At its 6000 USD base price tag, the computer is a joke. [...]
You could build a DIY computer with pretty much identical performance for less than 1500 dollars. No, I'm not kidding. .
Not kidding, just ignorant. Please post your $1500 DIY version of equal performance. Then add additional cost for assembly, and support, which your DIY model doesn't have.
First of all, you could swap the Xeon for a Core i9 and save yourself a truckload of money. No, Core i9s aren't synonymous with Xeons and I've owned both. But if you think that someone running an 8 core Xeon and a 580 is running mission critical apps you're either disingenuous or ignorant. Core i9s will outperform low end Xeons on single-threaded workloads by as much as 50% and only lose to Xeons by as little as 15%. So it's a good tradeoff and you can have a Core i9 for as low as 550 bucks.
You can buy a 580 for less than 200 bucks. You're right. It might not even be a 1500 dollar system. It's probably less. The 2017 iMac is 95% the performance of a base Mac Pro for 1/4 the price and it comes with a 5K monitor.
If Apple releases a computer aimed at professionals that costs between $6K and $25K but won't let you use any GPU you want, they will need Steve Jobs back from the dead to sell 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.
What a weird statement within a thread of your weird statements. It's bad enough that you state "PLUS TAX" at all but then you put it in all caps as if this is some hidden Apple Tax that no other vendor has to apply to a purchases.
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.
Except that other in your own mind, it doesn’t.
He seems convinced for sure. This is all relative to wants, needs, and budget. Saying as a base model it doesn't compete favorably with an iMac Pro is nonsensical to me since the new Mac Pro isn't one thing it is a configurable beast that may well suffice for a few years as a base model but then be transformed into something else. No so an iMac of any kind.
The interesting thing about this is when inflation is accounted for, this isn’t exceptionally expensive. My Quadra 950 from late 1992 had a base price of about $6,000. No video card, no CD player, no keyboard. The keyboard was about $300. The upgrade from the 160MB hdd to the much better 320MB cost another $300. It came with a lot of ram though—8MB, and 16 slots, which I filled for another $3,600. The 2x speed CD player I bought was about $600.
The NEC Multisync 21”monitor, I forget the model number, was $3,200. The Radius graphics card I bought (the computer used the CPU for graphics, with 1MB installed, and for 24 bit color, you could get another 1MB simm) cost around $3,750.
so let’s add those costs and translate into today’s dollars.
so, that would be around $15,000, back then. As of the end of 2018, the latest full year inflation numbers I can get, would be around $27,500.
This is correct. The whiners of today have little appreciation for how much more meaningful computing power they are getting for so much less. These DIY tinkerers just see what they can build a crummy Windows box full of commodity off-the-shelf parts for and pretend they're the same thing.
Luckily I live in a free country and I'm going to give advice anyways. Judging from the replies from several posters in this thread, they may have the money to spend on this device but they certainly don't know what they're getting by buying it.
Inversely, besides not having the money for this kind of computer you likely also don't have the knowledge of why people like Macs and prefer them to cheaper DIY boxes. Hint: your point of "But I could build one for less!" has been argued perhaps ten thousand times on this very website. You have introduced zero new information.
As for rights, no one has claimed you don't have the right to spout nonsense. Certainly it's your right to troll us with this very old trope, it just isn't very meaningful.
You don't have the slightest clue what I've been proposing. I haven't been proposing DIY and I don't only have DIY in my house. If you'd bother to read the whole thread and not blather on, you would have context as to what I was advising instead.
madan said: I think the camp that benefits from the Mac Pro is probably smaller than the camps positively and negatively affected by it.
That's the reality of personal computing today vs. ten years ago. In 2009, Photoshop was viewed as software that needed high-end desktop hardware. In 2019, your new smartphone could run Photoshop. Software hasn't really kept up with the advances in hardware. Applications that used to need top of the line machines have slid down comfortably into the mass consumer area. It's only the heaviest of lifters that need the brute force of a 2019 Mac Pro. Personally, that's worked out quite well for me. I don't have to spend close to $3,000 on a desktop anymore. A low-end standard 5K iMac from 2017 blows past my old 2009 Mac Pro for my own professional work, takes up less space, costs 1/2 as much, and is far quieter and energy efficient.
The Mac Pro, when upgraded accordingly is great for super developers working with Davinci Resolve, Premiere or for massive rendering endeavors. It would also be great for compute farms that can take advantage of the Vega platform's affinity to FP. But for the AVERAGE professional, even affluent ones, the unupgraded <8K Mac Pro is not only a horrible, horrible deal but one that is easily outperformed by a 2019 iMac 27" (with gpu upgrade, natch)...for less WITH A MONITOR.
Who on earth said average pros should buy this machine? The average pro Apple customer per Craig is a software developer. And that's why they built and sell the iMac Pro. They announced it in that very context during the press event that TechCrunch transcribed.
I myself am an enterprise software dev and use a iMac 5K. The screen is excellent and the AIO nature was more appealing than buying a stand-alone 4K+ monitor plus a computer.
At its 6000 USD base price tag, the computer is a joke. [...]
You could build a DIY computer with pretty much identical performance for less than 1500 dollars. No, I'm not kidding. .
Not kidding, just ignorant. Please post your $1500 DIY version of equal performance. Then add additional cost for assembly, and support, which your DIY model doesn't have.
Well, there goes any credibility his comments have had thus far!
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.
What a weird statement within a thread of your weird statements. It's bad enough that you state "PLUS TAX" at all but then you put it in all caps as if this is some hidden Apple Tax that no other vendor has to apply to a purchases.
Tax for a 6250 dollar system is almost 500 dollaras. My point is that between tax and applcare you're looking at almost another 1000 dollars. That's not weird. That's emphasis that this system isn't intended for base-model upgraders. 7000 dollars is really the actual cost of the base Mac Pro. Not 6.
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.
Except that other in your own mind, it doesn’t.
? A base Mac Pro has a slower CPU than an iMac Pro. Fact. It has a slower GPU. Also fact. It has less storage. Also fact. I suppose people can delude themselves if they want. That won't change reality.
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.
Except that other in your own mind, it doesn’t.
He seems convinced for sure. This is all relative to wants, needs, and budget. Saying as a base model it doesn't compete favorably with an iMac Pro is nonsensical to me since the new Mac Pro isn't one thing it is a configurable beast that may well suffice for a few years as a base model but then be transformed into something else. No so an iMac of any kind.
It's not about convinced. It's fact. The base Mac Pro cpu and gpu are inferior to the iMac Pro. You know, the one you said is "old". That's not my opinion. That's fact. I'm sorry that takes the luster of your impending purchase...but it's the truth. Let's stop this subjectivist nonsense.
At its 6000 USD base price tag, the computer is a joke. [...]
You could build a DIY computer with pretty much identical performance for less than 1500 dollars. No, I'm not kidding. .
Not kidding, just ignorant. Please post your $1500 DIY version of equal performance. Then add additional cost for assembly, and support, which your DIY model doesn't have.
First of all, you could swap the Xeon for a Core i9 and save yourself a truckload of money. No, Core i9s aren't synonymous with Xeons and I've owned both. But if you think that someone running an 8 core Xeon and a 580 is running mission critical apps you're either disingenuous or ignorant. Core i9s will outperform low end Xeons on single-threaded workloads by as much as 50% and only lose to Xeons by as little as 15%. So it's a good tradeoff and you can have a Core i9 for as low as 550 bucks.
You can buy a 580 for less than 200 bucks. You're right. It might not even be a 1500 dollar system. It's probably less. The 2017 iMac is 95% the performance of a base Mac Pro for 1/4 the price and it comes with a 5K monitor.
Ignorant indeed.
Cool. Spec out an entire system that is equal in performance and is less than $1500 including assembly and comprehensive support. We'll wait.
At its 6000 USD base price tag, the computer is a joke. [...]
You could build a DIY computer with pretty much identical performance for less than 1500 dollars. No, I'm not kidding. .
Not kidding, just ignorant. Please post your $1500 DIY version of equal performance. Then add additional cost for assembly, and support, which your DIY model doesn't have.
First of all, you could swap the Xeon for a Core i9 and save yourself a truckload of money. No, Core i9s aren't synonymous with Xeons and I've owned both. But if you think that someone running an 8 core Xeon and a 580 is running mission critical apps you're either disingenuous or ignorant. Core i9s will outperform low end Xeons on single-threaded workloads by as much as 50% and only lose to Xeons by as little as 15%. So it's a good tradeoff and you can have a Core i9 for as low as 550 bucks.
You can buy a 580 for less than 200 bucks. You're right. It might not even be a 1500 dollar system. It's probably less. The 2017 iMac is 95% the performance of a base Mac Pro for 1/4 the price and it comes with a 5K monitor.
Ignorant indeed.
If you really don't understand that the people that use Macs to generate income don't want to build their own mackintosh using an llegally downloaded version of macOS (possibly with spyware inserted). I can build a lot of things myself, but I typically don't because interruptions in my workflow affect my income.
