Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Will there ever be a new large iMac (Pro)?
- Thread starter krazzix
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Was that ever in doubt? I thought it was a given that the iPad Pro's A14X would have 8 CPUs and 8 GPUs just like the M1. It is also why many are speculating the A14X will also have a Thunderbolt controller so TB components can be used with the 2021 iPad Pro.
I think calling the 24" iMac a "low-end" computer just because it does not have a Class One dGPU would be a mistake. The M1's GPU is optimized for macOS and Metal and therefore has much better "performance per watt" then AMD's GPUs just as the CPU has much better PPW than Intel.
The caveat, of course, being M1 is a low-watt design so that limits it's top-end. But M1X won't have to be - at least in iMacs (and compared to the 14" and 16" MBP) so it could be a fair bit better than M1. And it only has to be good under macOS and Metal. Windows is irrelevant and I expect a fair number of 5700XT buyers went with that option for Windows (under BootCamp), not macOS.
Speaking only for myself, GPU performance in macOS is of very low-priority and if it was paired with the current 27" 5K display, I would buy an M1 iMac with just 7 GPU cores in a heartbeat. Last year when I was considering a 2020 iMac, I wish I could get the i7 with a 5300 because the base 5500XT was overkill for my needs and I didn't want to pay $500 for a 10-core i9 furnace (though to be honest the 6-core i5 likely would have been okay).
If the 24" does ship with M1 at 8 CPU cores and 8 GPU cores and there is no 27-32" model also announced, then I think the 24" will be the only iMac model and "big brother" will be an iMac Pro with a 6K MiniLED display starting at twice the price (~$3999 vs. ~$1999) with more CPU cores (12-16) and more GPU cores (16+), 32GB of RAM and 1TB of SSD.
Last edited:
That would be a massive "F*** you" coming from Apple for those of us with 16" MBPs who've been waiting months (if not years) for a redesigned 24" iMac with Apple Silicon geared towards professionals. It doesn't make sense to me.
Do you think the rest of the models would be refreshed at WWDC (or even later in the year for that matter)? That would seem like yet another huge middle finger from Apple for those who couldn't hold out any longer and jump on the lowest base model.
The M1 chip in the MacBook Air is quite powerful compared to its Intel counterpart. I don't know why even that wouldn't be "powerful enough" for most professionals.
I really hope they do that. Don't screw over your customers! ?
Ah, okay. Thank you for clarifying. That makes more sense.
I hope they kill off the other configurations then. ?
I cannot wait any longer! My patience is nearly gone!
Also, how come nobody has noticed this in inspect element yet?
Also, just for good measure, here's a random image!
Last edited:
What am I seeing? I don't know what you are referring to. Can you please clarify?
Well, sure its powerful if you compare it to perf. per watt but that is irrelevant here for those that need GPU power.
Sure its faster than Intel offering etc. but its still nowhere near to mid range AMD or Nvidia offering and that is what some of us need.
I got the 2020 iMac to test out last year but decided not to keep it. It was just not the right thing for me and when I saw the M1 I realised it was the right call. M1 is low end chip and its very powerful so I just want to see what Apple has in store for professionals that want/need more power.
Either in form of M1X or M2 or however they do it. M1 is basically A14X so M1X is where the interest is.
I doubt we will see M1X tomorrow.
I think all will be at WWDC as its the perfect follow up from last year.
Sure its faster than Intel offering etc. but its still nowhere near to mid range AMD or Nvidia offering and that is what some of us need.
I got the 2020 iMac to test out last year but decided not to keep it. It was just not the right thing for me and when I saw the M1 I realised it was the right call. M1 is low end chip and its very powerful so I just want to see what Apple has in store for professionals that want/need more power.
Either in form of M1X or M2 or however they do it. M1 is basically A14X so M1X is where the interest is.
I doubt we will see M1X tomorrow.
I think all will be at WWDC as its the perfect follow up from last year.
I understand your reasoning here but it seems crazy they would leave that large of a gap in affordability between a 24" (quite small display) and its "big brother" with a price tag out of reach for the majority of the consumer market.
I get your point, but again, it's not like apple has a perfect track record of saying one thing and never doing it. Do tablets and styluses ring a bell? I honestly think it's inevitable for them to either merge OS or create a hybrid device. m1 is just the first step and Apple will also take functionality into the design if they release an iMac with a touchscreen.Can people stop with the touchscreen nonsense? Touchscreen for Mac is not happening and won't happen for a long time (or unless Apple completely changes the format of the device).
So unless iMac can go flat on a table then its not touchscreen.
These silly requests always irritate me (even though it shouldn't)
Touch screen on a mac = awful idea
I just find it funny how on one hand, people can hype up the touch screen experience of an iPad and iPhone at the same time downplay with laptop experience with a touchscreen. While they are different products, there's a tremendous amount of overlap in use.
I wasn't talking about Apple's claim, I was talking in general. Ok, I know what you are referring to but the stylus was in relationship to iPhone.
Touch is not happening until Apple makes a device that will go to flat surface. iMac (in this case) would need to be able to have a stand that would allow you to drop the monitor to be flat (or almost flat) - maybe like the studio.
Otherwise its not happening ever. Why? Damn, try to use your hand in the air for a bit and you will find out soon enough.
I find it funny that people keep bringing this up without even thinking about it. Its like they want a feature they think its cool but if they would actually get it they would complain that its useless or they would not use it.
Any sensible person, that knows anything about ergonomics, knows that you just simply can't have touchscreen on the form factor we have now. Its borderline stupid!
Just because I can merge 2 products together doesn't mean I get better product or better experience.
Just like Jobs said: "People have no idea what they want" and this is so true here.
BUT, lets take the stupidity of this never ending topic coming up and lets just consider the implication.
Ok, you are an artist that can benefit from touchscreen input as you draw etc. So, you buy an iMac that can also fold flat to be used as a tablet style thing.
Now, you setup your desk as ergonomic so you have the right screen height, angle on your wrist, elbow, knees etc. You make sure you are setup correctly because health is the most important thing when working long hours and ergonomics can literally break you if you do it wrong.
Ok, so you have that all setup and you do emails, check things on the net etc. and then you get a task to draw something so now you put your screen down and start adjusting your ergonomics AGAIN! Removing keyboard out the way etc. just so that the screen is in the right position, keyboard and mouse is not in the way etc.
All this nonsense just so that you can have 2 devices in one? Really?
Sorry, but no. Its not a good idea and it will most likely NEVER be!
In the example above is far more convenient to have either wacom screen tablet on a side and do it there (like most artists in studios) or you have a separate iPad which is setup in an ergonomic way and it doesn't slow your workflow.
Messing around the table all the time is just a compromise that is frankly not needed.
So, yeah, I find it funny that people still desire this insane idea.
Sorry but not sorry. :-D
Touch is not happening until Apple makes a device that will go to flat surface. iMac (in this case) would need to be able to have a stand that would allow you to drop the monitor to be flat (or almost flat) - maybe like the studio.
Otherwise its not happening ever. Why? Damn, try to use your hand in the air for a bit and you will find out soon enough.
I find it funny that people keep bringing this up without even thinking about it. Its like they want a feature they think its cool but if they would actually get it they would complain that its useless or they would not use it.
Any sensible person, that knows anything about ergonomics, knows that you just simply can't have touchscreen on the form factor we have now. Its borderline stupid!
Just because I can merge 2 products together doesn't mean I get better product or better experience.
Just like Jobs said: "People have no idea what they want" and this is so true here.
BUT, lets take the stupidity of this never ending topic coming up and lets just consider the implication.
Ok, you are an artist that can benefit from touchscreen input as you draw etc. So, you buy an iMac that can also fold flat to be used as a tablet style thing.
Now, you setup your desk as ergonomic so you have the right screen height, angle on your wrist, elbow, knees etc. You make sure you are setup correctly because health is the most important thing when working long hours and ergonomics can literally break you if you do it wrong.
Ok, so you have that all setup and you do emails, check things on the net etc. and then you get a task to draw something so now you put your screen down and start adjusting your ergonomics AGAIN! Removing keyboard out the way etc. just so that the screen is in the right position, keyboard and mouse is not in the way etc.
All this nonsense just so that you can have 2 devices in one? Really?
Sorry, but no. Its not a good idea and it will most likely NEVER be!
In the example above is far more convenient to have either wacom screen tablet on a side and do it there (like most artists in studios) or you have a separate iPad which is setup in an ergonomic way and it doesn't slow your workflow.
Messing around the table all the time is just a compromise that is frankly not needed.
So, yeah, I find it funny that people still desire this insane idea.
Sorry but not sorry. :-D
Mac OS wants to set my 4k 32 inch screen to 1920x1080... So it may set scaling automatically, but that doesn't mean it's any good at it. edit: for good measure, here are screenshots.
Attachments
Going from 21.5" to 24" would be an increase of almost 12%. And a 24" display is 11% smaller than a 27". So Apple would effectively be "splitting the difference" between the 21.5" and the 27" with this new model.
