Still not aimed at game developers... they keep speaking about creators and developers in their videos, but clearly not game devs: UE5 is partially working and missing a lot of its core features on Mac, the last M1 Unity versions just keep crashing, DAZ3D doesn't work anymore since the switch from Intel, no Reallusion softs on Mac ... I guess Windows is still the future for us, even if I hate this So much power wasted
mjtomlin said: Very true they could at some point release a larger iMac, they can always change their mind, But John did say there was only one Mac left to transition; the Mac Pro. That would imply everything coming along through the transition is done, leaving the 27” iMac behind.
27" iMac isn't a separate line of hardware like the Mac Pro. iMac was already updated to M1, but that doesn't mean iMac will never have a screen larger than 24". IMO, this is more of a maximize-near-term-sales approach for the Mac Studio and Studio Display.
27" iMac no longer listed on the Apple Store. It's gone unless Apple u-turn.
Releasing an M series iMac with a larger screen wouldn't be a u-turn. It would just be an expansion of the M series iMac lineup.
If they withdraw it then bring it back then that's a u-turn.
The Mac Studio starts from $1,999 with M1 Max, $3,999 with M1 Ultra.
That UltraFusion interconnect must cost a pretty penny to make sense of those prices.
Actually, not really.
M1 MAX is expensive and the cost doubles for every additional chip so it's actually reasonable.
You misunderstand, the M1 Ultra starts at $3,999, and the M1 Max Studio starts at $1,999. Apart from the processor there's very little difference, a spot of RAM and SSD, and some extra Thunderbolt ports, but nothing worth more than few hundred $. So the bulk of the $2,000 extra cost is an extra M1 Max and the UltraFusion interconnect. Since the M1 Max Studio starts at $1,999, including an M1 Max and a whole freaking computer, then the extra M1 Max can't very well be the whole lot of the $2,000. So that leaves the UltraFusion interconnect.
Or Apple are just pulling their usual tricks with upgrade prices. "actually reasonable"
Looks like Apple just ate Alder Lake for breakfast, lunch, and dinner. They even hinted at a revised Mac Pro. I cannot even imagine.
It's probably going to be 2x the Ultra. So, we can probably imagine. Pretty awesome. x86 is still the problem. The question is more whether the software will work out, or whether the Mac Pro will remain x86 & Apple Silicon split.
Possibly not. My issue here is the pricing. While i'm not that familiar with higher-end monitor pricing, is this display that much better than an $1800 (or less) iMac? So, a stand-alone display costs MORE than a complete iMac with the same screen? I had been hoping they'd have a 27" 4k or 5k display closer to $1k.
Okay, so there were two statements made that sealed the fate of the larger iMac. The first was that the Mac Studio and Studio display were the perfect for 27” iMac users. The second statement was at the very end when he said there was only one Mac left to transition, the Mac Pro.
So, there will be no iMac Pro, no iMac with a larger screen. The 24” iMac is it. The Mac Studio is the future and I’m okay with that.
Good observation, but... I'm not sure I'm OK with that (at least for others, I think I have my solution). By the time you buy a Studio display + Mac mini or Mac Studio, the cost is far beyond a 27" iMac. It's more computer, but also a lot more money.
The solution is just to buy the Mac mini or Mac Studio and then some other display at a reasonable cost. That's most likely what I'll do. But, I had hoped the Apple display would be reasonable in price. I'm a bit sad about that. (Maybe Bitcoin will soar and I'll have some money to burn, but I don't right now.)
The G4 Cube mated with the Mac Pro Trash Can. End of snark, though. It's a nice system.
I'm totally thrilled. Something about it doesn't look as nice as I'd hoped. But, it's going to be at the back of my desk anyway. As long as it performs well and is fairly quiet, I'm a happy camper.
cpsro said: PCIe expansion, DIMM slots, support for ECC memory, and maybe 4 M1 Maxes.
Good points, but how will they even pull that off? I guess they could, but I'd think it would sacrifice performance. Maybe the true-pros that need that stuff won't care so much if the overall package is good enough? IMO, the main missing things are ECC and GPU scalability. I wonder if we'll end up seeing Apple Silicon eGPU come back into the picture at some point, or card-based?
polymnia said: I’m sure there will be complaints about the lack of internal expansion. I’m choosing to look at the glass overflowing with performance out-of-the-box. They make Mac Pro for the tinkerers. This one is for us. The non-tinkering pros. Not a contradiction in terms, Apple even made us our own special Mac.
Yeah, I got over my tinkering phase years ago. The main concern, is that I can't buy now, add later. That's a valid concern, but the tradeoffs are pretty compelling. I'll just have to wait a bit longer to jump in.
The Mac Studio starts from $1,999 with M1 Max, $3,999 with M1 Ultra.
That UltraFusion interconnect must cost a pretty penny to make sense of those prices.
Those base configs are pretty reasonable, though. They are high for someone who doesn't care about GPU-power, I guess and just needs the other aspects (like RAM). But, a no-name gaming PC costs ~$2000. This might not be quite the GPU power (at base), but isn't too far off, and blows the PC away in overall performance.
The Ultra is a bit high I suppose, but it's also a pretty high-end machine. So, a bit hard to compare, and people usually have to pay premiums for that kind of thing (not that I want to, LOL).
mjtomlin said: Makes me wonder if the iMac and mini will now get an M1 Pro option?
What's missing? No upgradeability. At all. None. Zero. Nada. No way to upgrade the RAM, SSD or any other components. What you get is what you get. Forever. You are welcome. Not even a M.2 slot for when the built in SSD seems very slow and small two years from now.
Those GPU speed/power charts were missing the name of the discrete GPUs they used for comparison. The charts shown when the M1 Pro and Max when the MacBook Pro was released ended up being very misleading. How exactly does the M1 Ultra stack up to a RTX 3090 when ray tracing in Blender? Who knows? Guess we have to wait for a real review to find out. We do know that that the M1 Max hash rate is around 10.7 MH/s while a 3090 gets 121 MH/s so even if the M1 Ultra is twice as fast, it is still 1/6th the speed of the 3090.
I agree re: RAM/GPU, but please drop the SSD. They are so easy/cheap to expand with fast storage later on, it just isn't inside the case.
As for the GPU, yes, we'll have to wait and see. But, keep in mind they should be fast on-paper. A lot of the issue is just software compatibility. Your hash-rate is a great example. While the Max isn't going to match a 3090 due to memory bandwidth, it would probably be close if the mining software were Metal. People currently getting that 10 MH/s are essentially doing an emulation hack. That's actually pretty good considering.
If I had to take a guess, I think with a Metal miner, we'd see like 70-80% of like a 3080 for the Pro and then given more memory bandwidth, faster than a 3090 on the Ultra (would need to do more math than I care for right now to find out by how much ).
Okay, so there were two statements made that sealed the fate of the larger iMac. The first was that the Mac Studio and Studio display were the perfect for 27” iMac users. The second statement was at the very end when he said there was only one Mac left to transition, the Mac Pro.
So, there will be no iMac Pro, no iMac with a larger screen. The 24” iMac is it. The Mac Studio is the future and I’m okay with that.
Given that statement, it makes sense to discontinue the 27" iMac but I would have thought that Apple would also discontinue the high-end Intel Mac mini but they haven't.
A similarly spec PC computer made by titan computers has dual xenon processors, 128 gig ram (old DDR4), 2 tb boot disc, for around $6000, with NO thunderbolt ports.
Mac Studio with dual processors, 128 gig ram, 2tb boot disc and all the thunderbolt ports, is around $6400. A great price considering the superior ram and IO of the Studio Mac, and you get MacOS. Nice to see apple compete on price as well.
mjtomlin said: Very true they could at some point release a larger iMac, they can always change their mind, But John did say there was only one Mac left to transition; the Mac Pro. That would imply everything coming along through the transition is done, leaving the 27” iMac behind.
27" iMac isn't a separate line of hardware like the Mac Pro. iMac was already updated to M1, but that doesn't mean iMac will never have a screen larger than 24". IMO, this is more of a maximize-near-term-sales approach for the Mac Studio and Studio Display.
27" iMac no longer listed on the Apple Store. It's gone unless Apple u-turn.
Releasing an M series iMac with a larger screen wouldn't be a u-turn. It would just be an expansion of the M series iMac lineup.
If they withdraw it then bring it back then that's a u-turn.
27" is withdrawn because of the Intel chips + Apple wanting the sales attention focused on the Studio products in the near term. Why have multiple sizes of iPhone screens and iPad screens and MB/MBP screens and then have only one iMac screen size? It doesn't really make much sense other than as a short term limitation.
Just so frustrating for a person looking to replace their 27-inch iMac. iMac is under $3K. And memory can be upgraded. Studio + Studio is closer to $4.5K. But, you do get more cables.
Same here... sad cause I was looking to update my M1 Mini but the M1 Max isn't great enough - I already have a 5950X on the side with much more GPU power - and the M1 Ultra is way overpriced.
There's a difference between being overpriced and too expensive for you.
No too expensive for me, but might be overpriced for my expected workflow: I'm a game dev and at this point I don't know how it will compare to a, let's say, a RTX 3090.
Well there was this comparison to the RTX 3090, so there’s that.
Okay, so there were two statements made that sealed the fate of the larger iMac. The first was that the Mac Studio and Studio display were the perfect for 27” iMac users. The second statement was at the very end when he said there was only one Mac left to transition, the Mac Pro.
So, there will be no iMac Pro, no iMac with a larger screen. The 24” iMac is it. The Mac Studio is the future and I’m okay with that.
I think you are reading too much into the “only Mac left to transition is the Mac Pro” statement. I don’t think that precludes a larger iMac (hopefully bigger than 27” if they do). The iMac has already been transitioned as a family. Nothing says they can’t expand that family later.
While my current Mac is an iMac 27” I am probably more likely to bug a Mac Studio than another iMac to replace it personally. But I think that Apple will see where customers are best served when they decide to expand the iMac family or not.
I am not likely to buy the Apple Studio monitor. Not large enough for my needs and too expensive for my needs. But I am sure it hits the spot for a lot of people
I was wondering about that — I think they killed it in favor of the Studio.
I guess I'll be looking for one of the last Intel 27" iMacs or a refurb. I'm not interested in moving away from the all-in-one design and spending $5000 to get it in 2 parts (Studio + display). The 24-inch model is not an option. Sheesh - I just convinced my bosses to upgrade our Macs to 27-inch models and we're not done yet.
The Mac Studio starts from $1,999 with M1 Max, $3,999 with M1 Ultra.
That UltraFusion interconnect must cost a pretty penny to make sense of those prices.
Actually, not really.
M1 MAX is expensive and the cost doubles for every additional chip so it's actually reasonable.
You misunderstand, the M1 Ultra starts at $3,999, and the M1 Max Studio starts at $1,999. Apart from the processor there's very little difference, a spot of RAM and SSD, and some extra Thunderbolt ports, but nothing worth more than few hundred $. So the bulk of the $2,000 extra cost is an extra M1 Max and the UltraFusion interconnect. Since the M1 Max Studio starts at $1,999, including an M1 Max and a whole freaking computer, then the extra M1 Max can't very well be the whole lot of the $2,000. So that leaves the UltraFusion interconnect.
Or Apple are just pulling their usual tricks with upgrade prices. "actually reasonable"
The UltraFusion interconnect seems like a very specialized process that tightly interconnects two chips together for maximum speed. That comes with a significant cost.
AppleOverlord said: Some wait is probably in order before such definitive comment: in the x86 camp AMD Threadripper is to beat in the HEDT sector, while Intel is surely not sitting idle. Also M1 CPU architecture as a platform is well over a year old at this point: Why don't they upgrade all their platforms to M1 within a short window can't fathom, with M2 Pro/Max/Ultra away at least in mid to late 2023
I'd guess that after the transition (which takes re-design of everything), we'll see mostly the same models with yearly update to M2, M3, etc. I don't know how quickly Intel/AMD can advance, or how long Apple will continue the generation performance jump we've seen in the iPhones (which has been, by comparison, quite considerable). Interesting times.
RIP 27" iMac. End of an era. Back to boxes and cables. Hey, wanna steal my life? Grab this little box off my desk.
