Old People and Computers

[zitothebrave]

Well if the problem is needing more beer in this world I'm working on that today.

 

[Oklahomahawk]

Well if the problem is needing more beer in this world I'm working on that today.

That depends on the beer in question. What are you making today?

 

[zitothebrave]

Today I'm making a barleywine with some christmasy spices. I'm hoping it will be ready by mid January.

 

[Oklahomahawk]

Today I'm making a barleywine with some christmasy spices. I'm hoping it will be ready by mid January.

Too bad you didn't have this ready by pre-Christmas, huh? It sounds pretty much ideal for the season.

 

[Metaphysicist]

ANy job worth a damn wouldn't let a computer that's not secure hook up to their network.

Talkin' outta yer ass here Zito.

You cannot compare procesors simply on clock speed. Especially since overclockingthem is an option. Unfortunately we have no information readily available on which processor Apple uses in their device aside from their claimed clock speed. Which hell may be overclocked. At that, it's still 100 bucks cheaper and matches it on every other category. Is 100 bucks worth a faster processor? That's for the consumer to decide.(btw for under 100 bucks I found a faster i5 processor online, replace and sell your old one still making out)

Blah, blah, blah. This is irrelevant. You are linking to inferior hardware, which defeats the point. "Maybe apple is lying and maybe you could just replace the processor yourself"... this is proof you know you are wrong.

You do know what the AMD Fire Pro is right? It's a mac branded processor. Basically they take 2 W5000 and make them work together. So 2 400 something dollar cards does not make an amazing computer. Especially since even with their combined mights many NVIDEA cards run faster.Such as the listed 780.

Fire Pro is an existing workstation brand that has nothing to do with Mac. The D300, however, does appear to be an rebranded implementation of one of the existing cards, but we won't know anything for sure until it actually gets released. I've read that it is closer to the W7000 with the VRAM cut, and one of those retails for $600-700.

You are also missing the bigger point with the graphics cards. These are workstation cards, not gaming cards; yes, it would be cheaper to plug in a gaming card, but that's cheating. An Nvidia workstation card is gonna run you a pretty penny.

5. That was not a computer I would build. IT's a custom built computer. I know this is a foreign concept to Mac users because they're used to choosing only which overpriced HD or RAM upgrade they want to do and which Apple accessories they want to pay more for. But you can go to many places, usually places that build PCs, and custom taylor a computer. That's what I did and that company would ship that computer to me.

Just show me the specs rather than rambling them off incompletely and anecdotally. Again, your argument is all about specs but you never actually link to specs. Bad form.

As far as more options, I haven't posted more because I'm lazy and i'd expect you to do a modicum of research into your statements.

I'm gonna go ahead and call this one; Zito has reached the edge of obliviousness. I ask you to backup your own point, and you then provide terrible and incorrect examples. You then follow it up by accusing me of not doing research. Bravo.

I gave you a bunch of chances to provide any evidence that Macs are overpriced for their hardware, and you repeated failed. Literally, all you had to do is link me to a PC with a comparable (or better, since Macs or so overpriced) hardware set, and you could not do that. Your failure makes my point much better than I ever could.

Meta wins.

 

[zitothebrave]

I've talked about 2 PCs that can crush the Mac pro. Several desktops that crush the Mac mini. Your bias in the argument is cute but somewhat depressing. Your only argument is form factor. That's it. I'll link you to some later if you insist on being such a child.

 

[zitothebrave]

This is a computer you can buy for the same price as the Mac Pro

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16883229514

To compare, faster processor with more cache, Twice the ram, slightly smaller SSD but included 2TB HD, and a better graphics card.

http://www.tigerdirect.com/applications/SearchTools/item-details.asp?EdpNo=8176882&CatId=114

That one is noticably cheaper, also comes with a Hex core processor, 33% more ram, maybe a slightly lesser graphics card, and like above slightly smaller SSB but 2 TB HD

http://www.tigerdirect.com/applications/SearchTools/item-details.asp?EdpNo=8573809&CatId=114

Another Hex Core, 33% more ram, better graphics card, same hard drive situation as above

Lets leave Newegg and tiger direct, what do we find?
http://www.bestbuy.com/site/busines...?id=1219065987017&skuId=1823185&st=categoryid$pcmcat212600050008&cp=1&lp=10#tab=specifications

Lets be honest, yeah they're not thousands overpriced, but Macs are overpriced, they may not be as bad at launch but that's their product for a year. So say Macbook launches in September, it's february you bust your Macbook you want a new one, you're overpaying for something.

You want to give all kinds of props for the Mac Mini but the only reason PCs aren't pricing them out of that market is that there isn't much of a market. Apple is in the Market for making cheaper iMacs because people don't want mini-desktops they'd rather have all-in-ones or towers. Afterall if space is a serious concern why not an All-in-one or a laptop? For the small number of worthless scenarios you can come up with where the Mac Mini can have an advantage over a tower I can show you a computer that's way cheaper. Hell for 500 bucks you can get this guy a laptop with similar specs and a screen

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16834230598

 

[Metaphysicist]

This is a computer you can buy for the same price as the Mac Pro

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16883229514

To compare, faster processor with more cache, Twice the ram, slightly smaller SSD but included 2TB HD, and a better graphics card.

Okay, see? Not so hard to link to things, is it? Now let's take a look at your claims:

- Processor? Definitely a win for the Hexcore PC over the quadcore baseline Mac Pro. Per Newegg, the PC processor retails for about $700 more. VERDICT: Big WIN - PC -- + $700
- Ram? Not twice the RAM as you claim, but 16 GB vs 12 GB. Not really a big deal, since RAM is cheap and the differenct between 12 and 16 isn't vast. VERDICT - Slight Win - PC -- +$60
- Storage? The extra HD is worth about $100. VERDICT - Slight Win - PC - +100
- GPU? The GTX 780 costs $520 at newegg. The W7000, which the D300 is supposedly based on, is $700 at newegg. And the Mac Pro has two of those. VERDICT: Big Win - Mac Pro -- + $900

So just based on those factors, the hardware in the Mac Pro is ever slightly more expensive, give or take the final analysis of the Fire Pro that ends up in the Mac Pro. I'd call it a wash, or at best an ever so slight price advantage to the PC if the GPU ends up being a bit cheaper. And that is ignoring that the Mac Pro has a ton of value from form factor, build quality, etc. I see no evidence that the Mac is overpriced compared to this computer.

This goes back to the very first thing I said about the the Mac Pro, but which you continually ignore:

Well, that would be kinda pointless. The Mac Pro looks to be a pretty niche machine for high end multimedia folks, and it isn't even available for purchase yet. It hardly qualifies as part of the normal Mac line anyone here would be considering. It also isn't really a tower in any real sense, and it would be very difficult to find a comparable machine that you didn't build yourself.

Your mistake is comparing the Mac Pro, which is a professional workstation and has two workstation class graphics cards, to gaming rigs with a single, cheaper gaming card. Workstation cards are more expensive. Those are just facts. You can't just say "well this gaming card is better" because that isn't the point (nor is it necessarily true; workstation cards are designed specifically for workstation tasks; gaming cards are designed for awesome FPS). The price of the Mac Pro reflects the price of the hardware actually used, not the hardware you'd prefer they used.

And this is only for the baseline Mac Pro model. The upper tier model comes with the equivalent of two W9000 cards, which retail on newegg for $3,400 each. That's $6,800 dollars worth of graphics cards alone. Trying to compare these to gaming rigs is silly.

If you aren't going to acknowledge the cost difference between gaming and workstation GPUs then there's no point in having a conversation.

 

[Tapate50]

This is the new East coast vs West coast wars.

 

[zitothebrave]

Listing the retail component costs. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

Yeah cause I'm sure Apple is paying 1500 bucks for their graphics card. You compare performance for a reason. Not to mention you don't know if it's the w7000 if it's the w5000 it's 300 bucks cheaper for the combined efforts. And even at that if yo can build a house for 1000 dollars or you can build a lesser house for 1200 dollars why spend more? I've yet to see any of the benchmarks on the new GPUs, but baseline setting basically configure that it's less than the w7000 which is a 4GB VRAM processor, so it's not the same price as the w7000 anyway.

Also the issue with your cost comparison is the cost of adding RAM to a Mac =/= cost of adding RAM to a PC, you of all people should know that. Too lazy to look it up and I'm not saying you can't get Mac RAM for 60 bucks, just point out that saying "RAM is cheap" isn't applying a fair analysis of the cost of computers.

And your point about workstations is silly. You can't up the processors, or do half of the things you can do on a PC Workstation. It's a gaming PC with a second video card. You can take my tgird link, drop a second 780 gtx into it and still save money.

You're right that workstations are different, but that Mac is a work station in the loosest sense.

 

[jpx7]

Can we please go back to talking about your dad's porn addiction?

Someone had to say it.

 

[jpx7]

the fast-paced world of mustard and retail

Now I really like where this thread has gone.

 

[Metaphysicist]

Listing the retail component costs. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

Yeah cause I'm sure Apple is paying 1500 bucks for their graphics card.

I think you missed the point there. The retail costs are only there to show the relative value of the components in the computer. Which is what we are talking about. The components have the same value in both computers.

Not to mention you don't know if it's the w7000 if it's the w5000 it's 300 bucks cheaper for the combined efforts.

Look, it's not actually either; it's looks like a modified version of the W7000 rolled out for the Mac Pro, but it's really it's own thing. If you look at the specs (which you never do), the D300 matches up with a w7000 that has had the vRAM cut.

- 1280 stream (W7000: 1280; W5000: 768)
- 160 GB/s memory bandwidth (W7000: 154; W500: 102)
- 2 teraflops processing (W7000: 2.43; W5000: 1.26)

Probably slightly less "valuable" than the W7000, as I indicated before, but easily outclasses the W5000.

Also the issue with your cost comparison is the cost of adding RAM to a Mac =/= cost of adding RAM to a PC, you of all people should know that. Too lazy to look it up and I'm not saying you can't get Mac RAM for 60 bucks, just point out that saying "RAM is cheap" isn't applying a fair analysis of the cost of computers.

If this has been elaborate performance art to show how little you know about this topic, then: "Bravo." Macs don't use some special, magical RAM. RAM is RAM. Upgrading a Mac's RAM is no different than doing it on a PC. (unless you have one of the notebooks where the RAM is soldered on, then you are **** outta luck).

You are correct that I, of all people should know this. I managed to walk down to the local, dinky IT shop here in rural Thailand and buy some non-mystical RAM off the shelf to upgrade my Macbook Pro. Wasn't particularly expensive.

If you buy a RAM upgrade directly from Apple, then yes it will be expensive. That is clearly one area where the Apple Store does indeed gouge. You should never buy extra RAM (or expanded internal storage, really) from Apple directly.

And your point about workstations is silly. You can't up the processors, or do half of the things you can do on a PC Workstation. It's a gaming PC with a second video card. You can take my tgird link, drop a second 780 gtx into it and still save money.

You're right that workstations are different, but that Mac is a work station in the loosest sense.

I see the explanation about workstation GPUs vs gaming GPUs, how one costs more than the other, how they are tools for different tasks.... I see all this went right over your head, since you are still saying "throw another gaming card in there." The relevant NVIDIA comparison would be the Quadros, not the consumer gaming line. If you try to do high-end, OpenCL work on a gaming card, you are going to have a bad time. Say it with me one more time: THEY ARE DIFFERENT KINDS OF CARDS.

The Mac Pro has workstation GPUs because it is designed for technical professionals who will be doing the tasks those cards support. Since it is a computer with a workstation-class Xeon processor, two workstation GPUs, and designed for/marketed to graphics and design professionals, it is, in fact, a workstation-class PC. The greater customization options for a PC do not negate that fact.

Calling a Mac Pro a "gaming PC" makes so little sense I have no response. You are truly are the king of nonsense; I dub thee Sir Flibbertigibbet

 

[zitothebrave]

Oh meta, you're so cute, it's sad that you're so wrong.

Ok the difference between a workplace GPU and a gaming gpu is almost 100% software. But when considered in a larger context you get results that are more than acceptable with a gaming GPU
w
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/best-workstation-graphics-card,3493.html

That's a massive amount of research done by Tom's Hardware. Notice in almost every test a gaming GPU wins or is close to the winning workstation. Of course I anticipate more BS from you, but that's what I've grown to love about you as a poster.

 

[Metaphysicist]

Oh meta, you're so cute, it's sad that you're so wrong.

Are you sure this isn't a comment about your belief that you need special magic RAM for you gaming Mac Pro?

Ok the difference between a workplace GPU and a gaming gpu is almost 100% software.

Yes, and? Gaming GPUs are basically the same cards, only nerfed in terms of firmware support for professional applications. That does not contradict what I said. It is, in fact, exactly the point I was making: AMD and NVIDIA deliberately make the gaming cards bad at workstation tasks. That they implement this difference through firmware is irrelevant: the difference is still real and has huge effects. How are you not getting this?

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/...card,3493.html

That's a massive amount of research done by Tom's Hardware. Notice in almost every test a gaming GPU wins or is close to the winning workstation. Of course I anticipate more BS from you

Wow, every time I think you've made the worst argument ever, you come and surprise me by digging even deeper. You didn't even read the article you posted. Let's take a look at their page on a 3D graphics program (link). Direct quote, regarding their Maya OpenGL benchmarks:

The completion time for each benchmark is directly tied to each card's performance. And as we can see, the desktop cards don't stand a chance, regardless of how well they do under DirectX. Of course, this is a result of the drivers that accompany those workstation-class cards, which include optimizations that let them hardware-accelerate a great many functions in spite of the Windows Display Driver Model (WDDM). The gaming cards have to make do with a universal software emulation instead.

And here is literally the first chart on that page. The red and green are the workstation cards, the dark grey are gaming/desktop cards, and lower is better:

Wow, look at that: the workstation cards perform preposterously better at a thing I said they were needed for. Yeah, the gaming cards do great at plenty of stuff, but there are some pretty specific places where they sh*t the bed.

Look at another professional design program: SolidWorks, a 3D CAD program used by millions of people [thanks wikipedia!]. (link)

SolidWorks 2013 is limited to workstation-class graphics cards. Unfortunately, the drivers we're using won't install on gaming boards, so we cannot include them. Additionally, if the software is run with non-certified drivers, there's supposed to be a quantifiable performance hit.

OOPS. The gaming cards can't even run this program. And here is the "Bottom Line" section of the article:

For the most part, gaming graphics cards don't work for professional applications, and increasingly, ISVs are requiring workstation-class hardware.

Let me repeat that. The conclusion of the article YOU posted:

For the most part, gaming graphics cards don't work for professional applications, and increasingly, ISVs are requiring workstation-class hardware.

I cannot wait to see the logical contortions you perform to somehow still pretend you are (a) correct and (b) have the slightest idea what you are talking about. I assume it will be something completely irrational, like professional engineers should buy the gaming cards (instead of the cards they actually need), and then try and install their own janky drivers. My breath is bated!

This is like sturg pretending he knows how the constitution works. You believe so hard, but you just can't quite find any "facts."

 

[jpx7]

I don't really give a **** about workstation graphics cards; but, as a fan of reading-comprehension, I really enjoyed that post, Meta.

 

[pfiggy]

Yeah Meta, I enjoyed it too, I think.....

 

[zitothebrave]

If you're not gonna read the whole article then don't bother trying to cite it. Especially since you said "If you try to do high-end, OpenCL work on a gaming card, you are going to have a bad time" one would say that processing video is pretty high end usually right?

Also peachy keen you didn't post to literally the next down picture from yours

Will a gaming GPU do the job of a workstation GPU 100% of the time? of course not. But again if you really need that, why don't you just get a real workstation where you can get 12 cores, 2 higher end GPUs, etc. Who needs something that costs 3000 for workstation that's really only half workstation? You're missing out on storage space, Processor, RAM, etc. I could continue but I expect you to pick up on me.

 

[Metaphysicist]

AMAZING. THE CROWD GOES WILD. "I CALLED IT," SAYS CRITIC. "TRULY STUPENDOUS OBSTINACY," SAYS OTHER CRITIC. "JUST SAY YOU WERE WRONG," ADVISES THE VOICE OF REASON.

ZITO you are the most willfully ignorant man on the planet.

OpenCL

You caught me! I should have typed OpenGL (the chart I posted) but wrote OpenCL instead! I guess I lose the argument!

one would say that processing video is pretty high end usually right?

High end for computer processing, I reckon, not necessarily high end for graphical rendering. Just based on my extremely limited experience, using handbrake can seriously tax the CPU, but you aren't really displaying anything with the GPU. However, high-end OpenCL tasks are probably much different, and I have no experience with it, so I can't really say.

Also peachy keen you didn't post to literally the next down picture from yours

Why would I need to do that? Can you not read? Right under that picture I said: Yeah, the gaming cards do great at plenty of stuff, but there are some pretty specific places where they sh*t the bed. I was posting one of the specific tests that demonstrate the difference.

But again if you really need that, why don't you just get a real workstation where you can get 12 cores, 2 higher end GPUs, etc. Who needs something that costs 3000 for workstation that's really only half workstation

This is called "moving the goalpoasts." You can buy a Mac Pro with a 12 core processor and 2 FirePro W9000s, the highest rated card on the chart you just posted, if you so desire (and I'm sure that will be the preferred options for some professionals). It will obviously cost more, since that would be $7000 worth of GPUs and a $2600 processor. A PC with the same cards is not going to be $3000. Yet again you refuse to compare apples to apples.

However, we have been discussing the baseline Mac Pro model because that's the one you brought up. People would buy these because they need baseline workstation functionality, but they also have a budget. The same thought process goes for folks buying PC workstations.

I can only assume "Nobody would want to buy this anyway" is just New Jerseyian for "I am incredible wrong and completely uninformed."

I could continue

You could apparently continue to claim that the water is dry in the Mississippi while drowning in it. I have no doubts you could continue ad infinitum on this topic.

 

[zitothebrave]

So you want me to continue then? I was able to for about 3200 bucks design a PC running Windows 7 (would have saved 160 running linux), that computer included 2 quadro k4000 GPUs 16 gigs of RAM, and 2 Xeon 2.5 GHz processors,

Can't link you to the computer but you can see my build source

http://www.xicomputer.com/products/Configure_prof.asp?model=mtowerxeon&configid=

Want me to keep going on? That's a real workstation too. Not a regular computer witha workstation GPU.