I hope you're right about those prices but I will be surprised if they come in at $2k. The top iMac is $2k and I would expect *some* gap.
There IS a gap…
The iMac has a built-in monitor, the Mac Pro does not…
To (roughly) 'match specs', one needs to add in a 27" Thunderbolt Display; which would bring the entry-level Mac Pro (with ADDED monitor) to a US$3,000.00 price point… Which makes it a US$1,000.00 gap in pricing between the two units…
You would not necessarily need a first party monitor. Drop $30 for a Thunderbolt to DVI adapter and grab any decent screen from Newegg. Only those who require 100% color accuracy need to spend more.
I will be surprised if they come in at $2k. The top iMac is $2k and I would expect *some* gap.
I think it would help sales if they could start at $1999 but people who want a Mac Pro will buy the minimum anyway. They could go with Sandy Bridge CPUs on the entry model:
E5-2609 4-core ($294) or E5-2620 ($406) +35% markup on CPUs
8GB RAM (4x 2GB) $300
256GB SSD $300
Dual W5000 - the spec is close to a Radeon 7770, which costs ~$150 retail, FirePro is ~$450. Two will be no less than $300 and no more than $900.
The enclosure, PSU, motherboard, wifi, bluetooth etc I'd estimate at $300 with 35% markup.
If the GPUs are $600 for both and they go with the quad-core, they can hit $2k. Top-end performance/base storage would be:
E5-2697 v2 ($2057) +35% markup
8GB RAM $300
256GB $300
Dual W9000 - spec close to a 7970, which is about $450 retail, FirePro is ~$3k. This makes a pretty wide possible range of $900-6000.
Same enclosure costs.
Say it hits that same mid-point for the GPUs so around $3500 for two W9000 GPUs. That's about $7k for the whole machine. I don't think they'd manage the same $6k top spec/base storage as before but that all depends on how low AMD went.
Absolute maximum spec would be 64GB RAM as there are only 4 slots, which Apple charges $1950 for now and I'd say 1.5TB SSD as it's double their current 768GB (they do offer 2TB SSD in 4 bays just now though) and that would be $1500-2000. Assuming the GPUs are around $3500 (which would be surprising but nice), that would max out around $10.5k, which is the same as it is now.
You would not necessarily need a first party monitor. Drop $30 for a Thunderbolt to DVI adapter and grab any decent screen from Newegg. Only those who require 100% color accuracy need to spend more.
I was delineating what makes 'the gap' between the top-end iMac & the entry-level Mac Pro. To get one (roughly) equal with the other, an Apple 27" Thunderbolt Display is needed. Remember, the 27" TBD also has speakers & an iSight camera, AND is a port replicator/docking station. Which means more bang for the buck…
Personally, for a Mac Pro (and in a Pro user context, DCC/3D/video editing/compositing/etc.) I would want an Apple 27" Thunderbolt Display AND a Wacom 24" Cintiq 24HD touch monitor. Unless, of course, Apple updates its monitor lineup with a 4K Thunderbolt 2 Display (I would think anywhere from the current 27" up to a 32" model is possible). But the Cintiq is still a must have! The Computer Animation lab at RSAD is filled with them & they are awesome to work with…
You would not necessarily need a first party monitor. Drop $30 for a Thunderbolt to DVI adapter and grab any decent screen from Newegg. Only those who require 100% color accuracy need to spend more.
You would need a mini displayport to dvi adapter. Thunderbolt specific stuff doesn't work for non- thunderbolt displays unless something changed. This was well documented early on. You might be able to use displayport daisy chaining with compliant models once thunderbolt 2 hits, as it's supposed to support displayport 1.2. Displayport 1.2 has that protocol. Of course the display itself has to support that. I'm not sure whether different color profiles register properly.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacRonin
Personally, for a Mac Pro (and in a Pro user context, DCC/3D/video editing/compositing/etc.) I would want an Apple 27" Thunderbolt Display AND a Wacom 24" Cintiq 24HD touch monitor. Unless, of course, Apple updates its monitor lineup with a 4K Thunderbolt 2 Display (I would think anywhere from the current 27" up to a 32" model is possible). But the Cintiq is still a must have! The Computer Animation lab at RSAD is filled with them & they are awesome to work with…
I like cintiqs too. I prefer to use my shoulder for larger strokes and wrist movements for smaller ones. Small tablets force too much movement down to the finger level, which is bad for me. It's also nice being able to angle it like a drafting table.
I think it would help sales if they could start at $1999 but people who want a Mac Pro will buy the minimum anyway. They could go with Sandy Bridge CPUs on the entry model:
That is unlikely. It happened last time because intel didn't release a complete westmere lineup. All oems filled in with nehalem. Ivy still has a quad core model, so there's nothing to gain by going with the prior generation. I would be surprised if quad ivy was much more expensive than quad sandy.
Apple seem to like having only 2 default configs for each Mac these days (counting different notebook screen sizes as different Macs).
It is probably just as well especially if BTO options are more reasonable.
Also I don't think there will be a quad core Mac Pro as quad is the new normal, it would be like the current gen. having a dual core. Guesses:
Low end:
- 6-core Xeon
- 16GB RAM
- 512GB Flash
- 2 x 3GB video cards
$4,000
Far too expensive. For one a 6 core Xeon isn't anymore difficult for Intel than a quad core with a GPU. They may charge more for a high clock rate version but that might not last long as six cores are quickly becoming the norm in the server world. 16 GB of RAM is cheap these days, even registered ECC RAM. The interesting thing here is that by reducing the number of RAM sockets they may eliminate the need for registered RAM. In the MB Airs they are only charging $300 for a SSD upgrade to 512 MB, that is damn cheap for Apple. Asto video cards there is so much variability here that you could cost them anywhere in the ball park.
Given the above I see pricing in the range of $2000 to $2500 for such a model. Mind you the parts will be selected for cost in the entry level model.
High end:
- 12-core Xeon
- 32GB RAM
- 1TB Flash
- 2 x 6GB video cards
$6,000
The above might be nice as a $5000 machine if the RAM is doubled.
CTO options with more RAM, more Flash, and 4K Cinema Display.
I think it would help sales if they could start at $1999 but people who want a Mac Pro will buy the minimum anyway. They could go with Sandy Bridge CPUs on the entry model:
I see a starting price at or preferably below $2000 as an imperative. To generate strong sales Apple needs to shake up the market.
E5-2609 4-core ($294) or E5-2620 ($406) +35% markup on CPUs
Apple would likely be getting nice volume discounts on those chips. I wouldn't be the least bit surprised to see Apple go this route. While not ideal the performance delta might not be that great. I'd love to see a surprise delivery of Haswell based chips in the fall tied to this machine. Wishful thinking I know.
8GB RAM (4x 2GB) $300
RAM DIMMS in 8GB size are less than $100. That is for registered ECC RAM. I'm not even sure if this design requires registered RAM. If Apple wanted to be nice they could ship the machine with two of these DIMMs leaving two slots open for future expansion..
256GB SSD $300
Even that is pretty stiff price wise considering what we are seeing in the Air. The SSDs in the Airs would be more than good enough in an entry level machine.
Dual W5000 - the spec is close to a Radeon 7770, which costs ~$150 retail, FirePro is ~$450. Two will be no less than $300 and no more than $900.
This is possibly the most difficult one to estimate. Being a completely custom card the dou of Apple and AMD could price the cards at almost any price. Obviously at least one of the cards acts as an expansion slot.
The enclosure, PSU, motherboard, wifi, bluetooth etc I'd estimate at $300 with 35% markup.
Actually I'm thinking a bit more. One issue is that extrusions aren't cheap relatively
If the GPUs are $600 for both and they go with the quad-core, they can hit $2k. Top-end performance/base storage would be:
I have to agree an entry level machine <= $2000 is very doable. It would offer good performance at that price point too.
E5-2697 v2 ($2057) +35% markup
8GB RAM $300
256GB $300
Dual W9000 - spec close to a 7970, which is about $450 retail, FirePro is ~$3k. This makes a pretty wide possible range of $900-6000.
Same enclosure costs.
Say it hits that same mid-point for the GPUs so around $3500 for two W9000 GPUs. That's about $7k for the whole machine. I don't think they'd manage the same $6k top spec/base storage as before but that all depends on how low AMD went.
Absolute maximum spec would be 64GB RAM as there are only 4 slots, which Apple charges $1950 for now and I'd say 1.5TB SSD as it's double their current 768GB (they do offer 2TB SSD in 4 bays just now though) and that would be $1500-2000. Assuming the GPUs are around $3500 (which would be surprising but nice), that would max out around $10.5k, which is the same as it is now.
The permutations are really impressive when you think about it. This is a huge opportunity for AMD to get a lot of high performance product out there on a very visible platform. I see a volume that is large enough for AMD to be very flexible pricing wise.
The permutations are really impressive when you think about it. This is a huge opportunity for AMD to get a lot of high performance product out there on a very visible platform. I see a volume that is large enough for AMD to be very flexible pricing wise.
I think they have some flexibility. The chips in workstation gpus are largely the same as those used in gaming cards. Markups are much higher, but they have to make back development costs based on smaller numbers. I'm not sure workstation card sales are anywhere near the percentage of profits for AMD that they are for NVidia, and I suspect the costs of cards like the W9000 may come down by late in the current year or early next year anyway. Workstation gpus are typically sold over long cycles, but they don't always stay the same price. As for the ram comment, it will probably remain a cto option. You can always purchase for less after market. I always memtest memory prior to putting a machine back in service anyway. Dimms aren't that expensive, but I suspect Apple will go for 2x 4GB chips. This is because they usually fill all channels in their shipping machines. The current ones use tri-channel memory. They come up with 3 dimms by default. Anyway it could be a good system, but I hate having to add more external storage. Apple used to tout their towers as being nearly silent. I can't remember the exact language, but it started with the G5 era. External DAS boxes are not so quiet. The ones with cheap fans are the worst, but they generate some noise regardless. Using two rather than just one for backup increases that noise factor. I do hope they went large enough for the base machine to at least remain somewhat quiet.
With respect to storage arrays I'm hoping Apple offers a suitable solution that isn't too expensive. An ideal design would be an enclosure that the new Mac Pro sits upon. I understand your concern as to noise but realize with TB the hardware doesn't even have to be in the same room. For secondary storage TB offers more flexibility than any other solution. The only gotcha there is pricing of current TB solution which Apple can impact by agressive pricing of a simple solution.
I think they have some flexibility. The chips in workstation gpus are largely the same as those used in gaming cards. Markups are much higher, but they have to make back development costs based on smaller numbers. I'm not sure workstation card sales are anywhere near the percentage of profits for AMD that they are for NVidia, and I suspect the costs of cards like the W9000 may come down by late in the current year or early next year anyway. Workstation gpus are typically sold over long cycles, but they don't always stay the same price. As for the ram comment, it will probably remain a cto option. You can always purchase for less after market. I always memtest memory prior to putting a machine back in service anyway. Dimms aren't that expensive, but I suspect Apple will go for 2x 4GB chips. This is because they usually fill all channels in their shipping machines. The current ones use tri-channel memory. They come up with 3 dimms by default. Anyway it could be a good system, but I hate having to add more external storage. Apple used to tout their towers as being nearly silent. I can't remember the exact language, but it started with the G5 era. External DAS boxes are not so quiet. The ones with cheap fans are the worst, but they generate some noise regardless. Using two rather than just one for backup increases that noise factor. I do hope they went large enough for the base machine to at least remain somewhat quiet.
I am going to go ahead and assume you are taking this from that 'netcast' video he had up the week of the new Mac Pro being announced…
This would be the same netcast where neither he, nor any of the three other people in the room, nor the guy that was also 'there' via video chat ; could be bothered to correct themselves when one of them stated that the new Mac Pro had a bunch of USB & FireWire ports for expansion…
Yeah, they could not recognize that Phil made a verbal mistake in the keynote…
Laporte then went on to denigrate the machine due to its compact size, and then suggest that it would be nothing more than a stylish HTPC, but overpriced…
Apple is not going to go thru the effort of R&D-ing this thing just to overprice the entry point and lose more pro customers to linux or windows…
Some believe that they really don't care. What do say to that? They have money to burn on an "experiment" and just look at where their market share is now -- why would they care? If it is successful -- all the better for them; if not, well so much for the PRO market… Workstation market is shrinking anyway!
As for expansion issues -- I have yet to see a person or organization that has been ready to dive into the Thunderbolt camp and the types of devices that use USB don't tend to be types of components that they upgrade much or to be too demanding. Now video and memory and processors and other bespoke interfaces -- that's a different story. If Apple doesn't offer the price/performance combination that is acceptable, how else will one to get to it in an OSx box? With this box, chances (my speculation) are they won't!
With respect to storage arrays I'm hoping Apple offers a suitable solution that isn't too expensive. An ideal design would be an enclosure that the new Mac Pro sits upon. I understand your concern as to noise but realize with TB the hardware doesn't even have to be in the same room. For secondary storage TB offers more flexibility than any other solution. The only gotcha there is pricing of current TB solution which Apple can impact by agressive pricing of a simple solution.
Storage is a strange issue. A lot of solutions aren't that great. Vendors often sells storage arrays populated so they can be fully tested in whatever shipping configuration and to squeeze out additional profit from higher markups. I would expect Apple to go that route as they tend to favor things that require little setup. Internal bays work out a lot better than a low end solution like what is available from Lacie or G-Raids. I used those two examples because you can find them in Apple retail stores. This also isn't really a case of legacy devices. There's nothing cheap enough to displace large numbers of HDDs for storage. Thunderbolt is in a weird spot. In notebooks it competes with usb3, which is generally cheaper. In some cases usb3 may actually work out better overall if an external display is needed at times and will not function properly chained. Interestingly you can get a lot of the functionality out of standard displayport as well, as long as the port supports displayport 1.2 (approved Dec. 2009 IIRC). It supports daisy chaining and usb hubs on displays. I would have to look up whether it can pass audio. Anyway the things I think need to die and go away are more like firewire and eSATA. Firewire was just abandoned a long time ago rather than improved. Making new peripheral devices depend on it is a bad idea. eSATA means host cards which introduce another layer of third party drivers between whatever raid or basic port multiplier box and the host machine. I'm not sure where thunderbolt fits in overall. SAS and other connectors provided comparable or better solutions prior to thunderbolt, and they still work. I'm not sure what it really does better than the things that preceded it. There's even confusion over what thunderbolt 2 represents. It introduces channel bonding, not a jump in total chip bandwidth.
A four-core Xeon should outpace the top-end iMac handily right? Print may move back to the Pro after all.
Not necessarily, the current line of Xeons are based on the same architecture as the i7. The difference is usually that the Xeons are the cream of the crop. They run cooler and at lower voltages and are spec'd for 24/7 continuous usage. Otherwise, performance is usually identical. Xeons are able to be used in multi-socket motherboards, where i7s are not (which is why the Mac Pros use them). Xeons are also usually the first to be updated. There are 6-core Xeons, but not i7s yet, though they are still based on the same architecture.
The additional reliability of the Xeons is very important in servers, especially rack-mount and blade-enclosed servers where the lower heat dissipation and power consumption are essential. These benefits usually don't mean too much to all but the most extreme overclockers though, so people in the desktop segment usually ignore it due to the enormous difference in the price of both the CPU and the motherboards needed to support them.
The Quad Core i7-3770S found in the iMac has a CPU score of 9098, a Xeon Six Core E5649 has a CPU score of 7037 and costs twice as much. However with the mixture of a 12 Core CPU, fast bus and PCI SSD there is no doubt the Mac Pro will be ridiculously fast. I however still prefer a multiple socket machine, for the price of one 12 Core Xeon I can buy two 6, maybe 8 Core CPU's with a rating of 10,000 and above and completely wipe the floor with it. My current HP Z800 has 2 Xeon X5660's with a CPU score of 8459 for each processor, the 12 Core Mac Pro Xeon will most likely have a CPU score between 12,000 - 14,000. Now my machine doesn't have two of those wonderful ATI cards but I do have a Quadro 4000 and 2 Tesla cards in it and future upgrades to faster graphic cards is just an Amazon purchase away. This is just an opinion as I know you die hard's couldn't possibly think of owning anything else but an Apple product but I really like having a machine that can grow with my needs instead of chucking it out when I need something faster. Even if Apple allows us to upgrade the video cards or SSD, do to their design you will always have to buy expensive upgrades from them. Is the CPU soldered to the motherboard, I sure hope not but I wouldn't be surprised if it was.
Not necessarily, the current line of Xeons are based on the same architecture as the i7. The difference is usually that the Xeons are the cream of the crop. They run cooler and at lower voltages and are spec'd for 24/7 continuous usage. Otherwise, performance is usually identical. Xeons are able to be used in multi-socket motherboards, where i7s are not (which is why the Mac Pros use them). Xeons are also usually the first to be updated. There are 6-core Xeons, but not i7s yet, though they are still based on the same architecture.
Xeons are usually one generation behind architecture-wise aren't they? For example the new Mac Pro Xeons will be Ivy Bridge not Haswell. This is (like everything else you mentioned) for reliability reasons: they want to make sure all the bugs are out of a new architecture before moving it to Xeon.
Actually, from looking about on the ol' Interwebz, taking in the pricing that has been bandied about here for the last week or so, and keeping in mind Apple's predilection for fat margins; I think the pricing I outlined (AND the specs as well…!!!) might be pretty spot on…!
The entry-level drops the price from the previous generation, with a configuration that can only be a huge step up from the aforementioned previous generations specs…
This is the model for the hobbyist, for the lower-level pro-sumer, for the gamers & the HTPC crowd; low price, good specs…
The GOOD model IS the undercover XMac…!
me thinks too much overlapp with the next iMac. skating to where the puck will be, I do think your 'good' mac won't exist, or if it does, it will be at $2299 (and the current TOL iMac will drop to $1799). They have to maintain that $500 differential. One can only assume that PCIe SSDs will be across all mac products by fall, with a PCIe Fusion drive as well (save for the Mac Pro).
The xMac concept is really counter to the direction Apple has gone the last 4 years. If anything the next gen Mac Mini (with PCIe SSD/Fusion, Thunderbolt (or 2), a quad processor Haswell) is your xMac.
That, and I still hold out hope for chaining macs by thunderbolt and Grand Central extensions to drive to an aSMP clustering for compute power. Think of chaining 2 mac Minis together, shared disk via thunderbolt, in a master/slave config.
The Quad Core i7-3770S found in the iMac has a CPU score of 9098, a Xeon Six Core E5649 has a CPU score of 7037 and costs twice as much. However with the mixture of a 12 Core CPU, fast bus and PCI SSD there is no doubt the Mac Pro will be ridiculously fast. I however still prefer a multiple socket machine, for the price of one 12 Core Xeon I can buy two 6, maybe 8 Core CPU's with a rating of 10,000 and above and completely wipe the floor with it. My current HP Z800 has 2 Xeon X5660's with a CPU score of 8459 for each processor, the 12 Core Mac Pro Xeon will most likely have a CPU score between 12,000 - 14,000.
The top current Mac Pro uses X5675s, which are higher clocked than the X5660s that you have. The Passmark score incorrectly lists it lower. The new Mac Pro is expected to be 10% faster than this, which would be a score above 18,000. Two X5660s would be more expensive than the 12-core in the new Mac Pro. The E5-26xx line tops out at $2057. Your two X5660s are priced over $2400, though you may have paid less.
The E5-1650 would be good value but you can't use more than one. Two of all the other processors would be priced above $2057. There's no doubt that you can configure a two-core CPU to perform faster than a single-core but it's more expensive. Two of the Ivy Bridge equivalent of the E5-2687W would potentially 'wipe the floor' with the Mac Pro but the CPUs would be close to double the price as they are $1885 each.
It sounds like you are trying too hard to validate your own preference of buying a hacked together piece of junk as most people who do the same try to. Gamers do the same with consoles e.g why buy a playstation when you can knock together an awesome gaming PC for $500? If that's your preference, that's ok but you're kidding yourself if you think everyone else is making poorer choices.
I really like having a machine that can grow with my needs instead of chucking it out when I need something faster. Even if Apple allows us to upgrade the video cards or SSD, do to their design you will always have to buy expensive upgrades from them. Is the CPU soldered to the motherboard, I sure hope not but I wouldn't be surprised if it was.
You don't 'chuck it out', you sell it second-hand. Unlike the hacked-together abominations you'd be accustomed to dealing with, Macs have a thing called resale value. The problem with people who do things the way you do is that if you ever come to sell a machine, your target audience is people like you who know you can hack together your own computer anyway so the resale value tanks well below the lowest build cost of a new machine.
As for the upgradeability, Apple might solder things in place but these are machines with CPUs costing $2k. It would make more sense from their point of view to leave them so that the GPUs and CPUs can be reconfigured if there's a return. This could be done by switching out the boards of course but that still gives an opportunity for an upgrade as resellers can buy off-the-shelf Mac Pros and sell the separate individual parts.
I highly doubt we will see either of your items on a Mac Mini spec sheet anytime soon. In fact I can count the number of workstations that have built in clustering on one hand. If your looking for that kind of tech go with a HP Z series workstation. Any unused CPU or GPU cycles from a machine on a network can be utilized for your evil doing.
It sounds like you are trying too hard to validate your own preference of buying a hacked together piece of junk as most people who do the same try to.
You don't 'chuck it out', you sell it second-hand. Unlike the hacked-together abominations you'd be accustomed to dealing with, Macs have a thing called resale value. The problem with people who do things the way you do is that if you ever come to sell a machine, your target audience is people like you who know you can hack together your own computer anyway so the resale value tanks well below the lowest build cost of a new machine.
No, not trying to validate, just trying to talk myself into buying a MacPro but coming up without an excuse. My HP Z800 and everything in it is a HP component except for the CPU's. The CPU's aren't marked HP as I got them out of a broken IBM server that I paid 300 for at a auction, 300 for 3600 worth of chips is a steal, it was also a gamble though. Banks have these auctions all the time and are worth going as case in point. I understand you simply don't chuck it out but sell them, I'm the resale queen, that's how I'm able to buy a new laptop every 6 months, for the price of one I can have six. However a desktop workstation is a little different, I can maintain a pretty capable machine for a very long time and still be able to keep up with the latest models by buying faster components.
me thinks too much overlapp with the next iMac. skating to where the puck will be, I do think your 'good' mac won't exist, or if it does, it will be at $2299 (and the current TOL iMac will drop to $1799). They have to maintain that $500 differential. One can only assume that PCIe SSDs will be across all mac products by fall, with a PCIe Fusion drive as well (save for the Mac Pro).
....
Apple traditionally doesn't cut prices on its computers. IMO, if we're lucky the entry price of the new Mac Pro will remain at the current level, if we're not then it'll be in the $2750 - $3000 range. Of course, with the limited information available, any ideas range from at best speculation all the way to wishful thinking and wild guesses.
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacRonin
That low end is not low enough…
I prefer the older 4 config Apple… GOOD, BETTER, BEST & ULTIMATE…
And I know I have listed these before, but I am going to do it again!
I hope you're right about those prices but I will be surprised if they come in at $2k. The top iMac is $2k and I would expect *some* gap.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ascii
I hope you're right about those prices but I will be surprised if they come in at $2k. The top iMac is $2k and I would expect *some* gap.
There IS a gap…
The iMac has a built-in monitor, the Mac Pro does not…
To (roughly) 'match specs', one needs to add in a 27" Thunderbolt Display; which would bring the entry-level Mac Pro (with ADDED monitor) to a US$3,000.00 price point… Which makes it a US$1,000.00 gap in pricing between the two units…
I think it would help sales if they could start at $1999 but people who want a Mac Pro will buy the minimum anyway. They could go with Sandy Bridge CPUs on the entry model:
E5-2609 4-core ($294) or E5-2620 ($406) +35% markup on CPUs
8GB RAM (4x 2GB) $300
256GB SSD $300
Dual W5000 - the spec is close to a Radeon 7770, which costs ~$150 retail, FirePro is ~$450. Two will be no less than $300 and no more than $900.
The enclosure, PSU, motherboard, wifi, bluetooth etc I'd estimate at $300 with 35% markup.
If the GPUs are $600 for both and they go with the quad-core, they can hit $2k. Top-end performance/base storage would be:
E5-2697 v2 ($2057) +35% markup
8GB RAM $300
256GB $300
Dual W9000 - spec close to a 7970, which is about $450 retail, FirePro is ~$3k. This makes a pretty wide possible range of $900-6000.
Same enclosure costs.
Say it hits that same mid-point for the GPUs so around $3500 for two W9000 GPUs. That's about $7k for the whole machine. I don't think they'd manage the same $6k top spec/base storage as before but that all depends on how low AMD went.
Absolute maximum spec would be 64GB RAM as there are only 4 slots, which Apple charges $1950 for now and I'd say 1.5TB SSD as it's double their current 768GB (they do offer 2TB SSD in 4 bays just now though) and that would be $1500-2000. Assuming the GPUs are around $3500 (which would be surprising but nice), that would max out around $10.5k, which is the same as it is now.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vorsos
You would not necessarily need a first party monitor. Drop $30 for a Thunderbolt to DVI adapter and grab any decent screen from Newegg. Only those who require 100% color accuracy need to spend more.
I was delineating what makes 'the gap' between the top-end iMac & the entry-level Mac Pro. To get one (roughly) equal with the other, an Apple 27" Thunderbolt Display is needed. Remember, the 27" TBD also has speakers & an iSight camera, AND is a port replicator/docking station. Which means more bang for the buck…
Personally, for a Mac Pro (and in a Pro user context, DCC/3D/video editing/compositing/etc.) I would want an Apple 27" Thunderbolt Display AND a Wacom 24" Cintiq 24HD touch monitor. Unless, of course, Apple updates its monitor lineup with a 4K Thunderbolt 2 Display (I would think anywhere from the current 27" up to a 32" model is possible). But the Cintiq is still a must have! The Computer Animation lab at RSAD is filled with them & they are awesome to work with…
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vorsos
You would not necessarily need a first party monitor. Drop $30 for a Thunderbolt to DVI adapter and grab any decent screen from Newegg. Only those who require 100% color accuracy need to spend more.
You would need a mini displayport to dvi adapter. Thunderbolt specific stuff doesn't work for non- thunderbolt displays unless something changed. This was well documented early on. You might be able to use displayport daisy chaining with compliant models once thunderbolt 2 hits, as it's supposed to support displayport 1.2. Displayport 1.2 has that protocol. Of course the display itself has to support that. I'm not sure whether different color profiles register properly.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacRonin
Personally, for a Mac Pro (and in a Pro user context, DCC/3D/video editing/compositing/etc.) I would want an Apple 27" Thunderbolt Display AND a Wacom 24" Cintiq 24HD touch monitor. Unless, of course, Apple updates its monitor lineup with a 4K Thunderbolt 2 Display (I would think anywhere from the current 27" up to a 32" model is possible). But the Cintiq is still a must have! The Computer Animation lab at RSAD is filled with them & they are awesome to work with…
I like cintiqs too. I prefer to use my shoulder for larger strokes and wrist movements for smaller ones. Small tablets force too much movement down to the finger level, which is bad for me. It's also nice being able to angle it like a drafting table.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin
I think it would help sales if they could start at $1999 but people who want a Mac Pro will buy the minimum anyway. They could go with Sandy Bridge CPUs on the entry model:
That is unlikely. It happened last time because intel didn't release a complete westmere lineup. All oems filled in with nehalem. Ivy still has a quad core model, so there's nothing to gain by going with the prior generation. I would be surprised if quad ivy was much more expensive than quad sandy.
Given the above I see pricing in the range of $2000 to $2500 for such a model. Mind you the parts will be selected for cost in the entry level model. The above might be nice as a $5000 machine if the RAM is doubled.
The permutations are really impressive when you think about it. This is a huge opportunity for AMD to get a lot of high performance product out there on a very visible platform. I see a volume that is large enough for AMD to be very flexible pricing wise.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69
The permutations are really impressive when you think about it. This is a huge opportunity for AMD to get a lot of high performance product out there on a very visible platform. I see a volume that is large enough for AMD to be very flexible pricing wise.
I think they have some flexibility. The chips in workstation gpus are largely the same as those used in gaming cards. Markups are much higher, but they have to make back development costs based on smaller numbers. I'm not sure workstation card sales are anywhere near the percentage of profits for AMD that they are for NVidia, and I suspect the costs of cards like the W9000 may come down by late in the current year or early next year anyway. Workstation gpus are typically sold over long cycles, but they don't always stay the same price. As for the ram comment, it will probably remain a cto option. You can always purchase for less after market. I always memtest memory prior to putting a machine back in service anyway. Dimms aren't that expensive, but I suspect Apple will go for 2x 4GB chips. This is because they usually fill all channels in their shipping machines. The current ones use tri-channel memory. They come up with 3 dimms by default. Anyway it could be a good system, but I hate having to add more external storage. Apple used to tout their towers as being nearly silent. I can't remember the exact language, but it started with the G5 era. External DAS boxes are not so quiet. The ones with cheap fans are the worst, but they generate some noise regardless. Using two rather than just one for backup increases that noise factor. I do hope they went large enough for the base machine to at least remain somewhat quiet.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacRonin
I am going to go ahead and assume you are taking this from that 'netcast' video he had up the week of the new Mac Pro being announced…
This would be the same netcast where neither he, nor any of the three other people in the room, nor the guy that was also 'there' via video chat ; could be bothered to correct themselves when one of them stated that the new Mac Pro had a bunch of USB & FireWire ports for expansion…
Yeah, they could not recognize that Phil made a verbal mistake in the keynote…
Laporte then went on to denigrate the machine due to its compact size, and then suggest that it would be nothing more than a stylish HTPC, but overpriced…
Apple is not going to go thru the effort of R&D-ing this thing just to overprice the entry point and lose more pro customers to linux or windows…
Some believe that they really don't care. What do say to that? They have money to burn on an "experiment" and just look at where their market share is now -- why would they care? If it is successful -- all the better for them; if not, well so much for the PRO market… Workstation market is shrinking anyway!
As for expansion issues -- I have yet to see a person or organization that has been ready to dive into the Thunderbolt camp and the types of devices that use USB don't tend to be types of components that they upgrade much or to be too demanding. Now video and memory and processors and other bespoke interfaces -- that's a different story. If Apple doesn't offer the price/performance combination that is acceptable, how else will one to get to it in an OSx box? With this box, chances (my speculation) are they won't!
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69
With respect to storage arrays I'm hoping Apple offers a suitable solution that isn't too expensive. An ideal design would be an enclosure that the new Mac Pro sits upon. I understand your concern as to noise but realize with TB the hardware doesn't even have to be in the same room. For secondary storage TB offers more flexibility than any other solution. The only gotcha there is pricing of current TB solution which Apple can impact by agressive pricing of a simple solution.
Storage is a strange issue. A lot of solutions aren't that great. Vendors often sells storage arrays populated so they can be fully tested in whatever shipping configuration and to squeeze out additional profit from higher markups. I would expect Apple to go that route as they tend to favor things that require little setup. Internal bays work out a lot better than a low end solution like what is available from Lacie or G-Raids. I used those two examples because you can find them in Apple retail stores. This also isn't really a case of legacy devices. There's nothing cheap enough to displace large numbers of HDDs for storage. Thunderbolt is in a weird spot. In notebooks it competes with usb3, which is generally cheaper. In some cases usb3 may actually work out better overall if an external display is needed at times and will not function properly chained. Interestingly you can get a lot of the functionality out of standard displayport as well, as long as the port supports displayport 1.2 (approved Dec. 2009 IIRC). It supports daisy chaining and usb hubs on displays. I would have to look up whether it can pass audio. Anyway the things I think need to die and go away are more like firewire and eSATA. Firewire was just abandoned a long time ago rather than improved. Making new peripheral devices depend on it is a bad idea. eSATA means host cards which introduce another layer of third party drivers between whatever raid or basic port multiplier box and the host machine. I'm not sure where thunderbolt fits in overall. SAS and other connectors provided comparable or better solutions prior to thunderbolt, and they still work. I'm not sure what it really does better than the things that preceded it. There's even confusion over what thunderbolt 2 represents. It introduces channel bonding, not a jump in total chip bandwidth.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank777
A four-core Xeon should outpace the top-end iMac handily right? Print may move back to the Pro after all.
Not necessarily, the current line of Xeons are based on the same architecture as the i7. The difference is usually that the Xeons are the cream of the crop. They run cooler and at lower voltages and are spec'd for 24/7 continuous usage. Otherwise, performance is usually identical. Xeons are able to be used in multi-socket motherboards, where i7s are not (which is why the Mac Pros use them). Xeons are also usually the first to be updated. There are 6-core Xeons, but not i7s yet, though they are still based on the same architecture.
The additional reliability of the Xeons is very important in servers, especially rack-mount and blade-enclosed servers where the lower heat dissipation and power consumption are essential. These benefits usually don't mean too much to all but the most extreme overclockers though, so people in the desktop segment usually ignore it due to the enormous difference in the price of both the CPU and the motherboards needed to support them.
The Quad Core i7-3770S found in the iMac has a CPU score of 9098, a Xeon Six Core E5649 has a CPU score of 7037 and costs twice as much. However with the mixture of a 12 Core CPU, fast bus and PCI SSD there is no doubt the Mac Pro will be ridiculously fast. I however still prefer a multiple socket machine, for the price of one 12 Core Xeon I can buy two 6, maybe 8 Core CPU's with a rating of 10,000 and above and completely wipe the floor with it. My current HP Z800 has 2 Xeon X5660's with a CPU score of 8459 for each processor, the 12 Core Mac Pro Xeon will most likely have a CPU score between 12,000 - 14,000. Now my machine doesn't have two of those wonderful ATI cards but I do have a Quadro 4000 and 2 Tesla cards in it and future upgrades to faster graphic cards is just an Amazon purchase away. This is just an opinion as I know you die hard's couldn't possibly think of owning anything else but an Apple product but I really like having a machine that can grow with my needs instead of chucking it out when I need something faster. Even if Apple allows us to upgrade the video cards or SSD, do to their design you will always have to buy expensive upgrades from them. Is the CPU soldered to the motherboard, I sure hope not but I wouldn't be surprised if it was.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Relic
Not necessarily, the current line of Xeons are based on the same architecture as the i7. The difference is usually that the Xeons are the cream of the crop. They run cooler and at lower voltages and are spec'd for 24/7 continuous usage. Otherwise, performance is usually identical. Xeons are able to be used in multi-socket motherboards, where i7s are not (which is why the Mac Pros use them). Xeons are also usually the first to be updated. There are 6-core Xeons, but not i7s yet, though they are still based on the same architecture.
