MP 7,1 New MP - it's not for you. So who is it for?

[theluggage]

I also feel the loss, but in my opinion the entry-level Mac Pro was already unaffordable to most hobbyists. A $300 computer case and motherboard it was not. Apple never made an xMac, which sounds a lot like it would have been the thing you're describing.

Well, Macs in general are unaffordable for many people - but the $3000 entry point wasn't completely ridiculous, especially if you already had a decent display. That's really not an excuse for doubling it - especially with an entry model that really only makes sense as a base for another $5-$10K worth of expansion.

Also, I think the "xMac" comparisons are outdated - when the "xMac" concept was first mooted, the go-to system for the mass market was still a commodity mini-tower PC. The fallacy was that Apple could compete with bargain-basement PCs and still make enough money to justify investment in the MacOS ecosystem. Those beige box PCs were/are virtually loss-leaders - if you bought an extended warranty, RAM upgrade and a $30 printer cable with that, then the seller might actually have made a profit. In the corporate world, the money was probably in support contracts. So, Apple couldn't have matched the price of cheap PCs anyway but what they would have done is decimated sales of their laptops, iMacs, SFFs and (at the time) tower workstations.

Now, time has moved on - what the mass market wants mainly is laptops, if not tablets and phones. Apart from the ultra-cheap $300 PC end of the market - to which Apple's answer is now the iPad - its only really enthusiasts, gamers and pros who want towers. I think those people would happily pay a reasonable premium (in the price range of the higher-spec iMac models) for a customisable/expandable tower that could officially run MacOS and, in 2019, I don't think that would necessarily cannibalise domestic/business sales of iMacs the way it would have done in 2005.

...and the development costs of a midrange Mac tower needn't be huge. If a hackintosher can build a decent machine from standard parts on their kitchen table, Apple can certainly design a nicer-than-average mini tower for a fraction of the investment in something like an iPad or MacBook - the job is to sit unobtrusively under the desk and blow cool air over the parts, folks - it doesn't have to be a work of art like the new MP.

Anyway, its a pretty sad state of affairs if Apple is only worried about competing with Apple - and one of the trends with Macs recently - especially the Mac Pro - is a complete lack of effort to grow the Mac market beyond existing users.

 

[Rogifan]

However, then there's the other group of customers - those who just want a Mac OS system with the power of a high-end iMac/low-end iMac Pro but with the flexibility to choose their own displays and single/dual GPU, maybe add extra internal storage and upgradable RAM... In the past that's been catered for by the entry-level Mac Pro starting at around $3k (taken, in the case of the trashcan, with a glass of Kool Aid regarding the now-admitted failures of that design, but at least it was there) - but now Apple apparently just don't want your business - because the spec and price of the $6k entry MP makes no sense whatsoever unless you're going to add $10k+ worth of expansion. Apple have got it into their heads that the only point of "modular" is moarrrrr powwweerr!!!

That seems like a "courageous", cost-of-everything-value-of-nothing decision by Apple - because that group is going to include a lot of developers and other evangelistic (& deep pocketed) Mac hobbyists (the sort that provide unofficial tech support to friends, family and colleagues). If they defect to Windows or Linux then they're probably not coming back.

Want or need? I think some have to accept the fact that Apple has decided they’re not going to be in the hobbyist business. The people who really need a Mac Pro know it and everyone else's needs can most likely be met by the iMac Pro, iMac, Mac mini or MBP. For all those who say they want this mythical x-Mac, what do they need that the current options don‘t provide for?

 

[DoofenshmirtzEI]

Of course not, that why they don't are about it, but for people who do hackintosh it would be awesome to be modular and run macOS supported. I love my home built machines. Would love to have a real Mac in that form factor to upgrade and play with.

Apple probably doesn't want to support it. The segment who would buy it would unfortunately include people who would run support costs up the wazoo.

I'm trying to remember the last time Apple made a Mac that screamed "I want you to upgrade and play with my hardware!" Why do people think Apple wants to make a product like that? Apple makes machines for people to play with software, not hardware.

 

[defjam]

Want or need? I think some have to accept the fact that Apple has decided they’re not going to be in the hobbyist business. The people who really need a Mac Pro know it and everyone else's needs can most likely be met by the iMac Pro, iMac, Mac mini or MBP. For all those who say they want this mythical x-Mac, what do they need that the current options don‘t provide for?

I would argue YouTube bloggers don't need the 2019 Mac Pro yet Apple sent them pre-release evaluation units (configured, I might add, much more so than what I would consider necessary for their needs...28 cores? 384GB of RAM?)

In fact one might argue any user who requires the capability of the 2019 Mac Pro moved away from the Mac platform years ago as, until Tuesday, the capabilities of the 2019 Mac Pro didn't exist on the Mac platform. Now that it's been released Mac users are in awe as to its capabilities. It's as if they're waking from a coma and seeing this level of technology for the first time. Meanwhile it's not uncommon to those of us who have been conscious for the past six years.

 

[blackadde]

Want or need? I think some have to accept the fact that Apple has decided they’re not going to be in the hobbyist business. The people who really need a Mac Pro know it and everyone else's needs can most likely be met by the iMac Pro, iMac, Mac mini or MBP. For all those who say they want this mythical x-Mac, what do they need that the current options don‘t provide for?

I need an expandable tower with discrete graphics, a large SSD, and about 64GB of RAM but don’t need a monster built to address 1.5TB of ECC memory. I freelance full time in illustration and graphic design, primarily for print / assets for animation. I need (!) to use a color corrected wide gamut monitor as my primary display.

I don’t personally know anyone in my professional network who hasn’t moved on to a Wintel box. I really tried to make it work with a fully Mac environment (MBP, iMac, iPad) but eventually just had to accept that Apple wasn’t going to address my market segment. I think Apple’s solution for me is either a Mini with an eGPU and external storage or a fully decked out MBP, but both of those options weren’t anything approaching price competitive with just building my own PC. I’m not overly price-sensitive, but every dollar I save on one tool is a dollar I can spend on another (software licenses, typefaces, consumables, canvases, resin/filament/ink for my printers).

MacOS is a wonderful environment but Win10 is perfectly fine. My biggest gripes about color and font management have long since been paved over and my box is 24/7 stable and quiet. All my professional software is platform agnostic. When there’s an issue I can swap out the parts and be done in an hour, as opposed to the five days of downtime I dealt with when I had to drag my iMac to the Apple store when its logic board fried due to a manufacturing error.

If the Mini is a coupé, then the iMac is a SUV and the Pro is a semi. What I need is a pickup truck. Maybe my position is more unique than I thought.

 

[mBox]

Well a base configuration is USD $5,999.00.

From March 1990 to April 1992, the Macintosh IIfx, the base model – Macintosh IIfx: 4 MB memory, 1.44 MB SuperDrive. Cost $8,989 USD (equivalent to USD $17,200 in 2018)

So the Mac Pro 2019: 32GB (4 × 8GB) of DDR4 ECC memory), 3.5GHz 8‑Core Intel Xeon W processor with Turbo Boost up to 4.0GHz, Radeon Pro 580X with 8GB of GDDR5 memory, 256GB of SSD storage –– looks like a bargain.

I personally paid $3500 USD for a PowerMac 6100AV. It had 16MB of RAM and 250GB HD.
That was 1994.
A year later at a day job, we upgraded an 8100AV to 32MB of RAM. That sucker was $2600 USD (single stick) at the time.
Two years later I got a wicked job at a local broadcasting station and they bought me an SGI Oxygen with 64GM RAM...that beast was 375K USD at the time.
So yeah we can play this game forever with computers

Oh, and I would rather have my Medical test results processed on a Mac thank you

 

[jinnyman]

People can earn money with 3000 usd machine just fine. In fact, that price range is a sweet spot for freelancer professionals. Telling those people that you should have no problem spending twice as much if you are earning money out of the machines just shows how ignorant they are. We don't need possibility of many expansion requiring 1400 W Power supply, 1.5 tb of memory, 28c Xeon, and MPX module. We just want consumer grade CPU with 64gig of rams with expandable storage and upgradable GPUs.
I bet some of 7,1 buyers will be perfectly content with the machine i just described. Unless you are business buyers in numbers, not that many really benefit from theoretical bandwidth of ram, 28C Xeon, and dual Vegaii duo.

But, oh well, all these arguments has been stated too many times, and I'm really tired of pointing out how Apple's abandoned us, etc. The decision is already made by Apple, and we shall see how 7,1 will perform compared to previous generations. Hopefully, this is going to be a lesson for Apple to offer again a true "Mac Pro" for freelancer professional and prosumers alike, while continuing 7,1 line of a true industrial level workstation.

 

[pier]

It's for people working on really huge video or music projects which is maybe like 10% of pros.

Hopefully Apple will release a mid tier tower between the Mac Pro and the iMac which is where all the people building hackintoshes are.

 

[sparkie7]

As fun as it is to take a trip down memory lane, I think this is a deeply misleading argument for the value of a modern day Pro. Any desktop computer in 2019 will seem like an absurd futuristic bargain against any desktop computer from the early 90s, almost irrespective of either’s relative value against contemporary alternatives.

I wasn't taking a trip down memory lane. I was quoting some facts in case you were tripping whilst smoking or snorting while you were posting.

I wasn't comparing against a Cray-1 or a Mac Lisa. For your information there were several staff at the University I was at that were using Mac II FX's and II CX's.. They weren't some mythical computer that hardly anyone had seen or used.

 

[blackadde]

I wasn't taking a trip down memory lane. I was quoting some facts in case you were tripping whilst smoking or snorting while you were posting.

I wasn't comparing against a Cray-1 or a Mac Lisa. For your information there were several staff at the University I was at that were using Mac II FX's and II CX's.. They weren't some mythical computer that hardly anyone had seen or used.

It’s pretty rude to accuse someone who disagrees with you of being high out of their mind. I think I’ve been pretty respectful in only addressing your argument.

My point stands; a Mac II compares poorly to an Apple Watch if you attempt to bridge the historic gap in technology. Similar comparisons can be made between 8086 processors and modern i9s. Neither provide room for discourse beyond ‘computing is faster today’.

The more meaningful comparisons to make are between the Mac II with its desktop computing contemporaries and the 2019 MP with its own. The Mac Pro competes with HP/Dell/etc. workstations intended to solve the same computing problems and it’s value is really only meaningfully gauged in that light.

 

[sparkie7]

It’s pretty rude to accuse someone who disagrees with you of being high out of their mind. I think I’ve been pretty respectful in only addressing your argument.

My point stands; a Mac II compares poorly to an Apple Watch if you attempt to bridge the historic gap in technology. Similar comparisons can be made between 8086 processors and modern i9s. Neither provide room for discourse beyond ‘computing is faster today’.

The more meaningful comparisons to make are between the Mac II with its desktop computing contemporaries and the 2019 MP with its own. The Mac Pro competes with HP/Dell/etc. workstations intended to solve the same computing problems and it’s value is really only meaningfully gauged in that light.

I made a comparison / observation, not an argument. Not sure what you're on TBH

It's a relevant comparison, same manufacturer, equivalent classes - top end work stations of their time.

Do people who are imbedded in the Apple platform and ecosystem really consider the PC? B/c I don't even consider it as a comparable option.

 

[vel0city]

Anyone thinking about the nMP for Adobe CC work might want to reconsider (myself included) after watching this video:

 

[bsbeamer]

Anyone thinking about the nMP for Adobe CC work might want to reconsider (myself included) after watching this video:

MP7,1 #1 = 48GB RAM
MP7,1 #2 = 48GB RAM
MBP16,1 = 64GB RAM
MP6,1 = 64GB RAM

The iMacPro is already proven to beat the near stock configs of MP7,1 and MBP16,1 (loaded) is near or better than iMacPro depending on test. If you're going with an UPGRADED CPU over stock for MP7,1, you need to bump your RAM more to achieve any real performance gains. Actually think it's hurting performance by shortchanging the RAM so much. At minimum, they should have all been configured with 64GB RAM.

 

[VJNeumann]

Anyone thinking about the nMP for Adobe CC work might want to reconsider (myself included) after watching this video:

Honestly, that's not a surprise. If your workflow is entirely 2D/Adobe, the price-performance ratio is going to be appalling for the Mac Pro. There's so much hardware there that is not synergising with Adobe at all (seemingly the blame is on Adobe's end there).

Although in that video I was a bit annoyed that they used 64GB RAM in the laptop, but 48 in the MP. RAM is more important than GPU for most Adobe tasks.

EDIT: Seems the person above me beat me to the same point re. RAM.

 

[defjam]

If the Mini is a coupé, then the iMac is a SUV and the Pro is a semi. What I need is a pickup truck. Maybe my position is more unique than I thought.

It's not. I wouldn't be surprised if iMac and Mini sales dipped somewhat if Apple released an xMac. Why they don't is beyond me.
[automerge]1576685001[/automerge]

Anyone thinking about the nMP for Adobe CC work might want to reconsider (myself included) after watching this video:

It appears an xMac would be an ideal system for Adobe CC.
[automerge]1576685178[/automerge]

Although in that video I was a bit annoyed that they used 64GB RAM in the laptop, but 48 in the MP. RAM is more important than GPU for most Adobe tasks.

Only an issue if there was insufficient memory. There was nothing in the video to indicate this was the case.

 

[VJNeumann]

Only an issue if there was insufficient memory. There was nothing in the video to indicate this was the case.

I just meant in any generic, sustained real world comparison, not specific to any one benchmark.

 

[Flint Ironstag]

Want or need? I think some have to accept the fact that Apple has decided they’re not going to be in the hobbyist business. The people who really need a Mac Pro know it and everyone else's needs can most likely be met by the iMac Pro, iMac, Mac mini or MBP. For all those who say they want this mythical x-Mac, what do they need that the current options don‘t provide for?

Better value for money and a reasonably priced entry level model. I also need to fit 3 GPUs in the box without resorting to expensive, clunky, and in some cases less performant eGPU enclosures.

Apple probably doesn't want to support it. The segment who would buy it would unfortunately include people who would run support costs up the wazoo

This statement has absolutely zero basis in reality. Support costs would be identical to cMP and 7,1. There's a list of approved and therefore supported hardware. Other stuff may work, but is unsupported - simple as. Please stop spreading this fallacy.

[edit] I'd also like a dual socket option so I can have the best of both worlds: high frequencies AND core counts. HP has managed to provide all of this.

 

[jjjoseph]

Anyone thinking about the nMP for Adobe CC work might want to reconsider (myself included) after watching this video:

If you want just pure Adobe CC speeds, a Windows PC will always be faster. CUDA, now PC only, with always run Adobe CC faster. Apple has always been about the OS and hardware quality, re-sale value etc.

Apple can make some things run faster on their hardware, Apple Software and Partner Software, but Adobe Products will never ever be one of them.

 

[fastlanephil]

As far as audio work, 2019 Mac Pro is for the upper tier users. From what I read, that market has been on a downward trend for some time. Some other audio users may rationalize purchasing the 2019 Mac Pro as a long term investment which has made sense in the past but I’m not so sure that will be the case going forward. I would say buy what you need to get the job done with a comfortable cushion.

 

[Digital Skunk]

Would love to have a real Mac in that form factor to upgrade and play with.

I think this is the part here that a lot of members miss.

I wouldn't use "play" or "tinker" but the idea that an end user wants to open up their machine, go inside, and upgrade or change around components is a rare, niche mindset. I do it, but I also deploy and build PC and Mac system for broadcast stations.

And even then, I'm less likely to WANT to go inside my machine to upgrade anything. If I am, that means my machine isn't on and that means I am not working.

When I switch to the "day-job" environment at some bigger corporation, the only people popping open a machine is IT. Sure, I can do what they do, but they get paid to do it. I get paid to move pixels.

Most end-users treat computers as toasters.

And that's also why a lot of freelancers buy the wrong systems and keep them longer than they should, and when it's time to upgrade .... they can't or don't want to.

In fact one might argue any user who requires the capability of the 2019 Mac Pro moved away from the Mac platform years ago as, until Tuesday, the capabilities of the 2019 Mac Pro didn't exist on the Mac platform. Now that it's been released Mac users are in awe as to its capabilities. It's as if they're waking from a coma and seeing this level of technology for the first time. Meanwhile it's not uncommon to those of us who have been conscious for the past six years.

For many of the Mac installations I've seen, they've either moved on to the iMac Pro (in some kind of Frankensteined way with T-Bolt cables running everywhere), the Trashcan (in the same way) or they've stuck with the 2010 Mac Pro.

A good deal of industries know what they need to run, and it will fall on Mac OSX or Windows, and they'll buy whatever box and accessories needed. A lot of places just treated the Trashcan like a HUG MacMini Pro, and with that mindset found they could still get some decent work done even though they had to plug in 8 additional power cables.

I need an expandable tower with discrete graphics, a large SSD, and about 64GB of RAM but don’t need a monster built to address 1.5TB of ECC memory. I freelance full time in illustration and graphic design, primarily for print / assets for animation. I need (!) to use a color corrected wide gamut monitor as my primary display.

If the Mini is a coupé, then the iMac is a SUV and the Pro is a semi. What I need is a pickup truck. Maybe my position is more unique than I thought.

I would say that 1.) you basically described the iMac Pro if you don't mind EXTERNAL expansion. Now don't get me wrong, I know how you feel, but a lot of users who end up buying a system with overhead don't expand much internally beyond drive space and maybe RAM.

Often times, even freelancers in demanding markets (video and animation) don't actually reach inside their systems to upgrade. The monitor notwithstanding.

And 2.) yes, you're in a unique position. The discussion about the headless iMac is almost 15 years old. Ever since Apple stopped selling $1799 PowerMac systems, and even those machines were criticized for being too expensive and under-powered. The sad truth is it's always been hard for niche markets to find what they need. Companies know they won't get a huge ROI so the prices go up or companies just don't build anything for them.

Hence the reason Apple puts effort into laptops, AIOs, and iPad ... and charges $6000 for the base workstation tower.

It's worth the price, but it wasn't made with those unique/niche markets in mind.
[automerge]1576694363[/automerge]

Anyone thinking about the nMP for Adobe CC work might want to reconsider (myself included) after watching this video:

AND THIS IS GOLD!

Keep in mind that a 6 year old system is holding its own rather well vs the nMP. Also how well the MBP handles those tasks vs desktop systems.

Last of all, it's another example of why buying the proper system is important. We bemoan the price, but if the trashcan lasted 6-7 years, imagine the nMP. You spend the $8000 now, and upgrade over time, and get almost a decade out

 

[DoofenshmirtzEI]

This statement has absolutely zero basis in reality. Support costs would be identical to cMP and 7,1. There's a list of approved and therefore supported hardware. Other stuff may work, but is unsupported - simple as. Please stop spreading this fallacy.

It's not a fallacy. Part of it is known as "warranty abuse" where someone does something "unsupported", screws it up, tries to cover it up and get warranty coverage for it. The other is that there's just a segment that will jawbone your dealer/support network to death while attempting to spend as little as possible on stuff that doesn't give the appearance of your highest end product. It would not shock me in the slightest if the high price of the base Mac Pro is in part an attempt to shake these very expensive customers off. Someone may be able to park a Dune case in their living room and slap some Apple stickers on it, but they can't get AppleCare for it or haul it into the genius bar.

 

[defjam]

It's not a fallacy. Part of it is known as "warranty abuse" where someone does something "unsupported", screws it up, tries to cover it up and get warranty coverage for it. The other is that there's just a segment that will jawbone your dealer/support network to death while attempting to spend as little as possible on stuff that doesn't give the appearance of your highest end product. It would not shock me in the slightest if the high price of the base Mac Pro is in part an attempt to shake these very expensive customers off. Someone may be able to park a Dune case in their living room and slap some Apple stickers on it, but they can't get AppleCare for it or haul it into the genius bar.

There are always going to be those who abuse a warranty and deciding to avoid offering a product on that doesn't make sense. In fact we see warranty abuse in these forums where people recommend replacing a stock component with another, unsupported one and, if something goes wrong, to substitute in the original part. It happens and, IMO, it is insufficient to avoid offering a product many appear to want.

 

[DoofenshmirtzEI]

There are always going to be those who abuse a warranty and deciding to avoid offering a product on that doesn't make sense. In fact we see warranty abuse in these forums where people recommend replacing a stock component with another, unsupported one and, if something goes wrong, to substitute in the original part. It happens and, IMO, it is insufficient to avoid offering a product many appear to want.

The smart thing to do is to offer product that covers the vast majority of non-abusive customers, but won't attract the abusive ones. And Apple appears to have done just that. The new case has features that interfere with the use of the machine in a manner that probably coincides with a lot of warranty abuse. It shuts off if the cover isn't on, and you have to disconnect all cables to open it. Won't really interfere with the occasional need to swap a part but will discourage many "oops, guess that isn't hot swappable", and repeated swapping of parts to try and make something unsupported work.

My son asked for some advice when he was building his own gaming PC, and he was using no static protection, and I pissed him off by pulling the power cable every time I reached into the box. "But the power supply is off!" And he was being careful compared to many. They don't care, if they screw something up, they expect the vendor to warranty it.

 

[vel0city]

Honestly, that's not a surprise. If your workflow is entirely 2D/Adobe, the price-performance ratio is going to be appalling for the Mac Pro. There's so much hardware there that is not synergising with Adobe at all (seemingly the blame is on Adobe's end there).

Yeah, I was just hoping that the Xeons in the the new Mac Pro would be more potent for single threaded tasks, I guess it will be the same old story where a regular iMac thrashes the Mac Pro for Photoshop though. My situation is a bit annoying and complicated, in that I use Adobe CC heavily but I'm also a 3D artist using C4D and third party GPU and CPU renderers. I definitely have some thinking to do before pulling the trigger on this purchase and whether it is even for me.

 

[bsbeamer]

Yeah, I was just hoping that the Xeons in the the new Mac Pro would be more potent for single threaded tasks, I guess it will be the same old story where a regular iMac thrashes the Mac Pro for Photoshop though. My situation is a bit annoying and complicated, in that I use Adobe CC heavily but I'm also a 3D artist using C4D and third party GPU and CPU renderers. I definitely have some thinking to do before pulling the trigger on this purchase and whether it is even for me.

Sounds like you are in the same boat as the rest of us in those crossover industries who do more than just one specific task. An Apple desktop with Core i9 and 128GB+ RAM is probably what you actually need, and probably something you'd be willing to upgrade on 3-5 year upgrade cycles (or sooner) if was frequently updated.

I hate myself for saying it, but the iMac Pro looks more and more attractive as time goes by. Hoping it will be updated again soon.