iMac Pro May Feature Intel's Server-Grade 'Purley' Processors, ARM Coprocessor

[jkichline]

Surely you've heard and read about iMac heating issues through the years (e.g. even from the previous, thicker design up to the current one), either its about throttling or even worse (my older iMac temperature was affecting the screen back panel). And then there's the 2013 mac pro.

But the whole point is - and the one I was replying to - that it is not in the realm of impossible to see thermal issues in the upcoming machine, especially one that will be pushed to the limits of its performance. It has been proved that apple is not unmistakable.

While the machine looks similar to the current iMac, it has been re-engineered to handle higher thermal envelopes. I can attest that the demo machine at WWDC was kicking out some serious air volume just sitting still and I have few doubts that they could increase that air volume. There are huge vents on the top and bottom and the cooling is provided by two massive fans inside of the unit. I wouldn't count Apple out on this one.

If you're interested in how they handle the thermal issues with such hardware, you can check out the Keynote around 45:45: https://www.apple.com/apple-events/june-2017/

 

[jkichline]

At which point you have to replace a lot of other parts as well. I'll eat crow if I have to, but I can't honestly see the iMac Pro to have a shorter EoL than a regular PC.

Being that people are still making great use out of the original Aluminum Mac Pro, I kind of think that a device like the iMac Pro will have a pretty solid shelf life.

 

[pat500000]

As I was reading some comments in regards to display, I say this is why Mac Pro would be something I would go for. I can at least choose the top of line display as long as it connected with no issue.

 

[RickInHouston]

you can't write a novel on the ipad pro, so what kind of important work are you talking about?

Someone who buys a Mac Pro then later buys an iPad pro and realizes that's all he needs for "his important work" needs to do more research before purchasing.

 

[CWallace]

Someone who buys a Mac Pro then later buys an iPad pro and realizes that's all he needs for "his important work" needs to do more research before purchasing.

Well the A10X CPU actually has a higher single-core Geekbench score than the 4-core E5-1620 in the base 2013 Mac Pro so if they bought a base Mac Pro in 2013 and are now using it for tasks that, well, task a single core, then the iPad Pro might very well be better now.

 

[richard harris podolsky]

I'm sure apple has no idea how to deal with heat generation and appreciates your suggestion.

Being that people are still making great use out of the original Aluminum Mac Pro, I kind of think that a device like the iMac Pro will have a pretty solid shelf life.

I'm one of those people! Though I just bought a tricked out 2017 iMac, it replaces a Mac Pro 1,1 I got in 2006 as a refurb. Over the 11 years I have owned it I upgraded and maxed out everything, CPU, GPU, Ram and run dual Apple cinema displays. It cost me less than $400 to max this "old" Mac Pro out including the second display. You know what? It still doesn't suck! And will warm my closet as a server for my new 27 iMac. I actually thought about getting and maxing out a Mac Pro 5,1. Would have cost about a grand to do that but I need latest hardware for a project plus I got lazy. Imac pro? It will be sweet for sure but no way will it be sweet for 11 years!!

 

[citysnaps]

Surely you've heard and read about iMac heating issues through the years (e.g. even from the previous, thicker design up to the current one), either its about throttling or even worse (my older iMac temperature was affecting the screen back panel). And then there's the 2013 mac pro.

But the whole point is - and the one I was replying to - that it is not in the realm of impossible to see thermal issues in the upcoming machine, especially one that will be pushed to the limits of its performance. It has been proved that apple is not unmistakable.

"Judging from the current iMac throttling issues and the current Mac Pro's defecting D700s, I wouldn't be surprised if the new machine had problems as well."


No. I'm asking about your assertion that the current iMac has throttling issues, and asking you to provide a credible link backing up that claim. Simple.

 

[Joe S]

I edit some audio (podcasts) and videos, complex spreadsheets, building out presentations, writing, some social media. I'm definitely not your average user who surfs the web and checks a few emails.

Regarding complex spreadsheets, you aren't making pivot tables on the iOS version of Excel. You aren't getting Solver, or any of the data analysis tools, or plugins on iOS or MacOS versions of Excel (such as the DecisionTools Suite.)

