Apple might be going ‘Pro’ with next-gen iMac

Pike’s Universum has published a “list of specifications/upgrades for Apple’s next-generation iMacs,” Ashraf Eassa writes for The Motley Fool. “There’s one part of the specification list that’s worth doing a sanity check on — the main processor.”

“Today, Apple’s iMacs can be configured with Intel’s Core i5 chips, the middle-of-the-pack within Intel’s Core processor lineup, or Core i7 chips, the cream of the crop,” Eassa writes. “This new rumor claims that, instead of using Intel’s Core chips, Apple will use Intel’s Xeon E3 processors. Despite the fancy-sounding name, Intel’s Xeon E3 chips are little more than Intel’s Core processors with a few additional capabilities enabled — namely, support for ECC memory and vPro technology.”

“I suspect that, if Apple really does shift its iMac line to Xeon E3 processors and away from Intel’s traditional Core processors, it would be doing the shift mainly for ECC memory support,” Eassa writes. “If Apple’s goal is to position the iMac — and indeed, the Mac itself — as a “professional” platform, then the use of Xeon E3 processors with ECC memory makes perfect sense.”

Read more in the full article here.

MacDailyNews Take: We doubt they’ll call “iMac Pro,” but the top-of-the-line iMac certainly could be “pro” in many ways for some portion of mac-using professionals.

We hope Apple reserves the name “Mac Pro” for a truly extensible Mac.

13 Comments

  1. What a Xeon is for. Spect for spect could be confusing

    Core i7 is for ultra fast none critical computing applications
    Xeon is for sustained rock solid performance even if it sacrifices some GHz

    Core for core an i7 CPU may finish first but the weaker side is reliability.
    Xeons are reliable, so your machine won’t have to do things twice at critical times even if occasional. But also the Xeon could be punished hard and it will last longer because it runs under more strict parameters.

    Xeons could be used with regular memory today so if the iMac employs ECC it also reaffirms the intention to create a much more robust machine

    Xeon add some more cache too, Intel reserves the better chips and safer fabrication processes for Xeons. Usually relying on older and proven fabrication process.

    So, an iMac Pro won’t necessarily be faster, neither cheaper, but you may use it for production work 24/7. It won’t be for everybody and also it may be an entry-level workstation not for the ultimate demanding user.

    I have 2 top iMacs 27 and I burned 1 doing rendering jobs.
    A Xeon iMac will survive torture workflows

    Expect to see a Xeon iMac with a powerful or massive cooling system

    1. A XEON iMac will need some serious thermal redesign. if you cooked an i7 iMac you will burn your entire house down with a XEON in the same enclosure.

      faster ECC ram will also require cooling.. thats not going to fit in an iMac enclosure either…

      You know where all of this will fit?

      A 2012 Mac Pro.

      1. “Expect to see a Xeon iMac with a powerful or massive cooling system”

        I discovered the hard way a top 27 iMac wasn’t rock solid for sustained tortures but I sold my 2011 Mac Pro expecting a newer MP with Nvidia chips in it. Another mistake.

        ECC doesn’t imply the logic board supports more memory, it is a memory with additional error correction included. It just happens that high end workstation systems usually have more memory slots. And the modules are usually bigger because the include better coolings.

  2. Sealed box, no memory, CPU or GPU upgrades in a skinny object d’art?
    No

    Apple seems hell bent on turning Macs into a 2 year throwaway cycle etoy like the iOS stuff.
    No thank you

    The questions I would have loved to see asked the other day:
    Why is Apple doing the best it can to fuck up a $25 Billion business with 100 million active customers (the Macintosh)?
    Why has Apple not spent a red cent promoting the Mac? Apple could spend a little time and money promoting the platform and they might get a few more sales.
    Why are there games being sold in the Mac App Store that will not run on the majority of your woefully underpowered product line? That tells me you are skimping on GPUs because a $1,600 MacBook Pro 13 should be able to run graphics at least as well as a $200 game console.
    Do you ever see a time when Image Capture will work as designed with scanners? OS X/Mac OS is over 15 years old and scanners are not exactly bleeding edge.
    Do you ever see a time when Apple Mail is not a fucked up mess? Same for iTunes which gets worse every release.
    Exactly why is it impossible for Apple- with over 100,000 people- to maintain the Mac in HW and SW?

    Finally, how many of you have a Surface Laptop at home? How can you compete if you do not know first hand what the other guy is doing?

      1. My wife’s now 8 year old 2009 iMac still runs great with an SSD upgrade for the uses it’s intended. (Only problem now is it’s not supported to run past El Capitan.)

    1. I think you answered our own question. Its the over 100,000 employees that is the issue. Everything Great that ever came out of Apple and a lot of other companies was done buy a small group of over dedicated people.

  3. Perhaps they’ll look more towards the E5 rather than the E3 and reserve the E7 for the Mac Pro. This gives more grunt than currently without going for the most expensive i7 although someone might have more accurate info than I?
    Given that it’s aimed at professionals, it might be in a new 28″ or 32″ size with a less skinny design which would also allow for greater thermal dissipation vs the current skinny iMac.
    They might even opt for Sharp’s 8K 27″ display, again using their own in house graphics controller if Display Port isn’t up to it just as they did with the 5K.

Reader Feedback

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.