Does your software run strictly on MacOS? I found the best route for anything CPU/GPU intensive is to just go Linux. Since Swift is cross platform now – I develop/test on Mac and run on Linux and I've never looked back. You can embedded any existing C/C++ frameworks you want with Swift. I run Vulkan/Nvidia Encoding+Decoding/Intensive CPU&GPU processes directly from Swift on Linux. It's pisses all over Mac.
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 7,1 This is why the Mac Pro makes sense, and why it's a good thing for everyone
- Thread starter baryon
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Does your software run strictly on MacOS? I found the best route for anything CPU/GPU intensive is to just go Linux. Since Swift is cross platform now – I develop/test on Mac and run on Linux and I've never looked back. You can embedded any existing C/C++ frameworks you want with Swift. I run Vulkan/Nvidia Encoding+Decoding/Intensive CPU&GPU processes directly from Swift on Linux. It's pisses all over Mac.
Face it. The computer market is shrinking (partly caused by Apple itself, because iPhone/iPad/MB/MBP are too successful). With this shrinking market, I wouldn't blame Apple leaving certain sector in their product line (low-end tower) empty.
The new Mac Pro is not for me. But the Apple computer lineup as of this fall looks much better than last year. For that, I give Apple complete credit.
The new Mac Pro is not for me. But the Apple computer lineup as of this fall looks much better than last year. For that, I give Apple complete credit.
It’s a good question, and something I’ve been asking myself is whether I want to move to Linux. Most of the applications I run (except development stuff, and CoreML stuff) can run on Linux (I think.. I’ll enumerate them and confirm). The compiling would be fine, to be honest. I’d just miss the Mac ecosystem because I wouldn’t then want to spent an extra amount of money to get a MBP or a Mac mini.. as much as I love my iPad Pro... I’m much more productive using my surface pro away from a desktop, but it’s not macOS; maybe that’s not a bad thing?
I’m personally not complaining about the cost (my fiancé is), it’s just at the base it’s awful value for money, but the cost options are a complete wildcard at this point.
Sorry for delay, I went home, did family things and had a sleep ;-)
From the sounds of it you are firmly in the 'left out' zone between a Mac Mini and a Mac Pro, and that sucks for you (and me!)
I can understand not wanting to use an iMac Pro or any other all in one as I feel similar, but from the requirements you did list I'd place you firmly in the 'Z4/Z6 workstation' category OR in the 'thinnish client with remote compute' category.
Either could suit you depending on your workflow but for a lot of people there's less and less value in having a big machine under the desk trying to do everything when you can have a BIG machine in the rack on the end of a 10gig cable and something smaller and more flexible (even portable) on your desk.
As an example my work provided machine is a boring i5 Lenovo Laptop (at home I use cMPs and an i7 Mini), it has some ram, and an NVMe drive, and it's docked to three screens but its cores are rarely more than 30-40% loaded and I actually had to check whether it was 8GB or 16GB of ram cos I genuinely didn't know BUT almost all of the heavy work for services I support runs on machines in an ESX envrionment, a couple of hundred cores and a few TB of Ram to use there...and there are many other benefits of offloading jobs to other machines in terms of concurrency and isolation of workloads.
For some people it will have to be local though, but in most cases if there is a genuine business need for that class of machine then it'll make money for you and pay for itself relatively quickly, and if you really need one of those machines then it's gonna cost you the same kind of money whether you buy it from Apple, or HP, or Lenovo, or Dell...
[doublepost=1559810453][/doublepost]
Also, if 32Gb is currently constraining your work, fix it right now, ram is cheap enough, nobody should be struggling along running out of ram for real work for the sake of £50-£100
From the sounds of it you are firmly in the 'left out' zone between a Mac Mini and a Mac Pro, and that sucks for you (and me!)
I can understand not wanting to use an iMac Pro or any other all in one as I feel similar, but from the requirements you did list I'd place you firmly in the 'Z4/Z6 workstation' category OR in the 'thinnish client with remote compute' category.
Either could suit you depending on your workflow but for a lot of people there's less and less value in having a big machine under the desk trying to do everything when you can have a BIG machine in the rack on the end of a 10gig cable and something smaller and more flexible (even portable) on your desk.
As an example my work provided machine is a boring i5 Lenovo Laptop (at home I use cMPs and an i7 Mini), it has some ram, and an NVMe drive, and it's docked to three screens but its cores are rarely more than 30-40% loaded and I actually had to check whether it was 8GB or 16GB of ram cos I genuinely didn't know BUT almost all of the heavy work for services I support runs on machines in an ESX envrionment, a couple of hundred cores and a few TB of Ram to use there...and there are many other benefits of offloading jobs to other machines in terms of concurrency and isolation of workloads.
For some people it will have to be local though, but in most cases if there is a genuine business need for that class of machine then it'll make money for you and pay for itself relatively quickly, and if you really need one of those machines then it's gonna cost you the same kind of money whether you buy it from Apple, or HP, or Lenovo, or Dell...
[doublepost=1559810453][/doublepost]
Also, if 32Gb is currently constraining your work, fix it right now, ram is cheap enough, nobody should be struggling along running out of ram for real work for the sake of £50-£100
Last edited:
Well, you could buy the base MacPro and then buy a larger CPU and more RAM for it.
The CPU is socketed and AFAIK you can swap it out.
Just like in the old days ;-)
You can even source an alternative ATI GPU somewhere cheaper.
Someone needs to check, though, if this is actually possible once the machines are available for purchase.
But I'm sure there are enough enterprising Youtubers who will precisely do just that.
The CPU is socketed and AFAIK you can swap it out.
Just like in the old days ;-)
You can even source an alternative ATI GPU somewhere cheaper.
Someone needs to check, though, if this is actually possible once the machines are available for purchase.
But I'm sure there are enough enterprising Youtubers who will precisely do just that.
That's a good point. The base configuration is not for industry production. I see no point in offering such a low-end configuration unless they were going to give it a price to match (5,1 & 6,1 price range). For $6k it should have come with at least the Vega II GPU and a 1 TB SSD.
the apple environment is NOT a commercial situation and in fact dangerous
-hardware is expensive and prone to failure
-Apple Inc has gained a no trust rap, they lie about lying
-macOS is suffering from delayed maintenance 4example; spell ck is weak
-only apple innovation is court ordered due to class action law judgments.
you cant just give a mac book pro loaded with an editing app and a data base to the front receptionist who can type like mad. He/she will have fits.
If you have to migrate say 100,000 files via Finder you just cant give it to office staff as they will stumble over permission errors.
if you have a 9year old downloading anime everything will work fine.
-hardware is expensive and prone to failure
-Apple Inc has gained a no trust rap, they lie about lying
-macOS is suffering from delayed maintenance 4example; spell ck is weak
-only apple innovation is court ordered due to class action law judgments.
you cant just give a mac book pro loaded with an editing app and a data base to the front receptionist who can type like mad. He/she will have fits.
If you have to migrate say 100,000 files via Finder you just cant give it to office staff as they will stumble over permission errors.
if you have a 9year old downloading anime everything will work fine.
Sure, they don’t have to build computers at all. But this is a place to discuss the computers they do make, there pros and cons, what they are good for, etc. So I’m always a bit confused why this point gets brought up. It doesn’t refute anything that’s actually material to Apple computers. They don’t have to build for every use-case and here we are discussing use-cases that are missed...
I think you’re confirming what I’m thinking.
I’ve not bought more RAM as the pro was and is a candidate, was hoping the base would be 64GB
Just one question: How many will your "house" / "firm" (or whatever) be buying?
There are several other forums containing posts from professionals working in the industry you mention that describe a very different situation. These "industries" are facing serious downward pressure on rates and are loosing business to lower cost competition. This competition is located in parts of the world where people don't mind using "inferior" (being smug here) hardware and taking a productivity hit (they're probably being subsidized anyway - we are in a trade war, remember??).
So by delivering such a "stratospheric" Mac Pro, Apple is actually hurting these industries, and themselves because as new talent "works its way up the ladder" it won't be exposed to Apple hardware.
Apple just priced itself out of the broader market. It didn't see this big picture.
