You know, come to think of it. You could get an iMac Pro, with 64 GB of RAM, a base Xeon, more storage and a Vega 56, stone the base Mac Pro over the head and it STILL COMES WITH A 5K LG MONITOR BUILT IN. How nuts is that?
Sure it doesn't come with support with 12 TB 3 lanes but srsly, you're probably not going to need that. A base Xeon wouldn't be able to handle that throughput anyways. So honestly, the iMac Pro is a better deal because in 5-6 years you just buy another iMac Pro and you get a whole new system, PLUS A WHOLE NEW MONITOR, to boot, for the same price. Like I said, the Mac Pro only makes "sense" once you start cracking the 20,000 USD threshold. Once you start putting in gpus and cpu configurations that can handle the crazy bandwidth and performance than an iMac Pro just can't touch. But the base system? A Vega 56 is 30% faster than the Mac Pro's base Radeon 580. And the system costs LESS and BRINGS A MONITOR.
I write for a living and do CG for fun (and occasional income). I've been sitting on my 12-core 2010 Mac pro since launch day, and I'm defintely buying this machine, as tricked out as I can afford. I just cannot wait. I'm hoping that everything I do currently will be transformed by the power of this system; I assume with twice as many CPU cores, twice as many GPUs, modern I/O and motherboard, it should at least be 'snappier'
The Mac Pro market was not a cult and the value was real.
Until the trashcan Mac, the Pro was a Mac you could buy and hold onto for more than a minute and upgrade. You did not have to rush out and buy a new one every 18 months because it was user upgradeable with mostly standard components.
The day the new Pro goes on sale I will be buying one.
I use my 2013 MacPro for my business every single day. When I purchased it, I paid about $4500 and it has returned that value in multiples, every year since the day it entered service. There is no single piece of hardware around here that gets used more. If the 2019 MacPro is well made and as powerful as advertised, then it would seem like a good long term investment at $6000~$8000. There are cheaper options, but I'd rather save money on office supplies, services, etc. then something so central to the day-to-day post production workflow.
I use my 2013 MacPro for my business every single day. When I purchased it, I paid about $4500 and it has returned that value in multiples, every year since the day it entered service. There is no single piece of hardware around here that gets used more. If the 2019 MacPro is well made and as powerful as advertised, then it would seem like a good long term investment at $6000~$8000. There are cheaper options, but I'd rather save money on office supplies, services, etc. then something so central to the day-to-day post production workflow.
I just explained that it's not "as powerful as advertised" compared to what your expectations are. it's a 1500 dollar system masquerading as a 6000 dollar system. You'd have to spend at least double your 2013 Mac Pro to get the performance that would be called "powerful".
Unfortunately, the Mac Pro has a distinct issue on its value curve. It's a horrible value system at its base price, that quickly ramps in value as the price becomes astronomical.
At its 6000 USD base price tag, the computer is a joke. The base Xeon it has was about 1200 bucks (on release). It was blessed with 240 dollars of ECC RAM (on release). It had a nice, airflow-centric case to be sure. Good cases that are solid steel/aluminum are, often, 200-300 USD. Even if we counted the Mac Pro's case as a 500 dollar case, and counted its M.2 storage in the default model as 240 dollars, we'd still be sitting at 3000 dollars for the system. The Radeon 580 is a naught 200 dollar card (even on release).
That means you're paying effectively ~ 3000 dollars for a power supply and motherboard. Which is kinda nuts. I mean the power supply itself is about 200 bucks at most (actually less) and the fans can't be more than 100 bucks. So you're buying a, albeit ultra bleeding edge, motherboard for 2700 USD, which is highway robbery.
