it‘s the least they could do.
[automerge]1573713681[/automerge]
The problems start when you compare it to the component-prices for a 32-core Threadripper system.
Of course, nobody makes such a nice TR system - but still.
Those things have PCIe4.0!
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
it‘s the least they could do.
[automerge]1573713681[/automerge]
The problems start when you compare it to the component-prices for a 32-core Threadripper system.
Of course, nobody makes such a nice TR system - but still.
Those things have PCIe4.0!
Really a Radeon 580 after all this time?! Not even a 5700XT at least come on.
A more appropriate analogy is to say the Lambo comes with a reasonable baseline specification, but if you want to tailor it for your needs, you can spend money on extras.
I think it should come with a 512GB baseline, but it's not the end of the world that it doesn't. Most people will bump the storage to suit their needs & for most people it will be >1TB I'd imagine, especially for those who work with large files/video.
no one really knows at this point, but whilst you can add storage, you likely can’t replace the system drive
I get that. But it also seems outside the scope of macrumors then. It’s enterprise type stuff that consumers for most part shouldn’t be interested in. However you got apple announcing it and grouping it in its consumer stuff. Sends a mixed message. I can understand why some feel let down. It’s high end. It’s Apple marketing. It never was for you though.
The other difference is that Lambo and Bugatti are made purely as "halo products" and tech demonstrators (even loss-leaders by some reports) for billionaires and footballers. If you actually want a car for practical purposes, VW offers a complete range of small city cars, family saloons, estates, pickups, SUVs, commercial vehicles... and if you don't like VW there are even other makes of car that drive on the same roads, use the same fuel and even run on the same race tracks if the offer public "track days" but you can't afford a supercar...
VW are not going to say "OK, from now on we're only making Polos, Golfs and Passats because they're our best selling models, but if you want better, the Bugatti now starts at only $700,000 - for a 1400cc model".
...but that's Apple's current product line. If you don't want a laptop or all-in-one, its $6000 for a Mac Pro that - without major upgrades - will be outperformed by a $4000 iMac (that includes a $1200 display)... and if that forces people to Windows because they need the computer equivalent of a pickup truck or hatchback rather than a gull-wing-doored electric sports SUV, those people are gone from the Mac platform, won't be buying other Macs and won't be supporting Mac developers and accessory makers.
Nah, I disagree — this site was never consumer products only. It was covering all Apple sold to the public. They covered the iMac Pro, the Mac Mini Servers and the Xserves as well. Saying that people shouldn't be interested in the Mac Pro is like saying I shouldn't be interested in a MacClaren — it's a beast that (all things considered) I'd love to get my hands on, but I also know it wasn't designed with me in mind. It's a high grade, highly engineered machine that was made for pure performance. More importantly, I know that the only way I'd have one is if money was of no concern, mitigating the overkill for my uses. I say again, it's ego. People don't like the idea that something with a "pro" designation "isn't for them". I would never need this computer and I am a professional Print/motion graphics designer with over 20 years in the industry (and a crap ton of work to do) now and this is still not targeted to me. It'd be like using that MacClaren for groceries and Sunday drives, an absolute shame for a million-dollar super-car. If you're not bothered by the price tag, it doesn't matter, but if you do then it's just not for you. Consider an iMac Pro with a second monitor — I am.
Late to reply to this because I didn't see this originally, but why did you think I implied it *should* have a discount when that *is* already a discount? Like, it exists. There's no science involved, you go to the online store and it'll say $5,500, I BTO and then I ship the trash can to Apple for the rebate. The price doesn't include it, don't know what other trash can models will net you in rebates, but it IS a discount. I guess I'm again assuming that most complaining about price already bought a Mac Pro trash can, so I'm reminding them you can get a rebate for it. And should. I don't know that Dell or HP are offering trade-in rebates on computers from 2013, so it's at least a hat tip to the trash can users.
And yes your little table is correct but it also doesn't account for the massive jump in upgrade options for this computer as at least compared to the trash can. The base model trash can had a four core Xeon, 12GB of RAM, a 256GB SSD, and AMD D300 FirePro graphics. The MacBook Pro's at the time shipped with four core's. Even back then, that base model was paltry for 1080p editing, let alone the 4K editing capability they were peddling with that model. So the majority of users bought upgrades in their BTO (especially maxing to the D700s which, at just $600 more, were surprisingly cheap options over the D300s.) But that was it, three graphics cards. 4 tiers of storage up to 1TB, and four processors. And you likely added a couple thousand dollars in upgrades.
The new iMac's are priced at "consumer levels" but already outpace the trash cans and some iMac Pro configs, that's enough power for most people—including professional users. But the iMac was not at all comparable in speed and robust options to a Mac Pro back in 2012 or 2013, there was no reason to charge more because the iMacs weren't close in performance and weren't priced like they would be. Now? Professional users can spec out a 2019 iMac to the tune of under $5k and outpace an $8k 2017 iMac Pro, and you could max out a Mac Mini that can outperform a decent iMac for less than both of them. So how do you differentiate in price your fastest, top of the line model? The base higher tier Mac Mini's are $1k, the higher tier base iMac's start close to $3k, the iMac Pro starts at $5k, and the Mac Pro at $6k. No one is getting base specs of the latter two computers so their options put them in another price point stratosphere, but again it keeps them apart from $5k iMac's that can easily outperform both baseline Pro models. Some professional users could even get by easily enough with a decently spec'd out Mac Mini because they can add an external GPU to the 64gb of RAM and decent 6 core i7. There are way more options for professional users then their used to be.
Basically, if you wanted the $3k starting price point for a powerful Mac, you do have one: the iMac. Doesn't offer upgradibility, which means they'll sucker you into another iMac four to five years down the line (especially considering they "don't make them like they used to" and some part of it could die) and that will cost as much as buying a decent Mac Pro. So pick your poison, but their computers are priced comparable to performance IMO
Last edited:
End of Manufacturing isn't really End of Life. For the tech porn press and hard core followers perhaps, but there is more than a bit of hyerbole there.
AMD has stopped making new Radeon VII
Radeon VII Allegedly Reaches End of Life Status, AMD Neither Confirms Nor Denies
According to Cowcotland's sources, AMD has discontinued the Radeon VII 7nm gaming graphics card.
www.tomshardware.com
That doesn't' mean there aren't any to buy. AMD has an active buy link on their own site.
https://www.amd.com/en/products/graphics/amd-radeon-vii
It does mean there is a bit of musical chairs aspect to it versus the Vega II MPX modules. The more Vega II made the more they will outnumber the VII's. That is probably a major reason why the VII stopped being made because those dies were being assigned to the probably more profitable Vega II usages.
AMD probably doesn't have the 7nm die starts to keep making the 'extra' dies for the VIi while also doing all of there other high demand 7nm products. So it stopped the low profits one for higher margin ones. But AMD probably does have a bit of a stockpile and direct sales makes the VII less of a loss leader.
That doesn't make it horrible obsolete tech (end of life ) . I just means there is no factory capacity available for it. (end of manufacturing. )
But yes folks shouldn't count on wagging their finger at Apple's Vega II prices because they'll just go hop off and get the deep inventory Radeon VII's. But the supply of used Vega VIIs should grow a bit over next several months if the resale price stays high. The card will be an option for some, just not hordes of folks.
I've been a pro Mac user for nearly 25 years, and this extreme starting price with paltry basics is getting me seriously thinking about a switch to PC. My 2009 Mac Pro was about $5k then (about $6k now), but it was the second fastest machine they made at the time, not a baseline. I'm all for Apple making an expensive dream machine we can long for, but for crying out loud price your baseline model with baseline prices. It's nuts, and shows they've lost touch with the people who supported them when few did.
25 2GB apps is only 50GB. For 256GB that is still 200+ GB left. If there is a major capacity footprint there it probably isn't apps. ( huge email archive , iphoto footprint , etc. Home director consumption pigs that don't necessarily need to be on the boot drive other than just simplicity. )
Virtual machines are just data for the virtual machine app. They don't don't have to be in the OS drive.
In fact, that is probably one of the likely bulk buyers of the 256GB Mac Pros. Cloud hosting folks who are probably only going to run the hyerrvisor and perhaps a maintenance macOS instance on the Mac Pro. Then dynamically load VMs will likely come in off the network for any kind of hosting set up with load balancing and failover support.
If need local VM image data that can be on other internal Mac Pro drives. That also will pretty much solve any mismatch between MP host memory size ( e.g., > 96GB ) and the 256GB relatively small size. If there is no sleep or paging to the T2 drive then it doesn't have to overmatch the RAM footprint.
Similarly often with large bulky user/local/ subdirectories. Doesn't need to be in the same drive if set up some simply simlinks and/or mount points.
The 256GB drive capacity just means can't be deeply wedded to the "everything in one pile" dogma. The step up to 1TB is probably in the $400 range. $400 is about 7% of $6K. It is more but not a alot more. ( many places paying more than that in taxes. ).
I expect Apple will have warnings and suggestions for those looking for larger memory footprings that the 256GB won't work right ( sleepimage "too big" for the drive). And will be pointing at the 1TB upgrade as the best path.
There are probably some folks who dislike the T2 and also won't be normally booting off the drive either so the size is in range of more than "good enough" there too. (just a maintenance only macOS install. )
256GB is great if you dont need expend money in that. On my studio I have a QNAP with 224TB of space conected trough Thunderbolt 3... so... for software is more than enough.
In my case i buy all the equipments with 512GB only.
If this price looks out of wack to you, you are NOT in pro film and video post production. This price is right in alignment and quite frankly, even better than most workstations with comparable specs.
[automerge]1573781660[/automerge]
1. The price will be recouped within 6 months (over 3 projects...I plan on getting an upper mid tier and have saved around $16,000 for it).
2. The stand is actually a money saver over 10 years "monitors will change, the stand remains...the only people that think monitor and stand are built as one...well, they aren't reference monitor level pros"
3. Cinema 4D/Maya/RealFlow/Mocha Pro/PF Track and ZBrush would all like to have a word with you, because scenes running water simulations with dynamic lighting sim and realistic bump mapping on tracked 4k footage currently takes around 5 days for a few minutes of end product...you said photoshop and high end users in the same sentence as this machine, which tells me you don't understand who this is for. A mid tier iMac pro is perfect for high end photoshop users...but once you hit 3D animation/physics simulation/coding/8k raw editing/motion graphics with several hundred layers running/music and sound production with 600 - 1,000 tracks running, etc...that's when you're talking about those of us that need this thing.
4. METAL is the absolute most important part of all of this, and those 4 Vega GPU's coupled with high end ram and that afterburner card has me salivating...because what Redshift and Octane are building from the ground up for this monster is going to literally more than quadruple the workflow I am able to take on from clients.
5. The iMacs and iMac Pros I currently have in my office will remain for my employees to use while working on projects, but my personal workstation will definitely be jumping from my 18core iMac Pro to this sucker the second I can.
6. You are not the target audience for this thing...everyone on my end uses high end Macs, and the price is justified within a month or two of purchase which is usually how long it takes to make the money spent on them back.
Last edited:
No Nvidia support because when Apple says this is the thing now, the industry listens.
There is a reason no computer has a CD/DVD Drive today...Apple said we are passed that and the industry followed suit.
There is a reason phones don't use buttons anymore...Apple said we are passed that and the industry followed suit.
There is a reason phones no longer have jacks "on the high end"...Apple said we are passed that and the industry followed suit.
There is a reason Apple doesn't support Nvidia...Apple said METAL is the future, and it is...with what Metal is now capable of and AMD on board with quad GPU's "mind you the most powerful GPU in the world"...the industry will follow suit.
Mark my words...a year from now most major studios will be using these things for all of their 3D related work.
The hardest industry and the one that will take the longest for Apple to move the goal posts with metal will be Hospitals. But once they get their hands on these and see compute imaging and scans running on them, those dominos will fall just like the rest of them.
Oh...and if you're seriously upset about the default SSD, you shouldn't be spending money at this price range just yet...save another couple thousand before jumping in the workstation pool if that's an issue for you.
[automerge]1573782066[/automerge]
Not sure how many they run, but I do know the MacBook Pro's definitely can handle one of them, and I would honestly guess 2.
If you’re not doing high-end color critical work, a $5k display is probably not a great fit with your requirements. For the Mac Pro itself, you’re saying it’s “overpriced” by $2,500. That’s $40 per month, before tax considerations, over a five year useful life.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 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.
If $40/month—a fraction of a billable hour for many of the pros who will buy this box—could be considered a meaningful amount of money, there’s absolutely no way the 2019 Mac Pro is even remotely something that should be under consideration for purchase.
Last edited:
The last 5 years they didn't do anything? Build this computer, at 40 pounds, and at this size for the same price or cheaper. Max it at 1.5tb ram, 4 GPUs, afterburner, the whole 9 yards...see if you can pull it off...better people have tried...you can't. The engineering that went into this thing is absolutely what they've been doing for the past 5 years. I really feel like people on here just don't get it.
I feel like people that complain literally sell things on fiverr and call themselves "pro" level consumers.
The thing is basically gutted because everyone won't be using it for the same thing...if I do something that needs this level but none of the graphics or space because I only have 3 or 4 primary apps on it, then that bottom of the line is absolutely worth it, considering it is still modular, future proof, retains 80% of it's value for resell, and fits into the rest of your ecosystem "Which, face it, if you're buying this, you already have an iMac, iMac Pro, MacBook Pro, iPhone Pro, Apple Watch, CarPlay, IPads, Homekit accessories, etc..." so fitting into the ecosystem is still a premium. It's priced perfectly for those people.
I myself will be grabbing up something between $16,000 and $20k depending on where I'm at by January "currently vat $16,000 stashed away for this".
This isn't an "on the whim" kind of purchase. You need to plan for it, and if you DON'T need to plan for its then you are the other target demographic for it.
I just wished it had a lower entry point for pro folks that do not need all that power/expandability and want an Apple stand alone display.
Sure, if we spread the cost in 5 years, it's not so bad. I am expecting a solid performance workstation with one XDR display for motion graphics is going to be at least $18k. ($300p/month/60m). Can't wait for the BTO prices.
I may have misinterpreted your original post and if I mischaracterized your intent, I apologize. And I shouldn’t have used quotes around “overpriced” because that implies I was quoting you, which I wasn’t. I meant it in the “air quotes” sense, if you know what I mean.
I was basically referring to your statement that at $3,500 it would be a success; I think it’ll be surprising successful, even at a $6k base. But I could very well be wrong!
I do get a little weary of complaints about the base price. If we agree it could/should be $3,000, what that really means is that a config that might be $15k will instead be $18k; not that big a deal to the target market, it’s the $50/month I mention. It’s really in the noise to those folks; they’re getting a better platform, they see the value in it, and they’re willing to pay for it.
But I get that it’s a greater cost of entry at $6k compared to past years, or even compared to today’s $3k buy-in for the entry-level cylinder ($4k for the 8-core). But I see a ton of value in that extra $2-3k, as the new machine simply puts the current offering to shame. (However some customers, though not enough, quite like the cylinder.)
I see this as being a very similar situation to last year’s Mac mini introduction, where the $499 entry level—limited as it was with 4GB RAM and a spinning hard disk—became a $799 base model. It was a shock/disappointment to those who wanted an updated $500 base model, but it’s a much better machine overall.
Last edited:
I feel like I need to elaborate on my analogy. All humans need food, but no one will say no to good food. So not all pros need the latest and greatest GPU, but no pros will say no to it.
No, I understood your analogy and it's wrong.
If you stuck in the latest and greatest GPU, the base price will increase by another $1k and some pros will say no to it.
I'll explain why my analogy is a better fit: some people need gluten free bread (more expensive) due to celiac disease just like some pros need faster graphics to do their jobs (game dev for example). Others can eat cheaper regular white bread (other pros can use slower graphics as they don't need it for their jobs).