Loving the creativity here!
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.
MP 7,1 Waiting for Mac Pro 7,1 A1991 (no more)
- Thread starter Mago
- Start date
-
- Tags
- macpro 2016
- Sort by reaction score
Yup, totally right...I'd "have" to wait for the used market 2018's anyway and might go for a mid 2015 15" to replace the 2011 and keep the desktop or sell that one if the 2015 turns out to be good enough...but by waiting hopefully those 2015 ones also drop in price
I c....well this is what i got from googling it in regards to OBS:
1) mac do support QSV through videotoolbox ==> select Apple Hardware Encoder
2) hardware encoders have negligible effect on rendering (talked about it with dodgepong and Fenrir on dev channel)
I was just at the store today to check out the 15" tried with ableton slapping on a bunch of reverbs on channel 1 and let it play the track at 32 samples buffer it clitched and scratched like crazy, not that i didn't expect it to, it was just "fun" to see how fast it got hot...guy at the store said they'd had problems with heat and fans on the 13" display unit they had just gotten the other day, but it went away once they re-installed high sierra.....
What do people think about just how high-end the new Mac Pro will be? I can see an easy design for a $5000 -$10,000 "iMac Pro alternative", using similar CPUs, maybe with support for 256 GB of RAM (won't the iMac Pro Xeons support 8 RAM slots pretty easily?). Give it 2 or 4 PCIe SSD channels (possibly 2 proprietary super-fast channels run off the T2 chip like the iMac Pro plus 2 that take standard NVMe SSDs)? Or 4 super-fast channels, making it difficult to upgrade, but having the fastest (vaguely desktop) storage system ever built. Give it two PCIe x16 graphics slots, spaced for big cards, plus an x4 or two for RAID cards and the like. I haven't counted PCIe channels, but I think it all fits. Sell it for the same price as an iMac Pro with the same processor - lose the display to get the slots. Or $1000 more?
The other option is to go all-out and build a machine that nobody outside of Hollywood can afford. Start with dual Gold or Platinum Xeons - yes, the top-end processor option could include $20,000 worth of Platinum 8180s or their successor (at retail)... Apple will get them cheaper than that, but they'll still be paying $12,000 or more for the CPUs alone. Support half a terabyte of RAM, if not a full terabyte? At least 4, if not 8 SSD channels. Up to quad graphics - Titan V or something like it if they're willing to go NVidia - or some ultra-high end form of Vega... HP (and probably others) actually make workstations like this, and they can cost $50,000+ in max configurations.
I can't really see Apple making a machine that covers all those configurations? If it starts at $5000, it probably won't top out at $50,000... Traditionally, the least expensive Mac Pro starts just about where the iMac leaves off. The question this time is whether they count the iMac Pro as an iMac when figuring their positioning? Without counting the iMac Pro, it's possible to spend about $4500 on an iMac (or $3500 without the 2 TB SSD option)... This suggests a $5000 - $13,000 Mac Pro that runs alongside the iMac Pro. If you do count the iMac Pro, the most expensive iMac is about $13,000 (about $9,000 without two very expensive options - 128 GB RAM and 4 TB SSD), and that suggests that the Mac Pro will start at or over $10,000, and it wouldn't surprise me at all if it tops out over $30,000 - maybe over $50,000. Apple has never built a machine in that range (although the Mac IIfx could run as high as $12,000 in 1990 money, which is over $20,000 today), but they have a lot of Hollywood users who buy computers that expensive.
The other option is to go all-out and build a machine that nobody outside of Hollywood can afford. Start with dual Gold or Platinum Xeons - yes, the top-end processor option could include $20,000 worth of Platinum 8180s or their successor (at retail)... Apple will get them cheaper than that, but they'll still be paying $12,000 or more for the CPUs alone. Support half a terabyte of RAM, if not a full terabyte? At least 4, if not 8 SSD channels. Up to quad graphics - Titan V or something like it if they're willing to go NVidia - or some ultra-high end form of Vega... HP (and probably others) actually make workstations like this, and they can cost $50,000+ in max configurations.
I can't really see Apple making a machine that covers all those configurations? If it starts at $5000, it probably won't top out at $50,000... Traditionally, the least expensive Mac Pro starts just about where the iMac leaves off. The question this time is whether they count the iMac Pro as an iMac when figuring their positioning? Without counting the iMac Pro, it's possible to spend about $4500 on an iMac (or $3500 without the 2 TB SSD option)... This suggests a $5000 - $13,000 Mac Pro that runs alongside the iMac Pro. If you do count the iMac Pro, the most expensive iMac is about $13,000 (about $9,000 without two very expensive options - 128 GB RAM and 4 TB SSD), and that suggests that the Mac Pro will start at or over $10,000, and it wouldn't surprise me at all if it tops out over $30,000 - maybe over $50,000. Apple has never built a machine in that range (although the Mac IIfx could run as high as $12,000 in 1990 money, which is over $20,000 today), but they have a lot of Hollywood users who buy computers that expensive.
I would be interested in knowing what updates to Cinebench need to be made in order to adapt it to the i9 processor.
I'm also curious as to what issues the author or this article has with Dave Lee's testing methodology.
Last edited:
It needs to at least support half a terabyte of RAM as that kind of support is not exceptional in 2018. HP's Z820, released in 2012, supports half a terabyte of memory. HP's current high end system, the Z8, supports three terabytes of RAM. Oh, it also supports Intel's silver, gold, and platinum processors in dual processor configurations. What you're asking Apple to build is already what others are currently building.
Has no one attempted Hackintoshing one of those expensive HP Z8xx workstations?
An extensive build description for an Asus Prime X299 Deluxe motherboard + Intel i9-7980XE based Hackintosh:
https://www.tonymacx86.com/threads/...ac-pro-successful-build-extended-guide.229353
The pci-e X4 link to the T2 limits speed of storage and people do not want to be foreced into raid 0
The new MBP15, comes with two Red Alerts about Apple thinking and how it could affect the mMP19:
- they dont give a **** on look over function, evidence is the MBP15 with i9 seriously limited by POOR cooling.
- they hates the RIGTH TO REPAIR, while justallowing few std component (or even propietary) the MBP13 & 15 could be RAM and SSD upgradeable (or serviceable) but APPLE dont woant you to replace even the Batteries or the Keyboards, along SSD.RAM the only components with restricted lifespan.
Forget it. No one will buy anything that expensive from Apple, seeing the past 10 years track record of paying attention to the pro market. People are not stupid. And I think Hollywood has pretty much abandoned the Mac by now and won't be coming back.
They need to cater to the pro/prosumer market that the original Mac Pro also did or they will have another flop on their hand.
This is of course all IMHO
Last edited:
I'd actually rather see the iMac Pro alternative - it's available to many more people... As an independent photographer, I might consider a $5000 Mac Pro (I have an Eizo monitor I far prefer to the iMac Pro's internal screen) - I'll never buy a $10,000-$50,000 machine (and still photography software won't use 56 cores anyway)... If there's a 10 -16 core Mac Pro that allows you to choose expandability by sacrificing the internal screen of the iMac Pro, that's available to a lot of creative pros without major studio backing. The 56-core monster would be fun to see, but nobody outside the big movie studios and record labels would ever actually use one.
By the way, I think "forced RAID 0" is inevitable... The iMac Pro already is, as far as I know. The question is whether it's 2-way (iMac Pro), 4-way or maybe 8-way?
[doublepost=1532275942][/doublepost]I'd be shocked if anyone had tried to Hackintosh a significant configuration of one of the big HP (or other) workstations... A low-end version (the Z8 actually starts under $5000), maybe? The big ones are all under serious support contracts at film studios, engineering firms and spy agencies - hardly the places a hobbyist can find one to hack.
By the way, I think "forced RAID 0" is inevitable... The iMac Pro already is, as far as I know. The question is whether it's 2-way (iMac Pro), 4-way or maybe 8-way?
[doublepost=1532275942][/doublepost]I'd be shocked if anyone had tried to Hackintosh a significant configuration of one of the big HP (or other) workstations... A low-end version (the Z8 actually starts under $5000), maybe? The big ones are all under serious support contracts at film studios, engineering firms and spy agencies - hardly the places a hobbyist can find one to hack.
An external bootable USB SSD would allow simply trying out macOS running on such a machine, without bothering the normal operation of the factory installed operating system. Of course, it might be wise to simply unplug the normal Windows boot drive while doing so, just to be on the safe side. "Windows to Go" can also be made to run from an external SSD, in case you wanted to have a portable ability to boot and run whatever software is on your Windows home computer on the high-end HP workstation machine.
Last edited:
Given Apple's inconsistency, they've made themselves into being too high of a risk for Enterprise to consider in their workflows ... particularly larger (less agile) companies.
I've thought about the iMac Pro as an alternative to the dearth of a tailorable-to-my-photography-workflow-needs Mac (eg, cheesegrater Mac Pro) and have basically come to the conclusion that if I stick with MacOS that I'd be just about as well off with a 5K iMac (~$3K) and take the money saved to pay for the external data storage that all iMacs (which lacks internal bays) invariably invokes for my workflow.
I don't think Apple can get away with a tower line that starts at 5k .
The highend clientele has long been lost for Apple; brand recognition only works for iStuff and the cheaper laptops, what remains as buyers for the higher priced Macs are pros/'prosumers' married to OSX .
And with the way OSX is going, a high priced MP - along with the lacklustre current MBPs - might be enough to make even more people consider Windows .
Besides, slots for anything don't cost much money, it's just fairly cheap hardware wired to the motherboard .
If that ever was a tradition, I think it's been the other way around - iMacs used to be priced lower than MPs as a convenient entry level offering - with a couple of exceptions .
The iMac Pros are just an abnormity , concieved when at Apple it became too bothersome to make computers .
One would think that in order for a mMP to have enough broad appeal to make it worth making, that it would need to not give on the space just above what should be the top end Mac Mini segment. Apple somehow doesn't seem to give a rip about that though, given what the entry price of the trash can was and even how neglected the Mac Mini has been.
The previous Mac Pro's price was dictated by Intel
The Mac Pro was always a mid-range workstation, not a high-end one like the use cases of the Z800. It fits far more in line with the Z600 line (which top out at 384GB.)
The Mac Pro was always a mid-range workstation, not a high-end one like the use cases of the Z800. It fits far more in line with the Z600 line (which top out at 384GB.)
I don't recall that argument ever being made when the Mac Pro was inline with other offerings. Regardless 512GB is not exceptional these days nor is support for Intel's top of the line processors.
While HP says the Z6 supports 384 GiB with 32 GiB DIMMs, you can buy them with 1536 GiB using 128 GiB DIMMs. https://zworkstations.com/products/hp-z6-workstation/
"Official support" vs. "works"
For these types of comparisons I use what is officially supported as these systems can be very pricey and most organizations which will buy a high end configuration will want support.
It's probably not a big deal, since there's very little base price difference between the Z6 and the Z8.
Agreed. In addition these systems are available now and have been for some time. We don't know when, if ever, and what Apple will release in the future. By then laptops will come standard with the ability to handle 512GB of RAM.
It's disappointing how far Apple has fallen in this area. I can recall when they first released the Mac Pro and how competitive it was spec and pricewise against comparable competition. Sadly they let that slip away.
It already costs you more than $13K to get to 384GB (let alone $30K for the Z8 maxing), so I'm not sure it's really relevant except for the fifteen people who are actually in the market for a machine that costs $50K+ or more a pop (and I can't fathom most use cases where that actually makes sense versus buying multiple machines/upgrading from cheaper SKUs more often.)
If you wanted you could load more RAM in the Mac Pros than they supported (including 128GB in the 6,1) so I imagine that will continue, but I wouldn't expect Apple to offer it (besides, who is going to want to pay the premium for buying it from the vendor? HP tends to charge as much or more than Apple does.)
I suppose you could argue Apple is positioning the iMac Pro as the pro machine for most people, and the Mac Pro would be the higher-end machine, but I highly doubt Apple is going to do that, at least for basic configurations, especially as the iMac Pro already starts at $5K.
I'd be absolutely shocked (happy, but shocked) to see the least expensive Mac Pro come in under around $4000.. You can easily pay $3699 for an iMac, even ignoring the two very expensive options (64 GB of RAM and the 2 TB SSD). You can get it up to around $5000 by adding those options (most people wouldn't, because you can use cheaper third-party upgrades to get to both). Apple has always, even when the 2008 cheesegrater Mac Pro was at its most competitive, maintained that the iMac is the mainstream desktop option, and started the Mac Pro's price above any stock iMac. No matter how often people ask for it, they've shown little interest in the mythical "xMac", an expandable machine that is an iMac alternative instead of a niche option above the iMac.
This goes right back to the introduction of the iMac - the cheapest G3 tower was more expensive than the most expensive iMac (it's occasionally been possible to put some expensive CTO option in an iMac that exceeds the price of the cheapest tower - generally some option nobody would pay Apple for because it is both overpriced from Apple and possible to upgrade yourself). Even when the 27" quad-core iMac came out in 2009, the top i7 quad-core model was $2199, and the cheapest Mac Pro tower (a quad-core with a lower clock speed than the iMac) was $2499. The cube followed that rule, too - the least expensive cube ($1799) was a few hundred more than the most expensive iMac ($1499),although the cube was a PowerPC G4, while the iMacs of the time were G3s.
They are going to protect the iMac by not letting a screenless machine (other than the Mini, which has always been a poor performer using parts from the low end of the 13" laptop line) undercut it. The Mac Pro will , of course, use SSDs for primary storage, so the comparison is to fully SSD 27" iMacs (not fusion drive models).
There is another problem with a Mac Pro under $4000 (unless they kept the whole line relatively affordable) - there is no processor socket that would work. Someone who didn't think like Apple could make a very nice $2500-$3500 tower or modular PC with a Core i7-8700K (or its successor - 9700K?) and other high-end consumer parts. A Dell XPS with the 8700K, 32 GB of RAM, a GeForce 1080 and a 1 TB PCIe SSD(probably nowhere near as fast as Apple's) goes for $2249. Figure Apple would use better SSDs, a better case and power supply (the XPS line is junk, while Apple always uses premium custom stuff), and add some things like a bunch of Thunderbolt 3 ports and 10 Gb Ethernet - then add an Apple Tax - and you're around $3000. The problem is that you're also at the top of what that socket can do. There's no processor upgrade option without a completely different motherboard, and the Mac Pro isn't going to top out at 6 cores, only marginally faster than the MacBook Pro (especially not with the 18-core iMac Pro around)! They've also never used two motherboards in one Mac Pro generation - single processor models when a dual was available have always had an empty socket, and all the processors have always used the same socket.
The need for a socket with a very high top end leaves Apple with two primary options. One is the LGA 2066 socket used by the high-end desktop processors, or the closely related Xeon version (they'll pick the Xeon version, which is already used in the iMac Pro). Given the type of configurations Apple favors, this will result in a $4000 or $5000 to $10,000+ machine - they won't offer a low starting price on an unusable barebones configuration with 4 GB of RAM and a 1 TB hard drive, like HP often will... The second viable option is (probably dual) LGA 3647 sockets for the high-end Skylake-SP processors. Again avoiding barebones configurations Apple won't offer, it's hard to imagine anything with dual LGA 3647 starting under $7000 (one processor socket filled with some mid-speed Xeon Gold chip), and it's not hard to see how to get over $50,000 with dual Platinums and other high-end options.
No matter how much some people would like to see Threadripper or dual Epyc, it's going to be Intel, probably with AMD graphics...
This goes right back to the introduction of the iMac - the cheapest G3 tower was more expensive than the most expensive iMac (it's occasionally been possible to put some expensive CTO option in an iMac that exceeds the price of the cheapest tower - generally some option nobody would pay Apple for because it is both overpriced from Apple and possible to upgrade yourself). Even when the 27" quad-core iMac came out in 2009, the top i7 quad-core model was $2199, and the cheapest Mac Pro tower (a quad-core with a lower clock speed than the iMac) was $2499. The cube followed that rule, too - the least expensive cube ($1799) was a few hundred more than the most expensive iMac ($1499),although the cube was a PowerPC G4, while the iMacs of the time were G3s.
They are going to protect the iMac by not letting a screenless machine (other than the Mini, which has always been a poor performer using parts from the low end of the 13" laptop line) undercut it. The Mac Pro will , of course, use SSDs for primary storage, so the comparison is to fully SSD 27" iMacs (not fusion drive models).
There is another problem with a Mac Pro under $4000 (unless they kept the whole line relatively affordable) - there is no processor socket that would work. Someone who didn't think like Apple could make a very nice $2500-$3500 tower or modular PC with a Core i7-8700K (or its successor - 9700K?) and other high-end consumer parts. A Dell XPS with the 8700K, 32 GB of RAM, a GeForce 1080 and a 1 TB PCIe SSD(probably nowhere near as fast as Apple's) goes for $2249. Figure Apple would use better SSDs, a better case and power supply (the XPS line is junk, while Apple always uses premium custom stuff), and add some things like a bunch of Thunderbolt 3 ports and 10 Gb Ethernet - then add an Apple Tax - and you're around $3000. The problem is that you're also at the top of what that socket can do. There's no processor upgrade option without a completely different motherboard, and the Mac Pro isn't going to top out at 6 cores, only marginally faster than the MacBook Pro (especially not with the 18-core iMac Pro around)! They've also never used two motherboards in one Mac Pro generation - single processor models when a dual was available have always had an empty socket, and all the processors have always used the same socket.
The need for a socket with a very high top end leaves Apple with two primary options. One is the LGA 2066 socket used by the high-end desktop processors, or the closely related Xeon version (they'll pick the Xeon version, which is already used in the iMac Pro). Given the type of configurations Apple favors, this will result in a $4000 or $5000 to $10,000+ machine - they won't offer a low starting price on an unusable barebones configuration with 4 GB of RAM and a 1 TB hard drive, like HP often will... The second viable option is (probably dual) LGA 3647 sockets for the high-end Skylake-SP processors. Again avoiding barebones configurations Apple won't offer, it's hard to imagine anything with dual LGA 3647 starting under $7000 (one processor socket filled with some mid-speed Xeon Gold chip), and it's not hard to see how to get over $50,000 with dual Platinums and other high-end options.
No matter how much some people would like to see Threadripper or dual Epyc, it's going to be Intel, probably with AMD graphics...
I got a chuckle out of this response. Imagine someone in a Mac forum being concerned with price