iMac Pro Described as Blazingly Fast, Quiet, and Fairly Priced, But Lacks Upgradeability

[dannys1]

Most studio's order at least one spare for any bulk order, if not two to four.
Meaning if studio X puts in an iMac Pro order for a dozen employees, they'll order at least 13.

Faults happen for every product made; loosing even one work day can be a big deal.

Also, if studio X hires extra people in the next 3 years,
they'll give the new hires the same hardware as the rest of the team.

Whatever isn't used is still a depreciated tax write-off anyways.

I agree totally.
[doublepost=1513339928][/doublepost]

Again, sounds like you have more money to waste than I do. Good for you.

I have taken every Mac I've ever owned apart to do maintenance because I have both the skill and the inclination. I have spare drives lying around, so I can be up and running really quickly if I need to. I guess they don't have Amazon Prime where you live, since I can get a drive in 2 days (or sooner if I choose to) which is ALWAYS faster than Apple getting me my machine. I don't have a spare 27" iMac lying around, and have additional users in my household that use that iMac as a main machine for film-academy projects and the like.

Whether you believe I'd buy the Modular Mac is irrelevant, although given Apple's recent track record you may have a point there (it's likely to be overpriced garbage like the trash can MP is).

Anyway, I WILL keep doing me, that machine is DEFINITELY not for me, and no one's whining, although based on the tone of your posts I could see why you'd think I was.

See Daniel Reeds post, thats how Pro studios work Wednesday at 9:57 PM

And we have next day or same day Amazon Prime, but 960 Samsung Pros are not the sort of drives Amazon readily stock. The basic consumer SATA SSD that you seem content with yes. Maybe that is the route for you, not everyone is the same obviously.

 

[ThatSandWyrm]

Look no further than this —-> Modular Mac Pro

I've built a Hackintosh. It's in no way a reliable professional machine. It's been so unreliable, in fact, that I'll be buying an iMP and demoting the Hackintosh to a VR test station. Because I need to know that my main system will function 100% when I need it to hit a deadline.
[doublepost=1513350922][/doublepost]

How about using some real workstation grade GPUs instead of AMD's Vega 'Pro' mid-range crap?
Most professional applications can utilize CUDA. That's some penny pinching on Apple's site I'm not going to support. Now you can buy yourself a 18.000$ machine with GPU performance absolutely not matching CPU or I/O.

The Vega might not be the fastest GPU out there, but neither are nVidia's Quadro workstation cards. 16GB of VRAM is also nothing at all to sneeze at.
[doublepost=1513351440][/doublepost]

I'd rather spend the extra to buy a Windows PC that CAN be upgraded.

Also, it wouldn't have an integrated monitor either.. if the display fails on the iMac, everything has to be returned.

There's very little you can do on a Mac than you can't do on Windows AND vice-versa. The difference is minimal.

Can a Windows machine that's had its SSD completely erased boot from Apple's servers and reinstall MacOS when needed? I've had to do that, and it's way faster then installing Win10 via USB and then installing the 100+ updates 25 at a time and constantly rebooting.

 

[Stella]

Can a Windows machine that's had its SSD completely erased boot from Apple's servers and reinstall MacOS when needed? I've had to do that, and it's way faster then installing Win10 via USB and then installing the 100+ updates 25 at a time and constantly rebooting.

Normally, I.T departments will re-install windows from an image, that is also kept up to date. There's nothing stopping a normal user from doing the same thing.

Additionally, there's a lot of updates for windows than Apple provides for OSX.

Anyway, regardless, I still stand by my statement that "There's very little you can do on a Mac than you can't do on Windows AND vice-versa. The difference is minimal."

 

[dannys1]

Since when do any of those professions (except for maybe engineers) need a pro workstation computer?

Quite a few sectors could make use of the power.

Audio engineers could finally have substantial tracks at 24bit 196khz - this is a massive industry not just for music, but also TV and movie worth many millions a year.
Scientists could use that amount of power for running simulations, DNA sequencing for one example is extremely CPU and GPU intensive
Obviously 4k video editing and 360 video can be done more effectively on such a device as can VR and VR experiences both movies, games and building for VR headsets
Working with 360 images could make use of this system too, some of those images are millions of megapixels when stitched together and take an age to both navigate and render, this would make the job music quicker and enable more users to get their businesses on Google street view for instance.

These are basically all the markets Apple is aiming at a few more, but you've got 1 to 2 million customers there already, which all they want for this niche product.

It's fantastic - why slag off a niche product from the worlds biggest company, I applaud them for still caring to make such a thing when it's a tiny blip in comparison to the iPhone. I love that they have the Watch, this and soon the Mac Pro which will sell in small numbers. I'm not sure why you'd want them to only make commercial machines that appeal to the masses.

 

[Stella]

The Vega might not be the fastest GPU out there, but neither are nVidia's Quadro workstation cards. 16GB of VRAM is also nothing at all to sneeze at.

The AMD Vega is not a workstation GPU ( AFAIK), its a desktop GPU. The Quadro is a workspace GPU, as you pointed out. Two different beasts.

A comparison between AMD Vega to Nvidia Titan is better.

AMD Vega has been roundly regarded as a disappointment and which does a poor job completing with Nvidia.

 

[ThatSandWyrm]

The AMD Vega is not a workstation GPU ( AFAIK), its a desktop GPU. The Quadro is a workspace GPU, as you pointed out. Two different beasts.

A comparison between AMD Vega to Nvidia Titan is better.

AMD Vega has been roundly regarded as a disappointment and which does a poor job completing with Nvidia.

In a perfect world, Apple would use nVidia. But this is what we get. That said...

nVidia's Quadro cards use the same chips as their consumer cards. They're just more tightly quality-controlled, and are throttled a bit to make them more reliable. I don't want to make too many assumptions about the Vega in the iMP. But the consumer version of the thing has terrible performance per watt (which isn't stoping idiotic bit-miners from running the prices up). So we have a throttled version in the iMP that should hopefully be cooler and more reliable.

The NICE thing though, is the 16GB of VRAM. Something that you can't get with nVidia short of their top-end Quadro that's a $2500 add-on to HP workstations. Since I'm more commonly constrained by my GPU's VRAM than its raw processing power in my work, this more than makes up for the difference in performance from a GTX1080ti, which is a better card than the Titan X.

External GPU enclosures also allow for the possibility of running a separate card for each external display. Again, I'm crossing my fingers for proper nVidia eGPU support.

 

[Thunderbird]

Quite a few sectors could make use of the power.

Audio engineers could finally have substantial tracks at 24bit 196khz - this is a massive industry not just for music, but also TV and movie worth many millions a year.
Scientists could use that amount of power for running simulations, DNA sequencing for one example is extremely CPU and GPU intensive
Obviously 4k video editing and 360 video can be done more effectively on such a device as can VR and VR experiences both movies, games and building for VR headsets
Working with 360 images could make use of this system too, some of those images are millions of megapixels when stitched together and take an age to both navigate and render, this would make the job music quicker and enable more users to get their businesses on Google street view for instance.

These are basically all the markets Apple is aiming at a few more, but you've got 1 to 2 million customers there already, which all they want for this niche product.

It's fantastic - why slag off a niche product from the worlds biggest company, I applaud them for still caring to make such a thing when it's a tiny blip in comparison to the iPhone. I love that they have the Watch, this and soon the Mac Pro which will sell in small numbers. I'm not sure why you'd want them to only make commercial machines that appeal to the masses.

Audio engineers and scientists were not on that list of professions.
[doublepost=1513382309][/doublepost]

Still trying. Still wrong.

1) Once more, my original post was about providing a wide range of professionals who use computers who likely will not tinker, in response to an enthusiast with a MBP who upgraded.

2) You came back with a straw-man and said that most of those in my list of professionals would not use the power of an iMac Pro.

3) I cited my architect, as one example of a professional, who definitely would. And is indeed scoping one out now that it is released.

4) From that, you project that somehow I believe everyone in my wide list of professionals who likely would not tinker with their computers, would likely purchase an iMac Pro. That's not just silly, it's absurd.

And now, even with me clarifying your misunderstanding over the last few posts, you keep on going and going, as if you're refusing to understand what I've been trying to clarify for you.

That is just bizarre.

You need to look up the word 'straw man'. I don't think it means what you think it means. I just proved (quoting your own words back to you) that you were arguing that those professions you listed could use the power of an iMac Pro. You were NOT arguing (with me at least) about those professions not tinkering or upgrading their computers.

Sorry, but your squirming and weaseling aren't going to get you out of what you actually said.

 

[PJivan]

At the end of the day it has been 13 pages of people fighting for nothing....Apple release a product no one has to buy, if unsuccessful it will be killed in few years otherwise it will cover a niche of lovers since it's quite a unique machine..

What is the point of arguing? Is it mandatory? Is it replacing any other product?...like if anyone care what we all have to say about it, everyone is just trying to win an argument. I mean 99% of people here don't even need a workstation, this is just an emotional whirlpool of fanbase versus haters not different from a conflict of a soccer club fans vs another just like in most of the articles.

Good for Macrumors as they need to feed their family but it's such a miserable way to spend our short life.

 

[citysnaps]

You need to look up the word 'straw man'. I don't think it means what you think it means. I just proved (quoting your own words back to you) that you were arguing that those professions you listed could use the power of an iMac Pro. You were NOT arguing (with me at least) about those professions not tinkering or upgrading their computers.

Sorry, but your squirming and weaseling aren't going to get you out of what you actually said.

Seems you do not know what straw man means.

You set up a false proposition that had absolutely nothing to do with the point I was making, that the wide range of professionals I listed were not likely to tinker with computers, which I posted in response to a MacBook Pro user who upgraded his computer. My point had absolutely nothing to do with an iMacPro, or any other computer. Of that range of professionals, some could use the power of an iMac Pro, and some would have no need for that.

That is a straw man; i.e. "an intentionally misrepresented proposition (your claim that professionals I listed would not use an iMac Pro) that is set up because it is easier to defeat than an opponent's real argument (my assertion that professionals would not likely tinker with computers)."

It's sad, you can't own that. Would have been really simple to say, after many clarifications from me, "Oh, I misunderstood your point."

 

[saba01]

Parts from 27 slim iMac. Choke full of dust, ( thermal blanket ) and overheated PSU..
That fan was blocked up like a coronary artery! Virtual no air flow.

Janky ? Look at those CPU temps, PSU and fan.

View attachment 741716 View attachment 741715 View attachment 741714
View attachment 741713

From past experience, repairing iMac’s including new Retina 5k’s. I expect to see some hot hot iMac Pro’s !! I simply don’t believe the marking claims about the cooling system in these new iMacs, it’s bs. Buyers will soon complain about throttling. From a thermal point the design is wrong! I would prefer a Hackintosh any day. Ever wonder why Apple make it so hard for you to look inside your iMac.

Best described as Blazingly Hot !

Perhaps you should clean from time to time ;-)

 

[Thunderbird]

My point had absolutely nothing to do with an iMacPro, or any other computer. Of that range of professionals, some could use the power of an iMac Pro, and some would have no need for that.

That's not what you said, and you know it.

You were arguing that those professions could use the power of an iMac Pro. I even quoted you arguing that very point.

Here's YOU arguing the point that those professions you listed could use the processing power of an iMac Pro:

"Not true at all. My architect, just as an example, uses a hacked-together high-performance pc to do his walk through video renderings for his complex projects and drone coverage, each one taking 15-20 minutes. Being Mac-based, he'd much rather use a high-performance Apple computer."

"Any process involving modeling, simulation, rendering, design, development, video editing, music production, etc can take advantage of that kind of power. Just because you have no need for a high-performance computer does not mean others don't."

"OK, there you go. Nobody needs an iMac Pro. Why? Because your project review software and company don't."

"Got it... You're the arbiter of what kind of processing power professionals need to do their work. Clearly, you are not one who works in those professions and fields where simulations, modeling, signal/image/video processing, and renderings take a lot of processing time."

See? You were arguing about the processing power of an iMac Pro. You were NOT arguing about tinkering and upgrading.

Are you on drugs?

 

[ThatSandWyrm]

Ever conciderd a hackintosh for 1999.-? 20% faster AND upgradable whenever you want.

Been there, done that. But it was not a machine that I could rely on for work, or even access all Apple services with. iTunes, for instance, would play, but not stream content. And some applications I needed would open in blank windows because I was using nVidia cards instead of ATI. To say nothing of the constant hell I experienced with my two 5K monitors not wanting to consistently synchronize their dual DP inputs properly (unlike on my other Macs). It got kicked back to being a Win7 box after just a few weeks after I finally got it working.

I spent over $5K (and 3 weeks of my time) building that rig, and even running Windows it's turned out to be ridiculously underpowered for the photogrammetry calculations that I had intended to use it for. So I just ordered the 10-core iMP with the full 128GB of RAM, and I still expect to page out on large scanning jobs. Even small ones will need over 64GB and peg out every processor core.

 

[PatriotInvasion]

Pro's shouldn't really care what it looks like, its not a beauty contest. They want the hardware to be sufficient in getting the job done.

If that is the case then let's just give everyone big honking almond colored towers and call it a day? Enjoy pros...

 

[Stella]

If it provides the necessary performance - so what? It will go under my desk, never to be seen.

I'd personally rather pay for performance over an eye candy box that is probably lacking.

A pretty case isn't going to get the job done. Some Apple users are way too pretentious.

If that is the case then let's just give everyone big honking almond colored towers and call it a day? Enjoy pros...

 

[Chopper9]

I’m pretty sure the non replaceable ram had been outed after the unveil event this summer...

Riiight.... that’s why it made headlines only recently.

 

[PickUrPoison]

Riiight.... that’s why it made headlines only recently.

It was a false rumor in any case, in fact the RAM in the iMac Pro is replaceable/upgradable.

 

[Phonephreak]

Uhm nope. Nobody would do that. A $10 dongle foxes that issue, a $5k+ computer isn’t make or break over an hdmi.

Posting hoping for the likes, eh?

A $10 dongle on a $5000 computer.

 

[adamw]

Like the specs on the iMac Pro. Just went out today and picked one up. Micro Center is offering $1000 off the iMac Pro entry level's price at its stores currently.