Affiliate Disclosure
If you buy through our links, we may get a commission. Read our ethics policy.

Video: Apple's iMac Pro vs 2013 Mac Pro (Part 2) - photo editing comparison

Last updated

In the second part of our series, we put Apple's $5,000 iMac Pro to the test against one of the most popular configurations of the Mac Pro to see how much of a performance difference you can expect when editing photos. We'll also explore the upgradability of both systems.

In our last video, we looked at a variety of benchmarks and talked about specs. If you missed it you can watch part 1 here. In this video, we'll be comparing the two Macs in a photo editing environment using Adobe Photoshop and Lightroom. Plus, we'll also talk about upgradability.

Testing Adobe's Lightroom Classic, we imported 50 42-megapixel RAW images. On lower end machines, like our 13-inch MacBook Pro, these high-resolution RAW images can really be a drag. Both the Mac Pro and the iMac Pro handled them in a reasonable amount of time. With that said, the iMac Pro was nearly 60% faster.

iMac Pro Lightroom photo import benchmark

Next, we exported the 50 images to JPEG with standard sharpening for displays. The iMac Pro was about 35 percent faster.

Apple iMac Pro photo export benchmarks

We then tested converting the 50 42-megapixel RAW images to DNG files. In that scenario, the iMac Pro was about 15 percent faster, taking 58 seconds to complete the task.

Apple iMac Pro and Mac Pro Export to DNG benchmarks

To finish off the test, we generated 1:1 previews for all 50 images. The iMac Pro finished in 57 seconds, just over 35 percent faster than the Late 2013 Mac Pro.

Apple iMac Pro and Mac Pro Adobe Lightroom Preview benchmarks

During standard photo editing, the iMac Pro did seem a bit snappier, especially when zooming in on a high resolution image, or applying noise reduction. With that said, its not a big difference, and the iMac Pro still has a short amount of UI lag that Lightroom is known for.

We ran multiple tests in the latest release of Photoshop, with the most difficult being a nine-shot 42-megapixel RAW bracketed sequence for HDR.

Apple iMac Pro Mac Pro open photos benchmark

While the iMac Pro did open the high resolution images almost 60% quicker, our cylindrical Mac Pro created the HDR image 38 seconds faster. If you're constantly merging a lot of high megapixel RAW images, this difference could be worth staying with your Mac Pro, or choosing a higher end iMac Pro, like a 10-core model.

Apple iMac Pro and Mac Pro HDR benchmarks

We also ran a series of less demanding filters and corrections and there was practically no real world difference.

When applying noise reduction to a 42-megapixel RAW file shot at 12,800 ISO, meaning it had a ton of noise, the iMac Pro came in almost 60% faster.

Apple iMac Pro and Mac Pro photo noise reduction benchmark

If you don't edit a lot of images, these speed improvements may not mean a lot to you, but if you're working with very high resolution RAW images, like the new 100MP Phase One, or if you're a photographer that processes thousands of RAW files, the speed improvements are gladly accepted.

Now onto upgradability. The iMac Pro features a fully sealed design, meaning you can't access the memory slots or anything else. With that said, the only major component that isn't upgradable is the graphics card, which is mated to the motherboard.

On the other hand, the Mac Pro does have graphics cards that are socketed, so in theory they could have been upgradeable, but since Apple never released upgrade options, it's a moot point.

Apple 2013 Mac Pro desktop computer

For other upgrades, the Mac Pro's metal casing comes off quite easily by first using the switch to unlock it and then simply lifting it off. This reveals the RAM slots and SSDs, which can easily be upgraded. The CPU is also socketed, but swapping it out requires a whole teardown of the machine, thus voiding the warranty.

The same is true for the iMac Pro — users can upgrade the processor, RAM and SSDs, but you'll need to separate the glued display from the chassis. This will void your warranty if you do it yourself. You can also take the iMac Pro to an Apple Store or a certified service center to have it taken apart, but upgrades offered by Apple are limited to RAM only.

Apple iMac Pro all in one desktop computer

For more info on the iMac Pro, please see our comprehensive review. And be sure to subscribe to our YouTube channel for the third and fourth installments in this series.

Where to buy

If you're ready to pick up your own iMac Pro, Apple authorized resellers are knocking up to $250 off the desktops. Details can be found in our 27-inch iMac Pro Price Guide.



28 Comments

jameskatt2 722 comments · 16 Years

The problem I have with this comparison is that this the iMac Pro chosen would NOT be what is chosen by a real professional.
Here is a real professional review:

www.fcp.co/final-cut-pro/articles/2029-new-imac-pro

The comparison Macs are:

2013 Mac Pro 
- 8 core, 3.0GHz Intel Xeon E5 CPU with 3.9GHz turbo boost.
- 32 GB RAM
- Dual AMD FirePro D700 GPUs with 6 GB of 1866MHz GDDR5 VRAM each. 
- 1 TB system drive
- 27” Apple 2560x1440 max, Thunderbolt Display. 
- Cost = $9,626.78 in 2013

2017 iMac Pro
- 10 core, 3.0GHz Intel Xeon W CPU with 4.5GHz turbo boost.
- 64 GB of 2666MHz RAM
- Radeon Pro Vega 64 GPU with 16 GB HBM2 VRAM. 
- 2 TB SSD system drive
- built-in 27” 5120x2880 max, 5K monitor.
- Magic Keyboard and Magic Trackpad
- Cost = $9,050.89 in 2017

All media and Libraries are on a Promise Pegasus 16 TB RAID 5, with Thunderbolt 2 connections. All of the tests were run strictly off of the RAID for a real world performance test. Professionals don't store video on the Mac. They store the files on an external RAID.

Both Macs are running macOS 10.13.2 High Sierra with the current versions of FCPX 10.4.0, Motion 5.4.0 and Compressor 4.4.0.

-------------------------

You can read the numbers on the website's review. But I converted them to how much faster the iMac Pro is compared to the Mac Pro 2013.

USING FINAL CUT PRO X 10.4.0:

IMPORT CLIPS: 1.046x faster
COVERT CLIPS TO PROXY MEDIA: 2.09x faster
COVERT CLIPS TO OPTIMIZED MEDIA: 3.65x faster
RENDER TIMELINE OF CLIPS: 4.44x faster
MULTICAM PLAYBACK AND RENDER: 4.42x faster
FILE EXPORT TO H.264: 6.7x faster
FILE EXPORT TO MXF BROADCAST FILE: 5.69x faster
BRUCEX XML TEST: 1.39x faster
REAL WORLD TV SHOW EXPORT TO H.264: 2.14x faster

-------------------------

USING COMPRESSOR 4.4.0:
REAL WORLD TV SHOW IMPORT PRORES 422 AND EXPORT TO MXF PLUS H.264: 3.069x faster

-------------------------

The iMac Pro 2017 simply smokes the Mac Pro 2013 when doing real world video work.

Exporting files - which can take longer than editing the files - is 2 to 3 times faster on the iMac Pro than the Mac Pro 2013. 

This is a huge savings in time for real Video Professionals.

The iMac Pro easily pays for itself. For real Video Professionals, the iMac Pro essentially is a free computer because of the time and money it saves the pro.


PickUrPoison 302 comments · 7 Years

I don’t know how it works in other countries, but in the US, the warranty is not voided by opening up your computer. If you want to upgrade the memory, it can be done by Apple, an authorized service center, your local Mom and Pop shop, or even do it yourself if you have the ability.

Of course if you break something in the process, you're going to have to pay to repair any damage yourself. Personally, I’d rather have Apple do it, but the choice is yours, at least in the US. 

GeorgeBMac 11421 comments · 8 Years

I try to understand the justification for a $5K+ iMac -- but I just can't.

The main appeal of the iMac form factor is for those who want a clean uncluttered workspace -- and the all-in-one does that.  
The appeal of the Mac-Pro is shear power.

For 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.   A Mac-Pro using modern components would blow an iMac right out of the water -- and plus it would be more readily upgradeable.

Yes, there are those who need enormous amounts of power while also demanding a clean, uncluttered workspace.  But there you are selecting a few from an already limited population....

MacPro 19845 comments · 18 Years

The problem I have with this comparison is that this the iMac Pro chosen would NOT be what is chosen by a real professional.

Here is a real professional review:

www.fcp.co/final-cut-pro/articles/2029-new-imac-pro

The comparison Macs are:

2013 Mac Pro 
- 8 core, 3.0GHz Intel Xeon E5 CPU with 3.9GHz turbo boost.
- 32 GB RAM
- Dual AMD FirePro D700 GPUs with 6 GB of 1866MHz GDDR5 VRAM each. 
- 1 TB system drive
- 27” Apple 2560x1440 max, Thunderbolt Display. 
- Cost = $9,626.78 in 2013

2017 iMac Pro
- 10 core, 3.0GHz Intel Xeon W CPU with 4.5GHz turbo boost.
- 64 GB of 2666MHz RAM
- Radeon Pro Vega 64 GPU with 16 GB HBM2 VRAM. 
- 2 TB SSD system drive
- built-in 27” 5120x2880 max, 5K monitor.
- Magic Keyboard and Magic Trackpad
- Cost = $9,050.89 in 2017

All media and Libraries are on a Promise Pegasus 16 TB RAID 5, with Thunderbolt 2 connections. All of the tests were run strictly off of the RAID for a real world performance test. Professionals don't store video on the Mac. They store the files on an external RAID.

Both Macs are running macOS 10.13.2 High Sierra with the current versions of FCPX 10.4.0, Motion 5.4.0 and Compressor 4.4.0.

-------------------------

You can read the numbers on the website's review. But I converted them to how much faster the iMac Pro is compared to the Mac Pro 2013.

USING FINAL CUT PRO X 10.4.0:

IMPORT CLIPS: 1.046x faster
COVERT CLIPS TO PROXY MEDIA: 2.09x faster
COVERT CLIPS TO OPTIMIZED MEDIA: 3.65x faster
RENDER TIMELINE OF CLIPS: 4.44x faster
MULTICAM PLAYBACK AND RENDER: 4.42x faster
FILE EXPORT TO H.264: 6.7x faster
FILE EXPORT TO MXF BROADCAST FILE: 5.69x faster
BRUCEX XML TEST: 1.39x faster
REAL WORLD TV SHOW EXPORT TO H.264: 2.14x faster

-------------------------

USING COMPRESSOR 4.4.0:
REAL WORLD TV SHOW IMPORT PRORES 422 AND EXPORT TO MXF PLUS H.264: 3.069x faster

-------------------------

The iMac Pro 2017 simply smokes the Mac Pro 2013 when doing real world video work.

Exporting files - which can take longer than editing the files - is 2 to 3 times faster on the iMac Pro than the Mac Pro 2013. 

This is a huge savings in time for real Video Professionals.

The iMac Pro easily pays for itself. For real Video Professionals, the iMac Pro essentially is a free computer because of the time and money it saves the pro.


No argument from me but I have to wonder what the next generation Mac Pro Apple has promised is coming (2018?) has in store for us because it would only make sense if it smokes the iMac Pro and has easy component upgrade ability.  I am waiting to see. 

Marvin 15354 comments · 18 Years

I try to understand the justification for a $5K+ iMac -- but I just can't.

The main appeal of the iMac form factor is for those who want a clean uncluttered workspace -- and the all-in-one does that.  
The appeal of the Mac-Pro is shear power.

For 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.   A Mac-Pro using modern components would blow an iMac right out of the water -- and plus it would be more readily upgradeable.

Yes, there are those who need enormous amounts of power while also demanding a clean, uncluttered workspace.  But there you are selecting a few from an already limited population....

A Mac Pro with modern components would perform exactly the same if it was designed to a 500W thermal limit. 500W is 500W no matter what form factor it is put into.

When Apple made the cylinder, they put faster components than what was in the 2012 Mac Pro into 1/10th the volume.
When Apple made the iMac Pro, they put faster components than what was in the 2013 Mac Pro behind the display.

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). The cylinder and iMac Pro are both ~500W. 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. 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. For tasks that can't use multiple GPUs, a new Mac Pro will perform the same as the iMac Pro.

There doesn't need to be any more justification for a $5k+ iMac than a $5k+ Mac Pro. If someone is buying for the performance, the form factor doesn't make much difference. The price is largely because of Intel, they charge over $1000 just for the CPU but it's also because of the high base spec (1TB SSD, 32GB RAM - https://www.amazon.com/Samsung-960-PRO-Internal-MZ-V6P1T0BW/dp/B01LYRCIPG ($600) https://www.amazon.com/Crucial-PC3-14900-240-Pin-Systems-CT2K16G3R186DM/dp/B00GEC3ZJQ ($389) ). That's $2k in parts before you add a display, enclosure, other parts and profit.

If the appeal of the old Mac Pro was about the most power, most sales would have been the highest end models every update and that wasn't the case. Most workstation sales are around the low-mid spec, for the Mac Pro this was 6/8-core with a single fast GPU (~$3.5-5k total) that people could switch to an Nvidia GPU without buying a new machine and the upgrade cycle was long. Apple knows what people have been buying and make new machines to accommodate the highest demand.

I don't think they'll go back to PCIe GPUs that can be switched out by users because it breaks the compatibility with Thunderbolt, which they need for a Retina display (it has to connect to their other products). Apple can offer GPU upgrades but they can do this for any desktop machine.

There are different needs for different tasks. For heavy rendering or encoding, it means as many CPU cores. For real-time video compositing and effects, it means multiple high-end GPUs and a CPU with a lot of cores too. For high resolution movie edits, a large amount of fast internal storage is important to some. For the gamer audience, it means an affordable desktop that can have the GPU changed every now and again to a gamer GPU. I think whatever comes out next will fail to satisfy the last two - way too expensive for gamers and no bulk storage options. Even if they offer two CPUs, that option is going to start around $6-7k without a display. If they offer two GPUs, that will boost video effects work but if someone is already working in 1/2 the desired resolution, a second GPU isn't going to be enough to alleviate the problem entirely. Performance-wise it will be worth as much over an iMac Pro that the iMac Pro is worth over an iMac but the price point will appeal to very few people.

Mostly the appeal of the headless desktop is the resistance to modern form factors. Having to use an iMac is like being made to drive a Prius instead of a Mustang, it causes an emotional reaction in some people because they have to use it in front of other bros who will laugh at them. It bothers some people because they irrationally think that machines need to look monstrous to behave that way. If Apple made a headless tower starting around $1500-2000 that you could put an Nvidia PCIe GPU in, the highest volume of noise about a pro desktop would disappear but there would nothing more high-end about it than the iMac Pro. Eventually, this road ends with compact form factors like the iMac and Macbook Pro, anything that happens in the interim is temporary.