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

[Manfredi]

i really hope for a complete redesign of imac but hey...! hav you look to the news MBP 13"?
how many of us would have bet for a 14" display...???
and nothing happened.... so i'm so worry about new iMac. I really hope not to be disappointed....

 

[pldelisle]

Ahah yeah I think the 14-inch form factor was pure speculation based on the 16 inch macbook pro. At least it got the new keyboard and 10th gen 10nm CPU which has a good IPC boost.

 

[sublunar]

While Wifi6 is implemented by default I think in the 10th gen Intel PCH, I don't think Apple ever used Intel wifi. I always seen Broadcom chips. That would explain why.

Agree with Mini-LED. The next complete redesign is coming once this kind of display meets Retina standard and color quality. But what's Apple just need to do is to make an iMac with all-flash storage, use T2 chip, and not push 9th gen, but 10th gen CPU. Problem is, 10th Gen CPUs consume an insane amount of power. And while they could use iMac Pro cooling system, this implies a complete redesign of iMac's internals for what ... a generation, maybe two before switching to Apple A-chip...

And this is where Apple will have taken a look at where the Comet Lake S top SKUs suddenly become space heaters as they chase AMD with thread count. It would be difficult enough to cope with under the existing cooling regime but for the fact that a redesign was long overdue - even with the iMac Pro case and cooling scheme available.

My solution is to do the redesign but make the whole thing thinner and use Comet Lake H, allowing for a superior cooling system to enable 'Pro Mode' and turbo boost for longer periods. It just kills many birds with one stone.

But the current iMac has room to either stick around with 8th Gen Coffee Lake CPUs and bump spec elsewhere or do the mildest of upgrades by throwing in 9th Gen Coffee Lake Refresh CPUs if Apple decide to put a redesign 'on hold'.

Going all SSD is going to cost a lot of money - perhaps best done when miniLED is ready and make it a super-cycle upgrade - and Apple will have to manage the parts budget to make sure they have a compelling budget that isn't too deep into iMac Pro territory.

 

[Moonjumper]

Is going all SSD really going to cost a lot of money? They have doubled the SSD size (and sometimes RAM as well) on a lot of the other refreshed models without a price increase. That likely points to it being affordable now for the iMac.

 

[craigrusse11]

Many people have rightly assumed that a 23" iMac would use the 23.7" display from the 4K LG Ultrafine. If Apple did this, it would require a larger chassis and a drop in PPI.
However, i had an idea; what if the 23" display was not 16:9 but changed to 16:10? Well, it just so happens that a 23" 16:10 display would fit perfectly inside the 4K chassis without changing at all, thanks to the bezels and chin. I think for most people using an iMac for work, the extra screen height would be more welcome that screen width?

 

[Martius]

The thing with the redesigned iMac is that I'm really worried that they will remove the user-accessible RAM slots. So we might get SSD in the base configurations, but we will have to pay for more RAM, which is like 3x more than you have to pay to install it by yourself.

So to be honest, I wish the upgrade will be just a spec bump.

 

[sublunar]

Ahah yeah I think the 14-inch form factor was pure speculation based on the 16 inch macbook pro. At least it got the new keyboard and 10th gen 10nm CPU which has a good IPC boost.

I think the Magic keyboard was the number one driver here and the mini LED displays have been delayed.
[automerge]1588609321[/automerge]

The thing with the redesigned iMac is that I'm really worried that they will remove the user-accessible RAM slots. So we might get SSD in the base configurations, but we will have to pay for more RAM, which is like 3x more than you have to pay to install it by yourself.

So to be honest, I wish the upgrade will be just a spec bump.

Base RAM appears to be creeping up towards 16Gb (see the Touch Bar MacBook Pros) so most users might be alright for RAM for some time to come. If you look at the 21.5" iMac the 8Gb base RAM and HDD/Fusion drives are a major sticking point but it's got the price point that will serve as the entry level.

 

[sublunar]

Is going all SSD really going to cost a lot of money? They have doubled the SSD size (and sometimes RAM as well) on a lot of the other refreshed models without a price increase. That likely points to it being affordable now for the iMac.

Storage doubling seems to be a given for the last few refreshes now - this has to be due to a reduction in costs and Apple's buying power. The only question mark over the iMacs will involve the total storage available and expectation from iMac buyers who expect 1Tb of storage. 1Tb of SSD costs a lot more than a 1Tb HDD and that isn't even an official option on the base non 4k 21.5" SKU.

Apple could double RAM across the board for the iMac but don't appear to have done that for the non Touch Bar Macook Pro.

There is also concern that they don't appear to have upgraded the CPU on the non Touch Bar Mac and the 21.5" iMac doesn't appear to have as long a BTO delay as the 27" iMac has.

 

[pldelisle]

Putting all-flash storage would trigger the need of a T2 chip (since all models with flash storage now runs on T2 chip).

Implementing T2 chip means a complete motherboard redesign.

A complet motherboard redesign means you won't do this for only one model. You'll likely do it for both iMac 21.5" and 27". So likely all models will now run on Intel 10th gen CPU. For the 21.5", Apple doesn't have much room for the cooling system, so it will likely use Comet Lake CPUs with 65w max TDP : 10400 baseline, 10500, 10600, 10700 in top of the line 21.5". In 27", there is room for more, so 10600K, 10700K, 10900K are likely to be used. Not the KF since large part of Apple software requires QuickSync which is accelerated by the IGP.

Since this is a big change, you'll want to consider AMD's latest offering. So likely we will see appear something like Radeon Pro 5300, 5400, 5500, 5700 across the lineup (my two cents).

Having all this new hardware would also implies more cooling, possibly the iMac Pro design. There will be no more space for a SATA HDD anymore, thus meaning it's going to be all flash. I wouldn't bet on the RAM upgradability for the 27" since the iMac Pro design doesn't allow it.

For the screen and design ... I think it's the last worry of Apple. Maybe if we are lucky they will change it, but I think they are waiting for ARM chip + Mini-LED display to make a completely new design. Except the bezels, the iMac still looks good.

 

[Moonjumper]

There is also concern that they don't appear to have upgraded the CPU on the non Touch Bar Mac and the 21.5" iMac doesn't appear to have as long a BTO delay as the 27" iMac has.

Do you mean the lower spec 13" MacBook Pros? All MBP have had a touch bar for a while, but the two lower 13" machines do indeed appear to have the same processors when comparing to before today's refresh according to the Wayback Machine.
[automerge]1588611856[/automerge]

Putting all-flash storage would trigger the need of a T2 chip (since all models with flash storage now runs on T2 chip).

Implementing T2 chip means a complete motherboard redesign.

A complet motherboard redesign means you won't do this for only one model. You'll likely do it for both iMac 21.5" and 27". So likely all models will now run on Intel 10th gen CPU. For the 21.5", Apple doesn't have much room for the cooling system, so it will likely use Comet Lake CPUs with 65w max TDP : 10400 baseline, 10500, 10600, 10700 in top of the line 21.5". In 27", there is room for more, so 10600K, 10700K, 10900K are likely to be used. Not the KF since large part of Apple software requires QuickSync which is accelerated by the IGP.

Since this is a big change, you'll want to consider AMD's latest offering. So likely we will see appear something like Radeon Pro 5300, 5400, 5500, 5700 across the lineup (my two cents).

Having all this new hardware would also implies more cooling, possibly the iMac Pro design. There will be no more space for a SATA HDD anymore, thus meaning it's going to be all flash. I wouldn't bet on the RAM upgradability for the 27" since the iMac Pro design doesn't allow it.

For the screen and design ... I think it's the last worry of Apple. Maybe if we are lucky they will change it, but I think they are waiting for ARM chip + Mini-LED display to make a completely new design.

I agree, but I think it will be T2 triggering the need for all-SSD. I think there will be changes to macOS once the entire Mac lineup has T2 (or T3, or whatever), so Apple will want to make that happen as soon as possible.

 

[pldelisle]

I agree, but I think it will be T2 triggering the need for all-SSD. I think there will be changes to macOS once the entire Mac lineup has T2 (or T3, or whatever), so Apple will want to make that happen as soon as possible.

Yeah maybe something coming in macOS 10.16

 

[FrankySavvy]

*nods.

I think the 'hope' is the fact that the iMac hasn't been released yet means something other than a spec bump.

But looking at the rest of what's been released this year what I've typed doesn't make much sense.

i10s, SSDs as standard with 16 gigs of ram on all 27 inch models would be welcome spec boosts.

But it's crumbs of comfort. I expect more than evolution. The iMac was supposed to be about innovation and design. It's grimly hanging onto those thick bezels and design that has been far eclipsed by the MS desktop Studio.

The 'Mac' romantic in me (or what's left of it) is looking towards WWDC. *fingers and toes crossed.

Azrael.

I will only buy if there is a redesign. I have my 16” Macbook Pro and external display so I am in no rush.

 

[Azrael9]

I will only buy if there is a redesign. I have my 16” Macbook Pro and external display so I am in no rush.

Fair enough. You're right to do so. The Macbook 16 inch will serve you well enough. There's little reason to reward Apple with an iMac as a 2nd computer purchase right now.

If all potential iMac buyers did that it may force Apple to actually do some design work. If people keep buying it there is less incentive for Apple to design better. They have really stretched out the current design and it's hardly because they have perfected the A.I.O design.

Eg. Blue plastic cogs for the tilt that fails if you adjust too much, cooling that isn't the best and has a better system in the iMac Pro, inadequate design to put bolder performance components in. 6 core i5s and the current gpus are very mediocre for the price charged. Those thick bezels. SSD vs Fusion drives. Choice of 3 monitor design sizes eg. 23, 27 and 32 would be 'nice.' Or a monitor that can vertically portrait like on the Mac Pro display? And the sound on the current model could be far better. I didn't think it was an improvement on the previous design. In fact, I preferred the previous enclosure which was thicker...sure the thinner edges look ok but it's deceptive as the whole back isn't that think...just the edges. I'm game for making it thicker if they can put superior GPUs in it. My gpu fried after 'moderate' use of playing an old 2004 game. Hardly stress testing. So superior iMac Pro cooling, yes. In fact, the latest Mac Pro display looks to have the right overall thickness. Give me a £3k 6k iMac at 32 inches. I remember being pleasantly surprised when Apple came out with the 5k iMac for around £2k that boasted Dell charge you more and have no computer. That's the Apple I want to see.

There's lots of love that could be given to the iMac design, spec and innovation wise.

Azrael.

 

[CWallace]

The MacBook Pro 13" didn't go 14", some models didn't even go 10th Gen for Intel and none of them appear to have Wifi 6.

It might be that the graphics grunt just wasn't there to power what would have been a higher resolution Retina display, they might be waiting for a super-update next year in the shape of Rocket Lake U.

Since the lower-spec configs are still on 8th Generation CPUs, I expect Apple did not make any updates to the systemboard which means they are still on the older Alpine Ridge TB3 controller which cannot drive a Pro XDR Display at 6K (only 5K) due to only supporting DisplayPort 1.2.

The higher-end models that received 10th Generation CPUs likely have a new systemboard and the TB3 controller would have been updated to the newer Titan Ridge which can drive a Pro XDR Display at 6K thanks to supporting DisplayPort 1.4.

 

[pldelisle]

Since the lower-spec configs are still on 8th Generation CPUs, I expect Apple did not make any updates to the systemboard which means they are still on the older Alpine Ridge TB3 controller which cannot drive a Pro XDR Display at 6K (only 5K) due to only supporting DisplayPort 1.2.

The higher-end models that received 10th Generation CPUs likely have a new systemboard and the TB3 controller would have been updated to the newer Titan Ridge which can drive a Pro XDR Display at 6K thanks to supporting DisplayPort 1.4.

The 10th gen based MacBook Pro 13 is compatible with the Pro Display XDR at full 6K yeah. So it means it had a board redesign
Sad that the iMac Pro still cannot drive the Pro XDR at full resolution It clearly needs an update.

 

[sublunar]

I agree, but I think it will be T2 triggering the need for all-SSD. I think there will be changes to macOS once the entire Mac lineup has T2 (or T3, or whatever), so Apple will want to make that happen as soon as possible.

