MacDailyNews - Where Mac news comes first

Good things come to those who wait.

Still waiting for a quad code iMac...

Still waiting for a quad core iMac with massive fan noise and overheating problems?

Jan 20, 09 - 10:47 am Comment from: Demon

A Quad Core Mini would be sweet!

I must admit that this turn of events may cause me to start buying iMacs for the first time instead of the Pro models.

So why don't they call it the "Core 4 Quad" processor?

Jan 20, 09 - 12:06 pm Comment from: CandTsmac

A quad iMac is all well and good but without a super fast fsb to fill the pipe the chip will never run 100%

I wonder what the idle power consumption is?
My hackintosh uses about 65W at idle with a Q9550, 8GB RAM, 1TB, HDD (about 9W), Superdrive, 7300GS Video card (about 11W). It has an 80-plus power supply (> 80% efficient; which is good).

Jan 20, 09 - 12:54 pm Comment from: eMax

"Apple to use new intel CPUs in new Apple Computers?"

It's about time. Intel's had laptop versions of the Core 2 Quads around since September.

Jan 20, 09 - 03:24 pm Comment from: KingMel

@Quad Core
In my opinion, the dual-core processor in the iMac is reasonably powerful, and is not the key discriminator between the iMac and the Mac Pro. More critical limiting factors are two PC2-6400 SO-DIMM slots supporting up to 4GB total, standard 320GB hard drive (upgrades are relatively expensive and no internal expansion bay available), graphics card (single, no expansion slot and, thus, no cross-fire type pairing possible), slower FSB.

If you address all of these things, then you either have a Mac Pro, or the non-existent mid-tower Mac. If you managed to cramt all of this in an expanded iMac form factor, then I suppose you would have an iMac Pro, but it wouldn't be cheap.

Jan 20, 09 - 04:06 pm Comment from: DLMeyer

CandTsmac ... it all depends on what it is you are trying to accomplish. If you are using all four cores for, say, database manipulation you would be right. If you have three cores running Folding@Home and one playing tunes, you are SO wrong. Remember, most current software cannot effectively (note that KEY word) use multiple cores/processors. Most of our software will just barely use an available core/processor and then only when their "home core" becomes overburdened. The software that is most likely to to readily use multiple cores is also most likely to run into the problem you mention - loads of I/O to deal with. AND ... you are likely a PRO using your Mac with a PRO application. Which, I hope, will become more and more usual as time goes by.

YAY FIRST POST BIZNATCHES!