Care to elaborate - where did I claim a specific model range sold well while no viable market segment existed for it ?
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
Care to elaborate - where did I claim a specific model range sold well while no viable market segment existed for it ?
^ erm...there? Or did I misunderstand your comments?
I was confused by you saying that no market for iMac Pros existed, which is why I asked if you were privy to sales figures, and then I said I wouldn't be surprised if they actually sold quite a few, and you agreed.
That seemed to me to be a paradox, claiming no market segment existed, yet agreeing that they probably sell well, surely if they do sell well then the people they sell to is the market segment?
Or were you specifically referring to the top spec iMac Pros? I don't know there, which is why I said I was curious about actual sales figures as we're basically just guessing.
Last edited:
I hear you. I guess i'm one of the lesser porpoises myself, but i'll buy in too at some point and upgrade (ssd, ram, video). And yes the entry point is too high and thats a mistake even if its designed to protect imac pro sales...
Whether it’s a genuine mistake or not depends on how many iMPs - and eventually, MPs - they sell. If they hold back a potentially high-selling MP to prop up a low-selling iMP, that may be a mistake. If the iMP is selling well, then not hurting it’s sales may make sense.
All I know is, Apple doesn't make a machine for me, so I'll probably do a Ryzen build now, so that I can learn Linux and Windows before my subscription model Microsoft software drops support on Mojave in two years. :0
I've been using Apple computer's since I was a kid in the 80's (Apple IIe). Sure, I had DOS based x86 computers when the IBM clones came into town (I owned the Amstrad one, dudes...in America), but Windows? ewwwwwwwwwww.
But, as you can see it took 9 years (2012 Mac Pro is a 2010 Mac Pro) for them to save face with the professional market.
Now, what about the market of people that aren't interested in throwing money at iMac/Mac Mini...nor laptops? We've got nothing. But, we haven't had anything since 2012; so....
I've been using Apple computer's since I was a kid in the 80's (Apple IIe). Sure, I had DOS based x86 computers when the IBM clones came into town (I owned the Amstrad one, dudes...in America), but Windows? ewwwwwwwwwww.
But, as you can see it took 9 years (2012 Mac Pro is a 2010 Mac Pro) for them to save face with the professional market.
Now, what about the market of people that aren't interested in throwing money at iMac/Mac Mini...nor laptops? We've got nothing. But, we haven't had anything since 2012; so....
Yeah when I started buying macs the IIfx was over $10,000 (the ram upgrade was 1000s more). I would have liked a IIci (about $6000) , a rich friend had a IIsi ($3500) and I had to settle for an LC (still $2500) add monitors, convert to Australian money allow for inflation and WOW. expensive ! So $6000 present dollars for an overpriced cheesegrater is cool, Steve would be proud of the marketing and design teams 
I just hope the upgrade path is not blocked with say the ssd configs or quite likely the lack of nvidia drivers. I am hopeful there ....
The big difference is that windows 10 is not too bad for most people, not as good as MacOS but WAY WAY better than DOS... So Apple no longer has a clear run in the GUI department. Far from it !
I just hope the upgrade path is not blocked with say the ssd configs or quite likely the lack of nvidia drivers. I am hopeful there ....The big difference is that windows 10 is not too bad for most people, not as good as MacOS but WAY WAY better than DOS... So Apple no longer has a clear run in the GUI department. Far from it !
I don’t really think the two are that linked, although they can be configured with similar core counts and Ram they are very different products.
I don’t think people in the market for a MP would consider an iMP, and vice versa. We’ve already seen numerous people saying they were waiting for the MP as an AIO wasn’t suitable (or desirable) for them, I think there will be some overlap between them but I really think it’s a minimal edge case so neither would hurt the other as they’re pitched at different buyers.
That’s partly because there is clear daylight between them in terms of price. What if the base MP was £4000? Surely that would affect iMP sales?
Looked at the other way, a MP specced to base iMP levels (1TB SSD, Vega graphics, possibly even a screen) is a lot more than £5000. Surely there are freelancers or smaller companies that would prefer a tower, but would compromise on a powerful AIO to save thousands of pounds.
Looked at the other way, a MP specced to base iMP levels (1TB SSD, Vega graphics, possibly even a screen) is a lot more than £5000. Surely there are freelancers or smaller companies that would prefer a tower, but would compromise on a powerful AIO to save thousands of pounds.
Absolutely there are, but that's the overlap area that Apple has decided not to offer a product for. I'm mildly annoyed about that too as I'm in the camp of wanting a powerful expandable machine that isn't an AIO, and doesn't cost as much as the new MP , but I don't think Apple want that overlap segment of the market.
Whether they think it's because that segment are too much effort to support*, or too small to bother with, or simply that they want to push them to either AIO or MP to make more money is anyone's guess, but it's clearly a decision they've made. That't doesn't mean they can't target that market in the future, but it'll depend on the 'why' from above.
* Personally I think this is the actual reason, if they offer an expandable tower for the power user/prosumer/hobbyist they'll end up losing sokme control over hardware configuration and then the OS and driver headaches that come with that, and they simply don't want to lose control. I think if they ever do plug that hole in their lineup again it'll be with a Mac Midi or another trashcan style product that is still proprietary, just a little bit bigger and more powerful than a mini and with a proper GPU, but a PC style slot box to run OSX is likely never going to be on the cards.
anyhow the good point is that the machine is here, for real , and future is bright because we dont have to worry about switching to pc or linux.
regarding the price , I am not too worried because if it is too expensive it wont sale , and therefore they will have to lower the price once the rich aficionados and big firm will have place the order.
the way i see it , is either you have a way to make it pay dor itself, then price is less of a problem, or either you would like to have one because who wouldn’t, but you are not going to make more money from it than if you would work on a 8 core imac 5k.
i plan to use my 5.1 for a couple of years more as so far it is still alowing me to work efficiently, and as soon as there will be too much hack/patch involved to run it and that I will be able to buy a used 2019 low end machine for 4000€, i will pull the trigger and go full blown on upgrade.
regarding the price , I am not too worried because if it is too expensive it wont sale , and therefore they will have to lower the price once the rich aficionados and big firm will have place the order.
the way i see it , is either you have a way to make it pay dor itself, then price is less of a problem, or either you would like to have one because who wouldn’t, but you are not going to make more money from it than if you would work on a 8 core imac 5k.
i plan to use my 5.1 for a couple of years more as so far it is still alowing me to work efficiently, and as soon as there will be too much hack/patch involved to run it and that I will be able to buy a used 2019 low end machine for 4000€, i will pull the trigger and go full blown on upgrade.
Well, yes and no. If you are in the market for one of this then no, it's not overpriced. The likes of Dell, Boxx and HP are similarly priced(or more). BUT, the problem is if you want to use MacOS and be able to, you know, change your graphics card than you are out of luck. Apple doesn't offer anything for regular users or professionals with lesser needs. And before peps jump at me with iMac, for what is worth it i would like to be able to put in my computer whatever graphics card i want, when i want. Both Dell and HP offer a full range of towers from regular usage, office gaming to ultra high end if we like so much to compare things with them. Apple? Only ultra high end and nothing for the rest of folks. I am VERY glad i moved away from Apple after the trashcan fiasco. The only reason to stay with Apple is if you have software that runs only on MacOS. Otherwise you can get used with Windows or Linux and escape the pathetic Apple attempt to keep users trapped into planned obsolescence, with non upgradable components. It's 2019 and you can have 1tb nvme for like 250$ and modern 16 cores cpus for 7-800$. No need to pay 6k just to be able to upgrade your graphics card or to use NVIDIA. And by the way, even the card launched few hours ago by amd can only touch low and midd end nvidia cards, no way near RTX or live ray tracing yet. So Apple is trying to sell anyone overpriced, obsolete products that can't be upgraded. Don't get me wrong i was an Apple user since system 6 and 7 days, but after SJ passed away this is 90's all over again. Last time they almost went bankrupt, but saved by Steve Jobs. Wonder who is going to save them now....
p.s. and since i've seen so many comparisons with HP Z8 you can add 3 Quadro video cards in that bad boy(or regular gaming cards), but in this fancy Apple machine you only have a single 8 pin connector, so you can not even add a modern gaming card for 6k because those use either 2 x 8pin or 1 x 8pin and 1 x 6pin power connectors. way to go Apple.
p.s. and since i've seen so many comparisons with HP Z8 you can add 3 Quadro video cards in that bad boy(or regular gaming cards), but in this fancy Apple machine you only have a single 8 pin connector, so you can not even add a modern gaming card for 6k because those use either 2 x 8pin or 1 x 8pin and 1 x 6pin power connectors. way to go Apple.
Last edited:
Up to 300W auxiliary power via two 8-pin connectors. Someone may figure out how to extract more from those fancy extra long pcie connectors as well if you don't want to use apples video card solution (500W power MPX Module). But you can at least power one big pc card (2x8pin)
Yea, my mistake 2 x 8pin connectors, not one. Still, kinda lame to spend 6 grand on a 'pro workstation' to have the ability to add just ONE graphics card? And trying to figure out how to hack the computer to install your extra cards? So i pay 6k(minimum) for a supported workstation and then i try to hack it? Then why not go with self build, because hacking means loosing support so there is no reason to buy something branded just to hack it. Isn't it this the main reason we pay this numbers on dedicated/brand workstations, to have support? Not to mention that it is just pure speculation that someone could hack this machine and 'extract somehow' more power out of a proprietary connector. Get real please. So if i still want my support i can only install 1 graphics card.
I get your point here, but truth is if you need a 28 core xeon machine with 2 very high end gpu for your work, and a macmini 6core with one egpu is not enough then you might not be charging your customers the right price for the value of your work.
I have stopped to let « friends /collegue » borow time on my editing station because they only had a macbook to edit 4k raw footage couldn’t afford buying a true workstation because they were charging customers 1/3 of what i charge for the same job... so they lowball the price to get the job and then use somone else machine saying «I’m not making enough money to buy a workstation » but then when I want to charge my customers for the price I ask, they say to me : some guys works for a 1/3 of what you charge... and hire that guy.
the way I see it is that the price of a true workstation should be covered by the money you make using it...
if you you are the type of guy who want to use cheap consumer grade camera, and cheap hardware to sell cheap « professional level work » saying that a sony A7 camera, a crane 3 gimbal and a macbook pro is all it take to do « professional video » you are just hurting the one who do it on a real professional level with a c700 or a red weapon 8k and true workstation hardware.
this macpro is a tool not a toy ...
it has only the value of how many money you can make with it.
as soon as the machine make me work 1 hour faster per day, compare to my actual maxed out macpro 5.1 and xserve setup i will sell the 5.1 and invest 10k in a new machine that will pay itself over a year, because I will be able to keep providing my customers with the same reliable service they are used to.
therefore I will almost certainly buy the rack version, to put it in the server room and dump the xserve.
just on the electricity bill changing from one xserve and one macpro with all the extensions chassis to a single machine will make me save 1.5k€ per year...
so even sitting at iddle i’m saving money...
In addition to the Apple Tax, with the new Mac Pro Apple has also introduced the Modularity Tax. Forget those alternative facts asserting that most of us are not "Pro enough" to aspire to a new Mac Pro, eventually powerful computers only allow people to do more in less time.
It certainly should not be not up to Apple to categorize users artificially manipulating their need to do things more or less quickly so that they fit into their product pricing strategy.
The pretence vendors have to dictate what users, creative or not, do with their hardware has been debunked many times before in IT. What happened to the UNIX visual workstation market in the late '90s should be hard lesson not to be forgotten.
If Apple genuinely wanted to be open and satisfy its customers, they should have offered the new Mac Pro as a bare bone system made only of Case, Motherboard and Power Supply and offer full freedom for customers to configure CPU, RAM, Storage, Video etc according to their needs. HP among others do that and they are market leaders.
I don't buy the notion that Apple is unwilling to support in MacOS all devices on the market: they could simply produce, as other vendors do, a device compatibility list that users could follow or not follow at their own risk.
The fact that Apple is trying to artificially define their user base in function of their product pricing strategy has resulted in the aberration where users are not free to configure their tools in function of the work they need to do today.
We all know that most of Apple revenues come from mobile devices, I also appreciate that Apple should lead design ergonomics and efficiency. But, instead of limit their PC offering by pricing, they should offer maximum freedom in the distribution of those tools that ultimately are the development foundation of all other products they offer.
It certainly should not be not up to Apple to categorize users artificially manipulating their need to do things more or less quickly so that they fit into their product pricing strategy.
The pretence vendors have to dictate what users, creative or not, do with their hardware has been debunked many times before in IT. What happened to the UNIX visual workstation market in the late '90s should be hard lesson not to be forgotten.
If Apple genuinely wanted to be open and satisfy its customers, they should have offered the new Mac Pro as a bare bone system made only of Case, Motherboard and Power Supply and offer full freedom for customers to configure CPU, RAM, Storage, Video etc according to their needs. HP among others do that and they are market leaders.
I don't buy the notion that Apple is unwilling to support in MacOS all devices on the market: they could simply produce, as other vendors do, a device compatibility list that users could follow or not follow at their own risk.
The fact that Apple is trying to artificially define their user base in function of their product pricing strategy has resulted in the aberration where users are not free to configure their tools in function of the work they need to do today.
We all know that most of Apple revenues come from mobile devices, I also appreciate that Apple should lead design ergonomics and efficiency. But, instead of limit their PC offering by pricing, they should offer maximum freedom in the distribution of those tools that ultimately are the development foundation of all other products they offer.
Last edited:
Yes .
[doublepost=1560255224][/doublepost]
Well said .
While the new Mac Pro is a great design, it could be both more affordable and a lot more flexible without much effort from Apple .
But by the wisdom granted to anyone who is sitting on a large pile of money , they decided to play god and to keep the unwashed masses asking for more .
The nMP is like a Netflix Original - it almost doesn't suck .
Attachments
This does not have anything to do with what i am saying. Not to say that you don't have some valid points. I am not debating the 6k markup, i am debating the fact that for this price you don't even get the chance to place 3 cards in the machine; both HP and Dell offer 6 x 8pin connectors for up to 3 rtx8000 quadro cards. Where is this option for this 'high end' Apple machine? By the way i work on a Dell workstation that i paid 11k euros at the time of purchase and no, i am not cheap. I already upgrade it twice with new Quadro cards, new ssd and new storage. So i extended the life of it since i mostly do 3d animation rather then render. Does notions like ROI and TCO mean something to you? And what about the OTHER pros who activate in print, music production, low level video production, usual photography etc. where is the middle machine for them? Where is the equivalent of HP Z4, or Dell T5200? When the time comes i will take my business to Dell again, because i am not looking at the darn thing, i work with it. Am i tempted to buy one of this new macpro? Yes, but knowing what Apple did to pros in the last 9 years(remember the mishap between 2010 and 2012 before trash can fiasco?) i think i will stay away.
Shouldn't be that hard for someone to offer an MPX PCIe slot (the 'extra' one) to dual 8-pin adapter, to power regular PC GPUs. You'd lose the silent (?) cooling, but could save a lot of money. Even boot screens wouldn't be an issue if just using the second card for compute.
Last edited:
An Amstrad was also my 1st Computer! You got yours from an ad from Computer Shopper, I'll bet. 386DX20. 4 megs of memory and a 20Mb hard drive.
No, you don't lose 'silent' you loose your warranty because this would equate to a hack of the computer. That PROPRIETARY connector is not meant to provide auxiliary connection, it's a PROPRIETARY connector designed for Apple MPX modules only. If you use it for something else you lose your warranty. Then again, why to spend this amount on a workstation if you loose the support? Read the technical data Apple has provided. So my question is still valid. I don't know you, but for my business i don't hack things and when i pay a ton of money i do it for support. Otherwise would juts build one threadripper pc myself and be gone with it. And again, just pure speculation that someone will somehow provide a hack to use a unknown slot(that you don't know anything about it) to somehow add extra power connectors(how can you know this is even technically feasible?). It's clear that Apple intent was exactly to prevent user to install more than one graphic cards, so either there will be no hack(and by the way the pci-e can sustain ONLY 75w of power so this is NOT your average pci-e slot but an Apple proprietary connector) or if there will be one you will loose your warranty and support - the main thing to pay for such a high end product. If you have bothered to read the Apple print it says: "MPX Connector Up to 475 watts power" so it's a proprietary connector and your post is just speculation.
For so much bold text and reading of "Apple print" you missed two things - 1) you can use regular GPUs without MPX. 2) you can use multiple of them. There is no need to tap into MPX power slot because Apple provides 4 of the regular 8 pin PCIe power connectors and one 6 pin. For a grand total of 675W of auxiliary power to use as you please. Plus whatever the actual PCIe slot provides.
Last edited:
There’s four 8-pin GPU connectors? Didn’t realise that, thought there were just two. In that case, finding extra power isn’t necessary.
Also, I’m not sure what you’re ranting about @pcd109. The MPX connector is clearly proprietary, and my suggestion was obviously speculation. As you say yourself, it can provide 475W of power, so it’s hardly beyond the realm of possibility that someone could manufacture a PCB that connects the power pins in the slot to a pair of GPU power connectors. Bear in mind that people will be using these machines for years after AppleCare runs out (unless an ISA transition (to ARM) obsoletes these first, as happened to the quad G5).
Also, I’m not sure what you’re ranting about @pcd109. The MPX connector is clearly proprietary, and my suggestion was obviously speculation. As you say yourself, it can provide 475W of power, so it’s hardly beyond the realm of possibility that someone could manufacture a PCB that connects the power pins in the slot to a pair of GPU power connectors. Bear in mind that people will be using these machines for years after AppleCare runs out (unless an ISA transition (to ARM) obsoletes these first, as happened to the quad G5).
As I understand the spec, it's two 8-pin connectors per MPX bay, so you can actually get two high-power cards in overall (if you're using no MPX modules). They wouldn't have given four double-wide slots with only one usable. You can either use two MPX modules, one MPX module plus a double wide 300W graphics card (or two 150W cards) or two 300W cards (with two of the four wide PCIe slots left, but limited to 75W apiece).
What's not clear to me is whether, if you're using an MPX module that doesn't draw a ton of power, you can get at the extra pair of connectors? A Promise storage device in one MPX bay plus two Radeon VIIs fits in terms of slots. It should also fit from a power perspective. We don't know what the Promise draws, but drives tend not to draw very much, so unless their RAID controller is very inefficient, it should be under 100-150 watts (RAID cards rarely need extra power, and the drives themselves should be a few watts each). Will that combination work?
Another possibility, assuming you're careful about total power (e.g. leaving some of the single-wide slots unused) is splitting some of the 8-pin connectors. It's a 1400 watt power supply, so 900 watts worth of GPUs (3 Radeon VIIs) should "fit" with modest power draw in the rest of the system.
There's actually a significant problem with Apple's MPX power allocation along those lines, though. Each MPX bay can draw 475 watts (950). They say they're leaving 300 for the CPU, and that 28-core has a 205 W TDP, so that's not far off. The Vega II Duos are going to be pretty close to drawing all they're allowed, so two of them leads to a CPU+ GPU+GPU draw between 1155 and 1250 watts (depending on how close the CPU stays to its TDP).
That's still OK, even with 50-100 watts of RAM and SSD draw - but there are still 3 empty single-wide PCIe slots that are supposed to be able to draw 75 watts each. Let's throw in a couple of PCIe RAID cards (4 NVMe SSDs per card) - perfectly reasonable things to find in this kind of system, and about 50 watts each if loaded with 4 drives apiece. That's awfully close on a 1400 watt PSU - it's not hard to go well over the limit with 3 75 watt cards instead of 2 50 watt cards..
Now innocently use one of those Thunderbolt ports to charge your MacBook Pro - they're supposed to deliver 100 watts each, right? One of three things is going to happen. If Apple's power management is good, something's going to throttle - hopefully, it's the MBP that won't charge, The second possibility is that the power supply won't handle it, and it'll trip a circuit breaker in the power supply - not the end of the world unless it unexpectedly shuts the Mac down in the middle of a long render. The third possibility is that the power supply can handle the overload, but you blow a circuit breaker in the building! A 1400 watt power supply at full load is right on the edge of what a 15 amp 110 volt breaker can handle (it technically works, but it will cause an electrician to look at you really funny). Even with a 20 amp breaker, there's not much room to have anything else plugged into the same circuit. The Mac and a monitor will probably work - until you don't realize that the laser printer or coffee maker across your office is actually on the same breaker!
Mac Pro configurations with two high-power MPX modules (two Vega II Duos is the obvious problem) really should have a 1600 to 1800 watt PSU. Any other configuration should be fine on 1400 watts. Apple chose not to use a 1600 watt or greater PSU because it becomes a problem for office wiring in the parts of the world that use 120V. A 1600 watt PSU fits on a 20 amp breaker, but with almost no safety margin, while an 1800 watt PSU simply doesn't work.
All big workstations have this problem - triple and quad graphics with a high-end CPU draw very, very close to the maximum for a 20 amp breaker, and only work on a 15 amp breaker (if at all) by stretching limits. None of the manufacturers want to do the obvious - require either 240 volts or a 30 amp outlet, because that requires an electrician before you can plug the computer in in the US (and other countries with similar standards).
What's not clear to me is whether, if you're using an MPX module that doesn't draw a ton of power, you can get at the extra pair of connectors? A Promise storage device in one MPX bay plus two Radeon VIIs fits in terms of slots. It should also fit from a power perspective. We don't know what the Promise draws, but drives tend not to draw very much, so unless their RAID controller is very inefficient, it should be under 100-150 watts (RAID cards rarely need extra power, and the drives themselves should be a few watts each). Will that combination work?
Another possibility, assuming you're careful about total power (e.g. leaving some of the single-wide slots unused) is splitting some of the 8-pin connectors. It's a 1400 watt power supply, so 900 watts worth of GPUs (3 Radeon VIIs) should "fit" with modest power draw in the rest of the system.
There's actually a significant problem with Apple's MPX power allocation along those lines, though. Each MPX bay can draw 475 watts (950). They say they're leaving 300 for the CPU, and that 28-core has a 205 W TDP, so that's not far off. The Vega II Duos are going to be pretty close to drawing all they're allowed, so two of them leads to a CPU+ GPU+GPU draw between 1155 and 1250 watts (depending on how close the CPU stays to its TDP).
That's still OK, even with 50-100 watts of RAM and SSD draw - but there are still 3 empty single-wide PCIe slots that are supposed to be able to draw 75 watts each. Let's throw in a couple of PCIe RAID cards (4 NVMe SSDs per card) - perfectly reasonable things to find in this kind of system, and about 50 watts each if loaded with 4 drives apiece. That's awfully close on a 1400 watt PSU - it's not hard to go well over the limit with 3 75 watt cards instead of 2 50 watt cards..
Now innocently use one of those Thunderbolt ports to charge your MacBook Pro - they're supposed to deliver 100 watts each, right? One of three things is going to happen. If Apple's power management is good, something's going to throttle - hopefully, it's the MBP that won't charge, The second possibility is that the power supply won't handle it, and it'll trip a circuit breaker in the power supply - not the end of the world unless it unexpectedly shuts the Mac down in the middle of a long render. The third possibility is that the power supply can handle the overload, but you blow a circuit breaker in the building! A 1400 watt power supply at full load is right on the edge of what a 15 amp 110 volt breaker can handle (it technically works, but it will cause an electrician to look at you really funny). Even with a 20 amp breaker, there's not much room to have anything else plugged into the same circuit. The Mac and a monitor will probably work - until you don't realize that the laser printer or coffee maker across your office is actually on the same breaker!
Mac Pro configurations with two high-power MPX modules (two Vega II Duos is the obvious problem) really should have a 1600 to 1800 watt PSU. Any other configuration should be fine on 1400 watts. Apple chose not to use a 1600 watt or greater PSU because it becomes a problem for office wiring in the parts of the world that use 120V. A 1600 watt PSU fits on a 20 amp breaker, but with almost no safety margin, while an 1800 watt PSU simply doesn't work.
All big workstations have this problem - triple and quad graphics with a high-end CPU draw very, very close to the maximum for a 20 amp breaker, and only work on a 15 amp breaker (if at all) by stretching limits. None of the manufacturers want to do the obvious - require either 240 volts or a 30 amp outlet, because that requires an electrician before you can plug the computer in in the US (and other countries with similar standards).
Apple uses the word "Alternatively" when it comes to description of MPX power vs AUX, so I wouldn't be surprised if the AUX is disabled when MPX module is present. I would do so to make sure users don't fry anything - you did the math, both AUX and MPX are most likely fed from the same source limited to 500W.