Apple Reveals New 'iMac Pro' Built for Users With Demanding Workflows, Starting at $5K
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Chicane-UK
macrumors 6502
I've been extremely critical of Apple in the past couple of years, as they've completed neglected their desktop line-up and ignored great swathes of their customer base. Also, I don't like the all in one enclosure design. I much prefer something modular, accessible, and user upgradeable.
But the specs on this sound decent, it'll have decent expandability with good throughput thanks to USB-C/Thunderbolt 3. And it'll do as a stop-gap until the Mac Pro is refreshed next year. If this is the horse power they put into the iMac, the Mac Pro should be a powerhouse.
If it packs workstation CPU's, workstation memory, lightning fast storage, and workstation graphics I fail to see how it can't be called a workstation.
CWallace
macrumors G5
Especially considering it blows away the Core i7 / Xeon E3 AIO workstation offerings from Dell, HP, Lenovo and other PC OEMs.
melendezest
Suspended
I just don't understand Apple.
The iMac was meant to be a consumer-level device that was "powerful enough". Only because Apple neglected their real desktops was the iMac able to "surpass" their "Pro" machines, which says something in itself.
I just don't get this "iMac Pro" with it's ridiculous price tag and over-the-top specs, while being COMPLETELY sealed like an iOS machine is. Apple's promises of thermal innovation have ALWAYS fallen short.
It looks and sounds cool (in theory), no question, but to me this machine makes no sense.
I still find the Surface Studio to be a more innovative device.
The way I see it, Apple should make the iMac a (relatively inexpensive) iOS Device with the power features that are (still inexplicably) missing from iOS (and Pencil support) and they should be good.
And offer a REAL Mac Pro (and matching display) for those that ACTUALLY need a truck (and price THAT accordingly).
No more of these stop-gap, crippled-in-some-way, hyper-expensive, in-between machines.
But that's just me. I think they could OWN the market if they quit screwing around like this.
This is what I'd like to see:
iOS-based, USB-C/TB3-ported, affordable-ish iPhones, iPads, iBooks, iMacs, miniMac
macOS-based, upgradeable, multi-ported, expensive-ish PowerBooks and PowerMacs (miniMac here too maybe?)
Done, and done.
Fun to think about, no?
The iMac was meant to be a consumer-level device that was "powerful enough". Only because Apple neglected their real desktops was the iMac able to "surpass" their "Pro" machines, which says something in itself.
I just don't get this "iMac Pro" with it's ridiculous price tag and over-the-top specs, while being COMPLETELY sealed like an iOS machine is. Apple's promises of thermal innovation have ALWAYS fallen short.
It looks and sounds cool (in theory), no question, but to me this machine makes no sense.
I still find the Surface Studio to be a more innovative device.
The way I see it, Apple should make the iMac a (relatively inexpensive) iOS Device with the power features that are (still inexplicably) missing from iOS (and Pencil support) and they should be good.
And offer a REAL Mac Pro (and matching display) for those that ACTUALLY need a truck (and price THAT accordingly).
No more of these stop-gap, crippled-in-some-way, hyper-expensive, in-between machines.
But that's just me. I think they could OWN the market if they quit screwing around like this.
This is what I'd like to see:
iOS-based, USB-C/TB3-ported, affordable-ish iPhones, iPads, iBooks, iMacs, miniMac
macOS-based, upgradeable, multi-ported, expensive-ish PowerBooks and PowerMacs (miniMac here too maybe?)
Done, and done.
Fun to think about, no?
intz2nu
macrumors 6502
Looks nice and all, plus I always wanted an iMac in space gray but sadly that was a year or two back when I had these desires and all I can say is that it is highly likely with the announcement of this that coming next year and the year after we most likely won't be seeing a redesign in the iMac given the announcement of this. Honestly it's quite sad and bit underwhelming but I guess this will give "SOME" iMac users a reason to still want or upgrade their current iMacs.
Also funny how this thing forces you to even buy Apple's costly RAM also a down side. A full spec'd machine is already pricey as it is and forcing people to buy over priced RAM to top it off is a crime Apple is committing. Oh well people live and learn and then switch to different hardware.
Also funny how this thing forces you to even buy Apple's costly RAM also a down side. A full spec'd machine is already pricey as it is and forcing people to buy over priced RAM to top it off is a crime Apple is committing. Oh well people live and learn and then switch to different hardware.
NY Guitarist
macrumors 68000
The iMac Pro is certainly a well spec'ed machine.
But with the NOT 'Pro' limitations of the All-In-One design I'm glad to know Apple will, in a few years apparently, make a 'Pro' machine that can be configured for a specific purpose.
User replaceable GPUs, monitors, RAM, fast storage are still incredibly relevant.
But with the NOT 'Pro' limitations of the All-In-One design I'm glad to know Apple will, in a few years apparently, make a 'Pro' machine that can be configured for a specific purpose.
User replaceable GPUs, monitors, RAM, fast storage are still incredibly relevant.
Last edited:
MacsRuleOthersDrool
Suspended
Not when Intel is charging $600 just for the LOW-END CPU alone:
https://www.pcgamesn.com/intel/intel-core-i9-skylake-x-specs
Now I understand that Apple isn't paying MSRP for their CPUs; but you would likely be surprised at how expensive they STILL are, even for Apple. Intel is the only viable CPU game in town, and they aren't shy about that.
Likewise with the monitor: 5 k Displays aren't cheap, period. I would bet that Apple is paying about $400 for that display. So, add $500 for the CPU and $400 for the Display, and you already have a Bill of Materials cost of nearly a GRAND (and we are nowhere NEAR having a complete COMPUTER!).
$5 k is actually a pretty damn good price for that iMac Pro, as Apple pointed out by horse-racing it against a Dell with equivalent power. The Dell came out at $7 k, IIRC.
MacsRuleOthersDrool
Suspended
I have a friend that has a 2007(?) 24" iMac (first Aluminum one, whichever that was), and although the computer is still going strong, the backlight in the display is about toasted.
So, while he waited for new iMacs to come out this year, I suggested a stopgap solution: We poked around on Amazon for a few minutes, and found a Dell monitor with the same resolution as his iMac's display for $250. When it arrived, he simply plugged in a DVI cable to the miniDVI port on the iMac, put the iMac's display into "Mirrored" mode, and pushed the iMac back behind the new Monitor.
And when he gets his new iMac, his wife will be able to replace the slightly-defective Samsung monitor she has hooked-up to her Mac mini with the Dell (he doesn't have enough desk space to have two big displays), and everyone will (continue to) be happy!
[doublepost=1496786377][/doublepost]
Although that sounds enticing from a consumer's point of view, it would be an engineering nightmare to design. As the system "grew", everything from the Power supply to the motherboard itself would HAVE to be changeable. Just not practical in a mini's form-factor, nor really any other form-factor besides a big ugly tower.
To do it any other way would mean there would either have to be SO much "unused capacity" in the REST of the system to "keep up" with the higher-end CPUs (and GPUs) that the base-price of the "mini"-end version would end up being DECIDEDLY "non-mini", and/or the higher-end systems would quickly "outstrip" the capabilities and bandwidth of the memory, peripheral, and other System Buses, and you would end up with a quite limp-wristed "Pro"-end configuration.
There is a reason why computer OEMs don't try to offer then entire range of Intel CPUs and AMD/nVidia GPUs in each and every computer. It just doesn't make sense, engineering-wise, at either end of the spectrum.
[doublepost=1496786549][/doublepost]
What? Not as Upgradeable as a 2013 non-Retina MacBook Pro?!? What are you smoking?!?
[doublepost=1496786921][/doublepost]
It's coming.
[doublepost=1496786988][/doublepost]
Yes, apparently they were. Go back and read some articles around the April timeframe.
[doublepost=1496787075][/doublepost]
I'm pretty sure you could push many a Mac config. past $10 k for many years.Starting at $4999?!
[doublepost=1496787538][/doublepost]
From who's point of view?
[doublepost=1496787891][/doublepost]
Did you even read the article?
They were PRAISING the iMac Pro (as in it was "Crazy Good"), NOT calling Apple "Bonkers" for creating it...
[doublepost=1496788118][/doublepost]
Yeah, get that razor-sharp, 5 k display, then make it look like a Monet painting with a Matte (not "Matt") sandblasted front-glass.
That makes a lot of sense, yep. (rolls eyes)
I never really understand the whole problem with "locked down" when it comes to computers. Most Pro consumers are replacing machines every few years anyway. What do you really need to upgrade in the machine?
As for airflow... this computer isn't released yet so I have no idea how you think you can judge it. This is a whole new thermal architecture, it's not what's in the current iMacs. Lots of pros will love this machine, I think.
People? What people? Read this thread and see how many people are pissed about no new Mini. You obviously don't get it but many many others do. If only Apple would update the thing. I need one really badly for print room serving. The Mini is an amazing concept completely messed up and unrealized by the idiots running this s!!t show! Apple have lost the plot.
rnsinput
macrumors newbie
The specs look great.... there does seem to be one key missing aspect... the ability to easily add and update components. I realize the response will be from some that the Mac Pro is the answer.. but IMHO the need for a user to easily upgrade their system with 3rd party and Apple components is long over due. I would readily trade the thin profile for this.
