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

[Martyimac]

No one here is calling for the least worst cheapest POS, but the second Apple creates a Core i-based desktop mid- or mini-tower with 3 PCIe slots into the marketplace, it will immediately be dissected by the press, potential users and the general computing public. The press will call it over-priced, because they will compare it to every other comparable on the market...potential users (people on this forum) will complain that it costs too much for what it is and that they can get a cheaper PC from Dell, HP, Lenovo et al. OR tell us how they can build one cheaper that performs better, etc. and the general computing public sees what’s on sale at Best Buy and bypasses the Mac, xMac, whatever the hell its called and go buy a PC because $2,500-$3,000 is too expensive for a PC, never having any intent of paying more than $500 for some i3/8GB/500GB HDD POS that they KNOW will be fast enough for their purposes and Apple is nuts. Again, there is ZERO upside for Apple in the $2,500-$3,000 market. Hell, Dell, HP, Lenovo and the rest can’t do it either. Who here is going to buy a Dell XPS 8930 with a Core i9-9900K versus for $2999 versus building their own? Riddle me this!!!

I did for the wife, only it was a step down and cost about $1100. (Talking about the 8930)
As to the other discussion, I Respectfully disagree, there are those that want exactly what you just wrote about. The upside is they keep us in the walled garden and all the potential sales, iPhone, iPad, MBP, and various other accessories that only work in the garden. The downside? We leave and proselytize to those close to us how  priced us out of the garden. I'll be here for a few more years based on what I have. But once my main tcMP dies, I WILL be looking to replace it with another headless unit. At that point, if  doesn't have something I'm willing to pay for, I'm out. And yes, I'm willing to pay more for an  product to stay in the garden, $2-4K isn't out of the question.

 

[CWallace]

I honestly wonder just how that important that proselytizing -positive or negative - is nowadays with Apple as large a company as they are with such a massive public presence.

I entered the Mac ecosystem in 2007 because I was the only person in my circle of friends at the time who did not have a Mac. Now a decade later, I am one of the only people in my current (and far larger) circle of friends who has one (or any other Apple product). The rest either can't afford/justify the cost of Apple products or they prefer Android and Windows because that is what they know and do not want to switch even if they could get an iPhone or Mac for the same price.

For me, I continue to buy Apple products because they have the most value to me even if I could get similar (or better) raw performance for far less from Windows and Android. One area where Apple doesn't have value to me is gaming, so I did buy an Alienware PC to compliment my iMac 5K and MacBook Pro. But I only turn the PC on to play video games - everything else I use my Macs.

 

[ekwipt]

1) If your product/service has a short replacement cycle, then you don't need to make as much margin each time around. For years, computers (in most segments), were expected to meet customer needs for perhaps 2-3 years. Now that most use cases for the fat part of the bell curve - email, spreadsheets, online activities, etc - are within the capabilities of even many 5 year old machines (not to mention phones/tablets), the replacement rate has slowed significantly. Unless you boost pricing to improve margins on the lower sales rates, you're a dead company walking.

The MP 7,1 appears to have serious build quality, can be upgraded with products from other vendors and potentially stay viable for many years with regular upgrades. This means Apple needs to get their "nickel" on the original sale.

2) As others have noted, the cost of developing a model between the Mini and the MP would only make sense if the sales forecasts were above a certain level. Further complicating that equation is the potential to cannibalize sales of other models. I agree that a lower cost headless Mac would attract enthusiasts priced out of the mMP world, potentially expanding the Mac universe, which is a win. That said, I doubt that is enough incentive for Apple to start down a path where maintaining double digit margins would be very difficult.

I'm not sure about that with CPU core counts accelerating while also coming down in price, AMD Epyc will have 32 Cores 64 threads at half the pice of Intels Xeon. 64 cores and 128 Threads coming soon after. How do you compete with that?

https://wccftech.com/amd-epyc-7452-7nm-rome-server-cpu-benchmark-versus-intel-xeon/

 

[AidenShaw]

The press will call it over-priced, because they will compare it to every other comparable on the market...

If it's priced higher than truly comparable systems, then it is valid to call it overpriced. (And a fancy Jony Ive approved case is worth nothing in the comparison.)

