Found M4 and M5 Mac identifiers

[JouniS]

There won’t be a 32” iMac. The cost of the display alone would make this a very expensive machine, and the iMac has always been the budget option if you leave out the weird iMac Pro. Who would buy an all in one at the same price as a loaded Studio+Display? You’re talking 7-8K for an iMac.

You can get 6k monitors for less than $2k these days. The starting prices for 27" iMacs were not much higher than the prices of similar standalone monitors from other companies. If Apple wanted to make a 32" iMac, I would expect the price of the base model to be somewhere between $2.5k and $3k.

 

[krell100]

You can get 6k monitors for less than $2k these days. The starting prices for 27" iMacs were not much higher than the prices of similar standalone monitors from other companies. If Apple wanted to make a 32" iMac, I would expect the price of the base model to be somewhere between $2.5k and $3k.

Apple is selling a 5k monitor for $1600. Now lets upsize that to 32" (The apple 32" XDR is $5000), add in a custom aluminium chassis, bespoke cooling system, CPU, IO... IMHO I don't see that at 3K.

 

[JouniS]

Apple is selling a 5k monitor for $1600. Now lets upsize that to 32" (The apple 32" XDR is $5000), add in a custom aluminium chassis, bespoke cooling system, CPU, IO... IMHO I don't see that at 3K.

The Studio Display is already a computer. You just can't use it on its own.

A 6k display is ~40% larger than a 5k display. If you keep everything else the same, making a 6k display probably won't be more than ~50% more expensive than a 5k display. So you could have a 6k Studio Display for $2400. Then add a few hundred to replace the A13 with M4 and to add some ports.

The Pro Display XDR is ancient. And it was always intended to be a niche product, which made it far less cost-effective than mass market displays. It was never a good example of what a mass market 6k monitor would cost. Even one meeting Apple's quality standards.

Similarly, a 6k iMac would be ~80% larger than a 4.5k iMac. If manufactured and sold in similar quantities, the starting price of a 6k model might be 2x as high. Or $2600.

 

[tenthousandthings]

J

You can get 6k monitors for less than $2k these days. The starting prices for 27" iMacs were not much higher than the prices of similar standalone monitors from other companies. If Apple wanted to make a 32" iMac, I would expect the price of the base model to be somewhere between $2.5k and $3k.

Yes, I mean the 24" “Retina 4.5K” IPS display in the iMac is a bespoke product, made only for Apple. So another bespoke display, Retina 30" is my guess, isn’t an outlandish idea. They have the power to do it. LG or Samsung could make that for them easily.

 

[komuh]

I can see Apple making some sort of weird resolution and size for new iMacs if they even do one, so you can't buy any custom display with the same resolution/size ratio and they'll try to milk it as "pro" product with basic M4 or maybe M4 pro chip.

 

[theorist9]

There won’t be a 32” iMac. The cost of the display alone would make this a very expensive machine, and the iMac has always been the budget option if you leave out the weird iMac Pro. Who would buy an all in one at the same price as a loaded Studio+Display? You’re talking 7-8K for an iMac.

Doesn't have to be anywhere near that expensive. Doing a back-of-the envelope calculation:

The base 21.5" M4 iMac starts at $1,300. If we scale everything up in proportion to screen area, that would be $1,300 x (32/21.5)^2 = $1,300 x 2.2 = $2,900. That allows for a scaling up of all non-computer materials (display, case, stand, power supply, cooling, speakers, camera, etc.), as well as allowing 2.2 x as much for the SoC/RAM/SSD/ports, which would allow the 32" iMac's starting configuration to be an M# Pro instead of an M#.

Indeed, using current display production techniques, which allow multiple panel sizes to be cut from a single mother glass, the panels for the 32" iMac could be produced on the same production lines as those for the 21.5" iMac, thus taking advantage of economies of scale.

 

[tenthousandthings]

[NOTE: I’ve cleaned up my mess here, but retained the “Mac16,15” information (now with scare quotes, as you can see) even though it is probably an Apple support error.]

Okay, the "Identify your ..." pages are up for the new models, and there is one surprise that undermines our assumptions here in this thread. The M4 Pro Mac mini is listed as “Mac16,15” …

M4

Mac16,1 :: M4 MacBook Pro 14"

Mac16,2 :: M4 iMac (Two ports)
Mac16,3 :: M4 iMac (Four ports)

Mac16,8 :: M4 Pro MacBook Pro 14"
Mac16,6 :: M4 Max MacBook Pro 14"

Mac16,7 :: M4 Pro MacBook Pro 16"
Mac16,5 :: M4 Max MacBook Pro 16"

Mac16,10 :: M4 Mac mini
Mac16,15 :: M4 Pro Mac mini

I'd say that high number means all bets are off. There are now four of the original M4 list unaccounted for, and there could be a Mac16,14, which would leave five M4 identifiers unaccounted for. M4 MacBook Airs seem more than likely, and it looks like M4 really could be the first Mac silicon generation where every current model gets the goods.

