http://www.engadget.com/2006/01/10/apple-announces-dual-core-intel-imac/ Engadget Comments for Apple's Intel iMac http://www.engadget.com/media/feedlogo.gif http://www.engadget.com en-us Copyright 2008 Weblogs, Inc. The contents of this feed are available for non-commercial use only. Blogsmith http://www.blogsmith.com/http://www.engadget.com/2006/01/10/apple-announces-dual-core-intel-imac/http://www.engadget.com/2006/01/10/apple-announces-dual-core-intel-imac/


I suppose the ibook will become the "non-pro" MacBook.]]>Jan 10th 2006 2:16PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/01/10/apple-announces-dual-core-intel-imac/http://www.engadget.com/2006/01/10/apple-announces-dual-core-intel-imac/Jan 10th 2006 2:22PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/01/10/apple-announces-dual-core-intel-imac/http://www.engadget.com/2006/01/10/apple-announces-dual-core-intel-imac/Jan 10th 2006 2:23PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/01/10/apple-announces-dual-core-intel-imac/http://www.engadget.com/2006/01/10/apple-announces-dual-core-intel-imac/


Can anyone shed some light on the Core Duo processors? If Apple talks about a 1.83 GHz Core Duo processor, is the 1.83 Speed being splitted by those 2 cores, or do you actually get 3.66 GHz of processing speed power? If the last is true, why don't dey announce that 3.66 GHz number?]]>Jan 10th 2006 2:26PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/01/10/apple-announces-dual-core-intel-imac/http://www.engadget.com/2006/01/10/apple-announces-dual-core-intel-imac/Jan 10th 2006 2:27PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/01/10/apple-announces-dual-core-intel-imac/http://www.engadget.com/2006/01/10/apple-announces-dual-core-intel-imac/Jan 10th 2006 2:32PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/01/10/apple-announces-dual-core-intel-imac/http://www.engadget.com/2006/01/10/apple-announces-dual-core-intel-imac/Jan 10th 2006 2:34PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/01/10/apple-announces-dual-core-intel-imac/http://www.engadget.com/2006/01/10/apple-announces-dual-core-intel-imac/




It's called a rumor that had little cred and did not make sense to me anyway. Why would they make the macimini such a high priority when their powerbooks were being passed by their imacs, and the ibooks were creeping up. You Apple folks have some very nice computers available right now. ]]>Jan 10th 2006 2:43PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/01/10/apple-announces-dual-core-intel-imac/http://www.engadget.com/2006/01/10/apple-announces-dual-core-intel-imac/Jan 10th 2006 2:43PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/01/10/apple-announces-dual-core-intel-imac/http://www.engadget.com/2006/01/10/apple-announces-dual-core-intel-imac/


BTW, obligatory questions. Does it run Linux? Can I make a Beowulf cluster out of it?]]>Jan 10th 2006 2:45PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/01/10/apple-announces-dual-core-intel-imac/http://www.engadget.com/2006/01/10/apple-announces-dual-core-intel-imac/


Quote from the Intel site: "The Intel® Core™ Duo processor is the next-generation processor in the latest Intel® Centrino® mobile technology-based notebooks and delivers revolutionary dual-core mobile performance and great power efficiency. "]]>Jan 10th 2006 2:48PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/01/10/apple-announces-dual-core-intel-imac/http://www.engadget.com/2006/01/10/apple-announces-dual-core-intel-imac/


Besides, even intel is moving away from the giga/megahertz idea and going with performance/watt.]]>Jan 10th 2006 2:54PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/01/10/apple-announces-dual-core-intel-imac/http://www.engadget.com/2006/01/10/apple-announces-dual-core-intel-imac/Jan 10th 2006 2:55PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/01/10/apple-announces-dual-core-intel-imac/http://www.engadget.com/2006/01/10/apple-announces-dual-core-intel-imac/
been released (and was) - it's the machine that was most in need of

a major boost. And how weird would it be to have an iBook that was

faster than the Powerbook? It wouldn't have made sense. 2-3 times

the speed of current iMacs these ones are, or new Pro books are 4-5

times the speed of the current Powerbooks, Jobs said. Now that is a

major boost. ]]>Jan 10th 2006 2:57PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/01/10/apple-announces-dual-core-intel-imac/http://www.engadget.com/2006/01/10/apple-announces-dual-core-intel-imac/


I bought a new iMac G5 not three weeks ago - I figured, the iMac had been overhauled in May and then again in November, while the Mac Mini hadn't been revamped in a year... I was sure the iMac would be safe and we'd be seeing new Mac Minis today... I mean, no way Apple would revamp the same product line three times in 9 months? BZZZZT!



Off to throw $250 out the window]]>Jan 10th 2006 2:59PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/01/10/apple-announces-dual-core-intel-imac/http://www.engadget.com/2006/01/10/apple-announces-dual-core-intel-imac/Jan 10th 2006 3:09PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/01/10/apple-announces-dual-core-intel-imac/http://www.engadget.com/2006/01/10/apple-announces-dual-core-intel-imac/Jan 10th 2006 3:13PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/01/10/apple-announces-dual-core-intel-imac/http://www.engadget.com/2006/01/10/apple-announces-dual-core-intel-imac/


From Intel's site: "The Intel® Core™ Duo processor is the next-generation processor in the latest Intel® Centrino® mobile technology-based notebooks and delivers revolutionary dual-core mobile performance and great power efficiency.



The Intel® Core™ Solo processor represents the next generation in processor innovation. It is enhanced to handle today's demanding software applications--such as graphics-intensive games or serious number-crunching programs."



Even though this is from Intel's site, and thus propaganda, I'd say Apple would have gone the "Solo" route, but maybe they'll do that in their "pro" machines.



f]]>Jan 10th 2006 3:18PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/01/10/apple-announces-dual-core-intel-imac/http://www.engadget.com/2006/01/10/apple-announces-dual-core-intel-imac/


** My guess is the iBook will use the Yonah Processor. My best guess of course. As far as the MacMini w/ ^^ maybe next time. :)



Does anyone know if it will be possible to install Windows on these machines to dual boot with Tiger?



** Yes, but Apple will not support you with Windows problems. Other then that dual boot/triple boot to your hearts content.



It's not a laptop computer, people. It's a desktop unit. Check out the monitor stand on the back of the iMac.





** lol. No kidding. Apple also released the intel Powerbook.. errr MacBook today. So what is above is the iMac, which isn't a lap top.



BTW, obligatory questions. Does it run Linux? Can I make a Beowulf cluster out of it?



** You can run linux now. (Try out uBuntu for those of you who don't use linux a lot) Helped me out a lot. As far as the second question, I know very little about linux. I do imagine though that the intel switch will allow a lot more flavors of linux to run on the Mac.



I have to say that I expected more today too. Apple usually WOW's most of us with new toys to drool over. All though I've been drooling for the last hour over the MacBook... mmmmmmm MacBook.

]]>Jan 10th 2006 3:23PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/01/10/apple-announces-dual-core-intel-imac/http://www.engadget.com/2006/01/10/apple-announces-dual-core-intel-imac/


Re the question about how to measure mega/gighertz speed in dual core processors -- the measurement you hear is per core, BUT that does not mean that you just double the speed, you can't have both cores running at top speed at the same time. In any event, the clock speed, while an important measurement, is only one of many measurements of speed and overall performance. Just looking at clock speed is something that Intel invented as a marketing tool -- PowerPC processors, historically (but not any more), and AMD processors were faster than Intel processors but Intel could always show the top clockspeeds during the 90's. Also the clock speed is the easiest for the layperson to understand.]]>Jan 10th 2006 3:32PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/01/10/apple-announces-dual-core-intel-imac/http://www.engadget.com/2006/01/10/apple-announces-dual-core-intel-imac/


each core is at 1.83 Ghz. that's the frequency of their clock cycles. although it's often a measure of performance, in reality all it means is how many cycles of computeing the computer performs per a certain period of time, so you have to look deeper into the computers specs and benchmark scores to see what it's real world speed.]]>Jan 10th 2006 3:47PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/01/10/apple-announces-dual-core-intel-imac/http://www.engadget.com/2006/01/10/apple-announces-dual-core-intel-imac/
]]>Jan 10th 2006 4:02PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/01/10/apple-announces-dual-core-intel-imac/http://www.engadget.com/2006/01/10/apple-announces-dual-core-intel-imac/


The Beowulf cluster reference was a joke. See http://www.ubergeek.tv/article.php?pid=54



BTW does anyone else wonder why Intel's more advanced processor is called the Core Solo while the mobile is the Core Duo (I'm sure it refers to the number of cores, but why make it seem like the Solo is a lesser machine?)]]>Jan 10th 2006 4:11PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/01/10/apple-announces-dual-core-intel-imac/http://www.engadget.com/2006/01/10/apple-announces-dual-core-intel-imac/


Engadget et al, I still love you.]]>Jan 10th 2006 4:13PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/01/10/apple-announces-dual-core-intel-imac/http://www.engadget.com/2006/01/10/apple-announces-dual-core-intel-imac/Jan 10th 2006 4:20PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/01/10/apple-announces-dual-core-intel-imac/http://www.engadget.com/2006/01/10/apple-announces-dual-core-intel-imac/


0wned. Buy a new one.]]>Jan 10th 2006 4:44PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/01/10/apple-announces-dual-core-intel-imac/http://www.engadget.com/2006/01/10/apple-announces-dual-core-intel-imac/
they need to stop putting pro on everything, it's really losing meaning...]]>Jan 10th 2006 4:51PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/01/10/apple-announces-dual-core-intel-imac/http://www.engadget.com/2006/01/10/apple-announces-dual-core-intel-imac/Jan 10th 2006 5:36PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/01/10/apple-announces-dual-core-intel-imac/http://www.engadget.com/2006/01/10/apple-announces-dual-core-intel-imac/






Can anyone shed some light on the Core Duo processors? If Apple talks about a 1.83 GHz Core Duo processor, is the 1.83 Speed being splitted by those 2 cores, or do you actually get 3.66 GHz of processing speed power? If the last is true, why don't dey announce that 3.66 GHz number?"



Each core runs at 1.83Ghz. They do not announce it as 3.66Ghz because the cores cannot simultaneously work on the same process, for the same reason you can't finish working on a thought for a friend. Now many mac programs and rendering programs are already multithreaded (because of dual processor workstations/PowerMacs), which means they are designed to give both processors something to work on. You can't complete your friends thought, but you can both work on the same project at the same time to speed things up. Same concept. Its also great for multitasking, because one brain can be busy rendering your DVD while the other is concentrating on Safari, etc etc...]]>Jan 10th 2006 8:49PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/01/10/apple-announces-dual-core-intel-imac/http://www.engadget.com/2006/01/10/apple-announces-dual-core-intel-imac/


they need to stop putting pro on everything, it's really losing meaning..."



How is it losing meaning? The thing has a dual link DVI connection so that you can spread your project between two screens (with one of them being the freaking 30"). These things are killer for actual PROFESSIONAL APPLICATIONS. (Sorry, computer for business executive isn't what pro stands for.) Sure, You have a higher resolution on a Dell. Have fun with XP blocking your H/W Buffer when you're trying to bounce in Pro Tools. Huge resolutions are nice on large screens, but on a 15.3" screen, 1600 can be ridiculous, especially when it makes it so you have to really pay attention when switching between shuffle, slip and grid mode in Pro Tools. I like the extra realestate for my timeline as much as the next guy, but not to the point of lowering functionality. And, when I'm far enough into a project to need a seperate screen for mixing or a dedicated track... I can set down and plug in a screen. Sure, record on the go... but doing a full mixdown on a train wearing headphones won't give a balanced sound to begin with (need the monitors to test everything) and will kill the wrist.]]>Jan 10th 2006 9:01PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/01/10/apple-announces-dual-core-intel-imac/http://www.engadget.com/2006/01/10/apple-announces-dual-core-intel-imac/






From Intel's site: "The Intel® Core™ Duo processor is the next-generation processor in the latest Intel® Centrino® mobile technology-based notebooks and delivers revolutionary dual-core mobile performance and great power efficiency.







The Intel® Core™ Solo processor represents the next generation in processor innovation. It is enhanced to handle today's demanding software applications--such as graphics-intensive games or serious number-crunching programs."







Even though this is from Intel's site, and thus propaganda, I'd say Apple would have gone the "Solo" route, but maybe they'll do that in their "pro" machines."



OSX can handle powerful processors just fine. The G5 in the old G5 iMac had a 1000 mhz or 1200 mhz front side bus (compared to the 166.75 mhz front side bus in those intel core chips). The main difference between the two is that G5 chips transferred data once per cycle (Hertz is a measure of cycles per second) while intel quad-pumps their processors, making it transfer 4 times per cycle. So 166.75 mhz actually equals 667 mhz. They then multiply that by as much as the processor can... but do you see the inherit problem? 667 mhz is lower then 1000 mhz... so even if they multiply the processor to run at a higher rate then before, the data's going to be bottlenecked. Hence why the Core Solo would be a bad bad idea for the iMac. Sure, clock it up to 2.5 gigs... but you'll still bottleneck. This is the problem the P4 had with the Athlon 64. Sure, the p4 had between 1-200 mhz quad pumped (400-800 mhz fsb), but the AMD64 uses 400-600 mhz double pumped (making it the only bandwidth competitor with the G5). So... you stick in a second core. Now you can utilize 667mhz X2, especially handy for multithreaded programs (and OSX is multithreaded). Suddenly, the bandwidth problem is gone and not only can you go ahead and clock it higher then the power-hungry G5, but it'll be more efficient cause of the smart-shared 2mb cache.



