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.
hobbyists usually don't factor in their own time and resource spent into the cost of a system assembled using parts at retail prices.
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.
Commercial competitors will still have the business costs of Apple: wages, property, transportation, energy, taxes etc.
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.
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.
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.
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".
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.
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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Comments
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.
There are better PC 's than Apple for gaming.Much faster and better graphics also.
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
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.
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.
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.
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".
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.
Why? They never proofread their own work. Why do research?
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?
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).
The fact alone that you are using the Zik-Zak logo earns you points with me ;-D
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.
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.
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.
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.
For me a big problem is the use of AMD GPUs -- they tend to be less stable (for GPGPU stuff) than NVIDIA parts.