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

[Azrael9]

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.
[automerge]1589129184[/automerge]
I also want to add that with a high degree of probability we can wait for some custom-made GPU unique just for iMac. Just as it was with Vega 48.

*shudders. A vega 48 custom for £400+ quid extra... (Nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!)

Still. We'll see. I'm trying very hard to behave myself. *(gets a grip of self and rocks gently...)

If they can get close to a 5700XT (custom or not...well, they down clock alot of their gpus in iMacs? So they are always kind of 'custom.' I'm sure some mentioned the iMac Pro Vega 56 doesn't perform as well as one in a PC Tower as Apple down clocks it due to enclosure. And the CPUs in the iMac 2019 are 'under volted' or pegged lower for thermal reasons?)

As long as it's a substantive boost. HP are offering a 2080 Nv as standard in their £3K 32 inch AiO. It's this kind of ambition I want to see. Apple pushing the tech and design further this time around.

The iMac has been coasting for some time.

Azrael.
[automerge]1589130113[/automerge]

I nearly bought a 'grater when I got my 24" iMac, but I'm happy with the decision I made. It served me well for many years, then sold it for a good price.

p.s. I had added a link to more images of the iMac G4 concept on my previous post. It really is fantastic (although the touchscreen keyboard with it is much less interesting, I just want an iMac with a matching keyboard, not white keys).

*nods. To be fair, my 24 inch iMac I bought in a sale for £1200. inc VAT. It was a faithful servant. I could cook a fried on the top corner of it. Got very hot. But it was a decent value machine.

I've gone to your link. Oh. My. Word. Drop. Dead. Gorgeous. Beautiful concept shots. I really...

I want that iMac. ! Der-rool. Der-rool.

Azrael.

 

[gusping]

We do, Gusping. (Hello there.)

Same here.

Yeah. Listen, I just want Apple to make a kick az iMac for all my fellow Mac luminaries here. I want that for all the Mac community. Not just myself. That design above would be a barn storming design in space grey. Back to the light.

I took was going to build a Hack/Gaming PC dual boot. (and I will...) But I thought I'd give Apple the 1st throw of the hat into the ring with the new iMac. It's up to them. Apple/Windows. They have to be competitive. On software/hardware and price.

As for your £1800 budget. How I rationalised a £2k pc gaming rig? If I was going the Hack' AMD open route...I'd consider £1k for a 12 core AMD 5700XT gpu Mac a bargain. And a £1k PC of the same a value proposition. So £2k to have both? Bargain?

Aye. I can't justify alot of coin on PC 'just' for gaming. There is one 'old' game I play from 2004. That's it. (And it fried my iMac gpu...)

I don't think it's that bad an idea to get an Xbox or PS5. They're going to absolutely kick az. A true generational leap, especially with those 'insta' SSDs and IO throughput. RDNA2 and ray tracing? No doubt. Cheaper than buying a 2080 Ti. For sure. Big Navi is going to beat a 'Ti', probably. But prob' still cost more than the PS5 or Xbox next gen.

Can always eGPU a Big Navi to your next Mac purchase. And PC tower can be decent in the £1k-1300 price range with a 12 core AMD and (!) a 5700XT IF you shop around and build your pre-build carefully.

Depends on what you're budget is. I'm planning to have an iMac, Hack/PC workstation and a PS5...in time. I'll start with the iMac if it is worthy. (I'll get one of those for my Mum. I bought her the PS3 with Batman. She's still got the highest bone crunching combo...)

Azrael.

I too wouldn't normally even consider spending that much on a gaming PC that runs Windows... But, I usually end up buying both consoles (this gen I bought both the standard and 'pro' (X1X & PS4 Pro) options, so if you add everything up (including PSN+ and Xbox live), then it's quite a lot....

Thankfully I'm in a different position here to most. I have 2018 i7 Mac mini which does everything I need it to, BUT.... I'd happily dump up to £2,500 on a completely redesigned iMac.

 

[CWallace]

If a redesign is released within a week or a month, I’m worried about its possible hardware inside. In autumn and winter, radically improved Intel processors and GPU on RDNA2 will be released, which means that we run the risk of facing the same situation when very soon, after six months or earlier, the next update with significant improvements will be released.

Intel just got Comet Lake-S out the door this week - they won't have Rocket Lake-S ready for a year or more. And we won't see a W-2300 series Xeon for some time since W-2200 is so recent.

Yes, AMD is supposed to have RDNA2 out towards the end of the year, but they have been pretty tardy making ship dates, as well. However, that might be why MCK was saying the iMac Pro would be a Late 2020 product to coincide when AMD is expected (more like hoped) to have RDNA2 ready. And with him now reporting miniLED could be pushed back to possibly 2021, it would give Apple a larger window for AMD to have RDNA2 ready.

How large is the price differential on the i7s vs the i5s?

MSRP for the i7-10700K is $374 compared to $262 for the i5-10600K.

On the 27 inch iMacs (no cheap computer there...) they could offer the i7 as standard and the i10 as BTO?

Now that the i5 have 6 cores and 12 threads, I would not be surprised if Apple feels they are too close to the i7 with 8 cores and 16 threads. The i9 at 10 cores and 20 threads offers the performance boost over the i5 that the i7 used to when the i5 was 4 cores and 4 threads.

5700XT is step up. I wouldn't reserve that just for the iMac Pro. The iMac is plenty expensive as is. The 5700XT isn't a high end card from AMD. Wasn't it a low end card that they price bumped to a mainstream/mid-range. That said, it offers alot of bang for the buck. Worthy card. Which should be accessible to iMac customers in the £1700-£3k range.

Wikipedia says the RX 5700 is a 180w part which is also claimed for the RX 580 in the current iMac (though I believe the 580 in the iMac is under clocked to reduce the TDP).

The key here is that if Apple maintains a separate iMac and iMac Pro line, the iMac Pro needs more powerful GPU options. If the base iMac gets the W5700XT, then where does the iMac Pro go? Radeon Pro Vega II as in the Mac Pro is 475w which is close to double what the Vega 64 was putting out. So that means they have to wait for RDNA2 and RDNA2 has to hit it's performance per watt metrics.

 

[gusping]

HP are offering a 2080 Nv as standard in their £3K 32 inch AiO

Ooft, that sounds tasty. I will need to have a look at that!

 

[Azrael9]

You're 2018 Mac Mini will probably do all you need by the sounds of it. In your case, with it being an i7 (6 core? I'm guessing?) you could just buy a Radeon 5700XT and eGPU caddy? And be out £550-ish?

That would leave £2k ie plenty of cash for Hack/PC tower and the two next gen consoles...? :O

Still, depends on how sexy that 'teh new' iMac is... It might prove very alluring.

Azrael.
[automerge]1589130735[/automerge]

Ooft, that sounds tasty. I will need to have a look at that!

Check out the 'fly by'. It seems to have the right thickness for the right specs. Ie. Not obssessed with thin for it's own sake.

Specs the new iMac needs to be aiming for...

Envy HP Desktop Computers - HP Store UK

Find the perfect HP® desktop for your needs at the HP® Store UK. Explore a wide selection of home & business desktops, from powerful ENVY models to gaming-ready OMEN machines.

store.hp.com

Envy All-in-One HP Desktop Computers - HP Store UK

Find the perfect HP® desktop for your needs at the HP® Store UK. Explore a wide selection of home & business desktops, from powerful ENVY models to gaming-ready OMEN machines.

store.hp.com

And I think they've got the price right too. Ram. SSD. GPU. CPU. Screen size.

The days of PC beige towers are over. Apple have 'sat' on the iMac design for a while now. Time to move things along.

Azrael.

 

[pldelisle]

Let's make it clear so we'll stop wasting time arguing on what's possible or not (lol):

iMac Pro needs RDNA2.0. RDNA2.0 is scheduled for release in Q4 2020. Plus, it will have hardware ray tracing, which is a nice marketing thing for Apple "you are going to be able to do real time ray tracing * insert audience wow here with a cute scripted demo from people knowing their text by heart *".

So no iMac Pro until Q4.

iMac will have up to NAVI 10 XT, which is mid range GPU, and this is fine for iMac since iMac Pro will have the top tier GPUs with more powerful Cascade Lake Xeon CPUs.

That's it ! It's clear, simple, defined. Both don't overlap each other, just like now.

 

[Voyageur]

Yes, AMD is supposed to have RDNA2 out towards the end of the year, but they have been pretty tardy making ship dates, as well. However, that might be why MCK was saying the iMac Pro would be a Late 2020 product to coincide when AMD is expected (more like hoped) to have RDNA2 ready. And with him now reporting miniLED could be pushed back to possibly 2021, it would give Apple a larger window for AMD to have RDNA2 ready.

Yes, but there is a Vega 56/64 experience that Apple revealed earlier than others. Is not it so?

iMac Pro needs RDNA2.0. RDNA2.0 is scheduled to release in Q4 2020. Plus, it will have hardware ray tracing, which is a nice marketing thing for Apple "you are going to be able to do real time ray tracing * insert audience wow here *".

