Yeah I hear ya. My stuff takes up about 150GB so I’m good with 512. I thought about 256, but was like nahhhh too small.
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
Yeah I hear ya. My stuff takes up about 150GB so I’m good with 512. I thought about 256, but was like nahhhh too small.
I couldn’t find reliable numbers on this but I would expect it to be about the same as a 8700k at idle and similar to a 7700k under load. I think it would be a good cpu for an iMac. I actually don’t understand the use of k cpus for iMacs because it won’t be overclocked and the higher tdp can be an issue in aio. Probably just to market the higher frequencies. But even if they did just use locked cpus, a better cooling solution would be needed/useful.
The i7-8700 CPU is nominally a 65w CPU but that would be expected to end up in the 21.5" iMac as the top SKU i7 option if Apple choose to continue the current state of affairs. The 65w in this case apparently referring to the heat generation in a non turbo state.
K series CPUs will have been used purely for the base clocks by Apple - yes I don't understand it either - but if Apple find that the ability of these CPUs to turbo in a prolonged fashion to be causing excessive heat due to extra cores - exacerbated by hyper threading if available - they probably already have the solution as designed and fitted to the iMac Pro.
The Anandtech Coffee Lake review from last year appears to show higher power consumption in the non-K parts compared to last year's Kaby Lake and therefore heat when the parts are being caned. The K series CPUs were virtually identical but there's been quite a bit of discussion about 95w parts being noticeably noisier and hotter in the iMac.
Compare now with Anandtech's review of the initially available 9th generation processors with all those extra cores. Even the reasonably sober i7-9700K (8 cores, 8 threads) is pulling 30% power than the i7-7700K (2017 BTO top SKU) whereas the i9-9900K (8 cores, 16 threads) is getting on for double and is in the same ballpark as the i9-7900X which is a 10 core CPU. That iMac Pro cooling system now looks mandatory, right? I'd say that the 2019 iMac range therefore either adopts the iMac Pro cooling system or Apple are forced to take the whole thing upmarket and use Xeon-E cpus with the iMac Pro range because entry prices are going far north of $2k.
With the heat profiles of Intel CPUs changing so substantially with the 8th and 9th generation, Apple might have good reason to use the iMac Pro design as a slot-in replacement for the 27" iMac.
If we see the i5-9400, i5-9500, i5-9600 of next year as staples of the 9th generation i5 CPUs, I think we'll see 65w i7 CPUs with 8 cores, 8 threads as a possible SKU going forward next year.
At this point it's now believed that hyper threading also presents a security risk in the Meltdown era - and from a marketing standpoint neither Intel nor Apple want to have benchmarks potentially showing CPUs 6 core, 12 thread CPUs beating 8 core CPUs of the future (or 4 core, 8 threads beating 6 core, 6 threads more importantly).
The argument for a Mac Mini (which can accommodate drive bays for hard drives) becomes more compelling if the regular iMac 27" has to go upmarket because of the cooling considerations (with mandatory SSD storage upgrades) leaving a gap in the original $1799-$2299 price range for a loaded Mini.
But what about the poor 21.5" iMac? I assume Apple will have been looking to see what CPUs they can fit into the existing space provided by the smaller iMac, potentially having to go to T-Series, mobile, or even back to quad core i3 CPUs (which don't turbo) so they can continue to fit 2.5" hard drives. If the iMac 21.5" drops entry price because of a switch to i3 CPUs could the iMac start at under $999 and relatively unchanged, using i5 CPUs as BTO options where previously i7s would have sufficed?
I’m continually amazed at the strange definitions of words like “confirm” that people on this forum seem to employ.
No, it doesn’t “kind of confirm” that at all. Actually it’s an enormous leap of logic to take Shiller’s comment that the new Mac Pro will take longer than “this year” (2017) to do and draw the conclusion that it confirms that they will do a sneak peak at the upcoming event.
Haha, yes, it's true. We should have an official Forum Glossary, pointing out the difference between, hoping, predicting, expecting, knowing and confirming. They get all mixed up on this forum...
I can't see what good a 'sneak peak' does aside from potentially hitting sales of the iMac Pro or stalling existing sales of the 2013 Mac Pro. All we know at the moment is the modular Mac Pro is coming out in 2019. Most instances of Apple giving a launch date ahead of time means that Apple will use that time right up to the limit, so I half expect them to release it in December, possibly after a pre-order unveiling in October or at WWDC 2019 if it's suitable to do so.
