Gurman: Larger Apple Silicon iMac 'En Route,' May Feature More Powerful 'M2X' Chip

[LordVic]

The largest company in the world and it's up 66% in the past year. Anyone know how hard it is to grow a huge company? I'd say that they are competent.


View attachment 1806342

Bit of a false dichotomy.

we have plenty of evidence that you don't even need a "product" anymore to grow a company if you have enough money behind you already.

Apple of today isn't the Apple of 20 years ago. I would be more surprised if Tim Cook destroyed the company financially. He's not an idiot when it comes to financials, economics and financial guidance.

That doesn't mean he knows what makes a good computer.

That's like saying because i'm an sysadmin and can write shell scripts, that I can also perform brain surgery.

 

[pshufd]

Bit of a false dichotomy.

we have plenty of evidence that you don't even need a "product" anymore to grow a company if you have enough money behind you already.

Apple of today isn't the Apple of 20 years ago. I would be more surprised if Tim Cook destroyed the company financially. He's not an idiot when it comes to financials, economics and financial guidance.

That doesn't mean he knows what makes a good computer.

That's like saying because i'm an sysadmin and can write shell scripts, that I can also perform brain surgery.

The job of a company is to increase long-term shareholder value. The short-term and intermediate goals to do that are to grow revenues.

They are doing a great job of their prime directive.

 

[LordVic]

The job of a company is to increase long-term shareholder value. The short-term and intermediate goals to do that are to grow revenues.

They are doing a great job of their prime directive.

Never disagreed with that that

 

[poked]

I would say they have a far better track record in the i-device space, and peripherals, than in their PC/Computer space.

historicallly, Apple computer user base has (and still is) a minority in the computer desktop space. They have also throghout their history have had significant lineup failures in their computer space.

I think that's why the latest iMac iteration and design had stuck around for so long. it became beloved and classic to many. When they had a lot of either technical or marketing flops.

On the backs of their PC buziness alone, Apple had already once faced potential collapse. Looking at many of the issues, often caused by purposeful design decisions (Butterfly Keyboard, designing chasis that can't handle cooling, failing display laminates, etc), Apple often evidences they don't know what they're doing in the computer space

they know how the market the **** out of the laptops. they're not Bad devices by any means. but not the homerun evidence they know what they're doing


Now their silicon division, while much younger, has knocked it out of the park. They know what they're doing. They I have confidence in.

I agree. I think their Apple computer designs have been classic, and boring and safe, which is part of the reason so many had a stable “this is the best, this is my symbol of wealth and status, but it’s a laptop” mentality that has (hopefully) been flipped on it’s head with desktop variety. I want the desktop iMac that was introduced to do well personally because it’s EXCITING. Not innovative, not crazy-competitive, but it’s a BRAND STATEMENT, you know? Apple is stupidly. Good. At marking their brand to the rich and the elite and the “want quality/cool factor/branding clout” over anything else. I think we as consumers don’t realize how prevalent it is. Do I think Apple has thousands of design flaws inherent in their closed system platform? Yeah. But we all have to give credit where it’s due. Branding made me buy back into the Apple ecosystem! That’s a hard thing to do, especially given Windows is “arguably” a more solid option for future-proofing yourself. Anyway, good post.

 

[pshufd]

I agree. I think their Apple computer designs have been classic, and boring and safe, which is part of the reason so many had a stable “this is the best, this is my symbol of wealth and status, but it’s a laptop” mentality that has (hopefully) been flipped on it’s head with desktop variety. I want the desktop iMac that was introduced to do well personally because it’s EXCITING. Not innovative, not crazy-competitive, but it’s a BRAND STATEMENT, you know? Apple is stupidly. Good. At marking their brand to the rich and the elite and the “want quality/cool factor/branding clout” over anything else. I think we as consumers don’t realize how prevalent it is. Do I think Apple has thousands of design flaws inherent in their closed system platform? Yeah. But we all have to give credit where it’s due. Branding made me buy back into the Apple ecosystem! That’s a hard thing to do, especially given Windows is “arguably” a more solid option for future-proofing yourself. Anyway, good post.

The MacBook Air was a pretty wow moment with the competition taking about six or seven years to catch up. The Retina MacBook Pros were pretty stunning when they launched as well. Apple just sat on the designs, though, and put their R&D into their phones. It was the right approach in terms of making profits.

 

[poked]

The MacBook Air was a pretty wow moment with the competition taking about six or seven years to catch up. The Retina MacBook Pros were pretty stunning when they launched as well. Apple just sat on the designs, though, and put their R&D into their phones. It was the right approach in terms of making profits.

Yeah it just sucks for the crowd of people that absolutely hate tiny laptop screens and the lack of ergonomics afforded to them by nature of what they do.

 

[thingstoponder]

There are "Pro" Macs and Macs that say "Pro" on the front. Not many people are going to spend $6k on a 27" iMac with 10 core i9, 128GB RAM, 1TB SSD, 5700 XT w/16GB etc. to update their Facebook and sort their holiday snaps, any more than people are going to buy an 8GB/256GB 13" MacBook Pro for editing Hollywood movies. The current "pro" labelling is a mess, and - as I said - a new world where the "consumer" Macs all have "M1" and the higher-end Macs all have "M1X" (or however the naming turns out) is an opportunity to sort that out.


...and there's no evidence that they'll use the same design as the 24" either. It's all speculation - the problem is that some people write their speculation as if it's the undeniable truth.

We've already seen Apple use Space Grey to distinguish higher-end hardware - the iMac Pro and the 2018 Mini (vs. the 2014 and earlier silver versions with mobile processors) and the steampunk style to distinguish the Mac Pro and XDR - so it is perfectly plausible. That doesn't mean it's going to happen.


2 Soc Options x 3 RAM options (or, possibly, 3 SoCs each with 2 RAM options, if the RAM is still mounted on the SoC) x 4 storage options = 24 different types of assembled logic board. Multiply by 7 colours - 168 versions. Wait - double that for the VESA option (likely to be more popular on higher-end machines) oh, then there's probably a nano-etched display option, double that again... 10GB Ethernet option... x2 again... and many of these are manufactured-in things so it's not really "build-to-order" and more "guess how many of each logic board and case you need to manufacture". So, yeah, there's a potential problem with a combinatorial explosion of options - with significantly lower volumes than the 24" and probably a higher proportion choosing the "BTO" options because "pro" customers have more specialised needs.


Yes there is - the aforementioned $5000 5k iMac i9/5700 XT configurations (which outperform the base iMac Pro) at one end and the Mac Pro at the other. The latter didn't exist when the iMP was released, and the 2017 iMac topped out at a 4 core i7...

Anyhow, the iMac Pro was only discontinued this year, so the anticipation of a M1 replacement may well have played into that.

The 5k iMac range covers a wide range of specs from the fairly modest base model to the $6k+ options - if the replacement doesn't cover the same range Apple will have a yawning gap between the iMac and the Mac Pro. (Of course, there's also the 'Mini Pro' rumour...)


Oh, I attach zero significance to the "mockup" which looks like generic clipart that has been around since 2010.

The 5k iMac is not a real replacement for the iMac Pro. The 10 core iMac doesn’t even match the 10 core iMac Pro, much less the 14 or 18 core ones. Doesn’t have ECC RAM, doesn’t have the superior cooling system, etc. The rumor of the M1X is that it will be 10 core. It will replace the 5k iMac just fine but not the 18 core iMac Pro. There won’t be a gap between the new iMac and new Mac Pro any more than there is now with the 5k and the Intel Mac Pro.

By all indication the iMac Pro was a stopgap for the Mac Pro.

I just don’t understand where everyone is getting this idea that an “iMac Pro” is on the horizon as if that isn’t a dead product. A 5k iMac replacement is on the horizon, not an iMac Pro replacement.

And on the topic of the design… yes it’s all speculation, but not all speculation has equal likelihood. Odds are the design will be the same as the 24”. There is no indication that it will have a new design and have black bezels and have no chin. That is pure fiction invented from YouTube clickbait community and macrumors forums. Sorry if I sound annoying but it bothers me when people take this stuff at face value and then get disappointed when it turns out to be BS.

 

[EdT]

I’m getting too old to get excited by specs. What I want in a computer is one of 2 things: Something that isn’t very expensive that can run current and soon to be released software at an above average level OR something more expensive that I don’t need to upgrade/replace for better than 5 years, in any department, memory, graphics or processing speed.

So either a good short time frame cost/performance computer or a good long duration performance/time one.

 

[LordVic]

I’m getting too old to get excited by specs. What I want in a computer is one of 2 things: Something that isn’t very expensive that can run current and soon to be released software at an above average level OR something more expensive that I don’t need to upgrade/replace for better than 5 years, in any department, memory, graphics or processing speed.

So either a good short time frame cost/performance computer or a good long duration performance/time one.

Nah, you're not getting too old tog et excited over specs

we've just hit an age where were not seeing dramatic improvements to usability because of spexc increases. A sort of diminishing return for how noticable those spc changes affect our life.

even midrange CPU's in mobile for example are going to be very snappy at their cheaper prices. It's hard to justify a giant pres conference and keynote showcasing a phone thats 20% more expensive that fundamentally won't feel different to the user.

yes, they can claim 50% or even 100% performance for that price gain but when most of the things we're doing on the phone won't feel it, it' starts to sour us on what the justification for the cost is.

going from an iPhone 11 to iPhone 12 for example doesn't fundamentally change the performance in a perceivable way in day to day use. toktok might load in .09 seconds instead of .10 second. nothing wrong with that. But i'm willing to bet most users don't notice it in daily use


we also haven't seen in a while anything that has fundamentally changed the makup or feel of our modern tech. there's really in both computer or mobile space nothing in the last 2-5 years that has dramatically changed or improved things. Lots of iterations. Lots of incremental improvements accross all technology sectors, But nothing NEW. Nothing excisting. Nothign that brings something that fundamentally changes how we work/play.

 

[smetvid]

I wouldn't be so sure about that. M1 is wickedly fast, and I bet that in many many many many many tasks, it's already faster than the fastest iMac 27" right now. The tasks where the iMac is faster would be far less important.

My 2020 iPad with A12Z is faster than my 2017 iMac 5K in photo editing, and not slightly faster, much faster. But on paper, the cpu+gpu power of my iMac would look more than twice as fast as the iPad. Not in reality though.

For the average user yes that is very true. For the high end user however the 27" iMac and 16" MBP do provide performance advantages right now in some cases.

One needs to figure out what they plan on doing and finding out which will provide an advantage right now. If one edits raw video in Resolve for example the faster GPU in the 27" does provide a significant advantage. With that said I use a M1 MBA with Resolve and it works well so again it really depends n the use cases. I mainly use Resolve right now to convert BRAW to ProRes to edit in FCPX. It may take a bit longer to render but thats fine for the short stuff I do on the road with the MBA right now.

Since we no longer have the option for eGPU and a lot of content creation applications make use of the GPU a M1 will be limited in what it can do. It will fall behind as applications get more complex as well and need greater GPU processing power.

 

[pshufd]

Nah, you're not getting too old tog et excited over specs

we've just hit an age where were not seeing dramatic improvements to usability because of spexc increases. A sort of diminishing return for how noticable those spc changes affect our life.

even midrange CPU's in mobile for example are going to be very snappy at their cheaper prices. It's hard to justify a giant pres conference and keynote showcasing a phone thats 20% more expensive that fundamentally won't feel different to the user.

yes, they can claim 50% or even 100% performance for that price gain but when most of the things we're doing on the phone won't feel it, it' starts to sour us on what the justification for the cost is.

going from an iPhone 11 to iPhone 12 for example doesn't fundamentally change the performance in a perceivable way in day to day use. toktok might load in .09 seconds instead of .10 second. nothing wrong with that. But i'm willing to bet most users don't notice it in daily use


we also haven't seen in a while anything that has fundamentally changed the makup or feel of our modern tech. there's really in both computer or mobile space nothing in the last 2-5 years that has dramatically changed or improved things. Lots of iterations. Lots of incremental improvements accross all technology sectors, But nothing NEW. Nothing excisting. Nothign that brings something that fundamentally changes how we work/play.

Going from an iPhone 7 to an iPhone 12 is a big deal in performance though. I'm using a 7 and played around with a 12 at The Apple Store and the difference is huge. Hence the advantage of upgrading every couple of years or more.

 

[EdT]

Nah, you're not getting too old tog et excited over specs

we've just hit an age where were not seeing dramatic improvements to usability because of spexc increases. A sort of diminishing return for how noticable those spc changes affect our life.

even midrange CPU's in mobile for example are going to be very snappy at their cheaper prices. It's hard to justify a giant pres conference and keynote showcasing a phone thats 20% more expensive that fundamentally won't feel different to the user.

yes, they can claim 50% or even 100% performance for that price gain but when most of the things we're doing on the phone won't feel it, it' starts to sour us on what the justification for the cost is.

going from an iPhone 11 to iPhone 12 for example doesn't fundamentally change the performance in a perceivable way in day to day use. toktok might load in .09 seconds instead of .10 second. nothing wrong with that. But i'm willing to bet most users don't notice it in daily use


we also haven't seen in a while anything that has fundamentally changed the makup or feel of our modern tech. there's really in both computer or mobile space nothing in the last 2-5 years that has dramatically changed or improved things. Lots of iterations. Lots of incremental improvements accross all technology sectors, But nothing NEW. Nothing excisting. Nothign that brings something that fundamentally changes how we work/play.

I have always bought the highest end version of most electronics that I could afford. Budget always becomes a factor but I have historically bought towards the high end of a product with the thought that it would last longer. I advised friends to buy the best processor with the largest hard drive and as much memory as they could afford on the basis that the computer itself would be viable for a long time. But if ARM chips become the standard in Windows as well as Apple computers then I’m not sure that advice still makes sense. You can’t really upgrade (at least not yet) an ARM chipped computer. And you (evidently) can’t add memory or graphic processors after the fact either. Now I’m thinking that you buy the cheapest computer that does what you need it to do, because upgrading isn’t really possible.

What I would really like to see is an ARM vs Intel vs AMD comparison. To accomplish X task what is the system you need to do the bare minimum, what do you need to do a medium workload, and what a professional would need. And show the costs and specs when doing the same jobs.

 

[pshufd]

I have always bought the highest end version of most electronics that I could afford. Budget always becomes a factor but I have historically bought towards the high end of a product with the thought that it would last longer. I advised friends to buy the best processor with the largest hard drive and as much memory as they could afford on the basis that the computer itself would be viable for a long time. But if ARM chips become the standard in Windows as well as Apple computers then I’m not sure that advice still makes sense. You can’t really upgrade (at least not yet) an ARM chipped computer. And you (evidently) can’t add memory or graphic processors after the fact either. Now I’m thinking that you buy the cheapest computer that does what you need it to do, because upgrading isn’t really possible.

What I would really like to see is an ARM vs Intel vs AMD comparison. To accomplish X task what is the system you need to do the bare minimum, what do you need to do a medium workload, and what a professional would need. And show the costs and specs when doing the same jobs.

I used to buy cheap and then I went to buying mid-range and I've found that mid-range has a better cost-benefit than cheap. Apple makes some configurations that are really out there (I don't need a 1.5 TB Mac Pro) and I don't need that in the foreseeable future. The thing about Apple Silicon is the CPU speed is so ridiculously powerful. All of my office needs are met by M1 as far as CPU goes. What I'd want more of is RAM (even another 8 GB would be enough for me) and ports. We will be getting that and I'll do an upgrade but I could get by on an M1 for CPU horsepower - I don't think that will be an offering though.

And I have my Windows box which I can add to easily next to the M1 mini. I do plan to upgrade the mini to M1X when it comes out. That may be the way to go - have two systems. One where you can add and upgrade to your heart's content and the Apple system with the ridiculously fast CPU. And just partition tasks out accordingly.

There are lots of sites that compare workloads between Intel and Apple Silicon and some that include AMD. But what matters to me is my workload. I've compared my Intel MacBook Pro to my M1 mini and the mini wins hands down. The M1 CPU has double the Geekbench scores on Single Core, Multicore and OpenCL. It runs around 30-32 degrees while the i7 runs from 40 to 85. I can't really run the i7 with my monitor setup because it gets too hot, even with external fans.

 

[poked]

Going from an iPhone 7 to an iPhone 12 is a big deal in performance though. I'm using a 7 and played around with a 12 at The Apple Store and the difference is huge. Hence the advantage of upgrading every couple of years or more.

The iPhone 7 is a fundamentally different phone than the 12, which is why the poster above you was comparing them. Going 3-4 years out on models is going to show pretty drastic differences because of your current phones age, wear & tear, battery degradation, etc. which is why he compared the iPhone 11 & 12. I looked at the new phones in the Apple store and aside from my screen protector needing to be replaced, there simply was no difference in base model processing speed dectecable to me, in any app I browsed as a side-by-side comparison. Which is why I only ordered an iMac and didn’t go for a new phone. 2019-2021 isn’t going to see any sort of huge performance increased compared to 2016-2021, which is when your iPhone 7 came out. I don’t know that the 7 could even handle the newest iOS version we have right now, but I haven’t compared model specs. I think my phone before the 11 was also a 7, but I only remember Touch ID. I don’t recall any of what I used it for or anything else, just know my first phone was a 5c, then a 7(?), then this 11 that I’ll keep until there’s an iPhone without fifteen camera lenses stuck on the back.

 

[pshufd]

The iPhone 7 is a fundamentally different phone than the 12, which is why the poster above you was comparing them. Going 3-4 years out on models is going to show pretty drastic differences because of your current phones age, wear & tear, battery degradation, etc. which is why he compared the iPhone 11 & 12. I looked at the new phones in the Apple store and aside from my screen protector needing to be replaced, there simply was no difference in base model processing speed dectecable to me, in any app I browsed as a side-by-side comparison. Which is why I only ordered an iMac and didn’t go for a new phone. 2019-2021 isn’t going to see any sort of huge performance increased compared to 2016-2021, which is when your iPhone 7 came out. I don’t know that the 7 could even handle the newest iOS version we have right now, but I haven’t compared model specs. I think my phone before the 11 was also a 7, but I only remember Touch ID. I don’t recall any of what I used it for or anything else, just know my first phone was a 5c, then a 7(?), then this 11 that I’ll keep until there’s an iPhone without fifteen camera lenses stuck on the back.

There were sizable improvements from the 6 to the 6s and then to the 7. I had the 6 and upgraded to the 7+ and it was a big improvement. The 6 lost latest iOS support a while ago. The 7 has the latest version but it may not get it this time. Performance is adequate for what I do. Email, light web browsing, watching a few videos, Garmin Connect to record workouts, music for running and some other office stuff. I don't do anything heavy on it. It had the batter replaced in 2019 so that's not been that much of an issue.

The main reason I want to upgrade is the 12 Mini has slightly less screen area but is much smaller and much lighter. This is a real benefit when running with a phone as it is hard to find running shorts that can hold a large phone. I think that most running shorts can't hold a phone at all - I had to spend some time finding shorts that could hold a phone comfortably.

A lot of running shorts are very thin. They may have a pocket but the pocket won't support the weight and size of a large phone. So you have to get something made out of heavier materials. Which can be a negative on a run depending on the weather.

The camera on the iPhone 6 is fine for me. I'm not big on photography but I suspect that photos will take up more space on newer phones. Progress.

 

[iBug2]

For the average user yes that is very true. For the high end user however the 27" iMac and 16" MBP do provide performance advantages right now in some cases.

One needs to figure out what they plan on doing and finding out which will provide an advantage right now. If one edits raw video in Resolve for example the faster GPU in the 27" does provide a significant advantage. With that said I use a M1 MBA with Resolve and it works well so again it really depends n the use cases. I mainly use Resolve right now to convert BRAW to ProRes to edit in FCPX. It may take a bit longer to render but thats fine for the short stuff I do on the road with the MBA right now.

Since we no longer have the option for eGPU and a lot of content creation applications make use of the GPU a M1 will be limited in what it can do. It will fall behind as applications get more complex as well and need greater GPU processing power.

Well, like I said, on paper the faster GPU in my iMac (Radeon 580) should be more than twice as fast as the A12Z gpu, and my photo editing software uses metal hardware acceleration on my iMac.

Then how in the hell is my iPad doing all the editing tasks more than 2-3 times as fast as my iMac?

I'm editing 50MP photos in these machines. I'm not an average user, photos this large require decent hardware to edit.

 

[LordVic]

What I would really like to see is an ARM vs Intel vs AMD comparison. To accomplish X task what is the system you need to do the bare minimum, what do you need to do a medium workload, and what a professional would need. And show the costs and specs when doing the same jobs.

There are some youtube influencers that if you're "geeky" enough do like to tackle this sort of thing.

Or some of the more hardware PC focused sites like Tomshardware, Anandtech (Founder of the site now works for Apple) or Arstechnica.

I think Anand did a review a few years back comparing the performance of high end ARM servers vs x86. and the result was exactly what you and I would expect

"depends on the workload"

 

[Scoob Redux]

And yet the past 20+ years has clearly shown the opposite, they know EXACTLY what a desktop for the vast majority of the public needs to be... or what the vast majority of the computer buying public WANT it to be. As is evidenced by they sales.

Ah, there we go. "as evidenced by sales". There is the fallacy. Sales have very little to do with good/bad design or knowing what a desktop "needs to be". Consumers will buy whatever is put in front of them. Please come up with another argument that shows how Apple's designs demonstrate "what a desktop needs to be" from a usability/customer experience/cognitive engineering standpoint.

 

[ColdShadow]

If you are referring to the current iMac design then you will likely be bitterly disappointed.


No one knows for certain where technological advancement will go and/or what form it will take. Today we are surrounded by technology that only the most prescient might have envisioned 30-50 years ago. We can be certain the current state will not remain static. And past precedent is not always a reliable guide for what is to come.

Could anyone in the 1960s but a science fiction writer have envisioned a device like an iPhone or iPad? And it took 30-40 years to make them a reality particularly for the mass market. A flat screen display was pure Star Trek way back in the day when displays and televisions were bulky, clunky, poor resolution CRTs in a box.

The real barrier to evolving these is materials to allow for the desired forms. Many devices are evolving away being having to physically connect to other devices. In many instances today’s smartphone has no need to physical port with any other device—everything is wireless. The only time it needs to physically touch another device is for wireless charging. I, for one, really welcome that ability. Given that materials are the only barrier to how thin a smartphone or tablet can get.

In extent, and given advancing wireless connectivity, materials may be the only real barrier to how thin a desktop display or AIO computer can get.

I was talking about the new aesthetic design which is awful compared to predecessor models.

 

[Warped9]

I was talking about the new aesthetic design which is awful compared to predecessor models.

---

Which is subjective opinion not borne out by the majority of feedback.

 

[Hexley]

I hope the base 27"+ model has these features

• 4GB GPU or better
• 16GB memory or better
• 512GB storage or better
• $1799 or lower

 

[awsom82]

I hope the base 27"+ model has these features

• 4GB GPU or better
• 16GB memory or better
• 512GB storage or better
• $1799 or lower

There definitely will be no dedicated VRAM for GPU. GPU unit will use unified memory

 

[pshufd]

There definitely will be no dedicated VRAM for GPU. GPU unit will use unified memory

I'd say that there will definitely be higher storage levels.

Poster should look at the current 27 inch iMac to get an idea as to what the Apple Silicon version will look like. I am guessing that there will be 16 and 32 GB versions. If it's meant to also take the place of the iMac Pro, then I'd expect a third 64 GB option. A couple of leaker-reporters were less sure of 64 GB options this morning. That may be reasonable for laptops but I would think that desktops should get that option.

 

[EdT]

I hope the base 27"+ model has these features

• 4GB GPU or better
• 16GB memory or better
• 512GB storage or better
• $1799 or lower

I’m not an analyst but I think that the first 3 items on your list will be close to the minimum possible configuration so there will be bigger/faster memory, hard drives and GPU if you want but the price will be a disappointment for you.

Edit: I wouldn’t mind being wrong about the price.

 

[HowardEv]

I hope the 27” won’t be the only way to get the fastest computer. They need to split the display from the computer. And put batteries in them.