iMac 2014, thoughts?

[Bear]

My wishlist:

256GB SSD standard. No fusion, no spinners at all. Need more storage? NAS.
...

I hope you mean 256GB SSD with the option of larger SSDs. It' be a shame to have to buy an external disk for someone whose data would fit on a 512GB SSD.

I think I'd like to see Fusion Drive as a default, with the SSD portion being 256GB or as an option to increase it to 256GB.

 

[Duckit]

I hope that the 2014 iMac has a retina display. That's the only think that the line is really missing.

 

[kaellar]

I hope that the 2014 iMac has a retina display. That's the only think that the line is really missing.

I've been hearing such things since the 2012 iMac introduction, yet noone could objectively explain why the desktop display really need the retina resolution.

 

[andycho7]

I've been hearing such things since the 2012 iMac introduction, yet noone could objectively explain why the desktop display really need the retina resolution.

+1

iMacs probably need a better graphic card before having a retina display.

 

[joema2]

I hope you mean 256GB SSD with the option of larger SSDs. It' be a shame to have to buy an external disk for someone whose data would fit on a 512GB SSD...

Besides that, he said NAS, not external direct-attached disk. What consumer-level NAS can equal the I/O performance of a direct attached HDD?

If he means *only* 256GB internal SSD plus NAS, that would be a slow, expensive solution for anyone needing higher-bandwidth access to files.

If he means 256GB standard with SSD upgrade options, that would be better but (as of now) would increase the price by $1,000 for 1TB internal storage). It means everyone who needed 1TB internal storage would be forced to pay $1,000 more, plus would cap internal storage at 1TB.

 

[kaellar]

IMHO, the best scenario here would be to use 1tb Fusion Drive as standard. 256gb with no SSD is the BTO option with no extra cost. All other options are allowing users to separately select SSD and HDD capactities they want. That would allow users to really tune their iMac's storage exactly to what they want. I would like to get 256gb SSD + 1tb HDD in 21.5 iMac without tearing it apart like I had to do with mu current one. Or 256gb SSD + 3-4tb HDD in 27-incher, if I needed one.

 

[Wuiffi]

I've been hearing such things since the 2012 iMac introduction, yet noone could objectively explain why the desktop display really need the retina resolution.

marketing

and also it would enable scaled resolutions, which can give you more screen real estate

 

[iMacFarlane]

I hope you mean 256GB SSD with the option of larger SSDs. It' be a shame to have to buy an external disk for someone whose data would fit on a 512GB SSD.

I think I'd like to see Fusion Drive as a default, with the SSD portion being 256GB or as an option to increase it to 256GB.

I'm talking about their baseline model. The one that Apple should be proud to sell and people should be proud to buy. Of course, people with deep pockets could upgrade the living hell out of the thing as they see fit. I just think it's absolutely shameful for Apple's entry level "desktop" computer to have spinning hard drives (at 5400RPM no less!!!) and crap GPUs with no future upgrade options to the consumer.

 

[iMcLovin]

Thanks for the input. I won't invest in a Mac Pro until After Effects uses the extra cores. I know for certain right now it's a waste because AE don't use the cores, only one core currently except when rendering. And rendering in multiple cores is buggy and has been for a long time. Also the gpu in AE don't use both gpu's of the Mac Pro, I think. So awful lot of money for better hardware that won't be in use. And if I buy mp I know I will beef it up quite a lot, so it will end up twice as expensive as an iMac top of the line...for me. In addition then I would need a Cinema Display which is outdated and less good than the iMac screen.... So all in all not the optimal solution unless you work in FCPX which seem to be almost the only software using the MP properly.

 

[Liffey]

What on earth can 64GB of RAM even be used for? I have a 2010 Mac with 12GB and it still runs Photoshop, Maya, Ableton, Reason, iTunes and FireFox simultaneously without a hitch.

The primary thing I am interested in is cheaper SSD drives. Retina seems unnecessary on a 27" screen to me.

 

[kaellar]

What on earth can 64GB of RAM even be used for? I have a 2010 Mac with 12GB and it still runs Photoshop, Maya, Ableton, Reason, iTunes and FireFox simultaneously without a hitch.

The primary thing I am interested in is cheaper SSD drives. Retina seems unnecessary on a 27" screen to me.

I can imagine multiple VMs to eat all that RAM easily, however if you need to run so many VMs that 32GB isn't enough for them, your iMac's 4-core CPU will bottleneck the whole idea much earlier

 

[iMcLovin]

Well 32 gb is enough in most cases. But in certain jobs it's almost not enough. I've had a couple, for instance a photoshop illustration 14x2 m wide image in 300 dpi... Just calculate the pixel amount then in multiple layers...unopened this image was about 15gb large.... And probably over 20 opened. Then I have to make sure my machine isn't full of other stuff like browser and AE in the background. I would like to be able to work on such images without needing to worry at all! But, I'm happy with 32 gb none the less. The only reason why I want more is because ram isn't the expensive part (at least not the ram in the iMac if you don't buy it through apple) but if the iMac would get a better gpu and better processor ram isn't what's holding me back.

Sidenote:
One funny thing though is that when I upgraded to mavericks, my machine got ram clogged a lot more. It even crashed twice because of full ram, without working with such intense images as I mentioned. And I know mavericks is supposed to use ram more efficient by filling it up and then toss away when needed. But when you have 32 gb of ram and the machine actually use the scratch disk on normal use, I think apple has made some sort of mistake. In all honesty for me the general impression is that mavericks is the worst release from apple in a long time, much worse than Lion ever was. At least in my line of field the problems with mavericks has been MANY!!! I've reverted back to mountain lion and it was the best decision I could make.

 

[Mago]

There are some rumours that point to a new iMac PRO line, Many sources stand Apple Will sell two iMac Lines, one cheaper and the other pricey, as with the currernt MacBook/MacBook pro.

This has some readings:

1- Apple will launch new Cheaper iMac and keep the current models updated to Haswell/Broadwell keeping the whole characteristics.

OR

2- Apple will launch a PRO line with higher end features (maybe 4K display/Dual GPU/ Xeon CPU or HighEnd i7-4770's no SPINNER HDD, and Black Finnish -all the pro* lines will have a shinny black finish- ) and continue selling current models cheaper as they use to do with the iPhone line.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Consider Apple will quietly launch the mac mini updated with haswell next month (as some leakage pointout) if so, it's very likely the Haswell update to come to the iMac too at same time, leaving space for the iMac pro Announcement later at WWDC or at September event along the iPhone 6.

I suggest you to you to wait until March at least, but if you can afford an Mac Pro and money is not a concern, go ahead, order CTO basic model with dual D700 (then later you can upgrade to 32/64gb and 6/8/12 cores as you require saving a lot) and mate it with DELL's 24"4K display (not the cheaper 27") or the new Asus 27"4K display, and enable HiDPI either, and you'll get an out this world computing experience (that's I'm doing now, just waiting my nMP to order the 4K monitor).

 

[leman]

Here´s what I wish for:
-up to 64 gb or RAM (faster ram than the current)

Will not happen until DDR4 hits the mainstream. DDR3 just doesn't have the density.

-next gen gpu up to 6 gb of VRAM (or 8gb )

What for?

-6 or 8 cores cpu (I know future updates of AE will benefit more from this)

Broadwell will still be quad-core. So no chance. Unless Apple decides to go with AMD (but why would they?)

Anyway, from what you write it seems to me that you are eyeing the wrong machine. What you want is a Mac Pro.

 

[joema2]

Broadwell will still be quad-core. So no chance. Unless Apple decides to go with AMD (but why would they?)

Leaked info from Intel says they will have an 8-core consumer Haswell-E later this year: http://www.engadget.com/2013/06/17/...utm_source=Feed_Classic&utm_campaign=Engadget

More/recent details: http://www.digitimes.com/news/a20131225PD216.html

 

[leman]

Leaked info from Intel says they will have an 8-core consumer Haswell-E later this year: http://www.engadget.com/2013/06/17/...utm_source=Feed_Classic&utm_campaign=Engadget

More/recent details: http://www.digitimes.com/news/a20131225PD216.html

When did ever Apple put an E series CPU in the iMac? Sorry, but this is not going to happen. As pointed out by many in this thread, Apple already has the platform for heavy lifting, which is the Mac Pro.

 

[iMcLovin]

iMac 2014, thoughts?

Will not happen until DDR4 hits the mainstream. DDR3 just doesn't have the density.




What for?



Broadwell will still be quad-core. So no chance. Unless Apple decides to go with AMD (but why would they?)

Anyway, from what you write it seems to me that you are eyeing the wrong machine. What you want is a Mac Pro.

Well yes as I said, the iMac might be just a bit less than I want, but not far away. And it costs a lot less than when building a Mac Pro. Because if you buy the standard High end Mac Pro but adds 32 or 64 gb of ram and 1tb ssd - it's all ready double price than a maxed out iMac.

The reason I want such amount of VRAM is sadly because after effects is extremely crapily optimized and now with 2 gb AE shuts off gpu rendering almost by default at startup. So I imagine I need at least double. Though I'm sure it would be avoidable if the adobe engineers were a bit smarter.


The rumors of 8 core haswell is very interesting a pro iMac - I have my doubts but one can hope for such a thing.

A kickass new nvidia card with something like 6-8 gb VRAM and an 8core haswell then I'll be more than happy to buy a new iMac "pro"

I know a lot of people says the iMac screen isn't pro enough. But honestly I work with image works and it's the best screen I've used. I like a glossy screen with little reflection. It gives a better contrast. And if you are not one of the unlucky ones with corner bleed or a yellow screen (I was lucky) then the pre calibrated iMac screen is great IMO. Better than the current Cinema Display

 

[Hexley]

SATA Express would be nice. SATA 6Gb/s is just one big ugly bottleneck right now.

Imagine, 1.6GB/s read/writes instead of 600MB/s (SATA 6Gb/s) or 800MB/s (PCIe).

 

[leman]

SATA Express would be nice. SATA 6Gb/s is just one big ugly bottleneck right now.

Imagine, 1.6GB/s read/writes instead of 600MB/s (SATA 6Gb/s) or 800MB/s (PCIe).

Apple's current PCI-e SSD implementation provides up to 4x PCI-e 3.0 lanes, for somewhat under 3 GB/s. By the way, the SATA-Express you mention IS nothing else than PCI-e.

 

[Hexley]

Apple's current PCI-e SSD implementation provides up to 4x PCI-e 3.0 lanes, for somewhat under 3 GB/s. By the way, the SATA-Express you mention IS nothing else than PCI-e.

The PCIe implementation on the Mac Pro is reported to be a hair under 800MB/s correct?

 

[leman]

The PCIe implementation on the Mac Pro is reported to be a hair under 800MB/s correct?

More like 1000 MB/s. Why don't you look up the benchmarks? AnandTech have some, for example.

 

[762999]

I have a top of the line imac late 2012, and considering to buy a new one when it comes out this year.
I was considering to invest in a Mac Pro, but since my main tools are AE and Photoshop - and since Adobe is stuck in the past, it seems like a total waste of money - because I won´t benefit from all the computer power.

THough, my current imac has the 680MX with 2gb VRAM and the current one all ready has up to 4gb VRAM available. It´s allready a good machine, but I´m hoping the next to get even higher specs.

Here´s what I wish for:
-up to 64 gb or RAM (faster ram than the current)
-faster ssd (but 1gb is enough in size imo)
-next gen gpu up to 6 gb of VRAM (or 8gb )
-Thunderbolt 2, though I dont think its thunderbolt 1 that is the bottleneck.
-6 or 8 cores cpu (I know future updates of AE will benefit more from this)
-3 or 4 thunderbolt slots(since one is used by my second monitor)

Any chance of the imac of 2014 could get any of this? -when do you think we will se an upgrade?

I know this is on the verge of not being a consumer level machine, but it would be enough for me for a long time, unless Adobe decides to step up their game.

you want big specs that means nothing.. I'm really sure that Photoshop is running fine on current gen. Still run butter smooth on my 2008 iMac (I work with at least 30-40 layers) and I have 6gb of ram.

Yes you can get a MacPro, it would probably be sitting idle all day, like any iMac would be.

If you do switch, I'm open to receive your OLD iMac as a donation.

 

[Hexley]

More like 1000 MB/s. Why don't you look up the benchmarks? AnandTech have some, for example.

1GB/s vs 3GB/s.

 

[kaellar]

1GB/s vs 3GB/s.

SATAExpress will do nothing with that. It has the same 3Gb/s bandwidth as Apple's PCIe storage implementation. It's all up to SSD controllers.

 

[iMcLovin]

you want big specs that means nothing.. I'm really sure that Photoshop is running fine on current gen. Still run butter smooth on my 2008 iMac (I work with at least 30-40 layers) and I have 6gb of ram.

Yes you can get a MacPro, it would probably be sitting idle all day, like any iMac would be.

If you do switch, I'm open to receive your OLD iMac as a donation.

Yes photoshop in general runs completely smooth. Its only those occasions when working on images that exceeds 100k pixels both ways you need more juice, as I said. Maybe you never work with images of that magnitude, but I do.

But, in general Photoshop is NOT the reason I want to have as good hardware as possible. After Effects and Final Cut is a good reason on the other hand. Low ram and slow CPU really halts work in such programs.