New iMac Pro!

Danilo Del Tufo

Danilo Del Tufo

Well-known member
<<Apple on Monday announced a slew of new updates for its iMac desktop and MacBook laptop computers, most notably a new iMac Pro featuring a 27-inch 5K screen and an optional 18-core processor. The new iMac Pro, which features a Space Gray coloring, starts at $4,999 and will be available in December. The device may help Apple rekindle its relationship with professional-level users dismayed by the relative lack of updates to its Mac Pro, which hasn't seen a notable upgrade since 2013.>>. Link: http://time.com/4805915/apple-imac-pro-wwdc-2017/
 
It looks super cool and impressive, but... it has the same issues as the trash can Mac Pro; limited upgradability and customisation... an iMac Pro would have made sense if it used regular processors and ram, but you could upgrade/add/switch graphics cards and maybe have more ram than the regular iMac, but still be fairly affordable. By using Xeon processors, ECC ram etc, it just becomes too expensive.
One of the main benefits (to me) of a upgradable machine is that you can by a cheaper version and then add more powerful graphics, more memory, new processor etc as you need them (or can afford them).
There's no way I'd pay $4999 for that.

But... the new regular iMacs look really good!!!

And... there's now macOS support for external graphics... which could be really great and makes a MacBook Pro a more viable option as full time editing machine.
 
dmitrizigany said:
There's no way I'd pay $4999 for that.
Click to expand...

It all depends on what you need. The Intel i9 CPU is $2K all by itself. Then you add on a 5K monitor. The AMD Vega GPUs are not even on the market yet, and are designed to outperform the current nVidia GPUs. So adding all these pieces together and things start to add up really fast.
 
I'm more of a modular PC type of guy, but I think this looks reasonably compelling and will be a great solution for some people. With the rate of computer upgrading today, all in one isn't so bad. I've hardly upgraded my modular PC since I built it in 2012, and most upgrades can be done externally with external GPU upgrades (announced with Apple Metal 2) and external storage.

I'm impressed with what they put out here.

It is also assuring to know they are working on an improved MacPro with better internal modular upgrade ability likely for sometime next year.
 
Josh Bass said:
GODDAMN. $5000 for an IMAC???? and i say that as an iMac owner.
Click to expand...
On good news... the top of the line regular iMac (if you max graphics and processor and don't touch anything else) is now €370 cheaper than earlier! (and has pretty big improvements: faster processor, graphics and TB3 etc).
 
I have a 28" 4K UHD, and 30" 1600p monitor hooked to my 6-core MacPro and I would go for the new 32" 8K Dell with Windows 10 workstation for a future proof 8K setup instead of the 27" iMac Pro .
 
TheDingo said:
It all depends on what you need. The Intel i9 CPU is $2K all by itself. Then you add on a 5K monitor. The AMD Vega GPUs are not even on the market yet, and are designed to outperform the current nVidia GPUs. So adding all these pieces together and things start to add up really fast.
Click to expand...
Not really complaining about the price for what you get... more that it again is a non upgradable computer (I assume). And wouldn't pay that much for a non-upgradable computer even if I could afford it. But I guess it's to appease the ones needing that amount of power (now) until the next Mac Pro is available...

And also, I'd like more "pro" features without the extra expense of things I don't really need such as Xeon processors and ECC memory. Just give me a box where I can easily add/change processor, graphic cards and ram in without costing an arm and a leg...
I only buy things that I can pay in full in cash. Which means, if I can buy something stripped down that I can upgrade as I get the money that would be great... unfortunately it's all or nothing with Apple these days... (still don't even remotely considering windows though, and hackingtosh seems too much mess)
 
Last edited:
Certainly makes me wonder what they are giving up. Imac form factor and design aesthetic is hardly appropriate for properly cooling a high-end cpu and especially GPU. I have a feeling they will either have to compromise clock speeds significantly or will just end up throttling like a lot of macbook pros, where you can pay for the faster processor but it just ends up running at lower than the cheaper processor speeds for any sustained high loads...

OMG you can get 4TB of storage in it!

That said, glad someone is finally tackling GigE. Seems crazy mainstream wired network speeds have stagnated at a measly 1Gbps for so long.
 
the imac pro has some serious firepower.

i think if you want to work on the apple side of ui, then you need to get over the idea of user upgradeability.

if the machines seems relevant for 3-4 years and it cuts all your work and you're making a living, then $5k+ is the price of the admission ticket.

funny enough, with the various new cameras currently being displayed the admission ticket to quality 4k/422 in a workable codec is approx $7-8k+.

that camera will, with luck, hopefully be relevant for 3-4 years.

why would we expect more longevity from our computer based edit systems than from our computer based camera systems?

can you still make wonderful films with less expensive gear?

of course!

be well.

rob
smalltalk.productions
 
Last edited:
dmitrizigany said:
It looks super cool and impressive, but... it has the same issues as the trash can Mac Pro; limited upgradability and customisation... an iMac Pro would have made sense if it used regular processors and ram, but you could upgrade/add/switch graphics cards and maybe have more ram than the regular iMac, but still be fairly affordable. By using Xeon processors, ECC ram etc, it just becomes too expensive.
One of the main benefits (to me) of a upgradable machine is that you can by a cheaper version and then add more powerful graphics, more memory, new processor etc as you need them (or can afford them).
There's no way I'd pay $4999 for that.

But... the new regular iMacs look really good!!!

And... there's now macOS support for external graphics... which could be really great and makes a MacBook Pro a more viable option as full time editing machine.
Click to expand...

Apple designed the current MP thinking it would be enough for their users. They were only partially right which is why they are designing all new MP computers because users like you want to upgrade. The type of user the nMP was designed for however would absolutely love this new iMac. Not every editor, animator and artist wants to fart around with replacing parts in a computer and in the design world users typically tend to think if they open a Mac computer they will get bombarded with radiation and turn into a mutant.

So the iMac Pro is really targeted to those users who just want to create stuff and don't want to mess with computer hardware. They buy an iMac Pro, plug in the power and go to town. The new Mac Pro that will be coming later is for those that like to tinker with their machines.

I was once one of those tinkerers and even built editing workstations for other production companies. For the past seven years now I have used iMac computers and occasionally not upgrading something may have been annoying but really I don't miss it all that much anymore. I care more about actually creating stuff. So for me the iMac Pro makes perfect sense. I can get more power than what the nMP had in the form factor I already enjoy. Its a win win for users like me. For users like you wait for the Mac Pros coming later. Those will be the upgrading beasts you want.
 
Well, I don't like to tinker. It's just that I can't afford buying such a machine in one go... if I had the money I'd love something like the iMac Pro and just replace it every 3-4 years... Unfortunately that's not the case... but the new regular iMac will cover my needs so aiming for that and very happy that it's now €350-something cheaper than the old model. Maybe one day I can afford one! :)
 
dmitrizigany said:
Well, I don't like to tinker. It's just that I can't afford buying such a machine in one go... if I had the money I'd love something like the iMac Pro and just replace it every 3-4 years... Unfortunately that's not the case... but the new regular iMac will cover my needs so aiming for that and very happy that it's now €350-something cheaper than the old model. Maybe one day I can afford one! :)
Click to expand...

Nothing wrong with the regular iMacs. I'm editing on a 2012 top iMac and it can handle a lot that I throw at it. Struggles a bit with native 4k h264 but I use a proxy workflow with FCPX and it is super smooth. I also edit a lot of ProRes which again works really well on my machine. A friend edits multi-cam native 4k on his 2013 iMac and it works much better. The regular iMacs are solid video editing machines and the new ones are even better with the top version having a 8GB GPU. An iMac Pro would be nice but each person really needs to ask themselves just how important is it to get work done. If you rarely find yourself waiting to render material then an iMac Pro very likely is a waste of money. Although the space gray color sure is sexy.
 
Bern Caughey said:
http://www.newsshooter.com/2017/06/06/the-imac-goes-pro/
Click to expand...


I have a top 2012 iMac and I'm not sure I agree with the author that there isn't much advantage from the 2012 to the 2017 iMac. My friend has a top 2013 and can handle native 4k multi-cam much better than I can. spec wise both machines should be equally capable but each new generation of CPU and GPU has hardware instructions to handle certain tasks better. It is rarely just about brute force and the newer generation CPU and GPU are more efficient at handling media tasks. It is partially why an iPad Pro can at times edit 4k H264 video better than a 2012 iMac can. Better optimization in the hardware to handle those tasks.

The regular top new iMac with a 8GB GPU would be a pretty significant upgrade from my 2012 2GB GPU. Especially since FCPX makes such great use of the GPU.
 
Thomas Smet said:
So the iMac Pro is really targeted to those users who just want to create stuff and don't want to mess with computer hardware. They buy an iMac Pro, plug in the power and go to town.
Click to expand...
Agree with this sentiment Thomas. I too used to enjoy tinkering and building in the PC world. But since buying my late 2012 3.4Ghz iMac, can't say I ever plan to go back. I will certainly take a look at the specs closely on both the new iMacs and the iMac pro's... but there's not much in my workflow now that has me frustrated or pining for a lot more performance...
 
markfpv said:
Agree with this sentiment Thomas. I too used to enjoy tinkering and building in the PC world. But since buying my late 2012 3.4Ghz iMac, can't say I ever plan to go back. I will certainly take a look at the specs closely on both the new iMacs and the iMac pro's... but there's not much in my workflow now that has me frustrated or pining for a lot more performance...
Click to expand...


It will be very interesting to see how the new 2017 top iMac compares to the base iMac Pro when they come out. Not just in benchmarks but in real world usage reports. The GPU in the iMac Pro is massive. For example the top dual D700 GPUs on the current MP have 3.5 teraflops each for a total of 7 teraflops. The Vega GPU on the iMac Pro will have 11 teraflops. That single Vega GPU has better performance than two D700 GPUs on the MP which were the top GPUs in that machine. That is huge people.

the iMac Pro is really the spiritual replacement of the trashcan MP. The trashcan is still sold but in almost every single way the iMac Pro out performs the trashcan 8 core. Considering the trashcan 8 core is $4,000, for an extra $1,000 you now get a 10bit 5k p3 display, 32GB RAM vs 16GB, a faster GPU, 1TB flash storage vs 256GB flash storage, 10gbit ethernet, and thunderbolt 3. The flash storage, RAM and 10Gbit ethernet eat up that $1,000 difference which means you basically get a 10bit 5k p3 color monitor for free. The trashcan does have 6 TB2 ports while the iMac Pro has 4 TB3 ports so you lose two ports but the new ports and faster and more versatile. Plus you can eliminate one needed port since one 5k display is already built in. So really you are only missing out on one TB port vs a trashcan with a connected monitor.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top