Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
It’s valid to criticize a company for making a mistake at a presentation when that company’s reputation is they’re the benchmark of how to present products.
We just disagree. You think it was a mistake because “people are talking about the stand”. My position is that people were going to talk about the stand anyway. The joke is not on Apple because of how they announced it, the joke is that the stand exists! There’s no amount of clever marketing or avoiding the elephant in the room that would make the fact that a $999 stand option exists and Apple’s selling it.

My guess is that the wheels weren’t announced because they are of a negligible price, but we’ll see in a few hours :) If the wheels were $999, I’m just as confident that Apple would have made it so that, by the time the Mac Pro ships, the stand is a six month old joke!
 
The base model of the Mac Pro is almost pointless - you are much better of buying an iMac then. The only reason one would get the M.P. is because it can be configured to be much more powerful.

Later today when the configurator is up, we’ll see what the price of a decent config will be. But I fully expect it will be a *lot* higher than the $6,000 entry price.
I have four matching 4k displays in a stand, which iMac would not be great for. I think $6k isn’t enough but $12k is probably high, for me at least. At a minimum, I want 12 or 16 cores and 1 or 2 TB of flash. Maybe I’ll wait on the Vega II and add it later, in favor of my Vega 64 or the base GPU - we’ll see what the price is. Memory is definitely coming from Crucial or another third party.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Stephen.R
I have four matching 4k displays in a stand, which iMac would not be great for. I think $6k isn’t enough but $12k is probably high, for me at least. At a minimum, I want 12 or 16 cores and 1 or 2 TB of flash. Maybe I’ll wait on the Vega II and add it later, in favor of my Vega 64 or the base GPU - we’ll see what the price is. Memory is definitely coming from Crucial or another third party.

if all you want is to power your displays with a decent computer you could still use an iMac or even a Mac Mini.
 
I have four matching 4k displays in a stand, which iMac would not be great for. I think $6k isn’t enough but $12k is probably high, for me at least. At a minimum, I want 12 or 16 cores and 1 or 2 TB of flash. Maybe I’ll wait on the Vega II and add it later, in favor of my Vega 64 or the base GPU - we’ll see what the price is. Memory is definitely coming from Crucial or another third party.

For a 16-core/32GB/2TB SSD/580X I think you are going to be looking at $8399.00. Add $200 to go to 48GB DRAM and be at 6-channels used. We’ll see if I’m close very soon.
 
I can change the tires of the BMW 1 series on my own, don't need to buy a BMW 7 in order to be able to do that. Same for about anything on any BMW. Now try to change an SSD or RAM in a MacBook Air.

The tire argument is old and not a sensible comparison. Tires are consumables. There is nothing in a MacBook Air except maybe software that compares with tires.

Can you upgrade the steering wheel, engine, transmission, suspension, heck the heated leather programmable bucket seats, etc in your BMW 1 series on your own, with nothing but a screwdriver, and without voiding the warranty?

Or if you happen to have the kind of mechanical and electrical engineering expertise to do that then you’re up there with the people who have the kind of electrical engineering skills (and soldering iron, etc) that probably CAN change the RAM in their MacBook Air.

I can option out a BMW 2-series with reversing/parking sensors when I buy it new, but neither myself nor BMW can add that feature after market. Toyota on a Corolla can. I guess Toyota’s are better than BMWs and BMW (the company) is just greedy.
[automerge]1575958366[/automerge]
I feel like it would be enough to reduce the price to $500 but they should really do like $250 or, maybe, I dunno, include the stand with the $5000 monitor!

That’s right. They should give stuff away for free!

Or actually, here’s what they should have done... include the $1K stand with the $5K monitor and charge $6K for it! Then the rest of us who don’t want the stand because we want VESA mounting still get the added bonus of paying for BOTH for $6200, and leave the stand in the box!

Yeah... that’s what they should have done. Those Apple guys are such idiots. Apple is doomed.

/s
 
Last edited:
The joke is not on Apple because of how they announced it, the joke is that the stand exists! There’s no amount of clever marketing or avoiding the elephant in the room that would make the fact that a $999 stand option exists and Apple’s selling it.
There's nothing to justify really.

The target audience who appreciate the value the monitor brings know a good deal when they see one ($1k stand and all).

As for the people who are not the target audience for this device, why are we even trying to coddle them? If they think that the stand isn't correctly priced, then they should simply refuse to buy it, like the Google Pixel 4 or Zune or Surface X.

That's how markets work. Products that don't sell eventually stop getting produced.

And I leave you with this thought - this stand is going to not only securely hold a $5000 monitor, but also allow the display to turn vertical or horizontal, and slide up and down effortlessly, all while holding its position exactly where it is set. Are you all really sure you are ready to cheap out at this critical juncture?

Or you know what? Don't buy this stand. Wait for a much cheaper alternative to show up on the market. I dare the critics to have the "courage" to use this third party alternative instead. Let's see how far it gets them.
 
Well, for 5k € I get a Threadripper system with 32 cores and a 2080 11gb cuda card, being 4 times as fast as the 8 core entry level Mac Pro.

Wonder how much the 28 core Mac Pro will cost! Intel dropped prices because of the Threadripper. We're not stupid. I certainly wont buy a 28core Mac Pro for 20k if i can get the same performance for 5k. Mac OS is great, but not that great ;)

I really really hope Apple understands, that it can't make exponential profits on higher configurations.
This will kill the new Pro. For a modular computer nobody understands why to pay 5-10k+ for a processor upgrade if you can buy the 28core yourself for 3.5k. there is absolutely no reason the 28core config should cost more than 8-9k €.
The good news is you can actually buy that Threadripper machine. Nobody will stop you.
We are speaking about a workstation running macOS here.
 
The good news is you can actually buy that Threadripper machine. Nobody will stop you.
We are speaking about a workstation running macOS here.
you got the point. i'd love to stay on macos.
but i m not spending 20k on an config i get more performance for 6-7k on the pc market.
so lets see what they charge for the 28core
[automerge]1575964862[/automerge]

what the heck, i'm gonna buy a threadripper system to see how that is to work with
for the mac i wait till people post their experience with switching parts (specially the cpu) on their own
 
you got the point. i'd love to stay on macos.
but i m not spending 20k on an config i get more performance for 6-7k on the pc market.
so lets see what they charge for the 28core
[automerge]1575964862[/automerge]

what the heck, i'm gonna buy a threadripper system to see how that is to work with
for the mac i wait till people post their experience with switching parts (specially the cpu) on their own

Out of curiosity what professional applications are you using on Windows ?
 
I thought the Mac Mini could power two 4k displays.... not four....

The built in iGPU is quoted as running 3x 4K displays, but it will only run two of them well at native @2x - to use a scaled mode (i.e. even on a 24" 1920x1080 makes everything look a little bit too 'big' IMO) you'll want an eGPU. I can't comment on 3x personally but I assume the performance hit is worse - also one of the 3 must use HDMI, according to the specs.
 
Out of curiosity what professional applications are you using on Windows ?
i need a workstation to do renderings with cinema4d. this works exactly the same on windows.
for all other uses i'll keep a mac, having both machines in a local network.
for mail/offices/photoshop etc i do not need a mac pro
 
The built in iGPU is quoted as running 3x 4K displays, but it will only run two of them well at native @2x - to use a scaled mode (i.e. even on a 24" 1920x1080 makes everything look a little bit too 'big' IMO) you'll want an eGPU. I can't comment on 3x personally but I assume the performance hit is worse - also one of the 3 must use HDMI, according to the specs.
My mind is muddling over all the posts on this thread... Isn't the 7.1 supposed to come with an 8Tb SSD option? Where did I hear that from?
 
The unique selling point of the Mini is that it has a built-in PSU - I've yet to see a Mini-sized PC that didn't have a whacking great external power brick. So if the specs meet your needs, there's nothing quite as neat as a Mini. Trouble is, with the fiddling small (and expensive to upgrade) SSD and weak Intel baseline iGPU you soon end up with multiple boxes and cables for external storage and eGPU, so that neatness soon goes away.

Obvious alternative is this: https://simplynuc.co.uk/hades-canyon/ No, its not as neat and pretty as the Mini, but it uses Intel's combined mobile i7 + Radeon graphics chip and so has a better balance between CPU and GPU power - so you're less likely to need an eGPU - and has two internal M.2 slots for storage - so you're less likely to need external storage. It also has decent connectivity, including two TB3s (whichis rare on a PC).

Basically, though, if I were going to the Post Office, I wouldn't start from here - instead of getting a tiny PC then hanging endless external boxes off it, I'd decide what I wanted in terms of processor, internal storage, GPU and PCIe and get something just big enough to accommodate them all. Probably custom-build something around a Mini-ITX or MicroATX board, but if you don't want to do that there are places that will build and guarantee PCs (e.g. off the top of my head https://www.quietpc.com/systems - but bear in mind they specialise in ultra-quiet/silent systems, so there's a premium for that).

(That's why Apple's refusal to build a headless system with modest internal expansion is so frustrating)



...actually, when I bought a 2006 Mac Pro, I did the math and you really couldn't get a similarly-specced (dual Xeon) PC for the same price. The current iMacs are pretty reasonable value too if you want a 5k screen (and upgrade your own RAM). Reality check: the people complaining about Apple prices today are Apple users who have been paying the "Apple Tax" for years, but since ~2016 have seen that going up and up. The infamous display stand (although that's really not something I care about) even shocked an auditorium full of Apple superfans at WWDC.



No, I want MacOS and am prepared to pay a premium. I don't need it, and I'm not prepared to pay a $2000 premium.



...who are consequently one of the biggest buyers and makers of consumer electronics components, a field where economy of scale means everything. The other thing large companies can afford is top-flight accountants who's whole job is to convince shareholders that they're making money hand over fist while convincing the Revenue that they're barely making a penny. The only thing I'd believe about their "margin" figures is that they're computed by some accepted (by accountants) process. The consistent pattern of Apple's results over the last few years has been significantly rising revenue despite fairly stable sales.
<snip>
Yes, Apples Mac Pros used to be cheaper when they were introduced in 2006. But as CPUs matured to the point that they were “fast enough” and no longer needed to be updated every few years, the market changed.

Sales of the Mac Pro decreased markedly as mainstream desktop processors like those in iMac became capable of doing the job that formerly would have required Mac Pro. Many pros switched to the iMac platform, which as you say, provided tremendous value with their amazingly inexpensive 27” Retina screen. Many pros bought—and still buy—MacBook Pro.

The iMac, mini, iMac and Mac Pro comprise only 20% of Mac market share; less than 4 million units a year between all 4 models. And iMac is probably 3 of those 4 million.

In short, there’s no room for the tiny niche market of Mac Pro to be further subdivided into yet another platform. As much as you want a cut-down Mac Pro, not enough people want what you want. As the volume collapsed, prices had to increase to keep the platform viable. There are no economies of scale anymore for Mac Pro.

Anyway, whatever the reasons may be, Macs are expensive. You say too expensive, and surely that’s true for you, but 20 million buyers a year disagree with you. It’s unfortunate more people don’t want a smaller Mac Pro, but Apple‘s never going to be able to make everyone happy. If you want a tower form factor, it’s $6,000. Upgrades are expensive, sure—but that’s true of every single Mac Apple sells. As they say, it is what it is.

Apples financials are audited, and I don’t think anyone is skimming any profits. There revenue is what it is, the expenses are what they are, and
the 20% that’s left over is barely sufficient for Wall Street to begrudgingly grant the marginally decent P/E ratio underlying the share price of AAPL.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mBox
Yeah, I hope so.

(Annual updates are unlikely anyway because Intel doesn't actually update its workstation CPUs that often.)
Nor does AMD update their GPUs all that often. Every 2 to 2.5 years or so would be a reasonable expectation. Maybe a little longer if they’re waiting for a new tech, like maybe PCIe 5.0 cards or something.
[automerge]1575970258[/automerge]
Only the top 1% professional or studio can afford this.
Nope. Every professional or studio can afford this.

What do you think this $6k machine should cost? $5k? $4k? $3k?

Fine, $3k. So it’s “overpriced” by $3k. Suck it up. There’s not a professional or studio in the top 99% that can’t afford an extra $50 per month.

Is there????
 
Last edited:
Asrock has an X399 motherboard that lists RDIMM support on their website.
No idea if it's in production yet (no one appears to have seen any), but specs and QVL are listed at AsRock Rack.

No idea if they will release a TRX40 mobo that will support RDIMM. At least ASRock TRX40 Creator or Taichi don't support RDIMM.

There is a rumor that AMD might release Two new chipsets (TRX80, WRX80) wtih 3990X. Those new Mobos will support 8 channel memory & might come with RDIMM and LRIDMM support.
It’s not the MB manufacturer that decides whether to provide RDIMM support; AMD’s CPU must support it.

Up until now, they have reserved that to EPYC. I doubt they want to undercut that with the 3990X, but maybe they will, who knows?
[automerge]1575971155[/automerge]
For businesses who want to buy this Section 179 of the IRS tax code is your friend (and for buying a big vehicle). They can convert 30 grand in taxes into a computer instead, if allowed. I would say hellll yeaaa send it to me now lol

https://www.section179.org/section_179_vehicle_deductions/
[automerge]1575912386[/automerge]
I feel your pain as I'm going to work for myself in the new year and I really want that monitor stand so I can deduct it lol
Section 179 for equipment has been raised to $1,000,000. But note that 179 isn’t allowable if the business operates at a net loss for the year. You’ve got to be profitable to use §179 otherwise you must capitalize and depreciate over the useful life.
 
Last edited:
$6000 - $2000 = $4000 left to spend.
Indeed not many. And that doesn’t take support and reliability into account.
[automerge]1575972031[/automerge]
For approximately $5000 you already have a complete PC build consisting of
- 32-core AMD CPU
- 2x RTX 2080 GPU’s (way more powerful than the 580’s in the $6000 Mac Pro)
- 2TB Samsung SSD’s
- 128gb DDR4 RAM
- 1200W Corsair power supply
- Motherboard
- Case

For $6000, you can even make it more nice.

Now compare that against the horsepower of the $6000 8-core Mac Pro with a single 580 GPU.
Nice gaming computer. Not running macOS.
We are speaking about something else here.
[automerge]1575972222[/automerge]
and all parts easily replaceable und upgradeable, unlike apples “modular” pc with soldered 256gb :p SSD... this thing is a joke
They are not soldered.
At least take a look at apple website before posting...
[automerge]1575972431[/automerge]
It’s really not rocket science... AOI have shorter lifespan than modular desktops.
and things will get much worse when all the macs with soldered ssd/ram reach their EOL much sooner than Apple customers are used to....
And I’m sure you have proofs for your claims, right ?
[automerge]1575972654[/automerge]
Evidence to back this ridiculous claim up?
Go ask IBM about that, if you wish.
 
Last edited:
File from iOS.gif
 
The A9 is a desktop class processor according to Apple: I wouldn’t put stock in marketing speak.
The 8x00B CPUs in the mini are 65W desktop class parts. They are identical to the 8x00 non-B suffixed desktop CPUs except for the packaging; the B versions are not socketed, they use BGA mounting only, like mobile chips.

If you compare the CPUs in the ARK, you’ll find they are the same except the package. For instance:

I7-8700

https://ark.intel.com/content/www/u...-8700-processor-12m-cache-up-to-4-60-ghz.html

i7-8700B

https://ark.intel.com/content/www/u...8700b-processor-12m-cache-up-to-4-60-ghz.html

They are the same CPU except for the package. If you prefer to call the B version Mobile that’s perfectly acceptable; in terms of marketing, that’s the vertical segment Intel slotted it into. But realize it’s “mobile” in name only.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.