Who here is going to buy a Dell XPS 8930 with a Core i9-9900K versus for $2999 versus building their own? Riddle me this!!!

First of all, I see $2180 as the price for an XPS 8930 with an i9-9900K. Not sure what extra **** you added to boost the price.

Second, to the "who here" question, I'll say that I WILL!

About the time that the tcMP came out, for my home system I bought a Dell Precision T3610 workstation. Hex core E5-1650 v2 CPU (same as the tcMP hex core). 5 year next day in-home warranty (which I've never had to use). Quadro GPU. 128 GiB RAM (the Dell has 8 DIMM slots, so supports twice as much as the tcMP with the same CPU).

I've built my own for a long time, but just got tired of the odd bits. (One system was fine, but didn't have enough BIOS memory to support the cards that I wanted to use. A second system built from top tier parts would hang every month or so.)

This T3610 is running fine, but I'm looking at a replacement. It will be a Dell Precision or a Z-series - no question. I will never again waste my time being a "systems integrator" for a DIY system.

And the new system will have ECC RAM. Period.

 

[danwells]

On Adobe RGB vs. P3, both are substantial upgrades from sRGB, and relatively similar. Adobe RGB tends to be favored by photographers and others in the print world, while P3 is favored by moving image folk. Most high-end monitors from EIZO, NEC, etc. support both spaces, and cover well over 95% of both. Apple's monitors have moved from sRGB only (which is about 65-70% of Adobe, and maybe about the same of P3?) to about 90-95% of P3 (with somewhat less coverage of Adobe) in recent years - pretty good, but not close to the "99% of one, 100% of the other" typical of pro monitors. At the price point of the new XDR. display, I'd hope they'll be at 100% of both, and maybe even reporting a number for ProPhoto RGB (it won't be 100%).

ProPhoto RGB is a working space intended to be significantly larger than any input or output device can support (reducing the likelihood that a camera can capture, or a printer can print, some color that the computer can't handle). Far better to be able to work with some colors you'll never get in or out than to have some color you can find, but that your computer can't accept. The oversize working space also helps when you are transforming colors from one space to another (since both spaces fit entirely inside ProPhoto, it can be an intermediary without loss on either side).

I personally have both a camera and a printer that go well outside of Adobe RGB in some colors (essentially any DSLR or mirrorless camera will, and so will any 8-12 ink printer). Neither comes close to the limits of ProPhoto at any point. I don't think even the $50,000 Phase One backs can exceed ProPhoto at any point. Of course, it's possible to imagine (and even see) a color outside of ProPhoto RGB - there are even larger spaces intended to cover all of human vision. It's possible to generate a color outside of ProPhoto chemically, or perhaps with a light source, but I don't think any of them can be photographed without a UV or IR modified camera, nor printed with any RGB or CMYK process.

 

[Flaming Gerbil]

mattspace said: ↑
I'm going to bet on Nvidia returning, once the new Catalina driver architecture has settled, as theoretically Catalina means cMPs won't be available to compete with the 2019, or eGPU options.

Only if Apple gets to peak under NVIDIA’s skirt, doesn’t have to reciprocate, is guaranteed that OpenML gets equal treatment to CUDA and Metal optimized performance none of which I ever see happening. But stranger things have happened, so I digress.
[doublepost=1561000753][/doublepost]

Twit clip on Apple/NVidia:

 

[ssgbryan]

Seriously? If you were planning on spending $3-4k on workstation, and now need to spend maybe $6-9k...does that difference in price really make or break you? If it does you don't need one. That's like 1 or 2 projects for an editor. You should be able to recoup that within a month.

Do I wish it was a little less costly? Sure, who doesn't? But I will happily pay more for this beast than pay a little less for Trashcan 2.0. At least this is a real workstation.

I AM planning on spending at least $4,500. I don't have a problem spending $6,000 - but not for an 8 core system in 2019. For thousands of 3d artists, the Mac is no longer a viable option. Full Stop.

Yes - doubling the price breaks it. A lot of folks in the 3d world are hobbyists or simply monetize our hobby - we have Mac Pros (cheesegrater or trashcan), because Apple's other offerings die when put under continuous, heavy load - Ask me how I know .

