or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Future Apple Hardware › Apple throws out the rulebook for its unique next-gen Mac Pro
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple throws out the rulebook for its unique next-gen Mac Pro - Page 18

post #681 of 1290
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemon Bon Bon. View Post

 

I enjoyed the well reasoned arguments there.

 

Especially the summative punchline.  (I think it's a far more flexible machine which can be tailored to many more needs virtually unlimited external expansion vs limited internal expansion.  Also, would we have 'killed' for a dual GPU machine but mere few months ago?  12 core single cpu as standard on the top end?  Blisteringly fast SSD?  It's worlds away from the old model.  And it's the Cube reborn.  What more do we want?  Let the vocal 5% of 50, 000 sales scream all they want...)

 

Lemon Bon Bon.

I think they need to come out with a product like this that will satisfy a lot of high end users, not for some.  I think that a lot of stems from dealing with the heat issues. That seemed to dictate a lot of other aspects of this computer as a result.   It's a brilliant way to deal with heat.  Simply brilliant.  Some people don't mind some people do mind having external chassis for PCI cards and storage.  That's where this type of product will take some time getting used to.

 

I also see a big enough market for people that want to rack mount the system because they work in a production environment where everything else is rack mounted, or they do a lot of traveling whereby using flight cases with built in shock absorption, and everything is rugged, etc.  This new box doesn't appeal to those that like rack mounted systems.  Unfortunate.

post #682 of 1290
Quote:

Release the All New 32" Retina 5K Display (5120 x 2880) for US$2,249.00…

Is that display tech' even possible at the moment?  Anybody selling one? 

 

Or will Apple just do '4k?'

 

Lemon Bon Bon.

You know, for a company that specializes in the video-graphics market, you'd think that they would offer top-of-the-line GPUs...

 

WITH THE NEW MAC PRO THEY FINALLY DID!  (But you bend over for it.)

Reply

You know, for a company that specializes in the video-graphics market, you'd think that they would offer top-of-the-line GPUs...

 

WITH THE NEW MAC PRO THEY FINALLY DID!  (But you bend over for it.)

Reply
post #683 of 1290

I'd love to be able to view A3 300 dpi print documents on a monitor that can rotate so I can view them A3 native print size.

 

Lemon Bon Bon.

You know, for a company that specializes in the video-graphics market, you'd think that they would offer top-of-the-line GPUs...

 

WITH THE NEW MAC PRO THEY FINALLY DID!  (But you bend over for it.)

Reply

You know, for a company that specializes in the video-graphics market, you'd think that they would offer top-of-the-line GPUs...

 

WITH THE NEW MAC PRO THEY FINALLY DID!  (But you bend over for it.)

Reply
post #684 of 1290
Quote:
Originally Posted by Relic View Post


I'm a big fan of this NEC monitor, the colours are very vibrant and warm, it has tons of inputs and it pivots when I'm reading a really long forum thread, built in speakers kind of suck though. The best feature about this monitor and the real big reason why I bought it is that you can display multiple images from different video sources, like PIP on a TV.

NEC seems to balance toward sRGB, which is a lot warmer than what you get from many LED backlit notebooks. Some of the whites on those measure around 8000K in i1 profiler. NEC also has spectraview, which is a lot better than the off the shelf solutions. They switched to usb calibration rather than DDC, so the problems of keeping up with connectors should be lessened now. Eizo did that a bit earlier, but the two are a lot closer in quality than they were in 2007-2008. I wish Eizo still sold CG211s. That was the best display I ever used. After that the panels switched from Hitachi to LG. They're still really good, but there are really specific points where I thought those older ones did a better job. The Adobe RGB vs sRGB thing didn't matter very much, as the only things that really matter are how close discrete points can get to target colors on a calibrated display, how uniform, and how well it tracks the desired gamma. I don't even like the super deep black levels, as incredibly minor surface reflections can mess up shadow detail when you start to get down to that .15, .2 cd/m**2 level. Some of the older ones also had better stands, although NEC still does a good job. 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Relic View Post


Oh don't get me wrong the Apple Display is definitely uber cool, just wasn't worth the extra money for me. Not when the NEC screen quality was better, display width is like two monitors in one without the ugly bezel in the middle, in fact you can display two video sources at once, in my case OSX on the left and Linux on the right.

 

They just do so much with displays in general, where I think Apple's priority is driven by synergy with their higher volume product lines, especially notebooks, as well as matching aesthetics. I think if it wasn't for the cost of the new process, we would have seen a thunderbolt display update by now. Given how long they have waited, I suspect it will go to thunderbolt 2 and include a usb3 chipset. Some of NECs stuff starts out a lot higher, but displays have long product cycles. Typically a year in you can get a new one for 40% less, where product cycles are generally 2-3 years in desktop displays. The last big update was 2010, and I'm not sure we'll see anything terribly interesting unless it comes to 4K displays. NEC tried a RGB-LED array as a backlight a number of years ago. Samsung also tried the same thing later. Neither really caught on. I think it just not cost effective. The volume and growth probably isn't there in desktop displays, and panels have become a highly commoditized item with LG supplying panels on everything in the  < $3k retail range.

post #685 of 1290
Configurations up to 12 cores.
Two graphics cards standard.
Hdmi port and ac wifi built in.

They've put a ton of design into this
http://www.apple.com/mac-pro/index2.html

We just need the other config options and pricing now.
Looks great. Good job Apple.
Edited by RobM - 7/15/13 at 9:57pm
post #686 of 1290
Quote:
Originally Posted by RobM View Post

Configurations up to 12 cores.
Two graphics cards standard.
Hdmi port and ac wifi built in.

They've put a ton of design into this
http://www.apple.com/mac-pro/index2.html

We just need the other config options and pricing now.
Looks great. Good job Apple.

What he said.

 

Lemon Bon Bon.

You know, for a company that specializes in the video-graphics market, you'd think that they would offer top-of-the-line GPUs...

 

WITH THE NEW MAC PRO THEY FINALLY DID!  (But you bend over for it.)

Reply

You know, for a company that specializes in the video-graphics market, you'd think that they would offer top-of-the-line GPUs...

 

WITH THE NEW MAC PRO THEY FINALLY DID!  (But you bend over for it.)

Reply
post #687 of 1290
Quote:
Originally Posted by RobM View Post

Configurations up to 12 cores.
Two graphics cards standard.
Hdmi port and ac wifi built in.

They've put a ton of design into this
http://www.apple.com/mac-pro/index2.html
It is an excellent engineering effort. Though not exactly what I had in mind it is a far more compact Mac Pro which is to be expected. The machine is very well thought out.

The problem is design seldom drives sales in this industry. Apple will have to demonstrate complete solutions and reasonable pricing before things take off.
Quote:
We just need the other config options and pricing now.
Looks great. Good job Apple.

Pricing will make or break this machine. I have this strong fear that it will end up grossly over priced. This is one reason why I'm hoping that Apple will have a junior or XMac version. That is a machine with a desktop processor and a single GPU to get a model on the market for well under $2000. If the base model comes out at the $3500 mark I see Apple having huge issues moving stock after the early adopters leave the market.
post #688 of 1290
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post


Pricing will make or break this machine. I have this strong fear that it will end up grossly over priced. This is one reason why I'm hoping that Apple will have a junior or XMac version. That is a machine with a desktop processor and a single GPU to get a model on the market for well under $2000.

It's called the Mac Mini. Other than the GPU there's nothing that the pro can do that the mini can't. The iMac can do GPU so the iMac is exactly a Mac Pro with desktop CPU and single GPU.
post #689 of 1290

Yep. I imagine that if the Pro pricing starts steep, Apple is more likely to add a midrange option to the Mini than offer a watered down Pro.

The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
post #690 of 1290
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank777 View Post

Yep. I imagine that if the Pro pricing starts steep, Apple is more likely to add a midrange option to the Mini than offer a watered down Pro.

 

I'd actually kinda prefer that. I've got a mini serving double-duty in the living room, the first being the typical (though difficult to imagine being necessary) way to get material from a storage device to the Apple TV, the second being an occasional rendering station. A juiced-up mini would do a better job at the second task, and wouldn't require finding a place to put a coffee carafe on the bookcase with the other gear.

post #691 of 1290
Quote:
Originally Posted by nht View Post


It's called the Mac Mini. Other than the GPU there's nothing that the pro can do that the mini can't. The iMac can do GPU so the iMac is exactly a Mac Pro with desktop CPU and single GPU.

 

And the attached monitor…

And the lack of PCIe Flash RAM SSD…

And less I/O ports…

 

Huh, come to think of it, the iMac is nothing like the new Mac Pro…

Late 2009 Unibody MacBook (modified)
2.26GHz Core 2 Duo CPU/8GB RAM/60GB SSD/500GB HDD
SuperDrive delete
Reply
Late 2009 Unibody MacBook (modified)
2.26GHz Core 2 Duo CPU/8GB RAM/60GB SSD/500GB HDD
SuperDrive delete
Reply
post #692 of 1290
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacRonin View Post

And the attached monitor…
And the lack of PCIe Flash RAM SSD…
And less I/O ports…

Huh, come to think of it, the iMac is nothing like the new Mac Pro…

Given that there's no Mac Pro yet the odds are good that the iMac will have the pcie flash drive no more than half a year later when it gets refreshed.

It has the same number of Memory slots. It has a high end GPU option and a high end i7 option.

There's not a single thing a stripped i7 + single GPU Mac Pro can do that the next gen iMac can't. Or even the current gen iMac.

Just slower.

So there is zero reason that Apple MUST introduce a 2k Mac Pro. The iMac more than ably fills that niche.
post #693 of 1290
Quote:
Originally Posted by nht View Post


Given that there's no Mac Pro yet the odds are good that the iMac will have the pcie flash drive no more than half a year later when it gets refreshed.

It has the same number of Memory slots. It has a high end GPU option and a high end i7 option.

There's not a single thing a stripped i7 + single GPU Mac Pro can do that the next gen iMac can't. Or even the current gen iMac.

Just slower.

So there is zero reason that Apple MUST introduce a 2k Mac Pro. The iMac more than ably fills that niche.

Zero reason…?!?!

 

Are you effing kidding me…!?!

 

So what you are saying is that Apple would be all like, 'Uh, Apple Pro users, we could not be bothered to make an entry level Mac Pro; just take this iMac, with weaker CPU & GPU… Oh, and we included a monitor that you may or may not want as well!"

 

Seriously, give it a rest…!

 

The iMac may fill the needs of plenty of folks for an all-in-one workstation solution; but there may also be plenty of folks who want an entry level Mac Pro.

 

If I am looking for a workstation (from Apple, before folks go off on a tangent about other vendors/OSes, etc.), even if it is entry level; would I not be doing myself a disservice to pick a machine that has consumer level CPU/GPU, when I could get one that has a Xeon CPU & workstation level DUAL GPUs…?!?

 

Reality is that Apple NEEDS a US$2,000.00 Mac Pro to pump up the numbers on Mac Pro sales. Taking the Mac Pro line and making the new entry point US$3,500.00 (which is a number that has been bandied about for entry level pricing) would be foolish.

Late 2009 Unibody MacBook (modified)
2.26GHz Core 2 Duo CPU/8GB RAM/60GB SSD/500GB HDD
SuperDrive delete
Reply
Late 2009 Unibody MacBook (modified)
2.26GHz Core 2 Duo CPU/8GB RAM/60GB SSD/500GB HDD
SuperDrive delete
Reply
post #694 of 1290
Quote:
Originally Posted by nht View Post




So there is zero reason that Apple MUST introduce a 2k Mac Pro. The iMac more than ably fills that niche.

 

It depends whether they release what should be a 2k Mac Pro with a 3k price.

post #695 of 1290
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacRonin View Post

Zero reason…?!?!

 

Are you effing kidding me…!?!

 

So what you are saying is that Apple would be all like, 'Uh, Apple Pro users, we could not be bothered to make an entry level Mac Pro; just take this iMac, with weaker CPU & GPU… Oh, and we included a monitor that you may or may not want as well!"

 

Seriously, give it a rest…!

 

Not only do they have zero reason there are significant reasons not to introduce a $2K Mac Pro based on the i7.

 

1) Initial launch will be supply constrained because of pent up demand for Mac Pros, assembly in the US and a new supply chain to feed the US assembly.  It is far more advantageous for Apple to sell primarilry top end Mac Pros at launch and a limited number of mid and lower end units.  A low end unit that sits entirely in the same power category as the top end iMac is a suboptimal use of limited Mac Pro production capability.  They want higher ASPs not lower.

 

2) A desktop CPU and single GPU option on a $2K Mac Pro will significantly cannibalize $3K Mac Pro Xeon sales lowering overall Mac Pro ASPs and profits.

 

3) If there is a low end Mac Pro it is far more likely a Xeon E3-1200 rather than Core i7.

 

 

 

Quote:
The iMac may fill the needs of plenty of folks for an all-in-one workstation solution; but there may also be plenty of folks who want an entry level Mac Pro.

 

Want vs Need.  If you want it that bad you'll pay $2500+.

 

Quote:

If I am looking for a workstation (from Apple, before folks go off on a tangent about other vendors/OSes, etc.), even if it is entry level; would I not be doing myself a disservice to pick a machine that has consumer level CPU/GPU, when I could get one that has a Xeon CPU & workstation level DUAL GPUs…?!?

 

Reality is that Apple NEEDS a US$2,000.00 Mac Pro to pump up the numbers on Mac Pro sales. Taking the Mac Pro line and making the new entry point US$3,500.00 (which is a number that has been bandied about for entry level pricing) would be foolish.

 

Wizard wants: "That is a machine with a desktop processor and a single GPU to get a model on the market for well under $2000."

 

That's not a workstation CPU but a consumer grade CPU.  And it also doesn't have dual GPUs.

 

You may want a low end Mac Pro for $2000 but Apple doesn't need to "pump up the numbers on Mac Pro sales" because it's highly likely they will be severely supply constrained.  I would expect that the base price for the Mac Pro will remain around $2.5K or perhaps up to $3K and ship in very low numbers with the bulk of the production given to the mid-tier $4K model and the high tier $6K+ model.

post #696 of 1290
Quote:
Originally Posted by hmm View Post

It depends whether they release what should be a 2k Mac Pro with a 3k price.

 

I have no idea why folks believe that the new Mac Pro will be significantly different in this regard than the old Mac Pro.

 

They wont sell a $2K Mac Pro with a $3K price at launch.  They'll sell only a $3K Mac Pro if that's the price point they want.  At launch the machine should be price competitive with other workstation offerings (more or less anyway).  It's near the end of the product life that the value equation is not so great.

post #697 of 1290
Quote:
Originally Posted by nht View Post

Not only do they have zero reason there are significant reasons not to introduce a $2K Mac Pro based on the i7.

 

1) Initial launch will be supply constrained because of pent up demand for Mac Pros, assembly in the US and a new supply chain to feed the US assembly.  It is far more advantageous for Apple to sell primarilry top end Mac Pros at launch and a limited number of mid and lower end units.  A low end unit that sits entirely in the same power category as the top end iMac is a suboptimal use of limited Mac Pro production capability.  They want higher ASPs not lower.

 

2) A desktop CPU and single GPU option on a $2K Mac Pro will significantly cannibalize $3K Mac Pro Xeon sales lowering overall Mac Pro ASPs and profits.

 

3) If there is a low end Mac Pro it is far more likely a Xeon E3-1200 rather than Core i7.

 

Want vs Need.  If you want it that bad you'll pay $2500+.

 

Wizard wants: "That is a machine with a desktop processor and a single GPU to get a model on the market for well under $2000."

 

That's not a workstation CPU but a consumer grade CPU.  And it also doesn't have dual GPUs.

 

You may want a low end Mac Pro for $2000 but Apple doesn't need to "pump up the numbers on Mac Pro sales" because it's highly likely they will be severely supply constrained.  I would expect that the base price for the Mac Pro will remain around $2.5K or perhaps up to $3K and ship in very low numbers with the bulk of the production given to the mid-tier $4K model and the high tier $6K+ model.

 

Just jam the words into my mouth, will you…!?!

 

I was NEVER talking about a low-end Mac Pro having an i7 & a consumer GPU…

 

My idea of a low-end/entry-level Mac Pro would be:

 

US$2,000.00

Xeon 6-core workstation-class CPU

16GB DDR3 ECC RAM

512GB PCIe Flash RAM SSD

Dual W5000 FirePro workstation-class GPUs w/2GB GDDR5 RAM

 

THAT is what the low-end of the Mac Pro line should be…

 

As for the rest of the Mac Pro line-up:

 

US$3,500.00

Xeon 8-core workstation-class CPU

32GB DDR3 ECC RAM

768GB PCIe Flash RAM SSD

Dual W7000 FirePro workstation-class GPUs w/4GB GDDR5 RAM

 

US$5,000.00

Xeon 10-core workstation-class CPU

64GB DDR3 ECC RAM

1TB PCIe Flash RAM SSD

Dual W8000 FirePro workstation-class GPUs w/4GB GDDR5 ECC RAM

 

US$7,500.00

Xeon 12-core workstation-class CPU

128GB DDR3 ECC RAM

1.5TB PCIe Flash RAM SSD

Dual W9000 FirePro workstation-class GPUs w/6GB GDDR5 ECC RAM

 

THAT is the Mac Pro line-up I hope to see from Apple; mix & match via BTO for the end-user…

 

But that entry-level model, that two grand Mac Pro, that NEEDS to be there to keep the line viable for those who need a workstation but cannot pony up 3.5k just to get in the door…

 

Now, if you look at my other posting in this thread, the one outlining how Apple could replace the ENTIRE desktop line-up with variations on the new Mac Pro, then you will see consumer grade parts…

 

Of course with the above proposal, there is no more Mac Pro, these is no more Mac mini or iMac either; there is JUST the Mac… Configurability for all users, from a simple Mail/Safari/iLife/iWork machine to a fully-loaded DCC workstation…

 

I don't break it down to specs & pricing, but I am sure most can figure it out…


Edited by MacRonin - 7/17/13 at 11:21am
Late 2009 Unibody MacBook (modified)
2.26GHz Core 2 Duo CPU/8GB RAM/60GB SSD/500GB HDD
SuperDrive delete
Reply
Late 2009 Unibody MacBook (modified)
2.26GHz Core 2 Duo CPU/8GB RAM/60GB SSD/500GB HDD
SuperDrive delete
Reply
post #698 of 1290
Quote:
Originally Posted by nht View Post

 

I have no idea why folks believe that the new Mac Pro will be significantly different in this regard than the old Mac Pro.

 

They wont sell a $2K Mac Pro with a $3K price at launch.  They'll sell only a $3K Mac Pro if that's the price point they want.  At launch the machine should be price competitive with other workstation offerings (more or less anyway).  It's near the end of the product life that the value equation is not so great.


They haven't been the last 2 generations, especially not in the single processor models. They were highly competitive at launch until 2009. After that not so much. Workstations in general don't have as much price drift throughout a cycle in general compared to consumer markets. I think you know that I meant anyway. The valuation was crap anyway. It's sold into a semi-captive market, as some people and companies don't want to bother switching away from OSX. Software isn't always a big deal, but dealing with a lot of storage and other things can be annoying.

post #699 of 1290
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacRonin View Post

Just jam the words into my mouth, will you…!?!

 

I was NEVER talking about a low-end Mac Pro having an i7 & a consumer GPU…

 

Perhaps if you read the posts you are responding to this wouldn't happen.  You initial response was to my post to wizard: "It's called the Mac Mini. Other than the GPU there's nothing that the pro can do that the mini can't. The iMac can do GPU so the iMac is exactly a Mac Pro with desktop CPU and single GPU."

 

 

You injected yourself into conversation about a low end Mac Pro having an i7 and a single GPU.

 

Quote:

My idea of a low-end/entry-level Mac Pro would be:

 

US$2,000.00

Xeon 6-core workstation-class CPU

16GB DDR3 ECC RAM

512GB PCIe Flash RAM SSD

Dual W5000 FirePro workstation-class GPUs w/2GB GDDR5 RAM

 

THAT is what the low-end of the Mac Pro line should be…

 

Too bad that's more than the current lineup has in the low end (quad core and single non FirePro GPU) at a price point $500 less than the existing model.

 

Very unlikely.  The W5000 are $400-$450 retail.  That's nearly a grand of GPUs right there.  A normal 512GB SSD isn't overly cheap either at $300-$400 retail.

 

And it would crater iMac sales.  Why would you EVER buy a $1,999 27" iMac if that Mac Pro was $2K?  You wouldn't so that's not happening.  The configuration above strikes me as at least $3K.

 

 

Quote:

But that entry-level model, that two grand Mac Pro, that NEEDS to be there to keep the line viable for those who need a workstation but cannot pony up 3.5k just to get in the door…

 

Apple computers of any grade or model has never been for folks that can't pony up.  That said I still expect the entry price to be between $2499 and $2999...around or slightly above the price point of a high end iMac.  An entry point of $3499 would surprise me.  $2799 or $2999 would not.  $2499 strikes me as most likely.

post #700 of 1290
Quote:
Originally Posted by nht View Post

And it would crater iMac sales.  Why would you EVER buy a $1,999 27" iMac if that Mac Pro was $2K?

 

Some of us would never buy an all-n-one, ever. The reasons vary, some valid, some silly, but I suspect that kind of buyer is actually fairly common, so a $2K Mac Pro might attract buyers who otherwise might consider going to another supplier.

 

Further, add $600-1,000 for one display and double that for two and the Mac Pro isn't two thousand bucks, it's three thousand, plus or minus a few hundred.

 

All of which is completely academic if, as you suggest. it's unlikely they could even hit that price point anyway.

post #701 of 1290
Quote:
Originally Posted by nht View Post

Very unlikely.  The W5000 are $400-$450 retail.  That's nearly a grand of GPUs right there.  A normal 512GB SSD isn't overly cheap either at $300-$400 retail.

I suspect the firepro thing here is more of a branding issue than anything. AMD is really a minority when it comes to workstation cards. They make most of their money elsewhere. Under Windows some of the past Radeon cards have been terribly buggy in OpenGL, and only the firepro drivers fully supported displayport 1.2. It's really

 

Quote:
And it would crater iMac sales.  Why would you EVER buy a $1,999 27" iMac if that Mac Pro was $2K?  You wouldn't so that's not happening.  The configuration above strikes me as at least $3K.

It includes a display. The mac pro will probably not  have any additional storage or gpu update options beyond what you purchase initially. Both are kind of an appliance state at that point.

 

Quote:

 

Apple computers of any grade or model has never been for folks that can't pony up.  That said I still expect the entry price to be between $2499 and $2999...around or slightly above the price point of a high end iMac.  An entry point of $3499 would surprise me.  $2799 or $2999 would not.  $2499 strikes me as most likely.

I don't think it will go all the way to $3k. That is just a silly way to space it. If they're having trouble moving them at $2500, a price increase won't help, especially as smaller storage options that could be accommodated internally would now require DAS. Cheap DAS solutions are completely awful. They'll mess with sleep and reboots or time out. A decent one that uses fans of reasonable quality costs more. If the supposed slip in sales volume was just due to initial delays from intel, they wouldn't have skipped sandy, especially considering the EU sales issue.

post #702 of 1290
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacRonin View Post

Zero reason…?!?!

Are you effing kidding me…!?!
I think he must be. either that or he just doesn't grasp how unusable the iMac is to some people.
Quote:

So what you are saying is that Apple would be all like, 'Uh, Apple Pro users, we could not be bothered to make an entry level Mac Pro; just take this iMac, with weaker CPU & GPU… Oh, and we included a monitor that you may or may not want as well!"
The lack of monitor options for the iMac is a big problem. Every time I say that on a forum someplace somebody seems to interpret that as saying that the iMac monitor is crap. Nothing could be further from the truth, it simply doesn't fit every use case.
Quote:
Seriously, give it a rest…!

The iMac may fill the needs of plenty of folks for an all-in-one workstation solution; but there may also be plenty of folks who want an entry level Mac Pro.
I'd rather like to think of that as a midrange machine. What is notable here is that the Mini could be extended to cover this usage if Apple put the engineering effort into a fat Mini. That fat Mini would be larger to support a bigger power supply and extend the heat removal capability. Now that Apple has the Mac Pro chassis though I really think that is the ideal platform to build this machine on. Just get rid of the high end stuff so that you can deliver something for under $2000
Quote:
If I am looking for a workstation (from Apple, before folks go off on a tangent about other vendors/OSes, etc.), even if it is entry level; would I not be doing myself a disservice to pick a machine that has consumer level CPU/GPU, when I could get one that has a Xeon CPU & workstation level DUAL GPUs…?!?

Reality is that Apple NEEDS a US$2,000.00 Mac Pro to pump up the numbers on Mac Pro sales. Taking the Mac Pro line and making the new entry point US$3,500.00 (which is a number that has been bandied about for entry level pricing) would be foolish.

This is the number one concern, without a reasonable entry level price there is little chance of the new Mac Pro being a long term success.
post #703 of 1290
Quote:
Originally Posted by nht View Post

Not only do they have zero reason there are significant reasons not to introduce a $2K Mac Pro based on the i7.
Only in your fantasies.
Quote:
1) Initial launch will be supply constrained because of pent up demand for Mac Pros, assembly in the US and a new supply chain to feed the US assembly.  It is far more advantageous for Apple to sell primarilry top end Mac Pros at launch and a limited number of mid and lower end units.  A low end unit that sits entirely in the same power category as the top end iMac is a suboptimal use of limited Mac Pro production capability.  They want higher ASPs not lower.
You make an assumption here that people will be willing to shell out hard earned cash for the top of the line model in quantities that would constrain production. There are many factors here to consider so it is a bit of a jump to conclusions to say that will be a problem. If Apple doesn't have a complete solution and grossly over charges for the machine like they have with the old Mac Pro demand won't be a problem. They have already put off many potential customers that don't understand the design.

I'm not sure what you men by the same power category, an entry level machine is by definition a lower performance machine.
Quote:
2) A desktop CPU and single GPU option on a $2K Mac Pro will significantly cannibalize $3K Mac Pro Xeon sales lowering overall Mac Pro ASPs and profits.
Not anywhere nearly as bad as trying to sell off a grossly over priced machine. Besides you make the assumption that Apple wouldn't make any profit on an entry level machine. I on the other hand see it as potentially being extremely profitable considering the low cost of the basic components.
Quote:
3) If there is a low end Mac Pro it is far more likely a Xeon E3-1200 rather than Core i7.
The part number stamped on the chip means nothing in this discussion. They could go with an AMD chip for all I care as long as they hit the right price and performance points.
Quote:



Want vs Need.  If you want it that bad you'll pay $2500+.


Wizard wants: "That is a machine with a desktop processor and a single GPU to get a model on the market for well under $2000."

That's not a workstation CPU but a consumer grade CPU.  And it also doesn't have dual GPUs.
Cost is the point on a machine this size and frankly plenty of performance can come from a single GPU chip these days. As for workstation CPU's again it makes little difference but there is one point here that you seem to mis, there isn't a huge difference in price to consider here. E3 isn't wildly expensive.
Quote:
You may want a low end Mac Pro for $2000 but Apple doesn't need to "pump up the numbers on Mac Pro sales" because it's highly likely they will be severely supply constrained.
Maybe / Maybe not. The Mac Pro so far has gotten an excessively cool reception, it isn't like the forums are a boil over the coming machine.
Quote:
 I would expect that the base price for the Mac Pro will remain around $2.5K or perhaps up to $3K and ship in very low numbers with the bulk of the production given to the mid-tier $4K model and the high tier $6K+ model.
Actually I don't see this happening at all. The professionals that need those high end machines can't just drop the machine in place of an old Mac Pro. As such more planning is required I could see high end adoption being lackluster until all the pieces come together. Without a viable low end machine sales could be rather sluggish and in fact worst than todays after the early adopter spurt goes away.
post #704 of 1290
This should be pretty simple to understand, the hope is that Apple learned its lessons from the Mac Pro sales over the last few years. They effectively positioned a machine at a price point nobody was willing to pay. That killed sales long before the problems with Intel and getting rational chip upgrades happened.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nht View Post

I have no idea why folks believe that the new Mac Pro will be significantly different in this regard than the old Mac Pro.
Well there is some hope there. If you look at things like the MBA's they are very good values. In fact MBA are rumored to be the strongest selling product Apple has.
Quote:
They wont sell a $2K Mac Pro with a $3K price at launch.  They'll sell only a $3K Mac Pro if that's the price point they want.
No one is arguing they will do any less than they want. What i'm saying is that the platform has zero chance of success if the follow the model set by previous Mac Pro marketing attempts. So if Apple wants the Mac Pro to be a success they need to be rational about pricing and the interested market. In a nut shell there isn't a large enough high end professional market to sustain the machine.
Quote:
 At launch the machine should be price competitive with other workstation offerings (more or less anyway).  It's near the end of the product life that the value equation is not so great.

Actually it should be cheaper. There is little point in the radical design if they can't hit the competition on price. More so a lower price is called for to address the whats missing problem. in other words if people have to give up their drive bays there needs to be a compensation in the price of the machine to reflect that some user won't see the value in the hardware. We aren't talking a lot of money here but a couple of hundred relative to competing platforms should do.
post #705 of 1290
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacRonin View Post

Just jam the words into my mouth, will you…!?!

I was NEVER talking about a low-end Mac Pro having an i7 & a consumer GPU…

My idea of a low-end/entry-level Mac Pro would be:

US$2,000.00
Xeon 6-core workstation-class CPU
16GB DDR3 ECC RAM
512GB PCIe Flash RAM SSD
Dual W5000 FirePro workstation-class GPUs w/2GB GDDR5 RAM
Even that is a lot of money for what one would get. Further Intel has more than a few options coming with respect to six core XEONs Apple could easily net $1000 profit on such a machine. i'd actually expect a bit more hardware wise for the $2000 mark. By the time the Mac Pro ships in volume 16 GB of RAM will be trivial. Even a 512GB SSD isn't really that bad anymore even by Apple standards (see MBA).
Quote:

THAT is what the low-end of the Mac Pro line should be…

As for the rest of the Mac Pro line-up:

US$3,500.00
Xeon 8-core workstation-class CPU
32GB DDR3 ECC RAM
768GB PCIe Flash RAM SSD
Dual W7000 FirePro workstation-class GPUs w/4GB GDDR5 RAM

US$5,000.00
Xeon 10-core workstation-class CPU
64GB DDR3 ECC RAM
1TB PCIe Flash RAM SSD
Dual W8000 FirePro workstation-class GPUs w/4GB GDDR5 ECC RAM

US$7,500.00
Xeon 12-core workstation-class CPU
128GB DDR3 ECC RAM
1.5TB PCIe Flash RAM SSD
Dual W9000 FirePro workstation-class GPUs w/6GB GDDR5 ECC RAM
At the other end I see you speccing out a work horse machine. Frankly it isn't a segment of the market I care about but I'd have to wonder if Apple would have less profit in a machine so configured and priced.
Quote:

THAT is the Mac Pro line-up I hope to see from Apple; mix & match via BTO for the end-user…

But that entry-level model, that two grand Mac Pro, that NEEDS to be there to keep the line viable for those who need a workstation but cannot pony up 3.5k just to get in the door…
The workstation market is just about the only "desktop" market running strong right now. What many seem to be missing in this discussion is that that is still a lot of desks. However very few of those desks are what could be considered high end desks. This idea that most of the market for workstations exists at the high end is just plain silly
Quote:
Now, if you look at my other posting in this thread, the one outlining how Apple could replace the ENTIRE desktop line-up with variations on the new Mac Pro, then you will see consumer grade parts…

Of course with the above proposal, there is no more Mac Pro, these is no more Mac mini or iMac either; there is JUST the Mac… Configurability for all users, from a simple Mail/Safari/iLife/iWork machine to a fully-loaded DCC workstation…

I don't break it down to specs & pricing, but I am sure most can figure it out…
post #706 of 1290
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post

The lack of monitor options for the iMac is a big problem. Every time I say that on a forum someplace somebody seems to interpret that as saying that the iMac monitor is crap. Nothing could be further from the truth, it simply doesn't fit every use case.

 

Name a monitor that would work on the Mac Pro that wouldn't on the iMac.  There is no "lack of monitor options for the iMac".

post #707 of 1290
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post


Only in your fantasies.
 

 

 

The reality is that there is no $2000 xMac after all these years.  Putting your hope on the Mac Pro strikes me as a forlorn one given it's a Xeon based workstation.

 
Nothing on the economic end has changed for Apple.  A $2000 xMacs makes no more or less sense today than last year or the year before or the decade before.
 
I have, somewhere around here, a Quicksilver PowerMac that's pretty much the last time Apple made an sub $2K xMac.

 

Quote:
You make an assumption here that people will be willing to shell out hard earned cash for the top of the line model in quantities that would constrain production.

 

There are a good number of folks that simply need CPU horsepower and as many cores as they can get.  Given that some folks have been holding off on Mac Pro purchases for a while waiting for the refresh means there's significant pent up demand. 

 

Quote:
There are many factors here to consider so it is a bit of a jump to conclusions to say that will be a problem. 
 
I didn't say it was a problem.  I said it would benefit Apple to prioritize the higher priced models.

 

Quote:
If Apple doesn't have a complete solution and grossly over charges for the machine like they have with the old Mac Pro demand won't be a problem. They have already put off many potential customers that don't understand the design.

 

Apple has a i7 + Single GPU solution in their current lineup.

 

It is unlikely they will be grossly over charging for any model of the new Mac Pro but that doesn't mean that they will offer a cheap model.

 

 

Quote:
I'm not sure what you men by the same power category, an entry level machine is by definition a lower performance machine.

 

I mean a quad core i7 + single GPU iMac will run about as fast as a quad core i7 + single GPU Mac Pro.

 

 

Quote:
Not anywhere nearly as bad as trying to sell off a grossly over priced machine. Besides you make the assumption that Apple wouldn't make any profit on an entry level machine. I on the other hand see it as potentially being extremely profitable considering the low cost of the basic components.
 

 

Not over priced.  Just expensive because it's higher end. Apple will make profit on a $2000 machine.  Just less than a $4000 machine at the same margins.  This has always been the problem of the xMac...it would lower ASPs.

 

 

Quote:
Cost is the point on a machine this size and frankly plenty of performance can come from a single GPU chip these days. 

 

Cost is certainly not the point of any Mac much less the Mac Pro.  Unless you mean high cost for high performance.

 

Yes, the iMac offers plenty of performance these days.

 

 

Quote:
As for workstation CPU's again it makes little difference but there is one point here that you seem to mis, there isn't a huge difference in price to consider here. E3 isn't wildly expensive.
Maybe / Maybe not. The Mac Pro so far has gotten an excessively cool reception, it isn't like the forums are a boil over the coming machine.

 

 

To hear you guys defend the Mac Pro it's the second coming of Steve Jobs.  The rest of us are evidently luddites that abhor the advancement of technology and wish to hang on to our obsolete tech like floppy drives.

 

The E3 is a nice little workstation chip.  It'd be wonderful in a mini.  That's not going to happen either.

 

Quote:
Actually I don't see this happening at all. The professionals that need those high end machines can't just drop the machine in place of an old Mac Pro. As such more planning is required I could see high end adoption being lackluster until all the pieces come together. Without a viable low end machine sales could be rather sluggish and in fact worst than todays after the early adopter spurt goes away.

 

Again, the argument in this and other threads here is that all those pro cards are a non issue and pros don't need slots or drive bays or CUDA support.  If that's really the case then the new Mac Pro IS simply a drop in replacement for all those empty Mac Pro chassis that exist out there.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
post #708 of 1290
Quote:
Originally Posted by hmm View Post.

 

I don't think it will go all the way to $3k. That is just a silly way to space it. If they're having trouble moving them at $2500, a price increase won't help, especially as smaller storage options that could be accommodated internally would now require DAS. Cheap DAS solutions are completely awful. They'll mess with sleep and reboots or time out. A decent one that uses fans of reasonable quality costs more. If the supposed slip in sales volume was just due to initial delays from intel, they wouldn't have skipped sandy, especially considering the EU sales issue.

 

Yes, I agree but they may not be able to hit $2499 with dual GPUs.  There is R&D money to recoup as well.  Still, as I said, the most likely entry price point is $2499.

 

Yes, cheap crappy DAS sucks but TB will solve all these problems. /s  At least the cheap part anyway.

post #709 of 1290
(how do I set off a quote here? adding <blockquote> gave an error the first time, and did nothing the second. Is there a page with a reference on formatting codes available?)

Name a monitor that would work on the Mac Pro that wouldn't on the iMac. There is no "lack of monitor options for the iMac".


Well, sure, as long as you have the money and space for two monitors. If you don't, and want a different monitor (wider, larger color gamut, higher resolution, etc), you're kind of stuck with the iMac. There's also the long-term issue of upgrading the CPU requiring replacing the monitor.
"Geeks of All Nations, Compile!" http://amusingfool.blogspot.com/
Reply
"Geeks of All Nations, Compile!" http://amusingfool.blogspot.com/
Reply
post #710 of 1290
Quote:
Originally Posted by AMusingFool View Post

(how do I set off a quote here? adding <blockquote> gave an error the first time, and did nothing the second. Is there a page with a reference on formatting codes available?)


Answering my own question, I see the quote button now. Was that not there when I wasn't logged in? I don't remember seeing it.
"Geeks of All Nations, Compile!" http://amusingfool.blogspot.com/
Reply
"Geeks of All Nations, Compile!" http://amusingfool.blogspot.com/
Reply
post #711 of 1290
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post

The workstation market is just about the only "desktop" market running strong right now. What many seem to be missing in this discussion is that that is still a lot of desks. However very few of those desks are what could be considered high end desks. This idea that most of the market for workstations exists at the high end is just plain silly

 

The workstation market is far less price sensitive than the enterprise desktop market or the consumer desktop market.  The delta between $2000 and $2500 is often noise in the total budget.

post #712 of 1290
Quote:
Originally Posted by AMusingFool View Post

Well, sure, as long as you have the money and space for two monitors. If you don't, and want a different monitor (wider, larger color gamut, higher resolution, etc), you're kind of stuck with the iMac. There's also the long-term issue of upgrading the CPU requiring replacing the monitor.

 

I have heard all sorts of inane suggestions regarding an external raid...like stick in a drawer or somewhere out of sight.

 

Given that the mouse and keyboard are bluetooth and you're running TB to the monitor anyway sticking an iMac out of sight is just as credible as those suggestions.

 

But many folks have space for 2 monitors.  The iMac display can be used for email and palettes if nothing else.

post #713 of 1290
Quote:
Originally Posted by AMusingFool View Post

(how do I set off a quote here? adding <blockquote> gave an error the first time, and did nothing the second. Is there a page with a reference on formatting codes available?)

Name a monitor that would work on the Mac Pro that wouldn't on the iMac. There is no "lack of monitor options for the iMac".


Well, sure, as long as you have the money and space for two monitors. If you don't, and want a different monitor (wider, larger color gamut, higher resolution, etc), you're kind of stuck with the iMac. There's also the long-term issue of upgrading the CPU requiring replacing the monitor.

I would caution you regarding your metrics of quality. "Wide gamut" is often marketing. There are still values that you won't be able to see on any display. What matters is how well  values are represented relative to a reference colorspace, how well calibration can be maintained over the life of the display, shadow detail, etc. Do not get caught by manufacturer marketing drivel. Having a wider gamut doesn't mean the discrete points that represent colors will be closer to what is intended. Some of the marketing guys clearly misinterpret the intended use of engineering white papers. I don't think the other issue is a big one. Frankly Apple's displays aren't all that stable. They are better than what you would find with most all in ones, but most all in ones are cheaper anyway. If I wanted to update the cpu within 3 years, the display would definitely be due for the same assuming a critical eye. 

Quote:
Originally Posted by nht View Post

 

Yes, I agree but they may not be able to hit $2499 with dual GPUs.  There is R&D money to recoup as well.  Still, as I said, the most likely entry price point is $2499.

 

Yes, cheap crappy DAS sucks but TB will solve all these problems. /s  At least the cheap part anyway.


That's possible. I'm genuinely curious how they will target this. Keep in mind I'm going off assumption that sales were very slow. The low end one had a ridiculous markup, so I suspect they have "some" wiggle room there. Lack of internal bays and PCI cards may be a passive price increase for some people. Even if they own a quality DAS solution for backup or performance reasons, they may have to replace it if it's anything other than usb or thunderbolt. I don't think I would try adapters with something like that assuming the existence of any that would even work.

post #714 of 1290
Quote:
Originally Posted by nht View Post

Perhaps if you read the posts you are responding to this wouldn't happen.  You initial response was to my post to wizard: "It's called the Mac Mini. Other than the GPU there's nothing that the pro can do that the mini can't. The iMac can do GPU so the iMac is exactly a Mac Pro with desktop CPU and single GPU."


You injected yourself into conversation about a low end Mac Pro having an i7 and a single GPU.


Too bad that's more than the current lineup has in the low end (quad core and single non FirePro GPU) at a price point $500 less than the existing model.

Very unlikely.  The W5000 are $400-$450 retail.  That's nearly a grand of GPUs right there.  A normal 512GB SSD isn't overly cheap either at $300-$400 retail.

And it would crater iMac sales.  Why would you EVER buy a $1,999 27" iMac if that Mac Pro was $2K?  You wouldn't so that's not happening.  The configuration above strikes me as at least $3K.



Apple computers of any grade or model has never been for folks that can't pony up.  That said I still expect the entry price to be between $2499 and $2999...around or slightly above the price point of a high end iMac.  An entry point of $3499 would surprise me.  $2799 or $2999 would not.  $2499 strikes me as most likely.

With all due respect, the notion of Apple computers being unaffordable for the masses is as antiquated as Blue Ray becoming a standard PC peripheral. People talk as if it's true, but ...
post #715 of 1290
Quote:
Originally Posted by StruckPaper View Post

With all due respect, the notion of Apple computers being unaffordable for the masses is as antiquated as Blue Ray becoming a standard PC peripheral. People talk as if it's true, but ...

 

I didn't say unaffordable.  I said not for folks not willing to pony up.

 

In the context of things a high school kid living at home (aka no living expenses) and flipping burgers in the summer to buy random stuff for themselves will be able to afford a $2500 Mac Pro.

 

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20120306044418AAuqNxO

 

That may not be the optimal use of $2500 for a high school kid but they could afford one.  They are an asston better off with a PS4 and a 13" MBP though.

post #716 of 1290
Quote:
Originally Posted by StruckPaper View Post


With all due respect, the notion of Apple computers being unaffordable for the masses is as antiquated as Blue Ray becoming a standard PC peripheral. People talk as if it's true, but ...


That model isn't really aimed at the masses.

post #717 of 1290
Quote:
Originally Posted by nht View Post

Name a monitor that would work on the Mac Pro that wouldn't on the iMac.  There is no "lack of monitor options for the iMac".

I'm not sure what you problem is with factual statements. The iMac is a monitor and thus you get one with every iMac purchase that monitor however can be completely unusable for may tasks that a computer is used for. In effect you don't have an option with the iMac.
post #718 of 1290
Quote:
Originally Posted by nht View Post


The reality is that there is no $2000 xMac after all these years.  Putting your hope on the Mac Pro strikes me as a forlorn one given it's a Xeon based workstation.
 
The Mac Pro has potential here, it is up to Apples marketing to hit the price point. The reality is that it isn't expensive to put a base line XEON into this design. Obviously it depends upon exactly what Apple uses to implement the low end solution but I don't see $2000 as being a problem if they want to do it.
Quote:
Nothing on the economic end has changed for Apple.  A $2000 xMacs makes no more or less sense today than last year or the year before or the decade before.
It makes all the sense in the world if you have a failing product line in the marketplace. The Mac Pro was very much in failure mode and part of that failure was due to the entry level model being an extremely bad value. Now Apple could try to make a machine at the $2500 level that was worth it but that still won't drive sales.
Quote:
 
I have, somewhere around here, a Quicksilver PowerMac that's pretty much the last time Apple made an sub $2K xMac.


There are a good number of folks that simply need CPU horsepower and as many cores as they can get.  Given that some folks have been holding off on Mac Pro purchases for a while waiting for the refresh means there's significant pent up demand. 
I have no doubt that the entire line up will sell well for a couple of months, as you note pent up demand is real. The problem is what comes after that mad rush to the new Pro? Apple could easily end up in the same boat of slow sales as the majority of the workstation market is not high end machines. Frankly it never has been.
Quote:


 
I didn't say it was a problem.  I said it would benefit Apple to prioritize the higher priced models.
I'm saying something different here, Apple needs to cover the entire workstation market here. Their apparent in ability to do that with the old Mac Pro was a significant problem.
Quote:


Apple has a i7 + Single GPU solution in their current lineup.

It is unlikely they will be grossly over charging for any model of the new Mac Pro but that doesn't mean that they will offer a cheap model.
Frankly I'm thinking that one of the goals for this new Mac Pro was to address the entry level cost issue. In this day and age I don't consider a $2000 computer to be cheap, especially in a design like this Mac Pro focused only on compute.
Quote:


I mean a quad core i7 + single GPU iMac will run about as fast as a quad core i7 + single GPU Mac Pro.
Which is fine if you can live with the rest of the iMac. I can't so I don't have an iMac. Apple could easily refactor the iMac into something I'd buy but they seem hell bent on making it less of a desktop machine every year.
Quote:

Not over priced.  Just expensive because it's higher end. Apple will make profit on a $2000 machine.  Just less than a $4000 machine at the same margins.  This has always been the problem of the xMac...it would lower ASPs.
ASP is a silly discussion as the iPad, the Mini, the MBA and many other things Apple sells lowers the ASP also. None of these lowers the price as much as hardware nobody wants to buy.
Quote:

Cost is certainly not the point of any Mac much less the Mac Pro.  Unless you mean high cost for high performance.
I disagree entirely here, the huge success of MBA is directly due to cost. It is actually a very good buy.
Quote:
Yes, the iMac offers plenty of performance these days.
…for many users. iMac isn't the solution for everybody.
Quote:

To hear you guys defend the Mac Pro it's the second coming of Steve Jobs.  The rest of us are evidently luddites that abhor the advancement of technology and wish to hang on to our obsolete tech like floppy drives.
Err no, I've not said the new Mac Pro is perfect, but rather have addressed arguments that I see as asinine. There is a difference. As to being Luddites there is very much an element in some of the posts seen on various forums with the casual form of: "the Mac Pro is all new so it must be bad".

It isn't that we are defending Apple here but rather this noise about the new Mac Pro is like a skipping record that says the same thing over and over again. Seriously some of this stuff we hear is almost identical to what was heard back in the day when S100 systems where being replaced with mass production alternatives (yes I've been around that long). So yeah at times it feels like we are dealing with Luddites in general; I'm not sure you fit into that category but clearly you are more focused on the past.
Quote:
The E3 is a nice little workstation chip.  It'd be wonderful in a mini.  That's not going to happen either.
Hey I'm patiently waiting for the next Mini, that might not be the machine I want now, but a couple of years from now who knows. I'm actually bummed out that Apple has yet to bring OpenCL support to intel GPUs.
Quote:

Again, the argument in this and other threads here is that all those pro cards are a non issue and pros don't need slots or drive bays or CUDA support.  If that's really the case then the new Mac Pro IS simply a drop in replacement for all those empty Mac Pro chassis that exist out there.

It isn't a drop in for an empty chassis as you would need adapters for the monitors or new monitors to leverage the TB ports.







post #719 of 1290
Quote:
Originally Posted by hmm View Post


That model isn't really aimed at the masses.

Which would be fine except for the fact that Mac Pro, in its old form, misses most of the workstation market. The vast majority of workstation users simply can not justify a $7000 computer.
post #720 of 1290
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post

I'm not sure what you problem is with factual statements. The iMac is a monitor and thus you get one with every iMac purchase that monitor however can be completely unusable for may tasks that a computer is used for. In effect you don't have an option with the iMac.

Factual statement: you did not list a single monitor that would work on a Mac Pro that would not work attached to the iMac.

Factual statement: you can connect at least two additional monitors to the 27" Mac Pro.

http://www.engadget.com/2011/05/03/apple-imac-hands-on-with-dual-30-inch-displays-video/

And what are the "many tasks that a computer is used for" that the iMac monitor is completely useless?

Perhaps it is you that has a problem confusing opinion with "fact". The "fact" is that any monitor that you are likely to use on a Mac Pro will work equally well on an iMac.

If you don't have the desk space I'm going to give you the same (impractical) suggestion that you and Marvin provided about the footprint of an external raid: stick the iMac somewhere hidden and run a TB line to your desired monitor (or dock and then monitor).

/shrug

What's good for the goose is good for the gander.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Future Apple Hardware
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Future Apple Hardware › Apple throws out the rulebook for its unique next-gen Mac Pro