I guess the “embarassment” here, if any, is that Apple’s encoder doesn’t get use AMD’s acceleration.
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
I guess the “embarassment” here, if any, is that Apple’s encoder doesn’t get use AMD’s acceleration.
I finally filmed my Sgi Octane introduction, with a quote snippet form Steve Jobs, and man do I miss state of the art workstations. Nowadays everything just uses commodity Intel and AMD graphics, nothing as "state of the art" and "years ahead of the competition" like the 50k $US Sgi machines anymore:
Because Xeon used by Mac Pro actually is large socket Xeon (HEDT Platform) which LGA 2011 which is suffer from missing hardware encoding due doesn't have iGPU. Same with large socket i7. Same with current iMac Pro which is using large socket (LGA 2066), but probably not an issue in iMac Pro since they use "modified" 2066-based Xeon with iGPU, I assumed that's built for that reason.
Standard iMac use small socket (1151) which usually have built-in iGPU, and small socket Xeon (E3-12XX) is also have built-in iGPU like their i5-i7 counterpart, so this is architecture limitation.
So you can still trust Xeon for encoding, depending type Xeon you used, but yeah no Mac with 1151-based Xeon present today.
Bare Feats has such comparisons:
Flash storage: https://barefeats.com/hard227.html
Pro apps: https://barefeats.com/imacpro_vs_pt4.html
Others: https://barefeats.com/
Nice! Hah, yeah I remember those days. Anyway as a snub to Apple I decided to re-do my Hackintosh after a week of Windows10 (it was ok, but not stellar, except games, which I had always been doing). nVidia Tesla based GPUs look pretty interesting for massive compute jobs.
I'm not sure what's worse, this trite, immature & completely nonsensical comment, or the fact that so many other people seemingly agree with it.
I still don't understand what people don't understand about professional/workstation computers.
[doublepost=1516586338][/doublepost]
The Mac Pro that's already in development?
[doublepost=1516586601][/doublepost]
Now look here, we won't have any of this factual, sensible commenting on here, you understand?
Yeah I priced out the hardware myself and the iMac Pro is priced accordingly, but the problem I have with it is why can't I buy it without the monitor? I already have a decent monitor. That is where Apple gets the fail.
Sorry but you are 7 years late. The January 2011 Macbook Pro was a _pro_ device in every regard, despite being portable: i7, SSD, Thunderbolt, 17" matte display, independent GPU and Geekbench score exceeding 10k. Quite strong for 2011. I still manage a heavy graphics workflow driving an external display with that box.
I’m glad I’m not the only one to notice this. MacRumors is such a valuable, respected site, I think they’d be better served by a higher-caliber reviewer.
At this point, until they change reviewers, I simply will not click on MacRumors videos anymore. Which is a shame.
[doublepost=1516643162][/doublepost]
I think many of us do what you describe. But when it comes to journalism, there is an implied expectation that the comparisons will be of a certain news value, with carefully chosen comparisons designed to provide clear insights. Comparing the lowest level new iMac Pro with a high level previous iMac and an old MacBook Pro isn’t interesting because the results aren’t hard to predict.
It’s a thing i’ve seen in forums now and then. It shows a lack of understanding in how capital expenses and depreciation work. $13k is nothing. The cheapest hardware i’ve dealt with in the last 15 years was over $250k. Hell, the software licensing alone that I configure for my customers dwarfs that easily.
Or just how much professionals that would like this machine actually earn to be honest. Mine has already paid for itself. I understand the bitching from people who would like one but can't afford it but it's becoming quite tiresome. Quite simply if you don't get why the iMac Pro is a great machine, you don't need it. And if you're a professional that can't justify $/£5k on the main tool of your job, spread say over four years, maybe you should reconsider your line of work?
Utterly missing the point. Fact is the iMac Pro is complete overkill and just another way Apple can extract money from the consumer.
For such work the Mac Pro is the obvious choice.
Furthermore a maxed out 27" 5k iMac seriously kicks arse for a fraction of the cost of the iMac Pro.
Apple are concentrating on the wrong end of the market. What is desperately needed is a serious update to the Mac mini which hasn't received an acceptable update since 2012.
And for god sake Apple don't discontinue the MacBook Air just release an updated version with Retina display but for god's sake none of the USB-C and Touch bar herpes.
A maxed out 27-inch 5k iMac is $5,428, and in multi-core performance will be roughly half as fast as the entry-level iMac Pro at $4,999.
…people willing to give them money?
I would love to see a Mac mini update, but low-cost products are never, ever, ever going to be an Apple focus.
Historically, mostly print design work. I do dabble in video editing from time to time. I also do some web design. I got this machine to move into motion graphics and more video editing.