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 Waiting for Mac Pro 7,1 A1991 (no more)
- Thread starter Mago
- Start date
-
- Tags
- macpro 2016
- Sort by reaction score
Having listened to all the podcasts, many of which included senior Apple staff, talk about the Mac Pro 7,1, I firmly believe it was designed first and foremost by Apple to be a high-end video production platform based around ProRes and Final Cut Pro. Doubly-so with the simultaneous launch of the Pro Display XDR, which is clearly optimized for video production (though I know it can be used for photography work, as well).
This was one of the markets I predicted it would be for, along with Logic Pro and iOS development, but I feel Apple looks at the iMac Pro and MacBook Pro as the model for those users and not the Mac Pro because it's just overkill in terms of it's inherent design which seems focused on high-end video work to the general exclusion of all else.
Yes, you can do other things with it, but even if they offered better base specs at the $6K price (like 12 cores, 64GB of RAM, 1TB SSD and a Vega-family GPU) it would still be $1000 more than a base iMac Pro that arguably could handle most of those tasks and comes with a really nice display included.
This was one of the markets I predicted it would be for, along with Logic Pro and iOS development, but I feel Apple looks at the iMac Pro and MacBook Pro as the model for those users and not the Mac Pro because it's just overkill in terms of it's inherent design which seems focused on high-end video work to the general exclusion of all else.
Yes, you can do other things with it, but even if they offered better base specs at the $6K price (like 12 cores, 64GB of RAM, 1TB SSD and a Vega-family GPU) it would still be $1000 more than a base iMac Pro that arguably could handle most of those tasks and comes with a really nice display included.
Yeah agreed-
The two demo workflows they used during the presentation to show off the power of the machine was Logic (pro Apple sound editing software) and Final Cut (pro Apple video editing software).
But they also made note of other high end Mac software that will be able to utilize its power, namely Autodesk (Maya), Maxon etc.
Those are pro 3D apps, so it's clear that the MP7,1 will be a great 3D workstation (if you can afford it).
The two demo workflows they used during the presentation to show off the power of the machine was Logic (pro Apple sound editing software) and Final Cut (pro Apple video editing software).
But they also made note of other high end Mac software that will be able to utilize its power, namely Autodesk (Maya), Maxon etc.
Those are pro 3D apps, so it's clear that the MP7,1 will be a great 3D workstation (if you can afford it).
I do 3D - the price to performance ratio is poor. I don't have a problem paying $6,000 for a box - but $6K can get you 3 - 4 times the cores, 4 times the ram, 4 times the SSD (that is faster), and a current video card.
There is no upside to moving to Apple, if your shop is already on windows.
What I've heard is that Apple does think of software development with the Mac Pro, but they consider the primary platform for software development to be the MacBook Pro. The problem with the MacBook Pro right now is it's in rough shape. But the redesigned 16" MacBook Pro might end up being the mid end sort of machine most people are looking for, especially with an eGPU.
A Macbook Pro that doesn't throttle easy along with an eGPU might be what a lot of people around here are looking for. Especially if they get internal upgrades back on the MacBook Pro.
The target market for the 7,1 is folks for whom none of their other offerings are sufficient. Yes, a more affordable mini-tower with proper cooling would sell some units - but enough to justify the NRE/dev/PR costs? Does it make sense to add yet another desktop SKU in 2019?
If Apple offered a de-contented 7,1 case with a smaller/cheaper PSU, fewer PCIe slots, only 6 DIMM slots, commodity mobo, etc they could probably sell some at $3,499 - but how many? Besides, how many people would want a case that big if half of it was air?
Before the announcement I had theorized that Apple might offer two starting points for the 7,1 buyer.
1) Base model that had more limited expandability and a smaller PSU
2) "Pro" model that had enough power and cooling to build out a shredder.
It would seem that they decided to make a MacPro to decisively quell the "we need PCIe slots and better cooling" crowd. It was their chance to boast that they had learned from their 6,1 "thermal corner" problem.
There may be plenty of clever folks who could do some amazing things with a mid level desktop running MacOSX. That said, with a few compromises, the vast majority can pull off the same tricks with an iMac or MBP. I don't mean to dismiss the frustrations of many on this forum who would like to have an expandable headless desktop they can afford, but I understand why Apple didn't think the juice would be worth the squeeze.
If Apple offered a de-contented 7,1 case with a smaller/cheaper PSU, fewer PCIe slots, only 6 DIMM slots, commodity mobo, etc they could probably sell some at $3,499 - but how many? Besides, how many people would want a case that big if half of it was air?
Before the announcement I had theorized that Apple might offer two starting points for the 7,1 buyer.
