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

[Azrael9]

krazzix said:

It is kind of time for me to update my 2011 iMac, but I don't need a new one right now.

I use my iMac mainly for webdevelopment, but I occasionally like to play games (but mostly AAA-titles on Windows, not the casual stuff).

I thought hard about upgrading my iMac to the 2019 one, but it feels to me this was a minor update and also that a redesign is around the corner (expecting 2020, maybe earlier, it happened before).

When a redesign happens, I expect:

• Smaller bezels (as all new Apple's products have)
• Improved display (but not expecting XDR display level)
• SSD by default, starting with 256GB, no more fusion drive
• T2 chip, or possibly T3
• FaceID or TouchID
• 10th generation intel
• AMD Navi GPU (BTO to 5700XT!!! Azrael insert.
• 16GB RAM by default (possibly not upgradeable anymore)

I think most iMac users would be all over that. I'd take that.

But I want my 32 inch screen, ofc.

Azrael.

 

[Mike The Soundguy]

Matz, this thread is considerably less fun than the long running and infamous Mac mini one. Definitely needs a bit more fun, after all, the 2020 iMac is coming soon...

The suspense is killing me ! LOL No actually my 2013 iMac is acting up and I may have to pull the trigger on a refurb iMac pro . If I do I just never visit the apple sight for about another yer if I can help it lol , yeah no that's impossible for me . I almost don't bother with forums and just deal with my decision until recently now I'm on here , go figure . I have been caught either way , I get something new and thats it or I do and something comes out the next week . I run a custom home automation business and if you want to see insanity thats where I'm at .The home automation stuff is all over the place with compatibility etc etc too long of story there . The mac world for me has been the most stable for what I do with music and my business . Imagine that comparison I have . Best of luck to all on however things go !

 

[Azrael9]

Coming soon, but will it be any good? That is the question.

I have 1 million reasons to be concerned (rubbish cooling continues, more awful GPUs, no redesign, etc...), but very few to be positive.

I never thought I'd be all over superior cooling of the iMac Pro...but it's one of my chief concerns of the 'new incoming' iMac. That tech' is 3 year old in the iMac Pro. Time to bring it mainstream. 'Burnt' 1st hand by the 'couldn't cope' heating of my iMac playing some old 2004 game. GPU fried. I doubt that would have happened with better cooling in such a cramped enclosure.

'Awful' GPUs. Apple's track record on GPUs hasn't draped itself in glory. One year, Apple customers made Phil Schiller do a post launch PR presser with an 'even more powerful Nvidia' card after 'the faithful' were calling out the lame gpu. It shows what customer pressure can do IF they're organised. 5500/5600/5700XT. Over the three 27-32 inch models. The least of what I'm expecting. Not some over priced lame lite version ala custom. Full fat dGPU with the appropriate cooling, please. This time...I expect us to get no less than the iMac Pro level graphics as standard.

The design. It's stale. It's old. The design was dated when Apple repainted the iMac 'Pro' Gray. The Macbooks and iPads have moved on with 'teh bezels...' Can we have a 'flagship' desktop with modern design, Apple? In the UK we may say, 'Pull your finger out!' or 'GET IN THERE...THAT'S WHAT WE PAY YOU FOR!' Not just the bEzEls...take a look at the Surface 2 or the HP AiO for the design and specs that 'form factor' are capable of. Or even the historical G4. So whether it is the easel, the 'glom' (as Steve once called it) or the 'lamp' form factor...the iMac needs a kick up az' design wise. They must have bleach rinched every nickle and dime out of that form factor's R&D.

Apple are now a trillion dollar company. They were being more radical and more innovative when they were worth far less under Steve's helm. 'Money isn't everything.' Steve Jobs.

Azrael.
[automerge]1589646924[/automerge]

The suspense is killing me ! LOL No actually my 2013 iMac is acting up and I may have to pull the trigger on a refurb iMac pro . If I do I just never visit the apple sight for about another yer if I can help it lol , yeah no that's impossible for me . I almost don't bother with forums and just deal with my decision until recently now I'm on here , go figure . I have been caught either way , I get something new and thats it or I do and something comes out the next week . I run a custom home automation business and if you want to see insanity thats where I'm at .The home automation stuff is all over the place with compatibility etc etc too long of story there . The mac world for me has been the most stable for what I do with music and my business . Imagine that comparison I have . Best of luck to all on however things go !

Well, try to hang on if you can. Shame yours is acting up. I was hoping to hang on with mine until the new model came out but the gpu fried.

Unless you can get that iMac Pro at an insane price. Because chances are Apple's new iMac has iMac Pro capability for a £2k-ish price as opposed to a £5k one. Any meaningful bump will draw pretty close to or eclipse it.

