5 Windows all-in-one PC alternatives to Apple's new iMac Pro

Despite what marketing hype may try to make you believe, Apple isn't necessarily the pioneer in computing that it once was. The iMac for years was the best all-in-one computer you could buy, and it became an iconic part of the Mac lineup.

But times change. The Windows hardware ecosystem now arguably leads comfortably when it comes to many key factors: performance, price, and design in particular.

At WWDC 2017, Apple this week dropped the curtain on the iMac Pro, its most powerful computer ever. It is basically an iMac with much more powerful insides and a different color. Oh, and a high price tag. But it's also not the first time a company stuffed seriously high-end hardware into an all-in-one PC.

So, if you're a Windows user or just don't want to wait until December for the iMac Pro release, check out these great Windows 10 PCs that are available now.

Origin PC Omni

Origin PC Omni

One thing you most likely can't do with the iMac Pro is open up the back and replace or upgrade its parts. Origin doesn't believe that an all-in-one should be sealed, and so you can whip off the Omni's back cover and make the upgrades you want.

Not that you necessarily need to. The great thing about Origin PCs is that you have a huge range of custom options to choose from when you have it built. So you can go up to a 10-core Intel Core i7 6950X, 32GB of RAM, RAID 0 or RAID 1 storage, and a full-size NVIDIA GTX 1080 graphics card. Or you can build something less powerful, and less pricey. Because you have the ultimate choice. But the upper limit for how much you can spend is very high, limited only by your desire and your wallet.

In the front, you're looking at a 3440 x 1440 resolution, 34-inch curved display. While in some areas the iMac Pro might boast some better specs, it's not nearly as customizable or easily accessible. It also doesn't have a clear panel option to see all the glorious hardware inside. Omni does.

See at Origin (opens in new tab)

Digital Storm Aura

Digital Storm Aura

The Digital Storm Aura is somewhat similar to the Origin Omni, namely because it's a glorious ultrawide all-in-one that's highly customizable. It, too, is a 34-inch curved ultrawide with a 3440 x 1440 resolution display.

Inside, you're able to choose from a variety of options that go up to a Core i7 6800K, 32GB of RAM, GTX 1080 graphics card, solid state drive (SSD) and hard disk drive (HDD) storage and liquid cooling to keep everything running nice and frosty.

It uses regular parts and lets you get inside and upgrade them as you see fit. We'll never turn our noses up at a PC maker that supports upgrades. It's not cheap, though, and you'll be looking to spend from $2,000 to $3,500, depending on exactly what you want.

See at Digital Storm

Microsoft Surface Studio

Surface Studio

Surface Studio (Image credit: Windows Central)

While Microsoft may (for once) lose out on the raw power stakes, it wins in the innovation arena without breaking a sweat. While Apple is going after creatives who crave power (and probably macOS), if you want to draw on the Apple machine, you're out of luck.

The Surface Studio reset the bar for what an all-in-one PC can be with that unique hinge that allows it to fold down flat for drawing and writing. Throw in the Surface Dial, and you've got a digital art studio.

What you lose in raw power you make up for versatility, and in that glorious 28-inch, 4500 x 3000 resolution touch display. But it's still capable, with up to 32GB of RAM, Core i7 processor and an option for a 4GB NVIDIA GTX 980M GPU. The Studio is more about the display and what you can do with it than what's inside it.

See at Microsoft (opens in new tab)

Lenovo Ideacentre Y910


IdeaCentre Y910

What if you just want a powerful, upgradeable all-in-one that doesn't have a crazy-wide screen or something that's as exotic as the Surface Studio? Enter the Lenovo Ideacentre Y910, a beefed-up version of the company's regular all-in-one.

The 27-inch display is 2560 x 1440 and matte, but it lacks touch, and inside you get options such as a full size NVIDIA GTX 1080 graphics card, Intel Core i7, 32GB of RAM and a combination of SSD and HDD storage.

It's an innovative design in its own right, too. The power supply is in the stand, leaving more space in the back for everything else. And you get better cooling. Compared to how much the iMac Pro is probably going to cost, this is a steal at around $2,000.

See at Amazon (opens in new tab)

Dell XPS 27

Dell XPS 27

The XPS 27 from Dell is unlike any other all-in-one PC on the market right now, mostly for the 10 speakers on it pointing at you. But it's not all about the sound, and the latest refresh keeps it towards the top of the power stakes.

You'll now find an 8GB AMD RX 570 GPU paired with an Intel Core i7-7700 processor, 32GB of RAM, up to 2TB of storage and a stunning 27-inch 4K display.

Dell hardware both looks great and is well built, and the XPS 27 can be had (minus dedicated graphics) from $1,549. The range topper comes in at $2,749, but you've one heck of a lot of PC for it.

See at Dell (opens in new tab)

Your thoughts

Did we leave off an iMac Pro alternative you think we should have included? Let us know in the comments. (We're always looking for more PCs that outdo Apple computers.)

Richard Devine
Managing Editor - Tech, Reviews

Richard Devine is a Managing Editor at Windows Central with over a decade of experience. A former Project Manager and long-term tech addict, he joined Mobile Nations in 2011 and has been found on Android Central and iMore as well as Windows Central. Currently, you'll find him steering the site's coverage of all manner of PC hardware and reviews. Find him on Mastodon at mstdn.social/@richdevine

  • If Microsoft announced a computer today that will not be available for 6 months, the people here would be going ape-sh** about how Microsoft has lost, they don't know what they are doing, by the time they release the competition will have passsed them, calling for Nadella's resignation, so on and so on. Over on Apple sites, not one word about how it is too long of a wait.
  • I just think no one cares about PCs anymore, especially massively priced, professional all-in-one PCs. Not really a device that will be in high demand.
  • So people being upset when Microsoft doesn't ship a newly announced product immediately shows people don't care, but people not caring that Apple is delaying their product 6 months means their product is in high demand? How does that make sense?
  • I think he is saying the Apple people don't really care about an expensive all in one aimed at professionals. Microsoft people actually did care. The Studio got amazing responses but it was too expensive for most. 
  • I'm anxiously waiting for a refresh of Surface Studio, hopefully in the same time frame of iMac Pro shipping.
  • How does this respond to nohome's thought process?
  • It is a $5000 niche desktop. People are not going to buy it anyways, hence the lack of caring among Apple fans. It is different for a phone people might actually want to be announced 6 months ahead of release (Elite X3).
  • It's because most people have a respect for Microsoft based on logic. Most of Apple's fans just have blind faith. Due to our respect, we expect a lot from Microsoft.
  • Check some of the comments on this site, particularly on articles about Windows Mobile. "Blind faith" doesn't begin to describe some Microsoft fans. 
  • Try visiting MacRumors. If you think this site has blind faith fans, sites like that one take it to a whole new level. You don't even need to go to sites like that one, this site alone has an abundance of Apple fanboys trolling all day long.
  • Wp8 and WP10, how did all of that "respect" work out for you then?
  • And what does WP have to do with the article, other than your usual trolling?
  • Very good observation. However, you have to keep in mind that Apple has already built a large flock of blind sheep so they can afford to take their time and the sheep will just follow. Microsoft's flock of sheep is nowhere near the size of Apple's, and so they need to get their product to market after introduction a lot sooner than 6 months. If Apple announces the iPhone 8 today but won't make it available until December, I can almost guarantee you the iSheep will still be lining up outside the stores several blocks long, even a day before. MS sheep won't line up outside the store to be the first to get a Surface device.
  • Surface studio, Microsoft really set the bar on that
  • This whole article is a waste. None of these computers is anything like the iMac Pro. It's like the author doesn't know about the specs he's writing about.. The iMac Pro isn't just an all-in-one computer. It's a workstation with amazing specs (for its slim size, especially). Listing a bunch of AIO's with regular Core i7's isn't nearly the same thing.. The article seems either badly researched or desperate, or both. Either way, it looks bad.. And no, i'm not an Apple fan. 
  • Wow. It wasn't until reading this article until I realised the iMac Pro is just Apple's reaction to the Surface Studio.  And it doesn't even support touch/draw.
  • Except the Studio isn't a pro machine with those specs.
  • You're not a pro with your comments. Troll on my friend!
  • No the surface studio is not in the same class as the imac pro, you are the one trolling. 18 cores?? The surface studio has what? It isn't even close .
  • If I was a pro, I wouldn't​ waste my time buying a $3000 workstation with an old mobile GPU and midrange consumer processor. The Surface isn't even in the same league as the Mac.
  • Is that a stab against the Macbook Pro?  Because there are plenty of people out there who would disagree with you.
  • The MacBook Pro isn't a professional workstation. It is a laptop and mobile components are expected in a moderately priced laptop.
  • Apple has always marketed the MacBook Pro as a mobile workstation for professionals.  For most Mac users, it's the only system they have.
  • Exactly. It isn't​ a desktop. It is a mobile device and mobile components are expected, especially at the Macbook Pro price point.
  • You mean a professional troll? No you don't need a SS. Just keep using your droid.
  • The SS is massively underpowered for my uses. I would never ever consider one. That screen is nice, but it doesn't make up for the very poor specs.
  • Okay, okay, I'll bite. Just what are your uses?
  • Can't speak for anyone else, but when I think "workstation," I imagine a CPU with at least 8 cores, 64 GB of RAM, and starting with 512GB of SSD + 2 TB of HDD. Handbrake, a video encoding program, scales very well with extra cores. It's very slow with two cores though, and it's a commonly used program for video professionals - a market I'm sure Microsoft would like to target with the Studio. Other programs such as Adobe's suite and AutoCAD would be great on the Surface Studio, but the hardware just isn't there. 
  • Only 8 cores and 64GB? I am typing this on a machine with 16 cores (32 threads), 128GB of RAM, 4 2TB SSDs. That machine you are using is not what I would consider any where near "pro."
  • Heavy gaming and some video editing. The Studio looks awesome. I wish it had stronger components. A GTX 1080 would probably change my mind!
  • If you're looking at heavy gaming, I'd say neither the iMac Pro, nor the Surface Studio, would be your device.  You would likely be using your own built desktop with high graphics and multiple monitors.
  • Which is exactly what I use. The iMac Pro would probably work fine for me though, the SS couldn't.
  • The Studio is a gen 1 product, which translates to a more conservative approach and fewer initial options. Look, what Elon Musk just said about his X type, where he broke this rule. Microsoft has a lot of time observing the market. Video editing on the current high end Studio is no problem. Gaming...? Maybe the Studio is not designed to be a gaming machine, and there is a chance, it never will. But neither is the iMac, at least bar Windows, because of the "app gap".
  • So, your uses are? I'm asking, because due to our experience, the Studio is almost perfect for design, and we have our video editing loads running on two of those babes. Both workstations are running NX + TeamCenter, two ressource hogs, and much better than their two-year old high-end CAD workstations. We are currently considering changing the whole CAD infrastructure, with another four Studios being ordered for evaluation. So much to any theory in computing.
  • You're obviously not a pro. A pro would know that a computer is more than just raw power. This is the foundation (the new) Apple was built on, i.e. it's not the specs, it's how you can use it. Yes, some people may require raw power, but the SS isn't marketed towards those people. The SS is for professionals who draw, design and create art. You don't need 18 cores for that. On the other hand, you do need (or at least benefit hugely from) a tiltable touchscreen with accurate colours. That's also a PRO category.
  • I agree with you. They don't really compete with each other. The iMac Pro is for someone who requires all that power. The SS most certainly won't appease those people.
  • But then, why should someone pay a couple of thousand dollars more for such a machine, when he can have a high-end Xeon-workstation including a designed to task graphics adapter for a lot less cash. Cash, that you can spend on a full-grown Wacom tablet.
  • I have a shitload of titles and diplomas proving I'm a pro, and I could do what ever I need with the Surface Studio. The vast majority of professionals could never ever really utilize 18 cores and anything over 16GB of ram. There are a few use cases, true, but very few of us happens to be amongst those professions. Funny thing is, most Apple users are constantly defending the over all lack of powerful systems in the xmac lineup. And now, come a decent build spec vice, and power is everything? Great thing about PC's though, if you are amongst those very few in need of such specs, you just buy a different computer. Try doing that if you're a mac user.  
  • @Serpentbane This is the case everytime Apple comes out with something that the iSheep have been religiously defending when lacking.
  • The iMac is for 3D design, video editing (actual video editing, not the stuff people take on their phones on the weekend, we are talking multiple streams of 4k/8k video) and audio design. The Studio is aimed at tabletop creatives, drawing, painting, autoCAD, that kind of stuff. It can still obviously do the other things that the iMac Pro can, just nowhere near as quickly. It's worth Mr mentioning that prior to this release I never gave a damn about iMac, the Mac Pro was my go to for video editing and rendering. Now, that is changing.
  • We do 4k editing for providing tutorial videos using Adobe Premiere Pro on Studio. Having full touch, pen and dial support is a major advantage, and I would get a lot of flames from the two gals working with them, if I gave them something else. They extensively use the 3D-editing features, where having exact contextual pen-support shines.
  • Just a couple days ago your friends where screaming bloody murder because this site dared to compare the new Surface Pro to a MacBook Pro. How it is unfair to compare a new, unreleased product (one that will ship in a couple weeks) to one that is 7 months old. But here you are, comparing a 6 month old product (Surface Studio) to a product that will not be available for 6 more months (iMac Pro). Are you Apple whores ever consistent in anything you write, say or do?
  • Are you referring to that ridiculous comparison with a 2015 MacBook air vs whatever the newest surface laptop is? That was the pinnacle of a Microsoft fanboy trying to prove microsoft relevancy lol
  • The Surface Studio is not a traditional workstation. It is a device for artists. The iMac Pro is targeted at mainly video editors. I would call both groups 'Pro'. Working as a professional doesn't only translate to computer power. I am pretty sure there will be a hardware refresh of SS about same time as iMac Pro release, but they are totally different devices targeting different groups. I'd say the iMac Pro i totally overkill. Only Apple fans will buy another device (Mac Pro comes to mind) that cost $5k-$10k and is in no way upgradeable. Actually it is even worse that the Mac Pro. What to do if the screen suddenly have failures, then you have to ship all your **** for repair.  The Studio makes sense, just hoping for a spec bump. The iMac Pro is another Mac Pro dissaster - going from a small can design to cramming everything into a monitor lol.
  • Trust me, it's not overkill, anything to help speed up rendering is a godsend in the video World, especially now with movies being filmed in 6k or even 8k. And guess what, it still isn't enough power really, you start dealing in ultra high end 3D work and you're still going to need render farms to process it. This just allows the people without THAT kind of money to edge a little closer to the top.
  • No, it's a machine for professional users.  Raw specs are bull$#@ when comparing machines for professional users.  Capability is what counts, and the Surface Studio is simply in another league compared to the iMac Pro.  Hell, I'm not even in a creative field, and I want one in my office; possibly, I'll be able to justify one in the next two iterations, once the software catches up to the hardware...
  • The iMac line has existed for a long time before the Studio did. And the Surface Studio uses laptop parts, so it isn't powerful enough for workstation use. 
  • Can't say that I can afford the Studio to know if it's powerful or not.  I think that depends on your use.  It's designed to be a creator/designer's tool.  For most people, I think it's workstation enough. But I wouldn't disagree about the mobile parts being used.  If they ever came out with a model that used desktop parts (come on, Microsoft, just make that base thicker to hold it), I could see it really being useful.
  • I just want them to make it a monitor, and I'll bring/build my own computer. I'd pay $3,000 just for it as a monitor (assuming they use modern ports). 
  • @Tom Westrick, that's the Dell Canvas. Should be coming out.. in August I think? Not certain on latest release date expectation. I'm looking forward to getting as soon as I can confirm the final product works as well as in the demos we've seen.
  • Can't believe I forgot about that, but isn't that display always horizontal? I'd like something that could move back and forth like the Surface.  There are monitors that do this (less elegantly, but still), but the largest I've found is only 22 inches. 
  • I think you're right. I think it can only adjust the screen angle by a few degrees, all of which are variations on "lay flat". I think their intent, which is what appeals to me, is using it between your keyboard and "main monitor" so it's truly additive to your existing system and you can still use all of your other equipment. I have a 40" 4k as my main monitor, so I wouldn't want to give that up, but I'd love to have a touchscreen for certain operations, and the ability to sign documents with a pen, all while still working on my desktop. But I can certainly understand wanting a more traditionally angled monitor with high-resolution and touch support. 
  • If you're an artist or an architect with a pen, this is way more than they'll ever need. Not everybody needs a workstation with huge amounts of cores and RAM, because the workstation of many will be dependent on whether it has touch/pen input. An iMac, no matter how powerful, will never beat a tiltable 28" screen with pen input for those who rely on such technology.
  • I know a lot of people that are both digital artists and video editors, and the video editing requires A LOT of horsepower. These folks likely already have a Wacom tablet that would work the Mac. 
  • I am a video professional (28 years) and I do not ened that much power, even for 4K. Don't speak of what you do not know.
  • Obviously, you aren't the type of professional that's the target audience for this magical device. /s I've only tinkered with video editing, and did so on my old Core2Duo Windows system with 3GB of RAM.  It ran sufficiently for my needs.  I would assume video rendering (Pixar type stuff) is more of a fit for this, but even for that need, studios have dedicated server FARMS, not a single device.  And I doubt a fully loaded iMac Pro could handle that. The only time I've ever needed more than 8GB of RAM is when I'm running multiple VMs  Even multitasking graphics editors can be done on modest mobile hardware.
  • http://m.bestreviews.com/best-drawing-tablets Are you sure about that?
  • @Tom Westrick, it depends what the application is. If you're doing 3D rendering, then you are definitely correct -- for that you want a high-end dedicated non-mobile graphics card (and the touchscreen and pen may not matter as much, depending on how you create the scene for 3D rendering). If you're a professional artist using primarily Illustrator and Photoshop work though, the the Surface Studio's display is groundbreaking and the 980M is plenty. So, I would say the new iMac is a dream machine for video rendering. The Surface Studio is the better dream machine for other artists who don't need that incredible rendering power.
  • No need to further argue with Tom, he's hellbent on evangelising the iMac Pro as the only machine pros will ever need, no matter what. In his world, there exists only people who need raw power.
  • Thanks for putting words in my mouth. I'm just saying that it's hard to compare the Surface Studio and the iMac Pro when they are vastly different devices with vastly different amounts of computing power. I don't plan on ever buying either one. 
  • Honestly the best decision is just buy both, then you have the best of both worlds!
  • I am confused, you don't want laptop parts but yet iMac has shipped with laptop 2 core CPUs, a 5400RPM laptop HDD, and used the integrated Intel GPUs. I can't look up on Apple's site which processors they use now because they try to hide that information as much as they can, but in the past those iMac all in ones have been exactly what you are attacking.
  • I like using everymac.com for lookups.  They have a list of every mac (hence the name!) and other apple devices as well.  On their list of iMacs, they show the CPU each one comes with. The recent ones seem to all come with Desktop-class processors.  But you're right, some have come with mobile proc's, and many have come with spinny hard drives, including the last generation.
  • The iMac Pro and Surface Studio are two very different machines. The Omni looks like the closest thing to the upcoming iMac.
  • Left out the dell xps 27.
  • The other funny thing is,  the top spec surface studio,  is cheaper by 800 dollars than the bottom spec Imac pro...which does not support multi touch, pen support, dial, etc....no vision at Apple.   NONE.   Just regurgitate the same devices over and over,  make a new color every now and then.   And I use their products.  
  • I know it's hard for a lot of you diehard Windows fans to believe but a lot of people don't care about multi touch drawing capabilities. I know there are people that do care and for those people it's great. Mac users are going to continue using Mac with or without touchscreen capabilities. They do have other options for drawing that work great. That being said, spec wise the iMac Pro kinda blows away the Surface Studio.
  • I know it's hard for a lot of you diehard Microsoft haters to believe but a lot of people don't care about 18 cores. Let's face it, the marketshare of all Apple computers combined is tiny, so no matter how much you think the SS is a waste of space, it sits in a league which is hugely more popular. Also, the drawing options for Mac users means they not only don't get direct input (i.e. on the screen of the main machine itself), but they also have to spend extra thousand dollars getting up to par in the touch-capability department. All in all, the Surface Studio kinda blows away the iMac Pro.
  • 1) Who said I was a Microsoft hater? I own 2 Dell XPS machines. An 8700 and an 8900, plus a Dell laptop and my wife also has a Dell laptop. 2) Where did I say the SS was a waste of space? But if you think SS is more popular than Macs you are nuts. Yes, there are many more Windows machines than Mac, but certainly not more SS machines. 3) Mac users that would get use of the SS already own Walcom or some other drawing device and would not need the SS. Now someone new to the Creators game may choose the SS over Mac. That is great for them as they have choices now. My point in my above comment was that Mac users will use Mac touchscreen or no touchscreen because the like macOS over Windows. They have other drawing options. Mac users are not switching (at least not many) because Windows has touch and Windows users won't switch just because Mac adds touch. And no, the SS doesn't come close to blowing away the iMac Pro.
  • The top tier Surface Studio still uses a dual core processor and last generation mobile GPU. 
  • Ummm, dual core is NOTHING
  • Well, it's not "nothing" but it sure isn't an 8 core Xeon.
  • Exactly, dual core is nothing for someone that needs raw power. 
  • It's even getting a bit tight for normal use I'd say.
  • If you need raw power than the Surface Studio is not for you.  Get over it.
  • Designers are in-between, I'd say.
  • I am over it. I'm not interested in either the iMac Pro (though that matte black is gorgeous) or the Surface Studio (though I'd buy it as a monitor). Just pointing out that the hardware in the Surface Studio isn't good enough for a lot of "professional" use cases. 
  • Also get you facts straight if you have to compare apples to oranges. Both machines use quad core CPUs.
  • Umm, unsure which machines you mean, but if you are referring to the iMac Pro, no it does not use quad core. The iMac uses quad core. I don't know what is in the SS. I thought it was quad.
  • Actually neither are for me either. I can't even draw a stick figure.
  • LOL, way to be an ignorant FUD-spreading fool. The top-tier SS uses an i7-6820HQ, which, surprise surprise, is a quadcore CPU. Also, last gen nVidia GPU > AMD GPU, nuff said.
  • It's not true. SS has quad core, which is fine for normal, mid-range usage.
  • Look at the specs. The Studio is a **** compared to the iMac Pro. A touch screen doesn't make up for it. Professional drawing options are readily available.
  • "Professional drawing options are readily available." For an additional cost.
  • For those that don't already have them. My high school graphics teacher has used the same Wacom tablet for 12 years now, and it's still supported in macOS. 
  • Just because you can doesn't mean you should. For my modern dSLR, I could still use an external flash for an analogue SLR bought in the 80s. But it will not give me all the features I require with my modern dSLR, and it will be weaker, smaller and without auto exposure for the rapid non-film era photos. If you want to perform and actually become something, you update and upgrade. 
  • Additional costs on an already out to lunch priced device...when you can flop down the studio,  draw directly on the device,  dial support is another big deal...TOUCH IS EVERYTHING NOW!
  • What good is touch for video editing? What if I don't need a tilting screen but want more power? Are design professionals actually using the SS? I am sure they already had options. Is the SS really better for them?
  • If you were a professional video editor, you would know the answer to your own question. It's painfully obvious that you know very little about video editing.
  • iMac Pro just turned into a flat trash can. I can also troll.
  • I wondered what changed the article from "4" to "5". It's there now!
  • "the iMac Pro, its most powerful computer ever." - The Mac Pro (can) is slower than this?
  • Considering the trashcan Mac Pro was released in 2013 with 2012-era parts, yes. 
  • Time flies by... Can't wait to see comparison benchmarks.
  • Just give me the OS and I'll build my own killer setup. Oh wait, it's called Windows and it's not tied to specific hardware either.
  • For people who need this type of computer, there is nothing close on the market for that price. Seriously. This computer can run circles around the studio.
  • Microsoft has 6 months to respond to it.  You're discounting a future release against a future release.
  • Microsoft won't bite, like the other guy said they are both designed for different purposes, I can't draw worth a damn so the Studio isn't the machine for me, but I do a lot of video work so the the iMac Pro is much more enticing. If it was the other way around, I'd be saying things differently.
  • To me the Surface Studio is in a different category.  You should compare to others that were on the list.
  • For people who don't need this type of computer, the Surface Studio runs circles around the iMac Pro. It goes both ways. Maybe you should expand your horizons before making a fool of yourself.
  • The only one that looks anywhere near as good is the Surface Studio, and that uses laptop parts. 
  • Which is way more than 95% of all professionals need. I know people who bought the trash can Mac and didn't even use 20% of its capabilities, because they had money to waste and needed to impress people. Talk about problems with certain body part lengths.
  • Considering the cost of the Surface Studio that argument goes both ways.
  • I'm not a Mac user myself, but none of these systems are even close to the base model iMac Pro. None of the displays even come close to the 5K 10-bit IPS display, the 8.2 TFLOPS GTX 1080s in these systems can't touch the 11 TFLOPS Vega, Broadwell-E i7s are no match for the Skylake-X Xeons, and they all max out at 32GB of RAM instead of 128GB. Also I'm not sure why the Surface Studio is even on this list, the specs are a joke, they can't even touch my laptop let alone the base model iMac Pro.
  • If you're working with illustration, the Surface Studio can be a great choice over any Mac. However, the iMac Pro is aimed at video profissionals and none of those machines are, at best, feeble in comparison. That said, you can probably buy a decent Windows based competitor for a lot less if you don't care for the all-in-one format.
  • I'm a video professional and any of those machines would fill my needs.
  • Cool!
  • Is this serious? Almost none of these machines can match the iMac Pro in specs, only the Origin PC Omni comes anywhere close.  If you just want an all in one you should be comparing against the normal 27" iMac.
  • I'll say it, the iMac Pro is impressive. It's not innovative like studio, but it's impressive for sure. Developers wouldn't mind it, that is for sure. If you need a high power workstation and don't need touch it should fit the bill (and it's better than the machines mentioned here). I think this presents MS a good oppertunity for the next generation of Studio. Who knows, maybe a Studio Pro?
  • YEs, and drop the studio pricing and increase the PRO pricing..But for photo/video editing,  there is nothing like the studio.
  • http://m.bestreviews.com/best-drawing-tablets
  • I'm not going to lie here, I'd sell a kidney if they release a studio with the iMac Pro specs. I've been trying to get into drawing more and learning how to.
  • I serioiusly have to get one for my business...I design motorcycles, ATV, UTV and snowmobiles for customers.  The SS is the BEST computer to do that on hands down...Right now I use my dell 2 in 1....while the touchscreen is ok on that...the surface with the dial etc would be KILLER.....
  • (deleted comment)
  • But it desnt even exist until december and there is no pricing on the webiste -utopia do a dual XEON workstion with 44 threads (88 cores) 110mB cache, 512GB Ram, 36TFlps of graphics w/72GB DDR5, and upto 18TB of SSD, doesnt just run rings round the iMAC it eats its breakfast for it
  • I'm sure the upcoming iMac Pros are fine. But they are not revolutionary. Look, e.g., at HPs top workstation, which already has 18 core Xeon processor. iMac offers up to 128 GB RAM? OK. Top it with the HP workstation with 1TB RAM. I would guess Dell and Lenovo also already have more powerful workstations than the iMac Pro. By all means, the iMac Pros will be fine computers. And come December, there will be many other powerful computers based on the new intel and AMD processors. [http://store.hp.com/us/en/mdp/business-solutions/z840-workstation?jumpid...
  • Indeed. AiOs were never professional workstations in the first place, so Apple even claiming this is outright pathetic. A true high-powered, high-octane workstation doesn't need to look shiny, because it's all about the power, nobody cares how it looks because it's made for getting as much work done as possible, not impress your boy or girlfriend.
  • "Surprise! Apple didn't invent the AIO"
    That's reality
  • I own an iMac late 2015 27 inch and I love it more than any Windows PC I've ever owned, which is funny as I used Windows for 20 years, never Macs, I switched and yes it took some getting used to, but I prefer OSX from Windows 8 and 10 by miles... to me OSX feels like Windows 7 did. For me it has more value than a lot of products Microsoft sell, in that I can select my internal storage at a reasonable price and a storage size I wanted, the speed was immense for the time, it's still faster than anything a Windows Machine would offer, without having to spend a grand on it yourself. Things like the Studio are so low spec for the price, it's even more expensive than the iMac, by miles. Touch screens do not work for large Desktop displays, you get smudges all over it. Has any one used an iPad? You cannot use that for viewing proper content like you do on a Desktop, you'd be wiping it constantly. I just see the touch screen as a gimmick, not even a good one. I much prefer having a pad to draw on, which has it's advantages too, like being able to see what you're doing without your hand there as you have less feel than pencil to paper. Also I use the Apple Touch Pad for iMac which is quite big and has completely replaced the mouse for me, it's so perfect and way better than a touch screen on a Desktop OS. I think it's so good, the Speakers are good, I love how everything just works on my iMac and as for the GPU, well in my iMac it has the 395x mobile chip which against the 965m in the Surface Studio, well it beats it and it cost me less.
  • So, what do you do with your Mac?  I'm wondering why the switch was better for you.
  • None of these machines really compete with the iMac Pro, it's using  Xeon processors. If you're looking at equivalent hardware then you should be looking at the HP Z1 AiO workstations which are functionally equivalent. The iMac is relatively unique in the market at this point with it's spec, and it'll be interesting to see if OEMs will take up the mantle to introduce more AiOs based around the Xeon CPUs and/or use pro level graphics like the Vega Pro/FE or the Quadro cards.   If the Surface Studio gets similar hardware specs then it'll be a real contender, Apple have thrown the gauntlet down and we all know the Surface Studio despite it's unique features was rather anaemic.
  • I exactly agree, but it seems like all the Windows fanboys are disliking these types of comments.  Who are the blind sheep now?
  •  Not me.  I have macs.   I don't like them.   They truly are overpriced and under spec'ed.   Plus macOS is garbage 
  • Surface Studio is Amazing... far better than any other device in this category
  • If you remove the base, and tilt the iMac Pro over on a couple tissue boxes, it would be a serious Surface Studio competitor. If your purchasing it for power, there has always been better PC solutions at a fraction of the price.
  • Without the touch screen, what would be the point of tilting the iMac on tissue boxes? That's why the Surface Studio tilts. It basically becomes a digital drafting table. Not something you can do with the iMac. I'm not knocking the iMac. It'll probably be a great machine for the right people. But the Surface Studio is also a great machine for the right people. 
  • Oh you don't need touch screens with iMac's, they've got you covered with a trackpad. The tissues were for those that have been waiting 10 years for a lot more.
  • YES..and it's only 1/100 as useful as a full touchscreen....
  • What is the point of having a Pro PC that can't be upgradable? Do the people that want to have PCs with Xeon CPUs care about how small it is?
  • Most of those other systems are ugly, as well. That kind of matters :-P The worst thing about the Surface Studio is the screen ratio, though. It's just... horrible for media consumption and won't work as well for media editing, where the extra width works really well for apps like Final Cut or Premiere Pro. It also has a fairly weak GPU given its price range. In any case, nothing in this post matters as the people who are going to buy an iMac Pro are likely doing so because they *don't* want a Windows Machine. They want a Mac, which runs macOS. If they did, they wouldn't have to wait for this, and they'd probably have bought the Surface Studio *already* seeing as how it's available right now and a decent enough package. I'm probably going to update my iMac in the next year or so. I won't care how much better the Windows Machines are, because I don't want Windows 10 on my Desktop (and if I did, I could always boot camp it... as I did on my iMac for a few months when it was needed).
  • @ DragonPoo People use their Macs the same way you use your PC. They just prefer what macOS has to offer. Both Operating Systems offer the same basic things to their users, but they do differentiate in ways that may matter to a user. Macs have high quality stock software pre-loaded on them, and I had to spend about $250 bridging the out of the box functionality gap on Windows so that it was as useful as my Mac was 5 minutes after plugging it in. There is also a growing library of high quality Mac software. I've stated many times that I feel like a lot of start-ups are going Mac First these days, and many of them are targeting iOS in tandem. When you factor in things like Continuity, AirPlay, Universal Clipboard and Handoff, this has huge usability benefits which cannot be replicated on Windows - and if so, it's likely going to require more redundant web service applications (i.e. Dropbox or Google Drive, etc.) while this stuff all works between Apple devices using their own system services. Ecosystem was also a huge issue. I buy eBooks these days, because they're way cheaper than educational material in paperback or hardcover format. Microsoft "new" eBook store is absolutely barren of that type of content. Microsoft still doesn't do Podcasts and AudioBooks. Trust me, iTunes is miles better on a Mac than on Windows, so if I'm going to be dependent on it for the type of content I want, why not get a Mac and keep my content purchases relatively centralized to one entity? I think Windows is a better fit for the Enterprise and maybe even the educational market (at least on PCs and Notebooks), but I don't forsee myself leaving macOS anytime soon. I simply have way less trust in Microsoft's "vision" than I do Apple's. I also don't care for my PC software to make life harder on me simply because the parent company wants to push into another market... UWP Applications with no menu pars and extremely poor keyboard navigation come to mind... Apple just produces amore usable desktop OS, with a better value proposition, at this point. The App ecosystem seems to be growing while Windows' is in malaise, also (largely due to monopolization by huge software vendors like Adobe and a user base that's unwilling to pay for quality software - Windows users are like the Android users of the desktop world).
  • As much as I don't like Apple, none of those listed PC's are even close to the iMac Pro. The Studio is a great device, just aimed at another segment than the iMac Pro. Do I think the iMac pro is an awesome investment though? Hell no. Paying $5k+ for a computer even less upgradeable than the Mac Pro is just nuts. But it will sell well, it's Apple after all.
  • I don't want to give in to the Apple fan boys, but they do have a point when they say that none of the PCs on this list have the raw computing power of the iMac Pro. I personally hate the idea of an iMac Pro, and would prefer a Surface Studio any day of the week, but it simply doesn't have the CPU or GPU power of the iMac Pro. However, I do not think that there are that many people that would ever need that much computing power on an iMac. The versatility and features of the Surface Studio make it a far better device for me overall. You can get more work done easier on a PC like the Studio. I know that this does not apply to everyone's unique needs, since it is true that 16 cores are faster than 4. There are, however, PCs that are superior in raw performance than the iMac Pro, and I find it very strange that Windows Central did not include any in this article.
  • Surely enough Apple did win now due to marketing hype these days. There innovations has been lost since the release of iPhone 4s, and these are just the remnants of an old company that used to innovate according to the use of consumers.
  • Issue is when Apple announce the availability on December, people wait because they will be able to buy something better than what they have now.
    Different from Windows product, for example, New Surface Pro, ifMS said you can only wait until December, people will complaint because people can buy something similiar or better than surface pro today. That is the difference When people still think a pair of sock , apple already move to the level a brand new suit , and not sock
  • This comparison is coming from a guy who complains about CD drives being included in desktop replacement laptops. It is no surprise that he continues with his wildly fallacious endeavors of comparing non-comparable ideas and hardware.  These Windows AIO's are at-best i7-driven AIO's (including one with a weak PSU, mobile CPU, and mobile GPU that can't be replaced) being compared to at least a Xeon-driven AIO.