New Mac Pro is Quieter Than iMac Pro, Has Optional Wheels, and Was Kept in Top-Secret 'Stealth Enclosure'

[Coconut Bean]

Serious question... for the $3k model in the video, does it have the ability to be upgrade to the extent the new Mac Pro does? While the design cost and profit can be considered expensive, an apples to apples comparison should be for a system that has the same upgrade potential.

.

Yes. But an other way of seeing it is that you get a custom cooling system and the ability to upgrade for $3000. The second being unique for Macs.

I think Apple sees the base model as you going to throw everything away and buy your own stuff anyways, but for that opportunity we want $6k.
[doublepost=1559823715][/doublepost]

You forgot about support. Just building this thing will take at least a days worth of (what ever profession needs it) time. Depending on the profession, (if even capable of doing so) could be well more that $400 a day. and that's if you get it working with all the drivers and software without ever having an issue after setting it up.

Ofc. If you are doing a hackintosh. But since most software is on Windows as well, you'd have to aim for equivalent productivity output, not the exact same experience.

If you get payed $400 a day for building computers you'd better build a comparable computer together in less than 2 hours. I could do it in 4 hours and I've only built a couple computers.

 

[ipponrg]

It's not a rip of at all, and actually represents good value - for a workstation. However there's plenty of customers out there who don't need a workstation, they need a computer that enables some internal expansion but runs on a core i7/i9 and doesn't scale anywhere near as high as the Mac Pro. Sadly Apple expect these customers to buy an iMac, but an iMac is not the product they want.
[doublepost=1559821341][/doublepost]

I'm a pro photographer and the Mac Pro is overkill for my needs, but an iMac is too limiting. Not in terms of performance, but in it's form factor. A product that sits between the Mini and the Pro that's not an all in one, would suit my needs perfectly. And not every pro photographer has £20k's worth of kit, as we don't always need it. It depends on what you photograph so to assume 'we have £20k's worth of photo gear, so a £6k+ computer would be fine' is incorrect. The computer like the camera and lenses is a tool and has to come at the right price.

I feel Apple could be misunderstanding some of its more vocal audiences. The vocal audiences seem to represent prosumers, i.e. professionals that are indie and are looking for what you said - a middle ground between a workstation and an iMac Pro.

Apple’s branding has largely been con(pro)sumer focused. This last bit makes it seem like Apple is trying to put its feet again into industry

 

[Coconut Bean]

So yeah... a parts list does not include custom-designed parts, overall design, engineering. labor, software, overhead, marketing, and every other cost normal people understand in product development, manufacturing, and sales. Usually you're better than this.

Yeah, you can build a Mercedes for half the price if you just buy the parts...

Just ask yourself the question. Does apple charge $6000 for these because they have to or because they can?

And keep in mind all the other products they have. Like the trashcan Mac Pro that's still available at the original price (correct me if I'm Wrong) without any upgrade for years.

 

[shaunp]

I feel Apple could be misunderstanding some of its more vocal audiences. The vocal audiences seem to represent prosumers, i.e. professionals that are indie and are looking for what you said - a middle ground between a workstation and an iMac Pro.

Apple’s branding has largely been con(pro)sumer focused. This last bit makes it seem like Apple is trying to put its feet again into industry

Absolutely. Apple understands the typical consumer - they sell enough phones, watches, ipads and content to prove this. They've now got a workstation that is undeniably aimed at the 0.01% of the market, but these customers demand the best and can afford it. However the rest of the small business users, one man bands, and enthusiasts don't have the requirements or budget of Hollywood production houses, our needs are more simple but at the same time more than is provided by an iMac or a Mac mini. The iMac and the iMac Pro are fast enough, but too closed with their form factor for a lot of these customers. Apple really, really need a stand alone computer that sits between the Mini and the Mac Pro unless of course they simply don't want these customers.
[doublepost=1559826681][/doublepost]

Just ask yourself the question. Does apple charge $6000 for these because they have to or because they can?

And keep in mind all the other products they have. Like the trashcan Mac Pro that's still available at the original price (correct me if I'm Wrong) without any upgrade for years.

Good question. I'm not sure if it's naivety or arrogance.

 

[Marekul]

Overcharging? This is a high end calibrated reference monitor not meant for the masses. Competing monitors are $30,000! Plus if you are a coder or musician this thing is not for you.

This is not for 99.99% of computer professionals. just like the ECC Ram and Xeon architecture, most pros don't even know what these things are.. which is why 99% of pros that were waiting for new pro line-up are seriously disappointed.

 

[Coconut Bean]

Nah, we figure that one out, and it is pretty much a $750 Parts. Even lower than what Linus put-on his list.

May be, just May be the upgrade pricing of Mac Pro wont be as crazy as other Apple Products.

This. The lowest tier Mac pro is super overpriced. But that doesn't really matter if you can toss in the best CPU for just 2000-3000 as the rest of the stuff is very easily user upgradeable.

 

[Marekul]

I feel Apple could be misunderstanding some of its more vocal audiences. The vocal audiences seem to represent prosumers, i.e. professionals that are indie and are looking for what you said - a middle ground between a workstation and an iMac Pro.

Apple’s branding has largely been con(pro)sumer focused. This last bit makes it seem like Apple is trying to put its feet again into industry

No the vocal audience are professionals. As above, 99% of professionals don't need grading monitors, ECC Ram and Xeon Architecture.

 

[djphat2000]

You know the 'brand name' PC is made up of parts that arent from said 'brand name' right?

Of course. But, comparing a Mac Pro to "just" parts you can by on NewEgg or something isn't an "Apples to Apples" comparison. How about something that's built by a company say, HP or DellEMC.
Just for argurment sake. I did for HP, as best I could match it, it's $7945


Specs

• Windows 10 Pro 64 - HP recommends Windows 10 Pro
• HP Z8 G4 Workstation
• Intel® Xeon® Gold 6134 Processor (3.2 GHz, up to 3.7 GHz w/Turbo Boost, 24.75 MB cache, 2666MHz, 8 core)
• HP Z8 G4 90 1450W Chassis 100V/20A
• 32 GB (4x8 GB) DDR4-2666 ECC Registered Memory (1 Processor)
• Operating System Load to M.2
• 256 GB HP Z Turbo Drive M.2 SSD
• AMD Radeon™ Pro WX 3100 (4 GB GDDR5, 3 x DisplayPort 1.4) Graphics
• HP Dual Port 10GBase-T NIC Module
• Base - 4 x USB 3.0 Type A
• HP Remote Graphics Software (RGS) for Z
• No included Optical Disc Drive
• HP Wireless Keyboard and Mouse Business Slim Keyboard
• No Included Mouse
• No Adapters Needed
• HP Z8 Standard Cooling Solution - 1 Processor
• 3/3/3 year (material/labor/onsite) Warranty
• Single Unit (Tower) Packaging
• HP Z8 G4 1450W/1700W Country Kit

Obviously you can't get the case the same, or the processor (its close, but higher clock on the Mac Pro), and video card is "close", but maybe better on the HP. HP has the warranty by default, but add $250 on the Mac Pro to make it even. Still, costs WAY more for the HP. I'm sure Dell isn't much different.

You get better "options" on the HP as you can pick Nvidia and or other parts you may or may not need. That your stuck with on the Mac. But, still it's not off by any real means. It's cheaper, and if your a Mac person. It's better.

 

[Marekul]

Absolutely. Apple understands the typical consumer - they sell enough phones, watches, ipads and content to prove this. They've now got a workstation that is undeniably aimed at the 0.01% of the market, but these customers demand the best and can afford it. However the rest of the small business users, one man bands, and enthusiasts don't have the requirements or budget of Hollywood production houses, our needs are more simple but at the same time more than is provided by an iMac or a Mac mini. The iMac and the iMac Pro are fast enough, but too closed with their form factor for a lot of these customers. Apple really, really need a stand alone computer that sits between the Mini and the Mac Pro unless of course they simply don't want these customers.
[doublepost=1559826681][/doublepost]

Good question. I'm not sure if it's naivety or arrogance.

Neither. Affordable modular Macpros like the 2003 PowerMac G5 for 1799$ would get in the way of their planned obsolescence strategy that works with notebooks and AIOs but not with a "modular PC" design where cases and motherboards live on forever because of reduced heat stress, all components are available from third parties and there are no excuses to glue and solder parts together.

 

[Doctor Q]

I don't see a locking lever on the wheels, and I live in earthquake territory.

Come to think of it, so does Apple!

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/04/us/apple-headquarters-earthquake-preparedness.html

Thanks. Apple HQ's base isolation system is very impressive.

It says that "the building can shift as much as four feet in any direction." During the next earthquake, anything on wheels that's not locked down is going to take a scroll across the room or down the hall.

 

[SpinThis!]

As for saving this hypothetical 30 hours of rendering, most are not going to tie up a production machine for that amount of time when they will likely have a render farm to send to.

The time savings is over the ENTIRE LIFE of the machine.

30 hours = 108,000 seconds

Over an 8 year life, that's 13,500 seconds per year or just over 4 hours saved looking at a progress bar per year.

That's breakeven for the entire machine. Compare it to a lesser priced model at half the cost and you just need to save 2 hours.

My point is there are absolutely cheaper machines. Go buy an HP if you want to be a beancounter. People looking at this strictly from a cost perspective aren't really seeing the bigger picture. Speaking of bean-counting, you pay 10x more than the Mac Pro to the salary of the OPERATOR sitting in the seat yet people are getting hung up on $3K vs $6K, what Apple should be charging, etc. In the grand scheme of things, it's inconsequential compared to payroll, taxes, etc.

 

[jlocker]

No the vocal audience are professionals. As above, 99% of professionals don't need grading monitors, ECC Ram and Xeon Architecture.

A professional long haul truck driver does not drive a Ford or GM pickup truck to deliver large and heavy loads day in and day out they use a Semi Truck cab and a heavy duty engine.

quote "A gasoline powered truck can run for 200,000 miles. Conversely, a diesel truck has a longer lifespan and can run for at least 500,000 and as much as 800,000 miles."

The Mac Pro is a workstation workhorse, not a drive a cool pickup to work crowd with flashy paint and lights.

 

[Jaspers dog]

"Affordable" is a relative term. Affordable to you is clearly not the same as other people.

These machines are meant for professionals—people who actually make money at their profession and these are the tools they do it with. These machines typically have a 7-8 year life. That's less than $1000 per year or $3 per day.

I think some "pros" need to raise their prices.

"Professionals" are not one group of people all doing the same job earning the same amount. As a commercial photographer I charge the going rate in my field, I can't unilaterally decide to up my rates, to pay for this machine.

It's very simple, there are a big group of professionals who were looking for the internals if an iMac Pro but in a modular, upgradeable headless form. We are not looking to edit 8k footage any time soon, but we ARE professionals.

 

[citysnaps]

I'm a pro photographer and the Mac Pro is overkill for my needs, but an iMac is too limiting. Not in terms of performance, but in it's form factor.

How is an iMac Pro too limiting for cataloging and editing/processing photographs?

 

[buststyles]

I fear that Apple made this steroided out box so they could purposefully sell very few of them, say it seems that there really wasn't a market for pro machines anymore, and discontinue making accessible computers. That would give them the excuse to continue making soldered in place macs that can't be upgraded.

Your suggestion of just putting the iMac/iMac Pro parts put into a simple case that we could access the interior of would've been infinitely better than this desktop.
We just wanted to be able to upgrade our compeers. Not render the next Pixar film.

And before someone quips that I'm not a fan of this Mac Pro because I can't afford one.. I can afford one. Easily. It's just not what my company needs.

Hello, so do you think apple spent the last 2 plus years hiring, creating dedicated teams, designing custom components that are modular(standard PCIe slots), developing new connections to extend PCIe for a product that they want to fail? I guess if a company has endless cash a scenario like that can be possible, but clearly Apple has major partners committed to support this new machine.

 

[oneMadRssn]

Was the $3,000 markup also kept top secret? Base model is really only worth about that much.

Linus Tech Tips already did the breakdown of the parts (Price starts at 11:10)

So yeah... it's a $3,000 markup.

He's way lowballing some of his assumptions.

For example, he lists the Radeon RX580 as $200, but the Mac Pro has a Radeon RX580Pro with special Mac-specific firmware, which I cannot find for less than $350. Also, the version Apple is using is passively cooled, which nobody sells out of the box. But you can buy a passively cooled backplate for it, which runs an additional $150.

So the video card alone he assumes costs $200, but it would actually cost $500.

As another example, there is no way a generic EATX chassis would come close to comparing to the Mac Pro chassis, and its cooling system. Apple says the new Mac Pro runs at less than 10db, how much is that worth to a buyer? I don't know of any comparable cases, but other top of the line well-engineered cases easily cost $500+. Same with the PSU - I highly doubt a $300 PSU will be as quiet as Apple's. Passively-cooled high-watt PSUs are very expensive.

 

[citysnaps]

Just ask yourself the question. Does apple charge $6000 for these because they have to or because they can?

Not quite. It's priced at $6K because it represents excellent value compared to other high-end computers offered by other manufacturers, such as HP. Ditto for the new display, also well-priced relative to similar high-end displays.

 

[msama]

Wouldn't a sound comparison from the same location/distance be more meaningful? I can wire any computer up and put it in my closet and from my desk it will be "virtually silent"

 

[TheNotch]

Unlike customers of other tech companies, Apple customers/fans/supporters are rich, so I've been told, and should have absolutely no problems affording these new Mac Pro. So these Mac Pro and it's display stand should sell like hot cakes.

 

[jlocker]

How is an iMac Pro too limiting for cataloging and editing/processing photographs?

Then I would use Apples feedback page, to tell them you need a different kind of machine to https://www.apple.com/feedback/mac-pro.html. Apple has so much money they make now with phone and tables, they can afford more ranges of Mac machines. Chevy does not just build one model car or truck they make like 18 models with different version in each model.

 

[ipponrg]

No the vocal audience are professionals. As above, 99% of professionals don't need grading monitors, ECC Ram and Xeon Architecture.

You’re being pedantic. I should have said industry and not your indie small shop of < 5 people.

This is clearly targeted at industry particularly at studios that have 4K/8k collab workflows or heavy mastering, not your company that is doing consultant work for individuals. The people that seem to be vocal match the latter.

And yeah this is not for them. They want the Mac Pro capabilities of expansion with iMac internals.

 

[Kabeyun]

The Linus video explains the #’s.

As I said above, the Linus video is a joke.

 

[LordVic]

The time savings is over the ENTIRE LIFE of the machine.

30 hours = 108,000 seconds

Over an 8 year life, that's 13,500 seconds per year or just over 4 hours saved looking at a progress bar per year.

That's breakeven for the entire machine. Compare it to a lesser priced model at half the cost and you just need to save 2 hours.

My point is there are absolutely cheaper machines. Go buy an HP if you want to be a beancounter. People looking at this strictly from a cost perspective aren't really seeing the bigger picture. Speaking of bean-counting, you pay 10x more than the Mac Pro to the salary of the OPERATOR sitting in the seat yet people are getting hung up on $3K vs $6K, what Apple should be charging, etc. In the grand scheme of things, it's inconsequential compared to payroll, taxes, etc.

As someone who does IT purchasing for a financial instution, I can tell you that in most of my IT work experience, what you say here is not the standard or norm.

dollar costing is very important, especially when dealing with budgets and accounting. If I get presented with quotes for 2 machines, and the prices are wildly different, but accomplish the same thing in the same time, we are going with the cheaper option.

The problem comes down to return on investment. if the 6,000 machine and the 3,000 accomplish the same tasks in the same time. The ROI is better on the 3k machine. Regardless of the ass in the seat operating it.

As for the ass in the seat. yes, salaries tend to be far more cost than the computer. But that's why the output performance is whats important. Not the look of the device. if that 6,000 machine is 5% slower than that 3,000 machine, you will never convince me to buy that 6,000 machine. Even if the 3,000 difference is pennies compared to the salary of the person using the machine. That slower machine means that even more of my employees time is being waisted waiting for the machine. That in the end is a larger cost overall than the $3000 difference.

those who are ignoring the ROI calculations that IT and executives have to consider when making technical purchasing decisison are missing the big picture. it's about ROI. Always about ROI. This isnt' saying that paying $6000 for a machine over $3000 isn't an automatic no, but there has to be valid ROI considered for purchasing such devices. and that, in the end of the day is the bigger picture. these machines are about making money via their horsepower. So bean counting is extremely important consideration when purchasing workstation class machines.

 

[Kabeyun]

I don't see a locking lever on the wheels, and I live in earthquake territory.

Come to think of it, so does Apple!

They probably have an auto lock feature that senses vibration.

 

[Darth Tulhu]

Yup. I always refer to this MacRumors thread to show you what the Mac Faithful always do,.

I find it amusing that aside from price (an Apple mainstay) the thread you mention (complaining about the iPod) was mainly driven by the fact that the complainers didn't get what they wanted.

Ironically, Apple delivered (in spades) on that desire several years later with the iPhone.

I've tried to straddle the fence: whine, but wait for it...

For example, we FINALLY get mouse support on the iPad, and the ability to plug in a thumb drive NINE YEARS LATER. We FINALLY get the (super) cheese grater back 6 years on.

I'm running 2011/2012 Mac hardware, so I got 1 or 2 more years for Apple to build the Mac desktop and portable of my dreams.