2 years later ; Mac Pro vs. Dell

[Amethyst]

my main ideas of this theads is..

Point at apple 's marketting strategy with mac pro

last 2 years , them promote a mac pro as the best workstation for the money

Quad-Core 2.66 GHz Xeon at dell price - $1000
8-Core 2.8 GHz Xeon at dell price - $1200, Hp price -$2000

but Now

Mac Pro $2499
Nearly mac pro spec from Dell = $1000

at Febuary 2008

Mac Pro Standard Configuration (MA970LL/A)

Two 2.8GHz Quad-Core Intel Xeon processors
2GB (two 1GB) of 800MHz DDR2 ECC fully buffered DIMM
ATI Radeon HD 2600 XT 256MB (two dual-link DVI ports)
320GB Serial ATA 3Gb/s; 7200 rpm; 8MB cache
16x SuperDrive with double-layer support (DVDฑR DL/DVDฑRW/CD-RW)
Bluetooth 2.0 + EDR

Price : $2,799

HP xw6600 Workstation
2 X Intel Xeon 5440 2.83 12M/1333 QC 1st CPU
NVIDIA Quadro NVS 290 256MB PCIe
HP 2GB (2x1GB) DDR2-667 ECC FBD RAM
HP 250GB SATA 3Gb/s NCQ 7200 1st HDD
HP 16X DVD+-RW SuperMulti SATA 1st Drive
HP USB Standard Keyboard
HP USB Optical Scroll Mouse
Windows Vista Business 64 Bit

Price : $4,856.00

Dell Precision Workstation T7400 Energy Star
2 X Quad Core Intel Xeon Processor E5440 (2.83GHz,2X6M L2,1333)
256MB PCIe x16 nVidia NVS 290, Dual Monitor DVI Capable
2GB, DDR2 SDRAM FBD Memory, 667MHz, ECC (2 DIMMS)
320GB SATA 3.0Gb/s,7200 RPM Hard Drive with 8MB DataBurst Cache™
Genuine Windows Vistaฎ Business 64-bit, with Media

Price : $4,075

 

[yippy]

For the single processor Mac Pros then you might be right.

But for the 8-Core Mac Pros they have to be using the much more expensive 55XX series Xeons and in that range I bet we will find that Apple is quite competitively priced.

 

[m1stake]

For the single processor Mac Pros then you might be right.

But for the 8-Core Mac Pros they have to be using the much more expensive 55XX series Xeons and in that range I bet we will find that Apple is quite competitively priced.

They're laughable offenders just like the single. $3,200 for 2.26Ghz? Megahertz myth nothing, these chips are going to have a tough time pulling away from the 2.8 dual quad... Which is $400 less.

 

[Umbongo]

For the single processor Mac Pros then you might be right.

But for the 8-Core Mac Pros they have to be using the much more expensive 55XX series Xeons and in that range I bet we will find that Apple is quite competitively priced.

While other vendors may charge similar prices Apple have still gone from a $2,800 system with two $800 processors to a $3300 system with two $375 processors.

 

[nanofrog]

They're laughable offenders just like the single. $3,200 for 2.26Ghz? Megahertz myth nothing, these chips are going to have a tough time pulling away from the 2.8 dual quad... Which is $400 less.

Granted, clock speed between the two architecture's aren't equal, but the gap in this particular case, will make it tough for the 2.26 E5520 to consistently beat the 2.8Ghz E5462. I think the individual test results will go back and forth per specific test, but not necessarily demonstrate a clear winner.

The X5550 (2.66GHz) would be required for that. Possibly the E5540 (2.53GHz) could as well, but by a very small margin.

 

[nanofrog]

While other vendors may charge similar prices Apple have still gone from a $2,800 system with two $800 processors to a $3300 system with two $375 processors.

This is the pill I'm having a hard time swallowing.

 

[milo]

I'm about to pull the trigger on a studio xps, after 25% off I can get 8gb of ram, a good video card, 500gb hd, and the 2.66 i7 chip with dells top of the line 24" ultrasharp for $1,400...

Actually, go with either 6 or 12 gigs of ram, it's three channels for best performance.

 

[milo]

The Studio XPS is using a desktop core i7, a $600 processor. The Mac Pro is using a Xeon X5500, a $1300 process. The Studio is only capable of having one processor, the Mac Pro can handle two.

Wrong, the comparison is the MP quad, which uses a xeon 3500, which is identical to the i7 other than the ability to use ECC ram. And the quad box can't handle two, there is only one socket.

It's actually a pretty decent comparison.

It's not the same processor or motherboard.

Sure, it's not the same, but the only difference in processor is ECC ram. I'm not sure about the motherboard, but is there any evidence that the MP quad mobo provides any real advantage? I doubt anyone would consider ECC worth $1500.

And don't forget that the MP quad maxes out with LESS ram.

 

[Infrared]

Granted, clock speed between the two architecture's aren't equal, but the gap in this particular case, will make it tough for the 2.26 E5520 to consistently beat the 2.8Ghz E5462. I think the individual test results will go back and forth per specific test, but not necessarily demonstrate a clear winner.

The X5550 (2.66GHz) would be required for that.

If that is the case, then a UK buyer will have to pay £3,618 for a
machine that is consistently better than last year's £1,712 model.
(That's the price of the 8 x 2.66GHz machine in Apple's UK Store.)

 

[nanofrog]

If that is the case, then a UK buyer will have to pay £3,618 for a
machine that is consistently better than last year's £1,712 model.
(That's the price of the 8 x 2.66GHz machine in Apple's UK Store.)

Ouch!!!

I knew the prices in the UK tend to be higher, but not that high.

 

[Eidorian]

I love that picture OP. It's a great shame on the single socket Mac Pro.

 

[nanofrog]

I love that picture OP. It's a great shame on the single socket Mac Pro.

I agree. Apple went too crazy this time.

 

[e²Studios]

I love OS X however the premium they are charging to use it is plain absurd. I was waiting for the new Mac Pros but ended up parting together a system for much less than what Apple is charging. Does it run OS X, no, not legally at least but it also costs substantially less.

For $1300 I setup this system:
Intel Core i7 940
Corsair 3 x 2GB 6GB RAM
Seagate 1.5 TB HD
Nvidia GTX 285
Intel DX58SO Extreme Series X58 MB
Antec Steel Case
Samsung DVD DL +/- R/RW Drive
Corsair 750W PS

While it certainly will lack the great look of the Mac Pro, as well as OS X it is something I am willing to live with considering the huge price differential between the two. Apple seriously needs to consider their pricing, I was always pro Apple until I woke up and saw how much they were ripping me off when it came to hardware.

While Windows may "suck" compared to OS X (They both have their pro's and cons'), I would rather have the extra money in my bank than using OS X for an overinflated price.

Right now my biggest issue is moving licenses.. Adobe is telling me i have to upgrade to CS4 in order to move my CS3 license from OS X to Windows, you would think they would make it easier....

 

[Salavat23]

I love OS X however the premium they are charging to use it is plain absurd. I was waiting for the new Mac Pros but ended up parting together a system for much less than what Apple is charging. Does it run OS X, no, not legally at least but it also costs substantially less.

For $1300 I setup this system:
Intel Core i7 940
Corsair 3 x 2GB 6GB RAM
Seagate 1.5 TB HD
Nvidia GTX 285
Intel DX58SO Extreme Series X58 MB
Antec Steel Case
Samsung DVD DL +/- R/RW Drive
Corsair 750W PS

While it certainly will lack the great look of the Mac Pro, as well as OS X it is something I am willing to live with considering the huge price differential between the two. Apple seriously needs to consider their pricing, I was always pro Apple until I woke up and saw how much they were ripping me off when it came to hardware.

While Windows may "suck" compared to OS X (They both have their pro's and cons'), I would rather have the extra money in my bank than using OS X for an overinflated price.

Right now my biggest issue is moving licenses.. Adobe is telling me i have to upgrade to CS4 in order to move my CS3 license from OS X to Windows, you would think they would make it easier....

{Don't} buy a Core i7 940. It is twice more expensive than the 920, and only marginally faster. Plus both overclock to the same levels anyway.