The new Mac Pro pricing is preposterous!

[Doc69]

I am deeply disappointed that the new base model 8-core Mac Pro has had it's clock frequency reduced by 20%. I'm even more disappointed that the price went up 18%, or $500. I know that the Nehalem processors are more efficient etc, but many apps use only one core and therefore rely solely on the CPU speed.

You would think that is 2009, you would be able to get a new Mac Pro in the 3GHz range for less than 3K? In have been waiting eagerly for the new Mac Pros to arrive and I am ready to buy. But with these prices I just feel cheated. Charging 6K for a 2.93GHz 8-core Mac Pro just seems preposterous, Especially since last year's top model was $4399 and topped out at 3.2GHz.

What makes these prices even more baffling is what happens to the price when you step up from a 4-core machine to an 8-core. The 4-core 2.66 MP costs $2649 (with 6GB of RAM) and the 8-core costs $4699. That's an additional $2050 for a second CPU, or a 78% increase in price. If each CPU costs $2050, then the rest of the computer is only worth $599. That doesn't make any sense! And if you compare the 2.93 MP, each CPU is $2700, and the rest of the computer only $499. It's mind-boggling.

Does anyone know what the retail price of these CPUs will be? I doubt that Apple is paying $2050 and $2700 respectively for these babies.

[opeter]

Simply, don't buy... there are other options.

[Umbongo]

This has been covered in many threads.

* 2009 Models:
1 x 2.66GHz W3520 Bloomfield: $284 ($2499 overall Mac Pro price)
1 x 2.93GHz W3540 Bloomfield: $562 ($2999 overall Mac Pro price)
2 x 2.26GHz E5520 Gainestown: $373 x 2 = $746 ($3299 overall Mac Pro price)
2 x 2.66GHz X5550 Gainestown: $958 x 2 = $1916 ($4699 overall Mac Pro price)
2 x 2.93GHz X5570 Gainestown: $1386 x 2 = $2772 ($5899 overall Mac Pro price)

[MCHR]

If the processors are upgradable, Newegg has the 2.93 on their website for under $300 each.

(edit, these are i7s, clock speed 2.66)

[wheezy]

Originally Posted by MCHR

If the processors are upgradable, Newegg has the 2.93 on their website for under $300 each.

What part of Intel hasn't even officially released the chip don't people get? You can't find the price yet!

[CATinHAWAII]

Originally Posted by opeter

Simply, don't buy... there are other options.

Yeah, seems like a great purchase of last years models at great prices,,,

But then again , I DID get the octo-2.93,,,
And glad that I did!

[plinden]

Originally Posted by MCHR

If the processors are upgradable, Newegg has the 2.93 on their website for under $300 each.

Really? Where?

Edit: and what wheezy said ...

[AZREOSpecialist]

You should get an iMac.

Originally Posted by Doc69

I am deeply disappointed that the new base model 8-core Mac Pro has had it's clock frequency reduced by 20%. I'm even more disappointed that the price went up 18%, or $500. I know that the Nehalem processors are more efficient etc, but many apps use only one core and therefore rely solely on the CPU speed.

You would think that is 2009, you would be able to get a new Mac Pro in the 3GHz range for less than 3K? In have been waiting eagerly for the new Mac Pros to arrive and I am ready to buy. But with these prices I just feel cheated. Charging 6K for a 2.93GHz 8-core Mac Pro just seems preposterous, Especially since last year's top model was $4399 and topped out at 3.2GHz.

What makes these prices even more baffling is what happens to the price when you step up from a 4-core machine to an 8-core. The 4-core 2.66 MP costs $2649 (with 6GB of RAM) and the 8-core costs $4699. That's an additional $2050 for a second CPU, or a 78% increase in price. If each CPU costs $2050, then the rest of the computer is only worth $599. That doesn't make any sense! And if you compare the 2.93 MP, each CPU is $2700, and the rest of the computer only $499. It's mind-boggling.

Does anyone know what the retail price of these CPUs will be? I doubt that Apple is paying $2050 and $2700 respectively for these babies.

[Scippy]

To the OP.
If you don't like it. You don't have to buy it.

[Gonk42]

Originally Posted by Scippy

To the OP.
If you don't like it. You don't have to buy it.

That is true, and in my case I've spent a few hundred updating my Windows/Linux machine instead (8GB of RAM and a 3GHz quad 9650). But
many people have bought into the Apple system and have made major investments in software and workflow and training/education in OS X so I think they have a right to feel miffed when Apple suddenly up prices in a major way.

Also it is very frustrating because Apple has good things (like OS-X and the design etc) which get you all excited and then they blow it all with sky high prices and inadequate RAM slots, lack of blue-ray and monitor choices etc. If
they didn't raise expectations by sometimes producing excellent value workstations such as the 08 Pro people wouldn't be so upset about the 09 pro (but there again they wouldn't have a user base!).

Apple is, of course, commercial so it makes much more sense for them to sell iphones etc and in some ways they are probably just phasing out desktop computers so don't care if people buy them or not - shame for those of us who still remember the Apple II.

[mason.kramer]

WE KNOW!

Stop posting these @(*& threads.

[MCHR]

The Newegg chips I recall were i7s, not Xeons.

Here is a link to a previous discussion here which describes why you couldn't change out the Xeons to the i7s:

http://forums.macrumors.com/archive/.../t-662832.html



Link to Newegg i7 chips-irrelevant but FYI

[alanlindsay]

The '08 Mac Pro spoilt us all. Now it's time to pay apple tax like the rest.

[MCHR]

To the OP:

As a user group, this is a shared opinion. One that IMHO could have been buffered with better performance charts showing how this new architecture takes advantage of a future OS, and optimized softwares. I'd wager that Apple didn't "have" to release this machine yet, since the hardware exceeds the software it claims to make more efficient.

However, on pricing, the three octos are not structured as they were in the 2008 release. IE, the clock speeds from the 3.2 to the 2.8 would dictate that the 2009 release would be the 2.93 and the 2.66. That isn't the case of course, and we have the littlest 2.26 as a performance equivalent of the 2.8. The performance, surprisingly seems to show the 2.26 is faster in nearly all benchmarks than the 2.8.

Of course, this doesn't justify the $500 upcharge in pricing. Especially when the case is a "carry over" from last year, meaning that tooling is "free" in Apple's R&D.

Though I've dug into the 2008 vs 2009 issue at length, I may yet hold off and NOT buy until there is either a speed bump (yes, I know wishful thinking), or I consider a different platform altogether. Should the 2.66 come into the $3300 slot, I'd snap that up pronto.

[SnakeOiler]

So funny to hear the crying about mac prices. Its like the movie Groundhog Day. Over and over for years and years. If the cost is over the top, a mac makes no sense for you. Regardless of its features/capabilities. There are other (cheaper) way to skin a cat.

[brendon2020]

they've always been preposterous, that why refurb/used route has always been somewhat reasonable.

[oban14]

Originally Posted by AZREOSpecialist

You should get an iMac.

What if he already has a monitor?

[oban14]

Originally Posted by SnakeOiler

So funny to hear the crying about mac prices. Its like the movie Groundhog Day. Over and over for years and years. If the cost is over the top, a mac makes no sense for you. Regardless of its features/capabilities. There are other (cheaper) way to skin a cat.

Originally Posted by brendon2020

they've always been preposterous, that why refurb/used route has always been somewhat reasonable.

The pricing of the 2008 Mac Pro was great, for the money it was almost a steal.

People were hoping for something similar this year, and instead Apple tacked on a couple grand.

[Eyedn]

Originally Posted by oban14

What if he already has a monitor?

External Monitor. Multitasking of course.

[MCHR]

Weeks ago, Weepul did a comparison, which I find to be very useful. I think many of us are getting hung up on the clock speed, difference in memory supplied with the MPs, and especially the cost. Looking at clock speed, it's evident there is a speed increase.

Cost structure is another factor.

