Apple Finally Updates the iMac With Significantly More Powerful CPU and GPU Options (arstechnica.com) 143
Today, Apple will finally begin taking orders for newly refreshed 21- and 27-inch iMacs. The new versions don't change the basic design or add major new features, but they offer substantially faster configuration options for the CPU and GPU. From a report: The 21.5-inch iMac now has a 6-core, eighth-generation Intel CPU option -- up from a maximum of four cores before. The 27-inch now has six cores as the standard configuration, with an optional upgrade to a 3.6GHz, 9th-gen, 8-core Intel Core i9 CPU that Apple claims will double performance over the previous 27-inch iMac. The base 27-inch model has a 3GHz 6-core Intel Core i5 CPU, with intermediate configurations at 3.1GHz and 3.7GHz (both Core i5). The big news is arguably that both sizes now offer high-end, workstation-class Vega-graphics options for the first time. Apple added a similar upgrade option to the 15-inch MacBook Pro late last year. In this case, the 21.6-inch iMac has an option for the 20-compute-unit version of Vega with 4GB of HBM2 video memory. That's the same as the top-end 15-inch MacBook Pro option.
The 27-inch iMac can now be configured with the Radeon Pro Vega 48 with 8GB of HBM2. For reference, the much pricier iMac Pro has Vega 56 and Vega 64 options. Apple claims the Vega 48 will net a 50-percent performance improvement over the Radeon Pro 580, the previous top configuration. Speaking of the previous top configuration, the non-Vega GPU options are the same as what was available yesterday. The only difference is that they now have an "X" affixed to the numbers in their names, per AMD branding conventions -- i.e., Radeon Pro 580X instead of 580. RAM options are the same in terms of volume (up to 32GB for the 21.5-inch and 64GB for the 27-inch), but the DDR4 RAM is slightly faster now, at 2666MHz.
The 27-inch iMac can now be configured with the Radeon Pro Vega 48 with 8GB of HBM2. For reference, the much pricier iMac Pro has Vega 56 and Vega 64 options. Apple claims the Vega 48 will net a 50-percent performance improvement over the Radeon Pro 580, the previous top configuration. Speaking of the previous top configuration, the non-Vega GPU options are the same as what was available yesterday. The only difference is that they now have an "X" affixed to the numbers in their names, per AMD branding conventions -- i.e., Radeon Pro 580X instead of 580. RAM options are the same in terms of volume (up to 32GB for the 21.5-inch and 64GB for the 27-inch), but the DDR4 RAM is slightly faster now, at 2666MHz.
5400RPM HDD in base systems WTF?? (Score:2)
And $200 add on for an 256GB (SATA??) SSD.
also imac pro not updated.
Re: (Score:2)
It's Apple's "budget" desktop computer. What did you expect?
Most people buying an iMac would be better off with a regular (non all-in-one) desktop, or a laptop with external monitor, keyboard and mouse.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, as much of a whack job I think AOC is, to be fair, I believe it was Elizabeth Warren that was pushing the idea to break up Amazon, Google and Apple....
Re: 5400RPM HDD in base systems WTF?? (Score:2)
Elizabeth Warren that was pushing the idea to break up Amazon, Google and Apple....
And even a phony liar is sometimes right.
Replace "Apple" in that list (they're notthat bad) with Facebook and Twitter and I'd be down with that shit.
Re: 5400RPM HDD in base systems WTF?? (Score:2)
Re: 5400RPM HDD in base systems WTF?? (Score:2)
In 2019 with SSD prices around $50 bucks (Score:5, Insightful)
This tells me Apple is confident enough in their brand to sell substandard merchandise for a premium.
Re:In 2019 with SSD prices around $50 bucks (Score:4, Insightful)
This tells me Apple is confident enough in their brand to sell substandard merchandise for a premium.
The goal is to hook customers with the lower price, and then sell them the upgrade.
It is like selling cars. People price compare the base models, but then order plenty of upgrades, which is where the profit is.
But it is silly to quibble about SSD vs HDD, when that is only one of many problems with the iMac. Anyone with half a brain will know that buying a computer integrated into the back of a monitor makes no sense.
A Mac-Mini and a nice 3rd party 4K monitor is a far better deal.
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:5400RPM HDD in base systems WTF?? (Score:5, Insightful)
In a way, I find a 5400 RPM HDD almost insulting. I can see something like that in a sub-$300 laptop, but for a computer that costs four digits minimum, that is inexcusable. The only good thing is that maybe the HDD can be replaced by a SATA SSD, allowing for some expansion.
As secondary storage, maybe it would be usable. It would be interesting to put in two 3.5" drives and have them run RAID 1 just for Time Machine backups, ensuring that the SSD is well backed up. Bonus points if there is OS protection, so ransomware can't have a field day with the TM drives.
Re: (Score:2)
trying to punish the customer for buying cheap hardware.
That's the whole point. They charge $240 CAD to upgrade the 1TB 5400 RPM drive to a 256 GB SSD.
If it came with the base model, they would lose this profit.
Re: (Score:2)
It's a lot of work to upgrade an iMac ;).
Re: (Score:2)
For what it's worth, I imagine that the casual iMac user would rather have 4 times the storage than a faster bootup time - which is probably all they'd notice between an SSD and a magnetic disk. Of course, 250GB is probably plenty for them too, but still...
Re: (Score:3)
A SSD doesn't only improve boot time.
The casual iMac user would be much better off with a slower CPU but a SSD.
Re: (Score:3)
I'm pretty sure that Apple uses only NVMe type drives. Even among the SATA SSDs, Kingston is cheap junk. An accurate price comparison is maybe $50 for a quality baseline, but the read/write speeds are way lower than you would get in NVMe, so that's not even a fair comparison.
Still, $200 should get you close to 1TB of high performance NVMe in any brand (ok, so the 970 EVO is over $200).
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
It's actually part of the T2 controller chip that Apple uses to manage the touchbar and other things.
It's PCIe based storage
Re: (Score:1)
Admittedly, I'm using "NVMe" as a shorthand for any protocol that operates directly on the PCIe bus.
However, "Blancco" (owner of former DBAN) seems to think it's NVME after all. [blancco.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
$50 would be for a good SATA SSD. NVMe is faster. Much closer to $90 for one that performs to the same specs. The Apple tax being double that sounds closer to normal.
Splitting the filesystem across two drives has always been problematic - as has some sort of hybrid/RAID approach. For one, even putting the user folder on the secondary drive could slow down files that should be fast - email archive, database files, and OS X has an additional user-level Applications folder. Way too hard to give a simple,
Re: (Score:2)
Well there are different qualities of SSD drive. Such as a high speed NvME which is probably the best thing you can do today to improve your overall computing experience, for most cases. Cost more than the slower SATA drives.
Now for 2019 I do not know of any really good brand PC maker but Apple has been lagging behind them all. While Apple never produced the bleeding edge in gear, they were normally 6 months behind in terms of performance technology. But offered bells and whistles that people wanted, suc
Re:5400RPM HDD in base systems WTF?? (Score:5, Interesting)
The Mac mini is the budget computer and all models come with an SSD drive.
Re: (Score:2)
Probably because it is too small for a hard drive, even a 2.5" one.
Given it's Apple, I wouldn't even be surprised they soldered it so that you can't upgrade or repair it yourself.
Re: (Score:2)
Before the new 2018 models, the Mac mini had a 2.5" HDD.
Re: (Score:2)
and did the base model came with a SSD back then?
Re: (Score:2)
There was no SSD as the standard option in any Mac mini before 2018.
And now, even the base model of the 2018 Mac mini has an SSD.
Apple still using HDDs in the iMacs in 2019 is just a cash grab.
Re: (Score:2)
Apple still using HDDs in the iMacs in 2019 is just a cash grab
I agree, and the reason they are not doing it on the mac mini is because there is no room.
Re: (Score:2)
There used to be enough room.
If they can still engineer the iMac to accept HDDs, surely they could have made the same cash grab on the new Mac minis. But they didn't.
Re: (Score:2)
The only reason to get a Mac today in 2019 is if your home is wired on the Apple Ecosystem. Wanting to take advantage of airplay, or the Home Kit products. Today there isn't really much advantage in owning any one Apple product, as they are better products available across all the business units, but the fact they work together more seamlessly then the competition makes it having the ecosystem more palatable and overall useful.
Re: (Score:2)
The only reason I want a Mac is MacOS. Unlike Linux and Windows it's safe and works well.
Re: (Score:2)
Besides the Slashdot hate on Windows. OS X, Linux and Windows when upgraded and properly maintained, are all rather secure, reliable and works well. Yes, Windows is heavy handed with the users, with forced upgrades, and Linux sometimes works like a hodgepodge of ideas, that got release after they had a clean compile.
But I haven't gotten BSOD, Kernel Panics, or the Gray screen of failure. In a while unless I am doing something really stupid anyways. Or I have failing hardware.
Re: (Score:2)
He said safe, not doesn't crash. Windows isn't safe, it's spyware that's getting ever more dickish.
Linux works well and is safe, but can still occasionally be a bit of a PITA.
I'm typing this on an OS X notebook, in front of a Linux/Windows dualboot desktop. You're absolutely right, I don't remember the last time I saw any of them crash.
Re: (Score:2)
Same here. I can't even remember my last BSOD. But MS software has always been riddled with safety faults, Windows 10 reports just about everything you to to the mother ship and Linux is often een PITA to use, so I prefer MacOS/OSX.
Re: (Score:2)
also imac pro not updated.
Actually, it was [macrumors.com]. Ars just doesn't seem to have reported on it (yet).
Re: (Score:2)
Cool!!
Now..if they'd just announce the damned Mac Pro and spec it out already!!!!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I thought they were waiting until Intel cleared up its processor screwups. And as Apple's chips get better, they might be waiting for those to reach some sort of efficiency and speed. I don't want a damned sphere either or the trash can. I want a cheese grater Mac with component swappability.
Re: (Score:2)
Which was an awesome machine for it's time. Our university computer lab had a few. As usual for Apple's products, it cost more than people wanted to pay.
Re: 5400RPM HDD in base systems WTF?? (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
5400 rpm HDDs? Let's not get crazy now, there are plenty of ways to make that a premium option
*4500rpm HDD, 1TB base model
*5400rpm HDD, 4TB (premium add-on), add $100
*7200rpm HDD, 8TB (super premium), add $500
Then you can add on the SSD options for ultra premium. ;)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
At least it is being upgraded. The "trashcan" Mac Pro languished for years without any refreshes.
Re: (Score:2)
I looked at the possibility they offer to trade in your old computer. They offered me 580 or so euros for my 2013 27" iMac with 32 GB and the best graphics card that was availabe back then. At marktplaats.nl I can get almost double that. No thanks Apple.
Re: (Score:2)
Seriously? My 256gb rd400 from Toshiba does better than that. Iirc ~3 write and 4 read give or take in sequential.
SATA is a good sign for the next mac pro (Score:3)
SATA is a good sign for the next mac pro.
As they don't seem to be moving forced T2 or higher locked pci-e storage.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
You understand that there is no such thing as a thunderbolt SSD. They are either SATA or NVME internally, along with a TB bridge, generally within an (overpriced) external drive enclosure.
If you need a 4 drive external enclosure, chances are you should have chosen a desktop computer instead of an all-in-one with no room for expansion.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You do understand that for high performance workloads like editing professional video (which is a primary market of a Mac Pro), PCIe SSDs have a huge advantage over SATA SSDs?
Yes.
By the way. we are not talking about the Mac Pro. The iMac is definitely not a professional video editing machine, with no room for multiple drives, and a form factor which offer no advantage to begin with.
For external storage I have rarely seen where these pros are using external SATA drives preferring TB drives
Again, you understand there is no such thing as a TB drive, right? There are SATA and NVMe/PCIe drives, connected to a TB bridge. The TB bridge can only make the drive go slower. It can't make it go any faster. Therefore you are always better with internally connected drives, saving a lot of money com
Re: (Score:2)
By the way. we are not talking about the Mac Pro.
Yes we are. The OP said: "SATA is a good sign for the next mac pro." It is the literal title of this entire thread.
The iMac is definitely not a professional video editing machine, with no room for multiple drives, and a form factor which offer no advantage to begin with.
The specs on the iMac Pro [wikipedia.org]. Besides the 5K display and 4 TB connectors, there's no advantage?
Again, you understand there is no such thing as a TB drive, right? There are SATA and NVMe/PCIe drives, connected to a TB bridge. The TB bridge can only make the drive go slower. It can't make it go any faster. Therefore you are always better with internally connected drives, saving a lot of money compared to that ugly TB enclosure.
You do understand that at 2 X 20Gbps, a TB2 bridge isn't a bottle neck to SATA drive which maxes out at 6Gbps right? So when you say the TB2 bridge makes it go slower, I have to wonder about your math. Many of the TB2 enclosures support multiple drive RAID which can increase speed.
I'd prefer a drive maxing the SATA cable over a 10 gigabit Ethernet NAS. I believe it is faster for most use cases (especially latency), despite the fact that the theoretical bandwidth of Ethernet is a little faster.
Do you and all of your
Re: (Score:2)
Yes we are. The OP said: "SATA is a good sign for the next mac pro." It is the literal title of this entire thread.
But that's not why I replied to your first post. I could have changed the title from there.
Besides the 5K display and 4 TB connectors, there's no advantage?
I was talking about the form factor. You don't need an all-in-one to get 4 TB connectors. Also you wouldn't need any TB connectors to begin with if you had room for internal storage.
You do understand that at 2 X 20Gbps, a TB2 bridge isn't a bottle neck to SATA drive which maxes out at 6Gbps right? So when you say the TB2 bridge makes it go slower, I have to wonder about your math
The math is simple. The TB bridge can't make the drive go faster. It can only make it slower. It's an additional middle man, which hopefully delivers close to 100% of the speed.
. Many of the TB2 enclosures support multiple drive RAID which can increase speed.
It doesn't increase the drive speed. Bandwidth isn't shared be
Re: (Score:2)
But that's not why I replied to your first post. I could have changed the title from there.
But you didn't. So let me see if I understand you: You changed the subject without mentioning you were changing the subject even though the OP and I were talking specifically about the Mac Pro.
I was talking about the form factor. You don't need an all-in-one to get 4 TB connectors. Also you wouldn't need any TB connectors to begin with if you had room for internal storage.
Whether we were talking about the Mac Pro 2013 or the iMac Pro, there was no internal room for additional SATA drives. Again, the workload of professional video editor is that they do not store all of their files locally. They store them on a separate drive for redundancy. Like a TB drive. Like a NAS. They copy files
Re: (Score:2)
First, you can't do RAID on a single SATA cable since you need at least 2 drives, which will use at least 2 SATA cables, duh. So how exactly are you supposed to be limited by the 6 Gbps of SATA when using more than one drive?
Then you can do RAID just as well within a desktop as within a NAS (which is nothing more than a dedicated networked computer with drive bays running a dumbed down operating system). So NAS is no more redundant.
Finally a desktop CPU is so fast, especially compared to a NAS CPU, that gig
Re: (Score:2)
First, you can't do RAID on a single SATA cable since you need at least 2 drives, which will use at least 2 SATA cables, duh. So how exactly are you supposed to be limited by the 6 Gbps of SATA when using more than one drive?
Dude you are the one advocating using SATA instead of TB, not me. Your math is terrible. Once again, a single SATA III cable has a max of 6Gpbs. A single TB2 cable can handle 20Gbps or 3.5 x SATA. To use multiple drives in a RAID you have to have the space which neither the Mac Pro 2013 nor iMac Pro had for 2 disks much less 3 or more.
Then you can do RAID just as well within a desktop as within a NAS (which is nothing more than a dedicated networked computer with drive bays running a dumbed down operating system). So NAS is no more redundant.
Dude you seriously need to brush up on your IT. A NAS [wikipedia.org] isn’t a just a desktop that shares its drive. These are highly specialized and optimized machines with hardware an
Re: (Score:2)
Dude you are the one advocating using SATA instead of TB, not me.
No I am not. What I am saying, is that your shinny TB box may be using SATA internally to connect hard drives. Either that, or NVMe/PCIe to connect faster SSDs. There is no such thing as a TB drive.
If your TB box has 4x SATA ports, then it can only be slower (or equal) than if you connected those same 4 drives directly inside your desktop using 4x SATA cables. Nobody ever talked about sharing a single SATA cable for more than one drive except you. I wouldn't even know how to do that.
Is it obviously even slo
Re: (Score:2)
No I am not. What I am saying, is that your shinny TB box may be using SATA internally to connect hard drives. Either that, or NVMe/PCIe to connect faster SSDs. There is no such thing as a TB drive.
Dude, you are missing the whole point again. Internally, the Mac Pro 2013 and the iMac Pro do not use SATA to connect to internal drives. The Mac Pro used their own PCIe standard before NVMe became the standard. The iMac Pro uses NVMe. At no point are these Macs limited to SATA at 6 Gbps internally. You do understand this right? Externally they use TB. They don’t use eSATA as an external connector for all the reasons above. You do understand the difference between internal and external right?
Nobody ever talked about sharing a single SATA cable for more than one drive except you. I wouldn't even know how to do that.
Nobody b
Re: (Score:2)
At no point are these Macs limited to SATA at 6 Gbps internally
Oh I get that. They are only limited by the 6 Gbps SATA externally. Because SATA is used in the NAS or the TB box.
Internally, the Mac Pro 2013 and the iMac Pro do not use SATA to connect to internal drives.
My point is that the NAS or TB box can only be slower than if the drives were attached directly, with a SATA cable, to the motherboard of the desktop computer. Obviously it rules out any computer which doesn't have any SATA connector.
When I’m talking about TB as an external connector and you champion SATA, what the hell are you talking about?
What kind of connection is used inside your TB box to connect hard drives? That's right, SATA. Just because you put the hard drive in an external TB enclosure will
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Failed understanding skills until the end. I was not talking about a server (full fledged computer), but a NAS device. A NAS is indeed a dumb, or stripped down, computer. Since that computer is not portable or battery powered and doesn't have a display, I call it a desktop but we could call it a server just as well if you prefer.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You called a server a “desktop, dumbed down”.
No I didn't. You fail to understand basic sentences again.
You don’t know at a NAS is.
Of course I do.
Re: (Score:2)
Your exact words:
They just use a cheaper CPU, no GPU, no audio or other useless peripherals, and less RAM than a regular desktop. So yeah, they are cheap desktop computers, dumbed down. The good ones might have a good hardware RAID controller but that's pretty much it.
This part tells me you don’t know what a “server” is. A server doesn’t mean a high end CPU and lots of RAM. No audio, no GPU, and fewer peripherals is characteristic of every single server I’ve worked with from big iron to web servers to enterprise databases. Most of Google’s web crawling servers are low power and low performance CPUs. Many big iron mainframes don’t have the fastest CPUs either but focus on processing a high number of transactions.
Re: (Score:2)
You fail to understand what the word "they" was referring to. You think it was servers. It wasn't. It was NAS devices.
Understanding failure. I point it to you. And yet, you keep not wanting to re-read or even accept there could have been a confusion.
So you called two machine with Xeon processors, ECC RAM, Pro GPUs, PCIe SSDs, and TB “toys.”
I knew you would bite. Just because you put over expensive CPUs or RAM in a computer doesn't automatically makes it good for all types of work.
For professional video editing, you often need multiple drives. You don't need to save a little bit on space on your de
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
A NAS is a server. But a server is not necessarily a NAS.
Re: (Score:2)
They just use a cheaper CPU, no GPU, no audio or other useless peripherals, and less RAM than a regular desktop. So yeah, they are cheap desktop computers, dumbed down. The good ones might have a good hardware RAID controller but that's pretty much it.
From the very beginning I told you to research what a NAS is. It appears you didn't do so. It appears it took you almost a week to realize that a NAS is a server. If you didn't know a NAS was a server then what other knowledge are you lacking? Because many of your arguments look nonsensical if you didn't know that a NAS was a server. Like the statement above makes you look like an idiot. A NAS was never designed to be a desktop and you called them "cheap desktop comp
Re: (Score:2)
I knew what a NAS was. Probably a lot more than you, but whatever.
A NAS can be a dumbed down desktop computer. Again, by desktop, in this sentence, I meant non-laptop. So this includes servers. I already explained all that. A desktop computer can be a server. A server doesn't have to be a 1U form factor. It can be a mid tower.
And yet, you stick to your stupid point. So let's make this clear again: I never said a NAS isn't a server.
On the topic of a Mac Pro or iMac Pro, they are workstations and specifically not toys. Learn what a workstation is.
I see I insulted your religion. Not sorry.
Re:SATA is a good sign for the next mac pro Please (Score:2)
You specially said that you were talking about servers and not a NAS. Again we can scroll up or are you going to lie about that? By definition, Mac Pro and iMac Pro are workstations as is a Dell Precision. Again you show a stunning level of ignorance and arrogance at the same time. If you can’t basic definitions right, how bad must your conclusions be.
Re: (Score:2)
You specially said that you were talking about servers and not a NAS.
I've talked about both. But when I said that NAS are dumbed down desktop computers, I was not talking about servers in general. Even you understood that right in your post https://slashdot.org/comments.... [slashdot.org]
Again we can scroll up or are you going to lie about that?
Please do. Either you won't find what you are looking for, or I will have to point out yet again how you badly understood a basic sentence.
By definition, Mac Pro and iMac Pro are workstations as is a Dell Precision. Again you show a stunning level of ignorance and arrogance at the same time. If you can’t basic definitions right, how bad must your conclusions be.
Again you fail at logic/understanding. Workstations are desktops computers. Not all desktop computers are workstations. I never said the Mac Pro isn't a workstation, y
Re: (Score:2)
I've talked about both. But when I said that NAS are dumbed down desktop computers, I was not talking about servers in general. Even you understood that right in your post
You lie. These are your words.
You fail to understand what the word "they" was referring to. You think it was servers. It wasn't. It was NAS devices.
Please do. Either you won't find what you are looking for, or I will have to point out yet again how you badly understood a basic sentence.
Please read up above where your own words contradict you. Liar.
Again you fail at logic/understanding. Workstations are desktops computers. Not all desktop computers are workstations. I never said the Mac Pro isn't a workstation, yet, you seem to claim otherwise.
No you called them toys because you don't seem to understand what a workstation is and now you're desperately trying to cover up for that.
When I qualified them as toys, I meant that they have some serious shortcomings for many types of work. They are made to be small and stylish, as most Apple products.
Please are you now going to lie even more about what you meant. You just dig yourself more and more into a hole because you didn't know something basic and are trying to lie your way out of it now.
Re: (Score:2)
You lie. These are your words.
Please read up above where your own words contradict you. Liar.
And? Where is the contradiction? I don't see what you are talking about.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I take that you can't even explain where I contradicted myself. Let alone "lied".
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I pointed it out already.
You didn't. You pointed out two statements with no contradictions.
I take it you still don’t know a workstation is because your statement is idiotic.
And you are wrong once more but who cares at this point.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
well sata is a lot better then apples Proprietary pci-e storage. that is very over priced.
Re: (Score:2)
The NVIDIA embargo continues (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
Maybe Apple just can't stand dealing with NVIDIA. You know, the same way Linus feels...
If you're a pro customer aren't you better off (Score:3)
As for stability, AMD really has got their act together, and the GPU power draw is just fine at idle. Nvidia wins out there once the GPU is under load, but if I'm loading my GPU I'm probably plugged in.
Re: (Score:1)
well if your software uses CUDA it ain't running on AMD no matter what.
50-percent performance improvement over slow (Score:2)
Want to move heat out of a computer?
Design a real computer that can keep a CPU/GPU working without having to slow down quickly for heat.
Apple not newsworthy anymore. (Score:1)
In the past, it was newsworthy, because they were going unusual, interesing ways, or to laugh at their "courage".
Now they're just another extremely expensive manufacturer of sub-standard quality (ask Louis Rossman) PCs with (apparently desireful for some) lock-in as its most distinctive feature.
It makes no more sense to report about Apple's new products than about Dell's.
I may not like Apple, but I'm still feeling bad for its fans, that it's now taken over by standard issue MBA vulture suits.
Re: (Score:2)
I prefer NintendOS.
Re: (Score:1)
Sorry, no Linux, no sale (Score:1)
If Apple's T2 chip still disallows Linux from using the onboard SSD, that is a deal breaker. Mainly because when Apple stops supporting a Mac model in macOS, you need to run something that gets security updates.
Re:Sorry, no Linux, no sale (Score:5, Informative)
If Apple's T2 chip still disallows Linux from using the onboard SSD, that is a deal breaker.
It doesn't. Calm it on down.
Never did (Score:3)
You need to recheck because you can turn off the protections that disallow using Linux, even on the older iMac Pro (which has the T2).
upgrade RAM etc. (Score:3)
Can't see if you can upgrade the RAM on this model.
Based on experience, I would max out the CPU and GPU in the configuration, go for a 512GB or 1TB SSD, ditch FusionDrive.
If the RAM is upgradeable then save on that and expand that later.
I am running a late 2013 iMac and I can still use it for video editing, even a bit of 4K. I have added an external RAID0 for editing (2x4tb 7200rpm, partitioned with the fastest part of spindle for editing) and a 1tb SSD for smaller projects.
I wanted to go all SSD but I having trouble finding an external enclosure that supports TRIM which I "need" as editing videos don't seem to play well with traditional SSD usage. Since I only have the original Thunderbolt specs, the choices are limited.
But as I had said before, FCPX is really the only thing that keeps me on the Mac(ok, I like the OS too) so perhaps I should have a go at a Hackintosh again, or learn DaVinci Resolve already. I guess I will stay on my old iMac until it gives up the ghost and makes the decision then. :)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm currently using my trusty ole' 2007 and 2012 Mac Minis. And have been patiently wait for 'the next big thing' in redesign and specs and upgrade to a regular Mac.
Guess I'll be waiting awhile longer. *heavy sigh*
translate for me (Score:2)
and for everyone not following the very latest technobabble GPU boards:
Does that mean the new iMac has good VR support coming?
That's basically the only thing the slightly older ones don't have. I play everything on max settings in most games, so I really wonder why it's considered insufficient - except for VR.
Re: (Score:2)
The playing of the VR product will need a real computer with a real CPU and GPU that can keep the needed VR speed and quality.
On an iMac?? (Score:1)
I think the overlap of people hopelessl incompetent enough to buy not onl Apple, but an iMac, of all things, and of those who havr even heard of CUDA or would ever need it, is absolutely zero.
Also, fuck supporting the quasi-monopoly. Even if I own a nVidia card, I still aim for full standards compatibility. So OpenCL or GTFO.
Those who feed lock-in, deserve the hurt they'll fall into.
But when they drag us with them, like with Windows, IE, Intel, and now nVidia, they become our enemies too.