Totally agree, but some people might still want the capacity of spinning disks. I'm not one of them, but I know they exist.
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 'Server-Grade' iMac With Next-Gen Xeon Processor Coming End of 2017
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Totally agree, but some people might still want the capacity of spinning disks. I'm not one of them, but I know they exist.
But... the topic is specifically hardware for professional use - precisely the arena where capabilities and function should outweigh form. I'd vote for Nvidia GPUs before I'd vote for a prettier casing.
Sorry, but this chart is clearly bogus. HP? Come on.
I'm not saying Apple is the best no matter what, it probably isn't. Dell and Lenovo have become really good lately. But some of those that supposedly rank higher than Apple are BS.
Ever try doing a warranty repair on an HP, ASUS, or Acer? It's a nightmare. Even if their laptops weren't plastic and low-quality fit and finish, I would avoid those companies for that warranty reason alone.
Also wth is "innovation" in a ranking and why does having it make a company better? Nokia was very innovative, it didn't necessarily work out well for their business though. It's all about balance. Companies need to be innovative in some ways, and plain vanilla in others. When it comes to a work laptop, I'll take plain vanilla.
Whatever you're smoking, I want some, because it said "Up to 128GB," not "Standard 128gb of ram"
How does that fix things?
I like the idea of a HD515 paired with a 8K display.
And the option to solder in 128 GB of RAM will make Apple Shareholders swoon with delight.
Like everything else Apple makes, it's meant to be disposable.
Not very 'green' now, is it. At some point the 'green-washing' of the manufacturer is overwhelmed by the lack of any 'greenness' in their products and packaging.
why do you think this?
imo, it's the pro or most certainly the 'creative pros' who apple generally targets that are very likely to be concerned with aesthetics.. i mean, their jobs likely have design and aesthetics as a major concern. so they're just as likely to prefer their tools/purchases to have these elements as well.
we want function AND form. not either-or.. functional with lack of form is a fail. pure form with lack of function is a fail(re: topic of tools)... it's the seamless marriage of both that creatives are after.
But it is abandonment. With chains. It's still a closed box, with a glued on monitor. Not much of a 'step forward'. More like a step sideways.
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)
Not really. Xeon pricing is pretty much the same with their desktop counterparts. You'd probably see a price difference in RAM though. But I agree with you that I'd rather have better graphics options than CPU.
Pretty much, but it does depend on what field you're in. There are those that absolutely need the ECC, but they're in the minority. That's why you see vendors like Boxx (who still offer Xeon options) offering overclocked i7s in a lot of their options.
But more cores isn't exclusive to Xeon. you can get 6/8/10 core i7s.
Do you honestly need a Xeon CPU? You certainly may, but I think the general assumption is that it's just better than the desktop CPUs, when that's really not the case.
LOL, a Xeon based iMac that you can't upgrade? This will definitely cost even more than the current Macs.
I feel so sorry for anyone that's going waste so much money on a computer with such TERRIBLE value for the money.
I feel so sorry for anyone that's going waste so much money on a computer with such TERRIBLE value for the money.
The E3-1285-v6 at around 73W, is an improvement on the 88W i7 4790k I ordered with my 2014 iMac. No idea what DDR4 2400 ram does to that advantage.
Maybe they will trial eGPU with an eye towards the modular MP, shoring up sales of the new monitor, keeping film/science happy and resurrecting mac gaming. Wait...forgot its Apple.
I don't know why, but I just thought of the old Apple Applevision 14 monitors from the mid-90's. Except for the huge bezels and being a CRT screen, I kinda liked the style. Kinda funny, too, that it used the HDI-45 connector, which carried audio, video & ADB signal. All before HDMI & DisplayPort. Also like the style of the Twentieth Anniversary Mac. If you're gonna have a chin, might as well make it somewhat functional!
I never liked the iMac. If it was just for my parents, sure. Personally, I hate having that small/glossy screen getting in my way, I am fully capable and willing to provide my preferred display(s) for my workstation, also replace or upgrade them if I have to. It would be better if Apple just kept the current Mac Pro, make/price it cheaper, then place it between the current iMac and the next modular Mac Pro.
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.
Forgive me if I am being redundant, but the currently shipping Intel Xeon E3-1280v6 has a 72 watt TDP, which will work fine in the iMac's slim chassis. The E3-1280v6 is based on Kaby Lake and uses an LGA 1151 socket, the same socket used by existing Skylake and Kaby Lake desktop CPUs.
Comparing shipping Kaby Lake CPUs, the E3-1280v6 (3.6GHz) looks like it's a slightly higher clocked version of the Core i7-7700 (3.9GHz), which accounts for the difference in the TDP (72w vs 65w). The Xeon omits an iGPU (HD Graphics 630) but adds ECC DRAM support. The recommended customer price for the Xeon is $612.00 USD, which is roughly double the cost of the Core i7-7700. Double the cost seems like an awfully high premium for a CPU that offers the same core count (4c/8t) and I expect to see that difference reflected in Apple's BTO options for this iMac.
