High Sierra firmware suggests Secure Enclave, Intel 'Purley' chips coming to iMac Pro

AppleInsider

A report on Thursday suggests Apple's forthcoming iMac Pro all-in-one will run Intel's server-class "Purley" Xeon platform, as well as a Secure Enclave Processor similar in function to the ARM-based chip embedded in the MacBook Pro with Touch Bar.

According to Pike's Universum, code in the latest macOS 10.13 High Sierra beta release suggests iMac Pro will be Apple's first desktop to feature Secure Enclave integration.

Borrowed from the iOS line of products, Secure Enclave Processor technology was introduced to the Mac platform with the MacBook Pro with Touch Bar late last year. Like its iPhone and iPad siblings, the MacBook Pro uses an ARM processor to authenticate Touch ID operations.

Today's report notes Secure Enclave compatibility will extend to a variety of system-level hardware and software functions including AppleSecureBootPolicy, ApECID, ApChipID, ApBoardID, ApSecurityDomain, ApProductionStatus and ApSecurityMode. The presence of a Secure Enclave also opens the door to Touch ID access, though Apple did not mention such capabilities when it previewed iMac Pro at WWDC.

As for processors, High Sierra code points to the use of Intel's LGA3647 socket, a server-grade component reserved for the Purley Xeon platform. Purley is based on the Xeon E5 and E7 platforms and supports high-end Skylake class Xeon silicon. The information lines up with Apple's promise to equip the desktop with 8-, 10- or 18-core Xeon processors. Entry-level 8-core versions are expected to start at $4,999.

Pike's Universum also found reference to Intel's Basin Falls chipset, high-end hardware that supports the chipmaker's new Core X-Series processors. The X299 chipset is interoperable with Kaby Lake-X and Skylake-X parts, the latter of which is being offered with up to 18 cores.

Beyond the inclusion of Xeon processors and Radeon Pro Vega GPUs, Apple has said very little about iMac Pro's specifications. The company is expected to provide more detail as the desktop's December launch date nears.

soli

But will it only be accessible via the iMac Pro? I'm hoping Apple has worked out the additional logistics, security, power draw, and wireless bandwidth to make a Touch Bar with Touch ID and Apple Pay on a wireless keyboard.

jkichline

We tried to get some details out of this guy at WWDC 2017. He was a rock that wouldn’t break! I can tell you it looks awesome! 

shapetables

I plan to buy one without hesitation, even after being horribly betrayed with the UltraFine BS, but they had better not use the ASIC/ARm coprocessor to lockout the Hackintosh crowd (which is mainly composed of people who can't afford to pay for Apple's quality or have special needs that Apple isn't willing to address), at least not without offering them an alternative (like open/cheap macMinis and a RPi-like board).

aegean

Can't wait to get mine. The only thing I am worrying about is 4TB SSD and how much it will add up.

edited June 2017

macxpress

shapetables said:

I plan to buy one without hesitation, even after being horribly betrayed with the UltraFine BS, but they had better not use the ASIC/ARm coprocessor to lockout the Hackintosh crowd (which is mainly composed of people who can't afford to pay for Apple's quality or have special needs that Apple isn't willing to address), at least not without offering them an alternative (like open/cheap macMinis and a RPi-like board).

I seriously doubt Apple doesn't really give a shit about the Hackintosh community. At the same time, I doubt they're concerned about it either. Its not like most people are willing to go through all of the crap you have to in order to make a Hackintosh and keep it running properly. The people who really need to use a Mac for work will just buy one because well, time is money and most don't have time to continuously screw around with a Hackintosh. 

I wish I would just get a regular 27" iMac in Space Gray. I'm kinda sick of the current design. Its been the same way for years now. Just something simple like a space gray model changes that. 

edited June 2017

macpro

I wonder what the CPU and GPU plans are for the next Mac Pro?

jdw

Mikey Campbell, what are the caveats to the new XENONS versus the base model chips?

You will recall that H.264 encoding is slower on the existing Mac Pro (Xenons) that current iMacs due to the lack of a hardware encoder in the XENON chip. Will we have similarly silly problems with the new XENONS that are to be used in the iMac Pro?

edited June 2017

strangedays

shapetables said:

they had better not use the ASIC/ARm coprocessor to lockout the Hackintosh crowd (which is mainly composed of people who can't afford to pay for Apple's quality or have special needs that Apple isn't willing to address), at least not without offering them an alternative (like open/cheap macMinis and a RPi-like board).

