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

If The Mac Pro is Dead - What next?

videoadvert.tv said:
...

Maybe three years from now iMacs will be more than capable of what I want. but right now I don't think they are.
Click to expand...

You buy the Mac Pro that is still available today.... if Apple does kill the Mac Pro you will need to be quick to scoop one up as I suspect there is a large contingent of people waiting to see if they are buying a newly released MP, or will buy one of the previous versions.

The Mac Pro you buy today will carry you for 2 or 3 years... and we have no way to predict what will be available then. An iMac or even a Mini ( :D ) may be all you need in 3 years.

I'm in the boat of knowing I will need a new Mac Pro in the next year or two - but not just yet ... and I don't know what I will do if Apple announces the EOL of the Mac Pro this year.
 
videoadvert.tv said:
Long time lurker, first time poster here. I know there are a few threads on the Mac Pro already but my theme is different.

I don't want to endlessly argue about whether a Pro is coming or not.

Let's assume the Mac Pro is Dead. Finitto. Over. Now what?
Click to expand...

For me if the MP was gone and I had to replace mine I would be looking at one of the HP Z models. I'm confident that my MP will last long enough to handle television, iTunes and some other jobs that work well on a Mac even if I switch over to Windows for photography. That, of course assumes that Microsoft doesn't totally butcher Windows.
 
Maybe it won't be called a Mac Pro. Maybe it won't look like the current Mac Pros. But I'm still confident there will be some sort of professional workstation in their lineup. I just hope it happens sooner rather than later.
Click to expand...

IMO I think it's very likely the hold off has been due to the time it takes for a new form factor, the MP is due for one as much as I love the present design. Things change, especially at Apple and they have learned a lot since they came out with this beautiful machine. Whatever they do I'm sure it will be awesome! just my thoughts...
 
Last edited:
Killerbob said:
Spec'ed out at I described it is just about 4x more expensive (without monitor), at least on the Danish Apple site...
Click to expand...

There's regional factors on prices to take into account.

For example, within the USA, the price of a basic Mac Pro is roughly $2500, to which we can add $1000 for the 27" Apple display and $200+$300 for some aftermarket RAM + hard drives ... so call it roughly $4000 thusly configured.

Now let's compare that to a 27" iMac with the i7 option and similar goodies: it is $2200 on its own. We need to bump RAM, which if we don't want to mess with the iMac's case and pay Apple for 16GB RAM pre-installed adds $600 to the iMac. Going with the pre-installed RAM from Apple and then adding the $1150 for a Promise R4 Thunderbolt array and our price is $3950, which is a negligible difference. Going instead with aftermarket RAM, the $600 charge from Apple drops to $250, which is a $350 savings ... the iMac alternative is now $3600, and while that is $400 cheaper, it is only a ~10% price difference.


Regarding expansion space for drives, I wonder how many Mac Pro users actually use the bulid-in drives for big storage, and not a Gigabit LAN/NAS setup? ...
Click to expand...

I'm using both, plus FW800's .. the internals for day-to-day work, the FW800's for the "reasonably prompt" second tier data backup and a NAS as the miserably slow third tier data archive backup point.


-hh
 
Wirelessly posted

I sold my Mac Pro and got a ThunderBolt Display, Promise Pegasus 6Tb drive, and BlackMagic intensity extreme thunderbolt box. Hooked it all up to my MacBook Pro with quad core i7 and 16gb of ram.

I'm pretty happy with it.
 
I'd be quite upset if Apple discontinued the Mac Pro. And honestly, I have no intentions of switching back to Windows. My personal computer has been a Mac since 1999.

I'm using a 6 core 3.33 GHz Mac Pro with 16 GB of RAM and the ATI Radeon HD 5870 1 GB graphics card with a 23-inch matte cinema display, so I'll be good for another few years.

But if anyone at Apple is reading this, please know that there is still very much a need for a professional workstation and a well-designed display that doesn't allow glare to distract from your work.
 
-hh said:
We need to bump RAM, which if we don't want to mess with the iMac's case and pay Apple for 16GB RAM pre-installed adds $600 to the iMac.
Click to expand...

I will disagree on the iMac memory. You say you'll spend $600 so you don't have to "mess with the iMac case", but in reality, it's three captive screws at the bottom of the case and you're in.

Doing the memory yourself, which is very simple, would subtract $500 from your iMac quote since you can get 4x4GB sticks for about $100.
 
-hh said:
For example, within the USA, the price of a basic Mac Pro is roughly $2500, to which we can add $1000 for the 27" Apple display and $200+$300 for some aftermarket RAM + hard drives ... so call it roughly $4000 thusly configured.

Now let's compare that to a 27" iMac with the i7 option and similar goodies: it is $2200 on its own. We need to bump RAM, which if we don't want to mess with the iMac's case and pay Apple for 16GB RAM pre-installed adds $600 to the iMac. Going with the pre-installed RAM from Apple and then adding the $1150 for a Promise R4 Thunderbolt array and our price is $3950, which is a negligible difference. Going instead with aftermarket RAM, the $600 charge from Apple drops to $250, which is a $350 savings ... the iMac alternative is now $3600, and while that is $400 cheaper, it is only a ~10% price difference.-hh
Click to expand...

That's not quite a fair comparison, is it?

Selecting the top end Mac Pro, it starts at USD5'000, and that's without the 2.93MHz upgrade, with only 6GB RAM, std. HD, and an ATi HD5770.

The iMac, top end, is significantly under half that (USD2'000), and that's with a Quad-core i5, 4GB of RAM, std. HD, and an AMD HD6970. And of course including a 27" monitor.

And do not come and tell me the MP is 3x faster...

Upgrading that iMac to the faster i7 CPU, and the better graphics, it's USD2'300 (still with a 27" monitor), and that's a configuration where the Mac Pro for sure not is 2x faster!

And as for the storage question; I am using a NetGear ReadyNAS setup, and that is plenty fast to work with.
 
Killerbob said:
That's not quite a fair comparison, is it?

Selecting the top end Mac Pro, it starts at USD5'000, and that's without the 2.93MHz upgrade, with only 6GB RAM, std. HD, and an ATi HD5770.

The iMac, top end, is significantly under half that (USD2'000), and that's with a Quad-core i5, 4GB of RAM, std. HD, and an AMD HD6970. And of course including a 27" monitor.

And do not come and tell me the MP is 3x faster...

Upgrading that iMac to the faster i7 CPU, and the better graphics, it's USD2'300 (still with a 27" monitor), and that's a configuration where the Mac Pro for sure not is 2x faster!

And as for the storage question; I am using a NetGear ReadyNAS setup, and that is plenty fast to work with.
Click to expand...

Why would you compare the cost of the top end Mac Pro to that of the top end iMac? This are completely different machines and not at all comparable.

P-Worm
 
Killerbob said:
That's not quite a fair comparison, is it?

Selecting the top end Mac Pro, it starts at USD5'000, and that's without the 2.93MHz upgrade, with only 6GB RAM, std. HD, and an ATi HD5770.

The iMac, top end, is significantly under half that (USD2'000), and that's with a Quad-core i5, 4GB of RAM, std. HD, and an AMD HD6970. And of course including a 27" monitor.

And do not come and tell me the MP is 3x faster...

Upgrading that iMac to the faster i7 CPU, and the better graphics, it's USD2'300 (still with a 27" monitor), and that's a configuration where the Mac Pro for sure not is 2x faster!

And as for the storage question; I am using a NetGear ReadyNAS setup, and that is plenty fast to work with.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately even the iMacs top end GPU can't compete with that 5770. Pains of the iMac being on laptop GPUs.
 
As a composer / audio guy, I'd very much prefer to stay with a Mac as I've been using them for more than two decades.

Since my main audio / MIDI app of choice (Digital Performer) will be available for Windows for the first time when DP 8.0 is released, I have the option of going to a Rain Computers, Sweetwater Sound or custom-built system running Windows as a fallback. But I'd really rather not be forced to do that; alas, I don't see an iMac as a viable option for a number of reasons.

(My wife, who's been a programmer in the Windows environment for 20+ years, would also rather that I remain a Mac user.) :D
 
P-Worm said:
Why would you compare the cost of the top end Mac Pro to that of the top end iMac? This are completely different machines and not at all comparable.

P-Worm
Click to expand...

Because only in that configuration does the Mac Pro come close to being 2x faster than the iMac.

Hence, in the $$$ per Benchmark point, the top end std. Mac Pro scores 20283 at USD5'000, and the top end iMac scores 11581 at USD2'200.

I hope the Mac Pro remains. It is a cool machine, but the argument of expandability dissapeared with Thunderbolt, and if/when the iMac get a six/eight-core CPU and some decent graphics, so will the performance issue. So, if we see a Mac Pro refresh, I think it will be the last one.
 
IF the Mac pro does get EOL'd, and you know how to build a computer, or know someone, you can build your own workstation allot cheaper than pay HP or Dell. Built a dual westmere 2.93 X5670 for a little over 4000 bucks. I compared mine with both dell an HP which they charge over 7000 bucks. No doubt the Mac pro's are sweet machines but it seems they are pushing everyone to cloud services. No way would I upload my video data (or anything else) to someone to process. Should know in a few months if apple axes the pro (highly probable). Probably a good idea to start considering an alternate computer in the event it happens. Apple will loose a good chunk of professional if they do!
 
Killerbob said:
Because only in that configuration does the Mac Pro come close to being 2x faster than the iMac.

Hence, in the $$$ per Benchmark point, the top end std. Mac Pro scores 20283 at USD5'000, and the top end iMac scores 11581 at USD2'200.

I hope the Mac Pro remains. It is a cool machine, but the argument of expandability dissapeared with Thunderbolt, and if/when the iMac get a six/eight-core CPU and some decent graphics, so will the performance issue. So, if we see a Mac Pro refresh, I think it will be the last one.
Click to expand...

The expandability problem with the iMac did not end with Thunderbolt. If you're going to spend an extra $1000 for an external 4-6TB thunderbolt RAID, you might as well just get a Mac Pro. Thunderbolt GPUs will not touch traditional desktop GPUs. And what about RAM? You aren't going to be expanding RAM passed 32 GB in an iMac with Thunderbolt....

This is where just the raw geekbench scores break down. It just one number. It doesn't fully encapsulate the utility of a given machine for all possible uses.
 
snberk103 said:
You buy the Mac Pro that is still available today.... if Apple does kill the Mac Pro you will need to be quick to scoop one up as I suspect there is a large contingent of people waiting to see if they are buying a newly released MP, or will buy one of the previous versions.
Click to expand...

Yep, I'm one of those people waiting on the new Pro before getting an older one. Hopefully there'll be some pretty major differences between the new and the old so I can pick up an older model for fairly decent price and upgrade it over the course of a year.
 
The worst case scenario (which is also worryingly likely) is that Apple will deem the iMac to be Pro enough and they will ditch the Mac Pro.

The iMac is being adopted by more and more design studios and advertising agencies, mostly because it looks stylish on a desk, the chic Apple brand resonates with the image most designers try and project and frankly, for a lot of day to day design tasks the iMac is good enough.

I'm no happier about it than anybody else on here since I use my Pro for 3D which demands the maximum from your system (particularly when rendering). But the fact is people like me are in a minority and Apple has demonstrated in the past that they are interested in the mass market, not the niche.

If the iMac is good enough for Photoshop, Illustrator, Page layout, photography and at a push video production, I think Apple will kill of the Mac Pro under the pretense that it doesn't serve a big enough purpose anymore.
 
All I can say is my mid 2010 MacBook Pro 13" does everything I ask of it, Adobe photoshop, Premiere, and After Effects CS5 at acceptable speeds, not to mention even rendering in Maya in HD at acceptable speeds.

So for me personally, the highest end iMac seems like it would be capable of doing all theses things at significantly faster speeds than my MBP. I admit a mobile GPU wouldn't be my first option, but if a 256MB 320M can do it, why can't a 2GB Radeon 6970M?

Its always seemed to me, that unless your getting a dual processor Mac Pro, the iMac is way better value, especially since your getting a built-in 27" display.

I can understand needing a MP for serious high-end animation stuff, but otherwise I think the iMac 27" is a fine machine.

That being said, I am waiting a while hoping the next iMac has a desktop GPU before I buy one.
 
eurekor said:
I just bought a MacPro.
Click to expand...

Yeah you can still buy them but they haven't been updated since like early Summer 2010, so you effectively bought a 2 year old machine. Sure even then they are still powerhouses...

but the debate here is whether Apple will kill off the Mac Pro completely or update it in next few months with a spec bump.



My two cents:

I've wanted a Mac Pro for a few years. I'm not a video guy but I game a lot (right now on a 2009 MBP) and I love the idea of the upgradability of Mac Pros vs other Macs and laptops of course. So I'd save up and get one if they update it, I'd consider a used one too.

Anyways I see a few likely scenarios:

- Like the iPod Classic which was last updated in late 2009/early 2010 they'll just keep the Mac Pro as it was Summer 2010 (might continue to offer upgrades on your purchase when buying for additional money).

- They could keep the design and overall form and just offer small spec bumps every few years (maybe every so often add that a new video card is preinstalled or something).

- They just never update it and let it die off completely and sell off the remaining Mac Pros circa 2010. They leave the iMac as the sole desktop.

-They eventually get to the tech point where they can pack the power, storage, and upgradability into a portable Mac Pro that is a souped up MacBook Pro a la upgradability meets Alienware. They kill off desktops completely.

- They move the Mac Pro power to a redesigned iMac and offer a super high end iMac. Although the only way the diehards and pros will use it is if it combines Mac Pro's power and storage with upgradability (which is something iMac lacks currently). But an all in one that also can be upgraded by the user for graphics, hard drives, other ports and cards...that'd be kind of cool.


As others have said I'm optimistic that Apple will keep the Mac Pro and upgrade eventually or turn the iMac into a hybrid of iMac and Mac Pro. Their relationship with Pixar means surely they supply Pixar with many of the computers and with all that intense video processing all the time, a Mac Pro does it. Plus Apple itself probably uses Mac Pros at its offices.

And finally, I kind of see the Mac Pro as the highest end of the highest end of Apple's computers. It's the most powerful, offers the most storage, and the most upgradability. Plus it costs the most and that itself makes it stand out as the top of the line in Apple products. Plus as a gamer, I could see Apple spinning the Mac Pro as a gaming powerhouse.
 
Killerbob said:
Spec'ed out at I described it is just about 4x more expensive (without monitor), at least on the Danish Apple site...

Regarding expansion space for drives, I wonder how many ;ac Pro users actually use the bulid-in drives for big storage, and not a Gigabit LAN/NAS setup? And, I do agree entirely, the screen calibration is a pain in the a.. on an iMac, I know that, but I would think Apple has enough sense to provide solutions for that if they were to EOL the Mac Pro.
Click to expand...

It depends on their needs. Going via host card rather than gigabit ethernet you could achieve higher throughput given the limitations of the hard drive controller. This might be a factor with something like video playback/uncompressed capture where a fixed amount of bandwidth is a hard requirement to prevent dropping frames. They haven't put a lot of adjustment into prior display implementations. The older cinema displays varied heavily in terms of uniformity and color from unit to unit right out of the box. With Apple sometimes you just kind of get what they give you. I've got an i1 display pro right beside me. It does an okay job with wide gamut displays. I haven't tried it on anything with LED backlighting yet. All of the others that have claimed to be updated for such displays haven't worked well at all.

On hard drives, it gives you an extra place to put drives. You can have several drives mounted internally backed up via NAS. If we see a better selection of hardware for thunderbolt, that would work fine for me.

If I used an imac, I wouldn't use the display as a primary display which would be somewhat of a waste.

wickedking94 said:
All I can say is my mid 2010 MacBook Pro 13" does everything I ask of it, Adobe photoshop, Premiere, and After Effects CS5 at acceptable speeds, not to mention even rendering in Maya in HD at acceptable speeds.

So for me personally, the highest end iMac seems like it would be capable of doing all theses things at significantly faster speeds than my MBP. I admit a mobile GPU wouldn't be my first option, but if a 256MB 320M can do it, why can't a 2GB Radeon 6970M?
Click to expand...

It's not entirely a cpu issue for me, although it freaks me out when the fans run on high constantly:mad:. GPU and ram are two of the biggest factors for me. The laptops are still tight on ram (yes even 16 is a little tight today, and would probably feel tighter assuming 2-3 years out of the machine). I'm not sure if the gpu would hold up. I doubt it would be pleasant. When you realize what affects your experience the most, it's easiest to overdo the specs just slightly so that you know it won't choke with the latest version of whatever software.
 
Killerbob said:
Because only in that configuration does the Mac Pro come close to being 2x faster than the iMac.

Hence, in the $$$ per Benchmark point, the top end std. Mac Pro scores 20283 at USD5'000, and the top end iMac scores 11581 at USD2'200.

I hope the Mac Pro remains. It is a cool machine, but the argument of expandability dissapeared with Thunderbolt, and if/when the iMac get a six/eight-core CPU and some decent graphics, so will the performance issue. So, if we see a Mac Pro refresh, I think it will be the last one.
Click to expand...

And with it the ability to swap out what you need to stay working without driving to an Apple store to be waited on by high school kids. All because your backlight went out. The iMac will not be getting a 6-8 core chip unless they sacrifice the "thinness". Apple never uses "extreme" chips in the iMac which are the 6-core ones, the tdp is too high for the baby PSU in the iMac. They use the consumer chips. An i7-2600 is little under 300.00. A single X5670 6-core 2.93GHz is 1400.00 each, a X5650 @2.66GHz is over 1000.00. Now double the cost. So if the benefits of Xeon are not needed in your world then you can stay perfectly happy with the iMac option. TB is not even considered live yet in my book as only the crappiest manufacturers like LaCie are offering overpriced cases.
 
if they were going to discontinue the mp, they would have done so already so they could boost the sales figures with what MP inventory they have lying around. every month they wait to announce the discontinuation of the product is less money they will make. Noone is going to buy a 2010 macpro at 2010 prices in the second half of 2012 if they announce it then.

with that said, i dont think the mp is going anywhere. i bet we will see the use of 2.5" drives to make it a slimmer design. even enterprise storage companies have been shifting disk shelves from 3.5 to 2.5
 
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