Does anyone know where these will be made, I am assuming it will be stateside. This will also explain why the internet world did not have insight into the spec of the machine prior to the announcement. US manufacturers know how to keep their mouths shut.
Given the price of the Mac Pro, I will not be surprise if it is made on Mars.
Does anyone know how much is a max out Mac Pro will cost? Not that I can afford it.
Apple does, the rest of us can guess. Maybe 10k for just the custom top GPU.
Without feeling too much like googling for you I’d guess the top end is around 55-60k
top end enterprise stuff cost a lot. Doesn’t matter whose the seller. If it is rack mountable you can easily go over 40 k for the whole potato.
I could see my department investing on one or two of those. Since the old crunchers are getting a bit inadequate.
Does anyone know where these will be made, I am assuming it will be stateside. This will also explain why the internet world did not have insight into the spec of the machine prior to the announcement. US manufacturers know how to keep their mouths shut.
Given the price of the Mac Pro, I will not be surprise if it is made on Mars.
Does anyone know how much is a max out Mac Pro will cost? Not that I can afford it.
So, speed is limited by heat, and size of transistor is limited by fabrication capability and, more importantly, physics.
How many cores can we get before that is also not an option for improvement on CPU processing power?
Depends on how much heat each core puts out. That depends on process size, and the performance of each core. That why the fastest 8 core is 3.5 GHz, and the slowest is the 28 core at 2.5GHz. Interestingly, the slower cores have a higher turbo speed of 4.4GHz, rather than the 4 GHz of the 8 core design.
AMD’s Threadripper has 32 cores. But each core performs more poorly than an Intel core, even on a smaller process.
but more cores are only good for software that can break a program into steps that are somewhat independent of each other. If they can, the fewer, higher performance cores are better. You would want the 8 core model for Word, but the 28 core models for Final Cut.
Despite the negative comments about the >$6,999 price of the Mac Pro (~ 1 Tflop), 32 GB of memory and 256 GB of SSD storage, it is worth it if you are doing numerically intensive calculations. If you are old enough to have USED a wicked fast Macintosh Iifx (< 20 Mflops) circa 1988 (I am), the price in the dollars of the day was $7,800 for a 16 MHz processor with up to, wait for it, 4 MB of RAM, and with up to an 80 MB hard drive. I know this is not a fair apples to apples comparison (pun intended) but it is my post. We have an inflation corrected price REDUCTION of ~ 3X with a computing IMPROVEMENT of > 50,000. So was the old Macintosh IIfx worth the very high price then? - yes for the critical scientific computing and analysis of the day. Is the 2019 Mac Pro worth the price today? - yes for CPU intensive calculations. The 16-core Mac Pro is on my Christmas list. (Before you think I am crazy, My MacBook Pro with max memory and the top processor is $4k. Is the increase in performance going to a Mac Pro worth $3K - yes for me.)
Comments
How many cores can we get before that is also not an option for improvement on CPU processing power?
AMD’s Threadripper has 32 cores. But each core performs more poorly than an Intel core, even on a smaller process.
but more cores are only good for software that can break a program into steps that are somewhat independent of each other. If they can, the fewer, higher performance cores are better. You would want the 8 core model for Word, but the 28 core models for Final Cut.