USB 3.2? Where?
USB 3.1 is 6-year old news.
30-bit display = 10-bit per channel (bpc) which amounts to more than a billion colors in total.
When and where has the Mac Pro been officially confirmed?
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 Updates iMac Lineup With Up to 8-Core 9th-Gen Intel Processors and Radeon Pro Vega Graphics Options
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
USB 3.1 is 6-year old news.
30-bit display = 10-bit per channel (bpc) which amounts to more than a billion colors in total.
When and where has the Mac Pro been officially confirmed?
We can all dream...The management needs to squeeze out more sales
I was going to comment on the milking the same design for ages & the chin ..... until I was aware of "update".
Some of us MR members sometimes pounce too early for the kill like a pack of hyenas ..... ah well...maybe next time.
But where is the 31inch model? Jeez.... still at 27 inches ...Zzzzzz...
After the NMP and new monitors I guess....
I have the 2017 iMac with fusion drive. Mac OS X runs wonderfully, but in windows 10 since it can't use ssd it is slow.
How so?
From the number of people I’ve seen clamoring for an iMac update, it seems like this should be welcome. Big mistake to me seems to be leaving in HDD, but the spec bumb without price bump is solid.
The major difference is during boot. HDD are really slow, but if you power on the iMac only once a day, or maybe a week (end put it in sleep mode during the week) you can still live with an HDD. The point is iMac aren't cheap at all, so at least a Fusion Drive on all models would be good. The base 21.5'' 4K comes with an HDD, and that sucks...
*looks in refurb store at iMac Pros
A new Mac Pro was confirmed by Apple last year.. I bet we will see it at WWDC in a few months.
So only i5 or i9? Also still running the fusion drive and a base of 8GB of RAM. A decent bump just for the 6-core CPUs, but a bit disappointing in terms of config options.
I do like these day-apart announcements. Hoping for a 12" macbook update tomorrow...
I do like these day-apart announcements. Hoping for a 12" macbook update tomorrow...
Yes. But people were hoping for a bezzeless iMac, a complete redesign. ZOT made some concept renders a few months back.
[doublepost=1553001081][/doublepost]
For the educational market I suppose.
Basically. i3s were only 2 cores before the 8th gen. On top of the additional cores, 8th gen i3 are much faster. I know the old 21.5" iMac had (still has) a 2 core i5 (people shouldn't buy this non-Retina iMac). That was a bottleneck in performance. Now the base model with an i3 is great. Coffee Lake was by many accounts the biggest performance upgrade in Intel processors (relative to a previous generation) in about 10 years.
Now the real kicker is in the GPU options: 580X is exactly the same card according to the AMD website. Vega 48, however, isn't anywhere to find ... is it really worth it?
Dang... after there was no iMac in October and it got into January, I was absolutely convinced that the next iMac would be gimped with the T2 chip and all sorts of other 'gotchas' that I didn't want. I bought a 2017 27inch and now wish I had waited.
At least this beauty will be around for a while and I can grab one on refurb in a year.
At least this beauty will be around for a while and I can grab one on refurb in a year.
Still a HDD in 2019, can't belive it
“xyz in (current year)”
Is this a forum full of robots?
Think of something original to post
I think that some of the people commenting here and complaining about how slow 5400 rpm drives are aren't aware as to what 5400 rpm actually means. It is not the sole measure of a hard drive's speed and being 5400 rpm does *not* mean it's super slow. It is purely a measure of the *rotational* speed of the platters in the drive. While it is true that a 7200 rpm drive *with all other specs identical to a 5400 rpm drive* would be able to read data faster, there are multiple other factors. A drive also reads data faster if it is higher capacity per platter (the data is closer together and per revolution, more can be read), if it has more platters (multiple platters can be read at the same time) and if it is bigger (a desktop hard drive will be faster than an otherwise similarly specced laptop hard drive as there is more data being read per revolution further out).
There are genuine reasons for wanting to go with a 5400 rpm drive instead of a 7200 rpm drive - mainly that they are significantly less likely to fail and within the 3 years of AppleCare most people get, the hard drives are by far the most likely parts to fail as they are the mechanical parts that see the most use (optical drives similarly have a high failure rate which might be part of the reason why they're not included on Macs anymore).
If I were to complain about the standard hard drives in these models, I wouldn't be complaining that it's a slow 5400 rpm drive, I'd be complaining that it's not a *higher capacity* 5400 rpm drive. Chances are, a 2TB 5400 rpm drive would actually be faster than a 1TB 7200 rpm drive anyway. Although, I'm guessing that Apple is keeping the mechanical drive capacity option low so that the SSD options look more tempting.
There are genuine reasons for wanting to go with a 5400 rpm drive instead of a 7200 rpm drive - mainly that they are significantly less likely to fail and within the 3 years of AppleCare most people get, the hard drives are by far the most likely parts to fail as they are the mechanical parts that see the most use (optical drives similarly have a high failure rate which might be part of the reason why they're not included on Macs anymore).
If I were to complain about the standard hard drives in these models, I wouldn't be complaining that it's a slow 5400 rpm drive, I'd be complaining that it's not a *higher capacity* 5400 rpm drive. Chances are, a 2TB 5400 rpm drive would actually be faster than a 1TB 7200 rpm drive anyway. Although, I'm guessing that Apple is keeping the mechanical drive capacity option low so that the SSD options look more tempting.
Considering the stability issues and controversy around the T2 chip, I'm glad.
I am hugely thankful there's no T2. That's just an obstruction to upgrades imo.
For one moment I thought apple was supporting pewdiepie Haha...
No offence to India.
[doublepost=1553001230][/doublepost]
The Japanese have a saying, If it isn't broken, its obsolete.
This is all and fine, but these machines are being offered with a 5400 RPM drive as the BOOT drive.
There is absolutely no reason for every modern computer to not have an SSD as its boot drive.
I'm disappointed with the pricing of the storage options. Everything else looks great.
Am I the only one who LOVES the iMac design and doesn't want it to change?
It's iconic and beautiful, and I can't find anything wrong with it visually. The last major revision, to make it thinner and lighter, pretty much perfected it.
The only thing I'd be happier with is better serviceability, but iMacs, especially with SSDs, have gotten so reliable that it doesn't matter as much as it used to.
No updated cooling to bring it in line with the iMP?! That i9 is going to cook, and not in a good way if they did nothing different with the thermals.