Holy crap, that's gotta be one powerful machine! Cheese grater look or not, that thing's a beast!
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 Reveals All-New Mac Pro With Up to 28-Core Processor and 1.5TB of RAM, Starting at $5,999
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
110% agree and I think many of us need to write Tim Cook and explain exactly this...how did they completely miss the majority of the pro market here...they could have easily have taken the current Mac Pro trash can or iMac Pro and put it into this new modular form factor (even a smaller case) and give the other 80%+ exactly what they wanted.
It's getting annoying that many think an iMac Pro is ok for the majority with the lack of expansion on it, the lack of cooling, and if you don't need a monitor...too bad you get one.
[doublepost=1559658781][/doublepost]
With no expandability, terrible cooling and you're stuck with a monitor if you don't need one. Great comparison there.
[doublepost=1559659180][/doublepost]
What do you mean they couldn't please everyone...they totally could have.
They could have made an entry level machine around $2500-$4k with the guts of the iMac Pro in it and still had this one....I mean...it's not hard to have done that and have it had less ports, drives, etc...
I mean look at the MacBook Pro for example...the range of that machine from entry level pro to mid level pro to extreme Pro.
I can buy a 13" starting at $1299 or a mid up to $1999 or a 15" for $2799 and max that thing out at $4500 logically...
So RIGHT HERE you have the perfect example of how Apple gives their "Pro" laptop user base a huge range for everyone.
And yet they completely forgot to do that with this new Tower.
It's a joke honestly...and a slap to a lot of the pro users that stayed loyal to them & made them what they are today...they keep forgetting without these pro's they wouldn't be the company they are today.
Last edited:
So, hopefully they don’t populate the base ram with small chips.
2 16's would be nice.
I would start by spending $$ on the base machine, getting the max CPU you can get and worry about HD, ram, GPU and monitors later. Each 1/2 year or year one could add something needed.
By the end of 5 years, that machine should still be easily treading water and be pumping out serious work.
2 16's would be nice.
I would start by spending $$ on the base machine, getting the max CPU you can get and worry about HD, ram, GPU and monitors later. Each 1/2 year or year one could add something needed.
By the end of 5 years, that machine should still be easily treading water and be pumping out serious work.
In the iMac Pro any upgrade would also mean disassembling the whole computer. I don't believe that's the case with the new Mac Pro, so its entirely possible Apple will sell first party upgrades for these. Yes they may be more expensive but expensive is better than not possible.
[doublepost=1559660142][/doublepost]
I think its very reasonable when you consider the ability to upgrade into the specs.
Yes, of course cheap PC desktops are cheaper and upgradable - but how many have 12 RAM slots, or 4 double-wide PCI-e slots and 3 regular PCI-e slots?
No, I think it is in line. The case is expensive to machine, the motherboard is expensive, etc. I'll go out on a limb and predict the best value will be the 16 core version. For the work it appears to be focused on the pricing actually seems in line - and I say that as someone who has been highly critical of Apple's choices and pricing (the trash can being a prime example, along with the touchbar MBPs).
The 23” Apple Cinema Display was $1,999 at launch, the 30” was $3,299.
This display is competitive with the Flanders Scientific monitor that costs $45,000, so $4,999 is quite a good deal for those who need its capabilities.
Based on comparisons to other machines, I would say their margins are lower than they usually are. They will not sell many of these machines, just as they never sold many Mac Pro systems. These are not intended to be volume products. Those are the iMac, iMac Pro and the new Mac mini. This is for those who need high end performance.
I'm looking to do Cinema 4D and After Effects. Preferably with 2 graphics cards for Redshift.
Thanks for any help.
True.
Maybe the biggest disappointment is the continuing lack of mid-range pro-sumer user-upgradable/serviceable enthusiasts Mac.
There’s been a Centris/Quadra 650/PowerMac 7600 shaped hole in the lineup for years. The entry level PowerMac G5 (and the Mac Pro) was the closest we’ve seen in a long time to filling that hole. I still have G5 humming along upstairs right now.
Apple could have used the exact same Pro case w/ iMac parts, priced the same as the 27” iMac, and introduced it alongside the new Pro as an enthusiast Mac. It could have been a “one more thing“. But I’m sure market research shows that would have cannibalized iMac sales too much.
If the new Pro has an upgradable cpu and has some 6/8 pin power cables for non-mpx cards requiring more power then the slot can provide, the entry level Pro is at least close to what both enthusiasts and real professionals have been begging for since 2013. Time will tell.
