Probably Cannon Lake and Navi, if there's a 2019 iMac at all. I don't think Polaris 30 will bring that much more performance.
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
Probably Cannon Lake and Navi, if there's a 2019 iMac at all. I don't think Polaris 30 will bring that much more performance.
According to Fudzilla, Navi looks set to supersede Polaris after the summer of 2019, this far forward we could assume on a 2019 iMac update to take place in 12 months - October of 2019 rather than WWDC.
Cannon Lake looks a moveable feast after the mess that is Intel's 10nm CPU development. If reduced power consumption is on the cards in 2019 we could be looking at that for a proper redesign of iMac because, yes, cooler running = let's make it thinner as far as certain Apple staff are concerned
I've long believed this, too.
Not certain what minimal percentage Mac sales actually contribute to Cupertino's overall fiscal year at the moment, but given Cook-n-Company's apparent interest in keeping both the desktop Mac line-up and the OS not just current but actually innovative, I think Apple would love to dump Macs and their OS.
cjr
[doublepost=1540240994][/doublepost]
Amen.
I don't criticize Steve; he was dealing with cancer.
I blame Cook; he's done nothing but cash-in on the brand equity Job's created (and then re-created post-exile) while rationalizing that incremental updates are the same thing as innovation.
Latest example: Mojave's best feature... "Dark Mode"
Wow, Tim, how did you and your team come up with that one?
cjr
Apple kept the Z170 PCH for Kaby Lake as it required very little qualification for macOS versus using moving to the Z270 PCH.
The whole point of Apple waiting this long to update the iMac would be to use the Z390, otherwise they could have updated the iMacs in July along with the MacBook Pro. This would have helped their bottom line and perception of commitment to the Mac.
The Z390 is 14nm, so more energy efficient and the inclusion of 802.11ac Wave 2, plus Bluetooth 5.0 is where Apple told us it was headed with the mid-2018 MacBook Pros. The USB-C Gen 2 support is gravy for users. Apple has never cheaped out on the chipset for the iMac. Apple could stick with just 8th Gen for iMac 2018, another week and we will know for sure. Perhaps, they will hold back the 9th Gen and give us the 8086K as the top BTO option instead.
I also do not trust that the 300-Series PCH will support Cannon Lake. Intel has been pretty consistent about giving us two generations of
Polaris 30 makes sense to include now if they are ready to go and Navi 7nm makes sense for mid to late 2019, depending on roll out of the 9th Gen CPUs or if Intel actually ships Cannon Lake on time (ha ha).
Xeon E nets us absolutely nothing of consequence:
1. I will take 6-Core at 3.7GHz or 8-Core at 3.6GHz Core i5/Core i7 and be perfectly fine. So will everyone else. The Xeon E-Series does not clock higher. Looking at the highest end Xeon E-2176G part now.
2. The E-Series Xeon is maxed at 16 lanes of PCIe 3.0, there are no more lanes to unlock. At least there is zero precedent for that as far as I know. You want extra lanes, you pay for the X-Series parts or Xeon W.
3. Apple is not going to make a cheaper iMac than what they sell now with Core i5 and Core i7 consumer parts.
Apple does not care about overlap with the low-end iMac Pro, there are at least a half dozen advantages unique to the iMac Pro over the iMac that cannibalization is unlikely. Besides a high-end iMac has nowhere left to go, and a low-end iMac has two options, CPU upgrade and/or a DRAM upgrade. People who need an iMac Pro will buy an iMac Pro.
Besides, once a 22-Core Xeon W is released, the 8-core can be dropped and 10-Core becomes the base model.
I think your argument about holding back 9th Gen until 2019 has merit, but your Xeon E-Series conjecture makes no logical sense to me.
Good points made there, I would say that Z270 may not have offered much extra for the work required either. Bear in mind also that an October release of the iMac and cheaper MacBooks mean that students miss the window of opportunity for a Mac to School bonus - also good for Apple's bottom line.
The 8086k is a limited edition CPU, only 50k units to be sold and already superseded by the 9th generation. I don't think Apple will have looked far beyond the i7-8700K for the 2018 iMac. As you say, we'll find out in a week and I'm far more interested in the Mac Mini anyway
The top Xeon-E part now is the E-2186G with the promise of 8 core coming next year (to mirror the 9th generation Core i processors). Granted, it's only marginally faster at core speed than the i7-8700K and Apple don't overclock the K part - they buy it in purely for the base clock headline speed.
