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.
MP All Models The Mac Pro Paradox
- Thread starter TobiasT
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Abazigal, I love ya, but an iMac Pro can't do much of anything that requires horsepower. A mini doesn't even bear thinking about, unless your time has absolutely no value.
I am a 3D art hobbyist - there is a reason I was on a PowerMac, then a Mac Pro for the past 16 years, and it wasn't so I could "tinker". Folks like you truly have no understanding of what is going on outside of your own rice bowl.
The only barrier to entry is "How much computer do you have?" My workflow is based on cores & ram, just like my server farm. Yes, a number of 3d art hobbyist have our own render farms.
AFA Slots
Need a new video card? - need a slot.
Need more than 1 video card? - need a slot
Need USB4? - need a slot.
Need E-Sata? - need a slot.
I don't know what I may need tomorrow, but if I don't have a slot, I probably won't be able to use it, especially given the glacial pace that Apple computer hardware is updated.
I am a 3D art hobbyist - there is a reason I was on a PowerMac, then a Mac Pro for the past 16 years, and it wasn't so I could "tinker". Folks like you truly have no understanding of what is going on outside of your own rice bowl.
The only barrier to entry is "How much computer do you have?" My workflow is based on cores & ram, just like my server farm. Yes, a number of 3d art hobbyist have our own render farms.
AFA Slots
Need a new video card? - need a slot.
Need more than 1 video card? - need a slot
Need USB4? - need a slot.
Need E-Sata? - need a slot.
I don't know what I may need tomorrow, but if I don't have a slot, I probably won't be able to use it, especially given the glacial pace that Apple computer hardware is updated.
Let me correct that.
"I'm judge'y about your stated wants and needs and override them blithely because I think that highly of myself and that little of you". You're welcome.
I see. So now you're the sole arbiter of needs versus wants in addition to what is genuine and irrational?
It's a pretty arrogant thing to presume that other people can't do the same.
Thanks for info on the Ryzen 3900x. This CPU seems to have an enthusiastic and almost religious following. The way things are going, I am likely to end up with a PC. If I only knew how, I would build my own. But I just saw a thread about BTO companies which looks like a good place to start and excellent value.
I owned PCs before Macs and switching back should be easy. Don't get me wrong, I very much like macOS, the sleek case and extensibility of my cMP, but at the moment it's not written in the stars.
With a glass top, the cMP will someday make a nice end table in my home office.
" ... the 8-core, 12-core, and 16-core Mac Pro processors offer performance similar to the processors in the 2017 iMac Pro models."
Base and Middle Tier Mac Pro Models Offer CPU Performance Similar to iMac Pro
Geekbench 5 benchmarks of some of the new Mac Pro processor options are now available, giving us an idea of how the Mac Pro performs relative to...
www.macrumors.com
The Mac Pro was designed to compete with $80K–$150K Maya box rendering stations in use by the film and animation studios at 1/3 the cost. For audio, it's designed to run over a thousand tracks of VEP in ProTools (yea, I know they said Logic but let's get real) without using a slave machine—you don't need to spend $50K to do that, BTW.
If you have these needs, the 7.1 is a bargain.
Absolute nonsense —maybe— but what's the task? My 14 core iMac Pro/128G/RAM/2T storage/Vega 64 really does everything I need — and cost the same as I would have spent had I been able to wait. Yep, an upgraded iMP bought before the July 2019 price cut would have cost more than a similar 12–16 core 7.1 with a decent GPU (again, assuming a 5K monitor).
For many users, I agree… except that you can link multiple 2018 Minis through the T2 chip via 10G Ethernet to pull together some serious horsepower if one isn't enough. Apple was recommending this before the 7.1 Mac Pro was released—no need anymore.
I never saw the point of maxing out a Mini then adding eGPU so you could run a couple of 5K monitors. For that money, you can have an iMac Pro.
Last edited:
Because in 3 years time, if you need more processing power, you're only replacing the Mini, not a whole display. TCO over the longer term when displays don't wear out / obsolesce the way display-driving GPUs do.
Fair point — except that of the hundreds of iMacs I service, not one has had a display go bad (replacing high-heat HDDs with SSDs after 3 years is the reason for this).
Nowadays, as I've mentioned, if you've purchased a Mini with 10G Ethernet, you can link multiple Minis to form a very powerful machine as your needs grow—or any combination of Macs with 10G and the T2 chip.
Not sure why 10G Ethernet is required for this but when I asked at the WWDC a couple years ago, the Apple spokesperson insisted this was so. The Mini is the only T2 equipped Mac with the 1G Ethernet option.
it's not a matter of going bad (although Image Retention has been a pretty major iMac issue), they're just not a good display for anyone who needs predictable, controlled colour. So you're stuck with a consumer-tech-quality monitor taking up space, which you then have to eat the expense of for the initial purchase, and for every additional (GPU / Processing) upgrade purchase.
Why do all of you apologists think that we haven't actually looked at all of Apple's offerings? We have, and we rejected them for a reason. I am glad that it works for you, but I am in a different field, and it simply doesn't work with my workflow.
The task is 3d art. I need a box that can peg the GPU AND the CPU at the same time. Not doing that on an iMac "Pro"
The iMac "Pro" has all of the limitations of the trashcan, with an additional order of screen roulette. Peg the cpu and/or gpu - watch the iMac Throttle.
I just need a standard workstation. I need a box for future expandability. My 5,1 has an E-Sata card to connect to my backup system - no, I am not tossing that because Timmy needs a little jingle money in his pocket. How do I add USB4 to the iMac "Pro"? Oh yeah, you don't, you buy a new boxen. I want the ability to add more video cards, since more of my software will use the AMD ProRender engine. Not doing that with an iMac "Pro".
Why would i link multiple mini's? I already own my own render farm. Not replacing it either. For less than the price of 1 mini, I have 4 fully maxed out Z210 SFF workstations ($250 each). 6c/12t vs 16c/32t. And I can add my workstation to the render farm (additional 12c/24t - total 28c/56t - same as a maxed out 7,1 - added bonus - clocks higher).
We aren't being irrational - we are looking at our workflow and realizing that Apple doesn't make a system for us anymore.
I have to say. I find this thread pretty entertaining 
.
Entertaining part is that people who do not need "more" cannot get point of view of those who need that "more" from their computers.
Why is that? Maybe because they see Apple brand as that "something more", instead of seeking performance, expandability, upgradeability, price, efficiency, and quality as something more?.
.Entertaining part is that people who do not need "more" cannot get point of view of those who need that "more" from their computers.
Why is that? Maybe because they see Apple brand as that "something more", instead of seeking performance, expandability, upgradeability, price, efficiency, and quality as something more?
.
I have to say. I find this thread pretty entertaining
Entertaining part is that people who do not need "more" cannot get point of view of those who need that "more" from their computers.
Why is that? Maybe because they see Apple brand as that "something more", instead of seeking performance, expandability, upgradeability, price, efficiency, and quality as something more?
Apple products have never been about those aforementioned qualities you mentioned. Apple is about minimalism and purity in hardware design. Their products aren't about having the most features, or being the "most useful"; they're about distilling out the purest mixture of form and function possible.
For example, say I buy a 5k iMac instead of building my own windows desktop. On paper, I am spending more money for less specs, and I pigeon-hole myself into a bunch of limitations such as a 16:9 5k display instead of having the liberty of using whatever display I want or already own. But I am also getting a desktop which takes up little space, is dead easy to set up (1 cable!), has everything built into the chassis (from speaker to webcam), is aesthetically pleasing to boot, and the OS comes with a full complement of apps, from QuickTime to preview to iMovie which let me handle a whole bunch of basic tasks without having to source for external solutions.
There is also AppleCare for when my apple products develop issues, and which has come through for me every time.
This is why I buy apple products. They may cost more upfront, but they quickly pay for themselves in the form of improved productivity and fewer problems overall. I am essentially paying for an integrated computing solution which just works out of the box. Not necessarily because I care about being able to access the innards.
The issue here isn't that I don't get the point of view of those here who want a mid-tier modular Mac. Your points are nothing new. I have heard them before, and I have been hearing them for several years already (both here and in other forums). Here's a blog post about a long-time Mac user who recently got a dell desktop when he couldn't find anything in Apple's lineup that suited his needs.
The issue here is that the people here don't seem to understand Apple's perspective as to why they aren't offering one, and they feel that Apple is somehow obligated to give what that just because. From Apple's perspective, an iMac is the ideal combination of form and function. It's obviously not something everyone agrees upon, but this is through the eyes of Apple's design department, not the general population.
So what is means is that from the Mac desktop perspective, there simply isn't room for a mid-tier modular Mac. You have the iMac as the general purpose computer for the masses, the iMac Pro for users who need even more power, which in turn leaves the Mac Pro for the remaining the 0.1% of users who will need something more.
In this context, it makes little sense (from Apple's perspective) to release a Mac Pro that sits between the iMac and iMac Pro in terms of computing prowess. Which is why I said - you all wanted a Mac Pro, you got a Mac Pro, with the price tag to match. It was never meant as an insult against long-time Mac users, but past a certain point, there is no point in trying to sugar-coat my words anymore.
Apple can't and won't give you what you want due to their own design sensibilities and idiosyncrasies, and in part because it doesn't suit their business model. It's like walking into a Japanese restaurant and then complaining that it doesn't serve French cuisine. Beyond a certain point, Apple isn't the problem anymore.
