MP 7,1 Mac Pro for a Power User?

[Matrix1776]

Do you think a normal person should go for Mac Pro? It's an absurd question, perhaps, the market demographics are very different. I get that.

I'm currently using a highly expensive boutique, $7,000 Windows 10 machine. I have a $5,000 16" Macbook Pro, and have come to enjoy MacOS for my graduate studies. I was going to "dock" my MBP with an XDR, but I already have a great 4K IPS 32" monitor from ASUS that's >$1,000.

I thought the Mac Pro was unrealistic, but honestly now with the W5700X, it seems like a good fit. I like the idea that in a few years, I can drop more memory easily into the Mac Pro to 192GB at minimal cost. I also like they make HDD modules that just slide in, which I can replace my Lacie 6Big.

First Question: It seems going Mac Mini will be VERY underwhelming. I'm not Pixar, just a regular user. But I do frequently have 100+ tabs open, and want to be able to launch apps and games without closing. This is no struggle for my Win10 PC with only 64GB memory, and in fact, I can even max 4K games at the same time.

Second Question: Do you think these specs are good? Should I get less RAM and a better processor/SSD? Or perhaps a second W5700X?

The specs are below:


Mac Pro: $7,399

• 3.5GHz 8‑core Intel Xeon W processor, Turbo Boost up to 4.0GHz
• 96GB (6x16GB) of DDR4 ECC memory
• Radeon Pro W5700X with 16GB of GDDR6 memory
• 1TB SSD storage

Mac Mini: $2759 (which goes up a lot going eGPU)

• 3.2GHz 6‑core 8th‑generation Intel Core i7 (Turbo Boost up to 4.6GHz)
• 64GB 2666MHz DDR4
• Intel UHD Graphics 630
• 2TB SSD storage
• 10 Gigabit Ethernet

 

[xraydoc]

We need to know much more about what you plan to do with the computer -- what apps, what workflow, etc. -- before we can give any reasonable recommendations.

96GB is almost certainly more than mere mortals will ever need for the near future, so you hopefully have a good reason for including that much.

What are the specs of your Windows 10 machine and do you use all the power that is has?

 

[Ph.D.]

Realistically, an iMac is probably the right answer. But there is absolutely no reason that a "normal person" shouldn't get a Mac Pro, assuming that one can easily afford it without sacrifice (the "it's not for you!" crowd can zip it).

A mini will perform poorly in any graphics-intensive task and is not a replacement for a Pro (except maybe as a lightweight headless server node).

As for the specs, right, we would need to know more. But if "normal" is all we've got, I'd suggest a slight change: Get 48 GB ram (more than enough for "normal" use, i.e. unless you know you will need more) and maybe the 12 core for the higher boost clock.

Oh, and definitely get the wheels up front - lol.

 

[Matrix1776]

Thank you Ph.D- I totally get the "it's not for me" crowd. And honestly, it's not. However, that doesn't mean I can't realistically buy a model that achieves my goal. The real professionals can spend the $50,000. I don't feel an iMac is appropriate...much in part because I'm on a 32" IPS 4K >$1,000. I feel going to 27" would be unacceptable. Also I have had one in the past, and don't like their fan noise with games (maybe that has changed?). I don't think a Mini is an answer as you mention due to the graphics, and don't want an eGPU (which puts me even closer to the Mac Pro cost).

This will be for my personal, non-professional, usage. I'm on an overclocked 6850K+2080Ti with 64GB RAM. I'd probably boot camp into Win10, very very rarely for the occasional strategy game (Company of Heroes, Age of Empires II, etc).

The apps will be your normal everyday productivity workflow- MS Office, Firefox, Tidal. I have most of my media in 4K, stored on my Lacie 6Big. The Mac Pro will allow me to go straight TB3 vs USB, a nice change in speed.

So the reason I went 96GB was that a)the price wasn't drastic, b) it's less than I currently have (64GB), and c)will have most longer longevity. I once thought 4GB Ram was overkill, so I have the feeling Moore's Law will continue. Now you do make a good point on the 12-Core.

No wheels Honestly, if they were free, I still don't have interest in them. That Mac Pro won't be moved unless I buy a new home.

 

[Ph.D.]

Have you used Mac OS on a 32" 4k screen? It works fine, but I personally find that the font size / sharpness (pixel density) issues makes it distinctly less pleasant.

Really, you want that 6k display (two of them - hehe), at which point the Mac Pro would be the preferred solution.

OK, 96G is fine too.

 

[codehead1]

On the memory, I assume that price is for after-market upgrade from ordering 32 GB configuration, and the price seems to match that, after tax.

Personally, I ordered fairly similar, except bump to 2 TB SSD for $400 (lets me put off adding addition internal storage for a bit), bump to 16-core for $2k. 12-core is a fairly substantial gain for $ from 8-core, if you think you need it.

The mini seems like a good workhorse Mac, but I wanted modern graphics performance after living with ancient tech for the past 10+ years (2009 Mac Pro 8-core). But on the bright side of not seeing another Mac for the past decade that was the fit I wanted—before that, I usually got a new Mac every couple of years or so, since the first one—it makes it a lot easier to swallow the price.

 

[Matrix1776]

I haven't used it on a 4K Display, you anticipate that as a problem? I suppose I could get a TB3>DP cable and test how my laptop looks on it. Unless you're just being factious on the aspect of a 6K- which I agree, someday, will perhaps be the goal.

My price was direct from Apple. I'm a graduate student, and thus qualify for academic pricing. It sure helps on such an expensive system. I wasn't necessarily planning on going aftermarket.

I may have to look into the 12-Core. I would say the 2TB has merits, but I was looking at getting the 32TB Pegasus MPX module. That seems perfect for some storage.

 

[Krevnik]

I haven't used it on a 4K Display, you anticipate that as a problem? I suppose I could get a TB3>DP cable and test how my laptop looks on it. Unless you're just being factious on the aspect of a 6K- which I agree, someday, will perhaps be the goal.

Depends. Do you use any scaling on the 4K under windows (i.e. run at 125% or the like)? If you do, then be aware that the scaling on macOS while more consistent with results than Windows across apps, is less flexible. Unlike Windows, macOS interpolates any scaling that isn't an integer factor (1x or 2x, realistically), creating problems for some uses where pixel accuracy matters. It's less important if your focus is more text and productivity, where it's fine. And running a 32" 4K monitor at native resolution, without any scaling will leave UI elements pretty small. Especially software that still assumes 72 px/inch for font sizing on Mac (like Office).

If you go the Mac Mini route, then the integrated GPU is not really all that good for these interpolated scaling modes and will introduce some UI lag/stutter. So an eGPU becomes even more useful in that case.

I may have to look into the 12-Core. I would say the 2TB has merits, but I was looking at getting the 32TB Pegasus MPX module. That seems perfect for some storage.

I'm glad I paid for the upgrade to 12 cores, personally.

That Pegasus is pretty meh if you don't need that much bulk storage, and need it to be internal, and don't mind it being noticeably slower than an NVME SSD, and don't mind paying the price premium. I mean, a small business-class NAS would be cheaper than this thing.

 

[codehead1]

I haven't used it on a 4K Display, you anticipate that as a problem? I suppose I could get a TB3>DP cable and test how my laptop looks on it. Unless you're just being factious on the aspect of a 6K- which I agree, someday, will perhaps be the goal.

My price was direct from Apple. I'm a graduate student, and thus qualify for academic pricing. It sure helps on such an expensive system. I wasn't necessarily planning on going aftermarket.

I may have to look into the 12-Core. I would say the 2TB has merits, but I was looking at getting the 32TB Pegasus MPX module. That seems perfect for some storage.

I agree on the 1 TB with the Pegasus. For me, I'm always rearranging for space on my Mac's 1 TB SSD system drive, I figured it was worth $400 to be more leisurely about upping internal storage.

Great on the academic price. I'd still make sure the 96 GB bump from Apple is reasonable, because adding memory is the easiest internal thing you can do, and the memory premium (non-ac at least) is staggering. Possibly that would save enough to take the sting off the 12-core premium, if you go that way. For instaance, on regular pricing, I'll save about $750 by bumping the memory to 96 GB myself versus ording from Apple. The bump to 12-core is $1000.

I'm still struggling with the display. 4Ks are so cheap, obviously the highest volume hi-def panel, so the cheapest. But scaling isn't ideal, if the display is larger than 24". For me, I'm planning on either the insanely expensive XDR, or LG UltraFine 5k. Those are the only ones that are in the sweet spot of point per inch at double density (24" 4K is too, I want bigger). Otherwise 4K is fine, if you're either fine with the manified UI, or OK with non-integer dot scaling.

 

[Matrix1776]

For Windows 10, I use 150% scaling on a 32" 4K. I think the Pegasus would be an excellent alternative from the Lacie, which gives me 6 bays and 60TB of storage. I don't need that, so I'm sure can easily find a buyer and they sell new for 2x the Pegasus.

I like the idea of a 12-Core. I don't think I need >1TB SSD for a boot OS. I went higher for my 16", and it just sits 90% empty.

The LG is the same price as my monitor, but going to 27" is not my goal. So it would have to look great on a 32" 4K. I can go XDR, but then I'd be using my 16" docked as that already puts me at $10,000.

 

[bcomer]

I am a software developer and went through all of this.

Final 7,1 configuration:
12 core, 1TB SSD, 96GB (OWC) and 580X GPU (W5700 if doing it again).

My monitor is an Asus PA329Q and it works great - no scaling down so full 4K resolution.

I did add a Corsair MP600 2TB SSD as a work area.

 

[Matrix1776]

"12 core, 1TB SSD, 96GB (OWC) and 580X GPU (W5700 if doing it again). "

That sounds about spot on as well for me, though I'll just stay with Apple memory. That W5700 should have been the bottom at $6,000 rather the 580, I hear it's night and day.

My biggest concern is that they'll remake the iMac with a 32"+ screen, and therefore that would be the ideal machine for my needs. Although the XDR will eventually decrease, definitely on the secondary market, while the Mac Pro will be going strong 10 years+.

 

[bcomer]

"12 core, 1TB SSD, 96GB (OWC) and 580X GPU (W5700 if doing it again). "

That sounds about spot on as well for me, though I'll just stay with Apple memory. That W5700 should have been the bottom at $6,000 rather the 580, I hear it's night and day.

My biggest concern is that they'll remake the iMac with a 32"+ screen, and therefore that would be the ideal machine for my needs. Although the XDR will eventually decrease, definitely on the secondary market, while the Mac Pro will be going strong 10 years+.

I thought about an iMac Pro for the longest time and could not pull the trigger on an all-in-one.

 

[straightMacin]

Just get the Mac PRO man, you will not regret it. I ordered 16c / Vega ii / 32gb / 1 TB for software development, CAD, photography, videography, and product testing and have not regretted the purchase even a little. A Macbook Pro would likely work for my needs as well, but the added power is so nice to have.

 

[Umbongo]

I wouldn't bother with the RAM upgrade.

From what you have said I use my systems for at least all that and additionally: database work, software development and games development and do not even use 64GB. 16GB for Chrome is pretty common for me for example, plus a lot of spreadsheets, pdfs, etc. I don't close stuff, probably much like you.

Look at your actual usage of RAM on your Windows box before purchasing something that cant help you unless you actually do certain things. 32GB of RAM is still huge for general usage never mind 64GB. If you aren't actually using all that RAM then you can get something else beneficial instead. Room for more displays? Way more useful than RAM.

 

[bcomer]

I wouldn't bother with the RAM upgrade.

From what you have said I use my systems for at least all that and additionally: database work, software development and games development and do not even use 64GB. 16GB for Chrome is pretty common for me for example, plus a lot of spreadsheets, pdfs, etc. I don't close stuff, probably much like you.

Look at your actual usage of RAM on your Windows box before purchasing something that cant help you unless you actually do certain things. 32GB of RAM is still huge for general usage never mind 64GB. If you aren't actually using all that RAM then you can get something else beneficial instead. Room for more displays? Way more useful than RAM.

The OS will utilize any extra RAM for file system caching.

 

[Umbongo]

The OS will utilize any extra RAM for file system caching.

Sorry yeah I should have said that that is one aspect you pay the premium for that as a "power user" I don't feel you benefit from. Late night post and couldn't remember exactly what I said . Thanks for clarifying.

Just got the impression OP is probably similar to me and I do a bunch of revenue driving stuff too. I've gone from 128GB to 64GB and don't feel the difference. Large caches, storage, RAM speed don't make up for needing that capacity continually, but they make switching between tasks that need memory easier. No mention of 64GB being a limiting factor in performance makes me think money best spent elsewhere.

Just some thoughts from someone who has over-specced plenty of times on high end hardware and not spent money in other areas. $1,000 buys all sorts of stuff that give a better computing experience IMO - and I only bring any of this up as there is some sort of budget there for OP.

 

[adib]

Keep your existing setup of MBP + $7K Windows + External Monitor. These would do just fine in the foreseeable future for your current use cases. Maybe get a display input switcher to let the monitor being shared by two computers, if it doesn’t have multiple inputs supporting both already.

Windows has better support for games, macOS not so much. The bulk of mac games are now “just” Apple Arcade, which are mostly the same kind of games you get on iOS. Your $7K Windows desktop can be your dedicated game machine. Even if all major game developers today drops Windows and focuses completely on macOS, it’ll be at least a year until you see them in the market.

A 32GB MBP is pretty much overkill to run Office, Firefox, Tidal. A 2019 Air with 8GB handles these just fine.

That said, Windows is still better for MS Office – my younger brother works with tens of megabytes of Excel files on an 8GB Surface on a daily basis at his job. Word’s “export to PDF” feature doesn’t export hyperlinks on macOS, unless you select their “online service” to do the export job (which unfortunately IT on my dayjob disabled it, prompting me to use a Windows machine via Citrix just for this one feature).

Thank you Ph.D- I totally get the "it's not for me" crowd. And honestly, it's not. However, that doesn't mean I can't realistically buy a model that achieves my goal. The real professionals can spend the $50,000. I don't feel an iMac is appropriate...much in part because I'm on a 32" IPS 4K >$1,000. I feel going to 27" would be unacceptable. Also I have had one in the past, and don't like their fan noise with games (maybe that has changed?). I don't think a Mini is an answer as you mention due to the graphics, and don't want an eGPU (which puts me even closer to the Mac Pro cost).

This will be for my personal, non-professional, usage. I'm on an overclocked 6850K+2080Ti with 64GB RAM. I'd probably boot camp into Win10, very very rarely for the occasional strategy game (Company of Heroes, Age of Empires II, etc).

The apps will be your normal everyday productivity workflow- MS Office, Firefox, Tidal. I have most of my media in 4K, stored on my Lacie 6Big. The Mac Pro will allow me to go straight TB3 vs USB, a nice change in speed.

So the reason I went 96GB was that a)the price wasn't drastic, b) it's less than I currently have (64GB), and c)will have most longer longevity. I once thought 4GB Ram was overkill, so I have the feeling Moore's Law will continue. Now you do make a good point on the 12-Core.

No wheels Honestly, if they were free, I still don't have interest in them. That Mac Pro won't be moved unless I buy a new home.

 

[jasonmvp]

Keep your existing setup of MBP + $7K Windows + External Monitor. These would do just fine in the foreseeable future for your current use cases.

I agree completely. I'm not sure I'd classify our OP's use case as "power user". Not even remotely. Unless the OP needs/wants swappable PCI-E cards with the expandability that provides in a MacOS environment, a Mac Pro is a complete waste for him.

 

[cloudyo]

I just ordered a mac pro with upgraded storage (2TB) and a W5700X.

I really don’t need that much power since I will use it for media consumption most of the time.

I will even install Windows and game a little bit.

I am fully aware that there are better and cheaper options for this use case but I don’t care.

I have wanted a workstation as my main machine for years and I am finally in a place where I can afford it.

 

[Matrix1776]

Yes, but what defines a "power user"? In terms of Windows, you need a very, very powerful GPU to push games in 4K resolutions at maximum settings. In fact, just a few years ago, you needed two flagship cards in SLI. Plus obviously a good processor, ideally liquid cooled, so the average machine doesn't cut it.

As for the 16" being overkill, certainly. However, there is no 16" Air. Also, this machine can be booted into Win10 to play a few strategy games like Company of Heroes at maximum settings.

I mostly just use my computer for media consumption, manipulating files (unzip, convert). If I can find a buyer for my machine, I would already have the Mac Pro purchased. I've been trying to hold off until I see what the iMac refresh will bring. If it's quiet, 30"+, great specs, it will probably be my go-to purchase.

 

[profdraper]

'power' user'? Like Apple's relentless hype-ing of 'Pro' in recent times ... there's even a 'Pro' phone. What garbage.

 

[tommy chen]

the 7.1 could have been the better computer if apple had delivered it with mojave

 

[Matrix1776]

'power' user'? Like Apple's relentless hype-ing of 'Pro' in recent times ... there's even a 'Pro' phone. What garbage.

"Pro" is a great psychological win for Apple products. People only took notice when the Mac Pro was now $50,000. Even with the last Mac Pro, I bought the D700 model. I think the Pro moniker is appropriate to allow me to easily narrow my search to their best products.

I think there is a definite place for a "Power User". Someone that users their machine heavily for media, gaming, photos, projects, internet- hundreds of tabs, with the machine online 24/7. Someone that requires extreme GPU power, fast processors, fast/large solid-state drives, memory.

In comparison, a normal user might open their computer for a paper, or to scroll through Facebook. In that case, an Air will fit them just fine.