Full Spec Imac versus "NEW" Mac Pro ($3000+tax Entry Level System)

dinerdog wrote: Hypothetically, if there were no new MacPro coming out, would the top of the line IMac be the fastest Mac to edit on? The 3.5Ghz i7, 32GB, 3TB Fusion, NVIDIA GTX 780M, for around $3,000.00? That wouldn't suck right?

I'm coming from a slightly mopey MacPro Early 2008 and need to get something new before the end of the year, It's looking like there might not be time to see any real world tests. Also, realistically I don't think I'll be doing any serious 4K work yet. Never mind 16 angles of 4K.

Anyone with this machine who LOVES it? I'd like to get it and get back to work. Ha

Seriously considering the same machine (except with 256 flash, everything media on external Thunderbolt RAID), I think this is a perfectly capable machine. I'm editing a 1080p HD kid's TV show on my early 2011 15" Macbook Pro so I think the 27" iMac will be just fine. I don't anticipate 4k in my workflow for quite some time either. Would also like to hear from somebody using one of these bad boys.

No way do the current iMacs suck. They've recently been revised, the processors are about as good as desktop chips get, the displays are wonderful, and Thunderbolt gives you anything else you need. You're stuck with a laptop-class graphics chip - a good one, happily, but only one. It's likely the new Mac Pro will outperform even a specced-up iMac, however the iMac will outperform a 2008 Mac Pro by around a factor of two - see the BruceX benchmark thread.

The other consideration is speculation about likely system longevity: a 2008 Mac Pro needs an updated graphics card to run FCPX, but it then runs well enough. An iMac of similar vintage is on the 'incompatible' list, with no upgrade route. It's not clear how upgradable the new Mac Pro will be in practice, nor what the system lifespan is going to be.

Personally, I'm planning to nurse my 2008 Mac Pro for probably another year or so, and look for the second-generation new Mac Pro. If the 2008 'Pro dies and I need a Mac in a hurry... well, an iMac would still be a (big) step forward.

jjsanderson wrote: Personally, I'm planning to nurse my 2008 Mac Pro for probably another year or so, and look for the second-generation new Mac Pro. If the 2008 'Pro dies and I need a Mac in a hurry... well, an iMac would still be a (big) step forward.

I think this makes a lotos sense. I suspect there are a lot of us still on 2008/2009 MacPros that would love to update, but I'm going to sit out the early adopter's route for the new MacPro for now and see what the general reviews and benchmarks bring. I have doubts that a rev 2 will be out within a year, but it's possible.

I'm also biding my time with 4K, so holding off a new MacPro isn't going to be the end of the world just yet.

www.macworld.com/article/2051357/benchma...rage-faster-cpu.html

But what does it all mean? The more I read, the more it seems people are divided on these machines, let's not even get into the serious audio complaints for people using them with Fusion Drives:

discussions.apple.com/thread/5484036?start=0&tstart=0

www.gearslutz.com/board/music-computers/...oblem-new-imacs.html

Granted these are music guys mostly, but wow, It doesn't seem like such a no brainer anymore. Now I'm wondering what's the last "best" model iMac with no problems?

Performance wise, I'd say current machines are very nice. My Pegasus R6 just came in last weekend and my Hackintosh is the equivilent of an iMac. quad core i7 3.5ghz. I was thinking of how FCP could be optimized for the mac pro, and I'm thinking mostly it will be through more openCL refinements to make use of the dual GPUs. I was looking up some performance numbers on the w9000 and w8000 comparing those to existing 7970 cards with openCL computations. I'm actually thinking of staying with my hackintosh next year and upgrading my 4 generations old Gfx card to an R9 290x 4GB card, then over clocking the CPU a bit up to 4-4.5 Ghz. Mac Pro's look super tempting, but I think I need to wait a bit more before that level investment, maybe for rev 2.

After having compared real-world performance of an entry-level new MP against one of our maxed out late 2013 iMacs myself there is no doubt in my mind: if you work with Apple pro apps the new MP is the best thing you can buy at this moment. And the more you upgrade the MP, the more drastic the differences get.

Real-world tests and reviews are being published, confirming our personal findings:

www.barefeats.com/tube03.html

www.anandtech.com/show/7603/mac-pro-review-late-2013

- Ronny

ronny courtens wrote: After having compared real-world performance of an entry-level new MP against one of our maxed out late 2013 iMacs myself there is no doubt in my mind: if you work with Apple pro apps the new MP is the best thing you can buy at this moment. And the more you upgrade the MP, the more drastic the differences get.

I couldn't have put it better. Considering the GPU price hike the bitcoin situation is causing, the D700s are a steal. With FCP X, the GPUs are now king, if you can't afford all the trimmings, the CPU and RAM options can be downscaled in favor of maxing out the GPU.

ronny courtens wrote: After having compared real-world performance of an entry-level new MP against one of our maxed out late 2013 iMacs myself there is no doubt in my mind: if you work with Apple pro apps the new MP is the best thing you can buy at this moment. And the more you upgrade the MP, the more drastic the differences get.

HI Ronny.

So before Christmas I was debating between the lowend MP (the stock $2999 model) and a maxed out 2013 iMac. I decided on the iMac (actually before the MPs were available to purchase), and just got it up and running yesterday so I have time to return it if need be. Do you actually have one of the new MPs? Could you elaborate on more of your findings? It seems like FCP especially is so dependent on the GPU that those dual GPUs will always give better FCPX performance. Do you have any more insights, or wisdom? Anything would be helpful.

Thanks,

-T .

Hey Timothy,

Yes, our reseller has been so kind as to lend me a few models for testing until I decide which models we will purchase and how many of them.

The dual GPUs definitely make a difference for any FCPX rendering tasks. In fact the difference is already quite noticeable with the dual D300s, but it gets ridiculous when you work with the top-end MP and the dual 700s. With their 6 GB VRAM not only rendering speeds but also overall responsiveness when working with multiple layers of Ultra HD media are astonishing.

But the real question here is: how does the top-specced iMac compare to the entry-level new MP?

We have worked with some top iMacs for quite a while now, and we have been very happy with these machines. I think it would be fair to say that at this point in time the maxed out iMac will be able to equal the entry-level new MP at several tasks, and that the major benefits of the basic new MP can only be experienced when using applications that have specifically been optimized for dual GPUs over OpenCL.

FCPX 10.1 on Mavs, Motion 5 and Logic ProX are the best examples of such applications. When using any of these apps in day-to-day professional workflows even the entry-level new MP is definitely a better choice over the top iMac. And the more software developers start optimizing their apps for the new MP (many of them already are doing this) the more obvious this choice will become.

Of course this comes with a price-tag, especially if you are going in the higher configurations of the MP. But I think that the faster transfer speeds, the much faster rendering, the better responsiveness, the better expandability plus the fact that the new MP is much easier to upgrade than anyone had thought, make it a no-brainer for anyone who makes his living out of editing.

- Ronny

Hi Ronny,

Thanks for the info. I don't know if you happened to see my reports on on the BruceX thread about my "souped up" 2006 MacPro running 10.9.1, FCPX 10.1, and 2 Radeon 5770s. That 7 year old computer exports the Bruce X in a mere 55 seconds, compared to my new 2013 iMac which takes about 100 seconds. It really shows how tuned 10.1 is for multiple GPUs.

At our shop we have a policy of buying the highest end for non upgradable components so we get the longest life from them. However, judging by the socketed CPU, RAM as well as storage, I could get away with a 4 core or 6 core, with the high end cards and minimal storage. But still quite a bit more than a iMac.

Based on that, and looking at the shipping dates for the MacPros I think I'll go ahead and wait on the MacPro and hang onto my 2013 iMac for now. They really are great machines. At our shop they have replaced our aging MacPros on everyones desk and we are delighted with them.

Thanks again for the info.

I know everybody's going gaga for the Mac Pro and multiple GPU's.
But please do some deeper research, before you plunk down $7000+ dollars.

bgr.com/2013/12/23/mac-pro-benchmarks-performance-tests/

Give the IMac CTO a fair perusal.

“It should be no surprise that the new 8-core, ($7000) Mac Pro is the fastest Mac we’ve tested, but it was only 8 percent faster overall than our previous champ, a [configured to order] 2013 27-inch iMac,” Macworld’s James Galbraith wrote.

www.macworld.com/article/2082568/lab-tes...ing-for-finally.html

But Apple might be making the CTO Full Spec iMac scarce on purpose. To hide this fact.

discussions.apple.com/message/24169468

Ronny Courtens shows us the Bare feat results of geekbench but where is the clobbering Mac Pro

They look evenly matched with the iMac winning a couple of the tests?

In a 4core to 4 core comparison, why do you expect to see a dramatic difference?

At the $7,000 price point, this is not the machine you're getting.


Regarding your post above, the Speedmark test is only one metric, but it was the one BGR could use to create the most inflated headline. Lots of tests in which the nMP halved (or better) the referenced iMac scores.

Also note MacWorlds test where they say the OpenGL benchmarks are NOT multi-GPU aware, essentially artificially cutting the MacPro's performance in half.

BGR did not do the test they were reporting the results as seen by Macworld's James Galbraith.

Are we all editing all day long in 4k, Simply No.
but that is the metric Apple is using to create a market for the Mac Pro.

Yes they are beasts but do you really need to spend $7000+ on a 8 core desktop?

I love Mac, truly. This is just a frugal content creator's two cents.

I hope no one is spending $7,000 that doesn't have to- that would be silly.

The problem with the Speedmark score is so many of the individual tests actually handicap the performance scores of the nMP.

In real world FCPX work, those dual GPUs make all the difference across many tasks. And I think the GPU performance is only going to become more important as we move ahead.

As silly as thinking 4K is what we are all working on in FCPX.

Some might get the idea they should spend $3000-7000 when they could do well with a more economical choice...

If 4K is not in the equation.

4K is just one way to measure the performance in the machine. Apple is clearly positioning this machine as capable of meeting the needs of those working in 4K, but the benefits don't stop there.

Think of it this way- any metric of the MacPro's performance at 4K is quadrupled at 1080.

Larry Jordan, Editor own words

Concerning his new 2013 Imac purchase...

INITIAL IMPRESSIONS

"This thing is fast! It loads fast. It runs smoothly. It renders quickly. Export is faster than real-time."

www.larryjordan.biz/app_bin/wordpress/archives/2084

FINAL THOUGHTS

"Frankly, this 27″ iMac blows the doors off my MacPro. It edits single camera projects easily. Its ability to edit multicam projects is limited only by the speed of your storage – with the caveat that optimizing media into ProRes is strongly encouraged.

If you are looking for a system that can handle whatever video format you throw at it, I am VERY impressed with this new iMac."

That iMac would be a great choice (for me), but the audio problem with most interfaces doesn't seemed to be resolved yet. Is it the Fusion drive? No on knows.

discussions.apple.com/thread/5484036?start=195&tstart=0