Apple have chosen Intel for CPUs and AMD for GPUs. It just so happens that currently, both are behind at the moment.
AMD CPUs and nVidia GPUs generally give you higher performance at this moment in time.
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
Apple have chosen Intel for CPUs and AMD for GPUs. It just so happens that currently, both are behind at the moment.
AMD CPUs and nVidia GPUs generally give you higher performance at this moment in time.
I was just about to post something similar. Imagine what these figures would look like if Apple went for Threadripper or Epyc.
If you want to spend $3199 for a maxed out Mac mini over the Mac Pro 2019 then go right ahead! 🤣
[automerge]1576659385[/automerge]
You can believe that all you want! Prove it! The 7-nm AMD Navi GPUs are ahead of Nvidia!
And there are people out there who still think the base model is not overpriced. Bless.
When Apple had a $2.5k Mac Pro, people were complaining that there isn't a $1.5k Mac Pro. When there was a $1.6K Power Mac, people were complaining that there isn't a sub-$1k Power Mac.
Apple isn't interested in making an affordable tower. It's a shrinking and unsatisfying market segment. They only (and only barely) made one for very-high-end specialized needs.
[automerge]1576659807[/automerge]
Film studios have moved to unsupported DIY computers? 😂 No they haven't.
Yes, well, that's true of any investment. Not everyone needs a Mac Pro. In fact, almost everyone does not.
[automerge]1576660236[/automerge]
But they aren't. What AMD are is cheaper, and even then, people here are comparing consumer CPUs (Ryzen) with server CPUs. Zen 2-based EPYCs aren't really that cheap. Cheaper than Intel, yes, but also in the thousands of dollars (a single-socket EPYC will go up to $4425).
This is all besides the point for people who really just want a tower with AMD Ryzen or Intel Core, but Apple isn't willing to offer that, so the entire discussion is moot.
Last edited:
Actually, if you compare the Mac Pro to other workstations, it's not really that expensive.
It's like camera gear: you can get by with cheaper gear if you feel the value isn't there for you. A Canon 1Dx MkII is better than the 6D, but the price difference may not justify buying one for your work. It's the same thing with computers: maybe you just wait longer for those renders instead of spending that much mone and that's fine.
It's like camera gear: you can get by with cheaper gear if you feel the value isn't there for you. A Canon 1Dx MkII is better than the 6D, but the price difference may not justify buying one for your work. It's the same thing with computers: maybe you just wait longer for those renders instead of spending that much mone and that's fine.
Maybe. We don't really know how well Apple A* scales up. It's interesting that a ~5W TDP chip has better single-power perf, at least for brief amounts of time, than a 205W TDP chip. But everything beyond that is just extrapolation and magical thinking.
So can Intel Core, and Apple doesn't want to put that in a Mac Pro either, so pointing out that non-workstation CPUs are cheaper is kind of moot.
[automerge]1576660613[/automerge]
We don't have to imagine. An eight-core Epyc, which costs $450 rather than $749, isn't very different: https://browser.geekbench.com/v5/cpu/18660
Those at first seemed alarmingly low, but then I remembered GB 5 reset the scale so the highest end chips aren't in the 80-100K range multi core any more!
They don't have to, ARM server chips are already out there (and gaining in popularity by all accounts!)
Every few years for the last 25 years these manipulative comparisons are made to justify prices. SGI used to do it before Apple. Look what happened to them.
Nobody gets to define what a 'workstation is'. If an iMac outperforms a Mac Pro for whatever you are doing, that's your workstation. If a $2000 PC outperforms a Mac Pro at whatever you are doing, that's your workstation.
What's wrong with that? For half as much as the base-level Mac Pro, you get twice the RAM and eight times the SSD. Sure, the GPU is much worse (there are a lot of people for whom this really doesn't matter at all, such as most developers!), you only get one 10 GigE port, the RAM isn't ECC, you don't get the keyboard and mouse with the fancy new color, and most of all, there's virtually no upgradeability. The CPU is in fact faster in single-core, and whenever they ship an update to Coffee Lake Refresh or Comet Lake, which will almost certainly happen much sooner than the Mac Pro sees an update, it'll also come in eight- or ten-core options and be faster in multi-core as well.
The base-level Mac Pro costs almost twice as much, and at its base config is almost certainly a worse buy. It's only interesting once you start equipping it. But just to get it on par with the Mac mini's RAM and SSD, you're already at $7,799. You could buy a second Mac mini at that point…
Yes but a shame about the choice of OS.
That said, it's just the OS whereas the applications are more or less on par.
Isn't that just an amazing, almost outrageous fact.
Btw, there is no reason to believe that it only applies to 'brief amounts of time'. ARM chips are used in servers.
Yes I do. For the scientific community its a must-have but for creative professionals not so much. ECC Ram or not the Mac Pro in base configuration is way overpriced for the hardware and performance you get. If you are doing heavy lifting you'll spec that 8-core up because it's really a weak machine in todays computing landscape.
Pretty sure Apple, Dell, HPE, and Lenovo are in no danger of going bankrupt. None of them exclusively target high-level workstations. Nonetheless, that's exactly what you need to compare the Mac Pro to, unless those aren't your needs.
Yes, but if an iMac outperforms a Mac Pro for what you are doing, you weren't in the market for a Mac Pro in the first place, because you weren't doing heavily multithreaded stuff.
[automerge]1576661534[/automerge]
And yet they're almost never used for performance reasons, but for low cost and/or low power draw.
Anyway, that, too, is moot, because there won't be an ARM-based Mac Pro any time soon either.
Am willing to bet the first product out the door with non Intel will be the 2020 MacBook Air. Use upgraded A series chip from iPad with stonking price/performance ratio. Then a new iMac, then the 2020 16" MacBook Pro, with Thunderbolt 4 ports, all in 2020, and running on Arm. More power, less heat.
The 2019 16" is a stop gap to satisfy those of us unhappy with these issues:
But nobody else has access to A13's, which are clearly very performant if they can beat the Xeons while not even trying (see the relative TDP).
I am not privy to Apple's plans, but not switching to ARM gets more and more silly every year, as the iPhones increasingly outperform Apple's top line workstations. And when you look at the performance trajectory of those platforms, it's not long before it will beat the base model Mac Pro in multi-core benchmarks too.
There's no reason why Apple can't take the A13 (or A14 next year) and add many more cores. Granted it's not that simple, but if they can beat the Xeon in a 5W TDP, that leaves so much headroom to add cores, it's almost funny. Imagine a 128 core or even 256 core ARM workstation. Sounds insane but it would be possible.
at least price performance wise this machine is not worth it. a 2500 usd imac is faster for everyday tasks and is a 10th of the price for half of the performance. great job apple, I will buy shares now as this forum seems to consist of people ignoring the performance to price ratio
For audio the important things are microphones, studio kit / infrastructure, ADAC units, electrically quiet circuits, stable power supplies and talent. That's if there is any analogue or live aspect to the production process. And after all that comes the software and the hardware you run it on. The processing power for audio is not as important as latency and device interoperability, and the OS is not as important as it used to be unless you have vendor lock in such as with Logic X Pro.
But I have to say when producing creative work the user interface is just so important. There is a lot to be said for aesthetics, you need to get all the sharp edges out of the way, so to speak, so you can just get on and focus on the sound. In that respect the Mac Pro and its fan would have to reside in an external room anyway. Only a silent PC would suffice in a studio IMHO.
One thing that might come into the bargain is the serviceability of the machine: It appears so inviting for user upgrades to occur that non-technical owners will see the cost saving in never having to call in an IT service guy for servicing.
Last edited:
Each to their own, I suppose. I guess I'm an old school desktop guy. It is an immobile computer so it compensates with its flexibility. And vice versa for laptops.
I have no doubt iMac is one hell of a sexy-looking computer (although it could use some redesign, and a bit thinner bezel). I just can't deal with its drawbacks.
What experience would you get with that Apple Display though? It looks nice, and has 6K panel. But it's gotta be for $4999.
Does it work with iOS devices, as a standalone Apple TV?
Does it work as AirPlay Mirroring?
If one wants to buy a MacPro, and set it up with a cheap Dell Ultrasharp, there's no benefits or drawbacks to be gained, technically.
The larger point at hand, which the critics seem to be overlooking, is that I don’t think anyone is actually buying the base Mac Pro model as is.
Here is an example of someone for whom the Mac Pro who make sense, because by his admission, even his souped up iMac Pro is proving (a little) inadequate for his needs.
But yes, I do recommend people buying Apple shares, because Apple has proven that they are experts in grabbing monopoly-level share of industry profits using a design-led product strategy that ultimately marginalises entire industries. You won’t go wrong there.
They are though. Go look at all the benchmarks for the third gen 32 core Threadrippers. They are quite a bit faster for about half the price. Ouch.
3950 msrp is 750 so when supply catches up with demand, it’ll only drop in price. And it’s already on par with a much more expensive Xeon and the 10980XE. Smh.
Not surprising. Mac Pro has great thermals though, that is important for a lot of things. I toasted a Mac Pro Trash Can and many iMacs, so I really worry about a iMac Pro. The iMac Pro is a very nice machine, I just have a lot of problems with heat it seems, maybe I run too many programs at once, I don't know. Fast, expandable Mac... sure I love it. Apple Price, I expect it.
I built a PC/Hackintosh in 2013, it is still running strong with new graphics cards, preforming really well. My three Mac Pro Trash Cans will be retired in the next two weeks. Yeah, I am paying $1500 more for a tower, but that is what it is. With a business/education discount and the 6% from the Apple Card, it's palatable.
I built a PC/Hackintosh in 2013, it is still running strong with new graphics cards, preforming really well. My three Mac Pro Trash Cans will be retired in the next two weeks. Yeah, I am paying $1500 more for a tower, but that is what it is. With a business/education discount and the 6% from the Apple Card, it's palatable.
Last edited: