MP 7,1 This is why the Mac Pro makes sense, and why it's a good thing for everyone

[calabi-yau]

Holy crap. I just realized something while reading this thread: the Mac Pro's config and price are another strong hint that Apple are moving away from Intel for the rest of their Mac line.

Up until the reveal of this new Mac Pro, people were wondering how Apple could be moving away from Intel and yet still release a new Mac Pro. Now it's clear: they're moving away from basic prosumer Intel processors. No more i5s and i7s. The only Macs in their lineup that will have Intel chips are the Mac Pro and iMac Pro, and they're crazy left-field configs with crazy expensive Xeons. If they'd have put i5s or i7s in a cheaper Mac Pro, in 2020 people would've been left wondering why they couldn't get the same chips in the MacBook Pro or regular iMac, and instead could have only ARM. Here's your answer: Xeon. People in 2020 won't be wondering why their MBP or iMac doesn't have a Xeon, because it's obvious: it's crazy expensive, and it's reserved for Apple's crazy workhorse computers

The i5s and i7s won't exist in the Mac lineup. Xeon on Mac Pro + iMac Pro, ARM on everything else.

That's why the Mac Pro doesn't have a $3k-$4k config with an i7, and neither does the iMac Pro. Apple is planning to draw a clear line between the low-power-draw ARM chips and Xeons, when they revamp their lineup in 2020.

 

[mavericks7913]

Holy crap. I just realized something while reading this thread: the Mac Pro's config and price are another strong hint that Apple are moving away from Intel for the rest of their Mac line.

Up until the reveal of this new Mac Pro, people were wondering how Apple could be moving away from Intel and yet still release a new Mac Pro. Now it's clear: they're moving away from basic prosumer Intel processors. No more i5s and i7s. The only Mac in their lineup that will have an Intel chip is the Mac Pro, and it's a crazy left-field config with a crazy expensive Xeon. If they'd have put i5s or i7s in a cheaper Mac Pro, in 2020 people would've been left wondering why they couldn't get the same chips in the MacBook Pro or the iMac, and were instead using ARM. Here's your answer: Xeon. People in 2020 won't be wondering why their MBP or iMac doesn't have a Xeon, because it's obvious: it's crazy expensive, and it's reserved for a crazy workhorse beast of a computer.

The i5s and i7s won't exist in the Mac lineup. Xeon on Mac Pro (and I guess iMac Pro?), ARM on everything else.

They have a fast CPU version of Xeon that iMac Pro has. They believe that iMac Pro is covering the mid-range but most people demand a modular desktop, not AIO.

Yes, Xeon's clock speed can not be faster than i9 or i7 and that's because they need to secure the stability more than the performance. But the point is they dont want iMac Pro instead of Mac Pro with a mid-range spec.

 

[mcnallym]

Holy crap. I just realized something while reading this thread: the Mac Pro's config and price are another strong hint that Apple are moving away from Intel for the rest of their Mac line.

Up until the reveal of this new Mac Pro, people were wondering how Apple could be moving away from Intel and yet still release a new Mac Pro. Now it's clear: they're moving away from basic prosumer Intel processors. No more i5s and i7s. The only Macs in their lineup that will have Intel chips are the Mac Pro and iMac Pro, and they're crazy left-field configs with crazy expensive Xeons. If they'd have put i5s or i7s in a cheaper Mac Pro, in 2020 people would've been left wondering why they couldn't get the same chips in the MacBook Pro or regular iMac, and instead could have only ARM. Here's your answer: Xeon. People in 2020 won't be wondering why their MBP or iMac doesn't have a Xeon, because it's obvious: it's crazy expensive, and it's reserved for Apple's crazy workhorse computers

The i5s and i7s won't exist in the Mac lineup. Xeon on Mac Pro + iMac Pro, ARM on everything else.

That's why the Mac Pro doesn't have a $3k-$4k config with an i7, and neither does the iMac Pro. Apple is planning to draw a clear line between the low-power-draw ARM chips and Xeons, when they revamp their lineup in 2020.

Apple typically use a single board for the systems, that can accommodate the configuration range.

2008 Mac Pro if bought as single cpu system still had a dual cpu board and you could source the heat sink and add the second cpu yourself.

With the 2012 mini then the same board could accommodate dual and quad core cpu’s, the 2014 cpu’s would need different socket and thus board.

The 2009-2012 Mac Pro used a separate cpu board but you could swap a single cpu board out for dual.

Apple never used non-Xeon processors in the Mac Pro. Yes some people did fit non-Xeon in there 2009-2012 systems as could take the regular cpus’s but this was simply that you could not that apple ever did.

There are 68 pci-e lanes on that board, you simply wouldn’t have the ability to drive that with less then a Xeon.

Regular consumer mac doesn’t need the power, expansion via pci-e etc that the Xeon brings, the consumer processors won’t support the capabilities that the workstation market wants.

Personally think you are reading something that not there. Not saying that apple won’t move to non-intel for lower end, with them bringing mouse support and separating iOS for phones and branding iOS for iPad as iPadOS then clearly bringing the iPad to do some of the lower end market, where chromebooks sit etc.

Remember how when the iPad Pro launched that they talked about as older pc replacement for things such as, email, web browsing, you tube, ie consumption.

Is how use mine, and if bring mouse, support, already had keyboard support then then will bring further that case. No it won’t replace 8 core or higher workstations etc but apple never claimed it would!

I know people saying that with latest releases allowing easier development that runs on arm or x86 that further evidence however you can already get apps that are available on iOS and Mac OS , such as lightroom so already possible to do. Marzipan simply make it easier to have Mac OS / iPad OS apps without having to do too much seperate work.

Windows rt was not such a resounding success that think apple would replicate with splitting the Mac lineup like that. Instead the iPad will fill out the low end market using arm, and arm being used in the Mac for comprocessor roles like the t2 and may well see the t series develop further functionality. Marzipan allows iPad OS to take that windows rt role for Mac OS whilst still distinguishing and keeping certain demarcation between iPad and Mac.

So yes will end up with lower end of range being arm but will be iPad rather then Mac. iPad os getting mouse support, already has keyboard, gaming a files app to provide finder like functionality. Take an iPad with iPad os, add a case that has keyboard, trackpad functionality, now has the ability to use external usb drives, file app, can connect to server drives, now why do you need a Mac at the lower end that does this. No reason why not having something like the Citrix receiver for it and use in BYOD market. Sounds like a shoe in for the MacBook, which would explain why not being updated.

I don’t have any evidence, or insider knowledge or contacts at apple, just what read through on the web.

 

[mode11]

If they'd have put i5s or i7s in a cheaper Mac Pro, in 2020 people would've been left wondering why they couldn't get the same chips in the MacBook Pro or regular iMac, and instead could have only ARM.

If they'd put i5s or i7s in a cheaper Mac Pro, lots of people would buy that rather than an iMac, Mac mini or low-end Mac Pro. That's the principle reason Apple has never and will never make such a machine. The ARM stuff is a red herring.

 

[Zwhaler]

You see, there isnt any mid-range modular Mac desktop. iMac Pro cant replaces the mid-range computer.

No kidding. You can't realistically expect the current Apple to release a modular mid-range computer at this point. Just look what it took to get them to release the new modular Mac Pro!

Also, the iMac Pro can't replace a mid-range computer, but the fact is that a specced up iMac can. 8-core with a Vega 48 actually, factually, is powerful enough for most people on this forum and in the wider market. It's just that many of them are too proud to admit it. The fact that we're stuck with a poor thermal design and the inability to dust it out is just an unfortunate byproduct of the new Apple.

