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 Demos iMac Pro at Final Cut Pro X Creative Summit
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I've been using a 8 core trash can Mac Pro since 2013 and if this is faster, we'll be upgrading. Sad the Mac Pro was really a dead end in upgradability. It still performs pretty great 4 years later, but could use something that will render faster and maybe AE in real time. The 2013 setup cost almost $10k including the 32" Sharp PN-K321 4K monitor, one of the first 4k at the time I think. We easily got more than $300k in value out of the setup over the years, enabling us to do things in-house that many would probably need to out-source.
It's as if they didn't learn their lesson with the Trash Can Pro. This thing will meet the same fate.
Apple’s idiotic adherence to AMD graphics means this is DOA for serious time-is-money editors and content producers. Nvidia’s performance in PremPro for rendering and previewing is miles ahead of Vega. Not to mention all the other professional apps that leverage CUDA.
I was talking about individuals who buy this machine because they want a beast machine for gaming or whatever. You know a lot of individuals will buy this machine, I mean look at the comments in here about people who say they are going to get it or are seriously thinking about it.
I agree completely that businesses and what not will buy and keep until they literally do not run anymore.
[doublepost=1509380384][/doublepost]
Also not to mention Nvidia always beats AMD when it comes to how power hungry (meaning less wattage) their GPUs are. So for thermal management, Nvidia would be better as well. I do not know what the benchmarks are on VEGA vs. say a Nvidia 1080ti. I would hope VEGA is better or its at least close.
Funny how people were falling all over themselves about the Surface Studio and how great it was. Are you saying they were also wrong?
I hear you!Me too. Just because it’s way more than I would ever need doesn’t mean I don’t want it.
This does not make any sense. Let's say you have a team with 5 iMac Pros with medium specs, which actually puts the machine in the $10k range. Each. That's $50k worth of equipment that you have to replace (resell preferably) if you happen to need more RAM or more powerful graphics. Not very efficient financially speaking.
If you're pro team, you'd want your investment to last a bit longer, not throw away the entire computer just because you run out or RAM or the CPU is not performing as you need it to.
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Matias-Blu...ce/dp/B01N7IRPQ8#immersive-view_1509381177490
Also do a backlit version
As an Amazon Associate, MacRumors earns a commission from qualifying purchases made through links in this post.
This is what worries me about the upcoming Mac Pro. Apple fundamentally seems to have forgotten how to design a "pro" machine. Upgradeable RAM, and hard disks should have been the minimum here for this iMac. In keeping with their current design philosophy, their modular Mac Pro will probably have a separate eGPU box (soldered in), a separate Apple proprietary non upgradeable flash HDD, and a separate box with soldered RAM, each costing $2999.
Meanwhile the old Mac Pro 5,1 can still be upgraded in terms of CPU, 4 full HDD bays, can run a state of the art video card and with the PCI slots you can add a pro stuff like a BlackMagic card.
In the US.
[doublepost=1509381728][/doublepost]
Way too expensive.
As an Amazon Associate, MacRumors earns a commission from qualifying purchases made through links in this post.
Exactly. It is sad that the 2010 Mac Pro is already putting up benchmarks that are close to what this iMac Pro. That Mac Pro was a true "Pro" machine. I do not know if Apple ever builds a decent machine again, with every new release of a MacBook Pro, or iMac, or iMac Pro, and the yet to be seen modular Mac Pro everyones hope is just dashed.
Disagree. Let’s say I have an employee I pay $50K a year (graphics/animation or similar field). I buy an iMac Pro for $10K and plan on keeping it for only 2 years. So that iMac Pro increases my costs for that employee by 10%.
Do you think an employee on a brand new workstation will see their productivity rise by only 10%? Especially when compared to using a machine that’s already 2 years old? How about the reduced chance of missed deadlines due to increased performance and productivity? How do you even put a price on that?
You could easily justify buying this machine and throwing it in the garbage every 2 years and you’ll still come out ahead. And this doesn’t even take into account the tax write off your business would get when you buy the machine.
If you make money off content creation or a related field, then this machine is easily a sound financial investment.
let's be honest, sure its not as upgradable, but intel's processor updates have not been very upgrade worthy in the past few years as well.
RAM is not the main problem. The main problem is that the real price is not $5000, as it's an "all in one" and Apple plans you'll replace it a few years from now. Either by failure of a component, or because you'll want a newer component and you won't be able to add it. I consider the iMac Pro actual price is in the lines of $20000, because I would be able to extend the life of a modular Mac Pro four times the life of this iMac. So, 4x$5000=$20000.
You think that price is stratospheric?
Go put together a high-end Wintel gaming rig.
If your investment does not return enough money, that is not the computer's fault.
I would suggest you to check the prices of the ECC RAM, if you want to upgrade. Same with the GPU. When the upgrade would cost you half of the price of a new computer, that is not worth it.
You would probably want to upgrade CPU sooner then GPU, in my opinion, now that will cost you the other half of the price of a new computer.
This is not a new concept, search for used HP workstations for example, you will find many factory specced computers in bundles.