Still not a reason to drop $5K on an iMac Pro, though I can dream about it. This point moreso illustrates the iOnly Future isn't quite here yet.

 

[IG88]

I'm sure apple has no idea how to deal with heat generation and appreciates your suggestion.

Right, because they always know what they're doing, and none of their past iMacs or any other computers have had heat dissipation issues.

 

[fourthtunz]

Ne.... need mac ...mac pro

mac mini Pro!!

 

[antonis]

"Judging from the current iMac throttling issues and the current Mac Pro's defecting D700s, I wouldn't be surprised if the new machine had problems as well."


No. I'm asking about your assertion that the current iMac has throttling issues, and asking you to provide a credible link backing up that claim. Simple.

I was referring to the current case design which will be applied to the iMac Pro as well, not necessarily to 2017 model. Many mac models including iMacs have had thermal issues. The poster I was replying to, was way too confident that apple always thinks about these issues and avoids them.
[doublepost=1498280355][/doublepost]

While the machine looks similar to the current iMac, it has been re-engineered to handle higher thermal envelopes. I can attest that the demo machine at WWDC was kicking out some serious air volume just sitting still and I have few doubts that they could increase that air volume. There are huge vents on the top and bottom and the cooling is provided by two massive fans inside of the unit. I wouldn't count Apple out on this one.

If you're interested in how they handle the thermal issues with such hardware, you can check out the Keynote around 45:45: https://www.apple.com/apple-events/june-2017/

Yes, all these good points. I've watched WWDC as well (I always do). Just pointing out that real usage will show if it has sufficiently cooling or not, no matter what they claim in their keynotes. In papers, mac pro 2013 had also sufficient cooling and many imac models claimed the same in the past, but reality proved a bit different.

I've never seen a keynote stating that 'this mac is great, but things will go south on heavy cpu/gpu loads'. But it happens.

 

[scoobs69]

OK perhaps I'm stupid. Why would Apple release an iMac Pro, which you can configure to have the best components on the the planet bar none, then release a Mac Pro where the supposedly selling point is "you can plug the best stuff into it if you choose". Doesn't the iMac Pro already scratch that itch?.

Because some people don't want to eff with their systems and like the AIO feature set; and a LOT of pros that don't need 8, 10 nor 12 cores were already migrating to the 5K iMac. So Apple probably wanted to jump on that migration bandwagon and see if they could offer those AIO pro users something more. ....So Apple went overboard and completely skipped the middle tier. The Skylake X 6, 8 and 10 core processors would have been perfect for the iMac Pro - without a starting price of $5,000.

Then there are the pros who want to be able to upgrade as they go, or as their needs change and new components are announced/released. There are tons of Mac Pro tower users, like me, who are waiting (or waited and moved on) for a real Mac Pro upgrade - and the trash can wasn't it.

The part that gives me pause with Apple right now, I'm not sure how committed they are to pro users after this product announcement. It's been 10+ years since Apple actually gave some thought to the pro users that weren't minor upgrades, nor an entirely closed system (loaded?) with external expansion.

Actually the modular Mac Pro was announced as forthcoming (sometime in 2018) on April 4th.

https://daringfireball.net/2017/04/the_mac_pro_lives

The iMac Pro was announced as forthcoming (December 2017) on June 5th.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IMac_Pro

So people saying the reaction to the iMac Pro was so bad that they quickly announced a new modular Mac Pro are obviously very keen on these so-called "alternative facts"

As you say above, the iMac Pro is a stopgap which they turned into a marketing stunt.

I couldn't care less about the specific announcement date in April - Apple announced the iMac Pro alongside the Modular Mac Pro in the same breath (whenever that was in April), while at the same time admitting the thermal design flaw in the current Mac Pro, which (allegedly) killed the upgrade path.

I don't think the iMac Pro is a marketing stunt, but I believe it's a stopgap to give the hardcore pro and upgrade option from the current Mac Pro. And since they're so used to a "closed system" with external expansion, this is could be a good longterm option. ...provided there aren't thermal issues.

 

[scoobs69]

I would also like to point out that in every computer I've owned, the major issue with the longevity has been the Motherboard, when CPU sockets change, or new technologies come about. At which point it doesn't matter what components you have, the machine itself becomes "disposable".

And I would bet my bottom dollar that the iMac Pro would last just as long.

This isn't entirely true. You can keep your DDR4 ram and graphics cards if you opt to upgrade your mobos from the z270, x99, or x370 to the x299 or x399. ...or if you wish to swap from Intel's chipset to AMD's Ryzen chipset.

If you buy into an iMac Pro with the lowest specs for $5,000, which a LOT of people will do, then have your workflow or task requirements change, and you need 64GB of RAM, you have to buy an entirely new iMac. So that $5,000 you spent, add another $6,500, since you can't upgrade your ram. So you either have two iMac Pros for $11,500, or you can try to sell your old iMac Pro to minimize the loss.

If you choose try to future-proof your iMac Pro with 64GB of RAM, you'll end up spending $6500ish. If you go from 1TB of storage to 2TB, you're already over $7,000. Jump to 4TB, and you'll be likely be spending $8,000+. And it just keeps going up with the graphics card and CPU upgrades.

One other sucky thing, every time you upgrade your computer, your display goes with it - whether it was working perfectly fine or not. So much for environmentally friendly.

 

[RumorSeeker]

Starting at $5,000 dollars, then the dongles since it probably won't have an ethernet port, or any other ports you actually need or want, and soon you're talking real money.

 

[gnasher729]

Sounds cool, but realistically who is going to pay 5k (starting out) for an iMac. Would I like to have one just because yes, but will I get one, no way. I hope there are no issues for those who buy one.

You don't pay US$5K for an iMac. You pay $5K for an iMac with 8 core processor, tons of RAM, tons of SSD drive, 5K monitor, ability to attach a few more monitors, and so on and so on.
[doublepost=1498311827][/doublepost]

Starting at $5,000 dollars, then the dongles since it probably won't have an ethernet port, or any other ports you actually need or want, and soon you're talking real money.

It has 10G Ethernet built in.
[doublepost=1498312209][/doublepost]

You can upgrade the motherboard on a PC.

You can upgrade the motherboard on any Mac for less. It involves making a backup, selling your Mac on eBay, buying a new one and restoring the backup.

 

[scoobs69]

there's no current (except for the new Skylake-X lineup) Intel CPU's over 4 cores that aren't Xeon's

if Apple's goal here is to offer 6+ core CPU's. there's little option but to use Xeon based CPU's, even though they're the same technology as their i7 counterparts.

if they were offering the same 4 core offerings in Xeon and I7 variants, your point would be valid but until Intel releases their Kaby Lake 6+ core CPU's, it's Xeon or nothing

5820k - 3.3GHz 6 cores - $375
5830k - 3.5GHz 6 cores - $550
6800k - 3.4GHz 6 cores - $370
6850k - 3.6GHz 6 cores - $475
6900k - 3.2Ghz 8 cores - $880
6950k - 3.0Ghz 10 cores - $1450

All i7 non-Xeon...

 

[gnasher729]

And when it needs an upgrade, or has an out of warranty failure, they'll have to throw away that incredible and expensive 5K display.

To make that clear: If you bought an iMac for $5K, and you decided to upgrade it and couldn't, then you would throw it away? Seriously?

 

[LordVic]

5820k - 3.3GHz 6 cores - $375
5830k - 3.5GHz 6 cores - $550
6800k - 3.4GHz 6 cores - $370
6850k - 3.6GHz 6 cores - $475
6900k - 3.2Ghz 8 cores - $880
6950k - 3.0Ghz 10 cores - $1450

All i7 non-Xeon...

All not "current"

maybe I could have been more specific, that there was no current generation (Kaby Lake) 6 core + CPU's in the mainstream lineup. And if Apple intends to use "latest" CPU's, than xeon's are the only choice (even though they are effectively previous gen architecture)

There' no current 7xxx series CPU's from intel that have more than 4 cores (not including the X lineup that just launched).

 

[thefredelement]

There seems to be a lot of non pro anecdotal debate here.

While I'm a one person pro user and will buy one, I think most of these will be bought/leased by purchasing departments, additionally I think the people who use them will use them as long as they are viable and then upgrade when needed for professional work reasons... like making more money or doing some faster, etc.

 

[scoobs69]

Being that people are still making great use out of the original Aluminum Mac Pro, I kind of think that a device like the iMac Pro will have a pretty solid shelf life.

I'm one of those people. I have a 2009 Quad core Mac Pro. The only reason it's still reasonably serviceable is because I upgraded the boot drive to an SSD, upgraded the GT120 to a 7950 Mac Edition, upgraded the RAM from 8GB to 24GB, added a two more SSD in the optical bays, and have 3 spinning storage drives. ...but yeah, it's been in a steady rapid decline in performance as new camera sensor RAW files are growing in size with expanded dynamic ranges and megapixels.

And the reason I bought the Mac Pro, was because my old iMac was a total dead end.

32GB of RAM would be perfect for me right now, though I'd love to have 64GB to "set it and forget it". I'd love to have two internal flash drives, a 250GB boot/app drive, and 1-2TB active jobs drive. If you look at the specs of the new iMac Pro, this is possible - as there are two flash drive sockets in the machine (this is a FANTASTIC feature for the iMacs). And really, all 27" iMacs should have dual flash drive sockets. They're small. From there, I can use external storage for back-ups and archives.

Do I need 8 cores right now? Not for $5,000 if the majority of my software doesn't support it - but 6-cores with a higher clock speed would be ideal. I don't need a display.

So future proofing and longevity? You'd be spending $6,500 plus. You can get a machine elsewhere that performs just as well with the same longevity for a helluva lot less. Like $4,000 less. OS X to me is no worth a $4,000 premium.
[doublepost=1498315852][/doublepost]

All not "current"

maybe I could have been more specific, that there was no current generation (Kaby Lake) 6 core + CPU's in the mainstream lineup. And if Apple intends to use "latest" CPU's, than xeon's are the only choice (even though they are effectively previous gen architecture)

There' no current 7xxx series CPU's from intel that have more than 4 cores (not including the X lineup that just launched).

If they're available right now, they're current. LOL

And since when has Apple used anything "current"?

There's also people who wouldn't mind older reliable tech than something that's new and unproven.

 

[gri]

It's sad when you already can foresee a product being recalled or having significant defects on their first shipment.

Care to elaborate for the non-initiated...?

 

[CWallace]

And since when has Apple used anything "current"?

Well they did just update the MacBook, MacBook Pro and iMac line to Intel's current CPU and AMD's current GPU families...

 

[sudo1996]

Putting a Xeon in a non-up-gradable machine is such a pointless waste. Xeon aren't "better" chips. They are the exact same in every way as their non-Xeon versions save that they last longer and have ECC capabilities.

I don't know about the very latest i9 chips, but up until now, the latest Xeons have usually been far ahead of the latest consumer-grade i-series in benchmarks. They've got more cores and bigger caches. Also, you get the benefit of being able to use more than one on a single motherboard.

Except they cost way more. The thing is, old ones are very cheap. You used to be able to upgrade a 2009 Mac Pro for $50-$100 and make it faster than any Mac up to 2016 with the exception of the Mac Pro.
[doublepost=1498327359][/doublepost]

there's no current (except for the new Skylake-X lineup) Intel CPU's over 4 cores that aren't Xeon's

if Apple's goal here is to offer 6+ core CPU's. there's little option but to use Xeon based CPU's, even though they're the same technology as their i7 counterparts.

if they were offering the same 4 core offerings in Xeon and I7 variants, your point would be valid but until Intel releases their Kaby Lake 6+ core CPU's, it's Xeon or nothing

This was the case until recently, but if you just double all the numbers you mentioned, it still holds today.

 

[Altis]

To make that clear: If you bought an iMac for $5K, and you decided to upgrade it and couldn't, then you would throw it away? Seriously?

If there's a hardware failure, you'll have no choice but to pay Apple to fix it or sell it as is.

We'll have to see how target display mode works (assuming it will) but even that will only work from another Mac IIRC.

And if you just wanted to upgrade one single component of it, you'll have to buy a whole new one.

 

[jerwin]

Starting at $5,000 dollars, then the dongles since it probably won't have an ethernet port, or any other ports you actually need or want, and soon you're talking real money.

that rightmost port is 10 Gbs ethernet