I have long wondered about the omission of (and asked for) the ubiquitous lock slot...? The previous mini might have been tight for room, yet this case would seem to afford such with ease... Clearly it is meant to sit on a desk vs in a locked cabinet... Sigh...
That's an interesting point I hadn't thought of (as hasn't been my situation). I guess it *is* a bit harder to grab a Mac Pro or iMac Pro and stuff it under your jacket and walk out. There are probably better ways of addressing it though, than a lock-cable. That seems pretty easily thwarted as well. Also, with all the new security, isn't it kind of a brick if stolen? It would suck for the one being stolen from, but wouldn't benefit the thief much.
foregoneconclusion said:They definitely included comparisons to the "most popular" GPU configuration in the current Mac Pro as well as the "most powerful" GPU configuration in the current Mac Pro. That's in addition to the specific GPU comparisons for current iMac models.
The problem is that in the Mac Pro, you can stick 4x of those things in there. But, the fact that they hit 3-4x the performance, means these are starting to get in the general ball-park of a max-config Mac Pro. Given the cost is 4x to 5x LESS money, that's pretty impressive.
danvm said: I agree. When you consider cost (the entry iMac Pro was $5,000 vs $3600 for the Mac Studio + Display Studio) and performance, there is no reason to release a revised iMac Pro, IMO.
Yeah, the iMac Pro was pretty spendy, though. I think the more problematic comparison was against the 5k iMac. Couldn't you get one of those closer to $2k? I'm not sure what those people do at this point (ie. big-screen iMac people on a budget). I guess Studio display + Mac mini, but the GPU performance would suffer. Probably have to go for the Mac Studio + 3rd party display. (guess you addressed that)
Needed: way to use an old 27-inch iMac as a display for the Mac Studio.
What year? I use my 2009 27” iMac as an external display for my M1 mini. I believe models up until 2014 can be used in Target Display mode. Just need a TB3 to Mini DisplayPort adapter.
Weird. Why does Apple say this, then?
The other Mac that you're connecting it to must have been introduced in 2019 or earlier and have macOS Catalina or earlier installed.
Can’t say without more context. All I know is that my M1 Mac mini works fine connected to my 2009 iMac.
Still not aimed at game developers... they keep speaking about creators and developers in their videos, but clearly not game devs: UE5 is partially working and missing a lot of its core features on Mac, the last M1 Unity versions just keep crashing, DAZ3D doesn't work anymore since the switch from Intel, no Reallusion softs on Mac ... I guess Windows is still the future for us, even if I hate this So much power wasted
Sweeney has said he’s committed to bringing UE to ASi. UE5 is not even released yet, have patience. Is it Apple’s fault it’s not ready yet? Or that there are bugs in the native Unity 3D? Nope. This is definitely aimed at that market whether they’re ahead of some of the software catching up or not. I don’t think Maya, Houdini, Nuke, Clarisse are native yet either. But they’ll get there. After Effects native is still in beta. Many of my plugins for that are still catching up, but it’s happening. Octane X just went native a few months ago. I’m about to sign up for Cinema 4D/Redshift because that’s native. I’ll wait for UE, Houdini, Clarisse, others to catch up.
Still not aimed at game developers... they keep speaking about creators and developers in their videos, but clearly not game devs: UE5 is partially working and missing a lot of its core features on Mac, the last M1 Unity versions just keep crashing, DAZ3D doesn't work anymore since the switch from Intel, no Reallusion softs on Mac ... I guess Windows is still the future for us, even if I hate this So much power wasted
If you're designing the content for games: music/sounds, video, artwork, 3D modelling (depends on your preferred software), etc, then it's targeted at you. But if you're coding the actual game, then unless it's specifically for an Apple platform, you're better off with a PC at this point since that's where the biggest gaming market is (hence where the game engine technology is best supported).
Thanks for the info. I guess Apple had to forgo some features to get the ASi transition going, and TDM didn't make the chopping block. Not many people really knew about it outside of us power users.
Comments
Paging Ming…
Or Apple are just pulling their usual tricks with upgrade prices. "actually reasonable"
x86 is still the problem. The question is more whether the software will work out, or whether the Mac Pro will remain x86 & Apple Silicon split.
Possibly not. My issue here is the pricing. While i'm not that familiar with higher-end monitor pricing, is this display that much better than an $1800 (or less) iMac? So, a stand-alone display costs MORE than a complete iMac with the same screen? I had been hoping they'd have a 27" 4k or 5k display closer to $1k.
Good observation, but... I'm not sure I'm OK with that (at least for others, I think I have my solution). By the time you buy a Studio display + Mac mini or Mac Studio, the cost is far beyond a 27" iMac. It's more computer, but also a lot more money.
The solution is just to buy the Mac mini or Mac Studio and then some other display at a reasonable cost. That's most likely what I'll do. But, I had hoped the Apple display would be reasonable in price. I'm a bit sad about that. (Maybe Bitcoin will soar and I'll have some money to burn, but I don't right now.)
I'm totally thrilled. Something about it doesn't look as nice as I'd hoped. But, it's going to be at the back of my desk anyway. As long as it performs well and is fairly quiet, I'm a happy camper.
Good points, but how will they even pull that off? I guess they could, but I'd think it would sacrifice performance. Maybe the true-pros that need that stuff won't care so much if the overall package is good enough? IMO, the main missing things are ECC and GPU scalability. I wonder if we'll end up seeing Apple Silicon eGPU come back into the picture at some point, or card-based?
Yeah, I got over my tinkering phase years ago. The main concern, is that I can't buy now, add later. That's a valid concern, but the tradeoffs are pretty compelling. I'll just have to wait a bit longer to jump in.
Those base configs are pretty reasonable, though. They are high for someone who doesn't care about GPU-power, I guess and just needs the other aspects (like RAM). But, a no-name gaming PC costs ~$2000. This might not be quite the GPU power (at base), but isn't too far off, and blows the PC away in overall performance.
The Ultra is a bit high I suppose, but it's also a pretty high-end machine. So, a bit hard to compare, and people usually have to pay premiums for that kind of thing (not that I want to, LOL).
I doubt it now.
I agree re: RAM/GPU, but please drop the SSD. They are so easy/cheap to expand with fast storage later on, it just isn't inside the case.
As for the GPU, yes, we'll have to wait and see. But, keep in mind they should be fast on-paper. A lot of the issue is just software compatibility. Your hash-rate is a great example. While the Max isn't going to match a 3090 due to memory bandwidth, it would probably be close if the mining software were Metal. People currently getting that 10 MH/s are essentially doing an emulation hack. That's actually pretty good considering.
If I had to take a guess, I think with a Metal miner, we'd see like 70-80% of like a 3080 for the Pro and then given more memory bandwidth, faster than a 3090 on the Ultra (would need to do more math than I care for right now to find out by how much
Well, at least since mid-2000s. The G5 crushed PCs.
probably more likely to bug a Mac Studio than another iMac to replace it personally. But I think that Apple will see where customers are best served when they decide to expand the iMac family or not.
That's an interesting point I hadn't thought of (as hasn't been my situation). I guess it *is* a bit harder to grab a Mac Pro or iMac Pro and stuff it under your jacket and walk out. There are probably better ways of addressing it though, than a lock-cable. That seems pretty easily thwarted as well. Also, with all the new security, isn't it kind of a brick if stolen? It would suck for the one being stolen from, but wouldn't benefit the thief much.
The problem is that in the Mac Pro, you can stick 4x of those things in there. But, the fact that they hit 3-4x the performance, means these are starting to get in the general ball-park of a max-config Mac Pro. Given the cost is 4x to 5x LESS money, that's pretty impressive.
Yeah, the iMac Pro was pretty spendy, though. I think the more problematic comparison was against the 5k iMac. Couldn't you get one of those closer to $2k? I'm not sure what those people do at this point (ie. big-screen iMac people on a budget). I guess Studio display + Mac mini, but the GPU performance would suffer. Probably have to go for the Mac Studio + 3rd party display. (guess you addressed that)
Can’t say without more context. All I know is that my M1 Mac mini works fine connected to my 2009 iMac.