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

168101112

Comments

  • Reply 141 of 234
    Mike WuertheleMike Wuerthele Posts: 6,316administrator
    So if you add up the price of all the components and do enough contortions you can make the claim that the Mac Pro is not overpriced. But that is only if you accept the argument that it is somehow a workstation for professionals and should be compared on that ground. However we all know that real workstations can be configured to the needs of the professional that is using it. What if that professional NEEDS a NVIDIA GPU to do their work? What if there is no possible way to use an AMD GPU to do that work? I guess the professional will have to go buy a real workstation without an Apple logo.
    There are no contortions here favoring Apple. We used best-case pricing for the Windows workstations, and worst case for the Mac Pro. You could make the claim that we were contorting to favor Windows more, but the comparison didn't quite go in the Windows workstations favor.

    We've spoken about Nvidia at some length in the past, and aren't big fans of its absence on macOS. But, in regard to the bolded section, I am unaware of any such workflow that you HAVE to have Nvidia. What did you have in mind?

    And in regards to other configurations, it has a pile of PCI-E, two SATA-3, an internal USB, and user-accessible and standard RAM. Seems plenty configurable.
    edited December 2019 williamlondonStrangeDays
  • Reply 142 of 234
    DuhSesameDuhSesame Posts: 1,127member
    So if you add up the price of all the components and do enough contortions you can make the claim that the Mac Pro is not overpriced. But that is only if you accept the argument that it is somehow a workstation for professionals and should be compared on that ground. However we all know that real workstations can be configured to the needs of the professional that is using it. What if that professional NEEDS a NVIDIA GPU to do their work? What if there is no possible way to use an AMD GPU to do that work? I guess the professional will have to go buy a real workstation without an Apple logo.
    There are no contortions here favoring Apple. We used best-case pricing for the Windows workstations, and worst case for the Mac Pro. You could make the claim that we were contorting to favor Windows more, but the comparison didn't quite go in the Windows workstations favor.

    We've spoken about Nvidia at some length in the past, and aren't big fans of its absence on macOS. But, in regard to the bolded section, I am unaware of any such workflow that you HAVE to have Nvidia. What did you have in mind?

    And in regards to other configurations, it has a pile of PCI-E, two SATA-3, an internal USB, and user-accessible and standard RAM. Seems plenty configurable.
    I just have a discussion with a friend about the whole thing.  It seems like most who's complaining only consider their personal use case.

    The new Mac Pro is built solely for true workstation scenarios -- your company is going to purchase it, rack it, whatever -- with unmatched interior design (yes, having almost no cables, the perfect cooling channel while maintaining a near-silent operation take serious investments, that's near impossible with DIYers).

    Many of those so-called "Pros" aren't going to have tebibytes of RAM for a decade yet this system is built around that.  I doubt any of them actually bought a two CPU cheese grater and maxed out everything.  An entry Xeon 3500 back then costs only $220, compared that with 3223 @ $750.

     In fact, most desktop builders never went beyond one graphics card + a single drive, ITX motherboards with one single PCIe slot is a popular choice for many.

    They're "abandoned", and the alternative is iMacs -- then they think that expandability is so important (even if they ever use them) so they hate it.
    Well, no solutions then, Apple will never build another consumer-friendly slot machine.
    edited December 2019 StrangeDaysfastasleep
  • Reply 143 of 234
    dysamoria said:


    dysamoria said:
    rain22 said:
    It's overpriced. Let me explain...

    100% of professionals are looking for a powerful computer that they can upgrade/expand over time. 
    99.99% of professionals did not ask for this extremely expensive specific video editing computer. 
    99.99% of professionals will not buy this extremely expensive specific video editing computer. 
    Therefore - the Mac Pro is in every way overpriced for the professional market. 

    Pointing to the .02% of professionals who might want this and making an argument in their support while ignoring pretty much the entire market... that's a stretch.
    Nope.

    It is overpriced for you, and that's fine. It is not overpriced when compared to equivalent Windows Workstation machines, which is what this article is all about.
    This article is about missing the point in Apple’s PR favor. The upset isn’t about Apple selling a corporate-only monster workstation. The upset is that Apple have abandoned a significant percentage of their own customers by making a machine that is only affordable for big business.

    You’re just creating distraction by finding similar Windows workstations to compare against (while making illogical commentary about wheels vs Windows licensing, and acting like those of us angry at Apple for this aren’t also angry at Microsoft for their insane pricing: creating straw man arguments!).

    In doing that, you’re utterly ignoring the real issue: prosumers, hobbyists, small businesses, etc CAN BUY a NON-Apple machine that is scaled for their needs and their financial situation. Apple has NO SUCH PRODUCT, and has rebranded the “pro” labeling to excise their own customers (and to useless inconsistency, when seeing what else gets the “pro” word thrown on it). Apple has left people with NO OPTION but to either abandon Mac OS or build hackintoshes. THAT IS THE ISSUE.
    Also, you’ve completely missed the point of the wheels vs OS license. The wheels are a $400 optional piece of added hardware, which outrages you. The license is a $300 mandatory add-on, which doesn’t outrage you,
    What are you talking about??? YES that OS licensing price outrages me!! I said as much in other comments!! Instead of trying to find ways of talking down to me, or dismissing me as an irrelevance, maybe you should pay more attention to the content of my comments.
    So ... how else is a software company going to make money other than by charging licenses for the use of its software? Apple is a hardware company. It sees the operating system as a virtual extension or component of the hardware ... you have to buy them both or buy neither because they're a package deal. Even the services that they offer are primarily for the purpose of getting people to buy their hardware. So that business model works with Apple, Samsung, Sony etc. Microsoft is the opposite. So is Google. To the extent that those companies sell hardware at all, it is to be a "demo" for their software and services, which truthfully they could care less whose hardware you buy it on. Microsoft LIKES it when Lenovo, Huawei, HP etc. makes blatant copies of their Surface devices and sells them for 1/2 price because Microsoft knows they'll make 100% more money off their software that's on those Surface knockoffs than they will ever make on hardware anyway. The same deal with XBox. The original purpose of the DirectX Box - its original name - was to keep video game developers from abandoning the Windows platform in favor of the PlayStation (which had a real chance of happening during the peak PlayStation era). Sure they sold a few XBox 360s (original XBox and XBox One not so much) but the real purpose was to promote DirectX to developers and gamers on PCs and considering that Steam alone has 90 million active users - far more than bought the XBox One and XBox combined - and Fortnite has 85 million PC players (again much more than the original and current XBox) the strategy was a huge success, taking serious gaming on the Windows platform from endangered to thriving. And since Microsoft famously failed on mobile, it was basically why Windows gaming is still a thing for all but educational and very cheap flash-type games. 

    But folks, if you think that the Windows Pro or Server license costs a lot, you need to look at how much the software that runs on top of Windows Server does. Oracle can go from $5800 to $47000. AND THAT IS PER MACHINE! Which means that you can't pay the $47,000 and use it to deploy it on every server that you have. That is $47,000 for each server that you need to deploy Oracle on! (Which is why Oracle bought its #3 competitor, the formerly free and open source MySQL, though it was forked into a similar FOSS RDBMS.) So bashing software companies for, well, selling software is akin to the Google fans - of which I am one - ignorantly bashing Apple for not copying Google's (original but later QUIETLY abandoned but is currently still Amazon's) strategy of selling its hardware at cost in order to make money on services. If Microsoft isn't going to make money on selling Windows Pro and Server licenses, why on earth should they sell Windows Pro and Server in the first place?
    muthuk_vanalingam
  • Reply 144 of 234
    I'll throw my 2 cents in here.

    I work in massively-parallel (think: 100,000 core+ supercomputing), scientific computing.  We've purchased ~100 maxed out (~$7k) Mac Pro cylinders over the past few years for our workstation needs.

    When the new Mac Pro was announced - we knew that the configuration we would want (28 core, ~128GB of RAM) would be more expensive than the $7k we've been paying.  We estimated anywhere from $15k to $20k.  It turns out that $15k is the number.

    In the interim, we looked into switching over to Linux workstations with 32-core threadrippers.  We bought 10 machines like that for about $6k and gave them to our developers who felt like they wanted to switch to Linux.  It hasn't been pretty.  2 of the boxes have had hardware problems... and all have had significant downtime because of "Linux issues" (and these people are Linux experts... but, to this day, software upgrades on Linux STILL have a decent chance of breaking your system).

    Now the new threadrippers are coming out... and the 64-core ones will be out soon enough.  Those look _super_ enticing... but we're not going to do it.  It's simply not worth the cost in lost productivity.  It only takes losing 50 (yes, really) hours to make up the $8k difference between these machines.  That's for machines that we know we will use for at least 5 years... so, anything more than 10 hours a year of downtime would make the Linux boxes more expensive (we almost never have problems with our cylinders and I expect it to be the same for these new Mac Pros).

