Intel Preparing to Launch New Xeon Processors for Potential Mac Pro Upgrade

[Mago]

Yesterday Intel released its Prosumer/enthusiast X99 platform.

After read some x99 motherboard specifications and add the cost of ssd, cpu, chassis and DDR4 ram, this is what could cost an Prosumer x99 Mac Pro:

* logic board with 2 Thunderbolt plus Hdmi 2, plus 6 usb3 wifi ac and Bluetooth: 400$

* 6 core i7 with 28 pcie lines (16 for video, 4 Thunderbolt, 4 pcie storage - still available 4 pcie for 2 extra Thunderbolt ) : 390$

* 256 GB ssd: 250$

* 16gb DDR4 (4X4): 260$

* single ATI r9: 400$

Chasis+PSU (trash can) : 150$
==========================

Total without Apple's premium : 1850$
20% Apple's premium : 370$
Big total: 2220$

This System actually (theorically) it's about 50 faster on cpu than base Mac Pro, and a bit slower on gpu.

Same configuration with 40 pcie lines 6c i7, and dual gpu rises cost 700$ delivering dual gpu, faster single thread processing and overall 50-70% better performance than base Mac Pro and still costing less, loaded with 8 core (1000$ cpu) at 3500 $ still cheaper and outperforms the 8 core Mac Pro, that what's what's more professional and enthusiast users wants.

I hope Apple have does the math and offer soon an Prosumer Mac Pro, coz everybody don't need ECC Ram, neither the premium for workstation class gpu/chipset.

Apple may loss some std Mac Pro sales to Mac xPro, but selling more and keeping a flat margin relative to either Pro or xPro system also could sell a more combined units.

 

[lbotez]

Yesterday Intel released its Prosumer/enthusiast X99 platform.

After read some x99 motherboard specifications and add the cost of ssd, cpu, chassis and DDR4 ram, this is what could cost an Prosumer x99 Mac Pro:

* logic board with 2 Thunderbolt plus Hdmi 2, plus 6 usb3 wifi ac and Bluetooth: 400$

* 6 core i7 with 28 pcie lines (16 for video, 4 Thunderbolt, 4 pcie storage - still available 4 pcie for 2 extra Thunderbolt ) : 390$

* 256 GB ssd: 250$

* 16gb DDR4 (4X4): 260$

* single ATI r9: 400$

Chasis+PSU (trash can) : 150$
==========================

Total without Apple's premium : 1850$
20% Apple's premium : 370$
Big total: 2220$

This System actually (theorically) it's about 50 faster on cpu than base Mac Pro, and a bit slower on gpu.

Same configuration with 40 pcie lines 6c i7, and dual gpu rises cost 700$ delivering dual gpu, faster single thread processing and overall 50-70% better performance than base Mac Pro and still costing less, loaded with 8 core (1000$ cpu) at 3500 $ still cheaper and outperforms the 8 core Mac Pro, that what's what's more professional and enthusiast users wants.

I hope Apple have does the math and offer soon an Prosumer Mac Pro, coz everybody don't need ECC Ram, neither the premium for workstation class gpu/chipset.

Apple may loss some std Mac Pro sales to Mac xPro, but selling more and keeping a flat margin relative to either Pro or xPro system also could sell a more combined units.

to hell with it; I bought a mac pro...

I love it.

 

[milo]

I have a hard time believing Apple is only making 20% profit on Mac Pros.

 

[Mago]

I have a hard time believing Apple is only making 20% profit on Mac Pros.

Actually doing a bit less, just account current nMP parts cost.

 

[milo]

None of us know Apple's costs. Things that are widely available like CPU we know the public price but Apple likely gets a bulk discount. And things like GPU are custom versions for Apple so we really have no idea. I don't buy that Apple's GPU costs are anywhere close to the end user costs for high end pro GPU that some use for comparison.

 

[Mago]

None of us know Apple's costs. Things that are widely available like CPU we know the public price but Apple likely gets a bulk discount. And things like GPU are custom versions for Apple so we really have no idea. I don't buy that Apple's GPU costs are anywhere close to the end user costs for high end pro GPU that some user for comparison.

I didn't mention you to go to Apple as a accountant, but account the parts cost as if you wanted to build a pc using exactly the same specification as the nMP, or pick at the competence a product with exactly the same parts (Xeon E5v2, c607 chipset, 256gb ssd, 12gb ecc ram @1866 add 60$ for Thunderbolt and the cost of a couple of ATI W7000 gpu) toda this it's closer to 3000 that Apple seems doing earnings from the discounts and no premium at all.

So it's relatively, on laptops Apple use to sell 20% more expensive than same specification from the competence, except Lenovo which uses to bill much more than Apple.

 

[milo]

I didn't mention you to go to Apple as a accountant, but account the parts cost as if you wanted to build a pc using exactly the same specification as the nMP, or pick at the competence a product with exactly the same parts (Xeon E5v2, c607 chipset, 256gb ssd, 12gb ecc ram @1866 add 60$ for Thunderbolt and the cost of a couple of ATI W7000 gpu) toda this it's closer to 3000 that Apple seems doing earnings from the discounts and no premium at all.

You seem to have completely missed my point. The prices a consumer pays are no indication of what Apple is paying for their parts, whether they are the same parts or not. And in the case of the GPU, that's just an assumption that it's equivalent to the W7000, the d300 has half the ram of the W7000. And there's a consumer GPU that's similar to the W7000 as well for hundreds less.

Your assumption of $3000 cost in parts is based on over $1400 of that going to the GPU. Frankly I just don't believe that. And for the sake of argument, assuming that was true, that would be a terrible choice for anyone running software that doesn't take advantage of the GPU. Half the cost of the machine would be money wasted on hardware that isn't even being used. You keep talking about doing an i7 version, but if you're assuming $1600 cost for everything but the GPU, they could just take the current base model and do a single GPU that costs $200 (or probably less) and be able to sell for a grand less then the current base.

But that's assuming $700 per GPU. It's much more likely that Apple is paying about $200 each already for the low end and is just letting people believe it's $700 just to hide how overpriced the machine is. In which case going to single GPU wouldn't save Apple much at all.

It has its pros and cons for Apple, they're able to make an excuse for a really high price and keep it more expensive than the iMac. But their excuse is that the GPUs are really expensive, which makes anyone not using GPU acceleration feel like they're getting ripped off having to spend so much more to get hardware that won't get used. And they're right.

And frankly the idea that Apple would sell any machine for the same price that consumers could buy the parts and build it themselves is ludicrous, even if Apple does get a 20% or more discount on them.

 

[MikeMarris]

I see people don't really like L2013 Mac Pro, but honestly I was looking for a new PC and I'm not happy with Windows so I decide to switch to OS X. And the real problem is that stable OS X fits well Apple's only. I was really disappointed to choose a good device from Apple with a limited budget. Laptops and iMacs seems to be unsafe due repair impossibility and they are a way weaker than a common PC. Well you can configure laptop and iMac to get a powerful machine but it will cost like a MacPro and after that I will keep feeling myself unsafe with such a device cause of fear that it will break unexpectedly. After a long run I found that the only one stable and "like a normal PC powerful machine" is a Mac Pro but price is killing me. They are assembled in USA that's the pros but I fear to waste such a huge money and disappoint myself. Another way I don't want to use Windows oriented machines because they heat a lot, they are loud and waste my time with a bunch of errors and unstable work, while I just want to feel comfortable.

 

[JohnnyGo]

Over the last few months, I've noticed that a lot of people in threads about the Mac Pro don't really understand the concept of thermal constraints, or why some people need workstation-grade hardware vs consumer chips.

If you have to point out that some random Mac Mini/MBP/iMac configuration bests the nMP in one or two benchmarks, you don't really understand the system or need one in any way.

Same if you need to find a reason to discredit the machine in its entirety, or those people who buy them.

Also, the absolute childishness of a limited number of people in these threads astounds me. Like calling the machine a "shuttlecock".

You are right. IMO frustration and envy can do that to a lot of people.

Apple, like any other PC manufacturer, would be foolish to go after the low-cost/DIY crowd. There is always a "cheaper" machine out there, be it from used parts, last year tech and/or promos.

