No 2018 iMac?!

[Zdigital2015]

The current iMacs can’t really cool a 4 core i7 properly, so can you imagine an 8 core version. Ouch. A new cooling syetem would definitely be needed, although knowing Apple, they won’t bother if the 2018 MBP is anything to go by.

Unfortunately, this is going to be a double-edged sword, I am afraid. I see three possible scenarios, so bear with me -

1. Apple changes out the innards of the current iMac just enough to accommodate the requisite new (300-Series) motherboard and leaves everything as-is (door for RAM, vents, 3.5" HDD, et al) and the 6 core and 8 core 9th-Gen spin up the fans, like ghost pepper sauce on wings night. Chances: 30/70
2. Apple takes the lessons learned from the iMac Pro and adopts the cooling system for the regular iMac. Apple eliminates one more system with user-replaceable RAM and the MacRumors Forums undergo a complete meltdown, like ghost pepper sauce on wings night. Chances: 70/30.
3. Apple takes the lessons learned from the iMac Pro and adopts the cooling system for the regular iMac, but leaves the user-accessible memory slots in place. Chances: Rainbows and unicorns, I guess.

Part of me wishes October was here already and gone.

 

[fokmik]

I think the best solution and the most credible is Nr 2

 

[Kurri]

Apple takes the lessons learned from the iMac Pro and adopts the cooling system for the regular iMac. Apple eliminates one more system with user-replaceable RAM and the MacRumors Forums undergo a complete meltdown, like ghost pepper sauce on wings night. Chances: 70/30.

I can see that scenario. I won't have a meltdown, but will be annoyed. Apple just charges too much for RAM.

 

[gusping]

I can see that scenario. I won't have a meltdown, but will be annoyed. Apple just charges too much for RAM.

I think it will be this, if anything. I honestly wouldn’t put it past Apple to include the 6 core version with no change to cooling. I’ll be torn if the iMac Pro cooling system is introduced. Yay for better cooling, but the price of Macs goes up again (if you want more ram)

 

[cwanja]

In some wild scenario, does anyone think Apple will drop their prices for RAM upgrades?

 

[sublunar]

Unfortunately, this is going to be a double-edged sword, I am afraid. I see three possible scenarios, so bear with me -

1. Apple changes out the innards of the current iMac just enough to accommodate the requisite new (300-Series) motherboard and leaves everything as-is (door for RAM, vents, 3.5" HDD, et al) and the 6 core and 8 core 9th-Gen spin up the fans, like ghost pepper sauce on wings night. Chances: 30/70
2. Apple takes the lessons learned from the iMac Pro and adopts the cooling system for the regular iMac. Apple eliminates one more system with user-replaceable RAM and the MacRumors Forums undergo a complete meltdown, like ghost pepper sauce on wings night. Chances: 70/30.
3. Apple takes the lessons learned from the iMac Pro and adopts the cooling system for the regular iMac, but leaves the user-accessible memory slots in place. Chances: Rainbows and unicorns, I guess.

Part of me wishes October was here already and gone.

I've seen a fair amount of commentary on here about the last couple of iMac models (using 95w TDP CPUs such as the top SKU i7) where heat becomes a problem partly due to the cooling profile but mainly because of the CPU used.

I would say that Apple determines that the standard iMac cooling solution is 'adequate' where a lot of pro users would want more performance over the quality of life gains from a quieter (but hotter) iMac.

The message here is that professionals who really want to go to town on performance in the AIO market should be looking at 'Pro' models including the iMac Pro.

I believe the next generation iMac is already here - it's space grey and they call it the iMac Pro. The cooling solution is their evolution and testbed for the controversial loss of the RAM access door but there's no room for spinning disk hard drives in the iMac Pro cooling configuration.

The halfway house solution offered by @Zdigital2015 may be possible if Apple go 2.5" on internal drives which again raises the average price of storage.

If Apple determine that the age of the Hard Drive is over we might also see added to this lower cost QLC NAND SSD (Samsung and Intel forging ahead) and we could be reaching a stage where the end of the spinning hard drive is on the horizon. Obviously going with M.2 storage will allow the iMac Pro cooling solution in.

Apple will have to tread very carefully if they are considering offering an 8 core iMac option - those CPUs would appear to clock higher than the 3.2GHz in the iMac Pro while allowing for users to upgrade their own RAM at lower cost - even with the Vega graphics from the iMac Pro as a point of differentiation.

it won't take long for people to find a spec that could undercut a proper base iMac Pro - unless they mitigate this by deciding that baseline iMac 27" machines should come with 16Gb of RAM at Apple prices - meaning a price increase for the 27" iMac at large (and higher average selling price).

 

[Zdigital2015]

I can see that scenario. I won't have a meltdown, but will be annoyed. Apple just charges too much for RAM.

I will be severely disappointed should Apple choose to go that route. Laptops I understand the need for soldered RAM and storage, but not desktops...Apple does charge too much for RAM once you want to go beyond 16GB, although DRAM is just plain expensive right now, no matter which way you slice it.

 

[Icaras]

I will be severely disappointed should Apple choose to go that route. Laptops I understand the need for soldered RAM and storage, but not desktops...Apple does charge too much for RAM once you want to go beyond 16GB, although DRAM is just plain expensive right now, no matter which way you slice it.

It doesn’t make sense to have two of their pro lines not include the RAM bay door (with one being the pro version in the iMac lineup) while the consumer model does. I think the 2017 model is the last one you folks can get with upgrading your own RAM.

 

[fokmik]

i dont care if the imac pro cooling needs ram without the door...go for it Apple, i love the cooling and i think will be perfect for the upcoming 8th or 9th gen cpu inside the next imac

 

[294307]

In some wild scenario, does anyone think Apple will drop their prices for RAM upgrades?

Definitely not. It's always been more expensive than Crucial and OWC.

 

[CmdrLaForge]

There was a post in today's rumors section about the upcoming replacement for the MacBook, but to date there have been no rumors at all of new iMacs in the pipeline.

I'm beginning to think that there isn't going to BE an "iMac update" for 2018.
Looks like late 1st quarter 2019 or 2nd quarter 2019 at this point.

Speaking for my own needs, I'd prefer that they hold out until 2019, just BEFORE Mac OS 10.15 is introduced.
I'd like to see the new iMac as "the last iMac that will run in 32 bit mode". I have LOTS of older software that may be non-upgradeable that I'd like to keep using, and a 2019 iMac that can still run in 32-bit mode will "fit the bill". Probably for a lot of others, too.

Just curious- what apps are those?

 

[deconstruct60]

Unfortunately, this is going to be a double-edged sword, I am afraid. I see three possible scenarios, so bear with me -

1. Apple changes out the innards of the current iMac just enough to accommodate the requisite new (300-Series) motherboard and leaves everything as-is (door for RAM, vents, 3.5" HDD, et al) and the 6 core and 8 core 9th-Gen spin up the fans, like ghost pepper sauce on wings night. Chances: 30/70
2. Apple takes the lessons learned from the iMac Pro and adopts the cooling system for the regular iMac. Apple eliminates one more system with user-replaceable RAM and the MacRumors Forums undergo a complete meltdown, like ghost pepper sauce on wings night. Chances: 70/30.
3. Apple takes the lessons learned from the iMac Pro and adopts the cooling system for the regular iMac, but leaves the user-accessible memory slots in place. Chances: Rainbows and unicorns, I guess.

Part of me wishes October was here already and gone.

1. a. Apple skips 8 core in iMac ( since there is an 8 core iMac Pro) and select a 6 core has same TDP as the rest of the iMac 27" line up ( and install same 'fix' did for the MBP where the processor doesn't demand more power than voltage regulator can supply. ) . Apple has an 8 core iMac variant already. It doesn't have a 6 core.

The current i7 7700K has a 91W TDP. The i7 9600K is 6 cores and has 95W. This is only a 4W increment. ( presuming that the GPUs don't have big TDP jump also. )


b. Apple puts T2 (and boot SSD ) into iMac 27" ( copies that aspect of the iMac Pro instead of the cooling system. ). 3.5" HDD disappears ( perhaps replaced with Fusion 2.5" option.). Adjustment to cooling system in that recovered space (e.g., larger diameter fan). Get to keep RAM door.


2. If Apple cranks up the CPU and GPU so there is large overlap with entry iMac Pro how do they not run into trouble on at least one of those ? The folks buying iMac 27" have tighter budget constraints. Taking away that RAM upgrade door may have bigger blow back than just folks grumbling on the forums. Priced too high folks won't buy.


3. Isn't all that hard if don't go to two fans. Increment fan diameter and minor tweak to vent to be incrementally bigger as opposed to almost twice as big ( for about twice the output. ). if Apple can squeeze out another 10-12W that would be enough. Throttle the 'k' series options so they stay inside the boundaries they are suppose to at standard settings.

As noted above, if nuke the 3.5" drive and flip the outer edge into that recovered space there room. No unicorns involved. With a 15mm 2.5" drive, you can get capacities all the way up to 4TB so not necessarily dropping back on total enclosed capacity either. ( current one tops out at 3TB.)
[doublepost=1534263927][/doublepost]

It doesn’t make sense to have two of their pro lines not include the RAM bay door (with one being the pro version in the iMac lineup) while the consumer model does. I think the 2017 model is the last one you folks can get with upgrading your own RAM.

The mainstream iMac has a 3.5" HDD storage option. The iMac Pro doesn't. That HDD is largely there because it is more affordable (cheaper). So if the iMac ( thousands more affordable. ). That's why. The iMac Pro is for folks who have bigger budgets and are substantively less price sensitive.
Apple may push folks into Fusion Drive as a starting point in 27' iMacs but there is a pretty good chance they won't drop HDD completely at this stage. RAM is similar. if they push the prices up too much they'll loose customers.

 

[Zdigital2015]

1. a. Apple skips 8 core in iMac ( since there is an 8 core iMac Pro) and select a 6 core has same TDP as the rest of the iMac 27" line up ( and install same 'fix' did for the MBP where the processor doesn't demand more power than voltage regulator can supply. ) . Apple has an 8 core iMac variant already. It doesn't have a 6 core.

The current i7 7700K has a 91W TDP. The i7 9600K is 6 cores and has 95W. This is only a 4W increment. ( presuming that the GPUs don't have big TDP jump also. )


b. Apple puts T2 (and boot SSD ) into iMac 27" ( copies that aspect of the iMac Pro instead of the cooling system. ). 3.5" HDD disappears ( perhaps replaced with Fusion 2.5" option.). Adjustment to cooling system in that recovered space (e.g., larger diameter fan). Get to keep RAM door.


2. If Apple cranks up the CPU and GPU so there is large overlap with entry iMac Pro how do they not run into trouble on at least one of those ? The folks buying iMac 27" have tighter budget constraints. Taking away that RAM upgrade door may have bigger blow back than just folks grumbling on the forums. Priced too high folks won't buy.


3. Isn't all that hard if don't go to two fans. Increment fan diameter and minor tweak to vent to be incrementally bigger as opposed to almost twice as big ( for about twice the output. ). if Apple can squeeze out another 10-12W that would be enough. Throttle the 'k' series options so they stay inside the boundaries they are suppose to at standard settings.

As noted above, if nuke the 3.5" drive and flip the outer edge into that recovered space there room. No unicorns involved. With a 15mm 2.5" drive, you can get capacities all the way up to 4TB so not necessarily dropping back on total enclosed capacity either. ( current one tops out at 3TB.)
[doublepost=1534263927][/doublepost]

The mainstream iMac has a 3.5" HDD storage option. The iMac Pro doesn't. That HDD is largely there because it is more affordable (cheaper). So if the iMac ( thousands more affordable. ). That's why. The iMac Pro is for folks who have bigger budgets and are substantively less price sensitive.
Apple may push folks into Fusion Drive as a starting point in 27' iMacs but there is a pretty good chance they won't drop HDD completely at this stage. RAM is similar. if they push the prices up too much they'll loose customers.

1a. Once the Core i9-9900K and Core i7-9700K are released, 8-cores becomes the new normal for consumers. Apple is not going to skip the 8-core CPUs just because the base iMac Pro starts at 8-cores. The iMac Pro starts at $4999 while the base 27" iMac currently starts at $1799.00. They serve two entirely different markets. Besides, overlap has happened before with the 4-core Mac Pros and 4-core 27" iMacs.

A 91w TDP versus a 95w TDP is neglible. What is more troubling is that we started with a 77w TDP in 2012 (Core i7-3770) that has steadily crept up and up until Apple is cramming a 95w TDP into the same enclosure. Yes, they do have 65w CPUs that they use as well, but people want power, and expect Apple to keep it cool.

1b. The more I think about it, the more I believe that Apple will hold off on the T2 chip for this refresh. This is Apple's (only) consumer desktop. I do not think the T2 chip was ever meant for spinning platter HDDs. All flash is not going to happen until Apple does a redesign, which won't happen in 2018 with only 1 year under the iMac Pro's belt. In fact it may not happen until Apple decides it's time for the iMac to move to an A-Series CPU.

2. Even if Apple offers a BTO option for the Core i9-9900K, maxing out a 2017 iMac's specs (i7/64GB RAM/2TB Flash), the price tops out at $5,299.00. No one buying an iMac is going to cough up that much money for an iMac. Either the iMac is fine for what you do (16/32GB and 1TB SSD max) or you need an iMac Pro. I suspect that Apple will move the iMac Pro to the 10-core CPU for the base configuration while a new 22-core Xeon slots into the high end for the iMac Pro.

There will not be any GPU upgrades for the iMac other than going to the 500X version of the GPUs they now use in the current iMacs, so AMD Radeon Pro 555X, 560X, 570X, 575X, 580X for 2018. I would love to see a Vega Nano in the top BTO iMac with a Core i9-9900K, but I do not see it happening.

3. Apple will not cripple the clock speed on the CPUs - they have not before. Since Apple had to move to the 300-Series chipsets for these CPUs (7700K still works with 100-Series), which means Apple has no choice but to create a new motherboard (also, Titan Ridge, as Alpine Ridge chips are discontinued), which in turn means there is an engineering justification to spend time on updating the cooling solution in the iMac.

Apple is not going to move to 2.5" drives in the 27" version. Why? I do not know. I do not think the 2.5" is any more expensive, and is supposedly more reliable given that it has less moving parts, but maybe there is a long term reliability issue...anyways.

Apple does not need to push pople into the Fusion Drive as a starting point for the 27" since Fusion Drives are standard on the current 27". What would be nice of Apple to do (ha ha) is to make sure the flash storage portion is at least 128GB instead of the puny 24GB they use with the 1TB Fusion Drive, but I digress.

So, I have to say mea culpa, I NOW believe it is possible that Apple will rejigger the cooling system slightly and still offer the RAM door in this update to the iMac for 2018. May you live in interesting times.

 

[sublunar]

1a. Once the Core i9-9900K and Core i7-9700K are released, 8-cores becomes the new normal for consumers. Apple is not going to skip the 8-core CPUs just because the base iMac Pro starts at 8-cores. The iMac Pro starts at $4999 while the base 27" iMac currently starts at $1799.00. They serve two entirely different markets. Besides, overlap has happened before with the 4-core Mac Pros and 4-core 27" iMacs.

A 91w TDP versus a 95w TDP is neglible. What is more troubling is that we started with a 77w TDP in 2012 (Core i7-3770) that has steadily crept up and up until Apple is cramming a 95w TDP into the same enclosure. Yes, they do have 65w CPUs that they use as well, but people want power, and expect Apple to keep it cool.

1b. The more I think about it, the more I believe that Apple will hold off on the T2 chip for this refresh. This is Apple's (only) consumer desktop. I do not think the T2 chip was ever meant for spinning platter HDDs. All flash is not going to happen until Apple does a redesign, which won't happen in 2018 with only 1 year under the iMac Pro's belt. In fact it may not happen until Apple decides it's time for the iMac to move to an A-Series CPU.

2. Even if Apple offers a BTO option for the Core i9-9900K, maxing out a 2017 iMac's specs (i7/64GB RAM/2TB Flash), the price tops out at $5,299.00. No one buying an iMac is going to cough up that much money for an iMac. Either the iMac is fine for what you do (16/32GB and 1TB SSD max) or you need an iMac Pro. I suspect that Apple will move the iMac Pro to the 10-core CPU for the base configuration while a new 22-core Xeon slots into the high end for the iMac Pro.

There will not be any GPU upgrades for the iMac other than going to the 500X version of the GPUs they now use in the current iMacs, so AMD Radeon Pro 555X, 560X, 570X, 575X, 580X for 2018. I would love to see a Vega Nano in the top BTO iMac with a Core i9-9900K, but I do not see it happening.

3. Apple will not cripple the clock speed on the CPUs - they have not before. Since Apple had to move to the 300-Series chipsets for these CPUs (7700K still works with 100-Series), which means Apple has no choice but to create a new motherboard (also, Titan Ridge, as Alpine Ridge chips are discontinued), which in turn means there is an engineering justification to spend time on updating the cooling solution in the iMac.

Apple is not going to move to 2.5" drives in the 27" version. Why? I do not know. I do not think the 2.5" is any more expensive, and is supposedly more reliable given that it has less moving parts, but maybe there is a long term reliability issue...anyways.

Apple does not need to push pople into the Fusion Drive as a starting point for the 27" since Fusion Drives are standard on the current 27". What would be nice of Apple to do (ha ha) is to make sure the flash storage portion is at least 128GB instead of the puny 24GB they use with the 1TB Fusion Drive, but I digress.

So, I have to say mea culpa, I NOW believe it is possible that Apple will rejigger the cooling system slightly and still offer the RAM door in this update to the iMac for 2018. May you live in interesting times.

The point being made about the i9 8 core CPUs is about the potential for decapitating the base iMac Pro if a user can live without the VEGA GPU. Imagine being able to specify 1Tb Flash, base RAM (buy your own 32Gb from Crucial) and have an i9 CPU that (if not hobbled like the 3.2GHz 8 core Xeon in the iMac Pro). The 8 core Xeon in the iMac Pro is custom for Apple and slower than the off the shelf Xeon direct from Apple. The 'Pro' AMD Graphics provided direct to Apple for years now are also slower, less power hungry versions of the mobile RX GPUs that AMD normally provide.

This could start to seriously muddy the water in performance terms until someone runs long term benchmarks such as Handbrake or FCPX/Premiere Pro. How long before Youtubers start barking on about how Apple will now sell you an iMac Pro beater for under $4k an it's a well specified iMac?

The cooling issue will continue to rear its ugly head, I keep seeing the iMac Pro as the template for the future of the iMac - where hard drive and accessible RAM is sacrificed for cooling system and all-SSD.

I would say it only makes sense for Apple to allow an 8 core i9 iMac if it's an option in the top SKU which comes with only SSD options, more base RAM (which may not be upgradable) and the iMac Pro cooling system to keep the noise down. Remember that I can spec a top SKU iMac with the i7, 32Gb of Apple's own RAM and 1Tb SSD for $3799. I Imagine I could save $300 by going with Crucial RAM and then would probably have an iMac Pro botherer for well over $1k off the price of an iMac Pro. In fact some clever so and so could then throw together an AMD Vega Desktop in a eGPU box and then rave on about having even more powerful graphics for a machine that's the price of an iMac Pro.

The T2 CPU is there as a Flash controller and is effectively an A10- therefore adding costs to the bill of materials and motherboard design but that's not its only job. It's also a there to control security functions and image process the FaceTime camera plus Hey Siri and a secure enclave. I'm not certain of how it would work with a Fusion Drive but the iMac currently is Fusion drive across the board in the 27" line - not a solo hard drive in sight.

I think it only makes sense for Apple to put the T2 into the iMac 27" - if it's good enough for 13" MacBook Pros then they'll clearly fit them into the 27" iMac and I could see it easily going into the rest of the range to be honest if for no other reason than to start the clock for the death knell of the Hackintosh. In a few years time the latest Mac OS of the day would then require a T1 CPU to boot, because there would be no non-vintage Macs without a T series co processor on board.

2.5" drives are small but not necessarily cheaper than the 3.5" drives Apple has been using. That's not to say that at some point Apple decide that (if they skip the possibility of using SATA SSDs in a 2.5" configuration) then the mobile HD will allow something that the current design doesn't offer but I think cheaper QLC NAND flash in an M.2 configuration could allow Apple to have affordable all NAND storage in a Fusion Type scenario with 128Gb of faster SSD going on as a cache. That sort of thing could need advanced cooling too and therefore why I don't think we're going to see a thinning of the iMac but rather Apple going more for performance cooling because it seems clear that going to 6 cores and using more NAND flash with ever more advanced graphics will require more, not less cooling - rather than going thinner. I can't see past the iMac Pro being the future of the iMac rather than a dead end.

Maybe someone at Apple's engineering department has managed to convince Jony Ive to back off

 

[deconstruct60]

....

I think it only makes sense for Apple to put the T2 into the iMac 27" - if it's good enough for 13" MacBook Pros then they'll clearly fit them into the 27" iMac and I could see it easily going into the rest of the range to be honest if for no other reason than to start the clock for the death knell of the Hackintosh. In a few years time the latest Mac OS of the day would then require a T1 CPU to boot, because there would be no non-vintage Macs without a T series co processor on board. ...

A Fusion drive consists of two physical drives; one SSD and one HDD. It is "fused' via the file/volume system ( formerly CoreStorage/HFS+ ... upcoming APFS playing both of those roles. ). A T2 that in part drives 64-128GB of flash storage wouldn't be that interesting but coupled with a 1TB drive the a user on a budget would have far more storage capacity on the same 'bill of materials" budget then a 1TB SSD. ( e.g. T2 64GB SSD is $45 and 1TB 2.5 is $50 that $95 versus a $199+ for an SSD that large. )

I don't think it is likely that T-series will become required to boot macOS anytime soon or in the intermediate future ( 5-6+ years). It is present far more for security than some primarily attempt at killing off hackintosh.

2.5" drives are small but not necessarily cheaper than the 3.5" drives Apple has been using.

5,400 RPM vs 7,200 RPM versus SSHD (defacto what Fusion does ) or SSD.
2.5" drives are already used in the iMac 21.5". Economies of scale. ( if the mini is still around and gets revised probably all the more so. ) If buy in bigger bulk they do get cheaper.

That's not to say that at some point Apple decide that (if they skip the possibility of using SATA SSDs in a 2.5" configuration) then the mobile HD will allow something that the current design doesn't offer but I think cheaper QLC NAND flash in an M.2 configuration could allow Apple to have affordable all NAND storage in a Fusion

T2 is an SSD drive controller ( among other things. it wears multiple hats). if is present there will highly likely not be a M.2 drive. The single SSD drive job is filled. I can't see where the iMac Pro is restricted to one and only one SSD drive and the lowly iMac gets two. That's probably not going to happen at all.

Over time Apple is probably going to put SSDs into all Macs ( they'll all have them.). The T-series processors is going to be part of that process. The SSDs that they all have? T-series driven. ( perhaps not on the lowest end entry Mac Products in 2018, but over time that's probably where they are going. )

One of the other roles the T2 plays which probably means it will be soldered onto the motherboard ( not a 'blade' like M.2 ). Like the iMac Pro the 'raw' NAND chips could be on SSD 'daughtercards' ( so can easily adjust capacity.... from Fusion 'cache' up to 'big buck' multiple TBs ) .

Type scenario with 128Gb of faster SSD going on as a cache. That sort of thing could need advanced cooling too

Errr, no. It just needs some reasonable cooling but a T2 SSD will run almost an order of magnitude lower in heat the the CPU and GPU. Similar a 2.5" drive isn't going to run any hotter than the 3.5" drive does now. Neither one of these are major thermal problems.

and therefore why I don't think we're going to see a thinning of the iMac

It isn't really effectively thinning the iMac but more so more effectively using the internal space the current basic design gives you. Moving more air ( bigger fan and perhaps adding a vent along bottom) versus using a relatively big HDD to get relatively minor increase in speed..

but rather Apple going more for performance cooling because it seems clear that going to 6 cores and using more NAND flash with ever more advanced graphics will require more, not less cooling - rather than going thinner. I can't see past the iMac Pro being the future of the iMac rather than a dead end.

The graphics don't have to. There is rumors of a follow on to the Polaris ( R500 series ) that may appear around mid 2019. Apple could squat and wait for those but part of the problem is that the GPUs are just being flogged harder at this point latest in that implementation generation. What is needed is an upgrade on implementation.

Maybe someone at Apple's engineering department has managed to convince Jony Ive to back off

Reusing the case ( with perhaps some minor mount point tweaks , a slot cutting adjustments ) would pragmatically be a "back off". If there is nothing major to be a "rethought" design exercise then Ive doesn't have to be looped in deeply.

 

[danwells]

Something that few on this performance-oriented thread would like to see, but is a reasonable possibility, is an iMac update to 8th generation processors - 8th generation mobile processors. It makes too much sense from a Jony Ive viewpoint to ignore the possibility.

1.) It solves the cooling problem - even a hot 45W chip is easier to cool than a 95W chip.
2.)It has a lot of synergy with the 15" MacBook Pro - it would be essentially the same motherboard, although with space for extra RAM (Lenovo actually offers a 128 GB option with those processors on one mobile workstation, although Apple will probably stick to a maximum of 64), and a higher end mobile GPU.
3.) It keeps the iMac Pro nicely separated from other iMacs - don't like the mobile chip? Here's the iMac Pro...
4.) If they wanted to do a redesign, they could reduce the bezels and the chin, especially if they also went SSD-only

If it's a SSD-only design (probably non-accessible RAM and SSD, too), it might be only the 27" that gets an update. The 21.5" could either be ignored or given a minor update with quad-core i3s

 

[alien3dx]

nobody here waiting optane 16GB with 1TB platter hardisk. shame

 

[iPadified]

Something that few on this performance-oriented thread would like to see, but is a reasonable possibility, is an iMac update to 8th generation processors - 8th generation mobile processors. It makes too much sense from a Jony Ive viewpoint to ignore the possibility.

