Would be nice if Apple provided advance pricing on options unique to the Mac Pro. I expect common upgrades for other Mac models will be priced about the same. Similarly, due to the 16" MacBook Pro, an 8 TB SSD option is expected, even though only 4 TB has so far been mentioned. Using iMac Pro pricing, 1.5 TB RAM for the Mac Pro should run $31+K.
Anyone considering the enhanced coating version over base model? Why?
Do you not understand the practical differences between a glossy and matte screen? If I worked in an office with lots of windows and lights, then most definitely. If I worked in a dark editing bay, probably not. I miss the anti glare screen on my old MacBook Pro versus my current one, if they offered something like this on their laptops it’d be a no brainer for me as my eyes tend to easily focus on reflections.
No NVidia support. This is DOA. Apple is stubborn beyond belief. $6000 base price includes an anemic GPU. Ridiculous. I wanted to love the new Mac Pro. They gimped it and then limited hardware compatibility. Tim Cook is bad for Apple. This latest release is not the only reason. I considered buying one. High price for pointless omissions and limitations. I’ll pass.
It's not Apple's fault they don't use NVIDIA. When NVIDIA decides to start supporting Metal, then maybe you'll start seeing NVIDIA chips in Macs. Until then, its AMD graphics and the graphics you can get is no slouch.
This is priced no higher than any other high-end professional workstation. Where I work, we buy Dell Precision towers that cost well over $10,000 per tower depending on the config. $6,000 is nothing! This Mac Pro isn't necessarily meant for a freelancer, but rather people who need serious (and I mean serious) power. Do yeah, don't buy one because its not likely not meant for you anyways.
I think the point of the post is "$6000 base price". If you want a Mac with internal expansion, the only option you have is the Mac Pro at +$6000. Compare that to the Dell Precision 5800 that starts at +$1200.00. IMO, that's the problem with Apple. You only have a single option with internal expansion, and it's too expensive for the workflow of many professional customers.
No NVidia support. This is DOA. Apple is stubborn beyond belief. $6000 base price includes an anemic GPU. Ridiculous. I wanted to love the new Mac Pro. They gimped it and then limited hardware compatibility. Tim Cook is bad for Apple. This latest release is not the only reason. I considered buying one. High price for pointless omissions and limitations. I’ll pass.
It's not Apple's fault they don't use NVIDIA. When NVIDIA decides to start supporting Metal, then maybe you'll start seeing NVIDIA chips in Macs. Until then, its AMD graphics and the graphics you can get is no slouch.
This is priced no higher than any other high-end professional workstation. Where I work, we buy Dell Precision towers that cost well over $10,000 per tower depending on the config. $6,000 is nothing! This Mac Pro isn't necessarily meant for a freelancer, but rather people who need serious (and I mean serious) power. Do yeah, don't buy one because its not likely not meant for you anyways.
I think the point of the post is "$6000 base price". If you want a Mac with internal expansion, the only option you have is the Mac Pro at +$6000. Compare that to the Dell Precision 5800 that starts at +$1200.00. IMO, that's the problem with Apple. You only have a single option with internal expansion, and it's too expensive for the workflow of many professional customers.
The issue with your analogy is, you assume most professionals want to upgrade their Macs. Bad assumption!
The point if his post was really just to troll and bitch about something that isn't Apple's fault. Had they done a little research they would have known that.
I'm somewhat surprised why Apple didn't take the AMD Threadripper devices.
Key factors: PCIe 4.0 64+ PCIe Lanes each supporting Infinity Fabric Link to AMD GPUs (effectively reducing latency and allowing for perfect workload scalability using PCIe4.0 SerDes) (soon) up to 64 cores and 8 memory channels extremely cheap price for a workstation class CPU (32 core for 2k$)
Hell they could even go full house with two EPYC 7742 64-core processors (for a total of 128 cores that have combined 256 PCIe 4.0 lanes (or an equivalent of 530% bandwidth compared to the intel part) that cost retail even combined less than what Intel asks for its 28-core part while consuming about a third of energy per unit of performance when compared against the Intel device in question. Imagine performing tasks with such a setup, the render is just a click away, almost real-time!
The Intel platform looks kindof End-of-Life by now. It's specs look years old. The socket does not support PCIe4.0 speeds, it doesn't supply enough memory channels for acceptable bandwidth scalability going above 32 core. I'm sure they considered Threadripper, there must be very special contracts that prevent Apple from using the better product. I really hope Apple doesn't design themselves inside a corner with this.
Mac Pro as a platform currently kinda looks obsolete for seriously professional computing looking forward considering the Threadripper parts are proven to be a big time saver by the time it ships. It doesn't seem to be a viable investment so I'll be waiting for their next Mac Pro and meanwhile continue using the Threadripper workstation I have built last year that is still faster.
Looking forward to watching real world reviews of this new computer and monitor. Yes it may seem expensive, but when you think that it's possible to get 10 years out of a computer this powerful and this monitor will certainly not be obsolete any time soon - is it really that expensive over time ? Instead of buying 2 or 3 high end desktops\laptops in 10 years - just buy this...
I think it all depends on what you're doing. I doubt any serious professional (company) is gonna buy one and expect it to last 10yrs. For most companies the standard length they keep a computer around (Mac or PC) is 3yrs before its considered EOL (End of Life). That doesn't mean its useless, its just a standard some companies go by.
I could be living in a totally different world, but I've seen companies (and myself!) hold onto the same computers for 10 years. My current laptop is 6 years old and still good as new, running Mojave. And do you remember the XP years? Windows XP lasted 10 years, and people ran it on the same hardware that whole time. So the three-year timespan is questionable in my mind, and I think the Mac Pro has 10 years in it, easy. It's a real workhorse.
I’ve worked American enterprise as a contractor for almost 20 years, none of the many companies I’ve worked for had us using machines older than a few years. My personal computer at home, yes (last iMac went 8 years), but never corporate machines.
The debate goes back & forth; do some companies / agencies keep computers for 5 to 10 years? Yes. (I’ve seen it.) Do some companies replace computers after 3 years? Yes. I’ve see that too.
** But this is a comment thread about the Mac Pro. The question is; do companies like Pixar, which have stated that they use Mac Pros, change those computers after 3 years on a rigid schedule which forces their departments to give up their machines? I doubt it. Why? * We must first begin w/ the reality that the Mac Pro has always been a niche, high end machine for the most demanding video/film projects. If they are in the middle of a project & no new Mac Pro is available after 3 years, would they tell one of their teams, ‘OK you all need to switch to new machines this month. Back up your files & since no new Mac Pro is available, you will switch to PC hardware which will have new versions of your software’. I doubt a studio would do something like that. * I have read that both the old tower Mac Pro and the tube Mac Pro could be used for 5 years in movie studios/departments.
Looking forward to watching real world reviews of this new computer and monitor. Yes it may seem expensive, but when you think that it's possible to get 10 years out of a computer this powerful and this monitor will certainly not be obsolete any time soon - is it really that expensive over time ? Instead of buying 2 or 3 high end desktops\laptops in 10 years - just buy this...
In 7 years, it will considered OBSOLETE by Apple in California, once the model is discontinued. Since Apple will be able to refresh these models, it will only be in production for a few years before a refresh, then obsolete after 7 years. As mentioned above, most companies only keep a computer in production for about 3 years before they are considered EOL. I don't see a lot of companies spending $12,000 per base model machine and monitor. Even companies have allocated expenses for hardware that must be followed.
Looking forward to watching real world reviews of this new computer and monitor. Yes it may seem expensive, but when you think that it's possible to get 10 years out of a computer this powerful and this monitor will certainly not be obsolete any time soon - is it really that expensive over time ? Instead of buying 2 or 3 high end desktops\laptops in 10 years - just buy this...
