The New Mac Pro is Here – But Can We Build it Better (and Cheaper) PC DIY Style?

[kevink2]

TIn any case the Mac Pro is very aggressively priced. Anyone trying to argue otherwise has no idea what they are talking about. Apple basically designed the product to be an extremely attractive value. I've done the math and it's even competitive with building an equivalent desktop yourself.

Back in 2008, when I bought mine, they were aggressively priced too. I compared it against equivalent class computers from other vendors (windows), and build it myself options, and it was the same price, or less. Of course, back then, you couldn't get 8 core consumer level computers.

The current MP appears competitive against the same market as back then. What it isn't price competitive with is for lower end computers that, for non professional use, may be close in performance. 2 and 4 core computers are still fine for many people.

A computer upgradable to 16GB and 4 cores back in 2008 would have been fine for me. But Apple didn't have anything else that met those requirements.

 

[riggles]

Since the Mac Pro covers the gamut from 4 to 12-core machines, its naturally gonna have some weak spots. And it's always tough to compete against DIY in price, near impossible. I'm probably in the minority or just being snobbish, but I don't really consider the 4-core version to be workstation level -- unless your apps can use OpenCL I guess. Seems like a "workstation" should start at 6.

Outside of that, to me, the biggest weak spot in price/performance is by going single socket. The 8 and 12-core CPUs are expensive and limited by the thermal constraints of all those cores on one chip. The 2.7 GHz E5-2697v2 12-core is a $2,600 CPU (Intel prices), but a dual socket build could get you 2 x 3.5 GHz E5-1650v2 6-cores for just under $1,200. So not only would you get higher base clock speeds for much less money, since the thermal load is split up, you'd also be operating at higher frequency boosts when all cores are active.

I think if for some reason I need to replace my 5,1 12-core in the next year or so (which I don't plan to) I'd look at a dual socket configuration like this first before I considered a nMP. I need horsepower for work, but I still need to look out for my wallet.

EDIT: I need to update this post as the grayed text contains incorrect information, but it might be useful to others to see my error. I learned that the 1600 Xeon series do not work in dual socket configurations. I did not know this until another forum member helped me out. The 2600 series support dual sockets, and their prices are defiantly not the same. The 2643v2 is a 3.5GHz 6-core and has an MSRP of $1,500. So a true faster dual CPU 12-core setup would cost $3,000 (again MSRP prices) and not $1,200 like I stated above. The most you could hope for (at first glance) is something like a 2630v2, which is a 2.6GHz 6-core for $616. So that would give you a $1,200 dual socket setup but it has a lower base clock and even lower boost.

So, I guess my point is that the dual socket perhaps isn't as weak a point for the nMP as I originally thought. At the very least it shows the real price increase moving to dual socket capable CPUs. Interesting.

 

[Tutor]

The New Mac Pro is Here – But Can We Build it Better (and Cheaper) PC DIY Style?

http://www.futurelooks.com/new-apple-mac-pro-can-build-better-cheaper-pc-diy-style/

TL;DR version: Nope.

1) What does "TL;DR version" mean?

2) There's an important unasked question, and that's: Is the nMP worthy of imitation in any or in every one of it's various ways? My answer to that question is "The nMP is definitely not worthy of imitation as to any or all of it's various ways. Although I like the size and weight of it, I abhor the things that Apple did to get there whether those things were necessary or not. There are too many compromises made. Plus those compromises did not result in a lower priced Mac Pro line - they just shifted to after-purchase expenses, the costs for the items cut out. It was a masterful move by Apple - price it as though it included every thing the oMP included and make the faithful swallow additional costs later. Also, I've seen how other threads try the trick of having one compare what it would cost retail to do the impossible, i.e., to build a system identical to the nMP, to justify the high prices for a line of MPs, that even less than the old ones, fullfill my needs. Apple doesn't buy components at retail prices. None of us know what Apple's true total costs are."

3) (A) Does the call of your question mean, "Can we build, for less money than Apple charges, a Mac Pro that's identical to the nMP in every way?" If that's what it means, then my answer is "Definitely Not."
3) (B) Does the call of your question mean, "Can we build, for less money than Apple charges, a Mac Pro that's identical to the nMP in every way and is better than the nMP in any way?" If that's what it means, then my answer is "Definitely not as to the first part of your question, but you've definitely lost me by the second part. How can something be truly identical and yet better in any way?"
3) (C) Does the call of your question mean, "Can we build, for less money than Apple charges, a computer that (a) better, than the nMP, enables us to accomplish our tasks and (b) is faster than the nMP at enabling us to accomplish those tasks?" If that's what it means, then my answer is "I definitely can build such systems for myself. See, e.g., my signature line, below. Apple didn't cover many of my needs with the oMP, and Apple covers even less of them now with the nMP. But for the right price, I just might buy a used one if I ever perceive a compelling need for it in my work and it didn't call for any significant post-purchase expense. It's a little "might," however, that I do not currently anticipate occurring."

 

[wildmac]

I definitely can build such systems for myself. See, e.g., my signature line...

While your prowess in building megalithic hardware to be the king of all geekbenches may indeed be unmatched, your understanding of what the majority of users likely need is as poor as your BCS title predictions...

 

[Tutor]

While your prowess in building megalithic hardware to be the king of all geekbenches may indeed be unmatched, your understanding of what the majority of users likely need is as poor as your BCS title predictions...

Thank you for the compliment about my computer building skills.

At no point did I even intimate what the majority of users need because, unlike what you appear to be implying that you have prowess in -reading others thoughts, I do not profess to read minds nor have I heard the majority yet speak. The majority will speak with their money. As an Apple shareholder I hope you can read minds and that the majority need and buy the nMP.

And as to my so-called BCS title predictions, a "5?" truly represents the situation. For most of this college football season, either Alabama or Auburn was ranked in the top two, with Alabama holding the no.1 ranking until it suffered it's only loss of the season to Auburn. Thus, it's is an open question whether Auburn will lose or win and the same applies to Alabama - both deserving of the question mark for now. I don't see it going any other way - Auburn can lose or Auburn can win, unless some unforeseen catastrophe occurs. I'm not partial to either Alabama or Auburn over the other, but only to college football because I was a jock in high school and college. [BTW - My son and I also love to see live depictions of the pic profiled in post #59, below, for we are fans of great teams regardless of their home base.]

Moreover, you should not make unfounded comparative analogies such as, "... your understanding of what the majority of users likely need is as poor as your BCS title predictions... ." Let's assume, for the sake of argument only, that I were making a prediction, which is not the case, and Auburn did win. Then my BCS title prediction wouldn't be poor at all. Since you posit that my understanding of what the majority of users likely need is as accurate as my BCS title prediction, you'd then have to concede that my so-called understanding of what the majority of users likely need is 100% accurate because my BCS prediction would be 100% accurate. That's the outcome of your erroneously placing two disparate things on an equal footing with the so-called BCS prediction being the floor for accuracy.

 

[MH01]

While your prowess in building megalithic hardware to be the king of all geekbenches may indeed be unmatched, your understanding of what the majority of users likely need is as poor as your BCS title predictions...

lol.

Higher spec machine = getting the task done faster????

Kinda why Apple has the mac pros.... cause they will let a pro get more done in less time.

"your understanding of what the majority of users likely need is as poor as your BCS title predictions" - this is a silly statement, read through the mac pro forum to see how much controversy the new nMP has created within the "pro" community. There is a lot of users than consider this new machine a step backwards, and exactly what they do not want.

I do not want to speak for others, I want all the damn power/performance I can get from a Pro machine. Having a single CPU is a huge step back for me. For others that do not need 2xgpu, the nMP configs are exactly what they do not require.

Do you honestly believe that the majority of users require 2xGPU?

I think this new machine is actually appealing to the prosumer community. Though it used to be a machine made for the pro community.

 

[wallysb01]

EDIT: I need to update this post as the grayed text contains incorrect information, but it might be useful to others to see my error. I learned that the 1600 Xeon series do not work in dual socket configurations. I did not know this until another forum member helped me out. The 2600 series support dual sockets, and their prices are defiantly not the same. The 2643v2 is a 3.5GHz 6-core and has an MSRP of $1,500. So a true faster dual CPU 12-core setup would cost $3,000 (again MSRP prices) and not $1,200 like I stated above. The most you could hope for (at first glance) is something like a 2630v2, which is a 2.6GHz 6-core for $616. So that would give you a $1,200 dual socket setup but it has a lower base clock and even lower boost.

So, I guess my point is that the dual socket perhaps isn't as weak a point for the nMP as I originally thought. At the very least it shows the real price increase moving to dual socket capable CPUs. Interesting.

Why are you going for the rather absurd 2643v2 that has a base clock of 3.5GHz? Are you that wedded to high clock rates that you have to match the 1600 speeds in the 2600?

The 12 core in the nMP runs from 2.7-3.5 GHz. If you’re just trying to get roughly the same performance from the CPU(s) as the 12 core in the nMP, but with a duel socket system the best match is maybe the 2650v2. That processor is an 8-core that runs from 2.6-3.4GHz, so you’ll lose .1GHz, but you gain 4 cores (16 vs. 12) and the extra memory and PCIe bandwidth. Two of those will run just over $2000 retail (and about $2000 as an upgrade from the base models using the 2603s in most vendors), while Apple is asking $3000 to upgrade to the 12-core from the 6-core (or $3500 from the base model).

If you really need exactly 12 cores and you’re looking for 2x the performance of the 1660, then yeah, you’re going to have to pay through the nose for those 2643s that are $1500 a pop, while a pair of the 10-cores are cheaper or roughly the same cost (i.e. 2660v2 and 2670v2, respectively).

If you want to match the $3000 upgrade cost to the 12-core for the nMP vs. other duel socket systems, you’re looking at 2x2670v2s. Those are 10-cores running from 2.5-3.3GHz. So, you’d go from 12 cores to 20, with little lost on the GHz, plus the previously mentioned doubling of memory and PCIe bandwidth. That’s roughly the kind of computer Apple could have been giving us for $7000, if they went for a duel socket system and a more typical mid level, and single, workstation GPU.

 

[riggles]

Why are you going for the rather absurd 2643v2 that has a base clock of 3.5GHz? Are you that wedded to high clock rates that you have to match the 1600 speeds in the 2600?

In the initial post I had incorrectly stated you could put in 2 x 1660v2 which had a much higher clock speed for much less money compared to the MP 12-core. That was wrong as the 1660 cannot be used in dual docket. I just included the 2643 in my revision to show what those kind of dual socket speeds would really cost, that's all. I'm not recommending that configuration for everyone.

Personally I am interested in both many cores and higher clock speeds for 3D work. Some tasks like calculating displacement, irradiance caching, and scene tesselation is single threaded in my application, whereas the rest of the rendering is multithreaded. But those are just my needs when considering an upgrade.

 

[ugahairydawgs]

* Apple does not discount their products during the life cycle. Value proposition for Macs looks very different when the model is on its second (or third) year.

Is this meant to be sarcasm? 2nd/3rd gen revs of the Mac line products are almost always cheaper than gen 1. They had drops across the board this year on the MBP.

 

[wildmac]

lol.

Higher spec machine = getting the task done faster????

I do not want to speak for others, I want all the damn power/performance I can get from a Pro machine. Having a single CPU is a huge step back for me. For others that do not need 2xgpu, the nMP configs are exactly what they do not require.

Do you honestly believe that the majority of users require 2xGPU?

I think this new machine is actually appealing to the prosumer community. Though it used to be a machine made for the pro community.

Higher specs, if they are utilized, are great. You are correct, that the system may indeed be more targeted towards prosumers, which would be ironic, considering the number of "pros" here that are openly mocking anyone that would dare admit to editing a wedding video…

It also would be great if Apple offered more options, but it's clear we aren't going to be getting that.

But there's a difference between stating you need 2xCPU and being annoyed that Apple isn't offering what you need, and the folks here who are crying about 'so many boxes' and such that that are just garage hobbyists.

----------

As an Apple shareholder I hope you can read minds and that the majority need and buy the nMP.

Then my BCS title prediction...

As an Apple shareholder, you should be pleased they built a rig that more people might actually buy, regardless of who the market is.

Can't wait to see your SB picks….

 

[Tutor]

Higher specs, if they are utilized, are great. You are correct, that the system may indeed be more targeted towards prosumers, which would be ironic, considering the number of "pros" here that are openly mocking anyone that would dare admit to editing a wedding video…

It also would be great if Apple offered more options, but it's clear we aren't going to be getting that.

wildmac,
You get not one bit of disagreement from me about those statements because you're right.

As an Apple shareholder, you should be pleased they built a rig that more people might actually buy, regardless of who the market is.

I'm like Two Face in Batman - there's the left side of my face depicting one who has used Macs professionally for 33 years and there's the right side of my face depicting the 13 year shareholder. The right side of my face is smiling widely, receiving signals from the right brain hemisphere that's hoping you're 100% correct and that the prosumer orientation for the Mac Pro is the way to go. But, the left side of my face isn't smiling, receiving signals from the left brain hemisphere that's sad because of the change in orientation from a self-centered/needs perspective. In sum, I have to admit that I'm conflicted.

Can't wait to see your SB picks….

For what does "SB" stand? Why don't you PM me the answer so that we can take this discussion further. Happy upcoming New Year.