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
"Well that depends muffin - do we have enough business lined up or can we get enough to pay for this garbage because for our video editing professional business, it will go further than a small car?"
That machine’s not made for your workflow. It’s speed is slower, but has multiple cores. If you spend most of your time in software that doesn’t utilise the cores then yes, you have in fact paid $6,000 for a slower machine. The reason I’m on this forum is to see where the crossover is so I can make an informed decision. I probably would have spent a few days reading posts before I buy my next pro machine. So many things to factor in.
Last edited:
Hi folks,
I'm not surprised - it should be a smoother editing process given the new specs. I would love to see a 'shoot out' with a 2013 MP. I have a 12 core with 64 GB Ram and I wonder what the difference would be for editing, exporting and rendering. Right now, I have no complaints, but it would be interesting from a curiosity point of view.
I no longer run my video editing business because my wife and I bought a different business so I don't need the new Mac Pro professionally. Well at least not for the video...I do use it for work. Thankfully I paid this one off within the 1st year so it doesn't owe me anything.
But I'd be interested in a modular Mac Pro.
I do LOVE the iMac form factor though. Incredible technology afaik
Party on,
Brian
I'm not surprised - it should be a smoother editing process given the new specs. I would love to see a 'shoot out' with a 2013 MP. I have a 12 core with 64 GB Ram and I wonder what the difference would be for editing, exporting and rendering. Right now, I have no complaints, but it would be interesting from a curiosity point of view.
I no longer run my video editing business because my wife and I bought a different business so I don't need the new Mac Pro professionally. Well at least not for the video...I do use it for work. Thankfully I paid this one off within the 1st year so it doesn't owe me anything.
But I'd be interested in a modular Mac Pro.
I do LOVE the iMac form factor though. Incredible technology afaik
Party on,
Brian
Yeah, but if you make your living on the computer, it's worthwhile right?
Same goes if you make your living with the car though, but if you are charging big bucks doing whatever it is you do on a Mac, you might as well have the latest hardware.
Last edited by a moderator:
Yeah. After I read his response, I’m on board with your assessment.
Great machine, though, eh?
If Apple did that, then they should change their name to Apple Mobile as they will no longer be a computer company. They barely are now.
Also, the fact that the iMac Pro lost any benchmark at all is hugely embarrassing. Seriously, how is that possible at $5000?
Apple has seriously lost it's way. TimMAY?
Actually they did change their name from Apple Computer to Apple awhile back and they no longer consider themselves a computer company.
You seem to misunderstand the meaning of “pro”.Are we really still calling these things "pro" machines?
A “Pro” computer (or tool) is one that someone uses to make money from. I use my iphone when I teach music to students- therefore my iphone is a pro machine.
This sort of computer gatekeeping needs to die out.
It’s called Project Amber.
Sir Ive and his team have perfected a technique that involves harvesting sap from California Redwoods and converting it into resin.
The resin is then used to encapsulate each component of the modular Mac Pro.
Components will connect to each other via Thunderbolt 4 / USB-D
Cooling will not be an issue as throttling will be used in place of fans.
When a component reaches end of life you just bury it in your backyard.
Archeologists will be scratching their heads and asking what we’re they thinking.
I would probably agree. All these Youtubers .. its all click bait. It's actually pleasing when you see a person who knows what they are talking about actually make a good technical analysis. This guy was not one of them...
Then I wouldn't be interested in an Apple computer. I'm waiting on the modular Mac Pro and will buy one if I like it. I have no interest in an iMac.
Because Intel Xeons (nor the Core i9's they are based on) do not support H.264 hardware encoding and Intel Core i5 and i7's do.
So perhaps hugely embarrassing for Intel, though in their defense the hardware encoding is actually in the iGPU and neither Xeons nor the Core i9's they are based on have iGPUs.
The crappy PC-at’ish clone (I think the company was called AST) I bought for college was around $10k once I filled up the memory slots, back around 1992.
Can you build a computer with better specs than a maxed out iMac Pro for less? I spec'd it out myself, and my cost came to around 10k$ - and thats without factoring the amazing warranty, return policies, and support for Apple products that allow pros like me to spend less time tinkering and more time doing work.
Oh, and lets not forget what any other PC OEM would charge for a machine like that. Have you tried building the exact same machine from Dell? Spoiler alert: It's over 17k.
Edit: I'm pretty sure you're just trolling, in which case I'd say well done.
As someone that works in an industry that does use heavy duty workstations like this.. its not a bad price.. and a comparable dell or hp is roughly the same price.. and for all the "i can build a faster computer for 1/2 the price" no you cant.. when you spec it out PART for PART.. its within 300.00 of the price of the comparable imac, dell or hp. Even if you could *save a ton of money*.. (which you cant) No business is going to buy 10.. 20.. 50+ custom PC's. for heavy computational work.. They need the support from major manufacturer and they need consistancy of product..
This isnt a consumer PC.. it wasnt designed for consumers.. it wasnt meant for photoshop or lightroom.. From the few people out there that have them.. it has cut some computational duties from 12+ hours to 1-2 hours.. over a period of months that easily justifies the cost.
When all of the haters emerge, I simply chuckle at their obvious jealousy.
What kind of work do YOU do. Are you a plumber of a maybe a fireman or house painter? In every case you need a certain amount of capital equipment to work. The Plumber has many $80,000 invested in a van filled with plumbing parts and tools. The city invested a lot more in it's employee. The painter has a tuck, ladders and tools, likely more the $13K in all.
In each case we can divide your annual income by the cost of the capital equipment you own. Having 1/2 of a year's pay invested in equipment is not unusual. THIS is how we determine if a computer or a camera is "expensive", we look at the cost of the tool and the amount of money your earn by using the tool.
So a $13,000 computer might have a three year usable life before it is replaced. But during that time the owner maybes made $240,000 or $300,000 income, at least I would hope so. His capital cost is in the range of 5% of income and is not much. But possibly has camera and sound gear might cost closer to $50K. Still it is a cheap business. many have a capital to income ratio of 50%
What if you are a large studio doing a feature film. It is very easy to spend $13,000 an hour shooing. In that case no one would notice a $13K computer.
My analysis is simplistic because depreciation of capital equipment is deductible in you tax form and then also after three years there is some resale value so the $13K computer might cost the owner only $6K or $2K per year, not much.
But spending there same $13 on a used car is a total loss of money. However not quite so bad as spending twice or triple that on a new car.
Its interesting how low the Blackmagic Disk Speed Test results were for the iMac 5K and MBP 2016. I too have an iMac 5K late-2015 and MBP 13" 2016 (albeit spec'd a little differently - both with 512GB SSDs being the main thing) and these benchmark at 1,400MBps Write / 1,800MBps Read (Sierra JHFS+) and 1,800MBps Write / 2,400MBps Read (High Sierra APFS) respectively… and that's with FileVault turned on both.
Is anyone surprised with the Final Cut experience given one has Fusion and the other Integrated Graphics?
Is anyone surprised with the Final Cut experience given one has Fusion and the other Integrated Graphics?
Last edited:
I’m not surprised that Dan from MacRumors got it wrong. Doesn’t come across as the most knowledgeable or precise reviewer. Add to that the fact that he couldn’t get a review unit, had to buy one on sale, and then compared it with whatever he had lying around, and I’m not sure he’s Ever going to become a go to resource for me.
I think at least you should compare the iMac Pro with the iMac 5K 2017.. what's the point in comparing with a few years old machine?
I honestly don't get people like him. I mean, he is a tech reviewer, so I assume technology is what he's interested in. Yet, he doesn't know anything about technology. I really wonder what his motivations are and what audience he's trying to target with these kind of reviews.
iMacs traditionally have terrible heat throttling, though still not as terrible as a laptop.
[doublepost=1516344277][/doublepost]
I'd like to think it was just a simple mistake, but that's kind of a hard thing to mess up.