nMP pricing compared to 2012

Discussion in 'Mac Pro' started by VirtualRain, Oct 28, 2013.

  1. VirtualRain, Oct 28, 2013
    Last edited: Oct 29, 2013

    VirtualRain macrumors 603

    VirtualRain

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2008
    Location:
    Vancouver, BC
    #1
    It seems most people are dissatisfied with the nMP pricing. But where is this coming from?

    Unless I'm missing something, from what I remember about the 2012 pricing, the nMP is better bang for the buck...

    Comparing the new 6-core config ($4000) to a similarly equipped 2012 ($3000), you'd be looking at adding a pair of Sapphire 7950 Mac Edition cards (+$900), some memory (+$150) and an OWC Accelsior (+$450) for a final investment of $4500. Even if you only need a single 7950, or even dual 5770's the nMP is still better bang for the buck.

    If you want to go budget-oriented... Comparing the Quad Configs, you'd still be looking at spending more on a comparable 2012 model ($2500) than you would on the 2013 model ($3000), if you opted for a single 5780 (+$200), 12GB of RAM (+$100), and stuck a cheap SSD on a Solo x2 (+$300).

    Now, we all know that the new form factor comes with compromises, but purely in terms of bang-for-buck, the 2013 Mac Pro is better than any Mac Pro Apple has offered in the last 5 years.
     
  2. slughead macrumors 68040

    slughead

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2004
    #2
    Is that really saying something for the new Mac Pro, or is it just saying the old ones were overpriced? :)
     
  3. Zwhaler macrumors 603

    Zwhaler

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2006
    #3
    The major benefit of the new Mac Pro is GPU processing. The major drawback is affordable expansion. My Mac Pro has no space left for expansion because I use it. The new Mac Pro would require external thunderbolt PCI expansion, external storage (which I already have with this one in addition to having all 4 HDD bays filled with hard drives), so the unified design of the older Mac Pro is better for what I do as well as having a Firewire 800 for audio production.
     
  4. ssgbryan macrumors 6502a

    ssgbryan

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    #4
    You are missing something - you are only looking at the cost of the computer.......

    Where the angst is coming from is TCO. If you already have a MacPro, you are easily looking at an additional $1,000 or more to replace functionality that was present in earlier versions.

    As an example, my MP is currently north of 10TB of data, both internal and external.

    Moving from my current MP to the nMP means an additional $1,300 ($600 for 3.5" drive enclosure, $300 for ssd enclosures, $300 for TB dock for missing connecters, and $90 for TB to HDMI connectors for 2 monitors).

    In addition to this, there is the issue of the video cards. Having the 2 GPUs is great IF your workflow is based around OpenGL GPU computing. If your workflow ISN'T based around Open GL GPU computing, then you are paying (a lot) for a video card that will never be used.

    I use my MacPro for 3d art. All of the applications in my workflow are optimized for multi-core CPUs, not GPU computing. For the cost of a 6-core nMP plus the above mentioned costs ($1,300), I can purchase a 16 core Dell Precision T7600 workstation.

    Or I can that that $1,300 to ebay and pick up 4 additional Dell Dimension 690's, drop in a 60Gb ssd, 8Gb of ram, and a couple of quad core processors in each one, and viola! Instant render farm.

    And if something breaks, I can replace it myself quicker than Apple can send it back to their repair shop in Memphis - which is a 1 week turn-around in my experience.
     
  5. spoonie1972 macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2012
    Location:
    Toronto
    #5
    does anyone know if the new machine offers GPU processing for "regular" or "many" tasks built into the OS?

    …or am I dreaming that I read that?
     
  6. ssgbryan macrumors 6502a

    ssgbryan

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    #6
    Dreaming.
     
  7. Gav2k macrumors G3

    Gav2k

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2009
    #7
    Your referring to what was said in the keynote and I'm sure it was a feature of mavericks
     
  8. VirtualRain thread starter macrumors 603

    VirtualRain

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2008
    Location:
    Vancouver, BC
    #8
    Agreed... As with any product, if it's not a good fit, you will either need to compromise or spend more to modify it to your needs. So perhaps most of the angst is around the fact that it's not a good fit, rather than the bang-for-the-buck value of it.

    The Dell maybe a better fit for some. A hackintosh for others, and maybe a Mini or iMac for a few. Personally, I'm not yet sure it's a good fit for me either as my software of choice is Aperture, and I'm still waiting to see what, if anything changes with that application to take advantage of this hardware.

    However, for those folks who's work suits this hardware, it does offer better bang-for-the-buck than any previous Mac Pro. No one out there can update last year's Mac Pro to comparable equipment for less (in fact it's not even possible).
     
  9. -hh, Oct 28, 2013
    Last edited: Oct 28, 2013

    -hh macrumors 68020

    -hh

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2001
    Location:
    NJ Highlands, Earth
    #9
    True, it looks good at that level...but data storage hasn't been considered, as Zwhaler states:



    and also ssbryan:

    These are just illustrations of how a segment of users - - IMO probably more the SMB types and/or Prosumers - - use their legacy MPs as storage beasts.

    Consider my ow MP system, which is presently at IIRC roughly 12TB internal + 12TB external: just what would one suggest as the path forward?

    Case 1: the "cheapest" (ugly) move: external USBs on USBs, external FW800's on Thunderbolt Adaptors ($30 each) and buy new enclosure(s) the internals HDDS (in my case, two RAID pairs): probably do this on TB if for no other reason than there's probably few remaining USB ports after the external stuff (+keyboard/etc).

    Case 2: ditch the ugliest stuff in the above and throw away some drives which aren't at the end of their useful life yet (more TCO damage) such as because one can't find cheap empty Thunderbolt RAID enclosures to buy.

    Case 3: pretend we're made of money and just throw away all of that hardware and repurchase everything new.

    All in all, the least bad choice is probably to look at repurposing the legacy MP into a local File Server, perhaps for something like making Time Machine backups for all of the laptops in the whole office. Sounds good for a decent sized group, but far less so for a 1-4 person small shop.


    -hh
     
  10. MacVidCards Suspended

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2008
    Location:
    Hollywood, CA
    #10
    You'll be pleased to know that what they've actually done is " blew away limitation after limitation. "

    So obviously it is your thinking that is limited, not the drives or expansion. The computer itself is practically free of limitations, just ask them. (Deja vu, think this phrase is from previous TB marketing)
     
  11. VirtualRain, Oct 28, 2013
    Last edited: Oct 28, 2013

    VirtualRain thread starter macrumors 603

    VirtualRain

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2008
    Location:
    Vancouver, BC
    #11
    I hear you and the others on the storage front, but I think the storage issue with the new Mac Pro is the least of it's problems. I mean seriously, anyone complaining about the cost of moving storage external has not been over to Amazon lately. This is just one of many adjacent pairs of drives with similar price similarities/differences I found... (see attachment)

    And sure, multi-bay TB RAID enclosures are pricey, but proper PCIe RAID cards from ATTO or Areca aren't cheap either (and RAID arrays > 10TB are not wise anyway... best to go JBOD where USB3 is just fine)

    Without any disrespect, I just really have a hard time buying all this complaining about external storage as a legitimate financial hardship. It sounds more to me like a reluctance to change.

    The only real complaint with the new Mac Pro that I can understand, is the lack of upgradable GPU cards. If you're a gamer or need the latest GPU in your system every year, this machine just isn't a good fit. And if you're at the other end of the spectrum and don't care about the GPUs, the integrated PCIe SSD makes the base 2013 Quad Core as good a buy as last year's model with an Accelsior. :confused:
     

    Attached Files:

  12. deconstruct60 macrumors 604

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2009
    #12
    You are pulling a BTO 2012 out of the woodwork. Effectively the equivalent here is the $2,999 six core model. ( It doesn't match on GHz are looking at equvalently priced CPUs. The $1000 CPU from 2012 and the $600 CPU from 2013. Apple isn't even offering the modern equivalent of the top end 6 core in their config line ups. ). In short, you are blowing right by the "mid point" model which exactly what this new one is relative to the older "good, better, best" line ups.

    The OWC card gives you the ability to insert multiple SATA SSD blades (and eSATA drivers). The complexity, and therefore price is substantively different.

    Apple's BTO memory versus bundles memory prices are another source of skew. They don't charge the same for those two contexts. ( Quite smilar to how the classic MBP 15" with a 256 GB SSD is sent spiraling higher than the rMBP which bundles the SSD. Purely BTO skew. ), Generally, all of Apple's BTO configs tend to have worse bang-for-the-buck. They are only highly competitive against other vendors' highly marked up BTO configs. The depressed bang-for-the-buck is used between Apple products to reduce fratricidal cannibalism between products.

    The 2012 models has 1TB of capacity. Add that 750GB back in and it isn't looking so good. Even if do it on the outside.

    Budget oriented and then going another $500 doesn't sound like had a $2300-2700 budget in the first place.
     
  13. VirtualRain thread starter macrumors 603

    VirtualRain

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2008
    Location:
    Vancouver, BC
    #13
    Good catch on the BTO price, I pulled up the base price of a 2012 HexCore Server model which was $3500 vs. the mainstream HexCore which was $3000. However, the cost of adding two current-gen GPUs, PCIe SSD, and memory are roughly what I've indicated (from OWC or elsewhere), meaning you will exceed the cost of the new Mac Pro trying to equip last years model with similar performing tech. And on top of it, you won't have any expansion slots left so will be without USB3 (and of course TB) for what that's worth. Again, this new Mac Pro may be the wrong mix of trade-offs for some, but there's no doubt the new Mac Pro offers better bang-for-the-buck than previous gen Mac Pros.
     
  14. Tutor macrumors 65816

    Tutor

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2009
    Location:
    Home of the Birmingham Civil Rights Institute
    #14
    If Gizmodo and I are correct and you want to move up to the top of the nMP line, then the top of the line nMP will offer Apple a lot of bang from your bucks - http://gizmodo.com/a-fully-loaded-m...source=gizmodo_facebook&utm_medium=socialflow .
     
  15. VirtualRain thread starter macrumors 603

    VirtualRain

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2008
    Location:
    Vancouver, BC
    #15
    :eek: No doubt... but it's been an entertaining exercise to max out any Mac Pro BTO checklist and watch it hit five-figures for several generations now.
     
  16. Tutor, Oct 28, 2013
    Last edited: Oct 29, 2013

    Tutor macrumors 65816

    Tutor

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2009
    Location:
    Home of the Birmingham Civil Rights Institute
    #16
    I get my entertainment from getting the highest performing, high quality systems for my 3d rendering and video needs for the lowest price. The only time I pierced that five-figures threshold was when I acquired my Tyan Server and fill each of it's eight double wide capable x16 PCIe slots with eight Titans. My Tyan Server cost about the same as Gizmodo and I project it will cost to max out the nMP, i.e., around $14K. But I view my purchase of the Tyan as truly exceptional given that I got a system with the GPU rendering ability of over 80 CPU based systems, each with a single E5-2687W V1 [ http://www.nvidia.com/content/tesla/pdf/Tesla-KSeries-Overview-LR.pdf Titan is faster than Tesla K20X; but factory a new 780 Ti will be faster than a factory Titan]. Bang for the buck is my joy.
     
  17. ActionableMango macrumors 604

    ActionableMango

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2010
    #17
    Apple's prices are always fairest on day 1. But they don't lower prices, so as the hardware gets old and obsolete, but the price stays the same, the deal gets worse and worse over time. This is true of all Apple hardware. Day 1 of the next model is always a way better deal than the last day of the previous model.

    So you're comparing the nMP to hardware that hasn't really been updated since 2010 (or arguably 2009), yet is priced like it was when it was all top of the line.

    As for the nMP, there were a lot of expectations, perhaps unfair, that it would be the same price or cheaper. And when that didn't pan out, people complained.
     
  18. Loa macrumors 65816

    Loa

    Joined:
    May 5, 2003
    Location:
    Québec
    #18
    I'm not sure all of them were unfair. IMO, Apple should have sold the base nMP at 2500$ even if that 2500$ would have represented a loss. Here's why:
    -nMP sales will be a tiny fraction of Apple's revenue in any case (so no significant loss of money).
    -it would not have significantly affected the sales of other macs (as the mp stands pretty much alone).
    -it would have made the nMP a *great* deal for just about anybody interested in MPs.
    -it would have helped to mitigate the all-external "tax".
    -it would have sent a clear signal that "made in USA" doesn't have to be expensive.
    -it would have made the Mac power horse a lot more attractive compared to other workstations.

    So for an insignificant amount of lost profits, Apple could have used the nMP to generate very good publicity and visibility. Seems to me a very simple and easy decision... I really am surprised that the base system is not 2500$.

    Loa
     
  19. Snowshiro macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2008
    #19
    Honestly, I think most of it is coming from regular consumers who have wandered into this forum and are bemoaning the fact that a professional level workstation aimed at high end graphics, 4K video, 3D modelling or other similar fields isn't going to be their next machine to use facebook and play games on.

    There seems to be a huge amount of "I'm not paying that much" from people who the machine isn't even aimed at.
     
  20. ssgbryan macrumors 6502a

    ssgbryan

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    #20
    I'll go slowly for you - if I go too fast, pop a flare & I'll find you.

    Computer - more important than my toaster, but less important than my house. I am not a fanboi - I moved to Apple when my last OS/2 box died. Windows XP or OSX 10.2 - no brainer. I go with whatever platform works best for my workflow.

    You don't appear to have been around when "Make your computer the hub of your digital lifestyle." was Apple's battle-cry. Well, I was and I did. Which is why I have the system listed in my sig. I need the space - loss-less compression is a space eater.

    I don't have an issue with change - I have an issue about change for the sake of change. Change for the sake of change is what brings about crap like iOS7 & OSX 10.7.

    Some of us have hobbies that require a lot of computing horse power, 3D art is mine. The software is inexpensive, but the render engines do need the horses, and an iMac or a Mac Mini isn't going to cut it.

    I didn't bother getting a 4,1 or later because the software didn't catch up to the capabilities of a 1,1 until 2012.

    Moving from a MP to an nMP means that you have to look at the cost of ALL of the hardware, not just the computer itself. If everything you do can fit on 1 or 2 hard drives, great - some of us have greater storage needs.

    TCO = total cost of ownership. If you don't understand how it impacts purchases, I suggest you get spun up on it.

    Snowshiro, I didn't "wander" in here - I got here about 6 years before you and the OP did. A lot of us have been holding off on getting a new MP waiting for Apple to deliver a 6,1.

    TCO Cost $5500 for:

    Base 6 core nMP plus associated adapters, dock, and enclosures

    or

    Dell 7600 with 2 8-core Xeons, and no requirements for video adapters, TB docks or external TB enclosures.
     
  21. koban4max macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2011
    #21
    those people are regular people with no money. They don't understand what Mac Pro is all about.
     
  22. VirtualRain thread starter macrumors 603

    VirtualRain

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2008
    Location:
    Vancouver, BC
    #22
    Well, without knowing the specifics of your storage needs you really offer nothing for me to discuss. (Consider that "popping a flare" for more information :D )

    All I can say is that I shoot a lot of RAW photos with my DSLR and my storage requirements continue to balloon at an unbelievable rate to the point where even the Mac Pro's ample bays are not the ideal solution. Being in a multi-computer household heavily reliant on digital media for entertainment also puts demands on my storage that are not suited for a Mac Pro so I've found better ways to solve the problem. If I can do it, I'm sure others can too.
     
  23. ssgbryan macrumors 6502a

    ssgbryan

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    #23
    Boot Disc - 2x240ssd in a Raid 0 - OS & Applications Applications: 260Gb
    Backed up to a separate 500TB external USB2

    Music Disc - 2x2Tb in a Raid 0 - iTunes - 3.54 Tb used:
    3,731 albums, 48,221 songs, 1.57Tb - of which exactly 2 were purchased at the iTunes store)- I have been collecting CDs since they first rolled into my local music store (remember those?) in 1984.
    1,134 Movies, 1.72Tb ripped to feed into an ATV1 attached to my AV system.
    400 or so TV episodes 240Gb, still working on getting my TV shows into iTunes.

    This is backed up to an external 4x2TB Raid 5, which doesn't have a TB connection (USB 2, FW 400, FW800 & eSATA II). And iTunes is a "Mission Critical" application in my house. I have actually had fanbois tell me I have "too much" music and movies. Morans.

    Scratch Drive - 2x2Tb in a Raid 0 - 2.5 Tb used:

    Poser Runtimes: 500Gb - It isn't all installed, I am expecting this to reach 750Gb before the end of the year.
    Vue Runtimes: 100Gb - haven't cranked any Vue art lately, most of my stuff has been ship board. Once the action moves off-ship and dirtside, I'll probably need to pick up a newer version of Vue.
    Video Games: 600Gb - I am slowly peeling off my PPC games and moving them over to my spare machine (PCIX G5 Power Mac)
    Everything else 1.3Tb - Too much stuff to list - documents, story boards, finished & unfinished artwork, etc.

    Backed up by a separate 3TB external (USB 3).

    2x1Tb drives in a separate enclosure 1 is used to store my original application install images, and the other one is a back up.

    I am currently looking into how to update this, regardless of which direction I go with my new computer. Had they stayed with the current form factor, I'd swap out the 4 2Tb drives with 3 4Tb drives, move the 2Tb drives into another Qx2 (another backup Raid 5). My 3Tb drive would then be used for app install images & I could start to retire the older drives.

    The requirement to go TB for external storage is really screwing the pooch wrt costs.
     
  24. VirtualRain thread starter macrumors 603

    VirtualRain

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2008
    Location:
    Vancouver, BC
    #24
    Yeah, that's a lot, but consolidating and simplifying onto fewer, larger, newer drives will improve reliability and performance (from higher density media)... Regardless of whether there is a new Mac Pro in your future or not.

    And who says you need Thunderbolt?! A few 4TB USB 3 drives stacked next to your nMP would look fine, be more modular, provide full performance, and may even cost you less than new bare drives (see my post #11 above for an example of what I mean).
     
  25. tomvos macrumors 6502

    tomvos

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2005
    Location:
    In the Nexus.
    #25
    Well, the old Mac Pro was not cheap, either. But the higher initial cost could be justified by its extensibility. (Which was discussed in this forum ad nauseam.)

    If your are in the narrow scope where the nMP fits well, the pricing is acceptable. Depending on how far your requirements are out of this narrow scope the nMP is significantly more expensive.

    So both opinions are valid. It's just a matter of each's point of view.
     

Share This Page