iMac Pro No Longer Custom Configurable, Available 'While Supplies Last'

[anticipate]

Sad to see it go, it’s a fantastic machine. I just wish they carried over the cooling system to the regular 27” iMac.

I still use mine today to edit 6k, 8k footage etc and it does very well. Then so does my cheap m1 MacBook Pro...

Its a decent windows VR machine too. But yes, it’s still a wonderful machine, there are just cheaper options that are just as good in that form factor from Apple. Never mind the Apple silicon macs.

 

[BacioiuC]

No its not the most expensive. people seldom compare apples with apples. As an owner of the iMac Pro it has served me really well and earned more than its keep. You don't buy an iMac Pro for a hobby, it is there to do a job of work, and its performed admirably in those tasks. never had a problem with it.

This 1000 times. iMac Pro is not a consumer desktop pc. 1 year of constant usage, long nights of doing 3-4 lightmaping jobs in parallel and spitting out builds in minutes. It was/is an expensive kit designed designed to make you more money.

I see people going "it's 5000$ and it's worse than an M1 macbook". Let me tell you: it's not, there's a reason my M1 Pro didn't take it's place on my work desktop and I see it more of a mobile machine.

I pivoted my business towards the iOS market, doing specific prototypes for mobile game publishers. I was using a decked out 2015 MacBook Pro. To do an iOS build, for my prototype, in Unity the entire process would take close to 40 minutes until I had a IPA spitted out that I could share with my client. From Export to running on my phone directly from xcode it would take around 30 minutes.

The iMac Pro, even the base model, cut down that time to just 7 minutes. Developing on a computer and testing using a mouse and "emulated" touchscreen controls is no guarantee the same game would run/behave the same way on different platforms. if I tested out a build, it would be 30 minutes of downtime. If a UI button would be badly anchored, I would have to do a build (30 minutes), test it on my devices, spot the error, fix it on the computer and do another 30 minutes build.

Roughly 1 hour turnaround time.


With the imac pro this time would go down to 15 minutes. I would move 4 times as fast as I did previously. When my business's revenue is related to the amount of prototypes I could churn out (paid by published prototype) the iMac pro literary tripled (even more so) my output and hence, my revenue.


I spent 5000$ once on an extremely stable and powerful machine (with a 5K display which meant I could "emulate" the proper resolutions I was targeting on the desktop) and made 3-4 times more money than I would make without it.

Even today, at full price I would buy it again in a heartbeat had I needed it. The M1's are great, but they're not even close to the iMac Pro's performance and stability, not yet at least.

Edit: I really really hope Apple doesn't completely drop the iMac form factor for a pro, business, machine.

 

[anshuvorty]

I did say this some time ago and even when the iMac Pro was first announced....this product is/was a stop-gap for the redesigned Mac Pro...to fill the "Pro"/"Enthusiast" niche....this is just adding more fuel to the fire/adding more evidence to the fact that this is going to become an obsolete/discontinued product in the pretty near future....

Adding to the fire is also the evidence that Mark Gurman claims that a "mini Mac Pro" is in the works as well....there is just no room for a workstation-class machine that isn't modular as well in Apple's desktop Macs....

I was freakin right...lol....

 

[bluespark]

Makes sense -- it was pretty obviously a "moment in time"-type product.

 

[theluggage]

When you suggest its the most expensive, no doubt you are not including the fact it is a complete desktop, with all the cards you need, all the memory, and it includes the monitor.

...and if you didn't want that specific size/resolution/format monitor, tough. If you wanted more than the default sized RAM, SSD, prepare to be reamed for 2x+ the market rate (or take a pizza cutter to your brand new Mac to DIY). If you need half a dozen terabytes of spinning rust for bulk storage (still the most effective way of storing large media files) bye-bye "all in one desktop".

Now when you get your high end PC, you get a box, with a CPU in it, and many upgrade to a different video card, different ethernet, additional PCI or other boards, all of which give the potential for some serious complications in configuring a working machine

Except (a) there are plenty of PC builders who will assemble, test and guarantee a PC with your choice from a huge range of alternative components, storage configurations etc. and (b) doesn't sound like you've assembled a PC since sometime in the early 1990s - a modern motherboard usually has a shedload of USB-A/C, Thunderbolt if you go looking (largely redundant on a PCIe machine), Ethernet, sound, NVME SSD slots, SATA connectors, often wireless built in. If you need "additional PCIe or other boards" it's probably something that simply isn't available - at least as an internal option - on Mac. I will give Apple kudos for what they're doing promoting 10G Ethernet at reasonable prices - but still, most people don't have teh wiring, and if you do, adding it to a PC isn't that hard.

Of course, if your workflow revolves around Logic Pro, FCPx or some other Mac-only software (and have loads of legacy files that you need to access) then "switching" could be an expensive option in terms of time, re-training, new software etc. so that's a perfectly fine justification for choosing Mac. Unfortunately, for the last 10 years of so, Apple have pretty much been relying on that at the high end of the Mac range and not even attempting to compete with PC/Windows. Show an iMac Pro or Mac Pro to someone who doesn't have some sort of pre-existing investment in MacOS, and they'll likely laugh in your face.

Apple Silicon is a chance for Apple to fix that by finally making something that isn't just a PC clone in a designer box with a MacOS license.

Some "pro" users of Macs seem to be in the privileged position of not having to justify every cent they spend on computer hardware... which is nice, but not universal - esp. for people who aren't their own boss and have to deal with a bean counter who's only agenda is to reduce the equipment budget and doesn't give a wet slap about the affect on any other department's bottom line.

 

[rafark]

I hope we get a single 27 inch iMac...
no 20 inch.. no iMac Pro...
Just a single amazing iMac with a M2 and a dedicated graphics co processor

Hmm why? If you don’t want to buy the 20 inch model you don’t have to...

 

[randian]

I suspect that apple will offer a redesigned iMac that because of the reduced heat of their Apple Silcon CPU/GPU and the amount of space inside larger models they no longer need anything like a iMac Pro. Especially if its 30 or 32" in size.

If the ARM iMac keeps the 27" form factor I'm not seeing much reason to upgrade my 27" Intel iMac.

 

[jefhai]

Hmm why? If you don’t want to buy the 20 inch model you don’t have to...

Apple should focus one only a few variations of their models. It’s what Steve Jobs said when he returned to Apple and there were dozens of Mac models. Apple should I guess have an entry level 27 inch and a 30 inch pro iMac.. but we don’t need to go backwards to smaller screens or have 3-4 variations. Apple should then put their fastest and latest processors in these iMacs.. and not have pricing tiers like they did with intel.

Question for the experts: can two or more M1 chips be combined?
If so, it's not hard to imagine the iMac to get 2M1, and the Mac Pro to get like 10M1 or something like that.

I don’t think Apple needs to combine chips. They will just design larger SoC chips with different configurations and perhaps move the GPU out of the chip itself, but with the highspeed data bus.

 

[Binarymix]

Annnd there goes any upgradable Mac (RAM).

I’m pretty much done with Apple. They want everything they sell to be disposable.

So much for eco-friendly when your worn our ssd, and minisule RAM wears out in two years.

Sad times.

 

[Macbookprodude]

I knew it ! Apple has gone too far to pull plugs on products before 7 years. iMac Pro was a great machine and it was pulled too early. Damn you, Apple!

 

[mattspace]

I did say this some time ago and even when the iMac Pro was first announced....this product is/was a stop-gap for the redesigned Mac Pro...to fill the "Pro"/"Enthusiast" niche....this is just adding more fuel to the fire/adding more evidence to the fact that this is going to become an obsolete/discontinued product in the pretty near future....