The user is, for wanting what Apple can't and won't give, when they probably should have migrated or sought alternative solutions long ago.
Apple products have never been about those aforementioned qualities you mentioned. Apple is about minimalism and purity in hardware design. Their products aren't about having the most features, or being the "most useful"; they're about distilling out the purest mixture of form and function possible.
For example, say I buy a 5k iMac instead of building my own windows desktop. On paper, I am spending more money for less specs, and I pigeon-hole myself into a bunch of limitations such as a 16:9 5k display instead of having the liberty of using whatever display I want or already own. But I am also getting a desktop which takes up little space, is dead easy to set up (1 cable!), has everything built into the chassis (from speaker to webcam), is aesthetically pleasing to boot, and the OS comes with a full complement of apps, from QuickTime to preview to iMovie which let me handle a whole bunch of basic tasks without having to source for external solutions.
There is also AppleCare for when my apple products develop issues, and which has come through for me every time.
This is why I buy apple products. They may cost more upfront, but they quickly pay for themselves in the form of improved productivity and fewer problems overall. I am essentially paying for an integrated computing solution which just works out of the box. Not necessarily because I care about being able to access the innards.
The issue here isn't that I don't get the point of view of those here who want a mid-tier modular Mac. Your points are nothing new. I have heard them before, and I have been hearing them for several years already (both here and in other forums). Here's a blog post about a long-time Mac user who recently got a dell desktop when he couldn't find anything in Apple's lineup that suited his needs.
The issue here is that the people here don't seem to understand Apple's perspective as to why they aren't offering one, and they feel that Apple is somehow obligated to give what that just because. From Apple's perspective, an iMac is the ideal combination of form and function. It's obviously not something everyone agrees upon, but this is through the eyes of Apple's design department, not the general population.
So what is means is that from the Mac desktop perspective, there simply isn't room for a mid-tier modular Mac. You have the iMac as the general purpose computer for the masses, the iMac Pro for users who need even more power, which in turn leaves the Mac Pro for the remaining the 0.1% of users who will need something more.
In this context, it makes little sense (from Apple's perspective) to release a Mac Pro that sits between the iMac and iMac Pro in terms of computing prowess. Which is why I said - you all wanted a Mac Pro, you got a Mac Pro, with the price tag to match. It was never meant as an insult against long-time Mac users, but past a certain point, there is no point in trying to sugar-coat my words anymore.
Apple can't and won't give you what you want due to their own design sensibilities and idiosyncrasies, and in part because it doesn't suit their business model. It's like walking into a Japanese restaurant and then complaining that it doesn't serve French cuisine. Beyond a certain point, Apple isn't the problem anymore.
The user is, for wanting what Apple can't and won't give, when they probably should have migrated or sought alternative solutions long ago.
That blog post is frankly bizarre to me, in that Apple never made a machine he should have been happy with given his expectations for power and his budget.
There never was a $1100 xMac or close to it. Even the cheapest G3s and G4s were north of $2000 in inflation-adjusted dollars.
For ~$1000 no, but Apple does have form selling consumer-level tech, at non-stupid pricepoints, as expandable minitowers.
Namely, the Powermac 6400/6500 - A small lower-cost tower, using the consumer processor of the day (PPC603e), but with all the sysem-unique I/O on a removable card (like the 7,1) and 2 PCI sots.
There's plenty of us out there who'd buy that, but won't buy an iMac, Mini or Mac Pro. That's the lesson Appe has forgotten - they pulled in a lot of people when their laptops were just the best standard PC laptops, but the more they lean on their own software uniqueness, and the network effects of synergies with their platforms, the more they shield their hardware from having to compete like-for-like.
Which is the exact thing YOU, and people like you do not understand.Apple products have never been about those aforementioned qualities you mentioned. Apple is about minimalism and purity in hardware design. Their products aren't about having the most features, or being the "most useful"; they're about distilling out the purest mixture of form and function possible.
For example, say I buy a 5k iMac instead of building my own windows desktop. On paper, I am spending more money for less specs, and I pigeon-hole myself into a bunch of limitations such as a 16:9 5k display instead of having the liberty of using whatever display I want or already own. But I am also getting a desktop which takes up little space, is dead easy to set up (1 cable!), has everything built into the chassis (from speaker to webcam), is aesthetically pleasing to boot, and the OS comes with a full complement of apps, from QuickTime to preview to iMovie which let me handle a whole bunch of basic tasks without having to source for external solutions.
There is also AppleCare for when my apple products develop issues, and which has come through for me every time.
This is why I buy apple products. They may cost more upfront, but they quickly pay for themselves in the form of improved productivity and fewer problems overall. I am essentially paying for an integrated computing solution which just works out of the box. Not necessarily because I care about being able to access the innards.
The issue here isn't that I don't get the point of view of those here who want a mid-tier modular Mac. Your points are nothing new. I have heard them before, and I have been hearing them for several years already (both here and in other forums). Here's a blog post about a long-time Mac user who recently got a dell desktop when he couldn't find anything in Apple's lineup that suited his needs.
The issue here is that the people here don't seem to understand Apple's perspective as to why they aren't offering one, and they feel that Apple is somehow obligated to give what that just because. From Apple's perspective, an iMac is the ideal combination of form and function. It's obviously not something everyone agrees upon, but this is through the eyes of Apple's design department, not the general population.
So what is means is that from the Mac desktop perspective, there simply isn't room for a mid-tier modular Mac. You have the iMac as the general purpose computer for the masses, the iMac Pro for users who need even more power, which in turn leaves the Mac Pro for the remaining the 0.1% of users who will need something more.
In this context, it makes little sense (from Apple's perspective) to release a Mac Pro that sits between the iMac and iMac Pro in terms of computing prowess. Which is why I said - you all wanted a Mac Pro, you got a Mac Pro, with the price tag to match. It was never meant as an insult against long-time Mac users, but past a certain point, there is no point in trying to sugar-coat my words anymore.
Apple can't and won't give you what you want due to their own design sensibilities and idiosyncrasies, and in part because it doesn't suit their business model. It's like walking into a Japanese restaurant and then complaining that it doesn't serve French cuisine. Beyond a certain point, Apple isn't the problem anymore.
The user is, for wanting what Apple can't and won't give, when they probably should have migrated or sought alternative solutions long ago.
Those who complain the most about Apple products in pro market are exactly those people who want features, and are able to pay for them. Entirely why Mac Pro 6.1 was criticised in the first place! Because it lacked the basic features people expected. You do not buy A pickup truck to use it all of the time. You buy it because you might want to carry a bear on the pack. Or a gun. Or whatever Americans do with Pick-Up trucks. The same goes for people who want a machine that is upgradeable. They want something cheap, they might want to upgrade down the line.
Like every other Personal computer in the world is. Why Apple computers are not the same way?
By your omission its customers who should bend their needs to what Apple was willing to offer them, not the other way around.
Well guess what, because people complained about 6.1 Apple designed 7.1 the way they did. So those complaints actually worked and Apple listened.
A Mac Pro that sits between iMac and iMac Pro is actually a HEDT machine, not a Pro level thing with Server grade parts. It makes perfect sense for Apple to release such thing, because that is exactly what they do not offer. Exact difference between Threadripper and EPYC CPUs that has been discussed multiple times in different threads about AMD Zen architecture and Mac Pro.
This logic doesn't hold. Apple doesn't directly or indirectly compete in a ton of electronics or consumer categories. That doesn't mean they should offer something in that area, or that it makes perfect sense.
Ultimately, Apple doesn't hate making money. The fact that they aren't targeting that market presumably means they aren't going to make any great return from it.
Again, the "non-stupid price points" machines of Apple's past aren't what the author wants. The 6400 retailed at $2399 in 1996 dollars, the 6500 at $1799 in 1997 dollars, or nearly $3K.
People arguing Apple make a $3K or $4K variant of the Mac Pro have a much better argument to pick from what Apple has actually shipped in the recent past than people who want $1K xMacs, a category modern Apple has never even attempted to approach because then as now the iMac is enough of that machine for enough people.
So people keep saying. Yet there a numerous people who are saying it is not enough of a machine for them. Who are you to tell them otherwise?
Which brings me back to my earlier point about a genuine need vs want.
When people say that the current iMac / iMac Pro isn’t enough for them, what exactly isn’t enough? Is it the specs that do not suffice for their workflow (genuine need), or are the users simply not willing to work with the limitations (such as the inability to use your own monitor, which I feel makes it more of a want, since it’s not that the iMac doesn’t do what they want, it just doesn’t do things the way they want).
As for the second point, you are right. We are nobodies within the Apple community. You don’t have to listen to us. However, the earlier poster does raise a valid point. Apple has no quarrel with money. Going by your earlier assertion, there should be a market for a mid-tier headless Mac, yet Apple doesn’t sell one.
It might be useful to think about why Apple hasn’t done so, because past a certain point, chanting the same refrain (ie: Apple screwed up by not offering an xMac) only goes so far and does so much.
My guess is that the market for such a product is too small for Apple to consider serving at the moment. It also competes too closely with the iMac, which feels like a pointless duplication of resources. And with desktops getting more competent, you are no longer able to conflate professional users with enthusiasts. The current Mac Pro targets the high-end professional with computing needs that cannot be met even with a maxed out iMac Pro, not the mid-level enthusiast who wishes to save a few bucks by being able to upgrade their own internals instead of getting a new Mac every few years.