#Photo editing software for mac 2017 pro

#Photo editing software for mac 2017 pro

For tasks that can't use multiple GPUs, a new Mac Pro will perform the same as the iMac Pro. This will be up to twice the speed of the iMac Pro and the price would be higher than the iMac Pro for that spec. Another iteration of the Mac Pro would need to have a 1kW power supply to be worthwhile, which means at most 2x CPUs and 2x GPUs. The cylinder and iMac Pro are both ~500W. The old Mac Pro had a 1kW power limit (the GPUs were restricted to 300W total, 2xCPUs would have been about 300W so 600W in parts). When Apple made the iMac Pro, they put faster components than what was in the 2013 Mac Pro behind the display.

When Apple made the cylinder, they put faster components than what was in the 2012 Mac Pro into 1/10th the volume. 500W is 500W no matter what form factor it is put into.

But there you are selecting a few from an already limited population.Ī Mac Pro with modern components would perform exactly the same if it was designed to a 500W thermal limit. Yes, there are those who need enormous amounts of power while also demanding a clean, uncluttered workspace. A Mac-Pro using modern components would blow an iMac right out of the water - and plus it would be more readily upgradeable. The appeal of the Mac-Pro is shear power.įor the power user, the only reason the iMac-Pro can compete with the Mac-Pro is because the Mac-Pro is a 4 year old machine. The main appeal of the iMac form factor is for those who want a clean uncluttered workspace - and the all-in-one does that. I try to understand the justification for a $5K+ iMac - but I just can't.