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

[jlocker]

He's way lowballing some of his assumptions.

View attachment 841261

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.

Where is Thunderbolt 3? Where is the latest Xeon processor that has not even shipped yet? Where is the 63,040‬ mps PCIE interface bus with thunderbolt 3 support not 15760 meg per second bus? and Bluetooth 5.0?

Hmm does not seem the same to me?

 

[SpinThis!]

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.

We contract with commercial photogs all the time. $500 for half day / $1k for a full day shoot is not uncommon.

Paid $3k for our wedding photog a few years ago and he's the most popular in the area.

I don't know what you're charging but the people complaining about having to spend $6k must not be paying themselves a decent wage to begin with.

 

[gavroche]

The higher cost associated with this new Mac Pro model has virtually nothing to do with inflation.
[doublepost=1559796652][/doublepost]

If it's about being as fast as possible then it's looking like the entry level $6K model is poor value. You will likely be able to achieve "faster" more affordably. To truly take advantage of what this new machine can do, it's going to require further investment beyond the base specs which will quickly increase the cost. And that's fine for these facilities that have the money. I'm just targeting the $6k model here.

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.

people here are complaining that the price of this new pro should be the same as what it cost in 2014. inflation absolutely is relevant. as someone who does the shopping for a family of five, I can unequivocally tell you that nothing costs the same as it did in 2014.

 

[SpinThis!]

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.

Financial institution? Go figure, you're a bean counter IT guy. Different industry.

Actually try running a creative agency and then come back here.

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.

There's where you got it wrong. Nobody's even benchmarked this machine and yet people are crapping all over it like they know what they're talking about.

 

[LordVic]

people here are complaining that the price of this new pro should be the same as what it cost in 2014. inflation absolutely is relevant. as someone who does the shopping for a family of five, I can unequivocally tell you that nothing costs the same as it did in 2014.

Inflation averages 1-2% per year.

if you want to use "inflation" as an excuse for the price, the current price ~3000-3200 starting. $6000 represents a near 100% increase in the costs.

Also, claiming inflation also ignores and doesn't take into account the reality of economies of scale, and advancement in technology which actually has the historical behaviour of reducing the cost of tech over time, not increasing it. It's why if you were to compare computer costs today, versus the adjust costs of computers from yearsa ago, we're already paying 1/2 those prices. The trend by Apple to start raising prices beyond inflationary is entirely Apple's own doing for their own financial motivations (whether you agree to them or not) and inflation as an excuse is absolutely an unrealistic defense of the price.

The cost of Apple's computers has zero to do with inflation and everything to do with monetary budgeting practices to ensure a fixed rate of profit on each device up front.

 

[jlc1978]

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.

My guess is they don't see enough margin in producing that machine and that it will cannibalize iMac and MacBook sales. Depending on the upgradability people could also build a machine between the Pro and Mac you describe, lessening Pro sales to those who need more than the current offerings but not a Pro. So, yea, Apple figures some % of those customers will buy an Apple anyway and the rest are not worth it.

 

[LordVic]

There's where you got it wrong. Nobody's even benchmarked this machine and yet people are crapping all over it like they know what they're talking about.

yeah i'm withholding judgement on the actual performance numbers till that occurs.

if the new Mac Pro benchmarks 2x the performance and can finish a job in 1/2 the time of that 3,000 machine, than yes, the ROI for Apple's Mac Pro may make sense.

but if the machine benchmarks identically, to a machine that costs 1/2 the price, there's significant and serious pricing issue that acts as a barrier to purchase for anyone who actually needs to do ROI calculations on hardware purchases.

 

[cylack]

Been using Apple products ever since the Apple IIgs. Same nonsense complaints: too expensive, could build an equivalent PC for cheaper, apple tax, etc. Never hear the same logic applied to cars. Why no talk about a BMW or Lexus tax? Why can't Lexus be priced the same as Toyota?

Biggest screwup Apple made during the presentation was the $1k monitor stand. Should have just announced the monitors at $6k and $7k and not made the stand an optional purchase. Should have just said this is a reference monitor that is a bargain compared to the $30k Sony monitor they were comparing it to. Should have said go buy the 5k LG monitor if you don't need this level of quality.

 

[gavroche]

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 remember buying a computer in the early 90s. At that time, we went to local shops that built them for you. A basic machine (486sx25, 2mb ram, very small hard drive) cost over $2,000. Way back then... that was a lot of money. Yet many people paid it, because they wanted it. I guess I just view these things as a question of what meets your needs, and what you can afford. I currently have been unable to justify getting a new mac mini, which even spec'd up costs less than that computer I bought almost 30 years ago... because I have kids and my priorities have changed.

