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

1131416181921

Comments

  • Reply 301 of 420
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 33,508member
    SEJU said:
    Quite a machine! But does it really have only PCI 3? PCI 5 is around the corner and PCI 4 is currently adopted by the industry ...

    It was the same with Mac Pro 2010 + 2012 which used to have PCI 2 while PCI 3 was already standard.
    Is there any Xeon that supports PCIe 4.0?
    Late this year.
  • Reply 302 of 420
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 33,508member

    mervynyan said:
    what's pc built equivalent? 4 grand with nvidia 

    $8,000 from Hp, $9,000 from Dell. For the low end equivalent.
  • Reply 303 of 420
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 33,508member
    JWSC said:
    I still can't believe people are complaining about the price. I swear not one of you has ever worked in a business that relies on computers to get work done (specifically creative work). Especially if you've got a deadline to meet for a client or they want to see a demo in person.
    The only way Apple could have made it cheaper would have been to make it incapable of powering the higher-end CPU and GPUs. The $5999 base configuration is a bargain, about $1000 cheaper than the equivalent HP Z4.

    Is the CPU socketed? I missed that, and haven't noticed anyone mentioning it.
    Socketed CPUs run the risk of developing loose pins over time as the box gets moved about.  That’s probably OK for a desktop.  Never for a laptop though.
    Yes, it’s socketed. Just as most computer CPUs are.
  • Reply 304 of 420
    fastasleepfastasleep Posts: 6,397member
    melgross said:
    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.
    My first Mac (not family owned etc) was a Centris 650, also in '93, sold for $2700 without monitor, which is $4775 in today's dollars. And that was a mid-range Mac back then.
  • Reply 305 of 420
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 33,508member
    davgreg said:
    netrox said:
    Love how amatuers complain about the costs of Mac Pro... it's for Professionals making lots of money... not for amatuers living on a few hundreds. 
    Not true.
    There are people who need workstations that are not rolling in money. People like scientists and engineers.
    The Pro market extends way beyond the media business.

    This is another nice engineering exercise but leaves a gaping hole between the Mac mini and this. A version with something less than an 8 core Xeon CPU could be offered for substantially less.
    Those folks are likely using Linux already. 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. There isn’t even a server version of MacOS any longer.  Can you name any scientific research clients or universities clamoring to run their work on MacOS?
    Actually, the Mac is a popular solution in the scientific community. Drug companies use a lot of them, as does NASA.
    fastasleepSpamSandwichJWSC
  • Reply 306 of 420
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 33,508member
    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.
    If that were only true.
    fastasleepJWSCcityguide
  • Reply 307 of 420
    fastasleepfastasleep Posts: 6,397member
    dysamoria said:
    Carnage 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...

    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.

    [...] 

    Time to give up entirely on computing. Screw it. Hobby or career, computers have not made me an income for years and not provided a drop of personal satisfaction. They just waste my time and my nearly-nonexistent money. No more music or photography as a hobby. No more productive hobbies at all. No more gaming either, because I will NOT buy a dog-damned PC.

    I’ve been a computer tech person since age 12. I’ve worked in the business for most of my working life. Result? I hate computers. I *despise* computers. I can’t stand computer geeks, jerkass techs, and apologists (including 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).

    [...]

    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.

    So you are tooo broke to afford macs but won't touch PCs? Well you can always try Ubuntu :)
    Run Ubuntu on what? I just said I won’t touch PCs. On top of that, I would rather use Windows 10 than ANY strain of Linux.

    I had been expecting to be able to replace both my old gaming PC and my iMac with a new Mac Pro. HA HA HA HA HA!!

    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.
    Maybe you should try microdosing or some antidepressants? 

    All signs to you not needing a Mac Pro for any good reason. Photography and other hobbies? A low end iMac or even a mini would serve you just fine. Gaming? Higher end iMac or mini and add an eGPU box with whatever video card you want, or better yet just get a fucking Playstation. If you can't find something you like maybe you're right and you don't actually like computers anymore. Get a different hobby maybe.
    JWSC
  • Reply 308 of 420
    fastasleepfastasleep Posts: 6,397member
    melgross 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.
    If that were only true.
    I feel like I'm watching reruns from the 2013 Mac Pro thread.
    cgWerks
  • Reply 309 of 420
    SpamSandwichSpamSandwich Posts: 33,407member
    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?
    Disagree. The engineering is clever, the form factor is visually witty and it is squarely targeted at the hardcore professional. Pros with less money to play with can get an iMac Pro or iMac... or get a MacBook Pro!
    JWSC
  • Reply 310 of 420
    SpamSandwichSpamSandwich Posts: 33,407member
    Incidentally, the demo that blew my mind was the Logic Pro with hundreds and hundreds of tracks. Absolutely floored.
    fastasleepcamcJWSCdocno42cityguide
  • Reply 311 of 420
    mocsegmocseg Posts: 86member
    melgross said:

    Machinery is a business investment. If you don’t have the business, you can’t make the investment.
    This.

    I'll try with the mac pro mini 2019 specs that would make semi/pro apple users happy:

    Core i7-9750H, 16GB RAM, 256GB SSD, Radeon Pro 555X/560X
    + free ram slot - easy to upgrade ram & ssd.
    $1,899 

    Basically it's a MBP15 configuration ( MBP15 $2,399.00) minus screen ( you don't need another screen, so iMac is a no go ).
    Yes?

    cgWerks
  • Reply 312 of 420
    asdasdasdasd Posts: 5,686member
    ElCapitan said:
    asdasd said:
    ElCapitan said:
    JWSC said:
    asdasd said:
    icodewell said:
    PRO: the new Mac Pro is KILLER in every way

    CON: Apple has redefined what a "pro" user is by making a workstation specifically for organizations like Pixar. They left out pretty much every indie app developer, and that's a real shame. I still own a cheese grater Mac Pro. It was pricey but I could afford one. I can't afford this new one.
    I find it hard to believe that devs ever need that kind of power. 
    Exactly.  The most processor intense activity most software developers do is code compilation.  An out of the box iMac is more than up the the job.  But of course, many software developers earn serious $$$ so they’ll but the Mac Pro because they can.
    Developers actually do have to TEST their software on the hardware it is targeted for.
    So, YES, developers also NEED such a machine in their portfolio. – Particularly if they are developing anything that is taxing the graphics subsystem. 

    Also people who can afford this Mac Pro has the expectation that a wide range of general purpose software also run on their systems, so it is not only developers of "pro" software who have a need to test on it.
    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.
    Not really. By and large most developers are not coding to the cores. They use apples abstracted dispatch queue, operations and so on. 
    JWSCfastasleep
  • Reply 313 of 420
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 33,508member
    And about cores. It’s more difficult to get software working with lots of cores. Most software isn’t suited to many core use. There’s no point in having a word processor supporting 28 cores. It’s too much a linear process. 

    What does lend lend itself to many cores is video rendering, OS virtualization, database operations, photo recognition and other software that can work on a number of areas at the same time without depending on the result of one operation feeding into another. But even there, there is some of that.

    also, because of heat, the more cores, the slower they all run. For many tasks, including Photoshop, and other photo editing apps, more than 8 cores tends to offer little advantage, but the extra speed of the smaller number of cores actually is more desirable. It’s likely that 8 cores, or possibly 12 cores (because of the faster RAM) will be better for most users than the 16 and higher versions.

    additionally, because of the inefficiencies of inter-core communication, scheduling and cache design, there isn’t a linear relationship between more cores and processing power. The more cores, the less efficient it is when adding another core. So 28 cores, even if they ran at the same speed as one, which they don’t, wouldn’t be 28 times faster. It would be more like 26 times faster. Considering that the 8 core version runs at 3.5GHz, and the 28 core at 2.7GHz, even with faster memory and larger caches, these cores are noticeably slower. If you’re running most apps, which really only use a few, then they will run more slowly. 

    Right now, I’m torn between getting the 8 or 12 core model. For most things, the 8 core might be faster, but for video, the 12 core will be.
    edited June 2019 cgWerks
  • Reply 314 of 420
    SpamSandwichSpamSandwich Posts: 33,407member
    melgross said:
    And about cores. It’s more difficult to get software working with lots of cores. Most software isn’t suited to many core use. There’s no point in having a word processor supporting 28 cores. It’s too much a linear process. 

    What does lend lend itself to many cores is video rendering, OS virtualization, database operations, photo recognition and other software that can work on a number of areas at the same time without depending on the result of one operation feeding into another. But even there, there is some of that.

    also, because of heat, the more cores, the slower they all run. For many tasks, including Photoshop, and other photo editing apps, more than 8 cores tends to offer little advantage, but the extra speed of the smaller number of cores actually is more desirable. It’s likely that 8 cores, or possibly 12 cores (because of the faster RAM) will be better for most users than the 16 and higher versions.

    additionally, because of the inefficiencies of inter-core communication, scheduling and cache design, there isn’t a linear relationship between more cores and processing power. The more cores, the less efficient it is when adding another core. So 28 cores, even if they ran at the same speed as one, which they don’t, wouldn’t be 28 times faster. It would be more like 26 times faster. Considering that the 8 core version runs at 3.5GHz, and the 28 core at 2.7GHz, even with faster memory and larger caches, these cores are noticeably slower. If you’re running most apps, which really only use a few, then they will run more slowly. 

    Right now, I’m torn between getting the 8 or 12 core model. For most things, the 8 core might be faster, but for video, the 12 core will be.
    Go for the 28, Mel. When in doubt, always get the best. ;)
  • Reply 315 of 420
    camccamc Posts: 45member
    Absolutely on my wish list. 
    I suspect the shell might impose a regular treatment with compressed air to avoid dust deposits.
  • Reply 316 of 420
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 33,508member
    melgross said:
    And about cores. It’s more difficult to get software working with lots of cores. Most software isn’t suited to many core use. There’s no point in having a word processor supporting 28 cores. It’s too much a linear process. 

    What does lend lend itself to many cores is video rendering, OS virtualization, database operations, photo recognition and other software that can work on a number of areas at the same time without depending on the result of one operation feeding into another. But even there, there is some of that.

    also, because of heat, the more cores, the slower they all run. For many tasks, including Photoshop, and other photo editing apps, more than 8 cores tends to offer little advantage, but the extra speed of the smaller number of cores actually is more desirable. It’s likely that 8 cores, or possibly 12 cores (because of the faster RAM) will be better for most users than the 16 and higher versions.

    additionally, because of the inefficiencies of inter-core communication, scheduling and cache design, there isn’t a linear relationship between more cores and processing power. The more cores, the less efficient it is when adding another core. So 28 cores, even if they ran at the same speed as one, which they don’t, wouldn’t be 28 times faster. It would be more like 26 times faster. Considering that the 8 core version runs at 3.5GHz, and the 28 core at 2.7GHz, even with faster memory and larger caches, these cores are noticeably slower. If you’re running most apps, which really only use a few, then they will run more slowly. 

    Right now, I’m torn between getting the 8 or 12 core model. For most things, the 8 core might be faster, but for video, the 12 core will be.
    Go for the 28, Mel. When in doubt, always get the best. ;)
    If I were still in business, I would consider it. But only if all the machine would do was rendering large projects.
    SpamSandwich
  • Reply 317 of 420
    melgross said:
    And about cores. It’s more difficult to get software working with lots of cores. Most software isn’t suited to many core use. There’s no point in having a word processor supporting 28 cores. It’s too much a linear process. 

