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

[EdT]

How’s that iMac Pro work when you want to expand or upgrade a year from now (or now for that matter)? For many that’s the issue when going against HP and Dell systems the Mac Pro will be competing against.

I’m not inherently against this computer but what IS the advantage of buying the Mac Pro versus another companies high end machine. What does this computer do better than anything that is close in price? And what is “close”?

I’m not the market for this machine so other than curiosity I don’t have a stake in this fight, but WHAT and WHO is the market and the competition for this machine?

The last couple of years people complained on this and other sites that Apple no longer had a ‘Pro’ machine. I get that this Mac Pro is much more expensive than the older Mac Pro was when compared to a base iMac. Does the performance justify the cost, at least for some companies?

 

[G.McGilli]

Is there a comparison anywhere - that shows the difference in performance between the iMac, iMac Pro and this new Mac Pro (theoretically with the parts it will have installed by default)?

I'm especially interested in this new Mac Pro stock configuration compared to other configurations of iMac Pro etc...

 

[oneMadRssn]

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.

I hear ya. The one I have at home cost $50 and is super basic, not balanced at all and requires allen keys to adjust anything.

I didn't pick the one I have at work, but it's pretty nice.

 

[NT1440]

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.

Ah, didn’t see the context there. Apologies.

 

[Zdigital2015]

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.

Chances are that user has exactly one specialty PCIe card and the other three are 1) Faster GPU, 2) a USB 3.0 card and 3) an NVMe or SATA SSD card, all three of which are negated by what the iMac includes out of the box. For that user, all he needs is a $200 PCIe expansion box that can hold the one or possibly two PCIe cards he needs to hold on to for whatever specialty equipment he wants to use. Assuming it works with Mojave and/or Catalina's upcoming 64-bit requirements. Otherwise, he would be SOL anyways and needs to update to a newer solution or hang on to that old Mac Pro regardless.

 

[SecuritySteve]

I’m not inherently against this computer but what IS the advantage of buying the Mac Pro versus another companies high end machine. What does this computer do better than anything that is close in price? And what is “close”?

I’m not the market for this machine so other than curiosity I don’t have a stake in this fight, but WHAT and WHO is the market and the competition for this machine?

The last couple of years people complained on this and other sites that Apple no longer had a ‘Pro’ machine. I get that this Mac Pro is much more expensive than the older Mac Pro was when compared to a base iMac. Does the performance justify the cost, at least for some companies?

The HP Z G4 is one such machine that the Mac Pro is competing against. It can be configured to go upwards of 65,000$.

When you get into this level of hardware, your applications and use cases are beyond that of the traditional user. Usually you are using tons of system resources for a single job, such as rendering large 3D models or movie scenes, or CAD work to do large scale engineering tasks.

MacOS brings some useful tools in how Metal differs from other graphics engines. It's ability to look at all connected GPUs as a single monolithic GPU resource gives it an edge in the multi-GPU theatre over Windows.

CPU-specific tasks tend to favor Dual-CPU workstations, which this Mac Pro does not.

 

[Vjosullivan]

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

The price may well be affordable but Apple's track record of not updating the "trash can" will put off many professionals. It will take a few years for Apple to demonstrate they have committed long term to high end PCs again.

 

[handsome pete]

The irrelevant issue.
[doublepost=1560197707][/doublepost]
But it's higher spec'd than the Mac mini, and it's equally irrelevant.

How is that irrelevant?

 

[cppguy]

The base Mac Pro is hard to recommend based on the specs, because the much cheaper iMac has better performance and a free display. Modularity is the main appeal, but at that cost it's doubtful. I feel like the Mac Pro is more for those who're going to get the Afterburner, the 18-core CPU, but at that point it's unreachable for small businesses and individual creators. Yes, there are plenty of rich studios, but Apple is missing out on the small fish who also want a less capable, but still modular system.

 

[SecuritySteve]

How is that irrelevant?

I think his point is that the two machines are not the same. Even if the base model is more expensive than the iMac Pro, you can always slap in an aftermarket GPU, RAM, SSDs etc in this modular system. You could even replace the CPU if you wanted.

You can't do that with the iMac Pro.

 

[handsome pete]

I think his point is that the two machines are not the same. Even if the base model is more expensive than the iMac Pro, you can always slap in an aftermarket GPU, RAM, SSDs etc in this modular system. You could even replace the CPU if you wanted.

You can't do that with the iMac Pro.

I get that. Unless I didn't read back far enough I think the iMac was brought up to show that the base Mac Pro is likely a poor value performance wise. Apple has increased the barrier for entry on an expandable Mac Pro, which will affect purchasing decisions even in high-end facilities.

 

[SecuritySteve]

I get that. Unless I didn't read back far enough I think the iMac was brought up to show that the base Mac Pro is likely a poor value performance wise. Apple has increased the barrier for entry on an expandable Mac Pro, which will affect purchasing decisions even in high-end facilities.

It's not quite a fair comparison though. The mother board alone is super expensive. Building an HP Z G4 workstation with the same base specs of the Mac Pro costs 1,500$ more.

Things that are not the same with the Mac Pro and iMac Pro:

Motherboard (Mac Pro's is far superior to the iMac Pro's logic board, in terms of expansibility and bandwidth)
PSU (Mac Pro's is MASSIVE)
Cooling system and thermal overhead (Mac Pro will run cooler and quieter)
Casing (Obviously the Mac Pro has a different chassis)

But the iMac Pro has:

Built in Monitor

I estimate the above four items cost 1.5 - 2x as much as the monitor when combined.

 

[cppguy]

It's not quite a fair comparison though. The mother board alone is super expensive.

Exactly. High-end systems don't scale very well, that's why the base model is so ridiculously priced. And even the power supply is inappropriate. You cannot have an 18-core CPU with 1TB RAM and an Afterburner to be cost-effective for a more traditional mid-end system.

If Apple created a more affordable modular system, it would have to have a different chassis, a different power supply, a different motherboard, different everything.

 

[davidwes]

The base Mac Pro is hard to recommend based on the specs, because the much cheaper iMac has better performance and a free display. Modularity is the main appeal, but at that cost it's doubtful. I feel like the Mac Pro is more for those who're going to get the Afterburner, the 18-core CPU, but at that point it's unreachable for small businesses and individual creators. Yes, there are plenty of rich studios, but Apple is missing out on the small fish who also want a less capable, but still modular system.

You really think the iMac is going to come close to the performance of these machines? Are you only talking about the iMac Pro? I think these machines will be faster than that, plus the iMac Pro starts at 4,999. So your only saving a 1,000 and have to throw out the computer whenever your screen is busted.

 

[briko]

So your only saving a 1,000 and have to throw out the computer whenever your screen is busted.

I’m pretty sure the opposite of this is true. An iMac Pro will run just fine regardless of the screen condition as long as you plug a display into one of the thunderbolt ports. However, the display becomes useless if anything happens to the computer internals because they can no longer be used as a host display via target display mode.

 

[Flabasha]

I've worked for quite a few wealthy companies with very skilled workforces. None of them would even think of getting such a machine, because none of them did high-end video/music editing. I think the market for the new Mac Pro is very limited.

If none of them did high end video/music editing, why would you even think they'd be interested in this machine?

 

[SecuritySteve]

Exactly. High-end systems don't scale very well, that's why the base model is so ridiculously priced. And even the power supply is inappropriate. You cannot have an 18-core CPU with 1TB RAM and an Afterburner to be cost-effective for a more traditional mid-end system.

If Apple created a more affordable modular system, it would have to have a different chassis, a different power supply, a different motherboard, different everything.

And so your search for the xMac continues!

But the Mac Pro community is happy with what they were given.

 

[EdT]

The HP Z G4 is one such machine that the Mac Pro is competing against. It can be configured to go upwards of 65,000$.

When you get into this level of hardware, your applications and use cases are beyond that of the traditional user. Usually you are using tons of system resources for a single job, such as rendering large 3D models or movie scenes, or CAD work to do large scale engineering tasks.

MacOS brings some useful tools in how Metal differs from other graphics engines. It's ability to look at all connected GPUs as a single monolithic GPU resource gives it an edge in the multi-GPU theatre over Windows.

CPU-specific tasks tend to favor Dual-CPU workstations, which this Mac Pro does not.

Thanks. I honestly had no basis of comparison. I watched the presentation, I understood the things they were saying but it had been such a very long time since I had bought even a top end consumer computer that the numbers of computations and graphic processing were so much beyond what I was use to. So I don't know if Apple stands alone, they are one of a few, or they are overly expensive for what they offer. With every movie and a lot of tv shows needing some form of post processing at the least and high quality CGI becoming common maybe the market is bigger than I think.

My curiosity was and is where does this really rank as far as processing power goes when compared to other computer manufacturers. I have a side question concerning why Apple seems to keep getting into fights with companies like NVIDEA or Qualcomm when it seems to hurt them a lot more than it hurts those companies, but I'm not a gamer anymore, really haven't been since the turn of the century, so graphic card performance hasn't been at the top of what I need.

And we pretty much saw how Apple's Qualcomm fight ended up: Apple declared victory and paid up, dumped Intel and will be back to buying Qualcomm modems again. I don't know who is at fault or what percentage of fault goes where but Apple would make a lot of people at least temporarily happy if they offered some form of NVIDEA compatibility even if you had to buy an expensive GPU to use it.

 

[cppguy]

You really think the iMac is going to come close to the performance of these machines? Are you only talking about the iMac Pro? I think these machines will be faster than that, plus the iMac Pro starts at 4,999. So your only saving a 1,000 and have to throw out the computer whenever your screen is busted.

The base iMac Pro has a Vega GPU, and the base Mac Pro comes with a Radeon. I don't know, but I think the $3500 iMac will be a tad faster, except when it comes to H.265 decoding, where the lack of the T2 chip shows. Max Yuryev suggests that a high-end iMac can be very slightly faster than the base iMac Pro, except when rendering H.265 video, in which case even the MacBook Pro is faster than the iMac, due to the T2 chip. Either way, it won't matter too much for photo editing or simple 4K vlogging. It will matter with cinema camera footage. But I guess if you have a Canon C200, C300, Red, you can as well have an iMac Pro at the minimum. People who complain about the price while shooting a Sony a7III should just forget about the Mac Pro.

 

[SecuritySteve]

Thanks. I honestly had no basis of comparison. I watched the presentation, I understood the things they were saying but it had been such a very long time since I had bought even a top end consumer computer that the numbers of computations and graphic processing were so much beyond what I was use to. So I don't know if Apple stands alone, they are one of a few, or they are overly expensive for what they offer. With every movie and a lot of tv shows needing some form of post processing at the least and high quality CGI becoming common maybe the market is bigger than I think.

My curiosity was and is where does this really rank as far as processing power goes when compared to other computer manufacturers. I have a side question concerning why Apple seems to keep getting into fights with companies like NVIDEA or Qualcomm when it seems to hurt them a lot more than it hurts those companies, but I'm not a gamer anymore, really haven't been since the turn of the century, so graphic card performance hasn't been at the top of what I need.

And we pretty much saw how Apple's Qualcomm fight ended up: Apple declared victory and paid up, dumped Intel and will be back to buying Qualcomm modems again. I don't know who is at fault or what percentage of fault goes where but Apple would make a lot of people at least temporarily happy if they offered some form of NVIDEA compatibility even if you had to buy an expensive GPU to use it.

The Radeon Vega II Duo is the world's most powerful GPU, outperforming the NVIDIA Titan RTX. Since the Mac Pro can host four of those cards, the Mac Pro ranks incredibly highly in that theatre.

In terms of single-socket CPU systems, the Xeon W lines that the Mac Pro will be using are very competitive and have not been released yet by intel, making them essentially new when the Mac Pro finally hits the store.

As far as Apple's spat with NVIDIA, this is actually one of my favorite topics. Metal as an API actually makes better use of AMD's graphics card offerings, so the gains Mac users would get on macOS are marginal to none for consumer grade GPUs. However - it is unlikely Apple will support NVIDIA cards for a while. It all dates back to around 2012 when Apple got into a fight with NVIDIA over who was liable for faulty NVIDIA cards shipped with Macs. NVIDIA shrugged the responsibility, and Apple was forced to pick up the bill. AMD however made a more generous bid for Apple-exclusivity, so Apple has stopped supporting NVIDIA until better terms from NVIDIA materialize.

 

[Brandhouse]

"Buy our Mac Pro, 'cause it's as ugly as hell."

 

[techwhiz]

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'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.

Someone that actually gets it.
I won't buy a mini or iMac, they are not suitable for the work.
$6k is too much when to house the $15-20K in Protools and Avid I already have.
The computer is a peripheral, not the center of my work.
I don't pay $6k for a peripheral.
[doublepost=1560209514][/doublepost]

Chances are that user has exactly one specialty PCIe card and the other three are 1) Faster GPU, 2) a USB 3.0 card and 3) an NVMe or SATA SSD card, all three of which are negated by what the iMac includes out of the box. For that user, all he needs is a $200 PCIe expansion box that can hold the one or possibly two PCIe cards he needs to hold on to for whatever specialty equipment he wants to use. Assuming it works with Mojave and/or Catalina's upcoming 64-bit requirements. Otherwise, he would be SOL anyways and needs to update to a newer solution or hang on to that old Mac Pro regardless.

I don't want to buy an overpriced all-in-one computer.
What I want and didn't get and Apple seems to have missed the boat is a $3000ish computer.

They had to G4 towers, G5 towers and MacPro and all started in the $2500-3000 price point.
They have missed the boat this time.

I won't buy a mini since it has no expansion slots and I won't buy the more expensive machine because the $6k doesn't work. For the small independent photographers, video editors and audio shops, this is a non starter when you already are trying to make ends meet.

Giving up $6K for a Mac doesn't work and I'll figure out how to makw what I have work for a while to come.

If they were serious, there would be something between the mini and the "beast".
Even the coffee can didn't start that high. If I had to buy something, it would be a clearance coffee can and expansion chasis. I was hoping for a different solution and the expectation was something expandable at the coffee can price.

 

[bernuli]

Did you just make up that news?

One thing people should learn is that the pro display does come with a monitor stand in the box. They won’t sell it to you without a stand... but it’s a basic stand. If you want the pro magnetic stand then you’ll have to pay extra.

 

[EdT]

The Radeon Vega II Duo is the world's most powerful GPU, outperforming the NVIDIA Titan RTX. Since the Mac Pro can host four of those cards, the Mac Pro ranks incredibly highly in that theatre.

In terms of single-socket CPU systems, the Xeon W lines that the Mac Pro will be using are very competitive and have not been released yet by intel, making them essentially new when the Mac Pro finally hits the store.

As far as Apple's spat with NVIDIA, this is actually one of my favorite topics. Metal as an API actually makes better use of AMD's graphics card offerings, so the gains Mac users would get on macOS are marginal to none for consumer grade GPUs. However - it is unlikely Apple will support NVIDIA cards for a while. It all dates back to around 2012 when Apple got into a fight with NVIDIA over who was liable for faulty NVIDIA cards shipped with Macs. NVIDIA shrugged the responsibility, and Apple was forced to pick up the bill. AMD however made a more generous bid for Apple-exclusivity, so Apple has stopped supporting NVIDIA until better terms from NVIDIA materialize.

As I said, I have no use for any computer with that much graphic capacity, but I am happy that Apple is making performance computers again. Stuff like that can trickle down, although I wonder if Apple is looking at the iPad more than the iMac for future consumer level products.

Didn't know the backstory of NVIDEA, but the problem Apple has with games and graphics basically do center on that company. At least as far as the public is concerned, you need an NVIDEA card if you want 60 fps graphics with your game, whether that is true or not. And game companies aren't moving to make Metal based games. The PC gaming market isn't as large as it was even 5 years ago, and it wasn't large then. Game companies seem to be more interested in consoles, phones and tablet devices. I heard that Blizzard used a major Game-Con to announce their latest (at the time) offering, and everyone thought it would be a new PC and or Console game. It was a mobile game.

That's a long way of saying that mobile and iPad gaming might be a smarter investment for Apple at this point, as computer based gaming isn't growing.

 

[kfscoll]

So many people on this thread unable to distinguish between needs and wants.

Exactly! I don't need it at all. But I sure do want it. My 2013 nMP has been the best computer I've ever had (and I just ordered a 10-core processor to upgrade it a little), and I bet the 2019 MP will be even better. If I can get 5 years out of the '19 MP like I've been able to with my nMP it'll be worth every penny. Am I happy about having to spend $6K? No, not at all. But I'll just save up a little longer and in the meantime I'll "make do" with my 10-core nMP.