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

Mac Pro Build-to-Order Upgrade Pricing Revealed

aloshka said:
Yeah. I'm actually impressed with the price. Getting the 8-core 32gb d500's

As for 768, why? $800 for a 1tb pciex is really good, the 768's on an iMac used to cost $1000 for the upgrade.
Click to expand...

I think its an $800+ add on top of whatever they are charging for the 256 GB that comes standard. So not as sweet.

And 768 because 512 is not enough, Mari is recommended to use 250 of that for scratch. And 1TB is a gouge point at top of the line. 768 seemed like better potential $'s per GB.
 
mrxak said:
We need to see some proper real-world software benchmarks, particularly on each of the GPU options. I think anyone buying one before we see those on a production model is crazy, though I certainly can understand people's impatience.
Click to expand...

I know what you mean. But the Pixar Mari Demonstration sold me. It was insane. I've never seen any Sub $30K workstation act like that.
 
The GPU pricing was a pleasant surprise, but the "3.0GHz 8-core: +$1500" was not. I didn't think it would cost that much. I was hoping it would be around $800 at most $1000, this could be a bit of a game changer for me.
 
$10,000

Well... I don't need to eat for the next couple years.... i could use losing some weight anyway....
 
I just hope it's not the real prices... Because it's just wrong to me and way too expensive for what it is!

Otherwise, I just guess that I'm just not in the game anymore to use Pro Products from Apple.
 
bedifferent said:
Yeah, but at least the current Mac Pro is priced and spec'd wide enough for pro-sumers and high end businesses. This model has created an even wider chasm between a loaded iMac and base nMP. The 4-Core base system, which isn't even that powerful compared to a current gen 5,1 model, is ludicrous.
Click to expand...

A loaded iMac costs several hundred dollars MORE than a base model nMP. More importantly, it uses laptop, not even desktop, let alone workstation, parts--all so that it can house a screen that many people (myself included) do not need, and absolutely do not want.

I do agree that Apple seems relentlessly to ignore, obviously intentionally, those of us who want a $1,500 headless desktop (myself included). They must continue to conclude that this population will either migrate to a Mac Pro and spend the extra money, or be satisfied with a Mac Mini, because those are the only options that fetch Apple the margins it wants to earn, and it is willing to sacrifice some lost sales in order to make those margins, which of course it has every right to do. Apple has no obligation to satisfy my needs. None. It has the obligation to its shareholders to make decisions likely to earn it the most profits it can while building a viable business model. In that sense, from every indication, it is meeting its obligations quite well.
 
Tuesday morning... everyone on MR is still eagerly awaiting the release of the computer they absolutely despise.
 
michaeljk said:
A loaded iMac costs several hundred dollars MORE than a base model nMP. More importantly, it uses laptop, not even desktop, let alone workstation, parts--all so that it can house a screen that many people (myself included) do not need, and absolutely do not want.

I do agree that Apple seems relentlessly to ignore, obviously intentionally, those of us who want a $1,500 headless desktop (myself included). They must continue to conclude that this population will either migrate to a Mac Pro and spend the extra money, or be satisfied with a Mac Mini, because those are the only options that fetch Apple the margins it wants to earn, and it is willing to sacrifice some lost sales in order to make those margins, which of course it has every right to do. Apple has no obligation to satisfy my needs. None. It has the obligation to its shareholders to make decisions likely to earn it the most profits it can while building a viable business model. In that sense, from every indication, it is meeting its obligations quite well.
Click to expand...

Or build a Hackintosh or Windows 8.1 PC like I just did instead of buying a Mac Pro.

----------
WestonHarvey1 said:
Tuesday morning... everyone on MR is still eagerly awaiting the release of the computer they absolutely despise.
Click to expand...

*applause*
 
jetjaguar said:
was planning on getting the 6 core model .. wondering if its worth it to pay 600 for the d700s:confused:
Click to expand...

$600 is not much for theater GPUs. If you need them. I think the purpose of the GU in this computer is to run OpenCL. Media transcoding.

----------
gotluck said:
Build a consumer desktop please apple ! For us mere mortals.
Click to expand...

What about the Mac Mini and the iMac. Are those not "consumer desktops"
 
9000 said:
Apple states:
"PC3-10600E, 1333 MHz, DDR3 SDRAM UDIMMs
Error-correcting code (ECC)
72-bit wide, 240-pin ECC modules
36 ICs maximum per ECC UDIMM".
Not very common.
Click to expand...

And that's not the memory the new mac pro uses. You do realize that the memory is dictated by the CPU, right? Macs use the same ram as a PC with that same CPU. The ram used in the new Mac Pro is newer (along with the new cpus that started shipping in september), which is why it is less common. As the MP and PCs with these CPUs ship in bigger quantities, the ram will become more common as well.

bedifferent said:
The 4-Core base system, which isn't even that powerful compared to a current gen 5,1 model, is ludicrous.
Click to expand...

The four core mac pro has always been ludicrous. I think it's stupid to buy the new quad core, but it was stupid to buy the 2012 quad core as well as earlier ones.

sth said:
Xeons are (mostly) more expensive than i7s
Click to expand...

Not really any more. Quad and six core xeons used are around $300 and $600, which is about the same pricing for i7 at similar clock speeds. The new ram is more expensive for now but that should come down before long.

violst said:
The GPU pricing was a pleasant surprise, but the "3.0GHz 8-core: +$1500" was not. I didn't think it would cost that much. I was hoping it would be around $800 at most $1000, this could be a bit of a game changer for me.
Click to expand...

Intel sells the eight core chip for $1700, if the six core is $600 the upgrade costs Apple about $1100. That's an apple markup of $400 on the upgrade, they could come down a bit but not really that much on the upgrade itself based on intel's pricing.
 
Wow, that's pricy, but is that what cutting edge in computers AND design cost? I guess so!

I wish it did come with a monitor at that price though, but I understand why it doesn't!
 
michaeljk said:
A loaded iMac costs several hundred dollars MORE than a base model nMP. More importantly, it uses laptop, not even desktop, let alone workstation, parts--all so that it can house a screen that many people (myself included) do not need, and absolutely do not want.

I do agree that Apple seems relentlessly to ignore, obviously intentionally, those of us who want a $1,500 headless desktop (myself included). They must continue to conclude that this population will either migrate to a Mac Pro and spend the extra money, or be satisfied with a Mac Mini, because those are the only options that fetch Apple the margins it wants to earn, and it is willing to sacrifice some lost sales in order to make those margins, which of course it has every right to do. Apple has no obligation to satisfy my needs. None. It has the obligation to its shareholders to make decisions likely to earn it the most profits it can while building a viable business model. In that sense, from every indication, it is meeting its obligations quite well.
Click to expand...

Would you be satisfied if they put a better GPU inside the Mac Mini? What is it about wanting a $1500 headless desktop? Just the screen or the lack of expandability? If you want a $1500 headless desktop that'll run for years and years to come why not just pick up a used Mac Pro? I have my 2009 MP and as soon as I throw a 7970 in here and an SSD, I'll have little desire to switch to the nMP for a long time. I realize folks want something new, a whole new product that's built for them, but if you don't want an iMac (which is faster then most old Mac Pros) and you can't accomplish what you need on a Mac Mini (which most consumers can without issue, even feature film editing in 2K that doesn't find much bottleneck until you hit the render button), then your options are limited. I don't really see the need to have a $1500 headless desktop from Apple. I think the whole beef with mobile components has gotta go away, especially if you're not willing to pay for a workstation like the nMP. That's just the way of things at this point, and the mobile chips aren't so bad. ;) You want a $1500 workstation non-workstation. That's never been possible with Apple, not even in the old Mac Pro days.

----------
milo said:
The four core mac pro has always been ludicrous. I think it's stupid to buy the new quad core, but it was stupid to buy the 2012 quad core as well as earlier ones.
Click to expand...

