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

Rumored iMac refresh..

76ShovelHead

76ShovelHead

macrumors 6502a
Original poster
May 30, 2010
527
32
Florida
I just read about the rumored iMac Refresh, and how they will have Intel Sandy Bridge. But what disappoints me is that, Apple's going lower on their clock speeds. Seriously, what use is a Quad Core i7 running at only 2.3 Ghz? And that will be the high end 27 inch. They also did this in the Macbook Pro line up. You'd think they would go with 3 Ghz by now, in fact they used to have 3.06 Ghz iMacs. It's just making it easier and easier to just want to Install Mac OS X on deserving hardware rather than paying a premium for theirs. As it is, My PC is running 10.5.8 with an OC'd processor (You can't do that with a mac) and it's lightning fast compared to Windows 7.
 
MBPs use mobile CPUs, thus the low clock speed. iMacs use desktop chips and will likely go up to 3.4GHz (Core i7-2600).
 
Kennywayne3295 said:
I just read about the rumored iMac Refresh, and how they will have Intel Sandy Bridge. But what disappoints me is that, Apple's going lower on their clock speeds. Seriously, what use is a Quad Core i7 running at only 2.3 Ghz? And that will be the high end 27 inch. They also did this in the Macbook Pro line up. You'd think they would go with 3 Ghz by now, in fact they used to have 3.06 Ghz iMacs. It's just making it easier and easier to just want to Install Mac OS X on deserving hardware rather than paying a premium for theirs. As it is, My PC is running 10.5.8 with an OC'd processor (You can't do that with a mac) and it's lightning fast compared to Windows 7.
Click to expand...

can't see that happening....... sandy bridge temps are excellent (I get around 30*C), no need to underclock the cpu......

Kennywayne3295 said:
No, just making an observation. Windows 7 seems to drain all my Ram.
Click to expand...

I hope you have more then 1GB :cool:
 
Kennywayne3295 said:
No, just making an observation. Windows 7 seems to drain all my Ram.
Click to expand...

You do understand what Windows 7 is doing right? Instead of letting unused ram sit idle it caches most of it and has it ready with data from the disk that would most likely be needed based on previous usage patterns.
 
Kennywayne3295 said:
No, just making an observation. Windows 7 seems to drain all my Ram.
Click to expand...

Windows 7 IS supposed to drain all your ram - it's loading all the data into its memory cache. Working as expected - you'll notice applications should open up very quickly.

The memory cache works best with at least 4GB of RAM, ideally 8GB or more.
 
Kennywayne3295 said:
I just read about the rumored iMac Refresh, and how they will have Intel Sandy Bridge. But what disappoints me is that, Apple's going lower on their clock speeds. Seriously, what use is a Quad Core i7 running at only 2.3 Ghz? And that will be the high end 27 inch. They also did this in the Macbook Pro line up. You'd think they would go with 3 Ghz by now, in fact they used to have 3.06 Ghz iMacs. It's just making it easier and easier to just want to Install Mac OS X on deserving hardware rather than paying a premium for theirs. As it is, My PC is running 10.5.8 with an OC'd processor (You can't do that with a mac) and it's lightning fast compared to Windows 7.
Click to expand...

Do you need more than what you have? For what?

Do you not realize that the new Macbook Pros will smoke most desktop PC's on the market? That's right. We are getting to a point where most people aren't going to notice a difference between lasts years unit and this years unit. You can only get so fast for certain tasks.
 
coolspot18 said:
Windows 7 IS supposed to drain all your ram - it's loading all the data into its memory cache. Working as expected - you'll notice applications should open up very quickly.

The memory cache works best with at least 4GB of RAM, ideally 8GB or more.
Click to expand...

Yeah, see i only have 2 gigs. I'm also running 64 Bit if that has anything to do with it.
 
themac23 said:
Do you need more than what you have? For what?

Do you not realize that the new Macbook Pros will smoke most desktop PC's on the market? That's right. We are getting to a point where most people aren't going to notice a difference between lasts years unit and this years unit. You can only get so fast for certain tasks.
Click to expand...

