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
If they announce a Mac Mini that can support a monitor that meets my needs, then I will purchase that instead. If there are no new iMac or Mac Mini, then I will buy a 2017 iMac. I have had no iMac for 2 months, so will be buying something regardless.
There's that. A decent, modern Mini will be welcome and there have been rumors. There's a big hole in the market for something like it.
The current Mini will support a 4K
https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT206587
but really?
- 3840 x 2160 at 30Hz
- 4096 x 2160 at 24Hz (mirroring is not supported at this resolution)
LG makes a couple of 27" 4K monitors that would work over HDMI in the $350–$500 range but the current Mini is underpowered in so many ways, I can't recommend them.
I’ll gloat because I bought in 2017.
Seriously though, they could silently update later.
I’ll gloat because I bought in 2017.
Seriously though, they could silently update later.
Ditto with the space heater i7 - general principle of buy as soon as new gen comes out
Impressive bit of research, the unusual split release happened to include the (very much delayed) Broadwell Crystalwell CPU (including the only use of the Iris Graphics 6200, in desktop form as it happened) in the brand new 4k iMac. I thought at the time that Apple had decided to wait for that. As with the 15" MacBook Pro the 27" iMac stayed on Haswell CPUs way too long - relying on a (minor) graphics bump to lend it some freshness.
Apple were also in the process of switching non-5k monitors to 5k, a process which was later completed for the 27" and now we're about to see the 21.5" range go fully 4k.
Incidentally, with the 4k iMac Apple never went back to integrated graphics for driving their 4k monitor after the original 4k was superseded. They've always added a GPU - even if a MacBook Pro refugee in the case of the 4k iMac.
Responding to your two serious points, I have now had some time to sit down and compare the 9th generation to the 8h generation CPUs from other posts and news articles and conclude thus:
a. Apple should use i7-8700K for top of the range 2018 iMacs; do you think Apple really wanted to get an i9 into this year's iMac and delayed it till October for that reason? The 9th Generation CPUs require a Z390 chipset which has only just been released but is quite pricey - Apple generally want to keep prices down so haven't gone for top of the range chipsets in years (since Sandy Bridge I think).
The 8th generation CPUs which have been out for a few months at this stage can get away with a (cheaper) Z370 which has been out much longer and in fact as far as Apple are concerned they could have saved a few dollars per unit by opting for the B360 which has been out since around April - the same move that they have done for other iMac chipsets over the years.
They could have updated the job lot in June or July 2018 but some of the parts that Apple have been waiting for have been available since 4Q17 - the Coffee Lake i5-8400 for example - while they've been waiting for the correct chipset and graphics to become available. But look closer and you see that the i5-8600 (suitable for mid SKU 2018 iMac) didn't launch until April of this year (officially 2Q18) so there's been quite a long gap between first release (of the fastest and the cheapest) before the range was filled out.
Intel would have been able to provide the full Coffee Lake range to Apple for testing by around April 2018 with engineering samples before that - months after the first samplings of top i7 and low end i5 were on sale.
Even so, there's been lots of stories about extra heat generated from the 6 core CPUs that Apple will hopefully aware of, and they have solution for that already sat there and tested in an iMac Pro.
We don't know how long it would have taken AMD to prepare the much suspected 500X series GPUs (most pundits suggesting it's an twice warmed over/overclocked 400 series) but remember that the Macbook Pros didn't come out till July. If that wasn't for tactical marketing reasons then perhaps AMD were the slackers here.
What if the Apple marketing people needed something to headline an October event in case the MBA refresh didn't make it? The 2017 iMacs had already been launched in June of that year because of the late arrival of the Kaby Lake CPUs - they weren't generally available till 1Q17. Annoyingly, that meant that in Europe the old 2015 iMacs got a price increase in October 2016 with no spec bump due to currency exchange and BREXIT. The dollar price remained unchanged so your data remains consistent though.
And this year, we get Coffee Lake Refresh, as the 9th generation seems to be called now. As with the Coffee Lake the CPUs are being released spread across half a year - on reflection, do you think Apple would steal from next year's iMac CPU range, especially with the core count rising substantially?
To be fair, unlike with the 2014 Mac mini, Apple probably don't mind making 2 different iterations of iMac chipset within a range - they currently must be doing that to keep the non retina iMac going with a mobile CPU - but this is going to essentially create a 2 tier 27" range with presumably the top SKU a new beast altogether.
If the purpose of this is to allow Apple to choose pricier 9th generation K series CPUs - which have been released ahead of the rest of the series due in 1H 2019. The i9 would probably need a special cooling solution which would I fear Apple could inflict across the range to keep them as the same SKU. In effect they'll lock away the RAM access door. They've already tested it with the iMac Pro and the 21.5" had had it for years so I think it'll be inevitable for Apple to let the 2018 27" iMac follow the iMac Pro in looks if they go this way.