I don't think it's stupid at all. If someone doesn't need the RAW CPU power as much, they can spend what they would've spent on the CPU upgrade or hopping up to the 6-core machine on upgrading the GPU's to the very top instead. It gives someone the opportunity to put their money where they really want it. Rendering will be slower depending on what it's doing, but as far as I'm concerned you're getting 27 iMac i7-like rendering power with the ability to upgrade the GPU's to INSANE levels. For the folks who don't want an iMac but can't afford the top-tier…it's a pretty great balance of power if you ask me.
 
spaz8 said:
And 768 because 512 is not enough, Mari is recommended to use 250 of that for scratch. And 1TB is a gouge point at top of the line. .
Click to expand...

Why would it be recommended to use the OS/Apps SDD drive as as a scratch drive. If hammering tons of data to the SSD scratch drive then more likely want to use a dedicated drive just for that. Remove the OS/Apps from from a 512GB drive and there is should more than plenty room for scratch for a wide variety of workloads.

even could pragmatically crank up put he "overprovision" percentage a bit (e.g., partion 32-40 GB as unformatted ) which would even probably even out read/write response times. [ http://www.anandtech.com/show/6489/playing-with-op ]
 
ChrisA said:
What about the Mac Mini and the iMac. Are those not "consumer desktops"
Click to expand...

The "consumer desktop" desire is for a standalone desktop without an integrated monitor. Something in between the Mac mini and the Mac Pro price and power wise. Sometimes called the "xMac".

Now that Apple has taken internal expansion off the table, I think the Mac mini could eventually get there, if Apple puts some more serious graphics in it.
 
michaeljk said:
A loaded iMac costs several hundred dollars MORE than a base model nMP. More importantly, it uses laptop, not even desktop, let alone workstation, parts--all so that it can house a screen that many people (myself included) do not need, and absolutely do not want.
Click to expand...

A. iMacs use desktop CPUs. (hasn't been true for several years now. You are just spouting stale dogma )

B. very top end BTO iMac GPUs are effectively low-mid range desktop GPUs just clocked slower. Resource wise they are the same; just substantially clocked slower, but still in the low end desktop performance range. [ GTX 780M 823MHz vs GTX 770 1046 and basically the same computational resources and limitations . ]

C. the primary driver on 'passing' the entry Mac Pro in price is the nosebleed high mark-up on top end SSD and Memory. If use 3rd party components to crank up the capacities and either repurpose/sell the replaced standard parts, the iMac isn't quite so high. Flipping every BTO toggle to maximum is more an indication either don't care about prices (someone else is paying) or just like burning money.

Apples to Oranges with one Mac cranked up to every BTO max possible versus another Mac in totally standard config only illustrates what Apple BTO polices are... there are no segmentation or tierng insights there.
 
** squints **

Well, stiff but a little short of "bend over and spread 'em" brutal. But yah, pro pricing for pro machines. Since My current MP is only two years old, and as Graphic and Web Design Studio - no immediate need, I can temper my Techo-Lust. I can still recall then the somewhat underpowered Mac IIvx retailed for $2500 in it's base config. circa 1992. Where this can hurt is the video, music and CAD pros that have significant investments of PCI cards, internal storage arrays, and firewire devices that the new MP leaves behind. Go on and bust out that mini-driver and put your RAID array in an external Thunderbolt Enclosure. Feeling... handy, punk?

But I DO want to play with one.

Also noted, "later this year" still counts on Dec 31, it IS a Tuesday, after all.

----------
dokujaryu said:
Build a $9000 PC workstation and nobody bats and eye.

Buy a $9000 MacPro workstation and everyone LOSES THEIR MINDS.
Click to expand...

Noticed that, did ya? *nodding gravely* :cool:
 
SamuraiArtGuy said:
Well, stiff but a little short of "bend over and spread 'em" brutal. But yah, pro pricing for pro machines. Since My current MP is only two years old, and as Graphic and Web Design Studio - no immediate need, I can temper my Techo-Lust. I can still recall then the somewhat underpowered Mac IIvx retailed for $2500 in it's base config. circa 1992.
Click to expand...

People really are spoiled today. Everyone expects everything to cost $1000 or less. $2500 was nothing to pay for a decently spec'd PC in the early 90s, and families bought them in droves. Adjusted for inflation that was some serious money.

Now we're balking at paying $3000 for what would have seemed like a supercomputer with alien technology. I guess if you were around then, this just doesn't seem like a whole lot of money.
 
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