Apple to Release Mac Pro and Pro Display XDR on December 10

[Duane Martin]

Heh, Since 2013 those film makers have been using PC's, since the trashcan Mac Pro was so... Trash.

No, they haven’t. They really haven’t. Please don’t be a troll commenting on things you don’t know about. Maybe you do know and simply have a different experience? Well we can catch up and discuss it at Avid Connect and NAB in April because as a pro I am sure you are planning to be there.

 

[Stephen.R]

Of your three questions, only one is actually pertinent to this topic.

My point was more that they're unknown figures, from our perspective.

 

[astro90]

I'm planning on getting the Pro Display but I hope that my new 16" is able to handle it without requiring the BlackMagic eGPU.

The 16" can run two Pro Displays.

 

[theluggage]

My first Mac was the 128k Mac in 1984 (replacing the Apple ][+) and it was about $2500 then or a bit over 6000 today.

Nonsense - sure, you can take the original price and multiply it by the cumulative rate of inflation and get a Fun Factoid about how the world has changed since the 80s, but the result is meaningless for any practical comparison. You're not buying a Mac Pro in 1984. You're buying it in 2019 when all IT equipment is vastly cheaper in real terms. Some of the things you want it to do didn't exist in 1984. If you are one of these True Pros that the Mac Pro is apparently "for" then your IT equipment budget is based on what you can justify in 2019.

The nearest new equivalent would be about $150 today - which is about the least powerful "PC" you can build using something like a Raspberry Pi with a keyboard, mouse and small TFT display... but which is still be an order of magnitude or two more powerful. The $1099 entry-level iMac is science fiction alongside a 1984 Mac. In 1984, an IBM PC would have cost several thousand, too, and be equally primitive alongside a modern $400 el cheapo special from your local box-shifter.

The published rate of general inflation is a crude average of the "cost of living" that may include food, accommodation, fuel, domestic appliances (pick your favourite from RPI, CPI etc.) some of which have increased in price enormously over the years (oh, and probably none of which included the cost of personal computers in 1984). It is a fallacy to apply it to a product when you know darn well that the entire class of products - including PCs, Macs and other IT hardware and consumer electronics - has seen 36 years of deflation while also increasing exponentially in power.

 

[DEMinSoCAL]

Most people complaining about the cost of this thing wouldn't be able to afford the skyrocketing electric bill required to run it anyway

Some states, like TX and AZ that I am familiar with, electricity is cheap. My state, CA, is definitely something to think about as your electric bill will cause sticker shock when you get it! But, living in CA, I'm used to sticker shock on basically everything.

 

[theluggage]

This. Those kinds of stands aren’t cheap regardless of manufacturer, and the people this monitor is for are likely already going to have the mounts to begin with and won’t even be buying the stand.

...actually, the $999 stand is distracting people from the real rip off: $200 for the VESA adapter which is the only alternative (and may stay that way if Apple have patented their proprietary mount). VESA is, basically, 4 threaded boltholes, which could so easily have been neatly incorporated within the new "steampunk" design language.

 

[DEMinSoCAL]

Believe me. Ten years ago the Mac Pro 5.1 was that top especs. And, again, most people said it was "ridiculous expensive".

Ten years ago the 2009 (which was ten years ago) 4,1 Mac Pro started at $2,499. A 2009 MBP was $2,299.

$2499 in 2009 dollars is just over $2997 in 2019 dollars.

So, no...$2499 is nothing like $6000 expensive and wasn't "ridiculous expensive".

The 2010 Mac Pro was available for $2499, $3499 or top end model for $4999.

 

[jonblatho]

will the iMAC pro be updated finally too?

i doubt it. There's been no mention at all. I wish they would. The chips they need are now available. I don't need the power of a Mac Pro, so a revised iMac Pro would be nice.

I’m not sure the iMac Pro will be updated because it doesn’t make a ton of sense from Apple’s perspective to redesign it along with the regular iMac, whenever they finally decide to show some love to the iMac (long overdue). They’ll likely just fold everything into the iMac line, or the interior design differences between the larger iMac and iMac Pro will vanish.

There’s also the issue where a lot of people in the market for a pro workstation just aren’t interested in an all-in-one.

 

[Reed Black12]

and i hope that their sales are absolute crap and they realize that they've lost touch with reality when it comes to their recent mac/display pro pricing.

TRANSLATION: I really, really, REALLY want one and I’m pissed that I can’t afford it! And I’m pissed that others can!

 

[randyhudson]

When studios start editing shows on these new monitors, should we expect even darker Game of Thrones episodes?

 

[Reed Black12]

"The wait is almost over!"

for those .001% that run Final Cut Pro. Otherwise, an absolute rip-off of a machine.

AMD is already running circles around what this machine can do for anything else. Sorry, but Apple killed itself at this price point. It will be a failure in turns of sales numbers when compared to the cMP. Fact.

I am ever more motivated for my Dune Pro case to arrive with the Ryzen 4xxx series. I'm thinking about a 12 core machine...perfect for the Prosumer which the cMP USED TO SUPPORT. It is finally time that I give up Apple with a 10+ year history.

Should be in total, oh.....I don't know, $1400 with quality parts...and reusing my GTX 1070 which will destroy what's in the current cMP?

$5999 with a ****** sized SSD and GPU? F you Apple.

AGAIN, TRANSLATION : I want one but I’m pissed I can’t afford it!!! Hahaha. Haters. Hilarious.

 

[anthogag]

Beautiful setup. I imagine the 6K screen is eye popping.

 

[Stephen.R]

Yes but if all you need is 32 or 64 gigs

I'm genuinely curious what workflow is going to be sufficiently impacted by 32 vs 28 cores, but also only uses 32 or 64GB of memory?

Storage, GPU and CPU cores are all woefully inadequate in the $6,000 model

For what task?

For anyone doing software dev that isn't specifically GPU related (i.e. most of us) the base GPU is more than enough - it will run 6x 4K displays. I'm actually expecting they'd offer the rack mount version with an even lower spec video card, possibly in one of the x8 slots, so the extra x16 slot can be used for other PCI cards that are more use in a build server/etc. The point is, not everyone needs or even benefits from a giant video card that occupies two slots and a heap of PCI lanes.

For anyone working in an established commercial setup, there's a reasonable chance they have a SAN or NAS for storage. Heck some workflows are just easier with portable storage - I use an external M2 based storage device for my work, specifically so I can move to a MBP literally at the drop of a hat. Others will have other needs. Yet again, the point is not everyone has the same requirements.


The CPU I can kind of see your point - it'd be nice if they started at 12 or 16 cores, but even then, not every task is heavily CPU bound. Some may have other requirements that have more impact on their workflow.


So, let's take the above and look at realistic upgrade prices to see where this mythical "$12K" comes from.

In terms of storage, both the 16" MacBook Pro and the iMac Pro will upgrade from 1TB to 4TB of SSD, for $1000. If you get the lower spec MBP it's $1200 to upgrade from 512 to 4TB.
So, picking a nice round number, in line with the above options, I'd expect maybe $800 to go from 256 to 2TB (same as the mini) and $1500-ish to go from 256 to 4TB. It's also entirely possible this will be an aftermarket upgradable feature.

The GPU I don't really know - a regular iMac is $450 to go from a 580X to a "Vega 48". An iMac Pro is $700 to go from a "Vega 56" to a "Vega 64X". But then online outlets have suggested a single Vega II is going to be priced similar to the Quadro RTX series, which apparently are in the $6K range on their own?

Tray price differences between the W3223 (8 core) and W3245 (16 core) is apparently about $1250. The price difference to the W3275M is about $6700, if anyone cares. What's apple going to charge for this? The iMac Pro seems to use custom chips, but they have a lot of similarities with other more mainstream processors in the same series, so comparing the prices of the W-2145 (iMac pro uses W-2140B) to the W-2175 (iMac Pro uses W-2170B) and the W-2195 (iMac Pro uses the W2191B), tray pricing differences vs Apple's iMac Pro upgrade pricing indicates about $1000 extra for Apple prices compared to the Xeon tray price difference for similar models.

So, I'm not even going to consider the GPU because (a) there is literally no reliable clue on pricing and the only guess prices a single card at the same price as the entire rest of the Mac Pro.

But if you wanted to upgrade the SSD to 2TB - it's not unrealistic to expect that'll be in the $800 range, if you need more onboard. For memory, you can go from 32GB to 96GB for as little as ~$400 if you just add 8 more 8GB RDIMMs. The CPUs are a bit of a guess too, but it seems like maybe $2K-ish to go from 8 to 16 cores?


So, while your comment was "it's all woefully inadequate" rather than about upgrade pricing - I still don't see (a) how people come up with "$12K for the minimum required BTO/upgrades", and I flat out disagree with your premise that it's "woefully inadequate".


Having really high end options as the bare minimum is exactly why I didn't buy a 2013 Mac Pro, or a 2017 iMac Pro: I have no use for a (for the time) high end GPU, much less two of the ****ing things, in the case of the 2013 Mac Pro.

What was truly missing from the 2013 Mac Pro, that the previous Mac Pros had before it, was the ability to customise. That's what the 2019 Mac Pro brings back. You want more GPU power? Great, upgrade that part. You want oodles of memory? Super, upgrade that. But to assume every workload has the same hardware requirements is ludicrous.

 

[theluggage]

I can’t think of any working pro who wouldn’t be able to cover the delta between $6k and what you think the base Mac Pro should cost. You’re talking about maybe $50-60 a month over a five year life cycle. That’s a fraction of one billable hour for most.

...but then who is actually going to spend only $6k on the Mac Pro? Even its supporters often admit that the $6k model makes no sense other than as a starting point for custom expansion: on its own, with "only" an 8 core processor, a minimal SSD and an iMac GPU, its going to be less powerful all round than the iMac Pro, and even an i9 iMac will probably beat it in a sprint.

The real complaint about the Mac Pro is the death of the $3K headless Mac for people who just want to choose their own GPU and displays and maybe add extra internal storage. Paying twice that for a system that offers no huge advantages until and unless you load it up with another $10k of upgrades is not value for money.

On Tuesday, we'll find out how much its going to cost to upgrade it to (say) 12 core, 1TB SSD and VegaII, then maybe we can stop kicking this $6k figure around. Based on past performance, though, Apple charges hefty markups on top of the retail price of the nearest equivalent components.

Meanwhile, it is nice to know that the definition of "Pro" means "has an unlimited equipment budget and no constraints on cashflow or credit".

In a corporate/enterprise environment, workers who run those boxes cost $7k/month minimum, fully burdened (i.e. after payroll, taxes, benefits and overhead are taken into account), and many are $10k+.

In a corporate/enterprise environment, payroll and equipment exist in completely separate worlds, and mere mortal computer users don't have the privilege of amortising one against the other. Both will have their own independent budgets and their own bean counters, both of whom will have briefs to cut their spending. The whole game is to meet your efficiency targets by surreptitiously offloading your costs onto other departments and/or wage slaves doing unpaid overtime.

Good luck justifying that $14,000 Mac Pro system to your equipment budget manager if they get it into their head that a $7000 PC workstation and a $1000 course in Alternative Software Product (which they can get HR to pay for) will do the same job. Anyway - were you planning to take a pay/hours cut because your new Mac made you more efficient?

 

[DaveN]

Just in time for many pro users to ge able to deduct the cost from this year's taxes.

 

[Stephen.R]

until and unless you load it up with another $10k of upgrades is not value for money

Ok so we're at "16K or its nothing". At this rate, people will be claiming that nothing short of $25K is usable for basic word processing before BTO pricing is released.

 

[Apples Apples Everywhere]

So, let's take the above and look at realistic upgrade prices to see where this mythical "$12K" comes from.

Yes. I was also skeptical of the $12K figure, $9K seems more likely. But then I thought, Tuesday will come soon enough.

 

[Stephen.R]

but then who is actually going to spend only $6k on the Mac Pro?

Also, just to note:

Even at your estimated $16K, over 5 years, assuming 48 "productive" weeks a year, that's $66 a week, and assumes it's worth $0 to sell/completely unusable for anything in the business, at the end of 5 years. Which it won't be. If your work doesn't produce sufficient income to cover $66 a week for your tools, then no, this machine probably isn't for you.

 

[votdfak]

Wow! There's some jealousy and envy in this thread! Haha!
I've been waiting for this machine for nearly 10 years! Already set aside the money for it. Very excited!

For those complaining about the cost, sorry, it's not for you. It's not. This machine was specifically catered to a specific segment of the entertainment industry: Editors, mixers and yes graphic designers. Sure you can use a Macbook Pro, but when deadlines are tight, you need something faster.

I've been editing professionally for 20 years now and I've worked at facilities with literally over 100 Mac Pro editing stations. For us editors it's MacPro's 2013 and or MacPro 5,1. For assistant editors its all iMacs. Hollywood will pay for something they know will scale and last for years without issue. That being said...

Consider this. The OLD MacPro's are STILL in use at almost every major production company here in LA. We're talking machines from 2009! And the 2013 Mac Pro is also STILL widely used. That being said $6000 grand for a machine that will more than likely last you over a decade, I'd say is a pretty good deal. That breaks down to....
about $50 bucks a month for 10 years! So, I'm all in. I'll upgrade the guts as my needs change.

All of that to edit a ****** Transformers movie?

 

[MauiPa]

Made in Merica

isn't that Merika?
[automerge]1575822606[/automerge]
Get over it haters! if you don't need an Intel Xeon based computer, you will never see the need for it. But you can google (right?) why do other manufacturers sell them (pricey), and why does Intel even make them if their is no use for them?

 

[sparkie7]

This sadly marks the day of the death of the Mac Pro that most of us used to be able to afford. For most of us, the Mac Pro is history due to the price of this new thing.
And nothing will ever get me to use an iMac just on principle....and Mac mini is a runt.
Sigh

there’s always the original cheese grater Mac Pro

 

[zephonic]

I was so ready to get one, but now I need a new car. Always something...

 

[sparkie7]

I was so ready to get one, but now I need a new car. Always something...

just wait for the 2nd iteration when they have ironed out all the bugs and faults

 

[Rogifan]

Apple wants to retain the 1% who creates content for the other 99% in the Apple ecosystem. This Mac Pro and the recently-released 16” MBP is likely an olive branch to stop them from defecting.

Otherwise, it bears reminding that there remains a difference between true professional users who do need the sheer power that a Mac Pro offers (and who appreciates the $6000 XDR display for the value it brings, rather than crack endless jokes about the $1k stand), and a Mac enthusiast who just wants a modular Mac to play around with because they simply don’t want to pay the Apple premium for spec upgrades.

The later is not the target market for this Mac Pro (even though they are the ones making the most noise here), because capability wise, their needs are likely already met by existing Macs; they just don’t want to pay the current asking prices for them.

The new Mac Pro and its display have an audience. It’s just that most of them (or maybe even none of them) frequent Macrumours.

This is it 100%. Most of the people complaining wanted Apple to release a machine they could tinker with. Basically a Hackintosh made by Apple. I think Apple has made it pretty clear they’re not in that business.

 

[GrumpyCoder]

Ten years ago the 2009 (which was ten years ago) 4,1 Mac Pro started at $2,499. A 2009 MBP was $2,299.

Things change in 10 years. I'm just about to place an order for five Dell workstations (need Linux) priced at over $25k each. And these are limited to 1TB of RAM. That isn't a problem for me, I only put 192GB in there as that's all I need for now. Buying the option to support more than 1TB RAM would make these even more expensive, without actually buying the RAM.

Of course I'm not paying retail for these and neither is anyone who orders the new MacPro. Those who don't get a discount are the "professionals" who order it on the Apple website and don't use a certified solution expert.