Mac pro and XDR display orders available now + unboxing

[williamcll]

Apple's website has stated that Ordering of their new Mac Pros as well as the 5K Monitor will start on December 10th. 

Quote

Apple plans to release the new Mac Pro and the Pro Display XDR on Tuesday, December 10, according to "Save the Date" emails that Apple began sending out to some customers this afternoon.

 

Apple in November confirmed that the ‌Mac Pro‌ and Pro Display XDR would come in December, but until now, the company had not provided a specific date. Apple's emails say orders will begin on December 10, so presumably shipments will begin soon after orders open up.The new modular ‌Mac Pro‌ was first introduced in June at the WorldWide developers Conference, with the machine aimed at Apple's pro user base.The ‌Mac Pro‌ was designed with a heavy focus on upgradeability and expansion, and it features a traditional PC shape with an Apple-esque stainless steel frame with a lattice pattern that maximizes airflow.Internal specs include workstation-class Xeon processors with up to 28 cores, up to 1.5TB of high-performance memory, up to two Radeon Pro II Duo GPUs, and eight PCIe expansion slots, along with an Apple Afterburner accelerator card.Pricing on the ‌Mac Pro‌ will start at $6,000, and will go up based on configuration. The base ‌Mac Pro‌ features an 8-core Xeon W chip.Apple plans to sell the ‌Mac Pro‌ alongside the Pro Display XDR, a 6K display with a resolution of 6016 x 3384 and more than 20 million pixels. Pricing on the Pro Display XDR starts at $5,000, with an add-on stand priced at $999.

Source:https://9to5mac.com/2019/12/07/new-mac-pro-and-pro-display-xdr-orders-start-on-december-10-apple-announces/

https://www.macrumors.com/2019/12/07/apple-releasing-mac-pro-december-10/
Thoughts: I wonder will I get a Louis Rossman video on this desktop. Still No excuse for the display stand price though. What would be interesting however is how well would it compete against a threadripper 3970X build with similar top spec.

[vanished]

They certainly took their time.  I haven't been watching them closely but just assumed on some level that they'd launched months ago, although on the other hand given the lack of information and news, I suppose on some level I also knew that wasn't true.  But hey, it was long enough for someone to copy and start selling a clone of the case for PCs   With any luck, we'll also see a "knockoff" VESA adapter so people will be able to use any stand or arm they want without paying a ridiculous markup.

[GDRRiley]

threadripper should crush this 28 core.

If it wasn't for OSX this would bomb on launch but video editors will end up paying top dollar for these. I just hope they are smart and buy ram after the fact

[vanished]

12 minutes ago, GDRRiley said:

threadripper should crush this 28 core.

If it wasn't for OSX this would bomb on launch but video editors will end up paying top dollar for these. I just hope they are smart and buy ram after the fact

I'm honestly surprised Apple hasn't switched to offering AMD CPUs.  They already work with them for graphics so there's no barrier there, and considering that they can provide such a better experience across the board it makes sense.  I can only assume the decision comes down to years of optimizing everything specifically for Intel CPUs and the work involved with trying to make that change, or the losses incurred if they didn't put in said work.

[Akira Shimazu]

11 minutes ago, Ryan_Vickers said:

I'm honestly surprised Apple hasn't switched to offering AMD CPUs.  They already work with them for graphics so there's no barrier there, and considering that they can provide such a better experience across the board it makes sense.  I can only assume the decision comes down to years of optimizing everything specifically for Intel CPUs and the work involved with trying to make that change, or the losses incurred if they didn't put in said work.

after optimize the OSX with AMD. they will be like. " we cut down the price for our consumer..."

[vanished]

1 minute ago, VegetableStu said:

I wonder if intel has an exclusivity agreement made with apple for being the sole CPU provider in Macs

Wouldn't surprise me, although I don't know for sure.  However I suspect such a thing may not be a secret so it should be possible to find out one way or another.

1 minute ago, VegetableStu said:

and since it's going to be up to early 2022 before intel can make something to answer Ryzen, I wonder if Macs will see a sales hit (or users would consider transitioning away from macOS for the extra performance)

I kind of doubt they will actually.  Because they have a complete stranglehold on MacOS for all intents and purposes (I don't know any professional studios that would do a hackintosh setup), anyone who has decided they need it is at the mercy of Apple for the hardware they're able to use, regardless of what's going on in the rest of the world.  They have to buy what they're given, there is no choice.

