Replies

Call it $10,000 for a comparable PC workstation running MS Windows, or a fizz-bzzt-bang-pop Linux system with dubious driver support and reliability.

That's a false comparison. The BASE iMac Pro starts at $5k. The specs you're comparing it to is the fully loaded super-expensive one, whose price Apple hasn't mentioned yet. Do you seriously believe Apple would ever have a system that's cheaper than any other company at comparable specs? Have you ever seen one?

Here's a better list for you, going off the base specs from Apple's website:

* So, the base iMac Pro will have the Vega 56, and your full load guy has the Vega 64. The 56 is spec-wise in between the GeForce GTX 1070 and 1080, which cost $400 and $700. - $600
* G.SKILL Ripjaws V Series 32GB (2 x 16GB) 288-Pin DDR4 SDRAM DDR4 3200 (PC4 25600) Intel Z170 Platform Desktop Memory - $230
* SAMSUNG 850 EVO 2.5" 1TB SATA III 3-D Vertical Internal Solid State Drive (SSD) - $340
* Intel Core i7-5960X Haswell-E 8-Core 3.0 GHz LGA 2011-v3 140W Desktop Processor (Most expensive 8-core I could find, you can get some as low as $3-400) - $1080
* Sure, we'll stick with your motherboard - $1000
* Same with your monitor, though I don't understand why people would buy that much resolution in such a small screen, it's useless - $1500

And there ya go - we come up with half the cost you estimated, and that's with me picking the more expensive options in each quick search. Going price-concious, I'm sure you can bring the price down closer to $4k, maybe even lower.

Please re-read the entry to my comment:

Comparable "loaded" PC built from similar components:

This is a comparison of the top end components anticipating what similar top end fully action-packed components would be in a loaded iMac Pro. I'm sure that screamer pro specs will bring both PC and Apple systems around the $10k mark.

But thank you.

... and side note, I recollect the Late 2015 MacBook Pro Retina was integrated with OEM components surpassing PC notebook manufacturers' system component capabilities at a price ~$200 less than what Dell, Samsung, ASUS, HP, and Lenovo top end notebooks offered. That was a time where professional level dev and engineers bought the r-MacBook Pro to run MS Windows.

One more mention: You selected the 'Intel Core i7-5960X Haswell-E 8-Core 3.0 GHz'.

You should refactor for a Xeon, not an i7 Extreme. Though there's no selectable tech specs in the Apple Store for the iMac Pro models, there is an 8-core Xeon presently available that retails for $2900. Account for an Intel price drop on this CPU to split your i7 estimate against mine and we're looking at $2000, not $1080.

As for the AMD Vega Frontier price point, we'll have to wait until SIGGRAPH 2017 for the details. End of next month.

That's a false comparison. The BASE iMac Pro starts at $5k. The specs you're comparing it to is the fully loaded super-expensive one, whose price Apple hasn't mentioned yet.

No, Svartalfiar, he is trying to build a PC comparable to the HIGH END iMac Pro using PC components, not a low end iMac Pro. YOU are the one who is making the false comparison. Here's part of the reason why your component list is wrong:

RAM Memory: the iMac Pro uses ERROR CORRECTING RAM clocked to 2666MHz suitable for a workstation environment where production and accuracy is paramount. You selected mere off-the-shelf DESKTOP memory that is not error correcting, meaning it is missing components included in ECC RAM, which requires one more memory chip and different firmware. That's additional cost.
Processor: The iMac Pro uses the latest WORKSTATION CLASS processor, the Intel XEON. You, on the other hand have selected a FOUR YEAR OLD DESIGN intel Haswell i7 processor merely because it has 8 Cores and it's the most the expensive you could find (not a good criterion).

So, you are trying to build a DESKTOP computer, not a WORKSTATION. There is a huge difference in the quality of the machines. You demonstrate your ignorance in your statement about the monitors when you say: "I don't understand why people would buy that much resolution in such a small screen, it's useless" because the people who are going to be working on these workstations are going to be working on video and graphic in real-time, real resolutions. That means they NEED the pixels, not a mere representation provided by a smaller screen simulating the full image or video. They also need the full gamut of colors that the iMac can produce. . . but that cannot be produced by that $1500 monitor that The KG9 Kid's selected for his build.

Even so, your build comes to a total of $4750 before you add in case, power supply, keyboard, mouse, operating system, software suite, miscellaneous parts, labor, warranty, overhead, etc. What in hell have you proved?

You've proved that Apple can build and sell a $4995 WORKSTATION CLASS computer and make a profit for less than what it costs a dilettante amateur to build his own desktop class computer, which still doesn't have the same power or capabilities from off-the-shelf parts, even counting all the free labor the dilettante puts into building his machine. I've shown this time and time again to these home-brew PC builders.

“That’s a false comparison.”

You are giving a false comparison. The iMac Pro is using workstation level parts with Xeons, and ECC RAM. Systems incorporating those parts command a price premium (whether it should be as much as it is is a different question, but it is what it is).

If you look at comparable workstations from Dell, HP or other manufacturers you’ll find the pricing is similar, if not more expensive.

Apple’s build quality on “pro” machines has generally been excellent as well, FWIW.