iMac Pro?

[Chicane-UK]

Lloyd Chambers, who is a photographer, did a comparison between his 8 core 2013 Mac Pro and a 5k iMac and the iMac held it's own for all but the most demanding operations for Lightroom and Photoshop. I have seen many posts from people who chose an iMac over a Mac Pro for graphic arts and a couple from people who actually use one for video. That being the case, I could see Apple trying to make the iMac a bit more powerful and letting the Mac Pro become history.

It would simplify the Mac lineup to a MacBook, MacBook Pro and iMac which are probably much stronger sellers than the Mac Pro and cater more to the average consumer. I think the writing is basically on the wall when they showed a MacBook Pro hooked up to multiple monitors and hard drive enclosures.

What just saddens me is that Apple could still make a Mac Pro, with ridiculous specs.. and I'm sure they would sell more than their fair share (if they didn't go full lunatic on the pricing....) even if only to be used as a halo device. It's not like they don't have the money or the resources. And it's not like their most loyal customers don't deserve it. Instead they just seem determined to cut everything to the bone, whilst taking a hot dump on people who've been buying their hardware for years and built them up financially to the point of being able to go down this obsession with iDevices.

Thankfully I'm not too invested in the Apple ecosystem.. so whilst my disappointment is huge about what Apple are doing, purely from the perspective of someone who is a tech enthusiast, it doesn't affect me too badly. My only direct Apple tie in was that I'd started to use their Photo's app to import and manage my pictures, and now I need to go through the pain of getting them all out of there and into an equivilant Windows app. Shame.

 

[iDento]

Xeon does not make something Pro.

Correct me if I'm wrong but Xeon processors don't work without Dedicated GPU.

So, Xeon means powerful processing with multiple cores and a dedicated GPU, if that doesn't make a computer PRO then what does?

 

[lowendlinux]

At Apple noise levels?

Macs aren't that quiet and the get really loud at full speed.

Yes they can do it at less than Apple noise levels

 

[Jordidh]

Maybe Apple, the best should they do, is the same in workstation market as do in Monitors, out of business and take a business agreement with HP to sell Mac Os with the Z840. This machine is all I can need but operating system....

Apple is out of that the pros need and want, from years ago it's like a cool expensive toys to me... nMP included.

 

[kschendel]

Macs aren't that quiet and the get really loud at full speed.

?????

The entire reason I use a Mac Pro (4,1) is the almost inaudible noise level (I run linux on it most of the time), and I can have it running at 100% all cores for a few hours on end when running DBMS stress tests. Most of the existing noise is very quiet bearing hiss from one of the two disk drives. So I don't know what "really loud" you are talking about.

 

[AidenShaw]

Correct me if I'm wrong but Xeon processors don't work without Dedicated GPU.

So, Xeon means powerful processing with multiple cores and a dedicated GPU, if that doesn't make a computer PRO then what does?

Some of the E3 Xeons have integrated GPUs.

None of the E5 Xeons used in the MP6,1 have integrated GPUs.

 

[Michael Scrip]

At Apple noise levels?

Here's the thing... with a decent heatsink and adequate airflow... even giant CPU and GPU fans don't have to spin at full speed.

My Windows tower has a ton of fans... yet I never hear them even at full load. That's due to the reasons above.

On the other hand... have you heard the fans on some of Apple's "thin" computers?

The problem is the any doors and the venting are all squeezed into that "hidden" zone. Part of the iMacs problem is pulling hotter air down to be expelled a bit more than half way down. Most of the heat now goes relatively straight out (from CPU and GPU), but lots of other flow goes up , then pulled back down. This is part of the "can't have any visible vents" that has tripped up the Macbook Pro too.

Mac Mini ( bottom. and minimal part of the back. )

The Mac Pro suffers slightly from this too in that the vast bulk of the top area is not dedicated to venting. A bit more air mass throughput area and enhanced radiative heat ( away fro from the radio RF arrays ) would help. There are vents but effects to take eyes away from them.

So it sounds like some Macs have to make airflow tradeoffs due to the case design.

Again... I believe these problems could be fixed by not trying to make the thinnest desktop computer ever.

The folks who want to fold it down to a 20 angle probably would care. The folks would would want to to fold down to 15 would probably care even more on top of that.

Not a whole lot if banging into the back of the screen. An iMac wouldn't fold down so wouldn't be an issue, but is definitely is one for MS. The dual arms to the side do't provide a hiding place though.

If Microsoft had decided to make the base thicker... the monitor-arm would have been designed along with it.

The monitor wouldn't be banging into the base if it was meant to be that way.

