iMac Pro What is the best iMac Pro Configuration for a Graphic Designer

[h9826790]

I'm not sure it matters for your comparison of the TFLOP performance, but the Vega 64 in that picture is the non-frontier edition, which is not used in the iMac Pro.

Thanks for you input, I must admit I didn't quite pay attention on that picture. The number shows that score came from 1465 users. I am sure lots of them are not using the same card as that picture. Anyway, that's why I quote the 11 TFLOPS from Apple website as a reference.

If a desktop version 13 TFLOPS Vega 64 cannot be 10x faster than the Mac Pro's HD5870 (Mac Pro 5,1 use the standard PCIe graphic card), then the 11 TFLOPS Apple version Vega should not be 10x faster than the HD5870.

Anyway, it's just a reference. The real world performance difference is still very base on the work flow, it could be really 10x faster in some case, or almost zero gain in the other extreme. But in general, treat it like 6x HD5870 make more sense than 10x.

 

[SecuritySteve]

WOW!!!!! Security Steve... that is a beast of an iMac Pro you have there.... are you very much into Video Editing...? That was my original spec... but as I researched more and more... people said less and less cores were required for my sort of workflow needs... I purchased my 12 Core MacPro in 2010... now I think I over did it then also... but still it's the best workhorse machine I have ever purchased in my 23 years of being in the graphic design business for myself.

Enjoy your beast of a machine.... I'm green with envy here!!

Actually I do vulnerability research, software development, and game on the side. The vulnerability research methodology I use scales infinitely with more processor power and RAM. I could utilize 1,800 cores and an exabyte of RAM if you gave them to me, but alas this is the most power I can get from a mac. The software dev is more CPU intensive, since it's aerospace software that requires a lot of math libraries. The graphics card pick was simply because I know I wont be able to upgrade the GPU, so I want something that will keep me comfortable for as long as possible.

A bit off topic, but I wanted to respond

 

[h9826790]

WOW!!!!! Security Steve... that is a beast of an iMac Pro you have there.... are you very much into Video Editing...? That was my original spec... but as I researched more and more... people said less and less cores were required for my sort of workflow needs... I purchased my 12 Core MacPro in 2010... now I think I over did it then also... but still it's the best workhorse machine I have ever purchased in my 23 years of being in the graphic design business for myself.

Enjoy your beast of a machine.... I'm green with envy here!!

Just wonder do you know that you can upgrade the graphic card by yourself? The Mac Pro 2010 is very easy to upgrade. Since you use lots of Adobe apps, TBH, using a Nvidia GPU may make more sense. (I am not familiar of your apps, does any of them can use CUDA?)

update: I just re-read your original post, you know that, just don't want to do it.

 

[joema2]

...The Vega 64 GPU in the iMac Pro is about 10x faster than your Radeon HD 5870, so that's a big improvement -- provided your software can use that. OTOH even the Radeon Pro 580 in the regular iMac is about 6x or 7x faster than the HD 5870.

That estimation is a bit too extreme. The desktop RX Vega 64 is about 550% faster then the HD5870. And that's the desktop Vega 64 (has less thermal and power limitation than the iMac Pro's Vega 64)...The RX580 is about 280% faster than the 5870...

GeekBench 4.1 OpenCL Compute benchmark:

2010 Mac Pro, ATI Radeon HD 5870: 16,600
2017 iMac 27, Radeon Pro 580: 115,400 (6.95x faster than HD 5870)
2017 iMac Pro, iMac Pro Vega 64: 172,800 (10.4x faster than HD 5870)

I fully realize that GeekBench is not a perfect, totally comprehensive assessment of GPU performance -- but neither is any other benchmark, especially if not run on mac OS, not using OpenCL or Metal, and not run on the exact GPU in the Macs under discussion.

An even bigger variable is whether the software uses the GPU effectively. It's similar to a high-core-count CPU. They may produce excellent benchmark results but if the software doesn't leverage that it doesn't help.

But assuming that's understood, it's still useful to evaluate the CPU or GPU performance using native macOS benchmarks, which is how the OP will be using his software. At least I don't think he's booting it into Windows, but maybe he could clarify that.

 

[06tb06]

Check my signature for the flagship 21.5-inch iMac GeekBench scores...

I use Illustrator and Photoshop often on my iMac and it performs just fine. As far as graphic design is concerned, I think the quad-core configurations in the non-Pro iMacs do just fine. Adobe applications for the most part don't utilize the full potential of 6+ core CPUs it seems. There are exceptions though, like Premiere Pro.

Unless you want the very best AiO workstation on the market and don't mind the steep price tag, the non-Pro machines will do just fine.

There's my $0.02

 

[h9826790]

GeekBench 4.1 OpenCL Compute benchmark:

2010 Mac Pro, ATI Radeon HD 5870: 16,600
2017 iMac 27, Radeon Pro 580: 115,400 (6.95x faster than HD 5870)
2017 iMac Pro, iMac Pro Vega 64: 172,800 (10.4x faster than HD 5870)

I fully realize that GeekBench is not a perfect, totally comprehensive assessment of GPU performance -- but neither is any other benchmark, especially if not run on mac OS, not using OpenCL or Metal, and not run on the exact GPU in the Macs under discussion.

An even bigger variable is whether the software uses the GPU effectively. It's similar to a high-core-count CPU. They may produce excellent benchmark results but if the software doesn't leverage that it doesn't help.

But assuming that's understood, it's still useful to evaluate the CPU or GPU performance using native macOS benchmarks, which is how the OP will be using his software. At least I don't think he's booting it into Windows, but maybe he could clarify that.

Interesting numbers, I understand you have to pick a benchmark to compare the relative performance. I can't challenge your result. However, that doesn't fit what I know so far. So, I did a bit more research. Let's see what happened in Luxmark (on a real Mac, in MacOS, OpenCL).

I don't have any of these GPU, so can only search the result from internet. If anyone can provide better reference, please feel free to do it. I assume barefeats.com is a reliable source for the score.

HD5870: 3750
Pro 580: 13200 (3.52x)
Vega 64: 19530 (5.2x)

Reference:
http://www.luxmark.info/node/3727
http://barefeats.com/hic2_nv_vs_vega.html

I don't have a 5870, but have the 7950 Mac Edition card, so I know how it perform. bearfeats.com's result is actually acceptable to me, and the 5870 is not that far away from the 7950 in general. Compute is already the worst area, but still roughly about 50% performance of a 7950 can do.

http://barefeats.com/gpu7950.html
http://barefeats.com/gpu7950b.html
http://barefeats.com/gpu7950c.html
http://barefeats.com/gpu680v4.html
http://barefeats.com/gtx980.html
http://barefeats.com/gpu680v2.html

Since the 7950 can get 85000 in GeekBench 4.1 OpenCL benchmark. So, I suspect, the 5870 is doing particularly bad in Geekbench. The result just don't fit the spec, expected performance, or other comparisons. Of course, the 5870 has a significant weak point which is the 1GB VRAM. If anytime the computer demanded more than 1GB VRAM, the Vega 64 can easily go 10x or even faster than the 5870.

To make it clear, I totally respect your post. But I think it's more like an extreme case.

 

[PickUrPoison]

I'm an old school graphic designer and I'm looking to upgrade to the new iMac Pro as I just feel it delivers on all my current and possible future needs. I have always been a MacPro user, but I just feel as the world has moved on, primarily with video and more specifically 4K video editing production, the specs of the MacPro will actually far exceed my needs... and even though I have always purchased a MacPro for its expandability... realistically all I have ever done in reality with all my MacPro's was to manually update the RAM myself... I never updated the startup drive or the video card... ever... so I feel I could wait for the new MacPro but I know in my heart and soul that it will far exceed my needs and that the cost along with a new standalone monitor will be crazy money.

So if I was to go with the new iMac Pro... what would be the configuration you would recommend.

I currently have a MacPro 12 Core (Mid 2010) with a 512GB SSD drive (only OS and app on that drive) plus 64GB RAM plus an ATI Radeon HD 5870 with 1 GB RAM. I also have QTY 3 x 3TB Internal Drives. I use a Firewire 800 enabled Drobo S for all my backup... that has QTY 5 x 3TB Drives. I also use a 27" Apple Cinema LED Display (not Thunderbolt Version).

