I recently saw an MP 7.1 for sale with 16core, 96gb, 2TB MP7.1 and MPX W6900X for 3000Euro. Quite a attractive offer, as the W6900X itself is a rare and very expensive card.
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.
MP 7,1 Is it worth buying a MacPro7.1?
- Thread starter Krisz
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I have been looking at (stupid new) memory prices for 7.1mp out of curiosity….. 😆
Even though I can see sub £1k Pro’s for sale on eBay UK (which is a steal), they all have 32GB ram.
To upgrade to 96gb (new) would cost £720 (2x32).
The extra cost for one with 96gb fitted is a lot less….
I threw in the starting bid on a kit at $500 on ebay. The auction just ended.
I was not really all that interested, and quite happy to be outbid
I purchased 192GB Samsung RAM back in July 2023. Paid €456,30 with tax (19%) and shipping.
This was €548, so 20% higher. More than two years later
Not compared to the price I saw in the UK for brand new 192GB (3x594) £1782.
If you went for 6x32, that’s £2160…..
The 2019 Mac Pro started selling just over 6 years ago. And macOS Tahoe is the last to support the machine.
Compare that to the 6 year run the 2013 Mac Pro had. And macOS Monterey is the last to support it. Released October 2021. So it was supported with new OS versions for 8 years.
8 years for the 2019 Mac Pro would have been until 2027. So Apple cut it short by two years.
Excellence is no measurement how long Apple will support a product.
Apple admitted the 2013 model had a design flaw.
Apple cut short the very point of the 2019 model. It's graphics capability. It could still have supported the latest graphic cards if Apple wanted to. As we all know.
So be it thermal limits, or refusal to design new cards. The end result is the same.
Users booting in Windows have not been limited yet. Except for the need to find cards that fit within the length limit.
Compare that to the 6 year run the 2013 Mac Pro had. And macOS Monterey is the last to support it. Released October 2021. So it was supported with new OS versions for 8 years.
8 years for the 2019 Mac Pro would have been until 2027. So Apple cut it short by two years.
Excellence is no measurement how long Apple will support a product.
Apple admitted the 2013 model had a design flaw.
Apple cut short the very point of the 2019 model. It's graphics capability. It could still have supported the latest graphic cards if Apple wanted to. As we all know.
So be it thermal limits, or refusal to design new cards. The end result is the same.
Users booting in Windows have not been limited yet. Except for the need to find cards that fit within the length limit.
Any particular reason for that?
In my experience: Apple silicon runs intel code in a Windows for ARM Vm faster than a most intel machines. I use Windows on ARM ever day for work and most of the apps I use are still intel on that platform.
Also, sleep/wake works properly, i just close the lid and windows gets suspended and restored properly and my battery doesn't drain in the bag between home and work
How well does it work with windows 11, now that Win11 has the hard TPM requirements, etc.? Does the 2019 Pro fulfil those requirements without hacks (that microsoft are slowly but surely eliminating)?
YMMV. I use quite a few devices that either have no ARM support or broken support so they don't even work in a VM.Any particular reason for that?
In my experience: Apple silicon runs intel code in a Windows for ARM Vm faster than a most intel machines. I use Windows on ARM ever day for work and most of the apps I use are still intel on that platform.
Also, sleep/wake works properly, i just close the lid and windows gets suspended and restored properly and my battery doesn't drain in the bag between home and work
It's the reason I keep both 2019 Macbook Pros and 2019 Mac Pro. Heck I even have 2015 Macbook Pro to speak to some hardware.
How does that VM go with 3D and video applications, like 3DSMax? That seems to be the one thing nobody talks about when saying how fast those VMs are.
For office apps it’s no problem, but then MS Office just runs online in a browser anyway. But some apps must run natively in windows.
Last edited:
In reality it will be 2027, as Apple provide Security Updates for 3 versions of MacOS, so Tahoe should get updates until 2027.
Parallels these days can run some AAA games fairly effectively - the 3d performance isn't native but it is playable.
I don't have 3DSMax to test.
With Big Sur, apple introduced virtual GPU support to the OS to enable parallels to do this, so if you haven't looked into running 3d stuff in a Mac hosted virtual machine since then, maybe re-test.
Gah, am so on the fence about a 7,1 because they are available locally from university 2nd hand at okay prices.
I am hoping Apple will extend security updates for Tahoe for more than the standard 2 years after newer OSs come out.
But doubt they will!
One of the most abrupt transitions for workstation class machines, and if you got one of the Quad Core G5 systems, you were blessed with 1 major OS release, and 8 or so major security updates.
There was a glimmer of hope when 10.6 (Snow Leopard) booted on G5 systems in early Beta, but Apple quickly pulled the plug on it.
I am hoping Apple will extend security updates for Tahoe for more than the standard 2 years after newer OSs come out.
But doubt they will!
Oh that is nothing close to short! Compare those runs with the last PowerPC Systems.
One of the most abrupt transitions for workstation class machines, and if you got one of the Quad Core G5 systems, you were blessed with 1 major OS release, and 8 or so major security updates.
There was a glimmer of hope when 10.6 (Snow Leopard) booted on G5 systems in early Beta, but Apple quickly pulled the plug on it.
If you can get them with good RAM capacity (192GB or 384GB) and W6800/W6900 class GPU and at least 16 core Xeon then they are still good machines, especially if your work favours lots of CPU cores (like mine) or needs a dedicated GPU / native windows operation.
The biggest limitation now with these machines (aside from the rare bespoke Apple Tax MPX module GPUs) is enormous RAM prices if you need to upgrade, blame the AI boom for that.
I'm very happy with my two 28 core machines. I would like it if I could use newer GPUs but Apple's influencer and forum supporter crowds go ballistic at the thought of that.
Last edited:
I can agree on GPU, but I am not sure CPU core count helps a lot. Might be very dependant on a workflow, cause in Xcode for example 28 core is about as fast in compiling a big Xcode project as a M3 MBA (140 sec in Xcode 15): https://github.com/devMEremenko/XcodeBenchmark/issues/509
But it could be Apple compilers not scaling well with core counts
I did say “if favours CPU cores” which mine does. Maybe I didn’t make it clear enough.
code compiling is supposed to favour CPU cores, and it would make sense to assume a 28 core would be good for Xcode. But it is not, so I am putting this out there for anyone who might chance upon this post.
Not all multi core workflows are created equal sadly
Are you coding in Xcode?
I checked, and found one datapoint for the 28-core Mac Pro that you probably are referring to.
The test ran under macOS Big Sur 11.0.1.
Seems like a stretch to conclude anything about the Mac Pro's multi-core capabilities on one random data point.
The Xcode benchmark lists results in each version, and there is no other test of the machine.
True that. The datapoint I am referring to is linked in the post I originally made:
https://github.com/devMEremenko/XcodeBenchmark/issues/509
made on xcode 15