New iMac Pro!

Thomas Smet said:
Here is something to think about. By the time you add 1TB SSD and 32GB RAM to the regular top iMac to match closer to the specs of the iMac Pro you are up to $3,700. That is only $1,300 less than the base iMac Pro and for that $1,300 you get 8 cores vs 4 cores, a better GPU that seems like it will be faster than the dual D700s on the Mac Pro and you get 4 TB3/USBc ports instead of 2. Thats a lot of extra firepower for $1,300. Even if you only keep it for the three year warranty thats an extra $430 gig each year to cover the cost difference.

I also priced some components on Newegg to build a 8 core PC with 27" 5k monitor as closely matched to the iMac Pro as I could and I'm already up to $5,100 without a case, power supply, fans, cables, HD webcam, speakers and software like the OS.
Click to expand...

I agree. I spent 4K a little over a year ago for an iMac with adequate ram and an SSD. The iMac Pro doesn't look like a bad deal. Of course you can't pull out and upgrade individual components, but I prefer to replace everything at upgrade time anyway.
 
Thomas Smet said:
Here is something to think about. By the time you add 1TB SSD and 32GB RAM to the regular top iMac to match closer to the specs of the iMac Pro you are up to $3,700. That is only $1,300 less than the base iMac Pro and for that $1,300 you get 8 cores vs 4 cores, a better GPU that seems like it will be faster than the dual D700s on the Mac Pro and you get 4 TB3/USBc ports instead of 2. Thats a lot of extra firepower for $1,300. Even if you only keep it for the three year warranty thats an extra $430 gig each year to cover the cost difference.

I also priced some components on Newegg to build a 8 core PC with 27" 5k monitor as closely matched to the iMac Pro as I could and I'm already up to $5,100 without a case, power supply, fans, cables, HD webcam, speakers and software like the OS.
Click to expand...

Nice analysis................. It's a lot of geets up front but it looks like a heck of video processing machine.

Are you inferring that the iMac Pro has a default 3 year warranty or just comparing imac-Pro with add on warranties.
 
John Godden said:
Nice analysis................. It's a lot of geets up front but it looks like a heck of video processing machine.

Are you inferring that the iMac Pro has a default 3 year warranty or just comparing imac-Pro with add on warranties.
Click to expand...

I think he is making the assumption that any smart Mac buyer buys Apple Care, it's relatively cheap for three years of coverage ($169.00 for an iMac today) and if your Mac breaks out of warranty, the repair costs can be very hefty.
 
John Godden said:
Nice analysis................. It's a lot of geets up front but it looks like a heck of video processing machine.

Are you inferring that the iMac Pro has a default 3 year warranty or just comparing imac-Pro with add on warranties.
Click to expand...

Yeah I was referring to the Apple Care which I consider a must considering how good the service is. It is possible you may never need it and knock on wood I hope you don't. It s a little added cost but well worth it if you do need it.
 
IanTheM said:
Well, we know it's on the way at least. If you're in a pinch, the iMac Pro will serve a lots of people's needs and large companies have something to upgrade to, but the workstation is coming too.
Click to expand...
Like I said before , an upgraded nMac Pro with the iMac Pro hardware would be great since many don't like all their data being online all the time in a tower case like the cheese grader (2008-2012) Mac Pro .
 
Looks like a great machine. Finally, Apple has spec'd the iMac with options that are far beyond my needs and the needs of many I know...who are all doing full or part-time video editing, motion graphics, design, etc. In the past, maxing out the iMac was the only way to make the purchase feel worth it, but now we can either upgrade the normal iMac to the top (which is slightly cheaper now) OR go for the iMac Pro, gain the better graphics (again without having to go for the 16GB), the 8c or 10c, and the expanded I/O. We can go mid-range and feel better about it. The low-mid-top range of Apple professional hardware has expanded. This is good for everyone IMO.

It's frustrating that for as long as the iMac has been around (it seems), people are complaining that the machine is what it was designed to be...an all-in-one. It's meant to be that. If you want something else, buy something else. If you want a normal tower right now, build a PC. Also, with this sort of spec option surge on the iMac Pro, I think we can all breath a sigh of relief that the new Mac Pro will definitely have the kind of firepower people have wanted for a long time. Yes, it'll likely include ATI graphics...but I see a possibility for Nvidia...hard to say. It's also supposed to be a more upgradable enclosure, so who's to say Nvidia cards won't be compatible/installable again as they were in the past? I've seen plenty of people say with these specs available, the iMac Pro is all they'll need. I'm expecting the professional market to fragment a bit when it comes to Mac users. People who have some serious $ to spend, want the expandability back, and want the best hardware available with OSX will be able to go big, but a lot of us...I'de venture to say a large majority of users here on DVXuser who do video professionally (barring any I/O issues), could probably grab an iMac Pro and find few issues in their day to day productivity. Maybe that's wrong but from what I see on Twitter, Dvxuser, MacRumors, Reduser, and FB in the last 24hrs...a lot of creative types are going to jump deep into the iMac pool and not look back.

Thank you Apple for a step in the right direction. NOW, lets talk about 32GB in the MBP. :)
 
Last edited:
Regarding the Macbook Pro and 32Gigs of RAM, its coming but they are waiting on Intel developing a new chipset. From what I have gleaned from the internet thingy a 32Gig Macbook Pro could have been launched now using current chipsets but the battery life would have been terrible.
 
KyleProhaska said:
Looks like a great machine. Finally, Apple has spec'd the iMac with options that are far beyond my needs and the needs of many I know...who are all doing full or part-time video editing, motion graphics, design, etc. In the past, maxing out the iMac was the only way to make the purchase feel worth it, but now we can either upgrade the normal iMac to the top (which is slightly cheaper now) OR go for the iMac Pro, gain the better graphics (again without having to go for the 16GB), the 8c or 10c, and the expanded I/O. We can go mid-range and feel better about it. The low-mid-top range of Apple professional hardware has expanded. This is good for everyone IMO.

It's frustrating that for as long as the iMac has been around (it seems), people are complaining that the machine is what it was designed to be...an all-in-one. It's meant to be that. If you want something else, buy something else. If you want a normal tower right now, build a PC. Also, with this sort of spec option surge on the iMac Pro, I think we can all breath a sigh of relief that the new Mac Pro will definitely have the kind of firepower people have wanted for a long time. Yes, it'll likely include ATI graphics...but I see a possibility for Nvidia...hard to say. It's also supposed to be a more upgradable enclosure, so who's to say Nvidia cards won't be compatible/installable again as they were in the past? I've seen plenty of people say with these specs available, the iMac Pro is all they'll need. I'm expecting the professional market to fragment a bit when it comes to Mac users. People who have some serious $ to spend, want the expandability back, and want the best hardware available with OSX will be able to go big, but a lot of us...I'de venture to say a large majority of users here on DVXuser who do video professionally (barring any I/O issues), could probably grab an iMac Pro and find few issues in their day to day productivity. Maybe that's wrong but from what I see on Twitter, Dvxuser, MacRumors, Reduser, and FB in the last 24hrs...a lot of creative types are going to jump deep into the iMac pool and not look back.
Click to expand...

I agree with your take Kyle. People forget that "editing" means working in FCP X, Premiere Pro or AVID, which takes relatively little computing power. It's really only when you stack in tons of layers, effects and compositing that it begins to tax the computer. But arguably, that is more finishing than actual editing. Obviously AE users, Resolve users who are pushing 4K and heavier need the extra horsepower, but a loaded iMac or a bottom of the line iMac Pro is more than enough machine for probably 90% of us. One thing to consider though is that it seems as if we are turning a corner with the introduction of formats like Canon's Cinema RAW Light for the C200. I predict that within a year or two, working with RAW Lite formats within editing apps will become much more common than it is today and based upon it's throughput and the output of the Canon Development Application, Prores 4:4:4, we may all need to reconsider what "editing" is becoming. There are no benchmarks published yet from Canon but I would suspect that your editing computer and RAID will need to be pretty serious to efficiently handle the output of this camera. Undoubtedly, Canon intends to spread the Cinema RAW Light codec to the C300 MKIII and possibly other cameras. If Canon gains acceptance of this workflow and Cfast card prices go down quickly, I think you will see Sony and Panasonic jump onto this bandwagon too with their own versions of Cinema RAW Light. It happened over a decade ago with still photography, shooting RAW is by far the norm for pros, so why not make it the norm for video/digital cinema, at least for medium to high end production.

I will probably be evaluating the cost difference between a loaded "regular" iMac and a bottom of the line iMac Pro and will choose accordingly. I have been editing since 2012 with my top of the line iMac so it is five years old. I think getting five successful years out of any editing computer is reasonable and as the former owner of dozens of G3, G4 and G5 towers over the years, I have zero desire to become a computer nerd/engineer again and change out much beyond RAM in my editing computer. I get if you have invested $15k or $20k into a top of the line workstation, whether PC or Mac, wanting to tinker and play with options but I don't think doing that appeals to most of us who just need tools to get our projects completed with a minimum of computer drama. I think the genesis of the iMac Pro is a smart move for Apple. They are just confirming the way the market has gone, which is away from towers, other than for the most hardcore users who require the most computing power. I suspect that is a very small number.
 
puredrifting said:
....People forget that "editing" means working in FCP X, Premiere Pro or AVID, which takes relatively little computing power. It's really only when you stack in tons of layers, effects and compositing that it begins to tax the computer....
Click to expand...

This depends on your workflow. Years ago we used to transcode everything to a mezzanine codec. With the advent of widespread H264 and Adobe's Mercury Playback Engine, software/hardware was fast enough to edit without transcoding. That was pretty nice, especially as shooting ratios skyrocketed. Like getting a pay raise, you quickly adjust and that becomes the new normal.

Since then H264 4k has become widespread, even if final distribution is at 1080p. Few computers can smoothly edit multicam H264 4k without transcoding -- no matter what the software. Even FCPX is not fast enough. That makes sense -- it's 4x the data so would require 4x the CPU power to deliver the same performance, but most computers haven't become 4x faster within the past four years. Besides basic editing, even one layer of compute-intensive effects such as Neat Video, Digital Anarchy Flicker Free or stabilization is frustratingly slow on 4k. It's like getting your pay raise revoked.

The obvious answer is just transcode everything to proxy, which both FCPX and Premiere have. The problem is with today's shooting ratios that can be difficult. I'm working on a 4k doc project which takes one *week* to transcode to proxy, and that's using FCPX on the fastest available 2015 iMac 27 with a Thunderbolt 2 RAID-0 SSD array. For downstream remote editors I have to transcode anyway, but it would be pretty nice to do the initial edit on camera-native 4k without transcoding. It would also be nice to create proxies in one day vs a week.
 
It's a good sign for what the MacPro will be. It'll have to be significantly more powerful than this to even make sense. So that's great news.
 
andykwilkinson said:
Agreed...but it will also be significantly more expensive than this new iMac Pro. So it better be really good ��
Click to expand...

More expensive sure but don't forget a good chunk of this iMac Pro's price is the display. The current Mac Pro costs $4000 for the 8 core model.
 
Thomas Smet said:
Here is something to think about. By the time you add 1TB SSD and 32GB RAM to the regular top iMac to match closer to the specs of the iMac Pro you are up to $3,700. That is only $1,300 less than the base iMac Pro and for that $1,300 you get 8 cores vs 4 cores, a better GPU that seems like it will be faster than the dual D700s on the Mac Pro and you get 4 TB3/USBc ports instead of 2. Thats a lot of extra firepower for $1,300. Even if you only keep it for the three year warranty thats an extra $430 gig each year to cover the cost difference.

I also priced some components on Newegg to build a 8 core PC with 27" 5k monitor as closely matched to the iMac Pro as I could and I'm already up to $5,100 without a case, power supply, fans, cables, HD webcam, speakers and software like the OS.
Click to expand...

Except Apple notoriously overcharges for RAM. A 32GB kit (2x16GB so you could leave your stock 8GB in there for 40GB and upgrade to 64GB without pulling more than the stock amount) is $318 from OWC. Apple charges you $600 to upgrade from 8GB (2x4GB) to 32GB (4x8GB). So, really, the difference is $1600... and that's not a small sum of money. That's nearly a GH5, or a nice lens, for example. It's also over half again more money than the 27" 4.2GHz/40GB/1TB non-Pro configuration.

If the iMac Pro is going to give you something you need, it's obviously worth it... but for most editing the top-spec iMac is going to be fine and keep a lot of money in your pocket.

Apple also really overcharges for their SSDs but unfortunately you don't have much choice there. If you need a 1TB boot/apps drive, it is what it is... but most people would be fine with a 512GB SSD at $400 less which makes the difference even larger ($2000).
 
http://barefeats.com/imac580.html

Great results from Rob at barefeats. New ones coming with the maxed out i7 soon. Also go look at the Geekbench Mac scores. Newest maxed out iMac currently sits at #3...just below the two top end trashcan Mac Pros. The new "normal" iMacs look fantastic honestly. Given the GPU performance of the new iMac with 580 (5.5 teraflops) and the teraflops of both the Vegas 8GB (8 w/22 half point) and Vegas 16GB (11 w/25 half point) chips going into the iMac Pro...I think it's safe to say we should see A MASSIVE bump in performance over the new "normal" iMac and far surpass what the trashcan Macs were capable of. $5,000 for that 5K display, 8-core Xeon, Vegas 56 (8GB), 32GB RAM, 1TB SSD and 4 TB3 ports? That's a great price IMO.

If all of that doesn't get people jazzed up about the new (and modular) Mac Pros coming in 2018 then I don't know what to tell you lol. I'm happy...but I realize not everyone will be. :)
 
Last edited:
GaryinCalifornia said:
How much better is the 8gb graphics card vs the 4gb graphics card... wonder if its that much better for 4k footage...
Click to expand...

I am far from a computer nerd but everything in modern editing software is GPU reliant. More VRAM is always better and faster GPU processing is always better for everything.
 
Yeah, I'm going with the 8gb... what cracks me up I can get it from B&H for a grand less because no taxes and half price on the memory. But no one has the extra memory because Apple is hoarding it because there's a shortage on memory. So B&H is saying 7 to 14 days to get it... probably closer to 14 because they'll be waiting for the extra memory.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top