No, Apple's new Mac Pro isn't overpriced

167891012»

Comments

  • Reply 221 of 234
    Given that the Mac Pro has just now shipped, there is perhaps not yet the equivalent of a Honda Civic that profits, but there will be at some point.
    You have a good heart.
  • Reply 222 of 234

    gbdoc said:

    With all due respect to the authors, I don’t understand the need for articles like this, explaining/defending the price of the Mac Pro. Sure, it’s interesting to see what’s in it and what it can do. But the price issue is pointless. Is a Rolls-Royce or a Lamborghini worth the price? Or, perhaps more to the point, a Formula One car? If you have that kind of need and that kind of money, the answer’s clearly yes, the Mac Pro is probably great for that group of users. But that group is miniscule. For everybody else this is no more than a showcase machine, like Mercedes F1 cars. If Mercedes cars win, the company probably sells more of their normal cars.

    And here’s the hitch. Apple’s made this Mac Pro, but where are products for the rest of us? Most computer users are in the Chevy, Honda, or Mercedes group. I bet there’s not even one appleinsider or MacRumors reader who needs the Mac Pro. We’d love to buy great Macs (computers, not iPads!), from entry-level up to our kind of pros. But Apple has stopped making them. What they make is disappointing and overpriced.

    So this begs the question: why did Apple make a come-on machine (which probably adds nothing meaningful to their bottom line) when they offer nothing to come on to? Will their next Pro machine be a Mac Quantum? And when they do, will there be arguments about the price? Will they think that most of us will be thrilled?

    If everybody understands what you do about where the machine fits, what it is, and what it is not, then there wouldn't have been a need to do so. But, like you've read in the thread, and have discussed in your own post, there is a strange conflation in discussions about it with Apple not making what they want, and the price of this machine.

    The two are different topics.
    What's so wrong with wanting Apple to sell a version of this Mac Pro that comes with much lower spec internals? The machine is modular and meant to be upgraded, yet they started it so far out of range of the majority of professionals, for no other reason than to avoid cannibalizing their own lower priced Pro products.

    What is inherently good about a modular system in the first place? It can be upgraded. Why is upgrading good? Because it is cheaper than buying a new machine. Cheaper options that let people get more out of a machine for longer are more appreciated by people with less money.

    There is something that does not compute about a modular, upgradable system...that starts at $6K. This machine should start at $2400, and be equipped with Mac Mini internals. Pros can buy it as is, and upgrade components one at a time over several years to build up to a $6K system. That's what this is all about.

    This also, by the way, doesn't stop them from offering the exactly same $6K model to the exact same people that they already do.

    When Steve Jobs came back to Apple and introduced the first iMac, it was promoted as the ultimate consumer desktop => easy to set up and easy to use and the Mac Pro at that time was for Pros who needed performance & flexibility.  I could be wrong but it feels like Apple is going back to that lineup for desktop Macs; iMac for consumers / prosumers and Mac Pro for the pros that need that capability.  That's why I don't think the iMac Pro is long for this world & wouldn't be surprised if it gets cancelled and Apple goes back to iMac / Mac Mini / Mac Pro
    The first Mac Pro came out 8 years after the iMac. 
    Even so, the general idea of iMac for consumer / Mac Pro for pros still stands.
    Sure, but not sure what you mean by "going back to that lineup" considering there's always been a consumer and pro/prosumer breakdown in their lineup, despite the pause in new models between the Mac Pro designs.
  • Reply 223 of 234
    To me right now, the question of cost/benefit is esoteric. I couldn't justify spending $5000.00 on a Windows (or any other OS) system over the last 10 years. I don't do anything with a computer that a $2000 one (or less) isn't powerful enough to do. I'm interested in the technology, and curious if it really is useful for people in the high end of video and SFX and graphic arts, but whatever the answer is I'm not going to be buying one. So $52,000 or $26,000 or $104,000 are all pretty much the same to me. I wouldn't have a reason to pay that much no matter whose computer it is or what it can do. 
    pscooter63ZDigital2019
  • Reply 224 of 234
    jmulchino said:

    lkrupp said:
    There is absolutely no need to explain the price of the Mac Pro to anyone. The market it was built for knows full well the value of the machine. As usual the tech media is hell bent on spinning this as another example of Apple’s “overpriced” hardware. There’s already a video on YouTube by some complete dimwit claiming the Hackintosh he built outperforms the Mac Pro for a quarter of the price. Stupid is as stupid does. The complaints here in AI are from sub-Pro hobbyists and so-called Prosumers who thought they would get a tower with slots starting at $1999.00.
    I feel like your third sentence explains why we did this piece.
    lkrupp said:
    There is absolutely no need to explain the price of the Mac Pro to anyone. The market it was built for knows full well the value of the machine. As usual the tech media is hell bent on spinning this as another example of Apple’s “overpriced” hardware. There’s already a video on YouTube by some complete dimwit claiming the Hackintosh he built outperforms the Mac Pro for a quarter of the price. Stupid is as stupid does. The complaints here in AI are from sub-Pro hobbyists and so-called Prosumers who thought they would get a tower with slots starting at $1999.00.
    I feel like your third sentence explains why we did this piece.
    With all due respect, I disagree. AI has presented the new Mac Pro, however in nuanced terms, as an article for consumers and not a workstation for professionals. Two examples: AI posted an article about where to get and how to install third party RAM on the Mac Pro to avoid paying Apple for outrageous RAM prices. Why would a pro do that? As a consumer I would easily consider that. But not a pro working for an agency. And two. You are quick to rationalize for Apple re: the $500 wheels by listing Windows operating system as a similar $500 add on. You know that’s not the same thing. 
    My point being is that by diving into the nuts and bolts of the new Mac Pro you are treating it like a consumer product when I would guess 99% of your readers will not purchase it. You reap what you sew. 
    You mean that AI treated this as a consumer device with lines like, "The Mac Pro is absolutely a "Pro" machine. It is also absolutely not for everybody, and absolutely not aimed at the same markets that the lower-end of the G4 towers or lower-end Mac Pro towers were. Comparing prosumer hardware like the low-end G4 or lower-end Mac Pro with a workstation is a strange comparison to make, but it's being made anyway"? The very fact that this device starts out at $6000 pretty much demonstrates that this device isn't aimed at people like me and 99% of the people on here.

    Posting articles about where you can get 3rd party RAM doesn't in anyway make this sound like a consumer device or even a prosumer device for most people in that market.I have no intentions of ever buying a machine like this because it's not aimed at me, but that doesn't mean I'm not interested in reading about this or for that matter where you can find the RAM for it.
    fastasleepchia
  • Reply 225 of 234
    Mike WuertheleMike Wuerthele Posts: 6,316administrator
    Hello new users! Actually read the article and our commenting guidelines before posting.

    If your post has nothing to do with the topic, it will not remain.


  • Reply 226 of 234
    DuhSesameDuhSesame Posts: 1,127member
    Hello new users! Actually read the article and our commenting guidelines before posting.

    If your post has nothing to do with the topic, it will not remain.


    Mike,

    what do you think about this video?


    I think he’s somewhat misleading, especially about the RAM and the processor.

    2TiB of RAM won’t be able to fully utilize all six channels of RAM, nor does a cheaper processor will support that much of it.  The 3275M does lists as $7,500, yet he’s still saying “you can pay much less for that”.
    edited January 2020
  • Reply 227 of 234
    This is so frustrating and would appreciate input from someone more knowledgeable than me. I'm a long-time Mac user who's productivity and enjoyment of work has depended so much on this system for over 15 years. Now it's time for me to upgrade my workstation and I hate the iMac or iMac Pro form factor and lack of upgradeability. I work on a wide variety of projects for my employer; everything from video editing and 3D animation to programming, and since money is not too much of a concern for me right now I'm seriously considering a Mac Pro with the following configuration:

    3.2GHz 16‑core Intel Xeon W processor
    32GB (4x8GB) of DDR4 ECC memory
    Radeon Pro Vega II with 32GB of HBM2 memory
    1TB SSD storage

    I would then upgrade the RAM and storage myself.

    I'm willing to pay for this for two reasons: future upgradeability as my needs grow and staying on macOS.

    Everyone here has made excellent points on both side of the argument and I've put serious consideration into a custom build with AMD Threadripper 3970X and NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2080 Ti. I found this great website that allows me to configure what I want myself: https://www.extreme-pc.ca/customize.asp?productid=381793

    I can't decide on what to do and the more research I do the deeper I go into this rabbit hole with no end in sight. My biggest concern with the Mac Pro is the Xeon W. From what I've read, the Threadripper blows it out of the water.

    Any guidance from any of you smarter folks on my dilemma would be appreciated.
  • Reply 228 of 234
    jdb8167jdb8167 Posts: 621member
    Figueroa said:
    This is so frustrating and would appreciate input from someone more knowledgeable than me. I'm a long-time Mac user who's productivity and enjoyment of work has depended so much on this system for over 15 years. Now it's time for me to upgrade my workstation and I hate the iMac or iMac Pro form factor and lack of upgradeability. I work on a wide variety of projects for my employer; everything from video editing and 3D animation to programming, and since money is not too much of a concern for me right now I'm seriously considering a Mac Pro with the following configuration:

    3.2GHz 16‑core Intel Xeon W processor
    32GB (4x8GB) of DDR4 ECC memory
    Radeon Pro Vega II with 32GB of HBM2 memory
    1TB SSD storage

    I would then upgrade the RAM and storage myself.

    I'm willing to pay for this for two reasons: future upgradeability as my needs grow and staying on macOS.

    Everyone here has made excellent points on both side of the argument and I've put serious consideration into a custom build with AMD Threadripper 3970X and NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2080 Ti. I found this great website that allows me to configure what I want myself: https://www.extreme-pc.ca/customize.asp?productid=381793

    I can't decide on what to do and the more research I do the deeper I go into this rabbit hole with no end in sight. My biggest concern with the Mac Pro is the Xeon W. From what I've read, the Threadripper blows it out of the water.

    Any guidance from any of you smarter folks on my dilemma would be appreciated.
    It depends on what you do with your workstation. If you are busy and making significant money for most of your work-week, the last thing you want is to spend time and potentially money maintaining your computer. A 16-core XEON is going to destroy most workflows. The Threadripper might be cheaper for the amount of compute power but it isn’t likely to be enough faster to get you through your work much faster. If you value MacOS then a Threadripper is not enough of an incentive to make a switch to Windows or Linux. If your time is valuable, a hackintosh shouldn’t even be a consideration. 

    A Xeon is not all about CPU performance. It is also designed for high memory and IO throughput. You should consider more than what a simple CPU benchmark will give you. Only you can evaluate your particular needs but more information on what software packages you use with your workstation would help others to give advice. 
    edited January 2020 fastasleepFigueroacgWerks
  • Reply 229 of 234
    jdb8167 said:
    Figueroa said:
    This is so frustrating and would appreciate input from someone more knowledgeable than me. I'm a long-time Mac user who's productivity and enjoyment of work has depended so much on this system for over 15 years. Now it's time for me to upgrade my workstation and I hate the iMac or iMac Pro form factor and lack of upgradeability. I work on a wide variety of projects for my employer; everything from video editing and 3D animation to programming, and since money is not too much of a concern for me right now I'm seriously considering a Mac Pro with the following configuration:

    3.2GHz 16‑core Intel Xeon W processor
    32GB (4x8GB) of DDR4 ECC memory
    Radeon Pro Vega II with 32GB of HBM2 memory
    1TB SSD storage

    I would then upgrade the RAM and storage myself.

    I'm willing to pay for this for two reasons: future upgradeability as my needs grow and staying on macOS.

    Everyone here has made excellent points on both side of the argument and I've put serious consideration into a custom build with AMD Threadripper 3970X and NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2080 Ti. I found this great website that allows me to configure what I want myself: https://www.extreme-pc.ca/customize.asp?productid=381793

    I can't decide on what to do and the more research I do the deeper I go into this rabbit hole with no end in sight. My biggest concern with the Mac Pro is the Xeon W. From what I've read, the Threadripper blows it out of the water.

    Any guidance from any of you smarter folks on my dilemma would be appreciated.
    It depends on what you do with your workstation. If you are busy and making significant money for most of your work-week, the last thing you want is to spend time and potentially money maintaining your computer. A 16-core XEON is going to destroy most workflows. The Threadripper might be cheaper for the amount of compute power but it isn’t likely to be enough faster to get you through your work much faster. If you value MacOS then a Threadripper is not enough of an incentive to make a switch to Windows or Linux. If your time is valuable, a hackintosh shouldn’t even be a consideration. 

    A Xeon is not all about CPU performance. It is also designed for high memory and IO throughput. You should consider more than what a simple CPU benchmark will give you. Only you can evaluate your particular needs but more information on what software packages you use with your workstation would help others to give advice. 
    Thank you for your reply. That's a reasonable perspective regarding the Xeon and value of time.

    For reference, I use Final Cut Pro for 4K and 8K video editing (looking into Davinci Resolve), Maya for architectural modelling (I offload rendering to my RenderPro 2 I bought from Boxx), recently I've started working on a 2D animation project using Character Animator, Photoshop, and Illustrator, using very large, multi-layered assets for 4K output. I often have several of these applications open at the same time across three 4K displays. My old Mac Pro struggles.
    cgWerks
  • Reply 230 of 234
    digitoldigitol Posts: 246member
    Yes. Yes it is. 
    Figueroa
  • Reply 231 of 234
    fastasleepfastasleep Posts: 5,836member
    Figueroa said:
    jdb8167 said:
    Figueroa said:
    This is so frustrating and would appreciate input from someone more knowledgeable than me. I'm a long-time Mac user who's productivity and enjoyment of work has depended so much on this system for over 15 years. Now it's time for me to upgrade my workstation and I hate the iMac or iMac Pro form factor and lack of upgradeability. I work on a wide variety of projects for my employer; everything from video editing and 3D animation to programming, and since money is not too much of a concern for me right now I'm seriously considering a Mac Pro with the following configuration:

    3.2GHz 16‑core Intel Xeon W processor
    32GB (4x8GB) of DDR4 ECC memory
    Radeon Pro Vega II with 32GB of HBM2 memory
    1TB SSD storage

    I would then upgrade the RAM and storage myself.

    I'm willing to pay for this for two reasons: future upgradeability as my needs grow and staying on macOS.

    Everyone here has made excellent points on both side of the argument and I've put serious consideration into a custom build with AMD Threadripper 3970X and NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2080 Ti. I found this great website that allows me to configure what I want myself: https://www.extreme-pc.ca/customize.asp?productid=381793

    I can't decide on what to do and the more research I do the deeper I go into this rabbit hole with no end in sight. My biggest concern with the Mac Pro is the Xeon W. From what I've read, the Threadripper blows it out of the water.

    Any guidance from any of you smarter folks on my dilemma would be appreciated.
    It depends on what you do with your workstation. If you are busy and making significant money for most of your work-week, the last thing you want is to spend time and potentially money maintaining your computer. A 16-core XEON is going to destroy most workflows. The Threadripper might be cheaper for the amount of compute power but it isn’t likely to be enough faster to get you through your work much faster. If you value MacOS then a Threadripper is not enough of an incentive to make a switch to Windows or Linux. If your time is valuable, a hackintosh shouldn’t even be a consideration. 

    A Xeon is not all about CPU performance. It is also designed for high memory and IO throughput. You should consider more than what a simple CPU benchmark will give you. Only you can evaluate your particular needs but more information on what software packages you use with your workstation would help others to give advice. 
    Thank you for your reply. That's a reasonable perspective regarding the Xeon and value of time.

    For reference, I use Final Cut Pro for 4K and 8K video editing (looking into Davinci Resolve), Maya for architectural modelling (I offload rendering to my RenderPro 2 I bought from Boxx), recently I've started working on a 2D animation project using Character Animator, Photoshop, and Illustrator, using very large, multi-layered assets for 4K output. I often have several of these applications open at the same time across three 4K displays. My old Mac Pro struggles.
    If that footage is ProRes, you’d also have the advantage of the Afterburner card. 
  • Reply 232 of 234
    fastasleepfastasleep Posts: 5,836member
    Figueroa said:
    jdb8167 said:
    Figueroa said:
    This is so frustrating and would appreciate input from someone more knowledgeable than me. I'm a long-time Mac user who's productivity and enjoyment of work has depended so much on this system for over 15 years. Now it's time for me to upgrade my workstation and I hate the iMac or iMac Pro form factor and lack of upgradeability. I work on a wide variety of projects for my employer; everything from video editing and 3D animation to programming, and since money is not too much of a concern for me right now I'm seriously considering a Mac Pro with the following configuration:

    3.2GHz 16‑core Intel Xeon W processor
    32GB (4x8GB) of DDR4 ECC memory
    Radeon Pro Vega II with 32GB of HBM2 memory
    1TB SSD storage

    I would then upgrade the RAM and storage myself.

    I'm willing to pay for this for two reasons: future upgradeability as my needs grow and staying on macOS.

    Everyone here has made excellent points on both side of the argument and I've put serious consideration into a custom build with AMD Threadripper 3970X and NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2080 Ti. I found this great website that allows me to configure what I want myself: https://www.extreme-pc.ca/customize.asp?productid=381793

    I can't decide on what to do and the more research I do the deeper I go into this rabbit hole with no end in sight. My biggest concern with the Mac Pro is the Xeon W. From what I've read, the Threadripper blows it out of the water.

    Any guidance from any of you smarter folks on my dilemma would be appreciated.
    It depends on what you do with your workstation. If you are busy and making significant money for most of your work-week, the last thing you want is to spend time and potentially money maintaining your computer. A 16-core XEON is going to destroy most workflows. The Threadripper might be cheaper for the amount of compute power but it isn’t likely to be enough faster to get you through your work much faster. If you value MacOS then a Threadripper is not enough of an incentive to make a switch to Windows or Linux. If your time is valuable, a hackintosh shouldn’t even be a consideration. 

    A Xeon is not all about CPU performance. It is also designed for high memory and IO throughput. You should consider more than what a simple CPU benchmark will give you. Only you can evaluate your particular needs but more information on what software packages you use with your workstation would help others to give advice. 
    Thank you for your reply. That's a reasonable perspective regarding the Xeon and value of time.

    For reference, I use Final Cut Pro for 4K and 8K video editing (looking into Davinci Resolve), Maya for architectural modelling (I offload rendering to my RenderPro 2 I bought from Boxx), recently I've started working on a 2D animation project using Character Animator, Photoshop, and Illustrator, using very large, multi-layered assets for 4K output. I often have several of these applications open at the same time across three 4K displays. My old Mac Pro struggles.
      If that footage is ProRes, you’d also have the advantage of the Afterburner card as an option. 
    Figueroa
  • Reply 233 of 234
    Figueroa said:
    jdb8167 said:
    Figueroa said:
    This is so frustrating and would appreciate input from someone more knowledgeable than me. I'm a long-time Mac user who's productivity and enjoyment of work has depended so much on this system for over 15 years. Now it's time for me to upgrade my workstation and I hate the iMac or iMac Pro form factor and lack of upgradeability. I work on a wide variety of projects for my employer; everything from video editing and 3D animation to programming, and since money is not too much of a concern for me right now I'm seriously considering a Mac Pro with the following configuration:

    3.2GHz 16‑core Intel Xeon W processor
    32GB (4x8GB) of DDR4 ECC memory
    Radeon Pro Vega II with 32GB of HBM2 memory
    1TB SSD storage

    I would then upgrade the RAM and storage myself.

    I'm willing to pay for this for two reasons: future upgradeability as my needs grow and staying on macOS.

    Everyone here has made excellent points on both side of the argument and I've put serious consideration into a custom build with AMD Threadripper 3970X and NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2080 Ti. I found this great website that allows me to configure what I want myself: https://www.extreme-pc.ca/customize.asp?productid=381793

    I can't decide on what to do and the more research I do the deeper I go into this rabbit hole with no end in sight. My biggest concern with the Mac Pro is the Xeon W. From what I've read, the Threadripper blows it out of the water.

    Any guidance from any of you smarter folks on my dilemma would be appreciated.
    It depends on what you do with your workstation. If you are busy and making significant money for most of your work-week, the last thing you want is to spend time and potentially money maintaining your computer. A 16-core XEON is going to destroy most workflows. The Threadripper might be cheaper for the amount of compute power but it isn’t likely to be enough faster to get you through your work much faster. If you value MacOS then a Threadripper is not enough of an incentive to make a switch to Windows or Linux. If your time is valuable, a hackintosh shouldn’t even be a consideration. 

    A Xeon is not all about CPU performance. It is also designed for high memory and IO throughput. You should consider more than what a simple CPU benchmark will give you. Only you can evaluate your particular needs but more information on what software packages you use with your workstation would help others to give advice. 
    Thank you for your reply. That's a reasonable perspective regarding the Xeon and value of time.

    For reference, I use Final Cut Pro for 4K and 8K video editing (looking into Davinci Resolve), Maya for architectural modelling (I offload rendering to my RenderPro 2 I bought from Boxx), recently I've started working on a 2D animation project using Character Animator, Photoshop, and Illustrator, using very large, multi-layered assets for 4K output. I often have several of these applications open at the same time across three 4K displays. My old Mac Pro struggles.
      If that footage is ProRes, you’d also have the advantage of the Afterburner card as an option. 
    Thanks for the suggestion!

    Having put some more thought into this, I wonder if 3.3GHz 12‑core Xeon would be sufficient and if Radeon Pro Vega II Duo is overkill as opposed to the single Vega II.

    I'm not concerned about money, but I don't want to throw it away either.
Sign In or Register to comment.