What are you? An APPLE APOLOGIST for their ridiculous bloated prices? YOu're scolding me cause I said the prices are too high? This offends you cause I said the price is too high? Man, think. Apple doesn't LOVE you back so that you need to defend them. You're not a beloved Apple member of the Board of Directors. Next time you think the price is too high on something in life I'll be there to scold you that it's not. Get some reality about what you're defending.
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 Updated With 256GB RAM and Radeon Pro Vega 64X Graphics Options
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
What are you? An APPLE APOLOGIST for their ridiculous bloated prices? YOu're scolding me cause I said the prices are too high? This offends you cause I said the price is too high? Man, think. Apple doesn't LOVE you back so that you need to defend them. You're not a beloved Apple member of the Board of Directors. Next time you think the price is too high on something in life I'll be there to scold you that it's not. Get some reality about what you're defending.
Pretty sure that if MSI and others can stuff GTX1070 GPUs in laptops, Apple can find a way to put one in a iMac or iMac Pro (or at least the Radeon VII)
You really think the iMac and iMacPro have no airflow for cooling....ahhh ok.
Looking more carefully at the iMac 27" updates they kind of needed the "extra 128GB". Apple's tech specs for the new 27" models is still pegging max RAM at 64GB but the new CPUs being used have a limit of 128GB. They need to show there is a "max" capacity gap on the iMac Pro. But yes, still mostly it is more a placeholder than a real update. [ even Apple isn't marking it as 'New" on their website. ]
I wouldn't bet on that. I don't think Apple is going to build the ultimate container as the primary objective for the next Mac Pro, but there is about zero good reason even they would limit the next Mac Pro in volume and footprint to the levels the Mini is. That's primarily what got them into trouble the last time with the Mac Pro 2013 ( desktop footprint smaller than a Mini. ). I extremely doubt they are out to repeat that same miss step as close to completely as possible.
The Mac Pro will probably get a T2 (probably like the iMac Pros implementation) because Apple isn't going to care about holding the standard configuration prices rigidly ( like this iteration of the iMacs ). And if go down to just one standard GPU then have bill of material (BOM) trade-off money to make on going to a bigger standard SSD.
The Mac Pro 2013 had a cover that was easy to take off. That probably isn't going away.
The standard boot display GPU has a good chance of being Apple specific, but that too was removable in last Mac Pro ... that probably won't change.
If the iMac Pro does the current workload they need to make a living right now..... probably not very disappointed at all. If use it for 1-3 years and sell it and buy a then current (or what passes for current) Mac Pro it won't be a huge issue. At 1-2 years old they could probably get at least most of the money back out of the system.
As a "nice to have... don't actually need it" purchase there probably be some regret, but if they are at the point of loosing revenue opportunities without something new then sitting still is even worse that being on an iMac. Pro (or something else new) no matter what the future move is.
I won't bet on that one either. The current Mac Pro is purely financial "dominate" over the iMac Pro in pricing. There is little rational reason to push the Mac Pro into the "has to b way more than iMac Pro" at the base price level.
The new iMacs topping at 8 cores probably means Mac Pro will probably start at 8 ( instead of 6). I think the top end build to order (BTO) options for the iMac Pro will run into problems. Maxing out a Mac Pro with 3rd party memory will probably be more affordable than doing at the Apple online store for both the Mac Pro and iMac Pro.
Apple could also fix that by doing a deep update to the iMac Pro to put a RAM door back in. (e.g., go to super wide screen and move the CPU so can place the DIMMs back into the middle. Or just put a door where they are. ). Just like he iMac Pro updated here to adjust to the new feature set of the iMacs, there is a very good chance that the iMac Pro will adjust with the Mac Pro also. ( Especially since they did next to nothing as new work on this update. They have had time to work on something better. )
Good job, go for the ad hominem attack.
You initially demonstrated you had no idea what you were talking about from your initial post as you were completely out of touch with the actual price of the RAM. You just saw 5 grand and frothed at the mouth, as every Apple hater does. You further enforced your utter ignorance about standard markup prices for BTO workstations.
Sadly when somebody needs to correct you on your ignorance, this must mean that they're defending high prices and is a beloved Apple apologist whose sparkling Timmy can do no wrong.
If anybody needs to get some reality of perspective about the real world and how it works, it certainly isn't me.
It's not a distraction. It's a spec bump. A lot of people, including me, criticize Apple because they let their Macs lie fallow without so much as a spec bump. Here's one. Don't complain about it. This is a good thing. And few people need to be dissuaded from getting a several-years-old Mac Pro. This is a great Pro machine while we wait for the next gen Mac Pro.
Alongside a spec bump to standard iMac models, Apple today quietly added 256GB RAM and Radeon Pro Vega 64X graphics options to the iMac Pro.
Upgrading to 256GB of 2,666MHz DDR4 ECC memory will set you back a steep $5,200, more than the $4,999 price of the base iMac Pro itself. Radeon Pro Vega 64X graphics can be added for $700. Both are configure-to-order options.
Apple has also lowered the prices of some existing iMac Pro upgrade options. As examples, 64GB of RAM dropped from $800 to $400, 128GB of RAM dropped from $2,400 to $2,000, Radeon Vega Pro 64 graphics dropped from $600 to $550, and 4TB SSD storage dropped from $2,800 to $2,400 in the United States.
A maxed out iMac Pro now runs $15,699.
(Thanks, Mark Little!)
Article Link: iMac Pro Updated With 256GB RAM and Radeon Pro Vega 64X Graphics Options
256gb RAM. Insane.
we've come a long way since my 48k speccy
Not necessarily. Even after the Mac Pro comes out, the iMac Pro is going to appeal to some users too. We have no idea who and how many until we see the MP. But should iMac Pro be neglected just because another product is coming? I for one celebrate spec bumps. I'd like to see big revisions, but if they're not coming, then spec bumps are great too.
For comparison, a fully loaded MacIIfx was around $17k as well. But you get a little more bang for your buck now.
There is NO ad hominem attack in what I said. Please, study. Here's your beloved stuffed Timmy doll back. Apple charges way too much for their memory and you can't buy it elsewhere. Maybe you should run the tutorial a few times and get familiar with how to argue successfully. You probably can't afford the tutorial cause you spent your money on Apple RAM.
Last edited:
For a relatively very narrow set of workloads SSDs are too slow ( extremely latency sensitive , real time requirements for combing through lots of data , etc). So for example, someone could carve out 256GB to just 128GB for system RAM and 128GB RAM disk ( effectively a RAM SSD ). Load up mostly read-only data into that RAM disk and pump data as fast a possible to be processed by the CPU/GPU cores. The access latency to SSD (or worse HDD RAID) is at least order of magnitude higher. Can't get to all of the memory faster but there are no very large hiccups when CPU package caches miss. ( incrementally slower but not a humongous jump in time. )
Another is to run 4-5 big virtual machine sims on a single computer. ( saving more on space than costs at the Max RAM point probably., but some folks will pay to have that space savings ).
I guess you've never owned one.
I used to, before it cooked its own screen to a dirty yellow that couldn't produce whites anymore.
Kind of a problem for a graphics studio that does photography.
The water stain blemish on the screen due to no airflow moving dust out of the machine didn't help wither. It was always a horrible design.
Meanwhile our hackintoshes are working like a dream.
Intel probably won't announce a Xeon W upgrade until very late May to late June timeframe. And a good chance will only ship after a delay after an announcement ( could end up into July-August tiimeframe for volume shipments to fully fill the pipeline. ). There is nothing new for Apple to ship on the CPU side right now. End of the year? Probably yes. (Intel or AMD)
The iMac Pro needed to top the iMacs on max RAM capacity so that was included. ( technically some of those may be able to go up to 128 ... so need a new max. )
The GPU is a chance for an extra $150 out of any iMac Pro users who had pushed the Vega64 to the limit. At the top end some folks will pay an extre $100-200 for just 8-10% more because on the clock to get the throughput done. half day work at +8-10% over 20 days is 80-100% more. If can make the $150 back in month it is somewhat of a 'no brainer'. It is cheaper than buying an eGPU ( which can be more bang for more bucks) and a simpler purchase order.
Minor possibility that Apple is also tossing this out there and will attempt to skip their now established "dog ate my homework" meeting in April about why slacking on top end pro systems being developed. No informative Mac Pro update next month? "Well we bumped the clock on the Vega64 in the iMac Pro , we are super duper hard at work!!" chuckle. That would be spectacularly lame, but at this point I wouldn't put it past them.
[doublepost=1553022667][/doublepost]
Looks like the iMac 27" tops out at a i9 9900K ( Max Turbo is 5GHz ... which is a match).
https://ark.intel.com/content/www/u...9900k-processor-16m-cache-up-to-5-00-ghz.html
The i7 9700K tops out a bit lower 4.9Ghz.
https://ark.intel.com/content/www/u...9700k-processor-12m-cache-up-to-4-90-ghz.html
Unless Apple is rounding up, the 9900 matches more closely. Apple is also charging $400 to upgrade the processor. A processor that costs about $400 would be more in line with their tactics. ( pretty close to paying for both the standard and the BTO option you select).
Imac is not user’s upgradeable. Thats’s the problem. Some don’t want disposable macs.
When I need a good laugh during the day I go to Apples website and MAX config something.
I get that too. Like I have said, I like my old cheese graders... but I do not feel the need to put down other people's choices. It doesn't bother me who else orders what. I think choice is good. Personally, my cheese graders are my workhorse number crunchers, my iMac Pro is my normal go to, and my MacBook Pro is when I travel. Choice is good. But sure, go head and keep complaining about a machine you have no intention of buying. I just really dont get that lol.
Who said i was putting down people’s choice? They can buy whatever...but i’m just saying. If i want to complain i will. If I don’t i don’t.
There are probably different levels of Navi coming. Plus AMD may do some "preview but can't order" announcements. Something at the very end of May at Computek AMD will probably do a 'show and tell" even if it isn't shipping at that point. That would be the 'May'. Not sure if they are going "low to mid range" or "mid range to low" in the rollout out but one of those is probably closest to the May date and the October is probably the other 'half'.
But Apple doing a "refresh" here also could mean they are going to kick a substantive iMac upgrade into 2020. Even more so if they are trying to synch up changes to the iMac Pro to the main desktop target of the year Mac Pro. ( the Mac Mini will just drift through all of 2019).
They probably called a punt months ago. There is nothing here that seems last minute. Intel's 14nm supply issues were start to clear around this time March-April time frame.
"... it is impossible to say how significantly it increased its 14 nm manufacturing capabilities this year and what targets did it set for Q1 – Q2 (when it is expected to meet demand). Meanwhile, it should be noted that $1.5 billion was mostly spent on switching to newer more advanced production tools that enable it to increase output of existing fabs. ..."
I think "rest of the year" was to get to the "order whatever and how much you want at any time" state. Apple doesn't need to wait to that state to move forward. As a larger customer they'd get some priority in the queue with a reasonable lead time on the request. Probably not an accident that iMacs slide until now.
Intel's production for a narrow set of product probably will hit volume by end of Q3 (that's production not shipping completed systems by 3rd parties. ). If Intel aims at the Y class (a.k.a Core m ) that is both a relatively 'weak point' in AMD's line up and also easier to do ( smaller dies. ) Sunny Cove is more like 10nm+ than the 10nm Cannon Lake stuff they ran back in 2018 to shake out more production bugs. The transistor density is probably far better match and it probably will ship.
[ AMD is doing much of their Zen 3 and GPU updates desktop first and then only to mobile for a protracted amount of time. Intel's Y class is the last place they will likely arrive and probably not until sometime in 2020. Intel could 'fart away' that window but that doesn't make much sense. Intel has a ARM problem in the Y-class also. ]
Whether Apple takes any Y-class deliveries from Intel might be open to question. MacBook is overdue but if Apple is going to flip it to ARM later they could punt on a late 2019 update (and rid the comatose for another 10 months train). Perhaps the MBA Retina. Modems are a possibility for Intel also. Some small die product probably will. (that's a better 'pipecleaner' too.)
Desktop class? No. Intel has Comet Lake lined up and they aren't going to release that in May-June and then turn around and drop 10nm desktop in less than a quarter or two.
This roll out is also extremely indicative that they do not need a Cirque du Soleil extravaganza to ship new product updates.
I don't think it is as much customers with pitchforks as cutomers leaving. By end of May most of the desktop competitors are going to have 8-10 cores systems out there with the latest Intel and AMD updates queued up. Their would probably just be a larger stream of folks leaving at that point more than complaining at point. ( there is always a steady dial tone of complainers. )
The thing is there are no other choices if you want a workstation level Apple computer. Personally I would have much preferred to buy an Mac Pro over the imac pro but the choice wasn’t there. I have no real complaints though on the imacpro as a piece of hardware, for what it is.
For the new mac pro, for some reason I have some picture in my head of something that looks like stacks of mini's each with a different swap-able function, cpu, vid, memory, storage etc. Probably with proprietary connection, or at least through TB posts maybe. I'm probably way off, but something tells me and open case swap your own parts concept is not what Apple has in mind. Seems too messy a prospect for today's Apple, even for a strictly pro market. I think anyone expecting an updated cheese grater kind of setup will likely be sorely disappointed.
I am expecting similar also.
If they were clever they would work out a way to allow those modules that build the Mac Pro to be usable on an imacpro and MacBook pro...... just an idea.
Yeah, Just for fun I went to a totally random build-your-own-gaming-rig site, just to compare. Now, I'm all for paying a bit extra for good industrial design (not that I think modern Macs posses this), and longevity (again, not sure about modern Macs anymore), etc. But the premium has to be reasonable, and ideally offset by overall longevity. For about that price you can build a liquid-cooled monster with 6TB of super-fast storage PLUS 40TB of rotational storage, a truly high-end gaming card, plus a reasonably hefty 1.6 kilowatt power supply, etc. etc. You "only" get 128gb of ram and an 18 Core i9 (3.0/4.5ghz), but that's a small compromise. Oh, and you get upgradability. Oh, and that includes a lifetime warranty. Oh, and it includes overclocking performed at the builder and maxed for your particular configuration (overclocking always varies). It's just another example of Apple going from "a bit expensive, but absolutely worth it and a great long-term value" to "absurdly overpriced and probably a really bad long-term bet." It's sad to be here.