or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Current Mac Hardware › Apple's new Mac Pro a better value than the sum of its parts
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple's new Mac Pro a better value than the sum of its parts - Page 2

post #41 of 130
Quote:
Originally Posted by ClemyNX View Post

Now I just wish they did a 2000-2500$ Pro with graphics cards better suited for gaming. These are extremely powerful but don't fare that well in games because they are not leant for it. I mean, that would be my dream machine. Can't wait for the Apple 4K thunderbolt screen too!

 

They would actually work great for games if the game manufacturers optimized the games like Apple did with Final Cut Pro X. Based on the reviews it is still a very good gaming machine.

post #42 of 130
That Power Suppy seems extremely low. No offense, but both cards will top out past 550 W of TDP.

FWIW: My Linux box:

AMD FX-8350 Black
G.Skill 32GB 1866 10-9-10 DDR3
Gigabyte 990FX-UD3 v3
Corsair 650D
Corsair RM 1000W Power Supply
AMD Radeon R9-290
Seagate 2TB 64MB Cache Barracuda
Plextor 128MB M5Pro Xtreme SSD
Couple WD HDDs

Then add in an upcoming FirePro and it'll be pulling way more than 650W.
post #43 of 130
Apple has reached the point in design, shipment volumes and volume buying to where they are obviously more competitive on pricing while still offering all their software extras and device integration.

It is going to become hard for competitors to match Apple going forward.

I first got a clue about this when my brother's company (hi-tech electro-optics) analyzed all the laptops available for the sales crew and picked the best Windows laptops they could find and settled on the MacBook Air! Nothing else came close, when considering all factors.
post #44 of 130
However much a Win machine may drop in price, the Win Crowd would have to pay for the various apps they would use for 'pro' purposes; lest, of course, they just play games and leave it at that.. 1smile.gif Furthermore, suppose that their machine gets cheaper one day, I bet, Apple would serve the Mac Crowd with another expensive, yet cheap for what it is machine.
post #45 of 130
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post


It can, and I suspect it will be. I assume the reason for Windows getting it sooner is the Windows drivers for those TB2 controllers were developed by the maker of the controllers but Apple is developing their own for the MBPs, which they may not release until they have their own 4K display or some other Appley reason that ultimately seems weird to me.

Maybe we'll see the driver update in 10.9.2?

post #46 of 130
Quote:
Originally Posted by dugbug View Post

Go ahead and post your work here again please

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wovel View Post

Ok , link one of them then. If there are so many, it should be easy to do. I can't find even one. The only one i have seen even close to that number with similar hardware was using a used CPU.


To clarify my last point. The CPU in the entry model retails around $1,000 dollars, but a lot of people think it retails for $293 because if you Google it, the first two links you find are at the price. Both of those links are for CPUs pulled from other machines. That is obviously not the right item to compare a new machine too.

I'm on vacation on my iPhone. I won't have the energy to do that. On IGN I have the same username and some people were posting their findings (among a huge amount of kids complaining that it's more expensive than their PC with a consumer i7). Are you absolutely certain about the CPU? That seems a lot.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TBell View Post

They would actually work great for games if the game manufacturers optimized the games like Apple did with Final Cut Pro X. Based on the reviews it is still a very good gaming machine.

Pretty sure it's not true. These cards are certainly not made to speed up certain kind of calculations pertaining to video games, and no software optimization will change the hardware optimization. Indication of that is that with 2GB of VRAM games should run perfectly even on one single card. In reality, some games like Bioshock Infinite run at less than 60fps at ultra (theverge). This is not a problem, they are not made for it. They are not better at gaming than dedicated gaming cards that are less expensive.
post #47 of 130
Quote:
Originally Posted by BoC View Post

Apple has reached the point in design, shipment volumes and volume buying to where they are obviously more competitive on pricing while still offering all their software extras and device integration.

It is going to become hard for competitors to match Apple going forward.

I first got a clue about this when my brother's company (hi-tech electro-optics) analyzed all the laptops available for the sales crew and picked the best Windows laptops they could find and settled on the MacBook Air! Nothing else came close, when considering all factors.


This is so true...


For all those mitching and boaning about the high price of the Mac Pro...


Been there, Done that!

