iMac Pro is coming out soon.

[Deleted]

Jesus christ. I will never get people who buy apple products.

Our sound production guy has one. He uses it as a door stop when he's not recording.

He has a win10 pc for actual sound work...

[melodramocracy]

Do you bash Ferrari?

I doubt Apple wants to be considered a low production number toy for the 1%.

[ghotihook]

15K for the high end one doesn't seem bad. I tried to price out similar specs on a Dell Precision desktop and it was a lot more than that.

EDIT: with my "Premier" discount with dell I could get it down to about 12K

[melodramocracy]

And to answer the OP, no. Every desktop I've owned aside from my first has been built by me, and that isn't going to change. Built my current rig in 2013 ($2100), upgraded the vid card and monitor in January of 2017 ($1900). Set for the foreseeable future, though I can see a hard drive upgrade in the next year.

[A dot Ham]

What I did...

I went to tonymacx86.com (and other sites) and looked at the buyers guide, ordered all compatilbe components and a high res screen, then ordered an actual Mac of Amazon, "copied" the OS over to my system, then sent back the Mac for a refund and "hacked" together my own mac. It's not an easy thing but you can undercut the original Apple by quite a few bucks. It was a fun project after all and I did it just as a proof to myself that it was possible.

It's not a secret that you pay Apple for the design. While I like it a lot I would definitely not spend that much money on an original Mac.

If "all you pay for" is design... then why bother making a cheap knock off mac?

If everything apple does is inferior, it sounds pretty asinine to make a cheap and inferior system.

[melodramocracy]

So they've admitted the design flaw and didn't even decrease the price on their official website? defaq ;E

A buddy of mine owns one. Swore by it, decided to build a gaming rig as a secondary (he has a lot of disposable income), and I never heard another peep about the blessed cylinder. Weird.

[PhantasmagoriaX]

Holy Hell, I would never spend that on a Mac.

[aviger]

No matter how incredible the CPU, if its the size of current iMAcs (i own one) its never going to be able to cool it and you'll never get full power out of it.
it will either throttle or crash like mine does if the temps go over 90c :P
I love macs for the look and feel but 10k for something i KNOW will crash is not happening.
Id rather buy a pre-built PC from one of the enthusiast companies for that much and put hackintosh on it ;P

[melodramocracy]

^ in the professional market they are these days.

It's a very small segment, but there are a lot of sound / video guys that are still diligent Apple owners, thanks in no small part to companies like Pro Tools historically leaning heavily towards Mac support (I believe that some PT stuff still doesn't work correctly in Windows). Despite having a far larger install base, they just seem to not care about going after it.

Then again, this is a company that honestly believes a 32 channel control surface warrants a six figure price tag, so hey.

[Ishayu]

No to bash Apple, I appreciate their previous innovations but I really can't get over their price tags(not just this product) when other cheaper options offer more and/or are just better.

I'm curious too OP, wonder if anyone has a good answer.

Apple products generally are not good value for PC gamers, but you have to consider this system as a complete package and consider what kind of components you're getting and who it's for. It's for creative professionals, video editors, etc. That 5K display alone is easily worth $1500. The only display in the PC space that comes close, but doesn't quite match it, is a 5K 97% ARBG display for $1300, but Apple is delivering 100% P3 on top.

Add an 8 core latest gen Xeon CPU, 32GB ECC memory, 1TB of SSD storage at speeds roughly equivalent to 2 raid0 NVMe drives on a PC, a 1080p webcam, 10Gbit ethernet and bluetooth 4.2 (so a kickass mobo, in other words), and all of a sudden the price really starts to make a lot of sense. Yeah, it's expensive, but frankly it deserves to be for the components it has. The price is fine.

The biggest problem with Apple computers from a gamer's PoV is that it has underpowered graphics hardware compared to the price tag, and in many cases compared to the resolution of the diplay. This computer is no exception, coming as standard with an RX Vega 56, which is roughly equivalent to an NVIDIA GTX 1070, but after the terrible GPU and game optimizations on OS X are factored in is probably equivalent to an NVIDIA GTX 1060, and you can't replace it. That's a complete and utter instant dealbreaker for any gamer at that price tag.

[Squishy Tia]

I don't see how Apple's going to keep these machines from thermally throttling like mad in an iMac chassis with Xeon thermal characteristics. They couldn't do it in the Mac Pro 2013 model - it throttled under any real load. If they're going with anything later than Broadwell, it's going to have to be a pared down part or the chassis needs to be very beefy in terms of space for a cooling solution. Keep in mind they're cramming a Xeon workstation into an iMac chassis that also contains a display that generates heat too.

[Deleted]

I love Macs, I love OSX, but no way spending that much on a computer. If I'd want computer with lots of processing power there is always Mac Pro.

Computer is not a luxury item, its a tool for work. Buying iMac Pro is like buying top spec Lexus to do shopping. It won't make you look cooler, only dumber.

[ro9ue]

This thread TL;DR:

People will be bashing Apple and saying they can build a better machine for way cheaper. All that without actually taking into account all of the specs, design of the shell or the fact people have historically always paid more for something that feels more premium since the beginning of humankind.

[Kellhound]

All in ones are stupid, expensive ones even more so. They are hard/impossible to upgrade/repair (this new iMac will not even allow you to add more RAM!), you are stuck with the monitor it shipped with (duh), and they are more thermally limited than a normal tower. I will stick with building my own, a far better option.

[Squishy Tia]

This thread TL;DR:

People will be bashing Apple and saying they can build a better machine for way cheaper. All that without actually taking into account all of the specs, design of the shell or the fact people have historically always paid more for something that feels more premium since the beginning of humankind.

I'm not bashing them because I'm ignorant. I'm bashing them here because I happen to know about both thermal limitations and from past experience with such on similarly designed Macs. I also know how Apple's designs are anything but user maintenance and repair friendly. All, and I mean all of their machines are essentially glued together these days. Go check iFixit if you don't believe me. The repairability score of Apple machines is consistently lower than nearly every competitor. Their machines even on the regular iMac line have thermal issues, including one of the most illogical ones I can think of: some of the iMac 5k models' fans won't even ramp up until the machine hits 100C internally, so they literally cook themselves a slow, agonizing death. Heat is the bane of product life. Heat in a workstation class machine when it could be avoided is inexcusable. Heat in said workstation machine that is caused by putting form over functionality and/or product life is appalling, to say the least.

I got news for you: The "pros" that would want a machine with the specs of the iMac Pro are going to be doing heavy workloads. You can't cram a Xeon into an ungodly thin iMac chassis and expect not to run into its TDP limitations under load. No Mac made thus far with the iMac chassis of the last five years has worked under full load without throttling, especially when the GPU is involved. That Apple is steadfastly avoiding nVidia only exacerbates the issue because AMD's GPUs are not known for either efficiency or running cool. They rely on pure brute force, and even the Vega 64 GPUs are outclassed by the nVidia 1080Ti. The only possible edge case where the Vega 64 (let alone the base Vega 56) outperforms any nVidia GPU of equal tier is in compute work, and much like with Intel's AVX-256 and AVX-512 extensions, heavy compute on AMD's GPUs creates a ton of heat, which is exactly what you don't want in an iMac chassis.

So no, I'm not going to praise Apple for this one. It shows that they're desparate to get everyone possible to drool over Jony Ives' designs even at the expense of both sales and credibility.

[Rennadrel]

Oh hey, another overpriced pile of hot garbage from Crapple

[Bryntrollian]

The CPU in that iMac alone costs 2000$

The mere suggestion of an I9 running in the iMac Pro just seems so comical.

[Rennadrel]

The CPU in that iMac alone costs 2000$

Except it isn't because it's no doubt a locked processor. Locked CPU's are the only thing's that Apple can use in an iMac because overclocking would melt the damn things. And it isn't an i9 7980XE, it's an Intel Xeon Gold Edition CPU. It even says right on the Apple website that the iMac Pro uses an Intel Xeon series of processors in 8, 10 and 18 core options. So it's an overpriced all in one with a server CPU.

[Moggie]

Except it isn't because it's no doubt a locked processor. Locked CPU's are the only thing's that Apple can use in an iMac because overclocking would melt the damn things. And it isn't an i9 7980XE, it's an Intel Xeon Gold Edition CPU. It even says right on the Apple website that the iMac Pro uses an Intel Xeon series of processors in 8, 10 and 18 core options. So it's an overpriced all in one with a server CPU.

Not far from the truth. Apple already stated it’s underclocked to combat the “improved” thermal job they put into it. So, much like most of Apple’s products, it may say it’s a “uber gpu, etc” it comes out to be worse than pc counterparts from 2-3 years ago.

[Adam Jensen]

No to bash Apple, I appreciate their previous innovations but I really can't get over their price tags(not just this product) when other cheaper options offer more and/or are just better.

I'm curious too OP, wonder if anyone has a good answer.

My MacBook was $1500. It replaced a Windows laptop that cost half that. However, it's reliable. In the year I've had it, it's crashed less than any Windows machine I've used. It powers on much more quickly. It doesn't force updates on me and instead lets me decide when to update my device. It has a better battery life than any laptop I've used so far.

I've had a much better experience with my MacBook than I have had with Windows.