Metaphysicist
Not Actually Brian Hunter
Is that your way of admitting everything you've been saying about the GPUs is horse****?
Old People and Computers
- Thread starter zitothebrave
- Start date
Metaphysicist
Not Actually Brian Hunter
So you found a more expensive computer with incredibly similar specs (and looking at the prices, no SDD)? That shows that Macs are overcharging for their hardware, how exactly? Are you trying to make my point for me?
Why don't we use this page to build a PC with as close to the exact parts of the Mac Pro as we can? Wouldn't you agree that the best way to see if the Mac Pro is overcharging for it's hardware?
Here you go. (link).
- The exact same processor
- 2x quadro k4000 (about the same price as 2 W7000s)
- 250 GB SSD (Mac Pro has 256)
- 16 GB RAM (couldn't choose 12; shave off $~60 bucks or so)
$3,133. Give or take the RAM difference. Yeah, that's right, the same hardware in a custom-built, generic windows-PC tower is MORE EXPENSIVE than the Mac Pro. Are that's without even considering the form factor, build quality, yadda yadda. Your argument continues to be terrible.
sturg33
I
Words hurt you know...
When we had our argument about constitutional history, I provided you historical evidence of my opinion... You response was "I don't feel like fact checking"
I'm glad you didn't feel the same way about Zito, because this thread has been amazing.
sturg33
I
I think Meta's best point in the thread is "expensive" is not the same thing as "overpriced"
Everyone knows you can get a cheaper computer than a Mac. But they are almost ALWAYS worse. My dad has spent so much money trying to keep his Dell desktop alive and virus free, while my iMac continues to run perfectly.
But having said all that, even if you're right (doesn't look like you are), and you CAN build a comparable computer for cheaper, 95% of the population doesn't want to or is unwilling to do that. And that's not their fault. Why should anyone do all the research into matching the specs to save a few bucks? Not to mention that Mac's are generally beautiful, while every other machine is boring and ugly.
Now, I think you may have an argument if you wanted to talk about iPhones...
Everyone knows you can get a cheaper computer than a Mac. But they are almost ALWAYS worse. My dad has spent so much money trying to keep his Dell desktop alive and virus free, while my iMac continues to run perfectly.
But having said all that, even if you're right (doesn't look like you are), and you CAN build a comparable computer for cheaper, 95% of the population doesn't want to or is unwilling to do that. And that's not their fault. Why should anyone do all the research into matching the specs to save a few bucks? Not to mention that Mac's are generally beautiful, while every other machine is boring and ugly.
Now, I think you may have an argument if you wanted to talk about iPhones...
Metaphysicist
Not Actually Brian Hunter
Tsk, tsk, there's no space in this thread for your selective-quoting trolling. I've got all the delusion I can handle with Zito here.
zitothebrave
Connoisseur of Minors
For starters you don't know the Mac has the same processor since Apple doesn't release which build/model the processor is just it's speeds, which in all honesty means nothing.
And wouldn't a business rather have a much larger HD necessarily than the quicker fetch times of a SSD? I guess it depends on the business of course, but most I've dealt with wouldn't be able to function as comfortably with 250 gigs. Of course I could easily, and I'd love even a 64 gig SSD in my computer because I cloud just about everything. But that doesn't always work for a business. Of course Apple would just recommend an external HD but that's different.
And the computer I build was for a workstation a better computer since you have the ability of having an octocore computer which I believe means your beloved OpenGL would run even better since the additional threads traditionally lead to better graphic and video processing.
BTW since today is my first day off all week and I have an hour or 2 fo down time I'm gonna play around with the iMAC.
So the entry level iMac is 1300, comes with a 2.7 GHz Quad core i5 with 4MB L3 cache, 8 gigs of ram, 1 TB 5400 RPM, Intel Iris pro graphics card. 21.5 inch screen with 1920 by 1080 screen or a pixel density of 102.46 PPI.
Nor to compare to a few other All-in-ones, first HP ENVY 23-c210xt, which is 1,000. comes with seemingly the same processor, i5 2.7 GHz though it has 6MB of shared cache, Same 8 GB ram, 2 TB 7200 RPM HD, Intel HD Graphics, and a 23 inch screen 1920 by 1080 or a PPI of 95.78
So for 300 bucks more you get maybe a better graphics card, slighly higher PPI though on a smaller screen, and a much worse HD both in terms of size and Speed.
