The comparison AI did with the Lenovo Thinkstation is not accurate. The iMac Pro is an entry level workstation, while the Lenovo 910 is a high end model, far more capable. The iMac Pro has a single CPU, with a max of 128GB of RAM and a single AMD Vega card with 16GB of RAM. The P910 has two CPU's, a maximum of 1TB of RAM and capable of three Quadro P6000 w/ 24GB of RAM each in SLI. It's obvious that the Lenovo was a more expensive device, since it's more complex than the iMac Pro. We should wait for the new entry level models are released to make a fair comparison.
The configuration selected by the Reddit user for the piece was as close to the iMac Pro's stated specs as possible and not maxed out in any regard. And, coupled with the fact that by the entire workstation industry's research including Lenovo's, prove that only a very small amount of them get upgraded beyond what's purchased, the configuration selection was apt.
Upgradeability looks great on paper, and I like doing it. It is not a big thing outside of "us" though.
My point is not about upgradability, but about that the comparison is not 1:1. The P910 is a high end model with a lot of expansion, something the iMac Pro don't have, and add cost to the device. The Lenovo P320 or even the P720 have a lower cost, since are entry and midrange models, and can be configure very similar to the iMac Pro.
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.
Since it's probably expensive ECC ram, some users would try to throw in some cheap ram and complain to Apple when it has issues or doesn't work. Then they'll try to get a new iMac Pro with their warranty.
Doubtful as I suspect anyone buying this machine knows a thing or two about computers.
Most of these will be sold to big design companies and IT only provides minimal support, like new keyboards and mice. Thats my experience. They don't bother with upgrading ram or SSD.
$5000 will do much better than the entry iMac Pro.
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 aren't making a comparison if you're comparing an iMac Pro that's ready to use straight out of the box with an incomplete system that can't be used without a monitor. Do us the courtesy of doing a complete job by adding the monitor and other accessories at least as good as those of the iMac Pro so that we have a usable system.
Your lacking comparison is tantamount to telling somebody about to buy and drive away a new car "I can get this for you cheaper", then showing them a kit car and declaring "see, this is much cheaper if you build it yourself, just choose what engine, seats, wheels and tires you want with your kit car".
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.
Again, you've left out all the other costs -- building it, supporting it, increased instability with multiple vendors, dealing with multiple OEMs who don't want to claim responsibility, higher TCO, crummier Windows, and complete failure to run macOS.
Oh and how do you run the new T2 chip w/ secure enclaves on your PC rig? Oh right, you can't. Because it's not a Mac. It's just a bunch of junk you've thrown together into a huge-ass case that looks like garbage and tricked yourself into pretending it's the same thing as a Mac.
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.
Who said that? Nobody. You just created a straw man, congrats.
A modular MP is a different use case than an AIO iMac Pro. Why are you pretending every solution must serve every use case? Do you even work with computers?
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.
Most people with NEVER open up their computer after purchase. FACT. Enough with this tired statement. Order it with what you want and be done with it.
Sheesh... don't you get tired of ranting the same thing time and time again? This machine is not for you then. Move on.
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 aren't making a comparison if you're comparing an iMac Pro that's ready to use straight out of the box with an incomplete system that can't be used without a monitor. Do us the courtesy of doing a complete job by adding the monitor and other accessories at least as good as those of the iMac Pro so that we have a usable system.
Your lacking comparison is tantamount to telling somebody about to buy and drive away a new car "I can get this for you cheaper", then showing them a kit car and declaring "see, this is much cheaper if you build it yourself, just choose what engine, seats, wheels and tires you want with your kit car".
matrix007 said: "yes, someone compare parts for home built PC and it end up at $5,000 too"
The $5000 "home built PC" is a lot better.
If you want a monitor as filler, maybe the Dell UP2718Q is a good option. Lower resolution, but local dimming (384 zones), faster response and excellent color reproduction/accuracy. That won't be too useful if you're doing CAD work or coding, so you might prefer multiple displays at lower cost.
