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
It's not a catch. He has no clue what he's talking about.
An NVMe PCIe drive fits into one of the three Ultra M.2 slots.
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
It's not a catch. He has no clue what he's talking about.
An NVMe PCIe drive fits into one of the three Ultra M.2 slots.
Mate, you’re talking to a vacuum here. I built enough PC to know what it is. If you think it’s better then post a video arguing with that video guy. Your words are just wind to me as long as you think you can duplicate the whole experience by building a box yourself. People like you are the one who always shout “but Android had it first”. It’s just useless to educate...
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
It's not a catch. He has no clue what he's talking about.
An NVMe PCIe drive fits into one of the three Ultra M.2 slots.
Mate, you’re talking to a vacuum here. I built enough PC to know what it is. If you think it’s better then post a video arguing with that video guy. Your words are just wind to me as long as you think you can duplicate the whole experience by building a box yourself. People like you are the one who always shout “but Android had it first”. It’s just useless to educate...
I noticed you're having a very difficult time comprehending this. So I'll lay it out easily for you.
The entry iMac Pro uses the Intel Xeon W-2145 (8 core/16 thread), the build I posted used the AMD Threadripper 1950X (16 core/32 thread). The AMD processor is faster than the Intel processor. This is a fact.
The entry iMac Pro uses an downclocked AMD Radeon Pro Vega 56 8 GB HBM2, the build I posted uses an AMD Radeon Pro Vega Frontier Edition 16 GB HBM2. The Frontier Edition is more powerful than the Vega 56. That's another fact.
Radeon Pro Vega 56 specs (stock):
3584 stream processors
FP16: 21 TFLOPS*
FP32: 10.5 TFLOPS*
8 GB HBM2
*As the iMac Pro is running downclocked, the actual value will be lower
Radeon Pro Vega Frontier Edition specs:
4096 steam processors
FP16: 26.2 TFLOPS
FP32: 13.1 TFLOPS
16 GB HBM2
If you can't comprehend that, then your understanding of the subject isn't adequate enough for you to pass judgment. Hence, your opinion on the presented facts are void.
The iMac Pros are confirmed to be running downclocked GPUs:
The company does not disclose frequencies of the bespoke Radeon Pro Vega GPUs it uses, but says that their maximum FP32 compute performance is 11 TFLOPS (which points to around 1340 MHz clock-rate for the Vega 64) and their peak memory bandwidth is 400 GB/s (indicating about 1600 MT/s memory speed), which is slower when compared to the Radeon RX Vega cards for desktops. The main reasons why Apple downlocks its GPUs are of course power consumption and heat dissipation. The company says that Mac Pro’s cooling system can cope with up to 500 W of heat, so it cannot use a 140 W CPU and a 295 W GPU in order to avoid overheating.
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?
Yes, some do shoot log/flat and grade...usually by the same person, on the same box they are doing edits and probably in FCPX or Premiere rather than round tripping to Resolve. They want it to look cinematic-ish so the clients are happy and be able to fix things from shooting in less than ideal conditions from 3 different makes of cameras including a go-pro.
Others don't, but they aren't getting $5K-$10K for their gigs either and less likely to have a business model that sustains iMac Pro purchases on top of all the other gear.
The iMac Pro has been designed for some of these folk in mind with a great 5K DCI-P3 screen that's better for them than a higher grade and more expensive 2.5K Ezio calibrated for Adobe RGB geared more for photo editing. They do care about having a screen that's good enough without breaking the bank and I think the iMac has that.
The folks editing footage from an Arri Alexa vs a GH-5 and similar don't care as much about the monitor as commented above. They're going to toss everything to someone in a bay with a grading monitor anyway.
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.
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?
Yes, some do shoot log/flat and grade...usually by the same person, on the same box they are doing edits and probably in FCPX or Premiere rather than round tripping to Resolve. They want it to look cinematic-ish so the clients are happy and be able to fix things from shooting in less than ideal conditions from 3 different makes of cameras including a go-pro.
Others don't, but they aren't getting $5K-$10K for their gigs either and less likely to have a business model that sustains iMac Pro purchases on top of all the other gear.
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
It's not a catch. He has no clue what he's talking about.
An NVMe PCIe drive fits into one of the three Ultra M.2 slots.
Mate, you’re talking to a vacuum here. I built enough PC to know what it is. If you think it’s better then post a video arguing with that video guy. Your words are just wind to me as long as you think you can duplicate the whole experience by building a box yourself. People like you are the one who always shout “but Android had it first”. It’s just useless to educate...
I noticed you're having a very difficult time comprehending this. So I'll lay it out easily for you.
The entry iMac Pro uses the Intel Xeon W-2145 (8 core/16 thread), the build I posted used the AMD Threadripper 1950X (16 core/32 thread). The AMD processor is faster than the Intel processor. This is a fact.
Congratulation. You’re doing Android crowd proud, by proving to be as stupid as all of them.
if you want to prove your machine is “cheaper” you have to prove it to that video guy. He’s the one who said iMac Pro costed the same as home built PC box. Being a bit famous as he is he would have considered things a bit more thoroughly than you, I believe. Anyway, it’s him you need to argue about the cost. It’s just too bad I trust him more than nobody like you but hey! that’s life. If you’re a grown up you’ll understand.
But if you want to prove your machine is “better”, the only way to prove it, the only way to makes me believe you, is building it & have me using it for a few years. If I find it actually better than iMac Pro then I will believe you.
Hope you understand clearly now. If you don’t do either one of these, don’t reply to me. I tried to be polite but I won’t be next time.
I noticed you're having a very difficult time comprehending this. So I'll lay it out easily for you.
The entry iMac Pro uses the Intel Xeon W-2145 (8 core/16 thread), the build I posted used the AMD Threadripper 1950X (16 core/32 thread). The AMD processor is faster than the Intel processor. This is a fact. [...]
If you can't comprehend that, then your understanding of the subject isn't adequate enough for you to pass judgment. Hence, your opinion on the presented facts are void.
That's all well and good, but it just has nothing to do with the economics of an all-in-one like the iMac Pro and the pricing of any serious competitors for it that may emerge -- even ones based on Zen architecture. The machine (updated) you are building would be a good comparison for the new Mac Pro, this time next year. Come back then and it will be an interesting discussion. But it just isn't relevant to the iMac Pro today.
Let's say you were a startup with the resources to manufacture an all-in-one based on Zen architecture. I'd be interested to see how that prices out -- of course, to do so, you'd have to admit having Thunderbolt 3 is an advantage in an all-in-one. But let's assume that Intel follows through on their promise to open up the spec and make Thunderbolt non-exclusive, royalty-free as soon as next year. So just price it about the same as the Thunderbolt controllers for the current Intel line. [Keep in mind that Intel will start building Thunderbolt into their CPUs, eliminating the need for a controller, probably at the same time they open up the spec.]
Such an analysis would actually be relevant to the discussion here, unlike your current one.
Marco Armant has chimed in with the cost. Here he said ”It’s easy to laugh at how expensive you can make the iMac Pro, but only in comparison to consumer desktop components.
Configure an equivalent PC workstation with Skylake Xeons (if you can find them), DDR4 ECC, 8 GB Vega, big NVMe SSD, etc., and the pricing is competitive.”
Comments
An NVMe PCIe drive fits into one of the three Ultra M.2 slots.
The entry iMac Pro uses the Intel Xeon W-2145 (8 core/16 thread), the build I posted used the AMD Threadripper 1950X (16 core/32 thread). The AMD processor is faster than the Intel processor. This is a fact.
The entry iMac Pro uses an downclocked AMD Radeon Pro Vega 56 8 GB HBM2, the build I posted uses an AMD Radeon Pro Vega Frontier Edition 16 GB HBM2. The Frontier Edition is more powerful than the Vega 56. That's another fact.
Radeon Pro Vega 56 specs (stock):
- 3584 stream processors
- FP16: 21 TFLOPS*
- FP32: 10.5 TFLOPS*
- 8 GB HBM2
*As the iMac Pro is running downclocked, the actual value will be lowerRadeon Pro Vega Frontier Edition specs:
If you can't comprehend that, then your understanding of the subject isn't adequate enough for you to pass judgment. Hence, your opinion on the presented facts are void.
Others don't, but they aren't getting $5K-$10K for their gigs either and less likely to have a business model that sustains iMac Pro purchases on top of all the other gear.
The iMac Pro has been designed for some of these folk in mind with a great 5K DCI-P3 screen that's better for them than a higher grade and more expensive 2.5K Ezio calibrated for Adobe RGB geared more for photo editing. They do care about having a screen that's good enough without breaking the bank and I think the iMac has that.
The folks editing footage from an Arri Alexa vs a GH-5 and similar don't care as much about the monitor as commented above. They're going to toss everything to someone in a bay with a grading monitor anyway.
Please apex!! Please post it on a new thread!!
if you want to prove your machine is “cheaper” you have to prove it to that video guy. He’s the one who said iMac Pro costed the same as home built PC box. Being a bit famous as he is he would have considered things a bit more thoroughly than you, I believe. Anyway, it’s him you need to argue about the cost.
It’s just too bad I trust him more than nobody like you but hey! that’s life. If you’re a grown up you’ll understand.
But if you want to prove your machine is “better”, the only way to prove it, the only way to makes me believe you, is building it & have me using it for a few years. If I find it actually better than iMac Pro then I will believe you.
Hope you understand clearly now. If you don’t do either one of these, don’t reply to me. I tried to be polite but I won’t be next time.
Let's say you were a startup with the resources to manufacture an all-in-one based on Zen architecture. I'd be interested to see how that prices out -- of course, to do so, you'd have to admit having Thunderbolt 3 is an advantage in an all-in-one. But let's assume that Intel follows through on their promise to open up the spec and make Thunderbolt non-exclusive, royalty-free as soon as next year. So just price it about the same as the Thunderbolt controllers for the current Intel line. [Keep in mind that Intel will start building Thunderbolt into their CPUs, eliminating the need for a controller, probably at the same time they open up the spec.]
Such an analysis would actually be relevant to the discussion here, unlike your current one.
”It’s easy to laugh at how expensive you can make the iMac Pro, but only in comparison to consumer desktop components.
Seems like nobody educated him about computer. /s
https://twitter.com/marcoarment/status/941322728166043650