CPU is only one component. And "recommended customer price" doesn't mean anything, it's all about what Apple can negotiate. I remember when Apple used to supply top-of-the-line Mac Pros at competitive pricing (meaning the pricing weren't that far off from a similar spec'd PC). Here's hoping they can return to that.
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
Unfortunately, none of the currently shipping Intel Xeons with six plus cores (Xeon E5v4-series) dissipates anything less than 140 watts (TDP) and that will wreak havoc on the current iMac's chassis and components. Besides, I think Apple just drew a line in the sand between Pro and Pro(sumer) when they updated the base configuration for the Mac Pro (late 2013) to six cores and got rid of the four core Xeon E3.
The iMac Pro is designed to satisfy those Pros who might not want to wait for the new Mac Pro, whose workflow allows for distributed rendering, compiling, et al. or who have employees for whom an all-in-one with a DCI-P3 display and 4 cores is sufficient, but the lack of ECC DRAM and a Xeon CPU makes the boss nervous to purchase.
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.
Last edited:
The Xeon v6 draws 72 watts. I think the 4.0GHz i7 in the current iMac draws 95 watts.
Making the iMac more easily accessible would compete with the Mac Pro and could lose potential Mac Pro customers. There's no doubt that the RAM will be, and the hard drive and CPU have always been if you want to take it apart in the future.
Since Apple has seen a lot of professionals move to the iMac, I think that proves some don't mind the lack of easy upgradeability. This is for them.
The Xeon v6 draws 72 watts. I think the 4.0GHz i7 in the current iMac draws 95 watts.
My first thought as well, they will have to find a way to ditch the mobile internals but also not fall into the MP trap of a design that can't evolve.
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). The delta between the Core i7-7700K and the E3-1280v6 is roughly anywhere from $280.00 to $450.00 based on a quick search on Google. I don't see a boxed version of the Xeon, but it's obvious vendors are marking up the cost for a reasonable profit. I can definitely see Apple charging $250-$300 on top of the cost of the Core i7 upgrade when this iMac is released. So, basically, $600 over the Core i5 base model. I can see the upgrade to ECC DRAM having a possible premium, but I wouldn't bet on it. Apple doesn't charge a premium for upgrading the Mac Pro memory versus what they charge for iMac memory upgrades.
Sure, I do the same thing with Windows but I don't post on those forums how I switched 10 years ago blah blah blah...
The Intel E3v6 draws 72 watts, which I mentioned earlier in my post...however, there are no Xeon E3v6 CPUs with 6-cores, which is what I was describing in the sentence you quoted.
Oh no, not Xeon processors... 
Provide almost no value unless you can use tons of CPU cores and adds thousands to the price tag.
Apple, can you please just make a computer with a maxed out desktop Core i7 like the iMac has but with a high-end desktop GPU and no built-in monitor? PLEASE?
Provide almost no value unless you can use tons of CPU cores and adds thousands to the price tag.
Apple, can you please just make a computer with a maxed out desktop Core i7 like the iMac has but with a high-end desktop GPU and no built-in monitor? PLEASE?
Apple continues the myth that you need XEON to be a high-end professional workstation, and this is simply not the case. The reality is that most benchmarks between XEON and i7 are neck-and-neck, not more then a few % +/- in numbers, and in some cases, the i7 actually does better in situations that consumers actual will do more often. Lets put it this way, NO XEON delivers the same percentage of improved performance as the percentage of increased price, period.
This is an attempt to trump up the profit margin on an aging product line by introducing supposedly more premium components, adding a significant Apple Tax on top of that, and then using vapid marketing claims to dupe consumers into believing they need this if they think they are professionals. Nobody needs a $3000+ iMac, period.
Also the reality of claiming "server grade" in a workstation is false. Most server CPUs today value power efficiency vs performance, opting for slower operational performance to reduce power usage. This is because servers are always on and chugging away at a little bits of data constantly. They do not deliver burst of maximum performance like what would be demanded on a workstation when you hit the compile, render or analyse buttons in your code, graphics or engineering application. Individually most server CPU's are not optimized for the kinds of operations that professionals demand from their desktops, so you are paying a premium price on something that will not translate to real world improvement of your day-to-day activities vs a much cheaper consumer level CPU.
