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

Discussion in 'Mac Blog Discussion' started by MacRumors, Dec 12, 2017.

  1. smacrumon macrumors 68030


    Jan 15, 2016
    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???
    --- Post Merged, Dec 12, 2017 ---
    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.
  2. velocityg4 macrumors 68040


    Dec 19, 2004
    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.
  3. gglockner, Dec 12, 2017
    Last edited: Dec 12, 2017

    gglockner macrumors 6502


    Nov 25, 2007
    Bellevue, WA
    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.

    Attached Files:

  4. seabasstin macrumors newbie


    Dec 12, 2017
    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.

  5. adamjackson macrumors 65816

    Jul 9, 2008
    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.
  6. robotfist macrumors member

    Nov 7, 2007
    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.
  7. jonnysods macrumors 603


    Sep 20, 2006
    There & Back Again
    Wait it's faster than a 5 year machine?

    Lies. Fake news!!
  8. longpath macrumors member


    Apr 21, 2003
    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.
  9. therocksome, Dec 12, 2017
    Last edited: Dec 12, 2017

    therocksome macrumors newbie


    Dec 12, 2017

    Thats not even a NVME SSD... Those are like way more than the average sata
  10. shareef777 macrumors 68020


    Jul 26, 2005
    Chicago, IL
    2013? Last I checked, it's still being sold TODAY.
  11. therocksome macrumors newbie


    Dec 12, 2017
    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
  12. drewyboy macrumors 65816

    Jan 27, 2005
    Your banking on the screen not breaking rending the whole computer useless.
  13. bxs macrumors 6502a

    Oct 20, 2007
    Seattle, WA
    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".
  14. Kabeyun macrumors 65816


    Mar 27, 2004
    Eastern USA
    Yeah, this comes as a surprise to pretty much no one.

    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.
  15. neuropsychguy macrumors 65816


    Sep 29, 2008
    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.
  16. guzhogi macrumors 68030


    Aug 31, 2003
    Wherever my feet take me…
    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.
  17. mithion macrumors regular

    Mar 1, 2016
    Reno, NV
    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.
  18. SeminalSage macrumors member


    Nov 10, 2016
    Then add in that the SSD I included is also inferior....
  19. Srtlewis macrumors newbie

    Sep 27, 2016
    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.
  20. KellyJ macrumors newbie


    Oct 10, 2017
    Oh, you mean 45% faster than the hobbled, misnamed Mac Pro that is anything but.
  21. phairphan macrumors 6502a


    Sep 21, 2005
    Reject Beach
    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.
  22. anthonymoody macrumors 68020

    Aug 8, 2002
    "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
  23. gnomeisland macrumors 6502

    Jul 30, 2008
    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.
  24. RoelJuun macrumors 6502


    Aug 31, 2010
    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.
  25. PickUrPoison macrumors 68000

    Sep 12, 2017
    Sunnyvale, CA
    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.

Share This Page