iMac 2014, thoughts?

[DerekS]

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.

I can explain it.

1. I can see the pixels on my iMac. On my rMBP I can't, and it's a dramatic and noticeable improvement. I want this all the time for eye fatigue reasons.

2. I develop retina iPad apps and the simulator won't fit on the screen without shrinking it down. I can use this immediately in my work.

 

[leman]

1GB/s vs 3GB/s.

Do you really think that just by swapping the connector, the speed will somehow magically increase? The current Mac Pro SSDs cannot saturate the bandwidth of the connector Apple uses. And both Apple connector and SATA-Express are quite similar in spirit - both provide data transport via native PCI-Express lanes. The only benefit of SATA-Express is that its an industry standard.

----------

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.

What do you mean by 'need'? There is no objective need, of course (but the same applies to handhelds and laptops). The retina display is a motivated by the demand for higher visual quality. I'd love to have a HiDPI display on my iMac, for once, just because of the high-quality font rendering. The difference between my rMBP and the iMac is quite dramatic if you work with text (programming, paper writing), to say the least.

 

[762999]

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.

100k pixels!
You're right, I don't play with image of that magnitude! My D7100 DSLR have give me juicy 24.71 million pixels image.

Movies are a different story. It takes more time to export, but then I just do something else elsewhere.

If you can afford a mac pro go ahead, doesn't make it a wise decision! Enjoy it!

 

[joema2]

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.

I didn't say Apple would put an 8-core Haswell E into the 2014 iMac, I just mentioned the chip would theoretically be available. It is a conjectural possibility, which is the point of this thread -- thoughts on possible 2014 iMac configurations.

OTOH you said unequivocally it *won't* happen. Maybe that's the case, but I don't see how you can be so confident.

It's true there's already significant overlap between iMac and nMP, and an 8-core iMac would worsen that situation. OTOH there's a saying: you can cannibalize your own sales or let your competitors do it.

If as you say Broadwell will be only 4-core and if Apple definitely won't make an 8-core Hasell-E iMac, then iMac won't have 8 cores until Skylake, around 2016 or 2017. In the interim all Apple's competitors will have 8-core desktop machines. It's hard to envision Apple ceding that market space just to avoid conflict with the Mac Pro.

 

[iMacFarlane]

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.

100k pixels? I remember the good ol' days, playing Red Alert on Windows 95, at 640 x 480 resolution, one of the standard VGA resolutions of the day.

ummm. . . 640 x 480 = 307k pixels. Definitely didn't need any "juice" in my 75MHz Pentium to play.

 

[kaellar]

He said "100k pixels both ways", width and heigh, and it means 10b pixels total. Try to read what others write first.

DerekS, leman, right now I'm using 21.5 iMac and having zero problem with eye fatique or fonts clarity at normal working distance. Wife's 13 rMBP from normal working distance isn't that much different from my iMac in that terms. What I would definitely notice in Retina iMac is performance drop, not proportional to the benefits Retina would provide for a desktop machine. The full-sized iPad simulator in xcode is the only practical reason I accept for having the Retina at your desk
p.s. to prevent further speculation, my eyesight is great

 

[leman]

I didn't say Apple would put an 8-core Haswell E into the 2014 iMac, I just mentioned the chip would theoretically be available. It is a conjectural possibility, which is the point of this thread -- thoughts on possible 2014 iMac configurations.

OTOH you said unequivocally it *won't* happen. Maybe that's the case, but I don't see how you can be so confident.

Fair enough. My *won't happen* should be understood as 'in my opinion, the probability of this is so low that I would basically ignore the chance'. The reasoning is simple: Apple never put an -E series CPU into the iMac, the CPU is too hot and too expensive, such a machine would directly compete with the Mac Pro.

If as you say Broadwell will be only 4-core and if Apple definitely won't make an 8-core Hasell-E iMac, then iMac won't have 8 cores until Skylake, around 2016 or 2017. In the interim all Apple's competitors will have 8-core desktop machines. It's hard to envision Apple ceding that market space just to avoid conflict with the Mac Pro.

What makes you so sure that all other all-in-one makers will use the Haswell-E CPUs? From what I see, Apple is a undisputed leader in all-in-ones and the only company that can pack powerful hardware in such a thin frame. I can't really imagine some other AIO packing a 130W+ CPU...

DerekS, leman, right now I'm using 21.5 iMac and having zero problem with eye fatique or fonts clarity at normal working distance. Wife's 13 rMBP from normal working distance isn't that much different from my iMac in that terms.

I agree that its quite a subjective matter. I can see the difference between my 27" iMac and the 15" clearly. I have no problem accepting that other people might not see it.

 

[Mac32]

I definitely get the retina-argument. Text on a retina screen has that extra clarity that even the hi-res 27'' iMac can't touch. There is a difference from a normal sitting distance. I would love a retina iMac, and IMO a retina 23-24'' iMac is quite likely within a year. But I think we have to wait until late 2015 for retina 27'' (maybe Apple will instead offer a new size?). Don't forget 4k displays today are 30hz, yuk! I'm would love to have 120hz on my 1440p iMac screen, we need more hz, not less. Display technology is advancing veeeeryyy sloooooooowlyyy.

 

[wmy5]

Actually I don't see an iMac refresh coming this year. Intel's desktop Broadwell will not come until 2015, and Apple never update its product without a next generation of CPU. Therefore, no iMac 2014, but iMac with retina display is very likely in 2015.

 

[Bear]

Actually I don't see an iMac refresh coming this year. Intel's desktop Broadwell will not come until 2015, and Apple never update its product without a next generation of CPU. Therefore, no iMac 2014, but iMac with retina display is very likely in 2015.

You never know what Apple might do. a good enough benefit from disk technology and GPUs could cause a refresh of the iMac line. And who knows, Intel night release a slightly better Haswell processor that would work in the iMac by September.

At least a minor product refresh could spark additional sales.

 

[iMacFarlane]

He said "100k pixels both ways", width and heigh, and it means 10b pixels total. Try to read what others write first.

Fair enough. I think I missed the "both ways" because that didn't even register as a possibility to me, I guess. Does the Hubble telescope even offer resolution that high?

 

[Hexley]

I and I think others would prefer that Apple were to stick to industry standards like in the past.

It was forgivable for them to use their proprietary standard if the industry is too slow or conservative to push the size & speed envelop but now that SATA Express as a paper standard is out I would hope they would move towards that interface in the future.

I really dislike the idea of depending on one 3rd party vendor for Apple-specific SSDs.

Apple phasing out the Macbook Pro without Retina Display spells the end of owners being bale to breath new life to their Macs with a simple RAM or SSD upgrade.

Yes, we are talking about the iMac but if the MBA & MBP are any indication it may happen to the iMac soon.

Do you really think that just by swapping the connector, the speed will somehow magically increase? The current Mac Pro SSDs cannot saturate the bandwidth of the connector Apple uses. And both Apple connector and SATA-Express are quite similar in spirit - both provide data transport via native PCI-Express lanes. The only benefit of SATA-Express is that its an industry standard.

----------



What do you mean by 'need'? There is no objective need, of course (but the same applies to handhelds and laptops). The retina display is a motivated by the demand for higher visual quality. I'd love to have a HiDPI display on my iMac, for once, just because of the high-quality font rendering. The difference between my rMBP and the iMac is quite dramatic if you work with text (programming, paper writing), to say the least.

 

[joema2]

....What makes you so sure that all other all-in-one makers will use the Haswell-E CPUs? From what I see, Apple is a undisputed leader in all-in-ones and the only company that can pack powerful hardware in such a thin frame. I can't really imagine some other AIO packing a 130W+ CPU....

I'm not sure. However the iMac doesn't compete solely and exclusively with AIO form factor designs. But if there's an extended period where some of the iMac competitors have available 8-core desktop CPUs, that's a different scenario than today. There would be a possibly several year period where the iMac was out-powered by competing desktop and (maybe) some AIO machines, which aren't as mechanically constrained by Apple's design aesthetic.

OTOH as you said Haswell-E's TDB is 130W+ where the i7-4771 in the 2013 iMac 27 is about 84W. That is a sizeable thermal increase and would appear to take substantial engineering to fit an iMac, which would be (maybe) be just one model.

It is a stretch to see it happening in 2014, but if Broadwell is only 4-core, that implies a long (and possibly vulnerable) wait for a lower-heat 8-core Skylake.

 

[leman]

I'm not sure. However the iMac doesn't compete solely and exclusively with AIO form factor designs. But if there's an extended period where some of the iMac competitors have available 8-core desktop CPUs, that's a different scenario than today. There would be a possibly several year period where the iMac was out-powered by competing desktop and (maybe) some AIO machines, which aren't as mechanically constrained by Apple's design aesthetic.

Even if we assume that iMac is supposed to compete with desktop PCs, the E-series CPUs are still a different matter. E.g. Ivy Bridge-E i7-4960X alone is $1000. Even if a selected few PC vendors have these CPUs in their machines (which are usually high-end gaming machines), I don't really see how they are competing with the iMac. Its a very different target audience. PC enthusiasts will not buy an iMac. Of course, once 8-cores become a commodity, Apple should follow. But it won't happen for quite some time.

 

[Mago]

Actually I don't see an iMac refresh coming this year. Intel's desktop Broadwell will not come until 2015, and Apple never update its product without a next generation of CPU. Therefore, no iMac 2014, but iMac with retina display is very likely in 2015.

Broadwell, no, but Haswell update (quiet) is for, and due next month or next quarter at least.

Analist Ming Ku Chuo, said Apple is reading for a Cheaper iMac line, and this may mean the current model at lower price, also there are solid rumors on a "pro iMac" which could have an i7-4770 upto a Quad Core Xeon, and Dual GPU along 4K Monitor (only 72") only SSD and well abovr 3K$.

 

[accountforit]

I can explain it.

1. I can see the pixels on my iMac. On my rMBP I can't, and it's a dramatic and noticeable improvement. I want this all the time for eye fatigue reasons.

So much fatigue!! What was the world like before Retina displays?? I can't imagine!

 

[DerekS]

So much fatigue!! What was the world like before Retina displays?? I can't imagine!

You probably don't spend 12+ hrs a day on yours like I do.
And your eyes probably don't have the miles on them mine do.

I didn't say it was "bad" fatigue, just that I notice the difference between the displays.

Really surprised at all the hate for a retina iMac! I've been dying for this product since the rMBP launched.

 

[iMcLovin]

You probably don't spend 12+ hrs a day on yours like I do.
And your eyes probably don't have the miles on them mine do.

I didn't say it was "bad" fatigue, just that I notice the difference between the displays.

Really surprised at all the hate for a retina iMac! I've been dying for this product since the rMBP launched.

I would love a retina iMac, as long as it doesn't take too much of the performance drawgging all those pixels around. For me most importantly I want the iMac to be as fast as possible. If I could get anything close to the nMP into the iMac and at the same time get a 4k display on it it would be great. It doesnt need to be "retina" but 4k would be nice.

 

[bry223]

Actually I don't see an iMac refresh coming this year. Intel's desktop Broadwell will not come until 2015, and Apple never update its product without a next generation of CPU. Therefore, no iMac 2014, but iMac with retina display is very likely in 2015.

Broadwell was supposed to launch Q4 of 2013, it's been pushed back to Q2 of 2014, not 2015. Also Nvidias 800 series gpu's are rumored to hit shelves in 3 months, so i wouldn't be surprised to see a new imac refresh this summer.

 

[kaellar]

Broadwell was supposed to launch Q4 of 2013, it's been pushed back to Q2 of 2014, not 2015. Also Nvidias 800 series gpu's are rumored to hit shelves in 3 months, so i wouldn't be surprised to see a new imac refresh this summer.

Brodwell won't bring any performance or efficiency to desktop class, and mobile 800 series GPUs are all 700 (600) series rebranded Kepler ones. If Apple will do just a spec bump for the next iMacs, there's zero reason to wait for them.

 

[Brian Y]

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.

The iMac is a consumer machine, so I highly doubt it. And you want a faster ssd than the fastest consumer ssd on the market? Why do I kind of not believe this post?

 

[iSayuSay]

You probably don't spend 12+ hrs a day on yours like I do.
And your eyes probably don't have the miles on them mine do.

I didn't say it was "bad" fatigue, just that I notice the difference between the displays.

Really surprised at all the hate for a retina iMac! I've been dying for this product since the rMBP launched.

I certainly don't hate retina display on iMac. I believe it would have to be 5k on 27" just to get slightly more than 200ppi density? But the supporting hardware is not there yet. Graphic chips, video connection and software availability are just spotty at best at the moment.

Even then I can still see pixels on retina iPad @264ppi. Especially when I look at small texts. Certainly not as smooth as 300+ ppi displays.

 

[bry223]

Brodwell won't bring any performance or efficiency to desktop class, and mobile 800 series GPUs are all 700 (600) series rebranded Kepler ones. If Apple will do just a spec bump for the next iMacs, there's zero reason to wait for them.

I'm sorry but this isn't just going to happen, with broadwell and the 800 series despite small gains around the corner and thunderbolt 2 still absent, expect to wait for a refresh.

 

[accountforit]

I'm sorry but this isn't just going to happen, with broadwell and the 800 series despite small gains around the corner and thunderbolt 2 still absent, expect to wait for a refresh.

Holy run-on sentence.

 

[iMcLovin]

The iMac is a consumer machine, so I highly doubt it. And you want a faster ssd than the fastest consumer ssd on the market? Why do I kind of not believe this post?

I guess ur right. But the current one is faster than the one I have in my iMac 2012