I'd like to know how many of these go out the door every day? 10? 100? 1000? or?
I would probably say in the thousands. Just my personal gut feeling. Remember, there was a huge pent up demand for them. I don't think the production is 24/7, because I think it's a lot with the number of processors they can get. In my travels, when a new top end processor gets announced from Intel, it's been historically the processor yields that hold everything up.
All you added there was an extra CPU and an optical drive.
The reason I added the extra CPU for my preference is because I would rather have dual quad cores clocked higher than the lower clocked 12 core. For the work I do, I could make better use of faster general computing even if there was a slight performance penalty rendering long videos. I mostly work in Adobe CC and the videos I produce are usually like 3-5 minutes duration so faster clock speed would be better for me in overall general computing heavy in Photoshop and publishing user manuals of a few hundred pages each built in inDesign.
I'm curious to know which potential buyers are cut out because of the price. Is the nMP more expensive than the previous model?
Somewhat. My original MP from '06 was $2699 for the base model. At the time the Canadian dollar was not what it is today, so this caused the price to be higher than in the US. The combination of eight years of inflation along with the stronger CAD means I'm paying pretty much *exactly* the same price for my new one. The same will not be true in the US, however.
That said, there is zero doubt in my mind that Apple could sell a LOT more of these, assuming they'd want to, with two changes...
1) offer a version with a single GPU
2) put a single micro-size drive bay internal and offer all machines with a "fusion" option
Less desperate, but still a wonderful upgrade, would be to put two more USB ports on the front. I've already run out of ones on the back, and due to the fact that they are the only ones that can run a USB thumb drive, I have to leave my machine back-to-front.
Less desperate, but still a wonderful upgrade, would be to put two more USB ports on the front. I've already run out of ones on the back, and due to the fact that they are the only ones that can run a USB thumb drive, I have to leave my machine back-to-front.
Probably need a USB hub. I use my front ports all the time on my MP. I find it very inconvenient on my iMac to have to plug my compact flash into the back.
Probably need a USB hub. I use my front ports all the time on my MP. I find it very inconvenient on my iMac to have to plug my compact flash into the back.
Indeed I do, but the question remains why SHOULD I need one? Ports on the front would be a very welcome upgrade.
It's still a low volume seller though. If they'd sold 200k units in the January-March quarter, it would have shown over $600m revenue in their SEC filing but revenue only increased $72m since last year and growth was driven by laptops.
I'd say it's safe to say it's not more than 200k in 3 months (~2000 per day). It may not even be over 100k. This is just the size of the target audience at this price range.
If they only have a single production facility, they could have set it up to handle the same unit volume as before, which could easily have been under 50k per quarter and demand could have been as much as 100k. The delays seem excessive though in comparison to the iPhone that sells in the tens of millions.
It's good that they decided to keep making them. Their two options were go with a compelling design to give it some life support or EOL it.
The reason I added the extra CPU for my preference is because I would rather have dual quad cores clocked higher than the lower clocked 12 core.
Intel's chips overclock the cores the fewer you use but a single 8-core would manage to be clocked higher than 12-core. Their 3GHz chip E5-1680v2 scores 13.69 in Cinebench and a quad E5-1620v2 scores 7.49 so potentially 15 in a dual processor config. Negligible performance difference in practise.
What I don't get is why Intel has priced the single chips so high. The 8-core E5-1680v2 Apple uses is $1723, the quad E5-1620v2 is $294 so two of the quads would be 10% faster and over $1100 less. That would make the 8-core model under $3999 not $4999. Apple charges $2000 for the 8-core CPU upgrade. I'm not sure what Intel gains from doing this nor why the difference is so much.
Maybe they are priced for server operators who they know will pay a lot to get higher cores per socket but if they soldered them into the Macs then they wouldn't have to worry about that. It's not like someone's going to buy a whole batch of Mac Pros and desolder them to use in a server. Would they even go to the bother of buying Mac Pros with them socketed and switch them with quads to get cheaper 8-core chips and resell the machines? I doubt it.
