I don't hear anyone complaining about the value of the 2010's

Discussion in 'Mac Pro' started by VirtualRain, Aug 9, 2010.

  1. VirtualRain macrumors 603

    VirtualRain

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2008
    Location:
    Vancouver, BC
    #1
  2. sparkie7 macrumors 68000

    sparkie7

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2008
  3. PhelpsiPhan macrumors 6502

    PhelpsiPhan

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2009
    Location:
    New Jersey
    #3
    I Agree
     
  4. pukifloyd macrumors 6502a

    pukifloyd

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2008
    Location:
    Scottsdale
    #4
    I read a comment on engadget and the person calculated the cost of the base 12core mac pro parts from newegg. His total was about $3700. I don't think its that much overpriced...as you'd have to assemble that pc and everything else (customer support etc).:)
     
  5. sparkie7 macrumors 68000

    sparkie7

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2008
    #5
    I did a quick calculation y'day and $ for CPU performance the 3.33Ghz Quad was a better deal price wise than the 12 core 2.93GHz

    For those that use MPs at the heavy end professionally and need the power, there will be very few complaints about price. Their hourly charge out rate will easily justify the $6,199 price tag. Its the additional add ons like maxing the machine out with RAM, HDs, RAID card, graphic cards, an SSD or two, a display or two, or three -- that's when finance will start to lift an eye-brow.

    But really at the top end, the price will not be a major issue. Right off as a business expense, claim the tax..
     
  6. THX1139 macrumors 68000

    THX1139

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2006
    #6
    Most of the complaints I've read concern that Apple has priced the average prosumer out of the MacPro. Buying the base model is not that good of deal when you consider the value compared to previous models. A lot of people WANT to buy, but they can't justify the purchase unless they actually make money from them. The 12 core beast is expensive, but it will pay for itself if you need that kind of machine. The people who don't need one... but want one, are the ones who are complaining about the price.

    The other issue is that some professionals who can actually benefit from the 12 cores (and can justify the purchase), are complaining that there is limited expansion for such an expensive box. Most pros need to be able to add more than 3 or 4 cards, and Apple has ignored that. Plus, Apple has left out a lot of core technologies such as faster firewire, eSata ports, Cross-fire, Blu ray, RAID, etc. By the time you buy cards to add those features, you'll run out of room and you'll be spending a lot more for the machine.
     
  7. sparkie7 macrumors 68000

    sparkie7

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2008
    #7
    True.  needs to make space for at least another 2 PCI slots.

    2 high end graphics cards hog almost all the PCI bay alone, let alone trying to fit a RAID card, eSATA, fibre channel card etc!
     
  8. maestrokev macrumors 6502a

    maestrokev

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2007
    Location:
    Canada
    #8
    That's exactly it, I have a 2009 MP. I don't run anything that maxes out 4, 6 or 12 cores. It's an indirect tool to make income - I don't work in graphics, video or perform scientific calculations. I bought it because I'm a prosumer who likes dual monitor support and 4 internal HD's for home video and photography. I'm sure there are more people out there like me than there are people who need the 4-12 cores for business use only. This MP iteration, they've really put the "Pro" pricing in the MP.
     
  9. nanofrog macrumors G4

    Joined:
    May 6, 2008
    #9
    This is what I've seen too (both scenarios).

    For the latter group, those options aren't offered by Apple cost users the advantage of a single point of contact for warranty/support as well. Which can be a major concern (they buy upgrades from vendors for this reason as it saves them time and money down the road, such as the IT dept. spending additional hours diagnosing, shipping, waiting for replacement parts,... to get it running again v. calling the vendor and a tech shows up to fix it; either parts in hand, or arrive the next day, depending on the warranty support purchased with the system). In the case of Apple, support may actually be someone hauling the system in to the nearest Apple Store for work (they make it out as if they're doing the user a HUGE favor if they're within 50 miles for an on-site call), and they have to wait on it (for what is covered). That bites.

    Such support issues may make the MP a harder sell for some as a result.
     
