Probably not needed in the upcoming iMac M-series - since the M-CPUs run much cooler and there probably won't be a 5K screen.
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
I grabbed an 8GB M1 Mini ($600) and love it, I'm hoping to use it as a home stopgap (that's when I need more power) so that I can wait for an M2 MacBook Pro 15"/16". I'll max the MBP out and I don't really want to do that with the first gen, I think I'll get more bang for the buck later.
It is going to be very interesting to see what the performance of the top of the range M1X or M2 "iMac" will be and if there will be a revised Mac Pro, and when both come on the market. If there is a similar screen to the 6K display on that iMac, or better, and of course what the price points are going to be. You can argue that with the M Silicon family, the need for an iMac Pro disappears as the top of the range iMac will cater for that market and the Mac Pro range will be truly for institutional professionals (M3? Coming when?). Very curious.
Anyone remember the Intel Atom processor? They were basically an emaciated Celeron. Aimed at the 'low end' market, they were touted as being low voltage, low heat, high performance.
Intel, at that time through their Intel Processor Dealer program, had a motherboard/processor kit that was really affordable. I built up a system, and then ended up selling it to a client. I was surprised that the system seemed pretty quick. It rocked at web browsing, and basic tasks, but if you tried anything more muscular, the system curled up in a ball and laid there quivering. It hadd no depth. It was meant for light duty processing. The client ended up according to rumors, giving it to their kids, and buying something else. I was shocked, but also never heard from them again. *shrug* We had placed a number of Celeron systems as network connected systems for vertical app client server use. Lighter duty use for sure. I doubt that the Atom would perform as well in that environment.
The Atom sounded like a great idea, but it was no where near capable of replacing the Core and Celeron processors for in home use, yet Intel, in the beginning, was pushing the Atom for a wide variety of purposes. It was a toy. It should have been marketed to the IoT market, not general purpose computers.
An analogy would be trying to use a a road bike for mountain biking. You can, but it'll take all day. Or trying to keep up with bikers on the road while riding a fat bike. Sure, you can do it, but *DAMN*...
Apple actually wrote API to specify if you want your programs process to use efficiency or performance.. I this is almost certainly going to be the case... Apple will run runs of its services like music on the efficiency cores and high performance cores will be used by all the pro apps..
That was one point of switching to their own silicon for the Mac; so they could maintain some sort of regular update cycle as they do with their iOS devices (well, most of them).
It sold fine. Apple is not afraid to drop products from the line up if they're not selling. The fact is, the last 27" iMac update pretty much killed any interest in the iMac Pro.
The current, hard, line in the sand between Core i and Xeon (which is also the big jump between the regular iMac and the iMac Pro) is partly down to Intel's strategy of making some features - particularly ECC RAM support - exclusive to Xeon. AMD have a vaguely similar division between Ryzen (desktop) and Epyc (server), but the distinctions are different (e.g. Ryzen supports ECC, and Epyc seems very much server-focussed rather than Xeon's mixture of server and desktop workstation sub-ranges).
So my guess is that there won't be the equivalent of a "desktop i9" vs "Xeon-W" division in Apple Silicon - if only because it would be expensive to Apple to produce too many different Apple Silicon SoCs. The interesting question is whether the 5k iMac replacement (and/or the Mini Mac Pro if that rumor pans out) will warrant its own distinct chip or if it will just be a version of whatever ends up in the 16" MBP replacement (...maybe faster-clocked). Second interesting question is whether Apple will invest in a super-powerful single chip to directly replace the 28-core/2TB RAM monster Xeon in the top end Mac Pro, given that those are never going to sell in huge quantities (even the Xeon, with Intel's market behind it, costs about $7000).
So - pure speculation, but how about:
"new iMac" = a 21.5/23" iMac with an M1. Perfect for most office work.
"new iMac Pro" = replacement for whole 5k iMac/iMac Pro range with "apple Silicon Pro" processor. Cheaper options have underclocked CPUs and/or disabled CPU/GPU cores.
"new Mac Pro Mini" = headless version of new iMac Pro.
"new Mac Pro" = same as the old Mac Pro, maybe even with Intel processor, but you can plug in MPX modules with Apple Silicon Pro to add more "compute/render units"....
We'll never know - except that April 2017 press conference was highly irregular and pretty clearly in response to a significant push-back from key partners/customers. The iMac Pro would have been at an advanced stage of development by then, just ready to show to a few of those key partners/customers under strict NDA, and to create that push-back... Also, timing-wise, the 2019 (barely) Mac Pro didn't emerge for over two years, so there's no reason to assume it was even on the drawing board in April 2017.
Add to that - modular/all-in-one or not - as of April 2017 anybody could see that the trashcan was getting well past its sell-by date and certainly wouldn't keep until 2019. Either the 2017 iMac Pro was the planned replacement for the trashcan, or Apple weren't planning to replace it.
Whatever you think about the 2019 Mac Pro, it can't be denied that it is a modular tower system with PCIe slots and shedloads of internal expansion/upgrade potential - a complete refutation of the trashcan/iMac Pro design philosophy. Yet, at the April conference, Apple were very careful not to suggest that "modular" meant anything more than "bring your own display" or that "upgradeability" the possibility for Apple to release upgraded models. If they'd decided by then that it was going to be user-upgradeable up the wazooo and have loads of regular PCIe slots (which was #1 on the customer anxiety list) then I don't see why they'd have kept that quiet. Can't be proven, but I don't think they had a clue about what the MP was going to look like at that conference.
Well, the track record so far is that even the M1 MacBook Air now has two TB controllers rather than one shared between two ports. I.e. broadly speaking, even the Air already has the same available TB bandwidth as your iMac Pro - and now you can get hubs with multiple downstream TB ports to get the number of ports back. So it's not looking too bad on that front. I'd hope all the new 5k-iMac-replacements have 4 TB ports though.
The M1 chip is primarily designed for ultraportable systems like the MacBook Air and low-end MB-not-very-P - it's not supposed to compete with i9/Xeon machines with more cores and discrete GPUs. What's amazing about it is how soundly it thrashes comparable systems with ultra-low-power Intel CPUs and integrated graphics. The surprise is that it is even worth benchmarking it against high-end laptops and desktops. OK, so you can edit 8k content on it - which is cool - but that doesn't mean you should, and even with extra cores it would lack things like RAM capacity, ECC, multiple display support etc. that the higher-end systems offer. Apple's job now is to show that the M2 (or whatever) can open up the same sort of lead over i9/Xeon as the M1 did with Intel's ultra-mobile processors.
Yes, that's what it sounded like at the April 2017 panic "please RED keep supporting Mac!" conference - but, love it or hate it, the 2019 Mac Pro completely refutes that. In fact - it takes it to the opposite extreme by offering so much RAM/PCIe expansion as to make the lower-spec configurations lousy value for money.
Nonsense. It can be a best-seller in the $4000-$6000 price range. It's not like it is in competition with the MacBook Air, any more than the MacBook Air is in competition with a $300 brick from Packard Bell.
Problem with the iMac Pro was that it was $3500 worth of computer fused with a $1500 display. Great if that was the display you wanted, not-so-great otherwise.
Problem with the Mac Pro is that the $6000 option is $3500 worth of computer in a $2500 chassis that is total overkill unless you're planning to spend another $10,000 on RAM and GPUs. Fine if you needed a $16,000 computer - not so fine if you only needed a $3500 one.
Well, we can't really say that, can we? There's only been 1 SoC released so far. Yes, we know that Apple updates "cores" annually, with each new generation, but is Apple going to release generational variants all at once or stagger them across the year? Are we going to get many variants as we did with Intel chips, or will it more closely resemble their A-series with a couple of variants (1 or 2) spread across their latest devices?
Being in a transitional period, we can't really say what's going to be normal. Even as far as naming is concerned. I don't think we'll see "M1X", "M1Z", etc. It will just be "M1" as it was with the PowerPC G3, G4, G5. That worked for the A-series because there was/is only 1 variant that was released every other year.
But when you have computers that are usually priced by performance, among other things, you do need many more variants- unless, of course, Apple is going to change that?
While Apple superficially called them that, there were plenty of variants (the G4 was basically any chip in the 74xx series, for example). A PowerBook G4 had different CPU performance characteristics than a Power Mac G4.
Sufficing the M1 with an X isn’t that different than sufficing the 603 with an e.
not everyone wants a “mechanical keyboard” - not all Apple customers are gamers or want to be content creators for YouTube channels lol.
monitors - as long as resolution clarity is there - many 3rd parties are - will still grant the same “experience” you speak off.
The experience is always in the OS first n foremost, Apple is extending that to hardware for components rigorously tested and work synergistically.
Where are these “many 3rd parties” you refer to, that offer displays even close to 220 PPI?
Fixed.
Let's really not be real... comparing a 28-core CPU that runs at up to 5GHz sucking 255W of power to a 4/4-cores CPU that runs at up to 1.8GHz/3.2GHz with top load of ~1.5W/~15W
Come on now. Even 16 high performance cores in the M1 would WASTE a current gen. 28-core Intel chip and do it using 1/4 the power.
Last edited:
I want meaningful choice. I prefer them having a single high-powered desktop all-in-one rather than making two models where one is intentionally crippled.
Apple's modus operandi always was "we know what the customer wants better than the customer" — and they did quite well with itAs to the market share... not so sure. Apple traditionally only serve the premium market, and they do quite well in there. Maybe they will be able to grab more of that, who knows. But they will never be competing with cheap Inspirons and Aspires that form the bulk of the PC market.
Not true. Their m.o. has always been... "We'll make the products we want to make. If the customer likes it, they'll buy it. If not, we'll discontinue it."
One small problem: an 11th-gen 28-core Intel CPU doesn’t exist.
Intel so far hadn’t managed to make Ice Lake Xeon W. Which would only be 10th-gen anyway.
Odds are Apple will have a chip with more cores than 4+4 by the time the next Xeon W gen comes out. And I wouldn’t be shocked if it competes quite well.
I find this conversation very confusing. There has never been a 28 core iMac Pro.
Doesn't matter. In core-to-core comparisons, Apple Firestorm matches Intel Willow Cove at peak performance while using 4-5 times less power (5 watt vs 20-25 watts per core). Apple also has better cache technology and more memory bandwidth per core. By the time Intel figures out the production of their 10-nm based Xeons in any relevant quantity, Apple will most likely ship a large multi-core chip. And even a 16-Firestorm-cores design running at 3.0 ghz will easily be a match for Intel's 28 cores at 2.5-3.0ghz while consuming half as much power.
The only point where Intel will have an advantage is AVX-512 optimized code. Unless Apple decides to implement SVE and widen their SIMD ALUs to 256 bits — then it will smoke Intel with ease.
There wasn’t much of a market for one prior to the latest Mac Pro Either. Most true Pro users have needs that require customization like specialized graphics and multiple monitors. All in one designs just can’t cut it at the market price points Apple was targeting with the iMac Pro.
Completely agree that the iMac Pro was intended to be Apples one and only 'pro' desktop until the outcry came from professionals. Those who say the iMac pro was just a 'stopgap' before the "already planned" mac pro are completely misremembering the chain of events.
There is a thread right here:
Picking monitor size/resolution (scaling, resolution)
Hello I've been trying to decide on an external monitor for the office that will be used both on a 2017 Macbook Pro as well as on a HP Spectre notebook. (no gaming, mainly coding and light photo/vide editing). Currently I'm testing a LG 27UL850-W, 27" 4K display. On the good side: has USB-C...
forums.macrumors.com
Link to plenty of monitors close to 220 PPI good for retina
Mac external displays for designers and developers
If you’re considering an external display for your Mac, there’s a few important decisions to make. Apple doesn’t sell external displays any more, so you can’t just default to their wisdom. That’s an issue, because not all displays are well suited for Macs.
And I'm sure there are more.
Sorry ... but I think you're misremembering events.
Pay specific attention to the dates
2013 Mac Pro released.
2016 no new updates in video cards (dual / single) and no new CPU's. 539 days with no updates
HUGE outcry by professionals. many left macOS entirely or built hackintoshes.
Apple Says New iMacs Geared Towards Pros Coming Later This Year
Tuesday April 4, 2017 6:23 am PDT by by Joe Rossignol
Apple Apologizes About Mac Pro's Lack of Upgradability, Ensures It's Still Committed to Pros
Tuesday April 4, 2017 10:15 am PDT by Joe Rossignol
Full Transcript of Mac Pro Interview With Craig Federighi and Phil Schiller Now Available
Thursday April 6, 2017 2:26 PM PDT by Juli Clover
/article-new/2017/04/techcrunchmacroundtable-800x455.jpg?lossy)
^ remember this pic?
Full Transcript here
Apple Reveals New 'iMac Pro' Built for Users With Demanding Workflows, Starting at $5K
Monday June 5, 2017 1:36 pm PDT by Mitchel Broussard
Apple Reveals All-New Mac Pro With Up to 28-Core Processor and 1.5TB of RAM, Starting at $5,999
Monday June 3, 2019 11:13 am PDT by Joe Rossignol
So according to specified timeline and press releases above, specifically about the iMac Pro NOT being a full replacement for the Mac Pro shows how our memory fails us at times.
Cheers
Why are the people who say the iMac Pro is not worth the money and can be completely swapped out for the regular iMac 27" do not take into account such subtle but important details as the much more advanced (and expensive) sound system? A large number of microphones.
Maybe the only folks that didn’t understand it are folks that didn’t need it? It was a targeted response from Apple to those VERY VERY few people who liked the iMac (and was using it daily) but wanted a more powerful version. Likely folks doing FCP or Logic Pro work that realized that a faster computer (and, perhaps in Logic’s case, quieter computer) would mean more hours of the day composing and fewer hours rendering. Very few people hit the upper end of what the iMac was capable of and, for those people, the iMac Pro likely felt like moving from a crowded middle seat to exit row seating with no one to the left or right
I know! The Apple ][ hasn’t seen an update since the IIGS and that hasn’t even had an OS update in YEARS. And the QuickTake? Apple is just a graveyard company on the verge of being dissolved. Any day now…
It’s like this.
Person 1: I never owned an iMac Pro, and I never understood it. It was way too expensive and no one liked it.
Liked it: I liked it.
Person 1: Well ASIDE from you and other people like YOU that liked it, no one really liked it.
Liked it: But, folks that actually owned one on this forum are saying they like theirs too.
Person 1: OF COURSE folks on this Apple loving forum liked it. I’m talking about the folks that aren’t even members of this forum!
Liked it: But surely, some of those folks not on this forum liked theirs as we—
Person 1: YOU AREN’T GETTING IT!! THE ONLY people that owned them and liked them are the people that owned them and liked them. BUT, when talking about something folks liked, you CAN’T go by folks that liked it. THEY ARE UNRELIABLE. They’ll tell you they liked it just because they liked it.
Person 2: I never owned one, but I didn’t like it, either.
Person 1: SEE? That’s someone telling the truth!
It's 100% more! For an Apple product, that's 'loads more'... *sigh* Oh, and then, of course, Big Sur has issues with hubs. *eyes roll*