 

[fathergll]

The new Mac Pro is here to fill that void. It's not simply for professionals, it's for industry production houses. If you do hardcore color grading or video editing at home and make money off of it, the Mac Pro is still not for you. It's for your employer who can treat it as an investment, just like they may buy a DCP projector or calibrated reference monitors from Flanders Scientific or Sony. Those things cost as much as the building itself, but it's the only way to produce that type of content.

Who is the base Mac Pro for? I understand higher end configs but who exactly is the audience in fall of 2019 that needs an 8 core Xeon with a Pro 580X given that the iMac Pro came out Dec 2017 for a $1000 less. If you needed an 8 core Xeon that runs MacOS that solution has been out for a long time. You could even spec an iMac Pro up to a 10 core Xeon for cheaper than the Mac Pro.

Is there something with the drivers for the Pro 580X that is more optimized for certain applications over Vega Pros in iMacs?

 

[calabi-yau]

So yes will end up with lower end of range being arm but will be iPad rather then Mac. iPad os getting mouse support, already has keyboard, gaming a files app to provide finder like functionality. Take an iPad with iPad os, add a case that has keyboard, trackpad functionality, now has the ability to use external usb drives, file app, can connect to server drives, now why do you need a Mac at the lower end that does this. No reason why not having something like the Citrix receiver for it and use in BYOD market. Sounds like a shoe in for the MacBook, which would explain why not being updated.

That's an interesting perspective. I don't have any evidence either, just trying to make sense of the rumors. One of the big drivers of the ARM rumor is that Apple is disappointed in Intel's lagging chip upgrades, compared to ARM's pace. This isn't an issue for the higher end (Xeon), where people don't upgrade their machines for years, but it is a problem for the low-end consumer machines, where Apple wants lots of turnover. Regardless of the complexity of maintaining two different versions of macOS going forward, I'm sure Apple has thought hard about it, and I'm willing to bet that at the very least they've got test versions of macOS running on ARM, even if they ultimately decide not to go through with it.

Another reason Apple would go for the added complexity: control. They love it. Remember Steve's fondness for that quote about making your own hardware. I guess we'll know for sure by this time next year.

 

[baryon]

Who is the base Mac Pro for? I understand higher end configs but who exactly is the audience in fall of 2019 that needs an 8 core Xeon with a Pro 580X given that the iMac Pro came out Dec 2017 for a $1000 less. If you needed an 8 core Xeon that runs MacOS that solution has been out for a long time. You could even spec an iMac Pro up to a 10 core Xeon for cheaper than the Mac Pro.

Is there something with the drivers for the Pro 580X that is more optimized for certain applications over Vega Pros in iMacs?

Yeah but buy the iMac Pro today, and in 5 years it will be obsolete.

The point here is that the Mac Pro is upgradeable and you can put a lot of stuff in it. You're not meant to buy the base model and then just use that forever, that would be silly, and an iMac Pro would be much better in that case. Instead, you can buy the base Mac Pro and keep upgrading it over the years, so that even in 12 years it still performs on par with whatever is considered "pro" at that time.

 

[fathergll]

Yeah but buy the iMac Pro today, and in 5 years it will be obsolete.

The point here is that the Mac Pro is upgradeable and you can put a lot of stuff in it. You're not meant to buy the base model and then just use that forever, that would be silly, and an iMac Pro would be much better in that case. Instead, you can buy the base Mac Pro and keep upgrading it over the years, so that even in 12 years it still performs on par with whatever is considered "pro" at that time.

This doesn't answer the question of who the base model Mac Pro is for based on what you wrote on page 1. If this is for industry production houses with $$$ why would their intention is to purchased a base Mac Pro and then attempt to nickle and dime things down the road by making unsupported CPU swaps which to my knowledge would not be an officially supported modification by Apple or possibly some of their software vendors.

What you wrote is what a prosumer would do or other professional with smaller operations might do. But you said the Mac Pro is for serious production houses who have $$$. Why would they get the base model Mac Pro if as you stated; "the price is nothing. It's the price of a bulb or two for their projector."

 

[danwells]

Assuming Apple is going to build only one (highly modular) tower, they can't address both the midrange and the extreme high end. They aren't going to use more than one CPU socket, power supply or cooling system. Some of the tower configurations people are requesting would require the consumer CPU socket (LGA 1151) and a ~500 watt power supply to pull off at a reasonable price. Others would require the HEDT/lower end Xeon socket with an 800 watt power supply.

Their response to those two markets is: Here's your iMac. They've built iMacs (regular and Pro) that serve most non-gaming needs in those markets pretty darned well (but not perfectly). They love iMacs because of the ease of support, compared to computers that you can mess with.

They got a request from a few customers (probably in Hollywood) for a computer that could do certain things that not even an iMac Pro can handle, notably extremely high-end RAM configurations, multiple high-power GPUs and accelerator cards for 8K ingest and playback. The easiest way to serve those needs was with an ultra high-end tower.

The tower they built has an incredibly high bill of materials before you ever stick a CPU, GPU, RAM or storage in it. The case and cooling is probably $1000, the power supply another $500 or more, and the motherboard is more feature-laden and expandable than a $1600 Asus Dominus Extreme that uses the same socket.

The ultra-high end configurations with 28-core CPUs, a terabyte or so of RAM and quad graphics need that kind of support hardware. This is a competitor to the HP Z8, not to the "baby workstation" Z4, and certainly not to any consumer-class desktop. It isn't dual-CPU, but I suspect the next Z8 won't be, either, the way Intel is messing with CPU pricing (a multi-CPU capable processor is around 3x as expensive as the single-CPU only version of the same chip).

The base configuration is not meant to actually sell - sure, they'll sell a few to wealthy people wanting "the biggest Mac I can get for a home computer". What they've done is to provide minimum specs for workloads that stress a different part of the computer.

A musician working on highly CPU-intensive, RAM-intensive compositions will upgrade the CPU and RAM, probably beyond where the iMac Pro can go (or close enough that they think they might upgrade beyond that in the future). They'll stick a couple of custom audio interface cards in it, and they're likely to use additional PCIe cards for storage. However, they'll keep the 580X, saying "it gets Logic and ProTools on the screen, and that's pretty well all I need a GPU for".

Conversely, a 3D modeler whose calculations are performed entirely on the GPUs may well order dual Vega II Duos, but keep the 8-core CPU, saying "it's plenty to run the macOS, and that's pretty well all it's doing - anything heavy is getting handed off to the big GPUs, and those are REALLY big".

A Hollywood editor might well upgrade CPU, GPU and RAM and add the playback accellerator, with a relatively balanced workload several steps beyond what any iMac Pro can handle.

There may even be specialized applications where 32 GB of RAM is plenty - if everything is happening in the processor cache (some small, but fast financial models). They would need the high-cache CPUs that aren't in the iMac Pro, possibly the GPUs (depending on how the models were written), and the thermal headroom.

None of these uses a base Mac Pro, but they all use different upgrades.

 

[baryon]

This doesn't answer the question of who the base model Mac Pro is for based on what you wrote on page 1. If this is for industry production houses with $$$ why would their intention is to purchased a base Mac Pro and then attempt to nickle and dime things down the road by making unsupported CPU swaps which to my knowledge would not be an officially supported modification by Apple or possibly some of their software vendors.

What you wrote is what a prosumer would do or other professional with smaller operations might do. But you said the Mac Pro is for serious production houses who have $$$. Why would they get the base model Mac Pro if as you stated; "the price is nothing. It's the price of a bulb or two for their projector."

I don't know about how/if the CPU can be upgraded. What I'm thinking is that the base Mac Pro is almost like an empty box, and you can put your own RAM in it, your own SSD, and your own GPU, and maybe even swap the CPU, that you buy from wherever you want. Except it's not exactly empty, it already has the bare minimum installed.

