Who's buying the Mac Pro?

By Josh Fruhlinger  7 comments

So I got an email today from my Matt, my techie friend. He had been pricing Macs on the Apple Store Web site, as many of us are wont to do. For me, mobility has become paramount of late, so I generally am scoping out my ludicrously tricked out fantasy laptop. Matt has a netbook for when he travels, though, and so he was taking a look at the desktop machines, and he noticed some intriguing overlap between product lines.

Right now, the high-end iMac -- with a 2.8 GHz quad-core chip, 4 GB of RAM, and a 1 TB hard drive -- will set you back $2,199. Meanwhile, a low-end Mac Pro with a 2.66 GHz quad-core chip, 3 GB of RAM, and a 640 GB hard drive costs $300 more -- and that's without a monitor. You could add an Apple cinema display for an additional $900, but that would still be smaller and lower-res than the spiffy new 27-inch iMac's built-in monitor.

This sort of discrepancy is not unheard of, especially after one segment has just seen a refresh. And those spec comparisons aren't quite apples-to-apples: the iMac has a Core i7 chip whereas the Pro has Xeons; there's also the question of the Pro's NVIDIA GeForce GT 120 graphics card versus the iMac's ATI Radeon HD 4850, which I am extremely unqualified to answer, though for what it's worth they both have 512 MB of VRAM.

But the obvious and reasonable explanation is that Apple doesn't really expect anybody to buy the low-end configuration of the Mac Pro. The Mac Pro's target market is probably among people doing research or running render farms -- people who want to do high-end number-crunching and need tons of hard drive space. They're spending other people's money, which is good because once you really start tricking the Pros out, adding RAM and extra hard drives, you can very quickly get into five-digit territory on the price. The whole point of the machine is to be expanded, either at the factory or after market with obscure add-in boards. Nobody buys the base model Mac Pro any more than they buy a base model car, whereas even the low-end iMac is something that I'm guessing many people actually buy.

Still, it does represent a certain end of an era -- an era that I'm guessing came with decent margins for Apple. At the beginning of this decade, tower Macs were what you bought if (for good reason or not) you took yourself seriously as a computer user. Now if even hard-core enthusiasts like Matt and myself are turning to laptops and iMacs, I have to imagine that the Mac Pro niche is only getting nichier.

Follow Josh on Google+

Josh Fruhlinger is ITworld's associate online news editor.

7 comments

    Anonymous 2 years ago
    Comments are valid today, but let's revisit in February. Apple always plays leap frog. The Mac Pro is a good machine but not exactly a Christmas item. That beautiful 27" iMac addresses both Christmas and falling iMac sales. And most of us know that Xmas is big for Apple. I help: bought two MacBooks for my girls 2 years back and Mom & Dad will get a new 27" iMac this Xmas. After Christmas, probably early February, is when Apple will next upgrade. (Won't Intel come out soon with the next iteration of the i7 by then?) I'm hoping upgrades not just for the Mac Pro, but the 17" MBP and the Xserve as well. Hey, how 'bout a 19" MBP?! :-)
    Anonymous 2 years ago
    At one brief moment in time the fastest Mac was the Pismo i.e. Powerbook G3 @ 500 MHz.
    Anonymous 2 years ago
    I had to make a purchase decision for my university and the Mac Pro was definitely a strong contender. However, we went with the new Dell PowerEdge t710. It's just as beautifully designed as the Mac Pro, and packs in a lot more power for a lower price. (except the disks, buy the disks elsewhere).
    Anonymous 2 years ago
    High End video and audio editing can explain the Mac Pro. Hardware expandability, not to mention expansion slots to interface with pro multimedia hardware are essential.
    Anonymous 2 years ago in reply to Anonymous
    No, it can't, because Lenovo produces higher-quality monitors with better color presentation and Linux/Windows do everything OSX does but without the need for proprietary hardware.
    Anonymous 2 years ago
    Why do you think know one is buying the base model. I bought one. It is plenty powerful to do anything but gaming and advanced video processing. I use it quite extensively for coding and plenty of multi tasking. The higher spec one didn't seem worth the money when i can buy the extra memory from somewhere else pretty cheap. (2g - 4g) I haven't had the need to yet though.Mac books are better because of the quality of the screen/track pads and all the other lovely touches not the OS in my opinion.
    Anonymous 2 years ago
    At the risk of being the pro-windows, pro-pc troll, why would you shell out for a Mac Pro even if you're doing a render farm? Off the shelf generic pc's, workstations, or servers are more inexpensive, and more flexible. And for a render farm, why not use a linux cluster and save license fees while you're at it?I think the only people buying Mac Pros are Rush Limbaugh and Leo Laporte.

      Add a comment

      Post a comment using one of these accounts
      Or join now
      At least 6 characters

      Note: Comment will appear soon after you have activated your account.
      Obscene/spam comments will be removed and accounts suspended.
      The information you submit is subject to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Service.

      ITworld LIVE

      Ask a question

      Ask a Question