You're in for a surprise! The NEW iMAC Pro.

neil_g said:
Even the ryzen would most likely be a suitable alternative at lesser cost.
Click to expand...

Absolutely!

Thread ripper yes.
I7 7980xe yes.

Problem with xenon is it may have all the cores but at sacrifice of clock speed and clock speed is still king with software that isn’t designed for multi threaded tasks and that’s most software.

Even Lightroom and photoshop whilst they will benefit from more cores on batch tasks like exports for the majority of the time like when moving sliders etc a fast quad core will offer better performance.

This is however academic as if one wanted to be cute they could spec a lesser performing pc for very little outlay, equip it with proper cooling and it will outperform any faster processor or gpu that’s hitting its thermal limits.
 
Last edited:
Eloise said:
That’s my point... people are talking about £4K to “destroy” the iMac Pro (fully loaded) ... but no one is putting their money (or at least showing equivilent comparisons) where their mouth is.

Most users aren’t going to meet “Workstation Class” machines, but for the few that do the iMac Pro *isn’t* (as far as I can see) significantly higher cost than a Dell or HP.

Specc’ing similar to the iMac Pro on Dell’s U.K. site earlier I got around £10,000 ... but that’s with older processor and multiple 1TB drives (2x NVMe, 1xSATA) rather than a single 4TB NVMe.
Click to expand...
Eloise you don’t need to spec like for like. You simply need to spec parts that will offer the same or better performance. These can be far cheaper, like a properly cooled coffee lake cpu.

Also whilst a 4tb pcie ssd is nice it gives little more than bragging rights in the real world over a sata ssd. Only specific ssd benchmarks will show a difference. That money could be spent far better elsewhere.

I have pcie ssd’s and tbh they don’t offer any tangible performance in real world usage and that includes limited scenarios.

There’s no magic here. Existing pc components have been selected by Apple. Their performance has been crippled through poor cooling and you pay a premium because they look nice. And they do.
 
Last edited:
Brazo said:
Eloise you don’t need to spec like for like. You simply need to spec parts that will offer the same or better performance. These can be far cheaper, like a properly cooled coffee lake cpu.
Click to expand...
Then start ripping into Dell, HP, et al. who also offer “Workstations”.

But no, that’s not what you and others here are about... you’re an “anti-Apple” cult and worse than any Apple Fanboy I’ve ever read.

You talk about poor cooling... but have you actually evidence of that? The “waste bin” MacPro wasn’t cropped by poor cooling... it was maybe crippled by lack of updating.

Yes, this isn’t a machine that 95% of users need... even the base 8 core model is likely a waste for photographers but for those doing 4K and higher video work the memory throughput (which is what Xeon have) and NVMe SSD is going to be hugely beneficial.
 
Apple no longer care about selling computers to people. They want to sell phones to people. They also sell computers to businesses who will look at TCO more than headline price.
 
Eloise said:
Then start ripping into Dell, HP, et al. who also offer “Workstations”.

But no, that’s not what you and others here are about... you’re an “anti-Apple” cult and worse than any Apple Fanboy I’ve ever read.

You talk about poor cooling... but have you actually evidence of that? The “waste bin” MacPro wasn’t cropped by poor cooling... it was maybe crippled by lack of updating.

Yes, this isn’t a machine that 95% of users need... even the base 8 core model is likely a waste for photographers but for those doing 4K and higher video work the memory throughput (which is what Xeon have) and NVMe SSD is going to be hugely beneficial.
Click to expand...

When you say memory throughput do you mean capacity? Do you mean speed? Do you mean channels? Do you mean the memory controller?

Yes I would have equal concerns for those non Apple machines too. Oddly this is nothing to do with Apple. I care not for what OS one puts on their pc. They all have the same parts after all inside. Call me names by all means but I’m tapping this post out on an iPhone 7+ so temper your assumptions about any anti Apple-ness.

This is simply about the basics of pc building. I wouldn’t start with hot running, power inefficient parts (looking at you Vega) and pack them tightly into a small case with very little airflow and very little in the way of cooling.

Cpu performance is thermal dependant and as the temps get higher they start to throttle and limit performance. Advertised clock speeds will rarely be hit and perhaps by only one core whereas a machine with proper cooling can overclock and run all cores at 5+ghz offering significant performance boost.
 
Last edited:
Eloise said:
No, it’s the anti-Apple fan boys who are out in force.
Click to expand...

really?

why not just accept people who want to buy a iMac Pro will buy one.
Click to expand...

never said anything to the contrary. its the massive hype over the xeon chips I was commenting on.

i thought you weren’t out to win a peeing contest.
Click to expand...

as above

Perhaps you should tell that t9 the 10s thousands on people who buy Dell and HP workstations each year too!
Click to expand...

there was a point where xeons were a massive boost for desktop machines, it's only really recently that desktop chips have caught up.
 
Brazo said:
Cpu performance is thermal dependant and as the temps get higher they start to throttle and limit performance. Advertised clock speeds will rarely be hit and perhaps by only one core whereas a machine with proper cooling can overclock and run all cores at 5+ghz offering significant performance boost.
Click to expand...
indeed. go stand next to a xeon server running at full tilt and see how loud it is because the massive amount of cooling being attempted.

an imac (like any other AIO platform for the record) is going to offer nowhere near the cooling ability and WILL throttle significantly.
 
neil_g said:
indeed. go stand next to a xeon server running at full tilt and see how loud it is because the massive amount of cooling being attempted.

an imac (like any other AIO platform for the record) is going to offer nowhere near the cooling ability and WILL throttle significantly.
Click to expand...

The M1000e and 16 M630’s at work agrees with you
 
Eloise said:
Yes, but is is much cheaper than the Apple iMac Pro for similar cost?
Click to expand...

The point being that I wouldn’t spec a machine identical to the iMac Pro, I’ve owned a HP Z600 (dual Xeon) and multiple precision’s, and not paid anywhere close to the 5k starting price of the iMac, for reference my use of workstations is not 4K video or anything like that, it’s been with virtual servers under considerable load running for substantial periods of time, something I believe the iMac Pro is not suitable for in my opinion.

To cut a long story short, someone who requires server-class processing has a vast array of options more suitable to their bespoke requirements, someone who requires a 4K video editing machine and prefers a Mac can opt for the 5k iMac.

I just don’t see where this fits....
 
I dont agree peoples assumptions at HUGE thermal throttling - it will depend on the use case - sure rendering ALL cores will reduce clock speed - but Apple claims 500 watt heat dissipation which is plenty for a 140watt CPU.

Sure servers are loud, but usually because there is 2-4 other CPU's within a couple of CM and 10 graphics cards - this is just one cpu one GFX chip.

I reckon it will spin up ALL cores rendering - but stay fairly quiet working with video, photos etc
 
Last edited:
I suppose it’s not just the throttling but the potential for more performance that better cooling will offer.

For example an Intel cpu may top out at 3.4ghz on one core under normal use and even with inadequate cooling may hit that specification before the machine warms up too much.

However with proper cooling every core could go much higher ghz offering a huge performance increase. A good example is the i5 6600k that Apple chose to put in the iMac 5k. It doesn’t have the required cooling to be overclocked or operate under ideal scenarios. The same cpu with a £20-30 air cooler will be noticeably faster.
 
neil_g said:
Even the ryzen would most likely be a suitable alternative at lesser cost.
Click to expand...
Finally! Was waiting for someone to bring them up. Threadripper is the only reason we got these "response xeons".

Xeons do come out on top performance-wise, but as with anything at the bleeding edge, you pay 200% more for 5% better (numbers completely plucked from thin air).
 
combat squirrel said:
I dont agree peoples assumptions at HUGE thermal throttling - it will depend on the use case - sure rendering ALL cores will reduce clock speed - but Apple claims 500 watt heat dissipation which is plenty for a 140watt CPU.

Sure servers are loud, but usually because there is 2-4 other CPU's within a couple of CM and 10 graphics cards - this is just one cpu one GFX chip.

I reckon it will spin up ALL cores rendering - but stay fairly quiet working with video, photos etc
Click to expand...
Sure but the people buying these high multi core machines will be the ones doing things all cores loaded rendering.

As for the cooling, it remains to be seen but I really can't see how their cooling system can pass enough air to avoid thermal throttling events. The mac books are bad enough on lesser mobile cpu.

Even single socket servers with no Gpu throw a lot of air through the chassis to keep it under control at full load.
 
neil_g said:
Sure but the people buying these high multi core machines will be the ones doing things all cores loaded rendering.

As for the cooling, it remains to be seen but I really can't see how their cooling system can pass enough air to avoid thermal throttling events. The mac books are bad enough on lesser mobile cpu.

Even single socket servers with no Gpu throw a lot of air through the chassis to keep it under control at full load.
Click to expand...


I'm on both sides of the argument really - the machine is really aimed at graphics design, video and photo work in the very high end niche. It's not meant to be a full blown render machine - although it will of course do that.

Taking apples claim at 500watt heat dissipation - which I am inclined to believe - because my 240mm radiator in my m-atx machine can dump 300 watt easy - and the entire non circuit board area in this machine is dedicated to cooling - a regular imac's board with cpu and gpu ram etc is about the size of 2 smart phones in area - the rest of the case is largely empty - they use the space to put a 3.5mm hard drive in - which if you see the dismantle videos is the same area again but just on its own in a massive open space - however the imac pro only offers NVME storage which is small in size..........

Anyway taking that in to account even with the 2066 CPU - there is TONS AND TONS of room to make a 500 watt heat dissipation in the chassis - especially as you have a major companies ability to manufacturer how it wants from scratch (not a home brew cooler).

Then its maths - at full pelt, the cpu is rated 140 watt

https://ark.intel.com/products/126793/Intel-Xeon--W-2195-Processor-24_75M-Cache-2_30-GHz

Lets say 150 watt for variance.

Vega 64 desktop WORSE case is 200 watt heat say ........ (doubt its that though to be honest, no way its more than an 18 core)

350 watts heat.......... say another 100 watts for other system parts....... 450 - no chance is a new machine on 14nm doing much more than that..........and that's at full pelt all maxed out - so yeh I think it will run maxed out at intels stated speeds - the 18, 14, 10 core etc no problems

It will run maxed out at the speed intel says the chip will at the given core count loads - that, I am sure of just using basic maths, 2.3 ghz at 18 cores maxed, up to 4.2 ghz as core count loading decreases.

That's using 18 cores, obviously the lower counts will be even easier to run.

Id buy a 10 core as its a good balance of clock speed, core count and what the software can use today and the next say 3 years.
 
Last edited:
See, I know a lot of the people here do this for a living, but I'm finding the idea that anybody posting on this thread knows more than all of the propellor heads at Apple put together a little hard to believe.........
 
JonathanRyan said:
See, I know a lot of the people here do this for a living, but I'm finding the idea that anybody posting on this thread knows more than all of the propellor heads at Apple put together a little hard to believe.........
Click to expand...

Hence why I posted just before yours - that it will be just fine to run as fast as it's designed to - it won't throttle any more than a server would.
 
combat squirrel said:
I'm on both sides of the argument really - the machine is really aimed at graphics design, video and photo work in the very high end niche. It's not meant to be a full blown render machine - although it will of course do that.

Taking apples claim at 500watt heat dissipation - which I am inclined to believe - because my 240mm radiator in my m-atx machine can dump 300 watt easy - and the entire non circuit board area in this machine is dedicated to cooling - a regular imac's board with cpu and gpu ram etc is about the size of 2 smart phones in area - the rest of the case is largely empty - they use the space to put a 3.5mm hard drive in - which if you see the dismantle videos is the same area again but just on its own in a massive open space - however the imac pro only offers NVME storage which is small in size..........

Anyway taking that in to account even with the 2066 CPU - there is TONS AND TONS of room to make a 500 watt heat dissipation in the chassis - especially as you have a major companies ability to manufacturer how it wants from scratch (not a home brew cooler).

Then its maths - at full pelt, the cpu is rated 140 watt

https://ark.intel.com/products/126793/Intel-Xeon--W-2195-Processor-24_75M-Cache-2_30-GHz

Lets say 150 watt for variance.

Vega 64 desktop WORSE case is 200 watt heat say ........ (doubt its that though to be honest, no way its more than an 18 core)

350 watts heat.......... say another 100 watts for other system parts....... 450 - no chance is a new machine on 14nm doing much more than that..........and that's at full pelt all maxed out - so yeh I think it will run maxed out at intels stated speeds - the 18, 14, 10 core etc no problems

It will run maxed out at the speed intel says the chip will at the given core count loads - that, I am sure of just using basic maths, 2.3 ghz at 18 cores maxed, up to 4.2 ghz as core count loading decreases.

That's using 18 cores, obviously the lower counts will be even easier to run.

Id buy a 10 core as its a good balance of clock speed, core count and what the software can use today and the next say 3 years.
Click to expand...

I would take a 240mm water cooled rad any day of the week. Make a fist with both your hands and touch them together and that’s the size of my cpu air cooler. Wouldn’t have a hope in hell of fitting in a Mac case and that’s only rated for 250w.

Vega desktop draws 285w but can go up to 385w.

http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/amd-radeon-rx-vega-64,review-33981-17.html

Don’t get me wrong I think it will be fiddled with to reduce that, undervolted most probably.
 
Brazo said:
I would take a 240mm water cooled rad any day of the week. Make a fist with both your hands and touch them together and that’s the size of my cpu air cooler. Wouldn’t have a hope in hell of fitting in a Mac case and that’s only rated for 250w.

Vega desktop draws 285w but can go up to 385w.

http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/amd-radeon-rx-vega-64,review-33981-17.html

Don’t get me wrong I think it will be fiddled with to reduce that, undervolted most probably.
Click to expand...

Yeah but your not considering just how much room they have in that case - also they will use heatpipes and the entire / every open area of the case will become a heatsink/radiator fin internally providing oddles of surface area - given the thickness in the middle to the outter edge, I bet every single mm is used to help cool - lets say 60% of the surface area of a 27mm monitor - thats like 3 x 120mm radiators on a heatpipe wicking away heat from the chips - even 285 + 140 is only 425watt, still within apples thermal envelope.

I honestly think it will run flat out at intels stated spec of the CPU - if you dont think so, then, well, i can't see a physics/factual/scientific reason why it wouldn't.
 
combat squirrel said:
Yeah but your not considering just how much room they have in that case - also they will use heatpipes and the entire / every open area of the case will become a heatsink/radiator fin internally providing oddles of surface area - given the thickness in the middle to the outter edge, I bet every single mm is used to help cool - lets say 60% of the surface area of a 27mm monitor - thats like 3 x 120mm radiators on a heatpipe wicking away heat from the chips - even 285 + 140 is only 425watt, still within apples thermal envelope.

I honestly think it will run flat out at intels stated spec of the CPU - if you dont think so, then, well, i can't see a physics/factual/scientific reason why it wouldn't.
Click to expand...
I think the cpu will run at basic specs yes but will be heavily constrained in spoiling up the additional cores at higher frequencies.

Given how much trouble people are having cooling desktop vega with ‘proper’ solutions I’m yet to be convinced that by sticking it in a tiny confined space it will do it any favours.
 
Brazo said:
I think the cpu will run at basic specs yes but will be heavily constrained in spoiling up the additional cores at higher frequencies.

Given how much trouble people are having cooling desktop vega with ‘proper’ solutions I’m yet to be convinced that by sticking it in a tiny confined space it will do it any favours.
Click to expand...

Yeah it will run 2.3 all cores, and gradually up to 4.2 on fewer cores - other CPU's will run at their stated frequency.

Vega should be ok, given the available surface area (its quite thick in the middle) as it will have a heatsink double the size of a normal PCIE card - the case is thin around the very edge, but 90% of its big enough to hold a large (huge in comparison) heatsink area - again quoted 500 watt, which is more than enough for 18 cores and vega.

As mentioned above - the engineers at apple know what they are doing - a basic maths check agrees.
 
There's a good video here by YouTube tech legend MKBHD where he discusses that the iMac Pro is a pointless purchase with the Mac Pro coming in fast.

View: https://youtu.be/RvXmktAurSQ


FujiLove said:
You're in for an even bigger surprise when you start speccing a Porsche 911. And when you've finished you will have a car that can't accelerate as well as a Golf R
Click to expand...

Well, that's simply not true is it.

Besides, if you're buying a 911 for the purpose of 0-60 drag races, then you're missing the whole point.
 
Last edited:
Oliver Pohlmann said:
There's a good video here by YouTube tech legend MKBHD where he discusses that the iMac Pro is a pointless purchase with the Mac Pro coming in fast.
Click to expand...
Fast? ... well that is somewhere between 2 weeks (i.e. start of 2018) to 104 weeks (by the end of 2019). Apple have never given a time table. I would guess the end of 2018 would be when the Mac Pro will actually be available.
 
JonathanRyan said:
See, I know a lot of the people here do this for a living, but I'm finding the idea that anybody posting on this thread knows more than all of the propellor heads at Apple put together a little hard to believe.........
Click to expand...
You mean apples marketing team? ;)

Seriously though, dealing with xeons on a daily basis and knowing how much cooling they need at full chat, I really don't think a few heat pipes and a pair of small fans is going to cut it.

Either apple have made a magic cooler or there will be some hitting of a brick wall in terms of performance.
 
Last edited:
combat squirrel said:
Yeah it will run 2.3 all cores, and gradually up to 4.2 on fewer cores - other CPU's will run at their stated frequency.

Vega should be ok, given the available surface area (its quite thick in the middle) as it will have a heatsink double the size of a normal PCIE card - the case is thin around the very edge, but 90% of its big enough to hold a large (huge in comparison) heatsink area - again quoted 500 watt, which is more than enough for 18 cores and vega.

As mentioned above - the engineers at apple know what they are doing - a basic maths check agrees.
Click to expand...
Well we’ll have to wait and see but history doesn’t bode well.

You don’t have to look to hard to find overheating concerns with the existing much lower tdp iMacs that use a similar cooling solution. However big the heat sinks they do need a circulation of air around them to dissipate the heat. Sometimes in my case 140mm fans front and back in push pull I get concerned about how warm the air is and I can wave my fist around the components.
 
Brazo said:
Well we’ll have to wait and see but history doesn’t bode well.

You don’t have to look to hard to find overheating concerns with the existing much lower tdp iMacs that use a similar cooling solution. However big the heat sinks they do need a circulation of air around them to dissipate the heat. Sometimes in my case 140mm fans front and back in push pull I get concerned about how warm the air is and I can wave my fist around the components.
Click to expand...

Its not using the existing cooling AT ALL - have you read the website for the product?! lol

Its using an entirely new internal design - and the entire back of the mac behind the desk stand arm is now air vents...not memory upgrade door......its all on the website how its got a much much beerfier 500 watt cooler...... go look at the apple website.
 
neil_g said:
You mean apples marketing team? ;)
Click to expand...

There is that :). As I've said before, the main purpose of a 12K Mac is to make a 5K Mac look affordable. If nothing else, their marketing team still know what they are doing.

But I remember when Apple really did used to invent magic.
 
combat squirrel said:
Its not using the existing cooling AT ALL - have you read the website for the product?! lol

Its using an entirely new internal design - and the entire back of the mac behind the desk stand arm is now air vents...not memory upgrade door......its all on the website how its got a much much beerfier 500 watt cooler...... go look at the apple website.
Click to expand...
The principle of packing stuff tightly in, providing some copper heat pipes and fans/heat sinks is still the same whether or not it’s been redesigned. I would hope it has been upgraded!
 
neil_g said:
You mean apples marketing team? ;)
Either apple have made a magic cooler or there will be some hitting of a brick wall in terms of performance.
Click to expand...
Some people will actually believe Apple has invented some magic that other PCs don't have. It's how you discern Apple fans from Apple fan boys.

Anyway the OP configuration is a bit of fun, and will be bought by a few executives with lots of spare cash. But they won't sell many. It's just a small percentage of people who really need the performance would go for an Apple.
 
Last edited:
•


Robert, a video pro friend of mine, told me of a video
forum where members are, understandably, much mo-
re enthusiastically receiving the new release!
 
Brazo said:
The principle of packing stuff tightly in, providing some copper heat pipes and fans/heat sinks is still the same whether or not it’s been redesigned. I would hope it has been upgraded!
Click to expand...

Yeah obviously the principle is the same !! lol, what they have done though ......... ready for the magic ? Is ram every available space thats left open in the normal imac full of heatsink fins, then added 2 fans left and right pushing air sucked in from the bottom, one of the CPU and one of the GPU, then both fans eject air through the 3x3 inch gap at the back where the ram door used to be.

Now - I'm not an apple fan boy, but I have been custom building and cooling PC's for over 25 years - I've done it all, large air cooled, large water cooled custom builds - I even use a car radiator once !! haha

Anyway essentially imagine a large heatsink, thick in the middle, thin on the outer edges (which is ideal for thermodynamics as the outer edges are less densely packed) - about 80-90% the area of a 27" monitor ?????

There you have it a (comparatively) enormous heat sink for a desktop machine - the key is they have been ever shrinking the systems motherboard and hard drive physical sizes ---------- This has allowed them to pack a 14nm 18 core + vega into an imac chassis.

The mainboard + hard drives is barely larger than 2 mobile phones in area.......of course by far the biggest room taken up by the cpu socket (probably soldered on, not sure however - I don't think intel would allow that on a workstation class chip)

And id guess the GPU is on a daughter board to allow the left / right fan flow setup of the design.

Anyways I'm sure and im hoping a rich you tuber will take it apart very soon and we can see.

However based on physics, a heatsink that size in area (probably dense fin spacing also for more surface area), I'm standing by my prediction it will run to spec ;) For all my reasons and theories stated.
 
combat squirrel said:
Yeah obviously the principle is the same !! lol, what they have done though ......... ready for the magic ? Is ram every available space thats left open in the normal imac full of heatsink fins, then added 2 fans left and right pushing air sucked in from the bottom, one of the CPU and one of the GPU, then both fans eject air through the 3x3 inch gap at the back where the ram door used to be.

Now - I'm not an apple fan boy, but I have been custom building and cooling PC's for over 25 years - I've done it all, large air cooled, large water cooled custom builds - I even use a car radiator once !! haha

Anyway essentially imagine a large heatsink, thick in the middle, thin on the outer edges (which is ideal for thermodynamics as the outer edges are less densely packed) - about 80-90% the area of a 27" monitor ?????

There you have it a (comparatively) enormous heat sink for a desktop machine - the key is they have been ever shrinking the systems motherboard and hard drive physical sizes ---------- This has allowed them to pack a 14nm 18 core + vega into an imac chassis.

The mainboard + hard drives is barely larger than 2 mobile phones in area.......of course by far the biggest room taken up by the cpu socket (probably soldered on, not sure however - I don't think intel would allow that on a workstation class chip)

And id guess the GPU is on a daughter board to allow the left / right fan flow setup of the design.

Anyways I'm sure and im hoping a rich you tuber will take it apart very soon and we can see.

However based on physics, a heatsink that size in area (probably dense fin spacing also for more surface area), I'm standing by my prediction it will run to spec ;) For all my reasons and theories stated.
Click to expand...


The rear of the new imac (opened) so you can see in all its glory

imac_pro_internals.png
 
Well damn, its a bigger board than expected, I can't see how thick that is need a 3 dimensional view when its ready - also unknown how far up the heatsink goes, much more board, speaker space than I was expecting - also need to figure out where the fans are drawing the air in, from the bottom i guess, but left and right appear speakers, possible both speaker and fan inlet.

Very chunky heatsink/heatpipe interface over the chips as well.

Am guessing the whole thing looks abit bigger than a 2 slot graphics cards cooler, but wtih 2 fans and a better air flow.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top