I think these new iMac Pros are awesome. I just wish Apple could have made the RAM user upgradeable. Maybe the next revision will have that ability.
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.
iMac Pro Compared to 5K iMac and MacBook Pro
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Those who purchase a $13K workstation do so because they feel the cost/benefit equation favors doing so.
[doublepost=1516318215][/doublepost]
USB, Firewire, and Thunderbolt are also measured in bits/sec
True but how many need 10 top of the line workstations all at once? Most places I know getting these are doing so for the online suite or something only and others will likely come in time. I know our colourist got a mid level one without hesitation and is loving how fast it is compared to his trash can MP but he needs the power. My offline suite really doesn’t yet so we won’t upgrade it yet.
[doublepost=1516318434][/doublepost]
I know it’s not really a benchmark but it is something for sure, especially if you are doing prints. I didn’t watch the video so I assume it was an H.264 which doesn’t mean much. However exporting time for something like an Op1a MPEG 50 would a uslly be important.
Good luck getting any video editing done on a cheap car. And that 13k is about a months earnings for a freelance editor, and if you can get more done in less time... ...see where I’m going?
[doublepost=1516318576][/doublepost]
Careful, that sounds like actual facts. No place for them in comments section.
A maxed out standard 27" 5k iMac is likely be more than adequate for even the most demanding of tasks.
The iMac Pro on the other hand should it prove successful is a death dealer to future development of the Mac Pro.
The iMac Pro on the other hand should it prove successful is a death dealer to future development of the Mac Pro.
Apple has confirmed its working in a new modular Mac Pro and display.
All in all, I’d say this is a terrible video. The one metric selected showed results completely opposite of the final conclusion. Seems like there should have been a focus on the frame drops/workflow stuff that we only get subjective commentary on. And since when does a lack of processing power create application crashes? When I heard that I knew for sure this was an attempt to justify a purchase decision rather than an objective comparison.
Are we really still calling these things "pro" machines? 
Although now old I still have plenty of use for Firewire 800 with my Late 2009 iMac
Thats just it though. Apple are now deciding for the consumer how peripherals should be and not proving a choice. I feel pain for those with a latest generation Touchbar MacBook Pro. great if you are in to emoji though.
These companies will lease their machines rather than buy them. Tax efficient and the cost of a fully maxed iMac pro could be covered in a couple of hours work per week - as opposed to throwing down £130000 in one hit.
Or, as a pro photographer you depreciate it over 3-7 years and deduct it from taxes. Some are in business. My brother being one he has cameras more than this
What a worthless video. Can somebody actually do a real world test with these machines?
It's worth the extra money to get 100% SSD in the iMac. Not only does all the storage in the iMac perform at maximum speed but you have one less mechanical component in the machine that's likely to fail in a machine where replacing that component is a huge ordeal.
You can always buy external mass storage and connect via Thunderbolt or USB 3.
I guess it being a work station it didn't need this; but they couldn't make a slight change to the design? The bezels are still clunky. You think at that price they could re-coup the cost of R/D to get a fresh new look.
I only own what my signature states and last time I ever dabbled in photo/video editing was 12-14 years ago in HS. To whoever does need this, enjoy it.
I only own what my signature states and last time I ever dabbled in photo/video editing was 12-14 years ago in HS. To whoever does need this, enjoy it.
Man the iMac Pro is a beautiful machine but honestly the upgrade situation is a huge drawback for me. I am hoping the Mac Pro upcoming design will make upgrading a breeze but my gut feeling Apple will figure out a way to lock the upgrades in a way you must buy the overpriced Apple upgrades and that might be very unfortunate.
In the meantime, I am using my tower MP 2011 12 core that still very solid machine.
In the meantime, I am using my tower MP 2011 12 core that still very solid machine.
[doublepost=1516321671][/doublepost]This comparison is stupid and does not tell us anything. Compare the iMac Pro to a 2017 iMac with a SSD drive and 32GB of ram (i have 64GB in mine) and the Radeon Pro 580 8 GB video card. Comparing it with a three year old machine that is using a fusion drive is hardly a comparison.
MacRumors videographer Dan recently got his hands on the new 8-core iMac Pro, and he decided to compare it to his other machines, a 2015 5K iMac and a 2016 MacBook Pro to see how it measures up when it comes to his everyday video editing workload.
In the video below, Dan takes a look at how well the iMac Pro performs on tasks like editing video, exporting video, and reading and writing data. If you're wondering whether the entry-level iMac Pro is worth the $5,000 price tag when you've already got hardware on hand like an iMac or a MacBook Pro, this video is worth checking out because it might help you make a decision.
Subscribe to the MacRumors YouTube channel for more videos.
Dan compared the entry-level 8-core iMac Pro with a 3.2GHz Intel Xeon W processor to a late 2015 iMac with a 3.2GHz 6th-generation Intel processor, 24GB RAM, 1TB Fusion Drive, and AMD Radeon M390 graphics card and a late 2016 MacBook Pro with a 2.7GHz 6th-generation Intel processor, 16GB RAM, 256GB SSD, and AMD Radeon Pro 455 graphics card.
Unsurprisingly, the iMac Pro was much faster when it came to benchmarks and performance tasks, and compared to the iMac and the MacBook Pro, the overall experience is smoother due to the sheer power of the processor and the GPU. It's ultra quick when editing video, even with multiple system intensive apps open, and it's quiet as a mouse with no loud fans.
The 5K iMac did win out slightly on video exporting time over the iMac Pro, but the iMac Pro wasn't far behind and it came out on top in all other tests.
Pricing on the iMac Pro starts at $4,999 for the entry-level 8-core model with 32GB 2666 MHz ECC RAM, a 1TB SSD, and a Radeon Pro Vega 56 graphics card, but goes up to $13,199 depending on the upgrades you choose. Even at $4,999 it's a couple thousand dollars more expensive than an iMac or a MacBook Pro, but it has the potential to be fully worth the asking price if you do system intensive creative work like video editing.
For more details on the iMac Pro, make sure to check out our iMac Pro roundup.
Article Link: iMac Pro Compared to 5K iMac and MacBook Pro
If you want to know if it is faster it has to be SSD drive and same amount of ram not an unfair test like this. Comparing it to a laptop is even funnier but I suppose it helps laptop users understand how much difference there is with a desktop.
No one with money for a $13,000 Mac thinks this way. People with negative net worth or a few hundred bucks in their checking account can't understand the concept of a pricey machine.
Think of it this way. You can easily spend $15,000 on a 7 day beach vacation for 2. You do the 7 days and the money is gone (as me how I know).
With the Mac, you at least have the machine for years.
Point is, you can spend money on anything and there are varying degrees of utility.
[doublepost=1516322012][/doublepost]Think of it another way.
A person with a $1,000,000 net worth can buy a $13,000 computer and it be the same financial hit as a person with a $15,000 net worth spending $195.
Everything is relative.
The demanding tasks an iMac Pro is designed to tackle benefit from the extra CPU cores and/or GPU performance compared to an iMac 5K and the time savings can be significant based on end-user reports comparing them.
I am sure one of the goals was to leverage the existing iMac chassis and production base as much as possible for time-to-market, production ramp and development cost benefits.
No doubt it's an overkill for most people, but there's a market for these machines. For example, professionals who edit 8K video for a living, and billing so much that this machine saves a huge amount of money for them. And the components will be upgradeable by authorized Apple service. If you're only editing 4K for your 10 youtube followers, forget about it. Most people will buy the regular 5K iMac, or build a $2000 PC that does the job.
The problem is that Apple has been overusing the Pro term. Everything is Pro these days, the MacBook Pro, even an iPad is a Pro machine. So people got used to automatically buying the Pro device, because it's "better". The iMac Pro is different, it's the first time Apple is using the Pro moniker properly.
Yeah... I remember contemplating a Mac II fx, starting at $9K (equiv to $17K in today's dollars) with a 40 MHz cpu and 4 MB of memory, back in 1990. Maxed out it was close to $12K, IIRC.
Nothing's changed.