Now with speeds up to 3.06 ghz.
20" Entry level- 2.4ghz (250gb hdd or 500gb) 128mb atu radeon gpu
20" Mid level- 2.66 ghz (320gb, 500gb or 750gb hdd)256mb ati radeon gpu
24" Entry level- 2.8ghz (500gb, 750gb or 1tb hdd) 256mb ati radeon gpu
24" High end- 3.06ghz (500gb, 750gb or 1tb hdd), 512mb Nvidia geforce gpu
2gb ram now standard except on 20" entry. 800mhz.
6mb cache (previously 4mb)
1066mhz system bus
Just got up from afternoon nap and saw this.
Good upgrades. Going back to bed, will come back later for more discussion.. 
Sorely tempted now with the upgrade. Gfx card isn't bad either for gaming stuff...
Did anyone notice... the Proccy is 1066 FSB and Memory is 800 MHz.... looks like Christmas came early at Cupertino this year. Another first for Apple, they scored monteviena chips before it's officially out. 
monteviena?
educate us! how do these chips vary compared to the previous gen?
so they skipped penryn? are these 45nm chips?
edit- I dont know why... but I dont like the fact the speeds aren't nice round numbers... I'm tempted to go for the entry level 2.4ghz, simply coz its a "nice" number... 2.66 is all .... odd. I'll push for the 24" 2.8ghz though, but my parents probably dont want to go up to it. (its for my parents not me).
I know, I have OCDs. Furthermore, I want to ensure the drive is 250gb (1/4 of a TB) and not 320gb... I'm a perfectionist I guess. I wish they had a 20" 3ghz (not 3.06ghz) model.
There's no logic to it, its just how I think.... one thing of logic though, is that I want to get one that has 4gb RAM so that I dont have 2gb occupying two slots uselessly.
Gizmodo says:
On the surface, the new iMacs just look like a speed bump, there's actually something pretty interesting under the number splooge: It's the first system we know of to use Intel's Montevina chipset, which actually isn't due until June. Even though the release doesn't namedrop Montevina, the 1066MHz front-side bus with processor speed up to 3.06GHz tells us it's the case, since Santa Rosa's FSB only hits 800. Which you means you should see a solid performance boost in these babies, not just better efficiency. Wonder how Apple swung getting their hands on the chipsets before anyone else.
Then they go on to say...
Update: TGDaily says they're not quite Montevinas, but they are unreleased chips no one else has, with the only difference from actual Montevinas being these run 11 watts higher on thermal power design.
Here's what TGDaily had to say...
Cupertino (CA) - Apple today announced refreshed iMacs and is offering an unannounced Intel processor as part of the package: The systems can be ordered with a "special" processor that matches the specifications of the 45 nm Core 2 Duo Extreme X9100 processor, which is expected to officially launch with Intel’s Montevina refresh. Once again, Apple has the privilege of offering a faster processor than what PC vendors are selling today.You have to admit, there is a certain pattern. A little over a year ago, Apple announced the availability of an Intel 3.0 GHz quad-core-processor, which, at the time, was not officially announced and appeared to be exclusive to Apple back then. When we asked Intel about this “special” CPU, which turned out to be the Xeon X5365, we were told that the chip was shipping in “limited” quantities.
Intel told us Monday afternoon that this new processor in fact is not the X9100, but rather a "special" SKU of the 45 nm Penryn processor for the company's Santa Rosa platform. We can’t imagine that HP and Dell are happy about the fact that Apple can officially ship a Core 2 Duo processor that matches most of the specifications of an unannounced Intel product - the only technical differentiator is the CPU's power thermal design power (TDP), which is 11 watts above the 44 watt X9100.
The new iMacs look just like the iMacs introduced in August of last year, but received a solid hardware upgrade across all major components. Processor speeds now reach from 2.4 GHz over 2.66 and 2.8 GHz all the way to the 3.06 GHz CPU with 6 MB L2 cache and a 1066 MHz FSB. Apple continues to exclusively rely on mobile processors, even if the power consumption increases on the high end. While the mainstream chips 2.4 and 2.66 GHz versions are rated at a TDP of 25 watts, the 2.8 GHz (T9600) model runs at a 35 watt TDP and this special 3.06 GHz SKU at 55 watts.
Hardware capacities no go up to 1 TB, while the standard system memory in the base system remains at 1 GB. There are also new graphics card options, including Nvidia’s 8800GS, which is indicated by Apple to transform the iMac into a gaming system. Realistically, this chip has been available in numerous $1000 PCs for some time and is currently Nvidia’s mainstream graphics chip, positioned below the not available 8800 Ultra, 8800 GTX, 8800 GTS and, oddly enough, the specific 8800 GT for Mac.
Pricing remains about the same as before. Apple charges $1200 for the entry-level 20” iMac with a 2.4 GHz processor, 1 GB memory, a 250 GB hard drive and an ATI HD 2400 XT graphics card. The product family tops out at about $2700 for a system with a 3.06 GHz chip, 4 GB of memory, a 1 TB hard drive and an Nvidia 8800 GS graphics card.
So....one of a kind, eh, Apple?
And... here's something I don't get... A desktop computer, with mobile processors?
Okay... I spoke too soon or I farted !!
Anyway, thankfully it wasn't just me... half of the tech population farted today after iMac update.
It's not Montevina... (Levi... in short, Montevina is next Santa-Rosa... means, next Centrino thing)
they're not quite Montevinas, but they are unreleased chips no one else has, with the only difference from actual Montevinas being these run 11 watts higher on thermal power design.
What that mean is, the chips are running the similar juice like Montevina chips, you know... similar clocks, FSB speed and raw power... but at somewhat hight TDP. While Montevinas TDP is 44W, these are Penryns (45nm) at 55W.
EDIT : Grrrrrr.... That mean Duck posing as Slash beat me to it. Blasted Duck !!
Slash's pet duck beats some random dude with an apple in his hand... What is he gonna do with that apple already?!?!?! That smirk.... grr.
xD rofl
May I ask that question to those who have already got new iMacs or for those people who are facsinated.
New Intel is good but do you like the type of screen new iMacs still have ? How do you enjoy editing photos (for print especially) on that dysplay? This is not IPS screen, which is the closest to CRT mons. So will you choose it after that ?
And one more thing. Glassy display. Do you feel comfortable to work and see the lights of lamps, sun, your face etc. ?
Maybe I'm wrong and think different - please correct me then coz I'm really looking forward.
i am a fan of the glossy glass displays because i think they enhance colour, but i understand the criticisms by people who have harsh lighting conditions.
what do u mean by IPS?
fan of glossy displays as well. It makes the picture MUCH clearer, accurately lighted everywhere and enchances color
Levi- The perfectionist
IPS and S-IPS are the types of the display
Overall all displays are classified among these types:
TN (which new iMac has right now as far as I know)
*VA (PVA, MVA) another technology of displays
IPS (S-IPS) - the best display (for pictures, editing) the closest to the CRT monitor quality of the picture. the one which is used in Cinema Displays and other top monitors.
I thought people knew that.
Here is a thread in apple discussions which truly copies my words http://discussions.apple.com/thread.jspa?t...286811&tstart=0
just curious; how big of a difference is there between the imac's glossy and a macbook's glossy?
Colors. That's about all. I remember reading somewhere that the MacBook's display only 'emulates' millions of colors, yet only displaying a couple hundred thousand... I forget where. Anyway, the iMac's display is full millions of colors.
The MacBook's display has an actual glossy coat, while the iMac has a regular matte screen behind a piece of glass. They are both very nice displays, though the iMac's seems to be brighter, more vibrant, etc.
And... here's something I don't get... A desktop computer, with mobile processors?
Desktop processors would run too hot for these thin iMac enclosures, requiring bulkier or louder cooling systems. The Mac mini uses mobile parts for the same reason.
So if my theory is correct, A MacBook Pro could very well be near the 3.0GHz line?
Aqua-Soft Forums