The point is, I don't think the base Mac pro, as it is, is worth it to anyone. It's probably meant to be upgraded the day you buy it. But at least you have the option to upgrade it with stuff that Apple doesn't sell it with.

So the base Mac Pro is not for people who can only afford the base Mac Pro. It's for people who don't want to buy the upgrades offered by Apple, but rather do the upgrades themselves. This way, you don't have to buy a much more expensive machine, only to have to remove half of the stuff inside to replace it with the stuff you want. Think of the 8GB RAM iMac: you may buy it even if you need more than 8GB, with the intention to put your own RAM in it.

 

[russell_314]

I almost wish Apple would update the trash can Mac. I think I might be one of the few that love the design. If they could upgrade it as a low end workstation that would be awesome. I'm no Apple beancounter so I don't know if there would be a market for such a device though.

 

[amedias]

I almost wish Apple would update the trash can Mac. I think I might be one of the few that love the design. If they could upgrade it as a low end workstation that would be awesome. I'm no Apple beancounter so I don't know if there would be a market for such a device though.

Make it square with round corners and call it a Mac Midi ;-)

 

[barmann]

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.

Well said .

As for users in parts of the world suffering from lower rates and super-low cost competitors, make that the entire planet .

 

[cgscotto]

A musician working on highly CPU-intensive, RAM-intensive compositions will upgrade the CPU and RAM, probably beyond where the iMac Pro can go (or close enough that they think they might upgrade beyond that in the future). They'll stick a couple of custom audio interface cards in it, and they're likely to use additional PCIe cards for storage. However, they'll keep the 580X, saying "it gets Logic and ProTools on the screen, and that's pretty well all I need a GPU for".

This states my position perfectly. I teach music at a university, I am a composer, and I do audio production. I have used Mac Pros from 1,1 to 5,1, (I gave my son my 5,1 for his audio work). Last year, in anticipation that the Mac Pro 7,1 would take a significant jump in price, I bought a Mac Pro 6,1 Cylinder. It really is a great machine for audio production. The 6,1 will hold me over until the second or third iteration (year of production) of the Mac Pro 7,1.

I thought about buying the iMac Pro as an alternative to the 7,1, so I speced a machine on the Apple Store, and it came a little over $6000.00. Of course, with the nMP 7,1, I will start $6000 and have to add more to get to the same RAM and Storage, but the advantage is that should things change in the audio production world, I will be in a better position to adapt than I would be with an iMac Pro, which will be a closed system once it is ordered.

As danwells stated, I could care less about the video cards. If the 580X gets Logic on the screen, I am good. But, I do love the available PCIe slots since much audio expansion can be done in the form of PCIe cards. Plus, I can use a card with 4 NVMe blades to get all the storage I need. Moreover, most audio plugins are RAM and CPU hungry, they don't even know what a GPU is. Finally, I don't like being limited to the display that comes with the iMac Pro.

My workflow needs two monitors, and no, one huge monitor will not do. Separate monitors mimics my workflow. I use the main screen for primary processes (Logic), and the second screen to display all the secondary stuff (plugins, other audio programs, notations programs, etc.). I would always have a mismatch between the iMac Pro display and any additional display I add to the system. This may seem like it shouldn't matter, but it really does. Having two identical monitors makes the workflow across displays easier and less disruptive. The less I notice something, the more it improves the workflow. The more I notice the difference between the displays, the more it actually slows things down.

 

[barmann]

This states my position perfectly. I teach music at a university, I am a composer, and I do audio production. I have used Mac Pros from 1,1 to 5,1, (I gave my son my 5,1 for his audio work). Last year, in anticipation that the Mac Pro 7,1 would take a significant jump in price, I bought a Mac Pro 6,1 Cylinder. It really is a great machine for audio production. The 6,1 will hold me over until the second or third iteration (year of production) of the Mac Pro 7,1. I thought about buying the iMac Pro as an alternative to the 7,1, so I speced a machine on the Apple Store, and it came a little over $6000.00. Of course, with the nMP 7,1, I will start $6000 and have to add more to get to the same RAM and Storage, but the advantage is that should things change in the audio production world, I will be in a better position to adapt than I would be with an iMac Pro, which will be a closed system once it is ordered. As danwells stated, I could care less about the video cards. If the 580X gets Logic on the screen, I am good. But, I do love the available PCIe slots since much audio expansion can be done in the form of PCIe cards. Plus, I can use a card with 4 NVMe blades to get all the storage I need. Moreover, most audio plugins are RAM and CPU hungry, they don't even know what a GPU is. Finally, I don't like being limited to the display that comes with the iMac Pro. My workflow needs two monitors, and no, one huge monitor will not do. Separate monitors mimics my workflow. I use the main screen for primary processes (Logic), and the second screen to display all the secondary stuff (plugins, other audio programs, notations programs, etc.). I would always have a mismatch between the iMac Pro display and any additional display I add to the system. This may seem like it shouldn't matter, but it really does. Having two identical monitors makes the workflow across displays easier and less disruptive. The less I notice something, the more it improves the workflow. The more I notice the difference between the displays, the more it actually slows things down.

As a teacher, aren't you supposed to know about paragraphs ?

 

[cgscotto]

As a teacher, aren't you supposed to know about paragraphs ?

Yes. And as a university professor, I also know about and can handle big paragraphs. If it makes you feel more comfortable, I broke up my comment into bite-size morsels. Thanks for the helpful criticism.

 

[jeyf]

As a teacher, aren't you supposed to know about paragraphs ?

bigger question is do you even own a mac or just here for fun

 

[slughead]

I agree and disagree with the OP. Is the new Mac Pro for industry production? Yes, but it's also for whoever wants to buy one. The Mac Pro will be available to consumers on Apple's website and in their retail stores. Plenty of rich customers will buy one who only use their computer for email and Facebook. And I see no problem with that. It's the only high quality and modular PC-type computer available from Apple and it will last for years. It's a smart investment no matter how you will use it.

What’s so special about the base model, that warrants the price over the 5,1 6,1 base model pricing.

If Apple want real pro users, why even bother having the base model.

Andrew answered your question: There are silly people with more money than sense that want it as a status symbol or to get the "latest and greatest" (gratest ?) feels from having a Mac Pro though they're just browsing facebook. I actually know a couple people who bought a previous Mac Pro specifically for that reason.

I think another reason is to avoid the sticker shock and negative vibes generated from simply releasing a product saying "Base model is 12 core, 32GB of GPU memory, $20,000. Deal with it. Think Different or GTFO."

You're right though: base model is for silly people and should not exist at all, even when comparing it to a freaking iMac.

 

[Macintosh IIcx]

Assuming Apple is going to build only one (highly modular) tower, they can't address both the midrange and the extreme high end. They aren't going to use more than one CPU socket, power supply or cooling system. Some of the tower configurations people are requesting would require the consumer CPU socket (LGA 1151) and a ~500 watt power supply to pull off at a reasonable price. Others would require the HEDT/lower end Xeon socket with an 800 watt power supply.

Their response to those two markets is: Here's your iMac. They've built iMacs (regular and Pro) that serve most non-gaming needs in those markets pretty darned well (but not perfectly). They love iMacs because of the ease of support, compared to computers that you can mess with.

They got a request from a few customers (probably in Hollywood) for a computer that could do certain things that not even an iMac Pro can handle, notably extremely high-end RAM configurations, multiple high-power GPUs and accelerator cards for 8K ingest and playback. The easiest way to serve those needs was with an ultra high-end tower.

The tower they built has an incredibly high bill of materials before you ever stick a CPU, GPU, RAM or storage in it. The case and cooling is probably $1000, the power supply another $500 or more, and the motherboard is more feature-laden and expandable than a $1600 Asus Dominus Extreme that uses the same socket.

The ultra-high end configurations with 28-core CPUs, a terabyte or so of RAM and quad graphics need that kind of support hardware. This is a competitor to the HP Z8, not to the "baby workstation" Z4, and certainly not to any consumer-class desktop. It isn't dual-CPU, but I suspect the next Z8 won't be, either, the way Intel is messing with CPU pricing (a multi-CPU capable processor is around 3x as expensive as the single-CPU only version of the same chip).

The base configuration is not meant to actually sell - sure, they'll sell a few to wealthy people wanting "the biggest Mac I can get for a home computer". What they've done is to provide minimum specs for workloads that stress a different part of the computer.

A musician working on highly CPU-intensive, RAM-intensive compositions will upgrade the CPU and RAM, probably beyond where the iMac Pro can go (or close enough that they think they might upgrade beyond that in the future). They'll stick a couple of custom audio interface cards in it, and they're likely to use additional PCIe cards for storage. However, they'll keep the 580X, saying "it gets Logic and ProTools on the screen, and that's pretty well all I need a GPU for".

Conversely, a 3D modeler whose calculations are performed entirely on the GPUs may well order dual Vega II Duos, but keep the 8-core CPU, saying "it's plenty to run the macOS, and that's pretty well all it's doing - anything heavy is getting handed off to the big GPUs, and those are REALLY big".

A Hollywood editor might well upgrade CPU, GPU and RAM and add the playback accellerator, with a relatively balanced workload several steps beyond what any iMac Pro can handle.

There may even be specialized applications where 32 GB of RAM is plenty - if everything is happening in the processor cache (some small, but fast financial models). They would need the high-cache CPUs that aren't in the iMac Pro, possibly the GPUs (depending on how the models were written), and the thermal headroom.

None of these uses a base Mac Pro, but they all use different upgrades.

Excellent post. Good point about the $1600 Asus Dominus Extreme motherboard too, forgot about that.

 

[barmann]

Yes. And as a university professor, I also know about and can handle big paragraphs. If it makes you feel more comfortable, I broke up my comment into bite-size morsels. Thanks for the helpful criticism.

No worries.
Your English is pretty good by the way , for an American uni professor .

 

[cgscotto]

No worries.
Your English is pretty good by the way , for an American uni professor .

As a German speaker, I thought you would be used to long paragraphs. Compared to Heidegger, at least mine had content. Minor note, no spaces between "way" the comma. Same goes for "professor" and the following period. The Mac is not a typewriter.

 

[DaveP]

Yeah but buy the iMac Pro today, and in 5 years it will be obsolete.

The point here is that the Mac Pro is upgradeable and you can put a lot of stuff in it. You're not meant to buy the base model and then just use that forever, that would be silly, and an iMac Pro would be much better in that case. Instead, you can buy the base Mac Pro and keep upgrading it over the years, so that even in 12 years it still performs on par with whatever is considered "pro" at that time.

Perhaps it will not be suitable for a particular use case, but it will be far from obsolete in 5 years. And likely, it can be sold for about half of the original price. Obviously it is nice to have the flexibility to upgrade individual components as needed, but upgrading the iMac by buying a new iMac is not as inefficient as it may first appear.

And I think the 12 year claim on the Mac Pro is definitely a stretch. It's not an exact comparison, but the 5,1 Mac Pro will be 12 years old until 2024.

 

[ZombiePhysicist]

And I think the 12 year claim on the Mac Pro is definitely a stretch. It's not an exact comparison, but the 5,1 Mac Pro will be 12 years old until 2024.

Wrong, the 5,1 came out 2010. It's 9 years old now.

 

[DaveP]

Wrong, the 5,1 came out 2010. It's 9 years old now.

You are correct. I was referring to the spec bumped 5,1, but that didn't get a new model number.