Apple Tells Reseller that the New Mac Pro is Arriving in Spring 2013

[barkmonster]

Originally Posted by toke lahti

Remember the price of top end quad-core G5?
Or the cheapest MP (2GHz model 1,1 , which I still have and use...)?
Meaning: there were expensive G5's and inexpensive MP's. Now we have only expensive ones, although RAM has gotten pretty cheap...

I remember the BTO 2Ghz Mac Pro being approximately the same price as the entry level 2Ghz G5 it replaced (£1399) but these days you're looking at £2000+ for the entry level Mac Pro and that was the point I'm making, they've steadily increased the pricing until they're out of reach for a lot of people unless they resort to buying older models used. Given the CPU power of the 2.6Ghz BTO Mac Mini is higher than the current entry level Mac Pro for almost a 3rd of the price, RAM is cheaper, it handles full speed 6Gb/s drives and a lot of options are catered for with Thunderbolt to PCIe solutions, unless you're a gamer or doing GPU intensive graphics work, the Mac Pro at present looks overpriced to say the least.

That's why I opted for the Mac Mini as my first jump to an Intel Mac after years too long with G4.

I'm not a gamer, I don't use any GPU bound graphics software but I do run software synths and fx plug-ins so it's all down to CPU power and Geekbench scores on my Mac Mini are 3563 vs 3714 on the 2Ghz Mac Pro 1,1.

This suggests to me that given it has twice the number of dual CPUs as my system, it wasn't worth entertaining the idea of paying for a used model when for single threaded tasks, the Mac Mini is faster anyway.

Add the fact 8Gb RAM is peanuts for the Mac Mini, it consumes 110 watts vs 950 for the Mac Pro and when I'm in the market for whatever Mac Pro model I end up getting at some stage, I have a tiny, silent little system that easily fits in with my LCD TV setup as a media centre, the decision was simple.

Those early Mac Pro's are looking like giant, power hungry relics these days when even an entry level system like the 2012 Mac Mini or Macbook Air offer twice the raw CPU power of the 2006 models even if you include the 3Ghz version.

[MathewGoode]

Whatever be the changes, using desktop has become rare, laptop was a fad and now it is the time of the mobile. Hope this consideration is also taken for the new Apple

[barkmonster]

Originally Posted by MathewGoode

Whatever be the changes, using desktop has become rare, laptop was a fad and now it is the time of the mobile. Hope this consideration is also taken for the new Apple

Desktops Rare? Laptops a fad? On what planet? Vulcan?

It's perfectly standard for someone to have a desktop at home as their main system, some people also have a laptop as a second system.

If anything, in recent years with advances in CPU power etc... laptops offer the CPU performance of desktops that were considered powerful systems only a few years ago and that means, for SOME people in SOME situations, a powerful laptop is a more than capable system as a complete desktop replacement but it's still not the norm by any deluded stretch of the imagination and neither is the idea laptops are a fad

Mobile in the tablet/smartphone sense of the word is always a compromise, they're consumption devices and in no way desktop or laptop replacements in any sense for all but the most basic of computer use (email, listening to music, video, internet access).

I sometimes wonder if newbie status on here now means, "I heard of Apple after my parents bought me an iPhone/iPad and I'm lurking the boards waiting for the next iGadget so they can buy me that too".

[cgc]

Originally Posted by KaraH

Although to do that they would need a bigger form factor that what they are using now.

No, the older Mini had a real GPU in it and the newer unibody Mini had a real GPU in it as well. The size changed slightly but the overall volume hasn't changed much (1 cubic inch change from old to unibody). Very feasible and well within Apple's engineering skills to do this. Plop a decent GPU in it and watch the Mini fly off the shelves.

[violst]

Originally Posted by barkmonster

Desktops Rare? Laptops a fad? On what planet? Vulcan?

It's perfectly standard for someone to have a desktop at home as their main system, some people also have a laptop as a second system.

If anything, in recent years with advances in CPU power etc... laptops offer the CPU performance of desktops that were considered powerful systems only a few years ago and that means, for SOME people in SOME situations, a powerful laptop is a more than capable system as a complete desktop replacement but it's still not the norm by any deluded stretch of the imagination and neither is the idea laptops are a fad

Mobile in the tablet/smartphone sense of the word is always a compromise, they're consumption devices and in no way desktop or laptop replacements in any sense for all but the most basic of computer use (email, listening to music, video, internet access).

I couldn't have said it better myself. I think you are right on the money with everything you said.

idevices are for content consumption and desktop/laptops are for content creation, without content creation then is no consumption.

[GermanyChris]

Originally Posted by toke lahti

2x8GB for MP (leaves another 2 slots for future expansion) costs $168 @OWC.
2x8GB for new iMac costs $115 at the same place.
i7-6core-3.3GHz is about $600, 3.1GHz-6core-xeon is about $2k.
I'd guess the chipset price difference is also substantial.
All things like these build up the premium that xMac wouldn't have. If Apple can sell a macbook with $200 premium over average laptop, why not desktop mini/mid tower.

E5-1650 3.2 Turbo to 3.8, 6 Core, $589

[deconstruct60]

Originally Posted by toke lahti

2x8GB for MP (leaves another 2 slots for future expansion) costs $168 @OWC.
2x8GB for new iMac costs $115 at the same place.
i7-6core-3.3GHz is about $600, 3.1GHz-6core-xeon is about $2k.
I'd guess the chipset price difference is also substantial.

I'd guess that your objective is primarily just FUD. I'm not going to cover all the rest of the flawed, misdirected, and deceptive stuff that you spun here in all the responses but this first one is representative.

1st Apple is filling Macs with 4 not 8GB modules. There difference there is

$62 (http://eshop.macsales.com/shop/memor..._1600MHz_SDRAM)
versus
$79 ( the 1333Mhz options to match closer speed http://eshop.macsales.com/shop/memor...ry#1333-memory )

A whopping whole $17 or just 0.7% of a $2500 price point. No, that isn't going to make a huge pricing difference.

2nd Apple isn't going to use E5 2600 xeons in a single package context. Just like the 3500/3600 versus 5500/5600 series there is a E5 1600 and 2600 series. You pulled down 2600 prices as a deceptive attempt at misdirection.

E5 1620 4C 3.6GHz L3 10MB $249
E5 1650 6C 3.2GHz L3 12MB $583
E5 1660 6C 3.3GHz L3 15MB $1083

http://ark.intel.com/products/family...-Family/server

i7 3820 4C 3.8GHz L3 10MB $249
i7 3930 6C 3.2GHz L3 12MB $583
i7 3960X 6c 3.3GHz L3 15MB $999

http://ark.intel.com/products/family/59136 (first two )
http://ark.intel.com/products/family/59135 (3960X )

The differences being $0 , $0 , and $84. $84 is 2% of $3,000. A minor swing for just one of 3 models at the top end of the scale. It is also not likel present at the volume purchasing levels Apple would be buying at. ( ark tray prices are in lots of a 1,000. Apple will likely be buying in higher volume.)


x79 chipset is actually in the "server" chipset section of Ark

http://ark.intel.com/products/64015/Intel-BD82X79-PCH

C602
http://ark.intel.com/products/63984/Intel-BD82C602-PCH

They are basically the same. The 602 has 4 more SATA ports so it will be more but you get (presuming Apple adds some 2.5" bays in exchange for a 5.25 bay ) more.

The socket 2011 Core i7 models are derivatives of the Xeon E5 designs. Likewise the X79 is a derivative of the C600 design. Intel charges about the same prices for both since they are about the same. This class of Core i7 being "oh so cheaper" than Xeon E5 is bunch of smoke and FUD.


Apple misses out on the xMac customers. They also miss out on the 1U and 2U servers. low cost netbooks. 6-9 lbs notebooks. etc. That completely misses the point that the overall Mac product mix is what matters most. The objective is to go after as many customers with as few as Mac models as necessary. That gives Apple the highest return on investment.

The premise that Apple has to go after capturing the as much of the PC market as possible is deeply flawed. Apple is cherry picking the subset of the PC market that is profitable and has best prospects for growth. The subset that is retracting and is unprofitable they skip. Generic low end boxes with slots is in that latter category.

What does screen size having to do with color fidelity? Small screens can look bad? Small pixels don't need gamut and dynamics?
Which one needs better quality: 10" ipad screen or 11" air screen?

For 16M colors, how do you show them all with just

ipad ~ 3M pixels
iphone > 1M pixels

Even a 1/4 of those , 4M, is more than the number of pixels on a iPad. Throw on top that users cannot see the individual pixels ( Retina after all) and users can not see those colors.

