Mid-Range iMac Pro is Nearly Twice as Fast as High-End 5K iMac and Up to 45% Faster Than 2013 Mac Pro

[smacrumon]

45% gain on 2014 technology is NOT something to be proud off.

Why on earth is Apple neglecting the Mac line? Is it too difficult or beyond its ability for this multibillion dollar company to release new Macs at a minimum of each and every year???
[doublepost=1513097601][/doublepost]Side note, the ventilation gap, at the back, looks like an afterthought. It's not fully resolved. It would be great if Apple could be more discrete about the gaps in future designs.

Why can't the air flow enter from the underneath left 45 degrees and exit from underneath right 45 degrees? Rendering it not visible. The current configuration on iMac pro sees it enter underneath and back down out the back through a long out of place gap.

 

[velocityg4]

Why aren't their good benchmarks on Macs? Most of the time I just see one or two meaningless benchmarks like Geekbench. You never see in depth benchmarks like Tomshardware, Pugetsystems, Anandtech, &c does with Windows computers.

I'd be more interested in seeing how it stacks up against a top tier 2013 Mac Pro and 2017 iMac. Using benchmarks which more accurately reflect real world usage.

 

[gglockner]

This is a mixed bag. Single core speed is a bit slower than my brand-new 2017 iMac i7. For the price difference, I got a second Retina display. However, I agree that the Mac Pro and Mac Mini are long overdue for a refresh. We just purchased a Mac Pro for work, and my manager winced at the cost for such old technology. I'd also love to replace my personal quad-core Mac Mini that serves as our home server, but Apple no longer has a quad-core Mac mini.

 

[seabasstin]

So what we actually know for sure is that The new iMacs are based on intel xeons.
Intel xeons that already exist.
That have already been benchmarked.
Knowing that we also know that no xeons are 95faster then core i7s.
We also know that although they are faster for multithreaded work they are absolutely not close in single thread speed to the latest coffee lake core i7 which will soon populate the regular imacs.

So for most applications spending this money will return you nothing.

Specifically for poorly multithreaded Adobe applications it would be a super waste of money, especially for After Effects which currently has No multiprocessing support for either working or rendering therefore benefits most from single thread performance.
C4D could benefit in rendering but of course limitation is in non changeable gpu.

So that leaves us with FCPx as the sole beneficiary.
A plus for apple and those like me that love fcp, but realistically not many pros will benefit from these machines.

While we already knew the iMac Pro will be the fastest Mac ever, at least until Apple releases its promised modular Mac Pro at some point in the future, now we have an idea of just how fast the desktop workhorse will truly be.

YouTube reviewers Marques Brownlee and Jonathan Morrison have each shared hands-on videos of the iMac Pro, and put its CPU performance to the test with benchmarks on Geekbench, which simulates real-world workload scenarios.

In both videos, the mid-range iMac Pro with a 10-core 3.0GHz Intel Xeon processor recorded a multi-core score of just over 37,400, which is up to 45 percent faster than the high-end 2013 Mac Pro's average multi-core score of 25,747.

The 10-core iMac Pro is also up to 93 percent faster than the latest 27-inch 5K iMac with top-of-the-line tech specs.

Apple said the iMac Pro can be configured with an even faster 18-core Xeon processor, so the 10-core benchmarks aren't even the peak. The 18-core iMac Pro will unquestionably be the fastest Mac ever by an almost unimaginable margin.

iMac Pro can also be equipped with up to 4TB of SSD storage, up to 128GB of ECC RAM, and an AMD Radeon Pro Vega 64 graphics processor with 16GB of HBM2 memory, which helps to power its beautiful 5K display.

With four Thunderbolt 3 ports, the iMac Pro can drive two external 5K displays or four 4K displays at 60Hz simultaneously. It also has a 10 Gigabit Ethernet port, four USB-A 3.0 ports, an SD card slot, and a 3.5mm headphone jack.

iMac Pro will be available to order on December 14 in the United States and several other countries. Pricing starts at $4,999 in the United States. Apple has yet to provide exact pricing details on a configuration-by-configuration basis.

Article Link: Mid-Range iMac Pro is Nearly Twice as Fast as High-End 5K iMac and Up to 45% Faster Than 2013 Mac Pro

 

[adamjackson]

45% gain on 2014 technology is NOT something to be proud off.

Why on earth is Apple neglecting the Mac line? Is it too difficult or beyond its ability for this multibillion dollar company to release new Macs at a minimum of each and every year???
[doublepost=1513097601][/doublepost]Side note, the ventilation gap, at the back, looks like an afterthought. It's not fully resolved. It would be great if Apple could be more discrete about the gaps in future designs.

Why can't the air flow enter from the underneath left 45 degrees and exit from underneath right 45 degrees? Rendering it not visible. The current configuration on iMac pro sees it enter underneath and back down out the back through a long out of place gap.

Moore's law is dead. compare a 2013 Xeon from Dell in a workstation with a 2017 Dell workstation. the benchmarks are not a huge improvement.

 

[robotfist]

But can it sustain those high speeds? I worry about the cooling. The problem with the iMac and the new Macbook Pro is that there is so little space for air flow. The processor may kick butt with short tasks but as soon as you start doing heavy lifting for a sustained period of time, the processor will have to throttle itself backwards to maintain temperature. So while the iMac Pro may look great in specs and in these limited run benchmark tests, how is it going to perform after 8 hours of intensive 4k video editing and rendering? I am willing to bet that whatever speeds we’re seeing in these tests or in Apple’s advertisements will not be sustainable during an extended workload. The iMac is not a great design for heavy lifting.

 

[jonnysods]

Wait it's faster than a 5 year machine?

Lies. Fake news!!

 

[longpath]

Comparing 2013 tech to 2017 tech

Great job macrumors!!

You do realize that Apple's top of the line Mac Pro is 2013 tech, right? This is a comparison of two currently offered models.

 

[therocksome]

Just a quick comparison:

From Amazon:

Xeon 10core - $2150
5k display - $600
32GB DDR 4 RAM - $400
AMD Vega 56 - $700
1TB SSD - $300


Then add a keyboard, mouse, operating system ,iphotes, iMovie, iwork, etc, etc. and it doesn't seem so expensive anymore.

Thats not even a NVME SSD... Those are like way more than the average sata

 

[shareef777]

Comparing 2013 tech to 2017 tech

Great job macrumors!!

2013? Last I checked, it's still being sold TODAY.

 

[therocksome]

Yeah but that ssd is not even NVME PCIE... like in the iMac so the cost is even higher.. I believe the 300 one is a normal SATA

 

[drewyboy]

So I just priced up an HP Z6 G4 workstation which is geared toward a similar market as the iMac Pro. Configured with a 10-core Xeon 4114 @ 2.2GHz, 32GB of RAM, 1TB SSD, and an equivalent GPU with 16GB of RAM, the price comes to $6,603. So the iMac Pro gets you all of this and with a newer faster Xeon and a 5K display for about $1,500 less.

Your banking on the screen not breaking rending the whole computer useless.

 

[bxs]

Your banking on the screen not breaking rending the whole computer useless.

If the screen breaks within the AppleCare+ warranty period it will be replaced so the computer would not be rendered inoperative or as you say made "useless".

 

[Kabeyun]

Comparing 2013 tech to 2017 tech

Great job macrumors!!

Every year computers get faster who knew ;-)

Yeah, this comes as a surprise to pretty much no one.

This article brought to you by Moore's Law, still going strong and predictable after 50 years.

Actually, not going strong anymore. Lots of stuff out there on the demise of Moore’s law. I thought this article from ArsTechnica was a great balance of technical detail and accessibility.

 

[neuropsychguy]

Just a quick comparison:

From Amazon:

Xeon 10core - $2150
5k display - $600
32GB DDR 4 RAM - $400
AMD Vega 56 - $700
1TB SSD - $300

Then add a keyboard, mouse, operating system ,iphotes, iMovie, iwork, etc, etc. and it doesn't seem so expensive anymore.

Also, if screen quality really matters, that $600 display isn't nearly as good as the one in the iMac. Maybe you don't need a 5K display but spec-for-spec it is hard to beat the price of the iMac.

 

[guzhogi]

2013? Last I checked, it's still being sold TODAY.

Technically, you're both right. It's still being sold today, but it's also the same tech used when it originally shipped in 2013.

Why on earth is Apple neglecting the Mac line? Is it too difficult or beyond its ability for this multibillion dollar company to release new Macs at a minimum of each and every year???

It's not too difficult, just too unprofitable. Apple sold more iOS devices in the last 10 years than it sold Macs in all of Apple's 30+ year history. So why focus on a small(er) market, when you can spend the same resources on a much bigger, more profitable one? Don't get me wrong, I'm with you on this, but it doesn't matter what we really want. All that matters to Apple is getting the most profit.

 

[mithion]

I think I, and most other people reading this, would prefer a comparison between the iMac Pro and the MacBook Pro as far as speed goes.

2013 tech is obviously slower.

The consumer 5K iMac would be a better comparison. The iMacs are naturally much faster due to them using desktop class processors instead of mobile class as in the macbook pros.

 

[SeminalSage]

Also, if screen quality really matters, that $600 display isn't nearly as good as the one in the iMac. Maybe you don't need a 5K display but spec-for-spec it is hard to beat the price of the iMac.

Then add in that the SSD I included is also inferior....

 

[Srtlewis]

These things are gonna melt under load. My last and only iMac cooked the gpu and the screen I can only imagine what these things are gonna be like.

 

[KellyJ]

Oh, you mean 45% faster than the hobbled, misnamed Mac Pro that is anything but.

 

[phairphan]

So I just priced up an HP Z6 G4 workstation which is geared toward a similar market as the iMac Pro. Configured with a 10-core Xeon 4114 @ 2.2GHz, 32GB of RAM, 1TB SSD, and an equivalent GPU with 16GB of RAM, the price comes to $6,603. So the iMac Pro gets you all of this and with a newer faster Xeon and a 5K display for about $1,500 less.

Without weighing in on the "is this a good deal or not" topic, I will point out that you're making a comparison based on the iMac Pro pricing for an 8-core model ($4999). We don't yet know the pricing for the 10-core with Vega 64 model. The iMP with 10-core and Vega 64 will not be "about $1,500 less" than the HP model that you specced.

 

[anthonymoody]

"The 18-core iMac Pro will unquestionably be the fastest Mac ever by an almost unimaginable margin."

I can imagine an awful lot. - Han Solo

 

[gnomeisland]

Technically, you're both right. It's still being sold today, but it's also the same tech used when it originally shipped in 2013.



It's not too difficult, just too unprofitable. Apple sold more iOS devices in the last 10 years than it sold Macs in all of Apple's 30+ year history. So why focus on a small(er) market, when you can spend the same resources on a much bigger, more profitable one? Don't get me wrong, I'm with you on this, but it doesn't matter what we really want. All that matters to Apple is getting the most profit.

Just kills me that Apple stop iterating the Mac Pro. Personally like the design but no processor, GPU, or connectivity updates...

Also, what you say is true about iOS devices, but the Mac is just as profitable as it was back when Apple was pushing out updates every 18-24months. Macs are languishing because Apple is letting them, not because it isn't profitable. I suspect focus is returning because professionals and power users really were leaving.

 

[RoelJuun]

What’s missing, that you want a thicker box?

And Intel is responsible for the lack of CPU speed improvements, right?

Upgrades you can do yourself so you don't have to take your 'professional' machine to the shop when your drive breaks. Accessibility so you don't have to pay Apple ridiculous amounts of currency for the ram upgrades.

No throttling under prolonged stress for both the CPU and the GPU. Double CPU option (with more ram slots)?. (Accessible) PCI slots? How about…multiple drives for storage?

It's too easy to think of advantages in not having a thin workstation.

I know it's an all-in-one, but Apple doesn't offer a normal workstation and they market the iMac as though it is a real comparable workstation.

 

[PickUrPoison]

Upgrades you can do yourself so you don't have to take your 'professional' machine to the shop when your drive breaks. Accessibility so you don't have to pay Apple ridiculous amounts of currency for the ram upgrades.

No throttling under prolonged stress for both the CPU and the GPU. Double CPU option (with more ram slots)?. (Accessible) PCI slots? How about…multiple drives for storage?

It's too easy to think of advantages in not having a thin workstation.

I know it's an all-in-one, but Apple doesn't offer a normal workstation and they market the iMac as though it is a real comparable workstation.

The target market for an iMac Pro is a completely different from the market for Mac Pro, although there is some overlap. If you need PCIe slots, multiple drive slots, dual processors etc., an all in one iMac Pro is not for you. But a desire for thinness isn’t what prevented Apple from offering those things.

You might have missed the announcement, but a Mac Pro update is currently in development; Apple has described it as modular. Perhaps that will better meet your needs.