MacRumors: Apple's New 8-Core Mac Pro Shows Up in Benchmarks

[Mike Halper]

I said i think the lineup will START at $1999 - I did not say what it would be "maxed out".

Current iMac lineup starts at $1,299.
Current Mac-Mini lineup starts at $599
Current MacPro lineup starts at $2,499

Why would they drop it to $2,000? As I said (see my edited post above as my maxed out Mac Mini price was too low originally), the minimum that the new Mac Pro could be would be superior (in CPU, RAM speed, graphics, and ports) to a maxed out Mac Mini. Why would they make them the same price?

 

[Mark L. Pederson]

Why would they drop it to $2,000? As I said, the minimum that the new Mac Pro could be would be superior (in CPU, RAM speed, graphics, and ports) to a maxed out Mac Mini. Why would they make them the same price?

Like I said, I think the lineup will start at $1999.00 - $500 less than the current MacPro lineup starts at.

Maybe I am way wrong. We will see soon enough. I know that some folks here think they will keep selling the current MacPro towers for a long time - but I totally disagree - I expect to see them 100% EOL at the release of the new MacPro.

 

[Mike Halper]

Like I said, I think the lineup will start at $1999.00 - $500 less than the current MacPro lineup starts at.

Maybe I am way wrong. We will see soon enough. I know that some folks here think they will keep selling the current MacPro towers for a long time - but I totally disagree - I expect to see them 100% EOL at the release of the new MacPro.

I agree with you about the EOL on the old Mac Pro. But why do you think they will set the new Mac Pro to start at $2K? You must have some kind of logical reasoning for that thought and I'm curious what it is. It just doesn't make sense to me based on the other product configurations and pricing, especially the maxed out Mac Mini. If the new Mac Pro was a tower, then yes you could be right since not everyone wants/needs a tower. But the new Mac Pro is more like a Mac Mini Pro, so it doesn't make sense to me that they would price it the same as a computer that is as inferior as the Mac Mini is to what a minimum Mac Pro could be.

 

[Mark L. Pederson]

I agree with you about the EOL on the old Mac Pro. But why do you think they will set the new Mac Pro to start at $2K? You must have some kind of logical reasoning for that thought and I'm curious what it is. It just doesn't make sense to me based on the other product configurations and pricing, especially the maxed out Mac Mini.

The maxed out Mac Mini actually has nothing to do with the new MacPro. They are VERY different products. You should be paying more attention to the prices of the iMac lineup. The top end iMac is one bad ass machine right now.

I think $1999 is the perfect price for them to start the new MacPro lineup at - and obviously - the top end maxed out will in the $4K-$5K ballpark IMO - depending on storage options and RAM, etc. etc.

 

[Blair S. Paulsen]

Do you feel lucky...

Do you feel lucky...

We should start a pool. $10 per guess, closest without going over wins the pot.

My best guess is $2,499 for the base model, and $2,999 wouldn't surprise me.

Perhaps a more germane discussion for RedUsers, is how much the mid and high end models will sell for.

I have been drafting a MacPro config target that includes 64GB of RAM, 2 FirePros with 6GB VRAM each, at least 512GB (hopefully 1TB) of flash storage - CPU choice TBD based on what Apple offers. If that config is under $5K I will be a happy camper. If its over $7K for that setup it better have a wicked fast CPU and a full TB of flash storage or I'm going to resent the bite of the "Apple Tax".

Cheers - #19

 

[Mike Halper]

The maxed out Mac Mini actually has nothing to do with the new MacPro. They are VERY different products. You should be paying more attention to the prices of the iMac lineup. The top end iMac is one bad ass machine right now.

I think $1999 is the perfect price for them to start the new MacPro lineup at - and obviously - the top end maxed out will in the $4K-$5K ballpark IMO - depending on storage options and RAM, etc. etc.

The Mac Mini has a lot to do with the Mac Pro. They are actually very similar form factors now with the same foot print. It's just that the Mac Pro is a lot more powerful. So the minimum Mac Pro would need to cost more than the max Mac Mini.

How do you figure the maxed out Mac Pro would be only $5K? The 12 core CPU alone is $2,700. 64GB of 1866MHz quad channel DDR3 ECC buffered RAM is at least $1,000, and even more at Apple's higher RAM prices. A 1TB SSD is at least $1,000. Right now, new FirePro GPUs with 6GB are at least $2,500 each. That's $9,700 right there, not taking into account all the other components and Apple's markup. Let's assume the pricing of the GPU's end up around $1,000 each to be inline with the Titan. You're still at $6,700. You're dreaming if you actually believe a maxed out Mac Pro is going to cost as little as $5K.

 

[David Kudell]

Sure, there might be slightly faster or cheaper PC-based options, but what you can't put a price on things like stability and the fact that the MacOS just works for our creative team. Every app developer out there from Blackmagic, to Adobe, to Red, not to mention Apple, are going to make sure their apps are optimized to take advantage of the new MacPro - especially the GPUs. If Blackmagic says I can grade at 4K resolutions in Resolve and Red gets great R3D playback without a Rocket, then the new Mac Pro is going to be an awesome tool that just works.

I'll never go back to a Windows machine again...no amount of CPU cores will be worth dealing with that headache.

 

[Mike Halper]

We should start a pool. $10 per guess, closest without going over wins the pot.

My best guess is $2,499 for the base model, and $2,999 wouldn't surprise me.

Perhaps a more germane discussion for RedUsers, is how much the mid and high end models will sell for.

I have been drafting a MacPro config target that includes 64GB of RAM, 2 FirePros with 6GB VRAM each, at least 512GB (hopefully 1TB) of flash storage - CPU choice TBD based on what Apple offers. If that config is under $5K I will be a happy camper. If its over $7K for that setup it better have a wicked fast CPU and a full TB of flash storage or I'm going to resent the bite of the "Apple Tax".

Cheers - #19

If there's a 6 core version, that would be $2500 with 8GB RAM, 256GB SSD, single GPU.

I could see an 8 core model with 16GB RAM, 512GB SSD, single GPU for $4,000. Add a second GPU for another $500-1,000, depending on the GPU.

Maxed out 12 core, 64GB RAM, 1TB SSD, dual FirePro 6GB GPUs, will be $8,000. This is assuming the GPU is custom AMD chipset for Apple that brings the cost of the GPU down or existing lower chipset than what the W9000 has but with more RAM.

That's what I think.

 

[M Most]

The Mac Mini has a lot to do with the Mac Pro. They are actually very similar form factors now with the same foot print. It's just that the Mac Pro is a lot more powerful. So the minimum Mac Pro would need to cost more than the max Mac Mini.

If you said the Mac Mini has a lot to do with the MacBook Pro, I would agree with you because that is true. They are basically the same, except that the laptop has a screen, a keyboard, and a pointing device, as well as some video options that are unavailable in the Mini (at least to this point). But the Mac Pro has absolutely nothing to do with the Mini except in the statements of some of the same people who still want to call Final Cut Pro X "iMovie Pro." "Mac Mini Pro" is a cute moniker, but it has nothing to do with reality.

I happen to lean towards Blair's pricing strategy because it basically is a continuation of the price points Apple has had for the Mac Pro line for a number of years now. But I still maintain that any conversation about pricing on the new machines is, at this stage, rather pointless. We'll all know what Apple has in mind soon enough.

 

[Mark L. Pederson]

If there's a 6 core version, that would be $2500 with 8GB RAM, 256GB SSD, single GPU.

Nope. Two models of 8-core and two models of 12-core.

 

[Mike Halper]

If you said the Mac Mini has a lot to do with the MacBook Pro, I would agree with you because that is true. They are basically the same, except that the laptop has a screen, a keyboard, and a pointing device, as well as some video options that are unavailable in the Mini (at least to this point). But the Mac Pro has absolutely nothing to do with the Mini except in the statements of some of the same people who still want to call Final Cut Pro X "iMovie Pro." "Mac Mini Pro" is a cute moniker, but it has nothing to do with reality.

I happen to lean towards Blair's pricing strategy because it basically is a continuation of the price points Apple has had for the Mac Pro line for a number of years now. But I still maintain that any conversation about pricing on the new machines is, at this stage, rather pointless. We'll all know what Apple has in mind soon enough.

I didn't say it has a lot to do with the MacBook Pro. I said the Mac Pro. And yes they are similar in form factor. Both have the same foot print. Both have no display. Both are not upgradable beyond storage and RAM. Both have similar ports (TB, USB, etc.), and rely on Thunderbolt for expandability. The differences? The Mac Pro has better CPUs, more and faster RAM, better GPUs, more Thunderbolt ports, Ethernet. The Mac Mini and Mac Pro are more similar to each other than the Mac Mini and MacBook Pro or the MacBook Pro and Mac Pro, or the iMac and Mac Pro. I don't understand why you can't see the similarities. The Mac Pro is like a Mac Mini on steroids. So it makes sense that Apple would price the minimum Mac Pro higher than the maximum Mac Mini, since the min Mac Pro would blow away the max Mac Mini.

 

[Mike Halper]

Nope. Two models of 8-core and two models of 12-core.

Where did you get that info?

 

[Blair S. Paulsen]

When guesstimating the pricing on the new MacPros I think a lot depends on the lens (figurative) you are looking through.

Perhaps Apple is looking to rehab their image as a computer vendor, build market share and leverage their financial position by accepting a lower margin on their flagship device. If so, then Mark might have it nailed. The other angle would be to charge a premium price, in part because the new MacPros have the potential to satisfy all but the most extreme power users for 4 to 7 years which slows replacement cycles.

In terms of new MacPro vs Hackintosh or Windows, I sure wouldn't want to make that call until we see what the new MacPros can do. I am optimistic that the internal bus architecture, optimized dual GPU support, direct access to flash storage and lots of native 64 bit code in the OS will make the MacPros much faster in real world tasks than the hardware profile might suggest. For imaging pros like many of us, I think the other big lever is how seriously Apple and key software vendors commit to optimizing OpenGL operations on fast GPUs.

Cheers - #19

 

[D Anderson]

....Apple ... accepting a lower margin on their flagship device. If so, then Mark might have it nailed.

Hmmm. Doesn't sound like Apple, does it?

The other angle would be to charge a premium price, in part because the new MacPros have the potential to satisfy all but the most extreme power users for 4 to 7 years which slows replacement cycles.

This is the status quo and more likely.

 

[Mike Halper]

Blair, that would be an interesting reason. But Apple has never cared about that in the past, even going back to the PowerPC days. When they switched to Intel they didn't offer those first Mac Pros at a lower price than Power Macs. I don't see why they would start caring about that now and lowering prices. Another, and more recent, example is the Retina MacBook Pro. They entered the market at a much higher price than the non-Retina MacBook Pro.

 

[Alec Morris]

It's in apples best interest to make these as affordable as possible IMO. $2500 base, $6000 maxed out.

Why? Because they're coming out with a UHD TV, potentially next year. Yes, I'm sure they'd like to make money on the mac pros. But the market for them is pretty small. An Apple TV, however, will have a massive market. How do you get people to buy into UHD? Available content, and lots of it. We already saw 3DTV's have a rough time because of a dearth of content.

Not much is finished at 4K now. How do you change that? Make an affordable 4K finishing machine for the pros a year before you launch your tv. Then you can offer a large catalog of UHD content via iTunes for your brand new UHDTV, for which you can charge a lot. $15 for an SD movie, $20 for HD, $30 for UHD. Theyll have a commercial showing how great 4K Netflix looks on the Apple UHDTV as well.

Suddenly they've taken over the TV market the same way they did the cell phone market. If they have to lose some profits in the niche pro computer market to accomplish that then so be it.

That's my conspiracy theory anyway.

 

[Nick Pasquariello]

I'm going to add to the discussion about pricing, and then duck away.

I used to work at an Apple store, so I used to follow this stuff rather closely. iSupply regularly does breakdowns on Apple products, prices out every part, including an estimate for labor, and can give a rough (though not exact) idea of the cost to manufacture the product. These guys do this same thing for non-Apple products as well, so they're pretty experienced at it.

The rule of thumb for Apple products, is that they cost about 1/3 to make as they do for you to buy. This is actually the trend going way, way back to, I think, the Apple II.

The exception is the iPad. I don't know if this is still the case, but for at least the first 2-3 years, the iPad was the best deal at Apple. It cost about 1/2 to make as it cost you to buy it.


I saw someone say something like Would Apple really cut margin on a flagship product? Well, you tell me: do you consider the iPad to be a flagship product?

 

[Blair S. Paulsen]

Connecting to the matrix...

Connecting to the matrix...

Let's not forget that Apple has a continuing revenue stream selling apps, content, cloud storage, etc so to at least some degree they might "sell the shavers at cost and make the profit on the blades". I like Alec's theory, and it might have been part of the discussion at Apple, but I'd bet that providing a device capable of consuming high value content, used by people that might put many terabytes in the cloud, etc - all activities that they get a percentage of, would justify a much thinner margin on the hardware - especially if it meant increasing their market share.

The other side of this coin is that even if the MacPros are near the lower end of our collective guessing game, all but the base model will likely fetch >$3K which means the buyers are "qualified" in sales speak as people likely to be able to afford to buy lots of "consumables" once they're in your walled garden. Salivating yet? I bet Apple's CFO is...

Cheers - #19

 

[Alan McConnell]

Based on what we've seen and heard so far I think it's possible that Apple is looking to do to the Mac Pro lineup what they did with FCX. If so, any predictions that are based on the existing Mac Pro lineup could be pretty far off.

FCX was more consumer-focused, and lower priced, than anyone expected, and it wouldn't surprised me at all if Apple views the new Mac Pro the same way.

 

[M Most]

Based on what we've seen and heard so far I think it's possible that Apple is looking to do to the Mac Pro lineup what they did with FCX. .

You mean they're going to release a machine that doesn't really work very well, then 2 years later make it work the way people expected it to?

Sorry, just kidding....... :001_unsure: