Apple debuts new $5999 Mac Pro with up to 28-core Xeon processors

1121315171821

Comments

  • Reply 281 of 420
    sacto joesacto joe Posts: 895member
    dysamoria said:

    sacto joe said:
    dysamoria said:
    As for this computer... it looks neat, but Apple has quite clearly dropped me from consideration as a customer. Nothing they sell fits what I need. I can not afford to replace a computer every three years. I’ve been waiting for something worth spending a lot of money on and keeping for ten years. Ha ha ha ha ha...

    [... snip...]

    Now we’re back to the same mess of laissez-faire capitalism, inconsistency, unreliability, and “priced out of access” that it was before. “Less bad than PC” isn’t a good enough status.

    Screw it all.
    Of all the navel-gazing, narsististic, bellyaching, irrelevant-to-the-subject posts I’ve ever read, yours is right up there at the top of the heap. I have more than a nodding familiarity with being poor. It was Apple in large measure that’s responsible for my leaving that world behind - well, Apple and an amazing wife.

    Blaming Apple or computers or the world for your plight may seem justified, but it’s an anchor. You’ve made one right decision in your life: You stuck with Apple. Time to dig in and make the most of that.
    Lucky you. Go learn about your bias: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survivorship_bias ... or by all means just keep ignorantly slamming people who haven’t had your luck. Typical of people around here.
    This from the person who said in that same diatribe: “I can’t stand...the privileged cultists on this forum who can’t stand a bit of rational discourse without acting like ego-bruised know-it-all children, who are happy to smear and marginalize anyone less well off than them).”

    Sorry about your bruised ego....
    edited June 2019 roundaboutnowfastasleepdocno42
  • Reply 282 of 420
    StrangeDaysStrangeDays Posts: 12,791member

    jSnively said:
    The enthusiasts complaining about this machine are justified. The people pointing out that this machine is for an extremely niche and specific market are also correct.

    IMO Apple messed up here, and they're going to get a lot of crap for it. This is a form factor that could, and should, have scaled to make multiple market segments happy. Instead Apple went as far to the extreme end as they could, to the exclusion of the middle road, and completely priced out individuals.The enthusiasts just wanted an expandable i7 with like 16-64GB of RAM and a good GPU they could upgrade. That should have been possible with this design.

    Feels like a swing and a miss to me. Apple is either completely out of touch with the enthusiast market, or it might be time for the enthusiast market to give up on Apple. I think they probably sold a fair amount of PCs today.

    Also, I know it's personal preference but man is that thing ugly. Can Ive stop trying to make every Apple product look like a Braun appliance from the 60s and 70s?
    Oh lord. Thank goodness you don't write the editorials. 

    Hate to break it to ya, but has Mike W has explained -- Apple isn't an "enthusiast" PC maker. These are not hobbyist machines. They make mainstream desktops and laptops, and now a super-powerful workstation. One which isn't for you. And that's OK.

    And the machine is beautiful. Sounds to me like you're more of a PC guy. Try a Dell? Or head into your nearest Fry's and build something lovely.
    edited June 2019 sennenfastasleepSpamSandwichdocno42
  • Reply 283 of 420

    I got fed up waiting for a new reasonably priced expandable Mac Pro a few months ago, and boy I'm glad I stopped waiting based on this stratospheric pricing. I’m a lifelong apple fan but have been disillusioned lately with the bean counter upsell shenanigans under Cook. Every Apple product these days has a serious omission, defect, upgrade lockdown or pricing issue with upsells. It’s disheartening for someone who has been owning and using macs since 1987. I am the definition of a fanboy - but I won't waste hard earned money and shouldn't have to to stay in the apple universe.

    Ordinarily if Apple had equivalent products me buying a hardware update to my old trusty 'ol maxed out 2008 MacPro would be expected – however Apple simply has no products I want for a desktop at any reasonable price. I just want a comparable cost update to my 2008 Mac Pro format – big case lots of slots and drive bays, dedicated high end graphics – most everything is upgradable (and I have upgraded most everything on my 2008!)

    As a note using a standard PC desktop price decrease graph I found and taking the ratio for my $2,689 dual processor 8 core mac pro in 2008 -  I would expect to pay $1,900 for my next 8 core mac Pro with a 1 TB SSD which is the norm these days, not $5999 starting for 256GB! Most of small pros like me just want an i7/i9 not a Xeon. An example a Dell precision 5820 tower i7 is $1739. If you upgrade to 1TB SSD and an i9 with tons of upgrade options it is $2800. Apple should match that. I also would like an open machine not locked down SSDs via the Apple T2 chip. I’d also like a choice of NVIDIA graphic cards. Also I've done gov work - no project is going to spring for the new Mac Pros - projects have IT budgets and you can only justify Macs if they are a little more - price gouging doesn't pass procurement checks.

    So I took matters into my own hands – and built a new mac desktop a "PoweriMac G3-i7" to hold me for the next decade. It will almost for sure be my last Mac. In a decade at the current trend there will be so few Mac users left and the apps availability will be so subpar that it won't be worth it. iPhones made it because of the initial first to market huge install base. Steve rescued the Mac because of reasonable pricing to rebuild market share - Tim's apple is a short-sighted money grubbing bean counter that is slowly killing off the mac. A few big hollywood corporate clients can't support an entire computer platform.

    So I bought a 2017 iMac 5k i5 with a broken display on eBay for $985, upgraded the memory ($271) i7-7700k CPU ($279) and 1 TB High End HP EX920 4xPCI NVMe SSD ($149) plus adapter (faster then Apple SSD), OWC drive dock ($50), plus a bit on fans, coolers ($152) cables and lots of time and trial and error on the cooling system. I shoved the whole $2k kit into my old PowerMac G3 Blue and White case which I gutted (kinda of sad actually to gut it – but I was never going to turn it on again – at least it got a second life!). I had to do a major cooling system redo when the iMac fan was too loud and insufficient - so I added a dedicated CPU cooler at the expense of a memory slot. I already own 3 big good monitors and don't want any more. 

    I was going to get a 2019 iMac 5k /i9 when it came out and upgrade the motherboard – but the Vega 48 graphics weren’t much faster than mine – it definitely wasn’t worth extra $2k!

    My $2k 1TB SSD 40GB RAM PoweriMac G3-i7 Pluses over an iMac
    -        Retro Cool as heck !! (priceless) – all front panel buttons work!
    -        Use my existing monitors – with antiglare coatings 1x 38” and 2x 24” monitors
    -        Easily upgradable – just open up the side! Want a 2 TB SSD - 10 min and $250
    -        Easy to fix and clean – just open up the side!
    -        Easy to check the power and boot status – motherboard status LEDs are visible through the case
    -        NVMe read write status light is optically piped to the front – computer not responsive – see if SSD is working!
    -        CD/DVD R/W Drive! Yes I still sometimes need it.
    -        2x Internal SATA slide in hard drive bays with room for 1 more with case power switches. All locked up securely – try that iMac!
    -        Improved cooling with dedicated twin low RPM fans for CPU and GPU - doesn’t get above 100F/38C running flat out for hours and is quieter than my 2008 Mac Pro.
    -        Extra heatsink from my old PowerMac G3 CPU heatsink parts on Intel Platform Controller Hub Die which got quite hot – not available on iMac!
    -        Extra heatsink from my old PowerMac G3 CPU heatsink parts on SSD Controller which got warm under heavy write operations – not available on iMac!
    -        No T2 chip!!! unlike the new MacPro
    -        Don’t want the camera (can always attach one if I need it, and my apple 24” has one but I never use it.
    -        Don’t want the speakers – my other monitors have them
    -        Wifi / Bluetooth antennas are far from my head and body and I have external high gain antennas with way improved performance.


    jeffythequickchick
  • Reply 284 of 420
    cgWerkscgWerks Posts: 2,952member
    nsummy2 said:
    Speaking of definition of a "Pro"  Does Apple even offer next day on-site repair?  As a sys admin the way they handle their macbook pros have always made me wonder how anyone can use these as a business machine.  In the case of these Mac Pros, I see they offer on-site repair, but how long does it take?!

    I have a hard time considering these Pro without the option for Nvidia cards.  Kind of telling that their "benchmarks" in their marketing only compares to older AMD cards.
    I'm not sure currently, but back when they had the xServe, I think the lack of such programs played a big part in the failure of that line. I worked in IT in kind of a 'startup' department of a Fortune 100 at that time, and the only way we could get corporate IT to let them in the server room, was that I was willing to put them on a cart myself (we had couple racks of them), and roll them down the block to the SF Apple Store (which took great care of us). But, had that not been possible, corporate IT would have nixed the xServe possibility.

