New Mac Pro Receives FCC Approval Ahead of Launch

[guzhogi]

Not stupid.
You will not find yourself with a computer containing 3.5" HDD bays and the screws already there for mounting. But since you have PCIe slots, you can shell out for multi M.2 slot NVME drive cards. Make sure the card includes the fan. And then shell out for the M.2 drives. And while your are shelling out, make sure to get all six RAM channels populated.

Thanks. I saw how someone can get PCIe cards with drives, but I guess I was spoiled by some PC cases & the Power Mac G5/early Mac Pro cases that had drive bays.

I admit, the Mac Pro is a bit too expensive, and too overkill for my needs, but I can understand the want/need for multiple internal drives. Just my 2¢. If you need something different, more power to you.

 

[Alan Wynn]

I wonder what Apple considers ‘Fall’ because right now snow is falling.

For Apple (and most companies that sell products), Fall usually ends on the 122nd day of September.

 

[Stephen.R]

I can understand the want/need for multiple internal drives.

The types of things the 2019 Mac Pro is targeted at will not make use of a couple of mechanical drives in most scenarios.

Multiple PCI fixed flash, or m2 adapters? Absolutely.

The only major use for mechanical drives is gonna be in an array with probably a minim of 6 or 8 drives (and likely many more) - either some form of network device or a direct attached array - either way they’re tailored for a bunch of drives and nothing else - hot swap on a Mac Pro isn’t really going to work, the way the case is designed.

 

[guzhogi]

For Apple (and most companies that sell products), Fall usually ends on the 122nd day of September.

Or maybe Fall in the southern hemisphere, so March-May?

 

[Stephen.R]

Or maybe Fall in the southern hemisphere, so March-May?

You misspelled “Autumn”

 

[Alan Wynn]

I took my son's gaming PC I built him last weekend, (8 core Ryzen, 16 GB RAM RTX 2070 Super - approx $1100 total build) and as a test I took an After Effects project from work home and hit render on his machine.

Mac pro was 8 minutes, his machine was 5.
So 40% faster.

This should not be much of a shock, your machine is 6 years old, and you are using Adobe’s software that is not amazingly optimized for macOS.

Curious why you did not consider the iMac Pro over the last two years? Especially with an eGPU, it is a great machine.

On a different note, I am curious how stable you are finding the Creative Cloud stuff these days? We have started migrating as much of our work to DaVinci Resolve and Fusion as it has been more stable, the color and audio are better and it is much, much faster. Oh, and the price is great as well.

That being said, I am VERY interested in seeing some real world benchmarks when this thing ships, because I WANT to stay with the Mac so badly, yet this really feels like Apple is going the monster cable route (gold plated connectors that make zero difference in performance but if you don't want that then we don't want you as a customer ) with this Mac Pro. By only offering the insane custom parts that no one is asking for besides Scientists that need ECC and 256 GB of RAM, they really are underserving their pro market.

I fully expect that at the high end of the spectrum, this new machine will scream, differentiating it from Monster Cable in that, while it may not matter to you, me or many others in our use cases, it will have real benefits to some. Monster Cable has no measurable benefits to anyone.

I really like ECC, and need 10Gb/E support, but the iMac Pro Works for many of our users. For a few of the most demanding ones, the new Mac will be similar in price to what we would pay for an HP equivalent.

 

[4jasontv]

For Apple (and most companies that sell products), Fall usually ends on the 122nd day of September.

That feels correct.

 

[Unregistered 4U]

This is not complaining. This is merely stating cold, hard facts.

Another cold, hard fact is... regardless of the budgetary constraints, if a company NEEDS... like can’t operate without... a system with a higher power envelope than the iMac Pro to run Final Cut Pro X, there’s not a single Dell or HP system out there, regardless of price, that is a solution for them.

Even if that solution, for the power profile they’re looking for, is $30,000 NO company in the world has any choice if Final Cut Pro X (or Logic Pro) is important to them. The hardware they use will have some kind of Apple logo on it and no need to comparison shoot because there’s only one vendor.

In my mind, the Mac Pro is for those folks with the bucks to use the tool they want, and those tools happen to only run on Mac platforms. There aren’t a lot of those people, which is why the Mac Pro costs so much. They will make a profit on each and every one that gets made. I wouldn’t even be surprised if they went in a BTO only model... zero inventory, what they sell is what they make, and even if it takes a week or a month to get to them, it’s not like there’s another company on the planet that could get it to them faster.

 

[Alan Wynn]

Unless, of course, you're going to void the Applecare on day 1 by doing a DIY CPU upgrade

It does not void the warranty, but they will not cover your CPU. If you put the original back in they will still cover it.

and/or hope that your unsupported 3rd party GPU with an unofficial BIOS works...

It will support other AMD cards, not just Apple developed ones, as well as many other cards from third parties for other applications.

(things which contradict the argument that 'this is for serious professionals who will amortise it against their income')

If one uses the machine to make money, one is not likely to swap the CPU oneself. However, if one is well paid, this cost is just that that big a deal.

 

[theluggage]

Another cold, hard fact is... regardless of the budgetary constraints, if a company NEEDS... like can’t operate without... a system with a higher power envelope than the iMac Pro to run Final Cut Pro X, there’s not a single Dell or HP system out there, regardless of price, that is a solution for them.

The problem is that about the only way to justify the Mac Pro is if you're irrevocably committed to FCPX, Logic or other Mac-only software - If its about more power whatever the cost, multi=processor PC setups far more powerful than the Trashcan and iMP have been available for some time, and there is plenty of perfectly credible pro creativity software for Windows (including dual-platform options if you want a transition period).

The Mac Pro only has unprecedented power for a single-Xeon workstation by virtue of using the latest Xeon CPU - and that's still academic until you can actually get your hands on the thing. All the PC workstation makers will have new products in the pipeline (...and they tend not to have massive public launches for their specialist workstations).

The Mac Pro seems purely designed and priced to extract more money from the small and shrinking pool who don't feel able to consider non-Mac solutions. With the XDR display (and suitable software) it might have a niche if its true that the display is equivalent to far more expensive reference monitors (forget the stand and just prop it up on a pile of bricks) but that's still a small niche.

If the MP was going to be successful, we'd be discussing amazing new features in FCPX and Logic that were going to have Windows users flocking to MacOS (including former Mac users who have already migrated to Windows after 7 years without a credible Mac Pro). The fact that Apple were making a Xeon/PCIe tower to run them on should be a boring no-brainer - once you move beyond laptops and all-in-ones, a computer is a box to sit under the desk holding the generic components together and blowing cool air over them.

 

[Stephen.R]

about the only way to justify the Mac Pro is if you're irrevocably committed to FCPX, Logic or other Mac-only software

I assume you're counting macOS in this "Mac only software" category?

My work is all about writing code, tooling, infra etc. Most of the technologies and tools are cross-platform/standardised, and most of the production runtimes are a Linux distro.

Some of the apps I choose to use are macOS-only, but there's generally a workable alternative on other desktop platforms (e.g. think Sequel Pro vs either MySQL Workbench or HeidiSQL etc, Kaleidoscope vs.. some other Diff tool, etc).

So, of all people I could absolutely use an alternative platform for my workstation. In some cases it would give more options than I have now (e.g. running native container solutions without a VM). In some cases it would give me less (no legal/straight forward option to run macOS VMs).


But none of that is going to make me drop macOS as my preferred workstation OS, while I can still be productive with it - be it a high-spec Mac mini for a couple of years, or a constantly-upgradable Mac Pro for quite a bit longer.

Yes there are more hardware choices if you don't make macOS a hard requirement. Not necessarily better choices, but definitely more. If those choices work for someone else, that's great, go and buy it and be happy. But don't pretend that there's no inherent benefit from macOS itself.


Ok, so I'm just obstinate you might say? Yep probably. But let's look at the financial aspect.

The base Mac Pro is ~$6K. Even if the competition were *half* that price (which it isn't, for comparable specs), any extra downtime due to Windows or Linux above 40 hours (yes, one "contractor" work week) over the lifetime of the machine, and it's cheaper for me to just buy the Mac Pro, and not have those headaches.

Yes, if you do the math, you'll know what I charge clients per hour. And if you do, you'll notice it's not really that high. The more a person earns per hour, the less hours of downtime before the Mac Pro is cheaper.

Yes, it's unlikely most people would just buy and use the base Mac Pro. But arguing about speculative prices is ridiculous.

 

[Unregistered 4U]

The problem is that about the only way to justify the Mac Pro

It‘s not ABOUT the only way, it IS the only way! I haven’t read the rest yet, but you hit the nail on the head with the first sentence.

The Mac Pro seems purely designed and priced to extract more money from the small and shrinking pool who don't feel able to consider non-Mac solutions.

Also correct. If you think of the Mac Pro as a hardware enhancement module for FCPX, you’re thinking about it correctly.

If the MP was going to be successful

If you define successful as selling more than ANY Mac ever, they will never be that. Mac Pros have never BEEN that either. The vast majority of folks, even professionals, use mobile devices. I think a more accurate description would be that it’s profitable. And, at those prices, they will certainly be profitable.

 

[theluggage]

The base Mac Pro is ~$6K. Even if the competition were *half* that price (which it isn't, for comparable specs),

Assuming you need comparable specs to do your work. You're doing a job, not playing Top Trumps - and pretty much everybody agrees that the specs of the $6k Mac Pro doesn't really make sense except as a starting point for significant expansion (starting with a CPU bump which nobody is going to DIY on a brand new machine). All those RAM and PCIe slots aren't going to make you any more productive by sitting there empty - yet they are a major reason why the MP is so expensive. What you can get for half the price, if not less, is a powerful PC tower that lets you choose your own displays and GPUs and has a couple of free PCIe slots for specialist cards. Even the previous $3k price point for trashcans and cheesegraters was a bit of a stretch for that, now it has doubled.

any extra downtime due to Windows or Linux above 40 hours (yes, one "contractor" work week) over the lifetime of the machine, and it's cheaper for me to just buy the Mac Pro

Because Macs never have downtime. Oh, and just to be clear, that's assuming 40 hours of literally sitting on your hands because there's nothing else you can do, nothing else you can get on with, you don't have a spare computer or a fast-response service contract (which is insane if your computer is paying the mortgage, whether its a Mac or a PC).

But arguing about speculative prices is ridiculous.

Except that cuts both ways when we don't have any price from Apple for CPU upgrades, proprietary SSD blades or MPX-format GPUs which will be needed to turn that $6k base model into something credible. 2x the retail price of an equivalent upgrade is pretty credible if you look at the upgrade prices on existing models.

 

[Stephen.R]

Because Macs never have downtime.

You do understand what the word “extra” means right?

that's assuming 40 hours of literally sitting on your hands because there's nothing else you can do, nothing else you can get on with

No actually that’s assuming 40 hours of me having to research/fix stupid issues or incompatibilities or just generally ****ing about to make basic things work.

I’m not talking about hardware issues I’m talking about ridiculous software incompatibilities in those environments.

 

[Chambers McMac]

If you're not a Pro, spouse approval sold separately.

Dude!!! For real! I’ve been rocking an early 2009 MacPro for 10 years and could use an upgrade but over 6k is never ever ever going to happen. Maybe they will release a MacPro junior?

 

[ct2k7]

You do understand what the word “extra” means right?


No actually that’s assuming 40 hours of me having to research/fix stupid issues or incompatibilities or just generally ****ing about to make basic things work.

I’m not talking about hardware issues I’m talking about ridiculous software incompatibilities in those environments.

What the heck are you doing that you spend so much time on this?

 

[Stephen.R]

What the heck are you doing that you spend so much time on this?

So much time on what?

 

[arch1t3cton]

This machine should have been threadripper based. It’s not a good time for intel and pros need the best performance available.

No system is overkill and even the best and most expensive systems can barely cope with today’s requirements.

 

[PickUrPoison]

Right, 6k tower with 256gb, a very "pro"fitable machine we asked for, sure. A phone offers more storage.

I didn’t say you asked for it, for all I know you want a refreshed cylinder for $1,000 What I said was that it was the machine pros asked for:

Nice. The machine pros asked for, and got (finally). Yeah it’s more expensive, but much better and more expandable than the $4,000 8-core Apple currently sells.

Pros who use the 2019 Mac Pro to generate revenue will be able to afford the extra $50/month.

Pros wanted Apple to return to a tower form factor, for the most part, though some would be fine with an updated cylinder. The tower pros got exceeded their expectations, with an expandability few thought Apple would offer in a refresh of the much maligned 2013 Mac Pro.

The max config is a 28-core Xeon, 1.5TB RAM, 4TB SSD, 2x Radeon Pro Vega II Duo GPUs, and the Afterburner FPGA video stream accelerator. The 1.4kW power supply has plenty of capacity, and twelve Thunderbolt 3 ports and dual 10 GbE ports provide sufficient I/O, and there are additional open PCIe slots if you need them. Nice and cool, and also quiet. All from a $6,000 base platform, with pros buying whichever upgrades they need.

btw a 256GB boot drive is overkill for pros that use external attached storage or network-based storage. If you want/need a higher capacity drive, Apple offers upgrades of up to 4TB instead of that 256GB drive. Or you can add third party alternatives, internal or external.

 

[PickUrPoison]

Yeah, no. We did ask for a modular upgradeable design with better cooling but we definitely didn't ask for an absurdly expensive server grade Xeon CPU.

I said it was the machine pros (plural) asked for, not the machine you personally might prefer.

If Apple hadn’t chosen the W-3200 series Xeons, the max core count would have been 18, max RAM lower and memory bandwidth quite a bit lower, due to lack of a six-channel memory controller. The W-2200 series is cheaper, sure, but that will be used on the refreshed iMac Pro (which could be released alongside the Mac Pro).

 

[Drexus]

If the GPU, Memory, Storage, and possibly even the Processors are upgradable with something 3rd party (as requested by everyone in the MacPro community), then just what is the $6K paying for?

 

[bsbeamer]

Maybe you'd be happy reading this, it's one of the more detailed breakdowns with negative bias:

Deconstructing the base Mac Pro: Why is it so expensive?

When you look at how much the components inside the base Mac Pro actually cost, you'll be shocked at Apple's profit margin. But when you understand why Apple is charging you so much cash, you'll just be angry.

www.zdnet.com

 

[PickUrPoison]

Maybe you'd be happy reading this, it's one of the more detailed breakdowns with negative bias:

Deconstructing the base Mac Pro: Why is it so expensive?

When you look at how much the components inside the base Mac Pro actually cost, you'll be shocked at Apple's profit margin. But when you understand why Apple is charging you so much cash, you'll just be angry.

www.zdnet.com

Almost stopped reading when the author said “extended chipset” (twice) instead of extended instruction set when referring to AVX-512. But I forced myself to continue. Painful. But it’s just clickbait, it’s to be expected I suppose.

Of course the author apparently knows nothing about business, so he thinks selling price minus BOM cost equals profit in the bank. But Apple has a certain cost structure. They’re a huge company, with 500+ retail stores, 130k+ employees, and a $1.5 billion per month R&D spend. That adds quite a bit to Apple’s cost, and that’s part of the price build-up. The author also ignores the cost of the OS but whatever.

The author’s got it all figured out though; the $6k price is designed to be “punitive”