16M colors is for 24 bit color. ( 8/8/8 for RGB). 10 bit color is in the billions. You need something around a 27" monitor ( resolutions at least 2560x1440 and larger pixels to get into the range were start to get deep traction.)

Pixel size makes a difference. 30 bit makes it easier to correct/calibrate the larger pixels for drift. Human vision maxs out around 10M colors (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_d...r_.2824-bit.29). 400 and 500 ppi wouldn't make the iPhone screen a more "Retina Display".

[milo]

Originally Posted by deconstruct60

Your commentary is indicative that your mindset is warped with by perhaps a methodology of dual the single first and then some substantial juggling to fit two.

Nope. I'm running a dual cpu MP now and likely will in the future. The biggest problem with the base MP is that it has been the worst computer value Apple has offered for years now.

Depends upon the software.

Of course. But how much software is there that MP users would use that doesn't take advantage of more cores?

That is largely driven by very bad Intel offerings.

Intel's offerings limit performance, but how do they drive Apple to way overprice the box compared with the same hardware from other companies. And it's way overpriced even compared with other products from Apple.

The low end is still stuck on Nehalem 3500 offerings that are several generations back.

You mean Apple is stuck on the low end, intel has chips beyond what Apple sells. But apple would have to actually udpate the product instead of swapping newer CPUs into the same motherboard. If Apple doesn't want to lower prices on the low end, they could also drop the single CPU version and make the base model a dual. They have done that in the past.

fratricide on too much of the upper end iMac BTO configs.

Selling MP instead of iMac isn't losing a sale. When the user buys a windows box instead, it is a lost sale.

But driving into the sub $2000 range? No. that really isn't a Mac Pro anymore.

So when you have a box that performs as poorly as the current single CPU MP, it's "really" a mac pro, but if you were to drop the price on that same box below a certain point, it's no longer one? Sorry, I don't buy the idea that "pro" is defined by price more than the machine itself.

Apple has two choices to be competitive. If they want to use low end, outdated technology, they should drop the price. If they do need to keep the price over $2000 for whatever reason, they need to actually put hardware in the box that makes it worth that price. And while Apple does mark things up more than everyone else, they certainly are able to provide much more bang for the buck with the imac and even the mini.

HP , Dell, etc didn't offer any substantive updates in 2011 either. Intel didn't offer anything new.

So HP and Dell don't have sata III on their high end towers? USB3? "Substantive" is a weasel word in this case - did their updates offer more than Apple did? Yes.

So yeah.... this isn't an Apple only problem. Characterizing it as such doesn't have much if any quantitative evidence to back it up.

The qualitative evidence is what is actually offered by these other companies. Do they or don't they include sata III and usb3? Heck, are they offering the same CPU options as Apple or do they go beyond it to 8 core single and dual?

If only XServe had...

XServe is a totally different product and market. And people aren't asking for anything particularly exotic - if they just ship the same product but with the latest versions of CPU, ram, sata, usb, etc, that's enough to make many current MP users happy enough to upgrade.

Seriously, do you REALLY think that any sensible person would buy the current version (or the last couple updates) as opposed to waiting for a real upgrade? And you don't think they'd see a bump in sales once they finally ship a real upgrade? The product is way out of date, I can't imagine how anyone could look at sales of that and draw a conclusion about demand for the line.

Expensive capital equipment gets refreshed on a longer lifecycle period than less expensive stuff does.

Yep. I'm running a 2009 MP. Guys I work with are on 2008 versions, they're desperately in need of an upgrade but buying the current MP just doesn't make sense, so they wait.

And how many of those have anywhere near Apple's cash flow from operations from their PC line ups as Apple has from their Mac line up ?

You're trying to change the subject. I asked if their offerings have sata III - so do they or don't they?

Originally Posted by DisMyMac

I've been predicting some new services, like CPU farms through their data center. That would kill the Pro forever.

That wouldn't cut it for real time applications like audio.

[milo]

Originally Posted by thekev

The Xeon equivalent is also identical in price.

Looks like that is discontinued, it seems to be available a few places but pretty scarce. What's the model that replaces it and is comparable to the two i7s you listed (both of which seem to still be widely available)?

Originally Posted by deconstruct60

E5 1620 4C 3.6GHz L3 10MB $249
E5 1650 6C 3.2GHz L3 12MB $583
E5 1660 6C 3.3GHz L3 15MB $1083

i7 3820 4C 3.8GHz L3 10MB $249
i7 3930 6C 3.2GHz L3 12MB $583
i7 3960X 6c 3.3GHz L3 15MB $999

Same goes for this list, off of the i7s are still widely available but out of the xeons, only the most expensive right now. Maybe intel is still selling them to computer companies, but to the general public they're listed as "discontinued". In general, looking at the prices on intel's website, there are equivalent versions of xeons and i7s at similar prices, but looking where they are for sale, it's possible to find i7s at lower price points while those equivalent xeons are unavailable.

That completely misses the point that the overall Mac product mix is what matters most.

Finally we agree on something. I just don't agree that the current MP options are doing a good job at filling that gap in Apple's product mix. The base MP in particular seems like it exists just so that apple can say that it exists, but Apple really wants people to buy something else instead, whether it's a more expensive MP or a totally different mac.

the subset that is retracting and is unprofitable they skip.

There's no evidence of "unprofitable" with any of the mac product lines, including MP. And the desktop market is retracting yet they are still offering iMacs and minis.

[toke lahti]

Originally Posted by deconstruct60

I'd guess that your objective is primarily just FUD.

No, that was not my point, but I guess I didn't have enough time for accurate pricesearch. Sorry folks!
Still I'm wondering how other desktop makers can offer "workstation class" much cheaper than MP.
Now I remeber that my problem years ago to upgrade to single CPU MP was the number of RAM slots. At the time it would have been too expensive to expand RAM only with 4 slots. Also it has been funny that when CPU has triple channel for memory, Apple isn't offering number of slots that can be divided with 3.

Originally Posted by deconstruct60

For 16M colors, how do you show them all with just

ipad ~ 3M pixels
iphone > 1M pixels

Even a 1/4 of those , 4M, is more than the number of pixels on a iPad. Throw on top that users cannot see the individual pixels ( Retina after all) and users can not see those colors.

16M colors is for 24 bit color. ( 8/8/8 for RGB). 10 bit color is in the billions. You need something around a 27" monitor ( resolutions at least 2560x1440 and larger pixels to get into the range were start to get deep traction.)

Pixel size makes a difference. 30 bit makes it easier to correct/calibrate the larger pixels for drift. Human vision maxs out around 10M colors (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_d...r_.2824-bit.29). 400 and 500 ppi wouldn't make the iPhone screen a more "Retina Display".

Why would you need to show 16M colors at the same time?
You don't understand why 8-bit colors are not enough for present displays with actual contrast ratio over 1000:1?
(Hint: grayscale...)

[barkmonster]

Originally Posted by toke lahti

No, that was not my point, but I guess I didn't have enough time for accurate pricesearch. Sorry folks!
Still I'm wondering how other desktop makers can offer "workstation class" much cheaper than MP.
Now I remeber that my problem years ago to upgrade to single CPU MP was the number of RAM slots. At the time it would have been too expensive to expand RAM only with 4 slots. Also it has been funny that when CPU has triple channel for memory, Apple isn't offering number of slots that can be divided with 3.

Why would you need to show 16M colors at the same time?
You don't understand why 8-bit colors are not enough for present displays with actual contrast ratio over 1000:1?
(Hint: grayscale...)

I was thinking going back to 4 bit would be better, tape instead of SSDs too, I used to love waiting for Jetpac to load on my Sinclair ZX Spectrum 48K. Why would anyone need colour depth over that? I mean it's adequate for most needs

[GermanyChris]

Originally Posted by milo

Looks like that is discontinued, it seems to be available a few places but pretty scarce. What's the model that replaces it and is comparable to the two i7s you listed (both of which seem to still be widely available)?




Same goes for this list, off of the i7s are still widely available but out of the xeons, only the most expensive right now. Maybe intel is still selling them to computer companies, but to the general public they're listed as "discontinued". In general, looking at the prices on intel's website, there are equivalent versions of xeons and i7s at similar prices, but looking where they are for sale, it's possible to find i7s at lower price points while those equivalent xeons are unavailable.




Finally we agree on something. I just don't agree that the current MP options are doing a good job at filling that gap in Apple's product mix. The base MP in particular seems like it exists just so that apple can say that it exists, but Apple really wants people to buy something else instead, whether it's a more expensive MP or a totally different mac.



There's no evidence of "unprofitable" with any of the mac product lines, including MP. And the desktop market is retracting yet they are still offering iMacs and minis.

It's discontinued only at newegg

[milo]

Originally Posted by GermanyChris

It's discontinued only at newegg

Look harder.

[GermanyChris]

Originally Posted by milo

Look harder.

I did it's available at every American and European reseller to include my local guy from nowhere Germany.

[milo]

Which ones? Every major one I've checked sells the i7s and some other xeons but not that one.

[thekev]

Originally Posted by milo

Looks like that is discontinued, it seems to be available a few places but pretty scarce. What's the model that replaces it and is comparable to the two i7s you listed (both of which seem to still be widely available)?

I didn't check the components sales channels. They are still available in oem machines. I checked Dell and a T3600 with a Xeon E5-1620 (quad) can be specced under $1100. It can be set to a more useful configuration around $1500. Anyway I looked at Lenovo's site the other day, and I remember it listing similar options. The thing about Apple's configuration is that limited models and a high cost to buy in should have a solid base offering. The 1,1 through 3,1 used extremely expensive parts. They could have offered the 5870 standard and 6 core as the standard configuration or at least dropped it closer to $2000 rather than slowly inching the other way (G5 started $2000, mac pro 1,1 $2300, 4,1 $2500). The cheapest models likely carry a much higher overlap in consideration against other offerings.

Originally Posted by milo

Nope. I'm running a dual cpu MP now and likely will in the future. The biggest problem with the base MP is that it has been the worst computer value Apple has offered for years now.

I agree with that. I always assumed the price range was to minimize pricing overlap, but they could have offered better configurations rather than something that feels like a budget machine at that price.

[milo]

Originally Posted by thekev

The 1,1 through 3,1 used extremely expensive parts. They could have offered the 5870 standard and 6 core as the standard configuration or at least dropped it closer to $2000 rather than slowly inching the other way (G5 started $2000, mac pro 1,1 $2300, 4,1 $2500).

Exactly. The MP, even the base one used to be expensive because the parts were expensive. But since then the xeons have dropped in price to be close to similar i7s, same with the memory. They could make the base six core or start with a dual CPU, but they didn't, so their cost of building that machine has gone way down but they haven't lowered the selling price at all. So it gets the squeeze on both ends - it's a way out of date machine and it's a way overpriced machine to boot.

The base MP is using a W3565, a quad core bloomfield released November 2009. Not only is it outperformed by the higher end i7 iMacs, it has worse performance than the $799 mac mini.

Really, we're supposed to believe that the problem is intel and the desktop computer industry (as d60 keeps saying)? That there's still nothing available that's better than that W3565 that Apple could put in the base model? And that nobody else has moved beyond the W3565 either? And possibly the most ludicrous idea of all, that Apple would rather people buy the imac because it's more profitable for them.

[thekev]

Originally Posted by milo

Exactly. The MP, even the base one used to be expensive because the parts were expensive. But since then the xeons have dropped in price to be close to similar i7s, same with the memory. They could make the base six core or start with a dual CPU, but they didn't, so their cost of building that machine has gone way down but they haven't lowered the selling price at all. So it gets the squeeze on both ends - it's a way out of date machine and it's a way overpriced machine to boot.

On the 1,1 through 3,1 I figured they just chose not to address low end configurations, so it started with something extremely competitive at the predetermined price range. None of the later G5s were below $2000, so I wasn't surprised there.

Originally Posted by milo

The base MP is using a W3565, a quad core bloomfield released November 2009. Not only is it outperformed by the higher end i7 iMacs, it has worse performance than the $799 mac mini.

I agree it's a poor value. The only thing the bottom option really offers over other machines is some amount of internal expansion if custom hardware solutions are a requirement or more internal drives are viewed as a necessity. The mini might also be significantly noisier under load.

Originally Posted by milo

Really, we're supposed to believe that the problem is intel and the desktop computer industry (as d60 keeps saying)? That there's still nothing available that's better than that W3565 that Apple could put in the base model? And that nobody else has moved beyond the W3565 either? And possibly the most ludicrous idea of all, that Apple would rather people buy the imac because it's more profitable for them.

I wouldn't throw out everything he says. Most of them are just tangents and observations of Apple's past behavior. Look at the starting dual socketed model from 2009 until today. 2008: $2800, 2009: $3300, 2010: $3500, 2012: $3800. They inched that one upward. Other brands do typically offer something within the $1500 range, still using those single package Xeon parts. The point I usually highlight on is that people sometimes falsely latch on to the use of Xeons or ECC ram to suggest that they make up the difference between it being a $1500 machine and a $2500 machine. I view it as a pricing strategy on Apple's part rather than something that is driven by manufacturing cost. It doesn't mean I like that or feel it presents a good value. It's more a necessity for some people to meet specific requirements. The 12 core models are even further into this realm.

[twoodcc]

Now this would make a lot of people happy. Hope it's true

[KaraH]

Originally Posted by cgc

No, the older Mini had a real GPU in it and the newer unibody Mini had a real GPU in it as well. The size changed slightly but the overall volume hasn't changed much (1 cubic inch change from old to unibody). Very feasible and well within Apple's engineering skills to do this. Plop a decent GPU in it and watch the Mini fly off the shelves.

What is a "real gpu" though?

I would define it as a pci nvidia card (not the laptop model ones you have in iMacs). Then after the card you need to add extra room for the heat it will give off.

Basically yes, I would love it if I could get one with that sort of a GPU. Although at that point you may as well get a tower anyway.

[DoFoT9]

Originally Posted by KaraH

What is a "real gpu" though?

I would define it as a pci nvidia card (not the laptop model ones you have in iMacs). Then after the card you need to add extra room for the heat it will give off.

Basically yes, I would love it if I could get one with that sort of a GPU. Although at that point you may as well get a tower anyway.

I guess real GPU means not integrated onto the CPU or chipset, such as HD3000/4000. A real GPU in this topic, I think, should be a workstation class GPU and not a consumer class GPU (NVIDIA GTX is consumer class, as it's for gamers and not workers).

[jchase2057]

Originally Posted by scottsjack

To those who say that want a smaller, more compact Mac Pro I say if you don't have the space for a Mac Pro you probably don't really need a Mac Pro.

Save the smaller-yet-smaller devices for the mall rats tweeting about who got laid at last weekend's under-aged drinking party.

These users admit that they don't need a mac pro. They want a mid-tower.

[SpyderBite]

I suspect this particular reseller won't be an authorized reseller for long.

[Sue De Nimes]

Originally Posted by Setmose

The third item you omitted is the heavy-duty thermal spec that Xeons are built to. With ECC they are designed for constant duty, as in rendering farms.

Or for servers - anything with 24/7 uptimes.

----------

Originally Posted by DoFoT9

I guess real GPU means not integrated onto the CPU or chipset, such as HD3000/4000. A real GPU in this topic, I think, should be a workstation class GPU and not a consumer class GPU (NVIDIA GTX is consumer class, as it's for gamers and not workers).

Think about what most users will use their Mac Pro for.

Most apps now support CUDA acceleration which will be found in any NVIDIA cards. Even the "gamer" cards. They will inject a lot of speed into Premiere Pro or similar.

I agree workstation cards should be an option - but just that, an option. They carry a big price premium and for a lot of people they will get the same results from a non workstation card.

[DoFoT9]

Originally Posted by Sue De Nimes

Think about what most users will use their Mac Pro for.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not an idiot. I do realise that 95% of the buying market for a Mac Pro will be somebody who does not utilise what the components are made for (Xeon/dual CPU, ECC, a 'workstation' grade GPU, redundant PSU [where appropriate]). I address my points behind the hardware. So according to me, it's likely that 95% of users who buy a MacPro probably won't need it, or will overspend compared to say, purchasing a high-end spec'd Dell machine or iMac (or other xMac, if released). Do I make sense?

Most apps now support CUDA acceleration which will be found in any NVIDIA cards. Even the "gamer" cards. They will inject a lot of speed into Premiere Pro or similar.

Yup, most certainly! We've always known that the GPUs are FAR superior in number crunching - it was only a matter of time..

I agree workstation cards should be an option - but just that, an option. They carry a big price premium and for a lot of people they will get the same results from a non workstation card.

Given that the MP is based at consumers, yup - agreed. It should be an option at least. I also think that a lower end (read: iMac equivalent but with larger room to upgrade CPU/RAM/GPU/etc) consumer component based Mac Pro is a good idea for the largest majority that only need that but want expandability of a desktop PC. One day....