Apple Announces New 27-Inch iMac With 10th-Gen Processors, Up to 128GB RAM, 1080p Webcam, True Tone, and More

[rayward]

2TB it's enough. then buy external drives

I get your point about there being other ways to expand storage capacity, but there are trade-offs to that.

Probably the most incongruous is that the iMac design is all about a clean, lean, uncluttered look. You have the screen, a single power cable, a wireless keyboard and mouse. That's it. No other wires or even buttons visible. If you start adding external drives, now you have clutter that destroys the look, takes up space, needs to be plugged-in somewhere and isn't as fast as on-board storage.

An option is to use cloud storage, of course, but now you're having to add a NAS or, in my case, a second NAS (because you want your files backed up on a different set of disks). It might just make sense financially given the cost of boosting the SSDs in the new iMacs, but then you have the increased traffic on your network which might not bother everyone but it's an issue for me; I store TBs of media on my iMac's HDD to watch on my Apple TVs, and pushing a 20GB movie through the WiFi from my Mac uses a chunk of bandwidth. If iTunes had to call it from a NAS first, then you're doubling up traffic.

There are workarounds to all of this, I know. But they cost money, aren't elegant or simple, may not be practical depending on your set-up, and go against the entire "Just Works" mantra of Apple. That last one being my most significant frustration.

 

[rayward]

Apple is just lazy with iMacs when it comes to desing and hardware in general.

The iMac has been around for over 20 years and has had 3 distinct form-factors: the multi-colored G3 box, the G4 screen-on-a-dome and the current, screen-with-a-foot, G5 and derivatives. This current form was introduced in 2004; since then it's gone to aluminum (2007) and got thinner at the edges. That's it.

But it's not just iMacs. What innovative change have they made to any existing product (because there aren't any new products) since Jobs died? I can't think of one. Everything has stayed the same, except for the iPhone and Apple TV which got bigger. Other than that, year-on-year movement has all been adding power, capacity and cost; nothing more.

Meanwhile, they abandoned Airport networking and couldn't even make a charging mat work. Apple has devolved into Microsoft; it's just so sad.

 

[Nicole1980]

The lack of innovation is in the design. The rest is progressing fine.

Exactly. Its as if @Peperino only measures 'innovation' by one superficial metric: The outer appearance.

With apple fans like that, it's no wonder the company has stressed form over function too often in the past decade.

 

[haddy]

It’s an educated guess...the internals may look exactly like a 2019 iMac sans HDD, but I’m guessing Apple actually had to go with a two fan layout this time to accommodate the 10th-Gen‘s TDP and the heat output of the 5700XT, which is not trivial. Hopefully, a tear down is incoming early next week.

Yes the heat output control is what I'm waiting to hear about

 

[Zdigital2015]

Exactly. Its as if @Peperino only measures 'innovation' by one superficial metric: The outer appearance.

With apple fans like that, it's no wonder the company has stressed form over function too often in the past decade.

Peperino hasn't written a single, substantive post in the past 2-3 years. Everything is negative and reads like a Windows PC wrote it for him. It's a broken record ad nauseam.

 

[Zdigital2015]

Yes the heat output control is what I'm waiting to hear about

I generally don't care about teardowns, but I'm curious to see if they took any of the iMac Pro's cooling changes and expanded on what the iMac can do give how radically the logic board for the 2020 needed to change to incorporate the T2 and the NAND slots for the SSD (single slot? dual slot? same module as the iMac Pro and Mac Pro?).

 

[georgivelev]

I'd take a 27" 5K retina over a 34" blurry mess any day.

My point was that only now the iMac comes with stock SSD storage. 2 years ago it didn’t but the mini did and that’s why I got the base mini. Waiting 4-6 weeks for a new computer with upgraded internals is out of question for me.

I agree with you that the quality of the 27” screen of the iMac is better than that of my 34”. However, the mac mini has its set of advantages I am not going to dispute here. The thread is for the new iMac. I am finally happy with what the base package of the iMac offers.

 

[throAU]

need snore react emoji...

 

[PickUrPoison]

Since when it became insignificant to be able to choose your storage size when you buy a computer? Specially an AIO like iMac you can't upgrade by yourself later?

Maybe my statement comes from the fact that you still can configure the storage in the cheaper iMac 21.5" and the two other iMacs 27" but not the entery level 27".

Maybe my statement comes from the fact that you have always been able to configure the storage HDD/SSD in all iMacs 27" since 2007.

I guess you're talking about the price of the SSD upgrade in 21.5" and that for the price you can get a Tier 2 iMac 27" with bigger SSD AND a better CPU. You're right about that and in that way it makes sense but before all iMac 27" had the same size of HDD. Now they have downsized the SSD in the first model making many to pay more for an upgrade.

That makes no sense at all.

The 512GB and higher SSDs are in an existing configuration—the middle SKU that’s priced starting at $1,999. You get a free CPU upgrade as well.

What’s the problem, other than whoever is distributing the latest crap-on-Apple talking points didn’t take enough time with the Apple configurator to understand why it won’t let you try to build a higher-priced machine with worse specs on the entry level SKU.

 

[PickUrPoison]

<snip>
... but before all iMac 27" had the same size of HDD. Now they have downsized the SSD in the first model making many to pay more for an upgrade.

You keep saying that but it’s not true.

Before, the entry level SKU was $1,899/2,099 for 256/512GB. The mid-tier SKU was $2,099/$2,299 for 256/512GB.

Now, the pricing is $1,799/1,999 for 256/512GB. Tiers aren’t especially relevant, but note the 512GB mid-tier SKU was $2,299 and now it’s $1,999.

Presumably, fewer people will have to upgrade storage now, not more. And those who need even higher SSD capacities are also paying less.

 

[throAU]

(because there aren't any new products) since Jobs died?

AirPods. At least one of my colleagues thinks his AirPods are the best Apple product he has ever purchased.

Apple Watch.

Apple is surely on the verge of releasing some AR headset gear.

Steve died 9 years ago man. A lot has happened since then.

 

[Homy]

That makes no sense at all.

The 512GB and higher SSDs are in an existing configuration—the middle SKU that’s priced starting at $1,999. You get a free CPU upgrade as well.

What’s the problem, other than whoever is distributing the latest crap-on-Apple talking points didn’t take enough time with the Apple configurator to understand why it won’t let you try to build a higher-priced machine with worse specs on the entry level SKU.

Well, my main issue from the beginning in my original post was the underpowered GPU 5300 in the first two 27" models and as a side note I saw that you can't configure the storage at all. Then you pointed out that for the price of a SSD upgrade to 512 you get also a better CPU. That's fair, but it is still not the same as before.

Last year both models had the same HDD size of 1TB. That was enough for most of us that didn't need SSD. You had to buy the second model only if you wanted a better CPU or GPU, not because of a too small HDD. Now with only 256 GB we almost have to buy the second model even if we don't want to. Yes you get a better CPU but why would I have to pay not $200 but almost $300 extra here in Sweden just to get an extra 256 GB? Yes you can argue all day how much better SSD is but it doesn't make the drive bigger. The question is not how much better hardware I get, it is if I really need it.

At the same time you don't get a better GPU. Having only 256GB is like having 8GB of RAM. You must upgrade it somehow for an additional cost and Apple knows it. My point is that Apple should have included 512 GB in all 27" iMacs and justified the price difference with a better CPU and GPU in the second model, just like last year. Now I don't get enough storage right from the start, I have to spend another $300 or get an external storage by myself and if I want a better GPU I have to go all the way up to the top model.

Oh well, that's the way it is now. Looking forward to AS. Hope Apple doesn't disappoint and play cheap next year.

 

[PickUrPoison]

My point was that only now the iMac comes with stock SSD storage. 2 years ago it didn’t but the mini did and that’s why I got the base mini. Waiting 4-6 weeks for a new computer with upgraded internals is out of question for me.

I agree with you that the quality of the 27” screen of the iMac is better than that of my 34”. However, the mac mini has its set of advantages I am not going to dispute here. The thread is for the new iMac. I am finally happy with what the base package of the iMac offers.

So your issue with the iMac was that a 256GB machine was $100 more than you wanted to pay? That’s an odd reason to completely switch form factors.

Maybe the $1,100 discount from the iMac to the mini had some bearing as well? Although many consider $1,100 for the 27” iMac display a true bargain.

 

[PickUrPoison]

Well, my main issue from the beginning in my original post was the underpowered GPU 5300 in the first two 27" models and as a side note I saw that you can't configure the storage at all. Then you pointed out that for the price of a SSD upgrade to 512 you get also a better CPU. That's fair, but it is still not the same as before.

Last year both models had the same HDD size of 1TB. That was enough for most of us that didn't need SSD. You had to buy the second model only if you wanted a better CPU or GPU, not because of a too small HDD. Now with only 256 GB we almost have to buy the second model even if we don't want to. Yes you get a better CPU but why would I have to pay not $200 but almost $300 extra here in Sweden just to get an extra 256 GB? Yes you can argue all day how much better SSD is but it doesn't make the drive bigger. The question is not how much better hardware I get, it is if I really need it.

At the same time you don't get a better GPU. Having only 256GB is like having 8GB of RAM. You must upgrade it somehow for an additional cost and Apple knows it. My point is that Apple should have included 512 GB in all 27" iMacs and justified the price difference with a better CPU and GPU in the second model, just like last year. Now I don't get enough storage right from the start, I have to spend another $300 or get an external storage by myself and if I want a better GPU I have to go all the way up to the top model.

Oh well, that's the way it is now. Looking forward to AS. Hope Apple doesn't disappoint and play cheap next year.

There are dozens/hundreds of ways CPU/GPU/RAM/SSD/Price can be fit into a 3-tier lineup. Your preferred way is fine I’m sure but Apple can’t make everyone happy.

I’m just glad the nanotexture screen is an option in the base model. I can’t imagine the outrage around here if it weren’t available in the least expensive config—even though Apple may never sell one lol.

 

[Homy]

You keep saying that but it’s not true.

Before, the entry level SKU was $1,899/2,099 for 256/512GB. The mid-tier SKU was $2,099/$2,299 for 256/512GB.

Now, the pricing is $1,799/1,999 for 256/512GB. Tiers aren’t especially relevant, but note the 512GB mid-tier SKU was $2,299 and now it’s $1,999.

Presumably, fewer people will have to upgrade storage now, not more. And those who need even higher SSD capacities are also paying less.

I don't have the prices for SSD upgrades before in Sweden but I'm talking about the storage space as I wrote in my previous post. Before 1TB, now 256GB. First model 256GB but the second model 512GB while both models had 1TB before. "Paying more" is referring to today's prices, paying more for sufficient storage that should have been included from the start.

 

[throAU]

Now with only 256 GB we almost have to buy the second model even if we don't want to. Yes you get a better CPU but why would I have to pay not $200 but almost $300 extra here in Sweden just to get an extra 256 GB? Yes you can argue all day how much better SSD is but it doesn't make the drive bigger. The question is not how much better hardware I get, it is if I really need it.

Buy an external drive?

 

[Homy]

There are dozens/hundreds of ways CPU/GPU/RAM/SSD/Price can be fit into a 3-tier lineup. Your preferred way is fine I’m sure but Apple can’t make everyone happy.

True but while before you didn't have to go up one Tier to get SSD or enough storage you have to do it now. Before while you had to go only one Tier up for better GPU now you have to go up two Tiers and all the way up for better GPU. Oh well, we are all different.

 

[cardfan]

To be honest I’d rather simply get an xdr monitor to go along with 16” mpb and perhaps an egpu later as well. I don’t see the point of wanting this. My 2015 iMac is ok but don’t see buying another all in one. Especially one that has practically the same screen.

 

[throAU]

To be honest I’d rather simply get an xdr monitor to go along with 16” mpb and perhaps an egpu later as well. I don’t see the point of wanting this. My 2015 iMac is ok but don’t see buying another all in one. Especially one that has practically the same screen.

Point: more cores, better cooling / larger enclosure for more heat dissipation.

I've tried the "desktop replacement" laptop route several times before and it usually sucks. If you MUST have a laptop (only) its a compromise, if you can make do with a desktop, you're normally far better off in terms of thermals and noise. You also can't get 128 gig in a MacBook.

 

[theorist9]

I get the VESA option so I can add my own support depending on my setup (display arm or table support).

For me, a wall-mounted VESA is impractical, which leaves one of the models that clamp to the back of the desk. A 27" iMac weighs about twice what a 27" panel does. Do you know how much do you need to pay to get a desk-mounted VESA stand that can handle a 27" iMac?

 

[theorist9]

The iMac has been around for over 20 years and has had 3 distinct form-factors: the multi-colored G3 box, the G4 screen-on-a-dome and the current, screen-with-a-foot, G5 and derivatives. This current form was introduced in 2004; since then it's gone to aluminum (2007) and got thinner at the edges. That's it.

View attachment 940980

But it's not just iMacs. What innovative change have they made to any existing product (because there aren't any new products) since Jobs died? I can't think of one. Everything has stayed the same, except for the iPhone and Apple TV which got bigger. Other than that, year-on-year movement has all been adding power, capacity and cost; nothing more.

Meanwhile, they abandoned Airport networking and couldn't even make a charging mat work. Apple has devolved into Microsoft; it's just so sad.

The 2019 Mac Pro is a new, innovative design, as is the 2019 6k XDR monitor.

And you say there havent been any new products since Jobs passed away in 2011, but there's the Apple Watch in 2015.

And moving to design their own CPUs and GPUs for all their products is enormously innovative.

Are there ways they could be more innovative? Sure. But it's not a fair picture to say they've made no innovative changes to existing products, and not introduced major innovative new products.

 

[M3gatron]

No it is the single most likely thing. I guess you don't know how design works at all.

LoL what does that suppose to mean?
The main problem is the front design of the computer, you don't need to use a different CPU entirely in order to reduce those 2009 bezels.
Objectively there's nothing stopping Apple from doing a complete design overhaul of an Intel iMac.

 

[rozzer1971]

How soon before we see a teardown? Are they in stores yet?

Can't say about stores but deliveries are arriving....

 

[ggibson913]

Looks like Apple also finally got rid of the fusion drives as well.

 

[georgivelev]

So your issue with the iMac was that a 256GB machine was $100 more than you wanted to pay?

I never said that.