MP All Models The Mac Pro Paradox

[GoGrater]

If you're looking for a bargain high powered mac, the mini is where its at right now

• CPU clocks reasonably high, is a 6 core
• Can add a monster GPU (or several of them) via thunderbolt 3 enclosures.
• Can stick 64 GB of RAM in it
• Can hook up plenty of external storage via either thunderbolt or 10 gig ethernet
• No monitor tax for a display you probably don't need or want (looking at you, iMac pro - which starts at $7299 AU locally)

Sure, its not as nice as a Mac Pro 7,1, but its a fraction of the cost and will get a lot of the performance.

If 64 GB and an external high end GPU is not good enough then unfortunately you need to pay the price...


Here in Australia, the entry price to the mac pro is about $10k AU. For 256 GB SSD, an 8 core and a freakin' RX580. That spec should not exist, it makes no sense putting a $200 GPU inside of a $10k machine. Ditto for cheaping out with $50-100 worth of SSD.

If you want any sort of "high end mac mini plus GPU in a box" beating spec (in all things) you're looking at *at least* 16k Aussie (8 core, 96 GB + RAM, 1TB SSD and a single Vega II GPU).

Thanks for the tips. I will have a look at the mini and other alternatives. You know, I thought 32 GB RAM would be plenty, but recently while working on a big Photoshop file, I ran out of scratch disk. Closed all applications and restarted Photoshop, but it didn't help. Camera Raw files keep getting bigger too. I don't need a high end GPU, but you're correct I need to figure out if 64 GB RAM is going to be enough.

 

[handheldgames]

Thanks for the tips. I will have a look at the mini and other alternatives. You know, I thought 32 GB RAM would be plenty, but recently while working on a big Photoshop file, I ran out of scratch disk. Closed all applications and restarted Photoshop, but it didn't help. Camera Raw files keep getting bigger too. I don't need a high end GPU, but you're correct I need to figure out if 64 GB RAM is going to be enough.

If you are short on memory, 3x16GB should cost around $60 on ebay.
If you want an updated workstation consider...

Compared to your current setup - geekbench 5:
$1900 w/tax mac mini w/ integrated video: single core @ 1.8x faster. multi-core @ 1.6x faster
External GPU chassis:$300 + Video card:$400
To get 64GB - add $260
Total Cost: ~ $2860

$2000 w/tax Ryzen 3900x w/ 5700xt: single core @ 1.95x faster multi core @ 3.52x faster
Includes 64GB ram, Max 128GB
Total Cost: ~ $2000

Comparing integrated video to a 5700xt - geekbench 5 open CL
mac mini with internal video: 5366
AMD 5700XT: 72502 - 13x faster than mac mini.

If you go with a mini and an eGPU, you are paying almost 50% more than a 12-core 3900x based system

 

[jameslmoser]

I see more people saying it's not a good value. That doesn't mean they can't afford it.

Exactly. I can afford it but I just can't justify it to myself. I spent more than that on my Mac Pro when I bought it new... but it wasn't the base model! For $6k the fact you get an RX580 and 256GB SSD is a joke.
[automerge]1583808510[/automerge]
For $1k less you get a 1tb ssd and vega 56, and a 5k display thrown in! =)

 

[ZombiePhysicist]

It's the enthusiasts stupid...

But apple doesn't get it, and the Mac press is happy to goose step "it aint for you" with their "deep analysis".

If you don't start screaming for cheaper version of the machine in the next iterations, you won't get it. Only when the screams get loud enough, does apple ever 'get' their mistakes. And surprise surprise, the press aint going to help.

 

[Blair Paulsen]

If Apple had gotten the 7,1 out the door a year earlier with roughly the same specs, I think we're having a different discussion. By the time they got their act together, alternatives had gotten faster and cheaper. Moreover, we've all been conditioned to pay up for the latest tech - when it's yesterdays silicon, not so much.

 

[mattspace]

Apple have offered expandable tower Macs since 1992 with Power PCs, so this form factor is far from 'niche' for Apple and it wasn't just used by high end professionals, but power users or anyone who wanted to be able to expand or customise their Mac to meet their needs.

Expandable tower macs predate PowerPC by years. The II-series - c, ci & Quadra 700 which were desktop or tower, depending on which side you sat it on, the mighty Quadra 840av, Quadra 9XX

 

[Schismz]

The cMP wasn't ultra 'niche' it was ubiquitous, especially in recording studios and creative media companies.

That's... ultra-niche. What created Apple's trillion dollar market cap -- now deflated by black swan event ;-) -- is the iCrap.

If you're a recording studio or creative media company which for some reason needs macOS for something, then why is the price a constraint? Again, it's a drop in the ocean compared to how much your other pro gear costs. I genuinely don't get it. It's an open box, it has slots, everything is replaceable in the future when it costs less; you're not obligated to buy the XDR with stand as fashion statement.

Apple have offered expandable tower Macs since 1992 with Power PCs, so this form factor is far from 'niche' for Apple and it wasn't just used by high end professionals, but power users or anyone who wanted to be able to expand or customise their Mac to meet their needs.

Right... and Apple hasn't released a single product for that demographic since 2010, it's been a decade since 5,1. That's epochs in computer time. Apple was still Apple Computer back then. It's 2020.

I'm happy Cheesegrater re-exists as an individual. For me, it's the Apple ][ of 2020, which costs about the same as my parents paid in late 1970s dollars, and it does a lot more without requiring shift-key mod or massive 16K RAM expansion ;-)

I'm happy with Apple as a shareholder; albeit I do wish they'd defrost one of Steve Jobs' clones and release something New and Revolutionary, 'cuz Apple run by the bean-counters is definitely a lot more boring. Somebody just needs to dose upper management with psychedelics, which are also being mainstreamed in 2020, go figure.

Anyway, it's an emotional issue I guess. Taking some medical MDMA which is in phase 3 clinical trials, I have empathy for your pain ... Apple doesn't really love you or care about you, it's just a really big company that wants your money. Shocking. It doesn't get your money via the Mac Pro.

At the end of the day... to reiterate: I think this was it. Apple listens to exactly what everybody said they wanted, which was the Cheesegrater. Very few people buy it or notice that it exists. Apple goes back to sleep for half a decade until the clamor from those who need it grows louder and they update it again. I hope I'm wrong, but somehow I doubt it.

 

[flowrider]

The 2012 cMP started at $2499, so for Apple to start its replacement at $5999 is taking a liberty.

True, but the Base was a 4 core 2.8Ghz. The 8 core 2.4Ghz started at $3499. Adjusted for inflation, that would be $4140 today. But that machine had:

2.4Ghz CPU - New Machine has 3.5Ghz CPU

6GB DDR3-1066 RAM - New machine has 32 GB 2666 MHz DDR4

ATI Radeon HD 5770 1GB - New Machine has X580 Pro 8GB

I'll stop there.

Lou

 

[mattspace]

True, but the Base was a 4 core 2.8Ghz. The 8 core 2.4Ghz started at $3499. Adjusted for inflation, that would be $4140 today. But that machine had:

2.4Ghz CPU - New Machine has 3.5Ghz CPU

6GB DDR3-1066 RAM - New machine has 32 GB 2666 MHz DDR4

ATI Radeon HD 5770 1GB - New Machine has X580 Pro 8GB

I'll stop there.

Lou

you can't really justify spec growth however, because that's a rising tide on which everything has risen. the fundamental difference is there used to be a much lower entry point to a machine that had the same expandability (& whose expansion was of the same performance capacity) as the top of the range machine, and there was no serving of turd sandwich you had to eat to go along with it.

An unwanted built in monitor (iMac / iMac Pro), or needing to use eGPU (Mac Mini), these are both turd sandwiches you have to eat, if you don't pay the huge premium for what the Mac Pro is now.

 

[Michael Scrip]

The previous generations of the Mac Pro had starting prices of $2,500 and $3,000 and no one complained. Apple was fine with it... and customers were too.

But this generation jumped to the starting price of $6,000. That's quite an increase.

And not only is it more expensive to start... the included specs at that price aren't all that great. So that's two huge problems people have with their current offerings.

It's an insult to sell a $6,000 computer with a 256GB SSD and a mid-grade GPU, right?

So if the new Mac Pro kept the old starting price of $3,000 with the base 8-core, 32GB RAM, 256GB SSD, and 580X GPU... would that have been better?

I'm just struggling to figure out why this computer costs $6,000 to start...

 

[Abazigal]

The previous generations of the Mac Pro had starting prices of $2,500 and $3,000 and no one complained. Apple was fine with it... and customers were too.

But this generation jumped to the starting price of $6,000. That's quite an increase.

And not only is it more expensive to start... the included specs at that price aren't all that great. So that's two huge problems people have with their current offerings.

It's an insult to sell a $6,000 computer with a 256GB SSD and a mid-grade GPU, right?

So if the new Mac Pro kept the old starting price of $3,000 with the base 8-core, 32GB RAM, 256GB SSD, and 580X GPU... would that have been better?

I'm just struggling to figure out why this computer costs $6,000 to start...

My guess is the metal case, the power supply unit and the motherboard really do cost that much money. Apple also expects the Mac Pro to be a fairly low volume product, so that results in a higher fixed cost per unit sold.

The reason for the low starting specs is because you are expected to customise specs to your needs, and depending on your workflow, you won’t always need a high-end processor or GPU.

 

[defjam]

If you're a recording studio or creative media company which for some reason needs macOS for something, then why is the price a constraint? Again, it's a drop in the ocean compared to how much your other pro gear costs. I genuinely don't get it. It's an open box, it has slots, everything is replaceable in the future when it costs less; you're not obligated to buy the XDR with stand as fashion statement.

Despite repeated attempts at all of my employers I've never been able to sell management on buying something based on this reasoning.

 

[Michael Scrip]

My guess is the metal case, the power supply unit and the motherboard really do cost that much money. Apple also expects the Mac Pro to be a fairly low volume product, so that results in a higher fixed cost per unit sold.

But should those components double the price from the previous Mac Pro?

Apple is still targeting the same type of pro customer, right?

I know it's been 6 years between Mac Pro releases... but come on. Inflation isn't that high.

There's a big difference between "starting at $3,000" and "starting at $6,000"

And let's not forget that the Trashcan Mac Pro had all custom parts too... and it was also a low-volume product.

The reason for the low starting specs is because you are expected to customise specs to your needs, and depending on your workflow, you won’t always need a high-end processor or GPU.

Usually I'd agree with this sentiment. Companies typically offer a base model with base specs and you can go up from there. Lots of products follow this methodology.

However... this computer starts at $6,000... and then people should customize and add more to the cost?

The previous Trashcan Mac Pro didn't have much customizability or expandability. That was a huge complaint.

So when Apple finally goes back to the "box with slots" that people were begging for... it's double the price.

For years... Apple was able to offer a Mac Pro starting at $3,000.

But now you need $6,000 to get in the door. Something seems off with that.

Yes... you can add all sorts of things in the aftermarket... RAM, HDDs and SSDs, AMD GPUs, PCIe cards, etc. It's the Mac Pro that people have wanted since the troubled Trashcan Mac Pro.

But that $6,000 entry price is killer.

 

[ZombiePhysicist]

But should those components double the price from the previous Mac Pro?

Apple is still targeting the same type of pro customer, right?

I know it's been 6 years between Mac Pro releases... but come on. Inflation isn't that high.

There's a big difference between "starting at $3,000" and "starting at $6,000"

And let's not forget that the Trashcan Mac Pro had all custom parts too... and it was also a low-volume product.



Usually I'd agree with this sentiment. Companies typically offer a base model with base specs and you can go up from there. Lots of products follow this methodology.

However... this computer starts at $6,000... and then people should customize and add more to the cost?

The previous Trashcan Mac Pro didn't have much customizability or expandability. That was a huge complaint.

So when Apple finally goes back to the "box with slots" that people were begging for... it's double the price.

For years... Apple was able to offer a Mac Pro starting at $3,000.

But now you need $6,000 to get in the door. Something seems off with that.

Yes... you can add all sorts of things in the aftermarket... RAM, HDDs and SSDs, AMD GPUs, PCIe cards, etc. It's the Mac Pro that people have wanted since the troubled Trashcan Mac Pro.

But that $6,000 entry price is killer.

Yea, and why most Mac Pro users think it's a failure on arrival:

Is the new 7,1 Mac Pro a failure on arrival

The 7,1 cheese grater will arrive with a maximum of 28 cores and PCIe 3.0 in a market selling 64core (and even intel has 56core chips now) PCIe 4.0 machines. It's been over 5 months since the announcement and still nothing. By the time the machine ships we may see PCIe 5.0 mother boards. In...

forums.macrumors.com

 

[Michael Scrip]

Yea, and why most Mac Pro users think it's a failure on arrival:

Is the new 7,1 Mac Pro a failure on arrival

The 7,1 cheese grater will arrive with a maximum of 28 cores and PCIe 3.0 in a market selling 64core (and even intel has 56core chips now) PCIe 4.0 machines. It's been over 5 months since the announcement and still nothing. By the time the machine ships we may see PCIe 5.0 mother boards. In...

forums.macrumors.com

Thanks for the link... I've got some reading to do...

 

[Schismz]

I ask myself why I keep participating in this thread, and my honest answer amounts to: I am an enthusiast. My first computer was the Apple ][, I was 7 at the time. The old Macs were... just okay, but psychologically over in the "Macintrash" category for me (not a fan, it was great for "desktop publishing" but... this is a toy, it doesn't even multi-task), I was not a fan of OS-whatever, and migrated from Apple //e, to Amiga, to Sun and SGI, and eventually followed Steve to NeXT, where he produced the typical Steve Jobs product -- see also: Lisa, which pre-dates the Mac -- the NeXT cube, where a pretty empty, non-loaded workstation cost around $10K back in 1990. Which, looking it up, is $20K USD in 2020. Load it up, add a NeXTdimension graphics card, and... you're right back in fully-loaded Mac Pro 2019 pricing territory ($30K+).

NeXT's OS and software was akin to something from the future and made everything else available at the time look pretty awful. That WWW thing we're all using right now, was invented on a NeXT. Their hardware sales did not set the world on fire... Imagine if you will, Apple 100% dependent upon Mac Pro sales to keep itself going. That didn't turn out so great.

They pivoted to software, I purchased an over-priced high end PC of the era to run NeXTSTEP... and then of course Apple paid NeXT $400 million to come home to Apple and take it over (perhaps not their exact plans at the time). The rest is history, and the greatest second act in the history of business.

I've been using the "Mac" since Rhapsody (their interim, developer versions of fusing legacy OS 9 crap, into NeXTSTEP, prior to the OS/X release). Small collection of VMs running my desktops from bygone epochs:

...

When has Apple, in its entire history, ever competed on price/performance? The PowerPC tank ads crushing Intel were cute, and lasted for 5 minutes, but... Apple has never, ever, been competitive in this regard.

What lit up Apple's market cap was... the iCrap, that changed everything.

With regards to their desktop pricing/performance... it's kinda the same story repeating itself forever. I see very little deviation across decades of time. How is Mac Pro release any different then what Apple has always done?

Yea, and why most Mac Pro users think it's a failure on arrival:

Is the new 7,1 Mac Pro a failure on arrival

The 7,1 cheese grater will arrive with a maximum of 28 cores and PCIe 3.0 in a market selling 64core (and even intel has 56core chips now) PCIe 4.0 machines. It's been over 5 months since the announcement and still nothing. By the time the machine ships we may see PCIe 5.0 mother boards. In...

forums.macrumors.com

In this thread, which I've only skimmed, I see the outcome is: 52% of the people who read and responded to it, feel the Mac Pro is too expensive, too little, too late; 48% are fine with it.

Because I'm genuinely curious... You @ZombiePhysicist seem to be over in the same boat with me. I've read and enjoyed many of your messages and thoughts regarding the 7,1. You seem to have purchased the same high-end 28 core machine I did, and are busy stuffing it full of 15TB+ SSDs and appear quite happy with your purchase. So...?

 

[MacPoulet]

The previous generations of the Mac Pro had starting prices of $2,500 and $3,000 and no one complained. Apple was fine with it... and customers were too.

Were customers fine with it back then? I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure people complained about the 2013 Mac Pro's price too. Heck, when the B&W G3 came out, it was a fair bit more than the PowerMac G3 and folk complained despite having a faster processor, video card, and built-in Firewire which up until then you had to buy a $1500 PCI card for.

 

[JazzyGB1]

Were customers fine with it back then? I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure people complained about the 2013 Mac Pro's price too. Heck, when the B&W G3 came out, it was a fair bit more than the PowerMac G3 and folk complained despite having a faster processor, video card, and built-in Firewire which up until then you had to buy a $1500 PCI card for.

You are mistaken.
Beige G3 desktop was $1999
Blue & white G3 was $1599 - so $400 cheaper than the previous model.
So From the first G3 to the last G5 quad in 2005, the entry level point was $1999.
When Apple switched to Intel processors the base price Of a tower soared by $500 to $2499 which is the price it finished in 2012.
In 2013 it rocketed by a further $500 to $2999 with the introduction of the doomed trash can Mac Pro.
So in the 7 years from 2006 to 2013 the entry level price of the Mac Pro increased by only $500.
In the 6 years from 2013 to 2019 It’s increased by a gargantuan $3000 to $5999, which shows contempt to many of its user base.
That’s the reality and it’s totally unreasonable to impose that kind of price increase for a tower format Apple product, especially as many had patiently waited after Apple’s announcement that they ‘heard us’ and had learnt from the Trashcan debacle.

 

[sirio76]

Yea, and why most Mac Pro users think it's a failure on arrival:

Is the new 7,1 Mac Pro a failure on arrival

The 7,1 cheese grater will arrive with a maximum of 28 cores and PCIe 3.0 in a market selling 64core (and even intel has 56core chips now) PCIe 4.0 machines. It's been over 5 months since the announcement and still nothing. By the time the machine ships we may see PCIe 5.0 mother boards. In...

forums.macrumors.com

That’s not “most of the users” it’s barely half, and BTW a pool of 200 users is very little and gives you a very limited overview of the real user base

 

[flowrider]

In the 6 years from 2013 to 2019 It’s increased by a gargantuan $3000 to $5999, which shows contempt to many of its user base.

No it Does NOT! It shows they listened to us, and gave us a real Mac Pro. The price increase is due too much added content and capability.

The 2013 6,1 Mac Pro weighed in at 11 pounds (5 kg). The 7,1 is 39.7 pounds (18 kg).

Lou

 

[blackadde]

Some people just need the PCIe slots and drive space, but not the 1.5TB memory cap or cable-less proprietary MPX convenience. In fact, I think a lot of potential Mac Pro buyers are in that bucket. I certainly was.

It's not unreasonable for people to want a sensibly modern, headless xMac, and be willing to pay a (small) premium over equivalent PC performance numbers. Lots of professional applications need reliable workhorses that don't suffer from the drawbacks of all-in-one systems, but also don't spend all their time in Resolve or FCX.

 

[ZombiePhysicist]

I ask myself why I keep participating in this thread, and my honest answer amounts to: I am an enthusiast. My first computer was the Apple ][, I was 7 at the time. The old Macs were... just okay, but psychologically over in the "Macintrash" category for me (not a fan, it was great for "desktop publishing" but... this is a toy, it doesn't even multi-task), I was not a fan of OS-whatever, and migrated from Apple //e, to Amiga, to Sun and SGI, and eventually followed Steve to NeXT, where he produced the typical Steve Jobs product -- see also: Lisa, which pre-dates the Mac -- the NeXT cube, where a pretty empty, non-loaded workstation cost around $10K back in 1990. Which, looking it up, is $20K USD in 2020. Load it up, add a NeXTdimension graphics card, and... you're right back in fully-loaded Mac Pro 2019 pricing territory ($30K+).

NeXT's OS and software was akin to something from the future and made everything else available at the time look pretty awful. That WWW thing we're all using right now, was invented on a NeXT. Their hardware sales did not set the world on fire... Imagine if you will, Apple 100% dependent upon Mac Pro sales to keep itself going. That didn't turn out so great.

They pivoted to software, I purchased an over-priced high end PC of the era to run NeXTSTEP... and then of course Apple paid NeXT $400 million to come home to Apple and take it over (perhaps not their exact plans at the time). The rest is history, and the greatest second act in the history of business.

I've been using the "Mac" since Rhapsody (their interim, developer versions of fusing legacy OS 9 crap, into NeXTSTEP, prior to the OS/X release). Small collection of VMs running my desktops from bygone epochs:

View attachment 898457
...

When has Apple, in its entire history, ever competed on price/performance? The PowerPC tank ads crushing Intel were cute, and lasted for 5 minutes, but... Apple has never, ever, been competitive in this regard.

What lit up Apple's market cap was... the iCrap, that changed everything.

With regards to their desktop pricing/performance... it's kinda the same story repeating itself forever. I see very little deviation across decades of time. How is Mac Pro release any different then what Apple has always done?


In this thread, which I've only skimmed, I see the outcome is: 52% of the people who read and responded to it, feel the Mac Pro is too expensive, too little, too late; 48% are fine with it.

Because I'm genuinely curious... You @ZombiePhysicist seem to be over in the same boat with me. I've read and enjoyed many of your messages and thoughts regarding the 7,1. You seem to have purchased the same high-end 28 core machine I did, and are busy stuffing it full of 15TB+ SSDs and appear quite happy with your purchase. So...?

Yea I got it, but it doesn't stop me from being objective in that the machine is over priced, out of date, and late compared to other offerings. Apple should do better there. And, just because I have the resources/need to get this machine, doesn't mean it's serving all of the apple community it should. And in fact, the very heart of the community, the enthusiasts that saved apple during the think different days (and those ads were a love letter to who... the enthusiasts. Not the pros. Not the grandma and grandpas. Not Joe/Jane average, it was the enthusiasts that saved apple), and this 7,1 Mac Pro is a middle finger to them.

What kills me are the same lamers that went to pains defending the trashcan despite it being a failure are now contorting themselves to tell us all how this is the 'aint4U' Mac Pro. The same people that were outright objectively proven wrong when apple itself admitted the trashcan was a failure, are again supporting apple's mistakes here. Apple ABSOLUTELY can put out this tower for $3500 (at least next year) with these lame 8 core, 32mb ram specs, maybe less upgradable ram, maybe a 6 core instead fo 8, and include the enthusiasts. All the loser pundits making all apologies for apple telling you you're an idiot, that this aint4u Mac cant be made to happen for 3500 are just AGAIN helping apple perpetuate a huge mistake.

Apple missed the lesson. They saw pros leaving and that's a problem and at least they saw that. But they missed the bigger and more important group of loyal customer influencers, THE ENTHUSIASTS. And all these loser pundits help them feel they are right rather than balling up and saying, no, apple, youre REALLY REALLY REALLY wrong here.

And none of this bs about an xMax. it's stupid. It would cost apple WAY more to retool a new case motherboard etc. there is no need for it. They just need a lower price entry Mac Pro at under 3500 and the enthusiasts will be ok with that. Yet, after this post, again, the same lamers that got it completely wrong on the trashcan Mac (some of who STILL defend a machine apple was force do an apology tour about), will come in and tell us how in their learned opinion, this MacPro aint4U. There is nothing more arrogant and obnoxious then someone telling you, NO, NO, I KNOW WHAT YOU REALLY WANT, you dont understand what you want, im an expert, and I am telling you what you should want and that aint4u. It just disgusts me to no end. Pathetic. Arrogant. Outright wrong. And as a bonus, apologists enabling apple to continue on a mistaken path.

Anyway, I'm not sure what question you were angling at, but thanks for the opportunity to rant!
[automerge]1583880716[/automerge]

That’s not “most of the users” it’s barely half, and BTW a pool of 200 users is very little and gives you a very limited overview of the real user base

Yea, most means at least more than half. Thanks for confirming that basic bit of English and my being right.

 

[sirio76]

No, most means most... 48 vs 52% is about the same. Considering the very limited number of votes, the statistical error, and the obvious bias of the topic, that pool is irrelevant.

 

[ZombiePhysicist]

No, most means most... 48 vs 52% is about the same. Considering the very limited number of votes, the statistical error, and the obvious bias of the topic, that pool is irrelevant.

Um no, 52>48. You're welcome for the remedial math lesson. And spare me youre all apologies, Nirvana did it much better.

 

[AidenShaw]

No, most means most... 48 vs 52% is about the same. Considering the very limited number of votes, the statistical error, and the obvious bias of the topic, that pool is irrelevant.

What pool?