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

[deconstruct60]

Once again, the entry level is a 1.6 ghz processor. The default config is a blistering 1.7 ghz.

If you configure like the 2018 Mac Pro base model, the price is $6677.55.

If you are using one of the Gold SP processors to try to bring that up to 8 core ~4.0GHz ( Gold 6244 , 6242 or 6134 ) then is completely Apples vs Oranges. The quick specs for the Z6 G4 say that it can take the same W 3223 that the Mac Pro has. Perhaps supply problems ( or messes the pricing scheme ) it is not included on the HP Configuration page. So instead of a ~ $3-4K processor it is just $749

https://ark.intel.com/content/www/u...on-w-3223-processor-16-5m-cache-3-50-ghz.html

HP and Apple would probably mark the W 3223 up. ( HP upgrade price for 6134 $4110 and ark.intel.com price $2,220 .... just a mere ~2K difference. ). Even if HP charges $1,200 for the W 3223 the price, once HP offers it, isn't going to be anywhere near Apple base price.

HP may keep it out of the configuration page because it is kind of makes the Gold 6x44 choices a bit insane. Actually are a large number of companies that are simply going to throw away $3k for no meaningful performance improvement on single CPU systems. Or HP is going to wait until the intial round of folks fall for this. If the Z6 takes W 32xx series then for single CPU configurations (that will remain that way for lifetime of the system) the Bronze and Gold stuff is goofy.

What may ould i happen in the workstation space is the Z4 will get modded to take new socket and just further entrench itself as the best selling workstation ( as HP's site explicitly denotes ).


There is no Xeon SP Gold fig leaf to hide behind for the Mac Pro.

There is more general configurability. You can configure it at 1.6 ghz is you really are crazy enough and intent on not getting a much better i7 or i9 for cheaper. Second CPU option at the extreme other end. Ability to add optical drives. But it doesn't seem like the better deal unless you really need those things.

With the gross markups on CPUs more than a few folks buy the 1.6 GHz just toss them to get to saner CPU prices. Similar thing will happen to Apple too on its high Apple taxes extreme high end offerings.

P.S. For major account these huge CPU markups are haggled over to make it appear like the customers got some kind of "bargain" when the prices still have healthy margins left. And folks with no bargaining power just get run over.

 

[ManuelGomes]

I understand, the wait has been long and tiresome...

 

[ZombiePhysicist]

Can only take half the RAM of a Mac Pro (and then only with 2 CPUs installed) - Amateur Hour.

(And if the emoticon is not enough - I am kidding here, folks).

Did you see the price on the 28 core chip!?!? $19k!?!?! If you add it, you get $6k off. But still, $13k!?!? Insanity.

 

[AidenShaw]

If you configure like the 2018 Mac Pro base model, the price is $6677.55.

Isn't the point of the Z2/Z4/Z6/Z8 series that you can configure more affordable systems if you don't need all the bells and whistles?

Exercises to add options to HP's "xMac" to bring it to rough equivalence with the MP7,1 are pointless if you don't need or want those options.

 

[Manzanito]

Did you see the price on the 28 core chip!?!? $19k!?!?! If you add it, you get $6k off. But still, $13k!?!? Insanity.

Now imagine what apple will charge for the 28 core option!!

 

[AidenShaw]

Now imagine what apple will charge for the 28 core option!!

Easy - 28-core will be $28K

 

[deconstruct60]

GPUs only use a fraction of the total bandwidth in a PCIe3 x16 slot. Most of the people here complaining about it don't need PCIe4. PCIe3 is overpowered for GPUs.
....
.

For historical sized screen. That is changing with 8K coupled to HDR.

Apple's Afterburner card probably is capped by PCI-e v3 x16 slot to the three 8K Pro Res 30fps upper limit on its coverage. If moved 8K HDR RAW (pre ProRES ) to 3 streams at 60fps you'd pass 128Gbps. ( and 4 at 30fps will barely squeak by).

The GPU stuff that is way under the limit is gaming which is often optimized around x16 PCi-e v2 ( x8 v3 ) as that is lowest common denominator and a vast body that has hardware in that range and not enough resolution on the screen to 'pull' more bandwidth demand.

For stuff that is GPGPU or more generally 'add in card' compute focused were the to/from round trip isn't long that are more workloads that are pushing the limited.

