Why can't we have Core 2 Quads?

[Shake 'n' Bake]

Actually, it's far from inevitable. Apple will likely be moving iMac to Arrandale processors next year, retiring current Penryn lineup. And even then we may only see dual-Core systems, not the quads. Arguably Arrandale will offer enough of a performance bump over Penryns, even in dual-Core configuration. But the quad-Core iMac is not guaranteed by any stretch of imagination.

And when the highest-end systems were the only one with dual cores, it wasn't inevitable that Apple would use them?

Once most apps are multi-threaded, more cores will make things faster. Some apps already have those benefits.

Only a few make single-core systems now. We're on to dual core now, and eventually on to quad core, then octo core, and so on.

 

[iMacmatician]

Even Sandy Bridge will have dual-core on the low-end (just like Nehalem). Dual-core is far from obsolete.

 

[Eidorian]

Even Sandy Bridge will have dual-core on the low-end (just like Nehalem). Dual-core is far from obsolete.

It's a very tough sell for a dual core over $180 unless you're going to ultra/low voltage mobile items.

 

[hitekalex]

And when the highest-end systems were the only one with dual cores, it wasn't inevitable that Apple would use them?

Once most apps are multi-threaded, more cores will make things faster. Some apps already have those benefits.

Only a few make single-core systems now. We're on to dual core now, and eventually on to quad core, then octo core, and so on.

As things stand right now, every mobile processor on the Intel roadmap will have a dual-Core version. So obviously Intel doesn't think the future of mobile computing leaves dual-Core processors behind. There is also a clock speed gap between Dual and Quad processors.. which still results in a faster computing for most individual apps out there. So no, I don't believe the progression from dual to quad to octal will be as linear as you think.

 

[andiwm2003]

1. How would a quad core iMac take away from iMac sales ?.

"....but these sales would take away from the imac and mac pro sales."
reading is better than rolling eyes. also a quad imac doesn't mean new customers. people just buy a quad imac instead of a dual imac. so not much advantage for apple.

2. All Apple needs to do to develop a mid-range tower is get an new logic board and maybe a case for the Mac Pro. How much could that cost? $750,000? That's just a drop in the bucket..

certainly a few millions since apple does tons of design and quality control work. in addition it means to produce the new model, set up the logistics, have it in stock, keep spare parts, train repair technicians. all in all a large up front investment. seems that apple thinks it does not pay off at this time.

3. True, but Apple could have so much more market share if they had a tower the price of the iMac.

again, apple thinks obviously that this is not going to help their bottomline otherwise they would do it. i don't think apples marketing department is so clueless that they overlook a business opportunity. i guess they did market research and found that a midrange tower does not increase the market share too much. i agree it sucks because many peole want a midrange tower but it seems not enough want it. go hackintosh. i want a fully featured 13" MBP with matte screen. but it seems that apples marketing research thinks i'm a insignificant minority.