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.
The 2009 (Penryn) iMac: Everything We Know
- Thread starter Flying Dutchman
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Apple declares that the hardware will support 4GB. However, nVidia (the makers of the chipset) say it will handle 8GB - so obviously some discrepancy.
However people have already got 6GB running in things like the new unibody MacBooks by installing 1 x 2GB and 1 x 4GB sticks - they are therefore saying the same situation will be prevalent in the new iMac.
Personally, I feel they may say officially that the new iMac will support 8GB but we shall see.
Technically isn't the current Imac a Peryn as well? The fastest Intel mobile CPU is still at 3.06ghz so in theory aside from the chipset (going to NVDIA and possible better graphics) the new Imac would not be much faster overall, similar to the way the unibodies are not that much faster is comparing with similar speed CPUS. Now if they do a quad core that is another soty.
The real speed bump will be with i7 cpus.
As for the memory my guess is capped at 6gb as it is not a "pro" machine. I current have 6gb both in my 17macbook pro and on an 2.8 Imac and they work perfectly
The real speed bump will be with i7 cpus.
As for the memory my guess is capped at 6gb as it is not a "pro" machine. I current have 6gb both in my 17macbook pro and on an 2.8 Imac and they work perfectly
Depending on what you do you will notice the difference. The machine will not be faster but the key thing is that it will not slow down if you are using more than 4gb, a great use of 4gb+ is multiple VMs
HA, I knew this thread would pop up eventually. 
Mobile CPUs (dual-core): 2.4 GHz to 3.2/3.33 GHz, 1067 MHz FSB The "base" possibility
The 3.07 GHz CPU was an overclocked version of the then current Penryn, for Apple. Therefore, it's 10 W hotter than the current 3.07 GHz CPU. Reasoning from that, it may be possible for Intel to deliver one or two speed bumps from the 3.07 GHz, for a 3.2/3.33 GHz 55 W CPU in the iMac.
Mobile CPUs (quad-core): 2.0 GHz, 2.27 GHz, 2.53 GHz, 1067 MHz FSB
These CPUs max out at 45 W, so Intel may be able to deliver a 55 W version at 2.67 (or so) GHz for the iMac, or a cheaper one (than the 2.0 GHz) for 55 W.
Desktop CPUs (dual-core): 2.53~2.93 GHz (1067 MHz FSB), 2.67~3.5 GHz (1333 MHz FSB)
I only put this here because they are 65 W, just like the quad-core desktop CPUs below.
Desktop CPUs (quad-core): 2.33 GHz, 2.67 GHz, 2.83 GHz, 1333 MHz FSB
These CPUs are the energy-efficient ones released recently. They are 65 W as opposed to the 95 W of most other quads. Rumors claimed that they would find their way into upcoming iMacs. They are quite cheap compared to high-end desktop CPUs, so price-wise, it is possible that they will go in the entire iMac lineup. However, it may be that the 20" iMac may be too small to effectively handle the 65 W TDP of these CPUs, so they might have to stay mobile dual-core. If that happens, then the gap between the 20" and 24" iMacs would increase. Intel may release a 3.0 GHz version for Apple that costs significantly more than the 2.83 GHz. That would basically remove the loss in GHz from the current dual-cores.
Apple may also put desktop GPUs in the iMac if it's possible (I heard that the notebooks use a mobile variant of a desktop chipset). If we go by the 24" white iMac that did this, we may see low-end GPUs with a midrange BTO.
The CPU section will probably have to be significantly expanded.
Mobile CPUs (dual-core): 2.4 GHz to 3.2/3.33 GHz, 1067 MHz FSB The "base" possibility
The 3.07 GHz CPU was an overclocked version of the then current Penryn, for Apple. Therefore, it's 10 W hotter than the current 3.07 GHz CPU. Reasoning from that, it may be possible for Intel to deliver one or two speed bumps from the 3.07 GHz, for a 3.2/3.33 GHz 55 W CPU in the iMac.
Mobile CPUs (quad-core): 2.0 GHz, 2.27 GHz, 2.53 GHz, 1067 MHz FSB
These CPUs max out at 45 W, so Intel may be able to deliver a 55 W version at 2.67 (or so) GHz for the iMac, or a cheaper one (than the 2.0 GHz) for 55 W.
Desktop CPUs (dual-core): 2.53~2.93 GHz (1067 MHz FSB), 2.67~3.5 GHz (1333 MHz FSB)
I only put this here because they are 65 W, just like the quad-core desktop CPUs below.
Desktop CPUs (quad-core): 2.33 GHz, 2.67 GHz, 2.83 GHz, 1333 MHz FSB
These CPUs are the energy-efficient ones released recently. They are 65 W as opposed to the 95 W of most other quads. Rumors claimed that they would find their way into upcoming iMacs. They are quite cheap compared to high-end desktop CPUs, so price-wise, it is possible that they will go in the entire iMac lineup. However, it may be that the 20" iMac may be too small to effectively handle the 65 W TDP of these CPUs, so they might have to stay mobile dual-core. If that happens, then the gap between the 20" and 24" iMacs would increase. Intel may release a 3.0 GHz version for Apple that costs significantly more than the 2.83 GHz. That would basically remove the loss in GHz from the current dual-cores.
That sounds like a big leap to me. Did HDD prices go through the floor recently?
I think the iMacs have stayed a bit behind the MacBook Pros in terms of VRAM for the past few years. So maybe we will not see a 512 MB 9600M GT.
Apple may also put desktop GPUs in the iMac if it's possible (I heard that the notebooks use a mobile variant of a desktop chipset). If we go by the 24" white iMac that did this, we may see low-end GPUs with a midrange BTO.
They might get rid of the Firewire 400 in the 20" model only. This relates to my earlier statement about CPU core counts and my speculation that the 20" and 24" iMacs may diverge.
To be honoust I'm mostly interested in the date Ofcourse I know no-one knows that, but that's what I really wanna know. Whatever Apple does with the iMac, it will be a step forward and I will buy it.
Ofcourse I know no-one knows that, but that's what I really wanna know. Whatever Apple does with the iMac, it will be a step forward and I will buy it.
"The 2009 (Penryn) iMac: Everything We Know"
Given the fact we know nothing and all we are going on is speculation and rationalisation maybe the title of this thread is some what presumptuous
Given the fact we know nothing and all we are going on is speculation and rationalisation maybe the title of this thread is some what presumptuous
There will be an 8x SuperDrive. If the new MacBook Pro's have only an 8x SuperDrive you can be sure Apple hasn't developed faster tech for the iMac, especially considering the speed limitations of a vertically mounted optical drive.
"The 2009 (Penryn) iMac: Everything We Know"
Given the fact we know nothing and all we are going on is speculation and rationalisation maybe the title of this thread is some what presumptuous
We know that it uses nvidia chipset and GPUs, DDR3, LED backlight.
To be pedantic we know nothing - all the things you list we can guess at and there are the obvious clues that people have based their conclusions and suppositions on. My tongue is firmly in my cheek but it will be interesting to see how much we all really knew when Apple finally get around to announcing the iMac refresh - probably a lot less than people suppose in this thread.
I seem to recall back in December early January we all knew the new iMac was going to be announced at MacWorld 2009.
Sorry could I interrupt this for a second.
If you want to know everything for 100% sure, go do your math homework or something, but the title of the site kinda suggest this threads information is based on the info that is given to us. You never ever know anything for sure till you see it, but that kinda defeats the purpose of this site.
And spcdust: we thought so because it'd make sense with the amount of days since the last update. With Apple, most of the time, those number are/have been pretty reliable. So please give real info or stop the btching...
If you want to know everything for 100% sure, go do your math homework or something, but the title of the site kinda suggest this threads information is based on the info that is given to us. You never ever know anything for sure till you see it, but that kinda defeats the purpose of this site.
