[mduell]

If Apple releases a quad iMac before the Clarksfield release, I think they'll just charge customers the premium for QX9300 (2.53Ghz @ 45W, $1038) to avoid the noise or redesign of the case.

[Simon]

With these new Yorkfields I don't see Penryn QC XE coming to the iMac anymore. Too expensive for too little.

The QX9300 would cost Apple on the order of $500 more than the higher clocked Q9400. A case redesign and added cooling will cost half that max.

And with its comparably low clock the Penryn QC XE is a marketing problem for the iMac.

[Eug]

Originally Posted by Simon 

Intel just refreshed Yorkfield with the low-power s series. That means you can now get quad-core 45nm desktop CPUs at 65W TDP.

Q9550s - 2.83 / 12MB / 1333 MHz / 65W / $369
Q9400s - 2.66 / 6MB / 1333 MHz / 65W / $320
Q8200s - 2.33 - 4MB / 1333 MHz / 65W / $245

Of course Apple has so far never bothered with Intel desktop chipsets. I certainly wouldn't mind a Bearlake iMac with a Q9550 though.

Originally Posted by P 

At those TDPs, they might want to bother. OTOH, the advantage with the mobile versions is that they underclock further if not loaded, which decreases the average noise level (as opposed to the TDP, which correlates to the maximum noise level). Average noise is probably more important than maximum noise to customer satisfaction.

Are you suggesting that the Q9xxx and Q8xxx series would be loud at idle (even with a case change)? Yes, that is concerning, especially since Apple has already had a chance to deal with this for years. The 970FX 2.0 GHz wasn't completely silent at idle (although it was quiet).

And plus, since we have no seen no Yorkfield iMacs released, I wonder if we just might have to wait until Q3 for those Clarksfield Nehalem chips.

I'm getting the itch to upgrade... albeit only partially because of CPU speed. The main reason is because I have less than 40 GB of space left on my boot drive now, so I've stalled my DVD ripping for the time being. My next upgrade should give me quad-core and 1.5 TB. Oh and my 3 GB RAM limit for my current model really does suck. I "need" 6-8 GB (although I might have to start out with just 4 GB total, if 4 GB SODIMM prices are too high.)

If Clarksfield doesn't come out until Q4, that may pose a small problem for me. I usually like to sell my desktops before my warranty is up... and preferably just before a release of a new model. That way I maximize the sell price. However, my warranty is up in September, and I don't want to be stuck using just my laptop for 3 months. Oh well, whatever.

P.S. I too would be somewhat surprised to see Penryn QC XE make an appearance in iMacs.

[P]

Originally Posted by Eug 

Are you suggesting that the Q9xxx and Q8xxx series would be loud at idle (even with a case change)? Yes, that is concerning, especially since Apple has already had a chance to deal with this for years. The 970FX 2.0 GHz wasn't completely silent at idle (although it was quiet).

Yes, that is what I'm saying. The desktops will do some powersavings, but they are limited in how low they will underclock. The CPU will never drop below 6 times the actual FSB (in the case above, 2 GHz) and they do not reduce voltage on the fly (slightly unclear on that - anyone knows better, please correct me). The mobile versions will drop the clockspeed further (down to 800 MHz for the quads above), will cut the voltage and disable parts of the CPU that are not needed. In most cases, you do not need all that power.

[Eug]

One thing I will point out though is that my 2.33 GHz Core 2 dual-core iMac is still silent even when both cores are pegged at > 90% utilization.

[P]

I believe you, but have you kept the cores pegged at 90%+ utilization for hours and listened to the cooling system? That is when this old G5 really let's it rip.

If you keep the CPU at a temperature significantly below throttling - say at 30 C or something like that - and then experience short (a few minutes) bursts of maximum activity, the fans will not spin up. The temperature will rise, but the burst of activity will be over before the temperature gets up to the 60 C where the CPU will start to throttle.

[Andy8]

Originally Posted by Eug 

I don't want to be stuck using just my laptop for 3 months.

What sort of laptop do you have Eug? I drive my Dell 2407 with my MBA no trouble at all, of course it is not as nice as a 24" iMac, but it won't hurt for a short while

[Eug]

Originally Posted by P 

I believe you, but have you kept the cores pegged at 90%+ utilization for hours and listened to the cooling system?

Yes. (Video encoding takes forever.) The thing remains very quiet, although it does get slightly louder, but I really have to listen for it.

That is when this old G5 really let's it rip.

I could get the G5 to ramp up the fans within minutes. It was never in full blast vacuum cleaner mode, but quite annoying nonetheless. (Full blast vaccuum cleaner mode happened with you ran the hardware test disc. I presume there was no fan speed management with that OS.)

Originally Posted by Andy8 

What sort of laptop do you have Eug? I drive my Dell 2407 with my MBA no trouble at all, of course it is not as nice as a 24" iMac, but it won't hurt for a short while

MacBook C2D.

It would work, but I have all my data on my iMac. I guess what I could do is boot off an external hard drive clone of the iMac to keep everything consistent.

[P]

Originally Posted by Eug 

Yes. (Video encoding takes forever.) The thing remains very quiet, although it does get slightly louder, but I really have to listen for it.

Impressive. I had not realized that the newest iMacs were that quiet. I have been putting off my next upgrade partially based on the lack of good GPU options. The 8800 in the 24"er almost had me buying one, but then I figured I might as well wait for Nehalem. Now I spent the money on an upgrade of the home theater system, so it's going to have to be late 2009 in any case.

Originally Posted by Eug 

I could get the G5 to ramp up the fans within minutes. It was never in full blast vacuum cleaner mode, but quite annoying nonetheless.

I'm guessing the minuscule L2 cache and the high RAM latency were to blame for some of that, as the memory subsystem has to work much harder than it does for the C2D. Note that the cooling noise situation has improved with later OS updates, however - at least if you keep the fan vents clean.

[Eug]

Originally Posted by me

I could get the G5 to ramp up the fans within minutes. It was never in full blast vacuum cleaner mode, but quite annoying nonetheless. (Full blast vaccuum cleaner mode happened with you ran the hardware test disc. I presume there was no fan speed management with that OS.)

Now that I think again on it, I may be overstating the G5 2.0 single-core iMac's fan noise. Yes, I could get it to ramp up within minutes, and the additional noise was annoying, but it wasn't by any measure super loud. It was just noticeably louder than it was before, which to say it can become a significant distraction when you're otherwise used to having very little noise. Part of was compounded by the fact that it sits on the desk.

ie. iMac Core 2 Duo 2.33 at idle - basically silent
iMac Core 2 Duo 2.33 at full tilt - basically silent (almost)
G5 2.0 iMac at idle - very quiet
G5 2.0 iMac at full tilt - low to low moderate noise (for a consumer desktop), much more noticeable
TiBook 1 GHz at full tilt - mini vacuum cleaner

What was REALLY annoying was my 1 GHz TiBook's fan. Peg that machine's CPU with video encoding, and it was in real vacuum cleaner mode within minutes.

[Eug]

New iMac "almost ready," may stay dual-core

New iMac almost ready? I agree.

May stay dual-core? I hope not, but it's quite possible in light of our TDP discussion above.

[Simon]

Shaw Wu has a terrible track record. He's re-iterating the already floating around rumors and has absolutely nothing new to ad.

Also, he's mistaken about the reason for bad desktop sales (beside the bad economy). It's not that the iMac needs an update. It's the Mac mini (and the MP) that need it most right now.

The iMac isn't not selling because it's in need of an update, it's not selling to everybody because it's an AIO (i.e. non-portable notebook) and not everybody in the desktop market wants that.

[P]

Agreed that Wu is just repeating what he heard, which our Internet echo champer is amplifying again.

As for the iMac, though - it's selling less than it usually does right now, because it's in dire need of an update.

* All but the top-of-the-line still use a two year old mid-range GPU that happens to be from one of the least successful GPU lineups in living memory.
* It's overdue, at about 9 months since the last update with an average around 7
* The rumors about an impending update are as solid as bits left over in the latest OS X updates confirming it
* Macworld was the logical time for it
* Furthermore there will likely be exactly one update left before Clarksfield (mobile high-end Nehalem CPU) is upon us. Put that update in Q3 and 7 months between updates and we ought to have one right ... about ... now.

Actually all the desktops need updates right now. The MP will get one as soon as Gainestown launches, and the mini will get one when they get around to it - it tends to be a low priority thing, and anyway it needs a redesign rather than an update.

Most interesting is what GPU they will put in the iMac this time. Supplier politics imply an Intel chipset with ATi graphics, but the leaked specs imply an nVidia chipset. nVidia GPU as well? That makes it hard to guess what. Either nVidia has some mid-range GTX 200 derivative in the pipe, or it's an old 9600 with 9800 at the top if they go desktop GPUs, and pretty much the same numbers but much lower specs if they stay on the mobile chips.

[Eug]

Originally Posted by Simon 

Also, he's mistaken about the reason for bad desktop sales (beside the bad economy). It's not that the iMac needs an update. It's the Mac mini (and the MP) that need it most right now.

The iMac isn't not selling because it's in need of an update, it's not selling to everybody because it's an AIO (i.e. non-portable notebook) and not everybody in the desktop market wants that.

They all need updates.

And many of us are indeed waiting for that iMac update. In my case, I'm waiting for a decent quad, as evidenced by this thread.

[Simon]

Oh I'm sure many people are waiting for an iMac update. But the point is that the MP and Mm crowd have been waiting for much longer. If the iMac indeed stays dual-core and nothing else really happens, the iMac update will be the least exciting one of them all.

[Denholm]

Uh huh. I'm waiting for a hardware refresh before buying

[Eug]

Apple warns of reduced iMac availability in near term

Apple this week is advising members of its reseller channels that supply of iMacs will be constrained in the immediate future, a move that may signal new models are nearing production.

In particular, people familiar with the matter say the Cupertino-based Mac maker has warned that new reseller orders for the high-end 24-inch 3.06GHz iMac are unlikely to be fulfilled, suggesting manufacturing of that model is ramping down or has already ceased.

Additionally, Apple is said to have braced its partners for limited availability of the remainder of the iMac line in the coming weeks, a sign which this late in the product's life-cycle "only means one thing" -- namely that the company is drawing down inventory levels ahead of new models.

[slugslugslug]

^ Cool, a report like that on the rumor sites has been a pretty reliable predictor recently.

Too bad I can't really afford another computer right now. I really liked having the iMac + MacBook combo for a while there.

[Eug]

More rumour mongering

Wu cites unidentified sources as saying Apple will use both dual- and quad-core processors, in contrast to rumors pointing to one or the other. Quad-core CPUs are expected to be used exclusively in high-end iMacs, while low- to mid-range systems may be equipped with varying dual-core speeds in a move to push people towards more expensive models.

[Simon]

In that statement Wu also said

"As Apple mentioned briefly on its earnings call, Mac Pro sales have become less important and less attractive in this tough economic environment," he told clients. "However, we think a refresh utilizing upcoming Intel 'Nehalem' 8-core processors (and with two enabling a 16-core) would bring it better price performance and help jump start this highly profitable segment."



Wu still hasn't got the slightest clue what he's talking about. It is truly surprising that after this financial crisis people like him still have a job.

[Eug]

AI: Availability of Apple's high-end iMac starting to fade

The number of digital storefronts reflecting availability of Apple's high-end iMac configuration is dwindling this week in yet another sign that long-overdue updates to the all-in-one desktop line may be inching their way closer to market.

...

While these slight delays happen from time to time, more telling may be the model's absolute removal from Amazon.com's product catalog sometime in the past 48 hours. The retailer's product page for the system is now a dead end, meaning it has likely been yanked from the retailer's database of products permanently.

BTW, The iMac was last updated 10 months ago, on April 28.

[Simon]

[Simon]

Reports indicate today will be the day.

Entry level model: 20", 2.66 GHz C2D, 2 GB RAM, 320 GB HDD, 9400M
"Mass market" model: 24", 2.66 GHz C2D, 4 GB RAM, 640 GB HDD, 9400M
High-end model: 24", 2.93 GHz C2D, 4 GB RAM, 640 GB HDD, dedicated GPU, 256 MB VRAM
Ultimate model: 24", 3.09 GHz C2E, 4 GB RAM, 1 TB HDD, dedicated GPU, 512 MB VRAM

All come with the Nvidia chipset and DP.

http://www.hardmac.com/news/2009-03-02/#9671
http://www.9to5mac.com/MAC-MINI-AND-iMac-new
http://www.macrumors.com/2009/03/03/...-and-mac-pros/

No quad-core option. Apparently the iMac will stay a non-portable MBP rather than become more of a 'true' desktop.

[P]

I guess that the last revision before Nehalem is not the time to design and test a socket 775 motherboard.

[Simon]

Interesting how there's always a reason to delay transition for just one more generation.

[Pierre B.]

Originally Posted by Simon 

Interesting how there's always a reason to delay transition for just one more generation.

I think it will be two for me. At least.

[Eug]

I wonder if it will get a new case design with the quad. It's overdue as the last major redesign was with the G5 in 2004, unless you consider the aluminum a major new case redesign. It'd be nice to get rid of the chin, and to have some height adjustability. And a 30 incher would be nice.

[P]

The iMac is very much in tune with Apple's current design language - the one in need of a redesign is the mini. A minor redesign, with height adjustment and reasonable accessibility internally, is a possibility, but no new lampshade.

[Eug]

Originally Posted by P 

A minor redesign, with height adjustment and reasonable accessibility internally, is a possibility

That would be a huge step up in terms of ergonomics and upgradability. I'd be very satisfied with that (along with 4-core).

[Eug]

There is an education deal that, on top of the normal education price discount, one gets a free iPod touch with the purchase of a laptop or desktop. That deal ends September 8, 2009. Anyone wanna wager Apple is gonna announce a new iMac on September 9? And yes, that's a Wednesday, but Apple's original Core 2 Duo iMac was also released on a Wednesday. That's the iMac I currently own and am typing on right now.

Seriously though, the info on timing has been conflicting. Some said late 2009 for Clarksfield, and then later reports had it at Q3 2009. In fact, Intel has already demo'd Lynnfield and Clarksfield PCs. However, the last info I've seen about a date puts it at October 2009. That's a bit of a bummer, but not too surprising. What does have me a little concerned though are the supposed clock speeds of 1.6 GHz - 2.0 GHz. In some apps, the 2.0 GHz quad could even be slightly slower than the 2.26 GHz Core 2 Duo 13" MacBook Pro I'm gonna get soon. Even worse, the same could be true compared to my nearly 3 year old 2.33 GHz Core 2 Duo iMac, too. I do want an update though, esp. since my warranty on the C2D iMac will be up in Sept., and the 3 GB max memory and built-in 500 GB hard drive are quite limiting.

As for Auburndale, it's been cancelled. The good news though is that it's cancelled because Intel is ramping up the 32 nm versions instead.

[Simon]

A 2.0 GHz Clarksfield will not be slower than a 2.26 GHz Penryn or a 2.33 GHz Merom.

Neither in raw CPU speed, nor in everyday apps. And that has nothing to do with no. of cores and single-threaded apps, but everything to do with improvements across the entire CPU and memory bus architecture.

[P]

I'm sure I can write an app that runs faster on a 2.33 GHz Core 2 Duo...

Seriously though, the integrated memory controller alone should be enough to make the Clarksfield/Lynnfield win on average. 1.73 GHz for the fastest non-XE is slower than I was expecting, though. Hm. Let's hope the Chinese are wrong this time.

[Eug]

Originally Posted by P 

Seriously though, the integrated memory controller alone should be enough to make the Clarksfield/Lynnfield win on average.

