If you think a more "silent" computer worth 1700 euros more for overall less performant and 3 years old tech, feel free to pull the trigger.
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 Update soon or shut down forever?
- Thread starter erg100000
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
If you do feel the iMac Pro just works better for you, keep an eye on the refurb market. Apple has been discounting the 8-cores significantly beyond their usual 15% and some third-party suppliers were knocking upwards of 30% off for a time earlier this year.
As for being "three-year old tech", I understand (especially when asked to pay current MSRP), but my 2017 iMac 5K is three year old tech and it still works great for me so I skipped the 2020 models to wait to see what Apple Silicon brings in another year or two and we had folks who went between 7-10 years on their previous iMacs before upgrading to the 2020 model because they didn't need to.
As such, I think a 2017 iMac Pro's tech will still be pretty solid for many tasks in 2023 or later. And if Apple Silicon was not on the horizon, I would very likely have jumped on one of the recent Apple deep-discount iMac Pro refurbs.
As for being "three-year old tech", I understand (especially when asked to pay current MSRP), but my 2017 iMac 5K is three year old tech and it still works great for me so I skipped the 2020 models to wait to see what Apple Silicon brings in another year or two and we had folks who went between 7-10 years on their previous iMacs before upgrading to the 2020 model because they didn't need to.
As such, I think a 2017 iMac Pro's tech will still be pretty solid for many tasks in 2023 or later. And if Apple Silicon was not on the horizon, I would very likely have jumped on one of the recent Apple deep-discount iMac Pro refurbs.
Yeah I really don't understand the pricing of the iMac Pro now. Its been shown multiple times that the new iMac equals and even surpasses the iMac Pro in a lot of areas. How can it still be priced this much higher than the regular iMac.
Honest answer is the price of the components in it, plus the R&D costs that Apple wants to recover.
On the plus side, Intel pretty much halved the price of the new Xeons compared to the ones currently in the iMac Pro and AMD is going to have to shave their prices now thanks to nVidia not charging a premium for the 3000 series GPUs. So if Apple does make a new iMac Pro, it could be cheaper.
I disagree that the iMac Pro was to fill in the gap until the new Mac Pro was released.
The iMac Pro fits in that in between price gap and Market that needs something more than a top spec iMac and something less than a Fully speced Mac Pro.
Many people do not want a big clunky tower or to buy a crazy expensive monitor separate. An ultra powerful all in one definitely fits a certain market and will be in demand even if it’s not the biggest market...which is why Apple MAY choose to abondon it. We’ll see.
I will say they don’t seem to know what to do with the current model. It’s old and the new iMacs are surpassing the lower end models. They should be dropping those prices a lot lower, but that’s Tim Apple for ya!
The iMac Pro fits in that in between price gap and Market that needs something more than a top spec iMac and something less than a Fully speced Mac Pro.
Many people do not want a big clunky tower or to buy a crazy expensive monitor separate. An ultra powerful all in one definitely fits a certain market and will be in demand even if it’s not the biggest market...which is why Apple MAY choose to abondon it. We’ll see.
I will say they don’t seem to know what to do with the current model. It’s old and the new iMacs are surpassing the lower end models. They should be dropping those prices a lot lower, but that’s Tim Apple for ya!
I don't really see how a new iMac Pro would work, unless they can get the price down considerably - to place it right in the middle between the new iMac and the Mac Pro.
Currently, the 2017 iMac Pro (when specced up to a reasonable level of performance (10-core, 64GB RAM, Vega 64X, 1TB SSD) is so close to the price of a base level Mac Pro (which can easily, and comparatively affordably, be upgraded) that it seems almost impossible to justify the cost of the all-in-one.
Currently, the 2017 iMac Pro (when specced up to a reasonable level of performance (10-core, 64GB RAM, Vega 64X, 1TB SSD) is so close to the price of a base level Mac Pro (which can easily, and comparatively affordably, be upgraded) that it seems almost impossible to justify the cost of the all-in-one.
Agreed. Plus it has some real deal-breaker limitations, at least as its currently conceived and constructed. Its top internal storage option maxes out at just half of the iMac’s, and the RAM isn’t user upgradable. Those are bitter pills, at least to me. If they addressed those limitations in an update I might be interested.
one has a great 5k screen, one does not? One is relatively compact, one is not?
not every wants/needs a tower. Price will stay the same.
I can see Apple going the other way in regards to user upgradable RAM. None of the MacBook's have it, the iMac Pro doesn't have it, the 21" iMac doesn't have it, and I could easily see them making it to where all of the ARM Mac's (outside of the Mac Pro) don't have user upgradable RAM.
