Why? For much poorer contrast towards the display edges
No thanks for me. Keep them bezels
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.
No 2018 iMac?!
- Thread starter Internet Enzyme
- Start date
-
- Tags
- 2018 2019 configuration imac
- Sort by reaction score
No thanks for me. Keep them bezels
I have doubts we will see a redesigned iMac this year given the sparse rumours, and the focus on other products iPad Pro and the MacBook. It seems a product refresh with a spec bump is more than likely. I prefer a fresh new look, given my late 2013 sitting at home looks no different to the 2017 model in the stores, I can wait it out.
Its been reported/postulated that a coffee lake based iMac could very well out perform the iMac Pro. May be not in every way, and of course not with the high end core counts that you can purchase, but the pricing difference on the low end iMac Pro and the iMac may drive sales to the iMac. I'm saying that as, possible motivation on withholding an update to the iMac.
If that’s the logic I assume it more stops sales on the iMac instead of driving them to the Pro model.
I for example have a budget of no more than $3000 max. And I wait until I can have the specifications I want.
I don't think Apple has ever shy'ed away from releasing a more powerful product because they worried about other products in the line. If it will sell, they will make it. People are over thinking this.
Unfortunately, by that reasoning, we should not have seen upgrades to Skylake(i7-6700K) in the Late 2015 iMac, which mops up every single Mac Pro that Apple has ever built in single-core performance and can hold its own against the four- and six-core 2013 Mac Pros in multi-core performance. Lets not discuss render performance in Final Cut Pro X either.
I must reiterate that Apple does not see the iMac and iMac Pro as one product line, it sees them as two. The fact that they are using the same chassis/form factor is what is contributing to users conflating them into a single product line, which they should not be doing.
Performance overlap has occurred before and will continue to occur moving forward.
I laid out the unique differences in the iMac and iMac Pro in a previous post, but it seems like the focus in the forums seems to be stuck on the CPU and that is about all.
Honestly, I do not think Apple cares which one you buy as long as you buy it from them, they make money either way. How many people really, justifiably, ACTUALLY need more than 4c/8t on a day in/day out basis? If they do, are those people still using a spinning platter HDD? More or less than 8GB or DRAM? A dedicated GPU? A dedicated GPU that is less than two years old? If they answer no, to any of those questions, I would have to say, they are not comparing the iMac and iMac Pro anyways, because they have not optimized what they have already.
If they need 8-cores, they are going to get their wish, in a design that still has plenty of compromises when building a "Pro Lite" desktop. Those compromises are what pushes users to the iMac Pro. Those compromises are the whole reason the Core X-series exists in Intel's lineup in the first place. Apple just takes it one step beyond the X-series using the Xeon W-series.
Users either need an iMac Pro or they do not need an iMac Pro and those that can accept the compromises of the iMac do not really need an iMac Pro at all, because there is still quite a large price delta between the two models, even when you decide to upgrade the specs on the iMac. Making up the difference does not make the iMac any cheaper in the long run.
A decently kitted iMac from Apple (4.2GHz i7/8GB/1TB SSD/Pro 580) is $3,099 and getting it to 40GB of third-party DRAM costs another $350 for a total of $3,450.00, which is $1,550 less than the base iMac Pro. Want a Vega 64 eGPU, you are looking at another $1000.00 for that Vega 64s running about $600 and the eGPU box at $400. Need a TB3 RAID? Well then, you just used your other TB3 port, while the iMac Pro still has two left for a RED Rocket Card, that second Vega 64 eGPU to complement the internal Vega 64 and still has one additional TB3 port available (eGPU, TB3 RAID, RED Rocket), while the iMac owner is left plugging and unplugging stuff from the back of their iMac. Hope you do not need 10Gb Ethernet as well.
Okay, sure, you have an 8c/16t i7-9900K in your spiffy new 2018 iMac, but that won't help you with GPU bound apps because Apple put a Radeon Pro 580X in there and that juicy 64GBs of RAM for the 2018 iMac is going to run you another $700.00, add an external GPU for another $1000, and so on and so forth.
Pardon my terseness, but I really do not think that Apple will let "overlap" between the iMac and the iMac Pro hinder rolling out an updated iMac. We will see if I am right or wrong in 45-60 days.
Last edited:
If I see a stock Ford Mustang driving down the road, and then another one right behind it that's been seriously upgraded, they're still both Ford Mustangs.
So yea, not buying that. They're both iMacs.
A ecoboost Mustang is not that same as a GT350R...on Apples site the iMac pro isn’t under the tradinal iMac category, it’s next to it.
Maybe to the person who knows nothing about cars (or computers), but the person driving a Challenger SXT sure as hell understands what a Challenger Hellcat can do that his car cannot, although they may still attempt it. History is replete with stories (and obituaries) of those who keep on trying. Viva la difference!
Aren't analogies fun?!?
Interesting news released https://www.bloomberg.com/amp/news/...s-to-reignite-sales?__twitter_impression=true
Do you guys think that this means there is not going to be an iMac update this October?
Do you guys think that this means there is not going to be an iMac update this October?
Those are the two most weakest parts of the Mac line up that if refreshed could move the needle on units/revenue . The iMac is relatively up to date relative to the Mac Mini and MBA.
if the Mac industrial design have been re-imagining the Mini and the MBA then is probably where most of their limited effort has gone.
I don't think this rules out perhaps iMacs in mid-December ( before the end of year), but could slide into 2019.
Who knows... We haven't seen anything like a "pro-focused Mini" in a LONG time. There has never been an Intel Mac without at least one of the following:
1.) Mobile CPU and Intel integrated graphics (Mac Mini)
2.) A Xeon (or two) (Mac Pro)
3.) A screen (everything else)
The Mini has historically shared a lot of parts with the 13" laptop line, hardly "pro-focused" in a desktop, although the few quad-core models shared CPUs with the 15" MacBook Pro (without discrete graphics). There were certain pro applications where the Mini made a lot of sense, especially when hooking up a box to a bunch of musical equipment - musicians wanted something that would sit in a rack and have a fair bit of I/O, and they generally didn't care about graphics (and the mobile CPU was fine unless they were running a ton of tracks). Minis also made handy little NAS boxes using external disks, and found their way into a lot of photo studios and the like (as well as in software development) that way. The third "pro application" Minis turned up in was in labs (scientists love them for equipment control - tuck it on a shelf and forget it).
Outside of music, the Mini never made any sense as a "pro desktop". iMacs were (and still are) great office desktops - why go screenless in that application? The iMac screen is higher quality than almost anything you'd find in a typical office, and Apple's always given a good deal on the screen in an iMac. Creative applications outside of music generally need graphics in some capacity, and the Mini has always had dog-slow Intel integrated graphics, and has never (yet) accepted an eGPU. The same scientists who use a Mini to control the mass spectrometer generally like an iMac on their desk (or a PC). Software developers probably don't enjoy compiling things on a mobile CPU (although I don't really know a lot of developers, and I've seen how the Mini is used in both art and science from experience).
Apple could go a wide range of ways with a "pro-focused" Mini. Here are 3 possibilities
1.) At the lower end, it could have a relatively decent mobile CPU (either a higher-end quad core or one of the 6-cores) with a bunch of Thunderbolt 3 and USB ports and maybe 10G Ethernet, which would be really useful in a machine that is often a server. Musicians would love it, as would scientists and the "build a NAS" community. Even some graphics sensitive users could find a use for one, with an external GPU. It might well have soldered RAM, and is very likely to have a soldered SSD (remember how much history the Mini shares with the MacBook Pro). This is essentially a modern version of the much-loved previous Mini, although with less internal upgradeability and more connectivity.
2.) If they go to the middle of the range, it might have a 95W desktop CPU, although that is the Mac Apple has always resisted building - it might have Intel graphics only, or it might have a mobile Radeon like the iMac. The last time we saw a "mid-range desktop" Mac without a built-in screen was in the early 2000s, and it wasn't Intel based. I have to admit to being befuddled by this possibility, because Apple has resisted exactly this machine for so long.
It would almost by definition be less Mini than previous Minis (it could have as small a footprint, if it was double height) to cool the CPU. That could attract a lot of pro users, including graphics sensitive users who might use an external GPU. Photographers and video pros who don't find the iMac screen accurate enough and use Eizo or NEC monitors might very well prefer not to pay for the screen. I can almost guarantee that any such machine would be priced to be less attractive than the iMac unless you really didn't want the screen (maybe $500 less than a 27" iMac with the same specs).
If this comes out, they'd almost have to update the 27" iMac at the same time. Otherwise, they'd have a "Mini" that could outrun any other Mac except the iMac Pro. This would be a darned useful machine - almost too useful, because it could hurt sales of three Macs (27" iMac, iMac Pro and the forthcoming modular Mac Pro). Expect next to no internal expansion potential to keep it from hurting other Macs - if we're lucky, we'll get a RAM door.
3.) The third possibility is iMac Pro-type innards in a relatively non-expandable case (probably RAM upgrade only). If this comes, it's a sign that they're aiming REALLY high with the modular Mac Pro. They aren't going to build three Macs with closely related insides at the high end, so a "screenless iMac Pro" would mean that the modular Mac Pro is aimed significantly above it , featuring an Xeon SP or successor for sure , maybe always dual processor. A "super-Mini" might or might not feature the internal Vega from the iMac Pro, because they might assume that musicians and many developers, among others don't care about the graphics, and the graphic arts/photo/video community will always use an eGPU. I could actually even see them using the Radeon 560 from the MacBook Pro 15" (the Xeons don't have onboard graphics, so it can't have Intel graphics) - it doesn't use a lot of power so it's easy to cool, it'll drive a 5K display if you're running Logic or XCode, and it'll encourage eGPU use among graphics types.
If I had to guess, we'll see option 1, with some nice, but mobile (or maybe power-optimized desktop if it's cheaper) innards. If there is a 6-core option, we'll probably see a 27" iMac refresh the same day. Yes, this is a pro machine, especially if it has plenty of Thunderbolt and 10G Ethernet - it's just not a pro video machine.
1.) Mobile CPU and Intel integrated graphics (Mac Mini)
2.) A Xeon (or two) (Mac Pro)
3.) A screen (everything else)
The Mini has historically shared a lot of parts with the 13" laptop line, hardly "pro-focused" in a desktop, although the few quad-core models shared CPUs with the 15" MacBook Pro (without discrete graphics). There were certain pro applications where the Mini made a lot of sense, especially when hooking up a box to a bunch of musical equipment - musicians wanted something that would sit in a rack and have a fair bit of I/O, and they generally didn't care about graphics (and the mobile CPU was fine unless they were running a ton of tracks). Minis also made handy little NAS boxes using external disks, and found their way into a lot of photo studios and the like (as well as in software development) that way. The third "pro application" Minis turned up in was in labs (scientists love them for equipment control - tuck it on a shelf and forget it).
Outside of music, the Mini never made any sense as a "pro desktop". iMacs were (and still are) great office desktops - why go screenless in that application? The iMac screen is higher quality than almost anything you'd find in a typical office, and Apple's always given a good deal on the screen in an iMac. Creative applications outside of music generally need graphics in some capacity, and the Mini has always had dog-slow Intel integrated graphics, and has never (yet) accepted an eGPU. The same scientists who use a Mini to control the mass spectrometer generally like an iMac on their desk (or a PC). Software developers probably don't enjoy compiling things on a mobile CPU (although I don't really know a lot of developers, and I've seen how the Mini is used in both art and science from experience).
Apple could go a wide range of ways with a "pro-focused" Mini. Here are 3 possibilities
1.) At the lower end, it could have a relatively decent mobile CPU (either a higher-end quad core or one of the 6-cores) with a bunch of Thunderbolt 3 and USB ports and maybe 10G Ethernet, which would be really useful in a machine that is often a server. Musicians would love it, as would scientists and the "build a NAS" community. Even some graphics sensitive users could find a use for one, with an external GPU. It might well have soldered RAM, and is very likely to have a soldered SSD (remember how much history the Mini shares with the MacBook Pro). This is essentially a modern version of the much-loved previous Mini, although with less internal upgradeability and more connectivity.
2.) If they go to the middle of the range, it might have a 95W desktop CPU, although that is the Mac Apple has always resisted building - it might have Intel graphics only, or it might have a mobile Radeon like the iMac. The last time we saw a "mid-range desktop" Mac without a built-in screen was in the early 2000s, and it wasn't Intel based. I have to admit to being befuddled by this possibility, because Apple has resisted exactly this machine for so long.
It would almost by definition be less Mini than previous Minis (it could have as small a footprint, if it was double height) to cool the CPU. That could attract a lot of pro users, including graphics sensitive users who might use an external GPU. Photographers and video pros who don't find the iMac screen accurate enough and use Eizo or NEC monitors might very well prefer not to pay for the screen. I can almost guarantee that any such machine would be priced to be less attractive than the iMac unless you really didn't want the screen (maybe $500 less than a 27" iMac with the same specs).
If this comes out, they'd almost have to update the 27" iMac at the same time. Otherwise, they'd have a "Mini" that could outrun any other Mac except the iMac Pro. This would be a darned useful machine - almost too useful, because it could hurt sales of three Macs (27" iMac, iMac Pro and the forthcoming modular Mac Pro). Expect next to no internal expansion potential to keep it from hurting other Macs - if we're lucky, we'll get a RAM door.
3.) The third possibility is iMac Pro-type innards in a relatively non-expandable case (probably RAM upgrade only). If this comes, it's a sign that they're aiming REALLY high with the modular Mac Pro. They aren't going to build three Macs with closely related insides at the high end, so a "screenless iMac Pro" would mean that the modular Mac Pro is aimed significantly above it , featuring an Xeon SP or successor for sure , maybe always dual processor. A "super-Mini" might or might not feature the internal Vega from the iMac Pro, because they might assume that musicians and many developers, among others don't care about the graphics, and the graphic arts/photo/video community will always use an eGPU. I could actually even see them using the Radeon 560 from the MacBook Pro 15" (the Xeons don't have onboard graphics, so it can't have Intel graphics) - it doesn't use a lot of power so it's easy to cool, it'll drive a 5K display if you're running Logic or XCode, and it'll encourage eGPU use among graphics types.
If I had to guess, we'll see option 1, with some nice, but mobile (or maybe power-optimized desktop if it's cheaper) innards. If there is a 6-core option, we'll probably see a 27" iMac refresh the same day. Yes, this is a pro machine, especially if it has plenty of Thunderbolt and 10G Ethernet - it's just not a pro video machine.
Well since the October date is speculation anyway, I’m not sure anyone can tell you anything meaningful about what this may or may not mean.
The Kuo report said the iMac gets some sort of update in fall. I’m inclined to still believe that to be true. But the fact that the iMac doesn’t warrant a mention in the Bloomberg article just reinforces the notion that it’s a minor update for the iMac and therefore not newsworthy.
Intel is heavily rumored to be releasing their new 9th-Gen Core i-Series CPUs (i9-9900K, i7-9700K, i5-9600K, et al.) on October 1st, 2018 - https://wccftech.com/intel-9th-gen-coffee-lake-s-cpu-z390-platform-launch-1st-october/ - Apple cannot announce new iMacs before Intel announces these new CPUs, it is a contractual restriction. Rumors and speculation can be published all day long on the internet, but Intel determines when OEMs can announce their products based on a new CPU. That being said, I would not expect to hear about an update to the iMacs until mid-October and I will not be surprised if the iMac update ends up being a silent, press release update on October 2nd, 9th or 16th.
At this point, despite really wanting a visually-updated iMac, I'd take a refresh with better cooling, new CPUs, and True Tone. Bonus for Face ID but I can't see that coming just yet. The reason I'm sniffing around the iMac area on here again is because my 2018 MacBook Pro is about to be returned due to a few issues (Bridge OS crashes, etc.) and after having it for almost a month (connected to a 4K monitor) I've come to realise I don't move it around that often so an iMac might make more sense.
On Face ID, my expectation would be that it comes to the laptops before it comes to any of the desktops, because the RoI for doing the engineering work there is stronger.
Mini pro would be great choice for many of us who already have a pile of great monitors hanging around!
6/8/10 core Xeon, mGPU, superfast ssd, 10GBe, 4 * tb3 and SD card reader. 16gb ecc ram as a standard
Mac mini non Pro
4/6 core i5/i7, iGPU, superfast ssd, 10GBe, 2* tb3 and SD card reader
16gb ddr4 as a standard
6/8/10 core Xeon, mGPU, superfast ssd, 10GBe, 4 * tb3 and SD card reader. 16gb ecc ram as a standard
Mac mini non Pro
4/6 core i5/i7, iGPU, superfast ssd, 10GBe, 2* tb3 and SD card reader
16gb ddr4 as a standard
So the invites will be sent on 31 August for the September 12th...lets see then, even so, i still think the Sept event will be about the 3 new iphones, and the new apple watch...and the mac mini, imac and macbook will get an 1 hour event in October maybe with a sneak peek for the 2019 Mac Pro and Apple Display
How would you know? Cosmic radiation flips random memory bits from time to time. Does it matter? Not for most of us. But if it does matter, error correction is your only chance to know.
Here's a big study of Google's servers. Over 8% of their dimms had correctable errors in a given year, leading to about 32% of their machines being impacted. http://www.cs.toronto.edu/~bianca/papers/sigmetrics09.pdf
Which right now will get you a 4.2GHz Core i7/16GB Apple DRAM/ 512GB SSD/Radeon Pro 580 for $2899...so if the past informs the future, that same $2899 should net you a Core i9-9900K/16GB Apple DRAM/512GB SSD/Radeon Pro 580X after an October announcement. A nicely spec'd iMac either way, but still not an iMac Pro, and certainly no reason to withhold updates to the 8th and 9th-Gen CPUs in the iMac.
Are you saying in your opinion no reason to really wait? The difference in speed / graphics wont be noticeable to wait?
No...I think there is reason to wait if you can wait, but the fact remains that all these rumors that we have read and quoted and referenced are not a real product in a box in a store waiting to be purchased. Today, I can order a Core i7-7700K based iMac and have it in my hands by the end of the month. We have at least a good, solid 6-8 weeks before we even have an announcement about the next iMac.
The only concrete thing I know is that Kaby Lake iMacs were released over a year ago, Coffee Lake CPUs are in abundance and the rumors and roadmaps pointing to an October release of 9th generation CPUs is almost deafening.
Given that Apple just put 500X GPUs in the MacBook Pro refresh and the Vega 56/64 is firmly upmarket in the iMac Pro, Apple is going to end up with 500X GPUs in the 2018 iMac, which is not much of an upgrade. So GPU is a big NO in my book.
The CPU is the only substantial upgrade this round and it is a nice one.
If you absolutely need something now, then you certainly cannot go wrong with the current iMac, but this close to an upgrade, compounded by rumors of other updates, I would wait...because, after the wait is over the wait for a Cannon Lake CPU in an iMac is going to be a mighty long one. Just my 2c.
I agree. If there's a need now and a good deal to be had, one can't go wrong buying a late 2017 model even this late into its upgrade cycle.
Besides most times, I use my Macs for at least 5+ years before handing them down or selling them. Don't know about others, but I don't upgrade every year or two when a new model is released.
I'm still a bit miffed about buying a year old model though