What to expect from next imac?

[jeanlain]

Please, correct my misconceptions then.
It is a fact that AMD drivers are updated at each OS X point update (ok, maybe not every update, but 9 out of 10 at least). I would like to see some evidence that the nVidia web drivers are more up-to-date than the AMD OS X driers (in reference to their Windows counterparts.)
It is also a given that the future of OS X is Metal. Don't expect any update beyond 4.1 at WWDC. There may be some last bug fixes, but nothing major. OpenGL bug reports are getting closed by Apple.

If the Metal drivers were not a radical change from the openGL drivers, Metal would have no raison d'etre. Remember that Metal is there to reduce the driver overhead.
The openGL implementation is done in part by Apple, whose code converts openGL calls into an intermediate representation that is then consumed by the GPU driver (AMD, nVidia or Intel). So there is some important work done by Apple code at runtime (it's my understanding).
For Metal, the implementation is essentially left to the GPU vendors, because the framework is already low level. Little Apple code operates runtime.
Go read marskatt's posts there: https://forums.macrumors.com/thread...it-takes-forever.1825150/page-7#post-22583932
The bottom line is that the Metal drivers are different from the openGL drivers and should not suffer from the same bugs, as you seemed to imply: "adding Metal doesn't fix issues with the drivers".

EDIT: you can also have a look at the openGL vs Metal benchmarks and see that Metal tests run sometimes 2X faster or more.

 

[wubsylol]

Metal is going places, but it's not there yet. OpenGL has been around for a long while and Apple forcing developers to port their existing applications over to Metal, or let their users suffer sub-par performance is ridiculous and I cannot fathom a reason why you are suggesting this is a good thing.

Apple have a long history of not keeping display drivers (e.g. Geforce.kext) and APIs (e.g. OpenGL) up to date. We didn't get OGL3.3 until Lion and 4.1 until Mavericks.

Saying 'Metal is the future' does not dismiss past discrepancies.

 

[jeanlain]

Metal is pretty much "there", since for instance, Unreal Engine uses it.
Metal is a good thing because openGL, on any platform, is plagued with issues that cause unnecessary overhead in drivers.
Metal, but also DX12 Vulkan were developed in response to these issues. Now it would be better if we had openGL 4.5 and Vulkan on OS X, but I don't think we will.
Read on the discussion thread I linked above. It contains posts from a true expert who explains why Metal is not OpenGL and should not suffer from the same slow development.

 

[wubsylol]

Metal is the future, but widespread adoption is not there yet. OpenGL is the present and it's abysmally dated on the Mac.
If you're willing to trust that Apple will not make the same mistakes again, so be it.
I am not so trusting and would prefer to base my opinion on the evidence before me rather than simply regurgitate information from another thread.

 

[ktecac]

So as someone who is anxiously awaiting a Skylake MBP, and being an observer of the wild speculation on the thread there, I decided to come over to the iMac forum and see what ya'll were expecting in a new iMac. Personally I'd prefer an iMac since my MacBook Pro is getting more and more locked down with hubs, extra monitors, audio interfaces, etc to the point that I'm moving it less and less.

I was very surprised that people seem quite content with the 27'' Skylake iMac. I thought people would be disappointed that it uses DDR3 RAM, no USB-C / TB3, etc. But so far am not seeing too much complaints.

I'm in a good position that my MBP (mid 2014 with the i7 processor, 16GB RAM) is holding up fine for while but for tax reasons this year would be a great year to buy a new fully loaded Mac (i was aiming towards Mac Pro but that seems like a lost cause) and am curious if anyone has been holding out on buying an iMac until DDR4 and USB-C/TB3 are added? Does it even really matter? How about in 3 years?

I Skylake iMac seems a bit like a 5.5Gen since it includes the Skylake processor but still uses DDR3 etc.

For those very happy with the Skylake iMac - are you concerned at all about the (slightly) 'last-gen' hardware? Is this perhaps why there's no ridiculous ongoing stream of rumors/optimism/pessimism regarding the future of the iMac?

 

[joema2]

....
...I thought people would be disappointed that it uses DDR3 RAM, no USB-C / TB3, etc. But so far am not seeing too much complaints....For those very happy with the Skylake iMac - are you concerned at all about the (slightly) 'last-gen' hardware? Is this perhaps why there's no ridiculous ongoing stream of rumors/optimism/pessimism regarding the future of the iMac?

Absolutely no concern. Those are mainly issues for people looking at specs not at real world performance. I am glad my 2015 iMac 27 does not have USB-C -- I have many dozen USB 3.0 devices, no USB-C devices and I don't want to use adapters. In a year or two (assuming USB-C adoption is rapid) will be sufficient time to add USB-C ports. Re DDR3 vs DDR4, where is the evidence that DDR4 helps dramatically in real world applications sufficient to justify the higher cost? The CPU chip is already using every caching trick in the book to avoid hitting main memory.

By contrast the new iPad Pro having a USB 2 Lightning port is *severely* last generation. It is being pushed as a Windows laptop replacement, and demonstrated using photo upload via that port. How many laptops today have only USB 2.0?