What about the videos on iTunes that Apple has had like HDR, 4K? I do edit photos as well for a hobby, I love the big 27” screen on my current iMac (2012) so I don’t want to downgrade to the 21” version.
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
What about the videos on iTunes that Apple has had like HDR, 4K? I do edit photos as well for a hobby, I love the big 27” screen on my current iMac (2012) so I don’t want to downgrade to the 21” version.
Everyone asks the same question. Probably, the same reason why iPad Mini, MacBook Air and Mini have been updated after so long, and now probably iPod touch. I think, Tim Cook simply wants people to use iPads instead of Macs and he also doesn't care Mac line-up. After a while, people's desire reaches a point that Apple can't deny and then they update the devices at minimal.
iTunes does not playback 4K HDR. The only Apple device that can playback a native 4K HDR signal is the Apple TV. This is because Apple is dumb as ****, not because the hardware of an iMac is incapable of it. Editing photos is great on such a high resolution display: the images off my camera are 6000 x 4000, so looking at them on a 5120 x 2880 display is a very large step towards being able to finally see the full, proper 1:1 detail of my imagery. And when you display such a high resolution image on a lower res canvas there are pretty much no downsides since you are simply downscaling: having too much resolution is better than having too little, of course.
No 31 inch screen..but they did update the specs a little..still a 27 inch display..no T2 but I guess that is OK, I mean what am I missing, having to click the siri button no big deal..I have T2 on my macbook pro its cool not having to click anything but I can live with pressing the button..would have liked a bigger screen but this just seems like a spec bump and thats it
Actually, with lossy compressed images, they can be upscaled somewhat more intelligently than simply pixel doubling. The compression algorithm is already specifying color gradients across multiple original pixels. When upscaling, the player/viewer can use finer gradient steps across more pixels. You'll think the picture looks better, but on close examination, you'll realize there's no extra detail - the license plate you couldn't read in 1080p is still unreadable when the 1080p is upscaled to 4K.
I want Face ID on my iMac too, thus I’m hoping for T2 next update.
After waiting for about a year and a quarter to retire my 2007, finally have...a spec bump.
I don't have as much of a problem with that as some, but do wonder why it didn't happen months ago.
The most disappointing aspect of the new models is that fact that a premium computer in 2019 still has spinning drives. Even the mini models all have SSDs. Will have to wait for the teardowns to see if they've stuck to the paltry 32GB drives or returned to the 128GB drives of the original Fusion configurations.
That said, I can live without T2, and continued user access to RAM takes a lot of pressure off to decide on a 2019 or a discounted 2017.
Since I'd spec the 512GB SSD, that results in a choice between $2099 (i5-8500), $2299 (i5-8600), or $2399 (i5-9600K). I don't need, and am no longer at a point where I embrace Apple enough to give it more money for an i9 or Vega.
The $100 difference between the top two models effectively eliminates the middle model, given the newer processor and better video. Will have to wait for benchmarks and user experience to see if the cooling system has been improved to account for a 95W processor.
Even the $300 difference between the base and top isn't a huge step to climb, considering they're all at $2K plus already. Apple'e product managers and their pricing strategies have struck again.
I don't have as much of a problem with that as some, but do wonder why it didn't happen months ago.
The most disappointing aspect of the new models is that fact that a premium computer in 2019 still has spinning drives. Even the mini models all have SSDs. Will have to wait for the teardowns to see if they've stuck to the paltry 32GB drives or returned to the 128GB drives of the original Fusion configurations.
That said, I can live without T2, and continued user access to RAM takes a lot of pressure off to decide on a 2019 or a discounted 2017.
Since I'd spec the 512GB SSD, that results in a choice between $2099 (i5-8500), $2299 (i5-8600), or $2399 (i5-9600K). I don't need, and am no longer at a point where I embrace Apple enough to give it more money for an i9 or Vega.
The $100 difference between the top two models effectively eliminates the middle model, given the newer processor and better video. Will have to wait for benchmarks and user experience to see if the cooling system has been improved to account for a 95W processor.
Even the $300 difference between the base and top isn't a huge step to climb, considering they're all at $2K plus already. Apple'e product managers and their pricing strategies have struck again.
I have a 2010 iMac 27" used as an external monitor for a 2017 iMac 27".
Doing the above as you describe offers no discernible advantage whatsoever. In fact, you're better off using the 5K screen in a few situations because it's wide colour gamut.
No one knows but in my humble opinion zero chance and for next year need to keep the fingers crossed.
[doublepost=1553064437][/doublepost]With this minimal update I wonder if Apple is working new iMac with Apple designed CPU and whenever they release it it comes with all new design.
[doublepost=1553065087][/doublepost]I wonder if it is possible to upgrade the SSD and RAM ?
After yesterday, we are now looking at 2021 minimum
[doublepost=1553066270][/doublepost]You want T2? 2021 will give you that
You want zero edge? 2021 will give you that
You want 100% ssd? 2021 will give you that
But not this fall or 2020, it’s 2021
[doublepost=1553066270][/doublepost]You want T2? 2021 will give you that
You want zero edge? 2021 will give you that
You want 100% ssd? 2021 will give you that
But not this fall or 2020, it’s 2021
No redesign
No SSD in standard
No Bluetooth 5
No space grey color
No Ethernet 10 GB
No FaceTime HD 1080p
No iMac Pro 2-fans system. I can’t imagine the noise for those who choose the i9 processor and the Vega 48, the 2017 i7-580 will be silent in comparaison !
This update is a joke.
No SSD in standard
No Bluetooth 5
No space grey color
No Ethernet 10 GB
No FaceTime HD 1080p
No iMac Pro 2-fans system. I can’t imagine the noise for those who choose the i9 processor and the Vega 48, the 2017 i7-580 will be silent in comparaison !
This update is a joke.
I’m fine with no face ID (that means no T2 thank god) or no bluetooth 5, or no color options.
Those are all minor bells or whistles that dont really handicap the functionality of these very good machines.
But I do agree with you that the thermals are right now a BIG question mark with these new systems.
Last edited:
I agree. This update isn't worth, it for me. I have my 2017 i5, and I'm happy. Glad I didn't wait really. Let's see how those i9's throttle.
This may sound crazy but I actually like that they still have a traditional sata drive in there.
What I have done several times is open those up and replace the spinning drive with an ssd, for a fraction of the cost that apple would offer (recently put a 4tb ssd in my 2017 iMac - a capacity apple doesnt offer at all).
Any redesign would likely eliminate any abilty to upgrade the drive, so I love that theres one more generation of iMac that is upgradable in that way.
Last edited:
How is the performance of your 4tb installed SSD compared to apple’s SSD from the factory?
Obviously the benchmarks give the apple ssd a big edge in read/write speeds, but as has been discussed at length here and by various tech sites, the transformational boost from an ssd coms from the nearly instantanious access times, which even the so-called ‘slow’ sata ssd’s give you.
Boot times, app launch times are unnoticably different between the internal sata ssd and the internal apple blade ssd.
And consider, the only time those hellacious read and write speeds will really be noticed is if your copying a huge 100+ gb file to another drive that ALSO has 3000gbs transfer rates.
So ... if youre often transferring hellaciously huge files between two equally super fast drives, then yes, you’ll then see ‘some’ benefit from your crazy fast apple ssd.
Last edited:
To me I think it’s worth it to have a PCIe SSD over a SATA one, even if that means it’s soldered on. A PCIe drive is that much faster.
Obviously the benchmarks give the apple ssd a big edge in read/write speeds, but as has been discussed at length here and by various tech sites, the transformational boost from an ssd coms from the nearly instantanious access times, which even the so-called ‘slow’ sata ssd’s give you.
Boot times, app launch times are unnoticably different between the internal sata ssd and the internal apple blade ssd.
And consider, the only time those hellacious read and write speeds will really be noticed is if your copying a huge 100+ gb file to another drive that ALSO has 3000gbs transfer rates.
So ... if youre often transferring hellaciously huge files between two equally super fast drives, then yes, you’ll then see ‘some’ benefit from your crazy fast apple ssd.
I dont get what you mean by saying the read and write speeds only come into play when transferring between drives at mated speeds when literally all applications and almost everything you do is being constantly written and read from disk. increasing the throughput at which this can be done will always be a major boon because it blurs the gap in the processor cache/ram/storage memory hierarchy. I think your argument here is that sustained read/write speeds aren’t necessarily a great benchmark for real world use but soldered PCIe drives are also measurably far better than SATA drives in other more meaningful metrics such as IOPs
I think the benefit of having a SATA bay *on top of* also having a PCI blade type for boot volume is obvious, which is what the above poster wanted to convey. Despite Apple shipping the iMacs with HDDs in there, you can swap that with a SATA SSD which of course is orders of magnitude "faster" or more responsive, where you have the option to either use it as a standalone 2nd volume, or Fusion this SATA SSD together with the original PCI SSD as a high performance Fusion Drive.
I can tell you I have extensive experience with apple laptops that have the so-called ‘super fast’ ssds and then laptops with the maligned ‘slower’ ssds and the real life experience of using the system (opening files, transferring files that are 10gb or less, boot times) is virtually indistinguishable.
I doubt you have the experience of comparing them side by side ( as I have on many occasions), so maybe thats why you have blindly bought into the hype that you’re actuallly getting a big bebefit from a super fast ssd.
Last edited:
Im not sure why you simply assume that i have no experience comparing side to side and that ive “bought into the hype.” My parents, who are educators, the macbook pros that they get come with slow ass **** 5400rpm sata drives that are user serviceable—they’ve swapped the hard drive out for a SATA SSD and their computers still arent anywhere near as fast as my pretty terrible base model 2015 13” macbook pro with soldered 128gb SSD. Sure, that might have to do with a myriad of other factors, so no i do not have a completely round perception of this issue, but I think it’s fairly clear that a PCIe SSD is much faster