Considering for 300 bucks I'm sure you can easily find a better graphics card to replace the Intel one on the PC and that I'm not looking for the lowest price, which it seems like to me HP is running a sale now with 175 bucks off builds over 799 so that woudl fall under that category and drop the price further.
Next up the Dell Inspiron 23 All-in-One Touch Screen. Comes with i5 2.5 GHz 3MB L3 cache, same ram and same HD, same graphics card and screen specs as the HP. It's "market value" is 1218.99 but dell really sells it for 1100. Fully will admit for most PC users this computer isn't a real deal, as you're getting maybe a slightly worse processor, and maybe graphics card (Ihaven't done the research on the Iris vs HD, I'm assuming Iris is probably better but not by much) and you don't gain the better Harddrive you do with the HP, and all you really gain is a touch screen which honestly is that much better for typical users?
Onto Lenovo m93z all i one, for 1050 comes with an i5 2.9 GHz processor, same screen as the HP and Dell, 4 gigs of ram, 500 gig 7200 RPM HD, Integrated graphics (they don't specify but according to Intel the graphics for that processor are an Intel HD 4600). Not an amazing deal either, when compared to the HP. but still at 250 less than the Mac you're getting a faster but smaller HD, slightly faster processor, half the RAM, and same screen and graphic card stuff as before.
And lastly I'll pick on Sony and Samsung, I had to beef up Sony's all in one to make it an acceptably computer, their VAIO tap 21 that I tweaked comes in at the same 1300 as the iMac, it has an i7 1.8 GHz processor, 8 GB RAM, same HD as Mac (though Sony includes 8GB of SSD in it for faster boots) same intel HD graphics, same screen size and resolution as an iMac but it's touch. So you get a worse graphics, but better processor, about the same HD, and it's touch for same price.
Last up is the Samsung ATIV One 7 (huh on the naming), that is coming in at 1100. Comes with an i5 2.9 GHz 3MB L3, 23.6 inch screen 1920 by 1080 resolution, It is touch screen, same HD as Mac. 6 GB ram, And it is touch screen. This computer is a decent deal if you really want a touch screen, as it packs a lesser RAM than the Dell but a a faster processor. Now one thing that sucks about this build of comuter though, is it's an 8GB ram max. Now for most people that's more than enough.
All these computers but the Sony come in at 200 bucks or less than the iMac, all have comparable or better features as well. Some other fun stuff, on the HP, you can bump your processor speed up to a 3.0 GHz for 35 bucks. Actually just for fun, I built up that HP to 1265b including the 50 dollar savings HP had. I wound up with an i5 3.0 GHz computer, 12 GB ram, upgrade to windows 8 pro, or for their current deal price (not including the better deal just the normal HP deal) for 1300 bucks I can get the ENVY Recline 27-k150xt which has an i5 2.9 GHz processor, 12 gigs of ram, a 1 TB hybrid, NVidea GEForce GT730A, 27 inch 1920 by 1080. Meaning compared to the same priced iMac it has a much larger though lower PPI screen, a faster processor, 4 more gigs of ram, a much much faster HD, and a much better graphics card.
If we wanted to compare as well the ultrabook style of computer, the Macbook Air vs a few other ultrabooks.
The air comes in at a grand with an 11 inch screen, a 128 GB SSD, 1.3 GHz dual core i5, 4 GB RAM, Intel HD Graphics,andhas a weight of 2.38 pounds.
For now I'll just do one Ultrabook as I have to run to work for a little bit, I'll come back later. But I'll compare it to the same priced HP Spectre 13t-3000. comes with 1.6 GHz dual core i5, a 13 inch screen same ram and HD is touchscreen, and weights 3.2 pounds. LAst comparison for the day is the ENVY 13-k010 us, which is selling for 780. Same processor as the Spectre, 8 GB ram, 750 GB 5200 RPM HD, and weighs 3.85 pounds.
To those 2 the Mac book is lighter, primarily because it has a smaller screen, one thing to weigh between these 3 computers is that, si the 13 or 14 inch screen of the Spectre or ENVY better for your usage or is the 1 pound or pound and a half weight that much more important? Spectre come with a larger screen that is touch and faster processor for the same price,or you lose the HD advantage but for much less you can get the ENVY with the biggest screen and most ram.
Metaphysicist
Not Actually Brian Hunter
This is a truly absurd contention. Actually it's two absurd contentions: (1) Macs have mystery processors, and (2) Processor Speeds are meaningless. Anyway, here is the detailed spec page (link). CTRL-F "processor type". Now look at the @Xi build I linked to. Notice how they are the same? Yeah.
