Shipping Estimates for 27-Inch iMac Continue to Slip, Now Into September

[EugW]

You make a good point re: mature INtel iMacs vs '1st mover' AS iMac. One is the end and mature. The other is the beginning and immature.

The both have their pros and cons.

I do think the performance of AS is going to surprise many, though...relative to how great the A12z performs for it's target market. If the AS performs as well (relative to...) I'd expect more than '20%'. And I think that's not just down to 'raw' speed (though some of that will be the case...) but efficiencies of the software stack and the modular co-processor SoC approach. ie. It will be less about Geekbench and more about the overall user experience and certain workflows that could be greatly enhanced if the 'preview' of AS is referenced by the iPad and A12z.

But there will be no shame in a 27 inch Intel iMac with 10 cores and a a 5700 XT (even if it is a year old...) and it will run Intel apps decently and Bootcamp (for those that need it.) A new design would sweeten the deal, though. The new AS iMac shining it's bright light will badly age the Intel iMac boat anchored with dated design.

The thing is a lot of people are also too focused upon CPU performance. For example, a friend a mine who does web design for billion dollar multinational companies uses a 2014 iMac, and for his work the performance is more than sufficient. He does want to upgrade, but not because of CPU performance. He just wants a new form factor.

Workflow is very important yes, but I think in the initial few years the Intel Macs will have the workflow advantage in most scenarios, precisely because workflow is often not so much related to RAW speed. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. This will change as time goes on, of course, but 2020 and 2021 are going to be rough from the workflow perspective on a lot of people going with a new Arm Mac. Apple understands this and that's why Apple is probably releasing new Intel Macs shortly.

That probable 10-core iMac is going to sound like a vacuum cleaner though if it retains the same fan system as the current iMacs. In fact, I owned the 2017 iMac Core i7 for about a week, but hated the noise if I did anything CPU intensive, so I returned it for an i5 and am much happier. I saved a few bucks in the process too. I would expect the high end Arm Macs will have better thermals. If not, I will be disappointed.

 

[MiltonThales]

I’m in the same situation right now. My MacBook Pro 2913 died and I’m looking to get an iMac to work from home with the current situation we’re in but nothing is going on. I don’t know what to do and I need a 32gb ram 😩

Think RAM from someone besides Apple. OWC sells 64 GB for iMac 2019 for $289.

You can get a topline 2019 iMac with either i5 or i9 in August (4 to 9) as long as you don’t select either low end graphics or any Fusion drive. Either of those moves out to September 9 to 16. So Apple isn’t building lower end models.

NOPE: That last is so yesterday. Just checked and ALL topline 27” models now quote September 10-16th. I’m guessing production of 2019 models has ended. Building supplies of 2020 iMacs now probably underway. Announcement ? 2 or 3 weeks...

Correction: 2019 iMac 27” i5 or i9, upgrade graphics and SSD still can be ordered for Aug 5th to 11th delivery.

 

[Kjs100]

I owned the 2017 iMac Core i7 for about a week, but hated the noise if I did anything CPU intensive, so I returned it for an i5 and am much happier. I saved a few bucks in the process too. I would expect the high end Arm Macs will have better thermals. If not, I will be disappointed.

What do people think about whether Apple will use active or passive cooling in the ARM iMac's? I've seen people say active and others think passive. I really hate fan noise.

 

[EugW]

What do people think about whether Apple will use active or passive cooling in the ARM iMac's? I've seen people say active and others think passive. I really hate fan noise.

100% it will be active cooling. However, I would expect the chips to be lower power, so that fan systems don't need to work as hard.

 

[Azrael9]

The thing is a lot of people are also too focused upon CPU performance. For example, a friend a mine who does web design for billion dollar multinational companies uses a 2014 iMac, and for his work the performance is more than sufficient. He does want to upgrade, but not because of CPU performance. He just wants a new form factor.

