Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

How feasible is an iMac Pro, to replace Mac Pro?

I

iBug2

macrumors 601
Original poster
Jun 12, 2005
4,531
851
I've been thinking about a possible iMac Pro in 2013 to replace the current Mac Pro.

What I'll write is about my workflow and obviously may not be "ok" for others.

First of all, I don't need 4 internal hard drives anymore. Before, I was using the internals as a RAID0 to speed up things, but nowadays we have SSD, so we don't need a RAID0 to boost OS/app performance. Single disk is ok for most stuff. If someone is doing video capture and requires a 6 disk RAID0 with SSD's, he/she can do that externally with thunderbolt now.

I don't need 3 PCI slots. I've been using one except the GPU for eSata I/O, but now I don't need it due to USB 3.0. There are obviously some specialty PCI hardware which cannot be replaced today, but I'm pretty sure that if Apple dumps PCI altogether, most manufacturers will come out with Thunderbolt versions. GPU is one of the few places we need the PCI bandwidth. Sound/video editing cards can work with TB and give a similar performance.

I don't need an internal optical drive, I bought and external Blu Ray drive 2 years ago and still use that instead of the internal drive on my Mac Pro.

These were the stuff I don't need from Mac Pro.

Now the stuff I need from Mac Pro.

Dual Processor. Now, I don't really know if Apple can actually fit two Xeon's into an iMac chassis. If they can't, this is a deal breaker for most.

Desktop GPU. I'm pretty sure a big GPU can be fit into an 33" iMac chassis. There's more than enough room for that one.

Ram: I think newer Xeon's can use Non-EEC memory, so SO DIMM's should work with those. In that case, one can easily fit 64GB Memory into a 33" iMac.

In this case, the biggest issue seems to be fitting dual xeons into an iMac chassis. If that can be done, I'd love a new 33" iMac, possibly with a 2.5k vertical resolution. Put a 4500$ price on that and I'll buy.
 
A

avemestr

macrumors regular
Aug 14, 2012
177
23
An iMac will never get Xeon processors or GPUs equivalent to current-gen workstations.

But an iMac will probably suffice for a lot of people anyway.
 
I

iBug2

macrumors 601
Original poster
Jun 12, 2005
4,531
851
avemestr said:
An iMac will never get Xeon processors or GPUs equivalent to current-gen workstations.

But an iMac will probably suffice for a lot of people anyway.
Click to expand...

I don't really see why they wouldn't be able to fit a GPU into a possible iMac 33" which is as big as GTX580. The volume should be enough. Xeon is a different matter. Xeons are really big. That's why I said that it may not be a fit.
 
ElderBrE

ElderBrE

macrumors regular
Apr 14, 2004
242
12
I don't see a desktop GPU in the iMac, especially in how they're going with the iMac design. Unless they figure out a way to thunderbolt it from an external case that is... And I don't know if that's enough speed and how it will work in Bootcamp in such a case.
 
I

iBug2

macrumors 601
Original poster
Jun 12, 2005
4,531
851
ElderBrE said:
I don't see a desktop GPU in the iMac, especially in how they're going with the iMac design. Unless they figure out a way to thunderbolt it from an external case that is... And I don't know if that's enough speed and how it will work in Bootcamp in such a case.
Click to expand...
Not in a 27" one but should fit into a 33".
 
thekev

thekev

macrumors 604
Aug 5, 2010
7,005
3,343
This focuses much more on what is possible than what would be a good idea. That display size alone would lock in a very high cost of entry. Displays kept getting larger for a long time. At 30" they backed off to 27" which was basically a wider version of the prior 25.5/26" (marketed both ways) display panels. The over 30" ones on the market right now are for displaying 4k content, and they're all quite expensive. Even if Apple brought it down to a $5k point of entry, I doubt they'd go for this. With the imac and notebooks as mainstream components have started to trend slightly downward in power consumption and somewhat in overall size, they were able to leverage in machines like we have there on the basis of being good enough.

The high end of anything tends to be the most conservative in this regard. I don't think in the present year a $5k imac would sell. What you have now is potentially some people who used to buy $2-3k towers looking at $2k imacs with some cto options. Giving them that at the older price tag isn't likely to go over as well. It doesn't really leverage on price or functionality over the quasi-big iron at that point. It's just a slight step down for the same cost. If you look at the history of old graphics workstations, they died out in the 1990s. It wasn't that desktops were necessarily ahead of them. They were leveraged by the fact that they cost and performance were in better alignment.
 
W

Wardenski

macrumors 6502
Jan 22, 2012
464
5
Sick to death of these threads. What you (OP) need is to build a custom PC to fit your needs.
 
