I'll guess the reason Apple felt they could get away with the Z8 comparison in the keynote is that it was the only one that supported ECC memory at the time. It wasn't until July that HP started selling the Z6 with ECC. Also, the Z8 is the only one that can carry more than two graphics cards. Yes, the Z6 is a better comparison because you can get it with the single-processor Xeon-W like the Mac Pro, while the Z8 doesn't support that. But in other ways the Z8 was a better match. So they went that direction with it...
Your are right about the Z4 and the Xeon W-2100. But like I posted before, I did a similar configuration with the Z6, with a current 8-core Xeon W-3223, and it went for $4850 including the 3-yr onsite warranty. Again, we have to wait for the final price for the new HP model. But as today, HP has a better cost if we compare to the base Mac Pro model.
Regarding the Z8, I agree is a different line from the Mac Pro. That's reason it made no sense for me for Apple to make that comparison in their keynote. The Z8 is in a different league. And there are cases where more cores have it's benefits over just single core performance. For example, Dreamworks architect their applications to run in 36-cores.
I know this kind of environment is not common. But although is a small customer base that need this kind of configuration, it exist and a Xeon Scalable may be a better option than the Xeon W. At the same, I'm not sure how long 2-CPU workstations will exist, considering that the Xeon-W3200 goes up to 28-cores and AMD Epyc 7002 is up to 56-cores. It's crazy!
Edit: I missed that HP already have the Z6 with the Xeon W-3200 processors. So it looks like HP has a lower cost with the same specs.
Keep on pricing to the same exact configuration as possible. It really doesn’t lower cost. It’ll get close enough such that it going down to what the buyer values and intangibles, and there is basically really no price differentiator.
I priced out $5600:
Windows 10 Pro 64 - HP recommends Windows 10 Pro
HP Z6 G4 Workstation
Intel® Xeon® W-3225 Processor (3.7 GHz, up to 4.3 GHz w/Boost, 16.5 MB cache, 2666 MHz, 8 core, 160W)
Differences with the Mac Pro at 6k: Mac Pro has 12 DIMM slots, Z6 has 6 DIMM slots per socket (only uses 3 memory channels per socket?) Mac Pro has 4 TB3 ports, HP Z6 has 2 Mac Pro does not have optical drive, HP Z6 has an optical drive, plus another external bay Mac Pro has 8 total slots: 7 full length PCIe x16 slots, 1 half length PCIe x4 slot, HP Z6 has 6 total slots: 2 x16, 2 x8, 2 x4 (I think)
Anyways, and more importantly, we really shouldn’t be trying to differentiate $1000 here. Whoever IT is trying to eek out lower cost on this type of hardware should be fired as they are trying to save pennies while they have gigantic other costs. The cost of the software that run on these machines could be 2x to 3x, and possibly 10x the cost of the hardware including the hyper expensive add on cards.
I'll guess the reason Apple felt they could get away with the Z8 comparison in the keynote is that it was the only one that supported ECC memory at the time. It wasn't until July that HP started selling the Z6 with ECC. Also, the Z8 is the only one that can carry more than two graphics cards. Yes, the Z6 is a better comparison because you can get it with the single-processor Xeon-W like the Mac Pro, while the Z8 doesn't support that. But in other ways the Z8 was a better match. So they went that direction with it...
FYI, the Z6 always had support ECC RAM, and even the previous version, the Z640. Plus, in some configurations, the Z6 goes up to three graphic adapters.
On the comparison of the Mac Pro with the Z8, Apple was very specific with entry model and the $6K pricing. Most of the time, a Z8 will be more expensive because the use of more expensive processors. IMO, it wasn't the right comparison. The entry model of the Mac Pro is more in line with the Z6 with a similar configuration. But as a whole, it's a little more difficult to make a comparison, since the Mac Pro has something from the Z6 and something from the Z8.
Your are right about the Z4 and the Xeon W-2100. But like I posted before, I did a similar configuration with the Z6, with a current 8-core Xeon W-3223, and it went for $4850 including the 3-yr onsite warranty. Again, we have to wait for the final price for the new HP model. But as today, HP has a better cost if we compare to the base Mac Pro model.
Regarding the Z8, I agree is a different line from the Mac Pro. That's reason it made no sense for me for Apple to make that comparison in their keynote. The Z8 is in a different league. And there are cases where more cores have it's benefits over just single core performance. For example, Dreamworks architect their applications to run in 36-cores.
I know this kind of environment is not common. But although is a small customer base that need this kind of configuration, it exist and a Xeon Scalable may be a better option than the Xeon W. At the same, I'm not sure how long 2-CPU workstations will exist, considering that the Xeon-W3200 goes up to 28-cores and AMD Epyc 7002 is up to 56-cores. It's crazy!
Edit: I missed that HP already have the Z6 with the Xeon W-3200 processors. So it looks like HP has a lower cost with the same specs.
Keep on pricing to the same exact configuration as possible. It really doesn’t lower cost. It’ll get close enough such that it going down to what the buyer values and intangibles, and there is basically really no price differentiator.
I priced out $5600:
Windows 10 Pro 64 - HP recommends Windows 10 Pro
HP Z6 G4 Workstation
Intel® Xeon® W-3225 Processor (3.7 GHz, up to 4.3 GHz w/Boost, 16.5 MB cache, 2666 MHz, 8 core, 160W)
Differences with the Mac Pro at 6k: Mac Pro has 12 DIMM slots, Z6 has 6 DIMM slots per socket (only uses 3 memory channels per socket?) Mac Pro has 4 TB3 ports, HP Z6 has 2 Mac Pro does not have optical drive, HP Z6 has an optical drive, plus another external bay Mac Pro has 8 total slots: 7 full length PCIe x16 slots, 1 half length PCIe x4 slot, HP Z6 has 6 total slots: 2 x16, 2 x8, 2 x4 (I think)
Anyways, and more importantly, we really shouldn’t be trying to differentiate $1000 here. Whoever IT is trying to eek out lower cost on this type of hardware should be fired as they are trying to save pennies while they have gigantic other costs. The cost of the software that run on these machines could be 2x to 3x, and possibly 10x the cost of the hardware including the hyper expensive add on cards.
I agree with your post. My point is that, and I think where all this conversation started, is that the price of the specs for the entry model of that Mac Pro is a little high compared to a similar device with same specs from other vendor, like HP. It's clear that the Mac Pro is a well designed device, as well as I can said of every workstation from HP, Dell and Lenovo. The issue is that with the Mac Pro I need to spend $6K if I need a device with internal expansion and better thermals than the iMac Pro or the Mac Mini. With HP, Dell and Lenovo I have more flexibility and can configure a device that matches my needs at a lower cost. I think that Apple should do a Mac Pro that covers the $2K - $5k gap.
The issue is that with the Mac Pro I need to spend $6K if I need a device with internal expansion and better thermals than the iMac Pro or the Mac Mini. With HP, Dell and Lenovo I have more flexibility and can configure a device that matches my needs at a lower cost. I think that Apple should do a Mac Pro that covers the $2K - $5k gap.
Well, yeah. It’s a complaint that’s been going for 20 years now, ever since 1999. This conversion pops up on continuous basis, and nothing has changed.
Apple can cut 5 inches off the depth of the Mac Pro, so all the PCIe slots are half length, remove 8 DIMM slots, remove a PCIe slot, cut the power down to 700 W, use Xeon W 2200 chips, and call it a Mac Half Pro for $3k, it’ll shut up half the complainers. Remove 2 slots out of the Half Pro, use Core processors, and call it a Mac Quarter Pro for $1.5k, it should take care of the rest of the complainers. But, Apple is offering iMacs and Mac mini’s instead. Hoping they realize they can offer multiple product lines in the same category. Oh well.
Hoping OWC makes a TB3 drive box and eGPU box with the exact same footprint as a Mac mini so I can stack them on top of a Mac mini to replace my 2013 iMac. Unless the iMac redesign is great...
Hoping OWC makes a TB3 drive box and eGPU box with the exact same footprint as a Mac mini so I can stack them on top of a Mac mini to replace my 2013 iMac. Unless the iMac redesign is great...
I keep thinking about this too. Make a matching box similar to (but larger than) the miniStack hard drive enclosure they offer. Use two TB3 ports and offer a PCIe slot (or two?) and storage bays for m2 or even SATA3 for bulk storage. Even if it's a bit deeper it could look pretty seamless and slick and would come pretty close to a lot of users' needs in that realm.
My 27" iMac 2011 is a great machine but lacks USB3 and is stuck with a HDD and a weak GPU, plus quickly overheats in summer because of bad ventilation and I suspect dust build up inside the too small case. If I had bought a PC I could have fixed all of those.
If you cared, it's actually not very difficult to take the front off that 2011 iMac and add in an SSD. I've done it half a dozen times at least and it takes maybe 45 minutes. While you're in there bring a can of compressed air. You'll breathe a LOT of new life into that Mac by doing so.
Haha, love seeing to stupid comments from the anti-Apple brigade.
So, just Color me 'brainwashed' I'm getting one. I see it as a great design, priced correctly (try comparing a high-end gaming machine from the PC world) and my only comment is Apple could make a prosumer version at half the price with half the power and sell them like hotcakes to well ... prosumers.
Hard for you to not seem 'brainwashed' when you are comparing the high priced, low spec, entry 2019 Mac Pro to a high spec gaming PC at the same price.
There is no doubt that IF you tank up (at huge expense) the 2019 Mac Pro it is a beast of a machine, but how that will grow the consumer base of Mac users is a mystery. Most will never get any closer to one than the display model in the Apple Store. Mac sales are shrinking for a reason. Too expensive, too hot, too slow. Unrepairable and unupgradeable by the user and left to stagnate after the predictable big splash launch.
Risky money for the typical buyer who is not chancing it on the only models that Apple will sell them.
We are hearing exactly the same gushing echo of Apple marketing, as when the 2013 Mac Pro was launched, despite its glaringly obvious design flaws. That Apple still manages to find customers for that indulgent desk ornament speaks volumes of just how "discerning" some of its consumers are.
I hope Apple is turning a corner and is going to finally offer the customer what they want, but decades long experience tells me that is just wishful thinking. Maybe Apple will surprise me, but with 99% certainty probably not. The pudgy, overpaid, out-of touch Cupertino Princelings making all the decisions, in their aptly circular inward looking HQ, think their gold Apple Watches are where its at, and are not going to let anyone else at the tiller. Especially younger blood that could shake up the place.
You’re making the same mistake that some others here are making. A gamer machine, is not the same as a workstation. Once you figure that out, come back.
I'm not making that mistake at all. A "gaming PC" is short hand for a computer with a more powerful GPU, better CPU, tuned for speed and bangs for bucks. Something that suits Prosumers/professionals as opposed to over the top engineering/video workstations.
So a "gaming PC" would choose a non-Xeon processor like the Intel i7 or i9 or Ryzen 3700/3900 paired with the best GPU that makes sense, which give the same or better performance than the entry Mac Pro 2019 (which is not all that powerful) at a fraction of the price and with much greater compatibility with common hardware components.
Not to ignore that gaming is a very popular pastime. Not my cup of tea, but most buyers want their PC to do more than just work. My son uses his Mac for work but rates it useless for gaming, so he had to buy a separate PC just for that. Two computers instead of one all rounder.
A gaming computer is just, something for games. Are you using FCP in any kind of heavy work? Then you need a speed boost if you’re using Apple pro compressed format, as many do. Well, Apple has an accelerator card specifically for that, with a slot specifically designed to best integrate that card. Do you need to put your entire job into RAM, for higher speed, well, you can do that. Are you prepared to spend the $100,000 for that RAM. Do you need all the Thunderbolt ports, plus the ones that come with each cage for the video cards? Well, if you do, you can, with this. How about you gaming machine? Does it do all of that, p,use much more? No? Gee, I’m not surprised, because it’s a GAMING machine.
Your are right about the Z4 and the Xeon W-2100. But like I posted before, I did a similar configuration with the Z6, with a current 8-core Xeon W-3223, and it went for $4850 including the 3-yr onsite warranty. Again, we have to wait for the final price for the new HP model. But as today, HP has a better cost if we compare to the base Mac Pro model.
Regarding the Z8, I agree is a different line from the Mac Pro. That's reason it made no sense for me for Apple to make that comparison in their keynote. The Z8 is in a different league. And there are cases where more cores have it's benefits over just single core performance. For example, Dreamworks architect their applications to run in 36-cores.
I know this kind of environment is not common. But although is a small customer base that need this kind of configuration, it exist and a Xeon Scalable may be a better option than the Xeon W. At the same, I'm not sure how long 2-CPU workstations will exist, considering that the Xeon-W3200 goes up to 28-cores and AMD Epyc 7002 is up to 56-cores. It's crazy!
Edit: I missed that HP already have the Z6 with the Xeon W-3200 processors. So it looks like HP has a lower cost with the same specs.
Keep on pricing to the same exact configuration as possible. It really doesn’t lower cost. It’ll get close enough such that it going down to what the buyer values and intangibles, and there is basically really no price differentiator.
I priced out $5600:
Windows 10 Pro 64 - HP recommends Windows 10 Pro
HP Z6 G4 Workstation
Intel® Xeon® W-3225 Processor (3.7 GHz, up to 4.3 GHz w/Boost, 16.5 MB cache, 2666 MHz, 8 core, 160W)
Differences with the Mac Pro at 6k: Mac Pro has 12 DIMM slots, Z6 has 6 DIMM slots per socket (only uses 3 memory channels per socket?) Mac Pro has 4 TB3 ports, HP Z6 has 2 Mac Pro does not have optical drive, HP Z6 has an optical drive, plus another external bay Mac Pro has 8 total slots: 7 full length PCIe x16 slots, 1 half length PCIe x4 slot, HP Z6 has 6 total slots: 2 x16, 2 x8, 2 x4 (I think)
Anyways, and more importantly, we really shouldn’t be trying to differentiate $1000 here. Whoever IT is trying to eek out lower cost on this type of hardware should be fired as they are trying to save pennies while they have gigantic other costs. The cost of the software that run on these machines could be 2x to 3x, and possibly 10x the cost of the hardware including the hyper expensive add on cards.
I agree with your post. My point is that, and I think where all this conversation started, is that the price of the specs for the entry model of that Mac Pro is a little high compared to a similar device with same specs from other vendor, like HP. It's clear that the Mac Pro is a well designed device, as well as I can said of every workstation from HP, Dell and Lenovo. The issue is that with the Mac Pro I need to spend $6K if I need a device with internal expansion and better thermals than the iMac Pro or the Mac Mini. With HP, Dell and Lenovo I have more flexibility and can configure a device that matches my needs at a lower cost. I think that Apple should do a Mac Pro that covers the $2K - $5k gap.
There several problems with what you’ve posted. You say similar device with the same specs, but that not really the case; it’s not the same specs. The HP Z6 supports a maximum of 384GB. That’s why Apple used the Z8 for comparison, though the Z6/Z8 do support dual CPU. (Apple obviously decided dual CPU was too niche.)
Second, Apple has a small addressable market with the Mac Pro. Laptops are 80% of Mac demand. That leaves 20% split between Mac mini, iMac, iMac Pro and Mac Pro. iMac is at least 10 and likely closer to 15 of that 20%. That means mini, iMac Pro and Mac Pro between them comprise two million units a year. The market for Mac Pro is small, and Apple isn’t going to split a niche product that going to sell maybe 500,000 units into two or three sub-niches by making any cut-down versions of a Mac Pro.
The Mac Pro is for those who need a powerful, expandable Mac for business purposes. Anyone who uses a Mac Pro to generate income can afford it, and arguing users could save a few grand in cases where an 8 PCIe/12 DIMM is overkill is not particularly relevant to the target market. Sure, Apple could save a few hundred bucks on BOM cost making a 3 PCIe/6 DIMM version with a smaller case and power supply. But that’s not nearly enough to allow them to drop the selling price by any meaningful amount.
But the biggest problem with comparisons to HP, Dell and Lenovo workstations is that none of them are viable options to those who need a Mac Pro. Those machines can’t run MacOS so they aren’t an alternative at all. Your hardware comparison ignores that, just as it ignores the cost of MacOS (and future updates) that’s bundled into that $6k base price.
Your are right about the Z4 and the Xeon W-2100. But like I posted before, I did a similar configuration with the Z6, with a current 8-core Xeon W-3223, and it went for $4850 including the 3-yr onsite warranty. Again, we have to wait for the final price for the new HP model. But as today, HP has a better cost if we compare to the base Mac Pro model.
Regarding the Z8, I agree is a different line from the Mac Pro. That's reason it made no sense for me for Apple to make that comparison in their keynote. The Z8 is in a different league. And there are cases where more cores have it's benefits over just single core performance. For example, Dreamworks architect their applications to run in 36-cores.
I know this kind of environment is not common. But although is a small customer base that need this kind of configuration, it exist and a Xeon Scalable may be a better option than the Xeon W. At the same, I'm not sure how long 2-CPU workstations will exist, considering that the Xeon-W3200 goes up to 28-cores and AMD Epyc 7002 is up to 56-cores. It's crazy!
Edit: I missed that HP already have the Z6 with the Xeon W-3200 processors. So it looks like HP has a lower cost with the same specs.
Keep on pricing to the same exact configuration as possible. It really doesn’t lower cost. It’ll get close enough such that it going down to what the buyer values and intangibles, and there is basically really no price differentiator.
I priced out $5600:
Windows 10 Pro 64 - HP recommends Windows 10 Pro
HP Z6 G4 Workstation
Intel® Xeon® W-3225 Processor (3.7 GHz, up to 4.3 GHz w/Boost, 16.5 MB cache, 2666 MHz, 8 core, 160W)
Differences with the Mac Pro at 6k: Mac Pro has 12 DIMM slots, Z6 has 6 DIMM slots per socket (only uses 3 memory channels per socket?) Mac Pro has 4 TB3 ports, HP Z6 has 2 Mac Pro does not have optical drive, HP Z6 has an optical drive, plus another external bay Mac Pro has 8 total slots: 7 full length PCIe x16 slots, 1 half length PCIe x4 slot, HP Z6 has 6 total slots: 2 x16, 2 x8, 2 x4 (I think)
Anyways, and more importantly, we really shouldn’t be trying to differentiate $1000 here. Whoever IT is trying to eek out lower cost on this type of hardware should be fired as they are trying to save pennies while they have gigantic other costs. The cost of the software that run on these machines could be 2x to 3x, and possibly 10x the cost of the hardware including the hyper expensive add on cards.
I agree with your post. My point is that, and I think where all this conversation started, is that the price of the specs for the entry model of that Mac Pro is a little high compared to a similar device with same specs from other vendor, like HP. It's clear that the Mac Pro is a well designed device, as well as I can said of every workstation from HP, Dell and Lenovo. The issue is that with the Mac Pro I need to spend $6K if I need a device with internal expansion and better thermals than the iMac Pro or the Mac Mini. With HP, Dell and Lenovo I have more flexibility and can configure a device that matches my needs at a lower cost. I think that Apple should do a Mac Pro that covers the $2K - $5k gap.
There several problems with what you’ve posted. You say similar device with the same specs, but that not really the case; it’s not the same specs. The HP Z6 supports a maximum of 384GB. That’s why Apple used the Z8 for comparison, though the Z6/Z8 do support dual CPU. (Apple obviously decided dual CPU was too niche.)
Second, Apple has a small addressable market with the Mac Pro. Laptops are 80% of Mac demand. That leaves 20% split between Mac mini, iMac, iMac Pro and Mac Pro. iMac is at least 10 and likely closer to 15 of that 20%. That means mini, iMac Pro and Mac Pro between them comprise two million units a year. The market for Mac Pro is small, and Apple isn’t going to split a niche product that going to sell maybe 500,000 units into two or three sub-niches by making any cut-down versions of a Mac Pro.
The Mac Pro is for those who need a powerful, expandable Mac for business purposes. Anyone who uses a Mac Pro to generate income can afford it, and arguing users could save a few grand in cases where an 8 PCIe/12 DIMM is overkill is not particularly relevant to the target market. Sure, Apple could save a few hundred bucks on BOM cost making a 3 PCIe/6 DIMM version with a smaller case and power supply. But that’s not nearly enough to allow them to drop the selling price by any meaningful amount.
But the biggest problem with comparisons to HP, Dell and Lenovo workstations is that none of them are viable options to those who need a Mac Pro. Those machines can’t run MacOS so they aren’t an alternative at all. Your hardware comparison ignores that, just as it ignores the cost of MacOS (and future updates) that’s bundled into that $6k base price.
It's the future MP hardware potential from independent companies (e.g. Pegasus RAID) that causes one inquietude. The future may be bright for the MP for decades to come.
Comments
I priced out $5600:
Mac Pro has 12 DIMM slots, Z6 has 6 DIMM slots per socket (only uses 3 memory channels per socket?)
Mac Pro has 4 TB3 ports, HP Z6 has 2
Mac Pro does not have optical drive, HP Z6 has an optical drive, plus another external bay
Mac Pro has 8 total slots: 7 full length PCIe x16 slots, 1 half length PCIe x4 slot, HP Z6 has 6 total slots: 2 x16, 2 x8, 2 x4 (I think)
http://www8.hp.com/h20195/v2/GetDocument.aspx?docname=c05527761
http://www8.hp.com/h20195/v2/GetPDF.aspx/c04400040.pdf
On the comparison of the Mac Pro with the Z8, Apple was very specific with entry model and the $6K pricing. Most of the time, a Z8 will be more expensive because the use of more expensive processors. IMO, it wasn't the right comparison. The entry model of the Mac Pro is more in line with the Z6 with a similar configuration. But as a whole, it's a little more difficult to make a comparison, since the Mac Pro has something from the Z6 and something from the Z8.
Apple can cut 5 inches off the depth of the Mac Pro, so all the PCIe slots are half length, remove 8 DIMM slots, remove a PCIe slot, cut the power down to 700 W, use Xeon W 2200 chips, and call it a Mac Half Pro for $3k, it’ll shut up half the complainers. Remove 2 slots out of the Half Pro, use Core processors, and call it a Mac Quarter Pro for $1.5k, it should take care of the rest of the complainers. But, Apple is offering iMacs and Mac mini’s instead. Hoping they realize they can offer multiple product lines in the same category. Oh well.
Second, Apple has a small addressable market with the Mac Pro. Laptops are 80% of Mac demand. That leaves 20% split between Mac mini, iMac, iMac Pro and Mac Pro. iMac is at least 10 and likely closer to 15 of that 20%. That means mini, iMac Pro and Mac Pro between them comprise two million units a year. The market for Mac Pro is small, and Apple isn’t going to split a niche product that going to sell maybe 500,000 units into two or three sub-niches by making any cut-down versions of a Mac Pro.
The Mac Pro is for those who need a powerful, expandable Mac for business purposes. Anyone who uses a Mac Pro to generate income can afford it, and arguing users could save a few grand in cases where an 8 PCIe/12 DIMM is overkill is not particularly relevant to the target market. Sure, Apple could save a few hundred bucks on BOM cost making a 3 PCIe/6 DIMM version with a smaller case and power supply. But that’s not nearly enough to allow them to drop the selling price by any meaningful amount.