[...] 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.
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.
As someone who has built several systems from scratch I do fully appreciate the pros and cons of the self-builds.
What I do take issue with is those who through mischief, disingenuity or even lack of knowledge misrepresent the facts to hand and what is achievable.
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?
In reality these machines will be low volume sales. Therefore Apple is breaking even on the development costs. One way to make up the money is to limit the upgradability and force users to buy RAM etc from Apple at purchase. Personally, I think flexibility in a high-end Mac is important. First it opens up the machine to more customers and therefore increases sales. Second, having a screen that is not ideal for graphics limits the utility of a machine. A headless machine is a better approach with the ability to upgrade RAM, SSD, and GPU. Selling an high end iMac will split sales for the MacPro when it eventually comes out.
The flexibility is on the order page. Any professional grader will use a grading monitor. Plenty of graphics professionals and video editors on the other hand use the iMac's built-in monitor, I see them in virtually every studio I visit. I think Apple has made the right call in re-instating the modular Mac Pro which will suit some (though just wait for the complaints upon release), however many 'professionals' don't have the time nor the inclination to open up their workstation and tinker around, these are designed to take in to an approved technician for repairs.
I'm guessing that the RAM will actually be able to be upgraded post-purchase by taking it in to a service centre - but we'll have to wait for the iFixit teardown to know about that for sure.
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.
It's not better (and arguably worse, being a PC). It's a different thing, a thing you personally may like, but that doesn't make it better. Seeing as you are not everyone. Difficult concept for many techies to grasp -- that everyone isn't just like you. Perhaps indicative of being on the spectrum, unable to empathize with others, who knows...
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.
And in some ways much worse. God I can't believe it's 2017 and we're still arguing with trolls about why hobbled together PC clones aren't the same as a Mac...but here goes. This is what I wrote to Mr. VR last week:
I built gaming rigs for two decades for myself and others. So let me ask you:
- Why are you still pretending your list of missing components is the same as a complete Mac? - Why are you still ignoring the cost of your build time (15-20 minutes! good one bro...yes if only)? - Why are you still ignoring the cost of self-support? - Why are you still ignoring the hassle of multiple vendors who each point "that away" when you try to nail down a support issue? - Why are you still ignoring the longer resale value of a Mac? - Why are you still ignoring the TCO?
...and we haven't even gotten into the much more attractive, sleek, industrial design of an iMac, which saves a ton of space (mine is arm-mounted for a very clean and accessible desk space), nor the complete superiority of macOS over Windows (barf), nor the fact that a Mac can run Mac and Windows both.
[...] 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.
I get what you're saying, but in this context, it's like saying water is wet. Plus, remember his build can't run macOS. So it's not a Hackintosh -- it's just a PC that isn't even parallel in terms of technologies and features.
[...] 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.
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.
As someone who has built several systems from scratch I do fully appreciate the pros and cons of the self-builds.
What I do take issue with is those who through mischief, disingenuity or even lack of knowledge misrepresent the facts to hand and what is achievable.
Bingo. I built my own systems for decades and enjoyed doing so, despite the constant hassles. But it's pure folly to say it's empirically a better approach than an iMac Pro, because specs. There's much more to computing use cases than slapping some specs in a beige box.
Any word on prices for the different options? And is it reasonable to assume the 10 core, 128 gig ram, 2 tb drive that the testers have is going to be a standard configuration, thus have quick availability?
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).
That's because I don't believe you. Plain & simple. So go make a video refuting him. I'd like to see you two arguing with each others.
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.
Yeah.. I’m in video field too and come to think about it the one who care about monitor could be a minority. We do color correction in post house & don’t give an F about it when we do editing for example.
This is the difference between PROs and well...pro wedding videographers...
I'm not sure I understand what you mean. Are you saying pro wedding videographers care about colour correction?
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? Compare at least equal features.
LOL. I knew there will be a catch somewhere. Solving it with adapters & cards, hell yeah.. pro will love that. Definitely will make the machine more reliable. /s
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.
And in some ways much worse. God I can't believe it's 2017 and we're still arguing with trolls about why hobbled together PC clones aren't the same as a Mac...but here goes. This is what I wrote to Mr. VR last week:
I built gaming rigs for two decades for myself and others. So let me ask you:
- Why are you still pretending your list of missing components is the same as a complete Mac? - Why are you still ignoring the cost of your build time (15-20 minutes! good one bro...yes if only)? - Why are you still ignoring the cost of self-support? - Why are you still ignoring the hassle of multiple vendors who each point "that away" when you try to nail down a support issue? - Why are you still ignoring the longer resale value of a Mac? - Why are you still ignoring the TCO?
...and we haven't even gotten into the much more attractive, sleek, industrial design of an iMac, which saves a ton of space (mine is arm-mounted for a very clean and accessible desk space), nor the complete superiority of macOS over Windows (barf), nor the fact that a Mac can run Mac and Windows both.
Such a dead horse tho.
I understand what you mean, and I agree. I'm just saying that not everyone actually *needs* or even necessarily wants all of the things that are included in the Mac experience. Some, probably even many, will achieve the same level of productivity with a white box as they would with a Mac. I did for years, and I'm guessing from your posts that you did too. Once I open Photoshop or Pro Tools or (insert widely-used productivity app here), the only substantial difference is which side of the window the buttons are on. Looking at it that way, it *is* kind of the same as a Mac, the same way a Chrysler is kind of the same as a Mercedes -- creature comforts and features aside, they'll both accomplish the primary task in a similar way.
I'm just saying that not everyone actually *needs* or even necessarily wants all of the things that are included in the Mac experience.
From page 3: > I don't see many people who prefer to spec out a machine optimized for their specific use case to be happy - especially, smaller pros & semi-pros who are cost conscious.
Most of the following pages are people pointing out differently configured & optimized DIY systems. Proving the point.
Apple is making a system with a limited number of options. I expect most people will end up paying more for some component than they need/want to. But if it is business money - and especially big business money - it all gets depreciated away and labor costs & revenue earned will far overshadow a few hundred or even thousand dollars extra paid.
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.
Well I was speaking about my personal Macs at home, but for my company I bought several hundred a year the top of the range Macs ... but then I did own several Apple dealerships . Boy I loved the Lisa.
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.
The last MacBook I had lasted about seven years. After nearly a decade of photo editing, music storage, software development, holiday video editing, four novels, and general messing about, I had about 10MB left out of … mmm … about 500GB. I could have archived thousands of old photos and videos to free up a few gig, but the machine was struggling to running IntelliJ and I couldn’t upgrade to Sierra, so I sadly retired it and bought another top-of-the line MacBook Pro. I expect to get about five years out of this one, just like the last one, and just like the last one, I’ll probably run it for seven.
What Apple knows, and no one els here does, is how long their average customer keeps their Mac, and they have a good idea how much storage the average customer will use over the life of the machine.
And by ‘customer’ I mean the ever changing demographic that is the Mac professional, not the stuck-in-their-ways folk who wish that Apple would make the same machines they were making when I bought my first MacBook Pro.
As I’ve often said, there’s no point waiting for Apple to change tack because they won’t. Yes, they changed their minds about the Mac Pro, but that was because they realised they’d misjudged where technology was heading. Will they produce the same massive loud slot-laden cheese grater they made ten years ago? I doubt it. When Schiller described the new machine he said “modular”, and I’m not sure that’s the same as “infinitely expandable”.
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.
Whether you think it’s needed or not is immaterial. Your imaginary machine doesn’t provide it, so it’s not a like-for-like comparison, therefore you fail. And that’s before you tried to sneak in a lower resolution monitor.
If you want build and manage your own machine then fine. My time is (literally) too valuable to waste dicking around building a rig inferior (as yours is) to one I can pick up off the shelf with a warranty and a better screen.
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.
Alienware is a gaming company, that computer is not meant to be a workstation. Threadripper is an Alienware exclusive until the end of 2017. So, in a few weeks, companies such as HP and Lenovo can use Threadripper in their systems.
As for the Threadripper 1950X, well, it offers slightly higher performance than the i9 7900X (which has AVX-512).
Xeon W is the Xeon version of Skylake X, with the major difference being ECC. The i9 7900X (10 core) is essentially the Xeon W-2155 (10 core). The W-2145 (8 core) is what's being used in the entry iMac Pro.
There aren't many benchmarks available with Threadripper and Xeon W, but here's a few.
Additional benchmarks showing the 1950X and 7900X are more readily available.
The 1950X is definitely suitable for a workstation. ECC support, quad channel memory, 16 cores / 32 threads and support for 64 PCIe lanes.
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.
Thunderbolt 3 is a solution to a problem the build doesn't have. That's the point.
The Dell is an exceptional display, in more ways than one it's more capable. Of course, I could simply choose the Dell UP2715K, which is 5K.
When you cut out comments that are critical to the context, it's not focusing on the fundamentals
Outside of the extreme case, an 8 HDD RAID 0 array, the 10 Gbps USB 3.1 gen2 is sufficient for data transfer. The main advantage for Thunderbolt 3 is the ability to have external PCIe devices (40 Gbps one way, or 20 Gbps two ways). This would allow for something like a laptop to easily have an external GPU dock. In the case of a desktop the appeal drops off quickly.
The Radeon Pro Vega Frontier Edition can handle 6 4K displays.
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).
That's because I don't believe you. Plain & simple. So go make a video refuting him. I'd like to see you two arguing with each others.
What's to believe? I literally posted the build with the prices.
Let's see, the Threadripper 1950X is more powerful than the Xeon W-2145 and the Radeon Pro Vega Frontier Edition 16 GB HBM2 is more powerful than the Radeon Pro Vega 56 8 GB HBM2.
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.
Whether you think it’s needed or not is immaterial. Your imaginary machine doesn’t provide it, so it’s not a like-for-like comparison, therefore you fail. And that’s before you tried to sneak in a lower resolution monitor.
If you want build and manage your own machine then fine. My time is (literally) too valuable to waste dicking around building a rig inferior (as yours is) to one I can pick up off the shelf with a warranty and a better screen.
It doesn't provide it, but it also doesn't need it.
The lower resolution monitor was also a monitor with local dimming. If you want something that's not, the 5K Dell UP2715K is $1300.
Comments
I'm guessing that the RAM will actually be able to be upgraded post-purchase by taking it in to a service centre - but we'll have to wait for the iFixit teardown to know about that for sure.
And in some ways much worse. God I can't believe it's 2017 and we're still arguing with trolls about why hobbled together PC clones aren't the same as a Mac...but here goes. This is what I wrote to Mr. VR last week:
I built gaming rigs for two decades for myself and others. So let me ask you:
- Why are you still pretending your list of missing components is the same as a complete Mac?
- Why are you still ignoring the cost of your build time (15-20 minutes! good one bro...yes if only)?
- Why are you still ignoring the cost of self-support?
- Why are you still ignoring the hassle of multiple vendors who each point "that away" when you try to nail down a support issue?
- Why are you still ignoring the longer resale value of a Mac?
- Why are you still ignoring the TCO?
...and we haven't even gotten into the much more attractive, sleek, industrial design of an iMac, which saves a ton of space (mine is arm-mounted for a very clean and accessible desk space), nor the complete superiority of macOS over Windows (barf), nor the fact that a Mac can run Mac and Windows both.
Such a dead horse tho.
> I don't see many people who prefer to spec out a machine optimized for their specific use case to be happy - especially, smaller pros & semi-pros who are cost conscious.
Most of the following pages are people pointing out differently configured & optimized DIY systems. Proving the point.
Apple is making a system with a limited number of options. I expect most people will end up paying more for some component than they need/want to. But if it is business money - and especially big business money - it all gets depreciated away and labor costs & revenue earned will far overshadow a few hundred or even thousand dollars extra paid.
What Apple knows, and no one els here does, is how long their average customer keeps their Mac, and they have a good idea how much storage the average customer will use over the life of the machine.
And by ‘customer’ I mean the ever changing demographic that is the Mac professional, not the stuck-in-their-ways folk who wish that Apple would make the same machines they were making when I bought my first MacBook Pro.
As I’ve often said, there’s no point waiting for Apple to change tack because they won’t. Yes, they changed their minds about the Mac Pro, but that was because they realised they’d misjudged where technology was heading. Will they produce the same massive loud slot-laden cheese grater they made ten years ago? I doubt it. When Schiller described the new machine he said “modular”, and I’m not sure that’s the same as “infinitely expandable”.
If you want build and manage your own machine then fine. My time is (literally) too valuable to waste dicking around building a rig inferior (as yours is) to one I can pick up off the shelf with a warranty and a better screen.
As for the Threadripper 1950X, well, it offers slightly higher performance than the i9 7900X (which has AVX-512).
Xeon W is the Xeon version of Skylake X, with the major difference being ECC. The i9 7900X (10 core) is essentially the Xeon W-2155 (10 core). The W-2145 (8 core) is what's being used in the entry iMac Pro.
There aren't many benchmarks available with Threadripper and Xeon W, but here's a few.
Additional benchmarks showing the 1950X and 7900X are more readily available.
The 1950X is definitely suitable for a workstation. ECC support, quad channel memory, 16 cores / 32 threads and support for 64 PCIe lanes.
The Dell is an exceptional display, in more ways than one it's more capable. Of course, I could simply choose the Dell UP2715K, which is 5K.
When you cut out comments that are critical to the context, it's not focusing on the fundamentals
Outside of the extreme case, an 8 HDD RAID 0 array, the 10 Gbps USB 3.1 gen2 is sufficient for data transfer. The main advantage for Thunderbolt 3 is the ability to have external PCIe devices (40 Gbps one way, or 20 Gbps two ways). This would allow for something like a laptop to easily have an external GPU dock. In the case of a desktop the appeal drops off quickly.
The Radeon Pro Vega Frontier Edition can handle 6 4K displays.
Let's see, the Threadripper 1950X is more powerful than the Xeon W-2145 and the Radeon Pro Vega Frontier Edition 16 GB HBM2 is more powerful than the Radeon Pro Vega 56 8 GB HBM2.
It's pretty simple.
The lower resolution monitor was also a monitor with local dimming. If you want something that's not, the 5K Dell UP2715K is $1300.