Remember that it's 5999 PLUS TAX and Apple Care. With those additions, that computer almost hits 7000. If you upgrade the RAM yourself and the storage (the measly 256 GB) yourself, you're looking at another 500 dollars MORE. And that's BEFORE you even look at a real graphics card. The Mac Pro's 580 is only 30% faster than the AMD APUs in higher level 3400Gs. 30% over integrated graphics isn't "powerful". So by the time you sink another 1000+ in a Vega 2 card, you're looking at least 8500 dollars (probably closer to 9000).
And even then, you could build a Mac with 90% that performance for a quarter of the price.
What a weird statement within a thread of your weird statements. It's bad enough that you state "PLUS TAX" at all but then you put it in all caps as if this is some hidden Apple Tax that no other vendor has to apply to a purchases.
The numbers were all caps too.
But seriously adding up to 10% for state sales tax is often forgotten when considering high-dollar item costs.
Remember that it's 5999 PLUS TAX and Apple Care. With those additions, that computer almost hits 7000. If you upgrade the RAM yourself and the storage (the measly 256 GB) yourself, you're looking at another 500 dollars MORE. And that's BEFORE you even look at a real graphics card. The Mac Pro's 580 is only 30% faster than the AMD APUs in higher level 3400Gs. 30% over integrated graphics isn't "powerful". So by the time you sink another 1000+ in a Vega 2 card, you're looking at least 8500 dollars (probably closer to 9000).
And even then, you could build a Mac with 90% that performance for a quarter of the price.
What a weird statement within a thread of your weird statements. It's bad enough that you state "PLUS TAX" at all but then you put it in all caps as if this is some hidden Apple Tax that no other vendor has to apply to a purchases.
People forget to consider taxes all the time. Are you seriously taking issue with this person reminding people that taxes are something to consider?
Would you also complain about someone pointing out that $5999 is just marketing speak for $6000? It’s a known fact that this is a manipulation of perception.
Forgetting the sales tax is a trap, too, even if it’s not a marketing decision (due to variable sales tax rates).
They think I'm an Apple hater because I pointed out that the top end Mac Pro is awesome but the low end is a very poor buy and that it's targeted at high compute entities not prosumers. The prosumer product is the iMac Pro. I'm sitting on: 3 iMacs, my FrankenMac, 4 ipads, 2 iPhones, 2 ipods and my venerable Apple IIC (which still works) and Macbook Pro. But I've had my "Apple geek cred" pulled because I dared to compare hardware/price skus throughout Apple's lineup, or something.
"Will Apple have to brainwash the masses to buy it?"
It's not a computer for the masses and no amount of brainwashing could change that.
At the same time it's gonna appeal to a certain segment of buyers who have needs for intense video processing or scientific applications, or a few who purchase it "just because it exists".
Haha.. indeed.. pulled the words right out of my mouth . !
Remember that it's 5999 PLUS TAX and Apple Care. With those additions, that computer almost hits 7000. If you upgrade the RAM yourself and the storage (the measly 256 GB) yourself, you're looking at another 500 dollars MORE. And that's BEFORE you even look at a real graphics card. The Mac Pro's 580 is only 30% faster than the AMD APUs in higher level 3400Gs. 30% over integrated graphics isn't "powerful". So by the time you sink another 1000+ in a Vega 2 card, you're looking at least 8500 dollars (probably closer to 9000).
And even then, you could build a Mac with 90% that performance for a quarter of the price.
What a weird statement within a thread of your weird statements. It's bad enough that you state "PLUS TAX" at all but then you put it in all caps as if this is some hidden Apple Tax that no other vendor has to apply to a purchases.
The numbers were all caps too.
But seriously adding up to 10% for state sales tax is often forgotten when considering high-dollar item costs.
Try 17% in UK! (Or it was when I escaped 30 years ago) /shudder ... that said corporations deal with value-added taxes differently from Joe public.
The interesting thing about this is when inflation is accounted for, this isn’t exceptionally expensive. My Quadra 950 from late 1992 had a base price of about $6,000. No video card, no CD player, no keyboard. The keyboard was about $300. The upgrade from the 160MB hdd to the much better 320MB cost another $300. It came with a lot of ram though—8MB, and 16 slots, which I filled for another $3,600. The 2x speed CD player I bought was about $600.
The NEC Multisync 21”monitor, I forget the model number, was $3,200. The Radius graphics card I bought (the computer used the CPU for graphics, with 1MB installed, and for 24 bit color, you could get another 1MB simm) cost around $3,750.
so let’s add those costs and translate into today’s dollars.
so, that would be around $15,000, back then. As of the end of 2018, the latest full year inflation numbers I can get, would be around $27,500.
This is correct. The whiners of today have little appreciation for how much more meaningful computing power they are getting for so much less. These DIY tinkerers just see what they can build a crummy Windows box full of commodity off-the-shelf parts for and pretend they're the same thing.
This argument is poor and your hyperaggressive attitude is cancer.
That said, yes Apple computer prices have declined. So a comparative look at the Mac Pros and desktops kind of mandates markups right?
Wrong. The value of an Apple was constant vs competitors because ALL computers cost more. In this modern example, you have Apple, not even other OEMS, but *Apple* offering a more value-oriented option for significantly less money.
The Mac Pro is a tool for companies that need it. Anyone else that buys it is either buying a toy, a scientist working in his/her own workshop or clueless about what they're getting.
So which part is hyper-aggressive cancer -- "whiners" or "crummy Windows box"? Do you need a timeout in the safe space?
I think you will find the opinion of many here is that Apple and its custom designs does offer additional value from crummy Windows commodity-parts box systems.
Additionally, despite your bogus claim of being able to build one DIY for $1500, other websites have done price comparisons and found that equivalent workstations from other competitors are also expensive; so Mel's citation of inflation remains a like-for-like comparison. Computers were expensive then, and they're less expensive now, and similar workstations cost a similar amount.
Lastly, please source your claim that people are suggesting this new MP is for average consumers or prosumers or people who otherwise don't generate income and require a powerhouse workstation. We'll wait.
"Will Apple have to brainwash the masses to buy it?"
It's not a computer for the masses and no amount of brainwashing could change that.
At the same time it's gonna appeal to a certain segment of buyers who have needs for intense video processing or scientific applications, or a few who purchase it "just because it exists".
I don't think there is such a category as 'those that buy just because it exists' except in the minds of Android users and Apple haters that spend their entire existence finding negative things to say about Apple yet don't own or use Apple products themselves. Many of those types seem to spend a lot of time on Apple blogs considering they don't have or use Apple products, perhaps they are just drawn to Apple blogs because they exist?
Bahaha, touche.
The difference between MacPro and you is I can have a pleasant discussion with him afterwards, discuss shared interests and such in a respectful manner just as we have in this thread. I'm not sure you actually respect anyone else here or think anyone's opinion other than your own is worthwhile.
I actually like MacPro. We have things in common. Sure he can be ornery and ill-mannered sometimes. I can be too. There's at least one regular poster here who seems to ornery and ill-mannered ALL the time, and not exactly a likeable sort.
You're free to believe whatever you want to believe.
Remember that it's 5999 PLUS TAX and Apple Care. With those additions, that computer almost hits 7000. If you upgrade the RAM yourself and the storage (the measly 256 GB) yourself, you're looking at another 500 dollars MORE. And that's BEFORE you even look at a real graphics card. The Mac Pro's 580 is only 30% faster than the AMD APUs in higher level 3400Gs. 30% over integrated graphics isn't "powerful". So by the time you sink another 1000+ in a Vega 2 card, you're looking at least 8500 dollars (probably closer to 9000).
And even then, you could build a Mac with 90% that performance for a quarter of the price.
What a weird statement within a thread of your weird statements. It's bad enough that you state "PLUS TAX" at all but then you put it in all caps as if this is some hidden Apple Tax that no other vendor has to apply to a purchases.
The numbers were all caps too.
But seriously adding up to 10% for state sales tax is often forgotten when considering high-dollar item costs.
Try 17% in UK! (Or it was when I escaped 30 years ago) /shudder ... that said corporations deal with value-added taxes differently from Joe public.
Yeah, I heard about those UK taxes from a Brit friend of mine. I wasn't sure the new Mac Pros were being sold there so I restricted my comment to the US.
Taxes can add a substantial fee. You already knew Florida is on the better side of things in that regard.
I'm not trying to make it hard on anyone. But I am trying to clear things up so people know what they're getting into. Buyers remorse sucks. It would be a shame to spend 8k on a computer and find out that it competes unfavorably with a 5k iMac Pro.
Except that other in your own mind, it doesn’t.
? A base Mac Pro has a slower CPU than an iMac Pro. Fact. It has a slower GPU. Also fact. It has less storage. Also fact. I suppose people can delude themselves if they want. That won't change reality.
You don't want one we get it.
And you want to buy one and convince yourself that an 8 core 3 GHz Xeon married to 256 GB of storage and a 3-year midrange gpu is a "supercomputer". Go get one. I was just trying to help you. Just avoid spouting nonsense about how the iMac Pro is "old" and "slower" when it has a better cpu, gpu and more storage...by default, for about 40% less money and it comes with a 5k monitor.
I think you need to calm down as this is getting borderline weird.
When did I say I was going for the base model? I found your initial comments very good and I had had all the same thoughts .. then you labored them to the point it seems to be a bit strange.
I specifically mention I'd want more RAM and a better GPU and at least a 1TB boot SSD. As I already said I am lucky (or as I like to think very prescient) as this all costs me pennies as I bought a ton AAPL at $24 pre-split and all I needed to do is sell a measly 20 to 30 shares to cover this which I did yesterday. Never the less, I am very careful and think all this through as I don't waste money. I have had the experience of being an Apple Dealer from 1978 to 1990 as well as an end-user of multiple Mac towers in production environments, so not a complete moron and I simply see an open tower as a better investment than a closed box ... for my usage for the next n years. It's that simple.
Unfortunately, the Mac Pro has a distinct issue on its value curve. It's a horrible value system at its base price, that quickly ramps in value as the price becomes astronomical.
At its 6000 USD base price tag, the computer is a joke. The base Xeon it has was about 1200 bucks (on release). It was blessed with 240 dollars of ECC RAM (on release). It had a nice, airflow-centric case to be sure. Good cases that are solid steel/aluminum are, often, 200-300 USD. Even if we counted the Mac Pro's case as a 500 dollar case, and counted its M.2 storage in the default model as 240 dollars, we'd still be sitting at 3000 dollars for the system. The Radeon 580 is a naught 200 dollar card (even on release).
That means you're paying effectively ~ 3000 dollars for a power supply and motherboard. Which is kinda nuts. I mean the power supply itself is about 200 bucks at most (actually less) and the fans can't be more than 100 bucks. So you're buying a, albeit ultra bleeding edge, motherboard for 2700 USD, which is highway robbery.
Yes, the special component of the Mac Pro isn't the CPU or the GPU (although the Mac Pro can top out with sky-high Xeons and absolutely monstrous Arcturus-precursor dual Vega 2s), it's the motherboard. The base system doesn't ship with any of that super hardware though. Yes, the motherboard accommodates 1.5 TB of ECC RAM. Yes it has the ability to run almost a dozen bus lanes for TB 3. Yes, it accommodates both power via the port and via adapter for gpus. Yes the Pro Vega 2 is a beast of a card, dwarfing the Radeon VII's already ludicrous 16 GB of HBM2. But you get NONE of that with a 6000 dollar base system.
With a 6000 dollar base system, you get an amazing motherboard, that might never be used. You get a low-end Xeon that is outperformed by most Core i9s (Xeon reliability is worth 800 dollars?!). You get a gpu that is budget by today's standards (the MacBook Pro's Vega gpu is about as fast as a 565-570 which itself is only 10-15% slower than the Mac Pro's 580...). And a bunch of super components like psus and the like that may never be used unless you upgrade them yourself down the line.
You could build a DIY computer with pretty much identical performance for less than 1500 dollars. No, I'm not kidding. Sure, it's not upgradeable with ECC RAM. Sure, it doesn't have 12 TB 3 lanes or 10 gigabit ether. No, it doesn't have a ridiculously overpowered psu for a system that draws under 300 Watts. But still, you're buying a system with such low specs all those upgradeable touches are pointless unless you spend thousands more upgrading the system anyways.
Sure, you can get a great high end Xeon and push the RAM to 1.5 TB. Yes, 2 Pro Vega 2s are absolutely nuts, with a max of 128 GB of HBM2 RAM. But that system costs 50k. The base system gets you NOTHING. And it's 6000 USD. For workflow alone, a computer 1/4 the price will do the job.
So yes, the Mac Pro may be a great machine at the high end but anyone that buys it in the low end better not convince themselves they're getting a super computer because it's a budget system, at most and they're paying between 4-10x as much for the privilege of the Apple emblem.
I agree the base config is not ideal. I am hoping it is possible for DIY RAM upgrade as I don't want to may Apple RAM prices and I am used to 64 GB in the trash can so I'd want at least that and the GPU choice is still open in my mind until I see pricing but I suspect even the base is a leap from my dual AMD Firepros. 8 or 12 core would be enough for me for sure. That all said in five years this machine will still be totally configurable an iMac Pro isn't.
You can totally upgrade the RAM and GPU yourself. The problem is anything worthy of that motherboard is going to run you thousands of dollars. Which means you're looking at an 8k system. Again, that kind of workflow lends itself to mission-critical server work, not prosumer production. The Radeon 580 is about 20% more than the D700s in the old Mac Pro. That's it. Sure, you only have one gpu so the support is probably better but a Radeon 580 is a budget card. If you move to a Pro Vega 2, you're looking at least a 1000 dollar increase in price. That's because the card is basically an up-RAMMED Radeon VII which MSRPed at 700 USD. It's basically an mi60 on steroids.
In 6 years, the system's CPU will be woefully underpowered. The GPU will be upgradeable. But you're paying almost 10,000 USD for the privilege if you do it correctly.
Won't the CPU be upgradeable, is it soldered in? That would be a shame of epic proportions.
It uses Xeon W 3000 series CPUs. Unless Apple has ordered custom packaging, it will use FCLGA3647 sockets.
