[Simon]

Originally Posted by P 

Also, since we're using desktop CPUs now... I am not aware of a package for Lynnfield that uses BGA, so they're almost certainly socketed. Just saying.

They are socketed. Socket T (LGA 775) for the C2Ds and socket H (LGA 1156) for Lynnfield.

The former is compatible with Yorkfield (C2Q). However Apple has put a 'void if removed' sticker on a heat sink screw. So the upgrade path is somewhat 'theoretical'.

[Eug]

Originally Posted by Simon 

They are socketed. Socket T for the C2Ds and LGA 775 for Lynnfield.

The former is compatible with Yorkfield (C2Q). However Apple has put a 'void if removed' sticker on a heat sink screw. So the upgrade path is somewhat 'theoretical'.

I'm sure that won't stop some of the diehards... esp. after the warranty has expired.

Power Mac upgrades all over again.

[Simon]

I assume the 21.5" is TN.

Nope. IPS for $1199. Awesome deal.

[Simon]

Originally Posted by P 

Some people are never happy.

Fortunately for us Apple isn't either. So finally, we now get a true desktop iMac rather than a non-portable MBP.

[Simon]

Originally Posted by Eug 

I'm sure that won't stop some of the diehards... esp. after the warranty has expired.

Sure, after warranty it's no problem. Of course, if a Q9550s is available and cost-effective in three years from now is an entirely different question.

[Eug]

Originally Posted by Simon 

Fortunately for us Apple isn't either. So finally, we now get a true desktop iMac rather than a non-portable MBP.

I think that's one big reason why Apple has done this. iMacs were more and more becoming ginormous laptops, but more and more people were just getting external screens instead to go along with their laptops, esp. since with the iMac, you weren't actually getting any real benefit performance-wise.

This IMO should give the iMac line a significant boost in sales.

Originally Posted by Simon 

Sure, after warranty it's no problem. Of course, if a Q9550s is available and cost-effective in three years from now is an entirely different question.

Warranty is one year.

BTW, I kept my Slot 1 Asus P2B going for eons. I think it started with a Celeron 366 MHz or something, and I finally retired it with a 1.4 GHz Celeron. It did require a bus speed change though of course.

While I don't expect a socketed iMac will be upgradable for as long, I do expect to see a few Mac repair shops doing the upgrade (assuming it's actually possible). The all-in-one-ness makes that unlikely to be a mainstream option though.

[Simon]

Yeah, I fully agree. This was IMHO the only viable alternative to killing off the iMac altogether.

[slugslugslug]

I haven't got round to looking at those teardowns yet. Has the hard drive gotten any easier to replace?

[Eug]

Originally Posted by slugslugslug 

I haven't got round to looking at those teardowns yet. Has the hard drive gotten any easier to replace?

Definitely doesn't seem easy. The screen has to be removed.

Gone are the days of user replaceable parts a la iMac G5.

[Fyre4ce]

The only thing I see missing from the new machines is a Blu-ray disc player. What are reasonable options for getting this capability on this new machine? (eg. are there external FireWire 800 Blu-ray drives? Didn't see any after a quick search)

[Eug]

Originally Posted by Fyre4ce 

The only thing I see missing from the new machines is a Blu-ray disc player. What are reasonable options for getting this capability on this new machine? (eg. are there external FireWire 800 Blu-ray drives? Didn't see any after a quick search)

Yes.

You can FW 800 BR drives, or else pay $100 for FW 800 5.25" enclosure and put in your own BR drive.

[Simon]

Originally Posted by slugslugslug 

I haven't got round to looking at those teardowns yet. Has the hard drive gotten any easier to replace?

Nope. You still need to disassemble the iMac.

[Simon]

Originally Posted by Fyre4ce 

The only thing I see missing from the new machines is a Blu-ray disc player. What are reasonable options for getting this capability on this new machine? (eg. are there external FireWire 800 Blu-ray drives? Didn't see any after a quick search)

You can install a BR drive in lieu of the SuperDrive. It's not exactly a piece of cake though. And you won't be playing movies under OS X either.

[P]

Originally Posted by Simon 

Sure, after warranty it's no problem. Of course, if a Q9550s is available and cost-effective in three years from now is an entirely different question.

Cost effective is not relevant. Have you seen what people pay to upgrade their old G4s to slightly faster models of the same CPU? I should buy a bunch of Q9550s and sell them at 500% markup in a few years...

Being the proud owner of a home-built and very upgradeable HTPC, I've learned that that upgrading makes little sense outside a new graphics card, RAM or HD. No newer CPUs will work on my motherboard (even if the sockets match), and if I buy a new motherboard, what's left? The case?

Fortunately for us Apple isn't either. So finally, we now get a true desktop iMac rather than a non-portable MBP.

Notice how it isn't significantly cheaper despite that - the floor didn't go down. Apple just spent the money on other things - mainly those gorgeous displays. They really did manage to plug that big hole in the lineup very effectively, but they could have made a cheaper model with a 19" TN panel at $800 or something.

[Fyre4ce]

Originally Posted by Simon 

You can install a BR drive in lieu of the SuperDrive. It's not exactly a piece of cake though. And you won't be playing movies under OS X either.

Boo - that'd be my main motivation for getting a BR player. Maybe I could buy a consumer BR player and plug it in through the mini-DisplayPort input?

[Simon]

Originally Posted by P 

Cost effective is not relevant.

To you maybe, to many others it is.

Notice how it isn't significantly cheaper despite that - the floor didn't go down. Apple just spent the money on other things - mainly those gorgeous displays. They really did manage to plug that big hole in the lineup very effectively, but they could have made a cheaper model with a 19" TN panel at $800 or something.

I wasn't expecting them to lower the floor significantly. They did add a lot of bang for those $1199, thanks to the savings from using desktop components. I believe that made a lot of sense. The big gap was caused by a non-portable MBP for too much vs. a totally overpriced MP. That gap was closed.

Of course a $999 iMac would be nice (refurbs eventually?), but I don't see the price gap between the Mac mini and the new iMac as much of a problem. I do still see the lack of an expandable desktop though. Obviously Apple simply doesn't see enough demand. In the future I can see hackintoshes covering that area.

[EndlessMac]

Originally Posted by Eug 

I think that's one big reason why Apple has done this. iMacs were more and more becoming ginormous laptops, but more and more people were just getting external screens instead to go along with their laptops, esp. since with the iMac, you weren't actually getting any real benefit performance-wise.

I think so too. That was part of the reason why I was never interested in the iMac line. They were basically giant laptops without the portability. The only reason why I would buy a desktop is for the faster performance but at the same or lower price than a laptop and if I don't need the portability. A laptop is a compromise between portability and performance but with a desktop I personally would expect more. I'm sure not everyone feels this way but those are my reasons for choosing a desktop over a laptop. For me personally I need the portability so I'm stuck with laptops.

[Vinnie]

Originally Posted by P 

8 gigs is never wrong, but Photoshop won't benefit directly until CS5, I think. And you can always upgrade the RAM later on.

What apps do benefit from 8 gigs? In my case, would it make the computer 'snappier' (I hate that word)?

Re the SD adapter, looks like I'll be staying w/ my FW CF reader - would have been nice to eliminate a cord.

[Eug]

Originally Posted by Vinnie 

What apps do benefit from 8 gigs? In my case, would it make the computer 'snappier' (I hate that word)?

Don't forget that you will often run several apps simultaneously. My 3 GB iMac runs Aperture just fine on its own. However, that's not how I work. I routinely might have Safari, Aperture, Photoshop, Office, VMware Fusion, etc. running simultaneously.

Re the SD adapter, looks like I'll be staying w/ my FW CF reader - would have been nice to eliminate a cord.

I too was disappointed it didn't get a CF slot. However, I suspect it's because SD is more common, and it's also easier to make look good on the side of the machine. The slot size for CF is quite large, and IMO doesn't look so nice.

I figured as much though, and had already bought my Firewire 800 CF adapter a few weeks back.

BTW, for those who care, my SanDisk FW 800 reader is about 50% faster in FW 800 mode than via FW 400, although with FW 800 my speeds may actually be partially limited by the hard drive.



P.S. I also have a CF slot built into my Dell monitor, and that's hooked up to my iMac via USB 2. The thing takes forever. 16 GB through that is an exercise in frustration. This is with a Transcend 600X ("90 MB/s") CF card.

[mduell]

Originally Posted by Eug 

It can output HDMI. Presumably you can just use an HDMI-mini-DisplayPort adapter.

Any confirmation it will accept non-DisplayPort signals as input?

Originally Posted by Eug 

Some questions, some that perhaps nobody can answer:

1) Is the memory for the Core i7 iMac CL 7? Crucial seems to think so.
2) For dual channel support, you only need to do pairs, right? ie. 2x2 + 2x4 is fine right?
3) For dual channel support, two different brands is still fine these days, right? ie. 2x2 Brand A + 2x2 Brand B?
4) Does dual channel make any difference at all for Core i7? For some, why not just add 2 GB for a total for 6 GB?
Mind you, 2 GB is <US$50, so you may as well max out the slots with 2 GB SO-DIMMs.

1) Yea, Apple has never pushed memory latency.
2) Yes, in the appropriate slots.
3) Usually.
4) Why not go to 8GB for <$100?

[CharlesS]

Originally Posted by mduell 

Any confirmation it will accept non-DisplayPort signals as input?

I’m guessing it wouldn’t work with HDMI, because Apple’s site claims it can be used as a monitor connected to DisplayPort-equipped computers. If HDMI worked, then DVI would work too, and then pretty much any modern computer would be able to connect to it, and they wouldn’t need that qualifier.

What I’d like to know is whether the iMac becomes just a plain old dumb monitor, or whether you have to let the whole computer boot up before it can go into monitor mode.

[mattyb]

Originally Posted by CharlesS 

What I’d like to know is whether the iMac becomes just a plain old dumb monitor, or whether you have to let the whole computer boot up before it can go into monitor mode.

Yeah this is vital info. Seems dumb to me if you had to boot into OS X, then boot into something else just to use the screen as a peripheral. I haven't seen any reviews talk about this yet.

[Spheric Harlot]

It has to be booted.

[P]

Originally Posted by Simon 

Originally Posted by P

Cost effective is not relevant.

To you maybe, to many others it is.

I was being sarcastic, pretending to be one of those people who show up here every now and then asking how to best upgrade their aging G4. The point of the post was that upgrading pieces of the computer rarely makes sense at the time when you actually feel that you need an update.

[P]

Originally Posted by CharlesS 

I’m guessing it wouldn’t work with HDMI, because Apple’s site claims it can be used as a monitor connected to DisplayPort-equipped computers. If HDMI worked, then DVI would work too, and then pretty much any modern computer would be able to connect to it, and they wouldn’t need that qualifier.

I think they don't know what formats will be supported yet, but the fact that the signal goes to the motherboard might imply that it will support more than just DP signals.

And if anyone was considering delaying their purchase for that one more upgrade...don't bother.

[Eug]

Kodawarisan






P.S. In case anyone cares, BH Photo is selling the Kramer 3-port powered Firewire 800 hub for a good price (better than what they advertise online). I would have preferred a 4-port hub, but this will do for now, esp. since I have another FW400 hub for my FW400 devices.

[Eug]

PC Mag Windoze benchmarks

Gizmodo review

Eager to test this **** and be the first to the internet with an image of an Xbox linked into an iMac ("Worlds collide!" would be the headline, I decided), I ordered a monoprice Mini-DisplayPort-to-HDMI adapter. Unfortunately, I discovered that the inputs would not work with a PS3 or Xbox at any res, HD or otherwise. The current adapters on the market are unidirectional, I was told, and so they won't work to take HDMI sources and pipe them into the iMac. I'm sure someone is making a cable as we speak for this very abominable purpose of piping in Microsoft gaming to a desktop Mac—but it's not here yet. (New cables, by the way, will include audio, which the iMac is capable of taking through its connector and the iMac is able to display video sources up to its native resolution.)

Using it with a laptop was an interesting situation. Odd, for sure, but a welcome bonus and an obvious use. Here's how it works. You plug in a Mini-DisplayPort-to-Mini-DisplayPort cable to the iMac, which must be turned on (unlike Sony's all-in-one, which works while off.) The iMac flickers for a second and the laptop's picture replaces the iMac's. Here's where it gets sort of weird. When the iMac is acting as a monitor, the keyboard and mouse are all blocked from working, except a few keys: The pause/play, FF, RR, volume controls and brightness keys all work. They won't display the typical volume/brightness/FF/whatever iconography, because you're actually still looking at your MacBook. You can actually then use your iMac as a display for one computer while listening to music on another—but why would you want to? And if you were playing a game with an Xbox, you'd be listening to the game. To toggle between the iMac and the external source, you hit Command+F2.

Unidirectional cable?

[P]

Yeah, he has no clue. It's most likely a cable that tells the Mac with DisplayPort out to transmit a HDMI signal. Obviously that cable won't tell the Xbox or whatever to transmit a DP signal, so the only way that would ever work is if the iMac detects that pinout and starts actively converting the HDMI signal to DP. While that is not out of the question, I very much doubt that it will ever happen. The only way you'd ever be able to plug in an Xbox is with an active converter (which do exist) or if MS releases a firmware update for the Xbox to permit it to send DisplayPort signals over the HDMI port (which may not be possible).

[driven]

Perhaps Belkin or someone will make a converter to allow line-in of the component cables to the iMac.
Just a thought. It's a new feature. Give it some time.

[Eug]

Originally Posted by P 

Yeah, he has no clue. It's most likely a cable that tells the Mac with DisplayPort out to transmit a HDMI signal. Obviously that cable won't tell the Xbox or whatever to transmit a DP signal, so the only way that would ever work is if the iMac detects that pinout and starts actively converting the HDMI signal to DP. hile that is not out of the question, I very much doubt that it will ever happen.

That should be the norm IMO. If that doesn't happen, then the video input will be useless for the vast majority of people.

The only way you'd ever be able to plug in an Xbox is with an active converter (which do exist) or if MS releases a firmware update for the Xbox to permit it to send DisplayPort signals over the HDMI port (which may not be possible).

Link to an active converter? They are very difficult to find.

[Eug]

It's interesting how Intel's Turbo Boost works.



This image says that the 2.8 GHz Core i7-860 has these speeds:

2.8 GHz
2.93 GHz with four cores
2.93 GHz with three cores
3.33 GHz with two cores
3.46 GHz with one core

It would thus seem that for the majority of usage, this 2.8 GHz CPU will be running at 2.93 GHz or higher. It will be interesting to see though how often it jumps to 3.33 or 3.46 GHz.

Originally Posted by driven 

Perhaps Belkin or someone will make a converter to allow line-in of the component cables to the iMac.
Just a thought. It's a new feature. Give it some time.

That was what I was thinking for FW800, but it seems the very few FW800 hubs available for sale are by companies most here haven't heard of. Belkin does make one, but I have not seen it for sale at any big retailers (online or otherwise) in North America.

[mduell]

Originally Posted by Eug 

It's interesting how Intel's Turbo Boost works.


This image says that the 2.8 GHz Core i7-860 has these speeds:

2.8 GHz
2.93 GHz with four cores
2.93 GHz with three cores
3.33 GHz with two cores
3.46 GHz with one core

It would thus seem that for the majority of usage, this 2.8 GHz CPU will be running at 2.93 GHz or higher. It will be interesting to see though how often it jumps to 3.33 or 3.46 GHz.

1) Anyone else think Turbo Boost with all cores operating is weird?
2) For the majority of usage, the 2.8Ghz CPU will probably be operating at 1.mumble Ghz.
3) I wonder if the thermal management system will let the iMac use Turbo Boost very often.

