Why not use desktop-class Core 2's?

When the Core 2 Duo iMacs came out in September, it was interesting to see that the iMac still uses the notebook-class processor, and thus is limited for the most part to notebook class components, that are more expensive and slower than desktop-class stuff. Granted, they run cooler too but it's kindof wierd that Apple would do this only to keep things cool as the iMac G5 has...well...a G5 processor in it and the G5 ran hot (you can't put that proc in a laptop, hence partially the shift to Intel).

To back up my argument a little bit, the cheapest Core 2 Duo proc right now runs at 1.66GHz, if you don't count the wierd ones like the Pentium Dual Core T2060 which is just plain low-end. Placing the 1.83GHz proc in the middle of the spectrum. WHereas the lowest-cost, lowest-performance Core 2 Duo for desktops is underclocked to 1.8GHz and is quite cheap on the scale of things. Go up to the normal range of processors and you have 1.86GHz, then 2.13GHz, then 2.4GHz, then 2.66GHz processors, not counting the insanely fast 2.93GHz Extreme model or the 2.66GHz quad-core model.

But what I'm saying is that Apple could have put a much faster, cheaper chip in the C2D iMacs if they wanted to. Granted, this would've broken compatibility with the Core Duo iMacs but hey, the Core 2 Duo desktops have a MUCH faster bus and such than the Core 2\Notebook parts have...

Dunno what's exactly inside the iMacs but you'd think also that the graphics cards they put in there would have to be the mobile versions also, which might get expensive. And memory could be a whole lot faster (800 MHz or 1066 MHz vs. 666 MHz.) with little price difference...

I can understand why Apple opted for a laptop-class optical drive (desktop drives are too big for a 1.5 inch thick including monitor enclosure) but don't get it as far as the proc goes this time around...

...or maybe they want the MacBook Pro to be just as fast as the iMac so there isn't a G4 vs. G5 controversy again...sorta like how you're on your own above 2 GHz on a Macbook or 1.83GHz on a Mac Mini...

Or maybe they want a compelling speedwise reason to upgrade to the Mac Pro, and if they put in the normal Intel socket people could upgrade an iMac to the processing power of the midrange Mac Pro (quad 2.66 GHz). Who knows? Just thought I'd throw this out there...

My guess is that it was the cooling issue. Those iMac interiors are packed. Remember, and iMac is basically a notebook with a different form factor. The use of notebook class chips makes sense.

667 DDRII memory is the fastest available and even that is rarely faster than 533Mhz, regardless of bus speed.

How about you stop stressing over such stupid things & watch this video, thank you cased closed.

Imac deskop or notebook parts does'nt matter here's real world performance

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LxuShh2sd9c

, peace

tears2040 said:

How about you stop stressing over such stupid things & watch this video, thank you cased closed.

Imac deskop or notebook parts does'nt matter here's real world performance

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LxuShh2sd9c

, peace

Click to expand...

As much as I love my new MBP, have to say video has some nice eye candy in it, but real world performance - NOT - dont' think many people sit around and see how many different apps they can open at 1 time, but not do anything with them.

I'll put my 3 year old P4 overclocked to almost 3.9Ghz against that machine any day of the week for..... let's say backing up a DVD..... we both have to sit at the computer till it's done, bet I get to go sit out on the porch sipping a margarita at least 20 - 30 minutes before he gets to.

Real world performance and the parts used are valid issues for a lot of people (albeit admittedly a very small percentage of users). And the parts used has to do with how long it will take to accomplish some of the time consuming tasks we do. For most computer uses this is a non-issue, because all they are doing is some word or spreadsheet processing, e-mail, browse the internet, maybe some IM'g, listening to music, watching a DVD. Most all machines will handle these tasks very nicely today.

But for the hardcore hardware guy that wants to do a lot of video encoding, time is..... Or play the latest 3D games and have the ability to tweak all aspects of your video card settings to get the best combination of framerate and picture quality for some heads up play, these are very valid hardware questions.

On the other side, as a hardware enthusiast myself, I don't think anyone buying an off the shelf computer, whether it's Apple, Dell, HP, or even some of the low end Alienware should really expect much more than what they pay for. You want a high end box to do all that, still have to build it yourself pretty much.

bobtomay said:

As much as I love my new MBP, have to say video has some nice eye candy in it, but real world performance - NOT - dont' think many people sit around and see how many different apps they can open at 1 time, but not do anything with them.

Click to expand...

Oh nooo? Just last night on my friends Pc I tried to only have four internet explorers running, stream music from another website, & surf one more the computer felt like it was going to blow up.

Trust me when I tell you that the newest Imac ( sept 06 release) is a beast, especially with 2Gbs of ram.

While yes I understand your views understand what this you tube video is showing us


, peace

This really surprises me. One of the reasons why I've planned to upgrade from my mini to an iMac was that I thought I'd be moving from notebook- to desktop-quality components.

tears2040 said:

Oh nooo? Just last night on my friends Pc I tried to only have four internet explorers running, stream music from another website, & surf one more the computer felt like it was going to blow up.

Trust me when I tell you that the newest Imac ( sept 06 release) is a beast, especially with 2Gbs of ram.

While yes I understand your views understand what this you tube video is showing us


, peace

Click to expand...

Can't speak for your buddies computer, how old is it? What components are in it? I can open and run as many apps on my PC as was shown in that video. My wife's on the other hand will not. It has a lot to do with the components inside. Some of what you are seeing in that video has to do with the Intel Core2Duo CPU and some of it is the OS. (And just as a side note, I have bought both an iMac and this MBP.)

The question posed above has to do with the concerns some of us hardware enthusiasts have related to the hardware and how long it will take to accomplish certain tasks. See one of my previous posts comparing the length of time to back up a DVD here. My MBP takes 4 times longer in OS X with the available software for the task and XP on my MBP takes double the time my 3 year old PC takes for the identical task. This is a question related to notebook vs desktop components. Have a feeling the major difference between my MBP and my PC has to do with the speed of the hard drive.

Since getting my MBP, 90% of my home time on a computer is now spent on my Mac. But there are some tasks my PC just blows away this MBP. To even suggest that people shouldn't be concerned with the hardware inside their machine is utterly ridiculous. And while an iMac will be suitable for the majority of users, there are others for which the iMac would not be adequate. Even Apple has multiple systems available depending on your individual hardware needs (and/or can afford) all the way up to the Mac Pro. These kind of statements are only made by the "fanboys" and why many PC users have a "thing" about making the switch to MAC. To get the PC enthusiast who is use to building their own box, upgrading, overclocking the CPU, tweaking their video card to the max to make a switch back to proprietary hardware again, albeit Apple, is a hard sell, and it will take more than a pretty video.

Anyone who thinks 'that' video is a reason to switch to Mac, I suggest you go check out some of the videos Linux users running Beryl are doing with their old P3 processors. If eye candy is what you like, you could just go out and get some old $50 PC and install Linux on it.

If your buddy can't run more than 3 or 4 apps at a time, maybe some routine maintenance is in order or maybe it is time to upgrade his computer to a newer model, if he even needs to have those capabilities. If not, the one he has is probably good enough for him, but not for you, based on what you want do to do with it.