Ram/SSD/GPU/8-10 core.

Aye. The Mac environment can be very serene and calming. My preferred working environment.

Custom home automation? Sounds interesting. What's that like? Lighting? Locking door security? 'Showers on...' via Siri voice control?

Azrael.
[automerge]1589647216[/automerge]

If Tim Cook Apple isn’t motivated by the desktop space then why bother doing research and spend money to produce machines like the Mac Pro if the low end models are underpowered? Why not just release one model that is worth the money and effort and provides a good value for the consumers?

Or why not just drop the whole desktop computers altogether if Apple thinks it is only a small percentage of their profit? This behavior is just so frustrating. Even with the iMacs we see this disappointing route of putting out an underpowered low end model and basically pushing you to buy the higher end. I just don’t get it.

I agree with the whole sentiment of your post.

If Apple wanted to really stream line the desktop. Drop the whole line.

Just have the Mac Pro chassis with: Mini specs, iMac specs, Pro specs. And you'd have the case that could cope with all that.

The 'iMac' display would just then be a monitor you'd plug into all that.

It would solve alot of soul searching on the Mac desktop front.

Yes, it is frustrating. We used to be able to buy a decent Mac Pro for £1700 but those days are long gone. £1700 just gets you started these days.

After success price rises, the Apple Tower has been priced into an uber niche. It isn't rocket science to put in an i9 motherboard into £2500 price bracket. Apple has just mandated towers are going to cost £6k and that's it. 8 core and so-so GPU ta boot. Apple's rigid marketing logic. The same 'over priced' logic that torpedoed a beautiful 'Trash Can' design.

Give me the trash can at £999-£2k with 6 or 8 core with a dGPU. Give me the 'new' Mac Pro at £2.5k to full loaded spec. Mid and uber towers. They make the equation far too hard.

The iMac can then hoover up everyone else. That doesn't obscure the fact that it needs better specs or design and is a year out of date, 3 in the case of the iMac Pro.

But we know what motivates the 'crap' entry...it's all about the 'upsell'... 'Shadow of greed' that is.

Azrael.

 

[gusping]

I never thought I'd be all over superior cooling of the iMac Pro...but it's one of my chief concerns of the 'new incoming' iMac. That tech' is 3 year old in the iMac Pro. Time to bring it mainstream. 'Burnt' 1st hand by the 'couldn't cope' heating of my iMac playing some old 2004 game. GPU fried. I doubt that would have happened with better cooling in such a cramped enclosure.

'Awful' GPUs. Apple's track record on GPUs hasn't draped itself in glory. One year, Apple customers made Phil Schiller do a post launch PR presser with an 'even more powerful Nvidia' card after 'the faithful' were calling out the lame gpu. It shows what customer pressure can do IF they're organised. 5500/5600/5700XT. Over the three 27-32 inch models. The least of what I'm expecting. Not some over priced lame lite version ala custom. Full fat dGPU with the appropriate cooling, please. This time...I expect us to get no less than the iMac Pro level graphics as standard.

The design. It's stale. It's old. The design was dated when Apple repainted the iMac 'Pro' Gray. The Macbooks and iPads have moved on with 'teh bezels...' Can we have a 'flagship' desktop with modern design, Apple? In the UK we may say, 'Pull your finger out!' or 'GET IN THERE...THAT'S WHAT WE PAY YOU FOR!' Not just the bEzEls...take a look at the Surface 2 or the HP AiO for the design and specs that 'form factor' are capable of. Or even the historical G4. So whether it is the easel, the 'glom' (as Steve once called it) or the 'lamp' form factor...the iMac needs a kick up az' design wise. They must have bleach rinched every nickle and dime out of that form factor's R&D.

Apple are now a trillion dollar company. They were being more radical and more innovative when they were worth far less under Steve's helm. 'Money isn't everything.' Steve Jobs.

Azrael.

Agree, agree and... agree. Very well put. For me to properly invest £2.5k in an iMac, it would need to fix all of those issues - cooling, GPU and design. In reality, I think 2 out of the 3 will be fixed at most. It's funny how cooling is such an important point made about Macs, and perhaps rightly so. Apple prefers low noise, aesthetics over good cooling on almost all products. For desktop products, I think the design requirements need to be loosened slightly to make it run like a proper desktop computer should.

I will wait patiently for the updated iMac, and if it doesn't satisfy me, I will dip my toe into the grim world of Windows and install it via bootcamp on my Mac mini to test it. I think the Apple ecosystem is more important on the mobile devices, so maybe I could drop the ball on the desktop front and build my dream computer? Who knows! (just thinking out loud)

PS. they need to pull more than just a finger out, to properly breathe more life into the iMac!

 

[Mike The Soundguy]

I never thought I'd be all over superior cooling of the iMac Pro...but it's one of my chief concerns of the 'new incoming' iMac. That tech' is 3 year old in the iMac Pro. Time to bring it mainstream. 'Burnt' 1st hand by the 'couldn't cope' heating of my iMac playing some old 2004 game. GPU fried. I doubt that would have happened with better cooling in such a cramped enclosure.

'Awful' GPUs. Apple's track record on GPUs hasn't draped itself in glory. One year, Apple customers made Phil Schiller do a post launch PR presser with an 'even more powerful Nvidia' card after 'the faithful' were calling out the lame gpu. It shows what customer pressure can do IF they're organised. 5500/5600/5700XT. Over the three 27-32 inch models. The least of what I'm expecting. Not some over priced lame lite version ala custom. Full fat dGPU with the appropriate cooling, please. This time...I expect us to get no less than the iMac Pro level graphics as standard.

The design. It's stale. It's old. The design was dated when Apple repainted the iMac 'Pro' Gray. The Macbooks and iPads have moved on with 'teh bezels...' Can we have a 'flagship' desktop with modern design, Apple? In the UK we may say, 'Pull your finger out!' or 'GET IN THERE...THAT'S WHAT WE PAY YOU FOR!' Not just the bEzEls...take a look at the Surface 2 or the HP AiO for the design and specs that 'form factor' are capable of. Or even the historical G4. So whether it is the easel, the 'glom' (as Steve once called it) or the 'lamp' form factor...the iMac needs a kick up az' design wise. They must have bleach rinched every nickle and dime out of that form factor's R&D.

Apple are now a trillion dollar company. They were being more radical and more innovative when they were worth far less under Steve's helm. 'Money isn't everything.' Steve Jobs.

Azrael.
[automerge]1589646924[/automerge]


Well, try to hang on if you can. Shame yours is acting up. I was hoping to hang on with mine until the new model came out but the gpu fried.

Unless you can get that iMac Pro at an insane price. Because chances are Apple's new iMac has iMac Pro capability for a £2k-ish price as opposed to a £5k one. Any meaningful bump will draw pretty close to or eclipse it.

Ram/SSD/GPU/8-10 core.

Aye. The Mac environment can be very serene and calming. My preferred working environment.

Custom home automation? Sounds interesting. What's that like? Lighting? Locking door security? 'Showers on...' via Siri voice control?

Azrael.
[automerge]1589647216[/automerge]


I agree with the whole sentiment of your post.

If Apple wanted to really stream line the desktop. Drop the whole line.

Just have the Mac Pro chassis with: Mini specs, iMac specs, Pro specs. And you'd have the case that could cope with all that.

The 'iMac' display would just then be a monitor you'd plug into all that.

It would solve alot of soul searching on the Mac desktop front.

Yes, it is frustrating. We used to be able to buy a decent Mac Pro for £1700 but those days are long gone. £1700 just gets you started these days.

After success price rises, the Apple Tower has been priced into an uber niche. It isn't rocket science to put in an i9 motherboard into £2500 price bracket. Apple has just mandated towers are going to cost £6k and that's it. 8 core and so-so GPU ta boot. Apple's rigid marketing logic. The same 'over priced' logic that torpedoed a beautiful 'Trash Can' design.

Give me the trash can at £999-£2k with 6 or 8 core with a dGPU. Give me the 'new' Mac Pro at £2.5k to full loaded spec. Mid and uber towers. They make the equation far too hard.

The iMac can then hoover up everyone else. That doesn't obscure the fact that it needs better specs or design and is a year out of date, 3 in the case of the iMac Pro.

But we know what motivates the 'crap' entry...it's all about the 'upsell'... 'Shadow of greed' that is.

Azrael.

ipowerresale has them CERTIFIED apple sealed refurbished , I talked to them . they are at 3699 now . I also saw that B&H dropped the base iMac pro down about $400 for new . Of course apple has the refurb at $4250 . I could hope to still have mojave for a while so I don't break everything that works now , quickbooks , Digital Performer , interfaces etc , my other miscellaneous applications that add up when doing a major OS upgrade . As we know then that costs $$ . I always make a list of all my apps and check all updates etc then check each site for cost upgrades . I like the idea of 4 TB and 2 busses for expand an all that .

 

[iPadified]

What is amazing is that people think there is a free lunch. The MP is expensive because few will share the development costs. Furthermore, do you think fabrication of the MP is cheap? There is some very nice engineering and fab on that one and that cost lots of money. Reconfiguring the MP with consumer parts is possible for a smaller cost but would likely kill lots of sells for the xeon stations because most (not all) professionals can do their work just fine using consumer parts. The MP with xeon is a halo product, but a consumer tower would not be and why confuse the message?

