iMac Pro iMac Pro or wait for Coffee Lake iMac?

[tomscott1988]

I dont really understand the colour utilisation. Nearly every other apple consumer product you can get 3 colours.

Its just cheap of apple to recycle the chassis for the iMac pro with the colour being its only identifier, when its already a gimped design to start with. All the iMac pro is, is a short term solution and was quick to implement to try to keep pro users because the 2013 Mac Pro was thermally gimped. Its obvious a lot of people have migrated and over the last 5 years has cost them in sales.

The mac is in a sad state of repair, im desperate for a new machine but it will have to do for now. I do use windows 50% of the time now and i dont dislike the experience, its genuinely decent alternative these days especially when the creative suite can take advantage of more specific hardware on the windows side etc

If it was the Jobs era the iMac Pro would be its own machine with a killer feature or design over the iMac to make more people WANT it. Instead its a niche product that will sell well in the short term and fall off in the long term as it makes less sense and is ultimately left to rot like the current Mac Pro. Its hilarious that the top tier product is the only product in memory to get a price reduction, its just not apples way... and it needs discounting further.

The illusive mid tower with one of apples amazing CD's would make sense for so many people and bridge the gap. Of corse in apple world this makes no sense because they cant control it and is why they never have.

That's whats missing, the want factor. Every year I feel less and less inclined as products become more and more stagnant as there isnt really anything different just gimicks nobody is bothered about, or solutions to problems that didnt exist. No new features that would actually help people be more productive. Like come on the iPad pro is gagging to be enabled to be used like a wacom for an iMac, or even the macbook pro to be used in the same way.

Hate to say it those microsoft surface products are incredibly compelling to creatives, they work together in tandom like the above and for lightroom work are such a great solution, big screen to see what your doing, stylus with mobile machine to make edits with. Its not even innovation its just aiding productivity, simple stuff that makes these ipads which are just indulgent purchases into actual tools. Its not 2010 anymore time for these products to work better for the £.

The macbook pro is the same, theres nothing pro about that machine at all and yet they cost a third more than they used to. Its wearing thin all the BS. Its a shame there are so many avid sheep that buy regardless that feeds the machine.

 

[Mac32]

Look at what Corsair are doing with their compact One PCs. Great design, both functionally and aesthetically, and gets considerably more performance out of both CPU and GPU, while keeping them a lot cooler (vs. iMac and Mac Pro). And at a much cheaper price, of course. I agree, if Apple don't start to seriously work on their Mac line - both for casual and professional users, it will be taken over by better alternatives - now that PC producers have seriously upped their game with compact PCs.

 

[Bryan Bowler]

I dont really understand the colour utilisation. Nearly every other apple consumer product you can get 3 colours.

I think the Space Gray exterior looks nice and professional, but then again, I'm not too concerned with what color the iMac Pro is offered in. I care about what it can do for my daily workflow and monetary income.

Its just cheap of apple to recycle the chassis for the iMac pro with the colour being its only identifier, when its already a gimped design to start with.

It's quite clear that a massive improvement was made to the thermal management system and it works extremely well. I appreciate the timeless design, but again, I care more about what it can do for my workflow than some aesthetic change that does not mean anything. If you are looking for different curves or a Rose Gold color, the iMac Pro is probably not the right computer for you. It was designed for a different purpose.

If it was the Jobs era the iMac Pro would be its own machine with a killer feature or design over the iMac to make more people WANT it. Instead its a niche product that will sell well in the short term and fall off in the long term as it makes less sense and is ultimately left to rot like the current Mac Pro. Its hilarious that the top tier product is the only product in memory to get a price reduction, its just not apples way... and it needs discounting further.

Yes, it is niche product built purposefully for pro users that like or don't mind using a AIO design. I'm one of them. I need it to accomplish a certain set of work tasks for the next 3'ish years. I'm not sure what you mean by "left to rot". It is an AIO that is, generally-speaking, not very upgradeable. Those of us pro users that actually like the minimalist design will use it for 3-4 years and then move on to another system capable of handling our current day needs and we won't miss a beat. Powerful computers are nothing more than a tool for me to better accomplish my job...they are not objects of art that need to develop into something better years down the road to "prevent rot".

