madan

dewme said:

madan said:

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.  

j1334 said:

I use my 2013 MacPro for my business every single day. When I purchased it, I paid about $4500 and it has returned that value in multiples, every year since the day it entered service. There is no single piece of hardware around here that gets used more. If the 2019 MacPro is well made and as powerful as advertised, then it would seem like a good long term investment at $6000~$8000. There are cheaper options, but I'd rather save money on office supplies, services, etc. then something so central to the day-to-day post production workflow.

I just explained that it's not "as powerful as advertised" compared to what your expectations are.  it's a 1500 dollar system masquerading as a 6000 dollar system.  You'd have to spend at least double your 2013 Mac Pro to get the performance that would be called "powerful".

Unfortunately, the Mac Pro has a distinct issue on its value curve.  It's a horrible value system at its base price, that quickly ramps in value as the price becomes astronomical.

At its 6000 USD base price tag, the computer is a joke.  The base Xeon it has was about 1200 bucks (on release).  It was blessed with 240 dollars of ECC RAM (on release).  It had a nice, airflow-centric case to be sure.  Good cases that are solid steel/aluminum are, often, 200-300 USD.  Even if we counted the Mac Pro's case as a 500 dollar case, and counted its M.2 storage in the default model as 240 dollars, we'd still be sitting at 3000 dollars for the system.  The Radeon 580 is a naught 200 dollar card (even on release).  

That means you're paying effectively ~ 3000 dollars for a power supply and motherboard.  Which is kinda nuts.  I mean the power supply itself is about 200 bucks at most (actually less) and the fans can't be more than 100 bucks.  So you're buying a, albeit ultra bleeding edge, motherboard for 2700 USD, which is highway robbery.

Yes, the special component of the Mac Pro isn't the CPU or the GPU (although the Mac Pro can top out with sky-high Xeons and absolutely monstrous Arcturus-precursor dual Vega 2s), it's the motherboard.  The base system doesn't ship with any of that super hardware though.  Yes, the motherboard accommodates 1.5 TB of ECC RAM.  Yes it has the ability to run almost a dozen bus lanes for TB 3.  Yes, it accommodates both power via the port and via adapter for gpus.  Yes the Pro Vega 2 is a beast of a card, dwarfing the Radeon VII's already ludicrous 16 GB of HBM2.  But you get NONE of that with a 6000 dollar base system.

With a 6000 dollar base system, you get an amazing motherboard, that might never be used.  You get a low-end Xeon that is outperformed by most Core i9s (Xeon reliability is worth 800 dollars?!).  You get a gpu that is budget by today's standards (the MacBook Pro's Vega gpu is about as fast as a 565-570 which itself is only 10-15% slower than the Mac Pro's 580...).  And a bunch of super components like psus and the like that may never be used unless you upgrade them yourself down the line.

You could build a DIY computer with pretty much identical performance for less than 1500 dollars.  No, I'm not kidding.  Sure, it's not upgradeable with ECC RAM. Sure, it doesn't have 12 TB 3 lanes or 10 gigabit ether.  No, it doesn't have a ridiculously overpowered psu for a system that draws under 300 Watts.  But still, you're buying a system with such low specs all those upgradeable touches are pointless unless you spend thousands more upgrading the system anyways. 


Sure, you can get a great high end Xeon and push the RAM to 1.5 TB.  Yes, 2 Pro Vega 2s are absolutely nuts, with a max of 128 GB of HBM2 RAM.  But that system costs 50k.  The base system gets you NOTHING.  And it's 6000 USD.  For workflow alone, a computer 1/4 the price will do the job.  

So yes, the Mac Pro may be a great machine at the high end but anyone that buys it in the low end better not convince themselves they're getting a super computer because it's a budget system, at most and they're paying between 4-10x as much for the privilege of the Apple emblem.

My regret is that instead of sinking so much money into their obviously failed Apple TV initiative, they didn't sink cash into buying a couple of high-end aggressive iOS developers that can also be leveraged on Apple TV and Mac through Catalyst.

Bit Monster. 11 Bit.  They could pick the carcass of Chair.  Camoflauge. Beam Dog. Red Hook, Rayark. There are a dozen other small devs that if funded properly and framed with good producers could pump out a library of fantastic cross-platform iOS/macOS/tvOS titles that could make the Apple TV and Apple gaming in general a *great* option.

Instead they make six TV shows, half of them cringey and end up giving it all away because no one is going to rent that platform when the Disney+ TV service already obviously won.  

The irony is they would have had the truly "play anywhere" goal of the Switch covered.  

OutdoorAppDeveloper said:

For a company that prides itself on elegant designs, an "eGPU" is the least elegant design in the entire computer industry. Of course it is going to break if the system software is updated or the wind changes direction. I would feel ashamed to own one when seeing thin and light Windows laptops with built in RTX 2080 GPUs (for a lot less money).

I would like to know which Windows desktops come with: 1. LG 5K pro-class screens. 2. Quality parts (psus/motherboards), rather than the Chinex-Walmart trash that everyone else gets. 3. Have Thunderbolt 3 in multiple, on MORE THAN ONE BUS so you can use TB3 devices at full speed. 4. Come with quality cpus. Not the gimped trash that so many companies ship. As for laptops, I'd love to see you spec a laptop that has the portability of a MacBook Pro with that 2080 and that has the: 1. Same quality screen. 2. Same quality case/externals. 3. Has Thunderbolt 3. 4. Same cpu. All that the same price-to-weight ratio. Oh and while the 2080 (downclocked or mobility) are decent compute performers, the MacBook pro's Vega gpu is actually almost matching it in FP/compute workloads. It only gets wrecked in gaming, where it produces RX 565-570 level performance. But if you want a gaming laptop...BUY A GAMING LAPTOP. It's still an inferior option however. Because now you're carrying a heavy, massive brick around, in a flexing magnesium/plastic case. Sure you have better gaming performance by a lot, but in terms of WORK performance, you've only got a small boost. And when you get home, since your laptop doesn't have TB 3, you're stuck at that performance. Meanwhile, the MBP user can use an egpu setup in a Core X setup to upgrade the gpu and keep performance at contemporary levels. Within 5 years that 2080 will be as effective as a 780 Ti is today...which is to say...not very much.