[CharlesS]

Originally Posted by P 

Yeah, he has no clue. It's most likely a cable that tells the Mac with DisplayPort out to transmit a HDMI signal. Obviously that cable won't tell the Xbox or whatever to transmit a DP signal, so the only way that would ever work is if the iMac detects that pinout and starts actively converting the HDMI signal to DP. While that is not out of the question, I very much doubt that it will ever happen. The only way you'd ever be able to plug in an Xbox is with an active converter (which do exist) or if MS releases a firmware update for the Xbox to permit it to send DisplayPort signals over the HDMI port (which may not be possible).

That’s pretty much what I figured would happen. If it had accepted an HDMI input, it would have accepted a DVI input as well, and Apple’s page specifically says you need a DisplayPort-equipped computer.

From Apple’s POV, as long as most PCs still have DVI out instead of DP, this will cause a lot of iMac owners to need to stick with Apple for their next computer, to avoid having to throw out that nice iMac monitor.

Since it sounds like the iMac is doing some sort of software thing to put the other computer’s picture up on the screen, I wonder if there is any more latency than usual.

[Eug]

Originally Posted by mduell 

2) For the majority of usage, the 2.8Ghz CPU will probably be operating at 1.mumble Ghz.
3) I wonder if the thermal management system will let the iMac use Turbo Boost very often.

Ah right. 1.x GHz is probably accurate, depending on how the thermal management works.

[driven]

Originally Posted by Eug 

Ah right. 1.x GHz is probably accurate, depending on how the thermal management works.

Based on that I'm now once again wondering if the faster Core 2 Duo would be better for most ....

[Eug]

Unlikely IMO if you're just talking raw performance (and not performance per buck), but we will see the benches soon enough.

[mduell]

Originally Posted by Eug 

Ah right. 1.x GHz is probably accurate, depending on how the thermal management works.

Originally Posted by driven 

Based on that I'm now once again wondering if the faster Core 2 Duo would be better for most ....

I think at least one if not both of you misunderstood my comment. The Core i5/7 is faster than the Core 2 Duo by a long shot (higher clockrate at 2C and higher IPC), but desktop CPUs spend most of their time idle, half asleep, and clocked down.

[driven]

mduell, thanks for the feedback.

Your signature is interesting ... while I think it's a brilliant time to by an iMac, it looks like it would be also be in my best interest to wait to buy a notebook. I'm actually surprised you think the MacBook will be updated in 4Q given that they just released a new form-factor and all.

[Eug]

Originally Posted by mduell 

I think at least one if not both of you misunderstood my comment. The Core i5/7 is faster than the Core 2 Duo by a long shot (higher clockrate at 2C and higher IPC), but desktop CPUs spend most of their time idle, half asleep, and clocked down.

Yes. That's what I understood. Most of the time 1.x because it's largely doing nothing, and then it gets clocked down. When needed, it can jump up to 2.93 GHz with 4 cores, as most of the time when 4 cores are used it's not at 400% so it doesn't need to be 2.8 GHz.

[mduell]

Originally Posted by driven 

Your signature is interesting ... while I think it's a brilliant time to by an iMac, it looks like it would be also be in my best interest to wait to buy a notebook. I'm actually surprised you think the MacBook will be updated in 4Q given that they just released a new form-factor and all.

Oh thanks, it actually needed and update due to the MacBook/iMac updates (which were as forecasted).

[Simon]

Originally Posted by driven 

Based on that I'm now once again wondering if the faster Core 2 Duo would be better for most ....

No, it'll be the same.

If you were to define "usage" as the computer not being switched off, all our Macs will spend most of their "usage" time running at 1.mumble GHz. Of course once you actually want to do something the CPU will crank up and the i5/i7 will be faster than the E7600 C2D in all but a very few instances.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by mduell 

Oh thanks, it actually needed and update due to the MacBook/iMac updates (which were as forecasted).

Do you really think the Clarksfield quads will be ready for MacBook Pro use by January? I'd love for you to be right, but...

And if, the 13" would probably be left out in the cold, no?

[Simon]

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

Do you really think the Clarksfield quads will be ready for MacBook Pro use by January? I'd love for you to be right, but...

Clarksfield is already here and ready. Expect to see it on the 17" and maybe on a high-end 15" config.

And if, the 13" would probably be left out in the cold, no?

The 13" and most of the 15" models will remain dual-core. Clarksfield runs hot and it's expensive.

[P]

Originally Posted by Eug 

That should be the norm IMO. If that doesn't happen, then the video input will be useless for the vast majority of people.

We can hope that it will one day accept HDMI, but it depends on Apple's intention with the port. If they think it will mainly be used to dock an MBP temporarily, then it won't happen. They may also think that DisplayPort is the coming thing (Dell is pushing it, ATi is pushing it with reference designs and Eyefinity, and just about every hardware manufacturer ever is claiming to be a supporter) and that HDMI et al is a passing phase, so your next computer 3 years from now will certainly support DP.

Originally Posted by Eug 

Link to an active converter? They are very difficult to find.

Ask and ye shall receive. Actually, Google "PS3 Apple Cinema Display 24" " and you'll find a few ways to do it. That particular one assumes that the display on the other hand supports one of the resolutions the PS3 can put out. That is not the case for the 24" display, so you'd need an HDMI scaler as well, but given that the resolution of the 27" is exactly 4 times 720p, it should at least accept 720p.

[P]

Originally Posted by mduell 

1) Anyone else think Turbo Boost with all cores operating is weird?

As I understand it, that can only happen for short periods of time, if there is a burst of activity. It IS weird, though - since the clockspeed is shifting automatically anyway, they might almost advertise that speed as the relevant one.

Originally Posted by mduell 

3) I wonder if the thermal management system will let the iMac use Turbo Boost very often.

We'll see in a few weeks. I just have to figure out if that i7 upgrade is worth it (probably not) and I'll fire away my order.

[P]

Originally Posted by driven 

Based on that I'm now once again wondering if the faster Core 2 Duo would be better for most ....

The Core 2 Duo also underclocks heavily when idle - what's your point? In the configurations Apple has in the iMac, I think I can confidently say that the Core 2 models will never beat the Core i5/i7 in any reasonably real-world situation. I can probably construct some silly benchmark where the 3.33 GHz Core 2 will beat the i5 (say a singlethreaded task that uses a working set that fits snugly in the Core L2 cache, but needs the slower L3 of the i5 to do the same thing) but no real world situations.

[driven]

Originally Posted by P 

We can hope that it will one day accept HDMI, but it depends on Apple's intention with the port. If they think it will mainly be used to dock an MBP temporarily, then it won't happen. They may also think that DisplayPort is the coming thing (Dell is pushing it, ATi is pushing it with reference designs and Eyefinity, and just about every hardware manufacturer ever is claiming to be a supporter) and that HDMI et al is a passing phase, so your next computer 3 years from now will certainly support DP.

Yes, my Dell has DisplayPort on it. (With the docking station, I have 2 display ports, 2 DVI and a VGA output as well.) That said: I haven't used it yet because my monitor has DVI and I have a DVI cable. :-)

But on the notebook itself the only outputs are DisplayPort and a VGA port. It's pretty clear that Dell is also betting on DisplayPort being the future.

[driven]

Thanks for the clarifications on the clock speeds. I missed the part about "when idle".

[mduell]

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

Do you really think the Clarksfield quads will be ready for MacBook Pro use by January? I'd love for you to be right, but...

And if, the 13" would probably be left out in the cold, no?

Absolutely; they've been ready for over a month, Apple is dragging their feet.

And no, barring some magic or weird limitations on Turbo Boost, it's not going to work in the current 13" chassis.

[Eug]

How has the increased pixel density been for you guys on the new iMacs? I really like the pixel density for the 24" and wonder how tiny everything is going to look on the new iMacs, considering Snow Leopard is not resolution independent.

I sit about 3 feet away from my iMac.