Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple's Latest Mac Mini Turns Four Years Old Ahead of 'Pro-Focused' Refresh Expected Later This Month
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I'm comparing am iMac Pro (the only 'pro' computer Apple currently sells) to an XPS Tower, which is wholly irrelevant, RAM is RAM is RAM. There is ZERO reason why it would be triple the cost on an Apple computer vs a PC.
Ok so thats Apples to Oranges comparison(no pun intended)
XPS is a desktop class computer, iMac Pro is a all-in-one workstation class computer
And there is still ZERO reason for Apple to charge triple for a RAM upgrade aside from greed for margins.
The guy who is comparing pricing from a desktop to a workstation with server grade components like ECC memory?
Here's a litmus test....if any of you guys work in a company thats hosts servers ask the networking guys from IT how much they get billed for memory on a Windows server.
Read what you just wrote and see how you defeated your own argument: the desktops faster RAM should be MORE expensive than the slower all-in-one desktops RAM, and yet the all-in-one desktops RAM is TRIPLE the cost.
The Mac line has become a hobby project for Apple. Even the Apple TV has been getting more focus than some Mac products.
No wonder Mac sales are going down with the lack of updates and the terrible releases of the past years.
https://www.zdnet.com/article/expensive-iphones-boost-revenue-but-mac-sales-tank/
That chart mostly shows that the only thing actually hurting Apple is their update schedule. For all the complaints about their product lines Mac sales have remained mostly steady even amid the wider PC decline.
That's not how RAM works.
Apple's BTO pricing are no more or less exploitive than Dell or HP's if you're matching equivalent upgrades. If you want to make the argument that it's easier to make an upgrade yourself on those later OEM's machines, you'll have a much better point to make than comparing different types of RAM.
If you don't understand the difference between ECC RAM and Xeon workstations versus the desktop class RAM and processors the XPS uses, then that's on you for being thick.
Last edited:
Did I wake up in an alternate reality where Apple is known for competitive ram pricing vs other vendors?
Ok, let’s compare non ecc desktop ram. Apple isn’t triple the cost, but they are twice as expensive as a dell XP’s tower.
Apple 21 inch iMac, non user upgradeable (so you have to buy from Apple to upgrade): the upgrade from 8gb to 32gb of 2400mhz ram is $600. https://www.apple.com/shop/buy-mac/imac/21.5-inch-3.4ghz-1tb
Dell XPS tower upgrade from 8gb to 32gb of 2666 ddr4 ram is $300. https://www.dell.com/en-us/shop/dell-desktop-computers/xps-tower/spd/xps-8930-desktop/dxcwvmax002h
Apple is probably using low profile ram, as that’s what’s in my 27 inch iMac. Is that more expensive? I don’t know nor do I care to spend more time on this.
But I saved around $300 adding 32 gb to my 27 inch 5k imac myself vs Apple. And what I got was an additional 32 gb, for a total of 48.
You've always been in that reality. Apple's BTO prices are not broadly out of step with other OEM makers, the biggest differences are in what options they actually offer.
You buy an iMac Pro and it'll cost you $800 to upgrade to 64GB of ECC RAM from 32GB, or $2400 to 128GB. You take a Z4 from HP and from 32GB to 64GB will cost you $1140, or $3400 with the 128GB option. Even including usual HP discounts especially for volume purchasers, you're going to be paying far more than Apple is charging. Dell's memory options depending on which tower or all-in-one you're looking at are equal, more, or less than Apple's costs; some models you can't actually upgrade the memory at all. Likewise storage options are all over the place; you can certainly get cheaper SATA and m.2 SSDs from other vendors, but you're not going to be saving much getting equivalent speeds.
You will always be saving money upgrading yourself versus buying from Apple, HP, Dell, whoever. I'm not sure what that really has to do with the original argument I was replying to with someone who couldn't understand why Xeons and ECC RAM are more expensive than i7 guts.
The biggest knock against Apple's pricing is that they don't update them when they leave product lines stagnant. Thus, the Mac Pro which was—when it was released—competitive or even cheaper than equivalent workstations is now hundreds of dollars more expensive on top of the fact you can't buy updated internals even if you wanted to.
Sorry, I should be more clear. You made multiple arguments, one of which was this:
That other dude was comparing the Mac Pro (ecc/workstation) to the dell XPS (non ecc/ consumer class). I wasn’t.
When comparing apples to apples (lol) on non-workstation class ram upgrades (imac vs dell xps tower), Apple is twice as expensive as dell for slower ram. That’s a fact. You can see it for yourself in the links I provided.
I think it’s clear that Apple is “broadly out of step with other OEMs” and “more exploitive” than Dell on consumer desktop ram. This has been a sticking point for years.
Last edited:
You're not wrong. The number is most definitely much smaller than those using the laptops or iMacs. The same is true with the iPhone -- it makes them so much that that's where all the time and effort is going.
Your assumption is incorrect -- I consider AIO's to be real computers. However, you're not considering three downsides to buying an AIO to use with another screen.
1. Space.
2. Cost.
3. Multiple monitors.
Everyone has their own unique needs, but using myself as an example -- my desk is 1.5m wide and I can't my 34" UW monitor in the center with the iMac on the side. Fitting a 27" (instead of the UW) is challenging as well. So I'd be paying for a nice 5k 27" screen, and then hiding it at the back. Big waste.
I also really dislike multiple monitors (which is why I have a curved) as you've got bezels, and need to turn your neck more. If I did have multiple monitors though, they'd have to be the same.
Sorry, but with all due compassion, that sounds more like a neurosis (Autism Spectrum Disorder), rather than an actual work requirement.
I swear, if Apple says "pro focused" and then we've got soldered RAM and an non-replaceable storage drive, I'm going to buy an old Performa 6360, load up OS 9, and stick to playing X-Wing instead of living a productive life.
It is not a "neurosis", and nor did I say it is a work requirement.
It can be very annoying to some when monitors don't match in physical height, and if there's differences in the panels such as colours, brightness, coating, etc.
Not to mention it can be aesthetically displeasing.
Whether or not those things bother you in particular is irrelevant to it being a potential negative aspect of owning multiple monitors. Everyone's different.
I won't say they bother me; and I currently have at work:
1. My work laptop (Slamdung), which cannot drive 2 externals and its own display; so the laptop's display is dark.
2. A 21" HP monitor to my left.
3. A 23" HP monitor to my right.
Both have different color-temperatures, btw.
Do I find it a bit annoying? Sure; but it CERTAINLY doesn't rise to the "very annoying" level. That's why I mentioned perhaps ASD.
And you have to admit, the first post (the one I originally replied-to), was pretty strong in stating that even one monitor out of many (3 or 4) would be totally unacceptable; so please don't try to backpedal now...
Is there some kind of website that discusses how this can be made to work? I'm running a 2015 5k iMac with a 290x onboard but using an external GPU with power supply would be awesome. I only have Thunderbolt 2 of course.
https://egpu.io will get you started. That dedicated group of people is doing impressive work testing and pulling their hair out so others can benefit from it. Check out the "builds" section and search the forums.
Apple only officially supports certain AMD cards over TB3. Through this website, people are using TB2, Nvidia cards, you name it.
First, I'm not really sure why you're trying to infer I have ASD because I dislike multiple monitors that look different. This doesn't really add anything to the discussion.
Second, you admit it is "a bit annoying", so it is not incorrect to say that it is a "con" as I did in my original post. It may not be such a big deal for you but again, everyone is different.
I'm not backpedaling, I stated that it is a "con" having to use multiple screens -- i.e., not having a choice -- like when you buy an iMac but you want to use a different main screen. I also stated that I personally loathe multiple monitors, particularly if they are not identical.
Ultimately Apple is simply very lax with updating their Mac Mini which is their only consumer level system where you can use just your own peripherals. It's a shame, because it's a nice little system otherwise.
It doesn't take that much effort to at least drop a new CPU in it periodically and keep it modern. Instead we went from a mobile quad-core i7 to a desktop dual-core i5/i7. And it's been stuck like that for a while.
Last edited:
