I don't see Apple doing a "pro" iMac as long as the Mac Studio exists. Being able to update the computer or display independently is always a better value proposition than having them tied together in one machine.
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.
Gurman: Apple Still Working on 'Pro' iMac With Larger Screen
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Agreed. It seems silly to buy a desktop, with a 5 thousand dollar starting price, and have the expensive monitor tied to that device only. The iMac Pro was always marketed as a stop gap between the 2013 and 2019 Mac Pro.
That said, it seems like a lot of people here just want a larger iMac. Not necessarily a new "iMac Pro".
I would like to see a normal, non Pro larger iMac. Probably starting at $1999.
That is what’s wrong with this article.
We won’t see a iMac Pro at all!
But we may more likely see a 27” iMac with a pro chip. A pro chip is not so pro when we have max and ultra chips as well. In the Studio for instance.
Pro comparing to the smaller 24" M1 iMacs perhaps.
But that's been true for as long as the iMac has existed. If anything, it's less of an issue now because computers' lifetimes are so much longer. When iMacs were first introduced it seemed like I needed a new (faster) computer every three years, now I'm doing professional editing work (albeit, PCoIP or low-res proxies) on an iMac that's 11 years old.
Last edited:
The fact that Apple still has not replaced the Intel Mini ( that ) and that they have customers that buy many thousands of Minis ( again ... why the Intel Mini is still for sale). suggests otherwise. The Studio isn't a replacement for that "scale out" role.
https://www.macstadium.com/virtualization
The Studio isn't a good virtualization match largely for a couple of reasons.
i. It is less dense ( it is 3x bigger than the Mini if racked vertically as above). The bulk of a size bloat is a bigger heat sink primarily for bigger GPUs. The role where these Intel Mini is deployed isn't GPU horsepower critical. ( 10's of thousands of systems out there with vintage 2018/2014 Intel iGPUs in them. If GPU horsepower was critical they'd would suffer. They don't. )
What is needed if more RAM and higher P core count than the plain "Mx" SoC . That is precisely the role the
"Mx Pro" SoC plays. It also has more GPU cores but doesn't go "overboard" in adding those. The base RAM level is higher and the Max capacity is higher than the plan "Mx" SoC. The Intel Mini that is left maxes out at 64GB of RAM. M2 Pro should max out around 48GB which is be 2x the 24GB the M2 Mini will. It still would be a bit of a "backslide" but not the relatively massive backslide that the 16GB cap of the M1.
A Mini Pro with a M2 Pro can put more CPU cores into one of the racks above than a Studio can at a far more cost effective price. [ Trying to pack with Studio Utlra is way too expensive ( because buying 'tons' of GPUs cores don't necessarily need. And less dense 3x case size for 2x the CPU cores. ) . The space consumed is growing faster than the CPU core count. ]
ii. RAM capacity is tightly coupled to GPU core count. ( bigger GPUs need more bandwidth so Apple cranks up the base level RAM capacity as grow the GPU). The dual edge sword for the Studio is that it starts off with a "Mx Max" class SoC. That sets the RAM base level high.
If some virtualization nodes needed 64GB, or higher, they could make the tradeoff of rack space for more memory with the Studio. There would be market segmentation. However, for mainstream virtualization users if a "Mini Pro" gave them 32-48GB range to select from that would likely be a very good fit for 70+ percentile. It is why the Intel is still around to do something better than 16GB (that the M1 Mini does).
As the LPDDR5+ RAM densities improve than the "Mx Pro" SoC should be able to cover 64GB range well. The 'backslide' from Intel Mini's 64GB mark should abate more over time, which would result in even less demand for the studio for this role. Long term, the Studio doesn't have deep traction here.
Apple can screw things up. The sane path would be to just toss a M2 Pro into the current Mini case. Put the M2 Mini into something that is 'right sized' better, but the is zero pressing need to run off and invent major new industrial design for a Mini Pro.
The market "problem" here is that Apple has already outlined in the presentation for the Mini in 2018 that they were addressing needs past the folks who were primarily "cost conscious">
November 2018 archive :
"... And now Mac mini can be configured with 10Gb Ethernet so it's ready to move mountainous files and monstrous data up to 10 times faster. ...
.... Mac mini goes where no Mac has gone before. And now with even more cores packed into its 7.7-inch-square frame, you never know where you’ll find a Mac mini — or dozens of them — hard at work. ...
Build and Render Farms ... XCode Server ... Live Performance ... Digital Signage ..."
Mac mini
Mac mini gets the update of a lifetime, with faster processors, upgradable memory, all-flash storage, Thunderbolt 3, HDMI 2.0, and 10Gb Ethernet.
web.archive.org
The Intel Mini that is still for sale starts at $1099 and if set the base level RAM to 16GB it is $1,299. That isn't a super cost conscious price point for a desktop machine. At 1300-1400 there is a $500-600 gap between the Studio base configuration and a "Mini Pro". That is plenty to keep them separated.
A Mini Pro (M2 Pro) would more likely be a bigger threat to a completely comatose M1 24" iMac than it would be to the Studio. ( If Apple is going to ride the M1 24" iMac for more than 2 years while the Mini and Studios update it is likely going to run into major problems keeping unit volume sales from dropping. Waiting for the M3 to update the 24" iMac is goofy. There is something contrived going on there if Apple does that. )
If Apple is only going to go with the relatively expensive Studio Display than the $500-600 gap between the Studio and Mini Pro could be applied to bringing the Studio Display into the more affordable zone. Mini Pro + Studio Display is far closer to the ~ $3,000 iMac 27" BTO model price than a $3,500 price point. Most Mini Pro's would be sold with non Apple display (docking station) attached to them, but Apple needs a better driver of unit volume for the Studio display than the Mac Studio.
The Studio is going to eat into the entry class Mac Pro group. Apple outlined that in the Studio introduction. The most popular Mac Pro sold was 16 cores and W5700. There are folks left ( with W6800 Duos and far more GPU 'horsepower", but they aren't the dominate user base. ) .
Apple has a hole in the transition. They are trying to tap dance around it "Only the Mac Pro is left to transition" , but technically that is not true. The Intel Mnii is sitting there plain as day because they DO HAVE A HOLE in the line up. It is sitting there like a turd in a punch bowl; Apple is just engaging in misdirection to cover it up.
The Mac Studio isn't a good substitute for the either the base iMac 27" or the Intel Mini that is still in the line up. In an inflation pricing era, that even less so.
Apple is trying to 'herd' some folks into the more expensive entry Studio (products pay more for display and compute) . Partially because there isn't enough optimized software to make the GPU gap 'shine'. ( if better leverage the increased GPU core count of Studio it would have more value and folks would pay more. )
If an M2 Pro/Max iMac 27+ inch display is completely derailed for the next year or more then a Mini Pro would be a easy fix. Use the current case and drop a better "guts" into it. ( less backslide on max RAM, no DisplayPort output backslide , Baseline 10GbE , etc. )
Last edited:
Why do the use MacMinis? To run "virtual" instances of macOS.
What is moving more an more stuff from CPU to GPU cores with each new version?
I'm also sure the M1Ultra Studio offers better CPU/m^3 than those Minis while not relying as heavy on cool intake air to avoid thermal throttling.
Sure those sever farms are big, but how many % of annual Mini sales is to them? So yeah Apple is gonna push out those Intel Minis as long as the either have parts in stock or they can make a killer profit. Afterwards these costumers will either (slowly) adapt the racks to the Studio or pack them with M1(2) Minis.
If you want a 27” consumer iMac, get a VESA mount Studio Display, a thin client mount, a Mac mini, and a monitor stand or arm.
Bonuses:
1. You can swap out the screen and box separately when they update.
2. Your diyMac supports autorotation to portrait orientation, which iMacs can’t do.
I for one am glad Apple is finally selling us modular systems again instead of the entire consumer line being laptops on a stick.
Bonuses:
1. You can swap out the screen and box separately when they update.
2. Your diyMac supports autorotation to portrait orientation, which iMacs can’t do.
I for one am glad Apple is finally selling us modular systems again instead of the entire consumer line being laptops on a stick.
The fact that Apple still has not replaced the Intel Mini ( that ) and that they have customers that buy many thousands of Minis ( again ... why the Intel Mini is still for sale). suggests otherwise. The Studio isn't a replacement for that "scale out" role.
https://www.macstadium.com/virtualization
The Studio isn't a good virtualization match largely for a couple of reasons.
i. It is less dense ( it is 3x bigger than the Mini if racked vertically as above). The bulk of a size bloat is a bigger heat sink primarily for bigger GPUs. The role where these Intel Mini is deployed isn't GPU horsepower critical. ( 10's of thousands of systems out there with vintage 2018/2014 Intel iGPUs in them. If GPU horsepower was critical they'd would suffer. They don't. )
What is needed if more RAM and higher P core count than the plain "Mx" SoC . That is precisely the role the
"Mx Pro" SoC plays. It also has more GPU cores but doesn't go "overboard" in adding those. The base RAM level is higher and the Max capacity is higher than the plan "Mx" SoC. The Intel Mini that is left maxes out at 64GB of RAM. M2 Pro should max out around 48GB which is be 2x the 24GB the M2 Mini will. It still would be a bit of a "backslide" but not the relatively massive backslide that the 16GB cap of the M1.
