Apple's Newest Mac Pro Turns Four Years Old Today

[BaltimoreMediaBlog]

I still adore that design. I don’t think it’s proper to do so, but here I am.

It would have been a perfect replacement for the PowerMac G4 Cube, a tiny Mac mid-range tower, which Apple refuses to do.
But they clearly didn't understand the pro market.
[doublepost=1513756120][/doublepost]

Steve Jobs disagrees with you. I think he was in the best position to know what Apple needed for the next decade. Looking at the success of Cook’s Apple, it seems he was right.

I know there were those weird reports that Forstall wanted to be CEO, but he’s a software guy. I never bought the story that anyone considered him CEO material, including Forstall himself.

I disagree. I think Jobs simply knew that Timmy would suck his cock anytime he wanted and would do any plan he envisioned for the future. I don't even think we really know what Tim Cook wants, except for his obsession with Animojis, shiny things and unicorns. Jobs was defiant until death, and was absolutely convinced his mojo would save his life instead of REAL scientific medical treatment. I really think he believed that Tim Cook would be simply a temporary steward that would do anything he'd planned. Which is pretty much what Tim Cook did right?

PS: I think these Mac Pros will sell cheap on eBay after Apple stops support. Real Pro users don't want them and the general public still doesn't even know that they exist!

 

[Quu]

So you said builds get cheaper. Yet then say the builds Apple uses aren’t cheaper. Huh?

Yes because third parties use parts that make sense. The 1950X from AMD is used in non-Apple builds and offers equivalent performance to Intel's 16 Core XEON that is used in the iMac and potentially in the new Mac Pro. For significantly less cost.

But Intel and Apple have some kind of special relationship so you get a worse part for more money. Similar situation with AMD Graphics and Apple. The Titan XP is faster than both the Vega 56 and Vega 64 but Apple chooses not to use it because they have some special relationship with AMD for Graphics (but not CPU's) so you get a worse product.

Basically Apple needs someone to help with their desktop Macs that actually can make decisions based on the facts and not the partnerships Apple has forged years ago, those partnerships have locked them into purchasing parts that don't make sense from a financial, performance or feature perspective.

Here is another example. Pro's want a Mac Pro with Workstation class hardware, ECC Memory etc. But average Mac users don't need that. They would prefer to have a small tower that is somewhere between a Mac Mini and a Mac Pro.

ITX form factor with a single PCIe slot and two RAM slots with a socketed processor that could take a Core i3/i5/i7 or an R3/R5/R7 from AMD. The price would be around $1,000 starting price and go to about $2,999 when maxed out to 64GB of RAM, Core i7/R7 CPU, NVIDIA GTX 1080 Ti or AMD Vega 64 with 512GB to 1TB of M.2 SSD storage.

That is the Mac most desktop Mac users have wanted for years. Buying the Mac Pro and getting much more CPU and GPU grunt than you need with workstation class stability features like ECC memory are just not what the majority of people have needed. Putting the start price for a Mac Pro at $4,999 will not make anyone happy, not the professional users who will feel ripped off when you can get a cheaper workstation half the price elsewhere and not the Mac consumers who just want a headless Mac desktop instead of an non-upgradable iMac or Mac Mini.

I hope what I'm saying makes sense, in the grand scheme Apple doesn't care, they make money hand over fist and it's the money they care about, they're a business they don't owe us anything, it's about the money and I get that, but it doesn't change that their Mac's aren't competitive, it just means the iPhone is all they care about now and if you like the Mac you're seeing it slowly being put out to pasture.

 

[BaltimoreMediaBlog]

Yes because third parties use parts that make sense. The 1950X from AMD is used in non-Apple builds and offers equivalent performance to Intel's 16 Core XEON that is used in the iMac and potentially in the new Mac Pro. For significantly less cost.

But Intel and Apple have some kind of special relationship so you get a worse part for more money. Similar situation with AMD Graphics and Apple. The Titan XP is faster than both the Vega 56 and Vega 64 but Apple chooses not to use it because they have some special relationship with AMD for Graphics (but not CPU's) so you get a worse product.

