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. [...]
That assumes they are using the Broadwell-EP Xeons. It's also possible they plan to use the forthcoming Skylake-SP Xeons, which has a lot of 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, I believe.
When you compare the price per dollar I'd be shocked if the iMac Pro comes even close. Clock speeds are everything. And unless the new Xeons have bumped to the 4+Ghz speeds I highly doubt they will render faster. But we shall see.
I saw that too. That's a deal-killer for me. I'll pass on this one.
You weren't going to buy it anyways...I like how you signed up just to say you'll pass. Troll much? Every time Apple has a Keynote for something the trollers come out of the woodwork on Apple forums.
I would like to get one but man it doesn't fit my workflow, I have a hex-mount with 6-1080p 21". But the other reason is I can't afford it, I have to get a Mac Pro and a MacBook Pro, coming up. I am gonna get the keyboard and accessories some how (hopefully).
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.
If you compete on price, then everything you say makes sense.
perhaps fixating in how your pricing holds you back is counterproductive. You don't want the clients who are just waiting for someone $5/hr healer that you to jump ship.
I'd suggest that you work to differentiate your offerings to create value for your customers.
This is what Apple excels at.
I've followed their lead. I know I'm not the cheapest designer my clients deal with. But I try my hardest to be the one who provides the best service, highest quality and I have a good sense of humor.
And, honestly, the reason this iMac pro costs $5k is NOT the display. It's the Xeon processors and the ECC RAM.
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.
And, honestly, the reason this iMac pro costs $5k is NOT the display. It's the Xeon processors and the ECC RAM.
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?
Well, a quick price check on an 18-core Xeon CPU has it on the low end for about $2,500. Crucial prices two 64GB ECC RAM cards for roughly $1,400.00.
So basically, just those two components alone is almost 80% the price of the starting price of the base iMac Pro. So yeah, a fully spec'd iMac Pro will fetch a princely sum for sure.
I'm certain this machine is going to be a hit for the that want all all-in-one version of a Mac Pro. I'm certain, there are many "enthusiasts" that will get one simply because "want" outweighs "need", including me.
Damn... I better start saving. Yikes. At least it will be a tax write-off for me.
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.
They may have fit inside, but that doesn't mean they could be adequately cooled.
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.
I doubt it. Some folk should just buy PCs, or learn to dust their work area once in a while.
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.
I think for the likes of you, they will be releasing an updated Mac Pro next year. I'm sure you'll be able to tailor it to your needs.
I'm not sure if you can afford that either though.
Did anyone really expect to pick up one of these things for the price of a low end Dell? I don't think these machines to sell in huge numbers, and to be honest, most of the people here who think they need one probably don't. if they did then they wouldn't be complaining about the price without having tried it out first.
I saw that too. That's a deal-killer for me. I'll pass on this one.
You weren't going to buy it anyways...I like how you signed up just to say you'll pass. Troll much? Every time Apple has a Keynote for something the trollers come out of the woodwork on Apple forums.
I would like to get one but man it doesn't fit my workflow, I have a hex-mount with 6-1080p 21". But the other reason is I can't afford it, I have to get a Mac Pro and a MacBook Pro, coming up. I am gonna get the keyboard and accessories some how (hopefully).
That's fair enough. I just don't need that kind of power.
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. [...]
That assumes they are using the Broadwell-EP Xeons. It's also possible they plan to use the forthcoming Skylake-SP Xeons, which has a lot of 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, I believe.
When you compare the price per dollar I'd be shocked if the iMac Pro comes even close. Clock speeds are everything. And unless the new Xeons have bumped to the 4+Ghz speeds I highly doubt they will render faster. But we shall see.
Depends upon your software and use case. You cant make absolute statements considering the breadth of pro users out there!
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.
You people think that professionals do not have a budget. Most professionals are frugal not stupid with their money. They configure their equipment to the software they are using... for example, Avid Media Composer recommends 16 GB RAM currently but in a year or two that RAM requirement may go as high as 32 GB RAM. So why spend the money for MAXED out RAM if you do not need it until the software requirements change. Everyone thinks that being in the video business is very profitable. No not really, the equipment costs are insane as well as software. Another example in the other extreme, there is the iPhone camera craze which has lowered video acquistion costs and caused many professional cameramen to lose their jobs.(Chicago Sun-Times got rid of 28 pro cameramen two years ago) So no, this business is not that profitable. So be a little realistic before you express your opinions.
The price in Canadian after tax will be over $7500 for the base model. The price won't make sense for a lot of small design firms and freelancers, or anyone using Adobe CC as their primary software as it isn't optimized for all the core threading. More of a niche product for the new AR, VR, 4k editing industry.
Looks nice, but that price...
With a tower - you can upgrade the HD's and GPU's - squeezing a few more years out of the original purchase. You can also roll your display and only pay for a new computer - cutting a couple grand off the cost at upgrade time.
Wish they would just re-release the 2008 with updated specs and ports. Not enough profit in people upgrading thou I guess.
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...
Only desktops hold value, not all-in-ones.
And even then Apple all-in-ones hold value better than Windows all-in-ones. But this... this is still not a Mac Pro. It's certainly better than what they've been offering, but this still lacks upgradable parts, that's the deal killer. I don't care what Steve Jobs thought of Mac's being more like furniture or whatever and hated having them serviceable, but if your high end stuff is not servicable, then people are not going to be using them as their primary system.
Like, personally, I can not justify buying anything that I can not replace the video card after 24 months. That is the deal breaker for me, and everyone in the gaming, film and VFX industry. You need as close to new as possible, because time is money, and you could be making more money with twice as powerful hardware 24 months later, or you could try to squeeze out as much value out of the closed-systems.
Sure, yes, I can see this being about right for photography however.
This is curious, was expected, but is of no real interest to me.
• still an all-in-one with all the thermal and servicing problems that comes with
• the cost is extreme and there's no way I can afford to buy a powerful workstation more than once per ten years, nor could I afford to buy more than base RAM on purchase day.
Though I guess this shows us what to expect in the cost of the upcoming Mac Pro. It looks like my 2011 iMac acquisition is going to have to last me more than two years. If the upcoming Mac Pro does not offer replaceable RAM and storage, and the ability to clean its insides, Apple will have learned nothing. But I suspect that their notions of modularity for the upcoming model are purely based on them selling new computers more often, not owners incrementally increasing storage and memory over time.
For pros at the level of large corporations, this is great. For all other pros (say, 98%) this is waaaaay too expensive.
This is an unsupportable assumption. There is a very large number of companies between "huge corporations" any one-man shops. I listen to the MacBreak Weekly Podcast regularly, and Rene Ritchie is always talking about buying multiples of all kinds of machines on a regular basis for his busy little video company.
Comments
perhaps fixating in how your pricing holds you back is counterproductive. You don't want the clients who are just waiting for someone $5/hr healer that you to jump ship.
I'd suggest that you work to differentiate your offerings to create value for your customers.
This is what Apple excels at.
I've followed their lead. I know I'm not the cheapest designer my clients deal with. But I try my hardest to be the one who provides the best service, highest quality and I have a good sense of humor.
And, honestly, the reason this iMac pro costs $5k is NOT the display. It's the Xeon processors and the ECC RAM.
So basically, just those two components alone is almost 80% the price of the starting price of the base iMac Pro. So yeah, a fully spec'd iMac Pro will fetch a princely sum for sure.
I'm certain this machine is going to be a hit for the that want all all-in-one version of a Mac Pro. I'm certain, there are many "enthusiasts" that will get one simply because "want" outweighs "need", including me.
I think for the likes of you, they will be releasing an updated Mac Pro next year. I'm sure you'll be able to tailor it to your needs.
I'm not sure if you can afford that either though.
So it must be easy to open to do that.
It feels like a knee-jerk reaction to the Microsoft Surface Studio.
>:x
The price won't make sense for a lot of small design firms and freelancers, or anyone using Adobe CC as their primary software as it isn't optimized for all the core threading.
More of a niche product for the new AR, VR, 4k editing industry.
Looks nice, but that price...
With a tower - you can upgrade the HD's and GPU's - squeezing a few more years out of the original purchase.
You can also roll your display and only pay for a new computer - cutting a couple grand off the cost at upgrade time.
Wish they would just re-release the 2008 with updated specs and ports. Not enough profit in people upgrading thou I guess.
And even then Apple all-in-ones hold value better than Windows all-in-ones. But this... this is still not a Mac Pro. It's certainly better than what they've been offering, but this still lacks upgradable parts, that's the deal killer. I don't care what Steve Jobs thought of Mac's being more like furniture or whatever and hated having them serviceable, but if your high end stuff is not servicable, then people are not going to be using them as their primary system.
Like, personally, I can not justify buying anything that I can not replace the video card after 24 months. That is the deal breaker for me, and everyone in the gaming, film and VFX industry. You need as close to new as possible, because time is money, and you could be making more money with twice as powerful hardware 24 months later, or you could try to squeeze out as much value out of the closed-systems.
Sure, yes, I can see this being about right for photography however.
• still an all-in-one with all the thermal and servicing problems that comes with
• the cost is extreme and there's no way I can afford to buy a powerful workstation more than once per ten years, nor could I afford to buy more than base RAM on purchase day.
Though I guess this shows us what to expect in the cost of the upcoming Mac Pro. It looks like my 2011 iMac acquisition is going to have to last me more than two years. If the upcoming Mac Pro does not offer replaceable RAM and storage, and the ability to clean its insides, Apple will have learned nothing. But I suspect that their notions of modularity for the upcoming model are purely based on them selling new computers more often, not owners incrementally increasing storage and memory over time.