As the article noted, the 500 series are just 400 series GPUs rebranded by third-party OEMs. Since Apple buys direct from AMD, it will likely have 400 series GPUs.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
2017 iMac refresh wish list [merged]
- Thread starter Sirmausalot
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
As the article noted, the 500 series are just 400 series GPUs rebranded by third-party OEMs. Since Apple buys direct from AMD, it will likely have 400 series GPUs.
Well those chips are not Radeon Pros so they do not use the new Polaris architecture. Instead they are just rebrands of the current iMac GPUs with more memory (the M485X is the same GPU as the current M395X, for example).
So i expect Radeon Pro 470s as the baseline and Radeon Pro 480 as the BTO option for the 5K iMac refresh.
Last edited:
Anyone expect them to ditch user-upgradable memory with this new iMac?
On one hand they really don't need to, plenty of room in a 27 inch desktop. On the other, it's Apple, and they might want to make it thinner/sleeker (and charge premiums for the upgrades themselves.)
For me that's the straw that will break the camels back, if I have to pay 600 bucks for 32gb of ram I think I'd finally have to make the switch to PC.
On one hand they really don't need to, plenty of room in a 27 inch desktop. On the other, it's Apple, and they might want to make it thinner/sleeker (and charge premiums for the upgrades themselves.)
For me that's the straw that will break the camels back, if I have to pay 600 bucks for 32gb of ram I think I'd finally have to make the switch to PC.
I do not expect them to because I see no reason for it. I don't see how they can make the thing much thinner without moving to lower TDP CPUs and GPUs and now that the iMac seems to be the "performance" Mac...
As for those who have argued that Apple will do it to capture the revenue, they could have done that in 2012 when they went to the current design or especially last year when they did so with the 21.5" (which I believe was a consequence of the special Intel logic board they use - not because Apple got greedy).
I sold my desktop workstation and plan to sell my gaming laptop as soon as the new iMacs will be announced.
I'd love to see a polaris chips implemented instead of old upgraded GPU.
The iMac has the edge over the macbook pro dur to the big screen but also because of the power/cost ratio.
However apple is really behind with it's GPU options. And the price they ask for "2 to 4gb" is hilarous.
I'm ok for paying 300€ more to get from a i5 to i7 (lol), to swap a 2TB drive for a 256GB flash... But there's no way I will pay 300€ more to go from a ****** video card to a less ****** video card.
I want an iMac because despite this, it's still a very fast machine to work on FCPX which is waaaay quicker than any Window alternatives. So, a stock better chipset, with at least 4GB would be appreciated and "normal". Even cheap desktops will get a GTX1050 with 3Tflops.
Only the RX395X matches the 3Tflops.
That's a shame because FCPX would really make a good use of this power.
I really pray for a Tflops improvement despite kabylake being a flop.
I'd love to see a polaris chips implemented instead of old upgraded GPU.
The iMac has the edge over the macbook pro dur to the big screen but also because of the power/cost ratio.
However apple is really behind with it's GPU options. And the price they ask for "2 to 4gb" is hilarous.
I'm ok for paying 300€ more to get from a i5 to i7 (lol), to swap a 2TB drive for a 256GB flash... But there's no way I will pay 300€ more to go from a ****** video card to a less ****** video card.
I want an iMac because despite this, it's still a very fast machine to work on FCPX which is waaaay quicker than any Window alternatives. So, a stock better chipset, with at least 4GB would be appreciated and "normal". Even cheap desktops will get a GTX1050 with 3Tflops.
Only the RX395X matches the 3Tflops.
That's a shame because FCPX would really make a good use of this power.
I really pray for a Tflops improvement despite kabylake being a flop.
It is pretty impossible to see rebranded chips again rather than Polaris. Most likely it would be a fully enabled Polaris 10 at the top.
It would be interesting to see if Apple would cater for higher-end GPUs in iMac to fill the place of Mac Pro though. AMD Vega is targeting 1H17, and the entire lineup is expected to be using HBM, making it a nice form factor to fit in AIOs. It doesn't seem coincidental that Apple skipped the "regular" release in 16Q4. Kaby Lake could be a reason, but they could have released Skylake with Polaris either.
It would be interesting to see if Apple would cater for higher-end GPUs in iMac to fill the place of Mac Pro though. AMD Vega is targeting 1H17, and the entire lineup is expected to be using HBM, making it a nice form factor to fit in AIOs. It doesn't seem coincidental that Apple skipped the "regular" release in 16Q4. Kaby Lake could be a reason, but they could have released Skylake with Polaris either.
Last edited:
It'd be nice of the next iMac came with a Vega chip. It has indeed zero chance to come with a 28nm part, but the 14nm part might be Polaris. Sierra drivers have references to Vega10, but it's too power hungry to equip an AIO. Maybe the iMac GPU will be the "Polaris12" part that is also mentioned in the drivers.
Let's not forget "power hungry" chips can have mobile/low-power SKUs. AMD once made 175W R9 Nano that consumes 100 watt less than its full fledged brother 275W R9 Fury X, and keeps 70-80% of the performance with considerably better power efficiency. The same applies to Pro 460 and the current TOTL M395X.
But we know there will be Vega11 for low-power versions. The only information on Vega10 points to a big and power-hungry GPU, and that's the only Vega GPU mentioned in the macOS drivers.
Granted, this mention may not mean anything and could just be a leftover of some AMD Linux/windows drivers that somehow went into macOS. Still, it appeared in macOS first.
Granted, this mention may not mean anything and could just be a leftover of some AMD Linux/windows drivers that somehow went into macOS. Still, it appeared in macOS first.
and lets not forget, i bet we will get improved speakers as well since all the new devices, starting with the first ipad pro and 12" Macbook has outstanding speakers for its sizes.
I hope imac will get this too, since already the new 15" MBP is so much close to current imac speakers
I hope imac will get this too, since already the new 15" MBP is so much close to current imac speakers
very high...i suspect 90% chances to see it on the next event,March probably
Heres to a release quickly following the March announcement and not an announcement followed by months of waiting. Q3 2017 seems like a long ways from now.
Especially considering how outdated all of Apple's desktop products are!
I feel sorry for anyone that waited for the 2nd generation of the Trash Can Mac Pros
Especially considering how outdated all of Apple's desktop products are!
I feel sorry for anyone that waited for the 2nd generation of the Trash Can Mac Pros
Many of them in that forum have built hackintoshes.
There's a hackintosh thread and it's been lighting up recently.
I desperately want an updated Mac Pro to switch to from my iMac due to the image retention issue, but Apple's lack of updates is making the hackintosh strategy very appealing to me.
The entire graphics card categories is a mess with AMD. Due to the delay, we're either going to see a high end Polaris architecture as none was available during the fall, or we will see Vega. I can't tell you what the model number will be because it's a mess.
AMD was planning on skipping the high end Polaris altogether, in which Polaris would bench plus or minus a few percent around the current 395x the imac uses. The only benefit would be cheaper (apple will win here) & it will run much, much cooler, but don't expect a bump in performance as nVidia is seeing.
The second option is AMD will produce a high end polaris. AMD loses here due to being about 9 months past nVidia on release. We would see on order to a double in speed. The die shrink that FINFET produced allows for doubling the performance at the same voltage & heat. That means AMD could build a Polaris 395x version & we would likely see 70-100% performance boost. That's what nVidia is seeing. Again, AMD loses, & we in.
The third option is AMD sells apple the Vega chips. Everyone who doesn't want to wait loses. This will clearly crush nVidia as AMD is taking what would be the highest end cards that includes what imacs would use for high end, & apply the second FINFET model tweaks to the system. this would be the equivalent of nvidia releasing the GTX 1165 to 1180 models (yes, they don't exist yet).
AMD was planning on skipping the high end Polaris altogether, in which Polaris would bench plus or minus a few percent around the current 395x the imac uses. The only benefit would be cheaper (apple will win here) & it will run much, much cooler, but don't expect a bump in performance as nVidia is seeing.
The second option is AMD will produce a high end polaris. AMD loses here due to being about 9 months past nVidia on release. We would see on order to a double in speed. The die shrink that FINFET produced allows for doubling the performance at the same voltage & heat. That means AMD could build a Polaris 395x version & we would likely see 70-100% performance boost. That's what nVidia is seeing. Again, AMD loses, & we in.
The third option is AMD sells apple the Vega chips. Everyone who doesn't want to wait loses. This will clearly crush nVidia as AMD is taking what would be the highest end cards that includes what imacs would use for high end, & apply the second FINFET model tweaks to the system. this would be the equivalent of nvidia releasing the GTX 1165 to 1180 models (yes, they don't exist yet).
They didn't "skip" high-end Polaris. At the very beginning, AMD had made it very clear that only two Polaris are planned with their value proposition. Even when comparing with M395X, Polaris 10 still has an edge with its improved architecture and performance per watt. It can hardly be "just a few percent", unless Apple lowers the power cap of GPU in their design spec.
Vega is not expected to entirely replace Polaris either — Polaris and Vega together form the 2017 top-to-bottom GPU product stack. One could very well expect the 2017 iMac lineup is going to cover by at least Polaris 10 and 11 (if they are still with AMD).
Last edited:
Yeah, I think the only way to go thinner is to revisit the iMac G4 (and SurfaceStudio) design thinking where the display is separate from the CPU/GPU.
Given that Apple doesn't appear to believe touch should exist on anything other than iPad/iPhone screens, I think the next redesign will simply be a subtle one. Updated internals, new I/O's, new colours, and touchbar keyboard.
Probably quite an accurate assesment. Would be nice to see a new design but not likely. Just tweaks to keep it current like the 2016 MBP is what I expect [do really like the 2016 MBP BTW despite all the naysayers - both 13 & 15"].
I am still in 2 minds over the Surface Studio in whether I would want a large touch screen as my main display - leaning more towards I would want an iMac and separate Wacom rather than the all in one, with fingerprints and smudges all over the place. My iPad drives me mad enough on 12" let alone 28"
If you want to match chip for chip, you have to look at the number of shaders & the planned power usage...not the TDP which represents the max the chip is capable of. As you announced, Vega & Polaris are going hand in hand. The only difference between the two (apart from shaders) is the updated design to optimize Vega. So why not update the Med & Low end chips with that? Because it won't be worth the money. Why didn't they release Polaris chips with the same max shaders as the high end previous gens? Because nVidia beat them to the punch & they want faster high end chips with the same chip size. That's how they make their money.
For simplicity of what could have been done, take the current imac 395x. It is designed to use 125w: http://www.notebookcheck.net/AMD-Radeon-R9-M395X.154332.0.html
The polaris version that closely matches is the RX470 & is planned to use 120w, we could throw that in this now:
http://www.notebookcheck.net/AMD-Radeon-RX-470-Laptop.181407.0.html
great, so it uses a little less power. Per all the notes out there (& the nVidia jump)a, it should close to double the performance of the previous gen. I don't have any benchmarks on this to show that, but looking at the clock speeds, it looks like it would see closer to a 50% speed along with a drop in temps due to the drop in wattage. Great! They're trying to stabilize their chips. I have to say that you're right, they didn't skip the high end shader capacity chips for Polaris, but they took forever & downclocked them. Vega should capitalize on what you see & kick it up a notch. AMD does not need another series of crap card burning out.