Workflow is very important yes, but I think in the initial few years the Intel Macs will have the workflow advantage in most scenarios, precisely because workflow is often not so much related to RAW speed. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. This will change as time goes on, of course, but 2020 and 2021 are going to be rough from the workflow perspective on a lot of people going with a new Arm Mac. Apple understands this and that's why Apple is probably releasing new Intel Macs shortly.

That probable 10-core iMac is going to sound like a vacuum cleaner though if it retains the same fan system as the current iMacs. In fact, I owned the 2017 iMac Core i7 for about a week, but hated the noise if I did anything CPU intensive, so I returned it for an i5 and am much happier. I saved a few bucks in the process too. I would expect the high end Arm Macs will have better thermals. If not, I will be disappointed.

You make a compelling argument about workflow. And that's what it all comes down to.

True Apples to Apples comparisons will be a 'while' yet. As we're waiting on both Intel and ARM iMac revisions.

As for 10 core. They've got to sort that cooling. Anything less than the iMac Pro's cooling and I'm going to be disappointed.

The internals of iMac are clearing out stripping the capacity to cool them. So I understood why you 'down graded' in that context. Fan noise is irritating. We expect better.

Azrael.

 

[Zdigital2015]

You make a compelling argument about workflow. And that's what it all comes down to.

True Apples to Apples comparisons will be a 'while' yet. As we're waiting on both Intel and ARM iMac revisions.

As for 10 core. They've got to sort that cooling. Anything less than the iMac Pro's cooling and I'm going to be disappointed.

The internals of iMac are clearing out stripping the capacity to cool them. So I understood why you 'down graded' in that context. Fan noise is irritating. We expect better.

Azrael.

Prepare to be disappointed. Almost guaranteed the Core i9-10910 will be the range topper for the 27” model using the exact same single fan cooling solution as the 2019 i9-9900K uses. The TDP will be locked 95w as non-K CPUs are and the rest will be the standard 2012-2019 iMac chassis. Apple has zero incentive to rework the chassis or introduce a new chassis for an old CPU (Intel). It boggles my mind that anyone here thinks that Apple would do more than the bare minimum work to release an Intel iMac spec bump to get us to the AS iMac.

The only wildcards for this update are what GPUs will Apple use given that the 580X and Vega 48 are clearly on the way out. Also DRAM speed, although that’s an incredibly minor point as DDR4-2933 is neglibly faster than DDR4-2666, so why bother.

 

[TwoH]

That's the last thing I would want, my greasy finger prints all over a beautiful Retina screen!!

Well you've had more than enough time to learn to wash your hands properly during the pandemic -- they even went as far to make a tutorial on it!

 

[Azrael9]

Well you've had more than enough time to learn to wash your hands properly during the pandemic -- they even went as far to make a tutorial on it!

Yeah...and use yer A Watch to time your hand washing...

Azrael.
[automerge]1594139453[/automerge]

Prepare to be disappointed. Almost guaranteed the Core i9-10910 will be the range topper for the 27” model using the exact same single fan cooling solution as the 2019 i9-9900K uses. The TDP will be locked 95w as non-K CPUs are and the rest will be the standard 2012-2019 iMac chassis. Apple has zero incentive to rework the chassis or introduce a new chassis for an old CPU (Intel). It boggles my mind that anyone here thinks that Apple would do more than the bare minimum work to release an Intel iMac spec bump to get us to the AS iMac.

The only wildcards for this update are what GPUs will Apple use given that the 580X and Vega 48 are clearly on the way out. Also DRAM speed, although that’s an incredibly minor point as DDR4-2933 is neglibly faster than DDR4-2666, so why bother.

You mean, like the last ten years of Mac desktop under Cook?

Azrael.

 

[CWallace]

You mean, like the last ten years of Mac desktop under Cook?

I wonder if things would have honestly been any better if Steve was still running things. He was never one to hold on to "nostalgia" and the Mac is "nostalgic" when compared to the rest of Apple's revenue streams and he was the one who drove the creation of three products that had a significant impact on pulling Apple's attention away from the Mac - the iPod, the iPhone and the iPad.

Tim might not give a rat's bum about the Mac (and I believe he does), but there are C-Level executives who do care and they can and have influenced Tim to keep the Mac around and looked-after where they very likely could not have done so with Steve.






Also, let us not forget that this transition to Apple Silicon will not be cheap. Not for Apple and not for the developers. Apple is going to spend a mint making this happen and if they honestly didn't care about the Mac, why would they spend the money? Better to just continue to coast with Intel and AMD and reap the revenues it does bring (which are still enough to be in the Fortune 500 if it was it's own company).

 

[Ethosik]

According to this guy, who is a huge Photoshop guy, and very well respected, it is the fastest available, even today, and in most cases easily beats an iMac Pro and even beats a brand new 2020 Mac Pro (all core counts) unless you need more than 128GB RAM. FCP is a dif story and cores matter much more, but I guarantee you are not editing FCP on a G5 tower claiming it's faster than an i9 iMac?

2019 Mac Pro: Most likely Slower than 2019 iMac 5K Unless Gobs of Memo

Pages for “Adobe Photoshop”

macperformanceguide.com

Pages for “iMac”

macperformanceguide.com

Where did I say the G5 was faster? The only thing I said is that the company that still uses it has no advantages getting a new system. And the changes from CS2 to Adobe CC2020 will make things slower as their workflow will need to change. It’s no different using CS2 on Windows 10 and upgrading to 2020.

Not everyone’s workflow is the same. Working on 4K/8k footage? Sure. But I need 1080p and 1080p only. 2010 Mac Pro and i9 iMac are the same speeds for my 1080p videos. Unless I need HEVC for the file size benefits.

 

[Azrael9]

I wonder if things would have honestly been any better if Steve was still running things. He was never one to hold on to "nostalgia" and the Mac is "nostalgic" when compared to the rest of Apple's revenue streams and he was the one who drove the creation of three products that had a significant impact on pulling Apple's attention away from the Mac - the iPod, the iPhone and the iPad.

Tim might not give a rat's bum about the Mac (and I believe he does), but there are C-Level executives who do care and they can and have influenced Tim to keep the Mac around and looked-after where they very likely could not have done so with Steve.






Also, let us not forget that this transition to Apple Silicon will not be cheap. Not for Apple and not for the developers. Apple is going to spend a mint making this happen and if they honestly didn't care about the Mac, why would they spend the money? Better to just continue to coast with Intel and AMD and reap the revenues it does bring (which are still enough to be in the Fortune 500 if it was it's own company).

I think the fundamental difference is that Steve was a product guy and Tim isn't. 'Better.' That can mean a great many things.

It's academic. Unfortunately, Steve isn't still with us or running Apple. He did say fleece the Mac and move onto the next great thing. Which Apple did. And have for the last ten years. Mac desktop has been rather static in design, spec whilst prices speak for themselves.

Tim def' gives a rat's bum about supply chain and cost savings. And passing them onto the profit rather than customer bottom line.

The £1050 iMac is a disgrace. The wheels. The stand. The £799 Mac Mini. The £6k Mac tower with laughable specs.

I doubt these things would have stood under Steve's Mac Apple.

Not everything Cook has done has been abject. There has been 'Mac council and conflict' in Apple. And the Mac Pro debacle proves it.

AS. They'll pocket £2billion by not paying Intel for starters. The chips will cost less to produce. As for amortisation of the AS. The iPhone and iPad have payed and paved the way for the AS to happen and 'most' of the R&D. They haven't had to do this from scratch.

That's academic. If Apple can hold prices. They will. The one silver lining is that the Mac Mini will have decent graphics at last and 8 or more cores...as will the imac 24 and Macbook 13.

Designing cpus isn't cheap. That's why not everyone does it these days.

Better to coast? That's what they have been doing on the Mac desktop for the last ten years. It's been shocking.

Less choice. More cost. Mediocre gpu performance. No rational Mac tower. Overheating enclosures. Not all Intel's fault. They've had a choice over design, cooling, enclosures...and had plenty of time to offer the 5700XT to the 2019 iMac over the last year now...and 8 years to offer SSDs as standard.

There's so many product examples of putting their profits 1st and the customer 2nd. That's the difference between Jobs and Cook.

I'd say Cook has played Job's legacy like a fiddle. That is ofc partically a backhanded compliment.

The move to AS offers promise. Let's see if it delivers. I couldn't help but get excited by WWDC2020.

Azrael.

 

[Kjs100]

Apple has zero incentive to rework the chassis or introduce a new chassis for an old CPU (Intel). It boggles my mind that anyone here thinks that Apple would do more than the bare minimum work to release an Intel iMac spec bump to get us to the AS iMac.

I perhaps wouldn't expect a redesign, but Sonny Dickson seems to think a redesign iMac is ready with T2 and AMD Navi. Even if it was not released at WWDC as predicted. I don't see said iMac being the ARM iMac, so I think there is a redesigned intel in Tim's blocked pipeline. We might not see a 27" ARM for 18-24 months. The iMac badly needed updated design as it was.

 

[Azrael9]

I perhaps wouldn't expect a redesign, but Sonny Dickson seems to think a redesign iMac is ready with T2 and AMD Navi. Even if it was not released at WWDC as predicted. I don't see said iMac being the ARM iMac, so I think there is a redesigned intel in Tim's blocked pipeline. We might not see a 27" ARM for 18-24 months. The iMac badly needed updated design as it was.

And with up to two year transition is a long time for the 24 inch iMac arm to look beautiful and the old intel iMac to look 'ugly and dated.' £££.

Better to let them both have the 'new' look. £££.

Sweeten the pill of a legacy machine.

Azrael.

 

[EugW]

I perhaps wouldn't expect a redesign, but Sonny Dickson seems to think a redesign iMac is ready with T2 and AMD Navi. Even if it was not released at WWDC as predicted. I don't see said iMac being the ARM iMac, so I think there is a redesigned intel in Tim's blocked pipeline. We might not see a 27" ARM for 18-24 months. The iMac badly needed updated design as it was.

I get the impression that Sonny Dickson's supply chain sources are getting increasingly unreliable, other than getting access to iPad and iPhone dummies, which aren't made by Apple anyway. So, that leaves good guesses.

However, I don't actually disagree with those guesses. It's quite possible Apple could release a redesigned Intel iMac. OTOH, it could be easier to just jam yet another Intel chip into the current iMac and save the redesign for Arm.

However, there is one thing that might support the new Intel design argument, and that is that AFAIK, Comet Lake S requires a new motherboard design. They can't actually simply "just jam yet another Intel chip into the current iMac" if they use that mythical i9-10910 Comet Lake S chip, since the socket it requires is incompatible with existing designs AFAIK.

 

[CWallace]

I think the fundamental difference is that Steve was a product guy and Tim isn't.

IMO they are both very much "product guys", just in different aspects.

Steve was a creative who thought up new products. Tim was the objective who made mass production of those products possible.

And I believe that someone like Tim is more likely to keep updating an existing product than someone like Steve, who is likely focusing on the next "big thing".

Tim def' gives a rat's bum about supply chain and cost savings. And passing them onto the profit rather than customer bottom line.

While I believe Apple would not be as fiscally successful under Steve as it was under Tim, Apple still would have been wildly successful and do you honestly believe that the major institutional investors would not demand Steve make them money by making Apple "aspirational" as it has become under Tim?

Apple might not have been as...rapacious...as it seems under Tim, but the idea that "if Steve was around, the 2019 Mac Pro would have been $2000 instead of $6000" and similar massive retail price cuts for Apple products is one I cannot agree with.

The £1050 iMac is a disgrace. The wheels. The stand. The £799 Mac Mini. The £6k Mac tower with laughable specs. I doubt these things would have stood under Steve's Mac Apple.

Hey, Steve sold "iPod Socks" for $5 a piece.

The Mac Pro's wheels and the Pro Display XDR's stand are likely priced the way they are because of the money that was spent to make them and the number Apple felt they could sell (regardless of how low a price they could set) meant they had to price it the way they did. Yes, Apple is making a very nice margin on them - probably hundreds of dollars in profit - but it is not like the ROI-adjusted cost for them is a couple of bucks and the mark-up is therefore thousands of percent.

 

[Zdigital2015]

I get the impression that Sonny Dickson's supply chain sources are getting increasingly unreliable, other than getting access to iPad and iPhone dummies, which aren't made by Apple anyway. So, that leaves good guesses.

However, I don't actually disagree with those guesses. It's quite possible Apple could release a redesigned Intel iMac. OTOH, it could be easier to just jam yet another Intel chip into the current iMac and save the redesign for Arm.

However, there is one thing that might support the new Intel design argument, and that is that AFAIK, Comet Lake S requires a new motherboard design. They can't actually simply "just jam yet another Intel chip into the current iMac" if they use that mythical i9-10910 Comet Lake S chip, since the socket it requires is incompatible with existing designs AFAIK.

Socket (LGA-1200) and chipset (400-Series) to be able to use Comet Lake. I guess I could see them finally putting a T2 chip in there, but why bother with the extra engineering time and validation with AS around the corner? The new MB and PCH validation is pretty straightforward without adding another variable like T2 to what is likely the last Intel iMac.

 

[EugW]

Socket (LGA-1200) and chipset (400-Series) to be able to use Comet Lake. I guess I could see them finally putting a T2 chip in there, but why bother with the extra engineering time and validation with AS around the corner? The new MB and PCH validation is pretty straightforward without adding another variable like T2 to what is likely the last Intel iMac.

Well, they wouldn't need to put T2 in there for Intel. They have lots of options in this transition period. Just sayin'...

 

[Zdigital2015]

Well, they wouldn't need to put T2 in there for Intel. They have lots of options in this transition period. Just sayin'...

I’ll go out on a limb and say that if they integrate T2 and move to Comet Lake-S, there’s a good likelihood that users will also get a Rocket Lake-S update in 2021/2022 before the Intel iMac rides off onto the sunset. Like you said, Apple has lots of options during this transition period.

 

[CWallace]

Socket (LGA-1200) and chipset (400-Series) to be able to use Comet Lake. I guess I could see them finally putting a T2 chip in there, but why bother with the extra engineering time and validation with AS around the corner? The new MB and PCH validation is pretty straightforward without adding another variable like T2 to what is likely the last Intel iMac.

Apple needs a new iMac systemboard for RDNA 1/2 GPUs, anyway, so...

Which is why I really cannot understand why Apple did not update the MacBook Pro to 16" with Comet Lake since they had to create a new systemboard for the 5600M (which is Navi 12) and HBM2 unless they expect sales of that model to be really minuscule so they can continue to leverage their existing board with 9th Gen / Navi 14.

Anyone know if there will be other Navi 12 Radeon Pro mobile GPUs beyond the 5600M? I could see Apple waiting for the refresh to have Navi 12 Radeon Pro GPUs across the board along with Comet Lake-H.

 

[Zdigital2015]

Apple needs a new iMac systemboard for RDNA 1/2 GPUs, anyway, so...

Which is why I really cannot understand why Apple did not update the MacBook Pro to 16" with Comet Lake since they had to create a new systemboard for the 5600M (which is Navi 12) and HBM2 unless they expect sales of that model to be really minuscule so they can continue to leverage their existing board with 9th Gen / Navi 14.

Anyone know if there will be other Navi 12 Radeon Pro mobile GPUs beyond the 5600M? I could see Apple waiting for the refresh to have Navi 12 Radeon Pro GPUs across the board along with Comet Lake-H.

I think Apple will skip Comet Lake-H entirely for the 16” and move directly to Tiger Lake-H once sufficient quantities are available. 10th Gen H-Series is complete waste of time and effort at this point. Better to build a final 16” with TL and Xe iGPU before transitioning to AS. Intel is supposed to be stockpiling Tiger Lake-H for OEMs, so I can see Apple waiting until October to unveil an updated 16” with updated CPU and perhaps updated GPU beyond the 5600M.

