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

[Freida]

I really dislike this guy! He is so "scripted" and unnatural its pain to watch him.
Also, considering that he did this video after WWDC and even used some footage from the interview with Craig he is wrong about the filling so that whole section is useless as we now it was filled for the DTK.

Anyway, the rest is kinda what we all discussed here in the last 100 pages )

 

[askunk]

Additional elements to support an early redesign...

 

[FrankySavvy]

Additional elements to support an early redesign...

Invests made in engineering a 2020 Intel iMac Redesign can and will work with both Intel and ARM processors.

 

[pldelisle]

Additional elements to support an early redesign...

I don't always agree with Linus, but he is pin point on this one.

 

[ssong]

Ok, I'll try one last time.

Common sense here - redesign takes months/years to plan so if we take all indicators, all leaks and all info we have then the next intel iMac will get redesign. It really is simple. I seriously doubt that when Apple was planning iMac 27" 2 or so years ago redesign they were also betting that at that time ARM will be happening. They had a plan for ARM but for such a thing it probably wasn't concrete (unlike the intel redesign which most likely was concrete plan).

So, for all these reasons I believe that next Intel iMac will get redesign. Its just the most logical for many many reasons.
And given the situation with ARM its also the best case scenario.

You will see soon enough.



[automerge]1593178143[/automerge]
There will be one most likely. Its the most logical approach Apple can take as Askunk nicely said in his post few lines above.

You’re assuming that the product team works in isolation from the AS chip team. Like you said these things take years. The AS transition / announcement wasn’t something that got planned this year, it would have been in the works for many years with a general roadmap of by when they would want to reach the milestone they reached at WWDC which is public announcement.

When Apple began the redesign process I’m sure they were preparing the redesign for the AS Mac.

Based on your logic, Apple‘s design team works in isolation from other teams that would supply the components, so the iMac design team independently designed for a vastly different thermal spec. Designing for a chip (whatever Intel flavour they put in this year) that they’re not even sure if their current design will be able to cool properly.

The iMac Pro is a perfect example of Apple sun-setting the iMac design with Intel chips, understanding the limitations of the current design and trying to make most of it by creating a new custom cooling solution for the model. One could argue that they could’ve extended that to the wider iMac design but at what cost? Changing the full manufacturing process for the whole iMac line so Apple can deal with Intel’s incompetence? There’s a reason why the iMac Pro is priced at that price point. It’s intended as a machine for users who have specific needs and where manufacturing one will have to pay for it self.

So now then let’s assume that the iMac design team (despite being aware that there is an AS future coming) decided to redesign based on the thermal profile of an Intel CPU. If they know that AS will have very different thermal requirements that may unlock certain design choices that were simply not possible then why even bother with a redesign that can accommodate Intel chips?

The design team would not have had a ‘lets redesign for the sake of redesigning and launch a product in 2020’. They would’ve more likely had a ‘lets redesign for an AS chip (they may not know what the chip looks like but would have a general thermal profile to work around as that would be the aim that the AS chip team would’ve worked towards as well obvs with some wriggle room) and ship it when we can’. If both AS and Mac design teams can agree that they’re aiming for a mid to late 2020 launch then that’s what both of them would’ve strived for, and assuming Apple operates under agile then certain decisions could’ve been left til the end.

To me it makes less logical sense to spend R&D money on a design that is intended to last at least 5 years on an outdated spec sheet.

 

[Freida]

Thats not what I said or meant actually.

Of course the team knows what is happening but ARM wasn't sure. Something as big as ARM transition was not being on strict timeline as things would happen that would make Apple postpone it by a year or so. Maybe ARM was meant to be announced last year with the DTK being A12 or who knows when. Things were taking a bit longer or complications arised and it got pushed to this year. We don't know this and I'm sure Apple was fairly open in their timeline about that.

That brings me to iMac redesign. You really think that redesign was only for ARM and not Intel? I seriously doubt that as the planning ahead would be crazy to focus on something that I'm still developing and am not sure about till it shapes up better.
Most likely scenario is that iMac redesign was (and is) planned for Intel but with AS in mind. Think of it this way, current gen iMac runs hot and fans kick in because of the limitations etc.
Now, Apple redesigns that for Intel but thinking about AS too. So they will have a great redesign that will give them even more benefits once they use it on AS. Why? Because Intel sucks now but AS will also have fairly big TDP so having more room will only allow Apple to go crazier (remember 2013 Mac Pro fiasco?).

In other words, AS will have cooling and will have many cores etc. to match/surpass Intel + AMD performance.
Don't think that AS will be magical miracle. It will be awesome but it will still have TDP etc.

So, Apple's redesigned Intel 27" iMac will work like this (semi-serious) :

It will work but fans will kick in as much as they do now on 2019 model.

Next year, Apple will put AS into it and fans will be so quiet that you will have virtually silent machine.
Same enclosure but completely different experience.

We are used to Intel iMacs not being super silent so for now it won't change much.
Next year on AS we will get used to new norm.

Of course, this is a little pumped up argument but I hope you get my point.

Intel redesign was and is in the cards regardless of how everyone says 0% chance

You’re assuming that the product team works in isolation from the AS chip team. Like you said these things take years. The AS transition / announcement wasn’t something that got planned this year, it would have been in the works for many years with a general roadmap of by when they would want to reach the milestone they reached at WWDC which is public announcement.

When Apple began the redesign process I’m sure they were preparing the redesign for the AS Mac.

Based on your logic, Apple‘s design team works in isolation from other teams that would supply the components, so the iMac design team independently designed for a vastly different thermal spec. Designing for a chip (whatever Intel flavour they put in this year) that they’re not even sure if their current design will be able to cool properly.

The iMac Pro is a perfect example of Apple sun-setting the iMac design with Intel chips, understanding the limitations of the current design and trying to make most of it by creating a new custom cooling solution for the model. One could argue that they could’ve extended that to the wider iMac design but at what cost? Changing the full manufacturing process for the whole iMac line so Apple can deal with Intel’s incompetence? There’s a reason why the iMac Pro is priced at that price point. It’s intended as a machine for users who have specific needs and where manufacturing one will have to pay for it self.

So now then let’s assume that the iMac design team (despite being aware that there is an AS future coming) decided to redesign based on the thermal profile of an Intel CPU. If they know that AS will have very different thermal requirements that may unlock certain design choices that were simply not possible then why even bother with a redesign that can accommodate Intel chips?

The design team would not have had a ‘lets redesign for the sake of redesigning and launch a product in 2020’. They would’ve more likely had a ‘lets redesign for an AS chip (they may not know what the chip looks like but would have a general thermal profile to work around as that would be the aim that the AS chip team would’ve worked towards as well obvs with some wriggle room) and ship it when we can’. If both AS and Mac design teams can agree that they’re aiming for a mid to late 2020 launch then that’s what both of them would’ve strived for, and assuming Apple operates under agile then certain decisions could’ve been left til the end.

To me it makes less logical sense to spend R&D money on a design that is intended to last at least 5 years on an outdated spec sheet.

 

[ssong]

Thats not what I said or meant actually.

Of course the team knows what is happening but ARM wasn't sure. Something as big as ARM transition was not being on strict timeline as things would happen that would make Apple postpone it by a year or so. Maybe ARM was meant to be announced last year with the DTK being A12 or who knows when. Things were taking a bit longer or complications arised and it got pushed to this year. We don't know this and I'm sure Apple was fairly open in their timeline about that.

That brings me to iMac redesign. You really think that redesign was only for ARM and not Intel? I seriously doubt that as the planning ahead would be crazy to focus on something that I'm still developing and am not sure about till it shapes up better.
Most likely scenario is that iMac redesign was (and is) planned for Intel but with AS in mind. Think of it this way, current gen iMac runs hot and fans kick in because of the limitations etc.
Now, Apple redesigns that for Intel but thinking about AS too. So they will have a great redesign that will give them even more benefits once they use it on AS. Why? Because Intel sucks now but AS will also have fairly big TDP so having more room will only allow Apple to go crazier (remember 2013 Mac Pro fiasco?).

In other words, AS will have cooling and will have many cores etc. to match/surpass Intel + AMD performance.
Don't think that AS will be magical miracle. It will be awesome but it will still have TDP etc.

So, Apple's redesigned Intel 27" iMac will work like this (semi-serious) :

It will work but fans will kick in as much as they do now on 2019 model.

Next year, Apple will put AS into it and fans will be so quiet that you will have virtually silent machine.
Same enclosure but completely different experience.

We are used to Intel iMacs not being super silent so for now it won't change much.
Next year on AS we will get used to new norm.

Of course, this is a little pumped up argument but I hope you get my point.

Intel redesign was and is in the cards regardless of how everyone says 0% chance

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

guess only time will tell but I still think that if Apple has the option of designing a machine that can out perform existing 27 inch Intel iMacs at half the thermal profile it would make no sense for them to design based on the existing Intel thermal requirements.

If we really wanted to get the most out of AMD GPU and Intel CPU on an iMac right now we’d need the iMac Pro level cooling, which means we just simply need a larger chassis since anything smaller than that we’re getting to the balance laptops always need to make which is portability vs performance.

There is a reason why the Surface Studio 2 (MS’s answer to iMacs) runs a mobile chip with a TDP of about 45W. That’s with them putting the burden of cooling the device on the base of the machine, to make a machine as sleek as that they had to relegate to the mobile chipset.

So if that’s the design possibility on a 45W TDP why on earth would Apple design for a 95W TDP (current gen 27 iMac)? The 21.5 which is ever so slightly smaller and slimmer than the 27 is still based on a whopping 65W TDP for the CPU.

For the sake of the AS Mac I hope the redesign is limited to it as it would mean that the design team focused on optimising it for the AS chip rather than having to compromise between AS and Intel.

 

[Homy]

Like you said these things take years. The AS transition / announcement wasn’t something that got planned this year, it would have been in the works for many years with a general roadmap of by when they would want to reach the milestone they reached at WWDC which is public announcement.

It started three years ago: https://www.pcgamer.com/intel-skylake-why-apple-left/

 

[ssong]

It started three years ago: https://www.pcgamer.com/intel-skylake-why-apple-left/

That most likely sped the process up but the exploratory R&D would’ve begun years earlier. After all Apple’s first consumer A chips came out in 2009 and the non A branded SoCs came out as early as 2007.

Which means work on a general Apple based ARM chip began probably around the same time the initial development for the iPhone began when they saw a need for a custom solution.

The general thought process of working on a desktop-grade ARM chip probably began as early as 2013/2014 given the first T chips intended for use in computers came out with the 2016 models. The T chips were most likely them playing with the idea of bringing some features from the A chips into computers in the most cost efficient way (cos developing purpose built chips would be easier / cheaper than up scaling the A chips to perform at desktop level. A9s were used around 2015).

Once Intel became a non-viable partner then they pulled the trigger and went all in probably around the time mentioned in the article, also 2017 saw the introduction of A11 Bionic with A12 Bionic most likely in the pipeline by that time. Also the last iteration year of the T chip.

So Apple probably started toying with the idea around early / mid 2010s but pulled the trigger around 2017 when they saw that there was potential to scale the A chips.

 

[CWallace]

I want to believe Apple will offer a larger Apple Silicon iMac than 24" - be it 27" 5K or 32" 6K/8K.

And I expect the Apple Silicon CPU/GPU combination for those could be real beasts, composed of scores of cores. While I do not expect to see TDPs like we have now on the 5K iMac (to say nothing of the iMac Pro), Apple could conceivably launch a new 27" 5K redesign for an future Apple Silicon SoC and shipping first with Intel / AMD, but it would have to be using mobile CPUs and GPUs for cooling.

And I think that a new 5K iMac design with the 65W CPUs and 85W GPUs from the 16" MacBook Pro would be a non-starter with pretty much everyone on this forum.

As such, I am inclined to believe the existing form factors will remain for the Intel CPUs to allow for "real" CPUs and GPUs. We will then get a 24" AS iMac later this year with a new design and then next year we will get a larger-screen AS iMac with the same design.

 

[pldelisle]

Hope my soon-exploding MBP will last until the AS iMac then ... lol

 

[FrankySavvy]

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

guess only time will tell but I still think that if Apple has the option of designing a machine that can out perform existing 27 inch Intel iMacs at half the thermal profile it would make no sense for them to design based on the existing Intel thermal requirements.

If we really wanted to get the most out of AMD GPU and Intel CPU on an iMac right now we’d need the iMac Pro level cooling, which means we just simply need a larger chassis since anything smaller than that we’re getting to the balance laptops always need to make which is portability vs performance.

There is a reason why the Surface Studio 2 (MS’s answer to iMacs) runs a mobile chip with a TDP of about 45W. That’s with them putting the burden of cooling the device on the base of the machine, to make a machine as sleek as that they had to relegate to the mobile chipset.

So if that’s the design possibility on a 45W TDP why on earth would Apple design for a 95W TDP (current gen 27 iMac)? The 21.5 which is ever so slightly smaller and slimmer than the 27 is still based on a whopping 65W TDP for the CPU.

For the sake of the AS Mac I hope the redesign is limited to it as it would mean that the design team focused on optimising it for the AS chip rather than having to compromise between AS and Intel.

Performance would be that much better if they put Apple Silicon in a design like a redesigned iMac and the current MacBook Pro Design. Intel fits and works well but Apple Silicon would take it that much further.

There are a few pros to redesigning the Intel iMac.

• Even in the dawn of Apple Silicon, a redesigned Intel iMac will sell, a refreshed Intel iMac not so much.
• When Apple Silicon is put in the redesigned chasis next year, performance will jump and lets be honest that’s a good statistic for year of year performance gains when your trying to promote Apple silicon over Intel!
• Pro users may not be that eager to jump into Apple Silicon until it has proven itself and the 27” iMac is more of a pro user device regardless of the name.

 

[Freida]

The reason would be simple (and I actually explained why).
2013 Mac Pro - it was designed well for thermals etc. but later proved that there was no room to breathe so it was dead end.

So why not let Apple have a little extra room that will be available once they switch? They will design for Intel now and then when they switch, they can make the enclosure thinner but keep the design the same.
Just like they did with iMac before.

in fact, wouldn't RDNA2 allow them to have better thermals? so Intel iMac with RDNA2 would be fine enough and then later with AS they have a little extra to spare for anything they want to play with?

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

guess only time will tell but I still think that if Apple has the option of designing a machine that can out perform existing 27 inch Intel iMacs at half the thermal profile it would make no sense for them to design based on the existing Intel thermal requirements.

If we really wanted to get the most out of AMD GPU and Intel CPU on an iMac right now we’d need the iMac Pro level cooling, which means we just simply need a larger chassis since anything smaller than that we’re getting to the balance laptops always need to make which is portability vs performance.

There is a reason why the Surface Studio 2 (MS’s answer to iMacs) runs a mobile chip with a TDP of about 45W. That’s with them putting the burden of cooling the device on the base of the machine, to make a machine as sleek as that they had to relegate to the mobile chipset.

So if that’s the design possibility on a 45W TDP why on earth would Apple design for a 95W TDP (current gen 27 iMac)? The 21.5 which is ever so slightly smaller and slimmer than the 27 is still based on a whopping 65W TDP for the CPU.

For the sake of the AS Mac I hope the redesign is limited to it as it would mean that the design team focused on optimising it for the AS chip rather than having to compromise between AS and Intel.

 

[xgman]

• Pro users may not be that eager to jump into Apple Silicon until it has proven itself and the 27” iMac is more of a pro user device regardless of the name.

I'm more concerned about the ongoing eviction of third party, and the isolation of the OS, than I am the performance aspect of it. All the speed in the world doesn't help me if my audio projects don't load and plugins don't work. This has been a long time coming, and it isn't surprising at all. Wanna taste of this future, load big sur for a day...

 

[askunk]

Uhm... I am thinking about plan B: moving my work to PC (1st time in my life... how sad ) and waiting for a good mac for the "rest of the stuff" (music, video, mail, web...etc), with the budget I allocated for a top of the line iMac 27".

I would end with a modular machine that can grow and depreciate more slowly (perhaps the Pro line in two/three years will be much more interesting) and an AS Mac that won't abandon me whenever Apple decides to.

I am starting to think that Apple knows they have a huge intel base, but soon or later will push them to upgrade and I don't think it will be the 8 years that usually Apple allows before declaring a Mac obsolete. Federighi dodged the question about how long would Apple support intel with a "sure... years".

If they have already a policy in place (8 years), why would he be embarrassed to answer?

 

[oosamon]

Apple has been saying, "I can do what you can do... better." I hope it isn't about to say, "I can do *most of* what you can do... better." Seems like that would be a step backward. The iPod and iPhone universalized Apple, and when Apple incorporated x86, I gladly transitioned to OS X running Windows when needed. Not sure I want to be forced to play only in Apple's sandbox. It feels like Apple is taking its toys and going home. I get it. I'm sure it makes sense financially for Apple -- and probably for the vast majority of its customers. But I don't like it.

 

[Moonjumper]

Both Apple Silicon and an iMac redesign would have long lead times, with no guarantee they could match up the launches. So Intel may have been designed in as a secondary target, and if it comes to pass, later putting AS in with positive comments about no longer having to throttle. This may have come to pass as we have AS announced and more Intel Macs to come with iMac the most in need of change.

We also don't know what AS chips are going to be in a future iMac. Ampere’s Arm 80-core 3GHz N1 server chip apparently comes in at 210W, which is in the realms of the Intel wattage of an iMac. With a similar total of cores, an AS SoC with a 16 core CPU plus 64 core GPU could be quite a beast. This is only a rough estimate that is leading me to think positive thoughts, which are welcome at this time. Hopefully 2020 will have something positive when we hear about the AS in released Macs.
[automerge]1593193605[/automerge]

Uhm... I am thinking about plan B: moving my work to PC (1st time in my life... how sad ) and waiting for a good mac for the "rest of the stuff" (music, video, mail, web...etc), with the budget I allocated for a top of the line iMac 27".

I would end with a modular machine that can grow and depreciate more slowly (perhaps the Pro line in two/three years will be much more interesting) and an AS Mac that won't abandon me whenever Apple decides to.

I am starting to think that Apple knows they have a huge intel base, but soon or later will push them to upgrade and I don't think it will be the 8 years that usually Apple allows before declaring a Mac obsolete. Federighi dodged the question about how long would Apple support intel with a "sure... years".

If they have already a policy in place (8 years), why would he be embarrassed to answer?

Good luck with a modular PC depreciating slowly. I did that a few times before moving to Macs, and each time they were virtually worthless within months.

I think it is fair not to say how long they will support Intel. I expect it will be based on analytics. Apple will monitor how many people are using Intel to decide.

 

[ssong]

The thing that worries me slightly is that Apple already seems to be going on a contingency plan basis.


The 3 large steps they’ve taken to make the transition smooth seem to be:

1. The DTK and working with certain big name partners early and also actively contributing to OSS to lessen initial burden.

2. Rosetta 2 and what hopefully will be a decent emulation with little loss in performance.

3. Running of iOS and iPadOS apps natively on macOS.

1 is what I would expect but 2 and 3 are the ‘what if devs don’t reciprocate’ scenarios and having a double contingency for that scares me a tad bit.

Like I would need a couple IDEs ported from JetBrains but not sure how likely / how soon that would be...

 

[DrRadon]

I predict civ 6 to be the game on arm. It’s pretty much already on iPad, they just would need to beef it up for desktop and can sell it a third time to people That only bought on steam and iPad so far.

 

[iindigo]

I really hope the Intel iMac bump is both a) as big as rumored and b) coming very soon. I'm in the market right now and would prefer to buy a powerful, but less expensive "bridge machine" like an iMac or iMac Pro, but the current models of both of those don't meet my needs — either would be a downgrade from my current hackintosh in terms of graphics. I need something at least as good as a 5700 XT. eGPUs aren't really an option because they're bottlenecked on TB3, especially with a 5K display.

I'm prepared to buy a Mac Pro tower if it's really necessary, but I'd rather not… even though it's for work, that's a chunky investment to drop on a Mac right before a transition.

A redesign isn't required but would be a great cherry on top.

Like I would need a couple IDEs ported from JetBrains but not sure how likely / how soon that would be...

IntelliJ IDEs are Java-based and both OS and arch-agnostic by nature. ARM JVMs have existed for decades and are nothing new. JetBrains can probably have their IDEs running natively on Apple Silicon with no or almost no changes.

 

[pldelisle]

Like I would need a couple IDEs ported from JetBrains but not sure how likely / how soon that would be...

Totally agree. They run under JVM. So Orcale need first to compile the JVM for ARM macOS, then Jetbrains can start their work.
[automerge]1593196372[/automerge]

I'm prepared to buy a Mac Pro tower if it's really necessary, but I'd rather not… even though it's for work, that's a chunky investment to drop on a Mac right before a transition

If you really, really don't need it, don't do it.

 

[ssong]

IntelliJ IDEs are Java-based and both OS and arch-agnostic by nature. ARM JVMs have existed for decades and are nothing new. JetBrains can probably have their IDEs running natively on Apple Silicon with no or almost no changes.

But will I still be able to cook eggs with my MacBook?

 

[Voyageur]

If you really, really don't need it, don't do it.

Why? It has been less than a year since the release and very, very many people have bought this 2019 Mac Pro because it has been waiting for a very long time. This is a big Pro segment, it will be relevant for a long time, I think.

 

[CWallace]

Even in the dawn of Apple Silicon, a redesigned Intel iMac will sell, a refreshed Intel iMac not so much.

I think a "buy" / "no buy" decision is going to be very strongly influenced on how much your current workflow is wedded to the x86 instruction set outside of macOS.

If it is, then you're more likely to buy based on the Intel CPU inside the 2020 iMac, regardless of design (new would be nice, but in the end, the primary motivator is performance and compatibility, not aesthetics).

If it is not, then I think one might be more likely willing to wait to see what the Apple Silicon model looks like, since we're pretty confident it will look different. And by then, there should be at least a slightly better idea of how an AS iMac will perform with macOS applications (both x86 via Rosetta 2 and native).

My 2017 is still more than acceptable performance for me so I am going to wait first for the new iMac Pro and then for the first AS iMac.

 

[pldelisle]

Why? It has been less than a year since the release and very, very many people have bought this 2019 Mac Pro because it has been waiting for a very long time. This is a big Pro segment, it will be relevant for a long time, I think.

Yeah, but that's over 7000 USD for a machine for base model (on which you obviously upgrade to at least 12 cores / 1 TB SSD / 5700XT / 64 GB RAM, which comes to 10 000 USD). If he doesn't need the amount of power of this, spending 7000 USD just to keep x86 compatibility and something at least as good as a 5700XT isn't the best idea. Pretty sure Apple GPUs will leverage more than a 5700XT in near future.