PDA

View Full Version : Apple Vs Dell Price comparison...


cwalton
Jun 24, 2003, 04:00 AM
Thought I'd make a quick comparison of a high end G5 vs Duel Xeon machine. A lot of people have been saying that the G5's are overpriced, however, when you consider the alternatives the results are suprising:

Apples offering:
Dual 2GHz PowerPC G5
4GB DDR400 SDRAM (PC3200) - 4 DIMMs
2x250GB Serial ATA
DVD-R/CD-RW
ATI Radeon 9800 Pro 128MB, ADC/DVI
Apple Keyboard
Mac OS
Apple Cinema HD Display (20" LCD)
One FireWire 800 port
Two FireWire 400 ports
Three USB 2.0 ports
Apple Mouse
£5,416.00

Dells offering:
Dual Intel® Xeon Processors 3.06GHz
4GB (4X1024MB DIMM) 266MHz DDR ECC SDRAM Memory
2x 120GB (7,200 rpm) ATA/100 IDE Hard Drive with DataBurst Cache™
ATI Fire GL X1 Dual-Monitor Capable (128MB DVI/VGA) Graphics Card
Dell 20" UltraSharp™ Flat Panel Monitor
4x DVD+RW Drive
Enhanced Quietkey™ (Spacesaver) keyboard
Dell/Logitech 2 Button PS/2 Mouse
Microsoft® Windows® XP Professional
£7,119.33

With a saving of over a grand and a half on a similar spec'd machine, I know where my money's going ;)

robbieduncan
Jun 24, 2003, 04:08 AM
Yes but the Fire GL card is in a different class. It is a pro level open GL accelerator - it's not a consumer gaming card. If you take that out I'm sure you can save 200-300 off the Dell (still way more expensive).

Ryan1524
Jun 24, 2003, 04:57 AM
but isn't the PowerMac in the pro line? ;)

reflex
Jun 24, 2003, 05:45 AM
Who ever said Dell was cheap (except for Dell themselves)?

cwalton
Jun 24, 2003, 06:30 AM
Who ever said Dell was cheap (except for Dell themselves)?

"Dell's aggressive pricing and ability to react quickly to changing market conditions allowed the market leader to further distance itself from competitors," according to IDC.

NavyIntel007
Jun 24, 2003, 06:31 AM
I never get these PC junkies. "Well I can build my own for cheaper..." That's great son... however a kit car is nothing but a kit car. The TCO of a mac I believe is way lower when you factor in upgrades, maintaining (man hours) and the big one... Setup time.

It took my dad about a month to move over from his old laptop to his new one. Meanwhile there's another employee who needs the laptop but dad is still working on it. It took me a day to move over my ibook to my powerbook.

The lost man hours, although very tough to accurately count, probably make up for a good chunk of the price difference on even the entry level cheap PCs.

cwalton
Jun 24, 2003, 06:51 AM
I never get these PC junkies

Who's a PC Junkie? Not quite sure who your post is aimed at...

???

cubist
Jun 24, 2003, 07:41 AM
It is odd that the top-of-the-line G5 only supports a Radeon 9600 graphics card, which is a very good card but not a professional card in the FireGL class. Apple ought to consider having some high-end graphics options.

As for the Geforce FX 5200 in the lower G5's, that's a good card, too, but for $2K+ machines it's a bit weak.

My guess is these machines have a lot of margin in them initially. The prices will come down later. Right now, since Apple couldn't refresh the entire line, they needed to leave price points for the older hardware below the G5's. The G4's have been substantially discounted; look for a price drop on the G4 iMac soon.

VIREBEL661
Jun 24, 2003, 07:46 AM
Originally posted by cwalton
Who's a PC Junkie? Not quite sure who your post is aimed at...

???

I think he means PC weenies in general, not anybody on this board, right NavyIntel?

wirewyrm
Jun 24, 2003, 07:47 AM
Why are we wondering whether Dell machines are cheap or not. They are the company with the most similar reliability to Apple, and the most similar support and build quality. If you want to compare the apple with a PC from offthebackofalorry-cowboybuilders.com, then I expect the PC would be cheaper. For once the Mac is faster AND cheaper when comparing like for like. Similar company, similar specs, both twin prcessors, both the fastest available, both 4 GB memory (Dell's is slower) and the Mac even has serial ATA disks. Although I must admit the Fire GL is nearly twice the price of a Radeon 9800 Pro, though the PC is still more expensive.

cwalton
Jun 24, 2003, 08:03 AM
Originally posted by NavyIntel007
I never get these PC junkies. "Well I can build my own for cheaper..." That's great son... however a kit car is nothing but a kit car. The TCO of a mac I believe is way lower when you factor in upgrades, maintaining (man hours) and the big one... Setup time.

It took my dad about a month to move over from his old laptop to his new one. Meanwhile there's another employee who needs the laptop but dad is still working on it. It took me a day to move over my ibook to my powerbook.

The lost man hours, although very tough to accurately count, probably make up for a good chunk of the price difference on even the entry level cheap PCs.

NavyIntel007,

TCO was not mentioned, read the initial post, Apple costs less than a similar Dell to buy. That was the point of the post. For a long time Apple have not been competetive as far as raw power goes, now they offer a better machine for less, without even taking TCO into account.

The Shadow
Jun 24, 2003, 08:07 AM
Originally posted by wirewyrm
Why are we wondering whether Dell machines are cheap or not. They are the company with the most similar reliability to Apple, and the most similar support and build quality. If you want to compare the apple with a PC from offthebackofalorry-cowboybuilders.com, then I expect the PC would be cheaper. For once the Mac is faster AND cheaper when comparing like for like.

Very interesting. This scenario you describe is not new. I had a big argument with an editor of PC Authority magazine about 18mths ago. They compared the DP800 to a range of workstations and concluded one edged out the Mac purely on a price for performance basis.

But they "forgot" to factor in that the mac had a 17"LCD and Superdrive, amongst other things (All quite expensive back then), and the PC had a CRT and CD ROM! When I factored in these and a few other things, the Mac was WAAAAAAY cheaper!