That's whats missing, the want factor. Every year I feel less and less inclined as products become more and more stagnant as there isnt really anything different just gimicks nobody is bothered about, or solutions to problems that didnt exist. No new features that would actually help people be more productive.

If the iMac Pro does not offer anything to make your workflow more productive, then you clearly do not need what it offers. There's nothing wrong with that. Save your hard-earned money and use it on something else you need...or something else that gives you enjoyment.

Its a shame there are so many avid sheep that buy regardless that feeds the machine.

I've come to learn that when these types of comments are made, it usually means "I can't afford this, so I am going to put down the people that choose to buy one". There's no need to be jealous my friend. It's ok if the iMac Pro is not the right powerhouse for you. There are plenty of Windows-based PCs that you can choose from to better fit your needs or budget, or perhaps the next Mac Pro will be an attractive option for you. In the meantime, there's no need to bash on those that need or want the iMac Pro as it stands today. Different horses for different courses is what I like to say and I'm glad we have choices to choose from.

 

[tomscott1988]

I think the Space Gray exterior looks nice and professional, but then again, I'm not too concerned with what color the iMac Pro is offered in. I care about what it can do for my daily workflow and monetary income.



It's quite clear that a massive improvement was made to the thermal management system and it works extremely well. I appreciate the timeless design, but again, I care more about what it can do for my workflow than some aesthetic change that does not mean anything. If you are looking for different curves or a Rose Gold color, the iMac Pro is probably not the right computer for you. It was designed for a different purpose.



Yes, it is niche product built purposefully for pro users that like or don't mind using a AIO design. I'm one of them. I need it to accomplish a certain set of work tasks for the next 3'ish years. I'm not sure what you mean by "left to rot". It is an AIO that is, generally-speaking, not very upgradeable. Those of us pro users that actually like the minimalist design will use it for 3-4 years and then move on to another system capable of handling our current day needs and we won't miss a beat. Powerful computers are nothing more than a tool for me to better accomplish my job...they are not objects of art that need to develop into something better years down the road to "prevent rot".



If the iMac Pro does not offer anything to make your workflow more productive, then you clearly do not need what it offers. There's nothing wrong with that. Save your hard-earned money and use it on something else you need...or something else that gives you enjoyment.



I've come to learn that when these types of comments are made, it usually means "I can't afford this, so I am going to put down the people that choose to buy one". There's no need to be jealous my friend. It's ok if the iMac Pro is not the right powerhouse for you. There are plenty of Windows-based PCs that you can choose from to better fit your needs or budget, or perhaps the next Mac Pro will be an attractive option for you. In the meantime, there's no need to bash on those that need or want the iMac Pro as it stands today. Different horses for different courses is what I like to say and I'm glad we have choices to choose from.

I think youve completely missed the point of my post.

You just come across very condescending and a bitter purchaser. Really what you mean is its the best that you could buy and really its not ideal... then having to justify "your" wait "we as pros" purchase to people that cant afford it apparently! LOL

My post was about the reasons of its conception and the decisions made are entirely not like Apple and the passion is gone. No thought apart from technicalities were given to this machine at all. It is a parts bin special.

The fact is this is a niche product and as a marketer if you want something to succeed then it needs to sell otherwise it gets left like the whole desktop mac line up. Hence why using the iMac design almost to the T with only the colour as the definitive factor doesn't cut it and was a desperate attempt to stop migration of pros by offering something close to modern hardware.

Theres been no launch, no advertising, no nothing. Its like to they dont want anyone to know about it... does that sound like apple. No circus, no nothing.

AIOs arent pro machines im sorry, if you are a pro within those 3 years your needs will change and the fact you can make no upgrades without destroying your warranty is ludicrous. Spending £5-600 on an array to actually have some storage for the thing is ridiculous, and any pro needs redundancy add another two then populate them with drives.

After those 3 years you cant even use that lovely display for another machine... just crazy.

When you go into an apple store the only way someone will identify a difference is the price because all apple products come in 3 colours. Otherwise it looks exactly the same as the 5K sat next to it with less upgradability which makes it all the more humorous.

We will end up in the same position again like the nMac Pro. It will sell well for the short term and then sales will plummet meaning apple will bench it, like the mac pro and the mac mini.

Your last sentence says it all "Different horses for different courses is what I like to say and I'm glad we have choices to choose from"

There arent options to choose from, 5 year old mac pro that was 18 month old tech when it was released or an AIO.

It doesn't come down to affordability it comes down to where is your money best spent. I want a better solution from apple.

Dont get me wrong is nice... its just not ideal and to a lot of pros will be exactly that a compromise because spending 3-4k on a 5 year old mac pro is stupid. The fact its still for sale is also ridiculous.

But obviously I cant afford it have no experience and have no idea so ye...

 

[Bryan Bowler]

I think youve completely missed the point of my post.

You just come across very condescending and a bitter purchaser. Really what you mean is its the best that you could buy and really its not ideal... then having to justify "your" wait "we as pros" purchase to people that cant afford it apparently! LOL

???

I'm not sure what you read or how you interpreted it, but allow me to be very clear: I am very happy with what the iMac Pro offers and I am completely happy to add it to my workflow. I don't have an ounce of bitterness towards it and I'm excited about what it can do for me. It will be very beneficial to my work as a visual content creator that works on very tight timelines. I am waiting about two more weeks to see how the 18-core system is performing for some colleagues of mine and then I will place my order, either a 10-core or 18- core system.

My post was about the reasons of its conception and the decisions made are entirely not like Apple and the passion is gone. No thought apart from technicalities were given to this machine at all. It is a parts bin special.

The fact is this is a niche product and as a marketer if you want something to succeed then it needs to sell otherwise it gets left like the whole desktop mac line up. Hence why using the iMac design almost to the T with only the colour as the definitive factor doesn't cut it and was a desperate attempt to stop migration of pros by offering something close to modern hardware.

Again, I'm not sure why you're focused on the exterior color. Leave the color options for the iOS devices. This is a workstation for getting advanced and heavy-hitting computing tasks done.

Theres been no launch, no advertising, no nothing. Its like to they dont want anyone to know about it... does that sound like apple. No circus, no nothing.

Where were you from June through December?

AIOs arent pro machines im sorry, if you are a pro within those 3 years your needs will change and the fact you can make no upgrades without destroying your warranty is ludicrous. Spending £5-600 on an array to actually have some storage for the thing is ridiculous, and any pro needs redundancy add another two then populate them with drives.

The iMac Pro works just fine for me (and many others I know) and I say this with a giant dose of humbleness, but I am a full-time content creator and I make my entire living off what I do. Making a living off this thing is what I classify as a pro user. I'm not worried about what will come in 3- years. I will take a look at my needs and what's available, and then make a decision accordingly.

As for storage, I enjoy my RAID arrays. Fast, large, redundant (I have three of them, all backing each other up.) And I like the portability of moving them to another system if need be.

Sure, it would be nice if the next Mac Pro was available as a choice, but its not...and there is nothing to suggest when it will arrive or what it will be. The wheels of my business will not wait to see what's coming later this year or next. For now, the iMac Pro will serve my needs well and I'm pleased with the components and design. Obviously, you're not happy with the iMac Pro and that's absolutely cool if its not a good choice for you, but to simply bash on other's choices when they have different needs or priorities than you is not cool.

Time to head out and film for the day. The light is great outside and I'm looking forward to being creative in the fresh air. Best wishes to you for a good weekend.

 

[trsblader]

So I guess it all boils down to: when the Coffee Lake iMacs are released, how will processing power compare to the then-current entry level iMac Pro?

You could probably get a decent idea of this by looking on geek bench. Hackintosh’s are running all the coffee lake cpus with a lot of people going for the 8700k. At the stock 3.7 GHz on the 8700k I benchmarked 26k vs the base model iMac Pro’s 30k.

You could try to compare other coffee lake cpus and different frequencies as well if you had some time to search.

 

[Mac32]

Problem is, we don't know how long we'll have to wait. It could be 4 months, or it could be well into 2019. The last update took 20 months. There is no set upgrade cycle for the iMac, unlike the iPhone. If Apple wants to continue using the top i7 CPU model, ie. the 8700K, they would need to do something with the design and the cooling system. Alternatively, they could ditch the top CPU, but then I think they'd have to justify it with a more modern, compact design. The iMac is at a crossroads right now IMO, the next model will most like be something different. Yet, there have been very few rumours about the next iMac generation so far.