I am not the only hobbyist with a render farm at the house, not hard to do when we can get HP8200s (or HPZ210a) with 4c/8T, 32Gb ram, 120Gb hd & literally any video card (CPU rendering) for well under $200, i.e. less than an RX580.

Those of us on the Mac platform have been nursing our 4,1s & 5,1s along, waiting for the next Mac Pro. There isn't a future for us on the Mac (not even addressing a possible move to ARM), and that lack of future will affect whether or not we purchase ANY additional gear - I started to look at all of my options, and is no longer a default.

 

[mattspace]

Still think trucks are cheap, just go try and buy a Toyota HiLux down in Australia and say that to the locals with a straight face. Holy crap!!!

As a local, firstly, the Hilux is the biggest selling vehicle in Australia, secondly...

The Toyota Hilux Workmate - 4x2 trayback, with the highest load capacity of any Hilux (the 4WD versions can't carry as much) starts at ~AU$20k, which makes it one of the cheapest cars on the Australian market.

https://www.carsales.com.au/editorial/details/toyota-hilux-workmate-2019-review-116856/

*Mic Drop*

Hopefully, the eGPU will be able to move to an x8 on PCIe 3.0 or even to PCIe 4.0 and the term second rate will get you an odd glance. I'm sure that there will still be those that look down upon them, but I could care less.

It will always be secondrate, as long as tools and experiences are built to maximise the capabilities of a GPU on a full-fat PCI slot which even bargain basement windows computers have. Demands on graphics will always expand to fill capacity.

 

[curmudgeonette]

I would hazard a guess that most professionals don't need Xeon and ECC RAM. I know I don't

If you are getting paid to create data, you should want ECC. Ultimately, ECC RAM should only be 12.5% more expensive. How much is your time worth? What will it cost to redo some work? "Honest boss, I don't know why this spreadsheet shows the midwest region with $16777216 more sales that the annual report."

Could be configured up to: Intel Core i9 9980XE Extreme Edition X-series (Base:3.00GHz, Turbo:4.40GHz / 24.75MB / LGA2066 / 18 Core / 165W, Without Fan/Heatsink, Fully Unlocked), 128 GB of RAM

That's a "Xeon". Really. It is a Xeon die with a few features, like ECC, disabled.

While the i9 HEDT parts may have an MSRP of less than a similar Xeon, I expect the large quantity OEM price to be about the same. Thus, there's no reason for companies like Apple to use the HEDT chips.

 

[SoyCapitanSoyCapitan]

I AM planning on spending at least $4,500. I don't have a problem spending $6,000 - but not for an 8 core system in 2019. For thousands of 3d artists, the Mac is no longer a viable option. Full Stop.

Nice theory.

If 3D artists were spending $20,000 just for an SGI workstation with no monitor in 1995 when incomes were lower and machines much slower then why can’t they spend $6000 in 2020 when incomes are higher and machines much faster?

Do you really think they won’t chalk up their purchase as deductible business costs?
[doublepost=1561095921][/doublepost]

I'm not sure about hotcakes, they will move for sure but it won't be. high volume product.
[doublepost=1561069925][/doublepost]

It's a silly work around for something that could be fixed by having a smaller Mac Pro with 3 PCIe slots, I mean look at some of the PC X299 motherboards. You can't tell me that X299 wouldn't be used by professionals, I would hazard a guess that most professionals don't need Xeon and ECC RAM. I know I don't

https://www.gigabyte.com/au/Motherboard/X299-DESIGNARE-EX-rev-10#kf

Intel X299 Ultra Durable motherboard with Thunderbolt 3, , Triple M.2, Dual Intel LAN, Intel WIFI, Front & rear USB 3.1 gen 2 Type-C. 3-Way Graphics Support, Intel® Dual Band 802.11ac + Bluetooth 4.2 – AC 8265 Wireless Module, Quad Channel Non-ECC Unbuffered DDR4, 8 DIMMs.

Could be configured up to: Intel Core i9 9980XE Extreme Edition X-series (Base:3.00GHz, Turbo:4.40GHz / 24.75MB / LGA2066 / 18 Core / 165W, Without Fan/Heatsink, Fully Unlocked), 128 GB of RAM

A science org isn’t going to visit some DIY PC shop or a Gigabyte website.

When you say you don’t need ECC that’s you. You can’t speak for everyone and impose your needs on everyone.

 

[ETN3]

 

[filmak]

Again, if people pining for a new Mac Pro thought Apple was going to offer a new one for $3,000 in the year 2019, they weren't paying attention. The 2017 iMac Pro should have been everyone's first clue. Xeon, 8 cores, 32GB 1TB, Vega 56 - $4,999.

This is it. This is your answer. Xeon, 8 cores, 32GB 1TB, Vega 56 - $4,999 minus the display and half the SSD. Estimate the cost.
These are the components for a cheaper MP. If you start with a 580 GPU, it is even cheaper.

 

[stridemat]

MOD NOTE

Less of the general bickering and more constructive debate please.

 

[ssgbryan]

Nice theory.

If 3D artists were spending $20,000 just for an SGI workstation with no monitor in 1995 when incomes were lower and machines much slower then why can’t they spend $6000 in 2020 when incomes are higher and machines much faster?

We weren't spending $20,000 twenty years ago - the software we are using didn't exist.

You truly have no understanding of the breath of the 3D art market - for every person working at Pixar, there are thousands of us running Poser and/or Daz Studio (the Professional 3D world's dirty little secrets), developing our outdoor scenes in Vue, building assets in Hexagon or Blender, building clothing in Marvelous Designer, remodeling stuff in ZBrush, texturizing the content in Gimp or Photoshop. None of this software is expensive, and barriers to entry are simply non-existent. OTOH, you would be amazed apparently on how many hobbyist purchased a copy of Cinema3D or 3DSMax or Lightwave. I know I am (says the guy that has a full load-out of Vue, Adobe CS, and Zbrush).

This software will also use every core and every byte of ram we can throw at it (and as such, isn't arriving on ARM anytime soon). I stopped counting the cost of the digital assets I bought once I crossed the $10,000 barrier a few years back.

I started Xmas 2004 with a copy of Poser 5 - my maxed out B&W G3 was replaced by a G4 within 90 days, by 2006, it was replaced by a PowerMac G5, by Xmas 2007, I got my 1st Mac Pro, and once my software caught up with the hardware, I got my 1st 4,1. Along the way I added Vue, Blender, Carerra, Hexagon, Bryce, Zbrush, Adobe CS, etc)

This little hobby can get expensive.....

 

[th0masp]

People spent 20k on an SGI when it was the superior solution: much faster, better software, far more stable OS and enterprise level of support. And even then very few individuals actually could afford it and companies tried to get away with purchasing as few machines as possible and dropped the platform like a rock as soon as halfway-acceptable alternatives were available.

The only related holdout field I'm aware of was video where this stuff was still a thing up to the mid-noughties.

 

[Zdigital2015]

This is it. This is your answer. Xeon, 8 cores, 32GB 1TB, Vega 56 - $4,999 minus the display and half the SSD. Estimate the cost.
These are the components for a cheaper MP. If you start with a 580 GPU, it is even cheaper.

Somewhere in a thread I wrote that the configuration for the base 2019 Mac Pro at $5999 should be the following:

- 12-core Xeon W-3235
- 48GB DDR4 ECC DRAM (6x8GB), so that you get the benefits of of the triple channel DRAM
- 512GB SSD (2x256GB)
- Vega Pro 48 8GB (I realize the Vega 56 would be a better value, but this is Apple, so they will do at least one thing to drive you bonkers.

This gives a very good bang for the buck, especially compared to the current configuration Apple is leading with at the moment.

Then, as they have done in the past, allow users to downgrade these to the following:

- 8-core Xeon W-3223 - minus $300
- 32GB (4x8GB) - minus $200
- 256GB (1x256GB) - minus $200
- Radeon Pro 580X 8GB - minus $300

This would then put the base config at $4999. The values of the GPU and CPU are intentionally undervalued, because I think that is the way Apple would do it to keep as many people buying the base $5999 model as possible...its their modus operandi.

Regardless, I do hope they move the base config at $5999 up to a minimum of 12-cores and 512GB of storage even if they leave the rest alone, both of those seem punitive. Unless, the upgrade from 8-core to 12-core is going to be better than what they charge for the iMac Pro 8-core to 10-core, which is $600, or at least the same amount of money (+600).

I guess we will see shortly.

 

[danwells]

This is a rational way to look at Apple's profit-taking - this is an ultra-high end machine, and these nickel and diming decisions are really meant to force high-profit upgrades. Apart from the 12-core CPU, none of these things would cost Apple anything significant to fix.

The 8-core chip Apple's using is an economy model with a list price of $800, while the 12-core is $1400 (both according to AnandTech). Apple pays less than that, of course - but Apple probably pays at least $300 extra for the 12-core (even before they apply the Apple Tax).

The other items are all much cheaper to fix, and really should be standard. I got the prices for the followingoff Newegg

Vega 56: $270, RX 580 (not even Apple's "Pro" version): $194 (Apple's probable cost difference is about $30). Even non-GPU intensive users would almost certainly prefer the more modern Vega.

2 8 GB 2666 MHz ECC DIMMs: About $60 each (Apple probably pays half of that due to volume).

256 GB PCIe SSD: About $35 (Apple probably pays less than half, because they're buying the raw flash chips, not a finished drive with a controller, etc. They're also the world's largest volume flash buyer.

Total cost to Apple to increase the base configuration to Vega 56, 48 GB, 512 GB: Around $110-$130.

Come on Apple, eat that cost on a $6000 machine.

These are all much more reasonable starting points for workloads that don't stress that aspect of the Mac. A Vega 56 is a modern, lower-end GPU, not a 3 year old one (the Vega would be perfect for audio folks and even photographers). 48 GB uses all the memory channels.

512 GB of SSD installs the OS and a reasonably comprehensive Applications folder, with room for e-mail and Word documents plus things like Lightroom libraries or FCP project files (assuming the images or footage live on a RAID, a NAS or a SAN). The "structure" files like libraries and projects need to be fast, but they're not all that huge. 256 GB is too tight for the system, applications, small documents and "structure" files.

There are plenty of reasons to upgrade all of those things further, and probably every Mac Pro will have upgrades to some of them - but they are reasonable starting points.

 

[OS6-OSX]

MOD NOTE

Less of the general bickering and more constructive debate please.

It's a conspiracy! There are those among us that never want to see:

 

[fuchsdh]

Somewhere in a thread I wrote that the configuration for the base 2019 Mac Pro at $5999 should be the following:

- 12-core Xeon W-3235
- 48GB DDR4 ECC DRAM (6x8GB), so that you get the benefits of of the triple channel DRAM
- 512GB SSD (2x256GB)
- Vega Pro 48 8GB (I realize the Vega 56 would be a better value, but this is Apple, so they will do at least one thing to drive you bonkers.

This gives a very good bang for the buck, especially compared to the current configuration Apple is leading with at the moment.

Then, as they have done in the past, allow users to downgrade these to the following:

- 8-core Xeon W-3223 - minus $300
- 32GB (4x8GB) - minus $200
- 256GB (1x256GB) - minus $200
- Radeon Pro 580X 8GB - minus $300

This would then put the base config at $4999. The values of the GPU and CPU are intentionally undervalued, because I think that is the way Apple would do it to keep as many people buying the base $5999 model as possible...its their modus operandi.

Regardless, I do hope they move the base config at $5999 up to a minimum of 12-cores and 512GB of storage even if they leave the rest alone, both of those seem punitive. Unless, the upgrade from 8-core to 12-core is going to be better than what they charge for the iMac Pro 8-core to 10-core, which is $600, or at least the same amount of money (+600).

I guess we will see shortly.

Again, you're paying for the chassis. It's possible we'll see lower-end configurations at some point, but they're deliberately targeting the high end here, and I doubt they would have announced specs and the base price if they were going to change it. They would have heard from people they focus-grouped it to well before this if most people were balking at the entry price.

 

[AidenShaw]

Again, you're paying for the chassis.

I don't think that you could make that argument about any other workstation.

People buying Z-series buy them for the power of the system - they don't pay a couple of grand extra for a "work of art" chassis that will be hidden under their desks. And they don't spend thousands more for a Z8 or a Z6 if a Z4 is fine for their workload.

The "MPX" module is a proprietary joke, based on a false premise and supporting a severely flawed standard.

