or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Current Mac Hardware › Apple's Mac Pro ship times drop to 2-3 weeks, shortest wait since launch
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple's Mac Pro ship times drop to 2-3 weeks, shortest wait since launch

post #1 of 38
Thread Starter 
For the third week in a row, Apple has lowered ship-by times for its flagship Mac Pro desktop, with the latest two to three week estimates suggesting the company is quickly catching up with demand.




Apple has found it difficult to keep up with supply of the redesigned Mac Pro since the computer debuted in December.

As of Thursday, however, the Online Apple Store is showing shipping availability at 2-3 weeks, a vast improvement over the more than month-long waits some customers experienced in January and February. Last week, ship-by dates dropped to below one month for the first time since launch.

The new shipping estimates apply to all Mac Pro configurations, including fully maxed-out models that go for more than $13,000.

Historically, ship-by dates have steadily improved over the first quarter, with checks in April showing estimates at 5-6 weeks, which moved up to 4-6 weeks on Apr. 11, 4-5 weeks on Apr. 18 and 3-5 weeks on Apr. 24.

Due to constrained supply, in-store models are non-existent. In January, Apple said it didn't expect to have models available at brick-and-mortar Apple Stores until at least March.

As Apple builds its inventory, authorized resellers like MacMall and Adorama have limited supplies of select Mac Pro configurations, which can be seen in AppleInsider's live Price Guides.
post #2 of 38
Just as they get to ship same day, they will be releasing the new Mac Pro v2 I bet!
Enjoying the new Mac Pro ... it's smokin'
Been using Apple since Apple ][ - Long on AAPL so biased
nMac Pro 6 Core, MacBookPro i7, MacBookPro i5, iPhones 5 and 5s, iPad Air, 2013 Mac mini.
Reply
Enjoying the new Mac Pro ... it's smokin'
Been using Apple since Apple ][ - Long on AAPL so biased
nMac Pro 6 Core, MacBookPro i7, MacBookPro i5, iPhones 5 and 5s, iPad Air, 2013 Mac mini.
Reply
post #3 of 38
Quote:
Originally Posted by digitalclips View Post

Just as they get to ship same day, they will be releasing the new Mac Pro v2 I bet!

 

I bet it won't be far behind. I wouldn't be surprised to see a small update before years end. 

Mac Mini (Mid 2011) 2.5 GHz Core i5

120 GB SSD/500 GB HD/8 GB RAM

AMD Radeon HD 6630M 256 MB

Reply

Mac Mini (Mid 2011) 2.5 GHz Core i5

120 GB SSD/500 GB HD/8 GB RAM

AMD Radeon HD 6630M 256 MB

Reply
post #4 of 38
Quote:
Originally Posted by digitalclips View Post

Just as they get to ship same day, they will be releasing the new Mac Pro v2 I bet!

Well maybe not on the same day but it won't be far behind. Then we will have to listen to all the whining about Apple updating the Mac Pro too fast. Demands for refunds will follow and so forth.

On the other hand you never know, Apple might wait for the next Xeon process shrink. What ever they do they can't let the machine lag for years like they find the last Mac Pro. They need to work with Intel to make sure the evolution of Xeon is right for this platform.

Hey maybe in a couple of months the low cost variant will come out. Wishful thinking I know but the possibility intrigues me to no end. A Haswell/Broadwell/SkyLake APU as the base processor with the option of a GPU board would make my day. Ship it with just four TB ports to cut expenses slightly and for the stingy amongst us put in another PCI-Express SSD slot with the saved PCI Express lanes from the deleted TB interface Price it at $1500 and they will have a new desktop Mac customer.
post #5 of 38
Quote:
Originally Posted by macxpress View Post

I bet it won't be far behind. I wouldn't be surprised to see a small update before years end. 

It is entirely possible, Intel did release new XEONs late this winter into spring. The architecture has been significantly enhanced so it might lead to a nice bump in performance.
post #6 of 38
And perhaps a 2nd SSD?
post #7 of 38

The new Mac Mini will take the MacPro form and perhaps even the case design, but in white. Take a look at the new Time Capsule. We are evidently going vertical. 

Eph nMP, rMBP, MBA, Minis
Reply
Eph nMP, rMBP, MBA, Minis
Reply
post #8 of 38

I saw the Mac Pro in an Apple Store and thought it was a beautiful computer. In a way I'm glad that it's taken them so long to match supply with demand because it probably means they underestimated demand, which means there's more people using computers for serious work than people think.

 

Not everyone is in to Tablets and Apps, some people actually want Computers and Applications and want to use computers to advance the human condition.

post #9 of 38

I'm waiting for the inevitable 'Mac Pro demand is flagging' spin.

post #10 of 38
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilBoogie View Post

And perhaps a 2nd SSD?

It wouldn't really need that if the cost of those pesky ultra fast SSDs could just come down and capacity increase. That said why not two mounts?
Enjoying the new Mac Pro ... it's smokin'
Been using Apple since Apple ][ - Long on AAPL so biased
nMac Pro 6 Core, MacBookPro i7, MacBookPro i5, iPhones 5 and 5s, iPad Air, 2013 Mac mini.
Reply
Enjoying the new Mac Pro ... it's smokin'
Been using Apple since Apple ][ - Long on AAPL so biased
nMac Pro 6 Core, MacBookPro i7, MacBookPro i5, iPhones 5 and 5s, iPad Air, 2013 Mac mini.
Reply
post #11 of 38
I've been waiting for 6 weeks now.

Every time they reduce the wait time, the delivery date stays the same.

Meaning that when I ordered it in early April, the delivery date was the end of May.

And after the first reduction, mentioned earlier here on AI, if you ordered it at the end of April the delivery date was the end of May.

Whereas if you ordered it now, the delivery date is the end of May.

Am I the only one that's noticed this?

Any ideas of what's happening late in May that apple is back-stocking for?
post #12 of 38
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilBoogie View Post

And perhaps a 2nd SSD?

The list of "the perfect machine" seems relatively short:

 

1) a second SSD slot

2) at least one USB on the front (duh)

3) replaceable GPUs

4) (least important) perhaps a small-form hard drive bay (yes, ONE)

 

With those relatively minor upgrades I think there's be zero complains with form factor.

post #13 of 38

the mac pro needs more Pci-e lanes to have 2 SSD slots.

post #14 of 38
Originally Posted by JoeB View Post
the mac pro needs more Pci-e lanes to have 2 SSD slots.

 

Huh. That sounds wrong. I haven’t looked at… we’re on Broadwell, right… the spec for that, but I’d think that with the fewer PCIe lanes taken up by potential cards that there would be some unused ready for future expansion.

 

For example, Apple’s implementation of Tylersburg allowed for 6 SATA and 12 RAM slots, but they only took advantage of 4 and 8, respectively. I realize that’s not PCIe, but I don’t remember those stats offhand…

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 #15 of 38
Quote:
Originally Posted by Maury Markowitz View Post

Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilBoogie View Post

And perhaps a 2nd SSD?
The list of "the perfect machine" seems relatively short:

1) a second SSD slot
2) at least one USB on the front (duh)
3) replaceable GPUs
4) (least important) perhaps a small-form hard drive bay (yes, ONE)

With those relatively minor upgrades I think there's be zero complains with form factor.

I can understand the need for all this, but I don't believe for a second that they'll add a HDD port. They made a statement with this design, and that is that HDD's are dead. Or at the least going external. Don't be surprised to see them remove the HDD from their last computers this year. (iPod Classic is a different story)

As for a front facing USB port; turn the machine around, that's what @digitalclips does.

And the soldered GPU is here to stay. The nMP is a blueprint to the rest of their PC lineup.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

Quote:
the mac pro needs more Pci-e lanes to have 2 SSD slots.

Huh. That sounds wrong. I haven’t looked at… we’re on Broadwell, right… the spec for that, but I’d think that with the fewer PCIe lanes taken up by potential cards that there would be some unused ready for future expansion.

For example, Apple’s implementation of Tylersburg allowed for 6 SATA and 12 RAM slots, but they only took advantage of 4 and 8, respectively. I realize that’s not PCIe, but I don’t remember those stats offhand…

I think he's right though. @Marvin posted a breakdown on the PCI lanes...I'll never find it though.
post #16 of 38
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilBoogie View Post




And the soldered GPU is here to stay. The nMP is a blueprint to the rest of their PC lineup.
I think he's right though. @Marvin posted a breakdown on the PCI lanes...I'll never find it though.

They have 40 lanes per cpu package. They should be compatible with PCI 3 devices, but anyway they have to allocate 2 gpus, three thunderbolt 2 chips, ethernet, usb 3, and the ssd. I don't think they're running it as PCI 3.0, as it's not fully certified on that chipset. Note that the chipset is the same one that was used for Sandy Bridge EP in 2012. The next generation will have a new chipset, which should be fully validated for PCI 3.0, so it could happen. They're still keeping it to 40 lanes either way, but right now it appears to be oversubscribed when totaling up the discrete components that are attached to the bus.

post #17 of 38
Nice, but still no driver solution for the 4K SHARP Monitor.
You can now only use it at a refresh rate if 30Hz which is a shame
for Apple as they sell those monitors!!!
post #18 of 38
Quote:
Originally Posted by JanT View Post

Nice, but still no driver solution for the 4K SHARP Monitor.
You can now only use it at a refresh rate if 30Hz which is a shame
for Apple as they sell those monitors!!!

It depends what port you plug it in to I think. The HDMI port can only do 30Hz but the Thunderbolt port can do 60Hz (run a cable from Thunderbolt port on Mac to Mini Displayport on monitor).

post #19 of 38
No it does not work with the displayport. (in Europe the Sharp is not equiped with a HDMI port) Apple confirmed that to me weeks ago and said they are working on a solution... It may be solved wi
th the final systemupdate 10.9.3, or not.
post #20 of 38
Quote:
Originally Posted by JanT View Post

No it does not work with the displayport. (in Europe the Sharp is not equiped with a HDMI port) Apple confirmed that to me weeks ago and said they are working on a solution... It may be solved wi
th the final systemupdate 10.9.3, or not.

Ah, ok. Well I hope 10.9.3 fixes it for you then.

post #21 of 38
Quote:
Originally Posted by hmm View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilBoogie View Post

And the soldered GPU is here to stay. The nMP is a blueprint to the rest of their PC lineup.

I think he's right though. @Marvin posted a breakdown on the PCI lanes...I'll never find it though.
They have 40 lanes per cpu package. They should be compatible with PCI 3 devices, but anyway they have to allocate 2 gpus, three thunderbolt 2 chips, ethernet, usb 3, and the ssd. I don't think they're running it as PCI 3.0, as it's not fully certified on that chipset. Note that the chipset is the same one that was used for Sandy Bridge EP in 2012. The next generation will have a new chipset, which should be fully validated for PCI 3.0, so it could happen. They're still keeping it to 40 lanes either way, but right now it appears to be oversubscribed when totaling up the discrete components that are attached to the bus.

Thanks for that.


There are some good posts on the 40 lanes in this thread, including from you:
http://forums.appleinsider.com/t/161376/teardown-of-apples-new-mac-pro-reveals-socketed-removable-intel-cpu/160
post #22 of 38
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilBoogie View Post


Thanks for that.


There are some good posts on the 40 lanes in this thread, including from you:
http://forums.appleinsider.com/t/161376/teardown-of-apples-new-mac-pro-reveals-socketed-removable-intel-cpu/160


Yeah see I was confused because electrically the chipset should technically support PCIe 3.0. Apparently it's not fully validated on that chipset, even if it is technically possible. I don't know how they have it wired up, but I suspect that at least for the moment they have dedicated every possible lane to something. Also do note that usb3 isn't native on these. It's a discrete chip.

post #23 of 38
Quote:
Originally Posted by hmm View Post

I don't know how they have it wired up

Neither does Anand:
http://www.anandtech.com/show/7603/mac-pro-review-late-2013/8

Quote:
Also do note that usb3 isn't native on these. It's a discrete chip.

