> But how does Apple’s flagship desktop system compare to new, much less expensive, AMD Ryzen based systems? Well, according to this test from Tech Guy, extremely well.

That statement doesn't seem to follow the rest of the article. The Mac Pro doesn't compare that well at all. In the test provided it performs significantly worse while being 3.5x more expensive.

The author must have meant to say that the AMD system compares extremely well against the Mac. There's no other way to interpret double the performance for almost 1/4 the cost:

Yeah it looks like the author was rewording that sentence and only got half of it.

Are there any video editors left doing work on mac pros? I know this test was all about photoshop, but when talking about work that really needs to flex system muscle, is there anyone left in the mac pro space? All the illustrators and video guys I know are on pcs now, but I only have a small sphere to pull from.

Is there any sort of cap where the amount of RAM makes no/little difference to video editing? Could video editing be done more efficiently by streaming more data (especially off SSD) instead of loading it into memory or is it a case of lazy developers?

Genuine questions from someone with zero video editing experience.

Well, h.265 encoding alone in software is painfully slow, but better results than using nvenc... I use nvenc, because it goes 5-6x as fast. Video editing is bound to be worse considering the number of layers of audio/video, framing, transitions... with 4K being at least 4x the overhead of 1080p, and needing two screens to do it effectively (full-screen preview on one display), that's a LOT of overhead for a system.

4K is what's pushing GPUs to their limit today, let alone video editing's demands.

Is this a big surprise? A brand new, cutting edge processor outperforms an Ivy Bridge Xeon.

Mac Pros are older hardware right now. They haven't really been updated in four years. I've seen rumours that they're coming out with a new one next year.

Side note: I don't feel like the cost comparison is fair, here. A large portion of the cost of the Mac Pro goes towards the design of the thing. Having a small, arguably aesthetically pleasing object on a desk vs even a Mini-ITX case is a no-brainer for a lot of creative folks. The Ryzen PC didn't include the cost of the power supply, case, OS, storage (seriously one of the big selling points of the Mac Pro is the PCIe flash storage)!

The Mac Pro is definitely a failure, it failed to capture the attention of its target market. Why not focus on the real shortcomings? The high cost is only a small part of why that device will probably forever be known as Apple's trash can that should have seen the trash.

> A large portion of the cost of the Mac Pro goes towards the design of the thing. Having a small, arguably aesthetically pleasing object on a desk vs even a Mini-ITX case is a no-brainer for a lot of creative folks

That's not really fair. They also came up with a cooling design that was pretty quiet with just heat sinks and a fan.

There was no reason they couldn't have made more of the components user replaceable and updated the specs regularly.

Had they kept up a lot more people would have trash cans on their desks. Probably the same for the Mini.

Desktops are probably not very profitable for them anymore, but it seems like making a competitive offering would be good just to lock in their customers.

They've even said they were planning on regular upgrades, but were already at the edge of the thermal envelope with the first release.

You should pay less for that awful constrictive design. Apple's product history is littered with failures due to design-led development. G4 cube, round mouse, tube-shaped Trashintosh. Any time the object is based on a standard shape like a circle, cube, or tube you know it will fail. I'm surprised Ive hasn't done a globe yet.

Don't forget the mouse that can only be charged when it's flipped upside down.

and you can only right click when you lift up your other finger

Well, there was the iLamp (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IMac_G4). Terrible for expansion, but I do like the aesthetic of this one.

>Apple's product history is littered with failures due to design-led development

Also littered with huge successes.

I definitely agree with some of these points—like the round mouse and the G4 cube—but it's kind of hard to take a comment seriously when it includes the word "trashintosh".

The iMac G4 could be described as half of a globe.

Yeah, good point. I don't think it was a particularly good design. I read somewhere that the philosophy was 'not to do the obvious thing and put the guts of the computer behind a large screen' - which is what they eventually did with the next iMac.