I've actually read an article (can't remember where it was) talking about how the latest Macbook pros aren't performing right in terms of speed. It described them as sluggish. Some kind of bug.

In a matter of fact i do need more than what i have, I'm a web student and casual gamer (GTA IV, Sims 3) and while my PC will run GTA IV with very little lag or Sims 3 with a little bit of choppiness if i am to quit one of them my computer becomes unresponsive. It's unresponsive when I'm trying to send a file across my network! to a computer right in the other room! I haven't a clue why it runs so terribly given it's specs.
 
Kennywayne3295 said:
I've actually read an article (can't remember where it was) talking about how the latest Macbook pros aren't performing right in terms of speed. It described them as sluggish. Some kind of bug.

In a matter of fact i do need more than what i have, I'm a web student and casual gamer (GTA IV, Sims 3) and while my PC will run GTA IV with very little lag or Sims 3 with a little bit of choppiness if i am to quit one of them my computer becomes unresponsive. It's unresponsive when I'm trying to send a file across my network! to a computer right in the other room! I haven't a clue why it runs so terribly given it's specs.
Click to expand...

what are the specs?
 
10 years later and people still fall for the "mhz myth"? ugh.

I dunno why they switched from 1920 X 1200 to 1920 X 1080 -- (probably to say it 1080p or something) -- but you do realize you guys are bitching about 120 pixels of height.

about 1" physically if the panels are the same width.
 
Badger^2 said:
I dunno why they switched from 1920 X 1200 to 1920 X 1080 -- (probably to say it 1080p or something) -- but you do realize you guys are bitching about 120 pixels of height.
Click to expand...

16:9 panels are cheaper to manufacture (better yields). It's 10% less pixels though so it's not just nothing.
 
Kennywayne3295 said:
I've actually read an article (can't remember where it was) talking about how the latest Macbook pros aren't performing right in terms of speed. It described them as sluggish. Some kind of bug.
Click to expand...

Of course you forgot where this mystery article is. Geekbench scores show the current Macbook Pros on par, or even beating the current iMac's. Take note that the current iMacs will absolutely murder what you use now. What does this mean? It means the current Macbook Pro would murder your current computer, punch it in the face, dig a hole, and then bury it without a tombstone.

Get the point?
 
themac23 said:
Of course you forgot where this mystery article is. Geekbench scores show the current Macbook Pros on par, or even beating the current iMac's. Take note that the current iMacs will absolutely murder what you use now. What does this mean? It means the current Macbook Pro would murder your current computer, punch it in the face, dig a hole, and then bury it without a tombstone.

Get the point?
Click to expand...

Why don't you Get A Life? Obviously you must be such a miserable person to TROLL around picking fights on Macrumors. I am not some Illiterate computer user, and furthermore I do not appreciate you talking down to me and Insinuating that I'm a liar. What you need is to find God, Ask Jesus to be your savior, and maybe - just maybe Satan will leave you be. What does this mean? DUHHHH.

PS: You don't think I know a Macbook pro would, as you say, murder my current computer? Your something else. Your worse then something else. Now get outta here.
 
Kennywayne3295 said:
I just read about the rumored iMac Refresh, and how they will have Intel Sandy Bridge. But what disappoints me is that, Apple's going lower on their clock speeds. Seriously, what use is a Quad Core i7 running at only 2.3 Ghz? And that will be the high end 27 inch. They also did this in the Macbook Pro line up. You'd think they would go with 3 Ghz by now, in fact they used to have 3.06 Ghz iMacs. It's just making it easier and easier to just want to Install Mac OS X on deserving hardware rather than paying a premium for theirs. As it is, My PC is running 10.5.8 with an OC'd processor (You can't do that with a mac) and it's lightning fast compared to Windows 7.
Click to expand...

You can't simply compare clock speeds between architectures like that. GHz isn't everything, and there's not a 1:1 correlation between models.

Sandy Bridge has a superior architecture compared to the "old" i3-7 CPUs, which makes them a lot faster even at lower GHz.
 
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