Building a PC is not like building a car, that's just an absurd comparison.
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.
Really? Finally? But the guy adds so much value by repeating the same 2-3 posts all the time.... (sarcasm noted since many here lack such a detector...)
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.
Gaming rig? It has a 16 core / 32 thread CPU with up to 64 PCIe lanes, ECC RAM and a Pro Radeon GPU. That's not a gaming rig.
I don't see your point. His statement was simply false, I proved that.
If you want a mass produced version of what I listed, you'll have to wait until January. Currently Alienware has exclusive use of Threadripper until the end of 2017, companies like HP and Lenovo can put these in their workstations for scale, and at lower cost than an Intel Xeon W.
No company would mass produce a DIY PC.
A mass produced PC with a Threadripper and Radeon Pro. That went right over you.
By putting a SATA board with no Thunderbolt 3 in sight as you did... Wish a good business to you with that...
Additional GPU? Put it inside. Additional storage? Put it inside. External storage? USB 3.1 gen2 is 10 Gbps, faster than SATA3. Need to hot swap storage? $100 extra gets you a front mounted multi drive cage.
You don't need Thunderbolt 3.
A NVMExpress SSD over SATA ?
We don’t need NVMExpress speed, we don’t need TB3 speed, long live USB 3.1, long live SATA.
OK, then why do you compare that DIY PC to an iMac Pro?
An NVMe PCIe SSD is used in an M.2 slot. There are 3 of them. You could also get a PCIe adapter which can hold even more in various raid configurations.
You really have no clue what you're talking about.o
So you provide NVMe and I just don’t need Thunderbolt 3. That makes it a fair comparison: “Ignore TB3 and there are many iMac Pro alternatives.” I’m done with this.
This dude is a troll. He was schooled in another thread on all the ways his DIY PC nonsense isn't nearly the same as a sleek Mac, despite a few specs that he thinks are similar or better, but it went over his head. He willfully pretends compatibility, support, time, and TCO aren't a thing. "But but but specs!" Typical PC guy. Why he thinks he's adding value by telling us his jalopy of PC components stuffed into an ugly box are the same as the Macs we're discussing is beyond comprehension. Must have gotten lost from Tom's Hardware or something.
If you want a monitor as filler, maybe the Dell UP2718Q is agood option. Lower resolution, but local dimming (384 zones), faster response and excellent color reproduction/accuracy. That won't be too useful if you're doing CAD work or coding, so you might prefer multiple displays at lower cost.
Building a PC is not like building a car, that's just an absurd comparison.
The monitor is not filler, it's an essential part of the comparison if you're comparing like with like. The iMac Pro is a computer with a display of a particular standard; the comparison is only valid if you build a system which does at least the same as the iMac Pro you are comparing it too. Your build isn't the same when it lacks the display. It is the same reason why your build needs to have Thunderbolt 3, to enable it to connect to Thunderbolt 3 devices, otherwise it lacks functionality when compared to the iMac Pro.
It seems you've failed to comprehend my analogy that buying a car you can just drive away (iMac Pro) is not the same as a car you have to assemble yourself (your DIY computer). You've also failed to comprehend that your kit is incomplete until it does the same as the ready to use equipment: if the buyer still needs to source an engine etc after assembling their kit then it's not in the same state of readiness as the new car you can just drive away with from the showroom.
Oh and for the record, Thunderbolt 3 is 40 Gb/s compared to USB 3.1 Gen2 maximum of 10 Gb/s. It's odd how you consider the slower USB 3.1 inferior to the fastest Thunderbolt 3. That's what I call absurd.
[...] Your lacking comparison is tantamount to telling somebody about to buy and drive away a new car "I can get this for you cheaper", then showing them a kit car and declaring "see, this is much cheaper if you build it yourself, just choose what engine, seats, wheels and tires you want with your kit car".
True, but then I can get whichever wheels, tires, seats, etc. I want rather than just what the manufacturer decided to offer in the package deal. Maybe I don't care what the wheels look like so I can save a bunch of cash there, and put that money towards a more powerful engine. Maybe a very expensive feature is something I don't anticipate using enough to make it worth the cost (*cough* TB3 *cough*).
You're right that DIY is not the same as buying a Mac, but it's not necessarily a net disadvantage, either. It's a trade-off. The fact that you or I may not want to take that approach (I got fed up with various manufacturers all claiming it was someone else's fault when something didn't work the way it's supposed to) doesn't mean it's not a good plan for someone else, especially those who are price sensitive.
matrix007 said: "yes, someone compare parts for home built PC and it end up at $5,000 too"
The $5000 "home built PC" is a lot better.
If you want a monitor as filler, maybe the Dell UP2718Q is a good option. Lower resolution, but local dimming (384 zones), faster response and excellent color reproduction/accuracy. That won't be too useful if you're doing CAD work or coding, so you might prefer multiple displays at lower cost.
Building a PC is not like building a car, that's just an absurd comparison.
The monitor is not filler, it's an essential part of the comparison if you're comparing like with like. The iMac Pro is a computer with a display of a particular standard; the comparison is only valid if you build a system which does at least the same as the iMac Pro you are comparing it too. Your build isn't the same when it lacks the display. It is the same reason why your build needs to have Thunderbolt 3, to enable it to connect to Thunderbolt 3 devices, otherwise it lacks functionality when compared to the iMac Pro.
It seems you've failed to comprehend my analogy that buying a car you can just drive away (iMac Pro) is not the same as a car you have to assemble yourself (your DIY computer). You've also failed to comprehend that your kit is incomplete until it does the same as the ready to use equipment: if the buyer still needs to source an engine etc after assembling their kit then it's not in the same state of readiness as the new car you can just drive away with from the showroom.
Oh and for the record, Thunderbolt 3 is 40 Gb/s compared to USB 3.1 Gen2 maximum of 10 Gb/s. It's odd how you consider the slower USB 3.1 inferior to the fastest Thunderbolt 3. That's what I call absurd.
I'm not trying to rebuild an iMac Pro, I'm showing that that the $5000 "home built PC" is better.
You seem to keep ignoring the original context of my post and purposely cutting parts out.
Additional GPU? Put it inside. Additional storage? Put it inside. External storage? USB 3.1 gen2 is 10 Gbps, faster than SATA3. Need to hot swap storage? $100 extra gets you a front mounted multi drive cage. There's no need for Thunderbolt 3 when you have better solutions.
Most people with NEVER open up their computer after purchase.
If the only issue were future upgrades I'd be less concerned, but some of Apple's design choices make it more difficult to configure a machine for work out of the box.
Show of hands: How many people who use a computer for work either presently use or would have liked to use a PCIe peripheral? The last Mac Pro I worked on was pleasingly quiet. It's a shame that the Thunderbolt PCIe expansion chassis we were forced to use made so much noise it negated the benefit of the quiet Mac. We can argue that Thunderbolt makes slots unnecessary, but in the real world that's just not true.
In our case (audio post workstation) the graphics capability of the Mac Pro was utterly wasted, so the option to trade one of the GPUs for another CPU instead would have nice. And since Avid doesn't offer their DSP in any form other than a PCIe card, our choices were an external chassis or to switch to Windows.
Note that despite objections from the bean counters we got a Mac anyway, but it was choice driven by the OS. The hardware is wonderful and I like it a lot, but it was actually an impediment to getting it approved, not an asset, and some of the benefit was erased by the compromises required.
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.
I don't understand your point. The person to whom you're replying described a machine with off-the-shelf parts. I don't understand why that could not be easily scaled to millions of units.
I also don't understand how it's relevant to a comparison of products. His point is that one can, with relative ease, build a machine with similar capability for less money. He's right. It's not a direct, feature-for-feature match, but except for Thunderbolt 3 it's reasonably comparable. In some ways even better.
The only really applicable and reasonable argument is "It's not an Apple product." That's a fair point, because Apple computers include a lot of niceties that simply can't be had any other way, at any price. Ecosystem interoperability, high-quality single-source support, and macOS are some obvious examples. However, if all I want to do is cut and mix audio as quickly and economically as I can, it's unlikely I'd feel like I was missing something by using a machine like the one VRing described.
matrix007 said: "yes, someone compare parts for home built PC and it end up at $5,000 too"
The $5000 "home built PC" is a lot better.
If you want a monitor as filler, maybe the Dell UP2718Q is a good option. Lower resolution, but local dimming (384 zones), faster response and excellent color reproduction/accuracy. That won't be too useful if you're doing CAD work or coding, so you might prefer multiple displays at lower cost.
Building a PC is not like building a car, that's just an absurd comparison.
The monitor is not filler, it's an essential part of the comparison if you're comparing like with like. The iMac Pro is a computer with a display of a particular standard; the comparison is only valid if you build a system which does at least the same as the iMac Pro you are comparing it too. Your build isn't the same when it lacks the display. It is the same reason why your build needs to have Thunderbolt 3, to enable it to connect to Thunderbolt 3 devices, otherwise it lacks functionality when compared to the iMac Pro.
It seems you've failed to comprehend my analogy that buying a car you can just drive away (iMac Pro) is not the same as a car you have to assemble yourself (your DIY computer). You've also failed to comprehend that your kit is incomplete until it does the same as the ready to use equipment: if the buyer still needs to source an engine etc after assembling their kit then it's not in the same state of readiness as the new car you can just drive away with from the showroom.
Oh and for the record, Thunderbolt 3 is 40 Gb/s compared to USB 3.1 Gen2 maximum of 10 Gb/s. It's odd how you consider the slower USB 3.1 inferior to the fastest Thunderbolt 3. That's what I call absurd.
I'm not trying to rebuild an iMac Pro, I'm showing that that the $5000 "home built PC" is better.
You seem to keep ignoring the original context of my post and purposely cutting parts out.
Additional GPU? Put it inside. Additional storage? Put it inside. External storage? USB 3.1 gen2 is 10 Gbps, faster than SATA3. Need to hot swap storage? $100 extra gets you a front mounted multi drive cage. There's no need for Thunderbolt 3 when you have better solutions.
Your argument is pointless though. No scientist, studio, etc, etc is going to build their own. So maybe yes, you can build a better PC spec wise for $5,000, but in the end, nobody is going to buy your build anyways so why you keep arguing? You're completely missing the entire point.
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.
Gaming rig? It has a 16 core / 32 thread CPU with up to 64 PCIe lanes, ECC RAM and a Pro Radeon GPU. That's not a gaming rig.
I don't see your point. His statement was simply false, I proved that.
If you want a mass produced version of what I listed, you'll have to wait until January. Currently Alienware has exclusive use of Threadripper until the end of 2017, companies like HP and Lenovo can put these in their workstations for scale, and at lower cost than an Intel Xeon W.
No company would mass produce a DIY PC.
A mass produced PC with a Threadripper and Radeon Pro. That went right over you.
By putting a SATA board with no Thunderbolt 3 in sight as you did... Wish a good business to you with that...
Additional GPU? Put it inside. Additional storage? Put it inside. External storage? USB 3.1 gen2 is 10 Gbps, faster than SATA3. Need to hot swap storage? $100 extra gets you a front mounted multi drive cage.
You don't need Thunderbolt 3.
A NVMExpress SSD over SATA ?
We don’t need NVMExpress speed, we don’t need TB3 speed, long live USB 3.1, long live SATA.
OK, then why do you compare that DIY PC to an iMac Pro?
An NVMe PCIe SSD is used in an M.2 slot. There are 3 of them. You could also get a PCIe adapter which can hold even more in various raid configurations.
You really have no clue what you're talking about.o
So you provide NVMe and I just don’t need Thunderbolt 3. That makes it a fair comparison: “Ignore TB3 and there are many iMac Pro alternatives.” I’m done with this.
Why is Thunderbolt 3 needed? It's an inferior solution to a problem that doesn't exist on the build I posted.
Okay, looking at the 15 nested comments quoted above -- first there was DavidAIGregory's idiotic but nonetheless on-topic comment basically saying the iMac Pro CPU/GPU is a rip-off versus the regular iMac CPU/GPU. matrix077 responded to that by saying that if you try to build an iMac Pro using the same parts, it will cost you about $5000.
You jump in on your AMD performance-per-dollar high horse, saying you can build a better computer for less, which is entirely beside the point. I could and should stop here...
But if you want to go down that road, a good benchmark would be the Alienware Area-51 Threadripper, which features your 1950X and lists for $4500 with 32GB RAM and a single GPU. Let's ignore the fact Ryzen Threadripper is a consumer product aimed at Intel's Skylake-X gamer/enthusiast line, and doesn't directly compete with Xeon W (that would be the EPYC 7351P or 7401P). At least the Alienware build includes professional cooling and industrial design, because you're paying for that in the iMac Pro. Let's add $1500 for a decent 5K display and keyboard, etc. So $6000, without the latest Intel technologies, like AVX-512.
Macplusplus's point was that nobody is going to design, manufacture, and market an iMac Pro competitor for much less than what Apple is doing. It's a good price for what it is. The fact you can DIY something you think is better for less money is just completely irrelevant. Alienware can't even make a serious competitor for your build that costs less than the iMac Pro.
Finally, in response to your final comment quoted above -- Thunderbolt 3 is needed because it is the best current solution to a problem that does exist for an iMac. The fact it is not needed for your build is not relevant re: the iMac Pro.
StrangeDays said: Again, you've left out all the other costs -- building it, supporting it, increased instability with multiple vendors, dealing with multiple OEMs who don't want to claim responsibility, higher TCO, crummier Windows, and complete failure to run macOS.
That was one factor in my switching to Mac 10 years ago: having to deal with multiple suppliers who all claimed every problem was caused by someone else. I suppose I wouldn't have had to choose Apple specifically to overcome that particular obstacle -- I imagine HP and Dell or whoever also provide single-source support -- but your point is valid either way, that people don't factor in the cost of their own time and frustration, both in the beginning and over the life of the machine, when pricing a build.
StrangeDays said: Oh and how do you run the new T2 chip w/ secure enclaves on your PC rig? Oh right, you can't. Because it's not a Mac.
Well, to be fair, the iMac Pro doesn't either, and that is what he was comparing. EDIT: Whoops. I see I was wrong. Never mind.
I'm not trying to rebuild an iMac Pro, I'm showing that that the $5000 "home built PC" is better.
You seem to keep ignoring the original context of my post and purposely cutting parts out.
Weasel words. For your system to be a better system it must be as capable as the system you consider inferior but somehow faster, cheaper, more efficient etc in some way, otherwise it's not better is it? If you omit Thunderbolt 3 and a display it's simply not as capable.
I cut and paste to avoid repetition in the thread and to focus on the fundamentals.
Additional GPU? Put it inside. Additional storage? Put it inside. External storage? USB 3.1 gen2 is 10 Gbps, faster than SATA3. Need to hot swap storage? $100 extra gets you a front mounted multi drive cage. There's no need for Thunderbolt 3 when you have better solutions.
for the record, with Thunderbolt 3 it's possible to plug in at least two storage arrays per Thunderbolt 3 on the iMac Pro, each with 8 hot swappable drives. 16 hot swappable drives, more than can fit into any front mounted cage in a DIY PC. Oh and still have 3 Thunderbolt3 ports left over, maybe 3 4K monitors. Yes, the iMac Pro can run four 4K monitors (according to Apple) in addition to its built in display with no additional graphics cards required.
[...] Macplusplus's point was that nobody is going to design, manufacture, and market an iMac Pro competitor for much less than what Apple is doing. It's a good price for what it is. The fact you can DIY something you think is better in your basement for less money is just completely irrelevant.
I agree with everything you wrote except that I don't think the DIY angle is irrelevant.
You're not going to find an equivalent, brand-name machine at a lower price, but you can build something comparable yourself for less. They're both right.
The fact is that DIY is a perfectly viable approach for those who are willing to take on the roles of compatibility tester and tech support themselves. *I* don't want to anymore, but where money is harder to come by than time, or the expertise (or will to acquire it) exists, why not? Acknowledging the validity of an alternative approach doesn't diminish the value of the iMac Pro.
Comments
You aren't making a comparison if you're comparing an iMac Pro that's ready to use straight out of the box with an incomplete system that can't be used without a monitor. Do us the courtesy of doing a complete job by adding the monitor and other accessories at least as good as those of the iMac Pro so that we have a usable system.
Your lacking comparison is tantamount to telling somebody about to buy and drive away a new car "I can get this for you cheaper", then showing them a kit car and declaring "see, this is much cheaper if you build it yourself, just choose what engine, seats, wheels and tires you want with your kit car".
Oh and how do you run the new T2 chip w/ secure enclaves on your PC rig? Oh right, you can't. Because it's not a Mac. It's just a bunch of junk you've thrown together into a huge-ass case that looks like garbage and tricked yourself into pretending it's the same thing as a Mac.
Sorry, son, but your PC rig ain't a Mac.
Who said that? Nobody. You just created a straw man, congrats.
A modular MP is a different use case than an AIO iMac Pro. Why are you pretending every solution must serve every use case? Do you even work with computers?
The $5000 "home built PC" is a lot better.
If you want a monitor as filler, maybe the Dell UP2718Q is a good option. Lower resolution, but local dimming (384 zones), faster response and excellent color reproduction/accuracy. That won't be too useful if you're doing CAD work or coding, so you might prefer multiple displays at lower cost.
Building a PC is not like building a car, that's just an absurd comparison.
The monitor is not filler, it's an essential part of the comparison if you're comparing like with like.
The iMac Pro is a computer with a display of a particular standard; the comparison is only valid if you build a system which does at least the same as the iMac Pro you are comparing it too. Your build isn't the same when it lacks the display.
It is the same reason why your build needs to have Thunderbolt 3, to enable it to connect to Thunderbolt 3 devices, otherwise it lacks functionality when compared to the iMac Pro.
It seems you've failed to comprehend my analogy that buying a car you can just drive away (iMac Pro) is not the same as a car you have to assemble yourself (your DIY computer). You've also failed to comprehend that your kit is incomplete until it does the same as the ready to use equipment: if the buyer still needs to source an engine etc after assembling their kit then it's not in the same state of readiness as the new car you can just drive away with from the showroom.
Oh and for the record, Thunderbolt 3 is 40 Gb/s compared to USB 3.1 Gen2 maximum of 10 Gb/s.
It's odd how you consider the slower USB 3.1 inferior to the fastest Thunderbolt 3. That's what I call absurd.
You're right that DIY is not the same as buying a Mac, but it's not necessarily a net disadvantage, either. It's a trade-off. The fact that you or I may not want to take that approach (I got fed up with various manufacturers all claiming it was someone else's fault when something didn't work the way it's supposed to) doesn't mean it's not a good plan for someone else, especially those who are price sensitive.
You seem to keep ignoring the original context of my post and purposely cutting parts out.
I'll just copy/paste this again:
This PC has 64 PCIe lanes
4x PCIe 3.0 x16
1x PCIe 2.0 x1
3x Ultra M.2
1x U.2
8x SATA3
1x USB-A 3.1 gen2
1x USB-C 3.1 gen2
Additional GPU? Put it inside. Additional storage? Put it inside. External storage? USB 3.1 gen2 is 10 Gbps, faster than SATA3. Need to hot swap storage? $100 extra gets you a front mounted multi drive cage. There's no need for Thunderbolt 3 when you have better solutions.
If the only issue were future upgrades I'd be less concerned, but some of Apple's design choices make it more difficult to configure a machine for work out of the box.
Show of hands: How many people who use a computer for work either presently use or would have liked to use a PCIe peripheral? The last Mac Pro I worked on was pleasingly quiet. It's a shame that the Thunderbolt PCIe expansion chassis we were forced to use made so much noise it negated the benefit of the quiet Mac. We can argue that Thunderbolt makes slots unnecessary, but in the real world that's just not true.
In our case (audio post workstation) the graphics capability of the Mac Pro was utterly wasted, so the option to trade one of the GPUs for another CPU instead would have nice. And since Avid doesn't offer their DSP in any form other than a PCIe card, our choices were an external chassis or to switch to Windows.
Note that despite objections from the bean counters we got a Mac anyway, but it was choice driven by the OS. The hardware is wonderful and I like it a lot, but it was actually an impediment to getting it approved, not an asset, and some of the benefit was erased by the compromises required.
I also don't understand how it's relevant to a comparison of products. His point is that one can, with relative ease, build a machine with similar capability for less money. He's right. It's not a direct, feature-for-feature match, but except for Thunderbolt 3 it's reasonably comparable. In some ways even better.
The only really applicable and reasonable argument is "It's not an Apple product." That's a fair point, because Apple computers include a lot of niceties that simply can't be had any other way, at any price. Ecosystem interoperability, high-quality single-source support, and macOS are some obvious examples. However, if all I want to do is cut and mix audio as quickly and economically as I can, it's unlikely I'd feel like I was missing something by using a machine like the one VRing described.
You jump in on your AMD performance-per-dollar high horse, saying you can build a better computer for less, which is entirely beside the point. I could and should stop here...
But if you want to go down that road, a good benchmark would be the Alienware Area-51 Threadripper, which features your 1950X and lists for $4500 with 32GB RAM and a single GPU. Let's ignore the fact Ryzen Threadripper is a consumer product aimed at Intel's Skylake-X gamer/enthusiast line, and doesn't directly compete with Xeon W (that would be the EPYC 7351P or 7401P). At least the Alienware build includes professional cooling and industrial design, because you're paying for that in the iMac Pro. Let's add $1500 for a decent 5K display and keyboard, etc. So $6000, without the latest Intel technologies, like AVX-512.
Macplusplus's point was that nobody is going to design, manufacture, and market an iMac Pro competitor for much less than what Apple is doing. It's a good price for what it is. The fact you can DIY something you think is better for less money is just completely irrelevant. Alienware can't even make a serious competitor for your build that costs less than the iMac Pro.
Finally, in response to your final comment quoted above -- Thunderbolt 3 is needed because it is the best current solution to a problem that does exist for an iMac. The fact it is not needed for your build is not relevant re: the iMac Pro.
Well, to be fair, the iMac Pro doesn't either, and that is what he was comparing. EDIT: Whoops. I see I was wrong. Never mind.
I cut and paste to avoid repetition in the thread and to focus on the fundamentals.
for the record, with Thunderbolt 3 it's possible to plug in at least two storage arrays per Thunderbolt 3 on the iMac Pro, each with 8 hot swappable drives. 16 hot swappable drives, more than can fit into any front mounted cage in a DIY PC. Oh and still have 3 Thunderbolt3 ports left over, maybe 3 4K monitors. Yes, the iMac Pro can run four 4K monitors (according to Apple) in addition to its built in display with no additional graphics cards required.
You're not going to find an equivalent, brand-name machine at a lower price, but you can build something comparable yourself for less. They're both right.
The fact is that DIY is a perfectly viable approach for those who are willing to take on the roles of compatibility tester and tech support themselves. *I* don't want to anymore, but where money is harder to come by than time, or the expertise (or will to acquire it) exists, why not? Acknowledging the validity of an alternative approach doesn't diminish the value of the iMac Pro.