As for your previous comment about being able to build something 90% as fast for a quarter of the price, while both bullshit claims I'll humour you with a simple math question: Bob generate $20k a week using his new Mac Pro. Madan, on the other hand, decided to build a Hackintosh at 1/4 the price complete with stolen SW. Assuming Madan built it all instantly and there were no HW or SW issues that slowed down productivity, how many weeks would it take for Bob's MacPro purchase to become a better value than Madan's machine only being able to generate $18,000 per week being 90% as fast?
Luckily I live in a free country and I'm going to give advice anyways. Judging from the replies from several posters in this thread, they may have the money to spend on this device but they certainly don't know what they're getting by buying it.
Inversely, besides not having the money for this kind of computer you likely also don't have the knowledge of why people like Macs and prefer them to cheaper DIY boxes. Hint: your point of "But I could build one for less!" has been argued perhaps ten thousand times on this very website. You have introduced zero new information.
As for rights, no one has claimed you don't have the right to spout nonsense. Certainly it's your right to troll us with this very old trope, it just isn't very meaningful.
You don't have the slightest clue what I've been proposing. I haven't been proposing DIY and I don't only have DIY in my house. If you'd bother to read the whole thread and not blather on, you would have context as to what I was advising instead.
k thx bye.
Except you did:
You could build a DIY computer with pretty much identical performance for less than 1500 dollars. No, I'm not kidding.
The interesting thing about this is when inflation is accounted for, this isn’t exceptionally expensive. My Quadra 950 from late 1992 had a base price of about $6,000. No video card, no CD player, no keyboard. The keyboard was about $300. The upgrade from the 160MB hdd to the much better 320MB cost another $300. It came with a lot of ram though—8MB, and 16 slots, which I filled for another $3,600. The 2x speed CD player I bought was about $600.
The NEC Multisync 21”monitor, I forget the model number, was $3,200. The Radius graphics card I bought (the computer used the CPU for graphics, with 1MB installed, and for 24 bit color, you could get another 1MB simm) cost around $3,750.
so let’s add those costs and translate into today’s dollars.
so, that would be around $15,000, back then. As of the end of 2018, the latest full year inflation numbers I can get, would be around $27,500.
This is correct. The whiners of today have little appreciation for how much more meaningful computing power they are getting for so much less. These DIY tinkerers just see what they can build a crummy Windows box full of commodity off-the-shelf parts for and pretend they're the same thing.
This argument is poor and your hyperaggressive attitude is cancer.
That said, yes Apple computer prices have declined. So a comparative look at the Mac Pros and desktops kind of mandates markups right?
Wrong. The value of an Apple was constant vs competitors because ALL computers cost more. In this modern example, you have Apple, not even other OEMS, but *Apple* offering a more value-oriented option for significantly less money.
The Mac Pro is a tool for companies that need it. Anyone else that buys it is either buying a toy, a scientist working in his/her own workshop or clueless about what they're getting.
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.
That is something I don't understand. How a device that starts at $6K have only a year of warranty, while workstations from companies like HP, even their low-end models, include a 3-yr warranty with onsite service.
That is a valid question and the answer was (I assume still is) there is such a higher tier of service although not on site. Back when I was buying Macs in volume for my TV production house I used Apple Business Division as I am sure many here do who use Macs in production environments. I always had a service above and beyond as well as a discount, for example, Apple shipped me a 30" Apple Display overnight ( as in I called at 4 p.m. EST and it was there 8 a.m. the next morning) to swap out before I shipped the faulty one back.
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.
What a weird statement within a thread of your weird statements. It's bad enough that you state "PLUS TAX" at all but then you put it in all caps as if this is some hidden Apple Tax that no other vendor has to apply to a purchases.
People forget to consider taxes all the time. Are you seriously taking issue with this person reminding people that taxes are something to consider?
Would you also complain about someone pointing out that $5999 is just marketing speak for $6000? It’s a known fact that this is a manipulation of perception.
Forgetting the sales tax is a trap, too, even if it’s not a marketing decision (due to variable sales tax rates).
"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 don't think there is such a category as 'those that buy just because it exists' except in the minds of Android users and Apple haters that spend their entire existence finding negative things to say about Apple yet don't own or use Apple products themselves. Many of those types seem to spend a lot of time on Apple blogs considering they don't have or use Apple products, perhaps they are just drawn to Apple blogs because they exist?
Bahaha, touche.
The difference between MacPro and you is I can have a pleasant discussion with him afterwards, discuss shared interests and such in a respectful manner just as we have in this thread. I'm not sure you actually respect anyone else here or think anyone's opinion other than your own is worthwhile.
I actually like MacPro. We have things in common. Sure he can be ornery and ill-mannered sometimes. I can be too. There's at least one regular poster here who seems to ornery and ill-mannered ALL the time, and not exactly a likeable sort.
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.
Except that other in your own mind, it doesn’t.
? A base Mac Pro has a slower CPU than an iMac Pro. Fact. It has a slower GPU. Also fact. It has less storage. Also fact. I suppose people can delude themselves if they want. That won't change reality.
You don't want one we get it.
And you want to buy one and convince yourself that an 8 core 3 GHz Xeon married to 256 GB of storage and a 3-year midrange gpu is a "supercomputer". Go get one. I was just trying to help you. Just avoid spouting nonsense about how the iMac Pro is "old" and "slower" when it has a better cpu, gpu and more storage...by default, for about 40% less money and it comes with a 5k monitor.
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.
What a weird statement within a thread of your weird statements. It's bad enough that you state "PLUS TAX" at all but then you put it in all caps as if this is some hidden Apple Tax that no other vendor has to apply to a purchases.
People forget to consider taxes all the time. Are you seriously taking issue with this person reminding people that taxes are something to remember?
1) Yes, it is weird. Taxes for a $6k Mac are the same for a $6k HP workstation.
2) I don't know what world you live in but taxes are ever present in mine.
Comments
First of all, you could swap the Xeon for a Core i9 and save yourself a truckload of money. No, Core i9s aren't synonymous with Xeons and I've owned both. But if you think that someone running an 8 core Xeon and a 580 is running mission critical apps you're either disingenuous or ignorant. Core i9s will outperform low end Xeons on single-threaded workloads by as much as 50% and only lose to Xeons by as little as 15%. So it's a good tradeoff and you can have a Core i9 for as low as 550 bucks.
You can buy a 580 for less than 200 bucks. You're right. It might not even be a 1500 dollar system. It's probably less. The 2017 iMac is 95% the performance of a base Mac Pro for 1/4 the price and it comes with a 5K monitor.
Ignorant indeed.
This is correct. The whiners of today have little appreciation for how much more meaningful computing power they are getting for so much less. These DIY tinkerers just see what they can build a crummy Windows box full of commodity off-the-shelf parts for and pretend they're the same thing.
k thx bye.
Who on earth said average pros should buy this machine? The average pro Apple customer per Craig is a software developer. And that's why they built and sell the iMac Pro. They announced it in that very context during the press event that TechCrunch transcribed.
I myself am an enterprise software dev and use a iMac 5K. The screen is excellent and the AIO nature was more appealing than buying a stand-alone 4K+ monitor plus a computer.
Tax for a 6250 dollar system is almost 500 dollaras. My point is that between tax and applcare you're looking at almost another 1000 dollars. That's not weird. That's emphasis that this system isn't intended for base-model upgraders. 7000 dollars is really the actual cost of the base Mac Pro. Not 6.
It's not about convinced. It's fact. The base Mac Pro cpu and gpu are inferior to the iMac Pro. You know, the one you said is "old". That's not my opinion. That's fact. I'm sorry that takes the luster of your impending purchase...but it's the truth. Let's stop this subjectivist nonsense.
As for your previous comment about being able to build something 90% as fast for a quarter of the price, while both bullshit claims I'll humour you with a simple math question: Bob generate $20k a week using his new Mac Pro. Madan, on the other hand, decided to build a Hackintosh at 1/4 the price complete with stolen SW. Assuming Madan built it all instantly and there were no HW or SW issues that slowed down productivity, how many weeks would it take for Bob's MacPro purchase to become a better value than Madan's machine only being able to generate $18,000 per week being 90% as fast?
You could build a DIY computer with pretty much identical performance for less than 1500 dollars. No, I'm not kidding.
...durr.
This argument is poor and your hyperaggressive attitude is cancer.
That said, yes Apple computer prices have declined. So a comparative look at the Mac Pros and desktops kind of mandates markups right?
Wrong. The value of an Apple was constant vs competitors because ALL computers cost more. In this modern example, you have Apple, not even other OEMS, but *Apple* offering a more value-oriented option for significantly less money.
The Mac Pro is a tool for companies that need it. Anyone else that buys it is either buying a toy, a scientist working in his/her own workshop or clueless about what they're getting.
Would you also complain about someone pointing out that $5999 is just marketing speak for $6000? It’s a known fact that this is a manipulation of perception.
Forgetting the sales tax is a trap, too, even if it’s not a marketing decision (due to variable sales tax rates).
I actually like MacPro. We have things in common. Sure he can be ornery and ill-mannered sometimes. I can be too. There's at least one regular poster here who seems to ornery and ill-mannered ALL the time, and not exactly a likeable sort.
2) I don't know what world you live in but taxes are ever present in mine.