And that was about 18 mths ago, back when the G4 still had life in it.

Anyway, if these facts aren't unbelievable enough, the magazine had the DP800 representing the best Apple had to offer, when the DP1Gig had just been announced.

I couldn't believe the dishonesty.:mad:

Hey CWalton - good thread man! Good to mix some facts in with the rumors every now and then.

wirewyrm
Jun 24, 2003, 08:28 AM
I would agree that Apple need a cheaper machine somewhere in thair lineup. They are removing on rather large demographic group from their product placement. GAMES PLAYERS and THE ENTHUSIAST MARKET. They would need something along the lines of..... A single 1.6 or 1.8Ghz G5, Single Channel DDR 400 (4x Slots) so the memory doesn't go in pairs, Radeon 9800 Pro or even Geforce 5900fx 256mb. They could get away with 60/80Gb ATA133 HDD's and probably a combo drive. It wouldn't compete with the iMac or eMac because it wouldn't have a screen, or DVD-R or any of those other "Hot" Items that people want, but would offer upgradability, and good performance. I suppose an ideal Price would be about $1399. If the 1.6 went down to the price of the old G4, that would probably suffice. I suppose they will in time.

iGav
Jun 24, 2003, 08:29 AM
For £6,498 you could max the RAM to 8GB... :D

That Dell wouldn't stand a chance in the real world... and it's still more expensive as well... :eek: :eek: :p

jxyama
Jun 24, 2003, 08:54 AM
Originally posted by wirewyrm
I would agree that Apple need a cheaper machine somewhere in thair lineup. They are removing on rather large demographic group from their product placement. GAMES PLAYERS and THE ENTHUSIAST MARKET. They would need something along the lines of..... A single 1.6 or 1.8Ghz G5, Single Channel DDR 400 (4x Slots) so the memory doesn't go in pairs, Radeon 9800 Pro or even Geforce 5900fx 256mb. They could get away with 60/80Gb ATA133 HDD's and probably a combo drive. It wouldn't compete with the iMac or eMac because it wouldn't have a screen, or DVD-R or any of those other "Hot" Items that people want, but would offer upgradability, and good performance. I suppose an ideal Price would be about $1399. If the 1.6 went down to the price of the old G4, that would probably suffice. I suppose they will in time.

i don't think such a machine would be in apple's business plan... apple survives on fat margins and by making their machines not a commodity - things where price is the decisive factor in sales.

for games, more game makers would have to port to mac before apple can commit to making hardwares for "gamer machines." i dunno what kind of "enthusiast" you are talking about, but most mac "enthusiasts" are probably fine forking $2K+ for these new power macs. :D

as much as we all would love to see lower end power macs, it hasn't happened thus far and i wouldn't hold your breath waiting... (or fuming about it)

klozowski
Jun 24, 2003, 11:45 AM
Originally posted by cwalton
Thought I'd make a quick comparison of a high end G5 vs Duel Xeon machine. A lot of people have been saying that the G5's are overpriced, however, when you consider the alternatives the results are suprising:

Apples offering:
Dual 2GHz PowerPC G5
4GB DDR400 SDRAM (PC3200) - 4 DIMMs
2x250GB Serial ATA
DVD-R/CD-RW
ATI Radeon 9800 Pro 128MB, ADC/DVI
Apple Keyboard
Mac OS
Apple Cinema HD Display (20" LCD)
One FireWire 800 port
Two FireWire 400 ports
Three USB 2.0 ports
Apple Mouse
£5,416.00

Dells offering:
Dual Intel® Xeon Processors 3.06GHz
4GB (4X1024MB DIMM) 266MHz DDR ECC SDRAM Memory
2x 120GB (7,200 rpm) ATA/100 IDE Hard Drive with DataBurst Cache™
ATI Fire GL X1 Dual-Monitor Capable (128MB DVI/VGA) Graphics Card
Dell 20" UltraSharp™ Flat Panel Monitor
4x DVD+RW Drive
Enhanced Quietkey™ (Spacesaver) keyboard
Dell/Logitech 2 Button PS/2 Mouse
Microsoft® Windows® XP Professional
£7,119.33

With a saving of over a grand and a half on a similar spec'd machine, I know where my money's going ;)


But those machines aren't similarly speced! Ignoring Apple's claims about their processors, why not fit the Dell with 2 2.4GHz Xeons, which would realistically perform similarly to Apple's Dual 2GHz G5s.

Now Add 3 years of Applecare protection plan to bring Apple's warranty up to Dells, then remove one of Apple's Hard Drives for a similar capacity to the Dell, and finally replace the ATI Fire GL GX 1 with a Quadro FX500 to give it performance more commensurate with the Radeon 9800.

Pricing these new configurations out on Dell and Apple's respective sites gives:

Apple's machine: $6,722
Dell's machine: $6,572

Surprise surprise, two machines with performance and features as close as can realistically be compared cost about the same.

It's already been stated that the arena in which Apple can't compete (and likely never will) pricewise is with the budget PC.

gopher
Jun 24, 2003, 12:09 PM
Originally posted by cubist
It is odd that the top-of-the-line G5 only supports a Radeon 9600 graphics card, which is a very good card but not a professional card in the FireGL class. Apple ought to consider having some high-end graphics options.

As for the Geforce FX 5200 in the lower G5's, that's a good card, too, but for $2K+ machines it's a bit weak.

My guess is these machines have a lot of margin in them initially. The prices will come down later. Right now, since Apple couldn't refresh the entire line, they needed to leave price points for the older hardware below the G5's. The G4's have been substantially discounted; look for a price drop on the G4 iMac soon.

You can build to order a higher end card at http://www.apple.com/store/

SoonToGetAMac
Jun 24, 2003, 12:20 PM
Originally posted by klozowski
But those machines aren't similarly speced! Ignoring Apple's claims about their processors, why not fit the Dell with 2 2.4GHz Xeons, which would realistically perform similarly to Apple's Dual 2GHz G5s.

Now Add 3 years of Applecare protection plan to bring Apple's warranty up to Dells, then remove one of Apple's Hard Drives for a similar capacity to the Dell, and finally replace the ATI Fire GL GX 1 with a Quadro FX500 to give it performance more commensurate with the Radeon 9800.

Pricing these new configurations out on Dell and Apple's respective sites gives:

Apple's machine: $6,722
Dell's machine: $6,572

Surprise surprise, two machines with performance and features as close as can realistically be compared cost about the same.

It's already been stated that the arena in which Apple can't compete (and likely never will) pricewise is with the budget PC.

Yes, the but there are optimized apps for the G5, so performance on some apps is much better on the mac.

klozowski
Jun 24, 2003, 12:36 PM
Originally posted by SoonToGetAMac
Yes, the but there are optimized apps for the G5, so performance on some apps is much better on the mac.

Indeed, an app like, say, Photoshop has almost always had better performance on Macs despite their overall lagging behind PCs performance-wise in recent years.

However, it would be nice to see an independent 3rd party do these tests instead of Apple trumpeting their own superiority.

The bottom line about vendor-commissioned benchmarks: They mean nothing, good or bad.

pseudobrit
Jun 24, 2003, 12:38 PM
Load up a top of the line 15" Dell laptop as close as you can to a 17" inch PowerBook.

I came to $3052:

with only one FW 400 port (PB has one of each)

without a 15" screen

without a DVD burner (not an option)

without Bluetooth

without 333MHz DDR RAM (266 is max)

without an L3 cache

no spiffy lightup keyboard

same amount of RAM, HD space and speed...

and with a 2.0 GHz P4 (not exactly what I'd want to invest in given the pace of PC speed bumping. Of course you could choose the 2.5GHz model but that'd be an extra $500, and the PB would be cheaper altogether then)

So by saving $200 you lose 2" of widescreen, a DVD burner, Bluetooth, FireWire 800, speedy RAM and a functioning OS. ;)

What you get over the PB is a chip with 2x the clock speed, an L2 cache of 512K instead of 256K, a bay for an extra CD-ROM drive (why???), a floppy drive (really, why?!?!?) over a pound of extra weight and 3/4" more thickness (almost double) while still mamaging to be deeper than its 2" bigger counterpart.

Oh, yeah, and this is all Apple's last generation chip here. Wait until the G5 goes mobile and see all the differences crumble.

Of course, you could add AppleCare to the bundle and push the Mac up another $350, but since the Dell is a piece of junk, it's going to need fixin' before three years, while the Apple should be fairly trouble-free past the one-year warranty.

The wisdom of Tommy Boy: "I can take a dump in a box and mark it guaranteed... but all I sold you was a guaranteed piece of s***!"

MrJamie
Jun 24, 2003, 01:17 PM
Originally posted by cubist
It is odd that the top-of-the-line G5 only supports a Radeon 9600 graphics card, which is a very good card but not a professional card in the FireGL class. Apple ought to consider having some high-end graphics options.

Jobs stated that the new G5 computers both support and power professional cards, although they do not ship with them.

jxyama
Jun 24, 2003, 01:42 PM
Of course, you could add AppleCare to the bundle and push the Mac up another $350, but since the Dell is a piece of junk, it's going to need fixin' before three years, while the Apple should be fairly trouble-free past the one-year warranty.

if you really want to do a fair comparison, you can't do this. a warranty is a warranty. as if we weren't already biased in favor of an apple, let's not make it too blatant.

NavyIntel007
Jun 24, 2003, 01:44 PM
Originally posted by cwalton
NavyIntel007,

TCO was not mentioned, read the initial post, Apple costs less than a similar Dell to buy. That was the point of the post. For a long time Apple have not been competetive as far as raw power goes, now they offer a better machine for less, without even taking TCO into account.

I was referencing the article partially just in case some PC jerk came along to say... "yeah but you can get the bottom line for $600..." I was merely adding strength to your arguement.

By the way, add TCO and everything else to those prices and you could probably buy two macs for every one dell.

Abstract
Jun 24, 2003, 01:53 PM
Originally posted by wirewyrm
Why are we wondering whether Dell machines are cheap or not...... If you want to compare the apple with a PC from offthebackofalorry-cowboybuilders.com, then I expect the PC would be cheaper. For once the Mac is faster AND cheaper when comparing like for like. Similar company, similar specs, both twin prcessors, both the fastest available, both 4 GB memory (Dell's is slower) and the Mac even has serial ATA disks.

I agree. I also hate it when people say that they could easily build a PC that's better than any Apple product. Of course it's true, but then they're not buying from a large company, and could dust any PC from a major manufacturer as well. If the parts were available to build my own dual 2.0GHz G5, I'd probably be able to build it cheaper as well just by purchasing my RAM and other components somewhere else. The argument itself holds no water.

W3rd. :cool:

nuckinfutz
Jun 24, 2003, 02:18 PM
But those machines aren't similarly speced! Ignoring Apple's claims about their processors, why not fit the Dell with 2 2.4GHz Xeons, which would realistically perform similarly to Apple's Dual 2GHz G5s.

Says who? An arguement could probably be made for a Dual 2.8 but 2.4Ghz Xeons are not likely to beat 2Ghz 970s in a Dual config. Time will tell but I think you comparison just went up in smoke when you backed down to 2.4s.

klozowski
Jun 24, 2003, 02:35 PM
Originally posted by nuckinfutz
Says who? An arguement could probably be made for a Dual 2.8 but 2.4Ghz Xeons are not likely to beat 2Ghz 970s in a Dual config. Time will tell but I think you comparison just went up in smoke when you backed down to 2.4s.


Says me. Given Apple marketing (and Steve Jobs keynote) track record of fudging 'fantastic' results and then seeing specs from third parties come out later on, I'd estimate the reality is that 2.4GHz Xeons and 2GHz 970s are about neck and neck in a variety of tests.

Only time will tell...

sturm375
Jun 24, 2003, 04:05 PM
Model Specifications

Dual AMD® Opteron® Processor Capable
AMD-8111 HyperTransport PCI Tunnel
AMD-8151 HyperTransport AGP Tunnel
128-bit Dual Channel Memory Bus
Up to 8GB ECC Registered 333MHz DDR
(4) DIMM Slots
Dual Channel UltraDMA 133 IDE Controller
6 Channel Audio
(1) 8x AGP Pro Full Length Slot
(5) Full Length 32bit/33MHz PCI Slot
(1) Onboard 10/100/1000Mbs Ethernet Adapter
(4) USB Ports: (2) Front USB 1.1, (2) Rear USB 2.0
(4) 3.5" x 1" Internal hard drive bays
(3) 3.5" Exposed drive bays
(2) 5.25" Exposed drive bays
460W Power supply
(2) 92MM, (1) 80MM Cooling fans
1.44MB Floppy drive
Tower Chassis (Optional 4U Rackmount kit)
Physical dimensions: 7.0"W x 17.0"H x 17.5"D

Configuration

1 x 3 Port IEEE 1394 PCI Firewire (3 rear)
1 x Dual Opteron Model 240
1 x 2GB PC2700 ECC Reg DDR (2- 1GB DIMMS)
1 x NVIDIA GeForce FX 5600, 256MB, 8X AGP, TV out
1 x 2GB PC2700 ECC Reg DDR (2- 1GB DIMMS)
1 x 200GB 7200 rpm ATA133 hard drive 8MB Cache
1 x 200GB 7200 rpm ATA133 hard drive 8MB Cache
1 x 200GB 7200 rpm ATA133 hard drive 8MB Cache
1 x Windows XP Professional Edition
1 x 3 Button Kensington PS2 Mouse
1 x Pioneer A05 DVD-R/-RW Burner w/Software (white Bezel)
1 x Black 104 key keyboard
System Total: $4,855.00 (2909.801 Sterling Pounds per Apple Conversion Calculater OS 10.2.6)


From: http://www.boxxtech.com

Yes, I know this is dual 1.4 Ghz Opterons, but if you look at the SPEC scores (www.spec.org), you'll see that these blow the doors off the spec socres posted by Apple. Only things this doesn't have are FW800 and a display.

Today, Price/performance leader by far = AMD Opteron.

Fender2112
Jun 24, 2003, 08:00 PM
There seems to be a lot of bickering about the hardware: this processor is faster because of this, the graphic cards were different, different kinds of RAM, yadda yadda yadda.

For me it's not about the hardware. I can configure a Mac or PC to fit my budget and be pleased with the hardware. But no matter how hard I try, I can't get a Dell to run Mac OS.

I use Windows XP at work and Mac OS (9.1) at home. I just don't like like Windows, never have. It has always felt "clunky". There is not much consistancy from one program to another in terms of user interaction. For example, in Windows, programs' "preferences" can be found under various menus. In Mac OS, I can always find the "preferences" under the "EDIT" menu. I can't tell you how many times I have popped a CD into my Dell and waited for the CD icon to appear in the desktop only to realize it (or any other device icon) wasn't going to happen.

I don't care what processor, ram, bus speed or whatever Apple uses as long as the OS feels snappy, which has been why I haven't upgraded to OS X. On the the G4's OS X doen't feel snappy. I am hoping that the G5 and 10.3 resolve this issue.

Back to my point. It's not about the hardware as much as it is the OS. I'm still waiting for someone to say how much they really love Windows.

I've babbled enough for now:)

solvs
Jun 24, 2003, 09:27 PM
Originally posted by klozowski
Says me... I'd estimate the reality is that 2.4GHz Xeons and 2GHz 970s are about neck and neck in a variety of tests.


Well if you say it, it must be true. And I'm sure your estimates are based purely on facts. I'm sure you even have actual scientific tests and real world experiance to back this up. Oh wait... you don't? Oh.

Go away then.

BTW - sturm375, you do realize that your system is MORE expensive than Apple top-of-the-line right. I realize it has more of some things, but it also has less of other things.

I never get these price comparisons because, much like benchmarks, they can always be fudged either way. You don't like Macs, fine. Don't buy one. Buy a PC. Appreciate the fact that you have that choice.

And once again... please go away.

sturm375
Jun 25, 2003, 07:20 AM
Originally posted by solvs
Well if you say it, it must be true. And I'm sure your estimates are based purely on facts. I'm sure you even have actual scientific tests and real world experiance to back this up. Oh wait... you don't? Oh.

Go away then.

BTW - sturm375, you do realize that your system is MORE expensive than Apple top-of-the-line right. I realize it has more of some things, but it also has less of other things.

I never get these price comparisons because, much like benchmarks, they can always be fudged either way. You don't like Macs, fine. Don't buy one. Buy a PC. Appreciate the fact that you have that choice.

And once again... please go away.

I was just pointing out the fact that the G5 should be competing against other workstations, not desktops. That being said, I pointed out a specially configured Dual Opteron that beats the specially configured G5 posted to open this thread. If you want to hide in your Mac fantacy world where Steve Jobs can never be wrong, and all things Apple are from the gods, don't listen to me.

wirewyrm
Jun 25, 2003, 03:01 PM
I don't believe Sturm375 has actually reaslised that while, yes the Opteron Processors may be faster than the PPC 970 (Though there is very little evidence to support this yet), the PC system he has built lacks DDR400, only having DDR333, no serial ATA or PCI-X and has been fitted with a lovely gamers card despite having workstation class Processors (The Athlon64 is the consumer version, as yet unreleased), and is still nearly $1000 dollars more. If your PC cost less, Sturm, then it might have been a revealing insight to how amazing the AMD chip is for the price. As it is, you just demontrated an inability to taylor a PC for a given need. If you were intending to Play games, It should have had a Pentium or AthlonXP (or the forthcoming Athlon64) and that fx5900 card. If it was a workstation then a FireGL or Quadro Card would have been more appropriate. I ham not a "Mac person" per se, I like the well built hardware, I like the Stable and open system. I also run several custom built PC's, from a itx based Tivo-type box running linux, to a games machine with Radeon 9800 and an Athlon 3000+. I believe the point people are making here is that the Powermacs are once again good value. If as in Sturm's example you pay more money, you may get better performance, but the mac is no longer bad value.

p.s

1. The mac boards have almost no major bottlenecks, from 2 channel DDR, PCI-X, Serial ATA and 1Ghz Busses, so even opterons on lesser motherboards may not perform as well.

2. The first Athlon64 at 1.8 will be badged as an Athlon64 3100+, meaning AMD believe it has the equivalent power of a 3.1 P4, not a XEON, so are two of these at 1.4 gonna "Blow the Doors off" an Apple machine that beat a Dual 3.06 Xeon. AMD doesn't appear to be too confident they will do, despite the SPEC scores. Maybe these "SPEC" scores aren't too important after all!!!

sturm375
Jun 25, 2003, 03:28 PM
Originally posted by wirewyrm
I don't believe Sturm375 has actually reaslised that while, yes the Opteron Processors may be faster than the PPC 970 (Though there is very little evidence to support this yet), the PC system he has built lacks DDR400, only having DDR333, no serial ATA or PCI-X and has been fitted with a lovely gamers card despite having workstation class Processors (The Athlon64 is the consumer version, as yet unreleased), and is still nearly $1000 dollars more. If your PC cost less, Sturm, then it might have been a revealing insight to how amazing the AMD chip is for the price. As it is, you just demontrated an inability to taylor a PC for a given need. If you were intending to Play games, It should have had a Pentium or AthlonXP (or the forthcoming Athlon64) and that fx5900 card. If it was a workstation then a FireGL or Quadro Card would have been more appropriate. I ham not a "Mac person" per se, I like the well built hardware, I like the Stable and open system. I also run several custom built PC's, from a itx based Tivo-type box running linux, to a games machine with Radeon 9800 and an Athlon 3000+. I believe the point people are making here is that the Powermacs are once again good value. If as in Sturm's example you pay more money, you may get better performance, but the mac is no longer bad value.

p.s

1. The mac boards have almost no major bottlenecks, from 2 channel DDR, PCI-X, Serial ATA and 1Ghz Busses, so even opterons on lesser motherboards may not perform as well.

2. The first Athlon64 at 1.8 will be badged as an Athlon64 3100+, meaning AMD believe it has the equivalent power of a 3.1 P4, not a XEON, so are two of these at 1.4 gonna "Blow the Doors off" an Apple machine that beat a Dual 3.06 Xeon. AMD doesn't appear to be too confident they will do, despite the SPEC scores. Maybe these "SPEC" scores aren't too important after all!!!

1) First, the G5s are workstations, not desktops, and thus should be pitted against the leading workstations out there. Every, I repeat Every reviewing of the Opteron workstations and servers have whooped the Intel Xeons. Even though they lack DDR400, 1 Ghz Bus, and SATA. Here (http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=10086) is a good article detailing how good the Opteron is. The only thing I have to use is compaing numbers, because neither Apple nor AMD have pitted their rigs against each other.

2) The G5 configured according to the thread post comes to $6,873.00 USD. For those who skipped math, thats more that a $2000 Difference, in favor of the Opteron. (BTW it will ship now, not early Sept.)

3) The video card I picked competes nicely with the ATI 9800 that the thread origionator picked. BOXX offers many choices (approx 20) for the video card choice. Mostly upper end professional graphics cards.

Bottom line, pay <b>less</b> money and get better performance. And yes, Apple is a better performer, and price than Intel, I am pointing out that even though Apple has beaten Intel, they are not top of the pile yet.

MrJamie
Jun 25, 2003, 04:31 PM
Originally posted by sturm375
1) First, the G5s are workstations, not desktops

... says sturm375

Desktops, says MrJamie, and Apple.

The G5 is a pro desktop, it's not a workstation. Workstations, as I've come to believe in my discussions at Arstechnica, are machines that, in my opinion, are used for a strict set of tasks, and that set of tasks alone. Desktops, however, may be used for any variety of tasks.

That's how I'd define a workstation. That's probably how a lot of ArsTechnica/Apple folks define a workstation, too.

So, if you want to call the G5 a workstation, post your thoughts on why it should be so. Hell, you may have a great point, but when you go on about how 'strom says workstations -- WORKSTATION! GRAR! STROM BASH!' <-- (just to make myself laugh, nothing personal meant at all :-) then mrjamie has to chime in and say 'me no like no backup no support -- no case!'

gwangung
Jun 25, 2003, 04:56 PM
I buy a dual 2.0 G5. I plop it on my desktop.

It's a desktop by any other name (and probably doesn't cook roses nearly as much or as sweetly as an Intel chip).

sturm375
Jun 25, 2003, 05:00 PM
Originally posted by MrJamie
... says sturm375

Desktops, says MrJamie, and Apple.

The G5 is a pro desktop, it's not a workstation. Workstations, as I've come to believe in my discussions at Arstechnica, are machines that, in my opinion, are used for a strict set of tasks, and that set of tasks alone. Desktops, however, may be used for any variety of tasks.

That's how I'd define a workstation. That's probably how a lot of ArsTechnica/Apple folks define a workstation, too.

So, if you want to call the G5 a workstation, post your thoughts on why it should be so. Hell, you may have a great point, but when you go on about how 'strom says workstations -- WORKSTATION! GRAR! STROM BASH!' <-- (just to make myself laugh, nothing personal meant at all :-) then mrjamie has to chime in and say 'me no like no backup no support -- no case!'

I look at 2 things to determine what status to give to a machine. Price, and performance. Clearly the G5 is in the realm of workstations for performance, especially since Apple chose a Dual Xeon to compete against, and beat. My other criteria is that of price, and it is a bit more subjective. I am going on what I read in another article (If I can find it again, I'll post it), that the typical "desktop" sale is for about $1,000.00 USD. Low end G5 is $2,000.00 USD, therefore with this definition, I place them in at least the upper echelon power desktop, and probably the workstation level.

This is not to say that your definition is any bit less valid. You are of course entitled to your opinion, and all I can do is express mine.

I have little doubt that when it comes out, the current G5 will best the Athlon64(consumer level). This is because the Athlon64 doesn't have the following that the Opteron has:

-Memory controler on the chip
-Single HyperTransport instead of 3
-Half the L2 Cache

And will probably be very close to the same frequency of the G5s.

Any one of these: G5, Athlon64 or Opteron are all excellent processors. And Apple does make a nice package, all be it expensive.

MrJamie
Jun 25, 2003, 05:09 PM
Originally posted by sturm375
Low end G5 is $2,000.00 USD, therefore with this definition, I place them in at least the upper echelon power desktop, and probably the workstation level.


Yea, I agree with you heavily here. The G5 price range invites comparisons with similar priced units -- which tend to be workstations. Apple really needs to get the price down ASAP.

Still, I think usage should be a factor in determining workstation/desktop.

Maybe a working definition would include price, performance, and usage (there's a good word I'm looking for, it's too hot to remember it right now ;)

crassusad44
Jun 25, 2003, 05:49 PM
Why we are comparing PM G5s to 3DBOXX, I don't know, but here is another comparison...

Dual AMD® Opteron® Processor Model 240
AMD-8111 HyperTransport PCI Tunnel
AMD-8151 HyperTransport AGP Tunnel
128-bit Dual Channel Memory Bus
Dual Channel UltraDMA 133 IDE Controller
6 Channel Audio
(1) 8x AGP Pro Full Length Slot
(5) Full Length 32bit/33MHz PCI Slot
(1) Onboard 10/100/1000Mbs Ethernet Adapter
(4) USB Ports: (2) Front USB 1.1, (2) Rear USB 2.0
(4) 3.5" x 1" Internal hard drive bays
(3) 3.5" Exposed drive bays
(2) 5.25" Exposed drive bays
460W Power supply
(2) 92MM, (1) 80MM Cooling fans
1.44MB Floppy drive
Tower Chassis (Optional 4U Rackmount kit)
Physical dimensions: 7.0"W x 17.0"H x 17.5"D
3 Port IEEE 1394 PCI Firewire (3 rear)
Dual Opteron Model 240
1GB PC2700 ECC Reg DDR (2- 512MB DIMMS)
NVIDIA Quadro4 380 XGL 64MB 8X AGP
120GB 7200 rpm ATA133 hard drive
Windows XP Professional Edition
3 Button Kensington PS2 Mouse
Pioneer A05 DVD-R/-RW Burner w/Software (white Bezel)
Black 104 key keyboard

Grand total: 3,646 USD

Now for Apples offering:

Dual 2GHz G5
1GHz frontside bus
512K L2 cache/processor
512MB DDR400 128-bit SDRAM
Expandable to 8GB SDRAM
160GB Serial ATA
SuperDrive
Three PCI-X Slots
ATI Radeon 9600 Pro
64MB DDR video memory
56K internal modem

Grand total: 2,990 USD

Note that the PM has a larger HD, less memory but faster (DDR400), 133MHz PCI-X and FW800. The graphics card is different (sorry, but don't know much about graphics cards).

Still the PM is less than the 3DBOXX. And, I don't think many PM G5 buyers will consider a 3DBOXX. Compare the G5 to the top models from Dell. That is a fair comparison (although, not for the Dell... ;) )

wirewyrm
Jun 26, 2003, 03:25 PM
I have little doubt that when it comes out, the current G5 will best the Athlon64(consumer level). This is because the Athlon64 doesn't have the following that the Opteron has:

-Memory controler on the chip
-Single HyperTransport instead of 3
-Half the L2 Cache

And will probably be very close to the same frequency of the G5s.

Any one of these: G5, Athlon64 or Opteron are all excellent processors. And Apple does make a nice package, all be it expensive.

sturm375, I agree with you wholeheartedly on these points, and any PC's I build will usally have AMD chips in.

Reason
AMD are very much like Apple in attitude. They INNOVATE. Intel just seem to Ramp clock speeds up on more and more inefficient chips. The P4 is not as fast as the P3 at same speed. It makes you wonder if they bother with performance at all and just design the CPU's so they will go to higher clock rates.

The problem with this thread is that we have the windows system in the way. I'm sure that if MacOS X ran on x86 many people would use other processors. But it doesn't, so why bother arguing. Well programmed software (and operating system) can always be made more stable, and often faster that the competition regardless of platform. Take Adobe. They make Photoshop for both Mac and PC, yet as pointed out in another thread, It always seems to perform better on the Mac. They don't make the Windows version slower on purpose, It just seems that, when harnessed properly the G4 (and now G5) chips are much quicker. It just seems to need that extra bit of effort to get the best out of them.

p.s sturm375, in a previous post I questioned another poster on their coise of vendor to show how cheap the PC was (they actually would have used DIY parts). You have to compare Apple to Dell really to get the nearest competitor. They both have good support levels, aftermarket service and similar build quality. People will not buy a pc from 3DBOXXX.com for these things. They will buy it because it's cheap.

Captain Caveman
Jun 26, 2003, 06:19 PM
Originally posted by sturm375

Yes, I know this is dual 1.4 Ghz Opterons, but if you look at the SPEC scores (www.spec.org), you'll see that these blow the doors off the spec socres posted by Apple. Only things this doesn't have are FW800 and a display.

Today, Price/performance leader by far = AMD Opteron. [/B]

The only thing it doesn't have is FW800 and a display, eh? Hmmm...

I have a hunch that if you removed the $1300 20" studio display from the cost of the G5 priced in the first post, you will see that price difference evaporate pretty quickly. Just a thought.

strider42
Jun 26, 2003, 06:49 PM
Is the G5 really meant to be competing with the Xeon though. I mean, I know there are some overlaps, but are people doing graphic design, publishing and sound work using computers with Xeons or Pentium 4's. Seems to me (and I could certainly be wrong) that these people are probably using Pentium 4's for there desktop computers. The G5 needs to compete in that market as well. Its not just a high end workstation, its a desktop computer. Perhaps not a consumer class desktop, but certainly not excelusively a high end professional desktop either.

zarathustra
Jun 26, 2003, 06:51 PM
Originally posted by sturm375
1) First, the G5s are workstations, not desktops, and thus should be pitted against the leading workstations out there. Every, I repeat Every reviewing of the Opteron workstations and servers have whooped the Intel Xeons. Even though they lack DDR400, 1 Ghz Bus, and SATA. Here (http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=10086) is a good article detailing how good the Opteron is. The only thing I have to use is compaing numbers, because neither Apple nor AMD have pitted their rigs against each other.

2) The G5 configured according to the thread post comes to $6,873.00 USD. For those who skipped math, thats more that a $2000 Difference, in favor of the Opteron. (BTW it will ship now, not early Sept.)

3) The video card I picked competes nicely with the ATI 9800 that the thread origionator picked. BOXX offers many choices (approx 20) for the video card choice. Mostly upper end professional graphics cards.

Bottom line, pay <b>less</b> money and get better performance. And yes, Apple is a better performer, and price than Intel, I am pointing out that even though Apple has beaten Intel, they are not top of the pile yet.

Sturm, the G5 is not a workstation, unless you make it one. If a user logs into the system, and the whole system has been optimized to run an audio (example) program and NOTHING else - that's a workstation.

I do photoshop, Illustrator and InDesign all day. Does that make my computer a workstation, no, because I have email, Safari, iTunes, various haxies and utilities running at the same time. Yes I work on it, but it's a desktop, because it does more than just concentrate on one specific task.

In other words, you set up a G5 to do Blast! and nothing else, because you don't want to take the risk of crashes or system slowdowns, you got yourself a workstation. But if you are a little like the rest of us, you will browse the net while listening to itunes, thus using it as a desktop.

Wyrm
Jun 27, 2003, 12:34 AM
Ha ha ha -

Well, the G4 was a SUPER-COMPUTER! <insert royal trumpet sounds here> :D

And the G5 is ONLY a desktop?!

Or does that make the G5 a SUPER-FANTASTIC-SPIFFY-COMPUTER then?

I'm sure you've all seen this before:

"So whatfs a supercomputer? What makes a supercomputer gsuperh is its ability to execute at least one billion floating-point operations per second, a staggering measure of speed known as a ggigaflop.h Also known as the first supercomputer on a chip, the PowerPC G4...."

Well Apple marketing taught Comical-Al all he needed to know.

I think the only useful definition is between a local machine (call it workstation, desktop, whatever), a dumb terminal/ X-terminal (hey remember those?) and a server (usually in some air-conditioned vault-like room where all you can hear is the steady hum of blowing fans). Of course these definitions are only valid where applicable, not prohibited by law, not to minors under the age of 16, and not valid in the province of Quebec.

-Wyrm

sturm375
Jun 27, 2003, 07:35 AM
Originally posted by zarathustra
Sturm, the G5 is not a workstation, unless you make it one. If a user logs into the system, and the whole system has been optimized to run an audio (example) program and NOTHING else - that's a workstation.

I do photoshop, Illustrator and InDesign all day. Does that make my computer a workstation, no, because I have email, Safari, iTunes, various haxies and utilities running at the same time. Yes I work on it, but it's a desktop, because it does more than just concentrate on one specific task.

In other words, you set up a G5 to do Blast! and nothing else, because you don't want to take the risk of crashes or system slowdowns, you got yourself a workstation. But if you are a little like the rest of us, you will browse the net while listening to itunes, thus using it as a desktop.

Your definition of workstation is very narrow. Again it's opinion against opinion, and I guess both are valid. All I can say is that no desktop needs 2 processors. So at the very least the Dual G5 is a workstation.

BTW, my Mother works on a workstation (Microstation CAD), and also runs MS Office, Outlook, IE, Windows Media Player, and more, I am sure. Does that make it a desktop? I don't think so, maybe you do.

GroundLoop
Jun 27, 2003, 08:32 AM
Personally, I don't think the prices are all that different between BOXX and Apple. Here is my example:

BOXX:

Base System Specifications
Dual AMD® Opteron® Processor Capable
AMD-8111 HyperTransport PCI Tunnel
AMD-8151 HyperTransport AGP Tunnel
128-bit Dual Channel Memory Bus
Up to 8GB ECC Registered 333MHz DDR
(4) DIMM Slots
Dual Channel UltraDMA 133 IDE Controller
6 Channel Audio
(1) 8x AGP Pro Full Length Slot
(5) Full Length 32bit/33MHz PCI Slot
(1) Onboard 10/100/1000Mbs Ethernet Adapter
(4) USB Ports: (2) Front USB 1.1, (2) Rear USB 2.0
(4) 3.5" x 1" Internal hard drive bays
(3) 3.5" Exposed drive bays
(2) 5.25" Exposed drive bays
460W Power supply
(2) 92MM, (1) 80MM Cooling fans
1.44MB Floppy drive
Tower Chassis (Optional 4U Rackmount kit)
Physical dimensions: 7.0"W x 17.0"H x 17.5"D

Price - $4094

Apple:

• Dual 2GHz PowerPC G5
• 1GB DDR400 SDRAM (PC3200) - 2x512
• 250GB Serial ATA - 7200rpm
• ATI Radeon 9800 Pro
• 56k V.92 internal modem
• SuperDrive (DVD-R/CD-RW)
• Apple Keyboard & Apple Mouse - U.S. English
• Mac OS X - U.S. English
• APP for Power Mac (w/ or w/o display) - Enrollment Kit

Price - $3923

Only a difference of $171. The one thing that I am unsure of is the warranty included with the BOXX system. If it is only one year, then the prices difference leans signifcantly more in Apple's favor at a $420 difference. Either way, I think the Apple is more attractive to me because of the software (OSX, FCP4, DVDSP, etc).

So, in my opinion, price and performance are comparable for the two machines. But, I would choose the Mac for the software.

Hickman

rjstanford
Jun 27, 2003, 08:49 AM
Originally posted by jxyama
if you really want to do a fair comparison, you can't do this. a warranty is a warranty. as if we weren't already biased in favor of an apple, let's not make it too blatant. Especially for a 1.0 system. And let's face it, if Apple didn't think that the machine would need any fixing during that time, the warrantee would be less than $350. This is one of the places where Apple really needs to get their levels up to the standards of companies like Dell (3 year standard, next/same day onsite service optional).

-Richard

The Shadow
Jun 27, 2003, 08:59 AM
I don't know if we're talking about 2 different things, but...:confused:

I just went to the Apple Store and put 1 gig RAM in a DP 2GHz G5 and a 250 MB Hdd and the price came to just $3347. That's superb value for money in anyone's terms. A similarly configured "Boxx" on the Boxx site comes to $5671. Comparatively the Boxx is poor value in anyone's terms.

So I don't know what this thread's about. Is it just Apple bashing by method of disinformation? (all too commonnowadays)

Those prices would have to be completely reversed before I wouldn't laugh hysterically at the suggestion of buying a Boxx.:D

AND "it" runs XP ?:D

No, sorry, this thread's just a G up right? (Excuse the pun):D

EDIT: This was posted the same time as Hickman's post. So, as I say I might have the price of the Boxx wrong, but all my other comments hold true if the prices are equivalent - why would you buy a Box? And why are some people saying the G5 is poor value?

sturm375
Jun 27, 2003, 09:27 AM
Originally posted by The Shadow
I don't know if we're talking about 2 different things, but...:confused:

I just went to the Apple Store and put 1 gig RAM in a DP 2GHz G5 and a 250 MB Hdd and the price came to just $3347. That's superb value for money in anyone's terms. A similarly configured "Boxx" on the Boxx site comes to $5671. Comparatively the Boxx is poor value in anyone's terms.

So I don't know what this thread's about. Is it just Apple bashing by method of disinformation? (all too commonnowadays)

Those prices would have to be completely reversed before I wouldn't laugh hysterically at the suggestion of buying a Boxx.:D

AND "it" runs XP ?:D

No, sorry, this thread's just a G up right? (Excuse the pun):D

EDIT: This was posted the same time as Hickman's post. So, as I say I might have the price of the Boxx wrong, but all my other comments hold true if the prices are equivalent - why would you buy a Box? And why are some people saying the G5 is poor value?

I don't know how you configured the Boxx computer, but one thing to keep in mind is that the closest competiteter to the 2 Ghz G5 is the Opteron 240. (Remember the Mhz Myth?) I am basing this on SPEC scores, which can be disputed I suppose, but they are the best I can think of. They are not as application dependant as most of the other benchmarks.

My configuration came back: $3,093.00 at Boxx, for this comparison.

scan300
Jun 27, 2003, 09:44 AM
Originally posted by Brian Hickman
Base System Specifications
Dual AMD® Opteron® Processor Capable
AMD-8111 HyperTransport PCI Tunnel
AMD-8151 HyperTransport AGP Tunnel
128-bit Dual Channel Memory Bus
Up to 8GB ECC Registered 333MHz DDR
(4) DIMM Slots
Dual Channel UltraDMA 133 IDE Controller
6 Channel Audio
(1) 8x AGP Pro Full Length Slot
(5) Full Length 32bit/33MHz PCI Slot
(1) Onboard 10/100/1000Mbs Ethernet Adapter
(4) USB Ports: (2) Front USB 1.1, (2) Rear USB 2.0
(4) 3.5" x 1" Internal hard drive bays
(3) 3.5" Exposed drive bays
(2) 5.25" Exposed drive bays
460W Power supply
(2) 92MM, (1) 80MM Cooling fans
1.44MB Floppy drive
Tower Chassis (Optional 4U Rackmount kit)
Physical dimensions: 7.0"W x 17.0"H x 17.5"D

Price - $4094
[/B]

Can you clarify:
what processor does this config come with? how much ram? Any hard disks?

Also how did you get a price from Boxx? I looked on their website, but only found an application form to a sales rep.

jxyama
Jun 27, 2003, 10:26 AM
man, this thread is getting nutty...

i think all this thread was intended to do was to cast some doubt (not "definitive proof") on a common misconception that Macs are supremely overpriced.

with the example in the first post, i think g5 is at least comparable to dells in terms of price, straight up, no TOC involved. this is nice because TOC is a little harder for most people to swallow.

anyway, as pointed out many times over, what's the point of nitpicking and comparing absolutely every aspect? (down to pennies for prices, definitions of "workstation" and "desktop," graphics cards, pro. vs. consumer, yada yada yada...)

ZildjianKX
Jun 27, 2003, 10:58 AM
Apple is sitting on the dual 2.0 GHz G5s for at least two months... if you guys really think its going to smoke all the wintel platforms in two months from now, I think you might be sorely mistaken. Waiting two months at least to ship a completed processor is AGES in the tech industry... you don't see Intel or AMD delaying their products, they just keep on cranking out bigger and better ASAP.

So who wants to make some bets with me? Who's going to win Mac vs. PC, Round III?

http://www.digitalvideoediting.com/2002/07_jul/features/cw_macvspc2.htm

Rower_CPU
Jun 27, 2003, 02:29 PM
Originally posted by ZildjianKX
So who wants to make some bets with me? Who's going to win Mac vs. PC, Round III?

http://www.digitalvideoediting.com/2002/07_jul/features/cw_macvspc2.htm

You mean Mac vs. PC IV (http://www.digitalvideoediting.com/2002/11_nov/reviews/cw_macvspciii.htm)

Those people need to start putting dates on their articles...

ZildjianKX
Jun 27, 2003, 07:04 PM
Originally posted by Rower_CPU
You mean Mac vs. PC IV (http://www.digitalvideoediting.com/2002/11_nov/reviews/cw_macvspciii.htm)

Those people need to start putting dates on their articles...

Ahh damn, I was looking to see if there was a round 3, but couldn't find it. Thanks :)

scan300
Jun 27, 2003, 07:07 PM
Originally posted by ZildjianKX

So who wants to make some bets with me? Who's going to win Mac vs. PC, Round III?


Not knowing how much the 64 bit optimised photoshop filters affected the keynote bake-off, I would say if White used 32 bit software in all the comparisons, the apple and dell would be similar in performance.

If 64-bit optimised filters are used then I expect a similar result to the bake-off; the apple will smoke the dell.