Waiting until the next quarter/update to purchase I-Mac

[24usedtorock]

I'd like to thank everyone for their information, and feedback on this board.

After careful consideration, I have decided that there is too great a chance the 24'' I-Mac with an ATI configuration will give me a headache. My desire to purchase an I-Mac is not great enough to endure the return/phone game.

I think Apple took a step in the right direction making the I-Mac a tad more respectable for gaming, at least in so far as the WoW type of games, but they are not quite there yet and obviously hit a snag with the 4850.

I will continue to read this forum and post if I feel I have something to add, but I am not going to play Russian Roulette with a machine that costs over $2,000. Best of luck to those with more faith in Apple's intentions to sort this matter swiftly and painlessly.

 

[Kardashian]

iMac

 

[PurdueBio]

iMac

pwnd

 

[trevpimp]

Its funny how so little people dislike the iMacs but you couldn't even count the number of people that love the iMacs.

 

[Kardashian]

pwnd

Sorry?

 

[mastershakess]

Its funny how so little people dislike the iMacs but you couldn't even count the number of people that love the iMacs.

more like disappointed that your new computer freezes

 

[Tallest Skil]

The next iMac update will be Q1 2010. You have a while to wait.

 

[old-wiz]

and Apple will work to get the graphics working one way or another.

 

[24usedtorock]

and Apple will work to get the graphics working one way or another.

Right, enjoy the wait.

I'll wait until the next quarterly update and hope that this issue only continues to plague 4850 users.

 

[RealaT]

They don't do quarterly updates, if anything they're annual updates

 

[spcdust]

The next iMac update will be Q1 2010. You have a while to wait.

They don't do quarterly updates, if anything they're annual updates

Since when did everyone get so locked down that Apple now only annually update they're computer range? Historically this assertion doesn't hold and the last product refresh / cycle also doesn't constitute a definitive set pattern.

 

[Tallest Skil]

Since when did everyone get so locked down that Apple now only annually update they're computer range? Historically this assertion doesn't hold and the last product refresh / cycle also doesn't constitute a definitive set pattern.

Intel's release schedule constitutes a definitive release pattern.

 

[JayLenochiniMac]

I think what the OP means is when the fix arrives, not the actual calendar quarter/update to the entire line.

 

[spcdust]

Intel's release schedule constitutes a definitive release pattern.

I take your point, but I would say Intel's release schedule only serves as one of several indicators to Apple's own release schedule. Apple may surprise us with, say for example, an iMac update in the last quarter of this year especially if Intel:

A. Give them an advance on the schedule release of Clarksfield / Arrandale (I know, not very likely)

B. Supply a custom / derivative version of the above chips.

I guess what I'm saying is people have been to quick to assume a yearly update cycle based on the previous update.

 

[spencecb]

Intel's release schedule constitutes a definitive release pattern.

Yeah, you can kind of base updates off of when Intel is supposed to release an update/new chip. There have been a few times where Apple has gotten the new processors before any other computer maker, which is cool.

 

[iMacmatician]

The next iMac update will be Q1 2010. You have a while to wait.

Seconded. Arrandale CPUs + other usual improvements.

 

[spcdust]

Seconded. Arrandale CPUs + other usual improvements.

So do we think that a mobile Clarksfield chip is a non-starter for an iMac update? Genuinely interested in why it's been written off as a potential chip for the iMac - are we talking cost, clock speed sacrifice, perceived encroachment on the Pro desktops market? Personally I don't buy into the too much heat argument - it's 55W isn't it - nothing a little heat dissipation re-engineering couldn't solve or even a hybrid version of the chip for the iMac to bring down the heat a little?

The prospect of Q1 2010 for an iMac update with the iMac still only getting a dual core Arrandale chip is a tad depressing considering, what I regard, as the disappointing iMac refresh we've just had - last years technology at a premium price. Maybe I'm vastly under estimating the Arrandale chips leap in performace compared to the current Penryn chips?

 

[iMacmatician]

So do we think that mobile Clarksfield chip is a non-starter for an iMac update? Genuinely interested in why it's been written off as a potential chip for the iMac - are we talking cost, clock speed sacrifice, perceived encroachment on the Pro desktops market?

A few factors go in my prediction for no Clarksfield.

• Low clock speed of Clarksfield - Apple usually doesn't allow lower-clocked quads to exist in the same line as higher-clocked duals
• I'm not sure about CPU pricing, the cheapest quad-core is $348. Of course then there's the low clock speed issue.
• They had the opportunity to use mobile quad-cores, even as a BTO, for this last update, but they didn't. Same with the cheaper 65 W desktop quad-cores, although those CPUs may need better cooling.
• My pessimism towards rumors and predictions relating to specs, especially after the March desktop updates

Personally I don't buy into the too much heat argument - it's 55W isn't it - nothing a little heat dissipation re-engineering couldn't solve or even a hybrid version of the chip for the iMac to bring down the heat a little?

Clarksfield is now 35 W (equivalent to 25 W Penryn), although its clocks are correspondingly low. We'll see whether or not Clarksfield goes into the MacBook Pro, that'll give a better prediction on whether or not it'll go into the iMac…

The prospect of Q1 2010 for an iMac update with the prospect of the iMac still only getting a dual core Arandale chip is a tad depressing considering, what I regard, as the disappointing iMac refresh we've just had - last years technology at a premium price.

Completely agree, and I'm keeping my hopes low here to avoid further disappointment.

Maybe I'm vastly under estimating the Arrandale chips leap in performace compared to the current Penryn chips?

Clarkdale appears to be 10% higher performing than Penryn. I don't expect Arrandale to be much different.

 

[Hellhammer]

I guess 17" MBP will get quad-core before iMac...

Apple wants to keep distance between iMac and Mac Pro

 

[24usedtorock]

I guess 17" MBP will get quad-core before iMac...

Apple wants to keep distance between iMac and Mac Pro

For what purpose would you say?

 

[Hellhammer]

For what purpose would you say?

Ummhh.. Which one you mean? MBP or MP vs. iMac thing?

 

[24usedtorock]

Ummhh.. Which one you mean? MBP or MP vs. iMac thing?

MBP vs iMac.

As an aside, I read in the Desktop section that the Mac Pro's will feature the nVidia GTX 285 this June-

 

[iMacmatician]

I guess 17" MBP will get quad-core before iMac...

Apple wants to keep distance between iMac and Mac Pro

I'm a bit mixed up with quad-cores on the MacBook Pro.

• Clarksfield is now 35 W so the TDP issue is gone…
• …but the clock speeds are much lower than Penryn QC clocks, so Apple still might not use them
• I think Apple will be more inclined to use lower-clocked quad-cores in a "Pro" line than in a "consumer" line
• Clarksfield is more expensive than the Penryns that are used in the MBP, Arrandale prices are likely to be more in line

So I think MacBook Pros would get quad-core at a similar time to or sometime earlier than the iMac.

 

[wesleyh]

[*]…but the clock speeds are much lower than Penryn QC clocks, so Apple still might not use them

How do you know the clock speeds? I thought that wasn't announced yet? Article please.