What to expect from next imac?

[2ms]

General consensus, nothing official.


Not likely, I'm in the crowd that says we'll not see a refresh until the fall. Apple just rolled out their Skylake 5k iMAcs and provided the 4k iMac last fall. I think doing anything on the iMac line tomorrow, is too premature. Plus does the current Skylake chipset have the fast iGPUs that are available on Broadwell? That's why the 21" iMacs didn't go to Skylake - no fast iGPUs. If that hasn't been rolled out yet, then that's another reason why its unlikely.

I remember a time when Apple was the leader in new technologies like USB, Firewire, Thunderbolt, and got new Intel CPU before anyone else.

Now it's the other way around. The iMac will be getting USB-C and Thunderbolt 3 more than a year later than Dell etc? It should be the other way around.

Apple lovers didn't become Apple lovers by Apple skimping on everything left and right. They became Apple lovers because Apple always went the extra mile to give them the best possible product.

 

[maflynn]

I remember a time when Apple was the leader in new technologies like USB, Firewire, Thunderbolt, and got new Intel CPU before anyone else.

True on the USB, they developed Firewire and only at the end of its life did other computer makers embrace it (too little too late). I'd say history may be repeating itself with Thunderbolt since they helped Intel develop it, and it hasn't taken hold like Intel had hopped.

 

[2ms]

Except that PC makers have had TB3 since late last year and we are talking about the iMac possibly not getting it until a year after. That's backwards. And for what? To save Apple a little cash which they are so in need of?

I would think maintaining the relationship they've had with their customers would still be a priority for them. Instead they are removing ram from the Fusion drive. I guess Tim Cook thinks he knows a smarter way of doing things than Jobs did.

As you can see, I am ticked about the new Apple way of doing things, particularly when it is so obvious that the old way is what Apple owes its success to.

 

[Tanax]

34" 21:9/21:10, come on, you can do it!

 

[Samuelsan2001]

Tb3 and a better GPU it won't be until autumn though...
[doublepost=1458569532][/doublepost]

Except that PC makers have had TB3 since late last year and we are talking about the iMac possibly not getting it until a year after. That's backwards. And for what? To save Apple a little cash which they are so in need of?

I would think maintaining the relationship they've had with their customers would still be a priority for them. Instead they are removing ram from the Fusion drive. I guess Tim Cook thinks he knows a smarter way of doing things than Jobs did.

As you can see, I am ticked about the new Apple way of doing things, particularly when it is so obvious that the old way is what Apple owes its success to.

There is literally no good reason to worry about TB3 on the iMac yet that's why. External GPU's can't use the imac screen due to the way the screen is connected and 5k monitors that may benefit are as expensive as an iMac it made no sense to bother.

If you think fusion drives have RAM then I'd do some study until you at least know the basics before criticising anyone....

 

[CWallace]

I remember a time when Apple was the leader in new technologies like USB, Firewire, Thunderbolt, and got new Intel CPU before anyone else.

The 27" iMacs do have the latest Intel CPU generation (Skylake) and once Intel ships Skylake for laptops, the MacBook (Air/Pro) line will get them, as well.

The next CPU generation is Kaby Lake and that will not be available until Q4 2016. AMD's next generation GPU - Polaris - will also not be available until Q4 2016. So there is no reason for Apple to update the 27" iMac before Q4 2016 except USB-C / TB3, which admittedly should have rolled out with the Late 2015 update since the chipsets were available.

 

[ApfelKuchen]

Yes, the 512GB SSD is just too expensive to justify my expense, plus for my case, it would be too small to hold my data, so why spend all that money and still need an external drive.


At least for the 2015 models, the flash portion of the Fusion drive is 128GB for 2 and 3 TB drives, only the 1TB drive has the meager flash allotment.

I wouldn't be surprised to see Apple reduce the 128GB flash, on newer models however.

