I think they'd have trouble selling it for more, but the video cards and Thunderbolt at least give them a "upgrade over the old model" argument.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
2013 Mac Pro Price (Range?)
- Thread starter icanhazapple
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I think they'd have trouble selling it for more, but the video cards and Thunderbolt at least give them a "upgrade over the old model" argument.
The Mac Pro isn't going to use exactly the W7000s, so don't expect retail W7000 costs. I also doubt we'll see a 500GB SSD standard.
You can get an HP z420, with the 1620, 1x V3900, and 128GB SSD bootdrive for $1757 after the 20% discount. That's the kind of thing the bottom end Mac Pro is competing with. No duel GPU, true, but who cares? How many people buying a sub $2-4K workstation even want that? Apple has impossed this duel GPU thing only because of TB, not because it really wants a performance gain. So, Apple needs to compete in the single GPU price ranges, otherwise this computer will flop, fast.
Yes because you are comparing Apple's to Oranges. A T7600 can be upgraded to duals. Folks will pay more that. Multiple drives internal... again people will pay more for that. More PCI-e slots... again people will pay more for that.
Back when the Mac Pro had a dual option it was in the an overlapping market with the T7600. It isn't any more. Drop down their line up to find something closer to Apple-to-Apples.
BTW, that 6 core T7600 would get trampled by the Mac Pro on CPU workload since a 3+ GHz model ( presuming E5 1600 based) versus some 6 core E5 2600 option. A single CPU package 7600 is far more buying potentially machine that will be better later rather than the appropriate performance now.
T5600 with dual W5000 and 6 core is showing up as $2700 with discounts on Dell's site (still dual capable though) If actually track with a single only option. T3600 with E5 1600 , 8GB ECC, and duals ... with instant discounts on web $2,489.
The fact that Dell routinely slaps $1K "instant discounts" on all their workstation shows that their prices are fluid. For the most part Apple just skips most of the haggling.
----------
Thunderbolt perhaps but the video cards? That latter is going to be a tough sell. You are talking about latent performance that will appear in future that is there untapped ?
The video cards in the old model are ancient (they date from 2009 ). Apple would dead if they weren't better. Arguably they should have been better last year if Apple wasn't asleep at the wheel for so long. Plus it is going to be a trade-off if Apple isn't going to offer any for-pay upgrade service later. There are wins and losses value props with these new cards. The marketing struggle they are going to have is whether it is an incremental net win; not that is "waaaaaaay better". Oh I'm sure there will be some hyperbole entry on their marketing web page about the new vs old GPU improvements... but I don't Apple is drinking their own kool-aid on that hyperbole being highly effective. It is just going to be there because it is standard boilerplate.
Maybe, but it's not the first time. Apple made a lot of dual processor G4s that ran OS 9 and were also available before a lot of apps could use multiple CPUs. But Apple was able to force apps to adopt a more threaded model. But at the time, anyone who bought a dual processor G4 and ran OS 9 on it might as well have piled all their money into a pile and burned it.
So I think this conversation will be a lot different in a few years.
If it makes a difference in performance more than a few.
It is there in part because of TB, but frankly if it adds value or not is largely more a question of software. Apple isn't just a hardware company ( some folks spin it that way, but it is neither software, nor hardware company. It is a both company.).
If Apple can't add (and also enable ) the software to make this shine it will likely fail. If they do add it, this new system should do fine.
The notion that two GPUs is useless is not really well supported. For some people yes, but broad brush not really.
Right, so why buy this computer now, instead of in a few years when the software actually catches up?
Ok.. since it's difficult to predict the entry level, what if we look at a likely middle of the line Hex Core configuration? We have a couple of data points to compare with...
The Dell T3600 with E5-1650 3.2 6-Core, 8GB, 250GB SSD, and Dual W7000 is $3500. (EDIT incl. $200 Display!)
The Mac Pro 5,1 with W3680 3.33 6-Core, 8GB, 500GB SSD, and Dual 5770 is $3924
Best guess here for a comparable 2013 Mac Pro configuration is $2800.
(1650 v2 - 6 - 3.4 - $500 - $2799)
So, you guys believe that Apple will not only undercut the value leader in the industry by about 20% but they are also going to beat their own current model pricing by 28%.
I sure hope you're right. But I'll have to see it to believe it.
Attachments
Last edited:
Largely I agree, but in 2013 and early 2014 it is going to be a marketing problem. I don't think the majority of Apple's customers are good at looking 2 years down the road. [ that includes most of the ones often yelping about roadmaps. ]
For the ones that are preoccupied with what is 2-3 years down the road are just as likely to be preoccupied with running that new 2 GPU solution on a new set as much as the current one. Again opens a hairball of issues if Apple doesn't have answers.
that's the whole thing.. you don't have to buy one right now.. you can buy a 2012 and be hyped on it for the next few years.. then buy a new (though more field tested and refined) mac in 2016 when a lot more software is catered towards the configuration..
that's a completely legit way to go about it and it's probably what most of you all (the people currently ripping on it) will end up doing anyway.. i mean, i think whole lot of people are going to end up eating their words in the future when they end up buying one.. (well, more like casually forgetting their words and sweeping them under the table instead of eating them)
No one said useless. I said, in essence, that Apple will cut off a tramendous amount of the market if they price their dual GPU system with other dual GPU systems. Most just don't need/want it, so why pay for it?
And optimizing a few OS specific tasks or other Apple software, like iPhoto or iMovie, to use dual GPUs isn't going to cut it either.
because they should optimize mail.app and itunes as well? most apps (by far) run fine on modest hardware.. as in they cant run any better on better hardware.. their tasks aren't really too demanding at all..
what apple needs to optimize in the OS has to do with how well developers will be able to hook up to the hardware. it seems pretty clear to me they're really banking on this occurring..
Yes. Because first Apple's BTO SSD drives are crackhead, uncompetitively prices. Nobody who isn't forced into it by goofy constraints is buying one of those. $600 for almost two year old 512GB SSD? The W3680 is going to be withdrawn from the retail market in a month. The 2 2GB DIMMs $75? (that is about 100% mark up at the current going rates).
BTO old versions versus standard config new versus is going to be Apple-to-Oranges. BTO options put pricing noise into the result.
Again still Apples-to-Oranges because the Mac Pro 5,1 could partially hang with more upscale Dell boxes. Apple is more so going to have to partially swap being able to replace cards later for having two cards standard.
Apple has stripped some costs out. Probably not enough to cause a massive decrease in pricing but the dramatic price increase claims all ignore the decreases. They have definitely stripped some value propositions out.(internal modularity for one). Again pretending it is not there isn't going to pass muster with most potential users.
Just having the second GPU hardware all by itself isn't it a value prop. It would have to be enabled somehow. If there is a missing 'trick' that flips this into high value mode for most people great... but it isn't on the table yet. And the double, triple Apple usual mark-up AMD throws on FirePro isn't going to buy a whole lot. Apple normal mark-up on the GPUs and the prices largely work out.
Well, that's great. Only Apple probably isn't going to be too happy about not selling new machines. And sorry, if I'm in the market for workstation, I'm not buying a 2010 machine, even if it says its a 2012. By the time this computer actually is released, it will be nearly 2014. If Apple is hoping to drive the market to the new Mac Pro by 2016, I hope they have patiences.
I'm not exactly ripping it here. I just don't think its going to sell well if the base is priced >= $2499. If I'm in the market for a new, entry level workstations, its just not worth it to push total system cost up around $3000, when competators offer options closer to $2300. I like OSX, but its not worth $700 or so.
they do it all the time.. new model comes out and it's the same price as the model it replaces.. even though it uses more (perceived) expensive parts and offers better performance
Looks like the rumored 10 core @ 3.5 ghz never came to fruition. I keep thinking the TWP will help eliminate candidates ie. no 150W procs.
Do people really think they are gonna include the 4 core segment?
I see them starting at 6's, and then 10, 12, and BTO perhaps an 8 core on the 6.
I expect to pay $5K every 5 years on a desktop. I'm expecting 4.5-7 on this. Will be crappy if it feels left behind (gpu) in 3 years, I usually upgrade my GPU every 18 months or so. If i have to buy a whole new rig that won't be happening and I'll have to complain for 2 or 3 years.
I would be looking for a 2680/90, the 8 core's don't look like enough value next to the 6 or 10's.
Do people really think they are gonna include the 4 core segment?
I see them starting at 6's, and then 10, 12, and BTO perhaps an 8 core on the 6.
I expect to pay $5K every 5 years on a desktop. I'm expecting 4.5-7 on this. Will be crappy if it feels left behind (gpu) in 3 years, I usually upgrade my GPU every 18 months or so. If i have to buy a whole new rig that won't be happening and I'll have to complain for 2 or 3 years.
I would be looking for a 2680/90, the 8 core's don't look like enough value next to the 6 or 10's.
Last edited:
Right, but in this case, folks are predicting that Apple drops the price about 30% from last year's 6-core model.
----------
I agree with you. I don't think they will offer a 4 core either, but I'm in the minority... several members believe they will offer a 4-core to have a more palatable entry price point.
ha.. oh right. i forgot prices are being flung around in the thread
i haven't been paying attention much because i don't agree with most of the reasoning as to why it's going to cost X much..
----------
it's not a matter of control.. it's a matter of influence
Intel has priced the 12 core in looney toon land. I don't think Intel expects to sell very many. I highly doubt Apple expects to sell very many either ( even relative to "normal" Mac Pro magnitudes ). It is probably strictly BTO.
Anyone with two sockets can buy two
Xeon E5-2650 v2 8 2.6 GHz 20 MB 95 Watt $1335.85
For less than Intel's 12 core 2.7 GHz option (also cheaper that the 2.4 12c model too! ). 16 cores versus 12 for less money. Exactly why would you buy the 12 core version? 40 more PCI-e lanes. 10MB mores of L3 cache. More memory and memory bandwidth ... all for a lower price.
I'm sure there are gong to be some subset of folks who "have to have" a Mac and can generate cash with more x86 cores inside of a single box. But they aren't going to be mainstream Mac Pro folks. The ones who are price sensitive, relatively OS neutral are going to bolt to two CPU package alternatives. If 12 generates money, then 16 probably generates more.
If Apple was primarily interested in chasing the 10-20 core market they'd have a dual CPU box. They don't. The goal is likely just to skim a small percentage of that market with BTO options.
hmm.. maybe those arent the right words because they sort of mean the same thing.
apple expects the developers to optimize their software to suit the machine.. and i don't mean they expect them to because they say so and simply want to sell more thunderbolt monitors or gpus.. they expect them to because they believe they've brought computing to another level and have learned this configuration makes more performance sense.. the developers have more potential energy to work with.
Last years 6-core model is sitting on 2-4 year old tech. Go to Apple's refurb store and look at the refurb prices for 2-3 old Mac Pro tech. Look at the discounts. The E5 1650 is better than anything in Apple's current single CPU package line up. The E5 1650 v2 even more so. The is the middle of the new E6 1600 v2 line up. The 3.3 was the old top that generation (at least those that made it into Mac line ups.)
Similar is the fun house mirror that where Apples MBP 15" with a SSD of equal size with BTO option is more than the rMBP 15". That is largely to track folks into the newer device. However, in part that is because the SSD is standard inthe rMBP 15" and not in the classic MBP 15". It is a far more predicatble component cost and can be managed more effectively.
Yeah, I know. I think it's reasonable to expect new technology at the same price or similar technology at a lower price. But new technology at a lower price? I'm not getting my hopes up.
when the mbp went to i7 and 330m, it was also $100 cheaper
[edit]oh, but hey.. i'm not trying to talk you into getting your hopes up.. just conversing is all..
having low hopes in this type of situation is the best position to be in.. i get that