But one of the main "features" of the Mac Pro is being able to upgrade it yourself, so even if you get the lowest-specced "low-end" model it'll still last you for years; probably until a new Mac Pro design comes out.
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.
MP 7,1 apple should lower the price of entry level mac pro
- Thread starter vir2l2k
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Buying the base Mac Pro without planning any upgrades is like buying an Audi A7 without an airconditioning. You're buying into the platform.
I have an HP Z8 here that cost me more than a similar Mac Pro configuration. For this sort of machine, the pricing is completely normal. Our workflow is currently completely Windows-based, but otherwise, I could fit these machines in straight away. Cost is not the problem.
I have an HP Z8 here that cost me more than a similar Mac Pro configuration. For this sort of machine, the pricing is completely normal. Our workflow is currently completely Windows-based, but otherwise, I could fit these machines in straight away. Cost is not the problem.
I'm considering the purchase of the base Mac Pro and I have no intention to upgrade it (at least not initially). Does this mean I have to pick up an Audi A7 too?
It will probably be the fastest Mac I'd own (I think my fastest Mac I currently own is my 6,1 Mac Pro).
If I look at the geekbench value the base model is around 37% faster than my 6.1MP in single core, but only 6.8% in multi-core where I need it. Not for me. I have to go to 12 or 16 core to see a real performance boost.
I won't need the capabilities of the 2019 Mac Pro. In fact my 6,1 doesn't see much use. My primary Mac is my 5,1. I'm just interested in buying one to complete my collection (I have a 1,1, 3,1, 5,1, and 6,1)
If Apple and Nvidia dropped their sticks, Nvidia and CUDA could be back on any Mac Pro in a week. But this anecdote is kind of pointless anyhow as Apple hasn't really been in the Hollywood effects business for more than ten years. A shame? Perhaps. But the flip side is that the Hollywood effects business is dying, as I'm sure your friend must have told you. All those expensive post houses with Autodesk Flame machines are falling like dominoes.
And dual processors means Xeon -SP, which are even more expensive than the Xeon -W line for comparable clocks. So again, how does this lead to a cheaper entry-level price for the Mac Pro, which was the original point of this thread?
Yeah, but that still wasn't the xMac, which is the domain of people who cling to the prices of the PowerMac G4 as The Way Things Should Be, when looking historically the prices were aberrant for Apple's pro lineup, and also frankly Apple from an incredibly weak position (Intel competition pretty quickly stomped on G4 performance, and all the Velocity Units in the world didn't help with that.)
I agree that the higher price ceiling of the Mac Pro prices more people out of owning it; that's inarguable. Time will tell if this is the entire summation of Apple's strategy to reposition the Mac Pro as a high-end workstation, or whether they're just targeting the high end but will offer a cheaper option (if they do, I doubt it gets back down to $3K either way.) But it was never going to be a machine that would replace their hackintosh with gaming GPUs.
This seems to be a prudent safety measure that was designed intentionally.
Well you're just moving the goalposts now because my message was a reply to you where you said this:
My friend says, it's not fast enough. Once again they made a single-CPU Mac when they want Dual Processors. They've focused once again too much on graphics like the trash can Mac Pro which is not what they want. They've gone with AMD GPU's which is not what they want.
I was not answering the cost question in my reply to you because you were making out this Mac Pro is not for common people and that is why the price is so high. I countered that by saying even the professionals don't want it because while it is very expensive it doesn't offer them all* what they want.
Also my friends work place is doing very well, they just worked on the new James Bond
* And by all I'm speaking specifically to visual effects artists here. I'm personally a software engineer and I too am not interested in this Mac Pro. I'd rather build something for 1/4th the cost with superior performance.
At no point did I say "The Mac Pro is designed for every professional user out there". That's not me moving the goalposts, that's you not understanding what I've written. You're the one with a myopic understanding of what professionals means.Well you're just moving the goalposts now because my message was a reply to you where you said this:
My friend says, it's not fast enough. Once again they made a single-CPU Mac when they want Dual Processors. They've focused once again too much on graphics like the trash can Mac Pro which is not what they want. They've gone with AMD GPU's which is not what they want.
I was not answering the cost question in my reply to you because you were making out this Mac Pro is not for common people and that is why the price is so high. I countered that by saying even the professionals don't want it because while it is very expensive it doesn't offer them all* what they want.
Also my friends work place is doing very well, they just worked on the new James Bond
* And by all I'm speaking specifically to visual effects artists here. I'm personally a software engineer and I too am not interested in this Mac Pro. I'd rather build something for 1/4th the cost with superior performance.
And working on the latest James Bond isn't really an indicator of anything. Effects houses are going under even when they win Oscars on successful films. I hope your friend keeps his job, but it's not a market I'd envy being in right now.
We're having to read between the lines because you don't speak clearly. If you don't want to be misunderstood write exactly what you mean so there is no room for the wrong interpretation.
To me given the context this Mac Pro has been released under (Apple saying it's for professionals) combined with what you said in that sentence to me you meant it's for professionals who get work done and not people who obsess over specifications. If you didn't mean that then please clarify who is the Mac Pro for in your opinion?
Okay guy, tone it down a bit.
They're doing fine, they have to refuse work they're doing so well. And as I said he's worked there for over 10 years already, his job is perfectly safe. As for the studio that won the Oscar and then had to shut down, that's due to poor business decisions, they negotiated poorly with the studios to get the work on Life of Pi for example, that's their own fault, no one forced them to agree to unfavourable terms but themselves.
I'd like to add that in the entertainment industry it's very volatile in general. Hollywood studios, Game Studios, Music Studios, Visual Effects, Practical Effects etc all of these areas have very high turnover for employees and the companies often are on the brink of collapse. Creating media you hope will resonate with audiences is a huge gamble and one bad production can sink a studio if they put everything on the line.
Also I think it's childish to dismiss what I said with you inferring "well your friend might not even have a job soon!" like what does that have to do with this topic at all? Again moving the goal posts. I don't think I have to say any more.
I'm dismissing your friend's experience as relevant in any way to the topic of this thread or any assertion I made. Learn another phrase other than "moving the goal posts" because it's not a good fit for whatever you're trying to assert.
And you frankly don't know much about the business of the visual effects industry, so you should probably leave that topic to people who do.
Good for you - I have a whole stack of dead products (2 MBP, 2 Time Capsules, 2 Apple TVs) because Sir Idiot Boy didn't understand the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Both of my 4,1 needed northbridge rivet replacements - while the boxes were opened up, I went ahead and replaced the thermal paste on all CPUs - that did drop the temps, by over 10 degrees.
If a 5,1 is still viable for you, drive on with your bad self.
But as a 3d art hobbyist like myself, it isn't. I'll see at least a 50% performance increase (at less power consumption), so it is pretty much a no brainer.
Yes, it does! Go ahead and get one. Without airco, of courseI'm considering the purchase of the base Mac Pro and I have no intention to upgrade it (at least not initially). Does this mean I have to pick up an Audi A7 too?
I'm sure you'll be very happy with it. But it's borderline iMac Pro and even mac mini territory, except for the expandability. Expanding the Mac Pro, for me, belongs under upgrading it, e.g. AV cards, RAID, GPU, ... That's why for me, it's strange to get an expandable machine then to use it like an all-in-one. But who am I to judge
I'm already in camp BMW for my German vehiclesYes, it does! Go ahead and get one. Without airco, of course
It'll get upgraded but not initially. Those will come in time. As for why I'd be buying it well, to add it to my collection. I have one of each of the prior versions (save for a 2,1 and 4,1 which are essentially a 1,1 and 5,1 respectively). Kinda of want to keep that train going (though I guess I could wait until they're available used).I'm sure you'll be very happy with it. But it's borderline iMac Pro and even mac mini territory, except for the expandability. Expanding the Mac Pro, for me, belongs under upgrading it, e.g. AV cards, RAID, GPU, ... That's why for me, it's strange to get an expandable machine then to use it like an all-in-one. But who am I to judge
Good better best. Apple doesn't actually want you to buy the base spec. They want you to upgrade it, because the higher-than-base tier is their bread and butter with even sweeter profit margins. It's like the 64GB iPhone 11 Pro Max. They want you to upgrade to the middle one by making the "cheap" entry one obviously underpowered and overpriced. They're smart enough to make good margins no matter what you buy, though.
Very true and they got me on that iPhone 11 Pro. I went with the 256GB one because 64GB was too small. 128GB would have been perfect for me.
I think it is clear Apple’s strategy is buy an iMac or a Mini w/eGPU. Now that Thunderbolt and USB have merged and devicemakers will not have to shell out royalties to Intel, the modular option might actually be viable/cost effective and the iMac is a solid value for what you get anyway.
To your point, I don’t feel Apple had a true Pro workstation machine until the early multi socket Xeons, but even then there was a single socket option in an obtainable price range.
Also, my argument really doesn’t have anything to do with performance/value, it’s about the entry point to a common platform. Take canon DSLR cameras for example. You can buy a camera from their xxD range for half the price of one from the flagship xD lineup. The software, the features and how to actually operate the camera are 99% the same and you can take that knowledge to any DSLR they make.
Part of the problem is what defines a "pro machine" has shifted substantially, as well as what defines a "pro machine" depends on the pro, who have different workflows and needs, and finally Apple's use of "pro" really just means high-end; sometimes that covers "professional", and sometimes that's just "the best X we make".
Multi-sockets are much less important than they were when Apple made the 6,1 (which explains the existence of the Xeon -W line now, and how the -SPs are terribly expensive for even moderate core counts and high clock speeds; Intel's path has shifted heavily from the old E5 days.) Apple saw GPU power was the wave of the future for many industries, but whiffed on implementation. They championed an external expansion strategy that wasn't really there yet—a Thunderbolt 3 version of the cylinder Mac Pro would have been a much more viable machine.
I see your point about platform, but I don't think the camera analogy connects to Macs. The "entry point" is any Mac, the platform is the Mac in general. You can take your peripherals between machines, and the knowledge to operate the low end one is identical to operating the high end.
Let me conclude this: That's impossible.
CPU itself from Mac Pro basic model costs $750. RAM is $800, GPU is $400, keyboard and mouse are $250, SSD is $400, PSU is between $300~500. That's around $3100 without the case and motherboard!
Without RAM, mouse, and keyboard can decrease the price but it's still $2050. I'm not sure if Apple can make a low budget Mac Pro around $3000.
CPU itself from Mac Pro basic model costs $750. RAM is $800, GPU is $400, keyboard and mouse are $250, SSD is $400, PSU is between $300~500. That's around $3100 without the case and motherboard!
Without RAM, mouse, and keyboard can decrease the price but it's still $2050. I'm not sure if Apple can make a low budget Mac Pro around $3000.
The $5999 price is ok for a higher spec model (12 core) but the 8 core base model stripped to the bare minimum is a total rip.
In a couple years they'll do away with the 8 core and the new base model at the same price will be a 12 core w a 512 GB SSD and marginally better GPU.
Think of Apple's products as always being behind the curve. When they launch something new, it's usually older tech but at new tech prices
In a couple years they'll do away with the 8 core and the new base model at the same price will be a 12 core w a 512 GB SSD and marginally better GPU.
Think of Apple's products as always being behind the curve. When they launch something new, it's usually older tech but at new tech prices
When you purchase the 7.1, you are GONE! And Apple knows it. You don't need to make another purchase from them for this machine for the next 5 to 12 years (for the dedicated mac pro hanger oners). They are getting their money upfront with an expensive base model and waving you adios and anticipate you will enjoy the ride for the coming decade. Not a bad quid pro quo.
OkiRun, it isn't going to be like the 5,1. Since the 5,1 was released, tech wasn't moving very fast. At best, one would see a 5% improvement in IPC and core clock speeds. We also only jumped 1 level for PCIe, from 2.0 to 3.0.
In 2019 we moved from PCIe 3.0 to PCIe 4.0. By the end of 2021, even Intel will be on PCIe 5.0. That will be a 40% jump in I/O in 36 months. CPUs from AMD are showing a 10% IPC increase for each generation, which has shrunk to a 15 to 18 month release cadence.
That isn't going to stop. Zen 3 is done. TSMC is already seeing good results on 5nm (the process for Zen 4).
AMD HAS to make hay now, because Intel will be on 10nm by the end on 2021. That $6,000 7,1 will have roughly the same performance as the upcoming PS5 and Xbox due out next year.
My 12 core Mac Pro (see sig) has a lower multi core score on Cinebench R20 than a Ryzen 2700. The Ryzen 2700 is a 65watt, 8 core, 12 thread consumer grade CPU that has already been replaced by the Zen 2 series. And those will be replaced by the Zen3 series by the end of 2020. Good news is that I can drop a Zen 3 into an AM4 motherboard.
The 7,1 is on a dead man walking socket (14nm+++).
The low end is outperformed by consumer grade silicon at the low end and HEDT silicon at the high end. And the highest end HEDT hasn't even been released yet.
Right now, it appears that if your use case needs lots of ram, but not a lot in the way of IPC, but using high clock speeds (Hi Adobe!), and OSX specific hardware, then there is actually a very good use case.
Now, if Intel had made a Xeon version of the i9-10900X series, that would have been a much better bet for a 7,1.
More PCIe lanes (4), and going with quad channel memory (256Gb max). Put it in the same 7,1 box, using an apple variant of the X299 motherboard, start with the 10 core/20 thread 3.7Ghz, CPU, sell it at $4,000. I think they would have sold a LOT.
In 2019 we moved from PCIe 3.0 to PCIe 4.0. By the end of 2021, even Intel will be on PCIe 5.0. That will be a 40% jump in I/O in 36 months. CPUs from AMD are showing a 10% IPC increase for each generation, which has shrunk to a 15 to 18 month release cadence.
That isn't going to stop. Zen 3 is done. TSMC is already seeing good results on 5nm (the process for Zen 4).
AMD HAS to make hay now, because Intel will be on 10nm by the end on 2021. That $6,000 7,1 will have roughly the same performance as the upcoming PS5 and Xbox due out next year.
My 12 core Mac Pro (see sig) has a lower multi core score on Cinebench R20 than a Ryzen 2700. The Ryzen 2700 is a 65watt, 8 core, 12 thread consumer grade CPU that has already been replaced by the Zen 2 series. And those will be replaced by the Zen3 series by the end of 2020. Good news is that I can drop a Zen 3 into an AM4 motherboard.
The 7,1 is on a dead man walking socket (14nm+++).
The low end is outperformed by consumer grade silicon at the low end and HEDT silicon at the high end. And the highest end HEDT hasn't even been released yet.
Right now, it appears that if your use case needs lots of ram, but not a lot in the way of IPC, but using high clock speeds (Hi Adobe!), and OSX specific hardware, then there is actually a very good use case.
Now, if Intel had made a Xeon version of the i9-10900X series, that would have been a much better bet for a 7,1.
More PCIe lanes (4), and going with quad channel memory (256Gb max). Put it in the same 7,1 box, using an apple variant of the X299 motherboard, start with the 10 core/20 thread 3.7Ghz, CPU, sell it at $4,000. I think they would have sold a LOT.