I know there had been some discussions here about the new i7 quad, and before I spend my hard earned cash I wanted some last minute opinions.
I post this here in the Mac Pro forums because I figure there might likely be more FCP users...which is what my main use for my new machine will be.
I have been wanting a new unit for several months now, and have been just waiting to pull the trigger on a Mac Pro. In fact, it has gotten to be a running joke around my house with my wife and I...we can be talking about something totally non-related and I will say "I just have one word for you...OCTO!!!" Anyway, I digress.
While I simply cannot justify (or afford really) a maxed out octo, I have been considering a "fairly" maxed out quad MP. But now that the new iMac has appeared, I am having more trouble.
I am not a pro...meaning I am not paying my bills with FCP. I would characterize myself as prosumer...which describing myself really means consumer who likes nicer equipment. I do want a "respectable" machine that will handle FCP with somewhat ease.
My current video set up is an HMC150 mixed with Canon 7D. Converting to ProRes 422 (not the HQ flavor) and using things like Magic Bullet. Not doing much Motion work...mostly because I have not learned that process yet. I am currently doing it on a maxed out 2008 iMac. And so far it has not been all that bad. Ingesting is not taking long enough to bother me really...and editing is nice and smooth. The only really long times are for rendering and encoding to H.264.
So, given these facts, am I way out in left field here considering a maxed out iMac? I am sure that during the process, the render and encode times will be what taxes the machine the most. And I am not even really sure that those times would be much different on a quad MP. Octo, sure. But even then I am not sure what kind of differences we are talking about. I mean would a similarly configured octo have double performance from the quad? Would a 2 hour render or encode on an octo take 4 hours on a quad?
The other thing I am thinking is this...Even if the iMac turns out to be way less than what I would like, I am thinking I can use it for awhile (as long as I can stand it) then maybe down the road look again at the MP...say after the 6 or 12 core thing plays out. I could always use the iMac as the monitor for a MP down the road. The glossy thing is not a factor for me...it doesn't bother me at all.
so as you can see from the tittle of this thread i maxed out my g5 on ram, which is only a total of 2.5 gb but i really like the performance, definitly helps alot with alot more demanding programs. =) im so hapy i finally got this done! any body else have there g5 maxed out?
I have an iMac G5 (Ambient Light Sensor) that runs Leopard pretty slowly, even with 2GB of RAM. Sometimes, it's a pretty severe lag: Type a sentence, twiddle your thumbs, bam, it's all inputted at once. Sometimes, the whole system is non-responsive for 60-120 seconds, before, bam, accepting all your key- and mouse-strokes at once.
Activity Monitor also reports extremely high CPU-usage. I've been using it for a couple of hours this morning and it's been maxed-out or nearly maxed-out basically the whole time.
There aren't any processes that appear to be hogging resources. Sometimes, it's finder / time machine that's using the most. Sometimes it's Safari or Mail.
I'm open to the possibility that it's just time to upgrade, but I was wondering if the forums had any suggestions on how to troubleshoot or reclaim some CPU cycles.
I have the fully loaded 3.06GHz iMac with the upgraded video card. The native resolution is 1920x1200, which even with the iMac's decent specs, is a hefty performance dump being forced to run games in this high resolution. When I try lowering the resolution, literally every other resolution option looks like crap, while 1920x1200 looks crisp and perfect. Most of the other options aren't a matching aspect ratio for the widescreen monitor. Is there a good resolution you recommend, and if it isn't available in my game, is there a way to make it available?
Do I need to hack each game to display other resolution options that match my aspect ratio? How can I get better performance besides turning the graphics to crap? I would be happy running in a lower resolution with all other settings maxed, rather than most settings low with such a high resolution.
Do I have any options here or am I screwed? I'm sure some of you guys must have come across this issue! I'm a new Mac convert who can't get rid of my PC gaming.
Note: Preferably I would like to find an alternate widescreen resolution, rather than finding a way to use 4:3 with black bars, but either would be better than how it is now.
i am looking at ram upgrade options as i am about to dive in and purchase the 27" quad core imac.i know we need to install in pairs but do the 'pairs' need to match. can i leave the 2mb pair that comes with the computer AND add a pair of 4mb giving a total of 12mb?