 

[richinaus]

???

I'm not sure what you read or how you interpreted it, but allow me to be very clear: I am very happy with what the iMac Pro offers and I am completely happy to add it to my workflow. I don't have an ounce of bitterness towards it and I'm excited about what it can do for me. It will be very beneficial to my work as a visual content creator that works on very tight timelines. I am waiting about two more weeks to see how the 18-core system is performing for some colleagues of mine and then I will place my order, either a 10-core or 18- core system.



Again, I'm not sure why you're focused on the exterior color. Leave the color options for the iOS devices. This is a workstation for getting advanced and heavy-hitting computing tasks done.



Where were you from June through December?



The iMac Pro works just fine for me (and many others I know) and I say this with a giant dose of humbleness, but I am a full-time content creator and I make my entire living off what I do. Making a living off this thing is what I classify as a pro user. I'm not worried about what will come in 3- years. I will take a look at my needs and what's available, and then make a decision accordingly.

As for storage, I enjoy my RAID arrays. Fast, large, redundant (I have three of them, all backing each other up.) And I like the portability of moving them to another system if need be.

Sure, it would be nice if the next Mac Pro was available as a choice, but its not...and there is nothing to suggest when it will arrive or what it will be. The wheels of my business will not wait to see what's coming later this year or next. For now, the iMac Pro will serve my needs well and I'm pleased with the components and design. Obviously, you're not happy with the iMac Pro and that's absolutely cool if its not a good choice for you, but to simply bash on other's choices when they have different needs or priorities than you is not cool.

Time to head out and film for the day. The light is great outside and I'm looking forward to being creative in the fresh air. Best wishes to you for a good weekend.

Exactly. If it improves your workflow as a professional, then it is a great buy. It was for me also, and as far as i can see so far, worth every penny.

I wonder why people need to think a pro machine needs to be a tower. There is nothing i need to change, and will just do my normal thing of upgrading the machine each year. Works for me.

 

[theluggage]

I dont really understand the colour utilisation. Nearly every other apple consumer product you can get 3 colours.

Offering multiple colours complicates the logistics by (effectively) creating three versions of each model, and complicated logistics cost money. The lower the volume of sales, the less of an issue this is. E.g. if the Apple Store in Madeuptown sells 20 entry-level iPhones a day but only one 5k iMac a week, they'll happily carry a substantial stock of iPhones in multiple colours, but won't want to carry three times more iMacs than they're likely to sell (or to lose an iMac sale because they don't have the right colour). Even with online sales - the ratio is going to be similar and the right number of machines of each colour have to be shipped to international distribution centres.

All the iMac pro is, is a short term solution and was quick to implement to try to keep pro users because the 2013 Mac Pro was thermally gimped.

Possibly - but although the case is identical, the internals are significantly different, they weren't designed overnight.

That's whats missing, the want factor. Every year I feel less and less inclined as products become more and more stagnant

Well, to a point that's what happens when a technology starts to mature after a couple of decades of exponential development. The industry isn't doing a very good job of adjusting from "if it works it's obsolete" to "if it ain't broke, don't fix it".

There must have come a point, sometime in the 20th century, when (say) the automatic washing machine turned from the cutting edge of disruptive technology, transforming society beyond recognition (especially that portion of society that was previously expected to spend 1-2 days a week pounding a tub full of dirty sheets with a stick) to a boring white box that everybody has and only replaces every 10-15 years when the old one rusts away. Personal computers have now reached that point: unless you're doing one of a handful of specialised jobs (serious 4k+ video editing, mining cryptocurrency, playing Call of Duty at 150fps with the settings maxed out) your 6-year-old computer is still doing the job you bought it for.

Hate to say it those microsoft surface products are incredibly compelling

Had a fling with a Surface Book after the 2016 MBPs came out and were ~meh.
Interesting experience, but... wish I'd googled "sleep of death" before making that decision.
Apart from that - OS X is still just that little bit nicer for the things I need to do.

 

[tomscott1988]

I’m not suggesting there should be more colours im saying that to a potential user there is no difference in design to a standard 5k iMac, therefore it is easy to suggest that Apple sells multiple colours like the other products and it’s easily overlooked.

