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

[Ph.D.]

I'm conflicted about the machine due to the price.

Comparing it to an HP Z series makes sense, but on the other hand I've never been in the market for an HP, so its price is somewhat irrelevant to me.

My last Mac Pro purchase was a dual processor 3,1 priced at, if I remember correctly, $2800. Comparing it in the context of its time to the mMP leads one to the superficial conclusion that the mMP is overpriced by roughly a factor of 2.

Comparing it to my linux box (5 GHz 9900k, 2080ti, 2 TB NVMe SSD, etc.) at less than half the price may not be completely fair, but it's also painful: The linux box has a distinctly faster processor, vastly faster GPU, 8x the fast flash storage, etc.

And then there's this: The mMP is not a $6000 computer. It's likely $8-9000 or more by the time it has roughly the same power as my linux box (let's say 12 core, single Vega II, 2TB storage), and likely much more before it handily beats it.

Can I afford it? Yes, and I want one if only because it's such a well-engineered machine. But does it make sense for me given the pricing? Not necessarily. It's annoying.

 

[Zdigital2015]

...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?

My opinion is that the base $5999 model should be the 12-core Xeon W-3235, 48GB DRAM (6x8GB) and 1TB SSD. Then, as they did with an earlier Mac Pro, allow users a silent BTO downgrade to the 8-core, 32GB DRAM and either a 256GB or 512GB single SSD blade to save few dollars. At least, I think the $5999 config should come with 48GB of DRAM and the 1TB SSD, even if they had kept the 8-core as the base CPU and the 580X as the base GPU.

 

[09872738]

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.

You may be correct. Its irrelevant however for most creatives, developers, etc. A Macbook Pro, for example, is equipped with non-server grade, non-ECC hardware. Does that mean its unsuitable for professionals? Not by Apples own marketing.

It may well be that the Mac Pro's hardware is that expensive. But then Apple designed the wrong machine for the vast pro crowd. Maybe this is intentional. But why then did Phil Schiller mention it at WWDC 2017, insinuating they are about to create a machine for the attending developers? They clearly did not.

 

[ct2k7]

But why then did Phil Schiller mention it at WWDC 2017, insinuating they are about to create a machine for the attending developers? They clearly did not.

I think this is what really annoys me:

They announce it at a developer conference. Give media exclusive access the same day.
Allow attendees (developers) to see the machine for one day.. after the media exclusivity.

This to me leaves a bad taste about who it’s intended for and leaves me with blathering options for developers who are stuck with a Mac Mini, a MacBook Pro or an iMac Pro, where most I’ve spoken to end up using a third party building service or remotely building projects.

This isn’t a Mac Pro, it’s a Mac Media Creation machine. Yes, it’s powerful, but there is a huge hole left, and nothing to fill it, except non Mac machines. That they’re putting a $730 CPU and calling it at $6k is insulting and assumes you’re going to upgrade the CPU at the point of purchase. (Assuming they go the way of the iMac Pro).

 

[Blair Paulsen]

The price is high, but is it a good value? Some of that equation has to look at the projected lifespan of the machine. Dividing by 5 is different than dividing by 3. As someone who has nursed 4 cMPs for roughly 10 years, I have an appreciation for a computer with good "bones". No guarantees of course, but I could see a 5-8 year service life for the mMP assuming a couple of upgrades along the way.

IMO, comparing the base model to other systems is pointless since virtually anyone needing a machine of this caliber will spend at least $8K on their configuration. Comps in the $8-10K range are better indicators of the Apple Tax rate.

 

[09872738]

This to me leaves a bad taste about who it’s intended for and leaves me with blathering options for developers who are stuck with a Mac Mini, a MacBook Pro or an iMac Pro, where most I’ve spoken to end up using a third party building service or remotely building projects.

I absolutely agree. This is also why I believe they just totally lost contact with reality. If they really assume the vast crowd of developers (and, of course, smaller/medium creative studios) shells out north of 9k on that machine (and, let's be honest, the base config is just a starting point, I doubt anyone spends 6k for 256 Gs and a 580) they are absolutely delusional. This is not a pro machine, its a mega-corp machine.
Not every developer is a senior Apple developer with an income of 300kpa.

 

[William Payne]

people keep talking about entry level. To be honest the entry level specs of the old Mac Pro weren’t exactly that great even back in the day.

 

[AidenShaw]

Do you need a motherboard with 8 PCIe slots (not too long ago the Applevangelists were telling us why we didn't need any)?

Note that the MP 7,1 uses one of the 8 slots for I/O ports that other vendors put on the mobo or a mezzanine card. (USB, T-Bolt, Ethernet)

The MP 7,1 really is a 7 slot machine. Or 5 slots with two MPX modules.

 

[gugy]

Apple should have a $4k MP with lower specs and a 5K display at $2.5k (with stand).
Use the same design and just make it happen. Having a $7k entry level combo is wayyyy more feasible than $11k for the announced system.

 

[danwells]

Yes, it's around $3K in case, PSU, motherboard and cooling as best as I can figure.

Yes, you can build a 9900K system without spending more than $500 on those things (and it's hard/counterproductive to spend more than ~$750). The whole machine will cost under $3000 configured like a base Mac Pro.

But that 9900K system is optimized for the power level of a base Mac Pro, and the Mac Pro is in no way meant to be run as a base system. The 9900K will be limited to 64 GB of RAM (easily) or 128 GB (shoehorning with odd modules), while the Mac Pro doesn't really hit its stride until 96 GB, and can take a terabyte or more. The 9900K is an 8-core chip, nothing more - while 8 cores is only the beginning for the Mac Pro.

The big bucks on case, cooling, power supply and motherboard are there for the $10,000-$30,000 configurations that are this monster's bread and butter.

A huge advantage the Mac Pro has over most Windows workstations for media creators is Apple's AMD driver, and its access to relatively reasonably priced GPUs. Apple's driver is NOT a gaming driver, although it's not really a fully ISV-certified workstation driver, either - it's something in between. Apple uses (slightly overpriced versions of) gaming GPUS instead of workstation GPUs that differ primarily in the driver but sell for 4-5x as much. On a PC, a videographer has a choice of buying GPUs that are 20% cheaper than Apple's, BUT come with less than stable drivers meant for gamers OR paying 4-5x as much for workstation cards with ultra-stable drivers meant for building bridges.

A "Quadro" is pretty much a binned GeForce, sometimes with extra memory, sold with a special driver. A "FirePro" has the same relationship to a Radeon. What Apple does is reduce the premium for the non-gaming driver hugely, by writing their own driver. These "Radeon Pro Vega II" GPUs are essentially Radeon VIIs (possibly binned and certainly with doubled memory), a $700 GPU, and my guess is that Apple will sell them for $1250 or so apiece ($2500 for the Duo). To get a similar PC GPU with anything other than gaming drivers, you'd have to buy a Radeon Instinct MI50 for $4000+. for a single GPU. The iMac Pro GPUs are priced this way - more than a comparable gaming card, but much closer to that price than they are to a full-on workstation card.

NVidia is actually doing the same thing with their brand-new Studio laptop program. We haven't seen pricing on the Studio machines yet, but it looks like it'll be "slightly higher than gaming, but much less than fully-certified workstation GPUs". Just right for people trying to do actual work, but not doing anything where somebody dies if a calculation fails.

 

[Ewen Cameron]

Apple development team member 1 -
"oh **** we can't have the price too similar to the iMac Pro otherwise no-one will buy that."

Apple development team member 2 -
"Bugger, we'll have to stick another $3000 dollars on the price tag, but i'm sure those suckers will pay anyway."

Apple development team member 1 -
"Haha, yes let's f**k em!"

Jonny Ive -
"Hey tell you what chaps, how about we sell the monitor stand separately."

Apple development team member 2 -
"errrm I dunno, won't that really piss them off"

Jonny Ive -
"It will when we tell em it's going to cost a $1000."

All Apple Employees - HAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

 

[LFO8]

The price is high, but is it a good value? Some of that equation has to look at the projected lifespan of the machine. Dividing by 5 is different than dividing by 3. As someone who has nursed 4 cMPs for roughly 10 years, I have an appreciation for a computer with good "bones". No guarantees of course, but I could see a 5-8 year service life for the mMP assuming a couple of upgrades along the way.

IMO, comparing the base model to other systems is pointless since virtually anyone needing a machine of this caliber will spend at least $8K on their configuration. Comps in the $8-10K range are better indicators of the Apple Tax rate.

Agree. I can easily see this new mac pro having a lifespan of 10 years.

 

[William Payne]

That monitor in all honesty for what it’s specs are is cheap compared to its actual competitors.

If you don’t need that level of monitor than there is a metric crap ton of monitors out there available, they just aren’t made by Apple. But even so Apple already has a 4K/5k monitor.

 

[ct2k7]

That monitor in all honesty for what it’s specs are is cheap compared to its actual competitors.

If you don’t need that level of monitor than there is a metric crap ton of monitors out there available, they just aren’t made by Apple. But even so Apple already has a 4K/5k monitor.

I thought we were talking about the machine?

 

[William Payne]

I thought we were talking about the machine?

Yeah but people keep chucking the monitor in there as well.

 

[Tanax]

You say you hate apple rant (in your thread title), and then you go ahead and rant on apple, m'kay.

 

[skaertus]

I'm conflicted about the machine due to the price.

Comparing it to an HP Z series makes sense, but on the other hand I've never been in the market for an HP, so its price is somewhat irrelevant to me.

My last Mac Pro purchase was a dual processor 3,1 priced at, if I remember correctly, $2800. Comparing it in the context of its time to the mMP leads one to the superficial conclusion that the mMP is overpriced by roughly a factor of 2.

Comparing it to my linux box (5 GHz 9900k, 2080ti, 2 TB NVMe SSD, etc.) at less than half the price may not be completely fair, but it's also painful: The linux box has a distinctly faster processor, vastly faster GPU, 8x the fast flash storage, etc.

And then there's this: The mMP is not a $6000 computer. It's likely $8-9000 or more by the time it has roughly the same power as my linux box (let's say 12 core, single Vega II, 2TB storage), and likely much more before it handily beats it.

Can I afford it? Yes, and I want one if only because it's such a well-engineered machine. But does it make sense for me given the pricing? Not necessarily. It's annoying.

As for afford, it is relative. This year I built a desktop PC with an i7-9700K, a GeForce RTX 2070, 32GB, a 500 GB SSD and a 4 TB HDD. I paid some $3,000 for it (considering the exchange rate of the time) despite having build all of it. And it was cheap, as I live in Brazil and prices here are sky-high due to taxes.

Considering that I paid that much on the computer, a $6,000 Mac Pro should not be totally out of range. But it is not even announced here in Brazil, perhaps because it will be so expensive after taxes that it will not be really attractive except for very few. The basic model, after taxes, will probably cost north of $12,000, which is more than three times the average annual income per capita. Our currency has devaluated aggressively in the last year, making the Mac Pro unaffordable even for the very rich. A base model with the monitor and the stand may cost some $25,000, as much as a car, and a high-end Mac Pro could end up costing as much as a house. It makes no sense even for large companies, which are usually on a tight budget here.

So, it is not affordable for me, and it will be hard to see one in the wild. Still, I never thought of buying one, as I do not fit in this particular market. But I can discuss whether the price makes sense or not.

 

[ekwipt]

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.

we are not making videos with servers though right, the professional X299 motherboards could handle these workloads, barely anyone needs 2 x MPX Radeon cards taking up all slots most only need a single Radeon 7. There should be a high end Mac Pro and X299 one IMO of course. I need a few PCIe slots but not 7, I might want 8, 12 or 16 cores but not 28. The only middle ground is a Mac mini and an iMac Pro (I need PCIE slots on the mini and I don't need the display on the iMac pro)

 

[Ph.D.]

Agree. I can easily see this new mac pro having a lifespan of 10 years.

I'm not sure about "easily" but it's certainly plausible. The problem, however, is that most people will want or need something more modern long before then. I know I did - my old cMP did last ~10 years but was comparatively old, slow and obsolete over many of those. It survived mostly due to sheer stubbornness on my part ("not going to buy a replacement until Apple offers a real MP!").

My point is that people attempting to rationalize the high purchase price via an excessively long amortization period (e.g., 10 years) would likely be deluding themselves.

 

[mryingster]

A bit late to the party, but my impression is that's it's more expensive than a lot of prosumers wanted, but also more powerful than a lot of prosumers need. I do design work, not video encoding. I've traditionally bought the MacPros for the expandability/upgradability, and not so much their raw computing power.

I was holding out for a new one, but as awesome as this is, I don't need 28 cores and 8 PCIe slots. I'd love 8-12 cores, 2 PCIe slots and an HDD bay. I guess I'm still looking for the elusive MacMidi priced around say $2500-3000.

I don't think it's too outrageous for what it is. I do think it's not aimed at me for it's target audience.

 

[ct2k7]

A bit late to the party, but my impression is that's it's more expensive than a lot of prosumers wanted, but also more powerful than a lot of prosumers need. I do design work, not video encoding. I've traditionally bought the MacPros for the expandability/upgradability, and not so much their raw computing power.

I was holding out for a new one, but as awesome as this is, I don't need 28 cores and 8 PCIe slots. I'd love 8-12 cores, 2 PCIe slots and an HDD bay. I guess I'm still looking for the elusive MacMidi priced around say $2500-3000.

I don't think it's too outrageous for what it is. I do think it's not aimed at me for it's target audience.

It think this is the crux of it: the Mac Pro target audience has changed, significantly. Those at the lower end of the audience don’t have options which are sufficient for their needs. It’s time for these people to look at other vendors and likely venture out of the Apple ecosystem in this area.

 

[Ritchie Mac]

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=1559860663][/doublepost]Of course this is the ‘quid pro quo’ for the upgradeability of the MacPro. Apple have given us exactly what we were demanding but they’re saying “if you want the ability to upgrade in future (and give us none of your money) then we’ll get it out of you now”. It seems to me that this is probably something that the target audience for the MP ie. professionals who can justify the cost will be prepared to do.

 

[Ritchie Mac]

I’m happy they created a computer for Bill Gates but I’m still left with no solution to stay as a Mac user. I need an expandable desktop that can cut 4K raw that will run Catalina. Shame on Apple, Tim Cook is a terrible CEO.

I think you’d be better off using a Windows machine. Go on.......we dare you.
[doublepost=1559861133][/doublepost]

Apple should have a $4k MP with lower specs and a 5K display at $2.5k (with stand).
Use the same design and just make it happen. Having a $7k entry level combo is wayyyy more feasible than $11k for the announced system.

Why should Apple make a loss on products they produce? Why don’t you go and earn some more Dollars (as it’s obvious that you’re a true pro) and then you’ll find it easier to justify the purchase.

 

[gugy]

I think you’d be better off using a Windows machine. Go on.......we dare you.
[doublepost=1559861133][/doublepost]
Why should Apple make a loss on products they produce? Why don’t you go and earn some more Dollars (as it’s obvious that you’re a true pro) and then you’ll find it easier to justify the purchase.

Why would you think at loss? I said lower specs. Ideally they should have a tower option for pros that do not want AIO systems and need expansion. They did it with the 5.1 MP.

 

[mac_in_tosh]

[

It think this is the crux of it: the Mac Pro target audience has changed, significantly. Those at the lower end of the audience don’t have options which are sufficient for their needs. It’s time for these people to look at other vendors and likely venture out of the Apple ecosystem in this area.

I'm at the lower end of the audience. In the past I've purchased base models of the G4 and G5. While I still plan to use Apple laptops, I've been doing my (not so) heavy photo/video lifting with a modestly expandable Dell desktop with little regret. Apple just doesn't seem to want my business in this area.