Intel should be making higher core-count chips more compelling not less because that's what sells the higher-end systems.
Indeed I do, but the question remains why SHOULD I need one? Ports on the front would be a very welcome upgrade.
The motherboard on the old model extends from the back to the front along the left side. The motherboard on the new one is flat facing the back. They can't attach USB ports to the motherboard easily from the front as that's where the GPUs are. You don't need a hub though, just a USB extension cable:
You don't need a hub though, just a USB extension cable:
Does an iPhone still charge with that extension cable? I have an official Apple USB extension cable but for some reason the iPhone will not accept it as a valid charging configuration.
I'm curious to know which potential buyers are cut out because of the price. Is the nMP more expensive than the previous model?
In the US it starts $500 higher. You're unlikely to find a perfect comparison here. It has two gpus by default, but the base model gpu in 2010 only retailed for around $250 with Apple's 5770 upgrade kit (gpu and presumably anything needed for installation) which was fully supported on at least the 2009 model. It discards the optical bay, hard drive bays, and PCI slots, so some functionality may need to be remapped to something that can be attached to a thunderbolt port. This can add to the necessary costs for a working solution depending on the current needs of the potential buyer. The value added varies by application. Many apps that rely heavily on OpenGL won't see a significant benefit from multiple gpus. The presumption was that it was done with OpenCL in mind, which isn't used for everything. In cases where OpenCL takes over previously cpu bound functions that must execute within milliseconds, any gpu can feel snappier than the older cpu bound computation.
Anyway it is more expensive, but I guess it's a matter of whether the overall package adds more or less value at a given price range.
[CONTENTEMBED=/t/179954/apples-mac-pro-ship-times-fall-below-one-week-for-first-time-since-launch/40#post_2539390 layout=inline]You don't need a hub though, just a USB extension cable:[/CONTENTEMBED]
Does an iPhone still charge with that extension cable? I have an official Apple USB extension cable but for some reason the iPhone will not accept it as a valid charging configuration.
The reviews say it charges an iPhone. Not all cables transmit power but there's not an easy way to tell at first glance.
Comments
I'd like to know how many of these go out the door every day? 10? 100? 1000? or?
I would probably say in the thousands. Just my personal gut feeling. Remember, there was a huge pent up demand for them. I don't think the production is 24/7, because I think it's a lot with the number of processors they can get. In my travels, when a new top end processor gets announced from Intel, it's been historically the processor yields that hold everything up.
The reason I added the extra CPU for my preference is because I would rather have dual quad cores clocked higher than the lower clocked 12 core. For the work I do, I could make better use of faster general computing even if there was a slight performance penalty rendering long videos. I mostly work in Adobe CC and the videos I produce are usually like 3-5 minutes duration so faster clock speed would be better for me in overall general computing heavy in Photoshop and publishing user manuals of a few hundred pages each built in inDesign.
I'm curious to know which potential buyers are cut out because of the price. Is the nMP more expensive than the previous model?
Somewhat. My original MP from '06 was $2699 for the base model. At the time the Canadian dollar was not what it is today, so this caused the price to be higher than in the US. The combination of eight years of inflation along with the stronger CAD means I'm paying pretty much *exactly* the same price for my new one. The same will not be true in the US, however.
That said, there is zero doubt in my mind that Apple could sell a LOT more of these, assuming they'd want to, with two changes...
1) offer a version with a single GPU
2) put a single micro-size drive bay internal and offer all machines with a "fusion" option
Less desperate, but still a wonderful upgrade, would be to put two more USB ports on the front. I've already run out of ones on the back, and due to the fact that they are the only ones that can run a USB thumb drive, I have to leave my machine back-to-front.
Most of Apple machines are overpriced compared to other competitors out there.
Probably need a USB hub. I use my front ports all the time on my MP. I find it very inconvenient on my iMac to have to plug my compact flash into the back.
Probably need a USB hub. I use my front ports all the time on my MP. I find it very inconvenient on my iMac to have to plug my compact flash into the back.
Indeed I do, but the question remains why SHOULD I need one? Ports on the front would be a very welcome upgrade.
Apple said that "Demand for the all new Mac Pro is great and it will take time before supply catches up with demand":
http://www.forbes.com/sites/connieguglielmo/2013/12/19/apple-users-hoping-for-a-mac-pro-desktop-this-year-will-have-to-wait-until-february-or-longer/
It's still a low volume seller though. If they'd sold 200k units in the January-March quarter, it would have shown over $600m revenue in their SEC filing but revenue only increased $72m since last year and growth was driven by laptops.
I'd say it's safe to say it's not more than 200k in 3 months (~2000 per day). It may not even be over 100k. This is just the size of the target audience at this price range.
If they only have a single production facility, they could have set it up to handle the same unit volume as before, which could easily have been under 50k per quarter and demand could have been as much as 100k. The delays seem excessive though in comparison to the iPhone that sells in the tens of millions.
It's good that they decided to keep making them. Their two options were go with a compelling design to give it some life support or EOL it.
Intel's chips overclock the cores the fewer you use but a single 8-core would manage to be clocked higher than 12-core. Their 3GHz chip E5-1680v2 scores 13.69 in Cinebench and a quad E5-1620v2 scores 7.49 so potentially 15 in a dual processor config. Negligible performance difference in practise.
What I don't get is why Intel has priced the single chips so high. The 8-core E5-1680v2 Apple uses is $1723, the quad E5-1620v2 is $294 so two of the quads would be 10% faster and over $1100 less. That would make the 8-core model under $3999 not $4999. Apple charges $2000 for the 8-core CPU upgrade. I'm not sure what Intel gains from doing this nor why the difference is so much.
Maybe they are priced for server operators who they know will pay a lot to get higher cores per socket but if they soldered them into the Macs then they wouldn't have to worry about that. It's not like someone's going to buy a whole batch of Mac Pros and desolder them to use in a server. Would they even go to the bother of buying Mac Pros with them socketed and switch them with quads to get cheaper 8-core chips and resell the machines? I doubt it.
Intel should be making higher core-count chips more compelling not less because that's what sells the higher-end systems.
The motherboard on the old model extends from the back to the front along the left side. The motherboard on the new one is flat facing the back. They can't attach USB ports to the motherboard easily from the front as that's where the GPUs are. You don't need a hub though, just a USB extension cable:
http://www.amazon.com/AmazonBasics-A-Male-A-Female-Extension-Cable/dp/B00E9IFDBU
Does an iPhone still charge with that extension cable? I have an official Apple USB extension cable but for some reason the iPhone will not accept it as a valid charging configuration.
I'm curious to know which potential buyers are cut out because of the price. Is the nMP more expensive than the previous model?
In the US it starts $500 higher. You're unlikely to find a perfect comparison here. It has two gpus by default, but the base model gpu in 2010 only retailed for around $250 with Apple's 5770 upgrade kit (gpu and presumably anything needed for installation) which was fully supported on at least the 2009 model. It discards the optical bay, hard drive bays, and PCI slots, so some functionality may need to be remapped to something that can be attached to a thunderbolt port. This can add to the necessary costs for a working solution depending on the current needs of the potential buyer. The value added varies by application. Many apps that rely heavily on OpenGL won't see a significant benefit from multiple gpus. The presumption was that it was done with OpenCL in mind, which isn't used for everything. In cases where OpenCL takes over previously cpu bound functions that must execute within milliseconds, any gpu can feel snappier than the older cpu bound computation.
Anyway it is more expensive, but I guess it's a matter of whether the overall package adds more or less value at a given price range.
The reviews say it charges an iPhone. Not all cables transmit power but there's not an easy way to tell at first glance.