Yeah maybe something which is coming in macOS 10.16

It's more like a built in limit so that Apple can declare, in 5 years time, that the current macOS of the day requires a T1/T2 CPU (ie as old as the 2016 MacBook Pro but more relevantly, they can say it requires a 2020 iMac).

They will then support the last working macOS that works on non T1/T2 equipped Macs for two further years if you take their current custom into consideration so in effect directly supporting the 2019 iMac until 2024/2025 before ending security patches in 2026/2027.

It will effectively end Hackintosh.

The other thing that T2 CPU in an iMac could do is allow Apple to use F series Comet Lake S CPUs - that is, CPUs that have a failed GPU, because the iMacs would have discrete GPUs.

It's the same thing that allows Apple to use Xeon W CPUs in the iMac Pro - no iGPU but Quicksync is hived off to the T2 which also works as the storage controller and Secure Enclave.

Intel would have a ready supply of these as Apple would no longer need Quicksync and would switch to the cheaper parts to help with the bottom line. Assuming they were still wanting to stick with desktop CPUs in the iMac line.

One other point comes to mind here. If Apple actually went with the Comet Lake H series CPUs in a future iMac they would retain the iGPU as Intel don't offer F series mobile parts.

The point here is that Apple save power in MacBook Pro 15" and 16" variants by running with the iGPU only until something in the system demands more computing grunt from the dGPU. It then fires up. Now, that would be a method of reducing overall system heat and noise in a thinner iMac - if a user who isn't using additional displays and is only browsing Safari. The dGPU goes to sleep and you have a quieter system.

On the other hand, if you're firing up Final Cut Pro, or Photoshop, or a game(!) the dGPU springs into action and the fans can start thinking about spinning up if the user gets intense.

And Pro Mode is the other side of that coin - if you're caning the CPU as well you can turn up the fans to favour performance over quiet.

So in effect we have a MacBook Pro on the desktop...

 

[pldelisle]

It's more like a built in limit so that Apple can declare, in 5 years time, that the current macOS of the day requires a T1/T2 CPU (ie as old as the 2016 MacBook Pro but more relevantly, they can say it requires a 2020 iMac).

They will then support the last working macOS that works on non T1/T2 equipped Macs for two further years if you take their current custom into consideration so in effect directly supporting the 2019 iMac until 2024/2025 before ending security patches in 2026/2027.

It will effectively end Hackintosh.

The other thing that T2 CPU in an iMac could do is allow Apple to use F series Comet Lake S CPUs - that is, CPUs that have a failed GPU, because the iMacs would have discrete GPUs.

It's the same thing that allows Apple to use Xeon W CPUs in the iMac Pro - no iGPU but Quicksync is hived off to the T2 which also works as the storage controller and Secure Enclave.

Intel would have a ready supply of these as Apple would no longer need Quicksync and would switch to the cheaper parts to help with the bottom line. Assuming they were still wanting to stick with desktop CPUs in the iMac line.

One other point comes to mind here. If Apple actually went with the Comet Lake H series CPUs in a future iMac they would retain the iGPU as Intel don't offer F series mobile parts.

The point here is that Apple save power in MacBook Pro 15" and 16" variants by running with the iGPU only until something in the system demands more computing grunt from the dGPU. It then fires up. Now, that would be a method of reducing overall system heat and noise in a thinner iMac - if a user who isn't using additional displays and is only browsing Safari. The dGPU goes to sleep and you have a quieter system.

On the other hand, if you're firing up Final Cut Pro, or Photoshop, or a game(!) the dGPU springs into action and the fans can start thinking about spinning up if the user gets intense.

And Pro Mode is the other side of that coin - if you're caning the CPU as well you can turn up the fans to favour performance over quiet.

So in effect we have a MacBook Pro on the desktop...

That's quite true in fact ! But I doubt Apple would use chips without iGPU. As you said, it's more likely that Apple include a software trick like on the MacBook Pro for GPU switching on the fly. This would decrease substantially the power requirement of the iMac, making it "greener" and "cheaper to run". Marketing wise, this is a win. Is it going to happen ? That's another question. As an engineer I would do it, but this has been the case in MacBook Pro since at least the Retina 2012 and we still didn't see this arrive on any desktop Mac, not even the 2017 iMac Pro which internals were built from scratch.

 

[Tekguy0]

That's quite true in fact ! But I doubt Apple would use chips without iGPU. As you said, it's more likely that Apple include a software trick like on the MacBook Pro for GPU switching on the fly. This would decrease substantially the power requirement of the iMac, making it "greener" and "cheaper to run". Marketing wise, this is a win. Is it going to happen ? That's another question. As an engineer I would do it, but this has been the case in MacBook Pro since at least the Retina 2012 and we still didn't see this arrive on any desktop Mac, not even the 2017 iMac Pro which internals were built from scratch.

A switchable GPU has been standard since ~2008. It seems stupid that this hasn't been added to the iMac, or any mac with an iGPU and a dGPU.

 

[sublunar]

Since the lower-spec configs are still on 8th Generation CPUs, I expect Apple did not make any updates to the systemboard which means they are still on the older Alpine Ridge TB3 controller which cannot drive a Pro XDR Display at 6K (only 5K) due to only supporting DisplayPort 1.2.

The higher-end models that received 10th Generation CPUs likely have a new systemboard and the TB3 controller would have been updated to the newer Titan Ridge which can drive a Pro XDR Display at 6K thanks to supporting DisplayPort 1.4.

13" MacBook Pro with 4 Thunderbolt 3 ports is mentioned - and that excludes the non Touch Bar MacBook Pro.

Apple appear to have doubled the storage on all the 13" models while the Touch Bar ones got 10th generation CPUs while getting RAM doubled to 16Gb as well.

If Apple were applying this thinking to the iMac range we could see the iMac 21.5" get a spec bump while the 27" iMac gets some sort of bigger update - potentially with Comet Lake CPUs, T2, SSD only, more RAM? etc.

If the 27" gets a 'proper' update then I could see 16Gb RAM and 512Gb SSD being base spec - highly usable - but with a danger of locking the RAM access slot away if cooling is an issue.

The projected BTO dates support this as well so could we be seeing the 2020 iMac range being split like the MacBook Pro 13"? The forthcoming 23" iMac Air could then replace the 21.5" iMac later in the year.

 

[pldelisle]

A switchable GPU has been standard since ~2008. It seems stupid that this hasn't been added to the iMac, or any mac with an iGPU and a dGPU.

True. The software and hardware implementation is now very, very mature too. This is very strange we haven't seen this already in desktop Mac.

13" MacBook Pro with 4 Thunderbolt 3 ports is mentioned - and that excludes the non Touch Bar MacBook Pro.

Apple appear to have doubled the storage on all the 13" models while the Touch Bar ones got 10th generation CPUs while getting RAM doubled to 16Gb as well.

If Apple were applying this thinking to the iMac range we could see the iMac 21.5" get a spec bump while the 27" iMac gets some sort of bigger update - potentially with Comet Lake CPUs, T2, SSD only etc.

The projected BTO dates support this as well so we could be seeing the 2020 iMac range being split like the MacBook Pro 13"? The forthcoming 23" iMac Air could then replace the 21.5" iMac later in the year.

Yeah maybe. That's plausible too, but I'd rather prefer no redesign and serious internal upgrades across the entire lineup than a partial upgrade on the bigger iMac only.

And I think Apple is waiting for RDNA2 for iMac Pro upgrade. RDNA2 is expected late this year, something like October of even November, just before Christmas. Upgrading the CPU and platform while still offering Vega GPUs because it's still the top end of AMD 3 years after product creation is a bit of a fail. Apple won't release something with less FLOPS 3 years after. This is a total non-sense. But Vega 56/64 is still the GPU at AMD that has the most FLOPS. Even the W5700X doesn't surpass Vega. RDNA NAVI 10 is good for iMac 27" line up and maybe top tier 21" iMac, but certainly not the iMac Pro.

