Vincent Laforet's iMac Pro Review | Hacker News Reader

Vincent Laforet's iMac Pro Review

blog.vincentlaforet.com

51 pointsuptown72 comments

I’ve seldom seen a jump this dramatic before on any new generation of Macs – 20%-30% speed increases are the norm … NOT 200%-300% increases. That’s SIGNIFICANT.

Isn’t this simply a consequence of Apple not having any competitive pro desktop hardware since 2013?

I’m not sure they deserve praise for just catching up.

This. If you are upgrading from the 2013 Mac Pro, this is significant, but what are the benchmarks against other professional workstations in 2017?

Precisely. Any modern $5,000 workstation is going to have 16+ Xeon cores, 128+ GB of memory, NVMe SSDs, and a high-end nVidia GPU or two.

Two years ago I purchased a dual Xeon E5 workstation for 32 total HT cores, along with 128 GB, an Intel NVMe SSD, a GeForce 9-series GPU, and two 40-inch 4K 60 Hz displays for ~$5,000. Today's typical $5K workstation would presumably include an nVidia 10-series Titan and possibly an Optane SSD. And today you'd probably go with those sweet 43-inch LG 4K monitors that have matte screens (oh how I miss when matte displays were common).

I mean, I get it. This review is about the fastest official MacOS platform around. It's not concerned with Hackintoshes and certainly not concerned with Windows or Linux. That's fair. But this review is also unintentionally about how outdated the previous-generation Mac hardware is. Catching up to the present is a big deal, and congratulations to Apple on that, but how about not falling so far behind the present in the first place?

On your BOM you should not forget a best-in-class 5K 27" monitor. A 4K TV is nice, but it's not on the same price range as the iMac's display.

As for the computer, the CPU alone is about US$ 1400. Add PCIe flash storage, RAM, a US$ 800-1000 GPU and you are quickly matching that US$ 5000 range for a regular PC running Linux, even before you add a 5K HDR monitor.

> On your BOM you should not forget a best-in-class 5K 27" monitor. A 4K TV is nice, but it's not on the same price range as the iMac's display.

While I don't begrudge someone who enjoys a small monitor, for me, usable screen real estate is priority #1. Pixel density is nice, but not at the expense of usable real estate. So I'll take two (or even one!) 40-inch 4K monitors running at 100% UI zoom over a small 5K monitor running at 250% UI zoom.

I'm not sure why you mentioned televisions. The displays I bought in 2015 are Philips BDM4065UC monitors [1], which clocked in at $700 a piece in 2015.

> As for the computer, the CPU alone is about US$ 1400. Add PCIe flash storage, RAM, a US$ 800-1000 GPU and you are quickly matching that US$ 5000 range for a regular PC running Linux, even before you add a 5K HDR monitor.

In 2015, I was able to build out a 32 HT core dual Xeon E5v3 with 128 GB of ECC DDR4, an Intel NVMe SSD, a Samsung SATA SSD, and a 9-series nVidia GPU for ~$3,500. The two 4K monitors brought the grand total very close to $5K.

Today, $5K should get you the same along with some mix of more cores, faster clock rates, a 10-series nVidia GPU, or possibly even an Optane SSD.

I suspect that small 5K monitor Apple is using is a major cost driver. It's a shame it's permanently affixed to the computer and not optional.

[1] https://www.philips.com.au/c-p/BDM4065UC_75/brilliance-led-b...

I believe that Laforet's comparison is an i7 quad core iMac to 10 core Xeon W iMac Pro.

Cabel Sasser noted 41% improvement Mac Pro 6 core -> iMac Pro 10 core :

https://twitter.com/cabel/status/940669012765065216

Speed. We tried compiling one of our meatier Xcode projects on the iMac Pro (10-core Xeon W, 3 GHz) vs. our standard Mac Pro (3.5 GHz Xeon E5, 6-core). Sure, the Mac Pro is old, but the iMac Pro compiled the project 41% faster. A pretty sincere boost.

That is entirely expected for a 10-core vs. 6-core machine on a compiling workload.

As in, if this is a workload you care about, maybe what you really want is a 64 core EPYC not the "lowend" 10-core Xeon they managed to fit into the display.

Now that you said it, I realized I really want a Mac with a 64-core EPYC...

