What chances of future imac have Nvidia GTX1080 built in?

[felipesalomao]

It will have notebook version that will be as powerfull as desktop hardware..
http://www.laptopmag.com/articles/nvidia-gtx-1080-laptops

It's impossible that imac will get it some day?


See this monster all in one:
https://www.techflow.co/digitalstorm_aura_announcement/

It have 34 inch 4k curved display, configuration allow 10 core Intel i7 6950x, 32gb 2666mhz, 512gb ssd + 1tb HD. gpu Nvidia GTX 1080, liquid cooling system. It really destroy imac hardware. Would be awesome imac have some config close of that some day.. But apple isn't anymore Computer company. It is phone company.

 

[maflynn]

It's impossible that imac will get it some day?

I'm pretty sure the iMac is not going to get a nvidia GPU. They're currently with AMD, and there's no signs that they'll be changing that.

Apple has rarely (read almost never) added a high power GPU to their Macs, as the mid ranges models they pick are sufficient for the majority, and that's who they sell too.

But apple isn't anymore Computer company. It is phone company.

While they are focusing on the category that is generating the most income, they still make great computers, but in the end, if you don't like the configuration of Macs, then buy something else.

 

[pmau]

Apple is a supply chain driven company. They try to source the cheapest and widely available hardware.
This is why it's not brand new, look at the 5k iMac AMD GPU.

Also, Apple is on the conservative side of cooling and fans.
All these high-end GPU PC's have massive (and expensive) power supplies and fan assemblies.
Apple will never go that way, no matter what happens on the CPU/GPU market.

AMD on the other hand revealed the low-power and cheap 480 GPU line.
This is probably what Apple might use in the future.

But I would not expect Apple to change their attitude.
I don't even know what the 5k iMac power supply can deliver. It's probably at the bare minimum for this kind of hardware.

 

[mlpriceme]

It will have notebook version that will be as powerfull as desktop hardware..
http://www.laptopmag.com/articles/nvidia-gtx-1080-laptops

It's impossible that imac will get it some day?


See this monster all in one:
https://www.techflow.co/digitalstorm_aura_announcement/

It have 34 inch 4k curved display, configuration allow 10 core Intel i7 6950x, 32gb 2666mhz, 512gb ssd + 1tb HD. gpu Nvidia GTX 1080, liquid cooling system. It really destroy imac hardware. Would be awesome imac have some config close of that some day.. But apple isn't anymore Computer company. It is phone company.

Apple isn't a phone company. It is an information appliance company. If that seems like a bad thing, consider that they almost went out of business making computers and by making tiny tablets with a phone attached they became the biggest company in the world. Apple has an outstanding product to fit all information technology needs, except in the high performance computing area. They have all but relinquished that to the world of Windows. I'm sure you know that you can pretty much build a computer for half the cost of a MacPro and get more power out of it. Nonetheless the product spaces that Apple does address have essentially the right tool for the right job. Watch, iPhone, iPad, iMac.

Apple has never made the most powerful computers out there. It is not likely that they will include the GTX 1080 chipset in the new iMac. We'd be lucky if it was something in the Fury or titan/980ti range. Still my iMac is not far from Aura...

Model Name: iMac
Processor Name: Intel Core i7 (6700k)
Processor Speed: 4 GHz
Number of Processors: 1
Total Number of Cores: 4
Memory: 32 GB
AMD Radeon R9 M395X:
Retina (5120 x 2880) Which is a far better visual experience than the 4k display
I cannot go back to looking at pixelated fonts. I suppose I could get used to it.
3 Terabyte Fusion Drive

You don't buy the iMac for gaming. You buy the iMac for the best possible OS X experience. It's a very powerful computer. Thing is, even if Apple bumped up to the most powerful GPUs Apple use of other graphic technologies hinders the ability of game makers to support both platforms.

 

[Icaras]

You don't buy the iMac for gaming. You buy the iMac for the best possible OS X experience. It's a very powerful computer. Thing is, even if Apple bumped up to the most powerful GPUs Apple use of other graphic technologies hinders the ability of game makers to support both platforms.

I certainly bought it for gaming and couldn't be happier. Of course I also bought it for using OS X, iCloud, and Logic Pro but gaming was most definitely still a bullet point for me. Which is why I'm hotly anticipating the new iMac this year and I'm very interested to see what GPU Apple ultimately decides to use.

And I'm not sure what you mean when you say you buy the iMac for the "best possible OS X experience." I think a Mac Pro would probably run OS X the smoothest, and running it in a portable environment would obviously be best served by one of the MacBook products, which in fact, based on sales, is what most Mac users actually prefer. Each individual's usage of OS X will vary so it really depends.

 

[G4DPII]

Apple has never made the most powerful computers out there. It is not likely that they will include the GTX 1080 chipset in the new iMac. We'd be lucky if it was something in the Fury or titan/980ti range. Still my iMac is not far from Aura...

Flat out WRONG and WRONG.

When the G5 first launched it was the most powerful personal computer you could buy.

Highly doubtful they'll include any form of nVidia GPU. Doesn't suit there business model. Personally I doubt we'll ever see another nVidia GPU in any form of Mac line again.

 

[cynics]

I certainly bought it for gaming and couldn't be happier. Of course I also bought it for using OS X, iCloud, and Logic Pro but gaming was most definitely still a bullet point for me. Which is why I'm hotly anticipating the new iMac this year and I'm very interested to see what GPU Apple ultimately decides to use.

And I'm not sure what you mean when you say you buy the iMac for the "best possible OS X experience." I think a Mac Pro would probably run OS X the smoothest, and running it in a portable environment would obviously be best served by one of the MacBook products, which in fact, based on sales, is what most Mac users actually prefer. Each individual's usage of OS X will vary so it really depends.

I think most just don't advice that because in general an iMac is a poor gaming platform to start with. It can be done but it's loaded with compromises. Matter of fact I do/did quite a bit of gaming with my iMac. Mostly city building games because there is nothing on consoles nor is a joystick good for city builders.

But just think about it, the monitor has a low refresh rate with mediocre response time. The included mouse and keyboard are the worst things for gaming imaginable. The OS is inherently a poor choice for games w/ lack of dx support and thats if your fortunate enough for there to even be a OS X version of the game your trying to play. So you'll want to install Windows. A mobile GPU. Near a complete lack of upgradability, next gen games come out and you need to spend 2000-3000 for a new iMac vs 300-500 for an upgraded graphics card. Plus a dozen other things like a limited cooling design that can (in certain cases) cause thermal throttling.

 

[irr3sponsible]

It would be if it wasn't overpriced, and as Linus Tech Tips discovered, overheats way too easily. Yes you don't buy a Mac for gaming, but the Aura is only around $300 AUD more and yet has a 1080 and an Extreme Edition i7 ($2000 AUD) while the iMac has a 6700K. ($600 AUD)
In short the aura is only a bit more expensive yet way better for intensive software and gaming. Drop down the Aura's specs to the same price as the iMac (actually around $100 less) and you still get an i7-6800K.

 

[Icaras]

I think most just don't advice that because in general an iMac is a poor gaming platform to start with. It can be done but it's loaded with compromises. Matter of fact I do/did quite a bit of gaming with my iMac. Mostly city building games because there is nothing on consoles nor is a joystick good for city builders.

I'll always somewhat disagree with this. Of course the iMac is not the best gaming platform out there, but under certain conditions with some compromises, I think the iMac can be a more preferred gaming platform for some. I advise it if you want to have only one machine to keep things simple, have the money to spend, and if you love OS X that you just can't live without it. There's a ton of naysayers about gaming on the Mac and I don't wish to argue with you or change your mind about it. But the fact of the matter is, I am more than able to enjoy games like Battlefield 4, Hardline, and Battlefront on my four year old iMac running at 1440p at high to even ultra settings. Other recent games I have to simply tone down the settings, but are still absolutely playable. No one can tell me otherwise because it's my experience with it and it's been wonderful.

But just think about it, the monitor has a low refresh rate with mediocre response time. The included mouse and keyboard are the worst things for gaming imaginable. The OS is inherently a poor choice for games w/ lack of dx support and thats if your fortunate enough for there to even be a OS X version of the game your trying to play. So you'll want to install Windows. A mobile GPU. Near a complete lack of upgradability, next gen games come out and you need to spend 2000-3000 for a new iMac vs 300-500 for an upgraded graphics card. Plus a dozen other things like a limited cooling design that can (in certain cases) cause thermal throttling.

The display specs hasn't bothered me. It looks and plays great for me. I've never experienced any ghosting either. I also game solely on a Magic Keyboard 2 and Magic Mouse 2. Yes, you can call me crazy, but also nothing is stopping a user from buying more gaming friendly peripherals for their iMac. And true, OS X lacks DirectX but I'm optimistic about the opportunities Metal may afford in the future. In the meantime, if you want maximum gaming performance out of your iMac, simply bootcamp into Windows like you mention. Problem solved.

And then we get to the mobile GPU and lack of upgradeability. Again, to reiterate from before, I'm pretty impressed with the performance of my iMac over the years, as I'm still able to play modern games. Yes, it won't hold up longer than a desktop GPU, and yes, no upgradeability can be a real compromise for gaming longetivity. But I simply get around that by reselling my machine and just getting the newest specced-out iMac available. The alternative to upgrading and what I think is a real advantage over a Windows PC here is the iMac's resilient and much higher resell value. Essentially, you do pay more money for an iMac, but in the end, you'll also get a much higher return when it comes to reselling, so it's not an issue for me to spend more money for a more elegant all-in-one system that will hold its value greater over time.

 

[Eric5h5]

The chances are exactly 0%. https://www.macrumors.com/2016/04/19/amd-polaris-2016-macs/ By the time Apple might consider nVidia again, the GTX1080 will be old news, so they'd skip over it in favor of a more current model. In any case, the Polaris 10 chips seem quite capable, so not getting the GTX1080 isn't a big deal.

As for "almost went out of business making computers", that's severely revisionist history and not true at all. They turned things around with the original iMacs (remember all the colors?), and were on a distinct upward trajectory for many years before the iPhone came out. Without the iPhone they'd still be a big and successful company, just not so ultra-big and ultra-successful.

--Eric

 

[PieTunes]

I would have to say the chances are zip. Zilch. Nada. Bupkis. I can't recall any time where Apple has used any top of the line graphics card in any of their hardware, that was current at that point in time. That's just not how Apple operates. Even if they did, imagine the markup they would use to upgrade to that option!

 

[cynics]

I'll always somewhat disagree with this. Of course the iMac is not the best gaming platform out there, but under certain conditions with some compromises, I think the iMac can be a more preferred gaming platform for some. I advise it if you want to have only one machine to keep things simple, have the money to spend, and if you love OS X that you just can't live without it. There's a ton of naysayers about gaming on the Mac and I don't wish to argue with you or change your mind about it. But the fact of the matter is, I am more than able to enjoy games like Battlefield 4, Hardline, and Battlefront running at 1440p on my four year old iMac running at 1440p at high to even ultra settings. Other recent games I have to simply tone down the settings, but are still absolutely playable. No one can tell me otherwise because it's my experience with it and it's been wonderful.



The display specs hasn't bothered me. It looks and plays great for me. I've never experienced any ghosting either. I also game solely on a Magic Keyboard 2 and Magic Mouse 2. Yes, you can call me crazy, but also nothing is stopping a user from buying more gaming friendly peripherals for their iMac. And true, OS X lacks DirectX but I'm optimistic about the opportunities Metal may afford in the future. In the meantime, bootcamp your Mac, like you mention. Problem solved.

And then we get to the mobile GPU and lack of upgradeability. Again, to reiterate from before, I'm pretty impressed with the performance of my iMac over the years, as I'm still able to play modern games. Yes, it won't hold up longer than a desktop GPU, and yes, no upgradeability can be a real compromise for gaming longetivity. But I simply get around that by reselling my machine and just getting the newest specced-out iMac available. The alternative to upgrading and what I think is a real advantage over a Windows PC here is the iMac's resilient and much higher resell value. Essentially, you do pay more money for an iMac, but in the end, you'll also get a much higher return when it comes to reselling, so it's not an issue for me to spend more money for a more elegant all-in-one system that will hold its value greater over time.

Oh trust me I get it. Not only do I prefer city builders on my iMac but I've played 3 characters to near veteran levels in Elder Scrolls Online using my iMac USING the Magic Mouse and Keyboard.

I just feel its an injustice to not at least mention the compromises when it comes to Mac gaming.

I was going to build a gaming rig however I much prefer OS X and feel its redundant to have a PC strictly for gaming and a mac for everything else. So instead I bought a PS4, haven't looked back. However with VR becoming more and more popular I'm considering my options. Still might wait for QUALITY console versions of VR though.

I look at it like this though. If you ask gaming developers, what is the preferred method of experiencing the game you created for me? How many would say "on a Mac"?

 

[inhalexhale1]

I would have to say the chances are zip. Zilch. Nada. Bupkis. I can't recall any time where Apple has used any top of the line graphics card in any of their hardware, that was current at that point in time. That's just not how Apple operates. Even if they did, imagine the markup they would use to upgrade to that option!

They used the GTX 680MX in 2012, that was as good as it got at the time. Same for GTX 780m in 2013.

 

[felipesalomao]

I aways had windows pc. But my brother purchased i7 13 inch macbook air (2015) and I loved it. I don't want full time windows anymore, it freeze all the time, system become hell slow after few months. Millions of malware and virus. Really not good experience. As I would buy all in one, I want one that can last for big time (i am from brazil and here apple products are really expensive, just to understand. Imac 27 retina config that cost USD 3000.00 in EUA here cost more than USD 6000.00. So i will try travel and bring it with me, so need be smart choice. I was thinking use external graphical card case (could use gtx 1080).. Then I could aways upgrade after it is too much obsolete. Anyway specifications are good: I7 6700k, 32gb ram, fastest ssd, etc. Only graphic card I don't like.. Also thinked use an macbook pro (new gen) with dock connecting to big monitor, external gpu, mouse and keyboard this way i could get better of 2 worlds with only 1 machine.. But it would need be practical

 

[PieTunes]

They used the GTX 680MX in 2012, that was as good as it got at the time. Same for GTX 780m in 2013.

Those are greatly limited in terms of horsepower compared to their desktop counterparts that were out at the same time, though. Right now the highest end card you can get in the iMac is the M395X. If I'm not mistaken, it is still considerably weaker than a mainstream desktop (non mobile variant) GPU.

I don't think we will ever see a desktop class processor in these machines any time soon.

 

[felipesalomao]

But GTX 1080 will be for first time so powerful as desktop class. High-end card was USD 1000.00 (Titan), now it is USD 599.00 and instead 350w, it only need 180w (desktop, notebook variant should be even less).. Before years was 2 years AMD and 2 years Nvidia. On past 2 years we already had AMD cards.. I don't think impossible use nvidia now again. And also exist GTX 1070 that cost only USD 399.00 and also is too much powerful

 

[mlpriceme]

I certainly bought it for gaming and couldn't be happier. Of course I also bought it for using OS X, iCloud, and Logic Pro but gaming was most definitely still a bullet point for me. Which is why I'm hotly anticipating the new iMac this year and I'm very interested to see what GPU Apple ultimately decides to use.

And I'm not sure what you mean when you say you buy the iMac for the "best possible OS X experience." I think a Mac Pro would probably run OS X the smoothest, and running it in a portable environment would obviously be best served by one of the MacBook products, which in fact, based on sales, is what most Mac users actually prefer. Each individual's usage of OS X will vary so it really depends.

Generally speaking the iMac handles some games well, but let's face it. The Mac is not a serious gaming machine. Most of the games on the app store are ok, but they do not constitute even a small selection of the most outstanding action, adventure, simulation, strategy, sports, racing and so on, games available for Windows. If you want gaming, you buy Windows. If you're a very casual gamer, the Mac is fine. Though you can boot it under Windows and have access to most games that way, you'll always be behind in the latest performance hardware available. Best to build yourself a nice machine where you can even swap out the CPU and the GPU when you want to.

This is the reason people such as the CEO of Oculus (the virtual reality company) asserts that he will support the Mac when Apple builds a good computer. ( Or something to that effect ). And before you dismiss him as a jerk, consider that long time Mac gaming proponent Blizzard, the makers of World of Warcraft, recently dumped the Mac as a platform when introducing their new game Overwatch, which is the current big craze. Blizzard basically said, in no uncertain terms, that it's too much trouble, the hardware just isn't there, the software just isn't there and Apple provides no help. Now I've seen Overwatch running on an iMac booted under Windows, and it's just not as smooth and the graphics are just not as breathtaking. It's a relatively mediocre experience.

Concerning best possible OS X experience... The Mac Pro is an odd duck to say the least. It's built using "Workstation Class" hardware, Xeon-based CPUs, and Dual FirePro GPUs that make the Mac Pro perform best in a highly select situations and environments. Applications have to be designed to take advantage of the Mac Pro's hardware and most are not. The iMac outperforms the Mac Pro in gaming because the Mac Pro's GPUs are geared toward workstation tasks, while the Radeon's in the iMac do better in the world of games.

According to Computer World "...The Mac Pro and the iMac can both run Final Cut Pro and Photoshop, and you'd expect better performance from the pricier Mac Pro. But the iMac's hardware supports OpenCL -- as all shipping Macs now do -- and, the iMac even beats out some of the low-end Mac Pros in specific benchmarks..."

Now add to that the iMac's 5K screen, which is the best screen on the market, especially for people who stare at them all day, with that 5120x2880, 14.7 million pixels crammed into a 27" monitor and it's pure visual joy.

The iMac is an all-in-one computer also. No need to go out and buy a monitor.

So yeah, generally speaking the iMac is the best possible OS X experience... for most people. You really gotta have a specific need for the Mac Pro.

You are correct when you point out that I excluded portables. I did that because the original question was about the current highest end GPU coming to Macs which just ain't gonna happen.

 

[cynics]

But GTX 1080 will be for first time so powerful as desktop class. High-end card was USD 1000.00 (Titan), now it is USD 599.00 and instead 350w, it only need 180w (desktop, notebook variant should be even less).. Before years was 2 years AMD and 2 years Nvidia. On past 2 years we already had AMD cards.. I don't think impossible use nvidia now again. And also exist GTX 1070 that cost only USD 399.00 and also is too much powerful

While its not impossible for Apple to switch back to nVidia to me the Polaris line from AMD looks much more realistic for the iMac. To be honest it looks to perfect to really be anything else. Low cost, mid tier, solid performance, low TDP...did I mention low cost? Lol

 

[Trebuin]

Why did Apple switch from nVidia to AMD? I'm guessing they'll go for the 480-495X on the ATI side. Cynics is right about the cost, plus Apple will make more profit off of those cars due to the low cost. I would love to see the 1080 option this year, but highly doubt it. I'll just see what comes out in this fall when I finally replace my 2007 iMac. Any way, anything will be a huge step up

 

[inhalexhale1]

Those are greatly limited in terms of horsepower compared to their desktop counterparts that were out at the same time, though. Right now the highest end card you can get in the iMac is the M395X. If I'm not mistaken, it is still considerably weaker than a mainstream desktop (non mobile variant) GPU.

I don't think we will ever see a desktop class processor in these machines any time soon.

Yes, they were the mobile variant. But that is the type of GPU the iMac uses, and at the time, those were the best available.

 

[josephst9]

I don't think a future iMac should have a GTX 1080 built in I think the future iPads or actually just the iPhones should have the equivalent of that in them. Think about it, by the time 8k displays are mainstream enough to have console support for even video streaming services, We'll probably be getting close to having iGPUs in phones that can handle games at 2k or even 4k resolutions. I for one don't like windows, or even desktop or laptop PCs for that matter. The only reason I have an actual bloody computer is to play things like the witcher 3. While I am under no illusion that I will ever be able to play Sudeki or even something more mainstream like neverwinter nights on iOS given those games ages. I feel like a lot of consumers would appreciate the ability to play the Elder Scrolls 7 on their one and only device, their iPhone, with Razer peripherals or something. I mean for a while it looked like the computer gaming platform of choice was going to be the Macintosh. I don't know much about it but I do know that if things went just a little different people might have been going windows what's that in 2016. And I don't think that reality is necessarily dead. I honestly think that that should be Apples next big thing. Letting us airplay triple a gaming titles to our TV. Anyways I know this probably wasn't really the right thread for this comment but I feel like given that we're talking about putting gaming oriented GPUs in iMacs it works. Feel free to move it to wherever I just always read these forums and I pretty much made an account just to say that.

 

[smelly cat]

In my opinion Apple will likely stick with AMD for the foreseeable future. It seems the primary reason why Apple appears to love AMD so much lately is because of their superior support for OpenCL. Nvidia, of course, favours their own proprietary technology which is CUDA. It really wouldn't be in Apple's interest to support a proprietary technology that is not its own.

 

[MrNomNoms]

As others have said, AMD is more likely to be the GPU of choice particularly when you look at the long term road map with GCN sitting at the centre of it along with Apple increasingly becoming focused on Metal along with OpenCL. Personally I'm holding back purchasing an iMac until October/November when they do a refresh which will hopefully mean Kaylake, Polaris GPU and NVMe flash which will go well with 10.12.

 

[Aegelward]

There are very strong odds we'll see the desktop version of the AMD RX 480 in the high end iMacs and the 460 in the low end. The 480 is pulling under 100w, which is more or less what the R9 390X pulls, and the 460 is pulling under 75w (the wattage figures come from analysis done by several tech blogs of the 480's projected performance against the 1070, the 150w figure being thrown around is the maximum power draw of it's connection, not the real world operational TDP)

The 460 might just run cool enough to go in the 23" iMacs

 

[maflynn]

When the G5 first launched it was the most powerful personal computer you could buy.

You're right back in the PPC days, Apple was marketing their computers as faster then Intel chips and to a degree that was the case. G3s had an edge on the then current Intel chips, but that advantage quickly evaporated. By the time the G5 came out, it was too little too late. In fact Apple was going to Intel when IBM convinced them that the G5 PPC chip was better. Sadly, in the long run IBM was unable to roll out a 3GHz CPU (as they had promised Apple) and was unable to get a low powered model for laptops. Apple gave up and transitioned to Intel which was a great move and perhaps over due.