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

[Marekul]

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.

you can buy any retail AMD Radeon RX 580X 8GB for €180 and plug it in a macpro and it will work.
http://www.xlr8yourmac.com/archives/feb18/RadeonRX-580_MacPro.html

That AMD Radeon RX 580X will outperform the Pro 580X, it is the same chipset as the Radeon RX 580X but with slightly higher clock speed.
https://www.techpowerup.com/gpu-specs/radeon-pro-580x.c3398

 

[greenmeanie]

AHH remember how everyone complained about it too?
It was like yesterday!

Ah, remember the days when an entry-level Mac Pro was $2,500? And then $3,000? It seems like it was almost yesterday...wait, IT WAS EARLIER THIS WEEK.

And now, it's a paltry SIX THOUSAND DOLLARS!

 

[handsome pete]

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.

That's not really how hardware purchasing decisions are looked at in my experience. I've worked in a handful of small-mid level agencies, and well known high level media companies (where I am now). In an attempt to attain some sort of internet anonymity, you'll just have to take that for what it's worth. And when I say small-mid level, that's referring to personnel, not budget.

People are getting hung up on the $3K vs. $6K pricing because it's completely reasonable to believe there are competitor's options that will get you better performance in that $3K range. It's not about bean counting. I've certainly seen my share of reckless corporate spending, but for the most part the money on hardware and software is spent smartly. It's about getting the most productivity out of your users. I'll go back to my hypothetical design team example. I have 20 designers, composed of a mix of editors, modelers, animators, riggers, etc. Maybe I'll set up 3 edit suites with well configured Mac Pros and Pro displays. Then maybe another handful of the team could really benefit from the Mac Pro in various configurations, no Pro displays. Then there are those designers left where the $6K configuration is poor value based on a competitor's machine that offers more efficiency at lower cost. But in order to stay in the MacOS ecosystem my choices are minimum $6K for a tower, or an all-in-one iMac or Mac Mini (both of which simply aren't good options for a lot of people). So then it becomes a choice of which ecosystem you want to build in. I mean you could feasibly work cross platform, but that's not ideal.

I'm interested to see how it all plays out for them. I kind of like the new design, and I can see how it could potentially be used in our pipeline. However, we're not that far removed from the Mac Pro 6,1 failure to just automatically give Apple the benefit of the doubt, especially if you remember all of the claims they were making back then about that machine.

The repeated refrains of "well this isn't for you" or "Pixar is going to buy these in droves" or any other related response gets tiring because I have to imagine most of it is coming from people who, through no fault of their own, know little to nothing of how "pros" or high end facilities operate. They don't just throw money at something just because they can. The new Mac Pro and display are obviously geared to that market. Whether any of these firms truly buy in is yet to be seen.

 

[Coconut Bean]

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.

And here's the Lenovo for $3400

• Processor : Intel Xeon SILVER 4110 Processor (8 cores, 11MB Cache, 2.10GHz)
• Operating System : Windows 10 Pro for Workstations 64
• Operating System Language : Windows 10 Pro for Workstations 64 English
• Motherboard : P920 MB Intel Purley Dual CPU
• Memory Selection : 32GB DDR4 2666MHz ECC RDIMM
• Memory Qty : 1
• First Video Adapter : NVIDIA Quadro P4000 8GB (4xDP) High Profile
• Hard Drive Controller : Intel Integrated Controller
• First Onboard M.2 Selection : 256GB Solid State Drive, M.2, PCIe, Opal, TLC
• Primary HDD Boot Drive : Yes
• 1st HDD selection : 1TB Hard Drive, 7200RPM, 3.5", SATA3
• First Hard Drive Selection Qty : 1
• Memory Card Reader : Integrated 9 in 1 Multimedia Card Reader
• Ethernet Adapter : 2x port Integrated Ethernet
• Audio Card : Integrated Audio
• Thunderbolt I/O : REAR THUNDERBOLT CARD 1 PORT
• Keyboard : USB Traditional Keyboard Black English
• Pointing Device : USB Calliope Mouse Black
• Power Cord : LineCord - US
• Power Supply : Tower 92% Power 1400W
• Language Pack : Publication-English
• Warranty : 3 Year On-site

Processor is way slower, so an other $1000 would be reasonable to add to the price. Also the card is an Nvidia and not AMD, performance should be similar though.

 

[handsome pete]

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

He specifically said the form factor.

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.

These car analogies continue to be nonsense. There's a reason Apple's competitors still offer a wider range of configurations and don't bind themselves completely to workstation grade parts (xeon, ecc).

 

[Coconut Bean]

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.

Or you can just ask the Tech-department to do it, they will do it in 3-4 hours AND don't make $400 a day. HP does offer the same performance for the same price, while Lenovo does offer it for way less (although only NVIDIA cards).
[doublepost=1559834088][/doublepost]

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.

Just because other's also offer something similar for the same ridiculous price it doesn't mean that it is price-worthy. FYI, from Lenovo you can buy a computer for very similar performance for $4000.

 

[5105973]

An amazing computer with presumably staggering development costs, extremely expensive to manufacture enclosure, and a very small audience. Anyone expecting this to be cheap or at least comparable to a similarly specified beige plastic box is naive.

This machine is a statement. A halo model to show Apple’s prowess. Will I get one? No. Do I love it? Hell yes.

I want to get this computer just to worship it at midnight under the light of the full moon while I sacrifice a tofurkey to it. I think it’s a gorgeous beast and I envy the people who have the mad skills to make use of it.

 

[gaximus]

Or you can just ask the Tech-department to do it, they will do it in 3-4 hours AND don't make $400 a day. HP does offer the same performance for the same price, while Lenovo does offer it for way less (although only NVIDIA cards).

No IT department will waste their time building a computer, they will just buy one that comes with support. Unless you work for a very small company. It's almost always more expensive for a company to build a computer than buy one. The only time its cheaper is when you are building one for yourself and you consider the time put into it as a hobby. A company isn't going to want to waste time troubleshooting a hardware or software issue, when something goes wrong they will just send it off, and get a temp replacement, or have a spare to use while its being fixed. I've worked for quite a few large companies and none of their IT departments would ever consider building computers for their employees.

 

[Coconut Bean]

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.

So true. Not to mention that cloud (or on-prem render farms) will be more efficient and cheaper in most of the cases.
[doublepost=1559835162][/doublepost]

No IT department will waste their time building a computer, they will just buy one that comes with support. Unless you work for a very small company. It's almost always more expensive for a company to build a computer than buy one. The only time its cheaper is when you are building one for yourself and you consider the time put into it as a hobby. A company isn't going to want to waste time troubleshooting a hardware or software issue, when something goes wrong they will just send it off, and get a temp replacement, or have a spare to use while its being fixed. I've worked for quite a few large companies and none of their IT departments would ever consider building computers for their employees.

There are technicians installing servers, swapping hard-drives etc. I am not saying they will or that they should, but the possibility itself is there. For that matter no company will let their employee earning $400 build their own computer.

 

[Ubuntu]

I like it.

Anyone leaving negative comment does not need or intend to buy it. People just being negative for the sake of it.

Nope. I think it's a great machine but they just put it out of reach of so many people. Look at the previous Mac Pro generations - they were expensive but still feasible for professionals such as developers (I'm biased as I am one ). Now this caters towards the ultra high end of the market, meaning there is no configurable (post purchase) Mac for the more common professionals.

Also, 256gb for the base model is pretty poor.

 

[Greymacuser]

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

In my experience with the iMac, it's unupgradable with all soldered in parts. Plus, the screen was pressed against rocket hot components that yellow the screen and alter the color balance dramatically. Not to mention the thermal throttling that negated the point of buying a faster model in the first place.
All in all, a very unpleasant machine to work with for photography.

