Print 101 comment(s) - last by troysavary.. on Dec 23 at 7:17 AM

New vase-like Mac Pro promises more performance in a smaller package

Apple has announced that the all-new Mac Pro desktop computer will be available starting tomorrow. The new Mac Pro, which was unveiled back in June, looks more like a vase to put flowers or store your umbrella with its cylinder-shaped design than a computer.
Apple says that the new Mac Pro is 9.9-inches tall and only 1/8 of the volume of the outgoing model. The machines use a variety of Intel Xeon processors with four, six, eight, or twelve cores inside. The processors support Turbo Boost technology and operate at speeds up to 3.9GHz.

Apple is using two-workstation class AMD FirePro GPUs inside the Mac Pro promising up to eight times the graphics performance of previous generation devices.  The computer also uses PCIe-based storage (up to 1TB) for enhanced performance.
Pricing for the Mac Pro starts at $2,999 for a machine with a quad-core Xeon E5 processor, FirePro D300 GPU, 12GB of RAM, and 256GB of storage. Bumping up to a 6-core Xeon X5, FirePro D500 GPUs, 16GB of RAM, and 256GB of storage will start at $3,999.

Source: Apple

Comments     Threshold

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

By imaheadcase on 12/18/2013 11:15:50 AM , Rating: 5
ROFL apple, keep trying, keep trying.

RE: $3000
By Argon18 on 12/18/13, Rating: -1
RE: $3000
By Dr of crap on 12/18/13, Rating: -1
RE: $3000
By FITCamaro on 12/18/2013 12:24:25 PM , Rating: 2
Nor are you who they're targeting with this product. It's for those who DO need it. People who do lots of graphics rendering and 3D modeling. Can you build something just as capable for less than $3000? Of course. You're paying for Apple. But to compare that to a $500 AMD PC is nuts.

But just the GPU alone in that thing runs more than most consumer level graphics cards. FireGL and Quadro cards are ridiculously expensive.

RE: $3000
By ShaolinSoccer on 12/18/2013 12:44:32 PM , Rating: 2
And yet, you can add that card to his $500 PC and it will run circles around this POS.

RE: $3000
By Spuke on 12/18/2013 1:58:33 PM , Rating: 2
And yet, you can add that card to his $500 PC and it will run circles around this POS.
So you're saying a $500 PC with a cheap AMD CPU will run circles around a Xeon E5 with just a video card upgrade? LOL!

RE: $3000
By StevoLincolnite on 12/18/2013 5:55:09 PM , Rating: 2
My 2 year old PC with a Core i7 3930K @ 4.8ghz would obliterate it.

But that's not really Apple's fault, that's Intel's with it's fairly slow iterative CPU releases these days, hence why I didn't bother upgrading to the largely pointless 4930K. (Apparently, they didn't want my $600.)

This is a workstation anyway, comparing it to a $500 gaming PC isn't really doing it justice.

RE: $3000
By GulWestfale on 12/18/2013 6:54:59 PM , Rating: 2
3 grand for ONE quad-core CPU? ... i actually read that twice because i thought my eyes had deceived me.

RE: $3000
By kwrzesien on 12/19/2013 10:34:41 AM , Rating: 1
Does your peecee have ECC memory? Does your GPU have ECC memory? Do you lose money if your calculations come up with the wrong result?

RE: $3000
By dsumanik on 12/19/13, Rating: 0
RE: $3000
By bah12 on 12/18/2013 2:05:48 PM , Rating: 5
Are you out of your mind. Do you think ANY retail AMD chip in a $500 pc can out perform even the base Xeonon in the Pro.

There is an apple tax no doubt, but come on do some research before spewing BS.

The 3.7 E5 is $899
12GB EEC ram will run you about $175
The GPU's are $700 each.
256GB pcie SSD lets about $340 (there is no 256 ssd in pcie on newegg)

So before you add a quality case, power supply, OS,and even a motherboard you are at $2800. So unless you can spec a workstation for less STFU hater and realize the only apple tax here is the workstation tax, the price is really quite reasonable.

Frankly I challenge anyone here to price a box on newegg with the same spec components for less. Heck I'll even spot you the OS.

RE: $3000
By Mitch101 on 12/18/13, Rating: 0
RE: $3000
By AdamAnon on 12/18/2013 3:00:07 PM , Rating: 2
You have no idea what you're talking about. It's that simple.

RE: $3000
By Mitch101 on 12/18/2013 3:09:29 PM , Rating: 2
I like to think Im open minded please educate me on why?

RE: $3000
By CaedenV on 12/18/2013 5:36:00 PM , Rating: 4
It is an issue of Nines.
A consumer desktop is considered 99.9% reliable. This is considered 3 nines. Workstation equipment is typically 5-7 nines in reliability. You pay through the nose for those extra nines, but if it is the difference between say a 5 minute glitch once a year where restarting the machine fixes things, vs a machine going down even for one day then you are often talking about several thousands of dollars in losses. There is replacing the machine with a backup, time to transfer or recover files, time to restart or rebuild whatever project you were working on, time of the user twiddling their thumbs, time of the tech support staff to get things done, and then some insignificant amount of money thrown at replacement hardware.

For a home user or enthusiast then there is absolutely no problem with using desktop or gaming parts for production work. The equipment is largely the same, and it honestly works more than well enough where it is not likely to be a problem for part time work. But if you are working on a $50,000 project every few weeks at a major company then you can bet that you will pay just about whatever is required to get good reliable hardware for the absolute minimum down time possible, because a $10,000 computer will be more than paid off in a week, and if it lasts for 2 years then it will have an excellent ROI and value for the company. But for a home user you can build something with 90% of the reliability, and 90% of the performance for somewhere around $1500 and get by just fine without breaking the bank.

RE: $3000
By Mitch101 on 12/18/2013 7:14:36 PM , Rating: 2
I can respect that. From a pure performance standpoint I think my machine would win but from a reliability standpoint I can understand the needed reliability factor and can see the value in it.

RE: $3000
By just4U on 12/18/2013 8:04:10 PM , Rating: 1
From a reliability standpoint I'd put money on some of our custom built computers before something like this.

RE: $3000
By CaedenV on 12/18/2013 5:38:55 PM , Rating: 1
Oh, and please don't mistake my comment for defending an expensive Apple device... merely the added price for workstation equipment in general.

There is simply no way that you can push something packing that much hardware in such an enclosed space, with a single heat-sink without having some serious thermal limiting concerns. You can push the CPU, or one of the GPUs full tilt at the same time, but if you are pushing that box to it's max then I would be absolutely amazed if it does not suffer performance issues from it. Stock config may be fine... but those upper end models are crazy.

RE: $3000
By ritualm on 12/18/2013 3:22:52 PM , Rating: 4
An overclocked 4770k has nothing on the money against a E5, which is itself the workstation/server version of Ivy Bridge-E.

ECC RAM isn't necessary - until you find out that your backups are rife with data corruption because you're using vanilla RAM instead of the ECC variety.

SSDs are performance-constrained directly by SATA3's 550MB/s max speed. This is why many companies are ignoring SATA altogether and going directly to PCIe for greater throughput.

In layman's terms, you've gimped your workstation build just to save several hundred dollars, and end up performing worse than doing it proper.

Epic fail.

RE: $3000
By Mitch101 on 12/18/13, Rating: -1
RE: $3000
By bah12 on 12/18/2013 4:38:43 PM , Rating: 1
So your contention is that ECC ram is just useless....riggggghhhht. For consumer workloads you are correct, but workstations do utilize the benefits.

You can make a case all you want that you can get by with consumer parts, and you likely can. But your original point that this is apple POS, and a $500 AMD could "run circles" around it is pure bull shit and you know it. It is also bullshit that there is some over priced apple tax at play here. Given the custom case design and superior support, I'd say it is a pretty darn good deal, if you compare it apples to apples instead to oranges as you are trying to do.

RE: $3000
By bah12 on 12/18/2013 4:40:27 PM , Rating: 2
My mistake you didn't actually make that comparison.

RE: $3000
By Mitch101 on 12/18/2013 7:36:57 PM , Rating: 2
Can you show me where I said $500 AMD cpu?

RE: $3000
By ritualm on 12/18/2013 4:39:28 PM , Rating: 5
Core i7-4770K
Supports AVX2 / FMA3 instructions,
Allows effortless overclocking,
Integrates HD 4600 graphics,
Lower power

Xeon E5-1620 v2
Lacks some instructions,
No on-chip GPU,
Needs considerably more power

Explain to me how any of that is applicable to a workstation workload?

Workstations don't use on-chip graphics (also, notice how many gaming systems used just the i7-4770K and no discrete GPU cards... there are none).

Workstations don't care about CPU overclocking (stability and reliability are king when your work depend on them).

Workstations don't care about lower power consumption (lose performance in order to save on operating costs, when you're using these systems to help you make money - not worth the tradeoff).

On top of them all, workstations don't care that the Xeon E5 doesn't have consumer-friendly instructions.
Workstation/Server version means nothing with todays manufacturing this is not the Pentium 60 bit flip days.

These CPUs aren't designed for gaming. They are designed for professional work. Big difference.
I call bull on backup corruption on ram

Oh man, you're in for a very rude awakening.
Most SSD's dont surpass 550MBs and SATA 3 is rated for 6Gb/600MB.


The top theoretical speed of SATA2 is 3Gbps. Top ACTUAL speed (remember: overhead costs within the interface) is around 262MB/s.
The top theoretical speed of SATA3 is 6Gbps. Top ACTUAL speed is around 550MB/s.

Many SSDs can perform a lot faster than 550MB/s. They aren't because they're restricted by SATA3's limitations. The SATA working group wants to move over to SATA-Express because SATA3 is already too slow for today's SSDs.
Can you even Crossfire in the MAC?

No, and that's perfectly fine, because the Mac Pro is NOT designed to be a hardcore gaming desktop machine - it's designed for professional workstation use. That immediately means your Crossfire setup is completely useless for intensive engineering work, amongst other fields that require properly-configured workstation computers.

This isn't an overpriced $3000 headless gaming desktop. This is a workstation, designed for doing actual work, and $3000 is a relative steal considering the components being used here.

Epic fail.

RE: $3000
By Mitch101 on 12/18/2013 7:34:56 PM , Rating: 2
Were talking two different things I targeted performance not 24x7x365 long term running but I feel the 4770k with non ecc ram would get the job done faster. Its not intended to be running 24x7 but even then I think it would hold its own its there for the time your doing whatever it is your doing.

The Core i7-4770K and Xeon E5-1620 v2 are very equal until you overclock the 4770K.

For the price my build would have had two of these GPU's in crossfire yet everyone seems to think I did it for gaming? As well as the integrated graphics which is cut and paste from the performance page I referenced obviously not a factor for performance or use. If I did it for gaming I would have used gaming GPU's as the guy in the post did below but I used the same GPU cards as the Apple only I used two of them.

The difference between our builds is I would have a faster CPU because of the Overclock, I would have had two of these GPU's for rendering cutting render times way down but I would be at higher risk because of the non ecc memory but feel the memory is perfectly fine for doing the job.

RE: $3000
By WeaselITB on 12/18/2013 5:25:18 PM , Rating: 2
Bull on ECC, eh? When your employee is costing the company >$100 per hour and you have a chance of losing two or three hours of productivity due to some error in RAM, the ECC is worth it.

For some theoretical calculations, see this article --

See this paper for some actual hard rates on correctable errors, which is worse than some of the theoretical numbers above --

RE: $3000
By kwrzesien on 12/19/2013 10:39:14 AM , Rating: 1
All of these Mac Pro's ARE Crossfired! There isn't a single GPU option, they are all dual. And the dual D700 option is pretty amazing, especially for the price.

RE: $3000
By AdamAnon on 12/18/2013 2:58:47 PM , Rating: 2
Look at Dell Precision Workstations, compare specs.

RE: $3000
By kyleb2112 on 12/19/2013 8:14:37 AM , Rating: 2
I do 3D rendering and video all day long and I wouldn't touch a single quad core box. For 3 grand I want to see 16 threads fire up when I hit the render button, and soon 32. Apple's made a "production" box, but skimped on the most productive component. This thing would be really sexy in 2005.

RE: $3000
By lagomorpha on 12/19/2013 1:53:46 PM , Rating: 3
It's Apple we're talking about. The customers aren't doing 3D rendering, they're doing graphic design for advertisements. Hardest thing it will run is Photoshop. It's a high profit margin system they can sell to graphic designers who know about aesthetics but know nothing about computers.

RE: $3000
By saarek on 12/19/2013 6:09:43 AM , Rating: 1
You might as well say that a little Ford Fiesta would match an articulated lorry, or that a small private plane would match a cargo plane.

Yes, they are both computers. They are also designed for very different purposes.

For a workstation this level of pricing is actually very reasonable.

RE: $3000
By inighthawki on 12/18/13, Rating: -1
RE: $3000
By XZerg on 12/18/2013 1:08:04 PM , Rating: 2
what most people miss here is that these are workstation grade CPU and GPU. these two alone command considerable amount of premium compared to the desktop versions with potential equivalent theoretical performance. The GPU with its special drivers will run circles around almost any desktop grade GPU.

I almost laughed at the price tag looking rest of the parts:
12GB ram
256GB storage

i am giving a benefit of doubt for the CPU and GPU prices as I do not know off hand how much they are going for. Given that this is Apple, I can imagine ~50% markup from actual BOM cost.

RE: $3000
By AdamAnon on 12/18/2013 3:05:41 PM , Rating: 2
So why don't you go, do some research and perhaps compare the Macpro specs to Dell and HP workstations so you can make a bit more educated guess, rather than sounding like a complete fool?

RE: $3000
By captainBOB on 12/18/2013 9:18:59 PM , Rating: 3
The CPU goes for 400+ easily, Xeon E5s ain't cheap.

The GPUs in the base model go a total of ~1200. The next best up (D500) go for ~2000.

The base model is a toss up for bang for the buck, the next tier is a steal compared to other workstations.

Internal storage in workstations is usually used as scratch space, the actual storage of important project files is usually on a SAN/NAS.

If you work from home and need more local storage, you have 6 thunderbolt ports (which can daisy chain up to 6 additional devices) to expand to your heart's content. The Mac Pro actually has MORE expandability, not less since it is not limited by the number of physical PCI-e slots and the size of the case.

RE: $3000
By dgingerich on 12/18/13, Rating: 0
RE: $3000
By stm1185 on 12/18/2013 1:28:27 PM , Rating: 3
Considering a standard PC would crash two dozen times per year for an hour of downtime each time

Making a decent argument until that obvious lie. A standard PC does not crash twice a month for an hour.

My 2600k/7970 setup that I do work in Maya, ZBrush, Photoshop... on has never crashed for more then the time it takes to ctrl alt delete or boot from reset.

An Hour! Ha. That would have to be hardware failure, which can happen to a Mac Pro as well, and which from the looks of it would require shipping it back to Apple.

RE: $3000
By dgingerich on 12/18/2013 2:02:51 PM , Rating: 2
I am talking average PCs, not those built and taken care of by the likes of us. I worked PC support for 13 years, mostly in corporate settings where the PCs are kept around for up to 5 years, and yes, many business PCs do crash twice per month and take a good hour to reboot.

I can remember one specific user I swapped whole PCs three times, and within a couple weeks it would be back to crashing nearly every day. I don't know what she was doing to them, but she'd really screw them up. I also had a user that got that fake anti-virus, XP Antivirus, and it would have taken her a week or more to get her apps reinstalled, so I spent 3 days trying to remove it manually, and finally succeeded. She had three days with a loaner where she could only do about a third of her job, but at least it wasn't a week of being totally down.

That "two dozen crashes per year for an hour of downtime each" was more of an average over 13 years of desktop support experience. Maybe Windows 7 has managed to reduce that. I haven't been in desktop support for the last 4 years. I'm going on my own experiences.

RE: $3000
By Mitch101 on 12/18/2013 3:29:19 PM , Rating: 2
You must work with some crappy techs. I dont recall since the early days of XP of any PC's crashing like that.

If there was a machine crashing that often I would suspect bad hardware.

RE: $3000
By troysavary on 12/18/2013 4:51:04 PM , Rating: 3
The fact it took him 3 days to remove malware says he's the crappy tech.

RE: $3000
By ingwe on 12/18/2013 2:03:17 PM , Rating: 2
I am not sure that I agree, but he could have been referring to a program crashing and losing the work that hadn't been saved. At least that is how I interpreted it (probably because that seems way more reasonable than 24 crashes a year for a computer).

RE: $3000
By Spuke on 12/18/2013 2:03:20 PM , Rating: 2
Making a decent argument until that obvious lie. A standard PC does not crash twice a month for an hour.
Agreed. What computer crashes for an hour twice a month? Seriously. I'm rockin a Xeon E5-2667 with a Quadro 6000, 16GB RAM and I haven't crashed once since I got the computer (HP Z820).

RE: $3000
By alpha754293 on 12/18/2013 2:23:22 PM , Rating: 2
1) The 'K' model of your CPU doesn't support Intel VT-d.
2) 4771K doesn't even exist (or isn't available to the public yet or you're just making stuff up).
3) If it's Haswell to Haswell comparison, even with a Xeon E3, a 1285 is still MARGINALLY faster than the 4771.
4) 4771 does NOT support ECC ram (not according to Intel ARK) (which if you're running mission critical tasks/jobs, the risk and the cost of losing your data isn't worth the small, incremental cost of having a processor that supports ECC RAM.)
5) Some professional applications cannot run in Crossfire mode (Dassault Systemes CATIA for example, can't and won't). I'm assuming that 3dsmax and Maya is likely the same way, although I can't say for sure. Same thing with some of the motion picture post-production tools/applications. So that nixes your whole Crossfire point. And if you're running ANYTHING OpenGL intensive, consumer cards are NOTORIOUSLY poor at it. When you're loading up 12 million vertices, and some 8 million elements or designing/engineering a full vehicle - there's a reason why they're called PRO cards. And trust me, I've worked with both before and even a middle-of-the-line PRO card will smoke the CRAP out of a top-of-the-line ZOMG triple Crossfire setup.
6) See the remark about ECC RAM.
7) The new Mac Pro has a PCIe (or mini PCIe) SSD. Is your $320 512GB SSD that you're quoting a PCIe SSD? Because if it's not, a) you're comparing apples and oranges and b) the performance differential is MONSTROUS. So that takes care of that. What else?
8) Oh yeah, so MB will be a function of the processor and how much RAM you want to be able to put into the system. Top of the line consumer boards - the CHIPSET supports upto 128 GB in some instances, but there's only 8 DIMM slots which means if you want 128 GB of non-ECC, unregistered RAM, it'll be REALLY expensive for you to do so (cuz you HAVE to do it with 16 GB sticks (which STARTS at $200 a stick)). There are a few dual Socket R boards out there (Asus WS) but no dual Socket H3 boards.
9) Case is sometimes a function of the board. Which in Apple's case (no pun intended) they have complete control over.
10) No special requirements (necessarily) on PSU side of things, but there's probably a minimum power requirement due to the GPUs.

RE: $3000
By retrospooty on 12/18/2013 2:40:51 PM , Rating: 2
It looks like most people dont get what a professional workstation is. They see this or others like it and think "OK, its a high end desktop" and think that it costs too much. This is NOT a high end desktop, it is a professional workstation, and really not priced badly for what is in it. If you are in a field where you need a system like this, then you already know it's not overpriced. I personally wouldn't go with Apple on this, but I don't knock them for the price on this one.

RE: $3000
By AdamAnon on 12/18/2013 3:02:39 PM , Rating: 4
These are "Internet Experts" who get their knowledge from NewEgg ads :)

RE: $3000
By Spuke on 12/18/2013 3:08:59 PM , Rating: 2
It looks like most people dont get what a professional workstation is.
Indeed they don't. My Z820 cost in $3k range too. $3k or more for a WORKSTATION is pretty standard. My Quadro alone cost $1k. I'm an Apple hater and I don't think this is out of line at all.

RE: $3000
By Strunf on 12/19/2013 8:47:26 AM , Rating: 2
The thing is that there's not really a boundary between desktops and workstations anymore, in the past workstations would be running 2 or more CPUs today that's not the case, I could build a High-end desktop that would beat this workstation for 1/2 the price. Sure you could say that your workstation is better prepared against errors (personally I've never seen any...) but If my desktop is 2 as fast (for the same price) then I'm saving loads of time. I sometimes have to render 3D images and frankly I'm quite happy with my high performance desktop and it never crossed my mind to exchange it for something slower albeit more safe.

That said the price is not that high if you really want a workstation, but many professions that required a workstation in the past may be better off with a performance PC nowadays.

RE: $3000
By retrospooty on 12/19/2013 1:08:31 PM , Rating: 2
Of course you could build one cheaper. That is a given that someone with the skill can build it. Anyone could build a cheaper and better system than any OEM. But it doesn't compete with one off build's like that, it competes with other OEM's and you would be hard pressed to find a comparably spec'd system built by any OEM that is much cheaper.

RE: $3000
By inighthawki on 12/18/2013 4:48:27 PM , Rating: 2
Fair enough, I see that I am wrong. However I did mean 4771, not 4771K. That was just a mistake. (Initially I had written 4770K but then remembered the 4771 was out)

Also why did you make a numbered list and have #6 just refer to #4? My post didn't contain numbered items...

RE: $3000
By AdamAnon on 12/18/2013 3:01:13 PM , Rating: 2
You are clueless as well.

RE: $3000
By Spinne on 12/18/2013 2:23:18 PM , Rating: 2
I've used a mix of a Mac and a Linux desktop (Ubuntu) at work for about 6 years now. I'm a researcher in astrophysics so pretty much all of my code is data analysis/coding in a mixture of C, C++, Fortran, & Python.
All of my code is run on our compute server which has two Xeon E-5 2640s, two Xeon Phi coprocessor cards, and 128 GB of RAM. The server runs RHEL 6. Temporary storage is provided on a 10 TB RAID5 set-up.
The linux box and mac are used to write and test code, while the actual work-run happens on the compute server. Both machines are also used to generate plots (mostly using Python's matplotlib), make presentations, etc... I acquired the linux box more recently as a hand-me-down from a student lab, but both the linux box and the mac are of comparable vintage. I should mention that I'm not uing linux for the first time here (my previous experience with linux was years ago on Fedora). I should also add that I use neither linux nor mac at home (win7).
What I've found is that I have a distinct preference for the linux box. Here's why (Keep in mind that my machine is a 2008 iMac tha shipped with Leopard) -
1. Keeping linux application software updated on the mac is a bit of a nightmare with macports. If one does not run updates on macports frequently, it seems that a tangle of dependencies develop which can end up becoming a pain to sort out. I've never never tried homebrew, but I understand that it has similar problems. Now someone will suggest that I update macports more frequently, but my philosophy is if it ain't broke, don't fix it. I only want updates if I run across a bug that affects my code, or if there's a new feature that I need to use.
2. As far as the ancillary tools (presentation and poster software) on the Mac go, the open source versions seem to be better suited for my purposes anyway. The apple/microsoft equivalents feel more bloated with features I don't care about... What that means is that there is no software on my mac that I care about that I can't get on my linux box.
3. Applications like Chrome/Papers eventually began refusing to update on the old OS (Snow Leopard) requiring us to move to Mountain Lion (which was the most recent version of Mac OSX out when we upgraded). Mountan Lion seems sluggish on this machine - sometimes even simple things like bringing up the file menu can take a noticeable amount of time.
4. The monitor on the iMac has dusty streaks running across it from dust deposited inside the screen. This is a problem on not just my iMac, but also on all the other iMacs our lab bought that year. The dust is irrelevant on the monitor because of the nature of the work that I do, but if this were my home machine on which I process my photos, it would be completely unacceptable.
5. We bought genuine Apple mini DisplayPort - DVI adaptor (from a brick-and-mortar Apple store, not cheap 3-rd party adaptors) to connect an external monitor (more desktop real estate rocks!). These connectors can be finicky at times and may require jiggering. Otherwise, the mac sometimes 're-detects' the external display and keeps trying to switch between inbuilt display and dual display.

To summarize, what I've ended up doing is relegating the mac to a corner of my desk. I use it to display manuals/email. Actual development is done on the linux box.
This is not to say that the mac is a terrible machine, or that mac osx is a horrible os. I actually like that it's a POSIX OS (unlike Windows). The big problem is cost. My mac is much more expensive than my linux box and it doesn't seem to buy anything more than my linux box. This is the main reason why I had to recommend to our research group leader that we not pick up macs anymore, but just stick with cheaper linux boxes.

RE: $3000
By marvdmartian on 12/19/2013 7:08:39 AM , Rating: 2
For that price, she had better come with it!

You jest
By EasyC on 12/18/2013 11:17:52 AM , Rating: 5
But no longer will people need a separate computer and trash bin. It's revolutionary!

RE: You jest
By FITCamaro on 12/18/2013 12:11:26 PM , Rating: 2
If it is it's own trashcan, where do you throw it when it's time to upgrade one?

RE: You jest
By EasyC on 12/18/2013 12:17:33 PM , Rating: 5
In the newer Mac Pro 2014 model. Duh.

RE: You jest
By Brandon Hill on 12/18/2013 12:25:28 PM , Rating: 2
Apple Inception?

RE: You jest
By stm1185 on 12/18/2013 12:43:16 PM , Rating: 2
Apple "hate" blah blah blah, but that interior design is awesome and innovative, they just need a better exterior.

RE: You jest
By EasyC on 12/18/2013 1:57:22 PM , Rating: 3
A trash can within a trash can... deep.

RE: You jest
By captainBOB on 12/18/2013 9:20:56 PM , Rating: 2
There's even a trash can in the OS o.o

RE: You jest
By EasyC on 12/19/2013 7:48:05 AM , Rating: 2
RE: You jest
By Cheesew1z69 on 12/19/2013 8:58:49 AM , Rating: 2
I sure hope this link isn't implying this is Steve Jobs...because it isn't....

RE: You jest
By EasyC on 12/19/2013 9:53:29 AM , Rating: 2
I just googled "mind blow gif".

RE: You jest
By inperfectdarkness on 12/18/2013 2:18:55 PM , Rating: 2
Form follows function. In this case, Apple designed the computer to look like something that it actually is. How odd that they're also eliminating skeuomorphs at the same time...

