My guess is that because they felt that cooling was so important, the new modular system will be a long rectangular box where you can add modules like a train and the insides will be around a core with a fan at one end and exhaust at the other, to handle all the heat that will be generated by the various cards and drives, but the best part will be that they'll have a toaster oven module for the far end for heating morning bagels.
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.
Could "geared towards pros" mean no more HDD
- Thread starter Canadia69
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Your are thinking 27" iMac. In the 21.5" space Apple has used the "Iris Pro" options ( e.g. i5-5575R and i7-5775R ). The i5-7xxxR and i7-7xxxR ( Kaby Lake) versions of those haven't come out. It may be the case the Intel won't (because Apple and Intel are the only one using them and a broader market didn't materialize). However, if Apple is still getting those and trying to couple new 21.5" to new 27" together then October makes more sense.
If there are no xxxxR models ( because Intel punted on that track ) then Apple has a lot more custom dGPU work to do and that also would slide out the the timeframe.
AMD solutions don't have a stable track record with Thunderbolt firmware at all. I don't think Apple is walking away from Thunderbolt any time soon. I think Thunderbolt evolution hasn't progressed on Apple's expected timeline, but doubtful they are at the "walk away completely" stage at all.
No. Nothing in E3 category is likely getting a 140W TDP envelope assigned to it. That is the zone where E5 is. There is zero rationale for Intel to clobber E5 with E3 when they have E5 already.
What the 27" iMac is lacking is far more so a midrange desktop (i.e., non laptop ) GPU... not CPU. The CPU is already from the desktop set of CPU product line up. What would be a "pro" move for iMac is go to 120-150W TDP on GPU without adverse thermal feedback problems. Or Apple is waiting on the some 'silver bullet' to put midrange desktop GPU performance into the 100-120W zone..... and silver bullets unicorns take more time.
The iMacs would get more "pro" coverage if they had a wider set of GPU computational offload they could do. Ditto with more complex, 3D interactive models. Apple was most likely shooting for an incremental expand for the iMac; not a take over the Mac Pro space completely. (just a better job of snaring the stuff falling off the "bottom edge" of the Mac Pro space. 32-64 GB range with mix of single and multiple x86 core workloads coupled to a "desktop like" GPU with mid-upper range VRAM. )
One CPU, single core drag racing iMacs are already outpacing the mostly comatose Mac Pro.
[doublepost=1491941771][/doublepost]
iMac spans both the 21.5" and 27" models. I don't think Apple was talking about making the whole line up "pro like". There is likely a subset that is going to get some changes to cover more "pro" workloads. That could either be by adding another case design ( iMac Pro 27" borrows some major cues from HP Z1 ) or just pushing more different design constraints to the 27" (implicit "pro") versus 21.5" (implicit regular) user base.
There are $50-70 500GB SSHD drives (e.g., Seagate Firecuda ). If Apple has tried those out and is happy with failure rate they may stick with something like that for the low end of the iMac market. Those have "just enough" SSD to boot faster and load an often used subset of apps faster to give better than HDD average performance.
Fusion Drive is missing from APFS so perhaps "pro" means going to manually juggling files over different drives too.
I suspect there would be more standard configurations with just SDDs, but disappear completely from the whole line up is unlikely. At the very least the lowest priced end of the spectrum, the price sensitivity and the capacity demands are too high to go flash only. 512GB of flash only remotely in the price sensitive $/GB range for TLC drives that trade capacity for speed. I don't think Apple is going that trade-off when chasing their targeted market.
If mainly looking at the upper end of the iMac line up. There SSDs only (or SSD standard) is where may get major changes.
Last edited:
7200 rpm in the 27" models.
But yes I agree the 5400 rpm in other Mac should not exist.
the top of the line desktop cpus from Intel max out at 4 cores with HT + 16 pci-e + dmi. From there it's 1 socket workstation / server chips with way more pci-e.
AMD rezen (desktop) has more cores and more pci-e. Next is there workstation / low end servers chips with 32?-64? pci-e and from there server / high end server chips with 1 or 2 cpu's and 128 pci-e.
Ryzen 7 has 8 core, 16 thread 24 PCIe lanes. There is no DMI so the chipset connnects to the PCIe lanes.
AMD Naples has up to 32 cores, 64 threads, 64 PCIe lanes, but can be used in Dual Processor motherboards to get to a total of 128 PCIe lanes.
[doublepost=1491951710][/doublepost]
Only because no manufacturer has tried to mate a budget AMD CPU with an expensive professional grade interface like Thunderbolt. Now that AMD is shipping professional grade CPUs based on Zen someone like Apple could have a reason to. AMD has already supplied everything it needs (PCIe and DisplayPort) to fully support TB3.
