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
That’s what you want. But the vast majority of ‘pros’ doing industrial level CG and audio production never crack their iMacs or iMac Pros open. They simply haven’t needed to because they buy the configuration they need right from the start.
To the people saying things like “why do you think you know better than Apple, who have done market research on what pros need”... Clearly Apple are capable of making mistakes. The 2013 Mac Pro is a most relevant example (among other things). They’re not some kind of magical, all-seeing, market geniuses. In fact, they seem to be weirdly uninformed. So often it seems that Apple live inside a mirrored ball, and they do not like to look outside of it. They certainly ignore users online. In claiming to have consulted professionals, it seems Apple consulted only the project leads at wealthy & monstrous studios like Pixar and Disney, but forgot about ALL THE OTHER PEOPLE that have historically bought Mac Pro computers.
They don’t even seem to use their own equipment / software for daily work (the only conclusion I can come to when I continuously find the need to report bugs, especially in iOS). We know for a fact that they don’t use their own computers for their services (they use Linux PCs on the back end; so much for eating their own dog food).
It’s amazing how the apologists keep twisting things around. Before this machine was announced, the apologists kept telling pros that they didn’t really need a tower Mac any more. That they didn’t need more than an iMac or a Mac Mini. That their demands were ridiculous, and they were just arrogant egoists with a tech fetish. THEN, immediately after Apple announced this 1%-market monstrous “Mac Pixar” machine, the apologists tell the wider Mac Pro market “You don’t understand! THIS COMPUTER ISN’T FOR YOU!” Apple went from one extreme to the opposite, and the apologists are entirely happy to play the same mental gymnastics.
Anyone who says a Mac Mini, Macbook Pro, or iMac is “good enough” for [sub-elite] professional work, have you ever done actual hard core GPU and CPU work on any of Apple’s compact, sealed, pathologically thin computers? Maybe doing hours of high-resolution photographic 3D renderings? How is that working out for you? Fan noise bothering you when it hits max temp? Machines too hot to type on, rendering multitasking useless to you? How many of your machines have burned out from repetitive heating and cooling? Do you get the maximum performance FULL time, or does it throttle after a while and result in a machine that actually is slower than its rating?
Just because there are owners of prior Mac Pro machines who cannot afford this new $12,000 machine does not mean they are not pros, and does not mean that Apple’s other machines are “just fine” for their needs. Apple ignored a market segment here, one which is probably wider than the one they aimed at, and there are people who are rightfully pissed about it. Stop telling them what they need and don’t need, and stop telling them they’re not professionals just because $12,000+ machines aren’t an easy business budget line item for them.
For what it's worth, here are thoughts from a professional photographer who uses top-end 2019 27" 5K iMac
What I don't get is when someone like "us" comes here with this opinion, and being Apple fans just like everyone else, a certain core group of users lets the insults fly as if the are personally offended members of the design team at Apple. I don't get it.
That’s why I’ve resorted to calling such people cultists and apologists. Their behavior is irrational & intolerant, and they seem to be unwilling to examine the quite rational critiques being made about Apple’s way of handling this whole Mac Pro situation. What is their motivation for being so insulting and arrogantly telling people that they’re not true Scotsman because “if you can’t afford it, it’s not for you”?
Are they elitists who can afford to spend this kind of money at the drop of a hat? Okay, but then how are they threatened by the legit criticisms being offered by Mac-using, Mac-loving, historically Apple-supporting customers who feel they’ve gotten the middle finger from Apple with this “Mac Pixar” machine? Are they people who have absolutely no need for more than an iMac and just want to defend poor ol’ haggard Apple against being burned at the stake by crazy villagers with pitch forks & torches? Are they stock holders who are paranoid about their stock prices going down because of public relations going south?
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.
Exactly right. This is like complaining about how much storage is included on data center servers. The people who need these types of machines are going to be working with massive files and will use appropriate storage solutions.
I would offer up this 256gb isn’t enough room to install a reasonable amount of applications these days. I’m not even talking demanding professional like media creators. Frankly I would not even consider that much storage for a developers machine these days.
By by the way yes I know bulk storage will go to another device of maybe an internal array. I’m rather shocked really at the rate that apps use up storage these days. This doesn’t even take into consideration the need to run VM’s. To put it simply 256gB is not defensible for even moderate pro usage.
I'm sorry but doesn't the Mac Pro have the option to install extra drives?
Most Pro studios will store their media onto another drive because it decreases drive failure. In this case, a base model with 256GB is more than enough. IDK what programs are eating up 200GB?
Shows how "pro" the complainers on their forum are.
To the people saying things like “why do you think you know better than Apple, who have done market research on what pros need”... Clearly Apple are capable of making mistakes. The 2013 Mac Pro is a most relevant example (among other things). They’re not some kind of magical, all-seeing, market geniuses. In fact, they seem to be weirdly uninformed. So often it seems that Apple live inside a mirrored ball, and they do not like to look outside of it. They certainly ignore users online. In claiming to have consulted professionals, it seems Apple consulted only the project leads at wealthy & monstrous studios like Pixar and Disney, but forgot about ALL THE OTHER PEOPLE that have historically bought Mac Pro computers.
They don’t even seem to use their own equipment / software for daily work (the only conclusion I can come to when I continuously find the need to report bugs, especially in iOS). We know for a fact that they don’t use their own computers for their services (they use Linux PCs on the back end; so much for eating their own dog food).
It’s amazing how the apologists keep twisting things around. Before this machine was announced, the apologists kept telling pros that they didn’t really need a tower Mac any more. That they didn’t need more than an iMac or a Mac Mini. That their demands were ridiculous, and they were just arrogant egoists with a tech fetish. THEN, immediately after Apple announced this 1%-market monstrous “Mac Pixar” machine, the apologists tell the wider Mac Pro market “You don’t understand! THIS COMPUTER ISN’T FOR YOU!” Apple went from one extreme to the opposite, and the apologists are entirely happy to play the same mental gymnastics.
Anyone who says a Mac Mini, Macbook Pro, or iMac is “good enough” for [sub-elite] professional work, have you ever done actual hard core GPU and CPU work on any of Apple’s compact, sealed, pathologically thin computers? Maybe doing hours of high-resolution photographic 3D renderings? How is that working out for you? Fan noise bothering you when it hits max temp? Machines too hot to type on, rendering multitasking useless to you? How many of your machines have burned out from repetitive heating and cooling? Do you get the maximum performance FULL time, or does it throttle after a while and result in a machine that actually is slower than its rating?
Just because there are owners of prior Mac Pro machines who cannot afford this new $12,000 machine does not mean they are not pros, and does not mean that Apple’s other machines are “just fine” for their needs. Apple ignored a market segment here, one which is probably wider than the one they aimed at, and there are people who are rightfully pissed about it. Stop telling them what they need and don’t need, and stop telling them they’re not professionals just because $12,000+ machines aren’t an easy business budget line item for them.
For what it's worth, here are thoughts from a professional photographer who uses top-end 2019 27" 5K iMac
Thanks for that link. I mistakenly typed “photographic” instead of “photorealistic” in my comment; I’ve since corrected it. While photography can use some CPU and GPU, it has not been one of the bigger “machine melting” scenarios I’ve encountered. 3D rendering and gaming are. When it’s the CPU and the GPU both going together at max, for hours at a time...
I’ve had a Macbook Pro die from thermal stress (gaming and network 3D rendering nodes) and that has made me intentionally *underuse* my remaining Macbook Pro. Rendering a Logic project can run the machine hot, too, but for much less time, and that’s not the GPU going at the same time, either. Apple’s compact machines are brilliant for internet and office work, and the iMac can be a great hobbyist/pro photographer’s tool, but I don’t trust these machines for heavy duty tasks that require 100% CPU/GPU for hours at a time. I cannot afford to buy a replacement machine every couple of years when they die from thermal extremes.
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.
Exactly right. This is like complaining about how much storage is included on data center servers. The people who need these types of machines are going to be working with massive files and will use appropriate storage solutions.
I would offer up this 256gb isn’t enough room to install a reasonable amount of applications these days. I’m not even talking demanding professional like media creators. Frankly I would not even consider that much storage for a developers machine these days.
By by the way yes I know bulk storage will go to another device of maybe an internal array. I’m rather shocked really at the rate that apps use up storage these days. This doesn’t even take into consideration the need to run VM’s. To put it simply 256gB is not defensible for even moderate pro usage.
I'm sorry but doesn't the Mac Pro have the option to install extra drives?
Most Pro studios will store their media onto another drive because it decreases drive failure. In this case, a base model with 256GB is more than enough. IDK what programs are eating up 200GB?
Shows how "pro" the complainers on their forum are.
Another arrogant declaration of who is and is not a pro... Here’s some info for you to consider:
Music professionals can end up with hundreds of gigabytes of audio on their machines. Part of this is the sample libraries installed as part of Logic X, Kontakt, BFD, and so on. Then there’re the actual audio tracks; hundreds of gigabytes of data for busy studios. You don’t, ideally, want to store these on external devices due to added latency. External devices are certainly used, but you benefit greatly from using the fastest storage device for this content, which is usually the internal device (especially when it’s the kind of SSD found in these machines, rather than an external mechanical drive that is better used for archiving and transport of vast data stores).
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.
Not at all dramatic. The top Mac has always been a product within the reach of many. Apple has now redefined that, to say that the top Mac will be a product for <0.01% of the Mac using population. With a base price of at least $12K for all parts needed, Apple is essentially giving the finger to the loyal Apple base that was waiting for a new Mac Pro. I'm sure some people need a machine that can drive six $5000 monitors at once, and need to see 1600 nits or whatever "extreme" other nonsense Apple is hyping up to justify the exorbitant price, but what about others that needed a powerful and expandable computer that couldn't care less about a million to 1 contrast (that is unlikely to be imporant to anyone)?
An absolutely not. The $6000 charged for the lowest 3.5ghz 8-core chip and accessories, is obscenely above parts and labor. Apple is going the way of those whack job Hi-Fi audio companies that sell cables for $3000 a foot.
All you are doing here is displaying your ignorance for all to see. You have no idea what high end work stations and monitors cost. A Sony 31” 4K HRD reference display lists for $30,000.00. The 32” 6K XDR Apple monitor will sell for $5000.00. What you were hoping for was a cheap Mac Pro with slots and a $599.00 monitor like olden days of yore. You ain’t gonna get it, boopsy, so time to leave the platform and seek the object of your desire elsewhere.
Not mention some Mac Pros from the past cost substantially more than this one. Folks need to visit everymac.com and do some sleuthing before commenting on the price of these machines.
To the people saying things like “why do you think you know better than Apple, who have done market research on what pros need”... Clearly Apple are capable of making mistakes. The 2013 Mac Pro is a most relevant example (among other things). They’re not some kind of magical, all-seeing, market geniuses. In fact, they seem to be weirdly uninformed. So often it seems that Apple live inside a mirrored ball, and they do not like to look outside of it. They certainly ignore users online. In claiming to have consulted professionals, it seems Apple consulted only the project leads at wealthy & monstrous studios like Pixar and Disney, but forgot about ALL THE OTHER PEOPLE that have historically bought Mac Pro computers.
They don’t even seem to use their own equipment / software for daily work (the only conclusion I can come to when I continuously find the need to report bugs, especially in iOS). We know for a fact that they don’t use their own computers for their services (they use Linux PCs on the back end; so much for eating their own dog food).
It’s amazing how the apologists keep twisting things around. Before this machine was announced, the apologists kept telling pros that they didn’t really need a tower Mac any more. That they didn’t need more than an iMac or a Mac Mini. That their demands were ridiculous, and they were just arrogant egoists with a tech fetish. THEN, immediately after Apple announced this 1%-market monstrous “Mac Pixar” machine, the apologists tell the wider Mac Pro market “You don’t understand! THIS COMPUTER ISN’T FOR YOU!” Apple went from one extreme to the opposite, and the apologists are entirely happy to play the same mental gymnastics.
Anyone who says a Mac Mini, Macbook Pro, or iMac is “good enough” for [sub-elite] professional work, have you ever done actual hard core GPU and CPU work on any of Apple’s compact, sealed, pathologically thin computers? Maybe doing hours of high-resolution photographic 3D renderings? How is that working out for you? Fan noise bothering you when it hits max temp? Machines too hot to type on, rendering multitasking useless to you? How many of your machines have burned out from repetitive heating and cooling? Do you get the maximum performance FULL time, or does it throttle after a while and result in a machine that actually is slower than its rating?
Just because there are owners of prior Mac Pro machines who cannot afford this new $12,000 machine does not mean they are not pros, and does not mean that Apple’s other machines are “just fine” for their needs. Apple ignored a market segment here, one which is probably wider than the one they aimed at, and there are people who are rightfully pissed about it. Stop telling them what they need and don’t need, and stop telling them they’re not professionals just because $12,000+ machines aren’t an easy business budget line item for them.
For what it's worth, here are thoughts from a professional photographer who uses top-end 2019 27" 5K iMac
Thanks for that link. I mistakenly typed “photographic” instead of “photorealistic” in my comment; I’ve since corrected it. While photography can use some CPU and GPU, it has not been one of the bigger “machine melting” scenarios I’ve encountered. 3D rendering and gaming are. When it’s the CPU and the GPU both going together at max, for hours at a time...
I’ve had a Macbook Pro die from thermal stress (gaming and network 3D rendering nodes) and that has made me intentionally *underuse* my remaining Macbook Pro. Rendering a Logic project can run the machine hot, too, but for much less time, and that’s not the GPU going at the same time, either. Apple’s compact machines are brilliant for internet and office work, and the iMac can be a great hobbyist/pro photographer’s tool, but I don’t trust these machines for heavy duty tasks that require 100% CPU/GPU for hours at a time. I cannot afford to buy a replacement machine every couple of years when they die from thermal extremes.
Your MacBook Pro has died as a result of a very specific GPU incident which was subject to a free repair from Apple. You are not alone, I experienced a similar lead-free solder GPU incident on my 2011 MBP and the availability of a free repair program for those models made a barter with a 2015 MBP possible. If you push a MBP to its thermal extremes sometimes machines fail to the point of the launch of a free repair program from Apple. Those specific incidents cannot be generalized as to arrogantly scrutinize people’s business like “have you ever done hard core GPU and CPU work...”. Apple has never marketed MBPs and iMacs for “heavy duty tasks that require 100% CPU/GPU for hours at a time”. They have the Mac Pro and iMac Pro for that. And now they have the new Mac Pro as a linear continuation to those models, so what’s wrong with that? You put a great deal of effort to prove something but sorry your claims don’t hold water.
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.
Everyone shut the hell up already with this damned meme “it’s not for you”. The Mac Pro was always a machine accessible to prosumers, hobbyists, and small businesses. This new one is NOT, but it’s called the same thing and designed to look similar to the previous tower. If you people want to keep spewing this stupid meme, then get Apple to change the damn name of the machine to something like “Mac Pixar” or “Mac Plutocrat”. OR JUST SHUT UP.
Saying that over and over doesn’t make it true. How old are you anyway? Were you still in diapers in the ‘80s and ‘90s when even low end Macs were in the thousands? Hell, I got my 128K Mac for something like $2500, maybe a little less because I was at university and got a discount. That’s about $6K today. Take a pill.
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.
Based in the Geekbench benchmark database, the Intel Xeon W-3275 has 28MB of L2 cache and 38.5MB of L3 cache, for a combined total of 66.5MB, the same number Apple has in their website.
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.
Looks like the Xeon W-3275M is the processor Apple will use in the top of the line Mac Pro. Based in the Geekbench results, this processor has 28MB of L2 cache and 38.5MB of L3 cache, for a combined total of 66.5MB, the same number Apple has in their website.
So it's looks like is not an unannounced processor as we thought. And if that's the case, then the $15K is not true at all, as I mention in my initial post. So no need to roll back my statement, right?
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.
Looks like the Xeon W-3275M is the processor Apple will use in the top of the line Mac Pro. Based in the Geekbench results, this processor has 28MB of L2 cache and 38.5MB of L3 cache, for a combined total of 66.5MB, the same number Apple has in their website.
So it's looks like is not an unannounced processor as we thought. And if that's the case, then the $15K is not true at all, as I mention in my initial post. So no need to roll back my statement, right?
Yeah, because it looks like it is $7500 for that processor, not $3000 as you first indicated, right?
But yeah, it looks like that is the one, at least until otherwise noted.
BTW, I wouldn't put too much stock in that benchmark for that processor, as it was running Windows 10, not Mac OSX. The results that I saw posted for the iMac Pro were higher using a lower end version of the Xeon W;
Just speculation, but I think over time Apple intends to bifurcate the user base and eventually the iPad will take over most of the laptop space (MacBook and MBA) and the Mac line will continue to march upmarket.
Already, most people can meet their computing needs with an iPad or iPad Pro. I would love to see Apple offer a larger screen desktop version of iPadOS on a tilting stand like the Surface Studio. I think Apple could eat the Surface Studio alive and at a better price with a desktop version of iPad OS.
I agree with most of what you're saying here, but I feel iPadOS would need to evolve considerably to challenge the Surface Studio - it's a real workhorse meant for apps like AutoCAD and Adobe InDesign.
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.
Looks like the Xeon W-3275M is the processor Apple will use in the top of the line Mac Pro. Based in the Geekbench results, this processor has 28MB of L2 cache and 38.5MB of L3 cache, for a combined total of 66.5MB, the same number Apple has in their website.
So it's looks like is not an unannounced processor as we thought. And if that's the case, then the $15K is not true at all, as I mention in my initial post. So no need to roll back my statement, right?
Yeah, because it looks like it is $7500 for that processor, not $3000 as you first indicated, right?
I mentioned that the Xeon W-3175X cost around $3K, no the W-3275M, remember? What I did said, and still true with the W-3275M is that neither is $15K. No rollback needed!
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.
Which should tell you something. Something that Apple knows and you don’t. That the market you’re describing is less viable than you, and other hobbyist tinkerers, think it is.
Comments
https://diglloyd.com/blog/2019/20190527_1025-iMac5K2019-experience-so-far.html
Are they elitists who can afford to spend this kind of money at the drop of a hat? Okay, but then how are they threatened by the legit criticisms being offered by Mac-using, Mac-loving, historically Apple-supporting customers who feel they’ve gotten the middle finger from Apple with this “Mac Pixar” machine? Are they people who have absolutely no need for more than an iMac and just want to defend poor ol’ haggard Apple against being burned at the stake by crazy villagers with pitch forks & torches? Are they stock holders who are paranoid about their stock prices going down because of public relations going south?
I'm sorry but doesn't the Mac Pro have the option to install extra drives?
Most Pro studios will store their media onto another drive because it decreases drive failure. In this case, a base model with 256GB is more than enough. IDK what programs are eating up 200GB?
Shows how "pro" the complainers on their forum are.
I’ve had a Macbook Pro die from thermal stress (gaming and network 3D rendering nodes) and that has made me intentionally *underuse* my remaining Macbook Pro. Rendering a Logic project can run the machine hot, too, but for much less time, and that’s not the GPU going at the same time, either. Apple’s compact machines are brilliant for internet and office work, and the iMac can be a great hobbyist/pro photographer’s tool, but I don’t trust these machines for heavy duty tasks that require 100% CPU/GPU for hours at a time. I cannot afford to buy a replacement machine every couple of years when they die from thermal extremes.
Music professionals can end up with hundreds of gigabytes of audio on their machines. Part of this is the sample libraries installed as part of Logic X, Kontakt, BFD, and so on. Then there’re the actual audio tracks; hundreds of gigabytes of data for busy studios. You don’t, ideally, want to store these on external devices due to added latency. External devices are certainly used, but you benefit greatly from using the fastest storage device for this content, which is usually the internal device (especially when it’s the kind of SSD found in these machines, rather than an external mechanical drive that is better used for archiving and transport of vast data stores).
https://browser.geekbench.com/v4/cpu/12921561
So it looks like the Xeon W-3275M, the one that supports 2TB of RAM, is the processor Apple install in the top of the line Mac Pro.
https://browser.geekbench.com/v4/cpu/12921561
So it's looks like is not an unannounced processor as we thought. And if that's the case, then the $15K is not true at all, as I mention in my initial post. So no need to roll back my statement, right?
But yeah, it looks like that is the one, at least until otherwise noted.
BTW, I wouldn't put too much stock in that benchmark for that processor, as it was running Windows 10, not Mac OSX. The results that I saw posted for the iMac Pro were higher using a lower end version of the Xeon W;
https://browser.geekbench.com/macs/428
One almost gets the impression that Mac OSX is giving more bang for the buck than Windows 10...