The E series is similar in many ways to the i5/i7 series with the addition of ECC RAM - in this respect the Coffee Lake CPUs are no different. For the amount of money that Apple are charging I'd say that they'll find it easier to sell a a $3k-4k iMac if it was kitted out like a cheaper iMac Pro rather than an expensive iMac. You get potentially 24 extra lanes off the PCH to assign to other uses which, having looked into the Z390, I'll concede is no different than what you would get from the Xeon C246 chipset.
They can use i3 to reach Kaby Lake-style performance for less if they wanted to - with 4 cores instead of 6. It could allow the 21.5" iMac to gain a Retina 4k screen while not increasing in price.
My point with the Xeon was to create a new entry level iMac Pro SKU that professionals may like to buy off the shelf now that the iMac Pro has that 'halo' effect over the range. It's a marketing thing rather than allowing punters to pick their jaws off the floor as they realise how much a loaded i7 iMac with all-SSD storage costs. Apple could just add the 6 Core Xeon E as an entry level model to the iMac Pro range.
It would also give Apple half a chance to allow the 'regular' 5k iMac to continue with a RAM door if they used less hot CPUs.
Not sure where the 22 core Xeon W is coming from, do you mean the 28 core W-3175X? I'm not sure that's going into an iMac Pro.
Good points made there, I would say that Z270 may not have offered much extra for the work required either. Bear in mind also that an October release of the iMac and cheaper MacBooks mean that students miss the window of opportunity for a Mac to School bonus - also good for Apple's bottom line.
The 8086k is a limited edition CPU, only 50k units to be sold and already superseded by the 9th generation. I don't think Apple will have looked far beyond the i7-8700K for the 2018 iMac. As you say, we'll find out in a week and I'm far more interested in the Mac Mini anyway
The top Xeon-E part now is the E-2186G with the promise of 8 core coming next year (to mirror the 9th generation Core i processors). Granted, it's only marginally faster at core speed than the i7-8700K and Apple don't overclock the K part - they buy it in purely for the base clock headline speed.
The E series is similar in many ways to the i5/i7 series with the addition of ECC RAM - in this respect the Coffee Lake CPUs are no different. For the amount of money that Apple are charging I'd say that they'll find it easier to sell a a $3k-4k iMac if it was kitted out like a cheaper iMac Pro rather than an expensive iMac. You get potentially 24 extra lanes off the PCH to assign to other uses which, having looked into the Z390, I'll concede is no different than what you would get from the Xeon C246 chipset.
They can use i3 to reach Kaby Lake-style performance for less if they wanted to - with 4 cores instead of 6. It could allow the 21.5" iMac to gain a Retina 4k screen while not increasing in price.
My point with the Xeon was to create a new entry level iMac Pro SKU that professionals may like to buy off the shelf now that the iMac Pro has that 'halo' effect over the range. It's a marketing thing rather than allowing punters to pick their jaws off the floor as they realise how much a loaded i7 iMac with all-SSD storage costs. Apple could just add the 6 Core Xeon E as an entry level model to the iMac Pro range.
It would also give Apple half a chance to allow the 'regular' 5k iMac to continue with a RAM door if they used less hot CPUs.
Not sure where the 22 core Xeon W is coming from, do you mean the 28 core W-3175X? I'm not sure that's going into an iMac Pro.
The Z270 gives you Optane, and that’s really...that’s it.
I understand your point about the Xeon now, but I do not think Apple wants to segment the iMac and iMac Pro any more than they have already. I am beginning to think we are going to see the end of the spinning HDD in the 27” iMac, but not in the 21.5”. The result will be a more expensive iMac and the Mac mini will be the bridge step...yes, I know that is weird, but I think it may come to pass.
8086K is limited, I forgot about that, my bad. I guess Intel could just call it the 8800K and then sell it to Apple.
The 21.5” iMac already has a 4K display, not sure what you are talking about? The base level non-Retina iMac will either remain unchanged or get EOL’d.
Cannot ever EVER see the Core i3 showing up in an iMac again...not to be terse, but you need to think like Apple and all these scenarios you are postulating are very un-Apple like. No offense meant, it is just that Apple’s discipline/lack of imagination precludes all of your ingenuity.
