Luminous Landscape Forum

Equipment & Techniques => Computers & Peripherals => Topic started by: Kevin Gallagher on December 12, 2017, 11:07:43 AM

Title: iMac Pro
Post by: Kevin Gallagher on December 12, 2017, 11:07:43 AM
 Just wondering if any here are gearing up to purchase one of these beasts for video production? Could we please not let this degenerate into the Windows/Mac thing?

 Thanks Guys!

 Kevin in CT
Title: Re: iMac Pro
Post by: Kevin Raber on December 12, 2017, 11:25:08 AM
I have been speaking with my Apple rep already today.  Will most likely order one tomorrow.  Apparently, the RAM is not upgradeable thus you need to make sure you get the RAM needed when ordering.  Lots of decision on drives, processor etc.  Should be a heck of a machine.
Title: Re: iMac Pro
Post by: rdonson on December 12, 2017, 12:11:46 PM
RAM is NOT upgradeable???  That will turn off a lot of people.  C'mon Apple, these are computers not toaster ovens.
Title: Re: iMac Pro
Post by: Dan Wells on December 12, 2017, 12:23:00 PM
There are still a couple of critical questions that will determine its value to a lot of users - mostly video pros, people working on VR and AR and related professions but also any photographers who can afford the darn thing and scientists (etc.) who work with huge data sets.

1.) How expensive will the processor upgraded versions be? The 8-core is actually a pretty good value - I hadn't realized just how expensive fast Xeons actually are. The (significant) problem with the 8 core is that the next generation of (non-Pro) iMacs will almost certainly include at least 6-core models, and conceivably 8-core models. Fast 6-core desktop chips that don't use the "big" socket are already here, and I wouldn't rule out an 8-core halo model in a random release next year. Even if the next iMac is "merely" 6-core, there's not much difference between a 6-core 3.7 gHz chip that turbos to 4.7 (buy it from Newegg today for $400, certain to pop up in an iMac pretty soon) and an 8-core 3.7 that turbos to 4.2 (a likely spec for the $2000+ Xeon in the entry iMac Pro). Apple doesn't like to use the "big" non-Xeon socket in Macs, for whatever reason, so we probably won't see a $1000-$2000 Core i9 with more than 6 (or possibly 8 - Intel could release an 8-core small-socket processor pretty easily) cores in any Mac.
    What this means is that, while the 8-core won't be much faster than other iMacs for long, the many-core versions will be unique. Most software that uses more than 4 cores well also uses more than 8... For a lot of applications, a 6-core iMac will be just fine (4 cores for primary applications, which is what most photo and video stuff is optimized for, plus 2 "spare" cores that keep Mail, Safari and friends off of the main cores). For applications that can use more than that, the 14 and 18-core models will be uniquely fast. If they're good values, they'll tempt a particular type of user.

2.) Are they really non (end-user) RAM-upgradeable? Will Apple charge reasonable prices for RAM? Same question for the SSD. 32 Gb is pretty minimal for this type of machine (and is a common configuration for higher-end iMacs).

3.) Is the display just the 27" iMac display, or is it something special? I wish it was Adobe RGB and highly color-accurate! A really good 27" Adobe RGB display is not cheap...

4.) How much faster is the GPU than what they'll get into the next regular iMac?

Right now, the 8-core looks like a dubious value proposition for a lot of uses, especially when we're less than 6 months from a 6-core iMac. Assuming the top "regular" iMac stays the same price (the 6-core Coffee Lake i8700K is within $50 of the i7700K that is presently in the top iMac), it'll be about $3500 with a 1 TB SSD and 32 GB of (3rd party) RAM. $1500 for 2 more (slightly slower) cores and some extra Thunderbolt ports is a lot.

What could make it appealing is if the GPU is massively faster, or if the versions with more cores are relatively close in price, or if the display is something special that rivals NEC and Eizo.
Title: Re: iMac Pro
Post by: rdonson on December 12, 2017, 12:26:06 PM
The iMac Pro is definitely faster than stink.  Getting one may significantly alter your net worth though.  Pricing should be available on Thurs according to one article I saw.

http://appleinsider.com/articles/17/12/12/imac-pro-testing-shows-10-core-model-dramatically-faster-than-any-other-mac-on-intensive-tasks
Title: Re: iMac Pro
Post by: digitaldog on December 12, 2017, 02:09:02 PM
RAM is NOT upgradeable??? 
It is not.
https://www.macworld.com/article/3242187/macs/imac-pro-shipping-december-14-ram.html
Title: Re: iMac Pro
Post by: DougDolde on December 12, 2017, 02:10:38 PM
Hard to believe the built in monitor is as good as say an Eizo or NEC
Title: Re: iMac Pro
Post by: digitaldog on December 12, 2017, 02:12:17 PM
Hard to believe the built in monitor is as good as say an Eizo or NEC
It isn't. Nothing at all special about Apple displays other than the gamut (based on DCI-P3), a tiny bit larger in some areas of color space than Adobe RGB (1998) gamut, smaller in others.
Title: Re: iMac Pro
Post by: rdonson on December 12, 2017, 03:29:34 PM
I've always been curious about the monitor debates with regards to Apple monitors.

In what ways are the Apple monitors deficient to say the Eizo or NEC models?
Title: Re: iMac Pro
Post by: digitaldog on December 12, 2017, 03:44:33 PM
I've always been curious about the monitor debates with regards to Apple monitors.

In what ways are the Apple monitors deficient to say the Eizo or NEC models?

   1.   Nearly all if not all current SpectraView displays are wide gamut, Apple's and most other's are not (sRGB like gamut) with the exception of the new iMac P3 displays. But SpectraView can emulate sRGB with a push of a button. The new P3 iMac cannot. Best of both worlds!
   2.    SpectraView uses a high bit internal processing path (at least 10-bit) with internal 3D LUTs, many other's do not. These high bit LUTs allow precise adjustments to be made to the display’s Tone Response Curve without reducing the number of displayable colors or introducing color banding artifacts.
   3.   Newer NEC SpectraView's use GBr LED which produce far more precise control of White Point, run cooler, use less energy, run far longer than CCFL.
   4.   SpectraView has 3-4 year on site warranty.
   5.   SpectraView panels are hand selected from the manufacturer line (pick of the litter).
   6.   SpectraView has electric technologies like ColorComp, which adjusts and improves screen (brightness) uniformity using individually measured matrices for each display at the factory. All done high bit with compensation for operating time and temperature. 
   7.   SpectraView has electric technologies like GammaComp, to adjust the monitor's internal 10-bit gamma Look-Up-Table, allowing various custom display gamma or Tone-Response-Curves to be achieved. Apple and many other's don't have anything like this.
   8.   SpectraView is a smart display system that integrates custom software for calibration including multiple target calibration's which can be loaded to adjust the display while loading the associated ICC profile, Apple (and few other products aside from Eizo) cannot do this. To quote from the manual: “SpectraView communicates with the display monitors using Display Data Channel - Command Interface (DDC/CI) which is a two-way communications link between the video graphics adapter and display monitor using the normal video signal cable. No extra cables are necessary. All adjustments to the monitor settings are done automatically using this communications link. It is not necessary to manually configure the monitor as all of the necessary settings are made by the software“. Apple and other's has nothing like this, nor can 3rd party software you have to pay for extra do this. This is an attribute built from the ground up in SpectraView to serve as a 'reference display system' ala Barco, PressView, Sony Artisan of the past.
   9.   SpectraView will bundle a custom mated Colorimeter with their software for calibration. The price you pay for software and colorimeter with the SpectraView, depending on what country you live in costs significantly less than buying the hardware and software for a non SpectraView. And that extra money will not provide a fraction of the capabilities outlined.
   10.   SpectraView PA series offer the ability to calibrate WITHOUT a Colorimeter with the FREE Multiprofiler software since each panel is measured with a very expensive spectroradiometer and that data is embedded in a chip in the panel. It can update the calibration as the unit ages to ensure calibration.
   11.   SpectraView can emulate with a single click other behaviors, again on the fly, so it can simulate a non wide gamut display (sRGB) among other standardized behaviors (Broadcast Video DICOM, etc)
   12.   SpectraView has internal electronic control over contrast ratio, few others can provide this control over black. Real useful for soft proofing on media that has differing contrast ratio's (matt vs. glossy papers).
   13.   SpectraView has Network support (Windows only).
   14.   SpectraView has provisions to lock the display controls so no accidental alteration to behavior by mistake. 
   15.   SpectraView displays allow the user to raise and lower the display for best viewing position AND it can be rotated 90 degrees for Portrait.
   16.   Several SpectraView's support Picture in Picture (you can have two differing calibration's per picture).
Title: Re: iMac Pro
Post by: Dan Wells on December 12, 2017, 04:43:24 PM
Let me put in a (very) good word for the Eizo monitor line, which also have the wide gamut and internal calibration (along with the other features) of the NEC SpectraView series. The Eizo CS and CG lines are the other real choice in a serious pro monitor (besides NEC).

I use three monitors (generally not all at once) - the internal display of my MacBook Pro, a four year old "Adobe RGB" Dell 27" that they claim as part of their highest end PremierColor (they may have have called it something different four years ago) series - it was a $900 monitor four years ago, and an Eizo CS2730.

It's night and day how much better the CS2730 is than either the Apple or Dell monitors (the Apple is actually better than the Dell, because the Dell has a green cast that can't be calibrated out, although it has a wider gamut than the Mac).

I've used iMacs extensively (of course not iMac Pros), and their display is essentially a big, bright version of my laptop display - quite neutral, with OK or better gamut, but no special features, and relatively accurate (but not unbelievably accurate like an Eizo or a NEC).

I was hoping the iMac Pro might have a screen like my $1200 Eizo, because that would go a long way towards covering the price difference from a regular iMac  (and most people using an iMac Pro would want that kind of screen). It would need to be Adobe RGB, which is a larger (overall) gamut  than DCI-P3, calibrate as accurately as an Eizo, and possibly have sRGB emulation. Not all "Adobe RGB" monitors are high-end pro monitors - it is amazing how different my Eizo and my older Dell look, even though they claim the same gamut, and I've calibrated both.

It sounds like Apple didn't do that, though! Same old monitor designed for watching movies on a home computer, included on a pro workstation!
Title: Re: iMac Pro
Post by: digitaldog on December 12, 2017, 04:56:31 PM
It's night and day how much better the CS2730 is than either the Apple or Dell monitors (the Apple is actually better than the Dell, because the Dell has a green cast that can't be calibrated out, although it has a wider gamut than the Mac).
What software product are you using for calibration? Too few allow control over the magenta/green axis for setting white point.  :-[
Title: Re: iMac Pro
Post by: rdonson on December 12, 2017, 05:27:01 PM
Are there any downsides to buying a NEC or EIZO monitor and attaching it to an iMac as a second screen?
Title: Re: iMac Pro
Post by: digitaldog on December 12, 2017, 06:17:23 PM
Are there any downsides to buying a NEC or EIZO monitor and attaching it to an iMac as a second screen?
Only for your wallet  :D
Title: Re: iMac Pro
Post by: DougDolde on December 12, 2017, 06:29:31 PM
Better to wait for the new Mac Pro if you don't want the Apple monitor

Or get the current black model which I have. Plenty fast for processing IQ180 files in C1
Title: Re: iMac Pro
Post by: Dan Wells on December 12, 2017, 07:30:53 PM
If you're going to run dual 27" monitors anyway (the best way to work in Lightroom - one for the image and another for the grid and other "extras"), using an iMac screen as one has two drawbacks and one major advantage - its extremely high resolution. Do critical color work on the Eizo or NEC, use the iMac screen as the second screen. The problems are cost (the iMac screen is expensive for a secondary display) and the glossy finish. All professional monitors are matte, so the iMac screen won't match.

At the price of the iMac Pro, they could have afforded a primary-quality display! It would have also been a major differentiator from the other iMacs.

It seems like a major portion of the price is that they are using overpriced Xeons instead of the similar-speed "big-socket" desktop i7s and i9s, which are significantly cheaper. The $600 i7-7820X is a relatively close match to the $1113 8-core Xeon W-2145 Apple is using. The i7 is a little slower, and doesn't use ECC memory, but it's half the price. Interestingly, the price difference of $500 or so between consumer and Xeon CPUs is consistent all the way up to the 18-core model. The 18-core Xeon W-2195 is a $2500 chip - expensive, but not what I'd feared. An 18-core iMac Pro starting at $6500 (the difference in CPU price without a substantial Apple Tax) would be a very interesting machine for software that took advantage of a ton of cores.
Title: Re: iMac Pro
Post by: rdonson on December 12, 2017, 08:36:08 PM
I've been running 2 monitors in Lr and PS for many years.  It's necessary in my mind for PS alone.

I have a 2017 27" iMac that's maxed out and an older 25" Acer for PS pallets, etc.

I'm not in the same league as you guys when it comes to color management and printing.  I still have Andrew's book " and Bruce Fraser's though.  I got into things for a while when I had an HP Z3100 and could create my own profiles but these days I've backed off to an Epson P800.  No complaints though.  I get acceptable prints for my needs.  Anything that's very serious or large I farm out to a friend in Palm Desert, CA for printing. 
Title: Re: iMac Pro
Post by: Damon Lynch on December 13, 2017, 12:21:50 AM
It seems like a major portion of the price is that they are using overpriced Xeons instead of the similar-speed "big-socket" desktop i7s and i9s, which are significantly cheaper.

Perhaps Apple is able to get them at such a substantial discount that the price difference is minor? I have no idea, but I guess it's possible.
Title: Re: iMac Pro
Post by: davidgp on December 13, 2017, 02:23:28 AM
1.) How expensive will the processor upgraded versions be? The 8-core is actually a pretty good value - I hadn't realized just how expensive fast Xeons actually are. The (significant) problem with the 8 core is that the next generation of (non-Pro) iMacs will almost certainly include at least 6-core models, and conceivably 8-core models. Fast 6-core desktop chips that don't use the "big" socket are already here, and I wouldn't rule out an 8-core halo model in a random release next year. Even if the next iMac is "merely" 6-core, there's not much difference between a 6-core 3.7 gHz chip that turbos to 4.7 (buy it from Newegg today for $400, certain to pop up in an iMac pretty soon) and an 8-core 3.7 that turbos to 4.2 (a likely spec for the $2000+ Xeon in the entry iMac Pro). Apple doesn't like to use the "big" non-Xeon socket in Macs, for whatever reason, so we probably won't see a $1000-$2000 Core i9 with more than 6 (or possibly 8 - Intel could release an 8-core small-socket processor pretty easily) cores in any Mac.
    What this means is that, while the 8-core won't be much faster than other iMacs for long, the many-core versions will be unique. Most software that uses more than 4 cores well also uses more than 8... For a lot of applications, a 6-core iMac will be just fine (4 cores for primary applications, which is what most photo and video stuff is optimized for, plus 2 "spare" cores that keep Mail, Safari and friends off of the main cores). For applications that can use more than that, the 14 and 18-core models will be uniquely fast. If they're good values, they'll tempt a particular type of user.

You will also need to consider the GPU, I highly doubt they will put a Radeon Vega GPU in a normal iMac next year. For things like video editing (the highly optimizing Final Cut for GPU will sure use it) or VR can be critical.

Yes, for pure photography it will be less important, unless you need like a lot 4k/5k monitors (well, in 5k a lot equals to two, still impressive).



http://dgpfotografia.com
Title: Re: iMac Pro
Post by: ColourPhil on December 13, 2017, 04:24:09 AM
Has anyone mentioned display uniformity?
Previous iMacs weren't too good at that. :(
Eizos (and NECs?) are factory calibrated by a radiometer(?) system, called DUE, and contain special internal LUTs to adjust each pixel.
At the price of the iMac Pro you might expect this.
I think it might be worth waiting for the next Mac Pro and plugging a nice 27-inch Eizo or NEC into it.
Cheers,
Phil
Title: Re: iMac Pro
Post by: Kevin Gallagher on December 13, 2017, 06:31:06 AM
I have been speaking with my Apple rep already today.  Will most likely order one tomorrow.  Apparently, the RAM is not upgradeable thus you need to make sure you get the RAM needed when ordering.  Lots of decision on drives, processor etc.  Should be a heck of a machine.

 Hey Kev, any ideas on the # of cores or other options? It is too bad that the RAM is not end user upgradable, as for my .02, the Apple memory prices are WAY TOO HIGH!!
Title: Re: iMac Pro
Post by: Kevin Raber on December 13, 2017, 07:44:21 AM
I will be configuring it with a specialist tomorrow.  Looking at 64 g RAM, 10 core, 4TB SSD.  Stay tuned. 
Title: Re: iMac Pro
Post by: kers on December 13, 2017, 10:49:56 AM
I expect the main problem of this iMac pro will be the heat it produces.
I hope they have solved that in a more elegant way than just losing Pro-power...
Title: Re: iMac Pro
Post by: davidgp on December 13, 2017, 11:10:39 AM
I expect the main problem of this iMac pro will be the heat it produces.
I hope they have solved that in a more elegant way than just losing Pro-power...

This guy that got one from Apple quite similar to the one Kevin wants to buy: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h-h5Mhlt6O0 says that the machine is not noisy editing video in Final Cut... and that it is stable. I hope Apple learned the leason with the Cube design that had heating issues.
Title: Re: iMac Pro
Post by: DP on December 13, 2017, 11:50:21 AM
and scientists (etc.) who work with huge data sets.

why'd such scientist need any apple iron to work with huge data sets, when they can simply get HPC linux cluster ( which are a commodity built for a long time ) for any budget infinitely more customizable & expandable with CPUs, GPUs, ram, storage, etc, etc than any mac can ever be
Title: Re: iMac Pro
Post by: Nick Walker on December 13, 2017, 11:54:12 AM
With my Mac Pro, if need be I can replace my Eizo monitor. I wonder what happens, say just after the three year warranty if the iMac Pro monitor fails? A case of a new iMac or is the monitor repairable/replaceable?
Title: Re: iMac Pro
Post by: Dan Wells on December 13, 2017, 04:48:17 PM
Unusually for an Apple system, the iMac Pro doesn't actually feature an "Apple Tax" - we'll see when the upgrade prices are released, but the base model is reasonably priced assuming you want the components Apple chose (yes, you could use Skylake-X or Threadripper instead of the Xeon for much less, which would use non-ECC RAM and make other choices that save quite a bit).

The C422 motherboards that support the Xeon W2145 are not yet widely available, but they look like they'll be $600 boards when they are.

The Xeon itself is $1115, so we're over $1700 for CPU and motherboard alone.

The RAM Apple's using is slightly faster than any ECC option at Newegg, but 32 GB of DDR4-2400 is $450, making $500 a reasonable guess for the DDR4-2666.

A 1 TB Samsung 960 Pro NVMe SSD is $625

A Radeon Vega 56 is $550.

We're right around $3500 for the big items (other than the display), without case, power supply, cooling or a couple of important features. The initial crop of C422 boards have only Gigabit Ethernet, while Apple is using 10 Gb. Thunderbolt 3 comes on an expansion card (not included above), and the expansion card only gives a single bus - not sure whether using a couple of them would work (if it's just a standard PCIe card, it would, but if it has some weird connection to the chipset, it probably wouldn't).

Adding multiple TB3 buses and 10 Gb Ethernet would be about $400.

A workstation grade case, power supply and cooling setup is probably around $500.

We're close to $4500 for a comparable machine without the display, an operating system or a unified warranty

Again, the Apple Tax exists if you'd rather have some other components - it's perfectly reasonable to say "ECC RAM doesn't matter, and forgoing it saves nearly $1000" - it does, because you could use a $600 processor that otherwise performs just like the Xeon, save about $125 on the RAM itself, and use a $400 motherboard that includes 10 Gb Ethernet... It's equally reasonable to say "a $250 GeForce or Radeon will do - I don't need that Vega, and I don't want to pay for it".

If you like Apple's component choices, they'll build the machine, throw in a 5K secondary display (assuming your primary is an Eizo or NEC) and warranty the whole thing for $500, which is a great deal - but you have to like what you get...
Title: Re: iMac Pro
Post by: Kevin Gallagher on December 14, 2017, 11:08:51 AM
 Well guys, I knew that the upgrades were not going to be inexpensive either, but to bring it up to what's called a "mid-range" version is just too much for this old cowboy, and I just LOVE to spend $$$. Oh well :(

  Kevin in CT
Title: Re: iMac Pro
Post by: Dan Wells on December 14, 2017, 12:20:27 PM
The processors are underclocked, probably for heat considerations. The Turbo Boost mitigates some of that (they reduced the boost only 300 MHz on the 8-core, and not at all on other models).

One interesting loss is that the 8-core, which got hit by 500 MHz in base frequency, will almost certainly be slower than a stock-speed Coffee Lake i7-8700K on most tasks. The underclocked Xeon W-2145 in the base iMac Pro is 8 cores, 3.2 gHz, turbo to 4.2. The 8700K is 6 cores, 3.7 gHz, turbo to 4.7, and it's 2 generations newer in architecture (Coffee Lake versus a variant of Skylake).

Under most circumstances, you'd rather have 500 MHz on both base and turbo clocks (about 12%) on a newer processor design than 25% more cores. There are probably some applications that are so heavily multithreaded that they'd prefer the cores, but there aren't many, and the difference will be small (even perfect use of all cores, which only a benchmark can do, should leave the Xeon only about 10% faster). The Xeon also has an advantage in memory bandwidth that will help in some cases.

Most photographic applications are optimized for up to four cores, plus it's nice to have a couple of cores if you're running Mail, Safari, Word, InDesign or whatever in the background. Six cores help because of background applications, but eight are hard to use in photography right now.

Why am I focused on the 8700K? Because it's probably what's in the next (non-Pro) iMac! Unless Apple underclocks it, too, the fastest standard iMac will soon beat the 8-core iMac Pro in almost all photographic applications. Even if Adobe, Phase One and everybody else rewrite the software to use cores efficiently, the low-end iMac Pro will only be ~10% faster than a garden-variety iMac in a few months.

 If photo software starts using a ton of cores efficiently, the higher core count iMac Pros become more interesting, and the processor upgrades are not outrageously priced, given what the Xeons actually cost.

With current software, though - wait for a 6-core iMac (or even a 6-core MacBook Pro if they solve the 16 GB RAM limit) - it'll be just as fast and a lot cheaper. The exception is software that either uses the GPU really efficiently (who knows what will be in that 6-core iMac, but it might not be close to the Vega in the iMac Pro), uses cores efficiently (get a 10,14 or 18-core iMac Pro) or hits memory bandwidth REALLY hard.

Title: Re: iMac Pro
Post by: rdonson on December 14, 2017, 01:35:39 PM
Reality check.  Which photo applications can utilize more than 4 cores?  Lr?  PS? 
Title: Re: iMac Pro
Post by: Dan Wells on December 14, 2017, 02:47:50 PM
As far as I know, neither (except in a few filters). Final Cut does, for those who do video - and I don't know about Premiere. LR and PS simultaneously might use four each (and 128 GB of RAM is plenty to contemplate running both at once). C1 has a few more routines that use a bunch of cores than LR and PS, but it is still primarily a four-core app. I don't know of any still photography app that uses more than four cores routinely...
Title: Re: iMac Pro
Post by: luxborealis on December 14, 2017, 03:12:14 PM
OMG (https://www.apple.com/ca/shop/buy-mac/imac-pro) - CAD6,299

To rich for my blood.


Title: Re: iMac Pro
Post by: DP on December 14, 2017, 04:01:11 PM

A Radeon Vega 56 is $550.


that will be a desktop-grade GPU card = not underclocked one as in iMac and not soldered as in iMac ...
Title: Re: iMac Pro
Post by: rdonson on December 14, 2017, 04:12:06 PM
As far as I know, neither (except in a few filters). Final Cut does, for those who do video - and I don't know about Premiere. LR and PS simultaneously might use four each (and 128 GB of RAM is plenty to contemplate running both at once). C1 has a few more routines that use a bunch of cores than LR and PS, but it is still primarily a four-core app. I don't know of any still photography app that uses more than four cores routinely...

I'm a FCP X user who just updated to 10.4.  I've seen videos and read articles with benchmarks between the 2013 Mac Pro, Latest iMac and iMac Pro with 10 cores and all I can say is that it is F-A-S-T.  Creatives with video will love this machine.  The reports are that FCP X uses all the cores. 

Unless I hit the lottery my 2017 27" iMac with i7 and 40 GB RAM will have to do.   ;)
Title: Re: iMac Pro
Post by: Christopher Sanderson on December 14, 2017, 05:08:29 PM
...Unless I hit the lottery my 2017 27" iMac with i7 and 40 GB RAM will have to do.   ;)

Which is more than adequate for most 4K video editing. With the iMac Pro pricing this eye-watering, imagine what the real MacPro update will cost when it arrives in 2019! But at least it will be upgradable. These new iMacPros are built into a completely unmodifiable box (for now) - which makes the 'Pro' label questionable. imo
Title: Re: iMac Pro
Post by: Dan Wells on December 14, 2017, 05:14:49 PM
Good news - the RAM is socketed, and any Apple Service Provider (or, potentially, a technically inclined user) can replace it without voiding the warranty. Many iMacs over the years have had "pull the back off" RAM installations (it's running about 50/50 between pulling the back off and a convenient hatch), and MANY 3rd parties have offered upgrade services.
Assuming the 32 GB is on 4 DIMMs (likely, because 2 DIMMs would almost certainly reduce memory bandwidth), Apple's 64 GB upgrade is about the cost of 64 GB of the RAM it takes - the only way a third party upgrade would be much cheaper is if the service provider bought the 32 GB back. It's unlikely they could offer much, because there may not be much market for pulled, low-density server RAM. The logical market is other iMac Pros, but they all come with at least 32 GB, so 8 GB DIMMs won't upgrade any of them - and the RAM is very different from any other Mac (2013 Mac Pro???) or most PCs. Lots of servers use it, but IT departments probably don't buy much pulled RAM.
The 128 GB upgrade, on the other hand, makes a lot of sense for third parties. Apple's charging $2400 for what looks like about $1500 worth of RAM.
The other question is whether an iMac Pro will run at full speed with 80 GB (or 96 GB, but that's harder to get to because it doesn't use any of the stock RAM). If it can have different RAM in two of the channels, pulling two of the 8 GB DIMMs and replacing them with 32 GB DIMMs makes far more sense than putting in 4 16 Gb DIMMs. First, you get a bit of extra RAM, and secondly, you don't have to replace as much if you upgrade again (replace 2 8 GB and keep 2 32 GB instead of replacing 4 16 GB to go to 128).
Even if it takes a performance hit with mixed DIMMs (assuming it'll work at all), it's still worth looking at - the flexibility of upgrading again is worth some performance loss. There is also a 48 GB configuration mixing 8 and 16 GB DIMMs (and preserving 2 DIMM upgrades to both 64 and 96 GB) that is cheap ($350) to reach if the machine will take mixed DIMMs. Some 4 channel machines will drop back to dual channel operation to accommodate mixed memory, while others won't.
Finally, it looks relatively likely that the iMac Pro will actually take 256 GB of RAM. It has only 4 slots, but 64 GB ECC DIMMs already exist. I'm not sure they can be had fast enough for the iMac Pro (Newegg doesn't list a DDR4 2666 version), but that's going to happen reasonably soon. The chipset supports up to 512 GB (in 8 slots, so already using 64 GB DIMMs), so there is no reason apart from an artificial limit why the iMac Pro won't. Again, this is standard iMac practice - Apple lists a maximum memory capacity based on what they can procure (in their quantities) on launch day, and third parties get twice that (or occasionally 4x) into it, either by using denser memory that existed on launch day, but was too rare for Apple, or after launch by using memory released after the machine.

Dan
Title: Re: iMac Pro
Post by: Christopher Sanderson on December 14, 2017, 05:22:06 PM
Good news - the RAM is socketed...
Good news indeed. My experience with RAM and video is that the old 'you can never have too much' idea is getting a little worn. The Apple 'Pro' apps seem remarkably efficient in their RAM usage. I have never run into a bottleneck with just 32GB - except when my SSD boot drive lacks headroom (<20% or so)
Title: Re: iMac Pro
Post by: digitaldog on December 14, 2017, 06:29:28 PM
Which is more than adequate for most 4K video editing. With the iMac Pro pricing this eye-watering, imagine what the real MacPro update will cost when it arrives in 2019! But at least it will be upgradable. These new iMacPros are built into a completely unmodifiable box (for now) - which makes the 'Pro' label questionable. imo
Yup, and stuck with that darn display! Where's the real MacPro?
Title: Re: iMac Pro
Post by: kers on December 14, 2017, 06:36:42 PM
Yup, and stuck with that darn display! Where's the real MacPro?

I am sure it will come as soon as they think they have sold enough iMac- pro's
or
the MacPro comes much later and this is to keep the pro's happy for a while...

Title: iMac Pro: what macOS software can use 8 to 18 cores?
Post by: BJL on December 14, 2017, 06:55:08 PM
Reality check.  Which photo applications can utilize more than 4 cores?  Lr?  PS?
A related question: what about support for 8 to 18 cores in video editing apps, which I suspect are more of a focus these days for high-end Macs than processing of "boring old-fashioned motionless images".
If I am reading correctly, Final Cut Pro X supports as many cores as the hardware offers, via Grand Central Dispatch: is that correct?
Also: to what extend is Grand Central Dispatch a useful, lazy way for software to support multiple cores?

(For my scientific computing work, this is often fairly easy: break the task down to a big collection of basic linear algebra tasks, and use suitable parallel libraries for them.)

P. S. Thanks to Dan Wells for all the details and analysis.
Title: Re: iMac Pro: what macOS software can use 8 to 18 cores?
Post by: bcooter on December 14, 2017, 07:22:59 PM
I was looking forward to the new Imac pro “until” you see the price.  8 grand for medium specs 11 grand topped out.

I’m not saying it’s not good, who knows, but new Apple computers always worry me a little.

I wasn’t that wild about the 2013 macpro, though now fully spec, you can buy them refurbished for $5,900 then add monitors and the specs aren’t that different than the Imac pro and I know with my latest Imacs, heat becomes an issue.

They don't shut down, but they slow down, especially working 4k.

Same with the Imac monitors, they get that smoky look in the corner and though at first I returned them, now I just live with it.

I usually buy all my computers from a video speciality company and they really test a machine out, with different operating systems (if possible) and all the software I use.

Then I get a real world idea of how well it will work in what I do.   

The good thing about the 2013 macpro is since I constantly travel, it’s small enough to fit within a much smaller case, since I have monitors in all of our studios and regions.

I hope the imac pro is a great machine, though I do think an all in one at this price is a little too high.

We’ll see.

IMO

BC

Title: Re: iMac Pro
Post by: JayWPage on December 14, 2017, 07:44:48 PM
So now that the cat is out of the bag [the iMac pro that is  ??? ], does this make the MacPro (2013) look more attractive , since it is still available...
Title: Re: iMac Pro
Post by: Farmer on December 14, 2017, 07:59:14 PM
Good news indeed. My experience with RAM and video is that the old 'you can never have too much' idea is getting a little worn. The Apple 'Pro' apps seem remarkably efficient in their RAM usage. I have never run into a bottleneck with just 32GB - except when my SSD boot drive lacks headroom (<20% or so)

Chris - could you clarify that?  If you are saying you run out of RAM when your SSD is full(ish), that implies that it doesn't have space to deal effectively manage the memory by moving some of it out of RAM. That means, you could use more RAM and avoid the need to swap (potentially).  Am I understand the situation correctly?  Whilst effective memory management generally won't result in bottlenecks, it's clearly a potential for one which might not exist if you had more RAM.
Title: Re: iMac Pro: what macOS software can use 8 to 18 cores?
Post by: 32BT on December 15, 2017, 12:09:55 AM
A related question: what about support for 8 to 18 cores in video editing apps, which I suspect are more of a focus these days for high-end Macs than processing of "boring old-fashioned motionless images".
If I am reading correctly, Final Cut Pro X supports as many cores as the hardware offers, via Grand Central Dispatch: is that correct?
Also: to what extend is Grand Central Dispatch a useful, lazy way for software to support multiple cores?

(For my scientific computing work, this is often fairly easy: break the task down to a big collection of basic linear algebra tasks, and use suitable parallel libraries for them.)

P. S. Thanks to Dan Wells for all the details and analysis.

GCD is very useful. Any loop that can run parallel can be dispatched to GCD which automagically distributes over available cores.
So instead of "loop 100 times" you can use "dispatch 100 times" which will happen concurrently/parallel if desired. The dispatch only returns after it's done, so there is no need for the sw to manage concurrency beyond the basic context precautions. 

For displaying image data there is also stuff like Tiled Layers that utilise parallel processing for its tiles.

For processing image data (and for some computational stuff) there is an Accelerate module which will break down computations internally into multiple threads. The benefit is relative of course, if you already broke stuff down in tiles, then additional concurrency may do more harm than good.


Title: Re: iMac Pro
Post by: Dan Wells on December 15, 2017, 01:20:17 AM
Final Cut Pro loves cores (it has always been designed for the Mac Pros, which have had huge core counts). Other video apps tend to scale pretty well (better than photo stuff).

Interestingly, PC manufacturer Puget Systems (who do a great job benchmarking pro apps) is getting results from the 2017 versions of Photoshop and Lightroom that suggest they're getting better at using cores. I know that is Windows, and the code may not be the same, but it's the best we have (nobody seems to have done Photoshop and Lightroom 2017 tests on a Mac Pro or a Hackintosh with a ton of cores, and nobody has HAD an iMac Pro long enough to try it)...

If RobART Morgan from BareFeats is on here (he's a photographer, and I believe he's been on Luminous in the past) - it's worth a try...
Title: Re: iMac Pro
Post by: Manoli on December 15, 2017, 02:35:22 AM
If RobART Morgan from BareFeats is on ...

Thanks for the link, Dan
Checked it out, and one thing that immediately hit me was how negligible a performance difference there was between a 16G RAM equipped 2017 Mac and a 64G one.

http://barefeats.com/imac5K_vs_pros.html

.. That means, you could use more RAM and avoid the need to swap (potentially).  Am I understand the situation correctly?  Whilst effective memory management generally won't result in bottlenecks, it's clearly a potential for one which might not exist if you had more RAM.

Looking at the test results above, seems that mem management is exceptional, in High Sierra, if there's such a small difference between the 16 and 64G versions. Surprised, but it supports Chris' comment that 'the old 'you can never have too much' idea is getting a little worn '

Also makes me wonder about 'why' there's such a pent-up call for the MacBook Pros to have more than the 'at-first-sight' measly 16G RAM
Title: Re: iMac Pro
Post by: Christopher on December 15, 2017, 02:41:44 AM
Sorry Apple, but the price is just insane here in Germany. Especially a nicely upgraded machine.

My current windows workstation as a Mac would cost around 12699EUR.... that is ridiculous.

When it comes why 10cores? There a few apps which use them very well. C1, Ptgui and im positive more and more will use them as well.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: iMac Pro
Post by: Dan Wells on December 15, 2017, 06:12:37 AM
The tests in that particular BareFeats setup all fit within 16 GB of RAM - longer videos don't, large Lightroom catalogs don't, big panorama stitches don't... Swapping is not nearly as annoying as it used to be, because most Macs now use super fast SSDs (when buying non-Pro iMacs, stay away from HDDs and even Fusion Drives), but it does still happen, and it slows you down. I have one large panorama that runs a 16 GB machine out of RAM when I print it (it prints, but Lightroom needs to be restarted afterwards).

Lloyd Chambers at macperformanceguide has some (somewhat artificial) Photoshop tests that cause even a 32 GB machine to swap incessantly. He says that he hasn't figured out how to run a 64 GB Mac out of RAM as a still photographer. A friend of mine has an extremely large Lightroom catalog (accumulated over 15 years) that won't open on anything with less than 32 GB of RAM, and really wants 64 GB - he's looking at the iMac Pro. I suspect we'll eventually see big catalogs that want 128 GB - similar catalogs to my friend's, but with more high-resolution images in them. His catalog has hundreds of thousands of images, but nothing over 20 MP - what about a long-term catalog that has A7r mk II and III images? D850 images? Medium format?

Dan
Title: Re: iMac Pro
Post by: Christopher Sanderson on December 15, 2017, 07:23:32 AM
Chris - could you clarify that?  If you are saying you run out of RAM when your SSD is full(ish), that implies that it doesn't have space to deal effectively manage the memory by moving some of it out of RAM. That means, you could use more RAM and avoid the need to swap (potentially).  Am I understand the situation correctly?  Whilst effective memory management generally won't result in bottlenecks, it's clearly a potential for one which might not exist if you had more RAM.
Yup, I believe you are correct. But a little extra headroom on the SSD is a lot less expensive than replacing the RAM modules. I set a warning when my SSD is 70% full and my trashcan's 32 GB ram is more than adequate.

On a related issue, I also suspect that the worth of an increased number of cores flattens out considerably after eight/sixteen. Extra cores are definitely worthwhile for rendering and compression in video but otherwise the bottlenecks seem more often in the GPU and data busses.
Title: Re: iMac Pro
Post by: Kevin Raber on December 15, 2017, 09:11:51 AM
Mine is ordered.  I'll let you know details when it arrives.  After Christmas.
Title: Re: iMac Pro
Post by: HSakols on December 15, 2017, 01:28:50 PM
Why can't they design this machine without the Imac Design - eg put it all in a mac mini.  If it were a real pro machine, one would be able to choose their monitor.  Apple could make it so much better - but they won't .  Same with the ipad expereince.  It could be so much better but because it is apple we all have bend over.   Still I will continue using apple because I have since the 1980's and like the operating system better than a PC. 
Title: Re: iMac Pro
Post by: Farmer on December 15, 2017, 03:17:46 PM
Yup, I believe you are correct. But a little extra headroom on the SSD is a lot less expensive than replacing the RAM modules. I set a warning when my SSD is 70% full and my trashcan's 32 GB ram is more than adequate.

On a related issue, I also suspect that the worth of an increased number of cores flattens out considerably after eight/sixteen. Extra cores are definitely worthwhile for rendering and compression in video but otherwise the bottlenecks seem more often in the GPU and data busses.

You're absolutely right about the cost, of course.  If you're rarely hitting that limit then the ROI doesn't really justify the cost of doubling (since you don't have the choice of just adding a little bit more (I remember in my old Amiga 2000 being able to add RAM far more incrementally due to the physical design of the RAM expansion boards and the underlying architecture).

I think of the main reasons you haven't seen the likes of Ps and Lr and C1 and so on pressing to change their architecture to use ever increasing number of cores is exactly as you say - they would mostly just be idling along anyway waiting for data or waiting to send data back through the bus and to other components.  It helps when you have more than one application and the others are not intensive - they can use their own cores and not interfere.  Actually, running multiple instances of games, particularly MMORPG games where it's common to "box" multiple accounts at once, the software that often supports doing this is designed to set each instance onto its own set of cores to help balance things out, but the individual games, with very high video requirements, don't try to use more than a couple of cores and really don't benefit even if you set things up to let them.

This is where very fast RAM and lots of it is really the solution to ultimate performance, but at a very high cost.  With 32GB of RAM in my current box, I use a RAM drive quite often when I know I need to process a lot of individual files or constantly access and update a file (high speed data logging, for example), and the speed differences compared to even a very fast M2 or NVMe drive is massive.
Title: Re: iMac Pro
Post by: BJL on December 15, 2017, 04:45:20 PM
Why can't they design this machine without the Imac Design - eg put it all in a mac mini.
That is a valid suggestion, based on an actual proposal for how Apple might better serve the needs of some customers.  These days, so much can be added external through Thunderbolt 3 ("external PCIe") that the big box with lots of often empty bays can often be avoided.
A quibble though: I imagine that good heat dissipation without excessive fan noise favors a more vertical layout, as with the "cooling tower" Mac Pro design.

Same with the ipad expereince.  It could be so much better but because it is apple . . .
But this I do not get: can you say specifically what could be done differently and better with the iPad? (I pre-emptively reject "run macOS on it"!)
Title: Re: iMac Pro
Post by: HSakols on December 15, 2017, 05:10:52 PM
Quote
But this I do not get: can you say specifically what could be done differently and better with the iPad?

I'd like to see an easier way to share files other than using email or bluetooth.  There are so many restrictions!  The school district I work for spent thousands on IPads but could not provide us with any support.  Now these ipads lay around - we can no longer add apps.  I use them to teach my students about photography (9-12 year olds).  However, not all the machines will connect via blue tooth with my macbook pro and yes I've checked that the tablet is not in airplane mode.  I do have a Leef dongle that I used to transfer files - but why such a specialized gizmo?  Then how are you supposed to share video?  It plain sucks.
Title: Re: iMac Pro
Post by: BJL on December 15, 2017, 07:16:54 PM
I'd like to see an easier way to share files other than using email or bluetooth.
What about the new Files feature, and through easier access to iCloud Drive, Dropbox, Google Drive and Microsoft One Drive.
Title: Re: iMac Pro
Post by: HSakols on December 15, 2017, 09:34:05 PM
Quote
What about the new Files feature, and through easier access to iCloud Drive, Dropbox, Google Drive and Microsoft One Drive.

Because it is slower than manually taking the video off the tablet. 

Title: Re: iMac Pro
Post by: mediumcool on December 16, 2017, 09:27:50 AM
It is not.
https://www.macworld.com/article/3242187/macs/imac-pro-shipping-december-14-ram.html

Not true.
Title: Re: iMac Pro
Post by: digitaldog on December 16, 2017, 12:09:42 PM
Not true.


https://9to5mac.com/2017/06/05/imac-pro-ram-and-space-gray-accessories/
Additionally, Apple has confirmed to us that the RAM in the iMac Pro will not be user-replaceable. This shouldn’t come as too big of a surprise given Apple’s other recent products, but nevertheless it means users are stuck with however much RAM they purchase from Apple. Currently, the 27-inch iMac features user-upgradeable RAM, while the 21.5-inch model does not.[/size]
Title: Re: iMac Pro
Post by: BJL on December 16, 2017, 02:59:53 PM
https://9to5mac.com/2017/06/05/imac-pro-ram-and-space-gray-accessories/
Additionally, Apple has confirmed to us that the RAM in the iMac Pro will not be user-replaceable. This shouldn’t come as too big of a surprise given Apple’s other recent products, but nevertheless it means users are stuck with however much RAM they purchase from Apple. Currently, the 27-inch iMac features user-upgradeable RAM, while the 21.5-inch model does not.
From what I have read, the RAM is not "user replaceable" but might be "shop replaceable", perhaps involving some fiddly opening of the case.

Anyway, I have never understood this idea of initially buying less RAM than you will need during the lifetime of the computer and then adding more later (likely at a higher total cost, at least if the upgrade involves _replacing_ some RAM modules by larger-capacity ones rather than just _adding_ them to empty slots). The one upgrade I can see being of much real value is of the processor, if a new, substantially better model arrives during the computer's lifetime and is compatible with the motherboard and such. (Adding more mass storage might make sense, but external Thunderbolt 3 devices seem a good option for that.)
Title: Re: iMac Pro
Post by: rdonson on December 16, 2017, 03:02:34 PM
Yes, there are reports the RAM is not soldered in but is "not user upgradeable".  That likely means that once your warranty expires you could take it to a shop and have them upgrade the RAM for you.
Title: Re: iMac Pro
Post by: DP on December 16, 2017, 04:27:55 PM
Yes, there are reports the RAM is not soldered in but is "not user upgradeable".  That likely means that once your warranty expires you could take it to a shop and have them upgrade the RAM for you.

promotional image as a source of rumours shows sockets, w/ a note that final design might still be soldered (or Apple can switch between soldered to sockets or from sockets to soldered during the production run as they please)  =

(https://cdn1.tekrevue.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/imac-pro-components.jpg)
Title: Re: iMac Pro
Post by: Dan Wells on December 17, 2017, 12:36:43 AM
Not user-replaceable in Apple-speak means "you have to take the back (or the front) off to get to it". iMacs come in three difficulty levels to get at the RAM - apart from a few which use soldered RAM, and are literally impossible to upgrade short of changing the motherboard (only viable if you have a higher-RAM iMac of the same model with, say, a cracked screen).
Just for context, I am NOT a technician, but I'd consider myself an advanced user, and have been inside a lot of computers and even built a few over the years. I'd comfortably change memory or a drive in most computers where it isn't soldered in, and I'd change a motherboard on most desktops and even many laptops.
We know the iMac Pro isn't in the easiest group - the "Apple provides a hatch, and considers the RAM user replaceable" cohort that includes all 27" models except the iMac Pro, and certain others (many of the smaller aluminum models before the tapered edge generation). These are easy - somewhere between inserting a video game cartridge and changing a video card in a tower PC. Very little of the computer is exposed - just the RAM slots. Actually getting the DIMMs to seat ranges from easy to frustrating depending on the model. I can get most of the newer ones first time, every time - but some of the early aluminum models with the hatch on the bottom instead of the back had tricky slots where it was easy to get the RAM halfway in and have to open up again to reseat it.
Some of the supposedly non user-replaceable RAM in iMacs is, in fact, not that hard to do.The intermediate difficulty group involve taking the back of the Mac off. I've done a bunch of these, and can do them in about half an hour with a negligible chance of breaking the machine (I'd do one  that was still under warranty, no problem). The warranty (of course) doesn't cover you if you break it while replacing the RAM, but you don't lose the warranty if you do the RAM successfully and something else later breaks. You do fully expose the motherboard, just like replacing RAM in a regular desktop, and you sometimes need to be careful of one or more stupid little cables leading to the rear I/O ports. The RAM is on the first side of the motherboard you see, so you don't have to take the motherboard out.
Other iMac models (including the latest 21.5" models)  can only be gotten open by removing the screen, and that's much scarier. I've never done one of these, and I'd only be willing to do it on a machine that was no longer under warranty. Basically, you pull the screen off with suction cups (after cutting some tape), then end up facing the wrong side of the motherboard. You have to remove the motherboard to get at the RAM slots, then reassemble everything. That's a huge pain, and it's possible to crack the screen in the process.
If you happen to have a motherboard with more RAM handy, the impossible iMacs are actually slightly easier than the difficult ones - they're also accessed through the screen, and you still take the motherboard out. The only difference is that you simply exchange the motherboard instead of adding RAM before putting it back in. The only way it would be economical is if you had a compatible motherboard with more RAM from an iMac with a different problem (or possibly if you could somehow get ahold of one as a service part that had both more RAM and a substantially faster processor - there may be a model where you could go from dual-core to quad-core - it looks like this may be true in some of the Late 2015 models?) It's unlikely that you'd ever exchange a functioning motherboard just to add RAM.
We know the iMac Pro is not in the impossible category - the RAM is, at least, socketed. The access to all other tapered edge iMacs is through the screen; and I don't see any screw holes on the back, so I'd guess this one may be as well. Who knows what else is socketed? It looks like, under the cooler, the processor might be. I'm assuming the two plates leading off the cooler in the middle are the CPU on the left (between the RAM sockets) and GPU on the right. There have actually been a few iMacs (and numerous other Macs) where socketed processors made upgrades possible. It would make sense if the processor were socketed - not least because it saves the expensive (as much as $2500 in the case of an 18-core) Xeon when a 35-cent USB port blows and needs a motherboard swap. If the SSD is socketed, it is either under the daughtercard by the GPU  or on the screen side of the motherboard - it's not visible in the standard internal image. The GPU is almost certainly highly non-standard - it may be socketed, but good luck finding anything that fits!
I wouldn't try upgrading one of these myself unless the back turns out to come off - if you do get in through the screen, the RAM is on the wrong side of the motherboard - it clearly faces the back of the machine.  A $5000 - $13000 machine that requires pulling a 27" screen off with suction cups and removing a motherboard that seems to have hoses connecting the CPU and GPU to a cooling system (is it liquid cooled?) seems to be the kind of nightmare best left to Authorized Service Providers.
Title: Re: iMac Pro
Post by: Kirk_C on December 20, 2017, 02:18:30 PM
Dan my previous reply to your post was deemed rude. I apologize if I came across that way. That was not my intention.

I just find densely keyed in text with no breaks very difficult to read and no matter how useful the information I pass on such posts.
Title: Re: iMac Pro
Post by: traderjay on December 20, 2017, 02:52:29 PM
Another joke or "toy" wrapped with the "pro" nomenclature to separate the fool and its money...
Title: Re: iMac Pro
Post by: Dan Wells on December 20, 2017, 04:03:16 PM
Depends on what you're trying to do... It's really aimed at video pros, for whom the DCI-P3 gamut is ideal, and no conceivable amount of internal storage could be enough (they use NAS boxes or big Thunderbolt RAIDs). The Radeon Vega and the 10 GB Ethernet are great features for that market.

For photographers, the gamut and monitor quality are a disappointment - it won't pry our Eizos from our eyes... Many photographers would use internal storage if there were drive bays, and not everybody needs the Radeon Vega. I think the 10 GB Ethernet is very forward-looking, since more and more NAS boxes will use it.

The processor specs are certainly not a toy - if anything, they're overkill for a lot of workloads.
Title: Re: iMac Pro
Post by: BJL on December 20, 2017, 09:07:30 PM
Depends on what you're trying to do... It's really aimed at video pros, ...
Video, along with music production, virtual reality and other 3D graphics work, judging by the software released and promoted along with the iMac Pro release. Our boring old motionless photography is no longer driving the market.
Title: Re: iMac Pro
Post by: traderjay on December 20, 2017, 10:20:32 PM
Depends on what you're trying to do... It's really aimed at video pros, for whom the DCI-P3 gamut is ideal, and no conceivable amount of internal storage could be enough (they use NAS boxes or big Thunderbolt RAIDs). The Radeon Vega and the 10 GB Ethernet are great features for that market.

For photographers, the gamut and monitor quality are a disappointment - it won't pry our Eizos from our eyes... Many photographers would use internal storage if there were drive bays, and not everybody needs the Radeon Vega. I think the 10 GB Ethernet is very forward-looking, since more and more NAS boxes will use it.

The processor specs are certainly not a toy - if anything, they're overkill for a lot of workloads.

Real video pros don't use mac, they use dual XEON systems and ultra fast flash arrays to handle RAW 444 videos. This is just a "toy" in a black shell because apple is desparately trying to revive their workstation market after the botched trashcan. Last but not least, one of the best video/color grading software Davinci Resolve isn't optimized for Radeon, its a 100% cuda software.
Title: Re: iMac Pro
Post by: Farmer on December 20, 2017, 11:08:33 PM
Quote
Workstation - DUAL XEON E5-2696v4 | ASUS STRIX GeForce GTX 1080Ti OC | Triple NEC PA301W | Crucial 64GB DDR4 ECC | ASUS Z10PE-D16 WS | 1TB Samsung 960 Pro M.2 NVME
FreeNAS & Plex Server - XEON E3 1265L V3 | Supermicro X10SAE | 16GB DDR3 ECC | 6 X 3TB HGST 7K4000 Ultrastar RAIDZ2 | 3 X 3TB HGST 7K400

I think that says it all...
Title: Re: iMac Pro
Post by: Jeremy Roussak on December 21, 2017, 03:20:33 AM
Real video pros don't use mac, they use dual XEON systems and ultra fast flash arrays to handle RAW 444 videos. This is just a "toy" in a black shell because apple is desparately trying to revive their workstation market after the botched trashcan. Last but not least, one of the best video/color grading software Davinci Resolve isn't optimized for Radeon, its a 100% cuda software.

Is the point of your supremely silly signature to indicate that you are a "real" professional? I can't imagine it can be intended to serve any other purpose.

Jeremy
Title: Re: iMac Pro
Post by: Kevin Gallagher on December 21, 2017, 06:40:24 AM
 People, I asked when starting this thread that we keep the hardware wars out of it. Traderjay, I'm talking to you, enough!!

  Kevin in CT
Title: Re: iMac Pro
Post by: davidgp on December 22, 2017, 03:08:38 AM
Real video pros don't use mac, they use dual XEON systems and ultra fast flash arrays to handle RAW 444 videos. This is just a "toy" in a black shell because apple is desparately trying to revive their workstation market after the botched trashcan. Last but not least, one of the best video/color grading software Davinci Resolve isn't optimized for Radeon, its a 100% cuda software.

About DaVinci Resolve it is not true, Resolve is optimized for Cuda and OpenCL. If a NVIDIA card is there they use Cuda if not OpenCL.





http://dgpfotografia.com
Title: Re: iMac Pro
Post by: Kevin Gallagher on December 22, 2017, 09:11:10 AM
 Well this looks like good news!! https://www.macrumors.com/2017/12/21/14-18-core-imac-pro-shipping-sooner/ (https://www.macrumors.com/2017/12/21/14-18-core-imac-pro-shipping-sooner/)


Kevin in CT
Title: Re: iMac Pro
Post by: traderjay on December 22, 2017, 10:23:59 AM
About DaVinci Resolve it is not true, Resolve is optimized for Cuda and OpenCL. If a NVIDIA card is there they use Cuda if not OpenCL.


http://dgpfotografia.com

Except it runs much better on CUDA vs OpenCL - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RQg8Dszb7Tc

This is also why you see Davinci users with multiple 1080ti/Titan/Quadros - something the "toy" mac utterly fails to support. If Apple wants to tout this "toy" as a real video editing workhorse, at least align the hardware with the intended purposes.
Title: Re: iMac Pro
Post by: Farmer on December 22, 2017, 03:58:27 PM
Except it runs much better on CUDA vs OpenCL - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RQg8Dszb7Tc

Except you claimed it was 100% CUDA, which it's not.  You also linked to a YouTube as authoritative support of your current performance claim.  Both actions speak volumes.

Honestly, at this point, I doubt anyone has any interest in your opinion about anything, and with good cause.
Title: Re: iMac Pro
Post by: Kevin Raber on December 22, 2017, 06:32:31 PM
There is a lot of drifting off topic.  Why does it have to always be a MAC vs PC?  Keep in on topic and polite or the topic gets locked.
Title: Re: iMac Pro
Post by: mwolfer1 on December 22, 2017, 07:32:18 PM
Returning to topic: I believe Matt Granger's take is the most balanced so far https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YZqt5mQ0eoQ

In short:
Nice brand conforming design
High end specs (the $13k version) are way over the top for photography
Priced component by component there is a significant markup compared to PC alternatives
Tight encapsulation and thermal design are suspicious if all out video processing is the main task
Lack of extensibility is an issue

I dread the thought to switch to a Windows platform when I outgrow my Apple trashcan, just because Apple has lost its way and doesn't understand what high compute demand users need. Maybe a Hackintosh is the alternative.  8)

Title: Re: iMac Pro
Post by: plugsnpixels on December 22, 2017, 11:06:24 PM
There is a lot of drifting off topic.  Why does it have to always be a MAC vs PC?  Keep in on topic and polite or the topic gets locked.

That's exactly right. If you have a Mac, you can run Windows. If you have PC hardware, you can run a Hackintosh. If you have either, you can also run Linux.

I have both ;-)
Title: Re: iMac Pro
Post by: Kirk_C on December 23, 2017, 12:16:09 AM
That's exactly right. If you have a Mac, you can run Windows. If you have PC hardware, you can run a Hackintosh. If you have either, you can also run Linux.

I have both ;-)

Running Windows on a Mac is so easy it's hard to understand anyone debating it but the Hackintosh and Linux stuff definitely takes you into the computer geek realm. I don't think if you're going to be an accomplished photographer you've got time to go that route, unless of course you just find it fun. Then it's just another hobby.

As for Apple loosing their way, creating over priced pretty boxes or not delivering machines for the serious production scenario that happened a long time ago. Their a consumer product company with great success, one that's not likely to ever put function before form again. Why would they ?

I've been a Mac user since 1984 and simultaneously used Windows because each serves it's purpose. The platform debate is pointless and fruitless, has been for years.

I'm posting from my W10 laptop, works fine for practical PC use. I just ordered the fastest non-pro 27" iMac with an SD internal drive. I'll chuck the 8GB of RAM and put in 64GB myself, run NEC's big display with Spectraview for real color and a NAS by ethernet. Maybe in the next 2 years while I enjoy it Apple will get a better pro machine out or even just make RAM user accessible in the iMac Pro. Either would be nice. Neither are anything I'd expect any time soon.
Title: Re: iMac Pro
Post by: budjames on December 23, 2017, 04:32:18 AM
I ordered the iMac Pro 8-core base model with 64gb RAM and 2TB SSD upgrades. According the shipping notice from Apple, it should arrive around 12/28. Nice Christmas present to myself.

My current photo workstation is a 3 year old iMac 27" 5k with 32GB RAM and 1TB SSD. It still works great, but I want more speed for my CaptureOne Pro 11 based workflow.

Regards,
Bud James

www.budjames.photography
Title: Re: iMac Pro
Post by: Kevin Raber on December 23, 2017, 07:14:24 AM
Like you Bud, mine arrive the 28th.
Title: Re: iMac Pro
Post by: Kirk_C on December 23, 2017, 05:24:34 PM
Bud and Kevin are you guys confident you can calibrate the display or do you plan to run something better along side it ?
Title: Re: iMac Pro
Post by: traderjay on December 24, 2017, 02:37:17 AM
Except you claimed it was 100% CUDA, which it's not.  You also linked to a YouTube as authoritative support of your current performance claim.  Both actions speak volumes.

Honestly, at this point, I doubt anyone has any interest in your opinion about anything, and with good cause.

There are plenty of benchmarks out there on resolve that shows CUDA is superior than OpenCL. Feel free to google them yourself.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MKJjLwMUPJI
Title: Re: iMac Pro
Post by: Dan Wells on December 24, 2017, 03:37:41 AM
I'll be very interested to hear how the iMac Pros in the real world - Apple typically does a very well-balanced design (not everybody always likes their choices, but they're generally very good performers).

Dan
Title: Re: iMac Pro
Post by: BernardLanguillier on December 24, 2017, 03:45:45 PM
My current photo workstation is a 3 year old iMac 27" 5k with 32GB RAM and 1TB SSD. It still works great, but I want more speed for my CaptureOne Pro 11 based workflow.

Hi Bud,

Congrats on the new machne.

C1 pro 11 litteally flies on my 4 years old macpro with dual GPU on D850 files. It should be very fast with the new imac Pro since its GPU should be extremely fast.

I have considered the iMac Pro but will probably wait for the modular Mac Pro next year. Hopefully it will be compatible with the latest volta based nvidia compute cards. These things put slightly older Cray super computers to shame. ;)

Cheers,
Bernard
Title: Re: iMac Pro
Post by: Farmer on December 26, 2017, 01:57:49 AM
There are plenty of benchmarks out there on resolve that shows CUDA is superior than OpenCL. Feel free to google them yourself.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MKJjLwMUPJI

No, you made a claim, it's up to you to support it - not for others to have to do so.  You can choose to not provide authoritative support, but your comments and claims will be regarded accordingly.
Title: Re: iMac Pro
Post by: Kevin Gallagher on December 27, 2017, 08:32:07 AM
 Well Kevin & Bud, have either or both of them arrived?  :)

 Kevin in CT
Title: Re: iMac Pro
Post by: Kevin Raber on December 27, 2017, 08:55:52 AM
Mine is in Indy and will deliver today.
Title: Re: iMac Pro
Post by: rdonson on December 28, 2017, 08:26:11 AM
https://9to5mac.com/2017/12/27/imac-pro-teardown-owc/
Title: Re: iMac Pro
Post by: Dan Wells on December 28, 2017, 01:24:32 PM
Good news and bad...

Bad (expected): Access is through the screen - much trickier than pulling the back off. It will require large suction cups, and there is a non-zero risk of breaking the screen every time you go in.

Good (expected): The RAM is indeed upgradeable  The only difference from previous iMacs that have needed the display off is that you are pulling the display off a brand-new $5000+ machine, not a $1500 machine - previous iMacs that have involved taking the display off have tended to be low-end models).

Good (and at least somewhat unexpected): The SSDs are also socketed - this being Apple, they may be nonstandard, but every previous Apple nonstandard SSD has been solved (by OWC and others) pretty quickly. This should be upgradeable, although OWC didn't explicitly say so.

Good (and I hadn't seen this at all before, although it makes sense). The CPU is socketed, and it's Intel's standard socket. There shouldn't be any reason why upgrading between the Apple supported CPU options wouldn't work (buy an 8 core, later decide you want 18 cores - dropping a Xeon W-2195 in should work). It may (or may not) also be possible to drop in OTHER Xeon W CPUs.

Bad (although it makes sense): RAM is apparently quad-channel ONLY - the only possible upgrades are "pull out all 4 DIMMs and replace them". 256 GB may very well work - 64 GB modules of the right type are already available, although not as fast as the iMac Pro wants.

Bad (completely expected): The GPU (while socketed) is nonstandard. If the Vega 64 is available as a service part, it'll pop right in - but don't expect any other upgrades unless a new generation comes out with the same socket.

Overall, fairly darned upgradeable, although it's going to be a $100+ labor charge every time, because it's accessed through the screen. Buy what you need from the factory (not worth trying to escape an Apple Tax, except possibly for 128 GB of RAM), but it's easy enough to give it a midlife kick in a couple years.

Dan
Title: Re: iMac Pro
Post by: traderjay on December 28, 2017, 01:41:09 PM
Good news and bad...

Bad (expected): Access is through the screen - much trickier than pulling the back off. It will require large suction cups, and there is a non-zero risk of breaking the screen every time you go in.

Good (expected): The RAM is indeed upgradeable  The only difference from previous iMacs that have needed the display off is that you are pulling the display off a brand-new $5000+ machine, not a $1500 machine - previous iMacs that have involved taking the display off have tended to be low-end models).

Good (and at least somewhat unexpected): The SSDs are also socketed - this being Apple, they may be nonstandard, but every previous Apple nonstandard SSD has been solved (by OWC and others) pretty quickly. This should be upgradeable, although OWC didn't explicitly say so.

Good (and I hadn't seen this at all before, although it makes sense). The CPU is socketed, and it's Intel's standard socket. There shouldn't be any reason why upgrading between the Apple supported CPU options wouldn't work (buy an 8 core, later decide you want 18 cores - dropping a Xeon W-2195 in should work). It may (or may not) also be possible to drop in OTHER Xeon W CPUs.

Bad (although it makes sense): RAM is apparently quad-channel ONLY - the only possible upgrades are "pull out all 4 DIMMs and replace them". 256 GB may very well work - 64 GB modules of the right type are already available, although not as fast as the iMac Pro wants.

Bad (completely expected): The GPU (while socketed) is nonstandard. If the Vega 64 is available as a service part, it'll pop right in - but don't expect any other upgrades unless a new generation comes out with the same socket.

Overall, fairly darned upgradeable, although it's going to be a $100+ labor charge every time, because it's accessed through the screen. Buy what you need from the factory (not worth trying to escape an Apple Tax, except possibly for 128 GB of RAM), but it's easy enough to give it a midlife kick in a couple years.

Dan

The GPU is soldered onto the board so its totally non-upradeable. As for going 256 GB DDR4 Ram, it will set you back a cool $USD4000 lol...

Title: Re: iMac Pro
Post by: Farmer on December 28, 2017, 03:11:09 PM
Good (and I hadn't seen this at all before, although it makes sense). The CPU is socketed, and it's Intel's standard socket. There shouldn't be any reason why upgrading between the Apple supported CPU options wouldn't work (buy an 8 core, later decide you want 18 cores - dropping a Xeon W-2195 in should work). It may (or may not) also be possible to drop in OTHER Xeon W CPUs.

Maybe.  The BIOS could lock out other CPUs, particularly if they don't yet exist (most mainboards need firmware/BIOS updates to deal with new CPUs even though they're of the same socket if they didn't exist at the time).  Apple probably won't be very forthcoming with such updates unless they release machines with the new CPUs.

That said, SSDs and RAM are going to be the most desirable upgrades and appear possible, so that's good.
Title: Re: iMac Pro
Post by: Kevin Gallagher on January 01, 2018, 08:55:53 AM
 Well Mr. Raber, how's the new arrival working? Remember it will always have a "home" in CT if you don't like it  ;)

  Kevin in CT
Title: Re: iMac Pro
Post by: Kirk_C on January 03, 2018, 04:00:07 PM
Bud and Kevin are you guys confident you can calibrate the display or do you plan to run something better along side it ?

No thoughts on this you guys ?

The display has been identified and it is identical to the standard iMac 5K

Also the IFIXIT (https://www.ifixit.com/Teardown/iMac+Pro+Teardown/101807) tear down is now online.

Title: Re: iMac Pro
Post by: Kevin Raber on January 03, 2018, 05:34:08 PM
I am still getting to know my machine.  Capture One flies on this.  Using the masking brush and slide corrections is instantaneous.  I did a 12 image stitch today of full size Sony a7r III files at 16 bit and it was like a light show as PS sped through the process and did the blending in record time.  We are going to give FCP a run later this week.  But as expected speed is 2-3 times faster (although I didn't really measure it).

I have done a screen calibration yet but I presume I can get pretty close.  I'll be testing a yet announced 34 inch monitor in the next few weeks and we'll see how that compares once calibrated and how well the iMac Pro drives that monitor.

The SSD drives are super fast.  I'll keep current projects on the SSD internal drives and then move them to my external storage once complete.  Sitting next to the iMac are 2 r6 Pegasus drive (15tB and 20TB), a r4 Pegasus (6 TB) and a 12 TB LacCie Big, Plus an 8 TB G drive serving as TimeMachine.

All drives are backed up to a second location. Lots of files for sure.

I restored from Time Machine from my older iMac in about 6 hours without any errors.  Had to enter some passwords over again but it was super painless.

Title: Re: iMac Pro
Post by: Kevin Gallagher on January 04, 2018, 09:14:33 PM
 Question for you Kev, I've only "migrated" twice since my conversion to OSX but both times I used the "Migration Wizard  that was present in whatever the current version of OSX was, and the first time was from an XP machine :).  Is the Time Machine restore something different? Sorry if this appears silly guys, but I'm rather done with trying to keep with all the "under the hood" stuff :)
Title: Re: iMac Pro
Post by: Jeremy Roussak on January 05, 2018, 01:46:42 PM
Question for you Kev, I've only "migrated" twice since my conversion to OSX but both times I used the "Migration Wizard  that was present in whatever the current version of OSX was, and the first time was from an XP machine :).  Is the Time Machine restore something different? Sorry if this appears silly guys, but I'm rather done with trying to keep with all the "under the hood" stuff :)

Migration assistant gives you the option of migrating from various sources. One is an old Mac, another is a Time Machine backup.

Jeremy
Title: Re: iMac Pro
Post by: Kevin Raber on January 05, 2018, 02:24:16 PM
Either one works.  If you use time machine I would recommend that one.  Just follow the prompts and wait for it to finish.  It usually starts off with some crazy number of hours but after a while, it moves rapidly to something more reasonable.
Title: Re: iMac Pro
Post by: Christopher Sanderson on January 05, 2018, 02:26:30 PM
I believe there is something to be said for avoiding Migration Assistant.
It is hugely convenient but quite indiscriminate about the files transferred.
I have transferred all the cruft and crap from several generations of machines to clog up a new one using MA.

