iMac Pro cost blows away similar Lenovo workstation, DIY builders struggle to meet price w...

13567

Comments

  • Reply 41 of 129
    SpamSandwichSpamSandwich Posts: 31,418member

    danvm said:
    The downside of the "equally matched" PC is you're stuck with Windows.
    One of my customers have been working in huge projects with Autodesk Revit in Windows and Dell Precision for years, with no issues at all.  And I'm sure many other users have the  same experience.  Can you give details on why using Windows is a downside?
    Ask the Windows users if they want to go to macOS. See if they think that's a downside.
    Exactly. I have relatives who used Windows for much of their careers and they've never expressed a desire to go back after buying Macs.
    watto_cobrapscooter63MisterKitargonaut
  • Reply 42 of 129
    libertyforalllibertyforall Posts: 1,302member
    This is VAPORWARE UNTIL IT SHIPS!  Comparisons must be made at the time of availability...  *rolls eyes*
  • Reply 43 of 129
    maestro64maestro64 Posts: 4,659member
    macxpress said:
    Oh the hackintosh and Windows fanboys are all over this new iMac Pro and how they can supposedly make their own cheaper. Of course, its not a true comparison when they quote Kingston Value RAM, a standard SATA SSD, and a no so great 4K display. They also think this iMac is going to melt down once you get that 18-core Xeon with the high end AMD Vega card going at full steam for any length of time like Apple isn't testing for such a thing. Apple is not going to purposely release something like this knowing its going to overheat and not be very efficient. Its quite obvious they built a specialized cooling system for this iMac Pro. 

    As expensive as this is, its an excellent value for those who really need something like this. I've always found that Apple's really high end stuff is actually a great value. So while people like to complain about the supposed "Apple Tax" on regular consumer Macs, the high end products are a great value a large majority of the time. 
    Here the thing, Apple does thermal engineering, most of these other companies do not they just put a larger and faster fans or more of them to solve thermal issues. Also do any of you even think these people who actually go out and buy their own pasts and assemble a system have any clue about thermal engineering. I can tell you just moving more air does not always solve thermal issues sometimes it makes it worse.
    macxpresstalkingheadguywatto_cobra
  • Reply 44 of 129
    frankiefrankie Posts: 373member
    Just make the ram user upgradable and most of the negative comments will go away.  
    I sincerely hope Apple is listening and doing this.
    williamlondonwatto_cobra
  • Reply 45 of 129
    sockrolidsockrolid Posts: 2,788member
    DIY-er: "Ah kin bilt me a Puter fer cheaper than a Apple."

    Apple: "Knock yourself out."
    talkingheadguychiawatto_cobrapscooter63baconstangargonaut
  • Reply 46 of 129
    danvmdanvm Posts: 791member

    danvm said:
    The downside of the "equally matched" PC is you're stuck with Windows.
    One of my customers have been working in huge projects with Autodesk Revit in Windows and Dell Precision for years, with no issues at all.  And I'm sure many other users have the  same experience.  Can you give details on why using Windows is a downside?
    Ask the Windows users if they want to go to macOS. See if they think that's a downside.
    I may ask them, and maybe all of them will reject the idea of macOS when they see the workstations options Apple offer today, don't you think?
  • Reply 47 of 129
    danvmdanvm Posts: 791member

    danvm said:
    The downside of the "equally matched" PC is you're stuck with Windows.
    One of my customers have been working in huge projects with Autodesk Revit in Windows and Dell Precision for years, with no issues at all.  And I'm sure many other users have the  same experience.  Can you give details on why using Windows is a downside?
    Ask the Windows users if they want to go to macOS. See if they think that's a downside.
    Exactly. I have relatives who used Windows for much of their careers and they've never expressed a desire to go back after buying Macs.
    And I have customers who have moved from Mac to PC's without any intentions of going back.  That happens very frequently for both sides.  
    williamlondon
  • Reply 48 of 129
    Mike WuertheleMike Wuerthele Posts: 4,905administrator
    danvm said:

    danvm said:
    The downside of the "equally matched" PC is you're stuck with Windows.
    One of my customers have been working in huge projects with Autodesk Revit in Windows and Dell Precision for years, with no issues at all.  And I'm sure many other users have the  same experience.  Can you give details on why using Windows is a downside?
    Ask the Windows users if they want to go to macOS. See if they think that's a downside.
    I may ask them, and maybe all of them will reject the idea of macOS when they see the workstations options Apple offer today, don't you think?
    That's not really the point, now is it?

    The point is, if you work in Operating System Q, you want to stay in Operating System Q. Saying to a macOS user "why would you NOT want Windows" is as much value as saying to a Windows user "why would you NOT want macOS."
    cgWerksbaconstang
  • Reply 49 of 129
    fathergllfathergll Posts: 11member
    fathergll said:
    The downside of the "equally matched" PC is you're stuck with Windows.


    True but then you would have Cuda and NVIDIA. High End companies that created software for multiple platforms like Adobe, Autodesk, Blackmagic, AVID, The Foundry will all work better on NVIDIA and CUDA. Apple isn't producing as much high end software as before Aperture, Shake, Logic Pro and Final Cut lost a lot of it's market share. In otherwords how much software actually works better on OSX in 2017? Even if OSX is a bug free OS(Which it's not) the software may still not perform as good as on Windows.

    The real issue is Apple is a 750 billion dollar tech company who makes most of their money from cell phones and their resources are focused on that segment compared to years ago.




    CUDA is available for macOS, from the same source as Windows -- Nvidia.

    iMac Pro has a CUDA-capable GPU?
  • Reply 50 of 129
    Mike WuertheleMike Wuerthele Posts: 4,905administrator
    fathergll said:
    fathergll said:
    The downside of the "equally matched" PC is you're stuck with Windows.


    True but then you would have Cuda and NVIDIA. High End companies that created software for multiple platforms like Adobe, Autodesk, Blackmagic, AVID, The Foundry will all work better on NVIDIA and CUDA. Apple isn't producing as much high end software as before Aperture, Shake, Logic Pro and Final Cut lost a lot of it's market share. In otherwords how much software actually works better on OSX in 2017? Even if OSX is a bug free OS(Which it's not) the software may still not perform as good as on Windows.

    The real issue is Apple is a 750 billion dollar tech company who makes most of their money from cell phones and their resources are focused on that segment compared to years ago.




    CUDA is available for macOS, from the same source as Windows -- Nvidia.

    iMac Pro has a CUDA-capable GPU?
    I'm generally speaking about the platform. The iMac Pro is Vega. Machines with Nvidia can use CUDA, though, sure.
    edited June 2017
  • Reply 51 of 129
    tmaytmay Posts: 3,962member
    fathergll said:
    The downside of the "equally matched" PC is you're stuck with Windows.


    True but then you would have Cuda and NVIDIA. High End companies that created software for multiple platforms like Adobe, Autodesk, Blackmagic, AVID, The Foundry will all work better on NVIDIA and CUDA. Apple isn't producing as much high end software as before Aperture, Shake, Logic Pro and Final Cut lost a lot of it's market share. In otherwords how much software actually works better on OSX in 2017? Even if OSX is a bug free OS(Which it's not) the software may still not perform as good as on Windows.

    The real issue is Apple is a 750 billion dollar tech company who makes most of their money from cell phones and their resources are focused on that segment compared to years ago.




    CUDA is available for macOS, from the same source as Windows -- Nvidia.
    For some nvidia GPU's, but certainly not for any competitors.

    For the most part, the alternative is OpenCL, which is supported on a broad range of architectures including nvidia.  I'm guessing that applications that need GPGPU computing, would provide support for both OpenCL and CUDA.

    If you aren't sure, ask the application vendor.
  • Reply 52 of 129
    toddzrxtoddzrx Posts: 199member

    It's unacceptable that I can't buy a space grey version of the wireless keyboard with numpad unless I also buy a $5,000 computer to go along with it.

    I recently speced out a computer build for a friend, and this was the first time I'd done it in years. I remain confused about the tiers of PSU efficiency/quality. There's bronze, silver, gold, platinum, and titanium, which I think is supposed to be better than platinum. But then there are different tiers even within the same efficiency ratings. For example, you see both "platinum 80+" and "bronze 90+". Actually, I rarely saw anything above 80+… Leave it to Apple to keep pushing the boundaries of efficiency. I think the tech sheet for the tower Mac Pro listed it at 88%. I'll have to check.
    86-89 percent, depending on model.

    I'm with you on the keyboard with num-pad.
    Why on earth didn't Apple just make the new Magic Keyboard with black keys instead of white????
  • Reply 53 of 129
    macxpressmacxpress Posts: 4,979member
    schlack said:
    BittySon said:
    It would be a great Pro machine if it has at least some user-accessible/replaceable components, and not just RAM.  Any word on this?
    My initial thought was to agree. But...in a corporate environment, and this is the case for where I work, our IT department prefers to fully replace our machines (currently maxed out Macbook Pros) ever 3 yrs. They view the disruption of a possible hardware failure (which becomes more likely with time) and the value of a faster newer machine outweighs the costs. That surprised me, but appears to be normal practice. So....there's probably a large segment of Pro users where upgradability just doesn't matter anymore. Instead it's buy a machine, use it for ~3 yrs, and then buy a new machine.
    Exactly...I don't know where everyone seems to get this its not a Pro Mac because you can't change out XYZ part. As I've said many times, it would seem to me that professionals just want to get work done so they buy the Mac and spec it out as much as they can afford and use it until it doesn't suit their needs anymore, then repeat the process. 

    As an IT person we do the same. We buy what we need at the time, use it until it doesn't meet our needs anymore and then replace it. You have so much less downtime just getting new computers after a set amount of years, building them in our own IT offices and then doing a 5 minute swap out. 

    I can't imagine that anyone using a Mac for professional work today thinks when they buy a Mac that its only going to last them a year and then its out of date and they aren't going to be able to do their work on it. I'm willing to bet the farm there are still professionals (true professionals!) that are STILL using Mac Pro towers, whether they're the 2010 or 2012 models and it still suits their needs. Today's computers are more powerful than ever so anyone who buys a Mac today and specs it to suit their needs will have a Mac that should work for their needs for years to come...not just a couple of years so you have to shell out another $5,000. 
    williamlondon
  • Reply 54 of 129
    toddzrxtoddzrx Posts: 199member
    schlack said:
    BittySon said:
    It would be a great Pro machine if it has at least some user-accessible/replaceable components, and not just RAM.  Any word on this?
    My initial thought was to agree. But...in a corporate environment, and this is the case for where I work, our IT department prefers to fully replace our machines (currently maxed out Macbook Pros) ever 3 yrs. They view the disruption of a possible hardware failure (which becomes more likely with time) and the value of a faster newer machine outweighs the costs. That surprised me, but appears to be normal practice. So....there's probably a large segment of Pro users where upgradability just doesn't matter anymore. Instead it's buy a machine, use it for ~3 yrs, and then buy a new machine.
    I have a similar policy at my company; we're on a 4 year cycle.

    I wonder if the current IT services model is similar to that of iPhones: a company leases the machine for 3/4 years, then it's replaced.  The old machine is cleaned up and inspected by the provider who then sells it off with their stamp of approval.
    tmaywatto_cobra
  • Reply 55 of 129
    macxpressmacxpress Posts: 4,979member
    Yeah and 2 years down the line I will need to drop another $5000 to be able to get the iMac to match anything current, whereas with my Lenovo, or my custom build, I will spend a few hundred dollars to update it to the latest, and be well ahead of what the iMac does.

    Also, this device is coming in December! That's a lifetime in PCs. Let's compare prices when it arrives.

    Finally, let's actually wait for iMac Pro benchmarks, because I suspect the inevitable throttling is not gonna make all those CPUs look so good.

    IOW, I will be impressed if Apple releases similar pricing on the Mac Pro.
    Actually...in 2yrs its still a very viable Mac. Who the hell changes Macs every 2yrs? 

    Even if you did...in 2yrs, you could sell it for $4,000 (assuming you paid for the $4999 model), and use that toward an upgrade. Meanwhile, you use the IBM or a build your own PC for 2yrs and it's worth maybe $1000. 

    Pure BS that you'll just spend a few hundred to upgrade. First of all, you may not be able to upgrade it beyond RAM. High end video cards are not cheap and there may or may not be a CPU worth upgrading to that fits your current motherboard. It'll be more than just a couple hundred dollars in the end. Plus, professionals want to just get work done, not screw around with finding RAM, CPU's, video cards, etc, and then having to make time to install them, or having downtime for someone else be paid to install them. This just isn't real world thinking. They just want to get work done, not play IT technician. 

    Lastly, I'd rather have a computer that has full support from one vendor (Apple), not contacting MSI, ASUS, etc for a motherboard issue, Crucial for a RAM issue, or NewEgg/Amazon trying to get a replacement hard drive sent, video card or whatever. I can just call AppleCare, or bring it into a retail store for support and from my experience in as little as 1-2 days, your Mac can be fixed and ready to go. If you have an IT Dept that's ACMT certified (at least one tech) with a GSX Self Service account, they'll overnight you parts for them to fix your Mac right away. You absolutely will not get this service with an build your own PC. 

    The device is coming in December I believe because thats when the chips are widely available? Someone correct me if I'm wrong here. Obviously if Apple could, this product would be ready for ordering today, possibly already shipping. So don't think that this Mac will be outdated before it even ships. It will be no further behind than the competition. 
    edited June 2017 talkingheadguychiaStrangeDayswatto_cobrabaconstang
  • Reply 56 of 129
    netroxnetrox Posts: 795member
    I will bet you that while the initial value of iMac Pro is better than the competing one, with upgraded configurations adding ridiculously amount of cost like $400 per 16 GB, it will eventually cost more than a PC counterpart. 
  • Reply 57 of 129
    yonis said:
    Here's my attempt:
    https://pcpartpicker.com/list/CcC3QV

    Couple of tradeoffs I needed to make:
    1. Workstation graphics inflate cost tremendously, so I replaced with 2 1080 Tis in SLI. They're good at different things, but I figure doubling up on the 1080 Tis would more or less make up the difference.
    2. Thunderbolt 3 isn't necessary if you have PCI Express.
    Nice build.  I'm a fan of ASRock and particularly the X99 MB.  A couple of questions:
    1. No speakers?  The iMac Pro will have a nice set built in.  What would you recommend for your build?
    2. With those two 1080s, do you have enough cooling?
    3. The Hyper 212 EVO is a nice CPU cooler generally, but is it enough for the Xeon?  Wouldn't you be better off with liquid cooling?
    I've been a Mac user since 1986, but enjoy building PCs because, well, it's fun. But for actual productivity, I use a Mac because it has a better OS and simply works without causing headaches.  However, even putting the OS aside, it's unfair to think that any DIY computer is comparable to a Mac because DIYs always have higher support costs and probably higher maintenance overall.  If a manager is going to buy 20 computers for an office, she's not going to buy a truckload of individual components.  She's going to buy 20 fully-assembled machines. All of the parts have been heavily researched and tested together, and IT support will be manageable and affordable. 



    watto_cobra
  • Reply 58 of 129
    fathergllfathergll Posts: 11member
    fathergll said:
    fathergll said:
    The downside of the "equally matched" PC is you're stuck with Windows.


    True but then you would have Cuda and NVIDIA. High End companies that created software for multiple platforms like Adobe, Autodesk, Blackmagic, AVID, The Foundry will all work better on NVIDIA and CUDA. Apple isn't producing as much high end software as before Aperture, Shake, Logic Pro and Final Cut lost a lot of it's market share. In otherwords how much software actually works better on OSX in 2017? Even if OSX is a bug free OS(Which it's not) the software may still not perform as good as on Windows.

    The real issue is Apple is a 750 billion dollar tech company who makes most of their money from cell phones and their resources are focused on that segment compared to years ago.




    CUDA is available for macOS, from the same source as Windows -- Nvidia.

    iMac Pro has a CUDA-capable GPU?
    I'm generally speaking about the platform. The iMac Pro is Vega. Machines with Nvidia can use CUDA, though, sure.

    I'm generally speaking about the hardware that the platforms sells. Vega isn't even out and surely isn't optimized for a lot of software who would be the target audience of a computer like that which goes back to the general issue with Cuda and NVIDIA.
  • Reply 59 of 129
    johnbear said:
    back in december I built a hackintosh that was 30% faster in FCPX then the best they had at BestBuy which I tested, and considerably cheaper. The downside of a hackintosh is that it takes a little more time in maintenance and requires a little more research to build and understand how it works.
    Yeah, and the other downside to Hackintoshes is that they're, um, illegal.  Just because you download an antique bootlegged OS X from the internet doesn't mean that Apple has abandoned its copyrights and patents. 
    williamlondonStrangeDayspscooter63
  • Reply 60 of 129
    Mike WuertheleMike Wuerthele Posts: 4,905administrator
    tmay said:
    For some nvidia GPU's, but certainly not for any competitors.

    For the most part, the alternative is OpenCL, which is supported on a broad range of architectures including nvidia.  I'm guessing that applications that need GPGPU computing, would provide support for both OpenCL and CUDA.

    If you aren't sure, ask the application vendor.
    This is some of the best advice I've heard all week.
Sign In or Register to comment.