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.
Let's predict how the new Mac Pro will do
- Thread starter cnev3
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
. You know it's true. 
If the price is right they sold one to me.
$$$$$ is everything. Get the base price right and we've got the xMac everyone has wanted for so long. Equals gangbusters.
I like this unit and hope the price is right. It is a good pro version of my Mac Mini and should serve me well. Or rather, its a nice Mac Pro turned inside out so everything must be on the outside beyond its basics. For those that think the footprint is small..think again as everything must for the most part be added via port plug in - Monitor, single and multiple storage, optical disc units etc.
Hopefully Apple will for a change offer a base unit that is not somewhat of a cripple and provide it at a fair price.
Hopefully Apple will for a change offer a base unit that is not somewhat of a cripple and provide it at a fair price.
I know you are trying to be sarcastic, but you actually really did not read the old threads. The weight and size of the Mac Pro is complained about on a common basis. Typically in the case re-design threads and especially when the topic of the handles and their utility comes up. Typically how the handles cut into hands when lifting them and how removing Mac Pros from users locations to take them back to be repaired and/or deployed is a pain because they are heavy.
Throw on top all the xMac discussions where folks want a smaller ( and therefore presumably less expensive ) Mac Pro. Is this going to be a cheaper box? It probably will not be firmly planted inside the iMac price zone. But were people yelping about smaller and mutating the Mac Pro into something somewhat different? Absolutely. There is gobs of that stuff here on macrumors and other forums. Is this the xMac? No (at least not the "headless iMac with slots" variant of the xMac). It is a substantial mutation that is smaller though.
both of which ignore Apple's previous moves. 6 cores at $1999 and two completely custom 4+GB GPU cards is a wish list for substantially lower Apple profit margins. It is highly doubtful Apple is going to do that.
The two GPUs and 256GB PCI-e SSD are likely going to wipe-out a large chunk whatever savings come from making the device smaller. Sub $2000 would be a challenge.
Additionally the Xeon E5 is different from the past Xeon 3500/3600 series in that the fastest base clock rate is the entry level model. It doesn't really make alot of sense to skip that. The E5 1620 v2 likely is 3.7GHz (at ~$300 ) while the E5 1660 v2 is likely 3.6GHz ( at ~$1000) [ and the 1650 3.4GHz at ~$600 ] Which one is a better fit if trying to hit a $1999 price point?
Some folks want the higher base clock because they are running older, large scalar (non parallel) apps. To max clock on the current Mac Pro had to jump close to or into the $3K range. If that become just barely over the $2K that would probably spur more of them to buy. It is not going to make much sense to sideline more of those potential buyers by putting "max clock" right back up solidly inside the $3K range again. The current Mac Pro has major sales growth issues. More of the same pricing policy isn't going to cure that.
What is could be limited to a HD4600 ( maybe HD5000) GPU versus two FirePros .... well there is a huge gap there. Sure the mini's will be cheaper. But they aren't going to do what the Mac Pro does. If all you are pimarily buying is just CPU only then perhaps. But in terms of being a better all-around system they aren't.
The thing is that if Apple makes this a higher priced product then it seems like it has no customers. Consider; they've already angered a bunch of the existing Pro customers because of the no PCI, no hard drive approach. This on top of the professionals who have already left for Windows. So who then exactly is going to pay big bucks for this not highly configurable computer?
What they've done is add in consumer features to the professional box. Non internal upgradability, except RAM and Flash. Small and quiet size. Lots of ports. These are consumer features.
Now the pitch at WWDC was aimed at the professional graphics customers who are ready to revolt. They showed off how powerful this thing is, all they were trying to do was convince them to stay, while at the same time removing features they are presently using (PCIe slots).
So ... the only thing that seems to make sense is if the computer is also aimed at the prosumers, because that's how it's packaged now. The only detraction to this idea is the "dual graphics cards STANDARD". We don't know what that means, maybe standard for the high end computer they showed, and maybe not for the lower end version.
What makes the most sense is a entry level model
What they've done is add in consumer features to the professional box. Non internal upgradability, except RAM and Flash. Small and quiet size. Lots of ports. These are consumer features.
Now the pitch at WWDC was aimed at the professional graphics customers who are ready to revolt. They showed off how powerful this thing is, all they were trying to do was convince them to stay, while at the same time removing features they are presently using (PCIe slots).
So ... the only thing that seems to make sense is if the computer is also aimed at the prosumers, because that's how it's packaged now. The only detraction to this idea is the "dual graphics cards STANDARD". We don't know what that means, maybe standard for the high end computer they showed, and maybe not for the lower end version.
What makes the most sense is a entry level model
- $1,999
- Single entry level GPU
- 6 (or 4 possible?) core CPU
- 4G RAM
- 128G Flash
Honestly, for $2K, I would expect a lot more than that. Comparing to the top iMac, which is also $2K...
The iMac has:
• Decent GPU
• Quad CPU
• 8GB RAM
• 1TB HDD (which is probably not that much less expensive than a 128GB SSD)
and ALSO comes with:
• Optical Drive
• 27" Screen
So yeah, realistically, to be able to compete with an iMac on the low end, I think it needs to at least have MOST of:
• Dual mid-range desktop/workstation GPUs (It does say 2 standard)
• Hex-CPU
• 8GB RAM
• 256GB SSD
If not more.
Especially as upgradeability is now pretty much equal between MP and iMac. And, as you say, it seems more Pro-sumer than strictly pro.
The wording is clear I think.
"With the new Mac Pro, we looked ahead and engineered an even more powerful GPU architecture. Not only does it feature a state-of-the-art AMD FirePro workstation-class GPU with up to 6GB of dedicated VRAM it features two of them."
This thing is so simple and elegant (in its own way) I can't see them adding confusion by offering a 1 GPU model. You'd lose the ability to drive 3x4K displays.
Two FirePro W5000s in a $2,000 computer is not extravagant and I think you are far more likely to get a $2,499 system with dual GPUs than a $1,999 system with one.
----------
They aren't going to give you a 6-core CPU and 256GB of storage when they can sell you the extra 2 cores for $400 and the extra 128GB storage for $200.
Video Pros will explode with glee, assuming Final Cut gets an upgrade which satisfies them. The video market will glom onto the new MacPro, as will many professionals with need for speedier computing. Speed with TB2/HDMI/Video will blow away much of the market.
Gamers will not like it. Do they ever? Gaming is not what MacPros are about.
The affluent will get it instantly. It will have the instant popularity of all Apple products which hit redesign, but it won't be as big as iPad or iPhone due to the price and uses. Of course. The glow will fade quickly, due to the march of processing development and a lack of customization or upgradability.
It will do fairly well and be consistent with the MacPro line as it is and has been. It will not be a break-away success or a failure.
Where the new MacPro will thrive is with video enthusiasts that have large screen TVs (and emerging 4K tech); it will become an ideal video server/entertainment center for high-end movie lovers. Thank you, HDMI.
Gamers will not like it. Do they ever? Gaming is not what MacPros are about.
The affluent will get it instantly. It will have the instant popularity of all Apple products which hit redesign, but it won't be as big as iPad or iPhone due to the price and uses. Of course. The glow will fade quickly, due to the march of processing development and a lack of customization or upgradability.
It will do fairly well and be consistent with the MacPro line as it is and has been. It will not be a break-away success or a failure.
Where the new MacPro will thrive is with video enthusiasts that have large screen TVs (and emerging 4K tech); it will become an ideal video server/entertainment center for high-end movie lovers. Thank you, HDMI.
I don't think we're going to see a single GPU option because of all those TB ports.
Hopefully Apple will upgrade the HDMI to 2.0 as soon as it is ratified, so that it can support computer and TV frame rates at 4K, not just movies.
I for one am VERY interested in it. It looks like a fantastic 3D machine. I would kill to run Mari on it.
On the PC Builder side yeah, a lot. South Korean displays have brought down the 27" 2560x1440 panels to $299-$399 and for those that want a better warranty and better quality there are the Dell 27".
These people have built their own PC's and either gone Hackintosh or stuck with Windows. But now that the new Mac Pro is coming they are considering a switch back to Apple hardware whilst keeping their displays.
Two of my employees that use Mac's have already put in requests to get the Mac Pro which I have tentatively approved depending on price of the machines and a few other people I know in the video effects industry (Who worked on such movies as The Dark Knight and Captain America among others) intend to purchase a few of the new Mac Pro systems as-well to replace both older Mac Pro systems and newer PC systems.
Now personally for me I think the Mac Pro isn't a good fit. I like internal expandability and honestly I just don't think it is innovative enough based on how long it took them to update it, but I cannot ignore the people around me who seem to want one, on that basis I think it will sell quite decently.
Although i realize many wanted just another tower with lots of bays, slots etc and they got something very different, i believe it will do well.
It seems like the push toward Thunderbolt enclosures for expandability has some advantages, although it certainly means more cost.
The complaint about not being able to easily change GPU systems i don't quite understand, when they are providing you with a ton of GPU power out of the box. I suppose that too at some future point could be changed through an external box.
I predict pricing equal to today's MPs and i predict they will sell in like numbers.
It seems like the push toward Thunderbolt enclosures for expandability has some advantages, although it certainly means more cost.
The complaint about not being able to easily change GPU systems i don't quite understand, when they are providing you with a ton of GPU power out of the box. I suppose that too at some future point could be changed through an external box.
I predict pricing equal to today's MPs and i predict they will sell in like numbers.
Can anyone possibly define or measure success for the Mac Pro?
I believe non-laptop sales are about 20% of Macs sold, and it's a safe bet the vast majority of those are iMacs, not minis or Pros.
I think it will do very well with its intended, natural market, but that market is pretty small.
Well, you can easily swap resources among machines. Storage, backup, video capture, audio processing etc. That is one that i can think of.
If you asked those using a Mac Pro what their #1 wishlist item was, I'll bet 1 trillion Bernanke New Dollars that none of them said "Make it smaller!"
The old design is perfect for efficient expandability (I know, because I use Mac Pros at home and work). Plus it could be easily rack mounted, unlike the new MP.
Essentially, Apple has created a boutique computer that will thrill a small subset of current Mac Pro users while forcing the remainder to keep what they have or switch to Windows or some other workstation.
In short, I think it's going to be a failure if sales volume is the main concern. But, selling vast quantities of Mac Pros probably isn't their goal.
Storage can e taken care of with SAN
The other two I'll give you but it would seem that capture would already be covered with cards for computers that need to do that. I dunno enough about audio to have any sort of intelligent conversation.
I think the Hackintosh crowd falls in to one of three camps.
1. The person that wants full customisation, isn't willing to settle for Apples restrictive hardware options.
2. The guy that just wants a Mac but Apple didn't have something more powerful than a Mac Mini that didn't come with a Screen or used outdated technology.
3. The guy with a budget too small to buy a real Mac so they build one for $499
I think the new Mac Pro is going to take out that 2nd category of user. The one that wanted a Mac but wasn't willing to buy a Mac Mini, iMac or outdated Mac Pro but they would buy a new Mac Pro.
I don't know how big that group is, probably not more than a few thousand individuals. But the other examples I gave with my employees wanting one and some people in the video effects business, those people are already using either the older Mac Pro, iMacs or Windows machines. For them they've been waiting for the renewed Mac Pro's for years.
I think in my own opinion that the new Mac Pro will sell relatively well but it won't be a surprise hit flying off the shelves, it's still a desktop, they have lower market share than Notebooks and it's still going to be very pricey. Those aspects will always limit its appeal. I'm just saying I don't think it will be a flop or ill-received.
In some ways this computer looks like it could quite easily do much much better then the old Mac Pro.
If it wasn't for the GPU choice i would say this thing might sell very very well but i don't see how that is possible unless Apple managed to get the mother of all deals from AMD.
I mean high end firepro's go for 3500$ each? No one outside of pro users are spending that kind of money and you can't even upgrade them.
Again going to reserve judgment until i see the actual prices and the actual GPU's used.
I just wish there was a consumer option for the cards, i would gladly spend 4k for this thing with 2 top of the line radeon cards and nice overall specs.
If it wasn't for the GPU choice i would say this thing might sell very very well but i don't see how that is possible unless Apple managed to get the mother of all deals from AMD.
I mean high end firepro's go for 3500$ each? No one outside of pro users are spending that kind of money and you can't even upgrade them.
Again going to reserve judgment until i see the actual prices and the actual GPU's used.
I just wish there was a consumer option for the cards, i would gladly spend 4k for this thing with 2 top of the line radeon cards and nice overall specs.