Dial it back a bit. Take a minute to review the commenting guidelines.
Hey Mike, perhaps there should be guidelines on Article headings too, you know, maybe not designed to attract trolls wanting to jump in and bash anyone who wants to buy a new Mac Pro such as "Will Apple's $6k+ Mac Pro require brainwash marketing to sell?" I mean come on guys didn't you expect sparks to fly?
Article headings and perhaps some content too. My personal preference is for free speech so that anyone can read what silly things people can believe.
It isn't what the silly things people can believe that's the problem. The problem is self-important, overly aggressive forum users that think that their use case is the "one true Pro" and all others should bow before them and berate those that don't bend to their will.
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.
2019 iMac Core i9 @ 3.7 (50% faster than the Mac Pro in single-dual thread performance, slower in multi by only about 15%). 32 GB of RAM. Vega 48 (20% faster than the 580X in gaming. 100% faster at compute which is what you would get a Mac Pro for) No M.2 storage but 256 GB of SATA and 2 TB of platter.
The iMac is pretty much faster substantially across the board. It misses out on ECC but what kind of ECC do you need sporting a budget card like a 580. Anyone running a low end Xeon and 580 won't be computing fast enough to produce workloads that mandate ECC in the first place.
2 TB3 and giga ether vs 4 TB3 and 10 giga ether
But the iMac has a 5K screen vs no screen on Mac Pro. Oh and it costs a little more than HALF the Mac Pro (3400 vs 6000). And that's an top of the line iMac.
2019 iMac Pro Xeon vs Mac Pro Xeon - Wash (same Xeon) 32 GB of RAM Vega 56 (25% faster than the 580X at gaming. 150% faster at compute which is what you would get a Mac Pro for) 1 TB of M.2 storage vs 256 M.2 in the Mac Pro.
4 TB 3 and 10 gig ether vs 4 TB 3 and 10 gig ether
iMac Pro is 1k cheaper than the Mac Pro and beats the pants off of it in storage, graphics, compute, as well as coming with a free 5K monitor, for LESS.
With either option, you would just sell the computer and buy a new version of the same and get the same performance over a 5-10 year span. The purpose of the Mac Pro is not to perform at the same level. It's to be upgraded and then operate at a level far above an iMac Pro:
28 Core Xeon, 2 TB of RAM, 2x Dual Pro Vega 2s. Etc. But at those levels, the computer costs 50K+.
Best part is I haven't even looked at other OEMS. Apple kills its own base system. The Mac Pro only shines when stacked with upgrades. The base model isn't a good deal. So, yeah keep making a fool of yourself.
Why oh why the insulting end?
No one is disagreeing with your base model Pro vs iMac Pro data which is why most of us will not get the base model but at least someone on a budget but with hopes to upgrade in the future can get a foot in the door.
Perhaps Apple could price an empty base model with no GPU, no RAM, and no storage and let us design our own BTO. However, you can't blame Apple for offering a minimally configured base model. They do in all Mac models why not this one. I haven't checked but your same argument can probably be made for many Apple product ranges over the years. The high end of a lower range often is higher than the bottom of the next range up. It's called marketing.
Just my choices:
I don't want a 5K integrated monitor that has no ability to be used by another machine if needed. I already have 4K monitors which suffice for now (do I want to see Apple's new monitor for myself ... Yup!) I don't want an all in one box. The 2013 Mac Pro was my first and last such main Mac since the Macintosh SE 30 . I do want industry-standard slots for both RAM and Boards I want a ton of ports I want total future upgradability I want at least 96 GB RAM 8 or 12 core is enough for me I think. I want a pretty powerful GPU and the ability to change it out over the years, I edit only 4K now but history tells me I will have 8K in a few years the way Sony Alpha gear is going. I want great thermal cooling I want a workstation CPU not i8/i9 etc. One concern but it applies equally to any Mac, Apple CPUs are coming ... but I think they are for the mobile and Mac mini market for the first few years.
Oh, and one more thing ... I really, really want wheels!
You must be joking? Strangedays has been making snide and disrespectful comments for days and days. He deserves it.
As for your choices:
You don't want a 5K monitor included. Gotcha. Except the iMac Pro brings it effectively for free. But fine, it's too bad Apple ditched target display mode.
Every computer has industry standard RAM. Even iMacs and laptops. They use sodimms. If you want to swap gpus, you could technically use egpus, so you don't have to get a Mac Pro. An egpu carriage lets you swap gpus also.
The Mac Pro only has 4 TB3 ports. That's about the same as a Mac Mini or an iMac Pro. To get more, you'd have to buy multiple Vega 2s. So if you're ok with sinking 2-4K on gpus for more ports, then I guess that's what you need.
Any current Mac gives you at least 128 GB of RAM (desktop), except for the Mini which tops out at 64.
8-12 cores is fine. But any modern desktop, short of the Mac Mini also does that. Why do you only need 8 cores? Out of curiosity, since you can buy whatever you want...but why are you looking at paying 1.2K for a cpu when your workflow is obviously not very cpu bound? Just curious. You're willing to pay a 700 dollar premium to get Mac expandability.
A 580 isn't a "pretty powerful gpu". In any dimension. Period. So I'm assuming you'd upgrade to a Vega 2.
Any Mac has good thermal cooling.
There is no i8 CPU. And why do you need a workstation cpu over a core i9? What specifically are you benefitting from?
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.
While I don’t expect this be selling the 100,000 plus numbers a year of this Mac Pro the way they did with the older Mac Pro cheese grater models, I’m willing to bet they’ll sell in the tens of thousands a year, and that not bad. Workstations don’t sell in very high numbers. But I think you’re selling this short. This is a very versatile machine, with a very sophisticated mobo. In fact, it’s the most sophisticated mobo I’ve seen, and I’ve seen a lot over the years. There’s more involved too, but I’m not really in the mood for a long post right now.
But I said that already. I said that the motherboard was what is special about this computer, at the start of this thread. It's certainly not the CPU, M.2 storage or the like. That can be had anywhere. The problems begin when people buy them for the wrong reasons. A base-level system is horrendously overpriced. The base Mac Pro ships with the same gpu as a 2017 iMac. So my point has been, if you have to spend 10k, plus, this might be worth your while. But if you don't intend to upgrade it immediately, *know that you're buying a budget system*. And that's just a fact.
Who knows, maybe they cut the prices. I love that motherboard. I do. But unless you plan on taking advantage of 12 TB 3 lanes and multiplexed giga ether, you're just not the target demographic for this machine. Large compute farms or development/render complexes are.
What I think is that you’re wasting your time, and everybody's time here mashing things up. Those of us who know what we need, know what we’re going to get, and why. Others can drool all they want, and that’s just fine. People do the same thing with cars.
this is also a hobby for a lot of people, and people spend a lot on their hobby, and that’s fine too. People buy Hasselblads and Leicas also. And they don’t need them. They aren’t worth the money you pay for them, but a lot of people like them. why bother trying to convince them otherwise? it’s the same thing here. We don’t all agree with your assessment either. Future upgradability is important to people, even if they don’t plan on doing it right away.
I think you’ve taken this conversation as far as it can go, and it’s time you let it go.
That's for me to decide. I'm curious since you're not new to hardware either and we've both been around the block...do you really think most people in this thread really know why they need certain hardware? Or do you think they just look at Mac Pro and say "More expensive...most powerful"? Because I think for a lot of people, it's the latter. I'm not being condescending. I'm being dead serious and I was just trying to help some people.
I don't think you can compare a sports car to a workstation. A workstations performance is directly tied to is effectiveness. Going faster at work or study is always important. Going 200 mph in a C8 to get to Walmart to buy Huggies is immaterial (and illegal). Again, when you buy an expensive camera, usually (not always granted) they perform better. My point has always been that for ENTRY Mac Pro buyers, you're getting a far, far weaker system than even a 27" iMac (2019). You really need to sink 9-10K + before the system starts to make up the difference and by then you have a machine that cost 4x what a comparable system (in performance) would get you.
What's more, I never said upgradeability isn't important. But the logic is strange. So you're going to get a 7k s&&t box...so that one day you can upgrade it to be a *good* machine for the price you paid? I'm seriously wondering if that's your contention.
"I'm going to buy a 6k computer today (that's really a 1.5k system) but it's ok because in 5-8 years, I'll spend another 1-2k to end up with a somewhat more powerful and valuable system." Ok. I guess everyone's entitled to go their way.
Dial it back a bit. Take a minute to review the commenting guidelines.
Hey Mike, perhaps there should be guidelines on Article headings too, you know, maybe not designed to attract trolls wanting to jump in and bash anyone who wants to buy a new Mac Pro such as "Will Apple's $6k+ Mac Pro require brainwash marketing to sell?" I mean come on guys didn't you expect sparks to fly?
? I never insulted you. Nor did I troll you. I tried to help you.
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.
The numbers were all caps too.
But seriously adding up to 10% for state sales tax is often forgotten when considering high-dollar item costs.
Except, as I said in the post above, professionals pay less tax for the purchase, and 0 tax in the states that don’t charge any. So tax is a terrible thing to automatically add into a discussion. It’s not the EU with value added tax either.
and as I also mentioned, if you really are a Pro, there are other substantial tax benefits in buying major hardware for your business. And the more expensive the hardware, the more you get back, shrinking the differences between expensive hardware and less expensive hardware. This significantly affects the cost proposition, and renders some arguments null.
Well I am a professional user....
...so you’re saving all of those taxes, right? Depreciating your equipment, and taking advantage of everything a business can. It’s a pretty poor business person who doesn’t. I’m sure we can agree on that.
Absolutely.
I'm sure we both are/were careful with the expenditures too. A couple years ago I decided on a less expensive laminator than a vendor was recommending to me, saving about $4500. The unit I chose has been bulletproof so far, and even a couple features on this one have gone largely unused. I simply didn't need to spend more money for a unit fit for purpose.
EDIT: In an unexpected case of beting better than the price would imply: I still have a cheap Chinese 5' wide unit that's 12 years+ old and still serviceable for quick runs or the odd rarely used laminate. I never expected it to last more than 5 or 6. Not everything Chinese no name is poor quality build apparently.
Good. My feeling is that a number of people who consider themselves to be professional are amateurs making some extra bucks. Nothing wrong with that, of course, I encourage it. But they don’t always understand the formality of a business, or how to take advantage of something the tax code may not allow them to take advantage of. Then they assume everybody is in their boat with them. It’s one reason we get some odd comments about pricing, taxes, etc.
Subtle. So if someone doesn't agree with me, suddenly I'm the one that's not "professional"?
Depending on the size of a business, tax, warranty ... EVERYTHING can matter. Everything is fluid. No one can realistically say "taxes don't matter" if the taxes add an extra 1000 dollars. It might not matter to a video production company that needs 2 new render farms (which I've consulted on btw, not being a professional that I am) or for a smaller firm, an extra 10 grand in taxes might, you know, matter.
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.
I think you comment shows an issue Apple created because the lack of option with devices with internal expansion. The Mac Pro is a well designed machine, but $6K for the specs in the entry model is a little high. The Mac Pro chassis is designed to work with a maxed out configuration, but the entry model specs are very far from it, and you still have to pay for the design. With HP / Dell / Lenovo workstations you don't have the issue because they offer smaller options. You can configure a Z8 with a low end Xeon processors entry level Quadro adapters and a single drive, and it will be an expensive device because of the chassis and design of that model, that hold up to two Xeon processors (56 cores), 3TB of RAM and three NVidia Quadro / RTX adapters. If you go to a lower model, as the Z4, and configure it with similar specs, it will cost a lot less.
IMO, people that criticize the Mac Pro for being expensive is because they need something small and less capable than the Mac Pro, or with the limitations of the iMac Pro. If Apple created that low / mid range Mac Pro, many customers would be happy.
That's what I said on page 2 of this forum. If you're going to upgrade the Mac Pro, it's a great option. But if you're taking a base model, it's not "a little" more expensive. It's literally over 100% priced higher than the hardware shelf cost. If that's ok for you, go for it. But some people here want to pretend that spending 6-7k on a Mac suddenly makes a 580x a Vega 64 or 5700 XT and it doesn't. Oh but you can upgrade it! Sure you can. But in the current time, the system lacks it. Plus when you DO upgrade it, you're paying again.
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.
I think you comment shows an issue Apple created because the lack of option with devices with internal expansion. The Mac Pro is a well designed machine, but $6K for the specs in the entry model is a little high. The Mac Pro chassis is designed to work with a maxed out configuration, but the entry model specs are very far from it, and you still have to pay for the design. With HP / Dell / Lenovo workstations you don't have the issue because they offer smaller options. You can configure a Z8 with a low end Xeon processors entry level Quadro adapters and a single drive, and it will be an expensive device because of the chassis and design of that model, that hold up to two Xeon processors (56 cores), 3TB of RAM and three NVidia Quadro / RTX adapters. If you go to a lower model, as the Z4, and configure it with similar specs, it will cost a lot less.
IMO, people that criticize the Mac Pro for being expensive is because they need something small and less capable than the Mac Pro, or with the limitations of the iMac Pro. If Apple created that low / mid range Mac Pro, many customers would be happy.
True. But it’s not a criticism of this machine, which is being made here. This machine is a platform for much higher config. But. As Apple doesn’t know what those might be, they offer the options, and the platform that can mount them.
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.
While I don’t expect this be selling the 100,000 plus numbers a year of this Mac Pro the way they did with the older Mac Pro cheese grater models, I’m willing to bet they’ll sell in the tens of thousands a year, and that not bad. Workstations don’t sell in very high numbers. But I think you’re selling this short. This is a very versatile machine, with a very sophisticated mobo. In fact, it’s the most sophisticated mobo I’ve seen, and I’ve seen a lot over the years. There’s more involved too, but I’m not really in the mood for a long post right now.
But I said that already. I said that the motherboard was what is special about this computer, at the start of this thread. It's certainly not the CPU, M.2 storage or the like. That can be had anywhere. The problems begin when people buy them for the wrong reasons. A base-level system is horrendously overpriced. The base Mac Pro ships with the same gpu as a 2017 iMac. So my point has been, if you have to spend 10k, plus, this might be worth your while. But if you don't intend to upgrade it immediately, *know that you're buying a budget system*. And that's just a fact.
Who knows, maybe they cut the prices. I love that motherboard. I do. But unless you plan on taking advantage of 12 TB 3 lanes and multiplexed giga ether, you're just not the target demographic for this machine. Large compute farms or development/render complexes are.
What I think is that you’re wasting your time, and everybody's time here mashing things up. Those of us who know what we need, know what we’re going to get, and why. Others can drool all they want, and that’s just fine. People do the same thing with cars.
this is also a hobby for a lot of people, and people spend a lot on their hobby, and that’s fine too. People buy Hasselblads and Leicas also. And they don’t need them. They aren’t worth the money you pay for them, but a lot of people like them. why bother trying to convince them otherwise? it’s the same thing here. We don’t all agree with your assessment either. Future upgradability is important to people, even if they don’t plan on doing it right away.
I think you’ve taken this conversation as far as it can go, and it’s time you let it go.
That's for me to decide. I'm curious since you're not new to hardware either and we've both been around the block...do you really think most people in this thread really know why they need certain hardware? Or do you think they just look at Mac Pro and say "More expensive...most powerful"? Because I think for a lot of people, it's the latter. I'm not being condescending. I'm being dead serious and I was just trying to help some people.
I don't think you can compare a sports car to a workstation. A workstations performance is directly tied to is effectiveness. Going faster at work or study is always important. Going 200 mph in a C8 to get to Walmart to buy Huggies is immaterial (and illegal). Again, when you buy an expensive camera, usually (not always granted) they perform better. My point has always been that for ENTRY Mac Pro buyers, you're getting a far, far weaker system than even a 27" iMac (2019). You really need to sink 9-10K + before the system starts to make up the difference and by then you have a machine that cost 4x what a comparable system (in performance) would get you.
What's more, I never said upgradeability isn't important. But the logic is strange. So you're going to get a 7k s&&t box...so that one day you can upgrade it to be a *good* machine for the price you paid? I'm seriously wondering if that's your contention.
"I'm going to buy a 6k computer today (that's really a 1.5k system) but it's ok because in 5-8 years, I'll spend another 1-2k to end up with a somewhat more powerful and valuable system." Ok. I guess everyone's entitled to go their way.
You can decide the for yourself, but it still a waste of time.
what I think is that most people in this thread have no intention of buying this machine. Those of us who do, know what we’re buying.
and of course you can compare this to a car. You can compare anything to anything. This is, to some of us, a beautiful machine. I can see some people wanting it just because of that. Just like that car they can’t afford, or need. Or camera. Or whatever. I knew people who drooled over Silicon Graphics workstations because the we’re beautiful, and “hot”. I used to use an Onyx. Gorgeous!
well, you’re oversimplifying. It’s not just the power of the CPU. You should know better. A high performance machine is a lot more than that. In fact, in modern computing, the CPU may not even be the most important part. Apple has build a very robust platform. More robust than most other workstations I’m familiar with. its also very quiet. Most other workstations of this size are usually too noisy to have next to you. That costs too. Of course, if that’s not important to you, then that’s your decision. We also have clients walk through. They do appreciate gear like this. It’s marketing too.
not everything is a primitive cost/performance ratio. Cost/performance is more complex than that.
Dial it back a bit. Take a minute to review the commenting guidelines.
Hey Mike, perhaps there should be guidelines on Article headings too, you know, maybe not designed to attract trolls wanting to jump in and bash anyone who wants to buy a new Mac Pro such as "Will Apple's $6k+ Mac Pro require brainwash marketing to sell?" I mean come on guys didn't you expect sparks to fly?
Article headings and perhaps some content too. My personal preference is for free speech so that anyone can read what silly things people can believe.
It isn't what the silly things people can believe that's the problem. The problem is self-important, overly aggressive forum users that think that their use case is the "one true Pro" and all others should bow before them and berate those that don't bend to their will.
You need to spell out more precisely what AI's "Thought Police Policy" is for posts on this forum.
Naughty words? Swearing? Blasphemy? Politics of any kind? Climate? Topics that might make Google de-list the site? What?
Looking back on the comments before this one, there are certainly some that could be characterized as self-important, and overly aggressive - and surely, almost all posters come to this forum believing that "others should bow before them" - and sometimes - "berate those that don't bend to their will".
That said, I'm quite aware of how Apple computers are not just a sum of their components. You were there at Ars while I argued that point 1000 times. The issue we have here is not that there may be other factors. Of course there are other valid factors to just a cpu/gpu/ram and hd.
The issue is just how egregiously they're overcharging. It's one thing to pay an Apple tax (or other brand tax for that matter) when you're getting more bandwidth, connectivity, formfactor, tdp, environmentalism, dual booting/flexibility, et all. I think most reasonable people will pay a premium to have nice things. I've always argued that once you factor in the price of that really sweet LG 5k monitor, iMacs are actually not a bad deal. I've always argued that dual boot was an ace in the sleeve at Apple when comparing Windows systems to Macs.
However, what we have here isn't an extra few hundred bucks. A 10, 20, 30, 50 or even 100% markup.
What we have here is a 400% markup on the hardware for some features that many people won't really use to their extant potential. I don't know of anyone that can use 24 TB3 lanes AND 10 TB of internal storage AND 2 giga ether lanes. No 'professional' as you seem to judge definitively has use for that much throughput. I know plenty of server managers that might be able to use that for compute or storage but not as a workstation. To be clear, the base system doesn't have anywhere near those features but even double giga ether is more than 99% of what most people here, on Ars, on Slash, Toms, Tech, anywhere could use, much less need.
So yeah, the computer has some compelling advantages but a lot of those advantages are techno-unavailable for all intents and purposes. What isn't unavailable? Cpu processing grunt. Gpu compute performance. Ram. Storage. Things you could use *now*. Things the base Mac Pro simply doesn't have. Period.
That said, I made my point. And I backed it with facts. A 580x *is* slower than a Vega 56. Or a Vega 48. Or hell, just about any other premium gpu Apple sells. That's not "opinion". That's fact. The Mac Pro carries a paltry 256 GB of M.2 in its base configuration. That's not an opinion, that's fact. People want to paint these things as "opinion" but they're not. They're fact. The base Mac Pro is a downright weak machine, even by today's prosumer standards. For 7k, it's positively, insultingly anemic. I've made my point and now spend your cash however you like. My posts were to shed some technical light on why the base system wasn't the type of system one simply got for kicks, barring other distinct, superior options.
If it's so pretty you can't help yourself, go for it. The motherboard is amazing, to be sure.
That said, I'm dropping this because I'm done with the nastiness in this thread. Whiner. Ignorant. Not professional/amateur and the like have been bandied about and rather than get any further sucked in, I'll let this go and let people instead do whatever the hell they want. People have to learn somehow.
That said, I'm quite aware of how Apple computers are not just a sum of their components. You were there at Ars while I argued that point 1000 times. The issue we have here is not that there may be other factors. Of course there are other valid factors to just a cpu/gpu/ram and hd.
The issue is just how egregiously they're overcharging. It's one thing to pay an Apple tax (or other brand tax for that matter) when you're getting more bandwidth, connectivity, formfactor, tdp, environmentalism, dual booting/flexibility, et all. I think most reasonable people will pay a premium to have nice things. I've always argued that once you factor in the price of that really sweet LG 5k monitor, iMacs are actually not a bad deal. I've always argued that dual boot was an ace in the sleeve at Apple when comparing Windows systems to Macs.
However, what we have here isn't an extra few hundred bucks. A 10, 20, 30, 50 or even 100% markup.
What we have here is a 400% markup on the hardware for some features that many people won't really use to their extant potential. I don't know of anyone that can use 24 TB3 lanes AND 10 TB of internal storage AND 2 giga ether lanes. No 'professional' as you seem to judge definitively has use for that much throughput. I know plenty of server managers that might be able to use that for compute or storage but not as a workstation. To be clear, the base system doesn't have anywhere near those features but even double giga ether is more than 99% of what most people here, on Ars, on Slash, Toms, Tech, anywhere could use, much less need.
So yeah, the computer has some compelling advantages but a lot of those advantages are techno-unavailable for all intents and purposes. What isn't unavailable? Cpu processing grunt. Gpu compute performance. Ram. Storage. Things you could use *now*. Things the base Mac Pro simply doesn't have. Period.
That said, I made my point. And I backed it with facts. A 580x *is* slower than a Vega 56. Or a Vega 48. Or hell, just about any other premium gpu Apple sells. That's not "opinion". That's fact. The Mac Pro carries a paltry 256 GB of M.2 in its base configuration. That's not an opinion, that's fact. People want to paint these things as "opinion" but they're not. They're fact. The base Mac Pro is a downright weak machine, even by today's prosumer standards. For 7k, it's positively, insultingly anemic. I've made my point and now spend your cash however you like. My posts were to shed some technical light on why the base system wasn't the type of system one simply got for kicks, barring other distinct, superior options.
If it's so pretty you can't help yourself, go for it. The motherboard is amazing, to be sure.
That said, I'm dropping this because I'm done with the nastiness in this thread. Whiner. Ignorant. Not professional/amateur and the like have been bandied about and rather than get any further sucked in, I'll let this go and let people instead do whatever the hell they want. People have to learn somehow.
“ Apple once had—much like Microsoft Surface or Google Pixel today—a tight, cult-like following of a few million people,...”
There always exist a cadre of early adopters who are a bit more visionary’s than the masses. I’m only sorry to say I wasn’t one of them. In the 90s and first decade of this new century I mocked the Apple Macheads as I struggled along with viruses, DLL incompatibilities and registry hell on a series of unmemorable Windows PCs. It was a virus that wiped out what became my last Windows box that finally led me to try a MacBook Air. Several generations of iPhone, iPad, iPod and AppleTV later I have never once looked back.
Haha, love seeing to stupid comments from the anti-Apple brigade.
So, just Color me 'brainwashed' I'm getting one. I see it as a great design, priced correctly (try comparing a high-end gaming machine from the PC world) and my only comment is Apple could make a prosumer version at half the price with half the power and sell them like hotcakes to well ... prosumers.
Hard for you to not seem 'brainwashed' when you are comparing the high priced, low spec, entry 2019 Mac Pro to a high spec gaming PC at the same price.
There is no doubt that IF you tank up (at huge expense) the 2019 Mac Pro it is a beast of a machine, but how that will grow the consumer base of Mac users is a mystery. Most will never get any closer to one than the display model in the Apple Store. Mac sales are shrinking for a reason. Too expensive, too hot, too slow. Unrepairable and unupgradeable by the user and left to stagnate after the predictable big splash launch.
Risky money for the typical buyer who is not chancing it on the only models that Apple will sell them.
We are hearing exactly the same gushing echo of Apple marketing, as when the 2013 Mac Pro was launched, despite its glaringly obvious design flaws. That Apple still manages to find customers for that indulgent desk ornament speaks volumes of just how "discerning" some of its consumers are.
I hope Apple is turning a corner and is going to finally offer the customer what they want, but decades long experience tells me that is just wishful thinking. Maybe Apple will surprise me, but with 99% certainty probably not. The pudgy, overpaid, out-of touch Cupertino Princelings making all the decisions, in their aptly circular inward looking HQ, think their gold Apple Watches are where its at, and are not going to let anyone else at the tiller. Especially younger blood that could shake up the place.
Dial it back a bit. Take a minute to review the commenting guidelines.
Hey Mike, perhaps there should be guidelines on Article headings too, you know, maybe not designed to attract trolls wanting to jump in and bash anyone who wants to buy a new Mac Pro such as "Will Apple's $6k+ Mac Pro require brainwash marketing to sell?" I mean come on guys didn't you expect sparks to fly?
Article headings and perhaps some content too. My personal preference is for free speech so that anyone can read what silly things people can believe.
It isn't what the silly things people can believe that's the problem. The problem is self-important, overly aggressive forum users that think that their use case is the "one true Pro" and all others should bow before them and berate those that don't bend to their will.
You need to spell out more precisely what AI's "Thought Police Policy" is for posts on this forum.