If Apple adds an ARM processor it's because they feel it adds value and helps them achieve their engineering objectives -- not because they're twirling their mustaches dreaming up ways to lock out a few DIY nerds. If it also has the side effect of doing that, I don't think they'll give a shit either.

sflocal

shapetables said:

I plan to buy one without hesitation, even after being horribly betrayed with the UltraFine BS, but they had better not use the ASIC/ARm coprocessor to lockout the Hackintosh crowd (which is mainly composed of people who can't afford to pay for Apple's quality or have special needs that Apple isn't willing to address), at least not without offering them an alternative (like open/cheap macMinis and a RPi-like board).

Apple couldn't care any less about the hackintosh community.  I'm all for garage tinkerers but little to zero love will be lost so get over it.  

If the secure enclave is indeed going into the iMac, that will be a boon for secure transactions.  That means from iPhone to Mac, I will not have to transmit in any form my credit card number to anyone.  That is just great for consumers.

But hey... too bad so sad for the .0000001% that makes up the hackintosh crowd.

edited June 2017

suddenly newton

shapetables said:

 but they had better not use the ASIC/ARm coprocessor to lockout the Hackintosh crowd (which is mainly composed of people who can't afford to pay for Apple's quality or have special needs that Apple isn't willing to address), at least not without offering them an alternative (like open/cheap macMinis and a RPi-like board).

What does Apple owe the Hackintosh crowd? Free copies of macOS?

suddenly newton

StrangeDays said:

shapetables said:

they had better not use the ASIC/ARm coprocessor to lockout the Hackintosh crowd (which is mainly composed of people who can't afford to pay for Apple's quality or have special needs that Apple isn't willing to address), at least not without offering them an alternative (like open/cheap macMinis and a RPi-like board).

If Apple adds an ARM processor it's because they feel it adds value and helps them achieve their engineering objectives -- not because they're twirling their mustaches dreaming up ways to lock out a few DIY nerds. If it also has the side effect of doing that, I don't think they'll give a shit either.

He apparently feels the Hackintosh crowd is entitled to "open/cheap" something or other. I don't know what, I just saw the words "open/cheap" and thought: like Apple does that, ever.

edited June 2017

netrox

aegean said:

Can't wait to get mine. The only thing I am worrying about is 4TB SSD and how much it will add up.

Ok, please explain to me why you want that much SSD storage. I am trying to see the rationale for that amount of storage since MacOSX and several professional applications don't take more than 400 GB of space and I always think it's a good idea to use external drives for data. I mean, if speed is a concern, get Thunderbolt 3 drives which can theoretically go up to 5 GB per second. The latest SSD doesn't even reach that speed yet as for as I know. 

rotateleftbyte

netrox said:

aegean said:

Can't wait to get mine. The only thing I am worrying about is 4TB SSD and how much it will add up.

Ok, please explain to me why you want that much SSD storage. I am trying to see the rationale for that amount of storage since MacOSX and several professional applications don't take more than 400 GB of space and I always think it's a good idea to use external drives for data. I mean, if speed is a concern, get Thunderbolt 3 drives which can theoretically go up to 5 GB per second. The latest SSD doesn't even reach that speed yet as for as I know. 

Have you seen the price of say a 2 disk TB3/USB-C storage container (with no disks)? I've looked and the price of half decent ones is more than a 1TB SSD. I currently have my Photo Archive on a Drobo. that is more than 3TB of data. I'm not saying that I want it all on an iMac local storage but moving to USB-C/TB3 at the moment is going to be a costly operation. I'm looking at a normal iMac at the moment but the storage transition is going to be a major operation. Having a big internal SSD (rotating rust is so 1990's) is one way to go.
Time Machine backups are going to also need some serious storage. It all adds to the cost of moving forward with the technology.

shapetables

Hmm, I hope someone is taking note of all that --if they don't introduce luxury models simultaneously with any "maker kits" or other entry-level Macs they might ever decide to sku some prophets heads will explode. 

Keeping a mainstream operating system away from enthusiasts (and other special needs users) has been shown to result in a special event opening with a new CEO announcing that the latest edition will boot "Linux in a subsystem" [google], though the delay before that consequence may exceed the retirement parameters of current decision makers rofl

ksec

Purely? Xeon? Radeon Pro?

I really wish Apple just give me a ProSumer iMac, Core i9, Normal Top range Radeon VEGA Graphics.

The improved GPU in iMac is still not good enough. 

And how about a new Design? I mean we could use a Thinner Bezel now. 

edited June 2017

tenthousandthings

Well, Apple specifically says "Xeon" and every bit of information that has been officially released so far about Skylake-SP Xeon is for Purley. But there is a lot we don't know.

marvin

aegean said:

Can't wait to get mine. The only thing I am worrying about is 4TB SSD and how much it will add up.

Right now, Apple charges $0.78/GB. The iMac Pro has 1TB SSD in the base model, that's partly what makes the base model so expensive. If the base unit had 16GB/512GB, they might have been able to hit a $3999 entry price.

At $0.78/GB, given the 1TB base storage, this means a 3TB upgrade cost, so $2400. They charge $1200 for a 1.5TB upgrade for the MBP. I doubt SSD prices will have changed by the end of the year. This model with the upgrade would be $7400.

External storage is a bit cheaper at $1500 for a full 4TB so you could have 2TB internal for $800 plus a 4TB external for $1500 for 6TB total vs 4TB internal. However, the 4TB internal would be much faster at ~3GB/s vs ~0.5GB/s over SATA.

sennen

rotateleftbyte said:

netrox said:

aegean said:

Can't wait to get mine. The only thing I am worrying about is 4TB SSD and how much it will add up.

Ok, please explain to me why you want that much SSD storage. I am trying to see the rationale for that amount of storage since MacOSX and several professional applications don't take more than 400 GB of space and I always think it's a good idea to use external drives for data. I mean, if speed is a concern, get Thunderbolt 3 drives which can theoretically go up to 5 GB per second. The latest SSD doesn't even reach that speed yet as for as I know. 

Have you seen the price of say a 2 disk TB3/USB-C storage container (with no disks)? I've looked and the price of half decent ones is more than a 1TB SSD. I currently have my Photo Archive on a Drobo. that is more than 3TB of data. I'm not saying that I want it all on an iMac local storage but moving to USB-C/TB3 at the moment is going to be a costly operation. I'm looking at a normal iMac at the moment but the storage transition is going to be a major operation. Having a big internal SSD (rotating rust is so 1990's) is one way to go.
Time Machine backups are going to also need some serious storage. It all adds to the cost of moving forward with the technology.

Better to have an external box with some form of redundancy, I think, for important data like a photo collection rather than maxing out the internal SSDs

sennen

ksec said:

Purely? Xeon? Radeon Pro?

I really wish Apple just give me a ProSumer iMac, Core i9, Normal Top range Radeon VEGA Graphics.

The improved GPU in iMac is still not good enough. 

And how about a new Design? I mean we could use a Thinner Bezel now. 

Just go an eGPU with a regular 27" iMac. You'll also be able to upgrade the cards if you are that concerned with GPU performance.

They won't change the design for the sake of change, but I wouldn't be surprised if in the second half of 2018 (or around a year after the iMac Pro is released) the space grey becomes an option for the non-Pro 27" at the very least, or a possibly tweak of the design.

gmgravytrain

I can hardly wait for that iMac Pro. I'm hoping those 8 cores will help me in a few ways. I hope it will be good for running Parallels Desktop or VMWare Fusion Desktop. Sometimes it's hard for me to choose what I really need in terms of hardware. I hear people talking about some apps mainly take advantage of high clock speed and how many apps don't support lots of CPU cores. I mainly want the extra grunt to do video encoding using Xilisoft Video Converter Ultimate which can support extra cores. I'm going to need to ask a lot of questions a look at a lot of benchmarks for the iMac Pro before I buy it. I don't care if buying the iMac Pro is overkill because it will be running 24/7 as all my Macs have. I mainly want an Apple computer with a decent GPU. Not for games but for other types of graphics like some of those that show the universe with stars, planets, galaxies and such. That should be a lot of fun.