New iMac Pro and M3 iMac coming, but not in 2022

2»

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 34
    Could we just get a new M based 27" iMac with upgradable RAM?  Come on Apple?!  I'm a stock holder, and love the profits, but forcing customers to buy outdated equipment and to no degree of upgradability is really not cool.

    Amen!!

    williamlondonh2p
  • Reply 22 of 34
    lkrupp said, "There is no point in waiting, waiting, waiting for the next big thing. People like me fell into this trap waiting for the M1 27” iMac that never happened. I will wait one more time for WWDC, this time for an updated Mini, and that’s it. If that doesn’t materialize then it’s either a 24” iMac or tricked out Mini and display. My 2013 27” iMac is still performing flawlessly but I’m stuck three generations of macOS behind. And no way will I patch Monterey to run on my almost ten year old machine."

    I could have written that comment, for the most part it absolutely mirrors my sentiments. Same old late 2013 27" non-upgradeable iMacThere is a difference though. If Apple, in its infinite wisdom, does not introduce a newer version of the 27" iMac (or larger) with the M chip at the WWDC in June, i will jump ship and go back to Windows. I am sick to the gills of Apple and their marketing traps and BS. Enough is enough.
    edited April 25
  • Reply 23 of 34
    docno42docno42 Posts: 3,712member
    rob53 said:
    Most consumers don’t read AI so this information generally won’t stop them from buying when they want to. 

    Of course, all of us care and we know new products are always on the horizon. Problem is I want to replace my iMac 2015 one more time while I still have an interest in computers and the constant new products give me heartburn trying to decide when to spend money on one last, almost full-blown Mac. Please tell me the M1 Max will not be EOL’d in the next 10 years (software wise) and I would be comfortable with the new, base model Mac Studio (of course with more storage and maybe memory) and the Studio Display. 
    My mom’s 27” iMac was long past expiration and frankly she was much happier with the Mac Studio/Studio Display option anyway.  Until we noted the same Mac Studio configuration in 14” MacBook Pro form was only $300 more - so now she has a 14” MacBook Pro instead of a Mac Studio behind her Studio display.  Built in battery back up and portable when she needs it.  With the power efficiency of the M1 chips there is zero downside to having your primary machine be a laptop now - so that’s the path she ended up going down!
    tenthousandthings
  • Reply 24 of 34
    docno42docno42 Posts: 3,712member
    entropys said:
    Definitely a prosumer gap at the moment. No 27 inch iMac, and a base studio and studio display costs a lot more!

    Until the next upgrade.  Never liked throwing away the display when you upgraded an iMac.  At least before retina you could use it with target display mode :pensive: 

  • Reply 25 of 34
    9secondkox29secondkox2 Posts: 1,394member
    entropys said:
    Definitely a prosumer gap at the moment. No 27 inch iMac, and a base studio and studio display costs a lot more!

    I would settle for an Mx Pro Mac mini but it should be a lot less than a 5K iMac.
    I think that’s the key phrase: “settle.”

    when is apple the company of settling for anything? 

    They make the best computing products in the world and have a history of going above and beyond. 

    The Mac studio is just a better spec Mac mini with the old iMac 5k spec monitor plus 100 bits of brightness. 

    Definitely not amazing, revolutionary, or s viable alternative to an iMac 5k or iMac Pro. 

    The iMac represents apple far more than another small box pc with stuff plugged into it. 

    There will be another larger iMac. The 24” is something of a strange bird. Some like it. A lot really don’t. Wouldjj MMO t make sense to make s bigger version of that. Also need to have s seriously capable machine. M3 or m2 will be much better fit. 
    edited April 25
  • Reply 26 of 34
    "Unless Apple changes the laws of physics, I cannot conceive of how they will squeeze enough heat sink into an iMac as thin as the 24” for an M1/2/3 Max or Ultra.  Maybe some crazy heat spreader?  Maybe make the entire back of the iMac a heat sink?   No clue."

    The M1 Max comes in the 16" Macbook Pro, and though the iMac is 26% thinner, it contains 2 1/2 times the volume of the laptop.  Plenty of room to blow heat around.
  • Reply 27 of 34
    cpsrocpsro Posts: 3,022member
    In other news, Apple isn't able to produce Mac Studios due to lockdowns in China.
  • Reply 28 of 34
    MarvinMarvin Posts: 14,807moderator
    entropys said:
    Definitely a prosumer gap at the moment. No 27 inch iMac, and a base studio and studio display costs a lot more!

    I would settle for an Mx Pro Mac mini but it should be a lot less than a 5K iMac.
    The old $1999 27" was with an i5-10600, Radeon 5300, 8GB RAM + 4GB VRAM, 256GB SSD.
    M1 Mini 8GB/256GB = $699, Studio Display = $1599 = $2298.

    If people can live with 3rd party displays, it's cheap enough with the Mac Studio.

    https://www.amazon.com/LG-34WN650-W-34-Inch-UltraWide-DisplayHDR/dp/B087JB656Q ($349) + $1999 Studio = $2348.



    https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/show-us-your-mac-studio-setup.2338555/?post=30954257#post-30954257
    https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/show-us-your-mac-studio-setup.2338555/page-5?post=31007253#post-31007253

    Given that Apple prices the 27" at $1599, they can only put M1 inside to come close to the 27" iMac pricing so they either make an M1 27" around $1999 or people buy a $699 mini + $1599 display. Those options aren't that far apart. M1 Pro mini would be $300 extra ($2598 with Studio Display) and would be like the $2299 27" iMac with the 5500XT.
    edited April 25 williamlondon
  • Reply 29 of 34
    thttht Posts: 4,501member
    "Unless Apple changes the laws of physics, I cannot conceive of how they will squeeze enough heat sink into an iMac as thin as the 24” for an M1/2/3 Max or Ultra.  Maybe some crazy heat spreader?  Maybe make the entire back of the iMac a heat sink?   No clue."

    The M1 Max comes in the 16" Macbook Pro, and though the iMac is 26% thinner, it contains 2 1/2 times the volume of the laptop.  Plenty of room to blow heat around.
    The M1 Max ships in the MBP14. The iMac 24 is probably 3x the volume of that. They could probably make an M1 Pro/Max in a 24” AIO fanless if the wanted. Unfortunately, dust would kill this idea. 

    They definitely are taking their sweet time. There really isn’t anything holding them back from shipping a Mac mini and iMac 24 with an M1 Pro. Just a press release announcement would be fine. 

    If they do a large display “iMac Pro”, I would think what’s holding it back is a 120 Hz 5K miniLED. The only way a ProMotion 5K display is shipping is in an iMac. Either that, or a Thunderbolt rev that can do bidirectional 80 GB/s. 
  • Reply 30 of 34
    Rogue01Rogue01 Posts: 55member
    Looking forward to aggressive updates cycles now that apple doesn’t haven’t to wait on significant delay after delay from Intel
    You are kidding, right?  Apple finished the Intel transition in 210 days.  The following year Apple had newer Intel Macs with faster processors on the market.  Apple Silicon has been an embarrassment with how long it has taken to get higher performance Macs on the market.  Now they are talking another one year delay before a more powerful iMac is released?  The 24" iMac isn't worth the money with 16GB RAM limit, limited ports, and integrated graphics that are slower than the upgraded GPU in the iMac 21.5" from 2019.  The Apple Studio Display and Mac Studio combo is $2,500 more than the iMac 27" that it replaced, and no keyboard or mouse.  Still no Mac Pro.  The M1 was released in 2020 and two years later, still no replacement for that low end CPU.  Every M1 CPU has the same single core score.  People would love an improved Mac mini and MacBook Air, but none in sight.  Apple Silicon has longer delays compared to Intel.
  • Reply 31 of 34
    Rogue01Rogue01 Posts: 55member
    Could we just get a new M based 27" iMac with upgradable RAM?  Come on Apple?!  I'm a stock holder, and love the profits, but forcing customers to buy outdated equipment and to no degree of upgradability is really not cool.
    The Macs do have memory options, but you are required to pay Apple's prices, and must buy the memory at the time of purchase.  You will never see another Mac with user-upgradable RAM.  It is all Unified Memory on the SoC now.  Even Apple makes you pay $400 for the proper monitor stand.  What outdated equipment are you talking about?  The two year old M1?  Everyone with investments has a piece of Apple.  So flaunting that you have Apple stock means nothing.
    williamlondon
  • Reply 32 of 34
    Rogue01Rogue01 Posts: 55member
    Marvin said:
    entropys said:
    Definitely a prosumer gap at the moment. No 27 inch iMac, and a base studio and studio display costs a lot more!

    I would settle for an Mx Pro Mac mini but it should be a lot less than a 5K iMac.
    The old $1999 27" was with an i5-10600, Radeon 5300, 8GB RAM + 4GB VRAM, 256GB SSD.
    M1 Mini 8GB/256GB = $699, Studio Display = $1599 = $2298.

    If people can live with 3rd party displays, it's cheap enough with the Mac Studio.

    https://www.amazon.com/LG-34WN650-W-34-Inch-UltraWide-DisplayHDR/dp/B087JB656Q ($349) + $1999 Studio = $2348.



    https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/show-us-your-mac-studio-setup.2338555/?post=30954257#post-30954257
    https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/show-us-your-mac-studio-setup.2338555/page-5?post=31007253#post-31007253

    Given that Apple prices the 27" at $1599, they can only put M1 inside to come close to the 27" iMac pricing so they either make an M1 27" around $1999 or people buy a $699 mini + $1599 display. Those options aren't that far apart. M1 Pro mini would be $300 extra ($2598 with Studio Display) and would be like the $2299 27" iMac with the 5500XT.
    Stop comparing the M1 mini with the 27" iMac.  The dedicated GPU in the iMac 27" blows away the integrated GPU in the M1, especially the 5700XT 16GB, which was only a $500 option.  60,000 Metal score of the 5700XT puts the M1 to shame at only 20,000 metal score.  Even the Vega GPU in the 21.5" iMac is faster than the M1 GPU (confirmed by your own website).  The equivalent replacement is the $1,999 Mac Studio, and even combined with a third party display is more than the iMac 27".  You still need to add a few hundred more to the Mac Studio because Apple doesn't include a keyboard or mouse with a $2K computer.  A 27" iMac with M1 Pro or Max CPU would have been the ideal solution, since those CPUs reside in a MacBook without thermal issues.  Since the M1 Ultra requires a 2lb. heat sink, that will never be in a MacBook or iMac.
    williamlondon
  • Reply 33 of 34
    MarvinMarvin Posts: 14,807moderator
    Rogue01 said:
    Marvin said:
    entropys said:
    Definitely a prosumer gap at the moment. No 27 inch iMac, and a base studio and studio display costs a lot more!

    I would settle for an Mx Pro Mac mini but it should be a lot less than a 5K iMac.
    The old $1999 27" was with an i5-10600, Radeon 5300, 8GB RAM + 4GB VRAM, 256GB SSD.
    M1 Mini 8GB/256GB = $699, Studio Display = $1599 = $2298.

    If people can live with 3rd party displays, it's cheap enough with the Mac Studio.

    https://www.amazon.com/LG-34WN650-W-34-Inch-UltraWide-DisplayHDR/dp/B087JB656Q ($349) + $1999 Studio = $2348.



    https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/show-us-your-mac-studio-setup.2338555/?post=30954257#post-30954257
    https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/show-us-your-mac-studio-setup.2338555/page-5?post=31007253#post-31007253

    Given that Apple prices the 27" at $1599, they can only put M1 inside to come close to the 27" iMac pricing so they either make an M1 27" around $1999 or people buy a $699 mini + $1599 display. Those options aren't that far apart. M1 Pro mini would be $300 extra ($2598 with Studio Display) and would be like the $2299 27" iMac with the 5500XT.
    Stop comparing the M1 mini with the 27" iMac.  The dedicated GPU in the iMac 27" blows away the integrated GPU in the M1, especially the 5700XT 16GB, which was only a $500 option.  60,000 Metal score of the 5700XT puts the M1 to shame at only 20,000 metal score.  Even the Vega GPU in the 21.5" iMac is faster than the M1 GPU (confirmed by your own website).  The equivalent replacement is the $1,999 Mac Studio, and even combined with a third party display is more than the iMac 27".  You still need to add a few hundred more to the Mac Studio because Apple doesn't include a keyboard or mouse with a $2K computer.  A 27" iMac with M1 Pro or Max CPU would have been the ideal solution, since those CPUs reside in a MacBook without thermal issues.  Since the M1 Ultra requires a 2lb. heat sink, that will never be in a MacBook or iMac.
    A 32GB/512GB/5700XT iMac model was $3399. 32GB/512GB Mac Studio ($1999) + Display ($1599) + kb/mouse ($129/$99) = $3826. $427 more. With a 3rd party display, it's the same or less. M1 is equivalent to the entry 27" iMacs with the 5300.
    williamlondonh2p
  • Reply 34 of 34
    You've not only jumped the shark on rumors, you've leapfrogged the M2 to do it.
    williamlondon
Sign In or Register to comment.