1.) It solves the cooling problem - even a hot 45W chip is easier to cool than a 95W chip.
2.)It has a lot of synergy with the 15" MacBook Pro - it would be essentially the same motherboard, although with space for extra RAM (Lenovo actually offers a 128 GB option with those processors on one mobile workstation, although Apple will probably stick to a maximum of 64), and a higher end mobile GPU.
3.) It keeps the iMac Pro nicely separated from other iMacs - don't like the mobile chip? Here's the iMac Pro...
4.) If they wanted to do a redesign, they could reduce the bezels and the chin, especially if they also went SSD-only

If it's a SSD-only design (probably non-accessible RAM and SSD, too), it might be only the 27" that gets an update. The 21.5" could either be ignored or given a minor update with quad-core i3s

“Laptop on a stick”, as the iMac is called in the Mac Pro forum, is a possibility. The i9 in MBP pro delivers Geekbench on par or better with the MP2013 8-core (how it compared in other benchmark, I do not know). Better cooling in the iMac will perhaps increase the sustained i9 mobile performance so it is a good match. A large proportion of average users would likely be satisfied with the performance of the mobile i9.

Designwise, why not take some cues from the iPhone with a back made of glass? I always liked the white plastic iMac. Glass is a poor conductor of heat but it could be a beuatiful machine suitable for home use.

Lower the RAM upgrade price during configuration and the majority would be happy with letting the RAM door go.

 

[gusping]

Something that few on this performance-oriented thread would like to see, but is a reasonable possibility, is an iMac update to 8th generation processors - 8th generation mobile processors. It makes too much sense from a Jony Ive viewpoint to ignore the possibility.

1.) It solves the cooling problem - even a hot 45W chip is easier to cool than a 95W chip.
2.)It has a lot of synergy with the 15" MacBook Pro - it would be essentially the same motherboard, although with space for extra RAM (Lenovo actually offers a 128 GB option with those processors on one mobile workstation, although Apple will probably stick to a maximum of 64), and a higher end mobile GPU.
3.) It keeps the iMac Pro nicely separated from other iMacs - don't like the mobile chip? Here's the iMac Pro...
4.) If they wanted to do a redesign, they could reduce the bezels and the chin, especially if they also went SSD-only

If it's a SSD-only design (probably non-accessible RAM and SSD, too), it might be only the 27" that gets an update. The 21.5" could either be ignored or given a minor update with quad-core i3s

The iMac is already compromised due to its absolutely horrendous thermal performance. Apple NEEDS to solve that, rather than just put a weaker mobile CPU in it. It's like in the old days where mobile GPUs were used. Mobile parts in a desktop machine is a no no to me. It just admits that the iMac's design is compromised heavily.

 

[Dave245]

With today being the 20th year of the iMac I wonder if Apple have an update ready for later this year. Maybe offer the iMac in space grey reduce the bezels and put in the latest specs.

There was report by Ming Chi a Kuo earlier this year that said they will update the iMac with spec updates and “significant display-performance upgrades” whatever that means.

 

[Lammers]

In some wild scenario, does anyone think Apple will drop their prices for RAM upgrades?

Yes, I think there is fair chance they will do that to soften the blow of losing the RAM door. Question is how much.
[doublepost=1534341279][/doublepost]

With today being the 20th year of the iMac I wonder if Apple have an update ready for later this year. Maybe offer the iMac in space grey reduce the bezels and put in the latest specs.

There was report by Ming Chi a Kuo earlier this year that said they will update the iMac with spec updates and “significant display-performance upgrades” whatever that means.

I don’t believe Apple would be inclined to go to the time and effort (i.e. cost) of doing that just for the anniversary. I think any celebration of the anniversary that Apple intends to do this year has already been done.

And I expect if Kuo had any evidence of physical changes to the iMac then he would have reported them. And the fact that he didn’t - and only mentioned CPU upgrade and display performance upgrade - indicates that there won’t be any.

 

[Dave245]

I don’t believe Apple would be inclined to go to the time and effort (i.e. cost) of doing that just for the anniversary. I think any celebration of the anniversary that Apple intends to do this year has already been done.

And I expect if Kuo had any evidence of physical changes to the iMac then he would have reported them. And the fact that he didn’t - and only mentioned CPU upgrade and display performance upgrade - indicates that there won’t be any.

True, I’m more intrigued as to what the display performance update will be, True Tone maybe? They already have 4K and 5K displays so I don’t know what else they are likely to upgrade.

I think True Tone is likely since it’s now in the 2018 MacBook Pros, also I wonder if they will put the T2 chip inside the new iMac’s. If it’s just spec updates I’m guessing maybe not even mentioned at a keynote and updated via a press release instead.

 

[Zdigital2015]

The point being made about the i9 8 core CPUs is about the potential for decapitating the base iMac Pro if a user can live without the VEGA GPU. Imagine being able to specify 1Tb Flash, base RAM (buy your own 32Gb from Crucial) and have an i9 CPU that (if not hobbled like the 3.2GHz 8 core Xeon in the iMac Pro). The 8 core Xeon in the iMac Pro is custom for Apple and slower than the off the shelf Xeon direct from Apple. The 'Pro' AMD Graphics provided direct to Apple for years now are also slower, less power hungry versions of the mobile RX GPUs that AMD normally provide.

This could start to seriously muddy the water in performance terms until someone runs long term benchmarks such as Handbrake or FCPX/Premiere Pro. How long before Youtubers start barking on about how Apple will now sell you an iMac Pro beater for under $4k an it's a well specified iMac?

The cooling issue will continue to rear its ugly head, I keep seeing the iMac Pro as the template for the future of the iMac - where hard drive and accessible RAM is sacrificed for cooling system and all-SSD.

I would say it only makes sense for Apple to allow an 8 core i9 iMac if it's an option in the top SKU which comes with only SSD options, more base RAM (which may not be upgradable) and the iMac Pro cooling system to keep the noise down. Remember that I can spec a top SKU iMac with the i7, 32Gb of Apple's own RAM and 1Tb SSD for $3799. I Imagine I could save $300 by going with Crucial RAM and then would probably have an iMac Pro botherer for well over $1k off the price of an iMac Pro. In fact some clever so and so could then throw together an AMD Vega Desktop in a eGPU box and then rave on about having even more powerful graphics for a machine that's the price of an iMac Pro.

The T2 CPU is there as a Flash controller and is effectively an A10- therefore adding costs to the bill of materials and motherboard design but that's not its only job. It's also a there to control security functions and image process the FaceTime camera plus Hey Siri and a secure enclave. I'm not certain of how it would work with a Fusion Drive but the iMac currently is Fusion drive across the board in the 27" line - not a solo hard drive in sight.

I think it only makes sense for Apple to put the T2 into the iMac 27" - if it's good enough for 13" MacBook Pros then they'll clearly fit them into the 27" iMac and I could see it easily going into the rest of the range to be honest if for no other reason than to start the clock for the death knell of the Hackintosh. In a few years time the latest Mac OS of the day would then require a T1 CPU to boot, because there would be no non-vintage Macs without a T series co processor on board.

2.5" drives are small but not necessarily cheaper than the 3.5" drives Apple has been using. That's not to say that at some point Apple decide that (if they skip the possibility of using SATA SSDs in a 2.5" configuration) then the mobile HD will allow something that the current design doesn't offer but I think cheaper QLC NAND flash in an M.2 configuration could allow Apple to have affordable all NAND storage in a Fusion Type scenario with 128Gb of faster SSD going on as a cache. That sort of thing could need advanced cooling too and therefore why I don't think we're going to see a thinning of the iMac but rather Apple going more for performance cooling because it seems clear that going to 6 cores and using more NAND flash with ever more advanced graphics will require more, not less cooling - rather than going thinner. I can't see past the iMac Pro being the future of the iMac rather than a dead end.

Maybe someone at Apple's engineering department has managed to convince Jony Ive to back off

To reiterate, I believe you either you know you need an iMac Pro or you know you do not need an iMac Pro. I know right now that I do not need an iMac Pro. I want an iMac Pro, but I do NOT need one.

There are specific advantages that the regular iMac cannot match currently, and probably never will, because they are two completely different markets in Apple's eyes.

The iMac Pro's advantages over the current iMac

1. Xeon CPUs - Cores ranging from 8 to 18; AVX-512 support; support for ECC DRAM; 44 PCIe 3.0 lanes on the CPU; longer guarantedd support life from Intel. By contrast, the Core i-Series tops out at 6-cores now and 8-cores shortly; maxes out at 16 PCIe 3.0 lanes, max of 64GB of DRAM, shorter support life, et al
2. Up to 128GB ECC DDR4 DRAM - Twice as much as the Core i-Series CPUs which do not support ECC; also, the memory is quad-channel as opposed to dual channel
3. Vega 56 and Vega 64 GPUs - While the Vega 56 might not seem that impressive, the iMac Pro sports the equivalent of an AMD Radeon Vega 64 Frontier Edition Air inside and is not some kid's toy
4. Four Thunderbolt 3 ports
5. 10Gb Ethernet
6. Supports twice as many connected displays at 5K, 4K and 4K (DCI) resolution as the regular iMac
7. The T2 chip
8. Pure screaming SSD; RAID 0 at that; encrypted, no performance penalty

These unique differentiators are far more than just the CPU and the GPU, which seems to be the basis of your thesis.

Based on Geekbench synthetic benchmarks, the Core i7-8700K takes the single core crown (8086K is TOPS, but it is a limited edition CPU) and scores within 2% of the Xeon W-2140B in multi-core - https://browser.geekbench.com/processor-benchmarks/ - so "decapitation " is a given at this point. I do not think anyone on this forum would argue that Apple would not at least update the iMac to 8th Gen CPUs and offer the 8700K as a BTO option, just as they do with the 7700K, which is not exactly a Ford Model T, performance-wise.

I also believe the 8-core Xeon may be dropped in favor of the 10-core at the base with the 22-core taking the top spot once the Core X version is released and Intel introduces the Xeon W version. Doing that will further distance the iMac from the iMac Pro.

The Radeon Pro that Apple uses (570/575/580) in the iMac are slower versions of desktop PCI AIO cards, not mobile GPUs. They aren't exactly slouches. Apple will most likely use the 500X-series now available to OEMs in the refresh. The Vegas are reserved for the iMac Pro for now.

Simply updating the CPU and the GPU is not going to muddy the waters in performance terms with the iMac Pro. Sure, you may get a little closer to the iMac Pro in CPU performance, but that is it. Topping out a regular iMac with BTO options gives you nowhere to go but to a new machine or the iMac Pro. Although, it is not easy, upgrading the iMac Pro DRAM and CPU should be possible.

Yes, I agree that Apple will take the lessons of the iMac Pro thermals and apply them to the iMac. I think they will keep the RAM access door, at least for one more iteration and then we may see a new chassis in 2020, as there are no S-Series roadmaps for 10nm that have leaked...yet, which still means Late 2019 or 2020, at best.

