They bought hardware that doesn't even compare. There's a reason the iMac Pro went with the actual professional grade hardware, because that's their target. Using consumer grade and saying "look they're similar" is misleading and not a valid comparison.
Yes, the iMac Pro costs a lot of money. But if you buy the same components you're going to end up with a desktop that costs a similar amount of money, and doesn't officially run MacOS.
Of course not everyone needs the power of the iMac Pro, and most people lusting over it would probably be fine with the standard iMac. A better comparison would be with the standard iMac.
Configuring the 27" iMac with as similar specs as I can ends up being $3700. It's more expensive, the graphics card is nowhere near as good, and the CPU is a little faster, but only has 4 cores. CPU with similar speeds is -$200. It's still more expensive, but it comes much closer to the specs you chose to build the "iHac Pro" on, and uses a similar same grade of hardware.
You can also handwave away some of that price difference on the included keyboard and mouse, which your build doesn't include.
I was originally trying to go for benchmark or spec comparison (which unfortunately there isn't much out yet for many of the iMac Pro components) without having to pick the same parts. Clearly I've missed some core components, and features and performance along with those for many workstation use cases.
I will definitely take your points in to the re-write of this article. I think you, and many of the others here have shown me a lot of what I missed in clarifying and in comparing. I really appreciate your passion and criticism!
Also, as far as the iMac (non-pro) goes, since that came out I've thought that has been a steal on pricing, especially for that screen (bought a 5k one last year).
Yep, you can obviously beat workstation/server grade hardware by building a gaming PC. The (i)Mac Pro is not a gaming PC. And if you're already spending multiple thousands for a production workstation, it seems ridiculous to not get an official machine with a warranty and support.
Yeah I was surprised, Only 1.5K cheaper when the iHac is missing ECC, Xeon, 5K and Thunderbolt 3. Considering Apple likes to make 30-40% margins the Mac Pro seems not unreasonably priced at all
I think it was also very misleading to say, under memory, "you might want to upgrade to ECC if..." without mentioning that the cpu doesn't support ECC memory, so you'd need to get a better cpu + mobo too.
That's because the actual difference in ECC and Xeon from alternatives are pretty much just a handwave anyway. So it seems acceptable that the alternative not have them, just as acceptable that the alternative also not have an apple logo.
It feels pretty hard to argue that Apple products aren't overpriced when they are the most profitable company in the world by a wide margin.
Sure they excel in supply and pipeline but its not like those cuts are making it to the consumer.
Why is it that nearly every “I can build a better Mac Pro than Apple for less” article just hand-waves away the Xeon part. What, never occurred to anyone that Xeons might cost more for a reason? “I don’t need a Xeon.” Then you don’t a professional version of an Apple desktop.
Xeons are more expensive for partially the same reasons apple is more expensive. Branding. I can't think of any reason to need Xeon or ECC on a workstation. And the legitimate usecase for needing them would have to make up less than 1% of those actually purchasing an iMac pro.
It's more an on-paper iHac Pro, because it hasn't been build yet and it's unclear if MacOS will boot. Looking forward to hear if/when somebody builds it.
I'm currently running a hackintosh with a i7 6700k, 32GB DDR4 RAM, GTX 1080Ti, 4 SSD's. M.2 SSD's are not yet supported on hackintoshes as far as I know, I did not know this upon buying parts and ended up using it for a linux installation.
As for installing a i7 8700k: I'm certain that no kext's are out that support the chipset.
You're absolutely right that it's an 'on-paper' build. I did make sure to check each component, that they have been used successfully in other Hackintosh community builds, with High Sierra.
It's pretty easy these days, mainly thanks to Clover[1] getting so good at pretending to be a real Mac. Even to the point of doing major OS upgrades (e.g. 10.12 -> 10.13) using only the native installer.
That's always been the kicker unless things have improved, I had a hackintosh for a short period but it borked when it came time for 10.x.x update. I decided Hackintosh life wasn't for me.
Would you get the same development experience using a hackintosh or iHac? From my understanding these types of builds would only be suitable for home use.
[+] [-] dkuntz2|8 years ago|reply
Yes, the iMac Pro costs a lot of money. But if you buy the same components you're going to end up with a desktop that costs a similar amount of money, and doesn't officially run MacOS.
Of course not everyone needs the power of the iMac Pro, and most people lusting over it would probably be fine with the standard iMac. A better comparison would be with the standard iMac.
Configuring the 27" iMac with as similar specs as I can ends up being $3700. It's more expensive, the graphics card is nowhere near as good, and the CPU is a little faster, but only has 4 cores. CPU with similar speeds is -$200. It's still more expensive, but it comes much closer to the specs you chose to build the "iHac Pro" on, and uses a similar same grade of hardware.
You can also handwave away some of that price difference on the included keyboard and mouse, which your build doesn't include.
[+] [-] esthor|8 years ago|reply
Thank you for the comments!
I was originally trying to go for benchmark or spec comparison (which unfortunately there isn't much out yet for many of the iMac Pro components) without having to pick the same parts. Clearly I've missed some core components, and features and performance along with those for many workstation use cases.
I will definitely take your points in to the re-write of this article. I think you, and many of the others here have shown me a lot of what I missed in clarifying and in comparing. I really appreciate your passion and criticism!
Also, as far as the iMac (non-pro) goes, since that came out I've thought that has been a steal on pricing, especially for that screen (bought a 5k one last year).
[+] [-] atonse|8 years ago|reply
Why not do an apples to apples comparison?
This happens way too often with people who decide that Mac Pro hardware is overpriced.
[+] [-] rhinoceraptor|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] stirlo|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] TheDong|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rubatuga|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jjeaff|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] paddlepop|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mikestew|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jjeaff|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mtmail|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] d3v|8 years ago|reply
As for installing a i7 8700k: I'm certain that no kext's are out that support the chipset.
[+] [-] esthor|8 years ago|reply
You're absolutely right that it's an 'on-paper' build. I did make sure to check each component, that they have been used successfully in other Hackintosh community builds, with High Sierra.
[+] [-] KaoruAoiShiho|8 years ago|reply
Why not just include ECC and a Xeon? It'll make the comparison make sense.
[+] [-] TheDong|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] nvahalik|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] exidy|8 years ago|reply
[1] https://sourceforge.net/projects/cloverefiboot/
[+] [-] fuzzywalrus|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] vvdcect|8 years ago|reply