My company is going to be purchasing a new MacPro to replace aging hardware, and we're going to be using it exclusively for HD video work that needs to be complete ASAP from the time it comes in (import, edit, stabilization/effects, export). The previous model's pricing maxed out at around $11k. Would you all estimate that also carry over to the new model?
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.
Maxed out MacPro pricing?
- Thread starter RoverStar
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I'd say closer to the $12,000 mark, but that's before you consider your storage requirements. If you've got existing eSATA or Mini-SAS storage then you'll also need a PCIe enclosure to continue using your existing PCIe cards, and they're at least an extra $600 (probably more).
Even with that much power in a small form factor, $10,000+ is an absurd amount for a high end computer. I wouldn't mind if it was twice the size and half the price.
Then do as I do and build your own system(s). Guidance starts here: https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/1333421/ .
Twice the size likely wouldn't necessarily make it half the price. If you think that is an absurd amount, you probably don't have need for that much power. Those who need that much power know that $10000 is a fraction of what they spend on employing the people who make use of that much power.
You can use dual 6 cores in a larger enclosure instead of a single 12 core. This would cut price down dramatically. A larger enclosure would also allow for more Solid State storage, but apple is keen on using their PCI blade storage anyways. I'm not saying people won't utilize it, it's just puts that power out of reach for most power users.
----------
I'm currently building one as we speak. Single CPU setup, but i'll also be purchasing the NMP 6 core option for business purposes.
Indeed. The cost itself isn't the issue, we just need to budget for it ahead of time. We'll make back the cost within a month or two. I admire the idea of building computers and whatnot, but it's not very practical for everyone.
I'm not dumb enough to think any computer is future-proof, but something that could last 3-5 years would be nice. We currently have a half dozen of the previous model Mac Pros sitting on the shelf because they've been unable to cut it. All we mainly use is FCPX, After Effects and some photo editing, however the volume of projects and the speed at which we need them completed has ended up making some of our equipment obsolete. A shame and a waste, but that's how things go sometimes.
Hopefully in 2014 the mass production will allow a better pricing. Manufacturing in USA also increased costs. Anyway, most PC manufacturers like HP or Dell don't offer significantly cheaper options with similar configuration.
It depends what you call a similar configuration. Just by that statement I know you haven't made a significant comparison.
Another problem is that the whole idea of "similar configuration" can be fundamentally flawed.
Apple offers an extremely limited range of options. Often, they're mid to high end options.
For many people, the "similar to Apple TrashCan config" idea is irrelevant.
Many apps that require lots of CPU power will never be effectively helped by OpenCL. If your bread-and-butter is one of those apps, why pay $1K or more for "dual workstation-class GPUs" when your app runs just as fast on integrated graphics?
Some apps can use all the CPU cores that you can throw at them - the Apple TrashCan doesn't have even the possibility of 24 cores with a second socket. (And should I mention the 60 core Xeon Phi cards? Probably not, since the TrashCan won't support them.)
Some apps can use all of the memory that you can throw at them - and the TrashCan is crippled with 64GiB when others are offering 512 GiB with 24 cores.
Instead of the hardware-centric "similar config" rathole, an application-centric "bang for the buck" approach should be used. For FCPX and some other OpenCL-enabled apps, the TrashCan will do well. For core-hungry or memory hungry apps, it will suck.
The TrashCan is a big upgrade to the Apple Mini. It's kind of a downgrade from a Mac Pro, however.
If it supported CUDA, which is a more friendly framework for gpu programming, would be a little better. In short, the nMP seems to be a beast for photo and video editing, besides gaming. But for scientific simulation tasks, a bunch of Intel cores capable of addressing 100GB+ RAM would do better. That's why a 2012, 12-core MP seems to be a better deal to the academic public.
Any configuration laced like that is going to cost at least $50,000. The overwhelming majority of the people in this forum that have complained about the new Mac Pro would never, ever buy such a machine, much less think about needing one.
Anyone that has the need and is going to buy such a configuration isn't worried about the cost. If you want a car with 1000+ horsepower, you are not going to worry about the cost.
Apple is taking the chance in making a small, extremely powerful computer that creative types can be very productive with, yet the price point will entice monied buyers who would like a powerful computer with genuine style and engineering.
Apple's not interested in making 100-feet tall mountaintop removal dump trucks, they make luxury SUV computers.
The 24 core 256 GB machine I'm building now is not anywhere near 50k. It's around 10.
12-core CPUs are under $3,000 each and 512GB of RAM is $8,000. You can buy a HP 24-core workstation for $9,000 and put your own memory in and do it for under $20,000.
Where is it? I can't find it on HP's website?
HP Z820, Dell Precision 7610
http://www.avadirect.com/workstation-pc-configurator.asp?PRID=27171
http://www.digitalstormonline.com/aventum-ii.asp?workstation=1
http://www.originpc.com/workstation/desktops/genesis-pro/
or buy one of these and plug what you want in: http://www.supermicro.nl/products/nfo/superworkstation.cfm
I clicked on one of those links and tried to choose GPU options.
My screen filled up with 100 or so cards.
Yet Apple typically offers 2 or 3.
I can tell you this, the Nvidia EFI rom has notations for every card Nvidia ever made. The Nvidia drivers have contained the same entries. The only thing left was for someone to do what we did, connect the EFI with the PC BIOS and the drivers to make more cards work as OSX native cards. The groundwork sat there for years, untouched by dozens of alleged hackers.
There are literally dozens of cards we will never get to, but the drivers await. Sadly, all of the other card flashers seem to be more of the "copy & paste" variety and many of the cards in the drivers will just never exist.
Would have taken Apple about 15 minutes of effort to publicize how to do this.
Dell T7610
HP Z820
Both will support two of the twelve core chips, and have 16 DIMM slots supporting 32 GiB DIMMs.
Supermicro 7047AX-TRF (supports up to 1 TiB of RAM)
The Lenovo D30 should be there soon, but I haven't seen any announcements about supporting the E5 v2 Xeons.
I really can't help but chuckle at the discussion in here. Like I said, I do admire those of you who can spend the time to research parts, order parts and build computers, but from the perspective of someone in a 'creative' department in a large, non-creative company, none of that matters a bit. These are fine discussions for hobbyists and small shops, but those of us who need a fast computer don't really care about scores and how many times faster the new model is over the old one, or if this part could/should be switched out for another. Apple makes this for people like me who need a simple solution with cost not being a driving factor. They could raise the costs by thousands and drop some specs, and we'd buy it anyway.
I am agree with you. In the corporate world you can not get creative because then you would be the one to be blamed. You have to play safe and with the least variables as possible. My home set up is something else.
Creativity is not discouraged here, actually. The question is what is more cost effective. For us, the actual time spent (2-3 days, I'd estimate) researching, ordering, building and setting up a homemade rig is better spent on doing actual work for clients. Even if I were to save $5-10,000 in hardware in those 2-3 days, we'd be losing far more money than that by having me not doing my actual job.
----------
Yeah, so we can work it into the budget. If it was $5,000 or $15,000, we just need to know what to expect. And I do very much appreciate all of your responses and help.
There's definitely something to be said about the unique Apple features, in this case a fantastic, compact form factor that's quiet enough to put on your desk and just use.
More importantly, people keep comparing the Mac Pro to workstations, but this isn't really the right thing to do at all. Sure, the previous Mac Pros are very workstation-like, but when it comes down to it they have never been the best workstations out there, even when Apple was getting CPUs a little bit ahead of the rest, as they've always lagged behind overall, regardless of the two year wait until this latest redesign.
And that's just it, Apple has recognised that the Mac Pro just wasn't a good fit for workstations, as there are simply better machines out there if all you want is a big box full of high-end components. What Apple has done is create a professional desktop; a compact, quiet and stylish desktop (you know, that you can actually put on a desk), that uses workstation components to provide professional levels of performance for video editing, audio editing, 3d rendering and other creative areas.
Let's face it, anyone who needed the very best performance should have jumped ship ages ago (and probably has). But for those that are happy with just extremely good performance, in a compact, quiet and stylish package, then that's what Apple wants to give them. For those to whom that all sounds irrelevant, then the new Mac Pro was never really for them to begin with as it always cost more for what you got.
More importantly, people keep comparing the Mac Pro to workstations, but this isn't really the right thing to do at all. Sure, the previous Mac Pros are very workstation-like, but when it comes down to it they have never been the best workstations out there, even when Apple was getting CPUs a little bit ahead of the rest, as they've always lagged behind overall, regardless of the two year wait until this latest redesign.
And that's just it, Apple has recognised that the Mac Pro just wasn't a good fit for workstations, as there are simply better machines out there if all you want is a big box full of high-end components. What Apple has done is create a professional desktop; a compact, quiet and stylish desktop (you know, that you can actually put on a desk), that uses workstation components to provide professional levels of performance for video editing, audio editing, 3d rendering and other creative areas.
Let's face it, anyone who needed the very best performance should have jumped ship ages ago (and probably has). But for those that are happy with just extremely good performance, in a compact, quiet and stylish package, then that's what Apple wants to give them. For those to whom that all sounds irrelevant, then the new Mac Pro was never really for them to begin with as it always cost more for what you got.
Last edited: