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

16791112

Comments

  • Reply 161 of 234
    Mike WuertheleMike Wuerthele Posts: 6,316administrator
    DuhSesame said:

    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...
    Of course, but I'm not sure where you're going with that. The CUDA calculations that I'm aware of have CPU and general GPU fall-backs.
    edited December 2019
  • Reply 162 of 234
    it's not that it is "overpriced" for what is included, the problem is what is included.

    There is absolutely nothing that prevents Apple from offering lower spec'd entry level models that people can upgrade over time, except the most heinous corporate greed known to man.
    mike54
  • Reply 163 of 234
    DuhSesameDuhSesame Posts: 1,127member
    DuhSesame said:

    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...
    Of course, but I'm not sure where you're going with that. 
    I don't know, re-establishing the relations between Apple and NVIDIA?

    I thought to have two AMD GPUs can makeup the performance disadvantages then pass the latter by a large margin.
    edited December 2019
  • Reply 164 of 234
    Mike WuertheleMike Wuerthele Posts: 6,316administrator
    DuhSesame said:
    DuhSesame said:

    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...
    Of course, but I'm not sure where you're going with that. 
    I don't know, re-establishing the relations between Apple and NVIDIA?

    I thought to have two AMD GPUs can makeup the performance disadvantages by a large margin.
    We have already spoken about this at some length. I don't disagree.

    https://appleinsider.com/articles/19/01/18/apples-management-doesnt-want-nvidia-support-in-macos-and-thats-a-bad-sign-for-the-mac-pro
  • Reply 164 of 234
    DuhSesameDuhSesame Posts: 1,127member
    it's not that it is "overpriced" for what is included, the problem is what is included.

    There is absolutely nothing that prevents Apple from offering lower spec'd entry level models that people can upgrade over time, except the most heinous corporate greed known to man.
    You might want to blame Intel as well.  How dare they to put 8-cores on a workstation.
  • Reply 166 of 234
    DuhSesameDuhSesame Posts: 1,127member
    DuhSesame said:
    DuhSesame said:

    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...
    Of course, but I'm not sure where you're going with that. 
    I don't know, re-establishing the relations between Apple and NVIDIA?

    I thought to have two AMD GPUs can makeup the performance disadvantages by a large margin.
    We have already spoken about this at some length. I don't disagree.

    https://appleinsider.com/articles/19/01/18/apples-management-doesnt-want-nvidia-support-in-macos-and-thats-a-bad-sign-for-the-mac-pro
    At least that means you don't have to worried about native Apple software -- not going to support anyway.

    I guess that four GPUs in the Mac Pro are going to be better than three NVIDIA cards, for the most benchmarks.  At least those cards were specifically designed to have a perfect airflow while maintaining silent operations.
  • Reply 167 of 234
    This machine is monument of stupidity and ignorance.
    Apple doesn't support Nvidia which is the main GPU for 3D renderers like Octane, Redshift, Corona ,etc . These renderers are standard in design and architecture today, and they are not working with Apple. We can address this issue to Apple specialists ignorance. I really don't know why would anyone besides professionals bought this machine, and professionals are massively switching from Apple to PC because of this.
    Yes, you can use this machine for video editing, illustration, photography, but why would anyone throw money when they can do that on average grandma's laptop.


  • Reply 168 of 234
    DuhSesameDuhSesame Posts: 1,127member
    This machine is monument of stupidity and ignorance.
    Apple doesn't support Nvidia which is the main GPU for 3D renderers like Octane, Redshift, Corona ,etc . These renderers are standard in design and architecture today, and they are not working with Apple. We can address this issue to Apple specialists ignorance. I really don't know why would anyone besides professionals bought this machine, and professionals are massively switching from Apple to PC because of this.
    Yes, you can use this machine for video editing, illustration, photography, but why would anyone throw money when they can do that on average grandma's laptop.


    ......

    learn about computers.
    pscooter63tht
  • Reply 169 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.

    The article makes no mention of Servers so for clarity you might want to amend it to state why you are choosing to compare pricing to a versions of Windows that most have never even heard of let alone would consider buying for a self-build desktop/workstation.
    Specifically, mention that you are choosing it because of server related features and state which ones are missing in W10 Pro compared to macOS.

    Ultimately I think this is all a wild goose chase in regards to the context I have been talking about all along which is to do with self build systems.
    When building a system you spec for what you actually need not for features that have no relevance to your workload.
    An honest lowest price would include W10 (Home) and not even Pro as that can handle the hardware that the $6K Mac Pro has.
    That’s a true starting price and not some arbitrary common ground based on features that can’t be agreed upon. Both platforms have unique features so start with the lowest common denominators.


  • Reply 170 of 234
    DuhSesameDuhSesame Posts: 1,127member

    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.

    The article makes no mention of Servers so for clarity you might want to amend it to state why you are choosing to compare pricing to a versions of Windows that most have never even heard of let alone would consider buying for a self-build desktop/workstation.
    Specifically, mention that you are choosing it because of server related features and state which ones are missing in W10 Pro compared to macOS.

    Ultimately I think this is all a wild goose chase in regards to the context I have been talking about all along which is to do with self build systems.
    When building a system you spec for what you actually need not for features that have no relevance to your workload.
    An honest lowest price would include W10 (Home) and not even Pro as that can handle the hardware that the $6K Mac Pro has.
    That’s a true starting price and not some arbitrary common ground based on features that can’t be agreed upon. Both platforms have unique features so start with the lowest common denominators.


    "When building a system you spec for what you actually need not for features that have no relevance to your workload."

    Well, gee, you want Apple to be custom builders?


    I mean yeah, you evil corporates, why don't you make six different boards for your products?  I can install an i9 then later pop a Xeon--wait I can't?  O H  H O W  D A R E  Y O U!


    Oh and also I only need one PCIe slots for the moment, make sure it's upgradable to have at least nine with my Core i9 -- wait it only has 16 lanes?
    edited December 2019
  • Reply 171 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.
    Feature parity to macOS for Enterprise Server, Optane, and so forth, is in Windows for Workstations. 

    So what's the situation with macOS and SCM? Do Apple sell the DIMMs themselves? Don't recall any mention of this with regard to the new Tower! 
  • Reply 172 of 234
    YP101YP101 Posts: 133member
    This getting funny...
    I wonder most of people who complain about the price think, the professional must buy their own money?
    Most of high end workstation will paid by the company they worked for.

    Also individual professional who need this Mac Pro and think it is too much money then you don't make enough money..

    I wonder why people more complain about Mac Pro price then iMac Pro can't upgrade anything without void warranty?
    iMac Pro starting price is $5,000.
    Any professional who willing to pay $5000, and pay $1000 more then you can upgrade anything you want, which Mac they will choose?

    Most of company who make money on video, music, already have monitor..

    So far you can buy either 6%(until end of 2019) cash back or 18 months interest free finance.
    12 core, dual vega Ii ended up $12,199.00(no ram, SSD upgrade) that ended up around $680 per month for 18 months.
    If you can not afford this monthly payment then this machine is not for you.
    Move along..
  • Reply 173 of 234
    DuhSesameDuhSesame Posts: 1,127member
    YP101 said:
    This getting funny...
    I wonder most of people who complain about the price think, the professional must buy their own money?
    Most of high end workstation will paid by the company they worked for.

    Also individual professional who need this Mac Pro and think it is too much money then you don't make enough money..

    I wonder why people more complain about Mac Pro price then iMac Pro can't upgrade anything without void warranty?
    iMac Pro starting price is $5,000.
    Any professional who willing to pay $5000, and pay $1000 more then you can upgrade anything you want, which Mac they will choose?

    Most of company who make money on video, music, already have monitor..

    So far you can buy either 6%(until end of 2019) cash back or 18 months interest free finance.
    12 core, dual vega Ii ended up $12,199.00(no ram, SSD upgrade) that ended up around $680 per month for 18 months.
    If you can not afford this monthly payment then this machine is not for you.
    Move along..
    Lessons of the day:

    In order to be a good customer, you need to be a good user first.

    I don't mind complains if it's true, which this thread aren't.
  • Reply 174 of 234
    DuhSesame said:
    This machine is monument of stupidity and ignorance.
    Apple doesn't support Nvidia which is the main GPU for 3D renderers like Octane, Redshift, Corona ,etc . These renderers are standard in design and architecture today, and they are not working with Apple. We can address this issue to Apple specialists ignorance. I really don't know why would anyone besides professionals bought this machine, and professionals are massively switching from Apple to PC because of this.
    Yes, you can use this machine for video editing, illustration, photography, but why would anyone throw money when they can do that on average grandma's laptop.


    ......

    learn about computers.
    Average grandma shoots video in 3D wireframe then renders on Nvidia. In 8K, of course... /s

    We are in the 4K movie age yet he still mentions architecture applications with their 1080p crappy renderings...
    edited December 2019
  • Reply 175 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.

    The article makes no mention of Servers so for clarity you might want to amend it to state why you are choosing to compare pricing to a versions of Windows that most have never even heard of let alone would consider buying for a self-build desktop/workstation.
    Specifically, mention that you are choosing it because of server related features and state which ones are missing in W10 Pro compared to macOS.

    Ultimately I think this is all a wild goose chase in regards to the context I have been talking about all along which is to do with self build systems.
    When building a system you spec for what you actually need not for features that have no relevance to your workload.
    An honest lowest price would include W10 (Home) and not even Pro as that can handle the hardware that the $6K Mac Pro has.
    That’s a true starting price and not some arbitrary common ground based on features that can’t be agreed upon. Both platforms have unique features so start with the lowest common denominators.


    Well, the facts are are in this article. The builds from PC workstation vendors are in this piece, are reproducible, and are slanted in the Windows vendor's favor for conservatism because we're using their sale prices and Apple's retail prices. We're not the only ones saying the same thing about the Mac Pro being competitive, and cheaper in some cases.

    You may not need Windows for Workgroups. But, to get what macOS brings to the table, to get parity from an operating system standpoint for enterprise, it is required.

    This all said, presented with the facts, you're welcome to believe what you want. We're not reframing the article with comparisons that you feel are more appropriate to your own use-case to make you happy.

    Pixar, Disney, JPL, NASA, IBM, Deloitte, the Pentagon, and others, aren't going to build their own systems. You are welcome to do so, obviously, omitting what you want to omit. Based on that metric, the Mac Pro may not make sense to you, and that's fine. But, what you feel, and what you need, doesn't have any impact on what the article proves. 

    This avenue of conversation has concluded.
    edited December 2019 macgui
  • Reply 176 of 234
    tht said:

    How much memory do Threadripper 3900 series systems support. The motherboards advertised on the AMD website say 256 GB memory max, but that really can’t be the max memory supported as the Zen+ MCMs supported 2 TB. Maybe it’s true as the Ryzen 9 3950x seems to support 128 GB max memory, and the Threadrippers are 2 of these chips in a package. 

    That’s kind of Achilles heel if RAM support is so low and would give OEMs some pause with using them. 

    128, or 512 as the threadrippers support is plenty on both ends. In a workstation 128 is enough for 95% of pro users. if you are an editor working on really high resolution frames then sure 256 might be needed but more than that is questionable, especially if they already have nvme drive arrays in their system. I work in visual fx, where we do fluid simulations/ pyro simulations, massive rigid body simulations, build large environments for movies and render on both our farm and leverage our boxes when we are away, and I can tell you there is no need currently for 1.5TB of ram. In fact, we have an epyc servers with 2 processors and its got 384mb ram, and what we do with it is split it into many virtual nodes for compositors to render on.

    1.5TB ram is in the server category because if you would saturate 1.5TB ram your xeons would be incapable of doing heavy calculation on them at that point. At least on a timely basis. For the rest of our farm, no other server has over 256gb ram because it is not necessary. Ai needs a lot of ram, but they generally use high-end GPUs and the amount of system ram required is not high. Perhaps simulation for research would make more sense, but then, they build servers that are very focused on CPUs, or GPUs, so the amount of expandability is not necessary.  1.5TB in a workstation way overkill for current workloads and computational power. 

    Also, if you look at companies like Weta, or ILM, not 1 artist there will have a workstation with 1.5TB ram. not 1 artist will even have 512gb ram. and only a small portion of the teams will have access to 256gb. 256GB+ is always reserved for either the main editor or the render farm. Not in a workstation form factor. 

    Your comment saying its the Achilles heel if ram support is so low, then I think you have not worked on top-end Films where there is always a heavy focus on large data sets, computational power, etc. but all within reason and needs to work in lockstep with the rest of the systems.

    Top photographers don't need as much as 256gb ram currently. even 128 might be overkill for 99% of photographers.

    Top filmmakers don't need over 256gb ram currently. I have worked with plenty of editors and almost all usually have only 128gb ram.
    Most matte painters work with 128gb ram nowadays.

    top graphic designers don't need over 256gb ram currently. in fact, most can manage on 64gb ram

    top fx artists don't need over 256gb ram currently, 128 is plenty for most work, but there are instances when going over 128 is needed. However it's very rare that an fx artist maximizes 256gb ram.  And there are many reasons as to why. One reason being is that software like Houdini where a lot of FX is worked on for movies is constantly getting more efficient, and allows us to use less ram for fx. For example. in 2012 we would need 128gb ram to simulate a pyro nuclear explosion with lots of high-resolution detail, but because Houdinis pyro simulation has gotten so much more efficient, we could do the same with half the ram required, or less. The same goes for fluid simulations, etc. When you factor in the fact that the software can do distributed simulations we need even less ram than that per node.

    If the reason to get these is for the ram, then I feel its focus is not on the entertainment/advertizing industry, unless someone feels like burning money. In that case, I can give them an address where they can send that money and I'll make better use with it. Cheers ;)







    fastasleep
  • Reply 177 of 234
    Mike WuertheleMike Wuerthele Posts: 6,316administrator
    tht said:

    How much memory do Threadripper 3900 series systems support. The motherboards advertised on the AMD website say 256 GB memory max, but that really can’t be the max memory supported as the Zen+ MCMs supported 2 TB. Maybe it’s true as the Ryzen 9 3950x seems to support 128 GB max memory, and the Threadrippers are 2 of these chips in a package. 

    That’s kind of Achilles heel if RAM support is so low and would give OEMs some pause with using them. 

    128, or 512 as the threadrippers support is plenty on both ends. In a workstation 128 is enough for 95% of pro users. if you are an editor working on really high resolution frames then sure 256 might be needed but more than that is questionable, especially if they already have nvme drive arrays in their system. I work in visual fx, where we do fluid simulations/ pyro simulations, massive rigid body simulations, build large environments for movies and render on both our farm and leverage our boxes when we are away, and I can tell you there is no need currently for 1.5TB of ram. In fact, we have an epyc servers with 2 processors and its got 384mb ram, and what we do with it is split it into many virtual nodes for compositors to render on.

    1.5TB ram is in the server category because if you would saturate 1.5TB ram your xeons would be incapable of doing heavy calculation on them at that point. At least on a timely basis. For the rest of our farm, no other server has over 256gb ram because it is not necessary. Ai needs a lot of ram, but they generally use high-end GPUs and the amount of system ram required is not high. Perhaps simulation for research would make more sense, but then, they build servers that are very focused on CPUs, or GPUs, so the amount of expandability is not necessary.  1.5TB in a workstation way overkill for current workloads and computational power. 

    Also, if you look at companies like Weta, or ILM, not 1 artist there will have a workstation with 1.5TB ram. not 1 artist will even have 512gb ram. and only a small portion of the teams will have access to 256gb. 256GB+ is always reserved for either the main editor or the render farm. Not in a workstation form factor. 

    Your comment saying its the Achilles heel if ram support is so low, then I think you have not worked on top-end Films where there is always a heavy focus on large data sets, computational power, etc. but all within reason and needs to work in lockstep with the rest of the systems.

    Top photographers don't need as much as 256gb ram currently. even 128 might be overkill for 99% of photographers.

    Top filmmakers don't need over 256gb ram currently. I have worked with plenty of editors and almost all usually have only 128gb ram.
    Most matte painters work with 128gb ram nowadays.

    top graphic designers don't need over 256gb ram currently. in fact, most can manage on 64gb ram

    top fx artists don't need over 256gb ram currently, 128 is plenty for most work, but there are instances when going over 128 is needed. However it's very rare that an fx artist maximizes 256gb ram.  And there are many reasons as to why. One reason being is that software like Houdini where a lot of FX is worked on for movies is constantly getting more efficient, and allows us to use less ram for fx. For example. in 2012 we would need 128gb ram to simulate a pyro nuclear explosion with lots of high-resolution detail, but because Houdinis pyro simulation has gotten so much more efficient, we could do the same with half the ram required, or less. The same goes for fluid simulations, etc. When you factor in the fact that the software can do distributed simulations we need even less ram than that per node.

    If the reason to get these is for the ram, then I feel its focus is not on the entertainment/advertizing industry, unless someone feels like burning money. In that case, I can give them an address where they can send that money and I'll make better use with it. Cheers ;)







    While I can't say whose desks that they're landing on because I don't know, Weta and ILM have ordered what I have been told is a "large number" of 1.5TB of RAM systems.
    thtfastasleeppscooter63
  • Reply 178 of 234
    Welp, I say it again:

    A similar E-ATX board compared to the Mac Pro costs more than $2,100.

    https://www.amazon.com/GIGABYTE-12xDDR4-8xSATA3-32-Phases-Motherboard/dp/B07TFSQ7S5?SubscriptionId=AKIAILSHYYTFIVPWUY6Q&tag=duckduckgo-osx-20&linkCode=xm2&camp=2025&creative=165953&creativeASIN=B07TFSQ7S5



    64 lanes, twelve RAM slots.  Not going to be cheap.

    0% knowledge about PCIe.
    0% needs for more than a tebibyte of RAM.
    only view things from your personal needs.

    100% like to complain.
    100% no understanding of the industry.
    Certainly foolish to think a water-downed version is just as good as their bigger siblings -- There are C621 board in mini-ITX forms too, pop up a 28-core processor and then it makes Apple go bankrupt?

    Go ahead build something your own if there's nothing that fits, don't make it sounds like everyone needs your view.
    edited December 2019
  • Reply 179 of 234
    Mike WuertheleMike Wuerthele Posts: 6,316administrator
    If you can't see your comment, re-read the commenting guidelines.
    edited December 2019
  • Reply 180 of 234
    The problem here is the machine has an even smaller target audience than ever before. There are an incredible amount of pros out there that are feeling left behind as the new machine is priced beyond their budget due to its small target audience.  

    If apple put out a threadripper Mac Pro in that $6k range, that would fill the gap. 

    You can buy a threadripper 3970x system with apples base specs for $4500 and have Nvidia support and a processor that can render circles around the top Mac Pro processor. 

    Just because ILM and WETA might be ordering some of these machines only supports this problem.  This machine could have been good enough to where all pros would be upgrading, not just a few very high end studios. 

    This Mac Pro only further alienates apple from the pro community.  
    mike54
Sign In or Register to comment.