Link to Weepul's discussion

"Using a 2x2.8 GHz Harpertown as the baseline (since it was the best performance value available in the previous generation, pricing source from EveryMac (http://www.everymac.com/systems/appl...008-specs.html)), but adding US$137.95 for 4GB RAM (http://eshop.macsales.com/item/Other...g/64FB1MPK04GB) to get its memory equal to the Nehalem models (the Harpertowns came with only 2GB RAM):

2x2.8H (US$2937): 1x performance, 1x price, 1x performance/price
2x3.0H (US$3737): 1.07x performance, 1.27x price, 0.84x performance/price
2x3.2H (US$4537): 1.14x performance, 1.54x price, 0.74x performance/price
(relative to original price 2.8 GHz Harpertown Mac Pro upgraded to 6GB RAM from OWC)

Since Apple's benchmarks compare the two most expensive variants of the current and previous generations, the conversion goes like this:

1.3*(Nehalem speed/2.93)*(3.2/2.8)

2x2.26N (US$3299): 1.15x performance, 1.12x price, 1.03x performance/price
2x2.66N (US$4699): 1.35x performance, 1.60x price, 0.84x performance/price
2x2.93N (US$5899): 1.49x performance, 2.00x price, 0.75x performance/price
(relative to original price 2.8 GHz Harpertown Mac Pro upgraded to 6GB RAM from OWC)"

[ekoe]

"The new Mac Pro pricing is preposterous!"

When you consider what it would cost to upgrade the '08 2.8GHz RAM, graphics card and hard drive to similar spec as the '09 2.26GHz, you're not saving much, and you'd have a slower machine. Take into account your time and effort and possible warranty disruption... you may as well go for the '09 2.26GHz. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but did you even try running the $$ numbers?

And even IF, in this unstable global economy, Apple decided it'd be wise to add a few hundred dollars profit on each unit to stay in operation... I don't mind bearing that 'tax' to keep Apple around. And I'm in no way without want of money, but I've been taken for worse and received less in exchange when no one else was complaining. I don't know how much this has to do with the pricing. Honestly, I don't think there is as much of an unusual price hike as folks here are making out... but the global economy likely has some impact on the prices we're seeing.

Go buy a minty used machine...

[Pressure]

You shouldn't really put that much emphasize on the mhz-myth.

[Doc69]

Originally Posted by Umbongo

This has been covered in many threads.
2009 Models:
1 x 2.66GHz W3520 Bloomfield: $284 ($2499 overall Mac Pro price)
1 x 2.93GHz W3540 Bloomfield: $562 ($2999 overall Mac Pro price)
2 x 2.26GHz E5520 Gainestown: $373 x 2 = $746 ($3299 overall Mac Pro price)
2 x 2.66GHz X5550 Gainestown: $958 x 2 = $1916 ($4699 overall Mac Pro price)
2 x 2.93GHz X5570 Gainestown: $1386 x 2 = $2772 ($5899 overall Mac Pro price)

Thanks for the price info on the Nehalems. If these prices turn out to be true, then I guess the price difference between the 4-core and 8-core models makes more sense. I had no idea that the 2.66GHz CPU in the 8-core model would be more than 3 times (337%) as expensive as the 2.66GHz CPU in the 4-core model. I thought they would cost the same, and that was what I based my numbers on.

With these prices, with the 8-core models, Apple has a 20% profit margin on the $1400 upgrade to 2.66GHz, and a 28% profit margin on the $2600 upgrade to the 2.93GHz. That seems to be within what's normal for Apple as I believe they usually want around 30% on their products.

I'm now wondering if there will be a difference in performance between the 2.66GHz W3520 for $284 in the 4-core model and the 2.66GHz X5550 for $958 in the 8-core model? I mean, for 3x the price, I would certainly think so. But the single core benchmarks that I have seen has not showed that.

[Cameraman12]

I still don't understand how in 2004 the top of the configured Power mac (dual 2.5ghz G5) went for $2799. In 2009 the top of the line mac is close to $5899!! I thought these things were supposed to get less expensive... especially in a recession?! Hard drives, superdrives, and memory have all come way down in price since then and the case is basically the same. IBM even built a 3 billion dollar plant just to make the G5 in 2004! Where's all this added cost for the 2009's and why?

[Umbongo]

Originally Posted by Cameraman12

I still don't understand how in 2004 the top of the configured Power mac (dual 2.5ghz G5) went for $2799. In 2009 the top of the line mac is close to $5899!! I thought these things were supposed to get less expensive... especially in a recession?! Hard drives, superdrives, and memory have all come way down in price since then and the case is basically the same. IBM even built a 3 billion dollar plant just to make the G5 in 2004! Where's all this added cost for the 2009's and why?

It's because they can. The difference in price between the different processor speeds at Intel's prices are minimal for the time they can save. Even with Apple's extra premium it can be worth the expenditure.