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.
Okay, sure.
OpenGL/CL, use the Vega. If you need Cuda and Nvidia, do it with an eGPU box.
All I know is those who want the iMac Pro will pay for it. I don't know why there are always these people who keep saying Apple is overcharging. No one is holding a gun to anyone's head who walks into an Apple store and buys one of their products. Who is being forced to buy an Apple product? Those who buy Apple products must think they're worth the price. I'm not sure why there are people constantly calling Apple product owners fools. That's like saying a person who buys a Porsche is a fool because they can buy a cheaper car with similar specs. If you want a Porsche, then you buy a Porsche and don't want to accept substitutes.
All my Macs have lasted five years and some are running longer than that. For me to pay $5000 for the base iMac Pro is great if I can use it well for five years. That's just $1000 a year and will likely be maintenance free for that time as all my other Macs (except one) was. To me, that's the type of service I'm looking for. I don't care if my specs are slightly lower than some other computer that's cheaper. I honestly want a trouble-free, long-lasting product. People can call me stupid but that's the type of product I'm looking for. Although I could, I'm definitely not going to buy a bunch of components to build my own Windows workstation. I want to run OSX and I'm going to have AppleCare just in case something does go wrong.
Time is money. If you enjoy building a computer and fiddling with everything to get it working, great. But if that's not your idea of fun, you might as well buy what you need and spend your time on things that matter to you. I agree 100% with your assessment. I feel the same. I'd rather buy a more expensive machine and have time to bill enough hours to make up the difference than waste a weekend building a computer.
I've got into quite a few debates on other forums about this exact subject. Even though I put the same value in a iHater's opinion as I do to a pile of dog crap on the sidewalk, even I was a bit surprised that when faced with facts right in front of their faces about the iMac Pro's pricing being equivalent to a WinTel workstation, they flat out refused to accept it, borderline more like just looking the other way and ignoring it.
So I just accepted these iHaters and trolls that have zero interest in the truth. It's simply blind hatred of Apple, nothing more. No reason to even try discussing the subject on any sort of intelligent level.
These are solid machines, and Apple will sell a ridiculous amount of them for sure. Will I have no "need" for a machine like this, I'm seriously considering one because of the "want" factor. My current 18-month old 5K iMac runs flawlessly and I've been incredibly happy with it. I depend on it to generate revenue so in the end, it's a tax write-off for me. I've built countless PC-rigs over the decades, went Apple back in 2008 and never looked back. As a software-engineer, I AM a "professional" user (in my field) as are many others in other fields. The iMac Pro not being user-friendly for upgrading parts years down the road is irrelevant and unnecessary for most users of this machine. It's a tool, and when no longer useful years down the road, one buys another one. It's how it works.
Stop applying DIY'er and tinkering logic to a workstation. You are not the typical workstation user and you embarrass yourself when you think you're in that crowd. The 1990's and 2000's left long ago.
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.
Okay, sure.
OpenGL/CL, use the Vega. If you need Cuda and Nvidia, do it with an eGPU box.
Point remains. If you need it, you can get there.
For more money and an external GPU hooking into your slick all-in-one computer....sure you can get there. Kind of puts a damper on things though. It's like buying an M3 and adding on some ugly accessory for more cash to get the performance you need. The target market for people adding external eGPUs to a brand new iMac seems rather niche. Technically you can run a hackintosh build as well but it's getting out of the point of having the Apple ecosystem.
*Note* let me state I'm not saying the iMac Pro is a bad computer or even overpriced. I'm just stating some glaring holes with the platform in general.
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."
My initial response to @SpamSandwich was about the downsides of using Windows, and I posted an example on how Windows has no major downside for doing extremely complex work in Autodesk Revit. But now you want me to poll users about moving to macOS, so you are the one moving to another point. But still, here is the thing, that question gives no real results, why? #1, Apple don't have a modern workstation, as you know. #2, there is no Revit for macOS. There is no way make a 1:1 comparison, and you can blame Apple for that (although looks they are working on fixing this issue). What I can tell you is that my customer experience with Windows have been positive. Of course, you cannot assume that the kind of work my customers does with Revit/Windows can be done in a cheap PC. When you run Windows in high quality PC's, you'll have a different experience compared to a cheap PC's. As an example, JD Powers had the Surface Pro customer satisfaction over iPads. I suppose you would never think of a device with Windows that could have a higher satisfactions than iPads, but yes, it exist. And that's has been my experience too. Running Windows in high quality PC's can be as good or better than macOS/iOS.
Does Windows have downsides? Of course. But I can say the same of macOS and iOS, which have their list of downsides too.
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.
Well that and... you end up having a bucket of used parts sitting around at the end that is basically worthless. If you keep the computer whole, and if it's an Apple product, they maintain their resale value. You're better off replacing the computer and then wiping it and dropping it down to less performance-critical staff, or selling it on eBay.
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?
Nope. Pro machine use cases intrinsically have nothing to do with DIY tinkering use cases. I'm a pro -- I don't want to spend my time upgrading storage inside my machine's case. In fact, I never have (tho I have added large external storage drives). I want to use my work horse until I can't anymore, and by that time nearly all of it will be worth an update, meaning a complete new machine. I can get by 5-6 years on a properly loaded machine.
What they really meant to say was the IT hacker edition. They confuse themselves as pros sometimes.
*Note* let me state I'm not saying the iMac Pro is a bad computer or even overpriced. I'm just stating some glaring holes with the platform in general.
You mean a single product doesn't meet the requirements of every single use case out there? Shocking!
*Note* let me state I'm not saying the iMac Pro is a bad computer or even overpriced. I'm just stating some glaring holes with the platform in general.
You mean a single product doesn't meet the requirements of every single use case out there? Shocking!
No I mean a single product that's generally aimed at users in some kind of visual/graphics arts. Here's a simple litmus test. Go poll a bunch of Mac Pro and iMac owners on which video card marker they wish Apple had in their computers. It's gonna be Nvidia. Why is that? Geez maybe because Adobe, Autodesk, Blackmagic, AVID, The Foundry will all work better on Nvidia. You know, the software that someone in the market for a Mac Pro or iMac Pro would want to install? Shocking!
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.
Okay, sure.
OpenGL/CL, use the Vega. If you need Cuda and Nvidia, do it with an eGPU box.
Point remains. If you need it, you can get there.
For more money and an external GPU hooking into your slick all-in-one computer....sure you can get there. Kind of puts a damper on things though. It's like buying an M3 and adding on some ugly accessory for more cash to get the performance you need. The target market for people adding external eGPUs to a brand new iMac seems rather niche. Technically you can run a hackintosh build as well but it's getting out of the point of having the Apple ecosystem.
*Note* let me state I'm not saying the iMac Pro is a bad computer or even overpriced. I'm just stating some glaring holes with the platform in general.
I'd speculate that most eGPU's will be sold to people using Mac Book Pro's, but, the point is that TB 3 and the new API"s make this possible and practical on any TB 3 compatible Mac's. As for Cuda and nvidia, or OpenCL and AMD, I'm pretty sure that people have already figured that out. Use the appropriate hardware that's available.
*Note* let me state I'm not saying the iMac Pro is a bad computer or even overpriced. I'm just stating some glaring holes with the platform in general.
You mean a single product doesn't meet the requirements of every single use case out there? Shocking!
No I mean a single product that's generally aimed at users in some kind of visual/graphics arts. Here's a simple litmus test. Go poll a bunch of Mac Pro and iMac owners on which video card marker they wish Apple had in their computers. It's gonna be Nvidia. Why is that? Geez maybe because Adobe, Autodesk, Blackmagic, AVID, The Foundry will all work better on Nvidia. You know, the software that someone in the market for a Mac Pro or iMac Pro would want to install? Shocking!
Jon Gruber's podcast at WWDC has Phil & Craig in the chairs being interviewed and it was interesting when they spoke of the eGPU, basically (to paraphrase) it's all about addressing the "pro" market. We all know the "pro" market isn't some monolith that can be satisfied with a single product offering (despite perhaps the attempt with their last Mac Pro machine, which they've admitted wasn't the perfect solution), so this time around they're taking what appears to be a 3-pronged approach: 1) iMac Pro (AIO, never fiddle, never upgrade group), 2) new Mac Pro (modular for those who do/love fiddling and upgrading) and 3) eGPU (for the rest, but mostly targeted at the MBP crowd of "pro" users).
While they can't address every "pro" use case out there, they're *trying* more than I think they've ever attempted to address this market before. May not be elegant some of the solutions, but I certainly can't fault them for their efforts to address the unique need(s) of this market segment.
Btw, if you haven't seen the Gruber interview, here's the link.
I've got into quite a few debates on other forums about this exact subject. Even though I put the same value in a iHater's opinion as I do to a pile of dog crap on the sidewalk, even I was a bit surprised that when faced with facts right in front of their faces about the iMac Pro's pricing being equivalent to a WinTel workstation, they flat out refused to accept it, borderline more like just looking the other way and ignoring it.
So I just accepted these iHaters and trolls that have zero interest in the truth. It's simply blind hatred of Apple, nothing more. No reason to even try discussing the subject on any sort of intelligent level.
These are solid machines, and Apple will sell a ridiculous amount of them for sure. Will I have no "need" for a machine like this, I'm seriously considering one because of the "want" factor. My current 18-month old 5K iMac runs flawlessly and I've been incredibly happy with it. I depend on it to generate revenue so in the end, it's a tax write-off for me. I've built countless PC-rigs over the decades, went Apple back in 2008 and never looked back. As a software-engineer, I AM a "professional" user (in my field) as are many others in other fields. The iMac Pro not being user-friendly for upgrading parts years down the road is irrelevant and unnecessary for most users of this machine. It's a tool, and when no longer useful years down the road, one buys another one. It's how it works.
Stop applying DIY'er and tinkering logic to a workstation. You are not the typical workstation user and you embarrass yourself when you think you're in that crowd. The 1990's and 2000's left long ago.
