Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Quad Core iMac?

The current aluminum iMac's have outpaced quad-core based PCs (HP Pavailion Media tower for example) based on running similar programs. The only place the iMac was outdone was running video games (big surprise, right... this was running quake 4).

The HP came standard with 3 GB of ram in addition to the quad-core and the 2.4 ghz iMac held its own running only 2GB (might of been 1... check out CNET, the reviews there somewhere).

To sum it up, MAC OS X is the bomb diggity, because its secure and super fast. The premium for apple products doesn't exist anymore.
 
takeabyteoutta said:
The current aluminum iMac's have outpaced quad-core based PCs (HP Pavailion Media tower for example) based on running similar programs. The only place the iMac was outdone was running video games (big surprise, right... this was running quake 4).

The HP came standard with 3 GB of ram in addition to the quad-core and the 2.4 ghz iMac held its own running only 2GB (might of been 1... check out CNET, the reviews there somewhere).

To sum it up, MAC OS X is the bomb diggity, because its secure and super fast. The premium for apple products doesn't exist anymore.
Click to expand...
I'd like to see some benchmarks of the Q6600, etc vs. whatever T/X7xxx was in the iMac.

If you're only going to talk about a single threaded application then the X7900 at 2.8 GHz is going to be faster then the 2.4 GHz Q6600. A quad core isn't about the clock speed it's about running multiple threads.
 
spencecb said:
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.
Click to expand...

I hear you, but there will be some trade offs for now, with the limits in technology and all. Eidorian can tell you if the Dell XPS One has desktop chips in it or not, but at $400 more than the iMac, and no replaceable GFX cards or dual HDD bays, it really isn't an advantage. That's the only other all-in-one that has both the looks and the capabilities of the iMac give or take a few specs.

I was also in the running for a mini-tower/iMac Pro with dual HDD slots, PCIe expansion, etc. but I have long since given up on Apple making their hardware match their wonderful software. I honestly just suck it up now, and take what they can give me, and remain jealous of the Windows zealot who has XP running on an assortment of wonderful hardware, including Panasonic Tough Books, Alienware SLI laptops, and that beast of a machine the HP Blackbird.

Right now I am hoping Apple gets the concept of a 17" desktop replacement right, but I don't think they will, and I am about to suck it up and buy the santa rosa model.
 
I didnt read all the replies due to some bantering but to answer the original poster.. There will not be a quad-core chip of any kind in an iMac for a looong time if ever.

The first problem is heat. A quad-core in such a confined space no matter if its 90nm or 68nm chip will over heat basically at startup. The second problem also has to do with the depth of the current model iMac. I believe its around 1.7 inches (dont quote me on that) but the standard power supply would not be enough to power the cpu, gpu, and other components involved. Apple would have to completly change the design of the case ofr iMac to fit a higher watt power supply or have the power brick the size of the xbox 360's on the outside of the case itself and I just don't see them doing that.
 
Smoogz has it exactly right.

Look at it this way: since the Mini and iMac use notebook architecture and chipsets, unless Intel comes out with a quad core notebook chipset, these Apples will never have a quad core.

I think Q3 of 2008 is when Intel plans on releasing a quad core notebook processor, so I would expect Q1 2009 to see these in an iMac.
 
Pope Jawn Pawl said:
Smoogz has it exactly right.

Look at it this way: since the Mini and iMac use notebook architecture and chipsets, unless Intel comes out with a quad core notebook chipset, these Apples will never have a quad core.

I think Q3 of 2008 is when Intel plans on releasing a quad core notebook processor, so I would expect Q1 2009 to see these in an iMac.
Click to expand...

mac mini uses 100% laptop parts. The iMac doesn't use 100% laptop parts.
 
Pope Jawn Pawl said:
OK, which desktop processor is available for the iMac?
Click to expand...

There isn't any desktop processors in the iMac. If you understand english, i said the mini uses 100% laptop parts, but the imac doesn't. i didn't say it was 100% desktop parts, i said it wasnt 100% laptop.


I just saw your post Eidorian, we posted in the same minute, yeah, a 3.5 inch HD in my laptop :p. That would be interesting.

Isn't the logic board as well? I'm not sure.
 
bluedoggiant said:
There isn't any desktop processors in the iMac. If you understand english, i said the mini uses 100% laptop parts, but the imac doesn't. i didn't say it was 100% desktop parts, i said it wasnt 100% laptop.


I just saw your post Eidorian, we posted in the same minute, yeah, a 3.5 inch HD in my laptop :p. That would be interesting.

Isn't the logic board as well? I'm not sure.
Click to expand...
There are quite a few laptops that use dual 2.5" drives in RAID configurations. The iMac, MacBook, and MacBook Pro all use the PM/GM965 chipset which is a laptop one. The G33 is for desktop/LGA775 processors.

http://www.intel.com/products/chipsets/pm965/index.htm

http://www.intel.com/products/chipsets/gm965/index.htm

http://www.intel.com/products/chipsets/G33/index.htm

The 'G' is used to signify integrated graphics.
 
