[iMacfan]

Hello,

I'm about to splurge for a 24" iMac, and while I can see the great benefit of upgrading the GPU, RAM and HD, I'm wavering on the CPU.

As far as I can see, in terms of system performance, the speed bump might be, what, 3%? And all for well over 10% of the total price of the system. But I've seen so many people on Mac forums ordering the upgrade - and I'd like to know why. I can see the temptation of bragging rights, but is there anything else? Anything I'd actually notice in day to day use?

Thanks,

David

[Eug]

The speed improvement should be around 4-7.5% I'm guessing, depending on the app. (I say this because it has tons of L2 cache, which helps it scale better with the clock speed increase, which is 7.7%.) Barely noticeable, if at all. Probably a waste of money.

However, that said, I ordered it. Bragging rights. The difference for me is that I'm getting compensated through work for a good chunk of this machine (including the CPU upgrade). If I had to pay for it purely out of my own pocket I definitely wouldn't have gotten the 2.33 GHz upgrade.

[mduell]

No.

Upgrade it to quad core 3Ghz (or whatever is available at the time) in a year or two.

[Eug Wanker]

Originally Posted by mduell

No.

Upgrade it to quad core 3Ghz (or whatever is available at the time) in a year or two.

I'm not convinced that will be possible. Tom's has a quad-core and stuck it in a current Core 2 desktop machine. It works... for some apps. Other apps won't even run on it.

For all we know Merom with this chipset may be almost a dead end. ie. We may see, say, a 3.0 GHz or whatever Merom dual-core chip eventually that will work with this chipset, but newer quad chips may be problematic.

3.0/2.33 = 29% improvement. Is that worth it, in 2008?

And most of us aren't brave enough to disassemble an iMac. I used to build PCs myself, but I draw the line with laptops and iMacs. That's especially true for 2008. In 2008 I'll still have 1 year of AppleCare left. I'd rather sell the machine than void my warranty. Even if I didn't have a warranty to void, I wouldn't want to risk turning my iMac into a 24" doorstop.

[mduell]

I'm more optimistic about the quad core chips working in the current dual core boxes, given the results of Anand's tests on the Xeon side of the house.

[Eug]

Hmm... I just had a look at the Intel roadmaps.

The next step up for Merom Core 2 Duo is 2.4 GHz (T7700), but not until Q2 2007. Not terribly exciting, even with its 800 MHz bus. However, because of its 800 MHz bus and the new Santa Rosa Socket P standard, those chips won't work in current machines anyway.

ie. It's possible that 2.33 GHz is the fastest CPU clockspeed that the current iMac 24" will ever be able to use.

[Pierre B.]

Originally Posted by Eug

ie. It's possible that 2.33 GHz is the fastest CPU clockspeed that the current iMac 24" will ever be able to use.

Ever? I am not sure if I see correctly, but do you imply that the 24" model (and the whole iMac line for that matter) has no future?

[Simon]

No, the iMac certainly has a future.

What he's implying is that future Meroms will be sitting on the Santa Rosa chipset with its higher speed FSB and different socket. They will not be drop-in compatible with the current Meroms. If that's the case, the current 2.33 GHz Merom will be the fastest chip you can put into the current iMacs.

[houstonmacbro]

i am concerned to about plopping down money on the 17" imac ... sounds like imacs (in general) are difficult to upgrade in house and they need to go back to apple store for small things like memory?

[Pierre B.]

Originally Posted by Simon

No, the iMac certainly has a future.

What he's implying is that future Meroms will be sitting on the Santa Rosa chipset with its higher speed FSB and different socket. They will not be drop-in compatible with the current Meroms. If that's the case, the current 2.33 GHz Merom will be the fastest chip you can put into the current iMacs.

OK, thanks Simon.

One question still remains, but this is pure speculation: what after the Merom, say in the end of next year? The iMac cannot handle well the heat of the faster desktop Intel chips, so it will remain with mobile CPUs. Even if Apple decides to redesign it, I doubt it will make it substantially more voluminous for that reason.So what Intel has in the mobile CPU front?

