Hacker News Reader

Your prices are really inflated. Here's a smattering of parts from PCPP: https://pcpartpicker.com/list/tRW3VY

Note the memory is 2133. This total comes out to ~$2300. Add a mobo, the cpu, and a monitor, you're looking at a grand total of about $4500.

I actually forgot the motherboard in my build that’s another $500 since Xeon-W is only supported on the workstation chipsets.

The cooler won’t be enough, the case is pretty low end and the PSU isn’t something you want to touch the EVGA G2 line is pretty bad.

You can easily do 70% for 50% of the cost but that isn’t the point.

> This comes out to the total of ~$6370

Except that you don't have to throw it up when you want to upgrade a couple of parts.

Isn't that offset by the fact that you can resell a Mac for a decent amount of return, versus reselling a PC for pennies on the dollar?

This. I'm not going to shell out $3k for a desktop computer that can't be upgraded. That's just stupid, even if it does look nice.

I didn't said you should, but in all honesty upgrade-ability is so overrated in the PC world.

Other than storage I haven't upgraded a single PC I've owned in the past decade if not more simply because at the point when upgrade was needed it was pointless.

Don't get me wrong I wouldn't buy this iMac, I don't need it, and I don't want it, and I would buy a PC, but Apple is pretty far from skinning people on prices this time around.

> I haven't upgraded a single PC I've owned in the past decade if not more simply because at the point when upgrade was needed it was pointless.

Maybe it's becoming less common to upgrade, but it doesn't mean people don't still do it. I've upgraded several machines in the last decade, for myself and others. Not everyone can afford to just chuck out an upgradeable PC and buy a new one.

> I didn't said you should, but in all honesty upgrade-ability is so overrated in the PC world.

You can keep a screen for example longer than the internals of the PC. Macs are just a waste in general because they are not made to be taken apart and to be serviced. And certainly NOT by the user.

> Other than storage I haven't upgraded a single PC I've owned in the past decade if not more simply because at the point when upgrade was needed it was pointless.

Me neither, but for a different reason: I moved over to the Mac ecosystem 6 years ago, and haven't been able to upgrade since then. Except for adding some memory to a mac mini.

I'm holding out for the new Mac Pro. If it's upgradable in a meaningful way, I'll snap one up.

Guessing you don't play a lot of PC games?

This is a workstation-grade computer, as in "not a playstation".

Nah my SLI 1080TIs and custom loop are just for benching minesweeper.

>~$250 for a good case

what? $250 is really overpriced for a case. it will get you a really good case (see: https://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.aspx?Submit=ENE&I...)

>~$220 for a good power supply

that's definitely overkill.

>~$120 for CLC water cooling for the CPU

>~$100 for case fans

that's like, at least 6 really expensive case fans + watercooling. does the mac pro even have that good of a cooling system?

High end case which is similarly visually pleasing, $250 is actually fairly cheap I could've suggested a custom case :)

With a Xeon-W and a Vega64 ~200$ for a decent power supply isn't that far fetched, you'll be looking at 850W with preferably 1000W+ PSU so it could stay cool under pressure.

And no the iMac doesn't have a CLC but it has a cooling system you cannot replicate, and if you haven't noticed an air cooler that can keep a socket 2066 CPU sufficiently cool would cost you about as much as a CLC

$100 buys you a few maglev low noise fans nothing too fancy.

> you'll be looking at 850W with preferably 1000W+ PSU

I will eat my hat if the iMac Pro comes with a kilowatt PSU.

VEGA64 has a 300W TDP and can pull over 400W underload.

The Xeon-W has a TDP of 140W and can pull 200W under load.

Add in cooling, most radial fans are 4-6A @ 12V which means they can pull upto 80W.... The Delta radial fan on the Vega 64/56 air pulls 60W on it's own at full speed.

High end motherboards consume 40-80W, memory also will consume about 5W per DIMM.

And you have the built in screen which can easily consume 200W or more at peak brightness.

So I hope you have a tasty hat, because there is no way that the iMac Pro isn't coming with a near 1kW PSU.

I have a 2017 loaded iMac, i7 (TDP 90W), Radeon 580 (TDP 150W). Fans etc, abound.

It's certainly not the same, but the built in screen definitely does not consume 200W, and though I can't determine the raw number, going from 'dimmest' to 'brightest' increases power draw 70W.

Guess what size PSU all of the above comes with? 310W.

We shall see. I actually really like the iMac Pro, and would enjoy having one, I don't want to see it fail, I'm just struggling to see how you're getting more than three times the heat dissipation load in what they say is the same 'body size'.

I know it's subjective, but those cases you linked are disgusting. In terms of value, I'd opt for the iMac 'case' for $250 over all of those.

> you can connect a second screen the TB ports do support Thunderbolt displays and DisplayPort.

OP meant something different, which I agree with:

> If you want to run 2 screens, then they won’t match.

when working with multiple monitors most prefer having equal sized/looking ones

I think you're inflating prices. You can get a really good 4k 27" monitor for about $500,

Same thing there: to get the actual thing: a 5120 x 2880 IPS LED screen you have to pay a pretty hefty premium. Quick search shows the LG is around $1300-$1500. (?)

You can get a computer with "80-90%" the specs of this, and pay 50% the price. But the point is if you want to match 100% of the spec you'll likely pay 100% if not 110% of this price too.

Yep 70-80% for 50-60% of the price is about right, you can replace the Intel Xeon for a cheaper i9 or even cheaper AMD TR or even cheaper Zen if you don't care about matching the performance.

TBH most of the savings are from the CPU/motherboard once you drop the Xeon.

You quickly get into the whole "It's definitely not professional without ECC" and the stupid intel market segmentation. Intel makes it really hard and expensive to build quick (as in single core quick) workstations with ECC. If you are absolutely hellbent on 5K and a 4Ghz+ with ECC then it's going to cost a bit. So while you could get a lot of the performance at a lower price point, things like the ECC makes it hard to compare in some aspects.

I don’t think ECC is needed for FinalCut Pro or similar workloads but then I never had a render fail at the 11th hour so I wouldn’t know.

With 5120 x 2880 resolution and a P3 color gamut?

Dell's UP2715K is very comparable and it is $1300 from B&H. So what similarly spec-ed monitor is $500?

Really good doesn’t mean professional. Reference monitors are well over 10k dollars and the factory calibration on Apple screens is fairly close. Certainly better than you’d get on a < 1000 dollar monitor.

Maybe they meant "5K monitor" which is what the iMac Pro has and would fit this price range better.

Nope, the closest thing you can get to the iMac Pro display is likely something like a the Dell PrimeColor UP2718Q which costs about $1500 or the UP2715K which goes for around $1300.

Isn't the closest thing just any other monitor with the exact same panel? The panel isn't everything - but it's a lot. https://www.amazon.com/LG-27MD5KA-UltraFine-International-Ve...

In any case: you'll need to put up $1500 to get this. Either a "better" Pro 4K or the equivalent 5K.

I specifically didn't suggest it because you can't connect it to anything that doesn't supports Thunderbolt 3 monitors since it doesn't have a display port connection, so you can't use that with a PC in any reliable way.

Odd if LG makes a high end panel and doesn’t maximize the market for it by making e.g a regular DisplayPort monitor.

Smells a bit like Apple has got an exclusivity deal to be the only platform with 5K IPS. Might be paranoid...

Wait, so my 2014 13" rMBP won't be able to connect to it? A coworker has one and it looks amazing, I had it on my "if I win the lottery" list.

Nope neither can my late 2015 MBP...

System Requirements Operating System: macOS Sierra 10.12.1 or later

Connection: Thunderbolt 3–enabled Mac

https://www.apple.com/shop/product/HKN62LL/A/lg-ultrafine-5k...

Nope, Thunderbolt 3 exclusively. That's the 2016/2017 MBP, iMac, and iMac Pro.

Mini-macbook is USB-C without Thunderbolt, Mac Pro and Mac Mini are still Thunderbolt 2.

Yes, that's what I said. Parent price breakdown comment had "~$1300 for a professional 4K monitor" but I'm assuming you meant 5K monitor instead of 4K.

There aren’t good 5K monitors really for the PC they are either 30hz or requir 2 display port connectors which means you see 2 screens and there are calibration and sync issues the LG ones simply don’t work.

So my closest thing would be a 10bit calibrated 4K professional monitor which is well over $1000.

Ah, interesting. I've seen the 27" 5K Dell, didn't realize it needed two DP connections.

I assume that in theory the graphics drivers should be able to merge the displays and present it to the OS as a single screen. That's how my UP2414Q works, which is two halves driven by multi-stream-transport over a single cable. It was rather unreliable in Windows though.

EDIT - While my experience has been that the screen worked better on a Mac and sucked on Windows, other people have had similar experiences with multi-display problems in Mac land, so I wouldn't write it off as just a Windows problem. Recent discussion thread here https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15881207

So yes, a built-in display that probably works more reliably is definitely a bonus for the iMac Pro. Counterbalance that with the fact that when the computer's obsolete you're dumping the screen along with it.

Yes, but at least it can do 60hz http://www.dell.com/ae/business/p/dell-up2715k-monitor/pd

The GPU doesn't emulate anything, it sees 2 displays so does the OS. Which causes the problem, you effectively have 2 panels which can have difference in color recreation and there are some sync issues which can cause tearing with full screen applications.

For professional use especially video editing the best monitor I can think of is the UP2718Q.

The UP2718Q is a true 10 bit panel. It supports a very wide color spaces: 100% of sRGB/Adobe RGB and Rec.709, 97.7% of DCI-P3 and of 76.9% Rec.2020.

It supports HDR which is becoming important for content creators these days and has a peak brightness of 1000nits which would allow you to produce HDR content and verify the end result in the same workflow without having to push it to a secondary true HDR display.

And since it's a PrimeColor display from Dell each monitor is individually calibrated at the factory and you get a full calibration chart with each PC monitor (they used to do it for each Ultrasharp, but these days it has to be US Primecolor) like this one: http://www.tftcentral.co.uk/images/dell_up2718q/img061.jpg

And most importantly it supports full hardware calibration so you can actually go into the OSD start the calibration process and update the hardware LUT table in the monitor itself rather than having to rely on color profiles.

The screenshots in this review show a single taskbar across the bottom as you'd expect with a single screen. If Windows were treating it as two screens you would expect the clock and systray to be in the middle of the screen, at the bottom right corner of the left half.

https://www.digitaltrends.com/monitor-reviews/dell-up2715k-r...

I don't know at what level that problem is being solved, but it's getting merged to a single display device somewhere.

FWIW my UP2414Q at 60Hz with left/right driven by multi-stream transport hasn't had any color consistency or sync problems.

Windows has builtin support for multi monitor task bar since Windows 8 ;)

As for issues I would assume you don't have color profiles and aren't gaming on that monitor? Because while they aren't super common they do happen on the dual DP displays.

I've calibrated it with a Spyder 3 Pro and not had issues.

It hasn't been hooked up to my gaming computer for a while, so the tearing problems I can't vouch for.

Some discussion of Linux drivers here https://devtalk.nvidia.com/default/topic/982568/-feature-req...

It discusses the TILE property communicated over EDID informing the drivers that the two signals should be merged into one panel, which is apparently being done automatically for 4K displays in Linux but not for 5K.

Since I can't find any similar complaints on the Windows side, I would assume that these are correctly tiling automatically at the GPU level, not using the multi-monitor taskbar.

Again not the same monitor (and 4K instead of 5K), but I can confirm that I had a single taskbar across the bottom of my UP2414Q under Windows 7 before the multi-monitor taskbar support was added in Windows 8. No user configuration was required. Similarly, hitting Maximize will make a window cover the entire screen, not just half of it as if they were separate displays.

I think you and me have very different definitions of what "good" stands for, so not I'm not inflating prices.

http://www.dell.com/en-us/work/shop/dell-ultrasharp-27-4k-hd...