I really don't need one for my work but I do really want one. Reality is that my current 5K iMac will do me just fine for years to come unfortunately!
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.
Who's in the market for iMac pro?
- Thread starter pat500000
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Because they don't have a desktop OS suitable for touch screens. MacOS would require a lot of UI changes to meet the requirements.
[doublepost=1496738896][/doublepost]
Now, that's a good question. I guess anyone who specifically asked for a workstation that is not upgradeable at all. Hmm...
Not to mention the trash can Mac Pro. Ridiculous to ship it with white accessories. Apple clearly priorities design so why couldn't they understand the basic aesthetic mistake of shipping an almost black computer with a white keyboard and mouse.
Black versions of these peripherals would be snapped up by pro users everywhere!
Here's another video on the subject...
"The Intel X299 launch is literally the collective WTF heard around the world from the people who are covering this..."
I barely scratch the pull of my current iMac. Plus I have to wonder how loud the iMac will be with those fans. Those Xeon CPUs and dGPU have to generate some significant heat.
Its a pro machine but it doesn't look upgradeable, which I think people were expecting.
Its a pro machine but it doesn't look upgradeable, which I think people were expecting.
the RAM absolutely has to be user replaceable on this machine. Apple's prices for RAM are way too high
I like the specs of the iMac Pro (questioning why Safari just "autocorrected" that to "iMac Zero". Lol).
But, for me it's a no sale.
The built-in screen is the weakness. Screen dies... there goes $5000 of computer.
Aside from that, even if the screen were separated, it's too integrated. Any one failure could be the end of the entire computer.
I like removable parts. I like being able to replace the CPU, the hard drive / SSD, the GPU, etc. which we don't truly know the extent to which everything is permanently bonded yet. So I'm willing to retract any of that portion of my complaint by default and automatically (as in automatically implied concession).
But, given that it is all integrated into the screen, and the housing is glued together, there is no simple pop the cover off casually and service casually.
And, as stated above, in typical Apple form, a dead screen will usually put you in a position of spending $1000+ or throwing away a $5000 to $8000+ investment.
I think you're right on the MP pricing.
Ideally, there would be slight price overlap between a lowest end base configuration of a Mac Pro and a highest end iMac.
So in typical industry staggering, with hypothetical and fictitious pricing, an example might be:
iMac $1099 base to $4000+ max
Mac Pro $3000 base to $12,000+
The iMac Pro is an awkward fit in such a structure. Because it should be priced less than the Mac Pro in general. But higher than the iMac.
Given that it has a screen, it could theoretically enter slightly higher than a base Mac Pro.
But, Apple has already announced a minimum base price of $4999 for the iMac Pro (so we know this to be whatever it's minimum configuration is).
Let's be generous and say the screen is $600 of the iMac Pro's price structure. That means at minimum, we're looking at a base minimum price of $4399 for the Mac Pro (compared to approximately $3000 currently).
So that does seem to tell us that the days of $2500 to $3500 starting prices for the Mac Pro are history.
Apple has frequently priced the base Mac Pro $1000 higher than the base price of the highest priced model iMac. So that gives us an idea of the starting prices.
In all likelihood, we'll probably see something like:
iMac $1099 base to $4999+ max
iMac Pro $4999 base to $12,000+
Mac Pro $5999 base to $25,000+
So, while the upper end of each model's configurations are guesses, I think my prediction of the Mac Pro's new price is probably correct within a $1 to $5 margin.
But, for me it's a no sale.
The built-in screen is the weakness. Screen dies... there goes $5000 of computer.
Aside from that, even if the screen were separated, it's too integrated. Any one failure could be the end of the entire computer.
I like removable parts. I like being able to replace the CPU, the hard drive / SSD, the GPU, etc. which we don't truly know the extent to which everything is permanently bonded yet. So I'm willing to retract any of that portion of my complaint by default and automatically (as in automatically implied concession).
But, given that it is all integrated into the screen, and the housing is glued together, there is no simple pop the cover off casually and service casually.
And, as stated above, in typical Apple form, a dead screen will usually put you in a position of spending $1000+ or throwing away a $5000 to $8000+ investment.
This has cemented a feeling for me that the new MP will be insanely expensive. I don't think we will see a mid range Mac from Apple, which is a shame considering the mid range parts from AMD (Risen 1700+) and Intel (X299 8 core).
I think it's a bad ass machine. I just can't justify spending $5000 on a computer. Even if I built this machine myself with similar parts, I doubt it would be much cheaper. So I can't claim Apple is overcharging. But I do feel it's overbuilt for an all in one.
For sure this will be perfect for some companies with the cash to toss around.
That black keyboard and mouse, tho...
I think you're right on the MP pricing.
Ideally, there would be slight price overlap between a lowest end base configuration of a Mac Pro and a highest end iMac.
So in typical industry staggering, with hypothetical and fictitious pricing, an example might be:
iMac $1099 base to $4000+ max
Mac Pro $3000 base to $12,000+
The iMac Pro is an awkward fit in such a structure. Because it should be priced less than the Mac Pro in general. But higher than the iMac.
Given that it has a screen, it could theoretically enter slightly higher than a base Mac Pro.
But, Apple has already announced a minimum base price of $4999 for the iMac Pro (so we know this to be whatever it's minimum configuration is).
Let's be generous and say the screen is $600 of the iMac Pro's price structure. That means at minimum, we're looking at a base minimum price of $4399 for the Mac Pro (compared to approximately $3000 currently).
So that does seem to tell us that the days of $2500 to $3500 starting prices for the Mac Pro are history.
Apple has frequently priced the base Mac Pro $1000 higher than the base price of the highest priced model iMac. So that gives us an idea of the starting prices.
In all likelihood, we'll probably see something like:
iMac $1099 base to $4999+ max
iMac Pro $4999 base to $12,000+
Mac Pro $5999 base to $25,000+
So, while the upper end of each model's configurations are guesses, I think my prediction of the Mac Pro's new price is probably correct within a $1 to $5 margin.
I agree with the price. 1k more for base mac pro...but what is the base? 6 core base? 8k? Whats the highest core? 22?
Arm Ache and finger prints
[doublepost=1496747748][/doublepost]
Extortionate only stupid people buy Ram from Apple
The built-in screen is a no-go for me too.
With the 2013 Mac Pro, I had to send it in several times for servicing because of those mysterious MacOS crashes. During those times, I was able to have zero downtime because I had a backup Mac that I could just connect to the monitor and keep on working.
With the iMac Pro, if it breaks down, that's several days of downtime.
We all know that screens have a limited lifespan. 5 years is a good time for the screen to degrade to the point where it affects color accuracy significantly. However, I see a much longer life span for the 8, 10 and 18-core processors.
I expect the 2018 Mac Pros to cost as much, except they won't come with screen, mouse or keyboard. Bummer.
With the 2013 Mac Pro, I had to send it in several times for servicing because of those mysterious MacOS crashes. During those times, I was able to have zero downtime because I had a backup Mac that I could just connect to the monitor and keep on working.
With the iMac Pro, if it breaks down, that's several days of downtime.
We all know that screens have a limited lifespan. 5 years is a good time for the screen to degrade to the point where it affects color accuracy significantly. However, I see a much longer life span for the 8, 10 and 18-core processors.
I expect the 2018 Mac Pros to cost as much, except they won't come with screen, mouse or keyboard. Bummer.
Hard seeing many pro's buying this. Specs are great. Being sealed up and tied to a monitor not so much. It's an odd duck to me, and OS aside, not as slick as the Surface desktop, also overpriced. Is it a Surface competitor or just a quick Pro fix while Apple sorts out the mess it made with the MP?
Time was you could spec out a good MP and dual monitor for $3000 easy. Electronic components have decreased in price in the past decade. Why are prices going up, not holding still? It's because sales volume has decreased because companies don't make what consumers want and need and they have to make up the gap with higher prices. There is a disconnect. The Pro does nothing to solve that problem.
Time was you could spec out a good MP and dual monitor for $3000 easy. Electronic components have decreased in price in the past decade. Why are prices going up, not holding still? It's because sales volume has decreased because companies don't make what consumers want and need and they have to make up the gap with higher prices. There is a disconnect. The Pro does nothing to solve that problem.
I think its time to go to windows.
intel i7
gtx 1080 titan
ultrawide monitor or 4k monitor of choice
user upgradable RAM and SSD
I don't see value in an imac pro unlike the previous imac line and the lack of innovation is really astounding. I thought the surface studio might have prompted a stronger re-design but they decided to change the colour.
then factor in a december release date... lol.
intel i7
gtx 1080 titan
ultrawide monitor or 4k monitor of choice
user upgradable RAM and SSD
I don't see value in an imac pro unlike the previous imac line and the lack of innovation is really astounding. I thought the surface studio might have prompted a stronger re-design but they decided to change the colour.
then factor in a december release date... lol.
I'm looking for something to replace my aging 3,1 Mac Pro, which is beginning to fall apart but still somewhat usable. I can probably get by until December when the iMac Pro comes out. Then we'll see what the real-life experience is, pricing for options, etc. It might be a good choice for me.
Key thing for me is thermal stability, I don't fancy spending £5k (we always pay in £ what you pay in $) for a machine that is very efficient at slow-cooking it's internals. I've had Macs in different flavours since the original Power Mac 800 series and they've always had teething troubles relating to heat.
Six months in and no one is bludgeoning the forums about frying eggs on the case and I'll probably consider one especially as it's exactly how I imagined a decade ago even down to the colour....
Six months in and no one is bludgeoning the forums about frying eggs on the case and I'll probably consider one especially as it's exactly how I imagined a decade ago even down to the colour....