Xeons are usually one generation behind architecture-wise aren't they? For example the new Mac Pro Xeons will be Ivy Bridge not Haswell. This is (like everything else you mentioned) for reliability reasons: they want to make sure all the bugs are out of a new architecture before moving it to Xeon.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacRonin
Actually, from looking about on the ol' Interwebz, taking in the pricing that has been bandied about here for the last week or so, and keeping in mind Apple's predilection for fat margins; I think the pricing I outlined (AND the specs as well…!!!) might be pretty spot on…!
The entry-level drops the price from the previous generation, with a configuration that can only be a huge step up from the aforementioned previous generations specs…
This is the model for the hobbyist, for the lower-level pro-sumer, for the gamers & the HTPC crowd; low price, good specs…
The GOOD model IS the undercover XMac…!
me thinks too much overlapp with the next iMac. skating to where the puck will be, I do think your 'good' mac won't exist, or if it does, it will be at $2299 (and the current TOL iMac will drop to $1799). They have to maintain that $500 differential. One can only assume that PCIe SSDs will be across all mac products by fall, with a PCIe Fusion drive as well (save for the Mac Pro).
The xMac concept is really counter to the direction Apple has gone the last 4 years. If anything the next gen Mac Mini (with PCIe SSD/Fusion, Thunderbolt (or 2), a quad processor Haswell) is your xMac.
That, and I still hold out hope for chaining macs by thunderbolt and Grand Central extensions to drive to an aSMP clustering for compute power. Think of chaining 2 mac Minis together, shared disk via thunderbolt, in a master/slave config.
The top current Mac Pro uses X5675s, which are higher clocked than the X5660s that you have. The Passmark score incorrectly lists it lower. The new Mac Pro is expected to be 10% faster than this, which would be a score above 18,000. Two X5660s would be more expensive than the 12-core in the new Mac Pro. The E5-26xx line tops out at $2057. Your two X5660s are priced over $2400, though you may have paid less.
The E5-1650 would be good value but you can't use more than one. Two of all the other processors would be priced above $2057. There's no doubt that you can configure a two-core CPU to perform faster than a single-core but it's more expensive. Two of the Ivy Bridge equivalent of the E5-2687W would potentially 'wipe the floor' with the Mac Pro but the CPUs would be close to double the price as they are $1885 each.
It sounds like you are trying too hard to validate your own preference of buying a hacked together piece of junk as most people who do the same try to. Gamers do the same with consoles e.g why buy a playstation when you can knock together an awesome gaming PC for $500? If that's your preference, that's ok but you're kidding yourself if you think everyone else is making poorer choices.
You don't 'chuck it out', you sell it second-hand. Unlike the hacked-together abominations you'd be accustomed to dealing with, Macs have a thing called resale value. The problem with people who do things the way you do is that if you ever come to sell a machine, your target audience is people like you who know you can hack together your own computer anyway so the resale value tanks well below the lowest build cost of a new machine.
As for the upgradeability, Apple might solder things in place but these are machines with CPUs costing $2k. It would make more sense from their point of view to leave them so that the GPUs and CPUs can be reconfigured if there's a return. This could be done by switching out the boards of course but that still gives an opportunity for an upgrade as resellers can buy off-the-shelf Mac Pros and sell the separate individual parts.
I highly doubt we will see either of your items on a Mac Mini spec sheet anytime soon. In fact I can count the number of workstations that have built in clustering on one hand. If your looking for that kind of tech go with a HP Z series workstation. Any unused CPU or GPU cycles from a machine on a network can be utilized for your evil doing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin
It sounds like you are trying too hard to validate your own preference of buying a hacked together piece of junk as most people who do the same try to.
You don't 'chuck it out', you sell it second-hand. Unlike the hacked-together abominations you'd be accustomed to dealing with, Macs have a thing called resale value. The problem with people who do things the way you do is that if you ever come to sell a machine, your target audience is people like you who know you can hack together your own computer anyway so the resale value tanks well below the lowest build cost of a new machine.
No, not trying to validate, just trying to talk myself into buying a MacPro but coming up without an excuse. My HP Z800 and everything in it is a HP component except for the CPU's. The CPU's aren't marked HP as I got them out of a broken IBM server that I paid 300 for at a auction, 300 for 3600 worth of chips is a steal, it was also a gamble though. Banks have these auctions all the time and are worth going as case in point. I understand you simply don't chuck it out but sell them, I'm the resale queen, that's how I'm able to buy a new laptop every 6 months, for the price of one I can have six. However a desktop workstation is a little different, I can maintain a pretty capable machine for a very long time and still be able to keep up with the latest models by buying faster components.
Apple traditionally doesn't cut prices on its computers. IMO, if we're lucky the entry price of the new Mac Pro will remain at the current level, if we're not then it'll be in the $2750 - $3000 range. Of course, with the limited information available, any ideas range from at best speculation all the way to wishful thinking and wild guesses.