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.
[Poll] Best guess as to price of base model 7,1 MP
- Thread starter Loa
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
4500 would be likely...for quad core. Very base model...minimum. Then again it’s pointless to guess. We haven’t seen any preview like nmp 2013. All we know is that we better that cash ready....i mean a large amount. Then again...i would settle for base when apple may try to prevent us from user upgrade.
Last edited:
If the base is over $3,000, they might as well pair them with the Radeon VII, because that will probably be how many they sell (5K).
The AMD CPUs have moved the market - it would be a LOT cheaper to simply move workflows over to Threadrippers/Rzyen 9/Eypc workstations - high core count, will use ECC memory, and are faster, with more cores than Xeons.
The AMD CPUs have moved the market - it would be a LOT cheaper to simply move workflows over to Threadrippers/Rzyen 9/Eypc workstations - high core count, will use ECC memory, and are faster, with more cores than Xeons.
I'm expecting $6499, very nice base configuration - this is no quad-core slotbox...
12-core Xeon SP
48 GB of RAM (6x 8 GB - Xeon SP is 6-channel, and Apple rarely sells performance compromised models with empty channels)
2 TB SSD
Vega 64 or successor (Radeon VII???) - in a slot, but NOT standard PC form-factor - no luck replacing it with a GeForce RTX!
A whole bunch of TB3 ports, at least one 10G Ethernet port.
Upgrades will go all the way up to 28-core processors (whether or not it's officially processor upgradeable, standard "big-socket" Xeons should probably fit). There may even be be a dual CPU option.
The maximum RAM capacity will be at least 384 GB (6 slots, 64 GB DIMMs), and quite possibly 768 GB (12 slots). There is an off chance that dual-CPU models may address 1.5 TB of RAM (if you have to ask, you can't afford it).
SSD options will be 2,4,8 and possibly 16 TB Apple SSD. There may well be standard NVMe slots for additional "data-only" SSDs - the T2 (T3?) will force boot from the Apple SSD (unless you turn that off), but there could be non-bbotable expansion.
There will be options for various Radeon upgrades (some perhaps branded FirePro). Dual Radeons may be an option. At the very least, the GPU will have an extra motherboard connection to send its output over TB3 (and probably no rear bracket ports), and additional differentiation from PC GPUs (a custom size/shape?) is likely. It's probably some version of PCIe 3.0, but it's GeForce-proof.
A top model will easily top $20,000 with the 28-core CPU and maximum GPU options, a high RAM configuration and an 8 TB SSD. If there are dual-cPU, dual-GPU options, the sky's the limit. It's possible to get a HP Z6 (not even the more expensive Z8) over $40,000 - and that's using only 384 GB of RAM and dual 2 TB NVMe SSDs, plus dual 24-core processors and dual high-end GPUs. I could easily see a theoretical $50,000 model, of which Apple sells a few hundred at most, mainly to big Hollywood studios.
12-core Xeon SP
48 GB of RAM (6x 8 GB - Xeon SP is 6-channel, and Apple rarely sells performance compromised models with empty channels)
2 TB SSD
Vega 64 or successor (Radeon VII???) - in a slot, but NOT standard PC form-factor - no luck replacing it with a GeForce RTX!
A whole bunch of TB3 ports, at least one 10G Ethernet port.
Upgrades will go all the way up to 28-core processors (whether or not it's officially processor upgradeable, standard "big-socket" Xeons should probably fit). There may even be be a dual CPU option.
The maximum RAM capacity will be at least 384 GB (6 slots, 64 GB DIMMs), and quite possibly 768 GB (12 slots). There is an off chance that dual-CPU models may address 1.5 TB of RAM (if you have to ask, you can't afford it).
SSD options will be 2,4,8 and possibly 16 TB Apple SSD. There may well be standard NVMe slots for additional "data-only" SSDs - the T2 (T3?) will force boot from the Apple SSD (unless you turn that off), but there could be non-bbotable expansion.
There will be options for various Radeon upgrades (some perhaps branded FirePro). Dual Radeons may be an option. At the very least, the GPU will have an extra motherboard connection to send its output over TB3 (and probably no rear bracket ports), and additional differentiation from PC GPUs (a custom size/shape?) is likely. It's probably some version of PCIe 3.0, but it's GeForce-proof.
A top model will easily top $20,000 with the 28-core CPU and maximum GPU options, a high RAM configuration and an 8 TB SSD. If there are dual-cPU, dual-GPU options, the sky's the limit. It's possible to get a HP Z6 (not even the more expensive Z8) over $40,000 - and that's using only 384 GB of RAM and dual 2 TB NVMe SSDs, plus dual 24-core processors and dual high-end GPUs. I could easily see a theoretical $50,000 model, of which Apple sells a few hundred at most, mainly to big Hollywood studios.
If that is the case, I (and a lot of other folks) are off to AMD-land. Ryzen, Threadripper, and Epyc have changed the landscape.
$6499 gets me:
32 Cores
128Gb Ram
WX7100 video card
And since that price configuration also comes with a 1600 watt PSU, I don't have to worry about Sir Idiot Boy putting my Baby in a thermal corner.
Oh, and did I mention that tech support won't require me to haul said computer to the nearest Apple shop (100+ miles away).
Add $500 to transfer my software from OSX to Windows and done.
I don't think another boutique workstation is going to be a winner.
$6499 gets me:
32 Cores
128Gb Ram
WX7100 video card
And since that price configuration also comes with a 1600 watt PSU, I don't have to worry about Sir Idiot Boy putting my Baby in a thermal corner.
Oh, and did I mention that tech support won't require me to haul said computer to the nearest Apple shop (100+ miles away).
Add $500 to transfer my software from OSX to Windows and done.
I don't think another boutique workstation is going to be a winner.
The baselining the price off the iMac Pro have a very good chance of being deeply misguided.
1. Apple doesn't have to start at 8 cores. They could start at 6 cores [ 6 , 10 , 14 standard configs with 8 and 18 as BTO ]
W 2145 $1,113 - W 2135 $835 ( $278 savings) [ same base/turbo clock speeds for both so not loosing anything on "turbo" mode}
2. Apple doesn't have to start the store SSD at 1TB if there is more than one internal storage slot/location.
Apple T2 1TB versus 512GB on Mac Mini ---> $400 savings
3. Apple doesn't have to start with a Vega 54 class GPU A Polaris ( or Navi if takes until end of year to come ) mid range card would be sufficient as a entry level card.
About a $350 difference between MBP 15" with Vega 20 4GB HBM and Radeon Pro 560X 4GB GDDR5.
Add another $150 because Vega 54 costs substantially more than a Vega 20. About $500 savings.
Just those three is $1,178. Remember the Mac Pro is going from two GPUs standard probably down to just one. It is highly likely Apple will trade some costs of GPUs for something else. ( RAM , SSD , etc.)
Mac Pro will probably have an more expensive case , motherboard , and power supply but that still in the $900+ range. If Apple comes to a more rational sanity on SSD capacity prices there is all that much more of a cost drop. ( How Apple can pretend that 512GB SSD costs $400 in 2019 is a fairy tale they will have increasingly much more difficulty selling. ). Similarly, Intel could ease the Xeon W slightly because the competition in 2019 is going to be much steeper ( 2135 at closer to the 2133's price $615 would be more competitive. Perhaps something like $675-695 ) . Intel has the i7 9800X (8 cores ) at $599 with most of the PCI-e lane kneecapping removed. How 4 more PCI-e lanes gets a $200+ mark up is going to be lots of tap dancing for them too in 2019.
If Apple punted on Intel CPUs again a substantive decrease in BOM costs.
Essentially, the iMac Pro was priced in a 2017 context. The market was substantively different and it is not 2019.
The notion that Apple "has to" pick even higher priced solutions in the Xeon SP space is even more looney toons. The Mac Pro at a $5,999 entry price point would be about a 100% price increase. How that would not hurt Mac Pro sales substantially is a whole lot of hand waving. Financial dominance of the Mac Pro over the iMac Pro is just a really weakly motivated notion.
Why not? Apple is a hustler. They would sell mickey mouse standard computer at that price and limit upgrability option with who knows...10 core option or more with 150 percent price increase to get people to think it’s better to buy more expensive options.
I hope they do. Not all Mac Pro buyers need zillions of cores. I'd be ready to bet that many of us just want a modular mac instead of a Xeon-grade workstation. As this new Mac Pro will be the only modular mac, well then... Also, CPUs with lower core "tend" to have higher clock speed and not that many apps can make use of more than 4.
Would you consider some Linux distro instead?
Linux wasn't ready for prime time when I compiled my 1st pre 1.0 Kernal (Yggdrasil Linux) back in 1993.
It still isn't ready for prime time. I.e. none of my software runs on it.
[doublepost=1548799737][/doublepost]
Depends on what you do. I do - and I am not even a "professional" - I am a strictly amateur hour hobbyist.
Even low end, hobbyist 3d graphics software will use every core, every byte of ram that I can throw at it. Laptops, Minis, and iMacs are non-starters in this area.
Apple has absolutely no interest or willingness to give us the xMac. They have made that very clear over the last 20 or so years. The closest we managed was the Power Mac towers and the Mac Pro.
Depending upon what Apple does with the internal storage situation. If there is a 2+ 3.5" drive bays then 4 cores would work as a SOHO server. Quite expensive but in the similar line up as the Mac Mini being pressed into a subset of server contexts. 4 cores doesn't make it "Mickey Mouse", it would just be targeted to different set of workloads.
I don't put a high probability on 2+ HDDs being present. ( maybe a 2.5" but Apple more likely pointing to SSD only).
Even if there are no "extra" internal storage options the 4 core W 2015 has a base clock that is higher than anything else in the line up and max Turbo that is just as high as anything. ( Back in the Xeon E5 1600 sequence Intel typically kneecapped the 4 core option a bit on clocks. ). For this year that is a substantive chunk much all they have got to offer ( some clock bumps and perhaps some Optane DIMMs updates ). Hiigher top end RAM capacity , empty PCI-e slot (or two) , and more than one internal drive would be differentiator on some usecases ( reasonable DAW, colocation single assigned user host , etc. ) . For example, if fill an empty PCI-e slot with a DAW card then the DSPs can handle most of the audio workload. All workload isn't necessarily 100% loaded onto x86 cores. For users who already have one of those cards it is a foundational upgrade (retire a desupported older Mac Pro).
With 4 cores they might be able to limbo just under the $3,000 mark ( at $2,999 ). Not cranking the Mac Pro's entry price higher would be a significant PR win for them with more than few folks. This clamoring to crank the prices up 33% , 50% , 100% , 120% is going to generate a significant amount of blow back. ( not just the xMac folks but will be adding new folks to that group as push the Mac Pro prices significantly up.). if Apple is looney to go with just one (and only one) internal storage SSD and sets the minimum to 1TB then they might go to 4 cores since would have "blown" lots of BOM costs goosing the SSD price extremely high ( to maintain the mirage across the Mac product line that SSD actually cost as much as Apple charges ).
I suspect Apple will start at 6 cores ( just to put a cap on the number of CPU BTO SKUs they have to keep stock inventory for). 6-18 cores is five; which would be more than they have done in about 10 years (2010 had 6 so maybe). That will push them over the $3,000 threshold but probably not shooting for as far as $3,999. There will be some increase in average sell price, but not relatively huge upswings.
What i am trying to say is that apple is gonna do some werid stuff to get people to buy higher option...(which i believe many of us would highly likely too anyway). Like iphone with base model and shady amount of hardspace.
Whereas I am sure Apple will try this, it would be easier just to say F@ I am off to a PC. OSX isn't that much better than Windows 10, and the price/performance ratio will have us asking why we didn't do it earlier.
Apple knows very well that there's a market for a 4-6 core slotbox around $2500. Accounting for inflation, they've made no such a thing in 20 years. There were a few cheesegraters that were unusually good deals and hung around the very top end of acceptability for that market, but that was before they started getting higher performance out of iMacs. The last time they really made an expandability-focused machine that was meant for average users, it had a G4 processor.
They aren't going to start now - the Mac Pro is going to be priced (and powered) above at least the entry-level models of the iMac Pro, and every reasonable configuration of other iMacs.
They long ago decided that supporting random user-expanded hardware configurations wasn't worth the stability cost (and they like the Apple Tax's effect on the bottom line). They'll make some pro machines that offer somewhat more expansion, but they restrict them in various ways, including cost.
Part of it is just Apple Taxation, but a big part of it is system stability. For a long time, Windows 2000 was the most stable Windows ever built (some versions of Windows 7 finally exceeded it, and Windows 10 may in some configurations). XP never came close, despite being an extension of 2000.
What was Windows 2000's secret? It had limited hardware compatibility and games wouldn't run! A big part of what causes Windows to be less stable than the Mac is that Microsoft has to accommodate three things that Apple refuses to. One is not directly relevant to this discussion - super-cheap hardware - Windows has to run on $300 laptops, and Apple won't touch them. Windows 2000 wouldn't either, eliminating their instability.
The other two are directly relevant to why Apple won't build a slotbox, and both have to do with gaming. One is that gamer-focused hardware is inherently less stable than the workstation hardware that Apple prefers. It's built to a lower price point, and it's pushed harder, run closer to the edge. Apple's video driver for AMD chips is much less feature-laden than AMD's Windows driver for the same chips (the Apple driver is closer to AMD's workstation driver) but it's more stable. Apple could write something like that for NVidia, but they don't especially want to, and they don't want to support a gaming driver NVidia might write. It's easier to GeForce-proof their lineup than to support GeForces in a stable way.
DirectX and other pieces added to Windows specifically to support games have historically been a big part of Windows' instability (even beyond hardware and drivers), and Apple has dealt with this by making few concessions to games over the years. If they build a machine that is more attractive to gamers, they'll get more pressure to support games at the OS level. They don't hate games, but they do hate what games do to system stability.
They aren't going to start now - the Mac Pro is going to be priced (and powered) above at least the entry-level models of the iMac Pro, and every reasonable configuration of other iMacs.
They long ago decided that supporting random user-expanded hardware configurations wasn't worth the stability cost (and they like the Apple Tax's effect on the bottom line). They'll make some pro machines that offer somewhat more expansion, but they restrict them in various ways, including cost.
Part of it is just Apple Taxation, but a big part of it is system stability. For a long time, Windows 2000 was the most stable Windows ever built (some versions of Windows 7 finally exceeded it, and Windows 10 may in some configurations). XP never came close, despite being an extension of 2000.
What was Windows 2000's secret? It had limited hardware compatibility and games wouldn't run! A big part of what causes Windows to be less stable than the Mac is that Microsoft has to accommodate three things that Apple refuses to. One is not directly relevant to this discussion - super-cheap hardware - Windows has to run on $300 laptops, and Apple won't touch them. Windows 2000 wouldn't either, eliminating their instability.
The other two are directly relevant to why Apple won't build a slotbox, and both have to do with gaming. One is that gamer-focused hardware is inherently less stable than the workstation hardware that Apple prefers. It's built to a lower price point, and it's pushed harder, run closer to the edge. Apple's video driver for AMD chips is much less feature-laden than AMD's Windows driver for the same chips (the Apple driver is closer to AMD's workstation driver) but it's more stable. Apple could write something like that for NVidia, but they don't especially want to, and they don't want to support a gaming driver NVidia might write. It's easier to GeForce-proof their lineup than to support GeForces in a stable way.
DirectX and other pieces added to Windows specifically to support games have historically been a big part of Windows' instability (even beyond hardware and drivers), and Apple has dealt with this by making few concessions to games over the years. If they build a machine that is more attractive to gamers, they'll get more pressure to support games at the OS level. They don't hate games, but they do hate what games do to system stability.
I think Apple will have their own primary video cards.
I doubt they'd do something like push the Mac Pro primary boot SSD down to 256GB levels of capacity though. (i.e., where they start the MBP 15" ).
The shady part could fall into what isn't there. Only one internal storage would be be highly shady and push folks into buying more capacity at Apple's far higher than market rate pricing. I suspect if they provide an option for a 2nd (or 3rd) internal drive that they will more likely land on the 'shady" side of requiring people buy more than the smallest amounts. ( 512GB instead of 256GB as the minimal threshold since additional capacity will probably often go through 3rd party additions. )
The iMac Pro having to go to two NAND daugther cards is highly indicative that even Apple isn't fully drinking the single internal drive is good enough capacity for nearly everyone kool-aid. Even if the Mac Pro copies the two board set up I think there will be at least some other PCI-e SSD socket for additional capacity [ or some other capacity alternative inside].
Apple will get some, but the "many of use would likely choose higher options" are about as likely to want viable alternative paths also. At least partially. Will grumble at Apple boot drive but no other drives internal will make many just walk away. Same with primary video card. No other option at all (no empty standard slots at all) and many will just walk.
With Thunderbolt v3 it is too easy to add another SSD or Video card if the "up sell" leverage gets too crazy. [ At Mac SSD pricing for 2+TB of capacity it gets close to being cheaper to buy a external enclosure and 3rd party drive and still saves $50-100. ]
RAM will be similar since there won't be a rational reason the case won't come off ( as even the MP 2013's did).
Pushing the floor of the Mac Pro price up to $3,000 means Apple makes decent money on every Mac Pro sold. Digging in even deeper at some point is going to kill the product's long term viability more so raise more long term revenue. They can't get money from a dead cash cow. Starve your milk cow of food to save money, you eventually get to a point can't make any money.
I think the W-3175X release sheds at least some light on Mac Pro pricing. It's better news than I expected about the price of higher-end configurations. Even though it's a $3000 CPU, it's a rationally priced $3000 CPU that is around 50% faster (on applications that use all the cores) than Intel's $2000 CPU. It shows that Intel will be reasonable about Xeon-SP chips in single (and dual???) CPU applications like the Mac Pro - they won't insist on $10,000 pricing outside of 4 and 8 way server platforms.
I've always believed (for reasons outlined earlier) that the Mac Pro will use the big Xeon-SP socket and start with 12 (or so) cores, going up to 28, maybe even to dual-28 in an extreme high end configuration.
I suspect the base machine will be something like:
$6499
12-core Xeon-SP (something like 3.3 gHz base, 4.1 turbo)
48 GB RAM (6x8 - remember SP is 6-channel)
2 TB SSD (they may start at 1 TB, almost certainly not lower - the machine with 1 TB might be $5999 if offered)
Vega 64 or Radeon VII - in a slot, but not standard PC video card form factor)
Options will include:
16-core +$700
22-core +$1500
28-core +$2500-$3000
Possibly dual-22 core (~+$4500) and/or dual-28 core (~+$8000) options - there's no reason to do dual-12 or dual-16 core, because single chips with lots of cores are a better option. All CPUs will be fairly similarly clocked - it's going to be a matter of "choose your core count", similar to the iMac Pro.
RAM available with a significant Apple Tax (but you can also add your own), up to at least 192 GB, probably 384 GB or more.
SSD options
(2 TB +$700 if base is 1 TB)
4 TB +$1500 (from 2 TB)
8 TB +$4000 (from 2 TB)
It will only boot off of Apple-supplied SSDs due to the T2 (or T3) chip, but it may very well have NVMe slots for adding data SSDs.
GPUs will go well up the AMD line at the time, and there may well be dual-GPU options. It will probably be possible to upgrade the GPU after purchase (or add a second) with an Apple supplied AMD GPU. No luck on adding a GeForce, because the GPU will be linked to the TB3 ports and possibly an odd size, part of a liquid cooling loop or otherwise nonstandard.
One thing that will constrain maximum configurations is how much power is available from a US-standard 110-volt outlet. Apple doesn't want to build a Mac that won't plug in to a standard outlet throughout the world. A 15-amp 110v outlet is awfully close on a 1500 watt power supply (with a hyper-efficient power supply, it just might work because the voltage is over 100). Fortunately, 20-amp outlets are standard in commercial buildings, and easy enough to put in a home office - the circuit is probably already 20 amps. Even with a 20-amp outlet, you really don't want to use much more than a 1600 watt power supply (bigger supplies for cryptomining are almost always 230V).
The W3175X can draw 300 watts or more on its own, without overclocking (it's easy to overclock over 500 watts, but Apple doesn't overclock). The Radeon VII can also draw 300 watts. A dual CPU, dual GPU Mac Pro could need 1200 watts before other draws on the motherboard, storage or RAM... Looking awfully tight on that 1600 watt power supply. No dual CPU models? Or Apple gets really clever and puts the second CPU in a "sidecar" that needs extra power?
That would also mean that single-CPU machines (the vast majority of sales) didn't have expensive circuitry to support a second CPU.
I've always believed (for reasons outlined earlier) that the Mac Pro will use the big Xeon-SP socket and start with 12 (or so) cores, going up to 28, maybe even to dual-28 in an extreme high end configuration.
I suspect the base machine will be something like:
$6499
12-core Xeon-SP (something like 3.3 gHz base, 4.1 turbo)
48 GB RAM (6x8 - remember SP is 6-channel)
2 TB SSD (they may start at 1 TB, almost certainly not lower - the machine with 1 TB might be $5999 if offered)
Vega 64 or Radeon VII - in a slot, but not standard PC video card form factor)
Options will include:
16-core +$700
22-core +$1500
28-core +$2500-$3000
Possibly dual-22 core (~+$4500) and/or dual-28 core (~+$8000) options - there's no reason to do dual-12 or dual-16 core, because single chips with lots of cores are a better option. All CPUs will be fairly similarly clocked - it's going to be a matter of "choose your core count", similar to the iMac Pro.
RAM available with a significant Apple Tax (but you can also add your own), up to at least 192 GB, probably 384 GB or more.
SSD options
(2 TB +$700 if base is 1 TB)
4 TB +$1500 (from 2 TB)
8 TB +$4000 (from 2 TB)
It will only boot off of Apple-supplied SSDs due to the T2 (or T3) chip, but it may very well have NVMe slots for adding data SSDs.
GPUs will go well up the AMD line at the time, and there may well be dual-GPU options. It will probably be possible to upgrade the GPU after purchase (or add a second) with an Apple supplied AMD GPU. No luck on adding a GeForce, because the GPU will be linked to the TB3 ports and possibly an odd size, part of a liquid cooling loop or otherwise nonstandard.
One thing that will constrain maximum configurations is how much power is available from a US-standard 110-volt outlet. Apple doesn't want to build a Mac that won't plug in to a standard outlet throughout the world. A 15-amp 110v outlet is awfully close on a 1500 watt power supply (with a hyper-efficient power supply, it just might work because the voltage is over 100). Fortunately, 20-amp outlets are standard in commercial buildings, and easy enough to put in a home office - the circuit is probably already 20 amps. Even with a 20-amp outlet, you really don't want to use much more than a 1600 watt power supply (bigger supplies for cryptomining are almost always 230V).
The W3175X can draw 300 watts or more on its own, without overclocking (it's easy to overclock over 500 watts, but Apple doesn't overclock). The Radeon VII can also draw 300 watts. A dual CPU, dual GPU Mac Pro could need 1200 watts before other draws on the motherboard, storage or RAM... Looking awfully tight on that 1600 watt power supply. No dual CPU models? Or Apple gets really clever and puts the second CPU in a "sidecar" that needs extra power?
That would also mean that single-CPU machines (the vast majority of sales) didn't have expensive circuitry to support a second CPU.
Where I live in the US (CA Bay area), electrical codes prohibit long term loading a circuit at more than 75% of the breaker rating.
For a 15 amp 120 volt circuit, that's just under 1400 watts. How many power supplies have you seen over 1400 watts - not many for the mass market. There's a reason - you can't legally connect them to a 15 amp circuit.
For a 20 amp 120 volt circuit - that's 1800 watts. 20 amp circuits are pretty common in newer construction - but usually for kitchens and other rooms - not for the 3rd bedroom that you're using as an office.
Note that you can tell by looking at the outlet:
Most of my lab systems are on 380v three phase bus bars, so each single phase drop is 3.12Kw at 208v. No problems, and no housefires.
By apples logic, if the iPhone is now a thousand dollars, and the latest base iMac is 5k, then the 7,1 will cost around $12,000.
I know SF is expensive so Cook’s mentality on the value of money has to be a bit off, but apple really needs to make affordable computers that everyone can afford.
I know SF is expensive so Cook’s mentality on the value of money has to be a bit off, but apple really needs to make affordable computers that everyone can afford.