This is not apples tradition to distinguish a product. If it had its own design it would be more of a statement. As it is it blends with the rest of the lineup when really it’s something different entirely inside an iMac chassis.

It just shows the lack of thought in my mind and the rush to get something out. Like I said a parts bin special making the most of what they had. The fact there is no ram door... like come on. Like hitting your head against a brick wall it’s meant to be a pro machine!

It could have been something really impressive and be more of a pro machine instead it’s ok, a short term solution using what was available instead it will be short lived and forgotten after the initial interest has peaked. They have just made it more niche and more expensive in the long term, spending 3k on storage solutions then another 1.5k on external GPUs down the line. Even current Mac Pro owners would need to ditch the £1000s of arrays to take advantage of TB3.

A traditional tower would leap frog all that... again solutions to problems that shouldn’t be problems to make you pay more. Give me a normal GPU, give me 4 storage bays... Why would anyone be happy with that or am I missing something...

You say oh ok worry about the upgrade path later, the Mac Pro is a prime example of a product that Apple has left behind, it’s not so difficult to imagine the iMac pro being exactly the same. 5-6 year refresh because the chassis isn’t suitable for the next generation of hardware. Yes the thermal design is better but if it were a decent chassis they could have fit more components, have less custom chips and given more options to make the product appeal to more users.

It’s not just content creators that would have bought this machine, prosumers, people who just want the fastest Mac money can buy etc by giving it more options it wouldn’t be a niche machine.

The more it sells and the more popular it is then Apple might take it seriously and give us more than a 5-6 year upgrade path.

I’m a photographer and graphic designer. I shoot weddings events and commercial photography and run through 16tb easy every year especially with 30-50mp files now a days. 48TB including a backup and offsite backup.

I also work as a graphic and motion graphic designer and want something that I can upgrade the graphics card to something I want not a middle of the road card.

As a modern multimedia creative I’m sure im not the only one who feels the same.

I’m not hating on people that bought it, just disappointed that this is the best Apple can do when they have more resources than any other company on the planet.

 

[unobtainium]

I think there will be Space Grey iMacs with Coffee Lake and ARM co-processors sooner rather than later. I don’t think Apple put all that work into the new cooling system etc. just for the iMac Pro, which is a stopgap for pro users. I think they intend to use it on refreshed iMacs. I’ll be waiting until June at least, I guess if there’s no update then I may buy a 2017 model.

 

[iMacDonald]

I think there will be Space Grey iMacs with Coffee Lake and ARM co-processors sooner rather than later. I don’t think Apple put all that work into the new cooling system etc. just for the iMac Pro, which is a stopgap for pro users. I think they intend to use it on refreshed iMacs. I’ll be waiting until June at least, I guess if there’s no update then I may buy a 2017 model.

It's an interesting point. It makes sense with HDDs surely being dropped soon.
Maybe I can hold off, but I sure would like a new iMac now.

Do they get announced at the WWDC usually? Seeing that is beginning of June and March is just around the corner, guess it's only 3 months of chugging on with my Macbook Pro with external display. It's been pretty good for the last 5 years but need something beefier for sure.

 

[sublunar]

2017 iMacs were introduced in June. The suitable Coffee Lake CPUs with 6 cores for a 2018 model are already on sale, and that just leaves us with a suitable AMD GPU which is NOT the much vaunted Vega 56 and 64. People should be more aware of the fact that adopting the iMac Pro cooling design (a very logical move) will eliminate the RAM access door from the 27" models of 2018.

There's very little reason for the iMacs to be delayed past June just for GPU even though October has been used for Mac hardware refreshes in recent history. I've mentioned elsewhere that Apple may want to factor in a launch for the modular Mac Pro (and Mac Mini) and WWDC seems the logical place to do that. Launching this year's iMacs may have to fit into that schedule along with the much vaunted Apple displays which will undoubtedly be Thunderbolt 3 equipped.

The final point to consider is that Apple will probably have to accommodate hard drives on the standard iMac even though they run hot, take up more space, and aren't currently compatible with the new APFS file system even as part of a Fusion Drive - on sheer cost vs storage alone.

 

[TheIntruder]

I've decided to wait for CL, but am going to hedge my bets by ordering a KL with a return period to coincide with WWDC in June.

