Last Active
  • South Korea probes Apple's decision to slow down iPhones with weak batteries

    jd_in_sb said:
    Apple’s intentions were good but I can see how some will twist it into a sinister upgrade scheme. People love conspiracies. 
    I disagree, especially when even Apple Store staff remained in the dark. They couldn't even suggest for a user to replace their battery to fix any performance issues.
  • First look: Benchmarks put Apple's entry-level $4999 iMac Pro to the test

    Apple isn’t even using a W-2145, let alone downclocking one. 
    The W-2140B is essentially a downclocked version of the W-2145. The same way the W-2150B is a downclocked W-2155.

    These are straight up weaker versions of their regular counterparts.
    That said, I’m confused about the comments re: thermal throttling. From the article:

    In the multi-core benchmark, the 8 cores ran at 3.9 gigahertz, which seems to be the top CPU frequency when maxing out all CPU cores. 

    and, during 10 consecutive multi core tests:

    After the second test, each additional run would cause the iMac Pro to thermal throttle when the CPU reached roughly 94 degrees celsius, which caused the clock speed to drop from 3.9GHz to about 3.6GHz for a second or two. This allowed the CPU to drop below 92 degrees, and the clock speed to rise back to the maximum 3.9GHz. 

    The base frequency of this processor is only 3.2GHz.  So multicore performance seems well beyond spec. 

    That doesn’t explain the single core at 3.9 but if it can do 3.6 to 3.9 with all cores, 4.2 with single core would seem to be attainable wrt thermals. There may be some further optimizations possible, trading off fan speed (which was described as inaudible and seemingly near idle) with maximum clockspeed under various load conditions. 

    Looks very promising so far. 

    Well beyond spec? What are you talking about. Turbo should be sustained. None of this looks promising.

    Even the overall performance is disappointing. A 1950X scores 3100 in Cinebench R15, meanwhile, the W-2140B scored 1680.

  • Apple's $4,999 all-in-one iMac Pro launches Thursday, Dec. 14

    chia said:
    VRing said:

    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.

    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.
  • Apple's $4,999 all-in-one iMac Pro launches Thursday, Dec. 14

    chia said:
    VRing said:

    That's incorrect.

    $5000 will do much better than the entry iMac Pro.

    AMD Threadripper 1950X (16 cores / 32 threads) + ASRock X399 Taichi [$970]
    Corsair H80i [$80]
    32 GB Samsung DDR4 ECC [$400]
    1 TB Samsung 960 EVO [$450]
    AMD Radeon Pro Vega Frontier Edition 16 GB HBM2 (Vega 64) [$790]
    Corsair RM850x [$110]
    ASUS XG-C100C 10 Gbps [$100]
    Phanteks Enthoo Pro [$100]

    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.
  • Apple's iMac Pro model number pegged as 'A1862' ahead of expected Dec. launch

    nht said:
    VRing said:
    VRing said:
    macxpress said:
    Anyone know the price breakdown for the major components of this?  $5K is huge money, and critics will be all about the "Apple tax."  It would help to know that the processor costs $x, the video card costs $x, the 1TB SSD costs $x, etc.  Presumably Apple is earning a margin of near 30%, so I expect these components are surprisingly expensive (adding up to well over $3000).
    Many have tried to build a similar PC and have failed to do a fair comparison. The graphics cards in them are brand new (I think the reason for the Dec availability) as well as the Xeon processors are also new. Those alone are quite expensive. Since people cannot get their hands on these new AMD Vega/Vega Pro graphics they're trying to compare a PC with dual 1080TI graphics cards and thats not really a fair comparison in the end. Same goes for the CPU...many are just comparing the highest end current Core i7 which again, isn't a fair comparison. Even then, they come to about $4500 if I remember correctly. Again, that doesn't count in the design costs, assembly, shipping, sales costs, support costs, etc.

    Apple did one during the keynote with an HP Workstation and it was over $7,000. I think we'll have to wait a little bit when the parts become fully available for the public.

    What many fail to factor in when calculating a cost is the R&D, engineering, making the software all work efficiently, the OS, and any apps included, assembly, shipping, retail, support costs, etc. These are all factored into the cost of any product, yet people just go on PC Part Picker and price out the parts and think thats a fair comparison when its not.
    Apple iMac Pro ($5000)

    Intel Xeon (8 core / 16 thread)
    32 GB DDR4-2666 ECC
    1TB SSD
    Radeon Pro Vega 56 - 8 GB HBM2

    DIY PC ($3090 - everything except for a monitor, keyboard, mouse and OS)

    AMD Threadripper 1950X (16 core / 32 thread)
    32 GB DDR4-2133 ECC 
    1TB Samsung 960 EVO
    Radeon Vega Frontier Edition (Vega 64) - 16 GB HBM2

    pcpartpicker: https://pcpartpicker.com/list/NGV9sJ

    The DIY build has a better CPU and GPU than the iMac Pro.

    By the time the iMac Pro launches, there will be even more price drops and other new products only a month or so away (look to CES).
    Nice try but you’re missing major components, your time, a warranty from a single provider, and excellent support. 

    Heres another PCpartPicker estimate from june which included a monitor:

    Total: $4686.71


    ...but again, this assumes your time has no value, that a single provider warranty has no value, and ignores the awesome longevity, resale value, and lower TCO of a Mac. A Mac’s value is more than a bunch of PC parts slapped into a case.

    Why are you posting a build from June? The one I posted it from today.

    Outside of the keyboard, mouse, OS and monitor, what major components am I missing?

    There are also trade-offs for the warranty, while it's not through a single company, the duration on individual parts is often between 3 and 7 years.

    Putting this together will take 15-20 minutes. One would end up saving more time because they'd have a faster machine.

    You wouldn't need to worry about resale in the short term because you'd have a system with 64 PCIe lanes, 4 PCIe 3.0 x16 slots, 1 PCIe 2.0 x1 slot, 3 Ultra M.2 ports, 1 U.2 port, 8 SATA3 ports and 8 memory slots. It's easy to just upgrade.
    The cooler is large, noisy and probably the H100 is the better option for the thread ripper.  If it were my build I'd go with the Noctura and live with a bit less cooling to get a quieter solution.  I guess going with a louder budget case on a $3K build is a personal decision and the PSU is solid but I tend to pay extra for quieter gear.

    Get premium parts that are quiet and that $2000 budget drops quickly.  Also, by discounting the monitor you really are stacking the deck as you can get crappy 4K displays for cheap.  You like to hand wave that part but the iMac monitor is nice. It's not an Eizo but really nice...and better if you're video editing vs doing stuff for print.


    This isn't the PC I would build.  And even if it was, it's not a 15 minute build.  I'm pretty sure the last time I installed Windows it took about 15 minutes for a bare install.  That's before all the updates that tends to happen.  From a pure hardware build perspective, I guess you maybe could just slap all the parts together in 15-20 mins but I've spent that long being anal about wire management.  That's assuming that the cooler isn't too big and hits something, everything goes on clean, you didn't lose the DOA lotto, etc.  Then I tend to do some kind of burn in test because, yeah, all those warranties sound great until you have to deal with their customer support.  Better to test everything to have anything that'll suffer from infant mortality die quickly within the return period.

    Meh...building a white box is something an enthusiast might do.  It's not something I'd bother with as a studio.  At the end of it all with a monitor, better parts, etc you're saving maybe $500 and for me MacOS and my time is worth more than $500 over Windows and dealing with some idiot CSR for hours because I lost the DOA lotto.
    I took a moment to add parts, there's a lot of tweaking one can do if you want different cooling or different part options.  Even the pricing on a number of the parts is higher than it should be. The point being, in that ballpark you can get a more powerful computer with around $2000 to spend on other things (assuming you have $5000 to spend).

    Yes, I was referring to the hardware when I said 15-20 minutes. 

    It's not hand waving, it's just showing that you're not tied down to a single display option. If you need to spend $1000+ on a display to pair with it, nothing is stopping you.There are lots of monitor options, I'm just not including it in the price because someone might find a better match for their needs. That could be a multi-monitor setup, a larger display, etc.