iMac Redesign for 2018?

[theluggage]

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?

So you're talking about a ~$1300 difference between the i7/580/1TB SSD/32GB iMac and the iMac pro - a bit more if you do the sensible thing and get the 8GB RAM version and a third-party upgrade. I don't think bringing the eye-wateringly expensive 64GB and 2TB SSD options into it makes sense c.f. the 1TB/32GB iMac Pro - if you need that much RAM and SSD on an iMac you'll probably want the same on an iMac Pro.

That's still quite a bit of cash to justify.

At the moment, we really don't know enough about the iMac Pro and its real-world performance. I suspect that it will depend an awful lot upon your application.

For video and pro graphics stuff that is well-optimised for multiple cores and OpenCL GPU processing, needs huge i/o bandwidth and the stability to cope with hours of full CPU/GPU load then there ought to be a clear advantage - especially in a work environment where time is money. After all, that's it's target market and if it isn't more attractive than the regular iMac then Apple will have messed up, big time.

For "mixed load" computing I don't think it's quite so clear: the individual cores probably won't be night-and-day faster than the iMac's i7 - they may even be slower - and workstation-class GPUs are often about optimisation for GPU computing rather than better gam^H^H^H (ahem) "realtime interactive 3D performance".

For audio work, caching samples in RAM can be as important as CPU grunt, so the ability to add 64GB of cheap third-party RAM to the regular iMac (vs. $5000 + however much Apple charge for an extra 32GB of ECC RAM for the Pro) might be a big deal. However, if the iMac Pro can stay cool and silent at CPU loads that make the iMac's fan ramp up then that might swing things the other way. There are already threads here from people trying to choose between i7s and quiet running.

I think the real question lies in the "prosumer/enthusiast" market: the people who could probably make do with a lower-spec iMac but who buy the high-end options "just in case" (mea culpa - but to be fair my work periodically throws everything from web development to video compression/editing at me). I suspect that Apple get quite a lot of business from this sector and would really, really like them to buy $5000 iMac Pros rather than $3000 iMacs (with 3rd party RAM).

Hence the possibility that Apple could update the iMac without ticking off iMac Pro buyers by trimming the "chin" and "beer gut" at the expense of dropping some of the hotter CPU/GPU options, and pushing prosumers to the iMac Pro.

 

[Dave245]

So you're talking about a ~$1300 difference between the i7/580/1TB SSD/32GB iMac and the iMac pro - a bit more if you do the sensible thing and get the 8GB RAM version and a third-party upgrade. I don't think bringing the eye-wateringly expensive 64GB and 2TB SSD options into it makes sense c.f. the 1TB/32GB iMac Pro - if you need that much RAM and SSD on an iMac you'll probably want the same on an iMac Pro.

That is true it's around a £1300 difference, the iMac Pro will have a much better processor, faster graphics, better sound and so on tho. I guess only time will tell since we don't know a lot at the moment, i wonder if Apple will talk about all these details at an event before they are launched in December? maybe a mention at the September keynote alongside the iPhone 8 and Apple Watch 3. Since they updated most products at WWDC (unusual for Apple to do) I don't think there will be an October event for Mac's.

 

[EugW]

That is true it's around a £1300 difference, the iMac Pro will have a much better processor, faster graphics, better sound and so on tho. I guess only time will tell since we don't know a lot at the moment, i wonder if Apple will talk about all these details at an event before they are launched in December? maybe a mention at the September keynote alongside the iPhone 8 and Apple Watch 3. Since they updated most products at WWDC (unusual for Apple to do) I don't think there will be an October event for Mac's.

I still am wondering if the iMac Pro will have Quick Sync. Personally, I think it is mandatory that they include it or something equivalent in the iMac Pro somehow, even if the Xeon CPUs they use don't include it. Some of the Xeons do, but as joema pointed out, a lot of the high end ones don't. In this scenario, they could leverage hardware HEVC h.265 decode and encode through the GPU, just for the iMac Pro and the Mac Pro. HEVC h.265 decode and encode would continue to be Intel Quick Sync based for the iMacs, MacBooks, and MacBook Pros.

 

[CWallace]

I still am wondering if the iMac Pro will have Quick Sync.

We're assuming the iMac Pro will be using a Xeon variant of the Core i9 CPU on a variant of the x299 chipset with ECC RAM support and both the i9 and x299 support QuickSync so these new parts should, as well.

 

[EugW]

We're assuming the iMac Pro will be using a Xeon variant of the Core i9 CPU on a variant of the x299 chipset with ECC RAM support and both the i9 and x299 support QuickSync so these new parts should, as well.

They do? I thought the i9-7900X does not have an integrated GPU and does not support Quick Sync. That's a 10-core 140 Watt TDP part. I don't know about the 18-core part because the specs aren't out yet.

 

[CWallace]

They do? I thought the i9-7900X does not have an integrated GPU and does not support Quick Sync. That's a 10-core 140 Watt TDP part. I don't know about the 18-core part because the specs aren't out yet.

The four-core Kaby Lake-X i5-7640X and i7-7740X CPUs do not support Quick Sync, but that seems to be because they are actually an i5-7600K | i7-7700K that have had the iGPU disabled which also disables the Quick Sync core in said iGPU.

All the articles I could find on Skylake-X and Kaby Lake-X only mention the quad-core models not having Quick Sync and reviews of the 8 and 10-core chips also only mention the quad-core models lacking QS. If the higher-core models lacked QS, as well, one would think they would mention that.

 

[EugW]

The four-core Kaby Lake-X i5-7640X and i7-7740X CPUs do not support Quick Sync, but that seems to be because they are actually an i5-7600K | i7-7700K that have had the iGPU disabled which also disables the Quick Sync core in said iGPU.

I am guessing the higher-core i7 and i9 models have a Quick Sync core added even though they do not have an iGPU. All the articles I could find on Skylake-X and Kaby Lake-X only mention the quad-core models not having Quick Sync and reviews of the 8 and 10-core chips also only mention the quad-core models lacking QS. If the higher-core models lacked QS, as well, one would think they would mention that.

Intel's website description of the i9-7900X 10-core chip makes no mention of a GPU at all. For the i7 non-X models, they list the GPU specs.

 

[CWallace]

Intel's website description of the i9-7900X 10-core chip makes no mention of a GPU at all. For the i7 non-X models, they list the GPU specs.

Yes, which makes it confusing.

ProClocker's i9-7900X review implies they used QuickSync during benchmarking, but they tested it against other Intel CPUs that do have it via their iGPU so maybe they were only referring to those, but again, it would be kind of misleading not to point that out.

GameDebate's product comparison for that CPU says it doesn't have it, but that may be because it does not have an iGPU so they are assuming.

I wonder if Intel is just adding the Quick Sync code to the CPU die? Or maybe the Xeon parts will have iGPUs to enable it.

 

[EugW]

Yes, which makes it confusing.

ProClocker's i9-7900X review implies they used QuickSync during benchmarking, but GameDebate's product comparison for that CPU says it doesn't have it.

I wonder if Intel is just adding the Quick Sync code to the CPU die?

Yes, some third party websites that list Intel CPU specs state that the i9-7900X does not have Quick Sync, but I am not sure how accurate they are.

I also did come across a review claiming that they did video encoding in Handbrake with Quick Sync, except I don't buy that. Maybe they meant Quick Sync for decode? The encoding would still likely be software-based as Handbrake usually is. Cuz if they were all using Quick Sync for encoding, all the lower end model chips would likely be a lot closer to each other in performance.

I think the most likely answer is that i9-7900X simply doesn't have an iGPU and thus doesn't have Quick Sync. Otherwise Intel would mention it, as they do for the Xeons that have iGPUs.

 

[Phuc024]

The Foxconn leak says a new iMac case design is coming next year so we shall see...

source? I'm really interested in the redesign of the imac chassis, including thinner bezel and maybe other new features. if it is going to get a new design in 2019, which is 2 years from now, then I would probably upgrade my macbook pro first (even though I hope they will make some change for the macbook pro too, just don't really like the butterfly keyboard and touch bar)

 

[CWallace]

source?

A Reddit thread where the poster claimed to work for Foxconn and have knowledge of the next 12 months of Apple's hardware plans. He claimed the 2017 iMac would only have a spec update and that the 2018 model would have more glass, come in Space Grey, use a microLED display and bring back the lighted Apple logo on the back.

 

[Phuc024]

A Reddit thread where the poster claimed to work for Foxconn and have knowledge of the next 12 months of Apple's hardware plans. He claimed the 2017 iMac would only have a spec update and that the 2018 model would have more glass, come in Space Grey, use a microLED display and bring back the lighted Apple logo on the back.

Did he mention that the 2018 model would also get the 6 cores i5 or just slightly changes in design? Also I thought the same thing that other people did, if apple changes the design of reg imac, then imac pro would likely look dated immediately

 

[klatox]

I play games. I'm really hoping for the new Vega GPU in the regular iMac at some point. The 580 is nice but the new GPUs would make the iMac an even better gaming machine. Too bad it's relegated to the iMac Pro for now.

 

[CWallace]

There will be a Vega RX designed specifically for video games later on.

 

[klatox]

There will be a Vega RX designed specifically for video games later on.

Yep they just announced the specs yesterday.

 

[Lioness~]

Hmm, so there is a reason why I felt hesitation to update my iMac this year.
With those rumours I think I hang on to 2018.

There's stuff to buy this year anyway, with higher priority.

 

[Appleaker]

I play games. I'm really hoping for the new Vega GPU in the regular iMac at some point. The 580 is nice but the new GPUs would make the iMac an even better gaming machine. Too bad it's relegated to the iMac Pro for now.

It'd be better to use an eGPU, you'd get the same performance or more using a Vega card, even over TB3.
[doublepost=1501520329][/doublepost]

Hmm, so there is a reason why I felt hesitation to update my iMac this year.
With those rumours I think I hang on to 2018.

There's stuff to buy this year anyway, with higher priority.

Yeah, not to mention that we'll have 6-core iMacs next year as well.

