MP 7,1 Will Apple cave on the 7,1 release?

[theluggage]

This is meant for big video farm remember?

No, it is the only viable modular/headless machine that can legitimately run Mac OS (...unless you count a mini that can't run a pair of high-res displays smoothly without an eGPU). It has to be a "jack of all trades" for developers, enthusiasts, scientific users etc. with diverse needs.

As such, it delivers in all respects apart from the price/spec of the base model.

...meanwhile, down on the "big video farm", its going to have to compete with proper high-density compute options, like blade servers, multiple-Xeon systems, boxes with 10 GPUs and rackmount machines with proper server features like redundant PSUs and lights-out management and 1U cases that can fit 4+ servers in the space of a MP. You don't make a server by bolting a rackmount kit to a desktop.

Even in the video industry, this looks like a creative pro's workstation - someone who is going to appreciate the Mac OS UI and software compatibility that they are paying a premium for - rather than a source of raw computing grunt. I'm sure anybody working on the 'render farm' model has long since adopted to software and codecs that are supported by generic pile-it-high hardware (...I doubt that even Apple's cloud server farms are running on stacks of Mac Minis).

Its got a temporary advantage in that it uses the newest Xeon W chips that have enough PCIe lanes to support quad GPUs with slots to spare - so none of the currently available cheaper single-Xeon machines can match it on expandability, the ones that do being more expensive multi-Xeon rigs with more cores. That could change if more manufacturers take on the new Xeon Ws.

 

[jinnyman]

No, it is the only viable modular/headless machine that can legitimately run Mac OS (...unless you count a mini that can't run a pair of high-res displays smoothly without an eGPU). It has to be a "jack of all trades" for developers, enthusiasts, scientific users etc. with diverse needs.

As such, it delivers in all respects apart from the price/spec of the base model.

...meanwhile, down on the "big video farm", its going to have to compete with proper high-density compute options, like blade servers, multiple-Xeon systems, boxes with 10 GPUs and rackmount machines with proper server features like redundant PSUs and lights-out management and 1U cases that can fit 4+ servers in the space of a MP. You don't make a server by bolting a rackmount kit to a desktop.

Even in the video industry, this looks like a creative pro's workstation - someone who is going to appreciate the Mac OS UI and software compatibility that they are paying a premium for - rather than a source of raw computing grunt. I'm sure anybody working on the 'render farm' model has long since adopted to software and codecs that are supported by generic pile-it-high hardware (...I doubt that even Apple's cloud server farms are running on stacks of Mac Minis).

Its got a temporary advantage in that it uses the newest Xeon W chips that have enough PCIe lanes to support quad GPUs with slots to spare - so none of the currently available cheaper single-Xeon machines can match it on expandability, the ones that do being more expensive multi-Xeon rigs with more cores. That could change if more manufacturers take on the new Xeon Ws.

No with the price level as of now, it's not meant for your stated target audience.
Who would spend 6000 just to get 8 core nowadays?
Apple already dropped prosumers looking for 4000k range. Why should we really have to discuss possibility of cheaper internal options if the base stuff is already way too overpriced for non production people?

This is not 2016 anymore. 1 CPU workstation with that price is stupid. Let's wait and see how things go.

 

[theluggage]

No with the price level as of now, it's not meant for your stated target audience.

Apple sells $1000 iPhones to people who could make do with $300 Androids. They sell $2000 laptops to people who could get the job done with a $900 Dell (even Dell sell $2000 laptops to people who could have got the job done with a $900 one - its Apple who don't have the courage to compete with themselves). They used to sell $3000+ Xeon workstations to people who just needed the flexibility a $1500 PC tower. They will sell $6000 Mac Pros to people who just need a Mac desktop. probably enough to produce healthy revenue for the next quarter and declare the product a great success. Long term, though, not good - but for Wall Street, next quarter is long term.

Who would spend 6000 just to get 8 core nowadays?

Someone who needed a $4000 workstation and can't/won't switch to PC. You might not like the price, but my car cost a lot more than $6000 and I use it for fewer hours a day than my computer. Personally, when my iMac (which wouldn't have been my first choice if an up-to-date MP had been available) reaches end-of-life, I'll probably build my own PC and switch to a mix of Windows and Linux (which now play together better than they did when I bought the iMac) - and have fun in the process. Others won't be in a position to switch so easily.

Thing is - as you admitted - an 8-core machine doesn't make sense for someone who wants to add quad Vega GPUs, an afterburner and 1TB of RAM (or whatever the max is for the 8-core) and (as is typical for Macs) the next model up, when announced, will probably offer better bang-for-buck and a more sensible base for expansion.

So, as I see it, Apple's answer to people who wanted a $4000 MP is "buy a $6000 MP". Given that, the opportunity to add 8 TB of bulk internal storage without selling the other kidney for SSD is welcome.

Apple already dropped prosumers looking for 4000k range.

...and only a portion of those need to grudgingly fork out for a Mac Pro for Apple to be in the black.

 

[deconstruct60]

The 4 drive version appears to take four 2.5" drives and is powered through the MPX slot. I'm not sure if that means that it takes one of your 2 extended MPX slots or if it can go in one of the regular PCIe slots.

https://www.promise.com/us/Promotion/PegasusStorage


The R4i has 32TB of raw capacity . Four 2.5” HDDs of 2018-2019 tech drives are going to get you to 8TB a drive? There are some 12mm high drives that go to 5TB . There are some super expensive SSD that big but not Promise wheelhouse . That is sized at pretty close to full MPX .

Those are 3.5” drives. J2i also.

 

[aaronhead14]

mount it sideways where that promise SATA array goes, cut out a window for tray ejecting in the side panel... is the machine wide enough for the depth of a compact bluray burner?

A Blu-ray drive in the back? Sounds super janky.

But it'll be interesting to see what solutions 3rd party manufacturers come up with. Maybe they'll get creative.

 

[deconstruct60]

Ah - I stand semi-corrected? The J2i does look like it'll go where those SATA ports are (top rear of the case), but the other one is an MPX module, so it'll use up PCIe slots.

The MPX module will simply cover PCIe slots as much as use them . It may not use the MPX connector in addition to the slot ( depending on current/power draw for RAID electronics and volatile storage . 75w is enough for modern energy efficient drives and spin up spikes . ( Drives and electronic at 15w a piece is 5 x 15W = 75 )

[doublepost=1566625764][/doublepost]

Thanks for the link. Odd that it wasn't mentioned anywhere on Apple's site AFAIK. I guess that does increase its versatility, but would I want them in the outflow from the processor heat sink?

It is on the tech specs page ( not the flashy marketing pages ) .
https://www.apple.com/mac-pro/specs/

Search for the ‘Kits and accessories’ section. The Promisee kits are there. As I said previously, I doubt these will technically be in be in BTO pages for the system when go live . More so another boxed product they can ship to you with the same purchase order. ( and on the ‘isn’t there more stuff you want to buy’ page before order finalized .) Flash storage is where Mac are going . Apple is throwing a bone on option stuff for HDDs.

They aren’t selling ‘bare’ HDDs . Not sure who is going to buy the RAM kits in the aftermarket context. ( if priced at normal Apple prices ) .

[doublepost=1566625807][/doublepost]

Agreed. Personally I would have preferred 4x of those SSD slots up front...

There are no SSD slots on the Mac Pro. There are some Flash NAND daughter cards but those are NOT SSDs . There are no standard SSD slots on this Mac Pro . There are certainly x4 and x8 PCIe slots that can hold a card that can in turn provisions standard SSD slots .

That is probably a very decent fit if the target is folks exiting the 2009-2012 Mac Pro and already have SSD(s) on a PCIe card . It won’t cost to move the card over . Volume unsafe efficiency wise 2-4 M.2blades vertices to main logic board is better way to use the same space.


Apple flashed this card among others in WWDC talk as options for MacPro
https://www.sonnettech.com/product/m2-4x4-pcie-card.html

There are others that will work that folks have already researched for the older systems . In fact better, as many are PCIe v3 cards currently in a PCIe v2 system .

Apple isn’t going to sell most of the possible cards that can fit . Promise stuff they’ll sell because it is high margin markup ( probably even J2i for what it is ) . There will be other options from other players .

 

[deconstruct60]

...

But it'll be interesting to see what solutions 3rd party manufacturers come up with. Maybe they'll get creative.

Blu Ray 1x writing speed is about 33Mb/s . A 20x drive would be around 660 Mb/s. . USB 3.1 gen 1 is 5,000 Mb/s . Gen 2 twice that . Thunderbolt even huger gap . How are these discs being burned any slower by external drive ? The work gets done just as fast . Back in early USB era there was some gaps, but write speeds for writing high quality optical drives is relatively stuck in the mud relative to contemporary drives .

