Entry-Level Mac Pro Offers Comparable Pricing Versus OEM PCs, DIY Systems More Affordable

[leman]

For example: COnfiguration of the system. OSx's simplistic "preferences tab" beats the snot out of Windows Control panel, which is often "too much". And Linux.. well... I have hard time ever recommending linux to a non geek (Though I like it for its uses too). But, on the flip side, the sheer openess of windows makes for some intresting configuration and customizability options unavailable in OSx.

OS X is quite customisable - many parts of it use a plugin-based architecture, its kernel and much of the low-level stuff is open source and it includes a unified configuration framework (defaults). Don't be fooled by the simplicity of the Preferences - the system has much much much more options under the hood. And if you want customisability: out of box it includes things like Automator and I don't even want to start with the amount of customisability you can do with Launchd daemons.

You could just as easily use a dual SSD PCie card with enterprise SSDs. There's plenty of existing solutions like that for the older Mac Pro that offers equal or better Mbytes/s than the PCIe SSDs the 2013 Mac Pro comes with.

I know you want exact, like for like but that doesn't mean there isn't alternatives that offer the same speed benefits and in either case, you're paying a lot for a small PCIe SSD blade instead of a larger equivalent PCIe card.

I am simply saying that I want to see equivalent components. Its not hard to build a cheaper machine by using parts which are inherently cheaper. In our case, we are taking about almost 2x performance difference between the consumer SATA-based and enterprise PCI-e based SSDs. I am not talking about a SSD blade either. And BTW, a equivalent PCIe card is usually much more expensive that what Apple charges. For example look at this 800Gb SSD from Intel: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820167126

 

[djgamble]

Seems fair!

One of the silly things about the "I can build it cheaper" is that it really shows those folks don't know what they are talking about. I don't own a Mac Pro. I don't want a Mac Pro (well, I do.. but...) I have a homebuilt PC as my desktop. BUT, my homebuilt PC is not a 'Mac Pro' killer by any means! It's a gaming PC.

Sure you can slap a 6 core CPU, lots of RAM and a nice GPU, but try and price it with a Xeon CPU, high end RAM, and FirePro workstation GPU's? Suddenly things change. And for what the Mac Pro market uses it for, those things are a must. Comparing a Mac Pro to a homebuilt gaming PC is like telling a contractor that his $60,000 diesel dually truck he uses to haul materials to job sites was a stupid purchase, and a Mercedes CLA would've been a much better way to spend that money because it's fast, sexy, and fun; and costs a bit less than his big truck! What they fail to realize is, the CLA won't do the WORK he needs done!

I guess that's my only gripe...
There's no mid-range Mac tower where one can replace the CPU/GPU, easily add 5 internal HDs, put 4 pieces of RAM in...etc. Most Macs out in the wild are restricted to a mid/low-end (or integrated) GPU. When this can't play games, the machine is basically dead for gaming.

A few years back I made a hackintosh for ~$800. It had quad-core i5s (Apple somehow sources dual-core i5s... I could never find them for DIY machines... still confuses me today). It also had 16GB RAM and went through a number of mid-range GPUs (all with ~2GB VRAM). As a guy who loves to fiddle, this was a cool 'Mac' but getting it to work properly after OS X updates was Russian roulette. Sometimes updates supported more components, other times they artificially disabled them.

A non-pro Mac tower with a BYO CPU and GPU option would be cool. Kinda like an iMac but upgradable.

 

[barkmonster]

I am simply saying that I want to see equivalent components. Its not hard to build a cheaper machine by using parts which are inherently cheaper. In our case, we are taking about almost 2x performance difference between the consumer SATA-based and enterprise PCI-e based SSDs. I am not talking about a SSD blade either. And BTW, a equivalent PCIe card is usually much more expensive that what Apple charges. For example look at this 800Gb SSD from Intel: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820167126

The demand for equivalent components is a demand for the same system, not a same performing system, just to adhere to Apple's pricing. It doesn't work. It's pandering to Apple's specs to try and convince yourself it's an acceptable price to pay for the performance offered while you refuse to acknowledge facts about the alternatives because they're devastating to your point.

The PCIe SSDs in the Mac Pro are barely faster than the benchmarks of dual SSDs on a Tempo PCIe card with dual SATA 6Gb/s bays. It doesn't matter what other proprietary PCIe systems are. The speed seems to all be around the 800-900Mb/s range anyway. Not the stated 1,250Mb/s which is clearly a maximum of the interface, much in the same way as Firewire 800 is 100Mb/s, Gigabit is 125Mb/s etc... but in realworld terms, it never is.

http://www.barefeats.com/hard174.html

Tempo SSD Pro with 2 striped 6Gb/s SSDs is 963Mb/s read / 876Mb/s write.

That's comparable to any PCIe based SSD at present and much cheaper to put together.

 

[LordVic]

I(Apple somehow sources dual-core i5s... I could never find them for DIY machines... still confuses me today).

Depends on which mac, but Apple often uses Laptop parts to be able to fit within smaller devices.

the Mobile components from INtel come in dual core. you can't source these cause they're not easily socketed components and are often soldered directly in board.

I think only the iMac's right now use desktop level components (as of right now, all are quad core ). the laptops and mac mini's use the intel mobile chips and the new pro uses a xeon.

----------

OS X is quite customisable - many parts of it use a plugin-based architecture, its kernel and much of the low-level stuff is open source and it includes a unified configuration framework (defaults). Don't be fooled by the simplicity of the Preferences - the system has much much much more options under the hood. And if you want customisability: out of box it includes things like Automator and I don't even want to start with the amount of customisability you can do with Launchd daemons.

thank you. going to look into some of those tools and see what sort of cool things i can do with them (and comparable windows/linux stuff).

interested to hear of a few others.

 

[Eidorian]

Adobe Premiere seems to be an example.

all the initial reviews put premiere running like crap in Comparison to FCPx because of the GPU's. initial thoughts were that Premiere just wasn't using OpenCL and using those cards.

however, (i'll see if i can refind the quote), Adobe has said that Premiere IS openCL powered.

So if it is capable of using the OpenCL standard, which is what we all expected to be the core API for this device, Why is Adobe software not seeing the same type of benefits?

I can throw in Sony Vegas too. You have quite a few major players on the hardware and standard development side. Software implementation still appears to be lacking or indistinguishable from the operating system's APIs. I admit to considering myself to have some knowledge in the field while not exploring it for years now. I would like to know more.

 

[mdelvecchio]

Still I'm sure this will do nothing to sooth the pain that the music professional is no doubt feeling when he looks at those needlessly powerful and expensive GPUs that he doesn't need.

the. why wouldn't this music professional get something else? iMacs come in many configurations. minis. MacBooks....

 

[Jensend]

Workstation class parts like Xeons, ECC Ram, and workstation GPUs have huge markups compared to their consumer counterparts, without a huge increase in performance. Apple can probably get quite large discounts on these parts.

I think a more interesting comparison would be building the best PC you can for $2999 and comparing its performance to the $2999 Mac Pro. Unless you are doing video or 3D, you could probably spend half as much and get 90% of the performance.

I think for most users, $2999 could be better spent, even if on another Mac, like a high-end iMac.

Maybe I underestimate the value of Xeons and ECC.

 

[Eidorian]

Workstation class parts like Xeons, ECC Ram, and workstation GPUs have huge markups compared to their consumer counterparts, without a huge increase in performance. Apple can probably get quite large discounts on these parts.

I think a more interesting comparison would be building the best PC you can for $2999 and comparing its performance to the $2999 Mac Pro. Unless you are doing video or 3D, you could probably spend half as much and get 90% of the performance.

I think for most users, $2999 could be better spent, even if on another Mac, like a high-end iMac.

Maybe I underestimate the value of Xeons and ECC.

I think that most users just want a $1,499 Mac Pro like the late PowerPC Era with the MDD single CPU Power Mac G4. It is something that I would want...

 

[Constable Odo]

The iPad showed its specs before anyone knew the price. Everyone was convinced before release that it was going to be close to $1,000. It was getting some bad press because it was so unlikely that it was going to be cheaper than that, and if the $1k price was true, why not just buy a laptop. Then the price comes out at $500, and it was just unbelievable.

But now everyone says iPads are too expensive and Apple is cheating everyone when you can get some Samsung Galaxy Tab, Google Nexus 7 or Amazon Kindle for hundreds of dollars less than an iPad. Even now, Apple is still getting bad press about how it prices its products. The more things change the more they remain the same. At least in Apple's case every product Apple makes is considered too expensive for the average Joe. At least that's what the computer industry experts continue to say.

 

[Iconoclysm]

Actually, I have now re-read the article. They actually didn't include the case and OS price in it! So basically, a DIY PC with consumer CPU, non ECC RAM and consumer SSD (but two professional GPUs) will end at more then $3000 - just $200 short of the Mac Pro. How is 'much cheaper' or even a valid comparison??

P.S. I strongly suggest that macrumors point these things out in the newsitem!

Don't forget it has zero support.

----------

Can you give me some examples? i hear things bantered around and in my experiences, All the major OS players have Pro's and Cons. Neither stand heads or even shoulders against the others.

For example: COnfiguration of the system. OSx's simplistic "preferences tab" beats the snot out of Windows Control panel, which is often "too much". And Linux.. well... I have hard time ever recommending linux to a non geek (Though I like it for its uses too). But, on the flip side, the sheer openess of windows makes for some intresting configuration and customizability options unavailable in OSx. And Linux... well.. Customizability out the wazoo, if you dont mind fiddling with config files

this sort of thing is standard fare though. However none of them make one "the most advanced operating system in the world". what it makes it, is its own operating system.

IN the end, it comes down to user comfort and familiarity and knowing what your intended use scenarios are.

but we diverge from the point. I was just refering tot he known fanboys attempt to claim that any price premium is OK cause he's getting the most advanced operating system in the world and OSx is easily worth hundreds of dollars more than windows

OSX is actually quite a bit more open than Windows, not sure where you get the idea that you can't treat it like any other BSD OS.

----------

Workstation class parts like Xeons, ECC Ram, and workstation GPUs have huge markups compared to their consumer counterparts, without a huge increase in performance. Apple can probably get quite large discounts on these parts.

I think a more interesting comparison would be building the best PC you can for $2999 and comparing its performance to the $2999 Mac Pro. Unless you are doing video or 3D, you could probably spend half as much and get 90% of the performance.

I think for most users, $2999 could be better spent, even if on another Mac, like a high-end iMac.

Maybe I underestimate the value of Xeons and ECC.

Wait, you want to compare its performance but not actually compare it in the categories it's designed for? Hell, let's compare the performance of your $2999 PC to my $99 fitbit. Unless you're doing computing or games or something, my fitbit will boot faster and cost 1/30th of the price.

 

[osofast240sx]

What is it that you (and others like you) get out of the whole finger-pointy, I-told-you-so, denouncing of so-called 'haters' that makes you want to fill threads up with it? What does it achieve that makes behaving so childishly acceptable?

Everyone has an opinion, sometimes in the fullness of time the opinions turn out to be wrong. Why dwell on it? Why take up space in threads with it? What does it achieve?

Why am I wasting my time finding out?

For one I am on MacRumors because I am an Apple enthusiasts and it helps me to learn more about the Apple products that I own. You're right everyone has a right to their opinion but when they don't base their opinions on facts you get a bunch of useless posts. It's obvious that the trolls will never go away and they want to have their say so I might it might as well have my say to. It's just a reality being on This forum.

 

[Exhale]

Maybe I underestimate the value of Xeons and ECC.

No, but many users may be over-estimating them.

The Xeons themselves don't offer anything in particular. They're simply ensured to have full support for things like hardware virtualisation and TPM, that and a damn large cache.

The purpose of ECC is to guard against potential bit errors slipping into a very long calculation chain.

But for typical use, including shorter project (and media) - such errors are going to be undetectable. In addition, if the error does cause some form of problem - then it can easily be remedied by a rerun. But more often than not, the error is simply overrun, inconsequential, or handled by the software anyway.

If it takes 5 months to perform a chain of calculations, where results are dependent on previous results, you don't want a number to switch from 16 to 272. It could take a long time to detect that an error has occurred, and then you would need to redo everything again - taking months. (During which another error could happen).

 

[leman]

The demand for equivalent components is a demand for the same system, not a same performing system, just to adhere to Apple's pricing. It doesn't work. It's pandering to Apple's specs to try and convince yourself it's an acceptable price to pay for the performance offered while you refuse to acknowledge facts about the alternatives because they're devastating to your point.

We are not talking about same performing system, we are talking about equivalent system. Workstation hardware is more expensive then consumer hardware, no doubt about it. I don't see much point in stating that one can build a similar-performing machine using consumer parts, that should be evident isn't it? What we are discussing here is whether the Mac Pro is the good value for money or whether its overpriced given the price of its components . It turns out that its actually amazing value for money given that the consumer-part DYI computer is hardly any cheaper.

The PCIe SSDs in the Mac Pro are barely faster than the benchmarks of dual SSDs on a Tempo PCIe card with dual SATA 6Gb/s bays.

...

That's comparable to any PCIe based SSD at present and much cheaper to put together.

Fair enough. Then:

-- for 512GB
Tempo SSD Pro ($299.95) + 2x256GB 840 Pro ($200) = $700
Apple's 512GB SSD upgrade = +$300 option

Apple price for full machine (with apple care): $3,548
AnandTech price for DYI machine (case/os counted in): $3,560

-- for 1TB
Tempo SSD Pro ($299.95) + 2x512GB 840 Pro ($400) = $1099
Apple's 1000GB SSD upgrade = +$800 option

Apple price for full machine (with apple care): $4,048
AnandTech price for DYI machine (case/os counted in): $3959

Indeed, 'much cheaper'

 

[Jensend]

Wait, you want to compare its performance but not actually compare it in the categories it's designed for? Hell, let's compare the performance of your $2999 PC to my $99 fitbit. Unless you're doing computing or games or something, my fitbit will boot faster and cost 1/30th of the price.

Well, I also think a cheaper PC/Hackintosh could be competitive with the Mac Pro with video and 3D.

I think the Mac Pro will be interesting when more software can effectively take advantage of the GPU power. It's a very forward-looking machine design, but for most current software, that won't help much.

 

[AppleDroid]

I think that most users just want a $1,499 Mac Pro like the late PowerPC Era with the MDD single CPU Power Mac G4. It is something that I would want...

This exactly. I don't need ECC Ram or Xeon processing even just a high-end 4c/6c CPU, up to 32/64GB of ram and the ability to put in a consumer level gfx card or upgrade stock 1-2 years down the road.

Apple is pretty brilliant with pricing I will give them that. They raise the BTO pricing on consumer/prosumer machines so that it's not much of a deal compared to the nMP.

1. rMBP/2.6 i7 upgrade /16GB/512GB SSD $2,799 but you are limited to 16GB of ram and I need more for Lightroom/large photo composites so then you have to move to
2. BTO iMac/32GB 3rd party RAM/i7 upgrade/512SSD upgrade/780m upgrade - $3224. But I already have an NEC wide gamut display and dont need the iMac's sRGB display then that pushes me to
3. nMP 4c / 32GB Ram/512GB SSD $3749. Only a handful more than the BTO iMac but the CPU rates slower than the iMac.