1) Base model that had more limited expandability and a smaller PSU
2) "Pro" model that had enough power and cooling to build out a shredder.
It would seem that they decided to make a MacPro to decisively quell the "we need PCIe slots and better cooling" crowd. It was their chance to boast that they had learned from their 6,1 "thermal corner" problem.
There may be plenty of clever folks who could do some amazing things with a mid level desktop running MacOSX. That said, with a few compromises, the vast majority can pull off the same tricks with an iMac or MBP. I don't mean to dismiss the frustrations of many on this forum who would like to have an expandable headless desktop they can afford, but I understand why Apple didn't think the juice would be worth the squeeze.
I don't know how many folks fall into my scenario, but I have the monitors, keyboards and mice already. I don't want an AIO primarily because if the monitor fails, your whole day suddenly turns bad. Whereas in my case, I have at least two other monitors I can use until I get a new monitor. The only down time is maybe 10 minutes. Note that word - minutes. Not days or weeks.
Plus, iMacs are increasingly becoming non user upgradeable meaning we have to pay 's exorbitant prices when we first order the machine. Same applies to the mini, ram is upgradeable but not the CPU or SSD or GPU.
More and more I wonder when I am going to have to go back to W10 as a primary computer because it's what I can afford, and want. I waited and hoped the 7,1 was going to be my new primary use mac, major letdown.
Plus, iMacs are increasingly becoming non user upgradeable meaning we have to pay 's exorbitant prices when we first order the machine. Same applies to the mini, ram is upgradeable but not the CPU or SSD or GPU.
More and more I wonder when I am going to have to go back to W10 as a primary computer because it's what I can afford, and want. I waited and hoped the 7,1 was going to be my new primary use mac, major letdown.
Yeah. People keep suggesting this and it makes no sense.
A Mac with a different CPU, different motherboard, and different RAM is a completely new product. It’s not a Mac Pro.
Why even bother reusing the same case. Might as well design a new one at that point.
If you want Apple to make that product, that’s fine. But it’s not connected to the Mac Pro, and Apple hasn’t produced a tower with consumer CPUs in 17 years.
Such a product still probably wouldn’t be price competitive with PCs, especially if you reused the case.
Workstations are more expensive than they used to be. You’re not going to be able to buy one at $2500 anymore. Even the ones from HP people have been spec’ing don’t get anywhere close to that.
Not that I don’t understand the appeal of a headless Mac, but “what if my AIO monitor fails?” Seems like a random and unlikely occurrence to be afraid of.
The 7.1 is about the same size as a typical workstation or tower gaming PC. Most PCs are more than half air inside, but it's not for nothing. The size of the typical case and the cooling system are proportionate to each other to enable optimum air flow. When you are going to offer dual GPU graphics cards and many Xeon core processor then at least half the space inside must be 'just air'.
If they did offer a smaller form factor then they would have to cut some features like the MPX module and not offer power hungry components in order to keep the system cool. It would also make the supply chain more expensive because you have to create two production lines. That cost will be passed on to consumers to cover the possibility that one of the production lines will be a loss maker.
Unlikely? Yes. Unheard of? No. It's important to me.
More like ~$2,500 for a lower spec Mac Pro that's actually price competitive with a fully capable Intel 8 core i7 CPU, Z390 chipset board, 32 Gb DDR4, 1 Tb NVMe SSD, 750 Watt PSU, 1 each: 10 Gb ethernet port & TB 3 port, & Radeon VII video card kind of system available from Dell, HP, and numerous other vendors.
Apple needs to offer something that competes in price with a similarly configured Hackintosh.
Their older Intel Mac Pros were somewhat price competitive with similar spec PC's.
This new base model 2019 Mac Pro is definitely not.
And: what about dust filters? As far as I can tell, this new 2019 Mac Pro has none.
And the Mac Pro's 2x 10 Gb ethernet ports: are those actually incorporated into the power supply?
Last edited:
I’m confused as to why I still see people comparing price points to i7 & i9s, non-ECC RAM, cheap SATA SSDs, plastic off-the-shelf boxes & gaming-focused Mobos. Very, very confused.
Just because you don’t need something, does not mean it’s over-priced. This seems to be the predominant additive of many. This is ridiculous.
If your needs are served well by a consumer-spec’d gaming box, go buy one. I’m not sure why we need to keep hearing about it 2 weeks on. Strange that no one seems to be able to find their way to the HP or Dell enterprise sites to compare prices...
Just because you don’t need something, does not mean it’s over-priced. This seems to be the predominant additive of many. This is ridiculous.
If your needs are served well by a consumer-spec’d gaming box, go buy one. I’m not sure why we need to keep hearing about it 2 weeks on. Strange that no one seems to be able to find their way to the HP or Dell enterprise sites to compare prices...
Because with those HP or Dell machines. while they perform VERY well, they can't run MacOS. That's why you keep hearing about those of us wanting the Dell or HP type machines but we want to run MacOS without having to make a hackintosh.
It is price-competitive with similar PCs. The problem is you're trying to spec it out with consumer parts and smaller, less expandable form factors.
I get being upset about Apple not offering an xMac, but it's never gonna' happen. Best-case scenario is either Apple offers a stripper version of the chassis at some point in the future after they've starting recouping some of the engineering costs, the re-engineer the Mac mini with something like user-replaceable SSD and MXM GPU so it can better bridge the gap, or a combination of the two. But with the Mac mini and the iMac Apple has clearly decided "a headless Mac for the sake of enthusiasts" isn't something they can make enough money off of to make it worth their while. They're going to aim for professional needs aka one of the very few markets where the PC industry isn't withering.
Last edited:
Similar to the post right above yours - https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/waiting-for-mac-pro-7-1.1975126/page-537#post-27465179 - is the reason why Apple doesn’t build another tower-based Mac apart from the Mac Pro in a nutshell.
Every one has a different threshold for the price they can tolerate. The mini-ITX/mATX/ATX/eATX marketplace is huge and has been around since clones became a thing back in the late 80’s. What that means is that for the most part you can pick and choose the exact parts you want in your preferred size case. My son wanted an SFF gaming box and bought the appropriate parts to build it. The SFF PSU size and cost and the motherboard only having a single x16 PCIe slot restricted his choices and his max amount of DRAM, cooling is an issue compared to an ATX sized case, et al. Apple chooses NOT to open Pandora’s Box and they also choose not to build for a market that will build whateve they want when , Dell, HP, Lenovo don’t give them what they want.
Notice the progression of people who wanted a Mac Pro, got a Mac Pro, but didn’t like that Mac Pro and now want Apple to build them another SKU to give them what they want. Should Apple actually do that, you have another contingent complain that that SKU doesn’t address this or that and they now need ANOTHER SKU to satisfy them. Then Apple does that and again another group complains and asks why Apple just cannot sell their OS like MS does Windows and they will build what hey want, not what Apple TELLS them they want. On and on it goes in an endless circle with no upside for Apple. So they build a $6K box and if you want it, it costs $6K, if not that’s okay too. It’s preservation of ones own sanity amidst a see of countless wants in a market that requires a lot of maintenance and tending and carefully cultivating for little upside and nowhere near the growth of the iPhone or the Watch or services, etc. Is it any wonder Dell went private and HP charges $18 for a small container of colored fluids to maintain any sort of profitability?
EDIT: Steve Jobs reached this conclusion after he came back to Apple and they went for 26 distinct models across separate line down to 4 to stabilize expenditures and try to realize some profit while they got MacOS X started and the iPod project off the ground. He knew the desktop was not the place to be and stopped the silliness that nearly bankrupted Apple. The people asking for these things would have Tim Cook take Apple down that same path.
Last edited:
Apple's entire lineup (considering that iOS is increasingly a co-equal segment of their business plan) is pretty much as diffuse as it was in the 90s at this point. I see a lot of people who (rightly) think they should streamline their focus, but it's always in a self-contradictory "give other people fewer options so I get more" zero-sum game.
I do think it’s highly likely that Apple wanted to bring out a headless iMac Pro equivalent in an non-expandable Mini or nMP form factor for software developer use cases. They just knew that until they brought out a fully expandable MP with slots, that anything less they brought out would be flamed. So, I wouldn’t be surprised if we see a new beefier Mini Pro or the like with a discrete GPU to handle 6K/8K displays as they become more available. We’ll likely never see a low end tower for the simple reason that the Apple business model depends on the majority of their models having very low support costs and average ownership of four years. They’re pricing the new Mac Pro such that the vast majority of these are handled via their business support channels and so they’ll still make money if people do hold onto them for more than four years. If you’ve ever been stuck in line behind someone who wheeled a cheesegrater into the Genius Bar for support, you know why they don’t want to serve the consumer tower market.
Is the narrative for the next 7 years only going to be about its price?
Everyone knows it's too expensive and just about everyone is disappointed with that.
Apple has moved up-market with the Mac Pro and the little guy has been left behind. Car manufacturers do it all the time. I suppose this thread could stay viable forever cuz people will always be waiting for a price drop that'll never happen.
In a very real way, the Mac Pro is officially dead (for a very large userbase). R.I.P. Mac Pro is a very apt description for the state of affairs. It's no longer a possible choice for most. That equals dead.
