maybe who knows and for the 27" will have 780MX model
Currently, there is no 780MX, just a 780M.Then i buy that one for sure. But doesnt it seem unlikely with 780mx?
780m maybe.
I don't expect Iris 5200 will be used in iMac because they are too much expensive. i5-4570R costs near $300, maybe more expensive than i5+dGPU.
I haven't seen any individual price guidance for the embedded 'R' chips, perhaps you can link the page? From my own searches, it appears that Iris Pro 5200 means a slight drop in MHz in exchange for superior graphics performance and L4 cache.
But given that the alternative in a 21.5" iMac is a 2.9GHz i5-4570S (65W) for a list price of $192 plus a mobile GPU such as a GT750M with its own power consumption of 35-40W then why wouldn't you choose something that runs far cooler and is has room for overclocking to match the GT750m on a more level playing field?
Currently, there is no 780MX, just a 780M.
A 780M is only a couple of percent faster than a 680MX. No one knew about a 680MX until it showed up in the iMac. Based on both of these facts, the high end 27" iMac could have a 780MX option.
I don't think the Fusion drive will be included but the price points will remain the same in my opinion. The 21.5" iMac is fairly easy to predict.
They'll use an embedded CPU on the motherboard that will come with Iris Pro 5200 graphics, all models of the 21.5" will lose the discrete graphics.
2.7 GHz quad core i5 for the 'good' spec.
3GHz i5 quad core for the 'better' spec.
3.2GHz i7 quad core with hyperthreading for the 'best' spec - a BTO upgrade from the 'better' spec.
You can expect them to retain the same case shell - the cpu has the same thermal profile - and the graphics will be a rough match for the discrete versions offered on the Ivy Bridge models GT640M and GT650M while actually producing less heat because there will be no discrete GPU.
Effectively, I'm saying the prices will stay the same and the iMac 21.5" models will run cooler.
If you want to continue to speculate on the 27" models, we could see an overclocked version of all of the above to improve the graphics on the base models, with discrete NVidia parts for the 'better' and 'best' but that's very much speculation on my part.
Let's stay on subject (21.5'' iMac). I agree with your opinion. Also, I have to add the possibility to find PCIe SSD in all new 21.5'' iMacs along with a cheaper Fusion drive option.
FD is an SSD plus HDD combination. Why the hell would Apple offer pcie SSDs separately while keeping FD based on sata SSDs? Why won't they simply offer the pcie-based FD next?
This is what I think is likely to happen also.Did I say anything else?....my opinion is:
a. PCIe SSD (SSD option) or
b. PCIe SSD + Sata III HDD (Fusion Drive option)
c. Sata III HDD (base model).
I haven't seen any individual price guidance for the embedded 'R' chips, perhaps you can link the page? From my own searches, it appears that Iris Pro 5200 means a slight drop in MHz in exchange for superior graphics performance and L4 cache.
But given that the alternative in a 21.5" iMac is a 2.9GHz i5-4570S (65W) for a list price of $192 plus a mobile GPU such as a GT750M with its own power consumption of 35-40W then why wouldn't you choose something that runs far cooler and is has room for overclocking to match the GT750m on a more level playing field?
i think they can do Iris Pro only in the base model 21.5", instead of the Geforce 740M. Because from 750M is less powerfull. I dont think the 27" imac will sell well with Iris Pro and eliminate 770M or 780M
I found the price at the website as below, but I could be wrong.
http://www.cpu-world.com/CPUs/Core_i5/Intel-Core i5-4570R.html
i5 with Iris is cooler than i5 + dGPU, but it doesn't seem heat & power are major concerns for desktops. I think the "thin" iMac's cooling system is much more capable than rMBP's. My current generation iMac runs cool and quietly.
Interesting price there, it's not on the official Intel Ark pages though, and people have forgotten that Tim Cook may want to remove discrete GPUs to simplify the supply chain as well as look for price efficiency plus Apple are capable of getting Intel to produce a custom version of the cpu that has overlocked GPU if they need something that is more competitive than a GT650m.
There's also no price guide on the mobile graphics parts being used here throughout the existing iMac range - they are not necessarily the $50 parts being assumed elsewhere in this thread.
Running cool and quiet is something that Apple seem to value a lot, and I would tend to agree over a more capable but noisier desktop Windows-based system for example.
1. iMacs are already running cool and quiet, and additional TDP reduction won't do any improvement here.
2. Even if they'll make Intel to produce CPU versions with overclocked GPUs, it won't let those iGPUs compete with 650m, not to say about 750m model with even higher clocks.
3. To simplify the chain, they have to completely move to iGPUs, or there would be no simplification at all. Any idea of what they could do to match a 680mx/780m performance level in that case? Yet another one even more powerful custom iGPU version from Intel?
4. Margin is the most important thing for Apple, regardless of what they or anyone else say. I looked for an info about i5-4570r oem price, and it's $288 afaik. No reason not to believe that, since IrisPro parts pricing is ridiculous for mobile SKUs. i5-4430s (the same clocks and tdp) is $182. GeForce 750m oem pricing is somewhere between $78 and $90, it's a guess made by calculation of the components prices for laptops that use Clevo barebones. So if I'm right, dGPU usage is not only more performant, but is also cheaper. I really see zero reasons for Apple to go with iGPU for desktop computers in that case.
Once again, what would be good for rMBPs (meaning the moving from dGPU to IrisPro and thus getting better GPGPU performance, lower heat and better battery life), won't be good at all for potential iMac consumers.
i5 with Iris is cooler than i5 + dGPU, but it doesn't seem heat & power are major concerns for desktops. I think the "thin" iMac's cooling system is much more capable than rMBP's. My current generation iMac runs cool and quietly.
Wohoo! Thats the kind of fact o wanna hear about. Thanks alot.. Now there IS a tiny hope for a 780mx. That would be so awesome.
So nice to hear noone knew about the 680mx earlier.
Doesn't mean Apple can't just substitute completely for an SSD. Remember, an SSD may consume only 2W of power, where as a conventional HDD can go up to 7W... those 5W make a huge difference in the thermal scope of the iMac.
Take a look at how much the price jumps when changing from a 500 GB standard HD on a macbook pro to 512 SSD. It's 700 Bucks! To go from 1 TB standard to 768 GB SSD, it's 900 bucks. To make fusion standard is more likely than all out SSD as it is not as pricey.