Apple’s new 27-inch iMac with Intel Kaby Lake chip leaked by Best Buy

“Apple’s expected to launch new MacBook models later this month, and the company might have a refreshed iMac up its sleeve too,” Jacob Kleinman reports for TechnoBuffalo. “Over the weekend, an upgraded 27-inch iMac sporting Intel’s seventh-generation ‘Kaby Lake’ Core i7 chip was briefly spotted on Best Buy’s website.”

“The iMac was listed as ‘New!’ with the next-gen processor on board. Otherwise, the hardware hasn’t changed much,” Kleinman reports. “The computer still packs a Retina 5K display with options for 32GB of RAM and a 2TB Fusion Drive.”

MacDailyNews Take: Difficult to improve upon those specs.

“It’s possible this could just be a mistake by some Best Buy employee or even just a placeholder,” Kleinman reports. “However, the timing suggests Apple is really gearing up for a new iMac”

Read more in the full article here.

“Carrying a model number of K0SC0LL/A, the Best Buy web page claims it has a seventh generation Intel Core i7 processor, a 27-inch display, 32GB memory, a 2TB fusion drive, and the AMD Radeon R9 M380 graphics chipset with 2GB of video RAM,” Mike Wuerthele reports for AppleInsider. “The Best Buy line item retails for $3200. However, an existing model customized with a 4.0 GHz sixth generation i7 processor with 32GB of RAM, and a 2TB Fusion drive can be built to order at Apple.com for $3150, only $50 less than the Best Buy price.”

“Another discrepancy is the Apple model number as listed by Best Buy,” Wuerthele reports. “The K0SC0LL/A does not conform to existing nomenclature of MK462, MK472, or MK482 prefacing a remaining two digits, and completed with a /A.”

Read more in the full article here.

MacDailyNews Take: Get ready!

[Thanks to MacDailyNews Reader “Tom R.” for the heads up.]

44 Comments

  1. i want ultra wide curved monitor… at least an option by Apple where i dont have to spend 6k to be able to utilize one.
    and …… its time to introduce a change in imacs …

    1. i guess some hate having the option to utilize ultrawide curved monitors?? (given the immidiete vote downs…… )
      why would anyone hate having the Option? …..on PC its not a problem and it has been around for a couple years…
      why not allow me to have the same configurability on Mac or somewhere in the Apple lineup…, specially that Apple prides itself (or did) on being the top choice for video editting and effects…

      1. My dell ultrasharp u3415w is very nice. It took the place of two monitors and makes the whole set up cleaner. I, for one, think these 4K curved monitors kick ass.

      2. I’ve have an LG curved 34″ 21:9 ultrawide Thunderbolt Display hooked up to my MacBooks for years now. What are you talking about, “we should have the option”?

    2. @yojimbo007

      No, what you desperately need is a life, a new hairstyle, and a lifetime subscription for the daily use of an ” English as a Second Language” speech pathology consultant!

      1. feel challenged again pimple nose …? (hiding behind unregistered screen-name.. but i have a very good feeling for who you are……..its called behavioral pattern recognition )
        u think u come across wise spewing out insults ? lol
        keep on staring at the mirror chump .

        1. You boys should get a hotel room to explore all this heated passion. No need to joust on the MDN forum to see who is the pitcher and who is the catcher. You can trade spots!

  2. Kaby Lake…the last of a line of CPU’s that need to be retired. All I can say if you buy this…You have just bought the best damn buggy whip you have ever seen. Bring on the Knight’s series. This IS the difference between Cook and Jobs. Cook sees a way not to have to re-engineer OS X and jumps at it. Jobs pulls out the cat-of-nine-tails and gets Mac’s running the Knight’s series within the year.

  3. I have been an avid Mac user since 2004. I have bought iMacs, Macbooks, etc. during that time. Some of my Macs are now aging faster then I am, and need to replace them soon (oldest is 2010). Apple NEEDS to put out Macs that are less then $400.00 or I may HAVE to replace one of them with a (yik) Windows PC.

  4. If this new iMac does not sport an Nvidia GPU, and does not give me the option of changing my own ram, then this machine is dead to me before it has arrived.

  5. I have to say, I don’t really see the point of a 2TB drive. If you have more than say 1TB then it’s essentially because you have lots of video to store and chances are you may then need a lot more than 2TB. I do and I store it on an external drive (which is of course backed up) but as a result the 1TB drive on my Mac is only half full.

      1. I have put a second drive (SSD) in 3 of my MacBook Pros and used the original HDD as a Time Machine drive. Works wonderfully. I have no real use for the optical drives and use that location. See OWC.

    1. Your needs are not the needs of others. Photographers, audiophiles, gamers, and videographers all find that 2 TB or more is highly desirable.

      It is not too much to ask for Apple to provide good internal storage options.

      1. I have 8TB of external space which is my point, people who have large storage requirements will probably outgrow the 2TB anyway to it will very much be a case of needing more. I would have though the jump would need to be bigger.

    2. You remind me of ME when the first PCs first came out. I couldn’t understand by you’d need the 10MB of storage IBM was offering. I mean, really, who’s gonna fill up THAT drive?

      Of course, you don’t need to be video editing to need more than a TB of storage. How about a graphic designer who creates large photoshop files? Or a professional photographer who keep his work in RAW, and not compressed JPEGs? Or a musician who mixes tracks? And so on, and so on…

      1. I understand why people need storage, what I’m saying is that generally I would have thought that once people go above a certain level say 1TB they’re going to need an awful lot more space, to the point that 2TB almost won’t be enough so they’ll still want external storage anyway and will then offload most of their stuff to that leaving a lot of the 2TB empty. I’ve got 8TB of external storage so I’m certainly not complaining that it’s going to increase. To me, paying to go from 1TB to 2TB internally is almost a false economy because I’m still going to need that external space.

  6. If that is the correct price, then apple is out of the computer business. 3200, 3100+, 3000, 2500, those prices are just too high. Apple may as well wait till July next year or the 2018.

  7. I would very much like Apple to use desktop-class components on its desktop machines.

    Apple has waited forever and a day to get 14nm mobile chips so it can squeeze them into ever-thinner iMac and mini chassis. That is absolutely wrong-headed.

    Intel and AMD have been focusing on the best possible efficiency for its mobile chips, and that takes time and energy. 10nm chips will be out in 2017, after tons of hard work getting it ready for prime time. Now we are well into the point of diminishing returns. Smaller isn’t better. Meanwhile look at what Apple is shipping to its consumers. It loves its fashion, but it’s a mile behind because Apple doesn’t sell a single desktop model with desktop chips. (Apple’s cylindrical Mac Pro uses server-class Xeon chips).

    Apple needs to stop waiting for Cannonlake 10nm hardware and get shipping a new Mac Mini or a new midrange tower Mac with Skylake or Kaby Lake chips pronto. A desktop class Skylake will more than keep up with a Kaby Lake mobile chip. (Intel claims Kaby Lake is about a 12% performance increase versus Skylake HOWEVER, it is Apple that keeps choosing low power chips to satisfy Ive’s stupid obsession with thinness). Nobody who plugs his computer into a wall 24/7 is going to care.

    https://www.cnet.com/news/intel-kaby-lake-7th-gen-core-processors-faq-update/

    1. The iMac uses skylake DESKTOP processors, specifically the 27″ uses the 6600k and the 6700k chips… The Mac mini has always used mobile chips due to thermal constraints. The Mac Pro uses Xeons… I understand your complaints but you’re wrong on the parts they’re using for iMac’s. If apple could squeeze a desktop chip into the mini they would, but the whole point of that machine is to be silent, use almost no electricity, and not produce heat… desktop chips don’t exactly meet that goal without adequate cooling systems that cannot fit in a little square like the mini. Those cooling systems do however fit inside an iMac and Mac Pro.

      1. Sorry, too much shorthand in my post.

        The 21.5″ iMac uses 5400 rpm hard drive, integrated graphics, and still offers a model with a Broadwell processor appropriate for netbook duty.

        Apple’s 4K iMac is also a Broadwell, clocked to a screaming fast 3.1 GHz as if it was 2009.

        Only the 5K iMac has specs worthy of a desktop mac, and it is priced not to sell too fast.

        Your move, chief.

        1. So lack of specificity is what you’re fain back on?

          find me a 999 a in one with better specs than the 999 iMac. I agree about the 5400 rpm drive, but the iris graphics are much better than what used to be in that system. and most all in ones in that price range use them as well.

          Broadwell-e is from 2015(which is what that chip is), and the clock speed of a chip has nothing to do with how fast it is when compared to different generations or archetectures of processors, a broad well chip is significantly faster than anything made in 2009… Or do you not understand the concept of die shrinks and efficiency improvements?

          The 5K iMac uses Skylake, and is priced exactly the same as any other all in one with its same specs. Except there are no other all in ones with its same specs, especially in displays, so thats where the maxed out 3499 price comes from. but it is 1999 to start, which could easily be use the price for a 5k display.

          1. I think the put is that all in ones are trash. If you want to do anything remotely serious with a computer you need discrete graphics and a desktop GPU. If you are a graphic designer or photographer, get an iMac. If you want to do any type of heavy lifting like 3D, VR, or gaming, the unfortunate answer is buy a PC.

  8. All these complaints about the iMac would disappear if Apple went back to producing a reasonable Pro machine per industry design standards. A smaller version of the cheesegrater Pros would fill the bill. Then you could add any damn display you wanted, modify RAM and Graphic Cards as needed (and dare I suggest an upgradeable processor?). There would be more room to go from adequate to super high-end computing. It would enable more people to safely buy an Apple computer knowing that if the “cheap” one they bought needed better performance they could beef it up later on without having buy a new “all in one” computer.

    1. What if apple made the trash can pro able to be upgraded? For example, work with AMD and Nvidia to produce GPU cards that can work with the system and be swapped out by the user just like the ram and drives can be. Or make the processor boards user replaceable. That design does lend itself to that, and it might be interesting. It would take care of the upgradability argument, allow for longer life spans, and still keep the sleek design in tact.

      1. Well that’s a pretty big IF. The problem of course is scale of production. AMD or Nividia just aren’t going to dedicate the same level of engineering to a single computer requiring a uniquely designed GPU we’ll call the “B” configuration when EVERY other computer uses the “A” configuration. Apple regained a positive position in broadly used computers when they reduced the amount of proprietary elements and shifted to industry standards. As interesting as the Trash Can was, Apple basically pissed away most of the Pro computer equity they had spent 10 years building. It wasn’t my first Mac, but I bought a Macintosh II fx back in 1990, and have owned one or more of almost all the Mac Pro (or equivalents) between then and 2011. As cool as the trash can is on many levels, the form factor simply gives up more in versatility than it is worth to me.

        1. I don’t think they’d have to create a “b” design. The gpu’s inside the trash can are the same as the cards in regular machines, just without the fans, heat syncs, and ports on a regular board design. It’s basically just the GPU and associated components, actually less work for AMD and Nvidia. But I completely understand your point, and agree to a large extent. The new pros have been good for us, and they are extremely quiet, but the older design is much easier to service and can have raid setups inside of them. Maybe they made a mistake with the new design, I mean we still have our older pros around for certain tasks.

  9. “MacDailyNews Take: Difficult to improve upon those specs”

    No really MacDailyNews. The iMac is Apple’s desktop line of hardware and there are 3x more powerful mobile graphic cards today than the 380-395x. And let me say AMD 4xx mobile parts are rebranded 3xx from last year and offer the same performance. Far from difficult to improve…

    Lets check the top 27 inch iMac:
    The Intel CPU is a top quad-core i7 desktop part. Great.
    The screen: Beautiful retina display, calibrated, IPS, 5K. Great
    Storage: Super, the iMac is on top of the game
    Speakers: Above average for an integrated machine but not high-end either.
    Memory: on par with the industry
    Audio quality: above average but still far from high-end
    Aesthetics: Way above the average PC, but some rivals are starting to innovate and they are not that far behind if behind at all.
    Aluminum case: still on top
    Expansion options, upgradability, user service: Not the best

    And why is Apple using an AMD 380-395x graphic chips for a second year inside the iMacs? No offense AMD.

    Please let me know, I am open minded, what am i missing?

    What is Apple going to say today about top graphics in the Mac? How can we use VR technology on a Mac, or current high end games, or anything cutting edge on graphics on a Mac?

    If Apple offers better graphics on their Mac machines then developers will create better options and functionality for their Mac applications but it won’t happen overnight. Apple has to step forward and listen to their loyal creative power users.

  10. And with this video another great question emerged on my mind: Why Apple went to AMD only for the entire Mac line?

    Even the top at the time AMD 295x was significantly slower than the Nvida 890.

    Another big, big question is: Why with 3 generations of 27 inch 5K iMacs Apple has done nothing to improve the cooling system to enjoy all the processor power with the top i7 CPU.

    The thing is Apple may be engineering the iMac for photographers, journalist, general users and kids with no particular interest in high end graphics, and as a machine for professionals with moderate hardware needs.

    Ok, the iMac is not a PRO machine and is not dedicated or designed that way, but even in this respect: why is the top iMac 27 inch not a high end desktop gaming computer ready for current games? Why this machine is not ready for VR so developers be interested to include Macs in their projects. And even if Apple doesn’t think the Mac is ready for primetime graphics why Apple is so reluctant to give the people the options for them to experiment?

    There are many beautiful, wonderful design tools emerging and Mac ready today for creatives that will benefit from stronger performance on a Mac.

    I am talking about:
    Marvelous designer, best used wit Nvidia cards.
    Allegorithmic Substances Painter and Designer runs better with Nvidia cards and 4 gigs of VRAM.
    Daz3d uses Nvidia technology
    Octane render, is an Nvidia only engine

    Octane might be for prefesionals but it runs on commercial Nvidia cards and doesn’t need Quadro level cards.

    In fact all this applications run on commercial graphic cards.

    Maya today runs great using desktop cards using the Viewport 2.0

    I am not talking about Xeons or Quadros or high end workstation use. I am mentioning all this to show you Apple could build desktops or laptops using top desktop parts and all this applications will work great from day 1 because they are already supporting OSX.

    So why Apple thinks they need to limit their users to use Mac Pros to do what a desktop can do. Now if you want or need top performance you may or not choose a Xeon workstation. The problem is that the Mac Pro today use soldered AMD only GPUs that where great in 2013. So not a Mac Pro, in fact not any Mac could compete with a 2k PC on graphics.

    And I am only talking about 3D graphics because this is what I do but I listen to professionals and enthusiast from other fields complaining about the same things.

    My two cents

Reader Feedback

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

Tags: ,