maflynn
macrumors Broadwell
This is my take, just as prices were decreasing for the 40 series, Nvidia halted production. Every day, they seem to be less and less consumer focused.
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.
The yearly M-series release cadence
- Thread starter Bodhitree
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
dmccloud
macrumors 68040
To be fair, nobody should count DLSS or frame generation as measures of true performance. The same goes for both AMD and Intel GPUs. In Nvidia's case, the price premiums for 50xx cards over 40xx are far greater than the performance improvement between generations. Nvidia might pretend to care about the consumer market, but they're so heavily focused on AI and raw margins that they honestly couldn't care less about the market that helped them jump into AI in the first place.
What Apple does best above anything else is marketing. The make people feel like they need to upgrade when their device is only a year old. Plenty of posts of people who update every single year. It certainly makes no sense financially for 99% of users to do this. I use Adobe CC, Indesign, Illustrator and Photoshop are what pays the bills. It would be a complete waste of money to upgrade to anything newer from my M1 Max. I would say even from an M1 Pro variant. We have hit a ceiling for pretty much everyone where the speed and performance is great for everything for the vast majority of users. People will convince themselves that they need that extra boost coming out of newer chips but I would suggest that is just the marketing machine at work doing what it does best. This is not to say that the newer chips are not getting better and faster, but that they really make very little difference in someone's daily life on a computer. I went from an iPhone 13 to a 17 Pro Max and feel no substantial improvements outside of the camera and the screen size. Youtube videos, websites, apps all loaded fast on my 13. I know technically the iPhone 17 Pro Max is much faster but we were so fast before those regular day to day things are not really improved anymore.
jz0309
macrumors P6
No, TSMC works with Apple and others on process development, they couldn't do that without designs ... sure, the retooling is in TSMC for the most part.
Now Intel used to be the master of it all, but those days are long gone, a lot has to do that everything was homegrown but they seem to be on the uprise again with starting to use EUV. Their main problem though is lack of (foundry) customers, intel chips alone aren't enough to keep the fabs rumming
jz0309
macrumors P6
Well, where are their profits coming from nowadays? Data center, openAI driving this. I think the "AI bubble" will burst, sooner or later, and nvidia will be one of the losers as they lost eyes on the consumers... but only time will tell
maflynn
macrumors Broadwell
The amount of money Nvidia is making in the datacenter business unit is staggering, 11% of their revenue is from GPUs, so them cutting production to squeeze the consumer is all the more galling
Nvidia's 40xx and 50xx GPUs are both made using the same process, with similar die sizes. It doesn't make much sense to continue producing old chips, if you can produce a similar number of new chips for the same price.
And, having recently replaced my gaming PC, I found GPU prices surprisingly reasonable. Desktops with RTX 5080 and laptops with RTX 5090 are roughly the same price as Macs with the full M4 Max. The desktop 5090 is still expensive, but everything below that is acceptable. I guess consumer GPUs with limited memory no longer have that many alternate uses to drive the prices up.
dmccloud
macrumors 68040
Nvidia quit caring about consumers several years ago, and breakdowns like show why they stopped caring. What would interest me more would be a chart showing the YoY change for Graphics and Compute + Networking separately rather than just the combined revenue.
Apple devices up for a refresh
- Aug 2020 iMac 27" 5K Intel
- Oct 2022 Apple TV 4K
- Jun 2023 Mac Pro M2 Ultra
- Oct 2024 iMac 24" 4.5K M4
- Oct 2024 Mac mini M4
- Oct 2024 iPad Mini A17
- Feb 2025 iPhone 16e A18
- Mar 2025 iPad Air M3
- Mar 2025 iPad A16
- Mar 2025 MBA 13" M4
- Mar 2025 MBA 15" M4
- Mar 2025 Mac Studio M4 Max
While the percentage of the overall revenue went down, the Graphics revenue has ( as snapped
[ from perplexity)
"
...
| Year | Gaming Revenue (USD) | Year-over-Year Change | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2025 | $11.35 billion | +9% | Growth despite supply constraints due to prioritization of AI chips |
| 2024 | $10.45 billion | -16% | Consumer GPU sales slowed as AI GPU demand surged |
| 2023 | $9.07 billion | -27% | Decline from the crypto mining downturn and limited GPU update cycle |
| 2022 | $12.46 billion | +61% | Boost from RTX 30-series demand during global GPU shortage |
[ Yeah... not all that great a percentage math... 2024 is a +16% gain , not a -16% decrease. the revenues are likely directly lifted from reports though. Mainly looking for an easy table. ]
Average is $10.8B so the low there is only off $0.9B and high $1.66B It is all in a +/- 10% boundary. ( 2022 is mainly an outlier.)
2019 levels was 6.25B and 2017 $4B. For customers being "soo pissed off", they sure are buying a large quantity of stuff. If AMD was eating away Nvidia's consumer GPU market share at the same pace that they are eating away INtel's there might be some substance there. However, they are not. AMD is mainly fighting the 'war' at the much higher margin product levels (and at iGPUs ... which is at much taking away GPU business from Intel as it is Nvidia ).
A major problem for AMD (and competitors ) is that there is a decent amount of synergy between the AI data center and the very top end gaming cards.
AMD is stretched thin trying to compete against both Intel and Nvidia at the same time, that they have to choose where to do 'battle'. This RDNA4 generation , Nvidia got a free pass on the top end gaming GPU card. RDNA1 mostly similar issue.
Before the AI bubble , Nvidia was living on the 'crypto craze' on off the shelf GPUs bubble. (similar issue with crypto craze where the bubble bled down into the top end gaming cards. )
IF Nvidia takes Intel iGPU share away faster than AMD can displace it, then Nvidia will be in decent shape in gaming business even with a AI bubble collapse. (as long as don't get caught up in some circular AI bubble payments ponzi scheme. ) . Some Nvidia stockholders may get fleeced ( and some folks will get laid off) , but the company itself wouldn't have huge problems.
Nvidia would need to slightly lower their pricing, but it is still mainly just a duopoly of which they have the overwhelming dominate share. ( if Intel's iGPU completely craters then even more a duopoly in PC Windows ).
Last edited:
Amazing how deadlines force us to get a lot of work done. Having multiple deadlines (whether 10, 12, x months apart) as a good project management way to crack the whip and keep the teams moving forward.
They still care the same amount for consumers. It is just that their care for data centers dwarfs their care for consumers.
We know they still care about consumers because AMD is getting pummeled in gaming GPUs still.
Admiral
macrumors 6502
Boy, I'll tell you — contra some others, raw performance and AI inference matters to me. I made the mistake of getting into video processing for upscaling as a hobby, as well as local LLM and AI work (lawyers have ethical prohibitions or limitations on putting client materials into the cloud). Seeing that the base M5 chip now outstrips all Apple Silicon save for M4 Max makes me very excited to see what M5 Max or Ultra might be able to do. And even being just a few months into my M4 Max Mac Studio purchase, I just might pull the trigger on an M5 Max MacBook Pro this spring. The future sure looks bright for Apple Silicon.
But dammit, Tim Apple, put a 5G modem into your MacBook Pro. That's way overdue.
But dammit, Tim Apple, put a 5G modem into your MacBook Pro. That's way overdue.
Populus
macrumors 604
I think we’ll still see yearly updates in silicon for a few years… or almost yearly.
We’ll see Apple completing the M5 lineup in the first half of 2026. Previously I thought the M4 was a widely adopted baseline M chip, but now with the huge improvements the M5 is bringing to AI features, I really expect Apple to update all their devices to at least the M5 chip during the next year. I didn’t expect it, but the M5 is more than just an evolutionary step up, at least on what concerns the GPU and especially neural engines.
Once all the devices are updated to M5 (if Apple leaves the iMac out, the only reason I see them doing this is because how hotter the M5 is), then the M6 update will come slowly to the best selling devices at the end of 2026. This is, mainly, the MacBook Pro. Especially with the new design, which will rise again it’s price. Let’s not forget that M6 will be the first SoC built in TSMC’s 2nm process, it will be more expensive, and with lower builds.
So, at least for the next two years (until October 2027) I foresee desktops staying on the powerful (especially GPU wise) M5, a chip that’s ready for more intensive AI tasks, and some premium products such as the MacBook Pro or the iPad Pro will adopt the new M6 SoC.
We’ll see Apple completing the M5 lineup in the first half of 2026. Previously I thought the M4 was a widely adopted baseline M chip, but now with the huge improvements the M5 is bringing to AI features, I really expect Apple to update all their devices to at least the M5 chip during the next year. I didn’t expect it, but the M5 is more than just an evolutionary step up, at least on what concerns the GPU and especially neural engines.
Once all the devices are updated to M5 (if Apple leaves the iMac out, the only reason I see them doing this is because how hotter the M5 is), then the M6 update will come slowly to the best selling devices at the end of 2026. This is, mainly, the MacBook Pro. Especially with the new design, which will rise again it’s price. Let’s not forget that M6 will be the first SoC built in TSMC’s 2nm process, it will be more expensive, and with lower builds.
So, at least for the next two years (until October 2027) I foresee desktops staying on the powerful (especially GPU wise) M5, a chip that’s ready for more intensive AI tasks, and some premium products such as the MacBook Pro or the iPad Pro will adopt the new M6 SoC.
dmccloud
macrumors 68040
AMD chose not to pursue the high end of the GPU market, so of course Nvidia is winning on the high end. If Nvidia cared for consumers, they wouldn't have ended 40xx production early to drive up demand and pricing for those chips, then also slow-rolled 50xx production to maintain that artificially inflated demand. Nvidia also has let its AIO partners charge whatever they want for their graphics cards, which is why so many 70/80/90 cards are selling for well over MSRP. Nvidia also still thinks 8GB GPUs are sufficient for modern games, even though there are games out that that will not run at all on 8GB of VRAM.
Why do you think AMD chose not to pursue the high end? Because Nvidia cares and therefore tries in the high end. Let's use some logic here.
They didn't slow roll the 50 series. They made as much as they can. They have limited wafers for consumer GPUs. Both 40 and 50 series use TSMC N5 family so they're competing for the same wafer allocation. So why wouldn't Nvidia stop producing 40 series and use the wafers to make 50 series instead?
Let's use some logic here.
Stop the blind Nvidia hate.
Retroworldnews
macrumors 6502
Conspiracy , why M1 now me M3 iMac user " Encounter Lines suddenly appear on the screen " MacRumours here do has an article back on M1 users encounter Lines appear on their screen upon using JUST One year or so. This is not coincidence here. I just bought M3 iMac last year feb 2024. This month Oct 2025 , suddenly I saw lines appears on the bottom of my screen. This is not the issue that why you need to buy Apple care. All along I never buy Apple care. Be it my iMac , iPhone, iPad. Because I handle with Care. This M series got Glitch come Apple design and hardware been use.
Even you happen buy Apple care and replace the screen. This Line problem will come back after using for one year. This is un justify here. Before this M3, those intel iMac I been using for more than 3 years , don't have major flaws. TO be fair come computer hardware surely will age as time go by but for this M1 to M3 iMac is not. Is due to Apple side flaws. Maybe they want people buy new iMac after using one year or make people think of getting buying Apple care too.
So far Apple haven't admit partly I feel they don't bother. They seem as usual more concentrate on iPhone , that is their largest revenue to be honest , than down to iPad, Macbook, iMac.
I don't know is it a " conspiracy here Apple indirect force people buy new iMac or even Mac mini to replace their M1 , now M3 iMac due to lines suddenly appear after using for one year. "
I own various iMac and still using it as spare for listening online radio and watch videos . The Latest M3 iMac I get is for work. For me I'm quite disappointed this time with Apple. Now I watching M4 iMac users going to complain/feedback lines suddenly appear on their M4 iMac screen soon when they reach One year usage. Mark my words surely there will be. Partly I using M3 already encounter. The first case is from M1 users.
This is mostly denial. Apple openly stated that there was only one Mac that needed updating after the Mac Pro. The iMac 27" was replaced by the the 'Studio' products. ( Pragmatically there was also a 'Mini Pro' missing, but Apple never declared that as a separate product model when it finally arrive. It was just the same form factor mini with a Mn Pro SoC in it. From a Apple Silicon appearing in that form factor they were done. )
Similarly, there was effectively a "This is the last, we have finished the migration" declaration when the Mac Pro finally did crossover. (upper Intel Mini was gone at that point also).
The other factor is that Apple doesn't look to be in a phase where they screen technology is going to go stagnant for 6-8 years. If the OLED tech recently rumored to be coming to the iMac 24" stays stable (and costs can be driven down substantially) then perhaps will see an iMac 27" return... maybe. It if the 27" external monitor market stays competitive though, then probably not. The Mini - Mini Pro - Studio Max + monitor will likely just hold down the old zone that the iMac 27" was given in the Intel era. ( Apple herded most folks into the iMac 27", that wasn't a natural market dynamic. )
There is decent chance that the 2020 iMac 27" will be tossed onto the Vintage list May-Aug 2026 timeframe with no replacement released. I suppose there will still be some folks still in denial at that point also, but it should be a smaller group.
Never has been near a yearly cadence. Buyers guide average 738 days ( ~2 years )
Also Mac Studio M3 Ultra ( old iMac Pro zone)
And Mini M4 Pro . One way Apple herded folks into the iMac 27" is that they exclusively put 'mid range' CPU and/or GPU horsepower into that chassis. That doesn't exist any more. A 'thinner than a iPad' 27" model where they have to put the SoC and major components into the chin wouldn't outclass the Mini on being able to house a Mn Pro and never mind a Mac Studio Max.
The Mac Studio is getting regular updates. If it has largely 'failed' as a iMac 27" replacement, then Apple would likely be backtracking away from the product at this point. They have not. The M3 Ultra on the Studio ( and Mac Pro stuck on Ultra 2nd gen) is likely due to being too expensive to 'throw away' Ultra class SoCs into the trash can every year.
The AppleTV , iPhone XXe , iPad Air , 'entry' iPad ( and Homepods and Studio Display) as all "hand me down" targets for Apple Silicon SoCs. They get stuff that is phased out of other parts of the product line to so that Apple can further grow out the economies of scale for the SoCs (i.e, pay for developing them).
Stuff like the Ultra have no "Hand me down" target and are even more expensive to develop. So they are not going to be on a yearly dump cycle.
Hmm, I still think replacing the 27” iMac - a 2000 USD semi-Pro computer - with a Mac Studio and Apple Display Pro-level combo which runs to 3800 USD is a cash grab aimed towards independent creators who need power.
If you’re in that bracket your choices are either a Mac Mini with the M4 Pro chip, or a Mac Studio with the M4 Max.
If you’re in that bracket your choices are either a Mac Mini with the M4 Pro chip, or a Mac Studio with the M4 Max.
Retroworldnews
macrumors 6502
MAN, you better beware M series iMac even Macbook, Pro/Air. I currently own M3 iMac only just bought last year. After one year, my M3 iMac just like M1 users encounter " Lines suddenly appear on the iMac screen " This is NOT accepatable... I used to own intel iMac used for more than 3 years yet at least its don't have lines ( at most the screen sometimes turn pinkish hue at the side and burn mark if watch youtube , stream for some time. But later it will gone off at least. At least this is justify since already used for years! Part and Parcel come computer hardware degrade as times go by.
Unlike this M3 iMac , use it for only one year.... suddenly lines appear. M1 to M3 users already encounter. Now I waiting to see M4 users.... I don't feel shock they also encounter this Apple flaws when their usage reach One year or so.
Alameda
Contributor
How do you know the Pro Display is a “cash grab” when there’s been nothing else like it until recently? Apple monitors are non-proprietary; you can buy an ASUS or LG or Dell.
Large iMac's 32" 6K display parts have not reached sub-$1k pricing hence no deployment as of yet.
Now since the 2025 Asus 32" 6K display was being sold at a pre-tariff price of sub-$1.2k we are nearing a time when a $1,799 iMac 32" 6K base model with M5 16GB 256GB become feasible. The base M chip with base memory & base storage is what is found in the base model Mac mini for $499?
Add Asus with Mac mini and it's $100 cheaper than $1,799...
Historically all the large iMac base model tend to be $1,799.
- 2020
- 2019
- 2017
- 2015
- 2013
- 2012
This is similarly how the base model small iMac has been $1,299 since the 1998 iMac G3 15" model through to the 2024 iMac M4 24" 4.5K
I am talking about release cadence... hopefully it be out within 6 months.
Base model $1,799 iMac 27" 5K was a Core i5. This is equivalent to a base M chip without the Pro, Max or Ultra.
When did 32" panels weave in? If Apple wanted to get a 'larger iMac' onto the market because it was 'needed now' it could have come in the same form factor they already had. Just like the Mini, MBP , MBA. More likely Apple is waiting to more past the IPS panel era. ( whether that is OLED, mini-LED , micro-LED , etc. )
It is pretty unlikely that Apple will pick up that 6K panel tech when the price has dropped so far in just a couple of years. One of the factors that propped up the 27" iMac for a long time was that the PC market 'quit' on the 5K pane; not that they were using it in volume.
that 5k and 6k have 'general PC monitor market' models which are getting more affordable each year is iMac 'liability' not an asset for competing with non all-in-one solutions.
6K + Mini cheaper than iMac ... hence the 'problem' for the 'large screen' iMac. 5K monitor would probably even a bigger cap. A 4K monitor an even bigger gap. Once the Mini is somewhat artifically throttled then have issues. ( there are reasons why all-in-ones don't dominate the general PC desktop landscape. ) Apple unilaterally designated iMac king of the desktops in the Intel era and took steps to make that skew that way. IT wasn't primarily driven by market demand from the outside.
This is really shallow examination of specs that. consists only on price (which really isn't even a technical specification. More a marketing specification. )
Leaving out the Mini Pro options isn't about cadence. The iMac 27" with only a plain Mn , when there is a Mini Pro available is problematical in terms of fratricide. Folks who need additional graphical performance are just going to pass up the 27" model limited in that way.
Not really. Apple could change directions, but the 27" model was more GPU focused ( as are the Mn Pro, Max . etc) . Below is a sampling of 21.5" iMacs followed by 27" of same time frames. [ first set goes backwards in time and then 27" goes forward. ]
the 'base model' 21.5" had an i5 toward the end.
2017 Core i5 (two cores) iGPU only ( Iris Plus 640)
iMac (21.5-inch, 2017) - Technical Specifications - Apple Support
2015 Core i5 (two cores ) iGPU only ( Intel 6000 or 6200 )
https://support.apple.com/en-us/112036
2012. Core i5 ... pseudo dGPU ( pragmatically iGPU Nvidia 640M 512MB VRAM whichhas no display out. Discrete but not a complete end user GPU either).
iMac (21.5-inch, Late 2012) - Technical Specifications - Apple Support
The gap between. 21.5" and base 27" was on GPU , not CPU.
Yes in more ancient days there was a core i3 in the iMac 21.5" ( and anemic dGPUs )
2010 Core i3 dGPU ( ATI Radeon HD 4670 graphics processor with 256MB of GDDR3 memory )
iMac (21.5-inch, Late 2015) - Technical Specification - Apple Support
2011 Core i3 dGPU ( AMD Radeon HD 6750M graphics processor with 256MB of GDDR5 memory )
A whopping whole 256MB of VRAM ... whoo whoo .
But there were also. i3's in 27" models too at one point. But the GPU's are substantively better than the 21.5" model
2010 Core i3 dGPU ( ATI Radeon HD 5670 graphics processor with 512MB of GDDR3 memory. option for 1GB VRAM ) [ vs 256MB for 21.3" ]
iMac (27-inch, Mid 2010) - Technical Specifications - Apple Support
2011 Core i5 dGPU ( AMD Radeon HD 6770M graphics processor with 512MB of GDDR5 memory. options up to 2GB VRAM) [ vs. 256MB for 21.3" ]
iMac (27-inch, Mid 2011) - Technical Specifications - Apple Support
2012 Core i5 dGPU ( NVIDIA GeForce GTX 660M graphics processor with 512MB of GDDR5 memory . options to 2GB VRAM) [ vs Nvidia 640M and fixed cap of 512MB ]
iMac (27-inch, Late 2012) - Technical Specifications - Apple Support
2015. Core i5 dGPU ( AMD Radeon R9 M290 graphics processor with 2GB of GDDR5 memory) [ vs Intel iGPU ]
https://support.apple.com/en-us/112434
2017. Core i5. dGPU ( AMD Radeon Pro 570 with 4GB of VRAM. option for 8GB VRAM) [ vs Intel iGPU ]
[ Aside the 2020 27" iMac topped out at 16GB VRAM with an AMD Radeon Pro 5700 XT. That is better than the Mac Pro starting point in that era. ]
The long term consistency is the that GPU is always better in the 27" than the 21.5" ; pointing at the CPU is a bit of misdirection. [ The GPU was a 'herd them' factor of folks into the 27" model. ] And the i3 was in the 27" at one point and the 21.5" had i5's toward the back half of the Intel era also. The 27" model also better memory options for end users. (e.g., max memory at more reasonable pricing).
The Mini pragmatically needed a Mn Pro model just to get close to what the Intel Mini 2018's max memory capacity. If need generous amount of RAM then the plain Mn isn't a good option.
Apple isn't really doing this, but it is closer than what you are proposing:
Mn - i3. , Mn Pro - i5 , Mn Max - i7 , Mn Ultra. - i9.
If the line has 4 levels, there is no way the plain Mn model is in the mid-range. However, the plain M5 (and follow ons) is probably fast enough for most people in general population.
The big gap there is far more on GPU cores , not CPU cores. (apple's agenda is to get rid of Intel/AMD GPUs as much intel CPU cores ) However, GPU is one of the major differentiators for Intel era iMacs.
Last edited:
Your PoV lacks supporting citations and more on wishful thinking. Thanks for palying. Good bye.When did 32" panels weave in? If Apple wanted to get a 'larger iMac' onto the market because it was 'needed now' it could have come in the same form factor they already had. Just like the Mini, MBP , MBA. More likely Apple is waiting to more past the IPS panel era. ( whether that is OLED, mini-LED , micro-LED , etc. )
It is pretty unlikely that Apple will pick up that 6K panel tech when the price has dropped so far in just a couple of years. One of the factors that propped up the 27" iMac for a long time was that the PC market 'quit' on the 5K pane; not that they were using it in volume.
that 5k and 6k have 'general PC monitor market' models which are getting more affordable each year is iMac 'liability' not an asset for competing with non all-in-one solutions.
6K + Mini cheaper than iMac ... hence the 'problem' for the 'large screen' iMac. 5K monitor would probably even a bigger cap. A 4K monitor an even bigger gap. Once the Mini is somewhat artifically throttled then have issues. ( there are reasons why all-in-ones don't dominate the general PC desktop landscape. ) Apple unilaterally designated iMac king of the desktops in the Intel era and took steps to make that skew that way. IT wasn't primarily driven by market demand from the outside.
This is really shallow examination of specs that. consists only on price (which really isn't even a technical specification. More a marketing specification. )
Leaving out the Mini Pro options isn't about cadence. The iMac 27" with only a plain Mn , when there is a Mini Pro available is problematical in terms of fratricide. Folks who need additional graphical performance are just going to pass up the 27" model limited in that way.
Not really. Apple could change directions, but the 27" model was more GPU focused ( as are the Mn Pro, Max . etc) . Below is a sampling of 21.5" iMacs followed by 27" of same time frames. [ first set goes backwards in time and then 27" goes forward. ]
the 'base model' 21.5" had an i5 toward the end.
2017 Core i5 (two cores) iGPU only ( Iris Plus 640)
iMac (21.5-inch, 2017) - Technical Specifications - Apple Support
support.apple.com
2015 Core i5 (two cores ) iGPU only ( Intel 6000 or 6200 )
https://support.apple.com/en-us/112036
2012. Core i5 ... pseudo dGPU ( pragmatically iGPU Nvidia 640M 512MB VRAM whichhas no display out. Discrete but not a complete end user GPU either).
iMac (21.5-inch, Late 2012) - Technical Specifications - Apple Support
The gap between. 21.5" and base 27" was on GPU , not CPU.
Yes in more ancient days there was a core i3 in the iMac 21.5" ( and anemic dGPUs )
2010 Core i3 dGPU ( ATI Radeon HD 4670 graphics processor with 256MB of GDDR3 memory )
iMac (21.5-inch, Late 2015) - Technical Specification - Apple Support
2011 Core i3 dGPU ( AMD Radeon HD 6750M graphics processor with 256MB of GDDR5 memory )
A whopping whole 256MB of VRAM ... whoo whoo .
But there were also. i3's in 27" models too at one point. But the GPU's are substantively better than the 21.5" model
2010 Core i3 dGPU ( ATI Radeon HD 5670 graphics processor with 512MB of GDDR3 memory. option for 1GB VRAM ) [ vs 256MB for 21.3" ]
iMac (27-inch, Mid 2010) - Technical Specifications - Apple Support
2011 Core i5 dGPU ( AMD Radeon HD 6770M graphics processor with 512MB of GDDR5 memory. options up to 2GB VRAM) [ vs. 256MB for 21.3" ]
iMac (27-inch, Mid 2011) - Technical Specifications - Apple Support
2012 Core i5 dGPU ( NVIDIA GeForce GTX 660M graphics processor with 512MB of GDDR5 memory . options to 2GB VRAM) [ vs Nvidia 640M and fixed cap of 512MB ]
iMac (27-inch, Late 2012) - Technical Specifications - Apple Support
2015. Core i5 dGPU ( AMD Radeon R9 M290 graphics processor with 2GB of GDDR5 memory) [ vs Intel iGPU ]
https://support.apple.com/en-us/112434
2017. Core i5. dGPU ( AMD Radeon Pro 570 with 4GB of VRAM. option for 8GB VRAM) [ vs Intel iGPU ]
[ Aside the 2020 27" iMac topped out at 16GB VRAM with an AMD Radeon Pro 5700 XT. That is better than the Mac Pro starting point in that era. ]
The long term consistency is the that GPU is always better in the 27" than the 21.5" ; pointing at the CPU is a bit of misdirection. [ The GPU was a 'herd them' factor of folks into the 27" model. ] And the i3 was in the 27" at one point and the 21.5" had i5's toward the back half of the Intel era also. The 27" model also better memory options for end users. (e.g., max memory at more reasonable pricing).
The Mini pragmatically needed a Mn Pro model just to get close to what the Intel Mini 2018's max memory capacity. If need generous amount of RAM then the plain Mn isn't a good option.
Apple isn't really doing this, but it is closer than what you are proposing:
Mn - i3. , Mn Pro - i5 , Mn Max - i7 , Mn Ultra. - i9.
If the line has 4 levels, there is no way the plain Mn model is in the mid-range. However, the plain M5 (and follow ons) is probably fast enough for most people in general population.
The big gap there is far more on GPU cores , not CPU cores. (apple's agenda is to get rid of Intel/AMD GPUs as much intel CPU cores ) However, GPU is one of the major differentiators for Intel era iMacs.
Prior to 2018 iPad Pro A12X release rumors of an OLED iPad made the rounds on MR's articles. I remember this because I bought the 2018 based on the redesign and number of speakers it has.
It took 6 years before the 2024 iPad Pro M4 got a Tandem OLED. Why? Likely price and design targets could not be met. The 1st tablet with OLED screen was the 2011 Samsung Galatxy Tab 7.7.
Given the price of a 32" 6K display has dropped to sub-$1.2k pre-tariff price then odds are next year ot the year later an iMac 32" 6K will come out.
Last edited: