Apple Teases Upcoming Space Gray iMac Pro, "the most powerful Mac ever"
9to5mac.com
9to5mac.com
"In addition to the new iMac Pro, Apple is working on a completely redesigned, next-generation Mac Pro architected for pro customers who need the highest-end, high-throughput system in a modular design, as well as a new high-end pro display."
https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2017/06/imac-pro-most-powerfu...
Also, I want that black keyboard!
Just a different kind of sub-market, I think.
My 3 monitors have been used for 4 generations of Macs, though. Definitely agree that monitors live longer than the underlying computer.
Compared to 2006's ACD, new monitors have bigger brightness, better saturation, far wider color gamut, better viewing angles, AND double+ the resolution.
Releasing the iMac Pro in December 2017 may as well be considered a 2018 release.
Unless you're doing machine learning and then chances are you're either doing it in the cloud or you already have a specd out white box. Otherwise Macbook Pro has been more than sufficient.
We can make use of all the computing power we can get.
That makes the targeting simple: People who want the power of a *pro series device but don't care much about the upgradeability beyond storage and memory.
CG artists, graphic workers and everyone that require a fast computer with a great screen but is not interested in being an hardware hobbyist. There's life beyond HN.
People who would have bought the Mac Pro. I think it's obvious that this was supposed to replace it in the lineup.
With the announcement that a Mac Pro is back on the cards I think this becomes a confused product. Locking $5Ks worth of computing power into a disposable shell boggles my mind a bit.
is this satire?
Meanwhile, my black MacBook Air keyboard looks nearly the exact same as it did when I bought it four years ago.
Like OP, I also thought that the black keyboard was long overdue.
I mean, there's no lack of cool looking mechanical keyboards, even ones that match Apple products: https://input.club/k-type/
(That one is even USB-C and fully programmable/hackable with an open source firmware.)
Not sure what you have in mind, but split and "ergonomic" keyboard designs have never been shown to prevent or limit RSI. They're just a marketing gimmick.
http://www.healthytyping.com/articles/why-you-should-not-use...
Am I missing something?
I'm sure those people will be happy. But what I want is an upgradable / self-servicable machine that costs under $3k.
I hope Apple isn't about to miss the plot again.
If you want upgradeability and self-serviceability, build it yourself.
Please, Apple, sell me a big Apple motherboard, a quality case, and write OS-X with boot and driver software that supports various CPUs, RAM, storage, GPUs, power supplies, and peripherals. You know, like Windows and Linux have done for years. Whitelist or blacklist as necessary to make it reliable and dependable, but no more than necessary. The model works - but Apple doesn't work with the model, which is why my current machine isn't a Mac anymore.
And they did try this model back in the clone days where Power Computing went straight after their high margin customers and nearly killed the company. Great for consumers. Terrible for Apple.
Yeah that's never going to happen. The Pro iMac starts at $5k. When the Mac Pro does come out it will at least start at that as well, if not higher.
Clarity: "The new iMac Pro will start at $4999 and be available in December."
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,1545383,00.asp
Fun article from 2004! Article subheading:
> Get used to the idea of a terabyte-plus server in your home. It's closer than you think.
:)
And Machrone's law is: the machine you want will always cost $5,000.
It's been years since Apple has made anything that was upgradable/self-serviceable at any price point. To expect that to change now is just unproductive wishful thinking. Either find an alternative or figure out which of Apple's products comes closest to meeting your needs.
Was worried about how stable it would be and took good care of researching all the parts that were verified by the community[1]. It's been going good for 3-4 months now. Took some effort to get it all setup but am very happy now. I use this for Video/Photo post-processing, web development mainly.
My concern is upgrading. For people with hackintosh experience what has the longevity experience been like? Do things break each major upgrade? Are things slow moving to get to the latest version?
I'm worried it might be like Linux desktop back in the day. I've found modern Linux to be very stable while using cutting edge versions of Linux. Largely thanks to Archlinux. But I've been interested in having a seperate OSX install for Photoshop and Sketch to have an OS for doing design and having Linux for programming/everything else.
It gets annoying quite fast and the only thing that kept me using it was the fact that Apple was so bad with updating their product line, which is over now as I will buy the new 5k iMac.
May I ask what type of hardware you are using?
With today's MacBook upgrades, I've ordered a 'real' Mac and reverted my desktop tower back to Windows gaming box duties - the 'fun' of hackintoshing quickly fades once you've done it for a few years and just want to know your computer is always going to boot when you press the power button, especially if like me you use OS X 99% of the time.
Maybe I'm just stupid, but as far as I'm concerned folks with hackintoshes who haven't had a boot breaking issue occur are either lucky, or it has yet to happen to them. I deliberately built the most 'golden' of mainstream hackintosh builds (close to identical to the Dan Benjamin one folks are linking here), no custom kexts, used Clover, still had the occasional issue.
Given Apple are moving to ever more intertwine custom hardware into Macs (touchbar, touch id, secure enclave etc), I think the future of hackintoshing is probably going to be harder than it is today.
I would not hold my breath. If Apple are going to give you something serviceable and upgradable, expect whatever you would have spent servicing and upgrading (at the time of purchase) a "normal" machine through them to be added to the price.
The fact that they aren't building commodity-style boxes for hobbyists is very very minor in comparison. The market for these things is shrinking, and it's dominated by price-sensitive people that are not very valuable customers to begin with. If this is what you want, then there's no point in wishful thinking: start looking at Windows / Linux yesterday.
To me this machine is a sign that they had. It has the exact same problems as the Mac Pro design with even less modularity (Pro could swap out drives and ram).
Although I also think this was supposed to replace the Mac Pro line entirely and only in about jan/feb they decided that they still needed a stand alone Pro. So I guess time will tell if they finally release the "xMac" people have been asking for the past 10 years.
https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/store/d/surface-keyboard/8r3...
I won't weigh in on quality of typing experience. Everybody I know says that I type like I'm trying to beat my keyboard to death, so while I like typing on them quite a lot, I don't know if that'd transfer to someone else.
Only hiccup I've found is that you need Bluetooth 4.0 for the new low-power state, so you'll probably have to buy a dongle even if you have a brand-new fancy laptop.
I bought a cheap-ish Mac-specific (not that it should matter) powered USB 2.0 hub off Amazon. Plugged the kbd, mouse, and my HiFiMeDIY DAC into it. All now work well without nearly as many issues.
The previous scissor switch keys were OK. A big improvement over their previous garbage membrane keyboards in fact. But the new keys are really a necessary evil to make thinner laptops - why hamper the desktop experience with them?
On the desktops they have the luxury of non-portability, so why not a new mechanical keyboard design for the iMac and Mac Pro?
Personally I think the new keyboards are really good, there's a lot less travel on each key which makes typing more efficient. Going back to an old keyboard with full travel feels like hammering on a typewriter.
Apple could build a mechanical keyboard with their characteristic design and build quality.
I think the new butterfly switch is useable, but I don't share your enthusiasm. I have not been able to fully adjust to them and I still make typing errors from my fingers sliding off more than I'd like.
Matias isn't the only vendor and that's not the only model of mechanical keyboard they make. If you're a mechanical keyboard enthusiast you're living in the golden age of options. You can custom-build your own keyboard, pick individual keycaps, switches, and more.
There's vendors like http://www.wasdkeyboards.com that are basically "Build-a-Bear" for keyboards.
But it feels great and wears like iron. Source: I've used one for the past 7 years.
https://input.club/whitefox/ + http://pimpmykeyboard.com/dsa-think-different-keycap-set/
Why even bother begging Apple for this sort of thing when you can support independent creators happy to serve these niches.
I'm not sure how that matters? This iMac in most cases won't be portable, so the only people who see it will be the ones using it or at least working with those who do.
You sort of make it sound equivalent to the old thing about how Macbooks had lit-up Apple logos on the shell and people would know "oh this person spent thousands on their Apple laptop..." But I don't think it's the same situation here.
b) Big execs want to have the best and show it off to staff as well
You'll probably see a lot of them being bought for upper eschelon developers at hip startups. And the TCO of a mac vs. a beige box PC is said to be much lower by way of lower incidents of issues, failures, etc.
Edit: the one processor e5 16xx chip is less than a grand. That changes the value proposition of the iMac pro but if I had the cash I'd still get one.
E5-2620v4 owner. 8c/16HT it isn't a $700 processor.
A $700 Xeon is the 10c/20HT
The iMac was already supposed to be a Pro machine. And then they "New Coke"'d it by making it too thin and susceptible to overheating. Performance suffered and now they're compensating with this machine.
At $5000 the iMac Pro falls just short of a ~$2000 Hackintosh. It's still locked into the thin form factor that can't be upgraded and does not vent heat well enough. I'm sure this works for big companies like Disney where machines are replaced every few years. However as a developer, a Pro user, I've never felt more validated in my choice to switch away from Apple's hardware.
* Radeon Vega graphics
* 500 Watt power supply
That's why it is a 27" heatsink instead of a 2" one.
Most of the heat is going to be moved out by the dual fans anyway. The Aluminum will dissipate what it picks up from the moving air before it leaves the chassis by the side vents.
https://www.pcper.com/reviews/Processors/Intel-Core-i9-Annou...
Sure, you'll be looking at non-ECC, but other than that, you'll be crushing the new iMac Pro in price to performance.
Not a lot of Xeon Hackintoshes out there. Typically just i7s.
https://www.pcper.com/reviews/Processors/Intel-Core-i9-Annou...
$599 for an 8 core processor, for instance. Last model, the i7-6900K, would have been over $1k.
http://ark.intel.com/products/92979/Intel-Xeon-Processor-E5-...
Edit: the one processor version of this processor is less than a grand. So that changes the math. Apple is likely making a good amount on each mac pro sold. As they should. I want them to keep making prosumor hardware.
If a developer/pro/etc. need 18 cores, most of the time they'll be OK with a top-end i7 -- I think. Therefore it is fair to compare Xeons with i7s, they're not the same but yes, they have overlapping target audience when it comes to desktops.
Not if they need ECC RAM - and if you've got enough professional stuff to fill 128GB of RAM, you really, really need ECC RAM.
(No 128 GB RAM but you're not getting that with a desktop i7 either. Oh and the new HEDT platform that also has "i7"s… not all chips will support quad channel RAM!)
the funnier version: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xah84cJwdxE
http://i.imgur.com/EZ6LyI1.png
http://i.imgur.com/tbwNbdh.png
EDIT: by mistake I originally linked this video I had in my clipboard: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5scez5dqtAc
It's possible that Intel might have to claw back Xeon pricing accordingly to defend their market share.
8 core for $600. 10 core for $1k, 18 core for $2k. With 12, 14, and 16 core increments available in-between.
https://www.pcper.com/reviews/Processors/Intel-Core-i9-Annou...
EDIT: read the children posts. I mistakenly read "chip" instead of "line". Of course Xeons are a different line compared to Intels extreme line. The above about the extreme series CPU's being cut down Xeons is still true but in this context wrong and irrelevant.
They bin things for a reason. If you're happy using a less expensive part with fewer features, great, you can save money. If you're making a top-tier "Pro" product you'll want to avoid cutting corners like that.
The materials involved are only one factor.
Also see my edit of my original post where I mistakenly misread "line" as "chip" as stated.
> They bin things for a reason.
Yes, of course, so that the extreme series doesn't cut into the margins of the server market. If you could run RAID 5 and 10 without hardware dongles and ECC on the extreme series some smaller companies would probably prefer the i9 18 core for 2000$ to the 3000-4000$ 18 core Xeons. Again, this is fine, but Xeons and extreme series start of as the same chip. That's all I wanted to say on top of my correction of my original post.
Nah, this is the stopgap they talked about when they had their "Come to Jesus" meeting with bloggers.
A real big boxy Mac Pro is supposed to come after 2017. Pre-announced, which Apple never does.
See: https://daringfireball.net/2017/04/the_mac_pro_lives
EDIT: They didn't actually say 2018, just "not in 2017"
But this is what Apple said:
"These next-gen Mac Pros and pro displays “will not ship this year”. (I hope that means “next year”, but all Apple said was “not this year”.) In the meantime, Apple is today releasing meager speed-bump updates to the existing Mac Pros. The $2999 model goes from 4 Xeon CPU cores to 6, and from dual AMD G300 GPUs to dual G500 GPUs. The $3999 model goes from 6 CPU cores to 8, and from dual D500 GPUs to dual D800 D700 GPUs. Nothing else is changing, including the ports. No USB-C, no Thunderbolt 3 (and so no support for the LG UltraFine 5K display).
But more good news, too:
Apple has “great” new iMacs in the pipeline, slated for release “this year”, including configurations specifically targeted at large segments of the pro market."
From the article I linked.
It's for people who have a need/desire for "pro" components but also want a thin/portable form factor.
I've swapped out a lot of parts in my old Mac Pro, but at this point, I'd rather have something that "just works". And if my needs change, the resale value of this thing will still be good.
But I'm just an iOS developer, doing some multimedia and web stuff as well. Maybe that's not a "pro" by today's definition. :)
But then if you're a pro user who buys the thing to make money with, it's probably more tax-effective to keep it 3 or so years then buy something new
They made it a point that the heat dissipation capacity is sufficient, 80% more than the non-pro iMac.
edit: updated from the press-release.
The thin iMac had underpowered fans and constantly throttled.
I'd give Apple the benefit of the doubt here, but not with my own money, and with an AppleCare.
No it isn't.
>The iMac was already supposed to be a Pro machine.
Not it wasn't. The iMac was always decidedly the consumer desktop. The pro machine actually had "Pro" in its name.
All "pro" means in Apple-marketing-speak is "deluxe" these days. You can clearly see it in the MBP where they have traded off features that professional users wanted, for thinness that noone in that market cares about. Make it 5mm thicker or even 10mm for 32 or 64G RAM and everyone would have been delighted.
See: https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2017/06/imac-pro-most-powerfu...
A 5k Monitor alone costs around $800-1000 and does not compare in quality to Apple displays, 8 core xeon + motherboard are another 800$, it's already around $1600-1800 - and its not taking SSD and Video card and Ram into account...
You're the one that said "5k screens cost $800-$1000 and they're inferior".
The retort to that is not to say "Well, that monitor costs $1300".
It's like you're only looking to acknowledge cheaper and inferior competitors and stick your fingers in your ears when challenged.
"Why not just build a machine out of individual parts X Y and Z for $nnn less than Apple's price"?
It completely ignores, at a minimum:
- Apple vertical integration
- All-in-one support/replacement
- The OS
Someone editing 4K+ video on Final Cut professionally wants a machine that runs Final Cut (which eliminates non-Macs), has the hardware to meet that use case, and that they don't have to screw with or have randomly break with updates (which eliminates Hackintoshes). We all agree with this yes?
Has Mac hardware carried a premium over equivalent specced individual parts since forever? You know the answer. The target market for the computer does. not. care.
Can we please not relitigate tired Mac-vs-PC arguments that are old enough to drink? They've never been relevant or interesting.
Yeah, there are valid points here, but don't expect "competitors are cheaper and suck" and "well, sure, but that one costs as much/more" when someone points other alternatives out.
It's like cherry picking cheaper competitors. Similar things happened with the AirPods.
Announcement article here, you can people claiming that nothing else exists and that this is a first.
Like with things like "multi device pairing" (common as dirt, and even NFC tap-to-pair exists. Shared pairing database? That's cool, very true).
Even down to people arguing how "innovative" the charging case was. Others point out that these exist and have, for years. "Oh, well, that case is bigger/looks clunky/you can be sure that it doesn't work as well".
When people point out that -similar- exist, "oh, well, they cost most".
In which my response was appropriate. The only difference from a monitor perspective is the Apple casing. We're not arguing specs of PC, OS, etc. but that the monitors do not compare to Apple.
As someone who works in this industry these individuals are becoming few and far between. Think it's time to stop pretending Apple is a major player in this area, they pushed and shoved FCP users right to the edge and many just made the jump to better supported software and high end hardware.
Of course it is. It's always damned if they do, damned if they don't.
>The iMac was already supposed to be a Pro machine. And then they "New Coke"'d it by making it too thin and susceptible to overheating. Performance suffered and now they're compensating with this machine.
Actually it was never supposed to be a Pro machine, all the way back to the very star (Bondi blue / flower power personal machines, the ones with the flexible neck, etc.).
It's just that at some point it got so powerful, and the pro line was neglected, so it was used as a pro machine too (and was good enough for most use cases, e.g. graphic designers).
>The iMac was already supposed to be a Pro machine. And then they "New Coke"'d it by making it too thin and susceptible to overheating. Performance suffered and now they're compensating with this machine.
Performance never suffered with the iMac line. It's the most consistently updated line of computers Apple has. The Mac Pro, MacBook Pro, Mini and Air were neglected for years, but not the iMac.
And this is not a response to "the iMac's use as a pro suffered because of its thinness". It's a response to "we fucked up the Mac Pro and we're throwing a bone to the Pro market, until 2018 will bring a redesigned Mac Pro".
>At $5000 the iMac Pro falls just short of a ~$2000 Hackintosh.
Well, this is not a Hackintosh. This is the real thing. Even a sole 27" inch 5K screen like it has would take you back $2K in itself.
Because a good Xeon E5 can easily cost $2k by itself.
A 5k panel off newegg(only one I see) is $2000, but I know you can at a minimum buy the LG one off apples site which is $1300.
That brings you up to $4000 as a low estimate(lower end E5, 16GB of RAM, low estimate on GPU).
You'll still need to throw in a power supply($150 at least), a case(Say $100), most likely cooling for the CPU and case fans(Another $100), mouse and keyboard(Say $100 for nice but not great).
That gets you up to at least $4,450, and it's unlikely you'll have 4 Thunderbolt 3 ports, a card for that likely won't be cheap either. So $5k for this, depending on Vega pricing, and what CPU is actually in there, sounds fairly reasonable.
That all said I don't need server hardware, and you probably also don't. $2k on a i7 7700K or i5 7600K, a GTX 1070 - GTX 1080TI, a 512 850 Evo, a 1440p panel, 16GB of non-ECC ram, is what feels like the price/performance sweet spot right now, and Apple isn't in that market. That doesn't mean though this product is overpriced.
It's a bit of a small victory that they support external GPUs, but I think they are missing the boat here.
[0] https://www.nzxt.com/products/manta-matte-black-windowless
And compared to the enthusiasm for their iOS here, the pro customer is clearly no longer of value to Apple.
Non-soldered RAM is a good start, but what about multiple ethernet ports, what about any standard scientific/medical/experimental PCI card, what about the new SSD/HDs that come out in 3 years? What about upgrading the CPU? What about upgrading the screen! Much less using Apple's "most powerful computer" headless?
In that it's not a Mac Pro at all. They have (uniquely) pre-announced a tower-style Mac Pro for "not this year"[0] back in April: https://daringfireball.net/2017/04/the_mac_pro_lives
[0] and given how precise their wording was, it's not necessarily 2018 either.
Maybe there is the thermal envelope in this design to support a more frequent refresh rate, but this still doesn't address the fundamental "pro" need to be able to mix and match or upgrade core components like the display, RAM, GPU, and storage.
Obviously something changed their minds though.
Imagine Cupertino had (nearly) finished designing this sleek machine, thought it was a wonderful answer to refresh their Mac Pro, then they get completely railed in January for failing to provide professionals a pro machine when they expected it. They're late, they know it, but no biggie - they'll introduce this pro machine this summer and everyone will love it.
The pros then proceed to articulate exactly what their grievances are, and the machine that is sitting under the black cloth in the back room looks nothing like what their most loyal users are hurting for. And if listened to closely, the machine that's mostly finished is actually an insult to their most valuable customers. What do you do in that case? Completely scrap the beautiful machine you've already made? Or eat (silent) crow and promise a completely new product that you start working on tomorrow, and tell the engineers who were working on their pet dream computer to quickly finish up - let it be introduced mid-keynote by a non-executive, go back and painfully re-etch a diminutive 'i' in on each of the just-printed 'Mac Pro' bezels - likely to never recoup their R&D costs on this 'lost' product.
That's a good point. I bet that's exactly what happened here. Because if Cook would have given this exact keynote, but had introduced this grey iMac as their 'next new thing' that was replacing the Mac Pro, he'd have been booed off his own stage during Apple's most sacred moment. Apple had enough sense to avoid that moment. They have enough cash to produce an entire (temporary) product line that loses money. They don't have enough cash to lose their most die-hard and influential customers en masse and hear a crowd of 'boos' at the height of their hallowed keynote.
"4x larger L2 cache" and "2x wider AVX" suggest they're going to use the upcoming i9 X-series chips [1] that are based on Skylake design with ~15% better instructions-per-clock (IPC) performance than Broadwell-based Xeons, plus they'll clock much higher than Xeons too: with turbo boost up to 4.5Ghz for even the 10-core model!. Quad channel DDR4 at 2666Mhz is also an improvement.
All this promises a much better single-thread performance vs the current Pro line. IMO that's insane amount of power, it can even probably handle Slack desktop client! :)
[1] http://www.anandtech.com/show/11464/intel-announces-skylakex...
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14491068
Perhaps a thread merge is in order? Official links tend to always be preferred for Apple announcements, hence my posting it. Sorry if I caused any extra work! :)
It's worth noting that dupe detection also killed off salimmadjd's submission linking to the hyphenated product URL (mine is just the non-hyphenated Apple redirect to that same URL).
If the takeaway from this WWDC could be potential gaming parity with Windows, that's a really big deal for me. Me being the segment of Pro users who need to work on a Mac and want to game natively on one, too.
It's also a shame that the Mac Mini seems to be dead (at least no updates in the keynote).
At least the MacBook and iMac line got nice bumps.
Yeah which is really too bad. I bet there's a larger market for a "Mac Mini Pro" with similar specs to this iMac, but without the integrated display (and hefty price premium Apple exerts).
I seriously don't understand how Apple supposedly have time to design an advanced cooling system for the iMac Pro yet can't come up with a bog-standard cheese grater case like the previous Mac Pro design...
Still not good enough tho - it's not upgradeable.
And it comes with Windows. Nobody deserves that.
I'm sure with $4700 more it's possible to get something still better than this new imac pro.. yet with a good cooling system and upgradable at any time.
edit: $2300 INCLUDING 15% taxes
You'll probably can get something with higher performance, but it'll probably also take up more space, generate more heat and make more noise. It'll also demand more time to select the components and assemble it. If you enjoy doing it, OK. If you don't, your time is more expensive than the difference.
I selected a Dell because I want a single phone number to call when something goes wrong.
This is for desktop, for laptops I might still go with apple however.
Feels the opposite to me, feels like they've considered this the Mac Pro killer. But then at the last minute back at the start of the year realised there was still a place for a Mac Pro.
Probably because this solves none of the real issues with the last Mac Pro.
It's like they woke up one day and realised 'oh crap people are pissed and when we asked them why we were surprised that we have upset customers because we haven't updated this MacPro thingy in a few years' and then Tim Cook must have decreed 'let's get SOMETHING out there to stop the masses turning out with pitchforks!'
Really should never have come to this.
I'd prefer a new version of the cheesegrater too but to suggest that they rushed this together is ludicrous. If anything, it's another reason why the Mac Pro got neglected for so long.
If Apple are targeting the same demographic then they're in for another public backlash. Sticking all this high-end gear into a sealed $5k device is baffling. Make no mistake, this iMac Pro will be another 'Pro' product that's put out into the market and forgotten about for a few years.
It also did not take Apple 'years' to come up with this - while it probably existed as a concept for a while I am convinced they started focussing on it after the grumbling about lack of MacPro updates. Otherwise why wait until December to release it.
This is a computer for Pixar artists. This is for some architects I know that do very technically demanding renders but shouldn't be trusted swapping out their own gpus. One can be a "Pro" and be qualified to or care about internals, and money is no object.
The problem isn't that computers like this exist, it's that our needs were misjudged. They acknowledged that a couple months ago, and the product is coming. Meanwhile it's dumb to deny that a market exists for Pro all-in-ones.
I'm not really sure I want to sign up for an all in one design because displays are often useful for much longer than workstations and the last generation of Mac Pro didn't really seem like they were worth the cost.
I don't think that forcing high-perf components into a small desktop chassis makes a lot of sense, but it might me only me.
Your current desktop has a more powerful CPU than an 18-core Skylake Xeon?!
People buy Macs for the operating system, not the hardware. The hardware has been sufficient for at least five years in a row, for all but a very small subset of consumers.
I would agree with you that the Mac isn't a particular cost efficient way of getting high performance hardware, it's just that I don't think that matter any more. Windows is still a bastard operating system and Linux is not nearly as polished as MacOS. Personally I'm not sure that I'll necessarily get a Mac next time, but there's also not a whole lot of other options out there. Maybe I'll built an OpenBSD box, at least that OS is consistent.
I suppose there's a market for this - Probably Disney or related shops. But there's no way I would blow $5K on this. That's just insane.
Maybe the Mac Pro will be more worthwhile.
Let's hope that is a sign they will do away with it on the MacBook "Pro" as well.
Apple's Unnecessary superlatives are tiring.
> “great” new iMacs in the pipeline, slated for release “this year”, including configurations specifically targeted at large segments of the pro market.
"AMD will be delivery HIP version of Caffe, Tensorflow, Torch7, MxNet, Theano, CNTK, Chainer, all supporting our new MIOpen – our new Deep Learning solver."
haha, except for your Macbook Pro.
This is another "pro" in name-only machine I suspect. The fact that it's an all-in-one implies to me that I can't upgrade any part of it.
I don't want an all-in-one... I want a computer, with upgradable parts, and at least two monitors that match -- preferably the can use the same stand.
Also, Apple dragged macOS from PPC to x86; switching x86 implementations is no big deal for the rest of the world, it surely should not be a challenge for Apple.