Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Bumps iMac Pro to 10-Core Processor on Base Configuration
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
3-4 years? I’m thinking more like never as you’re listing what’s important for a server and Apple doesn’t make servers. However, it’ll take less than 2 years for Apple to release Apple Silicon that runs FCPX and Logic Pro faster than any Intel Mac.
Serious question now as I massively regret getting my 2019 i9 iMac due to how loud it gets and how fast the fans ramp up. I am looking at getting the base Mac Pro with more space, and W5700X. How does this new iMac Pro compare to the Mac Pro now? How does the Vega 64X compare to the W5700X for gaming as a secondary concern with the system via Bootcamp?
Thats odd, mine is whisper quiet and no throttling at all. 2+ hours on handbrake encodes yield 3.8GHz on all cores under 70ºC.
Probably. And Im starting to agree with members like Spock and others.
I'm starting to move over to this camp as well. Sure, the 5k display is included and the machine is compact but other than just being a XEON based on all-in one what else is there? No real after market upgrades means you have to spec it at purchase and by the time you make it competent it's pushing into MacPro range.
And even the base model Mac Pro gives you a very solid upgrade path for some future proofing.
Makes my decision a lot easier, NOT to replace my MacPro. I was hoping for a redesign - happy, it did not happen, as I am not tempted to buy this announced dead-end. Redesign will probably happen with the transition to Apple Silicon, but then it will not meet my needs for my two-system environment (Mac/Windows) I will keep my money then...
Exactly the same situation as me. I bought an open box base (8-core) model. Saved over $1000 versus new. Great performance with no fan noise (compared to maxed-out iMac.) Space-gray color. I'm very, very pleased with it.
The same thing happened on the trash can! How long did the 2013 Mac Pro last after they dropped the lowest spec'd system? I love the base iMac Pro systems we use at work. 2+ years old and still fast enough for our needs.
If I recall correctly, it was two to three years. That said, there were major differences between these situations and Apple has publically admitted that. They designed themselves into a thermal disaster with the 2013 Mac Pro. They said from the beginning that the 2017 iMac Pro was a stop-gap because they could not get the 2019 Mac Pro out for a while. and the "Pro" community needed something. In retrospect, they were clearly waiting for Intel to get its sh*t together . . . for modern chips both in the towers and all-in-ones. The iMac Pro should never have existed, ideally. But it was not a bad machine nor a bad value for a chunk of the market. It is still a good deal if you need ECC memory or greater than 10 cpu cores in a Mac.
According to Dr. Stella Immanuel, matte screens allow demons to enter your computer and have sex with the dGPU. This is a tolerable risk for a consumer AIO, but is not acceptable in the pro market.
Of course, this machine created solely to filling gaps temporarily when they making new cheese grater.
Yeah. They'll just have iMacs with different configurations.
I wonder if they'll make a "Pro" version of their SoC to power the Mac Pro, the equivalent of the Intel Xeon. But even if they make a pro CPU, what's the point of having an iMac Pro? Just redesign the iMac and have some models with better specs.
I suppose that would depend on whether Apple will make a qualitatively different "workstation-class" AS CPUs/GPUs for the Mac Pro, in which case there would be a rationale for having a separate iMac Pro if they wanted to incorporate such chips into an AIO. One qualitative difference I would expect would be ECC RAM in their pro-class desktop machines.
The only real advantage the iMac Pro has is significantly better cooling and four TB3 ports, but that cooling is a pretty compelling advantage, IMO, considering how hot Intel CPUs run (hopefully the new AMD GPUs are much cooler).
The cooling is marketed as better, but in actual use, not all that much better, just more adequate given the demands. End result is zero sum and the Pro's actually run measurably hotter. 4 of 16 iMac Pro's needed fan assembly and PSU repairs Apple was unable to even perform due to their techs not being adequately trained on how to repair it. Took 4 months to repair my 1st unit. After they blew up 2 PSU's trying to get it done. smh. 1 out of 30 iMac's required repair in the same timeframe. The internal exposed PSU is a design problem and one of the reasons the Pro is a sealed deal with no user access.
Last edited:
This belief displays a shocking ignorance of other, longstanding vulnerabilities to demonic ingress common to all computers (cooling vents, anyone?) and completely fails to address the all-important question whether such activity increases or decreases gaming framerates.
(Yes, I realize this is an iMac Pro thread, but you can’t really expect a man with two chainguns for arms to be overly concerned with graphic compute performance, now can you?)
I have an 8 Core iMac Pro that I purchased one month ago.
My 2017 iMac had some issues so I had Apple repair it and I sold it.
I knew that there would be new macs soon but I wanted a machine I could do video editing for my YouTube channel (youtube.com/techinthecar) that I had just started and I wanted a machine that would allow me get better and grow.
Needless to say I wasn’t too happy to see that the same base model now had 10 cores and was even more powerful. Very luckily after spending a week talking to Apple they have agreed to exchange my machine for the ”new” base spec which is great as those extra cores would be fantastic.
I have configured (just to see) a new 27” iMac to the same spec as close as possible as the updated iMac Pro and it is £3,899 here in the UK - £1000 less than the base iMac Pro at £4,899.
However I still would have purchased an iMac Pro (if someone has some speed comparisons between the 10-core Pro and the top range 10-core i9 iMac then I would be interested to see!) because of the cooling. The cooling on this iMac Pro is amazing. It is very, very quiet and that is super helpful as it sits in my bedroom.
My 2017 iMac had some issues so I had Apple repair it and I sold it.
I knew that there would be new macs soon but I wanted a machine I could do video editing for my YouTube channel (youtube.com/techinthecar) that I had just started and I wanted a machine that would allow me get better and grow.
Needless to say I wasn’t too happy to see that the same base model now had 10 cores and was even more powerful. Very luckily after spending a week talking to Apple they have agreed to exchange my machine for the ”new” base spec which is great as those extra cores would be fantastic.
I have configured (just to see) a new 27” iMac to the same spec as close as possible as the updated iMac Pro and it is £3,899 here in the UK - £1000 less than the base iMac Pro at £4,899.
However I still would have purchased an iMac Pro (if someone has some speed comparisons between the 10-core Pro and the top range 10-core i9 iMac then I would be interested to see!) because of the cooling. The cooling on this iMac Pro is amazing. It is very, very quiet and that is super helpful as it sits in my bedroom.
I am kind of in the same boat with the 8 core iMac Pro which was updated after by return policy was over. Did you still get them to trade in your Pro for a 10 core after your return policy deadline passed?
I assume you contacted them via customer service?