This desire 'not to do the obvious thing' is also behind the Trashintosh. And it's also why I'm worried about the future Mac Pro. The obvious thing would be to revive the cheesegrater case, but Ive and co feel they have to do something 'radical' to justify their salary.

They also argued that the optical drive could not be oriented vertically.

I actually really liked how easy it was to reposition the screen frequently, so that I changed my seating position more often.

$320 CPU

$255 mobo

Say $377 for 64GB of RAM ($127+250)

$550 for the GPU

$100 for a PSU

$120 OS license

$100 case

$200 for a 256GB NVME SSD

Just over $2000, with room for argument about whether attractive case design is worth $3200, and how increased productivity due to attractive tools isn't offset by operations taking half the CPU time.

Well take a Mini-ITX case and put a trash can on it, best of both worlds, still less expensive.

The Corsair One case[1] would be a great form factor to rival the Mac Pro and have your own hardware inside, if Corsair ever releases the case standalone. Right now I believe the only way to get it is buying the full computer.

[1] http://www.corsair.com/en-us/landing/one

> I've seen rumours that they're coming out with a new one next year.

No, they're just not releasing one this year. maybe 2018, maybe not. They did make some noises about a new modular architecture, which is cool. but given this year is out they've been at it for 5 years with no end in sight.

I'm giving them the benefit of the doubt with the 5 year effort, the alternative is they finished up the last pro and left the line to die. Hopefully that's not the case, and some brave souls have been working on improvements.

> They did make some noises about a new modular architecture

So, kinda like a PC?

There are modular PCs and there are non-modular PCs. There aren't any PCs which run macOS natively, which is a meaningful distinction to users who want a modular design and their OS of choice.

They recently held a small event for a handful of journalists to discuss the Mac Pro and Pro hardware/software in particular. To sum it up, they acknowledge that they made a bet (dual GPUs) which hasn't paid off (software is optimised for larger single GPUs), and which they can't reverse because of the design they went with (they kept referring to a "thermal" corner, but it's a combination of the new cooling system and the boards in the Mac Pro which means a larger single GPU won't fit).

They also mentioned something interesting which perhaps contradicts some of your post, which is that many of their Pro customers are moving towards iMac as their machine of choice. Not because the Mac Pro is out of date (it wasn't always), but because that suited them better. I think the implication here is that for most Mac users, and most pro Mac users, a Mac Pro is not necessary.

One could argue that people buy iMacs because the Mac Pro pricing does not suit them, rather than anything to do with specs.

One would have to be a right chump to buy 4-year-old hardware at those prices. They were already pretty steep at release time, which you could justify as Apple tax; today they are just stupid. I know I'd rather get a computer that makes me wait a few seconds more for this or that intensive task, than subject myself to daylight robbery.

> A large portion of the cost of the Mac Pro goes towards the design of the thing.

A that's why upon initial release, people did not mind paying the premium that the macpros had compared to equivalent hardware. The macbooks are in the same situation, people are more than okay paying a premium for quality hardware and design.

> Having a small, arguably aesthetically pleasing object on a desk vs even a Mini-ITX case is a no-brainer for a lot of creative folks.

I am not a part of those "creative people" nor do i really use a mac. But a good portions of mac pro user a regular professional, and i have many of those around me. you seems to have a very romantic view of why people use the macpro. The most cited reason is MacOs.

Don't worry! A year from now they'll ship a new Mac Pro that only underperforms the cheap PC by 50% instead of 100%.

It's going to take many years of constant updates of hardware for me to trust that Apple has changed its spots regarding the Macintosh.

I don't think that personal computers are really in Apple's organisational DNA any more as a priority.

I wish Apple would just switch to an itx/matx form factor for "Mac" and "Mac Pro" models... then include a $300 "core" charge for replacement boards... that would allow someone to get a "replacement" mb, and run their own diy system with genuine MB, and cover Apple's dev costs for the OS/updates. Just hammer down on people selling diy macs...

Apple can still sell their own, with beautiful cases, and make even more.. but keep the core very close to stock intel x86 beyond apple's custom firmware. That would keep pro users and diy happy... those willing to pay for apple-care get a current option, and Apple gets "pros" and developers creating content for iThings...

Agreed. There's been some disappointment in Intel's roadmap for Apple, but if you look at the facts as they stand today:

1. iMac - nothing since October 2015 (545 days since update vs. average of 317 days) 2. 12" MacBook - now coming up to a year old (April 2016) 3. MacBook Air - dead (or at least >2 years since an update) 4. Mac Mini - last updated October 2014

When Phil Schiller says that Apple as an organisation is made up of pro users, prior to the long overdue MacBook Pro update from last fall, what do you think they were using? Two year old iMacs? Years-old MacBooks Pro?

And it's not only about frequency of updates.

I only buy Mac Mini - and I don't want a computer that has the RAM soldered down and I don't want anything that prevents me upgrading or replacing individual broken components. Apple's level of lock in is just too much.

I agree with the Mac Mini only, for the reason it can be upgraded. I've added 16GB RAM and dual storage with an SSD & HDD. Runs current macOS great, despite being a mid-2011 model.

Now a refresh that supports 4K & 5K displays along with updated CPU/GPU would be my wish.

This probably shouldn't be too surprising given:

1) Apple's pricing model ('high margin' is an understatement)

2) The Mac Pro GPU was released in late 2013. The 1080 is a much more recent GPU.

This is all before looking at CPU differences.

In the video in the link, it was concluded that the GPU did not affect the test, and it seemed to be CPU-bound.

Actually, to me, the issue is more so that it's not truly verifiable that Photoshop is running the same instructions on Mac vs. PC. A better test would be to use GIMP, and use strace to confirm that the same code branches are being executed.

That said, your statement is correct. A 2017 CPU vs. a 2013 CPU isn't going to fare well, clock-for-clock, given that IPC usually get better. That difference in performance will be exacerbated if the software takes advantage of the newer instruction sets too.

If this filter is written in C/C++, then LLVM would probably have the advantage over MSVC. If this filter is written with Halide, then they should be running nearly identical code.

Also, strace is only really going to show you system calls, which should not be relevant to straight-line code.

Is it a fair comparison if the operating systems are different? A more adequate comparison would be if the Photoshop benchmark were run on a Mac Pro running the same Windows OS via Boot Camp.

Fair but probably not reasonable. Mac Pro users will be using OS X and PC users will be running Windows. This is what most people would experience.

I suspect there isn't any difference but if OS X eats up that much more performance that really should still be another mark against the Mac Pro.

Run the Pro version...

Pro doesn't allow blocking telemetry.

Or how about the AMD computer running as a hackintosh.

AFAIK, OS X doesn't have any chipset drivers for non-intel CPUs.

A couple of grains of salt to take with something like this:

- Much older machines will naturally be slower hardware.

- While “costs more the day you bought it” is certainly relevant, it is not an indicator of what you will spend over the life of the machine. The last Mac Pro I had lasted EIGHT YEARS and it still functioned when I replaced it. The PC statistically will probably be replaced at least once in that time, meaning that a simple price comparison is iffy at best.

Part of the problem is that it isn't an older machine. It's what you get if you buy Apple's most powerful Mac.

Probably shouldn't overlook the fact that you could replace the PC 3 times and still spend less money.

What kind of Hackintosh can you get for $1600? Not as good as the Ryzen of course, but it might be nearly as good as the $5200 Mac.

10.9 is confirmed on a Ryzen wafer. https://www.reddit.com/r/hackintosh/comments/63xw8c/maverick...

Wow - does that mean Ryzen CPUs could be coupled with Nvidia Pascal GPUs?

Mac Pro are not expensive because they are better, they are expensive because well.. its Apple.

