Anyone like to guesstimate what a fully speced-out new Mac Pro with display will cost?
$50K at least. The 28 core Xenon CPU is $15,000.00 just by itself on Amazon. Pixar, Lucasfilm, Industrial Light and Magic and others will be buying truckloads of these machines.
The current 28-core Xeon W series is close to $3K, not $15K. The other 28-core processor is the Xeon Platinum 8280, and it goes to $17K, but the Mac Pro don't have that option, considering is a single socket workstation. You'll have to move to a HP Z 840, since it's a dual socket workstation.
If they had just packaged a 5k Retina Monitor based on the hardware from the current iMac, and announced it alongside the new display, nobody (or fewer) would be criticizing. Sure, there's the LG, but folks want an Apple-branded display to go with their headless Mac.
The 'closed' vs. 'open' Mac debate goes back as far as the 1980's. The new Mac Pro is NOT the upgradable machine for the average consumer. It's the overpriced and under-spec'd (in my opinion) machine for Mac-centric video and audio professionals. It's really a niche product...
Apple never promised an upgradeable machine for the average consumer. Where did you come up with that nonsense? Under-spec’d? You really are clueless.
Lets hope that one of those lessons is not "Pricing will start at cost X eleventybillion!"
Stop being so overdramatic. The Mac Pro is priced similarly to WinTel counterparts of EXACT specs and the monitor is far cheaper than the competitors reference-level monitors. Funny how you folks don't complain about the prices of those monitors.
We do not need Broadcast quality monitors first of all. You do not know if the WinTel counterparts had the same specs. All Ternus said was one priced at $8,000. No one knew the specs. Why did the iMac Pro's basic configuration have a 1TB SSD and the Mac Pro starts at 256 GB. That is being very stingy despite the high cost! Comparing that Studio Display to a Sony BVM is a bit absurd. A $999 monitor stand is just as absurd. No one asked for a 6K monitor anyway. How is it the 27" iMac has a 5K monitor without the "Apple Tax". Apple is just damn Greedy.
Nope. This product just isn’t for you. If you don’t know why this monitor is special, you don’t need it.
I do agree with @jumpcutter ; that a base storage amount of 256GB on the base-model Mac Pro isn't justified especially considering that the base-model iMac Pro comes with 1TB SSD. Given its target market, 1TB SSD should be standard on the new Mac Pro. Other than that, I have no issue with the new hardware announced.
The storage is just enough for the OS and the target apps. It is clearly user upgradable for those that want more. But I suspect the people actually buying this would not use internal storage for their very large content anyway. So for this particular”ar product it is probably right. It is not right for a nonuser upgradable iMac with a very different use case.
This ^. Boom. This will be bought, and in no small numbers. The people buying these won't be spending the bulk of their time applying filters to selfie jpgs. They'll be working with huge file needing fast and even immediate rendering. This takes storage, and even a 1TB SSD wouldn't be enough. So use a smallish drive for the OS and apps, get Thunderbolt 3 storage for all the content and projects.
It's clear that, as somebody said in an earlier thread, so many people don't understand what this new MP is about, along with the monitor. Apple truly put the 'Pro' back in to the Mac Pro. They didn't build this 'for just anybody'.
Apple makes a 32" monitor that they claim bests the performance of a $43,000 27" Sony reference monitor, and wants ~$6000. And it's Apple getting grief, and not Sony. People can be such idiots, and worse yet, apparently proud of it.
Lets hope that one of those lessons is not "Pricing will start at cost X eleventybillion!"
Stop being so overdramatic. The Mac Pro is priced similarly to WinTel counterparts of EXACT specs and the monitor is far cheaper than the competitors reference-level monitors. Funny how you folks don't complain about the prices of those monitors.
most of the old pro market just wants an i7/i9 and no stupid all in one sealed crippled design. Apple just puts in Xeons to justify cranking up the price. You can get killer PC i7 desktops for $700 and i9s for under 2k. Apple should do the same. We just want an iMac motherboard with handful of PCI slots and upgradable CPU,SSD,RAM,graphics and a few SATA TB3 USB3.1 connectors
jumpcutter said: No one asked for a 6K monitor anyway.
I did, and more! In 2015 I wrote Phil Schiller asking for an 10K display: sufficient for 8k images plus palettes, toolbars, and windowing. (I also asked for “it to work with a VESA mount or a standard base”, and Apple delivered beautifully!)
In March of 2000 I purchased the original Cinema Display, an outlay of $4,000, and reaped vastly increased productivity. Users of the Apple’s 6K Pro Display XDR will reap a similar harvest. $4,000 in 2000 works out to $5,900+ in 2019; come this fall it should be almost exactly equal to a $4,999 display and a $1,000 stand! :-)
In time, with Thunderbolt 4, larger “Retina” displays and higher frame rates on 6K will likely become available, and if so, then I’ll be cheering!
(I work with maps and 10,000x10,000 pixel film scans (56mmx56mm), and with any luck Hasselblad will release a 100+ megapixel square format camera).
Lets hope that one of those lessons is not "Pricing will start at cost X eleventybillion!"
Stop being so overdramatic. The Mac Pro is priced similarly to WinTel counterparts of EXACT specs and the monitor is far cheaper than the competitors reference-level monitors. Funny how you folks don't complain about the prices of those monitors.
We do not need Broadcast quality monitors first of all. You do not know if the WinTel counterparts had the same specs. All Ternus said was one priced at $8,000. No one knew the specs. Why did the iMac Pro's basic configuration have a 1TB SSD and the Mac Pro starts at 256 GB. That is being very stingy despite the high cost! Comparing that Studio Display to a Sony BVM is a bit absurd. A $999 monitor stand is just as absurd. No one asked for a 6K monitor anyway. How is it the 27" iMac has a 5K monitor without the "Apple Tax". Apple is just damn Greedy.
"Apple is just damn greedy"? That's a new one. /s
Apple just introduced what is probably the cheapest reference-level monitor in the industry. So sad you think Apple is being greedy.
Apple went to the real "pro" people in the industry. Straight to the source. Apple listened and delivered. Sure "you" don't need broadcast-quality monitors. "We" is not "them (pros).
There are countless monitors you can buy at any price point and performance for the masses, AND thy will work just fine on the Mac Pro. So what's your issue? You want a matching monitor with an Apple logo? Do what I did and buy practically new Apple Thunderbolt-2 monitors for $300 apiece. Buy the LG 5K TB3 monitor? Why hate on Apple for giving the pro crowd something they've been asking for? People like you are a vocal minority, nothing more. Apple's not going to spend millions of dollars and resources for little to no payback.
Lets hope that one of those lessons is not "Pricing will start at cost X eleventybillion!"
When Intel charges $15k for the 28 core Xeon what do you expect? Just one more reason Apple will sooner-rather-than-later ditch Intel for AMD.
And no, they aren't going ARM people. Just like they aren't building a competing GPGPU--the Afterburner is that secret GPU project from Florida.
The Mac Pro uses a Xeon W series, designed for single socket workstations. The current Intel Xeon W-3175X cost around $3000, very far of the $15K you mention. If you move to the Xeon Platinum, specifically the 8280, it goes close to the USD$18K. You are going to see this kind of processor in dual-socket workstations, like the HP Z-840.
The 28 Core part that the Mac Pro will be using is something like the 3175M, supporting 2 TB of memory, which is listed at about $7500, and even then, I'm understanding that Apple is looking at an unreleased version with near double the cache memory, from about 38.5 MB to 66.5 MB, which might be more expensive again.
I think that you might want to roll back you statement about that $3000 price, and state that you don't actually know how much it will cost.
If you read my post carefully, you'll noticed I mentioned "that the current Intel Xeon W-3175X cost around $3000, very far of the $15K you mention". I didn't mention anything related to the processor the Mac Pro has, since Apple neither Intel had released pricing information on it. My point it's that the pricing for the current top of the line Xeon W is far from the $15K @mdriftmeyer mentioned. That kind of processor is only for high end, two-socket workstations like the Z8 G4, not the Mac Pro. So I don't need to roll back my statement, since it wasn't wrong.
Second, I haven't seen in the Intel website the Xeon W-3175M you mentioned. Do you have a link where I can read about it? The most similar processor to the Xeon-W 48-core in the Mac Pro listed in the Intel website is the W-3275M, but it has 38.5MB of cache. I think we have two options, Apple is using a unannounced W-series processor or there is a typo in the Intel or Apple website.
Anyone like to guesstimate what a fully speced-out new Mac Pro with display will cost?
$50K at least. The 28 core Xenon CPU is $15,000.00 just by itself on Amazon. Pixar, Lucasfilm, Industrial Light and Magic and others will be buying truckloads of these machines.
The current 28-core Xeon W series is close to $3K, not $15K. The other 28-core processor is the Xeon Platinum 8280, and it goes to $17K, but the Mac Pro don't have that option, considering is a single socket workstation. You'll have to move to a HP Z 840, since it's a dual socket workstation.
This still isn't it, but this, by itself is over $7000.
Later I found that link with the price. At the moment I made the post, Intel had no price information on it.
I suppose you said that it isn't the same processor because of the cache memory, which half of what Intel have in it's website. Could it be an unannounced processor or maybe a typo? When you look in the Intel website, only two processors, based in the Xeon Platinum series, have +70MB of cache memory. The rest of the processors are at most 39MB of cache. Is there any way you, at AI, can check on that?
We do not need Broadcast quality monitors first of all. You do not know if the WinTel counterparts had the same specs. All Ternus said was one priced at $8,000. No one knew the specs. Why did the iMac Pro's basic configuration have a 1TB SSD and the Mac Pro starts at 256 GB. That is being very stingy despite the high cost! Comparing that Studio Display to a Sony BVM is a bit absurd. A $999 monitor stand is just as absurd. No one asked for a 6K monitor anyway. How is it the 27" iMac has a 5K monitor without the "Apple Tax". Apple is just damn Greedy.
Who's "we"? Apple introduced this particular monitor because the industry wanted one. Not you. Why hate on Apple for accommodating the pro industry? You can buy an Apple-approved 5K monitor right now on their online store. Perhaps you'd rather buy one of countless other monitors at whatever price point you want that will work just fine on a Mac Pro.
Are you wanting a monitor with an Apple logo on it that's in your price range? An iMac monitor is not a reference-level monitor so your mixing apples and oranges. The "Apple-tax" nonsense you and others always whine about has been debunked countless times and is just a figment of your imagination... or you're just trolling/hating.
You chiming that "no one asked for a 6K monitor anyway" is ballsy and just shows your ignorance. Most will trust Apple to know what the market wants than some random internet dude on a tech forum.
Lets hope that one of those lessons is not "Pricing will start at cost X eleventybillion!"
When Intel charges $15k for the 28 core Xeon what do you expect? Just one more reason Apple will sooner-rather-than-later ditch Intel for AMD.
And no, they aren't going ARM people. Just like they aren't building a competing GPGPU--the Afterburner is that secret GPU project from Florida.
The Mac Pro uses a Xeon W series, designed for single socket workstations. The current Intel Xeon W-3175X cost around $3000, very far of the $15K you mention. If you move to the Xeon Platinum, specifically the 8280, it goes close to the USD$18K. You are going to see this kind of processor in dual-socket workstations, like the HP Z-840.
The 28 Core part that the Mac Pro will be using is something like the 3175M, supporting 2 TB of memory, which is listed at about $7500, and even then, I'm understanding that Apple is looking at an unreleased version with near double the cache memory, from about 38.5 MB to 66.5 MB, which might be more expensive again.
I think that you might want to roll back you statement about that $3000 price, and state that you don't actually know how much it will cost.
If you read my post carefully, you'll noticed I mentioned "that the current Intel Xeon W-3175X cost around $3000, very far of the $15K you mention". I didn't mention anything related to the processor the Mac Pro has, since Apple neither Intel had released pricing information on it. My point it's that the pricing for the current top of the line Xeon W is far from the $15K @mdriftmeyer mentioned. That kind of processor is only for high end, two-socket workstations like the Z8 G4, not the Mac Pro. So I don't need to roll back my statement, since it wasn't wrong.
Second, I haven't seen in the Intel website the Xeon W-3175M you mentioned. Do you have a link where I can read about it? The most similar processor to the Xeon-W 48-core in the Mac Pro listed in the Intel website is the W-3275M, but it has 38.5MB of cache. I think we have two options, Apple is using a unannounced W-series processor or there is a typo in the Intel or Apple website.
Well, I as well made a typo, it should have been like the 3275M, with more cache memory, not the 3175M that I typed.
With that, we can agree that unannounced processor is likely more expensive than the $7500 listed for the 3275M, though possibly not as high as the $15k stated by Mdriftmeyer. We'll have to wait to know. You still might want to roll back your statement, since you don't know how much that unannounced processor will cost.
Anyone like to guesstimate what a fully speced-out new Mac Pro with display will cost?
$50K at least. The 28 core Xenon CPU is $15,000.00 just by itself on Amazon. Pixar, Lucasfilm, Industrial Light and Magic and others will be buying truckloads of these machines.
The current 28-core Xeon W series is close to $3K, not $15K. The other 28-core processor is the Xeon Platinum 8280, and it goes to $17K, but the Mac Pro don't have that option, considering is a single socket workstation. You'll have to move to a HP Z 840, since it's a dual socket workstation.
This still isn't it, but this, by itself is over $7000.
Later I found that link with the price. At the moment I made the post, Intel had no price information on it.
I suppose you said that it isn't the same processor because of the cache memory, which half of what Intel have in it's website. Could it be an unannounced processor or maybe a typo? When you look in the Intel website, only two processors, based in the Xeon Platinum series, have +70MB of cache memory. The rest of the processors are at most 39MB of cache. Is there any way you, at AI, can check on that?
At present, we're pretty sure it's an unannounced variant.
The storage is just enough for the OS and the target apps. It is clearly user upgradable for those that want more. But I suspect the people actually buying this would not use internal storage for their very large content anyway. So for this particular”ar product it is probably right. It is not right for a nonuser upgradable iMac with a very different use case.
This ^. Boom. This will be bought, and in no small numbers. The people buying these won't be spending the bulk of their time applying filters to selfie jpgs. They'll be working with huge file needing fast and even immediate rendering. This takes storage, and even a 1TB SSD wouldn't be enough. So use a smallish drive for the OS and apps, get Thunderbolt 3 storage for all the content and projects.
It's clear that, as somebody said in an earlier thread, so many people don't understand what this new MP is about, along with the monitor. Apple truly put the 'Pro' back in to the Mac Pro. They didn't build this 'for just anybody'.
Apple makes a 32" monitor that they claim bests the performance of a $43,000 27" Sony reference monitor, and wants ~$6000. And it's Apple getting grief, and not Sony. People can be such idiots, and worse yet, apparently proud of it.
Exactly. The ignorance of people on this thread just reeks of either laziness, or trolling. One person even prophesying that "no one asked for a 6K monitor". Ignorant.
When reason doesn't work on these people... you just kind of have to give up on them. They have an agenda and it seems more about just hating on Apple or claiming we're just apologists.
That 6K monitor is just stunning. I know what the monitor was meant for... I can't afford it nor need it, and I don't crucify Apple for introducing one. My hope is that Apple will one day come out with a similar monitor that's tuned more for the masses. I recently bought two Apple Thunderbolt2 monitors like-new on Craigslist for my new Mac Mini because I hate what the competition has. Apple makes better quality monitors. I'm hoping they will do that one day.
I think what they did with the Mac Pro AND the "cheap" reference monitor is just stunning.
Lets hope that one of those lessons is not "Pricing will start at cost X eleventybillion!"
Stop being so overdramatic. The Mac Pro is priced similarly to WinTel counterparts of EXACT specs and the monitor is far cheaper than the competitors reference-level monitors. Funny how you folks don't complain about the prices of those monitors.
We do not need Broadcast quality monitors first of all. You do not know if the WinTel counterparts had the same specs. All Ternus said was one priced at $8,000. No one knew the specs. Why did the iMac Pro's basic configuration have a 1TB SSD and the Mac Pro starts at 256 GB. That is being very stingy despite the high cost! Comparing that Studio Display to a Sony BVM is a bit absurd. A $999 monitor stand is just as absurd. No one asked for a 6K monitor anyway. How is it the 27" iMac has a 5K monitor without the "Apple Tax". Apple is just damn Greedy.
Nope. This product just isn’t for you. If you don’t know why this monitor is special, you don’t need it.
I do agree with @jumpcutter ; that a base storage amount of 256GB on the base-model Mac Pro isn't justified especially considering that the base-model iMac Pro comes with 1TB SSD. Given its target market, 1TB SSD should be standard on the new Mac Pro. Other than that, I have no issue with the new hardware announced.
The storage is just enough for the OS and the target apps. It is clearly user upgradable for those that want more. But I suspect the people actually buying this would not use internal storage for their very large content anyway. So for this particular”ar product it is probably right. It is not right for a nonuser upgradable iMac with a very different use case.
This ^. Boom. This will be bought, and in no small numbers. The people buying these won't be spending the bulk of their time applying filters to selfie jpgs. They'll be working with huge file needing fast and even immediate rendering. This takes storage, and even a 1TB SSD wouldn't be enough. So use a smallish drive for the OS and apps, get Thunderbolt 3 storage for all the content and projects.
It's clear that, as somebody said in an earlier thread, so many people don't understand what this new MP is about, along with the monitor. Apple truly put the 'Pro' back in to the Mac Pro. They didn't build this 'for just anybody'.
Apple makes a 32" monitor that they claim bests the performance of a $43,000 27" Sony reference monitor, and wants ~$6000. And it's Apple getting grief, and not Sony. People can be such idiots, and worse yet, apparently proud of it.
Yep. Problem is the audience Apple presented to is 99% people who don't get the use case of these great machines
It seems like there is legitimate criticism that Apple left out a segment in the middle that doesn’t want a sealed all in one design but the newest Mac Pro is way more than they need or are willing to spend. That market is probably bigger than the market for this device but those users don’t have enough clout to get on Apple’s radar.
Lets hope that one of those lessons is not "Pricing will start at cost X eleventybillion!"
When Intel charges $15k for the 28 core Xeon what do you expect? Just one more reason Apple will sooner-rather-than-later ditch Intel for AMD.
And no, they aren't going ARM people. Just like they aren't building a competing GPGPU--the Afterburner is that secret GPU project from Florida.
The Mac Pro uses a Xeon W series, designed for single socket workstations. The current Intel Xeon W-3175X cost around $3000, very far of the $15K you mention. If you move to the Xeon Platinum, specifically the 8280, it goes close to the USD$18K. You are going to see this kind of processor in dual-socket workstations, like the HP Z-840.
The 28 Core part that the Mac Pro will be using is something like the 3175M, supporting 2 TB of memory, which is listed at about $7500, and even then, I'm understanding that Apple is looking at an unreleased version with near double the cache memory, from about 38.5 MB to 66.5 MB, which might be more expensive again.
I think that you might want to roll back you statement about that $3000 price, and state that you don't actually know how much it will cost.
If you read my post carefully, you'll noticed I mentioned "that the current Intel Xeon W-3175X cost around $3000, very far of the $15K you mention". I didn't mention anything related to the processor the Mac Pro has, since Apple neither Intel had released pricing information on it. My point it's that the pricing for the current top of the line Xeon W is far from the $15K @mdriftmeyer mentioned. That kind of processor is only for high end, two-socket workstations like the Z8 G4, not the Mac Pro. So I don't need to roll back my statement, since it wasn't wrong.
Second, I haven't seen in the Intel website the Xeon W-3175M you mentioned. Do you have a link where I can read about it? The most similar processor to the Xeon-W 48-core in the Mac Pro listed in the Intel website is the W-3275M, but it has 38.5MB of cache. I think we have two options, Apple is using a unannounced W-series processor or there is a typo in the Intel or Apple website.
Well, I as well made a typo, it should have been like the 3275M, with more cache memory, not the 3175M that I typed.
With that, we can agree that unannounced processor is likely more expensive than the $7500 listed for the 3275M, though possibly not as high as the $15k stated by Mdriftmeyer. We'll have to wait to know. You still might want to roll back your statement, since you don't know how much that unannounced processor will cost.
Again, I cannot roll back an statement I didn't make, considering I don't know the price of the 48-core Mac Pro Xeon W processor. That's the reason I post about the Xeon W-3175X and later about the W-3275M. And still, neither of those processors are even close to $15K, which was my point since the beginning. And I don't think that adding 66.5MB of cache will double the price of the W-3275M.
It seems like there is legitimate criticism that Apple left out a segment in the middle that doesn’t want a sealed all in one design but the newest Mac Pro is way more than they need or are willing to spend. That market is probably bigger than the market for this device but those users don’t have enough clout to get on Apple’s radar.
Maybe the situation is that Apple has the marketing data, and a lower spec'd Mac Pro wouldn't actually make much sense. Let's give Apple some room to see how this Mac Pro pans out.
In a world of virtually instant financing, it's hard to imagine that someone with the skillset to use a Mac Pro, couldn't figure out a way to purchase it in some configuration, and generate enough income to at least break even over the terms of the contract.
Example:
$6000 at 12% for 36 month, is a payment of $199.00 per month, more or less.
Comments
This still isn't it, but this, by itself is over $7000.
It's clear that, as somebody said in an earlier thread, so many people don't understand what this new MP is about, along with the monitor. Apple truly put the 'Pro' back in to the Mac Pro. They didn't build this 'for just anybody'.
Apple makes a 32" monitor that they claim bests the performance of a $43,000 27" Sony reference monitor, and wants ~$6000. And it's Apple getting grief, and not Sony. People can be such idiots, and worse yet, apparently proud of it.
only if loaded with high power graphics cards
Apple just introduced what is probably the cheapest reference-level monitor in the industry. So sad you think Apple is being greedy.
Edit: Kept doing some research, and found the pricing in the Intel website. When I posted my comment, Intel had the processor pricing as unannounced.
https://ark.intel.com/content/www/us/en/ark/products/193754/intel-xeon-w-3275m-processor-38-5m-cache-2-50-ghz.html
Second, I haven't seen in the Intel website the Xeon W-3175M you mentioned. Do you have a link where I can read about it? The most similar processor to the Xeon-W 48-core in the Mac Pro listed in the Intel website is the W-3275M, but it has 38.5MB of cache. I think we have two options, Apple is using a unannounced W-series processor or there is a typo in the Intel or Apple website.
They just don’t get it.
I suppose you said that it isn't the same processor because of the cache memory, which half of what Intel have in it's website. Could it be an unannounced processor or maybe a typo? When you look in the Intel website, only two processors, based in the Xeon Platinum series, have +70MB of cache memory. The rest of the processors are at most 39MB of cache. Is there any way you, at AI, can check on that?
Who's "we"? Apple introduced this particular monitor because the industry wanted one. Not you. Why hate on Apple for accommodating the pro industry? You can buy an Apple-approved 5K monitor right now on their online store. Perhaps you'd rather buy one of countless other monitors at whatever price point you want that will work just fine on a Mac Pro.
You chiming that "no one asked for a 6K monitor anyway" is ballsy and just shows your ignorance. Most will trust Apple to know what the market wants than some random internet dude on a tech forum.
With that, we can agree that unannounced processor is likely more expensive than the $7500 listed for the 3275M, though possibly not as high as the $15k stated by Mdriftmeyer. We'll have to wait to know. You still might want to roll back your statement, since you don't know how much that unannounced processor will cost.
In a world of virtually instant financing, it's hard to imagine that someone with the skillset to use a Mac Pro, couldn't figure out a way to purchase it in some configuration, and generate enough income to at least break even over the terms of the contract.
Example:
$6000 at 12% for 36 month, is a payment of $199.00 per month, more or less.