Who's in the market for iMac pro?

[kasakka]

Arm Ache and finger prints

More like they just don't want to redesign the iMac to work for that. Surface Studio style setup would be perfect for it.

The new Mac Pro seems to make the same mistakes the previous ones did. Few people actually have any need for server class processors, gobs of ECC RAM or VRAM but would like something more powerful than the regular iMac.

If they can cram this all into a small case like the iMac, why not just release a small box with all these goodies inside so you can upgrade it when needed and use it with any display you prefer?

 

[jjjoseph]

Can't wait to see how much this will be with 18 cores, 128GB RAM and 4TB SSD. Over £10k anyone?

yes.. well over.. well over..

 

[MacsRgr8]

I closed my eyes and pressed the button after drying my tears..

I just bought the 5k iMac 2017 .. 3600 euro almost.

I went for one too... a little over 4300 for mine.

I also can't justify > 5000 for my needs, and also wait for more than half a year.

 

[Floris]

I went for one too... a little over 4300 for mine.

I also can't justify > 5000 for my needs, and also wait for more than half a year.

2tb or the ram?
I left ram at 8. Since we can upgrade it later with four slots

 

[MacsRgr8]

2tb or the ram?
I left ram at 8. Since we can upgrade it later with four slots

32 GB RAM, 1 TB SSD and the optional numeric keyboard

 

[Jack Burton]

2tb or the ram?
I left ram at 8. Since we can upgrade it later with four slots

I'm pricing one out too, just for grins. Leaving the ram at 8GB since you can throw in 2x16GB later for a couple hundred, leaving you with 40 GB after installation. Upgrade to another 2x16GB later if needed and resell the 2x4GB for a bit on eBay.

I only priced out the 1TB SSD. I'm glad to hear that these are much faster in the latest models. At what point do I just bit the bullet and buy a more expensive iMac because I like working on the Mac better? Ugh. I hate myself and I hate this price:

 

[phobos]

What work do you do?

I'm a designer and do a lot of 3D work and motion graphics so the more resources available the better.
The iMac Pro strikes a nice balance as long as it's not loud or on the verge of melting...
It'll be interesting to see how the machine actually performs.

 

[Michael Scrip]

The Kaby Lake X processor is frustratingly confusing. I don't know who is supposed to buy that and some system builders have straight up said they won't support it over the previous z270 Kaby Lake systems, according to that video and the Linus rant vid.

Intel's new 8 core, however, puts it in great competition with the top of the line Ryzen 1800x for multimedia people like me. For $100 more one can get a WAY faster turbo boost (3.6 base, 4.5 boost versus Ryzen's 3.6 base 4.0 boost), 28 PCI lanes, and more M.2 expansion. This is perfect for me as I won't be overclocking this time.

As long as the mobos aren't outrageously expensive, I'm going with that processor. I'll be able to use multiple m.2's: system, scratch, and even a third m.2 for media storage if I feel saucy. That's not even counting any SATA drives!

I feel like that processor is just about perfect for me and I have AMD to thank for pressuring intel.

And if it's too expensive, I have Ryzen to fall back on.

I think you're talking about the Core i7-7820X for $599. And yes... Intel certainly has the clock-speed advantage.

It's crazy though... Ryzen 1800X is currently $459... and the 1700X isn't that far behind the 1800X in performance (but you can get it for only $349)

Exciting times in this new 8-core world!

What are you using now? I have a Core-i7 4790K clocked at 4.6GHz

I ran some Premiere Pro benchmarks and Ryzen was about 20% faster than me in those tasks.

But I'm not sure I'm ready to upgrade CPU, RAM and motherboard for just a 20% increase. So maybe I'll wait another year. Currently I'm not running into any hiccups.

 

[CWallace]

Interesting that you have companies like HP, Dell and Lenovo all entering the AIO Workstation market and all with configurations well below what the iMac Pro will offer. So I think the blanket claims that "pros don't want AIOs" is an incorrect one and I think the iMac Pro is going to be the machine setting the performance benchmark, not the PC OEMs.

 

[RuffDraft]

Does anyone know which 8-core XEON will be inside the iMac Pro? Will it be the standard XEON from years ago that was inside the Mac Pro or an updated one?

The only information is what it could be:

• Turbo Boost up to 4.5GHz
• Up to 42MB cache

Does anyone know which 8-core it will be?

 

[Jack Burton]

I think you're talking about the Core i7-7820X for $599. And yes... Intel certainly has the clock-speed advantage.

It's crazy though... Ryzen 1800X is currently $459... and the 1700X isn't that far behind the 1800X in performance (but you can get it for only $349)

Exciting times in this new 8-core world!

What are you using now? I have a Core-i7 4790K clocked at 4.6GHz

I ran some Premiere Pro benchmarks and Ryzen was about 20% faster than me in those tasks.

But I'm not sure I'm ready to upgrade CPU, RAM and motherboard for just a 20% increase. So maybe I'll wait another year. Currently I'm not running into any hiccups.

I'm running an aging Sandy Bridge 2600k overclocked to 4.2 Ghz with 16GB ram. That processor came out in Q1, 2011. Not bad for my first self built $1600 PC.

My PC randomly turns off. Sometimes under load, sometimes just browsing the web. I've already replaced the power supply - that solved stuff for a while. It's still turning off here and there. Enough so that I don't start anything heavy on it for fear of straight up killing the machine. I could try getting a current video card (I suspect my card is going, too) but that would mean I need to do a bios upgrade to use anything current. Upon first build, my MSI motherboard would not get out of a boot loop unless I pressed the "OC Genie" auto overclocking button, so I am very, very hesitant to touch anything. It's like a house of cards.

This is why I'm looking at the Mac again. Even though Win 10 has been OK (not great, just OK), I feel like the amount of time I have to invest in building and maintaining a PC is dwindling. I can't argue the insane performance I get out of a PC, but I feel like my current machine might as well be a hackintosh. I feel like any change to the system could keep it from booting.


I do a mix of online advertising, video editing, after effects, and some C4d.

When editing a ton of video, I feel like I really, really need dedicated scratch discs for performance. And I worry about how C4d might render with the enclosure of the imac. That's begging for throttling and the dreaded display burn in. The Ryzen cinebench numbers (and for sure the Skylake-X CB) are too amazing to be ignored.

Then again, I don't do 3d all the time. Sound/music work was my first love I can hear the siren call of Logic Pro as I type this. So I think I'll just keep over-analyzing things and wait on purchasing until I die of old age.

 

[CWallace]

Does anyone know which 8-core XEON will be inside the iMac Pro?

The E5v4 Broadwell's are still the most powerful Xeons on offering. As Apple will offer up to 18-cores, I am guessing we're talking the 268x and 269x series so that would be the E5-2667 v4.

And for those complaining about the iMac Pro's price, the retail for that fella is over $2000. Of course Apple will pay less, but still...

The other option would be the 261x/2622x series. The E5-2620 v4 is much cooler (85W vs. 135W TDP) and much cheaper ($450), but has much less L3 cache, a much slower clock rate and does not support as fast a RAM speed. The 261x/2622x series also maxes out at 12 cores.

 

[BlueTide]

Looks mostly good to me. Thank spaghetti monster that there was no FirePro crap in this one at least, even if the Xeon show continues. The base price is not horrible either, but I bet the upgrades blow.

Let's see though, I might get one after the initial reviews if nothing too alarming comes up.

 

[Haswell]

If it's easily user serviceable then I think it could replace a Mac Pro. I just don't know who would pay $5,000 for a system that you can't easily upgrade.
[doublepost=1496778428][/doublepost]

yeah, of course. but you need to completely disassemble the whole machine. remove the LCDisplay, remove the main logic board and so on. not doable for most users.

Doable for most pro users!

 

[pat500000]

As I was watching YouTube videos about this...I come to think that this is a buyer's trap.

 

[diggy33]

Not in the market for the iMac Pro, but I would sure love to get my hands on the space gray Magic Keyboard and Magic Mouse.

 

[Trahearne]

Looks mostly good to me. Thank spaghetti monster that there was no FirePro crap in this one at least, even if the Xeon show continues. The base price is not horrible either, but I bet the upgrades blow.

Let's see though, I might get one after the initial reviews if nothing too alarming comes up.

No FirePro crap because it runs Radeon Vega.

 

[Jack Burton]

No FirePro crap because it runs Radeon Vega.

iMac Pro has a 500w power supply. The AMD forums on reddit theorize that the Vega is under clocked in the iMac pro.

 

[Michael Scrip]

When editing a ton of video, I feel like I really, really need dedicated scratch discs for performance.

I've got Windows and Premiere Pro on an SSD. I also have many (spinning) hard drives inside my tower... so I have set up different drives for scratch, previews, exports, etc. But honestly... I don't think I do hard enough work to need them.

While I understand the idea of having different drives so you're not reading and writing on the same drive... how fast do scratch drives need to be?

I was watching a Youtube video of a PC build of a video editing machine. He installed a PCIe M.2 drive... a drive with 3,000MB/s read speeds... for scratch! So it got me thinking... what do scratch drives actually do?

I've heard recommendations for one drive for your OS.... another drive for projects and video files... and another drive for cache/scratch. I sorta understand why.

But which drive is getting hit more?

If your source material is 30GB of video files... wouldn't that drive get accessed heavier than the scratch drive?

I guess I don't fully understand the true reasons behind the scratch drive.

 

[flyinmac]

I'm running an aging Sandy Bridge 2600k overclocked to 4.2 Ghz with 16GB ram. That processor came out in Q1, 2011. Not bad for my first self built $1600 PC.

My PC randomly turns off. Sometimes under load, sometimes just browsing the web. I've already replaced the power supply - that solved stuff for a while. It's still turning off here and there. Enough so that I don't start anything heavy on it for fear of straight up killing the machine. I could try getting a current video card (I suspect my card is going, too) but that would mean I need to do a bios upgrade to use anything current. Upon first build, my MSI motherboard would not get out of a boot loop unless I pressed the "OC Genie" auto overclocking button, so I am very, very hesitant to touch anything. It's like a house of cards.

This is why I'm looking at the Mac again. Even though Win 10 has been OK (not great, just OK), I feel like the amount of time I have to invest in building and maintaining a PC is dwindling. I can't argue the insane performance I get out of a PC, but I feel like my current machine might as well be a hackintosh. I feel like any change to the system could keep it from booting.


I do a mix of online advertising, video editing, after effects, and some C4d.

When editing a ton of video, I feel like I really, really need dedicated scratch discs for performance. And I worry about how C4d might render with the enclosure of the imac. That's begging for throttling and the dreaded display burn in. The Ryzen cinebench numbers (and for sure the Skylake-X CB) are too amazing to be ignored.

Then again, I don't do 3d all the time. Sound/music work was my first love I can hear the siren call of Logic Pro as I type this. So I think I'll just keep over-analyzing things and wait on purchasing until I die of old age.

Overclocking a CPU would easily be the most likely cause for your system instability.

 

[mmomega]

As much as I would love to throw a credit card right at this thing.
That **** just isn't going to happen.

This is definitely a level of something I'm not comfortable buying not being in a job where I can not make it work to it's potential.
I'll send my current 5K to Colorware and have them give it the space grey pro treatment.

 

[William Reachers]

Is it really worth 4-5K when you can get a core i7 with great specs + a high end monitor for around $1500?
I would always go for the i7, with a titanium GeForce 16 GB or 32 of DDR4, dedicated sound board and a 512 Gb SSD.
That's all I need, and maybe 1 or even 2 27" monitors to sweeten up the deal.
Do you think you could make me change my mind?

 

[Jack Burton]

Overclocking a CPU would easily be the most likely cause for your system instability.

It was stable for almost 6 years, and started acting up in the past 9 months or so. I'm sure I've burned something out by now. ;-)

I won't be overclocking my next PC. Not worth the hassle, heat, noise, fiddling with bios, etc. But my current machine wouldn't boot unless overclocked! I wonder if it's ram related. Probably. Who knows. I don't care to find out anymore with a 6+ year old computer.

I have many (spinning) hard drives inside my tower... and I have set up different drives for scratch, previews, exports, etc. But honestly... I don't think I do hard enough work to need them.

While I understand the idea of having different drives so you're not reading and writing on the same drive... how fast do scratch drives need to be?

I was watching a Youtube video of a PC build of a video editing machine. He installed a PCIe M.2 drive... a drive with 3,000MB/s read speeds... for scratch! So it got me thinking... what do scratch drives actually do?

Let's say you've got one drive for the video files... and another drive for scratch. I understand that.

But which drive is getting hit more?

If your source material is a 30GB video file... wouldn't that drive get accessed heavier than the scratch drive?

I guess I don't fully understand the true reasons behind the scratch drive.

I don't have any real data to point to other than I noticed big differences in my PC speed (on an old machine!) when I installed a 256 GB SSD as my scratch for premiere.

Although I wonder, if I got a big honking internal SSD in the new iMac, is it so fast that it might beat the speed of anything else?

At the same time, having an internal raid apparently makes things wicked fast for storing those large 30GB video files. I have not done that. I have a system SSD, a scratch SSD, and old school spinner 2TB for media storage.


In after Effects, a fast disk cache can make a big difference, according to the tests from puget systems:

If you are trying to decide on what type of drive to use for your disk cache in After Effects, our testing has shown that it isn't as complicated as some make it out to be. Our testing can mostly be summarized with only two key points:

1. Use at least an SSD for your After Effects Disk Cache. Not only will you be able to finish writing to the disk cache 2-3 times faster than if you were to use a platter drive, but you will also be able to play both cached and uncached compositions significantly faster (anywhere from 15-30% on average)
2. Faster NVMe drives can give moderate performance gains in some situations. It certainly is not across the board, but faster NVMe drives can allow you to finish writing to the disk cache up to ~20% faster and may let you play uncached compositions a bit faster (~5%)

For most After Effects users, a SATA SSD is likely the best choice for you cache drive as the large performance gains make the investment more than worth it. Upgrading to a faster NVMe drive is a bit more of a difficult choice given that they are anywhere from 30-50% more expensive than a SATA SSD, but for those that want or need the best possible After Effects performance they are an easy way to get a bit more performance out of your workstation.

While it is perfectly fine to use a single drive for not only your After Effect disk cache but also any cache/scratch files for Premiere Pro , Photoshop or other programs, it is a good idea to have a dedicated drive for these files to keep them separate from your main project files. This doesn't tend to make a large performance difference in After Effects itself, but it can make a difference in other applications like Premiere Pro and is simply a good idea from an organizational standpoint.

I've noticed in some projects with a ton of files, having an additional scratch really helped. It also helped keep my system ssd (small by todays standards) from filing up with temp files and causing other issues.

 

[BlueTide]

Is it really worth 4-5K when you can get a core i7 with great specs + a high end monitor for around $1500?
I would always go for the i7, with a titanium GeForce 16 GB or 32 of DDR4, dedicated sound board and a 512 Gb SSD.
That's all I need, and maybe 1 or even 2 27" monitors to sweeten up the deal.
Do you think you could make me change my mind?

Worth it? That is a loaded question. I figure that:

• Performance wise? Hahaha... No. If that's what you're after, you get more for less. Depends a little on clock speeds and default SSD sizes etc, but... no.
• Component wise? Now this gets a little more challenging; likely Ok display, 10 GbE, some Vega card, etc build the price up for custom builds too. Sure, there is a hefty product margin there, no doubt.
• Need BTOs? Hahahahahaha... No, really, do we really need to say more?
• As something that is decently fast, decently equipped and designed as it is - that is up to each one of us to decide. For me, getting something very simple and minimalistic onto my work desk is superficial, but something I value. Might be worth the price given that current alternatives are not that great if I really want to have macOS.

It's not cheap, and I would wish the price would be less, but there is value on what it is, how it looks and functions. You do pay premium, but it does not seem 'horribly bad' for what's inside. Just somewhat 'bad'.

 

[Michael Scrip]

I don't have any real data to point to other than I noticed big differences in my PC speed (on an old machine!) when I installed a 256 GB SSD as my scratch for premiere.

Although I wonder, if I got a big honking internal SSD in the new iMac, is it so fast that it might beat the speed of anything else?

At the same time, having an internal raid apparently makes things wicked fast for storing those large 30GB video files. I have not done that. I have a system SSD, a scratch SSD, and old school spinner 2TB for media storage.

In after Effects, a fast disk cache can make a big difference, according to the tests from puget systems:

I've noticed in some projects with a ton of files, having an additional scratch really helped. It also helped keep my system ssd (small by todays standards) from filing up with temp files and causing other issues.

Haha... I just read some articles from Puget Systems

And also this video:

My setup is basically what they talk about in the video: OS drive... media/projects drive... cache/scratch drive. Only my OS drive is an SSD at the moment... the other two drives are spinners.

I only use Premiere Pro... not After Effects (yet)

So I did a test. I cleared all the cache/scratch stuff off drive #3 and opened a previous Premiere project so it would have to rebuilt all the cache/scratch from, er, scratch.

It's a project with 66GB of 1080p H.264 video files.

And after the cache/scratch/whatever was rebuilt... it was a grand total of...

23MB

Let's look at that again:

66,000MB .... media files
23MB .......... scratch files

So like I said earlier... I don't think I'm hitting my system very hard for the types of projects I do.

After further reading... the cache files are mostly peak files for audio.

Video files, on the other hand, are simply read from the disk they resides on. Apparently video files aren't moved/copied/recreated for the cache/scratch.

So if I wanted to boost my system... my next upgrade will be an SSD for my media/projects drive.

Maybe I'll also get a cheap SSD for the cache/scratch drive... but I don't think I will see too much benefit from that for my Premiere Pro projects.