Apple was "priced out of the broader market" before this. They just didn't have high-end hardware for the highest-end of the high-end market.
Now they have that base covered. Or at least they claim so.
I really just hope that the (Pro XDR) display doesn't turn into an "AirPower-reloaded"-disaster. Not that I had planned to buy one (save for winning the lottery), but for Apple's sake.
Now they have that base covered. Or at least they claim so.
I really just hope that the (Pro XDR) display doesn't turn into an "AirPower-reloaded"-disaster. Not that I had planned to buy one (save for winning the lottery), but for Apple's sake.
The rest of the post revealed the context. Basically, they probably can't make money selling computers with low margins as much as we all want them to. There's no reason for them to actually do that. I'd bet 90% of Apple users are paying a premium for features they will never use -- PCIe storage over SATA III, thunderbolt over USB A + Mag safe, Xeon over threadripper, 5k iMac over minitower + 4k monitor, 8 core xeon over 9900k (in the case of the sad 8 core new MP), custom FPGA vs NVidia card, thunderbolt 2 x 6 ports vs PCIe slots.
Yes, most those features are probably technically better in some way (except of TB2 which was a flop), but probably not noticeably better (or maybe enough better to justify the price) and often even worse than the cheaper alternative for most users and their use-cases.
I get we're griping about why Apple can't make a bargain prosumer/higher end consumer machine using good price/performance hardware. I really don't see a lot of examples of Apple ever really doing this outside of the OLD cheesegrater--a great deal at the time, not a lot of unnecessary junk, and The Most Expandable Mac Ever as it was the first and only Mac (until this one) that was x86 and had PCIe slots, which they totally scrapped in favor of The Least Expandable Mac Desktop Ever (unless you love TB2) in 2013.
I'm in agreement the situation sucks, I'm just positing as to why Apple would willfully drop this kind of customer (of which I'm one, with my 8700K and GTX 1080 tower).
I wouldn't buy an iMac for any use case, was just responding to the part about the iMac not getting a CPU update in 500+ days.
It still might not work for you but it definitely did get a refresh.
I don't need the Mac pro, but would kill for the screen. A maxed out Mac mini will do for me (although I would have liked the 4tb ssd). The trouble with the mini is the terrible graphics. What I'd like to know is whether the Blackmagic external gpu will run the 6k monitor. Or indeed, will the Mac mini?
I don't want the screen or the Mac Pro. I just want that lovely piece of art that is the stand.
Wrong
The basic Mac Pro 2019's price is already failed. It has 8 cores, 580X, 32gb RAM, and 256gb SSD for $6000. Seriously? Mac Pro is a high-end computer and yet the basic version is made out of middle range components. That's totally a joke. Who needs 8 cores, 580X, and 256gb SSD for high-end professional works?
All in one is NOT for everyone, especially for professional users. AIO has a cooling issue, limited or impossible to upgrade, and no way to clean dust monthly. I guess you are not aware of AIO issues. The cooling performance is TERRIBLE compared to any desktop. iMac users sued Apple because of dust since they are not able to clean it.
Mac Pro 2019 is very limited only for high-end professional users. Even most professional video or music editors does not need 2 or 4 GPU. What about photography? Illustrator? 2D? design? You see, there isnt any mid-range modular Mac desktop. iMac Pro cant replaces the mid-range computer.
Why cant Apple allow professional users to build and customize their own professional computer with Mac Pro 2019? Mac Pro 2019's parts are aimed only for high-end production. There's a huge gap between iMac and Mac Pro and many users prefer a desktop over AIO.
The basic Mac Pro 2019's price is already failed. It has 8 cores, 580X, 32gb RAM, and 256gb SSD for $6000. Seriously? Mac Pro is a high-end computer and yet the basic version is made out of middle range components. That's totally a joke. Who needs 8 cores, 580X, and 256gb SSD for high-end professional works?
All in one is NOT for everyone, especially for professional users. AIO has a cooling issue, limited or impossible to upgrade, and no way to clean dust monthly. I guess you are not aware of AIO issues. The cooling performance is TERRIBLE compared to any desktop. iMac users sued Apple because of dust since they are not able to clean it.
Mac Pro 2019 is very limited only for high-end professional users. Even most professional video or music editors does not need 2 or 4 GPU. What about photography? Illustrator? 2D? design? You see, there isnt any mid-range modular Mac desktop. iMac Pro cant replaces the mid-range computer.
Why cant Apple allow professional users to build and customize their own professional computer with Mac Pro 2019? Mac Pro 2019's parts are aimed only for high-end production. There's a huge gap between iMac and Mac Pro and many users prefer a desktop over AIO.
The base spec is largely irrelevant, they’re placeholder parts and you then BTO the bits you actually need, whether that’s CPU, Ram, GPU, Storage or a combination of the above.
The only difference to HP/Dell/Lenovo here is that Apples base spec bits are above theirs, if you buy a ‘cheap’ Z series with its base spec it’s dismal but you basically get the option of buying a chassis, Apple aren’t starting that low, but the concept is the same.
By the time you spec a machine like this with the bits you actually need it’s well above base price regardless of who you buy it from.
The only difference to HP/Dell/Lenovo here is that Apples base spec bits are above theirs, if you buy a ‘cheap’ Z series with its base spec it’s dismal but you basically get the option of buying a chassis, Apple aren’t starting that low, but the concept is the same.
By the time you spec a machine like this with the bits you actually need it’s well above base price regardless of who you buy it from.
Exactly, the whole point is to upgrade the internals as CTO. No one should be buying it at base configuration.
It has always been like this. Remember these machines came with low end cards like GT7300 or GT120. So we are lucky this time it didn't come with a Radeon 560 in the base model.
Tariffs, the overly strong dollar and recession risks are also adding to cost. We should never forget the wider economic picture when we look at prices.
Yeah but it is still a concurrent decent card for many people. We can say it is even older if we remember it is a rebranded 480.
Of course I would prefer if it shipped with a base model with Navi but that GPU hasn’t officially been released yet so they couldn’t announce it at WWDC. Timing product announcements is a bitch like that.
You clearly don't understand the meaning of that. You can buy pudding to put in your pants. More power to you. Yet, I get to disagree with that being a good idea. That's how these things work. Agreeing, disagreeing.
The computer industry is pretty mature at this point and updates tend to be less frequent and less impactful. I think Apple's general strategy of provide all-in-one type solutions is much less of a negative now, and is actually pretty viable for the vast majority of consumers. 10 years ago hardware was still improving at a much quicker rate making upgrades more important.
I'm just now replacing my original 5K iMac. It was the top of line, $3,000+ option 5 years ago and is probably about equivalent to an entry level iMac with an SSD and RAM upgrade. It used to be that a 5 year old computer would be a complete dinosaur that would only be good for very basic stuff. I very reluctantly accepted using an iMac, but most of my concerns were hypothetical. What if I need to upgrade the CPU, what if the screen goes bad, what if I need to replace the graphics card. Well, none of those things happened. Though you do need to plan ahead when you purchase. And because of the maturity of the computer market and the lack of Mac upgradability, I can sell my computer for probably half of what I paid.
So finally getting to my actual point... I think Apple can realistically say that their all-in-one lineup fits nearly all customer needs. And for that small percentage that does need maximum performance and bleeding edge power, well you going to have to pay up for the privilege for easy upgradability.
I'm just now replacing my original 5K iMac. It was the top of line, $3,000+ option 5 years ago and is probably about equivalent to an entry level iMac with an SSD and RAM upgrade. It used to be that a 5 year old computer would be a complete dinosaur that would only be good for very basic stuff. I very reluctantly accepted using an iMac, but most of my concerns were hypothetical. What if I need to upgrade the CPU, what if the screen goes bad, what if I need to replace the graphics card. Well, none of those things happened. Though you do need to plan ahead when you purchase. And because of the maturity of the computer market and the lack of Mac upgradability, I can sell my computer for probably half of what I paid.
So finally getting to my actual point... I think Apple can realistically say that their all-in-one lineup fits nearly all customer needs. And for that small percentage that does need maximum performance and bleeding edge power, well you going to have to pay up for the privilege for easy upgradability.