Mac Pro overpriced?

[linuxcooldude]

Nothing goes wrong. Everyone can build a computer these days and if they're gonna work with it it'd be better if they actually knows HOW it works and not just "it just works". The day something does goes wrong and Apple support is bogged down you'll be all alone. Talk about not being able to stand on your own feet!

Geez. It's funny because on this other community for overclocking I'm defending Mac and Apple against stubborn Apple-haters. Here at Macrumors I'm defending PC against arrogant and naive Apple-fanboys.

Maybe I'm schitzo.

Your assuming everyone is their own boss. I'm also talking about bigger businesses that buy these in larger quantities. Some have their own IT departments that handle repairs & returns and don't allow regular employees do repairs. Most of these outfits don't "Build their own" for their employees.

And even if they are their own boss, some repairs are not simple fixes & beyond what they can do such as hardware failures.

I'm defending PC against arrogant and naive Apple-fanboys.

I'm sure the PC fan boys will love you for it.

 

[Tanax]

Your assuming everyone is their own boss. I'm also talking about bigger businesses that buy these in larger quantities. Some have their own IT departments that handle repairs & returns and don't allow regular employees do repairs. Most of these outfits don't "Build their own" for their employees.

And even if they are their own boss, some repairs are not simple fixes & beyond what they can do such as hardware failures.

And what would they gain by having a Mac Pro if that fails aswell? It's still just a computer, it will run the chance of failing too so I don't see your logic. Explain.

I love how I keep getting down-voted

 

[linuxcooldude]

And what would they gain by having a Mac Pro if that fails aswell? It's still just a computer, it will run the chance of failing too so I don't see your logic. Explain.

I love how I keep getting down-voted

Probably because you don't understand business. Companies want Accountability. They don't have time to track down every manufacture to see what part fails. They want ONE company to go to for support, the OEM who builds the computer.

 

[nanofrog]

Probably because you don't understand business. Companies want Accountability. They don't have time to track down every manufacture to see what part fails. They want ONE company to go to for support, the OEM who builds the computer.

I see it more in terms of reducing costs, particularly in man-hours, for both IT staff and the employee that can't get anything done as their system is out of commission.

Granted, even with a single point of contact, that employee still won't be as productive as they usually would when their work computer is running, but it tends to be shorter. Nor does a company consume as much IT staff time chasing down the cause, ordering the parts, waiting for them to show up, and finally getting it fixed.

For smaller companies and independents (no dedicated IT staff), DIY support can be a possibility if they can afford the time and are on very tight budgets (i.e. don't have enough clients to keep them busy 40+ hrs per week per employee, such as just getting started).

For home/personal use, the DIY system and support method is viable for those that don't need that system to earn a living. Tinkering around inside the machine may even be that person's hobby... But it all boils down to the fact such users can afford the time if they wish/need to (hobby and budgetary issues respectively).

Just a thought anyway.

 

[linuxcooldude]

For home/personal use, the DIY system and support method is viable for those that don't need that system to earn a living

I think this is also important point. Are they going to use it as their main work computer?

I do know some people who do build their own computers for work. Using workstation class parts. But he built two identical ones. If one goes out he can continue working till he can fix the other one. Obviously he would provide his own support.

A Mac Pro would probably not be a cost effective choice if someone is not using it for work. Someone who uses it primarily as their only means of making a living is an excellent choice.

 

[Tanax]

Probably because you don't understand business. Companies want Accountability. They don't have time to track down every manufacture to see what part fails. They want ONE company to go to for support, the OEM who builds the computer.

Sigh.

The ironic thing here is that I love the Mac Pro. I've used it in my university's music-studio and I'm considering buying one myself when the next upgrade comes. My posts probably sounds like I'm completely against the Mac Pro.

It's just that you come off as completely rude and totally blunt by saying "Mac Pro is the best". While that might be true, you don't have to shove it down other's throats. We are all entitled to our own opinion.

This is a topic about if the Mac Pro is overpriced or not, not a topic about "Mac Pro is not overpriced, end of story, everyone who says it is doesn't know **** about business". And you know, maybe I don't know **** about business but I do know a thing or two about computers.

You don't have to be rude about it.
Over and out.

 

[wallysb01]

Talk about ego.

Here's the difference - as a true professional, investing one evening of my time building a machine that is 60% faster than a comparably priced Mac Pro allows me to have a 60% greater ROI than you do - every single day, 24/7 that my machine is running.

Time is indeed money, and that's why I can't be arsed waiting for a dog slog machine. My quad core custom PC outscores or is equivalent to 8 core Mac Pro's in benchmarks - all while running OS X flawlessly - including software update - and dominating Final Cut Pro and Aperture.

You're assumptions are flawed. Those benchmarks are largely based on single threaded performance. If you're using a program that is multithreaded, that 8 core probably destroys your 4 core. Also, ROI is not going to be a great tool when the cost of investment is low compared to the return. So you spent 4K to make the same computer that would cost 6K, if the return is 100K, that's 996K vs 994K. The ROI however would make it look a lot different at 249 to 166. You need to find the right tool for the situation.

 

[linuxcooldude]

It's just that you come off as completely rude and totally blunt by saying "Mac Pro is the best". While that might be true, you don't have to shove it down other's throats. We are all entitled to our own opinion.

This is a topic about if the Mac Pro is overpriced or not, not a topic about "Mac Pro is not overpriced, end of story, everyone who says it is doesn't know **** about business". And you know, maybe I don't know **** about business but I do know a thing or two about computers.

You don't have to be rude about it.
Over and out.

Now your putting words in my mouth I've never said or even believe in for that matter. I've never said "Mac Pro is the best" because its not. Each platform has its limitations and advantages.

While that might be true, you don't have to shove it down other's throats. We are all entitled to our own opinion.

Because I'm stating my opinion, does not mean I am shoving it down anyone's throat. Like you said everyone has their own opinion.

Those benchmarks are largely based on single threaded performance

He does reference Cinebench benchmark that does utilize multiple cores.

 

[derbothaus]

PC's are inherently cheaper for same power because you can overclock them. End of story. If I could get EFI to overclock I could get my 6-ccore into the 4.2GHz range on air and then blow away the rest of the assumptions and level the playing field. But I can't.
You can only draw comparisons based on stock speeds because there is no fair comparison. PC wins in value everytime, so what? I am done dicking around with them for the most part, this year at least. I don't have the time to mess with timings and the like. It's fun and I would LOVE it if Apple let you do it but it is bad for their bottom line in a closed eco system. If, in 2 years or so, I am in the market for a new box I look at what apple offers and make a purchase based on that. The 6-core with 5870 was just right for my needs and that's why I have no "gamer" box right now. If they offer 16-core's at 2.0GHz for a Mac Pro in my price range with a 2 year old graphics card I will once again build a PC. Ebb and flow.

 

[wallysb01]

He does reference Cinebench benchmark that does utilize multiple cores.

Even if it was Cinebench, that program relies quite heavily on GPU scores. Its fairly cheap and easy to add/upgrade GPUs on the Mac Pro. I wonder how it would compare if you just spent $300-500 dollars on upgrading GPUs on the Mac Pro. Also, it doesn't take into account RAM. Most of my work, for example, will not work on <64GB of RAM. If I based a home build around a i7 2600K, which can only support 32GB RAM, I'd probably only be able to do ~10% of my work's computational needs. I'm guessing that's what computerpro3 was using. It was probably over clocked as well, which is something even less people are going to be willing to do.

So to make a home build for my work, on the cheap, I'd be looking at a pair of AMD Magny 2.0s (or something similar). You're not going to build a hackintosh out of those, at least not without a lot of effort since Apple doesn't use AMDs. Even once doing so, when needing 96-128GB of RAM minimum, the RAM is going to be at least 1/2 the cost of the computer, no matter what platform I use. Then I'd need to run Ubuntu and Windows? I'm not very excited about that. And with this build I save maybe $800 on a $5K investment? So, is it worth something like 50 cents a day over the useful life of the computer to just have an Apple? I think so. And if I actually wanted to use Xeons, eh might was well just buy Mac Pro. At that point its only maybe 500 bucks difference.

Now I know I'm not arguing with you, its just rather absurd when people make claims of how the "true professional" is getting 60% increased ROI by building a hackintosh. For the exact thing this guy is doing, that MIGHT be the case (though I suspect he's exaggerating pretty much every estimate that goes into these calculations, this was the guy that was basing estimates off buying Apple RAM remember), but its not going to be the case for all of us. The lesson is that you just have to educated yourself to the available options and the true needs of your work. Then you have to weigh your PERSONAL preferences against the cost. Some of us might not want to build our own hackintosh mac pro, even if it saves us $500-$1000. And there is nothing wrong with that. Most of us have probably "wasted" far more money on cars we really don't need, or drinking alcohol, or going on a vacation, eating out, or anything else that comes down to the simple choice of how you value your time and money.

Plus, in my particular case, it wasn't my money, nor my final choice on what system was finally chosen. My boss wanted a system our IT supported (ie not hackintosh or Linux/Ubuntu), even if we could save a thousand dollars and I could probably do all needed maintenance, it was worth $1000 to him to just know this computer will not go down for prolonged periods of time for the next 3 years. I can't say that was the wrong choice and I'm certainly quite bit better informed on our particular needs that computerpro3 is...

 

[CaptainChunk]

PC's are inherently cheaper for same power because you can overclock them. End of story. If I could get EFI to overclock I could get my 6-ccore into the 4.2GHz range on air and then blow away the rest of the assumptions and level the playing field. But I can't.
You can only draw comparisons based on stock speeds because there is no fair comparison. PC wins in value everytime, so what? I am done dicking around with them for the most part, this year at least. I don't have the time to mess with timings and the like. It's fun and I would LOVE it if Apple let you do it but it is bad for their bottom line in a closed eco system. If, in 2 years or so, I am in the market for a new box I look at what apple offers and make a purchase based on that. The 6-core with 5870 was just right for my needs and that's why I have no "gamer" box right now. If they offer 16-core's at 2.0GHz for a Mac Pro in my price range with a 2 year old graphics card I will once again build a PC. Ebb and flow.

But you're also under a big assumption that every PC buyer is looking to overclock their system, when in fact, most people don't even care. So in that sense, a "stock-to-stock" comparison (between a Mac and PC), if you will, would be appropriate.

Further, many Mac Pro buyers (outside of perhaps enthusiasts and people that buy them just because they can) buy them for use as professional workstations. If a business needs rock-solid stability and uptime, overclocking potential is something that likely wouldn't even be considered. Same thing for goes for PC workstations under the same conditions, really.

Many can argue till their heads turn blue over the hardware advantages of the PC platform versus Mac (cheaper, significantly more GPU choices, etc.) but arguing that Macs are overpriced is a pretty futile exercise, IMHO.

One can argue that a Porsche is overpriced (and they probably are), but ultimately, it isn't going to stop the person who really wants the Porsche buy one instead of say, a Corvette.


With that said, I MIGHT explore a PC workstation the next time around. And trust me, I would miss the HECK out of OS X. It's not because I would want to overclock it, but rather, I'd really want more flexibility in the GPU department for the Adobe suite (which I'm taking quite a liking to as of late). I shouldn't have to buy a $800 Quadro 4000 with middling performance, when I can get a much cheaper GeForce card that would run circles around it in Premiere, for example. I think if the Mac Pro wasn't so closed-minded with GPUs, it would make an infinitely more appealing option for creative pros.

 

[nanofrog]

But you're also under a big assumption that every PC buyer is looking to overclock their system, when in fact, most people don't even care. So in that sense, a "stock-to-stock" comparison (between a Mac and PC), if you will, would be appropriate.

This is the impression I have as well.

Though there is a market for OC'ing (gamers/enthusiasts users in the consumer segment), most consumer users, and essentially every business/enterprise customer aren't interested in OC'ed systems for various reasons.

 

[CaptainChunk]

This is the impression I have as well.

Though there is a market for OC'ing (gamers/enthusiasts users in the consumer segment), most consumer users, and essentially every business/enterprise customer aren't interested in OC'ed systems for various reasons.

Yep.

And besides, most aggressively overclocked systems I've encountered are either excessively loud or have elaborate water cooling systems (whose reliability I continue to question).

Overclockers may disagree with this statement because admittedly, I have very little experience with overclocking myself. In fact, I think the last system I actually overclocked was in high school: a Celeron 300A (to 450MHz - remember that?), and that was over 10 years ago.

 

[maconservative]

that's not the point of this. the point is facts to back up the falsity of the Mac Pro's expensiveness myth.

Tell him you are enjoying your computer while he is waiting on defrag, installing new antivirus definitions, or reinstalling his OS for the third time this year.

The "Apple Tax" is well worth it in my opinion.

 

[CaptainChunk]

Tell him you are enjoying your computer while he is waiting on defrag, installing new antivirus definitions, or reinstalling his OS for the third time this year.

The "Apple Tax" is well worth it in my opinion.

Well, to be fair, any knowledgeable Windows user will know to stay away from shady Internet excursions (porn, torrents, dumb contests, etc.) and as a result they will very rarely have to worry about viruses and other malware. Antivirus software for the most part will silently update itself in the background. And it might notify you in the system tray when it's done so. Big deal. I've been dual-booting into Windows 7 (Bootcamp) for two years now and I have yet to have a major system hosing that required re-installation. The point is, Windows 7 is actually quite robust.

File system fragmentation is a very exaggerated topic these days. Every file system becomes fragmented over time (whether it's in Windows or Mac OS) and there has been a lot improvement in the area of file system optimization over the years anyway. Besides, who the heck wants to sit there and wait for a 1-2TB drive full of data to defrag? Ummm...nobody in their right mind.


The "Apple Tax" means something different to me. Being a Final Cut Pro editor (though that may change in the future), I'm pigeonholed into either buying a Mac or building a Hackintosh. Plus, I have become so accustomed to Mac OS, I always feel a bit out of place when I'm booted into Windows.

 

[zephonic]

It's kind of hard to find 1:1 comparos, but an HP Z400 with the W3565, 3GB RAM, 250GB HDD and a nVidia Quadro 2000/1GB sells for $1859.

A similar MacPro (albeit with a 1TB HDD) sells for $2899.

 

[nanofrog]

And besides, most aggressively overclocked systems I've encountered are either excessively loud or have elaborate water cooling systems (whose reliability I continue to question).

I OC'ed mine before I put it to work, just to see how it would do. Went quite well on air (I stay away from liquid cooling).

But the downside was the additional heat (already use a window A/C unit to help out), and figured even though it was stable, it was a waste of additional energy (more power used by the system and A/C for a modest boost in real world performance). Besides, RAID and RAM make the biggest impact for me performance wise with the software I use.

Tell him you are enjoying your computer while he is waiting on defrag, installing new antivirus definitions, or reinstalling his OS for the third time this year.

To be fair, most of the processes you mention are/can be automated to be run at specific times.

In terms of the OS needing reinstalled, there's a couple of things a user can do to prevent, or at least minimize the effort involved (same goes for OS X for that matter).

1. Use another disk as a clone (for the instances a clean OS installation is necessary).
2. As CaptainChunk mentioned, avoid risky behavior, such as porn, gambling, or torrent sites.

As per which OS and system is better, that's for the user to decide. Each person has their own unique requirements, so generalizations that one is better than another aren't really applicable.

Hopefully, they make the best choice that suites their particular needs, which makes it the right choice for that individual. Whether anyone else agrees with it or not.

 

[Tanax]

God damnit. I have to stop watching porn, is that what you're saying? What am I then gonna do on my computer?!

 

[Luis Ortega]

that's not the point of this. the point is facts to back up the falsity of the Mac Pro's expensiveness myth.

Well, to stick to your point, yes, the mac pro is overpriced.
I bought mine at the sweet point of price in 2008. The 8 cores had just emerged and for whatever reason, they were priced very very nicely.
I got a 2.8 8 core for about £1700. Ever since then, the prices have become exorbitant for the specs offered. I would have never bought into the mac pro range after that 2008 sweet spot.
Even today, it's still more machine than what the software can handle, so it's not yet obsolete. When the software goes beyond what the machine can handle, then I'll consider the options available, whether windows or hackintosh or mac.
Today, I would probably opt for an iMac instead.

 

[alphaod]

<snip>

I bought a Mac Pro because:
(1) I wanted one; (2) It does the work I need done quickly and efficienty; (3) I don't have to diagnose my problems, instead I take it to the store; (4) I can afford it.

Build the computer you want. Same thing can be same for cars; I'm sure you can go and tune a car (oh wait, you might need to build it from scratch to make it worthwhile); instead of buying that Bugatti Veyron for $1.7M; you can tune up many cars to be faster and more agile than that Veryon for a tenth the price (if not even less), but does that make it the same thing? No.

 

[auxsend]

I think they are over-priced. Their "Power Macs" have always been quite a bit inflated.

I'm actually a little surprised they sell many of them. I remember when I bought a Power Mac G4 back in the day. It was a great machine, but it was severely over-priced. But I bought it because of software. I was in Pro Audio at the time.

Nowadays though, the advantage of the Mac Pro is falling off a little (maybe a lot). Standard computer components alike, you can get an equal or better machine for less. A ton less if you can build it yourself. And if you're a "pro" you should be able to.

 

[vladi]

I bought a Mac Pro because:
(1) I wanted one; (2) It does the work I need done quickly and efficienty; (3) I don't have to diagnose my problems, instead I take it to the store; (4) I can afford it.

Build the computer you want. Same thing can be same for cars; I'm sure you can go and tune a car (oh wait, you might need to build it from scratch to make it worthwhile); instead of buying that Bugatti Veyron for $1.7M; you can tune up many cars to be faster and more agile than that Veryon for a tenth the price (if not even less), but does that make it the same thing? No.

Out of all those points you made the only one that really matters is #1: You wanted one. That's all it matters and you dont need to justify to anyone.

As far as the #2 dont worry you will do your work as quickly and cleanly on OSX as on Win7 or Ubuntu, its all the same sh*** just in different package.

But on number 3 I don't agree with you. Time you need to take it to the store and back you can use to troubleshoot the problem on internet and in process learn something in case you needed it again. Try it.

 

[vladi]

Here is the difference -- Mac Pros are for Professionals, i.e., people who make $ from their machine. The guys who sneer at people for not "building their own" because Macs are "overpriced" make as much logic as chiding a construction worker for buying a $300 Makita drill instead of a $25 Walmart house brand.

Truth is you really can't talk logic to these naysayers because their own ego is involved. What they don't understand is that for working people, time is money, so on that metric alone building a computer, loading the s/w and drivers, test, troubleshooting bugs, etc. is quite expensive.

If you compare a Mac to a similar spec PC Macs are maybe 10%-15% more. BUT Macs also have 80% better resale value than that similar PC. So in the end a Mac's price tag might be more but cost of ownership is actually less.

All my PCs were custom built for purpose. Some for video/vfx/graphics and some for audio production. All my Macs since 1990 were OEM but if I could choose I would custom build them too, problem is driver support for specific hardware I have in mind (like new Quadro cards, certain SSDs, USB3 controllers, etc).

I have to say I don't agree with you that "time is money for professionals" so they go with clean OEM. Professionals tailor their Macs to their needs too and that takes a lot of time dealing with drivers and tweaking as well. Apple will not install that RME Fireface I/O for you. You have to deal with it and it's drivers and firmware. Just and example.

As a matter of fact there are shops that will sell you all components separately and put them together for no charge, you just have to be informed where to find them.

 

[Hellhammer]

But on number 3 I don't agree with you. Time you need to take it to the store and back you can use to troubleshoot the problem on internet and in process learn something in case you needed it again. Try it.

In case it's a hardware issue, Interwebz won't get you anywhere. If you have a custom PC, then you need to do the hardware diagnose on your own as well, and then send the broken part to the OEM. With an OEM PC, you can just take it to the nearest shop (and most other OEMs offer on-site service for enterprise machines) and they will do it for you. If your income is dependent on the machine, then you really don't have the time to troubleshoot, mail the broken part and wait for the new one.

 

[MattA]

I think that asking the question if the Mac Pro is overpriced is one that is difficult to answer. The problem is, the Mac Pro doesn't compete with normal 'PCs'. It is considered a workstation.

I used to work in the HP Workstation division. When the HP Z800 came out, I specced it out and compared it to the Mac Pro. Price wise, they were almost identical when configured similarly. The main difference was the HP has a SAS controller where the Mac Pro doesn't.

It really isn't overpriced for the hardware that you are getting. It's not supposed to be a game box, it's a Workstation, designed for doing heavy tasks that a normal PC bus would barf at. It uses Nehalem Westmere processors (server processors), is designed for massive amounts of memory, etc. If you're getting a game box, of course it's better/cheaper to build your own. The iMac is more in line with a normal PC.