldn't advertise it as an 2600 XT chip and thus called it a 2600 Pro.

You can clock them correctly with software but it will not work for all users.

Oh. My. Fxck.

I mean I thought I just went through a long post on this, and YET, people are still talking opposingly! number one, its a Mobility. And who said that apple UNDERCLOCKED it? huh? Maybe Apple wanted to get the most out of the CPU so that it could compare with other desktops, so they clocked it up a bit and wasn't so successful, then they maybe clocked it down to normal, still overclocked, but less than before, or took it down and under-clocked it. Who knows. There is no sure answer unless you ask Apple. What you said is a thought, may not be it, but could be true.

And as for the software to make it faster, where can i get that? Would it only work on windows? As for that, I found these:

http://www.techpowerup.com/atitool/

and maybe more reliable:

http://ati.amd.com/support/drivers/mac/bootcamp-xp.html

 

[takeabyteoutta]

A desktop is not a laptop. Form factor is NOT anywhere NEAR as important in a desktop to me as it is a laptop.

Next thing you know Apple will replace the iMac with an iMac Air:

OMG look what we made! Just what you always wanted! We know how much you loved our underpowered but pointlessly thin iMacs, now introducing he iMac Air! Core Duo with GMA950 and thin enough to fit in your bag!!!




Seriously no, make it bigger and more powerful. If I want portability I'll get a freaking notebook, alright?!?!

if you want that, buy a PC or a Mac Pro. The iMac is for people that want an easy to use, astetically pleasing (limited wires) computer that doesn't take up the whole desk. Hence the all-in-one moniker form.

 

[spencecb]

Oh..!

You want your cake and to eat it to.

Not to be all those negative comments that people here call us nerds, but that's just not ready to happen yet, and as most people do that want an iMac's looks, but not the price or the perceived limitations, they "don't agree" with what is being read on the web page.

Apple won't put a desktop chip in the iMac, there is no Intel quad core cpu. The machine your boyfriend bought is garbage because it runs Vista, and it's fatter and larger than the iMac either way.

Why do you want a machine like his, but in a package like the iMacs? If you want a quad core machine like his, then get the MacPro. If you want it for the same price then I am sorry, but the MacPro is a workstation, so the price will be justifiable to many, but not to some.

If you want an all-in-one then understand that many of them have something missing to get them that small. For the iMac, it's the desktop CPU.

I want a quad core machine in the iMac form factor because I prefer it to a desktop tower and separate display.

This has been a decent thread. Thanks to all the insightful responses.