New 'pro' iMac said to have discrete GPU and Xeon E3 processor, ship at end of 2017

124»

Comments

  • Reply 61 of 74
    misa said:
    Apple has not produced a usable computer since the "cheese grater" Mac Pro. 
    Drop the mic and walk away.

    Too bad what you said is flat-out ridiculous.
    williamlondon
  • Reply 62 of 74
    jdwjdw Posts: 464member
    Can any of you explain to me why an iMac needs a server chip inside?  

    Also, what is a discrete GPU, specifically?  Are we talking an Nvidia Titan Xp?  What is meant by "discrete"? ( If none of you know, maybe they ought to call it "discreet" instead.)
    entropys
  • Reply 63 of 74
    tallest skiltallest skil Posts: 41,329member
    jdw said:
    Also, what is a discrete GPU, specifically?
    It has its own RAM, rather than sharing the system’s. Intel’s GPUs, for example, take a dynamic proportion of whatever amount of RAM the system has (if it’s low, it can be 512 MB; if it’s high it can be 1 GB, etc.). Dedicated (discrete) GPUs are given their own memory (generally GDDR5 these days).
    bestkeptsecret
  • Reply 64 of 74
    jdwjdw Posts: 464member
    jdw said:
    Also, what is a discrete GPU, specifically?
    It has its own RAM, rather than sharing the system’s. Intel’s GPUs, for example, take a dynamic proportion of whatever amount of RAM the system has (if it’s low, it can be 512 MB; if it’s high it can be 1 GB, etc.). Dedicated (discrete) GPUs are given their own memory (generally GDDR5 these days).
    But how is that different from the AMD Radeon R9 M395X inside my 5K iMac, which says it has it's own 4GB of RAM?  If no different, then I still don't understand why people are calling "discrete GPUs" something "NEW" in an iMac.
    mattinoz
  • Reply 65 of 74
    duervoduervo Posts: 57member
    smalm said:
    The "server-grade" iMac reportedly sports the Xeon E3-1285 processor
    An old Broadwell at the very end of 2017? First class information from DigiTimes...
    Not Broadwell.

    From DigiTimes:

    "The new server-grade iMac is expected to feature Intel's Xeon E3-1285 v6 processor, 16-64GB ECC RAM, up to 2TB NVMe SSD and a latest discrete graphics card. The product is unlikely to become available in the market until the end of 2017."

    It's a small, but not insignificant, omission by AI. Most likely unintentional. Anyway, the E3 v6 CPU"s are Kaby Lake. However, Intel doesn't have a 1285 listed as a released model on their Ark site at this time. Given this system isn't rumoured to be released until later this year, it is possible that Intel will have a 1285 released in time for Apple.

    On a semi-related note, I have no idea where some people are getting the idea that Intel limits these E3 processors to 32GB of RAM. That is completely false. They support up to 64GB.
    edited April 19
  • Reply 66 of 74
    brucemcbrucemc Posts: 1,006member
    macxpress said:
    brucemc said:
    Just a few musings after reading this thread and some other stories/podcasts lately:
    - After 47 posts, there is very little consensus on this thread as to what a new Mac Pro should have.  It ranges all the way from a smaller but powerful package, to something like the previous MP model, up to a server and then into the realm of Apple basically reselling components anyone wants and supporting that user upgradeable system.  The only thing guaranteed is that no matter what Apple introduces, the Internet will be filled with wailing of failure.

    - We keep hearing that Apple needs to "innovate" here, but I am not sure why.  Most people that are voicing an opinion on the "pro market" are saying they want only bigger/better/faster (with no interest in size/weight/battery life/UI).  Apple produced an innovative MBP, and the complaints were that all "pros" wanted was faster CPU, more RAM, thicker, more ports with keeping of existing ports.  That doesn't seem to require innovation.  The last MP was an Apple attempt at innovation (clearly in the wrong direction).  But what we hear a lot is that having ability to upgrade the GPU to latest and greatest, with more RAM of course, is the most important.  So again, doesn't require a lot of innovation (it does require good engineering, time & resources of course).  Perhaps we can agree that Apple's problem here is too much innovation (or attempts at it), not too little?

    - The nature of high-end computing has changed a lot in the last decade, and it isn't slowing down.  10 years ago an enterprise had to have its own mini-DC -> now they can just as easily purchase computing resources on-demand from any number of public cloud providers (Amazon, MS Azure, Google Cloud, Backspace, ...).  Scale here is simple and almost infinite (I need 520GB of RAM to run this application...done).  I am not sure that someone who is "computer modelling" is thinking of a new Mac Pro, vs. a cloud strategy.  For sure, there are pro tasks like video & photo production / editing which require the high-end work stations due to the user/operator interaction.  But I know for a fact that many tasks which do not require immediate user interaction are done via cloud computing (video compression, encryption, etc).

    - No matter how much money/resources that Apple "could" devote to higher-end Mac's in the future, it would not move the needle on Apple's revenue.  There are absolutely valid reasons for pros that use Macs to want better machines than Apple has given them.  And Apple does need to keep a vibrant developer community for its application ecosystem.  However, I am afraid that those who think having a wide range of Mac options for the pros will lead to growth (Apple's salvation...!!) are delusional.  Look at Apple's Mac revenue line over the last 10 years.  Apple couldn't grow their high-end Mac business by more than a few $B/year no matter what they develop.  The market simply isn't there (Apple's isn't also going to say let's drop their margin pants so we make very little money per unit, and majority of those with Windows workflows forever aren't going to switch).  The only growth in Apple's Mac business is to go a bit further down in the premium laptop market, to say the $799 entry point.  They could only do this with their own CPU (and maybe GPU) ARM-based tech, and it is not clear that they will do this.  They seem to be pushing iPad in this area.

    I certainly hope Apple developers a "really good" Mac Pro that provides for updates for at least 10 years, if not more.  It should keep a number of developers from leaving and the bad press from getting out of hand - because that is what this is really about - this new MP might as well be coming out of the PR/marketing budget.
    Thats because this thread is supposed to be about an iMac Pro...not the new Mac Pro. 
    And yet the majority of posts were about pro users / requirements in general, then the Mac Pro, and then the iMac "pro".
  • Reply 67 of 74
    tallest skiltallest skil Posts: 41,329member
    jdw said:
    …I still don't understand why people are calling "discrete GPUs" something "NEW" in an iMac.
    Oh! You’d be right, then. Every iMac had a discrete GPU up until the switch to Intel (actually until the Core 2 Duo, when they released a cheaper Core Duo iMac with integrated Intel stuff), and then only began to have integrated graphics (in some models) in the Early 2009 iMac.
  • Reply 68 of 74
    volcanvolcan Posts: 1,247member
    k2kw said:
    Apple still builds rack servers for their internal Data Centers
    The last I read they were using mostly HP machines in North Carolina, but perhaps they are building their own boxes now with off the shelf components, however I doubt they are running any variant of macOS on them. I suspect mostly Linux just like Google, or a combination of Solaris, Windows, BSD, etc. I'm pretty familiar with data center configurations and I'd say almost no one standardizes on one single platform. The center where we keep our servers is reported to be about 60% Windows and 40% Linux.
  • Reply 69 of 74
    jdwjdw Posts: 464member
    jdw said:
    …I still don't understand why people are calling "discrete GPUs" something "NEW" in an iMac.
    Oh! You’d be right, then. Every iMac had a discrete GPU up until the switch to Intel (actually until the Core 2 Duo, when they released a cheaper Core Duo iMac with integrated Intel stuff), and then only began to have integrated graphics (in some models) in the Early 2009 iMac.

    @Mike Wuerthele, you are the author of the article entitled:

    New 'pro' iMac said to have discrete GPU...

    Since all iMacs have "discrete" GPUs already, please explain what you mean by the term "discrete."  Swappable?  TITAN Xp compatible?  What?
    edited April 19
  • Reply 70 of 74
    jdw said:
    jdw said:
    …I still don't understand why people are calling "discrete GPUs" something "NEW" in an iMac.
    Oh! You’d be right, then. Every iMac had a discrete GPU up until the switch to Intel (actually until the Core 2 Duo, when they released a cheaper Core Duo iMac with integrated Intel stuff), and then only began to have integrated graphics (in some models) in the Early 2009 iMac.

    @Mike Wuerthele, you are the author of the article entitled:

    New 'pro' iMac said to have discrete GPU...

    Since all iMacs have "discrete" GPUs already, please explain what you mean by the term "discrete."  Swappable?  TITAN Xp compatible?  What?
    Discrete = not integrated with the processor. At no point did I say that discrete GPUs in an iMac are new.

    For the record, not all iMacs have discrete graphics. The Intel HD Graphics 6000, Iris Pro 6200 in the 21.5 are integrated. The assorted R9 in the 27-inchers are discrete. There's nothing suggesting that any iMac will have a PCI-E slot for a GPU.
    edited April 19 jdw
  • Reply 71 of 74
    tallest skiltallest skil Posts: 41,329member
    There's nothing suggesting that any iMac will have a PCI-E slot for a GPU.
    Oh, that reminds me. I once stopped a Best Buy sales representative from selling a young couple an iMac (original aluminum case, I believe) and an off the shelf PCIe graphics card because his rationale was “it should work in there, no problem.” After pointing out that the computer was too thin for the card to fit in it, I asked him to show us on the display model where the door was to install it. He backed away. I handled the rest of their sale (the two really only wanted to play World of Warcraft, and the iMac handled that just fine).
  • Reply 72 of 74
    mattinozmattinoz Posts: 455member
     There's nothing suggesting that any iMac will have a PCI-E slot for a GPU.
    MXM cards have already been used in iMac for years prior to the current model.
    Oh... you mean future iMacs....

    Now wonders if I could drop new MXM card into older 27inch iMac just for fun.
    edited April 20
  • Reply 73 of 74

    No one needs a "server grade iMac" What does that even mean besides the XEON? A 4 core Xeon would be a waste of everybodys money. No one needs ECC Ram. Not even in a Workstation. If they want to build an iMac for Pro Users they need to put in an i7-6950X with 10 cores, the option for 128GB of Ram and a discrete Nvidia Desktop grade GPU. If Razer can acomplish to put a full gtx 1080 in a Laptop I am sure Apple can put one into an iMac who is attached to power non stop and doesn't need to be as thin as a Macbook.
    Love it when somebody says "no one needs" when they mean "I don't need". 

    Also, now that the rumor is apple is doing 64gb, you're moving the goal posts to say a pro needs 128gb of ram. This game never ends. 


    Why would anyone want/need a server with a ginormous screen glued to it and mostly non servicable parts?
    Not very convenient to maintain, put in a rack,...
    Calling it a "workstation grade iMac" would make a lot more sense.

    As for the RAM. 64GB is certainly sufficient for most pro users. As for me the more the better. I currently have 96GB which is enough most of the time. BUT if the CPUs support it I would just ask to have it an option. Even if Apple doesn't offer it themselves. 
  • Reply 74 of 74
    volcanvolcan Posts: 1,247member
    ChrisCarneval said:
    As for the RAM. 64GB is certainly sufficient for most pro users. As for me the more the better. I currently have 96GB which is enough most of the time. BUT if the CPUs support it I would just ask to have it an option. Even if Apple doesn't offer it themselves. 
    I have a maxed out i7 iMac 5K with 32 GB RAM. I use a lot of Adobe CC apps at the same time. Every once and a while I get a beach ball. Not sure what the cause is but it can take up to 30 seconds to resolve. Perhaps more ram would help.
Sign In or Register to comment.