Sidebar Sidebar
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]

Zdigital2015 said:
The price is not nearly as bad as everyone wants to portray it, even against older model Mac Pros.

https://www.macworld.com/article/1167386/meet-the-new-mac-pro-about-the-same-as-the-old-mac-pro.html

The mid-2012 Mac Pro 5,1 with dual 2.4GHz Xeon E5645, 12GB of DDR3-1333MHz, 1TB HDD and Radeon 57770 1GB video card started at $3799.00 and went up from there.

SC score - 2207
MC score - 17039

http://browser.geekbench.com/macs/341

The single core was truly awful and the multi-core score wasn't too bad, but a 2019 13" MacBook Pro can run circles around both scores now for a $1000 less.

The GPU was pretty awful even when the 2012 was released and you were saddled with a spinning hard drive. I think the 512GB 2.5" SSD was a $1200 or $1600 upgrade on that thing, IIRC.

We don't know the benchmark for this new 8-core, but the current 3.2GHz Xeon W 8-core in the iMac Pro is -
SC - 5063
MC - 31231

http://browser.geekbench.com/macs/426

In the Macworld article there is a reference to a Mid-2010 Mac Pro that was the first 12-core model @2.66Ghz and it retailed for $4999.

You aren't going to approach the new Mac Pro, even the base model, no matter how much you mod a 5,1. with a giant GPU and a NVMe PCIe card.
[doublepost=1559664927][/doublepost]
Click to expand...

You need to adjust performance relative to the time.

Nope, sorry., green light means go...I went back and changed the CPU to the Xeon Gold 6244 (Cascade Lake) and the price dropped to $8,750.40, so now only $2,751.40 more expensive than the base Mac Pro.
Click to expand...

Facepalm. You're doing life wrong at this point. Being intentionally obtuse doesn't win you arguments.

Gold 6244 is an utter odd ball in the line up. No way, no how Apple is using that. Switch to duel 6230 or something similar.
 
groovebuster said:
Smelling BS here... but it's OK. You seem to need it. So you are claiming that you can pay off a 15k machine from one month of your salary after subtracting all the normal fixed and living costs? And that is the base salary of your "profession"? :rolleyes: Then are only a few professions coming into mind... pimp, drug dealer, wall street criminal, etc... But I don't see what you would you use a Mac Pro for then.
Click to expand...

First of all, you're out of line and second of all, just because you cannot see what profession might net enough to pay for it in a month doesn't mean it doesn't exist or that it isn't legitimate. I can already think of at least three professions that can pay that out, even on a side gig.

Wall Street criminal? Really? Maybe the user is an options trader. Or does 4K color grading. Or voiceover. Or contract programming on the side in a high demand discipline. No matter what, sliding off into pimp or drug dealer is crass to say the least.
 
  • Like
Reactions: dannys1
wallysb01 said:
What? No. Going to the duel gold 5218 would net you 32 total cores (duel 16 cores) without other changes at $4.9K. Add in the WX 7100, 4x8GB RAM and a dell ultra speed 256 SSD and we're at $5.9K.
Click to expand...

So when you say "what no?" you mean, actually about the same as the Mac Pro then. You've just proved my pint right and anyway I went for the 3.2ghz 8-core Xeon gold - its 3.5 in the Mac Pro and it's not out yet so there's no real comparison.

And in that situation you don't get macOS, you don't get access to the accelerator card, you don't get the design or cooling (which isn't important to many but still), no MPX module, not sure of the Thunderbolt 3 options, but I don't think they've got 4 ports out of the box - not as important when you have the PCI-E slots but for a touring producer being able to stick a NVME drive in via Thunderbolt 3 and play back hundreds of tracks from that drive is useful (and lets be honest you're not going to find a Dell or HP workstation in a recording studio environment, they don't run Logic for a start and most of the top end audio interfaces are optimised for Mac)

So to refute your original point, no they're not "hideously over priced" they're on par or often cheaper and better value than their competition. They are expensive obviously, so is all hardware at this level.
[doublepost=1559666948][/doublepost]
skaertus said:
Well, I would like to understand this pro market.

If people use the computer for professional purposes, then I would expect some predictability.

First, the last Mac Pro was sold for a base price of $2,999. Now the base model is being sold for $5,999. Double the price. A 100% increase in price may increase the cost of running the business. I would think the pros would like the prices to remain steady, so they would be able to put a price on the products and services they provide with the Mac Pro.

Second, the last Mac Pro was released in 2013. Now it is 2019, and the new Mac Pro is not even available for sale. What if I am a pro and need a new computer right now? Or if I needed to buy one in 2017 or 2018? Would I have to settle with a 2013 Mac Pro?

Pros say they need all this expandability and a product that was not even available during the last five years. How could these pros run their businesses or exercise their professions during the last half-decade? Did they patiently wait for the new Mac Pro to be released, while watched Windows machines run circles around the old one? Is there still a business after these five years?
Click to expand...

This thread might help answer all your questions.
https://twitter.com/gabesalkin/status/1135934111451942912

The people in this thread who claim it's too expensive, also claimed the 2013 Mac Pro was too expensive, and the 2009 Mac Pro and the 2004 G5. They'll never be happy, they want full flexibility to put in the cheapest parts they can find from Amazon at a cost of less than £2000 and all of Apple's support to run macOS on it whilst they're at it. The iMac Pro is going to be too powerful for all those complaining.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Beck Show and Zdigital2015
Absolutely not! Around 1998-99 I desperately needed a powerful workstation for my AutoCad work designing communications systems for military hospitals. I paid over $10k for the first 486/25 called a Cheetah Gold, with a Rendition II graphics card and a 20" CRT monitor! Paid another $500 to upgrade the CPU when Intel came out with the 486/50 CPU! The new monitor would be overkill for type of CAD work I was doing (no renderings), but even the base configuration would be light years ahead of what I got for the same money!
 
  • Like
Reactions: Zdigital2015
dannys1 said:
So when you say "what no?" you mean, actually about the same as the Mac Pro then. You've just proved my pint right and anyway I went for the 3.2ghz 8-core Xeon gold - its 3.5 in the Mac Pro and it's not out yet so there's no real comparison.
Click to expand...

No, your point was proven to be utter trash. The 8-core gold is a unicorn. The higher core counts are more standard, have much more sane price point, and would demolish the 8-core Mac Pro.

And in that situation you don't get macOS, you don't get access to the accelerator card, you don't get the design or cooling (which isn't important to many but still), no MPX module, not sure of the Thunderbolt 3 options, but I don't think they've got 4 ports out of the box - not as important when you have the PCI-E slots but for a touring producer being able to stick a NVME drive in via Thunderbolt 3 and play back hundreds of tracks from that drive is useful (and lets be honest you're not going to find a Dell or HP workstation in a recording studio environment, they don't run Logic for a start and most of the top end audio interfaces are optimised for Mac)

So to refute your original point, no they're not "hideously over priced" they're on par or often cheaper and better value than their competition. They are expensive obviously, so is all hardware at this level.
Click to expand...

Sure, Apple OS tax. But if you can get the work done, you can get the work done. Pretty icons and iMessage integration into your computer isn't what this machine is for. The design and cooling on the 7920 is fine. Not sure what that point is. Thunderbolt 3 has to be added by a card. That will run you all of $70. As for industry specific tasks, well, what ever. I honestly don't know a damned bit about Logic. Dell/HP build to cast a wide net. Ultimately there are going to be far more people not using some MacOS specific software than are. If you absolutely have to have Mac, buy a Mac. Your hands are tied and Apple can bend you over and charge you essentially what ever they want, as they are here. Not really sure how pointing that out helps your basic point, as it works to refute it actually.
 
BB8 said:
You're 100% right but my question is, why not? Would adding additional configs for the same chassis to target prosumers really be too difficult/too much of an investment? From my perspective it just seems like they're leaving money on the table, but maybe Apple knows something I don't.
Click to expand...

Maybe they plan to introduce a mid-range Mac Pro (aka the "Mac Pro Mini") later ? I highly doubt it though, even if it would make sense. Dell, Lenovo, HP all offer workstations at all price points.
 
wallysb01 said:
You need to adjust performance relative to the time.



Facepalm. You're doing life wrong at this point. Being intentionally obtuse doesn't win you arguments.

Gold 6244 is an utter odd ball in the line up. No way, no how Apple is using that. Switch to duel 6230 or something similar.
Click to expand...

I'm doing life wrong? Seriously, you need to work on what little people skills you seem to have going for you.

I matched core count, clock speed, boost speed and L3 cache for my comparison. The Xeon W is based on Xeon Scalable Processors, so I looked at the 1st Gen Xeon Scalable which I shouldn't have, and then looked at 2nd Gen when you told me that I had specced the wrong CPU. I am not trying to be obtuse at all.

I need to adjust performance relative to the time. WTF does that even mean? The cost is the cost when people start complaining about the 2019 Mac Pro being too much. Single core performance was horrible back then and SSDs were god awful expensive. Apple shipped a $5,000 Mac Pro that would get dusted by the new 2019 Mac Pro and the cost differential is only a 20% uptick. Anyone who bought the $5K Mac Pro back in 2010 should have no qualms about buying the 2019 for $6K. If $2499 was a stretch for someone back then, then sorry, they got priced out. I certainly did, but I honestly don't need that kind of horsepower. The higher end core i9 iMac will do what I need to do at this point.

So what if the Xeon Gold 6244 is an oddball? The core count, clock speed, boost speed and L3 cache are very close to what Apple has on their specs page for the base 8-core CPU.

A Xeon Gold 6230 is 20c/40t CPU and Apple is using a single CPU, not two in the Mac Pro. How does the 6230 inform anyone about what Apple is using in their base 8c/16t Mac Pro?

Right now, there is no good analogue for the 28-core Xeon W listed on Apple's specs page, although that 66.5 MB L3 cache is massive and the only thing that even comes close is the Xeon 9282/9242 CPUs with their 77MB of L3, but the core count is double Apple's top CPU offering, which is nuts.

Face it, the Xeon W-3175X is nothing more than a Xeon Platinum 8180 that has had its UPI links removed, its TDP raised and and scalability stripped. Intel also cut down the cost from an astronomical $10K per unit to $3K under tight auction.
Source: https://www.anandtech.com/show/13748/the-intel-xeon-w-3175x-review-28-unlocked-cores-2999-usd

All I am doing is taking what I see with Intel's Xeon Scalable CPUs to build a comparable Z8 workstation as a cost comparison. Now that the 2nd Gen Xeon Ws are in the ARK, I can always use them for comparison.
Source: https://ark.intel.com/content/www/us/en/ark/products/series/125035/intel-xeon-w-processor.html
 
There IS a hole in Apple's lineup, and it's one they've deliberately chosen not to fill. Yes, they could build a machine that was essentially the 27" iMac in a minitower case with a couple of PCIe slots. It could sell for $2000 - $4000, and it would be a great machine for a lot of people.

For the last 20 years, Apple has consistently sold that machine only as an iMac - you get a display with it, whether you want one or not. You get Apple's choice of GPU, which is always midrange AMD. Now, they are also selling it as a top-end MacBook Pro - the 8-core monsters are well into the 27" iMac power range. The entry-level new Mac Pro is in there as well, but it is massively more expensive because it has all sorts of expansion that is meant to take it hugely outside this range. What they don't sell, and don't want to sell, is an expandable desktop meant to be in this range (the fabled xMac).

They do this to avoid support hassles... They know well that GPU drivers and game support are among the things that keep Microsoft awake at night, so they send Microsoft those users... They know that the high-end desktop PC (but below extreme high-end workstation) market contains a disproportionate number of gamers, who require certain support in their operating system - support that makes Windows much less stable than the Mac even for non-gamers.

The market they are ignoring is not exclusively full of gamers - it has a lot of photographers and similar folk in it, too - but Apple hasn't figured out how to deliver a machine to the creatives in that price bracket that doesn't also attract the gamers.

I'd personally love the nonexistent xMac for photography - it's a better fit for me than any currently produced Mac. On the other hand, I'm happy for the stability macOS has gained by avoiding catering to gamers...
 
  • Like
Reactions: torana355
bobbie424242 said:
Maybe they plan to introduce a mid-range Mac Pro (aka the "Mac Pro Mini") later ? I highly doubt it though, even if it would make sense. Dell, Lenovo, HP all offer workstations at all price points.
Click to expand...

Apple is not going to do this. It seems that expandability turned into a luxury feature in Apple products.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ssgbryan
Zdigital2015 said:
I'm doing life wrong? Seriously, you need to work on what little people skills you seem to have going for you.

I matched core count, clock speed, boost speed and L3 cache for my comparison. The Xeon W is based on Xeon Scalable Processors, so I looked at the 1st Gen Xeon Scalable which I shouldn't have, and then looked at 2nd Gen when you told me that I had specced the wrong CPU. I am not trying to be obtuse at all.
Click to expand...

There is no way this is on Scalable. Clocks and core counts match W all the way up the spec list, except for the cache. No scalable has that cache either... Maybe they are getting some custom chip with non-disabled cache, but I'm guessing this is fuzzy accounting or an outright mistake.

I need to adjust performance relative to the time. WTF does that even mean?
Click to expand...

That means relative to time period, the old Mac Pros gave a better value per dollar. Those Duel Processor Mac Pros were essentially the tippy top of the line then. It would be like Apple using the top gold 62xx series in there. Now their has been price expansion due to SP taking over the old 4+ socket servers too and the increasing size of dies, etc. But I think you'll miss this anyway.

The higher end core i9 iMac will do what I need to do at this point.
Click to expand...

Funny thing. This base model is going to perform about the same as that i9....

So what if the Xeon Gold 6244 is an oddball? The core count, clock speed, boost speed and L3 cache are very close to what Apple has on their specs page for the base 8-core CPU.
Click to expand...

So what? So they aren't using it. No way, no how. I'd stake my house on it.

A Xeon Gold 6230 is 20c/40t CPU and Apple is using a single CPU, not two in the Mac Pro. How does the 6230 inform anyone about what Apple is using in their base 8c/16t Mac Pro?
Click to expand...

Then why are you bothering to compare the Mac Pro (SP) to a 7920 with a DP board? Hmm... let see, you'll compare the Mac Pro to the Duel processor board Dell configured with a single processor in it, oh and you'll use that unicorn of a CPU to jack the comparison even further from the truth.... You wonder why I'm treating you like an imbecile?

Right now, there is no good analogue for the 28-core Xeon W listed on Apple's specs page, although that 66.5 MB L3 cache is massive and the only thing that even comes close is the Xeon 9282/9242 CPUs with their 77MB of L3, but the core count is double Apple's top CPU offering, which is nuts.
Click to expand...

Its this fact right here that proves the cache thing is a sign of something very strange going on. No way they are putting 66.5MB of cache on W processor. Those 92xx are TWO 82xx fused together, are only going to see very specialized use.


Face it, the Xeon W-3175X is nothing more than a Xeon Platinum 8180 that has had its UPI links removed, its TDP raised and and scalability stripped. Intel also cut down the cost from an astronomical $10K per unit to $3K under tight auction.
Source: https://www.anandtech.com/show/13748/the-intel-xeon-w-3175x-review-28-unlocked-cores-2999-usd
Click to expand...

Where the hell did they get the room to nearly double the cache? And if this is using 31xx its even more of fail than I'm thinking, as its using Skylake, not Cascade lake.
 
kucharsk said:
Anyone complaining about prices should check out the more or less equivalent Dell:
Click to expand...
It's deceptive to compare any dual socket system with a Xeon-W system. The scalable Xeons are much more expensive, and the chipset/mobo are as well.

ps: I changed my avatar shortly after the announcement. :)
 
Face it folks. If you're even considering buying just the base model and maybe upgrading the CPU/RAM/GPU one day down the line, this computer is not for you. Apple will never make that computer as they don't care about that market. Just accept it and move to Windows or build a hackintosh if you want that for a reasonable price.

This Mac Pro is for companies who won't even think twice about dropping $10k+ on a professional workstation. It's not for prosumers, enthusiasts, youtubers, gamers, etc. While I still think the base model is overpriced, I can definitely see people in the actual target market finding it reasonable (and those people won't be buying the base model).
 
wallysb01 said:
There is no way this is on Scalable. Clocks and core counts match W all the way up the spec list, except for the cache. No scalable has that cache either... Maybe they are getting some custom chip with non-disabled cache, but I'm guessing this is fuzzy accounting or an outright mistake.



That means relative to time period, the old Mac Pros gave a better value per dollar. Those Duel Processor Mac Pros were essentially the tippy top of the line then. It would be like Apple using the top gold 62xx series in there. Now their has been price expansion due to SP taking over the old 4+ socket servers too and the increasing size of dies, etc. But I think you'll miss this anyway.



Funny thing. This base model is going to perform about the same as that i9....



So what? So they aren't using it. No way, no how. I'd stake my house on it.



Then why are you bothering to compare the Mac Pro (SP) to a 7920 with a DP board? Hmm... let see, you'll compare the Mac Pro to the Duel processor board Dell configured with a single processor in it, oh and you'll use that unicorn of a CPU to jack the comparison even further from the truth.... You wonder why I'm treating you like an imbecile?



Its this fact right here that proves the cache thing is a sign of something very strange going on. No way they are putting 66.5MB of cache on W processor. Those 92xx are TWO 82xx fused together, are only going to see very specialized use.




Where the hell did they get the room to nearly double the cache? And if this is using 31xx its even more of fail than I'm thinking, as its using Skylake, not Cascade lake.
Click to expand...


If you read the notes, they are using preproduction version of Xeons that are coming out this fall.
 
dontpokebearz said:
No they weren't. They were still developed for professionals with professional workloads. The workloads in 2019 are much much more demanding than they were in 2010. Also, inflation. The 5,1 was insanely expensive as well for the masses, that's why they didn't buy them.

The Mac Pro for years has been targeted at corporation employees professionals with corporation wallets behind them.
Click to expand...

That is news to all of us that bought them new.

There are a LOT of hobbyist stuff that qualifies as "professional workloads", then.

My hobby is 3d Art, and it is why I have owned multiple Power Macs and then Mac Pros - they are the ONLY computers Apple sells that won't melt when rendering.
 
  • Like
Reactions: dysamoria
skaertus said:
Well, but this is also the point.

Companies require at least some predictability. Apple released the last Mac Pro in 2013, and now, more than 5 years later, it unveils another one at double the price.

The way I see it, this is an absolute nightmare in terms of time and cost. What about all the money a company lost by having to use outdated Mac Pros during the last few years, if it was unable to or unwilling to switch to PCs? Apple is unpredictable and that may “wow” consumers, prosumers and enthusiasts, but not businesses.

If I was running a company, I would have switched to PCs long ago. I would be able to choose from different manufacturers, and would not be locked in Apple’s environment, subject to long periods of neglect or sudden price increases.
Click to expand...

Yeah, but time is money, and as long as the value proposition is there, film editors will buy the system. Think about Marvel and Star Wars movies coming out, where they announce the launch date at least a year in advance. Once the video has been shot, these editors don't have time to sit around waiting for their video editing system to render out scenes. And often reshoots are called for, meaning more editing time. These guys are busting ass to get a high quality product out the door.
 
torana355 said:
Yes but the hardware in the new Mac Pro is on another level compared to the 2006 machine. This machine is aimed at the high end workstation market.
Click to expand...

Fried Chicken said:
And again I ask, is it different from every Powermac/Mac Pro that came before it (except the trashcan)?

Here is the Powermac G5 Intro video:

It was always all about power. Still the price remained around $1999-$2999
Click to expand...
 
I think the main thing this product needs to overcome is apple burning all the pros since 2013. They lost a lot and I hope that a $6000 base model will bring them back but will it? For me I may actually wait another 2 years to see if they are on an actual refresh cycle.
 
It would be great if there was a 'Prosumer' version of the MacPro.

Use the MacPro as the base, but replace the Xeon with an I7 or I9
Cut the ram slots in half
Forget the Afterburner card
Make sure it can run the some f the latest gen of Graphics cards 1080, 2080, etc.
Keep the Security and drive support.
Sell with or without graphic cards

(for the more pedantic of you, yes, I know that you can't just swap a Xeon with an i7 or i9. This would require a new motherboard, but I'm just dreaming anyway)

I will scrape together the $$ I need to get a new Mac Pro. I need something a bit more flexible than my Garbage Can for everything I'd like to be doing.
 
  • Like
Reactions: !!!
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back