Naughty words? Swearing? Blasphemy? Politics of any kind? Climate? Topics that might make Google de-list the site? What?
Looking back on the comments before this one, there are certainly some that could be characterized as self-important, and overly aggressive - and surely, almost all posters come to this forum believing that "others should bow before them" - and sometimes - "berate those that don't bend to their will".
So what's your point?
Scroll down all the way. Click on "Commenting Guidelines." This is all pretty clear. It isn't, and has never been, about topics. It has 100% been about your behavior towards each other.
If you have further questions, feel free to DM them to me. This conversation avenue here has concluded.
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.
I think you comment shows an issue Apple created because the lack of option with devices with internal expansion. The Mac Pro is a well designed machine, but $6K for the specs in the entry model is a little high. The Mac Pro chassis is designed to work with a maxed out configuration, but the entry model specs are very far from it, and you still have to pay for the design. With HP / Dell / Lenovo workstations you don't have the issue because they offer smaller options. You can configure a Z8 with a low end Xeon processors entry level Quadro adapters and a single drive, and it will be an expensive device because of the chassis and design of that model, that hold up to two Xeon processors (56 cores), 3TB of RAM and three NVidia Quadro / RTX adapters. If you go to a lower model, as the Z4, and configure it with similar specs, it will cost a lot less.
IMO, people that criticize the Mac Pro for being expensive is because they need something small and less capable than the Mac Pro, or with the limitations of the iMac Pro. If Apple created that low / mid range Mac Pro, many customers would be happy.
True. But it’s not a criticism of this machine, which is being made here. This machine is a platform for much higher config. But. As Apple doesn’t know what those might be, they offer the options, and the platform that can mount them.
Like I posted before, I don't think that people criticize the Mac Pro as a device. For example, I haven't seen people criticizing how expensive the HP Z8 is (and it gets very expensive, higher than a Mac Pro). Professional users know how capable is the Z8, but at the same time they know HP have less expensive workstations that are very capable. Not every professional Mac user need a design as capable or expandable as the Mac Pro. I prefer the approach of HP / Dell / Lenovo, that offers different platforms, from the entry model, similar to the Mac Mini, to the high end model, that are even more capable compared to the Mac Pro (HP Z8 / Lenovo P9xx series).
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.
The numbers were all caps too.
But seriously adding up to 10% for state sales tax is often forgotten when considering high-dollar item costs.
Except, as I said in the post above, professionals pay less tax for the purchase, and 0 tax in the states that don’t charge any. So tax is a terrible thing to automatically add into a discussion. It’s not the EU with value added tax either.
and as I also mentioned, if you really are a Pro, there are other substantial tax benefits in buying major hardware for your business. And the more expensive the hardware, the more you get back, shrinking the differences between expensive hardware and less expensive hardware. This significantly affects the cost proposition, and renders some arguments null.
Well I am a professional user....
...so you’re saving all of those taxes, right? Depreciating your equipment, and taking advantage of everything a business can. It’s a pretty poor business person who doesn’t. I’m sure we can agree on that.
Absolutely.
I'm sure we both are/were careful with the expenditures too. A couple years ago I decided on a less expensive laminator than a vendor was recommending to me, saving about $4500. The unit I chose has been bulletproof so far, and even a couple features on this one have gone largely unused. I simply didn't need to spend more money for a unit fit for purpose.
EDIT: In an unexpected case of beting better than the price would imply: I still have a cheap Chinese 5' wide unit that's 12 years+ old and still serviceable for quick runs or the odd rarely used laminate. I never expected it to last more than 5 or 6. Not everything Chinese no name is poor quality build apparently.
Good. My feeling is that a number of people who consider themselves to be professional are amateurs making some extra bucks. Nothing wrong with that, of course, I encourage it. But they don’t always understand the formality of a business, or how to take advantage of something the tax code may not allow them to take advantage of. Then they assume everybody is in their boat with them. It’s one reason we get some odd comments about pricing, taxes, etc.
Subtle. So if someone doesn't agree with me, suddenly I'm the one that's not "professional"?
Depending on the size of a business, tax, warranty ... EVERYTHING can matter. Everything is fluid. No one can realistically say "taxes don't matter" if the taxes add an extra 1000 dollars. It might not matter to a video production company that needs 2 new render farms (which I've consulted on btw, not being a professional that I am) or for a smaller firm, an extra 10 grand in taxes might, you know, matter.
Are you considering yourself to be non professional? I thought you said that you were. Then you should know that when equipment is used in the production of a product or service, you’re exempt from most taxes on purchase, and benefit from that depreciation I mentioned. So I really don’t know why you still keep talking about it. If you’re in a state where there are no sales taxes, you won’t pay any.
if you’re a hobbyist, it’s different. But that’s their problem.
Haha, love seeing to stupid comments from the anti-Apple brigade.
So, just Color me 'brainwashed' I'm getting one. I see it as a great design, priced correctly (try comparing a high-end gaming machine from the PC world) and my only comment is Apple could make a prosumer version at half the price with half the power and sell them like hotcakes to well ... prosumers.
Hard for you to not seem 'brainwashed' when you are comparing the high priced, low spec, entry 2019 Mac Pro to a high spec gaming PC at the same price.