[Simon]

After Merom not much is known. There will be a single-core version of Conroe "Conroe-L" although that's certainly not what we're looking for. Low-voltage Meroms will be released in early 2007. There will be an ultra-low voltage Merom "U7500" but that won't be here till in a year from now.

But basically, I think Intel hasn't leaked what the next big thing will be. I'm of course hoping for Core 3 with its own mobile version as a successor to the Santa Rosa Merom.

[fk51785]

I just got 2.16Ghz for my iMac .....

[iMacfan]

OK - Looks like unless my trigger finger gets very itchy, I'll stick with the pathetic performance of the 2.16!

David

[houstonmacbro]

... poor you.

[Eug]

Originally Posted by houstonmacbro

i am concerned to about plopping down money on the 17" imac ... sounds like imacs (in general) are difficult to upgrade in house and they need to go back to apple store for small things like memory?

Memory is an easy end user installation.

Everything else needs to be done by an authorized service tech, unless you're willing to void your warranty.

Originally Posted by Simon

No, the iMac certainly has a future.

What he's implying is that future Meroms will be sitting on the Santa Rosa chipset with its higher speed FSB and different socket. They will not be drop-in compatible with the current Meroms. If that's the case, the current 2.33 GHz Merom will be the fastest chip you can put into the current iMacs.

Yeah, that's what I meant.

I suppose it's possible that Intel will continue to sell some faster CPUs that will work on our Napa chipset machines, but I certainly wouldn't count on it. It's not as if there is a large laptop CPU upgrade market.

[mduell]

Originally Posted by Eug

Hmm... I just had a look at the Intel roadmaps.

The next step up for Merom Core 2 Duo is 2.4 GHz (T7700), but not until Q2 2007. Not terribly exciting, even with its 800 MHz bus. However, because of its 800 MHz bus and the new Santa Rosa Socket P standard, those chips won't work in current machines anyway.

ie. It's possible that 2.33 GHz is the fastest CPU clockspeed that the current iMac 24" will ever be able to use.

Intel often ships processors for multiple socket standards... the P4s are available for LGA, PGA, and at one point BGA, so I expect we'll see both S479 (667Mhz FSB) and SP (800Mhz FSB) C2D chips in the future.

[Eug]

Originally Posted by mduell

Intel often ships processors for multiple socket standards... the P4s are available for LGA, PGA, and at one point BGA, so I expect we'll see both S479 (667Mhz FSB) and SP (800Mhz FSB) C2D chips in the future.

Well, true to an extent, but the difference here is that Intel puts out its plethora of chip types mainly for desktop PCs.

The iMac uses a laptop CPU, and Intel tends to be much more restrictive here. For example, the fastest Pentium M chip is 2.26 GHz, and that will likely never increase. There is no such thing a 65 nm Pentium M.

It's quite plausible we'll see a few minor upgrades to the clockspeeds on Napa for the slower OEM adopters, but Intel has much less incentive to provide this.

Personally I don't think it's worth sticking a 2.5 GHz Merom in an iMac which already has a 2.17 GHz Merom. Anything above that, Intel will be pushing Santa Rosa (or its replacement).

[mduell]

Originally Posted by Eug

Well, true to an extent, but the difference here is that Intel puts out its plethora of chip types mainly for desktop PCs.

The iMac uses a laptop CPU, and Intel tends to be much more restrictive here. For example, the fastest Pentium M chip is 2.26 GHz, and that will likely never increase. There is no such thing a 65 nm Pentium M.

Sure, but there are pin-compatible Core Duo and Core 2 Duo chips.
I wasn't saying that Intel will continue to increase the clockrate of Core Duo. What I'm saying is that Intel will continue to produce Core 2 Duo chips for S479/667Mhz boards.

[Eug]

Originally Posted by mduell

Sure, but there are pin-compatible Core Duo and Core 2 Duo chips.
I wasn't saying that Intel will continue to increase the clockrate of Core Duo. What I'm saying is that Intel will continue to produce Core 2 Duo chips for S479/667Mhz boards.

I know what you are saying, but what I am asking is why you think that.

It seems to me if that the S479/667 MHz boards stick around, they will be for the value market, and the value market is not looking for the fastest CPUs out there.

As it is, we won't even see a 2.4 GHz Merom/800 chip until next year. Even if Merom hit 2.6 GHz/800 by 2008, there would not be much incentive for Intel to sell a chip faster than 2.5 GHz/667 for Napa, if that.

You mention Core Duo. Well, it has hit 2.33 GHz in 2006. Do you honestly think we'll ever see 3 GHz Core Duo chips? I certainly don't. Essentially, Core Duo has been supplanted in 2006 by Core 2 Duo Merom/667. Core 2 Duo Merom/667 will be supplanted by Core 2 Duo Merom/800 in 2007.

[Simon]

Look people, it makes no sense to provide a 3 GHz Merom for the current Napa chipset. Merom is already know bottlenecked by the 667 MHz FSB. It won't be able to show off its real advantages over Yonah until Santa Rosa ships.

So why would Intel release a let's say 2.67 GHz Merom for Napa when in many tasks it won't be significantly faster than a 2.33 GHz Merom on Napa or on Santa Rosa for that matter? Rather than increase the clock of idling CPUs, they'd rather reduce the idle time. In other words, bring on Santa Rosa's 800 MHz FSB.

[Rob van dam]

Originally Posted by Pierre B.

OK, thanks Simon.

One question still remains, but this is pure speculation: what after the Merom, say in the end of next year? The iMac cannot handle well the heat of the faster desktop Intel chips, so it will remain with mobile CPUs. Even if Apple decides to redesign it, I doubt it will make it substantially more voluminous for that reason.So what Intel has in the mobile CPU front?

It appears to be called intel penryn


http://www.tomshardware.com/2005/12/...red/page6.html

[iMacfan]

Originally Posted by Simon

Look people, it makes no sense to provide a 3 GHz Merom for the current Napa chipset. Merom is already know bottlenecked by the 667 MHz FSB. It won't be able to show off its real advantages over Yonah until Santa Rosa ships.

So why would Intel release a let's say 2.67 GHz Merom for Napa when in many tasks it won't be significantly faster than a 2.33 GHz Merom on Napa or on Santa Rosa for that matter? Rather than increase the clock of idling CPUs, they'd rather reduce the idle time. In other words, bring on Santa Rosa's 800 MHz FSB.

That's interesting - so does that mean that the 2.33 Ghz upgrade is even less useful than it sounds, or does the bottleneck only appear above 2.33?


David

[mduell]

Originally Posted by Eug

I know what you are saying, but what I am asking is why you think that.

It seems to me if that the S479/667 MHz boards stick around, they will be for the value market, and the value market is not looking for the fastest CPUs out there.

As it is, we won't even see a 2.4 GHz Merom/800 chip until next year. Even if Merom hit 2.6 GHz/800 by 2008, there would not be much incentive for Intel to sell a chip faster than 2.5 GHz/667 for Napa, if that.

You mention Core Duo. Well, it has hit 2.33 GHz in 2006. Do you honestly think we'll ever see 3 GHz Core Duo chips? I certainly don't. Essentially, Core Duo has been supplanted in 2006 by Core 2 Duo Merom/667. Core 2 Duo Merom/667 will be supplanted by Core 2 Duo Merom/800 in 2007.

Again, you're misreading what I'm saying. The upgrades available for a (socketed) Pentium M owner isn't a higher clocked Pentium M, it's a Core Duo. The upgrades available for a Core Duo owner isn't a higher clocked Core Duo (well, if you have the 1.66 then 2.33 might be a reasonable upgrade), it's Core 2 Duo. Intel typically produces several new chips for the old socket/bus after the new socket/bus has been released.
2.6/800 by 2008 seems a bit pessimistic, unless they switch from duals to quads. The 45nm shrink is scheduled for 2007.

Originally Posted by Simon

Look people, it makes no sense to provide a 3 GHz Merom for the current Napa chipset. Merom is already know bottlenecked by the 667 MHz FSB. It won't be able to show off its real advantages over Yonah until Santa Rosa ships.

So why would Intel release a let's say 2.67 GHz Merom for Napa when in many tasks it won't be significantly faster than a 2.33 GHz Merom on Napa or on Santa Rosa for that matter? Rather than increase the clock of idling CPUs, they'd rather reduce the idle time. In other words, bring on Santa Rosa's 800 MHz lolFSB.

Because it's not bottlenecked in every application, and even when it is, people will still buy the gigglehertz.

[Eug Wanker]

Originally Posted by mduell

...2.6/800 by 2008 seems a bit pessimistic, unless they switch from duals to quads. The 45nm shrink is scheduled for 2007.

2.4/800 (C2D T7700) is not scheduled to be out until 2007 Q2.

In other words, the clock speed of Merom is going up all of 2.9%, and it's taking over 6 months just to get there.

[Simon]

Originally Posted by iMacfan

That's interesting - so does that mean that the 2.33 Ghz upgrade is even less useful than it sounds, or does the bottleneck only appear above 2.33?

It is useful. There are things that are pretty much CPU dependent and they will always benefit from a higher clock. But the benefit is less than it could be in certain applications. Once Santa Rose ships I woulnd't be surprised to see tests where lower clocked SR Meroms beat higher clocked Napa Meroms.

Intel will move Merom to SR as quick as they can. On Napa, its performance advantages over Yonah are just to humble.

[iMacfan]

Excuse me, but could any of you find time in your schedules to slap me across the face with a wet fish and call me a moron?






Want to know why?

David

[jbleisure]

Want to know why?

Yes.

[iMacfan]

I got the 2.33.

[Simon]

There's nothing bad about that. I'd get a 2.33 GHz iMac too if I'd be in the market for an iMac. I'd get the 2.33 GHz for the simple reason that it's no big price increase compared to the time and effort it would take me to get a new CPU from Intel, open up the iMac, insert it, and worry about what I could have screwed up in the process.

You can still put your 2.33 C2D on Ebay and get a Santa Rosa C2D iMac when they arrive. Until then, you'll be enjoying one heck of a nice iMac.

[BZ]

I went with the 2.33 because well, it was the fastest available and the $250 price difference didn't see like a big deal in the grand scheme of things.

Also, I am replacing a Dual 2.3Ghz G5 so I didn't want to go DOWN in clockspeed.

(yes, yes.. I know.. two different chips and all.. blah blah blah)

BZ

[iMacfan]

Originally Posted by Simon

You can still put your 2.33 C2D on Ebay and get a Santa Rosa C2D iMac when they arrive. Until then, you'll be enjoying one heck of a nice iMac.

Firstly, thank you, and everyone who commented, despite the fact that I took the 10 to 1 against option (though that's what makes us Mac users...) Actually, that's precicesly the situation that I wouldn't have bothered with the 2.33. I've bought Applecare, and hope that I can keep my trigger finger in control for those three years. It's near the end of that time that I hope the extra power will make it last longer. You see, I'm that type of prosumer who wants and appreciates the best, but who really doesn't need it

David

[jbleisure]

How much RAM did you put in?

[iMacfan]

Originally Posted by jbleisure

How much RAM did you put in?

Oh yeah, forgot to say that the 2.33 was only something I thought of after 2Gb RAM, 500Gb HD and the 7600 GPU. Like I said, it's going to have to last me a loooong time!

By the way, my order status flagged up as 'action required', and says that they do not have authorisation, even though I called my bank and I definitely do have authorisation. The lady on the phone from Apple couldn't contact the finance department because of the time, but said that sometimes that's normal and things might go through fine (they bloody well better!)

Any ideas? Maybe even this is normal, and it means that it's about to ship, only a couple of days after, even though it said that it would take 5 days to ship. That would be good news. Anyone know if everything, including the printer and old nano (edu rebate - comes in as free) will be shipped from China at the same time, or will they be added when everything comes to this country?

David

[::maroma::]

Wait, you got a free Nano and printer with your iMac?

[::maroma::]

Question: How easy is it to replace the hard drive in these iMacs?

[iMacfan]

Maroma, to answer your two questions, yes and very difficult.

Here in the UK, education buyers can still get an old-model nano with a rebate. The 2 Gb Nano should come out free after this. At most, it should cost me 19 pounds. The printer cost 59.99, for which there is a rebate of 60 pounds. Both are mail-in.

As for the HD, AFAIK, all iMacs since the iSight G5 have been totally sealed, not allowing any upgrades without breaking the warranty. Apart from RAM, of course. However, the FW800 on the 24" makes this a little less of a problem.

David

[::maroma::]

Originally Posted by iMacfan

Maroma, to answer your two questions, yes and very difficult.

Here in the UK, education buyers can still get an old-model nano with a rebate. The 2 Gb Nano should come out free after this. At most, it should cost me 19 pounds. The printer cost 59.99, for which there is a rebate of 60 pounds. Both are mail-in.

As for the HD, AFAIK, all iMacs since the iSight G5 have been totally sealed, not allowing any upgrades without breaking the warranty. Apart from RAM, of course. However, the FW800 on the 24" makes this a little less of a problem.

David

Cool, thanks for your answers. I'm hoping we get the same deal here in the U.S.

And I guess I'll be getting the 500GB drive, so that I can put off getting another one as long as possible.

[jbleisure]

Here in the UK, education buyers can still get an old-model nano with a rebate.

I will be buying my 24" within 2 weeks - also I am eligible for edu discount. I have not seen anything related to this old nano offer. Where do I find that information? And old nano for £19!! That's unreal.

By the way it will be 24", 2.33 Ghz, 3GB ram, 250GB HD & Geforce 7600GT 256 MB

[iMacfan]

I was told that there are two ways: if you can order through a higher education website (so through your university website - I can VPN into mine), the option to add the old nano appears when you put the iMac into your basket. Otherwise, for normal edu orders, I think you have to phone them.

As for the config, sounds great (obviously got nothing to do with it being very like mine), but I'd just say that maybe the 500Gb upgrade is much better value, especially when you could add a 2Gb stick when they cost less than a kidney.

David

[Chuckit]

If it's the same offer as in the U.S., Sept. 16 is the last day of the offer.

[::maroma::]

Originally Posted by Chuckit

If it's the same offer as in the U.S., Sept. 16 is the last day of the offer.

NNNOOOOOOOOOooooOOoooO!!

That stinks. I won't be buying for about a week or 2.

[Eug]

Up here in Canada, the new iMacs don't qualify.

Qualifying Models

iMac 17-inch 1.83 GHz Intel Core Duo with SuperDrive
iMac 20-inch 2.0 GHz Intel Core Duo with SuperDrive

I called Apple, and they confirmed none of the new models qualify for the Canadian iPod deal.

[jbleisure]

As for the config, sounds great (obviously got nothing to do with it being very like mine:rolleyes, but I'd just say that maybe the 500Gb upgrade is much better value, especially when you could add a 2Gb stick when they cost less than a kidney.

It's no good - I checked it out:

with 2GB and a 500GB harddrive it would cost me £1,862.62.

with 3GB and 250 hard drive £2097.62

3GB and 500GB HD a cool £2229.22

I have to spend over £2000, so the first configuration above won't do.

And for the extra £131.60 for the additional 250GB I'd rather save the cash now and buy an external HD Next year

[jbleisure]

I should explain I can claim back the VAT on a computer over £2000

I couldn't claim back anything on the 1st configuration above Total cost to me £1,862.62.
on the second second £367.08 vat back - total cost to me £1730.54
and 3rd £390.11 total cost to me £1839.11

[selowitch]

Originally Posted by Eug

Memory is an easy end user installation.

Not that easy. That space behind the memory access door is pretty cramped, and the clips or guides are hard to use. Also, it takes more force than it should.

[Simon]

Originally Posted by selowitch

Not that easy. That space behind the memory access door is pretty cramped, and the clips or guides are hard to use. Also, it takes more force than it should.

Oh no. Please tell me it's not the same moronic system the MacBooks have.

[JKT]

FWIW, anything that actively encourages people to buy a second external hard drive is a good thing IMO. People are much more likely to back up that way. You can also get something like the NewerTech ministack for around £200 with a 500GB hard disk and more additional ports than you could hope to need.