Also the claims of improved reliability and longevity of using enterprise server grade components are dubious at best. When was the last time your RAM or CPU burned out prematurely? How often does your RAM generate an error that would ruin your entire day? The idea that you need enterprise features like ECC RAM and always-on server grade CPU for a workstation is pure ********.
This is another way that Apple misses the mark at understanding what professionals need and demand from their products, increased price and more ******** is usually never the key specifications that professionals demand of their next workstation purchase.
This is an attempt to trump up the profit margin on an aging product line by introducing supposedly more premium components, adding a significant Apple Tax on top of that, and then using vapid marketing claims to dupe consumers into believing they need this if they think they are professionals. Nobody needs a $3000+ iMac, period.
Also the reality of claiming "server grade" in a workstation is false. Most server CPUs today value power efficiency vs performance, opting for slower operational performance to reduce power usage. This is because servers are always on and chugging away at a little bits of data constantly. They do not deliver burst of maximum performance like what would be demanded on a workstation when you hit the compile, render or analyse buttons in your code, graphics or engineering application. Individually most server CPU's are not optimized for the kinds of operations that professionals demand from their desktops, so you are paying a premium price on something that will not translate to real world improvement of your day-to-day activities vs a much cheaper consumer level CPU.
Also the claims of improved reliability and longevity of using enterprise server grade components are dubious at best. When was the last time your RAM or CPU burned out prematurely? How often does your RAM generate an error that would ruin your entire day? The idea that you need enterprise features like ECC RAM and always-on server grade CPU for a workstation is pure ********.
This is another way that Apple misses the mark at understanding what professionals need and demand from their products, increased price and more ******** is usually never the key specifications that professionals demand of their next workstation purchase.
they go to imac because the imac was upgraded year by year...the mac pro is standing still since 2013
The iMac started as nothing but a consumer machine, but 20 years later, Apple now finds it in the hands of many professionals. In fact, the iMac hasn't been more pro than it is today. By this logic and your logic, Apple made the best gear and still does because they've evolved the product beyond it's original conceptual design.
But people will complain endlessly just because.
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.
My guess is Apple is panicking, "we are making them, they are comming in a far far future!". They thought desktops/laptops was dead and iPad's would take over. Who uses a touch screen desktop, right? Gimmick bars for everyone! Then Microsoft release the Microsoft Surface Studio and they look like yesterdays company. I still get the chills when they put the wheel on the screen.
Yes, I am sure if there was a new Mac Pro at the time or the current one was upgradeable then they would have chosen that. But aside from that, the iMac has been becoming more capable, but more impactful was probably the 5K display that attracted a range of professional users.
Well, usually they are clocked a bit lower than their consumer-class equivalents. Not so sure about the "latest discrete graphics card" though, regarding heat.
Reasonable performance increases overall, over the top end current imac.
Slicker designed screen with less bezel and chin area a big plus.
Sold.
(don't really care about the Xeon or ECC unless they noticeably zoom past the regular version new imac in performance)
(without a design change, it will have to be a pretty noticeable spec bump to keep me on board)
Slicker designed screen with less bezel and chin area a big plus.
Sold.
(don't really care about the Xeon or ECC unless they noticeably zoom past the regular version new imac in performance)
(without a design change, it will have to be a pretty noticeable spec bump to keep me on board)
You do realize that Apple will send you a prepaid shipping label to return any of their products for disassembly and safe disposal right?
People act like having user serviceable parts is more green, but what you do do with that drive you replaced from your Dell server? Most people drop it in their waste bin.
I'll bet that more user replaceable parts end up in land fills and polluting the environment than do Apple products despite their glue and solder.
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.
While that may be true, the same can't be said about the GPU, which when it fails, is essentially the same as the screen failing.
I built a completely separate game machine because I was afraid that running the GPU at full throttle would significantly shorten it's life.
Wow a 4 processor iMac.....
The 2010 iMac had 4 processors, upgradable memory and disk storage, and a CD/ROM drive.
So basically the same thing as 2010 with newer parts and no upgradability, ....... Dumb.
When will the PRO version be available with 8 to 12 cpu's and upgradable parts? I'm waiting for that one.
The 2010 iMac had 4 processors, upgradable memory and disk storage, and a CD/ROM drive.
So basically the same thing as 2010 with newer parts and no upgradability, ....... Dumb.
When will the PRO version be available with 8 to 12 cpu's and upgradable parts? I'm waiting for that one.