2017 iMac refresh wish list [merged]

[Trebuin]

On April 11th AMD is going to release the Ryzen 5.
I believe there will be a good alternative for i5 (Ryzen 5 1400, 1500X and 1600) and i7 (with Ryzen 7 1700). They are all within 65W of TDP and would - I guess - work even better with the Polaris range on the new iMacs.
Their ST performance is comparable with the Intel processors, but at a much lower price, while the MT specs are definitely in favour of the higher number of cores (4 to 6 in the 5 model, 8 in the 7), which would match Apple tendency to push multi-threaded software, such as Logic, GarageBand, Final Cut...

They could still implement TB3, USB3.1 Gen2 for the I/O, plus - maybe - one 1/10 Gb Ethernet.

New 4K and 5K screens (HDR?), faster SSDs, 2166/2400 MHz DDR4 RAM would be almost obvious, I guess.

I would expect a new design... maybe focussed on a better thermal management, so that all the hardware can work without an excessive underclocking.

BT 5.0, ac (ad?) Wifi, of course.

Lower prices than the actual ones (they could afford it, for a change).

and...hopefully:

* touchbar USB (or wireless?) keyboard WITH NUM KEYPAD (PLEASE!)

* wireless charger (for the keyboard and future products? iPhone, watch...)

Ok... come on, Apple!

@

The only problem with moving to an AMD CPU will be the change in the code. Currently, there is zero code written for AMDs in the OS which means we're looking at least a year out. If they started writing in the code, the hackintosh community would have had some documentation of it by now, not to mention significant movement.

The other downside, bootcamp would likely be a thing of the past & emulators (parallels, VMware, wine, crossover) would take another year to adjust their code to work with AMD, & with a market of iMacs only for now, that timeline may be even longer.

That being said, having a decent multicore for the encoding I do would be terrific! I really want to see some h265 compatibly expanded, especially to Apple TV.

 

[koyoot]

The only problem with moving to an AMD CPU will be the change in the code. Currently, there is zero code written for AMDs in the OS which means we're looking at least a year out. If they started writing in the code, the hackintosh community would have had some documentation of it by now, not to mention significant movement.

The other downside, bootcamp would likely be a thing of the past & emulators (parallels, VMware, wine, crossover) would take another year to adjust their code to work with AMD, & with a market of iMacs only for now, that timeline may be even longer.

That being said, having a decent multicore for the encoding I do would be terrific! I really want to see some h265 compatibly expanded, especially to Apple TV.

Yeah, like AMD has different x86 code than Intel has.

Dear lord...

 

[btrach144]

The only problem with moving to an AMD CPU will be the change in the code. Currently, there is zero code written for AMDs in the OS which means we're looking at least a year out. If they started writing in the code, the hackintosh community would have had some documentation of it by now, not to mention significant movement.

The other downside, bootcamp would likely be a thing of the past & emulators (parallels, VMware, wine, crossover) would take another year to adjust their code to work with AMD, & with a market of iMacs only for now, that timeline may be even longer.

That being said, having a decent multicore for the encoding I do would be terrific! I really want to see some h265 compatibly expanded, especially to Apple TV.

I don't think you understand how computers work, as koyoot has already pointed out.

 

[Malus120]

On April 11th AMD is going to release the Ryzen 5.
I believe there will be a good alternative for i5 (Ryzen 5 1400, 1500X and 1600) and i7 (with Ryzen 7 1700). They are all within 65W of TDP and would - I guess - work even better with the Polaris range on the new iMacs.
Their ST performance is comparable with the Intel processors, but at a much lower price, while the MT specs are definitely in favour of the higher number of cores (4 to 6 in the 5 model, 8 in the 7), which would match Apple tendency to push multi-threaded software, such as Logic, GarageBand, Final Cut...

Ok... come on, Apple!

@

When it comes to Apple and Ryzen, change can't come soon enough. The fact that Apple could now fit an 8 CORE chip into the TDP of an iMac is an incredible accomplishment. TBH, I'm just not that interested in buying a new desktop Mac with an Intel CPU (at least not until Intel releases a serious response anyway). I may be willing to pay the "Apple tax," but I'm most certainly not willing to pay the "Apple Tax" on top of the "Intel Tax."

 

[EnderBeta]

I personally would prefer they wait and see how the processors play out. I would rather see the 7700K for selfish reasons of having a upgrade path for my iMac. Then if Ryzen is still doing better switch to them.

 

[Malus120]

I personally would prefer they wait and see how the processors play out. I would rather see the 7700K for selfish reasons of having a upgrade path for my iMac. Then if Ryzen is still doing better switch to them.

Genuinely curious, what do you mean when you say you would prefer to "wait and see how the processors play out?"

All it takes is a quick google search to bring up any one of the large number of Ryzen 7 reviews which show that even the "low end" Ryzen 1700 (which has a 65W TDP and should fit in the iMac's thermal profile), seriously outclassing even an overclocked 7700K in multi threaded benchmarks. Even in benchmarks that don't scale as well across more than 4 cores, the Ryzen 1700 generally keeps pace with the 7700K.
(If you're talking about Ryzen 5 parts, if you do some deeper searching there are even reviews which have disabled cores to give us a simulated look at Ryzen 5 performance.)

While it's true that the 7700K (especially when overclocked) enjoys a decent lead in single core performance due to a combination of a higher turbo clock speed and slightly superior IPC, most professional and enthusiast apps on the Mac platform are reasonably well threaded, so I don't see this being much of an issue.

Of course IMHO, one issue a lot of people are missing here is that it's not just about the top of the line BTO iMac. While it's true the 7700K (even at stock) has a decent lead in single core performance over Ryzen, this lead shrinks significantly when you compare any other Kaby Lake chip at stock clocks, particularly the non K variant i5s. Adopting Ryzen would allow Apple to offer better performance (both per dollar and in absolute terms) across the whole iMac range, not just those people looking to hand Apple an extra $200-$300 for a BTO CPU upgrade.

The only other thing to bring up would be Ryzen's 1080P gaming performance when placed in a GPU limited situation (with a GTX 1080), which may or may not be artificially limited due to a simple lack of optimization for Ryzen's unique core structure. However, given that the Mac isn't a major gaming platform, the unlikeliness of Apple being able to fit GTX 1080 level performance inside an iMac chassis (at this time),and that most people who DO game on their iMacs are likely to game at at least 1440P for scaling reasons, I don't see this being a significant issue.

I probably should clarify however, that I'm basing my assumptions on Apple using 6-8 core Ryzen parts, at least at the high end. I would find the merit of a switch to 4 core Ryzen parts much less appealing (although we'd still get double the threads which would be nice)

One more thing, if you meant an actual physical upgrade path for your current iMac, I have to ask, is the risk really worth it? iMac's hold their value pretty well. Just sell it and move on if you need more performance (upgrading to a 7700K from a 6700K which you already have, would be a pretty paltry upgrade to begin with, and who knows how it might impact thermals)

 

[koyoot]

Simplest truths which are apparent with Ryzen CPUs, to this day.

Value, performance in professional, scientific and engineering workloads, Efficiency. Subjectively - noticeable smoothness of gameplay compared to Intel platform, sometimes.
Drawbacks? Non refined platform with problems of new born child. LOTS of problems.

 

[EnderBeta]

Simplest truths which are apparent with Ryzen CPUs, to this day.

Value, performance in professional, scientific and engineering workloads, Efficiency. Subjectively - noticeable smoothness of gameplay compared to Intel platform, sometimes.
Drawbacks? Non refined platform with problems of new born child. LOTS of problems.

Exactly
[doublepost=1489761938][/doublepost]

Genuinely curious, what do you mean when you say you would prefer to "wait and see how the processors play out?"

All it takes is a quick google search to bring up any one of the large number of Ryzen 7 reviews which show that even the "low end" Ryzen 1700 (which has a 65W TDP and should fit in the iMac's thermal profile), seriously outclassing even an overclocked 7700K in multi threaded benchmarks. Even in benchmarks that don't scale as well across more than 4 cores, the Ryzen 1700 generally keeps pace with the 7700K.
(If you're talking about Ryzen 5 parts, if you do some deeper searching there are even reviews which have disabled cores to give us a simulated look at Ryzen 5 performance.)

While it's true that the 7700K (especially when overclocked) enjoys a decent lead in single core performance due to a combination of a higher turbo clock speed and slightly superior IPC, most professional and enthusiast apps on the Mac platform are reasonably well threaded, so I don't see this being much of an issue.

Of course IMHO, one issue a lot of people are missing here is that it's not just about the top of the line BTO iMac. While it's true the 7700K (even at stock) has a decent lead in single core performance over Ryzen, this lead shrinks significantly when you compare any other Kaby Lake chip at stock clocks, particularly the non K variant i5s. Adopting Ryzen would allow Apple to offer better performance (both per dollar and in absolute terms) across the whole iMac range, not just those people looking to hand Apple an extra $200-$300 for a BTO CPU upgrade.

The only other thing to bring up would be Ryzen's 1080P gaming performance when placed in a GPU limited situation (with a GTX 1080), which may or may not be artificially limited due to a simple lack of optimization for Ryzen's unique core structure. However, given that the Mac isn't a major gaming platform, the unlikeliness of Apple being able to fit GTX 1080 level performance inside an iMac chassis (at this time),and that most people who DO game on their iMacs are likely to game at at least 1440P for scaling reasons, I don't see this being a significant issue.

I probably should clarify however, that I'm basing my assumptions on Apple using 6-8 core Ryzen parts, at least at the high end. I would find the merit of a switch to 4 core Ryzen parts much less appealing (although we'd still get double the threads which would be nice)

One more thing, if you meant an actual physical upgrade path for your current iMac, I have to ask, is the risk really worth it? iMac's hold their value pretty well. Just sell it and move on if you need more performance (upgrading to a 7700K from a 6700K which you already have, would be a pretty paltry upgrade to begin with, and who knows how it might impact thermals)

There are some cache issues to be worked out. If they can work them out in software great but if not then the second generation of Ryzen should allow enough time for the platform to mature. Until then I really have no desire for a unproven chipset in a machine that I use primarily for work.

If you ask me it is about the BTO machines. The BTO machines are what provide a halo effect for the lower end variants. The BTO trim is what gives Apple's marketing team the largest numbers for their up to advertising.

The issues with gaming on AMD could manifest in other intensive applications in ways that have not been noticed yet.

I doubt that the machine would hold enough value for me to sell my machine and not still spend several thousand to buy the new machine BTO. In addition currently the design of the next iMac could be less consumer friendly and change the IO. I would like to have the option to upgrade mine or move to the next at my discretion.

Ryzen is unproven and I feel the platform needs time to prove itself before being used on a premium machine.

 

[Malus120]

Simplest truths which are apparent with Ryzen CPUs, to this day.

Value, performance in professional, scientific and engineering workloads, Efficiency. Subjectively - noticeable smoothness of gameplay compared to Intel platform, sometimes.
Drawbacks? Non refined platform with problems of new born child. LOTS of problems.

Exactly

Once again, genuinely curious what the two of you are concerned about? "LOTS of problems", what are you talking about? Care to provide some sources for that? I'll grant you that the Ryzen platform is still immature (no ITX, motherboard issues still being ironed out, possible issues with the Windows scheduler), but honestly speaking this is really more relevant to people building their own PC's than it is a large vertically integrated OEM like Apple. If Apple's going to be doing this (and that's a big if) I'm sure they've done their homework so to speak.

 

[koyoot]

Motherboard BIOSes are immature, microcode of the CPU requires still updates, problems with RAM compatibility. It is still a mess.

Do not get me wrong here, I am not going to complain about it as a solution in iMac, or any Mac. Its a great value, for what it offers.


I would like to chime in with something more, to consider...

https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/Ryzen_7_1800X/14.html

What the hell?

 

[EnderBeta]

Motherboard BIOSes are immature, microcode of the CPU requires still updates, problems with RAM compatibility. It is still a mess.

Do not get me wrong here, I am not going to complain about it as a solution in iMac, or any Mac. Its a great value, for what it offers.


I would like to chime in with something more, to consider...

https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/Ryzen_7_1800X/14.html

What the hell?

I'm assuming that from this image that the i7 doing gaming wasn't making use of the integrated graphics. That is odd. The power is on par for everything except gaming.

 

[koyoot]

The Ryzen CPUs are heavily underutilized in gaming. You see virtually no difference in performance uplift regardless of RAM, SMT off, or OC'ing it to 4 GHZ in some(most) cases.

Even power consumption reflects this in gaming.

 

[askunk]

Note: I don't think the 1800X will be included in iMacs (high TDP).

 

[koyoot]

It is 4W higher than 7700K...

 

[EnderBeta]

It is 4W higher than 7700K...

Considering I can get my Late 2015 iMac 5K with a 6700K and a R9 395X and a TB SSD (less heat then fusion drive because no spinning drive) to start to overheat in gaming scenarios I would be inclined to say that the iMac is at it's thermal threshold. In order to increase the TDP for the CPU something would have to change be it the TDP of the GPU or increased cooling capacity.

I know 4W isn't much in the grand scheme of things but the iMac is a far cry from a tower with proper cooling. When pushed hard I think the 1800X would run into the same issue the 4790K ran into in the 2014 iMac 5K.

 

[Mimomo Tim Cook]

no iMac with touchscreen...that studio is almost for studio offices where you can move around and work standing in your feet. iMac is a more mainstream device and a nice one

An iMac PRO with touchscreen you can move like the surface studio would be cool though =) If they made this, they would totally have me in their pocket.

 

[koyoot]

I don't know about you guys, but I do have a felling that while we discuss iMac's its time to say one thing. 2018 will be the 20th anniversary of iMac presentation. And Apple typically, in last years prepares something special for those occasions. So we might get this year a spec bump with Intel hardware, but I will not be staggered if in 2018 we will see Ryzen CPUs in new, 8K iMacs .

 

[EnderBeta]

An iMac PRO with touchscreen you can move like the surface studio would be cool though =) If they made this, they would totally have me in their pocket.

What is going to be the thing that makes it a pro?

Maybe have all of the pros have the different level of i7 processors and dual graphics?
[doublepost=1489788017][/doublepost]

I don't know about you guys, but I do have a felling that while we discuss iMac's its time to say one thing. 2018 will be the 20th anniversary of iMac presentation. And Apple typically, in last years prepares something special for those occasions. So we might get this year a spec bump with Intel hardware, but I will not be staggered if in 2018 we will see Ryzen CPUs in new, 8K iMacs .

I personally don't care for AMD. I'd rather see the X99 platform or what ever is the successor.

 

[koyoot]

I personally don't care for AMD. I'd rather see the X99 platform or what ever is the successor.

People say that Ryzen is too much of a TDP stretch for iMac, and you Broadwell-e/Skylake-X/Kaby-Lake-X CPUs in iMac?

Not saying anything about the added cost to the computer...

 

[cube]

65W 8-core is too much for the iMac?

 

[koyoot]

65W 8-core is too much for the iMac?

If 91W 6700K is not too much then 95W TDP Ryzen CPU is not too much for the iMac.

 

[EnderBeta]

People say that Ryzen is too much of a TDP stretch for iMac, and you Broadwell-e/Skylake-X/Kaby-Lake-X CPUs in iMac?

Not saying anything about the added cost to the computer...

I should have been more clear I was thinking if they made a iMac Pro and gave it more cooling even if it was shaped more like a 2011 iMac.

 

[curmudgeonette]

Drawbacks? Non refined platform with problems of new born child. LOTS of problems.

Another drawback: Future uncertainty. AMD may be "winning" this year, but will they be able to keep improving? What if their performance stagnates and Intel passes them? Apple's switch to x86 was all about choosing the safest choice. What if we buyers would prefer Apple stay with the safe choice (Intel) over the renegade (AMD)?

The issues with gaming on AMD could manifest in other intensive applications in ways that have not been noticed yet.

The Ryzen gaming issue is a real time computing problem. On desktop systems, this problem should be quite specific to gaming. So - don't expect the problem to manifest in other applications.

(Specifically, games are having to react to "external" events, i.e. video frames. With every frame there's a critical path. During critical segments the game should pretend that SMT is off, i.e. the game should run only the critical threads as fast as possible. With Ryzen's copious threads, unimportant threads are crowding in slowing down the critical threads.)

 

[sfwalter]

At this point I'm just hoping for a sign, any sign that new iMacs are coming.

 

[koyoot]

Another drawback: Future uncertainty. AMD may be "winning" this year, but will they be able to keep improving? What if their performance stagnates and Intel passes them? Apple's switch to x86 was all about choosing the safest choice. What if we buyers would prefer Apple stay with the safe choice (Intel) over the renegade (AMD)?

First. Future version of Ryzen will have AVX512 support and ST performance to be comparable to Skylake uArch, with higher clock speeds than current iteration of Ryzen.

Secondly, 7 nm CPUs will have 12 cores as Mainstream option, because of 6 core CCX, in each CPU.

People are way too attached to brands, rather than the hardware itself...