    Yeah, the HP and Dell servers... we'd just make a phone call and someone would show up... quickly too.

    re: laptops - we just had spares and it's super-easy to dump the data between machines (at least prior to T2 chips, I haven't considered how that would go now).

    re: Nvidia - That's what I used to think too, but with big players supporting Metal and some of the more recent benchmarks I've seen, I'm not sure that matters like it used to. But, it is primarily a driver issue, as (I think) one could put an Nvidia card(s) into these.

    rlc said:
    Joined to say I love it! For those who aren't pros, let me say that we paid $52000 for a maxed out SGI Indigo 2 in 1997 running Softimage ( another $28000). its a bargain for those who need it.
    Exactly. The pros complained, Apple responded. Those of us who would complain about price are in a different market of either a different kind of pro, or we're prosumers. I DO wish Apple made some better options for us, but the iMac Pro, iMac, or Mac mini w/ eGPU are workable solutions. I'd still like to see something more like tower/cube/cylinder that had more iMac level hardware but stayed cool, silent, and could be expanded (and even the expanded isn't much of an issue anymore with eGPUs). My main issue with my mini, is that when pushed, it isn't silent. Otherwise, it is nearly the ideal machine for someone like me.

    mistrrhappy said:
    Also, the current Mac Mini uses desktop processors and can be outfitted with 64GB of RAM. This Pro product is not for the people you are discussing.
    The main problem with most of the rest of Apple's lineup are thermals. The pro laptops, mini, iMac, etc. are fine machines for the needs of most people, but those who push them a bit end up with noisy machines. I'd gladly double or triple the size of my mini if it could properly cool itself. Same for the laptops (though maybe not double/triple in size?).
    chick
  • Reply 285 of 420
    cgWerkscgWerks Posts: 2,952member
    dysamoria said:
    As for this computer... it looks neat, but Apple has quite clearly dropped me from consideration as a customer. Nothing they sell fits what I need. I can not afford to replace a computer every three years. I’ve been waiting for something worth spending a lot of money on and keeping for ten years. Ha ha ha ha ha...

    It’s either too expensive and disposable / suicidal under heavy use, or its build is thermally sensible but so insanely expensive that I could never own one. There’s no dog-damned middle ground anymore.

    ...

    For a moment, between 2007 and 2012, Apple kicked the computer industry’s ass into gear. That was the time when Apple actually saved computing, in my eyes. Made it what it should be. Actual superior product to compete against and challenge the unbeatable status quo. They gave us true pocket computers, high-PPI displays, stable & intuitive operating systems, long-lived computers with solid design... It was no longer a “this is the way it’s always been and always will be” pile of abuse and excuses.

    Now we’re back to the same mess of laissez-faire capitalism, inconsistency, unreliability, and “priced out of access” that it was before. “Less bad than PC” isn’t a good enough status.

    Screw it all.
    I hear you, though a couple thoughts...

    First, you seemed to have hit a bit of an oddity in terms of Apple's prime-time there in terms of power/price. Historically, Apple's were kind of 'out of reach' expensive for many, and they seem to be returning there. But, I agree, the mid-2000s for several years, they were excellent and relatively affordable.

    Second, this is clearly not a product aimed at us (you and I, and most of us here). Yet, I'm glad they made it, as it is what the target market wanted. (The cylinder Mac Pro is closer to a machine for someone like you/I using a computer professionally.)

    But, have you considered a Mac mini w/ eGPU? I'm pretty happy with mine so far, aside from the noise when I really push it. But, with Turbo Boost turned off, I hardly ever hear it (and that doesn't seem to impact performance THAT much... and easy to turn back on when I need it).

    danvm said:
    I don't think that cost is an issue when you consider the specs of the Mac Pro.  From what I have seen in the posts, the issue is that there is there is no low-cost Mac Pro. Compare that to the same HP Z4 you mention, which starts at $900 with an entry configuration, and then you add the options you need based in your budget.  With the Mac Pro, your base configuration starts at $6000, and it only includes 1-yr of warranty.  
    Exactly. Most of the people here aren't the target market, and still want an xMac (of sorts). I have no idea why Apple ignores that market segment, but they do.

    tenthousandthings said:
    The best hope for the mid-level customer who doesn't want an iMac is for them to come out with a Mac mini with discrete graphics and access to RAM and storage. That could happen.
    I have the 2018 Mac mini, and with eGPU this just isn't a big issue, IMO. I can put any storage I need externally, eGPU is great, and if I need to get at the RAM, I can. My main gripe with it (as you can see above) is thermals, not that I can't get inside and tinker/expand easily enough.

    I think there actually ARE a lot of users who need a more mid-level Mac, but I don't think the number of home-hobbiest types among them is all that big anymore (if it ever was).

    asdasd said:

    6k for a machine that gets left in the dust by any self-built PC with a decent Threadripper and a similar GPU at 2/3 of what Apple is asking? Pass.
    Theres always one. Every time Apple produces a device someone puts together some fake machine in their heads which is worth 2/3s or 1/2 or $10. 

    Good, off you go. That machine will cost you time and labour ( which is why its cheaper to make a sandwich rather than buy one), will have no support whatsoever when you glue the whatsis to the wotnot, and will have bog all resale value, except maybe to friends; because nobody wants a self build put together with glue and no expertise in a crap box with no brand, support or warranty.
    Heh, yeah, that and it will only be faster at a couple particular benchmarks, but far slower on the whole.

    sacto joe said:
    Of all the navel-gazing, narsististic, bellyaching, irrelevant-to-the-subject posts I’ve ever read, yours is right up there at the top of the heap. I have more than a nodding familiarity with being poor. It was Apple in large measure that’s responsible for my leaving that world behind - well, Apple and an amazing wife.

    Blaming Apple or computers or the world for your plight may seem justified, but it’s an anchor. You’ve made one right decision in your life: You stuck with Apple. Time to dig in and make the most of that.
    I would agree, EXCEPT that Apple pulled a lot of people onto the platform with reasonably priced devices and computers in the mid-2000s. Once you're on a platform, it is hard (and expensive!) to leave. Now, Apple seems to be jacking up prices everywhere... just because they can? I can understand the outcry.

    ElCapitan said:
    asdasd said:
    Mac developers who can get good performance out of a  Mac book Pro can be absolutely certain that it is going to work on a Mac Pro. 
    No, getting full performance out of 28 cores is way more complicated that 8-12 cores.
    If you develop for that particular market, I suppose. If not, you don't need to have every machine Apple makes.

    AppleZulu said:
    A homemade supercar rated for 300 mph on paper only goes 0 mph when you're under the hood with a wrench.
    It's a good analogy too (if one knows cars), as it's relatively easy to build up some hot-rod that will beat a Porsche between stop-lights. But, once you get out onto the roads or a track, it's game-over for the hot-rod.

    dysamoria said:
    What a miserable day. There’s just no end of those in my life. All I had was my hobbies, and, with this revelation from out-of-touch Apple, I can pretty much give up on those too, once the second-hand garbage iMac I have now dies on me.
    I don't want to pile on... but I'm wondering how your expectations were set. Did you have any inkling from anywhere that whatever Apple introduced would cost less than $5-6k as the base model? I'm a bit bummed, as well, that Apple doesn't have some machines that fit you/me better, but I wasn't looking to the introduction of the Mac Pro to solve that. And, again, consider the mini. It isn't perfect, but it's better than giving up.
    roundaboutnow
  • Reply 286 of 420
    cgWerkscgWerks Posts: 2,952member

    I got fed up waiting for a new reasonably priced expandable Mac Pro a few months ago, and boy I'm glad I stopped waiting based on this stratospheric pricing.

    ...

    It’s disheartening for someone who has been owning and using macs since 1987.

    ...

    As a note using a standard PC desktop price decrease graph I found and taking the ratio for my $2,689 dual processor 8 core mac pro in 2008 -  I would expect to pay $1,900 for my next 8 core mac Pro with a 1 TB SSD which is the norm these days, not $5999 starting for 256GB!

    Congrats on your build! But, I just had to make a few comments in regard to your post.

    First, what Mac did you buy in 1987? I'm not aware of any budget-priced Macs back then. The first reasonably priced Mac was the LC (my first Mac). I couldn't afford one before then, and used ones other people owed. (One of my friends had a Mac II that his university-comp-sci-prof brother was able to get.)

    Second, I'm kind of amazed at all this outcry on the pricing. What did anyone expect? There is no way in heck it was going to cost under $5k, no matter what it was. And, you could buy the $6 machine, in this case, and then expand for years and years (though, the ARM Mac thing would make me a bit nervous long-term this time).

    Third... could you really get a Mac Pro in 2008 for $2689? If so, that falls into what I was complaining about a bit above. For a SMALL period of time, Apple delivered some really great stuff for relatively low prices. But, that was the exception, not the norm for long-term Apple users. I'm sad to see them move away from that, and I understand the outcry from everyone who jumped onboard then... but context is important, here.

    And, as I've been saying over and over... until Apple creates an xMac (which they might never do), there are other solutions like the one sitting on my desk... a 2018 mini and eGPU. It isn't exactly what I wanted, but it works great, and is in some ways better than the xMac I would have asked Apple to make.
  • Reply 287 of 420
    JWSCJWSC Posts: 1,203member
    dysamoria said:
    As for this computer...

    [...]

    Now we’re back to the same mess of laissez-faire capitalism, inconsistency, unreliability, and “priced out of access” that it was before. “Less bad than PC” isn’t a good enough status.

    Screw it all.
    It seems you’re down on, not just Apple’s offerings but, life in general.  You need to take a happy pill ‘cause really, it ain’t that bad.  And stop listening to the political news.  You’ll just get depressed for no good reason.  😁
  • Reply 288 of 420
    cgWerks said:

    I got fed up waiting for a new reasonably priced expandable Mac Pro a few months ago, and boy I'm glad I stopped waiting based on this stratospheric pricing.

    ...

    It’s disheartening for someone who has been owning and using macs since 1987.

    ...

    As a note using a standard PC desktop price decrease graph I found and taking the ratio for my $2,689 dual processor 8 core mac pro in 2008 -  I would expect to pay $1,900 for my next 8 core mac Pro with a 1 TB SSD which is the norm these days, not $5999 starting for 256GB!

    Congrats on your build! But, I just had to make a few comments in regard to your post.
    ...
    Third... could you really get a Mac Pro in 2008 for $2689? If so, that falls into what I was complaining about a bit above. For a SMALL period of time, Apple delivered some really great stuff for relatively low prices. But, that was the exception, not the norm for long-term Apple users. I'm sad to see them move away from that, and I understand the outcry from everyone who jumped onboard then... but context is important, here.

    cgWerks
  • Reply 289 of 420
    It's too expensive...except that it costs the same as the Quadra 950 I bought in 1993. A whopping 40 MHz 68040 CPU and an additional $2000 for 64 MB of RAM. Add $1000 for a 20" monitor and another grand for a 1GB hard drive!

    Well, it actually is too expensive for me these days :-) but that says more about the circumstances of my bank account than it does the value of the machine. Decked out the way I'd like would probably run it up to what I paid for the Quadra system in 1993 and I could still use my good NEC monitor. 
    fastasleep
  • Reply 290 of 420
    sacto joesacto joe Posts: 895member
    cgWerks said:

    I got fed up waiting for a new reasonably priced expandable Mac Pro a few months ago, and boy I'm glad I stopped waiting based on this stratospheric pricing.

    ...

    It’s disheartening for someone who has been owning and using macs since 1987.

    ...

    As a note using a standard PC desktop price decrease graph I found and taking the ratio for my $2,689 dual processor 8 core mac pro in 2008 -  I would expect to pay $1,900 for my next 8 core mac Pro with a 1 TB SSD which is the norm these days, not $5999 starting for 256GB!

    Congrats on your build! But, I just had to make a few comments in regard to your post.

    First, what Mac did you buy in 1987? I'm not aware of any budget-priced Macs back then. The first reasonably priced Mac was the LC (my first Mac). I couldn't afford one before then, and used ones other people owed. (One of my friends had a Mac II that his university-comp-sci-prof brother was able to get.)

    Second, I'm kind of amazed at all this outcry on the pricing. What did anyone expect? There is no way in heck it was going to cost under $5k, no matter what it was. And, you could buy the $6 machine, in this case, and then expand for years and years (though, the ARM Mac thing would make me a bit nervous long-term this time).

    Third... could you really get a Mac Pro in 2008 for $2689? If so, that falls into what I was complaining about a bit above. For a SMALL period of time, Apple delivered some really great stuff for relatively low prices. But, that was the exception, not the norm for long-term Apple users. I'm sad to see them move away from that, and I understand the outcry from everyone who jumped onboard then... but context is important, here.

    And, as I've been saying over and over... until Apple creates an xMac (which they might never do), there are other solutions like the one sitting on my desk... a 2018 mini and eGPU. It isn't exactly what I wanted, but it works great, and is in some ways better than the xMac I would have asked Apple to make.
    I appreciate your level-headedness. We need more of that - and not just on this forum!

    I would agree, EXCEPT that Apple pulled a lot of people onto the platform with reasonably priced devices and computers in the mid-2000s.”

    Sorry. Can’t buy it, especially in this person’s case. That’s going on to 15 years ago. Past time to move on. And as I said elsewhere, I get to talk, because I’m an original 1984 Mac owner, who paid $4 K for that machine and a dot matrix printer, and even then had to buy it on credit, which I barely qualified for. Don’t know if it would come to $12 K in today’s dollars, but it would have been a major chunk of that. To say that this Mac is a far cry from that Mac is a far cry indeed. But it changed my life for the better even so.

    The subject of this article is the new Mac Pro, not some hypothetical system that you wish Apple would build that would fit your personal bill. Moaning about how you can’t afford this machine is nothing more than a fake platform for bellyaching in general.

    edited June 2019 fastasleep
  • Reply 291 of 420
    kevin keekevin kee Posts: 1,289member
    Okay - so I dig around what makes the price for the monitor. And what do I find? It's actually called a "reference monitor" and it costs $40,000 in the current market.
    edited June 2019 fastasleep
  • Reply 292 of 420
    fastasleepfastasleep Posts: 6,397member
    leeroy said:
    Love it...But why didn't they make it Space Grey like the iMac Pro?????? Argh. 

    (To clarify, I'm not unhappy... they finally outdid themselves on the Mac Pro.... Space Grey would have just been a nice touch) 
    I was surprised at that too, especially after the mini reveal where Schiller said "And it comes in Space Gray, which we know pros just love." or whatever the line was, which is all I keep thinking about. haha

    The design is growing on me quickly... as I expected. :D I think the lattice would look incredible with the gray finish.
    cgWerks
  • Reply 293 of 420
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 33,508member
    jSnively said:
    The enthusiasts complaining about this machine are justified. The people pointing out that this machine is for an extremely niche and specific market are also correct.

    IMO Apple messed up here, and they're going to get a lot of crap for it. This is a form factor that could, and should, have scaled to make multiple market segments happy. Instead Apple went as far to the extreme end as they could, to the exclusion of the middle road, and completely priced out individuals.The enthusiasts just wanted an expandable i7 with like 16-64GB of RAM and a good GPU they could upgrade. That should have been possible with this design.

    Feels like a swing and a miss to me. Apple is either completely out of touch with the enthusiast market, or it might be time for the enthusiast market to give up on Apple. I think they probably sold a fair amount of PCs today.

    Also, I know it's personal preference but man is that thing ugly. Can Ive stop trying to make every Apple product look like a Braun appliance from the 60s and 70s?
    I think you don’t understand the market for this. Apple has a range of machines that serve most pros very well. Like it or not, the iMac is perfectly suited for most. The iMac Pro serves a market, and happens to sell well. That machine goes up to $15,000. Yet, the cry is for more power, and expandability. This machine gives both. Yes, Apple could have gone with a cheaper case, and dropped the price by about $500 to even $1,000, possibly. That wouldn’t have changed the cost factor at all.

    but Apple isn’t making a Mac Pro for the masses, whatever that may mean. They’re making one for the pros who really need power and productivity. If Apple was consulting, and working with, pros on this, then this is the result of the feedback they received. This isn’t some cheap case with wiring hanging out everywhere, producing electrical noise.

    remember that even the trash can cost $3,000 and up. And that was very small, and had nothing.

    will Apple sell millions of these? It would be amazing if they did. But they can easily sell tens of thousands a year. 100 thousand a year isn’t out of reach. I’m buying one, and I already know several others who will. The studios will snap these up. A telling bit of information was when they showed the racked models. We’ll see server farms with these, we’ll see rendering farms. There will be plenty of customers. There just won’t be the pretend pros who clamor for what is really a medium level home machine that they can convince themselves is Pro, in these days of all in ones.


    fastasleepdocno42
  • Reply 294 of 420
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 33,508member
    I’ve read, elsewhere, that Hp charges about $8,000 for about the same config, and that Dell charges about $9,000.
    fastasleep
  • Reply 295 of 420
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 33,508member
    dcsimages said:
    Just for context, my first Mac was a 33mHz Quadra 950 with a 400 MB hard drive, 16 Mb ram and 1Mb vram for $7500 ($9600 when it first came out)
    That was almost the exact same machine I bought. The bus was 33, and the chip, 66. I got the 320 HD. The extra vram was about $120. The keyboard was an additional $289. I bought a Toshiba CD reader for $579 (no writers you could really buy yet). I had to machine the case to internally install that reader. I was probably the first person to have an internal reader, at least in a Mac, but possibly anywhere. 48MB of additional RAM was about $3,750.

    i then bought a Radius graphics card for $3,675, and a 21” NEC Multisync monitor for $3,200.

    that was in either late 1992 to early 1993. I had to wait 8 weeks for delivery, because they were so backlogged. It was a lot of money then, and a lot of money in today’s dollars. Really, the new Mac Pro isn’t any more expensive. People today just have no perspective. Back then, if you were in the business, you were well educated on this, and well trained. Today, everybody thinks they’re up to that level. They’re not. Elitist, sure, but it’s true. Machinery is a business investment. If you don’t have the business, you can’t make the investment.
    fastasleepmocsegcgWerksdocno42cityguide
  • Reply 296 of 420
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 33,508member
    docno42 said:
    karmadave said:
    Looks impressive, however there are a few drawbacks.

    1. Single CPU only. Most professional workstations offer a dual CPU option.
    2. AMD graphics only. Curious as to whether nor not nVidia GPU's will even work in this machine.
    3. Limited storage bays. Two (2) SSD's seems quite limited compared to most professional workstations.
    4. Price. $6K seems a bit over-priced for an 8-core workstation with minimal RAM, SSD, and Graphics.

    Overall, this is a niche product and likely not a huge money maker for Apple. That said, I am glad they are re-engaging with professional video and audio producers who've been waiting years for Apple to (re)introduce a truly modular professional workstation...

    1.  I was waiting for this complaint.  Why do you think dual sockets is a plus?  Because its not.  It adds EXTREME complexity, severely limits the number of chipsets and CPUs that are available to pick from, and caps the max clock frequency that CPU's can run at because higher clock speeds affect reliability over distance and at high GHz speeds every millimeter counts - among other things.

    "Most professional workstations" are still dual socket because they are riding on old designs.  This is a new design, crafted from the ground up around modern, high core CPUs.   How many PCI Express lanes are in those dual core workstations you are thinking of?  What's their memory bandwidth compared to this Mac Pro?  And what are the price points for similar configured/capable machines?  

    Thank goodness we have finally got enough cores in a single socket where dual sockets are not needed.  My big complaint on previous Pro's was them sticking to Xeons and dual sockets - driving the costs up and tying to Intel's glacial server chipset timelines.  

    2.  Unless you are doing CUDA I have a feeling the GPUs in this beast will hang with or surpass Nvidia's offerings.  Benchmarks will be interesting, but I can't wait to see real world application performance.  This box is going to be a screamer for video!  Did you notice the second interconnect for multiple card setups?  I think Final Cut Pro X is going to absolutely kill on this machine.  You can do amazing things when you own the hardware, OS and application software  ;)  I don't think Windows/Linux boxes are going to be able to match video performance at any price; time will tell but boasting they can do three 8K streams in real time should hint that this just isn't a warmed-over PC workstation design.  There's quite a bit more going on under the hood (as there should be for this long of a wait and at this price point!).

    3.  Meh - 4TB of flash is more than enough for in the box (as much as it pains me to say that).  Most video houses have all their video on a SAN or beefy NAS, not local.  And this isn't normal SSD - it's the same turbocharged SSD architecture power by the T2 for the SSD controller. Except in this Mac Pro it isn't soldered to the board - woot!  The performance on this stuff should be amazing compared even to NVMe SSDs thanks to the T2.  If you really need more local storage a Thunderbolt 3 array should more than make up for any missing internal drive capabilities.  The amount of native TB3 ports you can hang a large number of arrays on their own TB3 port not shared with anything else - this thing is a beast when it comes to I/O.  A mini mainframe, really...

    4.  Compared to what I spent on my 2007 Mac Pro this machine isn't a steal, but it's a better value for what you get.  Yeah, it starts with a higher baseline - but feature for feature there is no comparison.  If you don't need the extreme expandability then that's what the iMac Pro or a tricked out iMac is for.  It would be nice if they had a smaller two or three slot Mac Pro (ala the IIcx/IIci) but really the case and slots aren't were the cost is.  The bulk of cost is in the chipset, the CPU, the RAM, the power supply - the engineering to make all of that work.  If they could shave $1K off would it be enough to justify a totally different SKU?  Nope.  Which is why we won't see the xMac any time soon (despite me still wanting one).  

    The Mac Pro was always a niche product.  At least this iteration re-establishes that they wish to uncontestedly own that high end niche again :)
    There is an advantage to two sockets. Two chips can equal the number of cores of one larger chip, but they will run more quickly. Look at the ratings of the chips as the number of cores goes up. Yes, cache goes up a bit with more cores, but that mostly partly makes up for the slower performance of each core. Two sockets also allows double the cores to run in turbo mode.

    Apple has a lot of experience with dual socket machines. But that would make the machine even more expensive, and Apple obviously didn’t want to go that route.
    fastasleep
  • Reply 297 of 420
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 33,508member
    M68000 said:
    This looks great, like they hit a home run with this.  But, I noticed the trashcan Mac Pro is no longer on the Apple main website.  So just that fast they have removed the product from sale ?   If true, it would have been nice if they announced a window of a few months of being able to get the trashcan version - for other people who would be okay with the $3000 old version.  Is the "trashcan" gone officially ?
    The trash can is from 2013. By that, I mean that it has never been upgraded. So you’re buying a new machine for several thousand that’s 6 year old technology. Is that really a good idea? I don’t think so. I convinced more than a few to buy an iMac Pro after it came out instead. Much better machine overall, and the monitor is one of the best.
    fastasleep
  • Reply 298 of 420
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 33,508member
    bitmod said:
    sflocal said:
    jSnively said:
    The enthusiasts complaining about this machine are justified. The people pointing out that this machine is for an extremely niche and specific market are also correct.