As for M5 and Mac17,1 and Mac17,2, it's likely something new. Whether it makes it into production is another question.

 

[Boil]

As for M5 and Mac17,1 and Mac17,2, it's likely something new. Whether it makes it into production is another question.

M5 Extreme Mac Pro Cube...! ;^p

 

[MacPoulet]

M5 Extreme Mac Pro Cube...! ;^p

And a new XServe?

 

[Chancha]

Okay, the "Identify your ..." pages are up for the new models, and there is one surprise that undermines our assumptions here in this thread. The base M4 Mac mini appears to be Mac16,15... It's not clear which is which of the two Mac mini identifiers, but it is confirmed they are Mac16,15 and Mac16,10 (listed in that order, so I've followed that below):

M4

Mac16,1 :: M4 120 (10/10) MacBook Pro 14"

Mac16,2 :: M4 120 (8/8) iMac (Two ports)
Mac16,3 :: M4 120 (10/10) iMac (Four ports)

Mac16,6 :: M4 Pro 273 (12/16, 14/20) MacBook Pro 14"
Mac16,8 :: M4 Max 410 (14/32), 546 (16/40) MacBook Pro 14"

Mac16,7 :: M4 Pro 273 (12/16, 14/20) MacBook Pro 16"
Mac16,5 :: M4 Max 410 (14/32), 546 (16/40) MacBook Pro 16"

Mac16,9 ::

Mac16,10 :: M4 Pro 273 (12/16, 14/20) Mac mini

Mac16,11 ::
Mac16,12 ::
Mac16,13 ::

Mac16,15 :: M4 120 (10/10) Mac mini

I'd say that high number means all bets are off. There are now four of the original M4 list unaccounted for, and there could be a Mac16,14, which would leave five M4 identifiers unaccounted for. M4 MacBook Airs seem more than likely, and it looks like M4 really could be the first Mac silicon generation where every current model gets the goods.

As for M5 and Mac17,1 and Mac17,2, it's likely something new. Whether it makes it into production is another question.

So the Geekbench app just pulls a wrong number? All the benchmark videos / screenshots of the base M4 mini says Mac16,10, within Geeknehch.

EDIT:
Actually not even that. I saw a base M4 mini video, going into macOS System Information and it says Mac16,10.

 

[awsom82]

And a new XServe?

It's possible. First time I think opposite, but at my second take... Apple needs servers to run its own services and do ML workloads. And current Mac Pro is 5U and just wasted expensive space in data center, second – Apple in bad relationships with Nvidia for decades, don't think they buy H100, as they have great chips already at home and market is just wild now – the normal count of chips to run a AI company is measured in hundreds of thousands of TPU nowadays. Just a great time to reveal M5 Xserve. I will buy one in first day.

 

[tenthousandthings]

So the Geekbench app just pulls a wrong number? All the benchmark videos / screenshots of the base M4 mini says Mac16,10, within Geeknehch.

EDIT:
Actually not even that. I saw a base M4 mini video, going into macOS System Information and it says Mac16,10.

Okay, other way around then. [EDIT: Done, confirmed] In the past, those pages have always listed them from low to high, and the 16" entry lists Mac16,7 first, then Mac16,5.

If we can’t take that for granted, then that probably also means the 14" MBP identifiers need to be reversed. [EDIT: Done, also confirmed]

 

[MacPoulet]

It's possible. First time I think opposite, but at my second take... Apple needs servers to run its own services and do ML workloads. And current Mac Pro is 5U and just wasted expensive space in data center, second – Apple in bad relationships with Nvidia for decades, don't think they buy H100, as they have great chips already at home and market is just wild now – the normal count of chips to run a AI company is measured in hundreds of thousands of TPU nowadays. Just a great time to reveal M5 Xserve. I will buy one in first day.

It’ll be strange to have an Xserve that doesn’t sound like a jet engine though…

 

[Chancha]

Okay, other way around then. In the past, those pages have always listed them from low to high, and the 16" entry lists Mac16,7 first, then Mac16,5.

If we can’t take that for granted, then that probably also means the 14" MBP identifiers need to be reversed.

In a 16" M4 Max live stream, I saw the about this Mac saying Mac16,5 MX2W3B/A

 

[Boil]

It's possible. First time I think opposite, but at my second take... Apple needs servers to run its own services and do ML workloads. And current Mac Pro is 5U and just wasted expensive space in data center, second – Apple in bad relationships with Nvidia for decades, don't think they buy H100, as they have great chips already at home and market is just wild now – the normal count of chips to run a AI company is measured in hundreds of thousands of TPU nowadays. Just a great time to reveal M5 Xserve. I will buy one in first day.

And what better machine for AI developers to use as a front-end than a M5 Mac Pro Cube...! ;^p