The iMac Pro is undoubtedly a slick piece of hardware with some very impressive specs, but it also comes with an equally impressive price tag. And while we can drool over specs day in and out, what really matters for most working professionals are real world results. This great video pits the new iMac Pro against a Mac Pro, MacBook Pro, and a Windows PC.
Coming to you from Colin Smith over at Photoshop Cafe, this great video examines the performance of the new iMac Pro in real world tests with apps like Premiere Pro and Photoshop. At the end of the day, particularly for professional creatives who do all their work themselves, performance is really about time, as time is money. If an investment in a computer results in significantly reduced wait times when working with large files or projects, that extra cost could very well be worth it. In the case of the iMac Pro, there are definitely times where it leaps ahead of the competition, but also times when it's neck and neck or it even falls behind. Whether that is worth the increased price tag over the other options is up to you.
[via Photoshop Cafe]
I'm surprised at the MacBook!
First of all: atm it is known that Photoshop is poorly optimized for multicore processors, and you really don't need a workstation of that caliber for photo editing.
Second, talking about the video editing part, where a machine like that could be useful: Alienware? Why! They are overpriced as hell, you are paying for colored lights and brand instead of the components, a while ago I've made a price comparison with a custom built machine and you can easily build a computer with a Threadripper 1950x that MURDERS that Xeon for the price of the iMac Pro (and before somebody asks, yes, counting a professional monitor and peripherals).
The iMac on the other end offers a good value compared to other "branded" workstations, however it's only true for the basic model while the upgraded versions are simply ridiculously overpriced (sometimes the price for the upgraded part is double the MSRP of that component).
The two benchmark articles Premiere Pro editors need to read:
High-end: https://www.pugetsystems.com/labs/articles/Premiere-Pro-CC-2017-1-2-CPU-...
Budget: https://www.pugetsystems.com/labs/articles/Premiere-Pro-CC-2017-1-2-CPU-...
Not entirely true, as not all photographers exclusively use Photoshop for photo editing. LR will use multiple cores during export. Capture One Pro will use all cores and the GPU for nearly every task, especially when exporting.
Another thing that's changed, is Intel has optimized their 6, 8 and 10-core CPUs to work at higher frequencies with 1 or 2 core tasks using Turbo Boost 3.0 mode. The 7820x has the same 4.5GHz Turbo Boost as the 4-core 7700K. The 6-core 8700K now has a turbo boost of 4.7GHz.
At the time of my build, 7820x was less expensive than the 6-core 8700K (which is the new Photoshop King in most tasks), so I went with the 7820x. This 8-core CPU performs nearly the same as the old 7700K in most tasks, and much better in a few tasks. Mostly tasks I'll never use. LOL
Plus, if you want to add in additional PCIe cards, you'll want more than 16 PCIe lanes that come with the 7700K and the 8700K CPUs.
Threadripper seems to be a good Benchmark CPU, but it lags behind in real world performance from what I've seen. Just like Ryzen lags behind as well. I believe their second Gen CPUs will perform much better in 2018. ...should keep Intel on their toes. :)
IMO, the Intel 7820x is the best bang for the buck as an overall CPU -- unless you need more than 28 PCIe lanes. Then I'd go with the 10-core 7900x with 44 PCIe lanes.
I don't know where you live but here in Italy the 7820X is around 550€, plus extra fee for x299 motherboards.
Now that the prices finally settled after the rushed release the 8700k is about 350€, while the Ryzen 7 1700 (that's about 25% slower than the 7820X but it costs just 270€.
Prices in the USA are similar, so 7820X definitely is not the best price to performance CPU.
My thought on this is, in terms of OVERALL CPU:
the single core performance of the 7820x is quite a bit better than the Ryzen 1700, especially when it comes to Photoshop work. Ryzen notably lags behind the 7820x - by like 19% in some cases when using photoshop. The 7820x doesn't lag behind the 7700K at all.
Perhaps Ryzen addressed this issue with an update, but I kept reading about people not happy with using brushes in Photoshop or Lightroom. Even in Lightroom, Ryzen lags a good 20% behind in terms of importing, rendering previews, and catalog scrolling.
With Ryzen you're also sacrificing PCIe lanes, and NVMe support. This may not be the norm in most MOBs, but I've seen too many MOBs where this happens: PCI_E6 slot will be unavailable when installing M.2 PCIe SSD in M2_2 slot.
You can't just take multicore performance into account determine "best bang for the buck" - you have to take everything: Single core, multicore, storage, peripheral and expansion versatility, and pricing.
That's how I came to my comment...
That was my point.
The 1700 is 20% slower than the 7820x (both in single and multicore) but it's HALF the price, not 20% less.
Also, the 7820x only offers four extra PCI-E lanes more than the Ryzen 7
Are we out of ideas for articles on here: https://fstoppers.com/gear/apple-announces-new-imac-pro-and-updated-macb...
Can someone explain how the iMac Pro is able to render these videos faster than a PC with presumably a faster graphics card?
Someone posted links to puget systems. From their tests a high end graphics card doesnt help much for Premier cc. Divinci resolve does take advantage of fast gpus though.
For the cpu they also found that 10 physical cores is sorta the sweet spot. What you want is high clock speed and fast drives. They suggest a fast drive that is just used as a scratch disk. According to them you can almost double the speed by having a scratch drive.
1070 isn't better than the GPU inside the iMac Pro. The CPU is also inferior for productivity.
Because the Vega is designed with a different mindset. Nvidia has two strategies: optimized for gaming (10x0 series) and compute (Titan series). Vega wants to do both and in gaming the Vega 64 is already slightly ahead of the 1070, so it only makes sense that it's faster in non gaming workloads
It's not a good comparison...I've seen a few now over the past week or so and this is literally the worst review.
Very simple. Classic tactic: It reiterates everything I've said, Apple creates the solution then goes in search of a problem it supposedly addresses...then leave out information that doesn't support the product.
The way the do it is to provide these products to people who typically give glowing reviews with little to no valuable criticism. I'm a MAC user so no hating here but every single "well known" Youtuber who got one of these machines overwhelmingly share positive results. Incidentally they mostly shoot with RED cameras...even though nothing they do on YT requires that..and they typically ARE NOT photographers-first.
Read some of the other posts on here...if you applied an equal amount of money to a PC vs MAC end users would end up with a better PC machine. Why is that?
Couple of things that many "reviewers" miss: the iMac Pro/Mac Pro are designed around workstation grade components. These are made to run continuously and most of all be stable.
The PC's they are typically compared against are general purpose machines more suited to running games etc. Forget stability and error correction.
The issue then becomes what applications take advantage of these two disparate hardware systems?
SPOILER: None that are readily available to the average photographer/content creator. Adobe Lightroom and Photoshop run best on fewer cores and higher clock speeds. The rest is gravy...GPU for renders and fast storage subsystem. FCPx will leverage Apple platforms much better.
So what then are you paying for with the Apple tax...seconds, a minute or two here and there??
The whole argument that Apple is designed around "workstation grade components" comes crashing down when so many pro users have purchased the "gamer grade components" in the 5K iMac, and use those machines as workstations.
Those users leave their machines on around the clock with little no issues. They're a good bit less expensive than the 2013 Mac Pro. They also perform a good bit better than any Mac Pro in most photography tasks.
So now we get to the PC. While many components have gaming in mind, they do amp them up for durability and stability.
Considering I've only been using Windows 10 for 5 weeks, I would say, I can comfortably use both OS's now. The only thing I moderately miss is the "columns" view. Beyond that, there's nothing I can't do quickly and efficiently in Windows 10.
Sorry, I don't understand your point and the context to which you present it in reply to my post above?
Hey Lee, I watched your PC building video, as it inspired me to build mine. Great video. I probably watched it a good 4-5 times, along with other "build your own PC" videos from the rest of Youtuber techies.
A lot has changed since your build video, and it's nuts what you can build these days with the Skylake-X CPUs. 8-core (7820x) and 10-core (7900x) CPUs performing nearly as well as the 7700K CPU (the old PS performance king) in terms of total Photoshop performance? All this while still killing it in multicore performance - even over this new iMac Pro.
It's nuts what Intel achieved here - when finally pressed by AMD's Ryzen success. :)
This iMac Pro is sporting the Vega 64, which is a step up from the GTX 1070.
You can have an ultra fast video card/GPU, but in applications that leverage multicore performance instead of higher frequencies, the CPU becomes the bottleneck, as it can't feed the GPU fast enough.
Check out Max's tests with the 8-core iMac Pro vs. the 6-core 8700k PC. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XE58q8OHvdI
Even the extra two cores, then overclocking to 5GHz brings it up there in most tasks. Tops it in others.
I built a $2,100 8-core 7820x PC in December. Even though I don't do video, and only use it for photography, Capture One Pro can still leverage all 8 cores and GPU acceleration, so it was worth extra bit of $$$ for the 8 core over a 4-core build.
I'm pretty sure my build can perform equally as well as the iMac Pro in all of, if not most of these tasks, and that's with the Radeon RX 580 video card. it can probably outperform the iMac in some tasks -- If not, then my video card would be the bottle neck.
I'm really disappointed in the PC they chose for this test, when you can do better for less $$$, and far better for a bit more $$$.
Because CPU/GPU aren’t the entire story when it comes to rendering. Disk speed (for actually writing the render to disk) is a factor, and the iMac Pro has ridiculously fast internal SSD. Memory throughput plays a role as well.
iMac pro has sort sort of proprietary ssd that is faster than an m.2 drive on a PC?
iMac Pro Flash Storage speeds from BareFeats:
Read = 2530 MB/s
Write = 3185 MB/s
----------------
Samsung 960 Pro M.2 NVMe
Read = 3500 MB/s
Write = 2100 MB/s
512GB = $300 USD
1TB = $625 USD
----------------
Samsung 960 EVO M.2 NVMe
Read = 3200 MB/s
Write = 1800 MB/s
500GB = $230 USD
1TB = $450 USD
The writes speed of the iMac Pro is impressive, but you can't be disappointed with the either of the Samsung NVMe drives.
Have to think Samsung has a new NVMe flash drive coming out in 2018, since that's who Apple seems to use quite a bit for their storage.
This tells us almost nothing. Testing an 8 core iMac Pro with 64gb ram against a laptop, an ancient system that seems on par with a laptop and a fairly low spec PC...
Test a $6400 iMac Pro vs a $6400 PC (need to include cost of monitor+keyboard/mouse).
I think the point is, is the new iMac pro worth upgrading to if you own one of those other systems.
Not really, the title says it. "The best computer for creative". They really need to test equivalent gear to be able to say that.... which no one seems to do when they want to show how "good" a mac is.
I also posted this on his yt under the vid
my PC a 7820X 1TB NVMe and boot on a 250 gig ssd (samsung 85) 1080 GPU 8GB ram and 32 gigs mem @3200
so his vid card is 2x the memory and his memory is 2x as much our cores are the same but mine is .4 quicker
taking his start size image and something close in tones
hope you are OK with this Colin :) if not delete it :) ahahahahahah
so again these were not the same file but the same dimensions and close in tonality etc..
in no way head to head but close enough as trying dif tone imagesdid not make much difference as I tried a few :) so close enough to compare I reckon took best out of 3 runs
in studio we have my main PC build for C1 mostly and capture and 3 mac pros
upres took 4.1 sec (iMac Pro was 8.65 alienware fastest at 5.58)
my save was 7.5 (iMac Pro was 10.8 alienware fastest at 9.63)
open was 5.2 (iMac Pro was 6.67 alienware fastest at 5.62)
the 8:30 mark he says seconds but the graphs are minutes and assuming how the ps timer works he was at 140 seconds not 1.4 seocnds as spoken and not 1.40 minutes either cause the PS timer does not show it that way so think that was just a slip up which happens but its a bit confusing at this point :) hahahahah all good though
my blur was 121 sec and I am thinking his were posted in seconds
that would mean (iMac Pro was 140)
if it was converted from the PS timer to actual minutes then he was at 1.40 and mine was 2.01 but I am thinking it has to be off the PS timer and was in total seconds :)
few thoughts IMHO windows is not so nice to work in mainly the explorer is horrid compared to the finder in OS X
no quick taging of images no column view trying to move finished files around etc. horrid
no quick space bar preview (3rd party seer is not even close)
want to see your thumbs of PSD yeah not native on win
wacom support is gain terrible with so much fiddling and even then its not as smooth I find
color managment not as system level but at each program means sometimes your adobe RGB monitor sees images as blazing colors :) stupid stupid stupid
saving in PS not being able to see your other images is a huge mistake on win part
its all the little things that ads up to lost time so while win hardware can beat it I feel one might be ahead in overall time on OS X
IMHO the win machines are ahead in performance but behind in workflow and apple has left us in a really bad spot hardware wise
and win is not up to OS X bad spot for pros IMHO
would I recomend getting a PC to mac folks ! most likely no because of the bad interface design of the OS
why do I say this when I have a win PC :) cause I use C1 which rips on this machine and as you see PS is good also
and I am a tech geek and like all tech
would I tell a win person to get a mac ? nope but I do think they should get on and learn it so they realize how superior the mac finder is to explorer :)
those that argue when you are in the apps they are all the same ? YUP they are but like when you get a severe soar throat and realize how much you use your throat you soon realize its way more than in the appp time its so much other management of files you really do in a day
in the end I am also using this PC so I know both and use both and have options but I do think OS X is superior and hope the new mac pro machines coming out will be awesome but again based on past mac pro towers lack of upgrade parts later on things like GPU and such so not sure what pricing will be
sure we all agree when Steve died Apple died and its not the company it was
I do plan on doing a hackintosh for fun on my build :)
I'm interested in trying a Hackintosh with my build as well -- but it looks like such a pain in the ass, and I'm entirely happy with my Windows 10 experience right now. ...save for one caveat. But I'll get that figured out. :)
Apple can shut it down any time they want.
Apple can shut down the Hackintosh community anytime they want. They would be stupid to do so.
hmmm, not an especially useful comparison. The $6400 Mac won what a surprise. Why didn't you put it up against a $6400 equally specced Alienware? Pointless.
Technically, you don't need to compare at $6,400 PC to a $6,400 iMac Pro. You can get the same, similar or better results for less money. An 18-core CPU won't benefit photoshop users, it will actually hinder them, so there's no point going that high.
And there's no reason going for Alienware, either.
Also, most people do not factor in the fact that a similar 5k monitor will cost $9-1100.
A similar priced PC seems to be inferior in all of the tests that I’ve seen where the price of the screen is factored in.
This is wrong.
https://pcpartpicker.com/list/RZfybj
10-core 7900x CPU
64GB 3200MHz DDR4 RAM
(2) 1TB NVMe SSD flash drives
dual Zotac 1080ti video cards
27" Dell 5K display
$6,390
This build will beat a $6,400 iMac Pro in every way - unless you're using FCP X.
>> Lop off $425 and go with the 8-core 7820x,
8-core 7820x CPU
64GB 3200MHz DDR4 RAM
(2) 1TB NVMe SSD flash drives
(2) Zotac 1080ti video cards
27" Dell 5K display
$5,990
And you still get better performance
>>Lop off another $775
8-core 7820x CPU
64GB 3200MHz DDR4 RAM
(2) 1TB NVMe SSD flash drives
Zotac 1080ti video cards
27" Dell 5K display
$5,215
And you still get as good if not better performance in nearly every task as the $6,400 8-core iMac Pro. But who cares? You saved yourself $1,200.
The funny thing is, if I added a 5K display to my 7820x build, it would only cost $3,500 - and it will still perform as good if not better than the iMac Pro in all of my work.
And the one thing I can do in my PC case people can't do in the iMac Pro... is add three more 2.5" drives, whether they are SSD or a 4TB 5400 RMP storage drives, or some combo of both.
well being a mac guy that uses a PC I would say many do not figure it in but a 5K monitor for photo work ? give me a NEC or BenQ before a glossy imac 5k any day
so I am willing to bet the BenQ for $600 will be more color accurate then the iMac screen and while not 5k again I prefer color accuracy over pxiel density that actually is not as efficient
who cares about factoring in a 5k, thats the where Apple gets you. The monitor is prob one the lowest costs items in the IMAC pro build. They pay pennies on the dollar and you pay for the dollar. You can buy a 2k monitor and save $1500 and still get amazing quality screens. Don't just see the phrase 5k and assume everyone needs or wants it. Id much rather build a pc with 3 beautiful 144hz 99%RGB monitors and still be cheaper and better off.
Glad to see I am making the sensible choice for my photography with a quick Macbook Pro 15" + 27" Thunderbolt Display. I does fine on my 36mp files and flies through 16mp ones.
It's really pretty simple. With a 16GB graphics card rendering, transcoding, exporting etc. anything is going to be a breeze due to the amount of memory access there is. The other factor that comes in which favors the MBP is that M.2 SSDs are much faster when it comes to accessing data (as opposed to HDDs and standard SSDs). Also correct me if I'm wrong but don't the Xeon processors have a bigger cache than the others, plus 8 cores on top of that?
I just don't think when it comes down to it that the iMac Pro is worth that kind of money. My PC build with the new AMD Ryzen 1700x processor and 1070ti 8GB does everything I need it to smoothly and quickly (faster than the intel chips for a much cheaper price). After working with Macs for 8+ years and going back to PC this year I don't see myself going back for any reason. Apple yet again is making people overpay for what hey could have for literally half the price.
Take the Xeon and the ECC out of the equation, as they're not necessary for video and photo editing. This has already been verified by the numerous people using the regular old 5K iMac with the i5 and i7 CPUs.
My build was less less than half of what the new iMac Pro sells for, and it's an 8-core 32GB workstation.
No you don't. You only have to compare workstations that can perform the same tasks.
No you don't. The only people who believe these comparisons are unfair are Apple users who pay a nice premium for their computers, and need to justify the price. I was one of those people for over 20 years. I used to defend Macs left and right.
I don't have to build a Xeon PC to compare it to a Xeon Mac Pro.
I don't have to build a i7 4-core PC to compare it to an i7 iMac.
I don't have to build a PC with a display if I don't need one to compare it to an 5k iMac or iMac Pro.
Mac users have already been comparing the 2009-2012 and 2013 Mac Pros to the 2014, 2015 and 2017 5K iMacs...including comparing the 2013 8-core Mac Pro with an original price tag of $5,000 - and that was without the display - to the $3,000 iMac price tag with the display. In fact, the iMac users were bragging about their $3,000 iMacs out performing the $5,000 2013 8-core Mac Pro in photoshop tasks.
So to suggest you can't compare an 8-core PC without a display that's $1,000 less expensive than the $3,000 5K iMac is loaded hypocrisy. LOL
And until Apple offers more than their limited options, any comparison is entirely fair game - with or without a display. With or without xeon CPUs.
Sorry, this is going to be long. HAHAHA
I have a similar machine to Chad's, as we did a LOT of talking back and forth as we were deciding on parts during our custom builds. Unfortunately, I think I talked him into buying and building his PC. LOL
My PC is a bit different than Chad's, as I had a different budget.
Intel 8 core 7820x
240GB OWC Mercury Extreme Pro 6G SSD boot drive
4TB WD MyBook Passport USB 3 external drive
32GB of RAM
8GB Sapphire Radeon RX 580 video card
ASRock Extreme4 MOB
EVGA 750 Watt Gold+ power supply
Fractal Design Meshify C PC case
Price netted out at $2,100.
No my build doesn't include a 27" display, as I already have a color calibrated 27" NEC MultiSync.
I've been a Mac user for 25+ years, never touched a PC as a workstation in the past -- never wanted to. Until 2017. Just got sick of Apple's pricing for what you get. A 2017 5K i7 iMac with similar specs to mine (BTO) would be priced at $3,400 - except with a 4-core CPU. And without a 4TB drive. I don't have an NVMe drive (yet) so really, it's push on storage IMO. I already have a 27" display, so I didn't feel it was worth the extra $1,300 to spend on the iMac. I definitely didn't believe it was worth spending an extra $4,000 on an iMac Pro, when I could build an 8-core PC for $2,000.
So far my custom build flies through everything I throw at it. Including running exports through Capture One Pro while running a 1000 image PS batch process resize, and going back into Capture One Pro, opening an new job, and starting to make RAW adjustments.
I don't have nearly the same issue as Chad in terms of the Windows 10 UI. In fact, right now I find it very stable and usable - and no, I had never used Windows before. I came into this OS completely blind.
I'm making the Windows 10 finder work for me, and I get out of it what I want. I'm managing my files in the exact same way I did on the Mac: folder and file hierarchy and naming convention. I learned and adopted my system from an AD Agency I worked at in Madison, WI back in 1995 - I've taken it with me where ever I've worked, and have been using it as I start my own photography business. The system works exactly the same way on PC as it does on the Mac.
Navigating through the files hasn't big of an issue for me - it's like going from Nikon to Sony, and learning the new the menu system. It takes a little getting used to.
I do miss the "columns view", and hope MS will add that feature to the UI, but it's not a deal breaker for me.
The only issue I have is ejecting external drives connected to the numerous USB 3 ports. I have a work around, and I'll get that one figured out. LOL Also not a deal breaking for me.
Apple's BS "Pro philosophy" of having to build every pro machine with Xeon CPUs and ECC memory to justify their absurd pricing is the deal breaker for me. The vast majority of photographers and videographers don't need Xeon CPUs and ECC memory for their work. Hell, most of the Mac users in these two fields have been using the 5k iMac with either an i5 or an i7 CPU and non-ECC memory, or the MacBook Pro.
When Apple took notice of pros vacating or skipping Apple's terrible 2013 black Mac Pro, they said they heard us, and created a Mac for those pro users. The iMac Pro. ...of course it starts at $5,000. Because....they're Apple.
The perfect Mac Apple should have built, but never will, is a double or triple height Mac Mini with the Intel 6-core i7 8700k CPU, with 16GB of user upgradable memory, dual slot NVMe storage, and user upgradable video card. And price it at $1,800. And give it 4 USB 3.1 ports, and 4 TB3 ports. I would have stayed with Apple if they offered this machine. But no. We get the iMac Pro. So hello my custom build. :)
As a side note, the 2013 8-core black Mac Pro with 12GB of Memory and dual D700 GPUs is still a whopping $4,000. AKA, wildly overpriced. HAHAHA.
Even if my 8-core 7820x build was only equal in performance to the 8-core black Mac Pro, it would have still be worth it for half the cost. But considering it's a faster more stable machine (look up the 2013 Mac Pro GPU bugs), it's a far better value.
As for the testing in this video, I'm disappointed Colin didn't do the speed test with a custom built PC, considering it's a far better value (more bang for your buck).
$1,570 8700K PC
https://pcpartpicker.com/list/vyhkvV
The above build will top (or get be equal to) all machines in your PS tests, beat all of your machines in some video test, and get pretty close to the 8-core in a couple of tests. Max Yuryev already tested a $1,350 8700k build vs. the $5,000 iMac Pro. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XE58q8OHvdI
in Premier Pro and DaVinci.
Point being, you can do better than 4-cores on the PC for $1,600. Or, you could build an 8-core machine for $2,100-$2,200. Still a far better value than anything Apple offers.
If you're a Final Cut Pro user, then buy Apple and be happy.
I have absolutely zero regret leaving Apple and Apple's OS after 30+ years using their computers. Unless Apple offers exactly what I want in hardware, I have no intention of returning, as I can build exactly what I want with the PC - and the more I use Windows 10, the more I get used to it. Even so, my workflow has only increased in speed moving to Windows 10 and this custom build (I'm far more productive), it has not slowed down. :)
YMMV. :)
c
Well stated.
I'm not leaving Apple (yet) but neither will I be buying this new (OLD) tech based iMac Pro. I would rather light a bong full of weed with rolled up g-notes.
Have you been paying attention??
Apple uses previous generation tech in their design of the iMac and Mac Pro.
reckon I was on that road :) but fun to go down a road with a friend to bad I whine to him daily of my hate for the explorer :) ahhahahahahahaha
mine is stable just the lack of column view and tagging images and the psd previews and the proper space bar and overall use of the explorer is what steams my Twinkies
we both ahve 7820 both have meshify cases though :)
my build also had the 1080 cause I game and I got the 1TB NVMe which is nice but not needed more a luxury I would go with the pro version over the evo knowing what I know now and I might have gone with the 512 and a 1080ti if I was to go back in time but the reality is I can update my card when the next gen cards come out which is one of the things I could not do with the macs
I F'N hate my keyboard - it's fat, loud and clunky. Even loosey-goosey. It's a piece of crap. I'll be getting a new low profile one soon.
It's sad that the thing I miss the most about my Mac is the low-profile keyboard. HAHAHAHAHA
$2,100 for a new (2017) 8-core 7820x PC vs. $4,000 for a 2013 8-core Mac Pro. That's a huge difference.
What if people have an old Mac Pro with a perfectly good display, and they’re considering an iMac? That’s my situation and that makes my build without a display perfectly valid. My price comparison was for my needs, not anyone else’s.
Apple just assumes everyone needs a display when you buy an iMac. When your old iMac slows down, but the display is still working, you still have to buy a new display if you buy a new iMac. That’s one reason I ditched my old 27” white iMac back in the day. I didn’t want to have to continually buy a new display when I needed to upgrade my computer.
He’s the conundrum with Apple:
I don't need a 5K display, and if I bought an iMac I would HAVE to pay for the 5K display. That’d be three thousand some odd US dollars with a third party RAM upgrade.
If I want 8 cores, I'd have to buy a 2013 Mac Pro with Xeon for $4,000 with 16GB of RAM, which is absolutely ridiculous.
…or I'd have to spend $5,000, and again, paying for a feature I don't need. And even then, I don’t need Xeon CPUs nor ECC memory.
Even if I added a 27" 5K display, my system as is, would still only be $3,500.
Also, I didn't have a budget of $3,500 to spend. Yes, I run my own business. But I can think of lot of other things I'd rather do with that wide price difference. $2,100 vs. $4,000 or $5,000? or even $3,000 for an iMac. It’s just stupid, as I don’t use FCPX.
For me, the $1,400 spent on a 5K display would be wasted money. I'd rather put that money into more fast NVMe storage.
So yes. The Apple pricing is a HUGE difference when all you're comparing is one workstation that can perform the exact same tasks as another workstation.
As for 4-core vs. 8-core in terms of Photoshop use in 2018; in real world use, it’s now negligible. The 7820x has the same high turbo boost as the 7700K. And it’s higher than the 6700K (2014 5K i7 iMac). In the past, it was definitely true 4-core machines outperformed 8-core machines in most Photoshop tasks. The 2013 8-core Mac Pro had a base frequency of 3.0GHz, with a turbo boost of 3.9GHz. It’s a dog…
And as was noted, there are tasks in LR and Capture One Pro that leverage multiple cores. Plus, multitasking, or working on 2-3 jobs at once. The 8-core CPU with 32GB RAM doesn’t break a sweat.
But another thing you’re also limited in is PCIe lanes with 4-core i7 CPUs.
Ugh! Another ramble. LOL
There's a major 'real world' use being ignored here - Final Cut Pro X.
Correct.
For sure. If you use FCP X, stay with Apple and be happy. That to me, is the ONLY legit reason to stay with Apple right now.
"Is Apple kind of gauging us"? It's not even a question, Apple has a price structure that separates you from a large chunk of your money in a lightning speed :-)
For Photoshop and Lightroom, I think PC's have been doing better for a long time now. Comparing my friends iPro and my PC there is no comparison, my PC kills the iMac (cost about half).
As for video editing, I bet a couple hundred dollars in memory investment would bring the Dell very close to the iMac Pro.