iMac Pro No more iMac Pro?

[sublunar]

You say: "Let's hope Apple gets on the stick with new ID for the iMac and iMac Pro. The Pro is an important bridge between the iMac and the Mac Pro and the iMac 21.5" and 27" are important to Apple, but really long in the tooth."

I agree, but I wanted to make a comment re: the 21.5 inch iMac. I think a lot of people have kind of overlooked the LG 4K---the new one. It's 23.5/24 inches. I think the iMac is going to get a redesign and Apple will release a 24 incher at 4K and possibly kill the 21 incher.

I mean, the LG 4 and 5K's were always the same size as the respective iMac's; why make a 24 inch display if a 24 inch iMac is not right behind?

Good reasoning there.

The LG Ultrafines are 16:9 23.7" 3840x2160 which is lesser resolution than the 21.5" offers (4096x2304). Apple could straight up offer a 24" iMac at that resolution.

They could also opt to continue the 'full' 4k screen resolution from the 21.5" in a 25" package at the slightly higher resolution too (using panels with the same dot pitch as the UltraFine) - and rather than killing the 21.5" model they could leave a 21.5" model behind while a 24/25" model goes all-SSD.

If they want to remove the old retina 21.5" panel from the supply chain they could in fact keep supplying that horrible 2017 model with the 2.3GHz i5 mobile CPU.

The one issue I see with the new LG 4K Ultrafine is it is not a "true" Retina display at 189dpi. At "typical" viewing distances, Apple defines a Retina display for a Mac desktop at ~220 dpi and the 21.5" has a DPI of 219 and the 27" 5K's has a DPI of 218.

Mind you, 189dpi is better than just about any other 4K display on the market by a decent margin and almost as good as the Microsoft Surface Studio's 193dpi, but it is still in "bad zone" if used in HiDPI mode. And the LG 31.5" 4K panel has a DPI of only 138, which is also in the "bad zone". So I am skeptical Apple would be willing to use the 24" panel in a new iMac (and the 31.5" is a definite no-go).

Apple's 32" ProXDR is 6k - no chance of an iMac Pro coming with that panel I fear. 24/25" would give the physical size that most business users are used to as 21.5" is something of a budget size screen even though.

The issue that @Glockworkorange has mentioned is that Apple no longer sell the 21.5" 4k LG monitor any more. So buyers can't purchase a 'matching' external screen.

A 24" or 25" 4k screen may be seen as better value by Mac buyers or as foreshadowing for a forthcoming product.

Or Apple could make their entire 21.5" line retina with a form factor change to go along with new CPUs and GPUs - to include going all SSD - and hope that interest is piqued by that change. But would it interest many people who want a bigger screen without going 27"? A fully SSD 27" is surely going to increase in price too.

Could a new generation 21.5" 4k iMac be the one that goes with the H series mobile CPUs to add more cores - becoming a desk bound 16" Macbook Pro with bigger 4k screen and perhaps a VESA attachment option?

I'm still of the opinion that Apple sells an expanded iMac Pro range of SKUs at 27" - maybe with a redesign - and a 24" 4k becomes the workhorse of the range. Apple will probably then cheese off a load of fans by continuing to offer a poverty spec 21.5".

When intel (for CPU) and/or AMD (for GPU) put out something that is actually an upgrade.

If they were to "refresh" it right now, they would be pretty much identical parts with different part numbers only.

The new CPUs have a significant price cut thanks to AMD Ryzen competition. Apple could in fact secure a price cut to keep supplying the old CPUs but would Intel do them that deal? Apple may be happy on the one hand to take the old CPUs because of the heat profiles in the existing enclosure but letting hardware stagnate without meaningful refreshes is what was threatening a sales collapse on the 2013 Mac Pro by professionals.

Keeping the 2017 iMac Pro on the books without a refresh (even if it's to double the RAM, double the storage, or even bump the base CPU to the 10 core model for example) would be very bad news with pressure from below coming naturally in due course due to Comet Lake S and potential 10 core/20 thread CPUs.

Like the Mac Pro - the reason to update the iMac Pro would be to show professional buyers on a budget that Apple still mean business.

 

[CWallace]

Apple's 32" ProXDR is 6k - no chance of an iMac Pro coming with that panel I fear.

Personally I fear if they did use it since the XDR uses a non-standard display resolution so unless you bought an XDR as your second monitor, you'd have window resizing when moving applications between screens (which drove me nuts when I had a 1920x1080 display as my second monitor before I went with a 2560x1440 to match).

The issue that @Glockworkorange has mentioned is that Apple no longer sell the 21.5" 4k LG monitor any more. So buyers can't purchase a 'matching' external screen.

I'm guessing that the monitor was not very popular as it only matched the 21.5" iMac and I expect people bought that one either due to the low price or the inability to fit anything larger in their work area - both of which would preclude someone buying the display as a companion second monitor. So LG likely discontinued manufacturing it (while still making the panels for Apple).

The new (Xeon W) CPUs have a significant price cut thanks to AMD Ryzen competition. Apple could in fact secure a price cut to keep supplying the old CPUs but would Intel do them that deal? Apple may be happy on the one hand to take the old CPUs because of the heat profiles in the existing enclosure but letting hardware stagnate without meaningful refreshes is what was threatening a sales collapse on the 2013 Mac Pro by professionals.

The existing iMac Pro cooling system should have the thermal overhead to handle hotter W-Series Xeon at the expense of more noise or, as others have noted, they could under clock them like they did with the "B" models on the current iMac Pro to keep them within whatever thermal profile Apple wants.

 

[Glockworkorange]

Personally I fear if they did use it since the XDR uses a non-standard display resolution so unless you bought an XDR as your second monitor, you'd have window resizing when moving applications between screens (which drove me nuts when I had a 1920x1080 display as my second monitor before I went with a 2560x1440 to match).




I'm guessing that the monitor was not very popular as it only matched the 21.5" iMac and I expect people bought that one either due to the low price or the inability to fit anything larger in their work area - both of which would preclude someone buying the display as a companion second monitor. So LG likely discontinued manufacturing it (while still making the panels for Apple).




The existing iMac Pro cooling system should have the thermal overhead to handle hotter W-Series Xeon at the expense of more noise or, as others have noted, they could under clock them like they did with the "B" models on the current iMac Pro to keep them within whatever thermal profile Apple wants.

The new lg 4 k is disappointing. I had one for like three days next to my 21 incher and the difference in resolution was very noticeable.

 

[sublunar]

The new lg 4 k is disappointing. I had one for like three days next to my 21 incher and the difference in resolution was very noticeable.

That's down to dot pitch though. If Apple insist on a 21.5" 4k DCI-P3 4096x2304 panel they may be looking to modernise the bezels and maybe make it consistently thinner by removing the hard drive. Something as small as A 21.5" panel would be of interest if Apple are looking to do something innovative - such as putting the computer into the 'foot' and bringing back a monitor arm like the old G4.

The existing iMac Pro cooling system should have the thermal overhead to handle hotter W-Series Xeon at the expense of more noise or, as others have noted, they could under clock them like they did with the "B" models on the current iMac Pro to keep them within whatever thermal profile Apple wants.

I doubt that Apple would deliberately want to allow more noise at baseline and at least one SKU of the 2017 iMac Pro has been down clocked already.

The W-22xx series CPUs have a 25w higher TDP than the existing W-21xx series CPUs in use in the current iMac Pro. There's also the impression that AMD's 5x00 series GPUs could run hotter as well and Apple probably have an inside track on Intel and AMD's future release schedule.

Aside from the issue of not wanting to reusing the existing enclosure for aesthetic reasons it's a good time for Apple to redesign.

 

[iemcj]

Intel hasn't really improved things much since 2017/2018ish. To release a whole new sku (and all the config an testing costs on the software side alone) just for a few percent change has probably been deemed not worth it.

 

[CWallace]

The W-22xx series CPUs have a 25w higher TDP than the existing W-21xx series CPUs in use in the current iMac Pro. There's also the impression that AMD's 5x00 series GPUs could run hotter as well and Apple probably have an inside track on Intel and AMD's future release schedule.

Assuming Apple does not wish to change the existing chassis, AMD Navi runs a fair bit cooler than Vega - the RX 5700 XT TDP is 225 watts compared to 295 watts for RX Vega 64 so that could give Apple the headroom to handle the hotter W-2200s.

Intel hasn't really improved things much since 2017/2018ish. To release a whole new sku (and all the config an testing costs on the software side alone) just for a few percent change has probably been deemed not worth it.

You do get faster WiFi, faster RAM (with higher total capacity) and it would give Apple an excuse to upgrade the Thunderbolt 3 controller to the latest model to support the Pro Display XDR.

 

[_Skyfire_]

Assuming Apple does not wish to change the existing chassis, AMD Navi runs a fair bit cooler than Vega - the RX 5700 XT TDP is 225 watts compared to 295 watts for RX Vega 64 so that could give Apple the headroom to handle the hotter W-2200s.

That's comparing apples to oranges though. The RX 5000 lineup is not a successor to the Vega class

 

[CWallace]

That's comparing apples to oranges though. The RX 5000 lineup is not a successor to the Vega class.

Okay but as an architecture, Navi appears to be a fair bit cooler than Vega so a workstation-class Navi GPU will likely be cooler than the corresponding Vega one.

 

[throAU]

Assuming Apple does not wish to change the existing chassis, AMD Navi runs a fair bit cooler than Vega - the RX 5700 XT TDP is 225 watts compared to 295 watts for RX Vega 64 so that could give Apple the headroom to handle the hotter W-2200s.




You do get faster WiFi, faster RAM (with higher total capacity) and it would give Apple an excuse to upgrade the Thunderbolt 3 controller to the latest model to support the Pro Display XDR.

As above, Navi is not currently available in a Pro GPU. You may not really care, but the workstation variants of Vega have ECC memory of i recall and are MUCH stronger on compute (as opposed to 3d) than the currently available navi cards.

Given the mac is using the vega GPU for number crunching (as opposed to 3d gaming, which is where Navi is more efficient), Navi would likely be a backward step anyway.

As far as “the new intel CPUs have a significant price drop!’ - if you think Apple is paying anything like RRP on intel CPUs... you’re just out of touch with reality.

Apple will have got the price drop on the old numbered CPUs (and probably more in order to encourage Apple not jump to AMD - if Apple haven’t threatened intel with that they’re stupid - even if it is just playing poker), but they don’t want to refresh the machine because 1. there’s no competitor for it‘s captive market and 2. marketing, inventory clearance, etc. for something that is essentially 100% the same exact product.

It just doesn’t make sense. At all.

 

[_Skyfire_]

Okay but as an architecture, Navi appears to be a fair bit cooler than Vega so a workstation-class Navi GPU will likely be cooler than the corresponding Vega one.

Yeah or more than double the performance with minimally increased TDP. Which in essence also leads to cooler thermals

 

[Jack Burton]

I'd love a 16 core Ryzen iMac and Navi GPU with the iMac Pro cooling solution. TB3 is even on some AMD boards now. That would be some real improvement for consumers. I'd even trade swappable ram for the better cooling.

 

[retta283]

Apple's Mac updating timeline has gotten so erratic and strange that I don't even speculate anymore. Back in the PPC/early Intel days, we usually would get 2-3 updates a year, then it got to 1-2 updates. Now products are going on and on for years with no updates.

I think that the iMac will get an update later this year or early 2012, but it might not be a full redesign. I certainly have my hopes for what a redesigned iMac could be like, but I am not certain about if it will come. I can see the cooling system from the Pro making its way to the 27" iMac, (probably at the expense of sealed RAM) but that's about it. I could be seriously wrong here, but this is just my guess.

As for the iMac Pro, I don't know if it will get a refresh, I'd say WWDC if it does. If not, it will probably be available until 2021/2022, then quietly removed from the store. It was already a niche machine, but now with the Mac Pro, it is even more so. If a cheaper Mac Pro is released, I'd expected it to kill the iMac Pro.

 

[xgman]

Cheaper mac pro doesn't seem likely, ever. If there is not an imac redesign, it is logical that the imac pro would continue. If there is a redesign, then it would really depend on what the maxed out imac would be like. In any case, the price difference between the imac pro and mac pro is so large, that I don't see any real crossover as far as marketing is concerned.