More likely, the iMac Pro was designed to replace the Mac Pro entirely, but late in its development (late enough that they couldn't kill the project) it became clear to them that they'd dramatically misjudged what the "Pro" market wanted (full bandwidth pci-cards). This time period coincides with a surge in cross platform tools like Resolve, and HP going for Apple's creative customers with Z-Workstation ads specifically targeting the trashcan.

Bets on they were still at the "clean sheet of paper" stage of redesigning the Mac Pro when the original knucklehead-chucklebrothers "thermal corner" conference was held.

 

[Abazigal]

Hmm why? If you don’t want to buy the 20 inch model you don’t have to...

I am not against the 21" iMac existing, but it has always existed in a weird spot. Soldered ram, entry level models lacking a discreet GPU, very slow HDD (not even fusion drive), I think one variant even had the MBA processor? If there ever were a trap in Apple's product lineup, this would be it. Feels like it's there more to fill a price point than anything else.

 

[jefhai]

Annnd there goes any upgradable Mac (RAM).

I’m pretty much done with Apple. They want everything they sell to be disposable.

So much for eco-friendly when your worn our ssd, and minisule RAM wears out in two years.

Sad times.

You really don’t need to buy a computer with 32 GB RAM and then upgrade to 64 GB down the road... Applications don’t really even use 16 GB.. if you are a creative max out the ram and you are good for the life of the machine

 

[skaertus]

First keep in mind that according to Apple, the ARM transition is supposed to take two years to completion.

We currently have 4+4 cores, 8 GPUs, 16 GB of RAM for entry level machines. That will be increased soonish to 8+4 cores, 8 or 16 GPUs, 32 GB of RAM. That can be done without having to do anything clever, just by making the chip bigger. And a lot easier than putting two of the existing chips in a computer.

Then two separate things would be (a) multiple chips and (b) RAM outside the chip. On-chip RAM is a major performance booster. RAM outside the chip only makes sense if it is massive. So that would probably mean massive external RAM, and the on-chip RAM would be limited to 8GB and used as cache memory. Multiple chips also makes sense only for massive systems. And there's cost for communication between the chips.

Two years means that, by November 2022 (or even earlier), all Macs should be using Apple ARM instead of Intel.

I suppose the whole MacBook line-up will get Apple silicon in 2021. The 16-inch MacBook Pro does not get an update since November 2019, and Apple will not want to leave the large laptop two years without an upgrade. And it simply does not make sense for Apple to put another Intel chip inside the 16-inch laptop, especially after Apple made all the fuss about how superior its own processor is. Even if the MacBook line does not get a redesign this year (which they probably will), they will at least get the Apple silicon.

As for the iMac, Apple may wait a little longer, since it was last updated in August 2020. It may get an ARM chip by the second half of 2021 or the first half of 2022.

I suspect the Mac Pro will be the last in line, as Apple will need to make the most powerful version of its ARM chip and will have to make sure everything runs absolutely fine.

By the end of 2021, Apple may release an M2, or another name it decides to put in the updated version of the M1. After all, the iPhone gets an upgraded processor every year, and Apple will not want the iPhone to have faster single-core speeds than its ARM Mac line-up.

 

[Moccasin]

I am not against the 21" iMac existing, but it has always existed in a weird spot. Soldered ram, entry level models lacking a discreet GPU, very slow HDD (not even fusion drive), I think one variant even had the MBA processor? If there ever were a trap in Apple's product lineup, this would be it. Feels like it's there more to fill a price point than anything else.

My late 2013 21” iMac has a fusion drive. Only now looking for a replacement as it has served me well.

 

[Binarymix]

You really don’t need to buy a computer with 32 GB RAM and then upgrade to 64 GB down the road... Applications don’t really even use 16 GB.. if you are a creative max out the ram and you are good for the life of the machine

Well m1 macs are maxing out the ram and putting excessive wear on the ssd because of paging. So I’d say 16GB of ram isn’t enough.

Even my 32GB iMac gets low on ram with photoshop and office open.

At least I can open the ram compartment and upgrade.

iMacs should have at least user upgradable HD and RAM.

 

[jefhai]

Well m1 macs are maxing out the ram and putting excessive wear on the ssd because of paging. So I’d say 16GB of ram isn’t enough.

Even my 32GB iMac gets low on ram with photoshop and office open.

At least I can open the ram compartment and upgrade.

iMacs should have at least user upgradable HD and RAM.

I’m pretty sure the SSD issue is a bug and has nothing to do with ram paging... I think we have to see more insight on this / from Apple themselves..

Also if you are maxing out 32GB of Ram with photoshop and office maybe you have too many projects open?

The thing is, if M1 Macs run faster because the Ram is tightly integrated with the CPU/GPU.. I think it should be kept that way.. Making it upgradable and sacrificing that edge no other computer on the market has is Apples strength

 

[kyeblue]

iMac pro never made any sense to me ... the best macpro is still the 2010 version that I still use everyday. There was never a reason to abandon that form factor ...

 

[nikaru]

Here’s my guess:

- iMac: Available in 24” (4K) and 27” (4K)

- iMac Pro: Available in 24” (5K) and 27” (6K)

Nah, dont believe it!

My prediction:
Two iMacs, one 24'' and the other 27''. Internally, both would be identical, but the 27'' will have 6k display, compared to 5k on the 24'' model. The 27'' will also have a couple of more GPU cores enables to drive the higher resolution. The new M1X or M2 or whatever it is called, would be 16 core beast that outperform by a wide margin the current Intel best offer in fully speced iMac 27''. On GPU side, we will see desktop RX 5700XT performance which would allow 1440p, 60fps, ultra setting gaming for AAA titles once the games are properly ported to ARM architecture.

 

[fathergll]

Here’s my guess:

- iMac: Available in 24” (4K) and 27” (4K)

- iMac Pro: Available in 24” (5K) and 27” (6K)

That makes no sense.....why would they have a 27" 4k iMac?



Most likely they will have 2 iMacs. 24" and probably one even bigger than 27".

 

[jumpcutking]

This explains a lot - that graphics card doesn’t have widespread support and the experience has been buggy.

I suppose we’ll have to move our iMac to something else - maybe a new Mac with m1.

 

[sublunar]

That makes no sense.....why would they have a 27" 4k iMac?



Most likely they will have 2 iMacs. 24" and probably one even bigger than 27".

I think Apple will continue to keep Retina resolution (in pixels per inch) consistent across all of their desktop displays. The 21.5" iMac is 4k at 219PPI while the 27" iMac is 5k at 218PPI and the 32" Pro Display XDR is 6k at 218PPI.

Apple won't break that consistency if they opt to go with the 24" panel on the grounds of consumer demand (because 21.5" is getting to be a budget size now) however such a panel will mean we will be having a 4.6K resolution (or 4608x2592).

Bear in mind that Apple could easily make these new SKUs come with mini LED displays for extra brightness which would make them an even more compelling upgrade over Intel iMacs - before we get to the improved graphics and additional performance cores and cooler running/quiet SoC meaning they can go thinner.

A 24" panel would allow Apple to keep to one screen size for the iMac - with the screen as the common point and differentiation by CPU/GPU.

The 27" could be left for 'Pro' specs - they have a current supply line of 27" panels. With an inability to upgrade RAM coming up I am going to suspect that average selling prices will be relatively high and 16Gb Unified RAM and 512Gb SSD will be the starter storage on those models (to try and hit certain price points) as a 24" 4.6K model will be good enough for most people.

If Apple were going to keep some Intel Macs behind for a generation they could then continue to manufacture a high end 27" model and re-use the same panel as is going into a 27" ARM iMac.

Any bigger than 27" panel would realistically need to be a 32" 6k screen, and they have the Pro XDR for that - why would they want to release something less capable? More interesting would be a smaller Mac Pro to handle bigger screens of the users choice but we've got a potentially beefy top spec Mac mini coming before any suggestion of an xMac hits the streets.

 

[avkills]

• "accessible" USB-C and power on the top of a case that will quite likely be kept under a desk.
• Have to unplug every last cable from the rear before removing cover (...e.g. to re-seat PCIe card that you unseated when plugging the cable in...) - but, hey, you had to pull it out from under the desk anyhow...
• Nothing to keep dust out.
• Does it really, really need that elaborate and expensive 3D aluminium sculpture on the front?
• ...or PCIe slot covers machined from solid aluminium?
• Needs special, custom power connector kit ti use standard PCIe cards.
• MPX modules... nice and neat way of avoiding flying power/Thunderbolt cables, but still just PCIe under the hood, and mainly a device to sell marked-up custom expansion cards that won't work in regular PCIe slots.
• Wheels with no brake. Seriously? At $700 a set?
• Internal hard drive expansion... located right in the thermal exhaust of the CPU, Mounting cage/cables not included & only sold bundled with third-party HDs.
• Rack version leaves the RAM slots underneath the unit
• Rack version lacks redundant PSU, lights-out etc. that would make it suitable for data-center use.
• Rack version would make more sense in an AV studio environment, except it is far too deep and heavy for typical AV equipment racks... (avoidably so - hugely over-engineered for something that's going to be protected by a rack, huge space behind the front panel...)
• Vastly over-specified "one size fits all" chassis/motherboard giving the lower-end configurations a lousy price/performance ratio - twice the entry price of previous Mac Pro models.

So, yeah, very pretty, but riddled with the old form-over-function problem. #1 design motivation: "if we just made the bog standard PCIe Xeon/AMD tower that people actually need, we'd decimate the sale of iMacs".

Give me the old "Mac Pro" tower any day (sides flip off in-situ, useful connectors on front panel, fully stocked with almost-tool-free HD sleds, half the price...).

What in the hell are you talking about on half this rant!

The 2 USB-C connections on the top of the machine have not been a problem for me; it would have been nicer to have them on the front, sure, but it has not hassled me at all.

I have never un-seated a PCIe card by plugging something in, you do know they have lock-downs at the input end; wait, have you ever built a computer ever?!

Nothing will ever keep dust out of computers....moot point.

All your cosmetic jabs --- no, none of that is required, but that is what they did, get over it.

Regular PCIe cards do not need any special power connectors, only non MPX cards that require extra power like graphics cards. The MPX connector is so you don't have cables running all over the inside of the case for power and in the case of MPX graphics cards, you do not need to have a cable loop on the outside of the case to route video to the USB-C/Thunderbolt connections.

Wheels on a PC, some people like throwing money away --- there you go.

Internal drive situation --- yes that was dumb.

Rack version --- is it heavier than a Barco E2 -- prolly fine then....lol

Yeah the low-end is way too expensive. Actually Intel is mostly to blame for the cost, Dell, Boxx and others with the same processor spec are pretty much the same price; at least until you add Apple RAM, which no one should do.

Sorry, but a lot of your rant was total non-sense, but you did manage some decent points.

 

[avkills]

Now when you get your high end PC, you get a box, with a CPU in it, and many upgrade to a different video card, different ethernet, additional PCI or other boards, all of which give the potential for some serious complications in configuring a working machine, something I experienced first hand when my daughter was given a works machine with a high end spec., but NOTHING ON it could be said to be standard, as with a PC very little is standard, its configured with different bits.

Sorry Mikey,

I am going to have to call BS on this part of your post. The only reason you would have complications is if you forgot to load the motherboard drivers, drivers for the PCI cards you installed, etc etc.

The PC machine in my sig was all piece mealed. Runs very very solid.

 

[Anonymous Freak]

If I am not wrong, it’s because of the intel processor in the newer Macs that have support for the 6k display. The iMac Pro, with its older processor, doesn’t get said benefit.

Has nothing to do with the Intel CPU. It's all on the GPU.