Higher end GPUs need more power than an x16 slot can deliver - and 6-pin and 8-pin auxiliary PCIe connectors have been meeting that need for many years. No advantage to making a proprietary slot to supply the power - unless you have a Jobsian aversion to cables inside a system. The "false premise" is that industry standard PCIe auxiliary power cables are bad, because Jobs didn't like cables.

The "flawed standard" is requiring that T-Bolt carry DisplayPort signals. That's cool for a laptop, where real estate for ports is at a premium - but why should an under-desk (or desktop) system have a GPU that's forced to push the video signals back down to the motherboard to be multiplexed with PCIe traffic on the T-Bolt? Let the GPU (if it's actually driving monitors) have DisplayPort (and HDMI and USB-C) connectors to directly drive the displays. Don't build the proprietary MPX module to waste a second PCIe slot to route DP to the motherboard.

DisplayPort should be an optional feature for T-Bolt. Put USB-C DP connectors on the GPUs, but have those be DP only, not low bandwidth PCIe connectors.

Some pundits loved the G4 Cube when it came out. We know how that worked out. The 7,1 might be history repeated.

 

[ssgbryan]

Again, you're paying for the chassis. It's possible we'll see lower-end configurations at some point, but they're deliberately targeting the high end here, and I doubt they would have announced specs and the base price if they were going to change it. They would have heard from people they focus-grouped it to well before this if most people were balking at the entry price.

Apple doesn't do focus groups.

They asked a bunch of high-end video folks what they would like, and that group is happy. For everyone else however,.....

 

[AidenShaw]

They asked a bunch of high-end video folks what they would like

Let me fix that for you:

• They asked a bunch of high-end video folks what they would like their employers to buy for them

 

[flat five]

I don't think that you could make that argument about any other workstation.

People buying Z-series buy them for the power of the system - they don't pay a couple of grand extra for a "work of art" chassis that will be hidden under their desks. And they don't spend thousands more for a Z8 or a Z6 if a Z4 is fine for their workload.

The cost of the chassis is more tangible than 'work of art' (though i'm sure there's some additional cost for that side as well)..

https://www.mcmaster.com/#stainless-steel-tubing/=251173c5d70040818a802ef80f1e8e5fjx6ug4s8

stainless steel tube is expensive.. if you were to buy enough to make a chassis, it'd be somewhere between $200 - $500.. i suppose Apple is doing the polishing themselves so their raw material cost isn't this but they are doing the fabricating.. you as an end buyer are paying comparable cost as you would if you bought it from McMaster.. further, they're also forming it.. and they're taking the extra steps to keep the tube at true radius through the bends whereas more traditional (ie- cheaper) fabrication methods have deformations through the bends (the cross-sections become ovoid)..

the aluminum work is also another high cost process.. cMP was stamped and bent.. ie- typical sheet metal methods.. this new thing's cheese grater is 3 dimensional as opposed to cMP's holes which were 2D.. further, it's not just single sided.. they're doing 5-axis machining on both sides of the grill.. it's a huge expense compared to other methods.. it's also a lot slower.. they're probably making maybe 20 a day.. (or- 20 a day per million dollar mill)

I'm also assuming this level, or slightly lower lever of detail/design/fabrication will be happening on the insides as well which result in even higher non-computing-component costs.

----

don't get me wrong.. i do understand where you're coming from.. i believe your take on it is that this cost is unnecessary for a computer.. and i think a lot of people would also feel the same way ("I'd much rather get $2000 more worth of processing power inside a cheaper chassis!"...or "base price should be $4000 instead of forcing us to buy this lame shell" )

i see that so i'm not trying to argue you about it or convince you that it's worth it to buy some finely machined parts in order to accomplish your computing tasks..

my point is more about the cost of the chassis is definitely apparent.. both in the material and fabrication methods necessary to obtain the results.. it's not just "work of art" Apple tax stuff.. not entirely at least..

I don't think just brushing it off as "it's not a factor when comparing the cost to other products" is fair(?) or a winning argument..

it IS a factor and not really arguable (or, at least, not in the way i've seen the argument phrased so far)

 

[AidenShaw]

stainless steel tube is expensive

And really quite unnecessary except as 'art'.

 

[flat five]

haha.. ok