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

[dazzer21-2]

@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.

I think the point being made is that where you can buy a regular iMac with 16GB RAM off the shelf and then later on down the line chuck some Crucial sticks in and bump it up to 64GB for a fair price, if you want to get a 128GB iMac Pro, you are going to have to spec it at the point of purchase and then pay Apple's enormous RAM tax! You can't upgrade the memory once you have the machine on your desk.

 

[Larry-K]

"Slightly"?

Yeah, let's see the numbers, if you want 2.3 GHz go for it, but I'll remain skeptical as befits Apple's track-record of marketing BS (Turbo-BS).

 

[5590982]

I think the point being made is that where you can buy a regular iMac with 16GB RAM off the shelf and then later on down the line chuck some Crucial sticks in and bump it up to 64GB for a fair price, if you want to get a 128GB iMac Pro, you are going to have to spec it at the point of purchase and then pay Apple's enormous RAM tax! You can't upgrade the memory once you have the machine on your desk.

This is, in a nutshell, the complete undoing of the 'it offers serious value for money!' argument. It's not a bargain when you are forced to pay over-the-odds price for RAM that you don't yet need, or if you have to replace the entire machine early in it's life-cycle because the options you paid for initially are no longer enough.
How the hell does that represent cost-effectiveness?

 

[bigtomato]

It would seem to me to get a quad core iMac 21" with EGPU support with higher end graphics card. More and more rendering being done with graphics cards so the price of this seems extremely high by the time you spec it out. You could spend half the money.

My setup is a 21.5 iMac with 4k support, have and hp 32" monitor 4k, with EGPU comes out to $4k canadian...

 

[leman]

"Slightly"?

Yeah, let's see the numbers, if you want 2.3 GHz go for it, but I'll remain skeptical as befits Apple's track-record of marketing BS (Turbo-BS).

It has turbo boost of 4.3Ghz... This CPU will be as fast as i9-7900X in single-threaded applications, and faster in multithreaded. I am not sure what you mean by marketing BS in this context.

 

[5590982]

Sorry, for my "pro" uses, whatever that is, I need something that is upgradeable -RAM, DRIVES, GRAPHICS CARD. I prefer my LG monitor to be separate from the computer in case I damage the LEDs somehow. $5000 for a machine you cannot upgrade to amortize over 5 years or more, is pretty silly. Better to get a client server system with dumb terminals having 34 inch screens.

Dude, if you're not just trashing your workstation every 18 months and immediately replacing it with an entirely brand new 5 grand machine you are not a professional. Changing RAM modules is strictly for unemployable nerds.

 

[leman]

I think the point being made is that where you can buy a regular iMac with 16GB RAM off the shelf and then later on down the line chuck some Crucial sticks in and bump it up to 64GB for a fair price

This is, in a nutshell, the complete undoing of the 'it offers serious value for money!' argument. It's not a bargain when you are forced to pay over-the-odds price for RAM that you don't yet need, or if you have to replace the entire machine early in it's life-cycle because the options you paid for initially are no longer enough.

So is it about upgradability or about wanting to save money? I'm confused now. And sure its still a bargain if you look how much you'd pay for similar machine elsewhere. Besides, the prices haven't been revealed yet?

And anyway, are you seriously going to tell me that you want to buy a $5000 machine so that you can go to a shop and get RAM for $500 to "bump it to 64GB for a bargain"? Its a workstation computer. You spec it for a specific task. You don't decide a year after "oh, I need 128GB after all". And honestly, if you need it, you open it up and change the RAM, its regular slotted DDR4 after all.

 

[dragje]

iMacPro is a nice computer but not for me. I like a system which I can upgrade at moments I find worthy, an upgrade when I think it's worth spending money on. That simple approach is not do-able with the new iMac Pro. You pay a great deal of money for a machine you can't upgrade.

Yes, you can add more memory to it, but what about the SSD harddrives? What about the situation after three years of use and you're in for a whole new graphics videocard? What if something will fail? You can't easily change the graphic cards for a new one, they simply don't fit within this machine...

And no, a Thunderbolt 3 external enclosure doesn't do the trick either, yes, you can make use of this method but it will not give the computer, and therefor it's user, the raw power when compared with a computer with a 'build in graphic videocard'. And I've great 4K monitors, why paying for a whole new computer 'with' a build in monitor? I wonder if the interior hardware which become pretty hot when it's dealing with heavy tasks will be healthy for the screen....

I'm so glad Apple promised to work on a hybrid new MacPro as well, a machine that WILL replace my current MacPro from 2010. I skipped the new MacPro "umbrella" basket vase for the very exact same reasons as described above with the iMacPro.

And it's about time, like my MacPro from 2010 that served me well for years just because (!!) it was upgradable. Godthanks Apple promised to come with a new modular MacPro, I rather spend thousands of Euro's on such a machine that will last for years and can still compete long time after purchase sinds it's upgradable.

 

[5590982]

And anyway, are you seriously going to tell me that you want to buy a $5000 machine so that you can go to a shop and get RAM for $500 to "bump it to 64GB for a bargain"? Its a workstation computer. You spec it for a specific task. You don't decide a year after "oh, I need 128GB after all". And honestly, if you need it, you open it up and change the RAM, its regular slotted DDR4 after all.

So... according to you, every instance of anyone ever upgrading a part on a computer is effectively admitting to having made a mistake on their original purchase, and every machine that has ever facilitated upgrades (including the most recent iMacs) actually didn't need to offer that feature, because everyone buying them should have know exactly what they need at the time of purchase?
[doublepost=1513167024][/doublepost]

So is it about upgradability or about wanting to save money?.

BOTH of those things. NEITHER of which are offered by this machine.
[doublepost=1513167752][/doublepost]
_________________________________

Also - now, this is speculation and based on half-remembered facts, so don't come at me like I'm declaring hard facts here - hasn't it been the case that various CPUs have proven themselves to be capable of utilizing greater amounts of RAM than previously thought? And hasn't it also been the case that certain Apple machines have been able to use more RAM than was offered by Apple at the point of purchase?

OWC have done this, a couple of times if I remember right, right?

So how's that gonna feel if you splurge a huge sum on 128gb for your 18 core model and then find 18 months down the line that it actually can handle a lot more, which you could've bought at a lower price-point from OWC?

Like I say - totally hypothetical situation, and I may be wrong, but - y'know... I wonder if even that would be enough to convince people that maybe this whole 'sealed box workstation' thing isn't such a fantastic idea?

 

[gnasher729]

There are better specs. Just go look at AMD Threadripper. And the usage doesn't matter. It's a computer. They're all meant to crunch numbers fast. Don't kid yourself if you think because it's got an Apple logo on it, it does things differently.

Try getting one that runs reliably if you use all cores and hyperthreading.
[doublepost=1513169667][/doublepost]

Where I work, no one is going to open their machines and put RAM in it, even if they have HP Zs, since it can whack the warranty. It simply isn't going to happen. So we max out, within reason, and move on, and really, once I've maxed out RAM, for example, I shouldn't need to upgrade again. Personally, I'd rather have a modular system myself in this case, but don't begrudge people wanting to get one - these are powerful machines that may not work for you, but I know people already who are gearing up for them and who will put their machines to good use.

And some people seem. to be fixated that buying a new Mac means throwing an old one away. If you buy the 8core machine today and replace it with a new and better one in three years time, the old one will be handed down to someone who will be more than happy with it.
[doublepost=1513169830][/doublepost]

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

You are confused here. The advertised speed is the speed when all cores are running, so single core performance isn't affected. If you have a single core running, it will be running at much higher speed.

 

[leman]

So... according to you, every instance of anyone ever upgrading a part on a computer is effectively admitting to having made a mistake on their original purchase, and every machine that has ever facilitated upgrades (including the most recent iMacs) actually didn't need to offer that feature, because everyone buying them should have know exactly what they need at the time of purchase?

Sure, someone buying a workstation of this kind, which is usually bought for a very specific purpose, should know exactly what they need at the time of purchase. If you buy this machine to do photo editing (for which let's assume 32GB is enough), how likely is the case that after two years you say "oh, now I really need 128GB RAM since I decided to do particle simulation after all"? Its not a your general-purpose kitchen counter personal computer that you decide to upgrade a bit so that it can run a few more years. Not to mention that if you want to upgrade RAM, you should probably also upgrade the CPU so that it can actually benefit from that RAM. Similarly, you probably don't get 32GB if you go for the 18-core setup.

