Apple's Next iMac Pro: Everything We Know

[CWallace]

I need Boot Camp so I bought a 2020 Intel iMac 5K so this Apple Silicon one is effectively irrelevant to me, but I am still interested to see what Apple brings out.

I did buy a 14" MBP so I could try Apple Silicon.

 

[LonestarOne]

I'm not trying to hurt anyones feelings. I am disappointed by decisions that Apple has made but the hardware with M1 and I am assuming M2 whenever it comes out is impressive. But its pricing itself beyond what I want to spend, if not beyond what I CAN afford, without there being some 'you can't do this with any other desktop in this price range'. With laptops they may have already done that- great battery life AND top of the line performance in a laptop, compared to other manufacturers laptops. Desktops don't need to be as size limited, and if you give up fashion for watts other manufacturers can match Apples chips performance wise which they can't really do in a laptop without making that laptop huge.

Fine. Start your own thread to discuss your heartbreak and disappointment, instead of hijacking this one. Or just go buy a machine from one of those other manufacturers. No one’s telling you not to.

 

[Sowelu]

Macrumors still using that clickbait fake mockup that will never happen. It will have a chin.

Yes, and without an apple logo, because Apple is loving this unbranded, generic movie-prop look. Ironically, a logo-less chin actually brings more attention to it, and makes it look larger than it is.

The gigantic flat, white logo on the back of the new iMac looks ridiculous. Then again, most people will never see it. Some of their design decisions are real brow-raisers lately.

 

[TrapDoorSpider]

Probably not. First, not "super early" since this was essentially a 2017 product ( it got some bumps to the BTO config later, but the baseline system dates from 2016-17 work. )

Apple skipped the W-2200 solutions. The reason why the W-2100 is "dead" now at Intel is that exremely few vendors would prefer the W-2100 to the W-2200. It is basically the same die but the end user price is cheaper and the clocks are run higher.

What Apple bought was binned , underclocked 2100's for a decent part of the line up to fit into the relatively (to the competition) tight thermal enclosure of the iMac. ( hidden ventilation that had to be hidden behind arm pedestal holding it up.) Apple probably was not interested in lower cost at all since that pass along everything that Intel charges and slaps another 15+% tax on top of that. Lower cost CPUs would actually make them less money ( from taxes). And higher TDP ... that is a disconnect for iMac Pro also.

There might have been some planes for a W-2300 "Ice lake" ( or W-3300 ) iMac Pro way back in 2017-18 but Intel's 10nm (not enhance or superfin ) has run the TDP of any potential W-2300 or W-3300 even higher than the W-2200 increased . Intel's just cranked clocks higher to try to offset their AMD competitive deficits . That pragmatically diverages from the iMac Pro.

Not just Intel though. From the 2017 era roadmaps, AMD's RNDA and RDNA2 GPUs got delayed. Even if Apple revised the W-2100 to a W-2200 and took a TDP hit there wasn't anything "better than Vega Pro" to go to on the GPU side. Again Apple is running an underclocked GPU model to fit the iMac Pro case so can't just throw more TDP at it . ( the Pro Vega II used in the Mac Pro in 2019 were incrementally better Vega dies that were still GCN5 but with "better" Infinity Fabric links on them and better bandwidth to the HBM. There was a shrik from 14nm to 7nm. But at the underclocked rate the iMac Pro would required would there be a decent difference. Plus quantities if Mac Pro consuming most of them. )

The third problem was that the 10 core , "regular" iMac ate into the bottom end of the iMac Pro line up. It also go a underclocked 5700XT with 16GB of VRAM. ( capacity wise same 16GB that the Vega 64 had ).

The XDR and Mac Pro probably ate into the top end. (and provided Apple with much larger margins which they would want to protect. )

Even if the M-series didn't show up for another 1-3 years, the iMac Pro was in trouble. Intel and AMD trying to compete with AMD and Nvidia pushed the major component path the iMac Pro was using into higher TDPs. Apple is/was rigidly holding onto 4 year old iMac physical dimensions.


Finally, the Apple can't walk and chew gum at the same time for Mac product development. Even the M1 iMac 24" had to cause the imac 27" development to stop to work out the issues. Apple hasn't doesn't an across the board , substantive product line update in more than several years. If Mini is being remodels then something else is on pause. If MBP on update then some other laptops on pause. etc. etc.

The iMac Pro and Mac Pro are assigned the same product manager. If doing doing gobs of work on the Mac Pro then largely the same resources are assigned to the iMac Pro . Over engineering one is likely going to lead to no ( to little) engineering of the other.






Those recently got cut off. ( the non-retina 21.5" Edu iMacs. Apple should have been embarrassed to still be selling those. Somewhat likely some multiple year contract they signed with some school systems kept that ancient MBA CPU powered product on the books. )

Appreciate the insight here. Good read.

 

[Nahaz]

I just want the chin gone on a 24 inch iMac, and maybe a CPU bump, and I'll be happy

 

[Realityck]

You cannot make direct comparison between laptop prices and desktop prices. Users expect to pay a premium for portability.

Apple already markets a great 24" M1 iMac solution for consumers that don't want to spend that much. If we are going to be introducing a larger iMac that can be configured similarly as the 2021 16" MBP with a promotion display, then it will be most definitely a premium product.

 

[Mr.PT]

Primarily price. a $6K system cost would loose the vast majority of customers who have been paying $1,699-2,400 . They just gone.

A 27" mini-LED panel will cost substantially less than a 32" one. Alot less. This isn't mature technology (even without the chip supply/demand shortages and skews ).


Additionally, Apple would like to keep the competition down for the XDR . Even more expensive and more highly proprietary screen costs there they probalby want to milk for more profits over a longer time. ( micro-LED product isn't moving as quickly as they hoped. )


The XDR panel is dead end tech. There is little good reason to attach that panel to an All-in-one.




Logical for Apple ? No.

Apple isn't looking to sell everything to everybody. The number of products than can be in the Mac product line is limited. They don't sell printers, They don't sell generial monitors ( more so docking station monitors. ) . they dones't sell mid-range Xmac box with slots.

If Apple was trying to monkey-see-monkey-do copy Dell or HP then that would be "logical". But those folks don't make the money (and margin) that Apple does ... so how logical is it to copy them to make less margin? Not much.

I see it differently. I think specially by not offering a 5k 27/30” standalone display, Apple is leaving money on the table, as that would allow this:
A) have a product that would appeal to greater user base, Mac mini; MBP and “MacPro mini/ Mac mini pro” customers, and even some pc users; there’s not much offer for 5k/6k Display (needed to keep above 200 ppi, which is a must for Apple user)
B) rumored lower end Pro desktop aka “MacPro mini or Mac mini pro”, ideally “the cube” would be a better fit than a AIO, as a mid tier desktop, as users would be abble to upgrade earlier without “tossing” a perfectly fine display, keeping upgrade costs lower.
Naturally no slots or expansion, but still a better solution for all, even for Apple, as production costs of newer interaction would also be lower.

 

[Mr.PT]

Likely cost a lot more. A M1 24" 16 GB/ 512 is currently $1899. Probably that larger config with a M1 Pro (10/16) will be $2499 or more because of the screen. A 16" M1 Pro 16 GB/ 512 MBP is already $2499.

For education and PR it would be good for Apple to offer a bigger display product for $2000

 

[ducknalddon]

I see it differently. I think specially by not offering a 5k 27/30” standalone display, Apple is leaving money on the table, as that would allow this:

Apple was selling the LG 5K display but as far as I can see it hasn't been a commercial success and is no longer available. I can't see them going back into that market.

 

[Shompinice]

I really hope that they will give a really powerful chip, not the chip used in the MacBook Pro (M1 Pro/Max), which makes people feel that even the iMac Pro is just a "notebook that looks like a desktop computer." "That's it, and you end up having to buy a Mac Pro, because this is the real desktop computer.

 

[Shompinice]

Will Apple develop a cheaper display? Or allow iMac Pro to have a target display mode? This will be the best monitor you can buy at 2000usd. LG UltraFine 5k provides an amazing pan-white backlight. Unless you use an OLED display, this is the best display at the same price. There is no one.

 

[MVMNT]

Apple are being smart here… they’ve managed to repackage an i9 desktop equivalent into a “pro” spec with the M1 that should have been a like for like M1/Xeon chip.

It’s sounds like more, but for less.

 

[Pezimak]

If it has 'Pro' attached to that name you can easily add at least another grand to the starting price easy, the original iMac Pro started from 4999 if I recall. 3 grand would be a bargain next to that and a move Apple would definitely make. They significantly increased the starting price of the new MacBook Pro.

 

[Pezimak]

100% agree. The M1 Pro and Max blow away the competition in Intel's U and H series laptop chips, but as the Alder Lake benchmarks show it will struggle to compete with a top end i9 or Ryzen 5900x. I've heard the argument "Alder Lake is a desktop chip and the M1 Max is a laptop chip" but the M1 is both a laptop and desktop chip in Apple's eyes so it seems clear the M1 Pro and Max are destined for desktops too. Unless Apple sticks two M1 Maxes in the iMac Pro as an option...

The trouble with this if Apple go down this route is although the new iMac would undoubtedly be more efficient, it will not be as powerful or fast as the new Intel desktop chips, and times money.

 

[IllinoisCorn]

Likely cost a lot more. A M1 24" 16 GB/ 512 is currently $1899. Probably that larger config with a M1 Pro (10/16) will be $2499 or more because of the screen. A 16" M1 Pro 16 GB/ 512 MBP is already $2499.

Yeah, you're right. It's going to be a lot of scratch to buy one of these.

 

[IllinoisCorn]

If it has 'Pro' attached to that name you can easily add at least another grand to the starting price easy, the original iMac Pro started from 4999 if I recall. 3 grand would be a bargain next to that and a move Apple would definitely make. They significantly increased the starting price of the new MacBook Pro.

Now that I think about it, Apple is killing a product. If you have iMac and iMac Pro, there is no longer just a 27 inch iMac. What about users who want more than 24 inches (not large enough for me) but don't need giant processors?

 

[Warped9]

I have often used the automotive analogy when talking about computers.

Back in the ‘70s when smaller import cars with 4cyl. engines were becoming popular there was a measure of resistance among some consumers that there was simply no way they would displace larger body-on-frame V8 and 6cyl. cars the buying public had been weaned. But like so much else they tended to see things solely in terms of what they were familiar with. Most could not see how the automotive market could evolve from what they already knew. Today 4cyl. cars are everywhere and V8s are found mostly in trucks and a few select performance cars. Objectively speaking a contemporary Mustang ecoboost will run circles around any musclecar of decades past. But the larger issue is today’s cars are simply more efficient and better made than those of the past.

The M series chips look to be a game changer in computers. The way things were done for so long may well have to be rethought and might not apply anymore. 16GB of RAM will do when you needed 32 before. 8GB with an SSD is better than being hobbled by an HDD. People are wooed by larger numbers, but those numbers might not mean the same anymore.

Yes, there can be specific exceptions, but for the broader market things are changing.

 

[Aries79]

The M1 Max is not enough for the iMac Pro: the latest high end iMacs top GPU, the 5700XT, has the same performance than the 32 cores M1 MAX GPU. After more than 2 years we expect something better.

 

[DanTSX]

If it gets hdmi in, I’m selling my 24” iMac to get one. Would love to consolidate my work computer display to use this as a monitor and iMac.

 

[Juuro]

If it has 'Pro' attached to that name you can easily add at least another grand to the starting price easy, the original iMac Pro started from 4999 if I recall. 3 grand would be a bargain next to that and a move Apple would definitely make. They significantly increased the starting price of the new MacBook Pro.

Now that I think about it, Apple is killing a product. If you have iMac and iMac Pro, there is no longer just a 27 inch iMac. What about users who want more than 24 inches (not large enough for me) but don't need giant processors?

The Pro of 2017 is not the same Pro in 2022. The new larger iMac will not start at $4999. The base model will maybe be a little bit more expensive than the current 27" iMac. That model will most definitely have an M1 Pro inside. There will of course be models with the M1 Max and if we are lucky we will se the chiplet with two M1 Max SoCs.

 

[theluggage]

You cannot make direct comparison between laptop prices and desktop prices. Users expect to pay a premium for portability.

...except, with the advent of M1, the hardware differences between Mac laptops and desktops are becoming increasingly thin (ha!) and everything is using mobile-style technology. With Intel, MacBooks and iMacs - even when they were on the same i9/i5/i7/i5 "brand" and "generation" used different models of chip: e.g. in 2019 the iMac i9 used a 5GHz i9-9900K while the 16" MBP i9 used an i9-9880H which (according to the guide prices on ark.intel.com) costs $60 more, even though it is significantly slower due to the lower TDP and only being billed as 4.8GHz. Other Intel MacBooks used low power LPDDR4 RAM which could be more expensive than the regular DDR4 RAM used in desktops.

Now, with M1, there's far less difference between the innards of an iMac and those of a MacBook Pro - they're both using substantially the same M1 series SoCs (we don't know if Apple has different versions for desktop and laptop, but nobody's spotted it and there don't seem to be any benchmark differences that can't be account for by thermal management) and the same mobile-class LPDDR4X RAM. The internal circuitry is basically the same, bar differences in I/O ports. Admittedly, they haven't just copied the Laptop motherboards, but the iMac has still been made ultra-thin, with all the teardowns showing much the same watch-like construction as the MacBooks (c.f. the much bulkier innards you'll see in a desktop PC). Maybe the cooling system is a bit simpler, less miniaturised, in the desktops, but it's still pretty fiddly. Even the keyboards are much the same...

Then, add to that the fact that the MacBooks are probably the biggest sellers, so they show greater economies of sale.

So, really, the reasons to expect Apple's style of ultra-small-form-factor desktop will be cheaper than an otherwise comparable laptop have greatly diminished.

 

[EdT]

I have often used the automotive analogy when talking about computers.

Back in the ‘70s when smaller import cars with 4cyl. engines were becoming popular there was a measure of resistance among some consumers that there was simply no way they would displace larger body-on-frame V8 and 6cyl. cars the buying public had been weaned. But like so much else they tended to see things solely in terms of what they were familiar with. Most could not see how the automotive market could evolve from what they already knew. Today 4cyl. cars are everywhere and V8s are found mostly in trucks and a few select performance cars. Objectively speaking a contemporary Mustang ecoboost will run circles around any musclecar of decades past. But the larger issue is today’s cars are simply more efficient and better made than those of the past.

The M series chips look to be a game changer in computers. The way things were done for so long may well have to be rethought and might not apply anymore. 16GB of RAM will do when you needed 32 before. 8GB with an SSD is better than being hobbled by an HDD. People are wooed by larger numbers, but those numbers might not mean the same anymore.

Yes, there can be specific exceptions, but for the broader market things are changing.

I was around during the late 70’s -80’s and there definitely was pushback about 4 cylinder vs 8 and unibody vs frame.

ARM computer chips have existed for a long time but they haven’t been a serious processor for a mid or high end computer. The PowerPC chip that Apple used in the 90’s had too many companies involved that had different priorities to make a cost and performance effective competitor to the X86 Intel line, and people were used to performance being tied to transistor count and clock frequency because every new Intel (and AMD when they joined the X86 market) would tout those numbers as performance indicators.

Young people probably don’t care what the numbers are if the programs work quickly. But a large portion of the current lap and desktop buying market are probably in the same transition position as the 4 cylinder/8 cylinder car buyers of the late 70’s early 80’s were that you mentioned. The metrics that you have always used to measure improvement no longer really fit.

 

[rileyes]

While I love the minimalism of the all-in-one, I've gotten hooked on large, ultra wide screens. I'll never buy a regular 27" display again, and I will certainly never buy a monitor with a chin (or a notch). Mac Pro and/or Mac Mini is the only way to go if you want a quality display experence. People that say you don't need more than 27" have not experienced the enjoyment and productivity of multi-tasking (and gaming) on really large ultra wide monitors. You'll never go back once you do. If apple released a large, ultrawide imac with minimal bezels, and maybe even a flat and curved screen option, I would eagerly pay any amount for it honestly.

 

[theluggage]

ARM computer chips have existed for a long time but they haven’t been a serious processor for a mid or high end computer.

Actually, the original ARM was designed as a serious desktop chip, and the Acorn Archimedes machines of the late 80s - early 90s ran rings around their 286 and 386 contemporaries. But they didn’t run DOS or Windows so never really progressed beyond a niche in UK education, and never developed to include things like hardware floating point or support for high-end GPUs.

 

[azentropy]

The M1 Max is not enough for the iMac Pro: the latest high end iMacs top GPU, the 5700XT, has the same performance than the 32 cores M1 MAX GPU. After more than 2 years we expect something better.

Which is why it probably will have a dual M1 MAX option if they do go the Pro route.