New Mac Pro • Hacker News Board

Re: New Mac Pro

#381

Post by at-fates-hands » Mon, Jun 03, 2019, 10:11 PM UTC

saagarjha wrote: post #246

altmind wrote: post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

$5000 for imac pro(+applecare)? that is bonkers. $6000 is even more crazy. You can get more storage, better gpu, more options for network for much less. And you wont need to deal with apple geniuses to fix the issues.

Those alternatives don’t run macOS.

It's funny this just came out when it did. I was just looking at getting an older Mac Pro 5,1 and upgrading all the components in it like a few friends have done.

For under $2K you can have a machine that competes with newer machines that cost twice that much. If you're a professional creative type, these machines are the real deal:

The Most Powerful Mac Is 6 Years Old and Not Sold By Apple - https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/8xkq8k/mac-pro-upgrade-co...

the Mac Pro 5.1 was designed to accommodate up to 12 cores: “Even though a single core isn’t fast, imagine having 12 of them for video editing and audio—those cores together are faster than my brand-new MacBook,” Mazzarolo said. The new iMac Pro can have up to 18 cores; new MacBook Pros max out at four cores.

The 5.1 can take a whopping 128 GB of RAM, which is equal to what a fully upgraded iMac Pro can take and double what Apple says the trash can Mac Pro maxes out at (it’s worth noting that the RAM used in newer Mac computers is usually faster)

The 5.1 can be modified to use modern SSDs, which Mazzarolo said are in some cases faster than the ones used in the new iMac Pro

The 5.1 can use almost any brand-new graphics card from most manufacturers, which is the main reason why a fully souped-up, old Mac Pro can outperform new computers. “With some rendering engines, the AMD cards that Apple uses [in new Mac Pros] don’t even work,” he said. “In general, even mid-level graphics cards we put in are as fast as those in the iMac Pro. We can put in better cards and we can put in two of those.”

On the Facebook group, Mazzarolo posted benchmarks of one of his custom-built rigs playing 5K, 6K and 8K RED RAW video clips against current-model Apple computers. A new, 15-inch MacBook pro and a recent “trash can” Mac Pro weren’t capable of playing the video at more than 8 frames-per-second. His custom-built model was able to get 24 fps in each case.

Re: New Mac Pro

#382

Post by chrisseaton » Mon, Jun 03, 2019, 10:11 PM UTC

rwmj wrote: post #277

chrisseaton wrote: post #212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn't providing a lower cost option a good thing?

Bait and switch is a dark pattern, even if it's a common one.

It's a product with a price tag and spec sheet anyone can find. Can't really see how they can be any more transparent.

Re: New Mac Pro

#383

Post by SahAssar » Mon, Jun 03, 2019, 10:12 PM UTC

threeseed wrote: post #161

nicoburns wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is in the context of Apple increasing its prices to ludicrous levels across its product lines though (look at the iPhones!). I'm sure it's great for short-term profitability, but I think they'll come to regret this.

They have been a premium company for decades. So not sure why you think they will suddenly change.

They used to do premium performance and design at a premium price. For the macs they just seem to do a bit of design lately, and that's considering that PC's look better now than a decade or two ago and that apple still pushes proprietary stuff like this MPX Module.

Re: New Mac Pro

#384

Post by chaostheory » Mon, Jun 03, 2019, 10:13 PM UTC

rayiner wrote: post #93

chaostheory wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

MacOS is what keeps me on Apple for now, but this box is not the answer everyone is looking for. People just want an affordable desktop that you can easily expand over time. At $6000 just for the starting model, in my head I'm already planning to move back to Windows. The only major thing I might miss is iCloud. The cheese grater lineup is still the best incarnation of the Mac Pro overall. People don't want to be for…

> People just want an affordable desktop that you can easily expand over time. Who wants that? You can tell what people want based on what’s selling in the market. Most people want a laptop. Most of the rest want a Word/Excel machine. A small minority want an expandable desktop.

The same people who are into hackintoshes and used, older Mac pros on eBay. Neither community would be as large if Apple would just build a lower end desktop. Why not just update the old Mac Pro and call Mac Pro classic?

https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2017/05/hackintoshes-keep-gi...

Re: New Mac Pro

#385

Post by shoo_pl » Mon, Jun 03, 2019, 10:17 PM UTC

cestith wrote: post #339

shoo_pl wrote: post #257

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's silly to be honest. I am a developer myself and I can tell you Mac Pro or iMac Pro is a waste of money in every way imaginable. Look up barefeats benchmarks. Unless you have very specialised needs (like video editing) there is visible penalty when you increase the number of your cores. For every day usage 6-8 cores is what you should be aiming at, and preferably with highest clock speed possible. The more core…

My compile times being shorter by seconds isn't important. Having lots of cores and memory is. There are many types of software to develop and mine is best developed and tested on a bevy of VMs or containers. That said, I could still avoid the Apple tax with a Precision or something from System76. My my employer tends toward Apple on the desktop and Dell in the datacenter, but $dayjob will more likely refresh with a…

There are edge cases for sure, never said there aren't any. If you need to run several VMs, each with a few cores and few gigs of memory, and all of those under heavy load at the same time, then apple "Pro" machine might be just what you need.

Re: New Mac Pro

#386

Post by vbezhenar » Mon, Jun 03, 2019, 10:18 PM UTC

rhinoceraptor wrote: post #282

jrs95 wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah the pricing for the base model is insane. You can get a more powerful PC with 4x the storage for half the price. And you're right about Nvidia. I also stream on Twitch, was hoping I might be able to get one of these to replace my current PC. Without Nvidia there's no way.

If you spec something with similar workstation grade hardware, you'll be in the same ballpark. Gaming PC hardware isn't comparable.

Prices from newegg

    SuperMicro 5039A-i        730
    Xeon W-2145              1175
    4x8GB ECC RAM $74 x 4 =   296
    AMD Radeon RX 480         415
    SAMSUNG 970 PRO 512GB     160
    Total:                   2776

So Apple charges more than x2. And if one would use Ryzen and consumer GPU, price would be massively reduced.

Re: New Mac Pro

#387

Post by busterarm » Mon, Jun 03, 2019, 10:19 PM UTC

Unfortunately this triggers my trypophobia hard.

Re: New Mac Pro

#388

Post by Asmod4n » Mon, Jun 03, 2019, 10:19 PM UTC

querulous wrote: post #208

wlesieutre wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On the developer side of things, the 2018 Mac Mini update is a much lower priced computer with an option for a 6-core i7. If you really need a dedicated GPU, you can add one with a Thunderbolt enclosure. The new Mac Pro is for movie studios and maybe very large machine learning models.

no cuda, so it's definitely not for machine learning

The last Mac to support NVIDIA cards came out 10 years ago.

Re: New Mac Pro

#389

Post by imagetic » Mon, Jun 03, 2019, 10:20 PM UTC

The same specs as the $6000 base level Mac Pro comes out to $1600. Granted, I would use and Intel i9-9900K, non-server motherboard and non-ECC RAM.

As a media production professional who has spent most of my career on a Mac, the original "cheese grater" is probably the best hardware platform I've ever worked on. In my experience, macOS as an operating system has been vastly superior in terms of maintenance and support for a lot of post houses. When I install a Mac, I rarely have to come back and touch it until an editor mistakenly updates the OS or Adobe suite and breaks something in the chain. The original Mac Pro cheese graters lasted 5-7 years in facilities I ran.

But times have changed. Cameras got bigger and Apple started severely limiting what their computers could do.

The Mac Pro "trash can" was drastically under-engineered. It overheated with 4k footage and could barely handle larger productions. You also ended up with a tangled mess of peripherals that used to just live inside the tower. I can't count how many times an editor would say something wasn't working and it was just because they knocked a thunderbolt cable loose.

At first glance, the new Mac Pro is nothing short of impressive.

The big thing media people want from Apple is upgradable GPUs, which Apple kind of did here.

The MXP module for the GPUs looks to be entirely proprietary. I haven't found any mention of potential 3rd party GPU support. And I assume you'll buy the GPUs preinstalled in those modules at the highest market value, despite the rapid drop in video card prices over time. But without nVidia support I fear this feature is going to be a stalemate with the industry.

What is most appealing to me is the Mac Pro basically a server motherboard with a lot of room. Building a budget PC is restricting. The gaming motherboards tend to move the fastest with technology and newer / cheaper chips that are capable of hanging with server chips, but are part of the silicon lottery. 1/4 that I receive is DOA or has to be returned for some reason. That and they lack enough PCI slots for big post-house media work. If I have to drop two GPUs in a PC, there is rarely room for I/O cards, 10GbE and other requirements.

For a post-house who wants something stable, the price high of the new Mac Pro will be returned fairly easily (maybe not with those new monitors). I don't see the freelance / independent and small-production team market buying >$6000 Mac towers though.

The latest offerings from AMD with PCI 4.0 motherboards will weigh in at $3000'ish with a single 2080 ti GPU. That's an extreme bang for your buck.

The downside in the PC world is mainly that it has become a build your own adventure with next to no warranty and a ton of technological hurdles and compatibility issues. For example, very few motherboards for Intel chips support TB3 and have 10GbE built in. And if you go AMD you can forget thunderbolt all-together.

Overall, I know a lot of places I've done work with are waiting to hit buy on the new Mac Pro. Part of that is because it just works, and they'll deal with the shortcomings later on. But really, it looks cool and the people they attract are impressed by that fancy tower. But everyone who works alone or at smaller companies are probably now waiting to drop their Ryzen 3000 and X570 orders into their shopping carts.

Disclaimer: I don't know any professionals who bought an iMac Pro. I haven't seen one in the wild since it was released.

Re: New Mac Pro

#390

Post by ascii_only » Mon, Jun 03, 2019, 10:20 PM UTC

floatboth wrote: post #364

noir_lord wrote: post #234

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On the flip side over in Linux land I built an 8 core 16T desktop with 64GB of RAM and two 27” 4K HDR monitors for less than half the price of the base Mac Pro. Oh and it has an RTX2080 which beats an RX580 so badly it’s practically attempted murder. I bet the apple tax I really do (typing this on a 5th gen mini) but the base model is hilariously expensive and in a world where I can buy a 12 core/16T for 499 that bea…

More like Xeon tax. The new Mac Pro has a ton more PCIe lanes and DDR4 channels. It's a completely different league, it can't be directly compared to mainstream platforms that only have dual-channel and 16-24 lanes. EPYC would've been a better value, but it's still not cheap. Big computers with lots of memory and I/O capacity will always look ridiculously expensive next to mainstream desktop.

No, even with Xeon and buying from big OEMs it still will be twice as cheap.