Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

When do you expect an iMac redesign?

  • 4rd quarter 2019

    Votes: 34 4.1%
  • 1st quarter 2020

    Votes: 23 2.8%
  • 2nd quarter 2020

    Votes: 119 14.5%
  • 3rd quarter 2020

    Votes: 131 15.9%
  • 4rd quarter 2020

    Votes: 172 20.9%
  • 2021 or later

    Votes: 343 41.7%

  • Total voters
    822
  • Poll closed .

JRikk

macrumors newbie
Jul 6, 2020
21
18
Niagara, Ontario
  • Like
Reactions: Moonjumper

Moonjumper

macrumors 68030
Jun 20, 2009
2,746
2,935
Lincoln, UK
A bit dubious of their Mac knowledge after reading the claim in that report that it will be the first time Apple has increased the size of iMac displays. It may be the first time for a few years, but far from the first. My first iMac was 24”, and I now own a 15” G4 iMac (as well as my more current 27”), neither of which are current sizes.
 

AutomaticApple

Suspended
Nov 28, 2018
7,401
3,378
Massachusetts
Hmmm...
Also, this video is worth watching.
 
  • Like
Reactions: andyfavors

CWallace

macrumors G5
Aug 17, 2007
12,528
11,543
Seattle, WA
Anyone else feel it would be somewhat strange for them to offer the same exact chip on both the 23" and the 31.5" models?

To be honest, not really. The high TDPs of the higher-end Intel CPUs and AMD GPUs likely required more internal volume for cooling and combined with their higher unit price to Apple may very well have been the reason they were only in the larger iMac and MacBook Pro models.

I am sure there were plenty of people who preferred the smaller form factor iMac and MBP and would have loved to been able to get a 8/10-core CPU and stronger AMD GPU if it had been offered. So Apple can now cater to both markets by offering performance without compromising on form factor.

My main worry about 31.5" is that this will be a 4K display (as will the 23" model) and not a 5K or 6K display to keep the pricing reasonable.
 
  • Like
Reactions: richinaus

richinaus

macrumors 68020
Oct 26, 2014
2,432
2,186
To be honest, not really. The high TDPs of the higher-end Intel CPUs and AMD GPUs likely required more internal volume for cooling and combined with their higher unit price to Apple may very well have been the reason they were only in the larger iMac and MacBook Pro models.

I am sure there were plenty of people who preferred the smaller form factor iMac and MBP and would have loved to been able to get a 8/10-core CPU and stronger AMD GPU if it had been offered. So Apple can now cater to both markets by offering performance without compromising on form factor.

My main worry about 31.5" is that this will be a 4K display (as will the 23" model) and not a 5K or 6K display to keep the pricing reasonable.
and I am that customer.
 

JRikk

macrumors newbie
Jul 6, 2020
21
18
Niagara, Ontario
To be honest, not really. The high TDPs of the higher-end Intel CPUs and AMD GPUs likely required more internal volume for cooling and combined with their higher unit price to Apple may very well have been the reason they were only in the larger iMac and MacBook Pro models.

I am sure there were plenty of people who preferred the smaller form factor iMac and MBP and would have loved to been able to get a 8/10-core CPU and stronger AMD GPU if it had been offered. So Apple can now cater to both markets by offering performance without compromising on form factor.

My main worry about 31.5" is that this will be a 4K display (as will the 23" model) and not a 5K or 6K display to keep the pricing reasonable.
I guess I never considered the thermal output being the limiting factor. I, too, am the customer who would have preferred the smaller form-factor with the higher performance. I look forward to the 23” with great anticipation.

I also feel like it would be odd for Apple to shift from a 5K 27” model to a 4K 31.5” to balance the price. I feel like they wouldn’t compromise and allow their new machines to be seen as inferior to their Intel predecessors in any manner. Price be damned. “Look at this wonderful new machine! We’re passing the expenses on to you!”

This rings even truer to me with the retirement of the iMac Pro. It’ll likely still be cheaper than that machine was, and may even outperform with what we’re about to get. And... can’t quite afford the top of the line model? Settle for the 23”, and have a happy Apple.
 

UltimateSyn

macrumors 601
Mar 3, 2008
4,970
9,206
Massachusetts
My main worry about 31.5" is that this will be a 4K display (as will the 23" model) and not a 5K or 6K display to keep the pricing reasonable.
0% chance they will increase the size and decrease the resolution. They pretty much always maintain the PPI when increasing the screen size of an existing product, but at the very least it would stay at 5K. 32“ @ 4K would be ~150 PPI and... yeah.... not gonna happen.

Don’t worry, Apple is not afraid to charge you more money :)
 

Moonjumper

macrumors 68030
Jun 20, 2009
2,746
2,935
Lincoln, UK
If it is 31.5”, I wouldn’t be surprised if they use the Pro Display XDR panel, but with much simpler backlighting to bring the costs in line. The XDR page on Apple’s website list reference modes including “Pro Display XDR (P3-1,600 nits)” and “Apple Display (P3-500 nits)”. The iMac could conform to the second of those only.
 

AutomaticApple

Suspended
Nov 28, 2018
7,401
3,378
Massachusetts
I am sure there were plenty of people who preferred the smaller form factor iMac
Yup, that's me! The larger iMac has always been a bit too big for me. :)

Also...
My main worry about 31.5" is that this will be a 4K display (as will the 23" model) and not a 5K or 6K display to keep the pricing reasonable.
I think a 4K display is perfectly fine for most people. It's certainly an upgrade from the 2K displays on most MacBooks.

If they made an 18" or 20" iMac again, I would buy it in a heartbeat.
0% chance they will increase the size and decrease the resolution. They pretty much always maintain the PPI when increasing the screen size of an existing product, but at the very least it would stay at 5K. 32“ @ 4K would be ~150 PPI and... yeah.... not gonna happen.
Do you think it'll still remain 16:9? That's one thing that I hope will stay.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: ascender

CWallace

macrumors G5
Aug 17, 2007
12,528
11,543
Seattle, WA
0% chance they will increase the size and decrease the resolution. They pretty much always maintain the PPI when increasing the screen size of an existing product, but at the very least it would stay at 5K. 32“ @ 4K would be ~150 PPI and... yeah.... not gonna happen.

Don’t worry, Apple is not afraid to charge you more money :)

Oh I know Apple is willing to charge folks, but they still want to have an "entry level" model that is at least generally affordable.

Going from the current iMac 5K at $1999 to $2499 or even $2999 for an iMac 6K is going to sour a fair number of folks. Especially once you add another $200-400 for 16/32GB of RAM and $200-600 for 1TB/2TB of storage.

It is said that the LG panel in the Pro Display XDR is $1500 on it's own and I wonder how much LG can de-content it to make it cheaper. I suppose they could move to MiniLED instead of the current 576-zone LED lighting and as others have noted, it will be much closer to 600 nits than the XDR's 1600 nit peak brightness. There is also the claim Apple will be offering a new Thunderbolt Display and I presume it will use the 31.5" panel in the iMac so production scale between the two could help knock the price down.
 

JRikk

macrumors newbie
Jul 6, 2020
21
18
Niagara, Ontario
There is also the claim Apple will be offering a new Thunderbolt Display and I presume it will use the 31.5" panel in the iMac so production scale between the two could help knock the price down.
I thought the new display was pegged to match the smaller display in the 23” iMac. To me, that makes a little more sense than offering a 31.5” iMac-matched display and a 32” Pro Display XDR—a smaller “consumer” model display, and the larger Pro Display.
 

CWallace

macrumors G5
Aug 17, 2007
12,528
11,543
Seattle, WA
The current iMac 4K and iMac 5K displays have a ~218ppi rating.

If the new "smaller" iMac uses a 23.8" 4K display at 3840*2160 it would have a 185ppi rating. A 31.5" 5K display at 5120x2880 would also have a 187ppi rating. Now technically this is in the "bad zone" because it is below 200ppi, but considering it is a larger display and you would likely be sitting a bit farther back, it might still be considered "retina" especially with MiniLED backlighting offering higher peak brightness and better contrast than the current iMac 4K and 5K displays.

And best of all (for me, at least), it would mean you could use a 1920x1080 or 2560x1440 display as a secondary display and it would have the same effective resolution so no window resizing or other shenanigans.
 

CWallace

macrumors G5
Aug 17, 2007
12,528
11,543
Seattle, WA
I thought the new display was pegged to match the smaller display in the 23” iMac. To me, that makes a little more sense than offering a 31.5” iMac-matched display and a 32” Pro Display XDR—a smaller “consumer” model display, and the larger Pro Display.

Aye that does make sense.

Or maybe it will be the Cinema Display glory days again and we will have a 23.8" and a 31.5" model. :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: JRikk

loybond

macrumors 6502a
Aug 1, 2010
856
631
The True North, Strong and Free
My main worry about 31.5" is that this will be a 4K display (as will the 23" model) and not a 5K or 6K display to keep the pricing reasonable.
I think that's highly unlikely, nearly impossible. Apple has moved to retina/hidpi displays for all their products. Every time they had a different ppi, like on the ipad, they had to explain why it works for that device. So the 4k and 5k imacs having the same ppi as the ipad, going to a 4k 31.5" would be a super low pixel density, and wouldn't be what apple could call "retina."

They wouldn't go backwards, or cheaper lol, only better and more expensive, which personally I'm fine with.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ignatius345

The WOPR

macrumors newbie
Aug 26, 2013
26
8
I just bought an M1 mini and a 32 inch LG Ultrafine 4k screen... Of course they are now going to release a new iMac...
bogdanoff-he-bought-dump-it.jpg
 

Traverse

macrumors 604
Mar 11, 2013
7,711
4,491
Here
I'm finding myself torn on what storage to get. Currently, the upgrade to 8TB costs $2,600 on the new iMac and I use my iMac as a media server as well. I know 8TB SSD from Apple to store media is beyond excessive, but I don't love my current solution where I use the 12 South backpack and keep an external SSD permanently mounted to my computer.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.