    What does lend lend itself to many cores is video rendering, OS virtualization, database operations, photo recognition and other software that can work on a number of areas at the same time without depending on the result of one operation feeding into another. But even there, there is some of that.

    also, because of heat, the more cores, the slower they all run. For many tasks, including Photoshop, and other photo editing apps, more than 8 cores tends to offer little advantage, but the extra speed of the smaller number of cores actually is more desirable. It’s likely that 8 cores, or possibly 12 cores (because of the faster RAM) will be better for most users than the 16 and higher versions.

    additionally, because of the inefficiencies of inter-core communication, scheduling and cache design, there isn’t a linear relationship between more cores and processing power. The more cores, the less efficient it is when adding another core. So 28 cores, even if they ran at the same speed as one, which they don’t, wouldn’t be 28 times faster. It would be more like 26 times faster. Considering that the 8 core version runs at 3.5GHz, and the 28 core at 2.7GHz, even with faster memory and larger caches, these cores are noticeably slower. If you’re running most apps, which really only use a few, then they will run more slowly. 

    Right now, I’m torn between getting the 8 or 12 core model. For most things, the 8 core might be faster, but for video, the 12 core will be.
    Go for the 28, Mel. When in doubt, always get the best. ;)
    I'd swap it out with an i9 if the chipset allows it. It will be faster for most stuff
  • Reply 318 of 420
    mr. hmr. h Posts: 4,870member
    The whiners who are trying to argue the case for an xMac do themselves a great disservice by poo-pooing the new Mac Pro. It makes you look like you are unable to process information logically and makes it more likely that people will just dismiss everything you have to say.

    I do think that there is a very good case for the xMac, but there's no need to rubbish the Mac Pro in order to make said case. The new Mac Pro is a seriously awesome and absolutely gorgeous machine, as is the XDR display, and despite the fact I'm nowhere near the target market for these things, it still made me almost giddy with excitement when it was announced - and it's been a long time since any hardware announcement from Apple had me so excited. It was just so refreshing to see Apple take this stuff seriously and produce a correspondingly uncompromised product. The Mac Pro is expensive. But it is also good value. And as for the XDR display, that is just astonishingly good value - come on, this thing is better in every way than a monitor costing $40+k, and it costs $6k - if that's not staggeringly good value, I don't know what is. 

    Now, having said all that, there does still remain the question - why on earth is Apple making the entry cost for a configurable machine on the macOS platform $6000??? It's like they actively don't want to sell more Macs! It's a decision that just baffles me. You can't seriously tell me that Apple offering an xMac that starts at $999 is going to cannibalise a $6000+ workstation? They are completely different products for completely different markets and there is simply no way that someone who would consider buying a $6k workstation would end up buying a $1k tower instead, and equally and just as importantly, visa versa. Here is what I would envisage an xMac consisting of:

    A tower design with easy access to innards, but something much simpler and less high-end than the new Mac Pro
    Support for intel Core i3, i5, i7, i9 desktop processors
    Support for up to 64 GB RAM (in DIMM Slots)
    NVMe SSD (user upgradeable)
    two PCIe slots
    dedicated graphics options (but not supporting anything like the MPX Modules for Mac Pro).

    And what would the $999 option consist of? Take the $799 mini and put those specs in a tower:
    • 3.6GHz quad-core 8th-generation Intel Core i3 processor
    • 8GB 2666MHz DDR4 memory
    • Intel UHD Graphics 630
    • 128GB SSD
    This configuration would have both PCIe slots empty. Adding a dedicated graphics card would enable macOS dynamic graphics switching.

    BTW - just looked at the Mac Mini, and Apple's prices for storage and RAM are quite simply disgusting and totally unjustifiable. So that's the reason they don't have an xMac.
    fastasleepdocno42
  • Reply 319 of 420
    mattinozmattinoz Posts: 2,279member
    mr. h said:
    The whiners who are trying to argue the case for an xMac do themselves a great disservice by poo-pooing the new Mac Pro. It makes you look like you are unable to process information logically and makes it more likely that people will just dismiss everything you have to say.

    I do think that there is a very good case for the xMac, but there's no need to rubbish the Mac Pro in order to make said case. The new Mac Pro is a seriously awesome and absolutely gorgeous machine, as is the XDR display, and despite the fact I'm nowhere near the target market for these things, it still made me almost giddy with excitement when it was announced - and it's been a long time since any hardware announcement from Apple had me so excited. It was just so refreshing to see Apple take this stuff seriously and produce a correspondingly uncompromised product. The Mac Pro is expensive. But it is also good value. And as for the XDR display, that is just astonishingly good value - come on, this thing is better in every way than a monitor costing $40+k, and it costs $6k - if that's not staggeringly good value, I don't know what is. 

    Now, having said all that, there does still remain the question - why on earth is Apple making the entry cost for a configurable machine on the macOS platform $6000??? It's like they actively don't want to sell more Macs! It's a decision that just baffles me. You can't seriously tell me that Apple offering an xMac that starts at $999 is going to cannibalise a $6000+ workstation? They are completely different products for completely different markets and there is simply no way that someone who would consider buying a $6k workstation would end up buying a $1k tower instead, and equally and just as importantly, visa versa. Here is what I would envisage an xMac consisting of:

    A tower design with easy access to innards, but something much simpler and less high-end than the new Mac Pro
    Support for intel Core i3, i5, i7, i9 desktop processors
    Support for up to 64 GB RAM (in DIMM Slots)
    NVMe SSD (user upgradeable)
    two PCIe slots
    dedicated graphics options (but not supporting anything like the MPX Modules for Mac Pro).

    And what would the $999 option consist of? Take the $799 mini and put those specs in a tower:
    • 3.6GHz quad-core 8th-generation Intel Core i3 processor
    • 8GB 2666MHz DDR4 memory
    • Intel UHD Graphics 630
    • 128GB SSD
    This configuration would have both PCIe slots empty. Adding a dedicated graphics card would enable macOS dynamic graphics switching.

    BTW - just looked at the Mac Mini, and Apple's prices for storage and RAM are quite simply disgusting and totally unjustifiable. So that's the reason they don't have an xMac.
    To me the new xMac is the MacPro 18months old as a refurb.
    With all the upgradable modules and flexiblity and pitching firstly at the serious demand users who will update modules as soon as they become arrive on the market there will be a strong market in second hand parts. Apple (as is their standard MO) will no doubt be working to get cost of the shell and other modules down in price. So combine the stock of refurb MPX modules and Xeon CPU, memory, even Mainboards down the track for PCIe 4 support,....

    Add to that Apple will  no doubt lease these machines to production companies who might only want it for 12 months, so they'll have maybe two streams of machines and parts.

    There you have xMac refurb'edand rehoused modules sold or leased again at a much lower price. 
    cgWerks
  • Reply 320 of 420
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 33,508member
    melgross said:
    And about cores. It’s more difficult to get software working with lots of cores. Most software isn’t suited to many core use. There’s no point in having a word processor supporting 28 cores. It’s too much a linear process. 

    What does lend lend itself to many cores is video rendering, OS virtualization, database operations, photo recognition and other software that can work on a number of areas at the same time without depending on the result of one operation feeding into another. But even there, there is some of that.

    also, because of heat, the more cores, the slower they all run. For many tasks, including Photoshop, and other photo editing apps, more than 8 cores tends to offer little advantage, but the extra speed of the smaller number of cores actually is more desirable. It’s likely that 8 cores, or possibly 12 cores (because of the faster RAM) will be better for most users than the 16 and higher versions.

    additionally, because of the inefficiencies of inter-core communication, scheduling and cache design, there isn’t a linear relationship between more cores and processing power. The more cores, the less efficient it is when adding another core. So 28 cores, even if they ran at the same speed as one, which they don’t, wouldn’t be 28 times faster. It would be more like 26 times faster. Considering that the 8 core version runs at 3.5GHz, and the 28 core at 2.7GHz, even with faster memory and larger caches, these cores are noticeably slower. If you’re running most apps, which really only use a few, then they will run more slowly. 

    Right now, I’m torn between getting the 8 or 12 core model. For most things, the 8 core might be faster, but for video, the 12 core will be.
    Go for the 28, Mel. When in doubt, always get the best. ;)
    I'd swap it out with an i9 if the chipset allows it. It will be faster for most stuff
    Actually, no. And then you lose the ECC RAM. You really don’t want to do that.
    roundaboutnowcgWerksdocno42
Sign In or Register to comment.