EDIT: Depending on how these next two (iMac and 16” MacBook Pro) shake out, I think that will tell us a lot about how fast or slow Apple phases out Intel CPUs.

 

[meagain]

My iMac is dying - shutting down to sleep every 5 minutes or if I have too many windows open. IDK what to do. This is pretty terrible.

 

[EugW]

My iMac is dying - shutting down to sleep every 5 minutes or if I have too many windows open. IDK what to do. This is pretty terrible.

Make multiple backups!

 

[Azrael9]

IMO they are both very much "product guys", just in different aspects.

Steve was a creative who thought up new products. Tim was the objective who made mass production of those products possible.

And I believe that someone like Tim is more likely to keep updating an existing product than someone like Steve, who is likely focusing on the next "big thing".

Hey, Steve sold "iPod Socks" for $5 a piece.

Yeah. Socks. And he couldn't do that with a straight face. But not for £700 for a set. Or £1k for a single one.

Steve Jobs didn't give a flying (fill in blank) about shareholders or investors. The products created value in Apple's share price.

The notion that Tim is 'more likely' to keep updating an existing product than 'someone' like Steve is laughable. The Mac Pro, Mini and iMacs have been shocking to the Mac desktop. With 6 year, 4 year and yawn inducing gaps in the case of the iMac.

Steve Jobs was Apple.

Cook. Mere shadow. Custodian. Nickle and dimer in chief. And in his ten years. We have? A watch.

Here's an example:

Buy iMac

Get an iMac all-in-one desktop computer with M4 chip when you trade in an eligible Mac for credit. Built for Apple Intelligence. Buy now.

www.apple.com

Customize the 1st tier iMac 4k. 16 gigs of ram. 256 gigs SSD. With crap graphics. And a 6 core 'so-so' Intel cpu.

$1999. That's Tim Cook's Apple. Disgusting.

Azrael.
[automerge]1594211471[/automerge]

My iMac is dying - shutting down to sleep every 5 minutes or if I have too many windows open. IDK what to do. This is pretty terrible.

Have you got Mac OS installed on external drive? Can you boot from that?

What part is dying? Your main HD? Or something else like a mobo fault?

Azrael.
[automerge]1594211754[/automerge]

Apple needs a new iMac systemboard for RDNA 1/2 GPUs, anyway, so...

Which is why I really cannot understand why Apple did not update the MacBook Pro to 16" with Comet Lake since they had to create a new systemboard for the 5600M (which is Navi 12) and HBM2 unless they expect sales of that model to be really minuscule so they can continue to leverage their existing board with 9th Gen / Navi 14.

Anyone know if there will be other Navi 12 Radeon Pro mobile GPUs beyond the 5600M? I could see Apple waiting for the refresh to have Navi 12 Radeon Pro GPUs across the board along with Comet Lake-H.

Because Apple under Cook have done the bare minimum to the Mac platform over ten years. Charging more for less.

A 1.5 trillion company. Well, let's 'hope' they create a new mobo and yes, new 'everything' for the 'new' iMac...it's old bread. Stale and mouldy.

What next? Keep the Fusion Drive for Fusion's sake..?

I hope they offer at least a BTO on RDNA2. If it's 'just' the year old RDNA1 mid range gpu then they will only be 1 gpu generation behind in Radeon speak, but a couple in Nvidia speak.

Azrael.

 

[Macintosh1984]

I don't know if it was noticed, but in addition to the fact that a new Intel iMac is getting closer, the delivery times of the current 27" models are longer in September when they have Fusion Drive, if you put SSDs, they decrease.

I understand that Apple finally wants to abandon Fusion Drive.

 

[Azrael9]

I understand that Apple finally wants to abandon Fusion Drive.

*FINALLY!*

Maybe treat the iMac with the respec it gives the rest of its computer line?

Azrael.