Well, regarding the laptops.. I have yet to use a better touchpad... I have a logitech keyboard for my htpc that is close, but the right click region is horrible and after 2 years is "loose"... beyond that, I like the aluminum unibody shell, but wouldn't mind a black anodized version.

The touchpad is what kept me with a rMBP 2 years ago, today, would probably go with a different vendor.

Touchpad on MBP use to be the best as you pointed out but Surface Pro's cheap dettachable keyboard too seems to match MBP touchpad these days.

The question is, "How did he get Windows 10 for free on a custom machine?"

He got 7.8s with an overclocked Ryzen, which is where the "double" came from. And honestly whether you pay for the most expensive model of the Mac or not (I'm assuming you meant 64GB of RAM, not 64MB), the point of the article stands.

Because where's the point in arguing over whether something is a 6x worse choice, or just a 4x worse choice. Meh.

And you're arithmetically challenged. 7.8s is not half of 14.9s.

who is actually buying new mac pros? Please speak up

There are no new mac pros, just old and very old.

(Mostly joking, but there's little justification for a "current" outdated mac pro with the competition offering a much better machine for a vastly lower price. At work, we were told last week that we were no longer allowed to purchase Apple hardware because the cost/benefit no longer justified the price premium. That wasn't from the management either, they were just the messengers; it was from the academic funding bodies which finance our research. And to be honest, it's difficult to disagree with their assessment; they aren't wrong.)

hmm what if you want to develop in a unix-like environment?

Win10 with its bash shell?

I sincerely hope not! As a last resort, maybe. But Macs and MacOS X are hardly the only option when it comes to developing in a Unix-like environment. They aren't even the best choice if that's what you care about (much of the FreeBSD core is nearly a decade out of date--it's that long since it was updated). More likely is running Linux or BSD natively with Windows in a VM as needed (exactly what I do at work right now). Or having the Unix platforms hosted on OpenStack or VMware and use them all remotely from a terminal emulator on whatever system I'm using (I do this as well).

I have a 2011 MacBook Pro laptop and a Dell desktop at work. When the MacBook dies shortly, it'll be replaced by a reused spare Mac or if there are none left it'll be an HP laptop after our IT dept switched from Dell as their preferred supplier. At home, the next will likely be a Dell XPS13DE running Ubuntu.

We already abandoned MacOS X as a server platform for our applications after the demise of Xserve hardware ended Mac as a semi-serious server platform. We're now gradually cutting back the percentage of developer time going into the client side as well. The lack of current OpenGL support, decent graphics hardware, and all the rest, make it decreasingly compelling to support. End users who care about running our stuff will invest in the hardware to run it on, and that's basically got to be Linux/BSD or Windows. Costs a fraction of the Mac hardware and performs vastly better. No matter how nice MacOS X and Mac hardware might be, they have ceased to be remotely competitive on so many levels that it doesn't make much economic or rational sense when it's the inferior option. Sad to say that--I've been using it since I got the first G4 Mac mini, but their current lineup is completely devoid of anything I'd be willing to pay money for.

If you install git for windows, you get msys built versions of most of the unixy tools you're used to (ssh, bash, etc).. that's what I've been using, mostly, under conemu for a couple years in windows... or, I'll SSH into a linux VM, and edit via samba/cifs share. Or, you can use the ubuntu/bash integration in windows.

Or, you can do what I know a lot of people have and run Ubuntu or another Linux environment as your primary OS... it's much better today than even a couple years ago, for most use cases.

Wouldn't you just use Linux if you want to develop in a unix-like environment?

hmm I also use Adobe Creative Suite so no.

Similar situation. I just run Linux in a VM.

Though I think I regret not inverting it and running Windows in a VM instead.

Dell XPS with Ubuntu (they have Precision workstations with Ubuntu as well).

Dual boot into the sadness.

I actually just ordered a refurbished quad-core Mac Pro a few days ago at the discounted price of $2119 + AppleCare + tax; it should arrive tomorrow. I bought my Mac Pro for three reasons: (1) I needed a Mac more powerful than my 2013 MacBook Air and my personal needs can't wait until 2018 (and I'm not fond of the 2016 MacBook Pro; I really wanted something like the 2015 MBP but with support for 32GB RAM, some USB-A ports, and upgradeable storage [I could cope with soldered RAM, but soldered storage crosses the line]); (2) It's my response to the promises that Apple's executives made to pro users last week; and (3) I feel that $2119 is a good deal for a Mac Pro, even though it is three year-old hardware. It's still mightily faster than my MacBook Air.

Now that Apple has promised Mac users that it still cares about the Mac and that it will start focusing on the needs of pro users again, I'm still invested in the Mac platform (I bought a refurbished ThinkPad T430 not too long after the October MacBook Pro reveal to see what Windows 10 and modern Linux desktops are like; I found Windows 10 very annoying, and while I believe desktop Linux has caught up to Windows or perhaps even exceeded it in terms of usability, it still has a while to go before reaching OS X in my opinion), and I'm patiently waiting for what Apple reveals over the next few years to see if it keeps its promises. Hopefully Apple is truly listening to its customers and Apple releases an expandable Mac Pro and a version of the MacBook Pro that focuses on power and perhaps even upgradeability again (like the pre-Retina MacBook Pro models) instead of exclusively on thinness and lightness. I'd love a Mac version of the ThinkPad P series.

I also hope that Apple's competitors don't stand still in case Apple doesn't keep its promises. I would love for desktop Linux to catch up to OS X within the next few years so that way I could take advantage of the wide diversity of PC hardware options. And in many ways desktop Linux is almost there; it just needs some more polish and elbow grease (some nicer fonts would be nice).

I just bought one two weeks ago.

8 Core, 64GB, 1TB, 12GB GPU Ram.

This model of Apple/Microsoft comparison is approximately 5-10 years out of date. MacOs has become a sweeter malware target, and Windows has hardened up since XP. Similarly, OS stability is not clearly dominated by one or the other in their latest offerings.

Haha, maybe I'm out of date. I know that Microsoft has stepped up on their game, but I figure I can share my anecdotal experience. One year ago I was trying to get Windows 10 or something going on my computer as a backup system. So I was googling a relatively popular freeware program (can't remember what it was) and tried to install it from a popular google search that appeared innocent (like softonic or something). Immediately after installing that I've got a computer with pop-ups and toolbars on my browser (just because I forgot to click Advanced install when I was installing it). It was awful - so I figured I can't be alone. It's more of the practice of the software developers on Windows more than it's the actual core of it.

But I don't think the average Joe cares who is at fault - he only knows that his computer is shitty at the end of the day.

I've seen similar malware target Firefox on macOS (been a while, but I have seen it).

Hmmm my 2013 MBA running El Capitan is indeed very stable, and seems to work reasonably well from photo editing to web browsing.

My 2016 MBP I use at work with MacOS Sierra is less stable than the older MBA. On numerous occasions, the laptop screen would not wake from black, requiring a hard shut down. The touchbar is buggy as hell, and the audio driver would stop working randomly. The trackpad is way less reliable for multitouch as well, and greatly reduces the pleasure of interfacing with the device.

Apple need to get their *hit together

> has its hard drive crashed ..... Windows users have to be much more careful about those issues than Mac users.

Hard drive failures happen regardless of OS.

10 years ago, serious academic computational groups were buying Mac Pros because the specs were top notch in terms of the max RAM and CPU speeds compared with the equivalent PC mainboards. They got dated and were also surpassed in a few years. But at the time, they were absolutely purchased for performance. You got a high performance and expandable Unix workstation in a nice Al case which didn't cost that much more than building your own and putting Linux or BSD on it. The cost/benefit was there for people who needed it.