My bet is $1999 for 16GB and 256GB RAM (starting big iMac model).
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.
Rumored pro chip
- Thread starter cmaier
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
My bet is $1999 for 16GB and 256GB RAM (starting big iMac model).
I just don't think they will sell the 512GB for $1999 because that's too close to the 24" iMac price... I'd expect there to be around $400-500 price difference between the 24" and whatever the bigger model is going to be...
So yeah, we definitely have some price inflation (there were hopes that Apple would lower the prices a bit, which didn't really come to fruition), but the value proposition for Apple Silicon machines is still better than the Intel ones they replace. SSD update prices do make it a bit more difficult to stomach.
On ATP they found out (thanks to a listener) that the Xeons the iMac Pros use was being discontinued. They could have discontinued the iMac Pro because they had nothing else to put in it CPU-wise without upgrading to newer Xeons, which they probably weren’t interested in doing.
With a 6K monitor, I don't see how, even if it's not XDR level. $2500 at least. I don't expect it to be any cheaper than the base iMac Pro before. I shopped for one of those many times and could ever find one in the price range I wanted to spend! (and I'd still buy an intel one)
Look at the new iMac, that doesn't have an XDR level monitor and it's base price is $1299 with much weaker hardware than what you propose.
The cheapest iMac Pro in the refurb market is $3800 and Apple rarely goes down a lot in price across models!
All speculation of course!
The idea would be that Apple simply renames the larger iMac to iMac Pro. The previous Pro was using completely different, much more expensive hardware, so I think it was a bit different. But just as Apple could redesign the small iMac without a big price hike, they can probably do the same for the big one as well.
But as you said so well yourself, it’s all speculation. Still, I’d like them to simplify the product line again, right now there are too many products across too many categories. A simple dichotomy user/pro, with streamlined hardware across the board would be a big improvement IMO.
I actually like many different levels, it makes it easier to fit the hardware to the planned on job. And to minimize cost as well! I'm the IT guy for a small shop and when I shop for a user PC (about 30 PCs), I take into account their old hardware, any comments they might have, any new changes to their job, mobile or not, things like that. Then I get the fastest/cheapest that covers everything. More levels make that easier. True, I'm talking about Windows PC's, but I'd do it the same if it were Macs if that was an option.
That's about the only realistic option I've heard so far, but it still sounds really out of character for Apple. "The iMac Pro is now discontinued, sales while stock lasts"..... "Introducing the new, much less-pro, iMac Pro!". I know people always comment about how "Pro" is just a way to charge more, but the idea that they would simply call the 'bigger' iMac, "Pro" without actually giving some much higher level of performance/functionality is kind of crazy.
Another naming possibility if the new pro chip really is the updated microarchitecture could be they call it M2X, with M2 to follow later in the year with the new Air.
The more I think of it, the more the added ‘Pro’ seems better. M1 Pro/M2 Pro. They’ve built the branding and positioning.
It is, but hey, Apple specs the entry-level Mac Pro with 256GB of SSD storage and that thing starts at $5999.
To be fair, this chip will be going into the larger iMac.
I'm not sure I understand your point here. The 27" iMac going to a 30-32" iMac Pro would probably incorporate everything important the iMac Pro had - really quiet operation, SSD-only and better cooling. The Xeon chips are obviously out and ECC RAM is a toss-up – they're clearly okay designating the MBP as "Pro" even if it doesn't use that. I can't see how a successor to the 27" iMac dubbed "iMac Pro" would be "much less pro" than the iMac Pro (except maybe ports, and that hasn't really stopped Apple before).
But compared to the 24" iMac, it will give a much higher level of performance and functionality:
- a screen one-third larger
- twice the CPU performance and two or four times the GPU performance (as the cores appear to scale linearly)
- twice the number of TB3 ports (4xUSB4/TB3)
- up to four times the RAM (64GB)
- up to four times the storage (8TB)
I always believed the Intel iMac Pro was meant to be the new top-end Mac, replacing the Mac Pro. Once Apple had their "come to Jesus" moment on the Mac Pro, the iMac Pro then became both a "bridge" computer until the new Mac Pro was ready in 2019 and then in 2019 as an option for people who needed more performance than the 2019 iMac 5K could provide, but could not stomach what a Mac Pro would cost (doubly so with a Pro Display XDR).
I would imagine the next iMac line (whatever they call it) will have the new SOC and as a result more ports and more RAM to go with more Cores and cache. It will probably also have both a 24 and a 30 inch screen size option as they are Pros who do not want giant screens.
I think the "high-power" model will only be the ~32" model.
If someone wants that power, but prefers a 24" display, then the upcoming "Mac mini Pro/Plus/Max" (
) and Apple Thunderbolt Display (which I believe will use the same 24-inch 4.5K panel as the iMac) will fit that bill quite nicely.The iMac Pro had those things 4 years ago. The 24" iMac has already incorporated those same things: quiet operation, SSD only, better cooling.
Those things obviously can only go so far. it can only be so quiet, only so cool.
But it could have much faster SSD (i.e. using the dual-blade approach the Mac Pro uses). It could support a lot more memory. It could support a bunch more high-speed I/O (e.g. the previous iMac Pro had 4 TB3 when the regular iMac had 2). It could support 10G ethernet.
