If they're talking about putting Xeon's in the iMac, maybe this does spell the end of the Mac Pro..
It would be backing pretty far back from the zone the single CPU Mac Pro has been in. Xeon E3 cap out at just 4 cores. Compared to the current top end 12 and possible top end if simply move to equivalent E5 solutions of 16-18 ( E5 2697A or 2697 depending if wanted some base clock boost, 16 core @ 2.6GHz or not. ). So leaving up to 12-14 x86 cores on the table. That is backsliding by
100% ( the total max number of cores current have. ).
You max out at 64GB as opposed to 128+ GB . So leaving 64GB of RAM on the table.
You are limited to probably just 4 TBv3 and bandwidth sharing with the SSD. Xeon E5 only tops out at 4 if keep the 2nd GPU and no bandwidth sharing with base SSD. So leaving Computations GPU and twice as much bandwidth on the table. ( admittedly Apple has done spotty job of fully unleashing the value of the computational GPU. )
Single CPU Mac Pros probably well outsold the dual CPU package versions all along. So leaving a substantive subset of the dual CPU folks behind wasn't walking away for the core of the Mac Pro market. The stuff left on the table above would be. Higher than average RAM , substantially higher bandwidth , substantially higher number of cores for apps not fixated on single core drag racing throughput.
and all that Apple sell from a desktop perspective is 'the Macintosh' - which is basically the iMac, in a variety of configurations.
It's a terrifying prospect.
It is doubtful that Apple will kill off the Mac Mini. They need to decide if the Mac mini is going to continue to try to feed off the MBP for volume components or will shift to the 21" iMac volume support.
The inbetween following state that it is in now has it "lost". However, Apple does need something more affordable.
The Mac Pro seems to have fallen into hobby status. They can still make money at the hobby.
If the notion of the whole desktop line up being just iMac is fead by the "Monitors" move, those monitors were primarily docking stations for the laptops. Apple has been out of the primary Monitor business for almost a decade during which there were more than a couple Mac Min and Mac Pro updates.
Apple has done some kooky things but can't sell anything without a LCD/OLED panel attached to it would be pretty far over the top. ( AppleTV consists of a paneless product and quite likely will continue to do so. So there is no "gotta sell panels or bust" mentality rule. They prefer it, but it isn't absolutely rigid dogma. )
[doublepost=1481668815][/doublepost]
...
As far as an iMac Pro that would replace the Mac Pro, would it necessarily need to have the same basic form factor as the current models or could it be more of a seperate base and screen like the sunflower iMac. This would eliminate some of the potential heat issues.
I have doubts aping MS Surface Studio is high on the to do list at Apple Industrial design. ( and it is laptop like in parameters. A much larger base to deal with the issues is going to impact display movement/placement at some point in growth. )
It is also a deep, deep, deep misreading of the user base. A much higher subset of Mac Pro users have specific monitors they want to work with. Attaching one to a Mac Pro is only good for generating alot of hate. An HDMI output allows an AppleTV to tap into the whole modern TV market. Similarly, some relatively standard outputs a Mac Pro (or Mini) can tap into the quite large and robust 3rd party monitor market ( a far bigger consumer of LCD/OLED panels than Apple every will be). That opens up opportunities for Apple that the iMac doesn't touch.
[doublepost=1481670048][/doublepost]
....
Besides, the single-core performance of Xeons tends to lag behind "enthusiast" chips such as the one used in the present top-end iMac.
Xeon E3 is essentially the same die with features turned off/on. So not necessarily particularly lagging much. Binned and market segmented by Intel perhaps, but lagging? Not particularly.
E3 v6 is leaked to baseline at 3.9GHz at the top end.
https://www.techpowerup.com/225403/intel-xeon-e3-1200-v6-kaby-lake-series-detailed
The current iMac has a 4.0GHz top BTO option. If 0.01GHz is significantly lagging there is a gap. Yes the current iMac is effectively "v5" in relation to this "v6" so Intel is "matching" later.
IMHO, I think Apple is a bit queasy on using unlocked chips. Isn't so much enthusiast as the "high end desktop " options are in the roughly same ballpark as the E5 1600 series ( except at very bottom.... which again is Intel imposed segmentation. )
P.S. the i7-7700K is looking like it will jump to 4.2GHz base but the TDP is also quite high also. Still in the 90+ W range.
http://www.anandtech.com/show/10802/desktop-kaby-lakes-lineup-base-frequencies-chipset-names
Apple getting 3.9 GHz at 20W cheaper would definitely gather their attention given iMac's operational track record on cooling.