Quote:
MacIntosh IIfx





Release date................March 19, 1990
Introductory price.......$9,900
Discontinued...............April 15, 1992
Operating system........Mac OS 6.0.5-7.1.1(Pro), 7.5-7.6.1
CPU...............................Motorola 68030 @ 40 MHz
Memory.........................4 MB, expandable to 128 MB (80 ns 64-pin SIMMs)


At introduction it cost from US $9,000 to US $12,000, depending on configuration, and it was the fastest Mac available at the time.


All this plus 6 NuBus Slots, SCSI and ADB/AppleTalk 1biggrin.gif

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macintosh_IIfx


FWIW, $9,900 in 1990 Dollars is worth $17,654.04 in 2013 Dollars

http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/cpicalc.pl?cost1=9900&year1=1990&year2=2013
"...The calm is on the water and part of us would linger by the shore, For ships are safe in harbor, but that's not what ships are for."
- Michael Lille -
Reply
"...The calm is on the water and part of us would linger by the shore, For ships are safe in harbor, but that's not what ships are for."
- Michael Lille -
Reply
post #48 of 130
Quote:
Originally Posted by realwarder View Post

Those graphics cards are staggeringly expensive!

Workstation class gpu's with eec ram are.  Go buy an nvidia kepler workstation gpu or a FireProGL from AMD and you will know what I mean.

They really do cost that much.

post #49 of 130
Quote:
Originally Posted by nathanimal View Post

A couple of things:


2. The Windows (and Hackintosh) crowd could build a system that is theoretically close in spec to this machine for thousands less if they forego the workstation graphics cards, which are sold with enormous margins to business users to support them, and so they can make a profit after the razor thin margins of their gaming GPU lineups - many of which have just has much horsepower as the FirePro/Quadro cards, but without the proprietary OpenGL firmware that locks those cards out of using AutoCAD and other such programs.


All that being said, I agree, for the power user, Apple's new professional system is, for the most part, a clear-cut better value.

I understand where your coming from but to build a spec for spec workstation class machine windows machines cost a lot more.  go configure an hp Z820 workstation.  for a 12 core there around 14k without a lot of the mac pros features not the least of which is thunderbolt.


Edited by Mechanic - 12/24/13 at 6:04pm
post #50 of 130
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mechanic View Post

go configure an hp Z820 workstation.  for a 12 core there around 14k without a lot of the mac pros features not the least of which is thunderbolt.

That one's a dual 12-core but still, if you were to add dual workstation GPUs and the extra power supply required, it would get up to the $14k mark.

For people who would rather have 24-cores, it's possible to buy two entry 12-core Mac Pros at $6500 each = $13k. HP's cheapest 24-core with a GPU would be just over $10k.
post #51 of 130
Too bad they only did the max model, not the min. still 50% increase for price of a machine less successful on use is horrible, now I'm sure people will say getting another machine with even more problems you can get for near price.
post #52 of 130
Quote:
Originally Posted by CanukStorm View Post

Maybe we'll see the driver update in 10.9.2?

I don't plan on buying a 4K display but I'd still like to see the full potential of MBP's TB2 chips to be recognized.

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #53 of 130
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post


I don't plan on buying a 4K display but I'd still like to see the full potential of MBP's TB2 chips to be recognized.

Spot on.

post #54 of 130
I'm fairly certain if I broke into some of those parts warehouses at night I could steal some of those components and build a Mac Pro-class computer for a much cheaper price. Apple has nothing on me. I'm telling ya I can build a more powerful Windows PC for less money than a Mac Pro even if I have to kill someone to do it. Bill Gates is my idol and I can't go out like this. Everyone knows about the infamous "Apple tax" which is basically charging consumers an extra $500 for an Apple logo. Tell me. Does that dinky little Mac Pro look like a real computer for a real man? No! A real workstation-class computer must weigh at least 40 lbs. and be bigger than a bread-box to qualify. I'd suspect anyone wanting a new Mac Pro as someone probably wanting to watch the movie Kinky Boots a second time.

/s
post #55 of 130
Yeah they say they can "build-it" but they cut corners with less powerful specs, like the CHIP, and then a feature like THUNDERBOLT 2.0.

This machine which people just don't seem to understand is a "Technological Marvell", putting Xeon, USB 3, and Thunderbolt together, with the Video Cards coursing thru the Thunderbolt. This was hard to do, and NOT YET AVAILABLE in a PC Box.