I am quite sure that the same "expensive" complaint was done with the "affordable" 4.1 and 5.1: why not a tower with "consumer" parts?

I wonder if the delivery time is set by a human or an algorithm? Apple would not let the delivery date give away when a product is released. Let's see if the delivery dates are stopping at June 22 but I doubt that.

 

[gusping]

ipowerresale has them CERTIFIED apple sealed refurbished , I talked to them . they are at 3699 now . I also saw that B&H dropped the base iMac pro down about $400 for new . Of course apple has the refurb at $4250 . I could hope to still have mojave for a while so I don't break everything that works now , quickbooks , Digital Performer , interfaces etc , my other miscellaneous applications that add up when doing a major OS upgrade . As we know then that costs $$ . I always make a list of all my apps and check all updates etc then check each site for cost upgrades . I like the idea of 4 TB and 2 busses for expand an all that .

You're thinking of buying an iMac Pro so you can avoid Catalina for as long as possible? That says a lot about the current state of Apple's software, haha. Fair play to you. Gotta do what you gotta do.

 

[Azrael9]

What is amazing is that people think there is a free lunch. The MP is expensive because *Snip*

(Azrael insert: Apple wants it to be. We don't all have millions in stock options.)

I wonder if the delivery time is set by a human or an algorithm? Apple would not let the delivery date give away when a product is released. Let's see if the delivery dates are stopping at June 22 but I doubt that.

Apple was never a free lunch. *points to Apple 'socks' (I'm sure Steve had his tongue in his cheek as he annouced them.) **Points to $700 upgradeable wheels. (Want fries with that?)

I've no problem with an uber tower Mac. Far from it. In that context, they can make it as expensive as they want to.

I just don't see why they binned the mainstream board and gpu Mac Tower. Typical apple extreme again. They over fired with the trash can too. £2k-£3k was just fine. Rational. Sane. And accommodating for those who wish to keep their internal organs.

In terms of the iMac? Just amplifies how 'out of touch' Apple is with the creative crowd. Even M$ managed to cobble together a truly next gen iMac concept in the Studio Desktop whilst Apple blushed as they released the touch band on the Macbook Pro and the 'painted grey' iMac (Pro.) Whilst the specs of the iMac Pro weren't bad. Apple seemed lost. Indecisive. Were they expecting iPads to take over so soon?

People will still need 'trucks' said Steve. Except that now...you can probably buy a real good used truck for the price of the Mac Pro. As an aside. And a set of wheels for it instead of buying the Mac Pro or it's wheels.

The Mac desktop is a product as seen through the eyes of a supply chain CEO (and the 6 year Mac 'Pro' debacle tells us every Mac user what they need to know. They'd completely lost the plot.) If it wasn't for Mac OS...

Marketing? Probably an algorithm.

A new iMac. A triumph of style and substance will appease my thirst a 'good desktop' computer from Apple.

Azrael.

 

[CWallace]

But does Apple need the W2200 series in an iMac Pro now that the Mac Pro exists?

Considering what the Mac Pro costs, I would say "yes".

Apple never showed any interest in using the Xeon E3 series CPUs which stood parallel to the Core series these last few years either (they went with E5 CPUs for the trashcan Mac Pro). Intel rebadging E3 to be entry level Xeon W may similarly leave Apple unswayed, but let's go with some reasoning behind how Apple might use the Xeon W 1200 series.

The only thing I can see the W-1200 series would bring to an iMac is higher prices because the CPU costs more and ECC RAM costs more.

When the iMac Pro launched, there was a fair bit of complaining about it using the W-2100 Xeons and ECC RAM because many in the community felt that there was no need for either. They advocated using the Core Extreme high-core count CPUs because those did not need ECC RAM and the motherboards were cheaper. And they still offered 44 PCI lanes compared to 48 in the Xeons so expandability was not an issue. All together, they felt such an iMac Pro could have been priced closer to $3999 than $4999.

Seems like the iMac has basically taken over the old Mac Pro’s place at that spec and price point. I believe that’s why we don’t have a headless Mac in this place either. From a functionality perspective, there’s really no reason for it to exist.

Agreed. The folks who ask for a headless "X-Mac" want it just to be able to upgrade the GPU because that is the technology that advances the most (and a majority of them also seem to be game-centric users). But I don't recall Apple ever being very proactive in GPU upgrades for the PowerMac and Mac Pro towers - at least in terms of officially-supported cards. I am aware that one could flash the firmware of third-party PC cards to get them to work, but would that still be possible in a post-T2 world?

The way I see Apple positioning their desktops is the iMac as the general-purpose computer for most consumers.

Also agreed.

