Who is the Mac Pro going to be for?

[christof69]

This is such an interesting thread again! The Mac Pro seems to have disappeared to the Big Tower in the sky....let's assume something, and I hope a lot of people would agree...traditionally, when everyone used Macs to do video/film editing (often Final Cut Pro but all the others too), lots of studios certainly that I saw and visited (I used to write music to picture) stayed loyal to Apple hardware, though more and more would use the various proprietary software/hardware systems that dominate TV/movies now. With music, Logic/Performer always scored highest and mostly on Macs. Twas traditional! ProTools is in nearly all high end studios now, and still mostly but not exclusively on Macs. Finally Photoshop/In Design work seems to be done on both main platforms, but because the trashcan Mac Pro failed, and there's huge numbers of configurable HPs and Dells etc that are decent value, and very configurable, the whole range of sizes of workplace can be more catered for outside of the Mac. Stating the obvious, I guess.

So, Apple "simply" needs to combine a Mac Mini style case, swappable motherboards (could be tricky to be easily upgradable but doable), user installable solid state storage and RAM, graphics card flexibility and some really decent 2019 monitors. Change the design every 5 years, and allow for low end systems for smaller studios and artists by being $5000 up to $15000 for more high end video houses....and at least, AT LEAST, Apple has a chance to get back some its lost business. If it doesn't do this, the iMac Pro will never be the number one machine in my opinion...people still love Macs, OS X and nicely designed gear...my studio computer is STILL the 2008 Mac Pro running 10.6.8 (I love a whole bunch of older plugins that aren't available on newer systems!). In London, practically every music studio I visit has the cheese grater tower, and I believe that reasonable price pointed systems that can run ProTools would be VERY popular!

Just my 25p.

 

[ssgbryan]

That's all well and good, but who would be willing to buy a system at that price for rendering without Nvidia support. I thought lots of 3d rendering stuff requires quadro. If not surely a 2080 ti, or two in SLI would be much much faster. I can't imagine anyone spending that type of money only to be bottlenecked by their GPU simply because they like really like OSX.

AMD ProRender engine.

It is both GPU and CPU neutral. It doesn’t care if your video card is AMD or Nvidia or Intel. It sees Both CPUs and GPUs and all memory both video and system ram as one render engine.

It is a better mouse trap.

And it is free.

 

[nbwallace]

A data scientists perspective.

While much of the work is done in the cloud these days, it’s nice to do things locally especially if you don’t want to fight about whether or not you’re allowed to land “sensitive” data in the cloud. In this case a big machine with a decent amount of ram is nice.

So I’ll run it down briefly: In my experience Windows (any iteration) is a non-starter. Though I have colleagues who do this it is really more trouble then it’s worth and going forward many of the most useful tools are not compiled against Windows, it’s apparently a disaster for developers.

The obvious choice is Unix, which is really where the action is at, supports everything, especially nvidia, which is really going hard at the data science space with incredible seamless tools. This is great but can be a non-starter in many corporate environments.

Which leaves macs. I am a die hard Mac user, I have been for years. Big enough so you get corporate software, like Microsoft office, with Unix under the hood. Corporate can figure out how to administer them, so you can get internal support. However, if they don’t start to support nvidia (or provide some libraries that address cuda to amd compiling, like rocM) they will screw themselves royally.

I am sure Apple will come up with their own ai/deep learning/data science pipeline. But in the real world it’s all about deployment, which requires standard tools. An amazing but undeployable model is just an academic exercise. Or as I call it intellectual onanism.

That wasn’t brief, sorry.

 

[gazwas]

I don't get buying a Mac for photo work nowadays. Software is the same on both platforms, and the hardware available on PC in better and cheaper at the moment. I understand getting a Mac for your personal computer because of the OS, but why spend the money on a Mac for photography anymore?

We are yet to see the computer, never mind the cost if the next Mac Pro so righting if off seems very premature. And forget iMac Pro, I didn’t understand what a regular iMac can’t do that your current PC can in terms of a photography only demand? How much faster in seconds will you save processing 500 wedding images on a PC over a 2019 i9 iMac?

I see a Mac of any description as a necessary tool of my business that is written off as an asset after two years so flexibility and what I know and like using is much more important than purchasing cost. I just don’t see your issue?

