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.
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:
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…
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…
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.
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:
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.
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.
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.
I think he must be. either that or he just doesn't grasp how unusable the iMac is to some people.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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).
THAT is what the low-end of the Mac Pro line should be…
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.
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
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…
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".
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.
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.
(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.
(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.
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.
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.
(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
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.
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 ...
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.
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.
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by hmm
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nht
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…
Quote:
Originally Posted by nht
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacRonin
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nht
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nht
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.
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.
I'm not sure what you men by the same power category, an entry level machine is by definition a lower performance machine. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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.
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. 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.
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69
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".
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hmm
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.
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.
(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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AMusingFool
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AMusingFool
(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?)
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
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.
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 ...
Quote:
Originally Posted by StruckPaper
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.