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.
Buyer’s remorse does suck. Can you imagine buying an iMac Pro for $5k, but having zero PCIe slots and only four DIMM slots, with a 256GB max RAM? When you could have spent $6k and gotten 8 PCIe slots, with 12 DIMM slots that support 1.5TB?
Yikes. What a disaster.
It’s almost like the two machines have different target markets or something.
You’re not clearing anything up. Declaring that buyers of the base Mac Pro are “paying between 4-10x as much for the privilege of the Apple emblem” is nothing short of BS. Price an equivalent Xeon workstation from Dell, Lenovo or HP and let’s compare. Let’s see how much the Apple logo really adds. (But I won’t hold my breath.)
There’s a reason there’s a base Mac Pro. Some users need a ton of memory but not a lot of cores. Some need cores but not a lot of memory. Some need both but couldn’t care less about the GPU. Some want as much GPU as they can get. Many won’t bother upgrading the base SSD, others will max it out. Surely this can’t be news to you.
Most Mac Pro buyers will order the config they want from Apple, whether that’s ten, fifteen or thirty thousand bucks. If someone wants to buy a $6k base model and throw their own RAM and half a dozen NVMe SSD drives in, more power to them.
Running through a PC Parts Picker list and saying the Mac Pro—or any Mac for that matter—is overpriced is beyond ridiculous. It also displays a profound lack of understanding of the reality of the pricing. Apple has a certain cost structure. They’ve got 130,000+ employees and spend a billion and a half per month on R&D.
Apple’s gross margin on hardware is about 30%, and their net is about 20%. If they sold a base Mac Pro for $3k they’d lose upwards of $2k on every unit sold. Your complaint about the $6k price of the base Mac Pro is no more valid than saying a MacBook Air “should” be $550 or an iPhone 11 $350. It’s naive, and flat out wrong.
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.
And I believe (for Macs without an inbuilt display) an updated* trashcan Mac Pro would slot above a Mac Mini and below the forthcoming Mac Pro for price, performance, and expandability. There is too big a gulf between the Mini and Pro, and there are others that don't want the all-in-one iMac/iMac Pro. Just stuff the iMac Pro guts in the trashcan Pro chassis!
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.
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 making that mistake at all. A "gaming PC" is short hand for a computer with a more powerful GPU, better CPU, tuned for speed and bangs for bucks. Something that suits Prosumers/professionals as opposed to over the top engineering/video workstations.
So a "gaming PC" would choose a non-Xeon processor like the Intel i7 or i9 or Ryzen 3700/3900 paired with the best GPU that makes sense, which give the same or better performance than the entry Mac Pro 2019 (which is not all that powerful) at a fraction of the price and with much greater compatibility with common hardware components.
Not to ignore that gaming is a very popular pastime. Not my cup of tea, but most buyers want their PC to do more than just work. My son uses his Mac for work but rates it useless for gaming, so he had to buy a separate PC just for that. Two computers instead of one all rounder.
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.
He made his point extremely clearly. He repeated the logic behind it several times but you still ignore it and label him as arrogant into the bargain?
He concludes, in his opinion, that the base configuration is extremely overpriced for what you get. His posts were to inform and highlighted (occasionally robustly) why he thinks that way. I think most people considering a purchase would be thankful for the opinion (independently of what they eventually do).
He spelt things out in a perfectly acceptable manner. I wouldn't call that arrogant in any shape or form.
When you filter out the 'noise' from this thread, there isn't much (if anything) that truly counters the information he has put forward in a convincing way.
From my perspective, which is purely to watch the discussion and then weigh things up myself, I'm grateful for him voicing his opinion. Unless someone brings something to the table to counter his view on the technical and bang for buck aspects, I'll lean in his direction on this.
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.
He made his point extremely clearly. He repeated the logic behind it several times but you still ignore it and label him as arrogant into the bargain?
He concludes, in his opinion, that the base configuration is extremely overpriced for what you get. His posts were to inform and highlighted (occasionally robustly) why he thinks that way. I think most people considering a purchase would be thankful for the opinion (independently of what they eventually do).
He spelt things out in a perfectly acceptable manner. I wouldn't call that arrogant in any shape or form.
When you filter out the 'noise' from this thread, there isn't much (if anything) that truly counters the information he has put forward in a convincing way.
From my perspective, which is purely to watch the discussion and then weigh things up myself, I'm grateful for him voicing his opinion. Unless someone brings something to the table to counter his view on the technical and bang for buck aspects, I'll lean in his direction on this.
Well, no one has brought up the fact that you can price the same set of components on the HP site and pay about the same or slightly more.
So he’s basically saying a DIY person can do better, but the reality is anyone buying from HP or Apple or any other quality manufacturer is going to pay about what Apple is charging.
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.
He made his point extremely clearly. He repeated the logic behind it several times but you still ignore it and label him as arrogant into the bargain?
He concludes, in his opinion, that the base configuration is extremely overpriced for what you get. His posts were to inform and highlighted (occasionally robustly) why he thinks that way. I think most people considering a purchase would be thankful for the opinion (independently of what they eventually do).
He spelt things out in a perfectly acceptable manner. I wouldn't call that arrogant in any shape or form.
When you filter out the 'noise' from this thread, there isn't much (if anything) that truly counters the information he has put forward in a convincing way.
From my perspective, which is purely to watch the discussion and then weigh things up myself, I'm grateful for him voicing his opinion. Unless someone brings something to the table to counter his view on the technical and bang for buck aspects, I'll lean in his direction on this.
Well, no one has brought up the fact that you can price the same set of components on the HP site and pay about the same or a little more even.
So he’s basically saying a DIY person can do better, but the reality is anyone buying from HP or Apple or any other quality manufacturer is going up pay about what Apple is charging.
I think his point was no one should be ordering the base configuration period as it has no advantage in performance but a far higher price over a lesser priced build from one of Apple's other Mac lines.
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.
He made his point extremely clearly. He repeated the logic behind it several times but you still ignore it and label him as arrogant into the bargain?
He concludes, in his opinion, that the base configuration is extremely overpriced for what you get. His posts were to inform and highlighted (occasionally robustly) why he thinks that way. I think most people considering a purchase would be thankful for the opinion (independently of what they eventually do).
He spelt things out in a perfectly acceptable manner. I wouldn't call that arrogant in any shape or form.
When you filter out the 'noise' from this thread, there isn't much (if anything) that truly counters the information he has put forward in a convincing way.
From my perspective, which is purely to watch the discussion and then weigh things up myself, I'm grateful for him voicing his opinion. Unless someone brings something to the table to counter his view on the technical and bang for buck aspects, I'll lean in his direction on this.
Well, no one has brought up the fact that you can price the same set of components on the HP site and pay about the same or slightly more.
So he’s basically saying a DIY person can do better, but the reality is anyone buying from HP or Apple or any other quality manufacturer is going to pay about what Apple is charging.
The difference is that with HP (same as Lenovo and Dell) you can choose a mid range - low end model with the same specs. For example, I configured a HP Z4 with the same specs as the entry Mac Pro, the cost is $4540.00, with the included 3-yr warranty with onsite service. The HP is $1500.00 less than a Mac Pro without Apple Care. The HP Z6 has a similar pricing. From what I remember, in the keynote Apple showed a comparison with the HP Z8. IMO, that's a wrong comparison, since the Z8 is in another league, considering is supports dual Xeon Scalable procesors (up 56-cores) and 3TB of RAM. That's the good thing of having options, like HP, Dell and Lenovo does.
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.
He made his point extremely clearly. He repeated the logic behind it several times but you still ignore it and label him as arrogant into the bargain?
He concludes, in his opinion, that the base configuration is extremely overpriced for what you get. His posts were to inform and highlighted (occasionally robustly) why he thinks that way. I think most people considering a purchase would be thankful for the opinion (independently of what they eventually do).
He spelt things out in a perfectly acceptable manner. I wouldn't call that arrogant in any shape or form.
When you filter out the 'noise' from this thread, there isn't much (if anything) that truly counters the information he has put forward in a convincing way.
From my perspective, which is purely to watch the discussion and then weigh things up myself, I'm grateful for him voicing his opinion. Unless someone brings something to the table to counter his view on the technical and bang for buck aspects, I'll lean in his direction on this.
Well, no one has brought up the fact that you can price the same set of components on the HP site and pay about the same or slightly more.
So he’s basically saying a DIY person can do better, but the reality is anyone buying from HP or Apple or any other quality manufacturer is going to pay about what Apple is charging.
The difference is that with HP (same as Lenovo and Dell) you can choose a mid range - low end model with the same specs. For example, I configured a HP Z4 with the same specs as the entry Mac Pro, the cost is $4540.00, with the included 3-yr warranty with onsite service. The HP is $1500.00 less than a Mac Pro without Apple Care. The HP Z6 has a similar pricing. From what I remember, in the keynote Apple showed a comparison with the HP Z8. IMO, that's a wrong comparison, since the Z8 is in another league, considering is supports dual Xeon Scalable procesors (up 56-cores) and 3TB of RAM. That's the good thing of having options, like HP, Dell and Lenovo does.
You're fudging your numbers here, because that is a sale price as HP clears the last-generation Skylake processors in preparation for the next generation. The list price is still $6965, the same as it was when the Mac Pro was announced in June (link to my comment). Z4s with the next-generation Xeon-W that will be in the base Mac Pro will be priced around that same point. They won't be on sale!
That doesn't negate the point that HP offers lower-tier "prosumer" towers that Apple does not -- it just negates what you've just said here. It also doesn't negate madan's basic point, which he could easily have made without bringing his DIY numbers into it. It only illustrates that his DIY numbers are bullshit and in the real world even the base configuration of the Mac Pro is a decent deal. It's just that the iMac Pro and the iMac are even better deals.
EDIT: Just wanted to add that Intel's pricing has dropped by half for this next generation, due to actual competition for the first time in a long time. I think Apple knew this when they priced the Mac Pro, but the old HP list price discussed above doesn't reflect it -- so subtract around half of the processor price, maybe $1000 or so? So the equivalent Z4 and the Mac Pro will be priced nearly the same...
That doesn't negate the point that HP offers lower-tier "prosumer" towers that Apple does not -- it just negates what you've just said here. It also doesn't negate madan's basic point, which he could easily have made without bringing his DIY numbers into it. It only illustrates that his DIY numbers are bullshit and in the real world even the base configuration of the Mac Pro is a decent deal. It's just that the iMac Pro and the iMac are even better deals.
There was no point to be made. Madan was just attacking a strawman arguing that people in the market for the base price Mac Pro would be better off with whatever cheaper machine. That is wrong imo. He assumes he knows why and what people are buying the machine for. If someone is buying the base model, one at $6k, they know what they are doing and why they are doing it. It’s doubtful Internet commentary is adding any actual information regarding a purchase decision of this magnitude.
Awhile back, AI had an article about the Mac Pro with this image:
It has this caption: Apple demonstrated a Mac Pro stuffed with 6 Avic HDX cards, handing over 1,400 audio tracks and costing over $22,000 alone
So, this looks like a base model buy to me. 2 or 3 of these Avic HDX cards, and if memory or storage is needed, they can buy third party. A big production house could buy 10, 20, 100 base models for this type of purpose, or a small production house can buy 1 or 2 base models.
No matter how much people want this to be a consumer machine, a $6k price tag should completely obviate the idea that it is. It’s blindingly obvious. For those in the market to buy such a machine, it’s hubris to think that you or I know better than whoever wants to buy the machine.
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.
He made his point extremely clearly. He repeated the logic behind it several times but you still ignore it and label him as arrogant into the bargain?
He concludes, in his opinion, that the base configuration is extremely overpriced for what you get. His posts were to inform and highlighted (occasionally robustly) why he thinks that way. I think most people considering a purchase would be thankful for the opinion (independently of what they eventually do).
He spelt things out in a perfectly acceptable manner. I wouldn't call that arrogant in any shape or form.
When you filter out the 'noise' from this thread, there isn't much (if anything) that truly counters the information he has put forward in a convincing way.
From my perspective, which is purely to watch the discussion and then weigh things up myself, I'm grateful for him voicing his opinion. Unless someone brings something to the table to counter his view on the technical and bang for buck aspects, I'll lean in his direction on this.
Well, no one has brought up the fact that you can price the same set of components on the HP site and pay about the same or slightly more.
So he’s basically saying a DIY person can do better, but the reality is anyone buying from HP or Apple or any other quality manufacturer is going to pay about what Apple is charging.
The difference is that with HP (same as Lenovo and Dell) you can choose a mid range - low end model with the same specs. For example, I configured a HP Z4 with the same specs as the entry Mac Pro, the cost is $4540.00, with the included 3-yr warranty with onsite service. The HP is $1500.00 less than a Mac Pro without Apple Care. The HP Z6 has a similar pricing. From what I remember, in the keynote Apple showed a comparison with the HP Z8. IMO, that's a wrong comparison, since the Z8 is in another league, considering is supports dual Xeon Scalable procesors (up 56-cores) and 3TB of RAM. That's the good thing of having options, like HP, Dell and Lenovo does.
You're fudging your numbers here, because that is a sale price as HP clears the last-generation Skylake processors in preparation for the next generation. The list price is still $6965, the same as it was when the Mac Pro was announced in June (link to my comment). Z4s with the next-generation Xeon-W that will be in the base Mac Pro will be priced around that same point. They won't be on sale!
That doesn't negate the point that HP offers lower-tier "prosumer" towers that Apple does not -- it just negates what you've just said here. It also doesn't negate madan's basic point, which he could easily have made without bringing his DIY numbers into it. It only illustrates that his DIY numbers are bullshit and in the real world even the base configuration of the Mac Pro is a decent deal. It's just that the iMac Pro and the iMac are even better deals.
EDIT: Just wanted to add that Intel's pricing has dropped by half for this next generation, due to actual competition for the first time in a long time. I think Apple knew this when they priced the Mac Pro, but the old HP list price discussed above doesn't reflect it -- so subtract around half of the processor price, maybe $1000 or so? So the equivalent Z4 and the Mac Pro will be priced nearly the same...
I'm not fudging numbers, I just use what Apple and HP have in their respective websites today. And that's what Apple did in their keynote, when they compared the Mac Pro to a HP Z8, even though they are in a different line, since Apple use Xeon W and the Z8 is based in dual Xeon Scalable.
As soon as HP release their next gen devices, we can have a real comparison, but as today the HP Z4 is less expensive. You think that Apple knew of the price reduction, but it could be that didn't knew, and the $6K reflects the price before reduction. So we'll have to see what HP do when they release their devices with the Xeon W-2200 processors, considering the Intel lower price.
Second, I don't recommend DIY devices for business / professional use for many reasons. But it's obvious that a DIY device with the base specs of the Mac Pro is going to be less expensive.
You're fudging your numbers here, because that is a sale price as HP clears the last-generation Skylake processors in preparation for the next generation. The list price is still $6965, the same as it was when the Mac Pro was announced in June (link to my comment). Z4s with the next-generation Xeon-W that will be in the base Mac Pro will be priced around that same point. They won't be on sale!
Apple never puts their hardware on sale even when commonsense says they should. The current Mac Pro (Trashcan) is still at its same ridiculous price, and the Mac mini was held at an inflated price for a long time despite it had fallen far behind everything else available.
I've done the costings innumerable times for Hackintoshes. iMacs are fairly priced for the components that Apple chooses to deliberately include (to make comparison more difficult) mainly due to the 5k screen. A simple switch to a not disimilar 4k screen and a few other tweaks and you save a lot on a build. Particularly as you are not caught in the trap of having to pay for Apple's components only to have to throw them out when you replace them, or never wanted in the first place, such as the fusion drives, GPU and RAM.
On the other hand whilst you can upgrade PC builds, the window of opportunity to sensibly do so is not as great as made out by PC proponents, as technology advances CPU pins and chipsets change. Just you are not caught like a Mac with not being able to easily remove and upgrade RAM (except for 5k iMacs) drives and GPUs which covers most of the repairs/upgrades users want to do. Plus upgrade the wireless card.
There are also other gotchas like Apple's foot dragging over major hardware upgrades like the leap from USB2 to USB3, Thunderbolt (Mac Pro), and SSDs. My 27" iMac 2011 is a great machine but lacks USB3 and is stuck with a HDD and a weak GPU, plus quickly overheats in summer because of bad ventilation and I suspect dust build up inside the too small case. If I had bought a PC I could have fixed all of those. My 2012 Macbook Pro is more usable as it has USB 3, I upgraded the RAM to the max and replaced the HDD with a substantial SSD. Something Apple quickly put a stop to in later models.
But this is all arguing over wordy descriptions of the problem. A graph demonstrating performance vs cost, annotated with upgradeability features would show the huge gaps Apple has in its product lines and the massive compromises and poor choices most Mac consumers have to make just to stay on MacOS.
I'm not fudging numbers, I just use what Apple and HP have in their respective websites today. And that's what Apple did in their keynote, when they compared the Mac Pro to a HP Z8, even though they are in a different line, since Apple use Xeon W and the Z8 is based in dual Xeon Scalable.
As soon as HP release their next gen devices, we can have a real comparison, but as today the HP Z4 is less expensive. You think that Apple knew of the price reduction, but it could be that didn't knew, and the $6K reflects the price before reduction. So we'll have to see what HP do when they release their devices with the Xeon W-2200 processors, considering the Intel lower price.
Second, I don't recommend DIY devices for business / professional use for many reasons. But it's obvious that a DIY device with the base specs of the Mac Pro is going to be less expensive.
Note that the 2019 Mac Pro uses Xeon W 3200 series CPUs while you are talking about the Xeon W 2200 series going into HP Z4 machines. There are significant differences.
The Xeon W 2200 series is basically a successor to the Xeon W 2100 series in the iMac Pro: 4 memory channels, probably 48 PCIe lanes coming out of the CPU (with the 24 from the PCH), 1 TB memory support , 18 cores max and about another 5 to 10% in clock. It’s probably socket compatible with the socket in the iMac Pro, but your are not getting much improvement over the 2017 Xeons. We all hope Apple updates the iMac Pro anyways, though I’m sure a lot people would rather Apple retire it and bring the Mac Pro down to a $4k price point.
The Xeon W 3200 series is a higher end, more expensive processor family: 6 memory channels, 64 PCIe lanes out of the CPU (probably 24 off the PCH), 2 TB memory support, and 28 cores max. It is not socket compatible with the Xeon W 2100/2200 platforms, so you can’t put it into the iMac Pro.
Theoretically, Apple can update the iMac Pro with Xeon W-2245, keep the same Vega 56 base GPU, and reduce the price to $4500. CPU upgrades for the iMac Pro would be cheaper. A Pro Vega II would hypothetically be an upgrade option. 512 GB memory could be an option if 128 GB DIMMs are available.
If there is an HP model using Xeon W 3200 series, it would be directly compatible to the 2019 Mac Pro. Even the Xeon metal brand (scalable Xeon whatever) platform isn’t too comparable to the Xeon W platform. There only two good options for single core performance Xeon scalable processors. It’s really only for servers. So a Z8 with two socket Xeon scalable processors is kind of apples and oranges. For desktop work, the Xeon W is a better option for all the workloads on a desktop.
I'm not fudging numbers, I just use what Apple and HP have in their respective websites today. And that's what Apple did in their keynote, when they compared the Mac Pro to a HP Z8, even though they are in a different line, since Apple use Xeon W and the Z8 is based in dual Xeon Scalable.
As soon as HP release their next gen devices, we can have a real comparison, but as today the HP Z4 is less expensive. You think that Apple knew of the price reduction, but it could be that didn't knew, and the $6K reflects the price before reduction. So we'll have to see what HP do when they release their devices with the Xeon W-2200 processors, considering the Intel lower price.
Second, I don't recommend DIY devices for business / professional use for many reasons. But it's obvious that a DIY device with the base specs of the Mac Pro is going to be less expensive.
Note that the 2019 Mac Pro uses Xeon W 3200 series CPUs while you are talking about the Xeon W 2200 series going into HP Z4 machines. There are significant differences.
The Xeon W 2200 series is basically a successor to the Xeon W 2100 series in the iMac Pro: 4 memory channels, probably 48 PCIe lanes coming out of the CPU (with the 24 from the PCH), 1 TB memory support , 18 cores max and about another 5 to 10% in clock. It’s probably socket compatible with the socket in the iMac Pro, but your are not getting much improvement over the 2017 Xeons. We all hope Apple updates the iMac Pro anyways, though I’m sure a lot people would rather Apple retire it and bring the Mac Pro down to a $4k price point.
The Xeon W 3200 series is a higher end, more expensive processor family: 6 memory channels, 64 PCIe lanes out of the CPU (probably 24 off the PCH), 2 TB memory support, and 28 cores max. It is not socket compatible with the Xeon W 2100/2200 platforms, so you can’t put it into the iMac Pro.
Theoretically, Apple can update the iMac Pro with Xeon W-2245, keep the same Vega 56 base GPU, and reduce the price to $4500. CPU upgrades for the iMac Pro would be cheaper. A Pro Vega II would hypothetically be an upgrade option. 512 GB memory could be an option if 128 GB DIMMs are available.
If there is an HP model using Xeon W 3200 series, it would be directly compatible to the 2019 Mac Pro. Even the Xeon metal brand (scalable Xeon whatever) platform isn’t too comparable to the Xeon W platform. There only two good options for single core performance Xeon scalable processors. It’s really only for servers. So a Z8 with two socket Xeon scalable processors is kind of apples and oranges. For desktop work, the Xeon W is a better option for all the workloads on a desktop.
Your are right about the Z4 and the Xeon W-2100. But like I posted before, I did a similar configuration with the Z6, with a current 8-core Xeon W-3223, and it went for $4850 including the 3-yr onsite warranty. Again, we have to wait for the final price for the new HP model. But as today, HP has a better cost if we compare to the base Mac Pro model.
Regarding the Z8, I agree is a different line from the Mac Pro. That's reason it made no sense for me for Apple to make that comparison in their keynote. The Z8 is in a different league. And there are cases where more cores have it's benefits over just single core performance. For example, Dreamworks architect their applications to run in 36-cores.
I know this kind of environment is not common. But although is a small customer base that need this kind of configuration, it exist and a Xeon Scalable may be a better option than the Xeon W. At the same, I'm not sure how long 2-CPU workstations will exist, considering that the Xeon-W3200 goes up to 28-cores and AMD Epyc 7002 is up to 56-cores. It's crazy!
Edit: I missed that HP already have the Z6 with the Xeon W-3200 processors. So it looks like HP has a lower cost with the same specs.
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.
He made his point extremely clearly. He repeated the logic behind it several times but you still ignore it and label him as arrogant into the bargain?
He concludes, in his opinion, that the base configuration is extremely overpriced for what you get. His posts were to inform and highlighted (occasionally robustly) why he thinks that way. I think most people considering a purchase would be thankful for the opinion (independently of what they eventually do).
He spelt things out in a perfectly acceptable manner. I wouldn't call that arrogant in any shape or form.
When you filter out the 'noise' from this thread, there isn't much (if anything) that truly counters the information he has put forward in a convincing way.
From my perspective, which is purely to watch the discussion and then weigh things up myself, I'm grateful for him voicing his opinion. Unless someone brings something to the table to counter his view on the technical and bang for buck aspects, I'll lean in his direction on this.
Well, no one has brought up the fact that you can price the same set of components on the HP site and pay about the same or slightly more.
So he’s basically saying a DIY person can do better, but the reality is anyone buying from HP or Apple or any other quality manufacturer is going to pay about what Apple is charging.
The difference is that with HP (same as Lenovo and Dell) you can choose a mid range - low end model with the same specs. For example, I configured a HP Z4 with the same specs as the entry Mac Pro, the cost is $4540.00, with the included 3-yr warranty with onsite service. The HP is $1500.00 less than a Mac Pro without Apple Care. The HP Z6 has a similar pricing. From what I remember, in the keynote Apple showed a comparison with the HP Z8. IMO, that's a wrong comparison, since the Z8 is in another league, considering is supports dual Xeon Scalable procesors (up 56-cores) and 3TB of RAM. That's the good thing of having options, like HP, Dell and Lenovo does.
You're fudging your numbers here, because that is a sale price as HP clears the last-generation Skylake processors in preparation for the next generation. The list price is still $6965, the same as it was when the Mac Pro was announced in June (link to my comment). Z4s with the next-generation Xeon-W that will be in the base Mac Pro will be priced around that same point. They won't be on sale!
That doesn't negate the point that HP offers lower-tier "prosumer" towers that Apple does not -- it just negates what you've just said here. It also doesn't negate madan's basic point, which he could easily have made without bringing his DIY numbers into it. It only illustrates that his DIY numbers are bullshit and in the real world even the base configuration of the Mac Pro is a decent deal. It's just that the iMac Pro and the iMac are even better deals.
EDIT: Just wanted to add that Intel's pricing has dropped by half for this next generation, due to actual competition for the first time in a long time. I think Apple knew this when they priced the Mac Pro, but the old HP list price discussed above doesn't reflect it -- so subtract around half of the processor price, maybe $1000 or so? So the equivalent Z4 and the Mac Pro will be priced nearly the same...
I'm not fudging numbers, I just use what Apple and HP have in their respective websites today. And that's what Apple did in their keynote, when they compared the Mac Pro to a HP Z8, even though they are in a different line, since Apple use Xeon W and the Z8 is based in dual Xeon Scalable.
As soon as HP release their next gen devices, we can have a real comparison, but as today the HP Z4 is less expensive. You think that Apple knew of the price reduction, but it could be that didn't knew, and the $6K reflects the price before reduction. So we'll have to see what HP do when they release their devices with the Xeon W-2200 processors, considering the Intel lower price.
Second, I don't recommend DIY devices for business / professional use for many reasons. But it's obvious that a DIY device with the base specs of the Mac Pro is going to be less expensive.
The Apple price is for the next-generation Intel hardware. The HP Z4 price is for last-generation hardware that is on sale because in a few months it will be obsolete and overpriced. The severe markdown reflects that reality. When the next-generation Z4 comes out (along with the iMac Pro refresh), the sale will end.
However, looking at the HP site today, while the Z4 configurations are unchanged from June (the processors in the Z4 are actually those in the iMac Pro, not the Mac Pro, but back in June they were the closest parallels we had -- the SKUs and specs of the Xeon-W 3200 series were not known at that time), I see the next-generation Cascade-Lake Xeon-W 3223 is listed among the options for the Z6. It is almost certain that is the processor in the base Mac Pro. That configuration is currently marked down to $4818 from $6786. Ships November 13.
So why HP is marking this down? It should be obvious. It's not like everything is always on sale at HP. It's because of the Mac Pro. They can't sell it for $6786 any more. Apple will kick their ass if they do. So down goes the price. And it cannot be the same price as Apple, it has to be better.
EDIT: Danvm and Tht -- Sorry, I was interrupted mid-post by some stuff at home, so didn't see your most recent responses before posting the above. I think we're largely all on the same page here. Thanks especially to Tht for the great post above with the image in it. I missed that AI article.
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.
He made his point extremely clearly. He repeated the logic behind it several times but you still ignore it and label him as arrogant into the bargain?
He concludes, in his opinion, that the base configuration is extremely overpriced for what you get. His posts were to inform and highlighted (occasionally robustly) why he thinks that way. I think most people considering a purchase would be thankful for the opinion (independently of what they eventually do).
He spelt things out in a perfectly acceptable manner. I wouldn't call that arrogant in any shape or form.
When you filter out the 'noise' from this thread, there isn't much (if anything) that truly counters the information he has put forward in a convincing way.
From my perspective, which is purely to watch the discussion and then weigh things up myself, I'm grateful for him voicing his opinion. Unless someone brings something to the table to counter his view on the technical and bang for buck aspects, I'll lean in his direction on this.
Well, no one has brought up the fact that you can price the same set of components on the HP site and pay about the same or slightly more.
So he’s basically saying a DIY person can do better, but the reality is anyone buying from HP or Apple or any other quality manufacturer is going to pay about what Apple is charging.
The difference is that with HP (same as Lenovo and Dell) you can choose a mid range - low end model with the same specs. For example, I configured a HP Z4 with the same specs as the entry Mac Pro, the cost is $4540.00, with the included 3-yr warranty with onsite service. The HP is $1500.00 less than a Mac Pro without Apple Care. The HP Z6 has a similar pricing. From what I remember, in the keynote Apple showed a comparison with the HP Z8. IMO, that's a wrong comparison, since the Z8 is in another league, considering is supports dual Xeon Scalable procesors (up 56-cores) and 3TB of RAM. That's the good thing of having options, like HP, Dell and Lenovo does.
You're fudging your numbers here, because that is a sale price as HP clears the last-generation Skylake processors in preparation for the next generation. The list price is still $6965, the same as it was when the Mac Pro was announced in June (link to my comment). Z4s with the next-generation Xeon-W that will be in the base Mac Pro will be priced around that same point. They won't be on sale!
That doesn't negate the point that HP offers lower-tier "prosumer" towers that Apple does not -- it just negates what you've just said here. It also doesn't negate madan's basic point, which he could easily have made without bringing his DIY numbers into it. It only illustrates that his DIY numbers are bullshit and in the real world even the base configuration of the Mac Pro is a decent deal. It's just that the iMac Pro and the iMac are even better deals.
EDIT: Just wanted to add that Intel's pricing has dropped by half for this next generation, due to actual competition for the first time in a long time. I think Apple knew this when they priced the Mac Pro, but the old HP list price discussed above doesn't reflect it -- so subtract around half of the processor price, maybe $1000 or so? So the equivalent Z4 and the Mac Pro will be priced nearly the same...
I'm not fudging numbers, I just use what Apple and HP have in their respective websites today. And that's what Apple did in their keynote, when they compared the Mac Pro to a HP Z8, even though they are in a different line, since Apple use Xeon W and the Z8 is based in dual Xeon Scalable.
As soon as HP release their next gen devices, we can have a real comparison, but as today the HP Z4 is less expensive. You think that Apple knew of the price reduction, but it could be that didn't knew, and the $6K reflects the price before reduction. So we'll have to see what HP do when they release their devices with the Xeon W-2200 processors, considering the Intel lower price.
Second, I don't recommend DIY devices for business / professional use for many reasons. But it's obvious that a DIY device with the base specs of the Mac Pro is going to be less expensive.
The Apple price is for the next-generation Intel hardware. The HP Z4 price is for last-generation hardware that is on sale because in a few months it will be obsolete and overpriced. The severe markdown reflects that reality. When the next-generation Z4 comes out (along with the iMac Pro refresh), the sale will end.
However, looking at the HP site today, while the Z4 configurations are unchanged from June (the processors in the Z4 are actually those in the iMac Pro, not the Mac Pro, but back in June they were the closest parallels we had -- the SKUs and specs of the Xeon-W 3200 series were not known at that time), I see the next-generation Cascade-Lake Xeon-W 3223 is listed among the options for the Z6. It is almost certain that is the processor in the base Mac Pro. That configuration is currently marked down to $4818 from $6786. Ships November 13.
So why HP is marking this down? It should be obvious. It's not like everything is always on sale at HP. It's because of the Mac Pro. They can't sell it for $6786 any more. Apple will kick their ass if they do. So down goes the price. And it cannot be the same price as Apple, it has to be better.
EDIT: Danvm and Tht -- Sorry, I was interrupted mid-post by some stuff at home, so didn't see your most recent responses before posting the above. I think we're largely all on the same page here. Thanks especially to Tht for the great post above with the image in it. I missed that AI article.
I don't think HP is thinking about Apple when giving discounts in their website. The have a discount for the Z8 too, and Apple has no device that compete in that line of devices. Dell and Lenovo maybe are stronger competition today than Apple.
Comments
You’re not clearing anything up. Declaring that buyers of the base Mac Pro are “paying between 4-10x as much for the privilege of the Apple emblem” is nothing short of BS. Price an equivalent Xeon workstation from Dell, Lenovo or HP and let’s compare. Let’s see how much the Apple logo really adds. (But I won’t hold my breath.)
Running through a PC Parts Picker list and saying the Mac Pro—or any Mac for that matter—is overpriced is beyond ridiculous. It also displays a profound lack of understanding of the reality of the pricing. Apple has a certain cost structure. They’ve got 130,000+ employees and spend a billion and a half per month on R&D.
Apple’s gross margin on hardware is about 30%, and their net is about 20%. If they sold a base Mac Pro for $3k they’d lose upwards of $2k on every unit sold. Your complaint about the $6k price of the base Mac Pro is no more valid than saying a MacBook Air “should” be $550 or an iPhone 11 $350. It’s naive, and flat out wrong.
So a "gaming PC" would choose a non-Xeon processor like the Intel i7 or i9 or Ryzen 3700/3900 paired with the best GPU that makes sense, which give the same or better performance than the entry Mac Pro 2019 (which is not all that powerful) at a fraction of the price and with much greater compatibility with common hardware components.
Not to ignore that gaming is a very popular pastime. Not my cup of tea, but most buyers want their PC to do more than just work. My son uses his Mac for work but rates it useless for gaming, so he had to buy a separate PC just for that. Two computers instead of one all rounder.
ROTFL
Apple won't give you what you really want which is a speedboat with a pair of Evinrudes.
Apple offers an Aircraft Carrier fitted with oars so you will pay a fortune to upgrade it, or a dinghy that needs a tow if you want to water ski.
Whatever you choose is super expensive, hard to repair, change your mind, or simply upgrade.
He concludes, in his opinion, that the base configuration is extremely overpriced for what you get. His posts were to inform and highlighted (occasionally robustly) why
he thinks that way. I think most people considering a purchase would be thankful for the opinion (independently of what they eventually do).
He spelt things out in a perfectly acceptable manner. I wouldn't call that arrogant in any shape or form.
When you filter out the 'noise' from this thread, there isn't much (if anything) that truly counters the information he has put forward in a convincing way.
From my perspective, which is purely to watch the discussion and then weigh things up myself, I'm grateful for him voicing his opinion. Unless someone brings something to the table to counter his view on the technical and bang for buck aspects, I'll lean in his direction on this.
The Mac Pro is not for everyone. Some people would be better off with an iMac Pro. Many others would be better off with an iMac.
From what I remember, in the keynote Apple showed a comparison with the HP Z8. IMO, that's a wrong comparison, since the Z8 is in another league, considering is supports dual Xeon Scalable procesors (up 56-cores) and 3TB of RAM. That's the good thing of having options, like HP, Dell and Lenovo does.
That doesn't negate the point that HP offers lower-tier "prosumer" towers that Apple does not -- it just negates what you've just said here. It also doesn't negate madan's basic point, which he could easily have made without bringing his DIY numbers into it. It only illustrates that his DIY numbers are bullshit and in the real world even the base configuration of the Mac Pro is a decent deal. It's just that the iMac Pro and the iMac are even better deals.
EDIT: Just wanted to add that Intel's pricing has dropped by half for this next generation, due to actual competition for the first time in a long time. I think Apple knew this when they priced the Mac Pro, but the old HP list price discussed above doesn't reflect it -- so subtract around half of the processor price, maybe $1000 or so? So the equivalent Z4 and the Mac Pro will be priced nearly the same...
Awhile back, AI had an article about the Mac Pro with this image:
So, this looks like a base model buy to me. 2 or 3 of these Avic HDX cards, and if memory or storage is needed, they can buy third party. A big production house could buy 10, 20, 100 base models for this type of purpose, or a small production house can buy 1 or 2 base models.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=psL_5RIBqnY&feature=youtu.be&t=6058
As soon as HP release their next gen devices, we can have a real comparison, but as today the HP Z4 is less expensive. You think that Apple knew of the price reduction, but it could be that didn't knew, and the $6K reflects the price before reduction. So we'll have to see what HP do when they release their devices with the Xeon W-2200 processors, considering the Intel lower price.
Second, I don't recommend DIY devices for business / professional use for many reasons. But it's obvious that a DIY device with the base specs of the Mac Pro is going to be less expensive.
Apple never puts their hardware on sale even when commonsense says they should. The current Mac Pro (Trashcan) is still at its same ridiculous price, and the Mac mini was held at an inflated price for a long time despite it had fallen far behind everything else available.
I've done the costings innumerable times for Hackintoshes. iMacs are fairly priced for the components that Apple chooses to deliberately include (to make comparison more difficult) mainly due to the 5k screen. A simple switch to a not disimilar 4k screen and a few other tweaks and you save a lot on a build. Particularly as you are not caught in the trap of having to pay for Apple's components only to have to throw them out when you replace them, or never wanted in the first place, such as the fusion drives, GPU and RAM.
On the other hand whilst you can upgrade PC builds, the window of opportunity to sensibly do so is not as great as made out by PC proponents, as technology advances CPU pins and chipsets change. Just you are not caught like a Mac with not being able to easily remove and upgrade RAM (except for 5k iMacs) drives and GPUs which covers most of the repairs/upgrades users want to do. Plus upgrade the wireless card.
There are also other gotchas like Apple's foot dragging over major hardware upgrades like the leap from USB2 to USB3, Thunderbolt (Mac Pro), and SSDs. My 27" iMac 2011 is a great machine but lacks USB3 and is stuck with a HDD and a weak GPU, plus quickly overheats in summer because of bad ventilation and I suspect dust build up inside the too small case. If I had bought a PC I could have fixed all of those. My 2012 Macbook Pro is more usable as it has USB 3, I upgraded the RAM to the max and replaced the HDD with a substantial SSD. Something Apple quickly put a stop to in later models.
But this is all arguing over wordy descriptions of the problem. A graph demonstrating performance vs cost, annotated with upgradeability features would show the huge gaps Apple has in its product lines and the massive compromises and poor choices most Mac consumers have to make just to stay on MacOS.
The Xeon W 2200 series is basically a successor to the Xeon W 2100 series in the iMac Pro: 4 memory channels, probably 48 PCIe lanes coming out of the CPU (with the 24 from the PCH), 1 TB memory support , 18 cores max and about another 5 to 10% in clock. It’s probably socket compatible with the socket in the iMac Pro, but your are not getting much improvement over the 2017 Xeons. We all hope Apple updates the iMac Pro anyways, though I’m sure a lot people would rather Apple retire it and bring the Mac Pro down to a $4k price point.
The Xeon W 3200 series is a higher end, more expensive processor family: 6 memory channels, 64 PCIe lanes out of the CPU (probably 24 off the PCH), 2 TB memory support, and 28 cores max. It is not socket compatible with the Xeon W 2100/2200 platforms, so you can’t put it into the iMac Pro.
Theoretically, Apple can update the iMac Pro with Xeon W-2245, keep the same Vega 56 base GPU, and reduce the price to $4500. CPU upgrades for the iMac Pro would be cheaper. A Pro Vega II would hypothetically be an upgrade option. 512 GB memory could be an option if 128 GB DIMMs are available.
If there is an HP model using Xeon W 3200 series, it would be directly compatible to the 2019 Mac Pro. Even the Xeon metal brand (scalable Xeon whatever) platform isn’t too comparable to the Xeon W platform. There only two good options for single core performance Xeon scalable processors. It’s really only for servers. So a Z8 with two socket Xeon scalable processors is kind of apples and oranges. For desktop work, the Xeon W is a better option for all the workloads on a desktop.
Regarding the Z8, I agree is a different line from the Mac Pro. That's reason it made no sense for me for Apple to make that comparison in their keynote. The Z8 is in a different league. And there are cases where more cores have it's benefits over just single core performance. For example, Dreamworks architect their applications to run in 36-cores.
https://garage.ext.hp.com/us/en/arts-design/animation-DreamWorks-HP-How-to-train-your-dragon.html
I know this kind of environment is not common. But although is a small customer base that need this kind of configuration, it exist and a Xeon Scalable may be a better option than the Xeon W. At the same, I'm not sure how long 2-CPU workstations will exist, considering that the Xeon-W3200 goes up to 28-cores and AMD Epyc 7002 is up to 56-cores. It's crazy!
Edit:
I missed that HP already have the Z6 with the Xeon W-3200 processors. So it looks like HP has a lower cost with the same specs.
However, looking at the HP site today, while the Z4 configurations are unchanged from June (the processors in the Z4 are actually those in the iMac Pro, not the Mac Pro, but back in June they were the closest parallels we had -- the SKUs and specs of the Xeon-W 3200 series were not known at that time), I see the next-generation Cascade-Lake Xeon-W 3223 is listed among the options for the Z6. It is almost certain that is the processor in the base Mac Pro. That configuration is currently marked down to $4818 from $6786. Ships November 13.
So why HP is marking this down? It should be obvious. It's not like everything is always on sale at HP. It's because of the Mac Pro. They can't sell it for $6786 any more. Apple will kick their ass if they do. So down goes the price. And it cannot be the same price as Apple, it has to be better.
EDIT: Danvm and Tht -- Sorry, I was interrupted mid-post by some stuff at home, so didn't see your most recent responses before posting the above. I think we're largely all on the same page here. Thanks especially to Tht for the great post above with the image in it. I missed that AI article.