G

gpzjock

macrumors 6502a
May 4, 2009
798
33
Full size GPU in an iMac chassis? S-troll on.
Apple are making iMac cases thinner not fatter, the existing GPUs are MMX laptop versions, the only method of full size GPU enhancement would be via the thunderbolt port when it becomes available, even then that would be for CUDA or OpenCL use or in a pipeline to an external monitor I assume.
Want something in between? Hackintosh time.
The current crop of i7 CPUs hyperthread to 8 virtual cores, future ones might go to 12, plenty for most users and overkill for the average.
 
PowerPCMacMan

PowerPCMacMan

macrumors 6502a
Jul 17, 2012
800
1
PowerPC land
My thought on this

As mentioned before, we simply don't know what the 2013 Mac Pro will look like. For all we know it could be a hybrid of an iMac and xeon type processors. Again, speculation is something Apple has always been against in the past, but for those needing something quite fast and can't wait, my suggestion would be a 6-core and or 12-core depending on the type of work you do.

In the end if the 6-core does what you need it to, then there is no need to keep harping on this subject of what the 2013 Mac Pro will look like or take the form of?

I plan on staying with my 6-core 3.33 2010 as it does everything I need it to, but then again I only use my Mac Pro as a printer/file server and nothing really heavy. Therefore, the 2013 Mac Pro if any, wouldn't suit me for the tasks I do.
 
Lesser Evets

Lesser Evets

macrumors 68040
Jan 7, 2006
3,527
1,294
I always wondered why the iMac never got a "pro" upgrade with dual processors. It doesn't need dual Xeons, but just dual whatever-it-has. At this time I'd switch to iMac if it had dual processing. The dual processors of the MacPro make it completely different from other Apple products in terms of productivity during high traffic and processing.

However, be realistic: the Mac Pro with the Xeon processors is an excellent product... was an excellent product. They really need to upgrade this thing and step forward with modern interfaces like USB3 and TB.
 
tomvos

tomvos

macrumors 6502
Jul 7, 2005
344
110
In the Nexus.
An iMac Pro would have a lot of disadvantages. The most obvious ones have already been named:
- Lack of PCIe expansion
- Lack of internal storage option
- Less powerful GPU

I would like to add the lack of a decent display, too.


But the real question nobody could answer yet is: What’s the benefit of an iMac Pro? Where’s the beef? And please don’t tell me just because Apple decides an iMac Pro should be sufficient for it’s Pro Users … because there’s enough evidence that Apple has no longer any idea how diverse the Pro User scenery is.
 
J

joshhedge

macrumors regular
Sep 23, 2012
135
0
The GTX680MX in the top spec'd iMac is effectively a lower clocked desktop GTX680. Same core counts and shaders, just lower clocks.
 
tomvos

tomvos

macrumors 6502
Jul 7, 2005
344
110
In the Nexus.
joshhedge said:
The GTX680MX in the top spec'd iMac is effectively a lower clocked desktop GTX680. Same core counts and shaders, just lower clocks.
Click to expand...

Yeah, technically correct. But it has the ability to reduce clock speed if a certain thermal limit is reached. So in theory the GTX680MX can deliver 75% of the performance of GTX860. But is the GTX680MX able to deliver it’s performance on a sustained level?
 
J

joshhedge

macrumors regular
Sep 23, 2012
135
0
tomvos said:
Yeah, technically correct. But it has the ability to reduce clock speed if a certain thermal limit is reached. So in theory the GTX680MX can deliver 75% of the performance of GTX860. But is the GTX680MX able to deliver it’s performance on a sustained level?
Click to expand...

We will have to wait and see, but Apples inclusion of this GPU shows that it is still interested in the (Semi?)pro market.
 
L

Lampmeister

macrumors member
Mar 30, 2009
65
0
Fort Worth
I love all these theories! I hadn't considered an iMac Pro as a possibility, but given Tim Cook's vague comment, "We're working on something really great for next year," regarding a Mac Pro refresh, who knows? Considering the need for upgradability of components, I can't imagine that they could base an iMac Pro on the chassis of the new, or even old, iMac. It just seems like the sleek iMac look would get very bulky once they allowed for multiple drives, adequate cooling, etc.
 
Lesser Evets

Lesser Evets

macrumors 68040
Jan 7, 2006
3,527
1,294
If the iMarket is an indication of future possibilities, Apple will probably be attempting to transition away from Intel chips for their desktops as their Apple-designed chips and iOS reach some level of competency that can support a "pro" desktop.

While this isn't going to be the case for the next 5 years, I am sure it is a strong possibility for circa 2020. A lot of work has to go into such plans, and they are progressing wildly on their A chips, so it wouldn't be a huge step to expand and transition crews to higher-end processors.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom