In the case of the quad, it's absolutely true. I did it months ago for about $1300, right now I'm sure it's even cheaper.
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.
Apple Announces New Mac Pros With Up to 12 Cores, SSD Options
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
In the case of the quad, it's absolutely true. I did it months ago for about $1300, right now I'm sure it's even cheaper.
Steve has better things to do than worry about real computers, man. He's got to work on his new hobby project of an Apple brand Dishwasher and a new line of "pro" Apple blender products!
I think the ad slogan is, "You've never had an Appletini until you've had one made by Apple!" Steve has pretty much handed the keys back to Microsoft on the desktop computing front. He has no interest in tower computers for professional use anymore. I recall him saying something awhile back about how GREAT the new consumer version of Final Cut is going to be...you know the one that will run on the iPhone 4 and iPad....
Let guess. About a year or so from now, the next update to the Mac "Pro" will include the option for up to 24 cores (at a base price of $8000) and still offer meager graphics, only 4GB of ram standard and a 1.5TB drive. No USB 3 (Apple doesn't want to promote USB products). No Lightpeak (that's for gadgets only). No Sata3 (you don't need it; just order the new whiz-bang 1TB SSD drive for only $3000 extra). An extra 16GB of ram will only set you back an extra $10,000. So for only $11,000, you can have a 24 core, 16GB Mac Pro with all new integrated Intel graphics! Yay!
Apple will then use the absurd prices and underwhelming hardware to say there's no longer a viable market for the Mac Pro and get out of real computing altogether (yeah I'm being serious this time). Then all you will have is iMacs, iPhones, the Mini and shiny glass Macbooks. Those will eventually be phased out as well and then all you will have is Steve and his iPad/iPhone world while Windows rules the Galactic Empire forever and ever.
As designers and videographers, we need a fast computer with storage, RAID or at least eSATA!
Believe me, if the quad iMac had an eSATA port I would buy it (well hoping that glossy screen won't effect my color correction too much - I don't know...)
Right now I am looking at the 6 core model.
The real facts are that a desktop i7 screams and can do everything most pro's need need and more: xeon's are just too expensive.
Now yes, for dual processing I get it. However. everybody complaining about the cost of the 12 core should know that they are a very good price point compared to PC / servers. Who is getting hurt is the entry to mid level buyer.
No. I t just means that there is NO consumer tower. And that would be the real problem.
That's great for them. I personally still think that the Xeon has its benefits although I don't think it justifies the whole price difference. Still the Xeon's are expensive, and that's what you have inside the 4999$ Mac Pro - so it is expensive too.
I think there is more than just branding. I don't really agree with your logic. A computer with a plastic case can be cheaper than a computer with aluminium case, but with all the other specs equal they will perform the same. Does that mean that the aluminium one is overpriced? No. It just has another feature, if you want to pay for it, that's another question.
That is because you compare to the current Mac Pro which is old and Apple didn't change prices between releases. Try to configure a Dell like the newly announced 4999$ Mac Pro and you'll be surprised. Heck, a crappy Alienware with a single quad-core is 4000$.
And also the problem is with Apple not giving enough options.
Exactly, it'd cost $2000 just for two Hexacore chips alone even if you go and buy it yourself.
That might be because the Xserve is not a product that most consumers are sitting around dying to be updated. It's just a server.
you might try saying that in the Mac Pro forum. It seems someone was able to put together an HP (not even a home-built!) for about $900 cheaper.
https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/978173/
The 12 core may be hard to match in price (I doubt it, but it may), but the low-end Mac Pro has been well known to the MP forum here on MR has a ripoff for months.
You should also check out the homebuilt hackintosh threads: you start seeing discounts of 50% on NEW parts (that are better quality or the same as Apple's anyway).
Then you don't need a Mac currently since it doesn't meet your needs.
I'm really looking forward to LightPeak and I think of all the machines that will benefit from it the Mini will be at the top of the list, followed by the iMac. A Mini with an SSD and the ability to connect external storage via something much faster than firewire 800 would be a real boon. The video will suck, but no one is gonna be buying a Mini for gaming.
ECC is NOT a crock. It might not be particularly useful in the fields where you use your computer, but's not a crock. People who use computers for very precise mathematical calculations and financial data are just two places where ECC IS important.
I certainly don't need it which is one of the reasons I have no interest in a Mac Pro. See, I don't get personally offended when Apple doesn't release the product I need/want. There are other options.
OpenCL?
And so... what? It sounds to me like you don't need or want a Mac Pro as it doesn't meet your needs. Sounds like what you want is a Windows PC. They can be had. They are available. So get one.
Yup, unfortunately Macs are bloody expensive in Europe. The real bummer is that the Mac Pro is on the wrong side of a certain tax threshold here in Sweden... any individual expense to produce income is deductible immediately as long as it costs under 21,200 SEK ($2907) ex. VAT, but if it costs one nickel more you have to deduct it over 3 -5 years which means a lot of extra paperwork and a financial disadvantage. You can squeeze pretty much any decked-out PC under that limit, but if you want to get a Mac Pro you can only get the baseline quad 2.66 without any options ($2633 ex. VAT). As soon as you throw in something like more RAM, 3Y AppleCare, extra hard drive etc, *boom* there goes your instant deduction. Of course, it's a per-item limit so you could always muck about with it by buying the naked Mac and then get AppleCare, RAM, extra HDs etc. on the side, but that's just depressing when all you end up with is a hot rod version of the oldest and lamest Mac Pro model...
In fact he gives this price $1733. Which is 2499-1733=766$, not 900$. Also, when I did the config I kinda get more than 1733, so I would say the difference is 700$. Surely a lot, especially considering the HP graphics card, but for reliability I will never choose the HP.
I don't own a Mac Pro. I don't want to own a Mac Pro. I don't do anything that requires owning workstation class hardware. I have a Hackintosh because it meets my needs. I have a 13" MBP because it meets my needs.
However, comparing a Xeon to a non-Xeon and saying the machine is the same is crap. It's not the same. You can build a similar machine that meets your needs for less, sure. I agree. I did the same thing.
Despite the speed of my little Hackintosh, it ain't the same components. I think workstation components are GROSSLY overpriced. What I think about that doesn't change the fact that the Mac Pro USES those components.
You? None. Me? None. That's entirely irrelevant and my issue with what you're saying.
The Mac Pro DOES use workstation class components that ARE very expensive. An i7 is NOT a Xeon. Regular RAM isn't ECC RAM. Whether it benefits you or not is entirely irrelevant when discussing whether or not the computer is competitively priced because you would make the same arguments against the WORKSTATION CLASS MACHINES sold by Dell, HP and any PC maker. It's that simple.
What you want and what I want are prosumer class machines--some kind of desktop that goes between the iMac and the Mac Pro. Apple, however, doesn't think that market is worth satisfying because it's not a particularly large market and it's not what Apple's about or part of the direction they're headed.
The problem around here is that tons of people on this site make claims that are misleading (e.g. I can build the same computer for way cheaper...) and that many posters really suffer from some kind of entitlement syndrome. Apple owes you nothing. They are a for profit business. When you think of them in those terms, it's much easier to deal with them.
Yeah, if your business is freelance copywriting or knitting patterns... but I was talking about small startups in fields like video and audio production where you need to step up to the heavy duty tools from day 1. They will be inclined to go for bang-for-buck which leaves Apple out of the running in the workstation department.
Back when nearly all computers were desktops, Apple covered a much wider price range so you could get an expandable tower from them with the right I/O for a fair price. The iMac was an entry-level tinker toy at the time. Now they use it to cover everything from entry-level to high-end prosumer, and the Mac Pro is confined to the filthy price range, where you now have to go if you want an expandable Mac with a decent range of I/O.
Because for many professionals, the "consumer" product is perfectly usable and provides perfectly adequate performance for what they need, that's why. Who cares what the target market is? I certainly wouldn't recommend it for everyone (not for 3d animators and editors for example), but I know pros that are using "consumer-targeted" Imacs and they're very very happy with their purchases and, by the way, they saved alot of money that they can then put toward software. Last year, our studio bought fifty of those lowly "consumer" models, not fifty "professional" models. And you know what? They worked just fine.
12 "physical" cores * HT = 24 "logical" cores
HT provides the appearance of two logical cores from each physical core. There isn't a "real" core and a "virtual" core.
10-bit, as in "a thousand colours"?
Of course, you meant "30-bit colour, or 10-bits per RGB channel".
HP charges $120 for the upgrade to Windows 7 Professional x64 - in case your enterprise licensing agreement doesn't include upgrades.
FUD.
Do you pay for your electricity usage? Many people who do pay for electricity have shut off the grid apps - since it means that their systems run at full power day and night.
It costs a lot to keep all cores running, compared to letting power management do its magic to reduce power consumption when the system is on but idle. (The grid apps also warm the office and keep the fans spinning quickly.)
You should check what I was answering to:
"I however do feel that the argument of "The Mac Pro is overpriced to me because a Core i7 PC with the same performance is half the price" is a valid one from a consumer stand point."
It isn't overpriced, you can check how much the parts for such a machine cost and it is targeted to professionals who can afford it. For me the problem I see is the lack of a consumer tower, not that this Mac Pro is overpriced.
I know. I wrote the same thing in a post in this thread.
At the high end, in the Xeon 5600 6 core processors and 4GB+ DIMMs sure. For the single processor Mac Pro the processors are the same price as the Core i7s and 1GB and 2GB ECC memory is $10/GB more retail.
Half of the problem in these discussions is that people are comparing two different systems, one of which is a lot more than any one else charges and the other is at a similar level at launch (other's reduce prices over the life time). Both are over $1,000 more than retail component pricing (old Mac Pros were cheaper at launch in that regard), and that is a perfectly acceptable alternative for some. Too many people with different uses, needs and mentalities towards their purchase arguing back and forth I guess.
I need the reliability from my machines. I need quad cpus (16 cores, 32 threads for virtualization, 10-12 VMs per boxes), I need ECC RAM so nothing crashes because of a bad DIMM and I need much more too.
The stuff is out there for a reason. That you don't need it is fine. Stop whining about the Mac Pro. It is what it is, a workstation grade computer.
Then go out and buy it.
And I'd argue the pro market has moved on from computer based storage. It's hard to backup reliably (5 designers each with their stuff on huge RAID arrays on their computers they shut off at night ? ugh...) NAS and fileservers were invented for a reason. SANs with built-in replication are even better.
So that eliminates eSATA (why would you need external hard drives ? and why eSATA, isn't FW800 fast enough ?) and internal RAID and storage. You just need a fast computer. Hey look at that iMac. Want a tower with upgradeable parts ? Other vendors. Apple doesn't play anymore.
The iMac has a mini display port out for a 2nd monitor. You're free to get that one in a Matte configuration.
Why is the entry to mid level buyer getting hurt ? Apple doesn't catter to that buyer. Tons of other vendor do. Go with them, the Mac Pro is not the machine you want.
Quite true. But here is what I come to:
Basically all the components, CPUs excluded, are very roughly 1100$ (newegg prices; surely Apple doesn't pay those, but we need some reference so...) From there almost nothing changes between the models.
At this point we have (for the new Mac Pros);
- the 2499$ one - 300$ CPU + 1100$ - 1100$ markup. 44%
- the 3499$ one - 2x 400$ CPUs + 1100$ - 1600$ markup. 45%
- the 4999$ one - 2x 1000$ CPUs + 1100$ - 1900$ markup. 38%
(Sorry for two nearby posts, but it's taken me all day to get to the end of this thread. Every time I go to the "next" page it seems that there are two more new pages!)
"Moore's Law" was that the number of transistors per device would double every 18 months. There is nothing about "price/performance" in the original law, although improved price/performance is a typical result.
Every laptop should have an eSATA port, and every desktop at least two. They should be port-multiplier/FIS-capable as well.
At least two eSATA ports.
The "similarly spec'd" fallacy.
The real question is "check how much a Dell which has similar performance on your workflow would cost".
If you need 4 to 6 cores but don't need ECC memory for your workflow, the Mac Pro is ridiculously expensive compared to quad and hex Core i7 workstations.
If you need 8 to 12 cores and need ECC, the Mac Pro is a decent value.
The Imac doesn't have ECC, but it seems to meet lots of people's needs.
Assuming that you need dual sockets or ECC, true.
LOL
You should consider yourself wrong unless you can provide a link to support that conjecture.
But, are there Apple OSX drivers for the USB3.0 and 1394 PCIe devices that you can buy at Fry's?
eSATA with port-multiplier/FIS-support.
A standard eSATA port can only support one drive (or one RAID array that presents itself as a single eSATA target upstream). eSATA doesn't daisy-chain like 1394, nor can you connect and daisy-chain hubs like USB.
eSATA with "port-multiplier support" can support one 5 port hub, so 5 drives (or 5 arrays) can be attached.
Without FIS support, though, the hub can only control one drive at a time. The other four drives will block - greatly reducing performance.
With FIS support, though, the hub can support parallel operations on all drives up to the bandwidth limitation of the single 3Gbps connection to the host.
True. But, the people whining are the ones who don't need all that - but don't want an all-in-one or a headless laptop.
"Moore's Law" was that the number of transistors per device would double every 18 months. There is nothing about "price/performance" in the original law, although improved price/performance is a typical result.
Every laptop should have an eSATA port, and every desktop at least two. They should be port-multiplier/FIS-capable as well.
At least two eSATA ports.
The "similarly spec'd" fallacy.
The real question is "check how much a Dell which has similar performance on your workflow would cost".
If you need 4 to 6 cores but don't need ECC memory for your workflow, the Mac Pro is ridiculously expensive compared to quad and hex Core i7 workstations.
If you need 8 to 12 cores and need ECC, the Mac Pro is a decent value.
The Imac doesn't have ECC, but it seems to meet lots of people's needs.
Assuming that you need dual sockets or ECC, true.
LOL
You should consider yourself wrong unless you can provide a link to support that conjecture.
At least you have some PCIe slots for for that
But, are there Apple OSX drivers for the USB3.0 and 1394 PCIe devices that you can buy at Fry's?
eSATA with port-multiplier/FIS-support.
A standard eSATA port can only support one drive (or one RAID array that presents itself as a single eSATA target upstream). eSATA doesn't daisy-chain like 1394, nor can you connect and daisy-chain hubs like USB.
eSATA with "port-multiplier support" can support one 5 port hub, so 5 drives (or 5 arrays) can be attached.
Without FIS support, though, the hub can only control one drive at a time. The other four drives will block - greatly reducing performance.
With FIS support, though, the hub can support parallel operations on all drives up to the bandwidth limitation of the single 3Gbps connection to the host.
True. But, the people whining are the ones who don't need all that - but don't want an all-in-one or a headless laptop.