Apple Says New Mac Pro and Pro Display XDR Are Coming in September [Updated]

[techwhiz]

Apple at WWDC 2019 last week unveiled its long-awaited redesigned Mac Pro along with a new Pro Display XDR. At the time, Apple said both products will be available to order in the fall, without providing a more specific timeframe.

Apple has since updated its website following the end of WWDC, however, revealing that the new Mac Pro and Pro Display XDR are "coming in September." This date is listed on Apple's homepage in an overlay that pops open after clicking on "notify me" under each product, although only in the United States.

This date has yet to be listed outside of the United States, while the main Mac Pro page and other marketing materials still say "coming in the fall," so this may or may not be an error. We've reached out to Apple for comment.

The all-new Mac Pro is an absolute powerhouse with up to 28-core Intel Xeon processors, up to 1.5TB of ECC RAM, up to 4TB of SSD storage, up to AMD Radeon Pro Vega II Duo graphics with 64GB of HBM2 memory, and eight PCIe expansion slots for maximum performance, expansion, and configurability.

The new design includes a stainless steel frame with smooth handles and an aluminum housing that lifts off for 360-degree access to the entire system. The housing also features a unique lattice pattern, which has already been referred to as a cheese grater, to maximize airflow and quiet operation.

Apple's Pro Display XDR is a 32-inch 6K monitor with a P3 wide color gamut and true 10-bit color support, 1,600 nits of peak brightness, a 1,000,000:1 contrast ratio, and a super-wide, off-axis viewing angle.

The new Mac Pro will start at $5,999, while the Pro Display XDR will start at $4,999 with an optional $999 stand.

Update: Apple's homepage now says the new Mac Pro and Pro Display XDR are "coming this fall." It's unclear if the "September" timeframe was simply a mistake or prematurely-revealed information. We've yet to hear back from Apple.

Article Link: Apple Says New Mac Pro and Pro Display XDR Are Coming in September [Updated]

They need a smaller version in the $3000 price range.
The Mini is too small. They have nothing between a mini and $6k.

 

[needsomecoffee]

The downside would be that customers would be asking for NVIDIA support, in larger numbers and on a more frequent basis.

So Apple wants to maximize the productivity of videographers, and not cancer researchers. A trillion dollar company does not want "the problem" of supporting all its potential users - some of whom save lives. Sheesh. IOW, this new Mac Pro's fantastic, industry leading performance is denied for the many scientists who need CUDA and Nvidia boards. Eg:

https://blogs.nvidia.com/blog/2014/...0000-to-two-teams-pioneering-cancer-research/

 

[techwhiz]

Again the prosumer has a choice between thermal throttling or overkill/selling the kidney.

The biggest story here is apple let down those in the middle of the market.

Agreed.

 

[gnasher729]

I'm a plastic surgeon in a major metropolitan where image is everything. I want the shiniest, latest and greatest (and most unattainable) Mac sitting on my desk. My motives for getting the new MP aren't traditional but I don't care because I can afford it.

IMac Pro looks shinier. You can always buy two 6k monitors to go left and right of the cheap 5k monitor.

 

[shaunp]

If you look at high-quality counter-balanced monitor arms, they're pretty expensive. $1000 is certainly high, but not out of the ordinary.

This one is over $1000, and designed for monitors up to 69lbs. https://www.ergoexperts.com/collect...ive-9105-xhd-extra-heavy-duty-lcd-monitor-arm

This is the one I have at work, $450. https://www.ergoexperts.com/collections/monitor-arms/products/humanscale-m8-1-adjustable-monitor-arm

Wow, wondering what is so great about these. I have two heavy duty monitor arms in my office, I think they cost around £100 each. Okay the build quality could be better and I'd probably pay £200-300 next time for the odd time I do need to adjust them, but over £1000. I'll pass.
[doublepost=1560195667][/doublepost]

For people who this Mac Pro is aimed to, the price they pay is quite affordable. No kidney drama!

At the high-end it makes sense when software is more than the hardware, but the entry point doesn't. That's what the old Mac Pro did well - it had a reasonable entry point. This one doesn't

 

[IllIllIll]

That will require monitors, that are TB/DP and can daisychain. None of mine can. It must be a very small number of monitors that can do that. E.g. I have an Eizo 4K monitor with Displayport, another with DP and then a TV with HDMI for video playback. Besides, running cables from one monitor to the next is just ridiculous for cable management compared to running all three cables from your desktop.

I see. Makes sense.

 

[shaunp]

Yes you've got it. That is just it. Average individuals want a user upgradeable headless mac and since is it not for them (and me), this is the basis of all complaints, remarks and jokes. I just want Apple to make one for the rest of us, where there is no need for 1TB of ram, a dozen GPU's, stainless steel, space frame, etc.

Amen. Make a machine for the rest of us. Other manufacturers have products in the same category at different price points. Apple do too, but there's a hell of a jump between the mini and the pro that would never be filled by the iMac.

 

[jlocker]

So Apple wants to maximize the productivity of videographers, and not cancer researchers. A trillion dollar company does not want "the problem" of supporting all its potential users - some of whom save lives. Sheesh. IOW, this new Mac Pro's fantastic, industry leading performance is denied for the many scientists who need CUDA and Nvidia boards. Eg:

https://blogs.nvidia.com/blog/2014/...0000-to-two-teams-pioneering-cancer-research/

We are assuming that Apple has not been working with Nvidia to make sure their new boards will work in the new Mac Pro. There is still like 4 months away from launch, it could be that they are talking and working out any hardware issue if a user installs a Nvidia card.

AMD has had a 2 year lead working with this system. Could be that they don't want to say anything to get the hopes up of Nvidia card and Cuda lovers. And don't forget they will have to work within the medal framework with a new CUDA.

 

[techwhiz]

Exactly,

The new Mac Pro is for studios only, not for the so called "Pro" video editors, musicians, etc.

I agree. The new pro is too expensive an a mini has no expandability or place to put even a single PCIe card.
So, I'm in the exact same situation I was before the announcement. There is no reasonable alternative to the 2008 MacPro I currently have.

 

[Zwhaler]

It is a bad deal because no sane person would buy that configuration. Once you get to $20K to $30K configurations, it becomes more defensible.

I think $15K will buy a really sweet setup. Max internal storage, 128GB RAM, 16-core and one MPX Vega II Duo is nothing to sneeze at! Let's see how close I get...

 

[citysnaps]

deleted

 

[DrJohnnyN]

IMac Pro looks shinier. You can always buy two 6k monitors to go left and right of the cheap 5k monitor.

I am currently using the iMac Pro but hate the large/antiquated bezels.

 

[blackcrayon]

They need a smaller version in the $3000 price range.
The Mini is too small. They have nothing between a mini and $6k.

Yep.

What we wanted was a $3k version with maybe just 2 or 3 slots, and thunderbolt. Sortof in the price/feature range of a high end iMac but without the "free" monitor.

 

[daveedjackson]

We are assuming that Apple has not been working with Nvidia to make sure their new boards will work in the new Mac Pro. There is still like 4 months away from launch, it could be that they are talking and working out any hardware issue if a user installs a Nvidia card.

AMD has had a 2 year lead working with this system. Could be that they don't want to say anything to get the hopes up of Nvidia card and Cuda lovers. And don't forget they will have to work within the medal framework with a new CUDA.

I suspect instead of sorting their drama with Nvidia, they have gone to everyone else to get them on board. With all of the big software developers now saying they will develop for Metal, which inevitable could give Nvidia a run for their money. With no benchmarks really comparing Nvidia and These new AMD cards, I’ll be interested to see the performance. We can’t just assume the new cards will sit below Nvidia.

 

[handsome pete]

Tens of dozens per firm.

This seems like a common misconception of how "high-end" studios/facilities operate. It's not like *Pixar just automatically outfits every one of their designers/artists/etc. with the same kind of machine. It varies depending on the type of work they do. Modelers need a different configuration than riggers, who need a different configuration than animators, and so on all through the pipeline. Of course with the new Mac Pro Apple has offered a customizable machine, but as many have rightly pointed out, the base configuration is simply not a good value. So the alternative for them is an iMac(Pro) or Mac Mini. AIOs are not a desirable option in many facilities (in my experience). And I know a lot of responses are just going to be, "well Pixar can afford it." That's not the point. Studios like theirs are smart with their money when it comes to hardware. They're not going to spend $6K on a machine where they can get better performance at better value. This is precisely why other "pro" vendors still offer options with a lower price for entry.



*only used Pixar because that seems to be the most popular name brought up in new Mac Pro threads.

 

[juanm]

They couldn’t have been more explicit that new new design is completely geared toward not having throttling happen. By explicit I mean the presenter literally said onstage that the massive heatsink and airflow design was all about making sure these processors can run full blast at all times.

It was in response to the previous poster, who said that Xeon meant non thermally throttled. The cheese graters are indeed excellent for this, but Apple enclosing processors in hot places with the trashcan and the iMac Pro doesn't have anything to do with them being Xeon or not.

 

[Freida]

the 2008 Mac Pro was by far the best value computer I've ever got from Apple.
This new one is a beast but there is not middle ground.
The display is insane but its just too much of niche. It would be nice to have normal display that is in range for the old display prices and the PRO display. So those that have minis etc. can get nice display and not spend 6k on an overkill.

 

[IllIllIll]

If you look at high-quality counter-balanced monitor arms, they're pretty expensive. $1000 is certainly high, but not out of the ordinary.

This one is over $1000, and designed for monitors up to 69lbs. https://www.ergoexperts.com/collect...ive-9105-xhd-extra-heavy-duty-lcd-monitor-arm

This is the one I have at work, $450. https://www.ergoexperts.com/collections/monitor-arms/products/humanscale-m8-1-adjustable-monitor-arm

IMO the marketing geniuses at Apple made a mistake when pricing the monitor/stand. To avoid all the backlash and complaining, Tim Cook should have just done the following:

• Highlight the design/technology/construction of the stand (they kinda-sorta did this).
• Announce that the monitor comes with stand included for $5999.
• "We also acknowledge those pros who don't need the stand: for you, you can save some $ and buy the monitor bundled with a VESA mount alone for $800 less."

Same pricing structure, just better marketing. The price is still a crap sandwich but now you've make it look more appetizing. It's like vendors who charge more for credit card transactions - instead of saying "we charge 3% more for credit cards" (which goes against most credit card companies' TOS), just say "3% discount for cash payments."

What appears to be pissing most people off is the perception that an essential component of the monitor (stand or mount) is being sold separately, akin to a shady salesman selling a car for $50000 and charging an extra $5000 for the key.

It's all in the presentation. Apple is usually a master at making even the most mundane items sound extraordinary and magical while charging a premium; this looks like a swing and a miss (judging from the collective groans heard at the keynote).

 

[cult hero]

For people who this Mac Pro is aimed to, the price they pay is quite affordable. No kidney drama!

Yep. I kinda laugh at the people talking about pricing. If your machine is the center of your work, you can afford it. As a developer, my laptop is the center of mine. Can I get by on something cheaper? Yeah, but why? I like Macs and macOS more than the alternatives. Even if I'm paying a 1K "Apple Tax" (which is not how I see it) who cares? This is the center of my professional life. I spend 8-12 hours a day one weekdays (and some weekends) working on this machine.

It's just not something I skimp on.

 

[chabig]

The base iMac Pro is more powerful than the base Mac Pro, costs $1000 less, and includes a 5k monitor. That's a 2-year machine without a single update. That's the issue.

The irrelevant issue.
[doublepost=1560197707][/doublepost]

Yup. And it appears the entry model is lower spec'd than iMac Pro but much more $'s. So frustrating.

But it's higher spec'd than the Mac mini, and it's equally irrelevant.

 

[Freida]

This seems like a common misconception of how "high-end" studios/facilities operate. It's not like *Pixar just automatically outfits every one of their designers/artists/etc. with the same kind of machine. It varies depending on the type of work they do. Modelers need a different configuration than riggers, who need a different configuration than animators, and so on all through the pipeline. Of course with the new Mac Pro Apple has offered a customizable machine, but as many have rightly pointed out, the base configuration is simply not a good value. So the alternative for them is an iMac(Pro) or Mac Mini. AIOs are not a desirable option in many facilities (in my experience). And I know a lot of responses are just going to be, "well Pixar can afford it." That's not the point. Studios like theirs are smart with their money when it comes to hardware. They're not going to spend $6K on a machine where they can get better performance at better value. This is precisely why other "pro" vendors still offer options with a lower price for entry.



*only used Pixar because that seems to be the most popular name brought up in new Mac Pro threads.

I agree, the base model is not good value. People seem to think that 6k is a good start but I'm sure once we add reasonable gpu some ram and ssd then we are looking at crazy prices because apple loves their premium. So yeah, they created a monster machine but they also priced out a lot of prosumers that would otherwise buy it.
Pixar is unlikely to get these as they run Linux mainly and so do most of the big studios.

 

[Zdigital2015]

So Apple wants to maximize the productivity of videographers, and not cancer researchers. A trillion dollar company does not want "the problem" of supporting all its potential users - some of whom save lives. Sheesh. IOW, this new Mac Pro's fantastic, industry leading performance is denied for the many scientists who need CUDA and Nvidia boards. Eg:

https://blogs.nvidia.com/blog/2014/...0000-to-two-teams-pioneering-cancer-research/

Good grief...I should have anticipated the overly dramatic, "Apple wants people to die!" response...my bad.

To be clear...I don't speak for Apple, I posited a personal theory. As for all of your histrionics...that's exactly why Apple would never speak about why they don't support NVIDA GPUs. Better to remain tight lipped and unassailable than to open one's mouth and have the outrage mob at your doorstep.

If Apple was the only company that made a $6,000 workstation, then I think I could work up some empathy, but those researchers seem to be just fine with the workstations that they are using...I'm pretty sure they aren't being denied anything. Points for originality, though.

 

[oneMadRssn]

Wow, wondering what is so great about these. I have two heavy duty monitor arms in my office, I think they cost around £100 each. Okay the build quality could be better and I'd probably pay £200-300 next time for the odd time I do need to adjust them, but over £1000. I'll pass.

I bet your £100 mounts aren't counter-balanced. They're probably tensioned. Meaning, you need to loosen and tighten certain bolts, either with a plastic grip on the bolt head or an allen key or something, to make adjustments. Counter-balanced mounts have calibrated springs that counter the weight of the monitor perfectly. So there is no tension, it just floats where you leave it and you can adjust it effortlessly. Some mounts have springs to aid in adjustment, but the springs aren't calibrated to the weight of the display and they still use bolts to fix everything in place and prevent sagging. So just seeing springs alone is not indicative of a counter-balanced mount.

The more axes of counter-balancing, the more expensive. For example, the mount I have at work which is $450 (apparently), but its only counter-balanced for the up-down adjustment. Lean of the monitor and rotation is still fixed by tension bolts.

If the Apple stand is counterbalanced for height and lean, which I understand it is, then it is appropriately priced.

 

[shaunp]

Isn’t that what the iMac Pro and new Mac mini are for? My guess is both those machines meet what most of these people need to get their work done. Seems like most of the complaints are coming from enthusiasts/hobbyists who want to tinker. I don’t think Apple much cares about that market.

NO!!!! When will people get that an all in one is not a replacement for a desktop computer with internal expandability!

Take for example the customer who has traditionally bought a Mac Pro. He bought is last one in 2010. In this machine he has some expensive PCI cards that connect to equipment that he needs to run his business. The Mac itself is now getting a bit old and slow, but the PCI cards are still good and don't need replacing and they are too expensive to replace. All he needs is a new Mac Pro costing roughly the same as the one be bought last time for around $3k. This is all the budget he has because the market is so volatile and cash in the bank is important. What does he buy? The new Mac Pro costs $6k, it's too expensive, but the only machine he can afford (an iMac) has not internal expansion. He buys a PC. When it comes to replacing his phone, he's lost the ability to run Messages on his computer so he buys an Android phone and runs WhatsApp. He's now out of the Apple ecosystem and won't be in a hurry to come back.

Do you now see how dumb and short-sighted it is to not have a reasonably priced Mac desktop with internal expandability? There are lots of existing customers who waited to see what Apple released next as the trashcan didn't meet their requirements. Some of these will give up and buy an iMac, but many won't. They will move on.

These complaints aren't from tinkerers, they are from freelancers and small business users. This is quite a big market. They are just as professional as the larger organisations and routinely do work on behalf of large organisations, but their needs and budget are smaller. An iMac probably offers the right level of performance, but the form factor is wrong.

If Apple were to produce a 'Mac' with the same specs as the iMac but in a case with PCI slots and user-upgradable RAM/Storage, etc they wouldn't kill sales of the iMac or Mac Pro as the intended customer would never buy one in the first place. But if they made this machine the intended user would probably buy an iPhone and iPad too.
[doublepost=1560198659][/doublepost]

I bet your £100 mounts aren't counter-balanced. They're probably tensioned. Meaning, you need to loosen and tighten certain bolts, either with a plastic grip on the bolt head or an allen key or something, to make adjustments. Counter-balanced mounts have calibrated springs that counter the weight of the monitor perfectly. So there is no tension, it just floats where you leave it and you can adjust it effortlessly. Some mounts have springs to aid in adjustment, but the springs aren't calibrated to the weight of the display and they still use bolts to fix everything in place and prevent sagging. So just seeing springs alone is not indicative of a counter-balanced mount.

The more axes of counter-balancing, the more expensive. For example, the mount I have at work which is $450 (apparently), but its only counter-balanced for the up-down adjustment. Lean of the monitor and rotation is still fixed by tension bolts.

If the Apple stand is counterbalanced for height and lean, which I understand it is, then it is appropriately priced.

I've no doubt the more expensive ones are better. Mine aren't counter-balanced at all. I guess it depends on what you need. Mine are fixed and 99.9% of the time that is fine. They are a bitch to adjust though. If I moved them around a lot I'd spend more on them, but probably not $1000. I'd have to test them first at that price.

 

[IllIllIll]

Take for example the customer who has traditionally bought a Mac Pro. He bought is last one in 2010. In this machine he has some expensive PCI cards that connect to equipment that he needs to run his business.

Such as?