Apple Claims 91% of $1,000+ PC Market Revenue in June

[drsmithy]

Actually I prefer PCs for their broader range of hardware and software. I'm a linux fanboy not a Mac fanboy...all I was saying is that the chip was at fault for the melted solder/warped logic board not the design of the whole computer.

If Apple knowingly put a processor producing X amount of heat into a case that could not sustain it, then the fault is 100%, utterly and completely, Apple's. They should have redesigned the case or undervolted/underclocked the processor until everything was in spec. To have not done so is negligence, plain and simple.

Sure, Motorola couldn't produce the chip they said they could - but it was Apple who knowingly put that chip into a machine not specced for it.

Overall I think that Apple makes better bleeding edge products than pc manufacturers...i.e. the PC laptop running a Core i7...horrible design given that there are 4 freaking fans on the damn thing just to keep it cool...a better design would incorporate a slower/cooler running proc for better portability and to make it quieter.

Fortunately, in the PC world, you can pick one of the other myriad laptop designs that does what you want.

 

[Eidorian]

Actually I prefer PCs for their broader range of hardware and software. I'm a linux fanboy not a Mac fanboy...all I was saying is that the chip was at fault for the melted solder/warped logic board not the design of the whole computer.

And Apple continued to use Motorola processors in their notebooks...

Overall I think that Apple makes better bleeding edge products than pc manufacturers...i.e. the PC laptop running a Core i7...horrible design given that there are 4 freaking fans on the damn thing just to keep it cool...a better design would incorporate a slower/cooler running proc for better portability and to make it quieter.

I'm sure that Apple is the only OEM with the access to mobile processor components and everyone else has to manage to fit a Bloomfield into a notebook to compete.

You have plenty of options to pick when buying a PC laptop. I don't see how you can use the very rare desktop Q6600/Core i7 920 laptops to define the entire laptop/notebook industry outside of Apple.

 

[revbarabbas]

You have plenty of options to pick when buying a PC laptop. I don't see how you can use the very rare desktop Q6600/Core i7 920 laptops to define the entire laptop/notebook industry outside of Apple.

I was just using the Core i7 laptop as an example of poor design over function.

 

[Eidorian]

I was just using the Core i7 laptop as an example of poor design over function.

You're taking hardware that's normally found in a 30 lbs. tower with a display attached to it and slamming it into a 2 inch thick 12-15 lbs case including a display and it's poor design? It's a premium mobile workstation not my coworker's $700 17" Core 2 Duo Dell notebook.

 

[Dustman]

Then why does my wooden coffee table still have a mark on it from my ibook g3 from when it was overheating? Also why was the fan on constantly? Also why did the solder melt on the logic board? The chip was simply too hot...either by being defective or by design.

Definitely either a fault of design or user as the iMac G3 (400 Mhz+) didn't even have a fan. It was cooled by heat rising out the top of the case. I had an iBook G3 900 Mhz though that could fry eggs if i had the will to do so.

 

[drsmithy]

I was just using the Core i7 laptop as an example of poor design over function.

But it may not be. For someone more interested in a portable workstation, rather than a laptop, it's a great solution.

 

[AidenShaw]

I was just using the Core i7 laptop as an example of poor design over function.

It's beautifully designed for a mobile workstation for professional use - function (power and features) over form (big, heavy).

It's not designed for the function of road-warrior email/surfing - that's an MBA.

Different design does not mean "poor". I'm sure that if Apple made a similar system that on-location professionals (video/audio/photography) would snap them up. To have a laptop machine that's faster than a quad Mac Pro - wow.

The laptop was designed before the proc not the other way around.

Wouldn't it make more sense to design them both together? That way one could test the system and make sure that problems like this didn't slip out.

When I worked for a major PC/server vendor, one step in workstation testing was "the oven". Pre-production systems would be put into an enclosure heated to 55°, and then full scale stress testing would be started.

The "oven" had a slot where the disk cables would run outside the oven, and the disks would be outside in the cool air. We knew that the disks would die at 55°, so nothing would be learned by melting another disk.