One of the new "features" not mentioned here is that the iMac Pro is no longer user-serviceable. The screws to open the back are gone, and you can't replace the RAM and, presumably, the SSD. For a $5000 Pro machine, that's disappointing.

I've got a rather old iMac. Even though it has screws on the back, you replace the drive (which I just did) by going through the front -- step one, attach suction cups and remove the screen. (Shout-out to iFixit for their informative guides.)

You've confirmed this truly not user-servicable?

(edited typo)

That's disappointing, where did you read this? The images on apple.com show socketed RAM, which suggests to me that it might be possible to open the unit:

    https://www.apple.com/v/imac-pro/a/images/overview/storage_large.jpg

I was kinda hoping that'd be the case, as it would be a welcome change from my 2012 iMAC, which is glued shut and limping along on a HDD.

MKBHD via MacWorld: https://www.macworld.com/article/3242187/macs/imac-pro-shipp...

> Brownlee got a chance to play with the new 10-core machine for a week, and while he praises the speed, he notes that the iMac Pro isn’t user upgradeable. Even the RAM door that is on the back of the 5K iMac is gone, which will surely upset power users.

9to5 also reported that back in June, claiming confirmation from Apple.

> For a $5000 Pro machine, that's disappointing.

That's an understatement.

I was super excited at the announcement of the iMac Pro. But then I saw the lack of upgradable memory. Couple with the price, that's a hard pass.

Maybe the Mac Pro will be better.

Yes, but I doubt it'll start at price or performance lower than a mid-range iMac Pro. The point here is that it can be upgraded later to a much beefier configuration than the top-of-the-line iMac. It will probably ditch the Xeon W and go for one that can, at least, offer a dual-socket system.

It also wouldn't come with a built-in display, which would allow it to have a slightly better spec for the same price as an iMac Pro.

The new iMac Pro is certainly a lovely machine. An iMac is a nice desktop machine, keeping all in a very neat package. The iMac Pro now adds some serious compute power. Of course, you pay for the slim package by not being able to freely upgrade components like with a tower pc. However, that does not explain, why there is no way to get into the machine at all. Getting to the RAM, the SSD and most importantly, being able to clean the fans should be possible. But even certified repair shops have to re-glue the screen into the machine after accessing the internals. This is just plain unacceptable.

Sigh. The frame of reference has shifted so much that people no longer care that the display is so firmly tied to the rest of the computer.

I've got a 2004 vintage 24" Dell monitor that works quite well, 13 years later.

Not so for my 2006 vintage 20" iMac. The screen is still great, but the computer is flaky, so overall it's a dead product. Same for my 2007 vintage 24" iMac. Still a great screen, but the computer is well past its prime and can't run the latest macOS.

What really upsets me is the hypocrisy that nobody cares about. Apple is always telling us how eco-friendly it is, and yet nobody employed there cares about this?

Of course, it's business leaders' role to be hypocrites. But what about people on the so-called "independent" Board of Directors? Director Al Gore wrote "Earth in the Balance: Ecology and the Human Spirit". And yet he's happy to take Apple's money and stock while helping them greenwash their company image.

I fucking hate the hypocrisy.

Not that it fixes your issue or dismisses your valid arguments against an AIO, but iMacs since 2009 started supporting being a display for another device: https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT204592

DARN... I noticed the fine text that the 5k resolution models no longer support this feature.

Plenty of people care, it's just been an issue for so long many don't even bother to mention it anymore.

I’ve got a 9 year old 27” iMac that gets used constantly as an external monitor.

One question: is silent? Thanks to a 10 metre HDMI cable I put the workstation computer into the cellar and was shocked how much more I enjoyed sitting in front of the monitor when there is 0.0 sound. Whatever the Nvidia Titan does down there doesn't bother me.

That's an excellent idea, thank you. I may put my macbook pro in a second room with a long HDMI cable. Noise has become worse as I've added external hard drives.

As for the mac pro, they say it's silent, but it's the kind of thing I plan to test in an apple store running some programs like quicktime screen recording on full blast before buying.

The iMac Pro sounds awesome, but this reads much more like an advertorial than I expected.

Are the people who receive these prerelease sample devices from Apple required to write about them in a positive light?

I don't think there's a contract... but it did happen that Apple just didn't send prerelease sample devices to reviewers who were too critical.

Well they are if they want to receive another one.

I too would be very impressed by a powerful machine that showed up on my doorstep free of charge. I might become less impressed when I look at the cost/benefit of such a machine.

How much is my time worth? A funny thing to ask in a review that doesn't mention the cost of the product.

So its 2-3X faster as an imac that costs 2-3x less...

A 27 inch iMac costs $3,000, that’s less than 2x difference in cost.

An iMac Pro will cost you an extra $80 a month over a 2 year ownership period. If substantially speeding a significant part of your workflow doesn’t yield far more than $80 a month, you aren’t even close to the target market.

My time is worth close to $100 an hour. I spend close to an hour a day in compiles. Saving 10 hours of compile time a month would be worth nearly $1,000 a month to me and my company.

If that calculation is true, have you invested in a Mac Pro or a custom-built machine?

I was waiting for imac pro, the current mac pro isn’t that great a speed boost over my MBP.

A '17 iMac 5k 27" costs $1700 (base), $1900(mid), $2200 (high). The base price of the iMac Pro is $5k

The reviewer is actually comparing the iMac Pro to the 2015 model iMac (R9 graphics)

A power user isn’t getting 8 gigs ram, a 3.4 Gighz processor or a fusion drive. With 4.4 Gighz professor, 32 gigs ram, and 512 SSD, $3,300.

That’s the real high end.

But again, why skimp to save even a measly $3k if you are worth $50+/hour?

A power user also might not get a Base iMac Pro, a maxed out model will likely cost $13,000+.

The base iMac Pro configuration is 32 Gigs RAM, and 1 TB SSD.

The cheapest 5K iMac with that configuration costs $3,100.

Try harder to make your arguments coherent.

I especially love that he benches it against the iMac and MBP 15". And not, you know, the bloody Mac Pro it's supposed to complement or supplant.

If he value his time so much why hasn't he built a faster PC for himself for all these years? Is he locked in some sort of North Korea where somehow only Apple hardware can be obtained?

Because the software that makes him most productive doesn't run on non-Apple hardware?

I doubt that's true. Adobe CS has been the top choice for pro media for years and it runs on Windows at least as well as on Mac.

It depends a lot on what specific aspect of media you're in but this isn't necessarily true. In video there's a lot of Avid, Davinci Resolve and RED, in photography (particularly fashion and very high end) there's Capture One Pro, in music there's ProTools and the like.

Adobe competes everywhere and overall it's very successful but there are a lot of niches where it doesn't dominate.

Just about everything is available on PC as well though so your point still stands. The main exception is Final Cut Pro, which is very popular with video folks.

Final Cut Pro is Mac-only

FCPX is a neutered shell of what FCP once was. It works fine for prosumer YouTuber sorts of things, but it's hardly a reason to cling to macOS.

Changing OSs is also a big time sink.

Read the article (point #4). He explains why.

I like how Apple got a pretty wide range of different “Pro” use cases for these early previews. There are scientists, photo/video editors, developers, and a musician I think.

Other than the cost because there is no upgrade path, I am a bit worried that they will have done a bad job at estimating the thermal. Given the iPhone 6 and some of the portables, I am worried that a user won't get the full performance for long periods of time. I guess I will wait for the eventual Mac Pro to see what to order next.

The iPhone 6 and the iMac Pro couldn't be more different as products (and I've never heard of any thermal issues with the i6, my wife carried one for 3 years).

A better example is the trash can Mac Pro. Apple did design themselves into a thermal corner for upgrades, but the thermals for the CPUs and video cards it shipped with were fine. And as usual, Apple gave it a super quiet fan. I expect Apple to do the same with the iMac Pro, or at least two super quiet fans.

"we completely redesigned the thermal architecture of iMac Pro with innovative dual blowers, a massive heatsink, and extra venting. The result? Almost 75 percent more airflow and an 80 percent increase in system thermal capacity. Which lets iMac Pro handle 500 watts — 67 percent more power than the previous iMac — and stay chill."

The iPhone 6 problems are well known (couple HN stories with one being slowing it down to avoid the heating). Having bought 4[1] and replace 3 (well 1 twice for a total of 4), and dealing with several Macbook Pros that swelled batteries when they got hot, I'm a bit worried.

I think the trash can Mac is a bad example since they didn't go for thin or integrated display.

I'm really not sold on their thermal architecture claim since they made the same one on the Macbook Pros and that didn't turn out well. I'm hopeful, but I have my doubts. I would imagine some folks are going to do the tests like they did on the iPhone 6 to see if it slows under extended load.

1) gotta love family plans.....

Anecdotal evidence, while interesting, is not really pertinent. For example, I've had over a dozen iPhone models, never had a problem with heat. I've had a half dozen MBPs, use two at the moment, and the battery has never swelled, ever.

And the trash can is tiny, making it the second best example we have other than the 5K iMac, both of which work fine and handle thermals fine.

And BTW, every phone slows under extended load, that's standard thermal management for fan-less battery powered devices.

I take it you are just going to skip all the news articles on the iPhone 6? The trash can doesn’t have an integrated display and has a rather large hole to vent, it’s a different beast from the iMac line. Using it as an example is as valid as using the G4. This is the biggest CPU in an Apple thin form factor machine, and I think it is pretty wise to be nervous.

That's not really a reasonable comparison though, those devices are strictly battery powered and don't have fans. I'm interested to see where this machine lands too, but I would be really surprised if they didn't consider long duration workflow performance.

The Macbook Pro has a fan. I think the same problem applies with a Xeon in the mix. I see those devices as a trend and an indication that Apple might have a problem judging the thermal of a new device. The iPhone 6 story is particularly relevant because it shows the way they might be inclined to "solve" any issues that come up.

I'd have been really surprised that you could login to lots and lots of Macs as `root` with any password too if we all hadn't learned that together recently.

You had to be able to login to the Mac first, to be able to login to root.

I'm excited to convince my company to get one, and I'm just going to use it for compiling Swift apps.

I use a hackintosh using 2x e5-2680 32 cores and 128gb. It took me $1,100 to put together. The E5s are v1 but still run great. I don't know of another way to get a cheap desktop with that much ram.

Large swift projects are not RAM limited, it's more the CPU.

My time is too valuable to waste messing with a Hackintosh.

Unfortunately violating the OS X EULA isn't really an option for companies.

Of course it isn't.

I would love to have an all-in-one with a 24" to 30" display, a great graphic card, and good performance. (Windows based, that is)

Is there any other good option rather than the iMac Pro?

You can configure any Mac to boot into native Windows (and/or Linux and/or MacOS).

If I had $5,000 to spend on a computer, I would absolutely build it myself. It would probably be powerful enough to gain sentience.

I'm sure you could build a more powerful tower for $5k, but if you account for a nice display and mouse/keyboard, and I don't think you could match the iMac pro cost to power ratio.

Based on current prices on Newegg, I can build a PC with comparable specs with a 4K monitor, a mechanical keyboard, and a variable-DPI mouse for about $4200.

And I can then replace parts as they go obsolete at my leisure.

To build an actual comparable PC costs $4,600.

http://www.pcgamer.com/apples-new-imac-pro-costs-5000-but-is...

And it isn't a svelte all-in one, won't have Apple's build quality, or warranty, or run MacOS, and you'll have to spend your own time building and maintaining it.

Personal preference, but:

1. All-in one: a negative

2. Build quality: Apple's build quality has gone down in the past seven years.

3. Warranty: OK, you got me there.

4. MacOS: Of all the OSes I've used in my life, MacOS is certainly not the best. It's not a selling point.

5. Building & maintaining time: This is a positive. I enjoy being able to know exactly what's in my machines and having the ability to replace any part I want whenever I want.

There are other upsides to building your own versus buying a Mac.

1. Complete control over aesthetics.

2. Broader choice of OS.

3. Broader hardware options.

If someone gave me a free iMac Pro, I would sell it and use the money to build something I like.

Again, please note, this is personal preference and not intended to be a judgment on those whose preferences differ from mine.

Your personal preferences are yours, me I’d rather spend time being productive than building/nursing a home brew machine.

But either way, if you need a fast xenon 8+ core system driving 5K video, it’s hard to build one much cheaper than what Apples iMac Pro sells for.

Comparable specs should be a 5k monitor...

a 5K is a big difference

I can't tell the difference between 1080p and 4K unless I sit close to the monitor. Why would I want to spend the (exorbitant) money on a 5K or higher?

I believe the point is that you can edit 4K video in native resolution with all your tool palettes around it rather than covering it up.

If you can’t tell the difference you aren’t a customer. I’m guessing you aren’t Jim Cameron.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com