I once had the swagger, too. Older now. My time became worth enough that I could pay someone else to supply and service my workstations. You move into a higher guild, you develop different priorities, you have your old tattoos removed.
As I've said elsewhere, even the base iMac Pro is way overkill for my needs -- but if I had a spare $5K laying around, I would totally invest in one, knowing I will most definitely not need another machine for at least another six years (and probably longer). Those who have the dosh to invest in that 18-core model ... barring mechanical issues, it might well be the last computer they need to buy for at least a decade, if not the rest of their lives. Look at how well the i7 quad-core has aged since it came out ... nine years ago!
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?
I thought I read somewhere that the chip in the iMac Pro is (or probably is) socketable, but I can't find that article now. But even if it isn't, Apple's blessing of e-GPUs and its full complement of Thunderbolt 3 means that the machine need never fall behind on video or storage. So in addition to RAM, you've got at least two and possibly three (but most of them will be a bear to accomplish -- taking apart an iMac is *not* for the feint of heart) areas of potential upgrading. That's more than what 99 percent of users ever upgrade anyway, so seems like a winner for me. The Mac Pro of 2018 is really going to have to beat a very high bar to top this, though TBF the Mac Pro will also certainly be more *easily* upgradable than the iMac Pro.
I'd kill for one of these iMac Pros. I don't think the graphics apps I use could ever push it to it's limit ... but that's one of the things that makes it so appealing!
That was on the big screen with all of the other unmentioned iMac Pro features at the end of the presentation.
I haven't been able to find any reports on it. I wonder if that's two m.2 sockets for two separate drives, or if it's like the OWC Accelsior which has two modules but under a single controller (reports as one volume).
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. .
Don't be so sure until people get them into their homes and use them for real. It's naive to assume companies are releasing products for reliability, they are releasing them for profits which means pushing the boundaries of engineering.
Lets wind the clocks back to Fall 2014. Apple makes a major move and completely surprises everyone with a 5k Retina iMac.Immediate concerns from some was going to be thermal issues with an all-in-one trying to push that resolution. The exact same thing was utter from multiple people back in 2014 "Apple is not going to purposely release something like this knowing its going to overheat". Guess what they did have major thermal issues reaching temps over 200F. Fans would runs extremely loud, throttling would take place killing performance, and down the road users reported issues the the monitor because of the extreme heat. I bought a 5k iMac at the time with the cooler running 2GB video card because of all the heat issues that were reported.
Thats not to say this iMac Pro will have these issues but don't assume they won't because Apple is aware of the challenges of thermal cooling in an all-in-one. It's a new product and as such they may end up having major recalls at some point. No one on earth actually knows how these things will fare long term. It seems that Apple has taken the right step with the thermal design but I want to see some real world numbers before declaring a product that isn't even close to being shipped a homerun.
Interesting. I bought a late 2015 iMac 5k maxed out. Never had these issues. I work with the entire adobe creative suite for video graphics and web.
Not saying they havent happened. The fan of course gets moving with after effects and premiere but it's nothing crazy.
Comments
These are solid machines, and Apple will sell a ridiculous amount of them for sure. Will I have no "need" for a machine like this, I'm seriously considering one because of the "want" factor. My current 18-month old 5K iMac runs flawlessly and I've been incredibly happy with it. I depend on it to generate revenue so in the end, it's a tax write-off for me. I've built countless PC-rigs over the decades, went Apple back in 2008 and never looked back. As a software-engineer, I AM a "professional" user (in my field) as are many others in other fields. The iMac Pro not being user-friendly for upgrading parts years down the road is irrelevant and unnecessary for most users of this machine. It's a tool, and when no longer useful years down the road, one buys another one. It's how it works.
*Note* let me state I'm not saying the iMac Pro is a bad computer or even overpriced. I'm just stating some glaring holes with the platform in general.
Does Windows have downsides? Of course. But I can say the same of macOS and iOS, which have their list of downsides too.
What they really meant to say was the IT hacker edition. They confuse themselves as pros sometimes.
Which you are always so gleeful to discuss on an Apple fan site.
No I mean a single product that's generally aimed at users in some kind of visual/graphics arts. Here's a simple litmus test. Go poll a bunch of Mac Pro and iMac owners on which video card marker they wish Apple had in their computers. It's gonna be Nvidia. Why is that? Geez maybe because Adobe, Autodesk, Blackmagic, AVID, The Foundry will all work better on Nvidia. You know, the software that someone in the market for a Mac Pro or iMac Pro would want to install? Shocking!
While they can't address every "pro" use case out there, they're *trying* more than I think they've ever attempted to address this market before. May not be elegant some of the solutions, but I certainly can't fault them for their efforts to address the unique need(s) of this market segment.
Btw, if you haven't seen the Gruber interview, here's the link.
That was on the big screen with all of the other unmentioned iMac Pro features at the end of the presentation.
I haven't been able to find any reports on it. I wonder if that's two m.2 sockets for two separate drives, or if it's like the OWC Accelsior which has two modules but under a single controller (reports as one volume).
Anyone know about this?
Not saying they havent happened. The fan of course gets moving with after effects and premiere but it's nothing crazy.