Eidorian said:
There are quite a few laptops that use dual 2.5" drives in RAID configurations. The iMac, MacBook, and MacBook Pro all use the PM/GM965 chipset which is a laptop one. The G33 is for desktop/LGA775 processors.

http://www.intel.com/products/chipsets/pm965/index.htm

http://www.intel.com/products/chipsets/gm965/index.htm

http://www.intel.com/products/chipsets/G33/index.htm

The 'G' is used to signify integrated graphics.
Click to expand...

im guessing the imac uses the pm695?

sucks the imac doesnt have a desktop board. Things I know the iMac has that are mobile are the processor, GPU, RAM (i think), and err, thats it. I thought the HD and logic board were both desktop class! oh well sucks, i guess i should have known that from this:

DSC_3860.JPG


I wish you are allowed to pop off the back cover and do easy upgrades. and if you did want a quad core (mehem, speculating here), then apple would allow you that option, but the bulge in the back would be bigger to have an extra fan, cuz the face of the imacs processor (the side that says intel) is facing towards the back of the imac. if not that, at least a pop off back cover.
 
bluedoggiant said:
There isn't any desktop processors in the iMac. If you understand english, i said the mini uses 100% laptop parts, but the imac doesn't. i didn't say it was 100% desktop parts, i said it wasnt 100% laptop.


I just saw your post Eidorian, we posted in the same minute, yeah, a 3.5 inch HD in my laptop :p. That would be interesting.

Isn't the logic board as well? I'm not sure.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry, I was referring to the chipset, which is notebook based, which is the limiting factor for a quad core processor in this machine. I understand English very well, for what it's worth.

I also wanted to add that the 1st quad core notebook processor Intel will release will be an "extreme" only version.
 
Pope Jawn Pawl said:
I'm sorry, I was referring to the chipset, which is notebook based, which is the limiting factor for a quad core processor in this machine. I understand English very well, for what it's worth.

I also wanted to add that the 1st quad core notebook processor Intel will release will be an "extreme" only version.
Click to expand...

as in core 2 extreme? or just insanely expensive?
 
Eidorian said:
There are quite a few laptops that use dual 2.5" drives in RAID configurations. The iMac, MacBook, and MacBook Pro all use the PM/GM965 chipset which is a laptop one. The G33 is for desktop/LGA775 processors.

http://www.intel.com/products/chipsets/pm965/index.htm

http://www.intel.com/products/chipsets/gm965/index.htm

http://www.intel.com/products/chipsets/G33/index.htm

The 'G' is used to signify integrated graphics.
Click to expand...

Eidorian, thanks for the clarification. I couldn't find the exact chipsets for the iMac anywhere.

Am I the only one who thinks that it's strange that there are zero Apple products that use the LGA775 socket and G33 chipset?
 
Pope Jawn Pawl said:
Eidorian, thanks for the clarification. I couldn't find the exact chipsets for the iMac anywhere.

Am I the only one who thinks that it's strange that there are zero Apple products that use the LGA775 socket and G33 chipset?
Click to expand...

What took you so long to quote?:p

Haha, just a thought, i think its funny. Its like saying a comeback 3 months later, i can imagine...

Boy 1, " your such a fag"

3 months later

Boy 2 is talking on the phone with boy 3, and randomly says "your faggot" in reply to boy 1's insult, but instead he said it to boy 3

lmao, confusing:D:D:D
 
bluedoggiant said:
What took you so long to quote?:p

Haha, just a thought, i think its funny. Its like saying a comeback 3 months later, i can imagine...

Boy 1, " your such a fag"

3 months later

Boy 2 is talking on the phone with boy 3, and randomly says "your faggot" in reply to boy 1's insult, but instead he said it to boy 3

lmao, confusing:D:D:D
Click to expand...

Sorry, I don't live here, but it just warms my heart to know that I was able to amuse someone today.
 
bluedoggiant said:
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
Click to expand...

There IS a sure answer. Read the 2600XT in imac post from awhile back that had thousands of viewers. Basically, when you open up the clock modifier tool for the chip in windows bootcamp all the users found that the 2600 pro in the imac was NOT clocked at to same rate as the 2600 xt in a comparable card. Thus, apple intentionally underclocked it. The most likely reason for this is because it produced too much heat. We can deduce that this was actually the reason because when people clocked it at the same level that the 2600 xt was clocked at, it either froze or produced graphical errors in many computers.
 
jbg232 said:
There IS a sure answer. Read the 2600XT in imac post from awhile back that had thousands of viewers. Basically, when you open up the clock modifier tool for the chip in windows bootcamp all the users found that the 2600 pro in the imac was NOT clocked at to same rate as the 2600 xt in a comparable card. Thus, apple intentionally underclocked it. The most likely reason for this is because it produced too much heat. We can deduce that this was actually the reason because when people clocked it at the same level that the 2600 xt was clocked at, it either froze or produced graphical errors in many computers.
Click to expand...

Did they know what it was before hand?
 
bluedoggiant said:
Did they know what it was before hand?
Click to expand...

Go read the 60 page post (or however long it is at this point). Basically when the imacs first came out someone installed XP in bootcamp on it and looked at the video card and it labeled it as a 2600 XT (which it is)... everyone got excited and was wondering why apple didn't just market it like that (which everyone wanted). People did lots of performance tests on it and it wasn't performing as well as XTs which lead to further investigation which revealed that the chip was being underclocked. That's why it should not be considered an XT - because it doesn't perform as well and if you clock it to XT speeds it becomes unstable.
 
It isn't the first time Apple has underclocked their video cards. The Mobility X1600 was underclocked as well. Our surprise was that it was a Mobility HD 2600 XT in the new iMacs while Apple was labeling it as the desktop 2600 Pro.

It's getting a little old that we're still discussing the identity of the iMac's video card.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back