High End iMac vs Low End iMac Pro

[sfwalter]

Hi,

I have a dilemma. I was going to pull the trigger on a standard iMac (a high-end configuration) with:
- 4.2GHz quad-core 7th-generation Intel Core i7 processor, Turbo Boost up to 4.5GHz
- 32GB 2400MHz DDR4
- 1TB SSD
- Radeon Pro 580 with 8GB video memory

which runs $3700. Then I started to think about the iMac Pro base config which is $1300 more.

I plan to own the machine for at least 4 years. What do you think about upgrading to the iMac Pro. One of the biggest pluses for my needs would be the iMac Pro is having a modern graphics card.

What do you think? If you were spending $3700 for an iMac would you bite the bullet and spend the extra $1300 for the Pro?

 

[casperes1996]

Depends what you do - Will you actually use the extra performance here and now? Cause if it's only about "future-proofing", no. Take the money you save from not getting the pro, and set it aside for the next time you need to buy a new iMac. With the continuous evolution of hardware, you'll get more for the money that way.

 

[maflynn]

Do you need a iMac Pro? What tasks will that computer be doing?

 

[sfwalter]

To be honest the tricked-out $3700 will meet my needs today. I do web development during the day and Photoshop/Lightroom with 42-megapixel images on the weekends.

 

[BayouTiger]

I have the same dilemma. I currently has a nMP 6 core which I upgraded to a 12C chip. I really hardly ever use all the power on the Mac side but do get into some huge Revit models (think hospitals and airports and such). I actually find that for most of my work I was better with the 6C CPU. I am ready to upgrade and honestly would have already bought the top spec iMac if the local store stocked them. I really prefer to buy local to mail order, but love the service from B&H and OWC so they are always an option.

The gap is actually a little more since I would get the 32GB ram from OWC which takes the iMac to 40GB. So figuring the Pro is $1500 more. I figure that the better CPU, faster SSD, video card and 10GBe and extra TB3 ports would be worth it from a futureproof standpoint. I think the local stores will have the base mode in stock maybe even today. They already showed them on their "available configurations" page in a local store earlier this week.

My heart wants to go with the 10/64/2TB since I think that is really the sweet spot, but my mind knows that I don't need it and likely won't for the foreseeable future. As long as Autodesk drags their feet on making AutoCAD and Revit truly multithreaded at least.

$1500 may make sense, not sure that $3000 does.

 

[casperes1996]

To be honest the tricked-out $3700 will meet my needs today. I do web development during the day and Photoshop/Lightroom with 42-megapixel images on the weekends.

Web development, unless you go crazy with webGL or something isn't that intensive all things considered, and with Photoshop/Lightroom user speed is usually far below computer speed regardless - I advice against the iMac Pro. Save up the money for the next time you're in the market for a new Mac, and the money will serve you better then than they will now.

 

[sfwalter]

Web development, unless you go crazy with webGL or something isn't that intensive all things considered, and with Photoshop/Lightroom user speed is usually far below computer speed regardless - I advice against the iMac Pro. Save up the money for the next time you're in the market for a new Mac, and the money will serve you better then than they will now.

Thanks for the sound reasoning; I really appreciate it. The standard iMac will serve me well for today and probably for a couple years. I was really only thinking about the iMac Pro as future proofing.

 

[casperes1996]

Thanks for the sound reasoning; I really appreciate it. The standard iMac will serve me well for today and probably for a couple years. I was really only thinking about the iMac Pro as future proofing.

Sure - price/performance is not exactly a linear curve though. I forget the names of such functions (please tell me...) but it is nearly exponential initially and then logarithmic near the top (with a ceiling and a floor). Besides, the iMac Pro may offer a significant boost in multi-threaded workloads, but some workloads will never be parallelised, meaning that for the purpose of future proofing, it might not even be that good, since some more common everyday tasks in the future could rely heavily on the single threaded performance of future chips. Of course the iMac Pro performs well in single-threaded tasks now, but who knows about later? And the iMac and iMac Pro are pretty much the same in this regard. Or maybe 4 OS releases from now, macOS will start requiring a T3 chip for future updates or whatnot - you never know what the future of hardware and software holds.

 

[06tb06]

If you are concerned with CPU core count, I would wait for the 2018 iMac. Possibly a completely redesigned enclosure with either Intel 6-Core (Coffee Lake) or 8-Core (Cannonlake) chips inside. Also all-new graphics subsystem (hopefully Vega-derived)!

 

[sfwalter]

If you are concerned with CPU core count, I would wait for the 2018 iMac. Possibly a completely redesigned enclosure with either Intel 6-Core (Coffee Lake) or 8-Core (Cannonlake) chips inside. Also all-new graphics subsystem (hopefully Vega-derived)!

if a 6-core iMac was out today it would make the decision so much easier.

 

[OBirder]

if a 6-core iMac was out today it would make the decision so much easier.

I guess that would have been the difference for me as well.

However for a buyer who wants/needs something today the options presented to me had been as mentioned in another discussion:

- 4 core iMac that agreeable potentially can do the job, but on the end of its life cycle - replacement 6 to 12 months
- Mac Pro past due - replacement maybe late 2018 or even 2019
- iMac Pro with current technology which adds besides the improved performance to the fun factor

For me this was an easy decision which gives me with "pro" components a worry free system probably lasting for 6 to 7 years (with Apply Care a minimum of 3 years).

 

[fathergll]

Hi,

I have a dilemma. I was going to pull the trigger on a standard iMac (a high-end configuration) with:
- 4.2GHz quad-core 7th-generation Intel Core i7 processor, Turbo Boost up to 4.5GHz
- 32GB 2400MHz DDR4
- 1TB SSD
- Radeon Pro 580 with 8GB video memory

which runs $3700. Then I started to think about the iMac Pro base config which is $1300 more.

I plan to own the machine for at least 4 years. What do you think about upgrading to the iMac Pro. One of the biggest pluses for my needs would be the iMac Pro is having a modern graphics card.

What do you think? If you were spending $3700 for an iMac would you bite the bullet and spend the extra $1300 for the Pro?

If you shop smart(don't order from apple) and also install your own ram you should be able to get the following configuration for $3500 or a little bit cheaper.

- 4.2GHz quad-core 7th-generation Intel Core i7 processor, Turbo Boost up to 4.5GHz
- 40GB 2400MHz DDR4
- 1TB SSD
- Radeon Pro 580 with 8GB video memory


Smart money is the $3500 iMac now and if you are concerned with future proofing then just sell it in a couple years for the 6 core iMacs. This does sound like G.A.S. issue more than anything since the current iMac would easily be enough for your use. Personally I would ask yourself what you could do with the extra $1500 and if that is best spent on a computer where the value drops fast. $1500 could go to a 1.4 Sony GM lens for example which might have more benefit overall to your art.

 

[Shivetya]

Here's the only thing that matters. Which one do you want. Don't ask people to change your mind or worse be the excuse to buy what you truly want. At the price points past 3k and getting close to 4k its not a big deal to pop over to 5k and even 6k.

As for future proofing, it is a computer. There is no future proofing especially with an AIO. True future proofing is buying the minimum you need and setting aside the rest for when something significantly improved comes along

 

[bplein]

I could get by with an entry level vehicle but I prefer to have one with upgrades and options and horsepower despite the fact that it costs me more annually. Big deal.

I have expensive watches. I like them. They don't tell time better than an Apple Watch, nor do you need an Apple Watch when a Casio G-Shock tells the time too.

I don't need to have an iMac Pro but I ordered one and I'll have it soon. I'm not using it for work, although I will be doing a lot of work-related learning on it (not tax deductible nor expensible to my employer).

I'm a power-user amateur. I like toys. Back in the day I used to buy $1000 motherboards to build my own 386 computers to run a free multi-node BBS.

If this purchase is to generate income, then do all the math and determine what makes sense. If this is for home use for fun, buy what you want. Yes, if you'll never use the horsepower of the iMac Pro, you should probably get the iMac. You'll love it and not regret it. If you don't know if you can use the cores, you probably cannot. Me, I'll use the cores and the GPU. And it's in my budget (sort of!)

 

[kingjames1970]

I could get by with an entry level vehicle but I prefer to have one with upgrades and options and horsepower despite the fact that it costs me more annually. Big deal.

I have expensive watches. I like them. They don't tell time better than an Apple Watch, nor do you need an Apple Watch when a Casio G-Shock tells the time too.

I don't need to have an iMac Pro but I ordered one and I'll have it soon. I'm not using it for work, although I will be doing a lot of work-related learning on it (not tax deductible nor expensible to my employer).

I'm a power-user amateur. I like toys. Back in the day I used to buy $1000 motherboards to build my own 386 computers to run a free multi-node BBS.

If this purchase is to generate income, then do all the math and determine what makes sense. If this is for home use for fun, buy what you want. Yes, if you'll never use the horsepower of the iMac Pro, you should probably get the iMac. You'll love it and not regret it. If you don't know if you can use the cores, you probably cannot. Me, I'll use the cores and the GPU. And it's in my budget (sort of!)

This. I've ordered a pro and I can justify for work but undoubtedly the normal iMac would have done if there was no alternative. But there is no doubt that having a premium computer 'feels good' especially when it's put together with such care - I used to open up my Mac Pro just to show people how beautiful it was inside the case!

Some people drink very expensive wines or buy designer clothes, I wouldn't know the difference. I've got an 'expensive' car when something else would get me from A to B just as well but the experience of the journey is what counts. Apple knows all this, that's also why the iMac Pro is space grey.

I doubt there is anybody on this forum who is only interested in the cheapest option for their computing or phone needs. People like that are all browsing for cheap laptops or bargain basement Androids.

 

[maflynn]

To be honest the tricked-out $3700 will meet my needs today. I do web development during the day and Photoshop/Lightroom with 42-megapixel images on the weekends.

I'm on a 2015 model i5 processor with 8GB of ram and the M395 GPU and LR/PS is fine. I think an iMac Pro is over-kill in that scenario. I know Lightroom is no speed demon and I shoot on a m43 camera so my image sizes are smaller then yours but overall I've not seen too many photographers looking at the iMac Pro over the iMac. Heck, many of them prefer laptops, so the non-pro iMac is going to be more then enough now and the future imo.

 

[Macintosh IIcx]

To be honest the tricked-out $3700 will meet my needs today. I do web development during the day and Photoshop/Lightroom with 42-megapixel images on the weekends.

42 MP files? I’m going to assume that you’re then shooting with a Sony a7r2 (or a7r3) in which case I will throw a monkey wrench into the discussion and recommend trying out Capture One. It is faster than Lightroom in my opinion and it takes great usage of the GPU in which case going for the IMac Pro will be a great option.

Capture One Express for Sony is free, so have a go at it. If you like it, you can upgrade to Capture One Pro for Sony at a very nice discount. It will be the same as Capture One Pro, but only for Sony raw files.

 

[Georgio]

I'm waiting to see what the new iMac configuration is like for 2018.
I love the styling of the iMac Pro but for my work as a designer it would probably be over-kill.

 

[OBirder]

I'm on a 2015 model i5 processor with 8GB of ram and the M395 GPU and LR/PS is fine. I think an iMac Pro is over-kill in that scenario. I know Lightroom is no speed demon and I shoot on a m43 camera so my image sizes are smaller then yours but overall I've not seen too many photographers looking at the iMac Pro over the iMac. Heck, many of them prefer laptops, so the non-pro iMac is going to be more then enough now and the future imo.

Here what I posted in a similar discussion regarding LR:

I just now saw an early review from last week regarding real world experience with LR CC.

Systems used:
iMac 5K, 4GHZ Intel Core i7 w 32GB RAM
iMac Pro, 3GHZ, 10 Core w 128GB RAM
Both systems with MacOS High Sierra 10.13.2 and the same external 1TB TB3 SSD

788 RAW images total of 50.74GB

Import and 1:1 Previews
iMac – 50 minutes 45 seconds
iMac Pro – 25 minutes 26 seconds

Apply color correction and export as full res JPG's
iMac – 1 hour 17 Minutes
iMac Pro -31 Minutes

Even so this is not the latest 4.2 iMac and a difference in the RAM, I don't think that would significantly change the picture. As I mentioned before I believe the majority is due to the additional cores.

In addition it was mentioned for the iMac Pro which I am hoping for as well (with thermal throttling) that "This one is EXTREMELY quiet.. possibly the quietest Mac I’ve had of all (except Macbook Airs of course)".

Here is the link to the complete blog post:
http://blog.vincentlaforet.com/2017/12/12/apples-new-imacpro-has-an-impressive-200-300-speed-bump/

Now add to that the example with the car as mentioned above, consider the current iMac getting replaced in 6 to 12 months, Mac Pro past due and the iMac Pro current state of the art. With higher end components not utilized to the max it will be quieter, more reliable and last longer.

Consider how many serious photographers would buy a camera or lens that is a a few years old technology that could do the job vs. current technology?

I am looking forward to next weeks delivery

 

[fokmik]

"except Macbook Airs of course"
i think he meant 12" macbook

 

[jerwin]

Here what I posted in a similar discussion regarding LR:

I just now saw an early review from last week regarding real world experience with LR CC.

very impressive. Of course, laforet's imac 5k was hobbled by a fusion drive. And judging by the kind of stuff that barefeats publishes, a 2 GB/s SSD makes a huge difference.

 

[fokmik]

very impressive. Of course, laforet's imac 5k was hobbled by a fusion drive. And judging by the kind of stuff that barefeats publishes, a 2 GB/s SSD makes a huge difference.

neeh, still very impressive even vs a high end imac 27" with ssd

 

[richinaus]

I have the same dilemma. I currently has a nMP 6 core which I upgraded to a 12C chip. I really hardly ever use all the power on the Mac side but do get into some huge Revit models (think hospitals and airports and such). I actually find that for most of my work I was better with the 6C CPU. I am ready to upgrade and honestly would have already bought the top spec iMac if the local store stocked them. I really prefer to buy local to mail order, but love the service from B&H and OWC so they are always an option.

The gap is actually a little more since I would get the 32GB ram from OWC which takes the iMac to 40GB. So figuring the Pro is $1500 more. I figure that the better CPU, faster SSD, video card and 10GBe and extra TB3 ports would be worth it from a futureproof standpoint. I think the local stores will have the base mode in stock maybe even today. They already showed them on their "available configurations" page in a local store earlier this week.

My heart wants to go with the 10/64/2TB since I think that is really the sweet spot, but my mind knows that I don't need it and likely won't for the foreseeable future. As long as Autodesk drags their feet on making AutoCAD and Revit truly multithreaded at least.

$1500 may make sense, not sure that $3000 does.

Hi

Just a question for you. Do you think Revit works well on a Mac. It appears to me that the Nvidia gpu's work so much better with Autodesk apps.
I have a new iMac specced up as the OP states, and really the performance in Bootcamp with Revit is disappointing to me. I am more than impressed with the speed in MacOS but using Apple products for Autodesk software is just not making sense, and as such I am considering selling the iMac and getting a PC desktop.

Just wondering your opinion on this - sorry to sidetrack on the OP dilemma.

Yep and you are also right, Revit and acad do not support multi threading in most operations. I find the GPU is the biggest issue with these. The CPU on the top end iMac is more than fine.

My answer for the OP is if you have the money get the iMac Pro. Otherwise the top end iMac is more than good enough for your use, especially with a Crucial RAM upgrade [which I also did]. I have worked in all the adobe apps with large files and have no issues.

 

[pajako]

Check your gut-feeling: in the end you want the iMac Pro.
You are trying to justify either choice:
go a bit cheaper and by the iMac
Will you earn the $1300 extea soon enough?

I am for sure you will have a lot of fun for the extra investment, never look back and never feel sorry you bought the ‘old’ iMac.

 

[OBirder]

very impressive. Of course, laforet's imac 5k was hobbled by a fusion drive. And judging by the kind of stuff that barefeats publishes, a 2 GB/s SSD makes a huge difference.

He used external TB3 drives for better comparison:

"I did the best to reproduce all of these tests using the exact same G-Tech and SanDisk 1TB SSD TB3 drives with the exact same data and timing it w/ a timer on the same builds of software."