Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Yup. Built my i7 920 rig for $1100. Way cheaper, does what I need.

and your point is? almost anything you do yourself will be cheaper than having somebody else do it for you. could i do my own oil change, paint the house, sew my own clothes and save money? sure, do i want to do all those things....?

let's see you tool a mac pro aluminum case. should be a exercise of futility. :eek:
 
let's see you tool a mac pro aluminum case. should be a exercise of futility. :eek:

I don't make CPUs myself :p

The point was that manufacturers like Apple and Dell charges a huge price for easy job like that. Of course it includes support and warranty but people like me who have worked with computers for years and currently I work at a computer repair shop so I fix and build them 40 hours per week. In many cases I've noticed the build quality of Dells and Acers is worse than what I do and some things like thermal paste is cheapest available. We charge 50€ for building up one from components (customer brings them or buys from us) and that includes installing OS and drivers and 1 year support.
 
All sealed-in-box computers are overpriced. Building one yourself is the cheapest and best way IMO, then you're not paying for the brand and that someone has done the one hour job of putting everything inside

Of course they are. Same goes for houses and cars. Builders and auto makers should be forced to sell their finished products for no more than the cost of the parts at wholesale. The thought that they should charge a margin of any kind for the value add that they provide by doing all the assembly, testing things work together and providing 12 or 36 months of cover and support is incomprehensible!
 
Of course they are. Same goes for houses and cars. Builders and auto makers should be forced to sell their finished products for no more than the cost of the parts at wholesale. The thought that they should charge a margin of any kind for the value add that they provide by doing all the assembly, testing things work together and providing 12 or 36 months of cover and support is incomprehensible!

Am I saying they should? No. Average Joe doesn't know how to build a computer but for people who know, it feels awful to pay huge premium for that. Components have a lot better warranty and support than sealed-in-box computers, usually over 3 years and in my experience, it's just a call to importer and new one is in mail. Knowing that Apple and Dell pays a lot less for components than consumers does, it feels even more awful. iPhone 3G cost ~67€ to manufacture I think and it was sold for ~500€. Of course designing, OS etc costs money to make but everything which is unbox and enjoy has a huge profit.
 
Here's a question. How much of a retail mark-up are we seeing on Xeon parts? I imagine all the manufacturers get them in huge lots far cheaper and mark them up a bit, but it seems like some of the more expensive Xeons might cost more to buy separately and install yourself if you were building your own rig - you'll have to buy the chipset as well. I could be wrong about this, but I take it that a Xeon board is more expensive than your run-of-the-mill i7 board?
 
A DP board, most certainly. Looking at $300-$500 for dual sockets. SP boards are about the same, IMO, between $200-$350. Of course, there are outliers.

Unless regular boards somehow do not support ECC, there might not be a difference.
 
It is probably true with on-line prices (though at present there is a 10% off offer), but Dell are very open to negotiation even for one-off machines. It seems to depend on where in their quarter they are and whether or not salesmen are trying to reach quotas!
I didn't want to get into this level of detail. What I do recall, is getting a lower price quote over the phone on small order quantities (1 - 5) even on a model that just released (it's been awhile though; Xeon 54xx parts in a DP config when it came out).

Yes all of us multi-tallented folks who can read, add, and subtract. ;)
:D

BTW, comparing two over-priced systems doesn't really count as evidence that the cheapest of the two does not qualify as over-priced!
Unfortunately, it's Xeon, which is overpriced, no matter what you get. Vendor produced or even DIY, as the parts/systems are sold off in smaller quanities, and the markup is higher.

So it's relative only to a small portion of the market. :eek: Those that have retained their senses, will realize they're not that different than the performance desktop parts (no ECC, which is rarely needed), and know they're paying more for crap they'll never benefit from anyway. :p

All sealed-in-box computers are overpriced. Building one yourself is the cheapest and best way IMO, then you're not paying for the brand and that someone has done the one hour job of putting everything inside
It depends. On the desktop side, usually. Not so much on the enterprise gear though (Xeons, particularly the DP systems). It comes out about the same, but the user spends a lot of time to research and finally build. Not that it's not worth doing, but it will depend on the specific needs. RAID for example, might make a DIY route more attractive, and less expensive (i.e. use a full tower case that can hold the entire set, which is cheaper than external drive enclosures needed with a mid tower used in a ready-made system).

Here's a question. How much of a retail mark-up are we seeing on Xeon parts? I imagine all the manufacturers get them in huge lots far cheaper and mark them up a bit, but it seems like some of the more expensive Xeons might cost more to buy separately and install yourself if you were building your own rig - you'll have to buy the chipset as well. I could be wrong about this, but I take it that a Xeon board is more expensive than your run-of-the-mill i7 board?
Quick calculation using the W3520 sold as a single in retail channels, gives a 30% markup ($370/$284 = 1.30). But system vendors do buy in quantity (where the $284 came from).

Nehalem DP boards aren't as horrible as I'd expected, and are actually less expensive than the 54xx part (LGA771 boards that had the ability to run FSB1600 = 5400 chipset). More on parity with the FSB1333MHz boards (5000 chipsets) in terms of cost at release IIRC.

So if you build with the lower cost processors, and have anything that can be recycled in a build, it might be worth it. But currently, you won't be able to OC them with the boards, as they don't allow access to such settings. Perhaps via a software method, as no enthusiast DP boards have surfaced (i.e. SkullTrail II or equivalent from any other board maker). :rolleyes: :(
 
basically:

if you know what you're doing with computers and aren't a total idiot with some financial common sense, building or buying a pc is generally the better idea.

if you're a clueless dunce with a false sense of superiority and can't really do anything on a computer, a mac is generally the way to go.
 
Just got myself a Mac Pro Quad Core from Amazon for $2,290 incl. ship and no tax. Most everybody says wow, nice, but expensive. Overpriced? I almost thought so until a had Dell create a similar box, and low and behold...

Check out the components, I chose them to be as close to the Mac as possible...

  • Dell Precision T5500 Workstation
  • Genuine Windows Vista® Business Bonus 64 -Windows XP Professional downgrade
  • Quad Core Intel® Xeon® Processor X5550 2.66GHz,8M L3, 6.4GT/s,turbo
  • Mini-Tower Chassis Configuration w/ 1394 Card
  • 3GB, DDR3 RDIMM Memory,1333MHz, ECC (3 DIMMS)
  • 512MB NVIDIA® Quadro® FX 580, DUAL MON, 2 DP & 1 DVI
  • C1 All SATA drives, Non-RAID, 1 drive total configuration
  • Integrated Intel chipset SATA 3.0Gb/s controller
  • 500GB SATA 3.0Gb/s with NCQ and 16MB DataBurst Cache™
  • 16X DVD-ROM with Cyberlink Power DVD™

THE PRICE CAME TO ABOUT $3,100 !!!

Factor in that the case of the Mac Pro is superior to any Dell case in so many ways and I have just busted the myth of the overpriced Apple computer.

Wow. The Mac Pro, with 2.66GHz w3520 with the 4.8QPI is $2499, sans any peripheral upgrades. And a larger HD by default. And a much more pragmatic casing that has NO cables blocking critical airflow and upgrade capabilities bar none... And an 18x optical drive. And without Vista... Even after upgrades (e.g. 8GB RAM, ATi 4870 or nVidia HTX285), a similar single quad will be under $3000. If you're a student, it's an even juicier deal...

A Quadro is still a good card, but a low end Quadro vs a high end GTX... on this I'm speaking blindly but unless the benchmarks show a phenomenal improvement in the Quadro's favor, it's likely not worth it.

Indeed, are there benchmarks comparing the w2520 to the x5550?

http://forums.hardwarezone.com.sg/archive/index.php/t-2397633.html
An amusing argument over the differences. Some, yes, apart from the 2 QPI channels (useful mostly for multi-CPU SMP) and being able to use more RAM, the practical efficacy between the two chips is probably minimal; Dell possibly going overkill -- or having to appease Vista's sheer bloat. (My my old Q9650 PC (complete with 10000RPM Velociraptor), going from a 333MHz FSB to a 400MHz FSB showed a tangible improvement, so it's like high-end server gear is a requirement for Vista to even begin to run smoothly, which is an utter embarrassment to MS... of course, all that didn't stop a puny 2.93GHz iMac from feeling just as fast, performance-wise, for single-threaded tasks, which is a testament to how tightly Apple codes their OS... and this was when I had 10.5.8! 10.6 blows 10.5.8 out of the water... it's not how much you have but how well it's used. MS's history is replete with "shove more RAM its way". Sloppy and wasteful, that is...)
 
A Quadro is still a good card, but a low end Quadro vs a high end GTX... on this I'm speaking blindly but unless the benchmarks show a phenomenal improvement in the Quadro's favor, it's likely not worth it.

The low end quadros can outperform the high end consumer cards through their drivers with certain applications, but you are paying for the support and certification too. Neither of the graphics card used in the original comparison have much impact on the overall price. Apple are using a card that retails for $70, Dell $150.

Indeed, are there benchmarks comparing the w3520 to the x5550?

None that I have seen and that is because you buy the one for the features you need. The major feature of the X5550 being able to run dual processors.
 
The student discount is quite generous in the UK but the prices are high to start with, so the net cost compared to the US is still more even though the
US student discount is only 10% I think. The student discount essentially pays for the VAT.
i am not entirely sure how to compare the prices between the computers in different countries as i am no economist, so i cant really vouch for anybody but Australia. the prices over here seem more then the US or UK, we have 10% GST added on by 'default' to the advertised prices, then we have another 'electronics tax' on imported goods added on, i am uncertain how big that is.

i wont make any country to country comparisons because its probably going to be wrong :p

however i will make some direct dollar conversions (not taking into account shipping costs blaablaa)
Two 2.66GHz Quad Core
6x1GB RAM
640GB HDD
GT120
Apple-Care Price A$419
A$ 8,449.00
UK$ 4,848.58
US$ 7,659.442

Education, Identical Configuration
Apple-Care price A$335.50
A$7593.99
UK$ 4,357.92
US$ 6,884.332

so in the end i can save about A$1000. not bad. it represents somewhere around a 12% saving or so.

But I think you probably suffer even higher prices in Australia! The discount applies only to pcs and not to things like ipods. It means that in the UK it is not really worth students joining the developers club just for discount (it may be worth it for other reasons). I may have exaggerated the discount because I included Apple care and that is very cheap for students because a basic three year warranty is already included.
yup our prices are really really high over here. its ridiculous. i am not aware of any discounts on apple care or whatnot, but i guess the discount we receive might pay for part of it.


I want lots of cores because I'm doing a PhD in computer science and want to run multiple copies of a program (a mathematical theorem prover) so I can use as many cores as there are available. I'm not, therefore, a typical user. And when I finally finish my PhD (this year I hope), my need for cores will probably disappear.

thats fair enough, it sounds like you really need it. why did you go an i5 machine? the i7s have double the cores so that would seem more logical to me.

to themodynamic: of course the H-word is illegal. what is your point?l
 
Even if they were the same, the Dell would be lucky to last two years.
They use the cheapest stuff possible. And the customer service?

Please no.
 
thats fair enough, it sounds like you really need it. why did you go an i5 machine? the i7s have double the cores so that would seem more logical to me.

Physically they have the same number of cores. Virtually the i7 doubles the cores, I think, to increase memory performance. In the case with the math program, I would think it relies far more on CPU power then memory bandwidth - in this case, hyperthreading might impede performance more then improve it.
 
Even if they were the same, the Dell would be lucky to last two years.
They use the cheapest stuff possible. And the customer service?

Please no.

The support and build quality on Dell's workstations is a lot better than you will find on the consumer side.
 
Physically they have the same number of cores. Virtually the i7 doubles the cores, I think, to increase memory performance. In the case with the math program, I would think it relies far more on CPU power then memory bandwidth - in this case, hyperthreading might impede performance more then improve it.

im aware that they are virtual cores. and i was just trying to think if there would be any computational advantages. the only benefits is better multithreading of course, meaning he could have better performance using multiple maths programs at once. using an individual math program would probably benefit more from less threads. i think..

having more virtual cores means less overall computational power, correct? (as there are more operations needed to sort which instruction belongs where etc)
 
Just got myself a Mac Pro Quad Core from Amazon for $2,290 incl. ship and no tax. Most everybody says wow, nice, but expensive. Overpriced? I almost thought so until a had Dell create a similar box, and low and behold...

Check out the components, I chose them to be as close to the Mac as possible...

[*]Quad Core Intel® Xeon® Processor X5550 2.66GHz,8M L3, 6.4GT/s,turbo


[*]512MB NVIDIA® Quadro® FX 580, DUAL MON, 2 DP & 1 DVI

[/LIST]

You don't need a Xeon in a single socket machine. A Core i5-750 will offer better performance. Furthermore, a Quadro FX 580 is a workstation graphics card. The Geforce GT120 supplied with the Mac is not.

You can get a FASTER machine than a single processor Mac Pro - YES - including 3 gig of RAM and Firewire and a NVIDIA Quadro NVS 295. for £649 from Dell.

Cheapest Mac Pro? £1,651 before vat. Over double.

I'm trying to make the case to switch from PC workstations to Mac workstations here at work.

The Low budget case is £7,404.80 for Mac (Mac Pro + iMac ) , £4,974 for PC (two i5-750 workstations)

The High budget case is £9,540 for Mac (1 Dual and 1 single Xeon Mac Pro), £7,730 for PC (1 dual and 1 single Xeon workstation)

I'm finding it near impossible to justify that difference. I'll be downgrading on performance from our current Q6600, 4Gb machines to the Low Budget Mac case.

And some of you are clearly confused about Hyperthreading. What it does is allow another thread to beegin before one thread has cleared the pipeline. Thus allowing two threads, per core, simultaneously. It's NOT like having twice as many cores, but it IS a noticeable improvement - especially in cases such as 3D rendering (where a Q6700 -> i7-860 has seen my rendering times HALVED)

The 'myth' that Macs are more expensive is quite simply, not a myth. It's the truth. That's just how it is.
 
The 'myth' that Macs are more expensive is quite simply, not a myth. It's the truth. That's just how it is.


You are comparing totally different machines and then saying one is more expensive. It is a false comparison. You are not wrong in your statements, just making a poor comparison.

I own a heavily modified vw Jetta and a BMW m3. Both perform similar. They will never be the same car.
 
You are comparing totally different machines and then saying one is more expensive. It is a false comparison. You are not wrong in your statements, just making a poor comparison.

I own a heavily modified vw Jetta and a BMW m3. Both perform similar. They will never be the same car.
There've been other comparisons though using as similar a system as possible (i.e. Dell T3500 vs. Quad MP, and T7500 DP vs. Octad MP), as exact part per part parity is impossible (intentionally so by Apple). Also note, that if you call, they will give a lower quote than the web pricing. That's for suckers... :eek: ...err.... the uninformed. :p

But the base prices comparing the CPU/s are lower for both systems (though it decreases as you increase the processor clock speeds). You can go higher on the DP systems, but you have a faster set of processors to do it (3.33GHz parts). Go 3rd party for upgrades, and it's possible to save even more, especially on graphics cards and RAID cards (memory and drives are on parity from 3rd party vendors, as they don't require a specific version that contains EFI firmware).

So the comment that PC's are less expensive for their hardware is holding correct. Apple's pricing on the '09 models is why. :rolleyes: :(
 
Just got myself a Mac Pro Quad Core from Amazon for $2,290 incl. ship and no tax. Most everybody says wow, nice, but expensive. Overpriced? I almost thought so until a had Dell create a similar box, and low and behold...

Check out the components, I chose them to be as close to the Mac as possible...

  • Dell Precision T5500 Workstation
  • Genuine Windows Vista® Business Bonus 64 -Windows XP Professional downgrade
  • Quad Core Intel® Xeon® Processor X5550 2.66GHz,8M L3, 6.4GT/s,turbo
  • Mini-Tower Chassis Configuration w/ 1394 Card
  • 3GB, DDR3 RDIMM Memory,1333MHz, ECC (3 DIMMS)
  • 512MB NVIDIA® Quadro® FX 580, DUAL MON, 2 DP & 1 DVI
  • C1 All SATA drives, Non-RAID, 1 drive total configuration
  • Integrated Intel chipset SATA 3.0Gb/s controller
  • 500GB SATA 3.0Gb/s with NCQ and 16MB DataBurst Cache™
  • 16X DVD-ROM with Cyberlink Power DVD™

THE PRICE CAME TO ABOUT $3,100 !!!

Factor in that the case of the Mac Pro is superior to any Dell case in so many ways and I have just busted the myth of the overpriced Apple computer.

Actually you priced out the wrong model. The comparable Dell model to the Quad would be the T3500. Similarly equipped as the Mac Pro Quad, the Dell comes in at $1,600. That's a lot less expensive than the Mac Pro Quad. It also includes a 3 year warranty whereas the Mac only includes a 1 year warranty. If you could turn this into a Mac Pro "Hackintosh" you'd have a winner on your hands.
 
I overpaid for my Mac Pro but its definitely much faster than the 2.8GHz 8 core I owned last year with the same 16gb of ram and the raptor hdd. So its well worth it to me for being overpriced. :)

Plus you only live once and you can make more money so I'm a happy camper. :D
 
Actually you priced out the wrong model. The comparable Dell model to the Quad would be the T3500. Similarly equipped as the Mac Pro Quad, the Dell comes in at $1,600. That's a lot less expensive than the Mac Pro Quad. It also includes a 3 year warranty whereas the Mac only includes a 1 year warranty. If you could turn this into a Mac Pro "Hackintosh" you'd have a winner on your hands.
This has been pointed out a couple of times. Apparently pale9 didn't think the T3500 was the right machine, as s/he was trying to get exact parity between systems, which is impossible. In the end, pale 9 keeps looking at the T7500 in an SP configuration, which isn't the right machine. There's an additional $700 or so for the CPU due to the additional QPI channel that won't be used. The only way that would make any sense, is to add in a second CPU at a later time.

I don't think there's a full understanding that the 55xx parts /= 35xx parts, even though it's been explained. :confused:

But the T7500 in DP configurations is still less expensive than the comparable MP Octad's at the same clock, but it has the option of going faster for not too much more money if usage would benefit from it ($300 - 350 per CPU IIRC).
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.