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 Is the new Mac Pro too expensive? [MERGED]
- Thread starter MacPro2020
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
$20K - LOL
Did you realize that HP lists 1.5 TiB of RAM on a Z8 for $60K? Not including the "M" series CPU that's needed. And because the Z8 has 24 DIMM slots, it uses the cheaper 64 GiB DIMMs - whereas the new Apple Pro with only 12 DIMM slots will need the more expensive 128 GiB DIMMs to get to 1.5 TiB.
I don't know if it's been mentioned on here yet, but could the high price of the new Mac Pro be a result of the trade war with China? Most of Apple's suppliers/manufacturers are in China and the tariff on imports from China is now at 25% from what I've read.
Hopefully when the trade war settles down, prices will drop.
Hopefully when the trade war settles down, prices will drop.
I was talking about the 28 Core
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B07NDFGMK...olid=2ORVYJE3LVQDD&psc=0&ref_=lv_ov_lig_dp_it
As an Amazon Associate, MacRumors earns a commission from qualifying purchases made through links in this post.
The base 5,1 and 6,1 was not insanely expensive for the masses, not sure where your inflation numbers are coming from?
I'm a, as you call "corporation employee" for a 6 billion dollar institution. While a mid-tier Mac Pro would be perfect for my in house video teams workflow and speed up our efficiency, with certainty, I can guarantee no justification in the world will support multiple 10-15k orders in our Windows saturated IT infrastructure team who barely understand the 20 or so Macs we run now. This all in a world now dominated by major security hurdles by federal regulators.
Looks like our small fleet of 14c souped up iMac Pro's and ancient 12c 5,1s (of which today I learned they will soon pry what's left due to intel security issues) will have to hold me out for a few more years. My hope is that in the next year or two prices come down on certain configurations as my iMac Pro's eventually depreciate from the books. The only trouble these days is there is less and less justifiable reasons to quantify Mac VS Windows when the software I'm using can run on either. Plus, I don't think IT nerds believe me anymore when I tell them we're a Final Cut house, but clearly I have a team with Resolve and Adobe CC licenses, lol.
Post of the week!
[doublepost=1559700214][/doublepost]
You haven't been following Tim Apple, have you?
When the trade war settles down, profit margins will go up.
Uhm, no, you priced out an expensive gaming motherboard and the most expensive components you could find. A $440 NIC? Really? Why not just use the 10 Gig NIC(s) built in to the proper certified workstation motherboards that cost less than one third of your gaming board cost?
Actually, all the people still using Mac Pro 1,1-5,1 did so for a long time despite Apple: GPUs, and other accessories had to be tinkered with to use them, because all the expandabilty fell short when there were little to no upgrade paths for GPUs. What good is an expansion port if there's nothing to put in it? Same with the Trashcan Mac Pro: they were exchangeable, but there was literally nothing to swap them with. It's only recently that the Mac Pro 5,1 has been able to use a wider range of GPUs (and even then, very limited range of NVidia cards)
This new Mac Pro is absolutely terrific value compared to the very high end market, and terrible value compared to the market of the previous Mac Pros (twice the starting price, and it's not even cutting edge: the already pricy iMac Pro is generally better for much less). They will probably sell lots at first, and then very few. Mid-sized production companies who own Alexa and RED cameras will all buy one or two. When a camera costs 30K or 50K just for the body and again as much in lenses and accessories, 25K on a computer that will outlast the camera by many years is not unreasonable at all. It will ultimately depend whether Apple decides to keep an upgrade path alive (new GPU revisions, new FPGA cards), or to leave it to die like it has often done before.
However, those of us who were hoping for a replacement for the Mac Pro 5,1 are left longing: this is not for us. In my -biased- opinion Apple is wrong with that approach: there are a lot more people willing to shell out 3K for a Mac Pro (no need for Xeon or ECC) than companies willing to spend 20K or 25K on a Mac Pro, and the offering with the iMac/iMac Pro is just dismal. An analogy: just because Hasselblad sells medium format cameras for 35K to some pros, doesn't make photojournalists not pros. Apple has decided to be Hasselblad in this case.
Yes. Knowing apple, that's what's gonna happen... One can only hope, however.
Last edited:
Not to mention Dell's support is about a billion times better.
[doublepost=1559708224][/doublepost]
I guess that makes it totally free then!
For their immediate hard core market, yes. And that depends on which of numerous iPhone models you are referring to.
Besides that, Mac Pro isn’t a year over year upgrade phenomenon and is a much more localized and demanding market demographic than teens and phones for Facebook and Instagram.
The $3000 Xeon 28-core is single CPU only - the multiprocessor capable version costs $10,000...
$600 motherboards don't have close to the specs of the Apple board - they have gigabit Ethernet, no Thunderbolt, fewer RAM slots (at lower speeds), no PCIe x16 slots and much less power delivery (they're meant to run 165 watt server CPUs). The closest thing you can buy to the Apple board is the $1600 Asus Dominus Extreme - HP, Dell and friends won't sell their high-end workstation boards separately.
Just like a Z8, the base configuration of this beast is ridiculously expensive because you're buying the capability to support a much more powerful system. A $6000 Mac Pro performs more or less like a $3000 iMac - but nobody in their right mind would buy a $6000 Mac Pro and not expand some aspect of it well beyond the base. HP actually goes much more extreme - they'll sell you a $3000 Z8, but it performs like a $500 computer (it has a sub 2 GHz quad core processor, 8 GB of RAM and a 1 TB hard drive).
Why does a $6000 Mac Pro have a $200 GPU in it? For musicians and others whose workload doesn't use the GPU. They'll sell some Mac Pros with 16 to 28 core CPUs, but the base GPU.
Why does it have an 8-core CPU? For people whose workload is almost entirely GPU-bound. We'll see some sales with high-end GPUs and the base CPU - if the CPU only ever runs macOS, while the heavy lifting is all on the GPU(s), that configuration makes sense.
Why 32 GB of RAM? For computations that fit in the cache... Some people will need the huge CPUs, with their big caches, but their workload is RAM-light - it's doing a ton of calculations on relatively few data points.
What we won't see (other than a few prestige "give me the best Mac there is" sales to wealthy people and institutions) is people keeping all aspects of the base configuration. Depending on workload, any aspect could make sense, but if all of them make sense, buy an upper-end iMac for half the price (or even a top 15" MBP - the base model won't be that much faster than a really good MBP). If your upgrade needs are fairly modest and balanced, an iMac Pro may be a better choice. The Mac Pro comes into play when you need an absolutely huge configuration in one or more aspects.
There will be some "balanced" Mac Pros sold - $10,000-$15,000 machines with 16 or 24 core CPUs, 128 GB or so of RAM and Vega II graphics. This will be an all-around speedster somewhat faster (and somewhat more expensive) than an iMac Pro.
A few relatively balanced "monster" Mac Pros will fill out the top end - Hollywood will buy some machines with the 28 core CPU, dual Vega II Duo graphics and many hundreds of gigabytes of RAM. They'll be well over $20,000, and may reach $50,000.
What Apple is allowing here is "unbalanced" Mac Pros. An AI lab whose work is GPU bound can keep the 8-core CPU, not pay for a ton of RAM (because the calculations live in the GPU frame buffer anyway), but buy the dual Vega II Duos. The modest CPU runs the operating system while the fire-breathing GPUs do the work.
Conversely, a music producer mixing hundreds of tracks can get a 28-core CPU and half a terabyte of RAM, but keep the base GPU. It'll put their production software on the screen, and that's all they need a GPU for.
$600 motherboards don't have close to the specs of the Apple board - they have gigabit Ethernet, no Thunderbolt, fewer RAM slots (at lower speeds), no PCIe x16 slots and much less power delivery (they're meant to run 165 watt server CPUs). The closest thing you can buy to the Apple board is the $1600 Asus Dominus Extreme - HP, Dell and friends won't sell their high-end workstation boards separately.
Just like a Z8, the base configuration of this beast is ridiculously expensive because you're buying the capability to support a much more powerful system. A $6000 Mac Pro performs more or less like a $3000 iMac - but nobody in their right mind would buy a $6000 Mac Pro and not expand some aspect of it well beyond the base. HP actually goes much more extreme - they'll sell you a $3000 Z8, but it performs like a $500 computer (it has a sub 2 GHz quad core processor, 8 GB of RAM and a 1 TB hard drive).
Why does a $6000 Mac Pro have a $200 GPU in it? For musicians and others whose workload doesn't use the GPU. They'll sell some Mac Pros with 16 to 28 core CPUs, but the base GPU.
Why does it have an 8-core CPU? For people whose workload is almost entirely GPU-bound. We'll see some sales with high-end GPUs and the base CPU - if the CPU only ever runs macOS, while the heavy lifting is all on the GPU(s), that configuration makes sense.
Why 32 GB of RAM? For computations that fit in the cache... Some people will need the huge CPUs, with their big caches, but their workload is RAM-light - it's doing a ton of calculations on relatively few data points.
What we won't see (other than a few prestige "give me the best Mac there is" sales to wealthy people and institutions) is people keeping all aspects of the base configuration. Depending on workload, any aspect could make sense, but if all of them make sense, buy an upper-end iMac for half the price (or even a top 15" MBP - the base model won't be that much faster than a really good MBP). If your upgrade needs are fairly modest and balanced, an iMac Pro may be a better choice. The Mac Pro comes into play when you need an absolutely huge configuration in one or more aspects.
There will be some "balanced" Mac Pros sold - $10,000-$15,000 machines with 16 or 24 core CPUs, 128 GB or so of RAM and Vega II graphics. This will be an all-around speedster somewhat faster (and somewhat more expensive) than an iMac Pro.
A few relatively balanced "monster" Mac Pros will fill out the top end - Hollywood will buy some machines with the 28 core CPU, dual Vega II Duo graphics and many hundreds of gigabytes of RAM. They'll be well over $20,000, and may reach $50,000.
What Apple is allowing here is "unbalanced" Mac Pros. An AI lab whose work is GPU bound can keep the 8-core CPU, not pay for a ton of RAM (because the calculations live in the GPU frame buffer anyway), but buy the dual Vega II Duos. The modest CPU runs the operating system while the fire-breathing GPUs do the work.
Conversely, a music producer mixing hundreds of tracks can get a 28-core CPU and half a terabyte of RAM, but keep the base GPU. It'll put their production software on the screen, and that's all they need a GPU for.
I don't know if you meant to say "non-competitive" and not "anti-competitive." I think the difference being that Apple's not using unfair tactics over their competition ("anti-competitive" practices), they're just choosing to produce a product that almost nobody should buy ("non-competitive"). It's not like Apple's got a firm grip--or any grip for that matter--on the ultra-high end workstation market after they basically didn't release any revisions between 2013 and 2017 (iMac Pro). If that OSX-based workstation market ever existed, it was forced to move on years ago.
2 things:
1/ I cant in good faith buy this machine if it uses a Xeon. Between the security risk of meltdown/spectre patches the performance will decrease. They really shouldve gone Eypc/Threadripper and I think this macpro will be the last Intel machine they use. Intel is really behind on performance vs AMD. They should/couldve EASILY marked up their margins even bigger if they went AMD... and they wouldve gotten more performance to the end user.
2/ the REAL reason to buy this thing is if you desperately want/need the 2x Vega II duos. That gets you 128gb of HBM, at an ungodly throughput.
1/ I cant in good faith buy this machine if it uses a Xeon. Between the security risk of meltdown/spectre patches the performance will decrease. They really shouldve gone Eypc/Threadripper and I think this macpro will be the last Intel machine they use. Intel is really behind on performance vs AMD. They should/couldve EASILY marked up their margins even bigger if they went AMD... and they wouldve gotten more performance to the end user.
2/ the REAL reason to buy this thing is if you desperately want/need the 2x Vega II duos. That gets you 128gb of HBM, at an ungodly throughput.
Very well said.
I even think the base storage is acceptable, because many customers seem likely to put storage in one of the expansion slots or use external storage.
I even think the base storage is acceptable, because many customers seem likely to put storage in one of the expansion slots or use external storage.
I would just like to give my input into the "working pro" category of stills and motion...
I have a 2019 MacBook Pro that cost me $3,949.00, or roughly $5,500 AUD. Specs as follows
2019 MacPro, let's assume it costs me ~$10,000-12,000 AUD for my needs, more of a niche hire out perhaps, I break even after ~3 years, maybe longer.
That's just considering break even costs of the hardware, and not more intangible benefits... i.e. forgot your charging cable? The assistant/studio/local store probably has a spare part. Need a quick turn around repair? Check.
It also doesn't take into account if you would have gotten that job in the first place without that particular setup in the first place, as ridiculous as that sounds.
So let's break it down into a a very rough cost of doing business for me (prices in AUD), which is on the cheap-end for a lot of businesses in the stills and motion industry:
CAR & TRAVEL EXPENSES: ~$500/mo
LIABILITY/INDEMNITY INSURANCE: ~$100/mo
GEAR SAVING: ~$500/mo
ADVERTISING: ~100/mo (I don't do much)
WESBITE: $50/mo
FINANCE TOOLS: $50/mo
APPS: $100/mo
Assuming $12,000 for a computer I expect to last 5 years... that's $200/mo. It's completely in line with everything I do already. Could I save and buy a PC? Sure. Would it work? Absolutely. Do I care about what amounts to be a negligible difference in the long run? No, not really.
I need something that works, that the client understands, and that fits into my (and my industry's) workflow. I already spend stupid amounts of money on monitor arms (this iPad arm is $500... https://www.inovativ.com/shop/cart-accessories/echo-cart-accessories/ipad-docking-station/) so none of this seems out of the norm. And I charge accordingly.
I have a 2019 MacBook Pro that cost me $3,949.00, or roughly $5,500 AUD. Specs as follows
- 2.3GHz 8‑core 9th‑generation Intel Core i9 processor, Turbo Boost up to 4.8GHz
- Retina display with True Tone
- Touch Bar and Touch ID
- 32GB 2400MHz DDR4 memory
- Radeon Pro Vega 20 with 4GB of HBM2 memory
- 1TB SSD storage
2019 MacPro, let's assume it costs me ~$10,000-12,000 AUD for my needs, more of a niche hire out perhaps, I break even after ~3 years, maybe longer.
That's just considering break even costs of the hardware, and not more intangible benefits... i.e. forgot your charging cable? The assistant/studio/local store probably has a spare part. Need a quick turn around repair? Check.
It also doesn't take into account if you would have gotten that job in the first place without that particular setup in the first place, as ridiculous as that sounds.
So let's break it down into a a very rough cost of doing business for me (prices in AUD), which is on the cheap-end for a lot of businesses in the stills and motion industry:
CAR & TRAVEL EXPENSES: ~$500/mo
LIABILITY/INDEMNITY INSURANCE: ~$100/mo
GEAR SAVING: ~$500/mo
ADVERTISING: ~100/mo (I don't do much)
WESBITE: $50/mo
FINANCE TOOLS: $50/mo
APPS: $100/mo
Assuming $12,000 for a computer I expect to last 5 years... that's $200/mo. It's completely in line with everything I do already. Could I save and buy a PC? Sure. Would it work? Absolutely. Do I care about what amounts to be a negligible difference in the long run? No, not really.
I need something that works, that the client understands, and that fits into my (and my industry's) workflow. I already spend stupid amounts of money on monitor arms (this iPad arm is $500... https://www.inovativ.com/shop/cart-accessories/echo-cart-accessories/ipad-docking-station/) so none of this seems out of the norm. And I charge accordingly.
No, it's not tariffs, it's about Apple shifting their target from individuals to companies.
This is how Apple marketed the $2499 Mac Pro 4,1 in 2009:
https://web.archive.org/web/20100125083139/http://www.apple.com/macpro/features/graphics.html
With the iMac Pro, they managed to make the Trashcan Mac Pro look like a good deal.
Now with the Mac Pro 7,1, they have managed to make the iMac Pro look like a good deal.
Build our own computer usually cheaper. Because lack of support. And more time consuming. That’s why I go for the HP site and compare what will happen if I want something similar OOTB.
Anyway, can you find a motherboard that has 8 PCIe slots?
Plus bump up the PSU to 1400W, plus a good quality cableless designed case, plus find someone to build it for you and provide 90 days full support, plus shipping…
I think the final cost should be more or less the same as the 7,1.
I made a funny comparison in that post because I ONLY focus on the actual spec, but not the potential max spec. We pay over $9000 to HP to build a computer that only has 8 cores and 32GB RAM, that sounds super expensive. But because most cost actually goes to what the computer potentially can do. It can accommodate 56 cores and 3TB of RAM, but we intentionally only use a fraction of it. That’s of course make this low spec computer super expensive.
I believe we should pick the correct tool for he correct job.
If all we want is just 8 cores and 32GB RAM, then why not just stick to the cMP? Of course, cMP is nowhere near the high end computer, but is that fit the job? Most likely it is. May be a bit slow even with proper upgrade (but not too slow, or unworkable), but that’s way cheaper than pay few thousands more to get a good high end computer but not using most of its potential.
However, for those who really want TB of RAM, and 28 cores, and Quad high end GPU, and fully functioning Thunderbolt ports… at least now they have an option, and IMO, the price is at the competitive level (if compare to other same spec OOTB work station).
I think a key issue here is that at one point, Apple decided to kill off the Mac Pro entirely, to replace it with the iMac Pro. They then had a change of heart, but by that point the iMac Pro was near to release.
By specs / cost alone, the iMac Pro is roughly what a new cMP + Apple 5K 27" monitor would have been. Apple obviously didn't want to discontinue the iMP after one generation, so they decided to take the MP higher end. They then looked around for a market that would be willing to spend £15k for a typical MP + monitor combination, and identified high-end video people. Sure, this is a market, and one that will probably be very pleased with the new system, but the price-point makes it an irrelevance to 99.9% of Mac users. They're going to sell a minuscule number of these machines, so are banking on the stratospheric cost to make it financially worthwhile to design and manufacture it.
If Apple had wanted to address the mainstream Mac Pro market, rather than a tiny niche, they needed to discontinue the iMac Pro and sell a base model Mac Pro at £3500. That would be perfectly doable for an 3.7/4.5GHz 8 core, 256GB, 32GB, RX580 machine - a Dell Precision 5820 with these specs (W2145 / 32GB / 256GB NVMe / WX7100) comes to about £3100. The Dell can scale to 18 cores, 256GB RAM, dual P6000s etc., and has been available since January - by the time the MP comes out there will doubtless be a revision of it that can scale to 28 cores, if perhaps not 1.5TB of RAM (only 8 slots).
This would have had much more relevance to and mindshare in the Mac user base, than a unicorn computer that starts at £6000, but really makes little sense unless specced much higher (it's base spec being rivalled by a top-end iMac).
By specs / cost alone, the iMac Pro is roughly what a new cMP + Apple 5K 27" monitor would have been. Apple obviously didn't want to discontinue the iMP after one generation, so they decided to take the MP higher end. They then looked around for a market that would be willing to spend £15k for a typical MP + monitor combination, and identified high-end video people. Sure, this is a market, and one that will probably be very pleased with the new system, but the price-point makes it an irrelevance to 99.9% of Mac users. They're going to sell a minuscule number of these machines, so are banking on the stratospheric cost to make it financially worthwhile to design and manufacture it.
If Apple had wanted to address the mainstream Mac Pro market, rather than a tiny niche, they needed to discontinue the iMac Pro and sell a base model Mac Pro at £3500. That would be perfectly doable for an 3.7/4.5GHz 8 core, 256GB, 32GB, RX580 machine - a Dell Precision 5820 with these specs (W2145 / 32GB / 256GB NVMe / WX7100) comes to about £3100. The Dell can scale to 18 cores, 256GB RAM, dual P6000s etc., and has been available since January - by the time the MP comes out there will doubtless be a revision of it that can scale to 28 cores, if perhaps not 1.5TB of RAM (only 8 slots).
This would have had much more relevance to and mindshare in the Mac user base, than a unicorn computer that starts at £6000, but really makes little sense unless specced much higher (it's base spec being rivalled by a top-end iMac).
Last edited:
I believe that it’s not overly expensive as this things is upgradable over years to come. This might be the one Mac with the longest predicted lifespan of all of them. In Theory, you can run that thing for 10+ years.
One major question will be though: Can you throw a standard SSD in there? RAM is easily upgradable, but the 256gb SSD in the base model is a complete and utter joke and, frankly, a slap in the face for 2019.
One major question will be though: Can you throw a standard SSD in there? RAM is easily upgradable, but the 256gb SSD in the base model is a complete and utter joke and, frankly, a slap in the face for 2019.
They’ll likely phase out the iMac Pro over the next year or so - I expect them to drop in price considerably (not necessarily on apple.com, but at retailers) as they clear stock.