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

[flat five]

Yes, and it will undoubtedly feature the same lack luster single-core performance that all these single CPU models feature.

yeah.. what's up with that.
a fast 8-core is what i was hoping for.

for my usage-- CAD / 3D Modeling mostly.. Rendering too but i've been using Autodesk Cloud for that the past couple of years.. though it'd be nice to have more local cores for running the previews.

..the regular iMac is still looking like the one to get.. it's still going to be the fastest CAD/Modeling machine..
hmm.

 

[deanthedev]

Yeah, but it still can't cool itself properly.

So apparently you’ve used one and can explain to us all how you’ve come to this conclusion?

 

[RuffDraft]

Still buying. I have a need now to get this machine, and have done for some time. IF I had a Mac that was up to standard, I'd be waiting for the modular Mac Pro for all the reasons stated in this thread. As I'm currently getting through projects by the skin of my teeth on a 2011 MacBook Pro, I'll be getting this on day one, configured to my needs as a 4K multi-cam editing machine.

When you configure the current iMac 5K to 32GB RAM and 1TB SSD, you are still paying over £3,500. The RAM isn't the same standard. The CPU isn't the same standard. The GPU is over a year old and massively inferior to what the new iMac Pro will have. If you say to anyone with half a brain, pay another 1/3 and you'll have an absolute beast with added extras... who is going to say no for their video business?

It is a shame that Apple didn't make the casing larger to run the chips at full power. It is a shame that these machines will be dated in a years time, but that's always the case with technology.

If the modular Mac Pros come out at a price that is reasonable, i.e. around £5K, then I'll consider selling the iMac Pro for the new modular Mac Pro once it's arrived. I can honestly see that modular Mac Pro being announced in December 2018, and only being released in 2019 though. They didn't seem to have a clue what the new modular Mac Pro would look like when they apologised to pro users earlier this year, so I highly doubt that it's coming first half 2018 or even ready for a sneak-peak at WWDC.

What I do know is that this iMac Pro machine in comparison to my 2011 MacBook Pro (Single-Core: 3,297 and Multi-Core: 10,039) is a no-brainer. I will be upping the VRAM to 16GB (£300 at a guess), and 10-core CPU (around £800 at a guess), as 32GB RAM is ample for FCPX and will remain so, considering the MacBook Pros are limited to 16GB RAM still. Also, those geek bench scores show just how massive the difference is going to be between the 8 and 10-core CPUs.

Either way, this is a killer machine at a competitive price with Apple support. I'll happily spent £6K on it, as it'll save me weeks in the edit and allow me to take on more work.

 

[fairuz]

So apparently you’ve used one and can explain to us all how you’ve come to this conclusion?

Because they're having to downclock it.

 

[flat five]

So for example, processing a rendering of an 3D image is twice as fast with double the cores.

that's not exactly true..
more cores typically means more cores that run slower per core.. (assuming we're talking single socket)

using 2013 MacPro for example..

4 cores @ 3.7GHz
12 cores@ 2.7GHz

going by what you said, you'd expect the 12-core to be 3 times faster rendering than the quad..

the quad is effectively giving you 14.8GHz
12-core is effectively giving you 32.4GHz

so the 12-core will render at a little over twice the speed.. not thrice the speed.

-------
there's also a diminishing return due to splitting up the process..
the more you split it up, the more work that takes to do.. and the more work/slower it is to glue all the threads back into a single unified image..

you will eventually arrive at a place where adding more cores would actually slow the process down due to this..

 

[Larry-K]

yeah.. what's up with that.
a fast 8-core is what i was hoping for.

for my usage-- CAD / 3D Modeling mostly.. Rendering too but i've been using Autodesk Cloud for that the past couple of years.. though it'd be nice to have more local cores for running the previews.

..the regular iMac is still looking like the one to get.. it's still going to be the fastest CAD/Modeling machine..
hmm.

That's why I still have a 12-Core oMP. Previews are quick, Modeling performance is still perky.

Buried too many iMacs to ever want one, I'll wait for the Modular disappointment to come.

 

[BlueTide]

That may be so, but arguing for a Hackintosh with an external display which doesn't even have remotely the same specs also isn't "the point".

The iMac Pro is an all-in-one device. Deal with it. Too many people in this thread seem to prefer a stand-alone workstation computer. That's fine. This isn't that.
[doublepost=1508188834][/doublepost]

Neither is going to be used in a professional environment, so the question is irrelevant.

You seem to have a bit disingenuous claims here and seem to have rather off the cuff remarks that don’t seem awfully generalizable.

For the record, awfully many businesses do run on custom built machines. Especially in SMB sector, but also in very large IT companies as well as in specialized environments and academics.

I find it funny to talk about warranties when Apple basically is **** in professional support. Computer crashed and need a loaner/on-site support? Too bad. Now, I don’t mind, but if people keep on having a pissing match, that’s a little funny.

Asking people to match iMac or anything precisely and shrugging off requirements about what the machine would be used for is leading. C’mon, we can do better than that.

Let’s not even talk about pro displays...

Etc.

Personally, to me this is overpriced, little silly, but ah so sexy package that I am tempted. Would love to see that modular Mac Pro specs and price first, though.

 

[boppin]

Nice, a $5000+ non-upgradable computer that is down-clocked due to thermal constraints.

and do people buy these non-repairable MacBooks?

 

[deanthedev]

Because they're having to downclock it.

Based on what? The models in the iMac Pro are listed as 2140B and 2150B. Intel doesn’t list these for sale but they do list a 2145B and 2155B. So you can’t claim they’re downclocking when the iMac Pro isn’t even using the 2145/2155’s that people are getting their clock speeds from. These are likely part numbers for processors Intel has “binned” for Apple based on whatever requirements they specified.

We also don’t know what video card is in this test system. If it’s the 56, then clearly they have greater available cooling capacity based on the increased power requirements of the 64 over the 56. This will far exceed the few watts saved by running the CPU at 3.0GHz vs 3.3GHz. The total power consumed by the entire system is going to be so high that the power saved by that “so-called” downclock is trivial. And people want to exaggerate the power saved to imply a thermal issue with the new iMac Pro before even seeing it.

 

[Michaelgtrusa]

So this will be overpriced, overheated and underpowered, just because Apple and apparently it’s users wanted that ultra thin bezel on a desktop...

I was really shocked that they didn't introduce a new design as it's been 4 years. The concern I see people have is the thermal throttling issue that the current 5k iMac has that they would shoehorn desktop parts into that form factor.

 

[Larry-K]

so the 12-core will render at a little over twice the speed.. not thrice the speed.

Originally it was "thrice" as expensive though.

 

[flat five]

Originally it was "thrice" as expensive though.

hey wait.. that's a real word!

i even checked the dictionary prior to posting that

------
but yeah.. i personally couldn't justify that kind of cost in my work even though i'd be able to make use of it.. the most valuable for me is super fast cores.. and luckily, those are the ones that tend to be cheaper

rendering cores i've found very cheaply elsewhere.

 

[Michaelgtrusa]

Not everything that costs money is overpriced. After all, when companies cut corners and skimp on things like quality control and outsource cheap alternatives for components and support, people seem to magically realize that a better experience comes with a higher price.

Apple does have many of those issue you've stated.

 

[fairuz]

Based on what? The models in the iMac Pro are listed as 2140B and 2150B. Intel doesn’t list these for sale but they do list a 2145B and 2155B. So you can’t claim they’re downclocking when the iMac Pro isn’t even using the 2145/2155’s that people are getting their clock speeds from. These are likely part numbers for processors Intel has “binned” for Apple based on whatever requirements they specified.

We also don’t know what video card is in this test system. If it’s the 56, then clearly they have greater available cooling capacity based on the increased power requirements of the 64 over the 56. This will far exceed the few watts saved by running the CPU at 3.0GHz vs 3.3GHz. The total power consumed by the entire system is going to be so high that the power saved by that “so-called” downclock is trivial. And people want to exaggerate the power saved to imply a thermal issue with the new iMac Pro before even seeing it.

Based on what the article says, that the new iMac Pro appears to have an unannounced, downclocked processor. IDK where they get their info from, but the rest of the "W" family has much higher clock speeds, so I expect they're correct.

 

[blackcrayon]

Nice, a $5000+ non-upgradable computer that is down-clocked due to thermal constraints.

Can probably upgrade the CPUs, RAM, and add an external GPU down the road...

 

[Larry-K]

hey wait.. that's a real word!

i even checked the dictionary prior to posting that

------
but yeah.. i personally couldn't justify that kind of cost in my work even though i'd be able to make use of it.. the most valuable for me is super fast cores.. and luckily, those are the ones that tend to be cheaper

rendering cores i've found very cheaply elsewhere.

Originally the 4 core was $3K and the 12 core was Around $10K, close enough to thrice for me.

A friend got one and bitched about the 12-core single core performance till the day he dumped it.

He should just rent cores like you do.

 

[flat five]

Originally the 4 core was $3K and the 12 core was Around $10K, close enough to thrice for me.

A friend got one and bitched about the 12-core single core performance till the day he dumped it.

He should just rent cores like you do.

yeah, it's totally worth it unless you're pumping out tons of renders or unable to outsource parts of projects like this (for a variety of reasons)..

i do about 150-200/year.. ~$1 each..
high resolution / final quality.. at most, 10 minutes.. usually 1-2 minutes..
i use 100Mbs internet which imo is totally fine (or great even) for transferring CAD files to cloud (usually 20-50MB files)

but yeah, if your friend seems to have work/workflow similar to mine then i can't recommend it enough.

 

[Icaras]

maybe they will add a red dot

This is my favorite comment of the day. Laughed for a good full minute.

 

[rog]

So 3 years after I got my maxed out 5k iMac when it first came out, they're happy to sell me a new base model that is 50% faster for only 50% more cost! Oh I miss the days when 3 years meant 3-5X faster and 20-50% less expensive.

 

[Pike R. Alpha]

The Intel Xeon W-21XXB is an Intel OEM processor, and the Geekbench results that is shared here was made when it was running on a limited turbo frequency of around 4.2GHz.

People here already speak about a 'down clocked Mac' even before they have ever seen or worked with one. Seriously. The only thing that is lower is the base frequency. That is important for Apple, to get a lower TDP. You however won't notice it. HWP (Intel SpeedShift) is blistering fast and it will ramp up to 4.3 GHz, on all cores, so fast that the difference is close to zero. For Apple it's matter of configuring HWP to their need.

The 8 core test model has a AMD Radeon Pro Vega 56 Compute Engine clocked at max 1.25 GHz
The 10 core test model has a AMD Radeon Pro Vega 64 Compute Engine clocked at max 1.35 GHz.

@rog,

1.) Your SSD is not only smaller, but also a dog slow compared to the new NVMe one in the iMac Pro.
2.) Your iMac has no ECC memory support.
3.) Your iMac uses only two memory channels.
4.) Your iMac uses slower memory.
5.) Your iMac lacks all the extra instruction sets and other CPU features that come with the new Xeon's.
6.) Your iMac doesn't support 128Gb memory.
7.) Your iMac's GPU is no match to that of the one in the new iMac Pro.
8.) Your iMac's Ethernet adaptor does not supports 2.5Gb, 5Gb, and 10Gb Ethernet

 

[flat five]

The Intel Xeon W-21XXB is an Intel OEM processor, and the Geekbench results that is shared here was made when it was running on a limited turbo frequency of around 4.2GHz.

People here already speak about a 'down clocked Mac' even before they have ever seen or worked with one. Seriously. The only thing that is lower is the base frequency. That is important for Apple, to get a lower TDP. You however won't notice it. HWP (Intel SpeedShift) is blistering fast and it will ramp up to 4.3 GHz, on all cores, so fast that the difference is close to zero. For Apple it's matter of configuring HWP to their need.

since the iMac Pro was announced, they've been speccing it (i assume the 8-core) at 4.5GHz turbo speeds..
that said, it won't do that on all cores.. not for long anyways.. (or, i highly doubt it will)

idk, i'll wait until it's officially released and in use until i make a judgement.. it's not really something i want to buy on release day or even near release day..
i'll do that with the iPhone X though

 

[fairuz]

I'm not impressed. My 1,5 Year old OCd, 32GB DDR4, 4.5GHz Skylake i7 Hackintosh has a 6100/22000 single/multicore score. For 3k less. With a 38" 4K display...

Nobody is going to trust using that for work. Overclocking is bad, but Hackintosh is the real problem.

Anyway, build to the same specs, and you'll find the iMac is not a bad deal for its parts. First of all, Xeon and Vega are expensive parts for creative pros who need their specific features that an i7 and gaming GPU won't have. You also have to consider additional costs like the top of the line SSD, likely a much nicer display (38" has poor pixel density and sounds like you bought a cheap TV), mobo supporting 128GiB RAM, and peripherals. I'm not saying it's a good product; all-in-one form factor is dumb.

 

[Pike R. Alpha]

since the iMac Pro was announced, they've been speccing it (i assume the 8-core) at 4.5GHz turbo speeds..
that said, it won't do that on all cores.. not for long anyways.. (or, i highly doubt it will)

idk, i'll wait until it's officially released and in use until i make a judgement.. it's not really something i want to buy on release day or even near release day..
i'll do that with the iPhone X though

Single core frequency is 4.5GHz but AVX will put pressure on it, but Intel removed the spec data so it's all a guess now.

 

[fairuz]

Imagine what it could have been had it not been for the unnecessary thin iMac chassis .

They really should have made a new bigger chassis for the iMac pro

Both downclocking and not being able to fit multiple CPUs. Aren't people partially paying the big Xeon bucks to get multi-socket support?

 

[Regime2008]

Nobody is going to trust using that for work. First of all, Xeon and Vega are expensive parts for creative pros who need them. You also have to consider additional costs like the top of the line SSD, likely a much nicer display (38" sounds like you bought a cheap TV), and peripherals.

What kind of work does he do again? Maybe i missed it earlier in the thread. Regardless, it seems that there are many snobby attitudes in this thread, as if work cannot be done on skylake/kabbylake, which has been one of the fastest at single core performance up until recently. Sure there is threadripper, epyc, xeon, but if someone doesn't need the extra horsepower, why spend an extra 3-4k if it's not needed for their work/application?