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

[alphaod]

The monitor isn't for us normal users just like EIZO monitors are not for us normal users. Though that Dell 32" 8K is starting to look pretty attractive! I do find the lack of any mounting options included to be insane.

The new Mac Pro looks expensive, but it's always been expensive. My first Mac Pro in 2009 was $7500 and everyone thought I was insane at the same, but look at it now, it's still very fast and the most reliable computer I own.

I'm not saying I'll pay anything with an Apple logo on it and I don't I need the new Mac Pro anyways, but it's unfair to look at the price and dismiss it immediately.

 

[maflynn]

The monitor isn't for us normal users just like EIZO monitors are not for us normal users. Though that Dell 32" 8K is starting to look pretty attractive! I do find the lack of any mounting options included to be insane.

No, but by the same token charging a thousand dollars for a stand that should have been included is insane. Plus what is so special about this stand, its purely bent metal, that's it.

 

[alphaod]

The monitor isn't for us normal users just like EIZO monitors are not for us normal users. Though that Dell 32" 8K is starting to look pretty attractive! I do find the lack of any mounting options included to be insane.

No, but by the same token charging a thousand dollars for a stand that should have been included is insane. Plus what is so special about this stand, its purely bent metal, that's it.

That's what I said...

 

[theluggage]

Anyway, can you find a motherboard that has 8 PCIe slots?

Do you need a motherboard with 8 PCIe slots (not too long ago the Applevangelists were telling us why we didn't need any)? ...and if you are going to have plenty of PCIe slots (it doesn't have to be 8) why include expensive features like dual 10Gbps Ethernet and Thunderbolt (at least, more than the 1-2 TB3 ports you might get on a motherboard) in the base spec - expensive things that could be added via PCIe by those who needed them?

Oh, and since these Mac Pros aren't in the shops yet and AFAIK the particular Xeon SKUs that Apple is using aren't actually available yet, so its pretty hard to get a truly like-for-like comparison quote.

But, anyway, the complaint is that the base system is too expensive for people who want a full-sized desktop for the versatility and customisability - if Apple made one we'd happily shut up and buy that instead of a Swiss Cheese Grater. In a sense, it hardly matters whether its over-priced or just over-specced... its just too expensive.

...but, maybe Pixar will buy a bunch of fully-tricked out Swiss Cheese Graters (although monitor stands and wheels might be reserved for the execs) ensuring that there's an Apple logo on the end credits to Toy Story 5. Yay.

 

[maflynn]

That's what I said...

yeah Me too
[doublepost=1559820182][/doublepost]

.but, maybe Pixar will buy a bunch of fully-tricked out Swiss Cheese Graters (although monitor stands and wheels might be reserved for the execs) ensuring that there's an Apple logo on the end credits to Toy Story 5. Yay.

To be sure there is a market, but how much of one. obviously Apple's estimates of sales will be scaled to consider the demographic. Its just a bummer that there is no desktop mac that offers any expandability.

 

[pastrychef]

The best thing about the monitor stand is that it's an optional purchase. Don't like the price? Don't buy it. Get something else.

 

[Beandip!]

Speaking for myself, the value is in macOS. The ability to seamlessly transition from my previous Mac Pro to the new Mac Pro and not having to deal with Windows or a PC. Connecting the new Pro Display XDR to the Mac Pro in the knowledge that colour calibration will be accurate and I have the best image quality possible for my client work, right out of the box. $2000 is an extremely small price to pay for that. I just wouldn't be confident that an Alienware PC, Windows 10 and an Acer display could provide that. If that works for you then great, but please understand that image quality is critical to a lot of us and we have to look beyond price and clock speed when considering a new workstation. The way we measure the value of this machine is just different to you.

I think you misunderstood my point. If you're planning to buy the display, then you're planning to spend at least $12k right off the bat. My point was there's a class of professional for whom $6k is at or near the top of their budget for a workstation, and those people used to be able to afford Mac Pros. My guess is, if you're shelling out $12k already, you're probably not actually going to be using the $6k configuration of the Mac Pro, right?... you'll either buy a higher end configuration, or upgrade it yourself, because you need more power than the $6k configuration offers.... right? That's my point.

 

[pl1984]

The best thing about the monitor stand is that it's an optional purchase. Don't like the price? Don't buy it. Get something else.

What other options are available?

 

[amedias]

But, anyway, the complaint is that the base system is too expensive for people who want a full-sized desktop for the versatility and customisability - if Apple made one we'd happily shut up and buy that instead of a Swiss Cheese Grater. In a sense, it hardly matters whether its over-priced or just over-specced... its just too expensive.

But in essence that is not a complaint about the new Mac Pro, it's actually a complaint about the absence of different product.

This is a Mac Pro Pro, targeted at people who do want and need the capabilities it has, what you (and others) want is an old style Mac Pro that caters for people below this but above a Mini.

Your complaint is about the hole in the range, not the products on either side of the hole.

 

[theluggage]

To be sure there is a market, but how much of one. obviously Apple's estimates of sales will be scaled to consider the demographic.

...well, yes, that's why the prices (and, probably, margins) are so high. Sure, systems like the Mac Pro don't design themselves - but I don't see any rocket science in there, either. The MPX slots are just 'cable tidies' to avoid flying power and DisplayPort leads and the Vega II GPU is presumably something that AMD were developing anyhow - the USP seems to be the software in the 'afterburner' (hardware wise... is a FPGA on a PCIe card) and, anyway, none of that is in the base spec. Going for a full-sized tower with (mostly) standard PCIe and the revolutionary cooling concept of 'big fans blowing air over honking great heatsinks' ought to work out cheaper than a miniaturised marvel like an iMac (or the misguided marvel of the Trashcan).

 

[mattspace]

Connecting the new Pro Display XDR to the Mac Pro in the knowledge that colour calibration will be accurate and I have the best image quality possible for my client work, right out of the box.

Given Apple's history of marketing 8+2bit frc panels as "10 bit", and the fact there's an entire industry with specialised equipment and skilled technicians whose profession is to measure and keep individual displays in profile over their life, I think you're going to be disappointed at the difference between the expectations Apple is setting in their marketing, and the reality of this display's performance in use.

 

[Beandip!]

I know this isn't gonna happen, but just for the sake of putting the starting price of $6k into context, what do you think would be a fair price if Apple was to sell just the Mac Pro case with nothing in it but the motherboard and power supply so people could put in exactly the components that work for their needs? $3,000? $3,000 for an empty case and motherboard.... that might be somewhat reasonable, or it might be ridiculously steep. Regardless, I'd happily pay $3k just for entry into club Mac. For another $3k, I could build exactly the system I want and it would be more powerful (for my purposes) than what they're offering for $6k. But a $6k entry fee is just too much when you're still going to have to spend more to make it into a system that does what you need it to.

 

[William Payne]

Ya the poor level don’t deserve Mac Pro.

Couldn’t be any further than what I meant. I come from nothing financially but through perseverance and out right stubbornness I am making my goals and ambitions happen. Much of it I cannot afford at all but I find a way to make it work knowing that if I make the most of it it will pay for itself in time.

A few months ago I desperately needed a new computer but no way could I afford it. I now have a new MacBook Pro. I sold stuff, saved, I just made it work. Same with the Herman Miller Aeron chair I just brought.

I soon plan on upgrading my cameras. I am still figuring out how to pay for that, but I will make it work as it’s an investment in myself and my business and I will make it pay for itself.

 

[theluggage]

Your complaint is about the hole in the range, not the products on either side of the hole.

...yes, but the only way you can show the hole is there is by pointing to the products on either side. Apple have doubled the price of the Mac Pro. Where do you expect people to go to complain about that? You're trying to defend that by re-defining what "Pro" means (hint: back in the real world its a marketing term that just means "better than the model without 'Pro' written on the side." There are "Pro" toothbrushes at the supermarket - they're not just for dentists or the "Man vs. Food" guy)

It would be just as fair to say that the only people defending the Mac Pro are movie-grade video editors and 3D animators who won't be buying the $6000 model with a measly 8 cores and gaming-grade GPU anyway and really don't understand the needs of people who just want a moderately powerful, expandable, multipurpose desktop.

 

[pastrychef]

What other options are available?

Get the VESA mount and you can use any VESA compatible stand you like.

 

[amedias]

...yes, but the only way you can show the hole is there is by pointing to the products on either side. Apple have doubled the price of the Mac Pro. Where do you expect people to go to complain about that?

The way I see it is that they haven't doubled the price of the Mac Pro.
What they've done is introduced a new product pitched at a different point in the market, and have confused and annoyed everyone by re-using the name of an old product that was pitched differently.

And doubly annoyed those people because they still have no actual product to buy that fits in that hole, and they thought they were going to get one because of the name.

If they had introduced this as the Mac SuperDuperPro or whatever to clearly differentiate it there'd have been a lot less annoyance. As you point out 'Pro' is just a sticker, it means whatever they want it to mean, so the only thing to do is look at the actually capabilities and specifications of the product to see if it fits your need.

I expect people to complain about the hole, I want it filled too, but I think saying things like the Mac Pro price has doubled is missing the point that this isn't a replacement for the old Mac Pro as it was, it's a new product that replaces and starts from a place a bit above 'the old Mac Pro'.

It's not specced wrong or too expensive, I think it's named wrong. If they did ever end up building the expandable Mac we want that slots into the hole then they'd have to name it something different, even if it ends up being an actual replacement for the old Mac Pro in terms of capability and intent.

You're trying to defend that by re-defining what "Pro" means (hint: back in the real world its a marketing term that just means "better than the model without 'Pro' written on the side." There are "Pro" toothbrushes at the supermarket - they're not just for dentists or the "Man vs. Food" guy)

Nah, I'm not defending anything, Apple have made their decision and the product will stand (or not) on it's own merits. I'm just offering my opinion on how I think it's pitched. I'm not likely to ever buy (a new) one as it it's not the right product for me. The right product for me doesn't exist in Apple's line up any more.

 

[apolloa]

I'm one of those, and the reason we cling to them, is because they are great for what we actually need, whereas the new ones are not. I've owned three Mac Pros, which I sold when I started doing more 3ds Max and didn't have as much use for them. When I wanted to go back to Mac, it was gone, replaced by... a weird thing that depended on a thousand peripherals. Since then, I've bought one Lenovo workstation (Xeon/Quadro/ECC and all the bells and whistles), one MacBook Pro in lieu of the Mac Pro, and recently I built an AMD pc. I'd have happily bought a decent Mac Pro had they kept upgrading the old one. Instead, my money has gone to pcs. I know tens of people and small companies who used to have/work on Mac Pros who have just stopped waiting and moved to PC.

If Apple made something actually desirable at a reasonable price point they'd sell more of them, which in turn would keep people in the ecosystem. With their shenanigans all they do is drive people away.
[doublepost=1559802186][/doublepost]
I don't know what twisted idea of a professional you have where budgets don't exist, but in the real world, there are margins and competitors and things like that. The cheapest Mac Pro usable for video will be at least 8000. You can get a great Resolve/Premiere computer for that money (or you think people who spend 8K on a Mac Pro actually use FCPX )

Apple **** on video editors when they replaced FCP7 with FCPX. They **** on photographers when they replaced Aperture with Photos. All these had cross platform alternatives, and Apple basically drove them out. Given the choice of running Premiere or Resolve or whatever on a solid pc, or pay five times the price to run the same software on a fancy Mac, people will keep moving on and walking away (and rightly so).

This new Mac Pro is all about performance and price is just an afterthought. Guess what? For performance, there are much better options (although I'm curious about the FPGA, it has a lot of potential), and price IS important when you run a company.
[doublepost=1559802608][/doublepost]
And so did Amazon and look at the Amazon Phone. And Blackberry. And Nokia. And Apple with the trashcan and iTunes ******* Ping and now this cheese grater. And Samsung with some products. Companies make mistakes. They don't matter much when they have deep pockets, but they are still mistakes. The reality distortion field is still strong with some of you guys.

Ok then... So your annoyed with apple generally because of what they did with FCP. And now presenting your opinion as fact, because unless you’ve benchmarked the new Mac Pro you have no idea how it performs against other systems...
You just generally seem to hate Apple..? Yet you’ll still use its products.
Just be honest with yourself, you are just annoyed because you cannot afford the new Pro, and don’t like being told it’s not meant for you..
Plenty of companies out there who will happily spend thousands on them, ones where actual real professionals will use them, not some hobbyist.

Oh and FYI, those You Tubers you are so passionately defending as being ‘professionals’ ALL use FCPX... so going by your own logic sir yes, they will be using the new Mac Pro to run FCPX.... and they’ll spend a lot more then 8k on one, the bigger ones already use fully maxed out from Apple iMac Pro’s..... so your a bit hypocritical there if I must say so.

 

[slughead]

Just priced out an Alienware as a potential workstation for myself:
8-core i9 9900k - 3.6ghz, 5ghz turbo (compared to the Mac Pro's 4ghz turbo speed)
64GB of 3200mhz RAM (compared to the Mac Pro's 2666mhz)
An NVIDIA RTX 2080ti (vs a Radeon Pro 580X)
A 2TB SSD AND A 2TB HDD (vs 256GB SSD in the Mac Pro...)
WiFi6!
Liquid cooling!
$3934!!!!!!!!!!

This system is an order of magnitude more powerful than the one you get in the $6k Mac Pro... anyone want to explain to me where exactly that extra $2k of value is hiding in the Mac Pro?

People keep comparing the 8 Core Xeon prices to the new Mac Pro base price -- this is really what the comparison should be. If you don't need ECC or the PCIe lanes, the i9 9900k is a better, cheaper processor, period.

You forgot to mention you'll have way more IO.

 

[Simon R.]

yeah Me too
[doublepost=1559820182][/doublepost]
To be sure there is a market, but how much of one. obviously Apple's estimates of sales will be scaled to consider the demographic. Its just a bummer that there is no desktop mac that offers any expandability.

I think there COULD have been a decent market for it, had this happened 4 years ago. Today I think companys will be reluctant buying into this until they know whether Apple are actually committing to keeping it updated. Which means every two years or something. Each time a new Xeon range is released! AND they should be getting PCI4 + TB4 into it ASAP too. I know I am myself holding out for the 2nd gen of it, also considering that it is so expensive and some of the tech is almost already yesterdays (PCI3 and TB3).

Many people already left Apple for pro work and I don't think they are paying $10.000+ to come back unless they know Apple have commitment and deliver something as good as/better than what they have now.

 

[LFO8]

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.

It is of my opinion that the 13" MacBook Pro's are non deserving of the "Pro" suffix and should just be MacBooks

 

[Macintosh IIcx]

While the base price does indeed looks ridiculous, I really need to see what the CPU upgrades and GPU upgrades will cost.

The SSD upgrades are probably in line of the other Macs, so probably not a massive cost, or maybe we can just install our own.

We can probably guestimate CPU upgrade costs too, as I would assume they will cost the same as Intel’s suggested retail price, give and take.

Now, the GPUs are a huge question mark for me. The Pro Vega II might be a bit nasty in price with those pricey 32 GB HBM2 rams, I have a bad feeling about those. The Duo even more so.
[doublepost=1559835811][/doublepost]Just for fun, I just looked up the price of the Macintosh IIcx (those were good times!)

Introductory price US$5,369 (equivalent to $10,852 in 2018).

 

[JDLang76]

Just priced out an Alienware as a potential workstation for myself:
8-core i9 9900k - 3.6ghz, 5ghz turbo (compared to the Mac Pro's 4ghz turbo speed)
64GB of 3200mhz RAM (compared to the Mac Pro's 2666mhz)
An NVIDIA RTX 2080ti (vs a Radeon Pro 580X)
A 2TB SSD AND A 2TB HDD (vs 256GB SSD in the Mac Pro...)
WiFi6!
Liquid cooling!
$3934!!!!!!!!!!

This system is an order of magnitude more powerful than the one you get in the $6k Mac Pro... anyone want to explain to me where exactly that extra $2k of value is hiding in the Mac Pro?

The only thing I can think of is FCP is worth 2k to some people. If you're rich and you love that program, then fine. Everyone else? Nope. Nothing.

 

[DaveGee]

never mind

 

[theluggage]

What they've done is introduced a new product pitched at a different point in the market, and have confused and annoyed everyone by re-using the name of an old product that was pitched differently.

...then maybe they should have come clean with the 5-digit price of the monster they were demonstrating and citing benchmarks for instead of going on to announce $6000 entry-level version with overall worse specs than the iMac Pro?

Because if the entry level spec isn't their idea of a replacement for the old entry-level Mac Pro, what is it for?

 

[MisterAndrew]

Some people are forgetting that the Mac Pro is server grade. It's not appropriate to compare it to consumer gaming PCs. It's designed to be able to run continuously on end in a commercial environment.