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

MP 7,1 2019 Mac Pro worth it for 5+ years of use?

E

Ethosik

Contributor
Original poster
Oct 21, 2009
8,179
7,165
I am needing a new computer now. I have been back and forth between the 2019 i9 iMac vs the iMac Pro mostly due to 2019 iMac is $1,000+ cheaper WITH more internal SSD and after market RAM upgrade for me than the base model iMac Pro. However, the cooling on the iMacs give me some concern about them.

I want to get a new system that I can still use 5+ years later. I am still using my 2010 Mac Pro for some tasks. While I am not thrilled about the pricing of the 2019 Mac Pro, would this be the better option if I want the system to last 5+ years? Or will the iMac/iMac Pro last that long too?

This is also depending on the upgrade pricing of the 256 GB stock SSD in the Mac Pro.
 
It would be hard giving this a suitable answer because it all depends on what you plan on doing with your Mac.

5+ years on any Mac is completely obtainable. In fact, every daily used Mac in my home is over 5 years old.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Average Pro
xWhiplash said:
I am needing a new computer now. I have been back and forth between the 2019 i9 iMac vs the iMac Pro mostly due to 2019 iMac is $1,000+ cheaper WITH more internal SSD and after market RAM upgrade for me than the base model iMac Pro. However, the cooling on the iMacs give me some concern about them.

I want to get a new system that I can still use 5+ years later. I am still using my 2010 Mac Pro for some tasks. While I am not thrilled about the pricing of the 2019 Mac Pro, would this be the better option if I want the system to last 5+ years? Or will the iMac/iMac Pro last that long too?

This is also depending on the upgrade pricing of the 256 GB stock SSD in the Mac Pro.
Click to expand...
Seriously reconsider that "last for 5+ years" approach.

I read an analysis years ago in a tech magazine (can't find the reference now) where the argument was made that you're much better off if you plan to buy 3 computers, each to last 2 years - vs. buying 1 computer to last 6 years.

The main arguments were that:
  • There's a big premium to buying the most and fastest cores, additional RAM, bigger disks, and other options for the "6 year" system. Cores/RAM/GB will drop in price for the 2-year and 4-year systems.
  • With the "2 year" approach you can get a cheaper system (fewer cores saves a lot), less dense (fewer GiB per DIMM) RAM is often much cheaper per GiB, and even SSD prices are often cheaper per GB for smaller disks.
  • You'll pick up new technology along the way. For example, your 2019 system will have PCIe 3.0. The 2021 system will have PCIe 4.0 (or 5.0) and possibly more lanes. In 2021 memory DIMMs will probably be faster, and 2.5 GbE, 5.0 GbE and 10 GbE network ports may be more common or affordable.
With the three 2-year computer approach, your total cost might be similar - but for year 2 to 6 you'll have a better, faster system than with the 6-year approach.

If the MP7,1 has a decent resale value after 2 years - you might be way ahead with the 2-year plan.

Of course, this analysis if meaningless if Apple stays on the "maybe update the Mac Pro every six years" plan. If running Apple OSX isn't a requirement, many more options.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: frou, Nugget and orph
AidenShaw said:
Seriously reconsider that "last for 5+ years" approach.

I read an analysis years ago in a tech magazine (can't find the reference now) where the argument was made that you're much better off if you plan to buy 3 computers, each to last 2 years - vs. buying 1 computer to last 6 years.

The main arguments were that:
  • There's a big premium to buying the most and fastest cores, additional RAM, bigger disks, and other options for the "6 year" system. Cores/RAM/GB will drop in price for the 2-year and 4-year systems.
  • With the "2 year" approach you can get a cheaper system (fewer cores saves a lot), less dense (fewer GiB per DIMM) RAM is often much cheaper per GiB, and even SSD prices are often cheaper per GB for smaller disks.
  • You'll pick up new technology along the way. For example, your 2019 system will have PCIe 3.0. The 2021 system will have PCIe 4.0 (or 5.0) and possibly more lanes. In 2021 memory DIMMs will probably be faster, and 2.5 GbE, 5.0 GbE and 10 GbE network ports may be more common or affordable.
With the three 2-year computer approach, your total cost might be similar - but for year 2 to 6 you'll have a better, faster system than with the 6-year approach.

If the MP7,1 has a decent resale value after 2 years - you might be way ahead with the 2-year plan.

Of course, this analysis if meaningless if Apple stays on the "maybe update the Mac Pro every six years" plan. If running Apple OSX isn't a requirement, many more options.
Click to expand...

So maybe I should go with the 2019 i9 iMac right now and reevaluate 2 years later?
 
Probably depending on your demand for raw computer power vs minimum hassle.
And, of course, how well trimmed your "change computer" routines are.

Myself I really like the less hassle part. My 3.1 was a bargain and has not had one failure in 11 years. I would like something similar next time, a computer that just keeps going, slowly aging with grace. Making some upgrades to prolong its life. Expensive yes, but I rather buy a good hassle free computer than a car.

Something speaking against the 2019 machine is that it is the first version of a new design. The 2006 to 2010 designs had a nice evolution with the last one being a much better long term computer than the first. So it kind of comes down to ones trust in Apples industrial design skills these days.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Average Pro and majus
Are you willing to pay a lot of money for very little performance? Are you willing to invest in a number of technologies that are at EoL (end of life) today?

The 7,1 will be obsolete on it's release date. The iMac Pro has all of the shortcomings of the 6,1 along with screen roulette.

Polaris (580) is 2 generations old. Vega is 1 generation back. PCIe 4.0 has already landed and PCIe 5 is right around the corner. MPX will only be supported by Apple, so any add-in modules will come with a premium. You won't be able to upgrade the SSD (because of T2).


If your workflow is CPU or GPU intensive, you should look outside of the Apple eco-system.
 
ssgbryan said:
Are you willing to pay a lot of money for very little performance? Are you willing to invest in a number of technologies that are at EoL (end of life) today?

The 7,1 will be obsolete on it's release date. The iMac Pro has all of the shortcomings of the 6,1 along with screen roulette.

Polaris (580) is 2 generations old. Vega is 1 generation back. PCIe 4.0 has already landed and PCIe 5 is right around the corner. MPX will only be supported by Apple, so any add-in modules will come with a premium. You won't be able to upgrade the SSD (because of T2).


If your workflow is CPU or GPU intensive, you should look outside of the Apple eco-system.
Click to expand...

Obsolete? That's rather dramatic, don't you think? Yes, certain choices made, like using a 580 as a base GPU are rather irate, but this machine is far from being 'obsolete' on it's release date.

Assuming the OP wants to stay in MacOs, the question revolves around whether the expandability of the MacPro will be worth it to them for the price. It's the reason why the cMP has lasted so long today, and still is a viable machine. This will allow for expansion, GPU, storage, and possibly CPU upgrades down the line.

If one can generally predict that a machine like an iMac can serve the same purposes without hindering their workflow, then perhaps that's the best choice, from an investment perspective.

For anyone how makes money off these machines, I think it's worth it in the long run. Just comes down to how much the investment is worth it to you vs. what return you can make on it over the expected life of the machine. And whether you are set up to be able to write off the expense as a full deduction or depreciable asset. I've easily made over 30 times the price of my cMP from work alone over the years.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Average Pro and crjackson2134
No, I don't. The 7,1 would have been a good system to release in 2016. Problem is that today is 3rd quarter 2019. The 7,1 is yesterday's tech at today's prices. It is going to age like Avocado Green and Goldenrod.

The cMP lasted as long as it did because computer innovation slowed during that time period. AMD bet wrong with bulldozer, and because of that bad bet, Intel wasn't pushed. Now that shoe is on Intel's foot wrt their 10nm process.

AMD has been the best bang for buck since 2017 - Ryzen disrupted the mainstream market, Threadripper did the same to the HEDT, and Eypc brought AMD back into the server space. And they aren't letting up. 16 core/32 thread Ryzen 9 in September, (and possibly Threadripper 3), and Eypc is making Intel redundant in the server space. AMD has already finished Zen 3 and has started design work on Zen 4 - Intel has nothing.

The areas that Intel outperforms AMD has been steadily shrinking since 2017, and I don't see that changing anytime soon.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Polymorphic
im with AidenShaw, a 5 year computer plan is not a good idea.

get what you need now, mid range is always the best value section and upgrade when you next need to.

i will not assume any computer will last past the warranty. (they all can cost a lot for a out of warranty repair, imacs are almost not worth fixing half the time and better of replacing)

so big question, what is the use case?

your looking at two top end computers so what apps are you using that need such a high end computer?
look at the apps you use and from that chose a computer that will fit your use case best!

if you can outline the use case for the computer we may be able to provide some help

im always confused when some one asks what computer they want to get and wont say what there doing :confused:
for all we know it's just emails and Facebook or CAD for aerospace

edit-
for most people the 27" imac is all you 'need' (i think you can still DIY ram on it easier than the imac pro)
and unless you need 64 PCI lanes the new macpro may not be what you want + pricing is not out so its pointless to talk about
 
Last edited:
I think the Mac Pro 7,1 will be a great computer for 5+ years. There are some newer technologies coming out, but it will take quite a while for those to become widely adopted and it’s debatable how much more useful they’ll make your computer. The 7,1 has a ton of room for expansion so it will remain relevant for a long time. PCIe 3.0 will be perfectly adequate for most uses for years to come. Look how well new GPUs operate in a 5,1 at PCIe 2.0 and even 1.1. When the 5,1 was released some of the hardware was woefully outdated, but it remained a great machine up until the present. The 7,1 will outlast any other new Mac by a significant margin.
 
  • Like
Reactions: fuchsdh, skippermonkey and Average Pro
xWhiplash said:
So maybe I should go with the 2019 i9 iMac right now and reevaluate 2 years later?
Click to expand...

I would structure your purchase based on a 2 year cycle. If it's still reasonable at that time, there's no reason to move on. The silly thing is to buy too many upgrades at high markups based on the expectation that you will be using it for the next 5+ years. Most upgrades just don't add longevity that is really proportional to their cost, and the 5+ year plan makes the implicit assumption that you won't be really unlucky in the sense that something outside your control happens to retire the machine earlier than you expect.

When things last 5 or more years, it's often due to the fact that sometimes requirements don't shift that fast.
 
It really depends on what you do on your computer, but I’d say the 8 core i9 would last 5 years pretty easily.

I use Cubase which requires continuous CPU power to run plugins and instruments. Until about 6 months ago I was using a late 2014 quad core i7 iMac. It made it into its 5th year of use in my studio until I upgraded to a 6 core i7 Mac Mini (which I expect to keep for less than 3 years as it was actually cheaper than what the old iMac was still worth).

The iMac has been moved to my Architecture practice where it now runs Revit on Windows with boot camp. I would say it’s still got another few years of professional use before it’s retired to general household use or sold.

So given a top of the range late 2014 iMac is still being used to make money for a business 5 years later, I’d have no doubts the current 8 core i9 can do the same.
 
Thanks for the input everyone. Dropping the 5+ year requirement I decided the get the maxed out 2019 i9 iMac. 8GB of RAM, as I will put in 64 GB myself. I can re-evaluate in 2 years to see if I need a better one.
 
  • Like
Reactions: frou and R3k
I'm on a mid-2010 12-core Mac Pro and it's been an absolute workhorse. Very rarely gone wrong, and has had multiple GPUs, hard drives SSDs and RAM thrown at it. I'll be buying a new Mac Pro when Apple finally gets round to releasing the damn thing (hopefully within the next week or so), but I'll keep this machine as back up, for rendering duties and a few old apps running under Mojave. You can always endlessly ponder what's next, will this machine be worth it, is it already obsolete (pfft, what isn't?), but life is for living and cash is for spending.

I am so looking forward too seeing how the new system performs compared to my beloved decade-old machine, and will no doubt be keeping this one for at least five years, depending on Apple and its whims.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MisterAndrew and pertusis1
The term EoL implies worthless, which is an over simplification. Some tech late in it's lifecycle is actually very useful, often because there's been time for proper optimization and refinement of interface protocols with complimentary tech.

We could do pages on the individual components Apple chose and where they are in their useful lifespan. I would suspect there are some very real issues with lead time as well. All that said, until we have actual mMPs to benchmark, you can't "know" that the system might not be more powerful than a sum of it's parts might suggest.
 
Actually, I used EoL because it was quicker to type than obsolescent. None of the components on the 7,1 will get better.

Nothing more will be done for PCIe 3.0 - it's replacement (PCIe 4.0) is available now, and PCIe 5 is right around the corner.

There will be no more improvements for the GCN architecture - RDNA is replacing it. The middle of the stack is out now, and both lower and higher end products will be coming out in the next few months.

AFA CPUs - Intel has nothing to compete with AMD now - and doesn't have anything on the horizon. AMD is out performing them in the desktop consumer space, the High End desktop, and in Servers - it isn't even close.

AFA lead time - There wouldn't have been an issue, except that Apple doesn't like following industry standards - what problem does MPX actually solve? Other than vendor lock-in, of course.

The $6,000 base 7,1 will be outperformed by systems that are half its price (or less). The 7,1 will be a dongle for Logic and Final Cut X, just like the 6,1.
 
  • Like
Reactions: OS6-OSX
ssgbryan said:
When was the last time a major computer launched with so many EoL technologies on day 1?
Click to expand...
When was the last time any vendor of business computers only used components, which were announced just today?
Also, that components were used which aren't the hot **** of yesterday, doesn't mean they are useless or even worthless.
Heck, we are on the Macpro sub forum, which concerns itself mostly with cMP being kept alive. Heck, my 3,1 is 11 years old. I still have uses for it. Heck, I have a collection of 8bit Ataris. I still have uses for them.
I'm all for using new technology, but this circle jerk of "If it's not the newest and highest specs, then you are a dummy to buy it" annoys me plenty.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AxiomaticRubric, MisterAndrew and majus
Pointing out that the price of the base model with it's "starter" GPU/CPU components can be outperformed by lower cost systems is certainly accurate - but essentially meaningless for the target market. As many have noted, the upside of Apple's choices is that buyers only need to upgrade in areas crucial to their particular use case. Moreover, the design looks to be capable of properly hosting workstation class components, including at least the next generation of GPUs, whenever they hit the market.

I subscribe to the logic that Apple has priced the 7,1 to reap most of the profit they will ever get from a user upgradable device. Many folks, particularly on this forum sub-section, have been able to keep their cMP towers viable for a decade via upgrades - Apple is certainly aware of this. From a business perspective, longer projected replacement cycles require larger margins. Is that fair? Personally, as long as I get many years of rock solid service, the initial cost (vs other options) pro rated on a per annum basis is not an issue.
 
  • Like
Reactions: majus
Yes, it should be very useful for 5 years.

But, along with the financial considerations (opportunity cost, etc.), you may wish to think about the hedonic issues. Buy the Pro and you will be very, very happy - for a while. But then Apple will update it (one hopes), and you will feel some pain. And you will feel a little bored with it, too. And then it hits Rev 3 in year 3 or 4*, and you will feel even more pain.

In the alternative, you get a nicely equipped iMac. You are maybe not as happy as with the Pro, initially, but it's still quite nice. And you still have the other $3k or much more, and you get to trade up at least once and maybe twice over those 5 years "for free." Heck, they will even do a total chassis redo way before 5 years - nice! Less buyer's remorse, and more fun over time.

I'm not saying you should skip the Pro, but with your concerns, you should skip the Pro. ;-)

(*That's assuming Apple doesn't pull a 6,1 and barely, if ever, updates it.)
 
Last edited:
Ph.D. said:
(*That's assuming Apple doesn't pull a 6,1 and barely, if ever, updates it.)
Click to expand...

That’s the problem. If we know we will get an update every year, it’s a no brainer to wait. But it’s equally possible (if not more likely) that this is the last Mac Pro ever....

It’s tough to know...
 
  • Like
Reactions: majus
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