There is no doubt that IF you tank up (at huge expense) the 2019 Mac Pro it is a beast of a machine, but how that will grow the consumer base of Mac users is a mystery. Most will never get any closer to one than the display model in the Apple Store. Mac sales are shrinking for a reason. Too expensive, too hot, too slow. Unrepairable and unupgradeable by the user and left to stagnate after the predictable big splash launch.
Risky money for the typical buyer who is not chancing it on the only models that Apple will sell them.
We are hearing exactly the same gushing echo of Apple marketing, as when the 2013 Mac Pro was launched, despite its glaringly obvious design flaws. That Apple still manages to find customers for that indulgent desk ornament speaks volumes of just how "discerning" some of its consumers are.
I hope Apple is turning a corner and is going to finally offer the customer what they want, but decades long experience tells me that is just wishful thinking. Maybe Apple will surprise me, but with 99% certainty probably not. The pudgy, overpaid, out-of touch Cupertino Princelings making all the decisions, in their aptly circular inward looking HQ, think their gold Apple Watches are where its at, and are not going to let anyone else at the tiller. Especially younger blood that could shake up the place.
You’re making the same mistake that some others here are making. A gamer machine, is not the same as a workstation. Once you figure that out, come back.
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.
It disturbs the bejeezus out of me that the base model has to start at 6k. Thats BS. There are other professionals who don't need the expensive graphics nonsense. As long as I can drive a single HDMI monitor I am in business, and my business is audio production. Why isn't there any method for dialing back the video power/cost on this thing to bring it down out of the ionosphere and into the stratosphere.
Comments
As for your choices:
You don't want a 5K monitor included. Gotcha. Except the iMac Pro brings it effectively for free. But fine, it's too bad Apple ditched target display mode.
Every computer has industry standard RAM. Even iMacs and laptops. They use sodimms. If you want to swap gpus, you could technically use egpus, so you don't have to get a Mac Pro. An egpu carriage lets you swap gpus also.
The Mac Pro only has 4 TB3 ports. That's about the same as a Mac Mini or an iMac Pro. To get more, you'd have to buy multiple Vega 2s. So if you're ok with sinking 2-4K on gpus for more ports, then I guess that's what you need.
Any current Mac gives you at least 128 GB of RAM (desktop), except for the Mini which tops out at 64.
8-12 cores is fine. But any modern desktop, short of the Mac Mini also does that. Why do you only need 8 cores? Out of curiosity, since you can buy whatever you want...but why are you looking at paying 1.2K for a cpu when your workflow is obviously not very cpu bound? Just curious. You're willing to pay a 700 dollar premium to get Mac expandability.
A 580 isn't a "pretty powerful gpu". In any dimension. Period. So I'm assuming you'd upgrade to a Vega 2.
Any Mac has good thermal cooling.
There is no i8 CPU. And why do you need a workstation cpu over a core i9? What specifically are you benefitting from?
Wheels are pretty cool.
That's for me to decide. I'm curious since you're not new to hardware either and we've both been around the block...do you really think most people in this thread really know why they need certain hardware? Or do you think they just look at Mac Pro and say "More expensive...most powerful"? Because I think for a lot of people, it's the latter. I'm not being condescending. I'm being dead serious and I was just trying to help some people.
I don't think you can compare a sports car to a workstation. A workstations performance is directly tied to is effectiveness. Going faster at work or study is always important. Going 200 mph in a C8 to get to Walmart to buy Huggies is immaterial (and illegal). Again, when you buy an expensive camera, usually (not always granted) they perform better. My point has always been that for ENTRY Mac Pro buyers, you're getting a far, far weaker system than even a 27" iMac (2019). You really need to sink 9-10K + before the system starts to make up the difference and by then you have a machine that cost 4x what a comparable system (in performance) would get you.
What's more, I never said upgradeability isn't important. But the logic is strange. So you're going to get a 7k s&&t box...so that one day you can upgrade it to be a *good* machine for the price you paid? I'm seriously wondering if that's your contention.
"I'm going to buy a 6k computer today (that's really a 1.5k system) but it's ok because in 5-8 years, I'll spend another 1-2k to end up with a somewhat more powerful and valuable system." Ok. I guess everyone's entitled to go their way.
Can you tell me where I insulted you?
Subtle. So if someone doesn't agree with me, suddenly I'm the one that's not "professional"?
Depending on the size of a business, tax, warranty ... EVERYTHING can matter. Everything is fluid. No one can realistically say "taxes don't matter" if the taxes add an extra 1000 dollars. It might not matter to a video production company that needs 2 new render farms (which I've consulted on btw, not being a professional that I am) or for a smaller firm, an extra 10 grand in taxes might, you know, matter.
That's what I said on page 2 of this forum. If you're going to upgrade the Mac Pro, it's a great option. But if you're taking a base model, it's not "a little" more expensive. It's literally over 100% priced higher than the hardware shelf cost. If that's ok for you, go for it. But some people here want to pretend that spending 6-7k on a Mac suddenly makes a 580x a Vega 64 or 5700 XT and it doesn't. Oh but you can upgrade it! Sure you can. But in the current time, the system lacks it. Plus when you DO upgrade it, you're paying again.