This of course doesn't change the fact that some folks need modular workstation, because they want/need to be flexible or simply need more power (meaning multi-CPU and multi-GPU setups, complex internal storage). This specific AOI workstation doesn't cater to this customer segment and nor does it have to. There is more then enough customers that don't need this flexibility and are targeting a particular task set which means that they know from the onset what they want. For them, its a good machine.

So how's that gonna feel if you splurge a huge sum on 128gb for your 18 core model and then find 18 months down the line that it actually can handle a lot more, which you could've bought at a lower price-point from OWC?

I don't think that there are 64GB DDR4 ECC modules out right now, but non-ECC version are available (and cost around $1000 per piece, give or take). So yes, what you say might be possible (according to Intel specs the CPU can address up to 512GB of RAM). Then again, if at any point in time your resident task is so complex that you need more then 128GB RAM, then you REALLY need multi-processor setup. A single CPU with quad-channel memory controller simply can't work with that amount of RAM efficiently. So if your task is that complex, the iMac Pro as it is is certainly wrong tool for the job. And equipping it with 192GB or more will not make it any better.

P.S. Just for a sense of scale, we have here a machine with 4TB RAM. I think it has 96 CPUs with mixed 32GB and 64GB RAM per CPU, don't remember exactly.

 

[5590982]

And for self-employed people who have to be very adaptable and take on unfamiliar workflows in order to survive and need to be very careful about their expenditures....? **** 'em, I guess right? Not only is it their fault they might need more RAM during the lifecycle of their machine, it's also their fault for choosing not to work at a big company with a service department, I guess? Or... wait... let me guess; those people don't count as 'Professional' right?

 

[DLary]

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.

Governments love the VAT because people don't realise they are paying it.

 

[leman]

And for self-employed people who have to be very adaptable and take on unfamiliar workflows in order to survive and need to be very careful about their expenditures....? **** 'em, I guess right?

I don't understand why are you getting so upset. There are other workstations on the market, buy what suits your needs best. Or build yourself a PC using customer parts, will be the same performance but you'll spend less money. And if it has to be a Mac, well, they said that they are working on a modular machine for people like you, didn't they?

P.S. I am thinking about becoming self-employed btw. I'd certainly not buy the iMac Pro until I am sure that the business is doing very well

 

[r.harris1]

And for self-employed people who have to be very adaptable and take on unfamiliar workflows in order to survive and need to be very careful about their expenditures....? **** 'em, I guess right? Not only is it their fault they might need more RAM during the lifecycle of their machine, it's also their fault for choosing not to work at a big company with a service department, I guess? Or... wait... let me guess; those people don't count as 'Professional' right?

'Professional' is as 'Professional' does, right? Since you have been telling all of the people on this thread how bad this machine is for what you do, I don't think anyone here would ever suggest that you should purchase the iMac Pro. But you not needing or wanting it is simply your opinion. It may or may not offer relevance to other people, just like any opinion of mine. What machine or machines do you use today?

 

[5590982]

Here's the thing - I'm not gonna sit here and say 'I don't care, whatever, it doesn't effect me etc. etc.' because I was actually really hoping this machine would be good for me - and it isn't. I'm not too proud to admit that I've found this repeated failure for Apple to provide a workstation that I'm going to like to be really annoying. The fact that I am now definitely moving over to a Windows system is really annoying. I'm ordering a Z6 - which is coming with 48gb Ram, the basic 10c CPU and an 8gb NVIDIA gpu for under £3800 / $5071 - a full £1200 less than the iMac Pro would cost (which is, remember; $6671 for U.K. customers) But I'd rather stay with Apple. I'll say again - this is deeply disappointing - so yeah, if my tone has been narky, that's why. But heyho, life goes on etc.

 

[avkills]

Dude, if you're not just trashing your workstation every 18 months and immediately replacing it with an entirely brand new 5 grand machine you are not a professional. Changing RAM modules is strictly for unemployable nerds.

Trashing a computer is one thing, trashing a computer AND a monitor is something entirely different. It is called ****ing wasteful.

 

[gnipgnop]

Really? Can you use external GPU with iMac's display?

Yes...here's an example. There's a long list of Macs that are supported if you run High Sierra.

https://bizon-tech.com
[doublepost=1513176697][/doublepost]

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.

The difference in multi-core score is not minor. The base model iMac Pro = 37,000+ while the high-end iMac 5K = 19,000+.

 

[seclusion]

I can’t imagine one wouldn’t be able to open up the iMP like we can all other iMac’s.
For the people that aren’t tech savy, pay the piper as I did with my 2017 5k iMac with maxed cpu and ssd and 32 gigs of ram. I will be able to boost the ram if needed easily, but looks like it¡s enough for Logic Pro.
My wife’s 1st gen 27” iMac, got a ram upgrade and an SSD last year and I was glad to open it up, god did it need a cleaning and it is still running great.
As there has always been, if there is anything unique, there will be parts made and videos to show you how.
They do look sweet and will be beasts for a long time coming.
I would say that paying a $1000 more for esthetics aren’t for everyone, but I can imagine the pure horsepower with a power cable, wireless keyboard n mouse. We are in crazy times and fortunate that we have these choices.

 

[leman]

Here's the thing - I'm not gonna sit here and say 'I don't care, whatever, it doesn't effect me etc. etc.' because I was actually really hoping this machine would be good for me - and it isn't.

Why would you ever expect it to be upgradeable? It was very clear for the beginning that its a repackaged cylinder Mac Pro, in a more useful form format.

I'm ordering a Z6 - which is coming with 48gb Ram, the basic 10c CPU and an 8gb NVIDIA gpu for under £3800 / $5071 - a full £1200 less than the iMac Pro would cost (which is, remember; $6671 for U.K. customers) But I'd rather stay with Apple. I'll say again - this is deeply disappointing - so yeah, if my tone has been narky, that's why. But heyho, life goes on etc.

I don't understand how you can get this price. When I configure a 10 core Xeon/48GB/P4000 in the US HP store, the price is $5239. That is without any network connectivity and with a 500GB HDD. Not to mention that the GPU and CPU are slower than what you find in the iMac. Are you maybe getting some sort of special offer? And another question, since I am curious (based on your previous posts) — why would you buy 48GB RAM from HP? You could save a couple of hundred by getting aftermarket RAM...

P.S. Ok, looked at the UK store. Go figure, HP sells cheaper in the UK. Converting to $, they want around $1500 less in UK for the same configuration. Good for the UK customer I guess. In Germany this model doesn't even seem to be available. A predecessor model is available for 3500 euro...

 

[5590982]

Why would you ever expect it to be upgradeable? It was very clear for the beginning that its a repackaged cylinder Mac Pro, in a more useful form format.

Because you can upgrade the RAM on the regular iMac. And the Mac Pro.

I don't understand how you can get this price...Are you maybe getting some sort of special offer?

Yep.

— why would you buy 48GB RAM from HP?.

See above.

 

[bplein]

Just leaving this here....

https://www.engadget.com/2017/09/13/hp-unveils-its-insanely-upgradeable-z-class-workstations/

The Z6 is definitely more upgradeable, but much more expensive as well.

Try and spec out the equivalent of a base iMac Pro. First off, since this is dual socket, you can't get a 3.7GHz 8 core with 4.5 TurboBoost, the best you can do is 3.2GHz with 3.7 Turbo Boost. Next add 32GB of RAM, and 1TB M.2 SSD. Add any 8GB Video card (I'm not trying to make it perfectly like for like) and you are at about $8,100, without a monitor. And that doesn't include 10Gbit which is going to cost you another $500 (but you get 2 ports).

I keep saying this: If you don't need PC-like upgrade paths, then the iMac Pro is an incredible deal compared to new-in-box alternatives from HP and Dell. Besides, if you are committed to Mac OS, moving to Windows has some sort of cost too, be it real (new software licenses) or fuzzy (I'm slower on Windows because I abandoned it years ago, etc.)

 

[foulmouthedleon]

The iMac Pro is too much for me, but I can see people who will use it well. I kind of want to pick up the space grey trackpad and keyboard, but who knows what they'll be going for on eBay.

 

[leman]

The Z6 is definitely more upgradeable, but much more expensive as well.

Check out the UK store, they indeed have some rather discounted deals. I can understand why BarryLegg went with the Z6 here. Of course, its slower than the Mac and lacks some basic components like networking or fast storage, but its a good deal for money nevertheless.

 

[tumtumtum]

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

Dying