I’m not too familiar with all the Intel SKUs over the years, but I believe the better performing SKUs all fall outside the thermal window of what the Mini is designed for. Those within the window likely shows little improvements.
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.
'iMac Pro' Coming in 2022 With M1 Pro/Max Chips, 27-Inch Mini-LED Display, MacBook Pro Ports and More
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Photographers can do perfectly fine work without a computer at all.
27" is really disappointing if that's all they're going to announce. I really hope it turns out to be a 27" model and a 30" or 32" model.
I agree that it is unlikely they would do it. I also agree that the market is largely happy with silver and grey. Try walking onto a new car lot today and finding something OTHER than black, silver, or grey. I'm in the minority in liking bold, unique colors. We're only here on earth for such a short time...I can't imagine playing it safe with color. Color is fun!
I do disagree that it is a logistical configuration problem, tho. The iMac is still Apple's consumer desktop (as differentiated from the Mac Pro). I suppose there is a question whether the new large iMac will be closer to the existing 27" iMac or the discontinued 27" iMac Pro. That will probably be the biggest indicator of whether they go multi-color or pro black/grey monochrome. Apple found a way to sell the original iMac in a multitude of bold colors and even prints. If the new 27" stays "consumer" and not "pro" it could happen.
Let’s hope it doesn’t start at $6K US, $3-4K us is a good start.
I also worry this close to the last stretch of 2yrs for the entire lineup to go Apple Silicon that the Mac Pro update may be delayed? We’re already starting to see product sales affected by chip supply
This is the what I am waiting for to replace my 5K iMac. But please. No notch.
Sure, but if a relatively cheap iMac gets the same size and MiniLED what is left to justify that price.
My guess is that it was the former—that every year they couldn't decide whether to keep it or not, so they just kept kicking the decision down the road without updating it.
The 2014 Mini used 2-core U-series chips. Here's the GB single-core and multi-core scores for the upper-end model, which used a Core i7:
| Mac mini (Late 2014) Intel Core i7-4578U @ 3.0 GHz (2 cores) | 767 |
| Mac mini (Late 2014) Intel Core i7-4578U @ 3.0 GHz (2 cores) | 1628 |
If they had updated it in, say, mid-2017, with the then-available 2-core i7 U-series chips, here's about the performance we woud have seen (see data at bottom). So a bit under 20% improvement in single core, and a bit under 30% in multi-core. Nothing earth-shattering, but certainly an improvement. And it's not just about the CPU speeds. Without turning this into a research project, I imagine the 2017 chip would also have offered better graphics performance, monitor support, and I/O. Plus if they'd updated it in 2017, it would have had sigificantly faster storage, and perhaps also faster RAM.
Finally, being a later model, it would have had more years ahead of it before obsolesence as a result of not being able to run the current supported OS.
So there really is no technical justification for not updating it by mid-2017 at the latest (and probably earlier, like all the other Macs), rather than waiting until late 2018. I think that's why Schiller gave such a strained response when he was asked about it at that time (see my quote of Schiller in a post one page back).
|
| MacBook Pro (13-inch Mid 2017) Intel Core i7-7567U @ 3.5 GHz (2 cores) | 2079 |
The most demanding software I run locally is Mathematica. Some tasks take several minutes to several hours (and that's when they don't exceed my available memory, at which point they crash the program). Even running Mathematica natively, the M1 is much slower than a core i9 iMac (most Mathematica tasks are single-threaded, so the M1/Pro/Max should typically all have the same speed).
Indeed, the WolframMark benchmark scores for the M1 are close to 3, which is the same as what I get on my 2014 MBP. A core i9 iMac gets about 4.5. Using the fastest AMD processors (along with a workaround that allows them to trick the Intel libraries into thinking it's an Intel processor and thus making themselves accessible) get a score of about 6.
Since the single-core speeds of the M1 are comparable, that's about what is should be getting. Probably no one outside of Wolfram knows for certain why this is, but it may have something to do with a lack of certain fast Intel-only math libraries. Hopefully this gets resolved.
Indeed, the WolframMark benchmark scores for the M1 are close to 3, which is the same as what I get on my 2014 MBP. A core i9 iMac gets about 4.5. Using the fastest AMD processors (along with a workaround that allows them to trick the Intel libraries into thinking it's an Intel processor and thus making themselves accessible) get a score of about 6.
Since the single-core speeds of the M1 are comparable, that's about what is should be getting. Probably no one outside of Wolfram knows for certain why this is, but it may have something to do with a lack of certain fast Intel-only math libraries. Hopefully this gets resolved.
Last edited:
It’s going to be a larger version of the 24” iMac, just like the old iMac Pros. Apple seems to like their chins & notches.
Etched screen to significantly reduce glare = XDR,
highest pixels per inch of any display on the market (I believe) = XDR
I highly doubt Apple in just 2 yrs will kill off their XDR with an iMac Pro. XDR display's mini LED tech is in the new '21 MBPs as well as the iPad Pro but those displays don't come close to the colour accuracy or reliability of sustained colour accuracy of the XDR.
I could be wrong and Apple may do this, rest assured unless the iMac Pro Mx chip has everything the XDR Display has with ability to plugin any other computer or console, Apple will make another in a 12mth time frame.
If Apple were to etch the screen on the new 'pro' iMac 27" (or whatever size it will be), that would make for a gorgeous screen. And definitely no way will the starting price be only $2K. I think they'll price similarly to the MBP's where the 'starting' price features a chip with reduced cores. The true 'main' Pro iMac will be at least $2400, that's my best guess. If the screen is mini-LED (and etched!) I'd say it would be worth it.
The XDR has the same pixel density as most of Apple's retina monitors, including those on the iMacs and older MBP's: ~220 ppi.
The few that have more include the 32" 8k Dell (about same size as XDR, but 8k, so should be ~290 ppi) and the new Pro/Max MBP's (254 ppi).
Wikipedia has a nice table giving the ppi's of all Apple displays, including the Mac, iPad, iPhone, and Apple Watch:
Retina display - Wikipedia
So if Dylan Kit is correct and a 27 5K Pro-motion iMac comes out do you all think we could possibly see the same 5K pro-motion panel in an external display later in 2022. Would the MacBook Pro (M1Pro/M1Max) even be able to push a 5K panel at 120Hz with Thunderbolt 4?
Remember that chart when Apple introduced Apple Silicon, showing AS fitting in between laptop and desktop chips? They aren’t going to make desktop chips anymore.
Maybe Apple no longer consider form factor as a determinant of performance. They will just have the same performance class of SoCs that can be used in mobile or desktop form factors.
The XDR has the same pixel density as most of Apple's retina monitors, including those on the iMacs and older MBP's: ~220 ppi.
The few that have more include the 32" 8k Dell (about same size as XDR, but 8k, so should be ~290 ppi) and the new Pro/Max MBP's (254 ppi).
Wikipedia has a nice table giving the ppi's of all Apple displays, including the Mac, iPad, iPhone, and Apple Watch:
Retina display - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
Unfortunately that wiki guide misses a few things:
true 10-bit colour
p3 colour gamut (93%) rating of all the comparisons
1000nits sustained full-screen brightness, 1600nits peak at 6K.
218ppi at 6K - in that wiki link its THE ONLY display of that caliber.
I tried making the argument there are better displays out there (non-studio professional reference monitors) and got schooled.
Again there is a LOT in this XDR display to last for some time as it has thus far already.
This is what is disappointing. After a year, the pro/Max doesn’t have a faster core.
M1 series is a mobile chip. People salivating over a pro imac with a mobile chip are missing the point. It is inferior to an i9 when the i9 has a large power supply to feed it.
Apple needs to up their chip game to make a compelling work station case. Mediocre core speeds and mediocre graphics cores fo not impress me just because the fan never turns on…
Which pro uses internal speakers for professional work? ?
What? Internal SSDs are pure luxury to have. It's the easiest way of accessing storage. It's always there, you don't have to worry about strange sounds external harddrives make, you don't have to worry about cables sizzling around.
Jepp, exactly like that.
But this iMac Pro will not be the same category as the previous iMac Pro. It has to continue after the iMac with its price.
The XDR Display will also get an update later.
But the M2 is not better than the M1 Max. The M2 will be an entry level chip like the M1, just one generation advanced. And M2 Pro/Max are at least one year off, probably more.
The iMac will most definitely get the M1 Pro and M1 Max.
There will be no 3rd-party GPUs anymore in any future Macs in the foreseeable future.And you don't pay for the M1 Max. You pay for a whole computer, with a display, maybe a battery, a keyboard, speakers, macOS. Maybe you don't care about ~220 ppi and you are fine with ~160 ppi. But I would argue that it's hard to find a computer with the same specs thats cheaper than the new MacBook Pros. The same will be even more true with the new iMacs.
What crazy GPU were you able to buy in your six year old iMac?
There won't be an M2 Pro or M2 Max in six months. But there might be a M2. And that M2 will be a leap compared to the M1. But not as much of a leap as the M1 was compared to Intel. We won't see that every year now, if ever again. Because they won't release everything at once and M2 is due first M2 Pro and M2 Max will be ready in one year at the earliest. But I doubt we will see new MacBook Pros again in 2022.
No one thinks Apple goes with the design of the picture. Thats just an illustration to have a picture of something nobody knows anything about.
So you would like to look at 130 ppi? Are you sure? My employer gave me a 27" 4K display for free. When I first plugged it in I thought it was broken. After playing around with it I realised it has 168 ppi and that is much lower than the iMac and MacBook Pro I was used to. I tried to work with it but after one month of daily trying I gave it back. If you are used to ~220 ppi it's hard to look at 4K larger than 24".
That's very true. All the performance cores in M1, M1 Pro and M1 Max are exactly the same. That's the beauty of Apple Silicon.
Yepp, but first alls the M1 have a pretty spectacular single core performance and second if you have more cores the single-threaded apps still benefit because the chance is higher to have an idling thread.
There will be chip packages with two and four M1 Max SoCs. They are code named Jade 2C-Die and Jade 4C-Die. Mark Gurman talked about them months ago. Those will go in the next Mac Pro.
I suppose the top iMac will get the 2 M1 Max chip package. That is probably the "added configuration" dylandtk is talking about.
Yeah, no. If true there would be a huge price gab between the 24" iMac and the 27" iMac. It will start at $2000 - $2500.
That's completely crazy. You look at 138 ppi. Maybe you're lucky and you actually need glasses but nobody told you. But Apple Retina display have around 220 ppi which is a HUGE difference to your 138 ppi. If I had to choose between 13" @ 220 ppi or 32" @ 138 ppi I would happily choose the 13" display.
I think the benchmark results speek for themselves.
With intel we mainly differentiated the chips based on TDP. With more power per watt from the ARM chips we may need to adjust our view of what is laptop or desktop.
People forget that you have to plug things in on the back. To do this you would have to touch or hold the screen when you plug things in. That is mainly why there is a chin. Plus, like the 24” the chin is where most of the guts are. Let’s be real..there needs to be some short of chin. Maybe reduced in size, but there will be something.
This is what is disappointing. After a year, the pro/Max doesn’t have a faster core.
M1 series is a mobile chip. People salivating over a pro imac with a mobile chip are missing the point. It is inferior to an i9 when the i9 has a large power supply to feed it.
Apple needs to up their chip game to make a compelling work station case. Mediocre core speeds and mediocre graphics cores fo not impress me just because the fan never turns on
yes, they do. They just can’t keep up with desktop processors and discrete graphics.
Doesn’t the M1 pro single core come very close to i9 11900k in single core and multi core? I agree that apple silicon desktop processors should ideally be able to take advantage of more power. Is it inferior now tho? I’m just referring to cpu.