Will there ever be a new large iMac (Pro)?

[zerozoneice]

ARM simply doesn't have the balls for high-end machines. There's nothing in ARM-land that can challenge Xeon or even newer Ryzen / i9s.

For laptops (macbooks) it's ok.

If Apple goes ARM for anything desktops, they'll have a problem. And with MacOS quality going slightly down over the past years (don't care if it's T2 related or not, it's their chip, not anyone else's) that can't be a good thing. Multiple code bases to maintain, macos compiled for ARM/x86, nevermind all the developers out there who'd have to maintain at least 2 branches (even if macos/ios get married at some point).

And even if they do it, it'll take many years. All current machines need to be supported at least..how many years? 8?

 

[mrsmith1]

I just want a redesigned mouse that can charge without turning it upside down!

 

[sublunar]

I think what sublunar meant was an thin and light "air" model (consumer model) that uses mobile processors. The performance of a well cooled mobile CPU is sufficient for most people.

You've got my point spot on.

And to clarify, the H series CPUs (eg Comet Lake H) are BGA mount so every generation of that is suitable for use by Apple - no need to skip a generation or be reliant on Intel deciding to do a BGA mount version of a 65w 'desktop' CPU.

Consider the thought that Apple is probably forecasting a continued slip in demand for desktops to the point where they don't get as sweet a discount for a lower set of orders in the medium term. This forecast could have dramatically changed thanks to the Corona Virus, and I can see mobile working pushing even more people to mobile devices such as MacBook Pros.

Consider the possibility that orders for CPUs from Intel could slump thanks to low demand and the idea that Apple could actually share parts from the same range to keep the volume of orders (and level of discount) up becomes more attractive.

Summing up my theory is that Apple will see the Coffee Lake 6 core CPUs hanging around for another generation in the Mac mini (and in some, all or none of the iMacs, depending on how much of a refresh it will get).

My theory:

Some pre-existing 21.5" iMac SKUs carry over. 27" iMac gets discontinued.

I looked at the 21.5" SKUs and I think Apple could easily drop the bottom SKU (non retina mobile CPU) and reprice the remaining two SKUs accordingly as base and mid models.

The MacBook Pro 16" gets a sister model in a thin and slim 4.6K iMac Air 24" - all new SSD only product with H series CPU and same choice of AMD 5300M and AMD 5500M GPU - improved cooling for silence or 'Pro Mode' for performance users who don't mind a bit of noise. From the looks of most write-ups it looks like sustained Turbo will give interesting performance numbers as long as it's not being continuously caned.

And professionals get a more tempting Xeon powered 27" 5k iMac Pro which looks more value for money - designed along the same lines - but capable of heavy lifting. A lower starting price means more of those Xeons can be ordered.

This way, Apple reduce the number of Intel CPU ranges they have to order in, and the Mac mini in the future could even participate with a H series CPU and so could the 21.5" iMac if Apple drop the 'old' 21.5" model and 'Airify' it as well.

 

[CWallace]

Yes, but I meant they will be released anytime soon for the MBP 16".

I would expect Intel will need a few months to ramp production, so I could see them dropping into a 16" MBP refresh this Fall.

 

[XD_Goulart]

[QUOTE = "Freida, post: 28331176, member: 505525"]

Although you have good intentions, your post is inaccurate. (unless you talked about iMac Pro)

The iMac is never announced and released 6 months later. When the iMac is announced, it usually comes out on the same day or a few days.

The iMac Pro did this, but it is another category and another product.



Anyway, I hope you bring in new iMacs from WWDC as I look forward to a new one. Smaller frames, better thermals and better GPUs are a must. Ideally, the AMD CPU if they really want to make waves with it



Ok, I think so the Imac will definitely come out in June in the WWDC 2020 (unconfirmed)

 

[Moonjumper]

You've got my point spot on.

And to clarify, the H series CPUs (eg Comet Lake H) are BGA mount so every generation of that is suitable for use by Apple - no need to skip a generation or be reliant on Intel deciding to do a BGA mount version of a 65w 'desktop' CPU.

Consider the thought that Apple is probably forecasting a continued slip in demand for desktops to the point where they don't get as sweet a discount for a lower set of orders in the medium term. This forecast could have dramatically changed thanks to the Corona Virus, and I can see mobile working pushing even more people to mobile devices such as MacBook Pros.

Consider the possibility that orders for CPUs from Intel could slump thanks to low demand and the idea that Apple could actually share parts from the same range to keep the volume of orders (and level of discount) up becomes more attractive.

Summing up my theory is that Apple will see the Coffee Lake 6 core CPUs hanging around for another generation in the Mac mini (and in some, all or none of the iMacs, depending on how much of a refresh it will get).

My theory:

Some pre-existing 21.5" iMac SKUs carry over. 27" iMac gets discontinued.

I looked at the 21.5" SKUs and I think Apple could easily drop the bottom SKU (non retina mobile CPU) and reprice the remaining two SKUs accordingly as base and mid models.

The MacBook Pro 16" gets a sister model in a thin and slim 4.6K iMac Air 24" - all new SSD only product with H series CPU and same choice of AMD 5300M and AMD 5500M GPU - improved cooling for silence or 'Pro Mode' for performance users who don't mind a bit of noise. From the looks of most write-ups it looks like sustained Turbo will give interesting performance numbers as long as it's not being continuously caned.

And professionals get a more tempting Xeon powered 27" 5k iMac Pro which looks more value for money - designed along the same lines - but capable of heavy lifting. A lower starting price means more of those Xeons can be ordered.

This way, Apple reduce the number of Intel CPU ranges they have to order in, and the Mac mini in the future could even participate with a H series CPU and so could the 21.5" iMac if Apple drop the 'old' 21.5" model and 'Airify' it as well.

Making a hole in the lineup just where the most popular models are now doesn’t seem likely.

 

[XD_Goulart]

The April 15th date is supposedly set aside for the iPhone 9, AirTag, and MacBook Pro - I fully expected a 14" model. iPhone 9 was ready for mass production and shareholders clearly want revenue on the books - as was AirTag.

MacBook Pro is needed to erase the last of the Butterfly keyboards from existence - and again that might have been ready for manufacture as soon as the 28w CPUs become available.

Budget iPad was only just refreshed last September and languishes on an ancient A10 CPU while the iPad mini and iPad Air get had the A12. I would say it'll get another refresh in September alongside the phones.

Apple Watch seems like an annual event now - it's still a growing product line - so I see that dropping in September alongside phones and budget iPad.

AppleTV set top box was mooted last year with an A12. It may yet get the A12z when it gets released but it seems like a good candidate for a WWDC launch if they expect to boost the tvOS App Store and add some gaming capability ahead of the next generation consoles launching in the holiday period.

October is the traditional MacBook Pro launch window. Suitable Comet Lake H CPUs for it have just been announced but Apple may be waiting for RDNA2 graphics later this year unless we are likely to see Radeon Pro 5300MX and 5500MX in a laptop refresh in time for WWDC.

And finally we get the iMac, which is ready for a complete range refresh alongside the iMac Pro. But when? If we believe the rumour that went round that suggested that we would see a 'new' iMac and Mac mini soon - well, we got the 'new' Mac mini ahead of expectation just 18 months after the 2018 launch.

While this means Apple will be using the Coffee Lake CPUs for a little while longer - at least in the Mini - we could also see the iMac get that storage bump any time up to October but could the redesign be also ready for manufacture?

Who is to say that a 24" 4.6k iMac with SSD only storage, Comet Lake H, and RDNA GPU (AMD Pro 5500-5700) couldn't land in June - a redesigned 'Air' style? It could sit alongside a redesigned iMac Pro which would follow the new style (only bigger). That's the only way hardware of that magnitude gets the early release prior to October.

As much as the A12 may still be powerful, we’re getting close to an A14 and A14X, so it’s kind of disappointing that a new Apple TV doesn’t come with at least the A13 chip, as it will probably be released in June, along with the A14 chip.

 

[CWallace]

As much as the A12 may still be powerful, we’re getting close to an A14 and A14X, so it’s kind of disappointing that a new Apple TV doesn’t come with at least the A13 chip, as it will probably be released in June, along with the A14 chip.

An A13 or A14 chip would just make it more expensive for probably absolutely zero benefit considering the Apple TV's use cases. It probably does not need an A12X/A12Z, for that matter, but since Apple will be buying those by the scores of millions for other products, it makes sense to use it since it will be the cheapest option (much in how the Apple TV 4K received the A10X because Apple was making shedloads of them for the iPad Pros).

 

[XD_Goulart]

An A13 or A14 chip would just make it more expensive for probably absolutely zero benefit considering the Apple TV's use cases. It probably does not need an A12X/A12Z, for that matter, but since Apple will be buying those by the scores of millions for other products, it makes sense to use it since it will be the cheapest option (much in how the Apple TV 4K received the A10X because Apple was making shedloads of them for the iPad Pros).

If even the Iphone 9 will likely have an A13 chip, why can't Apple TV? That would not increase costs absurdly, and even if it does, if it is a fair price for what the chip offers, why not have it?

 

[sublunar]

As much as the A12 may still be powerful, we’re getting close to an A14 and A14X, so it’s kind of disappointing that a new Apple TV doesn’t come with at least the A13 chip, as it will probably be released in June, along with the A14 chip.

An A13 or A14 chip would just make it more expensive for probably absolutely zero benefit considering the Apple TV's use cases. It probably does not need an A12X/A12Z, for that matter, but since Apple will be buying those by the scores of millions for other products, it makes sense to use it since it will be the cheapest option (much in how the Apple TV 4K received the A10X because Apple was making shedloads of them for the iPad Pros).

If even the Iphone 9 will likely have an A13 chip, why can't Apple TV? That would not increase costs absurdly, and even if it does, if it is a fair price for what the chip offers, why not have it?

This isn't the right thread for this conversation, but what the heck

For streaming 4k content the A10X in the 5th generation AppleTV is probably sufficient - it also supports HDR. The issue will come when the 3Gb of RAM in that unit (not storage) is addressed in a few years time as tvOS becomes more sophisticated following each annual refresh. 3Gb of RAM is probably ok for budget iPhones today, the iPhone 11 Pro is reputed to have 4Gb of RAM while the forthcoming iPhone 12 Pro may have 6gb of RAM.

If you look at the iPad Pros this year - with 6Gb of RAM becoming standard over the 4Gb in most of the 2019 models - the direction of travel is clear when you also look at how the recent iPhones are increasing RAM.

I'm comparing with the Pro phones and iPads because you have to assume that consumers will be connecting to 4k TVs - AppleTVs have to drive the biggest possible panels in the Apple ecosystem at almost twice the number of pixels on screen as the iPad Pro 12.9". This is why the iPads and AppleTV have to have more performance - A13 simply can't cut it up against the additional CPU cores and graphics cores of the A12z. A14x would be a major upgrade if it can do 2x the performance of the A12x, though, and would be extremely welcome.

The AppleTV was rumoured to be close to a refresh last year with an A12 CPU. September 2019 would have been 2 years since the 5th generation 4k model was released. But what caused them to pull it?

Apple must be looking at the way console makers can sell the same model with only minor variations for upwards of 6-7 years so it can be a steady development target for years to come. If you look at the Sony PS5 and Xbox series X they are coming to market with 8Gb of RAM, RDNA2 graphics and 8 core Ryzen CPU - capable of supporting 4k gaming - and all for an 'affordable' price compared to a PC with those kind of specs.

Back in the day Sony, Nintendo, and Sega would have accepted a loss on the hardware to get it into people's homes - taking a cut on subsequent software sales.

Apple should be thinking the same with the idea of getting the tvOS App store and the iTunes Store into people's homes. The issue coming to the fore in the current world situation.

The A12z also gives us a pattern to look at with A10X and probably A14X being 'big tick' refreshes with heavy graphics cores. The A11 and A13 don't seem to have X graphics variants and at this point we can now be sure that we won't be seeing an A13X.

So my argument for the AppleTV this year - if they have delayed it again - would be to have it announced at WWDC and equip it with the same 6Gb of RAM and A12z CPU as the freshly announced iPad Pro. That way the developers have a nice easy target to code for

The AppleTV could then get more NAND storage options for games, instead of 32Gb and 64Gb options we could have 64Gb, 256Gb, and 512Gb options for example.

Anyway, lengthy digression over - back to the point of the thread

Making a hole in the lineup just where the most popular models are now doesn’t seem likely.

Not quite following where you think the 'hole' or 'most popular models' in the Mac range would be:

Here's how I consolidate Apple's CPU orders to reduce R&D costs and get the most from economies of scale:

It's accepted that desktops make up 20% of Mac sales, with laptops around 80%. Of that 20% of desktops the iMac is a large number of those. What are Apple's costs in sourcing deals for the various CPUs that they currently use in the iMacs and Mac minis and developing the motherboards that go into them vs extending the deals from the MacBook Pro 16" and working off the same platform?

The Comet Lake H series CPUs have top end SKUs that appear to break the 45w TDP that Intel advertise, with a Thermal velocity boost that appears to need better cooling than a standard 45w TDP device would assume to reach a 5Ghz turbo for any decent length of time. If Apple could use their additional thermal headroom in their desktop models they could accommodate i7 and i9 CPUs capable of sustained boost for more performance. Consider that Apple may be developing a 'Pro Mode' for this that lets users accept more fan noise for sustained performance.

That's the extra bit of explanation from my earlier speculations. See below for how the Macs are specced going forward:

How things could be in October 2020
iMac 21.5" and Mac mini stay on the Coffee Lake 65w desktop architecture for another 18 months. Ultimately Apple could be looking at Rocket Lake H or a successor CPU model to replace them and consolidate the entire consumer desktop and MacBook Pro 16" platform onto the same CPU family.

iMac Air 24", MacBook Pro 16" share Comet Lake H plus AMD GPU

27" iMac Pro - Increased orders for Xeon W 22xx CPUs - Apple could extend the lower end to snaffle up the folks who would have upspecced a 27" iMac with SSD etc.

Mac Pro is already Xeon.

MacBook Pro 14", MBA 13" have their own U series CPUs and sell in reasonable volume anyway.

How things could be in October 2021:
Pro users needing heavy duty CPU power migrate to Xeon which gets a lower entry point with iMac Pro, Apple pro-sumers use one CPU family with no discrete GPU (Mac mini), low power discrete mobile GPU (MacBook Pro), or high power discrete GPU (iMac Air) as required.

13-14" laptop users sell in quantity anyway and are on U series Intel.

And the ARM revolution can start with a 12" MacBook and, as a backside advantage, the ARM CPUs don't have as far to climb in benchmarks later if they only have to catch a H series CPU in a thin and light case rather than a greater leap to catch an S series Intel CPU with a beefier AMD GPU on board.

 

[Azrael9]

The ARM revolution is pending. But I'm sure Apple are quite content selling people a Mac and an iPad currently. Those words came out of Craig's mouth during one of the 'fire side' chats. Many a true word said in jest.

For this year, I see new iMacs and that's about it Mac wise. My current iMac has just fallen over and hangs by a thread. So a WWDC kick ass hardware announcement is long over due.

We can only hope that the new design is based on the obvious design cue of the new Mac Pro monitor...for which the R&D is done. And the cooling would be superior with the holes in the back (and using the iMac Pro's improved thermal solution...to handle more 8/16 cores and an AMD 5700XT, for example.)

Or are we going to continue nickle and diming and wringing every last drop out of the current (outdated) design..?

The tear drop iMac has been over taken by M$ Studio and the new Mac Pro Display. Fat bevels, big chins and inefficient cooling with 'mere' 6 cores and low end, out of date, gpus are history.

Come on, Apple. Pull your finger out.

Azrael.

 

[ThisBougieLife]

^Agreed. There's a lot they can do with the iMac before the "ARM revolution". I really hope they don't continue to milk the current design. It's time for a change.

 

[CWallace]

So my argument for the AppleTV this year - if they have delayed it again - would be to have it announced at WWDC and equip it with the same 6Gb of RAM and A12z CPU as the freshly announced iPad Pro. That way the developers have a nice easy target to code for

The AppleTV could then get more NAND storage options for games, instead of 32Gb and 64Gb options we could have 64Gb, 256Gb, and 512Gb options for example.

Makes sense and I believe we have seen rumors of the "2020" Apple TV coming with larger storage options

^Agreed. There's a lot they can do with the iMac before the "ARM revolution". I really hope they don't continue to milk the current design. It's time for a change.

One could argue the time to update the design is when the models move from Intel to ARM architecture.

 

[XD_Goulart]

This isn't the right thread for this conversation, but what the heck

For streaming 4k content the A10X in the 5th generation AppleTV is probably sufficient - it also supports HDR. The issue will come when the 3Gb of RAM in that unit (not storage) is addressed in a few years time as tvOS becomes more sophisticated following each annual refresh. 3Gb of RAM is probably ok for budget iPhones today, the iPhone 11 Pro is reputed to have 4Gb of RAM while the forthcoming iPhone 12 Pro may have 6gb of RAM.

If you look at the iPad Pros this year - with 6Gb of RAM becoming standard over the 4Gb in most of the 2019 models - the direction of travel is clear when you also look at how the recent iPhones are increasing RAM.

I'm comparing with the Pro phones and iPads because you have to assume that consumers will be connecting to 4k TVs - AppleTVs have to drive the biggest possible panels in the Apple ecosystem at almost twice the number of pixels on screen as the iPad Pro 12.9". This is why the iPads and AppleTV have to have more performance - A13 simply can't cut it up against the additional CPU cores and graphics cores of the A12z. A14x would be a major upgrade if it can do 2x the performance of the A12x, though, and would be extremely welcome.

The AppleTV was rumoured to be close to a refresh last year with an A12 CPU. September 2019 would have been 2 years since the 5th generation 4k model was released. But what caused them to pull it?

Apple must be looking at the way console makers can sell the same model with only minor variations for upwards of 6-7 years so it can be a steady development target for years to come. If you look at the Sony PS5 and Xbox series X they are coming to market with 8Gb of RAM, RDNA2 graphics and 8 core Ryzen CPU - capable of supporting 4k gaming - and all for an 'affordable' price compared to a PC with those kind of specs.

Back in the day Sony, Nintendo, and Sega would have accepted a loss on the hardware to get it into people's homes - taking a cut on subsequent software sales.

Apple should be thinking the same with the idea of getting the tvOS App store and the iTunes Store into people's homes. The issue coming to the fore in the current world situation.

The A12z also gives us a pattern to look at with A10X and probably A14X being 'big tick' refreshes with heavy graphics cores. The A11 and A13 don't seem to have X graphics variants and at this point we can now be sure that we won't be seeing an A13X.

So my argument for the AppleTV this year - if they have delayed it again - would be to have it announced at WWDC and equip it with the same 6Gb of RAM and A12z CPU as the freshly announced iPad Pro. That way the developers have a nice easy target to code for

The AppleTV could then get more NAND storage options for games, instead of 32Gb and 64Gb options we could have 64Gb, 256Gb, and 512Gb options for example.

Anyway, lengthy digression over - back to the point of the thread



Not quite following where you think the 'hole' or 'most popular models' in the Mac range would be:

Here's how I consolidate Apple's CPU orders to reduce R&D costs and get the most from economies of scale:

It's accepted that desktops make up 20% of Mac sales, with laptops around 80%. Of that 20% of desktops the iMac is a large number of those. What are Apple's costs in sourcing deals for the various CPUs that they currently use in the iMacs and Mac minis and developing the motherboards that go into them vs extending the deals from the MacBook Pro 16" and working off the same platform?

The Comet Lake H series CPUs have top end SKUs that appear to break the 45w TDP that Intel advertise, with a Thermal velocity boost that appears to need better cooling than a standard 45w TDP device would assume to reach a 5Ghz turbo for any decent length of time. If Apple could use their additional thermal headroom in their desktop models they could accommodate i7 and i9 CPUs capable of sustained boost for more performance. Consider that Apple may be developing a 'Pro Mode' for this that lets users accept more fan noise for sustained performance.

That's the extra bit of explanation from my earlier speculations. See below for how the Macs are specced going forward:

How things could be in October 2020
iMac 21.5" and Mac mini stay on the Coffee Lake 65w desktop architecture for another 18 months. Ultimately Apple could be looking at Rocket Lake H or a successor CPU model to replace them and consolidate the entire consumer desktop and MacBook Pro 16" platform onto the same CPU family.

iMac Air 24", MacBook Pro 16" share Comet Lake H plus AMD GPU

27" iMac Pro - Increased orders for Xeon W 22xx CPUs - Apple could extend the lower end to snaffle up the folks who would have upspecced a 27" iMac with SSD etc.

Mac Pro is already Xeon.

MacBook Pro 14", MBA 13" have their own U series CPUs and sell in reasonable volume anyway.

How things could be in October 2021:
Pro users needing heavy duty CPU power migrate to Xeon which gets a lower entry point with iMac Pro, Apple pro-sumers use one CPU family with no discrete GPU (Mac mini), low power discrete mobile GPU (MacBook Pro), or high power discrete GPU (iMac Air) as required.

13-14" laptop users sell in quantity anyway and are on U series Intel.

And the ARM revolution can start with a 12" MacBook and, as a backside advantage, the ARM CPUs don't have as far to climb in benchmarks later if they only have to catch a H series CPU in a thin and light case rather than a greater leap to catch an S series Intel CPU with a beefier AMD GPU on board.

Can't Apple at least expect an A14X for Apple TV? What prevents the fact that we have the A13X? We are we close to WWDC 2020? Does not make sense.... Here is really not the best place to discuss this however ....

 

[_Skyfire_]

Idk why I bother continuing to reply to your weird fever dreams...however I simply can't understand such snobbish pretensions. Wanting Apple to heavily slash the quality of iMacs available to regular folks, who make up the vast majority of their customers...is just soo seriously ****ed up

27" iMac gets discontinued.
professionals get a more tempting Xeon powered 27" 5k iMac Pro

 

[macpro2000]

Those were sure fun times way back when they changed the design big time every few years. I'm hoping for the 32"er. I really don't care what it costs.

 

[sublunar]

Idk why I bother continuing to reply to your weird fever dreams...however I simply can't understand such snobbish pretensions. Wanting Apple to heavily slash the quality of iMacs available to regular folks, who make up the vast majority of their customers...is just soo seriously ****ed up

'Snobbish pretentions' like wanting a quieter iMac and wanting to mount a lighter machine using a VESA mount?

And how much is a fully SSD iMac with T2 CPU onboard going to cost? The base Mac mini went from $499 to $799 when they replaced the 2014 with the 2018 model. And this involved taking the 500Gb HDD away to replace it with a 128Gb SSD while upgrading the CPU.

Apple at the moment would have to increase the price of the every iMac SKU to go all-SSD - do you think the average iMac buyer is going to be happy with going from 1Tb of HDD to 128Gb SSD? It would have to be 256Gb minimum and for a 27" model I'm thinking 512Gb.

Granted, the Mini has recent had a storage bump which will help but I'm seeing an easy $300 uplift on an unaltered iMac at the moment, and base models would have a 256Gb SSD which for many will be a paltry amount.

I'm actually wondering what you call a 'slashed' quality of iMac when what I have suggested that Apple reduce the entry price of the iMac Pro to satisfy users with a larger budget who would have loaded up a regular iMac with SSD anyway?

And SSD will make iMacs perform so much better to the average Joe anyway so I'm still not sure where you think 'quality' will suffer. Or are you fixated on the biggest screen possible, or the highest Geekbench benchmarks possible?

Let's remember the next year or two could end up being really difficult for consumer electronics manufacturers and Apple have to be braced for softer demand and lower orders for the foreseeable.

What's your major argument if an all SSD iMac at similar price points to that available today appears with certain compromises but people wanting faster or bigger can buy an iMac Pro?

The points that I am making the argument for is consolidating parts to reduce unit costs and reducing the screen size to keep the price down - how do you suggest Apple make the move to get T2 into the iMac?

 

[sublunar]

^Agreed. There's a lot they can do with the iMac before the "ARM revolution". I really hope they don't continue to milk the current design. It's time for a change.

The current design might be a non starter for the iMac Pro too - the W22xx Xeons appear to have a higher TDP than the W21xx CPUs used in the 2017 iMac.

This suggests that, unless Apple get a custom (down clocked) SKU that fits within the cooling solution of the existing iMac Pro, they'll be redesigning that too. It's known that Apple use a custom SKU already, and speculated that such a SKU is down clocked for just that reason.
[automerge]1586041524[/automerge]

Can't Apple at least expect an A14X for Apple TV? What prevents the fact that we have the A13X? We are we close to WWDC 2020? Does not make sense.... Here is really not the best place to discuss this however ....

The earliest an A14X could turn up is September alongside the iPhones. Not unheard of, especially as the iPad Pros won't be using them as they've just been refreshed. It would mean that developers would potentially have less time to get software out for the holiday season unless they give massive clues at WWDC.

Not sure why we don't have an A13X but there wasn't an A11X either - my speculation was that Apple might have decided that iPad Pros won't be on an annual refresh schedule.

On the other hand, it might also have an impact on heavy duty use in a desktop Mac, for instance, if Apple decided they weren't doing iPad Pro CPUs every year - those are the CPUs you might expect to end up in a MacBook (actually I have called an ARM powered laptop an iBook before).

 

[CWallace]

I expect the 2020 iMac to look like the 2019 iMac.

Apple is already using 65W Coffee Lake mobile CPUs in the 2019 21.5" iMac so stands to reason that line will stay mobile and could use 45W Comet Lake H in the 2020 model since you can trade cores for clock speed and Apple is buying them for the 16" MBP already. That leaves Comet Lake H desktop CPUs for the 2020 27" iMac.

The 21.5" should have 1TB Fusion at $1299 and 256GB SSD at $1499.
The 27" should have 2TB Fusion at $1799, 256GB SSD at $1999 and 512GB SSD at $2299.

T2 should not be an issue since it can control the SSD portion of the Fusion Drives and Apple can require the boot volume to be installed on the SSD (it should be for performance and security, anyway). And for SSD-only configurations, it would work like it does on the other SSD-only Mac models.


As for the 2020 iMac Pro, the current iMac Pro cooling system has plenty of overhead - they prioritize fan noise so they spin them slower than they need to and even when the system is under full load, they never hit very high RPMs. So the higher TDP of the W-2200 series can be handled with the current cooling at slightly more noise - and Apple can always offer "Pro Mode" to spin them higher if customer's are accepting of the noise trade-offs.

 

[Moonjumper]

Not quite following where you think the 'hole' or 'most popular models' in the Mac range would be:

The hole is saw is very obvious. A non-Pro iMac 27".

The posted I quoted had 24" as the largest non-Pro iMac. I don't need Pro power, but I need a lot of screen space (to the extent I use a second 27" screen alongside my 27" iMac and considering a third screen). I think I am far from the only person in that situation. Those buying a 27" iMac and thinking they need smaller are even less.

There is currently a non-Pro 27" iMac. Why would Apple get rid of that?

 

[CWallace]

Apple has invested a lot of marketing into Retina resolutions for Macs and this by extension includes the iMac.

A 24" Retina display would be 4480x2520 and since those don't exist, they would need to be custom-manufactured for Apple (just as the current 4096x2304 21.5" panel is). The 21.5" has been in production for a decade, so the yields are probably quite high and the unit cost therefore relatively low (though not as low as consumer 4K panels manufactured at vastly higher rates). A custom 24" panel will be expensive due to the low run-rate (and probably low yields at first) and you know Apple would not eat that cost.

I could see Apple easily charging $1999 for a 24" 4.5K iMac with a 6-core i5, 8GB, 1 TB Fusion Drive and a lower-end dGPU that is $1499 in 21.5" 4K form.

And that would mean the 27" would have to go 32" and that means a custom panel with the XDR's 6K resolution, but losing most of it's features, including HDR, 1000 nit brightness, 10-bit color and such to get the price down. But again, a large custom panel with low run rates and yields is going to be expensive and even a $500 surcharge (as on the 24.5") might not be enough. The howling of a 32" iMac starting at $2499 to $2999 would be deafening.

As such, I just don't see Apple moving away from 21.5" 4K and 27" 5K. I also expect miniLED backlighting will be exclusive to the iMac Pro for 2020 because the higher margins can help absorb it and once the yields get better allowing higher run-rates, they can migrate it down to the 27" model in 2021 or 2022.

 

[sublunar]

Apple has invested a lot of marketing into Retina resolutions for Macs and this by extension includes the iMac.

A 24" Retina display would be 4480x2520 and since those don't exist, they would need to be custom-manufactured for Apple (just as the current 4096x2304 21.5" panel is). The 21.5" has been in production for a decade, so the yields are probably quite high and the unit cost therefore relatively low (though not as low as consumer 4K panels manufactured at vastly higher rates). A custom 24" panel will be expensive due to the low run-rate (and probably low yields at first) and you know Apple would not eat that cost.

I could see Apple easily charging $1999 for a 24" 4.5K iMac with a 6-core i5, 8GB, 1 TB Fusion Drive and a lower-end dGPU that is $1499 in 21.5" 4K form.

And that would mean the 27" would have to go 32" and that means a custom panel with the XDR's 6K resolution, but losing most of it's features, including HDR, 1000 nit brightness, 10-bit color and such to get the price down. But again, a large custom panel with low run rates and yields is going to be expensive and even a $500 surcharge (as on the 24.5") might not be enough. The howling of a 32" iMac starting at $2499 to $2999 would be deafening.

As such, I just don't see Apple moving away from 21.5" 4K and 27" 5K. I also expect miniLED backlighting will be exclusive to the iMac Pro for 2020 because the higher margins can help absorb it and once the yields get better allowing higher run-rates, they can migrate it down to the 27" model in 2021 or 2022.

Actually, my 24" Retina display calculation was for a 4.6K display 4608x2592 to keep the dot pitch the same. Apple generally tend to set a price and amortise the cost of the unit over more than one generation of a product (ie, a lifetime of 4 refreshes at the same price for example). Remember when people were basically saying that the 5k 27" iMac cost about as much to buy as Dell were trying to sell their 27" 5k monitor for? In effect people at the time were say it was like getting a free Mac with your display and there was much gashing of teeth that Target Display mode couldn't be achieved with the Retina 5k iMac (because of the custom timing controller more than Apple trying to be difficult I'd wager)

The important point here is keeping the dot pitch the same so people could extend displays with other traditional 27" monitors if they wished.

The second important point is that Apple want to move on towards incorporating the T2 CPU into the rest of the Mac range. The T2 spells the end of hard drives (including fusion drives), sata ports, and has already meant that we'll never see standard NVME ports because of the secure boot feature that Apple want to fit to all Macs. This will also coincidentally be the effective end of Hackintosh within 5 years* of Apple going all T2 so you can see why Apple might want to have T2 across the board.

* 5 years is long enough for these models to become vintage and therefore lose official support for macOS by Apple's standards - at that point macOS 10.21 or 10.22 could require a T1 CPU as used in the MacBook Pro 2016.

Only the iMac remains to be done but Apple will know full well that doing so means a noticeable increase in costs - look at the Mac mini 2018 vs the older 2014 model. Apple usually prefer to keep the prices the same but recognised that they couldn't when they were adding in the T2 and going all SSD which is a mandatory requirement for fitting the T2. You could say they compensated by bumping the CPU to a BGA 65w Coffee Lake model - the same that would go into the iMac 6 months later!

MiniLED backlight could be the technology that keeps the iMac Pro price the same if they were planning on putting that in. It wouldn't stop them from putting out an SKU without it though. A Q4 launch for the MiniLED iMac Pro could mean it gets RNDA2 GPUs.

The hole is saw is very obvious. a non-Pro iMac 27".

The posted I quoted had 24" as the largest non-Pro iMac. I don't need Pro power, but I need a lot of screen space (to the extent I use a second 27" screen alongside my 27" iMac and considering a third screen). I think I am far from the only person in that situation. Those buying a 27" iMac and thinking they need smaller are even less.

There is currently a non-Pro 27" iMac. Why would Apple get rid of that?

I detect a bout of self-interest there! but I'll play along.

TLDR for people bored of reading my stuff: If Apple want to add T2 to iMac 27" they have to get rid of HDD storage options and this will raise the price of it by hundreds of dollars. Apple have been showing us the future of the 27" iMac for the last few years with iMac Pro.


Firstly, I'll point out that we're now at the stage where 21" monitors are seen as a budget size. Most people have moved on to the 23-24" size screens and that's where 4k panels (at a lower PPI than Apple's definition of Retina) start to be sold. In the Apple ecosystem anyone who finds 21.5" too small either gets a Mac mini and monitor or bites the bullet and buys a 27" iMac.

So in my opinion it's not a case of 27" users being 'forced' to downgrade. It's an upsell for the 21.5" crowd because their Mac is about to get a lot more expensive in percentage terms.

If you don't need 'Pro power', what spec is your 27" iMac please? Is it a Coffee Lake model? Is it i5? i7? Have you upgraded it to SSD or did you need the Fusion Drive for extra storage? If you have $2k to spend on additional monitors I'm expecting that you didn't buy any iMac 27" off the shelf.

If you can afford 2 more LG 27" Retina 5k displays - much less the desk space - to sit next to your 27" 5k iMac I'd consider you to be an edge case. Those LG monitors are still around $1k new (I checked Amazon).

Mind you, only the iMac Pro could accommodate two external 5k displays at full 5k resolution. The 2019 Mac Pro can have 6 of them while the iMac 2019 5k can take just one extra 5k display (or 2 4k displays). The GPU needs extra cooling to be running all those extra pixels.

So you're probably adding non retina 1440p or 4k 27" displays to your iMac and obviously depending on the technology (TN panels are cheap) they are much more affordable. I'll bet that you're buying the 5k for the screen and not upgrading the Fusion Drive to full SSD, am not bothered about i7 or i9, and probably upgrade your own RAM. In any case I contend that you're still an edge case wanting to use 3 screens and not upgrading an iMac any further than stock.

You could run 1440p monitors off a Mac mini, if you really wanted screen real estate, or buy a refurb iMac off the refurb store or a third party retailer if you need big screen 27" on a budget.





I did sketch out on Apple could lower the starting SKU for iMac Pro to pick up pro customers but I guess I'll have to be more explicit:

a. Intel have cut prices for W22xx CPUs thanks to pressure from AMD with Ryzen and Threadripper - MSRPs are down by up to 50%.

b. Intel usually make massive profit with their Xeons but have been scrambling to compete with AMD with the only weapon they have - price cuts - and Apple will be all too happy to leverage AMD in cost meetings with Intel.

c. Apple's spending power on NAND evidenced in the last 6 months with doubling of storage of iPhone, MacBook Pro 16, MacBook Air 2020, iPad Pro entry models for no extra cost.

d. Apple is a major customer not just for the cash they hand over for various Xeons but for the halo effect they bring to Intel. The marketing department at Intel would have a coronary if Apple moved any of their lines to AMD CPUs. This brings added pressure to the table when negotiating deals for new CPUs. You can assume that Intel have made peace with Apple making an iBook (ARM powered 12" laptop) though - that's a story for a different thread.

So what's the upshot here? Well, you have discount from Intel for every Xeon part, cheaper NAND from Apple as evidenced in doubling of storage in iPhones and now Mac minis, and the possibility to lower the base spec of the iMac Pro to hoover up high end iMac users.

Here's my chain of thought.

1. If Apple didn't do anything different they could just double the storage in the iMac Pro from 1Tb base to 2Tb and charge no extra. They could also slash the price of the existing base 2017 iMac Pro and run it as a base SKU under a 2020 refresh model - if that comes out in Q4 with mini LED and a full redesign.

2. Apple could negotiate further discounted W22xx Intel Xeons if they make a bigger order - this pays for the mini LED display upgrade. And they'd get more revenue through creating a lower SKU without the mini LED screen as a lifeboat for the 'pro' iMac users who don't want the 24" panel - that's an upsell.

3. Regarding Point 1, Apple have to fit an updated Titan Ridge controller so iMac Pro 2020 users can connect up the 6k 32" Pro XDR model and get the full 6k display.

The iMac Pro 2017 differs from the iMac Pro 2019 in being unable to drive the Pro Display XDR at 6k. This alone should be an impetus for doing the engineering work for a full iMac Pro refresh but you also calculate the fact that the W22xx CPU have higher TDP and Apple should add in an improved cooling system to cope with that and the RNDA CPUs that will be around. In fact they could leave the iMac Pro till RDNA2 comes up which lines up with a Q4 release with mini LED.

That said, it still doesn't stop Apple from keeping the 2017 iMac Pro in the line-up - it makes it a useful upset for the very small number of people who want to use a Pro Display XDR as a second screen.

4. No Apple won't make a 'decontented' 32" 6k iMac Pro - it would cost too much if such a procedure even existed and would disrupt their own product lines!

5. From my previous posts, if Apple did make a 32" iMac it would be 6k to keep the same 218ppi resolution - just as my calculation at 218ppi makes a 24" 4.6k panel 'the missing link' - it's a 21.5" 4k monitor for those who need a bigger screen size. By external monitors keeping the same PPI users could move windows between viewports without them changing size.


Comparing iMac to iMac Pro Today
Let's for one moment forget that Apple are probably able to double SSD storage for no additional cost. Let's spec up an iMac to something similar:

8 core i9, 32gb, Radeon Pro Vega 48, 1Tb SSD = $4049

The iMac Pro has 8 extra threads (with a lower base clock), Vega 56, faster SSD (RAID configuration), 10Gig Ethernet, and 4 Thunderbolt 3 ports for your extra $950. I daresay that Apple could even make the 10Gig optional on a base spec iMac Pro 2020 if they were to keeping the 2017 one around - it's a $100 option in the Mac mini after all.

I contend that Apple could close that gap with the next iMac Pro but let's first consider the minimum that Apple have to do to get the next iMac to all-SSD with T2.

Using the iMac configurator in the US Apple store I make that for a 512Gb SSD upgrade (remember Apple would be able to afford to double the storage to 1Tb) bottom SKU makes that cost $2099. Add $200 for the T2 and you're looking at $2299 for a base model iMac. Thats a straight-up $400-500 increase in price. The top SKU would probably have to come with 1Tb SSD at today's prices and cost $2799 for example.

It's even worse with the iMac 21.5" models - the base non retina only has a 256Gb SSD option which could bring the price close to $1499 with T2. The other two SKUs would jump to $1699 and $1899 respectively which is hellishly steep.

Did you think perhaps that Fusion Drive would co-exist with T2?


Summing Up
I doubt Apple's marketing department would enjoy trying to sell a significant price uplift in the current climate - you can see evidence of that with Apple's decision to just double the storage on the Mac mini and from what I read it's not even technically a 2020 model.

There's probably a couple of ways to do the same spec bump on the iMac but neither will help with getting the T2 CPU into the entire Mac range - more engineering is required.

Either way, the way. would see an upsell is to get 21.5" (and some 27") people to spend more on a lighter and more compact 24" iMac, and anyone wanting a 27" iMac pays more for a (discounted) iMac Pro.

Edge cases buy a Mac mini and pair it with the monitor(s) of their choice. And because the 2018/2020 Mini carries on existing for maybe another 18 months maybe Apple keeps a 2019 21.5" iMac (also sporting the 65w Coffee Lake CPUs) hanging around a bit longer too.

I'm not saying that a 27" non Pro iMac with all SSD is never going to happen but a $400-$500 price increase across the board for potentially less storage than people had before isn't going to go down well.

 

[CWallace]

Actually, my 24" Retina display calculation was for a 4.6K display 4608x2592 to keep the dot pitch the same. Apple generally tend to set a price and amortise the cost of the unit over more than one generation of a product (ie, a lifetime of 4 refreshes at the same price for example).

Yes, Apple could eat the costs up front with the margins they have, but that would impact the Mac's profitability for a time and that could mean it goes back to being "ignored" as the C Suite focuses on more profitable parts of the company in the interim.

The important point here is keeping the dot pitch the same so people could extend displays with other traditional 27" monitors if they wished.

You're still going to have window-resizing issues due to the different effective resolutions. DPI does not affect window sizing, just clarity - a 27" 5K display in HiDPI 2560x1440 has a DPI of 0.1167 while a 27" QHD display at 2560x1440 has a DPI of 0.2335. The 5K HiDPI display is sharper thanks to the much finer DPI, but the windows are the same size because the effective resolution is identical. This might not be an issue for some, but it will be for others (including myself).

The second important point is that Apple want to move on towards incorporating the T2 CPU into the rest of the Mac range. The T2 spells the end of hard drives (including fusion drives), sata ports, and has already meant that we'll never see standard NVME ports because of the secure boot feature that Apple want to fit to all Macs.

I am pretty sure there are no technical limitations with using a T2 chip with a Fusion Drive. With Startup Security, you can boot a T2 Mac from an external HDD so there should be no reason you cannot do so from an internal HDD. And Apple could easily ship a T2 iMac with a version of macOS that requires it (or perhaps just certain parts) be located on the SSD part of a Fusion drive to work with "Full Security" mode.

I'm guessing that Apple started with SSD-only configurations for T-series chips because:
a) it was easier (since APFS is designed for SSDs)
b) they could exercise full control either through the storage modules being soldered to the system board or using only Apple-sourced blades.

 

[CWallace]

One thing to consider is how large is the actual market for a 24" (unibody) iMac? Apple did offer one, but only for three years (2006-2009) before moving to 27". And when they did that, they made the smaller model 21.5" instead of the previous 20". Why? They had to source a custom panel, anyway, so they could have commissioned LG done a 24" 4K retina panel just as easily as a 21.5" model and chances are a 24" Ultrafine would have sold a fair bit better to MacBook Pro users than the 21.5" model did.

I'm guessing it is because the 20" model was a popular size for a certain segment - students, kiosks, etc. - because it fit better than the 24" model, much less a 27" one. So Apple dropping the 21.5" model for a 24" model would push out all those people again. And it would also alienate all the 27" iMac users who would now have to downsize their screen to 24" when it came time to replace their existing models.

"But there is the 27" iMac Pro for those people!" one might say. A similarly-configured 2019 iMac (8-core i9 / 32GB / 1TB / Pro Vega 48) is just over $4000 so Apple could probably get the 8-core (W-2245) model down to $4499 and perhaps even $3999. And there is a 6-core Xeon (W-2255) they could offer with 16GB and a 512GB SSD and a lower-end AMD 5000 series GPU to hit the $2599 price point of the current i7/RX 580 model.

But Xeons are optimized for multi-threaded operations, not single-threaded. They also can't clock as high as a Core i7 / Core i9 and generally can't hold the "top clock" for as long. Intel designed the W-2200 series Xeon for commercial and corporate workloads, not consumer. So for most general-use productivity software and daily tasks, a Xeon is not only wasted, it's an inferior platform in terms of performance to a Core family CPU.

My fear is that such a strategy could eventually spell the end of the iMac.

The customers for the current 21.5" model will either need to go Mac mini + external monitor or a Mac portable. The former is inelegant compared to an AIO and the latter might be an issue in terms of security or usability (due to using a 14/16" screen instead of 21.5").

The customers for the current 27" model will either need to downgrade in screen size (and performance and upgradeability if Apple moves to mobile CPUs and the standard soldered RAM and soldered storage) or buy an iMac Pro that might perform worse for the work they do.

This, of course, assumes they just decided macOS is no longer worth the new hardware tradeoffs and move to Windows.

 

[ThisBougieLife]

I too think the iMac Pro may eventually be the only AIO Apple offers and that would be unfortunate. Either way I still much prefer the 21.5" size and 4K resolution. 27" and 5K is overkill for me. I don't want a monitor so large I can't see everything on the screen all at once. Meanwhile in PC land, they're making 32" and 43" monitors that are still only 4K.