Article It looks like Apple finally upgraded the Mac Pro...

[ultimatebob]

...and it looks like the old "Cheese Grater" Mac Pro from the 2000's.

https://www.theverge.com/2019/6/3/1...-redesign-new-specs-features-photos-wwdc-2019

Oh, and it starts at $6,000, with only 256 GB of SSD storage standard. Wow.

 

[dave_the_nerd]

Being overpriced was a given, as was having an underspecced entry-level model that makes a price point.

Sounds like they're using a variant of the W-3175X in the top-of-the-line models. Also sounds like it's a single-CPU system. Which sucks.

They should have just build a fancy watercooled case around a Dell R640 mainboard or similar. Would have saved everybody a lot of time and money, and allowed them to sell a 56-core rig.

The cooling system is probably worth copying though.

 

[ultimatebob]

Being overpriced was a given. Sounds like they're using a variant of the W-3175X in the top-of-the-line models.

The base model only has an 8 core processor, though. A well equipped iMac Pro will probably outperform that.

 

[dave_the_nerd]

The base model only has an 8 core processor, though. A well equipped iMac Pro will probably outperform that.

Yeah. Two thoughts. One, that's probably the intent. Two, 8 cores is plenty if you're filling the PCI slots with Tesla cards or something for GPU Compute workloads.

I'd also think that if you're chewing through a few TB of data, it's probably already living on a centralized filer or SAN or something, so it doesn't matter if your compute node has a tiny SSD.

 

[Oyeve]

Buahaha!

 

[manly]

...and it looks like the old "Cheese Grater" Mac Pro from the 2000's.

https://www.theverge.com/2019/6/3/1...-redesign-new-specs-features-photos-wwdc-2019

Oh, and it starts at $6,000, with only 256 GB of SSD storage standard. Wow.

Tim Cook's Apple just gets worse at reaming its customers. They're still charging 2015 pricing on flash storage.

 

[dave_the_nerd]

Tim Cook's Apple just gets worse at reaming its customers. They're still charging 2015 pricing on flash storage.

If people pay it, then I'd say they're getting better at reaming their customers.

 

[UsandThem]

Tim Cook's Apple just gets worse at reaming its customers. They're still charging 2015 pricing on flash storage.

As cheap as NAND prices have become (and for something starting at $6k), there's no legitimate excuse they can provide on why it only has 256GB (outside of a way to fleece people who buy these into paying a lot more for storage).

But they were kind enough to provide a 3.5 audio jack on it, so users won't be forced to use their proprietary connector to plug in headphones.

I will say I like the looks of it though. Definitely has the early 2000s look to it.

 

[manly]

https://www.theverge.com/circuitbre...pro-how-much-top-spec-price-estimate-ballpark

 

[ultimatebob]

https://www.theverge.com/circuitbre...pro-how-much-top-spec-price-estimate-ballpark

For that price, I hope that Apple's $50,000 maxed out workstation will be using the new 28 core processor Intel just announced that has a 5Ghz turbo clock.

 

[manly]

For that price, I hope that Apple's $50,000 maxed out workstation will be using the new 28 core processor Intel just announced that has a 5Ghz turbo clock.

For $50k, it should make dinner, do the dishes and then put out afterwards.

In all honesty, it's a slick machine and seems to have addressed pros discontent with Apple. It might be too little too late as many have moved onto Windows or Linux for budgetary reasons. As for us plebs, it looks like you'll never again be able to buy a tower Mac (such as Power Macs or even early Mac Pros) without mortgaging the house.

Some commenters are saying "well this is what high-end workstations cost" and there's some truth to that. Apple doesn't compete on price of course, and other OEMs aren't packing in this level of engineering. Still, the base model is about $1k too high and the base storage is a sad joke considering the starting price. Astute observers noticed 2 internal SATA ports on the logic board, but I don't believe there was a reveal of any SATA drive carriers.

 

[Oyeve]

What would a comparable PC cost?

 

[manly]

Looks to me like a little under $4k if similarly configured (CPU/GPU/storage):
https://www.dell.com/en-us/work/sho...spd/precision-7920-workstation/xctopt7920us_2

It's somewhat of comparing apples to oranges, but like I said Apple just doesn't bother competing on price. We also know that BTO options will also have eye-popping pricing compared to PC workstation vendors.

 

[TheStu]

Looks to me like a little under $4k if similarly configured (CPU/GPU/storage):
https://www.dell.com/en-us/work/sho...spd/precision-7920-workstation/xctopt7920us_2

It's somewhat of comparing apples to oranges, but like I said Apple just doesn't bother competing on price. We also know that BTO options will also have eye-popping pricing compared to PC workstation vendors.

Trying to better compare apples to dells, the closest CPU from Dell is the Xeon 6144 (3.5GHz base, 4.2GHz Turbo [Mac Pro is 4.0GHz], 24.75MB cache [Mac Pro is 24.5MB]), changing from the 1TB HDD to a 256GB NVME SSD, and adding a 10GbE card brings the price to $6025. It's not a perfect comparison, and you can definitely configure the Dell to some crazy levels (appears to support up to 10 drives, dual CPUs, etc.)

All that said, the new Mac Pro may be too much, too late, and even if it's not, they are hyper-targeting the video pro market.

 

[ultimatebob]

I'm kinda hoping that sales numbers for this product are horrible, along with that ridiculously priced $1,000 adjustable monitor stand.

It seems like Apple could stand another lesson in humility with is comes to pricing, like the time they sold those $17,000 rose gold Apple Watches that nobody bothered to buy.

 

[Arkaign]

This configuration is really wasteful for a lot of their target market, but that's sort of par for the course with Apple.

They're also timing this terribly vs Ryzen.

Yes, for those that may actually need a ton of PCIe and such, and want Intel, okay.

But a Threadripper for mega core count would probably be a better $ for $ build, with much better flexibility.

And for those that don't go for ludicrous core counts but want far better IPC vs this 3.5Ghz 8 core (it's not even Coffee Lake, it's SKYLAKE aka Cascade Lake for effs sake), Ryzen 3800X builds will absolutely smoke this Mac.

Something like :

Ryzen 3800X
X570 ~$250 Aurus Master or the like
32GB DDR4-3600
Titan RTX 24GB
1200W PSU
Raid PCIe 1TB 4.0 SSDs (should be around 8,000MB/sec easily)
Raid 8TB 3.5" Storage

Should easily be ~$6k like the 8-Core base Mac Pro, but completely obliterate it.

Having only one base configuration of Mac Pro and depending on the 3467 socket is .. stupid.

Should have at least gone 8-10 Core high clock, would be better for more users most likely, then offer a 3467 for the people that need that kind of build. They're two totally different worlds, but nothing is perhaps more wasteful than using a wide socket platform with what amounts to a last-gen placeholder low-performance CPU (in this case the W3223). It will lose handily to Coffee Lake and Ryzen 3000 stuff core for core.

Oh, and their new monitor is 60hz, comes with no stand, and if you want that stand, it's $1000. Nobody asked for this.

 

[Kocicak]

It will be interesting if systems built with Ryzen 2 12 and 16 Core processors on x570 boards will be more powerfull, more energy efficient and X times less expensive than the Mac Pro equivalent (equivalent in processor core number).

I must say that the front panel look cool though. It allows a lot of airflow to cool the power hungry Intel processors. I wonder if those wheels will have brakes on them so that the computer does not ride away when under load.

 

[Zaap]

Spendy as this thing is, Apple knows they can sell them. They've strangled the demand in the pro market for years, forcing people to stick with outdated Mac based production tools, switch platforms entirely, or pay in blood for an upgrade.

And here it is. This is that upgrade for those select few who stuck it out and will absolutely pay in blood, their first born, their very souls.

Apple knows it has its few diehard pro users over a barrel and spec'd the hardware to match. So yeah... a $1000 monitor stand...

 

[manly]

Trying to better compare apples to dells, the closest CPU from Dell is the Xeon 6144 (3.5GHz base, 4.2GHz Turbo [Mac Pro is 4.0GHz], 24.75MB cache [Mac Pro is 24.5MB]), changing from the 1TB HDD to a 256GB NVME SSD, and adding a 10GbE card brings the price to $6025. It's not a perfect comparison, and you can definitely configure the Dell to some crazy levels (appears to support up to 10 drives, dual CPUs, etc.)

All that said, the new Mac Pro may be too much, too late, and even if it's not, they are hyper-targeting the video pro market.

So we're both off the mark here, perhaps I was more wrong than you were. I just blindly selected Xeon Silver 4110, without noticing its lower clock speed and modest cache. Obviously you tried to match the proc as close as possible but the problem there is that Xeon Gold 6144 is a $3k part. So that isn't entirely correct either as people have guesstimated that the Mac Pro base CPU is a low $1,000 part.

There are workstation vendors that use Core i9 procs, but I purposely picked a top tier OEM that uses Xeon chips. It doesn't matter one lick if Ryzen 3000 is a way better value per core; all that illustrates is that Intel's pricing model for Xeon CPUs is not sane, as we already know. The new Mac Pro is not a high-end desktop for power users; it's now a legit workstation for somewhat niche use. It will not sell in high volumes, but neither did the Trash Can Pro. The obvious problem is that the target market narrows substantially at $6k+. Now if one of the top OEMs ships a workstation with EPYC procs, then the comparison could be fairly made as to which is a better system.

I still contend that based on BOM (bill of materials), you're closer to about $4k for a comparably spec'd Dell Precision 7920, although the Xeon Silver 4116 isn't a close match (12 cores, but only 2.1GHz) to whatever Apple is putting into the Mac Pro.

EDIT:
As Arkaign pointed out, the base CPU is Xeon W-3223. Apple's 24.5MB cache is a sum of L2 & L3 cache. It's a $749 part.
Closest Xeon SP comp I see is Xeon Silver 4215, which sacrifices some base clock speed and L3 cache. List price $794.

 

[Arkaign]

Thing is, if you're going with 3467 socket and 8 cores, you're probably doing it wrong, unless you are going to pair it with an astonishing amount of PCIe lane use and/or beyond 64gb of ram.

It wouldn't be as much of an issue if they had a Ryzen 12C and/or 9900kf type build.

A Radeon 580, 32GB of Ram, 3.5Ghz/4.4T 8C/16T Intel CPU and 256GB PCIe SSD is an absolutely terrible deal at $6000.

Imac Pro has some of the same issues due to inefficient hardware selection. Not all loads benefit from loads of slower cores. 8 to 12 is probably best for far more users than 18+ is. Not saying there aren't uses for encoding and the like, but there is a hole in the lineup with this thing.

Suggest : Mac Sigma MiniTower: Ryzen 3800, 32GB DDR4, Vega 7, 1TB SSD, $2999. Still a terrible deal overall, but superior performance compared to the $6000 option, only with less upgrade if you need absurd core counts, ram, or multiple GPUs.

Not offering Titan RTX or Tesla is also a huge weakness at present as well. I know they hate Nvidia, but this is unfortunate timing to go Intel CPU + AMD GPU. AMD CPU + Nvidia GPU would be a sizable advantage to their options.

 

[Ajay]

This a professional workstation for content creators. $6K on a monitor is nothing (most will mount with VESA to an existing full range arm). The base configuration is lame, but it doesn't matter - no one in this market segment will be buying the lowest couple of tiers. If you don't like the Mac Pro, don't buy it; it wasn't design for you anyway

 

[ultimatebob]

Spendy as this thing is, Apple knows they can sell them. They've strangled the demand in the pro market for years, forcing people to stick with outdated Mac based production tools, switch platforms entirely, or pay in blood for an upgrade.

And here it is. This is that upgrade for those select few who stuck it out and will absolutely pay in blood, their first born, their very souls.

Apple knows it has its few diehard pro users over a barrel and spec'd the hardware to match. So yeah... a $1000 monitor stand...

Seriously, though... besides a few wealthy iOS developers and media creators with more money than brains, who's going to buy one of these things?

Even Apple fans like myself have limits on how much BS they're willing to put up with. Personally, I think that they're crossing the line (again) into price gouging territory now. They've done this for before with their $17,000 Gold Apple Watches and special $7,500 "Anniversary Edition" Macintosh systems, which were total flops when it came to sales.

 

[manly]

Seriously, though... besides a few wealthy iOS developers and media creators with more money than brains, who's going to buy one of these things?

Even Apple fans like myself have limits on how much BS they're willing to put up with. Personally, I think that they're crossing the line (again) into price gouging territory now. They've done this for before with their $17,000 Gold Apple Watches and special $7,500 "Anniversary Edition" Macintosh systems, which were total flops when it came to sales.

iOS developers don't need this rig. The (limited) target market are media creators and maybe a few power-user engineers who don't use Windows. That's pretty much it. This is not targeted to Mac power users or long-time fans, and has nothing to do with one-off luxury or collectible items like the gold watch or 20th Anniversary Mac.

Although I won't disagree with the "price gouging" accusation, I think it wouldn't be that bad if the starting price was $5k. Or if the base SSD/RAM were doubled. The new monitor stand probably is fairly priced at $599 instead of $1k. Considering the amount of engineering they put in and the historical Apple tax, the pricing doesn't surprise us.

Thinking in terms of the target market, a content creator easily pulls a salary (+ benefits) well into 6 figures. So whether the rig is fairly optioned and sold for $4500 or $7000 really doesn't matter that much over the lifespan of the system. If the artist works a little more efficiently, the price difference pays for itself in little time. I'm not saying this to justify Apple's pricing (see above), but merely to express the business case. Freelance artists can no longer afford a Mac Pro; they'll have to go with an iMac Pro or something else (MBP or old Mac Pro?).

I've read a few (wrong) comparisons that say comparable Dell or HP workstations are more costly than $6k. That is only true when the writer cherry picks a $3k Xeon SP CPU. The comparison appears more favorable for Apple because they picked single socket Xeon W. One last comment about upgrades, you can bet that the MBX packaging of GPUs means the aftermarket options will be few and expensive.

 

[herm0016]

Its almost like they are trolling the world with making it actually look exactly like a cheese grater from the front view.

 

[WelshBloke]

...The new monitor stand probably is fairly priced at $599 instead of $1k. Considering the amount of engineering they put in and the historical Apple tax, the pricing doesn't surprise us.

Ummmm. What now?
Every monitor I've ever bought has a stand that raises, lowers, tilts and rotates 90°, and those came free with the monitor. What engineering in this costs a thousand dollars? Or are you saying that the Apple tax has got really spendy recently?