Mac Pro Buyer's Guide: Which Model to Choose

[kwikdeth]

I remember a few tech site tried to build a comparable pc with the Mac pro when it came out and they concluded that the Mac pro is cheaper for the same performance. Did that change?

Yes and no. The parts used in those machines haven't gone down in price somewhat, but they've been superseded by newer, faster parts at the same or slightly lower prices.

There is also the factor of lower power usage in the newer cpus which lowers TCO as well.

 

[brad123]

Questionable Value

I’ve done a lot of real-world benchmarking with current gen hardware, as I make hardware purchases for high-end media production and have recently bought a lot of systems. My results:

The Mac Pro is a good buy for Final Cut Pro Pro-Res editing (software is tuned to those OpenCL cards). It can also be valuable for aesthetic purposes if you want to look cutting-edge to clients. For everything else, it’s not a very good value.

For our normal sub-$4,000 stations, the 27” iMac far outperforms the Mac Pro, especially in single-core but even in multi-core (Mac Pro doesn’t give you many cores until the price tag jumps up). The iMac is great for video editing, sounds design, and iOS development.

For our expensive stations where we need tons of horsepower (3D, VR, IMAX, Color Correction), HP Z440/Z640/Z840 workstations offer far more performance per dollar. You have more CPU choices (as well as v3 Xeons), and you can use monster Quadro cards or even GeForce if you’re willing to go outside qualification (I’m currently buying GeForce GTX 980s for their virtual reality latency-reduction features).

Since almost every pro app we use is OS agnostic (Avid/Pro Tools/Unity/Adobe/Maya), I go with HP to give users the most power. Given what Apple has done to Shake, Color, and Aperture, I’m not sure why professionals are still loyal to OSX. I’m not an Apple hater, as I buy their hardware often. Just not for high-end use. I find the Mac Pro to be a strange beast, so I highly discourage it outright in our environment. I'm also sad there's no longer a good hardware choice for a Mac server.

I welcome feedback, as I try hard to consider every user when I make recommendations.

 

[thomamon]

I am so torn on which to buy. I was thinking of the iMac but bumping up some of the options like Memory, processor...

Will do some video editing and audio work.

 

[Ted13]

I am still using my 2009 Mac Pro -- and honestly my huge regret is getting the 4 core version instead of the 8 core version -- in every other respect it is absolutely great.

For one thing I can currently use 27 TB of internal data (4 x 6TB HDs, + 3 x 1TB PCIe SSDs). I am of course booting off one of the SSDs for Yosemite. Not to mention a SuperDrive + a Blu-ray disc.

I heavily need large capacity, so the current machines, plus external HD & SSD displays that can be large, quiet and fast enough, as elegant as the Mac itself, and not costing a fortune of cash makes the 2009 Mac Pro superior to the current one for me. If I had a time machine I would just have bought the top of the line 8 core back in 2009...

 

[AlecZ]

Wouldn't it be best to wait for a refresh no matter what? This thing is from 2013.

 

[djgamble]

Yes, it's expensive but you are getting a lot for your money.

For sure. Depending on what you need though... TBH I wouldn't use that much RAM or CPU power so it would go to waste. I can only see people doi g VERY specific work (video editing?) needing that kind of gear.

I'm much more likely to get a Mac Mini or MBP because I'd get just as much out of these machines for a fraction of the price (I'm a lawyer but also create ARM-based mobile devices for small production runs (100-500 units)... so am a bit of a techie). IMO not all techies can benefit from this kind of power - my machine doesn't really slow down.

 

[winston1236]

"software commonly used by videographers, photographers, animators, designers, scientists, and musicians."

Not if you have an Adobe based workflow such as After Effects. Adobe is all Nvidia based now and AE can't even use the dual AMD graphics cards so they have no use. Not to mention it isn't multithreaded and needs a single, fast core instead of multiple cores with slow clock speeds like the MacPro. And models with 256Gb storage? On a supposedly pro machine?

 

[djgamble]

I’ve done a lot of real-world benchmarking with current gen hardware, as I make hardware purchases for high-end media production and have recently bought a lot of systems. My results:

The Mac Pro is a good buy for Final Cut Pro Pro-Res editing (software is tuned to those OpenCL cards). It can also be valuable for aesthetic purposes if you want to look cutting-edge to clients. For everything else, it’s not a very good value.

For our normal sub-$4,000 stations, the 27” iMac far outperforms the Mac Pro, especially in single-core but even in multi-core (Mac Pro doesn’t give you many cores until the price tag jumps up). The iMac is great for video editing, sounds design, and iOS development.

For our expensive stations where we need tons of horsepower (3D, VR, IMAX, Color Correction), HP Z440/Z640/Z840 workstations offer far more performance per dollar. You have more CPU choices (as well as v3 Xeons), and you can use monster Quadro cards or even GeForce if you’re willing to go outside qualification (I’m currently buying GeForce GTX 980s for their virtual reality latency-reduction features).

Since almost every pro app we use is OS agnostic (Avid/Pro Tools/Unity/Adobe/Maya), I go with HP to give users the most power. Given what Apple has done to Shake, Color, and Aperture, I’m not sure why professionals are still loyal to OSX. I’m not an Apple hater, as I buy their hardware often. Just not for high-end use. I find the Mac Pro to be a strange beast, so I highly discourage it outright in our environment. I'm also sad there's no longer a good hardware choice for a Mac server.

I welcome feedback, as I try hard to consider every user when I make recommendations.

In answer to your question, a computer is more than just a collection of apps. Also, apps aren't equal on different systems (although the code base/GUI might be strikingly similar).

OS X is my system of choice for anything creative... that includes theoretical law articles/essays, designing python software that I'll end up triggering from ARM-based Linux boxes, enhancing/manipulating images in Pixelmator, storing my creative media in the OS X apps and Finder...etc.

I run a lot of Linux servers at home and yeah... they are my choice of server. Apple offers a pretty/creative GUI for manipulating stuff... most of the servers I've run at home/work are headless and boot straight into a Linux command prompt.

Windows... is a legit option. However, rightly or wrongly, a lot of creative people (which isn't just video editors) prefer doing their work in the OS X environment (even if the apps are the same).

Apple offers creative alternatives. The Mac Pro is a professional grade workstation in a tiny/neatly packed box. You won't find many faster machines and if you're able to afford one (or a few... using the profits from your creative business), you clearly know what you're doing professionally and have the right to choose your workstation.

Do I need one? No. Can I justify spending that much on a computer? No. Not my personal choice given I don't need most of the compelling features for my work.

 

[ricci]

Ok, folks, I have a lot to say on this subject so listen up, it's a lot to digest, huge amounts of information and the possibilities are endless! Ready???? Ok, now I have your attention!!
SKYLAKE!!!!!!! Thank you!!

 

[Techtyrant]

Mac Pro Server?

How would a Mac Pro hold up as a file server for a small Mac office serving large video files? We currently use an Xserve with Promise fibre channel storage. If I were to swap this for a beefy Mac Pro, LaCie Big8 Thunderbolt array and fibre channel to thunderbolt converter to continue using the promise, would it result in a preformance increase or decrease?

What other options would you use if you had to configure something similar? A synology NAS? Would I lose all existing storage? How would it handle loads? Or is gigabit Ethernet he bottleneck anyway?

Thanks guys

 

[JamesMike]

It sure is the Rolls-Royce of computers! I like the design of it.

 

[fuchsdh]

Many comment on the high price but back in 1991 when I entered college a fully optioned IIfx ran well over $12k, or $20k adjusted for inflation, and I don't believe that included any video card. That makes this a steal by comparison.

Yep. Macs have only gotten cheaper over time, although there's no mid-range tower like there was back in the G4 days--the move to Intel inflated prices in a way against trends. My friends starting up their graphics studio parted with $10K for a Iici and the necessary peripherals.

How would a Mac Pro hold up as a file server for a small Mac office serving large video files? We currently use an Xserve with Promise fibre channel storage. If I were to swap this for a beefy Mac Pro, LaCie Big8 Thunderbolt array and fibre channel to thunderbolt converter to continue using the promise, would it result in a preformance increase or decrease?

What other options would you use if you had to configure something similar? A synology NAS? Would I lose all existing storage? How would it handle loads? Or is gigabit Ethernet he bottleneck anyway?

Thanks guys

For a media server, I wouldn't imagine you'd need a Mac Pro--it'd be a waste of processing power. The speed of your connections is more important.

 

[aloshka]

I got the 5k Retina iMac (after moving on from a 2008 Mac Pro), and it performed great for most things, but it choked on my large Photoshop files (file size over 1GB with many layers). The display is beautiful, BUT it's almost too many pixels. The thing is almost print resolution (about 218 ppi), so any standard web graphics look tiny.

I ended up bringing it back and getting the 6-core Mac Pro using a Thunderbolt Display. Really glad that I did.

Same. Except I did refurb. 6-core 32gb / 1tb for 4100 shipped

 

[AlecZ]

Yes, it's expensive but you are getting a lot for your money.

Is this still true? I remember it was true when it first came out, but it's outdated now.

For about $1570, you could make a computer from parts on pcpartpicker.com:
i7-4790K 4.0GHz quad-core (faster than the Mac Pro's 4-core Xeon option)
16GB of DDR3 1866MHz RAM (same as Mac Pro)
256GB PCI-E SSD
3.5" 7200RPM hybrid drive
GTX 970 4GB
Similar sound and ethernet cards
Cheap ASUS case
Water cooling

Better than or worse than a slightly upgraded 4-core Mac Pro in some ways but overall around as powerful as the MP for a lot less money, ignoring the fact that it'll likely look like trash and will need to be Hackintosh'd.

 

[aloshka]

Is this still true? I remember it was true when it first came out, but it's outdated now.

For about $1570, you could make a computer from parts on pcpartpicker.com:
i7-4790K 4.0GHz quad-core (faster than the Mac Pro's 4-core Xeon option)
16GB of DDR3 1866MHz RAM (same as Mac Pro)
256GB PCI-E SSD
3.5" 7200RPM hybrid drive
GTX 970 4GB
Similar sound and ethernet cards
Cheap ASUS case
Water cooling

Better than or worse than a slightly upgraded 4-core Mac Pro in some ways but overall around as powerful as the MP for a lot less money, ignoring the fact that it'll likely look like trash and will need to be Hackintosh'd.

I'm actually thinking about this. I specced out a custom built PC (with some parts that I already have), but basically GTX 980 + 3.5 ghz i7 6-core, a few ssd's and it will still be 2k less than my mac pro.

I have 1 more week left to decide whether to keep the mac pro or go the PC. It's a tough decision, I do love OSX.

 

[lincolntran]

Is this still true? I remember it was true when it first came out, but it's outdated now.

For about $1570, you could make a computer from parts on pcpartpicker.com:
i7-4790K 4.0GHz quad-core (faster than the Mac Pro's 4-core Xeon option)
16GB of DDR3 1866MHz RAM (same as Mac Pro)
256GB PCI-E SSD
3.5" 7200RPM hybrid drive
GTX 970 4GB
Similar sound and ethernet cards
Cheap ASUS case
Water cooling

Better than or worse than a slightly upgraded 4-core Mac Pro in some ways but overall around as powerful as the MP for a lot less money, ignoring the fact that it'll likely look like trash and will need to be Hackintosh'd.

Two of the most important reasons I'd choose to buy a Mac pro are its artistic look and it run silent. I'm just so tired of having a pile of trash sitting next to me while I work and the noises from all though cooling systems are just terrible! I do a lot of creative works so looking at a pile of trash will just kill my creative thinking.... To each his own of course.

 

[MentalFloss]

It is made to excel with a certain type of app: professional software that uses multiple processing cores, like software commonly used by videographers, photographers, animators, designers, scientists, and musicians. If that describes what you do on a daily basis, then you already know about mac pros and dont need a "buyer's guide"

You mean a photographer becomes an expert on Mac Pro configurations somehow automatically? Magically? Every time they press the shutter button on their camera, they know more about the Mac Pro?

Or do they learn about the different configurations and their values by doing research? And by reading articles? And buyer's guides? Like this one?

----------

Two of the most important reasons I'd choose to buy a Mac pro are its artistic look and it run silent. I'm just so tired of having a pile of trash sitting next to me while I work and the noises from all though cooling systems are just terrible! I do a lot of creative works so looking at a pile of trash will just kill my creative thinking.... To each his own of course.

Well, you could still place your ugly computer where you don't see it. My reasonably stylish Mac Mini is hidden behind my somewhat more stylish Samsung display.

The noise factor is certainly important though.

 

[mabhatter]

Yes, it's expensive but you are getting a lot for your money.

You have to remember for pricing it's SERVER parts which are priced way more than "consumer" parts. Then a bit of "Apple Tax" because it's super shiny.

It's like buying a truck... I personally have no use for an F350 as my minivan does just fine for hauling my stuff... I don't even know how groceries would fit in that beast.

----------

I'm actually thinking about this. I specced out a custom built PC (with some parts that I already have), but basically GTX 980 + 3.5 ghz i7 6-core, a few ssd's and it will still be 2k less than my mac pro.

I have 1 more week left to decide whether to keep the mac pro or go the PC. It's a tough decision, I do love OSX.

The video cards alone are an extra $1k. The GTX series are "consumer" cards. The drivers are deliberately crappy when running apps like Autocad or Photoshop.. Visual Effects aren't "guaranteed" to meet any kind of display or print spec. If that's your job where polygons and colors have to be PERFECT then those cards are junk. You're "ricer cars" versus a Bentely.

 

[AlecZ]

It is made to excel with a certain type of app: professional software that uses multiple processing cores, like software commonly used by videographers, photographers, animators, designers, scientists, and musicians. If that describes what you do on a daily basis, then you already know about mac pros and dont need a "buyer's guide"

No, people who do professional creative work aren't necessarily tech experts.

----------

Well, you could still place your ugly computer where you don't see it. My reasonably stylish Mac Mini is hidden behind my somewhat more stylish Samsung display.

The noise factor is certainly important though.

You could even place the computer so far away that the noise isn't a problem, but maybe looking at the stylish new Mac Pro gives inspiration (not joking).

 

[ChrisA]

Wouldn't it be best to wait for a refresh no matter what? This thing is from 2013.

Waiting is NEVER a god idea. If you need a new computer to get some wok done then how can you put off doing that work? On the other hand if you don't really need the new computer then never buy it and save some $$.

The best time to buy a computer is just before you need it. Then put it on a three year schedule and write it off

 

[Mercury]

I am still using my 2009 Mac Pro -- and honestly my huge regret is getting the 4 core version instead of the 8 core version -- in every other respect it is absolutely great.

This. I suspect my only slowdowns are from not running an SSD.

That being said, I anxiously await the 2015 Mac Pro (they can't go for over 2 years without releasing one!) and am going to start doing a bunch of overtime to save up for it.

I use my Mac Pro for gaming and because I know, with a GPU upgrade, it'll last 5 years. Mine is going on 6 and can still play all of the latest games with 3-year-old budget PC GPU.

 

[biker4mac]

Two reasons I won’t be buying a nMP for professional use:

1) I use VRay for my rendering - which uses the nVidia CUDA and OpenGL drivers.

2) I have a pile of peripherals that I use with my workflow.

So, to use a nMP, I have to pay a premium ($$$$) for a computer with Dual AMD FirePro graphics cards ($$$$) which don’t suit my needs and, since they are a proprietary format, have no aftermarket alternatives. Then, I have to buy an expansion chassis ($$$) so that I can add an nVidia graphics card ($$$$) to the system. Then I have a bowl of spaghetti of cables running to the external hard drives as well as external hubs (all of which are currently tucked neatly inside my 2012 MP) so that I can support the peripherals that I use.

 

[Winni]

Would the top spec machine run angry birds while playing an iTunes song? If so im on it!!

I'm afraid that OS X and its inferior multitasking capabilities might be a showstopper...

 

[flyinmac]

Why are they doing a buyers guide for the 2013 nMP? God I hope it's to push the last stock before a refresh.

They do a buyers guide anytime there isn't anything they can find to write about.

It's getting to where we have frequent buyers guides and really little of interest to read about.

Such is the way of the Apple market. Silence leads to speculation. And speculation is all anyone has to talk about. When we've run out of speculation, we get a buyers guide for old products that sell at high prices as if it was new technology.

 

[aloshka]

The video cards alone are an extra $1k. The GTX series are "consumer" cards. The drivers are deliberately crappy when running apps like Autocad or Photoshop.. Visual Effects aren't "guaranteed" to meet any kind of display or print spec. If that's your job where polygons and colors have to be PERFECT then those cards are junk. You're "ricer cars" versus a Bentely.

That's just the problem. I don't even do graphics work, but I love OSX. I tried a 5k iMac, but it annoyed me because even when zipping 40-50gb databases to send out to my clients, the fans ran and I could see throttling. 99% of what I do is in windows and I do it in VM, but even if I had a PC it still has to be in a VM. I just love OS X...

But yes, the GTX is purely a consumer card