Jump to content

Intel iMac


  • Please log in to reply
4 replies to this topic

#1
bigboss

bigboss

    InsanelyMac Sage

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 321 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Toronto, Canada
I know many of you guys have intel based imacs now since they perform pretty well and are pretty cheap for the specs. my question is though, do you think that with the release of the conroe chip, apple should replace the intel imac chips with the desktop conroe as oposed to the laptop merom? i know that merom will still be a pretty powerful chip but its meant for mobile computers and not desktops and the imac fits in with the desktop line. ofcourse i realize that with a desktop chip, the power requirements will increase and the heat produced will also increase. however, conroe is *said* to be 40% more powerful yet 40% less energy intensive than the pentium d 950. so what do you guys think? would the imac benefit from the introduction of the conroe chip or should they just stick a merom in the next generation of imacs?

#2
fOZf8

fOZf8

    InsanelyMac Geek

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 140 posts
Nah, they should stick it out for a Tigerton quad core...that would be far more fitting for OSx :D

Really though, power consumption is something they should definately consider...my A64 Venice core system consumes over 100watts less on full load than my Pentium Prescott, and the Venice is overclocked massively, has over 700gbs of hdd space packed in it, 2gbs of ram, AND a 7800gt, where the pentium has two little hdds and onboard GMA900 for video, with only 1gb of ram...where's all that juice GOING???

#3
Colonel

Colonel

    11 Herbs & Spices

  • Retired
  • 4,157 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:KFC
I think they should shoehorn a Woodcrest in there. That would be awesome! :D

#4
bigboss

bigboss

    InsanelyMac Sage

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 321 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Toronto, Canada

I think they should shoehorn a Woodcrest in there. That would be awesome! :guitar:


haha it wouldnt be as bad as trying to shoehorn a g5 into a powerbook chassis :) (or two... :P)

Nah, they should stick it out for a Tigerton quad core...that would be far more fitting for OSx :)

Really though, power consumption is something they should definately consider...my A64 Venice core system consumes over 100watts less on full load than my Pentium Prescott, and the Venice is overclocked massively, has over 700gbs of hdd space packed in it, 2gbs of ram, AND a 7800gt, where the pentium has two little hdds and onboard GMA900 for video, with only 1gb of ram...where's all that juice GOING???


thats true, the athlon 3500+ consumed less power on full (9 micron process) than the prescott 550 did on idle (13 micron). ofcourse, intel proccies have improved since the days of the early prescott, even the 6xx series was a major improvement so the heat and power issue isnt that much of a deal anymore.

#5
bigboss

bigboss

    InsanelyMac Sage

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 321 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Toronto, Canada
hm... i guess no one else has anything to say :happymac:





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

© 2014 InsanelyMac  |   News  |   Forum  |   Downloads  |   OSx86 Wiki  |   Mac Netbook  |   PHP hosting by CatN  |   Designed by Ed Gain  |   Logo by irfan  |   Privacy Policy