Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
This thread is really off the rails at this point. Billrey, you haven't helped your point, which has merit, by taking a combative tone from the outset. It has been true for ages and ages, that if you want to build the absolute highest-spec machine possible, especially for 3D work, you are probably better off with a PC. The fact that you can use AMD or Intel processors, whichever is best at the moment, and the fact that you can use either AMD or NVIDIA GPUs, whichever is best at the moment, pretty much always has made it that a top-specced PC will beat a Mac, and sometimes do it at a price savings. None of this is new at all, and the new shiny Mac Pro doesn't change it. I mean JFC, 3ds Max isn't even available on OS X. Can we move on?

However, what also hasn't changed, is that for many pro media users, many of whom are still on Macs and will not leave Macs no matter what (and probably have plenty of good reasons for taking this stance), there is finally a new game in town, if you want a powerhouse machine. Yes, many of these people will be doing high-end photo and video work, motion gfx, audio, color, compositing, etc. etc. But the fact is, if someone's particular Mac-based workflow can benefit tremendously from having many cores, from having multiple GPUs, from having more interface/networking options, these new boxes are the HOTTTTT ****! That is also a fact.

I swear to god, you're on a forum for around 2 decades, and the same platform troll battles go on, and on, and on. They don't change. It's all so banal, but I guess that describes the state of the world in so many ways these days.

All I said was that for my work tasks, a relatively inexpensive PC will be faster. For this fact I am called names. Yes a nice OS has value. A nice case and nice cables have value. Those are nice things.

But what is the value of those things actually? Is it worth $10,000 extra for the same or worse performance?

This is my point. Previous cheese grater Mac Pros we’re not so out of whack from a price/performance standpoint.
[automerge]1576633924[/automerge]
With a name like "thread ripper"....that is totally "pro"...i mean, not at all targeted at gamers obsessed with benchmarks...

And that 5 million watt amp in your car stereo is totally a better product than some measely 300watt professional amp that weighs 4x and costs considerably more.

Except that I use workstations to do a job, which is 3d rendering, where the speed can actually be measured. I don’t care about the name of the CPU - they can call it OompaLumpa for all I care. I just want a system with over 24 cores cores, nVidia RTX GPUS, 64 gigs of RAM for under $6000.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • Like
Reactions: IG88 and -BigMac-
With a name like "thread ripper"....that is totally "pro"...i mean, not at all targeted at gamers obsessed with benchmarks...

That was AMD's obvious strategy for those who were watching. They knew that Intel was too ingrained in performance, enterprise features, and software support for AMD to take head-on. So they optimized for a few synthetic benchmarks, made large core count numbers, sent free products to bloggers, and sold their product cheap so the kids at home who couldn't afford Intel would become rabid fanboys.

It's immediately telling when the fanboys online only talk about price. Never hear anything about how a new CPU supports reduced-latency virtualization.

Besides, the Threadripper is the consumer processor like the Core series. The workstation/server processor is the EPYC, which costs a bit more...
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Duane Martin
That was AMD's obvious strategy for those who were watching. They knew that Intel was too ingrained in performance, enterprise features, and software support for AMD to take head-on. So they optimized for a few synthetic benchmarks, made large core count numbers, sent free products to bloggers, and sold their product cheap so the kids at home who couldn't afford Intel would become rabid fanboys.

It's immediately telling when the fanboys online only talk about price. Never hear anything about how a new CPU supports reduced-latency virtualization.

It’s not synthetic benchmarks. It beats the Xeon for real world tasks such as 3d raytracing, which is what I do. So the difference is real. And so is the fact that the TR is much much cheaper at the same time.
 
  • Like
Reactions: IG88
All I said was that for my work tasks, a relatively inexpensive PC will be faster. For this fact I am called names. Yes a nice OS has value. A nice case and nice cables have value. Those are nice things.

But what is the value of those things actually? Is it worth $10,000 extra for the same or worse performance?

This is my point. Previous cheese grater Mac Pros we’re not so out of whack from a price/performance standpoint.
[automerge]1576633924[/automerge]


Except that I use workstations to do a job, which is 3d rendering, where the speed can actually be measured. I don’t care about the name of the CPU - they can call it OompaLumpa for all I care. I just want a system with over 24 cores cores, nVidia RTX GPUS, 64 gigs of RAM for under $6000.
Listen man, I don't disagree with your core points, and I think some of the name calling and Mac blind fandom responses are stupid. But you know, if from moment one you hadn't just framed your attack on the new Mac Pro as being all about you you you, and come at it more balanced-like, maybe people would be paying more attention to your point, and not calling you names. Well, they probably still would be, but at least you wouldn't have been quite so inviting of it.

And let's look at your point. If AMD weren't finally competitive again, and let's be clear, really for only certain types of tasks and workflows, then you wouldn't have a point. If one could put any part in a Mac, from any vendor, then you know what? It would be a lot easier for there to be price parity between a Mac and a build-it-yourself PC. It's pretty straightforward and logical. I'm not sure it's particularly relevant, because the new Mac Pro was never going to answer those things. That requires more than a chassis redesign, it requires Apple to take a multi-vendor approach. In a way that they haven't for... well, you could say decades, more accurately would be to say, they've never really done that. You think Apple cares about chasing the rabbit down that hole, when for CPU anyway, they are probably planning to build multi-hundred-core ARM-based workstation chips soon enough?
 
The Threadripper is still faster than it. For a fraction of the cost.
lol. it depend on software people use mac.No choice actually. Imac 2017 not the fastest on the market now but i need the xcode so no choice for me so as other people need to use imovie, final cut pro x. As you 3d may use some free software like blender or other to cut cost.. It all basic depend..

** a bit weird this day people buy more ram don't use ram disk as cache lol.
 
You forgot to mention that a cheap midrange gaming PC with a Threadripper is much, MUCH faster than this $6,000 thing.

An iPad Pro has more storage and basically comparable CPU performance. That is just... embarrassing.

I won't entertain your comments, but I will say that this comparison is HUGE for Apple bringing their A-series processors to the Mac! Just imagine how fast and powerful the Mac versions will be! Blowing Intel out of the water!... and off the planet!
 
  • Like
Reactions: Billrey
Listen man, I don't disagree with your core points, and I think some of the name calling and Mac blind fandom responses are stupid. But you know, if from moment one you hadn't just framed your attack on the new Mac Pro as being all about you you you, and come at it more balanced-like, maybe people would be paying more attention to your point, and not calling you names. Well, they probably still would be, but at least you wouldn't have been quite so inviting of it.

And let's look at your point. If AMD weren't finally competitive again, and let's be clear, really for only certain types of tasks and workflows, then you wouldn't have a point. If one could put any part in a Mac, from any vendor, then you know what? It would be a lot easier for there to be price parity between a Mac and a build-it-yourself PC. It's pretty straightforward and logical. I'm not sure it's particularly relevant, because the new Mac Pro was never going to answer those things. That requires more than a chassis redesign, it requires Apple to take a multi-vendor approach. In a way that they haven't for... well, you could say decades, more accurately would be to say, they've never really done that. You think Apple cares about chasing the rabbit down that hole, when for CPU anyway, they are probably planning to build multi-hundred-core ARM-based workstation chips soon enough?

That would be exciting. I would love a hypothetical 128 core ARM Mac Pro. That could be competitive or at least more unique.

I have waited some 10 years for this Mac Pro - before the trash can. Mac Pros were always expensive but not crazy, and I would happily pay a smaller premium for some niceties.
But this new M.P. is so expensive, and so comparatively slow, that for people in my field at least, I can’t see it making any sense. And that is a shame, because it’s a good example of a pro use-case where this M.P. seems like it’s not a very smart purchase for most shops.
[automerge]1576635666[/automerge]
Why would that be mentioned in this unboxing hands-on? This machine is not for people who play games.

Non-sequitur. I don’t play games either.
 
Last edited:
That was AMD's obvious strategy for those who were watching. They knew that Intel was too ingrained in performance, enterprise features, and software support for AMD to take head-on. So they optimized for a few synthetic benchmarks, made large core count numbers, sent free products to bloggers, and sold their product cheap so the kids at home who couldn't afford Intel would become rabid fanboys.

It's immediately telling when the fanboys online only talk about price. Never hear anything about how a new CPU supports reduced-latency virtualization.

Besides, the Threadripper is the consumer processor like the Core series. The workstation/server processor is the EPYC, which costs a bit more...
So youre suggesting the Threadripper is a loss leader?

That is genuinely interesting, and it makes sense. The asking price is artificially low...which under cuts the, "Xeon is a rip-off" argument, while at the same time suggesting it is better than the price suggests.

But funny how the Mac Pro design really isnt about the processor....yet here we are!
 
  • Like
Reactions: Nicky G
So youre suggesting the Threadripper is a loss leader?

That is genuinely interesting, and it makes sense. The asking price is artificially low...which under cuts the, "Xeon is a rip-off" argument, while at the same time suggesting it is better than the price suggests.

But funny how the Mac Pro design really isnt about the processor....yet here we are!

I wouldn't say a overall loss leader, but definitely at lower profit margins than Intel. Like modern technology, CPUs require a huge amount of engineering to design and test the product.

My understanding is that for Intel, on a whole, these non-recurring engineering costs are about the same as the direct cost to make a CPU. Any company has to recover all of their costs, or else they will go out of business eventually. They also need to make a fair profit. How these costs and profit are divided up among market lines can be varied.

For nearly all tech companies, including AMD, Intel, Nvidia, Microsoft, etc., these costs are put more into the high end. For example, if you're Amazon and a server is bringing in $50,000 of revenue over its life, you can afford to pay $1000 of costs and profit to Intel. Whereas, if you're a home user, you don't want to spend more than $800 on a computer, you pay a much smaller share, maybe $100 on a $300 CPU.

What if you divided it up evenly? Amazon would love to pay $550 instead, but simultaneously, as a home user, you wouldn't buy a $750 CPU. So Intel would only be able to get $550, not $1100. They'd have to make a crappier product, or go out of business.

However, you're getting the same CPU core, which is why when you divide speed by cost, the higher-end CPUs seem less optimal.

Companies also want to recover their costs as soon as possible. You want the cash back quickly to reduce uncertainty and be ready to invest in something else, the next generation.

This all gives companies some knobs to tweak. Do you recover the costs quickly, charging more, or slowly? How much of the costs do you charge the low end vs high end? By accepting a lower profit, spending less in R&D, taking a longer return on investment, and adjusting the cost distribution, you can make a higher tier CPU cost less.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Melbourne Park
How are you going to upgrade the boot drive ? I would like to get some 1TB PAIRS or at least someone else's 256 to double the boot drive . Can you turn off the t2 chip protection or reprogram it without a trip to the apple store ? surely there is a way... also can you boot off another internal drive bypassing the t2 ?
 
I wouldn't say a overall loss leader, but definitely at lower profit margins than Intel. Like modern technology, CPUs require a huge amount of engineering to design and test the product.

My understanding is that for Intel, on a whole, these non-recurring engineering costs are about the same as the direct cost to make a CPU. Any company has to recover all of their costs, or else they will go out of business eventually. They also need to make a fair profit. How these costs and profit are divided up among market lines can be varied.

For nearly all tech companies, including AMD, Intel, Nvidia, Microsoft, etc., these costs are put more into the high end. For example, if you're Amazon and a server is bringing in $50,000 of revenue over its life, you can afford to pay $1000 of costs and profit to Intel. Whereas, if you're a home user, you don't want to spend more than $800 on a computer, you pay a much smaller share, maybe $100 on a $300 CPU.

What if you divided it up evenly? Amazon would love to pay $550 instead, but simultaneously, as a home user, you wouldn't buy a $750 CPU. So Intel would only be able to get $550, not $1100. They'd have to make a crappier product, or go out of business.

However, you're getting the same CPU core, which is why when you divide speed by cost, the higher-end CPUs seem less optimal.

Companies also want to recover their costs as soon as possible. You want the cash back quickly to reduce uncertainty and be ready to invest in something else, the next generation.

This all gives companies some knobs to tweak. Do you recover the costs quickly, charging more, or slowly? How much of the costs do you charge the low end vs high end? By accepting a lower profit, spending less in R&D, taking a longer return on investment, and adjusting the cost distribution, you can make a higher tier CPU cost less.
FWIW, AMD’s overhead costs are much lower than Intel’s. Not only are their design teams much smaller, but they don’t have to do R&D on processing anymore.
 
Who is this Mac Pro for? It's too expensive for prosumers and too stupid of a purchase for any serious studios seeing how Threadripper still beats the top end Mac Pro and costs WAY less.
 
  • Like
Reactions: IG88
Who is this Mac Pro for? It's too expensive for prosumers and too stupid of a purchase for any serious studios seeing how Threadripper still beats the top end Mac Pro and costs WAY less.
Funny how the top 3 workstation vendors (HP, Dell, Lenovo) don't make any Threadripper workstations - only Xeon. Perhaps you better educate them as you clearly know more about the needs of professionals than all their engineers do.
[automerge]1576640748[/automerge]
Can anyone explain why the L3 cache amount Apple lists in the tech specs is higher than what Intel shows for each CPU here? Seems to be an extra 1MB/core.

https://ark.intel.com/content/www/us/en/ark/products/series/125035/intel-xeon-w-processor.html
I saw that too. It could be that Apple has early access to a version with increased cache. I highly doubt Apple is lying about the cache amounts.
 
Who is this Mac Pro for? It's too expensive for prosumers and too stupid of a purchase for any serious studios seeing how Threadripper still beats the top end Mac Pro and costs WAY less.
haish.. 1 grand imac vs normal pc amd yeah diff a lot but i need the software lol.
 
Many reviewers bought the top-tier one. It is good that someone reviewed a base model finally.
It's pointless testing the base model. Nobody would buy that one to do actual work. It's a starting point that you can configure how you need depending on the software you run and what it requires (CPU, GPU, RAM, SSD). A lot of professional equipment is sold this way.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SEmAN and MacLawyer
So I take it you’re not in the creator/film industry or even a professional at all for that matter, because if you were, you wouldn’t be making a comment like this, which also leads me to believe that you’re probably not not fully informed on what this machine is capable of.

I'm in the creator/film industry. In fact, I still remember when IT rolled into our edit suites at Fox Studios and replaced our HP Z-series workstations with 2013 trashcan Macs...in 2017. They worked fine, but not noticeably better than the PC's they replaced. Every editor I talked to just shrugged their shoulders and went back to work, unclear of the thought process that motivated such a large capital investment in a computer that was already past it's prime and clearly due to be replaced in the near future.

Talking to the graphics guys at the network I'm at now, they show little interest in the new Mac Pro due to Apple's lack of support for nVidia drivers. And since Afterburner only supports the ProRes codec, the editors here (including myself) see little advantage in spending $6000 (minimum!) per workstation to replace computers that work fine as they are for new computers that will truly shine only if we switch to Final Cut X (which will never, ever happen.)

But that's not to say that such unnecessary upgrades won't happen. We just listened to our boss's Christmas speech, and while he was reluctant to talk about hiring new employees or extending benefits, he became positively exciting at the prospect of spending money on new toys. He pretty much said, "If you need something new that cost $50,000, just ask!"

Just because a "target audience" is willing to buy something, doesn't make it a smart purchase.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I think this would have been less contentious in the wider PRO community if Apple had simply named it PRO AV with the AV obviously being audio and video. This machine is NOT built for 3D at all. Lacking CUDA hardware or an OS that supports it, this machine wont be popping up on anyone's radar in the 3D world. Sure this machine might be fine for actual CAD people but not for any serious or pro level rendering. Besides many made that jump already and those that haven't will be eyeing the 64 core Threadripper shipping early next year since it is 2-3 times faster than the W3275M in the highest end Mac Pro (AV). It's a bummer having to work in windows, but it's right tool for the job.

Nope. Utterly disagree - I use an iMac Pro on Films and commercial productions daily and now most major 3D app has announced metal support. Autodesk, Maxon, The Foundry, Octane, Redshift and others.

Besides who cares about a 64 core machine... I have 40600 cores on tap on RebusFarm and a single machine doesn’t cut anything in animation... so that extra few minutes on a test render frame is worth it having a pro machine with Apple Business care that can swap out a machine in hours and NOT having to use windoze.
 
It's pointless testing the base model. Nobody would buy that one to do actual work. It's a starting point that you can configure how you need depending on the software you run and what it requires (CPU, GPU, RAM, SSD). A lot of professional equipment is sold this way.

Its not pointless at all. I am actually thinking about ordering close to the base model. Upgrading the CPU to 12 core, and that is all. I am mainly a developer who would love to run multiple simulators without my computer throttling. I also do some after effects and photoshop stuff but not a lot. Xcode, VMs, and Dockers all running at once use a lot of my current MacBook Pro. To the point the RAM and CPU are maxed and its constantly throttling.. so the base Mac Pro is potentially my fix. the iMac Pro is probably better options but I DO NOT want another monitor. I love the 5k, but do not want my monitor attached to my computer.
 
Can anyone explain why the L3 cache amount Apple lists in the tech specs is higher than what Intel shows for each CPU here? Seems to be an extra 1MB/core.

https://ark.intel.com/content/www/us/en/ark/products/series/125035/intel-xeon-w-processor.html

Apple is listing the sum of L2 and L3, while Intel gives only the L3 cache. Skylake/Cascade Lake Server has 1 MB of L2 per core.

WikiChip is a good source that gives you the actual breakdown without the marketing: https://en.wikichip.org/wiki/intel/xeon_w/w-3223
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: macman21
You forgot to mention that a cheap midrange gaming PC with a Threadripper is much, MUCH faster than this $6,000 thing.

An iPad Pro has more storage and basically comparable CPU performance. That is just... embarrassing.

It’s comments like this which make me wonder at times whether a lot of the “demand” for a new Mac Pro is actually coming from PC users who knew that Apple’s solution would cost a ton of money, just so they would get the ammo they need to step in and criticise.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.