[GDRRiley]

31 minutes ago, Ryan_Vickers said:

I'm honestly surprised Apple hasn't switched to offering AMD CPUs.  They already work with them for graphics so there's no barrier there, and considering that they can provide such a better experience across the board it makes sense.  I can only assume the decision comes down to years of optimizing everything specifically for Intel CPUs and the work involved with trying to make that change, or the losses incurred if they didn't put in said work.

when they announced it I was so hoping it came with a switch to threadripper.

[GDRRiley]

21 minutes ago, Wolfycapt said:

after optimize the OSX with AMD. they will be like. " we cut down the price for our consumer..."

we know apple they wouldn't. They would pocket that extra 2-3K and keep it.

[RejZoR]

47 minutes ago, Ryan_Vickers said:

I'm honestly surprised Apple hasn't switched to offering AMD CPUs.  They already work with them for graphics so there's no barrier there, and considering that they can provide such a better experience across the board it makes sense.  I can only assume the decision comes down to years of optimizing everything specifically for Intel CPUs and the work involved with trying to make that change, or the losses incurred if they didn't put in said work.

Probably some binding contract with Intel after the switch from PowerPC to x86. They used Radeon graphics because Intel had nothing remotely as powerful, but for CPU, since they collaborated with Intel to port MacOS X to x86, they probably still need to use Intel because of that even if AMD has better offerings this moment. That's my guess.

[Taf the Ghost]

I still see a cheese grater, lol

[Taf the Ghost]

1 hour ago, RejZoR said:

Probably some binding contract with Intel after the switch from PowerPC to x86. They used Radeon graphics because Intel had nothing remotely as powerful, but for CPU, since they collaborated with Intel to port MacOS X to x86, they probably still need to use Intel because of that even if AMD has better offerings this moment. That's my guess.

Apple has long-term supply contracts with Intel. I've seen no public information on when it's up for renewal again.

[Commodus]

6 hours ago, Ryan_Vickers said:

I'm honestly surprised Apple hasn't switched to offering AMD CPUs.  They already work with them for graphics so there's no barrier there, and considering that they can provide such a better experience across the board it makes sense.  I can only assume the decision comes down to years of optimizing everything specifically for Intel CPUs and the work involved with trying to make that change, or the losses incurred if they didn't put in said work.

I can think of a few reasons why Apple wouldn't switch to AMD besides contracts and the challenge of re-optimizing software.

 

First: AMD's advantages only really hold in the desktop space.  Ryzen still isn't that great for laptops.  Apple would either have to split its CPU offerings (now that's a headache) or compromise its laptops for the sake of its desktops... and let's face it, laptops are the heart of Mac sales.

 

Also, Apple knows it can hold Intel over a barrel and get custom CPUs to meet its needs while still achieving top performance (IIRC, the 1.4GHz Core i5 in entry MacBook Pros is a custom spec).  Yeah, Microsoft got a custom Ryzen for its 15-inch Surface Laptop 3... and it ended up being slightly outdated hardware that wasn't about to keep Intel awake at night.  Apple not only wants customization that provides a meaningful advantage, it wants it at levels I'm not sure AMD is prepared to deliver.  Would it build a custom Threadripper that not only met core count and power requirements, but I/O and mainboard platform demands as well?  I'm not so sure.

 

For that matter, many people seem to forget that the Mac Pro is aimed at pros, and that market is still dominated by Intel.  Threadripper can technically serve as a workstation-grade CPU wth ECC memory, but it's still more of an enthusiast's chip than something you'd expect to find in a deployment at a video production company.  Even if it's just a perception problem, it's still a problem Apple has to consider.

 

This isn't even considering the possible switch to ARM-based systems, although I can't imagine the Mac Pro doing that for a long while if ever.

[descendency]

8 hours ago, Ryan_Vickers said:

I'm honestly surprised Apple hasn't switched to offering AMD CPUs.  They already work with them for graphics so there's no barrier there, and considering that they can provide such a better experience across the board it makes sense.  I can only assume the decision comes down to years of optimizing everything specifically for Intel CPUs and the work involved with trying to make that change, or the losses incurred if they didn't put in said work.

