I'm sure you're right, but isn't everything we do on a computer based on computation? How are the two optimized differently? Hardware doesn't answer all the questions. Is it firmware? Drivers?
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Base iMac Pro vs Loaded BTO iMac 2020
- Thread starter sage73
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I'm sure you're right, but isn't everything we do on a computer based on computation? How are the two optimized differently? Hardware doesn't answer all the questions. Is it firmware? Drivers?
You want the Vega for rendering graphics. It's not that the 5700 XT can't be used for that but when Time=$$$$, the iMac Pro is the truck you want.
My old one was a 14 Core. I'm blown away by now much faster the 18 Core is on many tasks where I never expected to see any difference. Digital Performer opens in half the time, for example.
My old one was a 14 Core. I'm blown away by now much faster the 18 Core is on many tasks where I never expected to see any difference. Digital Performer opens in half the time, for example.
Last edited:
Not at all. For graphics rendering, the 5700 XT is barely acceptable. I've A/B'd my 14 Core Vega 64 against a maxed out 2020 10 Core. Not even close for my work. I was hoping that the 2020 could keep up. I really like the nano-glass and available 8TB storage. 128GB RAM is adequate and same as my iMP except that the Pro is quad-channel, of course. When my 14 Core outperformed the 10 Core 2020, I found an 18 Core 64X 4TB in the Refurb store and jumped on it.
Again, no. An upgrade is in the works though probably not in 2020 or I would have waited. Read the link I posted earlier.
If Apple does release the new Pro on Monday, I'll return this bad boy (this is only my second day) and place an order for the new one in a heartbeat.
Theoretically, RDNA2 is launching on October 28. There's an embargo on it, so even Apple in an even couldn't talk much about an iMac Pro with RDNA2 graphics.
And they won't announce this in an event. Waste of time. Not enough changes to merit time in a press event like October 13.
And they won't announce this in an event. Waste of time. Not enough changes to merit time in a press event like October 13.
I am now leaning toward the Pro. I don’t plan on gaming on it. I’ve got a monster PC and the X series coming soon. What I do for work has been expending more and more into graphics and publishing. Maybe you guys can help me decide.
Daily work — InDesign, Photoshop and/or Affinity Suite. I am also getting more into video editing using Final Cut Pro and/or Premier. Web development using Dreamweaver or Sparkle. I’ve been using Sparkle and just now jumping into Dreamweaver. I usually have dozens of browser windows open, few spreadsheets (some very large), ton of PDF documents, a dozen or so of other apps. I also have a library of 20,000 photos that I am now working on in Lightroom.
I would imagine either machine would work just fine, but for a long-term investment (say 5-8 years) which would be better for my use case?
If I get the Pro, it will be 10 core (maybe 14) and the 64X along with 64GB of RAM. The iMac that is on the way is 8 core, 64GB RAM (purchased separately of course) and 5700XT.
I hate the word “future proofing“ but for the sake of argument, would there be an advantage in getting the Pro in terms of having a better relative performance down the road as time goes on?
I agree with Pldelisle. For your needs its a waste of money to get the Pro. iMac 2020 is more than enough. Don't be fooled. And if you want to invest into something, the money you save between iMac and iMac Pro - put it in AAPL. Apple pays dividends and the likelihood of AAPL growing is quite big so why not benefit. To me, that is the better future proofing than anything else. Apple still has tons to grow and with the transition it is likely to continue (unless there is a major blow).
That would be my strategy. And in few years time, maybe the money you put aside will grow enough to pay for the new machine and no money was lost.
Anyway, I wouldn't get iMac Pro in your case. Its literally throwing money out the window.
That would be my strategy. And in few years time, maybe the money you put aside will grow enough to pay for the new machine and no money was lost.
Anyway, I wouldn't get iMac Pro in your case. Its literally throwing money out the window.
Don't quit your day job.