When the original Mac Pro 2013 was released the 2012 Mac Pro was already discontinued in Europe due to EU regulations (I believe it was over exposed fan blades in the case, health and safety). Linked to that article was this interesting curio from 2012 declaring that a new Mac Pro was coming...
No this doesn’t confirm anything. However, they could mention the Mac Pro - One reason they may reveal something about the Mac Pro this year is to be more transparent with the professional market. I know there are a lot of recording studios and media houses that are on old Mac Pro’s and are about to make the switch to PC. Apple knows they are losing this market so even if it hurts holiday sales, they could potentially say something.
The iMac Pro is coming up on its one year anniversary, so its sales are probably slowing down substantially. Apple was able to soften the blow with the iMac Pro last year, but it’s going to need something for the pro market soon.
Last edited:
Assuming it really cares as a monolithic phone, services and tablet company. Total mac sales down from 15% to 10% Apple revenue over last few years, and that’s the total mac sales not even the “pro” sales.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/382260/segments-share-revenue-of-apple/
No this doesn’t, but then you say they could mention mac pro?
So, make up your mind. Like i said, a sneak peek (mentioning) about mac pro can happen with a release date for mid-late 2019
Confirmed and speculation are two totally different things. There is absolutely no confirmation that we will hear news about the Mac Pro at the Oct event. However, I’m nearly speculating why they could, but again there’s no real proof or confirmation of this.
Since the new new Mac Pro is being designed to run bleeding edge AV apps that Apple is also working on, I wouldn't be surprised if no mention is made of it ... unless there's a release date.
I hope there's an update to the standard iMac but am not holding my breath. We'll know soon enough.
I hope there's an update to the standard iMac but am not holding my breath. We'll know soon enough.
My suspicion about chips and cooling:
iMac (non-pro): LGA-1151 "consumer" socket. There are now some very high performance chips (9900K) in that socket, but they're a beast to cool. They'll either undercool the top chips (they will run, but they'll throttle to a level where they aren't necessarily faster than the 7700K), or the 27" gets a variant on the iMac Pro design, losing the RAM door and the ability to take spinning disks. I'd personally be fine with a thicker iMac to keep the RAM door and maybe get rid of the bezels and/or chin (spinning disks are outdated anyway, except in RAID cases and the like), but Jony Ive isn't, and he makes the decision. Ironically, the 21" is fine, because those chips aren't really running hotter than their predecessors.
iMac Pro: Stays with the LGA-2066 socket, and with the Xeon version (essentially the same chips come in "Core i9" and "Xeon-W" branding, with minor feature differences). This just gained a 22-core chip, which is a drop-in that they'll add to the iMac Pro line (perhaps while discontinuing the 8 (and 10?) core versions, which will overlap with the top non-Pro iMac if the latter is properly cooled).
Mac Pro: LGA-3647 (?) socket - the BIG SERVER SOCKET. Intel just released the Xeon-W 3175, which is the first workstation chip to make an appearance in this socket. It's a $10,000 Xeon Platinum server chip without the links to work in a multi-processor system. Given the premium Intel traditionally charges for multiprocessor ready chips (especially when you get above 2 processors - and the Platinum will handle up to 8), I'm guessing the W-3175 is a $3000 chip, although it might be as much as $5000. Apple is a big enough customer that Intel is probably willing to make some custom chips related to other Xeon Golds and Platinums with the multiprocessor features disabled (or cut down to 2 processors - there may be dual processor Mac Pros) to fill out the line. The big socket buys them 6 memory channels (probably 12 slots) and all the PCI-e lanes they might want. Apple being Apple, those lanes will go to proprietary things (probably including VERY fast, but nonstandard Radeon Vega graphics), not to PCI-e slots that someone might try to stick a GeForce 2080 in...
Single processor only, or single and dual options? Probably depends on what premium Intel exacts for dual-processor capable chips... Even if it's single processor only, the least expensive chip Apple would use in LGA-3647 would probably run $1500 if not $2000 for the chip alone (a 12 or 14 core with a decent clock speed). There are cheaper chips in that socket, but they're specialized for non-CPU intensive server tasks and would be poor performers in a workstation. Since the memory is 6 channels, you need a minimum of 6 8 GB DIMMs for 48 GB total (that's $700 worth of RAM at Newegg's current prices). Will it come with a minimum of 1 TB of ultra-high speed PCIe storage, or will it start at 2 TB? - $300 to $700 worth of disk. It'll have $700 worth of Radeon Vega graphics, a $500 motherboard (10 GB Ethernet and plenty of Thunderbolt 3, plus big-socket boards are expensive), a $300+ near-kilowatt power supply, and an expensive case ($300 or more)... At a bare minimum ($1750 for the CPU and only $300 of disk), there's $3850 worth of parts (not counting cooling) in the least expensive configuration of the new Mac Pro...