The fundamental fact is that most people want smaller computers. Some don't, but bulk of the market is moving that way.

If they want a smaller computer... get an Intel NUC for $600 and strap it to the back of a monitor.

But don't sell a $3,000 computer that has a "pro computer" price tag and yet doesn't perform like one.

Especially if they have to share their limited desktop space with the computer. Larger computer footprint means less roam for other things.

An iMac with a thicker back or a Surface Studio with a thicker base would not affect the footprint.

But if your desk is that small... maybe you shouldn't get either of these 27" or 28" monsters.

 

[JimGoshorn]

This is the same sorta problem that the Surface Studio has. They put all the computer guts in the tiny base at the bottom. But it didn't have to be so tiny.

The base could be twice as thick and nobody would care.

The design has a purpose though. They made it narrow so you could lower the screen down to a 20 degree angle which approximates the angle of a drafting table. What Microsoft could do is use that basic design but allow the user to connect the monitor to a PC so it would have all the functionality but the base would only be there to balance the screen.

 

[Michael Scrip]

The design has a purpose though. They made it narrow so you could lower the screen down to a 20 degree angle which approximates the angle of a drafting table.

Yeah... I now realize if the whole case was thicker that it wouldn't let the screen be so low. My bad.

But look at all the extra room when the screen is lowered?

Maybe they could have made the case angled to fit in better components with more airflow? Or made the case shallower and taller? Something?

All I know is they made a $3,000 to $4,200 desktop computer with its components in a case only 1" thick. Crazy.

They had to use a mobile GPU in order to cram it in such a thin case.

In my opinion... that's a bad tradeoff. Especially in an expensive machine that's supposed to be a graphics workstation.

The words "thin" and "desktop" don't belong together.

 

[JimGoshorn]

In my opinion... that's a bad tradeoff. Especially in an expensive machine that's supposed to be a graphics workstation.

The words "thin" and "desktop" don't belong together.

Considering that that is a first effort, it's still pretty damn good. Do you think Tim and company would have come out with something like that? Apple insists that users wouldn't favor touch screens but look at Wacom's success with the Cintiq. Properly done, I think it could be a Cintiq killer if Microsoft makes it just a screen with computer connections.

 

[Michael Scrip]

Considering that that is a first effort, it's still pretty damn good. Do you think Tim and company would have come out with something like that?

Honestly? Apple would make it "thin" too.

I'm just some guy who doesn't work for either giant corporation. But I still know you that you can't cram powerful components into a tiny enclosure and expect the kind of results that the pricetag indicates.

Properly done, I think it could be a Cintiq killer if Microsoft makes it just a screen with computer connections.

Exactly. Sell the Studio Monitor separate and let people choose the computer they want to connect it to.

I don't think there are many people connecting their Cintiqs to a weak computer with a mobile GPU.

So that's why I think it's sad that Microsoft is shackling an underpowered computer to such a gorgeous display.

How much of the $3,000-$4,200 Surface Studio is the screen? I bet Microsoft could sell the screen alone for $2,000 or whatever. Then you'd connect it to your monster workstation.

I'm obviously not a big fan of the "all-in-one" in general. Oh it'll be fine for the first few years... but eventually the screen still looks great but the computer inside is woefully outdated. Your only choice is to get rid of the entire thing and start over with another $3,000+ purchase.

There won't be much resale value for a gorgeous screen with a potato for a computer inside it.

 

[SlCKB0Y]

Lenovo has normal Xeon laptops now.

The laptop you are talking about is being marketed as a "mobile workstation" - which is certainly targeted as a "pro" solution.
[doublepost=1481955806][/doublepost]

AMD consumer CPUs have ECC. It is not a pro feature.

Not even the nMP is Pro.

Your definition of "pro" must differ from pretty much everyone else.

 

[fastlanephil]

What's the odds that Apple will discontinue the "iMac". Not discontinue the hardware per say but the iMac name. Maybe it's time like OS X to macOS, to totally separate the Mac monikers from the iOS devices. Of course this is predicated on the assumption that Apple is going to do some actual semi-revolutionary innovating. Remember that.

 

[filmak]

Of course this is predicated on the assumption that Apple is going to do some actual semi-revolutionary innovating. Remember that.

Isn't changing the name enough?

What do you want new hardware?????????????
[doublepost=1482089014][/doublepost]We 're in 2016... not 2008...

 

[deconstruct60]

What's the odds that Apple will discontinue the "iMac". Not discontinue the hardware per say but the iMac name.

About the same as odds that some meteoroid will fall out for sky and wipe out the Space Ship campus over the next 5 years.

Example, Apple killed off the MacBook and a couple years later rolled out a new "thinner than MBA" laptop. Did they name it Macbook UltraAir or some other adjective? Nope. Pulled a deeply established trademark off the shelf and used it. Mac Pro substantively changed the parameters on the product and kept the name.

Building a world wide, extremely recognized name is hard and costly. There is about zero advantage of walking away from the "iMac" name completely. 'i' can connote 'integrated' as much as 'Internet". The "Internet" is still immensely true, just almost universally pervasive at this point. Swapping tried and true iMac for perhaps Mac AIO , Mac Display , Mac Desk or some looney adjective is deeply misguided. "Mac" all by itself doesn't really work since the whole product line pragmatically has that name. Same for "Macintosh".

If Apple wanted to put a new variation of the "All in One" into the old low end Mac Pro space ( If they canceled Mac Pro) then perhaps they could repurpose the name a second time. They'd still probably have a 21" and far more affordable 27" line up of iMacs though.

Maybe it's time like OS X to macOS, to totally separate the Mac monikers from the iOS devices. Of course this is predicated on the assumption that Apple is going to do some actual semi-revolutionary innovating. Remember that.

Honestly, I don't think Apple is deeply enthusiastic about pointing at the 'i'. It stood for "Internet". As said above that isn't particularly distinctive. If you note the new products that have come over last couple of years. Apple Watch and that which has emerged from hobby status , Apple TV. There is no 'i' there. Where the 'i' has establish market recognition value they keep it. But brand new stuff? It isn't necessary.

If Apple was 100% OCD about naming the current Macbook would be named MBA and the current MBA be named MacBook. Those are backwards from their more historic groundings as market segmentation targets.

macOS was far more driven by the emergence of tvOS and watchOS. When simply had iOS and Mac OS X they both are inconsistent from the other. Apple wants to promote the tight integration across operating system flavors so the names have merged. Plus 'mac OS' is what many folks colloquially said anyway "Mac ... O... S ... Ten " is four 'syllables' and longer and folks confused about saying 'X' or 'Ten' . macOS is just simpler
.

 

[Thunderbird]

Well, well, well, it looks like there is a significant rumor about this after all.

https://www.macrumors.com/2017/04/06/imac-xeon-e3-64gb-ram-amd-late-october/

This really hits the sweet spot for me if true. I don't really quite need a full blown 6-8 core superpowered workstation with multiple GPUs. But I'd really like something a bit more powerful than the highest end iMac. And having ECC memory really seals the deal.

It's weird, on the night I read the press about the coming Mac Pro and the hint that there might be an iMac Pro, I had a vivid dream that Apple released an iMac Pro with ECC memory using the new low TDP Kaby Lake Xeons.

This specific iMac Pro configuration would be ideal for me for the next several years until I grow into needing a fully decked out workstation.

I am so pumped about this! I hope it's true, and I hope Apple doesn't set the price over $3,000.

 

[poematik13]

All I need is a 6-core xeon and a decent single GPU, so if the next "pro" iMac can do that then I'm definitely sidegrading from my 2013 6,1.

 

[Chancha]

The previous "consensus" was that, for an iMac Pro to contain Xeon, ECC RAM, and more powerful GPU than the 2015 5k it would require a thicker chassis re-design which is out of the question according to Apple's latest thinness policy. But with the information of modular MP not being ready for a year or more, it makes a lot more sense if not very likely for iMac to receive a significant upgrade to fill a stop gap until then. I personally don't think Xeon and ECC are that big of a deal compared to the 7700k and DDR4 which we thought would go into the next iMac, but if they had to make room to fit a larger GPU anyway, then why not beef up the rest to match the specs. Perhaps the 21.5" can remain the same with consumer grade components with iGPU, and then the 27" gets server / workstation grade to further distinguish the two lines.

 

[Mago]

First take with an huge grain of salt those rumours about the Xeon iMac for october... The rumour cites an Xeon CPU actually discontinued years ago (E3-1285) amont other lame speculations.

Actual cues for the next iMac (pro?) comes from Ming Chu-Kuo, past year he anticipated the iMac wont be ready for Year end/Xmas launch due development issues and should be released on Q2.

FYI Kaby Lake Z270's and C232 Chipset shares Logic board trace design, so theoretically when you have an Z270 Logic Board, all you need to do to create an Xeon Verision is to switch the PCH chip to C232 and introduce the required BIOS mods., so iMac with Xeon prefectly could arrive As Soon as it Z270 counterpart or at least 1-2 months lated.

