Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

New Mac Pro

apple.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

491–500 of 731 posts

Re: New Mac Pro

#491

Post by strmpnk »

liquidify wrote: post #443
strmpnk wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure why they'd consider Threadripper for the Mac Pro. This machine fits into Epic's target cases and could possibly live up to the asking price of the whole package at that point. Given how the rest of the mac ecosystem is going, I'd only expect the most stubborn of professional communities pick this up (film editing folks seems to still buy the Apple hype).

Film editing kinda makes sense because there is probably a lot of lock in on the software for people who don't like the Adobe monthly charge BS.

I'd be surprised if the monthly charge is a problem here. We're talking about a machine that costs more than 6 years worth of subscriptions (for the entire suite, business price, ~1/3 less for just premiere pro, business price) for the lowest tier machine (which isn't all that great for the stated use case).

Maybe there is a technical reason but the story I've gotten from people I know doing this is that they are looked down on if they're PC users. It could be that Apple's software is that much better but it seems much more likely that they're charging what they know they can based on the generally stubbornness folks have around their software and workflow. I partly can't blame them, if your job is in a creative space the last thing I'd want to do is constantly rework a workflow and deal with the machinery itself rather than the content and output.

Re: New Mac Pro

#492

Post by Koshkin »

jlgaddis wrote: post #462
cm2187 wrote: post #222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I find that link aggregation is pretty much useless and/or unstable. Not sure what good two 10gbe ports do. But seeing 10gbe becoming part of the standard spec is a really welcomed improvement. Not the least because it will drive prices down.

> Not sure what good two 10gbe ports do. 1 x 10 GbE for your regular Ethernet/IP traffic and 1 x 10 GbE for your storage traffic. You do run your network storage over a physically separate network, right?

I am not sure what “a physically separate network” means when it is used by the same computer. (Also, what about accessing your storage over WiFi? Or, you have to have cables strewn all over the place?)

Re: New Mac Pro

#493

Post by eropple »

buildbot wrote: post #488
cm2187 wrote: post #335

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But isn't SFP+ not compatible with 1G (i.e. can only be used with a 10G network equipment)? If you are selling a machine that people will plug into either a 1gbe or 10gbe network, you'd rather have some interface that can downgrade.

You can use SFP in an SFP+ socket, but not the other way around. The downgrade to 1GB would work fine. Since this is still a desk focused machine vs. datacenter, I'd expect most offices to be wired to cat6 ethernet which can do 10GB if needed vs. SFP+ cables or SFP+ to Fiber.

That, and I'd still expect an RJ-45 port somewhere.

Re: New Mac Pro

#494

Post by lghh »

nihonde wrote: post #483
chaostheory wrote: post #444

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can get iCloud on Windows now https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT204301 It's not a great solution, but I'm not paying over $6000 for a Mac Pro.

Pro machines for A/V production are routinely $7-10k and have been for as long as I can recall, right back to the 90s. You’re probably just not in the market. These are for commercial buyers who make lots more money from these machines than they spend. Also, six months ago everyone was bellyaching about how Apple has no serious pro devices and was abandoning the desktop. Now it’s too expensive, and my eyes can’t roll…

Can't both of those things be true?

Re: New Mac Pro

#496

Post by bscphil »

wlesieutre wrote: post #185
PascLeRasc wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The new Mac Pro, like Mac Pros always have been, is for music/TV studios and design agencies that bill their time starting at $500/hour. It's really not for individuals, and that's ok. Apple made a computer "just for the pros", like HN begs for in every butterfly keyboard thread. I'm thrilled about it even though I know I'll never touch one. It's for people who don't know what a CPU core is but know how to produce a…

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.

>for movie studios

You have to wonder how many you could reasonably expect to sell that way, though. Everyone in this thread is talking about some upper-elite of pro computer users (above your ordinary multi-six-figure developer salary on HN), but at only $6k per, that's not any way to make money. If that's really the target market, I would worry about making my design money back, let alone making a profit.

So I have to assume that that's not quite true: it's a computer targeted at studios, other million dollar a year creative professionals, and (the largest market) relatively rich folks who want to play at being creative professionals. Nothing else makes sense: it's not a computer for enthusiasts, because it's at least 50% overpriced for the market, it's not for developers, as this thread amply illustrates. Consumers are far more likely to buy an iMac than a Mac Pro if they have a desktop at all. The only major market left are people with enough disposable income to buy products because of their branding and because they know it's what the fancy creatives are buying. Buying a Mac Pro will make you feel like a multimillionaire creative - that's the selling point.

It's really the same principle as in digital cameras. Pricey full frame SLRs like the Canon 5D mk.IV are great cameras that are essential to photography professionals, but the vast majority of the market for these cameras is wealthy people who want to buy the expensive model from a recognizable name brand because "it's what the pros use".

Edit: perhaps those who disagree with this could provide their own breakdown of who they think is the target market for these, and how many Apple can expect to sell to each.

Re: New Mac Pro

#497

Post by ricardobeat »

vbezhenar wrote: post #16
vesrah wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How does the Mac Mini not meet what you're asking for?

I want tower case, silent and performant. I want powerful GPU for few games I'm playing. I want ECC memory. I want to put one or two HDDs along with main SSD. Mac mini does not sound like something I would like to use. I don't need small size, I have enough room. I don't need portability, I work from one place.

A mini can be all of that, minus the ECC memory. 6/8 core CPU, 64GB RAM, external SSD (at 3000MB/s if you need that), external GPU. That's a beast machine for less than $2000.

I wouldn't recommend it for gaming as it doesn't shed heat fast enough. You can build a separate really good gaming PC for ~$1000 and still be far off from even the iMac Pro.

Re: New Mac Pro

#498

Post by Koshkin »

ljw1001 wrote: post #192
duskwuff wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The first step up from 256GB is 2x512GB, and there's configurations up to 2x2TB. My guess is that the 256GB configuration is meant for users that work primarily with data that's kept on network storage.

that just shows that they put the tiny, essentially useless HD in to keep the base price artificially low.

> low

Right.

Re: New Mac Pro

#499

Post by derefr »

ken wrote: post #375
jrochkind1 wrote: post #210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just as I'm curious what prices really were. don't know exactly what Gr tower line you are talking about, but according to https://www.macstories.net/mac/the-power-mac-g4-line/ , the first reasonable powermac G4 was summer 2000, and > Prices ranged from $1,599 to $3,499, According to one online inflation calculator, $1599 in 2000 dollars is $2,372.95 in 2019 dollars. and $3499 is $5,192.58. So, I guess, yeah.I do rec…

They got even cheaper than that. In 2003, the Power Mac base price was $1499. In 2019 dollars, that's only $2082. By 2012, the entry level Mac tower was up to $2499. Since 2013, the cheapest Mac Pro (no PCI/E slots) has been $2999. The 2019 model is literally more than twice as expensive as the 2013, which in turn was already the previous most-expensive entry-level Mac workstation ever. PowerMac/MacPro prices have al…

The difference is that the iMac Pro and Mac Mini didn’t exist to segment that market back then; all the tiers of professional hardware were rolled into just “the Mac Pro.” Roll those back in and the pricing tiers look more equivalent.

Re: New Mac Pro

#500

Post by chx »

ianhowson wrote: post #268
wayoutthere wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You would if you had a storage appliance on a SAN, as the SAN is almost certainly faster than a single SSD. This is an extremely common setup for video production, so it’s not out of the target market at all.

There are plenty of cheap NVMe SSDs that can push 3.5Gbytes/sec (Samsung 970, Adata XPG). Even with dual 10Gbe NICs, you can't match that, nor the low access times of local storage. But I do agree that SAN storage is the norm here.

We are past that now, new PCIe 4.0 SSDs just have been showcased along with the new AMD chips and they can do 5GBytes/s read and a bit above 4GB/s write (AMD is rumored to have invested in the R&D of the controller). You'd need 40 GbE to match one -- and EPYC Rome, also scheduled for this fall, will have 160 lanes allowing for dozens of them. You could very easily reach 100 GByte/s read which no network will match.
Post reply on HN