I know a lot of people will scoff at this, but Apple spends a lot of time developing their hardware and software. And it's very possible that when Apple started work on this, that AMD was terrible on the high end. The trust just wasn't there. But hackintosh Threadripper 3 builds will destroy this in all but memory bound applications. 

 

I would be shocked if Apple isn't at least considering the change in the near future, though. 

[Kisai]

10 hours ago, VegetableStu said:

and since it's going to be up to early 2022 before intel can make something to answer Ryzen, I wonder if Macs will see a sales hit (or users would consider transitioning away from macOS for the extra performance)

 

Doubtful. People have been sitting on their 2011 Mac Pros because that's what all their software licences run under, and anyone who switched to Windows had to learn new software unless their workflow was Premiere (Adobe) or Catalyst (Sony) and not FinalCut.

 

In another thread we had a discussion on why Intel was still making Haswell CPU's, well Apple was still selling 2010/2012 Mac Pro which used 6 core E5645 Xeon's which are still not discontinued and those are Westmere-EP from 2010.

 

If your production line requires a Mac Pro, you get a Mac Pro. The problem is that corporate doesn't like running hardware past warranty, so Apple not releasing a 2015 or 2018 Mac Pro in the same form factor as the 2010/2012 model ultimately makes a lot of people nervous. From the people who work on the actual machines, to the people in HR who have to make hiring decisions and IT who have to maintain the machines with no field-replaceable parts (nobody in their right mind would buy a 2013 Mac Pro unless they needed one for themselves on an indie project.)

 

Now if Apple is going to commit to this, I hope they recognize the folly of the T2 chip and make it possible to order in bulk, machines for film production pipelines that allow for field-replacement of the SSD, RAM, CPU, GPU's, etc. 

 

It's like 90% of what most people wanted back in 2013, and had Apple produced this back in 2013, some art houses would never have switched to PC's. Now it's just a matter of convincing those same places that they are sticking with this design and going to release annual hardware revisions that don't break backwards compatibility (within reason.) One of the key sticking points back in 2013, even with the Mac Mini, was that Apple appears to have lost it's mind and doesn't know who it's loyal customers are for it.  It wasn't that Apple users were asking for a white-box PC that runs OSX, but that the Mac Pro allow for field-replacement, customization and upgrades without having to rip out machines from the production floor and reinstall all the software.

 

To make it simple. If a Mac has a serious failure, I want to be able to pull the hard drive and the TPM chip from it and plug it into a working Mac to recover the data and then transfer it to a new Mac. 

 

The office I work at right now, there is an old memo about installing McAfee drive encryption and I warn users that if they install it, there is zero recoverability of data on the machine, and if their machine drops off the domain because they went on vacation, it has to be reimaged without the McAfee software.  Even enabling BitLocker I hesitate to suggest it. Neither of these products protect you from anything but the machine being stolen and the thief just wiping the machine to resell it. It only guarantees that data on the machine isn't retrieved.

 

Apple's T2 goes one further and renders the machine inoperative if the SSD fails. That's a problem.

[vanished]

5 hours ago, Commodus said:

I can think of a few reasons why Apple wouldn't switch to AMD besides contracts and the challenge of re-optimizing software.

 

First: AMD's advantages only really hold in the desktop space.  Ryzen still isn't that great for laptops.  Apple would either have to split its CPU offerings (now that's a headache) or compromise its laptops for the sake of its desktops... and let's face it, laptops are the heart of Mac sales.

That's true, between Intel putting their best tech into laptops - stuff desktop doesn't even get - and AMD's laptops being a generation behind their desktop, this is one space Intel still holds a lead, particularly in the high end space for which AMD has not yet released anything for some reason.

5 hours ago, Commodus said:

Also, Apple knows it can hold Intel over a barrel and get custom CPUs to meet its needs while still achieving top performance (IIRC, the 1.4GHz Core i5 in entry MacBook Pros is a custom spec).  Yeah, Microsoft got a custom Ryzen for its 15-inch Surface Laptop 3... and it ended up being slightly outdated hardware that wasn't about to keep Intel awake at night.  Apple not only wants customization that provides a meaningful advantage, it wants it at levels I'm not sure AMD is prepared to deliver.  Would it build a custom Threadripper that not only met core count and power requirements, but I/O and mainboard platform demands as well?  I'm not so sure.

I suppose in both cases it comes down more to if they could than if they would.  If Apple offers you an enormous contract, it's hard to imagine any company would turn it down unless they were simply unable to fulfill it while also focusing on their other important markets.  Intel is large enough they can do it, but AMD is beholden to TSMC's capacity and is already in such high demand that the lead time is 6+ months, so adding the Apple world to that would indeed likely be impossible for them.  The flip side is you also have to be capable of producing what they've asked for.  I'm sure Apple is well aware of the state of the market at the moment and wishes they weren't suck putting Intel chips in this pro machine right now for all the other reasons that they have to.

5 hours ago, Commodus said:

For that matter, many people seem to forget that the Mac Pro is aimed at pros, and that market is still dominated by Intel.  Threadripper can technically serve as a workstation-grade CPU wth ECC memory, but it's still more of an enthusiast's chip than something you'd expect to find in a deployment at a video production company.  Even if it's just a perception problem, it's still a problem Apple has to consider.

This doesn't make any sense.  Threadripper, or if not that, then EPYC, will seriously outperform and "out-feature" Intel and at a substantially lower cost.  Just because Intel is currently commonplace doesn't mean that's a reason to stick with them.

3 hours ago, descendency said:

I know a lot of people will scoff at this, but Apple spends a lot of time developing their hardware and software. And it's very possible that when Apple started work on this, that AMD was terrible on the high end. The trust just wasn't there. But hackintosh Threadripper 3 builds will destroy this in all but memory bound applications. 

 

I would be shocked if Apple isn't at least considering the change in the near future, though. 

This very likely is another aspect as well as the optimizations and exclusivity deals.  They would have started designing this machine years ago when the market was a very different place and AMD would not have appeared to be nearly as good of a choice as it is now.  Hell the latest threadripper launched only like, what, a month ago or less?  Meanwhile they announced this machine way back in... well, longer ago than that.

[AngryBeaver]

I am still shocked how many people still waste money on apple products. The phones I can see, but the laptops aren't great and you pay a much higher price for that apple logo. This pro is just another example of over-priced crap. I mean 1000 for a monitor stand? Really? I can get a super nice 2 or 3 monitor arm for a fraction of that. It would also look better and be more secure.

 

I mean what does apple really have right now that makes it worth the money. I mean IOS I can again accept as a valid argument... it just works 99% of the time. When it comes to the pc side though you are running a proprietary distro of Linux/unix. You can literally get a Linux distro that almost mirrors apple's OS.

 

I have a MacBook pro dev edition I was given by my work. I have literally used it to prop up a monitor and that is about it. 

 

So I am curious what makes people think that apple laptops/desktops are worth it. Do you really feel they are a good value and are better than many other solutions?

[Commodus]

1 hour ago, Ryan_Vickers said:

I suppose in both cases it comes down more to if they could than if they would.  If Apple offers you an enormous contract, it's hard to imagine any company would turn it down unless they were simply unable to fulfill it while also focusing on their other important markets.  Intel is large enough they can do it, but AMD is beholden to TSMC's capacity and is already in such high demand that the lead time is 6+ months, so adding the Apple world to that would indeed likely be impossible for them.  The flip side is you also have to be capable of producing what they've asked for.  I'm sure Apple is well aware of the state of the market at the moment and wishes they weren't suck putting Intel chips in this pro machine right now for all the other reasons that they have to.

That is a good point.  TSMC already has a lot on its plate to start with (some of it from Apple), let alone millions of extra AMD chips.  Apple is well-known these days for choosing suppliers that it knows can handle high demand, and will even split orders across suppliers if it's not completely confident, like LG and Samsung for displays.

 

I do actually wonder if Apple would want to do a Threadripper workstation if supply and ease of integration/support weren't problems.  Maybe, but you'll never hear an Apple exec talk about that on the record.

 

1 hour ago, Ryan_Vickers said:

This doesn't make any sense.  Threadripper, or if not that, then EPYC, will seriously outperform and "out-feature" Intel and at a substantially lower cost.  Just because Intel is currently commonplace doesn't mean that's a reason to stick with them.

It's hard to say that for sure since there's no straightforward Threadripper-versus-Xeon (or Epyc, of course) comparison for macOS, at least not using optimizations.  My point, I'd say, is that Apple might want the familiarity of Xeons to give it the best chance of getting back into the workstation market.

[vanished]

4 minutes ago, Commodus said:

It's hard to say that for sure since there's no straightforward Threadripper-versus-Xeon (or Epyc, of course) comparison for macOS, at least not using optimizations.  My point, I'd say, is that Apple might want the familiarity of Xeons to give it the best chance of getting back into the workstation market.

Well, we've seen the comparisons on other platforms which I think is enough for two reasons - one, they wouldn't switch unless they developed new optimizations and were happy with the outcome (thus making that a non-factor and making the windows, etc. benchmarks relevant and indicative of the difference to expect), and two, given the enormous lead I think they'd be better off even without any custom optimizations.  But, for the host of other reasons I guess we'll never know, or at least not anytime soon.

 

As for the familiarity idea, I suppose that's possible, but by the same token, anyone interested in that kind of machine is likely paying attention to the market and in the current climate, the word "xeon" likely stirs up thoughts of "over priced", "obsolete", "vulnerable", etc. rather than "familiar and dependable".  In the end I suppose it doesn't matter though because by far the number one deciding factor for people to buy or to not buy these machines is if they need to use Mac OS - the hardware is secondary and they just get what they get.

[Commodus]

1 hour ago, AngryBeaver said:

I am still shocked how many people still waste money on apple products. The phones I can see, but the laptops aren't great and you pay a much higher price for that apple logo. This pro is just another example of over-priced crap. I mean 1000 for a monitor stand? Really? I can get a super nice 2 or 3 monitor arm for a fraction of that. It would also look better and be more secure.

 

I mean what does apple really have right now that makes it worth the money. I mean IOS I can again accept as a valid argument... it just works 99% of the time. When it comes to the pc side though you are running a proprietary distro of Linux/unix. You can literally get a Linux distro that almost mirrors apple's OS.

 

I have a MacBook pro dev edition I was given by my work. I have literally used it to prop up a monitor and that is about it. 

 

So I am curious what makes people think that apple laptops/desktops are worth it. Do you really feel they are a good value and are better than many other solutions?

To start with, the claim that you pay a "much higher price" simply for the logo has repeatedly been proven false.  Apple does charge a premium for Macs, and sometimes its insistence on a significant profit margin plays a role, but it's not extortionate like you claim.  More often than not, the actual complaint is that Apple frequently locks certain form factors to high-priced components (and not just the CPU/GPU/storage) and thus raises the price of entry.  Your beef isn't that the Mac Pro is wildly overpriced at $5,999, because it's not for a workstation in its class -- it's that you can't buy one with a Core i7 and a consumer GPU.

 

Now, the display stand... that's expensive.  But it's too soon to say just how much of a markup it really has, and you don't need it if you have a VESA mount.

 

As for why people use Macs?  A few factors.  On the creative side, it's incredibly quick for video.  Most of the top YouTubers you know probably use Final Cut Pro on Macs simply because they can produce and render a video considerably faster than they would in apps like Adobe Premiere, regardless of platform.  And macOS has long had an advantage in audio, even if it's just due to latency -- it took years for Windows to get close.  The Mac is generally a better place for Thunderbolt-based gear (it helps that Apple co-invented the spec) like displays and storage arrays.  

 

There are also certain integrations that are wonderful if you have any kind of investment in the Apple ecosystem.  I can unlock my Mac with my Apple Watch, use my Mac to answer calls and respond to texts from my iPhone (it took years for Microsoft to kinda-sorta counter this with Your Phone) and use an iPad as a Mac's second screen.  And while Android fans will grouse that you don't have a conventional file transfer option, AirDrop is much easier if you live in Apple's universe.  Yeah, this is part of Apple's lock-in strategy, but it is generally better if you're willing to make that leap.

 

And here's the thing about the Unix aspect (technically it's related to FreeBSD, not Linux): it's a variant that's well-supported by mainstream vendors (both hardware and software) and is easy to use.  I know Linux isn't as painful to use as it once was, but I'd still much rather plunk my parents (who are fairly comfortable with tech, but not enthusiasts) in front of a Mac than an Ubuntu or Debian box -- and yet I could still run a Unix command line script on that machine if I wanted.  There's something appealing to an OS that can appeal to both power users and rookies, yet gives you a viable alternative to Windows.

[AngryBeaver]

27 minutes ago, Commodus said:

To start with, the claim that you pay a "much higher price" simply for the logo has repeatedly been proven false.  Apple does charge a premium for Macs, and sometimes its insistence on a significant profit margin plays a role, but it's not extortionate like you claim.  More often than not, the actual complaint is that Apple frequently locks certain form factors to high-priced components (and not just the CPU/GPU/storage).  Arguably, your beef isn't that the Mac Pro is overpriced at $5,999, because it's not for a workstation in its class -- it's that you can't buy one with a Core i7 and a consumer GPU.

 

Now, the display stand... that's expensive.  But it's too soon to say just how much of a markup it really has, and you don't need it if you have a VESA mount.

 

As for why people use Macs?  A few factors.  On the creative side, it's incredibly quick for video.  Most of the top YouTubers you know probably use Final Cut Pro on Macs simply because they can produce and render a video considerably faster than they would in apps like Adobe Premiere, regardless of platform.  And macOS has long had an advantage in audio, even if it's just due to latency -- it took years for Windows to get close.  The Mac is generally a better place for Thunderbolt-based gear (it helps that Apple co-invented the spec) like displays and storage arrays.  

 

There are also certain integrations that are wonderful if you have any kind of investment in the Apple ecosystem.  I can unlock my Mac with my Apple Watch, answer calls and respond to texts from my iPhone (it took years for Microsoft to kinda-sorta counter this with Your Phone) and use an iPad as a second screen.  And while Android fans will grouse that you don't have a conventional file transfer option, AirDrop is much easier if you live in Apple's universe.  Yeah, this is part of Apple's lock-in strategy, but it is generally better if you're willing to make that choice.

 

And here's the thing about the Unix aspect (technically it's related to FreeBSD, not Linux): it's a variant that's well-supported by mainstream vendors (both hardware and software) and is easy to use.  I know Linux isn't as painful to use as it once was, but I'd still much rather plunk my parents (who are fairly comfortable with tech, but not enthusiasts) in front of a Mac than an Ubuntu or Debian box -- and yet I could still run a Unix command line script on that machine if I wanted.  There's something appealing to an OS that can appeal to both power users and rookies, yet gives you a viable alternative to Windows.

So for the 5999 price for the base model Mac Pro you get:

8c/16t Xeon

32gb ram

radeon 580x GPU

256gb SSD

 

Now I just went to digital storm and customize their workstation with

Aventum 3 pro

i9 - 9980xe - 18 core/36t

32gb 3200 ram

500gb m.2 drive

2tb 7200 drive

2080 TI gpu

 

After removing the custom water loop which drops the price by about 600 the total came out to:

 

 

So now you tell me. That the Apple machine is a good deal. This machine is at least 2x the performance of that xeon. Now I know you will tell me they offer up to 28cores on the highest end one.. well so does digital storm up to 56 cores on the Xeons and despite all of that I am pretty confident doing so would be substantially cheaper than the apple option. Also this doesn't take into account I could have gone with an AMD CPU for MUCH less for even MORE cores.

 

 

Just for giggles I went with the new 32 core AMD CPU. All the other stats are about the same except I did add the 240mm AIO. I also added a MUCH more powerful gpu for workstation loads which was the Quadro p5000 16gb (this costs about 2k on its own).

 

With all of that I came out to 6.6k. So 600 more than the apple machine for 4x the CPU performance and probably 6x the GPU.

 

Code:	2767782
URL:	https://www.digitalstorm.com/configurator.asp?id=2767782

[descendency]

25 minutes ago, Commodus said:

Your beef isn't that the Mac Pro is wildly overpriced at $5,999, because it's not for a workstation in its class -- it's that you can't buy one with a Core i7 and a consumer GPU.

