Still blows my mind that this is a pro machine but you can’t get inside of it. I can understand most of Apple’s portable products being sealed but professional workstations? Why? Even the 27” iMac allows upgrades to the RAM.
I don't know what you do, but I'm a software dev in household brand fortune 100 & 500 companies. I have never, ever seen any of our IT department perform component upgrades on our workstations. Never. Machines are retired and swapped out only. Corporate workstations are not DIY tinkerer toys.
Finally, I hesitate to put too much emphasis on looking at the iMac Pro through the lens of how it fits into software development organizations because I don't believe that SW dev is really the target for this machine. In fact Apple is currently rather weak across the board for supporting the full spectrum of modern SW dev operations like DevOps, Ci/CD, Agile, SAFe, cloud computing, etc. It's just not Apple's focus at this time. They are going after the high intensity creatives who need massive computing power sitting right there in front of them on their desk.
To the contrary -- during the recent Mac Pro press event, when they announced the iMac Pro Craig and Phil cited specifically that, judging by Xcode installs, software dev appears to be their largest pro market, and they stated a significant part of their user base is iMac and not MP. Thus, the iMac Pro.
Second on the list is iMacs — used by pros, again by the people who use professional software day in, day out, not just casually. [...]
A growing group for us is software developers. We’re obviously responsible for software tools and SDKs and much more there. And we’re continuing to invest in that, all the way from languages to compilers to tools, etc. Our dedication remains really strong on all of that.
Craig Federighi: I think if you use Xcode downloads as a metric, it’s possible software developers are actually our largest pro audience. It’s growing very quickly, its been fantastic.
....they talk a lot about pros, how a large portion of their pros are software devs, and how they believe the iMac Pro can serve the pro market. So it's clear to me they're saying the iMac Pro will serve the *software development* market.
Still blows my mind that this is a pro machine but you can’t get inside of it. I can understand most of Apple’s portable products being sealed but professional workstations? Why? Even the 27” iMac allows upgrades to the RAM.
I don't know what you do, but I'm a software dev in household brand fortune 100 & 500 companies. I have never, ever seen any of our IT department perform component upgrades on our workstations. Never. Machines are retired and swapped out only. Corporate workstations are not DIY tinkerer toys.
Yep. Many large companies have also outsourced or subcontracted their IT support to organizations that are somewhat detached from the business and tactical execution priorities of the company itself. This can result in bulk purchases of workstations prioritized on minimizing acquisition and/or leasing costs. The resulting machines are not tinker toys but they are often not well suited for at least some of the company employees who must use them. This is a problem and sometimes companies will have an "exception" acquisition path to allow individual who need specific configurations to obtain exactly what they need.
The iMac Pro should be able to fit into these acquisition patterns with standard and build-to-order options, but the main inhibitor will still be the overall cost. Getting the corporate bean counters to open up the wallet for the iMac Pro versus a standard iMac is going to require some arm twisting especially since the TCO on a brand new product is hard to estimate. Even as a software developer or manager I would always look at lower cost options and the best bang for the buck. It always depends on the actual work you're doing, and your mileage may vary, but the biggest improvement and bang for the buck that I've seen in the past few years for software dev machines was a result of moving strictly to SSD storage and away from spinning hard drives, both on desktop and mobile computers, and having multiple monitors on every workstation. Before buying an iMac Pro I would also consider what a full-SSD iMac with a second 4K monitor costs.
Finally, I hesitate to put too much emphasis on looking at the iMac Pro through the lens of how it fits into software development organizations because I don't believe that SW dev is really the target for this machine. In fact Apple is currently rather weak across the board for supporting the full spectrum of modern SW dev operations like DevOps, Ci/CD, Agile, SAFe, cloud computing, etc. It's just not Apple's focus at this time. They are going after the high intensity creatives who need massive computing power sitting right there in front of them on their desk.
A lot of this is viewed through the prism of the buyer. Many of us (myself included) came up from the ranks of multi-slot Macs that you could keep around for 5-8+ years if you just did an mid-life upgrade or two. I have a 2008 Mac Pro under my desk now that has had these kind of upgrades and before that, PowerMacs going back to the original Mac II (which was upgraded to a IIfx). If you're a small-medium sized shop, upgradability allows you to extend the investment of a pretty expensive resource. There are a lot of those users around the world and lots of the griping about the current Mac Pro comes from those users.
But I now work for one of the world's largest software companies. We don't upgrade anything. Everything is purchased to be used for a limited number of years, then replaced. Up until recently, we haven't had any company purchased Macs except for one major area: software development. Those guys have been able to get high end Mac Pros and Macbook Pros to do their jobs. And now in 2018, the rest of us in the field will get a chance to have our own company purchased Macbooks instead of bringing our own (which has been supported for years). Again, those machines won't be upgradable but we never allow users to upgrade the PC laptops either. If you need more resources, write a purchase request and get approval.
Still blows my mind that this is a pro machine but you can’t get inside of it. I can understand most of Apple’s portable products being sealed but professional workstations? Why? Even the 27” iMac allows upgrades to the RAM.
Am I the only person who buys machines fully loaded?
I've only ever bough Macs that can be self upgraded so far and as tech changes a fully loaded at start could be a mistake in the long run (well not so long given the pace of change). So I usually go for the mid range area and upgrade. Just doubled RAM and SSD in a 2013 6 Core Mac Pro and blown away by the speed of the new MCE Tech SSD, 150% faster than the Apple supplied one.
Never been a problem for me. Buy it fully loaded and change it when it becomes obsolete. The problem with sticking in new components is that the old components can’t make the best use of the new components, so you change the other old components for new components and then you realise you’d have been better off just getting a new machine.
What's the purpose? Just mac Mac Pro with processing power like this. No Apple displays is even near to EIZO or NEC professional graphic design monitors. That is top shelf above average pocket. We need processing unit with solid system - nothing else. That is not prosumer or regular consumer.
Think it’s for coders (scientific & architecture too. Basically any groups that want to crunch number). Too many of them at Apple, Google, Facebook etc. what you said about monitor is irrelevant to this group.
I've seen Youtube's creator studios out in California. All of their editing labs have 2013 Mac Pros. This (and the future Mac Pro) is an obvious upgrade for then.
Thank god! Hopefully this means less complaining from the hard core Mac side of the house, and stalls any further "Apple can't deliver" talk on the forums.
You and me both. That said, there are already posts here, in this thread that heavily lean in that direction.
I’m not a pro user. Just curious the reason for completely sealing the machine. Apple wants to force pro users to pay their upgrade pricing? If it’s an engineering reason then does that signal bad design descisions? As we saw with the trash can Mac Pro Apple sometimes gets it wrong. Why do you think Apple made this decision?
I believe Apple knows what its doing here. They see a market and they go after it. I'm not a pro either, but I'm gonna assume a lot are going to not just buy the $4999 model, but rather spec it out as much as they can afford as from what I see, is what a typical Professional user will do. As I've said in the past, I think most Professionals don't care if they can get inside it. They just want to do work and not screw around with messing with the insides, being their own IT support, etc. They buy as much as they can afford, and use it until its no longer useful for their work and then they sell it for a high price (value of owning a Mac), and go get something newer.
The RAM slots are full sized RAM slots so if you take that along with the completely redesigned cooling system the RAM is not accessible from the same spot as the regular 27" iMac. it doesn't use SODIMMs like the regular iMac does. I think Apple would rather have a Mac that suits their needs rather than sit there and try and make it designed so the back cover(s) come off, etc, etc. This is what the Mac Pro is for.
I get it but not for a pro level machine like this. Seems to me it’s a niche machine maybe not as bad as the trash can Mac Pro. I suppose Apple is counting on pros to buy this anyway since who knows when the Mac Pro will be released. Could be 2019.
Why do you assume Pros want to upgrade the RAM, or anything inside it in the major industry? Why are you so stuck on this topic? People are telling you this is a non issue and you're not listening! Were not talking about the person who takes photographs on the side and has a small business here. Were talking major studios, science labs, etc. They don't upgrade anything inside the computer. They replace!
I work in IT...we don't upgrade computers (Macs or PCs)...we buy what we can afford. We use them as long as they're useful (4-6yrs). When they become not useful anymore, we dispose of them properly and get new computers (Macs or PCs) to replace them if necessary. This notion that everything needs to be upgradable is complete nonsense!
It’s a safe bet that more than half the people who bang on about upgradeabilty have never opened a machine. The last machine I upgraded was probably about ten years ago.
Thank god! Hopefully this means less complaining from the hard core Mac side of the house, and stalls any further "Apple can't deliver" talk on the forums.
You and me both. That said, there are already posts here, in this thread that heavily lean in that direction.
I’m not a pro user. Just curious the reason for completely sealing the machine. Apple wants to force pro users to pay their upgrade pricing? If it’s an engineering reason then does that signal bad design descisions? As we saw with the trash can Mac Pro Apple sometimes gets it wrong. Why do you think Apple made this decision?
I believe Apple knows what its doing here. They see a market and they go after it. I'm not a pro either, but I'm gonna assume a lot are going to not just buy the $4999 model, but rather spec it out as much as they can afford as from what I see, is what a typical Professional user will do. As I've said in the past, I think most Professionals don't care if they can get inside it. They just want to do work and not screw around with messing with the insides, being their own IT support, etc. They buy as much as they can afford, and use it until its no longer useful for their work and then they sell it for a high price (value of owning a Mac), and go get something newer.
The RAM slots are full sized RAM slots so if you take that along with the completely redesigned cooling system the RAM is not accessible from the same spot as the regular 27" iMac. it doesn't use SODIMMs like the regular iMac does. I think Apple would rather have a Mac that suits their needs rather than sit there and try and make it designed so the back cover(s) come off, etc, etc. This is what the Mac Pro is for.
I get it but not for a pro level machine like this. Seems to me it’s a niche machine maybe not as bad as the trash can Mac Pro. I suppose Apple is counting on pros to buy this anyway since who knows when the Mac Pro will be released. Could be 2019.
Why do you assume Pros want to upgrade the RAM, or anything inside it in the major industry? Why are you so stuck on this topic? People are telling you this is a non issue and you're not listening! Were not talking about the person who takes photographs on the side and has a small business here. Were talking major studios, science labs, etc. They don't upgrade anything inside the computer. They replace!
I work in IT...we don't upgrade computers (Macs or PCs)...we buy what we can afford. We use them as long as they're useful (4-6yrs). When they become not useful anymore, we dispose of them properly and get new computers (Macs or PCs) to replace them if necessary. This notion that everything needs to be upgradable is complete nonsense!
It’s a safe bet that more than half the people who bang on about upgradeabilty have never opened a machine. The last machine I upgraded was probably about ten years ago.
The last time I did it was a 27" iMac where I bought the minimal RAM and then tested various 3rd-party RAM with different latencies to see if that made any difference. It didn't.
If installing my own RAM was an option and it saved me a couple hundred dollars, I'd do it again if it's a personal machine. If it's not an option I'm not going to sweat it, especially if it's a machine that will be used for business where the effort far outfights the benefit of a running machine doing work.
A lot of this is viewed through the prism of the buyer. Many of us (myself included) came up from the ranks of multi-slot Macs that you could keep around for 5-8+ years if you just did an mid-life upgrade or two. I have a 2008 Mac Pro under my desk now that has had these kind of upgrades and before that, PowerMacs going back to the original Mac II (which was upgraded to a IIfx). If you're a small-medium sized shop, upgradability allows you to extend the investment of a pretty expensive resource. There are a lot of those users around the world and lots of the griping about the current Mac Pro comes from those users.
But I now work for one of the world's largest software companies. We don't upgrade anything. Everything is purchased to be used for a limited number of years, then replaced. Up until recently, we haven't had any company purchased Macs except for one major area: software development. Those guys have been able to get high end Mac Pros and Macbook Pros to do their jobs. And now in 2018, the rest of us in the field will get a chance to have our own company purchased Macbooks instead of bringing our own (which has been supported for years). Again, those machines won't be upgradable but we never allow users to upgrade the PC laptops either. If you need more resources, write a purchase request and get approval.
It makes perfect sense and is common practice, at least for US companies, to replace desktop PCs and workstations on fixed intervals because their acquisition costs are often recaptured or depreciated under rules of the IRS. One rule allows total depreciation over 5 years. Then there is the possibility of salvage value and I see a lot of ex-corporate inventory selling on EBay, NewEgg, etc., so someone is benefiting on the back end as well. In earlier times the depreciation time frame was problematic for end users because PCs, especially older Windows PCs, were effectively obsolete in much less than the depreciation period. The obsolescence was often accelerated by the very rapid bloat of giant software development tools like Visual Studio. I also have no doubt that software developers are quite often able to obtain newer and more powerful machines more quickly than other employees in organizations. I've been there, on the happy side of spending other people's money. Many software development organizations are so intensely desperate to achieve greater productivity and better predictability from their software development teams that they don't hesitate to throw money at the problem in hopes of getting better results. Software development teams know this, engineering managers know this, tool and equipment vendors know this, and as long as nobody is looking too closely at the actual ROI when the release finally gets out the door - all is forgiven and the cycle repeats itself.
That leaves $2000 to budget on a display, OS, keyboard and mouse.
The display preference will vary depending on the industry and use case for this machine. You might need a display with high color accuracy/reproduction or you might need multiple displays, etc.
That leaves $2000 to budget on a display, OS, keyboard and mouse.
The display preference will vary depending on the industry and use case for this machine. You might need a display with high color accuracy/reproduction or you might need multiple displays, etc.
That leaves $2000 to budget on a display, OS, keyboard and mouse.
The display preference will vary depending on the industry and use case for this machine. You might need a display with high color accuracy/reproduction or you might need multiple displays, etc.
You can actually click on all of the links I provided. That PC is better than the iMac Pro.
He's also wrong about the pricing. The Xeon W-2145 (entry iMac Pro) & motherboard would cost about $1500 vs the $970 for the Threadripper 1950X + motherboard.
Of course, Threadripper 1950X is better than the Xeon W-2145. The DIY build above also uses the Pro Vega 64, not the entry Pro Vega 56.
Thank god! Hopefully this means less complaining from the hard core Mac side of the house, and stalls any further "Apple can't deliver" talk on the forums.
You and me both. That said, there are already posts here, in this thread that heavily lean in that direction.
I’m not a pro user. Just curious the reason for completely sealing the machine. Apple wants to force pro users to pay their upgrade pricing? If it’s an engineering reason then does that signal bad design descisions? As we saw with the trash can Mac Pro Apple sometimes gets it wrong. Why do you think Apple made this decision?
I believe Apple knows what its doing here. They see a market and they go after it. I'm not a pro either, but I'm gonna assume a lot are going to not just buy the $4999 model, but rather spec it out as much as they can afford as from what I see, is what a typical Professional user will do. As I've said in the past, I think most Professionals don't care if they can get inside it. They just want to do work and not screw around with messing with the insides, being their own IT support, etc. They buy as much as they can afford, and use it until its no longer useful for their work and then they sell it for a high price (value of owning a Mac), and go get something newer.
The RAM slots are full sized RAM slots so if you take that along with the completely redesigned cooling system the RAM is not accessible from the same spot as the regular 27" iMac. it doesn't use SODIMMs like the regular iMac does. I think Apple would rather have a Mac that suits their needs rather than sit there and try and make it designed so the back cover(s) come off, etc, etc. This is what the Mac Pro is for.
I get it but not for a pro level machine like this. Seems to me it’s a niche machine maybe not as bad as the trash can Mac Pro. I suppose Apple is counting on pros to buy this anyway since who knows when the Mac Pro will be released. Could be 2019.
Why do you assume Pros want to upgrade the RAM, or anything inside it in the major industry? Why are you so stuck on this topic? People are telling you this is a non issue and you're not listening! Were not talking about the person who takes photographs on the side and has a small business here. Were talking major studios, science labs, etc. They don't upgrade anything inside the computer. They replace!
I work in IT...we don't upgrade computers (Macs or PCs)...we buy what we can afford. We use them as long as they're useful (4-6yrs). When they become not useful anymore, we dispose of them properly and get new computers (Macs or PCs) to replace them if necessary. This notion that everything needs to be upgradable is complete nonsense!
So when the new Mac Pro ships in 2018 or 2019 it won’t be upgradable because people don’t upgrade they just replace Got it.
That leaves $2000 to budget on a display, OS, keyboard and mouse.
The display preference will vary depending on the industry and use case for this machine. You might need a display with high color accuracy/reproduction or you might need multiple displays, etc.
You can actually click on all of the links I provided. That PC is better than the iMac Pro.
He's also wrong about the pricing. The Xeon W-2145 (entry iMac Pro) & motherboard would cost about $1500 vs the $970 for the Threadripper 1950X + motherboard.
Of course, Threadripper 1950X is better than the Xeon W-2145. The DIY build above also uses the Pro Vega 64, not the entry Pro Vega 56.
Then goes makes a video refute him.
In my life I have built 5 PCs for myself. Never single one gave me a complete experience I get from my Mac so you’re barking at the wrong tree. What I do know though, if you’re building this PC that you says “better” you won’t be able to sell it to the pro 1/100 of what Apple will sell this iMac Pro. I used to waste money building Home Theater PC and never satisfied with it, until I bought Mac mini. It’s actually a perfect machine for the task, and at half the price too. Smaller, quieter, & be able to deal with every video I threw at it. Works great with wireless keyboard & mouse or trackpad plus works great with Apple Remote too.
Thank god! Hopefully this means less complaining from the hard core Mac side of the house, and stalls any further "Apple can't deliver" talk on the forums.
You and me both. That said, there are already posts here, in this thread that heavily lean in that direction.
I’m not a pro user. Just curious the reason for completely sealing the machine. Apple wants to force pro users to pay their upgrade pricing? If it’s an engineering reason then does that signal bad design descisions? As we saw with the trash can Mac Pro Apple sometimes gets it wrong. Why do you think Apple made this decision?
I believe Apple knows what its doing here. They see a market and they go after it. I'm not a pro either, but I'm gonna assume a lot are going to not just buy the $4999 model, but rather spec it out as much as they can afford as from what I see, is what a typical Professional user will do. As I've said in the past, I think most Professionals don't care if they can get inside it. They just want to do work and not screw around with messing with the insides, being their own IT support, etc. They buy as much as they can afford, and use it until its no longer useful for their work and then they sell it for a high price (value of owning a Mac), and go get something newer.
The RAM slots are full sized RAM slots so if you take that along with the completely redesigned cooling system the RAM is not accessible from the same spot as the regular 27" iMac. it doesn't use SODIMMs like the regular iMac does. I think Apple would rather have a Mac that suits their needs rather than sit there and try and make it designed so the back cover(s) come off, etc, etc. This is what the Mac Pro is for.
I get it but not for a pro level machine like this. Seems to me it’s a niche machine maybe not as bad as the trash can Mac Pro. I suppose Apple is counting on pros to buy this anyway since who knows when the Mac Pro will be released. Could be 2019.
Why do you assume Pros want to upgrade the RAM, or anything inside it in the major industry? Why are you so stuck on this topic? People are telling you this is a non issue and you're not listening! Were not talking about the person who takes photographs on the side and has a small business here. Were talking major studios, science labs, etc. They don't upgrade anything inside the computer. They replace!
I work in IT...we don't upgrade computers (Macs or PCs)...we buy what we can afford. We use them as long as they're useful (4-6yrs). When they become not useful anymore, we dispose of them properly and get new computers (Macs or PCs) to replace them if necessary. This notion that everything needs to be upgradable is complete nonsense!
So when the new Mac Pro ships in 2018 or 2019 it won’t be upgradable because people don’t upgrade they just replace Got it.
You’re not making sense.
If I want the Mac Pro then I’ll wait. If I want the iMac Pro then I’ll buy it. If I change my mind then I’ll sell it and buy something else.
You can always find an excuse not to buy something, but there is really no need. If it’s not for you then don’t buy it.
Nope and no way. Programmed obsolescence. All-in-one (AIO) computers like iMac are a huge aggression to planet Earth. Computers may last for seven years or less, whereas displays may last for more than 20 years. I am using an Apple Cinema Display 22-inch purchased almost 18 years ago and it works great. And it has been on an average of 15 hours a day, 356 days each year.
Stop the demonstrably false spam. I have warned you on this before.
If you post this again, in any other thread besides the ones you've already posted it in, I will ban you.
Still blows my mind that this is a pro machine but you can’t get inside of it. I can understand most of Apple’s portable products being sealed but professional workstations? Why? Even the 27” iMac allows upgrades to the RAM.
Am I the only person who buys machines fully loaded?
No, you're not alone. I do too. I want the benefits of as much RAM as I can get right out of the gate. Since the maximum I can install won't increase over time, there's no need for me to access it.
Storage is another matter though. Capacity does increase over time, and prices come down. I may not be able to afford the maximum at launch day prices, but it may be affordable after a year or two. Even if price is not a consideration, increasing capacity is. The most I could get in my MacBook Pro was 2TB. In a couple years that will likely double. It would be nice to take advantage of that increased capacity without having to replace the machine.
That leaves $2000 to budget on a display, OS, keyboard and mouse.
The display preference will vary depending on the industry and use case for this machine. You might need a display with high color accuracy/reproduction or you might need multiple displays, etc.
You can actually click on all of the links I provided. That PC is better than the iMac Pro.
He's also wrong about the pricing. The Xeon W-2145 (entry iMac Pro) & motherboard would cost about $1500 vs the $970 for the Threadripper 1950X + motherboard.
Of course, Threadripper 1950X is better than the Xeon W-2145. The DIY build above also uses the Pro Vega 64, not the entry Pro Vega 56.
Then goes makes a video refute him.
In my life I have built 5 PCs for myself. Never single one gave me a complete experience I get from my Mac so you’re barking at the wrong tree. What I do know though, if you’re building this PC that you says “better” you won’t be able to sell it to the pro 1/100 of what Apple will sell this iMac Pro. I used to waste money building Home Theater PC and never satisfied with it, until I bought Mac mini. It’s actually a perfect machine for the task, and at half the price too. Smaller, quieter, & be able to deal with every video I threw at it. Works great with wireless keyboard & mouse or trackpad plus works great with Apple Remote too.
I'm not sure why you're trying to beat around the bush with that nonsense.
You said: "yes, someone compare parts for home built PC and it end up at $5,000 too"
I showed you how that's incorrect and that the machine above has better specifications (by a fair margin).
Still blows my mind that this is a pro machine but you can’t get inside of it. I can understand most of Apple’s portable products being sealed but professional workstations? Why? Even the 27” iMac allows upgrades to the RAM.
Apple has to leave a reason to buy a MacPro next year, so that means iMac Pro fills a narrow gap in the lineup between a loaded 5K iMac and MacPro with faster storage, ECC RAM, workstation GPU etc. Internals are laid out completely different from the 27in iMac so maybe the RAM wasn't able to be placed in slots without taking up more room than they had to work with. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
That leaves $2000 to budget on a display, OS, keyboard and mouse.
The display preference will vary depending on the industry and use case for this machine. You might need a display with high color accuracy/reproduction or you might need multiple displays, etc.
You can actually click on all of the links I provided. That PC is better than the iMac Pro.
He's also wrong about the pricing. The Xeon W-2145 (entry iMac Pro) & motherboard would cost about $1500 vs the $970 for the Threadripper 1950X + motherboard.
Of course, Threadripper 1950X is better than the Xeon W-2145. The DIY build above also uses the Pro Vega 64, not the entry Pro Vega 56.
OK. So what? How many can you produce of those DIY PCs or gaming rigs or whatever? Apple thinks in millions, acts in millions. If you can beat one iMac Pro with your DIY PC including benchmarks, then good for you. Apple will not compete with you. Neither you nor your DIY PC culture possess that scale.
Comments
https://techcrunch.com/2017/04/06/transcript-phil-schiller-craig-federighi-and-john-ternus-on-the-state-of-apples-pro-macs/
....they talk a lot about pros, how a large portion of their pros are software devs, and how they believe the iMac Pro can serve the pro market. So it's clear to me they're saying the iMac Pro will serve the *software development* market.
But I now work for one of the world's largest software companies. We don't upgrade anything. Everything is purchased to be used for a limited number of years, then replaced. Up until recently, we haven't had any company purchased Macs except for one major area: software development. Those guys have been able to get high end Mac Pros and Macbook Pros to do their jobs. And now in 2018, the rest of us in the field will get a chance to have our own company purchased Macbooks instead of bringing our own (which has been supported for years). Again, those machines won't be upgradable but we never allow users to upgrade the PC laptops either. If you need more resources, write a purchase request and get approval.
"But but but it's a toy!" yyeeaaahh....troll on bro. Even PC Gamer said it costs about the same to DIY, minus all the great support and your time.
http://appleinsider.com/articles/17/06/09/imac-pro-cost-blows-away-similar-lenovo-workstation-diy-builders-struggle-to-meet-price-with-fewer-features
http://www.pcgamer.com/apples-new-imac-pro-costs-5000-but-is-it-overpriced/
Mmm. Are these guys the new professionals then?
It’s a safe bet that more than half the people who bang on about upgradeabilty have never opened a machine. The last machine I upgraded was probably about ten years ago.
If installing my own RAM was an option and it saved me a couple hundred dollars, I'd do it again if it's a personal machine. If it's not an option I'm not going to sweat it, especially if it's a machine that will be used for business where the effort far outfights the benefit of a running machine doing work.
$5000 will do much better than the entry iMac Pro.
AMD Threadripper 1950X (16 cores / 32 threads) + ASRock X399 Taichi [$970]
Corsair H80i [$80]
32 GB Samsung DDR4 ECC [$400]
1 TB Samsung 960 EVO [$450]
AMD Radeon Pro Vega Frontier Edition 16 GB HBM2 (Vega 64) [$790]
Corsair RM850x [$110]
ASUS XG-C100C 10 Gbps [$100]
Phanteks Enthoo Pro [$100]
Total for hardware: $3000
That leaves $2000 to budget on a display, OS, keyboard and mouse.
The display preference will vary depending on the industry and use case for this machine. You might need a display with high color accuracy/reproduction or you might need multiple displays, etc.
4:19 mark. He said $5,100 for equivalent PC.
He's also wrong about the pricing. The Xeon W-2145 (entry iMac Pro) & motherboard would cost about $1500 vs the $970 for the Threadripper 1950X + motherboard.
Of course, Threadripper 1950X is better than the Xeon W-2145. The DIY build above also uses the Pro Vega 64, not the entry Pro Vega 56.
In my life I have built 5 PCs for myself. Never single one gave me a complete experience I get from my Mac so you’re barking at the wrong tree.
What I do know though, if you’re building this PC that you says “better” you won’t be able to sell it to the pro 1/100 of what Apple will sell this iMac Pro. I used to waste money building Home Theater PC and never satisfied with it, until I bought Mac mini. It’s actually a perfect machine for the task, and at half the price too. Smaller, quieter, & be able to deal with every video I threw at it. Works great with wireless keyboard & mouse or trackpad plus works great with Apple Remote too.
If I want the Mac Pro then I’ll wait. If I want the iMac Pro then I’ll buy it. If I change my mind then I’ll sell it and buy something else.
You can always find an excuse not to buy something, but there is really no need. If it’s not for you then don’t buy it.
If you post this again, in any other thread besides the ones you've already posted it in, I will ban you.
Storage is another matter though. Capacity does increase over time, and prices come down. I may not be able to afford the maximum at launch day prices, but it may be affordable after a year or two. Even if price is not a consideration, increasing capacity is. The most I could get in my MacBook Pro was 2TB. In a couple years that will likely double. It would be nice to take advantage of that increased capacity without having to replace the machine.
You said: "yes, someone compare parts for home built PC and it end up at $5,000 too"
I showed you how that's incorrect and that the machine above has better specifications (by a fair margin).