I suspect that it won't change much if any for 1–2 years bc iMac Pro has the same design. Can you image how burned the pros would feel that a lower priced iMac has newer design than their newly purchased iMac Pro?
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 Redesign for 2018?
- Thread starter Solo2392
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I think the pros would be more interested in how much better the iMac Pro performed against lower priced iMac models rather than appearance.
I can tell you, as an architect working in an office full of designers, none of us would own an IMac if it was just a computer.
They are beautifully designed and we design beautiful things too. If it was a black plastic AIO then there wouldn't be one in our office.
PS. 7 out of ten of us run windows on it!
I don't think its ever been confirmed whether the iMac 5k uses 1 or 2 DisplayPort connections to drive its internal display, of if Apple have done something custom - all the iMacs have discrete Radeon GPUs and I'm pretty sure the current 570/575/580 support DisplayPort 1.4 so in theory it could be using a single DP1.4 link straight from the GPU. Of course, the panel would have to support DP1.3/1.4 as well.
It just shows up as "Connection type: DisplayPort" in the system report (can anybody with an older 5k or the LG 5k confirm whether that gives any clue that its using two DisplayPorts?)
The two bottlenecks seem to be (a) Intel's integrated GPUs not supporting DP1.3/1.4 - which shouldn't affect the 27" iMacs and (b) Thunderbolt 3 not supporting DP1.3/1.4.
That definitely means that 5k Thunderbolt displays can't use DP1.3 - they use two "virtual" DP1.2 cables but they both fit down a 40Gbps thunderbolt 3 link so there's only one physical cable.
I assume that - since the Mac's TB3/USB-C ports are driven by the Thunderbolt 3 controller - this also means that the ports can't use DP1.3/1.4 in USB-C "DisplayPort Alt Mode" (which is what you get with a USB-C display or a USB-to-DisplayPort/HDMI cable) even though the USB-C/VESA specs allow that. Which is a pity, because it pretty much cripples USB-C for use with 5k (no-go) or 4k @ 60Hz (works but uses all 4 high-speed lanes, leaving only USB 2 for docking).
Of course, on the iMac, Apple could just stop faffing around with USB-C and bung a DisplayPort output or two on the back hooked straight to the GPU. This one-socket-for-everything malarky may be great on tablets and ultrabooks but it is pointless on desktops.
[doublepost=1501169287][/doublepost]
However - once the iMac pro is available Apple could very well decide that the regular iMacs with quad i7s and the top-end GPUS are unnecessary (translation: people might still buy $3000 top-end iMacs instead of $5000 iMac Pros) and "dumb down" the iMac range.
Dropping the top-end CPU and GPU options (with their hefty cooling requirements) would let them move to a smaller design that wouldn't be of interest to the Pro users with their 6+ core Xeons.
That would suck for those of us who just want a decent quad-core system with hi-end consumer CPU and GPU but don't need to spend the Xeon premium.
Pretty safe bet this will not happen.
The iMac Pro was designed as a replacement for the Mac Pro (before Apple switched in April) and as such is aimed at a different market than the iMac 5K. The two models will comfortably live beside each other in Apple's product line, each serving a different segment of the overall Mac desktop market.
No it wasn't, Apple are working on Mac Pro separately which may be a couple of years off but they have confirmed they are working on it.
Hence why I said "before the switch in April", reflecting their decision to also create a new "modular" Mac Pro.
But before they had their "come to Jesus" moment, the iMac Pro was going to be the Mac Pro's replacement. I am sure of it and so are many Apple cognescenti in the media.
Fair enough, I think the iMac Pro is for those "Pro's" that like the iMac form factor but with Pro specs.
I think the iMac Pro was mainly a way for Apple to leverage the iMac's existing manufacturing infrastructure to offer a "Mac Pro-class" computer without the costs of engineering an entirely new model as the "cylinder" did not have any upgradeability due to it's thermal design.
For whatever reason(s), within the last year Apple came to the conclusion that they needed a "modular" Mac Pro. Maybe because they were losing too many customers. Maybe because their best Mac Pro customers needed specifications a "sealed box" model (Cylinder Mac Pro / iMac Pro) could not offer. Or they just decided they wanted another "Halo" product and they're rich enough as a company that it doesn't need to make money, just excite people about the Mac ecosystem (it's an advertising expense). More likely, it is a mix of all three.
I get that Apple felt the uproar from pros about the stalled Mac Pro Progress. I have owned many Mac Pros starting with the PowerMac 9600. If in two years we are looking at a modular Mac Pro Box with at least one if not more internal PCIe card slots and standalone Apple 4K/5K displays to go with it (maybe 8K too)... what will be the market place for it vs the iMac Pro??
I believe they will co-exist.
We can only speculate at the moment, but the next Mac Pro could offer single or dual processors, six or twelve memory banks, multiple M.2 and/or SATA bays and multiple GPUs. As such, pricing could go from the mid-four-figures into the low five-figures. So something more flexible, but also more expensive.
Despite those on this forum who are convinced nobody will buy the iMac Pro, Apple would not have spent the money to design and engineer it without input from existing and potential professional customers. I see plenty of high-end iMacs in scientific, academic and content creation locations supported by dedicated IT departments who will be able to repair and upgrade them. And Apple themselves offer Enterprise-level AppleCare that includes on-site and rapid turnaround services that can do the same.
Apple themselves admitted they designed themselves into a corner with the garbage can Mac Pro. They couldn't actually upgrade it effectively because of design choices. A modular design would be much more flexible in terms of upgrades.
And yes, I think a reasonable number of people will buy the iMac Pro. It's not a huge market but it's not to be ignored either, esp. since these types of customers have important voices in the various industries. In terms of hardware making it attractive, it comes with a very good 5K WCG screen and provides Mac Pro tier performance. The Mac Pro will lose some customers to the iMac Pro, but that's OK because the iMac Pro will be priced in the same ballpark as some previous Mac Pros anyway so Apple still gets the money. But some higher end iMac users will also move to the iMac Pro, and then the uber high end and those who are willing to pay for flexibility will move to the Mac Pro 2018.
The only thing I'm wondering about now is how they will handle GPU-assisted video decoding and encoding. Some of the higher end server class chips that would be use in the iMac Pro and Mac Pro do not support QuickSync. It would suck if an i5 iMac could process video faster than a 10-core iMac Pro, especially since Apple is building their ecosystem around HEVC these days. This very scenario could occur given the specs of the i5 and i7 vs some server class chips. In fact, it's true now, since recent MacBook Pros can easily best the current garbage can Mac Pro in some these workloads, because of QuickSync support only being available in the MBP and not the garbage can Mac Pro. Thus, I'm thinking Apple will find a way to include hardware HEVC encode + decode on the iMac Pro. Dunno about the Mac Pro.
And yes, I think a reasonable number of people will buy the iMac Pro. It's not a huge market but it's not to be ignored either, esp. since these types of customers have important voices in the various industries. In terms of hardware making it attractive, it comes with a very good 5K WCG screen and provides Mac Pro tier performance. The Mac Pro will lose some customers to the iMac Pro, but that's OK because the iMac Pro will be priced in the same ballpark as some previous Mac Pros anyway so Apple still gets the money. But some higher end iMac users will also move to the iMac Pro, and then the uber high end and those who are willing to pay for flexibility will move to the Mac Pro 2018.
The only thing I'm wondering about now is how they will handle GPU-assisted video decoding and encoding. Some of the higher end server class chips that would be use in the iMac Pro and Mac Pro do not support QuickSync. It would suck if an i5 iMac could process video faster than a 10-core iMac Pro, especially since Apple is building their ecosystem around HEVC these days. This very scenario could occur given the specs of the i5 and i7 vs some server class chips. In fact, it's true now, since recent MacBook Pros can easily best the current garbage can Mac Pro in some these workloads, because of QuickSync support only being available in the MBP and not the garbage can Mac Pro. Thus, I'm thinking Apple will find a way to include hardware HEVC encode + decode on the iMac Pro. Dunno about the Mac Pro.
Possible, but nobody outside Apple knows whether or not that is the case.
April was most likely Apple panicking because it was over 3 years since the Mac pro was updated - and commercial users frequently get their equipment on 3-year leases or run 3-year replacement cycles. Whether the replacement was to be the iMac pro or an updated Mac Pro, it was late.
The big technical mia culpa in the April announcement was that the "triangular" dual-CPU architecture of the Mac Pro was a dead end.
I believe it was also mentioned then (or at the iMac Pro announcement in June) was that the iMac was popular with Pro users. Apple wouldn't have gone the iMac Pro route if pro users hadn't been buying iMacs.
The entry iMac Pro is going to be $4999 - A "regular" 5k iMac with the top-end CPU and GPU, 1TB SSD and 32GB of RAM is $3699 ("fully tricked out" with 2TB and 64GB is actually $5299 - but I don't think that's a fair comparison with the 1TB/32GB iMac Pro).
So the higher end iMacs are pushing towards iMac Pro territory - and can will probably give the iMac Pro a run for its money on tasks that aren't multi-core/Open CL optimised. They're certainly not the biggest consumer sellers. They're also the power-guzzlers that require the bulkiest cooling. The mass-market i5 iMacs could be made smaller and lighter if the same case didn't have to support i7s and higher-end GPUs.
Based on previous redesigns, it would have made sense for it to be this generation, although Apple seems very busy. Everything points to it being next year, which will make it an exciting update given that we'll also have 6-core iMacs.
[doublepost=1501183916][/doublepost]
[doublepost=1501183916][/doublepost]
No, it wasn't, but it was a replacement for the Mac Pro for some people who were switching to an iMac They did not switch in April, there was no real switch, the plan was never to kill off the Mac Pro, despite there being discussions. Hopefully Apple themselves clear this up in an interview after the release/announcement because it seems like a common misconception.
Apple's obsession with thin and light applies to their portable products because you hold them and carry them.
Nobody cares about weight when it sits on your desk.
The iMac went thin on the edges for aesthetic reasons, but it's still thick in the center where nobody notices said thickness.
I'm very much in the camp that they won't do it so soon after launching an entirely new and ultra high end sub-product using the existing design.
It's not that they'd delay a new design just to keep iMP customers happy, of course - it's more that they'd probably have delayed the iMP until the redesign if there was one that far along in the pipes. Why would you invest in completely overhauling the internals of that chassis when you know it's going to be a dead-end design the same year it ships?
It's not that they'd delay a new design just to keep iMP customers happy, of course - it's more that they'd probably have delayed the iMP until the redesign if there was one that far along in the pipes. Why would you invest in completely overhauling the internals of that chassis when you know it's going to be a dead-end design the same year it ships?
I don't know, maybe their market research is really telling them there is place for the Imac Pro, but it certainly seems fringe looking from the outside. Scientific and academic institutions get by just fine with computers less than $5k.
The new Mac Pro should cannabilize its sales pretty good.
I just hope Apple isn't running their Ipad playbook with the Imac. Cheapen them up and then introduce what should have been the upgrade to the line as a completely new "pro" variant with higher cost. IE Ipad Air 3 = Ipad Pro. They probably priced it too high for that, though.
We'll see. I expect the Mac Pro to run into configurations many multiples of what the iMac Pro will in terms of cost.
The iMac Pro offers significantly more powerful CPUs and GPUs than the iMac. Think iPad Pro compared to the original iPad Air.
The iMac Pro is a huge jump up from what we have now - ie Quad Core iMacs and 4 year old dead ended 2013 Mac Pros. There is absolutely a market for a current 8-18 Core machine with server class components and all the rest right now in multiple applications!
BUT - if on that same day you had the option for a Box with pretty much the same guts - Server Class 8 core and up CPUs, user expandable Storage, user expandable RAM, High end GPU options, a true thermal design to keep things cool without fast spinning fans - etc and a nice standalone 27' 5K screen - I don't know about everyone - but hard core audio folks would jump on an 8 core version with 1 to 2 TB SSD, 64G Ram and a 27" independent screen. I certainly would have. By all rights this kind of thing should cost ~ the same as an iMac pro too... you can't just charge 2X for what looks (to me of course) like all the same high end hardware. There are no higher end CPUs to put in a Mac Pro modular (multiples maybe but even among pros - 36 core dual CPU machines? How many need that? Hard to see how you get a faster PCIe SSDs anytime soon (or need one). Graphics cards - probably there the MP could have things the iMac just never could. Specialty PCI cards - but nothing that drives the cost of the machine.
Just saying - these two don't overlap officially because one does not exist yet. When it does - how can it not overlap?
BUT - if on that same day you had the option for a Box with pretty much the same guts - Server Class 8 core and up CPUs, user expandable Storage, user expandable RAM, High end GPU options, a true thermal design to keep things cool without fast spinning fans - etc and a nice standalone 27' 5K screen - I don't know about everyone - but hard core audio folks would jump on an 8 core version with 1 to 2 TB SSD, 64G Ram and a 27" independent screen. I certainly would have. By all rights this kind of thing should cost ~ the same as an iMac pro too... you can't just charge 2X for what looks (to me of course) like all the same high end hardware. There are no higher end CPUs to put in a Mac Pro modular (multiples maybe but even among pros - 36 core dual CPU machines? How many need that? Hard to see how you get a faster PCIe SSDs anytime soon (or need one). Graphics cards - probably there the MP could have things the iMac just never could. Specialty PCI cards - but nothing that drives the cost of the machine.
Just saying - these two don't overlap officially because one does not exist yet. When it does - how can it not overlap?
Last edited:
I've been wondering if the iMac Pro base configuration for $4999 is better value than the maxed out 27" iMac 5K, won't the processor on the iMac Pro be a lot better along with more ram and higher/more powerful graphics card?
The redesign could be that they introduce the space grey colour of the iMac Pro across the entire line of iMac's along with a Touch Bar and Touch ID keyboard.
The redesign could be that they introduce the space grey colour of the iMac Pro across the entire line of iMac's along with a Touch Bar and Touch ID keyboard.
I think that's the last thing they'd do. The space grey is a nice way to distinguish the premium model - it adds a bit of prestige and exclusivity, which is a guilty pleasure Apple has always known how to exploit. But for anyone wanting a redesign, it's way too superficial to qualify.
So basically, you'd just end up annoying everyone looking for a serious overhaul, while also squandering the 'badge of honor' advantage that it lends the iMP in its present state. Which is part of the reason they won't introduce an overhaul the core iMac design unless they update the iMP with that same overhaul, which almost certainly rules out 2018.
