iMac Pro | Hacker News Reader

iMac Pro

apple.com

53 pointsrl375 comments

This is getting to the point that honestly I would rather just pay Apple for a license to OS X and buy the hardware I want. I'm sure I am in the minority, but I would shell out $600+ to legally use OS X on a Hackintosh with worrying about updates breaking the setup. I own a trashcan MacPro and Macbook Pro and just want to be able to do development on a desktop with a decent Nvidia graphics card and a laptop with at least 32G of ram.

I'm with you on that. I've never built a hackintosh but the hardware support this brings, combined with the constrained all-in-one form factor I personally disdain, is pushing me towards building an iMac Pro-logical equivalent hackintosh. If I could pay to have a legal licence and support for it, I'd do so in a flash.

I have built a hackintosh from my hardware (even nVidia Pascal drivers work these days), but this was far from seamless, comparable to my worst Arch/Gentoo installation experience. 2/10 wouldn't recommend. It also messed up badly when I tried to install and use Docker for Mac.

So, I am back to Linux.

On the whole, an all-in-one design for what is purportedly a professional-grade machine isn't exactly enticing (no expandability, impossibility of having multiple identical monitors, & cetera).

But on second thoughts the hardware support this will bring to macOS will enable the construction of some really powerful, up-to-date hackintosh systems at very reasonable price-points.

The Thunderbolt 3 ports are each somewhere in the neighborhood of the bandwidth of a PCIe 8x slot, arguably giving this about the approximately the expandability of an HP or Dell single socket workstation.

I'm not saying this should be preferred to a traditional tower, just that it isn't fair to say it has no expandability.

I'm of the internal-cards over external-cables school of thought. I've been plugging circuit boards into backplanes since the S-100 bus era, and I'm very much committed to the idea of a discrete computer chassis containing all the major computing components as a distinct entity compared to the screen. I still have desktop machines because of this.

Thunderbolt 3 ports are closer to PCIe 3.0 x4, not x8. Regardless it won't cause a huge performance hit depending on your workload (about 5-10% slower in gaming benchmarks). But YMMV with applications that require more bandwidth.

I mean, the Trashcan Mac Pro had Thunderbolt expandability too. But that doesn't seem to have been as much as people were hoping for then.

which then need 2-500 chassis, or overpriced RAID arrays to do anything useful with...

Apple is a hardware company. They make their money by selling computers.

(Less true these days thanks to the app store 30% top-slice, but it's in their DNA ...)

To the extent that there's demand for high-performance workstation-grade Macs, this will relieve the pressure on that market to migrate away from the increasingly aging dead-end of the current Mac Pro.

To the extent that, Moore's Law having ended, there's less incentive to upgrade regularly, having a less-expandable Pro Mac will give Apple more opportunities to entice power users to upgrade (by, for example, rolling a new iMac Pro every 18-24 months with an improved display panel or some other must-have feature: if you buy a pro machine you spend a lot of time staring at that screen, so a better display option is an obvious upgrade draw).

A Pro machine with external monitors can't force an upgrade the same way as an all-in-one machine. If they roll out a lease-purchase arrangement similar to the iPhone Upgrade Program, this could drive sign-ups, pushing power users away from buying a maxed-out tower once every five years or so towards subscribing to the new maxed-out-closed-box-every-year club.

> Apple is a hardware company. They make their money by selling computers.

Also phones, I hear, are big for them. And music. And payment processing.

> A Pro machine with external monitors can't force an upgrade the same way as an all-in-one machine.

Trashcan MacPro user here. I would have happily purchased a new one with Thunderbolt 3 and an semi-up-to-date Nvidia card (OR external GPU support), if they had actually updated the Pro when Thunderbolt 3 became a thing. Instead they just let it die.

Cynical though your thinking may be (and I intend this as the highest form of compliment), I suspect that your argument is at least partially accurate. Reducing computers to integrated all-in-one appliances certainly marshals pressures towards a heightened hardware refresh cycle. I personally prefer upgrading individual components frequently (including screens) and the whole system on a three/four year cycle.

Exactly. Bragging about how they didn't add a mm to the iMac to make it "pro", and that it's art, is as clear an indication as we'll get that Apple has forgotten why we power users buy their machines. It's to get a job done, not to be an exhibit in the MoMA. The latter is fine only as long as it doesn't impede the former.

I'm not in the target market for this, but I wouldn't buy a desktop that doesn't support a spinning hard drive. Unless Apple offers a 6TB SSD standard.

Some interesting things to note from the specs[0]:

1. An 18-core processor option, 4TB of storage (hopefully NVMe) and 128GB of RAM. That's crazy for an iMac form factor. I'm surprised Apple is even continuing the traditional Mac Pro form factor, considering.

2. Specific details on AMD Vega's pro models:

Radeon Pro Vega 56 graphics processor with 8GB of HBM2 memory | Configurable to Radeon Pro Vega 64 graphics processor with 16GB of HBM2 memory

Having a GPU with 16GB of HBM2 doesn't necessitate an external graphics card in the vast majority of cases. It'll be interesting if you can then hook up additional external graphics cards to augment its GPU power for either high-end 3D work or deep learning applications.

I'm guessing we may see people hooking up external Nvidia GPUs just so they can take advantage of CUDA, which is kind of a shame considering the specs of the onboard Vega hardware.

Metal 2 introduces compute shaders however, so I'm not sure if Apple intends to challenge CUDA primacy. Considering their reliance on AMD GPUs, it would be in their interest to do so—or at least somehow convince Nvidia to discontinue their anti-competitive practice of locking CUDA to Nvidia GPUs.

[0] https://www.apple.com/imac-pro/specs/

EDIT: As other commenters pointed out, I incorrectly speculated the Mac Pro form factor was done for. On the contrary, its continuation is officially confirmed. My comment has been updated accordingly. Thanks!

Apple already announced a modular Mac Pro for next year. I doubt they would go back on that.

Is it me or the specs of this Imac is monstruous ? You forgot to mention up to 128G ram and up to 4T SSD?

"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...

And you'll only have to wait until after 2017 for it. [1]

1: '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”.)' from https://daringfireball.net/2017/04/the_mac_pro_lives

When Apple did this blogger event a couple of weeks ago to update the tech scene about the future of the Mac Pro, it sounded like they were surprised their pro users wanted updated Mac Pros, not just iMacs. It appears Apple only then decided to work on an update (redesign) of the Mac Pro. So don’t bet on next year. They just started the research for a complete new design.

A few months ago Apple had a chat with several major bloggers and they specifically said that the Mac Pro wasn't going anywhere, they were redoing it from scratch. The TLDR is that the GPU workloads didn't materialise the way they thought they would so 2x slightly less powerful GPUs doesn't measure up to a single beefier GPU, and the trash can design really limited them on thermal design, which is why updates on that design stalled.

Given that limitation, they decided to redesign the whole thing again, targeting a 2018 release, and they mentioned they were introducing a workstation-grade iMac in the meanwhile. So this seems like it would be _that_ machine.

Are there many people who will want the 18-core option, but not have multiple GPUs without a bottleneck of thunderbolt?

They claim that to build your own workstation comparable to their $5k base model would cost at least $7k. I would be interested to see a breakdown of this cost; it seems a bit implausible on the surface, but I don't really have experience with these kind of workstations.

That's probably true if you're going to be getting Xeon processors, ECC RAM, etc. But if you were to go for consumer grade hardware with similar performance, you'd probably come in at well under $5000. The cost of a 5K display is definitely something that should be considered as well, though.

Something I saw on engadget: https://pcpartpicker.com/list/jqPdTH

That looks pretty close. A few small things are missing if you want complete parity:

* wireless keyboard and mouse * bluetooth * 802.11ac * 10GB ethernet * speakers * web cam

I'm sure you could budget those comfortably within the remaining $800 or so.

My 7048A supermicro running double E5-2650 (2x 10 cores) with 1TB ram, quadro P4000 was around 5000$, without monitor.

What RAM do you have in there that you were able to get 1TB of within that price?

I checked more thoroughly as I first commented "mildly seriously". I recently quit working with Apple and it wasn't on the best terms.

Still, here is the prices:

Also, I am a re-seller, and had good prices:

- 7048A-T system: 990$

- Intel CPU Xeon E5-2650 v3 2.3 GHz: 2x 950$

- PNY P4000: 650$

- The memory is unbranded. A customer of mine needed about 500 of them, and I bought 16 for me at 200$ each, which makes 3200$. I don't have formal confirmation, but I think it's 95Y4812 clone.

Total is around 5800$.

I checked the regular price of the 64Gb memory modules and realized it was nearly 10 times more expensive, so I guess it doesn't count in comparison with the iMac...

Also about the re-seller thing, I've been an Apple re-seller and evangelist for years, and never got more like 3% rebate on their products while I sold Mac by the dozen.

>> They claim that to build your own workstation comparable to their $5k base model would cost at least $7k.

It's true for initial costs, but it's a little misleading if you use separate components and recycle them at different intervals. For example I usually go through two or three computers before I even replace my monitors.

I have a 9 year old 27" iMac which I still use daily as an external monitor, and it still looks fantastic.

Out of interest how do you use your iMac as an external monitor? I have a slightly older one, so it doesn't support target display mode (only available on 2009 macs and newer).

It has a mini display port in the back, and I just run a mini display port cable from my laptop to the iMac. I expected it to be complicated when I was looking into how to do it, but it turned out ridiculously easy, I just needed a $5 cable.

It's worth noting that from 2015 and on, iMacs can no longer be used in target display mode.

I actually tried it.

Intel announced their 8 core cpu for 600 usd. Power supply 150 usd. 32GB ECC ram 350 usd. top graphic card 600 usd. High end motherboard 300 usd. Fans and case 250 usd. 1tb ssd 350 usd. 5k 27 inch monitor 1200 usd. Speakers 150 usd. So the total Cost is around 3850 usd. Apple just lied to us Tbh. I wish they made mac pros like the the original ones. Easily changeable hardware which is what exactly pro people need

Macs can be good value, depending on the situation. When the 5K iMac came out, the base model cost less than the Dell monitor that launched just a couple of months earlier. Even now trying to get a third party screen that beats the one on the 5K isn't streightforward.

Sorry, I'll pass until Mac Pro is announced.

I want to put my stuff _inside_ the case, I have enough wires on my desk already. Upgradable RAM would be fine, too.

Definitely.

Due to naming parity, this all but confirms an 'iPhone Pro' this fall.

iPhone Pro Plus

I imagine that Apple doesn't think all of their users are "Pro" or want to be lumped in a "Pro" category, nor want to use their phones for purely "Pro" purposes. I would bet good money that Apple will definitely not name their next iPhone Pro.

I'm putting my money on iPhone X.

I'd agree with you, but the 'MacBook Pro' hasn't been marketed at actual 'pros' in generations.

They're aimed mainly at creative professionals. Pro is not a synonym for Dev.

The increased size of the 12.9" iPad Pro represented a ~33% departure from the standard 9.7" iPad size.

If we extrapolate from the iPhone 7 Plus's 5.5" screen size, we can conclude that the iPhone Pro will be the first smartphone to feature a 7.3" screen.

What are you talking about?

Obviously I'm speculating, but Apple has a history of hinting at their long term design strategy for their new lines via staggered product releases.

MacBook Pro, iPad Pro, and now an iMac Pro... it's natural to assume they're going to extend this convention across their product line. I'd bet money on an 'iPhone Pro' this fall.

Well, at least this should shut up the complainers about apple hardware. There is now really going to be an option.

It's not great, it's not something to be enthusiastic about but it's better then rumbling about the next iOS version of something.

> this should shut up the complainers about apple hardware.

Welcome to HN. I take it you're new here?

It's going to take five years of ~ yearly hardware refreshes of all product lines for me to believe that Apple still knows how to be a computer company.

I think once they've refreshed all the product lines in the current cycle - which is a response to a screaming customer base, Apple will wipe its brow and say "phew that was hard dealing with all those customer demands", and get back to refreshes every five years.

Apple just no longer has the same DNA as all those Chinese hardware manufacturers who blitz new products in constantly.

No matter what apple does it will not satisfy "pro" users. Computers either not fast enough, too expensive, not upgradable enough.

That profile view on the apple page looks like it is really fat, the fattest iMac since the translucent plastic CRT monitor days.

Where is the new expandable Mac Pro Tim has been telling us about for several months, the machine that would get us to stop needing to make Hackintoshes? No where to be seen.

> four Thunderbolt 3 ports with support for up to two 5K displays, a 1080p FaceTime camera, realtime 3D rendering, and much more. Other specs start at a 5K built-in display, 8-core Xeon processors, Radeon Vega graphics, 32GB ECC memory, and 10GB Ethernet. The new iMac Pro will start at $4999.

Only 4 ports and none of them USB 3. No USB for keyboard or mouse, so heavy battery laden wireless mouse only. Great, more carpal tunnel fun, plus the joy of recharging batteries when there is no real need.

I don't need two 5k monitors. I need a development machine I can add hard drives and dual reasonable sized monitors to. In the non-expandible limited port iMac range of machine for grandma I need practical ports and a price about 1/5 the stated price.

Fortunately I have found all I need in the Hackintosh world for Mac compatible stuff, and Linux for everything else.

Unless that picture is totally misleading it looks like there's also 4 older format USB ports on the back.

> Billowing smoke. Torrential rain. A wheat field in the wind. With up to 18 cores and Hyper-Threading, iMac Pro lets you build and render particle systems of all kinds — static or animated, 2D or 3D — with ease.

I always thought every effect listed here was catered for by GPU power, not CPU power?

Physics are often rendered on the CPU.

I'm personally concerned about the claimed 500W power - Surely that isn't enough?

The full specs are just unbelievable. I know you can create a comparable computer with 30% savings, but packing this much power into an iMac is just insane. I don't think i would be able to buy one ever.

Since the Surface Studio gets nearly this expensive, it'll be interesting to see where Microsoft takes it in the future.

Surface Studio is a very different beast than an iMac Pro. The Surface Studio isn't trying to be a powerhouse unit... it uses a mobile GPU. It's designed to be a creation workstation with the unique screen, knob, and stylus but not really a powerhouse render-er.

Xeon instead of Threadripper, looks like they're really tied to Intel. Vega hype though!

At $4999 for the base model they can keep it.

You are not the target market.

I thought that seemed terrible, but then when I tried configuring a Dell and HP with 8 cores, 32 gigs of ram, 1TB flash, and a good display, I kept hitting similar numbers.

Try again with an AMD Ryzen 1700/1800 8-core processor. You could build something similar for a fraction of the price.

But not a small fraction. And you'd have to build it yourself.

If you opt out of Xeon, you can build it for around $3k, complete with nVidia 1080. Mine is $2.5k, but I opted for a 4-core CPU, 32G ram, a 1080, and 1TB flash. Works perfectly.

Including the 5K monitor?

No, 4K. I am not sure if 5k makes all the difference (at least for me, as a software engineer/researcher). However, I understand it might be important for many people.

Okay, but what you've shown is that you can build a cheaper system with cheaper not-so-top-of-the-line components. Well, sure. You can also buy a cheaper iMac.

Xeon is a server-class CPU, the i7 is a desktop class CPU...doesn't mean they're not both top of the line components. Couple of major downside of iMacs (I have an original 5k iMac) are that I can't use it as a monitor for my other systems and I can't upgrade anything (RAM is already maxed out.) If you're all-in to Apple's ecosystem, it might make sense, but I just don't see the value myself (having a ton of Apple tech, but slowly moving away, I can't justify the $ when I can build an upcoming i9 or AMD Thread Ripper (terrible name btw) based machine for half the cost with similar/better performance.) Yep I'll lose OSX, but Win10 + Linux Subsystem solves most of my needs.

Personally, I think this is by far apple's worst announcement page. Maybe because I viewed it on firefox, at a weird screen size, but the last two panels never loaded for me. The "thermal viewer" element is identical to the speaker panel sans the cool airflow demo. The huge "500 nits 43% brighter One billion colors Support for 10-bit spatial and temporal dithering." li's are really ugly to me. The panel header text looks nice and big, why do you have to use these super H1s?

Maybe I am just bitter here, but the only thing I like is the keyboard

OMG, what happened to the superb Apple product pages? This is just ugly!

It's maybe off-topic to discuss the page design, but I agree.

I hate these landing pages that are effectively PowerPoints -- very little information per screenful of content, with crap transition effects between every "slide".

This is not even close to the other product pages on Apple's website. Feels like it was made 5 years ago.

Where's the metal loop to connect the chain so I can use it as a Boat Anchor in 8 years after forced obsolescence? It's not a bug, it's a feature!

Reply on news.ycombinator.com