I wouldn’t be so sure, because the usual Mac Pro works on Vega II without RDNA 2 and hardware update will not be delivered to it at all soon.

For the rest, I agree, this fits into the logic of previous iMacs generations.

 

[Azrael9]

Intel just got Comet Lake-S out the door this week - they won't have Rocket Lake-S ready for a year or more. And we won't see a W-2300 series Xeon for some time since W-2200 is so recent.

Yes, AMD is supposed to have RDNA2 out towards the end of the year, but they have been pretty tardy making ship dates, as well. However, that might be why MCK was saying the iMac Pro would be a Late 2020 product to coincide when AMD is expected (more like hoped) to have RDNA2 ready. And with him now reporting miniLED could be pushed back to possibly 2021, it would give Apple a larger window for AMD to have RDNA2 ready.





MSRP for the i7-10700K is $374 compared to $262 for the i5-10600K.




Now that the i5 have 6 cores and 12 threads, I would not be surprised if Apple feels they are too close to the i7 with 8 cores and 16 threads. The i9 at 10 cores and 20 threads offers the performance boost over the i5 that the i7 used to when the i5 was 4 cores and 4 threads.




Wikipedia says the RX 5700 is a 180w part which is also claimed for the RX 580 in the current iMac (though I believe the 580 in the iMac is under clocked to reduce the TDP).

The key here is that if Apple maintains a separate iMac and iMac Pro line, the iMac Pro needs more powerful GPU options. If the base iMac gets the W5700XT, then where does the iMac Pro go? Radeon Pro Vega II as in the Mac Pro is 475w which is close to double what the Vega 64 was putting out. So that means they have to wait for RDNA2 and RDNA2 has to hit it's performance per watt metrics.

CWallace.

Ty for the reply. Interesting thoughts on the gpu situation. It seems the 5700XT's efficiency allows a more powerful card for the same thermals. *fingers crossed.

Re; the iMac Pro. There's a danger that it's modus operandi is in question in light of the Mac Pro and any substantive boost to the current iMac. 4 desktops seems a bit inelegant. Not that I'm complaining as the more desktops the merrior for me. (I'll shout for an eGaming mac pro tower in the 2.5k to 3.5k range with i9 and Radeon 5700XT which could theoretically replace the iMac Pro? And open the tower to more potential customers? ie. Me. )

I think they could (for the iMac Pro, bump the standard config to 10 cores and have the Vega 64 COMPUTE card as standard...) which would give a clear blue line vs the Radeon 5700XT's more mainstream/gaming general for the iMac?

Apple will down clock it anyhow. They already do with the gpu parts in the iMac Pro? And the CPU parts in the iMac?

Aye. Re: i5 vs i7. Aren't the newest Intel CPUs ALL hyperthreading now? So that would make the difference between the i5 and i7 mute? But for £80 quid difference...if the performance differential is significant then surely just put the i7s in there as standard on the 27 inchers. And have i5s on the 24 inch iMac. That would put more marketing daylight between them.

Azrael.

 

[Wolf1701]

But IF they are going to ARM whats's the point in make a full redesign now with Intel? Unless this "new iMac" is indeed arm or can be adapted to arm.

And, if this new iMac is arm (or intel) can we trust Apple to make it right at the first try? (some times ago this question would never have rised but now...)

 

[pldelisle]

I wouldn’t be so sure, because the usual Mac Pro works on Vega II without RDNA 2 and hardware update will not be delivered to it at all soon.

For the rest, I agree, this fits into the logic of previous iMacs generations.

Because RDNA2.0 which that much FLOPs are simply not there yet.
[automerge]1589131358[/automerge]

Apple will down clock it anyhow. They already do with the gpu parts in the iMac Pro? And the CPU parts in the iMac?

The FLOPs on Apple website and the official numbers for the respective chips are identical. So no apparent underclock.
[automerge]1589131426[/automerge]

Aye. Re: i5 vs i7. Aren't the newest Intel CPUs ALL hyperthreading now? So that would make the difference between the i5 and i7 mute?

i5 is 6 core, i7 is 8 core, i9 is 10 cores.
[automerge]1589131504[/automerge]

But IF they are going to ARM whats's the point in make a full redesign now with Intel? Unless this "new iMac" is indeed arm or can be adapted to arm.

And, if this new iMac is arm (or intel) can we trust Apple to make it right at the first try? (some times ago this question would never have rised but now...)

To reduce the risk of something going bad. If they ship ARM + redesign = a lot more things can go wrong instead of redesign + old known platform and changing the chips afterward.

 

[Azrael9]

Let's make it clear so we'll stop wasting time arguing on what's possible or not (lol):

iMac Pro needs RDNA2.0. RDNA2.0 is scheduled for release in Q4 2020. Plus, it will have hardware ray tracing, which is a nice marketing thing for Apple "you are going to be able to do real time ray tracing * insert audience wow here with a cute scripted demo from people knowing their text by heart *".

So no iMac Pro until Q4.

iMac will have up to NAVI 10 XT, which is mid range GPU, and this is fine for iMac since iMac Pro will have the top tier GPUs with more powerful Cascade Lake Xeon CPUs.

That's it ! It's clear, simple, defined. Both don't overlap each other, just like now.

Yeah. But do you want the 5 minute argument or the full half hour? (Cost is £5.)



The iMac Pro (if it continues...) will get the RDNA 2.0. Makes sense. AMD will probably have 6900 XT, 6800XT and 6700XT. And will bring Apple far more options than picking around with middle to low end gpus or having to build custom cross fire solutions. Nice though the latter is for Pro tower customers. At least that shows some gpu ambition. Zen will allow AMD to eventually compute in the high end GPU space due to ££££ of Zen sales. And yes, RDNA2 will bring the increasingly important ray tracing to the Mac platform.

Aye. No iMac Pro until Q4. At least. I also muse whether IT will get the 6k 32 inch monitor? But I'm hoping both the iMac Pro and 27 inch iMac will get bumped to a 6k monitor spec and use supply chain mass production to democratise it to all Mac desktop buyers.

Yes. Quite clear. Phew. Thanks for clearing that up.

Azrael.

 

[Voyageur]

But IF they are going to ARM whats's the point in make a full redesign now with Intel? Unless this "new iMac" is indeed arm or can be adapted to arm.

And, if this new iMac is arm (or intel) can we trust Apple to make it right at the first try? (some times ago this question would never have rised but now...)

I believe that the transition to ARM will be very smooth and very long. Example: the introduction Retina displays into Apple products. They started with iPhones and iPads and switched to laptops. It came to iMac only after years.

So, the introduction of ARM processors will begin with simple devices like the MacBook 12 type and will increase gradually. This approach will allow avoiding critical problems for the MacBook Pro and iMac, that many use for professional purposes - which means that they can’t just be structurally changed in one move.

 

[Azrael9]

But IF they are going to ARM whats's the point in make a full redesign now with Intel? Unless this "new iMac" is indeed arm or can be adapted to arm.

And, if this new iMac is arm (or intel) can we trust Apple to make it right at the first try? (some times ago this question would never have rised but now...)

That full re-design can use Mac ARM chips eventually. Just as the PPC 'grater' got bumped to Intel CPUS.

We can trust Apple to make a great iMac ARM.

As others have mentioned. The iMac and Macbook got the Intel cpus 1st? No reason the iMac and Macbook won't next year.

Apple still needs to sell machines this year. Ergo the updates to Mac Pro, Macbook 16 incher within the last half year or so. The update to Mini. The 13 inch Macbook pro.

Azrael.
[automerge]1589132010[/automerge]

Because RDNA2.0 which that much FLOPs are simply not there yet.
[automerge]1589131358[/automerge]


The FLOPs on Apple website and the official numbers for the respective chips are identical. So no apparent underclock.
[automerge]1589131426[/automerge]


i5 is 6 core, i7 is 8 core, i9 is 10 cores.
[automerge]1589131504[/automerge]


To reduce the risk of something going bad. If they ship ARM + redesign = a lot more things can go wrong instead of redesign + old known platform and changing the chips afterward.

You're right on the i5 vs i7.

Just remembered the intel marketing slide show.

In that case. I'd like the new iMac to be 8 core as standard and the ten core to be BTO.

For a £1700 entry point, that iMac should start with 8 core.

As for the GPU. Point taken re: Apple's numbers.

The RDNA2, think that is the start of AMD separating gaming performance from compute? So the mythical Arcturis maybe more 'Tfloppy?'

Azrael.
[automerge]1589132046[/automerge]

I believe that the transition to ARM will be very smooth and very long. Example: the introduction Retina displays into Apple products. They started with iPhones and iPads and switched to laptops. It came to iMac only after years.