In theory, will windows on virtualbox be running best on a quad or duo iMac? Right now I am doing it on a 2008 MacBook and I must say it does put a strain on the computer to the point of being annoying. I ask since in process of upgrading to iMac.
I need more USB ports, but want to add an internal component, like a PCI-E card (NOT a USB Hub). I just want a clean look, not an additional component. Does anyone have any recommendations? Does one even exist (?). I saw a PCI USB card at Office Depot & Best Buy, but I'm pretty sure that won't work.
I figured about now, in 2008, that machines would come with 6 USB ports (on the back) standard, considering everything is USB. Consumer Dell machines do it, so does HP and others... my $3000 Professional MP... 3 USB ports standard on the back.
I have a Mac Pro 08, 2x2.8GHz Quadcore, 2gb RAM. I never buy IMac because I want a power machine. So I always buy Macpro but! now IMac comes quad, nice monitor etc. My question is if new IMac is more power that my machine? The new IMac is more power even I buy more ram? 32gb? vs the 16gb of new IMac?
I ordered an I7 Imac, but can't get a definitive idea if the quad core will be utilized or not. If a software program like Final Cut Express is not "Quad Core Aware", is there no advantage over a Core Duo? Why would the encoding be twice as fast, but not the program?
I've decided to jump on the apple band wagon and purchase an iMac.
I'm planning on ordering the 27-inch quad core i5 but I'm wondering whether it's worth upgrading the processor or increasing the RAM - does anyone use FCS 3 and if so, would it be better to increase the RAM to 8GB+ to run more smoothly.. or does the 4GB RAM basic run fine with FCP 7 and the like?
Has anyone tried using their iMac as a monitor for a PC? I have a high-end PC that I use for work and I recently bought an iMac for video, audio, and pictures (in other words....personal use.)
Has anyone used their beautiful 27 inch imac as a monitor for another computer? Pros/cons?
Debating whether or not to get the core i5 for 1999 or i7 for 200 more.. Will I see a difference in gaming between the two processors? It seems like everyone is getting the i7 to future proof but is there really that big of a difference in the two CPUs ?
The 3.6GHz BTO option for the low-end 27" is only a dual-core but has hyperthreading while the 2.8GHz in the high-end 27" is a quad-core but doesn't have hyperthreading. Both CPUs can execute four threads at once, but which one's faster??
I know 300 dollars for a bump from C2D/4670 to a i5/4850 is easily one of the best upgrades Apple has offered in a long, long time.... but would I really need it?
I was primarily going to be using the iMac for everyday stuff (word/browsing/etc) and for games occasionally by others. I don't need everything running on ultra with AA on or anything, just visually comparable to PS3/X360. I will be doing a lot of Photoshop/illustrator things as well and might get into video editing.
I was thinking maybe I could hold out on going quad core for a couple years until Macbook Pro lines get it at a reasonable price then I can just use the iMac as a gorgeous led and media hub in the background as I do my work on the Macbook Pro.
I've seen the benchmarks, but how does it work out in real world situations?
What would having Quad cores do for me except help me handle files/render a few seconds faster here and there? I'm sure it's a tremendous boost in things like encoding but how would it help when it comes to image editing?
Is the 4850 a huge bump in specs compared to the 4670? Is the performance gap similar to going from 9400 to the 9600?
I just bought a new mid-2010 updated iMac with 2.8GHz Core i5. However, when I looked at the system profiler, it reports CPU speed at 2.66GHz.
At first, I thought I accidentally got the late-2009 version, but other aspects of the system seem to indicate that this is correct Mac.
The box has updated part number, but does list the CPU as 2.66GHz. It has the newer HD 5750 w/1GB RAM, it uses 1333GHz DDR3 memory. So everything seems to point that it's a new iMac, but the CPU is of the wrong version.
So I sprung for the quad core i5 a few weeks ago, and I want to know what I can do to really notice my investment. Too often I find myself just searching the web and checking my email which makes me feel like I would have been fine with the i3 for $300 less.
I was taken aback by a recent review of the new iMac that has the dual-core i5 upgrade. There were claims that the dual-core i5 (i5-680 @ 3.6GHz) is still faster in quite a few applications than the quad-core i5 (i5-760 @ 2.8GHz)... Isn't Turbo Boost supposed to take it up to 3.33GHz? (yes, I know, it will only kick in if the temps allow it and it's still slightly less than 3.6 but you get my point)
Then, there was another article which claimed that even the Core i3-550 @ 3.2GHz is supposedly faster than the quad-core i5 @ 2.8GHz in a few scenarios. I realize that the Core i3 does not have Turbo Boost, but it does have Hyper-Threading which OS X sees as 4 (virtual) cores. The Core i5 does not have Hyper-threading, but it has 4 "actual" cores, and it also has Turbo Boost. Hmmm...
I have to take my iMac in because of a hardware issue and I was planning on upgrading to the Quad-core i5 for $275 extra ($300 minus student discount). I'm even contemplating jumping all the way to the i7 for another $180. Should I do this or just get another one w/ Core i3 3.2GHz? Towards the end of the article, Macworld even suggests not getting the Quad, unless "...you can take advantage of the few programs that exist today that can take advantage of the extra cores."
Future-proofing is not that important in my case, as I switch computers too often. Otherwise, quad-core would be the obvious choice, although we've been hearing the whole "Well, maybe not today, but in a year or two from now, you'll appreciate the fact that you got a Quad...", etc. since...well, almost 2 years ago.
Just got a MBA and learning the machine. Are your MBA's really quiet? I have no problems with volume on my MB or MBP but on the MBA I find it quiet even when maxed.
Those waiting for the quad core to roll out next month, any concern about the temperature buildup? I recently had some good fortune roll my way and will be getting the quad core iMac. After seeing some pictures of the inside, I am a little concerned about the heat buildup from the CPU, GPU, and the display. I know Apple does its homework, but is there too much in such a confined space without greheat circulation? Is this even worth worrying about?
I just wanted to share what's been going on with my i7 which I received last Friday. Immediately I was curious about what sort of temps I was going to be running so I installed Temperature Monitor. At idle my graphics readings hover around 40C. However, when playing Warcraft 3 my Graphics Processor Temperature Diode reaches up to 84C.
I don't really know what temps are acceptable, I was just wondering what other i7 HD4850s out there are running. To deal with this seemingly high temperature I installed smcFanControl and boosted all fan speeds by 50%. Noise doesn't seem to be proportional to fan speed at these levels so no probs there. Now I run at 64C at load and I am at peace with that.
Shouldn't the OS be increasing fan speed on its own?
Would like to know what you guys think and observe in your i7 machines
I was looking on GeekBench and noticed there are quite a few quad core iMac that are running faster than the 2.66GHz of the i5 and the 2.8GHz of the i7. I can't make sense if people really are trying to overclock or just somehow are making Geekbench think they have a faster CPU/are editing their scores somehow. How in the world could one overclock the iMac when cooling is a serious concern?
I have an iMac 1st Gen i5 Quad-Core with two user accounts and since the 10.7.3 update I cannot get the computer to restart or shutdown properly. It seems to happen when both users have been signed on. I log out on both accounts, shutdown (or restart) and it still hangs up. If I use just one account, it's hit and miss. No applications are hanging in the force quit menu.
A recent post on Wired Site made me think that the 27" iMac could really be the ultimate computer for the graphic professional and offices in the graphics field. I don't know if this theory was discussed or if it is actually possible but according to Apple, the new iMac can be used as an external monitor for another device. If you bought the 27" iMac Core i7 version and hooked it up to a MacPro as a render server, that's a lot more computer for little to no more additional work space.
Also, if this is possible, you could buy an iMac now and once you outgrow it you can still use it as a monitor for a Mac Pro and utilize the quad core for networked tasks like background rendering. Futher, if everyone in your office used a 27" iMac as a monitor (as it really is only about $100 less than the 30" cinema screen) and had a Mac Pro. You'd potentially have quite a networked renderfarm without actually taking up any more physical space in your office. That is if you can make it function that way.