If they have truly learned their lesson Apple would surely just create a box that would let users upgrade a standard PC graphics card to one that users could upgrade themselves but they just prefer users to take responsibility for their own external upgrades via Thunderbolt 3 - which is fine if it weren't for the massive cost.

But in a post-T2 world where Apple can control the software and hardware installed on a Mac, would they allow users to use PC video cards that were firmware flashed? Or would they design it to only allow Apple-branded cards to work? And if the latter, is that really a panacea considering how few upgrade video cards Apple released for the old tower Mac Pros?

 

[CWallace]

Make sense with three levels but which levels?

I based my user categories off Steve's original two of "Consumer" and "Professional" and added a middle "Prosumer" one to reflect that there are "Consumers" who can use or desire more powerful products while there are "Professionals" whose profession might not require the most powerful and/or capable products.

I agree with you that these labels can be limiting and that is why I have no issue with scrapping that matrix - which happened under Steve's leadership, I might add. As Apple and it's customer base grew under Steve, he realized that a simple four-quadrant matrix of two kinds of customers and two classes of product no longer was reasonable or desirable and he started adding more models to address that expanding base. And with Tim taking over, that has only increased (to somewhat illogical levels, IMO, but there is no denying such expansion has dramatically grown Apple's business to the Industry Titan it is today).

 

[Mike The Soundguy]

You're thinking of buying an iMac Pro so you can avoid Catalina for as long as possible? That says a lot about the current state of Apple's software, haha. Fair play to you. Gotta do what you gotta do.

Well I have learned a long time ago to just about stay a version behind on OS if possibly for stability , plus usually the 3rd party ones have to get caught up etc . In my industry we try not to mess with updates on stuff on a friday ! LOL In the home A/V and automation industry instead of plug and play we call it plug and pray . So I have developed like an update trust at times . Sounds crazy right ? I cant even explain the mess when I had with a tuner update my tune in my 350z . I ended up putting $1500 in parts in the car chasing an issue, but nobody would listen to me as I kept insisting it was after the update and I know how that can go . I ended up finally getting a really good tuner to listen to me and he found what I was talking about . It was fixed after we redid the program and took out a feature that was causing the issue . So yeah my trust gets thin at times . lol I do like the cutting edge advancements and am all for it but some companies rush to be the next product and don't work out all the bugs . Also nothing can be bug free but you know what I'm saying . I could go on lol I still am an Apple fan since the Mac plus !

 

[gusping]

I think most iMac users would be all over that. I'd take that.

But I want my 32 inch screen, ofc.

Azrael.

Dream list right there, oh and I agree. 32 inches would be the icing on the cake.

 

[sublunar]

The only thing I can see the W-1200 series would bring to an iMac is higher prices because the CPU costs more and ECC RAM costs more.

When the iMac Pro launched, there was a fair bit of complaining about it using the W-2100 Xeons and ECC RAM because many in the community felt that there was no need for either. They advocated using the Core Extreme high-core count CPUs because those did not need ECC RAM and the motherboards were cheaper. And they still offered 44 PCI lanes compared to 48 in the Xeons so expandability was not an issue. All together, they felt such an iMac Pro could have been priced closer to $3999 than $4999.

Apple never used the Intel E3 Xeon CPUs while they were parallel to the Core processors for several generations so it's entirely likely that in a normal situation they would not consider them. But there are a couple of things on the horizon that they will have to navigate - and E3 Xeon have been rebranded into the Xeon W series.

1. If Intel Macs are to continue and Apple need to to bring the T2 CPU on board I think they'll choose to go all SSD. So the price of an iMac either goes up, or the spec changes (in terms on total storage, screen size etc). This is an issue for Apple who like to keep specific products the same price.

2. According to Linus Tech Tips - the specification of kit Apple chose for the iMac Pro was actually a good deal for the parts that were settled on. It's just that the choice of parts isn't what a vocal group of people would choose - nor would many who are staying quiet either I guess. And locking away the RAM upset a lot of people who were used to upgrading it themselves. Yes, the deal becomes less good over time as Apple don't then discount, and didn't refresh in the last couple of years.

3. Apple could have used the Intel Extreme Edition CPUs for iMac Pro but chose not to, in marketing terms Extreme Editions are for gaming and enthusiasts and Xeons are for professional workstation work.

4. There is a 23" iMac coming and yet nobody knows where in the range it fits, if it comes at all.

5. If there's an Intel redesign coming it's going to have to last 4 generations to be worth it - can you see that happening?

6. ARM transition could make an Intel iMac moot and with the kind of energy saving settings possible I can't see an ARM iMac using a bulky enclosure designed for Intel.

The idea of using the W-1200 is a marketing excuse for introducing a more affordable iMac Pro - in the 23" range - without upsetting existing iMac users (either 21.5" or 27"). I have an increasingly nagging feeling that those machines will either get a proper refresh or they are EOL next year after a Coffee Lake storage bump this year. ARM is a growing shadow across the range.

Imagine in a few years a future Intel version of macOS demanding to both detect a T2 CPU AND a Xeon. That would be some way of foiling the Hackintosh crowd.

But in a post-T2 world where Apple can control the software and hardware installed on a Mac, would they allow users to use PC video cards that were firmware flashed? Or would they design it to only allow Apple-branded cards to work? And if the latter, is that really a panacea considering how few upgrade video cards Apple released for the old tower Mac Pros?

This is another situation where Apple are fully in control of what they are going to do. Plenty of people have asked for a double height mini with onboard AMD discrete GPU (what I have called a headless MBP16 situation) which is another way that Apple could improve the Mini for some users. Mac mobile users with laptops know their only bet for a GPU boost is an eGPU so that leaves the tiny Mac mini contingent who want to improve their setups with better graphics.

If Titan Ridge is slated to come to a 2021 or 2022 Mac mini it could end up running a Pro Display XDR - which is a shaky idea at the best of times. However, the Mini might by then have Rocket Lake CPU with better Intel Xe graphics - which go a little way towards solving the onboard graphics issue.

At the end of the day, it could all be swept away by a move to ARM for the Mac, and I would think that any remaining Intel machines will be for a hardcore few who seriously need Intel compatibility - so why not have a Xeon powered Mac Pro and Mac mini as options for those users?

 

[CWallace]

1. If Intel Macs are to continue and Apple need to to bring the T2 CPU on board I think they'll choose to go all SSD. So the price of an iMac either goes up, or the spec changes (in terms on total storage, screen size etc). This is an issue for Apple who like to keep specific products the same price.

I could see Apple addressing this by only offering all-SSD and T2 on the 27" iMac and iMac Pro while continuing to offer Fusion Drives (and no T2) on the ~24" iMac.

This way the 27" models become the "prosumer" and "professional" iMacs. Apple currently wants $2599 for an iMac 5K with the i5-9600, 16GB of RAM, 512GB SSD and a 580X GPU. I see no problem with them offering a 2020 model with the i5-10600 and the replacement for the 580X GPU for $2499.

Yes, we lose the $1799 and $1999 models, but those models are really just there to hit a price point and if the iMac 4K does see a panel size increase to 24" then those who were buying the entry-level 5K models should be okay with going with a higher-end 4K model with more RAM and SSD storage instead of Fusion Drives/

3. Apple could have used the Intel Extreme Edition CPUs for iMac Pro but chose not to, in marketing terms Extreme Editions are for gaming and enthusiasts and Xeons are for professional workstation work.

Yes, and I believe this is why Apple went Xeon and ECC for the iMac Pro - they wanted it to be a cheaper alternative to the "no limits, but at a cost" Mac Pro for markets that would normally consider a Mac Pro because of Xeon CPUs and ECC RAM.

4. There is a 23" iMac coming and yet nobody knows where in the range it fits, if it comes at all.

I believe it is coming and it will replace the 21.5" model for sure and I could see it replacing the 8GB/Fusion Drive 5K models, as well (see above).

5. If there's an Intel redesign coming it's going to have to last 4 generations to be worth it - can you see that happening?

A chassis redesign is pretty cheap. And a mild chassis redesign (shrink the bezels and maybe the chin) is even cheaper. I am not sure it really needs to last four generations, but I could see the ARM iMac being slotted right into it so it could last much longer than four generations.

6. ARM transition could make an Intel iMac moot and with the kind of energy saving settings possible I can't see an ARM iMac using a bulky enclosure designed for Intel.

Agreed, but again, Apple is more than rich enough to eat a new Intel chassis design followed by a new ARM chassis design.

The idea of using the W-1200 is a marketing excuse for introducing a more affordable iMac Pro - in the 23" range - without upsetting existing iMac users (either 21.5" or 27"). I have an increasingly nagging feeling that those machines will either get a proper refresh or they are EOL next year after a Coffee Lake storage bump this year. ARM is a growing shadow across the range.

I could see Apple adopting the following strategy for the iMac family:

• Launch the ~24" iMac with a new chassis design intended to transition to ARM by the end of 2021. Using 65W Intel CPUs and mobile AMD GPUs would keep the system TDP low enough to allow a cooling system designed for ARM.
• Do nothing with the 27" iMac and iMac Pro chassis. When the ~24" moves to ARM in 2021, the 27" iMac is EOL'd. The 27" iMac Pro would continue with Intel and AMD parts and the current iMac Pro chassis.
• When Apple has true workstation-class ARM CPUs ready they would release a new iMac Pro chassis design (perhaps with a larger screen) design around them and Intel would be left only in the Mac Pro.

 

[gusping]

I could see Apple adopting the following strategy for the iMac family:

• Launch the ~24" iMac with a new chassis design intended to transition to ARM by the end of 2021. Using 65W Intel CPUs and mobile AMD GPUs would keep the system TDP low enough to allow a cooling system designed for ARM.
• Do nothing with the 27" iMac and iMac Pro chassis. When the ~24" moves to ARM in 2021, the 27" iMac is EOL'd. The 27" iMac Pro would continue with Intel and AMD parts and the current iMac Pro chassis.
• When Apple has true workstation-class ARM CPUs ready they would release a new iMac Pro chassis design (perhaps with a larger screen) design around them and Intel would be left only in the Mac Pro.

I'll be amazed if Apple could undertake such a smooth transition by end-2021, especially on the higher end CPUs (if they are abandoning the 27in iMac). I suspect Intel i7 and i9 CPUs that go in the 16in MBP and 27in iMacs are staying for a good 3-4 years. I don't think the transition will be that quick, not to mention the software side of things. ARM will break all current software that can't be ported over using Catalyst. The iMac needs a radical redesign for the latest Intel CPUs and AMD GPUs now.... Do I think it will get one? Probably not

 

[Moonjumper]

Agreed. The folks who ask for a headless "X-Mac" want it just to be able to upgrade the GPU because that is the technology that advances the most (and a majority of them also seem to be game-centric users). But I don't recall Apple ever being very proactive in GPU upgrades for the PowerMac and Mac Pro towers - at least in terms of officially-supported cards. I am aware that one could flash the firmware of third-party PC cards to get them to work, but would that still be possible in a post-T2 world?

I want an xMac for multiple reasons, but the main one is the typical lifespan of a monitor is very different to the computer it connects to. It seems a waste to stop using an excellent monitor because the computer is too slow.

It would be different if we still had Target Display Mode, or they used the external GPU functionality to allow an iMac to function as an external GPU plus monitor (maybe even allowing simple apps on the external iMac to use the slower computer in there). In fact, if they did that, I might be buying 2 iMacs if there is a redesign, as I suspect many others would.

 

[gusping]

I want an xMac for multiple reasons, but the main one is the typical lifespan of a monitor is very different to the computer it connects to. It seems a waste to stop using an excellent monitor because the computer is too slow.

It would be different if we still had Target Display Mode, or they used the external GPU functionality to allow an iMac to function as an external GPU plus monitor (maybe even allowing simple apps on the external iMac to use the slower computer in there). In fact, if they did that, I might be buying 2 iMacs if there is a redesign, as I suspect many others would.

This goes back to the point I believe Azrael made. Have a desktop device that can be tailored from a Mac mini to a Mac Pro (not realistic, I know). If you want a Mac mini, you buy the base model. If you want an iMac-like machine, you buy the mid-level version (or upgraded base model) and buy the Apple monitor (5K or a cheaper 6K XDR model). And if you want the full fat Mac Pro, then it's basically what it is now.

I would f**king love that, and I think lots of people here would, but it won't happen.

 

[Al Bundy]

Do you think there is a chance that an iMac redesign could have the cheese grater cooling from the Mac Pro ?
Not that i find the design beautiful, it would be nice to have a killer cooling for this machine. And since the Mac Pro one seems very effective...

 

[CWallace]

I'll be amazed if Apple could undertake such a smooth transition, especially on the higher end CPUs. I suspect Intel i7 and i9 CPUs that go in the 16in MBP and 27in iMacs are staying for a good 3-4 years. I don't think the transition will be that quick, not to mention the software side of things. ARM will break all current software that can't be ported over using Catalyst.

Fair points.

x86 can be emulated on ARM so we could see a new version of Rosetta to handle non-Catalyst apps. So Apple could keep the ~24" and/or the 27" with Intel CPUs (as defaults or as options) until the A-series are powerful enough to handle most tasks in emulation at which point the iMac Pro would be there for the tasks that still cannot be emulated or still benefit from Intel-native performance.

I want an xMac for multiple reasons, but the main one is the typical lifespan of a monitor is very different to the computer it connects to. It seems a waste to stop using an excellent monitor because the computer is too slow.

Again, fair points, but it is not like Intel is making significantly faster CPUs with every generation. The synthetic benchmarks go up every generation, but does real-world performance for most real-world tasks? Tasks like using general productivity apps (MS Office, etc.).

This forum is full of people who have iMacs pushing five to ten years that only now are "too slow" for use. And with Intel seemingly changing CPU sockets with each generation, you would not be able to upgrade your CPU within a generation or two anyway without a new motherboard - which you would need to source from Apple and likely at a price so high most would not bother.

