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.
Santa Rosa chipset and the new iMac
- Thread starter carrollf
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Is there any official statement about this?
Immediately after the presentation i was under the impression that the iMacs use old desktop Core 2 Duo CPUs that had the same FSB, but after some reading it became obvious that they are actually using the Santa Rosa platform with mobile CPUs. The CPU models/frequencies match and the other obvious reason are the dimensions of the computer. The only funny thing is that Apple does not clearly say that anywhere (at least i couldn't find the info, if anyone has, please link).
Too bad they didn't include the newest Intel desktop processors and chipsets, but I understand they had to sacrifice some performance for the amazing design.
Immediately after the presentation i was under the impression that the iMacs use old desktop Core 2 Duo CPUs that had the same FSB, but after some reading it became obvious that they are actually using the Santa Rosa platform with mobile CPUs. The CPU models/frequencies match and the other obvious reason are the dimensions of the computer. The only funny thing is that Apple does not clearly say that anywhere (at least i couldn't find the info, if anyone has, please link).
Too bad they didn't include the newest Intel desktop processors and chipsets, but I understand they had to sacrifice some performance for the amazing design.
I'm not so sure that there is that big a performance sacrifice in using the Intel mobile technology. If you look at the 3DMark06 CPU, posted on Intel's website for the core 2 Extreme X7800 (which is a 2.66GHz) you will find that it scores 2252.
http://www.intel.com/performance/mobile/extreme/index.htm
Comparing that to the CPU chart at Toms Hardware, it looks like the mobile is keeping up pretty darn decently:
http://www23.tomshardware.com/cpu_2007.html?modelx=33&model1=946&model2=882&chart=419
Obviously this is only one of many benchmark tests. It is however pure multi-thread, so it gives a good worst case picture of 2 core vs. 4 core.
You got me there, my rational side agrees with you completely. The only performance differences are FSB/memory speeds. Santa Rosa's frequencies are 266 / 333 (CPU / RAM), while the desktop platform runs at 333 / 400, otherwise processors are practically the same.
But while the performance difference may not be big, it's just the feeling you're not getting the latest and the greatest that I'm missing. Apple used to define the technology, (their notorious LetsLoseTheFloppy move comes to my mind) they often used bleeding-edge stuff in their machines and so on.
While PC users are currently enjoying brand-new-just-out-of-the-factory 1333 mhz quad pumped FSB processors on P35 motherboards with DDR3 support, the new iMac has C2D chips comparable to the ones we've seen on desktops a year ago (of course they are the newest on the laptop market, but that's just an excuse in the eyes of an average customer - iMac is a desktop machine and should be treated that way).
But I'll stop there. Must be just my sensibility
.
But while the performance difference may not be big, it's just the feeling you're not getting the latest and the greatest that I'm missing. Apple used to define the technology, (their notorious LetsLoseTheFloppy move comes to my mind) they often used bleeding-edge stuff in their machines and so on.
While PC users are currently enjoying brand-new-just-out-of-the-factory 1333 mhz quad pumped FSB processors on P35 motherboards with DDR3 support, the new iMac has C2D chips comparable to the ones we've seen on desktops a year ago (of course they are the newest on the laptop market, but that's just an excuse in the eyes of an average customer - iMac is a desktop machine and should be treated that way).
But I'll stop there. Must be just my sensibility
.You got me there, my rational side agrees with you completely. The only performance differences are FSB/memory speeds. Santa Rosa's frequencies are 266 / 333 (CPU / RAM), while the desktop platform runs at 333 / 400, otherwise processors are practically the same.
But while the performance difference may not be big, it's just the feeling you're not getting the latest and the greatest that I'm missing. Apple used to define the technology, (their notorious LetsLoseTheFloppy move comes to my mind) they often used bleeding-edge stuff in their machines and so on.
While PC users are currently enjoying brand-new-just-out-of-the-factory 1333 mhz quad pumped FSB processors on P35 motherboards with DDR3 support, the new iMac has C2D chips comparable to the ones we've seen on desktops a year ago (of course they are the newest on the laptop market, but that's just an excuse in the eyes of an average customer - iMac is a desktop machine and should be treated that way).
But I'll stop there. Must be just my sensibility
I can't but agree with you. The Intel 6XXX series is my choice of today - I am pure PC - I just ordered the Q6600 in a setup including the 8800 Ultra and a P35 Mobo. I believe the 6XXX beat the Xeon core-by-core due to better chip-set and FSB options - though I haven't sought evidence to back that up. However, the little benchmark I have found on the X7800 says that it is not chopped liver compared to the (?)?6XXX series.
Apple has neglected that brilliant and cheep CPU completely, and I think it is wrong. But if you want bleeding edge CPU performance (or possibly just bleeding) go Mac Pro. The iMac is bleeding edge on the desktop marked in CPU power per cubic inch (Please lets not get into the GPU discussion).
I sorely agree that there is a need for a single CPU Mac in a tower. I do sooooo much want to se a Mac with a BTO GPU to match the CPU. But I don't see it coming. I could go for the Quadro option in a Mac Pro - but I just don't like the bleeding part all that much.