[a / b / c / d / e / f / g / gif / h / hr / k / m / o / p / r / s / t / u / v / vg / vr / w / wg] [i / ic] [r9k / s4s / vip / qa] [cm / hm / lgbt / y] [3 / aco / adv / an / asp / bant / biz / cgl / ck / co / diy / fa / fit / gd / hc / his / int / jp / lit / mlp / mu / n / news / out / po / pol / qst / sci / soc / sp / tg / toy / trv / tv / vp / wsg / wsr / x] [Settings] [Home]
Settings Home
/3/ - 3DCG

Thread archived.
You cannot reply anymore.

So /g/ is having a breakdown saying this is overpriced?

However, I think it’s pretty goid specially since ive been rendering on an ancient imac from 2010 with 12gb ram, surely this will be an awesome machine to do renders and stuff in thats what its built for
It's a great machine, but for the price you could build a much more powerful threadripper pc/ have one built for you.
It's fukken overpriced as fuck
Not sure about this exact computer but macs in general have very poor graphic cards and no CUDA support
Ive heard bad things with thermal throttling but that could just be shilling
1. Using OS X for 3D content creation is generally a mistake, as you'll only have access to a subset of the programs you have on Wangblows, and the OS X versions are usually an afterthought in stability/bugs.
2. No CUDA basically means get fucked with many RT rendering engines. Metal is a thing, but not in the world of 3D, where Apple doesn't have much presence.
3. You can be certain the hardware is undervolted to hell if the whole system has a 500w threshold, while featuring a big Xeon and fucking housefires Vega 64 that can easily use 300w alone.
4. Mac Pro is promised to make a comeback in 2018 as a more traditional and modular system, so if you desperately want to suck Apple's cock, you should wait.
1. Bullshit, the only significant piece of 3D software not available under macOS is 3DS Max...
Maya? Check
Zbrush? Check
VRay? Check
Substance Painter/Designer? Check
3D Coat? Check
Unreal? Check
Keyshot? Check
Modo? Mari? Vue? Marmoset? Fusion 360?
You get the idea...
But here's where this whole debate becomes a complete fucking non-issue:
I've been running W10 on my iMac for 2 years and it's literally perfect. As for mac versions being underdeveloped? UTTER bullshit:
i)Substance Painter runs a thousand times better on a Mac system than on a comparable Windows system in three separate instances of my own testing,
ii) Remember how long it took for UHD support to reach the Max interface? Not until 2017 version right, and was still buggy as fuck? Well - Maya supported UHD interfaces years before that and it was perfect. Now... I wonder why that is? Oh wait no I don't it's because Maya is available for macOS and every machine in the apple lineup has shipped with a UHD display since 2014. So - if you're a Maya user on Windows and you have a 4k display, you actually have Apple and it's customers to thank for the HD interface, otherwise you would've been left to go fuck yerself like Max users.
2. Bullshit, again. I'm yet to run into an RT engine my machine can't run.
3. We'll have to see when the more in-depth reviews are done. Same for ventilation. But thus far the geekbench scores are solid. This is total wait-and-see stuff.
4. Whatever. I just bought an HP Z6. I don't give a fuck about brands or loyalty like the fanboys and more importantly like the douchebag kids that go red in the face every time someone brings up Apple.
In the US it's not overpriced. You can't spec out a PC system for less than this when you include a 5k display. For $5k It's actually very good value for money... but ONLY if you're in the US...
If you're in the UK? Ehh..... no. It's £5k. Which roughly comes out at $6675. When you look at it like that, yes - you can beat this build for that price, and right now in the UK, HP is offering massively discounted workstation builds that undercut the Apple machine quite significantly.

BUT... if you're a student you get 10% off that Mac, so again - that brings it down to £4500... So, y'know.... swings and roundabouts...

Like I say, I don't give a fuck either way. If you think Macs are useless, you're wrong and furthermore you've probably never used one, and a lot of nerds just get mad about them because they are 'cool' and uncool people hate 'cool' things regardless of whether or not they're any good. Maybe that's you, maybe not - I don't care.
If you think Macs are perfect well, you're wrong again because yeah you can't upgrade it and blah blah you know the deal.

Whatever, who cares. People that get angry about the consoles, phones, and computers that other people chose to buy are literally the stupidest, pettiest, gayest little virgins on the planet.
>4. Whatever. I just bought an HP Z6...
Good thing I caught this before bothering to read your post from the top and waste my time.
I mean, with the absurd amount of cores and memory, along with the very fast storage space, it's clearly built like a multipurpose GPU/CPU rendering rack. Having enough beef to be able to use the computer while doing the rendering is a plus given really nice screen Mac's tend to have. Not many of these things will be built, it is a product for an audience that knows exactly what it wants, and money really is no object for that audience.

It is a very nice PC. Very overkill, built to specialize in just a couple of things. I can't even find this weird-ass Xeon on pcpartspicker to do a price check but it's probably not that off-mark from what the price would be if you factor in labor and such. Apple *does* tend to put a pretty ridiculous markup in their stuff though, that is absolutely true.
Go to the UK store, check out the price I paid for a base model Z6 with a 10c Xeon, 8gb Nvidia GPU and 48gb ram as well as a bunch of other options and then reduce that by a further 20% and then shut your fucking face.
A 16-core Threadripper system at stock clock speeds (3.4GHz) will outperform this thing and cost less.
>Buying a mac for 3D work
>Buying anything with an AMD card for 3D work

Won't matter if you're an Apple fan I guess. People will buy this just like they bought the trashcan mac pro.
>People will buy this just like they bought the trashcan mac pro.

They didn't though.
t. macfag
Sorry, but I had to find out what I can build for 10000 Euros. I used a 7700K for now because there don't seem to be big MBs around for the new i7. The list is ofc subjective/tailored to my needs. This build is made with GPU-rendering and working-performance in mind (Modo + Octane). The GPUs and monitors don't support HDR though.

Mainboard 340€: Asus Z270-WS;
CPU 440€: i7-7700k OC 5GHZ;
Ram 840€: G.SkillDIMM 64GB DDR4-2666;
GPU x4 2800€: Zotac GeForce GTX 1080 Ti Blower (44GB V-RAM!!!!);
PSU 450€: Corsair AX1500i 1500 Watt;
Cooling Water/Air 275€; Case 125€;
SSD (OS, Programs and Content) 440€: 1x 1TB SATA SSD Samsung 850 Pro;
SSD (Project/WIP Files) 300€: 1x 512GB M2 SSD Samsung Pro 960;
SSD (Temp/Cache/Scratchdisk) 90€: 1x Samsung Evo 250GB;
HDD (Archive) 180€: 1x 6TB WD Blue 6;
BR-Drive and Card Reader ~100€;
Mouse and Digitizer-Tablet 100€ + 330€: Roccat Nyth and Wacom Intuos 5 Medium;
Keyboard 50€: Cherry G84-4100;
Keypad 95€: Koolertron 44(Type C)(Cherry-Switches);
Monitors 2500€: EIZO FlexScan EV3237 4K x2 or 1x EV3237 4K + 2x EV2736 2.5K or 4x EV2736 2.5K Madness
Monitor Arms: Ergotron Arm x2/x3 300€/450€
Max. Cost: 9960€
macs are meme machines designed for rich people who think PCs are too lame, iOS is just shite mate

build a PC, thank me in 5 years
>rendering on an ancient imac
macs are trash tier computers for rendering 3d.
they're only useful for editing after the render.
that's the real reason it's overpriced.
File: 1468741529100.jpg (54 KB, 575x583)
54 KB
TROLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL IS THIS FUCKING REAL????? I (partially) thought it was a joke that Apple makes these fucking bad products that cost a ridiculous amount of money just because of that Apple logo. But this takes the fucking piss!!

>Pic related
People who buy Apple shit. Literally, if you buy that, you're LITERALLY a drooling retard. That triggered the shit out of me holy nigger cunt.
>when you include a 5k display
Don't include a 5K display then.

This justification of trying to make it seem a good deal by speccing PC builds out and focusing on shit like Thunderbolt, 5K display when if you spent 5K on a PC you'd be more focused on having 3 watercooled GPUs
This is retarded since its a 5k all in one
What's even the point of 5k or even 4k?

I get HD because resolutions lower than that clearly look a lot worse. But I've never looked at HD and thought 'man, I wish this would look sharper'
Its essentially so you can edit 4k video and still have space for toolbars.

Everyone in this thread please note apple also uses 8bit 5k displays and pretty much every consumer 5k screen on the market uses 10bit.
No it's a 10bit display.

I keep hearing people screaming and crying that this machine is overpriced but I'm yet to see someone come up with a build that beats it. People also screaming about the fact that it comes with a 5k display that 'you don't need' seem to be missing the point that regardless of whether they need it - it comes with it, and its included in the price, so stfu.

I just don't get why Russians and foreveralones get so angry about products that are not for them. I'm not gonna buy this machine but I can look at it and see what it would be useful for, and for that purpose it's actually a good deal. Getting butthurt about it is not a good look.
Can't run octane on that shit, so it's shit.
That Xeon isn't even listed on something like pcpartspicker, so it's hard to get a bead on the actual price, but chances are, it is a little on the up side.

The more pressing concern is that... it's just a bizarre Mac. The aircooled Vega 64, a card that is known for gobbling lots of power and getting very hot, is a very bad match for a brand of PC that is known to thermal throttle at the slightest hint of any sort of workload that puts stress on the internal components. The Xeon is probably fine, but it was probably picked because, again, heat is a bit of a concern and Threadripper would melt a hole on this thing, while the Xeons reach very comfortable-yet-underwhelming base clocks of 2.3GHz.

Why 128 gigs of ECC memory...? It's not as if you need the extra cost to use something like Mari or Houdini. Have we really gotten to the point where professionals are considering Macs for heavy-duty rendering, thus somehow justifying the added cost of ECC?

In terms of you buying smart and getting a very comparable bang for your buck, yes, this PC is overpriced, you could scrounge up something that destroys it in the value to dollar argument. Of course that's not the only argument, but it does also feel like Apple is adding in overpriced, unneeded components onto this, partly to justify the cost of paying for a shiny new Mac, and to hide the inherent design flaws in the thermal solution these things invariably end up having. But that's just what I think.
To me it's a just plain thermals issue. Are people really going to depend on something less than a decent mid-range tower cooler for 24/7 load operation? I wouldn't. Even the GPU, if were an efficient architecture, I'd still go for a 2.5-slot or extra-length card just so there'd be the maximum amount of heatsinks on it. And then there's the question of power delivery, you better believe that it'll be well over 50% load at all times.

The fact is that even if you were getting decent hardware packed in there, it's not going to perform as well as it should, because it's in a case that's maybe 50% thicker than your average laptop at best, which is still shit since laptops are usually undervolted as all hell. I really don't think the "pros" would have minded if their iMacs were significantly thicker to accommodate for massive coolers and equipped at least 850w of power to stay at safe load levels.
Apple is an industry standard. you basically won't be hired if your portfolio doesn't say made in mac (tm).

So we start out all

>>That Xeon isn't even listed on something like pcpartspicker, so it's hard to get a bead on the actual price,

But then we're all:
>> but chances are, it is a little on the up side.

And by the time we get to the end it's all:

>>in terms of you buying smart and getting a very comparable bang for your buck, yes, this PC is overpriced.

So, to recap we went from;
1. Don't know how much it's worth
2. Probably a little overpriced at a guess
3. Yeah no it definitely overpriced fo sho.

Still no comparative build offered.
One GPU ......

Threadripper boosts to 3.9-4.0GHz so it will perform worse than the Xeon, but the Xeon also very likely costs a whole lot more. For two extra physical cores, it's just not worth it in my view.

Couldn't find a 5k monitor in there with a price, but I don't deem that necessary when most homes don't even own 4k TV's, so your latte-slurping indie movie producer is unable to take advantage of the 5k display to render stuff in that resolution. For casual browsing I bet it's very nice though.

The Vega 64 is listed for 100 bucks more (feel free to add that value in), but the 1080ti won't thermal throttle under load. The Vega 64 does have some janky productivity-related features in there, but I think the 1080ti is just a more competent card overall in case you want to flex it for games.

I mean, this argument is just so stupid... I even picked a nice water block, got a case with a few fans in there, you can upgrade the power supply to 1200w for cheap if that's a concern... and even then you'll be far below the 8000 dollar line.

I'm not trying to antagonize you, this is just something Apple does. They could very easily just release a Mac tower that's properly cooled, has down-to-earth components, a reasonable price, and it would be just as cheap as this thing. But they insist on capitalizing on their dumb industrial design, that "Apple" look, and this is the result.

Delete Post: [File Only] Style:
[Disable Mobile View / Use Desktop Site]

[Enable Mobile View / Use Mobile Site]

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.