So really, I don't see how an "X-Mac" offers any real expandability that is not slaved to a PCI-slot and that is pretty much going to be limited to video cards and maybe faster USB ports.

 

[jetjaguar]

I think most iMac users would be all over that. I'd take that.

But I want my 32 inch screen, ofc.

Azrael.

If they do a 32” .. it will most likely be for the iMac Pro only

 

[AAtte]

So do you think all the 2020 iMac cpus will have hyperthreading? I believe hyper threading is a thing on 10th gen Intel in i5’s also.

 

[CWallace]

So do you think all the 2020 iMac cpus will have hyperthreading?

Yes, as all of the Comet Lake S Core family CPUs have hyper-threading.

 

[AAtte]

Yes, as all of the Comet Lake S Core family CPUs have hyper-threading.

That would make all the base models around 40% better in multicore loads compared to 2019. Worth waiting for.

 

[Patchwork]

i can’t see Apple ever launching an xMac type device as if they wanted to, we’d already have one. The fact that we don’t says that it isn’t a market that Apple is interested in. As desktops only make up about 20% of Mac sales and macs aren’t as important as they used to be, there’s pretty much no chance of this happening In the future. Much as I’d love an xMac type device, you are either stuck with the mini and thunderbolt for expansion, which can get expensive, or the Mac Pro which is expensive to start with.

On the subject of processors I would expect the iMac Pro, assuming it continues, to stick with Xeon as ECC RAM is a must for certain professional applications. A stray comics ray zapping a bit wouldn’t make a difference when browsing the web or playing a game but could mean rework or worse still the wrong data or calculation isn’t noticed. While this isn’t likely (estimates are about once every 9 years per 8GB of RAM) why would any company risk it when the financial consequences could run into thousands?

 

[Abazigal]

You now have to pay £1700 to get started on the way to a decent Mac desktop. And you get? An i5 with mediocre dGPU.

And a 5k display. This sounds like pretty much what most general consumers would need. An all-in-one desktop that takes up very little space (no need to make space for a separate tower unit), is easy to manage (just plug in a single cable), and handles whatever I throw at it (which admittedly is not very much). All while having a gorgeous screen to view videos and spreadsheets on.

The Mac Pro has a souped up R580 at £6k. It costs more than the iMac Pro by a £1k. No monitor and inferior gpu. But sure, you can upgrade your wheels at the ridiculous $700. (For which you could build a PC that would cream the more expensive Mac Mini.)

Well, if you look at the Mac Pro, a lot of money has clearly gone into its design. The case costs money, the PSU costs money, as does the motherboard they chose to support 1.5tb of ram and the lack of cabling. You could probably build a PC for way less, but it wouldn't have any of the aforementioned bells and whistles.

You are basically paying a lot for "niceness". And Apple clearly expects you to hold on to the Mac Pro for a long period of time, since its internals can be upgraded, unlike the iMac Pro, where you likely just toss out the entire unit once it no longer meets your computing needs. So I suppose it can be worth it in the long run, but you have to be prepared to hang on to the Mac Pro for 6-10 years (I estimate).

So my take is that nobody is expected to use the base configuration as is, but however you spec it out, it will likely use some variation thereof. For example, if you want to use it to edit music, you would boost the ram and CPU but leave the graphics card as is. I agree that the base model is trash, but I don't expect anyone to actually buy it as is. So to me, comparing the base Mac Pro against the iMac Pro is largely a moot point.

That's how warped Apple's desktop is.

The way I see it, the iMac has basically taken the spot of the original Mac Pro, because we have now come to a point where hardware advancements have outstripped consumer needs and the iMac is powerful enough to handle 99% of computer work, even for heavy users.

I feel there is a certain degree of logic as to how Apple has chosen to segment their desktop lineup. Well, to me at least.

I want an xMac for multiple reasons, but the main one is the typical lifespan of a monitor is very different to the computer it connects to. It seems a waste to stop using an excellent monitor because the computer is too slow.

The xMac gets talked about a lot, but only really among techy circles like Macrumours forums. I wouldn't be surprised if the actual demand was relatively low compared to other Mac models. Especially if it ends up costing just as much, if not more than an iMac.

The other problem is the design aspect. Apple could use the same ideas as they have in the Mac Pro to make a superb mini tower model with mainstream hardware and a more affordable price, but all that clever design would add quite a bit to the cost. That added expense may be relatively insignificant for a high end machine like the Pro (especially once you spend some money speccing it out), but it could mean that an xMac would look like very poor value alongside the multitude of similar boxes available from Dell, HP, and the rest.

So it seems that we have come full circle back to the problem where a product is too low-margin and too low-volume for Apple to justify selling.