Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Considering you do not know what I intend to run as a workload... Primarily I'm considering PixInsight usage. Just check out https://pixinsight.com/sysreq/ on the "recommended" requirements.

Very cool. I wasn't aware of pixinsight before reading your link. I tend to take "recommended" configurations with a grain of salt. It may be that pixinsight runs better with a Xeon, but I would definitely check out their forums and benchmarks on their site to see if you really need it.

Xeons can have a LOT more than 4 cores. They can also address more ram.

Yes, but so can consumer chips. there are 6/8/10 core i7s. Unless you're scaling beyond that it doesn't matter, especially since if I had to guess, this proposed Xeon iMac wouldn't venture into the higher core counts because of limitations already discussed here.

As for RAM, yes, the Xeons take much more RAM but that really doesn't translate well to desktops. Sure, the memory capacity of E5 v4 Xeons is 1.54 TB, but you're really only looking into these higher memory thresholds building servers or other big power hungry machines. Current consumer chips max out at 128 (at least according to intel documentation).

The Xeon has three or four advantages over a comparable i7.

Trusted Execution
ECC RAM
SMP.

Pro Graphics (which are pretty much a windows driver thing)

Since this is a rumors site, I feel it's only fair that I speculate that there will be two CPUs in the new iMac.

I'm aware of the benefits that come with Xeon, but in my experience, a lot of the time the proposed benefits are inconsequential to the needs of the user.

As for your dual chip iMac configuration, I highly doubt that will come to fruition.
 
Can you imagine 5k iMacs being rack mounted horizontally... sorry I just thought that would be funny... carry on with the conversation... I am making popcorn.
 
Very cool. I wasn't aware of pixinsight before reading your link. I tend to take "recommended" configurations with a grain of salt. It may be that pixinsight runs better with a Xeon, but I would definitely check out their forums and benchmarks on their site to see if you really need it.
Oh, believe me. Their recommended is actually conservative. I've been using it since fall. When you're integrating something like 300-400 images (pretty common) on a MBP it will take about 6-8 hours minimum to process and that's not including post-processing. People using 12-24 core machines on cloudynights say it can still take 1-2 hours. And you factor in the need for super fast SSD caching for its internal swap files... These guys, unlike Adobe, actually use all available cores for processing. On the Mac, though, there are some limitations on open file handles that limit some things.
 
Can you imagine 5k iMacs being rack mounted horizontally... sorry I just thought that would be funny... carry on with the conversation... I am making popcorn.

Almost as silly as rack mounting the Mac Pro:

xmacproserver_rackmacpro.jpg

[doublepost=1492539077][/doublepost]
Oh, believe me. Their recommended is actually conservative. I've been using it since fall. When you're integrating something like 300-400 images (pretty common) on a MBP it will take about 6-8 hours minimum to process and that's not including post-processing. People using 12-24 core machines on cloudynights say it can still take 1-2 hours. And you factor in the need for super fast SSD caching for its internal swap files... These guys, unlike Adobe, actually use all available cores for processing. On the Mac, though, there are some limitations on open file handles that limit some things.

Sounds like a pretty cool platform.

I bet what you could really use then is the redesigned Mac Pro whenever that rears its head.
 
  • Like
Reactions: xnu
These iMac's should perform the same as the 2013 mac pro does and the modular mac pro should blow the roof big time when it comes out
 
I still can't see the new iMacs being for "pros" since most professionals want a machine they can upgrade (beyond just more RAM). And we all know that iMacs are one of the least upgradable machines on the market. This will probably be another "prosumer" offering.
Depends on what your needs are. At work I have what was considered a top of the line iMac when I bought it. It lasts for a few years and then I get a new one. It handles Photoshop, Illustrator, InDesign, Lightroom, Coda, CodeKit, Xcode, and my various utilities and office apps just fine. It's even fine for the occasional Premiere video editing session since I mainly work with smaller projects on an occasional basis. So I'm not often having to render a ton of crap in real-time, but I'm multitasking my pants off. I'll often have FireFox, Chrome, Safari and a VirtualBox instance of Windows 10 running IE when testing websites, alongside my design mockups, code editor, chat and email. A high end iMac would be welcome by me!
 
Sounds like a pretty cool platform.

I bet what you could really use then is the redesigned Mac Pro whenever that rears its head.
True but finding the right balance of power and affordability is another matter. :) I've spent a lot on my AP rig but it's only a hobby.
 
I still can't see the new iMacs being for "pros" since most professionals want a machine they can upgrade (beyond just more RAM). And we all know that iMacs are one of the least upgradable machines on the market. This will probably be another "prosumer" offering.

I seriously don't think MOST pros want slots and massive upgrades. Some do but over 50% of people making money using their computers???? Not a chance. Closer to 5%.
 
Meanwhile, the "revolutionary" 2016 MacBook Pro, with all its anaemic glory, hasn't exactly caused a revolution in the industry. Quite the opposite, as Apple used to top this chart since 2010. Cupertino's apologists may be purposefully obtuse, but the market sure isn't.

At this point, I put little trust on anything that comes out of Apple's fabled "pipeline". Hope I'm proven wrong.

View attachment 696614

If you look at that graph, it shows that Microsoft with its Surface-line has the worst design, Microsoft has shown the least amount of innovation and provides the least value.

Do you agree?
 
This.
The iMac is a consumer product and the Mac lineup is a mess.
There are MacBook Pros that are clearly not suitable for most professionals. Now they want to turn the non-Pro iMac into a product for professionals?
There is no logic behind anything Apple did to the Mac over the last few years.

I don't think you have a clue what "professional" means. Not even close.
 
They could make 8K 32" imac with desktop class components. 8 Core AMD Ryzen top model and AMD (or preferable Nvidia GTX 1080 Ti) GPU. The the extra room of a 32" it should be enough to make it all stay nice and cool. thats the kind of machine I always wanted from apple. Though, now I switched to PC but I still hope to see it :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: xnu
I seriously don't think MOST pros want slots and massive upgrades. Some do but over 50% of people making money using their computers???? Not a chance. Closer to 5%.

I think what most pros want are options. they might not necessarily upgrade their machine during its lifespan, but having more options available to them when purchasing is highly desirable. That was probably the biggest fault with the 2013 Mac Pro design, which ultimately led to its demise.


True but finding the right balance of power and affordability is another matter. :) I've spent a lot on my AP rig but it's only a hobby.

I hear you as I've spent on computing needs for both professional and hobby use.

I only mentioned the mac pro since from your last comment alone it seems that software benefits more from more cpu cores.

Granted, this is all speculation, but I imagine if Apple releases a Xeon equipped iMac it's going to use one of the lower core count flavors, seemingly negating the point. Unless of course that software really benefits from ECC.
 
Almost as silly as rack mounting the Mac Pro:

xmacproserver_rackmacpro.jpg

[doublepost=1492539077][/doublepost]

Sounds like a pretty cool platform.

I bet what you could really use then is the redesigned Mac Pro whenever that rears its head.
I can't say that I'm surprised that it exists, but my God is it hilarious to see a rack mounted Mac Pro. :eek::rolleyes:
 
  • Like
Reactions: xnu
Do not want.

I still don't want a thermally crazy, ludicrously thin, suicidal integrated screen and computer as my workstation. Waiting for the "modular" future Mac Pro.
 
  • Like
Reactions: xnu
Then that's what your IT guy is for. But seriously, processors? Not worth the hassle. But RAM? I've never known a studio/facility that hasn't upgraded their RAM over time (along with other easily serviceable parts like GPUs)

Ah, fair enough. We're a small business, so don't have an 'IT guy'.
 
Unfortunately, the CPU described in the article is an Intel Xeon E3v6-series CPU and it does not support dual CPU configurations, not to mention that trying to dissipate at least 144 watts of CPU and at least ~100-125 watts of GPU is not possible in the existing iMac chassis, or maybe it is, but it's not a real good idea.

Oh well.

Judging by Intel's crazy naming scheme, it's probably just a E3-1280v6 with a graphics chipset-- possibly Intel HD Graphics P630 (or P680) . The first number is the number of SMP sockets, so...

4 cores, 3.9 GHz, 8 MB cache.

https://ark.intel.com/products/family/97141/Intel-Xeon-Processor-E3-v6-Family#@Server

Not terribly thrilling. All the interesting Xeon-ish stuff comes with the E5 and E7 lineups.

https://ark.intel.com/products/93790/Intel-Xeon-Processor-E7-8890-v4-60M-Cache-2_20-GHz
 
A 'server-grade' dekstop.
So...a workstation? Workstation is the word you're looking for.
[doublepost=1492544031][/doublepost]
I wonder about the heat dissipation with xeon processors.
The whole point of Xeons is to be as efficient as possible, whereas consumer varieties are aimed at high performance while sacrificing a little efficiency, so I doubt there will be any issues cooling a Xeon.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jerwin
I can't say that I'm surprised that it exists, but my God is it hilarious to see a rack mounted Mac Pro. :eek::rolleyes:

Yeah, I spent a good amount of time in the Mac Pro forum back during the release and that wasn't even the worst rackmounting solution. This one's only a mockup, but you only need a quick glance to see how wrong it is:

PN0wMTp.png


Not to mention the I/O headaches involved with any rack solution.
 
  • Like
Reactions: xnu
It's an odd direction for the iMac, I'll admit. Stuffing a Xeon processor, compared to a higher-end i7, and ECC RAM into an iMac seems like an attempt to make the iMac a viable option for more intensive users (workstations, etc.). But those are the same people who would likely go for a revised Mac Pro (or even a Hackintosh if they so desired) with fewer tradeoffs because of their needs. I suppose the 5k display makes it somewhat appealing for certain types of creative professionals, but there *are* a handful of 5k displays available on the market, making limiting yourself to the iMac form-factor less appealing.



A modular system like the Mac Pro really shouldn't command a price premium for the sake of being modular alone, rather than its upgraded internals. Modularity implies the use of standards-compliant parts designs and interfaces. The new, new Mac Pro will likely be more expensive than most iMac options, but modularity shouldn't increase the price further. Especially compared to the trash can, which used proprietary parts and custom designs all over the place. Not that I expect the next Mac Pro to be a straight ATX design.

Problem is, people who really need it cannot go for hackintosh, as if it's a production system, you need it to be reliable. That's why it's never really gone beyond hobbyists (and probably why Apple never really cared about it).

My 2011 iMac is dying, and I'm in the high performance requirement bracket now. My i7 (old one, granted), iMac with 32GB of RAM just about cuts it for me - CPU seems to be the bottleneck now. 4 cores, for me anyway, is not enough.

Right now I'm juggling whether to risk a hackintosh (unlikely), buy a small server and offload my VMs onto that to free up my local machine (not ideal, as esxi takes an age to boot, and I don't want to leave another server running 24/7), or wait for the new iMacs/Mac Pros and hope my iMac lasts until then.

Heat is the biggest issue with the Xeons. I would happily buy an iMac with 2 12 core Xeons and 64/128GB of RAM. Heck, even 8 cores would be nice. But, that sort of performance in a sealed metal box doesn't really work well heat-wise.

Bit of a shame really - I could happily use Linux for 95% of what I do, but I rely on Photoshop, and I need a unix-based OS, which leaves me pretty much stuck in the OS X camp.
 
Now I'm eagerly anticipating an iMac w/ rackmount ears. Or maybe they mean something different... are they bringing back Mac OS X Server? I'd prefer a "Server Grade" Mac Mini or Mac Semi-Pro. I still REALLY want an iMac minus the display with performance that slots in between the Mac Mini and Pro.
 
  • Like
Reactions: xnu
I remember the server grade hard drives they put into the Time Capsules………...
 
The current base Retina 5K iMac uses a Core i5-6600 CPU and can be upgraded to a Core i7-6700K via BTO. If you were to buy the boxed version online. The Core i5-6600 is $219.99, with the Core i7-6700K going for $339.99, a difference of only $120.00, yet Apple charges more than twice that amount to upgrade the CPU ($250.00).
Do you run a business? What should Apple charge? Cost? In the grand scheme of things, $120 is not that much difference over the 5+ years you'll own the machine. I do agree that Apple is super greedy when it comes to things like RAM though. To max out a Mac Pro's RAM in years past, you'd save thousands just by going to someone else. On the other end of the spectrum, some end users simply don't care though. When an agency bills out at $200+/hour or whatever, sourcing the least expensive hardware piece-by-piece is the least of your concern.
 
If I pay $4000 for a "Mac/PC" I want to be able to upgrade it. So even if the new iMac is coming out, I'll have to wait to the new MacPro to compare.
 
  • Like
Reactions: xnu
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.