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

[Freida]

Yes, but the old shaving mirror designed iMac had external speakers. In my opinion, that design was better than the current design. Having the speakers external allows for us to upgrade them, if we wanted.

most hilarious post ever!!!
If you want to upgrade external speakers you can do that now. Why does it bother you that it is inside?
I just wanna cry with laughter. This is insane

 

[SKYNET-1]

most hilarious post ever!!!
If you want to upgrade external speakers you can do that now. Why does it bother you that it is inside?
I just wanna cry with laughter. This is insane

Indeed, n i use external ones because the internal ones really worse, sounds like a can with a hidden in ear speaker ?

 

[Freida]

I'm just surprised that people are this unreasonable these days. No wonder Apple's line is all over the place

If people have reasonable expectations/desires then I guess it would be easier for Apple to listen to feedback. However, if its scattered and people ask for nonsense then Apple will just pick.

 

[satchmo]

Do we think any new iMacs (2020 or later) will retain the 21 and 27 inch sizes? (21" feels awfully small for today's applications).

But while going up to say 24" and 30" respectively would be nice, the display would be less sharp assuming the same 4K and 5K resolution.

 

[CWallace]

Do we think any new iMacs (2020 or later) will retain the 21 and 27 inch sizes? (21" feels awfully small for today's applications).

I am going to hazard a guess that it will remain 21.5 at 4K and 27" at 5K because those displays are Retina.

LG does have a new LG UltraFine 4K Display Apple could adapt the panel from, however it is not Retina and it would be very close to the size of the 27" model. LG does have a 32" 4K display, but it is also not Retina and would be a downgrade in both pixel density and overall resolution. I do not see Apple going Ultrawide on the iMac, so the LG "5/2K" 34" panel (5120x2160) seems unlikely, as well.

That leaves LG's 32" 8K panel as used in the Dell UP3218K, but I expect that panel is still very expensive (though shipping another million a quarter via the iMac would help drive the price down). On the plus side, at HiDPI it is the same resolution as a 4K display so you could pair it with a 4K display and not have windows resize when moved across.

This window resizing issue is why I do not believe the iMac will migrate to the 6K panel used in the Pro Display XDR - it is a non-standard resolution at both native and HiDPI (3008x1692). It is also likely a very expensive panel (more than the 8K 32" panel) and I am not sure how much you can "de-content" it to bring the price down. And that de-contented price would probably still be equal to or more than the 8K panel so why not use the 8K panel and not have any issues?

 

[sublunar]

Do we think any new iMacs (2020 or later) will retain the 21 and 27 inch sizes? (21" feels awfully small for today's applications).

But while going up to say 24" and 30" respectively would be nice, the display would be less sharp assuming the same 4K and 5K resolution.

The only clue to a different monitor panel size is the 24" 4k 3840x2160 LG Ultrafine product that replaced the 21.5" 4096x2304 panel that was on sale until relatively recently.

There is obviously the reduction in dot pitch because of the larger pixels in the 24" panel. If Apple wanted to retain the "true 4k" resolution they would probably ask for a 25" panel at the same dot pitch cut from the same sheet. In theory this should lead to a cost reduction and potentially more buyers as people gravitate to it from the lower end 27" SKUs as well as the 21.5" SKUs.

The issue that regular users will have with the 21.5" monitor is that it's 'undersized' as many office users will be used to a 24" screen, even if it's at 1080p or 1440p non retina resolution.

It remains to be seen if Apple will persist with the poverty spec 1080p 21.5" panel used in the base iMac 2019.

LG does have a new LG UltraFine 4K Display Apple could adapt the panel from, however it is not Retina and it would be very close to the size of the 27" model. LG does have a 32" 4K display, but it is also not Retina and would be a downgrade in both pixel density and overall resolution. I do not see Apple going Ultrawide on the iMac, so the LG "5/2K" 34" panel (5120x2160) seems unlikely, as well.

That leaves LG's 32" 8K panel as used in the Dell UP3218K, but I expect that panel is still very expensive (though shipping another million a quarter via the iMac would help drive the price down). On the plus side, at HiDPI it is the same resolution as a 4K display so you could pair it with a 4K display and not have windows resize when moved across.

This window resizing issue is why I do not believe the iMac will migrate to the 6K panel used in the Pro Display XDR - it is a non-standard resolution at both native and HiDPI (3008x1692). It is also likely a very expensive panel (more than the 8K 32" panel) and I am not sure how much you can "de-content" it to bring the price down. And that de-contented price would probably still be equal to or more than the 8K panel so why not use the 8K panel and not have any issues?

The definition of Retina has been generally hazy, but using an 8k resolution panel (in an iMac Pro presumably) would be a very tall order when the Apple Display Pro XDR is only 6k unless Apple make compromises on the quality and features.

Ultrawide may be seen as a niche thing by Apple unless they are 5k resolution panels but from a marketing standpoint it's easy to see why they might be attractive.

I can't see any reason why Apple would not continue to use the proven 27" full 5k panel in an iMac though. Perhaps this iMac may end up being solely an iMac Pro if there is a 24/25" 4k iMac panel for a merged iMac product.

I imagine on the basis of purchasing a 24" 4K UltraFine then the Windows would be the same size off an iMac of the same size for obvious reasons. It's been generally impossible to buy a 4k panel to match the 21.5" iMac as a secondary screen without buying the (now discontinued) 21.5" Ultrafine.

The only other thing Apple could do with a 4k panel is to introduce 120Hz refresh 'Pro-Motion' feature. This would mean the GPU having to shift as many pixels per second as a 5k panel though.

 

[CWallace]

The definition of Retina has been generally hazy, but using an 8k resolution panel (in an iMac Pro presumably) would be a very tall order when the Apple Display Pro XDR is only 6k unless Apple make compromises on the quality and features.

The Pro XDR display outclasses the Dell UP3218K in every category other than raw resolution so I do not believe that would be a guaranteed reason why Apple would not do so. That being said, I do believe there are enough other reasons (price and size being two very big ones) why Apple would not do so.

The only other thing Apple could do with a 4k panel is to introduce 120Hz refresh 'Pro-Motion' feature. This would mean the GPU having to shift as many pixels per second as a 5k panel though.

DisplayPort 1.4 does support 4K at 120Hz, but not with the P3 colorspace. Apple could do their own custom silicon to support 4K (and even 5K) at 120Hz with the P3 colorspace, but that would also require a custom LCD panel, as well, and at iMac production levels, that would likely be expensive which would mean a corresponding price increase.

 

[sublunar]

The Pro XDR display outclasses the Dell UP3218K in every category other than raw resolution so I do not believe that would be a guaranteed reason why Apple would not do so. That being said, I do believe there are enough other reasons (price and size being two very big ones) why Apple would not do so.

While the iMac Pro appears to use the same panel as the iMac, I can't see why Apple would then use the significantly more expensive 32" 6k XDR panel in a 32" iMac. As you say, the cost reason comes into it, and the recyclability issue comes into play too.

DisplayPort 1.4 does support 4K at 120Hz, but not with the P3 colorspace. Apple could do their own custom silicon to support 4K (and even 5K) at 120Hz with the P3 colorspace, but that would also require a custom LCD panel, as well, and at iMac production levels, that would likely be expensive which would mean a corresponding price increase.

'Pro-Motion' might be too expensive to achieve at the budget Apple are aiming at too, but my argument about using a more commodity size 24" or 25" 4k panel should allow for a cheaper and more attractive iMac for consumers despite arguments against 'retina' quality displays.

And let's not forget if Apple find it important enough could they make a 4k Pro-motion iMac Pro range topper?

If Apple choose to persist with 21.5" 4k DCI-P3 (4096x2304) displays then they might decide that going all SSD and updating the form factor might enable attract more people to buy it - but at what cost?

 

[Moonjumper]

Do we think any new iMacs (2020 or later) will retain the 21 and 27 inch sizes? (21" feels awfully small for today's applications).

But while going up to say 24" and 30" respectively would be nice, the display would be less sharp assuming the same 4K and 5K resolution.

i would like to see Apple go 24” and 30” by returning to the 16:10 aspect ratio, becoming pixel doubled equivalents of the old Apple Cinema Displays of those sizes so that they are retina. The 24” would also be a retina equivalent of the old 24” iMac, not a coincidence as iMac sizes have often followed previous Apple monitor sizes, hence why I have some hope they do again.

24” 3840x2400
30” 5120x3200

 

[CWallace]

While the iMac Pro appears to use the same panel as the iMac, I can't see why Apple would then use the significantly more expensive 32" 6k XDR panel in a 32" iMac. As you say, the cost reason comes into it, and the recyclability issue comes into play too.

I was actually referring to using a 32" 8K panel (like the one in the Dell) for the iMac even though Apple offers a 32" 6K panel in the Pro XDR. So I was saying the 8K panel might be higher resolution, but the 6K panel is better in every other category so Apple could, in theory, use an 8K panel in the iMac line and still offer the 6K Pro XDR monitor for the Mac Pro because the XDR monitor is better in every other way. However, I believe that the 8K panel is too expensive for the iMac and I also believe Apple might feel 32" is too large a screen size for the iMac.

If Apple choose to persist with 21.5" 4k DCI-P3 (4096x2304) displays then they might decide that going all SSD and updating the form factor might enable attract more people to buy it - but at what cost?

Personally, I do not believe any 4K or 5K iMac should ship with only a spinner. So I would like to see Apple offer the base 27" 5K iMac at $1799 with a 256GB SSD or a 2TB Fusion Drive and the base 21.5" iMac 4K at $1299 with the 1TB Fusion Drive. That way every 4K and 5K iMac has an SSD (32GB/128GB/256GB) as part of it's storage configuration.

I'd keep the 1920x1080 with a 1TB HDD around (and drop the price to $999), but not as something the general public can buy. Make it Educational and/or Business only where the people buying it understand the limitations it has in that configuration (and who can upgrade to a Fusion Drive or small SSD if they feel it is prudent).

 

[Voyageur]

i would like to see Apple go 24” and 30” by returning to the 16:10 aspect ratio, becoming pixel doubled equivalents of the old Apple Cinema Displays of those sizes so that they are retina. The 24” would also be a retina equivalent of the old 24” iMac, not a coincidence as iMac sizes have often followed previous Apple monitor sizes, hence why I have some hope they do again.

But what's the point? Most of all media content focuses on a wide format.

 

[Moonjumper]

But what's the point? Most of all media content focuses on a wide format.

Because iMacs are often used for creating, not just consuming. It is particularly useful for content that often requires vertical scrolling, such as word processing, coding, and many websites.

Apple laptops are probably used more often for watching media than iMacs, and they are all 16:10.

 

[sublunar]

i would like to see Apple go 24” and 30” by returning to the 16:10 aspect ratio, becoming pixel doubled equivalents of the old Apple Cinema Displays of those sizes so that they are retina. The 24” would also be a retina equivalent of the old 24” iMac, not a coincidence as iMac sizes have often followed previous Apple monitor sizes, hence why I have some hope they do again.

24” 3840x2400
30” 5120x3200

Apple have gone with the commodity prices in this case. They can afford to order 16:10 screens for laptops but the panels available for iMac largely no longer exist or would significantly drive the price up - something that Apple seem to be sensitive about for their desktop line.

Apple could consolidate the regular iMac line within one panel but that would have to be something like a 24-25" screen which leaves the iMac Pro users rocking the 27" 5k screen in my opinion.

Such a 24-25" 4k panel would inevitably have commodity compromises for cost - just look at the 23.7" LG UltraFine that Apple are stocking now. The only exception I could see Apple making is to request a 25" variant of this at the same dot pitch so they could offer a true 4096x2304 display.

They'd probably draw the line at 60Hz rather than try and source a version that could do 'Pro-Motion' 120Hz or otherwise call it a range topping 'Pro' variant.