 

[th0masp]

Which leaves macs. I am a die hard Mac user, I have been for years. Big enough so you get corporate software, like Microsoft office, with Unix under the hood. Corporate can figure out how to administer them, so you can get internal support. However, if they don’t start to support nvidia (or provide some libraries that address cuda to amd compiling, like rocM) they will screw themselves royally.

So how willing is corporate to pay for a platform that treats its products aimed at professionals worse than their gadgets? Total secrecy before launch, previous product a misfire that was only acknowledged years later (and never fixed), no idea what's in store this time and when or if the entire line is even here to stay - just 'courage' and 'one more thing'?

How can that - for corporate - beat a platform choice where you can keep your entire software setup and specific hardware parts even if you switch to another vendor for the box housing it all?

 

[AidenShaw]

Typical PC'S are cheap plastic or sheet metal cases. They are a dime a dozen and nothing special to write home about.

Perhaps if you're looking at the $400 specials at Best Buy, that is true.

But, your "gold standard" here is the cMP, a professional workstation.

The Z-series and Precision workstations are as good a quality as the cMP, with similar prices. One might even say better quality - if one considers the ability to use standard UEFI and almost any off-the-shelf GPU or other components part of the measure of "quality".
[doublepost=1555168011][/doublepost]

Back then it was bragging rights due to having server architecture stuff in this amazing package and nothing out there really came close to competing...

...except for the HP, Dell, Lenovo and other workstations. They were using the same server components as the cMP.

 

[k2focus]

We are yet to see the computer, never mind the cost if the next Mac Pro so righting if off seems very premature. And forget iMac Pro, I didn’t understand what a regular iMac can’t do that your current PC can in terms of a photography only demand? How much faster in seconds will you save processing 500 wedding images on a PC over a 2019 i9 iMac?

I see a Mac of any description as a necessary tool of my business that is written off as an asset after two years so flexibility and what I know and like using is much more important than purchasing cost. I just don’t see your issue?

It's night and day difference when you are editing a wedding with 2,000-3,000 photos. Culling in LR is awful without the an 8700 or 9700 at least - and they have to be properly cooled. iMacs offer i5 and i9 I thought. i5 isn't enough and i9 is a but overkill. Also, I might be wrong, but I don't think they offer the desktop i5 and i9, so they are slower. Then, the GPU in iMacs is junk compared to a 1080 or higher. The 5k screen slows down LR tremendously compared to 4k, and it doesn't really offer much noticeable resolution bump. Finally, they are flued together and not user repairable. That is a problem because they overheat and have logic board issues. Granted, so do pcs, but those are cheap and easy to fix. iMacs are timebombs, and double the cost of PCs with much higher power for photo editing. So yes, iMacs will work, but not as well, and be much more expensive.

 

[Honumaui]

never mind

 

[gazwas]

It's night and day difference when you are editing a wedding with 2,000-3,000 photos. Culling in LR is awful without the an 8700 or 9700 at least - and they have to be properly cooled. iMacs offer i5 and i9 I thought. i5 isn't enough and i9 is a but overkill. Also, I might be wrong, but I don't think they offer the desktop i5 and i9, so they are slower. Then, the GPU in iMacs is junk compared to a 1080 or higher. The 5k screen slows down LR tremendously compared to 4k, and it doesn't really offer much noticeable resolution bump. Finally, they are flued together and not user repairable. That is a problem because they overheat and have logic board issues. Granted, so do pcs, but those are cheap and easy to fix. iMacs are timebombs, and double the cost of PCs with much higher power for photo editing. So yes, iMacs will work, but not as well, and be much more expensive.

A high end i9 iMac with Vega GPU is around £3K in the UK so less VAT £2.5K. Over say 2.5 years so you skip a generation of iMac upgrades its cost you £20 a week, less if you trade in or sell on. Seems like a negligible expense to a business and most people probably spend more on coffee per week.

I’m sure an i9 iMac would do just fine with Lightroom.

Did you spend 10k on your current PC?

 

[k2focus]

A high end i9 iMac with Vega GPU is around £3K in the UK so less VAT £2.5K. Over say 2.5 years so you skip a generation of iMac upgrades its cost you £20 a week, less if you trade in or sell on. Seems like a negligible expense to a business and most people probably spend more on coffee per week.

I’m sure an i9 iMac would do just fine with Lightroom.

Did you spend 10k on your current PC?

Still wouldn't run as well, and I got an 8700, gtx 1070, 16gb ram, 256 nvme, 4x4tb 7200 hdds, hot swappable hdd trays, mechanical keyboard, nice mouse, and fantastic I/O, for like £1,100.

 

[InuNacho]

As an artist and data hoarder, I'm not sure a new Mac Pro would no longer be needed for me. When I picked up my used 4,1 in 2011, USB 3 was not on Macs yet and dual core machines were still common place throughout the computing world. We were on the cusp of a new era of computing when I got mine, when high horsepower and high transfer speeds would become available to the masses.
I can't see myself buying a New Mac Pro, iMac Pro, or even high end iMac because I'm still getting plenty of milage out souped up Mac Pro. If the Mac Mini had a dedicated GPU, I'd be more than happy with that.

 

[k2focus]

As an artist and data hoarder, I'm not sure a new Mac Pro would no longer be needed for me. When I picked up my used 4,1 in 2011, USB 3 was not on Macs yet and dual core machines were still common place throughout the computing world. We were on the cusp of a new era of computing when I got mine, when high horsepower and high transfer speeds would become available to the masses.
I can't see myself buying a New Mac Pro, iMac Pro, or even high end iMac because I'm still getting plenty of milage out souped up Mac Pro. If the Mac Mini had a dedicated GPU, I'd be more than happy with that.

But it doesn't have one, and thats the problem.

 

[AidenShaw]

But it doesn't have one, and thats the problem.

And if the MiniMac had a dedicated GPU - it would be some old underclocked ATI GPU, not NVidia.

 

[Honumaui]

And if the MiniMac had a dedicated GPU - it would be some old underclocked ATI GPU, not NVidia.

many photographers use Capture one and C1 does better with the Radeon ? so for my line of work Nvidia comes in second for that program

even knowing that I built a PC up for that program and put a 1080 in mine ? still insane fast AND its better at gaming so i can get dual use out of the thing after work ya know priorities hahahaha

 

[gazwas]

Still wouldn't run as well, and I got an 8700, gtx 1070, 16gb ram, 256 nvme, 4x4tb 7200 hdds, hot swappable hdd trays, mechanical keyboard, nice mouse, and fantastic I/O, for like £1,100.

Your whole computer with those specs cost £1100 seems great value but I’m much happier with my Mac’s thanks?

I’m not a big user of Lightroom as I’m a Capture One user and all I do know is I’ve never been happy with Nvidia GPU’s.

My Mac’s last three years and I’m happy with their performance/cost so I guess the Mac Pro is for people like me. All my professional career and study before has been Mac based so not about to jump ship yet for the sake of the inflated Apple Tax that has always been the case.

 

[k2focus]

Your whole computer with those specs cost £1100 seems great value but I’m much happier with my Mac’s thanks?

I’m not a big user of Lightroom as I’m a Capture One user and all I do know is I’ve never been happy with Nvidia GPU’s.

My Mac’s last three years and I’m happy with their performance/cost so I guess the Mac Pro is for people like me. All my professional career and study before has been Mac based so not about to jump ship yet for the sake of the inflated Apple Tax that has always been the case.

I mean I'm not complaining about apples price really. I'm complaining that they don't offer good computers for "creatives" anymore. The price is just adding insult to injury. I don't really get why anyone would pay over double for way less. Apple used to offer some of the best stuff so their price made sense, but as a professional who values his time I don't care what OS I'm running as long as it makes me spend less time doing my work. Windows 10 isn't as pretty as OSX, but it doesn't hinder me, so I didn't mind the switch.

 

[nbwallace]

So how willing is corporate to pay for a platform that treats its products aimed at professionals worse than their gadgets? Total secrecy before launch, previous product a misfire that was only acknowledged years later (and never fixed), no idea what's in store this time and when or if the entire line is even here to stay - just 'courage' and 'one more thing'?

How can that - for corporate - beat a platform choice where you can keep your entire software setup and specific hardware parts even if you switch to another vendor for the box housing it all?

Corporate doesn’t like parts swapping much either. Under Windows they are quite interested in signed drivers. For example we’re a Lenovo shop. When I quoted a machine that supported twin 1080tis they came back with a workstation that cost $18,000. It was laughable. Down the road Costco was selling an Alienware machine with twin 1080tis for under $3000, but the firmware was a big unknown. Our Windows admins have a Lenovo tool that can update firmware on the entire installed base

However, it was moot as we couldn’t get pytorch to run under Windows anyway. I recently spoke with some guys from nvidia’s rapids development team. They told me that trying to get data science GPU stuff to work under Windows was not worth the trouble.

 

[Honumaui]

never mind hahahahahahah

 

[k2focus]

I think people are getting off topic. I'm not asking why people buy Macs. I get why people buy Macs. I have a couple. I'm asking why people would buy a new Mac pro (yes, I know it isn't out. The assumption is that it will be insanely expensive and not have Nvidia support).

 

[Honumaui]

same reason someone would buy a BMW or a Porsche

performance not spec
build quality
experience

and
bragging rights
because they can

some need want it and budget for it

 

[k2focus]

same reason someone would buy a BMW or a Porsche

performance not spec
build quality
experience

and
bragging rights
because they can

some need want it and budget for it

Performance isn't better
Build quality isn't better
Can't argue with the other points.
Still not reasons to buy the new Mac pro.

 

[jeremiah256]

Game developers?

• iPhones in 1B pockets
• Apple’s dominance in the tablet market
• Apple user’s disposable income
• Apple’s further push into gaming
• Apple’s continuous interest in AR

For a shop, grabbing several Mac Pros should be a no brainer. For individuals, probably not so much.

 

[AidenShaw]

for another view
we all have dif ideas wants uses
we have been in biz over 20 years now and have changed with times and stuff so always willing to be open and why I own a PC but prefer macs since I have real world with both ...

I know that forum rules say not to criticize language, but your posts can be very hard to understand.

A few bits of punctuation, paragraph breaks, and capitalization would go far in making your posts more useful.

[doublepost=1555203035][/doublepost]

I think people are getting off topic. I'm not asking why people buy Macs. I get why people buy Macs. I have a couple. I'm asking why people would buy a new Mac pro (yes, I know it isn't out. The assumption is that it will be insanely expensive and not have Nvidia support).

I doubt that the market for an insanely expensive workstation without Nvidia GPUs will be very big.

I've bought $24K of Quadro GPUs for a single system, but I wouldn't spend $100 for a 32 core system that won't run Nvidia GPUs. No CUDA, no sale.

 

[LogicalVue]

I mean ECC isn't bad, but it's silly for anything other than supercomputer stuff and stock trading. It's like buying a Ferrari to only drive across the street. I bet just about no one with an imac pro would have ever asked for (most would have never even heard of ECC) ECC memory if apple didnt include it. All it does is raise the price for no reason. I feel like it's the same with the xeon. Wouldn't it have been way better to have an over clocked i9 with proper thermals? What programs are "creatives" running that ask for tons of cores over lots of cores with high clock speeds. I just get the sense that apple put the most expensive and pointless components into the imac pro just to say look we have expensive parts. It's just as silly as people choosing cameras for no other reason than MP when all they do is post on FB. Maybe I'm wrong, but I haven't heard anyone give me a reason why.

Sure, if someone is buying a Mac Pro (or iMac Pro) for general purpose home use then that is overkill and a waste of money.

But there are many of us that use Macs professionally and benefit from the extra features and increased reliability that a Pro system brings to the table. As a software developer I don't really need more than 8 cores, but there are many video professionals that do. And ECC is not just for "supercomputers and stock traders". Its reliability is a real benefit that I think should probably be standard everywhere especially as RAM sizes increase. The increased PCI bandwidth that the Xeon offers is also nice, especially for those that want to use several displays.

And if the Mac Pro offers expandability of some kind, then that is another point in its favor.

So there are many reasons for some people to get a Mac Pro. I'm eager to see what Apple is going to do with it and hopefully they don't go insane with the pricing.

 

[secretbum]

This shows why apple does not want to work with Nvidia.