  10. Umbongo macrumors 601

    Umbongo

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2006
    Location:
    England
    #10
    Go read the 3 threads in the news section then because there is a lot of complaining in those. I guess on here it is accepted now.
     
  11. linuxcooldude macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2010
    #11
    I believe this as well. People who expect them to update their models on a regular basis, then act surprised when they see how much more it will cost them they do update them.
     
  12. Deepshade macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
    #12
    Yes they are too expensive

    Apple is huge and has the buying power to lower the price - but they are a business like any other

    Apple know whatever price they put on these machines they will sell
    Its just a case of how far they can push it


    BUT...

    Take the price over a 3 year lifetime (at least) and £20 a week for a tool that can pay your wages isn't that bad is it?
     
  13. ValSalva macrumors 68040

    ValSalva

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2009
    Location:
    Burpelson AFB
    #13
    I ordered a base Mac Pro with the 6-core upgrade.

    I really wished it had SATA-III and USB 3.0. Otherwise I'm good.
     
  14. tomscott1988 macrumors regular

    tomscott1988

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2009
    Location:
    UK
    #14
    Price difference 2008-2010

    So the early mac pro 2008 :-

    £1799
    2x 2.8ghz quad core
    2gb ram
    320gb hdd
    2600xt

    mid 2009 mac pro :-

    £1799
    1x 2.66ghz quad core
    3gb ram
    640gb hdd
    120gt

    to get a similar performance 2009 machine compared to the base 2008 :-

    £2400
    2x 2.26ghz quad core
    6gb ram
    640gb hdd
    120gt

    £2400 - a good £600 more than the 2008 version, the 2009 really wasnt that great value for money compared to 2008 and it wasnt faster in any terms worth mentioning. It keeps getting worce.

    2010

    £1999
    1x 2.8 quad core
    3gb ram
    1tb hdd
    5770

    £2959
    1x 3.3 six core
    3gb ram
    1tb hdd
    5770

    £1000 extra for 2 cores... eh!!!

    £2799
    2x 2.4 quad core
    6gb ram
    1tb hdd
    5770

    So now we get to the real nitty gritty!
    so to get a similar spec to upgrade your 2008 machine you need an extra £1000!!! the parts were about the same price at the time of introduction, so in terms of technology.. it grows but surly the price stays the same? to go from an 8 core as standard to a quad core in 2009 was a p*ss take then. Now 2010 you need an extra £1000 to get a slower clock speed 8 core machine...???? (compared to 2008, extra £400 over 2009)

    Before everyone starts getting pi*sy at my view think of it this way, yes the new tech is faster, but isnt that the point of computer evolution? and lets be honest the spec for an 8 core 2010 is not setting everyones taste buds alight. The fact you have to pay more for a 6 core... yes faster clock speed etc. but still it is getting abit ridiculous even from a pros perspective.

    So now we get ok spec finaly we hit the 1tb drive size, you've been able to buy a 1tb drive for £65 for over a year now, and we get a year old 5770 and £200 to upgrade to its brother, just rubbish value. So really you are paying a massive premium for 6x 1gb sticks of ram! no real change of case design so no change there, so where does the extra cost come in? Just apple tax so that they get more people buying an imac because they make more money shifting those. Costs less to produce and people will be back within 2-3 years because there spec is not looking quite as good as it was when they bought it! Also intel monopoly.

    So after you have bought your pro you need to upgrade it because lets be honest you arnt going to pay £120 for every extra 1tb drive or £240 for a 2tb! or even spend £1020 for 12gb of ram to upgrade 9gb (9+3)! So you spend £1000 (3rd party) on 3x2tb drives a 256gb SSD and say 2x4gb sticks of ram to finish the budget.

    You will be spending on the 8 core £3800, when a 2008 with those upgrades will cost you £2800 and not be significantly slower even 2 years later. My 2008 pro benches at 12000 and if these new 8 core bench much more than that i will be suprised.

    Other posters are correct, to pros this wont matter too much if they need a machine they will buy a machine regardless, because they make 10 fold on one. But in this time of recession i think the pockets of the companies will not be quite as open when they look at the spread sheets of their previous expenditure on technology. Because lets be honest no companies are going to downgrade to quads so itl be the 8 or 12 core. So between 30-50% extra expenditure.. wont be particularly attractive. The 2009 machines are looking very tempting with discount and this brings me onto my last point.

    The only pro i actually see as being value for money is the 2.66 12 core. It is the only one with something new to bring to the table and the only one which actually brings some improvement to technology worth purchasing. All the other pros on offer arnt worth purchasing if you have a 2008/2009, and to be honest i think anyone with those models it is worth waiting the extra year for the next iteration.

    I think the 2008 model was such good value because apple did a deal with intel over their new xeon processors, with there new fangled friendship over apples switch to intel architecture. Now apple and intel arnt getting along so well and the honeymoon period is over. With Intels monopoly and their ideas on graphics technology and licensing, apples nose has been put out of joint and Intel arnt being quite so kind. Evidence of this is also in the time frame of when these processors came out and when apple implemented them. So most of the price increase is down to intels monopoly on the processors and reduced discount and availability on bulk purchase. Seen as tho AMD cant compete with these processors Intel will continue to do this and the increase will be passed onto us the consumers and straight into the intel shareholders pockets!

    Shimples.... ;)
     
  15. Chuck Fadanoid macrumors member

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2008
    Location:
    Munich, Germany
    #15
    The dual processor systems, while expensive in absolute terms, are relatively speaking fair value.

    The quad core entry level system is appalling value, $1000 more expensive than it should be.

    It's obvious they don't want ordinary consumers buying proper computers, rather they'd prefer consumers to buy all in ones or laptops. Screw them. I wish they'd either open up OS X for retail on all platforms, or better yet release it to the open source community - if they only care about iOS and its bloody gadgets, then why not?
     
  16. Gonk42 macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2008
    Location:
    near Cambridge
    #16
    The major complaining was done on the 2009 model (following the good value 2008 model). The 2010 model is only a minor change from the 2009 model and pricing (relative to component costs) is similar to 2009 so there is no sudden change - people, even if they don't accept the high prices, are coming to expect them.
     
  17. reel2reel macrumors 6502a

    reel2reel

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2009
    #17
    The 3.33GHz 6-Core is looking like it might be a great deal for me, personally. I'm mainly a Final Cut Studio user, so the 3.33GHz with 16GB RAM (showing $719 at OWC) might be all I need.

    I'm guessing the 6-core single only has 8MB L3 cache, though. I have no idea how much of a difference that would mean to me in performance.
     
  18. Vylen macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2010
    Location:
    Sydney, Australia
    #18
    Nope, 12MB.
     
  19. reel2reel macrumors 6502a

    reel2reel

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2009
    #19
    Really? Nice! I can't find that in the spec's. Where do you see it?
     
  20. alphaod macrumors Core

    alphaod

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2008
    Location:
    NYC
    #20
    Yes the new ones are expensive, but I don't see how much more (or less) they are than the 2009 models when those were released…

    http://www.apple.com/macpro/specs.html#overlay-compare
     
  21. Vylen macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2010
    Location:
    Sydney, Australia
    #21
    Go to the Mac Pro specs page, scroll down to "Processor upgrade options" and click "View processor upgrade options chart"
     
  22. reel2reel macrumors 6502a

    reel2reel

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2009
    #22
    Got it, thanks! I was in the store spec's page, which doesn't have this link. Ok, I'm liking this machine even more now. Let's hope they haven't capped the RAM at 16GB.
     
  23. Umbongo macrumors 601

    Umbongo

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2006
    Location:
    England
    #24
  24. dimensional macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2009
    #25
    My previous three computers were Mac Pros (well, two Mac Pros and one PowerMac G5), but I bought an iMac this time around.

    It's not just Apple this time around. Intel's margins on the Xeons are outrageous as well.

    I'd love to see a comparison of the margins on a basic 6-core Westmere Mac Pro vs. a basic 2.93 i7 iMac 27" expressed as a percentage. I'm not sure how you'd measure Intel's margins though.
     

Share This Page