And spcdust: we thought so because it'd make sense with the amount of days since the last update. With Apple, most of the time, those number are/have been pretty reliable. So please give real info or stop the btching...
Flying Dutchman, obviously something lost in translation or you missed the above quote in my post (try Googling the above if you don't understand). I was being light hearted and didn't realise that anything you didn't like was not to be posted in this thread. Take a chill pill and get some humour before you start saying I'm bitching which is some what offensive.
It is. There are things here that we have seen to be true.
As to correcting the first post, there will only be one Mini DisplayPort out.
You shouldn't have copy-pasted so much...
Maybe I got it wrong but I did found quite some sarcasm in the sentence of:
I seem to recall back in December early January we all knew the new iMac was going to be announced at MacWorld 2009.
Thats why
No sarcasm, just me being playful
But hey you've got to confess virtually everyone here did work themselves up to a lather regarding an announcement at MacWorld to the extent it was taken as a given.I love a good rumour/supposition/rationalisation as much as the next man.
I really don't see them removing the firewire from the iMacs. They pulled it from the Macbooks due to space concerns, and may do the same to the mini, just because it is likely to be a VERY similar mobo they throw in there, not to mention, again, space is a concern there.
With the iMacs however, they have much more room to play with, so removing Firewire would be kind of silly. They have no need to "differentiate the lines" as some have claimed with the MB / MBP, as the difference is HUGE already (maybe between a mythical xMac and an iMac, but not between iMac and Pro)
All of the "reasons" or "justifications" SJ came up with for not needing firewire I see only as a way to cover their @$$'s from those of us who are pissed about it...
With the iMacs however, they have much more room to play with, so removing Firewire would be kind of silly. They have no need to "differentiate the lines" as some have claimed with the MB / MBP, as the difference is HUGE already (maybe between a mythical xMac and an iMac, but not between iMac and Pro)
All of the "reasons" or "justifications" SJ came up with for not needing firewire I see only as a way to cover their @$$'s from those of us who are pissed about it...
Apple just wants more money and removed it from MBs. They want people to buy MBP.
And it wasn't done for lack of space.
On the macbooks I think they did do it to gain space. However for the iMac I could be a Apple move to be first on the next data standard. When Apple went directly from floppy to CD in a flash, they didn't do it then either for the space, just so they could "command the pace" of the hardware of the time... I think
We will ultimately never know the true reasoning behind why they did it. I have a feeling it was a combination of many things, and $$$ of course could be one of them. They can certainly count on the people who NEED firewire for there livelihoods to be buying pro anyway, so they are really only dropping support for the folks who have firewire HDDs and such...
The fact remains though that there is little reason to drop it from the iMacs. That would be unnecessarily pissing people off. And I think Apple realizes that there are "Pro" folks who simply can't afford / don't need the Mac Pro, and due to the gaping hole in their desktop lineup of an xMac, they will try to keep the iMac as "pro" as they can, as that is certainly a good chunk of its usefulness...
The only "new data standards" on the horizon are Firewire 3200 (or 6400) and USB 3.0. They certainly could do the next gen of FW, but expect to see it on the Mac Pro first. And USB 3.0 isn't until 2010 or so, so I would expect that to be an addition to the next iMac revision after this one.
That, and Apple is really not the company that is "pushing the limits" anymore (hardware wise). They are now making massive $$$$$ in the mobile market, so, as we can see, there has been a little less attention paid to their hardware division...
I almost see the upcoming 20" iMac as the desktop version of the MacBook and the 24" iMac as the desktop version of the MacBook Pro. So I see the possibility of the 20" iMac losing Firewire while the 24" retains it.
I could see them doing that potentially, but there would have to be a little more than that to differentiate them. If they would really bill it as you described, I would think more noticable of a difference would be in order... guess we'll find out soon (I hope, for all your sakes... I will not be in the market for another 2-3 years, I hope...)