Difference between this Mac and this PC?

[Gonk42]

The 2.66 quad MP is comparable to the Dell Precision T7500 with a quad Xeon 2.66.

The situation is more complicated than that. The quad Mac Pro uses a W3520 so is comparable to the Dell Precision T3500 which is about 40% cheaper, but
it has power supply etc that is larger (the same as the octo) which are
comparable to the T7500.

The T7500 only uses the more expensive 5500 series chips comparable to the octo MP. the 2.66GHz 5550 is much more expensive than the 2.66GHz 3520 (it is about 3 times the price) so it is important to know which Xeon when making
comparisons.

 

[gugucom]

I have not checked it but I assume that the quad MP uses the same PSU as the Octad MP. If this is the case, the user has no advantage from it. It is purely done to make live simpler for Apple. You cannot use the power that you save on the CPU and RAM side for additional graphics power. Say the Octad runs a 130W TDP CPU and probably another 50 W of RAM. It would not be possible to draw that additional 180 W to run two ATI4870 in Windows crossfire. So the user doesn't benefit in this case from the bigger PSU.

ECC is a feature that has been discussed to death and I thought Tesselator had a point saying that it only benefitted military applications in space.

Xeon vs i7 seems to be more of an issue as Intel seems to select better graded chips for Xeon. So there the customer may get a benefit.

 

[Gonk42]

The power supply is relevant in that the 530W supply on the Dell T3500 may be a little limiting (if you want to use two high powered cards). Otherwise, I agree that the "extra" power etc is really just there so Apple can use one set of components for both and doesn't really benefit the user.

The Dell precision series all use Xeons and ECC memory so there is no difference there. They are more flexible in that they officially allow registered memory (or unregistered but not both) and also 1333MHz ECC memory. (As
well as having more slots.)

The Mac Pro was designed to be an octo machine so the quad version of it is bound to be a bit of a compromise which does not represent good value for money. It is ironic that many people seem to be going for the quad rather
than the octo.

 

[nullx86]

Get the Mac Pro. For a Xeon-based workstation, it is by far the cheapest you will find (unless you build your own, but then your still paying a hefty price). the Mac Pro has a lot better hardware/software then that Ailenware...

 

[Umbongo]

The Mac Pro was designed to be an octo machine so the quad version of it is bound to be a bit of a compromise which does not represent good value for money. It is ironic that many people seem to be going for the quad rather than the octo.

Well let's not forget the octo is over priced too by a similar amount and that 2.26GHz clock speed is very off putting.

 

[bearcatrp]

Get the Mac Pro. For a Xeon-based workstation, it is by far the cheapest you will find (unless you build your own, but then your still paying a hefty price). the Mac Pro has a lot better hardware/software then that Ailenware...

I beg to differ on this statement. I just built a pc w/twin 2.5ghz harpertowns for less than 1400 bucks compared to 2400 for a 2.8ghz mac pro. Very good components. Only difference is OS X. Apple reams us on the price of a mac pro.

 

[nanofrog]

Get the Mac Pro. For a Xeon-based workstation, it is by far the cheapest you will find (unless you build your own, but then your still paying a hefty price). the Mac Pro has a lot better hardware/software then that Ailenware...

This isn't correct though. I can understand issues with comparing a Quad MP to a consumer desktop, but a few vendors models have been offered up, and they have lower base prices.

There are a few differences here and there, but it's close. The primary spec to match up is the CPU P/N for a comparision. Though there are differences in things like PSU ratings, HDD capacity, graphics cards, and memory capacity.

But it's close enough to get an idea, and the result is the Quad is overpriced. So is the Octad models, and Umbongo has a serious point with the fact the base model is only 2.26GHz IMO. It should have been the 2.66GHz parts.

 

[Umbongo]

I beg to differ on this statement. I just built a pc w/twin 2.5ghz harpertowns for less than 1400 bucks compared to 2400 for a 2.8ghz mac pro. Very good components. Only difference is OS X. Apple reams us on the price of a mac pro.

Well in your case it is the price of the processors. $900 extra retail difference between yours and two e5462s. Apple's price on the 2006 and 2008 Mac Pros was around that of retail components for their entire lifetime.