To be fair, unless you can make these machines pay for themselves, you weren't the target market. And I'll stick with my MBP
[automerge]1576631727[/automerge]
Of course, these can sustain that performance and the A13 can't.
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.
Base and Middle Tier Mac Pro Models Offer CPU Performance Similar to iMac Pro
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
[automerge]1576631727[/automerge]
You don't have to buy a $5,000 monitor or $1,000 stand when you buy the new Mac Pro either. You can get much less expensive alternatives, or use the ones you already have.
Honestly this makes me feel even better about my last build. I needed something that could compile code FAST and the Ryzen benchmarks were crazy. I built a 3900x computer and my geekbench are 1307 single and 12162 multi, I'm sure the top of the line Mac Pro will beat that but money wise I don't even feel like the base Mac Pro would have been worth it. Apple needs to ditch Intel asap.
And that cost you 1/3 of the price of the cheapest MacPro, right?
There's flexibility with MacPro.. you can choose any monitor you want ($5000 Apple Pro Display, or $500 Dell Ultrasharp, it's your choice), and you can buy another system to be plugged into said monitor for backup.
iMac on the other hand, is an all-in-one. Something breaks in there (big or small) you lose the whole computer. It has the immobility of a desktop, and inflexibility of a laptop. Worst of both worlds really.
I've been owning an iMac for almost 5 years.. I consider myself a computer nerd and it was one of the dumbest decision of my life.
Remind me which of those machines is more expensive, and which machine comes with a 5K Retina display.
Still love my iMac Pro, and still wouldn't buy a Mac Pro.
Yeah but some of us have had it for 2 years already, and only paid $3,999.
[automerge]1576636336[/automerge]
But you're not going to run a laptop for several hours straight at near-max CPU, like you can with the iMac Pro and Mac Pro.
Recently inherited an old 2010 Mac Pro. Spent about $400 to upgrade CPUs to Dual 3.46 GHz, got a used Vega 56, 96GB ram, and re-appropriated a space 500GB NVME drive into it. With prices that Apple is charging for these computers and the lack of speed increases on CPU front from Intel, i'm feeling pretty good about my 10 year old computer now.
Actually, a lot of the components in the standard 5K iMacs can be replaced and upgraded. I've seen videos of CPU and SSD upgrades being done. They're not the simplest repairs, but I'd feel pretty confident I could handle one outside of the warranty period.
These benchmarks are pretty disconnected from real world use cases. It's one thing to run a series of tests, and another to do real workloads in applications while also doing other work on the same machine. I'll typically be running 5-6 apps on my machines while I might also have a VM open running Windows 10 with 4 cores and 16GB allocated.
In real-world use even if a single app isn't optimized for multiple cores, the OS can handle offloading applications to different sets of cores. In real-world use high compute loads lead to heat, and most systems like laptops and iMacs will end up having to deal with some thermal throttling to prevent overheating.
If you haven't read Vincent LaForet's blog post on his use of the new Mac Pro, you should.
In real-world use even if a single app isn't optimized for multiple cores, the OS can handle offloading applications to different sets of cores. In real-world use high compute loads lead to heat, and most systems like laptops and iMacs will end up having to deal with some thermal throttling to prevent overheating.
If you haven't read Vincent LaForet's blog post on his use of the new Mac Pro, you should.
You would if you understand what the $5,000 monitor is offering and need that.
Those are more like prosumer specs. Apple should've offered a real pro option like 64-core/128-thread AMD Epyc 7742 and dual-socket.
https://www.amd.com/en/products/cpu/amd-epyc-7742
https://www.amd.com/en/products/cpu/amd-epyc-7742
Beautiful machine, poor value. The base 5999 machine is confusing AF, because of the performance you get. A carefully tuned hackintosh is the best bang for the buck. Also, USB4 and PCI-E 5 and 6 are coming, as well as Tiger Lake, Rocket Lake, etc.... Ryzen also runs hackintosh, and Zen 3 is coming.
On the GPU front, Nvidia Ampere and AMD RDNA2 Raytracing are coming. Maybe the 24/28 core Xeon models make some sense but they're so expensive...and Ryzen Threadripper Rome 3990x 64 core is coming, and next year AMD Epyc Milan is coming... then Epyc GENOA. They will all DESTROY current/2018 Intel XEONS. It makes no sense to spend 6k on this 2019 Mac Pro. It is too expensive and is already obsolete.
On the GPU front, Nvidia Ampere and AMD RDNA2 Raytracing are coming. Maybe the 24/28 core Xeon models make some sense but they're so expensive...and Ryzen Threadripper Rome 3990x 64 core is coming, and next year AMD Epyc Milan is coming... then Epyc GENOA. They will all DESTROY current/2018 Intel XEONS. It makes no sense to spend 6k on this 2019 Mac Pro. It is too expensive and is already obsolete.
Last edited:
Darth Tulhu
macrumors 68020
WHO THE HELL IS THE BASE MAC PRO FOR???
The base machine is quite perplexing, BECAUSE of it's starting price for the performance you get.
If you're making money off of this thing (and frankly, you should be), it makes no sense to go low-end with it when over the lifespan of the machine the added cost of upgrade amortizes nicely against the MASSIVE performance increase.
The iMac Pro actually exposes how it's a bad value (although not necessarily overpriced for the FORCED choice in components).
I think it's a missed opportunity to actually provide the price vs performance scalability that the old MP had.
But then again, I'm a Sith Lord and I draw my strength from passion and anger, fear and in this case, jealousy (of those that don't bat an eye over a $44K setup like MKBHD's).
The base machine is quite perplexing, BECAUSE of it's starting price for the performance you get.
If you're making money off of this thing (and frankly, you should be), it makes no sense to go low-end with it when over the lifespan of the machine the added cost of upgrade amortizes nicely against the MASSIVE performance increase.
The iMac Pro actually exposes how it's a bad value (although not necessarily overpriced for the FORCED choice in components).
I think it's a missed opportunity to actually provide the price vs performance scalability that the old MP had.
But then again, I'm a Sith Lord and I draw my strength from passion and anger, fear and in this case, jealousy (of those that don't bat an eye over a $44K setup like MKBHD's).
I remember when apple fans used to say "oh, specs and benchmarks don't matter!" Wish they could hold to that here too- these machines are not meant to be used by almost anyone here. The base machine is a little low-specced, but it's a great fit for some music production where you don't need a crazy high CPU speed but you need all the expandability. The iMac pro has expandability over thunderbolt, but that's it; each of those crummy adapters introduces another vector for failure, especially when dealing with audio production.
the iPhone 11 and iPhone 11 Pro both get the same results, and nobody here is saying "pssh, apple shouldn't have the more expensive phone for sale". Variety is good. It's good to see Apple at least make an effort for the professional audience that isn't just developer and enthusiasts. Apple will of course sell you whatever you are willing to pay for, but the iMac Pro is really the best Mac for almost everyone at this point.
the iPhone 11 and iPhone 11 Pro both get the same results, and nobody here is saying "pssh, apple shouldn't have the more expensive phone for sale". Variety is good. It's good to see Apple at least make an effort for the professional audience that isn't just developer and enthusiasts. Apple will of course sell you whatever you are willing to pay for, but the iMac Pro is really the best Mac for almost everyone at this point.
Oh come on $6,000 and look at you expecting more storage than 256 GB wow why don't you just ask Apple to go out of business instead /s
Put A13 in that cooling solution and it sure can.To be fair, unless you can make these machines pay for themselves, you weren't the target market. And I'll stick with my MBP
[automerge]1576631727[/automerge]
Of course, these can sustain that performance and the A13 can't.
I can’t afford either the iMac Pro or the Mac Pro. Maybe I’ll just get Pro Stand and have it at that.
So, in *music production* there’s a need that is significant enough to justify a $3K to $4K premium over an equally expandable (and faster) AMD desktop running Windows or Linux? And I guess everything is relative...but ”a little low spec’d” doesn’t mean (to me) throwing a few grand into the fireplace for giggles.
Who are these “pros” anyway that are smart enough to make money off a $6K desktop box, but not smart enough to figure out how to do their job in a slightly different OS, or using a slightly different box with equal or superior specs?
It reminds me of trying to purchase a Porsche 911 bone stock. I’m not even a huge fan of Porsche, but they shouldn’t even risk sullying their name with the pitiful version of the 911 that they will sell with no options...that no one buys...
The only thing "wrong" with the new Mac Pro is the price. If someone handed one to you for free would you be like "oh no, I refuse to accept such a piece of crap computer, I only compute on AMD, and my iPhone is just as fast anyway", or would you be like OH YEAH ***** HOOK ME UP BRO!!!!
