What are the chances of non Xeon non ECC i7/i9 CPU options in the new Modular Mac Pro?

[AidenShaw]

when I specced them so the base iMac

I'm not getting my main point across.

When someone orders a Z4 - they don't look at matching the iMP specs.

They look at building a system that meets their needs.

They may already have a good 4K monitor, and don't need to add an extra 1TB NVMe disk to compensate.

They may need 4 cores, they may need 18 cores. They may need 16 GiB of RAM, they may need 256 GiB of RAM. They may need 10 GbE networking, or they may be in a 1 GbE environment.

These price comparisons that try to match spec for spec (even without the ludicrous bit about adding a 1TB NVMe disk to offset the monitor that the user might not need) are horse feces.

If you need exactly what Apple provides in their config, the price is not out of line. If the config isn't right for you, or you want some freedom to upgrade - get a Z.

 

[singhs.apps]

These price comparisons that try to match spec for spec (even without the ludicrous bit about adding a 1TB NVMe disk to offset the monitor that the user might not need) are horse feces.

I would need that monitor. In fact I might go for an 8k ( instead of two 4ks ).. so yes monitors were a consideration. The iMac would save me 1 monitor out of the two 4ks (8 k isn’t possible ).

The spec for spec was to see why the configs were costing whatever they did. HPs aren’t a bargain ..not even close..nor do they offer superior value..the only option they offer is user upgradability. And there are plenty of other vendors for that flexibility. I know what I was doing...and why I was doing it.

If Apple sucks for offering less BTO options, the HPs suck too for ridiculous BTO prices crap in the name of flexibility... Call it both ways. Not just one.

If I am spending that money on the new systems I want to know why is the rate so high that just skews the market price to a ridiculous level than suggested by the chipmaker itself. No don’t tell me it’s because of flexibility or upgradable feature.

 

[AidenShaw]

HPs aren’t a bargain

If you place no value on next day in home service for three years, you might come to that conclusion.

If I am spending that money on the new systems I want to know why is the rate so high that just skews the market price to a ridiculous level than suggested by the chipmaker itself.

If you're going to make ridiculous comments like that, perhaps you should check ark.intel.com and notice that Intel puts their full speed (not downclocked for a thermally challenged system) 8 core chips at $1113, and the full speed 18 core chips at $2553 - a $1440 upgrade for 10 more cores.

Apple charges $2400 for that 10 core upgrade. Egg on your face?

 

[singhs.apps]

If you place no value on next day in home service for three years, you might come to that conclusion.

Not when the other vendors offers emergency help at 2 at night
[doublepost=1523410518][/doublepost]

If you're going to make ridiculous comments like that, perhaps you should check ark.intel.com and notice that Intel puts their full speed (not downclocked for a thermally challenged system) 8 core chips at $1113, and the full speed 18 core chips at $2553 - a $1440 upgrade for 10 more cores.

Apple charges $2400 for that 10 core upgrade. Egg on your face?

While HP Charges what ? ˜3600 for that 10 core upgrade. Egg on your face? And I am calling out Apple too for that skewed upgrade path... 166% Xtra (Apple) or 250% Xtra (HP)... Both are ridiculous.. One is is even more ridiculous !

 

[jscipione]

Zero chance of official non-Xeon and non-ECC RAM in Mac Pro 7,1. It might be possible with after-market parts, but with a starting price of $3k or more that would be a risky purchase. Your best bets are iMac or Hackintosh.

 

[MisterAndrew]

The Mac Pro is a workstation that is designed for a range of professional uses, many which require ECC memory such as scientific computations & modeling. Comparative Windows and Linux workstations have a similar level of hardware. This is server class. You’re asking for a gaming Mac. If Apple makes a new Mac mini it would most likely be suitable for that. Probably something similar to the new Intel NUC with Vega graphics.

 

[mattspace]

For VR to have any future on the Mac, Apple needs to make a mini-itx based system - core CPU, 1 pci3x16 slot, a couple of ram slots for 32gb capacity, and a power supply that can drive the greediest, most power hungry cards someone can buy, and liquid cooling so it's quiet.

Until they make that, they don't have a competitive ecosystem that can support GPU upgrades, and without that, VR developers aren't going to bother taking the time to port products. VR is a world of ($AU) $20-$40 apps, not the $80-$120 ones which indy mac developers have been accustomed to in their little pond.

 

[JazzyGB1]

The Mac Pro is a workstation that is designed for a range of professional uses, many which require ECC memory such as scientific computations & modeling.

Really?
That's not my take on it at all.
The Mac Pro was Apple's last tower Mac.
It's expandable and flexible and can easily be tailored for use in many different environments as a result.
Just like the G5 tower before it, the G4 tower before that and the G3 tower before that.
The other towers were all more expandable and flexible than the their contemporaries in the Apple range too.
I'd wager that out of all the Mac Pro's ever sold only a tiny percentage of them (I'm talking single figures) will be used for scientific computations.
Most Mac pro's will be used by photographers, musicians, videographers, designers, graphic artists and such like.
It's this flexibility that gives the Mac Pro its 'Pro' status IMO and it is this more than anything else that set it apart from the rest of the Apple range.
My 2009 Mac Pro for example has (for a 9 year old computer) a relatively modern graphics card (GTX 680), driving a 32" 4k dell monitor and thanks to it's PCIe has more connections than any other computer in the current Apple range.
It also sports a blu ray optical drive and 17tb of internal storage via 4 x 4TB hard drives and 1 x 1TB SSD on a PCIe card.
That's the big picture that Apple are missing.
It's not all about ECC memory or workstation class processors.
Of course having a powerful CPU and fast RAM is important too, but it's the other options which define it as a 'pro' flagship and is why the Mac Pro tower was a success and the Trash Can Mac Pro was a flop.

 

[jscipione]

All tower and cylinder Mac Pros have shipped with Xeon processors and ECC RAM so far, and so will the Mac Pro 7,1.

 

[MisterAndrew]

It's expandable and flexible and can easily be tailored for use in many different environments as a result.

Yes, it's easily tailored for different professional environments. It's a workstation. Look at workstations from Dell and HP. They have similar hardware. That's the market segment. If Apple wants their Mac Pro to be taken seriously by the people and industry who purchase workstations then it needs to have that level of hardware. Of course people can purchase a Mac Pro who don't need a workstation and it works great for other uses like gaming, but that doesn't change the fact that it's a workstation.

However, I understand the frustration that Apple no longer has an upgradeable desktop computer that isn't a workstation and I think they should offer one. But Apple wants to control the experience and they are able to offer a high quality experience because of that, but it is often unfair to consumers who are forced to purchase another computer if they want an upgrade. Apple tried to do that to pros with the trash can, but it didn't work out very well so they're going back to a modular design. They're still trying to lure pros into thinking a closed box is what they want with the iMac Pro though.

Another thing to point out is that the percentage of people who actually want to open up their computer is very small, even in the professional market segment. Look at all the cMPs you find that have never been upgraded. It's the majority. However, I don't feel that's a good excuse for cutting off the ability to upgrade.

 

[ETN3]

Yes, it's easily tailored for different professional environments. It's a workstation. Look at workstations from Dell and HP. They have similar hardware. That's the market segment. If Apple wants their Mac Pro to be taken seriously by the people and industry who purchase workstations then it needs to have that level of hardware. Of course people can purchase a Mac Pro who don't need a workstation and it works great for other uses like gaming, but that doesn't change the fact that it's a workstation.

However, I understand the frustration that Apple no longer has an upgradeable desktop computer that isn't a workstation and I think they should offer one. But Apple wants to control the experience and they are able to offer a high quality experience because of that, but it is often unfair to consumers who are forced to purchase another computer if they want an upgrade. Apple tried to do that to pros with the trash can, but it didn't work out very well so they're going back to a modular design. They're still trying to lure pros into thinking a closed box is what they want with the iMac Pro though.

Another thing to point out is that the percentage of people who actually want to open up their computer is very small, even in the professional market segment. Look at all the cMPs you find that have never been upgraded. It's the majority. However, I don't feel that's a good excuse for cutting off the ability to upgrade.

There have been a lot of debate over the term Professional and what is a professional computer/workstation is. And the answer is that there are many types of professionals. It isn't true that you need ECC ram and Xeons for it to be a professional machine. Some user absolutely needs it and others don't. And Apple has already acknowledged that the tcMP had a too narrow scope. Even though it has recived a lot of criticism for many it was a great machine. But certainly not for all.

Apple has never been cheap, but now they are getting very expensive. In Norway, the entry price of iMac Pro is $7191!! With the discount of tcMP, it is $4365. And other European countries have similar high prices. And the thing is that we all have paid an extra for using a Mac, no problem. Many of us love MacOS and the quality of the machines have been worth it. But there is a limit to how much extra one would spend just to get a Mac. And it is the same for companies as well. They don´t mind spending thousands of dollars for a machine but nobody likes to overspend.

I think it would be wise for Apple to offer an entry-level Mac Pro with i7/i9 none ECC. And have mid and high-end Xeon/ECC (dual processors on top *drool*) I think that would attract a lot of 3D freelancers, small studios, prosumers, and gamers which a Xeon based MP would be too expensive and the ones that never would have bought iMacs anyway.

The important thing for a new Mac Pro to be a success is not only to make a great machine for the existing user base of professionals but they have to attract new customers.

Think of the entry level machine as Mac (bye Mac mini) and the mid and high end as Mac Pro. This combined with the possibility to add some extra storage and at least 2 GPUs in slots could be essential. Nvidia is leading the GPU race so without adding support for them it is going to be very difficult for the nMP to be a success. Just saying.

*As for upgradability Apple already have stated that the nMP will be ugradable:

In addition to the new iMac Pro, Apple is working on a completely redesigned, next-generation Mac Pro architected for pro customers who need the highest performance, high-throughput system in a modular, upgradeable design, as well as a new high-end pro display.

On a side note:
I think the best feature the tcMP has is its lack of noise and I hope they manage to make the new MP´s super quiet. I have used a fair amount of the old cheesegraters and they weren't exactly quiet...and in an agency, with multiple MPs, this adds up. In the past, this was not an issue cause everybody was used to computers making noise, it was just the way it was.