Mac Pro 2019 would be probably better long term foundation if Intel's 10nm version had show up in 2019. Just like the Mac Pro 2013 Apple is timing is onto the end of the "tick/tock" cycle which will have an impact in the second half of lifecycle for this system. It isn't the "end of the world" bad, but this is year as a target is far more because of blunders than good product management. ( Apple and Intel over last several).

Future iterations of Afterburner won't get much better on this system.



Similarly the software tool needed to tell the users where to juggle the cards being inserted into the slots to avoid bottlenecks. Number of cards expose the limits too ( which is something this system is trying to make a selling point out of. But only in the audio card context. Which yes, there are a large groups of folks 'way under' v3 limits . )


Apple latching hard onto the notion that there is some humongous cushion is only likley to lead them back into "Rip van Winkle" mode. That will probably have bad outcomes 2-3 years out when caught asleep at the wheel again. It isn't this Mac Pro not being useful, but Apple in some sort of delusion that they are "ahead" of the game at this point. This "should have been" a 2018 product. That they are releasing it deep into 2019 is still illustrative of a problem that the June dog and pony show really cover up to anyone paying attention.

 

[goMac]

Apple latching hard onto the notion that there is some humongous cushion is only likley to lead them back into "Rip van Winkle" mode. That will probably have bad outcomes 2-3 years out when caught asleep at the wheel again. It isn't this Mac Pro not being useful, but Apple in some sort of delusion that they are "ahead" of the game at this point. This "should have been" a 2018 product. That they are releasing it deep into 2019 is still illustrative of a problem that the June dog and pony show really cover up to anyone paying attention.

The sense I get is that the ability to quickly launch new upgrades was a feature of this system. Even if they don't adopt Intel CPUs quickly (which I kind of doubt), they're likely to continuously launch new MPX modules and upgrades.

If they wanted a machine they didn't have to upgrade, they would have made a more closed system.

 

[deconstruct60]

The sense I get is that the ability to quickly launch new upgrades was a feature of this system. Even if they don't adopt Intel CPUs quickly (which I kind of doubt), they're likely to continuously launch new MPX modules and upgrades.

If they wanted a machine they didn't have to upgrade, they would have made a more closed system.

If the server variant is ready to go at the same time as the "tower" Mac Pro then Apple might be turning their track record around. If they have some "dog ate my homework" story for the Server option in October (shipping in 2020) , then they still can't back up their talk. The open slot is just as viability an excuse to do nothing and chuck the work to 3rd parties to fill in the gaps. The software to enable that will slag and Apple will toss stuff like OpenGL/CL out the window and they'll be right back in to snore mode again (just with more huge mark up money jiggling in their pockets).

They should be able to get 1-2 MPX modules out per year, but they should have had something out 2 years ago too. It is almost August and they still don't even have a firm shipping date for what they did the dog and pony show on. Apple has done a lot of 'talk', but they are still miles behind on 'do'.

An almost completely closed system wouldn't even be viable. That was a non option. Folks putting in 3rd party stuff is more misdirection than Apple solving the core product management problem here.

 

[goMac]

The software to enable that will slag and Apple will toss stuff like OpenGL/CL out the window and they'll be right back in to snore mode again (just with more huge mark up money jiggling in their pockets).

I think OpenGL and OpenCL is already tossed out the window?

It's still there in zombie mode, but Apple has made pretty clear it's going away soon.
[doublepost=1563403270][/doublepost]

If the server variant is ready to go at the same time as the "tower" Mac Pro then Apple might be turning their track record around.

I don't think the server variant is that important of a metric.

They should be able to get 1-2 MPX modules out per year, but they should have had something out 2 years ago too. It is almost August and they still don't even have a firm shipping date for what they did the dog and pony show on. Apple has done a lot of 'talk', but they are still miles behind on 'do'.

Seems like everything is on track. They haven't announced a date, but that's very Apple. We last heard September, and the last thing heard from the rumor mill is that China has already started production runs.

One hold up is that the new Mac Pro won't work without 10.14.6. There are features there for things like the Infinity Fabric needed.

 

[Derived]

Isn't the point of the Z2/Z4/Z6/Z8 series that you can configure more affordable systems if you don't need all the bells and whistles?

Exercises to add options to HP's "xMac" to bring it to rough equivalence with the MP7,1 are pointless if you don't need or want those options.

....what are you talking about? You mean like more RAM, more powerful CPUs, more storage, more powerful GPUs...just like a Mac Pro? How can you possibly say it's not a fair comparison? They're direct competitors.

 

[goMac]

Isn't the point of the Z2/Z4/Z6/Z8 series that you can configure more affordable systems if you don't need all the bells and whistles?

