Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple's User-Installable Mac Pro SSD Kits Now Available With Up to 8TB of Storage for $2,800
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
lol always the whiners ... for F sakes guys, come on. You wanted Apple to loosen its grips on a tightly controlled piece of hardware, and allow user upgradeability on everything. Well, now you have it. And again, complaints lol
Hint: Apple products in general, are priced high. Also the memory chips used on the SSD's are high quality. Not cheap junk you find in something like the "Evo" or "OWC" type SSD replacements. Pull the cover off one and look for yourself. At least it's high-end, AND an option for user-replaceable storage. The very thing people were worried about with the T2 chip.
Also ... back in the day when I used to work on PC's I always had at least access, to a spare monitor and PC of some description even if it was "10 years old" that I could boot to use for troubleshooting or component checks etc. No different here.
Hint: Apple products in general, are priced high. Also the memory chips used on the SSD's are high quality. Not cheap junk you find in something like the "Evo" or "OWC" type SSD replacements. Pull the cover off one and look for yourself. At least it's high-end, AND an option for user-replaceable storage. The very thing people were worried about with the T2 chip.
Also ... back in the day when I used to work on PC's I always had at least access, to a spare monitor and PC of some description even if it was "10 years old" that I could boot to use for troubleshooting or component checks etc. No different here.
I can show you an example where a 10900k machine for $4,000 blows a $20,000 Mac Pro out of the water for After Effects.
I don’t need to get into the Threadripper argument where cores/threads are the typical comeback.
It’s great that the Mac Pro is upgradable but aren’t you taking $5,000 worth of parts out of a one year old machine when a $4,000 PC can do the same thing?
The value proposition across the board for anything Apple when it comes to desktops is non-existent.
Of course you can, because After Effects doesn’t scale well beyond 8-cores regardless. I’ve seen lots of comparisons and buying a 28-Core monster for After Effects is a fools errand, be it Windows or macOS. Adobe charges a mint, but lacks the skills and willpower to update their monolithic apps.
The sad fact is that most apps don’t scale well beyond 8-cores with some notable exceptions, with the most obvious being 3-D apps. Honestly I think Apple priced the damn thing so high to keep people from buying it because they knew they were switching to Arm and don’t want to support people who waited for a 3K slot box to find out that it was going away shortly. The people here are already apoplectic about practically everything, but Apple painted themselves into a corner pre-announcing the Pro in 2017. Making it $6K keeps the user base low for the transition and if you can afford $20K for the machine, Apple will make sure you are able to use it for 5-7 years.
Desktops are the least interesting thing out there. Apple telegraphed this back in 2006, but people here keep wishing for something that isn’t happening and can’t accept it. Apple gives them 4 different options, but is never going to give the PCMR what they want, ever. How this looks moving forward with Arm won’t change that. Apple is fine with losing some users through the transition. The gains in other users will
More than make up for it. If a desktop is your main focus as a user, you gave up on Apple back in 2012 or you adapted to what they sold. But desktops are the niche now and I think it just grated on the PCMR, because they aren’t being catered to anymore, at least by Apple.
[automerge]1592324134[/automerge]
It’s the Computer Shopper/PC Part Picker mentality. They want to pay the least amount possible, but want Apple quality while having 3000 different supported pieces of hardware like Windows they can nickel and dime together and want it to run like an integrated whole. It won’t and Apple knows that is a money pit. Then they wonder why Linux gets no traction in the marketplace. DUH!!!
Last edited:
Is it safe to say you have no idea why customers pay $50-100k for Xeon workstations from Dell, Lenovo, HP and yes, Apple?
PS Five figures? 🤣
Last edited:
If that is a 2.5" SATA TLC drive there is a huge gap in performance. Not quite all of $500 but the performance is a major issue. Apple is using MLC chips NAND chips there is also a substantive gap filler. ( Samsung 970 Pro 1 TB or 860 Pro 1TB ). This is priced like a higher end 2016-2017 MLC drive, which is going to look odd against 2020's TLC and QLC options. .
If Apple's are TLC NAND chips then yeah lots of "fat" to fill the Scrooge McDuck money pit that Apple has.
Not only a huge gap in performance, but also durability of the flash chips. The other performance metric most don't pay attention to when they buy cheap bargain-bin components like a 1TB SSD for $155 ... is the 4K random read and write speeds etc. and uncompressed vs compressed read/write speeds.
That $155 SSD is trash, outside of on super cheap computers that are expected to be used very casually, and usually you see "550MB/s" read and write speeds, but only under ideal scenarios on large single file transfers. Load one of those cheap SSD's up with a task like transferring 4,000+ files of all different types and sizes and watch those cheap SSD's operate at around 10MB/s. A far way off from the advertised "550MB/s".
That $155 SSD is trash, outside of on super cheap computers that are expected to be used very casually, and usually you see "550MB/s" read and write speeds, but only under ideal scenarios on large single file transfers. Load one of those cheap SSD's up with a task like transferring 4,000+ files of all different types and sizes and watch those cheap SSD's operate at around 10MB/s. A far way off from the advertised "550MB/s".
True. Apple increased their unit sales (assuming the analysts guesses are correct), but PCs increased even more. So Apple’s share of the Mac+PC total market decreased.Marketshare is decreasing, not increasing.
Mac shipments grow slightly, but Apple's PC market share shrinks [u] | AppleInsider
Apple's market share in the global PC market shrunk slightly in the third quarter of 2019 compared with last year, according to Canalys, despite the company seeing a year-on-year increase in Mac and MacBook shipments.appleinsider.com
It’s not about any R&D on any SSDs, it’s about the fact that Apple burns $1.5 billion per month on R&D as a category. Per month, every month.
How would you have Apple pay for that? Those costs have to be covered by selling products and services at prices high enough to take care of all the expenses (and leave enough left over after taxes to satisfy shareholders).
For Macs in particular, you could have the cheaper upgrades you want. But the base price would have to go up to offset the loss of revenue. Would a $1,300 MacBook Air with cheaper upgrades be more to your liking? Maybe, but those who would like a $1,000, $1,100 or $1,200 config probably wouldn’t think so.
Thank you for that bit of fact that I did not know. It kind of puts to rest the cores/threads argument if there is no software (Generally speaking.) not moving beyond 8 cores why does Intel and AMD keep pushing that figure? Just marketing and hype?
Even in gaming not too many titles push CPU limits even beyond a core; about the only one I can think of off the top of my head is Project Cars 2 which is all physics based.
I understand that there are things that workstations do that I am wholly unfamiliar with. Modeling, AI, machine learning etc. However you’re getting into very specialized hardware that isn’t priced and built at all like consumer goods. Nor do I expect to log into HP, Apple or Dell and find them among the Omens, iMacs and XPS/Alienware hardware.
There is software that takes advantage of 16, 24 or 28 cores. Also, have none of you talking about the "cores/threads" argument ever sat and used your computer for various tasks and even taken a look at Activity Monitor?
You'll see the OS is capable of assigning cores to different tasks and pieces of software, to the point of utilizing all cores and threads. It's kind of the same as the "more memory doesn't necessarily mean 'better'" past a certain point ... except, if you can use it.
The other thing that happens as time goes on and processor design advances, and ultimately raises the baseline for "how many cores is enough", is that software will slowly catch up. On top of that, the inter-core communication and bus design improves.
This is such a silly and overdone discussion ... should CPU manufacturers just stop making more CPU's? lol ... argument, done.
You'll see the OS is capable of assigning cores to different tasks and pieces of software, to the point of utilizing all cores and threads. It's kind of the same as the "more memory doesn't necessarily mean 'better'" past a certain point ... except, if you can use it.
The other thing that happens as time goes on and processor design advances, and ultimately raises the baseline for "how many cores is enough", is that software will slowly catch up. On top of that, the inter-core communication and bus design improves.
This is such a silly and overdone discussion ... should CPU manufacturers just stop making more CPU's? lol ... argument, done.
Apple runs its PCIe storage off of both depending on the model Mac you own. For example, on the 13” MacBook Pro, it runs off of the CPU, on the iMac, off the PCH, all due to how the CPU’s PCIe lanes are allocated.
[automerge]1592402524[/automerge]
Agreed, and I’m not saying more than 8 cores is not something worthwhile...I’m only saying that there is a practical limit to how many cores the average user really will need day in and day out for typical computing tasks.
I see what you're saying now - I agree with the practical limit the average user will need for typical computing tasks. That will always be the case for sure. I don't think anyone will complain about faster systems, and more responsive UI, app opening etc. etc. but for typical tasks it's wise to more heavily balance performance and power consumption, with power consumption as being a top priority.
Four cores were reaching the end of the line in 2016, but Intel dragged it out on old process nodes to maximize all the profit they could possibly get. AMD threw down the gauntlet and then slapped Intel with it. Four cores are acceptable on entry level and ultra books, but still Intel is dragging that out as well in the 15w-28w category to maximize their investment. Why shouldn’t a 13” MacBook Pro have six or eight core already? I would gladly trade cores for the dGPU if I got an 8-Core 28w TDP CPU in a 13” MBP and got Xe level iGPU graphics. If Apple does that with the 14” revamp, meaning and A14X derivative with 8 performance cores/4 efficiency cores and say a 12 Core I GPU, that thing is GPU g to be a beast for most any Mac user, new or old. I would certainly be lining up. Add an eGPU, if necessary, and wave goodbye to Intel.
The flip side is that now the need for Xeon high core count CPU is pretty muddy water given the i9-10900K is a 10-Core 125w TDP CPU that is a third of the price of the Core i7-5960X was just four years ago or the equivalent Xeon of 2016. Now 8 cores is mainstream, 10 cores is almost there and there’s not as much need for any Xeon below 12 or even 16 cores, at this point.
Definitely be interesting to see where things go. I think for a while now at least it could look like:
Long story short I agree with your assessment on the whole, but still ... at some point as you've pointed out here, more cores and hence performance is always welcome. I think the "average computing performance level" is an always moving benchmark, just like all the other usage cases. Especially when you consider gaming etc. which I think will expand within the Apple ecosystem if ARM devices become more popular as there are a ton of iOS games out there.
Anyways ... back to the topic, its great Apple has given the option for users to upgrade their own main SSD. Shows to me, planned longevity in the Mac Pro platform.
- Low end/general usage computers and laptops (like a MacBook or iMac 24") would be perfectly suitable for an ARM setup
- More demanding usage for photo/graphics/lighter duty web & mobile development etc. is the perfect spot for something like the 10 core i9 iMac 27" setup. I would think this could easily replace the iMac Pro with improved internal cooling etc. and be of great value
- For the high-end performance workstation, obviously your Mac Pro with a higher core count Xeon. I think the 12 core Mac Pro should be bumped as being standard configuration in due time. Making it the baseline for an expandable development system suitable for dual XDR display setups for example.
Long story short I agree with your assessment on the whole, but still ... at some point as you've pointed out here, more cores and hence performance is always welcome. I think the "average computing performance level" is an always moving benchmark, just like all the other usage cases. Especially when you consider gaming etc. which I think will expand within the Apple ecosystem if ARM devices become more popular as there are a ton of iOS games out there.
Anyways ... back to the topic, its great Apple has given the option for users to upgrade their own main SSD. Shows to me, planned longevity in the Mac Pro platform.
