vadimyuryev

http://www.iarc.fr/en/media-centre/pr/2011/pdfs/pr208_E.pdf

They could have placed it in Group 3: The agent is not classifiable as to its carcinogenicity to humans.
or Group 4: The agent is probably not carcinogenic to humans.

But they ruled Group 2B: The agent is possibly carcinogenic to humans.

"This category is used for agents for which there is limited evidence of carcinogenicity in humans and less than sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity in experimental animals. It may also be used when there is inadequate evidence of carcinogenicity in humans but there is sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity in experimental animals."

"Limited evidence of carcinogenicity: A positive association has been observed between exposure to the agent and cancer for which a causal interpretation is considered by the Working Group to be credible, but chance, bias or confounding could not be ruled out with reasonable confidence."

That was back in 2011, just before 4G started to get implemented.


In my opinion, there wouldn't be so many people concerned about Wi-Fi and Cell Phone radiation if it was 100% safe, even if all of those people aren't "scientists."

Opinion #2: Not many are willing to go Amish, including me. 

Opinion #3: There are so many things in our daily lives that have the capability to cause cancer, including preservatives/chemicals in food and hygiene/skin-care products, that even if this wireless radiation was causing health issues like cancer, there are much bigger fish to blame it on. 

Either way, they'll give you a fat dose of more chemicals or zap you with some more radiation. Ironic, isn't it? 

Impressive differences here.

jameskatt2 said:

The problem I have with this comparison is that this the iMac Pro chosen would NOT be what is chosen by a real professional.

Here is a real professional review:

www.fcp.co/final-cut-pro/articles/2029-new-imac-pro

The comparison Macs are:

2013 Mac Pro 

- 8 core, 3.0GHz Intel Xeon E5 CPU with 3.9GHz turbo boost.

- 32 GB RAM

- Dual AMD FirePro D700 GPUs with 6 GB of 1866MHz GDDR5 VRAM each. 

- 1 TB system drive

- 27” Apple 2560x1440 max, Thunderbolt Display. 

- Cost = $9,626.78 in 2013

2017 iMac Pro

- 10 core, 3.0GHz Intel Xeon W CPU with 4.5GHz turbo boost.

- 64 GB of 2666MHz RAM

- Radeon Pro Vega 64 GPU with 16 GB HBM2 VRAM. 

- 2 TB SSD system drive

- built-in 27” 5120x2880 max, 5K monitor.

- Magic Keyboard and Magic Trackpad

- Cost = $9,050.89 in 2017

All media and Libraries are on a Promise Pegasus 16 TB RAID 5, with Thunderbolt 2 connections. All of the tests were run strictly off of the RAID for a real world performance test. Professionals don't store video on the Mac. They store the files on an external RAID.

Both Macs are running macOS 10.13.2 High Sierra with the current versions of FCPX 10.4.0, Motion 5.4.0 and Compressor 4.4.0.

-------------------------

You can read the numbers on the website's review. But I converted them to how much faster the iMac Pro is compared to the Mac Pro 2013.

USING FINAL CUT PRO X 10.4.0:

IMPORT CLIPS: 1.046x faster

COVERT CLIPS TO PROXY MEDIA: 2.09x faster

COVERT CLIPS TO OPTIMIZED MEDIA: 3.65x faster

RENDER TIMELINE OF CLIPS: 4.44x faster

MULTICAM PLAYBACK AND RENDER: 4.42x faster

FILE EXPORT TO H.264: 6.7x faster

FILE EXPORT TO MXF BROADCAST FILE: 5.69x faster

BRUCEX XML TEST: 1.39x faster

REAL WORLD TV SHOW EXPORT TO H.264: 2.14x faster

-------------------------

USING COMPRESSOR 4.4.0:

REAL WORLD TV SHOW IMPORT PRORES 422 AND EXPORT TO MXF PLUS H.264: 3.069x faster

-------------------------

The iMac Pro 2017 simply smokes the Mac Pro 2013 when doing real world video work.

Exporting files - which can take longer than editing the files - is 2 to 3 times faster on the iMac Pro than the Mac Pro 2013. 

This is a huge savings in time for real Video Professionals.

The iMac Pro easily pays for itself. For real Video Professionals, the iMac Pro essentially is a free computer because of the time and money it saves the pro.

This video is looking at Photo Editing, which most programs are typically less efficient at using all of the system resources. If you're interested in video editing, that will be our next video. 

macmarcus said:

Vadim should put together more educational videos - he really does a great job. For being Russian (don't know where he was born), his English is better and clearer than most Americans, almost with a slight Canadian accent but just barely. Good job and thanks!

Thanks man! Yes, I'm Russian. Moved to the states when I was 3. I'm 24 now. 

tenthousandthings said:

One question that would be useful to have answered when you do the review is about the configurations for the three memory options. Mainly this: Is the 64GB 2x32GB or 4x16GB?

Crucial does not seem to be selling a 16GB RDIMM, only 8GB and 32GB, so maybe Apple isn't using those? In that case, the 64GB configuration must be 2x32GB. If so, it makes sense to pay the $800 go to 64GB, because you don't have to replace anything if you upgrade to 128GB later on, unlike if you are at 32GB (assuming 4x8GB).

Max says that all Xeon processors are designed to work in Quad channel Ram configs. There's 4 slots in the iMac Pro. Each configuration should be using all 4 slots.

BTW: The back is sealed. You can't add or remove RAM on the iMac Pro.