Everyone knows it's too expensive and just about everyone is disappointed with that.
Apple has moved up-market with the Mac Pro and the little guy has been left behind. Car manufacturers do it all the time. I suppose this thread could stay viable forever cuz people will always be waiting for a price drop that'll never happen.
In a very real way, the Mac Pro is officially dead (for a very large userbase). R.I.P. Mac Pro is a very apt description for the state of affairs. It's no longer a possible choice for most. That equals dead.
What you call "consumer parts" are exactly the basis for the above-described Z390 chipset machine costing thousands of dollars less. Apple's current iMac products are all using this same type of "consumer grade" parts. The general consumer market would like to see and benefit from a basically "headless iMac" offering of maybe one or two models that use the exact same internal parts as Apple's current iMac models. Except that these "headless iMacs" would have better cooling from being in a standard format PC case (with air filters), and would also need to allow for future PCIe video card upgrades. And therefore be more affordably priced, instead of being forced to pay for unneeded features such as ECC Ram, workstation grade CPU's & GPU's, and other such.
And as for "never gonna' happen": that's what many here were predicting for the new 2019 Mac Pro.
You can plug in at least two more external monitors to an iMac (I am doing it right now). So if my primary display dies, I still have access to the other displays to tide me over until I could schedule having the main display replaced.
Why? They haven't done so since 2013 and it hasn't crippled the Mac Group. They in fact are selling more machines than ever - they just are predominately portables now.
The difference is that during 2008-2012, all PCs, be they running Windows, macOS (OS X) or Linux, were constrained by the same bits. So they all had one or two low-core Xeon CPUs, the same general amount of RAM, the same four HDD and two optical bays and the same general number of PCI slots.
In 2019, low-core dual CPUs have mostly given way to high-core single CPU solutions. So PC Workstation makers have now bifurcated their lines with single-CPUs (Z4/Z6 to use HP as an example) and dual-CPUs (Z8). But those PC makers have also adjusted the expandability of their lines to reflect that.
You cannot put 1.5TB of RAM into a Z4 or Z6. To do that, you need a Z8. You can't have a 1.4kw PSU in a Z4/Z6 - only the Z8 can do that. And a baseline Z8 costs a heck of a lot more than a baseline Z4 or Z6 because of that expandability.
The Mac Pro is Apple's Z8 in that it is Apple's most-powerful workstation-class machine. So it's hella expensive because of that expandability - just like a baseline Z8 is. (And yes, Aidenshaw, I know the Z8 can be configured far beyond what a Mac Pro can be, which is why I am only comparing the two as the top models of their respective lines, not as peers in the marketplace).
Apple doesn't offer the family equivalent of the Z4 or Z6 and it's clear people want that / expected that. But Apple doesn't appear to feel that such a family is worth the investment to bring it to market at this time (nor for the past decade).
No Mac Pro (or Power Mac) model came with them as OEM equipment. I am sure enterprising end users will come up with a solution.
Based on the location of the motherboard in relation to the ports, no. The power supply would be adjacent to them.
I honestly think that Apple's metrics show that the majority of iOS development is done on MacBook Pros, which is why they are (finally) consistently updating the model with CPUs with more and more cores. The iMac Pro also seems to be popular with iOS developers based on the developer podcasts I listen to and posts by iOS developers in this forum and others.
And for "headless" development, there is the Mac Mini. It's on 6-core 8th generation Coffee Lake CPUs now, but Intel has 8-core 9th generation Coffee Lake CPUs that would work so I expect we will see an update down the road based on how often they are updating the MacBook Pro. And you can connect significantly powerful eGPUs to the Mac Mini if you need that.
True, if your workload benefits from "all the cores you can throw at it", the Mac Mini and MBP come up short compared to the iMac Pro, much less the Mac Pro. But if your workload is generating revenue for you, then arguably you likely can afford (and justify affording) the high-core Xeon Macs if you desire/are required to stay with macOS.
Last edited:
What happened? There is just really no reason for the entry level Mac Pro to really cost $6,000. Also, don't come to me about it being only for Paramount, Dreamworks, ILM and the whole nine yards. In this day and age where the desktop is actually near extinction, you should be selling this thing for a more reasonable price.
Also, this is not 1982, its 2002. To mass produce things like the Mac Pro at scale where it can be reasonably priced should not require it costing an arm and a leg.
Also, this is not 1982, its 2002. To mass produce things like the Mac Pro at scale where it can be reasonably priced should not require it costing an arm and a leg.
This is a take completely unmoored from the realities of computing. "This computer years ago cost this much, thus my expectations will forever be calibrated to it" doesn't make much sense.
Know what performance-competitive machine you can get for cheaper than that $1699? An iMac.