2017 iMac refresh wish list [merged]

[Michael Scrip]

ehm... the iMac too, has a mobile CPU and GPU due to heat constraints.

iMacs use full desktop CPUs... i5-6500... i7-6700K

But yeah... they do use mobile GPUs.

And as I said earlier... that's ridiculous for a computer that's supposed to be a DESKTOP computer.

The reason they have heat constraints is they shove hot parts in a small area. And there's just no need for that.

Let's be clear... I think both the iMac and the Surface Studio make wrong choices.

They have amazing screens... but questionable components and design considerations.

Thin laptops? Great!

Thin desktops? Unacceptable...

 

[richinaus]

iMacs use full desktop CPUs... i5-6500... i7-6700K

But yeah... they do use mobile GPUs.

And as I said earlier... that's ridiculous for a computer that's supposed to be a DESKTOP computer.

The reason they have heat constraints is they shove hot parts in a small area. And there's just no need for that.

Let's be clear... I think both the iMac and the Surface Studio make wrong choices.

They have amazing screens... but questionable components and design considerations.

Thin laptops? Great!

Thin desktops? Unacceptable...

Exactly right. I just don't understand it.
Both would be great computers if they actually put desktop components in the desktop computers. Seems to make sense to me.

 

[ThisBougieLife]

nvm

 

[Trebuin]

Exactly right. I just don't understand it.
Both would be great computers if they actually put desktop components in the desktop computers. Seems to make sense to me.

I completely agree with both of you. The design of the case keeps the GPU too restricted & they didn't consider how to install or vent the GPU. Personally, I would have had gone with a desktop GPU & turned the metal case into the heatsink with a fan with an intake & outtake to keep it cool.

TDP is another problem...not from temperature in this case, but power it can supply. In order for it to supply more power, it needs another more powerful power source. My 2007 had a higher end power supply, but Apple quickly figured out that it would burn itself out. It doesn't have good venting for that as well. Look at any classic desktop...their power supplies have a fan that vents them. That is what Apple needs & they have been trying to avoid any of that. The iMac would do better if liquid cooled or had more fans that could easily move more air through the entire case. Essentially have a vent across the entire bottom & top of the case. The only problem left is with dust & vent blockage.

Would be nice: News-Apple quietly updates 27" iMac

 

[vrBrew]

Externally available slots for the upgrade of hard drives.

 

[fokmik]

Since you can have towers PC that can have whatever components you want, whats the point for the same idea for all in ones?

 

[vrBrew]

Since you can have towers PC that can have whatever components you want, whats the point for the same idea for all in ones?

Smaller Footprint but still have some flexibility with common components.

I know apple would rather you buy a new iMac to upgrade your internal disk from 256GB to 512GB or move from HDD to SSD but that seems a little excessive.

 

[Trahearne]

But yeah... they do use mobile GPUs.

You can also call them desktop GPUs that do not look like a PCIe card and come with a colourful box. Being "desktop" or "mobile" does not matter at all, because they are the same stack of chips after all. What matters is the power and thermal constraint. If Apple doesn't give a crap about giving an option of 1080 Ti or Titan X the "desktop graphics", you would not get anything but lower end desktop GPUs that go up to say 100W, which is coincidentally where high-end laptop GPUs are operating at.

TBH you'd probably see the so-called "desktop graphics" in Mac Pro if they ever refresh it, and decide to abandon multi-GPU. The power budget of two D700s well exceeds a normal high-end workstation graphics card i.e. 250W.

 

[Michael Scrip]

You can also call them desktop GPUs that do not look like a PCIe card and come with a colourful box. Being "desktop" or "mobile" does not matter at all, because they are the same stack of chips after all. What matters is the power and thermal constraint.

And that's what I've been saying.

If they have to use a thermally cut-down part because it has to fit inside a tiny box... that's a bad choice.

I'm not familiar with AMD parts... so I can't comment on what comes in the iMacs.

But the GTX 980M that is in the Surface Studio is less powerful than the "desktop" GTX 980. In this case... the "M" stands for "mobile"

The little box that all the Surface Studio's components are crammed in isn't big enough for a powerful GPU. That's a bad tradeoff in my opinion.

Especially since the Surface Studio starts at $3,000.

Oh... and that $3,000 "entry model" only comes with the GTX 965M.

You have to step up to the $4,200 model to get the 980M.

So even if you spend $4,200 on a Surface Studio... you're still getting a somewhat weak GPU.

And that's all due to trying to make the box thinner, smaller, etc.

As I've said multiple times now... I don't see the point in making "thin" desktops... since it results in compromised component choices.

 

[Trebuin]

And that's what I've been saying.

If they have to use a thermally cut-down part because it has to fit inside a tiny box... that's a bad choice.

I'm not familiar with AMD parts... so I can't comment on what comes in the iMacs.

But the GTX 980M that is in the Surface Studio is less powerful than the "desktop" GTX 980. In this case... the "M" stands for "mobile"

The little box that all the Surface Studio's components are crammed in isn't big enough for a powerful GPU. That's a bad tradeoff in my opinion.

Especially since the Surface Studio starts at $3,000.

Oh... and that $3,000 "entry model" only comes with the GTX 965M.

You have to step up to the $4,200 model to get the 980M.

So even if you spend $4,200 on a Surface Studio... you're still getting a somewhat weak GPU.

And that's all due to trying to make the box thinner, smaller, etc.

As I've said multiple times now... I don't see the point in making "thin" desktops... since it results in compromised component choices.

Apart from the higher cost, there is a benefit to running a constrained video card:
1) higher end video cards have more shaders (these make up the processors) on the order of many. GPUs can have well over 50 cores. Because of this, you have a bigger processor.
2) larger size means more surface area to radiate heat.
3) comparing the 1080 vs 1060 as an example:
2560shaders vs 1280
3dmark11 28458 vs 14843
TGP 165 vs 80
Rest of the parameters still the same

From overclocking & underclocking experience, you need a lot of power to top the performance, but based on this same logic, you can cut a lot of power without having to underclock much. You can reduce the power down to 80w, but only need to drop the speed about 25%. Given double double the cores, you take about 15-20% performance reduction. Now these numbers are no where near accurate, but it gets the point across.

My past experience involved dropping the power on my GPU by 25% while only dropping about 15 % performance. The first 10% required a fast downclock, but after that, I could really crank down the voltage without reducing the GPU & meme speed much at all. Eventually you reach a point where the card won't balance the power use correctly & you have to add a 10% factor of safety over that point to keep it stable...I ended about 25% down. This is how manufacturers can can play the developers game in reverse & still sell a decent computer.

 

[Michael Scrip]

Apart from the higher cost, there is a benefit to running a constrained video card:
1) higher end video cards have more shaders (these make up the processors) on the order of many. GPUs can have well over 50 cores. Because of this, you have a bigger processor.
2) larger size means more surface area to radiate heat.
3) comparing the 1080 vs 1060 as an example:
2560shaders vs 1280
3dmark11 28458 vs 14843
TGP 165 vs 80
Rest of the parameters still the same

From overclocking & underclocking experience, you need a lot of power to top the performance, but based on this same logic, you can cut a lot of power without having to underclock much. You can reduce the power down to 80w, but only need to drop the speed about 25%. Given double double the cores, you take about 15-20% performance reduction. Now these numbers are no where near accurate, but it gets the point across.

My past experience involved dropping the power on my GPU by 25% while only dropping about 15 % performance. The first 10% required a fast downclock, but after that, I could really crank down the voltage without reducing the GPU & meme speed much at all. Eventually you reach a point where the card won't balance the power use correctly & you have to add a 10% factor of safety over that point to keep it stable...I ended about 25% down. This is how manufacturers can can play the developers game in reverse & still sell a decent computer.

I'd still rather see video cards and CPUs that can breathe and stretch their legs... rather than be crammed in a tiny box.

This "laptopification" of desktops is silly.

 

[Novus John]

Honestly, I just want the old school mac pros to come back.

 

[Appleaker]

I wonder if the new version would be based on the soon-to-be-released AMD ryzen CPU....

No it won't.
[doublepost=1488717412][/doublepost]

iMacs use full desktop CPUs... i5-6500... i7-6700K

But yeah... they do use mobile GPUs.

And as I said earlier... that's ridiculous for a computer that's supposed to be a DESKTOP computer.

The reason they have heat constraints is they shove hot parts in a small area. And there's just no need for that.

Let's be clear... I think both the iMac and the Surface Studio make wrong choices.

They have amazing screens... but questionable components and design considerations.

Thin laptops? Great!

Thin desktops? Unacceptable...

Yeah they shouldn't be too obsessed with thinning down the iMac but it's not too limiting now, as mobile and desktop GPUs are closer than ever before, especially on the Nvidia side and external GPUs can be used if necessary.
[doublepost=1488717687][/doublepost]

And that's what I've been saying.

If they have to use a thermally cut-down part because it has to fit inside a tiny box... that's a bad choice.

I'm not familiar with AMD parts... so I can't comment on what comes in the iMacs.

But the GTX 980M that is in the Surface Studio is less powerful than the "desktop" GTX 980. In this case... the "M" stands for "mobile"

The little box that all the Surface Studio's components are crammed in isn't big enough for a powerful GPU. That's a bad tradeoff in my opinion.

Especially since the Surface Studio starts at $3,000.

Oh... and that $3,000 "entry model" only comes with the GTX 965M.

You have to step up to the $4,200 model to get the 980M.

So even if you spend $4,200 on a Surface Studio... you're still getting a somewhat weak GPU.

And that's all due to trying to make the box thinner, smaller, etc.

As I've said multiple times now... I don't see the point in making "thin" desktops... since it results in compromised component choices.

Well, now there is no 'M' on mobile chips because performance is so close to the desktop version. While they probably couldn't fit a 1080 in the Surface Studio, they could probably offer up to a 1070. I think a big reason why they didn't include 1000 series cards is because of the iming of the product development stage.

 

[CWallace]

While they probably couldn't fit a 1080 in the Surface Studio, they could probably offer up to a 1070. I think a big reason why they didn't include 1000 series cards is because of the timing of the product development stage.

I think it's more because the target market of the Studio is not gamers. If we see a high-end GPU in a Studio it would be a Quadro since they are targeted towards the markets the Studio is (and yes, I understand the physical GPU core is identical between a GeForce and a Quadro with the difference being firmware, drivers and application support, trading performance for stability and image quality).

 

[Zwopple]

Well, now there is no 'M' on mobile chips because performance is so close to the desktop version. While they probably couldn't fit a 1080 in the Surface Studio, they could probably offer up to a 1070. I think a big reason why they didn't include 1000 series cards is because of the iming of the product development stage.

The biggest difference between Mobile/Desktop GPU's these days is really just thermals, the mobile components tend to run at slower clocks to ensure lower temps and throttle more aggressively to keep temps down since fans are not as big.

 

[loekf]

I changed my mind wrt GPUs. I want Nvidia GPUs not AMDs, much less power. Furthermore, the fixed function video codec of Nvidia is as good as Kabylake. AMDs is good enough, but forget about multi-stream stuff.

 

[Dave245]

Does anyone think the iMac's will be updated this year? i wonder what's taking Apple time with these. It would be nice to see features like the Touch Bar or even just Touch ID, but other than just a few spec updates i can't see where they are going to go with the next iMac's, the screen is already 5K.

 

[CWallace]

Does anyone think the iMac's will be updated this year?

They will, but I am starting to think they won't be this month as I would expect that if they were, we would have had supply chain leaks about the new back panels with the USB-A openings replaced with USB-C. On the plus side, this means Apple could be waiting for the better AMD GPUs (Vega 11) to arrive (as opposed to going now with the Polaris 10 chips).

 

[sfwalter]

They will, but I am starting to think they won't be this month as I would expect that if they were, we would have had supply chain leaks about the new back panels with the USB-A openings replaced with USB-C. On the plus side, this means Apple could be waiting for the better AMD GPUs (Vega 11) to arrive (as opposed to going now with the Polaris 10 chips).

Tick-Tock Apple. You are slowly running out of time to send out invites for a March event. I really don't want to have to wait to WWDC for a new iMac.

 

[Dave245]

Tick-Tock Apple. You are slowly running out of time to send out invites for a March event. I really don't want to have to wait to WWDC for a new iMac.

They could easily send out invites next week, they don't usually send out invites until the week before an event, especially for a small March event. I'm not sure we will see new iMac's at the event, it seems form rumours to be iPad's. iMac's could come later this year, maybe at another separate October event. Unless of course they do a silent update where they update the processors and stuff, which would just be a small press statement and no announcement at a keynote.

 

[Stacc]

iMacs don't have to come at an event. If its just a spec bump with thunderbolt 3 it could just appear in the store one day. Thats what happened in the 2015 update and last years MacBook update.

 

[sfwalter]

iMacs don't have to come at an event. If its just a spec bump with thunderbolt 3 it could just appear in the store one day. Thats what happened in the 2015 update and last years MacBook update.

Good point. Bring on the new iMac.

 

[CWallace]

iMacs don't have to come at an event. If its just a spec bump with thunderbolt 3 it could just appear in the store one day. Thats what happened in the 2015 update and last years MacBook update.

Agreed. And the lack of case leaks may be that Apple has not yet begun production or the supply chain is not watching iMac production lines and therefore hasn't caught it.

 

[Dave245]

Agreed. And the lack of case leaks may be that Apple has not yet begun production or the supply chain is not watching iMac production lines and therefore hasn't caught it.

Or there's no new design and so nothing to leak.

 

[askunk]

Whenever a design change happened, they always appeared in events, as far as I remember. I think that USB-C and TB3 ports would be giving reasons enough to present them, even if they retained a similar design.