Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Any educated guesses on the 2018 iMac (not pro)

Anyone expecting that is going to be in for a disappointment. This year I could see them not even putting in the 95w 8700k but one of the marginally slower 65w chips (like the 8700 non-k model). This would be better for thermal reasons with only a minor drop in peak performance. The lower temps though could possibly mean better sustained performance, and the extra two cores would still be a significant multi core boost over the 7700k in current iMacs.

i7-8700k - base 3.7ghz, turbo 4.7ghz - 95w
i7-8700 - base 3.2ghz, turbo 4.6ghz - 65w


Peak performance comparisons here
https://www.cpubenchmark.net/compare.php?cmp[]=3099&cmp[]=3098
 
Last edited:
The CPUs are in place but the motherboard chipsets aren't ready at the moment (only the hugely expensive Intel Z370 is available at the moment).

I believe earlier iMacs used the Intel B150 chipset, presumably the 2017 model uses the B250 and the logical successor is called B360 but that's due imminently so shouldn't be a factor.

As before the real delay will probably be the AMD GPU in use and I'd say that Apple are probably asking for warmed over versions of existing products - calling them Radeon Pro 670, 675 and 680.

If there was any call to offer the Vega 56 as an option (and use the next generation cooling system from the iMac Pro) you'd have to be prepared for the loss of the RAM access door which will ultimately make the 27" iMac much more expensive if you wish to fully load it. At the moment, though, I'd suggest that won't happen because of the need to fit hard drives internally - the iMac Pro makes do with 2 PCIe SSDs.

Apple have used 95w K series Intel CPUs for a few generations now, they won't use slower CPUs for the top of the range because the numbers don't stack up without a marketing explanation of why. For a change, though, the 6 core i5-8400 could be more than enough for most users who might have been tempted by an i7 previously.
 
EugW said:
For standard desk height and mainstream seating and physical height ranges, it is too tall by most ergonomic rules. And yes, I know several people who complain about its height, myself included.

Yes personal preference is important but monitors have less issues because the chin is smaller and many have adjustable heights.

There is a partial solution though, which is to use a third party VESA mount. Unfortunately, good quality ones that work well with the 27” iMac are very expensive and are restricting. Plus they are still limited by the chin.
Click to expand...

For all the reasons you mention, and a few more, I would love to have a VESA mount for my 27" iMac. Do you mind sharing the brands of the good quality mounts to which you refer? Thanks!
 
CPTmom2wp said:
For all the reasons you mention, and a few more, I would love to have a VESA mount for my 27" iMac. Do you mind sharing the brands of the good quality mounts to which you refer? Thanks!
Click to expand...
I’m not the right person to ask about best VESA mounts, as I’ve only bought a couple. The cheap ones suck though.
 
Thanks! I have done a cursory look and am not yet seeing anything I would trust with a 27" iMac. I've also seen a couple that indicate that they are "adaptable" with a drill.......uh, not on my Mac. I'm searching for real world experience since these were not designed to be wall mounted and I'm not rich enough to replace any unintended consequences :eek:
 
CPTmom2wp said:
Thanks! I have done a cursory look and am not yet seeing anything I would trust with a 27" iMac. I've also seen a couple that indicate that they are "adaptable" with a drill.......uh, not on my Mac. I'm searching for real world experience since these were not designed to be wall mounted and I'm not rich enough to replace any unintended consequences :eek:
Click to expand...

I've been very happy with the IMAD021527 from http://imacmount.com/
No drilling required, it's very strong and sturdy.

I've been using it with my 27" iMac for years.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Agile55
badlydrawnboy said:
I saw the front page story on MacRumors on this. I wonder if they'll make it into the next iMac? Certainly seems possible.
Click to expand...
Almost guaranteed in the next few months.

That i5-8600 is going to be an awesome quiet machine like the i5-7600.
I wonder if the i5-8600K is going to be noisier on average than the i5-7600K.
And the i7-8700K is going to be as annoying noise-wise for some users (like me) as the i7-7700K is.

I'd love to see the i7-8700 in the 27" but I suspect Apple will reserve that for the top end 21.5" model.

And the i5-8500 or even i5-8400 is going to make for a killer entry level 27", unless Apple decides to spec the entry level model with a quad-core model.

Screen Shot 2018-04-04 at 5.37.40 PM.png
 
EugW said:
Almost guaranteed in the next few months.

That i5-8600 is going to be an awesome quiet machine like the i5-7600.
I wonder if the i5-8600K is going to be noisier on average than the i5-7600K.
And the i7-8700K is going to be as annoying noise-wise for some users (like me) as the i7-7700K is.

I'd love to see the i7-8700 in the 27" but I suspect Apple will reserve that for the top end 21.5" model.

And the i5-8500 or even i5-8400 is going to make for a killer entry level 27", unless Apple decides to spec the entry level model with a quad-core model.

View attachment 756987
Click to expand...
We can hope for the same cooling system as in the iMac Pro. The performance difference between 8700k and 8700 must be very small so the 65W non K version could also be used in the 27.
 
iPadified said:
We can hope for the same cooling system as in the iMac Pro. The performance difference between 8700k and 8700 must be very small so the 65W non K version could also be used in the 27.
Click to expand...
You will not get the iMac Pro cooling.

There is a likely a significant performance difference between the 8700 and 8700K. I would guess the 8700K is 15% faster in extended multithreaded workloads.
 
Just chiming in, in case anyone is counting druthers.

My 2011 iMac won't update to High Sierra for some reason; no big deal, Sierra does what I need. But, its just long in the tooth. I have an hp Spectre 360 that does my WoT and general stuff, so can hold off indefinitely, tho I find windows (7 at work, 10 at home) clunky, uninspiring and somewhat infuriating at times. I don't wanna buy a 2017 for a goodly chunk of change and have updated specs for 2018 in a couple months. Tho, also considering openSuSE again.

Alas, I enjoy writing on my iMac and its just not the same on the laptop. Writing will have to wait.

Ideally, would get a Mac Mini, but only if updated to recent CPU, etc.
 
justinkaisse said:
Just chiming in, in case anyone is counting druthers.

My 2011 iMac won't update to High Sierra for some reason; no big deal, Sierra does what I need. But, its just long in the tooth. I have an hp Spectre 360 that does my WoT and general stuff, so can hold off indefinitely, tho I find windows (7 at work, 10 at home) clunky, uninspiring and somewhat infuriating at times. I don't wanna buy a 2017 for a goodly chunk of change and have updated specs for 2018 in a couple months. Tho, also considering openSuSE again.

Alas, I enjoy writing on my iMac and its just not the same on the laptop. Writing will have to wait.

Ideally, would get a Mac Mini, but only if updated to recent CPU, etc.
Click to expand...
2011 iMacs are fully supported by High Sierra. Perhaps something is odd with your OS/software setup? It may pay to try re-installing from scratch, especially since the OS now uses a new file system, APFS. (There is no support for APFS on Fusion drives in High Sierra, but 2011 iMacs didn't have Fusion drives AFAIK.)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back