But as has been said over and over. It’s not a hobbyist machine. Any CPU you are upgrading too, likely is going to cost $1000, $2000, $5000, and you probably shouldn’t be dinking around with a piece of hardware with 3647 pins on it.
The interesting thing about this is when inflation is accounted for, this isn’t exceptionally expensive. My Quadra 950 from late 1992 had a base price of about $6,000. No video card, no CD player, no keyboard. The keyboard was about $300. The upgrade from the 160MB hdd to the much better 320MB cost another $300. It came with a lot of ram though—8MB, and 16 slots, which I filled for another $3,600. The 2x speed CD player I bought was about $600.
The NEC Multisync 21”monitor, I forget the model number, was $3,200. The Radius graphics card I bought (the computer used the CPU for graphics, with 1MB installed, and for 24 bit color, you could get another 1MB simm) cost around $3,750.
so let’s add those costs and translate into today’s dollars.
so, that would be around $15,000, back then. As of the end of 2018, the latest full year inflation numbers I can get, would be around $27,500.
This is correct. The whiners of today have little appreciation for how much more meaningful computing power they are getting for so much less. These DIY tinkerers just see what they can build a crummy Windows box full of commodity off-the-shelf parts for and pretend they're the same thing.
This argument is poor and your hyperaggressive attitude is cancer.
That said, yes Apple computer prices have declined. So a comparative look at the Mac Pros and desktops kind of mandates markups right?
Wrong. The value of an Apple was constant vs competitors because ALL computers cost more. In this modern example, you have Apple, not even other OEMS, but *Apple* offering a more value-oriented option for significantly less money.
The Mac Pro is a tool for companies that need it. Anyone else that buys it is either buying a toy, a scientist working in his/her own workshop or clueless about what they're getting.
So which part is hyper-aggressive -- "whiners" "crummy Windows box"? lol. Do you need a timeout in the safe space?
I think you will find the opinion of many here is that Apple and its custom designs does offer additional value from crummy Windows commodity-parts box systems.
Additionally, despite your bogus claim of being able to build one DIY for $1500, other websites have done price comparisons and found that equivalent workstations from other competitors are also expensive; so it remains a like-for-like comparison.
Lastly, please source your claim that people are suggesting this new MP is for average consumers or prosumers or people who otherwise don't generate income and require a powerhouse workstation. We'll wait.
The interesting thing about this is when inflation is accounted for, this isn’t exceptionally expensive. My Quadra 950 from late 1992 had a base price of about $6,000. No video card, no CD player, no keyboard. The keyboard was about $300. The upgrade from the 160MB hdd to the much better 320MB cost another $300. It came with a lot of ram though—8MB, and 16 slots, which I filled for another $3,600. The 2x speed CD player I bought was about $600.
The NEC Multisync 21”monitor, I forget the model number, was $3,200. The Radius graphics card I bought (the computer used the CPU for graphics, with 1MB installed, and for 24 bit color, you could get another 1MB simm) cost around $3,750.
so let’s add those costs and translate into today’s dollars.
so, that would be around $15,000, back then. As of the end of 2018, the latest full year inflation numbers I can get, would be around $27,500.
This is correct. The whiners of today have little appreciation for how much more meaningful computing power they are getting for so much less. These DIY tinkerers just see what they can build a crummy Windows box full of commodity off-the-shelf parts for and pretend they're the same thing.
This argument is poor and your hyperaggressive attitude is cancer.
That said, yes Apple computer prices have declined. So a comparative look at the Mac Pros and desktops kind of mandates markups right?
Wrong. The value of an Apple was constant vs competitors because ALL computers cost more. In this modern example, you have Apple, not even other OEMS, but *Apple* offering a more value-oriented option for significantly less money.
The Mac Pro is a tool for companies that need it. Anyone else that buys it is either buying a toy, a scientist working in his/her own workshop or clueless about what they're getting.
So which part is hyper-aggressive -- "whiners" "crummy Windows box"? lol. Do you need a timeout in the safe space?
I think you will find the opinion of many here is that Apple and its custom designs does offer additional value from crummy Windows commodity-parts box systems.
Additionally, despite your bogus claim of being able to build one DIY for $1500, other websites have done price comparisons and found that equivalent workstations from other competitors are also expensive; so it remains a like-for-like comparison.
Lastly, please source your claim that people are suggesting this new MP is for average consumers or prosumers or people who otherwise don't generate income and require a powerhouse workstation. We'll wait.
You're socially inept. Don't worry about it. You're the type of person that types this way and then changes in person because you know better. In any event, the argument still stands. For base model prospective customers, the iMac Pro, top line iMac 27 or FrankenMac *are* a better option because they have better hardware across the board. [...]
The Mac Pro is not for people who need performance in the future. It's for people that need performance NOW *AND* in the future. People that want 28 teraflops of compute today and 224 tomorrow. Not for the schlep that has a mom with a fat credit card. [...]
Just be quiet and stop making a fool of yourself.
There's nothing socially inept about anything I've said. You're just mad, you're getting upset, and now you're lashing out by calling people names. Seen it a million times before. Next week you'll have forgotten all about AI and we'll have forgotten all about you.
You're furiously arguing a straw man. I have never made any claims about the base model vs the higher-tier offerings. Go ahead and quote me otherwise. But I will quote you:
You could build a DIY computer with pretty much identical performance for less than 1500 dollars. No, I'm not kidding. -Madan
Have fun with your $1500 DIY machine that's just as good.
I think we’ll see a continuing rollout — the next step being laptops designed by the same group that did this Mac Pro. The gap between standard laptops and the “Pro” versions will more pronounced than ever.
Dan had better (after a three-part prologue!) have something insightful to say about what Apple is up to with this new tier of workstation and display. No doubt he will. But it doesn’t seem particularly mysterious to me. It’s about content creation, be it art or science.
Unfortunately, the Mac Pro has a distinct issue on its value curve. It's a horrible value system at its base price, that quickly ramps in value as the price becomes astronomical.
At its 6000 USD base price tag, the computer is a joke. The base Xeon it has was about 1200 bucks (on release). It was blessed with 240 dollars of ECC RAM (on release). It had a nice, airflow-centric case to be sure. Good cases that are solid steel/aluminum are, often, 200-300 USD. Even if we counted the Mac Pro's case as a 500 dollar case, and counted its M.2 storage in the default model as 240 dollars, we'd still be sitting at 3000 dollars for the system. The Radeon 580 is a naught 200 dollar card (even on release).
That means you're paying effectively ~ 3000 dollars for a power supply and motherboard. Which is kinda nuts. I mean the power supply itself is about 200 bucks at most (actually less) and the fans can't be more than 100 bucks. So you're buying a, albeit ultra bleeding edge, motherboard for 2700 USD, which is highway robbery.
Yes, the special component of the Mac Pro isn't the CPU or the GPU (although the Mac Pro can top out with sky-high Xeons and absolutely monstrous Arcturus-precursor dual Vega 2s), it's the motherboard. The base system doesn't ship with any of that super hardware though. Yes, the motherboard accommodates 1.5 TB of ECC RAM. Yes it has the ability to run almost a dozen bus lanes for TB 3. Yes, it accommodates both power via the port and via adapter for gpus. Yes the Pro Vega 2 is a beast of a card, dwarfing the Radeon VII's already ludicrous 16 GB of HBM2. But you get NONE of that with a 6000 dollar base system.
With a 6000 dollar base system, you get an amazing motherboard, that might never be used. You get a low-end Xeon that is outperformed by most Core i9s (Xeon reliability is worth 800 dollars?!). You get a gpu that is budget by today's standards (the MacBook Pro's Vega gpu is about as fast as a 565-570 which itself is only 10-15% slower than the Mac Pro's 580...). And a bunch of super components like psus and the like that may never be used unless you upgrade them yourself down the line.
You could build a DIY computer with pretty much identical performance for less than 1500 dollars. No, I'm not kidding. Sure, it's not upgradeable with ECC RAM. Sure, it doesn't have 12 TB 3 lanes or 10 gigabit ether. No, it doesn't have a ridiculously overpowered psu for a system that draws under 300 Watts. But still, you're buying a system with such low specs all those upgradeable touches are pointless unless you spend thousands more upgrading the system anyways.
Sure, you can get a great high end Xeon and push the RAM to 1.5 TB. Yes, 2 Pro Vega 2s are absolutely nuts, with a max of 128 GB of HBM2 RAM. But that system costs 50k. The base system gets you NOTHING. And it's 6000 USD. For workflow alone, a computer 1/4 the price will do the job.
So yes, the Mac Pro may be a great machine at the high end but anyone that buys it in the low end better not convince themselves they're getting a super computer because it's a budget system, at most and they're paying between 4-10x as much for the privilege of the Apple emblem.
I agree the base config is not ideal. I am hoping it is possible for DIY RAM upgrade as I don't want to may Apple RAM prices and I am used to 64 GB in the trash can so I'd want at least that and the GPU choice is still open in my mind until I see pricing but I suspect even the base is a leap from my dual AMD Firepros. 8 or 12 core would be enough for me for sure. That all said in five years this machine will still be totally configurable an iMac Pro isn't.
You can totally upgrade the RAM and GPU yourself. The problem is anything worthy of that motherboard is going to run you thousands of dollars. Which means you're looking at an 8k system. Again, that kind of workflow lends itself to mission-critical server work, not prosumer production. The Radeon 580 is about 20% more than the D700s in the old Mac Pro. That's it. Sure, you only have one gpu so the support is probably better but a Radeon 580 is a budget card. If you move to a Pro Vega 2, you're looking at least a 1000 dollar increase in price. That's because the card is basically an up-RAMMED Radeon VII which MSRPed at 700 USD. It's basically an mi60 on steroids.
In 6 years, the system's CPU will be woefully underpowered. The GPU will be upgradeable. But you're paying almost 10,000 USD for the privilege if you do it correctly.
Won't the CPU be upgradeable, is it soldered in? That would be a shame of epic proportions.
It uses Xeon W 3000 series CPUs. Unless Apple has ordered custom packaging, it will use FCLGA3647 sockets.
But as has been said over and over. It’s not a hobbyist machine. Any CPU you are upgrading too, likely is going to cost $1000, $2000, $5000, and you probably shouldn’t be dinking around with a piece of hardware with 3647 pins on it.
Thanks, good to know. I was thinking in five years or more down the line, not in the near future. It's good to know 'everything' is upgradeable including the CPU, prices do fall over time. The 2013 Mac Pro upgrade prices were awful until relatively recently when I did upgrade both RAM and Storage and that's all I could upgrade. At least this Mac Pro will be like the Cheesegrater days again. ... and yes I'd pay an Apple dealer to do it if the time ever came . My dinking days are over!
2019 iMac Core i9 @ 3.7 (50% faster than the Mac Pro in single-dual thread performance, slower in multi by only about 15%). 32 GB of RAM. Vega 48 (20% faster than the 580X in gaming. 100% faster at compute which is what you would get a Mac Pro for) No M.2 storage but 256 GB of SATA and 2 TB of platter.
The iMac is pretty much faster substantially across the board. It misses out on ECC but what kind of ECC do you need sporting a budget card like a 580. Anyone running a low end Xeon and 580 won't be computing fast enough to produce workloads that mandate ECC in the first place.
2 TB3 and giga ether vs 4 TB3 and 10 giga ether
But the iMac has a 5K screen vs no screen on Mac Pro. Oh and it costs a little more than HALF the Mac Pro (3400 vs 6000). And that's an top of the line iMac.
2019 iMac Pro Xeon vs Mac Pro Xeon - Wash (same Xeon) 32 GB of RAM Vega 56 (25% faster than the 580X at gaming. 150% faster at compute which is what you would get a Mac Pro for) 1 TB of M.2 storage vs 256 M.2 in the Mac Pro.
4 TB 3 and 10 gig ether vs 4 TB 3 and 10 gig ether
iMac Pro is 1k cheaper than the Mac Pro and beats the pants off of it in storage, graphics, compute, as well as coming with a free 5K monitor, for LESS.
With either option, you would just sell the computer and buy a new version of the same and get the same performance over a 5-10 year span. The purpose of the Mac Pro is not to perform at the same level. It's to be upgraded and then operate at a level far above an iMac Pro:
28 Core Xeon, 2 TB of RAM, 2x Dual Pro Vega 2s. Etc. But at those levels, the computer costs 50K+.
Best part is I haven't even looked at other OEMS. Apple kills its own base system. The Mac Pro only shines when stacked with upgrades. The base model isn't a good deal. So, yeah keep making a fool of yourself.
Unfortunately, the Mac Pro has a distinct issue on its value curve. It's a horrible value system at its base price, that quickly ramps in value as the price becomes astronomical.
At its 6000 USD base price tag, the computer is a joke. The base Xeon it has was about 1200 bucks (on release). It was blessed with 240 dollars of ECC RAM (on release). It had a nice, airflow-centric case to be sure. Good cases that are solid steel/aluminum are, often, 200-300 USD. Even if we counted the Mac Pro's case as a 500 dollar case, and counted its M.2 storage in the default model as 240 dollars, we'd still be sitting at 3000 dollars for the system. The Radeon 580 is a naught 200 dollar card (even on release).
That means you're paying effectively ~ 3000 dollars for a power supply and motherboard. Which is kinda nuts. I mean the power supply itself is about 200 bucks at most (actually less) and the fans can't be more than 100 bucks. So you're buying a, albeit ultra bleeding edge, motherboard for 2700 USD, which is highway robbery.
Yes, the special component of the Mac Pro isn't the CPU or the GPU (although the Mac Pro can top out with sky-high Xeons and absolutely monstrous Arcturus-precursor dual Vega 2s), it's the motherboard. The base system doesn't ship with any of that super hardware though. Yes, the motherboard accommodates 1.5 TB of ECC RAM. Yes it has the ability to run almost a dozen bus lanes for TB 3. Yes, it accommodates both power via the port and via adapter for gpus. Yes the Pro Vega 2 is a beast of a card, dwarfing the Radeon VII's already ludicrous 16 GB of HBM2. But you get NONE of that with a 6000 dollar base system.
With a 6000 dollar base system, you get an amazing motherboard, that might never be used. You get a low-end Xeon that is outperformed by most Core i9s (Xeon reliability is worth 800 dollars?!). You get a gpu that is budget by today's standards (the MacBook Pro's Vega gpu is about as fast as a 565-570 which itself is only 10-15% slower than the Mac Pro's 580...). And a bunch of super components like psus and the like that may never be used unless you upgrade them yourself down the line.
You could build a DIY computer with pretty much identical performance for less than 1500 dollars. No, I'm not kidding. Sure, it's not upgradeable with ECC RAM. Sure, it doesn't have 12 TB 3 lanes or 10 gigabit ether. No, it doesn't have a ridiculously overpowered psu for a system that draws under 300 Watts. But still, you're buying a system with such low specs all those upgradeable touches are pointless unless you spend thousands more upgrading the system anyways.
Sure, you can get a great high end Xeon and push the RAM to 1.5 TB. Yes, 2 Pro Vega 2s are absolutely nuts, with a max of 128 GB of HBM2 RAM. But that system costs 50k. The base system gets you NOTHING. And it's 6000 USD. For workflow alone, a computer 1/4 the price will do the job.
So yes, the Mac Pro may be a great machine at the high end but anyone that buys it in the low end better not convince themselves they're getting a super computer because it's a budget system, at most and they're paying between 4-10x as much for the privilege of the Apple emblem.
I agree the base config is not ideal. I am hoping it is possible for DIY RAM upgrade as I don't want to may Apple RAM prices and I am used to 64 GB in the trash can so I'd want at least that and the GPU choice is still open in my mind until I see pricing but I suspect even the base is a leap from my dual AMD Firepros. 8 or 12 core would be enough for me for sure. That all said in five years this machine will still be totally configurable an iMac Pro isn't.
You can totally upgrade the RAM and GPU yourself. The problem is anything worthy of that motherboard is going to run you thousands of dollars. Which means you're looking at an 8k system. Again, that kind of workflow lends itself to mission-critical server work, not prosumer production. The Radeon 580 is about 20% more than the D700s in the old Mac Pro. That's it. Sure, you only have one gpu so the support is probably better but a Radeon 580 is a budget card. If you move to a Pro Vega 2, you're looking at least a 1000 dollar increase in price. That's because the card is basically an up-RAMMED Radeon VII which MSRPed at 700 USD. It's basically an mi60 on steroids.
In 6 years, the system's CPU will be woefully underpowered. The GPU will be upgradeable. But you're paying almost 10,000 USD for the privilege if you do it correctly.
Won't the CPU be upgradeable, is it soldered in? That would be a shame of epic proportions.
It uses Xeon W 3000 series CPUs. Unless Apple has ordered custom packaging, it will use FCLGA3647 sockets.
But as has been said over and over. It’s not a hobbyist machine. Any CPU you are upgrading too, likely is going to cost $1000, $2000, $5000, and you probably shouldn’t be dinking around with a piece of hardware with 3647 pins on it.
Exactly. They're chips designed for jobs with high parallelism, with ECC support baked in for stability and durability in mind. They're not really designed to play Doom or diddle on Blender on the weekends. You COULD do those things but you'd be happier with a Skylake/Cannonlake Core i7/i9.
I don't think most super purchasers that procure these upgraded systems will be swapping out the CPUs often, if at all. Since gpus are used more often with Cuda or OpenCL(now Metal 2) for high-end compute, you're more likely to see the gpus being swapped out with time. Simply look at a 2013 Core i5 4670 vs a Core i5 8400. The performance jump isn't even 100%. Now compare a nvidia 760 GT vs a 2060 Super. The difference is almost 500%. A 760 GT produces about 2 Teraflops in compute, vs 10 Teraflops for a Vega 56. Huge gains.
So gpus are definitely improving in performance at a far greater pace. But the RAM? CPU? I think that's staying static for most. And storage? It's nice to have room for storage inside the computer but with TB3... Meh.
It's all about the motherboard, the crazy 2 10 giga ethers and the insane amount of TB buses / MPX modules. AMD gets to move its spare Vega 2 dies and Apple gets bonafide compute beast cred. You'd have to avoid Navi though since the compute for those cards is far lower pound for pound, than vega 2.
2019 iMac Core i9 @ 3.7 (50% faster than the Mac Pro in single-dual thread performance, slower in multi by only about 15%). 32 GB of RAM. Vega 48 (20% faster than the 580X in gaming. 100% faster at compute which is what you would get a Mac Pro for) No M.2 storage but 256 GB of SATA and 2 TB of platter.
The iMac is pretty much faster substantially across the board. It misses out on ECC but what kind of ECC do you need sporting a budget card like a 580. Anyone running a low end Xeon and 580 won't be computing fast enough to produce workloads that mandate ECC in the first place.
2 TB3 and giga ether vs 4 TB3 and 10 giga ether
But the iMac has a 5K screen vs no screen on Mac Pro. Oh and it costs a little more than HALF the Mac Pro (3400 vs 6000). And that's an top of the line iMac.
2019 iMac Pro Xeon vs Mac Pro Xeon - Wash (same Xeon) 32 GB of RAM Vega 56 (25% faster than the 580X at gaming. 150% faster at compute which is what you would get a Mac Pro for) 1 TB of M.2 storage vs 256 M.2 in the Mac Pro.
4 TB 3 and 10 gig ether vs 4 TB 3 and 10 gig ether
iMac Pro is 1k cheaper than the Mac Pro and beats the pants off of it in storage, graphics, compute, as well as coming with a free 5K monitor, for LESS.
With either option, you would just sell the computer and buy a new version of the same and get the same performance over a 5-10 year span. The purpose of the Mac Pro is not to perform at the same level. It's to be upgraded and then operate at a level far above an iMac Pro:
28 Core Xeon, 2 TB of RAM, 2x Dual Pro Vega 2s. Etc. But at those levels, the computer costs 50K+.
Best part is I haven't even looked at other OEMS. Apple kills its own base system. The Mac Pro only shines when stacked with upgrades. The base model isn't a good deal. So, yeah keep making a fool of yourself.
Why oh why the insulting end?
No one is disagreeing with your base model Pro vs iMac Pro data which is why most of us will not get the base model but at least someone on a budget but with hopes to upgrade in the future can get a foot in the door.
Perhaps Apple could price an empty base model with no GPU, no RAM, and no storage and let us design our own BTO. However, you can't blame Apple for offering a minimally configured base model. They do in all Mac models why not this one. I haven't checked but your same argument can probably be made for many Apple product ranges over the years. The high end of a lower range often is higher than the bottom of the next range up. It's called marketing.
Just my choices:
I don't want a 5K integrated monitor that has no ability to be used by another machine if needed. I already have 4K monitors which suffice for now (do I want to see Apple's new monitor for myself ... Yup!) I don't want an all in one box. The 2013 Mac Pro was my first and last such main Mac since the Macintosh SE 30 . I do want industry-standard slots for both RAM and Boards I want a ton of ports I want total future upgradability I want at least 96 GB RAM 8 or 12 core is enough for me I think. I want a pretty powerful GPU and the ability to change it out over the years, I edit only 4K now but history tells me I will have 8K in a few years the way Sony Alpha gear is going. I want great thermal cooling I want a workstation CPU not i8/i9 etc. One concern but it applies equally to any Mac, Apple CPUs are coming ... but I think they are for the mobile and Mac mini market for the first few years.
Oh, and one more thing ... I really, really want wheels!
Unfortunately, the Mac Pro has a distinct issue on its value curve. It's a horrible value system at its base price, that quickly ramps in value as the price becomes astronomical.
At its 6000 USD base price tag, the computer is a joke. The base Xeon it has was about 1200 bucks (on release). It was blessed with 240 dollars of ECC RAM (on release). It had a nice, airflow-centric case to be sure. Good cases that are solid steel/aluminum are, often, 200-300 USD. Even if we counted the Mac Pro's case as a 500 dollar case, and counted its M.2 storage in the default model as 240 dollars, we'd still be sitting at 3000 dollars for the system. The Radeon 580 is a naught 200 dollar card (even on release).
That means you're paying effectively ~ 3000 dollars for a power supply and motherboard. Which is kinda nuts. I mean the power supply itself is about 200 bucks at most (actually less) and the fans can't be more than 100 bucks. So you're buying a, albeit ultra bleeding edge, motherboard for 2700 USD, which is highway robbery.
Yes, the special component of the Mac Pro isn't the CPU or the GPU (although the Mac Pro can top out with sky-high Xeons and absolutely monstrous Arcturus-precursor dual Vega 2s), it's the motherboard. The base system doesn't ship with any of that super hardware though. Yes, the motherboard accommodates 1.5 TB of ECC RAM. Yes it has the ability to run almost a dozen bus lanes for TB 3. Yes, it accommodates both power via the port and via adapter for gpus. Yes the Pro Vega 2 is a beast of a card, dwarfing the Radeon VII's already ludicrous 16 GB of HBM2. But you get NONE of that with a 6000 dollar base system.
With a 6000 dollar base system, you get an amazing motherboard, that might never be used. You get a low-end Xeon that is outperformed by most Core i9s (Xeon reliability is worth 800 dollars?!). You get a gpu that is budget by today's standards (the MacBook Pro's Vega gpu is about as fast as a 565-570 which itself is only 10-15% slower than the Mac Pro's 580...). And a bunch of super components like psus and the like that may never be used unless you upgrade them yourself down the line.
You could build a DIY computer with pretty much identical performance for less than 1500 dollars. No, I'm not kidding. Sure, it's not upgradeable with ECC RAM. Sure, it doesn't have 12 TB 3 lanes or 10 gigabit ether. No, it doesn't have a ridiculously overpowered psu for a system that draws under 300 Watts. But still, you're buying a system with such low specs all those upgradeable touches are pointless unless you spend thousands more upgrading the system anyways.
Sure, you can get a great high end Xeon and push the RAM to 1.5 TB. Yes, 2 Pro Vega 2s are absolutely nuts, with a max of 128 GB of HBM2 RAM. But that system costs 50k. The base system gets you NOTHING. And it's 6000 USD. For workflow alone, a computer 1/4 the price will do the job.
So yes, the Mac Pro may be a great machine at the high end but anyone that buys it in the low end better not convince themselves they're getting a super computer because it's a budget system, at most and they're paying between 4-10x as much for the privilege of the Apple emblem.
What you're describing is a recurring problem with well-architected products and solutions, i.e., products designed to support specific quality attributes such as modularity, modifiability, upgradability, performance scalability, etc. Everyone wants all of the values that a well-architected product or solution provides, but they don't want to pay for it when the base-level implementation is really a starting point for acquiring the potential value that the product's quality attributes can deliver. But just like potential energy, potential value is not realized until it is exploited to provide a benefit, which in the case of the Mac Pro is when you start exercising the potential by upgrading components, scaling up the performance, adding massive storage, etc. So yeah, you're paying for the architecture at the entry level but if you don't need the architecture or don't plan to exploit its attributes you may end up spending a lot more than you need to.
It usually comes down to making intelligent and informed decisions about what you're buying while taking into consideration the intended lifecycle of the product or solution. Too often people, teams, and organizations will make the wrong decision because they're applying short term considerations to longer term problems. Or vice versa. They'll look at the price of the architected solution, balk at the price in terms of their current budget, and cheap out on the purchase. A year later, or when the regime changes, they'll realize they didn't buy what they really needed for long term value and revisit the whole process and end up spending more in the long run and inciting churn. Of course it works the other way too. It's not an easy decision, but for people and organizations that apply sound economic justification for their purchases, taking into all factors like depreciation and salvage value, it SHOULD be a data-driven decision and not an emotional one. These are exactly the kinds of decisions that organizations make every day around all manner of personnel and capital expenditures from computers to upgrades of production machinery. I imagine many buyers of Mac Pros will apply these same sort of decisions.
But this is why I'm posting here. I think the camp that benefits from the Mac Pro is probably smaller than the camps positively and negatively affected by it. There are going to be haters that think that the system is overpriced at 50k, when it's packing 4 Vega 2 chipsets capable of pushing 60 teraflops of data compute. Conversely, you're always going to have the misinformed fanboys that work out of a mom and pop copy shop that think that they need a 7000 dollar budget system to do "pro" work when that system is inherently a *horrible*, *horrible* deal. As I said, this system isn't meant to be bought for less than 9-10k. If you buy it at base config, you don't need it and you're buying a bad system for your needs.
While I don’t expect this be selling the 100,000 plus numbers a year of this Mac Pro the way they did with the older Mac Pro cheese grater models, I’m willing to bet they’ll sell in the tens of thousands a year, and that not bad. Workstations don’t sell in very high numbers. But I think you’re selling this short. This is a very versatile machine, with a very sophisticated mobo. In fact, it’s the most sophisticated mobo I’ve seen, and I’ve seen a lot over the years. There’s more involved too, but I’m not really in the mood for a long post right now.
But I said that already. I said that the motherboard was what is special about this computer, at the start of this thread. It's certainly not the CPU, M.2 storage or the like. That can be had anywhere. The problems begin when people buy them for the wrong reasons. A base-level system is horrendously overpriced. The base Mac Pro ships with the same gpu as a 2017 iMac. So my point has been, if you have to spend 10k, plus, this might be worth your while. But if you don't intend to upgrade it immediately, *know that you're buying a budget system*. And that's just a fact.
Who knows, maybe they cut the prices. I love that motherboard. I do. But unless you plan on taking advantage of 12 TB 3 lanes and multiplexed giga ether, you're just not the target demographic for this machine. Large compute farms or development/render complexes are.
What I think is that you’re wasting your time, and everybody's time here mashing things up. Those of us who know what we need, know what we’re going to get, and why. Others can drool all they want, and that’s just fine. People do the same thing with cars.
this is also a hobby for a lot of people, and people spend a lot on their hobby, and that’s fine too. People buy Hasselblads and Leicas also. And they don’t need them. They aren’t worth the money you pay for them, but a lot of people like them. why bother trying to convince them otherwise? it’s the same thing here. We don’t all agree with your assessment either. Future upgradability is important to people, even if they don’t plan on doing it right away.
I think you’ve taken this conversation as far as it can go, and it’s time you let it go.
Unfortunately, the Mac Pro has a distinct issue on its value curve. It's a horrible value system at its base price, that quickly ramps in value as the price becomes astronomical.
At its 6000 USD base price tag, the computer is a joke. The base Xeon it has was about 1200 bucks (on release). It was blessed with 240 dollars of ECC RAM (on release). It had a nice, airflow-centric case to be sure. Good cases that are solid steel/aluminum are, often, 200-300 USD. Even if we counted the Mac Pro's case as a 500 dollar case, and counted its M.2 storage in the default model as 240 dollars, we'd still be sitting at 3000 dollars for the system. The Radeon 580 is a naught 200 dollar card (even on release).
That means you're paying effectively ~ 3000 dollars for a power supply and motherboard. Which is kinda nuts. I mean the power supply itself is about 200 bucks at most (actually less) and the fans can't be more than 100 bucks. So you're buying a, albeit ultra bleeding edge, motherboard for 2700 USD, which is highway robbery.
Yes, the special component of the Mac Pro isn't the CPU or the GPU (although the Mac Pro can top out with sky-high Xeons and absolutely monstrous Arcturus-precursor dual Vega 2s), it's the motherboard. The base system doesn't ship with any of that super hardware though. Yes, the motherboard accommodates 1.5 TB of ECC RAM. Yes it has the ability to run almost a dozen bus lanes for TB 3. Yes, it accommodates both power via the port and via adapter for gpus. Yes the Pro Vega 2 is a beast of a card, dwarfing the Radeon VII's already ludicrous 16 GB of HBM2. But you get NONE of that with a 6000 dollar base system.
With a 6000 dollar base system, you get an amazing motherboard, that might never be used. You get a low-end Xeon that is outperformed by most Core i9s (Xeon reliability is worth 800 dollars?!). You get a gpu that is budget by today's standards (the MacBook Pro's Vega gpu is about as fast as a 565-570 which itself is only 10-15% slower than the Mac Pro's 580...). And a bunch of super components like psus and the like that may never be used unless you upgrade them yourself down the line.
You could build a DIY computer with pretty much identical performance for less than 1500 dollars. No, I'm not kidding. Sure, it's not upgradeable with ECC RAM. Sure, it doesn't have 12 TB 3 lanes or 10 gigabit ether. No, it doesn't have a ridiculously overpowered psu for a system that draws under 300 Watts. But still, you're buying a system with such low specs all those upgradeable touches are pointless unless you spend thousands more upgrading the system anyways.
Sure, you can get a great high end Xeon and push the RAM to 1.5 TB. Yes, 2 Pro Vega 2s are absolutely nuts, with a max of 128 GB of HBM2 RAM. But that system costs 50k. The base system gets you NOTHING. And it's 6000 USD. For workflow alone, a computer 1/4 the price will do the job.
So yes, the Mac Pro may be a great machine at the high end but anyone that buys it in the low end better not convince themselves they're getting a super computer because it's a budget system, at most and they're paying between 4-10x as much for the privilege of the Apple emblem.
What you're describing is a recurring problem with well-architected products and solutions, i.e., products designed to support specific quality attributes such as modularity, modifiability, upgradability, performance scalability, etc. Everyone wants all of the values that a well-architected product or solution provides, but they don't want to pay for it when the base-level implementation is really a starting point for acquiring the potential value that the product's quality attributes can deliver. But just like potential energy, potential value is not realized until it is exploited to provide a benefit, which in the case of the Mac Pro is when you start exercising the potential by upgrading components, scaling up the performance, adding massive storage, etc. So yeah, you're paying for the architecture at the entry level but if you don't need the architecture or don't plan to exploit its attributes you may end up spending a lot more than you need to.
It usually comes down to making intelligent and informed decisions about what you're buying while taking into consideration the intended lifecycle of the product or solution. Too often people, teams, and organizations will make the wrong decision because they're applying short term considerations to longer term problems. Or vice versa. They'll look at the price of the architected solution, balk at the price in terms of their current budget, and cheap out on the purchase. A year later, or when the regime changes, they'll realize they didn't buy what they really needed for long term value and revisit the whole process and end up spending more in the long run and inciting churn. Of course it works the other way too. It's not an easy decision, but for people and organizations that apply sound economic justification for their purchases, taking into all factors like depreciation and salvage value, it SHOULD be a data-driven decision and not an emotional one. These are exactly the kinds of decisions that organizations make every day around all manner of personnel and capital expenditures from computers to upgrades of production machinery. I imagine many buyers of Mac Pros will apply these same sort of decisions.
But this is why I'm posting here. I think the camp that benefits from the Mac Pro is probably smaller than the camps positively and negatively affected by it. There are going to be haters that think that the system is overpriced at 50k, when it's packing 4 Vega 2 chipsets capable of pushing 60 teraflops of data compute. Conversely, you're always going to have the misinformed fanboys that work out of a mom and pop copy shop that think that they need a 7000 dollar budget system to do "pro" work when that system is inherently a *horrible*, *horrible* deal. As I said, this system isn't meant to be bought for less than 9-10k. If you buy it at base config, you don't need it and you're buying a bad system for your needs.
While I don’t expect this be selling the 100,000 plus numbers a year of this Mac Pro the way they did with the older Mac Pro cheese grater models, I’m willing to bet they’ll sell in the tens of thousands a year, and that not bad. Workstations don’t sell in very high numbers. But I think you’re selling this short. This is a very versatile machine, with a very sophisticated mobo. In fact, it’s the most sophisticated mobo I’ve seen, and I’ve seen a lot over the years. There’s more involved too, but I’m not really in the mood for a long post right now.
But I said that already. I said that the motherboard was what is special about this computer, at the start of this thread. It's certainly not the CPU, M.2 storage or the like. That can be had anywhere. The problems begin when people buy them for the wrong reasons. A base-level system is horrendously overpriced. The base Mac Pro ships with the same gpu as a 2017 iMac. So my point has been, if you have to spend 10k, plus, this might be worth your while. But if you don't intend to upgrade it immediately, *know that you're buying a budget system*. And that's just a fact.
Who knows, maybe they cut the prices. I love that motherboard. I do. But unless you plan on taking advantage of 12 TB 3 lanes and multiplexed giga ether, you're just not the target demographic for this machine. Large compute farms or development/render complexes are.
What I think is that you’re wasting your time, and everybody's time here mashing things up. Those of us who know what we need, know what we’re going to get, and why. Others can drool all they want, and that’s just fine. People do the same thing with cars.
this is also a hobby for a lot of people, and people spend a lot on their hobby, and that’s fine too. People buy Hasselblads and Leicas also. And they don’t need them. They aren’t worth the money you pay for them, but a lot of people like them. why bother trying to convince them otherwise? it’s the same thing here. We don’t all agree with your assessment either. Future upgradability is important to people, even if they don’t plan on doing it right away.
I think you’ve taken this conversation as far as it can go, and it’s time you let it go.
Comments
But seriously adding up to 10% for state sales tax is often forgotten when considering high-dollar item costs.
They think I'm an Apple hater because I pointed out that the top end Mac Pro is awesome but the low end is a very poor buy and that it's targeted at high compute entities not prosumers. The prosumer product is the iMac Pro.
I'm sitting on: 3 iMacs, my FrankenMac, 4 ipads, 2 iPhones, 2 ipods and my venerable Apple IIC (which still works) and Macbook Pro. But I've had my "Apple geek cred" pulled because I dared to compare hardware/price skus throughout Apple's lineup, or something.
I think you will find the opinion of many here is that Apple and its custom designs does offer additional value from crummy Windows commodity-parts box systems.
Additionally, despite your bogus claim of being able to build one DIY for $1500, other websites have done price comparisons and found that equivalent workstations from other competitors are also expensive; so Mel's citation of inflation remains a like-for-like comparison. Computers were expensive then, and they're less expensive now, and similar workstations cost a similar amount.
Lastly, please source your claim that people are suggesting this new MP is for average consumers or prosumers or people who otherwise don't generate income and require a powerhouse workstation. We'll wait.
Taxes can add a substantial fee. You already knew Florida is on the better side of things in that regard.
When did I say I was going for the base model? I found your initial comments very good and I had had all the same thoughts .. then you labored them to the point it seems to be a bit strange.
I specifically mention I'd want more RAM and a better GPU and at least a 1TB boot SSD. As I already said I am lucky (or as I like to think very prescient) as this all costs me pennies as I bought a ton AAPL at $24 pre-split and all I needed to do is sell a measly 20 to 30 shares to cover this which I did yesterday. Never the less, I am very careful and think all this through as I don't waste money. I have had the experience of being an Apple Dealer from 1978 to 1990 as well as an end-user of multiple Mac towers in production environments, so not a complete moron and I simply see an open tower as a better investment than a closed box ... for my usage for the next n years. It's that simple.
But as has been said over and over. It’s not a hobbyist machine. Any CPU you are upgrading too, likely is going to cost $1000, $2000, $5000, and you probably shouldn’t be dinking around with a piece of hardware with 3647 pins on it.
You're furiously arguing a straw man. I have never made any claims about the base model vs the higher-tier offerings. Go ahead and quote me otherwise. But I will quote you:
You could build a DIY computer with pretty much identical performance for less than 1500 dollars. No, I'm not kidding. -Madan
Have fun with your $1500 DIY machine that's just as good.
Dan had better (after a three-part prologue!) have something insightful to say about what Apple is up to with this new tier of workstation and display. No doubt he will. But it doesn’t seem particularly mysterious to me. It’s about content creation, be it art or science.
2019 iMac Core i9 @ 3.7 (50% faster than the Mac Pro in single-dual thread performance, slower in multi by only about 15%).
32 GB of RAM.
Vega 48 (20% faster than the 580X in gaming. 100% faster at compute which is what you would get a Mac Pro for)
No M.2 storage but 256 GB of SATA and 2 TB of platter.
The iMac is pretty much faster substantially across the board. It misses out on ECC but what kind of ECC do you need sporting a budget card like a 580. Anyone running a low end Xeon and 580 won't be computing fast enough to produce workloads that mandate ECC in the first place.
2 TB3 and giga ether vs 4 TB3 and 10 giga ether
But the iMac has a 5K screen vs no screen on Mac Pro. Oh and it costs a little more than HALF the Mac Pro (3400 vs 6000). And that's an top of the line iMac.
iMac Pro?
https://www.apple.com/shop/buy-mac/imac-pro/3.2ghz-1tb#
2019 iMac Pro Xeon vs Mac Pro Xeon - Wash (same Xeon)
32 GB of RAM
Vega 56 (25% faster than the 580X at gaming. 150% faster at compute which is what you would get a Mac Pro for)
1 TB of M.2 storage vs 256 M.2 in the Mac Pro.
4 TB 3 and 10 gig ether vs 4 TB 3 and 10 gig ether
iMac Pro is 1k cheaper than the Mac Pro and beats the pants off of it in storage, graphics, compute, as well as coming with a free 5K monitor, for LESS.
With either option, you would just sell the computer and buy a new version of the same and get the same performance over a 5-10 year span. The purpose of the Mac Pro is not to perform at the same level. It's to be upgraded and then operate at a level far above an iMac Pro:
28 Core Xeon, 2 TB of RAM, 2x Dual Pro Vega 2s. Etc. But at those levels, the computer costs 50K+.
Best part is I haven't even looked at other OEMS. Apple kills its own base system. The Mac Pro only shines when stacked with upgrades. The base model isn't a good deal. So, yeah keep making a fool of yourself.
Exactly. They're chips designed for jobs with high parallelism, with ECC support baked in for stability and durability in mind. They're not really designed to play Doom or diddle on Blender on the weekends. You COULD do those things but you'd be happier with a Skylake/Cannonlake Core i7/i9.
I don't think most super purchasers that procure these upgraded systems will be swapping out the CPUs often, if at all. Since gpus are used more often with Cuda or OpenCL(now Metal 2) for high-end compute, you're more likely to see the gpus being swapped out with time. Simply look at a 2013 Core i5 4670 vs a Core i5 8400. The performance jump isn't even 100%. Now compare a nvidia 760 GT vs a 2060 Super. The difference is almost 500%. A 760 GT produces about 2 Teraflops in compute, vs 10 Teraflops for a Vega 56. Huge gains.
So gpus are definitely improving in performance at a far greater pace. But the RAM? CPU? I think that's staying static for most. And storage? It's nice to have room for storage inside the computer but with TB3... Meh.
It's all about the motherboard, the crazy 2 10 giga ethers and the insane amount of TB buses / MPX modules. AMD gets to move its spare Vega 2 dies and Apple gets bonafide compute beast cred. You'd have to avoid Navi though since the compute for those cards is far lower pound for pound, than vega 2.
No one is disagreeing with your base model Pro vs iMac Pro data which is why most of us will not get the base model but at least someone on a budget but with hopes to upgrade in the future can get a foot in the door.
Perhaps Apple could price an empty base model with no GPU, no RAM, and no storage and let us design our own BTO. However, you can't blame Apple for offering a minimally configured base model. They do in all Mac models why not this one. I haven't checked but your same argument can probably be made for many Apple product ranges over the years. The high end of a lower range often is higher than the bottom of the next range up. It's called marketing.
Just my choices:
I don't want a 5K integrated monitor that has no ability to be used by another machine if needed.
I already have 4K monitors which suffice for now (do I want to see Apple's new monitor for myself ... Yup!)
I don't want an all in one box. The 2013 Mac Pro was my first and last such main Mac since the Macintosh SE 30 .
I do want industry-standard slots for both RAM and Boards
I want a ton of ports
I want total future upgradability
I want at least 96 GB RAM
8 or 12 core is enough for me I think.
I want a pretty powerful GPU and the ability to change it out over the years, I edit only 4K now but history tells me I will have 8K in a few years the way Sony Alpha gear is going.
I want great thermal cooling
I want a workstation CPU not i8/i9 etc.
One concern but it applies equally to any Mac, Apple CPUs are coming ... but I think they are for the mobile and Mac mini market for the first few years.
Oh, and one more thing ... I really, really want wheels!
this is also a hobby for a lot of people, and people spend a lot on their hobby, and that’s fine too. People buy Hasselblads and Leicas also. And they don’t need them. They aren’t worth the money you pay for them, but a lot of people like them. why bother trying to convince them otherwise? it’s the same thing here. We don’t all agree with your assessment either. Future upgradability is important to people, even if they don’t plan on doing it right away.