Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'iMac' started by MrMJS, Mar 11, 2014.
Any rumors about an iMac Pro line?
What exactly would constitute an iMac Pro?
Please define what you think a iMac Pro would be?
FWIW, the Macbook Pro is just a name to differentiate between the now discontinued MacBook and the more powerful laptop line.
As for the iMac, there's no lower machine to differentiate and there's not too much more you can add to it AFAIK
I think the iMac Pro is actually called the Mac Pro.
Not going to come. Unless, you're hoping to see a more powerful iMac with Xeon CPUs and dual-GPUs like the FirePro in the Mac Pro. But that's pretty unlikely due to thermal and design constrains of the iMac.
Pro name is used to differentiate the machine for what is aimed at as regular consuming and as a working machine. The current maxed out iMac as definitely a powerful machine and more than enough for many, even 3d artists and visual fx people (like myself).
But I would be happy if Apple made a pro, for 2 reasons:
-I want a slightly higher end than the current high, just one bump up, with
Desktop GPU, thunderbolt2 port + a couple more of them, up to 64 gb of ram.
I think thats pretty much all I can imagine I miss on the current iMac - just one that is slightly more powerful than the current maxed out.
-To end the discussion with those Mac Pro owners that think you are sitting on a toy and a consumer machine simply because its not called a "pro" machine I know that´s a stupid argument - but I´ve had a fair share of discussions with Mac Pro users saying you can´t use an iMac as a pro machine....and I disagree.
If the iMac wasn't a pro machine, Apple wouldn't have used iMacs to produce a pro ad.
As evidenced in this behind the scenes video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vslQm7IYME4
1. The only way to address more than 32GB of RAM would be for Apple to utilize Xeon processors (Haswell desktop processors can only address a max of 32GB). However, since the high end iMac already uses a processor as fast as the base Mac Pro (give or take) AND the E5-1620 v2 used in the base Mac Pro has a TDP of about 50watts more, it makes it highly unlikely that any Xeon would fit within the thermal limits of the iMac without using a slower processor (thus negating the "Pro" aspect of an iMac "Pro").
2. Thunderbolt 2 will most likely be found on the next iMac. It clearly was a situation where the iMac was ready but the chips were not (or the Macbook Pros were going to gobble up all that Intel could make) and since the iMac is more geared towards the consumer, the loss of TB2 makes sense since the average consumer really wouldn't know the difference.
Just a few points of interest.
Also, in case anyone is holding out for Broadwell for greater than 32GB of RAM, so far I haven't seen anything that says it will either. Skylake will bring DDR4 which is when I expect us to see regular desktop processor break the 32GB barrier. Of course at this point this is all purely speculation, since Intel won't be releasing Broadwell until something like Q4 now and a lot can change in 8-9 months.
Desktop computers in general is a stagnant category. So I know this won't happen, but I would love to see them bridge the gap with either an iMac with a pro-level graphics card or a Mac Pro with i7 chips.
But there just aren't enough buyers anymore to justify that amount of options for Apple.
I'd love to see iMac with proper GPU, but then again I am not sure if current cooling solution and overall body design will be sufficient enough to cool beefier GPUs. But something I'd rather see is a prosumer version of new Mac Pro with Core i series CPU, non-ECC RAM and GTX/Radeon GPU in new Mac Pro form-factor. This will be better solution since it will provide much better cooling, plus you can choose your own monitor, the recent display quality of Apple products have been disappointing at best.
Q. Will we see an iMac Pro?
A. No. That's what the Mac Pro is for.
THats not an argument. an maxed out imac is much more powerful than a maxed out Macbook pro. And a lot of professionals use that as their workstation as well. And replacing parts in a Macbook pro is as hard if not even harder than an iMac. So, the "pro" name is just a "name".
And besides, even as a professional....I think the mac pro is beyond expensive, not because its not worth it, IF you are using softwares that actually handles 12 cores and a double gpu. And I cant think of one software except for apples own tools which utilize that power. For my tools, the adobe package and so on, it would perform less than my maxed out imac while I would have to pay the double. A maxed out iMac should change name to iMac Pro and the Mac Pro should change name to Mac - Final Cut edition (because that is pretty much the only place you get your moneys worth for it)
It wouldn't be an iMac obviously, but I'd like to see an enthusiast level desktop using the nMP packaging. Desktop CPU, single desktop GPU and an external display starting the ~$1500 price range.
The current i7 iMac in any guise is more machine than most people need at present.
A bridge between the iMac and Pro would be nice but not viable due to numbers. How Apple have pitched their various ranges are pretty much spot on in my opinion and any hybrid iMac would only dilute the prestige of the Pro range.
Can someone make a 3D render of what an "iMac Pro" would looks like? lol
It was the first thing that popped into my mind.
I couldn't agree more!
Too glary and get dirty easily.
I clean mine all the time.
In the iMac 2009 was less noticeable.
I heard the rumored Imac Pro is so thin it floats!
using a 6 core 4930k and or 4960x would make it a lot more pro-ish to bad it will still use mobile graphics..and having to use a completely different motherboard than that of a 4 core socket 1150 to accommodate 2011 would make it completely impossible because apple is stupid but i still love em
A 6-core i7 paired with special-designed GPU's with thinner profile like in the Mac Pro but regular AMD GPU's instead of the workstation AMD FirePro's in the Mac Pro.
That would make an awesome iMac Pro. I don't need Xeon's. I don't need FirePro's. I don't need workstation components. I just want high-end components.
Thunderbolt 2 doesn't even need to be mentioned since it will most likely come to all Mac's. Retina display/4K display would be cool but would add a lot to the price. But if it's iMac Pro, then why not - at least as an option.
My thought was a 6/8 core i7, high-end desktop GPU, 16/32gb memory. But as others have said, heat would be an issue, though I'm sure our heros at apple could figure something out.
That would seem to compete directly with the Mac Pro in terms of power but also in price. Again, the iMac is plenty powerful for the majority of users. Those that want more will need to make the jump to the Mac Pro
yeah the thing is I want more, but single gpu and higher clockspeed, not tons of cores and multiple gpus. Because none of the programs I use exploit it.
But honestly for me its just wishful thinking. the maxed out current imac is awesome as it is. ANd a pro machine in my eyes. I push it hard with Unity, after effects, photoshop, parallels with windows and games running at the same time. the machine runs smooth as butter. So, Im not exactly unhappy
Problem is that Mac Pro is niched towards those who need a workstation computer - not to those who simply want more performance than the regular iMac.
Perhaps but people have been calling on Apple to release a headless iMac that would sit between the iMac and Mac Pro models, and nary a word or peep from apple. I don't see this this ever occurring.