 

[vailr]

Bottom of rear of case:
2x 10Gb Ethernet

I could be wrong, but the 2x 10 Gb (Aquantia?) ethernet ports seem to be actually located within the power supply housing.
Probably for surge suppression, for both the power and the ethernet, in case of a lightning strike, etc.

 

[SpinThis!]

yeah i'm withholding judgement on the actual performance numbers till that occurs.

if the new Mac Pro benchmarks 2x the performance and can finish a job in 1/2 the time of that 3,000 machine, than yes, the ROI for Apple's Mac Pro may make sense.

but if the machine benchmarks identically, to a machine that costs 1/2 the price, there's significant and serious pricing issue that acts as a barrier to purchase for anyone who actually needs to do ROI calculations on hardware purchases.

Macs have always been close to 30% more expensive. IT guys have been singing the same "bad ROI" song for decades. However, People forget why users buy Macs in the first place: mac OS.

 

[jlocker]

Hmm, if I was a garage mechanic for Chevy and i work hard on cars all day long and I really like the 2020 Chevy Corvette with a 1000hp engine and you know it cost a lot, but you really like it.

Do i say no, I am not going to buy it because it costs 9 months of my salary or you find a way to finance it and you get your car of your dreams and you love driving it everyday and own it for many years.

Well for a lot of people $6000 is two month salary the same price most people pay for a diamond wedding ring and diamonds are over priced and not that rare but people still buy them.

 

[gavroche]

Inflation averages 1-2% per year.

if you want to use "inflation" as an excuse for the price, the current price ~3000-3200 starting. $6000 represents a near 100% increase in the costs.

Also, claiming inflation also ignores and doesn't take into account the reality of economies of scale, and advancement in technology which actually has the historical behaviour of reducing the cost of tech over time, not increasing it. It's why if you were to compare computer costs today, versus the adjust costs of computers from yearsa ago, we're already paying 1/2 those prices. The trend by Apple to start raising prices beyond inflationary is entirely Apple's own doing for their own financial motivations (whether you agree to them or not) and inflation as an excuse is absolutely an unrealistic defense of the price.

The cost of Apple's computers has zero to do with inflation and everything to do with monetary budgeting practices to ensure a fixed rate of profit on each device up front.

I don't have time to get into a protracted conversation about inflation at the moment... but hogwash to 1-2% a year. Have you seen what gasoline costs today versus a year or two ago? have you seen what a pound of meat costs today versus a couple years ago per pound? have you seen what fruits and vegetables cost per pound today versus several years ago? have you seen what just about everything costs today versus a couple years ago? if I could go buy groceries, and gas, and everything else for my family right now, and only pay a couple percent more than I did a couple years ago... i would do cartwheels down the aisle.
And as I said a minute ago to someone else... i remember spending over $2000 for a basic PC nearly 30 years ago... something that was a pretty standard price at the time. puts things in perspective.

 

[Jaspers dog]

We contract with commercial photogs all the time. $500 for half day / $1k for a full day shoot is not uncommon.

Paid $3k for our wedding photog a few years ago and he's the most popular in the area.

I don't know what you're charging but the people complaining about having to spend $6k must not be paying themselves a decent wage to begin with.

Actually I charge more than that, nearly double in fact. But never the less as many many pros on here have said this isn't the machine we'd hoped to replace our cheese graters we've been pimping for the last 8 years with. I'm glad Apple have met the needs of some super users but a big bunch of us wanted something akin to an iMac pro without the limitation of the built in screen and the ability to upgrade drives /cards etc.

This a $1000 more than an iMac pro without a 5K screen. I would have given Apple $4000 for a headless iMac Pro and another $500 for the modular enclosure, i.e paid them $4500 for that machine. I don't want to spend another $1500 on a machine I don't need whether I can afford it or not.

 

[jlc1978]

Apple has so much money they make now with phone and tables, they can afford more ranges of Mac machines.

The question is not could they, since they could; it's why should they. They have optimized their supply chain and manufacturing around a specific set of products. Adding complexity (i.e.e costs) for what may be minimal gains overall is simply not good business. One of the most important business lessons is not to chase every customer, only the most profitable ones.

Chevy does not just build one model car or truck they make like 18 models with different version in each model.

Chevy is ending production of some models because they are not profitable enough, in the US at least. Like Apple, they are going after the highest profit and demand segments of the market. Someone may still want a four door sedan but it probably won't be made by Chevy. Apple, like Chevy, lets you customize the products they sell, so you can get the equivalent of an Lt, SS or ZL1 (and variants with them such as an RS or 2SS) across their lines.

 

[greenmeanie]

We drop half a MIL easy in the enterprise market lol
People on here would faint at the cost.

Linus, as usual, doesn't know what he's talking about. Look up what actual workstations cost, not whatever some gamer kid slaps together.