Kaby Lake Xeon TDP is slight lower than i7, asl slower is its IPC, but are more stable and support ECC RAM

I believe soon we will see an iMac witn Kaby Lake CPU and AMD RX570 GPU on board (pretty poweeful considering the gpu it replaces), with good luck we could expect an iMac Pro with KAby Lake Xeon (E3v6) upto 4 cores (as all Xeon E3s) and Upto AMD RX-590/595 VEGA10/VEGA11 GPU with HBM memory ECC system Ram but NON-ECC GPU RAM (either GDDR5X or HBM2), and it could come as soon as next month before WWDC (or at least annouced on the next event at the Space Ship inauguration EVE).

I also dont buy Apple getting Ready an 8K Pro Display, maybe a decent well calibrated and fast 5K Display.

 

[sn1p3r845]

I don't even understand why people think the iMac Pro is even on the table.

"Being able to put larger single GPUs required a different system architecture and more thermal capacity than that system was designed to accommodate. And so it became fairly difficult to adjust. At the same time, so many of our customers were moving to iMac that we saw a path to address many, many more of those that were finding themselves limited by Mac Pro through a next generation iMac… And really put a lot of our energy behind that. [But,] while that [upgraded iMac] system is going to be fantastic for a huge number of customers — we want to do more."

"We’re not going to get into exactly what stage we’re in, just that we told the team to take the time to do something really great. To do something that can be supported for a long time with customers with updates and upgrades throughout the years. We’ll take the time it takes to do that. The current Mac Pro, as we’ve said a few times, was constrained thermally and it restricted our ability to upgrade it. And for that, we’re sorry to disappoint customers who wanted that, and we’ve asked the team to go and re-architect and design something great for the future that those Mac Pro customers who want more expandability, more upgradability in the future. It’ll meet more of those needs."

 

[AidenShaw]

I don't even understand why people think the iMac Pro is even on the table.

Because a lot of people don't need 300 watt GPUs or 12 cores - and many of them are buying the 27" Imac today.

An Imac with more RAM support, more cores, better graphics and more storage would satisfy a lot of people who find the MP6,1 too expensive but don't want to move to a more popular operating system.

Hell, an Imac 27" in a slightly larger case with better cooling would satisfy a lot of people.

 

[flat five]

I don't even understand why people think the iMac Pro is even on the table.

"Being able to put larger single GPUs required a different system architecture and more thermal capacity than that system was designed to accommodate. And so it became fairly difficult to adjust. At the same time, so many of our customers were moving to iMac that we saw a path to address many, many more of those that were finding themselves limited by Mac Pro through a next generation iMac… And really put a lot of our energy behind that. [But,] while that [upgraded iMac] system is going to be fantastic for a huge number of customers — we want to do more."

if it's actually named iMac Pro then it would just be some sort of marketing/image thing.. but there's already iMac Pros for sale and according to the quote, the next update will be even better (possibly bringing 6-core cpu to the platform?)..

an entry imac is $1000.. the 'pro' model is upwards of $4000.
most casual users, i'm guessing, are on the $2000_ish models..
but there are definite distinctions both in cost and performance which puts the top imac in a different class than 'consumer' model..


there are lots of pros using the higher config iMacs as their main computers, myself included.. like, i'm one of the people being spoken of in your quote.. i went to an imac in 2014 as a stopgap solution to seeing the nmp v2 (which we now know will not be coming).. problem is, i'm hyped on it* and don't really know if a newnew mac pro is going to sway me back to that type of computer.

*along with some other not-so-related software enhancements & services which have come along in the past couple of years that have pushed me outside of the group of users who need a mega-core / mega-gpu / mega-ram machine.. i.e.- i can now just lease that processing power (and a crapload more than available via single-user-computers) on an as needed basis very easily and affordably.

 

[Thunderbird]

but there's already iMac Pros for sale and according to the quote, the next update will be even better (possibly bringing 6-core cpu to the platform?)..

?? There are no iMac pros for sale.

 

[flat five]

?? There are no iMac pros for sale.

correct.. there is no iMac Pro being sold with such a name.
there are however iMacs for sale which are suitable for professional use cases.

 

[Fl0r!an]

This really hits the sweet spot for me if true. I don't really quite need a full blown 6-8 core superpowered workstation with multiple GPUs. But I'd really like something a bit more powerful than the highest end iMac. And having ECC memory really seals the deal.

The Xeon E3 isn't any faster than the i7 used in the current top-end iMac... Only real plus here is ECC memory, the rest is marketing.