iMac Pros With Custom Xeon Chips Possibly Appear on Geekbench Ahead of December Launch

[LordVic]

Has anyone seen the hackintosh with threadripper?! So much cheaper to build with way better cooling too.

https://browser.geekbench.com/v4/cpu/4368873

EDIT: Nvm... This is why i don't like benchmarks... Because of this below!

http://browser.geekbench.com/v4/cpu/4400457

i'm genuinely curious how a R7-1700 got 45,000 in geekbench4. (unless I"m doing something horribly wrong here), my stock clocked is about 22000 to 25000

and i'm honestly impressed, considering it cost me (CAD$) < 800 for the CPU, Motherboard and 3200mhz 16gb RAM.

 

[fairuz]

Also, 1.5 years old? Again, so what? It's not 1998 anymore....18 months is practically a new computer.

Everything you said is correct, except that this stopped being true around 2012. Progress has been very slow with everything other than GPUs. I'd say more like 2.5 years for it to be worth buying a new PC.
[doublepost=1508433190][/doublepost]

If you do need lots of power and can't wait for the new Mac Pro because you need to make money now, this is probably a good short-term investment.

If I were in this position, I'd buy the iMac, but I wouldn't be happy about it. They should've just had the new Mac Pro already. For crying out loud, the last model was late 2013, and it sucked too. People are going the route of supercharging their 2012 cheese graters, which shows how dire the situation is. Or they're just switching to Dell and similar. From what I've seen, the creative industry already abandoned Mac a while ago. So I doubt very many people are in this position anyway.

 

[Regime2008]

i'm genuinely curious how a R7-1700 got 45,000 in geekbench4. (unless I"m doing something horribly wrong here), my stock clocked is about 22000 to 25000

and i'm honestly impressed, considering it cost me (CAD$) < 800 for the CPU, Motherboard and 3200mhz 16gb RAM.

That number is pretty damn impressive, especially for the price to performance! Intel must have been scratching their heads for the past year, ever since ryzen has emerged.

 

[scoobs69]

That's the overpriced monster waiting.

Agreed. If I was still an Apple fan, I would be fawning over this.

Anyone calling this a beast and fawning over these scores only proves how depraved Apple has made it's user fanbase. Apple hasn't offered jack squat to their pro users for over 4 years, then they come at us like this with a $5,000 price tag to start. It's too bad we'd have to spend nearly $7,000 (guessing) on this 10-core iMac Pro (the cpu alone costs $2,550), and have it only tally a score of 35,900 in multicore scores on Geekbench 4.

The $600 Intel 7820X averages 30,100 on the same Geekbench 4 tests, pushing over 36,000 in some runs. The 7820X also posts higher numbers in single core tests, pushing as high as 6500 in GB4.

So for $2,250, I'll take a custom 7820x build. Apple lost me this year.

And I'm beginning to believe Apple will hold back on an 8700K iMac in 2018 - read "it's likely not coming", so they don't cannibalize their new beloved $5,000 8-core iMac Pro.

If Apple does announce the 6-core 8700K 5K iMac in 2018, it'll be priced near $4,000 as a BTO.
[doublepost=1508440599][/doublepost]

When would one use multiple cores all firing at the same time?

It's an honest question.

Capture One Pro 10 (photography processing app) uses multicores efficiently - at least up to 10 cores. Not sure if there's a law of diminishing returns after 10 cores. C1P10 also uses GPU acceleration very well, especially with exporting files. So if you have a good CPU that efficiently feeds data to a strong GPU, your performance increases exponentially during export.

Adobe Lightroom has been terrible in this regard, preferring higher frequencies and less cores for better performance.

Video encoding in another task that's multicore friendly.

Also, multitasking. Exporting files in the background while processing files in Photoshop as an example.

 

[scoobs69]

So another Apple product that is thermally limited due to the prioritization of design aesthetic over function? For that kind of money, it should have it's own special chassis, and possibly a bigger/thicker shell, to allow it to run at full speed.

History repeats itself - Johnny Ives and the development team clearly haven't learned their lesson.

 

[scoobs69]

Requirements? Isn’t that obvious? Same specs as an iMac Pro. Nothing more, nothing less.

7820X - $575
MOB - $220
RX Vega 56 - $500
CPU cooler - $100 (a good one)
32 GB Ram - $300
256GB NVMe drive - $120
Meshify C case - $85 (for good venting)
(2) case fans - $40 (just because)
Power supply - $80
Mouse - $75
Keyboard - $100
Window 10 - $125

About $2,325.

Go find your own display, you have plenty of room to play here...

 

[deanthedev]

7820X - $575
MOB - $220
RX Vega 56 - $500
CPU cooler - $100 (a good one)
32 GB Ram - $300
256GB NVMe drive - $120
Meshify C case - $85 (for good venting)
(2) case fans - $40 (just because)
Power supply - $80
Mouse - $75
Keyboard - $100
Window 10 - $125

About $2,325.

Go find your own display, you have plenty of room to play here...

Come back when you list a processor and MB that support ECC RAM.

 

[scoobs69]

..."In animation you just can’t get enough cores"

Hence the reason I’m getting my daughter an iMac Pro.

