Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Hardware - Troubleshooting and Discussion > Mac Desktops > How much would you pay for a Quad-Core iMac?

How much would you pay for a Quad-Core iMac? (Page 2)
Thread Tools
arng1
Forum Regular
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Florida
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 7, 2007, 10:56 PM
 
I would probably pay $100 to $200 more than the current prices.
     
badsey  (op)
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Jan 2006
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 11, 2007, 01:03 AM
 
Originally Posted by Javizun View Post
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?
I have Windows Vista (RC1 = release canidate 1) and run it -it is definately slower than Win XP, but I'm using the Win XP without all the SP2 and > crap also (my WinXP is fast in comaprison). I tried Windows XP with SP2-SP4 and did not like it = no for me = went < SP2. I prefer Windows 2000 and only for the last 1-2 years have went 100% WinXP on my server. I believe my Windows XP does have some of the newer Microsoft Networking software. (I run a choice slipstreamed WinXP).

Intel Server Board with a slipstreamed WinXP.

How many of the Top 500 computers use Windows (in any variation)?
Operating System | TOP500 Supercomputing Sites
-not a one.

DailyTech - Westinghouse Shows Quad HD 3840 x 2160 LCD
Westinghouse Digital Electronics is using CES 2007 as platform to announce its new lineup of LCD HDTVs, LCD computer monitors and digital photo frames. Most interesting out of all the Westinghouse showings is its new 56” Quad monitor, the first LCD with 3840 x 2160 (greater than eight megapixel) resolution. The stunning resolution is achieved by combining four 1920 x 1080 displays together
Windows Vista slow: (and not only to market)
NY Times Advertisement

Windows Vista Win XP emulation:
most Windows XP programs will need to run in an emulation layer under Windows Vista. Sorta like running PowerPC programs on an Intel Mac.
YouTube - Windows Vista - Program Compatibility Wizard (check for Windows Vista program compatibility before making the Vista switch)
Windows Vista Upgrade Advisor

Even DirectX 10 (for gamers) will not support anything less than DirectX 10. (You have emulation)
DirectX - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Some drivers only support one version of DirectX. Prior to DirectX 10, DirectX was considered backward compatible, which means that newer versions supported the older versions. For example, if one had DirectX 9 installed on one's system and ran a game that was written for DirectX 6, it would still work. The game used what was called the DirectX 6 "interface". Every version of DirectX supported every previous version of DirectX. This is a positive consequence of the COM model used for this API.
This has changed with DirectX 10, which uses a legacy version of DirectX 9.0c (9.0 EX) to support older platforms.
Windows Vista has your handle, -but it maybe a slow emulation handle. Why not just use VMware or Parallels on a Mac for that emulation?
     
foo2
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Houston, TX
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 11, 2007, 02:17 AM
 
Originally Posted by badsey View Post
I have Windows Vista (RC1 = release canidate 1) and run it -it is definately slower than Win XP, but I'm using the Win XP without all the SP2 and > crap also (my WinXP is fast in comaprison). I tried Windows XP with SP2-SP4 and did not like it = no for me = went < SP2. I prefer Windows 2000 and only for the last 1-2 years have went 100% WinXP on my server. I believe my Windows XP does have some of the newer Microsoft Networking software. (I run a choice slipstreamed WinXP).

Intel Server Board with a slipstreamed WinXP.

How many of the Top 500 computers use Windows (in any variation)?
Operating System | TOP500 Supercomputing Sites
-not a one.

DailyTech - Westinghouse Shows Quad HD 3840 x 2160 LCD


Windows Vista slow: (and not only to market)
NY Times Advertisement

Windows Vista Win XP emulation:
most Windows XP programs will need to run in an emulation layer under Windows Vista. Sorta like running PowerPC programs on an Intel Mac.
YouTube - Windows Vista - Program Compatibility Wizard (check for Windows Vista program compatibility before making the Vista switch)
Windows Vista Upgrade Advisor

Even DirectX 10 (for gamers) will not support anything less than DirectX 10. (You have emulation)
DirectX - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Windows Vista has your handle, -but it maybe a slow emulation handle. Why not just use VMware or Parallels on a Mac for that emulation?
Your post has a simply shocking number of inaccuracies and outright wrong information.

From the top:

1. If you aren't running XP SP2 (rather, if you're running SP0), you're running a poorly patched and vulnerable system. That's a problem. This isn't a speed thing - this is a basic common sense issue that you should solve.

2. Why would you buy an Intel server board and then run a workstation (XP) OS on it?

3. The Top500 list you presented is a Linpack list, a very specific benchmark type. Get a top 500 SQL list and some will run Windows. That's just one benchmark type of thousands to look at.

4. Is the "Windows Vista is slow" article (a year out of date - 3/27/2006!) the best you can do? Most reviews now written say the speed is excellent as long as you have the RAM for it (1GB and up) ... a lot like OS X, in fact. Posting ancient articles on pre-release software for an OS that is now fully released is silly and suggests the wrong conclusion.

5. "Most Windows XP programs will need an emulation layer" is completely false. Did you even look at the YouTube video link you posted? Clearly that's a Win95 application. If it's a normal Win32 application, there is no issue. If it directly hits hardware, there can be issues. This is just like OS X running OS 9 applications that directly hit hardware ... except that with Intel CPUs, you've lost that capability now in OS X. Hmm...Vista doesn't look so bad....

6. Your DirectX comment is off the rocker. What are you trying to say?

I certainly don't suggest Vista is something wonderful, but your comments are, to be blunt, completely wrong.
iMac 3.3/i5 (2015) 24GB 2TB 10.13.1
MBP 15/2.5 (2014) 16GB 500GB 10.13.1
MBP 15/2.3 (2012) 16GB 250GB 10.13.1
MB 13/2.4 (2010) 9GB 120GB 10.13.1
MB 13/2.0 (E-2009) 4GB 120GB 10.13
     
badsey  (op)
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Jan 2006
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 21, 2007, 11:22 AM
 
Originally Posted by foo2 View Post
Your post has a simply shocking number of inaccuracies and outright wrong information.

From the top:

1. If you aren't running XP SP2 (rather, if you're running SP0), you're running a poorly patched and vulnerable system. That's a problem. This isn't a speed thing - this is a basic common sense issue that you should solve.

2. Why would you buy an Intel server board and then run a workstation (XP) OS on it?

I certainly don't suggest Vista is something wonderful, but your comments are, to be blunt, completely wrong.
I understand your confusion with WinXP. There is nothing wrong with wanting to foolishly upgrade to SP2 (even Badsey admits to trying it!! -Going all the way to SP4!!!) I believe that you are wrong and that SP2+ is even more compromising than SP0 could ever be.

Luckily there is a product for the truely Win lazy. WinBorg!! -Why do you resist? The even lazier go OSX (I am one of these also).

ServerBoards are really nice and robust. I recommend them except for those wanting the latest hardware add-ons. Many people I know run servers. WorkStation/Server decision? -how much time do you spend on the Internet? -Do you need the highend WorkStation graphic cards?
     
mavherzog
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Columbus, WI
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 22, 2007, 04:59 AM
 
Originally Posted by badsey View Post
I understand your confusion with WinXP. There is nothing wrong with wanting to foolishly upgrade to SP2 (even Badsey admits to trying it!! -Going all the way to SP4!!!) I believe that you are wrong and that SP2+ is even more compromising than SP0 could ever be.
May I be the first to say... huh?
     
CheesePuff
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Rochester, NY
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 22, 2007, 10:57 AM
 
Originally Posted by badsey View Post
I understand your confusion with WinXP. There is nothing wrong with wanting to foolishly upgrade to SP2 (even Badsey admits to trying it!! -Going all the way to SP4!!!) I believe that you are wrong and that SP2+ is even more compromising than SP0 could ever be.
But SP2 is the latest version of Windows XP, and SP3 is not expected until next year?
     
foo2
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Houston, TX
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 27, 2007, 01:56 AM
 
Originally Posted by badsey View Post
I understand your confusion with WinXP. There is nothing wrong with wanting to foolishly upgrade to SP2 (even Badsey admits to trying it!! -Going all the way to SP4!!!) I believe that you are wrong and that SP2+ is even more compromising than SP0 could ever be.

Luckily there is a product for the truely Win lazy. WinBorg!! -Why do you resist? The even lazier go OSX (I am one of these also).

ServerBoards are really nice and robust. I recommend them except for those wanting the latest hardware add-ons. Many people I know run servers. WorkStation/Server decision? -how much time do you spend on the Internet? -Do you need the highend WorkStation graphic cards?
Badsey,

I think you're very confused. There is no XP SP4. Running anything but XP SP2 (or Vista) at this point in time is a bit silly, assuming you want to run something from Redmond.

A normal user has no business running a server board; that's silly too.
iMac 3.3/i5 (2015) 24GB 2TB 10.13.1
MBP 15/2.5 (2014) 16GB 500GB 10.13.1
MBP 15/2.3 (2012) 16GB 250GB 10.13.1
MB 13/2.4 (2010) 9GB 120GB 10.13.1
MB 13/2.0 (E-2009) 4GB 120GB 10.13
     
acmeaudioeng
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Apr 2007
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 15, 2007, 02:33 PM
 
Originally Posted by Sbtrfuge View Post
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.
They are, it's called threading... pretty much EVERY application has it. OS X was designed from the beginning to handle multi CPU/Cores too. You should take a peek at the videos on the ADC site... you'll need membership to view though.
     
acmeaudioeng
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Apr 2007
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 15, 2007, 02:39 PM
 
Originally Posted by foo2 View Post
Badsey,

I think you're very confused. There is no XP SP4. Running anything but XP SP2 (or Vista) at this point in time is a bit silly, assuming you want to run something from Redmond.

A normal user has no business running a server board; that's silly too.
I think Badsey confused XP for Win NT 4.0... it happens, they're soooo similar! lol.
     
Veltliner
Mac Elite
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: here
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 16, 2007, 12:31 PM
 
I'm not so interested in a quad core iMac.

What I'd like to see instead is a better and faster video card. And more ram slots.

Currently only the 24" iMac gives you a choice of video card. That should change.
     
zapman2000
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Feb 2007
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 22, 2007, 07:28 PM
 
I think it would be pretty well perfect to own a Quad-core iMac!! But I could just pay $2610 since that would be all I'd be able to scrounge up. I like the specs for the new iMac (extreme).- I'm even pretty happy with the video card.
I was just about to put down a good amount for the MBP but who knows maybe I'll wait for this quad-core iMac instead.. I don't think it will be 'very far off..'

hopefully.. Blu-ray and Blu ray-R and its good to go.
     
shawmanus
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Mar 2006
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 22, 2007, 08:39 PM
 
Intel has said that they would release quad core extreme mobile cpu next year. It should probably stay within 44w TDP. If they can rise frequency to 2.4ghz, it should do well. I believe since it should cost $851 like x7900 in iMac today, cost of that iMac should not be any higher than today(around 2k).
     
mduell
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Houston, TX
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 22, 2007, 10:13 PM
 
More like $999 or even 1199 at launch for a mobile quad.
     
Veltliner
Mac Elite
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: here
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 22, 2007, 10:40 PM
 
How about frontside bus? Isn't there somewhere a kind of a bottleneck in the iMac system? Wouldn't it be more economical to improve bus speed and video card and stay dual, just getting a processor that is less energy consuming?

But I guess this all has to do with the multi-core support of Leopard. Once applications have started to support multicore, the iMac won't stay dual for too long.

But, above all, an absolute key feature of the iMac is the quality of its screen.
     
Simon
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: in front of my Mac
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 23, 2007, 04:13 AM
 
Originally Posted by shawmanus View Post
Intel has said that they would release quad core extreme mobile cpu next year.
First of all Intel never promised that - all there was were rumors and 'leaked information'. Secondly, they recently dropped mentioning of the quad-core mobile Penryn altogether:


I wouldn't hold my breath for a quad-core mobile Penryn. Nehalem on the other hand could deliver just that in 2009.
( Last edited by Simon; Aug 23, 2007 at 04:30 AM. )
     
Simon
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: in front of my Mac
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 23, 2007, 04:18 AM
 
Originally Posted by Veltliner View Post
How about frontside bus? Isn't there somewhere a kind of a bottleneck in the iMac system?
The iMac uses Crestline which currently offers the fastest FSB on a mobile chipset. When Montevina arrives there will be a Penryn refresh and you'll see 1067 MHz FSB and 35W CPUs for the mobile sector. But that won't happen till Q208.

If you want the FSB clock increased before that Apple would have to switch to a desktop chipset. The iMac has never used a desktop chipset before though. Also, Apple's whole "You can't be too thin. Or too powerful." (which has been dropped BTW) approach doesn't indicate they want to start using desktop components.
( Last edited by Simon; Aug 23, 2007 at 04:28 AM. )
     
 
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 02:17 PM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,