New iMacs With Up to Xeon E3 Processors, 64GB RAM, AMD Graphics, and Thunderbolt 3 Rumored for Late October

You'd hope after that little sorry conference that they'd not be making the mistakes of the past with any new iMac. They surely have learned the lesson now, if only from the sales figures. The problem is that if the new iMac doesn't arrive until October, they will have lost even more customers than they already have to the PC side. I was close to replacing my late 2009 iMac last year when they increased the price in the UK by £250. That's the kind of 'upgrade' I wasn't looking for. So I decided I wouldn't pay the extra money without also getting something extra for it. And I bet a lot of people thought that. I just hope my old machine can make it until the new one appears – assuming Apple get it right and I actually want it. It really is long overdue that Apple starts treating its Mac customers like valued adult customers and not an extension of the iPhone fanboy brigade.
 
The people on the Intel Xeon CPU hypetrain on this thread is really obnoxious. As others have mentioned, there is zero reason to use a Xeon unless it is in a high core CPU config (E5 or E7), ECC ram, or for extra PCIe lanes. The E3 mentioned in this thread is virtually a higher priced desktop i7. Just because people stick it in "workstation" computers doesn't make them better processors than the standard desktop fare. It is just different and Intel charges up the wazoo for them because they're different. Also ECC ram is another hypetrain that is also not needed. The difference between them for most users is less than 1% failure, but ECC RAM is 2% slower than non-ecc RAM. It's a wash and only makes sense on servers that are running all the time and a RAM replacement is worth the overhead/expense.

For those complaining about CUDA support, what software are you using where the Mac version is actively supporting CUDA? Adobe has been been transitioning to OpenCL and even early version of Metal (https://forums.adobe.com/thread/2205429). Is there other software that utilize CUDA on the Mac? The good news is that once the hump of transitioning to Metal, both Nvidia and AMD support Metal and if Mac software is updated to Metal it will work on both manufacturers and the difference will be purely drivers not proprietary compute APIs.

Regardless, you can still buy a PC at half the price and get better performance. You can even upgrade said PC later for a longer life, which you can't do on an iMac.

If Apple really wanted to be visionary, they'd develop a unified memory computer with 32-128 GB HBM2 memory, a 1080Ti quality GPU, and a 8-16 core CPU. That would be a visionary version of computing that could be a leap ahead of what the Windows world can deliver. I hope they're considering that for the Mac Pro.
 
Last edited:
All of this sounds too good to be true. In case it is, it might just convince me to order 27".
 
M.PaulCezanne said:
Not sure the Xeon is necessary in an iMac.

Rant time... Does Phil Schiller actually work? I feel like his team is totally reactionary instead of visionary.
Click to expand...

I agree. Sounds like they're in catch-up mode all round at the moment, even with the iPhone. if they only just match the PC competition with these new iMacs and a Mac Pro they run the risk of being straight back in catch-up mode when Microsoft and Dell update their stuff.

We really can't just have the same old chassis with a slightly newer processor this time. it just won't cut it.
 
It was rumours like these that first brought me to the page, good to get a break from the I devices.
Imac guys should be happy!
 
hawkeye_a said:
I never understood why anyone would want or prefer an extremely thin desktop. Its not like people carry them around all the time.
Cheers.
Click to expand...

Thinner displays look much better. I wish Apple would just re-release a iMac G4-like set up with the guts on the base and a flexible display.
 
Why Xeon in an iMac? Why ECC RAM? I think these should be part of what differentiates a MacPro.

MacPro = Much better replaceable graphics options
+ dual processor options up to 2x24-core (96-threads in total)
+ 8K support
+ massive RAM potential (1-2 TB for those that really need it for computational work).

iMac (and HOPEFULLY Mac Mini) > they should stick with multicore i7s.
There are loads of i7 variants to choose from ranging from 4-core right up to 10 core (20 thread!).
http://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/products/processors/core/i7-processor-extreme-edition.html
RAM limit of 64 GB seems reasonable for iMacs and MacMinis.
 
Last edited:
fluckiger said:
View attachment 695151 How cool would it be for Apple to release the Mac Mini for standalone purchase/use and then create identically-sized modules for CPU upgrade, RAM upgrade, optical drive upgrade? They all just stack on top of one another magnetically, and communicate via a metal ring that runs along the top edges of each stackable component? There would be the Mac Mini (base) but add a few stacks on and you've got a full-fledged Mac Pro!
Click to expand...
What an excellent idea, it gets my vote
 
Will ThunderBolt 2 be omitted because of the inclusion of ThunderBolt 3 or will they co-exist?

There is no reason for it to be so as older Macs had both Firewire 400 and Firewire 800 therefore allowing for backward compatibility so the Mac user did not need to invest in adapters.

Will USB 3.0 be omitted because of inclusion of USB-C or will they co-exist?

Once again therein no reason why the two shouldn't. Millions of devices are USB 3.0/USB 2.0

The major concern is the keyboard. Many will not want the TouchBar so lets hope the multi-function key keyboard will be made an option upon purchase.

For the likes of myself there will never be a better time to purchase the older 27" 5k Retina iMac.
 
I honestly thought iMac market has died. All personal computer users pick a laptop (that can double into a desktop with screen and keyboard) or pro users will go for pro computer. Its really hard to find someone who actually have a desktop machine for "personal" use.

Maybe businesses...but those use Windows....
 
4252821 said:
The problem with Nvidia is is that they prefer to support CUDA, while Apple has made it clear they intend to go with openCL and openGL. I say this knowing that Apple's support for OpenGL and OpenCL is a joke. AMD on the other hand has thrown their support behind these frameworks.
Click to expand...
No, Apple has pointed out, that Metal is the way. OpenGL wii go to legacy state sooner or later. Same will happen to OpenCL 1.2.

At the moment Metal is not ready yet. It'll take a lot of time to mature. It's a huge transition. One reason we haven't seen a lot of other innovations on macOS side.
 
MacBH928 said:
I honestly thought iMac market has died. All personal computer users pick a laptop (that can double into a desktop with screen and keyboard) or pro users will go for pro computer. Its really hard to find someone who actually have a desktop machine for "personal" use.

Maybe businesses...but those use Windows....
Click to expand...
I work in a creative studio that use iMacs exclusively and most of us have iMacs at home. So i beg to differ. I for one am waiting patiently for this next upgrade. As a pro solution is ridiculously overpriced.
 
Ferazel said:
If Apple really wanted to be visionary, they'd develop a unified memory computer with 32-128 GB HBM2 memory, a 1080Ti quality GPU, and a 8-16 core CPU. That would be a visionary version of computing that could be a leap ahead of what the Windows world can deliver. I hope they're considering that for the Mac Pro.
Click to expand...

This! But it wont happen with Intel, unless they'll make a sudden change in their roadmap and company policy.

That is where AMD CPU would work better. Ryzen 7 on iMac Pro would make a stunning Pro workstation:
- 128 GB ECC Ram support
- Bargain 6 - 8 core, 12 - 16 thread CPU

BUT Intel has a huge ace in their sleeve: TB3.
 
Unfortunately, a little too late... I have an Early-2009 Mac Mini (which suffers from choppy HD streaming) and a Mid-2010 iMac. I waited for the beginning of this month (April 2017) for news of a new Mac Mini and as it did not come, I went ahead and bought an Intel NUC with Win 10. It may not have the beautiful OS X inside, but I got a system with no bottlenecks (horrible, just horrible how Apple still uses HDDs as default), a 24" Dell display and a 100-dollar keyboard with less money than what a mid-range Mac Mini (or the 2014 model, STILL!!!) would cost. Comparing the performance, I only slightly miss the OS X aesthetics and ease of use, but nothing else really.

My Mid-2010 iMac (to which I've installed an SSD) will keep me satisfied for another 1-3 years but I'll also probably replace it with an Intel NUC. Knowing Apple's politics concerning desktops, continuing with a Mac, I'd end up paying 2-3x as much for the same performance and get a system with either older parts than PC rivals or a system with a bottleneck (even if Apple decides to come back from the stone age and offer an SSD drive as default). Don't get me wrong, I'm a big fan of OS X's, but, in 2017, PCs have come a long way and Mac isn't necessarily the best choice if you want a computer with good stability and zero overheating or component compatibility issues (which is why I originally bought an iMac).
 
Zarniwoop said:
No, there's going to be Metal v1.3. It should do all the same tricks as Vulkan does. Lets see, just few months to wait.
Click to expand...
both.jpg
 
Spectrum said:
Why Xeon in an iMac? Why ECC RAM? I think these should be part of what differentiates a MacPro.
Click to expand...
Because a decent number of Pro users probably want ECC RAM (whose sole purpose is to have fewer hidden errors when writing/reading) without having to nearly double the total purchase cost (Mac Pro is more expensive, then you need an expensive display on top of that).

A E3-1275v5 has the same cost as an i7-6700K, and is only slightly slower.

Standard Wintel gaming boxes can be fitted with an E3 and ECC memory while barely increasing the price. And thats a refit that can often make them a better Pro machine than a... Mac Pro.
 
Last edited:
These Xeon E3s can use the same socket as the Kabby Lake i7s.

It is entirely possible that Apple plans on selling both i7 and Xeon configurations, without or with ECC RAM on the same machine. Xeon/ECC may just be offered on a single configuration or solely be a BTO option.
[doublepost=1491568876][/doublepost]
Exhale said:
A E3-1275v5 has the same cost as an i7-6700K, and is only slightly slower.
Click to expand...
It also has a lower TDP 73W vs 91W which should be a slightly quieter and cooler machine as well.

I would prefer an AMD Ryzen 7 based machine, but at least this is something.

I do worry about a machine being released in October using chips widely available in January though...Apple can do better than that...
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Back
Top