Previously Reliable Leaker CoinX Suggests New iMac and Mac Mini Models Are Coming Soon

[Voyageur]

The 2020 iMac Pro is rumored to go to Mini-LED back-lighting on it's 27" 5K display, so while that might not make the 2020 iMac 5K, it will probably follow soon enough.

Yep, understand this. My personal question is that without the main 27" I have been a year and have been using the auxiliary 21.5". Too much to wait, but also to buy a computer for many years with a deliberately outdated display, I/O and others? I don’t feel like it at all.

 

[opeter]

Why? What's wrong with the current iMac? Or do you want change for change's sake?

What needs to change is the price of the Mac mini. Starting at $999 in Canada is not a "budget" computer.

Apple doesn't make budget computers (anymore, if they ever did).

 

[UK-MacAddict]

Ive never had an iMac before would love a 27 inch redesigned imac that comes in space grey has 512SSD as the first option, touchbar keyboard, mouse all in space grey Id buy it on the spot for me that would be enough

1TB SSD should be the standard across all desktops and laptops at this point.
[automerge]1583396102[/automerge]

I think people forget that the iMac is aimed at both casual consumers as well as the more pro users. Apple is unlikely to implement any change that benefits only a small group of users while potentially alienating the rest of their user base.

An XDR display upgrade is more likely to come to the iMac Pro because it would be overkill for the majority of users.

I don’t expect much significant changes to come to the iMac. More likely just a spec upgrade than anything else.

XDR display is a gimmick to allow Apple to charge a ridiculous £4500+ for a monitor. They are just pulling price points out their ass at the moment.

There is nothing special about it. It’s a standard LCD display with a bit of added brightness. I saw one side by side with the iMac retina 5K and there is no difference. The nano coating also makes the whole image fuzzy and really annoying to look at.

There was an article not long ago which says it’s no use to pros as a reference monitor. Apple at the moment are just in a sorry money grabbing state and did not want to price the monitor at around £1000-£1500 WITH the stand.

 

[Voyageur]

It depends on the content you are watching. Look at the HDR media and the difference will be enormous, because the iMac display not able to correctly pull it out.

There is nothing special about it. It’s a standard LCD display with a bit of added brightness. I saw one side by side with the iMac retina 5K and there is no difference. The nano coating also makes the whole image fuzzy and really annoying to look at.

 

[PickUrPoison]

Did you read the article?

It depends on your definition of throttle. Is a CPU rated at 3.2GHz “throttling” if it’s running at 3.4-3.5GHz with all cores fully loaded? Yes? No?

The fact is Intel plays fast and loose with the TDP rating. The 65W i7 in the mini would draw 120W if Apple would let it, and would be able to achieve something like 4.2GHz with all cores at 100% with a sustained load.

The 95W CPUs in the iMac will draw 180W if you let them, and clock well over their rated speed as well. But Apple doesn’t allow that either.

If Apple wanted to design an iMac that could dissipate the heat of a 180W thermal budget for the CPU or 120W for the mini, they could certainly do that. They would have larger heat sinks, larger/louder fans, larger enclosures, higher capacity power supplies, etc.

The system builders amongst us are quite familiar with what is required to overclock CPUs. However, Apple is not interested in running Intel’s CPUs at their highest power-sucking, heat-generating limits.

But that doesn’t mean the machines are “thermal throttling”. It only means that Apple isn’t overclocking them (by much).

 

[nihil0]

It depends on your definition of throttle. Is a CPU rated at 3.2GHz “throttling” if it’s running at 3.4-3.5GHz with all cores fully loaded? Yes? No?

The fact is Intel plays fast and loose with the TDP rating. The 65W i7 in the mini would draw 120W if Apple would let it, and would be able to achieve something like 4.2GHz with all cores at 100% with a sustained load.

The 95W CPUs in the iMac will draw 180W if you let them, and clock well over their rated speed as well. But Apple doesn’t allow that either.

If Apple wanted to design an iMac that could dissipate the heat of a 180W thermal budget for the CPU or 120W for the mini, they could certainly do that. They would have larger heat sinks, larger/louder fans, larger enclosures, higher capacity power supplies, etc.

The system builders amongst us are quite familiar with what is required to overclock CPUs. However, Apple is not interested in running Intel’s CPUs at their highest power-sucking, heat-generating limits.

But that doesn’t mean the machines are “thermal throttling”. It only means that Apple isn’t overclocking them (by much).

Fun fact - I have monitored my i9 CPU using Intel Power Gadget during 15 min RAW export from Lightroom and despite the fact that sometimes the fans running louder (not all the time, just in bumps), the frequency was constantly 4.1-4.2 GHz which is well above 3.6 GHz limit.

 

[Jury]

Absolutely overdue for some design changes from inside and outside for the iMac.

👇🏻 The 2020 iMac with a thinner bezel 👇🏻

 

[Jury]

redesigned imac that comes in space grey has 512SSD as the first option, touchbar keyboard, mouse all in space grey Id buy it on the spot for me that would be enough

Agreed. The new iMac accessory needs to update it with a touch-bar keyboard and Apple is ridiculously slow. Maybe someone should be fired at Apple.

 

[PickUrPoison]

Hmm.

So far:

iMac on a mix of Coffee Lake-S and Coffee Lake Refresh-S
iMac Pro on Skylake-W 2100
Mac mini on Coffee Lake-B (which is like the 45 W Coffee Lake-H, but with 65 W)

Possible updates:

iMac on Comet Lake-S. It would let them go to up to ten cores rather than eight. Plausible, as Comet Lake-S should be shipping soon.
iMac Pro on Cascade Lake-W 3100; basically the little brother of the Mac Pro's 3200. Plausible if they want to ship this in tandem with the regular iMac?
iMac Pro instead on Cooper Lake-W 4100(?). I'm guessing this won't launch until fall, though. So probably not.
Mac mini on Comet Lake-B. So that's not really a thing (yet) — if Intel wants to do these -B variants again at all, they'll probably do so when Comet Lake-H ships. And that's not for another several months. (Likewise, there are no Coffee Lake Refresh-B parts either.)

My guess is the Mac mini part is wrong, simply because Intel doesn't seem to have suitable upgrades.

(Wild card is always AMD.)

The iMac Pro would take the W-2200 series but you’re right it’s much more the little brother of the W-3200 of the Mac Pro, rather than the older brother of the iMac Pro’s current W-2100.

Mac mini would use the 65W Comet Lake S-series. Yeah there was no -B package in ninth gen but I’d like to think that’s because Apple didn’t want to buy any, rather than Intel didn’t want to make any 🙂

There are a ton of 65W S-series, three each of 4/8 and 6/12, as well as an 8/16 and a 10/20. Who knows if this is the final lineup though. For instance the 10/20 is rumored to be 2.5GHz not 2.8GHz but were those the best binnings? Who knows until Intel officially announces.

 

[Jury]

The current iMac design is not bad, but can I expect a thinner bezel? That is all what I need.

Sure, it should be a lot thinner like every other Apple device.

 

[Val-kyrie]

I am selling my mac mini...

IMO there hasn’t been a Mini worth buying since 2012.

If Apple continues to eschew AMD for Intel’s “rebates,” they will have egg all over their face. AMD is on par or crushing Intel in leaked benchmarks and lower in cost.

 

[PickUrPoison]

Sure, it should be a lot thinner like every other Apple device.

Thin, light and smallest possible bezels make sense for a mobile device like iPhone, iPad and Watch.

For iMac? Hmmm. Does it really matter if iMac is thinner than it is now, or the bezel is smaller? How would your life change? It’s 21 lbs., what if Apple can get that to 17? What’s the point, really... it’s sitting on your desk.

I get that people might want something different, design can get stale, but change for the sake of change isn’t something Apple typically engages in. No doubt it will be refreshed at some point, but it’s obvious Apple is in no hurry whatsoever.

 

[Val-kyrie]

The iMac Pro would take the W-2200 series but you’re right it’s much more the little brother of the W-3200 of the Mac Pro, rather than the older brother of the iMac Pro’s current W-2100.

Mac mini would use the 65W Comet Lake S-series. Yeah there was no -B package in ninth gen but I’d like to think that’s because Apple didn’t want to buy any, rather than Intel didn’t want to make any 🙂

There are a ton of 65W S-series, three each of 4/8 and 6/12, as well as an 8/16 and a 10/20. Who knows if this is the final lineup though. For instance the 10/20 is rumored to be 2.5GHz not 2.8GHz but were those the best binnings? Who knows until Intel officially announces.


View attachment 897540

Unfortunately many 10th gen CPUs from Intel are performing worse than even 8th gen CPUs due to the heat they generate which causes them to be throttled after only a few seconds.

For example, Notebookcheck’s review of the XPS 13 9300 states:

The Core i5 consumes around 38-39W running at the maximum 4x 3.3 GHz, but this level can only be maintained for a couple of seconds. The XPS 13 then settles at the 25W limit, which is still enough for 4x 2.5 GHz. This level is maintained for about 10 minutes, before the XPS 13 gets too warm. At this time, we can measure a surface temperature of almost 48 °C at the top of the base unit around the "5" key....

The laptop has to reduce the performance to reduce the temperature. The TDP limit is now 15W, which results in 4x 1.8-1.9 GHz. The processor will try to increase the performance over the course of the test (next 20 minutes), but the TDP is pretty much stable at 15W.

In sum, you can expect consistent performance for Intel CPUs at the frequency for the lowest rated TDP. Not impressive.

[automerge]1583404465[/automerge]

Probably because they solder the storage like a bunch of idiots.

There is absolutely NO REASON to have soldered storage on desktop devices.

Nor is there a reason for soldered storage in laptops. Apple’s soldered storage performs no better than an NVMe drive.

 

[Jury]

Thin, light and smallest possible bezels make sense for a mobile device like iPhone, iPad and Watch.

For iMac? Hmmm. Does it really matter if iMac is thinner than it is now, or the bezel is smaller? How would your life change? It’s 21 lbs., what if Apple can get that to 17? What’s the point, really... it’s sitting on your desk.

I get that people might want something different, design can get stale, but change for the sake of change isn’t something Apple typically engages in. No doubt it will be refreshed at some point, but it’s obvious Apple is in no hurry whatsoever.

That is a pathetic question > Why do you think it is change for the sake of change when the iMac barely change in design for 10 years.

The people are asking for a thinner bezel and that's perfectly fine in a device like the iMac.

 

[Steve121178]

Absolutely overdue for some design changes from inside and outside for the iMac.

👇🏻 The 2020 iMac with a thinner bezel 👇🏻

Still looks old. They should go with no bezel, just a sheet of glass on a stick.

 

[PickUrPoison]

Unfortunately many 10th gen CPUs from Intel are performing worse than even 8th gen CPUs due to the heat they generate which causes them to be throttled after only a few seconds.

Are you talking about 10nm parts? Comet Lake is 14nm+++.

 

[Jury]

Still looks old. They should go with no bezel, just a sheet of glass on a stick.

Disagreed. Most of the people probably like it if it is a smaller footprint and that design seems to reduce the overall size.

 

[PickUrPoison]

That is a pathetic question > Why do you think it is change for the sake of change when the iMac barely change in design for 10 years.

The people are asking for a thinner bezel and that's perfectly fine in a device like the iMac.

What difference will it make? It “looks” better? Big deal. Is it a need, or a want? It’s fine to want something new. People want a lot of things. Some matter, some don’t.

 

[Steve121178]

Disagreed. Most of the people probably like it if it is a smaller footprint and that design seems to reduce the overall size.

This concept at least looks moden:

 

[Jury]

What difference will it make? It “looks” better? Big deal. Is it a need, or a want? It’s fine to want something new. People want a lot of things. Some matter, some don’t.

It's not about big or small deal. That's how technology evolves over time.
[automerge]1583407207[/automerge]

This concept at least looks moden:

It is not much of a difference but the bezel is definitely thinner.

 

[arch1t3cton]

Wish list:

1) i7 - i9 based mac mini with discrete gpu and upgradeable ram

2) Redesigned iMac with thinner bezels and chin, no T2 chip, ssd storage, user upgradeable ram and user installable VESA mount.

Is that too much to ask?? (of course it is...)

 

[PickUrPoison]

It's not about big or small deal. That's how technology evolves over time.

“Big deal” means “so what”.

I get it. You want a thinner iMac. You want a thinner bezel. But what does that have to do with the evolution of technology?

What if a better display—colors, blacks, resolution, whatever spec—needed a bigger bezel in order to manufacture it. Would you rather have a smaller bezel with a lower quality display, or a larger bezel and a higher quality display?

A smaller bezel ≠ better technology. A smaller bezel may look more “modern”, more pleasing to the eye (or not), more exciting to Jony Ive and/or those who appreciate his aesthetic or design language... but is it necessarily better, just because it’s newer, or different?

Car companies change looks every few years. The manufacturer will spend tens or hundreds of millions of dollars bringing that new look to market. Inevitably, some will love the new design, and some will hate it. But you can be sure the customer will pay those costs either way.

 

[shaunp]

The Fusion I would be happy with is all SSD. NVMe paired with a larger SATA. Very high speed for the critical storage (128GB minimum) and cheaper, but still fast, storage for everything else.

All SSD yes, but there's no need to complicate matters with fusion. It's just another thing to go wrong and fusion is only there as a poor man's SSD. I would just have a big NVME SSD and have done with it as there's not much price difference between the two. Given the prices of SSD these days I'd say a 1TB SSD should be the minimum. Apple just need to show some 'courage' and not load the price up on what are commodity items.

 

[jmgregory1]

Absolutely overdue for some design changes from inside and outside for the iMac.

👇🏻 The 2020 iMac with a thinner bezel 👇🏻

I’ll buy that. Maybe make the stand dark gray as an option.

 

[nihil0]

The iMac Pro would take the W-2200 series but you’re right it’s much more the little brother of the W-3200 of the Mac Pro, rather than the older brother of the iMac Pro’s current W-2100.

Mac mini would use the 65W Comet Lake S-series. Yeah there was no -B package in ninth gen but I’d like to think that’s because Apple didn’t want to buy any, rather than Intel didn’t want to make any 🙂

There are a ton of 65W S-series, three each of 4/8 and 6/12, as well as an 8/16 and a 10/20. Who knows if this is the final lineup though. For instance the 10/20 is rumored to be 2.5GHz not 2.8GHz but were those the best binnings? Who knows until Intel officially announces.


View attachment 897540

IF they put 10900K into top iMac config, that means thermal design from iMac Pro and bye-bye user upgradable RAM