Good Article! (especially to point that out)

Laters...
Adobe Systems - "Preventing the Case-Sensitive revolution everyday..."
Reply
Adobe Systems - "Preventing the Case-Sensitive revolution everyday..."
Reply
post #56 of 130
Quote:
Originally Posted by Constable Odo View Post

I'm fairly certain if I broke into some of those parts warehouses at night I could steal some of those components and build a Mac Pro-class computer for a much cheaper price. Apple has nothing on me. I'm telling ya I can build a more powerful Windows PC for less money than a Mac Pro even if I have to kill someone to do it. Bill Gates is my idol and I can't go out like this. Everyone knows about the infamous "Apple tax" which is basically charging consumers an extra $500 for an Apple logo. Tell me. Does that dinky little Mac Pro look like a real computer for a real man? No! A real workstation-class computer must weigh at least 40 Fwiw, they calbs. and be bigger than a bread-box to qualify. I'd suspect anyone wanting a new Mac Pro as someone probably wanting to watch the movie Kinky Boots a second time.

/s


^^^ this s your best!

FWIW, they call us pansy-pros... Not that there's anything wrong with that!
"...The calm is on the water and part of us would linger by the shore, For ships are safe in harbor, but that's not what ships are for."
- Michael Lille -
Reply
"...The calm is on the water and part of us would linger by the shore, For ships are safe in harbor, but that's not what ships are for."
- Michael Lille -
Reply
post #57 of 130
Originally Posted by sodaant View Post
using those GPUs for no really good reason

 

Uh… they’re the ones in the Mac Pro. Read the article.

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone exists], it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone exists], it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply
post #58 of 130
Quote:
Originally Posted by sodaant View Post

What's funny is that the motherboard they chose doesn't even fit into their case.

Also, using a $3k SSD when you could have used a $1.2k one, using those GPUs for no really good reason, choosing a dual socket motherboard just because (and then not adding a second CPU) sort of indicate not much research was done for this article.

 

congrats on your second AI post. you apparently have opposable thumbs.

 

there's nobody here to take your call right now. please try your call again later.

post #59 of 130
It's an interesting and fun exercise but flawed. It's buying parts at retail prices so yes a hobbyist would have trouble besting Apple's price. However the article mentions manufacturing costs so if the objective is to find out what a commercial competitor could do, comparable prices need to be at B2B levels which will be far cheaper.
post #60 of 130
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wovel View Post

One other, somewhat meaningless point. The OWC unit is a card with two PCIe SSDs in it and even the RevoDrive is nowhere near the form factor of the Apple Drive. The early Mac Pro tests also show the Mac Pro transfer rates to the internal drive are about 100MB/s faster than either of those options are claiming.

I think the faster speeds we're getting on the new MP are due to a RAID stripe set; I believe the MP has two memory sticks. This can be done with the cards from OWC as well as it also has two sticks:
http://macperformanceguide.com/Reviews-SSD-OWC-Mercury-Accelsior-speed-vs-SATA6G.html

Also of note: the PCIe SSD cards from OWC are the only bootable ones, which is kind of a big deal if you want to replace a HDD OSX boot drive.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

Oops! I guess I closed my MBP before that sent and it looks like PhilBoogie has pipped my comment.

Sorry about that, I usually don't post around the internet pipping people. 1biggrin.gif
"Fibonacci: As easy as 1, 1, 2, 3..."
Reply
"Fibonacci: As easy as 1, 1, 2, 3..."
Reply
post #61 of 130
Quote:
Originally Posted by y2an View Post

It's an interesting and fun exercise but flawed. It's buying parts at retail prices so yes a hobbyist would have trouble besting Apple's price. However the article mentions manufacturing costs so if the objective is to find out what a commercial competitor could do, comparable prices need to be at B2B levels which will be far cheaper.

 

  1. hobbyists usually don't factor in their own time and resource spent into the cost of a system assembled using parts at retail prices.
  2. It's very doubtful that any commercial competitor, which are all in poorer financial health than Apple, will be able to negotiate a better parts price to build an equivalent machine. Apple has enough CASH to purchase the entire production run for a year and still not blink, assuming a million top of the range Mac Pros are produced with a parts cost of $5000 per machine, both values likely to be gross overestimates.
  3. Commercial competitors will still have the business costs of Apple: wages, property, transportation, energy, taxes etc.
post #62 of 130

There are better PC 's than Apple for gaming.Much faster and better graphics also.

post #63 of 130

About non-cylindrical extension boxes

 

For external hard disk storage, one could also add a rather flat and wide cylindrical extension chassis and put *that* underneath the MacPro,

giving it an appearance not unlike the Cray-1.

 

cf. this Cray-1 picture

post #64 of 130
I work in the 3D animation for a living & moved away from Apple after the G5 switch to Intel. I can't speak to video editing but in my field, there are far less Mac users now than 5 yrs ago.
At the office, I use a 3 yr old 2x6core PC w/s that cost $10.000 & one that I built last year for 2,800 - for my home use. My home pc is just as much as a work horse than my office pc. I don't have a 3,ooo graphics card in my home built machine but I can work just fine without any issues.

The MacPRO is so specific to pushing 4k video that it's overkill for most. I assume people working in that format know their hardware and it would be interesting to get their p.o.v on a cost efficient build.

This is a waste of money, in my field. If you're in the Mac ecosystem - is the only reason peeps will get these [ ...and Macs are hassle free that way]. I would build a machine for 3 grand and put the rest of that money into starting a renderfarm. Your not getting a full HD 5 second animation rendered on a single w/s overnight.

Also, I can't get behind AMD FirePros. I've had multiple issues with AMD cards and drivers. Wish they offered an Nvidia as well.
post #65 of 130

The argument that people make about building a comparable PC to the Mac Pro is flawed because no normal business, say a graphics or video production company is going to be buying parts to assemble a PC version - in hopes of saving some money (or in this case more likely spending more).

 

I understand the comparison is being made to prove a point - that Apple doesn't have an "Apple tax" when you make direct comparisons.  So if anyone wants to compare pricing - go to the PC workstation OEM's and see if you can build a comparable (in specs) PC version.  We already know what the results are and it should end the rant that PC's are less expensive, but it won't because that's not how the PC people think.

post #66 of 130
WOW a PC board with 2 CPU sockets but only useing one but putting that up next to a system with only 1 socket?
post #67 of 130
Quote:
Originally Posted by y2an View Post

It's an interesting and fun exercise but flawed. It's buying parts at retail prices so yes a hobbyist would have trouble besting Apple's price. However the article mentions manufacturing costs so if the objective is to find out what a commercial competitor could do, comparable prices need to be at B2B levels which will be far cheaper.

This whole exercise in reductionism seems to be based on the assumption that the Mac Pro should be viewed as a bag of components, rather than a designed product of original thinking. The BYOPC crowd, unfamiliar with such a concept, will not factor in the cost of design and engineering that went in to the Mac Pro, instead, that'll take design for granted and talk only about differences in "manufacturing cost" as if that was the only cost that Apple incurs. I know that AppleInsider was trying to challenge the BYOPC crowd's arguments, but in so doing, they sold the Mac Pro short.

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply
post #68 of 130
You buy it 'because you can'.
Nothing really matters.
post #69 of 130
Quote:
Originally Posted by aBeliefSystem View Post

You buy it 'because you can'.
Nothing really matters.

Creative business can purchase it out of their operating budget, and it will pay for itself, assuming you're a creative pro who does, say, video or music production on it for a living. If you're just buying one to impress your fellow Counterstrike players, then yes, it's going to be more of an issue of "can you afford it".

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply
post #70 of 130
Quote:
Originally Posted by y2an View Post

It's an interesting and fun exercise but flawed. It's buying parts at retail prices so yes a hobbyist would have trouble besting Apple's price. However the article mentions manufacturing costs so if the objective is to find out what a commercial competitor could do, comparable prices need to be at B2B levels which will be far cheaper.

No, because the point is that Mac haters always say they can build the equivalent for less.    You can't buy a machine that doesn't exist, so what a commercial competitor could do is not relevant.   If one of those commercial competitors does release an equivalent machine, then the comparison with such a machine would be fair.    

post #71 of 130
Quote:
Originally Posted by sodaant View Post

No, I just expected a little better research.

Why? They never proofread their own work. Why do research?
post #72 of 130
Quote:
Originally Posted by runbuh View Post


Works great as long as you don't care about driver updates, and if you don't care if the Trackpad works worth a damn (under Windows).

Yeah, the shitty trackpad behavior was why I removed my BootCamp partition from my MacBook Pro 3,1. You mean they haven't fixed this in five+ years?
post #73 of 130
Quote:
Originally Posted by CanukStorm View Post

Spot on.

Personally, I'm hoping Apple provides a retina-style display for the Pro soon. I'd rather the GUI was retina style; large for ease of use, and sharp for ease on the eyes. Graphics folks still get just as much ability to view graphics at 100% (or near enough).
post #74 of 130
Quote:
Originally Posted by vaporland View Post

congrats on your second AI post. you apparently have opposable thumbs.

there's nobody here to take your call right now. please try your call again later.

The fact alone that you are using the Zik-Zak logo earns you points with me ;-D
post #75 of 130
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilBoogie View Post

I think the faster speeds we're getting on the new MP are due to a RAID stripe set; I believe the MP has two memory sticks.

Every photo of the new Mac Pro thus far has shown one only. There's not even been a socket for a second one on the other GPU board, though many have suggested Apple might put one there.
post #76 of 130
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChiA View Post

hobbyists usually don't factor in their own time and resource spent into the cost of a system assembled using parts at retail prices.

Nor the cost of returning and replacing those parts when they arrive defective, or when they turn out to be subtly incompatible with the rest of the configuration. PC geeks really marginalize this aspect of PC builds. As a former builder who used to believe in building, I have to say it's not worth it if you're more focused on getting work done, rather than configuration and support.
post #77 of 130
Quote:
Originally Posted by qwerty02 View Post

I work in the 3D animation for a living & moved away from Apple after the G5 switch to Intel. I can't speak to video editing but in my field, there are far less Mac users now than 5 yrs ago.
At the office, I use a 3 yr old 2x6core PC w/s that cost $10.000 & one that I built last year for 2,800 - for my home use. My home pc is just as much as a work horse than my office pc. I don't have a 3,ooo graphics card in my home built machine but I can work just fine without any issues.

The MacPRO is so specific to pushing 4k video that it's overkill for most. I assume people working in that format know their hardware and it would be interesting to get their p.o.v on a cost efficient build.

This is a waste of money, in my field. If you're in the Mac ecosystem - is the only reason peeps will get these [ ...and Macs are hassle free that way]. I would build a machine for 3 grand and put the rest of that money into starting a renderfarm. Your not getting a full HD 5 second animation rendered on a single w/s overnight.

Also, I can't get behind AMD FirePros. I've had multiple issues with AMD cards and drivers. Wish they offered an Nvidia as well.

As a hobbyist 3D person (or someone that WOULD BE of the damn software wasn't so archaic and filled with bugs that even the users don't seem to care about), my experience has been that the majority of 3D is indeed done on Windows. Every cross-platform 3D package I've tried has been beyond flaky on Mac OS X. The developers don't care. They often don't even have a proper Mac development team or workflow. The market supports Windows development. They only release Mac versions where they see they might make marginally extra profit, in comparison to the effort required to support it (and actual support from 3D product makers tends to be abysmal too).

I'd love to see this change. But I'd also love to see development of 3D packages leave the pitiful dark ages it maintains itself at. It's really shameful. But they support business on the income made from selling to big production houses, which are at this point trapped using geeky junk, rather than non-geeks that have little tolerance for software design flaws (ie: everyone else). Music software has largely made it into the mainstream. When will 3D? With companies like Adobe continuously raising end user costs on their 2D graphics tools, and Autodesk eating up competitors and also using subscription models, it doesn't look good for the next five to ten years... Don't run to DAZ for inexpensive 3D; it's all garbage software with zero support.

Till severe changes occur there, my interest in a Mac Pro will be for music and photography only. Maybe gaming, since it surely will beat my current PC. A Mac Pro only has to beat an 8800gtx, in my house, since I'm never spending money on that PC again.
post #78 of 130
I use Cinema 4D R15 on my Macbook Pro 2012, and I have not had any "flaky" problems with it. I would love to have the new Mac Pro to speed up the rendering process.
post #79 of 130

yes, the Pro is clearly targeted by Apple to pro apps, like FCP, that are optimized to use its full capabilities. so far, no third party apps, like Premier, are. nor the 3D apps either, as you describe.

 

the test will be when and if major software companies do this. Adobe probably will sometime in the next year. maybe some

CAD companies too. otherwise ...?

 

if a critical mass of third party software is updated for the Mac Pro, then it could really take off. if not, then its a "hobby."

 

so Apple should buy a leading software company in each key discipline (including 3D) and make sure that happens, and is done right. it's certainly got the $'s.

post #80 of 130

For me a big problem is the use of AMD GPUs -- they tend to be less stable (for GPGPU stuff) than NVIDIA parts.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Current Mac Hardware
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Current Mac Hardware › Apple's new Mac Pro a better value than the sum of its parts