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
please lets not forget that IT community dont care about fancy case, so the xserve 7.1 could actually be the one who is cheaper... IT in some case dont need 28 cores but needs hi ram machine with a lot of pcie slot.
In motion picture industry they most alway have a « swiss knife » computer with all exotic in out to be able to plug whatever they need to...
In motion picture industry they most alway have a « swiss knife » computer with all exotic in out to be able to plug whatever they need to...
https://www.zdnet.com/article/deconstructing-the-base-mac-pro-why-is-it-so-expensive/
A published set of use cases, featuring quotes from interesting people doing interesting things might have been quashed some of the skepticism. I've never been quite sure how people manage to use 256 GB of RAM.
However, it does open these individuals up to criticism:
"Today, on GamersNexus, we're going to build a PC for Pixar's head of visualization, and we're going to beat out Apple's price with enough left over for some sweet RGB lighting and liquid cooling!"
Firstly, you don’t know what the term trolling means so please stop calling me it.
Secondly I posted above in reply to the other users comment and that you can upgrade an iMac Pro.
Thirdly, so What’s your problem? If you ‘claim’ you can afford a Mac Pro but you are consistently complaining about it? Do you care that much about others you don’t know, because you are talking about an entire market place? Anyway I’ve answered this previously, I’ll leave you to your confused self contradictory opinion. You seem to be moaning about Apple for the sake of it.
No. Just my speculation on how such hypothetical endorsements could backfire.
"Firstly, you don’t know what the term trolling means so please stop calling me it."
I know what it means and that applies yourself since you didnt even check what Im saying every single time.
"Secondly I posted above in reply to the other user's comment and that you can upgrade an iMac Pro."
Technically NOT upgradable. Do you really wanna lose the warranty and risk everything? How can you open the case? Huh? Can you replace GPU? NO. SSD? NO. RAM? You have to open the case and yet you have to disassemble the entire computer just for upgrading. You are misunderstanding what is upgradability.
"Thirdly, so What’s your problem? If you ‘claim’ you can afford a Mac Pro but you are consistently complaining about it? Do you care that much about others you don’t know, because you are talking about an entire market place? Anyway I’ve answered this previously, I’ll leave you to your confused self contradictory opinion. You seem to be moaning about Apple for the sake of it."
I kept mentioning about the problem and yet you didnt even read.
1. There are tons of different professional works. Current Mac Pro 2019 is focused only for high-end productions. Not all professional need $6000 basic model's spec and the price itself is too high and there is NO entry model around $3000. There isnt any option to modify for specific professionals.
2. iMac Pro can NOT be an alternative because of the cooling system and maintenance.
3. OP said Mac Pro makes sense and it's a good thing for everyone. Seriously? Not all people want AIO computer and yet he ignored the fact.
I highly doubt about what you are saying.
It's certainly true that not everybody wants an all-in-one...
However, Apple wants to maximize sales of (easier to support) all-in-ones at the expense of towers that show up with all manner of hardware they'd rather not deal with.
The price structure of iMacs versus towers has always been for Apple's convenience - to maximize sales of all-in-ones. They've never had a tower that competed with any iMac - as the iMac has become more and more powerful, the towers have retreated up the price scale.
Most photographers and other 2D-oriented professionals can work just fine on an iMac Pro, or even an upper end iMac. It may not be the machine they'd choose, but Apple has never prioritized choice - they've prioritized stability (for us) and ease of support (for them).
Most of us benefit from Apple's focus on stability - we may want NVidia GPUx, but NVidia's web drivers aren't stable, and Apple either can't or won't write one themselves that is. The xMac we want (and I want one, too) for photographic use would also inevitably attract gamers who'd demand game support, and support for games and unlimited hardware configurations would mean that macOS was no longer more stable than Windows.
If you don't like it, there's always Windows... I'd prefer HP's or Lenovo's hardware lines to choose from, but I'm not willing to give up a more stable OS with superior color management to get them.
However, Apple wants to maximize sales of (easier to support) all-in-ones at the expense of towers that show up with all manner of hardware they'd rather not deal with.
The price structure of iMacs versus towers has always been for Apple's convenience - to maximize sales of all-in-ones. They've never had a tower that competed with any iMac - as the iMac has become more and more powerful, the towers have retreated up the price scale.
Most photographers and other 2D-oriented professionals can work just fine on an iMac Pro, or even an upper end iMac. It may not be the machine they'd choose, but Apple has never prioritized choice - they've prioritized stability (for us) and ease of support (for them).
Most of us benefit from Apple's focus on stability - we may want NVidia GPUx, but NVidia's web drivers aren't stable, and Apple either can't or won't write one themselves that is. The xMac we want (and I want one, too) for photographic use would also inevitably attract gamers who'd demand game support, and support for games and unlimited hardware configurations would mean that macOS was no longer more stable than Windows.
If you don't like it, there's always Windows... I'd prefer HP's or Lenovo's hardware lines to choose from, but I'm not willing to give up a more stable OS with superior color management to get them.
Nobody questions that Apple could build the xMac (plenty of hobbyists build xMac Hackintoshes - is there any doubt that a trillion-dollar company could build what gets built in garages)?
Very few people question that a certain number of people would buy the xMac over an iMac if they had the choice. It might even be relatively popular. NOTE: I'd be an enthusiastic xMac customer (photographer), even though I believe it'll never happen. The new Mac Pro is too big for my budget, but I'd very happily buy something like the top-end 2019 iMac without a monitor, where I could add RAM and SSDs. I'm going to end up choosing between the fall MBP redesign and a 2019 iMac.
What people sometimes refuse to see is that Apple doesn't care if there are people who'd prefer an xMac to an iMac. They say "tough cookies, here's your iMac - it has the processor, storage and RAM you need, you can hook up an external display and use ours as a palette monitor if you insist".
They do this because iMacs are easier to support - they come in a limited number of configurations, while any slotbox has a nearly unlimited number. They think they'll sell iMacs to a large percentage of customers who'd prefer an xMac (and MBP's to some of the rest). They've calculated (correctly or not) that the cost of the number of customers who leak to Windows because they won't break down and buy an iMac (or a MBP) even though it isn't their first choice is less than the added support cost of the number of xMacs they'd end up selling.
They're probably right, because some significant fraction of the "leakers" are gamers, who cause high support costs because they push machines and demand weird software support.
They leak some photographers, audio folks and the like, too - but they've calculated that that leakage is worth it not to have to support the xMac
Very few people question that a certain number of people would buy the xMac over an iMac if they had the choice. It might even be relatively popular. NOTE: I'd be an enthusiastic xMac customer (photographer), even though I believe it'll never happen. The new Mac Pro is too big for my budget, but I'd very happily buy something like the top-end 2019 iMac without a monitor, where I could add RAM and SSDs. I'm going to end up choosing between the fall MBP redesign and a 2019 iMac.
What people sometimes refuse to see is that Apple doesn't care if there are people who'd prefer an xMac to an iMac. They say "tough cookies, here's your iMac - it has the processor, storage and RAM you need, you can hook up an external display and use ours as a palette monitor if you insist".
They do this because iMacs are easier to support - they come in a limited number of configurations, while any slotbox has a nearly unlimited number. They think they'll sell iMacs to a large percentage of customers who'd prefer an xMac (and MBP's to some of the rest). They've calculated (correctly or not) that the cost of the number of customers who leak to Windows because they won't break down and buy an iMac (or a MBP) even though it isn't their first choice is less than the added support cost of the number of xMacs they'd end up selling.
They're probably right, because some significant fraction of the "leakers" are gamers, who cause high support costs because they push machines and demand weird software support.
They leak some photographers, audio folks and the like, too - but they've calculated that that leakage is worth it not to have to support the xMac
And that is exactly why I’m considering other options in the space, an AIO is not for me. It’s easier for Apple to support, but it’s not easier for me in my workflow at all.
Article somewhat relevant to this thread:
https://www.macobserver.com/columns...e/mac-pro-all-apologies-signed-apple-pundits/
https://www.macobserver.com/columns...e/mac-pro-all-apologies-signed-apple-pundits/
Mac Pro 2019
CPU: 8 core 3.5 to 4.0ghz 24.5mb cache
RAM: 32GB
GPU: Radeon Pro 580X
Storage: 256GB
Price: $5999
iMac Pro
CPU: 8 cores 3.2 to 4.2ghz 19mb cache
RAM: 32GB
GPU: Radeon Pro Vega 56
Storage: 1TB
Price: $4999
Mac Pro is way more expansive with poor hardwares compared to iMac Pro.
CPU: 8 core 3.5 to 4.0ghz 24.5mb cache
RAM: 32GB
GPU: Radeon Pro 580X
Storage: 256GB
Price: $5999
iMac Pro
CPU: 8 cores 3.2 to 4.2ghz 19mb cache
RAM: 32GB
GPU: Radeon Pro Vega 56
Storage: 1TB
Price: $4999
Mac Pro is way more expansive with poor hardwares compared to iMac Pro.
The base configuration makes total sense as a starting point. The three main components, CPU, RAM, Graphics are totally fine for a particular workload individually (depending on what you're doing). There's still plenty of apps that can't utilize 8 cores & 16 threads (I'm looking at you photoshop & illustrator & InDesign & most of Adobe's software) so the 8 core CPU is plenty. Why pay more for more cores that'll never get used?
Lots of workloads will never hit a 32 GB ram ceiling. Why pay for more?
And as for the base cheapo ATI graphics card, it's plenty fine for almost all of Adobe's CS apps. And lots of other apps. A mega graphics card update won't accomplish anything but empty your wallet for those kinds of apps. What does a musician need with a fancy graphics card? Even professional photographers will be served fine with the base cheapo graphics card.
Some people may need only 8 cores in a CPU but lots & lots of ram. So that's covered. Same with some needing monster graphics power but not so much of the other stuff. And of course some could benefit greatly from 28 cores.
The base Mac Pro seems configured appropriately as a starting point (or maybe end point) (but expensive). Remember, the 2013 base trash can had 4 cores and was pretty anemic all around.
Lots of workloads will never hit a 32 GB ram ceiling. Why pay for more?
And as for the base cheapo ATI graphics card, it's plenty fine for almost all of Adobe's CS apps. And lots of other apps. A mega graphics card update won't accomplish anything but empty your wallet for those kinds of apps. What does a musician need with a fancy graphics card? Even professional photographers will be served fine with the base cheapo graphics card.
Some people may need only 8 cores in a CPU but lots & lots of ram. So that's covered. Same with some needing monster graphics power but not so much of the other stuff. And of course some could benefit greatly from 28 cores.
The base Mac Pro seems configured appropriately as a starting point (or maybe end point) (but expensive). Remember, the 2013 base trash can had 4 cores and was pretty anemic all around.
I've made this point in other threads, but I'll make it here as well: this is Tim Cook going for the PR homer. Clearly, he likes to make a big splash, everything is always bigger and better and newer and it all works somehow. Or at least that's what he's saying. But what I see is a push down to the market what Apple thinks it wants and needs. The best example, and the one we'll all point to until the get it right, is the trash can. Yes, it was powerful, yes, it was new, yes, it was, well, not bigger, but smaller, and above all newly designed. And, a total dead end. So what do they do to follow up that fiasco? Take several years to redesign the 5,1 and come up with something that is only useful for high end production houses and volume professionals. And, yes, it is a beautiful machine, and powerful and new and all that, but was it necessary?
I'm not an engineer, so I can't say whether it's form follows its function, whether there was a possible route that kept the modularity, but allowed for a lower price point while continuing to serve the needs of the production house, and volume professionals. I actually like what they've done, but again I'm puzzled as to why it is necessary to design it in such a way that it makes it impractical or impossible for a portion of their customer base to purchase the thing. We wouldn't be having this discussion if there was another machine in the Apple line up that fulfilled the needs of this vocal group of enthusiasts in the same way that they were hoping that the 7,1 would. There isn't and no amount of pretending that the iMac, the Mac Mini or the iMac Pro can or will fulfill that desire.
I don't need a perfect monitor, but in any event, I want a larger one than the iMac offers. I actually have a Mac Mini, but it has insufficient ports and not the variety I need for the variety of drives that I use. I like to have pci-E, so I can update my graphics card, I actually connect through HDMI, but who knows what the standard might be three years from now, so why should I have to get a new computer? It is a tool, and tools should be able to last a long time. For all of Apple's concern about the environment, e-waste is a bigger concern, and why does it seems to be encouraging it with limited computers? There are lots of reasons why the new 7,1 is a great machine, but there are also reasons why Apple once again missed the boat. The 7,1 is not a good thing for everyone, it's just not another dead end like the trash can.
I'm not an engineer, so I can't say whether it's form follows its function, whether there was a possible route that kept the modularity, but allowed for a lower price point while continuing to serve the needs of the production house, and volume professionals. I actually like what they've done, but again I'm puzzled as to why it is necessary to design it in such a way that it makes it impractical or impossible for a portion of their customer base to purchase the thing. We wouldn't be having this discussion if there was another machine in the Apple line up that fulfilled the needs of this vocal group of enthusiasts in the same way that they were hoping that the 7,1 would. There isn't and no amount of pretending that the iMac, the Mac Mini or the iMac Pro can or will fulfill that desire.
I don't need a perfect monitor, but in any event, I want a larger one than the iMac offers. I actually have a Mac Mini, but it has insufficient ports and not the variety I need for the variety of drives that I use. I like to have pci-E, so I can update my graphics card, I actually connect through HDMI, but who knows what the standard might be three years from now, so why should I have to get a new computer? It is a tool, and tools should be able to last a long time. For all of Apple's concern about the environment, e-waste is a bigger concern, and why does it seems to be encouraging it with limited computers? There are lots of reasons why the new 7,1 is a great machine, but there are also reasons why Apple once again missed the boat. The 7,1 is not a good thing for everyone, it's just not another dead end like the trash can.
