Mac Pro 2012 suspiciously inexpensive

TwoPointSevenOh

macrumors newbie
Original poster
Jun 7, 2012
1
0
Anyone else thinking the Mac Pro 2012 looks suspiciously inexpensive?

The most expensive version (K5BPLUS,BEST) is AU$4599 according to 9to5mac... Looks maybe reasonable compared to the current 12-core ($5k)? (AU$1 is quite close to $1)

However, a Dell T7600 using two 8-core E5-2665s (2.4GHz, modest clock for something labeled "best") and 8 GB is $6200.

Either Apple's "best" Mac Pro is a single CPU machine (anyone else thinking "redesign"?), or they have decided to go with 6-core dual CPUs...

(I guess BTO options might explain things?)
 

theSeb

macrumors 604
Aug 10, 2010
6,963
91
Poole, England
Anyone else thinking the Mac Pro 2012 looks suspiciously inexpensive?

The most expensive version (K5BPLUS,BEST) is AU$4599 according to 9to5mac... Looks maybe reasonable compared to the current 12-core ($5k)? (AU$1 is quite close to $1)

However, a Dell T7600 using two 8-core E5-2665s (2.4GHz, modest clock for something labeled "best") and 8 GB is $6200.

Either Apple's "best" Mac Pro is a single CPU machine (anyone else thinking "redesign"?), or they have decided to go with 6-core dual CPUs...
Current prices in Australia:

Quad-Core A$ 2,999.00 vs new rumour A$2,999
8-Core A$ 4,199.00 vs new rumour A$4,599
12-Core A$ 5,999.00 - bto
Server A$ 3,599.00 vs new rumour A$3,599

It seems to me that the prices are spot on. Old 8 core replaced with something better as the entry level dual CPU configuration.

(I guess BTO options might explain things?)
That would be my guess as well
 

Wild-Bill

macrumors 68030
Jan 10, 2007
2,540
617
bleep
I also believe that the BTO options wil complete the picture, as Apple applies their "Apple Tax" to every configurable item to price them into the stratosphere.
 
Last edited:

JaHull

macrumors member
Apr 18, 2009
71
0
England
Judging by the cost of the new Mac Pro leaks id expect the line up to use these processors:

$2,999 - 3.6GHz 4 Core(1620)
3.2GHz 6 Core(1650) 3.3GHz 6 Coure(1660) as BTO

$4,599 - 2.3GHz 12 Core(2630)
For the BTO they will probably use either the 2.5GHz 12 Core(2640) and have one 16 Core option or have two 16 Core options and only the base is 12 Cores. 16 Core options would be 2.4GHz(2665) 2.6GHz(2670) 2.7GHz(2680) 2.9GHz(2690)

For the Single Processor Mac Pro that is all available processors which are Sandy Bridge and all 3 are similar prices to the Nehalem/Westmere chips in the current Mac Pro.
For the Dual Processor Mac Pro I think they will chose the 2.3GHz 6 Core(x2) over the 3.3GHz 4 Core(x2) since the 6 core chips are cheaper and judging by previous Mac Pros they will want the higher end Dual Processors to have a higher GHz value than the low end.

Note the 2.9GHz(2690) costs $600 more per processor than the current 2.93GHz Westmere
 

scottsjack

macrumors 68000
Aug 25, 2010
1,898
298
Arizona
Oh Boy!!! Can't wait until Monday. Let the games begin;

"Too expensive"
"Too ugly"
"Too not-changed-enough"
"Too different looking"
"Too weak"
"Too not-enough-places-to-plug-stuff-into"
"Too iOS-like"
"Too not-enough-iOS-like"
"Too not-as-good-as-Dell-or-HP"
"Will it do Windows 8?"
 

tamvly

macrumors 6502a
Nov 11, 2007
567
3
Gee, should I buy the 2012 Mac Pro or wait for the 2014 model? I can't decide ...
 

NewbieCanada

macrumors 68030
Oct 9, 2007
2,574
35
Gee, should I buy the 2012 Mac Pro or wait for the 2014 model? I can't decide ...
I've heard they're announcing the new models on Monday and that they're being discontinued on Tuesday, so you only have one day to buy before they're gone forever.

Of course I heard that from the voices in my head.
 

wallysb01

macrumors 68000
Jun 30, 2011
1,574
772
Judging by the cost of the new Mac Pro leaks id expect the line up to use these processors:

$2,999 - 3.6GHz 4 Core(1620)
3.2GHz 6 Core(1650) 3.3GHz 6 Coure(1660) as BTO

$4,599 - 2.3GHz 12 Core(2630)
For the BTO they will probably use either the 2.5GHz 12 Core(2640) and have one 16 Core option or have two 16 Core options and only the base is 12 Cores. 16 Core options would be 2.4GHz(2665) 2.6GHz(2670) 2.7GHz(2680) 2.9GHz(2690)
For the base dual processor, that looks like a reasonable choice relative to the old pricing. However, I don't we see a BTO above the 2680 available.

My guess with the 2630 serving as the base DP, we have BTOs with the 2660 and 2680. If indeed apple is going for the 2630, the cost increase to the 2650 could be hard for a lot of people to pick. The top turbo speed for each is the same, and the all cores active speed is slightly slower for the 2650 vs. the 2630 (of course the 2650 will have 4 more cores running in a DP machine). That isn't the case with today's 8-core/12-core options. Each step up is a very significant performance increase.

It will be nice to see the 2630 as the base configuration, because it is a relatively large increase in clock speed for the price over the 2620, and IMO totally worth it for $400 extra dollars in CPU cost. However it does then force Apple to push everything up, if they maintain the current model of giving people clearly better in all cases CPU options inside the DP configuration. Since the 2650 won't be better for people unable to use more than 12 cores very frequently.
 
Last edited:

xgman

macrumors 601
Aug 6, 2007
4,850
652
Oh Boy!!! Can't wait until Monday. Let the games begin;

"Too expensive"
"Too ugly"
"Too not-changed-enough"
"Too different looking"
"Too weak"
"Too not-enough-places-to-plug-stuff-into"
"Too iOS-like"
"Too not-enough-iOS-like"
"Too not-as-good-as-Dell-or-HP"
"Will it do Windows 8?"
These are the same people who pretend that they won't buy the new 4" iPhone because they don't like the back or whatever. Also they are the first in line to buy whatever they are complaining about. :rolleyes:
 

Amethyst

macrumors 6502a
Aug 8, 2006
528
20
From rumors price i guess:

$2099 iMac -> Core i5 3570 3.4 GHz
$2299 iMac -> Core i7 3770 3.5 GHz

$2499 model
Quad Core Intel Xeon E5-1620 3.6 GHz
8 GB DDRIII 1666 (4x2GB)
ATI Radeon HD 7870
18x SuperDrive
Thunderbolt / USB 3.0
Old Case

$2899 Mac Pro -> Six Core Intel Xeon E5-1650 3.2 GHz

$3849 model
2 x Six-Core Intel Xeon E5-2630 2.3 GHz
16 GB DDRIII 1666 (8x2GB)
ATI Radeon HD 7870
18x SuperDrive
Thunderbolt / USB 3.0
Old Case
 
Last edited:

jetjaguar

macrumors 68040
Apr 6, 2009
3,030
1,067
somewhere
it looks like the 6 core is gonna be the best bang for the buck i guess .. i would love more cores .. 12 core would be nice but i think the 6 core will perform better in most of the apps i use
 

jbg232

macrumors 65816
Oct 15, 2007
1,141
2
From rumors price i guess:

$2099 iMac -> Core i5 3570 3.4 GHz
$2299 iMac -> Core i7 3770 3.5 GHz

$2499 model
Quad Core Intel Xeon E5-1620 3.6 GHz
8 GB DDRIII 1666 (4x2GB)
ATI Radeon HD 7870
18x SuperDrive
Thunderbolt / USB 3.0
Old Case

