MP 7,1 Waiting for Mac Pro 7,1 A1991 (no more)

[chfilm]

I'm wondering if I could justify an upgrade from my 8 core trashcan. Sadly, right now most agencies book me to work in house with their own machines as theyre not willing to pay for a freelancer's workstation anymore. So instead you're forced to work with outdated hardware and can't buy something like this for yourself as a freelance editor... it kinda sucks.

 

[fuchsdh]

And the various 6 and 8 core MacBook Pros.

I don’t think even Apple counts those as belonging to the same continuum, but that’s obviously the obvious frame for all of these—we’re talking about a tiny percentage of Apple’s computers versus the laptops.

 

[CWallace]

I don’t think even Apple counts those as belonging to the same continuum, but that’s obviously the obvious frame for all of these—we’re talking about a tiny percentage of Apple’s computers versus the laptops.

I think they do, to be honest. Apple is offering six-core and eight-core options and up to 32GB of RAM and 2TB of storage because there are customers who can make use of that and justify the expense. iOS development, for example (something I thought the new Mac Pro would be aimed at, but now believe it is not).

 

[AidenShaw]

You want a 1400-watt power supply in a PC workstation? From HP that means you have to buy a Z8 because their lower-tier models max out at 1000 watts or less.

You mentioned delusional - which is just what this comment is.

Does anyone want a Mac Mini with a 1.4 kw power supply? Of course not.

Does anyone want an HP Z4 with a 1.4 kw power supply? Of course not.

The HP Z8 is the only system in the lineup with enough expandability that it could need a 1.4 kw power supply. Hence, it's the only Z-series that offers a big power supply.

 

[Pressure]

At least Cascade Lake W processors Apple will use in this machine have 64 PCIe lanes, albeit only version 3. Up from 48 PCIe lanes on Skylake W.

 

[wallysb01]

You mentioned delusional - which is just what this comment is.

Does anyone want a Mac Mini with a 1.4 kw power supply? Of course not.

Does anyone want an HP Z4 with a 1.4 kw power supply? Of course not.

The HP Z8 is the only system in the lineup with enough expandability that it could need a 1.4 kw power supply. Hence, it's the only Z-series that offers a big power supply.

No better way to figure out if this machine is for you or not is to add up everything you want and compare the wattage needed to what you have. If you're at like 50% or less, you're paying way too much in the case/mobo/psu overhead for your needs.

Its kind of interesting the way Apple went here. While they didn't outright sell you the duel GPUs like the 2013 Trash Can, they have nonetheless created and priced this machine in such a way that if you aren't going to use duel GPUs, you'd be kind of insane to buy it.

 

[Peace]

So basically. Most people here aren't really in the industry that requires powerful systems like this new MacPro.

Just a bunch of nerds geeking out over technology.

Otherwise you wouldn't think $5999 is too much for this system.

 

[Pressure]

No better way to figure out if this machine is for you or not is to add up everything you want and compare the wattage needed to what you have. If you're at like 50% or less, you're paying way too much in the case/mobo/psu overhead for your needs.

That's not exactly how a PSU work. It will in fact have the best conversion efficiency at around 50% load.

In this case 50% load is only 640 Watt. Some of that 1.4kW is lost to heat, so it can really only output 1.28kW at 240V or only 1.18kW at 110V continuously.

 

[wallysb01]

So basically. Most people here aren't really in the industry that requires powerful systems like this new MacPro.

Just a bunch of nerds geeking out over technology.

Otherwise you wouldn't think $5999 is too much for this system.

Maybe they aren't in the video industry, but that doesn't mean they aren't buying computers to do serious computational work that could use more than a Mac Mini or an iMac.
[doublepost=1559682266][/doublepost]

That's not exactly how a PSU work. It will in fact have the best conversion efficiency at around 50% load.

In this case 50% load is only 640 Watt. Some of that 1.4kW is lost to heat, so it can really only output 1.28kW at 240V or only 1.18kW at 110V continuously.

OK, so make that 25%. I've honestly never investigated this very throughly, as every system I've purchased has had a PSU way above my actual needs due to me not needing a GPU pretty much ever.

 

[fuchsdh]

You mentioned delusional - which is just what this comment is.

Does anyone want a Mac Mini with a 1.4 kw power supply? Of course not.

Does anyone want an HP Z4 with a 1.4 kw power supply? Of course not.

The HP Z8 is the only system in the lineup with enough expandability that it could need a 1.4 kw power supply. Hence, it's the only Z-series that offers a big power supply.

I’m sure there are some people who would want the processor selection of the Z4 with the expansion capabilities of the Z6 and Z8.

 

[now i see it]

What just happened (MacPro price hike) is what Toyota does all the time. 10 years later a new version of a model comes out with more bells & whistles & better interior & engine ... and the price gets jacked up another $10,000 at the very minimum. Sometimes a lot more depending on the model.
It's mission creep and price creep and inflation.

But on the other hand, from a purely philosophical point of view, the cost (not price) of anything, be it paper clips or toilet paper or cars or computers is determined by the wages and profits paid to everyone involved.

If we could get a state of the art, top of the line Mac computer 10-12 years ago for $12,000, chocked to the gills, why is it now that a state of the art computer (will likely) costs 6X that?

Everyone involved in its creation, from the screws to the CPU to the construction worker pouring the foundation of a new multi billion dollar fab for Intel, still is just going to work everyday, making a salary like always, but they're not making 6X more money 10 years later. So where is this extra money going? Why the 6X jump in product price?

I'll let you in on a little secret:
Profits

 

[vailr]

If it were my decision at Apple, I'd still get a deal going with HP, and let them factory install OSX Mojave/Catalina on a few models of their less expensive (~$1,500 to ~$4,000) Intel machines. And without requiring Apple's T2 controller chip. Offer them for sale in the same month that the 2019 Mac Pro is officially put on sale.
Those would easily outsell the new $5,999 machine.
That reminds me: is the 2019 Mac Pro still using Apple's proprietary EFI bios firmware?
Or did they switch to a normal PC type of UEFI bios firmware?

 

[Jack Burton]

I would have loved a Mac Pro mini as a "one more thing." 2 full length GPU PCI slots. 8 core 9900k with good cooling. Non ECC ram, user serviceable ram.

Man, that would have been sweet.

Apple takes the top end crown for video and audio pros, and gives creative generalists a machine with power and cooling to do the local work we grind out every day at an affordable price.

 

[Kpjoslee]

If it were my decision at Apple, I'd still get a deal going with HP, and let them factory install OSX Mojave/Catalina on a few models of their less expensive (~$1,500 to ~$4,000) Intel machines. And without requiring Apple's T2 controller chip. Offer them for sale in the same month that the 2019 Mac Pro is officially put on sale.
Those would easily outsell the new $5,999 machine.
That reminds me: is the 2019 Mac Pro still using Apple's proprietary EFI bios firmware?
Or did they switch to a normal PC type of UEFI bios firmware?

Apple has done that in the 90s with Mac clone thing and it almost drove Apple to the ground. Most likely, that will be the last time Apple would do anything similar.

I would have loved a Mac Pro mini as a "one more thing." 2 full length GPU PCI slots. 8 core 9900k with good cooling. Non ECC ram, user serviceable ram.

Man, that would have been sweet.

Apple takes the top end crown for video and audio pros, and gives creative generalists a machine with power and cooling to do the local work we grind out every day at an affordable price.

Apple has zero interest in chasing that market. Even if you take some marketshare that way, it is hardly profitable.

 

[syndr0me]

I just want a machine that doesn't fall on its face when using the LG 5K monitor, especially those few times a month I use Lightroom. Is there anything in the lineup that can do that? iMacs have the specs but come with an extra monitor I don't want. The dGPUs in the latest laptops apparently still struggle. The mini has a terrible iGPU. eGPUs are expensive and buggy. There's nothing particularly pro about my needs, but man, the lackluster GPU situation across the entire line is irritating.

 

[vailr]

Apple has done that in the 90s with Mac clone thing and it almost drove Apple to the ground. Most likely, that will be the last time Apple would do anything similar.

That was back when the Mac was their sole bread and butter, and before the portable gadgets made them a trillion dollar company.