I spent $4,000 on my computer in 2008 and still use it
By KiwiTT on 12/18/2013 1:50:49 PM , Rating: 2
I generally spend between $3,000-$4,000 on a computer, that lasts me close to 6 years each time. The people who would buy this kind of computer would be like me, who want longevity and reliability. What I tend to do is a mid-life refresh with upgraded parts (e.g. disk, ram, gpu, etc.). However,my last computer I bought in 2008, it took until this year to do my upgrades (SSD, GTX 770, etc.), which may give me another 2-3 years.

I am seriously considering getting this new Mac Pro or a later version as my next PC, because it is a serious high-end PC and will likely last as long as mine has or may do (6+ years). My only concern is compatibility with applications I use.

By aurareturn on 12/18/2013 2:09:25 PM , Rating: 2
You can always run Windows 7 doing dual boot or parallel.

By EasyC on 12/18/2013 2:17:14 PM , Rating: 2
Why not just buy better parts with the money and make your own PC? It would be easier to service, and as reliable as the parts you pick for it? I'm in the same boat as you. I've been on an WC/OC'ed 3930K/32GB DDR-2133/SSD machine for a couple years now. Even when it was new, I didn't spend more than 1300$ in parts. I've upgraded the case and added a storage drive since.

I don't know. I don't like wasting money.

By kleinma on 12/18/2013 4:03:17 PM , Rating: 2
sure smells like an opinion to me.

By ritualm on 12/18/2013 4:49:29 PM , Rating: 2
A part-time IT helpdesk employee actually said these timeless words:

"OS X is more efficient than Windows."

I almost died laughing at that opinion.

By dgingerich on 12/18/2013 2:22:11 PM , Rating: 3
Keep in mind that this only comes with 90 days of software phone support and a year of warranty on the machine. It's an additional $300 for the three year support plan. Also, if you need to have it repaired, you have to take it in to a Mac store and deal with the "geniuses."

By just4U on 12/18/2013 8:31:39 PM , Rating: 2
Most of the systems I build have longevity in mind and typically last 6+ years. It's a simple formula really. Good PSU/MB with quality cooling thru-out the system. That can be done starting at 900ish.. with ceiling limits on budgets around 1800.

If I remember correctly the most expensive computer I ever built was 2800.. (all inclusive) but prices were so much higher back then. now you can have similar quality/performance for half that price.

By stm1185 on 12/18/2013 11:01:36 PM , Rating: 3
Why would you buy a $4k computer every 6 years instead of 2k every 3, that is just insane to me.

The difference between $2k and $4k isn't as great as the difference between 3 and 6 years.

By Argon18 on 12/18/13, Rating: 0
RE: design
By EasyC on 12/18/2013 11:55:25 AM , Rating: 2
Apple producing a device that would effectively itself under load has never been done before. Here's hoping!

RE: design
By FITCamaro on 12/18/2013 12:13:44 PM , Rating: 2
I think you meant to say "effectively cools itself"

If so, you would be correct. Usually Apple relies on being able to dissipate heat into the user to cool their devices.

RE: design
By ingwe on 12/18/2013 2:07:11 PM , Rating: 2
Has overheating really been an issue with any Apple desktops overheating in the last 5 years? I am asking earnestly because I haven't heard this. I know their laptops have definitely had issues though

RE: design
By nikon133 on 12/18/2013 7:37:42 PM , Rating: 2
I believe some of their high-end iMacs had overheating problem... I cannot recall anything re Mac Pro.

But. Previous Mac Pro was in large size tower case, while this one sits in a... vase size? I've read about cooling design and it looks good on paper, but I am still doubtful how well will one fan and one triangular heatsink cool CPU, two GPUs... I think there's something on 3rd side of heatsink, SSD or RAM?

Looking at the case, air intake at the bottom of the case does not look anything special, too.

So I'm curious to find how well does this thing work under 100% load for long hours, something workstations are supposed to do - and often. Will it throttle down CPU/GPUs, will it become uncomfortably noisy, will it suffer (and to what extend) from dust accumulation?

RE: design
By Argon18 on 12/19/2013 11:45:28 AM , Rating: 1
The third side of the heatsink has either a second GPU or a second CPU, I can't remember. I've seen this heatsink in person and trust me it is *massive*. It is far larger than anything you've seen in the PC aftermarket. It's like a cinder block of aluminum.

I'd advise you to look elsewhere than this site. The blind irrational Apple haters are strong here, and vote down anyone who doesn't fall in line with their agenda. It is not possible to have an honest discussion of Apple products in these forums. This new Mac Pro is really a brilliant piece of engineering.

RE: design
By retrospooty on 12/19/2013 12:18:58 PM , Rating: 4
"The blind irrational Apple haters are strong here, and vote down anyone who doesn't fall in line with their agenda. It is not possible to have an honest discussion of Apple products in these forums."

Let me point out a few problems with your logic.

1. You are the one here on an agenda... Your anti MS rants are all over the place.
2. You are posting in an article with several honest discussions about this product going on.

Go ahead, look for yourself. Most people here are agreeing that this isn't overpriced and is a great professional workstation, myself included.

some comments
By alpha754293 on 12/18/2013 2:39:49 PM , Rating: 2
Can you build a more powerful computer for less? Yes. But to do so in 1/8th the volume (which, if you have it sitting on your desk instead of the 3U RACKMOUNT that's sitting under your desk), probably not.

And you might not like Apple or care for them or whatever (and I'm no Apple fanboi either), but a) you're talking about a product that is rumoured to have been designed, engineered, and possibly even up for final assembly in the US and b) to be able to pack what they've packed into that package and make it volumetrically efficient is no small task. Why do you think that computers still are these, big honking, weird, awkward boxes that you gotta lug around? (Ever been to a LAN party?) Shuttle tried to make it smaller. Falcon Northwest also has a mini computer (the Tiki), but you still can't pack this much processing power potential (in a fully loaded new Mac Pro) as you can with this.

Say what you want about the styling and Apple's business practices and what have you, but if I have observed Americans right over the past 10 years or so, I'm surprised that more people aren't touting the old addage of "Out of a job yet? Keep buying foreign." or "Buy American" or at least recognize the "rumor" that the Mac Pro is designed, engineered, and possibly even assembled in your good ol' U-S-of-A.

And I've had Sun boxes, PCs, Linux, and Macs. And there ARE some things that the Macs are REALLY good at, far better than any of the other three. (At one point, I had 13 systems running concurrently - I had my own mini computer lab in the room that I was renting in college).

RE: some comments
By kleinma on 12/18/2013 3:58:38 PM , Rating: 2
Are you somehow implying that buying apple is "buying American"???? Everything they make is physically manufactured in China by slave labor, same as every other tech company.

I was at home depot the other day to buy some storage bins. I got the kind that has 2 plastic flip handles so you can secure the lid after putting it on. The entire thing (bin, lid, 2 handles) is 4 pieces, and the company has the balls to put in HUGE letters on the label (assembled right here in the USA). ASSEMBLED. Some factory in China ships over millions of lids and bins and handles, so that an American can snap the 2 pieces into place, and the company can say it was assembled in America).

Then of course there is the matter of Apple funneling their profits through Ireland so they don't pay US tax. So very American of them.

As far as things Macs are really good at versus a Linux or Windows PC, I would say they are really good at being over priced, really good at being over simplified, and really good at being proprietary.

The Mac Pro looks like Apple took a trip to Dlink this time around instead of Xerox

RE: some comments
By captainBOB on 12/18/2013 10:03:37 PM , Rating: 1
Ok, lets go back to sourcing and assembling from China, there's no pleasing anyone. Fuck all this shit, who needs jobs in America?

As far as things Macs are really good at versus a Linux or Windows PC, I would say they are really good at being over priced, really good at being over simplified, and really good at being proprietary.

You pay $200 for software that happens to be used in 90% of computers and is even more proprietary than OS X and incompatible with every other OS on the planet. NTFS, Hyper-V, Office, Active Directory, Sharepoint, Server, Storage Spaces, Secure Boot, DirectX etc. All proprietary.

You also paid $200 for an OS that couldn't even do the most basic stuff without 3rd party software, basic things that Linux and OS X have been able to do from day 1.

Need to mount an .iso or other disk image? Windows couldn't do that.

Read a PDF file? Nope.

Burn a bootable disk image of anything other than Windows to a CD/DVD. Nope.

Make a RAMdisk? LOL NO, even better, you can't make anything bigger than 4GB without paying for 3rd party software.

A chroot equivalent to rescue a borked system? Nope.

The ability to control the entire system from a terminal/command prompt?, it wasn't even until Windows Server 2012 that it shipped without the GUI by default.

It wasn't until Windows 8 that it could even mount .iso files and natively read PDF files. A whopping 20+ years after Linux has been able to do it, and 10 after OS X.

If anything Microsoft is more proprietary than Apple, Microsoft products only work best when used with other Microsoft products, Windows works best when used in concert with Active Directory, SCCM, Windows Server, etc. It does the bare minimum to support Linux servers and only because they have such a command of the server market.

As soon as you want to have a heterogeneous network of Windows and Linux or Mac machines, you start dealing with all the idiosyncrasies and obstacles that Microsoft places so that Linux and OS X don't work well on the network without additional software to make them work well. That isn't the fault of Linux or OS X, but Microsoft who bend over backwards to make everything just incompatible enough that its a PITA to use anything but Windows. Hell, Office:Mac has slight incompatibility issues just to annoy users.

If Microsoft had such a strong command of the server market as they do the desktop OS market, you can bet your ass that they would make it as hard as possible to use anything *nix based with their products.

Its just hilarious irony whenever anyone tosses around the word proprietary to describe Apple, when Microsoft is the undisputed king of proprietary anything. Compared to Microsoft, Apple's DSMOS.kext is child's play.

RE: some comments
By retrospooty on 12/19/2013 7:01:18 AM , Rating: 2
You are WAY oversimplifying the issue. Your take on Windows is purely uneducated, or just purposefully obtuse.

RE: some comments
By troysavary on 12/19/2013 9:19:06 AM , Rating: 2
MS was raked over the coals for including a browser and a media player with Windows so they have been less inclined to include other basic utilities for fear of more legal action.

RE: some comments
By kleinma on 12/19/2013 2:44:18 PM , Rating: 2
wow you said so many wrong things my head exploded.

So much hatred...
By Arkive on 12/18/2013 2:43:31 PM , Rating: 2
Unless you're a professional who utilizes a system for the type of work it's designed to do, or, you're an administrator that procures/manages systems similar to this, you're hard-pressed to say how good/bad this system is (I'm the latter of those two). $3K is absolutely in the ballpark for a workstation with *professional* grade components (NOT high-end consumer level components). And for the record, from a systems management and familiarity perspective all of our workstations are still Windows-based, so it's not like I'm a fanboi running an army of Mac Pro's.

RE: So much hatred...
By retrospooty on 12/18/2013 2:57:44 PM , Rating: 2
Yup, This isn't a high end consumer PC, its a high end professional workstation and it really isn't priced bad. If you actually need a system like this for work, then you already know it isn't overpriced.

RE: So much hatred...
By just4U on 12/18/2013 8:34:48 PM , Rating: 2
I'd lay money on this being bought by a lot of people that do NOT require it.. and that's a bet I'd win.

RE: So much hatred...
By JCheng on 12/19/2013 2:22:38 AM , Rating: 2
That's true, but there's also a huge gap between the Mac Mini and this, if your requirements are a Mac desktop computer that doesn't come with its own screen.

I could see myself buying this if I was doing the kind of work I was doing a couple of years ago (C++ development on Mac, Windows, and Linux), even though I'd be just as well served by a hypothetical Mac desktop that had non-ECC RAM, i7 4930K, consumer video card, etc. that was priced at $1500. If forced to choose between overpaying for a Mac Pro or compromising with a Mac Mini, I'd have bought the Mac Pro, it's not even a question.

Apple Trolling Workstation Class Machines
By wicktron on 12/18/2013 4:59:53 PM , Rating: 2
Similarly priced HP Z620:

Similarly priced Dell Precision T5610

Mac Pro gets: Faster CPU, PCIe SSD, Dual GPU

For what it does, and the market it caters, this does not seem overpriced at all.

RE: Apple Trolling Workstation Class Machines
By just4U on 12/18/2013 8:36:11 PM , Rating: 2
the base model starting at 3k doesn't have a dual GPU..

By captainBOB on 12/18/2013 9:06:56 PM , Rating: 2
The base model doesn't have a dual CPU, but it does have dual GPUs.

By lagomorpha on 12/19/2013 1:58:14 PM , Rating: 2
Similarly priced HP Z620:

..has 12 CORES for the same price as the Apple with 4 cores.

Mac Pro gets: Faster CPU

No, just no.

Reasonnably priced
By bernardl on 12/18/2013 7:52:36 PM , Rating: 2
For a high end workstation, the price is very reasonnable.

Upgradability is limited, but it is an illusion to think that workstation from vendors like HP and Dell are any more upgradable while still getting supported.

Yes, they have the potential to be upgraded, but as far as I know HP and Dell do not propose such upgrade services because they cannot really guarantee stability after bits and pieces are added beyond disks and memory, perhaps graphic card but even that isn't very clear. They will for sure not tolerate a change of motherboard and we know that significant CPU upgrades nearly always mean a change of motherboard.

So the discussion here is not about Apple vs other workstations, the discussion is about what a workstation is relative to a hand made PC.


RE: Reasonnably priced
By Eagle17 on 12/19/2013 12:47:53 PM , Rating: 2
Professional workstations from both DELL and HP have options for 10gb ethernet. I am a bit confused as to how apple plans to connect this device to render farms, or even the shared highspeed storage used in small to large design firms. The only thing going for it is the OS.

RE: Reasonnably priced
By ilt24 on 12/19/2013 2:20:38 PM , Rating: 2
Professional workstations from both DELL and HP have options for 10gb ethernet.
You could get their via Thunderbolt with this: ATTO ThunderLink NT1102 - Thunderbolt to 10 Gbit/s Ethernet Desklink provides two 10Gb ports, but costs a grand.

By seraphim1982 on 12/19/2013 2:03:18 PM , Rating: 2
People should read the ENTIRE article before internet trolling each other. The price of the entry level is $2,999 and it isn't that bad of a price, but you can definitely get better value for your dollar.

The FireGL card they throw in there is a entry level Workstation card and isn't that much better than the mid-range consumer cards.

that's my 2 cents...

RE: trolls
By troysavary on 12/23/2013 7:17:46 AM , Rating: 2
Not only is it an entry level card, it comes with half the RAM as the equivalent stand-alone FirePro. I thought it was pretty reasonable priced for an Apple, until I went to the page and started speccing one out. By time you get to real workstation cards, 12 core CPU, adequate storage and RAM, you are up over 10k. That same 10k gives you way more options from other vendors.

By bupkus on 12/18/2013 11:25:07 AM , Rating: 2
Garbage in, garbage out (GIGO) in the field of computer science or information and communications technology refers to the fact that computers will unquestioningly process unintended, even nonsensical, input data ("garbage in") and produce undesired, often nonsensical, output ("garbage out").

By trajan24 on 12/19/2013 6:46:12 AM , Rating: 2
Ridiculous not to offer Nvidia Quadros as that's all my company will use.

missing the point
By kleinma on 12/18/2013 2:36:14 PM , Rating: 1
The main reason why this thing sucks is that you spend 3k on it, and it is what it is, for it's entire life. Maybe you can add some ram, but what if everything was OK with it, but you just wanted to upgrade the graphics cards, or the CPU? You build a PC and have the ability to upgrade pieces if needed, even if you do a total rebuild years later after sockets had changed and whatnot, you can reuse the case, optical drive, often the PSU, and maybe a few other components.

Apple sells you into dead end where the only option out is to buy it all new again.

"A lot of people pay zero for the cellphone ... That's what it's worth." -- Apple Chief Operating Officer Timothy Cook

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki