I can afford it, but I do not need all the "horse power" that it offers especially in the GPU department and 16 CPU cores tops is enough for my use. The 7,1 Mac Pro will either need to come down in price, or find one in the used market for me to seriously consider it. Otherwise I have pretty much made up my mind to go all out on a liquid cooled Hackintosh rig dual booting macOS mainly for audio applications and Windows for mainly gaming. H20 cooling GPU and CPU with i9900k, Radeon VII GPU, even embracing the RGB craze, the computer is around $2,000 with another $1,000 coming from the liquid cooling loop. So seeing how I can get exactly what I want for half the cost the 7,1 is not a smart decision for me right now. This is a bummer but not exactly a surprise either. I was thinking $4k to $5k, but $6K+ is just too much for a power user like me
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 Most won’t be able to afford a new Mac Pro
- Thread starter satchmo
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Exactly.......I know there is a completely different architecture etc for speed.
But my current machine has same ram, much more ssd, same gpu.
Only difference is the cpu, but for $6000......I really can’t justify it, being a hobbyist user.
How is this for professionals when even for them the price is ridiculous? 6 grand starting price? Can you imagine what the 28 core option will cost? Intel sells that processor for $3,000.
If anyone needs this much horsepower, just build a PC with an AMD 32 core 2990WX Threadripper for HALF the price.
If anyone needs this much horsepower, just build a PC with an AMD 32 core 2990WX Threadripper for HALF the price.
Too expansive for 2D professional works and there is no modular desktop options other than Mac Pro 2019.
Man, I really want the new MP and display but not sure I can pull this off. The starting price will be around $13k if I get the nano tech/stand on the display and update the RAM to 64 and 1tb storage. That's a lot $$$.
While I get the prices might be in par with the specs and power, I wish Apple would have a lower price point entry for a lower spec MP and 5K display. I would be happy to fork $6/7k but double of that is really painful. What a shame.
While I get the prices might be in par with the specs and power, I wish Apple would have a lower price point entry for a lower spec MP and 5K display. I would be happy to fork $6/7k but double of that is really painful. What a shame.
Nice as this machine may appear to be, it leaves a gaping hole in Apple's non-AIO lineup between the Mini and Pro. I understand that Apple's likely position is that the iMac fills that gap, but if you don't want/need an AIO you have few options, none of them great. Either (a) suck it up and get an iMac (if you can live with an AIO), (b) make do with the Mini, (c) rob a bank and buy a Pro, or (d) build a Hackintosh and live on the edge of macOS incompatibilities. Apple could build a very nice line of non-AIO boxes if it wanted to, but so far it every clearly does not care to. Their fear of loss of iMac sales is stronger than any desire to meet the needs of some of its user base. And maybe a larger user base than they assume (professionals now caught between Mini and Pro, hobbyists, gamers, scientists/engineers who want to run equipment, etc). I was hoping this "modular" thing would fill into this gap, but it's not looking good.
I (and Apple) expect(s) that the majority of these will be paid for by companies for their employees working on ProRes / Final Cut Pro (and to a far lesser extent, Logic Pro) projects.
This machine is not for individuals unless you're generating six figures-plus in revenue per year with your work.
That isn't very many companies.
If it is specced the same as a dell & hp - I'm going with the dell or hp - if something goes wrong, they send a technician to your location.
$10K or $12K for an edit workstation is not a lot compared to the other costs of video production. I just got an email for someone in Brazil who got off the plane with 10 Pelican cases of gear to shoot some video on deforestation. The cost of the round trip for a small crew is MUCH more than the cost of a new Mac Pro.
Think of it this way: On the table is a brand new Mac loaded with data from a recent shoot. The Mac is expensive but the data costs 5 times more than the computer that hold is. And "5X" is a cheap documentary done on a shoestring budget
What if the "data" is from a Hollywood feature film production. Then the cost of the Mac that helds the data is "chump change" and they might buy a few Macs and $12K just to see if they like them.
Or think this way: I live in So California by the beach. You can not buy a house here for $1M. Not even an empty lot for that. Someone who qualifies for a bank loan for a house can drop $6K on a Mac without looking at the budget and EVERY house for miles around has someone living inside. These folks pay $100K Tesla just because they are cool cars. The Mac was designed in the Bay Area where people are a bit more affluent then down here in So Cal.
All that said your average video production company is not making even Discovery Chaneel class shows. They make weding videos and such on a "no budget". They will not be buying these Mac Pros. There Mac are for the high end of the industry.
It's clearly going to be enough for Apple would not have bothered making it. And we know Apple was talking to those companies and I expect they had an idea of what the bill would be because they would have asked.
Apple offers Enterprise Apple Care with on-site support.
*nods vigorously*
I've been listening to the podcasts and reading the web today and they all repeat the same - the Mac Pro of 2019 is no longer the "catch-all" computer in Apple's line-up that the Mac Pro of 2009 was. The Mac Mini and iMac and MacBook Pro are orders of magnitude more powerful than their decade-old models and can now handle almost all the tasks that a decade ago you needed a Mac Pro for.
The Mac Pro is a specialized tool for specialized applications where the cost of the hardware - computer, video, audio - is one of the smallest line items on the final bill of sale to bring a production to market.
And yeah, maybe the "lesser Macs" throttle when pushed to the edge, but that is because Intel's current 14nm CPUs and AMD's 14nm GPUs are furnaces when they were supposed to be 10nm air conditioners. And Apple has worked to address that fact in the new Mac Mini and iMac Pro which offer much better cooling systems designed to deal with that heat (and look at the cooling on the new Mac Pro). When the iMac and MacBook Pro get their next updates, they too will likely be redesigned to deal with Intel's and AMD's TDPs.
(And our small form factor desktops and notebooks from Dell and Lenovo are throttling as bad or worse than our Macs because their plastic cases cannot serve as heat sinks like the aluminum Mac cases can).
Last edited:
If you 'need' this you buy it. Simples!
Once upon a time I 'needed' the Pro so I bought it - now I don't so I won't buy it.
What kind of mind looks at the Mac Pro and says "most cannot afford this"?
Of course not - how dim is that?
I cannot afford my own jet aircraft!!! Is that why I don't have one.
Jeez - this a beautiful massively powerful bit of kit and I hope the people who use it enjoy the trip - I would.
Once upon a time I 'needed' the Pro so I bought it - now I don't so I won't buy it.
What kind of mind looks at the Mac Pro and says "most cannot afford this"?
Of course not - how dim is that?
I cannot afford my own jet aircraft!!! Is that why I don't have one.
Jeez - this a beautiful massively powerful bit of kit and I hope the people who use it enjoy the trip - I would.
I think the car comparison is compelling. Interesting how many people don't blink at spending $30k on a car that they use 30 minutes a day (as it depreciates rapidly), but the thought of spending $6k on a computer that they use 8 hours a day to earn a living is anathema. 'NerdWallet' says that average cost of car ownership is $8469 per year ($23 per day, or about $35 per work-day).
Suppose your time is worth $30/hr. If this computer gains 12 minutes a day in work efficiency, it is paid for entirely in 4 years. And fwiw, you don't really have to account for the entire cost of the machine, but just the difference between the cost of this and whatever else you might have used.
Another thought: Do you ever consider the cost of clothing yourself in business casual on a daily basis. I ran the numbers one time and realized that I get about 30 days use out of Khakis before they're marginal to wear, and if I keep going, I can stretch their use to about 60 times before I can't wear them in a professional environment anymore. Shirts get about the same amount of wear times before replacement. Better if they're really high quality, worse if I get cheaper stuff. Bottom line: I think I spend about $4 every time I get dressed for work in the morning, not including my laundry labor.
Never mind that. What about beauty products?! The NY Post quoted a Groupon study that says Americans spend over $300 per month on beauty products. To be fair, about $100 of that is spent on gym memberships or something, but over $150 on cream, makeup, shaving products, hair products, etc. That number seems big to me (I think I ring in closer to $10 per month), but I'm just saying that people spend this kind of money on stupider things. Imagine how people would view their vanity products if they had to buy them three years at a time!
Another way of looking at it: Plumbers have to buy a $30k van every few years. Engineers have to maintain a CAD license (not sure the cost on this, but not cheap).
And yet another way to justify a crazy expensive computer: If used for work for 4 years, it costs about $6 per work day. I don't work in a creative environment, but for a lot of professionals, $6/day is spent on a lot less useful items.
My friend Gary once said, "In spite of the high cost of living, it remains surprisingly popular."
And in closing, I offer this: Prov 24:27. If you're a creative professional, your computer is your field/barn.
Don't get me wrong. $6k is a crazy big sum to spend on a computer. I'm thinking I was just bumped into the Mac mini with eGPU camp.
^^^ This ^^^
However, Apple could alleviate the situation immensely by offering better GPU options for the Mac Mini, (similar to those found on the latest Mac Book Pros.
Agree with you, I’m just sad Apple’s only computer that does not have heat problems is now 6k. But it’s better than three days ago when we did not have any computer in the line up capable of dealing with heat and avoid throttling.
I hope at some point they will give us a machine with no throttling issues with decent CPUs.
Discussions keep circling back to this - there is still no Apple offering between MacMini and MacPro. It's basically been this same discussion for years.
What's clear - there is STILL an appetite for a MacMiniPro or a "normal" desktop with 2-3 PCIe, 4-6 RAM slots, 1-2 SSD slots, and 1 CPU for $1750-2500 entry, maybe up to $3500-4000 max'ed out. Make this available with modern Core i9 upgrade and you've got something that will sell really well. I'd bet those people at entry level would also be more willing to spend on a 4-5 year upgrade cycle vs. the MP7,1 who basically need a 7-10 year cycle for ROI (but throwing money at the machine along the way).
...but offering something like this will eat into iMac sales. Apple is choosing this path and it's one of the main reasons the hackintosh community exists. You're never going to please everyone, but it is abundantly clear this particular market segment is STILL looking for a solution that does not exist. Shoving those users to other options is forcing them to other platforms.
What's clear - there is STILL an appetite for a MacMiniPro or a "normal" desktop with 2-3 PCIe, 4-6 RAM slots, 1-2 SSD slots, and 1 CPU for $1750-2500 entry, maybe up to $3500-4000 max'ed out. Make this available with modern Core i9 upgrade and you've got something that will sell really well. I'd bet those people at entry level would also be more willing to spend on a 4-5 year upgrade cycle vs. the MP7,1 who basically need a 7-10 year cycle for ROI (but throwing money at the machine along the way).
...but offering something like this will eat into iMac sales. Apple is choosing this path and it's one of the main reasons the hackintosh community exists. You're never going to please everyone, but it is abundantly clear this particular market segment is STILL looking for a solution that does not exist. Shoving those users to other options is forcing them to other platforms.
I seem to recall Apple recently refreshing the MacBook Pro and iMac in the past few weeks. And we should see an iMac Pro refresh by years end when the Basin Falls Xeons ship.
Or are we artificially restricting our arguments only to Macs without displays?
I bought my G3 B+W, MacPro1,1 and 5,1 all new. They were, for me, extensions of the line of PowerMac desktops that existed all through the 90's. Mostly affordable (relatively), the Mac Pros could be purchased by pro's and hobbyists. I was/am definitely in the hobbyist group.
Back in the early 90's it was the IIfx that was out of reach for anyone not doing serious productivity. Apple changed that paradigm in the in 1998 with the first G3/G4 towers. Since then, the top of the line towers were in the reach of most people.
I think Apple has gone back to how it was before. The new Mac Pro is now something you need to ask if its worth the upgrade. How will it improve my productivity to the point that it saves me money?
If you can answer that question, then the new Mac Pro is affordable, if not, its probably not for you unless you have a fair bit of discretionary income.
Way too expensive for a disposable. Apple has lost their minds and will soon lose their mindshare. The $1200 iPhone fiasco didn't teach them. Between MacBook Pros which can't be repaired or upgraded and gold plated cheese grater Mac Pros, Apple won't be seeing any of my money for new computers. I'd down from $10000/year spend to $300/year (bits and bobs, app store). Well done Apple.
The SAD thing is how the "last" cheese grater Mac Pro used to cost $2000 to start. That was still expensive at the time compared to a Tower PC that you could build, but yes it does use Intel XEON instead of their consumer class chips. But an average user that wanted to buy a better graphics card and have internal hard drives, etc. all in one semi-portable machine could still afford one even for HOBBY use. I can't see anyone buying this new Mac Pro that isn't making money with it big time. It's just too damn much. The base configuration has only 8-cores, for god's sake at $6000!!!!
Does it even have PCIe 4.0 that comes out this summer or is it already out of date when it's released? If so, can we expect an update when? Another 6 years from now??? That's Apple's recent history with the Mac Pro and a good 3.5 years for the Mac Mini. Apple is not serious about its Macintosh computers and hasn't been for some time. Most of the "professionals" have already left. Are they going to magically come back for a base (with monitor) $13,000 price tag??? Yeah, it'll sell like hotcakes, especially if it doesn't get a Boot Camp update to run an operating system that works on updates for professionals rather than spending most of its time lately getting ready for iOS Apps on a Mac! (Woohoo! Who doesn't want crappy run-down iOS apps on their $13,000 Mac Pro computer!??!?!) and Notarization (the next step towards closing the platform to open software so Apple can charge 30% for ALL Mac apps! Because the App store for the Mac has been SO POPULAR thus far....)
Yeah, I know notarization is currently not mandatory, but Apple has announced it will be next year and do we really TRUST Apple to not label emulators and programs like MakeMKV "malware" and not allow them at all at that point given Apple's shifty history with playing games with developers on iOS??? I don't trust them a bit. Windows may have its own problems, but I'm starting to think they may be less onerous than letting Apple play an even bigger Big Brother in the future than Microsoft....
I wish Linux had gotten their crap together for ONE software/library STANDARD so you can run desktop applications on any Linux machine, but sadly after two decades of gaining very little desktop user market share, they're still playing, <1% of desktop users needs 16+ Linux distributions..... The reason Android and Chromebooks do better is they have ONE STANDARD.
A Z8 is a dual-socket workstation. Dual-socket CPUs (even one of them) are much more expensive than single-socket Xeon-W CPUs. Chipset/motherboard costs are also higher.
Using a Z8 for price comparison with the new nMP is deceptive - apples and oranges.
All that power completely hamstrung by Windows.
Professionals spend that kind of money all the time.
Generally you need to point your finger at Intel. They (Intel) are the ones who need to implement PCIe v4 support.
Bus transitions take years. PCIe 3.0 will be virtually the only option for the next year or two. You might find a few mobos that support 4.0 in the mid-term, but you won't find PCIe 4.0 cards in any reasonable quantities. Even if you have a system with PCIe 4.0 slots - you'll be filling the slots with PCIe 3.0 cards.
Perhaps there will be a stronger argument if the Mac Pro 2020 doesn't have PCIe 4.0 - but right now it should be a non-issue.
[doublepost=1559681845][/doublepost]
Please explain... Windows benchmarks are often better than Apple OSX on the same hardware.
Last edited:
I don't GAF if it's fast or not, it's just a bad user experience. You take an amazing server and put a trash OS on it and ruin the whole experience.