Yes, the special component of the Mac Pro isn't the CPU or the GPU (although the Mac Pro can top out with sky-high Xeons and absolutely monstrous Arcturus-precursor dual Vega 2s), it's the motherboard. The base system doesn't ship with any of that super hardware though. Yes, the motherboard accommodates 1.5 TB of ECC RAM. Yes it has the ability to run almost a dozen bus lanes for TB 3. Yes, it accommodates both power via the port and via adapter for gpus. Yes the Pro Vega 2 is a beast of a card, dwarfing the Radeon VII's already ludicrous 16 GB of HBM2. But you get NONE of that with a 6000 dollar base system.
With a 6000 dollar base system, you get an amazing motherboard, that might never be used. You get a low-end Xeon that is outperformed by most Core i9s (Xeon reliability is worth 800 dollars?!). You get a gpu that is budget by today's standards (the MacBook Pro's Vega gpu is about as fast as a 565-570 which itself is only 10-15% slower than the Mac Pro's 580...). And a bunch of super components like psus and the like that may never be used unless you upgrade them yourself down the line.
You could build a DIY computer with pretty much identical performance for less than 1500 dollars. No, I'm not kidding. Sure, it's not upgradeable with ECC RAM. Sure, it doesn't have 12 TB 3 lanes or 10 gigabit ether. No, it doesn't have a ridiculously overpowered psu for a system that draws under 300 Watts. But still, you're buying a system with such low specs all those upgradeable touches are pointless unless you spend thousands more upgrading the system anyways.
Sure, you can get a great high end Xeon and push the RAM to 1.5 TB. Yes, 2 Pro Vega 2s are absolutely nuts, with a max of 128 GB of HBM2 RAM. But that system costs 50k. The base system gets you NOTHING. And it's 6000 USD. For workflow alone, a computer 1/4 the price will do the job.
So yes, the Mac Pro may be a great machine at the high end but anyone that buys it in the low end better not convince themselves they're getting a super computer because it's a budget system, at most and they're paying between 4-10x as much for the privilege of the Apple emblem.
I agree the base config is not ideal. I am hoping it is possible for DIY RAM upgrade as I don't want to may Apple RAM prices and I am used to 64 GB in the trash can so I'd want at least that and the GPU choice is still open in my mind until I see pricing but I suspect even the base is a leap from my dual AMD Firepros. 8 or 12 core would be enough for me for sure. That all said in five years this machine will still be totally configurable an iMac Pro isn't.
You can totally upgrade the RAM and GPU yourself. The problem is anything worthy of that motherboard is going to run you thousands of dollars. Which means you're looking at an 8k system. Again, that kind of workflow lends itself to mission-critical server work, not prosumer production. The Radeon 580 is about 20% more than the D700s in the old Mac Pro. That's it. Sure, you only have one gpu so the support is probably better but a Radeon 580 is a budget card. If you move to a Pro Vega 2, you're looking at least a 1000 dollar increase in price. That's because the card is basically an up-RAMMED Radeon VII which MSRPed at 700 USD. It's basically an mi60 on steroids.
In 6 years, the system's CPU will be woefully underpowered. The GPU will be upgradeable. But you're paying almost 10,000 USD for the privilege if you do it correctly.
All good info, thanks and I will have to think long and hard on the GPUs. Out of curiosity will we be limited to Apple's own AMD GPUs or would off the shelf AMD cards work?
There is another consideration for me. I utilize my three 27" monitors in several ways. I run three Dell Servers with MySQL and use MS DTR on the Mac Pro so I can swipe between all three servers and have three screens on each or any combination of Servers and/or Mac pro. I also can change the inputs on the central Dell 27" 4K so as to run a Dell PC with a GTX 1080 directly and still have the two side screens running from my Mac Pro (I have a second keyboard and mouse for that scenario). An iMac since 2014 has not supported alternative inputs (if it ever did in this type of scenario I seem to recall that was just target mode anyway). So an iMac for me is an extra screen that cannot be used by anything else. There is nothing else from Apple that works for me. I already have the latest MBP and a Mac mini and they obviously are for totally different uses. I need a tower with slots for my needs, that's all there is to it.
Remember that it's 5999 PLUS TAX and Apple Care. With those additions, that computer almost hits 7000. If you upgrade the RAM yourself and the storage (the measly 256 GB) yourself, you're looking at another 500 dollars MORE. And that's BEFORE you even look at a real graphics card. The Mac Pro's 580 is only 30% faster than the AMD APUs in higher level 3400Gs. 30% over integrated graphics isn't "powerful". So by the time you sink another 1000+ in a Vega 2 card, you're looking at least 8500 dollars (probably closer to 9000).
And even then, you could build a Mac with 90% that performance for a quarter of the price.
I use my 2013 MacPro for my business every single day. When I purchased it, I paid about $4500 and it has returned that value in multiples, every year since the day it entered service. There is no single piece of hardware around here that gets used more. If the 2019 MacPro is well made and as powerful as advertised, then it would seem like a good long term investment at $6000~$8000. There are cheaper options, but I'd rather save money on office supplies, services, etc. then something so central to the day-to-day post production workflow.
Exactly and the same was true of the Mac IIfx that cost $12,000 loaded and most of the Mac Towers between then and now (maybe a few exceptions). This 'they cost too much' has been a constant whine that simply doesn't stand up to scrutiny. Pricing out any PC with the exact or similar specifications has always shown that to be a crock.
The Mac Pro market was not a cult and the value was real.
Until the trashcan Mac, the Pro was a Mac you could buy and hold onto for more than a minute and upgrade. You did not have to rush out and buy a new one every 18 months because it was user upgradeable with mostly standard components.
The day the new Pro goes on sale I will be buying one.
My trash can has been awesome and but for the bloody I/O as in TB2/USB3 limitation, it would still be very useful. As it is I don't know whether to sell it, trade it or turn it into another server on the LAN. It runs Windows 10 Pro very well and Catalysts with dual GPUs.
Unfortunately, the Mac Pro has a distinct issue on its value curve. It's a horrible value system at its base price, that quickly ramps in value as the price becomes astronomical.
At its 6000 USD base price tag, the computer is a joke. The base Xeon it has was about 1200 bucks (on release). It was blessed with 240 dollars of ECC RAM (on release). It had a nice, airflow-centric case to be sure. Good cases that are solid steel/aluminum are, often, 200-300 USD. Even if we counted the Mac Pro's case as a 500 dollar case, and counted its M.2 storage in the default model as 240 dollars, we'd still be sitting at 3000 dollars for the system. The Radeon 580 is a naught 200 dollar card (even on release).
That means you're paying effectively ~ 3000 dollars for a power supply and motherboard. Which is kinda nuts. I mean the power supply itself is about 200 bucks at most (actually less) and the fans can't be more than 100 bucks. So you're buying a, albeit ultra bleeding edge, motherboard for 2700 USD, which is highway robbery.
Yes, the special component of the Mac Pro isn't the CPU or the GPU (although the Mac Pro can top out with sky-high Xeons and absolutely monstrous Arcturus-precursor dual Vega 2s), it's the motherboard. The base system doesn't ship with any of that super hardware though. Yes, the motherboard accommodates 1.5 TB of ECC RAM. Yes it has the ability to run almost a dozen bus lanes for TB 3. Yes, it accommodates both power via the port and via adapter for gpus. Yes the Pro Vega 2 is a beast of a card, dwarfing the Radeon VII's already ludicrous 16 GB of HBM2. But you get NONE of that with a 6000 dollar base system.
With a 6000 dollar base system, you get an amazing motherboard, that might never be used. You get a low-end Xeon that is outperformed by most Core i9s (Xeon reliability is worth 800 dollars?!). You get a gpu that is budget by today's standards (the MacBook Pro's Vega gpu is about as fast as a 565-570 which itself is only 10-15% slower than the Mac Pro's 580...). And a bunch of super components like psus and the like that may never be used unless you upgrade them yourself down the line.
