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

Apple Updates iMac Lineup With Up to 8-Core 9th-Gen Intel Processors and Radeon Pro Vega Graphics Options

well my computer may be old but it still works quickly enough for me. The new iMac is too expensive for the hardware it provides. I’m not going to pay an extra 700 dollars just to have a 1tb drive that isn’t disk based. Guess I will pass for another year or two and see if they get my interest again with a new iMac design later. It’s been awhile since I’ve been able to say this but Apple has nothing pressing i want.
 
I agree, they need a refresh for the design. It's still not a bad design but it has just gotten old to look at. They don't need to do anything drastic, just make a few changes. Something along the lines of the new iPad Pros would be ideal. They still look like iPads, but more modern and elegant.
 
trillionaire said:
I agree, they need a refresh for the design. It's still not a bad design but it has just gotten old to look at. They don't need to do anything drastic, just make a few changes. Something along the lines of the new iPad Pros would be ideal. They still look like iPads, but more modern and elegant.
Click to expand...

Yeah, simply a giant iPad Pro on a stick would look great. Minimalistic, elegant, professional...
 
I have a maxed out 2017 21.5" model. The GPU in the 2017 model is AMD 560 with 4 gigs of memory. I wonder if the AMD Vega 20 (4 gigs) would make a super big difference. All the online benchmarks for this GPU are with 8-16 gigs. No review of the 4 gig model.
 
I have no interest in an iMac because I have a 2010 that broke a few years ago and the cost to replace the video card would not make it worthwhile despite the gorgeous 27 inch display. My current approach is to use MacBook Pros hooked up to cheap, large QHD displays. But I do like the upgrades here on CPUs, RAM and Video. Expensive? You'd better believe it. But you could do what I've done with MacBook Pros; wait a few years for the used market where a lot of expensive features are heavily discounted.
 
The iMac is a bit of a PITA to upgrade the hard drive. We just did the 2013 and it was easy, because my husband is an engineer of sorts and does this stuff for a living. Me? Not sure I like unsticking the glue around the lcd. Our ping pong table was scattered with a gazillion parts. I wonder if you buy the 27" with stock stuff and upgrade the memory and drive to SSD if you still keep the warranty. I could see some Apple techs squawking about it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2Stepfan
oldmacs said:
Oh dear lord they've left the 5400RPM HDD.

I really don't get it. Either they leave really old slow 5400RPM drives in, or they go full blazing fast propriety SSD.... Why can't they put in SATA SSDs or fusion drivers where the SATA SSD is the small drive instead?

I have two clients with 2017 iMacs with HDDs and they're as slow as all get out.
Click to expand...

Agree 1,000%. I do not need >2GB/sec transfer rate (nice to have yes - need NO way) but I sure as heck do not want an HDD. The performance step from a HDD to a SATA SSD is so much more than going from a SATA SSD to the super fast Apple SSD. I do not get why Apple does not offer a 1TB or 2TB SATA SSD as a low-cost upgrade.

0.5TB SATA SSD should be the baseline with the options to upgrade to a 3TB Fusion drive or the super fast Apple SSD.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2Stepfan
arggg14 said:
Wow this event in a few days is going to suck.
Click to expand...
Sure, if you’re not interested in Apple’s video streaming (and possibly magazine/news) subscription service. It was never going to be about hardware. That’s been the word for weeks/months now, but if you’ve been skipping the articles about things you’re not interested in, you probably weren’t aware.
 
johannnn said:
Why should their stationary computers (Mac Pro, iMacs, Mac Mini) have a smaller footprint? Like seriously, it makes no sense. You hold it in your hand often? You take it to Starbucks often?
If Apple listens on people like you, my next iMac will have either more fan noise, or throttle quicker. That’s something I can stand in a ultraportable laptop, but DEFINITELY not in an iMac.
Click to expand...
You are missing a lot.
Its not about foot print - as iMac Pro showed - its how its designed inside. The iMac is super load with i7 etc. because the current thermals can't keep up. iMac Pro solved it.
Now, as for redesign, it has to happen for obvious reason (you really don't need me to tell you because I believe you know if you don't live in denial). The most logical way would be to stretch the screen to 31.6 as rumored. We would get bigger screen, smaller bezels and same chassis. The Thermals would be from iMac Pro and overall it would be win win for everyone. Bigger screen, better design (utility vs waste space), better thermals etc.

Or, would you rather stare at wasted space (bezels) than more screen space?

Redesign needs to happen - its natural progression. Simple as that.
 
oldmacs said:
Oh dear lord they've left the 5400RPM HDD.

I really don't get it. Either they leave really old slow 5400RPM drives in, or they go full blazing fast propriety SSD.... Why can't they put in SATA SSDs or fusion drivers where the SATA SSD is the small drive instead?

I have two clients with 2017 iMacs with HDDs and they're as slow as all get out.
Click to expand...
It's beyond ridiculous at this point. Apple embraced SSDs very early on in the MacBook Air and Pro, and with basically every iMac refresh since 2014 I had expected them to eliminate the HDD-only configuration from the new models.

The real-world difference between a 5400 RPM drive and even a cheaper SATA SSD is massive. A used 21.5" iMac from 2012 will literally perform better than a new 21.5" iMac from 2019 if the 2012 has been upgraded with an SSD.

Only possible upside is that it helps the market for upgraded used iMacs a bit...
 
otternonsense said:
It's 2019. Apple should have offered the Fusion drive by default at the same price point as the 5400 HDD and phase out the latter entirely. Especially if you're a loyal Apple customer, this attitude is a spit in the face by Cook & co.

Just because they can still get away with mass selling such expedient configurations doesn't mean we shouldn't point out their blaring deficiencies using "the simple people who just want to check emails" as an argument.

How did you get the "+1 million customers" metric exactly?
Click to expand...
Between the small business I run, family and friends, I see many iMacs in use. Most of them are simply email machines. Based on the number of iMacs I see on receptionist desks everywhere, I am making assumptions that millions of customers simply want a low-cost but elegant looking PC that they don't have to configure or worry about. These customers don't understand or care about the difference between spinning drives and SSDs. Since most aren't power users, they also don't see the performance differences either.

If they don't know or agree they are being "spit in the face" are they really being abused by Apple?
 
  • Like
Reactions: neutrino23 and orbital~debris
imac2017mm said:
i agree... it costs more to upgrade to the i9 than it did for the i7 on the 2017 models. For me being in Canada with a work discount, for an i9 and 512ssd it comes up to $2800, those same specs with the i7 processor came up to $2300
Click to expand...

The Core i9-9900K retails for $529.99 USD on Amazon, which is $200 more than the retail price of the old core i7-7700K. That is why the BTO upgrade costs more. I do wish that Apple had also offered the Core i7-9700K as a $400.00 USD BTO option alongside the 9900K, but they did not choose to do that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: orbital~debris
Pretty nice spec bump, good to see. Best news for me was that 27" sill appears to have upgradeable RAM: "four SO-DIMM slots, user accessible".

Which I presume is only possible due to the sad lack of a hardware update. I can probably live with the bezel. Suspect the redesign will come with an ARM-based Mac.

Overall quite tempted by a £3K i9 with a 580x and 2TB SSD.

Anyone know if the graphic cards are much different to the last model? Would want to drive a 4K 27" screen.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BWhaler and orbital~debris
I'm disappointed at how few outraged complaints there are about shipping 8GB systems. My 16GB MBP is nearly unusable due to RAM contention. I will never buy another system without at least 32GB. Still shipping 8GB should be illegal.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BusanAA and Old-faithful
jb-net said:
Still a HDD in 2019, can't belive it :confused:
Click to expand...
If you saw my grandma you’d believe it. Trust me, she doesn’t need an SSD. You could probably go to the store and back in the time it takes her to decide which icon to click lol.

I joke but do realize, not everyone would rather trade money for higher performance. That’s how we lost the $499-699 range of Mac mini. If those who complained incessantly about HDDs and Fusion drives in the mini are still patting themselves on the back, they can just stop. All that happened was people at the low end got priced out. If they thought Apple was going to drop the price of an SSD mini to $499–sorry, that’s not the way it works. Apple didn’t suddenly have a lower cost structure just because you wanted a $499 SSD mini. That configuration went from $749 to $799, not too bad of a price hike considering how much better the new 8GB/128GB config is than the previous model.

Obviously Apple can eliminate lower-performing models, but the higher the specs of the base model, the higher the minimum cost of entry will be. You don’t get something for nothing, as the saying goes.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: orbital~debris
Here are the new iMac's CPU choices, just for your reference before buying.

21.5" iMac
$1299.00 - Core i3-8100; A teardown will be needed to reveal if it is socketed or a soldered CPU (8100B)
$1499.00 - Core i5-8500; A teardown will be needed to reveal if it is socketed or a soldered CPU (8500B)
$1699.00 - Core i7-8700 (BTO option); A tear down will be needed to reveal if it is socketed or a soldered CPU (8700B)

27" iMac
$1799.00 - Core i5-8500
$1999.00 - Core i5-8600
$2299.00 - Core i5-9600K
$2799.00 - Core i9-9900K (BTO Option)

All of these CPUs support 128GB of DRAM officially (go check the ARK if you want to see it with your own eyes), which means that we should see "unofficial" support from OWC and others in the future, which is definitely a nice option for those who need that amount of DRAM. Based on current prices, a 128GB kit should run ~$1,000.00-$1,200.00 USD.
 
  • Like
Reactions: orbital~debris and mikeboss
cocky jeremy said:
Weird. The new Mac Mini has 4.
Click to expand...

The Mini has no discrete GPU consuming x16 PCI-e lanes either. Apple could partially gimp the discrete GPUs here at x8 but probably wouldn't go over as well as it does on a laptop ( where the dGPU is still much faster than the iGPU and normally attached to a smallish screen ). The Mini, like the MBP 13' , has an large abundance of unused PCI-e lanes off the CPU. Lashing up two TB controllers (to provision 4 ports ) is zero problem at all.

Hanging two Thunderbolt controllers off the main I/O (PCH) chip probably wouldn't work so well when also coupled to one of Apple's SSDs.
 
brunerd said:
No T2... is this some sort of lifeline to the education market? Will NetBoot then actually work on these Macs? That's the only reason I can think of to not include the T2. Perhaps college computer labs will be able to continue to NetBoot (with a 3rd party product!) and they'll be happy for one more year? Then it's T2 cold turkey, no netboot for you (?!) Wild Speculation.
Click to expand...

The T2 chip has been causing kernel panics in all of apple's produces for the last 2 years. Its the reason I won't buy a laptop or mini from them. I don't want the iMac but I'm glad they decided to leave it out. It will make many consumers happy.
 
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
Back