I know some of the older xeons are not as fast as the i7-7700, but I don't know much about the newer ones. The older ones also has several acceleration features, hence the slower performance.
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.
Who's in the market for iMac pro?
- Thread starter pat500000
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I'll get one for my small studio, and assess the next Mac Pro when it arrives. I wouldn't open either machine to tinker anyway, I'd spec it the way I need it from the beginning.
All of my storage and I/O is external via thunderbolt already. The idea of filling a tower with hard drives and third party I/O cards and half-supported GPUs is yesterday's news as far as I'm concerned. Too time consuming, too risky.
If something goes wrong in my setup, I can stick another machine in its place and keep working.
And what is all this talk of the screen failing and taking the machine with it? I'm familiar with many studios who run dozens of 5k iMacs, and there is no talk of an epidemic of screen failures.
I don't know anybody who works in a genuine professional capacity as a film/tv/content/graphics creator who wants to spend their time upgrading old machines.
We use them hard, wear them out, then buy a new one and sell the old. Repeat the cycle.
The overall cost - once you factor in tax write offs and eventual relatively good Apple resale - is actually not that bad.
But I can appreciate for the hobbyist who isn't running a business and making a profit off a machine like this it probably doesn't seem appealing.
All of my storage and I/O is external via thunderbolt already. The idea of filling a tower with hard drives and third party I/O cards and half-supported GPUs is yesterday's news as far as I'm concerned. Too time consuming, too risky.
If something goes wrong in my setup, I can stick another machine in its place and keep working.
And what is all this talk of the screen failing and taking the machine with it? I'm familiar with many studios who run dozens of 5k iMacs, and there is no talk of an epidemic of screen failures.
I don't know anybody who works in a genuine professional capacity as a film/tv/content/graphics creator who wants to spend their time upgrading old machines.
We use them hard, wear them out, then buy a new one and sell the old. Repeat the cycle.
The overall cost - once you factor in tax write offs and eventual relatively good Apple resale - is actually not that bad.
But I can appreciate for the hobbyist who isn't running a business and making a profit off a machine like this it probably doesn't seem appealing.
I can definitely see it's use for work, and the space it takes, the way it looks is great. I have to give it that, but the price vs performance is not so good in my eyes. I love the way it looks but I would still go for my own made system which would cost around half the price and be twice as fast, occupying just a little more space.
This imac pro spec is great but one of the problems pro users would have is upgradibility. This is one of those throw away product. If those motherboard or thermal issue cant be fixed, what good is it after three years with apple care? The cmp from 08-12, those cheese grater mac pro were able to upgrade and customize to their needs. i cant speak for anyone but me, however, i dont want to get stuck with one gpu or certain amount of rams or hd. Depending on what pro users do, those 18 cores might not be enough.
I agree. The iMac Pro doesn't need to be so souped up. Save all that horsepower for the Mac Pro in 2018.
Here's what Apple should have done (and what I thought the iMac Pro was going to be):
Kaby Lake E3-1200 v6 two options (E3-1245, E3-1275) 4 cores
High end mobile AMD GPU (not VEGA, save it for Mac Pro)
The rest of specs as per usual.
They should have made it just slightly more powerful than the regular 5K iMac but still with workstation grade CPU and GPU, all for starting around $3500. Plus, at least made it user upgradable for the RAM. The way the iMac Pro is now, I just don't get what they were thinking. Who is it aimed at?
Then for the Mac Pro coming in 2018, they can max out all the specs with 8 -18 cores, dual CPUs, high end workstation GPU, etc. It just makes more sense.
Otherwise I think people who want Apple workstations are just going to skip the iMac Pro and go straight for the Mac Pro. Why would anyone want to be locked down to an iMac Pro?
Here's what Apple should have done (and what I thought the iMac Pro was going to be):
Kaby Lake E3-1200 v6 two options (E3-1245, E3-1275) 4 cores
High end mobile AMD GPU (not VEGA, save it for Mac Pro)
The rest of specs as per usual.
They should have made it just slightly more powerful than the regular 5K iMac but still with workstation grade CPU and GPU, all for starting around $3500. Plus, at least made it user upgradable for the RAM. The way the iMac Pro is now, I just don't get what they were thinking. Who is it aimed at?
Then for the Mac Pro coming in 2018, they can max out all the specs with 8 -18 cores, dual CPUs, high end workstation GPU, etc. It just makes more sense.
Otherwise I think people who want Apple workstations are just going to skip the iMac Pro and go straight for the Mac Pro. Why would anyone want to be locked down to an iMac Pro?
(The Royal) We assumed it was something Apple decided to do at the same time they decided to do a new Mac Pro so we set our expectations appropriately. Having seen the real thing, I am now of the opinion that the iMac Pro is the way it is because it was intended to replace the Mac Pro so it needed to offer similar CPU and GPU performance.
I would argue that the current Mac Pro is the modern G4 Cube. Upgradeable to a point, but limited by it's (in)ability to deal with high thermal loads from more modern components.
That is also my guess. Apple admitted they only recently started developing the updated modular Mac Pro, which is consistent with the predicted late 2018 or early 2019 release. By contrast the iMac Pro will be out in December, which means that design was locked in some time ago.
Jumping the top iMac from a quad-core consumer chip to an 18-core Xeon is a staggering leap. According to Apple, the Vega GPU has 3x the performance of the top 2013 Mac Pro GPU (they didn't say whether single or dual). It would make sense if the iMac Pro was initially planned to replace the Mac Pro line.
Regardless of how far down the performance range the modular Mac Pro goes, the upper range will probably include a multi-socket design, else it wouldn't be sufficiently faster than the iMac Pro. It would make sense if the GPU was also proportionately faster. Everyone needing a really high end workstation will probably be happy, but it will likely be expensive.
Oh, the base iMac Pro will have 32 GB of RAM! The most taxing thing I do is video editing and some gaming. I think 32 GB of RAM is plenty?? I think DSLR photographers would want 64 GB, correct? Any need for me to go 64 GB of RAM?
Any idea what the base model would have for storage? Maybe 512 GB SSD or 1TB SSD?
Sounds like the regular iMac will be fine for you and way cheaper.
I heard base 1TB SSD on iMac Pro.
Yeah, I'd save enough to get a MacBook too. Just making sure, the display in the 2017 27" iMac is the same as in the iMac Pro?
Jeez... Apple can't win.
"We want real internals - not these crappy GPUs from one year ago!"
*Apple updates the iMac with a GPU that's not even out yet.*
"What were they thinking? This is a total misstep! Who is this even aimed at?"
Urm... you. You were the ones who said, "Don't forget about the Mac! Apple don't care" blah blah blah I was there with you: this is the answer for 2017 and I'm excited - thank you Apple for listening!
I'm buying the iMac Pro. I've had a MacBook Pro 17" that I was able to update to a 1TB SSD with 16GB RAM. I really struggle with this setup - I have to run my footage back in the edit in less than SD quality for my system to run smoothly. I render to proxy, which takes a day to do as well.
I'm going in for 64GB RAM with 16GB VRAM for video editing (3 4K streams + effects + 10 audio streams). If that costs me £6K, it costs me £6K. I'm a wedding videographer, and I can make that in around six weddings minus expenses, which I will most likely be shooting in 6-8 weeks for a computer that will last for five years.
2 months of investment is worth it for a system that *should* last five years. After that, I'll be updating anyways, as the likelihood of 8K video files will be a reality and requirements will change. This is a great iMac. The modular Mac Pro will be even better, but it'll be revealed potentially at WWDC 2018 - to be released in December 2018 at the earliest - I'm not able to wait that long.
This is an amazing turn for the Mac - we were looking at a grim future, but the future is now looking up!
"We want real internals - not these crappy GPUs from one year ago!"
*Apple updates the iMac with a GPU that's not even out yet.*
"What were they thinking? This is a total misstep! Who is this even aimed at?"
Urm... you. You were the ones who said, "Don't forget about the Mac! Apple don't care" blah blah blah I was there with you: this is the answer for 2017 and I'm excited - thank you Apple for listening!
I'm buying the iMac Pro. I've had a MacBook Pro 17" that I was able to update to a 1TB SSD with 16GB RAM. I really struggle with this setup - I have to run my footage back in the edit in less than SD quality for my system to run smoothly. I render to proxy, which takes a day to do as well.
I'm going in for 64GB RAM with 16GB VRAM for video editing (3 4K streams + effects + 10 audio streams). If that costs me £6K, it costs me £6K. I'm a wedding videographer, and I can make that in around six weddings minus expenses, which I will most likely be shooting in 6-8 weeks for a computer that will last for five years.
2 months of investment is worth it for a system that *should* last five years. After that, I'll be updating anyways, as the likelihood of 8K video files will be a reality and requirements will change. This is a great iMac. The modular Mac Pro will be even better, but it'll be revealed potentially at WWDC 2018 - to be released in December 2018 at the earliest - I'm not able to wait that long.
This is an amazing turn for the Mac - we were looking at a grim future, but the future is now looking up!
I edit HD video, probably will with 4K in the future, so with 4K you recommend 64GB RAM? And you'll upgrade to the 16 HBM2 Vega GPU? If I stick with HD then the iMac Pro is overkill?
just find it hilarious how many people are up for a system which won't ship till end of year because it likely only exist in name only. I would not doubt any machine they show off is spoofing its components. Let a good website benchmark it now and then I will believe its something real. Its more web page than hardware.
So while the idea is nice I am really curious why they would use a chassis that some think is being replaced for the iMac line.
So while the idea is nice I am really curious why they would use a chassis that some think is being replaced for the iMac line.
Apple has explicitly stated they are working on a new Mac Pro which they say will be modular and upgradable. So, not sure why you think the iMac Pro is going to replace the Mac Pro.
I said I believed the iMac Pro was originally designed to replace Mac Pro in the Mac lineup, but then last April decided to actually make a new Mac Pro so the iMac Pro was re-positioned within said lineup to be a really powerful iMac for professions that need high CPU and GPU performance and prefer an AIO package (and yes, they exist).
Last edited:
The inability to upgrade your RAM is kind of a deal breaker. It will also be interesting to see how the cooling system works with the 18-core processor let alone the 8-core and 10-core.
My 2010 MacPro still serves me well now, thanks to its PCIe upgradability. What had I upgraded?
Of course, this is just me. Those who need more than these will have to wait for the new modular MacPro. But for me, to replace my 2010 MacPro, I think the iMac is quite adequate. I don't mind it can't be (or very hard to be) upgraded.
- 120 GB of RAM.
- GTX 970, to get somewhat better performance on Apps that can take advantages of GPU, and to drive a 5K monitor. (I do not rely on GPU for computing though.)
- A USB3 card, to get USB3. (The 2010 MP came with only USB2).
- A PCIe SSD.
- A 10GbE network card, so I can connect to my disk array with a speed of about 10Gb/s, roughly the TB2 speed.
Of course, this is just me. Those who need more than these will have to wait for the new modular MacPro. But for me, to replace my 2010 MacPro, I think the iMac is quite adequate. I don't mind it can't be (or very hard to be) upgraded.