[badsey]

the new Intel Quad-Core chips are out and everybody wants to know how long do we need to wait? (why are you making us wait??)

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets...oc.aspx?i=2866

The Quad-Core CPUs are $999 by themselves. Pick your Mac and how much you are willing to pay.

CPU Clock Speed L2 Cache Price
Intel Core 2 Extreme QX6700 2.66GHz 2 x 4MB $999 (the Quad core one)
Intel Core 2 Extreme X6800 2.93GHz 4MB $999
Intel Core 2 Quad Q6600 2.40GHz 2 x 4MB $851* (also a Quad?)
Intel Core 2 Duo E6700 2.66GHz 4MB $530
Intel Core 2 Duo E6600 2.40GHz 4MB $316
Intel Core 2 Duo E6400 2.13GHz 2MB $224
Intel Core 2 Duo E6300 1.86GHz 2MB $183

[CheesePuff]

My understanding was all of the Intel Core 2 Extreme model's with Quad Core. Plus, if you add $999 to the price of the iMac, remember to remove ~$250 for the price of it's current processor to subset the price.

[mduell]

The iMacs use the mobile version of the Core 2 Duo chip, not the desktop version. Mobile quads have not been released.

[badsey]

Intel� Product Comparison Chart

X6800 is only dual-core.

[C.A.T.S. CEO]

Before we put any more cores into any macs we need a a utility that would decide or let you pick what applications run on what core. What the heck Steve?

[production_coordinator]

Originally Posted by C.A.T.S. CEO 

Before we put any more cores into any macs we need a a utility that would decide or let you pick what applications run on what core. What the heck Steve?

Ummm... What?

There is no need for such an application.

[C.A.T.S. CEO]

Originally Posted by production_coordinator 

Ummm... What?

There is no need for such an application.

why?

[production_coordinator]

Originally Posted by C.A.T.S. CEO 

why?

Please give a good reason why you need "a utility that would decide or let you pick what applications run on what core"

OS X already has a well developed scheduler, and picking which application uses which core is simply silly.

[production_coordinator]

P.S. OS X already can handle a 8 CPUs without modification.

AnandTech: Apple's Mac Pro - Upgrading CPUs, Memory & Running XP

The problem really falls on the developers... and how threaded their applications are.

[C.A.T.S. CEO]

Originally Posted by production_coordinator 

Please give a good reason why you need "a utility that would decide or let you pick what applications run on what core"

OS X already has a well developed scheduler, and picking which application uses which core is simply silly.

So, safari will switch between cores when other Apps are running?

[mitchell_pgh]

Originally Posted by C.A.T.S. CEO 

So, safari will switch between cores when other Apps are running?

Well... Safari is a threaded application... and those threads would be executed in parallel across the two or more CPUs (in theory as there are hundreds of threads [applications] moving through the CPU), so it's automatically happening... and OS X is ready TODAY for 8 cpus... and perhaps more.

That being said, things like hard drive and ram speed haven't change much... so the system isn't 8X faster.

It would be rather difficult to saturate a 8 core system... but I'm sure people will figure out a way to do it (video encoding).

[Simon]

Originally Posted by C.A.T.S. CEO 

Before we put any more cores into any macs we need a a utility that would decide or let you pick what applications run on what core. What the heck Steve?

Complete and utter nonsense.

OS X takes care of distributing threads onto cores all by itself. We don't need such a tool now for two cores and we won't need it later for four cores either.

[C.A.T.S. CEO]

Originally Posted by mitchell_pgh 

Well... Safari is a threaded application... and those threads would be executed in parallel across the two or more CPUs (in theory as there are hundreds of threads [applications] moving through the CPU), so it's automatically happening... and OS X is ready TODAY for 8 cpus... and perhaps more.

That being said, things like hard drive and ram speed haven't change much... so the system isn't 8X faster.

It would be rather difficult to saturate a 8 core system... but I'm sure people will figure out a way to do it (video encoding).

ok. I see now....

[Tuoder]

I think that a quad-core system is still overkill in an iMac, with the possible exception for those who would spring for the 24". Then it may be a viable option.

I would rather put those $750 into an awesome video card, or more RAM. Perhaps both.

[badsey]

Originally Posted by Simon 

Complete and utter nonsense.

OS X takes care of distributing threads onto cores all by itself. We don't need such a tool now for two cores and we won't need it later for four cores either.

Maybe there are people out there that want to run two distinct seperate systems at one time like Win and OSX. Many uses for these extra cores = don't limit yourself.

[badsey]

cores

[Simon]

Originally Posted by badsey 

Maybe there are people out there that want to run two distinct seperate systems at one time like Win and OSX. Many uses for these extra cores = don't limit yourself.

Umm, I lost you there. Where is the connection to OS X's thread handling?

[abbaZaba]

Originally Posted by C.A.T.S. CEO 

ok. I see now....

haha I doubt you really understood what he was talking about

[slugslugslug]

I would imagine building a quad-core iMac in the next 18 months or more is an extremely low priority for Apple. They'd probably have a way bigger target market for 1) an ultraportable laptop or 2) the notorious More-affordable Headless Expandable (Wonder) Mac. When quad-core chips start trickling into high-mid range desktops is when they'll show up in an iMac model (IMHO, natch)

[CIA]

Originally Posted by slugslugslug 

I would imagine building a quad-core iMac in the next 18 months or more is an extremely low priority for Apple. They'd probably have a way bigger target market for 1) an ultraportable laptop or 2) the notorious More-affordable Headless Expandable (Wonder) Mac. When quad-core chips start trickling into high-mid range desktops is when they'll show up in an iMac model (IMHO, natch)

I stated in another thread.... I can't remember a time in my 20+ years of Mac use when software has lagged behind the hardware.. Perhaps during the transitions, 68k -> PPC kinda counts I guess, and from OS9 to X, but not like this.

[EDIT]
OK, the G4 was a good example, it was (in early versions) a G3 with fancy-wancy VMX/Altivec unit tacked on. And yeah, it took awhile for people to utilize this powerful addition.
[/EDIT}

Granted OSX was (and is) much more capable then the hardware allows. It can handle 4, 8, maybe even more cores with no real change to it's current state. Now programs, in general, are a different story. I own a quad G5 atm, and it's great. I love watching all 4 bars on my Activity moniter go "redline" when I render somthing in FCP. But othertimes it's frustrating when I see an app "maxed" out using only 200% of available CPU power (or worse, 100%)
I still chuckle at activity monitor showing something like 350% usage of CPU, is there an app out there that states overall CPU? Like if I'm using 300% acording to AM, it will show 75% actual CPU use? (make sense?).
I know, over time, as the industry moves towards more and more cores that software will eventually become super optimized for this new world. At this moment, for most people, anything more then 2 cores is mostly overkill. In 2-3 years, quads and beyond in the Macbook!

[gregarios]

I'd pay $3,000 or more for a Core 2 Quad 24" iMac. :-) (QX6700 or better)

[Sbtrfuge]

I wouldn't. It'd be pointless. Until applications are written to actually take advantage of more than one CPU, it'd be totally and completely pointless.

Right now the only apps I can think of are Quake 3, and Quake 4.

It would be insanely stupid to make an iMac with 4 cpus.

HOWEVER, it would be a good idea to offer the 7600Gt in the 20" model, or upgrade cards like the 7900 for the existing iMacs with MXM slots.

[Simon]

Originally Posted by Sbtrfuge 

I wouldn't. It'd be pointless. Until applications are written to actually take advantage of more than one CPU, it'd be totally and completely pointless.

Right now the only apps I can think of are Quake 3, and Quake 4.

It would be insanely stupid to make an iMac with 4 cpus.

Umm, wait a moment.

Quad-core iMac implies making use of one single CPU with 4 cores on one MCM. It's very similar to the current iMac, just instead of having two cores on one die, you would then have four. If you have multithreaded apps that are CPU-bound (and there a quite a few of those around) you can make use of such a setup.

Nothing about that is insanely stupid. The question is if Apple thinks it can really earn a lot of money with such a Mac. The QX6700 (that is the quad-core CPU in question) costs $999 while the current T7600 (2.33 GHz Merom) costs $637. In addition the QX6700 requires another chipset and board (socket 775, chipset 975X or 965P [modifications required]) than what the iMac currently uses (socket M, 945 chipset). So you're looking at $400 or so of increased cost vs. the current high-end system. In addition there might be some (although I wouldn't expect much) downsell from the Mac Pro to such an iMac which Apple certainly doesn't want to see.

Such a CPU and Mac OS X make a lot of sense. The real question is if Apple expects it to be profitable.

[imitchellg5]

$23, since that's all I have right now.

[pra9ab0y]

As long as it runs Im happy!

[chabig]

Originally Posted by C.A.T.S. CEO 

why?

For the same reason we need an application to let us choose which hard drive platter to store our data on, silly.

[No Time 4 Love Dr. Jones]

I'd pay the same price as the current line of iMacs.

[badsey]

They are already talking 8 cores (2x4) for the Mac Pro. People laugh and think these systems will never happen. -But in a few months (a month??) 8 core Mac Pros.

Windows Vista will look slower and slower compared to OSX with all these cores be utilized efficiently in OSX.

I would expect 8 core Mac Pros and even 16 core Mac Pros soon. =Reason for the graphic professionals to change from PowerPC once the Mac/Intel universal softs are available.

After 3-5 months of the 8 core Mac Pro expect the iMac to have 4 cores as an option. Maxxed out 24" and 30" iMacs with the quad-core.

[SciFrog]

We should see a quad iMac in one year when the mobile quad chip will be released. The current iMac cannot cool the non mobile chips... Why do you think Apple uses more expensive laptop chips...

[badsey]

Originally Posted by SciFrog 

We should see a quad iMac in one year when the mobile quad chip will be released. The current iMac cannot cool the non mobile chips... Why do you think Apple uses more expensive laptop chips...

http://forums.macnn.com/69/powerbook...-intel-penryn/

they are producing these quad-core mobile chips now. 4 cores and they use less energy than the duo-core chips.

I still want my 30" iMac -I don't care what anyone else thinks. Quad-Core and 30" (or larger) iMac. I will use my 30"+ iMac as a TV also. Resolution must be high ~2500x1400 also for computer use (=no crappy plasmas with low resolution)

[CharlesS]

I wouldn't buy an iMac at all with the current ridiculous case design, no matter what they put in it.

As long as the thing is going to be non-expandable to the point where you can't even replace the hard drive without major surgery, why not just get a laptop? It's actually easier to replace the hard drive in the laptops than in an iMac, and you can hook up an external screen to it if you want a huge screen.

[mduell]

Originally Posted by badsey 

http://forums.macnn.com/69/powerbook...-intel-penryn/

they are producing these quad-core mobile chips now. 4 cores and they use less energy than the duo-core chips.

n.b. they're producing engineering samples; they're still a few quarters away from production chips.

[mduell]

Originally Posted by CharlesS 

As long as the thing is going to be non-expandable to the point where you can't even replace the hard drive without major surgery, why not just get a laptop? It's actually easier to replace the hard drive in the laptops than in an iMac, and you can hook up an external screen to it if you want a huge screen.

Why not?

1) You want a screen larger than 17"
2) You want a 3.5" hard drive
3) You want to save ~$1000

[Simon]

Originally Posted by CharlesS 

As long as the thing is going to be non-expandable to the point where you can't even replace the hard drive without major surgery, why not just get a laptop?

When it comes to games for example, who wouldn't rather have a 7600GT than a Mobility X1600? Apart from that $2k buys me a lot more iMac than MBP. If you don't need portability why pay for a MBP? Why make the 'portable compromises' when you can get the whole desktop deal for less?

And this is coming form someone who uses two MBPs and no iMac.

[Veltliner]

I really cherish my iMac.

But if I need much more power, I go Mac Pro.

I just love those cinema displays.

A Quad in that small casing and those small fans, wouldn't that cause heat problems?

[mduell]

Originally Posted by Veltliner 

A Quad in that small casing and those small fans, wouldn't that cause heat problems?

Tomorrow's quad consumes less power than todays dual: http://forums.macnn.com/69/powerbook...-intel-penryn/

[CharlesS]

Originally Posted by Simon 

When it comes to games for example, who wouldn't rather have a 7600GT than a Mobility X1600?

When it comes to games, why would anyone want a non-upgradable laptop video card? The only choice for those people is a Mac Pro... or more likely, a Dell.

Apart from that $2k buys me a lot more iMac than MBP. If you don't need portability why pay for a MBP? Why make the 'portable compromises' when you can get the whole desktop deal for less?

Same processor, same RAM, the only differences in power between the iMac and the MBP (or even just the MacBook!) are the hard drive and the GPU. If you care about the GPU, the iMac sucks too because its GPU is non-upgradable and will be useless in a year or two anyway, and let's face it, the fact that Apple's machines with GMA 950 are outselling all the rest shows that most people apparently don't care about the GPU. That leaves the hard drive. If you're willing to give up portability for some extra GB, then I guess that's your call. Portability is really nice to have, though.

[Simon]

You're preaching to the choir as I already own 2 MBPs and a MB.

But, you make it sound as if any iMac buyer were an idiot for not buying a MBP instead. And that IMHO is far too simple. Actually if I were into games the iMac would be a splendid candidate. When I want to upgrade the GPU in lets say one to two years down the road, I'd certainly want to upgrade the CPU as well. And while I'm at it, I'd love to get a larger screen or at least one with better contrast/brightness or response time as well. I wouldn't get a MP for that. It's far more expensive. It offers 4 drive bays which are of little to no use to a gamer and it offers four cores which we also know do not help most games (compared to two cores that is). The MP is a very nice system for pros, but for gaming, I'd rather take an iMac.

OTOH that's really not such an important issue, because a) I'm not a gamer, b) I need portability and c) I'm not buying either system right now. I'm merely trying to point out that there is room enough for the iMac, MP and MBP next to each other and not one of them can replace the other. Your needs might be covered by a MBP or a MP and you might have zero need for an iMac, but people who opt for the iMac are certainly not 'wrong'.

[Simon]

Or, let me put it another way. Just look at price tags.

2.17 GHz 24" iMac, 7600GT/256MB, 1GB RAM, 250 GB HD - $2124
2.0 GHz MP, X1900 XT/512MB, 1 GB RAM, 250 GB HD, 23" ACD - $3448
2.33 GHz MBP, Mobility X1600/256MB, 2 GB RAM, 120 GB, 23" ACD - $3498

Even if you'd give up the 23" and take a 20" ACD with your MP or MBP rather than the iMac's 24", you'd still be paying roughly $1000 more. And in the case of the MBP, you're getting a far inferior GPU.

[CharlesS]

But if the user we're talking about is a gamer, you have to list the price of a comparable PC too, for which the CPU and GPU can be upgraded, and for which the game selection is much better anyway.

People don't buy Macs for gaming.

[Simon]

You asked why anybody would get an iMac rather than a portable Mac. Gaming was just one example. We were not discussing PCs at all AFAIR. Other reasons to buy an iMac have been given here as well.

The MBP does not make the iMac superfluous regardless of user-expandability.

[CharlesS]

Yeah, but you were using a market segment that's virtually non-existent on the Mac (gamers) to justify the iMac. If the iMac's purpose is to attract gamers, it needs a new one fast as gamers don't buy Macs, and since the iMac isn't well suited to gaming anyway.

For other users, the iMac has some advantages, but not enough to make up for the loss of portability, IMO (not to mention that the laptops are more expandable). It's just not that compelling. Things were different in the G5 days - the iMac G5 I have now was significantly more powerful than the G4-based laptops of the time, and this machine is dead simple to open up and replace the hard drive and/or optical drive compared to the sheer pain of doing the same thing on an iBook or PowerBook.

[Simon]

Originally Posted by CharlesS 

Things were different in the G5 days - the iMac G5 I have now was significantly more powerful than the G4-based laptops of the time, and this machine is dead simple to open up and replace the hard drive and/or optical drive compared to the sheer pain of doing the same thing on an iBook or PowerBook.

The rev A G5 iMac was indeed a lot more simple to disassemble than the current iMac. OTOH there were many reports of heat/noise issues with that design. It seems Apple traded off easy user expandability for a better thermal dissipation. Ideally, they would implement both (the MP is a good example).

If in fact the iMac gets Kentsfield it would regain a clear raw performance advantage over the MBP since Penryn is still quite far out. IMHO the question is if Apple really wants to put a $1k CPU into a $2k iMac.

[CharlesS]

Originally Posted by Simon 

The rev A G5 iMac was indeed a lot more simple to disassemble than the current iMac. OTOH there were many reports of heat/noise issues with that design. It seems Apple traded off easy user expandability for a better thermal dissipation. Ideally, they would implement both (the MP is a good example).

Well, I can't speak for the Rev. A G5s, but I've got a Rev. B, and I can tell you that there are absolutely no issues with noise, and that I don't think I've ever noticed the fans running at full strength under normal operation (they do go full-blast when booting into Single-User Mode or Open Firmware, but that's more of an issue with the software controlling the fans than a flaw in the case design). It seems to me that Apple traded off the easy user expandability for some thinness in the design and the resulting "ooh" factor. I may be an idiot, but to me it seems that if you were redesigning something to alleviate heat problems, you wouldn't make it thinner.

Besides, the current design is using laptop processors, whereas the whole problem with the G5 was that it couldn't be used in laptops. Therefore, since the processor should be generating a lot less heat than the G5, they really ought to have more leeway with the design.

If in fact the iMac gets Kentsfield it would regain a clear raw performance advantage over the MBP since Penryn is still quite far out. IMHO the question is if Apple really wants to put a $1k CPU into a $2k iMac.

I'd be very surprised if they jumped from a laptop processor all the way to a quad-core monster rivaling the power of the current Mac Pros.

[Simon]

Originally Posted by CharlesS 

I'd be very surprised if they jumped from a laptop processor all the way to a quad-core monster rivaling the power of the current Mac Pros.

Indeed Kentsfield's 125 W TDP sound like a show stopper for a quad-core iMac right now. And it's also not clear why Apple hasn't bothered to use Conroe at all in the iMac. OTOH with Penryn coming up in Fall 2007 there is no doubt notebooks will be going quad-core. The iMac will certainly go quad-core too, the question is only if it will do so while the MBP remains dual-core (giving it the obvious advantage) or if Apple will wait until Penryn. Meanwhile the MP could go 8 core with Clovertown any time now.

[badsey]

I feel the whole iMac won't play games thing is a farce. Any dual-core Intel chip should play most games just fine (Mac Mini GPUs?). And Apple went Dual-core in all their systems (even Mac Mini) while you still have Dell etc selling many-many-many single-core systems.

For a working computer at home I want an iMac. If I needed a computer on-the-go school/work then maybe an Apple laptop. A 30" iMac or larger could be used for a TV or super-computer. Some people would actually use that 30" screen when using Parallels etc. I feel the 20" iMac screen I have today is way too small now -fine for just OSX, but not so great if I want to run 4-5 programs at once all open windows at the same time with different operating systems.

I basically run 2 20" LCD systems at once right now. iMac and Gateway server. I'm looking at going 30"-40" LCD on one system. =Most likely I will need quad-core (or better) for this sort of computing and I don't feel Windows Vista is powerful enough for this sort of computing.



Many people with Macs run multiple monitors. -This is especially true if you are into audio/image/video. It must be bizarre for Windows people to look at these systmes. What do you need 3 LCD monitors for? -A Mac person will say I simply could not work with-out the 3 monitors. The same reason I have a Mac and Windows system (I need both).

If I saw a Mac user running 6 monitors I would understand and also be intrigued in what he programs he was running. Of course he would tell me he really needs nine (3x3 LCDs)


this is a bad example because these are low resolution 42" plasmas.

[foo2]

Vista (and XP, and 2000) have long supported multiple monitors - what makes you think it doesn't support the 30"? Or are you speaking of quad-core? Vista (and NT, and 2000, and XP) have long been made with multiple CPUs in mind - Microsoft has literally 15 years of SMP experience with multiple CPUs in their OS. What are you talking about?

[mduell]

Originally Posted by badsey 

Many people with Macs run multiple monitors. -This is especially true if you are into audio/image/video. It must be bizarre for Windows people to look at these systmes. What do you need 3 LCD monitors for? -A Mac person will say I simply could not work with-out the 3 monitors.

There are certainly good reasons to have 2+ monitors, but I suspect that the increased prevalence you see in the Mac world is due in part to OSX's lack of support for virtual desktops.

[gregarios]

Originally Posted by Sbtrfuge 

I wouldn't. It'd be pointless. Until applications are written to actually take advantage of more than one CPU, it'd be totally and completely pointless.

Right now the only apps I can think of are Quake 3, and Quake 4.

It would be insanely stupid to make an iMac with 4 cpus.

On second thought you're right... On the same note It'd be stupid to spend $2000 to prewire a new house for optical networking right now. Especially when they won't have the computers or routers to take advantage of it for at least a few more years. Yeah... heck, I can just buy a new $370,000 house with it included when the stuff comes out later right? (:-P)

[Javizun]

Originally Posted by badsey 

I feel the whole iMac won't play games thing is a farce. Any dual-core Intel chip should play most games just fine (Mac Mini GPUs?). And Apple went Dual-core in all their systems (even Mac Mini) while you still have Dell etc selling many-many-many single-core systems.

For a working computer at home I want an iMac. If I needed a computer on-the-go school/work then maybe an Apple laptop. A 30" iMac or larger could be used for a TV or super-computer. Some people would actually use that 30" screen when using Parallels etc. I feel the 20" iMac screen I have today is way too small now -fine for just OSX, but not so great if I want to run 4-5 programs at once all open windows at the same time with different operating systems.

I basically run 2 20" LCD systems at once right now. iMac and Gateway server. I'm looking at going 30"-40" LCD on one system. =Most likely I will need quad-core (or better) for this sort of computing and I don't feel Windows Vista is powerful enough for this sort of computing.



Many people with Macs run multiple monitors. -This is especially true if you are into audio/image/video. It must be bizarre for Windows people to look at these systmes. What do you need 3 LCD monitors for? -A Mac person will say I simply could not work with-out the 3 monitors. The same reason I have a Mac and Windows system (I need both).

If I saw a Mac user running 6 monitors I would understand and also be intrigued in what he programs he was running. Of course he would tell me he really needs nine (3x3 LCDs)


this is a bad example because these are low resolution 42" plasmas.

Microsoft powers hospitals, business etc. They have computers in space doing numerous missions in both the space station & shuttles and you still feel like microsoft is not able to release an operating system capable of handling audio.video?

How do you come into that conclusion without actually giving vista a chance?

If windows xp can handle why vista cant?