 

[Shivetya]

I still have issue with the the idea of a new case, why would Apple let the Pro machine soldier on with an old case design unless the next iMac is going to move away from powerful configurations to make room between it and the Pro?

the new Vega chips are a disappointment and I would much rather have a Nvidia solution which might only be done via external gpu.

 

[imac2017mm]

I still have issue with the the idea of a new case, why would Apple let the Pro machine soldier on with an old case design unless the next iMac is going to move away from powerful configurations to make room between it and the Pro?

the new Vega chips are a disappointment and I would much rather have a Nvidia solution which might only be done via external gpu.

I know. The pro would have been a good time to switch things up. But I guess this is how they make their money. I couldn't care less... as long as my computer can do what I need it to do I'm good... the design doesn't stop anyone from doing their work

 

[theluggage]

I still have issue with the the idea of a new case, why would Apple let the Pro machine soldier on with an old case design unless the next iMac is going to move away from powerful configurations to make room between it and the Pro?

Because Apple are not infallible gods. They may also be in a panic about not having a "pro" product ready to replace the Mac Pros coming to the end of their 3-year leases/support plans. Intel aren't exactly delivering the goods on schedule, either.

The only obvious way forward with the iMac is to slim it down and/or lose the "chin". The two are connected: cut off the chin and the curvature of the rear bulge would have to increase to maintain the same space for the works, possibly spoiling the proportions - or the rear bulge would have to be reduced, reducing space for cooling and thus no good for the iMac Pro or, maybe, the high-end options for the regular iMac.

Dropping the high-end options from the iMac to enable it to be slimmed down/de-chinned - while also drawing a clear line between the iMac and the iMac Pro - just sounds like classic Apple thinking. Of course, it would hopefully be offset by new chips offering more clout for fewer watts...

Plus, it must really grind Apple's gears that people can buy an 8GB iMac and upgrade it, cheaply, themselves.

 

[opeter]

The only redesign I'd want is front-facing ports.

+ they should reduce the black bezel around the screen.

 

[CWallace]

Plus, it must really grind Apple's gears that people can buy an 8GB iMac and upgrade it, cheaply, themselves.

If that was the case, pun, all they would have had to do was remove the RAM access port. Heck, if they did so to make room for the larger exhaust vent of the iMac Pro, they could have improved the cooling while also raising ASPs.

 

[OS X Dude]

Dropping the high-end options from the iMac to enable it to be slimmed down/de-chinned - while also drawing a clear line between the iMac and the iMac Pro - just sounds like classic Apple thinking. Of course, it would hopefully be offset by new chips offering more clout for fewer watts...

Plus, it must really grind Apple's gears that people can buy an 8GB iMac and upgrade it, cheaply, themselves.

Amen, amen, amen. Is the 2016 MacBook Pro debacle still not fresh in people's minds? If they did it to their flagship laptop, they'll do it to their now-consumer-grade desktop for exactly the reasons you suggest. Given that Intel's processors are shifting to tri-core and hex-core designs à la AMD, I'd normally wait for those before upgrading - not a cat in Hell's chance with the Pro on the horizon. We've all seen this kind of thing before.

 

[rustyosaurus]

I upgraded by 2009 iMac 27 because I had to restart it 2x a day (or it would freeze). Not efficient to do all my work on. I wish iMac could come in a slightly bigger size like a 34. The 27 is fine but sometimes I want more room. I had planned to get an upgraded mini with a 34in monitor but got tired waiting.

Guess if they upgrade the body next year, I'll think about switching to it. I don't care as much about the bezel, although I don't know why they couldn't have slimmed that out after so many years of a huge bezel.

 

[Lesser Evets]

... the 2018 model would have more glass, come in Space Grey, use a microLED display and bring back the lighted Apple logo on the back.

Minor changes, no doubt. The space-grey case makes sense for those who do video/graphics work, but it is a dour color that doesn't enthuse the average consumer. Black/piano black/jet black would be too "status quo". I'm shocked, SHOCKED I TELL YOU!, that they haven't worked up iMac casings to be gold-silver-rose gold-etc. via custom online orders.

The microLED and backlit logo are almost undetectable to a window shopper.

"More glass" might mean a smaller frame around the screen, perhaps glass down the chin. Nothing particularly good or bad in those possibilities. Maybe they will ape the iPhone 8 with the gold-band-around-copper look, but with a silver band around space grey covered by glass.

I think the general form, color, texture of the current iMac is close to "immortal". If the chin vanishes, so does most all personality. If the chin reduces greatly, it just becomes a DELL with an Apple Logo (in appearance). Apple thrives on unique design, so a floating screen would kill that instant recognition and uniqueness Apple has made a welcome trademark across the last 4 decades.

One of the major changes yet to come, perhaps to come next year, is fanless design. I'm not sure the Cannonlake chips will allow that, nor even Icelake chips. All that the fanless design would do is reduce the rear bump, especially once the mechanical drives are replaced by soldered-in SSDs.

Final thought--the future redesign will probably be relatively minor and nothing that will change the paradigm the way the original Mac or first iMac did.