Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

MP 7,1 Is the new Mac Pro too expensive? [MERGED]

filterdecay said:
none of those have the exact specs that apple listed. The top 2 you show are 24 and 28 cores not 8
Click to expand...

Refresh mate I edited, these are exactly the CPUs Apple are using, Intel have updated the ark database twice since I looked about an hour ago with specs and prices.

The cache values are off but that may jsut be ARK. Seems very unlikely that the CPUs are just announced as Apple do and Apple are using ones with extra cache
 
Umbongo said:
Refresh mate I edited, these are exactly the CPUs Apple are using, Intel have updated the ark database twice since I looked about an hour ago with specs and prices.
Click to expand...

well somebody is wrong because apple is listing the 8 core model with 24.5mb of cache and the 8 core part you show only has 16.5
 
JesperA said:
Compare the specs again...
Click to expand...

In what way? Sorry not trying to be an arse, but outside of cache what's the difference?


filterdecay said:
also those w cpus only have 6 dimm slots max and the new macpro has 12. Wrong part.
Click to expand...

6 channels, 2 DIMMs per channel.

filterdecay said:
well somebody is wrong because apple is listing the 8 core model with 24.5mb of cache and the 8 core part you show only has 16.5
Click to expand...

Yeah I'd venture on that being a mistake with one or the other rather than Apple having a series with just more cache, not really how Intel do things. Could be Apple are going for scalable Xeons which just happen to have same specs and support more cache, but dunno why they'd do that as they will be a lot more expensive.
 
Umbongo said:
In what way? Sorry not trying to be an arse, but outside of cache what's the difference?




6 channels, 2 DIMMs per channel.



Yeah I'd venture on that being a mistake with one or the other rather than Apple having a series with just more cache, not really how Intel do things. Could be Apple are going for scalable Xeons which just happen to have same specs and support more cache, but dunno why they'd do that as they will be a lot more expensive.
Click to expand...

ok I stand corrected on the dimms. Maybe apple didnt update the cache numbers for the 8 core part on the page.
 
Perhaps you would be more credible if you compared it to a Xeon-W single socket workstation from HP.
Click to expand...

As I sit here watching this Z840 weighing it at 12K look tired....

This new MP is def a beast, hope it weighs less than this tired old thing.
 
Umbongo said:
Yeah I'd venture on that being a mistake with one or the other rather than Apple having a series with just more cache, not really how Intel do things.
Click to expand...
Thats exactly how Intel do things, they create custom chips all the time for costumers
 
On the cache thing, the top 28core CPU has 38.5MB L3 Cache and 28MB L2 cache, other CPU's aren't revealed L2 cache yet, but surely that isn't it? Lol
 
JesperA said:
Thats exactly how Intel do things, they create custom chips all the time for costumers
Click to expand...

It's really rare that happens. Do you have any examples? Apple always just used the standard Xeons, nothing special about them. Have Apple ever used an Intel CPU no one else had? I haven't kept up last few years.
 
Umbongo said:
It's really rare that happens. Do you have any examples? Apple always just used the standard Xeons, nothing special about them. Have Apple ever used an Intel CPU no one else had? I haven't kept up last few years.
Click to expand...

well the do underclock them so the thermals fit in some sexy case 😉
 
Umbongo said:
It's really rare that happens. Do you have any examples? Apple always just used the standard Xeons, nothing special about them. Have Apple ever used an Intel CPU no one else had? I haven't kept up last few years.
Click to expand...
Just to keep it recent: iMac Pro, MacBook 2015/2016 and various others.
 
tsialex said:
Just to keep it recent: iMac Pro, MacBook 2015/2016 and various others.
Click to expand...
Ah cool thanks, I did consider the iMac Pro had them but wasn't sure. I think I solved it anyway above, Apple just tacked on the L2 cache as they are huge with these CPUs and thus marketable I guess.
 
keysofanxiety said:
I know, right! All those masses of users requiring 128GB of VRAM and 1TB of memory for their workflow.

No way this’ll compete with your high street $300 tower.
Click to expand...

you aren't getting 128GB of VRAM or 1TB of memory with the base 6k config though... those things will be MUCH more.

The base mac pro specs are really pathetic for the price. You'd be better off getting an iMac Pro.
 
MacPro2020 said:
**** them and the high horse they rode in on.

$5,000 computer for the masses?

$6,000 monitor???

$999 for an aluminum stand???

My damn iPhone is already $1,000.

F them !!!!! Out of touch dumbasses!!!!
Click to expand...

Alright, who let the Boomer in...

Seriously, if you think a Mac Pro is a computer for the masses...you were never the market for the Mac Pro. Not sure why you wasted any time thinking it was going to be cheap & affordable.

Sounds like an iMac is more your speed. Based on this post, I think it will provide all the horsepower you need.
 
  • Like
Reactions: pastrychef, s15119 and BigMcGuire
aaronhead14 said:
The new Mac Pro is actually very competitively priced when compared to Z Workstations and other Pro machines. Yes, you could build a PC for cheaper, but professionals rarely do that. They go with workstations that have support behind them. So if you look at it that way, Apple is now the cheapest option for that type of pro workstation. Especially with the monitor. I've been in the market for a pro HDR reference display for DolbyVision grading, and the only ones on the market until today have cost around $50,000.

So before you start ripping on Apple for this Mac Pro, put things into perspective! Apple is seriously undercutting their competitors, and giving us a less expensive option that's arguably much, much better. Just because it wasn't designed for you doesn't mean it's not what real professionals want. This is exactly what we wanted!
Click to expand...

If I have a problem with an HP or Dell, they send a technician to my location. Apple doesn't do that.

You don't have to build a box yourself - there are a number of companies that build workstations. I can get a 24 core box with 128Gb of ram along with a faster 1Tb NMVe boot drive as well as the workstation version of that 580 for about 25% less - I'd also get the exact same support I would get from Apple - if it breaks, I ship it back to them.


I can't comment on the display, because that level of detail isn't needed for what I do.
 
  • Like
Reactions: turbineseaplane, dysamoria and eltoslightfoot
Derived said:
Alright, who let the Boomer in...

Seriously, if you think a Mac Pro is a computer for the masses...you were never the market for the Mac Pro. Not sure why you wasted any time thinking it was going to be cheap & affordable.

Sounds like an iMac is more your speed. Based on this post, I think it will provide all the horsepower you need.
Click to expand...

It used to be though.

Looks like my future is with AMD - I need cores and ram.
 
  • Like
Reactions: eltoslightfoot
ssgbryan said:
If I have a problem with an HP or Dell, they send a technician to my location. Apple doesn't do that.

You don't have to build a box yourself - there are a number of companies that build workstations. I can get a 24 core box with 128Gb of ram along with a faster 1Tb NMVe boot drive as well as the workstation version of that 580 for about 25% less - I'd also get the exact same support I would get from Apple - if it breaks, I ship it back to them.


I can't comment on the display, because that level of detail isn't needed for what I do.
Click to expand...

But if you can build a box yourself? You can save gobs if money over the Mac Pro. Gobs. Or become a male prostitute as one poster suggested.
 
I knew way before this announcement I was not the target market for the Mac Pro. I also know that the price is not out of line regarding the specs (sure the entry level SSD could be larger). The only price quibble I have is the $1k display stand, but it's not about me.

I am happy that Apple built this for the people who need it. I am happy they are finally freaking listening to some of their long time customers. Apple knows who they are targeting here. They want those people to stick around or come back.

I may not be pleased with some things :apple: have done (price gouging, gimping on parts, builds) etc., but this Mac Pro isn't one of those things.

Besides, we may see the iMac Pros on sale for a more reasonable price after this Mac Pro is launched. 😉
 
  • Like
Reactions: pastrychef, octoviaa and eltoslightfoot
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back