[Poll] Best guess as to price of base model 7,1 MP

[jameslmoser]

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.

Especially if they think they are a services company now.

 

[ssgbryan]

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)


That would also mean that single-CPU machines (the vast majority of sales) didn't have expensive circuitry to support a second CPU.

$3,000 is NOT a rational price for a 12 core processor, when you can get a 32 core processor for $1700.

Why on earth would anyone spend $6499 on a 12 core workstation in 2019? That is the same prices as a 32 Core AMD workstation w/128Gb ram, an 8Gb workstation class card (Team Red or Team Green).

 

[lowendlinux]

$3499 or $4099

depending on baseline config

 

[edanuff]

Just ordered one of the new Corsair Ones, would expect this to be in the same price range, so $3500 is the lowest I’d expect to see with the sweet spot configuration starting at $4500. That’s assuming this is something that is sold and serviced at Apple Stores. If it’s a BTO-only product for business customers, then starts higher.

 

[AidenShaw]

$3,000 is NOT a rational price for a 12 core processor, when you can get a 32 core processor for $1700.

... if you have embarrassingly parallel jobs to run, that is.

Most applications (and workflows) won't see much difference between 12 cores and 32 cores.

And, personally, I think that the "Intel Inside" sticker is worth $1300 to know that your processor is compatible with your applications. AMD CPUs are not completely compatible with Intel CPUs. (TSX, SGX, AVX-512...)

 

[danwells]

The processor that is $3000 is the 28-core, NOT the 12 core... A 12-core Xeon like the base Mac Pro will probably have is more of a $1000+ processor - but once you build a modular Mac Pro around it and add the Apple Tax, the whole system will be $6000 or so (seeing the $4999 Corsair One, it may be $5999 instead of $6499).

The top-end $4999 Corsair One is a vaguely similar system with a similar 12-core CPU to what I'm expecting to see from Apple at the bottom of the Mac Pro line, but:

It's not Xeon with ECC memory - that always carries some price premium

It has only 32 GB of RAM, either non-expandable or expandable only to 64 GB (the Mac Pro will start at 48 GB, expandable to something insane - most likely 384 GB)

No 10 GB Ethernet, No TB3

1 TB SSD - I wouldn't be at all surprised to see Apple start the Mac Pro with 2 TB. (I'm not counting the laptop hard drive in the Corsair as having any value).

Apple will claim their AMD GPU is similar to the RTX 2080ti in the Corsair - it may not be, especially for games, but they'll claim it is.

They'll justify at least another thousand, some of it Apple Tax - another part of the justification (which is real) is that the Corsair One is maxed out, while the Mac Pro will be just getting started.

 

[ssgbryan]

... if you have embarrassingly parallel jobs to run, that is.

Most applications (and workflows) won't see much difference between 12 cores and 32 cores.

And, personally, I think that the "Intel Inside" sticker is worth $1300 to know that your processor is compatible with your applications. AMD CPUs are not completely compatible with Intel CPUs. (TSX, SGX, AVX-512...)

In the 3d world, we do - our software is designed to use every core and every byte of ram we can throw at it.

All the way down to the software that is either free or for just a couple hundred dollars that they hobbyist market uses. I saw a nice jump in speed when I went from 8 to 12 cores.

The same can be said for software compatibility - there is nothing in my workflow that is "Intel Only". It isn't 2010 anymore.

 

[AidenShaw]

In the 3d world, we do - our software is designed to use every core and every byte of ram we can throw at it.

I didn't mean to demean embarrassingly parallel workflows - but to point out that many problems (or steps within problems) are inherently serial. If you need the results from "step A" to start "step B" - regardless of the number of cores available you can't start "step B" before "step A" completes.

I think that some of the "core count queens" here think that only developer laziness is in the way of exploiting 64 thread CPUs.

All the way down to the software that is either free or for just a couple hundred dollars that they hobbyist market uses. I saw a nice jump in speed when I went from 8 to 12 cores.

Of course an embarrassing parallel problem is fairly easy to scale with more cores - even with open source or cheap software.

And some of the context here is around 32 to 64 threads, not 8 to 12.

The same can be said for software compatibility - there is nothing in my workflow that is "Intel Only". It isn't 2010 anymore.

On the other hand, if your software is "runs on anything" - most likely it isn't able to use any advanced features of newer hardware.

We recently changed the optimization for most of our in-house apps to use AVX-2, because we saw a big improvement. Any system without AVX-2 (whether older Intel or AMD) was eWasted.

 

[pmau]

You cannot guess Apple prices based on specs.
Look at the high-end MacBook Pro and the high-end iMac Pro.
Apple will tell you these are "amazing", with $5000 or $7500 price tags in reasonable configurations.
Therefore the Mac Pro will cost $6000 minimum, with specs nobody wants.
My guess is a price around $8500 for something reasonable.
All from Apples point of view, obviously.
Because it is "Pro", "versatile" and "the best Mac Pro we ever made".

 

[AidenShaw]

Because it is "Pro", "versatile" and "the best Mac Pro we ever made".

Does this mean that Apple will compare it to the cMP 5,1?

It won't be hard to be better than the nMP 6,1.

 

[pmau]

Does this mean that Apple will compare it to the cMP 5,1

Do you remember the keynote for the 2016 TouchBar MacBook Pro?

They could not even put a 2014 Retina Model on the screen, the compared it to a really old MacBook for nostalgia.
Why? Because it had no ports.

The same will happen to the new MacPro.
They will dig up some really old PowerPC to tell you about the "history", so you cannot count USB Ports or look for external storage options besides TB3.
[doublepost=1549229655][/doublepost]I want to say something. That has been bothering me for years.

When the iMac Pro came out, MKBHD made a video, saying that it was already on his desk for a few weeks and he wasn't allowed to talk about it.

Then he told you that it is amazing and starts at $5000, without revealing that he got a 10 core Xeon with 128GB ECC memory from Apple.

That thing cost over $10k, and he never lost a word about it.
We will see all the Grubers and Richies come out and tell us Apple finally listened and NAILED IT.

Since 2016 and the horrible MacBooks, the pricing of the iMac Pro and the outstanding iPhone XS / Max reveal, I do no longer care.

 

[ssgbryan]

I didn't mean to demean embarrassingly parallel workflows - but to point out that many problems (or steps within problems) are inherently serial. If you need the results from "step A" to start "step B" - regardless of the number of cores available you can't start "step B" before "step A" completes.

I think that some of the "core count queens" here think that only developer laziness is in the way of exploiting 64 thread CPUs.

Of course an embarrassing parallel problem is fairly easy to scale with more cores - even with open source or cheap software.

And some of the context here is around 32 to 64 threads, not 8 to 12.


On the other hand, if your software is "runs on anything" - most likely it isn't able to use any advanced features of newer hardware.

We recently changed the optimization for most of our in-house apps to use AVX-2, because we saw a big improvement. Any system without AVX-2 (whether older Intel or AMD) was eWasted.

And if I don't use "Advanced Instruction Set "X" - so what? Why does OSX use SSE-2 instruction set? So you can't upgrade 1,1 and 2,1 Mac Pros. The problem is that everybody here wants to define "pro" as whatever it is they do. If your workflow doesn't need a lot of cores, get a low core machine.

But demanding that system top out with Intel means that any workflow that is core based is yet another group that is dumping Macs for Windows boxes. I still haven't figured out how anyone can do a TCO analysis and still pay for Intel boxes.