You could build a DIY computer with pretty much identical performance for less than 1500 dollars. No, I'm not kidding. Sure, it's not upgradeable with ECC RAM. Sure, it doesn't have 12 TB 3 lanes or 10 gigabit ether. No, it doesn't have a ridiculously overpowered psu for a system that draws under 300 Watts. But still, you're buying a system with such low specs all those upgradeable touches are pointless unless you spend thousands more upgrading the system anyways.
Sure, you can get a great high end Xeon and push the RAM to 1.5 TB. Yes, 2 Pro Vega 2s are absolutely nuts, with a max of 128 GB of HBM2 RAM. But that system costs 50k. The base system gets you NOTHING. And it's 6000 USD. For workflow alone, a computer 1/4 the price will do the job.
So yes, the Mac Pro may be a great machine at the high end but anyone that buys it in the low end better not convince themselves they're getting a super computer because it's a budget system, at most and they're paying between 4-10x as much for the privilege of the Apple emblem.
What you're describing is a recurring problem with well-architected products and solutions, i.e., products designed to support specific quality attributes such as modularity, modifiability, upgradability, performance scalability, etc. Everyone wants all of the values that a well-architected product or solution provides, but they don't want to pay for it when the base-level implementation is really a starting point for acquiring the potential value that the product's quality attributes can deliver. But just like potential energy, potential value is not realized until it is exploited to provide a benefit, which in the case of the Mac Pro is when you start exercising the potential by upgrading components, scaling up the performance, adding massive storage, etc. So yeah, you're paying for the architecture at the entry level but if you don't need the architecture or don't plan to exploit its attributes you may end up spending a lot more than you need to.
It usually comes down to making intelligent and informed decisions about what you're buying while taking into consideration the intended lifecycle of the product or solution. Too often people, teams, and organizations will make the wrong decision because they're applying short term considerations to longer term problems. Or vice versa. They'll look at the price of the architected solution, balk at the price in terms of their current budget, and cheap out on the purchase. A year later, or when the regime changes, they'll realize they didn't buy what they really needed for long term value and revisit the whole process and end up spending more in the long run and inciting churn. Of course it works the other way too. It's not an easy decision, but for people and organizations that apply sound economic justification for their purchases, taking into all factors like depreciation and salvage value, it SHOULD be a data-driven decision and not an emotional one. These are exactly the kinds of decisions that organizations make every day around all manner of personnel and capital expenditures from computers to upgrades of production machinery. I imagine many buyers of Mac Pros will apply these same sort of decisions.
I write for a living and do CG for fun (and occasional income). I've been sitting on my 12-core 2010 Mac pro since launch day, and I'm defintely buying this machine, as tricked out as I can afford. I just cannot wait. I'm hoping that everything I do currently will be transformed by the power of this system; I assume with twice as many CPU cores, twice as many GPUs, modern I/O and motherboard, it should at least be 'snappier'
Haha! Good for you. You waited long enough! I bet Safari is way snappier I can't wait to see.
You know, come to think of it. You could get an iMac Pro, with 64 GB of RAM, a base Xeon, more storage and a Vega 56, stone the base Mac Pro over the head and it STILL COMES WITH A 5K LG MONITOR BUILT IN. How nuts is that?
Sure it doesn't come with support with 12 TB 3 lanes but srsly, you're probably not going to need that. A base Xeon wouldn't be able to handle that throughput anyways. So honestly, the iMac Pro is a better deal because in 5-6 years you just buy another iMac Pro and you get a whole new system, PLUS A WHOLE NEW MONITOR, to boot, for the same price. Like I said, the Mac Pro only makes "sense" once you start cracking the 20,000 USD threshold. Once you start putting in gpus and cpu configurations that can handle the crazy bandwidth and performance than an iMac Pro just can't touch. But the base system? A Vega 56 is 30% faster than the Mac Pro's base Radeon 580. And the system costs LESS and BRINGS A MONITOR.
Yes and that has been the cause for my mental agony for a long time. BUT ... The iMac Pro is old now though, you have to think it is due for an update soon. The iMac 5K tricked out has no T2 as I understand it.
Unfortunately, the Mac Pro has a distinct issue on its value curve. It's a horrible value system at its base price, that quickly ramps in value as the price becomes astronomical.
At its 6000 USD base price tag, the computer is a joke. The base Xeon it has was about 1200 bucks (on release). It was blessed with 240 dollars of ECC RAM (on release). It had a nice, airflow-centric case to be sure. Good cases that are solid steel/aluminum are, often, 200-300 USD. Even if we counted the Mac Pro's case as a 500 dollar case, and counted its M.2 storage in the default model as 240 dollars, we'd still be sitting at 3000 dollars for the system. The Radeon 580 is a naught 200 dollar card (even on release).
That means you're paying effectively ~ 3000 dollars for a power supply and motherboard. Which is kinda nuts. I mean the power supply itself is about 200 bucks at most (actually less) and the fans can't be more than 100 bucks. So you're buying a, albeit ultra bleeding edge, motherboard for 2700 USD, which is highway robbery.
Yes, the special component of the Mac Pro isn't the CPU or the GPU (although the Mac Pro can top out with sky-high Xeons and absolutely monstrous Arcturus-precursor dual Vega 2s), it's the motherboard. The base system doesn't ship with any of that super hardware though. Yes, the motherboard accommodates 1.5 TB of ECC RAM. Yes it has the ability to run almost a dozen bus lanes for TB 3. Yes, it accommodates both power via the port and via adapter for gpus. Yes the Pro Vega 2 is a beast of a card, dwarfing the Radeon VII's already ludicrous 16 GB of HBM2. But you get NONE of that with a 6000 dollar base system.
With a 6000 dollar base system, you get an amazing motherboard, that might never be used. You get a low-end Xeon that is outperformed by most Core i9s (Xeon reliability is worth 800 dollars?!). You get a gpu that is budget by today's standards (the MacBook Pro's Vega gpu is about as fast as a 565-570 which itself is only 10-15% slower than the Mac Pro's 580...). And a bunch of super components like psus and the like that may never be used unless you upgrade them yourself down the line.
You could build a DIY computer with pretty much identical performance for less than 1500 dollars. No, I'm not kidding. Sure, it's not upgradeable with ECC RAM. Sure, it doesn't have 12 TB 3 lanes or 10 gigabit ether. No, it doesn't have a ridiculously overpowered psu for a system that draws under 300 Watts. But still, you're buying a system with such low specs all those upgradeable touches are pointless unless you spend thousands more upgrading the system anyways.
Sure, you can get a great high end Xeon and push the RAM to 1.5 TB. Yes, 2 Pro Vega 2s are absolutely nuts, with a max of 128 GB of HBM2 RAM. But that system costs 50k. The base system gets you NOTHING. And it's 6000 USD. For workflow alone, a computer 1/4 the price will do the job.
So yes, the Mac Pro may be a great machine at the high end but anyone that buys it in the low end better not convince themselves they're getting a super computer because it's a budget system, at most and they're paying between 4-10x as much for the privilege of the Apple emblem.
What you're describing is a recurring problem with well-architected products and solutions, i.e., products designed to support specific quality attributes such as modularity, modifiability, upgradability, performance scalability, etc. Everyone wants all of the values that a well-architected product or solution provides, but they don't want to pay for it when the base-level implementation is really a starting point for acquiring the potential value that the product's quality attributes can deliver. But just like potential energy, potential value is not realized until it is exploited to provide a benefit, which in the case of the Mac Pro is when you start exercising the potential by upgrading components, scaling up the performance, adding massive storage, etc. So yeah, you're paying for the architecture at the entry level but if you don't need the architecture or don't plan to exploit its attributes you may end up spending a lot more than you need to.
It usually comes down to making intelligent and informed decisions about what you're buying while taking into consideration the intended lifecycle of the product or solution. Too often people, teams, and organizations will make the wrong decision because they're applying short term considerations to longer term problems. Or vice versa. They'll look at the price of the architected solution, balk at the price in terms of their current budget, and cheap out on the purchase. A year later, or when the regime changes, they'll realize they didn't buy what they really needed for long term value and revisit the whole process and end up spending more in the long run and inciting churn. Of course it works the other way too. It's not an easy decision, but for people and organizations that apply sound economic justification for their purchases, taking into all factors like depreciation and salvage value, it SHOULD be a data-driven decision and not an emotional one. These are exactly the kinds of decisions that organizations make every day around all manner of personnel and capital expenditures from computers to upgrades of production machinery. I imagine many buyers of Mac Pros will apply these same sort of decisions.
So true. It is very hard and Apple knows this and their release cycle has already factored all this in I am sure. If for example (and a big if I know) there was a prosumer mid-sized tower in the works it would not surface untill all those that really are on the edge of buying the new Mac Pro have done so or haven't. Likewise a new iMac Pro.
"The masses" Really?
If I was a millionaire, sure. But really all I wanted was a Mac with removable storage and ability to change the GPU at a reasonable price. Was that too much to ask?
Unfortunately, the Mac Pro has a distinct issue on its value curve. It's a horrible value system at its base price, that quickly ramps in value as the price becomes astronomical.
At its 6000 USD base price tag, the computer is a joke. The base Xeon it has was about 1200 bucks (on release). It was blessed with 240 dollars of ECC RAM (on release). It had a nice, airflow-centric case to be sure. Good cases that are solid steel/aluminum are, often, 200-300 USD. Even if we counted the Mac Pro's case as a 500 dollar case, and counted its M.2 storage in the default model as 240 dollars, we'd still be sitting at 3000 dollars for the system. The Radeon 580 is a naught 200 dollar card (even on release).
That means you're paying effectively ~ 3000 dollars for a power supply and motherboard. Which is kinda nuts. I mean the power supply itself is about 200 bucks at most (actually less) and the fans can't be more than 100 bucks. So you're buying a, albeit ultra bleeding edge, motherboard for 2700 USD, which is highway robbery.
Yes, the special component of the Mac Pro isn't the CPU or the GPU (although the Mac Pro can top out with sky-high Xeons and absolutely monstrous Arcturus-precursor dual Vega 2s), it's the motherboard. The base system doesn't ship with any of that super hardware though. Yes, the motherboard accommodates 1.5 TB of ECC RAM. Yes it has the ability to run almost a dozen bus lanes for TB 3. Yes, it accommodates both power via the port and via adapter for gpus. Yes the Pro Vega 2 is a beast of a card, dwarfing the Radeon VII's already ludicrous 16 GB of HBM2. But you get NONE of that with a 6000 dollar base system.
With a 6000 dollar base system, you get an amazing motherboard, that might never be used. You get a low-end Xeon that is outperformed by most Core i9s (Xeon reliability is worth 800 dollars?!). You get a gpu that is budget by today's standards (the MacBook Pro's Vega gpu is about as fast as a 565-570 which itself is only 10-15% slower than the Mac Pro's 580...). And a bunch of super components like psus and the like that may never be used unless you upgrade them yourself down the line.
You could build a DIY computer with pretty much identical performance for less than 1500 dollars. No, I'm not kidding. Sure, it's not upgradeable with ECC RAM. Sure, it doesn't have 12 TB 3 lanes or 10 gigabit ether. No, it doesn't have a ridiculously overpowered psu for a system that draws under 300 Watts. But still, you're buying a system with such low specs all those upgradeable touches are pointless unless you spend thousands more upgrading the system anyways.
Sure, you can get a great high end Xeon and push the RAM to 1.5 TB. Yes, 2 Pro Vega 2s are absolutely nuts, with a max of 128 GB of HBM2 RAM. But that system costs 50k. The base system gets you NOTHING. And it's 6000 USD. For workflow alone, a computer 1/4 the price will do the job.
So yes, the Mac Pro may be a great machine at the high end but anyone that buys it in the low end better not convince themselves they're getting a super computer because it's a budget system, at most and they're paying between 4-10x as much for the privilege of the Apple emblem.
What you're describing is a recurring problem with well-architected products and solutions, i.e., products designed to support specific quality attributes such as modularity, modifiability, upgradability, performance scalability, etc. Everyone wants all of the values that a well-architected product or solution provides, but they don't want to pay for it when the base-level implementation is really a starting point for acquiring the potential value that the product's quality attributes can deliver. But just like potential energy, potential value is not realized until it is exploited to provide a benefit, which in the case of the Mac Pro is when you start exercising the potential by upgrading components, scaling up the performance, adding massive storage, etc. So yeah, you're paying for the architecture at the entry level but if you don't need the architecture or don't plan to exploit its attributes you may end up spending a lot more than you need to.
It usually comes down to making intelligent and informed decisions about what you're buying while taking into consideration the intended lifecycle of the product or solution. Too often people, teams, and organizations will make the wrong decision because they're applying short term considerations to longer term problems. Or vice versa. They'll look at the price of the architected solution, balk at the price in terms of their current budget, and cheap out on the purchase. A year later, or when the regime changes, they'll realize they didn't buy what they really needed for long term value and revisit the whole process and end up spending more in the long run and inciting churn. Of course it works the other way too. It's not an easy decision, but for people and organizations that apply sound economic justification for their purchases, taking into all factors like depreciation and salvage value, it SHOULD be a data-driven decision and not an emotional one. These are exactly the kinds of decisions that organizations make every day around all manner of personnel and capital expenditures from computers to upgrades of production machinery. I imagine many buyers of Mac Pros will apply these same sort of decisions.
But this is why I'm posting here. I think the camp that benefits from the Mac Pro is probably smaller than the camps positively and negatively affected by it. There are going to be haters that think that the system is overpriced at 50k, when it's packing 4 Vega 2 chipsets capable of pushing 60 teraflops of data compute. Conversely, you're always going to have the misinformed fanboys that work out of a mom and pop copy shop that think that they need a 7000 dollar budget system to do "pro" work when that system is inherently a *horrible*, *horrible* deal. As I said, this system isn't meant to be bought for less than 9-10k. If you buy it at base config, you don't need it and you're buying a bad system for your needs.
You know, come to think of it. You could get an iMac Pro, with 64 GB of RAM, a base Xeon, more storage and a Vega 56, stone the base Mac Pro over the head and it STILL COMES WITH A 5K LG MONITOR BUILT IN. How nuts is that?
Sure it doesn't come with support with 12 TB 3 lanes but srsly, you're probably not going to need that. A base Xeon wouldn't be able to handle that throughput anyways. So honestly, the iMac Pro is a better deal because in 5-6 years you just buy another iMac Pro and you get a whole new system, PLUS A WHOLE NEW MONITOR, to boot, for the same price. Like I said, the Mac Pro only makes "sense" once you start cracking the 20,000 USD threshold. Once you start putting in gpus and cpu configurations that can handle the crazy bandwidth and performance than an iMac Pro just can't touch. But the base system? A Vega 56 is 30% faster than the Mac Pro's base Radeon 580. And the system costs LESS and BRINGS A MONITOR.
Yes and that has been the cause for my mental agony for a long time. BUT ... The iMac Pro is old now though, you have to think it is due for an update soon. The iMac 5K tricked out has no T2 as I understand it.
The iMac Pro isn't even 2 years old. Its top of the line gpu is still about as powerful as a Navi 5700 which is midrange in gaming. It's 12.5 teraflops still outperforms a 2080 and 1080 Ti in compute and the Xeon/RAM have had less than 15% improvement in speed increases due to Intel's issues with yields. The only way you'd get a faster system from Apple is if you:
Making the decision to buy this thing – at Apple's prices and with tech that's already six months old (if not older) – is hard enough as it is. People like Madan are not making it any easier, but I won't be swayed; I'm buying one. Although the endless wait is killing me...
I'm not trying to make it hard on anyone. But I am trying to clear things up so people know what they're getting into. Buyers remorse sucks. It would be a shame to spend 8k on a computer and find out that it competes unfavorably with a 5k iMac Pro.
"Will Apple have to brainwash the masses to buy it?"
It's not a computer for the masses and no amount of brainwashing could change that.
At the same time it's gonna appeal to a certain segment of buyers who have needs for intense video processing or scientific applications, or a few who purchase it "just because it exists".
I think you missed the entire point of the article, and the title.
Comments
Sure it doesn't come with support with 12 TB 3 lanes but srsly, you're probably not going to need that. A base Xeon wouldn't be able to handle that throughput anyways. So honestly, the iMac Pro is a better deal because in 5-6 years you just buy another iMac Pro and you get a whole new system, PLUS A WHOLE NEW MONITOR, to boot, for the same price. Like I said, the Mac Pro only makes "sense" once you start cracking the 20,000 USD threshold. Once you start putting in gpus and cpu configurations that can handle the crazy bandwidth and performance than an iMac Pro just can't touch. But the base system? A Vega 56 is 30% faster than the Mac Pro's base Radeon 580. And the system costs LESS and BRINGS A MONITOR.
Until the trashcan Mac, the Pro was a Mac you could buy and hold onto for more than a minute and upgrade. You did not have to rush out and buy a new one every 18 months because it was user upgradeable with mostly standard components.
The day the new Pro goes on sale I will be buying one.
There is another consideration for me. I utilize my three 27" monitors in several ways. I run three Dell Servers with MySQL and use MS DTR on the Mac Pro so I can swipe between all three servers and have three screens on each or any combination of Servers and/or Mac pro. I also can change the inputs on the central Dell 27" 4K so as to run a Dell PC with a GTX 1080 directly and still have the two side screens running from my Mac Pro (I have a second keyboard and mouse for that scenario). An iMac since 2014 has not supported alternative inputs (if it ever did in this type of scenario I seem to recall that was just target mode anyway). So an iMac for me is an extra screen that cannot be used by anything else. There is nothing else from Apple that works for me. I already have the latest MBP and a Mac mini and they obviously are for totally different uses. I need a tower with slots for my needs, that's all there is to it.
This CPU will not be "woefully underpowered" in six years, despite the doomsayers.
Appleinsider's editorials lately have really turned me off - the tone and attitude and verbosity. I'm out of here.
And even then, you could build a Mac with 90% that performance for a quarter of the price.
It usually comes down to making intelligent and informed decisions about what you're buying while taking into consideration the intended lifecycle of the product or solution. Too often people, teams, and organizations will make the wrong decision because they're applying short term considerations to longer term problems. Or vice versa. They'll look at the price of the architected solution, balk at the price in terms of their current budget, and cheap out on the purchase. A year later, or when the regime changes, they'll realize they didn't buy what they really needed for long term value and revisit the whole process and end up spending more in the long run and inciting churn. Of course it works the other way too. It's not an easy decision, but for people and organizations that apply sound economic justification for their purchases, taking into all factors like depreciation and salvage value, it SHOULD be a data-driven decision and not an emotional one. These are exactly the kinds of decisions that organizations make every day around all manner of personnel and capital expenditures from computers to upgrades of production machinery. I imagine many buyers of Mac Pros will apply these same sort of decisions.
The iMac Pro isn't even 2 years old. Its top of the line gpu is still about as powerful as a Navi 5700 which is midrange in gaming. It's 12.5 teraflops still outperforms a 2080 and 1080 Ti in compute and the Xeon/RAM have had less than 15% improvement in speed increases due to Intel's issues with yields. The only way you'd get a faster system from Apple is if you:
Built a FrankenMac using egpus.
Bought a 9K< Mac Pro.