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.
iMac Pro Launched Seven Years Ago Today
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Surely the iMac Pro would would outsell the Mac Pro by a huge margin? How many people really even buy the new Mac Pro for the PCIe ports? I'd imagine the majority of those people would just straight up go for a custom Windows PC build.
On top of that the Mac Pro has so much wasted internal space, they just hot swapped the internals into a case not at all designed for the components. It's such a strange product offering that they could of used the time and resources going towards a new iMac Pro and the M4 Max would've been the perfect debut for it.
On top of that the Mac Pro has so much wasted internal space, they just hot swapped the internals into a case not at all designed for the components. It's such a strange product offering that they could of used the time and resources going towards a new iMac Pro and the M4 Max would've been the perfect debut for it.
If there was a demand for such an iMac, Apple would sell it. Unfortunately, there is none and they will not produce it. They probably have experience and research that it is not worth doing so. If they released such a model, it probably would not sell in sufficient quantity. Whining fanboys will not change that. And the overwhelming majority will choose the MacBook anyway 😀
I agree. The iMac Pro was a stopgap solution. It’s not coming back.
If you want a desktop Mac with higher performance than the M4 iMac, Apple will sell you a Studio/Pro and currently gives you a choice of expensive, high-quality, displays.
This was a weird corporate response to alleviate criticism about lack of a Mac Pro update. (ie. The 'ol "Apple don't care about pros anymore" trope.)
Even if the Mac Studio is as powerful as the "new" Mac Pro, I would STILL buy a Mac Pro if it weren't priced out of this world. I love the internal storage and expandability - much less prone to failures due to reliance on third-party cables and peripherals.
Even if the Mac Studio is as powerful as the "new" Mac Pro, I would STILL buy a Mac Pro if it weren't priced out of this world. I love the internal storage and expandability - much less prone to failures due to reliance on third-party cables and peripherals.
I used to absolutely love iMacs. They still hold the brass ring for one of the most beautifully engineered, and visually stunning desktop machines ever made.
However, like most beautiful standalone machines they are at least a repair/upgrade minefield, and at worst and ecological nightmare.
However, like most beautiful standalone machines they are at least a repair/upgrade minefield, and at worst and ecological nightmare.
I'd buy a bigger-screen iMac first chance i'd get.
Doesn't have to be 6K resolution, as long as it's in the 27-32" range.
And a little more business-looking than the 24" iMacs please.
Doesn't have to be 6K resolution, as long as it's in the 27-32" range.
And a little more business-looking than the 24" iMacs please.
Maybe the devil is in the detail of "base config" but mine definitely came with a Fusion Drive in the 2TB configuration. At one point the HDD portion failed and I had it replaced with an SSD. It gave the machine new life for sure, but at a certain point I couldn't resist upgrading to Apple Silicon.
That was not an iMac Pro. No iMac Pro had Fusion drive. Check again, you had an iMac.
The iMac Pro had the T2 chip and dual SSDs.
I know, and own three iMac Pros. And I have purchased a 2TB kit, a 10-core CPU and 4x 16GB RAM sticks (64GB), that i will use to upgrade my base config
A modern 32" iMac Pro would be $8000+ and would indeed be a sales disaster. Anyone in that performance and price level isn't using an all-in-one.
But a semi-pro (prosumer) 27"? I'd buy another one in a minute.
Discrete graphics is all but meaningless with Apple Silicon. Upgradeability is nice, but the 2013 Mac Pro didn't have that either. There were never new GPUs made for that design.
I think if Apple basically released the Surface Studio with Apple Silicon, they'd sell quite a few of them. Microsoft wanted it to be a mass-market success, which it never could have been, so they killed it off sadly. But Apple will never admit that touch or ink can be useful on a desktop OS, so it will never happen.
I reply to make sure people understand what made the iMac Pro different from the 27" iMacs.
Because I would hope that anybody looking for an AIO mac would consider this as an option.
So many wish for an AIO, but don't like the 24" (neither do I).
And you would have the option to use any macOS from High Sierra and later. And yes, you can install macOS Sequoia 15.2 on it
There are bargains to be found these days. I picked one up for less than $700. 18-core, 2TB, 64GB, Vega 64.
edit: I was not aware that the iMac 27" 2020 model also had the T2 chip and SSD modules 👍
Last edited:
The iMac Pro was SSD only storage, no Fusion Drives ever. The regular 27” iMac had Fusion Drives until the 2020 model which was SSD only storage from 256GB to 8TB because it incorporated the T2 chip for the first time in a regular iMac.
...and that's where the opinion splits.
First - once you accept that user-upgradeable RAM and AMD GPUs were always going away with Apple Silicon - even the M1 Max Studio plus a Studio Display cost about the same as a comparably tricked-out i9 iMac would have done if you had to get the Apple 32GB upgrade, and a lot less than an iMac Pro (which, by that time, was slower than the top-end iMac, let alone the Studio).
Second - at best the Studio+display "costs" you one extra mains cable and one thunderbolt cable to the display. That's assuming that you don't have any other devices connected - if you do the Studio suddenly becomes much neater, with all the cables tucked around the back at desk level rather than dangling from the display and front ports for anything you want to connect on the fly. Ever tried to plug an SD card into an iMac? Yeah.
Now, I'm looking at my 2017 iMac - an out-of-date Intel Mac welded to a still-beautiful 5k display that I can't use with anything else. That display would have been perfect for my M1 Studio, and even the Mac part would be occasionally useful (say, for running Windows or a few bits of old software that don't like Apple Silicon) if it was in a separate box that could be tucked under a desk or something - but, no, I'd have to clear a desk and move the whole iMac on to it.
I would never have bought the 2017 iMac if the choice at the time hadn't been the 2014 worst-mini-ever or the 2013 Trashcan.
I still use my iMac Pro as my main machine (I also have an M3 Air), and it's still going strong. I have been thinking of replacing with an M4 Pro Mac mini, but still on the fence about it. I have a feeling the iMac Pro won't be supported with new macOS releases soon.
Wow !
You just solved a mystery I never figured out.
When Apple announced the Apple Silicon at WWDC 2020, Tim said at the end of the keynote that the transition was going to take about 2 years, but he also said that they had some new Intel-based Macs in the pipeline
Now it all makes sense
Fair point! I had sold my old iMac before it's life ran out and jumped to M series MacBook Pro so I guess its a hard dose of nostalgia but with this you convinced me - a display can certainly live for many years longer than an all-in-one and even after can be relegated to being a second or third display in its late life.
I'll certainly reconsider the Mac Mini/Studio when it's time for an upgrade again!