Can you explain that to me please? What's the difference between native and discrete? Isn't a discrete chip making the USB port talk natively?
post #24 of 38
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilBoogie View Post


Can you explain that to me please? What's the difference between native and discrete? Isn't a discrete chip making the USB port talk natively?

 

I typed up a longer response, but it rambled too much. I meant intel didn't implement usb3 support in the chipset. They are very conservative on changes to chipsets on anything tied to servers and workstations, typically only doing major updates once every two cycles. Recall that they slipped a generation behind already, although they went more aggressive on core counts. The initial rumors on Ivy were that it would stop at 10 cores.

post #25 of 38
Quote:
Originally Posted by hmm View Post

I typed up a longer response, but it rambled too much. I meant intel didn't implement usb3 support in the chipset. They are very conservative on changes to chipsets on anything tied to servers and workstations, typically only doing major updates once every two cycles. Recall that they slipped a generation behind already, although they went more aggressive on core counts. The initial rumors on Ivy were that it would stop at 10 cores.

I don't know if your first write-up would make it clear to me, but this certainly does - thanks much.
post #26 of 38

Apple is in it for making tons of money and nothing else.They could care less about their customers.

post #27 of 38
Quote:
Originally Posted by marvfox View Post

Apple is in it for making tons of money and nothing else.They could care less about their customers.

-1
post #28 of 38
Originally Posted by marvfox View Post
Apple is in it for making tons of money and nothing else.They could care less about their customers.

 

Shut up.

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 #29 of 38

Why the truth hurts about your precious Apple company. Their products are way overpriced and you know this yourself. Stop playing the white knight and listen to the truth once.

post #30 of 38
Quote:
Originally Posted by marvfox View Post

Why the truth hurts about your precious Apple company. Their products are way overpriced and you know this yourself. Stop playing the white knight and listen to the truth once.

You can see what their profit margins are:

2013
net sales $171b
net income $37b

That makes their net profit margin just under 22%

Dell 2013
net sales $57b
net income $2.4b

net margin just over 4%

HTC 2012
net sales $9.6b
net income $560m

net margin just under 6%

Samsung 2013
net sales $217b
net income $29b

net margin 13%

It's not that Apple is overpricing the products, their costs are high and they like to maintain healthy margins. 22% is healthy but hardly excessive. If they dropped net margin by around 10% to match Samsung, that takes a $650 phone down to $561. That's still an expensive phone. Plus Samsung got to leech off Apple's R&D costs.

I expect the Mac Pro to have higher margins though. This year they may have factored in the build costs of the US factory and R&D. Perhaps at a later date, the price will drop back down and that helps maintain demand too.

This year should see a decent update as it will move to DDR4 (with up to 128GB more widely supported), possibly up to 14-cores and new AMD GPUs with much faster double precision performance.
post #31 of 38

The 2-3 weeks wait means nothing.

 

I'd bet that there are a huge number of pros who've decided to wait until they can order a full system, i.e. Mac Pro + upgraded Apple monitor. I have no idea what's taking so long. Maybe Apple really is waiting for 4K panels to drop.

 

I think if you add in those potential orders, shipping times will be back to months.

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 #32 of 38
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin View Post
It's not that Apple is overpricing the products, their costs are high and they like to maintain healthy margins. 22% is healthy but hardly excessive. If they dropped net margin by around 10% to match Samsung, that takes a $650 phone down to $561. That's still an expensive phone.

Apple makes computers also. Although we cannot know the exact prices for everything, we know them for RAM and storage. And compared to what you can find in retail they are outrageous even today. And let's say that RAM is not really an issue because it is often user accessible. What about SSD? In the 256-1000 GB range the retail price is usually about $0.5/GB. In the Apple Store it is about $1/GB. Not 20% higher, not 50% higher but 100% higher.

post #33 of 38
Quote:
Originally Posted by PB View Post

Quote:
It's not that Apple is overpricing the products, their costs are high and they like to maintain healthy margins. 22% is healthy but hardly excessive. If they dropped net margin by around 10% to match Samsung, that takes a $650 phone down to $561. That's still an expensive phone.
Apple makes computers also. Although we cannot know the exact prices for everything, we know them for RAM and storage. And compared to what you can find in retail they are outrageous even today. And let's say that RAM is not really an issue because it is often user accessible. What about SSD? In the 256-1000 GB range the retail price is usually about $0.5/GB. In the Apple Store it is about $1/GB. Not 20% higher, not 50% higher but 100% higher.

Tim Cook stated that the margins on the Mac line were lower than their iOS line. The upgrades could have higher margins but I'd still expect 3rd parties to have unhealthy margins on their products. Apple's RAM prices aren't too bad these days.

Their SSDs are expensive but the cheap retail SSDs are using TLC NAND, Apple uses MLC. The Samsung 840 Pro would be the comparison ($0.74/GB) (Apple buys the SSDs from Samsung). Apple charges $300 to go from 256GB to 512GB and $800 to go from 256GB to 1TB so somewhere between $0.96-1.17/GB. They charge $1.56/GB on the entry Air to go from 128GB to 256GB. It lowers based on how much you buy. At the cheapest rate, they are 30% higher than one of the cheapest SSD manufacturers. This is their typical markup on components.

It would be nice of them to cut those prices down but they'd still be expensive if they did that. Say they matched $0.74/GB for the 1TB upgrade, it becomes $568 vs $800, it's better but still a pricey upgrade and they might not make any profit on that.
post #34 of 38
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin View Post

Apple's RAM prices aren't too bad these days.

This is true if you stay within the 8-16 GB range. For example, the upgrade of the iMac 17" to 16 GB of RAM costs €137.99 in Crucial and €200.00 in the Apple Store. This is about 46% more expensive in the Apple side. I will admit it is not that bad. But going to 32 GB, will cost €275.98 in Crucial and a whopping €600.00 in the Apple Store. This is 117% more expensive! Fortunately, the iMac RAM is user accessible.

 

Regarding SSD's, I understand that they will be expensive even if Apple goes into unhealthy margin territory. The solution to this issue is to make internal storage more easily accessible to the user, like they did with RAM in some of their models. The majority of customers will still pay the Apple price for upgrades, but for the few of us preferring to do the upgrade for themselves, it will make a big difference. Everyone will be happy then.

post #35 of 38
Quote:
Originally Posted by PB View Post

This is true if you stay within the 8-16 GB range. For example, the upgrade of the iMac 17" to 16 GB of RAM costs €137.99 in Crucial and €200.00 in the Apple Store. This is about 46% more expensive in the Apple side. I will admit it is not that bad. But going to 32 GB, will cost €275.98 in Crucial and a whopping €600.00 in the Apple Store. This is 117% more expensive! Fortunately, the iMac RAM is user accessible.

What's the latency on that RAM from Crucial? Same as Apple?
post #36 of 38
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilBoogie View Post


What's the latency on that RAM from Crucial? Same as Apple?

Crucial list their RAM as CL=11. Same value for the more expensive OWC's memory, which moreover adds "Meets and/or Exceeds Apple/Intel Specifications".

 

Where can I see Apple's RAM rating?

post #37 of 38
Quote:
Originally Posted by PB View Post

Where can I see Apple's RAM rating?

One wouldn't expect it from this site, but they do have a good page on the subject:
http://guides.macrumors.com/Buying_RAM

It's an often-overlooked spec when comparing RAM prices with what Apple charges.
post #38 of 38
Going OT here, but here's a good article on the 2012 rMBP memory bandwidth:
http://macperformanceguide.com/mbpRetina2012-speed-memory-bandwidth.html

If not interested, it is great site, maintained by a great guy.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Current Mac Hardware
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Current Mac Hardware › Apple's Mac Pro ship times drop to 2-3 weeks, shortest wait since launch