Will there ever be a new large iMac (Pro)?

[STC1709]

I have an iMac 27" late 2009 (max memory, SSD) beyond its last legs so while a redesign is nice I will take what ever they have to give!! I don't expect to get 11 years out of the new one, maybe 4 if I am lucky!

early 2009 imac 24in with 4gb ram and hdd lmao. i have a 2012 madbook pro thats helping me. i use the desktop for just web browsing and excel. i need one bad but i want a redesign.

 

[pldelisle]

If they put good integrated graphics in, they would have to switch to a mobile CPU, as intel has not ported Iris to the desktop recently. And people who need GPU performance can use the Sonnet box or the Blackmagic box, or perhaps would be better off with an iMac. And they did go 'pro,' because you can get it with 10Gbe, and loads of RAM, paired to a powerful 6-core.

It's not "that" powerful. It's still a 65w CPU. Mac mini must now be able to hold a full 10 core CPU, but these have a massive TDP which, I think, cannot fit the actual cooling system of the mini.

 

[Voyageur]

early 2009 imac 24in with 4gb ram and hdd lmao.

Get in line, guys! I need first🤣

 

[gusping]

Get in line, guys! I need first🤣
View attachment 912641

Be thankful you have a better GPU than me 😉 (2018 Mac mini owner)

 

[CWallace]

The 23" iMac, if it is real, could very well have smaller bezels just as the 16" MBP did.

However, the 27" iMac refresh could stay with the current bezels, just as the 13" MBP and the MBA did for their recent refreshes.

 

[pldelisle]

Be thankful you have a better GPU than me 😉 (2018 Mac mini owner)

Radeon HD 2600 Pro : 144.0 GFLOPS FP32, 35w
Intel 630 : 423.2 GFLOPS FP32, 15w

When you think about it, it's not a big leap in 11 years. Yes, 4x the performance for 20w less, but still, not a big leap.

 

[Freida]

Yeah, exactly. Makes me really sad as I'm in conflict to support Apple as I like what they do and how they do it but last few years it truly diminished a lot.
Jobs wasn't perfect but he was obsessed about good products and I feel Cook is not that.
He talks and talks and talks and then when it comes to unveil we get often tapid product.

I love the Mac Pro but compared to the Mac Pro times in 2008 (best value Mac Pro EVER!) or 2010 this new one is simply overpriced and underspecced. They literally priced a lot of people out with this.

I remember when I got my 2008 Mac Pro and it was around 1700 pounds (that is with VAT btw - FYI for others) and now? If I would like to get the base model I'm out of 5500 pounds. For that money I had 12 core (highest CPU) in 2010 and still have 1500gbp to spare (thats 30" ACD then + 300GBP spare).
So yeah, tons of prosumers are priced out and the alternatives are not very good.

iMac is heavily insulting for the price as you mentioned. So yeah, it feels salty when Cook talks about amazing things and then you look at the Apple store and see the prices they charge for ram upgrades, ssd upgrades or GPU which is not very good anyway. iMac in this case is so overpriced for the tech it gives.
So no Mr. Cook, you are not offering great products for the best price. You are simply ripping people off with old tech and premium sticker.
Very very sad to see

Ah, Freida. Such eloquence.

I could have written it myself. 😉

A lamentable summation of where Apple are.

To sheepishly move on past the 'cough spluttering silence' of the £1k stand announcement on screen...(before the riot broke out...)

I'll give props to HP. Anyone that hasn't wandered around their online store of late should do so. They've turned things around greatly since their u-turn on exiting the PC business. Their design is really coming along a treat and they're not the only PC vendor to do so. Apple's desktop design has become quite safe and stale by comparison. Apple isn't being run by a CEO that is *NOT* a product guy.

I do have to give Cook's Apple some credit on the Mac Pro design (and the Apple Watch), however, the price is stupifying when the old 'Mac Pro' cost £2.5k. And they only seemed to do this with the overwhelming lash they got from the Mac creative community. They've doubled the price and added £1k. They're out of touch with reality. Yes. We know the old G3 towers also cost a 'bit more' than the PC tower comparison. They certainly show what IS possible to include in the AiO design for £3k. Lovely 32 inch 4k screen, potent gpu in it, 8 cores, plenty of ram and a decent SSD! If it ran Mac OS? That's the machine I'd buy from an 'iMac' point of view.

Yes, Cook can talk about products in the pipeline but many of them are evolutionary re-hashes.

It's a sentiment I share. I truly do miss Steve Jobs giving the sermon to the Mac faithful. I miss him greatly.

The Apple I wish and hope for is merely that. 'A dream.' My feelings about them have definitely been separated post Jobs.

In the last shareholder meeting...Cook said Apple gives customers the best product for the best price.

I don't think the current iMac, the entry level iMac (with ancient hard drive), the prices Apple charge now for these desktops and what they USED to charge for iMacs rings true. Apple used to see the Mac Mini with dGPU and boast about that fact. The Mac Pro *used* to be accessible to the broader creative community.

So...a 'substantial' iMac update with a design makeover would be a great tonic right about 'now.'

Azrael.
[automerge]1588780156[/automerge]


11 years? You've done well there. Impressive.

Azrael.

 

[elfamosisimoJON]

So... it seems like we will see the new iMacs next week?

 

[FrankySavvy]

So... it seems like we will see the new iMacs next week?

Why specifically next week? lol

 

[CheesePuff]

Why specifically next week? lol

https://twitter.com/x/status/1258004593784623106

 

[potatis]

Imagine the joy if it only gets a (mechanical) storage bump.

 

[gusping]

Imagine the joy if it only gets a (mechanical) storage bump.

I'd be screaming on here, but deep down I would respect the troll.

 

[Icaras]

The 23" iMac, if it is real, could very well have smaller bezels just as the 16" MBP did.

However, the 27" iMac refresh could stay with the current bezels, just as the 13" MBP and the MBA did for their recent refreshes.

If true, interesting why they would switch it around with the iMac, with the smallest model getting the redesign while the larger size unchanged.

 

[pldelisle]

If true, interesting why they would switch it around with the iMac, with the smallest model getting the redesign while the larger size unchanged.

Maybe it can stay 27 inches but smaller form factor (so smaller bezel) ?

 

[Icaras]

Maybe it can stay 27 inches but smaller form factor (so smaller bezel) ?

Yea, I think @CWallace was mentioning this too....like the iPad Pro 12.9-inch. What would you prefer? I think I would I like this approach of a smaller form factor with same screen size.

 

[sublunar]

If true, interesting why they would switch it around with the iMac, with the smallest model getting the redesign while the larger size unchanged.

I'd say the 23" seems set to be a new product - not just an 'iMac' - even if somehow they are making it a cheaper one. This is where my idea of the iMac Air comes about. New product, new rules.

 

[dapa0s]

WHOA! seems like I'll be returning my 16 inch mbp now!

 

[Icaras]

I'd say the 23" seems set to be a new product - not just an 'iMac' - even if somehow they are making it a cheaper one. This is where my idea of the iMac Air comes about. New product, new rules.

I actually love the idea of an iMac Air. I can definitely see the 23" coexisting between the 21.5" and 27", but one thing I just can't see clearly is how Apple will define the different resolutions between the different iMacs, since we have clear cut 4K (21.5"), 5K (27") and 6K (32") displays. If the 23" is going 4K, we're going to see a drop in PPI, which will throw a wrench in Apple's consistent 218 PPI.

 

[CWallace]

If true, interesting why they would switch it around with the iMac, with the smallest model getting the redesign while the larger size unchanged.

1. Apple's customer input may have told them 27" is an acceptable size for the larger model, whereas ~24" was more preferable than 21.5" for the smaller;
2. The decision is being driven by the availability of screens - 4K @ 24" might be easily available, whereas the only options for 5K might remain the 27" (unless one goes ultra-widescreen, which Apple/customer input may not favor)

 

[sublunar]

It's not "that" powerful. It's still a 65w CPU. Mac mini must now be able to hold a full 10 core CPU, but these have a massive TDP which, I think, cannot fit the actual cooling system of the mini.

Apple might not care and still stick a '65w' Comet Lake S CPU in to the Mini if they can get a BGA variant.

But I think they have bought themselves some time with the Mini by 'refreshing' it in March. I think they can wait a year there and consider a Rocket Lake CPU - especially if the Intel Xe GPU is coming along nicely by then. It might even silence some of the naysayers.

20 PCIe lanes - up from 16 in Comet Lake and before. I see extra Thunderbolt ports in the future here.
DMI x8 connection to the motherboard
Intel Xe graphics (with HDMI 2.0b and Displayport 1.4a support)
Thunderbolt 4 - (which is basically Thunderbolt 3 + all the USB3 standards including 3.2 at 20Gb/s)

I actually love the idea of an iMac Air. I can definitely see the 23" coexisting between the 21.5" and 27", but one thing I just can't see clearly is how Apple will define the different resolutions between the different iMacs, since we have clear cut 4K (21.5"), 5K (27") and 6K (32") displays. If the 23" is going 4K, we're going to see a drop in PPI.

It depends how Apple are defining 'cheaper' as per the leaks. A quality 23" product will ignore the LG UltraFine 4k panel and be 4.6K.

A replacement for 21.5" iMac would be 'classic' 4k a the lower resolution to bring in the people who think 21.5" is too small regardless of the 4k resolution.

The question about storage (HDD/Fusion/SSD?), and presence of T2 (or not) could be addressed at the same time.

1. Apple's customer input may have told them 27" is an acceptable size for the larger model, whereas ~24" was more preferable than 21.5" for the smaller;
2. The decision is being driven by the availability of screens - 4K @ 24" might be easily available, whereas the only options for 5K might remain the 27" (unless one goes ultra-widescreen, which Apple/customer input may not favor)

Another point comes to mind here, if Apple are getting rid of the 21.5" model wholesale, that they still have the non retina 1080p panel in the base 1080p model.

If they are getting rid of all three SKUs why couldn't they drop a 4k panel in the base one and put a 4.6K panel in the upper SKUs? This would answer both schools of thought by offering both panels because while 1080p might be acceptable in a 21.5" model they would be pushing it to find a quality 1080p IPS panel in a 23" size these days.

They may certainly not be in favour of doing something like using a 1440p panel in the base 23" because it could actually offer 'more' desktop screen real estate by default than a 4.6K model for example so the Ultrafine 4k panel could possible serve as a low SKU.

Marketing-wise the 23 iMac could come with '4.6K Retina panel' and a '4k panel' as display options.

 

[CWallace]

I actually love the idea of an iMac Air. I can definitely see the 23" coexisting between the 21.5" and 27", but one thing I just can't see clearly is how Apple will define the different resolutions between the different iMacs, since we have clear cut 4K (21.5"), 5K (27") and 6K (32") displays. If the 23" is going 4K, we're going to see a drop in PPI, which will throw a wrench in Apple's consistent 218 PPI.

Apple could source a custom-build 218ppi ~24" panel (as I believe the 21.5" panel is).

What is throwing me, however, is the claim this is supposed to be a "lower priced iMac" and a custom ~24" panel is going to make that harder.

This is where my worries that the rumored ~24" iMac will use a "consumer grade" 4K panel (most likely the LG 23.7" Ultrafine) and accept a (much) lower than 218ppi to lower the parts bill to allow for a lower MSRP comes from.

One possibility is that this ~24" iMac will be in addition to the 21.5" and 27". In such a scenario, I could see moving to SSD-only base configurations for the 21.5" and 27" models (either offering 256GB for the same price as the current Fusion Drive or charging $100 more, but offering 512GB instead of 256GB).

The ~24" would keep the Fusion Drive as base storage and a non-Retina display to keep the price down.

Another point comes to mind here, if Apple are getting rid of the 21.5" model wholesale, that they still have the non retina 1080p panel in the base 1080p model.

Apple might keep the 21.5" 1080p model around as an "Education Only" model or they could offer a ~24" 1080p model as its replacement (so same case as the new ~24" 4K model, but not a 4K screen to keep the price down).

 

[sublunar]

Apple could source a custom-build 218ppi ~24" panel (as I believe the 21.5" panel is).

What is throwing me, however, is the claim this is supposed to be a "lower priced iMac" and a custom ~24" panel is going to make that harder.

This is where my worries that the rumored ~24" iMac will use a "consumer grade" 4K panel (most likely the LG 23.7" Ultrafine) and accept a (much) lower than 218ppi to lower the parts bill to allow for a lower MSRP comes from.

One possibility is that this ~24" iMac will be in addition to the 21.5" and 27". In such a scenario, I could see moving to SSD-only base configurations for the 21.5" and 27" models (either offering 256GB for the same price as the current Fusion Drive or charging $100 more, but offering 512GB instead of 256GB).

The ~24" would keep the Fusion Drive as base storage and a non-Retina display to keep the price down.




Apple might keep the 21.5" 1080p model around as an "Education Only" model or they could offer a ~24" 1080p model as its replacement (so same case as the new ~24" 4K model, but not a 4K screen to keep the price down).

To be fair a 5k 27" panel is pretty much an Apple exclusive now that Dell have stopped making their version of it and LG's Ultrafine is still quite pricey. Apple get cheap prices from economy of scale and you imagine that they will only improve the quality of their displays with mini LED backlighting to qualify for HDR certification. They really need to hit 1000 nits with over 1k local dimming zones to take the monitor technology into the next generation but this is likely to step all over the spec of the Pro Display XDR.

My feeling over the existing 21.5" model could see one model there to hit a price point - stuck with Coffee Lake CPUs. The rest of the range has to move on and Apple have previous for leaving old models lying around to make the next model up look good.

As for the idea of using a 'consumer' 4k panel - blimey there's a lot of rubbish out there so they could hit a price point. I'd say that Apple would rather continue to sell a 21.5" model cheap (hard drive and all) to fill a lower price point and drive people upstream to buy the 23" which is the model I'd expect to come exclusively with SSD.

Being a new model they can justify starting that range with 256Gb SSD and leave the next 27" all-SSD iMac to start on an even larger SSD capacity (1Tb is a nice round number, existing users would be used to that amount of storage) - perhaps even as an iMac Pro.

 

[Abazigal]

Apple released the Mac Pro and that only serves a tiny percentage of the tiny desktop percentage.

Which probably explains why it has the upgrade pricing that it does. Plus it probably serves double duty as a halo product.

This also makes me wonder about the fate of the iMac Pro. Will it continue to exist and be updated as a spin off of the iMac line, or be folded into a possible upgrade path inside the iMac line?

 

[pldelisle]

The ~24" would keep the Fusion Drive as base storage and a non-Retina display to keep the price down

It can’t. T2 chip only works on flash storage (it seems, at least). So the upcoming iMac will be all flash storage for (almost) sure.

Which probably explains why it has the upgrade pricing that it does. Plus it probably serves double duty as a halo product.

This also makes me wonder about the fate of the iMac Pro. Will it continue to exist and be updated as a spin off of the iMac line, or be folded into a possible upgrade path inside the iMac line?

I’d say there is still place for an iMac Pro, but reality is it’s being merged into the Mac Pro which has much less constraints. iMac Pro must have something very special to exist, like Mini-LED display. They weren’t able to deliver the Mac Pro before long, so they released the iMac Pro back in late-2017. Plus, it cannot be renewed until this fall when RDNA2.0 will be out. A W5700X would be a little bit less powerful than the current Vega 64 in raw performance numbers.

 

[CWallace]

It can’t. T2 chip only works on flash storage (it seems, at least). So the upcoming iMac will be all flash storage for (almost) sure.

Apple could have moved the iMac to all-SSD anytime in the past few years as they did with the portables and the Mini, but they still have not. IMO, it is because too many use cases call for large local storage (1TB-3TB) and doing that in SSD would be prohibitively expensive (even without Apple's mark-ups).

I’d say there is still place for an iMac Pro, but reality is it’s being merged into the Mac Pro which has much less constraints. iMac Pro must have something very special to exist, like Mini-LED display.

The iMac Pro seems to be a popular option with software developers and audio engineers on smaller projects like podcasts and those that do not have full orchestras behind them (like a feature film would). For them, 8-16 cores is plenty of CPU performance and the 5K display is very fit to task.

True, it cannot match the Mac Pro in performance capability, but it is also has a starting price thousands of dollars less and that starting price provides a very usable system (something that cannot really be said for the entry-level Mac Pro).