Apple has zero interest in chasing that market. Even if you take some marketshare that way, it is hardly profitable.

I disagree. It'd be more like market share siphoned off from the Windows PC portion of the marketplace.
Easy money for Apple. Whether you're talking about an HP machine with an Apple operating system inside, or a completely Apple designed machine, built mostly to normal PC configuration standards. Apple could still make a profit. They could simply copy the material list of their entire line of iMacs, and put virtually identical parts inside a normal (user accessible) PC case, but without including the display screen.
Put the ~$200 Apple Tax on each machine, and be very profitable, selling to Windows converts.

 

[0388631]

My current theory for Apple going all out on this Mac Pro is they did a regressive marketing attack. Release a gimped product for years and then release an amazing product even if the base model blows.


If Apple introduce a new MacBook Pro this fall or next fall, expect it to be a total redesigned Pro product that costs more and offers much more than the current model. It'll also be thicker to allow for higher performance computing.

or sata multiplexer

Not as reliable. Performance varies greatly. Setup usually requires a compliant mobo.
[doublepost=1559694028][/doublepost]

You mentioned delusional - which is just what this comment is.

Does anyone want a Mac Mini with a 1.4 kw power supply? Of course not.

Does anyone want an HP Z4 with a 1.4 kw power supply? Of course not.

The HP Z8 is the only system in the lineup with enough expandability that it could need a 1.4 kw power supply. Hence, it's the only Z-series that offers a big power supply.

Yeah but more watts means you're a right big boy!

 

[DearthnVader]

I think a lot of people complaining about the entry price of the Mac Pro aren't really pro users, more of enthusiasts and hobbyist.

I understand the pain there, I'm more of an enthusiast or hobbyist, but that doesn't mean I don't need a Pro machine.

I'd almost venture to say this new Mac boarders on a newer series of Mac, a market I've thought Apple should get into for a long time, the elite market. Let those that can and will pay more have a line to spend cash on and recoup the design costs and tooling.

Doesn't mean I think Apple should ignore the enthusiast market, but I bet they will offer a lower spec Mac with PCI-E slots at some point down the road when they have recovered their upfront costs. I've seen that happen before with the G5 line.

I think this is a great machine and I'll be pulling the trigger on one myself, even if I do feel it's more pricey than I really need. However, I think the price is very competitive with other Intel workstations offered by HP and others.

I've never owned a Mac that didn't pay for itself within the firsts two years I had it, and I don't expect this one is going to very far from those norms for me.

I understand freelance pros find the price a little too steep, but as is often the case, you get what you pay for, even if you may need to borrow to buy it, it's an investment.

 

[fuchsdh]

What just happened (MacPro price hike) is what Toyota does all the time. 10 years later a new version of a model comes out with more bells & whistles & better interior & engine ... and the price gets jacked up another $10,000 at the very minimum. Sometimes a lot more depending on the model.
It's mission creep and price creep and inflation.

But on the other hand, from a purely philosophical point of view, the cost (not price) of anything, be it paper clips or toilet paper or cars or computers is determined by the wages and profits paid to everyone involved.

If we could get a state of the art, top of the line Mac computer 10-12 years ago for $12,000, chocked to the gills, why is it now that a state of the art computer (will likely) costs 6X that?

Everyone involved in its creation, from the screws to the CPU to the construction worker pouring the foundation of a new multi billion dollar fab for Intel, still is just going to work everyday, making a salary like always, but they're not making 6X more money 10 years later. So where is this extra money going? Why the 6X jump in product price?

I'll let you in on a little secret:
Profits

You do realize inflation is also a thing, right? The IIfx cost the rough equivalent of $19K at the time—entry price.

The state of the Art you’re comparing from ten years ago isn’t as state of the art and envelop-pushing as this model, simply put.

 

[Aldaris]

I think a lot of people complaining about the entry price of the Mac Pro aren't really pro users, more of enthusiasts and hobbyist.

I understand the pain there, I'm more of an enthusiast or hobbyist, but that doesn't mean I don't need a Pro machine.

I'd almost venture to say this new Mac boarders on a newer series of Mac, a market I've thought Apple should get into for a long time, the elite market. Let those that can and will pay more have a line to spend cash on and recoup the design costs and tooling.

Doesn't mean I think Apple should ignore the enthusiast market, but I bet they will offer a lower spec Mac with PCI-E slots at some point down the road when they have recovered their upfront costs. I've seen that happen before with the G5 line.

I think this is a great machine and I'll be pulling the trigger on one myself, even if I do feel it's more pricey than I really need. However, I think the price is very competitive with other Intel workstations offered by HP and others.

I've never owned a Mac that didn't pay for itself within the firsts two years I had it, and I don't expect this one is going to very far from those norms for me.

I understand freelance pros find the price a little too steep, but as is often the case, you get what you pay for, even if you may need to borrow to buy it, it's an investment.

Oh won’t be a day one buyer, but I am overall impressed and hope to have one eventually-right now I am wondering about actual modules and upgrade options, I suspect to have one on my desk sooner than later though.

 

[ssgbryan]

At least Cascade Lake W processors Apple will use in this machine have 64 PCIe lanes, albeit only version 3. Up from 48 PCIe lanes on Skylake W.

And Eypc has 128 lanes.

Yet another reason they should have gone all in with AMD.

 

[mattspace]

I understand the pain there, I'm more of an enthusiast or hobbyist, but that doesn't mean I don't need a Pro machine.

Part of the problem, is that for certain tasks, it's not a Pro machine. I've made more in recent times from VR, than I have from any other computer-based parts of my practice. Apple does not have a machine that's "Pro" for VR, full stop. Now, it's true that most pro tools for VR work (tools where you work in VR) don't have Mac versions - hell some of the apps Apple used in pre-release form at the launch events for the iMac Pro still haven't come out for macOS, despite releasing on Windows. But, it's a chicken & egg thing - noone's going to make macOS versions without an install-base of machines optimised to run the apps.

A headless iMac, with a single PCI slot (preferably 2 for a Vive Pro WiGig adapter), and an off the rack 2080ti would be more "Pro", than this machine, sadly.

 

[kiiso]

So basically. Most people here aren't really in the industry that requires powerful systems like this new MacPro.

Just a bunch of nerds geeking out over technology.

Otherwise you wouldn't think $5999 is too much for this system.

Soo true. I am one of them!

 

[Boil]

...the case, power supply and cooling system alone add up to well over $2000 of the cost... That 8-slot, 12-DIMM motherboard is a $1000+ item...

That leaves Apple with not a huge amount of budget for the other components - they spent most of the entry price on infrastructure to support nearly unlimited upgrades of the other components.

Yes, Apple chose a relatively entry-level CPU for the base model - to the relief of people whose work is exclusively GPU-bound. The CPU is plenty to run macOS and get the work to the GPUs...

Yes, that's a $200 GPU in the base model - to the relief of people whose work is CPU-bound. It'll drive any display, and there are plenty of workloads where that's all that's needed.

On the other hand, each individual option could make sense at base for certain uses - a musician might be happy with the base GPU (although she chose a 24-core CPU and 192 GB of RAM), while an AI researcher whose code runs exclusively on the GPU might choose a Vega Pro Duo (or even two of them), but the 8-core CPU and 32 GB of RAM are fine for getting the code to the serious processing in the GPUs.

No, Apple didn't cater to people who wanted an expandable midrange Mac - something like a Dell XPS tower. It would be possible to use the base model that way, but you'd pay literally thousands of dollars for cooling, power supply, chassis and slots that you don't need.

They have maintained for over 20 years that this market is better served by largely sealed computers - cue gnashing of gamer teeth.

Apple could benefit from a four headed desktop lineup:

Mac mini - entry level - APU / RAM / secondary storage (single M.2 slot) all upgradable
Mac - prosumer level - CPU / RAM / GPU (single PCIe slot) / secondary storage (two M.2 slots) all upgradable
xMac - enthusiast level - CPU / RAM / GPU (three PCIe slots, x16, x16, x8) / secondary storage (two M.2 slots) all upgradable
Mac Pro - professional level - see new mMP

They could also add some lower cost monitors to the lineup;

Entry level - 2K TB3 display
Prosumer level - 5K TB3 display
Enthusiast level - 6K3K TB3 display
Professional level - 6K XDR TB3 display

One odd thing in the context of future PCIe 4.0 and PCIe 5.0 systems is that the x16 sockets are the furthest away from the CPU. I suspect these boards were not designed with PCIe 5.0 in mind for the future. But that will be a future board anyway if they stick with Intel (as there will be a socket change probably).

While changing sockets & upgrading the PCIe system, Apple could also make the prudent move to the AMD lineup of CPUs & APUs...

This would be alongside the ARM transition, which may begin in 2020, but will be a slower roll out than the "finshed by 2022" timeline that some Bloomberg (?) threw out...

Apple has a chance to build a track record with MPX modules. If the bump the 580X "half height" module in Jan-April next year then would be a good sign. (the basics of the 580X module should have been done relatively long time ago. If they can't trail 6-10 months behind mainstream card releases that went into other Macs, then they aren't on a good iteration path.)

I would think Navi 10 GPU(s) to replacement the aged RX 580, and Navi 20 GPU(s) to replace the Vega IIs & Duos...

If the rack thing slides into 2020... that would be a bad sign.

They are saying Fall, just like for the tower version...

The only way Apple is going to get out of the "trusted execution" hole is regular execution; not dog and pony shows.

Delivering all the tech specs promise by 'Fall' of this year, seeing suitable GPU upgrade paths, and actually updating the motherboard as needed (socket / PCIe system changes) would allow this chassis to actually go for ten+ years...

I would have loved a Mac Pro mini as a "one more thing." 2 full length GPU PCI slots. 8 core 9900k with good cooling. Non ECC ram, user serviceable ram.

Man, that would have been sweet.

Apple takes the top end crown for video and audio pros, and gives creative generalists a machine with power and cooling to do the local work we grind out every day at an affordable price.

See my thoughts towards a Mac & xMac headless desktops in the lineup...

Apple has done that in the 90s with Mac clone thing..

I had a Power Computing PowerTower Pro 225 with a whopping 64MB of RAM & a 21" CRT...

I think a lot of people complaining about the entry price of the Mac Pro aren't really pro users, more of enthusiasts and hobbyist.

I understand the pain there, I'm more of an enthusiast or hobbyist, but that doesn't mean I don't need a Pro machine.

I'd almost venture to say this new Mac boarders on a newer series of Mac, a market I've thought Apple should get into for a long time, the elite market. Let those that can and will pay more have a line to spend cash on and recoup the design costs and tooling.

Doesn't mean I think Apple should ignore the enthusiast market, but I bet they will offer a lower spec Mac with PCI-E slots at some point down the road when they have recovered their upfront costs. I've seen that happen before with the G5 line.

I think this is a great machine and I'll be pulling the trigger on one myself, even if I do feel it's more pricey than I really need. However, I think the price is very competitive with other Intel workstations offered by HP and others.

I've never owned a Mac that didn't pay for itself within the firsts two years I had it, and I don't expect this one is going to very far from those norms for me.

I understand freelance pros find the price a little too steep, but as is often the case, you get what you pay for, even if you may need to borrow to buy it, it's an investment.

A decent BTO Mac Pro & a single proper Pro Display XDR monitor is going to run one about $20K...

Below that the choices are laptop, mini, or iMac (Pro); definitely room for a few more headless desktops...

You do realize inflation is also a thing, right? The IIfx cost the rough equivalent of $19K at the time—entry price.

The state of the Art you’re comparing from ten years ago isn’t as state of the art and envelop-pushing as this model, simply put.

Man, the IIfx... I received one of those as a 'hand-me-down' when I helped a friend upgrade to a PowerMac 9600...

Wish I still had it, I would pull the PCBs and make some shadow box art, and then build a Hackintosh system in the chassis...!

 

[wallysb01]

You do realize inflation is also a thing, right? The IIfx cost the rough equivalent of $19K at the time—entry price.

The state of the Art you’re comparing from ten years ago isn’t as state of the art and envelop-pushing as this model, simply put.

Inflation is not a thing on the tech sector, deflation is.