MP All Models Mac Pro 10X Overpriced. Seriously.

[PinkyMacGodess]

Yes, a Mac Pro is definitely not an 'impulse buy'. But if I had the money, I'd buy one. They look grate (pun intended) and would have a build quality that would be unequaled from PC vendors. And the OS, even with its quirks, is still better than Windows. Windows 10 is pretty good, but it has quirks, and things people need to be aware of. It's very 'chatty', and the potential for losing privacy is greater. *shrug* This horse has been flogged to death, and beyond... *sigh*

 

[theluggage]

One thing that the Mac Pro has that a list of components won't show is just how nice (and expensive) it looks and feels. The case is milled out of solid metal, the internals are all clean and cleverly designed and the thing runs totally silently. The extra money (at least to some extent) does go somewhere.

Which is all fine and dandy - the problem is that Apple doesn't offer any more affordable options if you want a regular, desktop system that lets your choose the displays you want and add a bit of internal expansion... which is something that Apple used to offer before they doubled the entry price of the Mac Pro range ...and that's for the $6000 base configuration that really doesn't make any sense until you spend another $10k+ on expansions that actually need all that PCIe and RAM bandwidth.

If you're buying a computer, what matters is whether it suits your needs - not whether it can win a game of Top Trumps against the Mac Pro or if it has no visible cables inside. If you insist on only comparing with a PC that matches the MP spec-for-spec (especially on PCIe and RAM capacity and "only Xeon will do") then, yeah, pretty soon you're into MacPro territory and it's mostly down to prices of high-end Xeon Ws, workstation GPUs and terabytes of ECC RAM.

The MP's problem is that there exists a huge choice of PC kit in the $2000+ range that is more than good enough for the many people who don't need eight high-bandwidth PCIe slots, don't need 1.5TB or RAM or the expensive Xeon that can access that much (with Apple's 24/28 core options you're paying thousands extra for the M-prefix processor to get that extra .5 of RAM capacity)... then at the other end of the scale there are 56 core Scalable Xeon systems, not to mention whatever insane number of cores AMD are offering today and proper server style systems (with lights out, redundant PSUs and - oh yeah - non-afterthought rack-mounts that don't put the RAM slots underneath!).

Also, some people can't stomach Windows or don't want a liquid cooled RGB-lit monstrosity in their home or workplace lol.

I do prefer MacOS to Windows, but the inconvenient truth is that (a) MacOS ain't perfect (go read the Catalina and Big Sur forums) and (b) Windows stopped being a kludgey DOS shell years ago and millions of people get their work - including the sort of "pro" content creation that the Mac Pro is aimed at - done on Windows every day.

I suspect that the only people giving the Mac Pro a second look are those who are so committed to a MacOS workflow that it is cheaper to pay a small fortune for over-engineered hardware than contemplate changing. Which is a good way to extract more money from a pool of "loyal"/locked in customers in the short term. In the longer term, though, if the response to people who criticise Mac hardware is:

Enjoy your windows box...

...then that is going to be a rapidly shrinking pool as more and more people take that advice. That ends with no more Macs.

Hopefully, Apple Silicon will mean that instead of, basically, just pushing standard PC hardware with modest specs running an alternative OS (in nice boxes), Apple will once again have a unique hardware offering with an innate advantage over generic PCs. The M1 is certainly a good start - you can't really compare an MacBook Air to a Dell XPS 13 any more - so we'll see how that works out with the higher-end machines.

Who knows, maybe that half-sized Mac Pro in the leaks will also be half the price - which would still be a pretty expensive system but, if the M1 benefits scale up nicely, worth the cash.

 

[nick9191]

Not a valid comparison. The Mac Pro supports up to 12 times this amount of memory, ECC to boot. If you want to say that you can build a machine that is faster than the Mac Pro for 1/10 the cost, then that might be an accurate statement, but saying it's 10x overpriced is wrong when comparing against consumer grade hardware.

 

[chrono1081]

How? Do you expect a Ryzen, i9, or M1 / ARM to suddenly give up the ghost just because it’s crunching numbers for longer? Stay within the thermal envelope and apply safe voltage - all of the major CPU families anyone can stuff into a case last forever under load.

There’s no mechanical wear and tear. The capacitors in your PSU will burst or the bearings in the fans will seize up first.

Sorry but you're wrong, there is absolutely wear on processors. There's a reason Xeons cost more. If you're not comparing equal processors you're not making equal comparisons, end of story. Also some high end software is only certified to work with Xeons.

 

[fgengineer]

Perhaps the reason this kind of topic comes up so much is because it is a dilemma that a lot of Apple users are facing. I am a fan of a lot of Apple products and I do like Mac OS better than Windows.

I too would like a Mac Pro, but not a it's current price. I don't consider having a Mac Pro to be worth the $10000+ more I would have to pay to be able to do the same thing I can outside of the Apple eco system.

That is why I have gone around the problem by using a powerful windows computer and then I bought a macbook air M1. I have access to Apple at a reasonable price and I have access to more power when I need it.

I would much rather spend that money on a Pro Display XDR. I find the premium for that monitor much more acceptable because you can't get that kind of display anywhere else for significantly cheaper. That stand though is ridiculously priced and also wouldn't get it either.

I just evaluate what options are available to me and go with that even if it is not the best solution.

 

[archimacpro]

OK - So I just got the new Macmini maxed out, and at the same time a PC w 5950x, 64GB, & a 3080. The PC to run Lumion. The mac mini unpacked as you expect from Apple - Everything beuatifully packaged. Though and care to a ridiculous level. The PC, from NZ's largest supplier (I think). Two brown cardboard boxes. One for the PC, and the other with empty boxes of the components tat went into it.

Turned the Mac on, and it was, as usual, v easy to set up.
Turned the PC on - lots of buzzing & flapping as if something was in one of the fans. Took the side off, and for shipping someone had thoughtfully stuffed it full of those inflatable plastic bags!
So with those removed, tried again.
Booted up fine. Installed archicad. OK, Started to download Lumion. But due to slow internet, as taking it's time. So, O thought, why not play with Archicad. But the PC simply couldn't cope with doing downloading and being used, and got the dreaded blue screen of death. I thought that had gone the way of the dodo years ago, but it was still there in Win10pro.
And boy, does it make a racket when Lumion is working with the fans on - I can, and will heat my office from it. The mac mini, of course was silent as a(dead) mouse.
The sooner Lumion gets working on a Mac the better. And the Mini with the M! ran archicad faster than the old Macpro.

 

[blackadde]

Sorry but you're wrong, there is absolutely wear on processors. There's a reason Xeons cost more. If you're not comparing equal processors you're not making equal comparisons, end of story. Also some high end software is only certified to work with Xeons.

I don't know how else to put this to you, but none of that is true.

Xeons cost more because they support a superset of features: more cores, larger memory pool support, the ability to seat dual/quad/octo processors, some virtualization HW, and ECC memory. They also sometimes lack things the lower-binned chips have: higher stock clockspeeds, unlocked multipliers, and some video decode logic (eg. Quick Sync).

The only software I can think of that only runs on Xeons are some HW-accelerated virtualization platforms. Everything else just adheres to the x86-64 instruction set that all modern Intel and AMD CPU's work with. All Adobe software, all Autodesk software, all Blackmagic software, and all Apple software (!) works happily on any modern Intel CPU.

Microprocessors don't wear with time unless you decide to overvolt them out of spec or blast them with ionizing radiation. Many CPUs from the 80s and 90s are still running in embedded platforms 24/7, and I've never once heard of an x86 CPU dying that wasn't cooked through improper user configuration or neglected HSF cleaning. Intel doesn't publish it's MTBF numbers for the public, but near as I can tell Intel offers the same 3 year warranty on all their boxed CPUs (notwithstanding that most Xeons are sold by the tray to OEMs who have their own warranty period - Apple's being a generous standard of 1 year).

 

[LeonPro]

Here we go again, people who can't afford it need to state the obvious that it's over-priced for them. News flash - you can buy a fast Civic that will over-take a Rolls Royce. Enjoy your PC! My kids are enjoying their Asus ROG desktop and monitors for their gaming as well.

 

[chrono1081]

I don't know how else to put this to you, but none of that is true.

Xeons cost more because they support a superset of features: more cores, larger memory pool support, the ability to seat dual/quad/octo processors, some virtualization HW, and ECC memory. They also sometimes lack things the lower-binned chips have: higher stock clockspeeds, unlocked multipliers, and some video decode logic (eg. Quick Sync).

The only software I can think of that only runs on Xeons are some HW-accelerated virtualization platforms. Everything else just adheres to the x86-64 instruction set that all modern Intel and AMD CPU's work with. All Adobe software, all Autodesk software, all Blackmagic software, and all Apple software (!) works happily on any modern Intel CPU.

Microprocessors don't wear with time unless you decide to overvolt them out of spec or blast them with ionizing radiation. Many CPUs from the 80s and 90s are still running in embedded platforms 24/7, and I've never once heard of an x86 CPU dying that wasn't cooked through improper user configuration or neglected HSF cleaning. Intel doesn't publish it's MTBF numbers for the public, but near as I can tell Intel offers the same 3 year warranty on all their boxed CPUs (notwithstanding that most Xeons are sold by the tray to OEMs who have their own warranty period - Apple's being a generous standard of 1 year).

I'm done arguing dude, you literally, and I mean literally don't know what you're talking about and it's not worth my time. You obviously never actually worked in IT.

 

[blackadde]

As you wish, friend. I attempted to make my case with facts and examples while you made yours with incredulity, so let's let those arguments stand for themselves.

 

[zubikov]

To sum up the sentiment on this board:

- Xeon machines are server "pro" grade and consumer chips can't compete
- By far largest justification for the extra Mac Pro cost is rendering
- Mac Pro "just works", PCs don't and Windows sucks
- I can't afford a Mac Pro - please no pissing contests with strangers on the internet

Most are valid points. There's also buyer remorse masquerading as brand loyalty, there are some tribalism overtures, and the "I work in IT I know more than you" angle.

I still think my original point is valid, too: a few years ago a Mac Pro was so above and beyond anything consumer grade, that it was the reasonable option for many "pro" tasks. New generation AMD/Nvidia consumer products took an epic leap in performance and can cover so many "pro" use cases now, that last gen Intel Xeon/Radeon Macs may be a bad spending decision.

Unless you are specifically utilizing extra memory and bandwidth and extra PCIe lanes, and you need that T2 chip with a modular pro-level build and a Mac OS...you are better off spending less money.

 

[Flint Ironstag]

Been in a tough spot myself... Apple screwed the 6,1 with unsupported eGPU support which was completely unnecessary. Then the 7,1 came out at a ridiculous price. Been experimenting with Hackintosh & virtualization solutions for a couple of years now - both work better (for me) than a real 7,1 - other than the painless option of taking a 7,1 out of the box, plugging it in, and getting to work.

Still testing, but I think virtualization is the future.

 

[Digital_Sousaphone]

Any time somebody brings up the inflated and over priced nature of this computer, the same ol' excuses get drug out of the barn to be whipped. Can we at least get some new, shiny excuses for the inflated prices on old tech?

 

[ondioline]

a few years ago a Mac Pro was so above and beyond anything consumer grade, that it was the reasonable option for many "pro" tasks. New generation AMD/Nvidia consumer products took an epic leap in performance and can cover so many "pro" use cases now, that last gen Intel Xeon/Radeon Macs may be a bad spending decision.

I think this is an argument through omission. Zen 2/3 is undeniably better than Intels current offerings, and as we are all aware Nvidia has been better than AMD/ATI since like... a brief blip in 2000-2005 at least. These can't be argued against in good faith IMO. There is no magic living in the Mac Pro.

However: there is no Apple computer sold with AMD processors, or Nvidia GPUs!

The Xeon-W in the Mac Pro is quite literally still the latest and greatest available from Intel. RDNA2 support has yet to materialize in MacOS but I expect it will eventually. This is to say, the Mac Pro is functionally 'current gen' from what is available to someone using MacOS.

So there is literally no other spending decision to make. If your requirements are as simple as 'I need an 8x PCIE 3.0 card and MacOS' then this is the only Apple computer you can purchase without making a performance sacrifice through TB3.

The alternatives require abandoning the platform, making a Hackintosh, or coping with reduced performance and expandability. It's that simple. The Mac Pro, and remaining in MacOS, requires the compromise of foregoing the abundant alternatives on different platforms. If that is worth overspending by 10X to someone then they're quite clearly readily accepting that compromise, and aren't going to have their mind blown by benchmarks and pcpartpicker lists.

 

[LeonPro]

Everyone who buys a Mac Pro or Mac for that matter knows prices are inflated. Just like Bang and Olufsen, McIntosh, Dali, etc. That's too obvious of a reason, so why state it?

Do we complain when we buy a $2,000 Moncler jacket when we know we're paying for the brand and history of that company which costs 20% to manufacture?

The only thing people who can't afford it that are dragging into this conversation is the same reasoning that it's old tech, blah, blah, blah. People who make this much and spend this much aren't stupid to think otherwise. Nothing lasts forever.

It's how much more money can you make using it and the level of user experience you get in the process - and that includes all the overprice manufacturing and engineering to use this old tech.

Like I said, enjoy your fast PCs. We're here enjoying ours.

 

[OkiRun]

Everyone who buys a Mac Pro or Mac for that matter knows prices are inflated. Just like Bang and Olufsen, McIntosh, Dali, etc. That's too obvious of a reason, so why state it?

Do we complain when we buy a $2,000 Moncler jacket when we know we're paying for the brand and history of that company which costs 20% to manufacture?

The only thing people who can't afford it that are dragging into this conversation is the same reasoning that it's old tech, blah, blah, blah. People who make this much and spend this much aren't stupid to think otherwise. Nothing lasts forever.

It's how much more money can you make using it and the level of user experience you get in the process - and that includes all the overprice manufacturing and engineering to use this old tech.

Like I said, enjoy your fast PCs. We're here enjoying ours.

It’s not for them.