My gut configuration preference would be for:-

• 3.0GHz 10-core Intel Xeon W processor, Turbo Boost up to 4.5GHz
• 64GB 2666MHz DDR4 ECC memory
• 1TB SSD
• Radeon Pro Vega 64 with 16GB of HBM2 memory
• Magic Mouse 2 + Magic Trackpad 2 - Space Grey
• Magic Keyboard with Numeric Keypad - British - Space Grey
• AppleCare Protection Plan for iMac

The main key production apps that I use on a daily basis are:-

• Chrome
• Airmail
• Adobe Photoshop
• Adobe Bridge
• Adobe Lightroom
• Adobe Illustrator
• Adobe Acrobat
• Quark Xpress 2017
• Parallels

My graphic design involves logo design, brochure design, PowerPoint design, large format print design, large format signage design, some light video editing with 1080p footage from Family Holidays etc.

Is anyone in a similar professional production situation to me and what did you go with or what configuration are you thinking of running with. I have never had to worry about this before with the modular MacPro just having these upgradable elements.... but as this iMac Pro is more of a fixed unit, I just wanna be sure I purchase a new system that not only does me for the next 1-3 years.... but possibly the next 7-8 years just as my current MacPro workhorse has done for me... as being 23 years in business for myself... that MacPro (2010) was the best decision and purchase I ever made.

Any comment or suggestions most welcome...

Based on your workload the Vega56 would seem to be sufficient; of course, faster is always better and maybe the $600 is not a very big difference.

Especially since it's not upgradable after purchase and you keep your machines a long time, I can understand choosing the Vega64, though.

The 8—>10 core and the 32—>64GB upgrades make sense, and if you weren’t already doing them, both would be a better place to put your upgrade dollars before the Vega56—>Vega64 upgrade.

 

[ThatSandWyrm]

Your iMac Pro configuration is very sensible IMO for your workload. As you've been a long time fan/user of the MacPro system I would think you will be far more satisfied/happy with the iMac Pro vs. the high-end iMac even with the added cost. Happiness is important as well as being able to get your work done. Go for the iMac Pro and avoid any future angst if you were to get the high-end iMac.

The iMac Pro WILL last you easily for 7 yrs. The 8 core and 10 core models will easily out run today's top end iMac above 4 core usage.

Plus, over 7 yrs your type of work will likely change and favor the likes of the iMac Pro.

FWIW: I've noticed exactly zero difference in InDesign/Photoshop performance between my late 2015 iMac, and my 10-core iMac Pro. Seriously, none.

Unless you're going to be doing serious multi-layered 4K video, 8K video editing, or something else where you need to push gobs of gigabytes through 8-10 cores as fast as you can, I just don't see a use case for Graphic Design. Unless you absolutely need to be able to hook up two more 5K displays for your work, or can't stand fan noise.

 

[KalanHowse]

Is there a difference in export times? Do you use InDesign in the highest quality display whilst designing etc or just normal quality?

FWIW: I've noticed exactly zero difference in InDesign/Photoshop performance between my late 2015 iMac, and my 10-core iMac Pro. Seriously, none.

Unless you're going to be doing serious multi-layered 4K video, 8K video editing, or something else where you need to push gobs of gigabytes through 8-10 cores as fast as you can, I just don't see a use case for Graphic Design. Unless you absolutely need to be able to hook up two more 5K displays for your work, or can't stand fan noise.

 

[ThatSandWyrm]

Is there a difference in export times? Do you use InDesign in the highest quality display whilst designing etc or just normal quality?

I use InDesign's highest quality display mode at all times.

As for export times, I don't do anything larger than 6-8 pages at once in InDesign, and those designs aren't very complex. I do have a 150 page book with a lot of graphic design that I'm working on in iBooks Author. It exports to PDF in about 5 seconds versus maybe 10-15 seconds on my old 2015 iMac. Which is a great improvement in percentage terms, but not that big a deal in terms of production efficiency, as I might do that once or twice a week when I'm actively working on the book.

Frankly though, most of that book was done on an old 2007 17" dual-core MacBook Pro with 4GB of RAM. Which I only abandoned for my late 2015 iMac when iBooks Author started crashing due to page faults. If I could have put 8GB of RAM into that MBP, I'd still be using it to work on that book.

That's how undemanding most Graphic Design software is.

Editing 100 46MB RAW Photos en masse from my new Nikon D850 though? I'll take all the power I can get.