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

Quad Core iMac?

DoFoT9 said:
thankyou :) its a once in a blue-blue moon^2 that i get something right. ill take it!!! :p



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
Click to expand...

I think you usually get things right;).
 
takeabyteoutta said:
define low-voltage
Click to expand...

The current mac mini/imac/macbook processors are in the 35w range; current desktop and server processors are in the 80-130w range.

Intel's ULV mobile processors are in the 5-10w range.

The current low voltage Xeons are rated around 50w.

From what I can tell, the earliest "low voltage" Xeon was the "Prestonia" which was based on Netburst tech and was rated at 35-40w back in 2003.

It appears that what Intel calls "low voltage" depends the comparison to its normal bretheren, so the low voltage Xeon is close to the same TDP as a normal mobile Core 2 Duo. Of course, I'm just parroting what I found on Wikipedia.
 
Father Jack said:
Surely if you need 8 Gb of ram, you would be better off buying a Mac Pro ... :eek:
Click to expand...
I'll just ignore all the $80 G33 motherboards then that are capable of supporting 8 GB.

It's not terribly expensive to get 8 GB of DDR2 RAM at this time. I got 4 GB for $80 for my laptop.
 
Eidorian said:
I'll just ignore all the $80 G33 motherboards then that are capable of supporting 8 GB.
laptop.
Click to expand...
My point was that people needing 8 Gb of ram (usually pro's or very serious image / video editors) are most unlikely to choose an iMac even if it was capable of taking that amount of ram.
 
Father Jack said:
My point was that people needing 8 Gb of ram (usually pro's or very serious image / video editors) are most unlikely to choose an iMac even if it was capable of taking that amount of ram.
Click to expand...
Am I a professional with 4 GB or does it need to be 8 GB? We'll all have a laugh when Macs come with 8 GB of RAM stock.
 
Eidorian said:
Apple is still behind the curve. 3-4 GB is standard for other PC manufactuers. :p
Click to expand...

I know that, thats why i said 4gb is barely in, its there, but barely, a lot of pc's actually use 2-3gb, 4gb is rare, from what i see, but i think apple needs to step it up on the MP and make the standard 4gb, that just seems like a given.
 
jbg232 said:
What programs are you using on an imac that require 8gb of ram?
Click to expand...

Sorry for the late reply, but I get into some trouble RAM-wise now on my MBP with 4Gb running Parallels, Aperture and some other programs (Safari, Mail, iTunes, etc.).
So hardly "pro" apps, I wonder what will happen if I also want to run FCE next to that. Call me lazy, but I like to have a lot of apps open at the same time.
The processor is not the problem though, that still runs lower than 200%, unless I start scrolling really fast through RAW images in Aperture. Tried that on a MacBook also and the lack of separate videocard really showed up in the fact that the processor was running high much more often.

For the other reactions: yes, a Mac Pro 1xquad would suit my needs much better than a maxed-out iMac, for about the same price. Somehow the possibility to upgrade to 32Gb of RAM (around €2500) and 4TB (around €900) of storage in one box seems much more future-proof than having a computer that's already at its limit when you buy it. I remember my old iMac G3 that is still usuable nowadays due to the (then) high amount of RAM, 768Mb if I'm not mistaken.
 
netherfred said:
For the other reactions: yes, a Mac Pro 1xquad would suit my needs much better than a maxed-out iMac, for about the same price. Somehow the possibility to upgrade to 32Gb of RAM (around €2500) and 4TB (around €900) of storage in one box seems much more future-proof than having a computer that's already at its limit when you buy it. I remember my old iMac G3 that is still usuable nowadays due to the (then) high amount of RAM, 768Mb if I'm not mistaken.
Click to expand...

yes it is 768mb, i believe it originally came with 128mb?? mine did anyway. i really wish apple would still have the more expandability options, in terms of cpu/gpu/RAM anyways. the HD is easy. it kinda peeved me off when i maxed out my gpu/RAM on my mbp when i bought it. bit depressing.
 
Smoogz said:
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.
Click to expand...

Intel just announced a quad-core mobile chip due out this fall with less heat and power requirements than the current duel-core. It's only $190 more than the 2.8 extreme and perfect for the top end BTO iMac. I'm sure you'll see it happen, so this new chip blows your analysis to hell.
 
ljocampo said:
Intel just announced a quad-core mobile chip due out this fall with less heat and power requirements than the current duel-core. It's only $190 more than the 2.8 extreme and perfect for the top end BTO iMac. I'm sure you'll see it happen, so this new chip blows your analysis to hell.
Click to expand...

yewwww quad core lappys soon
 
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