 

[LordVic]

I don't have time to get into a protracted conversation about inflation at the moment... but hogwash to 1-2% a year. Have you seen what gasoline costs today versus a year or two ago? have you seen what a pound of meat costs today versus a couple years ago per pound? have you seen what fruits and vegetables cost per pound today versus several years ago? have you seen what just about everything costs today versus a couple years ago? if I could go buy groceries, and gas, and everything else for my family right now, and only pay a couple percent more than I did a couple years ago... i would do cartwheels down the aisle.
And as I said a minute ago to someone else... i remember spending over $2000 for a basic PC nearly 30 years ago... something that was a pretty standard price at the time. puts things in perspective.

I dunno about where you are, But Gasoline in my area is cheaper today than it was 2 years ago even with gas tax.

but then gas isn't generally included in the "bucket" how they do calculations on inflation so a bit of a redherring.

https://www.bankofcanada.ca/rates/related/inflation-calculator/

basically, any claims that a 100% increase in the price of something over a short overall period of 5-10 years is related to inflation is bunk. Complete, and utter Bunk.

yes. Inflation is inconsistent accross markets and different product categories, but it's very very rare that in a market economy you will ever see 100% increase in the price of goods.

and again, electronic tech does NOT necessarily follow inflation. historically, computer tech goes down as the tech matures, not jumps dramatically in price.

 

[jlocker]

Actually I charge more than that, nearly double in fact. But never the less as many many pros on here have said this isn't the machine we'd hoped to replace our cheese graters we've been pimping for the last 8 years with. I'm glad Apple have met the needs of some super users but a big bunch of us wanted something akin to iMac pro without the limitation of the built in screen or the ability to upgrade drives /cards etc.

This a $1000 more than an iMac pro without a 5K screen. I would have given Apple $4000 for a headless iMac Pro and another $500 for the modular enclosure, i.e paid them $4500 for that machine. I don't want to spend another $1500 on a machine I don't need whether I can afford it or not.

The architecture of the iMac Pro and the Mac Pro are not the same. Apple was pushing the iMac pro as a pro consumer model because the iMac all the way back from 1998 has been a popular consumer model. I worked for Apple way before there was even a Apple store. I remember when Apple was only 3 months away from going out of business.

So Apple survived and the iMac was the computer that helped them from going under. But if you are not a fan of the iMac Pro. And want a tower like the old high performance Performa/Mac tower. Use the Apple Feedback page and say hey I want I mini tower with any monitor I can connect. Apple can not build something that they don't know the public wants. They got the money, if they can build a self driving car, they can build a Mac of your dreams.
If they can build 6 version iPhone and sell them they can sell more Mac model lines.

 

[Coconut Bean]

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.

The problem with this setup is, that processor itself costs $4000 extra to add. As pointed out by others Apple's indicated memory is L2+L3 while the above named processor's is just L3. So the actual L3 capacity is 16.5 as indicated here:
https://ark.intel.com/content/www/u...on-w-3225-processor-16-5m-cache-3-70-ghz.html

Also the graphic cards is less powerful than the mac's.

For $6000 I arrived to:

• Windows 10 Pro 64 - HP recommends Windows 10 Pro
• HP Z8 G4 Workstation
• Intel® Xeon® Silver 4215 Processor (2.5 GHz, up to 3.5 GHz w/Boost; 11 MB cache, 2400MHz, 8 core, 85W)
• ENERGY STAR Qualified Configuration
• HP Z8 G4 90 1450W Chassis 100V/20A
• 32 GB (2x16 GB) DDR4-2933 ECC Registered Memory (1 Processor)
• Operating System Load to PCIe
• 256 GB HP Z Turbo Drive Quad Pro TLC SSD
• AMD Radeon™ Pro WX 7100 (8 GB GDDR5, 4x DisplayPort) Graphics
• Base - 4 x USB 3.0 Type A
• HP Remote Graphics Software (RGS) for Z
• 9.5mm DVD-Writer 1st Optical Disc Drive
• USB Business Slim Wired Keyboard
• HP Wired Optical USB 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

Now this is the same price as the baseline mac pro, worth pointing out that HP hasn't upgraded this line to Intel's newest chipset, so I choose something that will match it pricewise (according to Intels website), also these processors are multisocket ones, the one in the mac pro is not. I also have remarks about the memory, faster in the HP although processor couldn't use it at highest speed and the power supply, will Apple actually use that strong of a power supply in their baseline model too?

Finally, from my understanding this includes 3 year onsite support and warranty as well as installation, I am not sure how Apple Care+ compares to that.

 

[jlocker]

The question is not could they, since they could; it's why should they. They have optimized their supply chain and manufacturing around a specific set of products. Adding complexity (i.e.e costs) for what may be minimal gains overall is simply not good business. One of the most important business lessons is not to chase every customer, only the most profitable ones.

Chevy is ending production of some models because they are not profitable enough, in the US at least. Like Apple, they are going after the highest profit and demand segments of the market. Someone may still want a four door sedan but it probably won't be made by Chevy. Apple, like Chevy, lets you customize the products they sell, so you can get the equivalent of an Lt, SS or ZL1 (and variants with them such as an RS or 2SS) across their lines.

Good points, I am getting a new Mac Pro, because my 2009 Mac Pro is still working to this day, even with a upgrade AMD MSI Vega 64 card, but Catalina will not run on this model but after a 10 year run without a single problem it was well worth the $4999 i paid for it in 2009.

 

[gaximus]

.

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.

I'm not saying someone building computers would make $400 a day, but someone that would use a computer like this could make $400 a day, programmer, movie editor, engineer, etc. And you wouldn't want to waste a day building a PC equivalent for this.

 

[greenmeanie]

I built my dell 7820 with 2 xeons 2.1 ghz silvers,32 gig ram,1tb m.2 ssd,and cheapo nvidia card and it came in at around $6K and still sells in that config today for $4k.
Apple prices are pretty much where they need to be for enterprise hardware.
I don't like the price either but it is what it is.

Apple doesn't come out and say they are combining caches but if you read between the lines, I'm 90% certain they are: "In addition, large L2 and shared L3 caches and 64 PCI Express lanes provide massive bandwidth in and out of the processor."

"8-Core
3.5GHz Intel Xeon W

8 cores, 16 threads

Turbo Boost up to 4.0GHz

24.5MB cache

Supports 2666MHz memory"

It likely is the W-3223: https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/products/processors/xeon/w-processors/w-3223.html

This is a new processor so it likely compares well with the existing Xeon Golds. You're still looking at a similarly priced computer if you get a similar workstation from Dell or HP.

 

[HVDynamo]

I totally applaud Apple for making no compromise, spared no expense Mac Pro.

The new Mac Pro is also totally not the right Mac for me, the software developer. I hope Apple will follow up new iMac Pro, MacBook Pro, Mac mini, and 27" display, with configurations ideal for software developers.

Yeah, I think this is how they still missed the mark. The old Mac Pro was something that was expensive, but a normal user, or software developer could afford the lower models and still get some good performance for the dollar, but it could be spec'd out for the niche cases where a really powerful system is needed. So they used to cover all cases of pro use, but now they have priced out anyone who just dabbles in the pro space and wants a nice up-gradable desktop mac (Me). At this point, the lower end model should be $3000, and bump that 256GB SSD to at least 512GB. I also wish they would loosen up on the special apple SSD's with encryption. I think it's a nice option to have, but I would like to have the option of tossing in some extra industry standard M.2 drives for more storage (maybe this will be possible by using on of the many PCI-E slots). Ultimately, I love the computer but think the pricing is a bit out of wack. Put a 1TB SSD in it, and a single Vega II graphics module, and I'd pay $3500 for it. Much more than that though and I'm out.

 

[jlocker]

I'm not saying someone building computers would make $400 a day, but someone that would use a computer like this could make $400 a day, programmer, movie editor, engineer, etc. And you wouldn't want to waste a day building a PC equivalent for this.

For the last 35 years, I have seen people purchase a PC or build a PC with all of the Technology that Apple loads in when you buy the computer day one. With other systems, you are adding this card or that item and if you did the Math the cost of the machine or machines all ways come out higher with, a larger initial investment into a high end mac that last 10 years.

 

[jlc1978]

I don't have time to get into a protracted conversation about inflation at the moment... but hogwash to 1-2% a year. Have you seen what gasoline costs today versus a year or two ago? have you seen what a pound of meat costs today versus a couple years ago per pound? have you seen what fruits and vegetables cost per pound today versus several years ago? have you seen what just about everything costs today versus a couple years ago? if I could go buy groceries, and gas, and everything else for my family right now, and only pay a couple percent more than I did a couple years ago... i would do cartwheels down the aisle.
And as I said a minute ago to someone else... i remember spending over $2000 for a basic PC nearly 30 years ago... something that was a pretty standard price at the time. puts things in perspective.

Historic core inflation rates since 2000 have hovered between 1.5 and 2.5% a year with a few outliers. It excludes food and energy because they are much more volatile and are measured as pert of the CPI. It is sometimes higher and sometimes lower than the core inflation rate; between 1.4 and 3.5 with some outliers. Since 1982 - 84, the CPI has increased 150%.

It is somewhat misleading as some products have gotten a lot better and or last longer over time even as prices have increased, so the actual rise in terms of value may be smaller. In addition, the basket of goods has changed over time as well.