    Therefore: we just put in our upgrade request... we're going to (in phases over a couple of years) buy ~40 of these new boxes at $15k.  Yes, they are expensive... but for what we do they are simply the best option.

    EDIT: And... all new hires will be receiving the $15k machines as well...
    edited December 2019 philboogiewelshdogpscooter63macplusplusStrangeDayshucom2000fastasleepjdb8167maxit
  • Reply 145 of 234
    No it is not overpriced; it is way overpriced! ;)
    williamlondon
  • Reply 146 of 234
    friedmud said:
    I'll throw my 2 cents in here.

    I work in massively-parallel (think: 100,000 core+ supercomputing), scientific computing.  We've purchased ~100 maxed out (~$7k) Mac Pro cylinders over the past few years for our workstation needs.

    When the new Mac Pro was announced - we knew that the configuration we would want (28 core, ~128GB of RAM) would be more expensive than the $7k we've been paying.  We estimated anywhere from $15k to $20k.  It turns out that $15k is the number.

    In the interim, we looked into switching over to Linux workstations with 32-core threadrippers.  We bought 10 machines like that for about $6k and gave them to our developers who felt like they wanted to switch to Linux.  It hasn't been pretty.  2 of the boxes have had hardware problems... and all have had significant downtime because of "Linux issues" (and these people are Linux experts... but, to this day, software upgrades on Linux STILL have a decent chance of breaking your system).

    Now the new threadrippers are coming out... and the 64-core ones will be out soon enough.  Those look _super_ enticing... but we're not going to do it.  It's simply not worth the cost in lost productivity.  It only takes losing 50 (yes, really) hours to make up the $8k difference between these machines.  That's for machines that we know we will use for at least 5 years... so, anything more than 10 hours a year of downtime would make the Linux boxes more expensive (we almost never have problems with our cylinders and I expect it to be the same for these new Mac Pros).

    Therefore: we just put in our upgrade request... we're going to (in phases over a couple of years) buy ~40 of these new boxes at $15k.  Yes, they are expensive... but for what we do they are simply the best option.

    EDIT: And... all new hires will be receiving the $15k machines as well...
    Damn! I should apply at your place of work LOL
  • Reply 147 of 234
    MaxLe0p0ldMaxLe0p0ld Posts: 21unconfirmed, member
    On the HP Website you can BTO a Z8 Workstation with Equipment for $102.279,20 So Workstation Pricing can be much higher than Apple Prices their Unit...
    williamlondonStrangeDays
  • Reply 148 of 234

    There’s one glaring factual error in the article.
    For Windows 10 self builds, Pro for Workstations is only required for high end workstations not for midrange such as the new Mac Pro.
    W10 Pro for Workstations is needed for systems with more than 2 CPUs and over 2TB of RAM; it supports 4 CPUs and 6TB of RAM.
    For single socket systems with up to 128GB you only require W10 Home and if you need more than that W10 Pro covers you for dual sockets and 2TB.
    So for a self build you are looking at ~$100-150 for the O/S which is a small amount compared to the base price of $6,000 for the Mac Pro.
    But it’s a bigger chunk when you consider the self build cost is in the $1,200-1,500 range, but it hardly dents the price differential between the two.
    So the whole comparison between the cost of the $400 wheels and the not required W10 Pro for Workstations is bogus.
    The issue with the wheels is if you are buying an entry level spec as it’s an extra ~7% which is not great.
    Once you load up the spec the extra $400 just melts into the background.
    W10 Pro for Workstations would be seen on systems typically costing $100K+ where its $300 cost is not worthy of mention.
    It’s a matter of perspective and clearly the people that are disappointed with the Mac Pro are those that were hoping for a mid range or higher tower rather than what is on offer, a low to mid range workstation.


    muthuk_vanalingam
  • Reply 149 of 234
    flydogflydog Posts: 1,023member
    jmulchino said:
    Nice try, but it won’t work. Every article I’ve seen leads off with the price, usually highlighting the wheels, monitor or the monitor stand. The only things that might shut up those laughing will be if it sells well even at its price point and reviews and user testimonies are positive. 

    And that won’t shut up a dedicated core of people who just seem to like complaining. 
    Can’t stand comments going after others who “seem to like complaining”. The Comments section is devoted to critical comments, mostly. If you want others to agree with you 100% of the time and when they don’t, diss them for whining, it says a lot about you my friend. If you don’t like what you hear, don’t read it, but for Pete’s sake stay out of the Comments section if this is all you can add!
    The comments section is not for posting uninformed illogical rants such as grating cheese with an overpriced computer. If that sort of thing is what you like then that says a lot about you "my friend."
    edited December 2019 StrangeDays
  • Reply 150 of 234
    flydogflydog Posts: 1,023member

    ajl said:
     🤔 Is there something I'm missing at all?

    You are indeed missing something very big if to you the second article means the first article is incorrect.  

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies
    StrangeDaysfastasleepmike54OutdoorAppDeveloper
  • Reply 151 of 234
    Yes, the Mac Pro IS overpriced because they make you pay a HEFTY premium for memory and storage (sometimes 5x the price of a third party solution). So, if you want to purchase the Mac Pro, you’ll need to buy the smallest SSD and lowest memory option to then sell it again, as you replace it with a third party solution. 
    That is overhead you have to take in account - both in time and money.
    Other than that, the Mac Pro is priced correctly.
  • Reply 152 of 234
    Mike WuertheleMike Wuerthele Posts: 6,316administrator

    There’s one glaring factual error in the article.
    For Windows 10 self builds, Pro for Workstations is only required for high end workstations not for midrange such as the new Mac Pro.
    W10 Pro for Workstations is needed for systems with more than 2 CPUs and over 2TB of RAM; it supports 4 CPUs and 6TB of RAM.
    For single socket systems with up to 128GB you only require W10 Home and if you need more than that W10 Pro covers you for dual sockets and 2TB.
    So for a self build you are looking at ~$100-150 for the O/S which is a small amount compared to the base price of $6,000 for the Mac Pro.
    But it’s a bigger chunk when you consider the self build cost is in the $1,200-1,500 range, but it hardly dents the price differential between the two.
    So the whole comparison between the cost of the $400 wheels and the not required W10 Pro for Workstations is bogus.
    The issue with the wheels is if you are buying an entry level spec as it’s an extra ~7% which is not great.
    Once you load up the spec the extra $400 just melts into the background.
    W10 Pro for Workstations would be seen on systems typically costing $100K+ where its $300 cost is not worthy of mention.
    It’s a matter of perspective and clearly the people that are disappointed with the Mac Pro are those that were hoping for a mid range or higher tower rather than what is on offer, a low to mid range workstation.


    I see what you're trying to say, but the self-builds generally don't include the cost of any (mandatory) Windows but do nearly always include the (optional) wheels - which is the point. There's more to Windows Pro licensing in regards to clients' uses and workflows which I'm sure you're aware of. While you absolutely have to use it for the multi-socket configs like you mentioned, it isn't quite as cut and dried as JUST exceeding X GB of RAM and Y sockets.
    edited December 2019
  • Reply 153 of 234

    There’s one glaring factual error in the article.
    For Windows 10 self builds, Pro for Workstations is only required for high end workstations not for midrange such as the new Mac Pro.
    W10 Pro for Workstations is needed for systems with more than 2 CPUs and over 2TB of RAM; it supports 4 CPUs and 6TB of RAM.
    For single socket systems with up to 128GB you only require W10 Home and if you need more than that W10 Pro covers you for dual sockets and 2TB.
    So for a self build you are looking at ~$100-150 for the O/S which is a small amount compared to the base price of $6,000 for the Mac Pro.
    But it’s a bigger chunk when you consider the self build cost is in the $1,200-1,500 range, but it hardly dents the price differential between the two.
    So the whole comparison between the cost of the $400 wheels and the not required W10 Pro for Workstations is bogus.
    The issue with the wheels is if you are buying an entry level spec as it’s an extra ~7% which is not great.
    Once you load up the spec the extra $400 just melts into the background.
    W10 Pro for Workstations would be seen on systems typically costing $100K+ where its $300 cost is not worthy of mention.
    It’s a matter of perspective and clearly the people that are disappointed with the Mac Pro are those that were hoping for a mid range or higher tower rather than what is on offer, a low to mid range workstation.


    I see what you're trying to say, but the self-builds generally don't include the cost of any (mandatory) Windows but do nearly always include the (optional) wheels - which is the point. There's more to Windows Pro licensing in regards to clients' uses and workflows which I'm sure you're aware of. While you absolutely have to use it for the multi-socket configs like you mentioned, it isn't quite as cut and dried as JUST exceeding X GB of RAM and Y sockets.

    The wording is misleading as W10 for Workstations is a highly irregular choice for a self build.
    There are other features that it offers such as support for Optane DIMMs and some enterprise level stuff but those are extremely niche for self builds; basically enterprise server stuff.
    If you quoted for W10 Pro I think that’s fair but W10 for Workstation is just misleading.
    On the one hand you rightly want the Mac Pro quoted without the optional wheels, yet you want the Windows build quoted with a version of W10 that isn’t even stocked by my usual supplier. They are a major component and system supplier and sell a wide range of their own workstations, so that says how niche it is.
    It's a very rarely used option and shouldn't be in the base price used for a comparison.
    The irony is that you are complaining about distorted perceptions yet you are doing the same.
    May I suggest that you edit the article for accuracy so as not to tarnish what is generally a valid piece.
    Changing that doesn’t undermine the validity of the piece at all.

  • Reply 154 of 234
    Mike WuertheleMike Wuerthele Posts: 6,316administrator

    There’s one glaring factual error in the article.
    For Windows 10 self builds, Pro for Workstations is only required for high end workstations not for midrange such as the new Mac Pro.
    W10 Pro for Workstations is needed for systems with more than 2 CPUs and over 2TB of RAM; it supports 4 CPUs and 6TB of RAM.
    For single socket systems with up to 128GB you only require W10 Home and if you need more than that W10 Pro covers you for dual sockets and 2TB.
    So for a self build you are looking at ~$100-150 for the O/S which is a small amount compared to the base price of $6,000 for the Mac Pro.
    But it’s a bigger chunk when you consider the self build cost is in the $1,200-1,500 range, but it hardly dents the price differential between the two.
    So the whole comparison between the cost of the $400 wheels and the not required W10 Pro for Workstations is bogus.
    The issue with the wheels is if you are buying an entry level spec as it’s an extra ~7% which is not great.
    Once you load up the spec the extra $400 just melts into the background.
    W10 Pro for Workstations would be seen on systems typically costing $100K+ where its $300 cost is not worthy of mention.
    It’s a matter of perspective and clearly the people that are disappointed with the Mac Pro are those that were hoping for a mid range or higher tower rather than what is on offer, a low to mid range workstation.


    I see what you're trying to say, but the self-builds generally don't include the cost of any (mandatory) Windows but do nearly always include the (optional) wheels - which is the point. There's more to Windows Pro licensing in regards to clients' uses and workflows which I'm sure you're aware of. While you absolutely have to use it for the multi-socket configs like you mentioned, it isn't quite as cut and dried as JUST exceeding X GB of RAM and Y sockets.

    The wording is misleading as W10 for Workstations is a highly irregular choice for a self build.
    There are other features that it offers such as support for Optane DIMMs and some enterprise level stuff but those are extremely niche for self builds; basically enterprise server stuff.
    If you quoted for W10 Pro I think that’s fair but W10 for Workstation is just misleading.
    On the one hand you rightly want the Mac Pro quoted without the optional wheels, yet you want the Windows build quoted with a version of W10 that isn’t even stocked by my usual supplier. They are a major component and system supplier and sell a wide range of their own workstations, so that says how niche it is.
    It's a very rarely used option and shouldn't be in the base price used for a comparison.
    The irony is that you are complaining about distorted perceptions yet you are doing the same.
    May I suggest that you edit the article for accuracy so as not to tarnish what is generally a valid piece.
    Changing that doesn’t undermine the validity of the piece at all.

    Enterprise server stuff. So, environments where the Mac Pro is going to purchased for, and used. From an OS perspective, to get in that self-build what you get in macOS as far as enterprise server and Optane support, you absolutely need to get Windows Pro Windows for Workstations.

    Like I said, I appreciate where you're coming from.

    (edited because I mis-spoke)
    edited December 2019
  • Reply 155 of 234

    There’s one glaring factual error in the article.
    For Windows 10 self builds, Pro for Workstations is only required for high end workstations not for midrange such as the new Mac Pro.
    W10 Pro for Workstations is needed for systems with more than 2 CPUs and over 2TB of RAM; it supports 4 CPUs and 6TB of RAM.
    For single socket systems with up to 128GB you only require W10 Home and if you need more than that W10 Pro covers you for dual sockets and 2TB.
    So for a self build you are looking at ~$100-150 for the O/S which is a small amount compared to the base price of $6,000 for the Mac Pro.
    But it’s a bigger chunk when you consider the self build cost is in the $1,200-1,500 range, but it hardly dents the price differential between the two.
    So the whole comparison between the cost of the $400 wheels and the not required W10 Pro for Workstations is bogus.
    The issue with the wheels is if you are buying an entry level spec as it’s an extra ~7% which is not great.
    Once you load up the spec the extra $400 just melts into the background.
    W10 Pro for Workstations would be seen on systems typically costing $100K+ where its $300 cost is not worthy of mention.
    It’s a matter of perspective and clearly the people that are disappointed with the Mac Pro are those that were hoping for a mid range or higher tower rather than what is on offer, a low to mid range workstation.


    I see what you're trying to say, but the self-builds generally don't include the cost of any (mandatory) Windows but do nearly always include the (optional) wheels - which is the point. There's more to Windows Pro licensing in regards to clients' uses and workflows which I'm sure you're aware of. While you absolutely have to use it for the multi-socket configs like you mentioned, it isn't quite as cut and dried as JUST exceeding X GB of RAM and Y sockets.

    The wording is misleading as W10 for Workstations is a highly irregular choice for a self build.
    There are other features that it offers such as support for Optane DIMMs and some enterprise level stuff but those are extremely niche for self builds; basically enterprise server stuff.
    If you quoted for W10 Pro I think that’s fair but W10 for Workstation is just misleading.
    On the one hand you rightly want the Mac Pro quoted without the optional wheels, yet you want the Windows build quoted with a version of W10 that isn’t even stocked by my usual supplier. They are a major component and system supplier and sell a wide range of their own workstations, so that says how niche it is.
    It's a very rarely used option and shouldn't be in the base price used for a comparison.
    The irony is that you are complaining about distorted perceptions yet you are doing the same.
    May I suggest that you edit the article for accuracy so as not to tarnish what is generally a valid piece.
    Changing that doesn’t undermine the validity of the piece at all.

    Enterprise server stuff. So, environments where the Mac Pro is going to purchased for, and used. From an OS perspective, to get in that self-build what you get in macOS as far as enterprise server and Optane support, you absolutely need to get Windows Pro.

    Like I said, I appreciate where you're coming from.
    Windows Pro is what I suggested is appropriate so glad we finally agree and hopefully you will edit the article to show that.
  • Reply 156 of 234
    So if you add up the price of all the components and do enough contortions you can make the claim that the Mac Pro is not overpriced. But that is only if you accept the argument that it is somehow a workstation for professionals and should be compared on that ground. However we all know that real workstations can be configured to the needs of the professional that is using it. What if that professional NEEDS a NVIDIA GPU to do their work? What if there is no possible way to use an AMD GPU to do that work? I guess the professional will have to go buy a real workstation without an Apple logo.
    There are no contortions here favoring Apple. We used best-case pricing for the Windows workstations, and worst case for the Mac Pro. You could make the claim that we were contorting to favor Windows more, but the comparison didn't quite go in the Windows workstations favor.

    We've spoken about Nvidia at some length in the past, and aren't big fans of its absence on macOS. But, in regard to the bolded section, I am unaware of any such workflow that you HAVE to have Nvidia. What did you have in mind?

    And in regards to other configurations, it has a pile of PCI-E, two SATA-3, an internal USB, and user-accessible and standard RAM. Seems plenty configurable.


    Ray tracing, machine learning and CUDA. Ray tracing on RTX GPUs is about five times faster than on a similar GPU without ray tracing hardware support. RTX GPUs also perform the 16x16 matrix multiplies needed for machine learning. CUDA remains the fastest and best general purpose GPU language with robust support of C++.
    Technostica
  • Reply 157 of 234
    Mike WuertheleMike Wuerthele Posts: 6,316administrator

    There’s one glaring factual error in the article.
    For Windows 10 self builds, Pro for Workstations is only required for high end workstations not for midrange such as the new Mac Pro.
    W10 Pro for Workstations is needed for systems with more than 2 CPUs and over 2TB of RAM; it supports 4 CPUs and 6TB of RAM.
    For single socket systems with up to 128GB you only require W10 Home and if you need more than that W10 Pro covers you for dual sockets and 2TB.
    So for a self build you are looking at ~$100-150 for the O/S which is a small amount compared to the base price of $6,000 for the Mac Pro.
    But it’s a bigger chunk when you consider the self build cost is in the $1,200-1,500 range, but it hardly dents the price differential between the two.
    So the whole comparison between the cost of the $400 wheels and the not required W10 Pro for Workstations is bogus.
    The issue with the wheels is if you are buying an entry level spec as it’s an extra ~7% which is not great.
    Once you load up the spec the extra $400 just melts into the background.
    W10 Pro for Workstations would be seen on systems typically costing $100K+ where its $300 cost is not worthy of mention.
    It’s a matter of perspective and clearly the people that are disappointed with the Mac Pro are those that were hoping for a mid range or higher tower rather than what is on offer, a low to mid range workstation.


    I see what you're trying to say, but the self-builds generally don't include the cost of any (mandatory) Windows but do nearly always include the (optional) wheels - which is the point. There's more to Windows Pro licensing in regards to clients' uses and workflows which I'm sure you're aware of. While you absolutely have to use it for the multi-socket configs like you mentioned, it isn't quite as cut and dried as JUST exceeding X GB of RAM and Y sockets.

    The wording is misleading as W10 for Workstations is a highly irregular choice for a self build.
    There are other features that it offers such as support for Optane DIMMs and some enterprise level stuff but those are extremely niche for self builds; basically enterprise server stuff.
    If you quoted for W10 Pro I think that’s fair but W10 for Workstation is just misleading.
    On the one hand you rightly want the Mac Pro quoted without the optional wheels, yet you want the Windows build quoted with a version of W10 that isn’t even stocked by my usual supplier. They are a major component and system supplier and sell a wide range of their own workstations, so that says how niche it is.
    It's a very rarely used option and shouldn't be in the base price used for a comparison.
    The irony is that you are complaining about distorted perceptions yet you are doing the same.
    May I suggest that you edit the article for accuracy so as not to tarnish what is generally a valid piece.
    Changing that doesn’t undermine the validity of the piece at all.

    Enterprise server stuff. So, environments where the Mac Pro is going to purchased for, and used. From an OS perspective, to get in that self-build what you get in macOS as far as enterprise server and Optane support, you absolutely need to get Windows Pro.

    Like I said, I appreciate where you're coming from.
    Windows Pro is what I suggested is appropriate so glad we finally agree and hopefully you will edit the article to show that.
    I misspoke in my previous post, and have edited the original. Feature parity to macOS for Enterprise Server, Optane, and so forth, is in Windows for Workstations, and I apologize for typing in a hurry while on the move. 

    There will be no edit to the article.
    edited December 2019
  • Reply 158 of 234
    Mike WuertheleMike Wuerthele Posts: 6,316administrator

    So if you add up the price of all the components and do enough contortions you can make the claim that the Mac Pro is not overpriced. But that is only if you accept the argument that it is somehow a workstation for professionals and should be compared on that ground. However we all know that real workstations can be configured to the needs of the professional that is using it. What if that professional NEEDS a NVIDIA GPU to do their work? What if there is no possible way to use an AMD GPU to do that work? I guess the professional will have to go buy a real workstation without an Apple logo.
    There are no contortions here favoring Apple. We used best-case pricing for the Windows workstations, and worst case for the Mac Pro. You could make the claim that we were contorting to favor Windows more, but the comparison didn't quite go in the Windows workstations favor.

    We've spoken about Nvidia at some length in the past, and aren't big fans of its absence on macOS. But, in regard to the bolded section, I am unaware of any such workflow that you HAVE to have Nvidia. What did you have in mind?

    And in regards to other configurations, it has a pile of PCI-E, two SATA-3, an internal USB, and user-accessible and standard RAM. Seems plenty configurable.


    Ray tracing, machine learning and CUDA. Ray tracing on RTX GPUs is about five times faster than on a similar GPU without ray tracing hardware support. RTX GPUs also perform the 16x16 matrix multiplies needed for machine learning. CUDA remains the fastest and best general purpose GPU language with robust support of C++.
    I don't disagree that some ray tracing calculations are faster on Nvidia, and like I said, I'd still rather have Nvidia support. AMD differs with this assertion, but I'll wait for a practical demonstration of that.

    But, best performed on does not mean cannot be done. What I asked about "no possible way" like you asserted. I'm not trying to convince you of anything, or trying to make a point. Are there any "cannot be done" work cases on AMD?
    edited December 2019 fastasleepmaxit
  • Reply 159 of 234
    DuhSesameDuhSesame Posts: 1,127member

    So if you add up the price of all the components and do enough contortions you can make the claim that the Mac Pro is not overpriced. But that is only if you accept the argument that it is somehow a workstation for professionals and should be compared on that ground. However we all know that real workstations can be configured to the needs of the professional that is using it. What if that professional NEEDS a NVIDIA GPU to do their work? What if there is no possible way to use an AMD GPU to do that work? I guess the professional will have to go buy a real workstation without an Apple logo.
    There are no contortions here favoring Apple. We used best-case pricing for the Windows workstations, and worst case for the Mac Pro. You could make the claim that we were contorting to favor Windows more, but the comparison didn't quite go in the Windows workstations favor.

    We've spoken about Nvidia at some length in the past, and aren't big fans of its absence on macOS. But, in regard to the bolded section, I am unaware of any such workflow that you HAVE to have Nvidia. What did you have in mind?

    And in regards to other configurations, it has a pile of PCI-E, two SATA-3, an internal USB, and user-accessible and standard RAM. Seems plenty configurable.


    Ray tracing, machine learning and CUDA. Ray tracing on RTX GPUs is about five times faster than on a similar GPU without ray tracing hardware support. RTX GPUs also perform the 16x16 matrix multiplies needed for machine learning. CUDA remains the fastest and best general purpose GPU language with robust support of C++.
    I don't disagree that some ray tracing calculations are faster on Nvidia, and like I said, I'd still rather have Nvidia support. But, best performed on does not mean cannot be done. What I asked about "no possible way" like you asserted. 
    First, to take the full advantage of CUDA, you'll need to enable macOS support on NVIDIA cards--

    Yeah, I guess not, an irrelevant question to begin with...
  • Reply 160 of 234

    There’s one glaring factual error in the article.
    For Windows 10 self builds, Pro for Workstations is only required for high end workstations not for midrange such as the new Mac Pro.
    W10 Pro for Workstations is needed for systems with more than 2 CPUs and over 2TB of RAM; it supports 4 CPUs and 6TB of RAM.
    For single socket systems with up to 128GB you only require W10 Home and if you need more than that W10 Pro covers you for dual sockets and 2TB.
    So for a self build you are looking at ~$100-150 for the O/S which is a small amount compared to the base price of $6,000 for the Mac Pro.
    But it’s a bigger chunk when you consider the self build cost is in the $1,200-1,500 range, but it hardly dents the price differential between the two.
    So the whole comparison between the cost of the $400 wheels and the not required W10 Pro for Workstations is bogus.
    The issue with the wheels is if you are buying an entry level spec as it’s an extra ~7% which is not great.
    Once you load up the spec the extra $400 just melts into the background.
    W10 Pro for Workstations would be seen on systems typically costing $100K+ where its $300 cost is not worthy of mention.
    It’s a matter of perspective and clearly the people that are disappointed with the Mac Pro are those that were hoping for a mid range or higher tower rather than what is on offer, a low to mid range workstation.


    I see what you're trying to say, but the self-builds generally don't include the cost of any (mandatory) Windows but do nearly always include the (optional) wheels - which is the point. There's more to Windows Pro licensing in regards to clients' uses and workflows which I'm sure you're aware of. While you absolutely have to use it for the multi-socket configs like you mentioned, it isn't quite as cut and dried as JUST exceeding X GB of RAM and Y sockets.

    The wording is misleading as W10 for Workstations is a highly irregular choice for a self build.
    There are other features that it offers such as support for Optane DIMMs and some enterprise level stuff but those are extremely niche for self builds; basically enterprise server stuff.
    If you quoted for W10 Pro I think that’s fair but W10 for Workstation is just misleading.
    On the one hand you rightly want the Mac Pro quoted without the optional wheels, yet you want the Windows build quoted with a version of W10 that isn’t even stocked by my usual supplier. They are a major component and system supplier and sell a wide range of their own workstations, so that says how niche it is.
    It's a very rarely used option and shouldn't be in the base price used for a comparison.
    The irony is that you are complaining about distorted perceptions yet you are doing the same.
    May I suggest that you edit the article for accuracy so as not to tarnish what is generally a valid piece.
    Changing that doesn’t undermine the validity of the piece at all.

    Enterprise server stuff. So, environments where the Mac Pro is going to purchased for, and used. From an OS perspective, to get in that self-build what you get in macOS as far as enterprise server and Optane support, you absolutely need to get Windows Pro.

    Like I said, I appreciate where you're coming from.
    Windows Pro is what I suggested is appropriate so glad we finally agree and hopefully you will edit the article to show that.
    I misspoke in my previous post, and have edited the original. Feature parity to macOS for Enterprise Server, Optane, and so forth, is in Windows for Workstations, and I apologize for typing in a hurry while on the move. 

    There will be no edit to the article.
    Just great. As you were.
    edited December 2019
Sign In or Register to comment.