I was actually referring to using a 32" 8K panel (like the one in the Dell) for the iMac even though Apple offers a 32" 6K panel in the Pro XDR. So I was saying the 8K panel might be higher resolution, but the 6K panel is better in every other category so Apple could, in theory, use an 8K panel in the iMac line and still offer the 6K Pro XDR monitor for the Mac Pro because the XDR monitor is better in every other way. However, I believe that the 8K panel is too expensive for the iMac and I also believe Apple might feel 32" is too large a screen size for the iMac.

Like you say, we're getting into the realms of technical difficulty expecting a 'prosumer' iMac to be able to drive an 6k or 8k display. The Dell might be more mainstream but who would buy such a unit in an AIO rather than as an external monitor? The main problem, rather than size, is the cost which would be prohibitive.

Personally, I do not believe any 4K or 5K iMac should ship with only a spinner. So I would like to see Apple offer the base 27" 5K iMac at $1799 with a 256GB SSD or a 2TB Fusion Drive and the base 21.5" iMac 4K at $1299 with the 1TB Fusion Drive. That way every 4K and 5K iMac has an SSD (32GB/128GB/256GB) as part of it's storage configuration.

I'd keep the 1920x1080 with a 1TB HDD around (and drop the price to $999), but not as something the general public can buy. Make it Educational and/or Business only where the people buying it understand the limitations it has in that configuration (and who can upgrade to a Fusion Drive or small SSD if they feel it is prudent).

If Apple want to introduce the T2 then spinning hard drives will be history, a base configuration of 256Gb SSD isn't that much more expensive than the 1Tb Fusion drive.

As you say, Apple may wish to leave some variant of the 2019 21.5" as the entry level machine - inevitably with a spinning hard drive - they already do so with the non-retina base 21.5" model.

But there can't be any doubt that the following things will have factored into an iMac refresh:

1. Display Panel choice could be dictated by marketing and panel pricing both now and for the next 5 years.
2. Introduction of T2 means the end of HD and Fusion Drive - thinner case design possible
3. Professionals wanting VESA mount option - less weight desirable?
4. Is removable RAM back on the menu for a redesign that could cover a very expensive top SKU price?

 

[Voyageur]

Because iMacs are often used for creating, not just consuming. It is particularly useful for content that often requires vertical scrolling, such as word processing, coding, and many websites.

Apple laptops are probably used more often for watching media than iMacs, and they are all 16:10.

The display format of laptops is dictated not only by a relatively small size, which will still be inferior to desktop solutions of appropriate quality, but also by the form factor of the laptop itself. Imagine a 16:9 display in a laptop with the corresponding laptop cover - you have to reduce the height of the space allotted to the keyboard and touchpad.

What about the creation, so I do it too. Of course, there are times when the height is not superfluous, but in my experience and, judging by the majority, most often it needs a wide format. Otherwise, why did the same reference XDR be made exactly as it is?

 

[bsbeamer]

Intel 10th-Gen desktop CPUs are being teased by Dell. Theoretically COULD be used in an iMac 27" refresh.

Intel's 10th-gen desktop CPUs are coming soon, according to a Dell ad

Intel's 10th-generation "Comet Lake" CPUs appear to be just around the corner to take on AMD's Ryzen chips, according to a new YouTube video from Dell. It shows the company's latest XPS Tower desktop computers equipped with 10th-generation Intel Core processors. That's interesting, because so...

www.engadget.com

Intel's Flagship Core i9-10900K Comet Lake-S 10 Core Desktop CPU Benchmarked on Z490 Motherboard - Almost On Par With An AMD Ryzen 9 3900X

The latest benchmarks of Intel's flagship and upcoming mainstream desktop processor, the 10 core, Core i9-10900K, have once again leaked out.

wccftech.com

 

[Glockworkorange]

Do we think any new iMacs (2020 or later) will retain the 21 and 27 inch sizes? (21" feels awfully small for today's applications).

But while going up to say 24" and 30" respectively would be nice, the display would be less sharp assuming the same 4K and 5K resolution.

If you want to see what a 24 inch 4K iMac will look like, just check out the new LG UltraFine 4K.

The PPI is less than the 21 inch and in my opinion, does not look good

 

[Freida]

125W seems to be crazy high, is that what current CPUs draw in the iMac?