If you wait that long (mid 2018), you'll be a lot close to the actual Mac Pro. I wonder if Apple will announce that 6 months in advance.
I think they want an AIO workstation. Most of the creative professionals I know don't care about it not being serviceable, or computers in general. Just a tool for work...
I don't think it's supposed to compete with the Surface Studio. The Studio is designed around the touchscreen and pencil, so that type of artistry. The iMac designed around its screen which heavily leans toward video editing (P3 standard is a video color gamut, 5k keeps your tools on the screen for editing native 4K, screen ratio, etc).
People can compare them all they want but I don't think actual creative professionals with specific workloads would.
I'm in the market for it, and will most likely purchase it on day one. When people are talking about screens having a short shelf-life, do you mean specifically iMac screens? I'm running a 2011 MacBook Pro 17" Matte laptop, and that screen is just as good today as it was when I bought it in March, 2011 - 6 years and 3 months ago. Did I just get lucky?
Either way, I think the iMac Pro is everything that I've wanted for use with FCPX. It's a great machine; powerful; great screen and if I can afford to stick 64GB RAM (no idea how much that upgrade is going to cost?) or upgrade to the 16GB VRAM, then it's going to be a monstrous machine for many years to come. The 2013 Mac Pro would still handle everything that I would throw at it, yet Apple says these iMac Pros can be up to 3x better graphics wise? Sounds like a monster. I get that it's not user-upgradeable, but if I can get six years out of it professionally, I will easily get back my return on such a machine.
Either way, I think the iMac Pro is everything that I've wanted for use with FCPX. It's a great machine; powerful; great screen and if I can afford to stick 64GB RAM (no idea how much that upgrade is going to cost?) or upgrade to the 16GB VRAM, then it's going to be a monstrous machine for many years to come. The 2013 Mac Pro would still handle everything that I would throw at it, yet Apple says these iMac Pros can be up to 3x better graphics wise? Sounds like a monster. I get that it's not user-upgradeable, but if I can get six years out of it professionally, I will easily get back my return on such a machine.
The Kaby Lake X processor is frustratingly confusing. I don't know who is supposed to buy that and some system builders have straight up said they won't support it over the previous z270 Kaby Lake systems, according to that video and the Linus rant vid.
Intel's new 8 core, however, puts it in great competition with the top of the line Ryzen 1800x for multimedia people like me. For $100 more one can get a WAY faster turbo boost (3.6 base, 4.5 boost versus Ryzen's 3.6 base 4.0 boost), 28 PCI lanes, and more M.2 expansion. This is perfect for me as I won't be overclocking this time.
As long as the mobos aren't outrageously expensive, I'm going with that processor. I'll be able to use multiple m.2's: system, scratch, and even a third m.2 for media storage if I feel saucy. That's not even counting any SATA drives!
I feel like that processor is just about perfect for me and I have AMD to thank for pressuring intel.
And if it's too expensive, I have Ryzen to fall back on.
I am planning on using this for FCPX as well. How it will be configured will depend a lot on price. My current iMac turns 3 y.o.a. in early '18 and I typically buy a new machine when Apple Care expires so the timing is good for me.
My best guess is:
Base iMac with 8 core, 32GB of ram, 8GB Vega 56 CPU - $5,000
Upgrade ram to 64GB = $1,200 (because A. upgrading the regular iMac from 32GB to 64GB is $800 through the Apple store, so B. you'll have to buy it through Apple, and C. They're going to charge a premium for the ECC aspect of it, so tack on another $400 or so? So yeah. I'm sticking with $1,200)
Upgrade video card to 16GB = $800+ Because it's AMD's new Vega, and it's only available as an Apple upgrade at purchase.
So....$7,000 is a possibility.
Even if the ram is an $800 upgrade as it is currently for the regular iMac, and the video card upgrade is $200 (seems really low for a new Vega GPU with twice the memory), you're still looking at a $6,000 system.
My real guess is that kind of upgrade will fall somewhere in the middle. Which really, for what you're getting, is still an "Egads".
Last edited:
With the RAM non-user replaceable without it being a giant chore that I'm not willing to waste time or energy on, I'll just hold out for a refurb in late 2018 or the nMP.
that will limit the appeal. 128GB RAM at Apple's prices anyone?
[doublepost=1496763756][/doublepost]
Exactly, but looks like Apple won't be giving you a choice. 64GB RAM upgrade for the new iMac is £1200. I think it's the same DIMMS as used in laptops and the same RAM from Crucial is around £440, or £600-ish if you want the non-value RAM.
I dread to think what 128GB of ECC RAM will cost from Apple. I know that putting 128GB non-ECC DDR4 RAM into my PC cost just over £500. I know I'm not comparing apples with apples there (ECC vs non-ECC), but there's normally not a massive difference in cost, unless you buy from Apple.