Base and Middle Tier Mac Pro Models Offer CPU Performance Similar to iMac Pro

[brdeveloper]

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.

I wonder who still uses internal audio interfaces these days. Most expensive gear like, let's say, an Apogee Symphony or an UAD Apollo x8p are external modules. A MacMini is probably a better choice... less space in the desk, portability if needed and enough processing power for tons of plugins.

 

[Abazigal]

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?

Your point does beg the question.

If someone is using a more expensive alternative than what you are suggesting, how do we know who is right?

By your assertion, if they are smart enough to be making a living this way, and choose to use a Mac for their workflow, maybe they know something we don’t?

In this scenario, I imagine the mindset would be more like “I prefer using a Mac for X reason and can afford it, so what business is it of yours that I choose to pay more for what I perceive to be a better user experience?”

 

[Abazigal]

WHO THE HELL IS THE BASE MAC PRO FOR???

Nobody.

It’s there for consumers to upgrade accordingly. Depending on their professional needs, you will likely end up with some variation of the base model, although none of them will need, much less use the base model.

 

[mthe1718]

WHO THE HELL IS THE BASE MAC PRO FOR???

It's for Apple. It's called framing. It makes the upgraded Macs look like a no-brainer. This also works on the higher end - the $52,000 option makes the $12,000 Mac Pro seem like a steel.

You think apple doesn't know how to make money? Thats what they do best.

 

[basehead617]

All the hackintosh/AMD people miss a really important point and it's clear they don't work with professional software and workflows. It's invaluable to be working on one of the configurations TESTED AND SUPPORTED by the developers + hardware manufacturers. If you tell them you're using something else and having issues, they'll tell you you're on your own.

AND... it may never work properly.

 

[brdeveloper]

All the hackintosh/AMD people miss a really important point and it's clear they don't work with professional software and workflows. It's invaluable to be working on one of the configurations TESTED AND SUPPORTED by the developers + hardware manufacturers. If you tell them you're using something else and having issues, they'll tell you you're on your own.

AND... it may never work properly.

I think the target market for this Mac Pro is not only professionals, but people who make a lot of money from their work, like on the film industry. That is, even if you're successful youtuber, you don't need this machine. If you're an independent game developer or work on a startup of the game industry, you don't need this machine. On the other hand, if you're about to work on the next Final Fantasy game ou Pixar movie, then you'll probably need it.

 

[dantroline]

The scores are pretty embarassing for a pro machine in 2018.

A non-Apple machine built using half the funds needed for an iMac Pro will outperform the top tier iMac Pro, which will outperform a mid-tier Mac Pro?! That's astounding if true.

 

[cmaier]

A non-Apple machine built using half the funds needed for an iMac Pro will outperform the top tier iMac Pro, which will outperform a mid-tier Mac Pro?! That's astounding if true.

When has it ever been the case that you couldn’t beat apple performance for less money? SPEC per $ is not the only important metric.

 

[laz232]

They're Apple, and they will undoubtedly have been working on this for many years and will have thrown piles of money into the R&D. I'm sure they'll have some kind of slick x86 emulation in the mean time, but will it really be all that different from when they switched from PowerPC chips to Intel back in the mid-00s? I was still pretty young then and far off from working in tech, but from what I've heard over the years, developers just absolutely loathed Apple for making that move haha.

Only reason that PowerPC move was doable was because there was a very large improvement in x86 performance to make up for the emulation penalty.
also - no indication that major software will be recompiled / redesigned for the shrinking Mac professional market. As Apple left pros in the lurch the last few years many havegone over to Win/ Linux as they could see that under TC the focus has been on profit and market share to the exclusion of professionals

 

[dantroline]

When has it ever been the case that you couldn’t beat apple performance for less money? SPEC per $ is not the only important metric.

No, but a reasonable margin might be 20%, not over 50%!

 

[MacBillUK]

Looks like a loaded 8 core iMac offers by far the best price performance. No Nvidia or AMD options make this a white elephant as far as I am concerned.

 

[tennisproha]

Huh so a Mac mini can beat a Mac Pro. Who knew.

 

[Sedulous]

I thought I saw a MKBHD review that showed the Mac Pro beat the iMac Pro at least in Final Cut. Unable to recall what models were used.

 

[Pakaku]

When you buy a Mac Pro you are not forced to buy a Pro Display XDR

But it is the flagship monitor Apple is marketing to pros, and the price of the stand is a complete insult to their intelligence

 

[SDJim]

This also omits graphics and cooling capability. Good luck running those other machines at 100% CPU for days on end. The Mac Pro won’t break a sweat. And do it all on two 6k monitors.

 

[chucker23n1]

I thought I saw a MKBHD review that showed the Mac Pro beat the iMac Pro at least in Final Cut. Unable to recall what models were used.

28 cores, I believe. And benefitting from the GPU.

Most workloads won’t scale that way.

 

[Moakesy]

If you haven't read Vincent LaForet's blog post on his use of the new Mac Pro, you should.

Checked it out. Great blog and very interesting to read his thoughts. Cheers

 

[krell100]

Wow, pretty crap scores for such a pricey machine. 8-core is a shocker for that kind of money.

 

[danny842003]

Just put together a 9900k Hackintosh with thunderbolt3, 10gbe, rx 580(for now) and 1TB nvme for 1.4k that beats the base MacPro.
Also put together a Ryzentosh with the 3700x, it was faster, but it didn't like Adobe Lightroom so I returned it. It was cheaper and not even the top of the line Ryzen. Apple and Intel have a lot of work to do.

I get why the Mac Pro exists, but only at the 16+ core level. They really should have come up with a unit starting at 2.5k and 8 cores, and started the pro at 16+ cores. That would have made a lot more sense and made everybody happier.

very unlikely.

 

[Killyp]

I work in the music business and spend a lot of my time in tracking and mixing studios, sometimes crossing over into the area of film scoring and dubbing (which is by far the most lucrative part of the industry).

Bar one studio which seems to be talking about buying a new Mac Pro in order to keep a client happy (at a loss), everybody has started looking towards Hackintoshes. Most of the film mixing studios have already made the move. Even the businesses which have the money to pay for one of these machines (which is virtually none) are turning their backs.

All you people who say ‘Pros will see it as an investment’ are also forgetting that the ~£10k price difference between a well specced out MacPro vs a Hackintosh will also buy you a very nice set of monitors.

 

[macdos]

We've known that all along. I replaced my old Mac Pro with a Mac Mini because it offers adequate performance and because the new Mac Pro would be prohibitively expensive.

The new Mac Pro is not for you or me, but for people who need to crunch serious data. You can't install 1500 GB RAM on the MM and you can't get the same kind of throughput. You can't expand the MM.

Xeon processors (diesel) have always lagged Core processors (gasoline) in performance, but they are more reliable, expecially in parallell.

For photography, casual video and everyday use, it would not make any sense buying the new MP. The MM will serve all your needs. But if you are to edit several channels of 4K/8K footage, apply effects and encode longer movies, the MP will just blow other Macs away completely. If you have special gear and hardware needs and need the expandability, the MP is for you.

The new MP is not comparable to the old cheese graters. They were prosumer machines, for you and me. Apple could still fill that hole by offering a classic Mac Pro with the performance of a Mac Mini + GPU, but with more expandibility in a chassi rather than loose gadgets via TB.

Huh so a Mac mini can beat a Mac Pro. Who knew.

 

[nihil0]

Yikes, so AMD’s 3950X processor ($1,289 and in-stock now at NewEgg) with its GB5 scores of 1,309 SC and 14,174 MC, sorta makes these scores seem, idk, a bit underwhelming?

(I know that *somehow* I’m comparing Apples to oranges, but come on...)

16-core Xeon in MP has same results as 3950X so I don’t understand your statement at all.

 

[chfilm]

I don't understand what people were expecting. There are no mystical, magical unreleased INTEL chips in that machine, so the scores are about as good as they could be with Intel. Yes, it sucks that AMD is so much ahead right now and we can't have it (like always, some thing shinier in the PC world, first Nvidia, now also AMD...) but to hell, this is still gonna be a massive upgrade for all us trashcan users!!

 

[Billrey]

Of course, these can sustain that performance and the A13 can't.

Only because of the thermal and battery constraints on the iPhone. If you added the A13 to a Mac Pro enclosure with the same giant heat sink, it would outperform the Xeon for many tasks in sustained workloads.

And with the higher TDP, you could easily add more cores as well, to also easily outpace the Mac Pro for multi core scores too.

You can make up your own mind if you find that impressive for the A13 or embarrassing for the Xeon
[automerge]1576658952[/automerge]

16-core Xeon in MP has same results as 3950X so I don’t understand your statement at all.

I guess the point is that the 3950X can be had at a fraction of the cost of the Xeons.

 

[wilhoitm]

Wow, pretty crap scores for such a pricey machine. 8-core is a shocker for that kind of money.

This machine is not for you! Do you even know what Error Correcting Code (ECC) memory is or RDIMM or LRDIMM?


What is REGISTERED MEMORY? What does REGISTERED MEMORY mean?

LRDIMM - Load-Reduced Dual Inline Memory Module