I also could see 32" generally appealing to the "power user / prosumer / professional" market who will want lots of CPU and GPU performance, plenty of RAM and plenty of SSD storage and know that with Apple, they will pay significantly for it. So by making it an "iMac Pro" they differentiate it in the Mac marketplace and (better) justify the much higher price. And the Mac marketplace would already expect a 32" 6K iMac to be expensive at 32" because the 32" 6K Pro Display XDR is expensive and one can only "de-content" that panel so much.
The price Apple is said to pay for the panel is almost as much as the entry-level iMac 5K's retail price so it's just not possible for Apple to make a 32" iMac for $1999 unless they go with a consumer 4K panel and that will be a significant drop in image quality as it will not be anywhere near Retina. If people want an "inexpensive" 32" Mac, they can buy a Mac mini and one of those 32" consumer 4K displays.
Maybe the question is 'will a redesigned iMac arrive in 2021, and be available to purchase (in volume) in 2021'.
A local bike shop asked me, when I walked in the door, if I was looking for a new bike. I was cagey, and asked 'Why?' Oh, we don't have any bikes, and aren't likely to get any until fall, if at all this year.
Chip shortages, bike shortages, 'x' shortages, things just seem to be going sideways from the pandemic. *sigh*
A local bike shop asked me, when I walked in the door, if I was looking for a new bike. I was cagey, and asked 'Why?' Oh, we don't have any bikes, and aren't likely to get any until fall, if at all this year.
Chip shortages, bike shortages, 'x' shortages, things just seem to be going sideways from the pandemic. *sigh*
If your 4K display is 3840x2160, then 1920x1080 is the correct resolution for Retina quality (which is 1/2 of native).
My iMac 5K is 5120x2880 native and in Retina it is 2560x1440.
And I couldd see Apple marketing two different screens. One 4k/5k/+, and one not quite that. I less expensive screen, that is larger, could be a real draw for people. Does everyone need a 5k 32" screen? Really?
That may be the case, but if I wanted a 1920x1080 screen, I would have kept the one I had before this.
You are confusing the enthusiast market with the power user / prosumer / professional market.
An enthusiast may buy cool new hardware simply because it exists. Professionals who are able to negotiate their salary are often unwilling to spend money on unnecessary hardware. They know that any money spent on their tools is money they don't get themselves. New hardware is only worth the price if it increases their productivity or quality of life sufficiently.
For most non-graphics professionals, the Pro Display XDR is simply a slightly bigger display with a bit higher resolution. It may be worth paying a few hundred dollars extra, but its value is certainly nowhere near the price Apple is charging for it. If Apple makes the iMac too expensive by using an unnecessary high-end panel, they may decide they get better value for their money elsewhere. (For a comparison: How many of you would buy the new iMac, if Apple made 128 GB / 8 TB the minimum configuration and charged the current BTO prices for that RAM and SSD?)
I don’t buy this at all. There are a lot of factors that go into the price and quality of a monitor besides the size and resolution. The XDR’s 1600 nits is way overkill for a typical consumer monitor. The 5K iMac now only sits at 500 and it’s still a great display.
The black text.
Only two months after refreshing the base model? Again, that seems like a huge middle finger from Apple. People cannot wait anymore for this Apple Silicon redesign.
Welcome to the world of Apple!
Are you suggesting that we won't see new iMacs tomorrow?
There have been two size offerings of the iMac since they had G5 CPUs. I don't think that's about to change - especially if the only non-professional option is just 24" in size. I fully expect two iMac sizes - whether or not they're announced together (or tomorrow). And no iMac Pro - it was a stop-gap and its taking the long nap.
I don't know how much the 32" XDR display can be reduced in cost and still be left with a price-competitive 32" Retina display. But, and this may be a crazy idea, what if Apple went to a 24" and 30" display offering like they did back in the day of the Cinema Display? This time, a 30" 5.5K display. I'm not saying it's likely, but it's possible.
The current 27" 5K iMac and 32" 6K XDR displays have a pixel density of ~218ppi. A 30" 5,682 x 3,200 (16x9) display would also put it at ~218ppi. Keep the 500 nits, P3 (DCI) color gamut, and True Tone of the existing 5K iMac. Save the crazy luminance and Rec.2020 HDR for just the "professional" 32" XDR.
I can't imagine Apple releasing a new display that isn't retina (at least 218 ppi). To be retina at 32" requires 6k resolution, so the resolution isn't one of the things they would change to make it less expensive. The backlighting is the part that would change.
Honestly, it is the enthusiasts who are confusing the markets - it is why they all lost their collective minds when the 2019 Mac Pro and Pro Display XDR were announced at WWDC and they saw the price of entry.
I agree with you "professionals" see computers as tools and they buy what they need to support their business because the cost of it is quickly recovered by the revenue it generates. It is why we have "professionals" who dropped five-figures on Mac Pros because they make six and seven figures in revenue with it. And they'll drop well into four figures for an "iMac Pro" if it makes them money - just as many did with the 2017 Intel iMac Pro at $4999 when the iMac was $2499.
And yes, I consider myself an enthusiast and my intention is to buy this if it is 5K/6K and 27"-32" in size regardless of it's price. I like big displays and for me, personally, 24" is too small.
Which is why I believed MCK in early 2020 when he said Apple was working on a 27" MiniLED panel for what he assumed would be a refreshed Intel-powered iMac Pro. I did not believe that Apple would move to a 32" 6K panel in the next iMac / iMac Pro because of the cost due to the low production volume it would have as a bespoke Apple-only panel built in (relatively) low numbers.
But folks on this forum hoped we would get a 29-32" display and then l0vetodream said we would get a display larger than 27" and his track record is pretty strong. That being said, I am surprised there has been no confirmation of this from MCK since his contacts have traditionally been in the display-side of the supply chain.
We know the Pro Display XDR panel costs $1500 because people have seen the price LG charges for it on their parts list. What was not said was what was included in that panel cost. I do not believe that includes the fancy multi-zone backlighting which allows for 1600 nits, but if it does, that could account for up to half the price and using MiniLED instead would be significantly cheaper than the XDR's backlighting so Apple we might be looking at $1000 with retail markup. But if we're talking $1500 for the base panel then with markup we're probably closing in on $2000 plus the cost of the MiniLED backlighting. And whether it is $1000 or $2000, we need to add the M1X, RAM and SSD to that price and with markup that is likely another $1000.
So if we're lucky, it is $1999 like the current 5K iMac. If not, then it's $2999. And if it's $2999 with 8GB of RAM and 512GB of SSD, might as well just double both to 16GB and 1TB, call it an "iMac Pro", and start at $3499. I think they can get away with 16GB for a "pro" machine because you won't be running Windows VMs. But if they do decide to go 32GB with 1TB, then we'd be looking at closer to $3999.
Be it 30", 32" or somewhere in between, if it is Retina than it going to be a panel custom-designed and custom-built for Apple and shared by nobody else. So it's going to be relatively expensive compared to consumer models of a similar size because it will not have the economies of scale (we're talking maybe 4-5 million panels a year compared to that a month - or even week - for a consumer panel).
Last edited:
They’re not going to call it an iMac Pro. My wife’s 2020 iMac workstation I configured for her was $3,500 w/ a 10-core i9, 8GB RAM, 1TB, and 5700XT. And that’s because I upgraded the RAM myself w/ 64GB. A $4k CTO iMac is just that, a high-spec’d iMac, and lots of people have been fine with that so far. Of course, with unified memory lock-in, yeah, last years $4k iMac may indeed become this years $5k iMac.
True, they wouldn’t enjoy the same economy of scale, as is. What do you think the odds are of a continued partnership with LG and their UltraFine displays to offset that? The smaller iMac takes on LGs 23.7” 4K display size, and LG updates (or adds to) their 27” 5K model with a 30” 5.5K or 32” 6K UltraFine that also gets used in the larger iMac.
If you can make the same revenue with a $5k computer and a $15k computer, buying the $15k model simply means you wasted $10k on an expensive toy.
I do computational work that requires plenty of memory. As a rule of thumb, I get as much value from doubling the price from $1k to $2k as from doubling it from $2k to $4k, from $4k to $8, or from $8k to $16k. Due to the diminishing returns, I usually buy desktops in the $4k to $5k range. When I need more computational power, it's more cost-effective to use the cloud.
My iMac has 128 GB memory. I would have seriously considered 256 GB had the computer supported it. As the rumors say Apple is dropping user-upgradeable memory from consumer Macs, I don't expect future iMacs to be good value for money. Maybe Apple will offer a smaller cost-effective Mac Pro in the price range I'm interested in. If not, I can always build a Linux box the next time I need to replace my desktop.
in the world of apple silicon, yes the 24" imac will be the low end , like the current M1 macs are also
But, dont expect the 24" to come just with the M1...that will be for the default lowest price with 256 ssd and 8gb unified memory
Like i said many times, the bigger imac will come later, business at its best in Apple strategy
But at least we will have a sense how the redesign will be..im very interested in the ventilation sealing from the display..because the current one is messy and is not sealed at micron level
I currently have a 27" iMac (2012) that is in desperate need of replacing, if Apple only update the 21.5" iMac later today (UK time) i wonder if it will be enough for me to replace my now very old iMac.
I hope Apple do announce iMac's today, but i'm not expecting it at all.
I hope Apple do announce iMac's today, but i'm not expecting it at all.