Apple generally only allows the option to upgrade to the highest spec Core i7 CPU on the middle and upper tier iMacs, with the lowest tier stuck with what it gets. The only reason I would be forced to upgrade to flash storage would be the T2 chip, not to get the i9-9900K. I can get a 7700K with a 1TB Fusion Drive now, if I want.

Right now, any clever so and so can hook up to 2 eGPUs each with a Vega 64 or a Pro WX9100 and get better GPU performance than the iMac Pro. Not quite sure how this bolsters your argument.

Not sure it makes sense at this time to put the T2 into the iMac. Apple is not going to go all flash in its only up to date, highest market share, desktop. They are too thrifty, and they know users will not cough up the cash if they raise prices.

Apple has used 3.5" drives in the 27" iMac and I do not see this changing. I cannot explain why they do not offer beyond 3TB, but it is what it is.

Apple does not do m.2, it is either a proprietary connector, soldered or bust. I expect that we will continue to see that trend.

QLC NAND just came on the market and it is certainly possible that Apple will embrace it at some point, but Apple has been driving performance, not cost, even with the Fusion Drive. Besides SLC, MLC or TLC all have establshed track records now and are safer bets.

It will be interesting to see what Apple does.

 

[deconstruct60]

Something that few on this performance-oriented thread would like to see, but is a reasonable possibility, is an iMac update to 8th generation processors - 8th generation mobile processors. It makes too much sense from a Jony Ive viewpoint to ignore the possibility.

1.) It solves the cooling problem - even a hot 45W chip is easier to cool than a 95W chip.

The iMac Pro case is essentially the same dimensions and it solves the cooling problem for a 140W CPU ( 45W more watts than 95W). The solution to the root cause is to push more air with not tons more noise through the enclosure. That's it.

The iMac Pro has two fans. They don't necessarily need two. One incrementally bigger fan would work. The iMac Pro's two need a much bigger vent ( which in turn nukes the RAM door since Ive & company want to 'hide' the vents and fan behind the iMac pedestal arm. ). There is room to make the one vent slightly bigger without nuking the RAM door ( slightly taller vents in oppose side from RAM door. )

A single larger fan, slightly larger exhaust vent , and perhaps the iMac Pro's slots along the bottom to balance the air intake increase.

2.)It has a lot of synergy with the 15" MacBook Pro - it would be essentially the same motherboard, although with space for extra RAM (Lenovo actually offers a 128 GB option with those processors on one mobile workstation, although Apple will probably stick to a maximum of 64), and a higher end mobile GPU.

In many ways it doesn't. The iMac 27" has 4 more USB Type A sockets than the MBP. The Thunderbolt is 2 instead of 4. There is a SD card slot ( MBP has zero ). The iMac has DIMM slots and the MBP has none.
[ Soldering the RAM on the MBP makes sense due to height savings. The iMac doesn't have that issue. Even the iMac Pro , which doesn't have a RAM door , still has DIMMs. Same for most of 21.5" line up.

That Lenovo? ..... DIMMs. }

Yes there is a entry ( hobbled ) 21.5" model that Apple has pegged to MBA limitations. ( soldered RAM , etc. ). But the 4K 2017 model doesn't https://www.ifixit.com/Teardown/iMac+Intel+21.5-Inch+Retina+4K+Display+2017+Teardown/92170 .

3.) It keeps the iMac Pro nicely separated from other iMacs - don't like the mobile chip? Here's the iMac Pro...

I think completely missing the gap between desktop 6 core options ( which don't necessarily have a 90W problem ) and the limitations of the mobile option. Ignore the 'i9' bluster.

The i7 8700 is approximately $200 cheaper. Just 100MHz slower on Turbo and 300MHz faster on base. If running a high mix of 4-6 thread workloads the mobile i9 is not going to be faster. It may single threaded drag race slightly faster, but throwing lots of performance out the window on parallel workloads for alot more money ( that $200 gap is pre Apple's 28+ % markup. ).

if Apple's intent was to build something not competitive, then there aren't many better moves. "More money for less throughput".

4.) If they wanted to do a redesign, they could reduce the bezels and the chin, especially if they also went SSD-only

The front, outside isn't the core problem. Apple needs to reconsile that having a few holes/slots in the case that people can see isn't the end of the world. Second, they just need to move more air through those holes. That's it, problem solved. Bezels ... the wide spread tech porn press OCD fetish over bezels is off in the weeds at this point.

If it's a SSD-only design (probably non-accessible RAM and SSD, too), it might be only the 27" that gets an update. The 21.5" could either be ignored or given a minor update with quad-core i3s

The 21.5" might be the place where the mobile processors come in more than the 27". Intel now has some Core i5-i7's with AMD graphics. It wouldn't be surprising to see at least one of the 21.5" models with one of those. Especially, if they pushed a basic "retina" screen down to the entry level offering. ( and even more so if revised Mac Mini used several of these Intel+AMD combos also. )

 

[ThisBougieLife]

I'd be alright with "laptop on a stick", though I know that most others wouldn't. I have the 15" MBP now and my biggest issues with it are:

-Poor cooling
-Lack of 4K display

And hearing about the issues with the mobile i9 in the 2018 15" make me even more wary of continuing down the laptop road. These issues would of course be remedied by getting an iMac, mobile processor or not. Still, I would rather they continue to use desktop processors and find better ways of cooling them. Is Apple really going to say "processors are getting too powerful for us; it's time to abandon the hope of cooling them effectively and downgrade the internals"?

I understand that the MacMini was downgraded, but that is certainly the exception, not the rule.