No 2018 iMac?!

[sebulban]

When was the last time anyone had memory errors that would really require ecc ram? I don't even recall having any in recent years. Seems overkill.

Overkill for some perhaps. I bet those people who need it for virtualization and building render farms appreciate ecc memory.
I’ve read that the old ones with quad i7’s were good ‘bang for buck’ and really popular until mini changed to dual core only.

 

[wubsylol]

When was the last time anyone had memory errors that would really require ecc ram? I don't even recall having any in recent years. Seems overkill.

The majority of users don't need ECC, but there are complex tasks which absolutely do need the integrity protection provided by ECC.

 

[tomscott1988]

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

Still can’t get away from the fact that this iteration will be the first big processing upgrade this decade. It will be a significant upgrade in all respects and be within 10% of the iMac pro for about 1/4 less.

Worth waiting for imo.

 

[fokmik]

Ok so the cpu will be out for the imacs but does the dGpu will also?

 

[tomscott1988]

The current generation of iMac is the first to offer a GPU upgrade through an EGPU although you loose 5-10% of the performance. For future use this is a great option, currently expensive and niche but it may become more mainstream down the road.

There isnt really and update and if there it will be similar to the MBP and be an X variant of the current GPU. Doubtful we will see Vega 56 or 64 like the iMac pro.

 

[Zdigital2015]

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

No, you cannot really go wrong...an old, but salient quote I use often, "The only constant in technology is change". It makes it impossible and REALLY expensive to try and keep up.

I try to hang on to what I have for at least 3 years (Apple Care warranty period), but in addition to that I almost always buy Apple Refurbished Macs or wait until a new version is released and the inevitable markdowns occurs at Best Buy or B&H Photo here in the States on the previous gen. Others do not necessarily have access to purchase a computer that way, so I am quite fortunate in that regard and I can empathize with those who pay a premium above the premium to use a Mac/iPhone/iPad.

Yes, it can be a bit maddening to end up purchasing an older version of anything. For the 2017 iMac, Apple apparently stuck with the Z170 PCH, which meant a shorter cycle to develop a new motherboard since the Late 2015 Skylake iMacs use the Z170 PCH as well (as opposed to updating to the Z270 chipset). Additionally, Intel rolled out a small subset of Coffee Lake CPUs back in August of 2017 and I remember the Core i7-8700K being in short supply back then. It took Intel until Q2 (April) of 2018 to fill in the gaps in the Core i5 lineup with CPUs that Apple would typically use (Core i5-8600, Core i5-8500) for the non-BTO iMacs, as well as the release of the H370, Q370 and B350 chipsets that integrate 802.11 Wi-Fi and BT 5.0. I am really hoping that Apple decided to wait until the 9th Gen is released along with the Z390 chipset and that Apple is using that chipset for the 2018 iMacs. We are still 6-8 weeks before we will know anything, if that helps to soften to blow to the wallet.

 

[Thunderbird]

A progress!

Late 2009

Today

In 2009 there was only the 21" and 24" iMacs. The monitors were very mediocre and overly reflective. iMacs came with Snow Leopard, (which was considered inferior to Windows 7), they still used the old HFS+ file system, and there were no SSD storage options, only mechanical HDDs.

Today iMacs also come in a 27" size, the monitors are considered top tier and have anti-reflective coating. The MacOS has improved dramatically, there is a new APFS (filing system), and storage options are mostly fast SSD (even PCIe). iMacs are now faster, quieter, lighter weight, more powerful, more reliable, and come with an OS considered equal to or better than Windows.

The only down side I guess is iMacs are now less upgradable.

So yes, there has been tremendous progress.

 

[zoom25]

In 2009 there was only the 21" and 24" iMacs. The monitors were very mediocre and overly reflective. iMacs came with Snow Leopard, (which was considered inferior to Windows 7), they still used the old HFS+ file system, and there were no SSD storage options, only mechanical HDDs.

Today iMacs also come in a 27" size, the monitors are considered top tier and have anti-reflective coating. The MacOS has improved dramatically, there is a new APFS (filing system), and storage options are mostly fast SSD (even PCIe). iMacs are now faster, quieter, lighter weight, more powerful, more reliable, and come with an OS considered equal to or better than Windows.

The only down side I guess is iMacs are now less upgradable.

So yes, there has been tremendous progress.