A Mini Pro with a M2 Pro can put more CPU cores into one of the racks above than a Studio can at a far more cost effective price. [ Trying to pack with Studio Utlra is way too expensive ( because buying 'tons' of GPUs cores don't necessarily need. And less dense 3x case size for 2x the CPU cores. ) . The space consumed is growing faster than the CPU core count. ]
ii. RAM capacity is tightly coupled to GPU core count. ( bigger GPUs need more bandwidth so Apple cranks up the base level RAM capacity as grow the GPU). The dual edge sword for the Studio is that it starts off with a "Mx Max" class SoC. That sets the RAM base level high.
If some virtualization nodes needed 64GB, or higher, they could make the tradeoff of rack space for more memory with the Studio. There would be market segmentation. However, for mainstream virtualization users if a "Mini Pro" gave them 32-48GB range to select from that would likely be a very good fit for 70+ percentile. It is why the Intel is still around to do something better than 16GB (that the M1 Mini does).
As the LPDDR5+ RAM densities improve than the "Mx Pro" SoC should be able to cover 64GB range well. The 'backslide' from Intel Mini's 64GB mark should abate more over time, which would result in even less demand for the studio for this role. Long term, the Studio doesn't have deep traction here.
Apple can screw things up. The sane path would be to just toss a M2 Pro into the current Mini case. Put the M2 Mini into something that is 'right sized' better, but the is zero pressing need to run off and invent major new industrial design for a Mini Pro.
The market "problem" here is that Apple has already outlined in the presentation for the Mini in 2018 that they were addressing needs past the folks who were primarily "cost conscious">
November 2018 archive :
"... And now Mac mini can be configured with 10Gb Ethernet so it's ready to move mountainous files and monstrous data up to 10 times faster. ...
.... Mac mini goes where no Mac has gone before. And now with even more cores packed into its 7.7-inch-square frame, you never know where you’ll find a Mac mini — or dozens of them — hard at work. ...
Build and Render Farms ... XCode Server ... Live Performance ... Digital Signage ..."
Mac mini
Mac mini gets the update of a lifetime, with faster processors, upgradable memory, all-flash storage, Thunderbolt 3, HDMI 2.0, and 10Gb Ethernet.web.archive.org
The Intel Mini that is still for sale starts at $1099 and if set the base level RAM to 16GB it is $1,299. That isn't a super cost conscious price point for a desktop machine. At 1300-1400 there is a $500-600 gap between the Studio base configuration and a "Mini Pro". That is plenty to keep them separated.
A Mini Pro (M2 Pro) would more likely be a bigger threat to a completely comatose M1 24" iMac than it would be to the Studio. ( If Apple is going to ride the M1 24" iMac for more than 2 years while the Mini and Studios update it is likely going to run into major problems keeping unit volume sales from dropping. Waiting for the M3 to update the 24" iMac is goofy. There is something contrived going on there if Apple does that. )
If Apple is only going to go with the relatively expensive Studio Display than the $500-600 gap between the Studio and Mini Pro could be applied to bringing the Studio Display into the more affordable zone. Mini Pro + Studio Display is far closer to the ~ $3,000 iMac 27" BTO model price than a $3,500 price point. Most Mini Pro's would be sold with non Apple display (docking station) attached to them, but Apple needs a better driver of unit volume for the Studio display than the Mac Studio.
The Studio is going to eat into the entry class Mac Pro group. Apple outlined that in the Studio introduction. The most popular Mac Pro sold was 16 cores and W5700. There are folks left ( with W6800 Duos and far more GPU 'horsepower", but they aren't the dominate user base. ) .
Apple has a hole in the transition. They are trying to tap dance around it "Only the Mac Pro is left to transition" , but technically that is not true. The Intel Mnii is sitting there plain as day because they DO HAVE A HOLE in the line up. It is sitting there like a turd in a punch bowl; Apple is just engaging in misdirection to cover it up.
The Mac Studio isn't a good substitute for the either the base iMac 27" or the Intel Mini that is still in the line up. In an inflation pricing era, that even less so.
Apple is trying to 'herd' some folks into the more expensive entry Studio (products pay more for display and compute) . Partially because there isn't enough optimized software to make the GPU gap 'shine'. ( if better leverage the increased GPU core count of Studio it would have more value and folks would pay more. )
If an M2 Pro/Max iMac 27+ inch display is completely derailed for the next year or more then a Mini Pro would be a easy fix. Use the current case and drop a better "guts" into it. ( less backslide on max RAM, no DisplayPort output backslide , Baseline 10GbE , etc. )
They have an intel Mini for sale to try and sell out of them. It will become discontinued before long. They have M1 Mini’s now and soon will have M2 minis. Again, I don’t know where you are going with any of the above.
Nailed it. So convoluted. And what does "+" have to do with a streaming service? Why not call it something meaningful, like Stream, or Shows, or anything other than +
Ive never seen iMacs anywhere in my country except for sale in Curry's and on my own desk. In fact I think Apple hardware in all its guises is way more popular in the states than here in the UK, probably partly because of price. Ten years ago everyone with a smartphone = it was an iPhone. Now I literally don't know anyone with an iPhone other than me. My two sons, who are 20 year old students, used to have iPhones, so that was three of us, but even they've moved onto Android because of the USB C issue and the terrible batteries in their SE2's.
In UK offices, Windows PCs rule, particularly across Government and the public sector which is by far the biggest enterpise-user of computers in the UK. Across all Departments there must be over a million machines.
Only time I ever saw an iMac in the wild was when I took my kids for a professional family photograph of us all at a local studio in 2004.
I do see some iPads and AirPods.
Hasn't it been like that since the introduction of the mini in 2005?
with the "little" difference that getting an imac u have more power for less money. while with a mac mini+studio monitor u spent more and have the power of an air...
ah yes, forgot to say that certainly "ill not need that extra power and ill not notice the difference" (the 2022 macrumors n°1 proverb), however i still paid more
I‘m pretty sure that we will see an M2 Pro Mini once Apple is ready for that line of chips to replace that Intel Mini.
The All-in-one form factor of the iMac is far too beloved for them to not make this.
I’m sure it will be priced just right to where the value proposition is there. All in one machine + peripherals.
We are probably looking at Pro and Max variants (not Ultra), reduced I/O compared to the Mac Studio, and 27-32” (or 2
Sizes?).
There will still be a reason that some need to jump to the base Mac Studio and be at Max chip for $1,999 (bang for buck and many will use cheaper display), and of course, the Ultra.
And if you need a Mac Pro, then you’re in a whole different league than this thread.
I’m sure it will be priced just right to where the value proposition is there. All in one machine + peripherals.
We are probably looking at Pro and Max variants (not Ultra), reduced I/O compared to the Mac Studio, and 27-32” (or 2
Sizes?).
There will still be a reason that some need to jump to the base Mac Studio and be at Max chip for $1,999 (bang for buck and many will use cheaper display), and of course, the Ultra.
And if you need a Mac Pro, then you’re in a whole different league than this thread.
I don’t understand the extra power comment. The Mac mini and upper-spec iMac seem comparable.
Price wise, Mac mini + Studio Display is $2,300. If Apple released a new 27” iMac, I would expect it to start at a similar price.
What’s nice about the iMac is that you get the Apple keyboard and mouse included. I don’t like them that much but I would call that the real value proposition when it comes to iMac.
The Mac mini is cool, but without an Apple display that had a webcam, speakers, mic, and the right DPI; I feel it fell short of comprising a consumer system.
Last edited:
All I really want is a larger screen iMac. I don't do strenuous stuff on any of my computers, but having a larger display is always appreciated. At work, I don't really care about desktop space or aesthetics and the flexibility of upgrading computer or display independently is desirable.
At home, I just want a tidy all-in-one with a large, high quality display, a good webcam, and decent speakers. Computers are almost at the point where they dont ever become obsolete so I'm less worried about upgrading.
i have a base imac 27 2019 and a base air 2019. imac is 3ghz 6core, air is 1,6 2core. just to compare them ripping a movie (handbrake) with imac takes 8 hours while on the air it takes 48h... yes i know with m1 macs difference its more subtle, but i cant believe an ipothetic imac 27/30 will have same power as an air/mini...
We're speculating about a product that may not even be announced, but likely a 27" iMac (or larger) would have the Pro or Max chips.
So as i said above an imac its still a better option than mini + studio display