Why put it in a desktop unit? Well... when your desktop unit is the thickness of a monitor, you need a low heat-low wattage processor.]]>Jan 10th 2006 10:11PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/01/10/apple-announces-dual-core-intel-imac/http://www.engadget.com/2006/01/10/apple-announces-dual-core-intel-imac/


]]>Jan 10th 2006 10:22PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/01/10/apple-announces-dual-core-intel-imac/http://www.engadget.com/2006/01/10/apple-announces-dual-core-intel-imac/Jan 10th 2006 10:57PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/01/10/apple-announces-dual-core-intel-imac/http://www.engadget.com/2006/01/10/apple-announces-dual-core-intel-imac/
1. This isnt a laptop

2. The Core series is the yonah, so what the hell are you people talking about when you say they should have waited for yonah.

3. Why do you people think that the Core solo is the more advanced processor? Core solo= single core yonah; Core duo = dual core yonah.

4. Why would you people suggest that apple is saving the solo procs for their "pro" lines. Its quite obvious that the solo is going to be used for future ibooks and Mac minis]]>Jan 10th 2006 11:08PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/01/10/apple-announces-dual-core-intel-imac/http://www.engadget.com/2006/01/10/apple-announces-dual-core-intel-imac/Jan 10th 2006 11:14PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/01/10/apple-announces-dual-core-intel-imac/http://www.engadget.com/2006/01/10/apple-announces-dual-core-intel-imac/


]]>Jan 10th 2006 11:17PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/01/10/apple-announces-dual-core-intel-imac/http://www.engadget.com/2006/01/10/apple-announces-dual-core-intel-imac/






they need to stop putting pro on everything, it's really losing meaning..."







How is it losing meaning? The thing has a dual link DVI connection so that you can spread your project between two screens (with one of them being the freaking 30"). These things are killer for actual PROFESSIONAL APPLICATIONS. (Sorry, computer for business executive isn't what pro stands for.) Sure, You have a higher resolution on a Dell. Have fun with XP blocking your H/W Buffer when you're trying to bounce in Pro Tools. Huge resolutions are nice on large screens, but on a 15.3" screen, 1600 can be ridiculous, especially when it makes it so you have to really pay attention when switching between shuffle, slip and grid mode in Pro Tools. I like the extra realestate for my timeline as much as the next guy, but not to the point of lowering functionality. And, when I'm far enough into a project to need a seperate screen for mixing or a dedicated track... I can set down and plug in a screen. Sure, record on the go... but doing a full mixdown on a train wearing headphones won't give a balanced sound to begin with (need the monitors to test everything) and will kill the wrist."













Your argument is fine and dandy in PT or DP or even Cubase if you'll go there, but you can't completely neglect ALL other PROFESSIONAL media such as digital imaging or film editing. Come on!



Also, have you had even a glance at what some of the Sony Vaio laptop displays look like? They're so sharp that they sometimes make me wish I were a Windows user. Powerbook/iBook screens have a pretty high pixel pitch (i.e. bigger pixels, less sharp image, fuzz around your text, etc.)



I'd imagine that working in Final Cut or Quark or something similar might be much more convenient on a train with a sharp, clear display.



At least it's not the scam of the 14" iBook (which, strangely, has the same 1024x768 as its little 12" brother)]]>Jan 11th 2006 12:07AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/01/10/apple-announces-dual-core-intel-imac/http://www.engadget.com/2006/01/10/apple-announces-dual-core-intel-imac/Jan 11th 2006 6:15AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/01/10/apple-announces-dual-core-intel-imac/http://www.engadget.com/2006/01/10/apple-announces-dual-core-intel-imac/Jan 11th 2006 7:54AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/01/10/apple-announces-dual-core-intel-imac/http://www.engadget.com/2006/01/10/apple-announces-dual-core-intel-imac/Jan 11th 2006 12:58PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/01/10/apple-announces-dual-core-intel-imac/http://www.engadget.com/2006/01/10/apple-announces-dual-core-intel-imac/


That would make it 20 days. I believe Apple only accepts returns after 14 days but I could be wrong. If they do accept exchanges than I would gladly pay the restocking fee to upgrade (I'm in the same boat as you, only I purchaced mine in mid-November). Why would they release the isight redesign only to switch processors less than 3 months later?]]>Jan 11th 2006 1:58PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/01/10/apple-announces-dual-core-intel-imac/http://www.engadget.com/2006/01/10/apple-announces-dual-core-intel-imac/Jan 11th 2006 10:19PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/01/10/apple-announces-dual-core-intel-imac/http://www.engadget.com/2006/01/10/apple-announces-dual-core-intel-imac/Jan 11th 2006 11:18PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/01/10/apple-announces-dual-core-intel-imac/http://www.engadget.com/2006/01/10/apple-announces-dual-core-intel-imac/Jan 11th 2006 11:37PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/01/10/apple-announces-dual-core-intel-imac/http://www.engadget.com/2006/01/10/apple-announces-dual-core-intel-imac/