So to wrap that up to get an Apple machine with 32GB of ram, and a comparable speed SSD, I have to spend a minimum of $3224. If I could take the cost of the screen I don't need out of that equation (Price of a Apple TB Display) -$899 = $2325. That would be a much better price for what I need, sadly Apple has priced everything so that's impossible.

 

[barkmonster]

We are not talking about same performing system, we are talking about equivalent system. Workstation hardware is more expensive then consumer hardware, no doubt about it. I don't see much point in stating that one can build a similar-performing machine using consumer parts, that should be evident isn't it? What we are discussing here is whether the Mac Pro is the good value for money or whether its overpriced given the price of its components . It turns out that its actually amazing value for money given that the consumer-part DYI computer is hardly any cheaper.



Fair enough. Then:

-- for 512GB
Tempo SSD Pro ($299.95) + 2x256GB 840 Pro ($200) = $700
Apple's 512GB SSD upgrade = +$300 option

Apple price for full machine (with apple care): $3,548
AnandTech price for DYI machine (case/os counted in): $3,560

-- for 1TB
Tempo SSD Pro ($299.95) + 2x512GB 840 Pro ($400) = $1099
Apple's 1000GB SSD upgrade = +$800 option

Apple price for full machine (with apple care): $4,048
AnandTech price for DYI machine (case/os counted in): $3959

Indeed, 'much cheaper'

That's so cherry picked I don't know know how you kept a straight face typing it.

 

[Popeye206]

Look, guys, I understand that you want to cover your opinions in full detail, but could you at least make some effort to be more concise?

Exactly!

 

[leman]

That's so cherry picked I don't know know how you kept a straight face typing it.

I have honestly no idea what you are trying to say. You claimed that a DYI machine with a storage solution based on the Tempo card is much cheaper then the Mac Pro. I have clearly shown you that this is not true. I fail to see any cherry picking here. Don't forget, you are the one talking about 'not acknowledging facts because they're devastating to your point'. So tell us: what is your point?

 

[barkmonster]

I have honestly no idea what you are trying to say. You claimed that a DYI machine with a storage solution based on the Tempo card is much cheaper then the Mac Pro. I have clearly shown you that this is not true. I fail to see any cherry picking here. Don't forget, you are the one talking about 'not acknowledging facts because they're devastating to your point'. So tell us: what is your point?

Read my earlier post about the hackintosh that out performs the Quad Mac Pro, that has multiple SSDs in a RAID 0. Then realise how skewed your prices are when the Mac Pro already comes with a 256Gb SSD and the means to mount it in the Mac Pro and your 512Gb prices are based on upgrade costs from that. By comparison, you could argue that Apple charging what they do to swap 256Gb of flash for 512Gb should be even cheaper still given that in your analogy, the PCIe card would already be part of the cost of the system as a whole so you'd be pricing up the difference between 2 x 128Gb SSDs vs 2 x 512Gb SSD and using the price difference as your cost.

 

[vladi]

Actually, I have now re-read the article. They actually didn't include the case and OS price in it! So basically, a DIY PC with consumer CPU, non ECC RAM and consumer SSD (but two professional GPUs) will end at more then $3000 - just $200 short of the Mac Pro. How is 'much cheaper' or even a valid comparison??

P.S. I strongly suggest that macrumors point these things out in the newsitem!

Ive Bridge E I hardly a "consumer" CPU but both quad core and hexa core iterations of it are faster than E5s currently offered in new Mac Pro and W8000 or W9000 are much beefier cards than D500 or D900.

 

[leman]

Read my earlier post about the hackintosh that out performs the Quad Mac Pro, that has multiple SSDs in a RAID 0. Then realise how skewed your prices are when the Mac Pro already comes with a 256Gb SSD and the means to mount it in the Mac Pro and your 512Gb prices are based on upgrade costs from that. By comparison, you could argue that Apple charging what they do to swap 256Gb of flash for 512Gb should be even cheaper still given that in your analogy, the PCIe card would already be part of the cost of the system as a whole so you'd be pricing up the difference between 2 x 128Gb SSDs vs 2 x 512Gb SSD and using the price difference as your cost.

No, I was looking at a total system price, as bought or built from scratch, not at upgrade prices. Furthermore, I have used the AnandTech setup as a baseline.

Anyway. As I already said, consumer parts are cheaper, there is no doubt about that. And you can get the same SSD performance by skipping the Sonet card and using the mainboard RAID controller. I have always said that the DYI route gives you more options to compromise. With the Mac Pro, you are offered a full package and you either have to take it as it is or leave it. With a custom tower, you have the means to reduce the cost by choosing cheaper components. Don't need workstation CPUs? Take cheaper consumer ones. Or a faster consumer one, as you need. Don't need workstation a GPU? Take a consumer one (this is actually the biggest opportunity for monetary savings). And so on.

However, you are still missing the point. None of that matters in the context of this thread. The context of this thread is: if you want to match the Mac Pro component for component - you can't do it for much less money. Whether you want workstation components or not, does not matter, you simply have to use in such a comparison: because the Mac Pro uses them.

Now, this discussion would be quite different in another context, e.g. when discussing the lack of a mid-range standalone computer in Apple's lineup. Which would be aimed at users which don't need a workstation. And yes, I agree that such users are probably wasting money by getting a Mac Pro, as a non-worstation machine would cost $1000+ less, while offering better performance. That would be an entirely different computer though.

BTW, I used to build a number of Hakintosh boxes some time ago. My motivation was to save money. I stopped after I realised that I could get an iMac for virtually the same price and much better owner experience.

----------

Ive Bridge E I hardly a "consumer" CPU

Fair enough, I missed that. What I meant though that its not a Xeon and that it doesn't support ECC RAM.

 

[winston1236]

Seems like a fair summation.

Except for part of HP needing 700 for a second GPU, it has double the memory of the Mac so doesn't need it.

 

[barkmonster]

Good journalism AnandTech - this is the news that customers want to read, the fact that it's good news is a bonus.

Still I'm sure this will do nothing to sooth the pain that the music professional is no doubt feeling when he looks at those needlessly powerful and expensive GPUs that he doesn't need.

Or the PCIe expansion systems with integrated mobile rack to mount internal drives that you need to add to the Mac Pro to make it a fair comparison regardless of GPU. That HP system has 3 internal HDD bays and 3 external ones too, not to mention 4 PCIe slots. This comparison is very skewed to say the least because it assumes people won't need features built in to the towers but HAVE to have the PCIe flash and GPU power that come with the Mac Pro to make the comparison fair.

If anyone has exact pricing on the Sonnet Echo Express III Rack + The mobile rack kit. That needs adding to the Mac Pro cost too. There's other Thunderbolt expansion systems or alternatives for the drives but it's all costs not taken into account to make the spec vs price comparisons fair and unskewed.

 

[VoR]

Glad to see FCP doesn't seem to have any driver trickery in it :

anandtech fcp 4k render benchmark :

oMP + GT120 - 1h45
nMP + 2x D700 - 15mins
oMP + 1x 7950 - 18mins

Seems a bit silly to silly to buy a nMP if your business allows you to spec your own mac though? - Price/Performance is way off?

On topic : Can't put a fast $300 gpu (or more) in the nMP.

 

[itguy06]

Wait...so if the Apple computer is $700 less it's "competitively priced" but if the PC is $700 less it's "far less expensive?"

This sounds like a Rob Enderle piece.

Not to mention an i7 is no match for a Xeon. They are not in the same league. And before you accuse me of being an Apple Fanboi, my day job is managing Linux servers so I know a thing or 2 about Xeon vs i7.