Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Roundup: First-Look Impressions of the New Mac Pro
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
The MacBook Pro doesn't run quietly when under heavy load. The fans are pretty loud when they kick in. Not favourable in a studio environment. I have a 15" Mid 2017 for on the road, so I know what I am talking about. The latest MacBook Pro offers an i9 with 6 cores max. I would like to have more cores. I am doing music production and when you are working with a lot of samplers, complex virtual instruments and effects, the workload goes up pretty quickly when working with complex mixes. Even a 6-core system is starting to sweat easily then. I also need a lot of internal HD space for all the libraries. I don't like the clutter of external HDs all over the place. Another box and another box and another one... I want everything in one box, like in the "good old days". And going for 4TB HD for $3.2k? No, thank you... I also would like to have the option for 64GB of RAM. Impossible for a MacBook Pro. I don't need the machine to be portable... So why paying extra for miniaturisation, an extra screen, an extra keyboard, a battery and a trackpad I just don't need? Just give me a midi tower with a quick i9, some PCI slots, HD slots and a board that can handle up to 128GB of RAM and I'll be good for the next 5 years. But Apple (still) doesn't offer something like that. And probably never will... I know tons of creative people who would buy a machine like that in an instant. But Apple couldn't get even richer by an offer like that. So they don't bother...
[doublepost=1559690799][/doublepost]
iMacs are no option for me. I am working with a multi-monitor set-up and for ergonomical reasons these monitors need to be identical. And also the iMac has some heat problems when under constant heavy work-load. The iMac Pro might technically be a good choice, but I still have the monitor problem then. And the Mac mini... well, next subject?
Actually Apple quietly updated the MBP recently and you can get it a 2.4GHz 8‑core 9th‑generation Intel Core i9 processor, (with Turbo Boost up to 5.0GHz).
8 Cores and 32GB RAM is pretty awesome for a portable.
I'm running a late 2016 2.9 Quad Core/2TB/16GB and it does very well with stacks of plug-ins in Logic and working on 4K video in Final Cut.
A question and a consideration.
The question: where are made the new Mac Pro and the new Display Pro? Maybe China?
The consideration: this is not a simply powerful workstation, it is a versatile and efficient fan electric heater (1400 Watt from the miraculous Mac Pro, enough for heating a workplace room).
The question: where are made the new Mac Pro and the new Display Pro? Maybe China?
The consideration: this is not a simply powerful workstation, it is a versatile and efficient fan electric heater (1400 Watt from the miraculous Mac Pro, enough for heating a workplace room).
For starters, you need to upgrade to the 8 core Xeon Gold 6144 3.5GHz to be comparable to the base Mac Pro. That adds about $2700 (remember to add similar RAM, networking, a small but fast nvme drive, etc). Even then, the Xeon processors in the Mac Pro are likely the next gen from the ones in the Dells.
I'm not going to buy this. I don't need it. All of my heavy processing is done on a university cluster/supercomputer. I also need CUDA access. This doesn't prevent me from realizing that this is a fairly priced workstation.
Last edited:
Imo, there will be at least one third-party vendor that will make a $300-$500 stand for the Pro monitor. MKBHD mentioned that the 6K is actually competing with references monitors that can cost $40,000-$45,000.
[doublepost=1559695127][/doublepost]
It goes back to the massive NVidia graphic card failures in 2008-2012 Macbook Pros.
If you want to know why the relationship between Apple and NVidia has gone frosty, look to that.
That was a big problem I had with my G5 Quads back in the day, and I thought the same thing when I also saw the cheese grater on the back of the monitor.
You are missing the point I was making. Back in the 60s, it wasn’t as easy to make 15 cents as it is now. My parents struggled with a VERY good job to get our first computer at around $1,000 in the 90s. Now? $1,000 is not that much. Inflation definitely needs to be taken into account. A computer for $4,000 in 1990 is way more expensive than a $4,000 computer now.
My machine similarity equipped except for having a 512 ssd is fine with a large Protools session but begins to choke when supporting a 34” monitor, an LG 5k monitor and a 27” 1080 display. Looking forward to a new 2019 model with the full knowledge that it will likely never hit 5GHz for more than a second constrained in that thin form factor.
Last edited:
Hmm ok time for a comparison to what I thought was an expensive monitor for myself: the Asus PG27UQ
Asus PG27UQ - price $2k USD (including stand)
-HDR
-Gsync
-144hz
-P3 color gamut
-1000 nits peak brightness
-peak contrast ratio 50k: 1
Apple Pro Display XDR - price $6k (including stand)
-XDR (which is 'beyond' HDR according to Apple)
-no Gsync
-no high refresh rate
-P3 color gamut
-1600 nits peak brightness
-peak contrast ratio 1M: 1
I don't know how Apple got such a high contrast ratio without using OLED, but it seems like you are paying that extra $4k for mostly a higher peak brightness and much higher peak contrast ratio. For some professionals it might be worth the cost but for probably not for consumers
Asus PG27UQ - price $2k USD (including stand)
-HDR
-Gsync
-144hz
-P3 color gamut
-1000 nits peak brightness
-peak contrast ratio 50k: 1
Apple Pro Display XDR - price $6k (including stand)
-XDR (which is 'beyond' HDR according to Apple)
-no Gsync
-no high refresh rate
-P3 color gamut
-1600 nits peak brightness
-peak contrast ratio 1M: 1
I don't know how Apple got such a high contrast ratio without using OLED, but it seems like you are paying that extra $4k for mostly a higher peak brightness and much higher peak contrast ratio. For some professionals it might be worth the cost but for probably not for consumers
I picture people installing these and coming away with a handful of band-aids afterwards.
The old Mac Pro I have does the job, but it's getting old and losing support. I can only hope this new one depreciates enough by the time I need a new computer.
I know my needs are real because I tried switching to a high-end MacBook Pro, and it was frustrating for a lot of my usual tasks. Xcode builds in particular. Lack of expandability also bit.
Apple also doesn't want to lock people into CUDA. They want to push metal so they can change graphics card providers as they see fit (including making their own). CUDA ties them to Nvidia... And that's the last thing they want.
[doublepost=1559715317][/doublepost]
You're comparing a gaming monitor to a factory calibrated mastering monitor with multiple profiles.
Also 6k vs 4k resolution.
Me neither, but I'll have to keep running until they catch me.
Not really ridiculous if you consider who this display is aimed at. Colorists, Online-Video Editors and Photographers. For Photographers, this price class isn’t something new, for film people even less so, as they pointed out during they keynote. This screen could make it unnecessary to own a Sony reference monitor for far beyond 30k.
The Xeon 3223 has 16.5mb of cache, doesn't the Mac Pro base come with 24mb? Are you sure its the same chip? or is Apple adding the level 2 and level 3 cache together?
- Whoever is comparing this to HP Z machines or ThinkStations is forgetting a wee little thing: the proprietary silicon, aka Afterburner.
- Apple has done something very smart here, and I'm not sure how many people are noticing it.
Apple realized that there is no longer a big margin in super beefy PCs, and ordinary people are not buying super beefy PCs anyway: for most workloads (for context, I'm a developer here, so I'm relatively spoiled), a cheap quad-core and 16GB of RAM are more than enough.
Where are the margins nowadays?
Nice-looking Facebook machines - hello iMac - and badass workstations with proprietary silicon. Hello, Mac Pro. - Any other old farts like me have noticed this thing basically screams "SGI"?
Beautiful case, outrageous price, custom silicon. - I think they're gonna sell these to the Final Cut and Logic market, but I wonder if putting nVidia in it could have helped sell a few more of these to TensorFlow users with money to burn...
Back in the 60s (you brought the 60s up), you'd have to be a government or large corporation to own a computer (which would have had the processing power of the keyboard controller in your current Mac). TVs were so expensive (and unreliable) that most people rented them. GPS didn't exist - and when it became available in the 1980s it was something that you might buy for your luxury yacht. 80s mobile phones were for stockbrokers. Internet was for military and universities. The fact that you've now got a phone in your pocket that only cost 750 loaves of bread does all of that and more has very little to do with inflation or average earnings and everything to do with dramatic changes in technology.
... so although your point is "not even wrong" it is irrelevant to a discussion about whether a 2019 computer is expensive compared to other 2019 computers. All personal computers today are cheaper vs. typical income and incomparably more powerful than what was available in the 1980s. Interesting - but completely tangential as to whether a computer is 'expensive' in 2019 terms.
Ob. car analogy: if you're driving around looking for a gas station to fill up, you don't compare gas prices by working out the inflation-adjusted price of a gallon in 1987. (unless you're a disparaging senior citizen stereotype in which case... of course you do...)
I'm sure if you could go back and read the comments on comp.sys.apple.macintosh in 1987 you'd see:
...and its quite right that the Mac II was closer to what was then called a 'workstation' than a PC/AT, whereas, hardware wise, the current Mac Pro is just another PC Xeon tower with a MacOS license.
(* everything except personal computers, as it turns out... but really should have bought some ARM shares!)
Guess why it's called "Pro"
[doublepost=1559726714][/doublepost]
And that's very valid points.
I'll be the first to say: **** you, nVidia.
But, alas, nVidia has locked everyone else out there in certain fields into CUDA.
I use TensorFlow for work and it's CUDA or... CUDA.
It's probably a lose-lose situation
Eeeh, the Cascade Lake chipset is more than good enough for a workstation in 2019, notwithstanding the fact that it's the same architecture that powers your aunt's $300 Asus.
it's not the 80s when PC users looked in amazement at any piece of iron with an MMU and an FPU.
I also guess Apple has some proprietary silicon in there besides, obviously, the Afterburner chip.
[doublepost=1559727287][/doublepost]
Most definitely.
In 2003 the pro workstation market was still - and for a few months more - in the hands of Sun and SGI machines. before Intel-based workstations started to supplant them.
We're talking about this sort of machines, priced from $20-30k upwards, sans display.
Notice by the way how those machines too came with custom silicon and both had a fancy case and a rackable one
Last edited:
Intel's Gold Xeons make great workstations and are much smoother than the W-class. I'm not sure why Cook got suckered into only a single processor board when the case screams out for dual CPUs! Once again, Apple needs to up their game on the electronics side while the design looks near perfect.
As someone here or on other Apple fansite explained, dual CPU setup is more complicated and does not bring that much benefits.