 

[snow755]

I would not get too excited about the all new iMac if what we saw with the new MacBook pro today with the 8th gen only getting the new keyboard upgrade and the higher in space only getting the 10th gen intel oh noes what apple will do with the iMac they may give the 27" model the 10th gen intel and new look and only give the 21.5" or the new 23" iMac a new look and keep it on the 8th gen intel


with what we saw with the new MacBook Pros today when we where forecast to get a new 14" MacBook pro wish did not happen I don't think we will see a new 23" iMac at this point

 

[Moonjumper]

13" MacBook Pro with 4 Thunderbolt 3 ports is mentioned - and that excludes the non Touch Bar MacBook Pro.

That's the second time you've mentioned non Touch Bar MacBook Pros. I'm even more puzzled now as I pointed out last time that all MacBook Pros have touch bars. What model are you talking about?

 

[sublunar]

And I think Apple is waiting for RDNA2 for iMac Pro upgrade. RDNA2 is expected late this year, something like October of even November, just before Christmas. Upgrading the CPU and platform while still offering Vega GPUs because it's still the top end of AMD 3 years after product creation is a bit of a fail. Apple won't release something with less FLOPS 3 years after. This is a total non-sense. But Vega 56/64 is still the GPU at AMD that has the most FLOPS.

VEGA56 is being discontinued (see the Blackmagic eGPU story) in favour of RDNA (ie the 5x00 series currently on sale now). This alone may force Apple's hand with the iMac Pro, but if it also affects the Pro Vega 48 BTO SKU in the top iMac 27" there's impetus there to refresh both of the big iMacs if they are about to lose one of their main components).

Apple won't wait for RNDA2 even though it's a supposedly much better performing because of the uncertainty this year. It sounds like a more likely candidate for a 2021 super-cycle update with mini LED panels all round and getting in early risks a higher price for these parts.

That's the second time you've mentioned non Touch Bar MacBook Pros. I'm even more puzzled now as I pointed out last time that all MacBook Pros have touch bars. What model are you talking about?

Fair enough, I haven't really paid attention to the 15w MBPs (which I'll endeavour to call them from now), the 28w MBPs seem better value with 2 extra Thunderbolt 3 ports and higher stock specs.

But it'll be interesting to see how they stand up against A14 and A14X powered iPad Pros.

 

[CWallace]

Sad that the iMac Pro still cannot drive the Pro XDR at full resolution It clearly needs an update.

Rumors say that is coming by end-of-year.

 

[pldelisle]

VEGA56 is being discontinued (see the Blackmagic eGPU story) in favour of RDNA (ie the 5x00 series currently on sale now). This alone may force Apple's hand with the iMac Pro, but if it also affects the Pro Vega 48 BTO SKU in the top iMac 27" there's impetus there to refresh both of the big iMacs if they are about to lose one of their main components).

Apple won't wait for RNDA2 even though it's a supposedly much better performing because of the uncertainty this year. It sounds like a more likely candidate for a 2021 super-cycle update with mini LED panels all round and getting in early risks a higher price for these parts.

It's getting discontinued probably because Samsung and GlobalFoundries are abandoning 14nm process node and moving toward 7nm fabrication process.

But for a marketing point of view, current iMac Pro with Vega 64 does 24 TFLOPs Half, 12 TFLOPs single precision. Because 14nm Vega 48/56/64 are discontinued, that means only two GPUs can be put in iMac Pro : Radeon Pro Vega II released end of last year with Mac Pro, still on CGN5.0 but on 7nm fabrication process and does 28 TFLOPS half, 14 TFLOPs Single precision (actually a small increase over actual Vega), and W5700X which does 18.9 TFLOPs Half, 9.4 TFLOPS single precision, an actual decrease from Vega 64 while being newer generation (plus it only does 448 GB/s memory bandwidth vs the currently advertised 512 GB/s of Vega 64). Plus, don't expect a Radeon Pro Vega II in an iMac Pro, the TDP is 475w which is way too high for the iMac Pro. This leaves us with only the W5700/W5700X which are 205/240w TDP, right in range for the iMac Pro. I don't know for you, but for me, it's a bit strange for marketing to try to sell a second generation of iMac Pro with lower specs... There is no other offering at AMD for now. And supporting two generations of a GPU in an iMac Pro which GPU is soldered on board and requires different hardware implementation is a non sense. iMac Pro can only have one GPU architecture in it.

That's why I think the iMac Pro won't be renewed until at least November this year with RDNA2.0 GPUs.