Good for you, I’m sure we’re all happy for you.
what I think is that most people in this thread have no intention of buying this machine. Those of us who do, know what we’re buying.
and of course you can compare this to a car. You can compare anything to anything. This is, to some of us, a beautiful machine. I can see some people wanting it just because of that. Just like that car they can’t afford, or need. Or camera. Or whatever. I knew people who drooled over Silicon Graphics workstations because the we’re beautiful, and “hot”. I used to use an Onyx. Gorgeous!
well, you’re oversimplifying. It’s not just the power of the CPU. You should know better. A high performance machine is a lot more than that. In fact, in modern computing, the CPU may not even be the most important part. Apple has build a very robust platform. More robust than most other workstations I’m familiar with. its also very quiet. Most other workstations of this size are usually too noisy to have next to you. That costs too. Of course, if that’s not important to you, then that’s your decision. We also have clients walk through. They do appreciate gear like this. It’s marketing too.
not everything is a primitive cost/performance ratio. Cost/performance is more complex than that.
Naughty words? Swearing? Blasphemy? Politics of any kind? Climate? Topics that might make Google de-list the site? What?
Looking back on the comments before this one, there are certainly some that could be characterized as self-important, and overly aggressive - and surely, almost all posters come to this forum believing that "others should bow before them" - and sometimes - "berate those that don't bend to their will".
So what's your point?
That said, I'm quite aware of how Apple computers are not just a sum of their components. You were there at Ars while I argued that point 1000 times. The issue we have here is not that there may be other factors. Of course there are other valid factors to just a cpu/gpu/ram and hd.
The issue is just how egregiously they're overcharging. It's one thing to pay an Apple tax (or other brand tax for that matter) when you're getting more bandwidth, connectivity, formfactor, tdp, environmentalism, dual booting/flexibility, et all. I think most reasonable people will pay a premium to have nice things. I've always argued that once you factor in the price of that really sweet LG 5k monitor, iMacs are actually not a bad deal. I've always argued that dual boot was an ace in the sleeve at Apple when comparing Windows systems to Macs.
However, what we have here isn't an extra few hundred bucks. A 10, 20, 30, 50 or even 100% markup.
What we have here is a 400% markup on the hardware for some features that many people won't really use to their extant potential. I don't know of anyone that can use 24 TB3 lanes AND 10 TB of internal storage AND 2 giga ether lanes. No 'professional' as you seem to judge definitively has use for that much throughput. I know plenty of server managers that might be able to use that for compute or storage but not as a workstation. To be clear, the base system doesn't have anywhere near those features but even double giga ether is more than 99% of what most people here, on Ars, on Slash, Toms, Tech, anywhere could use, much less need.
So yeah, the computer has some compelling advantages but a lot of those advantages are techno-unavailable for all intents and purposes. What isn't unavailable? Cpu processing grunt. Gpu compute performance. Ram. Storage. Things you could use *now*. Things the base Mac Pro simply doesn't have. Period.
That said, I made my point. And I backed it with facts. A 580x *is* slower than a Vega 56. Or a Vega 48. Or hell, just about any other premium gpu Apple sells. That's not "opinion". That's fact. The Mac Pro carries a paltry 256 GB of M.2 in its base configuration. That's not an opinion, that's fact. People want to paint these things as "opinion" but they're not. They're fact. The base Mac Pro is a downright weak machine, even by today's prosumer standards. For 7k, it's positively, insultingly anemic. I've made my point and now spend your cash however you like. My posts were to shed some technical light on why the base system wasn't the type of system one simply got for kicks, barring other distinct, superior options.
If it's so pretty you can't help yourself, go for it. The motherboard is amazing, to be sure.
That said, I'm dropping this because I'm done with the nastiness in this thread. Whiner. Ignorant. Not professional/amateur and the like have been bandied about and rather than get any further sucked in, I'll let this go and let people instead do whatever the hell they want. People have to learn somehow.
There always exist a cadre of early adopters who are a bit more visionary’s than the masses. I’m only sorry to say I wasn’t one of them. In the 90s and first decade of this new century I mocked the Apple Macheads as I struggled along with viruses, DLL incompatibilities and registry hell on a series of unmemorable Windows PCs. It was a virus that wiped out what became my last Windows box that finally led me to try a MacBook Air. Several generations of iPhone, iPad, iPod and AppleTV later I have never once looked back.
There is no doubt that IF you tank up (at huge expense) the 2019 Mac Pro it is a beast of a machine, but how that will grow the consumer base of Mac users is a mystery. Most will never get any closer to one than the display model in the Apple Store. Mac sales are shrinking for a reason. Too expensive, too hot, too slow. Unrepairable and unupgradeable by the user and left to stagnate after the predictable big splash launch.
Risky money for the typical buyer who is not chancing it on the only models that Apple will sell them.
We are hearing exactly the same gushing echo of Apple marketing, as when the 2013 Mac Pro was launched, despite its glaringly obvious design flaws. That Apple still manages to find customers for that indulgent desk ornament speaks volumes of just how "discerning" some of its consumers are.
I hope Apple is turning a corner and is going to finally offer the customer what they want, but decades long experience tells me that is just wishful thinking. Maybe Apple will surprise me, but with 99% certainty probably not. The pudgy, overpaid, out-of touch Cupertino Princelings making all the decisions, in their aptly circular inward looking HQ, think their gold Apple Watches are where its at, and are not going to let anyone else at the tiller. Especially younger blood that could shake up the place.
If you have further questions, feel free to DM them to me. This conversation avenue here has concluded.
if you’re a hobbyist, it’s different. But that’s their problem.
You’re making the same mistake that some others here are making. A gamer machine, is not the same as a workstation. Once you figure that out, come back.