I think it all depends on what you're doing. I doubt any serious professional (company) is gonna buy one and expect it to last 10yrs. For most companies the standard length they keep a computer around (Mac or PC) is 3yrs before its considered EOL (End of Life). That doesn't mean its useless, its just a standard some companies go by.
You are correct it does depend on what you're doing, I'm talking more about the average Joe who works out of his house - not some huge production company with truckloads of money to throw around.
The average joe working out of his house is not going to spend $12K for the base model Mac Pro and display. They likely switched to a PC after the trash can failure of 2013, or they bought an iMac Pro. Apple made another 'designer' computer that is priced out of reality.
Looking forward to watching real world reviews of this new computer and monitor. Yes it may seem expensive, but when you think that it's possible to get 10 years out of a computer this powerful and this monitor will certainly not be obsolete any time soon - is it really that expensive over time ? Instead of buying 2 or 3 high end desktops\laptops in 10 years - just buy this...
I think it all depends on what you're doing. I doubt any serious professional (company) is gonna buy one and expect it to last 10yrs. For most companies the standard length they keep a computer around (Mac or PC) is 3yrs before its considered EOL (End of Life). That doesn't mean its useless, its just a standard some companies go by.
3 years might be standard for PCs but it never was for Macs, at least not where I worked. I'd say the new Mac Pro could easily last for 5-7 years because of the modularity of the system. The motherboard would need to be replaced to upgrade to faster bus speeds but Thunderbolt 4 and PCIe5 are still in the approval stage and there comes a time when some things are just fast enough for the current software applications.
It is also the standard for Macs at most companies as well. Maybe the job you had was different. The Mac Pro won't last 5 to 7 years because Apple will cut off macOS support by then. How are you going to replace the motherboard? Apple does not sell upgrade parts for doing your own upgrades. Companies rarely waste time upgrading computers when they are out of warranty and EOL. They replace them.
Looking forward to watching real world reviews of this new computer and monitor. Yes it may seem expensive, but when you think that it's possible to get 10 years out of a computer this powerful and this monitor will certainly not be obsolete any time soon - is it really that expensive over time ? Instead of buying 2 or 3 high end desktops\laptops in 10 years - just buy this...
I think it all depends on what you're doing. I doubt any serious professional (company) is gonna buy one and expect it to last 10yrs. For most companies the standard length they keep a computer around (Mac or PC) is 3yrs before its considered EOL (End of Life). That doesn't mean its useless, its just a standard some companies go by.
I could be living in a totally different world, but I've seen companies (and myself!) hold onto the same computers for 10 years. My current laptop is 6 years old and still good as new, running Mojave. And do you remember the XP years? Windows XP lasted 10 years, and people ran it on the same hardware that whole time. So the three-year timespan is questionable in my mind, and I think the Mac Pro has 10 years in it, easy. It's a real workhorse.
Holding onto a computer for 10 years? Unlikely. First, they are out of warranty, so companies do not like to keep hardware around for very long out of warranty. Companies did not keep the same hardware for XP. Microsoft offered downgrade licenses for XP for new hardware.
I'm somewhat surprised why Apple didn't take the AMD Threadripper devices.
... I'm sure they considered Threadripper, there must be very special contracts that prevent Apple from using the better product. I really hope Apple doesn't design themselves inside a corner with this.
It is likely the same old same old: AMD didn’t give, well bid, a deal that Apple wanted, and Intel did. Thunderbolt chips might have been a problem, but Intel would have sold them to Apple, regardless I think.
Same thing with an Nvidia. If AMD chips away at Nvidia’s GPU share, and decides they want a better deal with Apple on GPUs, suddenly the frost between Nvidia and Apple could disappear, and Nvidia GPUs will start appearing on Macs again.
Mac Pro as a platform currently kinda looks obsolete for seriously professional computing looking forward considering the Threadripper parts are proven to be a big time saver by the time it ships. It doesn't seem to be a viable investment so I'll be waiting for their next Mac Pro and meanwhile continue using the Threadripper workstation I have built last year that is still faster.
It’s fine. Fine enough for Apple to make a server variant of the Mac Pro, with a different frame and case. It will last buyers 5 to 10 years, and has real upgrade options.
Apple has to be gritting its teeth though. Intel is probably all optimistic about their 10 and 7 nm schedule. Apple knows better. They hopefully have a plan B and C with AMD and ARM they can into reality in 6 months.
I just bought an HP Z27 4K 27" monitor for my 2013 Mac Pro for $479. It's fabulous. The new Apple display is not worth the difference
Two possibilities only for such a silly statement:
you can't afford an XDR display and are envious
you are not a professional that needs the color accuracy, size, or any of the other features (in other words: you are not the target group and therefore you don't "get it")
I do hope this $5,999 machine includes that 5GB iCloud thingy
that thingy is a scam - they claim it comes with devices but in truth it comes with your apple id.. so you only get it once, even if you buy 5 devices.
Finally a new professional workstation. Looking forward to that.
About the screen I have to say that is the dumbest thing in the universe. Only 32" at 6k? Way too small! With 6k I'd expect 55" or more. Otherwise you'll need a microscope to work!
This is one of the stupidest posts I've ever read. You DO realize this is NOT a TV, right? And that viewing distance is MUCH different than a TV? I don't know a single professional that works with a 55" monitor. Which is why 55" screens are called TVs, not MONITORS. You really want to work with a 55"+ display inches away from your face?
Some of these posts here just absolutely blow my mind. So much ignorance mixed with so much confidence.
so nasty - and yet so equally stupid.
inches from your face LOL
screen size is what separates monitors from the TV? Bahahaha
professionals use what they need. a photographer might very well appreciate being able to see actual pixels more clearly.
a video editor might value being able to see a HD 100% window in something larger a than 10” teeny section of screen.
32” barely meets the minimum recommended for 4k and above using the industry standard angular resolution calculations, at standard desktop working distances.
Apple is using its extra resolution to make for smooth fonts and its vector graphic Ui, not for usable pixels.
go read some science before being an uneducated asshole to people.
that said, ol mate and his 55” screen is going to really struggle to use it because he will be moving his head so much and unless he has mega bucks, then he will end up with a TV.
my extensive research has settled on 40-43” displays as the absolute “non head moving” sweet spot for 4k-5k with any higher resolutions again only useful for font smoothing and reduced eyestrain. not that you will find many if any of monitor quality.
by the way you rude person. the difference between the tv and the monitor is port types, and calibration of colour and light even-ness across the display. not how big it is.
No NVidia support. This is DOA. Apple is stubborn beyond belief. $6000 base price includes an anemic GPU. Ridiculous. I wanted to love the new Mac Pro. They gimped it and then limited hardware compatibility. Tim Cook is bad for Apple. This latest release is not the only reason. I considered buying one. High price for pointless omissions and limitations. I’ll pass.
It's not Apple's fault they don't use NVIDIA. When NVIDIA decides to start supporting Metal, then maybe you'll start seeing NVIDIA chips in Macs. Until then, its AMD graphics and the graphics you can get is no slouch.
This is priced no higher than any other high-end professional workstation. Where I work, we buy Dell Precision towers that cost well over $10,000 per tower depending on the config. $6,000 is nothing! This Mac Pro isn't necessarily meant for a freelancer, but rather people who need serious (and I mean serious) power. Do yeah, don't buy one because its not likely not meant for you anyways.
I think the point of the post is "$6000 base price". If you want a Mac with internal expansion, the only option you have is the Mac Pro at +$6000. Compare that to the Dell Precision 5800 that starts at +$1200.00. IMO, that's the problem with Apple. You only have a single option with internal expansion, and it's too expensive for the workflow of many professional customers.