Basically Apple needs someone to help with their desktop Macs that actually can make decisions based on the facts and not the partnerships Apple has forged years ago, those partnerships have locked them into purchasing parts that don't make sense from a financial, performance or feature perspective.

Here is another example. Pro's want a Mac Pro with Workstation class hardware, ECC Memory etc. But average Mac users don't need that. They would prefer to have a small tower that is somewhere between a Mac Mini and a Mac Pro.

ITX form factor with a single PCIe slot and two RAM slots with a socketed processor that could take a Core i3/i5/i7 or an R3/R5/R7 from AMD. The price would be around $1,000 starting price and go to about $2,999 when maxed out to 64GB of RAM, Core i7/R7 CPU, NVIDIA GTX 1080 Ti or AMD Vega 64 with 512GB to 1TB of M.2 SSD storage.

That is the Mac most desktop Mac users have wanted for years. Buying the Mac Pro and getting much more CPU and GPU grunt than you need with workstation class stability features like ECC memory are just not what the majority of people have needed. Putting the start price for a Mac Pro at $4,999 will not make anyone happy, not the professional users who will feel ripped off when you can get a cheaper workstation half the price elsewhere and not the Mac consumers who just want a headless Mac desktop instead of an non-upgradable iMac or Mac Mini.

I hope what I'm saying makes sense, in the grand scheme Apple doesn't care, they make money hand over fist and it's the money they care about, they're a business they don't owe us anything, it's about the money and I get that, but it doesn't change that their Mac's aren't competitive, it just means the iPhone is all they care about now and if you like the Mac you're seeing it slowly being put out to pasture.

Wow, you just said a mouthful and I agree with everything you just said!

 

[Bacillus]

Just goes to show Apple doesn't give a **** about professionals anymore.

Loyal owners will be offered the Apple Museum Logo from Phil (who keeps trying to innovate his ass since 2013)

 

[hvfsl]

Yes because third parties use parts that make sense. The 1950X from AMD is used in non-Apple builds and offers equivalent performance to Intel's 16 Core XEON that is used in the iMac and potentially in the new Mac Pro. For significantly less cost.

But Intel and Apple have some kind of special relationship so you get a worse part for more money. Similar situation with AMD Graphics and Apple. The Titan XP is faster than both the Vega 56 and Vega 64 but Apple chooses not to use it because they have some special relationship with AMD for Graphics (but not CPU's) so you get a worse product.

Basically Apple needs someone to help with their desktop Macs that actually can make decisions based on the facts and not the partnerships Apple has forged years ago, those partnerships have locked them into purchasing parts that don't make sense from a financial, performance or feature perspective.

Here is another example. Pro's want a Mac Pro with Workstation class hardware, ECC Memory etc. But average Mac users don't need that. They would prefer to have a small tower that is somewhere between a Mac Mini and a Mac Pro.

ITX form factor with a single PCIe slot and two RAM slots with a socketed processor that could take a Core i3/i5/i7 or an R3/R5/R7 from AMD. The price would be around $1,000 starting price and go to about $2,999 when maxed out to 64GB of RAM, Core i7/R7 CPU, NVIDIA GTX 1080 Ti or AMD Vega 64 with 512GB to 1TB of M.2 SSD storage.

That is the Mac most desktop Mac users have wanted for years. Buying the Mac Pro and getting much more CPU and GPU grunt than you need with workstation class stability features like ECC memory are just not what the majority of people have needed. Putting the start price for a Mac Pro at $4,999 will not make anyone happy, not the professional users who will feel ripped off when you can get a cheaper workstation half the price elsewhere and not the Mac consumers who just want a headless Mac desktop instead of an non-upgradable iMac or Mac Mini.

I hope what I'm saying makes sense, in the grand scheme Apple doesn't care, they make money hand over fist and it's the money they care about, they're a business they don't owe us anything, it's about the money and I get that, but it doesn't change that their Mac's aren't competitive, it just means the iPhone is all they care about now and if you like the Mac you're seeing it slowly being put out to pasture.

Completely agree, although part of the reason Apple don't use Nvidia is because of a patent dispute with them. But they did hint that the new Mac Mini will be a bigger/more powerful machine. So maybe we will finally get what we want in 2018.

 

[pppx3]

Well, I for one, can wait for the new Mac Mini / Mac Pro desktops... get a move on Apple. Once they are released, I'm hoping that the trash can Mac will become cheaper on the second hand market and then I might pick one up. Right now, they are overpriced and selling to a market that is so small... and getting smaller.

 

[62tele]

Apple Pencil. Airpods. Apple Watch. All excellent products. I feel Apple is no less innovative than before. They just aren’t innovating in areas you particularly care for.

I have an Apple Watch. It sits in a drawer unused. Hardly innovative. Apple Pencil is a niche product. AirPods are earbuds with nice technology. You're right. None of those are rocking my world.
Tim keeps has been promising "amazing" things in the pipeline for years. If those three are any measure then they've lowered the bar for amazing.

 

[Abazigal]

I have an Apple Watch. It sits in a drawer unused. Hardly innovative. Apple Pencil is a niche product. AirPods are earbuds with nice technology. You're right. None of those are rocking my world.

While I am using them happily every day. Especially the Apple Pencil. It was like a "Finally!" moment when the Apple TV finally supported peer-to-peer mirroring and the iPad Pro with Apple Pencil was released, making my classroom teaching workflow finally complete.

Our mileage will vary. And as with any pivot in product strategy, there will always be winners and losers. I guess I am just lucky that I am positioned in such a manner that I have gained much more than I have lost.

 

[tomscott1988]

Apple doesn't care, they make money hand over fist and it's the money they care about, they're a business they don't owe us anything, it's about the money and I get that, but it doesn't change that their Mac's aren't competitive, it just means the iPhone is all they care about now and if you like the Mac you're seeing it slowly being put out to pasture.

Are they? Mac sales equate to 10% of revenue... I bet R&D isnt cheap and tbh im sure Apple thought it was time for them to move on. This is why there is a price hike all Mac Pro machines started at £1750-2000 in the past now a completely close iMac Pro is £5k start. Lower volume so higher prices.

iDevice sales are slowing too so maybe they have realised that the pros were the ones that pushed the mac into the hands of normal people as a great alternative to windows. There has always been apple tax but its getting silly. There is nothing pro about any of the Macbook pros yet they cost £1500 to start because of low volume sales, it makes up the numbers.

Just disappointing watching all of this.

The majority of pros are graphic designers/web developers/photographers/video editors its not exactly the biggest earning job on earth and most will feel like £5k is well beyond what they need to spend. The Mac Pro will probably have similar specs but because its in a better thermal box and upgradable it will cost 2k more without the screen.

 

[curtvaughan]

The Mac Pro towers from 2006 to 2012 shows that there is hope, I think.

That Apple hope died with SJ.

 

[canonical]

As a very happy R2D2 Mac Pro owner -- and a Mac user since 1984 -- all I can say is:

The current Mac Pro is the most reliable Mac I have ever owned; the build quality and design are outstanding. It is also the quietest pro Mac I have ever owned; and the coolest headless Mac design (along with the Cube). I think it is a stunning piece of engineering and I absolutely love it.

Apple could easily upgrade it with components from the new iMac Pro e.g. faster graphics cards --- the thermal design of the Mac Pro is certainly superior to that of the all-in-one iMac Pro --- and it should be easy for Apple to do so.

 

[Martyimac]

As a very happy R2D2 Mac Pro owner -- and a Mac user since 1984 -- all I can say is:

The current Mac Pro is the most reliable Mac I have ever owned; the build quality and design are outstanding. It is also the quietest pro Mac I have ever owned; and the coolest headless Mac design (along with the Cube). I think it is a stunning piece of engineering and I absolutely love it.

Apple could easily upgrade it with components from the new iMac Pro e.g. faster graphics cards --- the thermal design of the Mac Pro is certainly superior to that of the all-in-one iMac Pro --- and it should be easy for Apple to do so.

I love mine also. But I doubt Apple will make the attempt to bring components from the new iMac pro to the cMP, sadly.

 

[nt5672]

Steve Jobs disagrees with you. I think he was in the best position to know what Apple needed for the next decade. Looking at the success of Cook’s Apple, it seems he was right.

I know there were those weird reports that Forstall wanted to be CEO, but he’s a software guy. I never bought the story that anyone considered him CEO material, including Forstall himself.

Steve Jobs picked Cook because that was the best of the options to protect his family's investment in Apple and give them time to divest before Apple falls from grace. Nothing wrong with that, but just saying it is the only thing that makes sense. Cook has the computer, iPhone design knack of a rock and is in no way capable of controlling Ive. But he can pump out the profits as long as Apple is lucky, and they have been.

 

[PickUrPoison]

I have an Apple Watch. It sits in a drawer unused. Hardly innovative. Apple Pencil is a niche product. AirPods are earbuds with nice technology. You're right. None of those are rocking my world.
Tim keeps has been promising "amazing" things in the pipeline for years. If those three are any measure then they've lowered the bar for amazing.

Plenty of users think the watch, pencil and AirPods are amazing. iPhone X has been called amazing, you might call it “meh”.

I think Cook could introduce a flying car and the reaction by some on MR would be, “meh... only good to 10,000 feet and 300 mph; Steve would be rolling in his grave. Cook can’t innovate.”

So maybe your bar is just too high. What consumer electronics products, by any company, do you find amazing?

 

[zarmanto]

Apple needs to prove they can chew gum and walk at the same time. A new Mac mini should be unveiled at the same time as the new Mac Pro. And it should be expandable as well.

As I was reading the article, a very similar thought entered my own mind. Honestly, it may just be a pipe dream... but picture this:

Tim Cook walks out on stage, offers his usual round of numbers and statistics and talks about how rosy everything is. Then he prepares to introduce the new Macs, and begins with... the new Mini! Up-gradable RAM has returned, SSD drives are standard, it's a dramatic aesthetic departure from years gone by, and at "only" moderately higher price than previous generations. Light applause all around, and moderate excitement from some of the technophiles in the room.

Then he intros the new modular Mac Pro... and it's identical to the Mini! In fact, it is the Mini! Tim goes on to explain the new-fangled ultra-high-speed interconnect bus interface, and that you can add up to two discrete graphics cards as modules, multiple hard drive modules, (both SSD and HDD) and they all simply stack neatly right underneath the "Mini" CPU module! Further, third party vendors can also make compatible modules! Need a DTV digitizer from Elgato or Hauppauge? There's a module for that! Need a Bluray disc player? There's a module for that! Need more USB/Firewire/Thunderbolt ports? There are a bunch of module options for that! And the holy grail... you need a faster processor? Swap out that CPU module at the top for a higher end unit... and now you suddenly have two whole computers, either of which can mix and match with your modules! (Or just sell that low-end unit back to Apple, to defray from the costs of your new unit.) Each new detail brings with it an increasing crescendo of applause, as even the non-geeks start to recognize a real winner -- it literally has something for everybody!

I know, I know... my optimism is positively overwhelming. But this kind of design philosophy is the only way I can see that Apple might ever fulfill the longstanding xMac/Mythical Mid-range Mac Mini-tower wishlist that so many of us have been pining after, for many years now. In addition, it would efficiently push a single design out for multiple target audiences, ranging up and down the price spectrum... and we all know how much Tim loves efficiency!

So you never know... maybe it'll happen. One day.

 

[Peperino]

You can send it to the Smithsonian Museum, as the worst design ever for an Apple computer...

 

[star-affinity]

That Apple hope died with SJ.

I wouldn't be so sure yet. But what do I know…

 

[pertusis1]

Based on the iMac Pro price it wouldn't surprise me if the new Mac Pro starts at $4,999 also with another $1,999 for the new display they make to go with it. Gone are the days of a $1999-$2,499 start price for a Mac Pro I think.

In 1996, I bought a Performa 6360 and a 17" (huge) CRT monitor for about $2500. Twenty two years later, I can buy a kickin' 27" computer for not much more adjusting for inflation. My Mac Pro 5,1 (dual 6 core 2.4 GHz with a spinning drive and 12 GB RAM) was $3800 in 2012. I did get it cheaper due to an Amazon pricing mistake , but that's beside the point. I spent about $1500 upgrading it since then. I can't really justify the iMac Pro based on my needs, but let's not pretend they're asking for the moon. Nice computers have always been expensive.

I'm going to put my guess out there that the starting mMP will be less expensive than the starting iMac Pro. The 5K monitor really does run up the cost of the iMac Pro a bit.

 

[DarthMoops]

Less emojis, more Macs please.

 

[Malarkey]

As a graphic designer and illustrator, I'm ditching Apple already. Researching PC builds. BOXX Technologies has some nice machines and does a good job lambasting Apple for ditching us. The Logical Increments site has good tips on even building your own machine. Plus it would be nice to have access to some of the video games PC people have been playing for years. It's time to make the switch.

 

[SecuritySteve]

Thermals are fine for the dual GPUs used as two sides of the triangle inside the cylinder.

But that triangular design was not usable with the “one, big 250 Watt (nVIDIA!) video card” model that ended up being what some users required. Apple thought a “two, smaller Radeon video card” solution was the way forward, and they were wrong.

The design didn’t allow them to pivot to the one big GPU requirement.
[doublepost=1513748538][/doublepost]
4 years is not 4 Xeon generations. Unless your application(s) use AVX512 instructions, the 8-core e5-1680v2 that’s in the cylinder is on par with the fastest 8-core Xeon currently shipping, is it not?

I phrased that poorly, I had meant to say that it was four years old which was generations ago. My apologies. That said, the new chips contain new vectorization technology that makes compiling code faster per instruction.

 

[PickUrPoison]

I phrased that poorly, I had meant to say that it was four years old which was generations ago. My apologies. That said, the new chips contain new vectorization technology that makes compiling code faster per instruction.

Gotcha. I honestly didn’t think there had been any real upgrades to what Apple’s using, until just recently with the Xeon-W and Skylake-SP releases.

Do you think the upcoming Mac Pro will just offer the W series with its max 18 cores, or will they go with the 61xx/81xx? There are some nice parts there... 6144, 6146, 6154, 8168, 8180. 6-channel memory is a big deal for those whose workloads are bottlenecked by memory bandwidth. I suppose dual processors would be too much to ask for. I guess it all depends on how pro is Pro.

My guess is W series; after all Apple’s never offered more than 12 cores before now, and the market for 20-56 core workstations must be very small. But then again, they have offered dual socket machines in the past, though definitely not at the $15k-75k level.

 

[Miss_Mac]

They are lovely machines. Curious to see what comes next and would love it if the Mini inherited some of the ideas and design from the 2013 nMP. I'd be completely okay with a shiny black metal donut (or baby Apple Park ) on my desk. I just cannot seeing buying one of these now (I'd want at least a 6 core) for the prices and its age.

 

[BornAgainMac]

My quad core i7 Mac mini is five years old today. It's sad there isn't a replacement for it available yet.

I am lucky enough to own one of those. Best Mac Mini that ever was created.

 

[loby]

Y

I am lucky enough to own one of those. Best Mac Mini that ever was created.

Agree. I ran to the store once I heard the specs on the updated (or downgraded) 2014 Mac mini model and picked up the last one on their clearance rack. Store did not know it’s worth and was making room for the new version...

Yes, it is the best so far, though I still like my Mac mini late 2009! 4-Core makes a big difference over dual core. I hope it lasts for years to come. Upgraded the Ram to 16 GB and put an SSD in it....a joy.