[Don Pickett]

Only a rumor, but it doesn't surprise me.

AppleInsider | Despite new CPU options, Apple reportedly questioning future of Mac Pro

[mduell]

I'm not surprised at the lack of profitability (or at least low ROI) for the shrinking Mac Pro group compared to the shiny consumer electronics groups.

[Big Mac]

It doesn't help that the last time a new revision came out was last century, and the models are priced in the stratosphere. But Apple's a consumer gadget company primarily now, with the iPhone being its bread and butter. If Apple doesn't want to stay in the midrange headless/high-end tower desktop/workstation market, it should provide a limited license of OS X to a PC company like Asus or Lenovo (or maybe HP since it's not exiting PCs after all and Jobs continued to feel close to the company) to take over in that segment.

[Don Pickett]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

It doesn't help that the last time a new revision came out was last century, and the models are priced in the stratosphere. But Apple's a consumer gadget company primarily now, with the iPhone being its bread and butter.

If you want Apple to update the Mac Pros, tell Intel to get it's act together and release the Sandy Bridge Xeons. That said, my six-core beasty may have just become a collector's item.

[Don Pickett]

Originally Posted by mduell 

I'm not surprised at the lack of profitability (or at least low ROI) for the shrinking Mac Pro group compared to the shiny consumer electronics groups.

Read the article: it's laptop sales which are killing the desktop. The MacBook Air is, by far, the most popular Mac.

[Veltliner]

The single processor Mac Pro is absurdly overpriced. This would be an entry-level desktop, but Apple keeps it away from people.

For me, and many others, an iMac would be fine for frying eggs and using the display as a shaving mirror - but not for much else.

We want a computer with a full scale graphics card, lots of RAM slots, enough cores that would make a MacBook Pro melt, internal discs, and the connection to a good external display (not that garbage display Apple puts into iMacs).

So, should we go and by a Mac Mini Pro (soon to be released)?

But how serious would one be about such a rumor (that shows up every time the Mac Pro line is showing its age)?

Generally, I'd take such rumors not too seriously. Sources are named as "these people" and "sales executive", and the only supporting fact is ceasing of regular shipments to "channel partners". When did those shipments stop? Now? A year ago? The next Mac Pro is just around the bend, so lowering the stock pile to the most expensive units would be a normal move before an update.

I take this rumor as a rumor at its worst meaning: somebody heard something, muttered by somebody (over a beer, or two, or three, or four, or more...)

What is more likely is less options: drop the ridiculous low end models that can't even keep up with an i7 iMac, and focus on those who need the features of a professional workstation. Fewer models, and have the others buy a mini.

[SierraDragon]

^Yup.

[reader50]

Or drop the entry model back down below $2000, preferably back down to $1500, and watch the sales pick up.

Except Apple never seems to try that approach.

[P]

They have tried it, but it's been a while now. I guess you all know my opinion on the low-end MP, so YES, it should drop to around $2000 or so. Seems more likely that they make a matte option of the 27" iMac. As for the other complaints... They might just decide that the GPU is powerful enough, that the RAM ceiling is high enough, that the disk is large enough.

[angelmb]

If Apple doesn't want to stay in the high-end desktop/workstation market, it should provide a limited license of OS X to a PC company like Asus or Lenovo (or maybe HP since it's not exiting PCs after all and Jobs continued to feel close to the company) to take over in that segment.

Well, I have just configured a Lenovo to run Siemens NX, SolidWorks, Autodesk Showcase… the kind of high end stuff you want a Mac Pro for. Lenovo website did suggest a ThinkStation D20, which I did personalize trying to mimic what I currently get from my Mac Pro.



Mobile is not an option, good and better don't count. So Configurator here we go:

System components:

Intel Xeon E5645 Processor (2.40GHz 1333MHz 12MB Turbo)
Intel Xeon E5645 Processor (2.40GHz 1333MHz 12MB Turbo)
Genuine Windows 7 Professional 64
Tower 7x9 Mechanical with Intel 5520 Motherboard
DDR3 ECC uDIMM PC3-10600 1333MHZ
16GB ECC DDR3 PC3-10600 SDRAM (2GBx8 UDIMMS)
NVIDIA Quadro 4000 (2GB Dual link DVI+DP+DP Stereo 3D)
Integrated Audio
Internal RAID - Not Enabled
500GB SATA 3.5" Hard Drive - 7200 rpm
1TB SATA 3.5" Hard Drive - 7200 rpm
2TB SATA 3.5" Hard Drive - 7200 rpm
Lenovo Blu-ray with AACS Bus Encryption (Windows 7)
Dual Integrated Broadcom Ethernet 10/100/1000
Lenovo USB Preferred Pro Full Size ID LA Spanish -S - Y - D Models SP
Lenovo Enhanced Optical USB Mouse

$7128

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by Veltliner 

The single processor Mac Pro is absurdly overpriced.

I agree entirely with this and I think that Apple would find that sales would not have dropped off so badly if they reduced the price as the tech starts to age. That said, I'm not sure whether it might be an issue with them buying too many CPUs into stock in the first place and needing to recoup that outlay. The CPU is the part costing all the cash, they are stupidly expensive the Xeon chips.

Originally Posted by Veltliner 

For me, and many others, an iMac would be fine for frying eggs and using the display as a shaving mirror - but not for much else.

We want a computer with a full scale graphics card, lots of RAM slots, enough cores that would make a MacBook Pro melt, internal discs, and the connection to a good external display (not that garbage display Apple puts into iMacs).

I'd prefer to skip over the debate about glossy screens, but I'll just say that if you take control of the lighting around your workspace and stop obsessing about it so much these displays really aren't as bad as you and Sierra like to make out.
The rest of this argument falls down a bit if you are comparing the better iMacs to the weaker Mac Pros. Some of the iMacs are faster now, I haven't seen benchmarks but I'd imagine the top iMac GPU doesn't fare all that badly against the ageing options in the Pro either. A thunderbolt Promise Pegasus is potentially faster than the internal disks in the MP and even if you nitpick about some of these details, the price and the included display means it stacks up quite nicely against the lower models of Mac Pro.
The iMacs usually get replaced quicker than Mac Pros but the new ones can be repurposed as external displays.


Here is an interesting idea:

Compare the price of an 8-Core Mac Pro with two Cinema Displays to the cost of 3 27" 2.7GHz iMacs. Run two of the iMacs in headless target display mode. If you can farm out tasks efficiently, you get a lot more power and an extra display for $400 less.

Originally Posted by Veltliner 

But how serious would one be about such a rumor (that shows up every time the Mac Pro line is showing its age)?

Generally, I'd take such rumors not too seriously. Sources are named as "these people" and "sales executive", and the only supporting fact is ceasing of regular shipments to "channel partners". When did those shipments stop? Now? A year ago? The next Mac Pro is just around the bend, so lowering the stock pile to the most expensive units would be a normal move before an update.

I take this rumor as a rumor at its worst meaning: somebody heard something, muttered by somebody (over a beer, or two, or three, or four, or more...)

The only thing stopping me dismissing it completely is that they did away with the Xserve after neglecting it for longer than usual. Luckily we have Intel to blame on this occasion for a lack of new chips so maybe it won't happen to the Pro, but I can't help but think the R&D costs of the Xserve once the Pro had been built should have been fairly minimal. I'd love to see a model to replace the Mac Pro and the Xserve in one. Or maybe just re-engineer the cases a bit so they can use the same logic boards and share more parts in a choice of either desktop or rack mount case.

That aside, I suspect this isn't so much a rumour as simple speculation on the part of Appleinsider.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by Veltliner 

The single processor Mac Pro is absurdly overpriced. This would be an entry-level desktop, but Apple keeps it away from people.

For a workstation it's not overpriced, just a single powerful Xeon processor can easily cost ~$1000). Add to that other workstation-class components, and you understand why Apple prices the Mac Pro the way it does. When I was studying, some departments in theoretical physics had workstations for $40k under their desks (AlphaStations to be precise).

On the other hand, desktops are encroaching on workstations in terms of performance and features. When in the past, people needed to get a Mac Pro because of their RAM requirements, they can now get an iMac as well. (There are very few who need more than 32 GB RAM.)

Originally Posted by Veltliner 

We want a computer with a full scale graphics card, lots of RAM slots, enough cores that would make a MacBook Pro melt, internal discs, and the connection to a good external display (not that garbage display Apple puts into iMacs).

You already have most of those things in an iMac: the 27" supports up to 32 GB RAM, has a rather powerful graphics card and you can connect two additional displays to it out of the box. You can add PCIe cards via Thunderbolt and add more peripherals this way.

I also don't get the suggestion to have a look at a much slower Mac mini. Just to keep in mind, the »slow« GPU found in the iMac has a TDP of 100 W … 

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by reader50 

Or drop the entry model back down below $2000, preferably back down to $1500, and watch the sales pick up.

Except Apple never seems to try that approach.

I vaguely recall that Apple did experiment with more affordable Power Macs, going down to $1600 I think, but they abandoned it because they didn't sell. The most popular models of Power Macs were the higher end configs.

I'm sure the same is still true today with Mac Pro sales. If you were a creative professional, the value difference between the $2600 4 core tower and the $5200 12 core tower is clear as day: three times the cores for only twice the price, plus twice the memory on top of that.

[Thorzdad]

As far as graphic design goes, the freelancers I know have been migrating to iMacs for some time now. The current MacPro is certainly a sexy beast, but most day-to-day designers really never need that kind of horsepower. Video editors might, though the latest top-end iMacs seem to be more than capable for that, too.

I can easily see Apple abandoning the MacPro, as far as having an actual, pro-dedicated product line goes. I can easily see them continuing to cater to professionals through the upper-end of their consumer lines, though.

[Don Pickett]

When almost 80% of Apple's sales are laptops, and most of its revenue comes from iPod/iPhone/iPad, it doesn't matter what the Mac Pro costs: The desktop is dying, and it's dying quickly. Now, personally, I hope Apple doesn't drop the Mac Pros, because I use them at work and have one at home. If they keep it around, it might be as a limited high end machine meant for serious business use. But, if Apple does I wouldn't be surprised, as Apple doesn't do legacy.

And, to be honest, very few of us need a Mac Pro at home. Sure, we like to have one, because we're Mac Geeks, but we don't need one. A 15 or 17 inch MacBook Pro, which benchmark as fast, or faster, than half the 2009 Mac Pros, is more than fast enough.

[Don Pickett]

Originally Posted by Thorzdad 

As far as graphic design goes, the freelancers I know have been migrating to iMacs for some time now. The current MacPro is certainly a sexy beast, but most day-to-day designers really never need that kind of horsepower. Video editors might, though the latest top-end iMacs seem to be more than capable for that, too.

As I've said before, where I work all of the art directors are on MacBook Pros hooked up to Cinema Displays. They'd be in iMacs if it weren't for the glossy screens. A high end iMac can easily handle most InDesign/Illustrator and medium Photoshop work.

[Waragainstsleep]

And now you can go Thunderbolt to Fibre Channel for SAN purposes, iMacs and MBPs are even more attractive.

I suspect the next Mac Pro might hinge on the CPU socket. As I understand it, the 18 month old 2010 models have the exact same logic board as the 2009 and possibly even the 2008, just run different firmware. This means the R&D costs for the Mac Pro have been approximately $0 for the last 3 years. If the Ivy Bridge Xeons drop straight in, I see no reason why Apple would ditch the Pro as they could even re-jig their current stock should they choose.

I still hope for a redesign to replace the Mac Pro and Xserve in one fell swoop. Rackable if you need, pretty either way, optional LOM and redundant PSU would be great.

[Don Pickett]

As I said, I can see them keeping it around, but as a serious high-end machine: no single processor models, etc.

[P]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

For a workstation it's not overpriced, just a single powerful Xeon processor can easily cost ~$1000). Add to that other workstation-class components, and you understand why Apple prices the Mac Pro the way it does. When I was studying, some departments in theoretical physics had workstations for $40k under their desks (AlphaStations to be precise).

True in general, but the single-CPU Mac Pro uses the Xeon 3500 series - a W3530, which is nothing more than a bog-standard Core i7 930 but with ECC enabled in the memory controller. That's a 133 MHz upgrade on the i7-920 chip that was $284...3 years ago.

The 5000 series chips, and the E5 chips to come, support dual CPUs and are priced accordingly. The dual CPU model MP is not particularly overpriced compared to the competition, but the single CPU is.

[P]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

And now you can go Thunderbolt to Fibre Channel for SAN purposes, iMacs and MBPs are even more attractive.

I suspect the next Mac Pro might hinge on the CPU socket. As I understand it, the 18 month old 2010 models have the exact same logic board as the 2009 and possibly even the 2008, just run different firmware.

Same from March 2009. All previous Mac Pros also used the same motherboard as each other, so there have been a total of two motherboard designs.

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

This means the R&D costs for the Mac Pro have been approximately $0 for the last 3 years.

Actually no. They have to test and validate with new CPUs, and that's expensive. Less than a new motherboard, sure, but not $0.

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

If the Ivy Bridge Xeons drop straight in, I see no reason why Apple would ditch the Pro as they could even re-jig their current stock should they choose.

There won't be any Ivy Bridge Xeons - well, not of the E5 class that Apple favors - if I understand the roadmap correctly. There will be E3 and E7 Ivy Bridge models, and then the next E5 is on Haskell and likely a new socket. Sandy Bridge-EP is supposed to be with us for some time - which is why it's troubling that the clock is so low. Maybe there is a massive turbo?

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

I still hope for a redesign to replace the Mac Pro and Xserve in one fell swoop. Rackable if you need, pretty either way, optional LOM and redundant PSU would be great.

That's what I'm hoping for as well, and since the rumors come now, I read it as a the MP getting one final chance with a redesign. They must have had SB designs in testing for some time now if it hasn't been killed off already - and when it is, I think we'll see a matte iMac.

[Super Glitcher]

What would you guys think of daisy-chain'able Thunderbolt CPU modules? e.g. a mac-mini sized quad-core Xeon in a box with a Thunderbolt port? I do a lot of video, rendering and DSP on my 8-core MP and hit the ceiling quite regularly. While I need the power (and more) I'd love to be portable and hate dealing with multiple systems.

Aside from power (and RAM) my other gripe with portables has been displays, but with 802.11ad coming I don't think displays will be a concern -- 802.11ad offers ~6gbps wireless (20-30ft range) more than enough to handle multiple panels + ext. storage if you wanted.

With the ability to externalize performance like this it allows you to consider form factor as a separate entity, which is a beautiful concept. If I could plug into power like that I'd be all over it.

[Ian]

Originally Posted by Don Pickett 

As I've said before, where I work all of the art directors are on MacBook Pros hooked up to Cinema Displays. They'd be in iMacs if it weren't for the glossy screens. A high end iMac can easily handle most InDesign/Illustrator and medium Photoshop work.

I currently use a quad core Mac Pro for design, photo (large hi-res files) for and HD video editing. It has 16GB of RAM, two optical drives (one is a Blu-Ray burner) and 4 internal drives with a combined capacity 8TB. This what I require to do my work. If Apple decide there is no market for customers like me I am between a rock and a hard place. An iMac simply won't do the job.

[Don Pickett]

Originally Posted by Ian 

I currently use a quad core Mac Pro for design, photo (large hi-res files) for and HD video editing. It has 16GB of RAM, two optical drives (one is a Blu-Ray burner) and 4 internal drives with a combined capacity 8TB. This what I require to do my work. If Apple decide there is no market for customers like me I am between a rock and a hard place. An iMac simply won't do the job.

Above I said the Mac Pro is still needed for people in specific jobs, video editing among them.

However, to play devil's advocate, the current top of the line iMac is faster than any of the current quad-core Mac Pros. Assuming Thunderbolt works as it's supposed to, you could get that much storage and RAM on an iMac.

[Twilly Spree]

I'll believe this rumor when I see it - but I find it a perfectly reasonable rumor. As in, this isn't beneath Apple.

From my perspective it doesn't matter much. I've already moved to a Wintel workstation (HP Z800), since Apple's current offering is 2010 technology at 2010 prices.

But the Mac Pro is a beautiful machine and is very much competitive with the Wintel offerings when it is new - but Apple doesn't lower prices when it is end of 2011 already. I did buy the Mac Pro in 2008 to use as a Windows machine, still have it, and I've got nothing but praise for it.

Apple just doesn't seem very interested in innovating beyond waiting for Intel to upgrade it's processors. Lowering price over time would be an innovation, if they can't think of something else.

If Apple discontiues the Mac Pro, I don't mind - but I'll miss those boxes and the damn fine engineering. But they can and are already being replaced.

If Apple decides on discontinuing them because of perceived lack of sales, well I guess they can't blame anyone but themselves. HP and Dell have no problems selling workstations. Neither should Apple, were they willing and motivated to do so.

Just looking at their webpage at apple.com one is hard pressed to find even a single photo of a Mac Pro. Plenty of MBAs and iMacs to be found.

[blakespot]

After owning a Power Mac G3 ('99), Power Mac G4 ('01), Power Mac G5 ('04), and a Mac Pro ('06), I've given up the waiting for a Sandy Bridge Pro.

I ordered a top-end iMac 27" -- quad 4.3GHz i7.

I hope it's the right move.



bp

[SierraDragon]

Originally Posted by Twilly Spree 

...Apple's current offering is 2010 technology at 2010 prices.

But the Mac Pro is a beautiful machine and is very much competitive with the Wintel offerings when it is new - but Apple doesn't lower prices when it is end of 2011 already. I did buy the Mac Pro in 2008 to use as a Windows machine, still have it, and I've got nothing but praise for it.

Apple just doesn't seem very interested in innovating beyond waiting for Intel to upgrade it's processors. Lowering price over time would be an innovation, if they can't think of something else.

If Apple discontiues the Mac Pro, I don't mind - but I'll miss those boxes and the damn fine engineering. But they can and are already being replaced.

If Apple decides on discontinuing them because of perceived lack of sales, well I guess they can't blame anyone but themselves.

Very well said. I fully agree with every point made.

What is interesting is how aggressive Apple value pricing can be in the mobile space, yet in desktops they insist on maintaining absolutely terrible value. I went from laptop plus 2006 MacPro to just a 2011 laptop partially because the 2011 MBP is so strong, but also because the current MPs are so overpriced. The Quad MP has been a study in ridiculously poor value since day 1.

-Allen

[mduell]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

For a workstation it's not overpriced, just a single powerful Xeon processor can easily cost ~$1000).

A single socket 4 core ~3Ghz Xeon is ~$200 these days.

[Don Pickett]

Originally Posted by Twilly Spree 

If Apple decides on discontinuing them because of perceived lack of sales, well I guess they can't blame anyone but themselves.

It's not perceived: people aren't buying desktops, period. They're buying laptops and iPads.

HP and Dell have no problems selling workstations..

During the fiscal year ending 3Q11, Apple sold about 16.5 million Macs, 72.29 million iPhones, 32.39 million iPads and 42.62 million iPods.

Once again: the desktop is dying.

[moniker]

I've had a top-end iMac 27" on loan for a couple of weeks and it simply isn't good enough for my purposes. I do some video editing, lots of photo management and also some software development for an enterprise application.

An iMac might be good enough for a graphical designer (whose normal tools aren't particularly heavy these days) but that doesn't make it good enough for everybody.

[Waragainstsleep]

@Ian and Moniker

A top iMac with an SSD boot drive, piles of RAM and a Promise Pegasus array would probably do what you need just fine. It wouldn't even cost that much more.

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by P 

Actually no. They have to test and validate with new CPUs, and that's expensive. Less than a new motherboard, sure, but not $0.

Why is that expensive? Surely they just have some (already salaried) engineers drop the new chips in some old machines and stick them on test?

[Waragainstsleep]

If Apple go the route of basing a Mac Pro/Xserve replacement around thunderbolt, I don't see a market for a quad core xeon in a Mac Mini sized box. I think the point of the Pros is power so you'd need a rackable box which can run two 6 or 8 core Xeons, a PCIe 16x slot for a GPU, lots of RAM slots and room for optional redundant PSU, maybe even with UPS built in.

The external thunderbolt options would then include various RAID offerings, maybe a DVD/BDR replication box with a stack of optical drives, a PCIe box full of slots, maybe one or two others. Apple could outsource the TB boxes to a 3rd party like Promise or Sonnet or someone.

If Apple simply speed bumps the current Mac Pro with new CPUs (and compatible logic board of course), are they going to run the thunderbolt through the graphics card? I keep asking this question but no-one else seems to want to speculate.

[P]

Originally Posted by Super Glitcher 

What would you guys think of daisy-chain'able Thunderbolt CPU modules? e.g. a mac-mini sized quad-core Xeon in a box with a Thunderbolt port?

I think it's basically a cluster setup, which you can do today over basic networking. You'd have to move all the data and an execution kernel over there to avoid being killed by the bandwidth constraints anyway.

Originally Posted by Super Glitcher 

I do a lot of video, rendering and DSP on my 8-core MP and hit the ceiling quite regularly. While I need the power (and more) I'd love to be portable and hate dealing with multiple systems.

An external GPU seems like a better fit for your case.

Originally Posted by moniker

I've had a top-end iMac 27" on loan for a couple of weeks and it simply isn't good enough for my purposes. I do some video editing, lots of photo management and also some software development for an enterprise application.

An iMac might be good enough for a graphical designer (whose normal tools aren't particularly heavy these days) but that doesn't make it good enough for everybody.

Please explain what feature you need that the iMac isn't giving you. Honest question, I'm curious. Software development means compile time means single-threaded performance, and the top iMac beats any MP at that right now. Photo management might need oodles of RAM, which is cheaper to get on the top MP, but the 32 gig ceiling on the iMac is quite high. The video editing might benefit from multiple cores if you include recompressing it, but the iMac has the clockspeed advantage and AVX.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by mduell 

A single socket 4 core ~3Ghz Xeon is ~$200 these days.

Originally Posted by P 

True in general, but the single-CPU Mac Pro uses the Xeon 3500 series - a W3530, which is nothing more than a bog-standard Core i7 930 but with ECC enabled in the memory controller. That's a 133 MHz upgrade on the i7-920 chip that was $284...3 years ago.

That's right. But what I meant to say was in order to configure a Mac Pro which is significantly faster than the top-of-the-line iMac, you need to spend a lot more money in terms of components.

[Waragainstsleep]

Mac Pro 2x2.4GHz Quad Core Westmere Xeon
16GB RAM
512GB SSD
6TB RAID Array with Apple RAID Card
Radeon 5870 1GB GPU
$7299

iMac 27" 3.4GHz Quad Core i7
16GB RAM
256GB SSD
2TB HDD
12TB Promise Pegasus R6 RAID Array
Radeon 6970M 2GB GPU
$5648

Apple wonders why the Mac Pro sales are dropping off.

[Don Pickett]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

Apple wonders why the Mac Pro sales are dropping off.

It's not just Mac Pro sales: 75% of Apple's sales are laptops. The single most popular Mac model? The MacBook Air.

And you can get the six-core Mac Pro for less than that iMac.

[Waragainstsleep]

Mac Pro 3.3GHz Six Core Westmere Xeon
16GB RAM
512GB SSD
6TB RAID Array with Apple RAID Card
Radeon 5870 1GB GPU
$7524

And of course, you still need a display for either Mac Pro.

[Don Pickett]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

Mac Pro 3.3GHz Six Core Westmere Xeon
16GB RAM
512GB SSD
6TB RAID Array with Apple RAID Card
Radeon 5870 1GB GPU
$7524

And of course, you still need a display for either Mac Pro.

I must be doing something wrong, because I'm not getting that high a price.

And, still not the point: the Mac Pro's price isn't the issue.

[Waragainstsleep]

I would argue that either of those Mac Pros would be comparable to that iMac in terms of performance overall. Just pointing out that many many pros will make do with the iMac in exchange for the massive savings.

[Don Pickett]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

I would argue that either of those Mac Pros would be comparable to that iMac in terms of performance overall. Just pointing out that many many pros will make do with the iMac in exchange for the massive savings.

Which is proof that the iMac is fine for most people's needs. This is progress: we don't need $40,000 SGI boxes to do 3D work any more, either. As most apps (Photoshop included) are still single-threaded, the payoff for multiple cores is really limited to a handful of apps.

And, as we can see from looking at sales data, you really don't need more than a laptop to do most of what people use computers for. Hell, you almost don't need more than an iPad.

[P]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

Mac Pro 3.3GHz Six Core Westmere Xeon
16GB RAM
512GB SSD
6TB RAID Array with Apple RAID Card
Radeon 5870 1GB GPU
$7524

And of course, you still need a display for either Mac Pro.

This is significantly more powerful than the top iMac, though. The SSD is twice the size, there is three times the storage and the GPU is roughly twice as powerful (yes, the numbering on GPUs is confusing). On CPU, the iMac will win on single-threaded and lose when using more than 4 threads.

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by P 

This is significantly more powerful than the top iMac, though. The SSD is twice the size, there is three times the storage and the GPU is roughly twice as powerful (yes, the numbering on GPUs is confusing). On CPU, the iMac will win on single-threaded and lose when using more than 4 threads.

Except the iMac I specified had a 12TB RAID array as well as 2TB internal storage. One is faster on some tasks, the other faster on some tasks. = Comparable, especially for the majority of users. Throw in the massive savings (don't forget the display) and even those doing more multithreaded work will probably consider it better VFM to go iMac.

[Don Pickett]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

Except the iMac I specified had a 12TB RAID array as well as 2TB internal storage. One is faster on some tasks, the other faster on some tasks. = Comparable, especially for the majority of users. Throw in the massive savings (don't forget the display) and even those doing more multithreaded work will probably consider it better VFM to go iMac.

Assuming you need that RAID for video, the Mac Pro will eat the iMacs lunch, considering that nonlinear editing apps are some of the few which can actually use all the cores you throw at them. Add to that the Mac Pro's higher RAM limit and it's a no brainer.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by Don Pickett 

And, as we can see from looking at sales data, you really don't need more than a laptop to do most of what people use computers for. Hell, you almost don't need more than an iPad.

That's basically it in a nutshell: there are fewer and fewer usage scenarios that require people to use a desktop, let alone a maxed out Mac Pro. As has been said before, very few apps take advantage of more than 4 cores and a beefy GPU.

The A5 found in the iPad 2 has comparable (integer) performance to a 1.8 GHz G5. It is harder to compare floating point performance since ARM cpus contain a lot of dedicated circuitry to do things like sound and video processing.

[SierraDragon]

I am strongly on the side of Apple keeping a strong high end tower, but at improved value. And IMO the existing case design rocks and does not need changing. To the extent that a rack mount config market exists for OS X Apple can make a box to fit, but the current MP is an elegant, fully functional not-outdated design that can handle the RAM and multiple drives that a pro workflow needs.

Thunderbolt is great, and allows a MBP to be a DTR box for many usages, but doing what a MP tower elegantly allows becomes a clusterfk of wiring; and 2 RAM slots are hugely limiting, as is non-upgradable mobile graphics.

...as we can see from looking at sales data, you really don't need more than a laptop to do most of what people use computers for. Hell, you almost don't need more than an iPad.

Very true. But increased usage of other devices for mundane computer work does not obviate the need for boxes to do high end work. "Most people" is what all those other solutions are for; the high end remains the high end.

As most apps (Photoshop included) are still single-threaded, the payoff for multiple cores is really limited to a handful of apps.

PS has not really been a hardware-defining app for more than 5 years, so probably we should not discuss it as one. However even PS is partially multi-threaded, as are many other apps - and clearly the trend is to multi-threading for those heavy applications that can. OS X certainly facilitates it.

In any event the value of a MP tower config is not just cores. In fact it is not just any one thing. The value can be cores or heat handling capability or RAM capacity or GPU capability or internal mass storage or driving pro displays. Any user who needs one or more of those things is a candidate for a MP tower.

• Cores: Maya, FCP, video, anything that renders. And background multi-tasking of apps that may be single-threaded themselves can be hugely beneficial.

• Heat handling capability: Many pro workflows that may or may not otherwise demand power. Production scanning comes to mind. All-day-long of any pro graphics work will drive a laptop to hard fans usage.

• RAM: Dirt-cheap RAM means more and more apps are moving to taking advantage of lots of RAM; much more than we see today. And again, background multi-tasking leads to more RAM needs. PS, Illy, modeling apps will all use large RAM amounts with large documents.

• GPU: Various apps like Aperture thrive on strong GPUs. Only MPs allow users to take advantage of the rapid advance in GPU power. Thunderbolt may or may not help, but even if it does it will not be elegant.

• Internal mass storage: Many pros need access to multiple TB of data. E.g. my MP internally had a drive for OS/apps, 2 drives RAID0 for Aperture Library and PS scratch, and a drive for backup; externals for off-site backup. Thunderbolt allows fast desktop mass storage solutions for non-tower boxes, but not elegantly and not inexpensively.

• Driving pro displays: Many pro users (including me) consider the iMac displays unacceptable at any price. MBP matte displays can be paired with a decent anti-glare external display for a 2-display setup, but adding a decent anti-glare external display to an iMac setup is usually visually weird to some of us. I have no intent of making this a glare display versus matte display argument, so please let's not start that debate. The simple fact is that some (not all) pro users consider the iMac displays unacceptable.

Bottom line: IMO Apple needs a high end tower at decent value and I would like to see them do it with the existing excellent fully-amortized MP case design. But please, never again a rip-off like the existing Quad's pricing.

-Allen

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by Don Pickett 

Assuming you need that RAID for video, the Mac Pro will eat the iMacs lunch, considering that nonlinear editing apps are some of the few which can actually use all the cores you throw at them. Add to that the Mac Pro's higher RAM limit and it's a no brainer.

Its a no brainer for people who will genuinely make or at least save money by shaving time off a render, people with a genuine need or high end instead of a perceived need. Likewise for those with the budget.
G5s and Mac Pros were staples of the design, advertising, architecture and print industries and it simply isn't the case any more.

[Don Pickett]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

IG5s and Mac Pros were staples of the design, advertising, architecture and print industries and it simply isn't the case any more.

Uh, I work, and have worked, in ad agencies, printing plants and prepress shops for almost 20 years. It's still a Mac-dominated industry. We have two Windows machines: they're RIPs.

[Don Pickett]

Originally Posted by SierraDragon 

Bottom line: IMO Apple needs a high end tower at decent value and I would like to see them do it with the existing excellent fully-amortized MP case design. But please, never again a rip-off like the existing Quad's pricing.

I, too, hope that Apple keeps the Pros around. However, given the 1) sales figures and 2) the radically improving performance of iMacs and laptops, I wouldn't be surprised if Apple kills the towers.

[Big Mac]

If Apple can sell iMacs, why can't Apple also sell mainstream towers? Why can every other PC manufacturer make a living selling mainstream towers? The only answer I can think of is that the iMac wouldn't be nearly as competitive as compared to a so-called xMac, so the xMac is precluded from the market.

[SierraDragon]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

If Apple can sell iMacs, why can't Apple also sell mainstream towers? Why can every other PC manufacturer make a living selling mainstream towers?

Because the premise about "every other PC manufacturer make a living selling mainstream towers" is flawed. E.g. HP & Dell PC difficulties, and overall flat desktop sales for years. That market space is doing poorly.

IMO Apple is right to go after the high end, but they must improve value.

-Allen