Mac Pro Refresh: 2018. New iMacs in 2017 tho! (1 Viewer)

[JohnRice]

Lately I've been itching for a faster Mac. I have the 2012 quad core i7 Mini, and while it's stunningly powerful for what it is, I'm driving the maximum resolution it can handle (2560x1440 + 1920x1200) and it tends to gasp for breath. I like the monitors I have, and the higher res one is a (reasonably) color critical, full RGB model, which I absolutely need in the mix. I feel kind of stupid to be considering an aging Mac Pro, but after having used the Mini for so long, all my massive storage (about 30 TB) is external already. I can get an Apple refurb 6 core Pro for about the same price as a new iMac 27" with quad core i7. The extra TB2 ports on the Pro are a plus for my setup as well. Plus, I just don't need the iMac monitor. I am very familiar with the two Dells I have, which are both reasonably new, and I'd rather not have to get to know a different one.

Am I silly to consider a 3+ year old Pro model? Based on what I read in the article Sam linked to, I have a feeling the new Pro will just be overkill for me, and too much of a wait. My biggest power drains are Photoshop and Handbrake. Maybe just go cheaper with a refurb 4 core Pro at about $400 less? That would still be roughly a 2x speed boost over the Mini, plus infinitely more capable GPU, and, of course, a LOT more potential RAM.

Oh yeah, I'm already running from an SSD, so there won't be any appreciable speed boost on that front.


Any suggestions? Sam?

 

[DaveF]

Buy the computer need.

The next Mac Pro won't be out until 2018....or 2019 possibly.

Now, it sounds like you don't need the power of a Mac Pro if a 2012 mini still does ok. As a photography enthusiast what's more important, more cores or a 5120‑by‑2880 screen compared to your 2560x1440 screen?

But I'm getting along on 2009 iMac, so am not the best judge of what a home Pro needs

 

[JohnRice]

Anything will be overkill, to some degree, because there is no small step up from the quad core mini. One thing I need, or want the most is hyperthreading for video, which means an i5 processor is out of the question. That eliminates all but the highest end iMacs and the Pro. For Photoshop, GHz are king. I'm not sure Photoshop utilizes multiple processor cards yet, so 8 core is pointless, but it should use a 6 core to maximum potential. As you say, my current mini is ok, but just barely ok.

The retina display just doesn't mean anything to me. My 2560x1440 monitor is full RGB, color critical, which is far more important than a higher res but not color critical, sRGB monitor, which is the shot against the iMac.

Since Apple finally did a power bump to the Pro last month, the needle has swayed toward the Pro. I know this. It makes the most sense.

 

[DaveF]

Fair enough. I don't do color work. And my wife, the graphic designer, references Pantone samples, not her monitor, for color accuracy.

Curious, I found this, an iMac vs Mac Pro comparison for photoshop.
https://macperformanceguide.com/iMac5K_2014-photoshop-benchmarks.html

 

[JohnRice]

Thanks for that Dave. As I understand it, with Photoshop, a 3.5 GHz 6 core Pro should actually outperform a 3.3 GHz 8 core. As he mentioned, I don't think Photoshop actually utilizes 8 cores on two cards, where I believe it does utilize all 6 cores on a single card. That may have changed, though. I have been thinking about this for at least a year, and a new Pro seems to be probably 18 months or more away. I don't really care about the bigger, retina display when I can spend that money on more power instead.

I just have a hard time with the idea of buying a 3 year old computer, but the fact is, there haven't exactly been significant improvements since then. I don't see actually needing USB-C, and Thunderbolt 2 will be just fine. The fact the Pro has three TB2 busses vs one on the iMac actually means something for how I'll use it.

And yeah, there's no pantone in photography, and no crying in baseball.

 

[DaveF]

If I were a Mac user that relied on Mac Pro-level hardware, I'd be pained and frustrated by Apple's high-end options.

 

[JohnRice]

Everything in their entire computer line, except maybe one of the MacBooks, is currently long in the tooth. What I find most disappointing is how much they've dumbed down, actually almost crippled, the more base models. The entire Mini line and all but the top 27" iMacs. I'm still dumbfounded that they have gone to soldered RAM on so many computers. I will NOT buy a computer with soldered RAM. No way, no how.

Having said that, there just haven't been any significant advancements in the last 3-4 years in consumer computer tech aside from bus advances. OK, so a "Pro" iMac is probably coming this year. You know it'll be at least $3.5K for anything usable, and probably even more. A modular Pro is probably at least 18 months away, and I suspect it'll be $3.5K as well for a base model. I've been thinking about this for a year, and the way I see it is that with the recent bump in the Pro line, either I do something NOW, or wait two years.

I miss Steve Jobs. He may have annoyed and baffled people, but he ultimately seemed to know the right moves to make.

 

[DaveF]

I'm waiting for a new iMac for home. I don't need much, but I'm molded by the heyday of Moore's Law and can't bear to buy a two year old computer.

But that's the problem: Moore's Law is dead. Intel's CPU updates bring 10% more speed, not 100%. Hard drive progression has also slowed: spinny disks are holding pretty steady at $/TB the past year; SSD too in my quick checks. So there's not much to do in terms of "feeds and speeds". It seems the real action is in GPUs and "mobile" ARM CPUs. Apple bet on the wrong horse for GPU design in the Mac Pro. And switching conventional computers to ARM chips would be a watershed, much more disruptive than PowerPC to Intel.

My lack of enthusiasm is expressed by my lack of buying new computers. My money goes into iPhones and iPads.

 

[JohnRice]

That's exactly right. My quad core Mini came out in late 2012 and there have only been moderate improvements since then. In fact, Apple has taken the Mini backward, and have never offered another quad core model. The thing is, I'm not sure there's much need for more power than there is now. I'd be fine with the Mini if I weren't trying to edit Photoshop files that can be 1.4GB and driving too many pixels.

 

[JohnRice]

OK, sorry to labor the issue, but am I off my rocker to be considering a Mac Pro? It would be an Apple refurb. The bump Apple did last month equals about a $700 price drop, which gets me to a 6 core instead of 4. Probably ideal for Photoshop. There just don't seem to be any significant processor advances coming. At least not the days of 2x gains. The gains have all been with busses and particularly SSD, which has resulted in more true performance improvements lately than processors. I'm not doing big time video, so I don't need the best GPU. The D300 or D500 will be more than I need. Going from a 2.0 GHz quad i7 with integrated GPU to a 3.7 GHZ 6 core Xeon with dual, dedicated GPUs, I should generally see a 3-4x speed boost, plus I might have a big enough SSD to use it for Photoshop scratch.

 

[Sam Posten]

Don't buy ANYTHING until after WWDC. I'd suggest a cheese grater tower with SSD and an Nvidia 1080ti for 1/3 the price and 4x the power tho

 

[JohnRice]

1/3 the price, sure, but 4x the power? Still, something to consider. I'll look to see what OWC has.

 

[DaveF]

As Sam says, don't buy before WWDC unless your current computer is a smoldering ash heap and you must replace it immediately.

This comes down to your needs. If this is your professional tool -- your income depends on this machine and a faster computer means more income -- and your income is sufficient, then buy the Mac Pro and get on with life. $4000 for a computer that will last you a couple of years is not much money really. Then when the new Mac Pro is out, you can upgrade again.

If this is all hobbyist stuff for you, or supporting a low income second job, then the decision is harder.

The real issue to consider is whether it's time to switch to Windows for your photography work? Apple has seemingly failed the high-end CPU / GPU-bound pro / enthusiast market. You've got two options: macOS on lesser, more expensive hardware or Windows on cheaper and better hardware.

 

[JohnRice]

With WWDC only three weeks away, it's a good idea to at least wait that long and see what news there is. This is my home computer and I don't rely on it for my livelihood, though I do use it for work. The photography needs aren't necessary to make a living. It's just one of the few things I do for enjoyment and the lack of processing power kind of takes the fun out of it. I have far more invested in camera equipment. Also, we're talking $2,500 not $4,000 for what I want. It's an indulgence. I don't NEED to upgrade, I just want to this time. My current Mini will go to my work office and one or two of the computers there will probably go up for sale.

I won't ever be going Windows. Between work, home and the folks, I manage six computers, all Mac, and it's staying that way. I'm not going to live in two OS environments. I understand the apparent (on the surface) added hardware costs, but in the end Mac has always been the better, and cheaper option. I've been working heavily with computers for 28 years, and I've owned FOUR personal Macs in that time. Four... computers... total... in my office... ever. From the SE/30 I bought in 1989 to the Mini I have now. In that time I'm sure I've saved endless $ vs windows users. So, the "it's cheaper" argument with Windows falls entirely on deaf ears for me.

 

[Sam Posten]

The real issue to consider is whether it's time to switch to Windows for your photography work? Apple has seemingly failed the high-end CPU / GPU-bound pro / enthusiast market. You've got two options: macOS on lesser, more expensive hardware or Windows on cheaper and better hardware.

This is pretty crazy talk Dave. A 2013 era non retina iMac is plenty powerful enough to edit tens of thousands of images a year on, especially with good Thunderbolt drives. Obviously newer is better and more powerful and more megapickles, but the iMac is all just about any pro photographer would need.

 

[JohnRice]

I'm not switching systems. Like I said before, it seems that there haven't really been much advancement in CPUs anyway. Advances seem to have been more in busses and GPUs, but that seems to be a lot more critical to video production. I know there's a trend to hate on the Mac Pro, but it is the closest to what I want of any computer. I'm still inclined to go with a 6 core Pro after the recent speed bump, but I'll wait for WWDC. I don't really want to pay for a big, expensive monitor (iMac) since I have the monitors I want, plus the three TB2 busses on the Pro are actually something I CAN use. I don't anticipate having any real need for TB3/USB-C. I do enough handbrake that I do want a hyperthreading processor, which means an i7 at the minimum. So, it's a 27" i7 iMac quad, or a 6 core Pro for the same price. The smartest option seems pretty much obvious. So it really comes down to do it or don't do it.

 

[DaveF]

I'm not switching systems.

So it sounds like it's a Mac Pro for you, then!

This is pretty crazy talk Dave. A 2013 era non retina iMac is plenty powerful enough to edit tens of thousands of images a year on, especially with good Thunderbolt drives. Obviously newer is better and more powerful and more megapickles, but the iMac is all just about any pro photographer would need.

It's extreme, for a long-timer Mac'er to consider, but not crazy.

As John has said, for the pro photographer, the iMac is inferior to a Mac Pro if only because of the display. Additionally, the benchmarks show the Mac Pro is appreciably faster than the iMac in Photoshop. Maybe photographers aren't CPU-bound? But it's not hard for me to believe there are photo or video editors for whom CPU cycles are money, and they will profit from the fastest machine possible. And for them, consider breaking out of the Mac ecosystem might be necessary to get the hardware their income relies on. Of course, I'm not smart enough to think of this on my own...but I've been reading the same think pieces you have the past year or two about Professionals doing just this as the Mac Pro becomes ever more old and busted (but priced like it's new hotness).


Writ small, I face the same difficult choice. Do I pay $2500 for two year old hardware to run macOS? Or do I pay $1000 to run brand new hardware with Win10? I expect to stay with the Mac for now: I do prefer the software and most of my personal life is in the Apple ecosystem. But Apple is making it harder with old but expensive hardware. It's hard to wrap the brain around for this '80s kid.

 

[JohnRice]

Dave, there's no doubt that Apple is slacking on the Mac as a whole. They took what was really their coolest and most accessible computer, the Mini, and turned it into a toy. In fact, they did it with the small iMac as well. I still can't comprehend the idea of soldered RAM. It should be illegal.

With the Pro, last month they had essentially a $700 price drop with the speed boost they did, but it should have had an actual $500 price drop in addition to that. One thing people forget is that it's made in the US, and there is simply a premium for that.

 

[DaveF]

Dave, there's no doubt that Apple is slacking on the Mac as a whole. They took what was really their coolest and most accessible computer, the Mini, and turned it into a toy. In fact, they did it with the small iMac as well. I still can't comprehend the idea of soldered RAM. It should be illegal.

With the Pro, last month they had essentially a $700 price drop with the speed boost they did, but it should have had an actual $500 price drop in addition to that. One thing people forget is that it's made in the US, and there is simply a premium for that.

I've never been enthused by the mini, but the current iteration is abysmal.

If I recall correctly, the Mac Pro at launch was priced competitively with Windows options. Spec to spec, the Mac Pro was same price or cheaper than the equivalent PC build. But that price value eroded with each passing year. I haven't compared performance of the refresh against current Xeon hardware, so I only have the impression from blogs that it's still not a good value if GPU matters.

Using "Made in America" to justify over-priced, under-powered hardware sounds like a cruel excuse to justify killing domestic manufacturing.

 

[Thomas Newton]

The retina display just doesn't mean anything to me. My 2560x1440 monitor is full RGB, color critical, which is far more important than a higher res but not color critical, sRGB monitor, which is the shot against the iMac.

The current Retina iMac displays are DCI-P3 displays … not sRGB ones.