I have a 27" Late 2009 iMac...

 

[deconstruct60]

The majority of users don't need ECC, but there are complex tasks which absolutely do need the integrity protection provided by ECC.

It isn't simply complex tasks. It is also whether your data is valuable or not. Updating your bank account to mark a deduction of -$4 buying a meal at fast food place isn't complex. However, if the memory screws your account balance you aren't going to be happy.

Lots of folks who do really high bulky video don't care because the individual bits don't have much value and frankly practically nobody will miss or notice it. It isn't that there aren't errors, it is just that it much easier to cheaply sweep them under the rug.

However, the more RAM you have the bigger target you are for errors. When get up in the high double digits and into the triple digit (and higher) amounts of RAM having ECC has value.


All your HDDs have some ECC. All the SSDs have some ECC. Memory isn't particularly more immune.

 

[meddow]

I have a 27" Late 2009 iMac...

Im still rocking the 27" Late 2009 iMac too! :-D still going strong with the HDD that came with it and 16gb RAM :-D

(waiting for this new model)

 

[cwanja]

Im still rocking the 27" Late 2009 iMac too! :-D still going strong with the HDD that came with it and 16gb RAM :-D

(waiting for this new model)

Late 2008 15" MacBook Pro, 8GB of RAM and spinning harddrive. It works for me now, but I have a desire to do more. Just waiting to fork money over to Apple.

 

[zoom25]

Im still rocking the 27" Late 2009 iMac too! :-D still going strong with the HDD that came with it and 16gb RAM :-D

(waiting for this new model)

I have a Core 2 Duo with 12 GB RAM with a HDD. It still works flawlessly. I tried to update it to the latest OS in the past and it become very slow. So I reverted it back to Mountain Lion and it performs fine.

While it's a slow machine and unable to run the latest OS freely, I have been impressed with how reliable this machine has been over the years. Headache free operation 24/7 for 99% of the time. My Macbook Pros on the other hand...

I'm excited to see which generation of CPU this upcoming iMac will be getting. It'd be nice to simultaneously get a Retina screen in the last place that I have been missing.

 

[danwells]

I'd be very surprised to see much of anything besides the CPU and whatever benefits the new chipset brings. The 9900K is already a dangerous chip for Apple - as a previous poster pointed out, it should perform within 10% of the bottom-end iMac Pro. The huge core count discrepancy that makes the iMac Pro worth paying for would be gone (the models with 14 and 18 cores are both very expensive and benefit only specialized software (although including Final Cut). The only reason the lowest-end iMac Pro CPU holds any performance advantage over the (rumored) 9900K at all is that it has a higher TDP envelope-both the base and turbo clocks are actually higher on the 9900K.

I certainly wouldn't expect a Vega, either standard or as an option - too close to the iMac Pro.

Maybe we'll see the very expensive 4 TB SSD option on the 27" - Apple's been putting it on high-end Macs lately.

Another possibility that needs to be considered is that Apple releases i5 models at the high end (or 8th generation i7s) to avoid a 8-core competitor to the iMac Pro. They need to do something, because the present model is slower than the 15" MBP at reasonably threaded tasks.

 

[Rockah]

Hi all. Long time reader, etc.

Tl;dr: if the new updates are just a press release and they lose upgradeable ram and USB a ports, does the current version become unpurchaseable on the website (looking to get it customised)?

I’m finally in the market to get a long overdue new Mac, mainly for hobbiest-level photo and video (4K) editing using Premier, as well as some relatively basic music production (software synths, samplers and guitar recording) using Logic Pro. The last Mac I had was a 2011 Mac mini with an i7 in it and 8gb of ram. It was good, but felt fairly underpowered for any heavy processing tasks and obviously didn’t handle any 4K content.

I know from lots of reading, this thread included, that an updated iMac is on the horizon within the next couple of months. I also know it will have a much better cpu, a potential redesign given how long it’s been and it’s the 20th anniversary, and the rumoured “updated screens”. What I’m worried about is they may take away two very important things:

- user upgradeable ram
- USB A ports

With the current line of iMacs, I can save myself a lot of money by not needing to buy any dongles and being able to upgrade the ram myself. If the new iMacs lose both of these features, I’m going to be as upset as most others, but my question is this: given that the current 2017 top of the range 27” iMac will be more than powerful enough for my needs, should I wait and see what the next ones are like? And further to that, when Apple makes a hardware announcement update (say it’s just a press release), are the current/old models still able to be purchased online so they can be customised? My biggest worry is it will be just that - a press release, and I just have the budget for a top of the line iMac now given I can buy 3rd party ram and no dongles, but if those features aren’t present anymore is there a risk I can’t buy the old version?

Sorry for the wall of text, and thanks I’m advance for any replies.

 

[danwells]

Adorama, B&H and others generally have a stock of last year's models for quite a while. Even now, you can still find (limited) stock of brand-new 2015 MacBook Pros - the last model before the controversial USB-C/butterfly keyboard update. Adorama and B&H both currently have stock of quite a few upgraded models of 2017 iMac (although not all of them), and those won't disappear the day the new one is introduced.

 

[Rockah]

Adorama, B&H and others generally have a stock of last year's models for quite a while. Even now, you can still find (limited) stock of brand-new 2015 MacBook Pros - the last model before the controversial USB-C/butterfly keyboard update. Adorama and B&H both currently have stock of quite a few upgraded models of 2017 iMac (although not all of them), and those won't disappear the day the new one is introduced.

Thanks for that. I should have specified, I’m specifically wanting the highest end iMac, but with a 512gb ssd as that is the limit of my budget. Also, I’m in Australia so there aren’t many (if any) places that sell custom macs apart from the apple online store.

 

[cwanja]

Hi all. Long time reader, etc.

Tl;dr: if the new updates are just a press release and they lose upgradeable ram and USB a ports, does the current version become unpurchaseable on the website (looking to get it customised)?

I’m finally in the market to get a long overdue new Mac, mainly for hobbiest-level photo and video (4K) editing using Premier, as well as some relatively basic music production (software synths, samplers and guitar recording) using Logic Pro. The last Mac I had was a 2011 Mac mini with an i7 in it and 8gb of ram. It was good, but felt fairly underpowered for any heavy processing tasks and obviously didn’t handle any 4K content.

I know from lots of reading, this thread included, that an updated iMac is on the horizon within the next couple of months. I also know it will have a much better cpu, a potential redesign given how long it’s been and it’s the 20th anniversary, and the rumoured “updated screens”. What I’m worried about is they may take away two very important things:

- user upgradeable ram
- USB A ports

With the current line of iMacs, I can save myself a lot of money by not needing to buy any dongles and being able to upgrade the ram myself. If the new iMacs lose both of these features, I’m going to be as upset as most others, but my question is this: given that the current 2017 top of the range 27” iMac will be more than powerful enough for my needs, should I wait and see what the next ones are like? And further to that, when Apple makes a hardware announcement update (say it’s just a press release), are the current/old models still able to be purchased online so they can be customised? My biggest worry is it will be just that - a press release, and I just have the budget for a top of the line iMac now given I can buy 3rd party ram and no dongles, but if those features aren’t present anymore is there a risk I can’t buy the old version?

Sorry for the wall of text, and thanks I’m advance for any replies.

So the message sent throughout most of this thread and other speculating threads is that "if you can wait, wait till late October" and see if they release it. You can likely assume that if it does not come in October, it will not be coming this year and then purchase what you need. However, if you need something now and cannot wait, the 2017 iMac's are not bad machines. And will get you along.

I would say the biggest risk in your post is user upgradable RAM. Even the iMac Pro still has USB-A ports and I would think an updated iMac would see the same. You might see that they shift from 4 USB-A ports plus 2 Thunderbolt ports, to 2 USB-A ports and 4 Thunderbolt ports - mimicking the iMac logic board.

As someone else pointed out, 3rd parties sometimes have brick and mortar stores that have older machines before they have the newer machines. I would search hard to see if you can find an Apple service provider that sells machines and see what their process is for newer models. I was just in Canada for work and there was a Mac store about 10 minutes away from an Apple Store. So I assume there is one in Australia. You might not get a BTO, topped out machine though.

My opinion - there are more and more rumors swirling about upgraded Macs (MacBook, MacBook Air, iMac, etc.) that an October event is looking more and more real.

 

[Zdigital2015]

So the message sent throughout most of this thread and other speculating threads is that "if you can wait, wait till late October" and see if they release it. You can likely assume that if it does not come in October, it will not be coming this year and then purchase what you need. However, if you need something now and cannot wait, the 2017 iMac's are not bad machines. And will get you along.

I would say the biggest risk in your post is user upgradable RAM. Even the iMac Pro still has USB-A ports and I would think an updated iMac would see the same. You might see that they shift from 4 USB-A ports plus 2 Thunderbolt ports, to 2 USB-A ports and 4 Thunderbolt ports - mimicking the iMac logic board.

As someone else pointed out, 3rd parties sometimes have brick and mortar stores that have older machines before they have the newer machines. I would search hard to see if you can find an Apple service provider that sells machines and see what their process is for newer models. I was just in Canada for work and there was a Mac store about 10 minutes away from an Apple Store. So I assume there is one in Australia. You might not get a BTO, topped out machine though.

My opinion - there are more and more rumors swirling about upgraded Macs (MacBook, MacBook Air, iMac, etc.) that an October event is looking more and more real.

Unfortunately, adding two extra Thunderbolt 3 ports to the regular iMac is possible, very impractical, because you need an extra x4 lanes of PCIe 3.0 which means you are going to have to use the chipset to get it. But that also means that you are now shoving the PCIe storage at x4, one TB3 bus at x4 and (potentially) a second TB bus at x4, which means you are trying to fit up to 12 GT/s of dara through an 8 GT/s DMI bus to the CPU, and that seems a bit much compared to what the iMac Pro does by hanging them directly off of the x44 lanes of PCIe that are available on the Xeon W-series CPU versus the x16 on a 9900K, all of which is dedicated to the R5x0 GPU, leaving zero for anything else to connect to the CPU, yet the Xeon W still has 16 lanes leftover while supporting a GPU, two TB3 busses and PCIe storage. Just my 2c.

 

[Zdigital2015]

I'd be very surprised to see much of anything besides the CPU and whatever benefits the new chipset brings. The 9900K is already a dangerous chip for Apple - as a previous poster pointed out, it should perform within 10% of the bottom-end iMac Pro. The huge core count discrepancy that makes the iMac Pro worth paying for would be gone (the models with 14 and 18 cores are both very expensive and benefit only specialized software (although including Final Cut). The only reason the lowest-end iMac Pro CPU holds any performance advantage over the (rumored) 9900K at all is that it has a higher TDP envelope-both the base and turbo clocks are actually higher on the 9900K.

I certainly wouldn't expect a Vega, either standard or as an option - too close to the iMac Pro.

Maybe we'll see the very expensive 4 TB SSD option on the 27" - Apple's been putting it on high-end Macs lately.

Another possibility that needs to be considered is that Apple releases i5 models at the high end (or 8th generation i7s) to avoid a 8-core competitor to the iMac Pro. They need to do something, because the present model is slower than the 15" MBP at reasonably threaded tasks.

Do not conflate the iMac and the iMac Pro, they are two separate product lines and Apple is not concerned with an 8-Core 9900K bumping up against the iMac Pro. That scenario is maxing out the iMac to maybe get it to meet the bottom of the iMac Pro line...the Pro is way more than just the CPU.

 

[gusping]

Do not conflate the iMac and the iMac Pro, they are two separate product lines and Apple is not concerned with an 8-Core 9900K bumping up against the iMac Pro. That scenario is maxing out the iMac to maybe get it to meet the bottom of the iMac Pro line...the Pro is way more than just the CPU.

Without cooling changes, the 9900k is a dream. iMacs struggle as they are and the 9900k is going to produce some serious heat. If it beats the lowest iMac Pro config, i think Apple can overlook that. But... if it starts to get close to the 10 core then i feel they may start to question things. It’s safe to say a 9900k iMac would be a beast.

 

[Zandros]

iMacs came with Snow Leopard, (which was considered inferior to Windows 7)

Snow Leopard was a high point of Mac OS X development and beloved by Mac users. If any release would’ve been maligned, it would have been Lion.

Unfortunately, adding two extra Thunderbolt 3 ports to the regular iMac is possible, very impractical, because you need an extra x4 lanes of PCIe 3.0 which means you are going to have to use the chipset to get it. But that also means that you are now shoving the PCIe storage at x4, one TB3 bus at x4 and (potentially) a second TB bus at x4, which means you are trying to fit up to 12 GT/s of dara through an 8 GT/s DMI bus to the CPU, and that seems a bit much compared to what the iMac Pro does by hanging them directly off of the x44 lanes of PCIe that are available on the Xeon W-series CPU versus the x16 on a 9900K, all of which is dedicated to the R5x0 GPU, leaving zero for anything else to connect to the CPU, yet the Xeon W still has 16 lanes leftover while supporting a GPU, two TB3 busses and PCIe storage. Just my 2c.

I think you’re a bit misinformed. DMI 3.0 is limited to basically PCIe3.0x4 (3.94 GB/s), so the system design of the iMac is already more than saturating the connection if fully loaded, using all Thunderbolt ports (which are already sharing bandwidth anyway, they don’t have 40 Gb/s of non-display data each), Ethernet, the SSD and the USB-A 3.1 ports. Adding another Thunderbolt controller and more USB-C ports, while not increasing external bandwidth, would make it easier to connect more displays and other peripherals, and easier to avoid problematic and expensive hubs.

 

[Zdigital2015]

Snow Leopard was a high point of Mac OS X development and beloved by Mac users. If any release would’ve been maligned, it would have been Lion.



I think you’re a bit misinformed. DMI 3.0 is limited to basically PCIe3.0x4 (3.94 GB/s), so the system design of the iMac is already more than saturating the connection if fully loaded, using all Thunderbolt ports (which are already sharing bandwidth anyway, they don’t have 40 Gb/s of non-display data each), Ethernet, the SSD and the USB-A 3.1 ports. Adding another Thunderbolt controller and more USB-C ports, while not increasing external bandwidth, would make it easier to connect more displays and other peripherals, and easier to avoid problematic and expensive hubs.

Honestly, I have been working in the heat all day, so my bad. Yes, you are correct, DMI 3.0 is essentially a PCIe 3.0 x4 link, the iMac is already saturated, as is every other PC stuck with that interconnect and adding an additional Thunderbolt 3 controller really does not make sense at this point. Besides, the four Thunderbolt ports on the iMac Pro is a competitive advantage. I do not see Apple giving that away to the iMac, but we'll find out in just a couple of months.

Problematic and expensive hubs? Not sure what you are talking about there, but sure. Hopefully, Intel will stop being so stingy with PCIe lanes on the CPU or the chipset or at least widen the connection between the CPU and the PCH.

 

[Rockah]

Thank you for the replies. Just in regards to my question though, from experience / historically - once a press release comes out with the updates, does that usually render previous versions as being unable to be purchased from the Apple website? And I guess further to that, do people think that removing the RAM upgradeability would be likely if it was just a press release, or would that change come along with a bunch of others that would warrant a bigger announcement?

I know there's a lot of talk about the iMac line vs the iMac pro in this thread, and people keep saying they hope the new iMacs adopt the cooling methods of the pro... but isn't that one of the USPs of the pro? That pro users need less throttling, therefore it has better cooling along with all its other features? I guess what I'm saying is if the new iMacs get the new chips, people are suggesting it's encroaching on the pro line. So if Apple added the same cooling, then isn't that one less thing the pro has over the consumer line?

 

[Zdigital2015]

Thank you for the replies. Just in regards to my question though, from experience / historically - once a press release comes out with the updates, does that usually render previous versions as being unable to be purchased from the Apple website? And I guess further to that, do people think that removing the RAM upgradeability would be likely if it was just a press release, or would that change come along with a bunch of others that would warrant a bigger announcement?

I know there's a lot of talk about the iMac line vs the iMac pro in this thread, and people keep saying they hope the new iMacs adopt the cooling methods of the pro... but isn't that one of the USPs of the pro? That pro users need less throttling, therefore it has better cooling along with all its other features? I guess what I'm saying is if the new iMacs get the new chips, people are suggesting it's encroaching on the pro line. So if Apple added the same cooling, then isn't that one less thing the pro has over the consumer line?

No, an improved cooling system on the imac is not a USP.

 

[Rockah]

No, an improved cooling system on the imac is not a USP.

But it's literally a unique selling point, on the apple website:

Advanced thermal management. Cool.
Packing all that performance into such a slim all-in-one design required a new approach to cooling the system. We redesigned the thermal architecture of iMac Pro with innovative dual blowers, a high-capacity heat sink and extra venting. The result? Almost 75 per cent more airflow and an 80 per cent increase in system thermal capacity. Which lets iMac Pro handle 500 watts — 67 per cent more power than the 27-inch iMac.​