MP 7,1 This is why the Mac Pro makes sense, and why it's a good thing for everyone

Discussion in 'Mac Pro' started by baryon, Jun 5, 2019.

  1. baryon macrumors 68040

    baryon

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2009
    #1
    No, the new Mac Pro is not for the vast majority of people. It's not like the previous one, where you could just buy it if you were semi pro or just a rich consumer who liked power. The trash can was a high end, but limited computer. It could be configured to be quite powerful, but the power was not unlimited.

    This thing is not like a nice expensive, luxury car like other Apple computers that you can dream of buying one day when you get rich. This is like an excavator: you would never want one, and you don't need one. But companies out there can't live without it, and the world is built using tools like it.

    The problem with the old design was that it was not a top of the line machine. If you were a production house with dozens of skilled employees churning out high-end film editing, VFX, grading or anything on an industrial level, there was simply no Mac for you. You could not do that on the trash can. You simply had to get a different brand of computer, and switch to Windows.

    The new Mac Pro is here to fill that void. It's not simply for professionals, it's for industry production houses. If you do hardcore color grading or video editing at home and make money off of it, the Mac Pro is still not for you. It's for your employer who can treat it as an investment, just like they may buy a DCP projector or calibrated reference monitors from Flanders Scientific or Sony. Those things cost as much as the building itself, but it's the only way to produce that type of content.

    So with the trash can, companies complained that "There simply isn't a Mac in existence powerful enough to do what we need." Now, that is no longer the case. There is no practical or theoretical ceiling on how powerful a Mac can be. Now even the most hardcore workflow can be done on a Mac.

    This means that large production houses can invest in Macs and not have to switch to other platforms. Now high-end cinema and advertising productions can be made on a Mac. I know production houses that still use the old cheese grater linked up to DCP projectors, and it's still far more powerful than the trash can, because it could be upgraded. Now they can finally upgrade to another Mac, and for them, the price is nothing. It's the price of a bulb or two for their projector.

    I think Apple wants everyone at home to use an all-in one, reserving the tower entirely for production houses. They have the iMac Pro, and they don't want anything to compete with that. Before, they made towers for the average pro, but for whatever reason they decided they don't want to do that. Maybe they never sold that well. Maybe those who bought them were happily willing to pay more for more power.

    The Mac Pro, as we knew it, is gone. This is more like a server, in the sense that you'd never want to have one at home. Except maybe to grate, like, a lot of cheese.
     
  2. ct2k7 macrumors 603

    ct2k7

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2008
    Location:
    London
    #2
    Ok, so tell me what product fits my requirements?

    I’m not a content creator in the original sense, I’m an engineer. If this is the successor to the Mac Pro (all prior generations), what is the step that fills the gap?
     
  3. bookemdano macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2011
    #3
    High end Mac Mini if you want to BYOD or iMac/iMac Pro if you don't.

    If those don't meet your requirements you might start by listing what your requirements are.
     
  4. amedias macrumors regular

    amedias

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2008
    Location:
    Devon, UK
    #4
    In order for us to attempt to answer the question, you have to define it for us... what are your requirements?

    ...and what are you currently using to fulfil them?
     
  5. ct2k7, Jun 5, 2019
    Last edited: Jun 5, 2019

    ct2k7 macrumors 603

    ct2k7

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2008
    Location:
    London
    #5
    In most cases, a product which doesn’t have thermal issues when you’re compiling or training models for over an hour. That’s an overriding requirement.

    No need for a screen, a powerful GPU isn’t required, though could be nice. Most of my work is CPU (thread) bound. Model simulations etc

    I already have a USB-C monitor. I don’t intend on buying more.
    --- Post Merged, Jun 5, 2019 ---
    Just posted them, thought I added them but alas not
     
  6. amedias macrumors regular

    amedias

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2008
    Location:
    Devon, UK
    #6
    I’m still not seeing any actual requirements really.

    How often and how long are you compiling for?
    Multi thread or single?
    Working set size?
    Ram requirement?
    Must you compile locally or could it be offloaded?
    Cross-platform?
    Must be compiled on MacOS?

    And what are you using right now?
    What’s constraining your current workflow and what would ‘fix’ it?
    Do you need more cores or faster single thread? Or is there some other bottleneck?

    Put it this way, if you weren’t bound to MacOS then what machine would you buy and why?
     
  7. baryon thread starter macrumors 68040

    baryon

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2009
    #7
    ... that said, Apple doesn't have a perfect machine for everyone, at all. They usually have one – albeit highly configurable – machine per rough category and if they're not right for you, they have no other options.
    • Light desktop use: Mac Mini or low end iMac
    • Light laptop: MacBook Air or 13" MacBook Pro
    • Heavy desktop: high end iMac
    • Heavy laptop: High end MacBook Pro
    • Pro desktop: iMac Pro
    • Industry production: Mac Pro
    • Don't actually need a computer but have a lot of money? MacBook.
    There isn't much overlap between the Mac Pro and iMac Pro. Those who would have bought the old cheese grater Mac Pro or the trash can are "supposed to" buy the iMac Pro today, with no other options really.
     
  8. ct2k7 macrumors 603

    ct2k7

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2008
    Location:
    London
    #8
    This is the reason I've given a very abstract view of my requirements, questions like these tend to only dictate half of what needs to be asked, and very often don't fit categories of Apple products very well.

    If you want concrete answers:

    I'm compiling multiple times a day, some projects are small, some are larger. It can take between 20 mins and 1 hour to compile the projects. On other days, I'm compiling something which generally takes a few hours (it's a legacy project). data training for ML and heuristic simulations are mostly CPU bound.

    The compilers are set to use as many cores as possible. The flight simulator I use is CPU bound, so single core performance matters as well. When I'm data training, I tend to set several models simultaneously, across different cores.

    In terms of memory, I'm always looking at a minimum of 32GB, however, I've previously been limited by this in terms of how I train data. As I'm working on other projects, (which use hundreds of docker/kubernetes containers), RAM requirement is obviously something I wish to keep an eye on.

    Some of the data I'm working with is quite sensitive (financial), so I've opted to train locally.

    In terms of macOS, I use macOS as my primary platform, and it's never made sense to me to have a separate machine just for this work (which would be co-located with my main computer).
     
  9. ZombiePhysicist macrumors 6502a

    ZombiePhysicist

    Joined:
    May 22, 2014
    #9
    I very much disagree. I posted this in another thread (https://forums.macrumors.com/thread...-ncmp-hot-or-not.2183836/page-7#post-27432034), but makes sense here as well:

    https://www.forbes.com/sites/timbaj...is-the-mac-of-steve-jobs-dreams/#2ebab0f43fa3

    Im not sure if Steve would or would not have been pleased with the nCMP. But I do not think it targets their “core” customers. People mistake Pros as being their core. ENTHUSIASTS are their core market. Many of which are Pros. But many pros are not enthusiasts. The ENTHUSIASTS saved apple.

    And the pricing on this thing, there just is no entry level where Enthusiasts can get on board. The original Mac Pros started at around $2500 and enthusiasts could get on board. If apple priced a cheaper entry point. Something with just a simple video card, 16GB or RAM and an a 4 core at say $3499, it could have really brought a lot more people back.

    This is just for rich enthusiasts and pros that will have corporations buying for them. It will not be for that core of people that saved apple. It’s just too expensive.
     
  10. Silencio macrumors 68020

    Silencio

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    NYC
    #10
    One would think an iMac Pro would suit you down to the ground, though when fully spec'ed it can get pretty deep into Mac Pro territory in terms of pricing. It can take up to 256GB of RAM and the cooling system is sufficient to keep throttling to a minimal or nonexistent level, certainly far more robust than the regular 5K iMac.

    I know you like your current external display, but there aren't too many of those that I would prefer to the Apple 5K display.
     
  11. Ursadorable macrumors 6502

    Ursadorable

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2013
    Location:
    The Frozen North
    #11
    There's also zero options between the Mac Mini and the Mac Pro for those that don't want a one-piece computer with integrated monitor.
     
  12. slughead, Jun 5, 2019
    Last edited: Jun 10, 2019

    slughead macrumors 68040

    slughead

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2004
    #12
    A windows machine.

    Apple doesn't have to build a computer for every use-case. If they can't squeeze the margins they want out of a given market, they're not going to build it. That may be a bad idea from a loss-leader standpoint (get people hooked on OS X on a cheaper machine and maybe that'll sell high margin machines when they need it for other use-cases). Put another way, maybe low-margin machines could be marketing for the same OS that runs on the high margin machines. However I'd trust Apple to know how best to make money.

    Quite simply, it may not be the case that can make money off of you -- so go to a company that does value your business. I did after Apple did away with PCIe slots in 2013.
     
  13. machenryr macrumors 6502

    machenryr

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2016
    #13
    It seems like almost everyone is freaking out about the 5k monitor display. Do you HAVE to use their display with this computer? I have a great Samsung I’m using with my two MacPros. I’m hoping I can continue.
     
  14. slughead macrumors 68040

    slughead

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2004
    #14

    No you can use any display you want. I'm not sure why people are linking the accessory options of Apple on the 6k display to the Mac Pro, other than they were announced at the same time.
     
  15. ct2k7 macrumors 603

    ct2k7

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2008
    Location:
    London
    #15
    Actually, I should have mentioned that I'm coming from a Mac Pro. I was looking at the iMac Pro, and it certainly has the technical specifications, and the screen is very nice. I'd need another display though (I work with about 2-3 4K screens with my MBP), I haven't massively looked into this, but I assume there's nothing like that 5K screen that the Mac has on the market? The other reason I don't go with such a huge screen is because for whatever reason, I just can't use a large screen properly; I'd rather have multiple screens, but I suppose I could change my workflow...

    I'll be honest, I use a Surface Pro for some things, and I'm liking Windows - it certainly works for some of the gaming I do; which is something I complete forgot to mention. I use X-Plane, a lot. Currently an old Mac Pro suffices this, but I want to retire this at some point. FWIW, it's both CPU and GPU heavy, however nowadays, CPU is the bottleneck. I suggest this as a reading... to make it even more baffling.

    I'm aware that the iMac Pro hasn't really been updated (CPU-wise) in the past 500 days?

    Edit: apologies for the delay, I'm at WWDC this year, so I'm still taking in tonnes of information... sadly I can't learn as fast as my machine ;)
     
  16. leman macrumors G3

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2008
    #16
    Exactly. To add to this, even the old Mac Pro tower was more of a mid-range rather than top end.
    --- Post Merged, Jun 5, 2019 ---
    Mac Mini sounds like it will fit the bill. I hope they will update it to 8-core CPUs soon though.
     
  17. Anarchy99 macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Dec 13, 2003
    Location:
    CA
    #17
    i don't mind all the cores of the xeons, i don't mind ECC memory but for many pro's its just unnecessary added cost when there are just as good in some cases better options. (cores less so, but ECC for sure.)

    very few pros care about the avx512 instruction set, so really a Xeon is only good for more cores and ECC.

    1st of my many issues
    since the PowerMac G5 the base price even after accounting for inflation has almost doubled in cost.

    for pro's that need the power but dont want the inflated cost in server parts thats a problem.
    (not to mention this go around the Apple Tax is high compared to the raw components if you build to the same spec)


    the base model would have been better served as a i9 9900k, same core count, faster clockspeeds and would have allowed for a less offensive starting price.

    not to mention lets be real the low to medium options are already served by the iMac pro so its surprising they exist in the 1st place.

    there is no reason Apple couldn't have used ryzen if they care about core counts, for multicore performance per $ its king.

    theyre not shy about using AMDs inferior GPUs but for some reason have stuck to intel even in product lines where there goals would be better served by AMD.

    then there is the lack of Nvidia Drivers/CUDA support Mojave onward.
    something many pro's use (it was more common than the pros that require the error correcting of ECC)
    (they could even utilize Nvidia for the HEVC sidecar apparently requires and or an alternative to there new accelerator)

    so where does this leave me...
    I'm IT professional, I need to swap out components and need easy access to PCIe slots among other things not served by a iMac.
    im also cursed with loving Apple and being more productive on MacOS vs Windows.

    so currently as someone who sometimes uses CUDA, is a small business Owner thus I can't justify egregious spending without additional benefit.

    I'm stuck with Hackintoshing on my next upgrade, because I'm too Pro for the consumer level iMac and iMac "Pro" but not needing the enterprise level markup with the server grade parts. (but even if i did do an identical build, building it myself would be cheaper as i already point out.)


    part of me wonders if Apple made these prices outrageous because they want to prove the narrative that these won't sell well and are too niche to bother with, so it justifies them neglecting this one for 6 years like the last one.

    if anything this points out the hole in Apple's product line, the need a highend "consumer" tier thats expandable.
    you could calll it Mac it can be bellow the mac pro but more than the mini
     
  18. Muckd macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2017
    #18
     
  19. ct2k7 macrumors 603

    ct2k7

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2008
    Location:
    London
    #19
    I think I mentioned somewhere (maybe not in this thread), but I have tried the modelling on the Mac mini.. and it couldn't cope with the thermals, and shut itself down :/
     
  20. MisterAndrew macrumors 65816

    MisterAndrew

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2015
    Location:
    Portland, Oregon
    #20
    I agree and disagree with the OP. Is the new Mac Pro for industry production? Yes, but it's also for whoever wants to buy one. The Mac Pro will be available to consumers on Apple's website and in their retail stores. Plenty of rich customers will buy one who only use their computer for email and Facebook. And I see no problem with that. It's the only high quality and modular PC-type computer available from Apple and it will last for years. It's a smart investment no matter how you will use it.
     
  21. Muckd macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2017
    #21
    What’s so special about the base model, that warrants the price over the 5,1 6,1 base model pricing.

    If Apple want real pro users, why even bother having the base model.
     
  22. ct2k7 macrumors 603

    ct2k7

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2008
    Location:
    London
    #22
    I wonder why they chose to announce this at WWDC, if this device is purely intended for a complete different attendance to that of WWDC (excluding press, since this could have been released at a press-only event).
     
  23. brentsg macrumors 68040

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2008
    #23
    iMac got the i9 CPU this spring, no?
     
  24. bookemdano macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2011
    #24
    IIRC the MacPro6,1 was also announced at WWDC 2013, and then available for purchase that December.
     
  25. ct2k7 macrumors 603

    ct2k7

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2008
    Location:
    London
    #25
    27” yes, but the L3 caxhr might be too weak, let me check benchmarks later
     

Share This Page

111 June 5, 2019