If you look at Apple's description of the Fusion options in the BTO section (well, you could if the site wasn't in a state of suspended animation while awaiting the event), they're clearly making a marketing distinction between the 24GB vs. 128GB options for Fusion - as a casual user vs. performance. I don't see them dropping the performance option below 128GB - less of a reason to justify the overall up-sell.

We can agree to disagree about the 24GB version - neither of us have benchmarks to support our contentions. From my perspective, 24GB is probably plenty for the email/web browsing crowd. Fusion does not need to load the entire OS or entire apps (blocks only). So, for argument's sake, if 12GB are used for OS and commonly-used apps, that's still a fair amount of storage for commonly-used data and caches. Yeah, there will be more reads from disk for things that may have remained resident for a longer term in Flash, but if the vast majority of calls are for Flash-resident stuff, the negative impact will be negligible. That brings me back to my often-used Fusion vs. RAM analogy. Some people need 32GB RAM, but most can get by nicely with 8GB.

As to the thinness/heat thing... There is no direct correlation between enclosed volume and heat dissipation. There are too many other variables. That aluminum case is a huge heat sink (much better than the old plastic iMacs). Convective airflow can actually be aided by restrictions (call it the chimney effect). Annual reductions in power usage mean less heat to be dissipated... My Late 2013 27" Fusion iMac is by far the coolest iMac (to the touch) I've ever had - in large part, due to the size of the heat sink (my Late 2013 21.5" SSD iMac is a bit warmer).

 

[MistrSynistr]

The bezel's need to be reduced. They need to release a "space gray"/all black iMac. I am sure there are lots of things they can do, especially design wise. This one is long in the tooth.

 

[tuxon86]

Rose-Gold case man, Rose-Gold... It's all that matter...

 

[Huddy]

The 27" iMacs do have the latest Intel CPU generation (Skylake) and once Intel ships Skylake for laptops, the MacBook (Air/Pro) line will get them, as well.

The next CPU generation is Kaby Lake and that will not be available until Q4 2016. AMD's next generation GPU - Polaris - will also not be available until Q4 2016. So there is no reason for Apple to update the 27" iMac before Q4 2016 except USB-C / TB3, which admittedly should have rolled out with the Late 2015 update since the chipsets were available.

Intel are looking to get Kaby Lake out by Q3 this year and AMD plan to have mobile Polaris out around the same time frame, which could lead to an earlier than expected refresh for the iMac around August/September barring delays.

 

[sysProgrammer]

General consensus, nothing official.


Not likely, I'm in the crowd that says we'll not see a refresh until the fall. Apple just rolled out their Skylake 5k iMAcs and provided the 4k iMac last fall. I think doing anything on the iMac line tomorrow, is too premature. Plus does the current Skylake chipset have the fast iGPUs that are available on Broadwell? That's why the 21" iMacs didn't go to Skylake - no fast iGPUs. If that hasn't been rolled out yet, then that's another reason why its unlikely.

I agree with your assessment. The iMac's are spect out, and besides CPU upgrade, there is nothing on the horizon that would make current iMac even better. 5k Screen, and ample RAM, and you're set. Even IBM AIX can't run faster than 4.2 GHz - so you are on par with server power in terms of CPU speeds. You can spec out GPU to 4GB of onboard RAM. Ample storage fronted by 128gb SSD (one can still go SSD route - but WHY spend the money).. So unless I get a time warp, rocket motor, and holographic memory with quantum entangled network, there is little it could make this baby better at this point in time.

 

[Vonjover]

Would love amd xconnect support over thunderbolt 3 for iMac, that way we can spec out the 4k imacs. Just a pipe dream, seeing as the 5k is too big for me to use.

 

[jerwin]

I agree with your assessment. The iMac's are spect out, and besides CPU upgrade, there is nothing on the horizon that would make current iMac even better. 5k Screen, and ample RAM, and you're set. Even IBM AIX can't run faster than 4.2 GHz - so you are on par with server power in terms of CPU speeds. You can spec out GPU to 4GB of onboard RAM. Ample storage fronted by 128gb SSD (one can still go SSD route - but WHY spend the money).. So unless I get a time warp, rocket motor, and holographic memory with quantum entangled network, there is little it could make this baby better at this point in time.

Intel periodically brings out six core i7 chips. None for skylake, yet. The Xeon chips are up to 22 cores, but those are really expensive-- and possibly not very useful for a non-multithreaded compute load.

The graphics chipset is woefully underpowered for 5k gaming.

Of course, dealing with all the waste heat will require redesigning the chassis, so perhaps that's a no go.

 

[joema2]

...AMD's next generation GPU - Polaris - will also not be available until Q4 2016....

Polaris is already being manufactured in sample quantities and based on recent tests on actual hardware, AMD has increased their performance per watt estimate to 2.5x (up from 2x) vs prior AMD and nVidia products. nVidia will also probably have similar improvements since they are also moving to 14 nm.

This is a gigantic improvement. In recent years we have become accustomed to 10-15% improvements per generation on both CPU and GPU side but GPUs have been stuck at 28 nm fabrication for a long time. Finally moving to 14 nm will make a huge difference.

The current expectations are AMD will launch Polaris in June: http://wccftech.com/amd-launch-polaris-gpus-june/

Whether this will be in time for Apple to use in an iMac update late this year is unknown. I am optimistically guessing yes, since test parts are already available.

 

[Novus John]

*DDR4
*Intel Kaby Lake
*3D XPoint drives
*TB3
*14nm GPUs with HBM (AMD Polaris/Nvidia Pascal)
*USB-C(?)

I expect them to announce the upgraded iMacs some time autumn this year or early spring next year. The biggest improvement will come from the GPUs, because the current ones are pretty much ancient. I don't believe we will see 3D Xpoint drives instead of the regular SSD drives but you never know, it might just happen.

 

[varian55zx]

I want to see the 21.5 become formidable.

It's perfectly valid to lean towards that one for any number of reasons.

I want to see it on the same level as the 27, for the sake of fairness.

I expect them to announce the upgraded iMacs some time autumn this year or early spring next year.

Same here.

That's why I'm glad I bought my iMac 27 inch in December 2015. figured that would give me an optimal amount of time between a product line update.

One thing that is imperative when buying with Apple is to know when to buy. Don't want to be one of those suckers caught at the Apple Store buying an iPhone the week before the new one comes out.

 

[jeanlain]

*DDR4
*Intel Kaby Lake
*3D XPoint drives
*TB3
*14nm GPUs with HBM (AMD Polaris/Nvidia Pascal)
*USB-C(?)

I don't think we'll have 3D XPoint drives. Too early. And given Apple's prices on SSDs, I'rather not have them.
Polaris will use GDDR5, not HBM. But it should bring huge improvements anyway.
I'm waiting mostly for this new GPU architecture, and TB3 using USB-C. Nothing spectacular to expect regarding the CPU.
My wallet is ready.

 

[Novus John]

I don't think we'll have 3D XPoint drives. Too early. And given Apple's prices on SSDs, I'rather not have them.
Polaris will use GDDR5, not HBM. But it should bring huge improvements anyway.
I'm waiting mostly for this new GPU architecture, and TB3 using USB-C. Nothing spectacular to expect regarding the CPU.
My wallet is ready.

Last year, Intel and Micron promised that they would have production ready samples in H2 2016. I haven't read anything new on the tech, but if they're still on track with their mass production plans we could see early 3D Xpoint samples by the end of this year. However, it's questionable if this tech would be really beneficial to Apple products, the current NVMe SSDs are already fast enough for regular users.

I think Polaris is compatible with both GDDR5/X (cheaper) and HBM (more expensive) memory standards. AMD already sells current generation GPUs with HBM1 instead of the standard GDDR5 memory. If Apple doesn't cheapen out and picks top of the line AMD Polaris GPUs with HBM, that could be a real game changer. We could see a two or threefold improvement in performance per watt.

 

[jeanlain]

HBM1 is limited to 4GB and may be more expensive than, say, 6GB GDDR5. It's easier for Apple to tout 6GB memory compared to the current 4GB, so they can charge more and pay less. You can trust them on that.
And the only information we have about Polaris 10 (the high end) indicate it will come with GDDR 5.

 

[wubsylol]

Hopefully back to an nVidia GPU so we can use their webdriver and not be stuck using the Apple included 2yr old display drivers!

 

[jeanlain]

AMD drivers cannot really be compared to nVidia drivers... We're not sure if they are especially outdated. Apple's OpenGL is outdated anyway, and there is nothing AMD/Nvidia can do about it. This future appears to be Metal, and web drivers aren't better than the stock drivers in that respect (they appear to be slightly worse).

 

[wubsylol]

AMD drivers cannot really be compared to nVidia drivers.

I don't understand this comment, I'm not comparing anything. Apple seldom update their display drivers. Adding Metal support is _NOT_ an update; it doesn't fix fundamental bugs in the driver (of which there are many) and does not improve performance beyond what specific increases can be attributed to Metal. The same 310-series driver which came with Yosemite also came with El Capitan, just with Metal added. This is not the same as nVidia releasing regular updates themselves.

This future appears to be Metal

Not for a while, and "it will be better in the future" is hardly a good approach.

web drivers aren't better than the stock drivers in that respect (they appear to be slightly worse)

But the web driver destroys the stock driver in OpenGL tasks and it is going to keep improving, whereas the stock driver will remain the same until the next update from Apple. Given past updates, that will not be for a while.

 

[johnnyturbouk]

I'm very happy with my late 2015 5k Rimac, options that i would like to see in the next model, are:
-OLED displays,
-DisplayPort 3/tb3, usb-c is less enticing for me, although a single interface does have a number of benefits.
-GPU designed for such high res displays.

Pure-SSD across the line might be asking too much, but they should have the 1TB Fusion drive

Agreed, however, for the upper tier models, all ssd flash should be a standard, even a measly 256gb ssds. Unfortunately, cheap TB enclosures never really took off, maybe, usb-c could brdge the void and offer cheap usb-3 like enclosures with the reliability of TB.
I run most of my windows, linux, media, and home folders from x2 usb3 external ssds.

 

[jeanlain]

I don't understand this comment, I'm not comparing anything. Apple seldom update their display drivers. Adding Metal support is _NOT_ an update; it doesn't fix fundamental bugs in the driver (of which there are many) and does not improve performance beyond what specific increases can be attributed to Metal. The same 310-series driver which came with Yosemite also came with El Capitan, just with Metal added. This is not the same as nVidia releasing regular updates themselves.

You implied that nVidia web drivers were more up-to-date than AMD drivers. But there is no way to tell. AMD drivers get updated at each OS X point update.
And the Metal drivers certain don't suffer from bugs that are in the openGL drivers. For once, they are much, much simpler as they don't carry all the openGL cruft. They are built from scratch so version numbers don't mean anything. It doesn't mean they don't have their own bugs though.
The thing is, whether you want it or not, the future is Metal. Don't expect any progress on the openGL front.

 

[wubsylol]

You implied that nVidia web drivers were more up-to-date than AMD drivers. But there is no way to tell. AMD drivers get updated at each OS X point update.
And the Metal drivers certain don't suffer from bugs that are in the openGL drivers. For once, they are much, much simpler as they don't carry all the openGL cruft. They are built from scratch so version numbers don't mean anything. It doesn't mean they don't have their own bugs though.
The thing is, whether you want it or not, the future is Metal. Don't expect any progress on the openGL front.

Very little of that is true or even makes sense, but the key thing is you are confusing the API framework with the actual display driver.