The Mac Pro is basically the Apple Cube

[MMcCraryNJ]

I couldn't agree more. It lacks any form of internal expansion (People talk about Thunderbolt as if it's a magic fix. It's a bandwidth-limited compromise and that's like Batman talking about money as if it was a superpower).

The CPU-only performance is rapidly becoming slower than the higher end i7-based offerings in the Macbook Pro and iMac range unless you go high end, then used 2012 Mac Pros that DO offer vast internal expansion are available still in the used market that spank all but the 12 core model.

It's rediculously over-priced no matter what manipulative figures someone cooks up by adding displays etc... to artifically inflate the cost. I was expecting it to be cheaper than it was by a huge margin due to the lack of internal expansion and the cost/compromise of Thunderbolt only solutions to make up for it.

As it is, it's a video-orientated workstation that's of little use to a lot of people the previous Mac Pro was perfect for unless they have money to burn.

Ever hear the phrase, "Can't see the forest for the trees?". That applies to your statement.

As the post above states, all internal and external expansion is bandwidth-limited. 20Gbps is actually overkill for most PCIe peripherals aside from GPUs. Nearly any PCIe device that you'd buy to put into a TB2 chassis would work just as well. Video capture cards, Audio interfaces, Pro Tools HDX cards. As long as it works on OS X, you're good.

And I think you're exaggerating quite a bit on the CPU performance. One benchmark number does not tell the entire story. Just as much, you and many others here fail to realize that there is such a thing as a "thermal constraint" when dealing with computers. The MBP and iMac CPUs are extremely thermally constrained because of their enclosures. You simply cannot use large amounts of processing power for long periods of time on these systems without the chips scaling back so they don't overheat. So, while you can look at one benchmark and say, "Hey, this Haswell Core i7 in my MBP is slightly faster than a 4c nMP! What a waste of money for that machine. Hardy har har, who would spend more money for a slower chip?", the guy who has a nMP and does 8-10 hours straight of processor intensive work is still humming along nicely, while your system would A. Be a hot, loud mess at that point and B. Be scaling back your CPU capabilities so you don't melt its lifespan out. If you cannot take advantage of a system that won't scale you down due to heat, then simply, the Mac Pro is not for you.

And it's not overpriced either. Sorry, but that's an opinion based on wrong facts.

 

[barkmonster]

I should have clarified that Thunderbolt is MORE bandwidth-limited than PCIe. Reading it back a few hours later, I was being a little vague

As far as cost is concerned, there's literally no excuse for a £400 price-hike over the 2012 model. GPUs of limited use and PCIe flash don't account for such a ludicrous starting price. If it was more reasonably priced, like £2000 AT MOST for the 6 core as the entry level and 16Gb instead of 12 it would be far more worth the asking price.

 

[MacVidCards]

Any internal peripheral you would add to a tower, you can add via TB.

GPU?

Aside from missing drivers to do so, it would have 1/8 of a PCIE 3.0 16 lane bus on TB2.

 

[barkmonster]

GPU?

Aside from missing drivers to do so, it would have 1/8 of a PCIE 3.0 16 lane bus on TB2.

That's the point I was making (badly)

I'd get a used 12 core 2012 model and add a dual drive SSD PCIe card and a USB 3.0 card over a 2013 model. Companies are offering them with warranties that beat or match either new or AppleCare for as little as £1,600 for something as fast and more expandable than the hex-core 2013 one.

 

[iBug2]

It holds half of theCPU upgrade options a Dual CPU machine would have. And as a result half the RAM. It is a watered down machine, just like Cube. Making excuses for it won't make it faster.

Yes but today getting twice as many CPU's or cores is much less important compared to 2002. In 2002 using a dual CPU machine meant that you would double up your performance in almost all directions. I had a single 500 G4 and then bought a dual 500 G4. The performance was incomparable. Right now I have a 6 core Mac Pro, getting a 12 core wouldn't do anything for me.

So it's not the same limitation as before.

----------

The way you describe it this sounds pretty much like the new Mac Pro. It's a single cpu machine, while with the old design dual cpu machines were possible.

The only difference now is that the dual cpu machine is no longer available.

No, the main difference is that dual cpu machines are less important today for the people Apple is selling to.

 

[barkmonster]

Yes but today getting twice as many CPU's or cores is much less important compared to 2002. In 2002 using a dual CPU machine meant that you would double up your performance in almost all directions. I had a single 500 G4 and then bought a dual 500 G4. The performance was incomparable. Right now I have a 6 core Mac Pro, getting a 12 core wouldn't do anything for me.

So it's not the same limitation as before.

----------



No, the main difference is that dual cpu machines are less important today for the people Apple is selling to.

In the G4 days, a dual CPU was a huge boost. I upgraded my 800Mhz 2002 QS to a dual 800Mhz CPU board pulled from the 2001 model and it was night and day faster. I think for my uses, a fast quad with hyperthreading or a hex/12 core single Xeon would be fine because I've moved my media storage externally and any new system is a USB 3.0/Firewire 800 cable + Migration Assistant away from being a simple drop in replacement for my current one (which is a tie over for financial reasons).

I know from looking at activity monitor when my CPU is pinned that the software I use will take full advantage of as many cores I throw at it but I also know that my options these days are wider than they've ever been.

Hyperthreading and Turbo Boost makes vast numbers of cores less of a boost when the current 2.6Ghz i7 Mac Mini, a future Mac Mini based on the 2.8Ghz Haswell i7s from the Retina Macbook Pro, a used 2012 12-core 2.66Ghz Mac Pro or the 6-core 2013 Mac Pro are all viable options because they offer a 4x, 6x, 10x or 8x improvement in CPU power with a minimum of double the 8Gb maximum RAM of my current system regardless of whether all those cores are virtual or physical.

 

[chaosbunny]

Yes but today getting twice as many CPU's or cores is much less important compared to 2002. In 2002 using a dual CPU machine meant that you would double up your performance in almost all directions. I had a single 500 G4 and then bought a dual 500 G4. The performance was incomparable. Right now I have a 6 core Mac Pro, getting a 12 core wouldn't do anything for me.

So it's not the same limitation as before.

----------



No, the main difference is that dual cpu machines are less important today for the people Apple is selling to.

So you believe if there was the base new single processor Mac Pro for € 3000,- and a new, current dual processor Mac Pro for € 3500,- people would buy the single core one?

Why even use i7s in the laptops? Most people using them will not notice the difference between an i7 and a Core2Duo, right?

Maybe you are right, or maybe Apples target audience will think more cores will make them post "lol" on facebook faster.

 

[ixxx69]

GPU?

Aside from missing drivers to do so, it would have 1/8 of a PCIE 3.0 16 lane bus on TB2.

You're looking a little too hard to find things to disagree with.

I had already addressed CPU/GPU/RAM upgradeability in that post... by peripherals, I was referring to just about anything else (RAID, interface cards, etc.).

That aside, don't get stuck in the past. The entire hardware landscape is going to change over the next decade.

 

[MacVidCards]

If you mean "most" or "some of" don't use the word "any".

TB has bandwidth limits that the "yay ra!" crowd likes glossing over.

Point being " Most internal peripherals you would add to a tower, you can add via TB." is both more accurate and less impressive.

 

[simonmet]

Having owned/used the Cube and G4 iMac both were amazing machines with fantastic design and personality. Whether it was the sexy and "lighter than air" chrome arm in the iMac or its clear and white plastic that hearkens back to 70s retro design trends, to the fan-less Cube with it's touch-sensitive glowing power button (something Apple has never implemented again) they were lust-inducing statements from Ive in his heyday.

The latest iMac, though utilitarian just doesn't seem to have any of the personality of these previous computers. About the only thing that would get me interested in an iMac again was if it returned to the lampshade design.

The new Mac Pro is definitely a return to form of sorts.

 

[iBug2]

So you believe if there was the base new single processor Mac Pro for € 3000,- and a new, current dual processor Mac Pro for € 3500,- people would buy the single core one?

Single Processor for 3000$ and DP for 3500 at the same frequency? Exactly twice as many cores for only 500$? I'd say go for DP. But with Intel's prices today we know that's not possible. Just look at the price of the 12 core. It's around 3000$. So yes, I think if Apple offered a 24 core Mac Pro with DP's at 13000$, it would be more like a collector's item.

Why even use i7s in the laptops? Most people using them will not notice the difference between an i7 and a Core2Duo, right?

Both MacBook Airs and Pro's ship with i5 default. i7 is optional. You buy the i7 if your work depends on hyperthreading. If you are just browsing facebook and opt for the i7, then you are doing something wrong. And for many professionals, their MacBook Pro's are their primary work machines, so there certainly is a demand for high powered processors in laptops.

 

[AidenShaw]

Single Processor for 3000$ and DP for 3500 at the same frequency? Exactly twice as many cores for only 500$? I'd say go for DP. But with Intel's prices today we know that's not possible. Just look at the price of the 12 core. It's around 3000$. So yes, I think if Apple offered a 24 core Mac Pro with DP's at 13000$, it would be more like a collector's item.

You miss the simple fact that a dual socket machine can get twelve cores with dual six-core chips - for far cheaper than twelve cores in a single socket system.

• two E5-2630V2 six core 2.6 GHz @ $612 = $1224
• one E5-2697V2 twelve core 2.7 GHz @$2614

Simply do the math. Dual socket is twice as much memory, twice as many PCIe 3.0 lanes, less than half the price for the same number of cores. Win-Win-Win!

 

[iBug2]

You miss the simple fact that a dual socket machine can get twelve cores with dual six-core chips - for far cheaper than twelve cores in a single socket system.

• two E5-2630V2 six core 2.6 GHz @ $612 = $1224
• one E5-2697V2 twelve core 2.7 GHz @$2614

Simply do the math. Dual socket is twice as much memory, twice as many PCIe 3.0 lanes, less than half the price for the same number of cores. Win-Win-Win!

You would be correct if the dual socket machines consisted of buying another CPU and gluing it to the empty space inside the cabinet. Even if the cost of the extra processor is only 600$, the DP machine would obviously cost a lot more than that, simply going by the prices before.

Here are the prices of the 2010 Mac Pro's.
$2,499 (SP 2.8 GHz)
$3,499 (DP 2.4 GHz)
$4,999 (DP 2.66 GHz)

Dual 2.4 was using processors that cost 390$, SP 2.8 was using a 300$ processor. So the CPU cost difference between the two machines would be 480$. But the actual price difference is 1000$ and other than 3GB's of memory which did cost around 40$, the two machines did not differ in hardware. 500$ was the cost of DP design.

 

[AidenShaw]

You would be correct if the dual socket machines consisted of buying another CPU and gluing it to the empty space inside the cabinet. Even if the cost of the extra processor is only 600$, the DP machine would obviously cost a lot more than that, simply going by the prices before.

Here are the prices of the 2010 Mac Pro's.
$2,499 (SP 2.8 GHz)
$3,499 (DP 2.4 GHz)
$4,999 (DP 2.66 GHz)

Dual 2.4 was using processors that cost 390$, SP 2.8 was using a 300$ processor. So the CPU cost difference between the two machines would be 480$. But the actual price difference is 1000$ and other than 3GB's of memory which did cost around 40$, the two machines did not differ in hardware.

You have a good point - I didn't add the "dual-socket tax". Dell's dual-socket workstations do hit about $1K more than the single socket ones.

So, it's "twice the memory, twice the PCIe 3.0 lanes, and $400 cheaper for the processors".

 

[iBug2]

You have a good point - I didn't add the "dual-socket tax". Dell's dual-socket workstations do hit about $1K more than the single socket ones.

So, it's "twice the memory, twice the PCIe 3.0 lanes, and $400 cheaper for the processors".

For that configuration yes. If we wanted to design a DP machine with two 4 core CPU's, it'd cost more than a single 8 core machine after the DP tax. So it all depends on Intel's prices at different core counts and frequencies.

 

[MacVidCards]

For that configuration yes. If we wanted to design a DP machine with two 4 core CPU's, it'd cost more than a single 8 core machine after the DP tax. So it all depends on Intel's prices at different core counts and frequencies.

Keep making excuses, it's really entertaining.

ie, there is NO use example where having FEWER upgrade options is a better value

(if you could choose whether to use 2 @ 6 core vs 1 @ 12 core or 2 @ 4 core vs 1 @ 8 core like it has been for some time)

but by all means keep trying

 

[gnasher729]

They said, hey remember the Apple Cube? well just make it a cylinder and sell it again. Maybe it'll work this time

Nothing but click-bait.

Apple Cube was a very nice design, not very powerful, a bit expensive, and unfortunately released just at the beginning of a recession.

Mac Pro is the most powerful workstation that you can buy for any money, with tons of extensibility.

Comparing the two is beyond stupid.

 

[foodog]

There are lots of people who use Mac Pros for their private businesses and "mak[e] money with them" that cannot afford to upgrade because of the costs associated with having to adopt all TB peripherals.

I'm glad to see that people on Mac Rumors are so well off that they can either afford to have the big company they work for pay for these things, or that their own businesses are capable of absorbing such costs.

Its an expense like any other business expense. You justify spending that much money by how much profit you make. If your revenue isn't high enough to afford the MP and your required peripherals, it may be you don't really need that much power. I didn't always use a MP.

 

[Neodym]

there is NO use example where having FEWER upgrade options is a better value

Actually there is: While choice is nice, you pay for it through higher logistics cost, greater variety in material stocks and its management (economies of scale do also apply here), additional cost for development, testing and maintenance for each additional SKU, additional developing time etc. All of this is reflected in product prices and update schedules.

From a customer point of view, more choice seems desirable, but with limited resources (yes even Apple's resources are limited) a company can only spend so much on each individual product (variation). From a company pov the ideal is a single product without any upgrade options. Thus as a company you always have to make compromises to satisfy the customer (who may prefer to have all options available on the market).

You could argue whether Apple has the right balance between too much and too little choice, but it's not true that having more upgrade options is always a better value.

 

[beaker7]

Mac Pro is the most powerful workstation that you can buy for any money,

Please tell us you don't actually believe this.

 

[Major Reeves]

I'm actually wondering if Apple doesn't have a propaganda squad that comes into these forums just to dismiss/troll all critique of whatever they put out.

As for the comparison between the "crippled" Mac Pro and the Cube. It is simple, the Cube was a compromised PowerMac, as for the "crippled" Mac Pro I think the "cripple" moniker speaks for itself.

 

[handsome pete]

Mac Pro is the most powerful workstation that you can buy for any money, with tons of extensibility.

That's not even remotely true.

 

[Redneck1089]

Its an expense like any other business expense. You justify spending that much money by how much profit you make. If your revenue isn't high enough to afford the MP and your required peripherals, it may be you don't really need that much power. I didn't always use a MP.

Or maybe by purchasing such an expensive machine you can hope that your revenue will increase by the increase in productivity. Now it's harder to make that gamble.

 

[Neodym]

That's not even remotely true.

Locked-in syndrome of the OP...

 

[iBug2]

(if you could choose whether to use 2 @ 6 core vs 1 @ 12 core or 2 @ 4 core vs 1 @ 8 core like it has been for some time)

You actually never had such a choice. Apple only sold one 12 core Mac Pro and one 8 core Mac Pro. I think you are thinking about Dell.