What does soon mean, though. Is it Blizzard Soon? ;-)

Intel 10th-Gen desktop CPUs are being teased by Dell. Theoretically COULD be used in an iMac 27" refresh.

Intel's 10th-gen desktop CPUs are coming soon, according to a Dell ad

Intel's 10th-generation "Comet Lake" CPUs appear to be just around the corner to take on AMD's Ryzen chips, according to a new YouTube video from Dell. It shows the company's latest XPS Tower desktop computers equipped with 10th-generation Intel Core processors. That's interesting, because so...

www.engadget.com

Intel's Flagship Core i9-10900K Comet Lake-S 10 Core Desktop CPU Benchmarked on Z490 Motherboard - Almost On Par With An AMD Ryzen 9 3900X

The latest benchmarks of Intel's flagship and upcoming mainstream desktop processor, the 10 core, Core i9-10900K, have once again leaked out.

wccftech.com

 

[bsbeamer]

95W TDP for the current max Intel Core i9-9900K upgrade in 27":

Product Specifications

quick reference guide including specifications, features, pricing, compatibility, design documentation, ordering codes, spec codes and more.

ark.intel.com

125W for all the "K" models in the rumored spec chart - i3, i5, i7, and i9.

65W for the non "K" models in the rumored spec chart. Those would be a tough sell and hardly an upgrade over many of the currently available options, especially the BTO max.

 

[Freida]

so intel releases new generation that eat 30% more energy and yet will be probably max 10% faster?
Can we get on the AMD train, please?

 

[Voyageur]

If Apple want to introduce the T2 then spinning hard drives will be history, a base configuration of 256Gb SSD isn't that much more expensive than the 1Tb Fusion drive.

Moreover, If the memory does not fail me, with customization 27" late 2013, the cost of 1 TB Fusion Drive and 256 SSDs were the same.

 

[CWallace]

125W seems to be crazy high, is that what current CPUs draw in the iMac?

As noted above, 95W has been the TDP of the current top-end iMac CPUs.

However, testing has said that when really pushed, the 125W CPUs can generate closer to 300W. Now I am guessing "really pushed" means significantly overclocked and therefore requiring liquid cooling, but it could mean that thermal throttling could be an issue with the existing iMac air cooling if all cores are engaged for an extended period of time.

MCK also issued a note this morning that included a claim that the iMac Pro will receive a 27" mini-LED display. No word about such a display coming down to the iMac 5K.

 

[xgman]

Well the report today says imac pro 4th quarter. I guess they are saying the imac pro will also be one of the new mini led models. Interesting..

Kuo does not provide specific launch dates for the items with the exception of the ‌iMac Pro‌, which he says will launch in the fourth quarter of 2020. Kuo does not provide specific launch dates for the items with the exception of the ‌iMac Pro‌, which he says will launch in the fourth quarter of 2020

The product research and development for mini LED remain unaffected by the COVID-19. The visibility for commercialization has even exceeded the expectations in our previous report.

The trend for Apple’s development and promotion of mini LED are more identifiable in five years. We predict that Apple is currently developing six mini-LED-support products (vs. the previous report of only two products), including a 12.9-inch ‌iPad Pro‌, a 27-inch ‌iMac Pro‌ in 4Q20, a 14.1-inch ‌MacBook Pro‌ (upgraded from 13.3-inch), a 16-inch ‌MacBook Pro‌, a 10.2-inch ‌iPad‌, and a 7.9-inch ‌iPad‌ mini in 2020.

 

[qap]

Yes, as I already wrote, new iMac Pro with new design and then new iMac with the same design but at the moment the iMac Pro has the priority

 

[fokmik]

"Yes, as I already wrote, new iMac Pro with new design and then new iMac with the same design but at the moment the iMac Pro has the priority"

where does it says that imac pro will have the new design? it just said that will have the miniLed display

 

[xgman]

remains to be seen whether this "new" imac pro will have the same basic case or not, I suppose. Hopefully new display can slim the bezels some without compromising the internals and cooling.