Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

2013 Mac Pro Price (Range?)

I think we all might be looking at this the wrong way. The question we should be asking is this: is the "new" Mac Pro more or less expensive than a properly updated "old" Mac Pro would have been?

It seems to me that in most configurations the new Mac Pro will be cheaper to configure than the old Mac Pro design could have been.

A properly updated old Mac Pro still would be using the same processor, same RAM, Thunderbolt, etc as the new Mac Pro. The only thing that is really different is the new Mac Pro comes with two gfx cards mandatory and the obvious difference in internal storage capabilities.

Really, the extra internal infrastructure for several hard drive bays would have likely increased the cost to build by an amount comparable to an external multi-bay drive. So, forcing us to buy external enclosure likely isn't changing our overall cost for our setups.
 
WardC said:
$2299 is what I am looking at for the 8-core, and $2999 for the 12-core, with a $3499 option for faster processors on the 12-core. Again, I don't have much solid material to go by, so this is all a bit theoretical pricing it out.
Click to expand...

I just don't know how you think that's possible other than a random uneducated guess. The lowest clocked 8 core processor is pushing $1000. I know Apple gets a volume discount, but that's still not considering any of the other internals nor Apple's markup.
 
WardC said:
I would not be surprised if the processor chip is soldered on the board along with the SSD.
Click to expand...

You should be surprised. Just go to the Apple website.

http://www.apple.com/mac-pro/

Go the the "Graphics" entry. Then click on the "Storage" entry. You'll see an animation that puts the SSD into the socket on the GPU card. The SSD isn't soldered in this or any other Mac.

Xeon E5 don't come in BGA packages to be soldered to the motherboard.


In this instance, Apple will not offer a quad or a 6-core.
Click to expand...

If looking for something in the $2000-3000 range they'd have to do less than 8. In the upcoming Xeon E5 v2 line up the only 8 core offerings are all over $1000.

$2299 is what I am looking at for the 8-core,
Click to expand...

The raw processor all buy itself costs over $1000. $1,299 for the whole rest of the machine + profit margin? Not very likely at all.


and $2999 for the 12-core,
Click to expand...

The 12 core processors cost over $2,300 all by themselves! $600 for the whole rest of the machine including all the margins ? Not going to happen.


There is a post around #90-98 in this thread with the prices.....
 
WardC said:
The way I see it, Apple is trying to tap more into the prosumer market with this machine. In essence, it is a Pro-Mini and not a true Mac Pro because it's vastly lacking the internal expandability options. I would not be surprised if the processor chip is soldered on the board along with the SSD. That said, this is a professional power machine that will likely be priced in the more affordable range than the previous models. I am guessing there will be TWO standard models, an 8-Core, and a 12-Core, both dual processor models...In this instance, Apple will not offer a quad or a 6-core. $2299 is what I am looking at for the 8-core, and $2999 for the 12-core, with a $3499 option for faster processors on the 12-core. Again, I don't have much solid material to go by, so this is all a bit theoretical pricing it out.
Click to expand...

We know from the preview that they will use a single cpu chip. Otherwise it would probably get to at least 16 cores in a 2 x 8 configuration. The soldering thing is completely impractical in many ways. It would hurt Apple more than it would hurt you. They could not change cpus and would have to potentially eat a very expensive cpu in the case of bad logic boards. Typically that kind of attached integration begins at lower price levels. As Deconstruct pointed out, BGA isn't offered on Xeon EP chips. I also think you're quite low on the 12 core model. Intel typically sells the higher core count chips as E5-2600 models, so they will be expensive. They're aimed at dual socket boards. I suspect that Apple may increase the use of 1600 variants by its second generation, but that won't be for a very long time, probably at least early 2015. They have added only high end options to an existing line in the past.
 
deconstruct60 said:
A joke article. I'm not sure what IHS iSuppli is smoking ( and frankly Tim Cook as made comments alluding to pretty much the same thing on conference calls ).

"... Those Xeon chips, for instance, can go well past $2,000 (though Apple gets discounts from buying in bulk) ... "

On the high end sure. But why on Earth would Apple put an extremely high end Xeon in the entry level Mac Pro? It is actually the lowest end of the Xeon line up that actually matters to entry level pricing of which the article (and perhaps iSuppli ? ) don't really offer up.

The article doesn't want to bring up $300 Xeon E5's because then the BOM prices wouldn't blow out the old entry price.

"... But there might simply not be that much room for adjusting the hardware in this machine. ... "

ROTFLMAO. What? about 10-12 Xeon E5 to choose from that would fit the socket ( not that Apple would offer that many). 3 FirePros to choose from. Probably 2-3 SSDs to choose from ( if limit to just one SSD. SSDs on each GPU card). 10 * 3 * 2 that's 60 configs and haven't even done RAM yet.

Compared to multiple million configuration boxes perhaps. Small in terms of numbers ... not really.

" ... Based on some rough estimates of comparable hardware, components, and labor, just the raw cost of the machine could total $2,800, ... "

More than likely this is wholesale retail FirePro card comparison primarily driving that. This is far more whether go down to the raw costs on the video cards or those costs plus what AMD mark-up. If just raw costs and no ones market up no way get anywhere near $2,800 for reasonable entry level components.

Again really funny how article doesn't list what these comparable components are. Just that they are $2,800.
Click to expand...

I will agree that his cost estimates are high, but I still think the article makes a good case for the price of the Mac Pro to be well over $1,999.00 for the base model. The current base version starts at $2,499.00 and this new box clearly has some much more expensive components in it.

----------
Cubemmal said:
However I have solid reasons to back up my assertion while those who think they'll be priced in the stratosphere have offered none, other than "FirePro's are expensive, and look at that SSD!" while ignoring the reduced BOM costs and the simple fact that they are taking away with this computer, not adding in.

The facts are that it looks clear that the computer is cheaper to manufacture, of course what the final price will be is up to Apple. Maybe they want to kill the line off and will price it to guarantee that.
Click to expand...

Do you seriously believe that this new Mac Pro that clearly has higher end more expensive parts is going to be priced $500 less than the current base model?
 
Now that according to Apple we're living in the post PC era, it's anyone's guess how Apple will price these. On one hand the rather radical design suggests that they've created a show piece to draw attention. To support that it's likely to be very pricey.

Having the all in one desktop for those who neither need or can afford the Mac Pro, I simply don't see any reason for them to make this affordable. Volume sales is not their goal, nor will it make a difference. This is more about making a statement to garner the attention Apple needs to stroke their huge ego.
 
phpmaven said:
I will agree that his cost estimates are high, but I still think the article makes a good case for the price of the Mac Pro to be well over $1,999.00 for the base model.
Click to expand...

I think it is more so muddled as to just "what" they did the cost estimates for. I wouldn't be surprised if asked with the raw component cost was on the exact spec Apple bragged on in the "sneak peak" ( this super max ) config that the BOM cost could be close to that range. The huge flaw is presuming that is the standard standard model.

The SSD may not start off at 512GB. The rMBP 15" starts at 256GB. If it was the difference between hitting the old price and a 512GB drive, then I suspect they'd go with hitting the old price. The 512GB capacity would just be a BTO option.



The current base version starts at $2,499.00 and this new box clearly has some much more expensive components in it.
Click to expand...

It has expensive components but it also tossed costs also. 1:1 offsets probably not, but relatively close. The old entry Mac Pro has more than a little slop in its margin also. Apple settling for 35% mark up instead of 55% gives a path to cover costs increases also. Part of the current entry point problems has been has there been enough 'value' stuffed into the box to provide a good enough value proposition to draw in customers ("bang for the buck").
 
I'm honestly not sure why an SSD larger than 256 would be necessary. It's enough for the system, all apps (including things like logic sample packs, which are large files), and user directory containing key non-media documents --- ***for most users****.

Some users would certainly need more, but I'd guess the majority would take quite some time to outgrow 256 GB, especially if Apple's "store big files externally" thing is followed.
 
maxosx said:
Now that according to Apple we're living in the post PC era, it's anyone's guess how Apple will price these. On one hand the rather radical design suggests that they've created a show piece to draw attention. To support that it's likely to be very pricey.

Having the all in one desktop for those who neither need or can afford the Mac Pro, I simply don't see any reason for them to make this affordable. Volume sales is not their goal, nor will it make a difference.
Click to expand...

I think many people are overlooking this possibility.

----------
clamnectar said:
I'm honestly not sure why an SSD larger than 256 would be necessary. It's enough for the system, all apps (including things like logic sample packs, which are large files), and user directory containing key non-media documents --- ***for most users****.

Some users would certainly need more, but I'd guess the majority would take quite some time to outgrow 256 GB, especially if Apple's "store big files externally" thing is followed.
Click to expand...

It really depends how much of your workflow you want on solid state, and how much history you want accessible on SSD before you need to move stuff to slower storage or pull it back. I need at least 500GB of SSD for my OS, Apps, and active photo libraries otherwise I'm spending too much time juggling things around.

Also, The only SSD BTO option on the current Mac Pro is 500GB which says to me that Apple is not afraid to limit options on the Mac Pro to only the pricey ones. :)
 
VirtualRain said:
I need at least 500GB of SSD for my OS, Apps, and active photo libraries otherwise I'm spending too much time juggling things around.
Click to expand...

Highly unlikely are real hard constraint that the photo libraries have to be on the same SSD. On a SSD perhaps. However, on the exact same one? Unlikely, that is a real hard requirement. Defaults on lots of Apple software likes to create big giant user home directories with everything stuffed into opaque big piles, but that actually isn't required.

If extremely high performance is a requirement that coupling is exactly what don't want. Those being on independent channels would maximize throughput.
 
deconstruct60 said:
Highly unlikely are real hard constraint that the photo libraries have to be on the same SSD. On a SSD perhaps. However, on the exact same one? Unlikely, that is a real hard requirement. Defaults on lots of Apple software likes to create big giant user home directories with everything stuffed into opaque big piles, but that actually isn't required.

If extremely high performance is a requirement that coupling is exactly what don't want. Those being on independent channels would maximize throughput.
Click to expand...

In fact it's not on the same drive... OS/Apps/iTunes on one bootable SSD and photo libraries on a larger faster RAID0 array of SSDs. Since I'm anticipating the new Mac Pro only offering a single SSD, I added my total solid state storage needs together... which is currently around 500GB (even though I have 1TB). If I'm going to buy a 2013 Mac Pro, I will get it configured with between 500GB and 1TB depending on the price.
 
There could be an entry-level model with Xeon E5 16xx-V2 chips which are also LGA2011 like the 26xx-V2. But that's assuming 16xx-V2 pricing is similar to the previous 16xx chips.
 
VirtualRain said:
In fact it's not on the same drive... OS/Apps/iTunes on one bootable SSD and photo libraries on a larger faster RAID0 array of SSDs. Since I'm anticipating the new Mac Pro only offering a single SSD, I added my total solid state storage needs together... which is currently around 500GB (even though I have 1TB). If I'm going to buy a 2013 Mac Pro, I will get it configured with between 500GB and 1TB depending on the price.
Click to expand...

You might find external TB enclosures for RAIDed SSDs to be a better option than paying for a single large SSD from Apple. Even the TB-tax is lower than the Apple-BTO-tax. But it depends on what you think your future usage will be, since the main draw back into putting the extra cash into the BTO is you can't build apon it later, or if you end up upgrading else where to the point where the large internal drive is not really necissary, you in a sense wasted that cash from the upgrade.

For example:

Using the MacBook Pro model, you're paying $300 to go from 256GB to 512GB or $700 to go from 256GB to 768GB. Just for argument sake, lets say that's what the nMP options are.

Now instead you could spend $380 and buy the Pegasus J4, which is 4x2.5" drive bays. Then, you can pop in 4x128GB (say another $400) or 4x256 (say another $700) drives for relatively reasonable costs, plus you'll get options to run in RAID0/1/10 and you can more easily upgrade this later as costs decrease and needs increase. In 4x128GB RAID0 configuration + 256 internal you'd get the same capacity as the single 768GB drive for almost the same cost. Personally, if I had to have large capacity SSDs with the nMP, I'd go that route, rather than blow my load on the single 768GB drive then still have to upgrade to an external SSD RAID eventually.
 
WardC said:
The way I see it, Apple is trying to tap more into the prosumer market with this machine. In essence, it is a Pro-Mini and not a true Mac Pro because it's vastly lacking the internal expandability options. I would not be surprised if the processor chip is soldered on the board along with the SSD. That said, this is a professional power machine that will likely be priced in the more affordable range than the previous models. I am guessing there will be TWO standard models, an 8-Core, and a 12-Core, both dual processor models...In this instance, Apple will not offer a quad or a 6-core. $2299 is what I am looking at for the 8-core, and $2999 for the 12-core, with a $3499 option for faster processors on the 12-core. Again, I don't have much solid material to go by, so this is all a bit theoretical pricing it out.
Click to expand...

soldered in SSD will kill high security use.
 
wallysb01 said:
You might find external TB enclosures for RAIDed SSDs to be a better option than paying for a single large SSD from Apple. Even the TB-tax is lower than the Apple-BTO-tax. But it depends on what you think your future usage will be, since the main draw back into putting the extra cash into the BTO is you can't build apon it later, or if you end up upgrading else where to the point where the large internal drive is not really necissary, you in a sense wasted that cash from the upgrade.

For example:

Using the MacBook Pro model, you're paying $300 to go from 256GB to 512GB or $700 to go from 256GB to 768GB. Just for argument sake, lets say that's what the nMP options are.

Now instead you could spend $380 and buy the Pegasus J4, which is 4x2.5" drive bays. Then, you can pop in 4x128GB (say another $400) or 4x256 (say another $700) drives for relatively reasonable costs, plus you'll get options to run in RAID0/1/10 and you can more easily upgrade this later as costs decrease and needs increase. In 4x128GB RAID0 configuration + 256 internal you'd get the same capacity as the single 768GB drive for almost the same cost. Personally, if I had to have large capacity SSDs with the nMP, I'd go that route, rather than blow my load on the single 768GB drive then still have to upgrade to an external SSD RAID eventually.
Click to expand...

Ha!... Yeah... I've been debating this in my mind since the new Mac Pro was announced. In my case, I could repurpose my four 256GB SSDs into a J4 as you suggest (for just the cost of the enclosure), or I could just sell those on eBay/CL and buy 1TB BTO from Apple. Of course, the latter will be more expensive, but it will perform better and it has the benefit of being simpler and minimal. It really depends on the Mac Pro pricing.
 
VirtualRain said:
Ha!... Yeah... I've been debating this in my mind since the new Mac Pro was announced. In my case, I could repurpose my four 256GB SSDs into a J4 as you suggest (for just the cost of the enclosure), or I could just sell those on eBay/CL and buy 1TB BTO from Apple. Of course, the latter will be more expensive, but it will perform better and it has the benefit of being simpler and minimal. It really depends on the Mac Pro pricing.
Click to expand...

Well, thats a good problem to have I suppose. Personally, I'd go the J4 route due to the upgrade path. But if you might just buy another J4 (or equavalent) and drives to go with it when the time comes, then I suppose it won't make much difference.
 
you want some insight into how the price of this computer is going to be determined? go to 8 mins in this video and watch for a little bit..


3 months into incorporating next, they already have the price figured out and it's determined via polls/interviews on how much people are willing to pay. next didn't even have a prototype at this stage in development.


that's all there is to it.. this new mac? they had the price figured out long before..

and seemingly, any time this dude is involved with the computer, that target price is always around $3000.. for the past 25 years


the nExt computer ended up being something like $6000 when it finally hit the shelves.. and we all know the fate of next computers.. i think they have it figured out by now how to set a 3g target price and stick to it because they also know what happens when the price goes over that amount.

regardless, i guarantee they're not designing/prototyping the new mac then adding up the cost of it's parts then determining the sales cost.. the cost was already figured out at the very beginning of the process.
 
flat five said:
regardless, i guarantee they're not designing/prototyping the new mac then adding up the cost of it's parts then determining the sales cost.. the cost was already figured out at the very beginning of the process.
Click to expand...

You think? Is this a serious post, or are you just messing around?
 
theSeb said:
You think? Is this a serious post, or are you just messing around?
Click to expand...

completely serious. if they did it any other way, we'd of seen a much greater fluctuation of costs over the years from model to model.
any time you wanted a low-mid config in the past, how much did it cost?

----------

oh.. but hey.. feel free to bookmark that post of mine and throw it in my face when it turns out to be wrong.. i'll laugh along with you :)
i mean, i don't really know this.. it just makes sense to me is all..

----------

oh.. but i did say something similar the other day prior to seeing that video ;)
https://forums.macrumors.com/posts/17714855/


.
 
Last edited:
flat five said:
3 months into incorporating next, they already have the price figured out and it's determined via polls/interviews on how much people are willing to pay. next didn't even have a prototype at this stage in development.


that's all there is to it.. this new mac? they had the price figured out long before..
Click to expand...

No surprise, that's how it's done ALL THE TIME in all industries. You don't start R&D without having a ballpark for end price, which is determined by the market. If your marketing and finance folks haven't run this early on then they should be fired.

and seemingly, any time this dude is involved with the computer, that target price is always around $3000.. for the past 25 years
Click to expand...

Except that the bulk of their computers sell probably at around the $1,200-$1,500. Apple has steep drop off in sales at $2,500, proof? That's why they dropped the 17" MBP and want to drop the old Mac Pro.

We don't know, we don't know, we don't know, and I don't care as I'm getting one, but I will not be at all surprised if it comes in at $1,999. Just the buzz Apple wants, and will turn the Mac Pro into a healthy production line.
 
flat five said:
completely serious. if they did it any other way, we'd of seen a much greater fluctuation of costs over the years from model to model.
any time you wanted a low-mid config in the past, how much did it cost?

----------

oh.. but hey.. feel free to bookmark that post of mine and throw it in my face when it turns out to be wrong.. i'll laugh along with you :)
i mean, i don't really know this.. it just makes sense to me is all..

----------

oh.. but i did say something similar the other day prior to seeing that video ;)
https://forums.macrumors.com/posts/17714855/


.
Click to expand...
You completely missed my point. There is nothing new or sensational you're telling us. This guy has already explained what I was subtly hinting at

No surprise, that's how it's done ALL THE TIME in all industries. You don't start R&D without having a ballpark for end price, which is determined by the market. If your marketing and finance folks haven't run this early on then they should be fired.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back