Maybe the biggest disappointment is the continuing lack of mid-range pro-sumer user-upgradable/serviceable enthusiasts Mac.
There’s been a Centris/Quadra 650/PowerMac 7600 shaped hole in the lineup for years. The entry level PowerMac G5 (and the Mac Pro) was the closest we’ve seen in a long time to filling that hole. I still have G5 humming along upstairs right now.
Apple could have used the exact same Pro case w/ iMac parts, priced the same as the 27” iMac, and introduced it alongside the new Pro as an enthusiast Mac. It could have been a “one more thing“. But I’m sure market research shows that would have cannibalized iMac sales too much.
If the new Pro has an upgradable cpu and has some 6/8 pin power cables for non-mpx cards requiring more power then the slot can provide, the entry level Pro is at least close to what both enthusiasts and real professionals have been begging for since 2013. Time will tell.
My boyfriend has an iMac Pro with an LG Ultrawide as his second display and loves it.
Why not get a Mac Mini with an eGPU? Played with DaVinci Resolve on one at Cinegear last Friday and it was pretty great. Having the option of DiVinci Resolve, Final Cut Pro X, and Premiere on the same box is nice.
If anything, this computer will confirm its not worth it, since the potential userbase is only a fraction of previous Mac Pro machines.
Anyway, its not going tho happen because: ML applications pretty much exclusively run in the cloud in production. Good luck finding any AMD cards there. There just is no competitor in the field that could keep up with CUDA in terms of ease of use, support and compatibility (CUDA runs on Windows, Linux and Mac; the fact that Apple blocks it in Mojave and up is not Nvidias fault). OpenCL is de facto deprecated by most (AMD, Nvidia, Apple), ROCm Linux exclusive...
There just is no substitute for CUDA, in particular in the cloud. A port over to AMD just because of the nMP is highly, highly unlikely
Last edited:
That's a software issue. It's potentially an easily fixable dealbreaker though. You can open it up and stick an nVidia card in there, which is the most important part.
Nope. Proprietary interface, so can‘t just stick a card in, no drivers (Apple blocks them) as well.
I for one love the design. It's not the most beautiful, this thing will look amazing in all black, but I'm a huge fan of function over form. If this holed-up design keeps this machine cool under absurd loads, I'm all for it. Those who "need" machines that look good, get an iMac (pro) and call it a day.
It has 8 standard PCI-E slots. 4 of them happen to be usable via a second in-line slot for MPX modules, but I see no reason they can't be used with regular PCI-E cards.
One reason: Apple blocks drivers. You cannot use Nvidia cards on Mojave and up. Simple as that
It's all about Nvidia.. I see that common theme no matter what the discussion thread there is.
Lot of complaining just because of a video card manufacturer.
Lot of complaining just because of a video card manufacturer.
If you are doing AI/ML work there is no other option but to use Nvidia. More powerful too, much more powerful...
Great.., except the bit in your post that I replied to is this:
Your argument against @dfelix's "that's a software issue" (which drivers are, so the future could change the scenario) was that the interface is proprietary. When I tell you it isn't, you tell me the drivers aren't there. It's like a chicken and egg of ********.
Fine, there are no drivers, for now. Im sure if Apple forgive Nvidia for all the failed MBP GPUs or whatever their issue is, Nvidia would happily provide a driver.
Nope. But some do. And its not a small number, a large fraction of computer scientists do, for example. All of which are now ruled out by Apple. Literally every single researcher / college has no other option but to switch away from Apple.
And all just because someone at Apple never grew up
There are not drivers to run new NVIDIA cards. You can put the card in but it won't work. It's possible it's mainly an NVIDIA issue (https://imgur.com/a/gUMf2Z2 coming from here: https://devtalk.nvidia.com/default/...for-macos-mojave-10-14-/post/5330336/#5330336). Of course, if Apple really wanted it to happen, they could work more with NVIDIA but AMD is happy to support Apple so why pursue a course that's not going to make a difference for non-Hackintosh Mac users (no NVIDIA cards in recent computers, other than the possibility in a just announced $6,000+ Mac Pro).
I definitely agree that is has its place. The question is just whether it's really worth every penny. Now that you can get an Epyc with 128 PCIe lanes, 8-channel memory-- and support 4tb of memory all for sometimes as low as half of the Xeon, it brings up some questions. Not to mention, in some price brackets, the Epycs have 2-3x the cores for the same price/lower, in addition to everything else previously listed.