so I guess you’re just waiting for Adobe and other third party development houses to get their acts into gear with M1 silicon support. ??
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Confirms iMac Pro Will Be Discontinued When Supplies Run Out, Recommends 27-Inch iMac
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
so I guess you’re just waiting for Adobe and other third party development houses to get their acts into gear with M1 silicon support. ??
Citation needed.
These are modular for HP/Boxx's sake - it becomes way simpler to sell upgrades to meet specific additional RAM/graphics/CPU/Storage needs for a customer.
Apple can do "good/better/best" models for consumers because the difference is a few hundred dollars. For workstations and servers the upgrades top out at tens of thousands of dollars.
Like I said, a regular, separate (and thus easily replaceable/upgradable/usable for other components) UPS is the way to go.
A regular A/C UPS to power a 2020 iMac 27" for 5 minutes, weighs 8 kg (17.6 lbs). To get 14 minutes it'll weigh 12 kg (26.4 lbs).
But those UPS aren't maxed out at those levels: E.g. if like me you have say an Akitio Thunder3 Quad X - that will draw up to 200W. So the 12KG UPS mentioned earlier can run that too - it'll shorten the overall run time on battery (for both devices) to about 5 minutes, but it's capable of running them.
Using the battery in a Mac portable as a "free UPS" is not a bad option for re-purposed used laptops (i.e. upgrade to a new laptop, and the old one might be re-purposed to run the DVR software for a set of IP Cameras.
But trying to extrapolate that to a desktop product with a built in battery is a very odd approach.
Last edited:
The latest regular 27" iMac blew the iMac Pro out of the water. I expect the next 32" M2 iMac to blow this one out of the water as well. Aside from the nice colour there's no need to muddy the waters in the iMac lineup going forward. The latest models will always be "pro".
The Techcrunch article on this also seemed to suggest that Apple had a very different interpretation of "modularity" than simply letting people upgrade their own ram and storage.
Apple's 2019 Mac Pro will be shaped by workflows | TechCrunch
A year ago, I visited the Apple campus in Cupertino to figure out where the hell the new Mac Pro was. I joined a round-table discussion with Apple SVPs
techcrunch.com
Apple's definition of modularity seems to involve plugging in additional accessories and peripherals to add extra functionality to an existing product, not so much modifying the base product itself.
A somewhat more upgradable iMac Pro would have been fantastic. Proper m.2 storage expansion and a graphics expansion option would have made it an excellent intermediate and relatively compact choice. To me this is where the current unit fell short (that and the lack of identical display to pair with it). It is never going to be an exactly high selling unit though even with these options so clearly Apple know that people will either lump for the noisy, hot normal iMac or stump up for the now almost antique again MP. Looking forward to seeing what the in house chips manage to do for these units but hopefully there will be upgrade options for the pros that need it or a wider range.
The reason the iMac Pro was made was to give customers access to a mac with the "fastest" Intel processors. That point is moot now as Apple is shifting to some kind of M-series iMac that will easily outperform the current iMac Pro.
Last edited:
No doubt fanning the expectation for the next iMac. I hope it can live up to expectations. Suggestions elsewhere are the next chip will have 12 performance cores and 4Even CNN is reporting about the discontinuation of the iMac Pro.
Apple is discontinuing the iMac Pro
Apple is no longer making the iMac Pro, once the most-powerful computer the company offered.www.cnn.com
I don't find too many problems sourcing parts for really early Macs, so I doubt you will have too many problems in the event of a problem. The only major problem I ever had was with the iMac G5 where they sourced dodgy capacitors that swelled and were recalled.
A 5,000 dollars computer cant never be a best-seller, by default.
You can try to be a bit more specific if you want to give any level of credibility to your comment. Please name a single CPU for thin and light laptop that is superior in performance and efficiency.
It’s already beating the iMac Pro... in synthetic and real world... what case is it not besides thermal limits of the m1 devices vs the iMac Pro?
Apple M1 beats Intel Xeon in iMac Pro so badly it hertz
More impressive benchmark results are emerging for Apple M1 chip
You probably don’t even need it with an ARM chip.. the MacBook Pro and Mini fans rarely turn on during use. I encoded video on an M1 MacMini and the fans didn’t even turn on
You don't need it with any ARM chips that shipped outside of servers till today.
No reason why Apple couldn't do an topend iMac with so many CPU/GPU cores that it will need massive cooling.
You are comparing the M1 chip in Apple's entry level laptop to the most powerful desktop CPU in a PC, and are dismayed to find the M1 lacking?!?
Was to be expected, I guess. But either way, it's hands down the best Mac I've ever owned and I've no doubt that it will see me good until such time that the Apple Silicon iMac is a stable beast.
Agreed. I love my iMac Pro, and it is hands down the best machine I have ever owned. Totally silent, even when running multiple VMs. My builds are running really fast with good disk and CPU performance. I will use this machine as my main workstation at least 2 more years.
I’ve had one of these for the past four years, use it now in boot camp with windows 10 and use a Corsair mechanical keyboard have a 16” MBP for xcode, it’s a fabulous machine with the space grey and runs like a hot knife through butter. One of the Best purchases I ever made.
And fusion energy will only be 10-20 years away.While moving around in our flying cars most certainly.
Believe it or not it will probably help overall performance to have a few efficiency cores along with many more performance cores. The reason is that any computer is running dozens of background tasks that need to be done but don't need to be done with any particular speed. So you get to fire up a very low power and hence low heat production core to do the background task. Spinning up a performance core is wasteful. That potentially leaves more heat and power budget for the performance cores to do the heavy lifting with potentially a higher clock speed. The Icestorm cores in the M1 are significantly smaller than the Firestorm cores. They would take up relatively less transistor real estate in a larger die SoC.
There is already a supposed early benchmark posted for the M1X showing a 12-core CPU, 8 Firestorm, 4 Icestorm and a 16-core GPU, with a TDP of 45 watts.
I suspect that the CPU for the Mac Pro replacement will have a 16-core CPU and a 24-core GPU with a TDP under 100 watts.
CPU benchmark
Our processor / CPU comparison helps you to compare two CPUs. We use benchmark results from Cinebench R20, Cinebench R23 and Geekbench 5 as well as the FP32 raw performance (GFLOPS) of the iGPU.
Last edited: