One thing Macs are known for is screen quality. It’s why it’s a shame they ditched their external monitors a while back, hopefully the new one will be stunning.
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 Pros With Custom Xeon Chips Possibly Appear on Geekbench Ahead of December Launch
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
One thing Macs are known for is screen quality. It’s why it’s a shame they ditched their external monitors a while back, hopefully the new one will be stunning.
The difference between your 38” 4K display and the 5K display of this machine is big and makes most of the price difference. Not having a Xeon chip is another huge disadvantage. I’m pretty sure your storage is not half as fast as the iMac Pro’s either. And how about the noise and all other inconveniences? I’m pretty sure your cheap machine is the overpriced one.
I am of a 'wait and see' mind too, but you'd have to be pretty inept to make the same mistakes, and for a company like Apple, who have already set out and addressed these issues with the new fan system - why else is it there? - then I can only see this being resolved. Currently, my MacBook Pro from 2011 has fried its own GPU after four years of use, but they replaced it for free and I've been running the early 2011 MacBook Pro for almost seven years - the fans are always screaming, but I don't really care as long as it's protecting the innards and exporting my films perfectly, which it has.
Just because the iMac Pro can't serve some pros like yourself with 40 multicore compiles, doesn't mean that it isn't a dream machine for people like me.
There's no chance Apple will **** up the new Mac Pro modular. This iMac Pro is the answer to the Trash Can - same problems - updated spec with great 5K screen.
What they will show us with the Mac Pro machine is everything that they have learned to date. They know how big that release is going to be, and they know the market is there. They have great software for pros, and now it's time to match that software with the necessary hardware to take the lead again.
I never put them in a budget because I already have those, like many people.
And I normally don't buy a new monitor at the same time as doing a major computer upgrade.
I calculated that reusing a few parts, building a new basic 8-core TR PC would cost me around $2300 (before tax). Very expensive.
Last edited:
I've actually seen someone on youtube do this with the 2014 IMac that was notorious for it's thermal throttling. He took the case apart, drilled a whole pattern around the top of the chassis to give it more air intake and put it back together. It actually worked. The IMac was barely thermal throttling anymore and it took longer 100% loads for it to start throttling at all. You might be on to something, here.
The one downside is that it would also make the internals more vulnerable to dust, with no easy way of cleaning them.
Last edited:
And? What's your point? You don't have as many cores, so any multithreaded process will suffer. Many creative apps are heavily multithreaded, which is what this machine is aimed at. Surely you can do the math there? Also, 1.5 years old? Again, so what? It's not 1998 anymore....18 months is practically a new computer. Guaranteed the 38" 4k TV you're using as a display doesn't come close to the brightness, color accuracy, color space, evenness or contrast and dynamic range that the display in the iMac Pro will have. And again, that's important for the work this will be used for.
Not sure why people like you always feel like you have to constantly whine about how "not impressed" you are because you built a gaming hotrod that does one thing pretty well. Your parts aren't server-grade or workstation-grade either, btw. So, pretty much your entire point is moot and invalid.
Oh yeah, bottom connections are all the rage. Everybody loves them. Just ask any Atari STE owner and how much they loved LOVED the controller ports on the bottom/base of the machine.
by bottom I meant the back/sides on the lowest point of the horizontal line of a case silly. Not like underneath if that's what you're playing at? Either way on an iMac location of ports is very hard to find a perfect placement.
I am always amazed that people look at products that weren't made for them and criticize them for being made for someone else's use case.
If you live in Arizona and someone makes a down jacket, it isn't a failure, it was just made for someone other than you.
So maybe you're sad because you were hoping to get a tank top, but that doesn't mean the jacket was a failure. And no matter what the price, it is overpriced because you don't need it.
If you're in the arctic circle and need to go outside so you can get to work, price is a secondary consideration.
There is a certain segment of people for whom this machine will be very appealing. Some of those will be people who really want the new modular Mac Pro, but need something now.
So, yeah this is expensive and yeah the iMac form has limitations, but if it doesn't appeal to you, you were are not the person that this was made for.
Either you don't really need this much power (like me), or you really need a modular Mac Pro. And this was always meant as a stop gap for pros while Apple was coming up with what they really wanted.
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 you live in Arizona and someone makes a down jacket, it isn't a failure, it was just made for someone other than you.
So maybe you're sad because you were hoping to get a tank top, but that doesn't mean the jacket was a failure. And no matter what the price, it is overpriced because you don't need it.
If you're in the arctic circle and need to go outside so you can get to work, price is a secondary consideration.
There is a certain segment of people for whom this machine will be very appealing. Some of those will be people who really want the new modular Mac Pro, but need something now.
So, yeah this is expensive and yeah the iMac form has limitations, but if it doesn't appeal to you, you were are not the person that this was made for.
Either you don't really need this much power (like me), or you really need a modular Mac Pro. And this was always meant as a stop gap for pros while Apple was coming up with what they really wanted.
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.
[doublepost=1508280865][/doublepost]Pro? Just like the new MacBooks, this machine will not have an optical out in the headphone jack. And this is something a lot of (pro) people use.
While the iMac Pro doesn't launch for another six weeks or so, possible benchmarks for the computer may have already surfaced on Geekbench. The results provide us with an early look at just how powerful Apple's $4,999-and-up desktop workstation will be when it is released in December.
Interestingly, the iMac Pro models benchmarked appear to have custom, downclocked Xeon chips that Intel hasn't publicly announced yet. There is a benchmark result for a model with a 3.2GHz 8-core Xeon W-2140B processor, while a third listing exists for a model with a 3.0GHz 10-core Xeon W-2150B chip.
All of the models are identified as "AAPJ1371,1," and unlike other Xeon chips, the processors have a "B" suffix. A few of the benchmark results are from late August, while the rest are from October.
MacRumors spoke with Geekbench founder John Poole, who speculated that the iMac Pro may require chips with lower thermal design power, and thus lower frequencies, due to its all-in-one form factor. He noted that the other chips in the Xeon Processor W family have relatively high TDPs of up to 140W.
The multi-core Geekbench score for the 8-core model averages out to 23,536, which is the highest performance of any iMac ever. It's nearly 22 percent faster than the latest 5K iMac equipped with a maxed-out 4.2GHz quad-core Core i7 processor, which has an average multi-core score of 19,336.
The higher-end 10-core iMac Pro has a multi-core score of 35,917, which is roughly 41 percent faster than the latest Mac Pro maxed out with a 2.7GHz 12-core Xeon E5 processor. Even its single-core score of 5,345 is faster than all but the highest-end 5K iMac released earlier this year.
All in all, the benchmarks point to the iMac Pro being unsurprisingly powerful from top to bottom. And that's not even looking at the 18-core iMac Pro, which hasn't been benchmarked yet and will surely blow every other Mac out of the water--at least until the modular Mac Pro is ready.
Apple said the iMac Pro will also feature top-of-the-line Radeon Pro Vega graphics, up to 4TB of SSD storage, and up to 128GB of ECC RAM. The computer will share the same design as the standard iMac, but with an all-flash architecture, a new thermal design, and four Thunderbolt 3 ports.
Article Link: iMac Pros With Custom Xeon Chips Possibly Appear on Geekbench Ahead of December Launch
In this image, it makes me wonder what will happen under full load. In this vid, what this guy did was impressive and it's what needed, more air inside and able to be vented out.
Does anyone else find it extremely odd that an 8-core Xeon processor scores only 22% better in the multi-core Geekbench benchmark than a quad-core i7? Maybe it's the 1Ghz difference in base clock, but if I'm going to spend $5k for an iMac Pro, it better noticeably out perform the top of the line iMac!
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.
It's the same thing with the trash can Mac Pro vs the iMac. The iMac tends to win in a number of areas, despite the price difference. The multi-thread scores are always going to favour the trash can, but for single core, the iMac tends to win.
Well, you've answered your own question in terms of the internals being much better.
I know people who loved the Trash Can Mac Pro, and had it not been so old, I would have purchased one too. For people like me, who often work from one Thunderbolt 2 cable, there's not so much clutter on our desks. The internals are good enough for me, as my requirements only change with a significant leap in sensor technology, which doesn't happen yearly in video. There will be the move to HDR 10bit 4K or even 8K eventually in a few to five years time, so by then, I'll need an entirely new outfit of computer if I move to producing multicam movies with that kinda data throughput, but that won't be happening in the next few years, as most of my projects are between 1-2TB and I do 30+ a year, so I'm not going to increase that x4 to deliver 10 bit just yet to my clients - that's quite an expense and all computers will be slower at rendering such projects. As the old saying goes, time is money.
Until the move to multicam 10bit HDR - should that moment ever arise - the iMac Pro will more than meet my needs and continue to do so throughout its life. The iMac Pro will make a living for me and be a super-reliable all-in-one - with a bit of luck! Sure, there'll be better things to buy three years from now on the tech side, but if I maxed out the current iMac, I'd still have a video card that's almost two years old today. I'm getting the iMac Pro for marginally more cash than the current maxed out iMac of today, so I see this as a great investment in terms of the video card alone, and a great leap over what Apple is currently offering. If my business didn't operate around FCPX, then maybe I'd be moving to a different setup. However, FCPX is what I like to use software wise, and so it's all about my needs as a company.
If the modular Mac Pro was here, would I get the iMac Pro? Most likely not. However, it's still 12-18 months from that Mac dropping, we still don't know Apple's vision for it completely and my current Mac isn't meeting my needs at this moment in time and hasn't been doing so for a long while now. It has slowed down my production drastically in recent months, so this iMac Pro is a significant, overdue change for my company and one I can't wait to invest in.
With this iMac Pro, projects will likely take much less time to edit. The difference could be as great as turning a 7 day project into a 5 day project. Who wouldn't love the iMac Pro if it helped them to achieve that?!
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
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
The report that they're downclocking the CPUs.
[doublepost=1508390093][/doublepost]
Seriously, there was even a time when the 5K iMac was the price of a 5K display by itself. Just sell the same thing but without the computer internals...
This will have been a part of the plan all along. I'm fairly certain when you design a system, you have set temperatures that you're willing to push certain things towards and custom clocking the CPUs will have been in the Design stage. Hence them saying on stage that they've managed to get up to 18-core with the new fan system. If it wasn't running how they planned, they'd be back at the drawing board.
It's a beautifully designed computer. I admit, I'm envious slightly of the look/feel of the iMac compared to a standard desktop... at times.
But you'd be next to impossible to convince me that the iMac (pro) is good value for the money. If you're an iMac shop, and require MacOS and certain specifics (5k instead of 4k, and design looks), it's the pro grade machien for you.
But if you tend to put raw computer power first and foremost, it's a bit underwhelming to see these numbers.
Fastest iMac ever? it should be. Fastest computer fort the money you can buy? no.
But you'd be next to impossible to convince me that the iMac (pro) is good value for the money. If you're an iMac shop, and require MacOS and certain specifics (5k instead of 4k, and design looks), it's the pro grade machien for you.
But if you tend to put raw computer power first and foremost, it's a bit underwhelming to see these numbers.
Fastest iMac ever? it should be. Fastest computer fort the money you can buy? no.
It's true, comparing a proper workstation to a gaming computer is stupid, it's like comparing a McLaren F1 to a Mack Truck. Yeah, the McLaren is going to fly.... Until you try to move 50 tons with it.
There's one point he gets right though...
For the iMac Pro's price you can buy a faster Lenovo P910 which doesn't thermo throttle and still have a few grand left over for whatever calibrated display you want.
And run MacOS in a professional setting.
With complete 24/7 back-to-back onsite warranty.
With Quadro cards that are supported under MacOS by NVidia that you can't get in any Mac, no matter what spec it is.
I'm still trying to figure out who that segment is exactly. It's a neat computer and it's pretty awesome that they can get all that power behind the screen but whose it for?
it's firmly for those entrenched in a MacOS ecosystem for their workflow where it's probably cheaper to replace their current iMac/Mac pro's with a few of these, than replcae an entire workflow to migrate to something else.
I get it. But as I mentioned earlier, if you're looking at pure performance per dollar, Apple is not currently in the running as there are plenty of options, that are fully customizable that will offer similar performance metrics for similar if not cheaper.
if you MUST have that 5k Apple screen; the All in one chassis; MacOS; et al, than this is for you. if those specific features aren't necessary, you're better off going elsewhere.
typically in my former line of work, where a 5% difference in raw performance means the difference in hours of processing time, i'm going to go for the cheaper, but more CPU power.
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.