The caveat in all this is that the CPU that Apple is rumored to be using (E3-1285v6) is technically unreleased and none of us know it's exact specifications. However, if I look at Intel's ARK, I can't see Intel doing much more than clocking the existing 1280v6 part a bit higher given that Apple is already using 88w-91w TDP CPUs in the current iMac Retina 5K. All Xeon E3-12xxv6 CPUs are 4c, so don't expect more than 4 cores in a "server-grade" iMac.
Apple will most likely use the existing C236 chipset that was released in Q4 of 2015 for this iMac, simply because it's the really the only option at this point for Apple and it will most likely be what they use in the next Mac Pro (2018?) since it will support both Kaby Lake Desktop (Core i5/i7-7x00) and Kaby Lake Server (Xeon E3-12xxv5/v6) CPUs. In fact, I can see Apple ditching the Z170/Z270 chipsets in the iMac to simplify their lineup as ECC support is an optional feature.
All in all, I think Pro users will be disappointed if Apple ships an iMac "Pro" with a Xeon E3-12xxv6 as most Pro users that would consider the iMac for production will be disappointed that Apple isn't giving them a 6-core or 8-core option, especially considering that Intel sells two 6-core enthusiast CPUs (i7-6800K and i7-6850K) at a lower or similar price point (6800K - $420.00USD, 6850K - $620.00USD). Of course these CPUs have a 140w TDP and use the X99 chipset, which are most likely going to be reserved for the new Mac Pro when it ships...sometime in the future.
Well, at least we should see DDR4 and Optane Memory when the new iMac ships. The other big question, and where Apple will have a chance to redeem themselves will be what GPU they end up using. The AMD Radeon RX580 and RX570 series have officially been launched, so there's a glimmer of hope we'll get at least a 4GB GPU base and a BTO option to 8GB of GDDR5 VRAM.
Hopefully, Apple has a bit more in store for the iMac Pro...time will tell, I guess.
Comparing shipping Kaby Lake CPUs, the E3-1280v6 (3.6GHz) looks like it's a slightly higher clocked version of the Core i7-7700 (3.9GHz), which accounts for the difference in the TDP (72w vs 65w). The Xeon omits an iGPU (HD Graphics 630) but adds ECC DRAM support. The recommended customer price for the Xeon is $612.00 USD, which is roughly double the cost of the Core i7-7700. Double the cost seems like an awfully high premium for a CPU that offers the same core count (4c/8t) and I expect to see that difference reflected in Apple's BTO options for this iMac.
The caveat in all this is that the CPU that Apple is rumored to be using (E3-1285v6) is technically unreleased and none of us know it's exact specifications. However, if I look at Intel's ARK, I can't see Intel doing much more than clocking the existing 1280v6 part a bit higher given that Apple is already using 88w-91w TDP CPUs in the current iMac Retina 5K. All Xeon E3-12xxv6 CPUs are 4c, so don't expect more than 4 cores in a "server-grade" iMac.
Apple will most likely use the existing C236 chipset that was released in Q4 of 2015 for this iMac, simply because it's the really the only option at this point for Apple and it will most likely be what they use in the next Mac Pro (2018?) since it will support both Kaby Lake Desktop (Core i5/i7-7x00) and Kaby Lake Server (Xeon E3-12xxv5/v6) CPUs. In fact, I can see Apple ditching the Z170/Z270 chipsets in the iMac to simplify their lineup as ECC support is an optional feature.
All in all, I think Pro users will be disappointed if Apple ships an iMac "Pro" with a Xeon E3-12xxv6 as most Pro users that would consider the iMac for production will be disappointed that Apple isn't giving them a 6-core or 8-core option, especially considering that Intel sells two 6-core enthusiast CPUs (i7-6800K and i7-6850K) at a lower or similar price point (6800K - $420.00USD, 6850K - $620.00USD). Of course these CPUs have a 140w TDP and use the X99 chipset, which are most likely going to be reserved for the new Mac Pro when it ships...sometime in the future.
Well, at least we should see DDR4 and Optane Memory when the new iMac ships. The other big question, and where Apple will have a chance to redeem themselves will be what GPU they end up using. The AMD Radeon RX580 and RX570 series have officially been launched, so there's a glimmer of hope we'll get at least a 4GB GPU base and a BTO option to 8GB of GDDR5 VRAM.
Hopefully, Apple has a bit more in store for the iMac Pro...time will tell, I guess.
It's not very clear but that post was about Kaby Lake Xeons
An 8K on an iMac? iMacs have a way shorter life than screens. I’m still using a 16-y.o. Cinema Display as a 2nd monitor while my 5,1’s 27” main screen is probably a 2010 build. Meanwhile, one of my two iMacs of more recent vintage is already close to being fit for donating and there’s nothing wrong with its 27” screen.
