For pros at the level of large corporations, this is great. For all other pros (say, 98%) this is waaaaay too expensive. As usual, Apple is focusing on the super cool and (as all the decision makers are multimillionaires) they figure $5,000 is reasonable. I'm a pro and I do just about everything - web, video / high-end effects, motion graphics, all sorts pf art., and even publishing. But I do not need a 4K display. Frankly, I don't set my 27's to their maximum resolution because I don't have to, and even using Accesibility to make the system text and cursor a reasonable size, there are still a lot of apps I use with UIs that were designed for a resolution that was mainstream five years ago. If Apple's going to provide a 4K monitor, it should certainly be larger than the one with the iMac Pro. They need to offer a version with a lower resolution and cut a thousand bucks from the price. They clearly do not understand that a freelancer can't compete when buying this $5K machine forces them to raise their prices. Can I adjust my budget to come up with another $350 a month for 18 months? Not without sacrificing other things. Clients can be very picky. If they see two comparable online portfolios and one designer charges an extra $10 an hour, they's go will the cheaper price – with the guy who is not having to pay for a $5K computer. Typical Apple thinking. If someone is a pro, they need the best machine so they can make the most bucks. Apple takes a $2,500 cut and adds to its trillion dolllar slush fund.
It looks like the design and decisions have been made. I wonder why it won't be available until December.
For one thing, Intel hasn't yet released the CPUs. These are Skylake-SP, which will be rolled out this month or next. There's a lot we still don't know about Skylake-SP. The idea that Apple can fit an LGA 3647 "Purley" platform socket inside of an iMac Pro is pretty amazing. If so, it's going to be a feat of engineering worthy of Apple in every way.
I suppose there is some question as to whether they will use Skylake-SP versus the older Broadwell-EP, which also supports ECC memory. But at these prices, I'm thinking this is Skylake-SP.
For another, I don't think the Vega GPUs are released either, though I could be wrong about that.
That does suck. Maybe Apple will then charge market prices for the RAM, rather than what they usually do. But I wouldn't hold my breath.
Does anyone know if the new 27" iMac (not Pro) still has the RAM access panel? I assume so, but want to confirm before I buy. Guess I'll be making a trip to the Apple Store to see... Also, anybody want to buy a perfectly good Late 2015 5K iMac? [Just kidding -- my sister already has dibs on it.]
Current 27" has smaller memory (smaller than the width of the stand):
It wouldn't be possible to hide the door the same on the Pro nor position the modules in the middle due to the cooling setup. It's still using slots though so it just means if an upgrade is needed, the display has to be unsealed, opened and put back after the upgrade. The base iMac Pro will have 32GB with options for 64GB and 128GB. People who know they will need more than 32GB will get the higher options from the outset and won't run out.
What will affect sales most here just like with the Mac Pro is the price. $5k entry level puts it far out of reach of a mass audience. The 18-core model will likely be another $3.5k on top:
I'd expect a further $500 at least for the highest-end GPU so potentially $9k for the highest performance options. Then $1200 for 64GB, maybe $2400 for 128GB. $2400 for 4TB SSD.
So 18-core/Vega 64/128GB/4TB = ~$14k iMac.
These parts would have fit inside the existing Mac Pro, same overall power, likely around the same price. I expect a modular Mac Pro will have to cost more than the iMac Pro too.
The entry iMac Pro performance will probably suffice for a lot of people though. Say $5.5k for 11TFLOP GPU and 8-core CPU with 32GB RAM and a 5K display. This will perform much like the current high-end 12-core/D700 Mac Pro. Buy a new one every 3 years or so and get about 50% resale = $900/year cost. It's easier to resell an iMac than a headless machine.
Current 27" has smaller memory (smaller than the width of the stand):
It wouldn't be possible to hide the door the same on the Pro nor position the modules in the middle due to the cooling setup. It's still using slots though so it just means if an upgrade is needed, the display has to be unsealed, opened and put back after the upgrade. The base iMac Pro will have 32GB with options for 64GB and 128GB. People who know they will need more than 32GB will get the higher options from the outset and won't run out.
What will affect sales most here just like with the Mac Pro is the price. $5k entry level puts it far out of reach of a mass audience. The 18-core model will likely be another $3.5k on top:
I'd expect a further $500 at least for the highest-end GPU so potentially $9k for the highest performance options. Then $1200 for 64GB, maybe $2400 for 128GB. $2400 for 4TB SSD.
So 18-core/Vega 64/128GB/4TB = ~$14k iMac.
These parts would have fit inside the existing Mac Pro, same overall power, likely around the same price. I expect a modular Mac Pro will have to cost more than the iMac Pro too.
The entry iMac Pro performance will probably suffice for a lot of people though. Say $5.5k for 11TFLOP GPU and 8-core CPU with 32GB RAM and a 5K display. This will perform much like the current high-end 12-core/D700 Mac Pro. Buy a new one every 3 years or so and get about 50% resale = $900/year cost. It's easier to resell an iMac than a headless machine.
This thing is going to be a monster fully specced out.
I guess Apple has made their decision on upgradable pro machines. Buy a maxed out machine and when it's cutting edge components get long in the tooth, buy a new one. One thing seems clear, no major redesign of the consumer iMac for a while. No way they'd give them an updated look in the fall while selling a pro machine that is shaped like the old consumer ones. Also, what about Mac Mini?
Apple stated a few months back that they will release an iMac Pro geared towards professionals that are not about upgrading and they will release a new Mac Pro in the future that is geared towards professionals who want to be able to upgrade. A fully maxed out iMac Pro should be able to last as a workhorse for well over five plus years. In 2015, my editor edited a feature length documentary with a fully specd out iMac from 2009 and it ran like a champ.
I saw that too. That's a deal-killer for me. I'll pass on this one.
Thats why you buy as much RAM as you can afford just like on other models with non-upgradable RAM. I suspect that any serious Professional will pack this thing with RAM. This isn't a consumer Mac remember. Professionals are willing to spend money to get their work done.
That's what I did when I bought the HPZ2 with quad Xeon cores. It's slightly bigger than a Mac Mini, but the drive and RAM are all user-replaceable. I bought the Z2 with base RAM, and ended up getting a price break on the maxed RAM upgrade if I was willing to install it myself. Great machine, and powerful enough to run 2 4K monitors without problems.
I saw that too. That's a deal-killer for me. I'll pass on this one.
While I don't know if that's true or not, why would you pass on the machine instead of simply ordering the max ram? Seems like a more compelling option if you're actually a pro in need of a workstation to get work done with a very powerful tool.
I get that, but the quality of the latest iMac builds have discouraged me from investing in a closed system. I run Davinci Resolve on both Windows and MacOS, and on an HPZ2, it runs rings around my 64 gb RAM iMac with half the RAM. If I could clean the guts out of an iMac more easily (they get dusty inside, and it eventually fouls up the parts and connections) and at least swap out the RAM, I'd consider it.
I saw that too. That's a deal-killer for me. I'll pass on this one.
While I don't know if that's true or not, why would you pass on the machine instead of simply ordering the max ram? Seems like a more compelling option if you're actually a pro in need of a workstation to get work done with a very powerful tool.
I get that, but the quality of the latest iMac builds have discouraged me from investing in a closed system. I run Davinci Resolve on both Windows and MacOS, and on an HPZ2, it runs rings around my 64 gb RAM iMac with half the RAM. If I could clean the guts out of an iMac more easily (they get dusty inside, and it eventually fouls up the parts and connections) and at least swap out the RAM, I'd consider it.
sounds like the upcoming redesigned Mac Pro will be the Mac for you.
Looks inspired, except storage operating at 3Gb/s? Really? Why SATA II speed? Is this a design compromise or a mistake or what. For a system with these specifications it should have a bus allowing for 6Gb/s at least.
I just realized that the STARTING price is $5K. I wonder what the maxed out version is going to cost. $10K?
Exactly what I came here to say. If that's the going price I'm going to miss the lovely tower sitting on my desk. I just love the design statement makes. But I am an ID guy. So I'm a little jaded.
I guess Apple has made their decision on upgradable pro machines. Buy a maxed out machine and when it's cutting edge components get long in the tooth, buy a new one. One thing seems clear, no major redesign of the consumer iMac for a while. No way they'd give them an updated look in the fall while selling a pro machine that is shaped like the old consumer ones. Also, what about Mac Mini?
Nice thing about iMac is when it comes time to selling the one that is long in the tooth, they actually hold their value pretty well. Unlike Windows PCs...
Yep, you have to put PCs in the E-Bay door stop section. lol
So I hate to burst everyone's bubble, but unless you're doing 3D rendering, the regular iMac is going to be much faster at most tasks. Very few apps, outside of 3D apps, use any real sort of multicore support. This means that clock speed is going to affect you much more than numbers of cores. I checked the 18-core Xeon's on Intel's site and they click in at 2.7Ghz with turbo boost at 3.3Ghz. The Kanu Lake iMacs are going to come in at between 4.2Ghz and 4.5Ghz. That's a considerable clock difference. How do I know that there is such a drastic difference? Our studio teamed up with BareFeats to benchmark 2014/2015/2016 iMacs against all variations of the Mac Pro. We had contacted BareFeats after we had noticed that our iMacs were considerably faster than our Mac Pros rendering under After Effects. And the difference was dramatic. Between 1.3-1.4x faster than the new Mac Pro (12-core). Our Mac Pros had 48-64GB of RAM. While our iMacs had 32GB. We tested all machines with projects both locally as well as on our main server over 1Gb Ethernet connections.
Render on the new Mac Pro 12-core took 7 hours. On our slowest iMac it completed the same render in just over four.
Anyway, if you're a C4D, Maya, etc user... the iMac Pro will likely be a big boon. But if you're an After Effects, Davinci, Premiere, Illustrator, and Photoshop user.... the regular iMac will greatly outperform the iMac Pro.
(Edited for typo on magnitude of performance increase and added length of times for renders of identical project)
So I hate to burst everyone's bubble, but unless you're doing 3D rendering, the regular iMac is going to be much faster at most tasks. Very few apps, outside of 3D apps, use any real sort of multicore support. This means that clock speed is going to affect you much more than numbers of cores. I checked the 18-core Xeon's on Intel's site and they click in at 2.7Ghz with turbo boost at 3.3Ghz. The Kanu Lake iMacs are going to come in at between 4.2Ghz and 4.5Ghz. That's a considerable clock difference. How do I know that there is such a drastic difference? Our studio teamed up with BareFeats to benchmark 2014/2015/2016 iMacs against all variations of the Mac Pro. We had contacted BareFeats after we had noticed that our iMacs were considerably faster than our Mac Pros rendering under After Effects. And the difference was dramatic. Between 3-4x faster than the new Mac Pro (12-core). Our Mac Pros had 48-64GB of RAM. While our iMacs had 32GB. We tested all machines with projects both locally as well as on our main server over 1Gb Ethernet connections.
Anyway, if you're a C4D, Maya, etc user... the iMac Pro will likely be a big boon. But if you're an After Effects, Davinci, Premiere, Illustrator, and Photoshop user.... the regular iMac will greatly outperform the iMac Pro.
My 2¢
And gamers.
But I suspect, at least in my case, it's a case of wanting rather needing. Who can resist such a beautiful dark space iMac...
I saw that too. That's a deal-killer for me. I'll pass on this one.
I am not sure why you need more than 128GB EEC RAM. Unless you are running a thousand apps at the same time.
Media heavy apps such as After Effects can easily eat up 128GB. Also very complex 3D scenes with Ultra-high res texturing can chew up RAM very quickly.
So I hate to burst everyone's bubble, but unless you're doing 3D rendering, the regular iMac is going to be much faster at most tasks. Very few apps, outside of 3D apps, use any real sort of multicore support. This means that clock speed is going to affect you much more than numbers of cores. I checked the 18-core Xeon's on Intel's site and they click in at 2.7Ghz with turbo boost at 3.3Ghz. The Kanu Lake iMacs are going to come in at between 4.2Ghz and 4.5Ghz. That's a considerable clock difference. How do I know that there is such a drastic difference? Our studio teamed up with BareFeats to benchmark 2014/2015/2016 iMacs against all variations of the Mac Pro. We had contacted BareFeats after we had noticed that our iMacs were considerably faster than our Mac Pros rendering under After Effects. And the difference was dramatic. Between 1.3-1.4x faster than the new Mac Pro (12-core). Our Mac Pros had 48-64GB of RAM. While our iMacs had 32GB. We tested all machines with projects both locally as well as on our main server over 1Gb Ethernet connections.
Render on the new Mac Pro 12-core took 7 hours. On our slowest iMac it completed the same render in just over four. [...]
That assumes they are using the Broadwell-EP Xeons. As far as I know, it's possible they plan to use the forthcoming Skylake-SP Xeons, which have significant advantages over the previous generation. Your point might well still stand, but maybe not quite as dramatically?
We should know the details of Skylake-SP by the end of this month.
Comments
As usual, Apple is focusing on the super cool and (as all the decision makers are multimillionaires) they figure $5,000 is reasonable.
I'm a pro and I do just about everything - web, video / high-end effects, motion graphics, all sorts pf art., and even publishing. But I do not need a 4K display. Frankly, I don't set my 27's to their maximum resolution because I don't have to, and even using Accesibility to make the system text and cursor a reasonable size, there are still a lot of apps I use with UIs that were designed for a resolution that was mainstream five years ago. If Apple's going to provide a 4K monitor, it should certainly be larger than the one with the iMac Pro.
They need to offer a version with a lower resolution and cut a thousand bucks from the price. They clearly do not understand that a freelancer can't compete when buying this $5K machine forces them to raise their prices. Can I adjust my budget to come up with another $350 a month for 18 months? Not without sacrificing other things.
Clients can be very picky. If they see two comparable online portfolios and one designer charges an extra $10 an hour, they's go will the cheaper price – with the guy who is not having to pay for a $5K computer.
Typical Apple thinking. If someone is a pro, they need the best machine so they can make the most bucks. Apple takes a $2,500 cut and adds to its trillion dolllar slush fund.
I suppose there is some question as to whether they will use Skylake-SP versus the older Broadwell-EP, which also supports ECC memory. But at these prices, I'm thinking this is Skylake-SP.
For another, I don't think the Vega GPUs are released either, though I could be wrong about that.
https://9to5mac.com/2017/06/05/imac-pro-ram-and-space-gray-accessories/
This is was the perfect opportunity to intro the touch bar and Touch ID.
I like that that there are accessories to finally match my MBP though.
Does anyone know if the new 27" iMac (not Pro) still has the RAM access panel? I assume so, but want to confirm before I buy. Guess I'll be making a trip to the Apple Store to see... Also, anybody want to buy a perfectly good Late 2015 5K iMac? [Just kidding -- my sister already has dibs on it.]
Current 27" has smaller memory (smaller than the width of the stand):
It wouldn't be possible to hide the door the same on the Pro nor position the modules in the middle due to the cooling setup. It's still using slots though so it just means if an upgrade is needed, the display has to be unsealed, opened and put back after the upgrade. The base iMac Pro will have 32GB with options for 64GB and 128GB. People who know they will need more than 32GB will get the higher options from the outset and won't run out.
What will affect sales most here just like with the Mac Pro is the price. $5k entry level puts it far out of reach of a mass audience. The 18-core model will likely be another $3.5k on top:
http://ark.intel.com/products/91755/Intel-Xeon-Processor-E5-2697-v4-45M-Cache-2_30-GHz
I'd expect a further $500 at least for the highest-end GPU so potentially $9k for the highest performance options. Then $1200 for 64GB, maybe $2400 for 128GB. $2400 for 4TB SSD.
So 18-core/Vega 64/128GB/4TB = ~$14k iMac.
These parts would have fit inside the existing Mac Pro, same overall power, likely around the same price. I expect a modular Mac Pro will have to cost more than the iMac Pro too.
The entry iMac Pro performance will probably suffice for a lot of people though. Say $5.5k for 11TFLOP GPU and 8-core CPU with 32GB RAM and a 5K display. This will perform much like the current high-end 12-core/D700 Mac Pro. Buy a new one every 3 years or so and get about 50% resale = $900/year cost. It's easier to resell an iMac than a headless machine.
Render on the new Mac Pro 12-core took 7 hours. On our slowest iMac it completed the same render in just over four.
Anyway, if you're a C4D, Maya, etc user... the iMac Pro will likely be a big boon. But if you're an After Effects, Davinci, Premiere, Illustrator, and Photoshop user.... the regular iMac will greatly outperform the iMac Pro.
(Edited for typo on magnitude of performance increase and added length of times for renders of identical project)
My 2¢
But I suspect, at least in my case, it's a case of wanting rather needing. Who can resist such a beautiful dark space iMac...
We should know the details of Skylake-SP by the end of this month.