Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

wigby

macrumors 68030
Jun 7, 2007
2,742
2,690
I am not sure about other people, but I am totally sick of two things: people complaining about the price of this Mac and people stating they can build cheaper PCs than this Mac. Get over it already!
Exactly. The complaining about the price of this computer is like delivery business owners complaining about the price of their delivery trucks if their delivery trucks paid for themselves after making only one delivery.
 

Billrey

macrumors regular
Aug 3, 2010
145
238
Copenhagen
I'm genuinely curious what workflow is going to be sufficiently impacted by 32 vs 28 cores, but also only uses 32 or 64GB of memory?
For what task?

3D Modeling and Rendering, for example.
My main point is that nobody will want the base model - it just makes no sense whatsoever when you compare it to the iMac Pro.

The main advantage of the Mac Pro over the iMac is that you can load it up with the two Vega II’s, but I expect the price of those to be maybe around the same as the Mac Pro itself. That is why some people are saying that it’s $12,000 or nothing - if you buy the $6,000 model you just don’t get any performance over an iMac Pro - it will be slower for more money, and without a display.

the real pain point is not so much necessarily the price or the Xeons and ECC memory - the issue is that it is all Apple is offering. If you need a very powerful GPU for your work there is *only* this machine to choose from if you want to use a Mac.

if you could co figure this thing without ECC memory, using a Threadripper CPU and nVidia 2080 TI’s for a competitive price, this machine would be super compelling.
 

cmaier

Suspended
Jul 25, 2007
25,405
33,471
California
3D Modeling and Rendering, for example.
My main point is that nobody will want the base model - it just makes no sense whatsoever when you compare it to the iMac Pro.

The main advantage of the Mac Pro over the iMac is that you can load it up with the two Vega II’s, but I expect the price of those to be maybe around the same as the Mac Pro itself. That is why some people are saying that it’s $12,000 or nothing - if you buy the $6,000 model you just don’t get any performance over an iMac Pro - it will be slower for more money, and without a display.

the real pain point is not so much necessarily the price or the Xeons and ECC memory - the issue is that it is all Apple is offering. If you need a very powerful GPU for your work there is *only* this machine to choose from if you want to use a Mac.

if you could co figure this thing without ECC memory, using a Threadripper CPU and nVidia 2080 TI’s for a competitive price, this machine would be super compelling.

Do we know if the processor is socketed on these things?
 

RedTheReader

macrumors 6502a
Nov 18, 2019
502
1,222
You’re apparently claiming some “pros” have said it’s too expensive, but can’t even identify that you heard it verbally? You just jump straight to ridiculous made up requirements about recordings.

Why so defensive?
Maybe it would've been more clear if I'd used the word "screenshots" instead of "recordings" then. I'm pointing out how ridiculous it is that you expect me to somehow remember and point you to the threads, blogs, comments, and videos featuring people sharing these feelings.

Be honest, is that NOT what you meant when asking me to show you where? And more importantly, does that honestly sound like something reasonable to ask for to you?

I didn’t say it isn’t real. I said what I personally have seen.
That's fine. That's why in my first reply to you, I didn't argue. I simply said you not having seen them doesn't mean they aren't there. Then you responded back asking me to show them to you, implying you didn't believe me. Maybe that's why I'm being so defensive.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Polymorphic

dantroline

macrumors 6502
Oct 28, 2016
366
495
It's not about whether Apple supports Nvidia, it's that Nvidia is planning on stopping support for CUDA on MacOS in the next version. Nvidia has the ability to support Drivers and CUDA on MacOS if it wants too.
So does Apple need Nvidia, or does Nvidia need Apple?
3D Modeling and Rendering, for example.
My main point is that nobody will want the base model - it just makes no sense whatsoever when you compare it to the iMac Pro.

The main advantage of the Mac Pro over the iMac is that you can load it up with the two Vega II’s, but I expect the price of those to be maybe around the same as the Mac Pro itself. That is why some people are saying that it’s $12,000 or nothing - if you buy the $6,000 model you just don’t get any performance over an iMac Pro - it will be slower for more money, and without a display.

the real pain point is not so much necessarily the price or the Xeons and ECC memory - the issue is that it is all Apple is offering. If you need a very powerful GPU for your work there is *only* this machine to choose from if you want to use a Mac.

if you could co figure this thing without ECC memory, using a Threadripper CPU and nVidia 2080 TI’s for a competitive price, this machine would be super compelling.
This. And the iMac Pro is already 2x the cost of a DIY box and monitor. But you never know, maybe the Mac Pro will be receiving regular updates so it can at least stay one step behind the competition instead of several years as is currently the case.
 

Boomish69

macrumors 6502
Sep 13, 2012
398
105
London
Lol so many trying to justify pre-ordering, which I don’t blame, if I had more money than sense I might, but history does show us Apple haven’t done well before with new Mac Pro designs and despite waiting so long, no way on earth am I risking being an early adopter. Lots of reasons but recently my friends company that runs multiple edit suites have finally decided they will refit their Mac based studios with some kind of fancy server based PC system, performance speed & cost he said were the major factor. I dunno if loosing Cuda was the final nail or what but they are extremely good on the technical side of things. I also can’t help but notice AMD’s resurgence, next Year is sure to be massive for them & worse for Intel, how does that effect Apple etc see https://optocrypto.com/tsmc-5nm-yield-has-climbed-to-50-owing-to-amd-and-apple-adaptation/
I wouldn’t be surprised if this new Mac Pro is outdated very quickly & don’t even get me started on Catalina! which of course you’d have to run! a lot of my music software isn’t compatible still. I can’t imagine I’m the only one thinking this.
 

MGrayson3

macrumors regular
Jul 30, 2013
154
552
the real pain point is not so much necessarily the price or the Xeons and ECC memory - the issue is that it is all Apple is offering. If you need a very powerful GPU for your work there is *only* this machine to choose from if you want to use a Mac.
Setting aside the ubiquitous conflation of “no one” with “not me”, the point quoted is not a negative (to me, at least). This makes it MUCH more likely that your current setup will work when there is a system upgrade.
 

jlocker

macrumors 65816
Jun 20, 2011
1,022
1,194
Lake Michigan
Well parallel performance is what I buy a multi-core workstation for.
But I know that there are many usage cases for mac pros. (surfing, office decoration, etc)

Just because you got a souped up processor with multicores, is not going to process faster, you got to have the underling logic board design with data pipes wide enough and fast enough to carry all those 1 and 0's in and out of the processing unit. It is like saying I am going to put in a 2020 1000 HP engine in a Chevy Spark and think it is going to make it as fast as a 2020 corvette. If the whole car design is not make to work with that engine you are not going to get the speed out the car.
 
  • Like
Reactions: iAssimilated

zzzachi

macrumors regular
Jun 16, 2012
231
111
And the iMac Pro is already 2x the cost of a DIY box and monitor. But you never know, maybe the Mac Pro will be receiving regular updates so it can at least stay one step behind the competition instead of several years as is currently the case.
dream on ;) The pro and those mpx modules wont get an update for ages, if ever. We dont even know if there will be ever a next mac pro.
 
  • Like
Reactions: dantroline

Abazigal

Contributor
Jul 18, 2011
19,458
21,847
Singapore
3D Modeling and Rendering, for example.
My main point is that nobody will want the base model - it just makes no sense whatsoever when you compare it to the iMac Pro.

That’s what I suspect. Nobody will want or need the base model, but they will end up getting some variation of the base model. For example, someone creating music may upgrade the ram and processor but leave the graphics card untouched. A 3D modeller may upgrade the graphics but leave the 8-core processor as is.

There’s reason to offer a baseline Mac Pro even if nobody will end up purchasing one in its current incarnation.
 

PickUrPoison

macrumors G3
Sep 12, 2017
8,131
10,720
Sunnyvale, CA
I've got a better idea - I'll get a PC with the exact specs that I need rather than the specs that Tim Cook thinks he can force me to pay for, and save $50 a month to spend on other things. MacOS is nicer than Windows, but it is not 1984 anymore and these days Windows is just as capable if you're not scared of a bit of change.



If you only want to spend $3-5k on a machine, you wouldn't want or need enough DIMM slots, PCIe slots and Watts to put $30k worth of expansion in - but that's what the $6k MP is forcing you to buy. No you can't build a PC with the exact specs of the Mac Pro for $6k, but you can build a PC with comparable processing power and enough expansion for maybe a dual GPU, plus a decent amount of fast SSD for a lot less - especially if an AMD processor or even an i9 fits your needs. Sure, its gonna lose to the Mac Pro at Top Trumps when someone calls out "PSU Capacity" or "Number of Thunderbolt 3 ports" but if that's your criterion for buying a computer, you're holing it wrong.

NB: The 10 core iMac Pro is $5800, has 1TB SSD and a better GPU than the $6k Mac Pro and comes with a 5k screen, the equivalent of which will cost you $1300. Going by the Mac Pro benchmarks on Apple's site, the 28 core MP only beats the iMP in proportion to the number of cores, so a 10 core iMP with Vega is going to smoke the Mac Pro. So you don't even have to look beyond Apple to make the MP look silly - $2000+ extra for a slower machine with the privilege of being able to choose your own GPU and displays, or maybe add some extra internal storage. Maybe you do have to look outside Apple to understand that, in the real world, plain old full-sized towers are cheaper than ultra-compact all-in-ones full of custom parts and rocket-science cooling systems.



Lets translate that into "outside the bubble" language:

The expensive 15W mobile-class i5 CPU got replaced with a cheaper series desktop-class i3 CPU (look on ark.intel.com - the 8th Gen U- and Y- series low power i5s that would be the modern drop-in for the 2014 Mini are over twice the price - even the 2 core ones - of the i2-8100B). The bare minimum of RAM for 2014 got upgraded to the bare minimum of RAM for 2018 (probably about the same price) - which is a problem because the system RAM has to double as VRAM and the rise of 4k means that VRAM usage has quadrupled since 2014. The 500GB HD has been replaced with 128GB of PCIe SSD - which, in 2019, costs about $80 retail, pretty much in the same ballpark as 500GB of 2.5" spinning rust cost in 2014.

So, sorry, but that just about leaves the extra pair of TB3 ports to account for the markup. To repeat the point from above: outside of the reality distortion field, mobile/ultra-compact kit COSTS LESS THAN DESKTOP KIT. Congratulations - Apple are selling you a cheaper computer for more money. Cha-ching!

Not saying that a Mac Mini with a desktop CPU is a bad thing (although a Mac Mini with the feeble iGPU that is all Intel offers in desktop form is a problem) but $800 for an i-freaking-3 and 128GB of SSD is a joke.

Unless, of course, you don't expect price/performance of computer hardware to improve over the course of 4 years and are somehow impressed with the fact that the new Mini beats the 4-year old model (which was criticised as underpowered at the time).
If you don’t need or want MacOS, you can save some money buying a PC. That’s been true for decades. By all means, suit yourself. There are plenty of alternatives, and if you’re not someone who wants or needs a Mac Pro, I can’t imagine you’d want to buy one. Yes, spend your $50 somewhere else; Apple certainly doesn’t need your money lol.

But pros who need the power Mac Pro offers are champing at the bit to buy it. That’s not you, and that’s ok. But that doesn’t change the value equation for those who do. You don’t need or want MacOS, and there are plenty of PCs that you can get cheaper. Macs for those who want/need them (though more expensive) and PCs that are cheaper for you and others who don’t care about MacOS. It’s a win/win; no idea why you’re so angry about it.

Re: pricing on the mini—or Mac Pro for that matter—Apple’s hardware gross margin is less than 32%. After tax net profit margin is about 20%. (It’s been relatively constant for many years, actually slipping slightly over the past couple years.) That’s none too high, based on the relatively low valuation Wall Street places on Apple stock.

To hear people like you bitch about Apple’s pricing, you’d think they’re charging exorbitant prices. But that’s not true, is it? Here’s what is true:

Apple is a huge company, with 500+ stores, 140,000+ employees and a $1.5 billion a month R&D spend. That results in a certain cost structure, doesn’t it? News flash: Apple’s selling prices are high because their costs are high. It’s simple, isn’t it?

If you want to order parts from Newegg and build your own box, that’s awesome! Do it, and bask in knowledge of how much money you've saved. But that has zero to do with customers who need or want MacOS, does it?

Anyway, you seem to know a lot about the mini, you’ve probably looked at alternatives. Is there a decent competitor to the mini on the PC side? Not too thrilled with Dell and HP’s offerings, maybe I’m just missing it. The Intel stuff seems a little pricey. Maybe a mini is my best bet?
 
Last edited:

zzzachi

macrumors regular
Jun 16, 2012
231
111
Just because you got a souped up processor with multicores, is not going to process faster, you got to have the underling logic board design with data pipes wide enough and fast enough to carry all those 1 and 0's in and out of the processing unit. It is like saying I am going to put in a 2020 1000 HP engine in a Chevy Spark and think it is going to make it as fast as a 2020 corvette. If the whole car design is not make to work with that engine you are not going to get the speed out the car.
all multi-core motherboards deliver this performance, its what they are made for. the xeons in the new pro are not running any faster because they're used in a mac. not saying the pro wont have a great motherboard but you can also buy a quality pc board and you will have a way better price/performance ratio. for me the only reason to buy a mac pro would to be able to still work with macos. but i'm not going to pay double or triple for the same performance.. thats why i say.. lets see the prices now. god, i am curious!
 

Unregistered 4U

macrumors G3
Jul 22, 2002
9,810
7,717
I guarantee that the low end machine is not very profitable for them.
Blended margin? For Apple, my assumption (could be wrong) is that anything under 30% would be “not very profitable“ for them, but quite profitable by the rest of the industry standard. I can’t imagine that Apple does anything with a razor thin margin.
 
  • Like
Reactions: PC_tech

cmaier

Suspended
Jul 25, 2007
25,405
33,471
California
all multi-core motherboards deliver this performance, its what they are made for. the xeons in the new pro are not running any faster because they're used in a mac. not saying the pro wont have a great motherboard but you can also buy a quality pc board and you will have a way better price/performance ratio. for me the only reason to buy a mac pro would to be able to still work with macos. but i'm not going to pay double or triple for the same performance.. thats why i say.. lets see the prices now. god, i am curious!
No, not all multi-core motherboards are equally fast. There’s a lot of signal integrity analysis and design, and careful placement and routing of components and interconnect, involved in board design. Apple traditionally does a very good job of it, better than most of the competition. Two-sided boards, high quality dielectrics and metallization, additional metallization layers to reduce interconnect length and avoid congestion, ground and power planes to reduce inductance, etc. are all places that Apple puts in extra effort but the competition often does not, in order to reduce cost.
 

alphaod

macrumors Core
Feb 9, 2008
22,183
1,245
NYC
I really likely the size of the trashcan despite its many shortcomings…

I guess I better call my cc company in advance.
 
  • Like
Reactions: xnu
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.