I'd expect it's more logical that Apple intend to refresh the 2019 range using all 9th generation CPUs at WWDC 2019 when it's the earliest they could introduce the Modular Mac Pro for immediate sale.
As we can see from looking over recent news articles, the i9 would be mightily impressive for that range but would compete too directly with the base iMac Pro. It could look nice in a headless Mac though.
I'd be more impressed if Apple chose to use the Xeon E range in the iMac and effectively rebadge some or all the 27" iMacs as iMac Pros. They could choose from 4 core to 6 core, with or without hyperthreading, and perhaps even offer a VEGA for graphics as an option.
The 21.5" iMac could continue using non K series Core CPUs or perhaps even go their own way too.
b. AMD are once again warming over the same old graphics chipsets that have been around for a couple of years by adding an X to this year's 500 series iteration. They only have to offer the usual (big, exclusive) discount to Apple and they'd probably take it as NVIDIA are (as mentioned) essentially off the table and better graphics is even less of a priority this year for Apple than ever with the iMac Pro around - VEGA appears to be reserved for the iMac Pro and for segmentation purposes Apple wouldn't mess around with that distinction especially when the headline reason to get a 2018 iMac as to be extra cores in the Intel CPU.
I think it would be easier to characterise the 2019 iMac as the one with the graphics boost from using AMD Pro 6xx series next year. We don't know how the 9th generation Intel CPUs will pan out but it won't be as a big a leap as for the 8th generation seven if you take into account SKUs with 8 cores, no hyperthreading or the i9 with 8 cores, 16 threads. Those will almost certainly lock the RAM away for the entire range if not already with the 2018 iMacs.
Last edited:
Yeah, the 9900K looks good, but it doesn't seem like it would work in an iMac unless it got redesigned with the iMac Pro cooling system. It would also likely be a very niche (and expensive) BTO option, making up only a small portion of sales, which makes me wonder if Apple would bother trying to accommodate its cooling needs. Honestly, if you think you need 8 cores, just get an entry level iMac Pro.
https://www.pcmag.com/review/364472/intel-core-i9-9900k
https://www.pcmag.com/review/364472/intel-core-i9-9900k
The 9900K has the same TDP as the 8700K. Even if they go with 8th gen cpus, they will still have to improve thermals since they all have the 95W TDP.
Also, the 8th gen and 9th gen cpus share the same socket and can work on the same chipset. They could potentially offer 8th gen as standard with 9th gen upgrades.
While the 9900K is labeled "95 watt", both PC Magazine and AnandTech have seen it hit 165 watts WITHOUT OVERCLOCKING. This is NOT a 95 watt processor, and it cannot be cooled in an iMac chassis (without a huge redesign). None of the high-performance >4 core desktop chips seem to have honest TDPs. Yes, you can get it to run at 95 watts, but you lose all turbo to do that, and it's not reliably faster than the fastest 4-core chips in the 2017 iMacs (it depends on the workload) if you turn off all the turbo possibilities.. At stock clocks, with the turbo active, it's actually drawing slightly more power than the 10-core Core i9 7900X (the Xeon version of which is in the 10-core iMac Pro). It's quite possible this chip would thermally throttle in even an iMac PRO chassis, let alone a consumer iMac.
There are three possibilities:
1.) Nothing but i3s and 15s (up to 6 cores, no hyperthreading). These are more or less honest 95 watt (and below) chips, and the existing iMac chassis should cool them.
2.) Up to at least the 9700K, maybe the 9900K, but significantly thermally restricted - faster than a 7700K on some things, similar on others, actually slower on a few stubbornly single-threaded tasks (a 9900K without thermal restrictions is faster on any task, much faster on some).
3.) A redesign of at least the 27" based on the iMac Pro. Spinning disks go away (with commensurate price increase if you want anything >256 GB), RAM door goes away, chin and bezels stay because the cooling system takes up those spaces. You lose two widely desired specs, and keep the two least popular design features, in order to cool something close to what these processors put out. Another version of this would use a liquid cooling system. All 27" iMacs would be SSD-only (probably with the T2 and its idiosyncrasies), with no RAM door, and with the chin and bezels, because Apple won't use a different chassis for models with faster processors only.
Apple could do a redesign that's thicker in order to fit the cooling without losing desired features or preserving unpopular ones - but they're Apple, and they won't do that...
There are three possibilities:
1.) Nothing but i3s and 15s (up to 6 cores, no hyperthreading). These are more or less honest 95 watt (and below) chips, and the existing iMac chassis should cool them.
2.) Up to at least the 9700K, maybe the 9900K, but significantly thermally restricted - faster than a 7700K on some things, similar on others, actually slower on a few stubbornly single-threaded tasks (a 9900K without thermal restrictions is faster on any task, much faster on some).
3.) A redesign of at least the 27" based on the iMac Pro. Spinning disks go away (with commensurate price increase if you want anything >256 GB), RAM door goes away, chin and bezels stay because the cooling system takes up those spaces. You lose two widely desired specs, and keep the two least popular design features, in order to cool something close to what these processors put out. Another version of this would use a liquid cooling system. All 27" iMacs would be SSD-only (probably with the T2 and its idiosyncrasies), with no RAM door, and with the chin and bezels, because Apple won't use a different chassis for models with faster processors only.
Apple could do a redesign that's thicker in order to fit the cooling without losing desired features or preserving unpopular ones - but they're Apple, and they won't do that...
Last edited:
how do you know? or from where
[doublepost=1540029371][/doublepost]"Apple could do a redesign that's thicker in order to fit the cooling without losing desired features or preserving unpopular ones - but they're Apple, and they won't do that..."
Remember iphone 6 6.9mm thick? now we have over 7.7mm with the latest...so Apple can go thick again
If the new iMacs perform well, have nicer bezels and don't have the thermal throttling issue, I don't mind about thickness, hope for the new 9th gen processor
I'm going for the maxed out iMac, so I want power and stability
I'm going for the maxed out iMac, so I want power and stability
I am really hoping for a new iMac. It’s been 8 years that I’ve had mine.
I can’t do AirPlay Mirroring, can’t do Handoff and can’t upgrade to Mojave.
I’m excited to have a 512GB SSD, TB3/USB 3, a Retina display, rechargeable accessories and moreeee.
I can’t do AirPlay Mirroring, can’t do Handoff and can’t upgrade to Mojave.
I’m excited to have a 512GB SSD, TB3/USB 3, a Retina display, rechargeable accessories and moreeee.
I generally think of my iMac as a beautiful screen with a computer stuck on the back. Go 1TB SSD? I toyed with 512/1024 when I bought last summer, glad I got the 1TB as thought just general stuff on boot drive I’m now 3/4 full. And that’s with a TB3 SSD external drive too and USB3 HDD for large media etc
My guess is that the iMac will be refreshed with 8thgen processors, true tone, a better camera, updated graphics (of course), and little else. Maybe some new/re-arranged storage options.
I would personally like to see a reduction in bezel size. However, that's not b/c I have an issue with the size of the current bezels..I'd like to see the 21" gain some screen real estate while maintaining the general form factor/size/weight.
If none of the above happens before a total re-design, ah well, the 2017 iMac isn't exactly a bad machine. In fact, it's a fantastic machine. The current iMac design still has quite a bit going for it from a practical viewpoint. Further, notwithstanding cooling improvements etc, design changes are subjective at best. JMO
I would personally like to see a reduction in bezel size. However, that's not b/c I have an issue with the size of the current bezels..I'd like to see the 21" gain some screen real estate while maintaining the general form factor/size/weight.
If none of the above happens before a total re-design, ah well, the 2017 iMac isn't exactly a bad machine. In fact, it's a fantastic machine. The current iMac design still has quite a bit going for it from a practical viewpoint. Further, notwithstanding cooling improvements etc, design changes are subjective at best. JMO
I agree with everything you said except this because even the 8600k/9600k run hotter than the 7700k which is already at the limit of the iMac cooling.
Last chart of this page: https://bit-tech.net/reviews/intel-core-i5-8600k-review/6/
I agree. I’d prefer a 8-core i9 with proper cooling and thinner bezels that is thicker at the edges.
To me it kinda looks like whatever they end up doing, they need to figure out a better thermal solution, because one small fan is not gonna do it anymore. Luckily there is a lot of unused space in the current design so adding a second fan (at least) should be feasible.
Any idea how the i7-8700 (not k) runs in terms of heat? I've thought that would possibly be a good compromise in an iMac. I believe it's a 65TDW processor and benchmarks aren't too far behind the 8700k. It would certainly meet my needs. I sort of suspect they won't offer that version in any 27" iMac but seems it would attenuate the heat issues that have plagued the 7700k version of the current iMac.
You can't expect Apple to be going backwards in terms of offering less CPU grunt because of the heat in the 27" models - the iMac Pro cooling system exists as an option.
If the iMac Pro cooling system is transferred to the regular 5k iMac, the range will go all SSD because of it, sending the prices upwards very quickly.
On the other hand, the iMac Pro range could be extended downwards with Xeon E CPUs and C246 Chipset filling 6 core options (and perhaps even 4 core options) that we've been expecting to go into the 2018 27" iMac.
Either way, it might leave a nice gap in the market for a Mini that can accommodate hard drive based storage.
The 21.5" iMac could conceivably go with the quad core i3 Coffee Lake Core CPUs if Apple are worried about heat and unwilling to further redesign the internals. Prices would have to drop, and perhaps that gap for an uprated Mini becomes that bit more interesting.
So perhaps Apple want users who want internal hard drive based storage to go with a headless Mac which may be almost certainly coming soon?