nMP vs Workstation Price Comparisons

[VirtualRain]

So you'd pay about $3,489.67 for a 4 core system with 4 empty fast x16 PCI-e 3.0 slots, room for other and legacy storage, with 32 gigs of 1866 MHz ECC ram, 240G of fast SSD storage, a 1600 Watt PSU and 1 GTX 780 Ti SC ACX with 2880 CUDA cores.

Isn't that's the same ballpark as the new Mac Pro? We're trying to find examples where you can actually build the same for less. I continue to be amazed that you can't.

Ps. You may be right about the top config, but that's not what we're looking at here.

 

[N19h7m4r3]

3,489.67 for a 4 core system with 4 empty fast x16 PCI-e 3.0 slots, room for other and legacy storage, with 32 gigs of 1866 MHz ECC ram, 240G of fast SSD storage, a 1600 Watt PSU and 1 GTX 780 Ti SC ACX with 2880 CUDA cores

Isn't that's the same ballpark as the new Mac Pro? We're trying to find examples where you can actually build the same for less. I continue to be amazed that you can't.

Ps. You may be right about the top config, but that's not what we're looking at here.

That's not a bad system, but while the 780Ti is a great card for gaming and CUDA, it's useless for OpenCL work.

Also adding OS of choice? I wish! IVY-EP is not support for hackintoshes last time I checked, and the Sandy-bridge ones have sleep and power issues. Never mind the lack of AMD card support, need better drivers, and drivers for the R9 series.

It's a grand Windows CUDA and gaming system, but it'll be lacking as a workstation for sure, as in many OpenGL, and CUDA specific work Quadros will still get ahead.

I do think you should lower the PSU though, you can save even more money in that regard, and get that better CPU ( which can't be purchased in the UK/IE yet).

This is one build I was certainly taking into consideration, although the lack of IVY-EP is off putting.
http://www.tonymacx86.com/golden-bu...page-iv-extreme-core-i7-3930k-successful.html

Personally I'll wait until Haswell-EP and DDR4 arrives before I make up my decision.

 

[haravikk]

I agree the value packed into the nMP is decent, (and compares favourably with BOXX) but... Is it really true you can't even build a comparable system from parts? That would be impressive.

You probably can, but it also partly depends upon what you mean by comparable; do you mean same or similar operating performance only, or do you take into account factors such as such, noise or flexibility?

The new Mac Pro is a form factor entirely unlike any prior workstations, but should still pack similar performance into that small size. It may also potentially be quieter and more energy efficient.

Flexibility however is definitely something that suffers; for example if you're building a 12-core machine then your own option in the Mac Pro will be a single 12-core processor, which is likely to cost a lot more than a dual 6-core machine would cost.

The D300 and D500 GPUs also have some significant differences to the corresponding FirePros, mainly in terms of VRAM but also in a reduction of core clocks. The D700's have the same VRAM as the corresponding W9000's, but do seem to also have a lower clock if the rumours are true, though not by a huge amount (it's still very fast).

You're also paying for two GPUs whether you need them or not; if your workstation requirements are more modest you could definitely build a less expensive workstation from the same components, but with just a CPU and a single GPU for example.


Apple's definitely offering a well-priced package for the components you get, the main problem is that you have a lot less choice in those components. While upgrades may be possible, I'm not sure they're likely (and would need to come from Apple), so any comparable workstation build immediately has better value from the fact that you can upgrade single components rather than replacing the whole machine.

Also, comparing the new Mac Pro to only a directly comparable workstation is limiting, as you need to compare it to what you actually need. The new Mac Pro for example has only one confirmed internal drive (if it could handle two I would think it would have been mentioned somewhere), which means all extra storage needs to be external, which isn't cheap and comes with caveats of its own.


This all said, I don't believe the new Mac Pro should be compared only to workstations anyway, as it's not really a workstation anymore. I'd call it a professional desktop, basically more like a traditional desktop, but with workstation components; it's clearly not designed to be super flexible and upgradeable, which is something most workstations excel at and are bought for, but it does look to deliver a lot of performance for such a compact desktop. The real question is whether form factor is important to the people who are likely to buy one. Personally I'm thrilled by it, but my only real requirement beyond the machine itself is capacity storage; I don't need super high performance RAID, or super high density storage, just a few terabytes really, which I can handle external though I do begrudge having to a bit. But I don't know that I'm a typical user.

But then, a typical user is likely to be a professional who will easily cover the cost of the Mac Pro over time, whereas my earnings are all over the place which is why it's harder for me to decide if it's worth it or not economically.

 

[fixmdude]

if you're building a 12-core machine then your own option in the Mac Pro will be a single 12-core processor, which is likely to cost a lot more than a dual 6-core machine would cost.

We are accepting any combination of parts you want that equals the same speed and hardware function as the nMP. We have prices for the 4 core and 6 core nMP right now, so that's the effective ability that you'd need to build for less than Apple's price. So far, the only way to do it is to get rid of ECC RAM or use slower RAM, or use an SSD slower than Apple's 1250MB/s drive, or to use a single or a desktop GPU. Prove you can build equivalent speed for less cost by posting your own parts and prices. By the way, a dual 6 core is about 20% slower than a 12 core because the bus between the procs is slower than having all cores on one chip.

----------

Look no further.


8) 2 x 960GB OWC Mercury Accelsior E2 PCI Express High-Performance SSD with eSATA Expansion Ports - each w/ Sustained Data Transfer Rates of up to 823MB/s read and 783MB/s write, Retail $2,558, w/o shipping, @ Macsales/OWC.

So you'd pay about $3,489.67 for a 4 core system with 4 empty fast x16 PCI-e 3.0 slots, room for other and legacy storage, with 32 gigs of 1866 MHz ECC ram, 240G of fast SSD storage, a 1600 Watt PSU and 1 GTX 780 Ti SC ACX with 2880 CUDA cores.

These drives are 823MB/s which does not meet the nMP's drives of 1250MB/s. Since the drive is the slowest part of the computer, this is an important difference. Adding two PCIe cards does not make up for the difference because you can't RAID two PCIe cards without losing TRIM support.

Since we only have the pricing for the 4 and 6 core right now, we can't really compare a 12 core system yet. It looks like your 4 core system is higher than the nMP $2,999 even though it uses slower drives.

Start by trying to get all parts that are as fast for less cost. If you can meet that baseline and then also include other faster parts, then that's a win.

 

[barmann]

It's been mentioned above, you have to figure in the additional costs for peripherals .
In particular when you look at the nMP as a workstation .

Anybody who needs fast storage, and needs to adapt PCIe cards or FW equipped gear, will shell out quite a bit more for what a traditional box already has built in .

There just is no denying it, if Apple had simply put the nMP ingredients in a larger case with additional standard PCIe and drive slots (and make a 2nd GPU optional), a lot of people would save a lot of money .

It doesn't matter how the nMP pricing compares to other offerings with similar specs, if one has to spend a lot to integrate it into an existing workflow or update hardware.
Not to mention the nMP, TB peripherals and Mavericks will take a couple of years to mature anyways .

 

[fixmdude]

It's been mentioned above, you have to figure in the additional costs for peripherals .
In particular when you look at the nMP as a workstation .

Anybody who needs fast storage, and needs to adapt PCIe cards or FW equipped gear, will shell out quite a bit more for what a traditional box already has built in .

Might be, but this particular thread is not about what some people might need. Other people want small and quiet and don't want external peripherals or a large box. There is no right or wrong when discussing opinions, preferences or different people's needs. We can only conclusively discuss comparable system parts assuming that the nMP meets one's needs. In my case, the nMP meets my needs without external peripherals, so the comparison is between the nMP and a built machine that does the same things.

 

[N19h7m4r3]

Anybody who needs fast storage, and needs to adapt PCIe cards or FW equipped gear, will shell out quite a bit more for what a traditional box already has built in .

There just is no denying it, if Apple had simply put the nMP ingredients in a larger case with additional standard PCIe and drive slots (and make a 2nd GPU optional), a lot of people would save a lot of money .

I think if they really wanted to shrink it, an M-ITX/M-ATX sized box would have been perfect really.

It would be just the right blend of both areas.

 

[Tutor]

Wot

 

[haravikk]

We are accepting any combination of parts you want that equals the same speed and hardware function as the nMP. We have prices for the 4 core and 6 core nMP right now, so that's the effective ability that you'd need to build for less than Apple's price. So far, the only way to do it is to get rid of ECC RAM or use slower RAM, or use an SSD slower than Apple's 1250MB/s drive, or to use a single or a desktop GPU. Prove you can build equivalent speed for less cost by posting your own parts and prices.

I think you're missing my point though; if that's all you limit the comparison to then yes, Apple's price is very competitive, maybe even discounted against what you would pay for exactly (or as close to exact as possible to) the same components that Apple has used.

But that's not the point, the point is that with a proper workstation computer you can make whatever sacrifices you want to. If you don't want or need a 256gb 1.25gbps SSD then you don't need one; you're free to go for something that's more affordable if it meets your requirements, or just use HDDs only if you prefer. Point is, one person's "better" may mean more CPU, a better single GPU etc., greater storage capacity versus speed and so-on. It's not just about picking out components that are almost exactly the same.

By the way, a dual 6 core is about 20% slower than a 12 core because the bus between the procs is slower than having all cores on one chip.

That's very much workflow dependent; something that needs to share a lot of data between threads may benefit from being on the same processor, but anything that can be divided up very well, or if you want to run two entirely separate workloads, will run just as fast (potentially better) on dual processors.

But that wasn't my point, my point is that the cost of adding a second CPU to get the same total of cores can work out considerably cheaper than the single super-powerful chip. And even so, compared to other workstations the new Mac Pro simply can't have two processors, while a workstation could (for significant extra cost) have two 12-core processors. It's an option that the new Mac Pro simply doesn't have, and another area where the comparison becomes difficult or very much dependent on what you actually need; not everyone needs two CPUs just as not everyone needs two GPUs, but the flexibility to have one or both is a big draw of workstation computing.

 

[VirtualRain]

I think you're missing my point though; if that's all you limit the comparison to then yes, Apple's price is very competitive, maybe even discounted against what you would pay for exactly (or as close to exact as possible to) the same components that Apple has used.

But that's not the point,

But quite simply, that is the point of this thread. There are dozens of threads on this forum debating the merits and lamenting the design choices of the nMP and it's fit for various peoples needs... This is not one of those threads.

 

[Tutor]

Wot

 

[fixmdude]

But quite simply, that is the point of this thread. There are dozens of threads on this forum debating the merits and lamenting the design choices of the nMP and it's fit for various peoples needs... This is not one of those threads.

Exactly.

 

[thejadedmonkey]

These drives are 823MB/s which does not meet the nMP's drives of 1250MB/s. Since the drive is the slowest part of the computer, this is an important difference.

/snip

That's not entirely accurate. It may be the "slowest" part of the computer, but it's not the bottleneck. Most times you buy a workstation for speed because you're compiling or rendering, and the bottleneck is the GPU or CPU, the hard drive hardly ever comes into play.

 

[VirtualRain]

That's not entirely accurate. It may be the "slowest" part of the computer, but it's not the bottleneck. Most times you buy a workstation for speed because you're compiling or rendering, and the bottleneck is the GPU or CPU, the hard drive hardly ever comes into play.

Obviously, there are different bottlenecks at different times. While I'm actually sitting at my computer I/O and single threaded clock speed are often most important. But we're not here to debate the merits of Apple's choices.

 

[Tutor]

Wot

 

[Gav Mack]

But quite simply, that is the point of this thread. There are dozens of threads on this forum debating the merits and lamenting the design choices of the nMP and it's fit for various peoples needs... This is not one of those threads.

Indeed. I believe the nMP is carving out a new niche, for my first customers want a high powered compact workstation running Windows 7 with hooked up initially to pair of 30 inch Dell pro screens (but soon to be 4k). I can't find a comparable low end workstation with warranty that I will not have to support (aside for OSX and Windows which I can do mostly remote) if a component goes down.

I have no doubt as soon as the Bootcamp glitches are ironed out fully that the can is going to take a lot of the lower end of the workstation market and take a bit out of the high powered PC market just below it. Sadly it's not the market where the tower was..

 

[snberk103]

One other valuable 'feature' of the nMP that isn't being taken into account against the DIY PC workstation is that Apple's nMP has a one stop warranty coverage for SW and HW. I really dislike the price comparisons of matching a home built vs store bought computer (usually showing how much more a Mac costs than a PC). Folks seem to always forget the price of the labour to assemble the PC, and that a DIY PC's warranty coverage is spread out over multiple vendors vs Apple's one stop warranty coverage for everything.

 

[linuxcooldude]

The operative words are "choose," "if," and "homebuilt" and the hidden, erroneous assumptions are that the builder's build was built at home (completely irrelevant to build quality), will fail (guessing) and that the builder lacks the knowledge to quickly repair what he/she built (again, pure speculation).

I'm not even considering the builders knowledge to build or repair what he makes. To me that is irrelevant. What I am talking about is how his productivity is going to be effected in the long run and the turn around to get it back up and running. If its a one man show, he's repairing his own computer he's not getting any work done.

Apple, HP, Dell and others aren't perfect and small businesses can enlist the aid of qualified builders and repair persons should they "choose" to.

Again, to me its irrelevant who builds the computer, whether a well know company or the small business buys from a guy building in his garage. In the latter case, there would still be someone to contact if it does not work within the warrantee period.

Pure supposition

But it still happens.

Warranties that come standard with individual components are included in the prices. Otherwise, see first response.

Thats assuming that person knows enough about computers to make his own repairs or has the time to do it.

 

[VirtualRain]

Building the same for less is an impossibility because, e.g., where's one to get the hacked, downclocked GPUs that Apple will be installing in the nMP. "Comparable" is the key, "People have posted unsupported claims that one can find or build a PC Workstation with comparable components (Xeon, ECC RAM, PCI-e SSD) for less cost than the nMP. I'm still looking for examples." (Emphasis added.)



The builds that I gave as low end examples have twice the amount of ram (nMP quad has 12G, nMP hex has 16G, and my suggested base build has 32G to allow for adding more 16G chips in the future as the cost of ram comes down and not stick you with ram chips for which you might have no use - unlike Apple), but I could cripple it by using 4G sticks to further bring down the costs and use a less flexible (i.e.) less PCIe x16 slotted, lower priced mobo to truly get more comparable to the nMP and further lower the entry cost below the nMP prices for those who want to build themselves into a self-imposed prison. But if you reread my post carefully, particularly regarding the hex core example build, you'll see that: $3,489.67 + $284 = $3,773.70; $3,773.70 < $3,999.99; $3,999.99 - $3,773.70 = $226.29. So, as requested by the op, I gave him a lower priced hex, comparable, but faster, system with more ram. And if you re-read my post carefully, you'll see that I did the same with the quad, by offering ways to cut its cost below $3,489.67 if, e.g., one has other GPU needs. The point I'm making is that I'm don't gleefully counsel anyone to build themselves into a small configuration box simply because Apple chooses that route. For me, flexibility, stability, and performance are key. But I can not only match Apple's configurations with comparable self-builds for less, I can build more powerful, expandable systems for less. The flip side is that I'm not beholden to anyone to fix them because I have gained the competence to do so myself. I know that self-repair (and self-build) is not for everyone, but that wasn't the call of the op's interrogatory.

The Quad/Hex you priced out does have more RAM which is probably a difference of $160 or so (going by SuperBiz), but it's only got one desktop GPU that's not going to provide the same OpenCL performance, so while it's a nice system, it's not really a comparable config IMHO.

 

[Tutor]

Wot

 

[linuxcooldude]

As to ram, for some the difference between starting with a big stick greatly outweighs having many little twigs which will likely be of little use in the future. How many twigs of unwanted ram litter our environment? I have many from my Apple purchases because I didn't want to be further gigged like a bullfrog. I suspect that I'm not alone in having unwanted and unused base Mac memory.

As to GPUs, I'd fear one big muscular assailant more than two baby assailants - numerosity does not, in and of itself, define true power. Please tell me the specifics of the OCL performance of two D300s and two D500s so that we can compare apples with apples. Otherwise, we're just guessing what they can do.

You want to point out the importance of RAM configuration but yet downplay the use of two graphic cards.

You would think considering the cost of upgrading the RAM in most build to order systems, you would want the lowest amount of RAM as possible. Then buy third party RAM at a cheaper cost.

Your saying its just a guess on what the actual performance of using a dual graphic card system but your also guessing they will be using hacked down-clocked graphic cards.

 

[N19h7m4r3]

Currently so only for Macs with Mavericks. Otherwise, not true. No one tool fits all - that's why there's Parallels and VMWare Fusion as well as Linux and Windows.

Actually NVIDIA cards are woefully weak for OpenCL, in windows, and OSX not just mavericks.
The titan which costs significantly more than the AMD 7970 is easily outperformed 2:1 usually.
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/best-workstation-graphics-card,3493-26.html

I also never mentioned the other OS's, and this is about OSX, and the Mac Pro.

It works flawlessly for me whenever I boot mine up with any of the three major OSes: the Win, the OSX and the Linux. Maybe you should check elsewhere.

It does? You should go to http://www.tonymacx86.com/home.php
and show everyone how you managed to get Ivy-EP to work with a Hackentosh without issues.

That wasn't the call of the ops interrogatory. But, sounds like you should stick with Apple doing everything for you. Different strokes for different folks. The path that I take isn't for all.

I'm all for different strokes for different folks, but how is my quoted post not part of ops interrogatory? He wanted comparable workstations in specs.
Not using an AMD card means it's not comparable. By that it would mean your entire System has nothing to do with the original post.

Nice point assertions (if they were true), but has nothing to do with the call of the op's interrogatory. Moreover, not one of the nMPs has Quadros, but if they did I'd be ready to configure a faster, less expensive build.

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/best-workstation-graphics-card,3493-8.html
The GTX Titan is a tad low on OpenGL, while doing much better in CUDA.
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/best-workstation-graphics-card,3493-20.html

Speaking of the Ops interrogatory, your GTX 780 also seems very out of place then, as the nMP is about OpenCL, and a machine using NVIDIA would be at a severe disadvantage in that regard.

In my 30+ years of building systems, I've learned never to cut corners on the PSU if you have a truly internally expandable system.

So you REALLY need a 1600W PSU for the system you specced? Really?
Maybe if you're going to run 4 GTX Titans you'll need it, but otherwise a gold rated 1000W would be cheaper and serve the same purpose with ease.

Also just because it has lower wattage does not mean it's inferior in the slightest.

 

[VirtualRain]

As to GPUs, I'd fear one big muscular assailant more than two baby assailants - numerosity does not, in and of itself, define true power. Please tell me the specifics of the OCL performance of two D300s and two D500s so that we can compare apples with apples. Otherwise, we're just guessing what they can do.

From what we know, the D500 is roughly equivalent to a 7950. According to this Luxmark benchmark by Barefeats, we can expect a pair of these to score a lot better than their NV counterparts. So while we all know that NV is your card of choice, I'm curious why you didn't specify a pair of AMD cards in this exercise (of trying to build the same system for less)? They are more like-for-like, and a pair of 7950s cost about the same as a 780Ti.

 

[N19h7m4r3]

From what we know, the D500 is roughly equivalent to a 7950. According to this Luxmark benchmark by Barefeats, we can expect a pair of these to score a lot better than their NV counterparts. So while we all know that NV is your card of choice, I'm curious why you didn't specify a pair of AMD cards in this exercise (of trying to build the same system for less)? They are more like-for-like, and a pair of 7950s cost about the same as a 780Ti.

At the moment, you can get two 7950's for cheaper than the GTX 780, and they'll be vastly superior in OpenCL, and probably be able to match it in OpenGL.

In fact a single 7950 would most likely out perform a GTX 780 in OpenCL
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/best-workstation-graphics-card,3493-26.html
while being significantly cheaper.

I do certainly hope the folks at Tonymacs can get Ivy-EP CPU's to work with OS X, if I can build a comparable system cheaper, with a better CPU I'd be all for it.

At the moment we can't, and compared to other pre-assembled workstation the nMP looks rather appealing. Depending of course on the performance of the Dxx series GPUs used.

 

[Tutor]

Wot