Will they reduce the Apple Tax enough to sell it for $4999? I doubt it - I think the minimum configuration will be a little more generous (2 TB of starting disk, maybe something else), and it'll be either $5999 or $6499. The top configuration will easily top $20,000 with maxed out RAM and disk, and it could easily top $30,000 if there are dual processor models!
What about the Mac Mini? It'll be either LGA-1151 or soldered laptop processors. The question will be what they offer within this? Traditionally, the Mac Mini has had a lot in common with the 13" MBP, and is sometimes actually slower (there is a low-end option that uses a MacBook Air chip, or there is a high-end option on the 13" that you can't get on the Mini). The one year there was a quad-core, it was a chip borrowed from the 15" MBP. The Mini as presently construed can't cool anything but a laptop chip (and may not be able to cool a 45W laptop chip from the 15"). We'll probably see a quad-core Mini again, but it'll be the 28-watt quad-core from the 13" touch bar MBP.
I think a "big Mini" with a desktop chip (or even the i9 from the top 15" MBP) is unlikely, not because Apple can't build one (it would be easy), but because they don't WANT to. Apple wants you to buy an iMac, and they make sure that the Mini performs enough worse, and that the Mac Pro is enough more expensive, that neither impacts sales of the iMac. The least expensive mainstream iMac (ignoring the occasional cost-reduced model sold mainly to schools) generally has a healthy edge on the top Mini.
iMac (non-pro): LGA-1151 "consumer" socket. There are now some very high performance chips (9900K) in that socket, but they're a beast to cool. They'll either undercool the top chips (they will run, but they'll throttle to a level where they aren't necessarily faster than the 7700K), or the 27" gets a variant on the iMac Pro design, losing the RAM door and the ability to take spinning disks. I'd personally be fine with a thicker iMac to keep the RAM door and maybe get rid of the bezels and/or chin (spinning disks are outdated anyway, except in RAID cases and the like), but Jony Ive isn't, and he makes the decision. Ironically, the 21" is fine, because those chips aren't really running hotter than their predecessors.
iMac Pro: Stays with the LGA-2066 socket, and with the Xeon version (essentially the same chips come in "Core i9" and "Xeon-W" branding, with minor feature differences). This just gained a 22-core chip, which is a drop-in that they'll add to the iMac Pro line (perhaps while discontinuing the 8 (and 10?) core versions, which will overlap with the top non-Pro iMac if the latter is properly cooled).
Mac Pro: LGA-3647 (?) socket - the BIG SERVER SOCKET. Intel just released the Xeon-W 3175, which is the first workstation chip to make an appearance in this socket. It's a $10,000 Xeon Platinum server chip without the links to work in a multi-processor system. Given the premium Intel traditionally charges for multiprocessor ready chips (especially when you get above 2 processors - and the Platinum will handle up to 8), I'm guessing the W-3175 is a $3000 chip, although it might be as much as $5000. Apple is a big enough customer that Intel is probably willing to make some custom chips related to other Xeon Golds and Platinums with the multiprocessor features disabled (or cut down to 2 processors - there may be dual processor Mac Pros) to fill out the line. The big socket buys them 6 memory channels (probably 12 slots) and all the PCI-e lanes they might want. Apple being Apple, those lanes will go to proprietary things (probably including VERY fast, but nonstandard Radeon Vega graphics), not to PCI-e slots that someone might try to stick a GeForce 2080 in...
Single processor only, or single and dual options? Probably depends on what premium Intel exacts for dual-processor capable chips... Even if it's single processor only, the least expensive chip Apple would use in LGA-3647 would probably run $1500 if not $2000 for the chip alone (a 12 or 14 core with a decent clock speed). There are cheaper chips in that socket, but they're specialized for non-CPU intensive server tasks and would be poor performers in a workstation. Since the memory is 6 channels, you need a minimum of 6 8 GB DIMMs for 48 GB total (that's $700 worth of RAM at Newegg's current prices). Will it come with a minimum of 1 TB of ultra-high speed PCIe storage, or will it start at 2 TB? - $300 to $700 worth of disk. It'll have $700 worth of Radeon Vega graphics, a $500 motherboard (10 GB Ethernet and plenty of Thunderbolt 3, plus big-socket boards are expensive), a $300+ near-kilowatt power supply, and an expensive case ($300 or more)... At a bare minimum ($1750 for the CPU and only $300 of disk), there's $3850 worth of parts (not counting cooling) in the least expensive configuration of the new Mac Pro...
Will they reduce the Apple Tax enough to sell it for $4999? I doubt it - I think the minimum configuration will be a little more generous (2 TB of starting disk, maybe something else), and it'll be either $5999 or $6499. The top configuration will easily top $20,000 with maxed out RAM and disk, and it could easily top $30,000 if there are dual processor models!
What about the Mac Mini? It'll be either LGA-1151 or soldered laptop processors. The question will be what they offer within this? Traditionally, the Mac Mini has had a lot in common with the 13" MBP, and is sometimes actually slower (there is a low-end option that uses a MacBook Air chip, or there is a high-end option on the 13" that you can't get on the Mini). The one year there was a quad-core, it was a chip borrowed from the 15" MBP. The Mini as presently construed can't cool anything but a laptop chip (and may not be able to cool a 45W laptop chip from the 15"). We'll probably see a quad-core Mini again, but it'll be the 28-watt quad-core from the 13" touch bar MBP.
I think a "big Mini" with a desktop chip (or even the i9 from the top 15" MBP) is unlikely, not because Apple can't build one (it would be easy), but because they don't WANT to. Apple wants you to buy an iMac, and they make sure that the Mini performs enough worse, and that the Mac Pro is enough more expensive, that neither impacts sales of the iMac. The least expensive mainstream iMac (ignoring the occasional cost-reduced model sold mainly to schools) generally has a healthy edge on the top Mini.
I wouldn't be surprised at all if the event on the 30th is devoted entirely to the iPad, and any Mac updates, if they occur, will be relegated to a press release and store appearance.
When was the last time Apple actually featured a Mac during an event? The 2016 MBP? Hard for me to recall.
Any anxiousness felt or consideration given to the Mac in recent history has been from users, not Apple. That's unlikely to change.
Well, that's on you. It was in fact during the 2017 WWDC keynote when the iMac last got updated.
The thing is, of these companies who have budget to replace old Mac hardware with Windows PCs won't wait around - that sort of decision is already made for the current tax year. Who exactly is going to wait around for Apple to produce something they think that professionals might like sometime in 2019?
And those who leave are probably not coming back. Something that Apple spent years not openly acknowledging after the failure of the 2013 Mac Pro until early 2017 and it might be over 2 years since that original unique meeting before we see the 2019 Mac Pro.
If they get that wrong, then I think it's game over for the high end pro market for Apple - and it'll have been a self inflicted wound.
I don't think there's anything that Apple can do with respect to revealing the forthcoming line-up. If they need to move now they should have beefed up the Mini - something they could have done any time in the last several years. If the Mini is a respectable level spec and priced accordingly that could imply that the 2019 Mac Pro will be costly but at least there will have been some action taken.
Very logical and down to earth analysis. If Apple decides to give more attention to the Mac we could see a lineup like you described. Unfortunately that's a big if...
for me "kind of confirmation " doesn't mean something official
Nevermind
[doublepost=1540190135][/doublepost]"iMac Pro: Stays with the LGA-2066 socket, and with the Xeon version (essentially the same chips come in "Core i9" and "Xeon-W" branding, with minor feature differences). This just gained a 22-core chip, which is a drop-in that they'll add to the iMac Pro line (perhaps while discontinuing the 8 (and 10?) core versions, which will overlap with the top non-Pro iMac if the latter is properly cooled)."
you really think there are chances to update the iMac Pro? i think nothing will come to it..
"Mac Pro: LGA-3647 (?) socket - the BIG SERVER SOCKET. Intel just released the Xeon-W 3175, which is the first workstation chip to make an appearance in this socket. It's a $10,000 Xeon Platinum server chip without the links to work in a multi-processor system. Given the premium Intel traditionally charges for multiprocessor ready chips (especially when you get above 2 processors - and the Platinum will handle up to 8), I'm guessing the W-3175 is a $3000 chip, although it might be as much as $5000. Apple is a big enough customer that Intel is probably willing to make some custom chips related to other Xeon Golds and Platinum"
Since Apple could get some discounts ...that still makes the mac pro around 7000-8000$ starting price?
Sorry, how do you explain that?
If Apple does do some sort of “sneak peak”, as you describe it, at the event, how does that in any way confirm that that’s what Schiller’s comment referred to?!?
All I really want from the 30th apart from the iPad would be new displays because if the mini gets updated then I might skip on the iMac that I do want to purchase and get Apple Display and mini instead so i can use the display with my MBP when needed. However, knowing Apple, they probably won't as they will wait for the modular Mac Pro which is still at least 9 months away (WWDC) so all I will end up with is either nothing and wait it out or get the iMac and forget about the Mac for few years. For me, the peak of Apple for Mac was in 2012 when the 12core Mac Pro was released and ACD were still available to get. That was the best I got out of Apple. However, the best value was 2008 Mac Pro - that one was a keeper.
Lets hope the 30th is fruitful though - those invitations do show some fun with colours which could indicate displays too. That would be a major and very pleasant surprise. Unless it refers to iMac improved displays which would (again) be disappointing.
Lets hope the 30th is fruitful though - those invitations do show some fun with colours which could indicate displays too. That would be a major and very pleasant surprise. Unless it refers to iMac improved displays which would (again) be disappointing.
I will take a new iMac with new matching twin apple cinema displays on each side...it's nice to dream. I'm betting this would be about 6K USD.
Long story, short, 9th Gen CPUs do not require the Z390 chipset, but Apple would probably opt for that PCH or at the least, the H370. The B360 is a non-starter for several reasons and the per unit cost is not worth the trouble. The current 2017 iMacs still uses the Z170 PCH (Skylake), so I expect Apple will rely on the Z390 and the integrated 802.11ac and Bluetooth 5.0 that it offers. The Z370 PCH should go away by Q2/2019, or sooner.
AMD is in a mid-cycle process shrink, but I suspect we will see 12nm (Polaris 30) in the new iMacs. The only Vega that Apple might drop into the iMac would be the Vega Nano, not a 56 or 64, they are reserved for the iMac Pro only.
Xeon is for the iMac Pro and the added costs for ECC DRAM has zero benefit for the average consumer. The E-Series is still stuck with x16 PCIe 3.0 lanes and a 64GB DRAM limit. Why would they waste their time on this CPU? What does it have over the current Core i5 and i7 CPUs that would justify using it instead?
The iMac 2018 will end up without a DRAM door, count on it. In order to cool a 9900K, they will need to adopt the iMac Pro's cooling system and I think they think the time to close up the iMac is now. I hope I am wrong.
Last edited:
ugg, now you're talking wasting quite a bit of money that could have gone elsewhere. I'm surprised they allowed this for this long. There is a monstrous mark up. Easily get into imac Pro cost territory. I wouldn't mind this if they stopped gauging and charged market prices for upping the ram.
It's fair enough that some older generation motherboard chipsets can support the 9th generation Intel CPUs with a BIOS update. Apple probably wouldn't use the Z370 as it's pricey compared to their middle of the road chipset choice - building iMacs to a specific cost. Some new re-engineering will be required since the Z170 definitely won't be a slot-in replacement for the 2018 iMac.
On the other hand, the Z390's special features of wifi and Bluetooth 5.0 that you mention are nice (and potentially cost saving measures) but there's also native support for USB-C 3.1 Gen 2 (the 10Gb/s version) and future support for Cannon Lake so the same chipset could be used across multiple generations of forthcoming iMac.
My point on the the 9th generation Intel CPUs was that Apple may choose not to use them even though some of them are available because I expect they will be the basis of the 2019 iMac when the range is fully available. Although Apple may have split CPUs between the 21.5" and 27" models in the past I don't think they have split different generations of the same CPU within the same range. I don't count the poverty spec 21.5" iMac vs the rest of the 21.5" range as a split.
Apple have the complete range of 8th generation CPUs to choose from right now and probably some special volume discount from Intel to use them as they get older.
If they chose to throw in the 9th generation Intel CPUs now for the top end what do they use in the 2019 iMac?
Polaris 30 based AMD GPUs (theoretically called AMD Pro 670-680) make more sense in a 2019 Mac when Apple will be be able claim a nice leap in GPU performance after the huge jump in CPU performance that Coffee Lake will bring. Once again, if Apple front load all the goodies in the 2018, what do they give you in the 2019 to make you buy?
Xeon-E brings Apple the following:
1. Higher base clocks (better performance under an iMac Pro style cooling system)
2. Potential for a deal with Intel for cheap Xeons, unlocking access to additional PCIE lanes.
3. Cheaper iMac Pro easier to sell than a high end iMac if the RAM door is going away.
Of course, Apple could just as well continue with the Core i series but they'll have to look at the high end of that range for next year to make sure they don't interfere with the current iMac Pro. For me at the moment, that means using 8 cores, 8 threads at most.