I figured that an update in July followed by another update in October would mean the iMac wouldn't go Intel until at least the Fall of 2006 - doh!]]>Jan 12th 2006 8:46AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/01/10/apple-announces-dual-core-intel-imac/http://www.engadget.com/2006/01/10/apple-announces-dual-core-intel-imac/


Don't forget, #45, that software running on your G5 iMac will have to run in Rosetta emulation, making the the kick-ass new video card in the iMac Duo good only for accelerating Quartz Extreme until games/apps are ported to the new platform.]]>Jan 12th 2006 3:21PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/01/10/apple-announces-dual-core-intel-imac/http://www.engadget.com/2006/01/10/apple-announces-dual-core-intel-imac/Jan 14th 2006 6:58PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/01/10/apple-announces-dual-core-intel-imac/http://www.engadget.com/2006/01/10/apple-announces-dual-core-intel-imac/Jan 14th 2006 10:51PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/01/10/apple-announces-dual-core-intel-imac/http://www.engadget.com/2006/01/10/apple-announces-dual-core-intel-imac/


I dont think there is enough crow to hand out to every hardcore Mac owner who's been arguing for YEARS about their Macs prowness..



Hmmmmm...]]>Jan 15th 2006 3:01PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/01/10/apple-announces-dual-core-intel-imac/http://www.engadget.com/2006/01/10/apple-announces-dual-core-intel-imac/
Your argument is fine and dandy in PT or DP or even Cubase if you'll go there, but you can't completely neglect ALL other PROFESSIONAL media such as digital imaging or film editing. Come on!







Also, have you had even a glance at what some of the Sony Vaio laptop displays look like? They're so sharp that they sometimes make me wish I were a Windows user. Powerbook/iBook screens have a pretty high pixel pitch (i.e. bigger pixels, less sharp image, fuzz around your text, etc.)







I'd imagine that working in Final Cut or Quark or something similar might be much more convenient on a train with a sharp, clear display.







At least it's not the scam of the 14" iBook (which, strangely, has the same 1024x768 as its little 12" brother)





Personally I have been waiting for higher resolution laptop screens from apple for years. In 2000 I saw the 1600x1200 screen in a Dell of a colleage and wanted something like that in a Powerbook. I cursed Apple's decission to go widescreen with their titaniums, since that would reduce the chances to see that display used in the Dell in a PowerBook soon. However, several years later, when high resolution screens became available, they again were only offered in PC laptops (Dell, Sony Vaios). My biggest hope when hearing that Mac would switch to Intel was that I could finally get such a notebook and run Mac OS X on it. Well, this won't be possible (at least not officially), so I think it is really is time that Apple offers these high resolution displays as well. At least as build to order option as it used to be with the Dells.

I'm not saying that everyone has to have such a high resolution screen, but those who want it should have the possibility to upgrade to one.



I often print out documents with two pages on one page side by side using a laser printer to safe paper. I can easily read this, since it is sharp and clear due to the laser printer's high resolution. It is easier to read (for me) than some text on the computer's screen, although the characters are much smaller. I am convinced that a 1920x1200 screen in the MacBook Pro would be much closer to that laserprint in sharpness (I have seen these displays in PC laptops !) and As such I would feel much more comportable reading on the screen.



In fact I would have appreciated the higher resolution screen much more than the faster processor ! The G4 in my iBook is fast enough for most things I do on the go (programming, using latex,..) However the screen space is usually what hinders me the most since I can't have XCode, the debugger window, the app I'm debugging, the documentation window and maybe a few editor windows open at the same time and I always have to switch windows.

The system mostly idles while I'm typing, reading the documentation or switch windows back and forth.

If I really need more processing power for some tests, then I can do that on the G5s in the lab, however, on the go I would also appreciate more screen space, since that is what I would need there more than processor speed.







Besides the reduction of the screen resolution from 1440x960 to 1440x900:

Where did the firewire 800 go ? (If you want to do video editing, something you might need the processing power for, you also most probably need a fast external hard drive.)

And where did the dual layer superdrive disappear to ? And the S-Video output? And modem ?



]]>Jan 17th 2006 2:58AM