yes i agree there are other posts that have verified the status of the iMacs GPU... moving on...
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 spencecb
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
yes i agree there are other posts that have verified the status of the iMacs GPU... moving on...
I know that. That's how I learned this...
I know, its getting annoying, I thought I settled it
QUAD CORE IMACS!!!!
thank you for your time.
I know that. That's how I learned this...
I know, its getting annoying, I thought I settled it
QUAD CORE IMACS!!!!
thank you for your time.
be patient young one be patient.. they will come, save some money, give it time. trust me
be patient young one be patient.. they will come, save some money, give it time. trust me
not dying for them, just want what i explained earlier, a quad core option on the 24" that will mean that the case will have a bigger bulge to hold an extra fan. so that it could cool it. even better...well, i lets not get on that "topic" again
.
I don't see much of a reason for Apple to keep making the iMac thinner with each revision. The switch to Aluminium led to an increase in internal temperatures and a much more obvious external increase as well due to the aluminium.
Remember that the iMac at one point did use desktop processors. I guess Apple wanted to get an Intel Mac out as soon as possible and found that the Core Duo was more then enough of a performance increase over the G5 then waiting for Core 2 Duo (Conroe). Once they adopted the the Intel mobile platform they stuck with it.
A minor suggestion but you all should set your number of posts shows per page to 40.
Remember that the iMac at one point did use desktop processors. I guess Apple wanted to get an Intel Mac out as soon as possible and found that the Core Duo was more then enough of a performance increase over the G5 then waiting for Core 2 Duo (Conroe). Once they adopted the the Intel mobile platform they stuck with it.
A minor suggestion but you all should set your number of posts shows per page to 40.
The iMac is just right 20" is too far. A bigger bulge, and make the inside into a /\ shape, except with an obtuse angle, then they will have more space for fans and such, but doing so does not allow an upgrade for the components from the back cover from which i would also like.
Deration
As people have pointed out, the 2600 is underclocked. But please don't just think it is a heat issue. Heat comes into it of course, the designers are more concerned with reliability.
As a Design Manager for a well known consumer electronics company, I can tell you this: Typically we are given a spec. telling us what the product life time should, 2 years 5 years or sometimes 10 years, all quoted in hours. On this basis we make our first engineering samples to conduct design validation trials, for such things as component open and short circuit tests, as there are many safety directives in many countries that dictate how a product should fail and fail safely in the event of a fault. We conduct EMC trials and most importantly deration/performance tests. The unit is loaded as it would be in normal use and measurements are taken at high, low and average line voltages. So for a 1 watt resistor for example, we would never run it at more tan 50% of its capability, as anything more could shorten its life, this applies to all components, we use a 70% limit for semiconductors and 50% pretty much for everything else. We also take into account the ambient temperatures that it may see, +50 deg.C and say -10 Deg.C. With all this data we use a nice little piece of reliability software that calculates the expected life of the product. If it spits out a figure that is too high, we can take cost out and vice versa. The biggest weakness in most electronics is the electrolytic capacitors, they have to be kept cool or their life expectation drops rapidly. So that is just a small insight into electronics design.
So in a nut shell, they don't like hot stuff in the cases as product fails and is returned, they lose money and reputation. If you ever wonder why some Panasonic, Sony or other reputable brands sometimes cost more, it is because the spec says 80,000hrs or 100,000 hrs MTBF.
You could off course overclock it, add big heatsinks and fans, cut a hole in the case to get the air volume and parts in, but it would not look nice and your warranty is up the creek..LoL
As people have pointed out, the 2600 is underclocked. But please don't just think it is a heat issue. Heat comes into it of course, the designers are more concerned with reliability.
As a Design Manager for a well known consumer electronics company, I can tell you this: Typically we are given a spec. telling us what the product life time should, 2 years 5 years or sometimes 10 years, all quoted in hours. On this basis we make our first engineering samples to conduct design validation trials, for such things as component open and short circuit tests, as there are many safety directives in many countries that dictate how a product should fail and fail safely in the event of a fault. We conduct EMC trials and most importantly deration/performance tests. The unit is loaded as it would be in normal use and measurements are taken at high, low and average line voltages. So for a 1 watt resistor for example, we would never run it at more tan 50% of its capability, as anything more could shorten its life, this applies to all components, we use a 70% limit for semiconductors and 50% pretty much for everything else. We also take into account the ambient temperatures that it may see, +50 deg.C and say -10 Deg.C. With all this data we use a nice little piece of reliability software that calculates the expected life of the product. If it spits out a figure that is too high, we can take cost out and vice versa. The biggest weakness in most electronics is the electrolytic capacitors, they have to be kept cool or their life expectation drops rapidly. So that is just a small insight into electronics design.
So in a nut shell, they don't like hot stuff in the cases as product fails and is returned, they lose money and reputation. If you ever wonder why some Panasonic, Sony or other reputable brands sometimes cost more, it is because the spec says 80,000hrs or 100,000 hrs MTBF.
You could off course overclock it, add big heatsinks and fans, cut a hole in the case to get the air volume and parts in, but it would not look nice and your warranty is up the creek..LoL
Though what i said in the reply before is true (about heat, design of case, and power supply) I researched more on the intel quad cores and found this.
Intel has released details on a new 45nm chip called Penryn. This is basically the chip size the iMac would need where-as before the chip size was 65nm. So there is potential for a quad core iMac it'll just need a new case design and the price will probably be insane but hey it's a step forward for iMac i suppose.
since apple specializes in finding and defining new markets, I don't see the urgency for delving into an existing market, no matter how much we might like it...
To sum up - I guess the answer to the OP is that it is feasable that in the 1H/2009 an iMac w/ a quad core CPU could be released. Then your iMac will be around 4 years old and you will get a very nice replacement.
What I dont understand is why MBP is more powerful than the most expenssive Imac.
If its true that MBP will get an 8800 GT card, then I dont understand why a large Imac would not be able to get one aswell. They are both based on mobile technology but Imac 24 has so much more room in it, than a 17 inch.
I dont see how they compare. people say that Mac Pro is for power, but IMO it seems like Mac Pro is for serious power users. Normal folks and semi pros just want an Imac because of the design.
This is also why I think it defeats the purpose of an Imac to make it headless. the build in screen is the trademark of it. its what makes it iconic.
If its true that MBP will get an 8800 GT card, then I dont understand why a large Imac would not be able to get one aswell. They are both based on mobile technology but Imac 24 has so much more room in it, than a 17 inch.
I dont see how they compare. people say that Mac Pro is for power, but IMO it seems like Mac Pro is for serious power users. Normal folks and semi pros just want an Imac because of the design.
This is also why I think it defeats the purpose of an Imac to make it headless. the build in screen is the trademark of it. its what makes it iconic.
the most expensive iMac beats the MBP, the only thing that the MBP beats in is the GPU, iMac defeats in everything else.
Why should Apple offer something everyone else already offers?
Think Different
Intel is launching a 40-Watt Quad-core in the following weeks, it could be possible although not with the current chipset used in the iMac.
Aint the processor difference between MBP 17' and 24' Imac very subtle and small at best?
Intel has had low voltage Xeon processors for ages.Why should Apple offer something everyone else already offers?
Think Different
Intel is launching a 40-Watt Quad-core in the following weeks, it could be possible although not with the current chipset used in the iMac.
quad, schmad, gimme RAM!
I'd much rather have one that has more memory slots, let's say 4 instead of 2, so that even with this generation memory you could get 8Gb instead of the already skimpy 4Gb. Of course if there are plans to make 4Gb modules instead of the now max 2, I'd be also happy (for the moment).
I'd much rather have one that has more memory slots, let's say 4 instead of 2, so that even with this generation memory you could get 8Gb instead of the already skimpy 4Gb. Of course if there are plans to make 4Gb modules instead of the now max 2, I'd be also happy (for the moment).
I'd much rather have one that has more memory slots, let's say 4 instead of 2, so that even with this generation memory you could get 8Gb instead of the already skimpy 4Gb. Of course if there are plans to make 4Gb modules instead of the now max 2, I'd be also happy (for the moment).
What programs are you using on an imac that require 8gb of ram?
HD video editing will easily take that up. lots of editing, especially music/graphical.
thankyou
its a once in a blue-blue moon^2 that i get something right. ill take it!!! Surely if you need 8 Gb of ram, you would be better off buying a Mac Pro ...
yes thats true, the base MP + 8gb RAM would probably be around the same as a maxed out iMac, and you get the expandability and quad core vs. dual core. better gpu options aswell
Yes, and if you needed a quad core machine you'd be buying a Mac Pro. The iMac is a consumer machine, and consumers don't need 4 cores. What would most consumers use them for, to browse the internet faster than ever?
The iMac is pretty much expendable because of the built-in screen. I love the design, but Apple isn't going to put anything in the iMac until the price falls below a certain point. In other words, there isn't going to be a $4,000 iMac.
The iMac is pretty much expendable because of the built-in screen. I love the design, but Apple isn't going to put anything in the iMac until the price falls below a certain point. In other words, there isn't going to be a $4,000 iMac.