Says you—perhaps correctly; I don't care. The RDNA2 looks like a good gaming GPU but that doesn't interest me. I'm hoping to see the Vega Pro II. The Afterburner is too much to hope for but if I'm really interested in that, there's the Mac Pro 7.1 — and I can buy that tomorrow.
Despite your tendency to make wild pronouncements, you don't actually know that. A person doing graphics work is better off with the iMac Pro and I do know that. When projects have deadlines, the Pro rules.
If you need the Pro, buy the Pro. If you don't need to buy for awhile, you might want to hold out for the expected refresh that may or may not happen this year. A fully loaded 2020 from Apple is $8,828. You can buy an 18 Core iMP with 128GB RAM and 4TB onboard in the Refurb Store for $8,629 — when they show up. Right now, there's none at that price because I bought it on Sunday but the equivalent of my old iMP but with 4TB onboard for $7,949. Except for the storage (mine had 2TB), this is the machine I tested against a loaded 10 Core 2020. There are 4 others in the Refurb Store but no two are configured alike.
iMac Pro 14 Core 128GB 4TB Vega 64
You have a 2020 on the way. If you have the means, pick up that Pro and do your own A/B like I did within the 14 days.. Return the slower machine. If you do this for a living, the minor increase in cost won't matter and you know it. If it's a wash, return the more expensive iMac.
Either way, you will absolutely know the differences for you and you won't have to be one of those who keeps rattling on hoping that, if they keep posting the same thing over and over, they might be right someday.
Show us the time you save in an iMac Pro vs. 2020 iMac.
The guy was actually debating on whether or not. Such a great help.
With Apple RAM, which one must be freaking crazy to buy. You get a fully loaded iMac 2020 for 4500$ (10 cores, 5700XT, 4 TB SSD) + 600$ for 128 GB Crucial RAM. 5100$ in total.
For 3 years old refurb hardware. Yes, 8 cores more, but who really needs 18 cores, seriously, if it's not for a living. A 2020 iMac is still more than 3000$ less. And even for a living, the number of use cases requiring or being accelerated by 18 cores is close to 0.
Finally something intelligent.
Insolent.
You guys going at it is quite amusing. I am pretty sure the 2020 iMac will be more than enough. I have the 16" MPB and have to say it has struggled on some tasks. In particular, working on a 100 plus pages in InDesign. It wasn't a smooth experience. Sounding like a rocket about to take off, but then again, the iMac will be substantially more powerful.
The reason why I am considering the iMac Pro is only in part due to performance, but also because it will be quiet. I may have to order a computer either way. Ironically that is what Apple suggested, by the way. Their "solution" was for me to go pick up another Mac or order a refurbished in stock one and return it when the replacement arrives.
I might just do that.
Adding that cost is a factor. It always is a factor in any decision, but I agree that 2-3K dollars one way or another really doesn't make a tangible difference. That computer will pay for itself over and over and over again. Plus, I can write it off as it's a work machine.
The reason why I am considering the iMac Pro is only in part due to performance, but also because it will be quiet. I may have to order a computer either way. Ironically that is what Apple suggested, by the way. Their "solution" was for me to go pick up another Mac or order a refurbished in stock one and return it when the replacement arrives.
I might just do that.
Adding that cost is a factor. It always is a factor in any decision, but I agree that 2-3K dollars one way or another really doesn't make a tangible difference. That computer will pay for itself over and over and over again. Plus, I can write it off as it's a work machine.
iMac Pro would also be my first choice if I wasn't paying for 3+ years old hardware in it.
That's honestly the only hesitation I have. It is three years old. Although the 64X and the 10 cores became standard last year, so there has been some improvement in value.
I would agree, especially in this case because the new Apple chips are coming. So in my view, future-proofing right now has less merit than normal, since the lifespan of the Intel Mac-osphere essentially has a built-in limit. It's like the Nexus 6 models in Blade Runner, only less homicidal (I hope 👀).
Your argument is not relevant here. The OP described his use and we advised accordingly.
A person doing a graphic work is better off with MAC PRO! So, I understand that you want to justify your case (which is fine) but don't try to derail someone else with bad advice. For the OP iMac Pro would be waste of money.
We are here to help, so please be helpful.
When projects have deadline, you have a computer. Different task => different computer!
iMac Pro is not actually that PRO at this stage and iMac beats it in many tasks. Just like Mac Pro is the Master of them all. iMac Pro is outdated and with the current specs it makes not much sense unless you go for CPU rendering and can't afford the Mac Pro. So, all irrelevant and definitely not the case with OP so don't mix confusion here just to justify your needs. OP's needs are different.
A person doing a graphic work is better off with MAC PRO! So, I understand that you want to justify your case (which is fine) but don't try to derail someone else with bad advice. For the OP iMac Pro would be waste of money.
We are here to help, so please be helpful.
When projects have deadline, you have a computer. Different task => different computer!
iMac Pro is not actually that PRO at this stage and iMac beats it in many tasks. Just like Mac Pro is the Master of them all. iMac Pro is outdated and with the current specs it makes not much sense unless you go for CPU rendering and can't afford the Mac Pro. So, all irrelevant and definitely not the case with OP so don't mix confusion here just to justify your needs. OP's needs are different.
There is definitely a point of diminishing returns. Yes, I depend on this computer to make money but at the same time having a task finished a couple of minutes earlier doesn't really make a practical difference.
It depends.
A couple of minutes every hour makes hours at the end of a week.
but most of the time the real, practical usage of the computer is : waiting for input. Waiting for OUR input, actions, etc.
So we have to work way more efficiently before giving all credit to a faster machine because even if it’s faster it will still be waiting for us most of the time.
And if it’s not waiting for us, it’s a server with a task scheduler, where every bit of hardware is important and can make a difference. We are definitely not there.
Depends upon how you define "sufficient".
If you don't mind waiting for FCP to do its renders then it may be sufficient. If you have a lot of effects, high res fast frame rate videos, then you will have to wait. The more cores the less time waiting. In a simple test I've driven my 18 core iMac Pro in FCP with just minimal effects at well over 2000% cpu usage.
I don’t do video. I was expecting this was greatly GPU accelerated instead of CPU.
Again, maybe it’s justified for a living. But how much time do you take by working of the files before launching the rendering?
Again, maybe it’s justified for a living. But how much time do you take by working of the files before launching the rendering?
I gave you a real world way to find out. If your tasks don't take that long, then you should be ok.
I don't spend that kind of money for "a couple of minutes". But yes, if that's the real difference.
Then I probably wasn't talking to you.
But you don't know and constantly post as if you do — and that's my point. Advice is worthless without knowing the tasks at hand.
He posted some apps that, if the files the files are large enough and require complex rendering, the differences between the two machines can be hours (if days, he needs a Mac Pro 7.1). He never mentioned mentioned anything that would let me know exactly — likewise, he didn't offer you guys any information to justify your claims, either.
Without context — and there still is none here — your pronouncements that something is or is not correct are worthless.
Minutes, hours, days, weeks — depends on the layers, project and its length. I have access to a 28 Core 7.1 with a pair of Vega Pro II Duo + Afterburner and a $150k Maya Box for the really heavy lifting — but not here. The more I get done here, the better.
Neither of you seem to know enough about this subject to be having this conversation with me. The 2020, iMP and 7.1 are using 3 versions of recent Intel CPUs—there's no magic here. It's a very safe bet that, as long as Apple is supporting Intel architecture, all 3 will still run the latest OS.
In three years, it's likely that all will be replaced by ARM but even then, Apple will support the last Intel OS for three years after its release — California, EU and other laws apply. The argument that the current iMP will be obsolete sooner than a 2020 using the same architecture is just silly.
Again, lost in the fog is that I have A/B'd the two machines on typical work files just last week. Then I sold my 14 Core and bought an 18 Core.
Last edited:
Nothing Pro will be released on Monday..
iPhone Pro will be announced on Tuesday