Having pointed out that wish.. this looks very promising.
Having pointed out that wish.. this looks very promising.
tech4all
macrumors 68040
Add more RAM/storage/graphics card. Easily replace bad RAM/storage/graphics card.
JamesPDX
Suspended
I must admit that the i/o is impressive, especially the 10Gb Ethernet. What concerns me is the thinness on a desktop machine. I looked over the specs and I keep wondering, would it be better if it were an inch thicker for and even bigger heat sink and slower fans that move more CFM? I have two very fancy devices that require Thunderbolt II. I don't think the device with all of the SSDs in it has ever fully saturated the bus, even when they are doing i/o simultaneously.
You know what would have been even better? Allow people (us) a couple SATA 2.5" SSD slots -on the side- for media transfers, etc.
I understand that it's here to stay, and I'll buy whatever dongles I'll need, but Thunderbolt 3 is a great example of planned obsolescence. (..."or is it USB-C? It looks the same. Let's plug in and find out...)
Anyway, it's a pretty machine. I just hope it's as great as they say it is. $5k, eh? Wow! Maybe the heat sink is made out of platinum.
You know what would have been even better? Allow people (us) a couple SATA 2.5" SSD slots -on the side- for media transfers, etc.
I understand that it's here to stay, and I'll buy whatever dongles I'll need, but Thunderbolt 3 is a great example of planned obsolescence. (..."or is it USB-C? It looks the same. Let's plug in and find out...)
Anyway, it's a pretty machine. I just hope it's as great as they say it is. $5k, eh? Wow! Maybe the heat sink is made out of platinum.
liquid stereo
macrumors regular
I think it's because the people who were buying iMacs – 10-15 years – are now buying iPads. The computer market is shrinking so Apple is probably looking at consolidating. One product – with different guts – for all computing needs.
The problem I have is the thermal solution. I do a lot of compute-intensive computations and the iMac architecture has been awful. I hope the new chassis/design is capable of 24/7 operation in a professional environment. I've gone through 4 iMacs in recent years. Never again will I buy one for professional use. My current trashcan MacPro, like the PowerMacs (starting with the 7100 and ending with the G5) and MacPros before it, has not failed once.
Personally, I think the best option for a professional who is currently dependent on Apple computer solutions for his/her work/business/productivity is to investigate other options. As nice as the upcoming solutions may be, they are quite expensive.
The problem I have is the thermal solution. I do a lot of compute-intensive computations and the iMac architecture has been awful. I hope the new chassis/design is capable of 24/7 operation in a professional environment. I've gone through 4 iMacs in recent years. Never again will I buy one for professional use. My current trashcan MacPro, like the PowerMacs (starting with the 7100 and ending with the G5) and MacPros before it, has not failed once.
Personally, I think the best option for a professional who is currently dependent on Apple computer solutions for his/her work/business/productivity is to investigate other options. As nice as the upcoming solutions may be, they are quite expensive.
I just don't understand Apple.
The iMac was meant to be a consumer-level device that was "powerful enough". Only because Apple neglected their real desktops was the iMac able to "surpass" their "Pro" machines, which says something in itself.
I just don't get this "iMac Pro" with it's ridiculous price tag and over-the-top specs, while being COMPLETELY sealed like an iOS machine is. Apple's promises of thermal innovation have ALWAYS fallen short.
It looks and sounds cool (in theory), no question, but to me this machine makes no sense.
I still find the Surface Studio to be a more innovative device.
The way I see it, Apple should make the iMac a (relatively inexpensive) iOS Device with the power features that are (still inexplicably) missing from iOS (and Pencil support) and they should be good.
And offer a REAL Mac Pro (and matching display) for those that ACTUALLY need a truck (and price THAT accordingly).
No more of these stop-gap, crippled-in-some-way, hyper-expensive, in-between machines.
But that's just me. I think they could OWN the market if they quit screwing around like this.
This is what I'd like to see:
iOS-based, USB-C/TB3-ported, affordable-ish iPhones, iPads, iBooks, iMacs, miniMac
macOS-based, upgradeable, multi-ported, expensive-ish PowerBooks and PowerMacs (miniMac here too maybe?)
Done, and done.
Fun to think about, no?
Chicane-UK
macrumors 6502
I must admit that the i/o is impressive, especially the 10Gb Ethernet. What concerns me is the thinness on a desktop machine. I looked over the specs and I keep wondering, would it be better if it were an inch thicker for and even bigger heat sink and slower fans that move more CFM? I have two very fancy devices that require Thunderbolt II. I don't think the device with all of the SSDs in it has ever fully saturated the bus, even when they are doing i/o simultaneously.
You know what would have been even better? Allow people (us) a couple SATA 2.5" SSD slots -on the side- for media transfers, etc.
I understand that it's here to stay, and I'll buy whatever dongles I'll need, but Thunderbolt 3 is a great example of planned obsolescence. (..."or is it USB-C? It looks the same. Let's plug in and find out...)
Anyway, it's a pretty machine. I just hope it's as great as they say it is. $5k, eh? Wow! Maybe the heat sink is made out of platinum.
I think that's been my gripe with a lot of Apple hardware, for quite a while now - and the iMac especially is a case in point. From everything I've read the current flagship i7 models are great except when doing sustained heavy workloads, as the cooling system simply cannot keep up, and the CPU ends up being throttled to bring temperatures back under control.
I just... fail to see the point of a designing an enclosure that limits the hardware in such a way. Sure, the iMac isn't necessarily designed for very heavy lifting.. but then why offer higher end i7 CPU's then? Every user is going to need to do some heavy lifting from time to time, so to me that system is ultimately compromised / flawed.
I would gladly sacrifice some thin-ness on stuff like the iMac, the Mac Mini, etc if it meant improvements to user upgradability or performance.
All that said, I think Apple learned some painful lessons on the current generation Mac Pro with the thermal system they designed for that being too restrictive for them and prohibiting them from taking the system any further, so... hopefully they took that into consideration for the iMac Pro and will really take it into consideration on the all new Mac Pro next year.
liquid stereo
macrumors regular
I can't imagine Apple will offer this "upgradability". It's not part of their business model and it's a shrinking part of the market. In most professional environments computers are replaced in 2-4 year cycles. Apple likes to offer turnkey solutions. Businesses like turnkey solutions.
[doublepost=1496821404][/doublepost]
I made the mistake of using/stressing the i7... Bad idea.
orisonmarden
macrumors member
Just 1 tiny miniscule dead pixel and it's gonna ruin everything.
JamesPDX
Suspended
If I'm tied to a lot of Pro Tools, FCPX, Motion, Compressor, and Photoshop CS6, do you think a new BTO 2013 MP 6-core with D500s would be an unwise choice? Are all of those cylinders doomed, or would it last as long as it's not abused, GPU-wise? Please advise.
liquid stereo
macrumors regular
I absolutely love my trashcan MacPro. It has been 100% reliable and has been beaten on, in terms of work/compute-load. No problems with it. I'm not sure what you're currently using but if the specs meets your needs then go for it. It seems like the new machines will be quite expensive.
Chicane-UK
macrumors 6502
I'm just not sure I could stomach paying full price now for a system / specification that is approaching 4 years old. I don't doubt the trashcan is still a hugely capable system, but it's technically generations behind now.
Bacillus
Suspended
With soo much reasoning, gesturing, re-assuring, from the side of Mr Kim Yong Phil, it seems that the nearest case they found to put some beefed-up HW in was the old iMac case.
Glued, mediocre heat dissipation, non-upgradeable, but hey, it's 5 grand, so it must be good enough
Glued, mediocre heat dissipation, non-upgradeable, but hey, it's 5 grand, so it must be good enough
newhorizons2020
macrumors newbie
Starts from $5000 ? are you kidding me?
Imac Pros should start from $3000 with the specs provided.
I can build a monster PC workstation 3 times faster with $5000
[doublepost=1496843083][/doublepost]
Mac mini is the cheap entry level for people who want MAC OS and MAC Software for less than $1000. The one who would cancel it deserves to be fired.
Imac Pros should start from $3000 with the specs provided.
I can build a monster PC workstation 3 times faster with $5000
[doublepost=1496843083][/doublepost]
Mac mini is the cheap entry level for people who want MAC OS and MAC Software for less than $1000. The one who would cancel it deserves to be fired.
Last edited:
0098386
Suspended
What happened to it?
The backlight has been showing signs of wear recently, sometimes it'll just go black but it's really hit or miss. Sometimes it'll do it constantly minutes apart, other times it won't happen for months.
CWallace
macrumors G5
The CPU alone lists for $2000. Even doing it yourself with off-the-shelf parts in a tower + 5K monitor will run you $5000 and if you go Dell, it's $7000.
No, that is the MacBook Air. And has been ever since it went to $999. The plurality of all Mac sales is that model - they sell a million-plus a quarter compared to less than 50,000 Mac Minis.