Who is the Mac Pro going to be for?

[Ludacrisvp]

I doubt the Mac Pro will start at $2K or $3K. The first Mac Pro back in $2199, back in 2006. .... Dual Xeon Mac Pro would start at $6K minimum, and go up rapidly from there.

Well a dual Xeon Mac Pro was $3k or less in the cMP, my 08 dual quad was less than 3 new.
What makes you think that they’ll charge an extra $2-3k base price for an extra cpu?
Before I bought the 3,1 new I tried to build a spec equivalent system to it and a pc setup that had equivalent hardware was at least 2x more than the 3,1. Apple likely gets cpus and other things from intel at a great price allowing them to sell cheaper than what you’d be able to put together on your own.

 

[bin90a]

I have been progressively moving into the Mac ecosystem since 2009, iPads, Mac Mini, iPhones, then MacBook Pro in 2013, then a 5.1 cMP which I pimped a fair bit, CPU, RAM, etc. Still upgrading a bit, eg metal compatible GPU, now run Mojavé. Do I need more? tcMP? Don’t think so.

 

[09872738]

Well a dual Xeon Mac Pro was $3k or less in the cMP, my 08 dual quad was less than 3 new.
What makes you think that they’ll charge an extra $2-3k base price for an extra cpu?
Before I bought the 3,1 new I tried to build a spec equivalent system to it and a pc setup that had equivalent hardware was at least 2x more than the 3,1. Apple likely gets cpus and other things from intel at a great price allowing them to sell cheaper than what you’d be able to put together on your own.

Not any more in 2019... just check the recent price hike

 

[AidenShaw]

All that RAM configs require 2 CPU chips. I winder if the new Mac Pro will support dual Xeons?

The Xeon W-series can support 512 GiB (8 * 64 GiB), a single Xeon Scalable can support 1 TiB.

This was a limitation of the 2013 Mac Pro, the case design only allowed for a single CPU.

Yes, the problem was the case design - putting a CPU that supports 12 DIMMs in a case with 4 DIMM slots.
[doublepost=1555774900][/doublepost]

Before I bought the 3,1 new I tried to build a spec equivalent system to it and a pc setup that had equivalent hardware was at least 2x more than the 3,1.

Did you use the list price for the other system, or the street price?

Note the Z4 I quoted a few posts back:

 

[Ludacrisvp]

Did you use the list price for the other system, or the street price?

Note the Z4 I quoted a few posts back:

View attachment 833068​

I compared price in cart for machines from all the major manufacturers in 2008, the Mac Pro was always cheaper or the competition couldn’t get close to the same specs. I then assembled a list of parts (dual socket board, dual Xeons of the same model as the 3,1) it was still more money and would not have been in such a great clean design.

If they do a dual socket board (which I doubt will happen these days due to NUMA and single socket core and thread counts go a lot higher than they did back in cMP days) I still don’t see them charging $2/3k more for the second cpu.

Recall that they only discounted the Mac Pro about $400 if you went to single cpu variant for $1000+ retail Xeon cpus.

 

[fermat-au]

Well a dual Xeon Mac Pro was $3k or less in the cMP, my 08 dual quad was less than 3 new.
What makes you think that they’ll charge an extra $2-3k base price for an extra cpu?
Before I bought the 3,1 new I tried to build a spec equivalent system to it and a pc setup that had equivalent hardware was at least 2x more than the 3,1. Apple likely gets cpus and other things from intel at a great price allowing them to sell cheaper than what you’d be able to put together on your own.

The first Mac Pro was dual Xeon, but that was back dual core days, so it was 2 x 2-cores, so 4 cores. Today Xeons and i9s are up to 18+ cores, there is less of a need for dual or quad Xeons systems.
If I had to, I would guess the new Mac Pro would start at $5K-$6K, with a dual Xeon (if an option) being $1k more. Dual CPUs also require a different more expensive board in addition to the cost of the extra CPU.
Apple will get a good price from Intel for Xeons, but not significantly better than Dell etc. Xeon are expensive no matter who you are.

 

[pertusis1]

can someone give me a specific use where you'd need this?

To be perfectly honest, I don't need a super-fast computer for work, but I hate waiting. And I hate screens that jump. And I don't really like to move all of my stuff from one computer to the next every three years.

Ten years ago, I bought an iMac. Within 3 years, I was tearing it apart due to a hard drive failure, and within a year after that, it was unusably slow. I found that the all-in-one line was generally good for 3 years, four if you don't mind a jumpy computer. Seven years ago, I bought a mac mini (the variety you could upgrade) and put a SSD and maxed out the RAM at 16 GB. I was lured in by the Geekbench scores that suggested I might be able to edit my old home videos on it. It took 24 hrs to process a 50 minute Digital8 home video. If I was lucky, it wouldn't crash during that time. I gave up and bought a 5,1 dual processor computer. With a few mods, it took a 24 hr video job down to about 40 minutes. That was 7 years ago, and it remains rock solid. Did I really need that fast Mac Pro? Not really. Did it make the video editing enjoyable? You bet.

I expect Apple will make my 5,1 obsolete somehow after the modular Mac Pro comes out, but by then I'll probably be ready to replace this beast. I considered the iMac Pro, but I really want the screen separate from my computer. Hopefully I can still use my ACD 30" with the new technology (-; Speaking of longevity, that monitor's 10 years old, and not missing a pixel! Am I the only one that will be replacing the 30" with whatever new monitor Apple comes out with?

 

[JesterJJZ]

I still love my 30”. The power supply is a bit wonky. I have it on a switch and physically cut power to it when I turn it off. If I leave it connected to power, even with my MacPro off, the screen starts to flicker after a while.

 

[JazzyGB1]

So I'm not trying to start a debate on Mac vs PC - I use both. It is an honest question, and I wonder if it's why Apple hasn't released a new Mac Pro in ages, but who is it for?

I can't think of a reason to buy a $10,000+ Mac nowadays. I'm sure I'm wrong, which is why I'm asking. What software that is either OSX only or runs way better on Mac could possibly justify spending that amount on hardware that will almost certainly be like a third of the cost on PC?

As I said before, I'm not trying to start a debate or bash Apple over pricing. I honestly would just like to know who would be interested in this and why?

I'm mainly asking because I see a lot of people asking if they should buy the new Mini or wait for the new Mac Pro.

I'm probably in a good place to answer this, as I've been desperately awaiting a proper replacement for my 2009 Mac Pro and yet I'm not a professional.

I use my Mac for writing music and use Logic as my DAW so am pretty much tied to the Mac Platform.

There's dozens of soft synth packages plus big sample libraries in my arsenal, so having expandable internal storage on which to store them is perfect for me and keeps my studio a lot tidier than it would be with external drives.

Soft synths get more demanding by the day, so having a Mac that's expandable in RAM storage (and even GPU) has been perfect for me.

I've had 3 or 4 drive failures over the last decade but haven't lost any data due to having the backups and replacing the dead hard drive has been a matter of visiting Amazon to order another and then copying the data back.

The BIGGEST mistake Apple could make is to believe that only Professionals need this option and that only professionals buy towers.

I've had towers since my 9600 Power PC, to G3, G4, G5 and then Mac Pros.

It was only when they introduced the Mac Pro that the prices started to rise so steeply.

The 2013 tMac Pro entry level price was $2999, that's $1000 more than the G5 was in 2006 - a $1000 premium in 7 years...ouch!

If Apple introduce a new Mac Pro starting over $3000 then it'll be out of reach to me regardless of how great it is.

Making an aspirational Pro Mac is good, but making an unobtainable one isn't. Introducing a Mac that ONLY Pros (or very wealthy) can afford would be a HUGE own goal IMO and would doom it to be a failure just as the 2013 model was.

There has to be a Mac Pro model starting at under $2500 for it to be a viable option.

If Canon only sold DSLRs to professionals they wouldn't sell many DSLRs. Having an affordable entry point for their range doesn't make them any less 'Pro' - a lesson that Apple would do well to learn.

 

[Jorbanead]

I'm probably in a good place to answer this, as I've been desperately awaiting a proper replacement for my 2009 Mac Pro and yet I'm not a professional.

I use my Mac for writing music and use Logic as my DAW so am pretty much tied to the Mac Platform.

There's dozens of soft synth packages plus big sample libraries in my arsenal, so having expandable internal storage on which to store them is perfect for me and keeps my studio a lot tidier than it would be with external drives.

Soft synths get more demanding by the day, so having a Mac that's expandable in RAM storage (and even GPU) has been perfect for me.

I've had 3 or 4 drive failures over the last decade but haven't lost any data due to having the backups and replacing the dead hard drive has been a matter of visiting Amazon to order another and then copying the data back.

The BIGGEST mistake Apple could make is to believe that only Professionals need this option and that only professionals buy towers.

I've had towers since my 9600 Power PC, to G3, G4, G5 and then Mac Pros.

It was only when they introduced the Mac Pro that the prices started to rise so steeply.

The 2013 tMac Pro entry level price was $2999, that's $1000 more than the G5 was in 2006 - a $1000 premium in 7 years...ouch!

If Apple introduce a new Mac Pro starting over $3000 then it'll be out of reach to me regardless of how great it is.

Making an aspirational Pro Mac is good, but making an unobtainable one isn't. Introducing a Mac that ONLY Pros (or very wealthy) can afford would be a HUGE own goal IMO and would doom it to be a failure just as the 2013 model was.

There has to be a Mac Pro model starting at under $2500 for it to be a viable option.

If Canon only sold DSLRs to professionals they wouldn't sell many DSLRs. Having an affordable entry point for their range doesn't make them any less 'Pro' - a lesson that Apple would do well to learn.

I’d argue though that Apple’s solution to this is the Mac mini 2018. It’s perfect for someone in your position, with the only downside being the GPU and not being able to upgrade storage. I honestly don’t see them putting out a Mac Pro below $3k. They don’t want to put anything but top tier Xeon, Vega and flash storage parts which will drive the cost up. Look at the iMac Pro. They won’t build a machine that is any less powerful than the baseline iMac Pro. If your budget is below $3k Apple will tell you to get a Mac Mini or iMac.

 

[Flint Ironstag]

I don't think $3k starting price for this type of professional tool is too much, provided it offers solid utility out of the box.

 

[partsofspeech]

I don't think $3k starting price for this type of professional tool is too much, provided it offers solid utility out of the box.

$3,000 for entry configuration is welcomed; $2,500 will create a nightly queue that has long been absent from Apple stores.

To be perfectly honest, I don't need a super-fast computer for work, but I hate waiting. And I hate screens that jump. And I don't really like to move all of my stuff from one computer to the next every three years.

Ten years ago, I bought an iMac. Within 3 years, I was tearing it apart due to a hard drive failure, and within a year after that, it was unusably slow. I found that the all-in-one line was generally good for 3 years, four if you don't mind a jumpy computer. Seven years ago, I bought a mac mini (the variety you could upgrade) and put a SSD and maxed out the RAM at 16 GB. I was lured in by the Geekbench scores that suggested I might be able to edit my old home videos on it. It took 24 hrs to process a 50 minute Digital8 home video. If I was lucky, it wouldn't crash during that time. I gave up and bought a 5,1 dual processor computer. With a few mods, it took a 24 hr video job down to about 40 minutes. That was 7 years ago, and it remains rock solid. Did I really need that fast Mac Pro? Not really. Did it make the video editing enjoyable? You bet.

I expect Apple will make my 5,1 obsolete somehow after the modular Mac Pro comes out, but by then I'll probably be ready to replace this beast. I considered the iMac Pro, but I really want the screen separate from my computer. Hopefully I can still use my ACD 30" with the new technology (-; Speaking of longevity, that monitor's 10 years old, and not missing a pixel! Am I the only one that will be replacing the 30" with whatever new monitor Apple comes out with?

Thanks for sharing your experience. I am not living on video making, but if I edit my videos, I want that an enjoyable, inspirational, and productive process as well. Besides video processing, science research, financial analyst, data mining, .. just a few popping off my head, can make good use of Mac Pro. Let’s hope current Apple won’t define ‘pros’ narrow-mindedly.

 

[mattspace]

I don't think $3k starting price for this type of professional tool is too much, provided it offers solid utility out of the box.

Sadly doesn't address the problem that Apple won't offer a "professional" computer (user upgradable, non-throttling-performance focussed), down into the priceranges that HP will go with Z workstations.

 

[Simon R.]

I’d argue though that Apple’s solution to this is the Mac mini 2018. It’s perfect for someone in your position, with the only downside being the GPU and not being able to upgrade storage. I honestly don’t see them putting out a Mac Pro below $3k. They don’t want to put anything but top tier Xeon, Vega and flash storage parts which will drive the cost up. Look at the iMac Pro. They won’t build a machine that is any less powerful than the baseline iMac Pro. If your budget is below $3k Apple will tell you to get a Mac Mini or iMac.

Not - a Mac Mini is not powerful enough for working with loads of VI's and tons of samples. Depending on what you need to do, one PC/Mac isn't even enough, no matter how powerful. You need as many cores + ghz as possible + tons of memory, not to mention an array of SSD's, which would better be hosted inside the case than outside. And then you'd also likely want three display outputs.

 

[barmann]

$3,000 for entry configuration is welcomed; $2,500 will create a nightly queue that has long been absent from Apple stores.

Easy tiger, what about specs and upgrade costs ?

 

[Nugget]

Not - a Mac Mini is not powerful enough for working with loads of VI's and tons of samples. Depending on what you need to do, one PC/Mac isn't even enough, no matter how powerful. You need as many cores + ghz as possible + tons of memory, not to mention an array of SSD's, which would better be hosted inside the case than outside. And then you'd also likely want three display outputs.

You’re not describing a $2500 machine, which is what the poster you are replying to was talking about.

I think it’s spot on. We can infer a lot about the bottom end of the Mac Pro by looking at the top end of the Mac Mini. The fact that you can buy a Mac Mini with 10gbit Ethernet and 64gb of RAM tells me that Apple intend for it to sit in the market segment that has previously been served by the low end Mac Pro.

 

[Blair Paulsen]

If you consider headless options as a continuum, then a $2,999-$3,999 base config that slots above a loaded mini should find an audience. Similar to basing several car models off one platform, it might make sense for Apple to spread out the cost of developing a modern "modular" design over a wider swath of potential customers. Sure, the bigger margins will be in the bomber BTOs, but economies of scale still help.

 

[ssgbryan]

You’re not describing a $2500 machine, which is what the poster you are replying to was talking about.

I think it’s spot on. We can infer a lot about the bottom end of the Mac Pro by looking at the top end of the Mac Mini. The fact that you can buy a Mac Mini with 10gbit Ethernet and 64gb of RAM tells me that Apple intend for it to sit in the market segment that has previously been served by the low end Mac Pro.

Then Apple doesn't have a clue.

It still lacks cores (maxes out at 6 - I was using more than that 12 years ago), low memory ceiling, and the price doesn't cover an eGPU ($700) or external HDD space ($500 + drives).

The Mini is a dongle for Final Cut & Logic.

 

[AidenShaw]

If you consider headless options as a continuum, then a $2,999-$3,999 base config that slots above a loaded mini should find an audience.

The whole idea of "slotting" and artificially putting systems into tiers is something that Apple users should not tolerate, and something that Apple should be forced to abandon. It's just nonsense. There's no reason why an entry level Mac Pro needs to be more expensive than a loaded MiniMac.

A Z4 starts at $1344 and goes up to over $33K.
A Z8 starts at $3095 and goes up to over $225K.

That's a lot of overlap.

 

[mattspace]

A Z4 starts at $1344 and goes up to over $33K.
A Z8 starts at $3095 and goes up to over $225K.

That's a lot of overlap.

I've complained previously about how the Z is handled here in .au - for the Z6 for example, we get 6 prebuilt configs, with no customisation options (Quadro only, P4000 the highest GPU spec), and no "build your own" option that the American Z store gets. BUT the $AU 7029 version costs ~$AU 7200 when specced the same on the US BTO store.

It's like buying a Mac - low end GPUs overall, and every config has all its parts from a similar place in the overall product range, so no high CPU, low GPU or low CPU, high GPU options.

 

[AidenShaw]

I've complained previously about how the Z is handled here in .au - for the Z6 for example, we get 6 prebuilt configs, with no customisation options (Quadro only, P4000 the highest GPU spec), and no "build your own" option that the American Z store gets. BUT the $AU 7029 version costs ~$AU 7200 when specced the same on the US BTO store.

It's like buying a Mac - low end GPUs overall, and every config has all its parts from a similar place in the overall product range, so no high CPU, low GPU or low CPU, high GPU options.

Fly to the US and expense the plane ticket as part of the hardware cost

 

[JazzyGB1]

I’d argue though that Apple’s solution to this is the Mac mini 2018. It’s perfect for someone in your position, with the only downside being the GPU and not being able to upgrade storage.

Right...so not perfect at all then...

The Mac Mini isn't a replacement for a Mac Pro however much Apple might like to convince some it is.

I use a 3TB hard drive as my boot drive - that's a simple thing even a build to order Mac Mini doesn't offer.
I stream my sample libraries from 2 SSD's - all housed neatly inside the case and all replaceable in 5 minutes.

So a Mac Mini is not a viable alternative. Even if I were to order a BTO £2500 Model it doesn't change it's limitations. It's not just me who finds it unsuitable either, consumers have twice rejected the non upgradable headless Mac ‘solution’ that Apple seems determined to persist with.

The first time was the Apple Cube which was discontinued after a matter of months and the second time was the with the 2013 Mac Pro which (despite being long awaited) - sold poorly and for the same reasons...overpriced with a lack of flexibility and upgradability.

It is not what most people want and certainly not the power users or most professionals.

A true 'PRO' flagship Mac should offer more connectivity than it's predecessors not less. I had more storage on my smartphone that came with the entry level trashcan Mac Pro - 256GB was quite frankly embarrassing.

The Mac Mini as an entry level product for the office or an iTunes/media server...fine, as an alternative to a Mac Pro...it falls well short.

The price hike on the recently introduced Mac Mini means it isn't viable as an entry level Mac to many people now.

Change for the sake of change, just like the trashcan Mac Pro was.

 

[partsofspeech]

I compared price in cart for machines from all the major manufacturers in 2008, the Mac Pro was always cheaper or the competition couldn’t get close to the same specs. I then assembled a list of parts (dual socket board, dual Xeons of the same model as the 3,1) it was still more money and would not have been in such a great clean design.

If they do a dual socket board (which I doubt will happen these days due to NUMA and single socket core and thread counts go a lot higher than they did back in cMP days) I still don’t see them charging $2/3k more for the second cpu.

Recall that they only discounted the Mac Pro about $400 if you went to single cpu variant for $1000+ retail Xeon cpus.

That;s a good thing for consumers and the pros. But that’s probably why Apple has been lukewarm when it comes to updating this great machine. Its profit margin is not very high, contrary to what many people think.
[doublepost=1556001302][/doublepost]

You’re not describing a $2500 machine, which is what the poster you are replying to was talking about.

I think it’s spot on. We can infer a lot about the bottom end of the Mac Pro by looking at the top end of the Mac Mini. The fact that you can buy a Mac Mini with 10gbit Ethernet and 64gb of RAM tells me that Apple intend for it to sit in the market segment that has previously been served by the low end Mac Pro.

I disagree that Mac Pro starts where Mini ends, not in terms of price or market stratum. The way Apple showcasing minis in stack clearly targets at someone that has need for clustering computations, which rely more on cpu and inter-connection than gpu.

 

[shaunp]

I'm hoping the Mac Pro starts at a low enough spec to satisfy the type of user who wants a modular computer that they can expand as their needs grow, a computer that competes at least in functionality with a general purpose PC. Then at the other end of the spectrum it needs to scale high enough to compete with the HP Z's, Dell Precision and other high-end workstations.

I think creating a single high-end product with a starting price of say £6k will alienate more customers. Yes there is a need such a high-end product, but there is equally a need for a lower-end model too and it doesn't mean you aren't a professional if you cannot afford the $6K model. There are many small businesses that need a cost-effective Mac that is expandable. Many users have been crying out for this product for years - a small tower-based Mac, with user upgradable RAM, storage, GPU and CPU. This is why the PC is so popular, we just need one that supports Mac OS and is supported by Apple.

All in one computers like the iMac aren't for everyone. There is a price point (around £3k for me) where I look at the iMac and think I'd be better off spending that money on a standalone computer and adding my own monitor as for the money I could get much, much better performance.

I think Apple would do well by ignoring what they have done in the past and just copy PC workstation manufacturers by having small, medium and large configurations of the Mac Pro. I've read many, many threads on this and it doesn't appear that anyone really wants anything different to this - a box containing a motherboard, CPU, RAM, GPU and storage with room for some expansion - so why create anything different to this, especially if it takes 3-4 years to do so.
[doublepost=1556007305][/doublepost]

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.

ECC memory is about stability. It's a requirement for certification of a lot of high-end applications (rendering, CAD, etc). Not including it in the iMac Pro would have excluded it from the purchasing list of a lot of corporates. There are quite a few laptops that now have ECC RAM for the very same reason.

 

[Razzerman]

I'm hoping the Mac Pro starts at a low enough spec to satisfy the type of user who wants a modular computer that they can expand as their needs grow, a computer that competes at least in functionality with a general purpose PC. Then at the other end of the spectrum it needs to scale high enough to compete with the HP Z's, Dell Precision and other high-end workstations.

Totally agree with everything in your post. Well said.