No. Not any business interested in a graphic intensive workstation.
If you do any kind of intensive creative work, you (likely) want the speed of the SSD first and foremost. The creative content you produce would prboably go on a secondary drive or a server, since you don't need to access it very much. Extra storage space is good, of course, but fast response time (and faster RAM swapping, if necessary) is more important. And external storage is cheap. The same principal applies for basically any field using cumbersome software. Even in the engineering firm I worked in, SSDs were certainly preferred (as ArcGIS and ArcScene took forever to load sometimes, and this was especially obnoxious when they were needed for presentations), and projects were backed up to a server when not in active use.
I'll bite. What exactly is your "business" experience?
Dude, what the **** are you talking about? Are you just trying to redefine the word "workstation" so that it magically doesn't include Macs? Cuz this sentence makes no sense. You built a desktop tower with workstation hardware, i.e., the exact same thing as a Mac Pro.
A computer is a workstation-class PC based on it's hardware and the software it is designed to run. The Mac Pro has a Xeon workstation-class processor and workstation-class graphics cards. It looks like a workstation-pc, it acts like a workstation-pc... it's a workstation-pc. Saying "but my computer is a workstation!!!!" is only emphasizing your own ignorance.
The Mac Pro can have an octocore if you so desire, so if that is the "Zito" criteria for a workstation then you are still wrong. However, the computer you linked was not an octocore; it was 2 linked quadcores (each with 4 threads each). So, the end result is the exact same number of threads as the quadcore Mac Pro (8 threads), so wronger still on that point too.
Of course, THIS IS ALL IRRELEVANT. The question is not "could someone build a better computer than a Mac Pro." The question is "Are Mac Pros overpriced for their hardware?" You are being very transparent about deliberately avoiding that question.
Yeah, that's great, but I'm not gonna read any of that until we finish with the Mac Pro. No more of this randomly fluttering about. You are still denying this in the face of overwhelming evidence, and that's not gonna fly. Why are you ignoring the direct hardware price comparison? It's the only thing that is relevant. You need to explain why the same hardware costs MORE in your custom, PC tower than it does in a Mac Pro. We can talk about the iMac when this point is resolved.
You also need to admit that all that horsesh*t you spewed about graphics cards was, in fact, horsesh*t.
Man I'm getting old. I remember when I had one of the first HP Laptops with a Duocore Processor, and I used to watch the processors work on the task manager and see how they split the processing and then I'd assign certain programs to be handled by that one particular processor only.
Now we have Octo. Holy ****.
Now we have Octo. Holy ****.
Metaphysicist
Not Actually Brian Hunter
Sheeeeeeeet, y'all can git you a dodecacore even.
zitothebrave
Connoisseur of Minors
That's one set of supplies from one supplier. Also there's the very real topic of the fact that the Mac Pro is not out yet. So you could be seeing a drop in cost to other computers because of updated stuff. And you build a computer that was more expensive with "the same specs" I build a computer that was a little more expensive (almost entirely because of windows) that had a better processor and the only knock would be the SSD. Which again, depending on what you're doing may not work.
I think it's fair to say that for some people the Mac Pro would be a better deal than many PCs out there, but for some people the PC would be a better deal. If you're in need of a more powerful computer, then the PC is usually a better cost option, or if you don't need as much the PC is a better option.
YOu're right you can build up the Mac all you want, but you also admitted further down that doing that comes with a cost as Apple addons to RAM, etc. are expensive.
Then there's the segment of buyers who'll be buying the Mac Pro for gaming because they want a better screen than the iMac offers, and the Mac Mini is pitiful. For them you certainly cannot argue that the Mac Pro isn't overpriced.
Metaphysicist
Not Actually Brian Hunter
It was the custom supplier you chose, after failing to find any prebuilt computers that were better deals. This is only a relevant criticism if you can show me that the same parts from a different supplier are cheaper.
It comes out this month. This is not a relevant criticism.
Building a computer with different parts does not answer the question we are debating, which is whether the Mac Pro is overpriced for the hardware. The computer you built was irrelevant.
The question is not whether the Mac is best for every single person on the planet. The question is whether the hardware is overpriced. This not a relevant criticism.
This is not the question. The question is how the Mac Pro compares to a PC with the same hardware. You have provided no evidence that you can get a "better deal" on that hardware in a PC.
This is almost certainly not true, and you certainly provided no evidence to support it. Here's a recent Apple price quote on higher-end Mac Pro with two D500 graphics cards (the equivalent of two w8000s):
I built those same specs on your @Xi builder and it was like $1000 more expensive, even with the Mac-priced RAM upgrade on the Mac Pro. The retail prices will probably be a little higher, but their's no way the PC is the "better cost option" for the same hardware.
This is not a relevant criticism.
You are flagrantly distorting what I said about RAM. I said you should upgrade the RAM yourself. The "building up" I mentioned was in terms of the processor and GPU. This criticism is nonsense.
That's like saying a car is "overpriced" because all you need is a skateboard. This is not a relevant criticism.
Just admit you are flatout wrong on this point. Maybe you will do better with the iMacs. Also, still mum on your GPU horsesh*t, eh?
zitothebrave
Connoisseur of Minors
That whole post is pointless, I'm not gonna bother wasting my time on a response. I can't believe you're gonna try to pull up a hypothetical build. When the Mac Pro is out and we have benchmarks on the graphics card we'll revisit this. You're assuming you need 2 K4000s to meet the performance of the mac's GPU. Otherwise you're just whistling dixie on something Mac is trying to convince you is a better bargain than it really is. If it's not legit and a regular 7000 gets the same performance wouldn't that be dumb?
Metaphysicist
Not Actually Brian Hunter
This sounds more convincing if you don't immediately follow it with a response. Also, my post was specific responses to your statements, so it is only as worthwhile as the stuff you originally wrote.
Which part was hypothetical? The @Xi build, or the quote from Apple? Both of those seem pretty tangible to me, regardless.
It's pretty lame to talk a bunch of garbage about something, and then when called on it say "uh, it's impossible to know, so you are wrong."
I am also assuming NOTHING about the performance. I have no idea how these things will perform, and neither do you. The question we are debating is price, and whether the Mac Pro is overpriced compared to its constituent parts. I understand that you want to talk about other things, because you can't win the argument on this point, but that desire does not make those other things relevant.
Anyway, I guess I am making an assumption about the price of the GPUs, but's it more like an educated guess based on the specs of the card. The K4000 and the W7000 are peer cards that cost about the same, and the mac has effectively 2 modified W7000s. I only put 2 K4000s on the @Xi build because there was no option for adding dual W7000s, and since we were only talking about price, it doesn't matter. If you have any real evidence to suggest that I'm way off on my valuation of the cards, I'd be glad to listen to it. But I find that doubtful since everything you've said about GPUs in this thread has been less than worthless.
No one is calling the Mac Pro a "bargain." I'm just saying it's not overpriced, which you keep claiming without any evidence.
I think it's pretty unlikely that 2 modified W7000s get the same performance as one unmodified card. I mean, AMD could have made them super sh*tty for some reason, but that would be a baseless assumption.
Still not admitting your GPU bullsh*t. Takes a special kind of oblivious to gloss over something that many times.
Mac sales are only up 29% so far, for this period over last year. Not bad for an 'expensive' and 'overpriced' computer. I would bet apple will be the only PC company up over last year in PC sales.
Anxious to see what the forthcoming 12.9 inch Ipad Pro will do in sales.
You all see the Red Mac Pro did almost $1,000,000 in the Aids auction? Pretty incredible, especially since the dude who won the bidding for it already has the new Mac Pro.
Anxious to see what the forthcoming 12.9 inch Ipad Pro will do in sales.
You all see the Red Mac Pro did almost $1,000,000 in the Aids auction? Pretty incredible, especially since the dude who won the bidding for it already has the new Mac Pro.
zitothebrave
Connoisseur of Minors
Did you read any of the articles about that?
Here's one writeup
"However, this quarter’s Mac sales gains mostly derive from iMac supply issues that Apple faced during the final quarter of 2012, when the company launched a much-slimmer redesign of the popular all-in-one machines, only to be unable to meet consumer demand. Production problems — especially with the 27-inch iMac — lead to a 700,000 unit shortfall, delaying shipments for more than a month and frustrating many potential buyers. "
Here's an article about Q3 sales
http://money.cnn.com/2013/10/10/technology/mac-pc-sales/
zitothebrave
Connoisseur of Minors
Well those 2 modified units each have lower vRAM. So we'll see. I'm guessing for some processes it will be better for others it will be negligent to worse.
Metaphysicist
Not Actually Brian Hunter
Tell me more about GPUs. Your information on them in this thread has been golden thus far.
zitothebrave
Connoisseur of Minors
Yeah you're not one to talk either bud. I guess going on Google solves all your problems.