Now that apple has the new m2 chip do you think apple will bting back the imac pro with this new chip?
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.
Will apple bring back the imac pro?
- Thread starter Apple Power Mac G4 Cube
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Well, the chip doesn't really have no bearing on that. Also, while Apple could bring back the 'iMac Pro' branding, bear in mind that it could easily just be fitted with Mn Pro and Max chips and have a different presence in the lineup than the previous one.
It’s a tricky one I suppose. Apple’s charging $2k for a headless Mac that starts with a Max chip, so if one imagines some of this value combined with some of the Studio Display, you may have an iMac Pro replacement.
Perhaps they should let the customer choose what products they support? I think it was a popular product, but the vampire squid elements within the management ranks know they can’t justify a single 27” monitor price for as much as they try to gouge people out of separately, and have the iMac Pro sport the very same monitor for the price they were selling that product for… so they cancelled it…
Apple has pushed aside the creative and innovative talent that used to run the company for the vampire squid crowd who have offices just down the hall from Tim…
I am afraid to say, IMHO the iMac Pro will be no longer… Apple is currently going through the cycle of repeating its history…. Where they have let the sugar water sales people start running the show and the only thing that will change about the products will be the wrappers
Apple has pushed aside the creative and innovative talent that used to run the company for the vampire squid crowd who have offices just down the hall from Tim…
I am afraid to say, IMHO the iMac Pro will be no longer… Apple is currently going through the cycle of repeating its history…. Where they have let the sugar water sales people start running the show and the only thing that will change about the products will be the wrappers
What "defines" an iMac Pro?
One dimension that's missing today is screen size.
iMac is 24", Studio Display is 27", XR display is 32".
Second dimension is the CPU/GPU. Do potential iMac customers want more CPUs? Or more GPUs? Or more RAM? Or perhaps even more internal storage?
One problem as you go pro is that even as fewer people are buying the devices, they are more specialized in exactly what they need and are willing to pay for. I think the current extremely strong tying of DRAM, CPU and GPU together, while probably optimal for the M1 generation to get things out the door fast, is sub-optimal going forward. Perhaps the iMac Pro waits until Apple have that unbundling at least somewhat solved?
(DRAM is fairly easy. Balance of CPU vs GPU is harder. One solution [which I can see Apple being loathe to adopt until they have no choice, because the ignorant public will squeal louder than you can imagine...] is to control how much of an Ultra you get to use via SW. ie every iMac Pro comes with an Ultra inside, but I pay for a certain number of CPUs and GPUs, AND can upgrade later if I want. If Apple push hard the "can later upgrade" angle, they may be able to limit the anger?)
No, Apple will never go that route. That would only lower their margins and piss their customers off.
They may make an iMac Studio, which would be for a well defined market. Speculation about an iMac Pro should wait for the Mac Pro, since that will better define their goals for “Pros.”
Two reasons I can think of:
1) Thermals. The Ultra is a hot SoC.
2) Why bother. How would it be better than the Studio Ultra paired with the 27" Studio display?
Simply as an additional SKU for some theoretical 'big' iMac, although I think it would probably be Pro/Max like the MBP.
They put a 9900k in the last 27 inch, and it had the exact same heatsink the i3/i5 used. Heat has never stopped Apple before!
No idea, but here are the latest rumors:
www.macrumors.com
Apple's Next iMac Pro: Everything We Know
Rumors suggest that Apple could be working working on a redesigned version of the larger-screened iMac that could potentially bring back the...
www.macrumors.com
The mathematics doesn't support that:
iMac Pro, 10 core, 32GB RAM, 1TB SSD was $5000
Studio Max, 10 CPU/32 GPU, 32GB RAM, 1TB SSD is $2400, + Studio display = $4000
iMac Pro, 18 core, 64GB RAM, 1TB SSD was $7000 (inc. $400 for the RAM upgrade).
Studio Ultra, 20 CPU/48 GPU, 1TB SSD is $4000 + Studio display = $5600
The Mac Studio + Studio Display combo is substantially cheaper and faster (in CPU terms) than the iMac pro, and competitive with the high-end i9 iMacs. They also have the extra I/O that was one of the features of the iMac Pro. The only real debate is the GPU power where the comparison probably comes down to whether your software is optimised for Apple Silicon, but by Apple's reckoning the M1 Ultra GPU is faster.
The real price disparity is the loss of the lower-end 5k iMacs starting at $1800 - which always were a bargain considering that the CPU was comparable with the $1100 Mini and the cheapest comparable LG 5k display was $1200... Since 5k 16:9 displays have totally failed to take off outside the Mac world (they're only worth the effort over 4k because MacOS is optimised for 220ppi) they'll stay expensive and I'm not entirely surprised that Apple wasn't shifting enough 5k iMacs to keep up that price.
Not that I'm a fan of the Studio Display & would much rather buy a headless Mac and choose my own displays, and be able to upgrade the display and computer separately. Especially for the sort of jobs the iMac Pro, and now Mac Studio, are aimed at. If I did want an all-in-one for neatness, the 24" iMac would be perfect.
Here's another data point: In January 2018 I got a new 10-core iMac Pro with 64GB RAM, 16GB Vega 64 and 2TB SSD. I paid $8,000. In April 2022 I got an M1 Ultra Mac Studio with 128GB, 64-core GPU and 8TB SSD. It also was $8,000. The Mac Studio did not include a monitor but I already had the LG Ultrafine.
In inflation-adjusted dollars the $8,000 iMac Pro would be $9,300 today. In very rough terms, in constant dollars the top-spec M1 Ultra Mac Studio plus Apple Studio Display is about equal to what I paid for the 10-core iMac Pro in 2018.
From a performance standpoint the M1 Ultra Mac Studio is vastly faster, much quieter, just better in every way. In my workflow the biggest difference is on video encode/decode tasks. For some transcoding jobs it is probably 10 times faster.
On a Neat Video noise reduction test using only GPU rendering, the M1 Ultra is about 3x faster than the Vega 64 in the iMac Pro. That was using the same test files, same Neat Video version & config, same MacOS version, both machines side by side on the same desk.
The Ultra is 60W. And only uses that when doing real work.
My iMac Pro uses 70W browsing the internet...
Of course people can pair a Studio and a screen. Just like they can pair a mini and a screen. There's a certain convenience to having everything in one package.
Especially if the package offers something otherwise unavailable, like keep the Studio display at 27" for "standard" display use cases, but offer the iMac Pro with a screen that's slightly above Studio Display quality, but 32" in size.
Yeah - if the iMP can cool a Xeon W and a discrete GPU, it could cool an M1 Ultra. I don't think there's any technical reason why Apple couldn't have put a M1 Ultra into something very much like the iMac Pro if they wanted to. Its a case of whether there's a market for it.
Sure - but there are also advantages to being able to mix and match displays - firstly to get the right display to start with, and maybe later to be able to upgrade the computer and screen separately.
The question is, what display do you want in your new iMac Pro? 27"? 29" (probably do-able by shrinking bezels without making the case any larger)? 32"? Maybe something in 3:2 aspect ratio? Can you justify the cost of something like the Pro Display XDR? For "scientific" computing or development, true HDR is just a waste of money. Even for video you may be better off with a second display that matches your target format (expensive reference monitor if you're in that league, cheap OLED TV if not). The higher up the price range you go, the more likely it is that you have specialist needs.
Plenty of Studio Ultra customers will welcome the choice between the Studio Display and the Pro XDR, not to mention the 3rd party options.
There's no law that says that Apple couldn't offer both a range of Studios and Studio Displays and a range of iMacs - but its unlike Apple to have that sort of product overlap, especially at the high end of the market. Also, from Apple's POV, a thunderbolt display is a single product that they can sell to Studio owners, Mac Pro owners, deep-pocketed Mini owners and to the (far more numerous) MacBook Pro owners who want the ultimate docking station. The last of those is the real explanation for some of the 'over-engineering' in the Studio Display, particularly the elaborate, slimline power supply that allows it to power a MBP.
For the short term, the reality is that Apple have committed to headless desktops with the Mac Studio and the forthcoming new Mac Pro - and they've explicitly said that those models will "complete the transition". That doesn't mean that there will never, ever be a new, large-format iMac - but I wouldn't expect it any time soon. More likely would be a new "Pro XDR" display to accompany the new Mac Pro - and we've already seen that the 'analysts' can't tell a rumoured display from an iMac.