My point was that simply renaming the 'bigger' one to be "iMac Pro" on the basis of the screen alone is a pretty weak reason, and would be roundly mocked by actual professionals who had use for the original iMac Pro compared to the iMac at the time it launched (no I don't mean you tubers with too much money who want the 'cool dark gray one')
The 'old' line had a bigger screen and wasn't "pro". The MBP line has two screen sizes and the small one is still "pro". This alone is a really port reason to name it "pro".
The claims about CPU/GPU are interesting if true, but even the old one had a better CPU/GPU (compared to the 21.5" 4K) in the 27".
More ports would help a lot, but a "pro" desktop that tops out at 64GB is still pretty weak. My 2018 Mac mini has that, even the current "consumer" 27" iMac supports 128GB - the intel iMac Pro supported 256GB officially, or 512GB with 3rd party modules.
I don't quite understand why, but with the Arm transition people suddenly seem very forgetful about what the previous models were capable of. New models don't always need to exceed the predecessors (i.e. the 2016-2020 MBP15/16 line hasn't expanded beyond max 4 4K external displays) but a regression like supporting 1/4 the memory of the previous model on a machine marketed as "Pro" is quite ridiculous. It was understandable that the i3 mini made this trade-off, as i3+64GB memory seems like a very weird, unlikely combination, but the base iMac Pro had 32GB. Offering that (or less) up to 64GB is a crazy step backwards.
They said very clearly at the time, that it was a stop-gap solution, and that they were working on a new Mac Pro.
What? There is no substitute to screen real estate. Of course pros want big screens!
I currently use two 24" 4K screens. I'd probably buy a third if this model were still available.
Pros want screen real estate, yes. But sometimes two smaller screens is a better option than one larger screen. Or one smaller, one larger, etc.
Agreed, but that won't be the only reason Apple does name it the "iMac Pro" if that is what they end up doing.
Yes, but again, an iPad Pro has a better CPU/GPU than an iPad and it's one of the differentiators Apple uses.
Well Apple can cram more RAM into it, probably, but Apple Silicon seems to be much more effective and efficient at using RAM than Intel so you can do more with less on ASi.
And I would not be surprised if the ASi Mac Pro will take all the RAM your second mortgage can pay for.
It may not be so much "forgetful" at what the previous models were capable of as "impressed" that the new models can do the same jobs as well or better with less cores and less RAM. I've read and listened to a shedload of reviews of M1-powered Macs and the folks with them are amazed that jobs that were bringing their 10-core, 32-64GB iMacs and MacBook Pros - even iMac Pros - to their knees are not making the M1 even sweat.
Now I realize that is not a universal statement and the reviewers note there are tasks where their Intel Macs with dGPUs are still powering ahead, but the M1 on 16GB seems to be able to do a significant number of tasks as well or better than Intel models with more cores and more RAM. And soon we will have ASi Macs with more cores and more RAM than the M1 so it does not seem to be outside the realm of possibility that they will be able to match (or exceed) many of those areas where the Intel models remained ahead.
I noted that in my reply.
But I believe their initial intent was to not work on a new Mac Pro and have the iMac Pro be its direct successor.
I know lots of pros also, and they do NOT all want giant screens.
Just putting the new SOC in the next higher tier of iMac (whether or not it is called Pro) will result in more cores, cache, RAM, ports and so on. If I had to venture a guess, it will be the same SOC that goes in the MBP 14/16 and it will also appear in a higher end Mac Mini.
Just putting the new SOC in the next higher tier of iMac (whether or not it is called Pro) will result in more cores, cache, RAM, ports and so on. If I had to venture a guess, it will be the same SOC that goes in the MBP 14/16 and it will also appear in a higher end Mac Mini.
Haven't really seen anyone here suggest that though. The expectation is that all of the bigger iMac, including the screen, would be better than the 24" and it would be a better performer than the discontinued Pro. That seems valid enough to call it an iMac Pro.
I have no doubt about the CPU side of it being impressive, and obviously they've only 'replaced' entry level machines so far - I probably should have clarified, I was referring mostly to the significantly lower memory ceiling (I know, I know "it can do more with less" - that doesn't apply to everything though. Sometimes you do just need to load a blob of data into memory, and the amount isn't going to be changed by virtue of ARM or Apple's SOC), but also the drop in things like display support - the M1 13" MBP supports 1 4K display - the 13" from 6 years earlier supports two (yes I know there wasn't the 2port/4port distinction then). I don't know how prevalent 2-displays are with 13" 2-port MBP users, but that is a heck of a regression.
Who needs 2 kidneys anyway?
Fair enough, but we're in early days with a new architecture and, as you noted, the first models Apple has been replacing are the "consumer" models where the needs are not as great and the limitations of that first generation are not as cramping.
"M1X" will have more Thunderbolt controllers so it will be able to support more TB ports and, by extension, more displays. And the RAM packaging ASi uses has available capacities that are much smaller at the moment than traditional SO-DIMMs. But larger capacities are coming and Apple does have options like "stacking" the existing modules to increase capacity. But I expect those higher capacities/options are going to be expensive to start so it's a good thing ASi is so "RAM efficient" as we might consider ourselves fortunate if we "only" pay $1000 for a 64GB upgrade like we do now with the Intel models.