Apple only needs to update its Mac Mini (it has been 2 or 3 years now ?) and keep refreshing its lineup of iMacs and MacBooks every 9-12 months to meet the needs of 90% of its targeted market. Mac Pros are workstations for professionals and those do not add up to 5% of Mac sales (less than 200k per quarter).

An another post pointed out, a work machine that one can lease for $200-300/month is very easily accounted for project costing (when you charge for man hours) and/or client billing (if you want to pass on the direct costs to clients).

----------

I see people don't really like L2013 Mac Pro, but honestly I was looking for a new PC and I'm not happy with Windows so I decide to switch to OS X. And the real problem is that stable OS X fits well Apple's only. I was really disappointed to choose a good device from Apple with a limited budget. Laptops and iMacs seems to be unsafe due repair impossibility and they are a way weaker than a common PC. Well you can configure laptop and iMac to get a powerful machine but it will cost like a MacPro and after that I will keep feeling myself unsafe with such a device cause of fear that it will break unexpectedly. After a long run I found that the only one stable and "like a normal PC powerful machine" is a Mac Pro but price is killing me. They are assembled in USA that's the pros but I fear to waste such a huge money and disappoint myself. Another way I don't want to use Windows oriented machines because they heat a lot, they are loud and waste my time with a bunch of errors and unstable work, while I just want to feel comfortable.

You do not need to worry about repairs as you can always buy AppleCare and have 3+ years of warranty from Apple.

After 3 years, Apple product still hold great resale value, so you can upgrade and have the latest tech again, or continue to use your Mac for another 2-3 years as Apple h/w has a track record of reliability and continued use for 6-8 years.

----------

and frankly the idea that apple would sell any machine for the same price that consumers could buy the parts and build it themselves is ludicrous, even if apple does get a 20% or more discount on them.

+1

 

[Umbongo]

And frankly the idea that Apple would sell any machine for the same price that consumers could buy the parts and build it themselves is ludicrous, even if Apple does get a 20% or more discount on them.

You mean like the 2006 and 2008 Mac Pros?

 

[milo]

You mean like the 2006 and 2008 Mac Pros?

Like those how?

 

[ppdix]

Waiting to order

I am waiting for the upgrade. Hopefully it will come soon. The timing is bad because is concentrating all their efforts into the iPhone but I need a new Mac Pro to replace my 2010 Mac Pro. Specially for Video. The old one doesn't keep up, unfortunately.

It would suck to buy one now, and then a couple of weeks later, they release a machine with new processors making the current one obsolete.

We'll see...

 

[Umbongo]

Like those how?

You couldn't buy similar parts for less because of Apple's deal with Intel for the Xeons.

 

[bigpics]

Not really. I usually take all my "done with" electronics to a local charity, or if someone in my family or one of my friends needs it, just pass it along to them.

I do too (both). Partially because I use 'em until they're dead or have no real residual value.... ...I'm still, e.g., keeping my biz books on my 2004 dead battery/dead CMOS battery iBook...

 

[thenightwatcher]

Professional musicians that need Xeon loaded 12-core MacPros have no need for a FirePro graphics card, not to mention two of them. That only jacks the price up $5000.

How about a 12 core MacPro with a low end "screen redrawing" graphics card?

I have a Digital Performer/VEPro/Kontakt film scoring production setup and I NEED the 12 core Xeons (if not two of them - I now have a 32GB 8 core 2008 and a 64GB 12 core 2010 with several SSDs for sample drives), but have NO use for the FirePro cards. None at all. DAWs don't use GPUs for anything.

So, that leaves me buying upgraded 2009 MPs with 3.47 Xeons (stripped with no RAM) for around $2500-$3000.

Apple needs to consider that the video editing market is just one of the pro markets, and it's not the largest by a huge margin. Obviously Apple sells Logic, o they know something about the pro MIDI orchestrator. (Don't confuse this with the Pro Tools audio mixer - different story sort of).

And no, no matter what you hear, an i7 won't do it for the MIDI orchestrator. I'm pushing my MacPros to the limits of RAM and CPU.

 

[MagnusVonMagnum]

Professional musicians that need Xeon loaded 12-core MacPros have no need for a FirePro graphics card, not to mention two of them. That only jacks the price up $5000.

The new Mac Pro is geared to only one type of professional and that is the video professional. Even there, some may not appreciate the lack of internal expansion. I believe Apple could make the Mac Pro more appealing to other groups with some basic changes, mostly to the graphics card as you say. They could offer a more basic graphics card for musicians, as you suggest. They could also offer a more consumer based graphics option for gamers (many people used to buy Macs and then often run Windows for gaming and the Mac for their other needs like graphics and the Internet). This GPU is not a good gaming card and is cost prohibitive for making a game machine out of the Mac Pro. They could further improve things for regular consumers by offering regular CPUs, etc. to reduce costs. The new Mac Mini has no quad-core option, even though it at least improves frame rates by 2-3x the previous model.

Ironically, the BEST Mac for gaming use is the new iMac Retina 5k. If you want a 5k screen, it's a bargain. If you don't need that high resolution a monitor and/or already have monitors you like, it's a bad fit. Unfortunately, it's the ONLY Mac with a truly GREAT graphics card, but much of that power is used to power that 5K display (but you could run at lower resolutions to increase frame rates). The problem is you are stuck using that built-in display. It's not ideal for connecting to large screen projectors (like you can with consoles, etc. without at least having to find a space to put an active display (i.e. mirroring a lower resolution is the best you could probably achieve for such a use).

A Mac Pro case with a different motherboard for a quad-i7 with a high-end gaming graphics card could change the Mac's position in the PC gaming market forever. Yes, the Mac needs a lot more work to improve Mac gaming itself, but given the ability to install Windows in the mean time, it would be the best possible hybrid machine for those that want to own only one desktop computer for both personal computing and gaming uses. It's a market segment that Apple is ignoring. The problem with buying a separate computer for gaming is that many people will simply conclude they don't need the Mac at all since a Windows gaming machine makes a pretty good desktop personal computer as well. Other than the malware issue, etc., why buy another expensive Mac to duplicate functions? That's a HIGH price to pay just to use a Mac. But buying a more powerful Mac to game makes a LOT more sense to me.

Sadly, Apple has not and seemingly cannot comprehend that, which only limits their Mac sales more. Many gamers might prefer a single Mac over a single PC (even if they have to install windows for gaming). But if they have to buy a gaming PC, they will likely just skip the Mac. But such gamers would enable the Mac gaming market to slowly emerge as well since these same people would probably prefer to not have to reboot into Windows to play a game if they don't have to (i.e. frame rates are high enough that it doesn't matter).

 

[kingtj]

Valid point, but ....

I just don't see Apple really caring about this use-case enough to hassle with redesigning what's already a very custom motherboard to fit the Mac Pro cylinder design?

You say musicians have "no use" for the FirePro graphics card, and that's largely true. But OS X itself does make some use of accelerated graphics capabilities of these cards. The work needed to redraw windows when you resize them, drag them around the screen, or overlay them partially on top of each other, for example? That gets offloaded to the GPU so the CPU cycles aren't cut into as heavily to handle it.

And while you could do it with a much lower spec GPU than the dual FirePro designed into the new Mac Pro? Apple would have to invest in having one of the video card makers do a complete redesign of one of those other cards to fit the proprietary slot/socket they devised for one in the machine.

They're probably already getting a pretty good discount off the prices you see quoted for Windows PC card slot versions of the FirePro boards, as they likely pre-ordered a massive quantity of these custom made ones to put in inventory. It might not drop the price of the Mac Pro nearly as much as you think to offer a less powerful GPU alternative?

Professional musicians that need Xeon loaded 12-core MacPros have no need for a FirePro graphics card, not to mention two of them. That only jacks the price up $5000.

How about a 12 core MacPro with a low end "screen redrawing" graphics card?

I have a Digital Performer/VEPro/Kontakt film scoring production setup and I NEED the 12 core Xeons (if not two of them - I now have a 32GB 8 core 2008 and a 64GB 12 core 2010 with several SSDs for sample drives), but have NO use for the FirePro cards. None at all. DAWs don't use GPUs for anything.

So, that leaves me buying upgraded 2009 MPs with 3.47 Xeons (stripped with no RAM) for around $2500-$3000.

Apple needs to consider that the video editing market is just one of the pro markets, and it's not the largest by a huge margin. Obviously Apple sells Logic, o they know something about the pro MIDI orchestrator. (Don't confuse this with the Pro Tools audio mixer - different story sort of).

And no, no matter what you hear, an i7 won't do it for the MIDI orchestrator. I'm pushing my MacPros to the limits of RAM and CPU.

 

[Aloft085]

In other words, a dying paradigm that consumers have little interest in.

What computer nerds need to understand (and I'm one of them) is that nerd needs != consumer needs.

Maybe so, but we're the ones spending a ton of money on new technology, and advocating for that technology to family and friends. I would have bought an Apple desktop if there was something available. Basically Apple is only covering the entry-level market and the pro market, and leaving the middle range entirely uncovered. Seems like only a small investment would be required there to provide either a high-end iMac or a low-end Mac Pro.

I get your point that it would not make them a ton of money. However, it would certainly be profitable.

----------

The new Mac Pro is geared to only one type of professional and that is the video professional. Even there, some may not appreciate the lack of internal expansion. I believe Apple could make the Mac Pro more appealing to other groups with some basic changes, mostly to the graphics card as you say. They could offer a more basic graphics card for musicians, as you suggest. They could also offer a more consumer based graphics option for gamers (many people used to buy Macs and then often run Windows for gaming and the Mac for their other needs like graphics and the Internet). This GPU is not a good gaming card and is cost prohibitive for making a game machine out of the Mac Pro. They could further improve things for regular consumers by offering regular CPUs, etc. to reduce costs. The new Mac Mini has no quad-core option, even though it at least improves frame rates by 2-3x the previous model.

Ironically, the BEST Mac for gaming use is the new iMac Retina 5k. If you want a 5k screen, it's a bargain. If you don't need that high resolution a monitor and/or already have monitors you like, it's a bad fit. Unfortunately, it's the ONLY Mac with a truly GREAT graphics card, but much of that power is used to power that 5K display (but you could run at lower resolutions to increase frame rates). The problem is you are stuck using that built-in display. It's not ideal for connecting to large screen projectors (like you can with consoles, etc. without at least having to find a space to put an active display (i.e. mirroring a lower resolution is the best you could probably achieve for such a use).

A Mac Pro case with a different motherboard for a quad-i7 with a high-end gaming graphics card could change the Mac's position in the PC gaming market forever. Yes, the Mac needs a lot more work to improve Mac gaming itself, but given the ability to install Windows in the mean time, it would be the best possible hybrid machine for those that want to own only one desktop computer for both personal computing and gaming uses. It's a market segment that Apple is ignoring. The problem with buying a separate computer for gaming is that many people will simply conclude they don't need the Mac at all since a Windows gaming machine makes a pretty good desktop personal computer as well. Other than the malware issue, etc., why buy another expensive Mac to duplicate functions? That's a HIGH price to pay just to use a Mac. But buying a more powerful Mac to game makes a LOT more sense to me.

Sadly, Apple has not and seemingly cannot comprehend that, which only limits their Mac sales more. Many gamers might prefer a single Mac over a single PC (even if they have to install windows for gaming). But if they have to buy a gaming PC, they will likely just skip the Mac. But such gamers would enable the Mac gaming market to slowly emerge as well since these same people would probably prefer to not have to reboot into Windows to play a game if they don't have to (i.e. frame rates are high enough that it doesn't matter).

The iMac does not have a great graphics card, dude. It's a mobile card. Even running that 5k display at 1440p resolution would result is crappy game performance. Yay, moderate graphics quality at 1/4 resolution on a $2500 machine.

You need a desktop graphics option for the iMac. Maybe as an add-on or something even. Give me two Gtx 980's in SLI for that 5k beast, or one high-end Titan or AMD 295x2.

 

[NT1440]

Maybe so, but we're the ones spending a ton of money on new technology, and advocating for that technology to family and friends. I would have bought an Apple desktop if there was something available. Basically Apple is only covering the entry-level market and the pro market, and leaving the middle range entirely uncovered. Seems like only a small investment would be required there to provide either a high-end iMac or a low-end Mac Pro.

I get your point that it would not make them a ton of money. However, it would certainly be profitable..

There is a massive difference between generating profit, and being profitable enough for a company with $40+billion in revenues a year to bother with. It's a shame but as these companies scale up, a few million in profit just doesn't warrant the time or energy (which is a shame, there are over 30,000 employees there) in the grand scheme of things.

Case in point, the iPod line. They could certainly generate profit with a newly revamped Touch/updated nano, but they won't because it's such a drop in the bucket that its not worth the manufacturing pipeline expense.

 

[milo]

I just don't see Apple really caring about this use-case enough to hassle with redesigning what's already a very custom motherboard to fit the Mac Pro cylinder design?

The GPU are on daughter boards separate from the CPU board. They already have three different GPU board designs, it's not like it would be that crazy to do a consumer grade GPU option or even easier, just leave out the second CPU and fill it with a dummy board to fill the space (or better, a board with just a second SSD slot!).

You say musicians have "no use" for the FirePro graphics card, and that's largely true. But OS X itself does make some use of accelerated graphics capabilities of these cards. The work needed to redraw windows when you resize them, drag them around the screen, or overlay them partially on top of each other, for example? That gets offloaded to the GPU so the CPU cycles aren't cut into as heavily to handle it.

True, that's handled by the GPU, but that is an incredibly low GPU load. Even the lowest one available for MP is way overkill, much less being forced to pay for two of them.

They're probably already getting a pretty good discount off the prices you see quoted for Windows PC card slot versions of the FirePro boards, as they likely pre-ordered a massive quantity of these custom made ones to put in inventory.

That's a possibility, but if that is the case it means they are just way overcharging for these machines. Which they are, especially in the case of the quad core.

In other words, a dying paradigm that consumers have little interest in.

Desktops overall are a dying paradigm. Heck, even computers are dying at this point when it comes to sales. Yet Apple keeps making new macs, including new desktops and this new MP. The problem is they do have a gaping hole in the midrange and that hole got vastly bigger now that they discontinued the quad mini. A higher end mini or lower end (and much cheaper) MP would make the case that a midrange headless isn't needed. But instead Apple is making the need for the xMac bigger than ever.

 

[lbotez]

Desktops overall are a dying paradigm. Heck, even computers are dying at this point when it comes to sales. Yet Apple keeps making new macs, including new desktops and this new MP. The problem is they do have a gaping hole in the midrange and that hole got vastly bigger now that they discontinued the quad mini. A higher end mini or lower end (and much cheaper) MP would make the case that a midrange headless isn't needed. But instead Apple is making the need for the xMac bigger than ever.

the Mac Pro six core is a fast machine; runs miles around a laptop, a mac mini, etc. and it's worth every penny. If you can't afford it, then buy an iMac.

It's not for everyone, but if you need or just like the power, it's there.

The graphics are amazing. I have an Apple Thunderbolt monitor and a Dell 4K UP2414Q hooked up to mine, and it's awesome. The 4K stuff (what there is of it) looks almost like 3D without glasses...

 

[MacGuy1985]

Highly doubt Apple will update the machine until next year, but it's good to know that the underlying pieces are starting to fall into place.

apple tells real customers that iphones matter and desktops dont

 

[flyinmac]

After much thought and deliberation, I have decided to give you permission to buy the new Mac Pro.

I veto... Unless you also buy one for him and I as well.

 

[milo]

the Mac Pro six core is a fast machine; runs miles around a laptop, a mac mini, etc. and it's worth every penny.

Totally agree. I was saying that Apple doesn't offer a headless mac with midrange pricing and performance (quad). A $3499 machine is a perfect example of how big that gaping hole is.

 

[taptic]

I veto... Unless you also buy one for him and I as well.

I posted that in August... In Internet time what you just did was try to have a conversation with a dead guy.

#