Breve Análise do Apple iMac Pro (Xeon W-2140B, Radeon Pro Vega 56)
| SD Card Reader | |
| average JPG Copy Test (av. of 3 runs) | |
| Dell Precision 5520 UHD (Toshiba Exceria Pro SDXC 64 GB UHS-II) | |
| Lenovo ThinkPad P71-20HK0004GE | |
| Apple iMac Pro (Toshiba Exceria Pro SDXC 64 GB UHS-II) | |
| maximum AS SSD Seq Read Test (1GB) | |
| Dell Precision 5520 UHD (Toshiba Exceria Pro SDXC 64 GB UHS-II) | |
| Lenovo ThinkPad P71-20HK0004GE | |
| Apple iMac Pro (Toshiba Exceria Pro SDXC 64 GB UHS-II) | |
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||
iluminação: 87 %
Contraste: 919:1 (Preto: 0.54 cd/m²)
ΔE Color 3 | 0.5-29.43 Ø4.92, calibrated: 0.9
ΔE Greyscale 2.5 | 0.5-98 Ø5.2
100% sRGB (Argyll 1.6.3 3D)
79.4% AdobeRGB 1998 (Argyll 1.6.3 3D)
88.8% AdobeRGB 1998 (Argyll 2.2.0 3D)
100% sRGB (Argyll 2.2.0 3D)
99% Display P3 (Argyll 2.2.0 3D)
Gamma: 2.22
| Apple iMac Pro APPAE1E, , 5120x2880, 27" | Apple iMac Retina 5K 27 Late 2015 3.2 GHz M390 MK472D/A 5120x2880, 27" | Apple MacBook Pro 15 2017 (2.8 GHz, 555) APPA031, , 2880x1800, 15.4" | Lenovo ThinkPad P71-20HK0004GE LEN4123, VVX17P051J00, , 3840x2160, 17.3" | Dell Precision 5520 UHD SHP1476, , 3840x2160, 15.6" | Dell Precision 7720 SHP1446 (LQ173D1), , 3840x2160, 17.3" | HP ZBook 17 G4-Y3J82AV Sharp SHP144C, , 3840x2160, 17.3" | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Display | -0% | -1% | -18% | 0% | 0% | ||
| Display P3 Coverage | 99 | 99.3 0% | 97.9 -1% | 67.4 -32% | 87.6 -12% | 88 -11% | |
| sRGB Coverage | 100 | 100 0% | 99.9 0% | 98.5 -1% | 100 0% | 100 0% | |
| AdobeRGB 1998 Coverage | 88.8 | 88.2 -1% | 85.9 -3% | 68.9 -22% | 99.2 12% | 99.6 12% | |
| Response Times | -6% | 18964% | 175% | -108% | 49% | 66% | |
| Response Time Grey 50% / Grey 80% * | 30.4 ? | 30.4 ? -0% | 48 ? -58% | 39.2 ? -29% | 59.2 ? -95% | 60 ? -97% | 56.8 ? -87% |
| Response Time Black / White * | 18.8 ? | 20.8 ? -11% | 33.8 ? -80% | 23.2 ? -23% | 41.6 ? -121% | 46.4 ? -147% | 38.4 ? -104% |
| PWM Frequency | 208.3 ? | 119000 ? 57029% | 1412 ? 578% | 1020 ? 390% | 1020 ? 390% | ||
| Screen | -1% | 23% | 9% | -10% | -5% | 17% | |
| Brightness middle | 496 | 429 -14% | 545 10% | 358 -28% | 372.4 -25% | 464 -6% | 391 -21% |
| Brightness | 468 | 424 -9% | 523 12% | 338 -28% | 368 -21% | 441 -6% | 360 -23% |
| Brightness Distribution | 87 | 95 9% | 86 -1% | 83 -5% | 90 3% | 89 2% | 87 0% |
| Black Level * | 0.54 | 0.58 -7% | 0.44 19% | 0.31 43% | 0.48 11% | 0.45 17% | 0.35 35% |
| Contrast | 919 | 740 -19% | 1239 35% | 1155 26% | 776 -16% | 1031 12% | 1117 22% |
| Colorchecker dE 2000 * | 3 | 2.8 7% | 1.6 47% | 2.1 30% | 2.6 13% | 3.2 -7% | 1.3 57% |
| Colorchecker dE 2000 max. * | 5.8 | 3.8 34% | 3.6 38% | 5.6 3% | 6.1 -5% | 2.5 57% | |
| Colorchecker dE 2000 calibrated * | 0.9 | ||||||
| Greyscale dE 2000 * | 2.5 | 1.97 21% | 1.9 24% | 2 20% | 3.7 -48% | 4.2 -68% | 1.8 28% |
| Gamma | 2.22 99% | 2.13 103% | 2.26 97% | 2.16 102% | 2.14 103% | 2.01 109% | 2.11 104% |
| CCT | 6824 95% | 6889 94% | 6834 95% | 6216 105% | 7096 92% | 6736 96% | 6461 101% |
| Color Space (Percent of AdobeRGB 1998) | 79.4 | 79 -1% | 77 -3% | 63 -21% | 88.1 11% | 87.9 11% | |
| Color Space (Percent of sRGB) | 100 | 99.97 0% | 99.97 0% | 99 -1% | 100 0% | 100 0% | |
| Total Average (Program / Settings) | -2% /
-2% | 6329% /
4076% | 92% /
48% | -45% /
-25% | 15% /
6% | 28% /
23% |
* ... smaller is better
Display Response Times
| ↔ Response Time Black to White | ||
|---|---|---|
| 18.8 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined | ↗ 11.2 ms rise |  |
| ↘ 7.6 ms fall | ||
| The screen shows good response rates in our tests, but may be too slow for competitive gamers. In comparison, all tested devices range from 0.1 (minimum) to 240 (maximum) ms. » 38 % of all devices are better. This means that the measured response time is better than the average of all tested devices (21 ms). | ||
| ↔ Response Time 50% Grey to 80% Grey | ||
| 30.4 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined | ↗ 14 ms rise |  |
| ↘ 16.4 ms fall | ||
| The screen shows slow response rates in our tests and will be unsatisfactory for gamers. In comparison, all tested devices range from 0.165 (minimum) to 636 (maximum) ms. » 37 % of all devices are better. This means that the measured response time is similar to the average of all tested devices (32.9 ms). | ||
Screen Flickering / PWM (Pulse-Width Modulation)
| Screen flickering / PWM detected | 208.3 Hz | ≤ 50 % brightness setting |  |
The display backlight flickers at 208.3 Hz (worst case, e.g., utilizing PWM) Flickering detected at a brightness setting of 50 % and below. There should be no flickering or PWM above this brightness setting. The frequency of 208.3 Hz is relatively low, so sensitive users will likely notice flickering and experience eyestrain at the stated brightness setting and below. In comparison: 53 % of all tested devices do not use PWM to dim the display. If PWM was detected, an average of 8743 (minimum: 5 - maximum: 343500) Hz was measured. | |||
| PCMark 8 Home Score Accelerated v2 | 4327 pontos | |
| PCMark 8 Creative Score Accelerated v2 | 7689 pontos | |
| PCMark 8 Work Score Accelerated v2 | 4614 pontos | |
| PCMark 10 Score | 6050 pontos | |
Ajuda | ||
| SiSoft Sandra 2016 | |
| Image Processing | |
| Apple iMac Pro | |
| Dell Precision 7720 | |
| HP ZBook 17 G4-Y3J82AV | |
| Lenovo ThinkPad P71-20HK0004GE | |
| GP Cryptography (Higher Security AES256+SHA2-512) | |
| Apple iMac Pro | |
| HP ZBook 17 G4-Y3J82AV | |
| Dell Precision 7720 | |
| Lenovo ThinkPad P71-20HK0004GE | |
| GP Financial Analysis (FP High/Double Precision) | |
| Dell Precision 7720 | |
| HP ZBook 17 G4-Y3J82AV | |
| Apple iMac Pro | |
| Lenovo ThinkPad P71-20HK0004GE | |
| 3DMark 06 Standard Score | 35787 pontos | |
| 3DMark 11 Performance | 20785 pontos | |
| 3DMark Fire Strike Score | 15302 pontos | |
| 3DMark Time Spy Score | 5831 pontos | |
Ajuda | ||
| baixo | média | alto | ultra | 4K | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| The Witcher 3 (2015) | 115.7 | 63.9 | 41.6 | ||
| Dota 2 Reborn (2015) | 112 | 107.4 | 102.3 | 95.8 | |
| Rainbow Six Siege (2015) | 198.7 | 135.7 | 70.2 | ||
| Rise of the Tomb Raider (2016) | 94 | 74.8 | 39.3 | ||
| For Honor (2017) | 142.6 | 134.9 | 105.6 | 43.6 | |
| Ghost Recon Wildlands (2017) | 81.7 | 76 | 45.1 | 34.7 | |
| Assassin´s Creed Origins (2017) | 70 | 65 | 57 | 33 |
Barulho
| Ocioso |
| 29.8 / 29.8 / 29.8 dB |
| Carga |
| 39.7 / 47.9 dB |
 | ||
30 dB silencioso 40 dB(A) audível 50 dB(A) ruidosamente alto |
||
min:  , med:  , max:  Audix TM1, Arta (15 cm de distância) environment noise: 29.1 dB(A) | ||
(+) The maximum temperature on the upper side is 31.2 °C / 88 F, compared to the average of 34.4 °C / 94 F, ranging from 25 to 47 °C for the class Desktop.
(-) The bottom heats up to a maximum of 46.1 °C / 115 F, compared to the average of 34 °C / 93 F
(+) In idle usage, the average temperature for the upper side is 24.2 °C / 76 F, compared to the device average of 29.7 °C / 85 F.
Apple iMac Pro audio analysis
(+) | speakers can play relatively loud (86.1 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(+) | good bass - only 3.5% away from median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (7.6% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(+) | balanced mids - only 1.7% away from median
(+) | mids are linear (4.1% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(±) | reduced highs - on average 8.2% lower than median
(+) | highs are linear (4.8% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(+) | overall sound is linear (9.2% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 25% of all tested devices in this class were better, 13% similar, 63% worse
» The best had a delta of 6%, average was 17%, worst was 46%
Compared to all devices tested
» 3% of all tested devices were better, 1% similar, 97% worse
» The best had a delta of 4%, average was 25%, worst was 134%
Apple MacBook 12 (Early 2016) 1.1 GHz audio analysis
(+) | speakers can play relatively loud (83.6 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(±) | reduced bass - on average 11.3% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (14.2% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(+) | balanced mids - only 2.4% away from median
(+) | mids are linear (5.5% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(+) | balanced highs - only 2% away from median
(+) | highs are linear (4.5% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(+) | overall sound is linear (10.2% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 6% of all tested devices in this class were better, 2% similar, 92% worse
» The best had a delta of 5%, average was 19%, worst was 53%
Compared to all devices tested
» 4% of all tested devices were better, 1% similar, 95% worse
» The best had a delta of 4%, average was 25%, worst was 134%
| desligado | 0.08 / 5.7 Watt |
| Ocioso | 49.5 / 86.7 / 88.9 Watt |
| Carga |
150.1 / 508.5 Watt |
   
| |
Key:
min: ,
med: ,
max: Metrahit Energy | |
Pro
Contra
Você realmente precisa de um iMac Pro ou é suficiente um iMac regular? Bem, se você tem essa pergunta, você provavelmente não precisa da versão Pro, porque os componentes profissionais são para um grupo de usuários especial. Os núcleos adicionais dos processadores Xeon devem ser utilizados, caso contrário não é mais rápido. Ocorre o mesmo com as placas gráficas. Se for esse o caso, você pode optar pelo iMac 5K regular, que é muito mais acessível e oferece a mesma tela.
Mas o iMac Pro não é um workstation realmente convincente. Sim, o desempenho é muito bom, mas a solução de resfriamento já tem problemas com os componentes de nível de entrada sob carga máxima. A tela poderia ser melhor calibrada na fábrica e você precisará de uma tela externa para trabalhos gráficos no espaço de cores AdobeRGB. Outras desvantagens para um sistema profissional incluem as opções de serviço limitado, complicado e limitado. Se você confiar em um sistema para o trabalho, provavelmente comprará serviços adicionais, como reparos no local. Outros fabricantes como a Dell, HP e Lenovo claramente têm uma vantagem a esse respeito.
O preço de nível de entrada é alto, mas certamente não é completamente caro considerando os componentes. O processador Intel Xeon, por si só, custa mais de $1.100, mas não conseguimos entender os preços massivos de RAM e armazenamento adicionais. O iMac Pro definitivamente tem um certo apelo e se desempenha bem, mas não é a escolha certa para todos os usuários profissionais.
Apple iMac Pro
- 06/27/2018 v6 (old)
Andreas Osthoff
Price comparison