Exercises to add options to HP's "xMac" to bring it to rough equivalence with the MP7,1 are pointless if you don't need or want those options.

The reason you wouldn’t downgrade an H8 is because it makes no economical sense. A 1.7 ghz processor at $2000 is a bad buy even on the PC side. You could get a better non-Xeon option for half the price. It makes absolutely no sense as an “xMac.”

The entry level config on the Z8 makes no sense in any playing field unless you are really attached to the error correcting memory. A Mac Mini with eGPU is probably a better and cheaper option than the Z8.

Let me put it this way: If Apple made a 1.7 ghz Mac Pro at $2000, would that be a config that made any sense?

 

[Michael Scrip]

Isn't the point of the Z2/Z4/Z6/Z8 series that you can configure more affordable systems if you don't need all the bells and whistles?

Exercises to add options to HP's "xMac" to bring it to rough equivalence with the MP7,1 are pointless if you don't need or want those options.

Exactly.

HP, Dell, Lenovo and others have workstations at a variety of price-points. You can spend as little or as much as you want. You have a choice.

But Apple's new workstation *starts* at $6,000. There simply won't be a 7,1 Mac Pro below that price. Period!
[doublepost=1563414220][/doublepost]

The reason you wouldn’t downgrade an H8 is because it makes no economical sense. A 1.7 ghz processor at $2000 is a bad buy even on the PC side. You could get a better non-Xeon option for half the price. It makes absolutely no sense as an “xMac.”

The entry level config on the Z8 makes no sense in any playing field unless you are really attached to the error correcting memory. A Mac Mini with eGPU is probably a better and cheaper option than the Z8.

Let me put it this way: If Apple made a 1.7 ghz Mac Pro at $2000, would that be a config that made any sense?

True... it might not make total sense to pair certain CPUs with certain configurations. But at least you have the option to build whatever you want with the other guys.

But with Apple... you have to start with their rather high-end configuration and you can only go up from there.

Basically... you need at least $6,000 before you can even think about buying an Apple workstation.

Apple is playing in a different playground than everyone else. But that's their usual M.O.

 

[goMac]

Basically... you need at least $6,000 before you can even think about buying an Apple workstation.

These aren't workstation configs. They're server configs, that's why HP has those chips.

Apple doesn't make servers (at least not seriously), so they don't stock those configs.

Calling a $2000 Z8 a workstation is like calling a MacBook Air a workstation. Pretending it's a legitimate starting config for a workstation doesn't make it true.

Apple's not in a bad start for a starting point. 8 core 3.5 ghz is a decent starting point for a workstation. A 6 core 3.5 ghz option isn't unrealistic, but starts to get a little low.

And realistically, if you need 4 or 6 cores, there are way better options than the Z8.

Honestly, if Apple had announced that they were doing a 1.7 ghz $2000 starting config, you guys would still be dragging them all over the forum that they had a unrealistic starting config for $2000, when you could get a realistic starting config for $2500 on the last tower.

 

[Michael Scrip]

Calling a $2000 Z8 a workstation is like calling a MacBook Air a workstation. Pretending it's a legitimate starting config for a workstation doesn't make it true.

Maybe we need to contact HP and tell them that the Z8 is not a workstation...

...even though the product is named "HP Z8 Workstation"

My point was... you can't even get an Apple-branded workstation for less than $6,000

The new Mac Pro is a decent config for sure... but you need to spend a minimum of $6,000 to get one.

The other guys offer a wide assortment of configurations at a variety of price-points.

Maybe the cheaper Z8 workstations aren't true workstations... but at least the options are there.

With Apple you either get the $6,000 base configuration or you go home empty-handed.

 

[goMac]

Maybe we need to contact HP and tell them that the Z8 is not a workstation...

...even though the product is named "HP Z8 Workstation"

I'm not their marketing department. All I'm saying is the only reason someone would buy a $2000 1.7 ghz machine is if they needed error correcting memory in something like a server. That's a CPU you'd buy for something like a database server.

My point was... you can't even get an Apple-branded workstation for less than $6,000

Ok. What's the minimum configuration Z8 you'd get as a workstation? That should really be the comparison here. If you're saying the Z8 let's you get a workstation without all the bells and whistles you don't want, spec one out you'd actually buy and compare it against the base Mac Pro.

 

[Michael Scrip]

Ok. What's the minimum configuration Z8 you'd get as a workstation? That should really be the comparison here. If you're saying the Z8 let's you get a workstation without all the bells and whistles you don't want, spec one out you'd actually buy and compare it against the base Mac Pro.

I'm just sayin'

It's seems like whatever Apple decides the base price for the Mac Pro to be... that anyone else's workstations priced below that should be ignored. Like it's impossible to imagine that anyone would want anything less than what Apple is offering in its base-config.

And then there's the price creep:

The old cheesegrater Mac Pro started at $2,500
Then the cylinder Mac Pro started at $3,000
Now the newest Mac Pro starts at $6,000

And this is while everyone else continues to offer a variety of configs and price-points.

Yes... you can spec out a Z8 at around $6,000 at it should be roughly comparible to the $6,000 Mac Pro.

But if you need anything less than that... you're simply out of luck with Apple.

With Apple it's $6,000 or no Mac Pro for you!

If ALL workstations from ALL manufacturers started at $6,000... then there would be no discussion here.

But they don't. And that's what drives people crazy about Apple's base-prices and base-configs.

What do I know... I'm just some yahoo on a messageboard. Maybe Apple saw that most Mac Pros sold were upgraded models anyway so they decided to make the starting price $6,000 today.

That would be interesting to know...

 

[danwells]

Apple has a machine that will outperform that $2489 Z8 for $1099 (to be fair, Dell, HP themselves and everybody else also have such machines - the $2489 Z8 offers absolutely no bang for the buck). No, it doesn't have the expansion, but it has a PCIe SSD instead of a 5400 RPM hard drive for a boot drive, it is using two RAM channels instead of one, and its 6-core 3.0 gHz processor (boosting to 4.1) is much faster for most tasks than an 8-core 1.6 gHz processor boosting to 3.1.

Geekbench isn't perfect, but the Mac has a single core Geekbench score twice as high as the Z8, and a multi-core score about 133% of the HP's

If you say "a Mac Mini isn't a fair comparison", then start expanding the Z8 so it actually outperforms a Mac Mini. As you expand it to catch an iMac, it becomes more expensive than the iMac. If you expand it into the territory of the base Mac Pro, it's priced like a Mac Pro.

Realistically, there is no application for the low end Z8 - a Z2 would serve the same purposes for much less money (it's priced more like a Mac Mini). The only reason to buy a Z8 is for configurations that run out of room on a Z6, just as the only reason to buy a Z6 is for configurations that run out of room on a Z4 and the only reason to buy a Z4 is for configurations that run out of room on a Z2. A Z8 configured as a Z2 is a stupid configuration (even if you wanted one as a database server, you'd buy an actual Z2, or better yet, something like a Dell T140, a deliberate small server).

You might even consider a QNAP or Synology dedicated NAS box, depending on the application. I've never geekbenched my QNAP NAS box, but machines using the same processor (Core i3-6100) readily beat the Z8's single-core score and deliver about half of the multi-score score. Who wants a big ol' workstation that beats a glorified external drive on some tests? Do you get a "stupid system builder's medal" if your disk drive computes faster than your computer?

I'm sure a few hobbyists buy entry Z8s and stuff them full of salvage parts (what they're really buying is a really nice case, PSU and motherboard) - but no actual professional user would bother!

What people are really complaining about here is that Apple's Z4 level machine is an iMac - it's a heck of a nice machine, and it performs well, but some people don't like the form factor. Apple has two Z2 level machines (plus laptops - a 15" MacBook Pro will more than double the HP's single-core score and nearly double the multi-core score) - one's a Mac Mini and the other is an iMac.

Apple has never let hobbyists stuff bare chassis with whatever they want from any source they can find. It's not really HP's business with the Z series, either, but they're willing to sell a few bare chassis on the side (I wonder how many base and near-base Z8s they really sell)? The interesting questions about this would be:

1.) "how many Z8s (and even Z6s) are sold for under $6000"?,

2.) "who's buying them, and for what"?

My strong suspicion is that the answer to question 1 is some version of "not very many, even as a percentage of Z8 sales", and the answer to question 2 is "hobbyists whom Apple is deliberately trying to discourage because they're a support hassle".

 

[rezwits]

What does "clean" mean, and what is the advantage of "clean"?

ps: "case preserving" is the future

"Clean" harkens back to the old Mode32 days. But my reference to clean means, there is absolutely NO way to run 32-bit code, with "Standard" installs, although Apple most likely has a Mojave home-brew that runs on them, so take it for what it's worth. (they can't strip 32 bit capabilities from the Xeon tho)

 

[Coyote2006]

I still wonder ... we'll have to pay additional $ to install some HDDs or SDDs in a $6000 case?!

 

[Biped]

You might even consider a QNAP or Synology dedicated NAS box, depending on the application. I've never geekbenched my QNAP NAS box, but machines using the same processor (Core i3-6100) readily beat the Z8's single-core score and deliver about half of the multi-score score. Who wants a big ol' workstation that beats a glorified external drive on some tests? Do you get a "stupid system builder's medal" if your disk drive computes faster than your computer?

Just as a point of quibble; at no place where I have been employed, could you suggest deploying a database on a qnap/synology type device, without looking for new employment by the end of the sentence.

I don't know why bringing this up suggests anything than illustrate 'out of scope' context.

 

[danwells]

You might deploy a database on a NAS box if it was otherwise going to deploy on a 1.6 GHz computer... Certainly most database servers are much bigger than either.

Another point here is that even an unexpanded base Mac Pro (or a Z8 configured like a base Mac Pro) makes very little sense - it's a $6000 computer that performs like a $3000 computer. It'll have a hard time outperforming a modestly configured 27"iMac or a midrange Dell XPS tower.

The reason you buy something like a Mac Pro or a Z8 is to run a giant configuration in some area or another.

8-core CPU, but quad graphics for GPU-intensive 3D? Sure

28-core CPU, with a base GPU because your application ignores GPUs? That works.

Base CPU and GPU, but half a terabyte of RAM and 50 terabytes of internal SSD? Yup.

28-core CPU, quad graphics, half a terabyte of RAM, 50 terabytes of internal SSD? Perfect - it's even designed to look nice as a stand for that Oscar.

 

[deconstruct60]

I still wonder ... we'll have to pay additional $ to install some HDDs or SDDs in a $6000 case?!

Should not have to wonder. It is right on the tech specs page .

https://www.apple.com/mac-pro/specs/


There is a Kits and Accessories section in which there is a storage subsection . Those are not included the base price .

 

[deconstruct60]

Just as a point of quibble; at no place where I have been employed, could you suggest deploying a database on a qnap/synology type device, without looking for new employment by the end of the sentence.

The full set of QNAP/Synology systems is pretty broad . Some of the higher end stuff is reasonable in more a few contexts . For example

https://www.qnap.com/en-us/product/ts-ec1080 pro

Database Directory Services ( active directory / LDAP ) , DNS , would work fine . These servers are capable of running virtualized contains and are ESX approved . They are not limited to only the primary NAS OS instance .

All databases aren’t only huge piles of stuff for data mining and/or high end transaction rate OLTP .

Shops that are Windows purity in mindset would probably veto , but could be an option .

 

[deconstruct60]

...
You might even consider a QNAP or Synology dedicated NAS box, depending on the application. I've never geekbenched my QNAP NAS box, but machines using the same processor (Core i3-6100) readily beat the Z8's single-core score and deliver about half of the multi-score score. Who wants a big ol' workstation that beats a glorified external drive on some tests? Do you get a "stupid system builder's medal" if your disk drive computes faster than your computer?

The i3-6100 is just two cores . https://browser.geekbench.com/v4/cpu/13941090
The newer 2nd gen Xeon SP 4208 ( in dual CPU configuration) https://browser.geekbench.com/v4/cpu/12739563


Single : 4114 vs 3614. ( -12% for SP )
Multicore : 7262 vs. 25021 ( +245% for SP dual . + 72% single )

That’s primarily the point of the SP processors to be used as a pair at some point . For far more parallel skewed average workloads the single core drag race metric doesn’t have anywhere near a comparative impact .

A previous message mentioned that these SP processors are ‘sever’ processors. Well if the primary workflow for the workstation is to develop and management software and VM instances , having the same processor makes . Test and deploy environments would match .

This isn’t a big area where Macs dominate but it does employ a substantial number of people . These other workstations aren’t aiming only at the narrow subset the new Mac Pro is in . Apple is picking a subset where the base clock make a much bigger difference .

There are others is not searching only inside the wheelhouse of Mac Pro history


The max memory capacity is also substantially different even with just a single SP . It is not just about geekbench myopia . There is little reason to buy large memory capacity from Dell/HP than it is from Apple . They all overcharge . So buying small and upgrading probably are bought by far more than tight budget hobbyist . Hence the standard congigs the top three vendors have at the entry level .