Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

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

-hh said:
Note: Please keep in mind that we're trying to consider what may very well happen to a machine over its 5-7 year lifecycle. The iMac isn't particularly expandable, so its a lot easier...but how many PC home users can really resist the temptation of leaving it alone? Given all of the upgrade parts that one finds in aisle after aisle after asile in Best Buy, its hard to claim that there's utterly no market for PC upgrades.
Click to expand...
Nearly all of them are going leave their machines alone. Apple is right that RAM is the most common upgrade for your average user. Even then it's terrifying for an iMac owner. (Perception not actual difficulty.)

You'll hear me go on about how the iMac doesn't have any expansion. My solution is not to buy an iMac. Nearly everyone else in this thread has had experience with a wide variety of machines from a GAMER rig to workstations. The iMac isn't what we're looking for and we accept that.

We also accept that the iMac is going to be on the lower end of power consumption as well. We just don't understand how the iMac consuming less power by orders of magnitude. If you're running it at full load 24/7 you are wasting your money on its paltry Core 2 Duo with 2007 speeds.

Get a Core 2 Quad, Phenom II X4, or Core i7. You'll get more work done per watt and get it done faster. In my experience scaling from a 2.4 GHz Core 2 Duo to a Quad you are getting near double the performance.

Whenever I get a support call it's a 2.4-2.8 GHz Pentium 4 Northwood with 512 MB of RAM and Windows XP. That's my generic standard for what everyone is using today. These machines are hitting 5 or even 6 years too and have never been touched.
 
i nominate hh as the most delusional poster on this board. its hilarious to read how much he/she thinks his thoughts are these well thought out rational ideas when really they're actually bewildering to someone with common sense and a competent grasp on reality.
 
AidenShaw said:
ATI RADEON HD4670 512MB

It has truly abysmal OpenGL performance - I should check that it is running the accelerated OpenGL hardware drivers and not Microsoft's Software OpenGL stack.
Click to expand...

Eidorian said:
I suspected as much. In most cases you're not going to break 80% continuous draw on an OEM power supply. That's just an offhand guess that will work for most cases.
Click to expand...

It was running the Microsoft software OpenGL. When I installed the accelerated drivers, the frame rate on the OpenGL test jumped from 1.3 fps to 360 fps!

Added power consumption due to the OpenGL test jumped from 30 watts to about 60 watts.

Running 4 threads of Prime95 + OpenGL is now 255-260 watts, with an occasional spike to 265 watts. The input power is still just a bit less than 74% of the output rating.
 
Measurements of a more typical system, with monitor

I've taken another set of measurements of a system more typical of a recent office system (and also a reasonable match to the capabilities of the Imac).


Dell Optiplex GX745
- E6600 Core 2 Duo (2.4 GHz)
- 3 GiB DDR2 RAM
- 250 GB 7200 RPM SATA disk
- DVD-DL
- GMA 3000 integrated graphics
- Vista Ultimate SP2 (x86)
- 216 watt power supply
- Harmon Kardon powered speakers
- Dell 1907FP 19" LCD (add 22 watts to monitor on power for 2001FP 20", and 31 watts for 2405FPW 24" panel - or subtract 23 watts to get the system+speaker power)

Code: 
Watts        State
------       -----------------------------------------------
   3         Sleep, monitor on but sleeping, speakers off (speakers are 2.8 watts idling)
  54         OS running but idle, monitor on but sleeping, speakers on
  77         System idle, monitor lit
  80         Watching flash video from Hulu.com
 115         Two Prime95 threads, monitor lit
 123         Two Intel "Thermal Analysis Tool" (TAT) threads, monitor lit
 129         TAT plus OpenGL test (66 fps), monitor lit

One interesting thing is to watch the spikes, which verify how much of the time the system is idle. For example, launching IE causes a 15-20 watt spike that lasts a second or so - then right back down.

Normal use (things that don't chew power like mail, office apps, the web) sits in the 75 to 85 watt range, with brief spikes when tasks are launched.
 