IMO it is much cleaner and finally faster to go through the laborious process of manual re-installation. At least then you know that only what is truly needed is transferred.
Title: Re: iMac Pro
Post by: kers on January 05, 2018, 02:44:50 PM
I believe there is something to be said for avoiding Migration Assistant.
It is hugely convenient but quite indiscriminate about the files transferred.
I have transferred all the cruft and crap from several generations of machines to clog up a new one using MA.
IMO it is much cleaner and finally faster to go through the laborious process of manual re-installation. At least then you know that only what is truly needed is transferred.

+1
I would like it if migration assistant would had more options then all or nothing.
I also like to start with a clean installed system ( that system i will save as an Image Disk for a swift future clean install)
It would be great if Migration Assistant would let you choose only to migrate parts... for instance your emails only , some programs- not all etc.
Now i have to do that manually...
Title: Re: iMac Pro
Post by: davidgp on January 06, 2018, 05:08:57 AM
I am still getting to know my machine.  Capture One flies on this.  Using the masking brush and slide corrections is instantaneous.  I did a 12 image stitch today of full size Sony a7r III files at 16 bit and it was like a light show as PS sped through the process and did the blending in record time.  We are going to give FCP a run later this week.  But as expected speed is 2-3 times faster (although I didn't really measure it).

Hi Kevin, with FCP you maybe get surprise if you just work with x264 codecs https://youtu.be/nLF3g2zF3qs , the old iMac will be faster since it has a native codec/decoder for x264 in the chip... for RAW video or x265 codecs the iMac Pro will be faster... also for 8k video...



http://dgpfotografia.com
Title: Re: iMac Pro
Post by: Kevin Gallagher on January 06, 2018, 08:15:08 AM
  Thanks Jeremy, Kevin & Mr. Chris!! Lots of good info from all of you, I totally see what you're getting at Chris as my original PC to MAC "Epiphany" no doubt bought over some unneeded stuff with it and that in turn came onto my present machine. Also Chris, could you guys please keep that cold air up there??/ :)

 It is 6f in SW CT this morning and I had to thaw out my kitchen drain with a hairdryer BEFORE I could make coffee... it wasn't a pretty sight  ;)

 Best to all for the New Year!!

 Kevin in CT


 

 
Title: Re: iMac Pro
Post by: Christopher Sanderson on January 06, 2018, 10:34:54 AM
-30C this morning (-22F)  8)
Title: Re: iMac Pro
Post by: Farmer on January 06, 2018, 11:16:18 PM
-30C this morning (-22F)  8)

It hit 47C here in parts of Sydney, Australia today (117F).  Unofficially, in the middle of the Sydney Cricket Ground they took a reading at 57C (lack of wind, sunlight temp (135.7F).  I'd be happy to average things out with you!

http://www.bbc.com/sport/live/cricket/41784765?ns_mchannel=social&ns_source=twitter&ns_campaign=bbc_live&ns_linkname=5a518ab2e4b0e208006df90f%26%26&ns_fee=0#post_5a518ab2e4b0e208006df90f
Title: Re: iMac Pro
Post by: kers on January 07, 2018, 06:46:16 AM
I am at 0 celsius- right in the middle...
In the Netherlands the weather never is that extreme...
Good luck with surviving the COLD and HOT!
Title: Re: iMac Pro
Post by: Kevin Gallagher on January 07, 2018, 06:50:33 AM
 Hi all!! It's sitting right at 0f this morning in CT   8)

 Kevin in CT
Title: Re: iMac Pro
Post by: Neil Williams on January 07, 2018, 12:59:31 PM
Im late to the dance here, but I have just looked on the Apple website and you can spend up to 12k for an iMac Pro. The baxsic one is ~5k cant remember but that seems like plenty, accept when I bought computers before I was always advised to get the biggest and best as with in 6 months it will be the least.
So for a guy that is shooting a H6D-100c what is the minimum requirement needed say for a 5 frame stitch in PScc, No video, and just email and FB??

Neil
Title: Re: iMac Pro
Post by: Jeremy Roussak on January 07, 2018, 04:37:46 PM
Im late to the dance here, but I have just looked on the Apple website and you can spend up to 12k for an iMac Pro. The baxsic one is ~5k cant remember but that seems like plenty, accept when I bought computers before I was always advised to get the biggest and best as with in 6 months it will be the least.
So for a guy that is shooting a H6D-100c what is the minimum requirement needed say for a 5 frame stitch in PScc, No video, and just email and FB??

Neil, I think you can get to £18k if you try hard. For the last 30 years I've followed exactly the policy you describe, but I suspect that if I summon up the courage to buy a Pro, it will be the base model. I can't envisage a need for more when doing still photography. Video, that's another thing.

Jeremy
Title: Re: iMac Pro
Post by: Kirk_C on January 07, 2018, 08:20:23 PM
So for a guy that is shooting a H6D-100c what is the minimum requirement needed say for a 5 frame stitch in PScc, No video, and just email and FB??


I just bought the fastest iMac 5K bumped the ram to 64 and passed on the iMac Pro. I've been happy with that decision as the iMac Pro speed tests (http://barefeats.com/imacpro_vs_pt1.html) begin to show up online. With most of the CPU intensive tasks, like stitching 5 100mb files,the iMac Pro is not worth the money to me. You might feel it is.

IF there really is a new Mac Pro coming this year as promised I've got the $4K I saved stuffed in an old 70mm film can in the Hassy cabinet just waiting to put towards it.  :D

Title: Re: iMac Pro
Post by: BernardLanguillier on January 08, 2018, 11:26:23 PM
So for a guy that is shooting a H6D-100c what is the minimum requirement needed say for a 5 frame stitch in PScc, No video, and just email and FB??

For a start use PTgui, it is much much faster and much less resource intensive for much superior results.

I have been doing much larger panos from H6D-100c/D810/D850 on my 4 years old Mac Pro 2013 (8 cores, 128 GB RAM) without any issue.

Cheers,
Bernard
Title: Re: iMac Pro
Post by: BernardLanguillier on January 11, 2018, 05:34:27 AM
https://macperformanceguide.com/iMacPro_2017-Introduction.html

Frankly, reading this, the iMac Pro comes accross as a good machine but with a poor cost/performance ratio compared to a high end iMac costing a lot less.

Cheers,
Bernard
Title: Re: iMac Pro
Post by: Neil Williams on January 11, 2018, 06:06:43 AM
What’s PTgui??


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: iMac Pro
Post by: dchew on January 11, 2018, 07:30:38 AM
What’s PTgui??


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Photo stitching software:
https://www.ptgui.com

Title: Re: iMac Pro
Post by: Neil Williams on January 11, 2018, 07:40:39 AM
Thanks mate. I will give it a try


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: iMac Pro
Post by: Kevin Gallagher on January 13, 2018, 02:59:07 PM
 Well this is unusual to say the LEAST!!

$1000.00 Off Of Imac Pro (https://www.macrumors.com/2018/01/13/imac-pro-3999-at-micro-center-stores/)

Kevin in CT
Title: Re: iMac Pro
Post by: Kirk_C on January 14, 2018, 04:26:22 AM
Well this is unusual to say the LEAST!!

Would you spend $4K and be happy with 8GB of RAM ?
Title: Re: iMac Pro
Post by: dchew on January 14, 2018, 06:28:36 AM
Would you spend $4K and be happy with 8GB of RAM ?

Kirk,
The link says 8gb with the graphics card. There is 32gb of eec ram. Still may not be good choice.

Dave
Title: Re: iMac Pro
Post by: DaveRosenthal on January 14, 2018, 11:56:11 PM
Wanted to report in on my personal experience with the iMac Pro.

My main use case is editing files off the Phase XF100 in Capture One. Previously I was using a lower-end iMac from about 3 years ago. That machine really struggled with the high-res files, with Capture One taking at least a few seconds between photos and sometimes 10-15 if you caught it wrong-footed while quickly browsing/zooming. Too bad, since the form factor, screen, etc. is great. The happy news is that the iMac Pro solves that issue nicely--flipping between photos is nearly instant and now I can't get it to delay for more that a second or three at any time. Importing and exporting photos doesn't seem to be very well threaded (watching activity monitor), so I doubt that the 10 core model that I got is substantially better that a modern top-spec iMac for this workload (Diglloyd has good numbers on this). For my workflows that doesn't matter anyway, as I mostly care about the interactive speeds.

A couple of interesting items for the tech-obsessed that I've observed:

1) Despite the tech specs saying that 4.5GHz is the top turbo boost speed, I've only been able to get it to 4.2Ghz (monitored via Intel Power Gadget) on single-threaded workloads. Hmm...

2) Apple says the last-level-cache on the 10-core machine is 23.75MB. That is substantially more than the normal Xeon-W (i.e. non-apple special model) and one of the nice hidden-bonus specs that should contribute to good single-core performance as well. The rub is that every system information program I've tried (including the built-in ones) reports 13.75 MB instead--the normal amount. Another hmm...

All in all, I think I probably would have been almost as happy with a loaded 5K iMac, but a few things pushed me over the edge for the iMac Pro, including the faster graphics card and having ECC ram, which I have a probably-irrational affinity for from past personal experiences. Finally, when you spec up that 5K iMac with 64GB of RAM and a 2TB SSD, it's running $5,350 anyway, so the premium isn't too insane.

Dave
Title: Re: iMac Pro
Post by: Neil Williams on January 15, 2018, 12:08:43 AM
Wanted to report in on my personal experience with the iMac Pro.

My main use case is editing files off the Phase XF100 in Capture One. Previously I was using a lower-end iMac from about 3 years ago. That machine really struggled with the high-res files, with Capture One taking at least a few seconds between photos and sometimes 10-15 if you caught it wrong-footed while quickly browsing/zooming. Too bad, since the form factor, screen, etc. is great. The happy news is that the iMac Pro solves that issue nicely--flipping between photos is nearly instant and now I can't get it to delay for more that a second or three at any time. Importing and exporting photos doesn't seem to be very well threaded (watching activity monitor), so I doubt that the 10 core model that I got is substantially better that a modern top-spec iMac for this workload (Diglloyd has good numbers on this). For my workflows that doesn't matter anyway, as I mostly care about the interactive speeds.

A couple of interesting items for the tech-obsessed that I've observed:

1) Despite the tech specs saying that 4.5GHz is the top turbo boost speed, I've only been able to get it to 4.2Ghz (monitored via Intel Power Gadget) on single-threaded workloads. Hmm...

2) Apple says the last-level-cache on the 10-core machine is 23.75MB. That is substantially more than the normal Xeon-W (i.e. non-apple special model) and one of the nice hidden-bonus specs that should contribute to good single-core performance as well. The rub is that every system information program I've tried (including the built-in ones) reports 13.75 MB instead--the normal amount. Another hmm...

All in all, I think I probably would have been almost as happy with a loaded 5K iMac, but a few things pushed me over the edge for the iMac Pro, including the faster graphics card and having ECC ram, which I have a probably-irrational affinity for from past personal experiences. Finally, when you spec up that 5K iMac with 64GB of RAM and a 2TB SSD, it's running $5,350 anyway, so the premium isn't too insane.

Dave
Dave thanks for the write up. I went to see one yesterday at the apple shop in Phuket. The price there was B179000 approx $5600 so am assuming it’s the basic one. I have a new Hasselblad H6D 100c on the way so pretty much the same as what you have.
 Any chance of telling me what upgrades you got to your machine, as what you have I think will be perfect for me as well
Thanks
Neil
Title: Re: iMac Pro
Post by: Kirk_C on January 15, 2018, 12:47:25 AM
All in all, I think I probably would have been almost as happy with a loaded 5K iMac, but a few things pushed me over the edge for the iMac Pro, including the faster graphics card and having ECC ram, which I have a probably-irrational affinity for from past personal experiences. Finally, when you spec up that 5K iMac with 64GB of RAM and a 2TB SSD, it's running $5,350 anyway, so the premium isn't too insane.

I bought the Apple 27" iMac Retina 5K Display; 4.2GHz Quad-Core Intel Core i7, 8GB RAM, 512GB SSD, Radeon Pro 580 8GB (2017) for $2549 and upgraded the RAM to 64GB for $648. That's $3197 shipped to my door.

I bought 2 8TB Hardware Raids. I'll run RAID 1 in RAID 0  as my working drive and every 4 hours it'll automatically back up to the other  RAID running RAID 1. The drives are removable so I'll take backups off site every week or so and just install a new one.

Internal 500GB SSD with OS and all Apple's silly apps still has 479GB free. Plenty of room to install C1 and ACC. Not sure I'd every want to pay Apple's price for a 2TB SSD.

A good friend just bought the iMac Pro 10 core, 64GB, not sure what SSD and in our tests it's twice as fast when working with files from the 645Z imported into PS as a 'smart' object.

I wouldn't fault anyone for being enticed by the iMac Pro, it's very pretty and it is fast. I just don't want to go there until we see what the new Mac Pro is, if and when it happens this year.

Title: Re: iMac Pro
Post by: davidgp on January 15, 2018, 02:17:47 AM

2) Apple says the last-level-cache on the 10-core machine is 23.75MB. That is substantially more than the normal Xeon-W (i.e. non-apple special model) and one of the nice hidden-bonus specs that should contribute to good single-core performance as well. The rub is that every system information program I've tried (including the built-in ones) reports 13.75 MB instead--the normal amount. Another hmm...

Apple does not say it is the last level cache... Apple says it is the cache of chip, as a marketing trick. A Xeon-W has three levels of cache, L1 very small, very few kilobytes, per core. An L2 level, of just 1 MB per core of the processor, and an L3 level cache, in the case of the 10 core processor of just 13.75 MB shared between all the cores of the processor. Apple is just saying in their marketing material that the processor has 13.75 MB + ( 10 cores x 1 MB ) = 23.75 MB of cache per CPU.



Enviado desde mi iPad utilizando Tapatalk
Title: Re: iMac Pro
Post by: BJL on January 15, 2018, 10:06:19 AM
https://macperformanceguide.com/iMacPro_2017-Introduction.html

Frankly, reading this, the iMac Pro comes across as a good machine but with a poor cost/performance ratio compared to a high end iMac costing a lot less.

I only got through the first few pages, which just document the rather obvious fact that the benefits of higher core counts are limited for some tasks. (My work rarely benefits from more than two cores, so what I want is the best single core turbo boost!)

There is also the silliness of saying that on one test, 8 core is only 15% slower than 10 and suggesting that this is a case against more than 8 cores: even with perfect linear speed scaling, 8 cores would only be 25% slower than 10, so 15% in a real world test does not sound so bad.)

Does the article get down to specific tests relevant to photographic or video processing?
Title: Re: iMac Pro
Post by: DaveRosenthal on January 15, 2018, 01:07:06 PM
... Any chance of telling me what upgrades you got to your machine, as what you have I think will be perfect for me as well

2TB SSD, 64GB RAM, 10-core (base video card). I tend to delete photos aggressively, just keeping the keepers; if I was a huge-volume shooter I probably wouldn't spring for the 2TB SSD, opting instead for external storage.

Apple does not say it is the last level cache... Apple says it is the cache of chip, as a marketing trick. A Xeon-W has three levels of cache, L1 very small, very few kilobytes, per core. An L2 level, of just 1 MB per core of the processor, and an L3 level cache, in the case of the 10 core processor of just 13.75 MB shared between all the cores of the processor. Apple is just saying in their marketing material that the processor has 13.75 MB + ( 10 cores x 1 MB ) = 23.75 MB of cache per CPU.

Damn, you must be right. That is confusing, as that's not a standard way of talking about cache size. Maybe it was wishful thinking of me, but somehow I assumed that they unlocked a bit more cache to offset the underclocking.
Title: Re: iMac Pro
Post by: davidgp on January 15, 2018, 02:42:04 PM
Damn, you must be right. That is confusing, as that's not a standard way of talking about cache size. Maybe it was wishful thinking of me, but somehow I assumed that they unlocked a bit more cache to offset the underclocking.

Well, I don't have hard proof, but it matches nearly perfectly with the rest of the processors comparing number of cores + cache sizes in intel ark database of CPUs:

8 core, Intel says 11 MB, Apple says 19 MB (11MB +8 core * 1 MB)
14 core, Intel says 19, Apple says 33.25 MB (19 MB + 14 cores * 1 MB) (here I'm missing 0,25 MB...)
18 cores, Intel says 24.75 MB, Apple says 42.75 MB (24 MB + 18 cores * 1MB)

This for me it is more reasonable. Make a cache changes implies that Intel is making an specific design for Apple, that will make the processors more expensive and I don't expect Apple selling as many iMac Pros to compensate that. Underclocking the processor it is just change a bit the internal CPU firmware or maybe at EFI level in the iMac.

Regards,

David
Title: Re: iMac Pro
Post by: BernardLanguillier on January 17, 2018, 07:11:03 AM
Does the article get down to specific tests relevant to photographic or video processing?

Yes, it does.

The table of content is pretty self-explanatory.

Cheers,
Bernard
Title: Re: iMac Pro
Post by: kers on January 17, 2018, 10:48:15 AM
I think i wait till i know what the 2018 MacPro / MacMini (?) will bring.

The speed gains of the harddisks are impressive. It is one of the main reasons the imacPro is faster than the iMac.
I am on an old MacPro but with the latest processors and harddisks 2018 will be a good year to switch to something clearly more powerful.

Title: Re: iMac Pro
Post by: Christopher Sanderson on January 17, 2018, 09:06:20 PM
Interesting positive take (https://www.cinema5d.com/imac-pro-review-is-it-worth-the-money/) on the iMacPro from a video pro
Title: Re: iMac Pro
Post by: Kirk_C on January 17, 2018, 10:27:01 PM
Interesting positive take (https://www.cinema5d.com/imac-pro-review-is-it-worth-the-money/) on the iMacPro from a video pro

Yeah I'd say that's what you call a 'Fanboy' review.

quoted:

"So, rather unscientifically, I started editing a project I had logged on my MacBook Pro to see if I would immediately feel the difference.

I did. Oh, boy, did I feel it! I mean, this thing is just silly fast. "


You think ?

10 Core Xenon vs a dual core i5. One would hope it's silly fast by comparison.
Title: Re: iMac Pro
Post by: BJL on January 18, 2018, 09:15:42 AM
Yes, it does.

The table of content is pretty self-explanatory.
Ah yes, now I found the tiny TOC pop-up amidst the vast blitz of advertising links! And the answer to one of my questions is that there is no testing of software for video editing (or audio or virtual reality processing), because despite the general sounding site name "macperformanceguide.com", this is a still photography only site.

And the testing might fairly reflect the current state for still photography, and maybe the future too, if most or all of those tasks inherently have little capacity to use so many cores, or are limited by other factors like mass-storage communication speed.

Two questions remain:
- Which if any of these apps is adapted to make use of so many cores?
- In cases where they are not (yet), what is the potential for such updates in the future?

Still, it seems that my first thought could be correct: the high core count of the iMac Pro and these new intel Xeon processors is far more relevant to video, audio and virtual reality processing than for still photography.
Title: Re: iMac Pro
Post by: kers on January 18, 2018, 10:03:26 AM

Two questions remain:
- Which if any of these apps is adapted to make use of so many cores?
- In cases where they are not (yet), what is the potential for such updates in the future?

12 cores date back from 2008 so nothing new...
As i read and notice myself photoshop is still using only one core in many situations where it is easy to use all cores...
for instance;
If i do some action involving many hundreds of photographs it often uses one core at the time to do one image at a time...
So there is potential, but with adobe it will be 2030 i guess... or they have wake up to find out people are moving away from photoshop.

Title: Re: iMac Pro
Post by: BJL on January 18, 2018, 12:25:01 PM
12 cores date back from 2008 so nothing new...
As i read and notice myself photoshop is still using only one core in many situations where it is easy to use all cores...
for instance;
If i do some action involving many hundreds of photographs it often uses one core at the time to do one image at a time...
So there is potential, but with adobe it will be 2030 i guess... or they have wake up to find out people are moving away from photoshop.
Yes, there are some obvious cases for multiple core usage, like batch conversions. Could it be that, even with high core-count processors having been around for a while, rather few Photoshop users have been on such gear—or that Adobe mistakenly believes this to be the case?
Title: Re: iMac Pro
Post by: Kirk_C on January 18, 2018, 11:38:51 PM
Could it be that, even with high core-count processors having been around for a while, rather few Photoshop users have been on such gear—or that Adobe mistakenly believes this to be the case?

Adobe has little to gain in market share and doesn't care about the limited number of users with machines using more than 2 cores. You can probably thank Apple for that point of view.

I've sat in meetings were managers and engineers weigh the added development cost vs the increase in subscriptions. That discussion takes about 5 minutes before they move on.
Title: Re: iMac Pro
Post by: D White on January 20, 2018, 06:09:36 PM
I ordered a 10 core with 4TB SSD and 64 RAM and have had it since Dec 28th.

Disappointingly, a number of my image processing work flows are not much faster if at all over a 2014 iMac. Further, I am struggling trying to keep a stable network connection to my two Drobo 810n NAS units; a problem isolated to my iMacPro and not my Macbook Pro or older iMac. Apple is trying to help sort this out but no success yet.

It does save way faster and handles multiple open applications better. I guess it depends how a particular application utilizes the cores.
Title: Re: iMac Pro
Post by: Kirk_C on January 22, 2018, 03:48:27 PM
Another speed test / review of the iMac Pro (https://www.dpreview.com/videos/6987488524/photo-editing-speed-test-imac-pro-vs-alienware-pc-mac-pro-and-macbook-pro)
Title: Re: iMac Pro
Post by: davidgp on January 29, 2018, 12:24:30 PM
For those with an iMac Pro and so many cores, looks like Lightroom 7.2 will make better use of them: https://www.dpreview.com/news/6947305878/adobe-is-preparing-a-major-lightroom-classic-performance-update-and-we-got-to-try-it
Title: Re: iMac Pro
Post by: Kirk_C on January 29, 2018, 11:26:34 PM
The only notable improvement they found was in file export and not even close to the improvement Adobe claimed. Let's hope this is just the first step of re-writing LRC code to use modern computers.
Title: Re: iMac Pro
Post by: Neil Williams on January 30, 2018, 05:13:54 AM
I just had an interesting conversation with a friend of mine who has run a small apple franchise in Phuket for over 15 years. He recommended getting a PC built just for photoshop and use MBP for everything else.
I will check and see what is recommended by the geeks as I am not a compute wiz kid
Neil