MP 7,1 Is the new Mac Pro too expensive? [MERGED]

[skaertus]

There's a kind of backwards justification going on here, where since Monday the Mac Pro is defined by what Hollywood video editors need. The only reason they are the focus all of a sudden is because Apple started with a price for the new Mac Pro, and worked backwards from there.

In my example, I was taking it to an extreme. If Apple had decided the MP needed to cost $200m and be a supercomputer, everyone would now be running around saying it makes total sense because "that's what it costs to provide meteorologists with the tools they need". It may well do, but why should anyone else care? A much larger number of people just want a powerful Mac tower that doesn't cost two legs and a spleen. Doesn't seem like too much to ask.

I am not sure what kind of audience the Mac Pro (or the Power Mac) was intended to back in the day. But I suspect it was bought by many prosumers and enthusiasts, just like the MacBook Pro (and the Power Book before it).

Now, the Mac Pro is far more expensive, and it does not seem to really make sense except for enterprises that need very powerful workstations. The iMac and the iMac Pro seem already more than adequate to address the needs of prosumers and enthusiasts (except for the expandability). Apple seems to have made the only expandable Mac very expensive on purpose, to take it out of the reach of the average consumer.

 

[slughead]

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.

AFAIK, to put it simply Spectre requires installed software to misbehave on the machine, such as a virus or a poorly coded service with open ports. Though your point is taken and this needs to be fixed, this is not a remote exploit and for a company using these boxes essentially offline or behind a router I think the risk is fairly minimal.

Please correct me if I'm wrong.

And yes, they very clearly should have gone with AMD anyways, especially given the longterm roadmap. I honestly think thunderbolt and probably existing contracts played a big role in their decision. Not to mention the LOOOONNG time it took to design this machine -- when they started it may not have been as clear that intel was about to sh** the bed competitively.

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.

That's pretty much what Linus Tech Tips said: If you run a workload that needs this, this is a FAR cheaper option than the enterprise-level stuff out there. This lowers the bar for this type of work and is very exciting for the market. It's a stupidly high premium for literally any other use-case.

This is outside my area, but what if PCIe 4 could allow GPU memory pooling over PCIe for software that can't do it alone? Do you think that's a possibility? If so, that'd mean in like a year or two you might just be able to pop in a bunch of off the shelf GPUs and go to town.
[doublepost=1559755643][/doublepost]

Thats the $64,000 question (also the cost of a fully specced up mac pro) CAN you throw in a PCIe mounted NVMe drive , say a 1 or 2TB samsung 970 pro on a card, and BOOT off it, or plug an evo 860 into one of those 2 sata ports and BOOT off that should you actually want to, or does the security chip DICTATE that an apple only ssd or raided ssds in that lower slot pair is the ONLY boot drive possible. (unlikely but a possible nightmare scenario)

I really doubt Apple would lock it down--that'd be the first time I think, and I don't think the T2 chip does that, I think it just eliminates the ability to access internal storage from "unsigned" (or whatever they call it) operating systems.

[doublepost=1559756110][/doublepost]

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.

I disagree -- or if they do phase out the iMac Pro, it'll be for lack of interest. I don't think there's a ton of market overlap frankly because of the pricing of the Mac Pro. The markup on the new Mac Pro is stupid insane. I honestly think the iMac Pro is more for CPU workloads, the Mac Pro is for GPU workloads that require high bandwidth memory and lots of it -- extremely niche. You're paying a massive premium for the GPU capability of the Mac Pro, I think.

 

[Dr B]

Why is the storage so small 4tb. Forcing external drives

 

[skaertus]

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.

I do not think Apple would release the iMac Pro just to phase out before launching a second generation. Wasn’t the chassis redesigned so it could handle better cooling? Why spend so much money and effort just to phase out the product shortly after?

 

[auxsend]

It's over priced. Charging 6 grand with a 256 GB SSD and that video card is criminal. Xeons can be expensive, but that one isn't that expensive.

If it had a couple of video cards, a 1 TB SSD, and 64 GB of RAM - we'd be looking at a $6,000 tower.
This is ridiculous.

Instead they're flaunting stainless steel and high tech machined casings, and adding 2 grand onto the price.

The monitor is amazing. The stand is asinine.

 

[petvas]

This computer is not for normal people. It is for business that do creative work and require extremely high standards in performance and scalability. These companies will pay even more money for getting the right equipment for the tasks that they require. The Mac Pro is not expensive for these companies. For me though as a normal user, this is a computer I can be dreaming about, but will never ever be able to buy. I think this is how many others think about it. Of course the other reaction would be to start being negative and complaining about how expensive the Mac Pro is, and how unbelievable expensive the monitor and its stand also is.

 

[09872738]

what did you expect?

all have demanded a highend machine and now all are complaining about the price

unbelievably

Wrong. What has been demanded is an upgradeable, not thermally restricted Mac in the tradition of the cMP. Not the same thing

 

[wyckd]

Apple has a huge marketing team that extensively surveys what the market demands, and what the market will pay for that demand.

Yeah, and that's why they brought out the trash can . . .

 

[Ursadorable]

More companies than would admit really have built Hackintosh systems and run their businesses from them - those that absolutely needed the highest level of performance.

I have a really hard time believing a company, at least one which values productivity, would relegate itself to a computer that is like playing Russian roulette when there's an OS update. Hackintoshes are for hobbyists, I can't think of one company in their right mind who would use one in a production environment.

 

[frou]

It would rightfully be called Mac Elite or something like that. The "Pro" suffix has been used on too many Apple product lines and has too variable a meaning.

I mean something like the 13" MacBook Pro (Dual Core, nTB) is on a different planet to this thing.

 

[BB8]

I do not think Apple would release the iMac Pro just to phase out before launching a second generation. Wasn’t the chassis redesigned so it could handle better cooling? Why spend so much money and effort just to phase out the product shortly after?

I mean, they could just bring the cooling solution over to the regular iMac, and arguably should anyway. That said, I think they intend to keep the iMac Pro around to service the lower end "prosumer" market, which is kind of disappointing since I don't think many of those users actually want an AIO other than Marco Arment.

 

[AdobeWanKenobi]

I think it safe to assume that you are not running ECC memory, as the i7 5960x does not support ECC memory, and your hardware is not "validated" workstation hardware. Thats the difference between a "gaming" rig and a workstation.
If you scroll up a bit you will see my price breakdown of the workstation components

ECC memory is not needed if you're not:
1) Cheaping out and buying a no-name memory brand, or
2) Running billion-dollar-critical operations (at which point you should NEVER consider Apple)

You also suffer a 2-3% performance loss in running ECC memory, so choosing ECC makes the machine even slower.

"Validated workstation hardware" is a marketing term. I could be wrong... if so, then show me the IEEE certification revision (like 802.11 for wireless networking) that companies use to "validate" their hardware.

My machine is a workstation, not a "gaming rig". I create content in video at 4K, 5K, and 8K resolution, as well as 3D renderings all day long (and for less money than anyone running a Mac, guaranteed).

It's all about how much actual work you can get done in a certain timeframe.

If you are doing storage-heavy work, an old machine upgraded to SSDs will outperform a modern machine using spindle drives.

If you are doing memory-heavy work, a non-ECC memory machine will outperform one with ECC memory.

If you are doing 3D rendering, a 4.5 GHz 4-core machine will outperform a machine with 8 cores that's clocked at 2 GHz.

 

[roobarb!]

I have a really hard time believing a company, at least one which values productivity, would relegate itself to a computer that is like playing Russian roulette when there's an OS update.

An OS update? During production?

I can think of many real Macs that lived out their entire pro lives on one build version of OS X. There’s an iMac Pro I can see right now, leaning on its side, waiting in case ‘that crew’ return. If they do, I’ll have someone throw it back on an arm like it’s 2018 all over again.

 

[DJMagicMelliott]

I mean, Apple has not yet released the full price list for the new Mac Pro, but it seems like it is too much. Just look at the base model compared to the iMac Pro.

Mac Pro
3.5 GHz 8-core Intel Xeon W (4.0 GHz Turbo Boost, 24.5 MB cache)
32 GB 2666 MHz
AMD Radeon Pro 580X 8 GB (36 compute units, 2304 stream processors, 5.6 teraflops single precision)
256 GB SSD
4x PCI-E, 2x 10 Gb Ethernet, 2x USB 3, 4x Thunderbolt 3, Wi-Fi 802.11ac, Bluetooth 5.0
$5,999.00

iMac Pro
3.2 GHz 8-core Intel Xeon W (4.2 GHz Turbo Boost, 19 MB cache)
32 GB 2666 MHz
AMD Radeon Pro Vega 56 8 GB (56 compute units, 3584 stream processors, 9 teraflops single precision)
1 TB SSD
10 Gb Ethernet, 4x USB 3, SDXC card, 4x Thunderbolt 3, Wi-Fi 802.11ac, Bluetooth 5.0
27-inch monitor with a 5120x2880 resolution and 500 nits brightness
$4,999.00

The base model of the Mac Pro has a somewhat more powerful processor than the iMac Pro (although no benchmarks were made available, it seems to be slightly faster, and not much); some more ports (in general); and far more expandable.

The base model of the iMac Pro, however, has a much more powerful video card, four times the storage, and comes with a 5K 27-inch monitor.

Yes, the iMac Pro comes with a monitor that would cost more than $1,000 alone. And yet it costs $1,000 less than the Mac Pro. I did not think I would ever say that, but the iMac Pro seems like a bargain now. It is all a matter of perspective.

When released back in 2013, the base model of the previous Mac Pro cost $2,999, and it already came with a 256 GB SSD. Now it costs double. Somehow, the iMac Pro seems just an excuse to raise the prices of the Mac Pro even further. I am shocked.

The Mac Pro is indeed very impressive, but I think Apple is exaggerating (once again). The price is too high in exchange for just more expandability.

[doublepost=1559767919][/doublepost]The minimum Solid State Storage config should be 500GB PERIOD!!!

 

[slughead]

"Validated workstation hardware" is a marketing term. I could be wrong... if so, then show me the IEEE certification revision (like 802.11 for wireless networking) that companies use to "validate" their hardware.

"Validated Workstation Hardware" is defined as any hardware priced 30% or more above totally appropriate and effectively equivalent alternatives... at least that's what I'm reading here.

DaveLee posted a video on the Mac Pro pointing out that the whole workstation Vs personal computer distinction is pretty much moot now that "consumer" hardware is 6+ cores, after that you just buy what you need for your use-case. I tend to agree.

 

[mode11]

I don't think many of those users actually want an AIO other than Marco Arment.

He’ll be getting a Mac Pro as soon as they are available. The iMP was just the best Mac that was available at the time (though he does love it). The real question is whether Siracusa will get one.

 

[roobarb!]

[doublepost=1559767919][/doublepost]The minimum Solid State Storage config should be 500GB PERIOD!!!

Shouldn't we all just be thankful they've not put a 5400rpm spinner in the base model?

 

[apolloa]

No.

The case is expensive, as is the motherboard that will support a 28 core CPU, the hardware that supports the expandability, etc.

Insofar as people who need this level of power go, the best value will probably be the 16 core version.

It looks to me like Apple finally extracted its head from its rear end and designed and built what its customers were saying they need.

Yeap, it gave real Pros EXACTLY what they had been asking for, but yet there will be plenty of thread like this one who are in no way the target market, and don’t understand the use for the machine who will complain it costs too much

 

[Blair Paulsen]

Agree that the $6K price point would make more sense with 1TB flash, 48GB RAM and a more capable GPU. That said, perhaps they feel like they need to make their margin on the initial sale since they won't have the continuing revenue from proprietary parts like the custom form factor GPUs in the tcMP. Moreover, the user upgradability and "workstation" parts mean that many users will be able to keep the mMP in service for years longer than the typical 3 year replacement cycle.

 

[idealtracks]

Too expensive? Why not at all! Will have plenty left for a few extra apple monitor stands too. Please pass the grey poupon.

 

[leman]

Putting it all together, one can probably build a similar configuration to the base MP for somewhere around $4000 using aftermarket components. It won’t have all the MPs fancy features (mobility, ease of access, quiet cooling, internal tb3 rerouting) and it will lack some ports, but performance will be there. More high-end configuration will be more difficult to match though. In particular the GPUs won’t be available at the regular market.

 

[Dr_Charles_Forbin]

The annoyance is that they can't get a 2k, or even 3k Mac Mini, that has the performance, and upgradabiity of the 1.5k gaming PC.

Agreed. Right now I see no reason to move off of my 2014 Mac Mini. Would I like 32GB? Yes. Do I really need it? No. Give me a reason to spend the money and I will.. right now it’s just not there.

 

[juanm]

Yeap, it gave real Pros EXACTLY what they had been asking for, but yet there will be plenty of thread like this one who are in no way the target market, and don’t understand the use for the machine who will complain it costs too much

Your premise is ridiculous. A Hasselblad H6D costs $30K+. At least six times more than cameras used by National Geographic photographers, every photojournalist on Earth, and most commercial photographers. Does this price difference make them not pros? Just because there's a niche of very expensive gear doesn't make the rest of the professionals irrelevant.

This "YoU'rE nOt a reAl Pro iT's not fOr yoU" argument is utterly ridiculous. Apple used to offer a great product that made most people happy. They decided to discontinue it, and screwed us users over, by replacing it with a series of different poorly decided compromises that were unnecessary.

 

[Steve686]

Yeah, and that's why they brought out the trash can . . .

Yeah, that’s why Apple is the most valuable company in the world . . .

 

[slughead]

This "YoU'rE nOt a reAl Pro iT's not fOr yoU" argument is utterly ridiculous. Apple used to offer a great product that made most people happy. They decided to discontinue it, and screwed us users over, by replacing it with a series of different poorly decided compromises that were unnecessary.

Apple has screwed over a lot of customers. I got screwed over when they bricked my iPhone 7 with a software update and refused to honor the recall. I also got screwed nearly every time I've used Applecare because of taking literally in some cases months to get my computer back (Just swap the damn part and give it back!!), even when I was really a big Apple spender.

That said, I wouldn't say that Apple killing the $2500 Pro-sumer computer with PCIe slots was "screwing over" their customers, just abandoning them. Who knows what kind of money there was to be made in such a market though. If you look at the TOP threads in this forum for Mac Pros, most of them are talking about how to upgrade and what to buy -- on machines that stopped being made in 2010-- the last time Apple had PCIe slots.

People were holding onto their machines for an absurd amount of time. Heck, I still have my 2010 sitting in my wife's office -- it's got a full deck of PCIe cards to give it USB3 and SATA III, etc.

What I'm saying is that this just may not be a money maker for them as these customers might have kept upgrading forever.

The 2019 MP, by contrast, is charging 6 grand for 3 grand worth of hardware (though to call the 8 core model "worth" 3 grand is a stretch, considering a threadripper alternative would cost maybe 2 grand). Maybe Apple is saying "FINE, keep your computers for 6 years instead of 3, see if we care, but you're going to pay us twice as much!" It simply may be the only model that might work for them.