Intel Unveils 'Purley' Xeon Chip Lineup, but None are Appropriate for High-End iMac Pro

[baryon]

I really hope the iMac Pro will be more upgradeable than the current iMac. Imagine paying this much for a machine only to not be able to do something as simple as replace the SSD.

This thing needs screws in the back and the ability to take off the rear panel, and have easy access to the entire motherboard, RAM and SSD at the very least, without having to un-glue the screen.

As for the Mac Pro, that thing needs to be totally upgradeable and repairable. The whole point is that it shouldn't be a fancy fashion accessory that you buy and then throw away when it starts to slow down.

The white-topped Mac Mini is a good example of how upgradeable, repairable, and compact a Mac could be. You can replace any part of it on your own with just a screwdriver. It's a pleasure to make any changes to the hardware on it. No heat gun, no special motherboard-eject-tool, no disconnecting a thousand ribbon cables each held in by fancy screws, no security screws, etc...

If people want to open your computer, they will do it. Now all you can do is decide whether they should curse your name while they're at it, or whether they should be pleasantly surprised.

 

[CarlJ]

Hmm, I remember them saying "up to 18 cores" in the iMac Pro, but I don't recall them specifically saying "one 18-core CPU". Two 9-core CPUs, maybe? Three 6's?

 

[Defthand]

I still don't get why Apple took the time to design this when they could have used those resources towards designing and releasing the modular Mac Pro sooner. I personally don't know a single pro user in my field who wants this iMac Pro. It simply doesn't have the customizability and expandability that we need.

I'll be surprised and impressed if the modular machine actually materializes. Frankly, I'm skeptical. It's contrary to Apple's established practices. My gut tells me they'll back peddle. Imagine, Apple never reveals its product intentions. Odd that they made an exception.

 

[Wawajey]

Hello everyone, I recently bought the 27" 2017 base model, for my hobby of making videos and motion graphics.

I backed up my old iMac in a drive using time machine, but when I try to install I get this message, I'm currently downloading sierra *please help good people of the internet* and now I can not even upload the picture damn

 

[verpeiler]

Hello everyone, I recently bought the 27" 2017 base model, for my hobby of making videos and motion graphics.

I backed up my old iMac in a drive using time machine, but when I try to install I get this message, I'm currently downloading sierra *please help good people of the internet* and now I can not even upload the picture damn

Maybe try it in the correct sub-forum?

 

[Wawajey]

Hello everyone, I recently bought the 27" 2017 base model, for my hobby of making videos and motion graphics.

I backed up my old iMac in a drive using time machine, but when I try to install I get this message, I'm currently downloading sierra *please help good people of the internet* and now I can not even upload the picture damn

Maybe try it in the correct sub-forum?

whats a sub forum?

 

[Michaelgtrusa]

whats a sub forum?

iMac forum etc.

 

[Mago]

Apple said it would use Intel's Xeon processors, with 8, 10, and 18 core chips available as optional configurations with up to 42MB cache and maximum Turbo Boost up to 4.5GHz.

I asked somewhere to somebody that actually knows one or two things about Intel upcoming products:

Intel Splitted its Xeon among Workstations and Servers from latest generation, all new gold-silver-bronze Xeon server wont target Workstations, meanwhile the new Workstation-Class Xeon will be SINGLE SOCKET.

The iMac will use the (yet to be announced) Skylake-X Xeon along X299 Chipset (yes X299 will support ECC, or there is an ECC varian of X299 in the works), so the new Xeons will be mere ECC upgraded HEDT Core i9.

So the iMac pro will use a Xeon variant of intel Core-X i7/i9's lineup:as i7-7820X (8c, max 4.5ghz 19Mb Cache (8x1Mb L2+11Mb L3), i9-7900x (10c 4.5ghz 23.75Mb Cache) and i9-7980XE with 18 Cores 42.75 MB Cache (18x1Mb L2, + 23.75MB L3)... if you cant see it you need glasses and some english translator

 

[blumpy]

Apple just needs to open the OS and let people build their own mac.

 

[mrhick01]

I'll be surprised and impressed if the modular machine actually materializes. Frankly, I'm skeptical. It's contrary to Apple's established practices. My gut tells me they'll back peddle. Imagine, Apple never reveals its product intentions. Odd that they made an exception.

They made an exception because of sources like the MacRumors forums.

They observed a groundswell of dissatisfaction about their professional strategy and it drew to a head. The April 2017 mini-conference was a necessity, because by appearances, it appeared that Apple had abandoned their professional market. Apple is not at the point where you can design software without premium hardware.
[doublepost=1499809173][/doublepost]

Apple just needs to open the OS and let people build their own mac.

That won't happen. Why would they do that?

 

[Mago]

Apple just needs to open the OS and let people build their own mac.

Already its open, but not supported, google "build Hackintosh"

 

[Zdigital2015]

The Intel CPUs destined for the iMac Pro run on the Basin Falls platform, not Purley. All of the SKUs that were released today are for 2s or 4s, which wouldn't necessarily preclude them from going into a Mac Pro should Apple decide to release dual CPU configurations for the computer. Personally, I think the new Mac Pro will be quite expensive, especially with dual Xeons. I'm pretty sure we're not looking at quad-CPU as this isn't really practical for a workstation.

 

[Mago]

I think the new Mac Pro will be quite expensive, especially with dual Xeons.

just 28.000$ on two Intel CPUs alone, thats not what everyday Mac pro user use to pay...

 

[aaronhead14]

I'll be surprised and impressed if the modular machine actually materializes. Frankly, I'm skeptical. It's contrary to Apple's established practices. My gut tells me they'll back peddle. Imagine, Apple never reveals its product intentions. Odd that they made an exception.

But why would Apple announce something that won't ever materialize? That doesn't make any sense. Have they ever decided to not release a product that they have announced? Granted, their announcement was more of a pre-announcement, but an announcement nonetheless. I'm certain it will come out within the next year or two; I just don't get what's taking them so long.

 

[FrenchRoasted]

More cores are great but single core performance also matters. And Intel has been stalling for years.

Pushing CDs down to single digit nano meters is getting tricky as the Si atoms stay the same size. Moore's Law is certainly being stretched out longer and longer.

 

[-BigMac-]

I find so hard to understand why an iMac Pro -where almost every part is custom- can be designed in a few months, while the promised "modular Mac Pro" needs more than a year.

Link stating it only took months to design?

 

[OldSchoolMacGuy]

I find so hard to understand why an iMac Pro -where almost every part is custom- can be designed in a few months, while the promised "modular Mac Pro" needs more than a year.

Apple hasn't promised it'll be modular. It's extremely unlikely to be so. Apple has never been big on letting people upgrade their machines and in recent years they've moved to make their machines even less user upgradable.

 

[CWallace]

only 128GB RAM MAX will the system even make use of all 6 ram channels?

The internal diagrams Apple has released shows the iMac Pro has four RAM slots / channels.

I find so hard to understand why an iMac Pro -where almost every part is custom- can be designed in a few months, while the promised "modular Mac Pro" needs more than a year.

I still don't get why Apple took the time to design this when they could have used those resources towards designing and releasing the modular Mac Pro sooner.

The iMac Pro was almost assuredly going to be the replacement for the Mac Pro as the most powerful Mac model offered.

Only within the past six months has Apple decided (or, more likely, convinced) that they needed to release an actual new Mac Pro so they now have to design it and that takes time.


As for the CPUs, if it is not on LGA 3647, then as Mago suggested, Intel will be releasing a Xeon version of the Skylake-X CPUs on the LGA 2066 socket.

 

[X--X]

I personally don't know a single pro user [...] who wants this iMac Pro.

It's a real head scratcher. Who is this product for?

They almost kill the Mac Pro because it's a niche market - very sad but I get it kind of - but then they produce an iMac Pro which is targeting an even smaller niche market.

???

Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't know and have never heard of people who would rather put thousands of dollars into a closed system like an iMac instead of a real Mac Pro.

Makes no sense.

The point of the Mac Pro was not only power but also its upgradeability, which gave it a very long life span.

 

[farewelwilliams]

I'm still waiting for the PowerBook G5

wait forever then.

 

[kildraik]

I still don't get why Apple took the time to design this when they could have used those resources towards designing and releasing the modular Mac Pro sooner. I personally don't know a single pro user in my field who wants this iMac Pro. It simply doesn't have the customizability and expandability that we need.

That's interesting, because all I hear on my side of the pro world is how easy it is going to be to carry a $10-15k all-in-one to sets, shoots, and events with a simple, low profile case, instead of carrying huge crates of monitors and Mac Pro towers.

It's brilliant. Itching for it.

 

[CWallace]

It's a real head scratcher. Who is it this product for?

Considering how many high-end iMacs I see in scientific, visualization, production and other environments, I expect the iMac Pro will be quite popular with those markets.

 

[DanBig]

I really hope the iMac Pro will be more upgradeable than the current iMac. Imagine paying this much for a machine only to not be able to do something as simple as replace the SSD.

This thing needs screws in the back and the ability to take off the rear panel, and have easy access to the entire motherboard, RAM and SSD at the very least, without having to un-glue the screen.

As for the Mac Pro, that thing needs to be totally upgradeable and repairable. The whole point is that it shouldn't be a fancy fashion accessory that you buy and then throw away when it starts to slow down.

The white-topped Mac Mini is a good example of how upgradeable, repairable, and compact a Mac could be. You can replace any part of it on your own with just a screwdriver. It's a pleasure to make any changes to the hardware on it. No heat gun, no special motherboard-eject-tool, no disconnecting a thousand ribbon cables each held in by fancy screws, no security screws, etc...

If people want to open your computer, they will do it. Now all you can do is decide whether they should curse your name while they're at it, or whether they should be pleasantly surprised.

Sorry ;-{ Both the RAM & SSD are not accessible per the presentation shown at WWDC (on backside of logic board). There doesn't look like any SATA interface (HD) is available either.

 

[X--X]

Considering how many high-end iMacs I see in scientific, visualization, production and other environments, I expect the iMac Pro will be quite popular with those markets.

I doubt that very much.

If they use an iMac right now - they're not gonna buy an iMac Pro that starts at $4,999!

That's more than DOUBLE the price I paid for my 2009 Mac Pro. That's crazy.

 

[Kay Fisher]

I think they could redesign the cheese greater in a month if they just kept Johnny Ives out of the room!