So, the introduction of ARM processors will begin with simple devices like the MacBook 12 type and will increase gradually. This approach will allow avoiding critical problems for the MacBook Pro and iMac, that many use for professional purposes - which means that they can’t just be structurally changed in one move.

You have to give credit to Apple. They do transitions very well indeed.

Azrael.

 

[ArmouredBear]

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:

More images: https://www.behance.net/gallery/70356143/iMac-G4-New-Edition

God, I'd love that.
Sadly Apple no longer seem to be the kind of company that would release something like that.

 

[CWallace]

Re; the iMac Pro. There's a danger that it's modus operandi is in question in light of the Mac Pro and any substantive boost to the current iMac. 4 desktops seems a bit inelegant.

I think, though, we have to look at it in terms of market. The Mac Pro and Mac mini are niche products - the former because it costs so much (in order for it to be able to do so much) and the latter because it "fills the cracks" no other Mac desktop reasonably can (media server, co-lo server, etc.).

So really, the core of the Apple desktop market is the iMac family and within that we have the iMac, which can handle likely most tasks, and the iMac Pro for the remainder.

Losing the iMac Pro means that if the iMac can't (or can't reasonably) do what you need, your only other option is to spend multiples of that on a Mac Pro. Or abandon macOS for Windows / Linux.

Apple would probably be happy with the former. Not so much with the latter.

Hence why I think the iMac Pro serves an important function within the Mac desktop product line and will stay and will be updated on an irregular basis (like the Mac mini and probably Mac Pro). To my eyes, the iMac Pro was not meant as a stop-gap until the Mac Pro was ready, but a recognition that the Mac Pro would be so expensive that if it was the only upgrade path from the iMac, it could drive people off the platform entirely.

Re: i5 vs i7. Aren't the newest Intel CPUs ALL hyperthreading now? So that would make the difference between the i5 and i7 mute? But for £80 quid difference...if the performance differential is significant then surely just put the i7s in there as standard on the 27 inchers. And have i5s on the 24 inch iMac. That would put more marketing daylight between them.

Apple charges roughly double what they pay for in terms of CPU upgrades - the i7s were a $200 bump from the i5 and the i9s are currently $400.

And I forgot that Apple does not use the K-series i5s (which are 95w/125w parts like the i7/i9), but instead the 65w model (so the i5-10600) and many people prefer that cooler CPU because it does not drive the fans as hard. If Apple went with the i7-10700 65w part, it actually has a slower base clock then the i5 part. So one would arguably see a performance downgrade in single-core tasks (which probably are not common, but still). And for those who just buy on spec (not understanding the details), there would be complaints of Apple "crippling" the iMac (and charging more for it since the i7-10700 is over $100 more expensive than the i5-10600 so Apple would likely charge more for a base iMac with it).

 

[gusping]

You're 2018 Mac Mini will probably do all you need by the sounds of it. In your case, with it being an i7 (6 core? I'm guessing?) you could just buy a Radeon 5700XT and eGPU caddy? And be out £550-ish?

That would leave £2k ie plenty of cash for Hack/PC tower and the two next gen consoles...? :O

Still, depends on how sexy that 'teh new' iMac is... It might prove very alluring.

Azrael.
[automerge]1589130735[/automerge]


Check out the 'fly by'. It seems to have the right thickness for the right specs. Ie. Not obssessed with thin for it's own sake.

Specs the new iMac needs to be aiming for...

Envy HP Desktop Computers - HP Store UK

Find the perfect HP® desktop for your needs at the HP® Store UK. Explore a wide selection of home & business desktops, from powerful ENVY models to gaming-ready OMEN machines.

store.hp.com

Envy All-in-One HP Desktop Computers - HP Store UK

Find the perfect HP® desktop for your needs at the HP® Store UK. Explore a wide selection of home & business desktops, from powerful ENVY models to gaming-ready OMEN machines.

store.hp.com

And I think they've got the price right too. Ram. SSD. GPU. CPU. Screen size.

The days of PC beige towers are over. Apple have 'sat' on the iMac design for a while now. Time to move things along.

Azrael.

Correct, the i7 is 6-core. Something inside me thinks spending £550-600 on a £350-400 GPU wrong. Plus, the cooling in the mini is meh, so under any load the CPU would just cook.

Those HPs do look rather nice. I'm not sure if the SSD is an NVME-spec one, but other, they look rather nice. An Apple version fo that would do just fine

 

[Azrael9]

Correct, the i7 is 6-core. Something inside me thinks spending £550-600 on a £350-400 GPU wrong. Plus, the cooling in the mini is meh, so under any load the CPU would just cook.

Those HPs do look rather nice. I'm not sure if the SSD is an NVME-spec one, but other, they look rather nice. An Apple version fo that would do just fine

Aye. HP did a good job there. Spec. Price. Design. Ambition. The SSD is NVME spec.

And yes. We'd rather have an Apple version of that. I'd be all over it like a rash. It's time to re-killer the iMac body and soul.

I'm ready.

Azrael.
[automerge]1589133587[/automerge]

I think, though, we have to look at it in terms of market. The Mac Pro and Mac mini are niche products - the former because it costs so much (in order for it to be able to do so much) and the latter because it "fills the cracks" no other Mac desktop reasonably can (media server, co-lo server, etc.).

So really, the core of the Apple desktop market is the iMac family and within that we have the iMac, which can handle likely most tasks, and the iMac Pro for the remainder.

Losing the iMac Pro means that if the iMac can't (or can't reasonably) do what you need, your only other option is to spend multiples of that on a Mac Pro. Or abandon macOS for Windows / Linux.

Apple would probably be happy with the former. Not so much with the latter.

Hence why I think the iMac Pro serves an important function within the Mac desktop product line and will stay and will be updated on an irregular basis (like the Mac mini and probably Mac Pro). To my eyes, the iMac Pro was not meant as a stop-gap until the Mac Pro was ready, but a recognition that the Mac Pro would be so expensive that if it was the only upgrade path from the iMac, it could drive people off the platform entirely.




Apple charges roughly double what they pay for in terms of CPU upgrades - the i7s were a $200 bump from the i5 and the i9s are currently $400.

And I forgot that Apple does not use the K-series i5s (which are 95w/125w parts like the i7/i9), but instead the 65w model (so the i5-10600) and many people prefer that cooler CPU because it does not drive the fans as hard. If Apple went with the i7-10700 65w part, it actually has a slower base clock then the i5 part. So one would arguably see a performance downgrade in single-core tasks (which probably are not common, but still). And for those who just buy on spec (not understanding the details), there would be complaints of Apple "crippling" the iMac (and charging more for it since the i7-10700 is over $100 more expensive than the i5-10600 so Apple would likely charge more for a base iMac with it).

I think you make fair points re: the iMac Pro. I see what you're saying.

I'm not one to argue for less desktops. Hell would freeze over 1st.

As an aside. I just think Apple could drop decent GPU capa in the Mini (the current iG is lame.) And bring an i9 Mac Pro to a lower price bracket (pricing a former £2.5k machine to £6k with low end gpu was also lame.) Apple can use their supply chain to democratise things a bit more.

Then I could live with their desktop range a bit easier.

That said. All eyes on the iMac.

Azrael.

 

[ArmouredBear]

If the release is so imminent, we can assume no redesign. No chance would they announce something so major 5 weeks before WWDC.

 

[Nismo73]

If the release is so imminent, we can assume no redesign. No chance would they announce something so major 5 weeks before WWDC.

They could give it the iMac Pro internal cooling design.

 

[Icaras]

Who else is just hitting F5 on Prosser's Twitter page for some sort of sign?!?! I need an iMac bad!!

jon prosser (@jon_prosser) on X

@frontpagetech | @geniusbarpod | iPad mini fan account

twitter.com

F5? Sorry, not me.

More like COMMAND + R

 

[pldelisle]

And I forgot that Apple does not use the K-series i5s (which are 95w/125w parts like the i7/i9), but instead the 65w model (so the i5-10600)

 

[askunk]

I kept telling it Besides, for those who are for a regression towards the H series, without a desktop CPU the macmini would be the only mac with a desktop chip that it's not server grade. It just makes no sense.

So far they have been 95W. It's only this year that they went up to 125W.

eGPU: it doesn't work very well: lots of Mac software not supporting it and problems with Windows (gaming too). Plus, on an iMac it would give even more problems, not being directly connected to a monitor.

 

[pldelisle]

Totally agree. eGPU is not mature enough. Still severely limited in some use case with Thunderbolt bandwidth. It’s sure a good option, but give it some time to mature and let devs improve support.

 

[askunk]

I remember to hear that the Radeon 7 was saturating TB3 at times, on PCIe 3. Many cards of the future generations can easily top that with PCIe 4.

Time for 80Gbps TB4? I guess it will take either the IMP or the next MP to see it implemented.

 

[pldelisle]

I think Thunderbolt 4 won’t have a speed bump.
Thunderbolt 5 will have double bandwidth, bu not before 2022.