3 ms·
For the same reason Apple is selling an 18-core Mac Pro for $20,000 or whatever the price is now. Some people need that power. It's just that with AMD, you can
by mtgx 8y ago
For the same reason Apple is selling an 18-core Mac Pro for $20,000 or whatever the price is now. Some people need that power. It's just that with AMD, you can get more of it and for a tiny fraction of the cost of Apple's Mac Pro.
- eloff 8y agoThat's just abusive pricing. If you're stuck with Apple software then I guess you have no choice. I have a 10-core 128GB ram workstation that's two years old now, it cost me half as much as a MacBook Pro. I need a new laptop soon, but the difference between the i9 Dell and the i9 MacBook is $800 CAD. Plus the Dell is for sure going to work better with a Linux install, in terms of drivers, which is better for me for work than MacOS. I won't be buying Apple.
- creddit 8y agoHe made that number up. The most expensive possible iMac Pro is ~$13.5K (see here: https://www.apple.com/shop/buy-mac/imac-pro/3.2ghz-1tb https://www.apple.com/shop/buy-mac/imac-pro/3.2ghz-1tb). Note that most price comparisons show that the iMac Pro is actually quite the deal.
- dragontamer 8y agoiMac Pro is cost-effective on the Intel platform. But AMD's Threadripper is the topic of discussion here, and I think for most people... those 32-cores for $1799 is just a way better deal. Do remember that this 32-core Threadripper offers quad-channel memory, 64x PCIe lanes, and ECC support (!!). So the Threadripper offers pretty much everything a professional wants. The only downside to Threadripper is that its multi-threaded performance is similar to a quad-socket / quad-CPU design (~200ns to ~300ns latencies to memory, depending on how many "hops" and NUMA nodes and stuff...). So audio professionals and gamers who are IIRC latency bound may want to stick to Intel. But almost everyone else is bandwidth bound (video editing, 3d rendering, compilers, web servers, LT Spice...). So most professionals would probably prefer a Threadripper.
- creddit 8y agoThreadripper is the broadest point of topic in the thread. Down here, the question was about if Apple actually charged $20K for a particular computer. They don't and given the particular hardware choices, the iMac Pro is a great deal. The ideal choice of hardware is a separate topic.
- jeswin 8y agoStill heavily marked up. 32GB ECC isn't $800. Current nVidia GPUs will run circles around those Radeons - even more so with Turing.
- creddit 8y agoYeah, it's like $500. Of course there's a markup on it. Apple doesn't make money by assembling parts at stock prices and then sending it to you. It's the case that building a comparable computer (in terms of the specific iMac Pro hardware) is very similarly priced BUT requires labor, the purchase of an OS and additional peripherals: https://youtu.be/SONKIJd8xRM?t=187 https://youtu.be/SONKIJd8xRM?t=187 That said, your point that Apple could've chosen better hardware at its price, is reasonable but off topic.
- derjames 8y agoHe did not. He is talking about the Mac Pro not iMac Pro. The former goes from 3000.0 to 4000.0 USD https://www.apple.com/shop/buy-mac/mac-pro https://www.apple.com/shop/buy-mac/mac-pro [update]Sorry he said $20,000. SO you are right
- greedo 8y agoMaxed out Mac Pro is $6K...