The issue with your analogy is, you assume most professionals want to upgrade their Macs. Bad assumption!
The point if his post was really just to troll and bitch about something that isn't Apple's fault. Had they done a little research they would have known that.
I didn't make any assumptions, as you said. I just pointed out that many professionals customers would benefit from a less expensive device with internal expansion. HP, Dell and Lenovo give customer options. Would be nice to see Apple do the same thing.
Looking forward to watching real world reviews of this new computer and monitor. Yes it may seem expensive, but when you think that it's possible to get 10 years out of a computer this powerful and this monitor will certainly not be obsolete any time soon - is it really that expensive over time ? Instead of buying 2 or 3 high end desktops\laptops in 10 years - just buy this...
In 7 years, it will considered OBSOLETE by Apple in California, once the model is discontinued. Since Apple will be able to refresh these models, it will only be in production for a few years before a refresh, then obsolete after 7 years. As mentioned above, most companies only keep a computer in production for about 3 years before they are considered EOL. I don't see a lot of companies spending $12,000 per base model machine and monitor. Even companies have allocated expenses for hardware that must be followed.
Just because Apple considers it OBSOLETE after 7 years does not mean everyone does. I suspect many users will want get as much out of this unit as they can. I love your use of upper case for OBSOLETE as if instantly something is undesirable or in useable. This computer is in a completely different class of power than anything they’ve done which leads to the opinion it will be viable for many many years...
No NVidia support. This is DOA. Apple is stubborn beyond belief. $6000 base price includes an anemic GPU. Ridiculous. I wanted to love the new Mac Pro. They gimped it and then limited hardware compatibility. Tim Cook is bad for Apple. This latest release is not the only reason. I considered buying one. High price for pointless omissions and limitations. I’ll pass.
It's not Apple's fault they don't use NVIDIA. When NVIDIA decides to start supporting Metal, then maybe you'll start seeing NVIDIA chips in Macs. Until then, its AMD graphics and the graphics you can get is no slouch.
This is priced no higher than any other high-end professional workstation. Where I work, we buy Dell Precision towers that cost well over $10,000 per tower depending on the config. $6,000 is nothing! This Mac Pro isn't necessarily meant for a freelancer, but rather people who need serious (and I mean serious) power. Do yeah, don't buy one because its not likely not meant for you anyways.
I think the point of the post is "$6000 base price". If you want a Mac with internal expansion, the only option you have is the Mac Pro at +$6000. Compare that to the Dell Precision 5800 that starts at +$1200.00. IMO, that's the problem with Apple. You only have a single option with internal expansion, and it's too expensive for the workflow of many professional customers.
You are wrong.
You are just guessing what was the point of the comment (same as me though). The most impactful 2 sentences were in the beginning of the comment "No NVidia support. This is DOA." The user talks about NVidia and how Apple failed by not using it.
Stating that something is too expensive for someone is just a shortsighted view. Just because you can't justify its price doesn't mean it's a badly priced product.
Wow, seriously? Released for order on my birthday?? It’s like Apple is TRYING to mock me.
I've been saving every bit of money I could save for about TEN YEARS and was planning to buy a Mac Pro, if ever Apple finally made a proper desktop workstation again (with an Apple-made display)...
...and they went and produced a machine with a starting price that is TWICE what the last model was. By the time I’ve saved enough for this machine (by itself, not with a display), I’ll be 50 years old and Apple will have a machine that starts at $12,000 and a single display option that starts at $8000!
Comments
The point if his post was really just to troll and bitch about something that isn't Apple's fault. Had they done a little research they would have known that.
Key factors:
PCIe 4.0
64+ PCIe Lanes each supporting Infinity Fabric Link to AMD GPUs (effectively reducing latency and allowing for perfect workload scalability using PCIe4.0 SerDes)
(soon) up to 64 cores and 8 memory channels
extremely cheap price for a workstation class CPU (32 core for 2k$)
Hell they could even go full house with two EPYC 7742 64-core processors (for a total of 128 cores that have combined 256 PCIe 4.0 lanes (or an equivalent of 530% bandwidth compared to the intel part) that cost retail even combined less than what Intel asks for its 28-core part while consuming about a third of energy per unit of performance when compared against the Intel device in question. Imagine performing tasks with such a setup, the render is just a click away, almost real-time!
The Intel platform looks kindof End-of-Life by now. It's specs look years old. The socket does not support PCIe4.0 speeds, it doesn't supply enough memory channels for acceptable bandwidth scalability going above 32 core. I'm sure they considered Threadripper, there must be very special contracts that prevent Apple from using the better product. I really hope Apple doesn't design themselves inside a corner with this.
Mac Pro as a platform currently kinda looks obsolete for seriously professional computing looking forward considering the Threadripper parts are proven to be a big time saver by the time it ships. It doesn't seem to be a viable investment so I'll be waiting for their next Mac Pro and meanwhile continue using the Threadripper workstation I have built last year that is still faster.
Do some companies replace computers after 3 years? Yes. I’ve see that too.
** But this is a comment thread about the Mac Pro. The question is; do companies like Pixar, which have stated that they use Mac Pros, change those computers after 3 years on a rigid schedule which forces their departments to give up their machines?
I doubt it.
Why?
* We must first begin w/ the reality that the Mac Pro has always been a niche, high end machine for the most demanding video/film projects.
If they are in the middle of a project & no new Mac Pro is available after 3 years, would they tell one of their teams, ‘OK you all need to switch to new machines this month. Back up your files & since no new Mac Pro is available, you will switch to PC hardware which will have new versions of your software’.
I doubt a studio would do something like that.
* I have read that both the old tower Mac Pro and the tube Mac Pro could be used for 5 years in movie studios/departments.
Same thing with an Nvidia. If AMD chips away at Nvidia’s GPU share, and decides they want a better deal with Apple on GPUs, suddenly the frost between Nvidia and Apple could disappear, and Nvidia GPUs will start appearing on Macs again.
inches from your face LOL
screen size is what separates monitors from the TV? Bahahaha
professionals use what they need. a photographer might very well appreciate being able to see actual pixels more clearly.
a video editor might value being able to see a HD 100% window in something larger a than 10” teeny section of screen.
32” barely meets the minimum recommended for 4k and above using the industry standard angular resolution calculations, at standard desktop working distances.
Apple is using its extra resolution to make for smooth fonts and its vector graphic Ui, not for usable pixels.
go read some science before being an uneducated asshole to people.
that said, ol mate and his 55” screen is going to really struggle to use it because he will be moving his head so much and unless he has mega bucks, then he will end up with a TV.
my extensive research has settled on 40-43” displays as the absolute “non head moving” sweet spot for 4k-5k with any higher resolutions again only useful for font smoothing and reduced eyestrain. not that you will find many if any of monitor quality.
by the way you rude person. the difference between the tv and the monitor is port types, and calibration of colour and light even-ness across the display. not how big it is.
You are just guessing what was the point of the comment (same as me though). The most impactful 2 sentences were in the beginning of the comment "No NVidia support. This is DOA." The user talks about NVidia and how Apple failed by not using it.
Stating that something is too expensive for someone is just a shortsighted view. Just because you can't justify its price doesn't mean it's a badly priced product.
I've been saving every bit of money I could save for about TEN YEARS and was planning to buy a Mac Pro, if ever Apple finally made a proper desktop workstation again (with an Apple-made display)...
...and they went and produced a machine with a starting price that is TWICE what the last model was. By the time I’ve saved enough for this machine (by itself, not with a display), I’ll be 50 years old and Apple will have a machine that starts at $12,000 and a single display option that starts at $8000!