You can't get enough cores, so you're getting your daughter an 8-core iMac Pro instead of a 16 core Threadripper with a GTX 1080ti or Vega Frontier?
[doublepost=1508446162][/doublepost]

Come back when you list a processor and MB that support ECC RAM.

Why? It's not a requirement. Thousands and thousands and thousands of pro users have jumped from the Mac Pro to the non-Xeon, non-ECC memory 5K iMac for their workstations. So why wouldn't they be able to jump from a 4-core 5k iMac to an 8-core Windows 10 workstation without ECC memory?

But yeah. If that's your crutch....

 

[deanthedev]

..."In animation you just can’t get enough cores"

You can't get enough cores, so you're getting your daughter an 8-core iMac Pro instead of a 16 core Threadripper with a GTX 1080ti or Vega Frontier?
[doublepost=1508446162][/doublepost]

Why? It's not a requirement. Thousands and thousands and thousands of pro users have jumped from the Mac Pro to the non-Xeon, non-ECC memory 5K iMac for their workstations. So why wouldn't they be able to jump from a 4-core 5k iMac to an 8-core Windows 10 workstation without ECC memory?

But yeah. If that's your crutch....

What crutch? Those are the components in an iMac Pro. So build an iMac Pro for a “fraction of the cost”. Don’t build something you claim is the same when it’s not.

What makes you think I’m getting my daughter the 8 core version?

 

[Regime2008]

7820X - $575
MOB - $220
RX Vega 56 - $500
CPU cooler - $100 (a good one)
32 GB Ram - $300
256GB NVMe drive - $120
Meshify C case - $85 (for good venting)
(2) case fans - $40 (just because)
Power supply - $80
Mouse - $75
Keyboard - $100
Window 10 - $125

About $2,325.

Go find your own display, you have plenty of room to play here...

I don't really understand the idea of using a workstation cpu in an AIO device....it doesn't really seem like this device is geared towards a specific audience, or even general users. Plus I would so much rather pick each component out to my liking, especially the display! Some folks must not be fond of having options. Can you imagine the heat coming from the components, in such a small area?! Either it will be bottlenecked to hell and back. or it will sound like a jet engine in your living room. Intel has been lacking so much in their TIM issues lately, and their thermals are super high compared to AMD. Personally, I would go with your build all day over what Apple has to offer, ANY day of the week.

 

[Ex2bot]

So, it's custom made to downclock? Interesting indeed.
Lmao

• Downclocked Suffocated-Air-Cooled CPU
• Second Classed GPU

stuffs

Got great news. You can sell your kidney, eyes, myblood, liver, bone-marrow, sperm..

Did you really laugh your ass off?
[doublepost=1508476388][/doublepost]

macOS is an awesome platform for me at least but lets not forget a custom built PC and Display with similar specifications running Windows 10 would be a fraction of the cost.

Maybe not as small a fraction as you think. This is a Xeon workstation with ECC RAM. The chips are pricey. But, a real Mac Pro is probably going to be worth waiting for for those who need the juice.

Also, if you do go with the cheaper HP workstation, you’d have to settle for Windows 10. Sad trombone.

 

[scoobs69]

What crutch? Those are the components in an iMac Pro. So build an iMac Pro for a “fraction of the cost”. Don’t build something you claim is the same when it’s not.

What makes you think I’m getting my daughter the 8 core version?

And I couldn't care less if the components are Xeons and ECC memory.

If you feel you absolutely need server grade components as well as a new 27" 5K display to be productive, then the iMac Pro is a good option beyond the throttling from overheating.

The Mac users (like myself) who are criticizing this move/machine/price by Apple, is Apple's insistence that every "Pro" user requires Xeons and ECC memory. That's just flat out wrong.

Tim specifically noted Pro users were using the 5K iMacs from 2014 and 2015 as Pro workstations. That was Apple's inspiration for the iMac Pro.

This is especially true in the photography industry. A lot of Pro photographers migrated from their old Mac Pros to the iMac, and in some cases, the MacBook Pro.

Neither of those two iMac models, nor the MacBook "Pro", use server grade components. ..."server grade" being a key identifier.

So when Tim came out with a solution for those Pro iMac users, Apple gave many of those Pro users exactly what they didn't want. A $5,000 starting price for a server grade machine that doesn't benefit their work in any way, shape or form.

Meanwhile, Intel has been making 6, 8 and 10 core workstation non-Xeon CPUs for years; with the latest 7800x, 7820x and 7900x being fantastic performers at single and multithreaded uses. Those chips were specifically made for....wait for it......"Pro users" and pro workstations.

Apple continues to ignore this segment.

Who else would need 6, 8, 10, 12, 14, 16, and 18 core CPUs? Certainly not general consumer/home users surfing the web, reading emails, and watching YouTube or streaming Netflix.

Some of us are also irked by the fact Apple clearly didn't learn from the thermal issues they ran into with the 2013 Mac Pro.

Plus, Apple continues to close off their system from Pro user upgradability. Why spend another $6,000 on a whole computer if I want to upgrade my GPU two years later? Wouldn't it be better if one could simply swap out the old GPU for a new one. Say, $750 for 1080ti, minus the cost of reselling the used GPU ($200 for a used Vega 56?).

So I'm saying, I can build a pro workstation with similar or better performance for less than the cost of the iMac Pro. Or at the very least, far better performance for the same price.

And if you gave me $6,500, the likely cost of the 10-core iMac Pro - I could build an 18 workstation - if I needed that many cores. I don't.

Yes, If you're buying a 10-core iMac Pro, you'll be paying at least $6,500. Without a memory or GPU upgrade.

What is funny is, people on here are suggesting that 10-core iMac Pro's 35,900 multicore geekbench 4 score is beastly. That's a $2,550 CPU.

To me this says Mac Users have been grossly deprived by Apple's lack of interest in their Pro users. There's no excuse for Apple to have waited 4 years to throw us a bone and offer an update.

The $600 8-core Pro workstation 7820x CPU averages 30100 on the multicore GB4 test. It's scored as high as 36,000. That's beastly. And nearly $2,000 less expensive as the 10-core Xeon in the iMac Pro.

The $1,000 10-core 7900x Pro CPU has hit around 42,000.

For $4,200 you can build a 7900x, 32GB ram, Vega 56 GPU system with a 5K display.

With the extra $$$ saved from a 10-core iMac Pro, you can add extra internal storage, another 32GB of Ram for a total of 64GB, go with a 16-core Threadripper (no additional cost over the 10-core 7900x), and an automated redundant back-up plan.

For the same price, I'll take the back-up plan over Xeons and ECC any day.


I have $2,250 7820x part list selected on PC Part picker. Considering I already have a perfectly good NEC MultiSync display for editing, adding a needless 5K display would be a waste of money - even if I bought 2017 5K iMac with 32GB ram for $3,300 through Apple, the 5K display would be a wasted $1,000.

But yeah. If you need Server grade components to make you feel like a pro or feel validated about the cost of this new iMac...go for it.

 

[Regime2008]

And I couldn't care less if the components are Xeons and ECC memory.

If you feel you absolutely need server grade components as well as a new 27" 5K display to be productive, then the iMac Pro is a good option beyond the throttling from overheating.

The Mac users (like myself) who are criticizing this move/machine/price by Apple, is Apple's insistence that every "Pro" user requires Xeons and ECC memory. That's just flat out wrong.

Tim specifically noted Pro users were using the 5K iMacs from 2014 and 2015 as Pro workstations. That was Apple's inspiration for the iMac Pro.

This is especially true in the photography industry. A lot of Pro photographers migrated from their old Mac Pros to the iMac, and in some cases, the MacBook Pro.

Neither of those two iMac models, nor the MacBook "Pro", use server grade components. ..."server grade" being a key identifier.

So when Tim came out with a solution for those Pro iMac users, Apple gave many of those Pro users exactly what they didn't want. A $5,000 starting price for a server grade machine that doesn't benefit their work in any way, shape or form.

Meanwhile, Intel has been making 6, 8 and 10 core workstation non-Xeon CPUs for years; with the latest 7800x, 7820x and 7900x being fantastic performers at single and multithreaded uses. Those chips were specifically made for....wait for it......"Pro users" and pro workstations.

Apple continues to ignore this segment.

Who else would need 6, 8, 10, 12, 14, 16, and 18 core CPUs? Certainly not general consumer/home users surfing the web, reading emails, and watching YouTube or streaming Netflix.

Some of us are also irked by the fact Apple clearly didn't learn from the thermal issues they ran into with the 2013 Mac Pro.

Plus, Apple continues to close off their system from Pro user upgradability. Why spend another $6,000 on a whole computer if I want to upgrade my GPU two years later? Wouldn't it be better if one could simply swap out the old GPU for a new one. Say, $750 for 1080ti, minus the cost of reselling the used GPU ($200 for a used Vega 56?).

So I'm saying, I can build a pro workstation with similar or better performance for less than the cost of the iMac Pro. Or at the very least, far better performance for the same price.

And if you gave me $6,500, the likely cost of the 10-core iMac Pro - I could build an 18 workstation - if I needed that many cores. I don't.

Yes, If you're buying a 10-core iMac Pro, you'll be paying at least $6,500. Without a memory or GPU upgrade.

What is funny is, people on here are suggesting that 10-core iMac Pro's 35,900 multicore geekbench 4 score is beastly. That's a $2,550 CPU.

To me this says Mac Users have been grossly deprived by Apple's lack of interest in their Pro users. There's no excuse for Apple to have waited 4 years to throw us a bone and offer an update.

The $600 8-core Pro workstation 7820x CPU averages 30100 on the multicore GB4 test. It's scored as high as 36,000. That's beastly. And nearly $2,000 less expensive as the 10-core Xeon in the iMac Pro.

The $1,000 10-core 7900x Pro CPU has hit around 42,000.

For $4,200 you can build a 7900x, 32GB ram, Vega 56 GPU system with a 5K display.

With the extra $$$ saved from a 10-core iMac Pro, you can add extra internal storage, another 32GB of Ram for a total of 64GB, go with a 16-core Threadripper (no additional cost over the 10-core 7900x), and an automated redundant back-up plan.

For the same price, I'll take the back-up plan over Xeons and ECC any day.


I have $2,250 7820x part list selected on PC Part picker. Considering I already have a perfectly good NEC MultiSync display for editing, adding a needless 5K display would be a waste of money - even if I bought 2017 5K iMac with 32GB ram for $3,300 through Apple, the 5K display would be a wasted $1,000.

But yeah. If you need Server grade components to make you feel like a pro or feel validated about the cost of this new iMac...go for it.

Just for references...$300 dollar chip is hitting SC:5059 MC:31497 which is beyond respectable for the money.
https://browser.geekbench.com/v4/cpu/4471803
Everything you have stated is right on point. It doesn't cost much to get a really beefy system, with many years of relevancy before an upgrade is warranted. It seems like a no brainer to build a better system, for a fraction of the cost, especially if you will run into thermal throttling.

 

[RuffDraft]

I'm not saying they weren't expecting this. They designed from the start a machine that can't cool itself enough to run its CPU at the default clock rate. In most systems, not only is this not an issue, but the CPU(s) get overclocked during high load by Intel TurboBoost.

I have no problem with this - those numbers still make it the fastest Mac to date by some margin in an all-in-one, sleek design.

A lot of my competitors are running their businesses through maxed out MacBook Pros, which are 16GB RAM and running the old GPUs. For a 1TB, 16GB RAM in a MacBook Pro, you're still looking at more than a Mac Pro. People make compromises with their purchases to benefit from optimised, fast software like FCPX and sometimes they place portability over performance. Does that make all laptops ludicrous buys? Not really.

At the end of the day, if this is massively faster than everything else Apple has ever offered, what's the problem with under clocking a bit to make sure its performance is consistent and last for years like the rest of their Macs? I type this from my 2011 MacBook Air, whilst my 2011 MacBook Pro repairs a failed hard drive on my RAID 5 server. I am six years deep with each of these machines, and have always used the 17" as my Desktop, as I often lived between my home and girlfriend's place and sometimes needed the extra power. The iMac Pro can now replace the 17".

The iMac Pro is going to last just as long as my other Macs (hopefully) with the specs it has (under-clocked or not). I'm glad that they've taken care and consideration with the CPU on this, rather than make a machine that pleases everyone else at first, but then fries in three years time.

An all-in-one is always going to be a compromise; Apple have apologised to the Pro market for their mistakes with the modular Mac Pro and this iMac Pro is a great fix until they're ready to Mac Pro it back to the top.
[doublepost=1508494660][/doublepost]

And I couldn't care less if the components are Xeons and ECC memory.

If you feel you absolutely need server grade components as well as a new 27" 5K display to be productive, then the iMac Pro is a good option beyond the throttling from overheating.

The Mac users (like myself) who are criticizing this move/machine/price by Apple, is Apple's insistence that every "Pro" user requires Xeons and ECC memory. That's just flat out wrong.

Tim specifically noted Pro users were using the 5K iMacs from 2014 and 2015 as Pro workstations. That was Apple's inspiration for the iMac Pro.

This is especially true in the photography industry. A lot of Pro photographers migrated from their old Mac Pros to the iMac, and in some cases, the MacBook Pro.

Neither of those two iMac models, nor the MacBook "Pro", use server grade components. ..."server grade" being a key identifier.

So when Tim came out with a solution for those Pro iMac users, Apple gave many of those Pro users exactly what they didn't want. A $5,000 starting price for a server grade machine that doesn't benefit their work in any way, shape or form.

Meanwhile, Intel has been making 6, 8 and 10 core workstation non-Xeon CPUs for years; with the latest 7800x, 7820x and 7900x being fantastic performers at single and multithreaded uses. Those chips were specifically made for....wait for it......"Pro users" and pro workstations.

Apple continues to ignore this segment.

Who else would need 6, 8, 10, 12, 14, 16, and 18 core CPUs? Certainly not general consumer/home users surfing the web, reading emails, and watching YouTube or streaming Netflix.

Some of us are also irked by the fact Apple clearly didn't learn from the thermal issues they ran into with the 2013 Mac Pro.

Plus, Apple continues to close off their system from Pro user upgradability. Why spend another $6,000 on a whole computer if I want to upgrade my GPU two years later? Wouldn't it be better if one could simply swap out the old GPU for a new one. Say, $750 for 1080ti, minus the cost of reselling the used GPU ($200 for a used Vega 56?).

So I'm saying, I can build a pro workstation with similar or better performance for less than the cost of the iMac Pro. Or at the very least, far better performance for the same price.

And if you gave me $6,500, the likely cost of the 10-core iMac Pro - I could build an 18 workstation - if I needed that many cores. I don't.

Yes, If you're buying a 10-core iMac Pro, you'll be paying at least $6,500. Without a memory or GPU upgrade.

What is funny is, people on here are suggesting that 10-core iMac Pro's 35,900 multicore geekbench 4 score is beastly. That's a $2,550 CPU.

To me this says Mac Users have been grossly deprived by Apple's lack of interest in their Pro users. There's no excuse for Apple to have waited 4 years to throw us a bone and offer an update.

The $600 8-core Pro workstation 7820x CPU averages 30100 on the multicore GB4 test. It's scored as high as 36,000. That's beastly. And nearly $2,000 less expensive as the 10-core Xeon in the iMac Pro.

The $1,000 10-core 7900x Pro CPU has hit around 42,000.

For $4,200 you can build a 7900x, 32GB ram, Vega 56 GPU system with a 5K display.

With the extra $$$ saved from a 10-core iMac Pro, you can add extra internal storage, another 32GB of Ram for a total of 64GB, go with a 16-core Threadripper (no additional cost over the 10-core 7900x), and an automated redundant back-up plan.

For the same price, I'll take the back-up plan over Xeons and ECC any day.


I have $2,250 7820x part list selected on PC Part picker. Considering I already have a perfectly good NEC MultiSync display for editing, adding a needless 5K display would be a waste of money - even if I bought 2017 5K iMac with 32GB ram for $3,300 through Apple, the 5K display would be a wasted $1,000.

But yeah. If you need Server grade components to make you feel like a pro or feel validated about the cost of this new iMac...go for it.

When you're arguing PC Market vs what Apple has to offer, then you will win every time with your argument.

Whether or not there should be a difference or not, we all know that the Apple difference is always going to be there. I want to run OS X on a Mac that's built by Apple, and I want to run FCPX on that machine.

When the cost of a MacBook Pro maxed out is £3,500 or so, why do you not go mental about that instead? Or any of the other Mac computers that are out there already? They're all using ridiculously old components, whilst this one is going to have much newer components upon release, which is quite un-Apple like considering what they've been putting out there in recent years.

When Apple would likely charge a similar amount for the components that you've mentioned, I'm glad that they're putting server grade components inside the iMac Pro. I'm glad that the RAM is more sophisticated, and I'm glad the CPU is made for me to run it relentlessly for years on end as a XEON chip.

Specs matter more when the software you're using makes the most out of it. FCPX is so fast in comparison to other applications that it's well documented that you can get through tasks way faster with less specs. Therefore, the difference is similar to iOS vs Android with Macs vs everything else. You pay for the overall experience - not just the specs on the sheet.

 

[deanthedev]

And I couldn't care less if the components are Xeons and ECC memory.

If you feel you absolutely need server grade components as well as a new 27" 5K display to be productive, then the iMac Pro is a good option beyond the throttling from overheating.

The Mac users (like myself) who are criticizing this move/machine/price by Apple, is Apple's insistence that every "Pro" user requires Xeons and ECC memory. That's just flat out wrong.

Tim specifically noted Pro users were using the 5K iMacs from 2014 and 2015 as Pro workstations. That was Apple's inspiration for the iMac Pro.

This is especially true in the photography industry. A lot of Pro photographers migrated from their old Mac Pros to the iMac, and in some cases, the MacBook Pro.

Neither of those two iMac models, nor the MacBook "Pro", use server grade components. ..."server grade" being a key identifier.

So when Tim came out with a solution for those Pro iMac users, Apple gave many of those Pro users exactly what they didn't want. A $5,000 starting price for a server grade machine that doesn't benefit their work in any way, shape or form.

Meanwhile, Intel has been making 6, 8 and 10 core workstation non-Xeon CPUs for years; with the latest 7800x, 7820x and 7900x being fantastic performers at single and multithreaded uses. Those chips were specifically made for....wait for it......"Pro users" and pro workstations.

Apple continues to ignore this segment.

Who else would need 6, 8, 10, 12, 14, 16, and 18 core CPUs? Certainly not general consumer/home users surfing the web, reading emails, and watching YouTube or streaming Netflix.

Some of us are also irked by the fact Apple clearly didn't learn from the thermal issues they ran into with the 2013 Mac Pro.

Plus, Apple continues to close off their system from Pro user upgradability. Why spend another $6,000 on a whole computer if I want to upgrade my GPU two years later? Wouldn't it be better if one could simply swap out the old GPU for a new one. Say, $750 for 1080ti, minus the cost of reselling the used GPU ($200 for a used Vega 56?).

So I'm saying, I can build a pro workstation with similar or better performance for less than the cost of the iMac Pro. Or at the very least, far better performance for the same price.

And if you gave me $6,500, the likely cost of the 10-core iMac Pro - I could build an 18 workstation - if I needed that many cores. I don't.

Yes, If you're buying a 10-core iMac Pro, you'll be paying at least $6,500. Without a memory or GPU upgrade.

What is funny is, people on here are suggesting that 10-core iMac Pro's 35,900 multicore geekbench 4 score is beastly. That's a $2,550 CPU.

To me this says Mac Users have been grossly deprived by Apple's lack of interest in their Pro users. There's no excuse for Apple to have waited 4 years to throw us a bone and offer an update.

The $600 8-core Pro workstation 7820x CPU averages 30100 on the multicore GB4 test. It's scored as high as 36,000. That's beastly. And nearly $2,000 less expensive as the 10-core Xeon in the iMac Pro.

The $1,000 10-core 7900x Pro CPU has hit around 42,000.

For $4,200 you can build a 7900x, 32GB ram, Vega 56 GPU system with a 5K display.

With the extra $$$ saved from a 10-core iMac Pro, you can add extra internal storage, another 32GB of Ram for a total of 64GB, go with a 16-core Threadripper (no additional cost over the 10-core 7900x), and an automated redundant back-up plan.

For the same price, I'll take the back-up plan over Xeons and ECC any day.


I have $2,250 7820x part list selected on PC Part picker. Considering I already have a perfectly good NEC MultiSync display for editing, adding a needless 5K display would be a waste of money - even if I bought 2017 5K iMac with 32GB ram for $3,300 through Apple, the 5K display would be a wasted $1,000.

But yeah. If you need Server grade components to make you feel like a pro or feel validated about the cost of this new iMac...go for it.

All that typing and you still don’t get it. Lots of professionals will want Xeon and ECC. Who are you to tell them they’re wrong to purchase such a system?

Bottom line is you were wrong to claim you could build a machine for far les, as you were only able to do so buy using sub-standard parts. Now you’re trying to justify your failure by claiming people don’t need Xeons or ECC.

 

[scoobs69]

Intel's approach, instead, is called Turbo Boost, where some cores get shut down and others then get clocked above their regular clock rate. So, for the many situations where you can't make good use of all cores, fewer cores at higher rates get used.
[doublepost=1508186293][/doublepost]

Well, in that case, I can tell you with certainty that your needs are vastly different than those of the average iMac Pro customer.

Who is the average iMac Pro costumer? This is interesting, as the iMac Pro has never been used by any Mac customer.
[doublepost=1508508402][/doublepost]

I so wish there was a downvote button for this.

This is for professional applications, where reliability is paramount, and people don't have time to be messing about with your super overclocked hack box. And I know you'll come back and say yours is completely reliable, has never gone wrong etc. and that a baby could make it work, but it's simply not true.

What you have is a hobby machine for geeks who like to tinker (and I don't have a problem with that, I've been temped to build one myself and I used to run OS X on an MSI Wind back in the day). This is for people with jobs in content creation.

You mean like all the professional content creators that do real work, for real clients, and get paid real monies, even after they migrated from the real pro Mac Pro to the current hobby machines like iMacs and 15" MacBook Pros retinas, because they perform better than the current Mac Pros, or they don't want to spend $5,000 on a new machine?

Or like all the professional ad agencies and design studios that use measly iMacs and MacBook Pros for real client work? Or all the agencies that use hobbyist custom built PCs for client software development and video editing, hi-end photography capture, etcetera etcetera etcetera?

You mean like those kind of professionals?
[doublepost=1508509021][/doublepost]

Lets all stop drooling shall we. Coffee lake 8700(K)s are doing around 22-24K in multicore. So what the hell is Apple going to do when 6 core iMacs for like 2K less are damn near as fast as this 8 core?

This makes me believe Apple will skip the 8700(k) version of Coffee Lake. I doubt Apple will want to cannibalize their base iMac Pro so early in it's life cycle. They'll want you to buy-up for that kind of performance.

 

[scoobs69]

All that typing and you still don’t get it. Lots of professionals will want Xeon and ECC. Who are you to tell them they’re wrong to purchase such a system?

Bottom line is you were wrong to claim you could build a machine for far les, as you were only able to do so buy using sub-standard parts. Now you’re trying to justify your failure by claiming people don’t need Xeons or ECC.

I get it. You clearly don't. I'm not saying users who want Xeons are wrong. The Mac Pro is/was for those users.

Tim specifically stated they made this iMac Pro for the pro users using the current iMac. Those users clearly don't need Xeons, nor did they want to spend $5,000 on a new system - which is why they bought the 5K iMac instead of the black Mac Pro. Tim ignored that segment, and gave them something they didn't want.

The people who ARE interested in this machine, are the Mac Pro users who have been salivating for something to replace their old Mac Pros - especially the Mac Pro users who refused to upgrade to the black Mac Pro because of it's lack of expandability.

The Mac Pro these users are really waiting for is allegedly coming later (2018? 2019?).

You can simply ignore this if you want, but if working professionals are using those substandard parts for paid work, and they're completing their work more efficiently than the $5,000 server grade machine, how does that make their machine substandard? They're not. They're a far cry from substandard. Just because something costs less money doesn't mean it's substandard. It simply means it's not overkill, and more importantly, it's a better value.

 

[rGiskard]

What’s the difference between this and the trash can Mac Pro? Ok the specs are much better but it’s the same old problem of paying a fortune for a computer you can’t upgrade as better tech is released. This is just a stopgap until the Mac Pro is launched.

The new Mac Pro won't be upgradable either. Modular means Apple will offer sealed aluminum boxes for updates every three years or so.

 

[deanthedev]

I get it. You clearly don't. I'm not saying users who want Xeons are wrong. The Mac Pro is/was for those users.

Tim specifically stated they made this iMac Pro for the pro users using the current iMac. Those users clearly don't need Xeons, nor did they want to spend $5,000 on a new system - which is why they bought the 5K iMac instead of the black Mac Pro. Tim ignored that segment, and gave them something they didn't want.

The people who ARE interested in this machine, are the Mac Pro users who have been salivating for something to replace their old Mac Pros - especially the Mac Pro users who refused to upgrade to the black Mac Pro because of it's lack of expandability.

The Mac Pro these users are really waiting for is allegedly coming later (2018? 2019?).

You can simply ignore this if you want, but if working professionals are using those substandard parts for paid work, and they're completing their work more efficiently than the $5,000 server grade machine, how does that make their machine substandard? They're not. They're a far cry from substandard. Just because something costs less money doesn't mean it's substandard. It simply means it's not overkill, and more importantly, it's a better value.

You’re still deflecting. It doesn’t matter what Tim said or who buys what.

All that matters is you can’t build an iMac Pro for a fraction of the cost, or 2K less than what Apple charges. Your original claim was and is still wrong.

 

[wallysb01]

This makes me believe Apple will skip the 8700(k) version of Coffee Lake. I doubt Apple will want to cannibalize their base iMac Pro so early in it's life cycle. They'll want you to buy-up for that kind of performance.

I think it will be hard for them to skip the first ever, 6-core, consumer-grade processors entirely. Instead, I think a 6-core iMac will be 4+ months behind the iMac Pro. A few months later, maybe we see an iMac Pro price drop to get some sort of sane pricing increases from 4, 6, 8 and 10 core iMacs, Pro or otherwise.

I foresee Apple finding a way to justify a price hike on the top end iMac to make that a little easier (which seems just totally Apple-like). For example, base 27" iMac becomes a i3 at the same price point ($1700), mid level is the 6 core i5 the current top end price (~$2100, maybe drops to $2000), then the i7-8700 goes into a new price range, maybe $2300. The i7-8700K becomes an upgrade to take it to ~$2500. An iMac that is mostly spec matched to the iMac Pro, outside the 6-core vs 8-core processor, is then ~$3700. At that point, the $1300 climb to the $5000 8-core would seem too high, especially given the small, if any, performance increase it would have. Maybe a $500 drop in price would be about right. That would be some what un-Apple like, but it is an awkward position they (and Intel) are in with the Coffee Lake 6-cores going up against Skylake W 8-cores. Giving up on coffee lake entirely to avoid that awkwardness would just be too embarrassing, I think.

 

[fairuz]

I have no problem with this - those numbers still make it the fastest Mac to date by some margin in an all-in-one, sleek design.

A lot of my competitors are running their businesses through maxed out MacBook Pros, which are 16GB RAM and running the old GPUs. For a 1TB, 16GB RAM in a MacBook Pro, you're still looking at more than a Mac Pro. People make compromises with their purchases to benefit from optimised, fast software like FCPX and sometimes they place portability over performance. Does that make all laptops ludicrous buys? Not really.

At the end of the day, if this is massively faster than everything else Apple has ever offered, what's the problem with under clocking a bit to make sure its performance is consistent and last for years like the rest of their Macs? I type this from my 2011 MacBook Air, whilst my 2011 MacBook Pro repairs a failed hard drive on my RAID 5 server. I am six years deep with each of these machines, and have always used the 17" as my Desktop, as I often lived between my home and girlfriend's place and sometimes needed the extra power. The iMac Pro can now replace the 17".

The iMac Pro is going to last just as long as my other Macs (hopefully) with the specs it has (under-clocked or not). I'm glad that they've taken care and consideration with the CPU on this, rather than make a machine that pleases everyone else at first, but then fries in three years time.

An all-in-one is always going to be a compromise; Apple have apologised to the Pro market for their mistakes with the modular Mac Pro and this iMac Pro is a great fix until they're ready to Mac Pro it back to the top.

"Fastest Mac" is a low bar to jump, considering how out of date they are. One can upgrade a >5 year old Mac Pro with newer Xeons for cheap and achieve that WRT CPU performance. In terms of GPU, you can go way beyond the current fastest.

I don't get the MacBook Pro analogy. If you need to sacrifice cost/performance for portability, sure. But the iMac isn't portable, so it's a moot point. It's the same thing as a Mac Pro but worse, and they're making the sacrifice for no benefit other than having it look nice. Only reason I see to buy it is if you don't want to wait for the Mac Pro.

 

[scoobs69]

You’re still deflecting. It doesn’t matter what Tim said or who buys what.

All that matters is you can’t build an iMac Pro for a fraction of the cost, or 2K less than what Apple charges. Your original claim was and is still wrong.

No. I showed an 8-core PC with 32GB ram, an NVMe boot drive and an RX Vega 56 could be built for $2,000 less.

All that matters is that you can do the same work with a build that's $2,000 less. So there's nothing to deflect.

People like you are grasping at straws trying to validate the price of a $5,000 computer with reasoning that a Xeon is an absolute essential feature on a pro workstation, yet such a feature does nothing more than perform the same tasks as a $3,000 8-core computer, and perhaps not as efficiently if it's throttle for thermal issues.

Everyone but hardcore Apple users (believe me, I used to be one) clinging to their last hopes Apple continues to make pro workstations realizes this. And there's no guarantee Apple won't pull the plug on their workstations from the i7 5K iMac all the way up to the Mac Pro in couple of years.

I completely understand if people have a great workflow with FCPX, and they want to stick with Apple for as long as they can, and they're willing to pay more for their workstations. Cool. It works for them.

Apple apparently believes that notion applies to every pro user, which it doesn't; which is what a lot of us Mac users are saying. Just because a computer has 8 cores, and is used for pro work, doesn't mean it needs to be a Xeon machine.

If Apple really wanted to create a Pro workstation for those currently using the 4-core iMac, this new iMac Pro with an x299 chipset starting at $3,000 could have been the perfect bridge between the current i7 5K iMac, and the upcoming Modular Mac Pro.

...and really, creating a mini tower (double or triple stack Mac Mini) with the x299 chipset could STILL be that perfect bridge - the 7820x, 32GB Ram, RX 580, 256GB NVMe, starting at $2,300. That'd be a killer little workstation, albeit an entry level $5,000 iMac Pro killer. So I doubt it's coming, as Apple just doesn't view pro users in such a way.

 

[RuffDraft]

"Fastest Mac" is a low bar to jump, considering how out of date they are. One can upgrade a >5 year old Mac Pro with newer Xeons for cheap and achieve that WRT CPU performance. In terms of GPU, you can go way beyond the current fastest.

I don't get the MacBook Pro analogy. If you need to sacrifice cost/performance for portability, sure. But the iMac isn't portable, so it's a moot point. It's the same thing as a Mac Pro but worse, and they're making the sacrifice for no benefit other than having it look nice. Only reason I see to buy it is if you don't want to wait for the Mac Pro.

Some - like me - simply can't wait for the Mac Pro. That's why I'm so thankful and excited that the iMac Pro is at least there to get, when all other Macs seem overly dated. My logic is simple: the leap with the iMac Pro is worth the money over the other Macs - to me.

It's fair to say all that you have mentioned. I know the jump is massive between what's out there and what Apple offers. I think once you choose to be a part of Apple's eco-system, you also choose to play their game and also need to accept their road map as they've obviously shown over the past five years or so. There comes a point where you need to accept what they offer and be happy with it, or move to another system. I know when I get the iMac Pro the components won't be as good as what I could potentially have had, but it will be really well supported and optimised to work with their software, which is all that I use. Thus, it's a nice trade off for me.

The MacBook Pro analogy is because a lot of people say the parts in the iMac are mobile parts too - just like the MacBook Pro. The MacBook Pro - just like the iMac is super-expensive to upgrade and moves both machines close to the iMac Pro pricing. For an extra £1500 for the iMac Pro, I think you get a hell of a lot more. It's more so Desktop Performance with the iMac Pro and people who have stated that it's there for the Mac Pro market are right.

I was once annoyed and frustrated at Apple two years ago, but now that they've come out with something I can buy with confidence that will have longevity, I'm happy.

 

[fairuz]

I wonder what's going to happen to these CPU setups with many weak cores, ridiculous stuff like 18 cores per chip (and sometimes multiple chips), once GPU computation matures. GPUs are only hard to use right now because of the wars being fought over standards and the lack of mainstream dev tools and knowledge. But they're so much more efficient. The newer CPUs seem like they're edging towards being GPUs while keeping the x86-ish capabilities.

 

[deanthedev]

No. I showed an 8-core PC with 32GB ram, an NVMe boot drive and an RX Vega 56 could be built for $2,000 less.

All that matters is that you can do the same work with a build that's $2,000 less. So there's nothing to deflect.

People like you are grasping at straws trying to validate the price of a $5,000 computer with reasoning that a Xeon is an absolute essential feature on a pro workstation, yet such a feature does nothing more than perform the same tasks as a $3,000 8-core computer, and perhaps not as efficiently if it's throttle for thermal issues.

Everyone but hardcore Apple users (believe me, I used to be one) clinging to their last hopes Apple continues to make pro workstations realizes this. And there's no guarantee Apple won't pull the plug on their workstations from the i7 5K iMac all the way up to the Mac Pro in couple of years.

I completely understand if people have a great workflow with FCPX, and they want to stick with Apple for as long as they can, and they're willing to pay more for their workstations. Cool. It works for them.

Apple apparently believes that notion applies to every pro user, which it doesn't; which is what a lot of us Mac users are saying. Just because a computer has 8 cores, and is used for pro work, doesn't mean it needs to be a Xeon machine.

If Apple really wanted to create a Pro workstation for those currently using the 4-core iMac, this new iMac Pro with an x299 chipset starting at $3,000 could have been the perfect bridge between the current i7 5K iMac, and the upcoming Modular Mac Pro.

...and really, creating a mini tower (double or triple stack Mac Mini) with the x299 chipset could STILL be that perfect bridge - the 7820x, 32GB Ram, RX 580, 256GB NVMe, starting at $2,300. That'd be a killer little workstation, albeit an entry level $5,000 iMac Pro killer. So I doubt it's coming, as Apple just doesn't view pro users in such a way.

You’re the type of person who thinks they can build a better Porsche Turbo by bolting on parts to a Honda Civic and getting it to run 0-60 in 3.5 seconds, then exclaiming it’s a good substitute for the Porsche.

Your builds ARE NOT the same as an iMac Pro, regardless of you trying to claim it is.