You are likely right, but I don't agree with it. In my mind the E5 makes sense for Dual Processor systems, and the E3 should be expanded to have higher performance in a professional single processor system.
True, Mac Pro should be a Dual-Processor system based upon Xeon E5 or AMD Naples. iMac should have consumer grade components that it currently has. An theoretical iMac Pro should have the best single processor CPUs available.
Those have been around for a while. I'm certain Apple already evaluated that approach, otherwise they would have never moved to a 24GB Fusion for the 1TB. My guess is they make the 24GB Fusion standard.
APFS didn't support a lot of stuff in technology preview in Sierra. That will all have to change before it is made the system default file system. It will support both TimeMachine (or equivalent replacement) and Fusion or equivalent before rolling out to everyone.
My guess is a Fusion with a 24GB SSD becomes standard for almost all iMacs including the 24" The iMac hasn't just been Apple performance champion, it has also been Apple's value champion.
Maybe Apple will opt for the simplicity of an unique chip. With the recently MBP in mind I wonder if apple will think iGPU it's enough.
Kabylake i5s are powerfully enough to drive a Retina display in 5k.
Hope for a better future for Mac.
If the 2018 lineup will be like this, I will setup a Hackintosh and will use it with those future Apple's Monitor.
It might be more relevant for the 27" iMac since the 21.5" iMac already carries 2.5" spinning HD but a move to unify the supply chain on 2.5" drives (which do have higher capacities at the moment) would be music to Tim Cook's ears. Fewer items to buy, especially since the Time Capsule's days appear to be numbered. And Jony Ive can make the 27" even thinner without having to accommodate a 3.5" HD. 
On a repair basis if they had an iMac Pro you have to assume it'd be SSD only and be commensurately thinner with a lower failure rate without any spinning disks inside. With a modular Mac Pro series coming along soon I think Apple wouldn't bother making the iMac compete with the best of the mMP in terms of GPU - with the side effect of being able to design for fewer heat failures due to GPU.
On a repair basis if they had an iMac Pro you have to assume it'd be SSD only and be commensurately thinner with a lower failure rate without any spinning disks inside. With a modular Mac Pro series coming along soon I think Apple wouldn't bother making the iMac compete with the best of the mMP in terms of GPU - with the side effect of being able to design for fewer heat failures due to GPU.
People are reading too much into too few words.
The iMac line will be revised, yes.
There will still be "entry-level" models, and there will still be mid-range models.
Apple will probably add some high-end options, as well, elevating a maxed-out iMac into the "low-level Mac Pro" range of performance.
that is all...
The iMac line will be revised, yes.
There will still be "entry-level" models, and there will still be mid-range models.
Apple will probably add some high-end options, as well, elevating a maxed-out iMac into the "low-level Mac Pro" range of performance.
that is all...
Actually you need a third connection to make Thunderbolt to work GPIO. That is essentially the critical piece I said is missing. It is where the firmware and low level boot configure/operate the TB controller. AMD has UEFI/BIOS growing pains going on with mainboard vendors. Thunderbolt would only add to that. While Apple could do that, in many cases though Apple is risk adverse. Some things they gamble on and others they aren't.
Intel is splitting the E5 1600 and 2600 line up when they get to version 5 ( Skylake). Skylake-W + Basin Falls chipset ( the 1600 series equivalent) is going to be a different socket than Skylake-EP ( the 2600 series equivalent) of new Purley platform and different chipset. They can still label Skylake-W as an Xeon E5. The second digit in the product could change (that is suppose to indicate socket) . For example E5 1500 v5 ( -W) and E5 2600 v5 ( -EP). Or perhaps bump of the 2+ socket version E5 1600 v5 (-EP) and E5 2700 (or 2800 since maybe E7 goes away) v5.
The Mac Pro just needs non 5 year old CPU and GPU. Dual isn't really necessary.
Not if the common RAM configurations are going to be in the 32GB and up range. The more memory have the more likely going to get errors. As more very large scale RAM workloads migrate off the Mac Pro and onto the iMac there should be an overlap in feature where the level of that migration cross over is highest. At least for 'pros' who care about data integrity.
For generic users that are in the 8-16GB range. Yes, it isn't a pressing issue. However, the iMac pricing trend line at the top end has been significantly creeping into the zone where the only the Mac Pro was.
The problem is that Apple declared at last WWDC that they were taking APFS out to be the default file system this year. Haven't finished but it is going to be the default. We'll see what happens at WWDC, but one way of "having the courage" to roll out a completely new, still incomplete file system as the default is to throw old features under the bus.
The Time Machine target file system doesn't have to be APFS. They can still roll that out not symmetrical. APFS is highly targeted at the active host singular OS disk/volume. Not at multiple ones.
It is extremely single physical drive oriented when you very closely at the details. (e.g., iOS was a primary driver of this; not multi drive systems. fusion , RAID , Volume management , etc. all not there even in the demo/descriptions. It may eventually grow to have this stuff but everything in their "version 1.0" description is missing on that front; not just temporarily... just missing. )
APFS has zero mechanisms for transferring snapshots to a different physical volume/device. None.
As stated. It is very single device oriented. All the "space sharing" is of a single disk.
For APFS, it is the flip side of Apple's conservative approach where they show all the signs of being a bit too over aggressive. Flipping iOS quickly was safe because the file system is mostly abstracted away. The range and complexity of the file systems on macOS is an order of magnitude different. (other OS file systems don't flip to default in a year. Sun didn't with ZFS , MS didn't with their new roll outs, Linux doesn't. etc. etc. )
Last edited:
IMO, it may be SSD only for the initial boot drive, but it will need to have room for several (~4) HDDs as well if we are talking something that will be successful in the real professional market.
I work for a modest gallery run by an art photographer. All the files that I work on involve still images, no video, and I currently have some 10tb online for storage of my everyday use files an I expect to have to bump that up to 16tb or so before the end of 2017. That amount of storage will not be practical with SSDs either this year or next and I wouldn't expect real video pros, with their massive storage needs, to be able to move to pure SSD storage anytime in the foreseeable future.
I work for a modest gallery run by an art photographer. All the files that I work on involve still images, no video, and I currently have some 10tb online for storage of my everyday use files an I expect to have to bump that up to 16tb or so before the end of 2017. That amount of storage will not be practical with SSDs either this year or next and I wouldn't expect real video pros, with their massive storage needs, to be able to move to pure SSD storage anytime in the foreseeable future.
I think the idea is that the internal drive will be SSD, while any external storage or slots will have HDD options. Which, hearing a rumor that macOS Sierra doesn't play nice with HDD's I'm thinking is the goal.
Now we just need Apple to give the Time Machine some love.
Yes, we'll see what WWDC has to say about APFS. I'd wager it'll turn out to be a lot more mature than you think. The "no frills" APFS released to developers in 2016 was, essentially, the APFS they needed for iOS. You might say they were using Macs to test the iOS release. The release that was rolled out without a hiccup a short while ago. Sure, it was "single device oriented." That was the scenario with the highest test priority.
There are several ways to read this statement made in the intro to Apple File System Guide:
It's now 2017, and Apple File System has been released as a bootable file system, for iOS. It doesn't necessarily mean it will be released for MacOS in 2017.
How could they possibly throw a backup solution under the bus? "Sorry, if you upgrade to MacOS 10.13 you won't be able to make backups." How could they possibly throw multi-drive configurations under the bus, "Sorry, upgrading to MacOS 10.13 will break your Fusion drive." No way. These are capabilities that had to be addressed in fundamental file system architecture, and it seems clear, from my reading of Apple File System Guide, that those needs were anticipated.
Yes, Time Machine could continue to exist as an HFS+ volume, but the same efficiencies that an internal drive gains from APFS (cloning and deltas) are very attractive for the Time Machine scenario (deltas in particular).
The storage efficiencies built into APFS have been nice for iOS, but will really come into their own for MacOS, where drives are often clogged with duplicates and barely-modified versions of the same file (cloning and deltas, again). I expect a far more dramatic space savings on Flash-based MacBooks than we've seen in iOS. For argument's sake, say the average space efficiency gain is 25%. That's equivalent to a steep cut in the cost of Flash. That makes external SSD more affordable as well, potentially accelerating the move away from spinning platters altogether.
To me, safety features like copy-on-write and Atomic Safe-Save, and upping the maximum number of allocation blocks to 9 quintillion suggests that logical volume groups that bridge multiple external drives may be supported. The possibility of tiered storage (Fusion or equivalent) that utilizes both internal and external physical drives... very attractive to high-end pro users.
It's even possible that those recently-promised pro Macs are timed to arrive when APFS is released - designed from the ground up to take advantage of the new file system.
In the end, it's a matter of whether you're an optimist or pessimist as far as Apple is concerned.
That statement is not what I was talking about THIS is what Apple said in later years WWDC session. Straight from the transcript.
" ... So Apple File System will ship, by default on all devices in 2017. So to summarize, Apple File System will be the default file system for all Apple products 2017, it's ultra-modern, it's crash protected, it supports Space Sharing, we support cloning and snapshots. Enhanced data security features like the multikey encryption that we just discussed. ..."
https://developer.apple.com/videos/play/wwdc2016/701/
That was extremely aggressive. When got to this Spring 2017 and there still is no beta bootable macOS ... and gobs of missing macOS features and a likely October time frame ship date for next macOS . There are major problems there. An "Oh, we think we finished the macOS version now ... you only have about two months to find the bug before we wrap for ship" That is more than radical when talking about a basic OS functionality and declaring ready for default when
The real question would be is whether Apple is going to start to throw features out the window to hit the deadline. Bootable is probably tractable in whatever limited context lines they want to draw.
what part of the target disk doesn't not have to be APFS to work don't you get? The way time machine works now will copy from APFS just was well as it does from HFS+. It would just he same mechanisms as it does right now. You target TM disk would be the exact same file system as it is right now. It is a corner case where TM devices is the same as device being used by user. It is another disk from where the OS lies.
I know folks look at APFS and think there will be a radical improvement in TM, but look close this really isn't a major TM improvement foundation. There are tons of missing pieces here. It is Apple's "ZFS like" solution.
"Default" doesn't mean mandatory. It would extremely straightforward for the new OS installer to look at the current volume and if Apple RAID or CoreStorage virtual volume to just skip the file system conversion. They are being thrown under the bus, but would be left in the status quo state.
For the new products there just wouldn't be Fusion Drive configurations.
Expect APFS has no mechanisms for transferring deltas from one volume to another. There is nothing like ZFS send/receive there. Getting to snapshots require mounting.
There is far more skewed toward making multiple OS/App volumes for testing in a software development context than that of backs. "Clone this OS drive image and they run the upgrade on it. Does it work? No throw away start over. ". As oppose browse this archive rapidly by time action you'd do in a time machine viewer.
The other natural fit is to Apple's "versioning" system they have for files. Again typically done on a single device/volume.
But Time Machine... I don't see it. Looking at the compression, but skipping delta transmission I think misses some significant issues. The intra-copies can be as much of an issue as a benefit across volumes (which again... that point of view APFS doesn't really comprehend). At least not with the interface they have now.
Eventually. The major dust up is Apple's spin that this is ready for default prime time in a several months with highly limited, narrow beta windows. There is a ton of "we have al lthe test cases we need in house" in their posturing...... we is extremely likely BS. Real users with diverse configurations almost always find new, often severe, bugs that lack of imagination and/or effort of the original software development lacked.
APFS has potential. It is just not likely ready for default for macOS anytime this year. If Apple is trying to do that I think they are trying to pound a round peg in a square hole. That was their openly stated position last year. If it is changed they should have said so clearly earlier than WWDC 2017.
Last edited:
I feel even that is being generous. Apples current use of "Pro" means what? Bigger screen? Better speakers? A fancy addition to the keyboard? But lets ignore reality and wait for the iQuantum computer from Apple lol.
There are independent Apple dealers who usually have a good range of BTO options in stock and will get them to you by the next working day - and if that isn't sufficient security for you then frankly you need to maintain a "hot" spare machine (it could take you half a day to install and configure everything you need to get on with work). Confining yourself to whatever specs your local PC Super Store keeps in stock isn't practical (and would also limit your choice of CPU, GPU etc.) and expecting the most popular base model to conform to your own particular requirements is unreasonable.
However, what you've really picked up on is a real reason why Apple's diet of all-in-ones, small-form-factor desktops and thin'n'crispy* ultrabooks aren't great for "pro" use: if your iMac goes phut and you need a replacement now you have no choice but to replace it with the same, or better, model - expensive display, CPU, GPU, SSD and all. An ATX tower is so much more flexible - maybe you (or your friendly local PC dealer) can just swap out the part that's died (PSU, HD, GPU, Motherboard, whatever), or maybe you can buy a cheap base system and transfer over your expensive SSD, GPU and other bits. You'll only have to chuck away the display if that's the bit that failed (in which case you keep the rest of the PC!)
Its one thing to worry about having the the latest killer GPU and CPU, but there are other reasons why a truly modular system (& not just modular by Schiller's "has an external display" definition) is the best for "pros", power-users and enthusiasts.
The only reason I'd consider an iMac at the moment is that external 5k displays are rare, expensive and rely on a dual-cable MST kludge (even the TB3 display uses two virtual cables) which means that they'll all be obsolete when DisplayPort1.4 or its HDMI equivalent takes off (or is incorporated into the next version of Thunbderbolt).
(* seriously - its the same with pizzas - where have all the deep pan options gone?)
This might be tangential to the thread, but I'd interpret the information about iMac Pro to basically be the same iMac they introduce the next time with slightly different BTO components. Perhaps a different trade-off in processor, a bit beefier/different GPU and that's about it.