You're right that Macs now aren't less profitable than they were; rather, Apple probably gets more profit from iOS devices than Macs. Sad, but true.
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.
Mid-Range iMac Pro is Nearly Twice as Fast as High-End 5K iMac and Up to 45% Faster Than 2013 Mac Pro
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
You're right that Macs now aren't less profitable than they were; rather, Apple probably gets more profit from iOS devices than Macs. Sad, but true.
A similarly spec'd custom rig would cost about $5000, so...
[doublepost=1513115853][/doublepost]
You know, we have quite a few fully upgradeable workstations where I work. When they need work they go to a shop. When they need upgrades the entire machine gets replaced. Not saying that's how every workstation gets used, especially for folks that are buying for a small business. But "super quiet", "doesn't take up much space", and "comes with a class-leading display" are legitimate benefits for a lot of use cases. For all the other use cases, Apple has promised the larger upgradable solution within a year. Frankly I think it's great that both options will exist at all.
2012 Mac Pro with 2017 aftermarket parts is the closest you can get, if you want it to be a Mac. Or you just compare to a Dell or HP workstation with the latest enterprise-grade parts.
As you said it's not the case for all businesses. I'm on a 2016 MBP now, but the idea of not being able to open this thing up and swap in a replacement part scares the crap out of me. It's not that I want to pimp out my machine with the latest tech. If something fries at the worst possible time, I want to be able to rush out and buy a replacement part and be back at work a few hours later.
That said, I'm also super appreciative at having a thinner and lighter machine. A lot of pros do need to tote and go so it's not a given that pros care little about weight and size as some maintain. I had often thought about getting a 12" MBP as my portable second machine in the past, but the MBP lineup is light enough that I don't have to maintain a second machine just to get portability now.
What's worse. What you get on day one, will be exactly the same as what you'll have 5 years on, wether you like it or not. The thing is sealed shut. No upgrades. No quick, affordable repairs. Need more Ram for a intense project? Tough luck, you're screwed. Faster GPU's available that could speed up your workflow? Tough luck, you're screwed. So in essence, that $4999 price point is likely just a starting off point if you want to future proof it in any way. Either that or write this sucker off in 2 years or less. Real Pro, Apple. Real Pro.
It is also interesting to compare the 2017 iMac Pro to the 2017 iMac (not Pro) with the i7-7700K 4.2GHz
Model Single Multi
Mac Pro 5450 37434
iMac 7700K 5685 19373
The non Pro is actually slightly faster at single threaded tasks, due to it's much higher clock speed. You get an iMac Pro (or Mac Pro) for multi-core performance not single-core performance. That said I should add that the only Mac Pros faster than the i7-7700K are the 'current' 8 and 12 core models.
Ssshhh.... you’re not supposed to mention that.
[doublepost=1513095244][/doublepost]Now that this is done, Apple can finally focus on the Mac Mini....
I think Jony Ive’s return to day to day design punishment should be to FIRST give us an updated Mac Mini with replacement RAM, internal blade SSD (replaceable), and a much smaller design yet still with at least 2x USB-C type Thunderbolt 3 connectors, 2x/4x USB-A, HDMI, Kensington lock port, 10gigabit Ethernet all in a metal ATV3 sized device! (Internal power supply please!
I’d add that a Xeon Motherboard to hold the parts is $300- $400 and with that many Thunderbolt ports “doesn’t exist” even at $600. ECC RAM for the Xeon is probably 50% more $600- $700 at today’s prices... and Apple has to use the “laptop” variant so add another bill just for fun.
A 1TB Samsung 960 Pro NVMe is more like $700 on sale, not $300. 2TB Samsung is $1300+.
Or having the thing sit on a shelf at an Apple store for a few days awaiting "repair" because a part normally easily replaced by the user needed swapping out. Good luck explaining that to a client. That extra $1500 for an HP workstation would be well spent. Not to mention the upgradability that the HP buys you or the guaranteed lack of CPU/GPU throttling.
But Apple still sells that 2013 tech so until an updated computer is released this is not valid how?
Sure, I'm not debating that. It just seems that instead of expanding their workforce to adequately service both markets they are cannabalizing the Mac which is frustrating if you're still dependent on that hardware to work.
Desktop headless Macs like Mac mini and Mac Pro are ecological, whereas all-in-one desktops like iMac are anti-ecological, since a CPU may last seven years, but a display lasts more more than 20 years. Apple should put emphasis on making brand new headless Macs and brand new displays.
A new Mac Pro and display(s?) are confirmed to be in development, and Cook himself recently said that although it’s not time to share any details, the Mac mini would be an important part of the product line in the future.
Hopefully all will arrive by this time next year.
Hopefully all will arrive by this time next year.
Since you seem to like old tech, I will give you even better comparison:
Mac Pro (Early 2009)
Intel Xeon X5660 @ 2.80 GHz x 2
Geekbench Multi-Core: 25432
8 years later +30% perfromance, nice job
Er... if there is some overlap, then it isn't completely different.
Except, if you read that announcement carefully, there is absolutely no promise whatsoever of "PCIe slots, multiple drive slots, dual processors etc." - just that Apple will be able to offer more options, and keep it updated, which they haven't been able to do with the nMP cylinder. Also, the wording strongly suggests that Apple's definition of "modular" is just "anything that isn't a laptop or all-in-one".
So, although a "cheesegrater"-style big box o' slots Mac Pro would fit the description (and provide the Mac line with a much-needed "pick-up truck" option), so would a hermetically sealed super-thin slither of alloy primarily designed to look good on your plate-glass desk. We just don't know yet - which must be a real pain for "professional" users trying to plan their future equipment strategy.
I don't understand why a door was not placed in the back to give easy access to at least the memory and hard drive and to clean the dust in the fans that collects in there.
Thank you. I was in a hurry to respond to the original post and totally skipped the MB. And I did mention in another reply that the SSD I quoted was far inferior to the iMac version.
I am sure it is not, but this article reads similar to a press release.
Does the iMac 5K have the BTO options? I guess this is impressive, but the 10-core iMac Pro with 128GB of RAM might end up costing more than three times as much as the iMac 5K. IMO, I would expect more than a double performance gain at that cost.
[doublepost=1513174793][/doublepost]
The base level iMac Pro is not 10-cores.
[doublepost=1513175133][/doublepost]
Does the iMac 5K have the BTO options? I guess this is impressive, but the 10-core iMac Pro with 128GB of RAM might end up costing more than three times as much as the iMac 5K. IMO, I would expect more than a double performance gain at that cost.
The 8-core iMac Pro price starts at $4,999. I am sure the iMac Pro tested will be much, much more expensive.
[doublepost=1513174793][/doublepost]
The base level iMac Pro is not 10-cores.
[doublepost=1513175133][/doublepost]
What price is that? I can't find the price of the tested iMac Pro.
Be careful when you are comparing Geekbench scores from older Macs - each version of Geekbench has had a different baseline so the scores cannot be directly compared. If you are pulling your stats from old reviews you are comparing old numbers that would not be matched in Geekbench 4
Also, those older archetectures (Nehelem/Westmere) were a lot less efficient - for thermal and power reasons you would never be able to put one (much less the two required to get those benchmarks you are posting) in the new iMac.
Also, those older archetectures (Nehelem/Westmere) were a lot less efficient - for thermal and power reasons you would never be able to put one (much less the two required to get those benchmarks you are posting) in the new iMac.
MacOS High Sierra certainly suggests more improvements are needed hardware side to keep up.
A lot of companies that have a use for this thing spend $7000 every couple of years to replace a whole workstation anyway. I think you'd be surprised how little interest many companies that use this much power have in actually upgrading machines. That does mark this machine as a terrible fit for any part of the consumer space, but I'm sure that was intentional. As long as they keep updating it from year to year plenty of professional applications wouldn't even bat an eye at the concerns you raised.
[doublepost=1513180128][/doublepost]
I'm nitpicking, but I'm pretty sure the SSD in the iMac Pro isn't NVMe. Though, come to think of it, it might be PCI as opposed to SATA.
And now I'm gonna have to see if I can find that detail somewhere. Do we have an ifixit teardown yet?
[doublepost=1513180424][/doublepost]
I have several flat-panel displays that are 20 years old, and I would submit that while they are still working, they have not really "lasted" that long.
Going through the posts, there really seems to be some confusion about the test iMac Pro's specs/price. There is a lot of misinformation on the thread related to the price of the iMac Pro.
The test iMac Pro is not going to be $5K like the base model. The model tested has 2 more cores, and 4x the RAM of the base model, and probably other upgrades. I haven't see a price on it, but it might be an additional $2000(a guess) or more for just the RAM upgrade. Maybe another $1k or more for the 10-core upgrade.
Of course there are organizations that keep their hardware up to date, but not too many imo.
The test iMac Pro is not going to be $5K like the base model. The model tested has 2 more cores, and 4x the RAM of the base model, and probably other upgrades. I haven't see a price on it, but it might be an additional $2000(a guess) or more for just the RAM upgrade. Maybe another $1k or more for the 10-core upgrade.
I am not sure about that. In my experience, many companies/organizations go out of their way to not replace any hardware, and end up having really, really old equipment.
Of course there are organizations that keep their hardware up to date, but not too many imo.
That you would describe a new Mac Pro as potentially a “hermetically sealed super-thin slither of alloy primarily designed to look good on your plate-glass desk” is telling. Apple’s new iMac Pro, which will satisfy a good portion of the former buyers of the Mac Pro, has obviously triggered you.
But far from primarily looking good on a “plate-glass” desk, professional users will snap these up—because an 18-core Xeon with 128GB of ECC memory and 4 Thunderbolt 3 ports will more than suit their needs for the next two or three years, before they buy a new workstation.
That doesn’t have to be upsetting or frightening. Their requirements are simply different from yours. Many pros don’t need PCIe slots, because they will never add a PCIe card. Many users don’t need internal drive slots, because they use an external RAID array or will connect the 10 Gb Ethernet port to network storage. And many users don’t need dual processors, because they don’t even need the 18-cores that one processor could give them. They’ll buy an 8- or 10-core and it will be more than sufficient for their usage.
But just because Apple released something that doesn’t satisfy your particular “professional” needs, there’s really no need to panic or get yourself all worked up. Despite the fact that many users’ requirements are met by the iMac Pro, Apple has a new Mac Pro in development. I wouldn’t count on dual processors, but you’ll get your slots and drive bays.
Then please share your sources, because the April announcement made no such promises. All we actually know is that its not going repeat the "triangular core" design that was the nMP's undoing and that it's going to meet Apple's definition of "modular" which seems to be "not a notebook or all-in-one":
(I.e. the nMP cylinder - the only non-all-in-one, non-notebook "pro" they currently make - is "modular" by Apple's definition)
...and please note, I'm not saying that the "modular Mac Pro" will be a sealed unit or that it won't have PCIe slots or user-changeable GPUs - just that none of the latter have been promised, and a sealed unit wouldn't violate anything said in April (and would be thoroughly consistent with Apple's recent actions and the iMac Pro design). You're the one claiming to know what the new machine will be like...