Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Announces Mac Pro and Pro Display XDR to Ship in December
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I realize these monitors are aimed at professional film/tv production or advertising.
But if these displays supported 120Hz refresh rates and VRR - which every display should do then I'd buy them.
Would be great if it was possible to run three of these from the MBP as I prefer running either one display or three.
But if these displays supported 120Hz refresh rates and VRR - which every display should do then I'd buy them.
Would be great if it was possible to run three of these from the MBP as I prefer running either one display or three.
...with proprietary Apple SSD blades (something that Apple has never offered publicly for sale before and 3rd party alternatives have been few and far between) that typically cost 2x as much as a comparable M.2 PCIe blade. Or, I suppose, you can add a PCIe SSD card or regular PCIe-to-M.2 adapter (if they're supported).
So much for any advantage to having the SSD driven by the T2 chip (but then, maybe that's a good thing).
...but if you're talking about Pro applications, swap/virtual/temp files for pro applications, sound libraries etc. then 256GB isn't that generous even for "just the OS and Apps", bearing in mind that you really, really don't want your system SSD drive to ever get anywhere near full.
It would actually have made more sense to offer a base model without CPU, RAM, GPU or SSD - maybe 128GB SSD is enough for some who really will have everything on NAS, maybe even the AMD 580 is overkill for a 'headless' compute server.
This is really all speculation until we see the prices of the BTO upgrades - the idea that the world is full of "true pros" who don't have to justify their expenditure is nonsense (looks like Calvin Harris got a freebee, along with - I bet - Dr Dre and every production company working on Apple TV+ shows).
I've been using the Mac Pro/powermac for about 20 years. But this is thing completely under specced for $6000,- . Now way I'll be paying that for an 8 core with 256 gb. Intel dropped their prices thanks to AMD Ryzen and Threadrippers about a month ago. So how come the entry level Mac is still at the same price. Don't come up with their 'this is for the real pro' marketing line. The last 5 years they didn't do anything for their pro user and now this crap.
People outside the target market don't understand that this will be purchased for specific workflows by professionals that use them rather than as general compute devices. If I have super fast networked storage (which I do) why do I need more than just a place to hold the OS locally and 256GB does that. If I'm building an audio workstation (I'm not) then I don't need a high powered GPU so we have a cheap base card available. If my work flow is dependent on GPU and not CPU cores then an 8 core base processor is fine. If my workflow isn't memory constrained then 32GB is fine. Whatever my workflow needs in excess of the base components I will upgrade. That's why we have a base model, very few people will buy a 100% base unit but most will benefit from having lower spec items in areas that don't concern them.
lots of pros mount their SAN/NAS storage and don't need a ton of internal storage.
The Mac Pro 2019 can easily fit 5-6 additional internal drives. There is about zero deep seated need for any external drives at all so the relevancy here is a huge stretch.
Even more so that can just simply expand the T2's capacity by just paying more money.
The iMac Pro would be a closer match ... the Mac Pro though is way off analogy wise.
Nvidia is the only valid item. Lots of pros don't need a ton of internal SSD as they work off of network storage. What cards support PCI-E 4 now?
What is wrong with Catalina? Do you still need to run 32-bit apps?
I'll miss Dashboard, but that's about it.
I don't know for sure, but I would assume that most people that are buying one of these are doing pretty professional work, which means large files, and as a result of those large files, most likely are working off of mass network storage. Therefore, the 256GB base storage, is for the OS and programs only, not project files. The reason the Macbook Pro starts with 512GB is because that is mobile, and won't always have access to network storage, so it'll need to store some project files locally, until you can get back to your studio/office and unload the files onto your network storage. Just my theory.
So many likely Mac pro purchasers have explained why 256gb drive is often adequate when storage is on a SAN. Still complaints from people who don’t need this workstation.
so many likely Mac Pro purchasers explain why a $7k monitor makes sense. still complaints from people who’ve never had to a buy a $30k reference monitor that doesn’t do as much.
so many likely Mac Pro purchasers explain why a $7k monitor makes sense. still complaints from people who’ve never had to a buy a $30k reference monitor that doesn’t do as much.
It's ego — people don't like hearing they may not be this level "pro", being discovered like guys with big Pickups that don't haul anything. For the record, I don't need this either, but I spec them for those who do and it is a bargain for network-connected workstations. And you are bang on about that monitor, for anyone thinking it is too expensive — it's only because you don't need a reference monitor.
Hmm, can't find anything about 8TB not in press release, not in Mac Pro specs on Apple website. What the source of this info?
Well the current base price should have at least 1tb storage and 64gb RAM.
At $6k, it's definitely crazy Apple offers such low specs on these two items.
At this moment AMD has the best options for a workhorse. But apple uses intel. The best gpu's: Nvidia. And because of some reason between apple and Nvidia they've disabled support for these cards.
I think if you're a professional you should wonder why you would choose a brand that restricts you to these choices. If they are in some kind of fight, why should I bother.
Left aside the fact that after the trashcan you as a pro user were be pretty much stuck with apple. They didn't upgrade it for years. So there you are with your business, you've spent a lot of money in your apple environment and it looked like options were running out.
For heavy workloads I've switched to windows. I have a 16 core machine with 3 graphic cards etc. etc. So id' like to I think I'm the kind of user that could buy a Mac Pro. But then there is no justification for an 8 core for this kind of money. And as a cherry on the middle finger pie you get a 256 gb. drive. I never had a problem with a ssd that is to big, but I have run out of space though on small ssd's. Personaly I think it pure arrogance to come up with something like that. It's not the money, it's the signal they give.
I really don't like apple as a company anymore. They could have teamed up with AMD just to support the development of those chips. For more powerful chips. For the greater good. They didn't. They could put their differences with Nvidia aside to give their customers a choice. You know their pro consumers that want to use Cuda cores. They didn't, they disabled it.
So what is pro about apple anymore. It's really only the OS.
I think if you're a professional you should wonder why you would choose a brand that restricts you to these choices. If they are in some kind of fight, why should I bother.
Left aside the fact that after the trashcan you as a pro user were be pretty much stuck with apple. They didn't upgrade it for years. So there you are with your business, you've spent a lot of money in your apple environment and it looked like options were running out.
For heavy workloads I've switched to windows. I have a 16 core machine with 3 graphic cards etc. etc. So id' like to I think I'm the kind of user that could buy a Mac Pro. But then there is no justification for an 8 core for this kind of money. And as a cherry on the middle finger pie you get a 256 gb. drive. I never had a problem with a ssd that is to big, but I have run out of space though on small ssd's. Personaly I think it pure arrogance to come up with something like that. It's not the money, it's the signal they give.
I really don't like apple as a company anymore. They could have teamed up with AMD just to support the development of those chips. For more powerful chips. For the greater good. They didn't. They could put their differences with Nvidia aside to give their customers a choice. You know their pro consumers that want to use Cuda cores. They didn't, they disabled it.
So what is pro about apple anymore. It's really only the OS.
I find that the argument that 256GB is enough to be interesting.
My workstation at work, has 512GB storage and I store all of my work on network storage. The local store is mainly concerned with local applications for work, mail, iCloud Drive which has synced across.
Docker itself takes 2GB, IntelliJ takes 1.5GB, Keynote/Pages etc takes another 1 gig, VMware fusion takes another gig, virtual machines take a 20GB.
All in all, my local workstation, without my work on it takes over 200GB with the OS. I don't imagine this getting any smaller.
My workstation at work, has 512GB storage and I store all of my work on network storage. The local store is mainly concerned with local applications for work, mail, iCloud Drive which has synced across.
Docker itself takes 2GB, IntelliJ takes 1.5GB, Keynote/Pages etc takes another 1 gig, VMware fusion takes another gig, virtual machines take a 20GB.
All in all, my local workstation, without my work on it takes over 200GB with the OS. I don't imagine this getting any smaller.
Yep,
This is why I think so many people were surprised by the 16" MBP price announced today. It stayed on the same range of the old MBP. If Apple had an entry level MP at $3,500 it would be a success. Also they should have a Apple display 5k (like the iMac) at $1,500. So you could start at workstation at $5k and upgrade to your needs from there. I guess it could be an issue for the iMac Pro, that's why we are in this situation.
I love the nMP and XDR but to have a workstation for my needs would start around $14k. That's too much. I'm a Pro but my budget not so much.
Last edited:
The price didn’t drop for the W-3200 series Xeons this Mac Pro uses, only the W-2200 series that will be in the refreshed iMac Pro.
Anyone, pro or consumer, whose budget is blown by a perceived $50/month overprice was definitely never the target market for this machine.
I have to be honest every post or topic posted about the MacPro is met with "you're not a pro" "You're not the target audience" and I'm pretty fed up of the keyboard warriors using that as a defence for price point. IF your main income comes from using a powerful system as a tool, then of course it's aimed at you. I am a professional, working across Motion/VFX work for tv, film, events etc. I have a huge need for both processor power and GPU power. Given some applications use one more than the other and vice versa. Whilst yes, it's tax offsetable, because it's an expense after all - it's still a big chunk of money any which way you cut it. Does it need to compete with the other manufacturers, NO. it's not like Dell competing against HP to outpace each other. No one is selling a cheaper Mac so they can price it however they like, they can dictate what/if they chose to populate the system with IE Intel/AMD Nvidia argument. I don't agree it's base spec is whilst priced for the pro user, is configured particularly well, but it's also not comparable to the 8 core older system. I would imagine the 8-core 2019 MP will outperform my 12-Core 2013 version.
From someone who currently has the trash can, fully spec'd top configuration, my concern is having had an issue with the system since 2016, and still fighting to get it solved with Apple I'm hesitant to part with a shed load of money to potentially face the same issue.
From someone who currently has the trash can, fully spec'd top configuration, my concern is having had an issue with the system since 2016, and still fighting to get it solved with Apple I'm hesitant to part with a shed load of money to potentially face the same issue.
Fixed that for you.
You don't want to typically run any SSD close to full - writes can be much slower and it will wear out faster.
However, if it does fill up - simply deleting files (with TRIM active) to get it back to 60% full or less will restore write performance and stop the accelerated wear. Probably not instantly, but give it a half day or so for the garbage collector to coalesce the TRIM'd space.
Heres the way I think about it: a $15,000 monitor for $6,000, with an additional $1,000 discount if you forgo the stand.
So you’re saving $10,000. Or maybe only $9,000 if you need the stand lol.