Apple's Next iMac Pro: Everything We Know

[Cyprusian]

Pricing: The base ‌iMac‌ Pro is said to feature 16GB memory and a 512GB SSD, and pricing is expected to start at around $2,000.

If this starting price becomes reality then a BTO 24" iMac with 16GB RAM and 512GB SSD, currently priced at US$1,899, will not present particularly good value at only $100 less than the much better equipped iMac Pro's predicted starting price.

 

[newbmacuser2021]

Android and Google, and Windows and Microsoft, can match macOS / iOS from an OS API perspective.

Android has Sony Camera APIs, the best in the business.

The Samsung Galaxy line is $1,000+. And it should be, rightfully so.

Buying the iMac 2022 is no different than buying a Surface Studio with touch input.

The consumer is not at fault for buying Apple over Microsoft.

Silicon Valley is at fault.

Silicon Valley’s sexist brogrammer culture is locking women out of tech

Silicon Valley has become a frat house where drinking and womanising are suitable pastimes for young tech luminaires, but the industry is suffering from this lack of diversity

www.theneweconomy.com

 

[ojfl]

Still waiting for the MacPro replacement. Apparently, we will have to move our internal drives to an external enclosure but that is no big deal, just more money. If that is the case then we could even get away with a MacMini with lots of memory and fast CPU and large hard drive.

 

[dandeco]

Calling this the iMac Pro wouldn't be too far-fetched. After all, the 27" Retina iMac, even when it was first introduced in late 2014, was always a popular computer with professional users, i.e. graphic designers, HD video editors, and the like, what with the large beautiful 5K display, super-fast multicore processing, high-quality discrete graphics card, user-replaceable RAM, and a good selection of I/O ports (4 USB-A 3.0 ports, two Thunderbolt ports (originally Thunderbolt 2, replaced with Thunderbolt 3/USB-C in 2017), an SDXC card slot and built-in Ethernet). This is why in 2017 they came out with that space-grey iMac Pro, to better cater the professional market with such an iMac configured with even more processor cores and RAM and graphics capabilities, and even two additional Thunderbolt 3/USB-C ports!

 

[Lounge vibes 05]

Unless they are rebranding the iMac Pro as a lower spec machine they will have do do much better than an M1 Max chip with a metal score of 68870. My Intel iMac Pro (18 cpu) comes in at 62249. I would hope an new iMac Pro would have a significant performance increase over what I already have.

Ok but it will most likely give you the option to have an M1max duo, so double everything.
16 performance cores, four efficiency cores, 64 core GPU, up to 128 GB of unified memory.
Pretty sure that’ll easily outperform the 18 core 2017 iMac Pro, and definitely slaughter Intel’s latest desktop offerings.

 

[Adarna]

I don’t know why people are afraid to buy Apple products.

It’s as if Mark Zuckerberg and Meta are going to surprise announce MetaOS and disrupt the tech industry.

They may have concerns about being able to afford rent in the future

 

[CWallace]

Wasn't the iMac Pro space gray with Xeon processors and something like $4-$5K. This will be that machines replacement, targeting pro's not the normal customer which is purpose of the colorful iMacs.

I see this iMac Pro as a replacement for the iMac 5K so a starting price of ~$2000 seems reasonable. Compared to the 2020 iMac 5K, Apple will be saving on the i5 and the 5300 GPU so that can offset the higher cost of the 120Hz 5K panel and the extra 8GB of RAM.

If this starting price becomes reality then a BTO 24" iMac with 16GB RAM and 512GB SSD, currently priced at US$1,899, will not present particularly good value at only $100 less than the much better equipped iMac Pro's predicted starting price.

Depends on how large a machine you want. The base 16" MBP is $2499, only $200 more than the 14" MBP with the same 10C/16G cores. So in theory the 16" is the better value since it offers a larger screen and better battery life, but if you prioritize portability, that extra size and weight is a detriment and saving the $200 by getting the 14" is a benefit.

So for people who want a smaller desktop, the 24" could be the better option even if the 27" is only $200 or so more.

They are going to need to have a SOC that is better than the M1 Max if they want the iMac Pro to outperform high-end PC desktops the way the new MacBooks Pro easily outperform PC laptops (plugged or unplugged).

Jade2C-Die and Jade4C-Die will be those SoCs as they are effectively two or four M1 MAX (so 20C/64G or 40C/128G) which will be on the 2022 Mac Pro.

 

[deconstruct60]

Pricing: The base ‌iMac‌ Pro is said to feature 16GB memory and a 512GB SSD, and pricing is expected to start at around $2,000.

If this starting price becomes reality then a BTO 24" iMac with 16GB RAM and 512GB SSD, currently priced at US$1,899, will not present particularly good value at only $100 less than the much better equipped iMac Pro's predicted starting price.

if this is a mini-LED screen (even 27") that "around $2K" is more likely over $2K. The 16GB RAM is on mark because an M1 Pro won't limbo below that. However, if Apple is having "trouble" holding the line on pricing the 512GB SSD is likely suspect. Dropping to 256GB would cut $200 off in Apple's standard storage pricing scheme. That is in part what is "boosting" the 24" iMac up to that $1,899 price; otherwise would be $1,699 and there would be a $400 gap between there and the $2K line. [ so $1,999 starting point with just a 256GB in standard configuration and would have to add to both the 24" and 27" to do an 'apples to apples' compare on 512GB storage. ]

Hitting exactly the $2K line doesn't make much sense when the entry MBP 14" is $1,999. ($2K). Roughly double screen size if a "not so easy to make" screen probably will drive up costs ( 14" -> 27" ) . Even is swap battery costs for screen costs. Probably have one standard "bigger" power supply. Also driving up costs. Actual Ethernet support.

Pretty decent chance if throwing "iMac Pro" name at the system , then Apple will 'hit it' with a "Pro" markup past the old "plain" iMac systems. ( this 'around $2K' is so that folks don't think 'around $4K ( or 3K) ' the previous iMac Pro was at. More so that it is priced in the 2000's ; not so much at exactly on the lower border. ).

If the enclosure is flexible enough perhaps they'll do a classic Retina Screen 27" version at $1,999, but with mini-LEDs that target is probably blown. ( the four port MBP 13" inflated about $200 ; 1,799 -> 1,999 . The iMac Pro would likely slide into minimally the $2,200 zone. )


Apple isn't going to relieve all the "tension" between the two. Folks tap into "fear of missing out" and spent $200-300 more to trade up only makes Apple more money. Lower 24" sales traded for more profit? Nobody at Apple is going to loose sleep over that.

The gaps between Mac products at standard configuration is where they do their high pricing disciple. Trying to get the BTO options not to do any overlaps isn't their main objective.

 

[deconstruct60]

They are going to need to have a SOC that is better than the M1 Max if they want the iMac Pro to outperform high-end PC desktops the way the new MacBooks Pro easily outperform PC laptops (plugged or unplugged).

Jade2C-Die and Jade4C-Die will be those SoCs as they are effectively two or four M1 MAX (so 20C/64G or 40C/128G) which will be on the 2022 Mac Pro.

You are presuming that Apple doesn't gut the thermal cooling capacity of the 27" like they did with the 24" iMac.
Even the mentioned blond of the "XDR monitor" doesn't do much for trying to cover a jade4C. If they dial back the thickness too far they won't be able to handle around 240-300W.

IF they are just looking to being old iMac Pro then the M1 Max is pretty close. Better than the Mac Pro 2019 12 core. Probably can top the original iMac Pro configurations. a Jade2C would be a more comfortable gap, but if there is about equal priority for thinness and "magical" enclosure with no easily visible thermal vents, it may loose out.

Also if their "Mac Pro" is kneecapped with no slots ( a reprise of the Mac Pro 2013) they'll probably be looking to shift the old upper "half' iMac Pro folks into those systems for the Jade4C class systems. It would make more sense to compete with upper half HEDT desktop systems from the mainstream with a "box" with no screen. For more easier to "even things up" with cooling. (well, Apple has far, far, far noise since have far , far less to cool. ). Going after the very top end mainstream desktops on compute benchmark scores with an all-in-one doesn't make much sense. they don't "have to" do that.

P.S. could also put a Jade2c ( Max2 ) into Mini if just used the current enclosure ( and didn't thin it out). Again, taking on mainstream "boxes" with a "box.

 

[topmounter]

Funny 'how similar design to the 24"' and 'less chin' somehow translates to absolutely 'no chin' in the renders.

 

[deconstruct60]

Why pointless? Lots of people use multiple monitor setups.

in the over $2K for cost of system contexts ... HDMI 2.0 probably wouldn't be as big of a 'win' in 2022 as it would have been in 2018.

If Apple is primarily just copying over a feature to get more economies of scale component buys then probably will get stuck with same DisplayPort -> HDMI converter used on AppleTV (and MBP 14"/16" . that is where the laptops are getting it from ).

 

[Tagbert]

Not M2 Pro M2 Max? Kind of sad. iMac certainly have enough room for good cooling for M2 Pro or M2 Max running at full load.

You’ll get M2 Pro/Max in the iMac Pros, but you’ll have to wait until 2023 or so.

 

[deconstruct60]

Funny 'how similar design to the 24"' and 'less chin' somehow translates to absolutely 'no chin' in the renders.

That is more do driven by leaning extra hard on the the XDR being the priniciple template for the new iMac.

From the initial post in thread

... and if it does indeed look similar to the Pro Display XDR, bezel size could be much slimmer and it could perhaps have less of a bottom chin. ...

In part that is good because that means industrial design hasn't taken a "anorexic as possible" clever to the thickness of the system. Incrementally thicker than the XDR would be better, but without the $900 stand.

What don't want is to have the computer part confined to only being inside the chin (as in the 24" model). If get that perhaps on trendline of being thinner than XDR. That probably would "max out" with the M1 Max.

Decent chance they need some room for some speakers ( a 6 or 8 speaker set up similar to the 24" ) , but the computer in the space behind the screen ( with some reasonable separation ). The 'chin haters' will have a cow, but also should be enough systemtry between top and bottom bezel not to have to put a "notch" into the 27" screen. And even enough thickness to put in FaceID. Narrow out the bezels too much and going to see a notch in the screen. Apple has also gone that route to make the bezel haters happy.

 

[^^BIGMac]

Everything we know… which is not much.

 

[collin_]

512GB HD? Are you smoking crack? You gonna put "pro" on a machine and put half a terabyte HD in it? COME ON

And NAND prices are so cheap these days which is why it pisses me off so much. I can get a 1TB M.2 SSD for $100, and Apple can get it even cheaper.

I completely understand why the RAM and SSDs are no longer user-upgradable (sorry iFixit), but if that’s the case then at least don’t screw us over on the upgrade prices. 512GB storage on a $2,500 MacBook and $400 to go from 16 to 32GB RAM. Really? ._.

I don’t buy 64GB RAM for fun. I truly need it. I’m working with files now that won’t even open unless I have X amount of RAM. It costs A THOUSAND DOLLARS to go from 16 to 64 with these machines. Costed $800 to go from 16 to 64 even in the x86 16-inch model which is just insane considering that it was plain old non-unified DDR4-2667.

I am not a developer myself, but they are screwing over their most important customers.

 

[Lioness~]

Everything we know… which is not much.

No, it isn't much news.

But it's a very hot topic - occupies the mind of a lot of Apple users.
Many are waiting for these yummies ??

 

[CWallace]

You are presuming that Apple doesn't gut the thermal cooling capacity of the 27" like they did with the 24" iMac.
Even the mentioned blond of the "XDR monitor" doesn't do much for trying to cover a jade4C. If they dial back the thickness too far they won't be able to handle around 240-300W.

Well I am on record as skeptical if this new iMac will be able to handle Jade2C-Die, especially if it clocks in at around 180W (based on what a MAX pulls at max).

Personally, I think the top option will be the M1 MAX at 10C/32G.

 

[entropys]

Yes, because having an industry standard display connector, as used on virtually all modern TVs and most low/mid-range computer monitors, that lets you connect a second up-to-4k TV or monitor is obviously nuts, whereas the current iMac situation - the only two data ports supporting Thunderbolt and USB 3.1g2 "wasted" driving external displays because some bright spark thought it would be a cool idea to create an unnecessary bottleneck by making two unrelated resources share the same port - is perfectly sane.

I see the USB-C Kool Aid still hasn't lost it's potency.

...if the new iMac is only going to have 3 TB ports (likely, given that the M1 Pro/Max only have 3 TB controllers) then some dedicated display ports to keep the TB ports clear for high-speed data would be welcome. Personally, I'd prefer DisplayPort (HDMI is a thing on laptops because of data projectors) but HDMI would be fine for all my existing monitors...

On the one hand, I'm skeptical since the iMac doesn't have a history of HDMI ports and this "rumour" sounds like a re-hash of what the new MacBook Pro turned out to be... but then, on the other hand, most of the specs are going to be based on what the M1 Pro/Max system-on-a-chip can do, so it probably will be essentially a MacBook Pro onna stick...

I agree with everything you say, and TBH, I would prefer the ability to daisy chain matching external displays via DisplayPort MST, if only Apple would support it.

 

[chucker23n1]

Do you think the former iMac Pro was discontinued super early because of how bad the M1 kicked the pants off the Xeon?

No.

First, I don't think over three years is "super early".

Second, one product being better than another isn't reason enough for Apple to discontinue the first. Newer products come along all the time; technology marches on. They're not gonna synchronize their Mac line-up so all Macs get updated on the same cycle, so failing that, yeah, some Macs will always feel slightly out of date.

Third, the reason that particular iMac Pro was discontinued is that its CPU series, the Xeon W-2100, was discontinued by Intel. They could've gone to the Xeon W-2200 later on, but decided against it. Why? Probably indeed in part because they were moving to the M1 anyway. But also, because almost a year before the iMac Pro was announced, they already said that they were course-correcting and doing another Mac Pro.

 

[Manzanito]

Yes, because having an industry standard display connector, as used on virtually all modern TVs and most low/mid-range computer monitors, that lets you connect a second up-to-4k TV or monitor is obviously nuts, whereas the current iMac situation - the only two data ports supporting Thunderbolt and USB 3.1g2 "wasted" driving external displays because some bright spark thought it would be a cool idea to create an unnecessary bottleneck by making two unrelated resources share the same port - is perfectly sane.

I see the USB-C Kool Aid still hasn't lost it's potency.

...if the new iMac is only going to have 3 TB ports (likely, given that the M1 Pro/Max only have 3 TB controllers) then some dedicated display ports to keep the TB ports clear for high-speed data would be welcome. Personally, I'd prefer DisplayPort (HDMI is a thing on laptops because of data projectors) but HDMI would be fine for all my existing monitors...

On the one hand, I'm skeptical since the iMac doesn't have a history of HDMI ports and this "rumour" sounds like a re-hash of what the new MacBook Pro turned out to be... but then, on the other hand, most of the specs are going to be based on what the M1 Pro/Max system-on-a-chip can do, so it probably will be essentially a MacBook Pro onna stick...

Macrumors should add a “clapping hands” reaction, that’s what this answer deserves.

 

[chucker23n1]

The article is titled "everything we know", but the answer is clearly "not much at all", and the random bits of speculation don't form a coherent narrative. For example:

The upcoming iMac will be similar in design to the 24-inch iMac and the Pro Display XDR,

Which is it? Other than primarily containing a screen, those two designs aren't similar at all. Does the iMac Pro get a chin? Does it back have a lattice pattern?

The iMac is expected to offer a similar port configuration to the MacBook Pro, with Apple including USB-C/Thunderbolt ports, an SD card slot, and an HDMI port.

If it does get any of those ports, it will be significantly thicker than the 24-inch iMac.

So we're really talking about two entirely different things. It could be an upscaled version of the 24-inch iMac. In that case, it'll either feature the same ports, or be a lot thicker to accommodate other ports. (If it does accommodate HDMI and SD, they might as well throw Ethernet in there.)

Or it's like a Pro Display XDR but with a computer inside.

 

[chucker23n1]

An hdmi port on an iMac would be nuts. Still not convinced it was a good choice on the new MacBook Pro’s but utterly pointless on an iMac.

Connecting a second display without the need for a dongle is "utterly pointless"?

(Please don't tell me about displays with USB-C in. Or displays that cost four figures. Almost nobody buys either of those when you can get a 4K display with HDMI for $300.)

 

[hot-gril]

512GB HD? Are you smoking crack? You gonna put "pro" on a machine and put half a terabyte HD in it? COME ON

Some creative pros aren't gonna primarily store media on the boot disk anyway.

 

[Adarna]

 

[deanmadonia]

512GB HD? Are you smoking crack? You gonna put "pro" on a machine and put half a terabyte HD in it? COME ON

Mac sux ballz. They used to be amazing. I was their biggest fan.

Planning to build a PC, this Mac stuff is just silly. It’s become a cult with no message.