If nothing new, or compelling, appears, then I'll just keep the machine. To me, the biggest risk is losing user-accessible RAM, but even that isn't a deal breaker. Since I'm opting for an SSD, I'm stuck dealing directly with Apple or one of their ADs anyway and can adjust.

The upside? Six cores and a hardware fix for Meltdown/Spectre (though unlikely).

In a perfect world, Apple would make SSD and more RAM standard, but it's Apple we're talking about, and it took them how many iPhone iterations to admit that their base storage configs were being outpaced by user habits? And I very much doubt we'll see anything but an internal update; the form factor may be getting long in the tooth, but I think it will remain.

Historically, the May/June and Oct/Nov time frames for new models to arrive. Not quite as predictable as the days of MacWorld Expo, but it's something to go on.

 

[tomscott1988]

I think if they adopt the 6 core and the thermal cooling of the iMac pro it will be a great machine and will keep itself cool. Its the same argument I had before if they do this for 90% of users this will make much more sense than the iMac pro and will still likely be much cheaper roughly £3500-4000 vs £5000.

It would make the iMac pro even more niche than it already is, so im struggling to see why apple would do this. I think the macbook pro and iMac will stay quad as a top end option and the iMac pro and Mac Pro will get the 6+ core options.

The only way I can see Apple keeping a reason for them to be around.

This is basically what I was talking about earlier, they could make the one machine that can thermally take up to X processor and work down, make it much more configurable the option from i5 through to the Xeon like pretty much every other manufacturer does, then at least its not gimping its own products and making one product more niche than the other.

At least then there will be a reason for them to upgrade it every 18 months rather than leave it 3-5 years.

For most people the i series has more benefits than the xeon and the server grade components are that much more expensive obviously there is reason for the latter also so it would make sence to me to allow people to spec those machines to their config.

Its not unreasonable to think that 16gbs of ram could be a baseline but I doubt apple will go this route and will still offer 8gbs as standard. There is also no reason for the standard iMac to loose its ram door, the dims are half the size and like the 2008, 2010, 2012 mac pro what would stop them using a riser card that can then be located off the motherboard to allow it.

It would be nice to assume that 512gb SSD could be the baseline option now the iMac pro is 1TB as standard, but again I would say the HDD situation will be similar which is a ball ache.

It would be nice if they decided to keep the HDD options as a baseline for them to offer more configuration.

For example have a dual option instead of an SSD or a HDD or a combined fusion drive (I know you can split but 128gb SSD is nothing these days). Say a 4-10tb drive with the option of a 1-4tb SSD also. Just means the data heavy users have more of an option than a 128gb ssd combined with a HDD and means less clutter on the desk with raids and external disks. It would actually make these machines much more usable to more people and would make heavy users save £1000 right off the bat for a TB3 raid and disk population as you have that option in the machine and would only need to buy one as a backup.

There is still a long way that apple could go with these machines to make them suit more people.

I dont really get what they are protecting, the iMac is now 'THE' machine with the iMac pro. They always gimped the iMacs so they didnt ruin the Mac Pro line but for the time being it doesnt exist so why not just go to town get rid of the mac pro..

Lets be honest when and if the new Mac Pro comes it isnt going to be like the traditional Mac Pro because thats not how they operate it will probably be the same as the iMac Pro in terms of spec without a screen and they will charge you more for what ever upgradablity it may have. Then similar to the nMP it wont have a graphic card option it will be a custom board which you can only get an upgrade from apple and then they will probably never offer one... just like the nMP.

 

[Glmnet1]

I think the macbook pro and iMac will stay quad as a top end option and the iMac pro and Mac Pro will get the 6+ core options.

This is not going to happen because all the new generation of suitable CPUs for the 15" MBP and the iMac are now at least 6 cores.

 

[tomscott1988]

This is not going to happen because all the new generation of suitable CPUs for the 15" MBP and the iMac are now at least 6 cores.

Interesting. Guessing all the Coffee lake processors will have hyper threading too.

 

[Glmnet1]

Interesting. Guessing all the Coffee lake processors will have hyper threading too.

No, only the i7.

I was thinking similarly recently that Apple can't possibly allow a i7 6/12 in the iMac when the base iMac Pro has a Xeon 8/16 but a few users here on MR made me realize that it is quite possible to have such a lineup. The iMac Pro is meant to be a niche product, regular users don't need Xeon and ECC etc. And for pro users who could use that kind of features the price is quite reasonable and they are also getting a much better GPU with it.

The only other possibility I could see is that they dumb down the iMac. They could make it slimmer (maybe even reduce that big chin) with less cooling capabilities than the iMac Pro and remove a few of the top-end CPU options that have a higher TDP (the i5-8700k and the i7-8700k).

 

[tomscott1988]

Problem is the current design is already struggling with heat. Its a desktop theres no real reason for it to be any thinner. If anything I would rather have a larger machine to ensure its cooled adequately. Especially the K versions of the cpu.

This thread has been up for a few days

https://forums.macrumors.com/thread...tly-hitting-100c.2097254/page-2#post-25826498

In terms of the design it would be nice to see something new. Its an old design now it is time for a refresh.

 

[iamchrisstone]

This is my machine and set up. MUCH cheaper than an iMac Pro. I do 4k video and 360 degree photo and video with no issues. i used to do music and personally i think this machine wouldnt have a single issue with any music work. just my opinion

Machine
iMac (Retina 5K, 27-inch, 2017)
macOS High Sierra
Version 10.13.3
4.2 GHz Intel Core i7
64 GB 2400 MHz DDR4
500 GB SSD
Radeon Pro 580 8 GB

External 3 USB3 slots with 27 card reader mounted under the iMac

Displays (total of 3)
27-inch (5120 x 2880) (the iMac)
Dual LG Ultra HD Display 27-inch (3840 x 2160)

Storage
Super Drive - I still haven't used it yet, but at least I have it.

500 GB Flash Storage (Macintosh HD) used for programs and stuff that stays on the iMac

WD 8TB External HDD - used for every day storage such as pics, documents and stuff most people keep on their machines..

1 TB External SSD (I forget exactly which one) - used for my work flow if all the footage is smaller than 1 TB

12 TB External HDD RAID 0 - used for my work flow if all material is over 1 TB; This runs pretty fast, but still nothing compared to SSD. Will upgrade to a large SSD RAID setup later this year.

Backup
I use BackBlaze. It backs up all of my iMac and 1 external (I have it backup my 8TB)

Time Machine - I have a 4 TB WD My Passport I used for Time Machine because I also have an iMac at the office and a Macbook Pro, so I partitioned it and use Time Machine at least once a week on all machines.

 

[joema2]

Problem is the current design is already struggling with heat. Its a desktop theres no real reason for it to be any thinner. If anything I would rather have a larger machine to ensure its cooled adequately. Especially the K versions of the cpu...

As shown in that thread, the current (ie 2017) iMac 27 design is not generally struggling with the heat, and many of the incorrect statements are because people don't have personal experience with the 2017 iMac.

The fans spin up in the 2017 i7 iMac but that's not "struggling with the heat" any more than when fans run on a tower PC. I have a tower PC under my desk with Noctua CPU cooler, Noctua fans and two slow-turning 200mm case fans. Yet if I simultaneously run Prime95 and Furmark GPU stress for 1 hr it gets a lot louder.

Re "no real reason for it to be any thinner", to my knowledge there are no plans to make the iMac any thinner than it currently is. I guess that's possible but I've never seen any rumors on that.

Contrary to the many posts on this forum saying it's impossible to make a thin machine that runs cool and quiet, the iMac Pro shows it is possible. Hopefully that same cooling technology will be incorporated into new iMacs, but we'll have to wait and see.

 

[sublunar]

Compared to a regular iMac the iMac Pro could be considered a 'fully loaded' iMac by many people's standards and gimping a standard 27" iMac to 8Gb when the RAM isn't user upgradable would be pretty poor for Apple but not entirely unsurprising. It would move the already high prices further north.

Fusion drives are already standard across iMac 27" models, and the starting price would only get ridiculous if SSD were to become standard across the board. Perhaps Apple would consider a 512Gb SSD on the top SKU - I can't see them offering dual SSD RAID - that sounds like the sort of thing that should be left exclusive to the iMac Pro.

Once the 27" iMac traps the RAM inside it leaves the 2013 Mac Pro as the last remaining Mac with user replaceable RAM - and potentially upgradable internal storage.

With this in mind, the replacement modular Mac Pro should come with replaceable RAM and storage but rather than offering a low-ball spec which users would deliberately purchase with an eye on adding their own (cheaper) RAM and storage perhaps Apple should take a leaf out of the iMac Pro book and offer a generous pro-level spec from the start.

32Gb RAM and 1Tb SSD on a starter unit for example - even if it means the base price is pushing $4k.

That way, people who really need to replace RAM can do so and cheapskates can look for a more appropriate platform.

What if this platform were the Mac Mini which would follow the trajectory of the current model. Low spec, captive RAM and storage, but lower start price. Who knows what price range a Mini will start at - it depends largely on what specs Apple choose to sell...

 

[Glmnet1]

Fusion drives are already standard across iMac 27" models, and the starting price would only get ridiculous if SSD were to become standard across the board. Perhaps Apple would consider a 512Gb SSD on the top SKU - I can't see them offering dual SSD RAID - that sounds like the sort of thing that should be left exclusive to the iMac Pro.

Yes, but the standard 1tb comes with a very small 32gb ssd, if they decide to keep the fusion drives they should at least put back the 128gb in it.

The starting price with SSD wouldn't be ridiculous. They are currently charging 100$ to replace the 1tb fusion with a 256gb SSD and 300$ for a 512gb SSD.

 

[c0ppo]

The fans spin up in the 2017 i7 iMac but that's not "struggling with the heat" any more than when fans run on a tower PC. I have a tower PC under my desk with Noctua CPU cooler, Noctua fans and two slow-turning 200mm case fans. Yet if I simultaneously run Prime95 and Furmark GPU stress for 1 hr it gets a lot louder.

It gets louder after 1h of simultaneously running Prime95 and Furmark? Well, my i7 iMac (2017) used to get loud with just browsing, watching movies and playing music. I really doubt that's even remotely comparable

 

[joema2]

It gets louder after 1h of simultaneously running Prime95 and Furmark? Well, my i7 iMac (2017) used to get loud with just browsing, watching movies and playing music. I really doubt that's even remotely comparable

It gets louder long before that. I'm talking about people who run many threads of the "Yes" stress test on an Mac then complain about it getting loud. Yes it gets loud, just like most PCs when you put them under high sustained stress.

My 2017 i7 iMac almost never gets loud just browsing, watching movies or playing music -- provided I use Safari. If you are using Chrome, it's much less efficient, and it's conceivable in some cases the machine is under high computational stress and you were unaware of this.

E.g, there are 8k videos on Youtube that if played on an 2017 i7 iMac using in Chrome on macOS Sierra will definitely cause high CPU stress and spin up the fans. Example:

Chrome evidently doesn't support hardware-assisted decoding of the VP9 codec on Mac, so "just playing a video" becomes an extreme stress test. If I play that video at 8k in Chrome on my 10-core iMac Pro it's very CPU intensive but the fans don't spin up because the cooling system is better. But that is merely hiding a software efficiency problem -- it still nearly pegs all 10 cores. Loud or quiet, it's not a desirable situation.

This video does the same thing on my big tower PC if played back in Chrome. It pegs every CPU core at 100% and the fans eventually spin up, just like an iMac. This is despite having a Noctua NH-D14 cooler, Noctua case fans and two 200mm case fans.

This is a known issue on Youtube caused by the VP9 codec and software which doesn't support hardware-assisted decoding of that: https://9to5mac.com/2017/01/12/youtube․com-no-longer-supports-4k-video-playback-in-safari/

You could argue that Safari should support hardware-assisted VP9 decoding above 1440p resolution, but even on High Sierra it doesn't yet do that.

So if you mean cases like that, it's not "just...watching movies". Under the covers those are actually severe tests if whoever wrote the playback software does not use hardware-assisted decoding of Long GOP codecs like HEVC or Google's VP9 or AV1.

The same would apply if watching 4k or above HEVC/H265 content from local downloaded files. If it's not played back on a system with full support for hardware decoding it will be a backdoor CPU stress test. On High Sierra, Quicktime supports 4k 8-bit HEVC playback so if you are watching HEVC video files in Quicktime it should be efficient. If you are using Sierra, that did not have HEVC support, regardless of hardware. If your hardware doesn't support HEVC acceleration it will be highly inefficient, regardless of software.