$5,660 Mac Pro Crushed in Photoshop Test by $1,530 PC with AMD Ryzen

And at the end, whatever the hell the ryzen cpu is compared to the xeon, it got the job done faster and cheaper.

The point here is that while no one is arguing that it did it for faster and cheaper - It isn't doing ECC and isn't running the workstation class GPU's among other things.

Again - If you price out similar features the price gap narrows by quite a bit.

This is why Apple really needs to start offering consumer class components in their hardware as by and large most people don't need ECC and workstation class GPU's which really offer little over standard consumer GPU's these days.

If you price out a Dell/HP/Whatever server w/ ECC and two workstation GPU's w/ similar warranty options as Apple the price really isn't that much different. That's why this test is fundamentally flawed. Everyone knows that you can build something for cheaper then Apple/Dell/Whatever.
 
And?

By all means keep going, how else will Apple defend its massive earnings and cash if not through fans.

At this point apple is almost as lazy as blizzard.

I don't think anyone here is trying to love on apple, or even remotely trying to defend over priced server hardware in a trash can.

The point is that the test is fundamentally flawed because they aren't comparing similar hardware.
 
And?

By all means keep going, how else will Apple defend its massive earnings and cash if not through fans.

At this point apple is almost as lazy as blizzard.

A mainstream CPU is not a replacement for a workstation class CPU. Performance is irrelevant, they are completely different classes with different features and it isn't Apples fault that Xeon costs an absolute fortune compared to mainstream CPU's...

If you want consumer hardware then you get an iMac, if you want workstation hardware then its the Mac Pro.
 
I don't think anyone here is trying to love on apple, or even remotely trying to defend over priced server hardware in a trash can.

The point is that the test is fundamentally flawed because they aren't comparing similar hardware.

Quadro cards are slower than Geforce cards as well and cost 4x as much.
Desktops will always outpace workstations parts for a fraction of the cost.

But if you need to render a 3D animation for hours/days on end, you will choose workstation parts (PC or Mac) for accuracy and crash proof reliability.

A digital house can't afford a BSODs and IT repairs from their systems by trying to save money. The project delay costs more than the hardware itself.
 
Comparing a workstation class Xeon to a gaming Ryzen chip... keep up the Apple hate HardOCP...

They compared it though in a business class program, not gaming. Pretty funny when your 8 core business class CPU gets spanked by a regular ass desktop cpu. Nothing wrong with hating on an overpriced inferior product, that people blindly follow because they think it makes them cool.

To me, the Mac Pro is like an old guy in a yellow ferrari with an outdated engine saying "hey guys look at me and how cool I am!, I'm cool right guys?!?"
 
They compared it though in a business class program, not gaming. Pretty funny when your 8 core business class CPU gets spanked by a regular ass desktop cpu. Nothing wrong with hating on an overpriced inferior product, that people blindly follow because they think it makes them cool.

To me, the Mac Pro is like an old guy in a yellow ferrari with an outdated engine saying "hey guys look at me and how cool I am!, I'm cool right guys?!?"

Even more funny that people think Ryzen would actually replace a Xeon in workstation use. AMD would get laughed out of the building. They cant even get the BIOS's right at launch. Considering it cant run OSX, it was never a competitor in the first place.

Unless Ryzen supports ECC memory, it is not superior to Xeon for workstations, end of story. It is quite an important feature for many things. Just because it doesn't matter to kiddy gamers and fat nerds in their mommas basements masturbating over core counts doesn't make it any less important.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I don't mind the trashcan design. They tried something new, it didn't work. New stuff doesn't always work out. So, ok, perfectly fair to point the finger at Apple for that.

Also, perfectly fair to point out that they abandoned the product line. Another very valid concern. And I think a much larger concern than the first.

But I just don't see why Ryzen has anything at all to do with either of those two stories, and honestly imho, just turned some valid criticism into trashy click bait.
They're actually completely redesigning the Mac Pro to be modular and fully upgradeable, with NVIDIA announcing a Mac-compatible Titan XP and also stating they're releasing Mac drivers for all the rest of their Pascal cards, which is great for the Hackintosh community (raises hand) as well as possibly hinting at Mac finally getting beefy cards. They apologized for the neglect of the Mac Pro and are promising to make a beefy new system that's capable of getting upgrades instead of the proprietary pile of crap that is the current Mac Pro. But they said it probably will not be released until 2019 and I'm also hesitant to believe a company that neglected their Pro line for nearly 4 years and are only now working to fix it all while still selling their outdated hardware for absurd prices. Time will tell though.


