iMac Pro Available With 8 or 10 Cores This Week, 14 and 18 Core Models Ship Early Next Year

[Larry-K]

Definitely going 18 Cores. LOL how awesome would that be? I bet Safari would be snappier.

Doubt it, unless Safari's using more than one core these days.

18 cores @ 2.3 GHz? If the 12-core nMP is any indicator, you'll sacrifice single core performance for multi-core performance.

I'll wait for 2 Xeons, thanks.[/QUOTE]
[doublepost=1513117196][/doublepost]

I can see this falling off the stand for a VFX-Pro under deadline. Is the screen with a big boot print covered? Lack of flexible configuration makes this a regrettable pass!

You know it's going to be the guy with the headphone jack plugged in, who gets up in a hurry.

 

[diggy33]

Please tell me I can buy the space grey keyboard and track pad...Its all I want

Same here

 

[femike]

Cannot upgrade RAM, drive or screen. It's a No Pro.
Just make a reasonably priced headless Apple. What's so hard about that?
I hope this does not sell well, for Apple to get the message.

 

[B4U]

Pros don’t bust open their computer, put in random parts and void their warranty. They buy the config (with AppleCare) that they’ll need for the next two or three years and replace it then.

The few hundred tax deductible bucks a month it costs to cover the machine is probably covered by their first billable hour.

Pros also have off hours for food, sleep, whatever.
That is when they can drop off the machine for the tech to do all the upgrade instead of spending time migrating to a new machine.

 

[HarryWild]

The new iMac Pro is the right PC for using as a web browsing machine. I like it and the specs are great for surfing the internet!

 

[Larry-K]

Pros don’t bust open their computer, put in random parts and void their warranty. They buy the config (with AppleCare) that they’ll need for the next two or three years and replace it then.

The few hundred tax deductible bucks a month it costs to cover the machine is probably covered by their first billable hour.

I've busted open every Mac I've bought since 1990 (and quite a few for other Pros, as well), and I've used them all to make money.

Apple configurations have always been inadequate and overpriced.

 

[r.harris1]

I've busted open every Mac I've bought since 1990 (and quite a few for other Pros, as well), and I've used them all to make money.

Apple configurations have always been inadequate and overpriced.

And you've bought them since 1990? If they don't provide value - I think by inadequate it means you can't get your job done - why do you continue to use them? Genuine question. Not as smart a$$ as it sounds.

 

[Edsel]

OMG, 18-Cores!!!

The Pro will definitely improve my Solitaire scores. No more card shuffle lag, faster deals, and those glorious wining fireworks will just immerse me into joyous rapture. How much did they say it was going to cost....?

 

[fourthtunz]

A Dell configured with similar specs is almost $5,200, so it is right in line.

And there has not been a Dell that has ever had the build quality of a Mac.

 

[Williesleg]

Welcome back, Mac IIcx!

 

[nocturnum]

Great. Here comes the next wave of non-applicable comments. It would be nice to have a meaningful discussion on the new iMac Pro...

And there is always at least one announcer of such event, you know ... like you.

 

[Abazigal]

Why don't you start? What about an overpriced machine do you want to talk about? I don't mind having a meaningful discussion about this new "pro" machine, but really, what makes these ridiculously expensive machines ridiculously expensive ... I'm all ears.

I'll bite.

To use an analogy, it's like people complaining that a restaurant doesn't let them add salt or pepper to their soup. Never mind that they haven't tasted the soup yet, and don't know how it even tastes.

We are looking at a product that is for all intents and purposes the spiritual successor to the Mac Pro. There are so many things that can be discussed, from where the iMac Pro stands in Apple's grand vision, to its possible performance, to what this means for the Mac moving forward.

But yeah, let's instead use the time to participate in an endless and meaningless circle jerk about how you can't manually upgrade the ram yourself and instead have to pay more upfront for it.

Personally, I do feel that Apple's current Mac line is getting overcrowded, and could use some streamlining. If I were to decide which Macs to keep, I would probably settle for the MacBook Pro (both the 13" and 15" variants) and the iMac (with the iMac Pro serving as the Mac Pro replacement). I would probably drop the macbook, MacBook Air, and Mac mini. Only question is whether the Mac Pro is worth leaving around in any form to serve as a halo product to keep the niche of a niche group of users happy, despite Apple likely not making much or any money out of it.

Man, this image I saw on Twitter is becoming more and more prescient by the day.

 

[Larry-K]

And you've bought them since 1990? If they don't provide value - I think by inadequate it means you can't get your job done - why do you continue to use them? Genuine question. Not as smart a$$ as it sounds.

Because they're easy to reconfigure properly if you know what you're doing, or at least they used to be.

 

[pat500000]

Awesome, but I'm not distracted from getting my mac pro.

 

[Edsel]

Cannot upgrade RAM, drive or screen. It's a No Pro.
Just make a reasonably priced headless Apple. What's so hard about that?
I hope this does not sell well, for Apple to get the message.

There was a time when people could bring their toasters and irons to the repair shop, and car enthusiasts could swap out carburetors, cams and transmissions. That era died as toaster, irons, cars and now computers have become expendable and recycled.

There's little reason now to swap ram, hard-drives and graphics cards. This industry has matured to the point where software and hardware mature at a complementary rate.

I've been around the block a few times. My first "customized" computer was in 1985 and I started coding in 1973.
[doublepost=1513123932][/doublepost]

And there has not been a Dell that has ever had the build quality of a Mac.

Not true. Dell servers and business notebooks of the mid to late 90's were superb. The notebooks had excellent build quality that rivaled and even bettered IBM's stuff. Apple then was still struggling to get market share and had mediocre build quality.

 

[Jerry Fritschle]

And many fools will be parted with their money only to not have an updated model until a decade later

Well, if I drop that much money, I WANT to get a decade out of the thing

 

[mossback]

So awesome! Will be ordering a 10 core immediately!

 

[Chaszmyr]

Here's a cost comparison between the base model iMac Pro and a regular iMac specced as close as possible. The notable upgrades that extra $1,500 buys you are 4 extra cores and 3 extra mics, presumably to enable "Hey Siri" voice activation. The other differences are minor.

$5,000 base model iMac Pro:

8-core processor
32GB 2666MHz DDR4 ECC RAM
1TB SSD
Radeon Pro Vega 56 with 8GB VRAM
4 Thunderbolt 3 ports
1080p FaceTime HD camera
4 microphones
10Gb ethernet

$3,499 iMac 5K:

4-core processor
32GB 2400MHz DDR4 RAM
1TB SSD
Radeon Pro 580 with 8GB VRAM
2 Thunderbolt 3 ports
720p FaceTime HD camera
1 microphone
1Gb ethernet

The "other differences" include professional graphics card and ECC memory, which are actually the more expensive upgrades, and for many people the main reasons they'd buy an iMac Pro.

 

[sfwalter]

I'm guessing $600 to go from the base 32GB to 64GB ram.
[doublepost=1513130357][/doublepost]

So awesome! Will be ordering a 10 core immediately!

I'm guessing we don't have to be up at midnight PST to place our orders.
[doublepost=1513130476][/doublepost]

Whoa, Z6 is definitely very customizable. Just priced one out with dual 24-core processors, 384GB RAM, 14TB SSD storage, and a single nVidia Quadro P6000 with 24GB VRAM for $43,000.

I wonder what scrolling is like with Internet Explorer.

 

[leman]

18 cores @ 2.3 GHz? If the 12-core nMP is any indicator, you'll sacrifice single core performance for multi-core performance.

I don’t think so. That’s the idea of the new Xeon-W, to have both. These CPUs have rather high turbo boost scores. The 18 core might be slightly slower in peak single-threaded performance, but only so.


@everyone complaining about RAM: you can configure that machine with 128GB ECC RAM. You are never going to fit more then that with 4 slots anyway. So all this talk about future proofing or upgrade ability is total noncense. It made sende a decade ago when RAM capacities have doubled every few years or so and prices were going down. These days, you can get the maxed out config from the start. There is nothing to upgrade to. Or are you seriously going to tell me that you are going to get 32GB config now just to spend around $1600-$2000 on a ram upgrade two or three years down the line? Yes, that’s how much this ram costs on the market. And don’t kid yourself expecting it to get cheaper, the market is way too niche.

 

[JosephAW]

I don't know why people are bellyaching about the price. My Power Mac G5 cost about 5 grand when I bought it in June in 2006.
I was just miffed that they didn't provide OS X 10.6 for it, just 10.4 & 10.5.

 

[Nickel Defense]

For that kinda cash I'd expect a sign officially stating this is not the usual iMac. But a jolly powerful version of the one they've had out for many years and priced accordingly. Because how else will people know you've blown thousands on something you've already had similar sitting on your desk all this time. Good.

Interesting. But I find I by a computer for my use and needs. I don't have an open house when I get a new computer and I don't really care what anyone thinks. If anyone needs a sign, there are a lot of sign making stores you can visit.
[doublepost=1513134810][/doublepost]

Why are people so hung up on it being expensive?

Because they don't understand what this computer is and who it is designed for. Someone even asked what makes it a "pro". Really? This isn't designed for the casual computer user who spends his life on forums and facebook. Those who make serious money with their computers by using power hungry programs for video work, etc. appreciate and need this kind of computer and will have no problem paying the asking price.

 

[avkills]

Again Apple missing the mark with Pros. Why in the hell would anyone buy this? Basically tossing a perfectly good monitor once it has run its course. It will be interesting to see how long these stay relevant; and also whether there will be cooling problems.

Still rocking a 30" Cinema Display here.

Hopefully that GPU isn't a lame duck like the dual D700s are in the trashcans. Totally pathetic performance from my experience; only marginally faster encoding than laptops using Adobe.

 

[Bronson_DK]

People buy these computers with the intent of using it for a while. iMacs aren’t phones.

But the iMac's with AMD cards have a bad history. Both my iMac's died because the GPU was forced out of the socket by the cooler. Could only fix it so many times before it all went to hell! So I can't second your opinion of the longevity of the iMac.

Further more, the Radeon Pro Vega 64 is underwhelming compared to it's in-line contemporary Nvidia cards.
If the Vega was just to run the iMac it would be fine but they are selling it with the intent of using VR and here the Vega is struggling.

Not impressed...

 

[5590982]

Last couple things I'm gonna say on this.

1. To all the Americans making the case that this machine offers value for money; I'm in the UK. You're paying $4999 for the base model. In the UK we're paying £4999. That is, at today's rate; $6672.87. We are paying over $1600 more than you for the same thing.
2. The only reviews I wanna hear are from people who have been absolutely hammering the GPU and the CPU at the same time. Ie; people who use real-time and offline rendering workflows consecutively, like me. (Substance Painter then into VRay). This workflow is punishing in terms of testing the thermal resilience of a machine. Messing around with a bit of ****ing high res video and a couple of graphics overlays is really not all that much of a test. I want to see if this machine really is ventilated to the degree that it needs to be for anyone who is actually going to push the hardware in it to its limit.

Until then, this machine remains untested as far as I'm concerned.