It is really realistic to expect an 225W 5700XT in any iMac unless the iMac is deeper? Most people here thinks that is does not matter how deep the iMac is. I disagree, at some point it will look clumsy and can only be placed towards a wall or else it will look ridiculous.
Negative. iMac 2019 does not meet the simplest requirements in a sufficient number of thunderbolt ports, so buying it makes no sense to me.
This is the problem: personally, I am not ready to pay money for a computer for only one year, then to change it again to a suitable one. If I buy equipment, I choose it responsibly to use for many years.
As to the idea of collapsing the iMac and iMac Pro lines into one using the iMac Pro case and cooling, it would be feasible and possible.
The W-Series Xeons are just the X-Series Core i9's with ECC RAM support so Apple could conceivably just smash the lines together - I expect ECC RAM is not really critical to most iMac Pro users, but it is what comes with Xeons. Intel did launch the 10th Generation (Cascade Lake) X-Series last fall at 10, 12, 14 and 18 cores and all are at 165W TDP and priced at less than half of what the W-Series were.
Apple is clearly seeing significant drops in NAND storage prices which is why they have been doubling their base SSD capacities. So I could see them dropping Fusion Drives in favor of 512GB SSD as the base level of storage. The iMac Pro case (including cooling) also likely costs more than the iMac, so I could see Apple raising the base price by at least $100 to cover all this. Maybe raise it $200 and bump base RAM from 8GB to 16GB. I mean people are going to erupt over the loss of upgradeable RAM so might as well raise the price, too.
And when you consider adding 16GB of RAM and a 512GB SSD to an existing base model 27" iMac is $500, paying $200 for it is a deal.
So where does this leave the iMac Pro? Perhaps as an option package instead of a separate model?
MCK says a 27" miniLED display is coming so what if it becomes a BTO upgrade option like the X-Series (12-18 core) CPUs? Same with 10GB Ethernet? And workstation-class GPUs?
So you have the "base" 27" iMac with the 10500 Core i5 CPU, 16GB of RAM and a 512GB SSD for $1999 compared to the current 8500 Core i5, 8GB of RAM and a 1TB Fusion Drive for $1799. I like to think that reasonable people would find that a reasonable deal.
From there you can add RAM up to 256GB, storage up to 4/8TB, faster Ethernet, workstation-class GPUs and miniLED display.
Who else is just hitting F5 on Prosser's Twitter page for some sort of sign?!?! I need an iMac bad!!
I'm ok, just don't let me type every time I get back to my desk! (a point in favour of a camera upgrade)
Noticed on May 6 he said there was an iMac ready to ship. This must be it.Who else is just hitting F5 on Prosser's Twitter page for some sort of sign?!?! I need an iMac bad!!
The iMac G4 is gorgeous. It was nearly my first Mac, but I was talked out of it by a Mac owner. My first iMac ended up being the first white 24" iMac early in the Intel era. But I now have an old iMac G4 that is great music player.
I would love a see a return to that format, and the very nice MS Studio 2 is the nearest to that now, but it runs Windows. I would be extremely very happy if this reimagined iMac G4 concept below resembles a redesigned iMac launching soon:
I’ve noticed we have very similar demands for our iMac, aka desktop performance... haha
Count me in too! It looks AMAZING! I was planning on building a Gaming PC, but £1700-2000 on a Windows machine I’ll only use for gaming seems a bit much. Plus, I’m playing less as i get older. I’m going to settle with an Xbox Series X unless Big Navi is 2080 Ti performance at a good price.and also because I want to run Flight Simulator 2020 with no compromises
Exactly!
The problem is that in order to run smooth in 4K (let alone 5K) it needs at least a Radeon 7 (13.8 Tflops) and the Vega 64 is 12.7 (IMP prerogative), my fear is that iMacs won't allow for high end unless they decide to kill the IMP or AMD comes out with a new range of RDNA2 that fits better.
The 5700XT sucks at 9.7 Tflops.
[automerge]1589127910[/automerge]
How does 1440p look on the 27"? Too blurred?
You need to decide what is more important for you: the GPU computing power in operation or the GPU capabilities in games. In the second case, the number of teraflops is not always a determining property. The RDNA architecture is much better adapted for games, so if you look at live tests, you will see that the 5700XT goes almost on par with Vega 64 directly in the FPS.Exactly!
The problem is that in order to run smooth in 4K (let alone 5K) it needs at least a Radeon 7 (13.8 Tflops) and the Vega 64 is 12.7 (IMP prerogative), my fear is that iMacs won't allow for high end unless they decide to kill the IMP or AMD comes out with a new range of RDNA2 that fits better.
The 5700XT sucks at 9.7 Tflops.
[automerge]1589127910[/automerge]
How does 1440p look on the 27"? Too blurred?
Yea.... The requirements for that game are going to be very heavy. Thankfully, 60fps will be fine, and 120+fps isn't needed!Exactly!
The problem is that in order to run smooth in 4K (let alone 5K) it needs at least a Radeon 7 (13.8 Tflops) and the Vega 64 is 12.7 (IMP prerogative), my fear is that iMacs won't allow for high end unless they decide to kill the IMP or AMD comes out with a new range of RDNA2 that fits better.
The 5700XT sucks at 9.7 Tflops.
[automerge]1589127910[/automerge]
How does 1440p look on the 27"? Too blurred?
That is obscenely gorgeous. :O
*blushes. 'Well, hello lady...'
The only improvement to the G4 i-Lamp would have been a rotate to portrait aspect. Asides from that. Oh my...stars...and garters...
You were talked out of buying the lamp iMac G4? Noooooooooooooo! Mac owners, what do they know?
Still, *points at self...I should have bought the 'grater back in the day...and I got the 24 inch iMac instead.
*bows head....*puts dunces cap on.
Azrael.