This is an incredibly stupid test. Maybe pit both against each other doing actual workstation tasks in which the Mac Pro was designed for. I'm not saying it's not overpriced, but this is not a proper test to compare the two ... like at all.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
lol, in mac world that is the way of life, downtime.
Not seeing the joke.


Quadro cards are slower than Geforce cards as well and cost 4x as much.
Desktops will always outpace workstations parts for a fraction of the cost.

But if you need to render a 3D animation for hours/days on end, you will choose workstation parts (PC or Mac) for accuracy and crash proof reliability.

A digital house can't afford a BSODs and IT repairs from their systems by trying to save money. The project delay costs more than the hardware itself.
This is the biggest factor people don't seem to understand ... or even realize.
 
Quadro cards are slower than Geforce cards as well and cost 4x as much.
Desktops will always outpace workstations parts for a fraction of the cost.

But if you need to render a 3D animation for hours/days on end, you will choose workstation parts (PC or Mac) for accuracy and crash proof reliability.

A digital house can't afford a BSODs and IT repairs from their systems by trying to save money. The project delay costs more than the hardware itself.

For 3d rendering you do not need the accuracy that a quadro or firepro card will give you, that would be for medical imaging stuff. I also will just say that i just build a animation company a computer with 8 1080s and the only reason they would have gone with something else would be titans because of the ram. The quadro cards are so much more expensive it's not worth it and there is someone there over night anyway with more critical render jobs.

Back to the mac pros though, the firepro cards in a mac pro are VERY competitively priced and even work out to being a steal based on the silicon it is based on but by now it is very dated and still 100% cost as if it was new.
 
I don't really understand the whole claim that apple designed themselves into a thermal corner. In the last 5 years have CPUs started consuming more power? What about GPUs? Nope the latest generation of of intel and NVidia are more power efficient. The TDP of top end parts has remained largely static for a long time now. Apples claims are simply there to justify them not bothering to upgrade and just selling the same old junk for years. Maybe they even just produced more than they could sell and needed to keep offloading them for years.
 
I don't really understand the whole claim that apple designed themselves into a thermal corner. In the last 5 years have CPUs started consuming more power? What about GPUs? Nope the latest generation of of intel and NVidia are more power efficient. The TDP of top end parts has remained largely static for a long time now. Apples claims are simply there to justify them not bothering to upgrade and just selling the same old junk for years. Maybe they even just produced more than they could sell and needed to keep offloading them for years.

I agree with you here.

I don't see the thermal corner argument as being valid IMO. They are just using it as an easy excuse to move to a new design without admitting defeat.

But honestly the trash can design as cool as it was .. Was not cost effective. While the idea was really cool and the thing was decently small in size for the hardware it had; Everything in it was a custom printed board making upgrades silly expensive, and likely cutting into their profit margins as well.

With the move back to a normal case design (hopefully) and with Nvidia giving proper driver support the mac pro moving forward might be decent again. I could definitely see myself picking up a base mac pro and putting in my own drives / GPU's and boot camping windows for games.
 
I wouldnt count on it. NVIDIA keep pushing CUDA and Appl dont want to know anything about it. Until they get off the CUDA horse, nothing will happen.
 
200.webp


Apple vs AMD debate turning ugly!

Blond lady, "AMD is performing better than your Mac Pro"!

Other lady responds, "Don't talk shit about apple"!
 
I wouldnt count on it. NVIDIA keep pushing CUDA and Appl dont want to know anything about it. Until they get off the CUDA horse, nothing will happen.

They've already said they are releasing drivers for any pascal based card.
 
Not really sure this is a relevant test. Yes - You can build a consumer platform PC that may be faster then a MacPro - But if you build a PC with a similar Xeon motherboard w/ ECC support and price out two firepros.. The price gap closes fast.

I personally would never buy a MacPro in current form; I don't need workstation GPU's or ECC memory. However, there are some people that want/need this type of hardware and that hardware comes at a cost.

I will say that Apple would be smart to offer a Mac Pro'sumer model that basically is running a standard consumer platform motherboard, CPU, memory, and GPU's. You'd still be paying Apple tax, but at least you could get hardware that is more relevant to most users.

Comparing a workstation class Xeon to a gaming Ryzen chip... keep up the Apple hate HardOCP...

You both seem to be lacking the ability to understand logic by any means don't you. This is a perfectly valid test. Does the higher price of a Mac Pro get you better performance, or in other words is the cost of performance per dollar equal between a Mac and PC. The answer very loudly is no. You can spend less and buy a PC and get a much better solution. Lets say some new car hit the market for $50,000 and there was a comparison of it vs a high end multimillion dollar sports car and it beat it or at worse was equal to it in every area. Lets say the 0-60 was .5 seconds faster in the cheaper car, the top speed was equal, most engine specs were equal. So in the end in a straight race the cheaper car won every time. Would you argue that the test wasn't valid because you are comparing a cheaper car vs a high ends sports car? Or that test isn't valid because the cheaper car doesn't have the name of the higher end car? In the end if the cheaper car is faster then it is faster. The same here. If the cheaper PC can run a program better then it runs it better and does so cheaper. So you can spend more and buy Apple computers and take longer getting stuff done, or you spend less on your hardware and get things done a little faster. Even if in the end both systems broke even on the amount of time to do stuff, you still have the price factor. Which is what companies care about, how can we save time and money, especially because even time is money. So basically you are trying to save money and money.
 
They've already said they are releasing drivers for any pascal based card.

Releasing a driver and Apple selling their hardware in Macs are worlds apart. NVIDIA have been making OSX drivers for a long time. Pascal was the first time they stopped.
 
You both seem to be lacking the ability to understand logic by any means don't you. This is a perfectly valid test. Does the higher price of a Mac Pro get you better performance, or in other words is the cost of performance per dollar equal between a Mac and PC. The answer very loudly is no. You can spend less and buy a PC and get a much better solution. Lets say some new car hit the market for $50,000 and there was a comparison of it vs a high end multimillion dollar sports car and it beat it or at worse was equal to it in every area. Lets say the 0-60 was .5 seconds faster in the cheaper car, the top speed was equal, most engine specs were equal. So in the end in a straight race the cheaper car won every time. Would you argue that the test wasn't valid because you are comparing a cheaper car vs a high ends sports car? Or that test isn't valid because the cheaper car doesn't have the name of the higher end car? In the end if the cheaper car is faster then it is faster. The same here. If the cheaper PC can run a program better then it runs it better and does so cheaper. So you can spend more and buy Apple computers and take longer getting stuff done, or you spend less on your hardware and get things done a little faster. Even if in the end both systems broke even on the amount of time to do stuff, you still have the price factor. Which is what companies care about, how can we save time and money, especially because even time is money. So basically you are trying to save money and money.

Your car example is not equivalent and bullshit. If all that mattered was 0-60 you'd be correct. In this case however while the PC might have a faster 0-60 the top speed is not equal, and the engine specs are not equal. In this case the Mac Pro can go 260MPH and has an engine that can take fleet-grade duty cycles. The PC engine is a riced out turbo ready to blow after 10k miles and is only geared to go 140 MPH. So while the Mac is slower in the single 0-60 test, it is capable of doing something the other can not. Would most people prefer the faster 0-60? Absolutely. Again no one is arguing that.

No one here is arguing the Mac is worth the money. We are simply stating the objective fact that the Mac Pro is running a Xeon chipset w/ ECC and has dual workstation Firepro's. This is largely, on top of the traditional Apple tax, why the price is so inflated over standard PC consumer-grade components.

The PC in the test does not have these things, and there are very particular environments where it doesn't matter that the PC is twice as fast - Without ECC it's a no go for some work cases.
 
Last edited:
Sugar free Sugar.. must be an empty bag!!

Wow.. what a shocker, my mind is blown.. a 2017 Ryzen CPU with the IPC of a Haswell beats an Ivy-Bridge-EP CPU released in Sept, 2013. Say it ain't so!!

I know most of you here think that the Mac Pro should now be (or always should have been) relegated to only this use..

Mac_pro_trash_can_toss.png


but at it's introduction, 3.25 years ago, it was reviewed very favorably if the Engadget & ArsTechnica reviews are fair representatives of the thought at the time..

Engadget had "small, fast and in a league of its own" in it's title and concluded "new Mac Pro is a serious improvement over the old model in every way" while ArsTechnica concluded "Apple has made an exceptional machine for the future that just needs some tweaks to really shine. It's a machine the company could be proud of at any point in its history" Unless these two reviews weren't typical of the tech press, then it seems the trash can Mac Pro was warmly received when it was first introduced.