 

[citysnaps]

Or you can just ask the Tech-department to do it, they will do it in 3-4 hours AND don't make $400 a day. HP does offer the same performance for the same price, while Lenovo does offer it for way less (although only NVIDIA cards).
[doublepost=1559834088][/doublepost]

Just because other's also offer something similar for the same ridiculous price it doesn't mean that it is price-worthy. FYI, from Lenovo you can buy a computer for very similar performance for $4000.

Except it’s not a ridiculous price. Perhaps for your budget, though. Just buy the Lenovo.

 

[Darth Tulhu]

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.

So complaining about Apple prices is NEVER right? There's a difference between pricy and ridiculously expensive.

I mean, I'm with you on some of these but lately the price hikes have not kept up with the leaps forward (or rather lacks thereof) of the technology in use. Apple is charging A LOT for things that go down in price over time.

That said, I think that with this machine we're paying for very expensive built-in capability us mere mortals would NEVER use. Thus, this machine does not scale down well, like it's predecessors did. I could afford a base Mac Pro previously. Neither this or the iMac Pro fall into that category for me. With both of those machines Apple drove the prices WAY up.

The logic is not about paying Lexus prices for a Toyota. Apple built a Ferrari (iMac Pro) and a Bugatti (Mac Pro) advertised them as a REPLACEMENTS for your Lexus, Mercedes, or Audi. Basically Apple is saying their consumer brands are the Lexus, Mercedes, and BMWs. They're pushing further UPSCALE.

Now, regarding the stand, I agree. It was a marketing goof of epic proportions. I got the message when they said hey, we're delivering $40k worth of value into $6K. But to phrase it like just the stand will cost $1k just sounds like pouring salt in a wound, especially after having us lust for that Ferrari we (again, mere mortals) can't afford.

This is tied to expectation. People wanted a SENSIBLE replacement to the old Mac Pro and Thunderbolt Display (which was pricy but understandable AND affordable at the time).

I find this unlikely, but Apple may yet deliver those even if we have to wait a while

 

[neuropsychguy]

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 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.

The other thing worth doing is looking at the cost of the original Apple II in 1977 or Mac in 1984, adjust for inflation, and see how much they cost in 2019 U.S. dollars.

The Apple II is over $5000 in today's dollars and the Mac is over $6000 in today's dollars. Yes, computer tech usually gets cheaper (not always) but there is consistency in Apple's pricing. Apple simply doesn't want to be part of the continued race to the bottom. Other companies are taking that approach too (Microsoft, Dell, Lenovo, HP - most have low cost products but their high-end ones start to rival Apple in prices). The price-to-performance ratio is much higher today than it was back then.

 

[citysnaps]

In my experience with the iMac, it's unupgradable with all soldered in parts. Plus, the screen was pressed against rocket hot components that yellow the screen and alter the color balance dramatically. Not to mention the thermal throttling that negated the point of buying a faster model in the first place.
All in all, a very unpleasant machine to work with for photography.

I’ve been using a 2017 5K iMac for photography, an outstanding choice. No thermal throttling. I suspect an iMac Pro would be even better with no thermal throttling for a photographer using PS and LR.

I spec’d it for my needs at purchase. No need to upgrade.

How long have you been using an iMac for your photography to come your conclusion its an unpleasant machine for photography?

 

[Darth Tulhu]

Tell me... has trypophobia always been a part of your regular vocabulary? Or is it new to you as of a couple days ago, along with the rest of the Internet?

It's relatively new (a few years), driven by when my son and daughter discovered they have the condition.

I don't suffer from it, thankfully.

Why do you ask?

 

[Greymacuser]

Nope. I think it's a great machine but they just put it out of reach of so many people. Look at the previous Mac Pro generations - they were expensive but still feasible for professionals such as developers (I'm biased as I am one ). Now this caters towards the ultra high end of the market, meaning there is no configurable (post purchase) Mac for the more common professionals.

Also, 256gb for the base model is pretty poor.

Agreed. We just needed a desktop we could upgrade with no soldered in parts and no thermal throttling due to arthouse form factors. Just a box with room in it so we could upgrade the GPU, ssd's, etc.
With his, we can't even do that. The ssd's are proprietary. The GPU housings either limit the width of the card.
We needed a better pick-up truck. This mac pro is an earth mover.
[doublepost=1559836558][/doublepost]

I’ve been using a 2017 5K iMac for photography, an outstanding choice. No thermal throttling. I suspect an iMac Pro would be even better with no thermal throttling for a photographer using PS and LR.

I spec’d it for my needs at purchase. No need to upgrade.

I'm glad that you found a desktop that works for you. My concern would be the long term effect the heat on the screen would be and what happens a couple of years down the line when I would need to upgrade the graphics card for my expanding business. With an all-in-one that's not an option. I shouldn't have to buy a whole new machine for a few grand when the solution is a GPU that costs a couple of hundred.

 

[handsome pete]

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.

That doesn't really make sense. One would easily forgo a $400 payday in order to save more than that on a build.

Unless I just missed something earlier in the conversation.

I'm also not condoning a custom build as an alternative for the Mac Pro fwiw (except for personal use).

 

[jon3543]

Another notable tidbit was that, like many other Apple products, the new Mac Pro was kept in a "stealth enclosure" during testing in Apple's labs to ensure that its design remained a secret until it was announced. This was certainly effective, as the new Mac Pro's design was a complete surprise.

Maybe the box grater companies learn a lesson from this.

 

[jlc1978]

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.

While I agree with you on the importance of ROI, I've found it is often based on too narrow a set of parameters. If it's simply "will the machine casting 1.5x return 1.5x more?" then it is pretty straightforward. However, when you get into situations where you are trying to hire people with very specific skillsets from a small pool, things like what tools will they want need to be accounted for as well. If I can't hire someone because they don't like working with machine X and want Y; and the cost to continue to search and fill the position and/or lost revenue while searching is greater than the differential price then I'll go with Y if that's what gets the person I want. Even worse, if that keeps someone from leaving the savings alone on recruitment costs will cover any extra machine costs. Granted, those type of jobs are a small set of all jobs but they do exist. If IT balks a quick discussion with the CFO and HR head usually solves the problem. Of course, the best IT shops work with their users to determine what is really needed and not just base decisions on dollars and cents.

 

[handsome pete]

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.

The 1:1 hardware comparisons were always dumb. Apple never really overcharged compared to competitor's options.

However, system performance is an entirely different story.

 

[Kinotto]

It looks, reading around the forum, Apple created the Mac Pro some dreamed off, but they aimed too high, missing the biggest slice of users: professionals who require performance on par with the IMac Pro And the possibility to upgrade components.

Imho a winning move would be to release a cheaper, with less pro features ( no ecc ram for example) tower desktop, maintaining the same case of the pro.
They could simply call it “Mac”.

 

[Since1987]

Are we sure this isn't the AppleCar ??? You know... just based on the price

 

[gaximus]

That doesn't really make sense. One would easily forgo a $400 payday in order to save more than that on a build.

Unless I just missed something earlier in the conversation.

I'm also not condoning a custom build as an alternative for the Mac Pro fwiw (except for personal use).

Earlier in the conversation it was shown that the the price of the components priced separately was very close to the price of the Mac, and thats without support, build quality, and the macOS.

 

[citysnaps]

I'm glad that you found a desktop that works for you. My concern would be the long term effect the heat on the screen would be and what happens a couple of years down the line when I would need to upgrade the graphics card for my expanding business. With an all-in-one that's not an option. I shouldn't have to buy a whole new machine for a few grand when the solution is a GPU that costs a couple of hundred.

Oh...it's your concern. Got it. Smells like FUD. I'm not worrying in the slightest. An iMac is an outstanding choice.

Again, regarding your above conclusion and from your personal experience using an iMac for your photography, why is it an unpleasant machine to work with for photography?

I'm curious about your photography, tell me more about it.