Don't get me wrong as I think Apple makes a great product but it always appears they take shortcuts on hardware and then charge a premium. Additionally, they are always 1 year behind the competitors with the technology. Here are some examples of the hardware shortcuts. First of all the processors are Intel W-2140, W-2150 etc. Then we find out that possibly these processors are under clocked from some of the tests that have been posted in reviews and this forum. The processor already runs at a lower speed than the 2145, 2155. Secondly the memory being used is Hynix which isn't one of the higher end brands of memory. Why not use Crucial which is probably the best memory on the market. It is aggravating to pay a premium for the IMac Pro and Apple takes shortcuts with the hardware and they have always done this all computers they make. I really think Apple needs to take a hard look at their products and reconsider some of the hardware they are using. Apple thrives on offering quality products but shortcuts the hardware and there is no excuse for this. The mere fact that you can't even upgrade the memory now on the IMac Pro is absolutely crazy so you have to resort to the astronomical pricing for Apple memory which isn't even of great quality. I am sure my post will ruffle a lot of feathers but I am simply stating my opinion.
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 IMac Pro Component Shortcuts
- Thread starter floridaman
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
It ruffles feathers, because ignorance presented as expertise is annoying.
You suggest they're deficient because Apple used W-2140, W-2150... so, huh? They're the newest state-of-the-art CPU's - exactly how is that a problem (you literally offer zero reasons for why you pointed their usage out as a "shortcut").
You suggest that under-clocking them is cutting corners. No, it certainly cost Apple as much or more to have the chips specialized for them. They had a design goal to provide as much CPU power within the confines of the current iMac case... under-clocking was necessary to stay within the thermal limits of the case design. You can suggest they should have created a larger case that could use higher clock-speeds, but then that's not an iMac, that's a different computer.
You suggest Hynix is deficient because you've never heard of them. Apple uses Hynix RAM in many of their products. HP Enterprise has also used Hynix in their servers and workstations. Also IBM. But I suppose they're all cutting corners? Hynix makes the actual RAM chips - they're one of the largest suppliers of memory chips in the world.
And you can upgrade the RAM on a iMac Pro... it's not easy - you have to take the computer apart, but it is doable - you can do it yourself, or have Apple do the upgrade. Certainly disappointing, but it had nothing to do with cutting corners and everything to do with the redesign of the cooling system. Again, it's fair enough to suggest Apple should have designed a different computer, but that's a different thread.
I wouldn't call my post ignorance. Do you work for Apple and have all of this expertise about the product they design?
You misunderstood what I stated about the processor. I stated that these processors are under clocked and I meant they don't even max out at 4.2 as the 8 core is advertised to do with turbo boost. Read some of the reviews and some of the posts in this forum to confirm that. I didn't come up with this but professional reviewers did. I don't care what the reasons are but to advertise a processor with this speed only to find out it actually isn't this fast is wrong. They should tell you up front that the chips are under clocked and why they are. The reason they did this was presumably so the machine didn't run to hot. This is all fine but include this in the specs!
You completely misquoted me about the memory. I didn't say I never heard of Hynix. Crucial is the best memory on the market and is owned by Micron. Apple could have used this but they went with a lower end brand and that is my opinion which I am entitled to.
We are all entitled to our opinions and you don't need to bash someone for that.
"Best" is subjective. VERY subjective. As long as the memory performs to the correct spec (speed, latency, thermal etc) that they need, it really doesn't matter if they buy the chips from Toys R Us or Hermes. Money isn't everything, and a corp. of Apple's size would get huge discounts from memory suppliers for buying it in the quantity that they do. So because you see Hynix memory at a cheaper price in the consumer market place then Crucial / Micron, it doesn't actually mean that it's a cheaper product, if you get my drift. Maybe Hynix are getting much better yields from their factories so can afford to sell more chips for a cheaper price than Micron? Maybe Micron just charge more so you automatically think it's better? There are SO many variables, that saying one chip is better than the other is pretty ludicrous.
If you were in the electronics business, and you needed a memory chip, and put out a RFP to several companies, all that can produce and sell the same spec of chip, and one comes back to you with a cheaper unit price than the others, that's the one you go for, because it means you can increase your profits for the end product. It's simple business.
The way you talk about Crucial, you're either married to one of the execs, or have shares in the company. (<- that's a ludicrous assumption, right?)
Apple will use memory from nearly all the semiconductor manufacturers. It is the luck of the draw which brand you get in a specific machine. BTW, Apple would never use Crucial memory - they'd use Micron memory instead (and often do.)
h9826790
macrumors P6
I personally also think most Mac are over priced and under perform. However, I don't quite agree your argument.
I wonder why Crucial is the best? From what ground? I never heard any super computers, servers, work stations prefer Crucial DIMM because they are the best.
I didn't see any evidence that the CPUs are under clocked. "Cannot reach the advertised turbo speed because of thermal limitation", or "Impossible to achieve the advertised turbo speed because of firmware lock (downclock)" are very different.
The former one is just due to the poor design of iMac, but the CPU can reach the turbo speed, if you find a way to cool down the iMac Properly (e.g. by running it in a very cold room). Apple didn't lie.
But the later one is a hard limit, no work around in users point of view. And if this really happen, Apple lie.
Anyway, even Intel NEVER says that a CPU can guarantee reach it's max turbo speed under any circumstances. And that's why there is a base speed. As long as the CPU can reach the base speed under normal environment, and possible to go for the higher turbo speed. Neither Apple or Intel lie.
Apple did this in the last few years, but sure not always. Many years ago, they were not. And now, the iMac Pro also not. I really can't find any CPU that is 1 year ahead of the Xeon W which launched at Q3 2017. The Vega is also the new GPU. Are they top of the line? Of course not. Intel has 28 cores Xeon Platinum. And Vega can't even catch up the Nvidia Pascal's performance (and the Volta is already released). But, they are the most up to date product, and literally nothing ahead of them in terms of hardware generation (at least true if require to use Intel Xeon and AMD GPU).
TBH, if they willing to take short cut, I will be very happy. They actually spend too much time on the design, or slim down a computer. I only want they realise a Mac Pro that like a full size desktop, with just the normal PCIe slot, normal cooling, normal graphic card, PCIe SSD, HDD... Please, Apple, take the short cut, skip all the unnecessary design, and just use all the existing standard hardware to release a top of the line Mac that without any significant thermal / power limitation 😀
I wonder why Crucial is the best? From what ground? I never heard any super computers, servers, work stations prefer Crucial DIMM because they are the best.
I didn't see any evidence that the CPUs are under clocked. "Cannot reach the advertised turbo speed because of thermal limitation", or "Impossible to achieve the advertised turbo speed because of firmware lock (downclock)" are very different.
The former one is just due to the poor design of iMac, but the CPU can reach the turbo speed, if you find a way to cool down the iMac Properly (e.g. by running it in a very cold room). Apple didn't lie.
But the later one is a hard limit, no work around in users point of view. And if this really happen, Apple lie.
Anyway, even Intel NEVER says that a CPU can guarantee reach it's max turbo speed under any circumstances. And that's why there is a base speed. As long as the CPU can reach the base speed under normal environment, and possible to go for the higher turbo speed. Neither Apple or Intel lie.
Apple did this in the last few years, but sure not always. Many years ago, they were not. And now, the iMac Pro also not. I really can't find any CPU that is 1 year ahead of the Xeon W which launched at Q3 2017. The Vega is also the new GPU. Are they top of the line? Of course not. Intel has 28 cores Xeon Platinum. And Vega can't even catch up the Nvidia Pascal's performance (and the Volta is already released). But, they are the most up to date product, and literally nothing ahead of them in terms of hardware generation (at least true if require to use Intel Xeon and AMD GPU).
TBH, if they willing to take short cut, I will be very happy. They actually spend too much time on the design, or slim down a computer. I only want they realise a Mac Pro that like a full size desktop, with just the normal PCIe slot, normal cooling, normal graphic card, PCIe SSD, HDD... Please, Apple, take the short cut, skip all the unnecessary design, and just use all the existing standard hardware to release a top of the line Mac that without any significant thermal / power limitation 😀
Last edited:
Do you work for Apple? Then your post is just as invalid as you claim others are.
haruhiko
macrumors 604
Number speaks. Quote me the cost of putting all the same components of the iMac Pro plus a 27-inch 5K monitor with P3 colour gamut and compare that to the iMac Pro and see how much cheaper you can get.
Heck computer components are so expensive these days even the 2017 iMac is not that expensive.
Heck computer components are so expensive these days even the 2017 iMac is not that expensive.
joema2
macrumors 68000
And don't forget to add the cost of supporting that self-built machine. For a $13,000 18-core iMP, AppleCare+ is $169 and provides unlimited 24x7 support for three years -- including both hardware and software, plus support for accidental damage: https://www.macrumors.com/2017/12/14/applecare-plus-for-imac-pro-costs-169/
What would the same level of 3rd-party support cost for a similar self-built 18-core Xeon machine, and which also includes operating system software support?
Mr. Zarniwoop
macrumors 6502a
The only specs I've found, since Apple sometimes uses custom chips, is here on wikichip.
Mine is Micron.
On what basis do you make your claim that Apple's RAM is sub-par? Do you have any data or sources to back up your claim?
The Xeon processors being used are not late-2016 processors as you suggest.
From many of your other posts across this site, its obvious that you have an axe to grind with Apple's iMac Pro. So when you start another new thread making statements like the RAM is poor and the processors are not up to date, then of course you are going to get several replies, but they are not replies with ruffled feathers. They are simply replies setting the record straight.
CWallace
macrumors G5
The stated reason by Apple PR for the lower clock-speeds is the W-2140B and W-2150B have additional functionality in them that is not present in the "retail" W-2145 and W-2155 and this required the clock speeds to be dialed back a bit. The iMac Pro has a significant amount of thermal overhead so Apple did not need to under-clock them for thermal reasons.
As others have noted, Apple uses multiple suppliers for their memory, including Crucial / Micron. The three primary manufacturers of DRAM modules are Samsung, Micron and...surprise...Hynix. Just because they are Chinese does not automatically make them "low quality". Apple has used Hynix ECC RAM since at least the 2009 Mac Pro and Hynix ECC RAM is found in many PC OEM servers and workstations, as well.
You might think my post was invalid but it was merely my opinion and if you read the post correctly there is validity to what I said. We can agree to disagree!
[doublepost=1516673121][/doublepost]
As I have stated in this this thread I am entitled to my own opinions. I don't need to provide data either. Do you have data to prove otherwise? You can do the research yourself and find out that there is validity to what I said in my original post. Hynix isn't the best memory and all I was saying is that Apple should use the best memory for the prices they charge. Again that is my opinion! As for my other posts on this forum they have all been factual and have nothing to do with an axe to grind with Apple or this thread!!
haruhiko
macrumors 604
You presented your opinion as facts and when others challenged you with facts you said it's just your opinion. Yes you're entitled to your opinion but your opinion is not based on facts. That's why you couldn't convince anyone.
Of course you're entitled to an opinion and you can certainly post whatever you want. We are entitled to discuss the merits of what you're saying, which is why this is a discussion board.
No need. There is no validity to your statement that Apple uses poor quality RAM in the iMac Pro.
Those are my opinions. I have a hunch most would agree with me, but that's for them to decide. Cheers & have a nice evening.
CWallace
macrumors G5
Dell, HP and Lenovo charge tens and even scores of thousands of dollars for workstations and servers with Hynix ECC memory in them.
Last edited:
nambuccaheadsau
macrumors 68020
Don't feed trolls guys as it is a pointless exercise.
Where do you get the idea that I am a troller? I love how people make assumptions on this forum without all the facts. I have a IMac Pro and have owned Mac products for years. All I did was to state some of my opinions about the components that are being used. If that is your definition of a troller then you are dead wrong. We are entitled to our own evaluations and opinions on this forum
Last edited:
And we are entitled to call bull when you are talking nonsense that freedom of expression goes both ways.
Your opinions have been shot down and explained away, yet you keep stating the same things over and over again, especially regarding the memory Apple uses. You may want to ask Siri for a list of local hospitals so you can make an appointment for a psych eval.
Your comments are out of line, rude and don't belong here. You might have been better off keeping this statement to yourself.
Last edited:
You say:
and then you say:
which is not a statement of opinion, but you go on to say
This is a very confused post. If you really intend your statements to express your opinion, you should say that, something like "I believe that..."
floridaman, I've seen in the other threads that you were really worried that the start-up sequence was too long, and then you exchanged your iMac Pro for "screen issues" and now you're also worried about audio issues. Then in this thread, you're fretting about the quality of the RAM and CPU.
You should seriously consider returning the iMac Pro and getting your money back. Clearly this is not the machine for you.
You should seriously consider returning the iMac Pro and getting your money back. Clearly this is not the machine for you.
Last edited:
Fried Chicken
Suspended
I think you’re bringing up valid points.
Good think you said this "Don't get me wrong as I think Apple makes a great product” otherwise... death.
Apple has its head up its ass, and the iMac Pro is proof of that. I’m not surprised they are downclocking CPUs, however it’s unbelievably stupid to need to do so when you’re paying big money to get that extra 10-20% performance gain.
Crucial has always been the number one go-to memory supplier for any apple hardware for over 10 years.
I’m sorry people are calling you a troll.... perhaps they too have the same head issue as apple.