Yes, the past 3 years haven't been kind to the Mac Pro but has it been kind to ANY 2013 era rig?? Wonder how that Ryzen 1700 machine would do against the 2013 MaximumPC Dream Machine that had a similar CPU to the Mac Pro (3970X Ivy Bridge 6 cores/12 thread released Nov, 2012) at a price of $16,585 (around $12,500 without the monitor, keyboard & mouse)

mpcdm3.jpg

(larger pic here)

MPC's Dream Machine souped up their 3970X to 5.0GHz so not quite a fair fight unless the Ryzen as also overclocked to the 4.0GHz it seems to top out at. And since the DM2013's four Titans wouldn't be a factor in this guy's testing, the question would be does a 5.0GHz 6 core/12 thread 3970X beat a 4.0GHz 8 core/16 thread Ryzen 1700. Probably some disagreement on which would be faster but probably close either way. In stock form, I do believe the Ryzen would beat the 3970X.. but if the 3970X has a 1GHz advantage, even with less cores & threads, less likely the Ryzen would win. (Miracle worker Kyle, is this a benchmark you can magically produce for us PLEASE!!)

So comparing a 2017 rig against a 2013 rig is somewhat bias since CPUs usually are faster over time. I also have a problem with comparing just 1 benchmark, and Photoshop in particular. The Mac Pro was mainly built for one purpose.. to run Final Cut Pro X. From Apple.. "It’s like Mac Pro and Final Cut Pro X were made for each other — because they are made for each other." Apparently Ars & Engadget thought this as well as the ArsTechnica article just briefly has a small Photoshop benchmark which has the Mac Pro beating 3 other machines but says that it was made for "OpenCL, 4K, and Final Cut Pro X workflows".. and the Engadget review doesn't mention Photoshop at all.

Not pro or con thoughts from me about the Mac Pro.. I just think the article wasn't a true representative on whether that Ryzen rig is better than a Mac Pro. When has Kyle/Paul/Brent/ et al. ever written an article on here with just one benchmark in it and then made definitive conclusions based on just that one benchmark?? Food for thought.. or an empty bag of sugar free sugar.. you decide!!
 
Professionals (there's a caveat in the next paragraph so pay attention) don't fucking play games, so those types of benchmarks are useless. Professionals use Photoshop and they use it to make money by using it so, every second and every dollar counts - if they can do turn-around faster and get their finished photographic work done to the clients faster they can get paid faster and get more work and make more money, etc etc.

Why people seem to think gaming-related benchmarks are the end all be all absolute definition conclusion of a personal computer's performance given most if not all professionals - with the exception of professional gamers and also professional game developers, of course - don't actually use their machines for gaming purposes and use them instead for more specific purposes aka making money as a job or even as a hobbyist on the side is beyond me.

The whole idea of the entire article was nothing more than a slam against Apple and there ridiculous pricing for hardware and I understood that before I ever bothered to look at it, so I guess expecting others to take that POV going in was a presumption on my part, silly me. :D
 
Even more funny that people think Ryzen would actually replace a Xeon in workstation use. AMD would get laughed out of the building. They cant even get the BIOS's right at launch. Considering it cant run OSX, it was never a competitor in the first place.

Unless Ryzen supports ECC memory, it is not superior to Xeon for workstations, end of story. It is quite an important feature for many things. Just because it doesn't matter to kiddy gamers and fat nerds in their mommas basements masturbating over core counts doesn't make it any less important.

It was never a competitor... and the Ryzen still spanked it. You seem rather upset though that a cheap Ryzen system beat the crap out of a "Professional" level Mac in a benchmark that is very relevant to what the machine was designed to do. What does core count have to do with anything here? they were both 8 core systems. This test was about Photo Shop, something Mac people generally pride themselves in when it comes to design work. As far as I can see the only person talking about anything "gaming" related is you. Did you even read the article or watch the video? Nothing was ever said about gaming.

If some idiot CEO or hipster employee feels the need to pay that much for Mac Pro... more power to them, I'm sure they will feel pretty damn cool, and look pretty stupid. but they are quite literally paying almost $4000 extra for what amounts to a fancy case with a dinky 4 cylinder engine in it. The humor I find it all of those is that there are way better options of buying professional hardware, than this supposed "Professional Mac" machine.
 
Fanbois like the ones present here are the reason why companies like apple can still rape the rest at checkout time.

Seriously, the same "professional" tool was used in two systems, one cost almost 4 times more and lost.

What the hell does EEC and Quadro and Xeon has to do with the end result?

And lastly, the BS about those specs guarantying stability are just that BS, a well built regular system can also be as stable.

Get your heads out of steve jobs urn.
 
so told tech verse new tech and new tech won?

or are you trying to say AMD is better than an older Intel?

Honestly... I would HOPE that a new chip beats an older chip. duh?
 
It's a pretty stupid article. Apple admitted issues with the thermal capacity of the Mac Pro and announced that it's being redesigned. It's basically a placeholder at this point, for people that just must have compatibility with OSX apps.

I mean they straight up apologized, which is pretty uncharacteristic of any major company, let alone Apple.

It's not an apology if they are still selling that piece of shit at a ludicrous price on their online store.
 
Fanbois like the ones present here are the reason why companies like apple can still rape the rest at checkout time.

Seriously, the same "professional" tool was used in two systems, one cost almost 4 times more and lost.

What the hell does EEC and Quadro and Xeon has to do with the end result?

And lastly, the BS about those specs guarantying stability are just that BS, a well built regular system can also be as stable.

Get your heads out of steve jobs urn.

Workstations will always lose to desktops in speed. Their CPUs/GPUs are underclocked for stability and slower ECC RAM.
WS are built for longevity and to run with minimal failure. You can run them 24/7 in many situations without aftermarket cooling and almost risk of crashing.

There are two different crowds trying to compare to each other.

The real argument here is why Apple is still selling the damn thing. Yes they dropped the price but it's needs to be discontinued. The only reason why it's not, so they don't piss off the people that did buy it.
 
And mac fans cried, and denounced the truth as lies told by the great pc regime. But the truth was there, and the pc users cared not because they already knew the truth that the followers of jobs were blinded by the shiny Apple and so just finished their work first then went out side and played in the sun, which they desperately needed to get some color back into their skin.
:)

I've dealt with Apple acolytes before. Not pretty. The funny thing is they are oblivious the what is possible on PCs. I worked with some media guys who were apple or nothing and the discussion of render times on HD video came up. This Mac rig takes this long, this one takes that long. I advised them you can get a multicore AMD cpu PC that would cut that render time in half for less than Half what the apple costs. They just laughed like I was making it all up. They live in a total fantasy world.
 
For 3d rendering you do not need the accuracy that a quadro or firepro card will give you, that would be for medical imaging stuff. I also will just say that i just build a animation company a computer with 8 1080s and the only reason they would have gone with something else would be titans because of the ram. The quadro cards are so much more expensive it's not worth it and there is someone there over night anyway with more critical render jobs.

Back to the mac pros though, the firepro cards in a mac pro are VERY competitively priced and even work out to being a steal based on the silicon it is based on but by now it is very dated and still 100% cost as if it was new.

I agree with you. I'm going for the 1080Ti for rendering. Some like to complete the workstation experience by using a Quadro card, mainly for working with color accurate images and RAW 10bit video.
 
I don't really understand the whole claim that apple designed themselves into a thermal corner. In the last 5 years have CPUs started consuming more power? What about GPUs? Nope the latest generation of of intel and NVidia are more power efficient. The TDP of top end parts has remained largely static for a long time now. Apples claims are simply there to justify them not bothering to upgrade and just selling the same old junk for years. Maybe they even just produced more than they could sell and needed to keep offloading them for years.

Apple claims the triangle thermal core of the 2013 Mac Pro needed to have equal TDP for the machine to be properly cooled. Any upgraded parts that run hotter or cooler, could cause other parts to overheat.

So yes, a cooler CPU may cause the GPUs to run hotter, and vice versa. That's the thermal corner.
 
The real argument here is why Apple is still selling the damn thing. Yes they dropped the price but it's needs to be discontinued. The only reason why it's not, so they don't piss off the people that did buy it.

Because the fanbois will continue buying their overpriced crap, no matter what.

The "artists" at my company would quit if their beloved trash cans were replaced with a PC workstation, just because tit is running windows.
Granted windows went downhill after windows 7, but at the end of the day, all these things are tools and a person should be able to adapt to the market changes.
 
The removal of the audio jack really hurt performance. They should put that back on with more terraquads of gigaram.


/I'm kidding
//Hackintosh4LFE
 
Not really sure this is a relevant test. Yes - You can build a consumer platform PC that may be faster then a MacPro - But if you build a PC with a similar Xeon motherboard w/ ECC support and price out two firepros.. The price gap closes fast.

I personally would never buy a MacPro in current form; I don't need workstation GPU's or ECC memory. However, there are some people that want/need this type of hardware and that hardware comes at a cost.

I will say that Apple would be smart to offer a Mac Pro'sumer model that basically is running a standard consumer platform motherboard, CPU, memory, and GPU's. You'd still be paying Apple tax, but at least you could get hardware that is more relevant to most users.

Great post, I think a lot of people miss that part. I ended up going with a surface studio for the same reason. Buy a 28" 5k wacom, build an ultra sff i7 and find a mobo that will support 960/1060m it added up to damn fast. And then all the support is on me! No thanks!
 
Back
Top