The 22-core was supposed to be part of the Basin Falls refresh, but that did not happened when they introduced the X-Series along with the 3175X. I expect the 22-core to come out next year for both the X-Series and the Xeon. I expect the 3175X will end up in the Mac Pro.
Actually, Mac sales for students are best when they’re selling older hardware. Think about it - this last August/September there were plenty of students that bought older MacBooks and iMacs. For Apple, this is a great way to get rid of aging stock, but still make a profit before they discontinue the outdated model. Then, if new Macs are announced on the 30th, they still have the holiday season which will certainly boost sales.
Does anyone know what graphics cards Apple are likely to use in the upcoming iMac's? will they be a big jump over what we have in the current 2017 iMac's?
Also with the processor are we likely to get Hex Core processors like in the 15" Macbook Pro? surely if they can put them in a MacBook Pro they could put similar in the new iMac's.
Also with the processor are we likely to get Hex Core processors like in the 15" Macbook Pro? surely if they can put them in a MacBook Pro they could put similar in the new iMac's.
i ag
I agree with all that, but i think they will go flash for all iMacs because of apple file system and flash being already in every other mac by default. They won't leave only 1 SKU out in the cold. As demonstrated with the iPhones, they are not scared to up the price when needed to cover the cost of hardware requirements.
The only "issue" with that is the default capacity will be lower than 1tb, but this is a false issue.
Firstly, i think it's a better setup to have a 256/512 flash for os and programs and a large spinning drive connected via thunderbolt for user files and backup. Therefore, it's really easy to disconnect the data drive and reformat the system with no lost data.
Secondly, flash is 100% faster over the entire volume vs. select common files being faster in fusion.
Thirdly, the real power of a spinning drive is having multiple tb of data on a platter, and having only 1tb drives installed is not making the most of the tech storage wise or performance. It's just plain old fashioned and being artificially propped up with a 32Gb cache. it needs to be retired.
The Z270 gives you Optane, and that’s really...that’s it.
I understand your point about the Xeon now, but I do not think Apple wants to segment the iMac and iMac Pro any more than they have already. I am beginning to think we are going to see the end of the spinning HDD in the 27” iMac, but not in the 21.5”. The result will be a more expensive iMac and the Mac mini will be the bridge step...yes, I know that is weird, but I think it may come to pass.
8086K is limited, I forgot about that, my bad. I guess Intel could just call it the 8800K and then sell it to Apple.
The 21.5” iMac already has a 4K display, not sure what you are talking about? The base level non-Retina iMac will either remain unchanged or get EOL’d.
Cannot ever EVER see the Core i3 showing up in an iMac again...not to be terse, but you need to think like Apple and all these scenarios you are postulating are very un-Apple like. No offense meant, it is just that Apple’s discipline/lack of imagination precludes all of your ingenuity.
The 22-core was supposed to be part of the Basin Falls refresh, but that did not happened when they introduced the X-Series along with the 3175X. I expect the 22-core to come out next year for both the X-Series and the Xeon. I expect the 3175X will end up in the Mac Pro.
I agree with all that, but i think they will go flash for all iMacs because of apple file system and flash being already in every other mac by default. They won't leave only 1 SKU out in the cold. As demonstrated with the iPhones, they are not scared to up the price when needed to cover the cost of hardware requirements.
The only "issue" with that is the default capacity will be lower than 1tb, but this is a false issue.
Firstly, i think it's a better setup to have a 256/512 flash for os and programs and a large spinning drive connected via thunderbolt for user files and backup. Therefore, it's really easy to disconnect the data drive and reformat the system with no lost data.
Secondly, flash is 100% faster over the entire volume vs. select common files being faster in fusion.
Thirdly, the real power of a spinning drive is having multiple tb of data on a platter, and having only 1tb drives installed is not making the most of the tech storage wise or performance. It's just plain old fashioned and being artificially propped up with a 32Gb cache. it needs to be retired.
Likely the AMD Radeon Pro 500X-Series (OEM only) or AMD Radeon Pro 600-Series should they be released (Apple May be their launch partner for these). They are rumored to have a 10-15% jump in GPU performance.
As for the CPU, Apple uses the Intel S-Series desktop CPUs for the iMacs, so you should expect Coffee Lake 8000- and 9000-Series 95w TDP CPUs, with 6c, 8c and 8c/16t. The 21.5” iMac will most likely stick with just the 8000-Series CPUs (i5-8400, i5-8500 and i7-8700) and the 27” may contain a mix of the 8000- and 9000-Series. These are not the same CPUs as the MacBook Pros, which are the Intel 45w TDP H-Series CPUs.
Only one more week and we will know everything.
Based on the power use chart here - https://www.anandtech.com/show/13400/intel-9th-gen-core-i9-9900k-i7-9700k-i5-9600k-review/21 - I believe we are well past the point of using anything but the iMac Pro’s chassis and it’s revised cooling system, plus a higher wattage PSU than the current iMac, which means that HDDs have to go. EDIT: Hat tip to sublunar for posting that chart. I saw the article when it was published, but never made it to the power consumption chart.
TL;DR The question is: Will Apple raise the base price of the iMac to to move it over to a pure Flash Storage lineup? The answer is: I have no idea, but I am leaning in that direction now.
The base 27" iMac costs $1799 USD w/1TB Fusion. Exchanging for a 256GB SSD is +100. That $1799 USD price has been inviolable for quite some time. I think if Apple can keep the entry price tag the same and move it to a 256GB SSD for the base storage, I have been persuaded that they might actually do so going forward. I think Flash is plentiful enough now and the price has stabilized and is continuing to come down to the point where Apple can still hit the margins they want to hit. It would not surprise me at all to think that Apple waited so long to update to Coffee Lake because they were waiting on NAND prices to soften, due to be caught in a thermal corner with the 8700K, 9600K, 9700K and 9900K CPUs along with a new motherboard design utilizing the Z390 PCH.
The fallout from all this is though is not insignificant.
1. Less Storage at the same or higher cost.
2. Loss of user upgradeable RAM options.
3. The greater than average odds of Apple introducing the T2 chip to the iMac.
Wildcards
1. GPUs (The rumors are there, but AMD has been mum to this point). It would be nice if all 27" iMac received an update to 8GB of VRAM. I can see the reduced streams Radeon Pro 580 on the low end and the radeon Pro 590 on the higher end 27" iMac. The 21.5" is a toss up for 555X/560X or Radeon Pro 600-series, if released. Naturally, the 27" would get the 600-series as well, if AMD releases them.
2. Base DRAM and whether or not Apple will move to DDR4-2666 and formally support 128GB after it was announced that the 9th Generation would receive that support real soon now. Source: https://www.anandtech.com/show/1347...gb-of-ddr4-on-core-9th-gen-desktop-processors
3. The possibility of a Touch Bar keyboard. The one on the MacBook Pro connects directly to the motherboard. A Magic Keyboard w/Touch Bar would need to use Bluetooth instead and I am not sure Apple will permit that. The iMac is the computer that Apple would introduce this feature to more consumers beyond laptops.
4. HDR support, wider color gamut, 120Hz refresh support. I can see the first two, I do not see 120Hz in our future.
Ready for the reveal!
Good points above. But, personally I think the touch bar will eventually get phased out so maybe not a factor here. Again, the worst thing here is the possibility of the ram lock. That would go over a whole lot smoother if Apple charged market prices for ram upgrades, but . . not much chance that happens.
Unless the Touch Bar cost can be reduced to allow it to move down market to the MacBook and a way to integrate it into a wireless keyboard via Bluetooth 5.0 that securely allows Touch ID, then you are right, it is dead and not long for this world.
It would be nice if Apple would at least credit back the amount for exchange cost of the DRAM upgrade instead of charging the full cost and essentially "keeping" the base DRAM and the customer paying for that as well. This would mean that if the iMac came with 8GB of base RAM, the breakdown of BTO upgrade costs might look like this:
8GB->16GB +$100, instead of +$200
8GB->32GB +$500, instead of +$600
8GB->64GB +$1000, instead of +$1400 because, Apple, I can almost buy another damn iMac for that price!
Or, and here is a novel idea, Apple can outfit the iMac with a base 16GB, raise the base price by $100 and get rid of this 8GB nonsense if they insist on getting rid of the memory door. I think we are more likely to get this scenario than any other, but it means that 32GB becomes +$400 and 64GB becomes +$1,200, which is ridiculous. Getting 4x16GB from OWC is $619.00 and 2x32GB is $899.00. Apple could offer these cheaper than they do. Most users are going to opt for the 32GB of DRAM if they upgrade at all.
Alas, Apple has never been generous with RAM prices for BTO, so I do not hold out hope.
Well, Kuo is now saying iMacs are definitely coming next week!
https://forums.macrumors.com/thread...ent-airpower-in-late-2018-early-2019.2149367/
Rejoice!!!
https://forums.macrumors.com/thread...ent-airpower-in-late-2018-early-2019.2149367/
Rejoice!!!
Apple could move to a 1.5 year product refresh cycle, meaning we won't see an iMac in 2019 but Mid-2020.
Late-2015 iMac = 5th & 6th gen CPU // Rx 300 GPU
Mid-2017 iMac = 7th gen CPU // Rx 500 GPU
Late-2018 iMac = 8th & 9th gen // Rx 600 GPU
Mid-2020 iMac = 10th gen // Navi GPU
Just as an FYI to anyone thinking about buying a 2017 Kaby Lake iMac, OWC has certified the 27" model to support up to 128GB of DRAM - https://blog.macsales.com/46256-owc...-for-2017-current-27-inch-imac-with-retina-5k - the cost is steep: $1799.00 and the usefulness is dubious when one considers that you are still limited to a 4-core/8-thread CPU, although at 4.2GHz, a Core i7-7700K will still get the job done for almost anything.
Intel still only has 64GB officially supported, but they have already pledged support for 128GB of RAM in the 9th-Generation CPUs. Source: https://www.anandtech.com/show/1347...gb-of-ddr4-on-core-9th-gen-desktop-processors - which leads me to believe the 8th-Generation CPUs will become officially supported as well. I would not look for Intel to extend official support to 7th Gen, but anything could happen.
Intel still only has 64GB officially supported, but they have already pledged support for 128GB of RAM in the 9th-Generation CPUs. Source: https://www.anandtech.com/show/1347...gb-of-ddr4-on-core-9th-gen-desktop-processors - which leads me to believe the 8th-Generation CPUs will become officially supported as well. I would not look for Intel to extend official support to 7th Gen, but anything could happen.
Honestly, FaceID makes way more sense for the iMac than TouchID, so any TouchBar keyboard could probably do without it.
They can't even make a backlit keyboard for the iMac; they're a long ways away from a Touch ID/touch bar keyboard.
FaceID requires a completely new camera assembly on the front of the unit and the inclusion of an A11 Bionic or higher in the computer alongside the Intel CPU. The T2 chip is not designed to handle FaceID, so we are looking at a "T3".
I am sure they will incorporate FaceID into the Mac at some point, but I do not see that happening until Apple moves the Mac over to in-house CPUs.
But if a T2 can coexist with an Intel processor now, what’s stopping Apple from implementing T3?
Yep. They need to do a bit of work but I think FaceID is far more likely than a TouchID/TouchBar keyboard. The keyboard is already expensive, battery time would probably be pretty bad with the TouchBar and FaceID has the marginal benefit that it would work even if the user prefers another keyboard.
We've yet to see if any non-pro Mac will get even the T2, but I'd estimate a 25 % chance of the iMac getting FaceID this year and a 50 % chance that the Mac Pro display will include it next year.
Cost...and what really is the point? Apple still does not have a handle on the T2, much less another brand new bridgeOS component to start causing Kernel Panics.
Also, why invest in the R&D to get Face ID working and integrated with the Intel PCH and CPU when Apple is planning to switch to CPUs in the near future that support Face ID as a part of its DNA?
[doublepost=1540335788][/doublepost]
I do not have a Face ID iPhone right now, so the magic is completely lost on me. I am perfectly content with Touch ID, as I can simply unlock my MacBook Pro while multitasking.
Yes, the OLED display plus backlighting (which should be a given in 2018), might be tough on the battery. The technical challenge to me would be how does Apple make Touch ID secure within Bluetooth 4.2/5.0 or is that even possible.
As I replied in a separate post, I see Face ID waiting until Apple switches to in-house silicon. It would be easier to integrate into a Mac free of an Intel CPU and PCH, in my opinion.
I know I am in the minority, but I like the Touch Bar and I find it very useful in my day to day.
Incoming, looks like iMacs will at least get spec updates.
https://9to5mac.com/2018/10/24/appl...-eurasian-database-ahead-of-october-30-event/
https://9to5mac.com/2018/10/24/appl...-eurasian-database-ahead-of-october-30-event/
beside specs,i hope for improved display with new cooling inside for those 6c cpu