The sad part is? Apple is TOO good... I mean, sooner or later they will lose space in the $1000+ market... They will need to go to the lower ones if they want to improve.
 
Neotyguy40 said:
The sad part is? Apple is TOO good... I mean, sooner or later they will lose space in the $1000+ market... They will need to go to the lower ones if they want to improve.
Click to expand...

Apple has plenty of room to grow in the $1000+ market. Remember, the 91% number is only for retail brick and mortar sales.
 
AidenShaw said:
Now, if I don't try to meet the "$3K Mac Pro" requirement, I get

Mac Pro quad 2.66 GHz $2,499
Dell Studio XPS quad 2.66 GHz $799​

and the Apple is more than three times the price of the Dell that is an equivalent value in most tangible aspects.

What's wrong now?
Click to expand...

Where's the rest of the system? You list absolutely nothing about RAM type or bus speed; you mention nothing about hard drive size or speed; no networking; no bluetooth; no OS; no capacities; no nothing.

As a matter of curiosity, I researched that particular comparison and found out that the Dell carried only:
3GB DDR3 1066 RAM
a single.500Gb 7200rpm hard drive (total capacity 1.5TB)
16x DVD+/-RW dual-layer optical drive
Capacity for two (2) optical drives
Radeon 512MB video card
802.11n wireless.

In essence, I came out at $1435, not too bad a price. Now, let's see what your reference Mac Pro had.

3GB DDR3 1066 RAM - same
640GB SATA 7200rpm hard drive - advantage Mac
4 hard drive bays (total capacity 4TB) - advantage Mac
NVIDIA GeForce GT 120 512MB - same
capacity for Four (4) NVIDIA GeForce GT 120 512MB - advantage Mac
18x Superdrive (DVD+/-RW) - close enough
Capacity for two optical drives - same
Capacity to drive from 2 to 8 displays - advantage Mac
Applecare (to match Dell 3-year warranty option)

$2748 -- not quite twice the price in this case; good hunting.

However, the Dell doesn't have liquid cooling, 4TB or greater hard drive capacity or other capacities that would make it a more even comparison. If all you're interested in is the basics, then I accept your analysis.

Then again, even with Vista Ultimate (with upgrade to 7 ultimate) you still have to put up with Windows. That may be a good thing, it may not; but after too many years of experience using Windows, I'll stick to OS X. In fact, Now that I've looked over this quad-core Mac package, I may have just found my next machine.
 
Vulpinemac said:
Where's the rest of the system? You list absolutely nothing about RAM type or bus speed; you mention nothing about hard drive size or speed; no networking; no bluetooth; no OS; no capacities; no nothing.

As a matter of curiosity, I researched that particular comparison and found out that the Dell carried only:
3GB DDR3 1066 RAM
a single.500Gb 7200rpm hard drive (total capacity 1.5TB)
16x DVD+/-RW dual-layer optical drive
Capacity for two (2) optical drives
Radeon 512MB video card
802.11n wireless.

In essence, I came out at $1435, not too bad a price. Now, let's see what your reference Mac Pro had.

3GB DDR3 1066 RAM - same
640GB SATA 7200rpm hard drive - advantage Mac
4 hard drive bays (total capacity 4TB) - advantage Mac
NVIDIA GeForce GT 120 512MB - same
capacity for Four (4) NVIDIA GeForce GT 120 512MB - advantage Mac
18x Superdrive (DVD+/-RW) - close enough
Capacity for two optical drives - same
Capacity to drive from 2 to 8 displays - advantage Mac
Applecare (to match Dell 3-year warranty option)

$2748 -- not quite twice the price in this case; good hunting.

However, the Dell doesn't have liquid cooling, 4TB or greater hard drive capacity or other capacities that would make it a more even comparison. If all you're interested in is the basics, then I accept your analysis.

Then again, even with Vista Ultimate (with upgrade to 7 ultimate) you still have to put up with Windows. That may be a good thing, it may not; but after too many years of experience using Windows, I'll stick to OS X. In fact, Now that I've looked over this quad-core Mac package, I may have just found my next machine.
Click to expand...

Wow - can you send me the name of the guy who gets you your illicit pharmaceuticals - I want to go there with you.

Please copy and paste the Dell configuration that you had use to force the price up to $1435 from the $799 start. And explain why each and every CTO option was required.

Is a 500 GB drive really not more or less the same as a 640 GB drive? They are on the order of 15% apart - no big deal.

If you need to connect 8 monitors, then the Dell isn't the right system. If you don't *need* 8 monitors, then it's irrelevant that the far more expensive Apple can support them.
___________________

The issue isn't whether the Mac Pro is "better" than a mid-range PC desktop. The issue is that many people want more than the "laptop-on-a-stick" Imac - and Apple forces you to jump to a dual-socket capable Xeon workstation. That is a huge jump price-wise.

Other vendors offer economical quad-core desktops that fit this void in the Apple lineup. Some of them are even quite a bit faster than a Mac Pro at 1/3 the price - but on the other side there's choice. If you need workstation components and are willing to pay the price - fine.

If you don't need workstation class components, but the laptop-on-a-stick all-in-one doesn't float your boat - with Apple you're in a quandry.
 
Vulpinemac said:
As a matter of curiosity, I researched that particular comparison and found out that the Dell carried only:
3GB DDR3 1066 RAM
a single.500Gb 7200rpm hard drive (total capacity 1.5TB)
16x DVD+/-RW dual-layer optical drive
Capacity for two (2) optical drives
Radeon 512MB video card
802.11n wireless.

In essence, I came out at $1435, not too bad a price. Now, let's see what your reference Mac Pro had.
Click to expand...

Huh ? A Studio XPS with the above configuration costs $819 at dell.com $1,068 if you want the three year warranty and $1,118 if you want to match the 640GB hard disk.

What did you add to get to $1,435 ?

Also, the maximum disk capacity is obviously going to be 3TB (3x1TB), even thought for some reason that option isn't in the configurator. Similarly, the RAM maxes out at (at least) 12GB (probably 24GB), vs the quad-core Mac Pro's 8GB (possibly 16GB).

However, the Dell doesn't have liquid cooling, 4TB or greater hard drive capacity or other capacities that would make it a more even comparison. If all you're interested in is the basics, then I accept your analysis.
Click to expand...

The Studio XPS will give you a hell of a lot more than "the basics" - if you're not satisfied by the hardware capabilities a it offers, you probably represent about 1% of the computer buying public.

Incidentally, I don't think the current Mac Pros have liquid cooling (thankfully).
 
drsmithy said:
Similarly, the RAM maxes out at (at least) 12GB (probably 24GB), vs the quad-core Mac Pro's 8GB (possibly 16GB).
Click to expand...

The CTO options at Dell list 24 GiB:


  • 3 GiB DDR3 Tri-Channel SDRAM at 1066MHz - 3 DIMMs [Included in Price]
  • 4 GiB Dual Channel DDR3 SDRAM at 1066MHz - 4 DIMMs [add $50 or $1/month1]
  • 6 GiB Tri-Channel DDR3 SDRAM at 1066MHz - 6 DIMMs [add $150 or $4/month1]
  • 8 GiB Dual Channel DDR3 SDRAM at 1066MHz - 6 DIMMs [add $250 or $7/month1]
  • 12 GiB Tri-Channel DDR3 SDRAM at 1066MHz - 6 DIMMs [add $450 or $13/month1]
  • 24 GiB Tri-Channel DDR3 SDRAM at 1066MHz - 6 DIMMs [add $3,000 or $90/month1]

As is always the case, the highest density DIMMs are not the cheapest per GiB.
 
Wrapping it all up..

-hh said:
That same iMac happens to also be a more energy-efficient system because of that "lower performance" portable CPU: at $0.15/kWh, it typically costs roughly $250/year less electricity to operate than the generic desktop PC
Click to expand...

-hh said:
Sorry, but the i7 is roughly $1000 more expensive to operate over its lifecycle
Click to expand...

-hh said:
For example, for readers here who are running apps such as Boinc , then the machine is indeed working closer to the assumed "24/7"
Click to expand...

-hh said:
Overall, it is reasonable to conclude that the iMac consumes roughly half as much power of a beige box PC.
Click to expand...

-hh said:
In the meantime, Apple lists their base 20" iMac as having an idle power consumption of ~60w, and ~100W at max, which includes driving the LCD display. Granted, many enthusiats will probably opt for the 24" iMac which is does consume more power, but per Apple, it tops out at essentially only ~200W.
Click to expand...

-hh said:
If we assume a 5 year lifespan, if the per-year energy differentials are $100-$250, then we're looking at a TCO offset factor of $500-$1250. Similarly, for a 7 year, its $700 - $1750.
Click to expand...

-hh said:
For the iMac, the PSUs are 180W and 250W for a 20" and 24"
Click to expand...

-hh said:
The context of that "overkill" was in critiquing a claim that systems are only using a total of 100w at peak power.
...
Since the OEMs are spending the money to use 300W PSUs, this suggests that the 100W claim is probably wrong.
Click to expand...

Here is some data for the numbers based on the 24/7 usage:
Code: 
System                          Watts   Hrs/day Days/yr Cost @ 15¢/Kwh
----------------------------    ------  ------- ------- --------------
iMac: 20" idle                  61      24      365     $ 80.15
iMac: 24" 2.66/9400m idle       104     24      365     $136.66
iMac: 24" 2.93/GT120 idle       116     24      365     $152.42
iMac: 24" 3.06/HD4850 idle      126     24      365     $165.56
iMac: 20" max                   109     24      365     $143.23
iMac: 24" 2.66/9400m max        152     24      365     $199.73
iMac: 24" 2.93/GT120 max        192     24      365     $252.29
iMac: 24" 3.06/HD4850 max       216     24      365     $283.82
iMac: 20" 180 watt PS           180     24      365     $236.52
iMac: 24" 250 watt PS           250     24      365     $328.50

GX745: 19" idle                 54      24      365     $ 70.96
GX745: 19" max                  115     24      365     $151.11
GX745: 24" idle                 54      24      365     $ 70.96
GX745: 24" max                  169     24      365     $222.07
GX745: 19" + 216 watt PS        240     24      365     $315.36
GX745: 24" + 216 watt PS        291     24      365     $382.37

Mac Pro Quad: idle              115     24      365     $151.11
Mac Pro Quad: max               263     24      365     $345.58
XPS 2.93: idle                  92      24      365     $120.89
XPS 2.93: max                   250     24      365     $328.50
Mac Pro Quad:  980 watt PS?     980     24      365     $1,287.72
XPS 2.93: 360 watt PS           360     24      365     $473.04

(monitor not included for quad systems, Apple doesn't
say if monitor in power-save mode during "idle")

Comparing similar systems, nothing close to $250/year comes up, even using the unrealistic 24/7 calculations.

Now if we use calculations like Dell, and assume 5 day work weeks, productivity apps used 7 hours a day, max performance for 1 hour a day, and a 1 hour sleep/monitor timer, we see:

Code: 
System  GX745 19"               Watts   Hrs/day Days/yr Cost @ 15¢/Kwh
----------------------------    ------  ------- ------- --------------
  Productivity                  80      7       260     $21.84
  Max Perf                      115     1       260     $ 4.49
  Idle                          77      1       260     $ 3.00
  Sleep (overnight)             3       15      260     $ 1.76
  Sleep (weekends)              3       24      104     $ 1.12
                                                      --------
                                              Total     $32.21

System  iMac 20"                Watts   Hrs/day Days/yr Cost @ 15¢/Kwh
----------------------------    ------  ------- ------- --------------
  Productivity (idle + 10)      71      7       260     $19.38
  Max (from Apple)              109     1       260     $ 4.25
  Idle (from Apple)             61      1       260     $ 2.38
  Sleep (overnight)             3       15      260     $ 1.76
  Sleep (weekends)              3       24      104     $ 1.12
                                                      --------
                                              Total     $28.89
(Apple says iMac sleep is less than 5 watts)

Instead of the $315.36 figured using -hh's max PS 24/7 method, the actual cost of the system is about a tenth of that.

The savings compared to the iMac using similar calculations is $3.32/year. Time to "payoff" a $500 premium for the iMac is 150.6 years.
 
Energy Star standard - $26.25/yr

The EPA standard for Class B desktops (includes iMac) is 175 kWh/yr, or $26.25 at $0.15/kWh.

This is calculated by the formula:

TEC (Desktop and Notebook product categories):

The following tables indicate the required TEC levels for the 5.0 Specification. Table 1 below lists TEC requirements for Version 5.0, while Table 2 gives weightings for each operational mode by product type. TEC will be determined using the formula below:

ETEC = (8760/1000) * (Poff * Toff + Psleep * Tsleep + Pidle * Tidle)​

where all Px are power values in watts, all Tx are Time values in % of year, and the TEC ETEC is in units of kWh and represents annual energy consumption based on mode weightings in Table 2.​

Looks familiar... ;) This document is at Version 5.0 ENERGY STAR Computers Eligibility Criteria (pdf).

More info about Energy Star at Computer Key Product Criteria.

An Excel spreadsheet listing qualified desktop computers (and their Poff/Psleep/Pidle ratings) is at http://downloads.energystar.gov/bi/qplist/computers_prod_list.xls

The main Energy Star page for computers is at http://www.energystar.gov/index.cfm?fuseaction=find_a_product.ShowProductGroup&pgw_code=CO, where the above links and many others can be found.


The Energy Star power calculator is at http://www.energystar.gov/ia/products/power_mgt/LowCarbonITSavingsCalc_v26_with_5_0v2.xls . More resources at http://www.energystar.gov/index.cfm?c=power_mgt.pr_power_management .

ES_Logo.gif
 
I wonder when they will claim "Apple gets 100% market share in PC Market"
limited to all PCs sold in Apple:apple: Stores in the US in July 2009.
 
Compared to the 14-15% of the total market, its great...lol
How many people besides Apple people spend more than $1000 on a computer anymore. A few gamers, and designers. Most people can live with a $500 dell for checking email, using Word, and surfing the net.

That stat should not have been leaked..... lol
 
Eidorian said:
That's quite a bit of research you have there.
Click to expand...

I think the amount of energy Aiden just expended on that lengthy exchange would have powered my iMac for a year.

But I don't have the measurements to back that up...
 
cgratti said:
Most people can live with a $500 dell for checking email, using Word, and surfing the net.
Click to expand...

And I would love to send those people a cookie to show them my appreciation for absorbing all the virus and spyware attacks before it reached my niche platform.

Thanks "most people!" :D
 
LagunaSol said:
And I would love to send those people a cookie to show them my appreciation for absorbing all the virus and spyware attacks before it reached my niche platform.

Thanks "most people!" :D
Click to expand...

What does the price of a machine have to do with AV software? The assumption that people who buy low cost machines will be - as a group - stupid enough to not protect their machines seems a bit, well... stupid.
 
xIGmanIx said:
Wow.....wait a minute, don't you know not using and loving all things apple is strictly verbotten on this site? :eek:
Click to expand...

Sounds like someone isn't familiar with AidenShaw's purpose on MacRumors (hint: it's not about using or loving all things Apple).
 
LagunaSol said:
Sounds like someone isn't familiar with AidenShaw's purpose on MacRumors (hint: it's not about using or loving all things Apple).
Click to expand...

But I do love to counter false or misleading information about Apples or Windows :D

(False, like "an iMac saves $250/year in electricity costs"....)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back