Well, as you know there are lots of apps that aren't really bound by memory speed. Much of the speed boost would be from multiple cores, and how well the system does with those multiple cores. For example, a 2.66 GHz Nehalem is a whopping 3% faster than a 2.66 GHz Penryn Core 2 Quad in a single threaded Cinebench test.

Other speed boosts may be significantly higher, but nonetheless when you're saddled with low clockspeed, that improvement might not be as noticeable.

1.73 GHz for the fastest non-XE is slower than I was expecting, though. Hm. Let's hope the Chinese are wrong this time.

Same here. I was hoping for 2 GHz at the lower end, not the high end. I'd still take it since it's a quad, but I was really hoping for more after three years.

[Eug]

The rumours are now claiming late Sept. or early Oct.. They still have the same claimed speeds.

2GHz Core 2 Extreme XE
1.73GHz Core 2 Quad P2
1.6GHz Core 2 Quad P1

[Simon]

Those "rumors" are from July. That lineup has been Intel's plan for at least 6 months now. Also, they got the names wrong. Intel has given up on the Core 2 naming.

The Clarksfield CPUs will go by the names i7-920XM, i7-820QM, and i7-720QM. The first is 2GHz at 55W TDP (about 10W more than what Apple is using in the high-end iMac/MBP now). The others at 1.73 and 1.6 GHz are 44W. The prices are pretty crazy too. The i7-920M in 1k units will cost $1054.

[P]

So the sucessor to the 9000 series, the highest non-extreme laptop chips today, is a friggin Arrandale? And I'm waiting for Nehalem why again?

[Simon]

Hehe. You see that big white empty area? That area should have been occupied by Clarksfield. The Intel ran into trouble getting the TDP down. Around the same time they saw Westmere advance much faster than anticipated and they decided to push to 32nm across the board as fast as possible. The result is that 35/45W CPU notebooks (like the MBP, but also the current iMac) are stuck. It's either dual-core or hot quads at low clock rates. We'll be lucky if we see 35/45W quad-cores at decent clock rates before the end of 2010.

[Eug]

OK, that officially sucks. If that's the case, as you say Apple will probably use no quad core CPUs at all in their iMacs in the near term. I guess I'm keeping my Core 2 Duo 2.33 a lot longer than I expected.

That said, I did think their quad-core timetable last year did seem rather optimistic. I guess that has turned out to be true.

BTW, Other speculation now is that the iMac could finally get Blu-ray now that the Blu-ray licencing requirements have changed. However, even if the new iMac gets Blu-ray, I'm not really interested unless it also gets quad-core. I want this machine to last another 3-4 years. It should be noted though that while the BR licencing is cheaper, I could still see it having technological barriers that Apple may still not want to overcome. Is it cost or is it Apple's reluctance to incorporate the necessary changes to the OS or kernel?

[Simon]

Bottom line is +10W for the CPU and memory controller (what used to be the northbridge) when you go Penryn->Clarksfield.

The iMac's cooling system can be optimized differently that the MBP's. Especially if Apple would be willing to somewhat restrain their anorexic design. I wouldn't be surprised to see a Clarksfield come to the iMac. But likely as a high-end option. And I wouldn't be surprised either if they're not quite as quiet as they are now.

But keep in mind that even if Apple can fit a 45/55W TDP CPU in an iMac, you're still looking a rather low clock with Clarksfield. I doubt the average iMac user today will benefit from 4x2GHz Nehalem over 2x3GHz Penryn. Sure TurboBoost can clock up that Clarksfield core to 3.2 GHz if all others are idling, but I doubt that's really what a majority of iMac users needs. In a year or two from now, with SL/GC goodness and optimized apps sure, but within the next six months? I'm not at all convinced.

[mduell]

Originally Posted by P 

So the sucessor to the 9000 series, the highest non-extreme laptop chips today, is a friggin Arrandale? And I'm waiting for Nehalem why again?

No, Clarksfield is fine for the iMac. The current iMac platform TDP is 45W, so both the i7-720 and i7-820 Clarksfields are fine.

Originally Posted by Eug 

OK, that officially sucks. If that's the case, as you say Apple will probably use no quad core CPUs at all in their iMacs in the near term. I guess I'm keeping my Core 2 Duo 2.33 a lot longer than I expected.

It depends on which direction Apple wants to take the iMac, more consumer or prosumer. As noted above appropriate quads are available for the latter route.

[P]

Originally Posted by mduell 

No, Clarksfield is fine for the iMac. The current iMac platform TDP is 45W, so both the i7-720 and i7-820 Clarksfields are fine.

Almost. Clarksfield is 45 W alone - you still have to add the ICH to make a platform to be comparable with the C2D platform you linked above.
</nitpick>

Yes, I know that the contribution of the ICH will be minor, I'm just being annoying.

Ah well, I guess I can live with an i5 Arrandale with discrete graphics if I have to. The IOMMU was the main thing I wanted out of Nehalem in any case. Will have to see how that works out with the L3 cache, though.

(Right now, the integrated GPU is on the same die as the memory controller. At least initially, the implication was to put the Arrandale GPU and memory controller off die but in the same package. The question is how this affects the L3 cache - will it be off die, on die or no L3 cache at all? - and how this affects latency to main memory)

Originally Posted by mduell 

It depends on which direction Apple wants to take the iMac, more consumer or prosumer. As noted above appropriate quads are available for the latter route.

The trend seems to be to do both, to make the line wider.

[Simon]

Bottom line is there is no 35/45W TDP Clarksfield available even though that was originally Intel's goal. In fact, Intel has publicly admitted they missed the original envelope goal with Clarksfield.

Right now this means two things:
a) the MBP will probably not get it
b) if the iMac gets it, it's likely going to be a high-end option

If the iMac gets a new thermal design it might stay as quiet as it is today. If not, expect a hotter/noisier Clarksfield iMac.

[mduell]

Originally Posted by P 

Almost. Clarksfield is 45 W alone - you still have to add the ICH to make a platform to be comparable with the C2D platform you linked above.
</nitpick>

Yes, I know that the contribution of the ICH will be minor, I'm just being annoying.

Mobile ICHs consume about 2.5W.

Originally Posted by Simon 

If the iMac gets a new thermal design it might stay as quiet as it is today. If not, expect a hotter/noisier Clarksfield iMac.

It's not going to be any louder since the system TDP is unchanged.

[Simon]

Actually, it is. Even Intel has admitted that.

[mduell]

By 3W (as above) or something more substantial?

I don't believe that you can hear a 3W difference in cooling system load.

[bearcatrp]

I wouldn't be surprised to see a i7 dual core (total 4 cores) come out. It would keep the heat down and boost more power without stepping on the mac pro toes. Put a chip like this in a iMac and mini and they would sell.

[Simon]

The problem with that is there is no real quad-core i7 drop-in replacement for the Penryn T9x00 series Apple is using now. Originally that was supposed to happen, but Intel didn't manage to get the frequency up and keep the TDP down as they had anticipated. And now their efforts are concentrated on the new 32 nm process.

[Eug]

OK this iMac is running out of space. I have 16 GB left on the boot partition and a bit on the data partition as well. I refuse to replace this machine until I can get a quad, with nice GPU. I'm getting a Canon EOS 7D camera soon, and it has native 1080p QuickTime movie recording, which I'll edit with Final Cut.

So I have a few options:

1) Archive part of the data partition and reconfigure the partition sizes.
2) Reformat the entire drive as a boot partition, and put the data partition on a separate external drive.
3) Pay someone to put in a new hard drive.

Maybe I'll do #2. That way I can have the external drive as a scratch disk too.

Decisions to decisions. But the one thing I won't do is buy a new iMac until Intel gets its chips in order... And no, there's no way I'm buying a Mac Pro.

[mduell]

The mobile i7 chips are fast, real fast. Plus with a low clockrate (like 1.73Ghz) quad core chip, when the loading is poorly threaded it will idle a couple cores and run the clockrate up to 3+Ghz.

[Eug]

While the speed is encouraging, the power usage isn't (at least for us iMac types). 74 Watts at full load: