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.
pricing for new Mac Cylinder
- Thread starter cohen777
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
And look at our economy and then look at others where all "our" jobs went to and how their economies are booming. It's the greedy corporations and government that allows outsourcing of all jobs.
Check your History.... Base Model will be $2499.00 +
In 1984 the very first Mac, the Macintosh 128K was priced at $2495.00. This trend has continued for many years.
It doesn't matter what else you may need to make it a viable computer....
I'm aware, but given this machine's limitations (primarily the need for near $1000 external TB HDD extensions that would reproduce the HDD capacities in the current Mac Pro), I don't think it will sell well at ~$2500. This experiment will fail at that price.
Maybe it was an aberration in Apple's usual pricing, but the base-model Power Mac G4 400 "Sawtooth" I bought in 2000 cost $1,599. That was a great computer. I upgraded every upgradable component at least once and got 8 years out of it before giving it to my dad, who got another 2 years out of it before it died.
But I don't think the new Mac Pro will start at less than $2,495. It probably will only be that cheap if they offer lower-specced configurations than what they showed today.
Last edited:
Better question. As a percent of your yearly income, what is a reasonable about to spend on equipment for your business?
In most industries the capital/labor ratio is more than one. If you assume a median income in the US of about $50K then it is reaonable for a business, on average to spend about $50K per employee. Some business spend MUCH more. Like for example an automobile factory or a semi conductor fab like Intal. But even a plumber spends maybe $70K on a well equipped truck (the price of the truck, tools and parts inventory)
You right this off over a three year span so on average you can spend about 1/3 of a year' pay of the equipment, like video cameras and computers and software and so on. I small-time one-man outfit might spend 1/2 that. Either way we have a five digit budget for equipment.
Now if this is just a toy for surfing the web and iTunes then this Mac Pro is a waste. Even the iMac is over kill
----------
No, If you needs are light then the iMac is what you need. Or maybe even the Mini.
If you are making money with this computer then spending $12k is "cheap" if it can make $120K per year with it.
The cost of this is gong to be, like, 50% components, 30% Apple tax (R&D), and 10% assembly costs. So even a large difference in assembly costs won't make it much more expensive.
And I think people often overstate the US minium wage, and understate the wages in China which foreign companies end up paying.
And I think people often overstate the US minium wage, and understate the wages in China which foreign companies end up paying.
Typical rich fan boy comment maybe? So because we don't want or can drop $6,000 on a new computer we need to $tfu and go get the Mac Mini right?Nice.
No thanks, I'll stick to my 2009 Mac Pro with upgrades.
More like the iMac. Did you forget about that being between the pro and mini?
Pretty far off.
1. 12 Core CPU will likely be $1770+ ( probably higher. )
For the Xeon E5 "v1" the high end 8 cores were going for that high.
http://www.cpu-world.com/news_2012/2012030701_Intel_rolls_out_Xeon_E5-1600_and_E5-2600_CPUs.html
The Xeon E5 v2 will have 10 core models at approximately the 8 core prices. The 12 cores are going to costs more than those; not less.
However, hugely unlikely that the 12 core model is a base configuration. It will be a BTO offering.
Not sure if Apple's design allows for the 130W TDP of the E5 1600 models .... If so it will start off with a E5 1620 v2. If not may start with the E5 2620 v2 ( but that is going to have a pretty lame base clock speed).
I'm not sure how well the single fan works to cool everything. It may allow for the 1600's to be used and the 2600's are just strictly BTO. However, if there is a TDP limit Apple will use the 2600's ( they are lower , 95W, because they are intended to be used in pairs. )
2. Extremely doubtful going to come with same storage as have now in standard config. It is going to be higher than rMBP standards though ( in part to keep base system price higher ).
So probably 512GB. 1TB will be an option but not default. Maybe 256GB is Apple feels they can charge much higher for the "next generation" PCI-e implementation ( really mean SATA Express? ). You are paying for "super duper speed" not capacity.
3. They said FirePro AMD's.... FirePro 7000's go for 699 each in the Windows world. Throw on top Apple boot ROM "tax" and proprietary, completey custom daughtercard instead of normal PCI-e card reference design..... Probably at least $799 if not $899.
For $1200 probabl looking at FirePro 5000's with mark-up to to $600 (from windows price of $429).
4. Probably only 8 ( 4 x 2GB ) of RAM in standard config. They'll fill all four slots because 4 memory controllers. However it will be with smallest DIMMs acceptable... which has probably moved to 2GB at this point. They may goose that to 4GB if need to boost base system prices. (it would be a better fit)
Depends on what the minimal dual GPU set up is but either $2,099 or the same old $2,499.
But Apple computers aren't the only option. So all these arguements about what's "worth it" are moot if they don't take into account the compition. If I can get a Z220 for $1500 that can do everything the new $3000 Mac Pro can do, then it doesn't make sense to but the Mac Pro from a strictly business choice perspective. Now if "cool" is worth $1500 to you, so be it, I won't stop you from spending your money.
I think you're right. Although I think that is about $500 or $600 too much for this machine. But that also is a trend of Apple's for many years going.
And wallysb01, really? Apple take into account the competition? Like that's gonna happen...
It is probably more so a matter of priorities. Macs are priced relative to Macs first. ( and relative to iPad at the bottom edge ).
After that they take into account competition.
Otherwise going to get Apples-to-Oranges comparisons leaking in.
For instance.
The z220 leverages i7 and Xeon E3 CPU infrastructure. That is really an competitor of the iMac. Can say that it isn't but from a Mac product line up perspective it is. If don't fixate on the integrated display on the iMac it clearly is.
Sure there are folks who want buy it because it isn't a "box with slots". But that isn't the Mac Pro's problem. That's the iMac's problem. That is one reason the iMac needed desktop processors (Which it got over time). Entry-Mid range like GPU options (which it got over time ) and PCI-e expansion (which it got over time).
If the z220 can do what the $3000 Mac can do it is in far more trouble because of the iMac (with very similar infrastructure) than the z220.
Business is business, I'd be more likely to pay an outrageous and unwarranted price for a vanity or luxury personal system. I have occasionally done that a few times over the years, but not for business. It has to make sense otherwise it's a waste, not an investment. This kind of purchasing (poor "cost vs benefit ratio") can lead to a weak or failing business, but hey, you'll look cool when selling off your fancy equipment.
On the other hand, it could be the perfect product for your particular needs. There will be people in that category. I can see how this could turn out to be a good move for lots of people.
Last edited:
It all depends on how they are configured. If the dual GPUs come standard, and they're what Apple demoed, you're looking at 2 W9000s, which currently run between $3k - $4k apiece. Add on a Xeon CPU, ECC memory, and a proprietary PCIe SSD, you'd be lucky to get anything south of $4,999, even without the top of the line graphics.
----------
The TDP for the GPUs Apple talked about today is over 500W. Wouldn't that imply 50W for CPU wouldn't be a big deal?
----------
The TDP for the GPUs Apple talked about today is over 500W. Wouldn't that imply 50W for CPU wouldn't be a big deal?
I think the base model is gonna have:
The Big Mac
will cost around $ 12999,-
and a lot of configs in between.
- 6 Core Intel Ivy EP
- 16GB RAM
- 2x AMD FirePro W5000
- 512GB Flash
The Big Mac
- 12 Core Intel Ivy EP
- 128GB RAM
- 2x AMD FirePro W9000
- 2x1024GB Flash
will cost around $ 12999,-
and a lot of configs in between.
That upper config would cost more than that I'd think. 32GB modules are upwards of $1,000 apiece I believe. Those GPUs run north of $6,000. The flash will set you back a few grand. And the IVY EP 12 core is probably a few grand as well.
Too bad they don't offer to have either a dual CPU or dual GPU config. Some people need one more than the other. It would make it much more flexible.
Apple's motivation for pricing structures and how a consumer should shop are two different things. Its not Apples-to-Oranges if they systems both will get your specific job done in the same amount of time.
But the difference between the E3 and E5-1600s are not great to nonexistent for many workloads a SP system would encounter, especially when the E3 is a generation ahead (assuming we're talking about in 6 months when the new Mac Pro is released). The difference also shrinks if Apple makes it difficult to impossible to put much RAM in an E5 machine.
Now the $1500 thing was a bit of an exaggeration, if you're trying to spec out the exact same machine. Now I know you can't because of the E3/E5 thing, but I'm thinking along the lines of GPUs/SSD/HDD and what ever else needed to get your job done. Particularly, if these two AMD FirePro graphics cards are adding a lot of cash just to drive TB when most users could simply use the Z220s 3 HDD bays instead, then that certainly shifts the discussion for similar hardware spec to similar job capabilities.
So, right now, I have a hard time seeing how this Mac Pro keeps up dollar for dollar if the base price starts at $2499. At the bottom end it looks out competed in $/performance by E3s (and at bottom end is where $/performance matters most). Especially, if it has to use something like the 2620 instead of the 1620 because of heat as you have mentioned. And remember the 2620s are also ~$100 more than the 1620. Then at the top end, assuming its using something like the 2687W being used, its out competed by standard DP systems equipped with, for example, 2x 2640, 6+ SATA 6 ports, you know the rest.
Last edited:
quite unlikely since apple's marketing page list the specs as "up to ... 8TFLOPs" and "up to ... 12 cores ". There is no way the W9000 is the standard base GPUs. Even without the "up to..." phrasing it doesn't allow for a "good" , "better" , "best" range of standard offerings.
The entry Xeon unit is likely in the $300-400 range + 8 GB RAM + PCIe SSD isn't going to come anywhere near $4,999.
Frankly, except for the fully tricked out W9000 option that the vast majority of the new Mac Pro line up likely will come in below $3499-3699. ( or whatever the old single package "best" price was.).
One of the Mac Pro problems has been price drift up. There is no way (unless they want another NeXT Cube , Mac Cube debacle) that standard prices are going to climb > $3,000.
There isn't any more effective way to kill off the product long term than to keep juicing the price higher.
Personally, I don't think you are going to be allowed to make any CPU option when go dual W9000. [ I also suspect that these will be slightly downclocked W9000s ]. It is going to be a big deal if at the upper boundary if what one fan can do. So I don't think they have designed gobs of headroom into their thermal solution. If at the upper limits then 50W will be a big deal to trying to do long, sustained computations.
This system has all the appearances of probably getting into same kind of problems the old iMacs used to get into if tasked very hard.
You mean getting hot enough to fry an egg when running safari and iTunes at the same time?
I don't really get the gnashing of teeth when it comes to having to spend a bit of money on fast external storage. I thought all of the people interested in spending a couple of thousand dollars on a workstation would be running a business, not editing their holiday videos. If you're concerned about the cable hell that you'll have to deal with, then I agree and I am not happy about it either.
swingerofbirch
macrumors 68040
I don't know about enough about the state of unions and manufacturing in the US to negate what you said, but do you know enough to state it as fact? I've worked for Apple in two different capacities in the US, both times as an independent contractor with almost no legal protections and certainly no union.