Oh right, actually is not soldered but you have to reach for the motherboard by dismantling the entire Mini. I did put an SSD on my iMac and maybe it was even more risky to open it than the Mini so I guess I could try, but the old models had the RAM in a much more convenient place...
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.
Intel's Coffee Lake Chips Bring Significant Speed Boosts to 2019 iMacs
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Oh right, actually is not soldered but you have to reach for the motherboard by dismantling the entire Mini. I did put an SSD on my iMac and maybe it was even more risky to open it than the Mini so I guess I could try, but the old models had the RAM in a much more convenient place...
The more interesting question is could Apple have built a more powerful iMac that utilises the components better than today's lineup at the same price point if it gave up on its quest for as-thin-as-possible. Making computers as thin as possible is a valid goal for (a part(!) of) the laptop lineup, but simply asinine for a desktop computer like the iMac.
The iMac Pro does indeed have a completely different and better cooling system but it’s a costly one to implement.
[doublepost=1553859788][/doublepost]
You’re correct to place primary blame on Intel but I can’t how Apple could improve the cooling system without adding more cost. Then people would just argue about that. Please focus on the one thing that does need criticism : very expensive proprietary SSD.
LoL, more excuses. At first you claimed "this is the best that a slim desktop form factor can do otherwise we are arguing against physics" now you say a decent solution is "too expensive".
I guess your only purpose is to make excuses.
Nice try.
The cooling system can make the difference between a great and a terrible computer.
So in sort, it's extremely important and shouldn't be ignored like you are suggesting.
Last edited:
Pretty sure that new monitor is coming very soon - I just wanted to buy the 27” LG Ultrafine monitor and was told that it’s no longer being sold by Apple. I managed to get one from an authorized retailer, but I guess Apple will start pushing their own (very likely far more expensive) monitors very soon.
My 2017 4.2GHz i7 is super quiet. Never had any issues with it.
I was tempted to upgrade but I’m holding out for a redesign hopefully next year to get rid of the chin.
Good. My builds are still suffering on my Skylake-W (the entry level iMacPro) and the Xcode is just as slow as ever
I've been running the i5-9600K for a while now and can confirm, it is a powerhouse. I'll upgrade to the i9 as soon as it is about $250.
[doublepost=1553864222][/doublepost]
[doublepost=1553864222][/doublepost]
Yikes, sorry to hear!Good. My builds are still suffering on my Skylake-W (the entry level iMacPro) and the Xcode is just as slow as ever
I don’t care about speed, I care about the fan noise. Anyone know the temperatures of the i9?
Insulting and childish. And again wrong.
The iMac Pro is a larger computer with expensive cooling system.
You want two computers for the price of one at the same time you want to be a physics denier. I was already tired of these stupid debates the last 15-20 years every time a new slim form computer comes out.
Slightly worse at 8 cores (31124 vs. 32166). With 10/14/18 cores, 35921/41320/47773.
Hopefully none. It is the same as the Mac Mini (2014) that was still in stores in 2018.
Putting these on sale as a new computer is a disgrace.
That's just a detail.Larger? Really... Exactly where is the iMac Pro larger...
He will either make an excuse for it that doesn't make sense or say that he feels insulted
While I am not assigning any blame, this is what Apple signed up for as soon as they made the decision to move to Intel x86. This is also the reason why they don’t, and won’t, make a traditional PC tower style Macintosh. Doing so would invite even more comparisons and derision from the PCMR. I venture onto many of the PC gamer oriented sites and it just reads like monkeys flinging their crap at each other. Intel vs. AMD, AMD vs. NVIDIA, iOS vs. Android, Gigabyte vs. Asus and on and on. The raging flame wars over meaningless minutiae is emotionally and mentally exhausting if you spend to much time there.
In my experience, Apple decided with the move to Intel and with the availability of the higher end CPUs (Xeons), that this was the perfect opportunity to move past the typical mini-tower form factor because they knew that they would never be able to compete with Acer, Dell, Gateway, HP and home builders price-wise, which had been a high volume, low margin business for the past 15 years (1991-2006 - the year when Apple moved to Intel). In fact, I think they had already started making the move past the tower form factor with the Power Mac G5. The G5, at the time, was wicked fast and powerful. Apple took that opportunity to introduce the large all aluminum form factor and to raise the entry price of that form factor for users. I know that my bosses were surprised when it came time to move from the Power Mac G4s that they had been using for the past four (4) years. In the end, we leased June 2004 Power Mac G5 Dual 2.0GHz instead of purchasing them. We went with Mac Pro 3,1 in the next lease and then moved to iMac 2012 and then onto iMac 2014/MacBook Pro 2015 before the most recent lease which was all MacBook Pro 2018, except for one 2017 iMac.
My point is that the PC tower model (Mini-ITX, Micro-ATX and Standard ATX) has been around forever and is really the only one that allows someone to pick and choose the exact parts they want to build it themselves. Prices are all over the map because you can build a decent Windows PC for $500 or go crazy and spend all the way up to $4000 for a non-Core-X/Xeon gaming PC that you build yourself with only the parts you want.
Most PC OEMs offer a range of tower PCs from mild to wild as well with different form factors and branding. Dell has no less than 4 different consumer/SOHO computer brands (Alienware, Inspiron, Vostro and XPS) with multiple iterations inside each brand. By contrast, Apple has just two desktop computers (Mac mini and iMac), three if you count the 2013 Mac Pro. Apple releasing a tower PC-based Macintosh is a recipe for disaster...for them. There is no differentiation there and no matter how cool it looks, it’s still just a box. A box that will be poked and prodded and scrutinized and critiqued by people who would rather save $20 bucks by installing a SATA m.2 stick instead of an NVMe stick, because SATA is “good enough” and will criticize Apple left and right for taking away their right to use a cheaper drive if they want. Apple values consistent performance in it’s products and is often lauded for selling “PCs” that offer consistent, predictable performance versus the race to the bottom approach of PC OEMs who start with good intentions, but end up putting out a crap product because they switched memory or storage vendors halfway through production and save a few bucks to increase gross margin a half percent. The customers suffer and so does the business.
Apple tried that one time (Performa) and it nearly killed them. They are not going to make that same mistake again and there is no amount of whining, anger, threats of leaving the platform, Hackintoshing, pleading or shaking your fist that will change their position. I firmly believe that Steve Jobs was the primary driver for getting rid of the tower form factor. He continued them when he took over Apple because it was Apple’s bread and butter and he needed cashflow while he kickstarted the iMac project, but he knew that Apple had to appear to be more than just another PC maker to get and hold people’s interest at that point, because almost everyone had given up on Apple by 1996. The Mac Pro only made it because they already had a case in production that could be adapted for use with larger motherboards and power requirements of the Xeon CPUs, as well as Steve knowing that Pros still needed this kind of form factor for a number of reasons. Ever wonder why Apple never put a Core i5 or Core i7-based system in that chassis? No differentiation from the cheap plastic boxes already on the market, meaning zero upside for Apple.
So here we are in 2019, with the all-in-one iMac sporting a beast of a CPU that has incredible performance, even if it held back by the form factor to an extent, in a package that no one can really top or cares to put much effort into since the users they are catering to believe the tower is the only true expression of form and function. It’s the same as it ever was and will always be...it’s woven tightly into Apple’s DNA and is their philosophy, their mantra, like it or not. Take it or leave it.
In my experience, Apple decided with the move to Intel and with the availability of the higher end CPUs (Xeons), that this was the perfect opportunity to move past the typical mini-tower form factor because they knew that they would never be able to compete with Acer, Dell, Gateway, HP and home builders price-wise, which had been a high volume, low margin business for the past 15 years (1991-2006 - the year when Apple moved to Intel). In fact, I think they had already started making the move past the tower form factor with the Power Mac G5. The G5, at the time, was wicked fast and powerful. Apple took that opportunity to introduce the large all aluminum form factor and to raise the entry price of that form factor for users. I know that my bosses were surprised when it came time to move from the Power Mac G4s that they had been using for the past four (4) years. In the end, we leased June 2004 Power Mac G5 Dual 2.0GHz instead of purchasing them. We went with Mac Pro 3,1 in the next lease and then moved to iMac 2012 and then onto iMac 2014/MacBook Pro 2015 before the most recent lease which was all MacBook Pro 2018, except for one 2017 iMac.
My point is that the PC tower model (Mini-ITX, Micro-ATX and Standard ATX) has been around forever and is really the only one that allows someone to pick and choose the exact parts they want to build it themselves. Prices are all over the map because you can build a decent Windows PC for $500 or go crazy and spend all the way up to $4000 for a non-Core-X/Xeon gaming PC that you build yourself with only the parts you want.
