6-core Westmere Mac Pro will be close to 50% margin. The base model quad core is over 50% easily. Not sure how you can say this is Intel, no processor went up more than 4% over the 09 models. There processors aren't cheap sure, but they don't make up a huge percentage of the total price compared to 08 and earlier models.
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.
I don't hear anyone complaining about the value of the 2010's
- Thread starter VirtualRain
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
6-core Westmere Mac Pro will be close to 50% margin. The base model quad core is over 50% easily. Not sure how you can say this is Intel, no processor went up more than 4% over the 09 models. There processors aren't cheap sure, but they don't make up a huge percentage of the total price compared to 08 and earlier models.
I looked at the 09's and decided to wait till this year, so I thought they were kind of expensive as well.
Well, when I put together my most recent Mac Pro I put it together with two top-end processors for around $4K including a graphics card upgrade, memory upgrade, hard drive upgrade, and AppleCare. But now, just taking a single top-end processor (a Westmere, not last year's Nehelam), along with similar upgrades, and you are close to $5K. So one top-end processor is more expensive now than two top-end processors from before.
I think the dual cpu models are a different breed, but the sp ones, the low end MP...i think that for most users, they are a lousy value...
for 2,499, you get
$ 300 cpu
$ 150 gpu
$ 125 HDD ?
$ 50 DVD drive ?
$ 75 for 3x1 GB ddr3 ?
$ 75 bucks for mouse, cables, keyboard
So, what does that leave, $1,700 for mobo, case, power supply and image...oh, and profit margin...
Not a great deal, and an even lousier deal if you have been waiting 500+ days for the tech refresh like i did..small bump in cpu, year old $150 GPU and rounding up the HD to a full TB....so much for Moore and other similair theories...
Yesterday, when i speced out the low end MP, added the better GPU and a +400 bump in CPU to get it to 3.2, i was 1k above a loaded i7, not including monitor (yes, the 3.2 and better cpu are faster, not sure why you would get a base MP without a performence bump above the imac in the first place). I just couldnt justify it. If i could justify a multi cpu or 6 core, it would have been an easy decision, but 500 to 2k more for a 4 core CPU (depending on how you count it), just wasnt worth it to me. I will just tech turn my new imac in half the years as i would the MP.
But, everyones mileage might vary. Having the expandability in HDD, upgradeable GPU, PCie cards, etc might be worth it. But from a value proposition, i think its a very small crowd that can make that arguement on a SP MP. And it seems to get smaller every year...in my case, in 1.5 years, it will be far easier for me to cascade to another family member a $2.3k system when the 2012 MP comes out. Yes, even though i didnt buy one yesterday, i still want one, just not at this value! And thats the point, at least for me, it wasnt the Price that bothered me the most (although 3.5k is hardly worth ignorning), its the value. In my mind, they are just such horrible values compared to some of apples other products...i just couldnt get over it. (my issue !
)
for 2,499, you get
$ 300 cpu
$ 150 gpu
$ 125 HDD ?
$ 50 DVD drive ?
$ 75 for 3x1 GB ddr3 ?
$ 75 bucks for mouse, cables, keyboard
So, what does that leave, $1,700 for mobo, case, power supply and image...oh, and profit margin...
Not a great deal, and an even lousier deal if you have been waiting 500+ days for the tech refresh like i did..small bump in cpu, year old $150 GPU and rounding up the HD to a full TB....so much for Moore and other similair theories...
Yesterday, when i speced out the low end MP, added the better GPU and a +400 bump in CPU to get it to 3.2, i was 1k above a loaded i7, not including monitor (yes, the 3.2 and better cpu are faster, not sure why you would get a base MP without a performence bump above the imac in the first place). I just couldnt justify it. If i could justify a multi cpu or 6 core, it would have been an easy decision, but 500 to 2k more for a 4 core CPU (depending on how you count it), just wasnt worth it to me. I will just tech turn my new imac in half the years as i would the MP.
But, everyones mileage might vary. Having the expandability in HDD, upgradeable GPU, PCie cards, etc might be worth it. But from a value proposition, i think its a very small crowd that can make that arguement on a SP MP. And it seems to get smaller every year...in my case, in 1.5 years, it will be far easier for me to cascade to another family member a $2.3k system when the 2012 MP comes out. Yes, even though i didnt buy one yesterday, i still want one, just not at this value! And thats the point, at least for me, it wasnt the Price that bothered me the most (although 3.5k is hardly worth ignorning), its the value. In my mind, they are just such horrible values compared to some of apples other products...i just couldnt get over it. (my issue !
)There's not that many complaints about the value of the new Mac Pros because many of those folks are busy using their nice new i7s right now.
I really really wanted to upgrade my G5 with an entry level mac pro and I waited for many months for this.. and was massively underwhelmed. I was hoping to go for the 6 core, but it ended up well outside the price target I was hoping for ($2999). I wasnt impressed with what Apple had to offer here, but the straw that broke the camel's back for me was the 3GB of ram on the entry model, taking 3 of the 4 slots away. Three 1GB sticks (of older 1066 ram) on a 4 slot computer is a pretty feeble offering for 2010 for $2500. If I want to upgrade, I've already got to take out my ram and sell it- getting hit on the resale, and getting hammered again on my 2 or 4GB new memory. NO WAY. Even my old G5 had 8 memory slots.
Combine that with a minimal hard drive upgrade that only costs apple probably another 20 bucks, no usb3, esata or any other innovation in anything under $3700, a feeble processor upgrade after over 500 days, and wrap it all up with a price tag thats at least 500 bucks too much, and you have a recipe for a no-sale (at least for me.)
Someone said on another thread that Apple is a for-profit company and we shouldn't be surprised that they want to make money on their products. Fair enough. But we as consumers (and in some cases, small business owners) also owe it to ourselves to comparison shop and get the best for our money. Apple isn't sending their outrageous profit margins to charity or anything, so why am I obligated to buy?
After tax and applecare, I was looking at about 3 grand for a bare-bones entry model. That Mac Pro should have been $1999. In THIS economy, with continued instability and high unemployment, that would have made a hell of alot more sense, and more sales.
I have been a big fan of Apple products for many years now, but I'm afraid the way they're going, the Mac Pros just aren't gonna be an option for me anymore. I love os X however, so last Friday I went to the apple store and purchased a beautiful brand new i7, 27" imac. I was nervous about quality control issues, but I must say, Ive been very very impressed with this model- it has a beautiful screen with no issues, (and glossy isn't a problem in my home studio) its as fast as the 4 core Mac Pro, has room for a future SSD, has 4gb ram with two ram slots open for expansion, has discrete graphics, a SD card slot to save me a usb port, and its incredibly quiet. Plus I've got 3 years of applecare for only 150 bucks. I may be a "pro" user, but for me, the imac was the clear choice- and the much better deal.
I really really wanted to upgrade my G5 with an entry level mac pro and I waited for many months for this.. and was massively underwhelmed. I was hoping to go for the 6 core, but it ended up well outside the price target I was hoping for ($2999). I wasnt impressed with what Apple had to offer here, but the straw that broke the camel's back for me was the 3GB of ram on the entry model, taking 3 of the 4 slots away. Three 1GB sticks (of older 1066 ram) on a 4 slot computer is a pretty feeble offering for 2010 for $2500. If I want to upgrade, I've already got to take out my ram and sell it- getting hit on the resale, and getting hammered again on my 2 or 4GB new memory. NO WAY. Even my old G5 had 8 memory slots.
Combine that with a minimal hard drive upgrade that only costs apple probably another 20 bucks, no usb3, esata or any other innovation in anything under $3700, a feeble processor upgrade after over 500 days, and wrap it all up with a price tag thats at least 500 bucks too much, and you have a recipe for a no-sale (at least for me.)
Someone said on another thread that Apple is a for-profit company and we shouldn't be surprised that they want to make money on their products. Fair enough. But we as consumers (and in some cases, small business owners) also owe it to ourselves to comparison shop and get the best for our money. Apple isn't sending their outrageous profit margins to charity or anything, so why am I obligated to buy?
After tax and applecare, I was looking at about 3 grand for a bare-bones entry model. That Mac Pro should have been $1999. In THIS economy, with continued instability and high unemployment, that would have made a hell of alot more sense, and more sales.
I have been a big fan of Apple products for many years now, but I'm afraid the way they're going, the Mac Pros just aren't gonna be an option for me anymore. I love os X however, so last Friday I went to the apple store and purchased a beautiful brand new i7, 27" imac. I was nervous about quality control issues, but I must say, Ive been very very impressed with this model- it has a beautiful screen with no issues, (and glossy isn't a problem in my home studio) its as fast as the 4 core Mac Pro, has room for a future SSD, has 4gb ram with two ram slots open for expansion, has discrete graphics, a SD card slot to save me a usb port, and its incredibly quiet. Plus I've got 3 years of applecare for only 150 bucks. I may be a "pro" user, but for me, the imac was the clear choice- and the much better deal.
i skipped the 09 line because the 2,26 octa core was a piece of crap compared to the 2008 2,8 octa. although 2010 is just a firmware update, the 6 core seems to be ok and i dont want to wait another 512 days^^
what really pisses me off: the base quad uses a 250$ cpu and costs 2499. to get the 6 core they just swap the cpu out and put in a 999$ cpu. BUT they charge 1200$, actually 1450$, for the upgrade. i mean... c'mon. they already have a huge margin with the entry quad.
and, as usually, the big rip off of all EU customers. BTO options are the SAME price in . i'm really looking forward to my first mac pro, but these things make me quite mad.
what really pisses me off: the base quad uses a 250$ cpu and costs 2499. to get the 6 core they just swap the cpu out and put in a 999$ cpu. BUT they charge 1200$, actually 1450$, for the upgrade. i mean... c'mon. they already have a huge margin with the entry quad.
and, as usually, the big rip off of all EU customers. BTO options are the SAME price in . i'm really looking forward to my first mac pro, but these things make me quite mad.
Who said anyone was obligated to buy?
I personally think competition is the healthiest thing for Apple. Someone needs to keep them on their toes. That said, I'm excited to buy a new Mac Pro and am not surprised by the prices. I wouldn't buy a 12-core with my own money, but it's probably what we'll start buying at work. I've got my eye on the 6-core for myself.
In the UK Apple store, the 12 core Mac Pro base model is priced at £3999.01, which converts to $6,334.56. In the US store, the same machine is listed as $4999. That's $1335.56 more expensive over here, or £843.14 in GBP.
I feel that we might never see the same value that we saw in the 08's again, and that Apple is corralling most would be Mac Pro users down the iMac route. I can see this forcing those who need faster machines but who can't afford / justify the Mac Pro's cost into Windows PC's or Hackintoshes.
With the economic climate as it is, I'm relieved to have bought a Mac Pro when I did, and will for the time being be using PC's for extra rendering horsepower when needed as the new Mac Pro's are too spendy for what they are. I can only do this because I'm fortunate enough to use dual license 3D software (ie for Windows and Mac) so I can still work in OSX but render in Windows.
Personally, I'm disappointed where Apple is going with the Mac Pro's and the pricing. They're doing little to encourage new users to the line, and are making it very difficult for some existing users to justify continuing with them. Like quite a few people on these forums, I think this is deliberate.
Apple would seemingly prefer to make and sell sealed boxes with little or no user serviceability in high volumes, rather than serviceable machines with longer lifespans. The fact they could lose a chunk of the professional market in the process is a risk they seem willing to take.
I feel that we might never see the same value that we saw in the 08's again, and that Apple is corralling most would be Mac Pro users down the iMac route. I can see this forcing those who need faster machines but who can't afford / justify the Mac Pro's cost into Windows PC's or Hackintoshes.
With the economic climate as it is, I'm relieved to have bought a Mac Pro when I did, and will for the time being be using PC's for extra rendering horsepower when needed as the new Mac Pro's are too spendy for what they are. I can only do this because I'm fortunate enough to use dual license 3D software (ie for Windows and Mac) so I can still work in OSX but render in Windows.
Personally, I'm disappointed where Apple is going with the Mac Pro's and the pricing. They're doing little to encourage new users to the line, and are making it very difficult for some existing users to justify continuing with them. Like quite a few people on these forums, I think this is deliberate.
Apple would seemingly prefer to make and sell sealed boxes with little or no user serviceability in high volumes, rather than serviceable machines with longer lifespans. The fact they could lose a chunk of the professional market in the process is a risk they seem willing to take.
Who said anyone was obligated to buy?
I personally think competition is the healthiest thing for Apple. Someone needs to keep them on their toes.
Like psystar
But in all seriousness, to all above, Im also quite disappointed at the entry level mac, just like cs4160, Im too of no objection shelling out $3500-$4000, but give me some value for it.... I dont need 2 cpus for my needs, but a top of the line quad would do just fine except it's an insulting offerring.
It is clear that apple does not want to funnel any resources towards research and proper upgrading their pro line. They are just milking the old design...
Dont want to be forced building that hackintosh ... but Im really considering it now, for 2K I can have a top of the line i7 running kicking ass and taking names, with all the bells and whistles.
Build and price a Dell Precision 12 core with the same specs as a new 12 core Mac Pro, the Mac is Cheaper, and it'll run OS X, Linux, and Windows, and it looks better.
So the early mac pro 2008 :-
£1799
2x 2.8ghz quad core
2gb ram
320gb hdd
2600xt
mid 2009 mac pro :-
£1799
1x 2.66ghz quad core
3gb ram
640gb hdd
120gt
to get a similar performance 2009 machine compared to the base 2008 :-
£2400
2x 2.26ghz quad core
6gb ram
640gb hdd
120gt
£2400 - a good £600 more than the 2008 version, the 2009 really wasnt that great value for money compared to 2008 and it wasnt faster in any terms worth mentioning. It keeps getting worce.
2010
£1999
1x 2.8 quad core
3gb ram
1tb hdd
5770
£2959
1x 3.3 six core
3gb ram
1tb hdd
5770
£1000 extra for 2 cores... eh!!!
£2799
2x 2.4 quad core
6gb ram
1tb hdd
5770
So now we get to the real nitty gritty!
so to get a similar spec to upgrade your 2008 machine you need an extra £1000!!! the parts were about the same price at the time of introduction, so in terms of technology.. it grows but surly the price stays the same? to go from an 8 core as standard to a quad core in 2009 was a p*ss take then. Now 2010 you need an extra £1000 to get a slower clock speed 8 core machine...???? (compared to 2008, extra £400 over 2009)
Before everyone starts getting pi*sy at my view think of it this way, yes the new tech is faster, but isnt that the point of computer evolution? and lets be honest the spec for an 8 core 2010 is not setting everyones taste buds alight. The fact you have to pay more for a 6 core... yes faster clock speed etc. but still it is getting abit ridiculous even from a pros perspective.
So now we get ok spec finaly we hit the 1tb drive size, you've been able to buy a 1tb drive for £65 for over a year now, and we get a year old 5770 and £200 to upgrade to its brother, just rubbish value. So really you are paying a massive premium for 6x 1gb sticks of ram! no real change of case design so no change there, so where does the extra cost come in? Just apple tax so that they get more people buying an imac because they make more money shifting those. Costs less to produce and people will be back within 2-3 years because there spec is not looking quite as good as it was when they bought it! Also intel monopoly.
So after you have bought your pro you need to upgrade it because lets be honest you arnt going to pay £120 for every extra 1tb drive or £240 for a 2tb! or even spend £1020 for 12gb of ram to upgrade 9gb (9+3)! So you spend £1000 (3rd party) on 3x2tb drives a 256gb SSD and say 2x4gb sticks of ram to finish the budget.
You will be spending on the 8 core £3800, when a 2008 with those upgrades will cost you £2800 and not be significantly slower even 2 years later. My 2008 pro benches at 12000 and if these new 8 core bench much more than that i will be suprised.
Other posters are correct, to pros this wont matter too much if they need a machine they will buy a machine regardless, because they make 10 fold on one. But in this time of recession i think the pockets of the companies will not be quite as open when they look at the spread sheets of their previous expenditure on technology. Because lets be honest no companies are going to downgrade to quads so itl be the 8 or 12 core. So between 30-50% extra expenditure.. wont be particularly attractive. The 2009 machines are looking very tempting with discount and this brings me onto my last point.
The only pro i actually see as being value for money is the 2.66 12 core. It is the only one with something new to bring to the table and the only one which actually brings some improvement to technology worth purchasing. All the other pros on offer arnt worth purchasing if you have a 2008/2009, and to be honest i think anyone with those models it is worth waiting the extra year for the next iteration.
I think the 2008 model was such good value because apple did a deal with intel over their new xeon processors, with there new fangled friendship over apples switch to intel architecture. Now apple and intel arnt getting along so well and the honeymoon period is over. With Intels monopoly and their ideas on graphics technology and licensing, apples nose has been put out of joint and Intel arnt being quite so kind. Evidence of this is also in the time frame of when these processors came out and when apple implemented them. So most of the price increase is down to intels monopoly on the processors and reduced discount and availability on bulk purchase. Seen as tho AMD cant compete with these processors Intel will continue to do this and the increase will be passed onto us the consumers and straight into the intel shareholders pockets!
Shimples....
my thought exactly. i buy a 5870, have my 10gb of ram and an intel ssd in my 2008 2x2.8ghz. payed about $4k for everything and my comp is almost perfect still after 2.5y
a lot of the difference in price is the dollar which lost some value to the euro currencies, but the 2008 MP really was great value back then...
+1 on the hakintosh comment.
Hopefully this weekend my new i7 imac will arrive, but i would be very surprised if i dont try the hakintosh route in the next several months, just to see if i can make it work...if my current byo wintel has the right guts, or requires very minimal extra parts, it could be fun.
Hopefully this weekend my new i7 imac will arrive, but i would be very surprised if i dont try the hakintosh route in the next several months, just to see if i can make it work...if my current byo wintel has the right guts, or requires very minimal extra parts, it could be fun.
I am seriously considering the iMac as well. I have been using the MacPro for years but for my work (design/Photoshop/Illustrator?AE) I think the iMac will be more than sufficient. Storage is the big issue for me, since I am not crazy about external cases connect by Firewire 800, but I guess is something I can live with.
Well there may not be consensus on the level of value offered in the 2010 Mac Pro's, but the tone around here sure has improved from a month or two ago. It's much more pleasant to hang out here now... that's for sure.
Well there may not be consensus on the level of value offered in the 2010 Mac Pro's, but the tone around here sure has improved from a month or two ago. It's much more pleasant to hang out here now... that's for sure.
Totally agree. Time for less
and more Since you're in the same boat with similar hardware requirements and use pretty much the same software as I do, I'd definitely recommend getting the 2TB drive upgrade if you choose to go the i7 imac route, and couple that with another 2TB as an external. For what you do, 4TB should last you a good amount of time.
Well there may not be consensus on the level of value offered in the 2010 Mac Pro's, but the tone around here sure has improved from a month or two ago. It's much more pleasant to hang out here now... that's for sure.
We were gettin grouchy!
Next generation might be 2012....
Cause, all the server grade Sandy Bridge processors don't get released till Q3/Q4 2011. And seeing that it took 5 months after the release of Westmeres to make an appearance in the 2010 Mac Pro... well, I imagine the same will occur with the next generation.
If i'm right though, you'll probably appreciate the wait since Sandy Bridge server processors are planned to come not only in 6 core flavours but in 8
I see a 16 core MP in the future! (anyone wanna guess what the price of that would be, heheh)
VirtualRain, I think the main reason you don't hear much complaining this time around is that everyone expected Apple to carry on shafting their customers on price. The 2009 Mac Pro was a shock to prosumers when they increased their profit margins by $1000 across the board but this time they just carried on with pretty much the same amount of profit. Nobody was expecting Apple to reduce their pricing to reasonable levels and, to be honest, a lot of the prosumers that were outraged at the 2009 price rise have given up and bought high end iMacs or built hackintoshes instead.
Apple shifted it's target market significantly in 2009 and that shift seems to be pretty much complete now. The Mac Pro line is solely meant for professionals and corporations. Not consumers with a professional understanding of computers but professionals who use their computers to earn money. I spoke about this a few weeks ago here in response to people saying the Mac Pro would die and Apple needs to introduce a mid sized Mac.
The top end models in 2009 and 2010 (i.e. the 12 core model) are priced pretty well but it's their entry level models and anything built on the core/hex platform that are the nasty ones value wise.
I was one of the strongest critics when the 2009 Mac Pros came out, I compared all sorts of computer prices, processor costs, looked at the approximate value of the components for 2006/7, 2008 and 2009 Mac Pros. I was fuming because I was a prosumer (well one with actual professional level computer needs) and I was all ready to buy an Octo. I've now moved on though and have accepted the change in business strategy that Apple's gone with. I couldn't quite fit into their prosumer box of an i7 iMac because I already had a 30" ACD so I ended up building a hackintosh. I've let my anger go.
Apple shifted it's target market significantly in 2009 and that shift seems to be pretty much complete now. The Mac Pro line is solely meant for professionals and corporations. Not consumers with a professional understanding of computers but professionals who use their computers to earn money. I spoke about this a few weeks ago here in response to people saying the Mac Pro would die and Apple needs to introduce a mid sized Mac.
The top end models in 2009 and 2010 (i.e. the 12 core model) are priced pretty well but it's their entry level models and anything built on the core/hex platform that are the nasty ones value wise.
I was one of the strongest critics when the 2009 Mac Pros came out, I compared all sorts of computer prices, processor costs, looked at the approximate value of the components for 2006/7, 2008 and 2009 Mac Pros. I was fuming because I was a prosumer (well one with actual professional level computer needs) and I was all ready to buy an Octo. I've now moved on though and have accepted the change in business strategy that Apple's gone with. I couldn't quite fit into their prosumer box of an i7 iMac because I already had a 30" ACD so I ended up building a hackintosh. I've let my anger go.
i was pretty close of building a hackintosh after the mess with the 09 models. but i just need a stable computer under my desk, without worries about updating so i pulled the trigger on the 6 core. i know, this thought becomes pretty obsolete if you look at the change at apple in the last year: the big audio issue with the mac pro and the fact, that an update could make all waorse (remeber the last update which screwed up steam gaming cmpleteley...).
i really hope i wont have any trouble as an early adopter.
i really hope i wont have any trouble as an early adopter.
I wouldn't expect too many problems. The 2010 Mac Pro is basically just the 2009 Mac Pro with a firmware update. They've had a good while to iron the kinks out.