$2899 Mac Pro -> Six Core Intel Xeon E5-1650 3.2 GHz

$3849 model
2 x Six-Core Intel Xeon E5-2630 2.3 GHz
16 GB DDRIII 1666 (8x2GB)
ATI Radeon HD 7870
18x SuperDrive
Thunderbolt / USB 3.0
Old Case
According to the report, there is no more 2499 mac pro...
 

deconstruct60

macrumors G3
Mar 10, 2009
8,618
1,536
There is a AU$2,999 Mac Pro listed on the model number/price sheet. AU$2,999 is the price of the current 2.8GHz 4-core Mac pro.
In one of the threads on the main "News" page, I read that there is an Australian VAT built into their numbers for those who might just do a AUD to dollars US conversion. It is "more" not just by the currency conversion.
 

Tanax

macrumors 6502a
Jun 15, 2011
942
97
Stockholm, Sweden
Oh Boy!!! Can't wait until Monday. Let the games begin;

"Too expensive"
"Too ugly"
"Too not-changed-enough"
"Too different looking"
"Too weak"
"Too not-enough-places-to-plug-stuff-into"
"Too iOS-like"
"Too not-enough-iOS-like"
"Too not-as-good-as-Dell-or-HP"
"Will it do Windows 8?"
You forgot!
"Will it blend?"
 

deconstruct60

macrumors G3
Mar 10, 2009
8,618
1,536
It will be nice to see the 2630 as the base configuration, because it is a relatively large increase in clock speed for the price over the 2620, and IMO totally worth it for $400 extra dollars in CPU cost.
Only it isn't $400 extra dollars. It is around $800 extra since have to pay for two ( 612 -294 => 318 plus Apples 30% mark-up is $413 . ) That's what doesn't quite jibe here unless Apple is eating around $400 of that $800 increase.

Somehow I don't buy that as highly likely. Perhaps it is a large deviation on their part from previous pricing. Perhaps to make up for having pushed the dual boxes completely out of both the sub $3K and sub $K range with this move.

There is going to be a huge gulf between the single package and dual package models unless they really goose the price of the E5 1660 model alot.

I wouldn't discount E5 2620's and perhaps some SSDs standard. With the source of price bump mandatory high speed storage rather than a $800 CPU component jump for $400 in system price.
 

wallysb01

macrumors 68000
Jun 30, 2011
1,574
772
Only it isn't $400 extra dollars. It is around $800 extra since have to pay for two ( 612 -294 => 318 plus Apples 30% mark-up is $413 . ) That's what doesn't quite jibe here unless Apple is eating around $400 of that $800 increase.
But the prices of the 2620 and E5620 are both ~$400. Where does the 294 come from? So What we have is $400 + Apple tax and the price increase appears to be about $500. So it does seem possible.

There is going to be a huge gulf between the single package and dual package models unless they really goose the price of the E5 1660 model alot.

I wouldn't discount E5 2620's and perhaps some SSDs standard. With the source of price bump mandatory high speed storage rather than a $800 CPU component jump for $400 in system price.
That is a possibility too. Maybe they are making room for a smallish boot SSD + HDD, or a better GPU, or a reasonable amount of RAM standard, or some combination of all three. We'll see shortly it seems.
 

scottrichardson

macrumors 6502
Jul 10, 2007
496
4
Ulladulla, NSW Australia
Having owned an 8 core 2009 (dual 2.93Ghz quad core), I'd feel weird not buying anything less than a new 8 core machine. To be fair I don't know that the difference between a 6 core and an 8 core would be that great for my general usage.

I wonder what a new 6 core machine would perform like and feel like in day to day use when compared to my 2009 8 core machine...
 

wallysb01

macrumors 68000
Jun 30, 2011
1,574
772
Having owned an 8 core 2009 (dual 2.93Ghz quad core), I'd feel weird not buying anything less than a new 8 core machine. To be fair I don't know that the difference between a 6 core and an 8 core would be that great for my general usage.

I wonder what a new 6 core machine would perform like and feel like in day to day use when compared to my 2009 8 core machine...
In single/low threaded stuff the 1660 will beat your 8 core pretty handedly. In pure GHz, the 1660 will get up about 600 GHz higher, plus, and I'm just drawing on memory here, something around 20% boost in clock for clock advantage over your nehalem based processors (maybe a little more?). Which would add up to about 40% faster than your 2009 8 core.

In things that are fully multithreaded the gap will pretty much close. At that point the clock advantage goes from ~ 1GHz to ~400MHz + 20% architecture advantage, but you have 2 more cores, so it will be about a dead heat. Maybe the 1660 will win out a little, but not much. And given that you opted to buy an 8-core in the first place I'm guessing you put use to all those cores, so the "upgrade" would probably be a mostly lateral move for you, unless your workflow has changed.
 

ph0rk

macrumors 6502
Oct 22, 2003
262
8
SWVA
Having owned an 8 core 2009 (dual 2.93Ghz quad core), I'd feel weird not buying anything less than a new 8 core machine. To be fair I don't know that the difference between a 6 core and an 8 core would be that great for my general usage.

I wonder what a new 6 core machine would perform like and feel like in day to day use when compared to my 2009 8 core machine...
Clearly, you must go 12-core.


I'm in the same boat.
 

deconstruct60

macrumors G3
Mar 10, 2009
8,618
1,536
But the prices of the 2620 and E5620 are both ~$400. Where does the 294 come from? So What we have is $400 + Apple tax and the price increase appears to be about $500. So it does seem possible.
Sorry. My goof. Was looking at a cpu-world price list and snagged the 2609's by mistake. Yeah. ( 612 - 406 = 206 ) If they the don't round up to nearest hundred and skip the 30% tax its $400. [ They are still eating increase from the normal practices but it is small. ]

Personally, I throw the extra money at 128GB mSATA SSD and a embedded GPU ( same as what top iMac gets with 1GB , or 2GB if it fits, VRAM ).

The SSD would help make up for the relatively low 2GHz base rate on the 2620's. It certainly has that impact on the MBA's. I think all Mac Pro could use the boost as part of the default configuration. Essentially, it is moving an old XServe feature down to the Mac Pro. There is a built in SSD card slot. All the better now that there is a standard for these. :) Like the old XServe equivalent it is useful in server configs too. ( since the Mac Pro has those duties too). They could reuse MBA mSATA devices to can hit price point (since part of volume buy supply chain. ) .


The GPU solves the "need a Display Port signal for Thunderbolt" problem. [ could take a GPU from an iMac perhaps next to "top end" model and add 1GB , or 2GB if it fits, VRAM. At least 1GB to make it viable as limited, yet viable, OpenCL limited workhorse. ] The dual package Mac Pros with E5's have a gut of PCI-e lanes. It would make alot of sense to put them to use solving the "Thunderbolt problem".

Both of those could be around $200 (maybe tough for provide 2GB of VRAM for $200, but the SSD definately should be under. ) .... hence the $400 price bump.


However, yeah some folks are going to be "spooked" by the E5 2620's base clock rate being "just" 2GHz. To those who buy on MHz ratings that's a negative. For people with core scalable workloads the additional four cores ( versus the 5620 ) should make up for the 16% drop in base rate.
The 2630 does have the higher max speed and the four additional cores over the 5620 ... so overall better even without the SSD boost.



That is a possibility too. Maybe they are making room for a smallish boot SSD + HDD, or a better GPU, or a reasonable amount of RAM standard, or some combination of all three. We'll see shortly it seems.
I don't think "better" GPU.... think dual GPUs. :) The standard config would be you get the embedded one to "solve" the TB problem and still get a regular GPU to hook displays to. The sever ( or CTO ) configs you can dump the PCI-e GPU card.

RAM wise I would expect four 1GB DIMMs. One for each memory controller. Apple knows most of you are going to buy 3rd party. :)
I'll be surprised if it four 2GB DIMMs, but that would certainly help with the folks who grumble about limited value.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.