 

7 minutes ago, AngryBeaver said:

Now I just went to digital storm and customize their workstation with

Aventum 3 pro

i9 - 9980xe - 18 core/36t

32gb 3200 ram

500gb m.2 drive

2tb 7200 drive

2080 TI gpu

 

[DildorTheDecent]

>$999 for the stand

 

I can still recall the reaction from the keynote. The crowd did not like it at all.

 

They seemed happy with the XDR price though. So that's nice.

[AngryBeaver]

8 minutes ago, descendency said:

 

 

Alright last go

 

p101 Pro version

Intel xeon w-2195 18c/36t

32gb DDR 4 Ecc ram

1 512gb m.2 SSD

2x 2tb 7200 HDD (4tb total)

1 Nvidia Quadro p5000

stage 2 AIO package for CPU

 

Total is 5904. So this machine is using twice the CPU, probably 5-6x the GPU, and probably has a better cooling solution. For 100 less. Again my argument is that the Apple product is EXTREMELY overpriced. Not even that, but digital storm is also known for being on the higher side of custom ordered machines... yet they are cheaper for much better specs.

 

Code:	2767797
URL:	https://www.digitalstorm.com/configurator.asp?id=2767797

[vanished]

22 minutes ago, DildorTheDecent said:

[...]

They seemed happy with the XDR price though. So that's nice.

Yeah, as far as I'm concerned, that monitor, though very expensive, is completely fair.  If you look around at the $4000 - $8000 display market, it definitely holds its own and isn't just a $800 panel with a stupid pricetag slapped on.  Granted, I am still curious for actual reviews since going by specs is never a reliable way to judge things, but particularly so in the display industry.

[Commodus]

7 hours ago, AngryBeaver said:

So for the 5999 price for the base model Mac Pro you get:

8c/16t Xeon

32gb ram

radeon 580x GPU

256gb SSD

 

Now I just went to digital storm and customize their workstation with

Aventum 3 pro

i9 - 9980xe - 18 core/36t

32gb 3200 ram

500gb m.2 drive

2tb 7200 drive

2080 TI gpu

 

After removing the custom water loop which drops the price by about 600 the total came out to:

 

 

So now you tell me. That the Apple machine is a good deal. This machine is at least 2x the performance of that xeon. Now I know you will tell me they offer up to 28cores on the highest end one.. well so does digital storm up to 56 cores on the Xeons and despite all of that I am pretty confident doing so would be substantially cheaper than the apple option. Also this doesn't take into account I could have gone with an AMD CPU for MUCH less for even MORE cores.

 

 

Just for giggles I went with the new 32 core AMD CPU. All the other stats are about the same except I did add the 240mm AIO. I also added a MUCH more powerful gpu for workstation loads which was the Quadro p5000 16gb (this costs about 2k on its own).

 

With all of that I came out to 6.6k. So 600 more than the apple machine for 4x the CPU performance and probably 6x the GPU.

So you ignored everything I said and decided to post a comparison of highly dissimilar systems -- you even deliberately avoided the Xeon and hoped that I wouldn't notice.  Er, try again.  Yeah, the Digital Storm rig would be faster for gamers, and for pros who don't care about Xeon advantages (mainly cache), ECC memory, pro-oriented GPUs or the fastest possible storage, but we're not talking about a consumer desktop, are we?

 

I also noticed that Digital Storm is still using Xeons from 2017, so that might be why you were afraid of doing a real comparison... because you can't.

 

And Threadripper is great if you value sheer core count above all else, but again, you're not actually comparing like-for-like parts, you're just choosing something a gamer would want and then throwing in a workstation GPU almost as an afterthought.  I'd add that there are all kinds of unknowns you're ignoring, such as SSD speeds, noise levels (important in a media workstation), I/O and of course real-world performance in a given workflow.

 

Also, you do know that CPU and GPU performance don't scale linearly, right?  That having 32 cores doesn't mean a chip is four times faster than one with eight?  And that there will be tasks where fewer high-speed cores may be faster?  This isn't even about disputing whether or not the Threadripper would be faster, it's just that you're operating from a position where you're either ill-informed or dishonest.