Usually updates are preceded by sales of the current models.
Have there been many sales on the iMacs or Mac Minis lately?
If new iMac models are released, I have some predictions:
Internals:
Most likely:
Inclusion of AMD Radeon RX 5X00 graphic cards. These may be
the full desktop-strength versions or the lesser laptop-tier parts, but given
that they are consumer oriented cards I’d say it is a good bet that any new
iMac in the near future will include these chips.
Pretty likely:
Inclusion of Intel 10th generation chips. When
the iMac has been updated in the past, they have been given the latest and
greatest Intel core processors. In 2019, that was the 9th gen chips,
with the i9-9900k at the high end; in 2017 it was the 7th gen chips
topping out with the i7-7700k.
If the iMac is updated in the near time frame, the high-end
model will likely get the i9-10900k, which has not been released yet, but kinda
has been released, sort-of. The rest of the lineup will probably be from the 10th-gen
Intel line of core processors. Apparently, Dell accidentally leaked some advertising
touting 10th generation Intel chips in their newest computers, so
the new chips should be available to consumers soon.
Not likely, but not impossible:
AMD Ryzen processors. Ignoring the Intel 10th
generation processors, the AMD Ryzen chips are the best available. Normally I’d
dismiss the idea of Apple switching to AMD as crazy talk, but there was that
story from a few weeks ago about some sort of references to AMD chips (CPUs,
not just GPUs) in the latest Mac OS build. It may be wishful thinking on my
part, since inclusion of AMD processors in the iMac would likely pave the way
for AMD processors in the Mac Pro, but AMD processors are not a total impossibility
either. AMD CPU/GPU combos (APUs) would make sense in low end iMacs, Macbooks,
and Mac Minis. Ryzen processors 00would make sense as Core processor
replacements, and Threadrippers would be awesome in Mac Pros.
The 10th gen Intel chips are almost identical to the 9th gen except that (1) Intel is enabling hyper threading on more models, (2) price cut (kind of related to #1), and (3) Intel is adding a 10 core model at the top of the line. That 10 core model will suck down 300 watts, so if that goes in an iMac it will have to throttle quite a bit.
So... if Apple sticks with Intel, then all that's really going to mean is that you get hyper threading for less money. That's not nothing. But if Apple went with AMD they could also increase performance at the high end. AMD's chips are now on TSMC's 7nm process and so consume less power to achieve a given performance level than Intel.
More so the ever, Apple’s choice of processors are so uncertain now. They really should have started the switch to ARM in 2018 to remove this uncertainty, but alas no. The iMac 27 really only has the choice of the i9-10900K or Ryzen 3970X on the top end. The former is a well known quantity, the latter the better chip, and Apple probably really wants its ARM chip.
If they are switching to ARM early next year, why bother moving away from Intel until then?
If not switching to ARM, they should switch to Ryzen for the desktops as soon as possible. The laptops can remain on Intel until AMD gets its low power and sleep states in order.
Staying on Intel in 2020 means some high wattage designs, and they must despise that, but it’s probably less effort for them?
Yeah, good point that if they end up switching to ARM next year then switching to AMD now might not make sense.
I guess one nuance on that is if it's only a partial ARM switch. For example, maybe they go ARM in MacBook Air and Mac Mini, but keep x86 everywhere else.
My predictions were based on my assumptions that the higher end products - the Mac Pro, MacBook Pro, iMac Pro, and 27” iMac will not transition to ARM processors. I’d also guess that at least one version of the Mac Mini will stay with x86 chips.
My predictions were based on my assumptions that the higher end products - the Mac Pro, MacBook Pro, iMac Pro, and 27” iMac will not transition to ARM processors. I’d also guess that at least one version of the Mac Mini will stay with x86 chips.
To get developers to port, Apple has to burn the boats and destroy the bridges. Developers won’t really port if you leave them the option of half the machines being the usual x86 ISA. If they are switching to ARM, they have to switch as fast as possible. They did the PPC to Intel switch in 2 years. The same type of timeframe has to happen with Intel to ARM.
This transition isn’t about the hardware. The hardware itself will be great, more performant than Intel or AMD as long as Apple gets first dibs on TSMC’s fab capacity. The transition is entirely about software.
Just look at all the iPad apps that don’t support Slide Over, Split View and PoP. It’s not much work at all, yet about half of the iPad apps I use don’t support modern iPadOS features. It’s frustrating. Half of them are like just crappy webviews, and require very little work to make the changes, yet developers don’t do it. So, Apple has to walk a line where they have to push developers to update, and to be slow with new features because developers just won’t update.
Assuming Apple stays with Intel for these iMacs and Mac mini refreshes - no industrial design changes, just internal component changes - these are basically the options with Comet Lake S, also assuming Intel ships these Skylake+++++ 14nm chips out the door in Q2 2020.
iMac 5K: Core i7-10500, i7-10600, i9-10700K, and i9-10900K iMac 4K and Mac mini: i3-10300, i5-10500, i7-10700, and i9-10900
Essentially, the top ends get 2 more cores and the base and turbo frequency’s go up by about 5%. More cache means about a full speed grade in single core performance (10% increase). The i9-10900 for the Mac mini and iMac 4K is unlikely but it is a 65W processor. Ugh, Intel”s CPU branding has become so stupid ridiculous now.
Then for GPUs, probably a Vega 48 option comes to the iMac 4K and Vega 56 or Navi option for the iMac 5K. An iMac 5K with a Core i9-10900K and a 16 GB W5700X will be a very good media creation machine, especially is this “turbo” mode rumor is true. Like, running it sustained at 150W. Using the iMac Pro cooling system would easily allow for it, but who knows if Apple wants to do it.
Comments
I guess one nuance on that is if it's only a partial ARM switch. For example, maybe they go ARM in MacBook Air and Mac Mini, but keep x86 everywhere else.
This transition isn’t about the hardware. The hardware itself will be great, more performant than Intel or AMD as long as Apple gets first dibs on TSMC’s fab capacity. The transition is entirely about software.
Just look at all the iPad apps that don’t support Slide Over, Split View and PoP. It’s not much work at all, yet about half of the iPad apps I use don’t support modern iPadOS features. It’s frustrating. Half of them are like just crappy webviews, and require very little work to make the changes, yet developers don’t do it. So, Apple has to walk a line where they have to push developers to update, and to be slow with new features because developers just won’t update.
iMac 5K: Core i7-10500, i7-10600, i9-10700K, and i9-10900K
iMac 4K and Mac mini: i3-10300, i5-10500, i7-10700, and i9-10900
Essentially, the top ends get 2 more cores and the base and turbo frequency’s go up by about 5%. More cache means about a full speed grade in single core performance (10% increase). The i9-10900 for the Mac mini and iMac 4K is unlikely but it is a 65W processor. Ugh, Intel”s CPU branding has become so stupid ridiculous now.
Then for GPUs, probably a Vega 48 option comes to the iMac 4K and Vega 56 or Navi option for the iMac 5K. An iMac 5K with a Core i9-10900K and a 16 GB W5700X will be a very good media creation machine, especially is this “turbo” mode rumor is true. Like, running it sustained at 150W. Using the iMac Pro cooling system would easily allow for it, but who knows if Apple wants to do it.