USB bus power is higher now too so even more bus powered options available. Buy one Blu-ray and can ‘sneaker net’ it around to 2-4 systems as needed as opposed to 1-3 disks sitting idle .

The new Mac Pro is flat on top. More than a few drives will rest on top . Done .

P.S. rack mount Mac Pro could easily be paired with a 1U box that has hot plug 2.5 drive and blu Ray and even a tape drive . If the MP is in a ‘cart’ or hard mounted then can mount Blu-Ray right along side .

 

[ZeitGeist]

Such low sales will only convince Apple even more that they shouldn't have updated the Mac Pro at all. It will end up being a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Ridiculous weltfremd opinion. Most of the people complaining about the ‘unrealistic’ price aren’t Apple’s target audience.

Most of the professionals that it is aimed at are ready to place orders in large quantities - post-production houses, studios, and VFX shops.

It will sell about as well as prior Mac Pro generations - in fact, it will sell better.

The promise of the Mac Pro lies in what will trickle down from it - lessons and technologies that will show up across the Mac line in the future. Particularly in newer more modular Mac Minis, iMacs and possibly another new consumer modular form factor.

The Mac Pro will do just fine.

 

[ZombiePhysicist]

Apple has multiple 10's of billions of dollars. Let's take a relatively small subset ( $8B) that Apple is willing to spend because doesn't want to primary chase mainstream, somewhat price sensitive , desktop buyers . If they spent $100 a day avoiding them, then it would be 80,000,000 days until they had to 'give up' on that. That's about 219K years. Approximately, that is pragmatically close to never.

Apple has enough resources that they don't "have to" pursue gamers if they don't want to. There are other, profitable markets to be in. Apple's gaming cash cow is iOS. Second behind that is iPadOs and probably working (putting money on) toward AppleTV. Whatever happens to drift over to macOS they aren't going be upset over. If Apple Arcade doesn't work on iOs , iPadOS , and AppleTv it will be a giant bust.

The icing on top that will be macOS play. That probably won't make that much of a different for completely shift the gears of their Mac hardware development. "hand me down" A-series chips into low end Mac laptops would probably basically be tracking what the iPadOS was at. Apple would be looking for incrementally GPUs on the rest of the line up that are useful in multiple contexts. ( but not neon "pimp my ride" ones.)

This is faulty reasoning IMO. The exact same thing can be said about the pro market. It's negligible to their bottom line. This isn't about the bottom line, it's about keeping a very important base of users happy, because if they are not, their influence can erode apple's brand in other areas that they do care about. The enthusiast market and the pro market are probably not too far apart in financial value, but even if they are, both are rounding errors to apple overall.

They are both, IMO, very important with regard to their outsized effect on others' opinions on the brand. As such, if the pro market was important enough for halo targeting because there are negative consequences to apple if they continue to ignore them that are other than financial, I would say ignoring the enthusiast market places them in similar peril and is an oversight they should strive to correct.

 

[ssgbryan]

Ridiculous weltfremd opinion. Most of the people complaining about the ‘unrealistic’ price aren’t Apple’s target audience.

Most of the professionals that it is aimed at are ready to place orders in large quantities - post-production houses, studios, and VFX shops.

It will sell about as well as prior Mac Pro generations - in fact, it will sell better.

The promise of the Mac Pro lies in what will trickle down from it - lessons and technologies that will show up across the Mac line in the future. Particularly in newer more modular Mac Minis, iMacs and possibly another new consumer modular form factor.

The Mac Pro will do just fine.

But we were for the prior decade. Just speaking for myself, my 1st real Mac was a B&W Power Mac, then a G4 Silver door, then a G5 Power Mac, then a 1,1 and then a 4,1.

They aren't going to sell very many - it is yesterday's tech at today's prices. It would have been a great machine before Ryzen/Threadripper/Eypc. $6,000 for a collection of EoL tech? - there will be $2,000 systems that will outperform it.

24 months after release, the early adopters will be like the cMP folks now.

 

[ZeitGeist]

They aren't going to sell very many - it is yesterday's tech at today's prices. It would have been a great machine before Ryzen/Threadripper/Eypc. $6,000 for a collection of EoL tech? - there will be $2,000 systems that will outperform it.

Typical technically ignorant spec-boy statement, based on a total and abject ignorance of technology, or what “workstation class” actually means.

 

[jinnyman]

We will see. Apple defenders were also fanatically defending 6.1 back then.
You know, if you are really a serious player in this town, your workstation is already non mac and wouldn't want to come back anyhow.

 

[theluggage]

Typical technically ignorant spec-boy statement, based on a total and abject ignorance of technology, or what “workstation class” actually means.

Maybe you'd like to enlighten us and explain why machines like this:

https://www.titancomputers.com/Titan-A399-AMD-RYZEN-Threadripper-3D-Rendering-p/a399.htm

...with up to 32 cores, ECC RAM and support for 64 lanes of PCIe and NVIDIA Quadro GPUs aren't "workstation class" (...and you've got plenty of change c.f. the $6000 MP to add a few options to the base model)?

The Mac Pro's "unique selling points" are an unusually large number of PCIe slots for a single-CPU machine, support for Thunderbolt and - above all else - the ability to legitimately run MacOS... none of which are pre-requisites for being "Workstation class". Then there are other workstation/server features like multiple CPUs, redundant power supplies, lights-out management, proper low-profile 1-2 unit rackmount and blade servers, hardcore GPU computing units with 10+ GPUs etc. which might not be a pre-requisite for a "workstation" label but are important for some applications but are simply not available anywhere on the Mac platform.

If you need MacOS, the MP is the only game in town, so they will sell to users locked into Mac-only applications - but a lot of those will already have left the building after 8-9 years with no credible Mac Pro. I don't see it convincing many people to switch to Mac - its a one-size-fits-all, jack-of-all-trades entry against a huge, diverse range of Xeon, AMD and other products that can be tailored to a client's specific requirements.

Look at the launch and Apple's web pages on the MP - the only benchmarks they're showing pit the top-end, 28-core MP against the 2012 Mac Pro cylinder that even Apple has admitted didn't meet users' needs. Sorry guys, the MP is a powerful machine but its nothing particularly special in the world of $10k+ x86/64 workstation/server-class hardware.

The promise of the Mac Pro lies in what will trickle down from it - lessons and technologies that will show up across the Mac line in the future. Particularly in newer more modular Mac Minis, iMacs and possibly another new consumer modular form factor.

What technology? Designing a machine like the MP might not be simple, but there's not much 'bleeding edge' involved, either. Apart from Thunderbolt and the T2 chip which have trickled up from the lesser Macs (...and, in workstation terms, are answers to questions that nobody was asking), this is a bog standard Xeon tower in an over-engineered box. It has a short-term advantage because the latest Xeon W chips support more PCIe lanes, so it can usefully offer more slots than last-year's-model 8-core, single-CPU Xeon workstations. If the next Mac Mini or iMac comes with MPX slots then I'll eat a little crow, but I think I'm safe... I suspect that the most we'll see might be a "steampunk" design language replacing Jony Ive's smooth rounded rectangles.

 

[ssgbryan]

Typical technically ignorant spec-boy statement, based on a total and abject ignorance of technology, or what “workstation class” actually means.

Yeah - what would I know - I've only been using workstations since 2006.....

 

[sirio76]

It’s not that a Threadripper system does not qualify as a workstation, it’s just that is not a very good one. I mean it’s very good for rendering(especially considering the cost) but it’s worst for everything else compared to a modern Intel system.
I speak as a 3D guy(Maxon invite me to present his product here in my country so I hope that qualify me as a Pro) and I can tell you that while a 32core TR it’s very good when it come to rendering or a few other well threaded tasks, when it comes to editing its basically as fast as my 6 years old cilinder MP, and guess what? Most of our time it’s usually spend building and editing our scene, rendering comes mostly at the end of our workflow, take a week and just look at activity monitor and you will notice that our average activity during an average day of work usually uses only a very few cores, and when it comes to large rendering/animation any Pro I know of simply offload the task to a local/online farm, only very small freelance may think that doing everything on a single system is the right choice(and probably that may work for them but honestly the 7.1 is not a system builded for them).
I use Cinema4D and I can tell you that working in the viewport(that’s where you spend most of your time) it’s much faster with Intel, and it’s not just Cinema, go in every 3d Studio Max forum where people can compare editing abilities on both Intel and AMD and they will tell you the same, Intel it’s faster, a lot faster, not just the few percent you can imagine by looking at single threaded benchmark.
I’m a big fan of AMD, I suggest to my friends to invest their money on AMD stock, TR are my number one choice for a render slave(as a matter of facts that’s what I’m actually using for my small farm), but when it comes to workstation Intel it’s still king by a large margine. Ask you why HP, Dell and many other premium brands are offering AMD solution for the server line but still uses Intel for their workstations, but after all they are just multi billion$ companies... I’m sure that users here are much more expert on computing choice

 

[FlyingDutch]

The only time I recall something like this happening was when they first introduced the Power Mac G5 in 2003. That lineup consisted of a single CPU 1.6Ghz system, a single 1.8, and a dual 2.0. Demand for the dual 2.0 was so great that they soon introduced a dual 1.8 to take some of the pressure off and get systems into buyers’ hands more quickly.

I remember they even brought this up during their earnings call because it was an “unplanned product migration” that put pressure on their earnings.

I don’t see that happening this time—certainly not due to demand outstripping supply in the long term, anyway.

totally different scenario here.
In that case, it was a "upper mid" model introduction, still very convenient for Apple.
In this case the OP is speaking about an entry level Mac Pro.
I don't think apple is considering that as a profitable solution from their point of view.

 

[deconstruct60]

It’s not that a Threadripper system does not qualify as a workstation, it’s just that is not a very good one. I mean it’s very good for rendering(especially considering the cost) but it’s worst for everything else compared to a modern Intel system.
....take a week and just look at activity monitor and you will notice that our average activity during an average day of work usually uses only a very few cores, and when it comes to large rendering/animation any Pro I know of simply offload the task to a local/online farm, only very small freelance may think that doing everything on a single system is the right choice(and probably that may work for them but honestly the 7.1 is not a system builded for them).

That mostly in the context of the first iteration of Threadripper. The Zen2 chiplets that the Ryzen 3000 and EPYC 2nd Gen have have closed the gap even in low and single threaded contexts.

( Ryzen 3000 scores )
https://www.anandtech.com/show/14605/the-and-ryzen-3700x-3900x-review-raising-the-bar/6

(single threaded for EPYC 2 )
https://www.anandtech.com/show/14694/amd-rome-epyc-2nd-gen/9

AMD doesn't win everything, but Intel doesn't either. In single threaded stuff the Zen 2 chiplets are relatively close except for a few areas like pointer chasing and database workloads. Zen 2 is skewed to more math heavy workloads with streamed in/out data to be crunched. TR1 and TR2 also have some substantive NUMA overhead problems with Windows ( and Linux). TR3 will be much flatter ( as the EPYC and Ryzen 3000 marks show.)

If AMD doesn't flood the TR3 with additional core count and keeps the core count roughly the same as it is now, then they can bump both clock and bring along the IPC improvements they have added with Zen2 to TR3. The "large gap" that Xeon W 32000 has now is relatively temporary. ( at the same or higher clocks AMD doesn't have a big gap problem single threaded. But yes when get into the more cores at lower price zone they have problems. TR doesn't have to play that card as high if cherry pick off only substantively above average chiplets for implementation. )

I’m a big fan of AMD, TR are my number one choice for a render slave(as a matter of facts that’s what I’m actually using for my small farm), but when it comes to workstation Intel it’s still king by a large margine(ask you why HP, Dell and many other premium brands are offering AMD solution for the server line but still uses Intel for their workstations).

For the moment it is pretty tough to offer something that isn't shipping. For Apple the new Mac Pro. For HP, Dell, and Lenovo it is TR3. Intel is going to still dominate ( AMD can't supply as much as Intel can. That's why they have to prioritize shipping EPYC and Ryzen over TR ). Intel has a single/low lead, but it isn't quite "large margin" anymore.

 

[aaronhead14]

Blu Ray 1x writing speed is about 33Mb/s . A 20x drive would be around 660 Mb/s. . USB 3.1 gen 1 is 5,000 Mb/s . Gen 2 twice that . Thunderbolt even huger gap . How are these discs being burned any slower by external drive ? The work gets done just as fast . Back in early USB era there was some gaps, but write speeds for writing high quality optical drives is relatively stuck in the mud relative to contemporary drives .

USB bus power is higher now too so even more bus powered options available. Buy one Blu-ray and can ‘sneaker net’ it around to 2-4 systems as needed as opposed to 1-3 disks sitting idle .

The new Mac Pro is flat on top. More than a few drives will rest on top . Done .

P.S. rack mount Mac Pro could easily be paired with a 1U box that has hot plug 2.5 drive and blu Ray and even a tape drive . If the MP is in a ‘cart’ or hard mounted then can mount Blu-Ray right along side .

It’s not an issue of speed... it’s an issue of not having something internal that should be internal. That’s the whole point of a tower-style Mac — bringing back internal modularity.

 

[jinnyman]

AMD's zen2 is literally destroying, except gaming, Intel consumer grade CPUs already.
The game will change when zen2 base TR comes out. Heck even the consumer grade zen2 will launch 16core 32thread CPU this september. Now ask Apple their value proposition of Mac Pro when all that happen.

Again, we shall wait and see how this plays out.

 

[sirio76]

Intel has a single/low lead, but it isn't quite "large margin" anymore.

Have you ever worked with 3d software? I've done this for almost 25years and from direct experience I can tell you that the margin is much larger than what single threaded benchmark shows in real life. It's probably because for the last 10 years(or more) developers have optimized their 3D softwares(that beside rendering and simulation, rely largely on single threaded performance) mostly on Intel systems. I also know of some renderer(including Vray that is the most diffused CPU engine) that underperform on Epyc for this very reason.

 

[jscipione]

...meanwhile, down on the "big video farm", its going to have to compete with proper high-density compute options, like blade servers, multiple-Xeon systems, boxes with 10 GPUs and rackmount machines with proper server features like redundant PSUs and lights-out management and 1U cases that can fit 4+ servers in the space of a MP. You don't make a server by bolting a rackmount kit to a desktop.

I can imagine the groans now from data center employees tasked with installing these cheese grater monstrosities into data centers everywhere.

The Mac Pro is for anyone who needs a Mac with PCIe slots.

 

[ZeitGeist]

What technology? Designing a machine like the MP might not be simple, but there's not much 'bleeding edge' involved, either. Apart from Thunderbolt and the T2 chip which have trickled up from the lesser Macs (...and, in workstation terms, are answers to questions that nobody was asking), this is a bog standard Xeon tower in an over-engineered box. It has a short-term advantage because the latest Xeon W chips support more PCIe lanes, so it can usefully offer more slots than last-year's-model 8-core, single-CPU Xeon workstations. If the next Mac Mini or iMac comes with MPX slots then I'll eat a little crow, but I think I'm safe... I suspect that the most we'll see might be a "steampunk" design language replacing Jony Ive's smooth rounded rectangles.

Yeah, we’re done here, I’m out. Ciao.

 

[ZeitGeist]

Ask you why HP, Dell and many other premium brands are offering AMD solution for the server line but still uses Intel for their workstations, but after all they are just multi billion$ companies... I’m sure that users here are much more expert on computing choice

 

[deconstruct60]

I can imagine the groans now from data center employees tasked with installing these cheese grater monstrosities into data centers everywhere.

Apple may pull another "dog ate my homework" move but I think you are missing contextually relevant part of the announcement ......

https://thenextweb.com/plugged/2019...lives-on-kinda-in-the-rack-mountable-mac-pro/

By the end of Fall, there is suppose to be a specific model of the same thing that is rack oriented. There should be relatively little drama installing these. ( minus grumbling about how no 'real' system doesn't have dual power supplies front panel hot swappable drives , or somehow needs a Optical drive , or some other corner case feature check list item )

Do I have any confidence Apple is going to hit that deadline? No. Will they eventually ship it? Probably yes.

The rack version probably won't be weaved into "big video render" farms at all. A bigger use case than that is being put on a cart with storage and other boxes in about 1/4 or 1/2 rack size. The "lights out" isn't a huge deal most of the time there. Dual power. Not really. Alot o the 'holy priest' can only enter the inner sanctum data center stuff doesn't really fly quite so high.

The virtualization market will be big and the underlying hypervisor can do management over the network. The rack version may be a bit bulky for some low density virtualization but it isn't like folks have much choice. If super dense system pack then the Mini is better anyway.

The Mac Pro is for anyone who needs a Mac with PCIe slots.

There just isn't a "cheaper" one. The rack version probably costs incrementally more. The motherboard may be slightly different also.

 

[ssgbryan]

Have you ever worked with 3d software? I've done this for almost 25years and from direct experience I can tell you that the margin is much larger than what single threaded benchmark shows in real life. It's probably because for the last 10 years(or more) developers have optimized their 3D softwares(that beside rendering and simulation, rely largely on single threaded performance) mostly on Intel systems. I also know of some renderer(including Vray that is the most diffused CPU engine) that underperform on Epyc for this very reason.

Even if mine does - the shear number of cores will take care of the "optimizations" that Intel provides.