Not only the 5K display included but double the RAM, faster CPU, much faster GPU, 4x the storage
Well the W-2200 Xeons are half the price of the W-2100 Xeons in the current iMac Pro so that would help. And AMD will have to discount their RDNA 2 GPUs with Nvidia launching the 3000 series at the same price as the current 2000 and the best Navi 21 GPU expected to clock in between the 3080 and 3070 (so I expect it to be $499) and that means cheaper prices for the Navi 22/23 the iMac Pro would use. On the flip side, if Apple does go with a MiniLED 27" 5K display as MCK has rumored, that could eat some of those savings.
Still, I see no reason Apple could not get the base iMac Pro to $4499, which is only $400 more than a 2020 iMac with 10c / 32GB / 1TB / 5700XT / 10GbE at $4099. And between MiniLED, 4 TB4 ports and the better cooling, I can see almost anyone who is buying a top-spec 2020 iMac for multi-core or graphics work would buy the iMac Pro, instead, which would help drive down production costs and improve the model's margins. That could be enough to make it worth offering.
Except to get a Mac Pro with reasonable performance (12c / 96GB / 1TB / 5700XT) is $8999. Then add $1200 for an LG UltraFine 5K display which probably won't look as good as the iMac Pro's display because Apple does more screen calibration than LG does.
And while it is true that the Mac Pro is more upgradeable, if that is a major purchasing influencer, then one was not looking at an iMac (Pro) anyway.
I know this falls into the category “my uncle who works at Apple says ...” but I heard about the iMac Pro several months before release, and the argument internally was whether the iMac Pro was enough. Apple sells vastly more iMac’s and MacBooks than anything else in the product line, so the feeling was that the Mac Pro wasn’t really needed and iMac Pro was the way forward for a Pro machine. You can see how just going off sales numbers and listening to number crunchers the company would arrive at this conclusion, but I think Apple is always going to need a Mac Pro for the halo effect it brings, and luckily they seem to have realized this as well.
Configured through Apple, certainly. But for anyone who's sweating every single dollar when the costs for a build are getting to these kinds of levels (and those are precisely the people who are weighing up the cost-performance differences between a maxed out Macbook Pro, iMac, iMac Pro and Mac Pro - because they need two things, reasonable performance and Mac OS), that's not really that likely to happen. They'd be more likely to purchase the base model (probably with just the internal SSD upgraded to 1TB, due to the speed advantages and lack of upgradability there) and upgrading everything else themselves, which can be done MUCH more affordably using third party parts than it can through Apple (and can also be done in stages, so GPU and RAM could be done first, and CPU down the line when more money is to hand).
As for a monitor, that's only an added cost if you don't already have one (and most do) heck, if you're coming from an older iMac, it may even make more sense to hold on to it (to use as a monitor) than to sell it and simply buy a screen for what you make back. For anyone moving over from an older Mac Pro to any of the newer options - you'd likely have a bunch of the peripherals already (possibly the storage and GPU to put straight into the 7,1).
It'd be wonderful if the could come out with an updated iMac Pro that offers the bang-for-buck of the new 2020 iMac (but offers a comparative step-up in overall performance). But it really does seem like it would have to land right in between the iMac and Mac Pro in price to make that viable - and that seems unlikely with the Xeon-tax you have to pay for those server grade components.
The iMac Pro, Mini, and 21" iMac still have DIMMs. ( there are some corner cases with a few 21.5" variants. Usually when Apple has also used laptop components ). Apple isn't deeply committed to solder RAM just to solder RAM.
For the laptops it buys them z-hieght . Thinner something Apple highly likely isn't going to get off of in the laptop space.
For the desktops .... there really isn't much of a "thinner" issue to the point need to dump so-DIMMs (or regular DIMMS) to limbo to a lower height.
The root cause problem is more Apple's objective to "hide" the RAM door and also the air exit vent. The objective is to block the view of these with the pedestal arm. If they can't hide it then they get ride of it. So if need a bigger exhaust vent to move more heat... nope. stuck with what can hide. RAM slots is similar. if some space left over from hiding the exhaust vent then if can also place the DIMM slots there then allow a RAM door. if the RAM needs to be under so other part of the case... buzzz no access door.
The XDR monitor and Mac Pro has some large holes in the case. If that is a shift for Apple to getting over their obsessive compulsive disorder (OCD) of vent hiding then iMac Pro could adjust to move the placement of the DIMMs back under the pedestal arm. Two fans that vent the air on the visible area of the case would free up room to put the RAM door where it is on the 27" iMac. Similarly if the Apple Silicon lowers the CPU temps down to the same size air vent hole as the iMac ... can get the RAM door back. There are at least 1/2 dozen ways solve the issue if their industrial design OCD didn't get in the way. (larger case+screen coupled to different CPU placement , etc. ).
The problem with the iMac Pro case is that it was rigidly coupled to the 27" iMac case. The adjustments made minimized the "drama" of getting something new out of industrial design. ( some bigger input and output vents and a color. to be selected. Probably took many, many months to just get that. )
What the iMac Pro needs is a purpose built case for the iMac Pro instead of "bow waving" off the 27" iMac. At this point, that is probably all twisted up in the migration to Apple Silicon and new cases for all of those 'new' Macs .
Apple Silicon probably isn't going to 'kill' DIMMs for desktops. Once get into the triple digit GB RAM capacities trying to solder down the RAM just isn't horizontal space efficient or cost effective. Again the laptops are on a different track. Probably capping out at 64GB and new DDR5 memory density coming, they can drop down to a low single digit number of RAM chip packages that solder down in a smaller footprint.
The Mini might get trapped into "laptop" processors again, but the desktop line up should be enabled for a different track of memory controller width and non "soldered to package" solutions.
The iMac Pro was far more a refinement of the Mac Pro 2013 than a stop gap for the Mac Pro 2019. Apple (and a substantive number of customers ) actually do want a literal desktop pro solution. ( as opposed to deskside, under desk , rack solution) . There are two different groups they are pursuing.
One was the uptick in folks who think the iMac form factor is "OK" but need higher performance than one fan and a relatively small air vent exit hole can cover. The other group is far more composed of folks who either "hate all in ones" or have lots of cards and/or internal expansion demand needs. Or both. Where Apple has placed the Mac Pro now is also those with "pro work" that has high return on investment ( so can afford to pay more for a very low volume product).
The iMac Pro highly likely had a higher priority than the Mac Pro. That is why it came first. The Mac Pro at this point is something that Apple works on in their "spare time". The iMac Pro is in pretty much the same place at this point.
Post Apple Silicon transition there probably will be a large gap between the SoC that Apple uses in the Mini thru iMac line up and the SoC used for the Mac Pro. For example capped at max 128GB RAM capacity on the mainstream desktop line up and perhaps pushing into the 1TB range on the Mac Pro SoC. It is going to be easier to drop a Mac Pro SoC into a all-in-one case than to try to stretch the "big screen" iMac into that space. Similar if Apple adjusts the iMac Pro enclosure once again to handle a higher end discrete dGPU from a 3rd party vendor. The regular iMac solutions will probably try to get away with "Apple GPU" as much as they can. It is a general purpose I/O gap.
The large disconnect there is Apple is using AS to drive lower thermals. That is probably going to be applied to getting the internals out of 'corners' the case design has likely painted the system into. ( i.e., Apple will be looking to stuff more performance into the classic 27" and 21.5" cases ... or even less volume/thinner/whatever design flourish they want to chase down the rabbit hole. ) . So higher capacity thermals for a the case. I wouldn't hold my breath on that. Will be lucky if Apple doesn't dump the two fans of the iMac Pro.
The discrete SSD modules. They managed to partially dump that with the 2020 iMac. ( might have been a limitation on the logic board adjustments allowed for the 2020 minor revision, but not a good sign. )
Depending upon how much blowback they got on the lack of a RAM door they might run off with that as a 'best' idea. [ However, I suspect they have fond out that isn't a 'best' idea. ] I suspect though there is some faction inside of Apple spinning it as a 'best' idea.
There is a decent chance there will be an iMac Pro. Apple could couple the 6K screen and the bigger enclosure ( 32" screen) perhaps without the super delux backlight. It would allow them to sell a higher volume of the 32" panels , the Mac Pro SoCs , bigger GPU (again unclocked volume for MP GPU dies ) . Add on top opportunity to add substantially more I/O ( more, higher Thunderbolt throughput , dual 10GbE , etc. ) then the "big screen" iMac could be gapped with enough differences to open the door for a "Pro" modifier.
I think folks loose the scope when just drop down to top single threaded GHz or high single digit core counts. There is a big I/O and DRAM capacity gap with the iMac Pro also. Mainstream Apple Silicon is probably not going after that at all. Apple is primarily interested in mobiles. That is where most of the Apple Silicon work is probably going to go. Apple will probably grungingly have to also do something for the Mac Pro space but doing a SoC for one and only one system is very un Apple like in approach ( of extending re-use in multiple products. ) . The mainstream iMac will be in a different space in terms of volume and pricing.
There are a mix of things inside and outside of Apple that probably screwed up one last iMac Pro. it could still come if the Mac Pro - iMac Pro Mac Apple SoC isn't due until mid 2022 (or later). Sliding from Q4 2020 into 2021 would be a decent gap filler. Lots of folks have an expectation that the high end Mac transitions are just a matter of a handful of months away instead of toward the very tail end of Apple's transition window. ( That Apple grossly under promised and will over deliver). That exactly the oppsite of their track record in the high end space over the last 7+ years. ( "working hard on new Mac Pro' ... shows up 2+ years later. iMac Pro driffting. 6 years between 2013 and 2019 Mac Pro , etc. ) So when Apple says "two years" , there is pretty good chance the seriously mean that in the Pro transition space.
I wouldn't expect the miniLED stuff but rolling out the iMac Pro with :
Xeon W 2200 series ( or just keeping W 2100 at 2200 series pricing. The price drop is the key issue. Effectively it is already there with moving 10 cores "down" in line up)
Latest Thunderbolt v3 controllers. ( support XDR external display )
Nanotexture screen option for LCD
Navi 2 with HBM
wouldn't be surprising. The iMac Pro would gap the iMac on max memory capacity , max core count ( for those with embarrassingly x86 parallel workloads) , work with XDR (better than the iMac) , gap the iMac on GPU ( again embarrassingly GPGPU parallel workloads ) . All of the T2 NAND is not soldered down ( end of life data retirement much , much cleaner. Upgrade paths much , much broader. ) .
It wouldn't be the ultimate single thread drag racing machine. But it never was the ultimate single thread drag racing machine.
Navi 2 would probably mean driver availability would slide into 2021 anyway. Apple should have sorted out the ratio of Nanotexture options on the 27" screens by using the iMac demand curves. So that will be much more predictable. If Navi 2 has a HBM option the footprint update on the logical board update is probably pretty minimal ( similar to the minimalistic logic board upgrade did on the 2020 iMac 27" ) . CPPU socket the same , T2 the same , 10GbE the same all minimal impacts. Thunderbolt controller update ... again not much of gap there.
If Intel's timing on Xeon W2300 ( Ice lake / 10nm) version had been better than perhaps would have been on different vector. Same with Navi 2 ( which also is probably late versus circa early 2018 time line estimates; as Navi 1 hiccuped badly late in 2018 .) . The more components slide into 2021 the less work Apple is going to want to do. It really depends upon when Apple 'quit' on Intel and AMD as CPU options. If that overlapped with getting started on "next version" of iMac Pro then probably stuck with small (cheaper ) tweaks to the current design. Basically the kick-the-can to fill the two year gap.
[ Apple rode the Mac Pro 2013 for 6 years. They certainly could ride the iMac Pro for 5 just as cheaply. ]
Available for the laptops in 2021. Sure. For the top end desktops, that is a bit dubious. Apple is probably going to want to wait for an even more mature process to do relatively much larger dies.
An Apple SoC that can handle x20 PCI-e lanes isn't necessarily in same boat as on that does over x64 . Previous Apple SoC haven't even done anywhere near the 16-20 range.
Apple may even try to cover the 24" iMac with just an iGPU ( Apple GPU) and there isn't even x16 lanes. the 24" model probably isn't going to be the biggest "GPU" possible any more than the 21.5" is now. What Apple is likley trying to cover there is more so in the "good enough" range. That means the 24" and 27" iMac may not share the same SoC ( and not arrive in a close time window. ) . Hence the 27" Intel refresh now to kick the can much deeper into 2021.
different tools for different jobs. The storage tier thing is more than relativity lame because how many folks are even buying Apple 8TB SSD at those prices? It is very much a lazy thing they Apple could differ until later to help put "better lipstick on a pig" of a minimal upgrade that they want to slap a "New" label on in the web line up marketing page. Same with the Nanotexture. Those two coupled with a substantive GPU bump could get a "New" label. If they split those into different groups that is a much tougher spin.
It seems doubtful that Apple is going to make the Mac Pro SoC just for the kinds of volumes that the Mac Pro would generate ( presuming the price point on the Mac Pro starts at roughly the same starting point). An All-in-One to increase the sales volume of the Mac Pro SoC would make lots of sense economically. Apple could chop down the core count and/or clock to drive some segmentation with the same die ( and leave a gob of unused PCI-e pins or pads ) that would still be the "wider core count workloads" would still be the gap between the regular iMac and the iMac Pro. Similarly throw a non 27" screen at the iMac Pro ( 32" and 6K and definitely have a bigger gap of not huge drama to get industrial design to croak out a different enclosure for the system. One of the major boat anchors on the iMac Pro is that it "has to" share practically the same exact baseline design with the mainstream 27" model. Decouple them and there is obviously more room for something else. ).