 

[-hh]

No-one suggested that 100W was the maximum that system (or other based on the same chassis) would draw under an extreme load....

Here's the quote. Please go take it up with the original poster:

... It is unlikely that the average modern PC pulls over 100W, even in "peak times"...

Unlike Apple, PC OEMs sell systems whose configurations can vary significantly in the same chassis. Clearly the miniscule additional costs in "overspeccing" PSUs at the low end are more than made up for by savings in inventory management.

The difference in potential power draw between a base level and top-end iMac is relatively small, due to their minimal configuration and component differences. The same cannot be said for even a basic PC, which in the same chassis could range from something equivalent to a Mac Mini, to something with 3-4x the specs of a top-end iMac.

And this was also already previously discussed. Thank-you for endorsing my point, (RE: higher risk of power consumption growth in a PC over product lifecycle). FYI, this was precisely why those 'gamer' video cards happened to be mentioned.

You are comparing apples to oranges. An i7 machine is more properly compared to a Mac Pro. It's ridiculous to compare its power supply to an iMac.

The i7 wasn't my choice...I'm merely the messenger. As I previously said, the i7 is the current poster-child of the xMac fan club.

In any event, if you are objecting to the selection of Intel's most modern, energy-efficient desktop CPU, feel free to recommend some cheap stinky old energy pig replacement for it.

To say nothing of the further dishonesty of assuming a typical PC has a 24" LCD connected to it.

Actually, what is dishonst is to not include any display at all.

When comparing to a 20" iMac, it certainly seems that it would make sense to use a 20" display, and when comparing to a 24" iMac, it similarly would make sense to use a 24" display.

If you choose to disagree, please make a constructive suggestion as to why one should purposefully choose dissimilarly sized displays...

I can get 9 to 12 cents/kwh here. 15 is being generous.

Understood, as there's regional variation: locally, I'm at over 17 cents ... and that's before adding in local taxes/fees.

There's also (locally, at least) a risk of utility rate increases when considering lifecycle costs. Locally, we've had a ~40% increase over the past 3 years, and some residential customers were hit with a 9 cent (~50%) rate increase this past spring. A simple linear continuation of this local current trend would mean 25+ cents per kwh locally by 2013 ... it all adds up.


-hh

 

[Eidorian]

And this was also already previously discussed. Thank-you for endorsing my point, (RE: higher risk of power consumption growth in a PC over product lifecycle). FYI, this was precisely why those 'gamer' video cards happened to be mentioned.

You're still stuck in the past grave you dug yourself.

1. Implying that the GTX 285 is the most proliferate "gamer" card.
2. Implying that the majority of desktop users aren't going to be using integrated graphics and using said GTX 285.
3. The original outrageous cost of ownership based on power consumption of the iMac vs. a PC desktop
4. Using the peak wattage on a power supply as the measure of power consumption.

You're not going to be sporting a G92 much less a GTX 285 on a 305W power supply anyways. Apparently our power user ways somehow apply to every PC owner now. Average joe isn't going to add more hard drives or a video card but we could and the OEM has taken that chance into account. We're not going to go around and blow up some power supplies because we didn't take our expansion vs. power required either. You're not going to do any expansion in the iMac ever and that is taken into account.

Lets not even get into energy cost savings due to performance scaling of cores and architectures. Not to mention the Core i7 towers running around with 350 - 400W PSUs that can give the single socket Mac Pro a run for its money. But the Mac Pro has more/better expansion? Guess what the power supply is scaled to that. You're not putting dual 4890s in your mini-tower Studio XPS unless you have a death wish and a PC Power & Cooling PSU to back it up much less the motherboard.

You've also ignored Aiden's power consumption calculator which can even handle idle productivity, full load, and sleep states in its calculations.

Actually, what is dishonst is to not include any display at all.

When comparing to a 20" iMac, it certainly seems that it would make sense to use a 20" display, and when comparing to a 24" iMac, it similarly would make sense to use a 24" display.

If you choose to disagree, please make a constructive suggestion as to why one should purposefully choose dissimilarly sized displays...

No one is going to disagree with you there. The display does have to be included. No reason to even think we're going to somehow come up with some outrageous reason not to include it when the iMac is permanently stuck to its display.

 

[drsmithy]

Here's the quote. Please go take it up with the original poster:

I was the original poster, and since my original point was obviously a bit too subtle, I'll state it more plainly.

It is highly unlikely that, even in "peak time", the average PC will draw more than 100W. Yes, if you have a highly-clocked quad-core machine with 8GB of RAM, a few internal drives and an above average video card, and are heavily stressing it with a very atypical workload, you might start to close in on 250-300W - but the vast, vast majority of people will not. The reason they will not is because modern systems, even with relatively heavy OSes like OS X and Vista, are still substantially overpowered for average workloads.

And this was also already previously discussed. Thank-you for endorsing my point, (RE: higher risk of power consumption growth in a PC over product lifecycle). FYI, this was precisely why those 'gamer' video cards happened to be mentioned.

I'm not "endorsing your point" in the slightest. I'm highlighting why your assumptions are wrong and that the maximum draw of a systems PSU is not a good indicator of how much power it actually uses.

The i7 wasn't my choice...I'm merely the messenger. As I previously said, the i7 is the current poster-child of the xMac fan club.

Then why are you comparing it to an iMac ?

In any event, if you are objecting to the selection of Intel's most modern, energy-efficient desktop CPU, feel free to recommend some cheap stinky old energy pig replacement for it.

More energy efficient does not imply uses less energy overall. It implies uses less energy to do a given task.

Actually, what is dishonst is to not include any display at all.

At no point have I done this. All my numbers are for whole systems, as are the other examples I have seen. You are the only person who seems to think screen power usage is not being included.

Understood, as there's regional variation: locally, I'm at over 17 cents ... and that's before adding in local taxes/fees.

When you are grossly overstating power draw as badly as you are, whether the local power costs $0.05 or $0.25 is something of a moot point.

There's also (locally, at least) a risk of utility rate increases when considering lifecycle costs. Locally, we've had a ~40% increase over the past 3 years, and some residential customers were hit with a 9 cent (~50%) rate increase this past spring. A simple linear continuation of this local current trend would mean 25+ cents per kwh locally by 2013 ... it all adds up.

The simple fact of the matter is that for a typical user, the difference in power usage between an iMac and some random PC is going to be utterly negligible, and certainly not even in the same order of magnitude as the difference in purchase price. If you have actual data to suggest otherwise - and not wild theories based on bad assumptions - please share it.

 

[Eidorian]

More energy efficient does not imply uses less energy overall. It implies uses less energy to do a given task.

Which is fun when Anandtech or some other site faces off Xeon and Opteron and pits time to complete task vs. power consumed vs. processor price.

And you thought performance per watt was all there was. Get work done fast and spend more time at idle. You're not going to sleep your servers. Conserve and virtualize too.

 

[jadam]

Same with computers - high-end $2000 computers are going to be better than a $350 computer. Maybe in ways that you don't care, but they are better. What's interesting here is that once you decide you want and care about a >$1000 computer you are in a staggering minority if you buy anything other than a mac.

I would say most people who buy high end computers that cost >$2000 tend to build themselves or purchase online from speciality store which only have an online presence. And I'm pretty sure my own homebuilt pc is quite a bit faster and cheaper than an equivalently priced mac ;-) In fact, configuring a mac with the same specs as my PC would cost me over $3000, about 50% more than my total system cost. And the equivalent mac would be significantly slower because of Apples lack of overclocking ability.

Remember these numbers are only from retail stores. Does alienware actually sell high end laptops at stores?

 

[AidenShaw]

Actually, what is dishonst is to not include any display at all.

The Dell power consumption calculator which you have refused to acknowledge shows that a Dell office PC + LCD uses $37/year in electricity - although you claim that it uses $250 more per year than an Imac?

No dishonesty here, just scientific method and measurements.

...as there's regional variation: locally, I'm at over 17 cents ... and that's before adding in local taxes/fees.

The top rate here in California is $0.441/kwh

 

[BaldiMac]

I would say most people who buy high end computers that cost >$2000 tend to build themselves or purchase online. And I'm pretty sure my own homebuilt pc is quite a bit faster and cheaper than an equivalently priced mac ;-) In fact, configuring a mac with the same specs as my PC would cost me over $3000, about 50% more than my total system cost.

Holy crap! If you build a computer yourself, it's cheaper than when someone does it for you with the intent to make a profit? Who would have thought!

And the equivalent mac would be significantly slower because of Apples

Because of Apples...

 

[jadam]

Holy crap! If you build a computer yourself, it's cheaper than when someone does it for you with the intent to make a profit? Who would have thought!

Some people actually care about value by the way, especially with our current economy. Why would you spend $3000-$3500 for a mac pro when you could building an equally performing(faster actually) PC for $1600-2000???

Back in the day Apple would justify it because they used PowerPC processors, what is it now?


I can play this game too yah know?

 

[Dwalls90]

Some people actually care about value by the way, especially with our current economy. Why would you spend $3000-$3500 for a mac pro when you could building an equally performing(faster actually) PC for $1600-2000???

Back in the day Apple would justify it because they used PowerPC processors, what is it now?


I can play this game too yah know?

Which is why Apple has such a strong presence in the mobile sector - because they have mastered heat dissipation and mobile technologies combined with aesthetic appeal and an awesome OS (thin+light too). This is something that not only competitors can't match, but system builders can't touch.

I still wonder how Apple can justify their pricing schemes for the Mac Pro.

 

[Eidorian]

Which is why Apple has such a strong presence in the mobile sector - because they have mastered heat dissipation and mobile technologies combined with aesthetic appeal and an awesome OS (thin+light too). This is something that not only competitors can't match, but system builders can't touch.

I still wonder how Apple can justify their pricing schemes for the Mac Pro.

Apple is good for thin and light but their cooling design and methods are very debatable.

They have plenty of 85 - 100° C notebooks around. We covered it in this thread already.

 

[AidenShaw]

I still wonder how Apple can justify their pricing schemes for the Mac Pro.

The Mac Pro prices are reasonable and even good compared to other Xeon-based workstation systems.

The problem is the

. . . . G I A N T . . . G A P I N G . . . H O L E . . .

between the Imac and the Mac Pro - where other companies have many quad core desktop systems, including Core i7 quads that are much faster than the quad Mac Pro for less than half the price.

 

[BaldiMac]

Some people actually care about value by the way, especially with our current economy.

Value doesn't mean cheaper.

Why would you spend $3000-$3500 for a mac pro when you could building an equally performing(faster actually) PC for $1600-2000???

1. Because OS X is valuable to me.
2. Because my time is valuable to me.
3. Because you can't build a PC for $1600-$2000 that meets or exceeds all of the specs of a stock 8-Core Mac Pro.
4. Because having a single source for technical support should a problem arise is valuable to me.'

The question is "What does a particular person need a PC faster than a Mac Pro for?" If the answer is gaming, why even consider a Mac Pro? If the answer is to use Final Cut Studio, then the PC doesn't do you much good. Fast isn't very useful if it doesn't do what you want.

Back in the day Apple would justify it because they used PowerPC processors, what is it now?

How does a PowerPC processor justify a performance deficiency? Unless you are basing performance off of the clock speed of the CPU.

I can play this game too yah know?

What game are you playing?

 

[jadam]

Value doesn't mean cheaper.



1. Because OS X is valuable to me.
2. Because my time is valuable to me.
3. Because you can't build a PC for $1600-$2000 that meets or exceeds all of the specs of a stock 8-Core Mac Pro.
4. Because having a single source for technical support should a problem arise is valuable to me.'

1. Fine
2. You're wasting time on these forums, I don't think so.
3. Yes I can for $2000 build a PC that will give an 8-core Mac Pro a run for it's money. I can overclock my system to 4.4ghz while the mac pro is stuck running at 2.93ghz, granted it has 8 cores vs my 4 cores, my system would have a 50% clockspeed advantage. In fact for many applications the 4.4ghz quad core will run much faster than the mac. Regardless I was referring to the $2400 single quad mac Pro. Almost anyone can build a $1400 Core i7 system that can easily beat the entry level Mac Pro. Mind you that $1400 system will have a better graphics card, better cooling system, twice the ram, and a bigger/faster hard drive than the Mac Pro.
4. Tech support is easy.

The question is "What does a particular person need a PC faster than a Mac Pro for?" If the answer is gaming, why even consider a Mac Pro? If the answer is to use Final Cut Studio, then the PC doesn't do you much good. Fast isn't very useful if it doesn't do what you want.

There are apps just as good on the PC side ;-)
But for a professional spending real money and who is used to Final Cut Studio, fine I can see them purchasing an 8-core mac. For a professional doing engineering related work however, I don't see them ever going to the mac in the near future due to it's software limitations(lack of applications).

How does a PowerPC processor justify a performance deficiency? Unless you are basing performance off of the clock speed of the CPU.

Apple justified higher prices back in the day with the PowerPC Processor, now they use the same processors as regular PCs, and no a Xeon isn't very different.

What game are you playing?

SFIV mainly, with some Mechwarrior and Supreme Commander goodness.

 

[AidenShaw]

Value doesn't mean cheaper.

And more expensive doesn't mean better.

3. Because you can't build a PC for $1600-$2000 that meets or exceeds all of the specs of a stock 8-Core Mac Pro.

But you can easily beat a $3300 quad Mac Pro for $1700.

Mac Pro: $3,348

One 2.93GHz Quad-Core Intel Xeon
3GB (3x1GB)
1TB 7200-rpm Serial ATA 3Gb/s
NVIDIA GeForce GT 120 512MB
One 18x SuperDrive
Apple Mighty Mouse
Apple Keyboard with Numeric Keypad (English) and User's Guide
AppleCare Protection Plan for Mac Pro (w/or w/o Display) - Auto-enroll
​

Dell Studio XPS: $1,678

Genuine Windows Vista® Ultimate SP1 64-bit with Windows 7 Ultimate upgrade
Intel® Core™ i7-940 Processor(8MB L3 Cache, 2.93GHz)
ATI Radeon HD 4350 512MB
3Yr Ltd Hardware Warranty, InHome Service after Remote Diagnosis
Microsoft Works 9
3GB DDR3 Tri-Channel SDRAM at 1066MHz - 3 DIMMs
1TB - 7200RPM, SATA 3.0Gb/s, 16MB Cache
Single Drive: 16X CD/DVD burner (DVD+/-RW) w/double layer write capability
Dell Studio Consumer Multimedia Keyboard
Dell Studio Optical Mouse
​

Half price is good.

4. Because having a single source for technical support should a problem arise is valuable to me.

Got it.

Apple needs the desktop system with desktop parts. There's such a huge gap between the all-in-one laptop-on-a-stand and the professional workstation.

 

[BaldiMac]

1. Fine

Yippee.

2. You're wasting time on these forums, I don't think so.

I'm pretty sure that I know my life better than you do.

3. Yes I can for $2000 build a PC that will give an 8-core Mac Pro a run for it's money. I can overclock my system to 4.4ghz while the mac pro is stuck running at 2.93ghz, granted it has 8 cores vs my 4 cores, my system would have a 50% clockspeed advantage. In fact for many applications the 4.4ghz quad core will run much faster than the mac.

I'm sure you could do it. As long as you ignore the part about meeting or exceeding all the specs of the Mac Pro.

Regardless I was referring to the $2400 single quad mac Pro.

Silly me. When you said $3000-$3500, I should have assumed you meant the $2500 one.

Almost anyone can build a $1400 Core i7 system that can easily beat the entry level Mac Pro. Mind you that $1400 system will have a better graphics card, better cooling system, twice the ram, and a bigger/faster hard drive than the Mac Pro.

I'll just believe you on this one.

4. Tech support is easy.

Sometimes. Depends on the situation. And the expertise of the person involved.

Apple justified higher prices back in the day with the PowerPC Processor, now they use the same processors as regular PCs, and no a Xeon isn't very different.

Maybe some Apple fans justified higher prices this way. There are ignorant people everywhere.

The fact that they use the same processors is irrelevant. The value of a product is not simply the sum of its parts.

SFIV mainly, with some Mechwarrior and Supreme Commander goodness.

 

[jadam]

Fine here is a system that exceeds the mac...

https://secure.newegg.com/WishList/MySavedWishDetail.aspx?ID=14546168

Add an extra $200 total because the processors need to be Xeon 5500 2.26ghzs not 3500s(Dual socket vs single socket difference)
You can find the Same Xeon 5500 2.26ghz processors for $398 each online.

System Specs:

CPU: 2x Quad Core Xeon 5500 2.26ghz (Since these are low binned parts, they can probablly only hit 3.8ghz max)
RAM: 6gb ECC DDR3 1333 Memory
HD: 2x 1TB WD Caviar Black for a nice Raid Array (Who uses a workstation without a RAID array? Apple charges $300 for a $100 similiar drive...)
MB: Asus Dual Socket 1366 Motherboard
Graphics: Geforce 275 (Significantly Better than anything available from the Apple store)
Cooling: 2x Scythe Mugen 2 Fans, Allow for 3.8ghz near silent air cooling.
Case: Lian-Li, the Case alone is $300, very nice and high end.
Power: Corsair 750W (One of the best Power supplies out there)


All for a price of $2231 if you account for the slight bump in processor cost.

This system EXCEEDS the $3300 Mac Pro system, in fact if you try to achieve price parity you end up bringing the mac to nearly $3900 via adding a Radeon 4870 and a 2nd 1TB HD.

So again why does Apple charge nearly 50% more for their system??

I like Apples mobile products and I like the current iMacs(Although those could use a drop in price). But charging 50%+ for a system is insane.

 

[AidenShaw]

I'm sure you could do it. As long as you ignore the part about meeting or exceeding all the specs of the Mac Pro.

The problem with the "all the specs" requirement is that it forces someone to include things are may not be important to that person. A lot of people would like a quad core desktop - but they don't need a Xeon workstation and its price.

The only significant spec that the Dell that's half the price doesn't meet is ECC memory.

If ECC is a personal requirement - fine. But, since the overwhelming majority of Apple systems sold don't have ECC - one could assume that perhaps ECC isn't a requirement for most people.

Plus - there's often a situation where exactly matching specs is impossible. The Dell Studio XPS has six memory slots, and can be configured with up to 24 GiB of RAM. The quad Mac Pro has 4 slots, and a max of 8 GiB. If I put "12 GiB" of RAM as a requirement, the much more expensive quad Mac Pro is disqualified.

Silly me. When you said $3000-$3500, I should have assumed you meant the $2500 one.

Yes, silly you. A couple of minor options puts the quad Mac Pro well above $3K. Look a my post a couple above - the quad Mac Pro is $3.3K and I didn't even try.

 

[jadam]

The problem with the "all the specs" requirement is that it forces someone to include things are may not be important to that person. A lot of people would like a quad core desktop - but they don't need a Xeon workstation and its price.

The only significant spec that the Dell that's half the price doesn't meet is ECC memory.

If ECC is a personal requirement - fine. But, since the overwhelming majority of Apple systems sold don't have ECC - one could assume that perhaps ECC isn't a requirement for most people.

ECC RAM isn't even that expensive, I paid nearly 2x the price for low latency DDR3-1600mhz RAM... Basically I could have bought 12gb of DDR3-1333 ECC RAM for the price of my 6gb of non ECC DDR3-1600 RAM.

Just an FYI for other posters, 6gb of quality DDR3 ECC Ram costs about $100-$125, Apple charges what, $300 for a 6gb memory upgradE?


Or even the hard drive upgrades, $300 for a 1TB HD?? Try $110...

The graphics card options are silly too, a Geforce GT 120 is an absolutely terrible card based off the Geforce 9500 GT. (For gaming at least)