Why is it a joke? High Sierra now allows a wide range of Macs (including 2013 Mac Pros) to use eGPU boxes, which would include things like the GTX 1080 Ti or Titan Xp Pascal. Doesn't matter if you have Thunderbolt 2 or 3...there are eGPUs available that work with those.
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's RAM Can Only Be Upgraded by Apple or Authorized Service Provider
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Why is it a joke? High Sierra now allows a wide range of Macs (including 2013 Mac Pros) to use eGPU boxes, which would include things like the GTX 1080 Ti or Titan Xp Pascal. Doesn't matter if you have Thunderbolt 2 or 3...there are eGPUs available that work with those.
At least it is not soldered.
I do find it strange that the iMac Pro's RAM is not user-upgradable.
[doublepost=1513287995][/doublepost]
I wonder if it is soldered?
I do find it strange that the iMac Pro's RAM is not user-upgradable.
[doublepost=1513287995][/doublepost]
I wonder if it is soldered?
Those days are long gone in the desktop realm, we’re never going to get the YoY gains that we did in the 90’s unless a major architecural change happens in the processor front.
I'm in the market for an 8-core machine, but I'm not in the market for $5,000 iMac - especially if it's completely closed-off from it's users.
I find a lot of people who would prefer to use the iMac Pro clueless of what more RAM will do and clueless. There a lot of "getting older" consumers in the of users for this machine. I do agree, though, that it should allow the consumer of the product should be able to make the upgrade themselves. Additionally, I also agree that a good deal of people will just buy it maxed out if they need that much - which many don't. The price difference from doing it yourself (if you could) and buying it from start won't be much different.
I think it’s a fantastic machine. However, with that price you should have the option to upgrade later on. Having said that, it’s not a deal breaker for me. Unfortunately, the price is ridiculous or maybe am wrong - have Apple priced it correctly? Feel free to correct me.
You don't have to be technically advanced to upgrade the RAM on an iMac machine or most other Pro machines like the pre-2013 Mac Pros or Dell/HP Workstations. They are designed to be flexible and function how you need them to function.
Would every "Pro" update their RAM? No.
Would a significant amount of them do so? Down the line, I believe yes.
Two years is effectively a different generation in the world of computers, meaning down the road, 64GB DIMMs and/or faster DDR4 DIMMs may become available/affordable to these customers. Apple locks you out of all this.
And what happens if you have RAM which isn't working properly? Instead of a 5-10 minute replacement job, you have to take your computer into to Apple for what should be a minor issue.
Let’s be honest shall we. The majority of posts about the price and upgradeability of the iMac Pro come from people who have absolutely no reason to own this machine. We already have some initial reviews and responses on record from actual professionals who need the power of this beast and those impressions are good.
If you buy it full aspects BUT only 32 GB of ram and 1TB ssd you are all set. $8K. With 18 cores? uff.
Isn’t it funny how Apple is for the ‘consumer’ when it comes to net neutrality, but when it comes to benefitting the consumer by allowing cheaper third party upgrading...
Have you read the article? Sure not.
Does that really matter? This is doing it just for the sake of doing it; "because we can".
The most obvious answer that when laying out the internal design, the (optional) goal of providing direct access to the memory slots was given a lower priority than other things like more cooling capacity or keeping the exterior shape identical.
Said differently, they needed to redistribute the internal components to make space for better cooling channels and fans as well as for other larger components (graphic card is almost certainly physically larger, larger SSD capacity might also be achieved by making more physical space available for it). Maybe the RAM access door in all previous 27" iMacs was just a happy accident (ie, the RAM slots happened to be somewhere where installing a door was possible), maybe Apple dropped that goal in favour of offering all the other features.
Last edited:
I hope you're wrong too. Because if you're not that would mean they wasted that "come to Jeebus" insight they got earlier this year. That would mean they really didn't "hear" the concerns of their professional users. The one overarching complaint has been upgradeability or the lack thereof. They even sort of admitted they painted themselves into a corner regarding the inability to upgrade the trashcan. If they heard their users and saw the mistake they made with the MP, wouldn't it make sense they don't repeat those mistakes?
Even if the reality says not many people upgrade machines, wouldn't it be prudent to have that capability in a computer that is designed to be a workhorse pulling a plow instead of a showhorse with braids. The last MP was a showhorse with braids.
Apple makes their Mac products more and more anti-consumer every year. It's really sad.
The world is changing and the days of build your own and upgradable computers as you've known them are limited - and not just as far as Apple is concerned. We may see a shift to computers where the CPU and GPU are separate, as is memory / storage, where you can change component boxes, but even that potential future is not guaranteed. The problem with this old notion of making computers where you can upgrade any individual part is that improvements continue to be made on interconnectivity technologies, and for new super fast memory or GPU to work, you need the connectivity element to be able to continue to advance as well.
Just consider how SSD drives were seen as the be all end all 6 or 7 years ago, as their speed was blindingly fast compared to spinning HDD. But SSD speeds have increased significantly from that point, in part because of the faster connectivity that companies including Apple have continued to invest in.
This kind of shift happens in all sorts of industries (automotive is a perfect example) and will continue to move us towards more non-serviceable (by the consumer) products.
Would u also have "direct access" if its on the board vs in slots ?
Similar to how u move external tasks into the CPU that can handle both tasks faster ?
Costs an arm and a leg is an understatement
What about an over-statement
Since they make the "Rolls Royce" of computers, I guess they feel they can jack up the upgrade prices.
Just bought one today. (Though perhaps "ordered" is the correct term) I'm pretty excited as I've been waiting for a pro-workstation class desktop from Apple for years. I've noticed two kinds of commenters here: Those who complain "It's too expensive... waaaa" and those who are more objective and say "It seems fair for the components ... let the dollar votes count" - as a pro I can say that my dollar votes are trying to incentivize Apple to make as many pro-oriented choices as they can in the near future.
What do I do? I develop, perform cyber security research, and play games when I'm not banging my head against a difficult problem. My requirements for a computer are extensive, and this machine meets my expectations for my budget. According to my calculations, the machine will pay for itself in one year (break even at least, all profit after that or resale for the modular).
My specs: 18 Core, Vega 64, 128 GB ECC, 1 TB SSD (I don't need more space than that on the main drive).
Bring on the hate.
What do I do? I develop, perform cyber security research, and play games when I'm not banging my head against a difficult problem. My requirements for a computer are extensive, and this machine meets my expectations for my budget. According to my calculations, the machine will pay for itself in one year (break even at least, all profit after that or resale for the modular).
My specs: 18 Core, Vega 64, 128 GB ECC, 1 TB SSD (I don't need more space than that on the main drive).
Bring on the hate.
Last edited:
Significant? Not sure about that with something being specifically marketed to professional users. I think you could safely say that individual buyers might be more likely than corporate buyers, but that's about it. Tinkering around with the machines to add new hardware is usually anathema to corporate use. Typically the main focus there is on software and when/if upgrades are made.
I upgraded to 64 gb of RAM for my 2013 Mac Pro and it cost me about $600 (a bit less because I was able to re-sell the stock RAM). So IMO, $2400 is one heck of a markup.
I'm curious - do you really believe that you know more about the market for these machines than Apple? Do you think your anecdotal and most likely biased evidence has more weight than the millions of dollars of market research Apple has invested into this machine?
If what you're saying is true, why would Apple intentionally release a $5k machine that doesn't suit the market it's aimed for? The answer is simple: they wouldn't.
Every time Apple releases a new device, whether it be an iPhone, MacBook, iMac Pro, or anything else, people on MR predict The End Times™. It seems no one can get past their own opinions. "It isn't right for me, so it isn't right for anyone". And every time that happens, the device breaks all records and outsells everything else on the market - proving that Apple knows exactly what they're doing, and the MR community doesn't represent the Apple consumer base. One would think the MR community would learn from this, but they don't - it's the same story for everything Apple releases.
That would be four 32 GB 2666 DDR4 ECC modules so yeah it's $2400.
The reason is obvious. $$$$$$$$
I upgraded my old 24 inch iMac twice, and it took 10 minutes each time but Apple made no $$$$$ on the deal
I upgraded my old 24 inch iMac twice, and it took 10 minutes each time but Apple made no $$$$$ on the deal