Most PC OEMs offer a range of tower PCs from mild to wild as well with different form factors and branding. Dell has no less than 4 different consumer/SOHO computer brands (Alienware, Inspiron, Vostro and XPS) with multiple iterations inside each brand. By contrast, Apple has just two desktop computers (Mac mini and iMac), three if you count the 2013 Mac Pro. Apple releasing a tower PC-based Macintosh is a recipe for disaster...for them. There is no differentiation there and no matter how cool it looks, it’s still just a box. A box that will be poked and prodded and scrutinized and critiqued by people who would rather save $20 bucks by installing a SATA m.2 stick instead of an NVMe stick, because SATA is “good enough” and will criticize Apple left and right for taking away their right to use a cheaper drive if they want. Apple values consistent performance in it’s products and is often lauded for selling “PCs” that offer consistent, predictable performance versus the race to the bottom approach of PC OEMs who start with good intentions, but end up putting out a crap product because they switched memory or storage vendors halfway through production and save a few bucks to increase gross margin a half percent. The customers suffer and so does the business.
Apple tried that one time (Performa) and it nearly killed them. They are not going to make that same mistake again and there is no amount of whining, anger, threats of leaving the platform, Hackintoshing, pleading or shaking your fist that will change their position. I firmly believe that Steve Jobs was the primary driver for getting rid of the tower form factor. He continued them when he took over Apple because it was Apple’s bread and butter and he needed cashflow while he kickstarted the iMac project, but he knew that Apple had to appear to be more than just another PC maker to get and hold people’s interest at that point, because almost everyone had given up on Apple by 1996. The Mac Pro only made it because they already had a case in production that could be adapted for use with larger motherboards and power requirements of the Xeon CPUs, as well as Steve knowing that Pros still needed this kind of form factor for a number of reasons. Ever wonder why Apple never put a Core i5 or Core i7-based system in that chassis? No differentiation from the cheap plastic boxes already on the market, meaning zero upside for Apple.
So here we are in 2019, with the all-in-one iMac sporting a beast of a CPU that has incredible performance, even if it held back by the form factor to an extent, in a package that no one can really top or cares to put much effort into since the users they are catering to believe the tower is the only true expression of form and function. It’s the same as it ever was and will always be...it’s woven tightly into Apple’s DNA and is their philosophy, their mantra, like it or not. Take it or leave it.
All this makes me think the real story will be the new mac pro and monitor. (as long as it can be made quiet) A fully loaded imac is about mid $4000's, so we are getting up there near pro territory. We'll see..
The biggest difference in the imac and imac pro for me (asside from the better cooling) was the fact the pro had two lanes of TB3 rather than the single lane in the imac. Not much of a concern unless you use an external monitor and need a lot of fast external i/o capability, which I do.
The biggest difference in the imac and imac pro for me (asside from the better cooling) was the fact the pro had two lanes of TB3 rather than the single lane in the imac. Not much of a concern unless you use an external monitor and need a lot of fast external i/o capability, which I do.
I'm concerned about this as well. Maybe they could adjust the fan curve so it kicks in sooner therefore preventing the CPU from hitting the higher temps. They "may" also consider undervolting the CPU, but that would result in worse performance so that's out. I'm hoping the soldering of the chips makes an improvement. But who knows.
Eagerly awaiting bechmarks and stress testing on i5 8600, i5 9600K and i9 9900K.
That's just a detail.
He will either make an excuse for it that doesn't make sense or say that he feels insulted
You're just insulting yourself by not seeing that the iMac Pro chassis isn't the same, the CPUs are a larger package that disappate heat differently, have a larger cooling system and is more expensive. If you want all that then upgrade.
EVERY few years when a new consumer level computer comes out this same argument happens it always comes from some internet master wannabe who has nothing but benchmarks and his own hot air to release online. It never comes from an actual pro who would use pro equipment, render boxes or render farms. Kinda boring. Like a joke that keeps getting repeated for attention.
I see research isn't your strong suit. You are embarrassing yourself....
Imac Pro
Size and Weight
25.6 inches
(65.0 cm)20.3 inches
(51.6 cm)
- Height: 20.3 inches (51.6 cm)
- Width: 25.6 inches (65.0 cm)
- Stand depth: 8 inches (20.3 cm)
- Weight: 21.5 pounds (9.7 kg)2
Size and Weight
25.6 inches
(65.0 cm)20.3 inches
(51.6 cm)
Height: 20.3 inches (51.6 cm)
Width: 25.6 inches (65.0 cm)
Stand depth: 8 inches (20.3 cm)
Weight: 20.8 pounds (9.42 kg)2
See, it isn't that hard......
iMac is the best AIO out of any company. Caveat Apple doesn't have a proper standalone desktop so iMac has to serve that market as well which is where PC really pulls away(assuming you dont need MacOS)