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.
New iMacs With Up to Xeon E3 Processors, 64GB RAM, AMD Graphics, and Thunderbolt 3 Rumored for Late October
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
They give users workstation features like ECC memory. That's very important for the pro-market Apple is aiming for. And there are a lot of software vendors in the professional market that only verifies and support their software on systems that features Intel Xeon and ECC.
Server-grade hardware on a model where they've always put laptop components? I can't see why.
About AMD graphics... Apple will NEVER put a top level graphics card on iMacs. If they chose nvidia, they'd take mid-range nvidia cards. Apple's hardware choice is always pretty balanced (when they upgrade stuff *cough*) and most pro users cathegories don't need a GTX 1080ti. Deal with it.
About AMD graphics... Apple will NEVER put a top level graphics card on iMacs. If they chose nvidia, they'd take mid-range nvidia cards. Apple's hardware choice is always pretty balanced (when they upgrade stuff *cough*) and most pro users cathegories don't need a GTX 1080ti. Deal with it.
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.
AMD is actually better. Way more compute resources for the same chip/price/tdp.
Its just people bitching about CUDA support when developers optimizing only for CUDA support is piss-poor development.
These are the same people who bitch and moan about proprietary aspects of Apple yet they advocate for a closed standard from a single manufacturer.
Lets see how hard Apple pushes Metal on the desktop.
Hopefully they also introduce new mid-range iMacs with kaby lake i5s or i7s and perhaps mid range graphics card like a RX 470 or 480 at a low price point (and by low, I mean between $1500 up to $2000 max). The 27in 5k iMac is already hideously expensive and I can't imagine what adding a Xeon processor, a top of the line Vega GPU and ECC ram will do to the price. I mean I'm all for pro specs like this article seems to indicate for pro users who need this level of hardware, but hopefully they don't forget regular users in the process.
That's your perception, when it comes to mobile AMD is really good. An iMac can only handle a mobile chip so you're not going to get a titan in that thing.
That's when I was hoping for an upgrade but I hope that Xeon comes in a six core configuration. I'm pretty sure there is supposed to be a six-core i7 suitable for the iMac coming out in late 2018 or something.
As for 8K displays: HOLY CRAP. Figure that thing would need to be 32-36" to make it worth the resolution increase, as our eyes can't resolve much more than 5K sitting at a normal desktop viewing distance. Can't remember what the math comes out to. I'd be really hesitant to buy a first-gen 8K capable Mac. I have the first-gen MBP Retina and it has some lag issues after a while when switching spaces and such. I've read that the first-gen 5K iMacs also do this. Probably best to wait a generation on any resolution increases, especially since the price usually comes back down.
The config I want would be a 5K iMac with around 6 tflops of GPU performance, 512GB SSD (maybe 1TB if it comes down in price then), 32GB of RAM, and target display mode for $2999. Then maybe have a Xeon six-core upgrade package for like $300 or so. I just wonder if the new chips will be energy efficient enough for the iMac enclosure.
As for 8K displays: HOLY CRAP. Figure that thing would need to be 32-36" to make it worth the resolution increase, as our eyes can't resolve much more than 5K sitting at a normal desktop viewing distance. Can't remember what the math comes out to. I'd be really hesitant to buy a first-gen 8K capable Mac. I have the first-gen MBP Retina and it has some lag issues after a while when switching spaces and such. I've read that the first-gen 5K iMacs also do this. Probably best to wait a generation on any resolution increases, especially since the price usually comes back down.
The config I want would be a 5K iMac with around 6 tflops of GPU performance, 512GB SSD (maybe 1TB if it comes down in price then), 32GB of RAM, and target display mode for $2999. Then maybe have a Xeon six-core upgrade package for like $300 or so. I just wonder if the new chips will be energy efficient enough for the iMac enclosure.
I don't get this either. AMD makes great mid-tier cards, but they do tend to run hot. Given the limitations of the iMac design, I feel like NVIDEA would be able to offer a better solution. They would have to replace their freesync solution, but given their volume and recognition it would be good for NVIDEA to negotiate. Maybe they think they don't need to.
That wont happen anytime soon. Especially not for a Pro-market. There is next to no professional software vendor that feature AMD CPU's on their QVL-lists. It would be beyond stupid for Apple to use hardware that will give users no end support from the majority of the relevant software vendors in the Pro-market.
Last, the report said the next high-end Mac mini "won't be so mini anymore," suggesting that the most expensive model might have a larger or taller design. Apple recently said the Mac mini is "important" within its product lineup, but it remained tight-lipped about the prospects of future updates.
Article Link: New iMacs With Up to Xeon E3 Processors, 64GB RAM, AMD Graphics, and Thunderbolt 3 Rumored for Late October
Mac Mini: YAY! A potential Maxi Mini, yes, please.
iMac: they would have reconfigure internals for cooling if those specs are right, no?
8k displays: my exposure to the iMac 5k is very limited and I do not understand the resolution differences btw 4k, 5k and 8k. Does that mean the images will be even smaller on an 8k than 5k? $$$ for sure.
If Apple unveils a higher specc'd Mac Mini with more horsepower inside (including quad core chip and good GPU), that will be my next Mac. I've been flirting with Minis since 2010 and would love to finally own one (hopefully I could still use this 2013 27" iMac as a display in target mode until ready for something else.)
Hell, any Mini with the graphics to do 4K would be good enough for me -- and I suspect a lot of people.
AMD GPU does not require rewriting the driver with every single system update or security update.
They don't run hot though. They only run hot on reference cards which are clocked high but have small heatsinks. AMD packs way more compute resources like FP64 etc.. and tflop/watt is vastly in AMD's favor.
Also AMD has OpenCL support while Nvidia pushes their proprietary CUDA. AMD is a way better choice on GPU. Also Vega will set a new benchmark, only a few months out.
A lot of people blindly prefer Nvidia without really knowing what all goes into deciding which GPU to use.
FINALLY FINALLY FINALLY
It only took some years of incessant whining and complaining, but they had to listen
God damn, Xeon processors and ECC Memory in an iMac. It's finally a true pro machine.
Who does not want less crashes because of memory corruption?
HOPEFULLY the ECC memory is not some nonstandard shenanigan once again. And they should make the NVMe standard, and easily replaceable through some latch on the back of the machine.
Then the iMac would be perfect.
[doublepost=1491501410][/doublepost]Is this an era of the Renaissance of Apple?
It only took some years of incessant whining and complaining, but they had to listen
God damn, Xeon processors and ECC Memory in an iMac. It's finally a true pro machine.
Who does not want less crashes because of memory corruption?
HOPEFULLY the ECC memory is not some nonstandard shenanigan once again. And they should make the NVMe standard, and easily replaceable through some latch on the back of the machine.
Then the iMac would be perfect.
[doublepost=1491501410][/doublepost]Is this an era of the Renaissance of Apple?