    IMO Apple messed up here, and they're going to get a lot of crap for it. This is a form factor that could, and should, have scaled to make multiple market segments happy. Instead Apple went as far to the extreme end as they could, to the exclusion of the middle road, and completely priced out individuals.The enthusiasts just wanted an expandable i7 with like 16-64GB of RAM and a good GPU they could upgrade. That should have been possible with this design.

    Feels like a swing and a miss to me. Apple is either completely out of touch with the enthusiast market, or it might be time for the enthusiast market to give up on Apple. I think they probably sold a fair amount of PCs today.

    Also, I know it's personal preference but man is that thing ugly. Can Ive stop trying to make every Apple product look like a Braun appliance from the 60s and 70s?
    I will trust Apple's opinion of what's more in demand that any tech blog.  I remember an article - on AI - about Apple approaching the professional community for their input on what the next Mac Pro should be like.  Well... that community has asked, and Apple responded.  That community does NOT represent the vocal minority that believe Apple should invest millions of dollars to develop a middle-tier, expandable i7 or i9-based Mac Pro.  Not going to happen.

    I suspect (i.e. "guess") that this machine will sell well, and even then - folks here will still be whining about why Apple isn't listening to these so-called self-titled evangelists.  

    I think the starting price is competitively priced for what one gets, except for the haters that think an i7/i9 is in the same class as a Xeon processor.
    Oh please, Apple didn't ask the professional community. They asked a couple guys at Pixar. 
    They hobnobbed with the ultra elites and delivered. 

    Who's going to pump $10-$15k on a proprietary generation 1 untested system with a company that is in flux with their roadmap and enough cash to make bad decisions. 

    It's the EXACT same thing when the trashcan came out... and the EXACT same people saying the EXACT same thing and guess what... the cheerleaders were wrong and the naysayers were right by Apple's own admission. 

    It's an extremely kick-ass ultra elite beautiful power horse... that doesn't make any sense to the average pro user that wants an expandable, affordable roadmap - which Apple isn't offering with any of their lineup right now. 

    jSnively is absolutely correct. 
    You don’t know what you’re talking about. If you did, you’d know that this isn’t even that expensive when compared to comparable workstations. But you don’t, do you? I don’t know why some people think that truly professional tools should be cheap, because that’s what you’re asking for. Look at what really professional photography tools cost. You’ll be shocked. To a professional photographer who is in the product or fashion world, this stint such a big deal as far as price goes. Not when top of the line medium format bodies can go for $40,000 and the average lens for one $6,000. Good studio lighting systems cost in the thousands. So does everything else.

    talk about video, and it gets worse. Those lenses average $15,000 each. That’s not for the expensive ones.

    time means money. If that’s not a problem, then this machine isn’t needed. But if it is, you want the most power you can get. If you can’t pay for this machines in 3 to 4 months, then you can’t afford it. That’s whether the config you buy totals $12,000, or $50,000.

    the average pro needs a 25” iMac. And guess what? That’s what they use.
    fastasleepdocno42
  • Reply 299 of 420
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 33,508member

    davgreg said:
    melgross said:

    so who is a pro? Anyone who makes the majority of their income doing whatever it is in their field that they do. If you’re an event photographer, you definitely don’t need this. But if you’re shooting high end fashion, you probably do, if you’re successful at it.
    No. A professional is someone trained in a structured formal educational program, with a license, an ethics code and a continuing education program requirement.

    A lawyer is a Pro, a doctor is a Pro, an engineer is a Pro. A video editor, compositor or composer is not.

    I think you confuse enterprise, pro and high spec.
    You don’t know what the word pro means. A pro can be a photographer, a videographer, a graphics designer, etc. you have a limited understanding of it.
    fastasleepSpamSandwichJWSC
  • Reply 300 of 420
    fastasleepfastasleep Posts: 6,397member
    dysamoria said:
    [ a bunch of shit ]
    Screw it all.
    WOW! This is by far, above and beyond, the whiniest post I think I've read on any tech forum in internet history! Good job! I'm truly, honestly, in awe.

    You don't like computers anymore, but you're hanging out on a computer you hate apparently commenting on a thread about a computer that you don't want to buy... for what reason?

    Your 2011 iMac.... poor you. I just upgraded several of those in our office with SSDs and more RAM and people get by just fine. 

    Your musician friend is going to quickly realize she can't make music on a Chromebook. So many used Macs out there she could buy instead, or a new Air, but whatever. Cool anecdote.

    I'm just... wow.
Sign In or Register to comment.