Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
You're still ignoring the boards. It might not only be the chipset. Who designs and makes the boards?

It makes no difference. Apple spends about the same on their boards as ASUS or anyone else. And Intel supplies the basic design. Board mfg price is usually equated with the number of components. Apple's is one of the barest designs out there!
 
It makes no difference. Apple spends about the same on their boards as ASUS or anyone else. And Intel supplies the basic design. Board mfg price is usually equated with the number of components. Apple's is one of the barest designs out there!
It would consider such things as:
Board size
Board thickness
Number of Layers
Copper weight (trace thickness)
Drilling (hole count matters)
Finishing (ENIG, HAL, Immersion silver,... on traces)
PCB material (FR4, FR6, Teflon,...).
Component cost (Quantity isn't always the best measure, as some parts are notably more expensive than others). ;)
Electrical Testing (option that adds cost)
Visual Inspection

Given the standardization/design needs and cost requirements, the size, layers, finishing and materials will be essentially identical. Components can vary things greatly, but since most computers are similar (save additional features), again the manufacture costs won't vary by much. (Made in same/similar countries, so labor is in line, currency fluctuations, shipping costs,...).

The '09's are a bit of a wrinkle, but the cost differences aren't going to be that much. (Logic board + daughter board design). The connectors to mate these do add some cost, but not substantially IMO. In quantity, I'd be surprised if it exceeds $25USD (combined Male and Female versions).

If you consider other boards that add other components (namely additional SAS/SATA ports), it likely balances out. Still, the costs aren't that different at all, given the quantity. :)
 
I think the most maddening thing is, there is a processor option, the Core i7, which Apple choose not to use (at least not yet) and instead went the "server" route with the more expensive Xeon part, thus making everything pricier. But, it has ECC support and they were the *first to use* the Nehalem-Xeon!!! Yeah, whatever. ;)

It again comes all back to Apple choosing not to have the middle ground covered in their desktop line-up. And I don't think that's going to change with current management.
 
I think the most maddening thing is, there is a processor option, the Core i7, which Apple choose not to use (at least not yet) and instead went the "server" route with the more expensive Xeon part, thus making everything pricier. But, it has ECC support and they were the *first to use* the Nehalem-Xeon!!! Yeah, whatever. ;)

It again comes all back to Apple choosing not to have the middle ground covered in their desktop line-up. And I don't think that's going to change with current management.

Why is it maddening? The Xeon 3500 is probably less than $20 difference in pricing as compared to it's Core i7 twin. The cost differential is likely in the motherboard.
 
It would consider such things as:

Still, the costs aren't that different at all... :)

Exactly.

Also about half the things in your list are based on or can be derived from, the number and density of components. Basically, given the common topic "Nehalem Motherboards", we can estimate cost very very closely by counting the number of components.
 
Why is it maddening? The Xeon 3500 is probably less than $20 difference in pricing as compared to it's Core i7 twin. The cost differential is likely in the motherboard.
We don't know what Apple is actually paying, but the cost difference wouldn't be much, as Intel's published quantity pricing has them at the same cost (respective of clock speed). ;)

Boards won't differ by that much either. To keep things as equivanlent as possible (identical chipset used = PCIe lanes & SATA ports), sans extras like additional SAS/SATA controllers, there are differences in some sections. Voltage regulation circuits certainly differ. That is, a basic consumer board isn't as well regulated as a server board. That's where the 24/7 operation expectations kick in on the design. :) But it doesn't make that much of a difference in parts or design costs. Quantity produced has the greatest effect, which is determined off the market share for a specific product.
 
We don't know what Apple is actually paying, but the cost difference wouldn't be much, as Intel's published quantity pricing has them at the same cost (respective of clock speed). ;)

Boards won't differ by that much either. To keep things as equivanlent as possible (identical chipset used = PCIe lanes & SATA ports), sans extras like additional SAS/SATA controllers, there are differences in some sections. Voltage regulation circuits certainly differ. That is, a basic consumer board isn't as well regulated as a server board. That's where the 24/7 operation expectations kick in on the design. :) But it doesn't make that much of a difference in parts or design costs. Quantity produced has the greatest effect, which is determined off the market share for a specific product.

Keep in mind that the Mac Pro with the CPU riser has the equivalent of 2 motherboards compared to most PC's plus the added complexity of that high density connector. A typical ASUS X58 board is now 8 layers due to the tri-channel RAM... and are priced around $400 which probably implies the cost is somewhere around $200... in large volume to provide the supply chain with sufficient margin. I expect the combined logic boards in the Mac Pro would probably cost closer to $500 all together due to the added size, complexity and lower volume.

Based on the Anand experience, a replacement dual-socket CPU board cost $400 with an exchange for the old core.

And then there's the main logic board which is what... EATX size or larger? Has integrated wifi and bluetooth, SATA integrated backplane connectors, and a custom power plane for the PCIe power. What ASUS motherboard has that kind of stuff? That sucker ain't cheap! :p
 
I think the most maddening thing is, there is a processor option, the Core i7, which Apple choose not to use (at least not yet) and instead went the "server" route with the more expensive Xeon part, thus making everything pricier. But, it has ECC support and they were the *first to use* the Nehalem-Xeon!!! Yeah, whatever. ;)

It again comes all back to Apple choosing not to have the middle ground covered in their desktop line-up. And I don't think that's going to change with current management.

Apple is not a middle-ground product company. They offer a premium product at a premium price.
 
All those people who think Mac Pro's are overpriced, please read...

For brevity, I have generalized somewhat.... of course there are exceptions. I don't think the Mac Pro fits those exceptions.

A) The price you pay for a product has nothing to do with the price to make the product. The price is what the market will bear. Period. Sometimes, a retailer will sell a product - deliberately - at a loss. Its called a loss-leader. Every wonder why the milk is way in the back of the supermarket? Its so you will buy other things on the way in and out. Of course the Mac Pro is not a loss-leader.

Another example: The soft-drinks you get with your burger at a fast food place..... costs all of 5 or 14 cents, including labour to pour it. Do you complain how overpriced it is? No - the market will bear that price, and therefore you pay it.

Or, houses. Look at similar houses in a good neighbourhood and a bad neighbourhood. The house costs the same to build, and yet will sell for different amounts. Its entirely market driven. Apple sells Mac Pros at these prices because they can.

B) Don't forget on top of all the part costs of a Mac Pro, there is also support costs, and replacement costs if one goes bad. Also advertizing and design costs. The Mac Pro is a highly designed machine, with a lot of thought put into the acoustics, cooling, etc. Also, the fact that there are no exposed wires. That kind of design does not come cheap.

C) Apple will never compete (probably) in the mid-sized desktop segment. There are too many companies with too much competition. Too many companies don't make money in this segment. Why would Apple even consider it? They have a fiduciary duty to make money for their shareholders.... they have no duty to provide a mid-sized tower for the same price as a Dell or HP. If they provided a mid-sized tower, how many would they sell unless it was the same price as the competition. Not many. If you don't like Apple's offerings.... don't buy them. Apple doesn't really care. They are making gobs of money off the systems they do sell.

It is not a constitutional right to buy the product you want at the price you want. So, get over it. Sheesh.... I had the same rant last year on the Mac Mini thread that finally got closed. Hope I had nothing to do with it.....
 
Wow, interesting thread, glad I missed most of it.

Some thoughts though....

1) Mac Pro is a Server class machine, comparing it to Desktops is silly.

2) A box of carefully chosen consumer grade parts from NewEgg does not make a workstation. (sure, nice desktop, maybe, but NOT a Server grade machine) It also requires you to violate the Mac OS X license to use those parts as a Mac.

3) 2009 MacPro is certainly less value for the money than prior models. The 2008 Octo was certainly a great value.

4) Above all, Apple has to make a profit, it is why they exist. Get over it.

5) ECC: HoooBoy... Let me don my flame retardant suit....

Those of you with access to racks of densely packed server systems, pop into your management software and take a look at the number of ECC corrections that have taken place in the past month, it will surprise you.

Modern memory is very densely packed, has insanely small transistors, and operates at miniscule voltages. It takes a *much* smaller event to toggle a bit than it did even 10 years ago. It may have taken a "super-nova generated alpha particle" to flip a bit in a dual rail 5v/12v 1Kbit DRAM chip from 1979, but in 2009 it takes a lot less.

If you reboot your PC every night/week, you may not have an issue, but when you are dealing with servers that run 24/7 with many many weeks of uptime, those bit flips become possible, and problematic. The insidious part is that you may not know it has taken place until the machine crashes, or generates an incorrect result.

In a server environment where reliability, accuracy and uptime are crucial, ECC is a requirement. For your desktop, not so much, but going back to point#1, a Mac Pro was not intended to be a desktop, hence it uses ECC.

oh yes, almost forgot...
6) Apple needs to sell a consumer level desktop machine.
 
Reading this tread I can't believe that some ppl still think Apple use some "special" stuff in their hardware LOL!
Grow up guys its all made in China!
Apple use recycled plastic(e.g. garbage) and some other "nice" stuff, plus as extra apple stuff is made by many other chinese companies...(that may explain the price...all have to eat..)
You don't want to know what is inside...
About ASUS...I own a lot of this ODM sh*t and trust me is worst then what Apple offer, little better then Gigabshyte but still bad...but hey the price is good lol.

To answer the topic question, YES is damn overpriced!
Just a little example about CPU prices on 1k: http://ark.intel.com/Compare.aspx?ids=37147,39718,
Is it the same price or I'm blind?

Abot ECC/Server stuff LOL again since when Mac Pro is used as a server? Mac OS X Server is a joke compared to other alternative(not to mention the price)...
 
Another thing that makes the 2009 MP kinda bad is the variety of specs inside the line, IMO.

The reason is simple this: If you want the current state of tech machine you need to buy at least the 8-core 2.66GHz machine.
Only these give you the 6.4GT QPI, 1333MHz RAM speed and a reasonable speed compared to the 2008 MP.

The 4-core machines have "only" 4.8GT QPI (like i7 920 2.67GHz) and of course just 1066MHz RAM speed while the 8-core 2.26GHz has 5.86GT QPI but also only 1066MHz RAM speed.

At least all of them have tripple Turbo Boost (three 133MHz+ steps), which is also one of the differences to i7 which offer "only" two 133MHz+ steps.

However, Apple could have updated the base 8-core 2.26GHz with 2.4GHz or 2.53GHz Xeon, which offer the same 5.86GT QPI and 1066MHz RAM speed, giving the entry 8-core machine some claws against the 2008 MP.

In the end, Apple thinks of the HyperThreading as real cores, so the competitor of the 2008 MP octad are the current 4-core machiens with 2.66GHz and 2.93GHz and according to Apple logic, 8-core systems are 16-core sytems and so they have to be more expensive as an old 8-core or virtual 8-core (4 CPUs + HT) system. That´s to me the only explanation for the pricing and the usage of the very low-speed 2.26GHz chips.

Sure, it may not matter to you if you have 4.8GT or 6.4GT QPI or 1066MHz instead of 1333MHz RAM, that´s just details. :D
However, 2006 to 2008 MPs did have plain specs, just different CPU speeds and now (2009) you have to deal with different RAM speeds and bus transfer speeds, too.
Hm, reminds me of the PM G5 with it´s FSB from 600MHz to 1.35GHz. :D
 
Keep in mind that the Mac Pro with the CPU riser has the equivalent of 2 motherboards compared to most PC's plus the added complexity of that high density connector. A typical ASUS X58 board is now 8 layers due to the tri-channel RAM... and are priced around $400 which probably implies the cost is somewhere around $200... in large volume to provide the supply chain with sufficient margin. I expect the combined logic boards in the Mac Pro would probably cost closer to $500 all together due to the added size, complexity and lower volume.

Based on the Anand experience, a replacement dual-socket CPU board cost $400 with an exchange for the old core.

And then there's the main logic board which is what... EATX size or larger? Has integrated wifi and bluetooth, SATA integrated backplane connectors, and a custom power plane for the PCIe power. What ASUS motherboard has that kind of stuff? That sucker ain't cheap! :p
Keep in mind, the separation of the board into two parts opened up some options (limited others). The main logic board is still CEB (9.6" x 10.5"). So 24 sq. in. less than EATX (for physical case constraints). :D By eliminating the CPU, memory and chipset, you can simplify the main board, which allows you to add the SATA traces. It may have allowed them to reduce the layers as well. :eek: :D Which is is one of the biggest portions of the cost. :p That leaves a smaller board at 8 layers. (I figured total area is ~1.5x a single CEB which is about the same as EATX @ 156 sq. in.). So it may have been possible to eek out EATX surface area, fit it into an existing case to save money on complete re-tooling (internal mods still needed), and even shave layers on the larger area. Not sure, but possible. :eek: ;)

But worst case (both at 8 layers), the board cost would be the same as an EATX with the same finish (PCB only, no components...). Components will differ of course, as the connector does add some cost, and the WIFI & bluetooth features as well.

The integration of the SATA backplane connectors isn't that much either. Just the cost difference between the connectors. Rather small, in consideration of the whole.

This leaves me with the strong impression the board cost (finished) isn't that different at all. Not enough to think the production costs are $100USD or more at any rate. ;) :p.

Production quantity wise, a few other vendors use custom boards as well (customized specs added/removed from a basic design = non retail), so the production quantity of the retail models may not be that different either.

It's just hard to say, as I don't know the specific cost of the custom components (high density backplane connector, heat sinks...). Most of it would still be in range of what else is available (OEM/ODM offerings, all non retail) I would think, or it wouldn't have been doable cost wise. A "cheaper the better" philosophy towards production costs usually gets applied by management, as it does allow for the potential for improved margins afterall... :p
 
Wow, interesting thread, glad I missed most of it.

Some thoughts though....

1) Mac Pro is a Server class machine, comparing it to Desktops is silly.

Not even close. It's a skimpy workstation.

Look at any "server grade" MB and the differences will be glaringly obvious. Namely Number of SAS and SATA connection, Number of RAM slots, and etc. The top of the line 2009 Mac Pro is configured like a home PC with a medium to good grade WS MB. Nothing close to server is offered in the MP line.



2) A box of carefully chosen consumer grade parts from NewEgg does not make a workstation. (sure, nice desktop, maybe, but NOT a Server grade machine) It also requires you to violate the Mac OS X license to use those parts as a Mac.

Which is it? Workstation or server? Do you actually know the difference? It doesn't sound like it from this.
So let me get your statement right: If I buy all the parts for a server from NewEGG and put them together it won't actually be a server because they came from NewEGG? LOL Someone needs to sue those guys! :p



3) 2009 MacPro is certainly less value for the money than prior models. The 2008 Octo was certainly a great value.

Yeah the 2008 machines were "fair". Not "great", not "fantastic", just fair. 2009 machines are not.



4) Above all, Apple has to make a profit, it is why they exist. Get over it.

Then they're stupid. I would be willing to bet they're taking a real beating on MPs in 2009 because they've priced themselves right out of a very large section of the market.



5) ECC: HoooBoy... Let me don my flame retardant suit....

Yeah, and you better make sure that suit fits tight with all the misinformation you've added here. :p

Those of you with access to racks of densely packed server systems, pop into your management software and take a look at the number of ECC corrections that have taken place in the past month, it will surprise you.

Modern memory is very densely packed, has insanely small transistors, and operates at miniscule voltages. It takes a *much* smaller event to toggle a bit than it did even 10 years ago. It may have taken a "super-nova generated alpha particle" to flip a bit in a dual rail 5v/12v 1Kbit DRAM chip from 1979, but in 2009 it takes a lot less.

If you reboot your PC every night/week, you may not have an issue, but when you are dealing with servers that run 24/7 with many many weeks of uptime, those bit flips become possible, and problematic. The insidious part is that you may not know it has taken place until the machine crashes, or generates an incorrect result.

In a server environment where reliability, accuracy and uptime are crucial, ECC is a requirement. For your desktop, not so much, but going back to point#1, a Mac Pro was not intended to be a desktop, hence it uses ECC.

This is really laughable. Everything presented here is wrong or the opposite of being correct.

Modern memory is MORE prone to ECC not less.

Servers get ECC hits because of overheating. They're basically false positives of actual soft errors. You can get the same thing to happen on your Mac Pro by removing the DIMM heat sinks or by unplugging the fan. In this case it can be argued that having ECC capable RAM is better but this is still pilot error by all reasonable definitions and in such cases your machine is very likely to crash or shut itself down anyway. It's not an actual ECC soft error. The same thing happens to people over-clocking their RAM on over-clockable systems. Here read this:

http://www.anandtech.com/mac/showdoc.aspx?i=2832&p=2
"We had no problems running all of our benchmarks with the standard Crucial FB-DIMMs; however, if we ran a memory stress test for even just a short period of time the modules quickly reported correctable ECC errors. Apple's original modules did not generate any ECC errors, so it looks like the additional cooling is necessary under the most extreme situations."
And this suggests the SAME thing:
http://diglloyd.com/diglloyd/free/MacPro/memory.html "Verifying ECC status
Then verify that there are no ECC memory errors, by choosing “More Info…” and clicking on “Memory” (as shown below) . If you see ECC memory errors, return the memory to the vendor—ECC errors should not occur under normal operating conditions."
as just two examples. :rolleyes: The RAM here in the first example is essentially getting so hot it's "losing it's mind" so to speak. The same thing is common in data-center sized servers.

You can see ECC errors if any have happened during your up-time in the Mac Pro. Just pop open the System Profiler and click on Memory. If any have happened since the machine was powered up they will be listed. I challenge anyone with a properly cooled system to show me one. If all your RAM has finned heat-sinks and the fans are working there will be no RAM malfunction and therefor no ECC corrections will be listed.

If ECC is a requirement, crucial for accuracy and uptime then there are millions of systems in the world currently defying your premiss. ;)

And finally in the almost impossible event of an actual ECC error you're machine will not produce an inaccurate result or crash as you incorrectly state. ECC doesn't just check for errors, it corrects them. Bad memory modules that cannot be corrected my cause such troubles but that a tiger of a different tale.



oh yes, almost forgot...
6) Apple needs to sell a consumer level desktop machine.

They already do. The MacPro Quad is one. It's just priced like it's not. :p
 
Another issue that can cause memory issues, is voltage droop. As the transistors have shrunk, so has the operating voltage. So a droop can cause errors to occur. It's not particles, or even heat for this particular event, but it's rather common. :(

Capacitors have been added to memory, even being placed on the dies now, to help alleviate this. But the capacitors are a stop-gap solution (especially those on the PCB), and doesn't solve the real issue- crappy power. Better PSU's/voltage regulation is needed. Caps alone aren't going to work forever.
 
For brevity, I have generalized somewhat.... of course there are exceptions. I don't think the Mac Pro fits those exceptions.

A) The price you pay for a product has nothing to do with the price to make the product. The price is what the market will bear. Period. Sometimes, a retailer will sell a product - deliberately - at a loss. Its called a loss-leader. Every wonder why the milk is way in the back of the supermarket? Its so you will buy other things on the way in and out. Of course the Mac Pro is not a loss-leader.

Another example: The soft-drinks you get with your burger at a fast food place..... costs all of 5 or 14 cents, including labour to pour it. Do you complain how overpriced it is? No - the market will bear that price, and therefore you pay it.

Or, houses. Look at similar houses in a good neighbourhood and a bad neighbourhood. The house costs the same to build, and yet will sell for different amounts. Its entirely market driven. Apple sells Mac Pros at these prices because they can.

B) Don't forget on top of all the part costs of a Mac Pro, there is also support costs, and replacement costs if one goes bad. Also advertizing and design costs. The Mac Pro is a highly designed machine, with a lot of thought put into the acoustics, cooling, etc. Also, the fact that there are no exposed wires. That kind of design does not come cheap.

C) Apple will never compete (probably) in the mid-sized desktop segment. There are too many companies with too much competition. Too many companies don't make money in this segment. Why would Apple even consider it? They have a fiduciary duty to make money for their shareholders.... they have no duty to provide a mid-sized tower for the same price as a Dell or HP. If they provided a mid-sized tower, how many would they sell unless it was the same price as the competition. Not many. If you don't like Apple's offerings.... don't buy them. Apple doesn't really care. They are making gobs of money off the systems they do sell.

It is not a constitutional right to buy the product you want at the price you want. So, get over it. Sheesh.... I had the same rant last year on the Mac Mini thread that finally got closed. Hope I had nothing to do with it.....

Good post.

Another example that I've used in the past is that Apple is to Dell or HP what Acura is to Honda, Infinity is to Nissan, or Lexus is to Toyota. All of these car companies sell a luxury product with the exact same drive-train as their lesser siblings but for more money. People might complain that a Lexus is an overpriced Toyota but many still buy it because they see value in the improved fit and finish, design tweaks, extras, and overall experience that comes with owning a Lexus. People buy a Mac vs. a PC for exactly the same reasons.
 
Good post.

Another example that I've used in the past is that Apple is to Dell or HP what Acura is to Honda, Infinity is to Nissan, or Lexus is to Toyota. All of these car companies sell a luxury product with the exact same drive-train as their lesser siblings but for more money. People might complain that a Lexus is an overpriced Toyota but many still buy it because they see value in the improved fit and finish, design tweaks, extras, and overall experience that comes with owning a Lexus. People buy a Mac vs. a PC for exactly the same reasons.

I take it you've never owned a DELL PowerEdge or a Precision nor an HP Workstation?

They are pretty awesome! The current HP Z800 for example. 12 DIMM slots, 192 GB max RAM, Up to 3.2 GHz dual 5580 quad core Nehalems, 7 PCIe slots 4 are 16x, 9 USB 2.0 connectors, 8 SAS connectors, 4BP SATA conectors (Like Mac Pro), 89% PSU, very smooth sliding drive bay "drawers". 3 ODD bays, and the inside looks like a ferrari or something with slick air induction cowls for all components (not a wire in sight), heavy aluminum sided case. And the base price for all this is $1,840. :D

Dell is close by too. So in your example the Apple MP is not the Lexus - I assure you. :p
 
And the base price for all this is $1,840. :D

Dell is close by too. So in your example the Apple MP is not the Lexus - I assure you. :p

Sure the 'base' price is 1840 for a super stripped down system. Configured with dual 2.66 processors and 12GB of ram that HP is over 5800. A similar MacPro is $5000. Same with the Dell, once a dual Xeon machine is configured similar to the MacPro the price is higher.

Apple does not offer the same number of options (CPU, graphics, etc) as HP and Dell, but for the same equipment the prices are competitive.
 
It's not really true either. The HP 2.66 8-core is $700 less AND you still get all those extras. And if you go for the 2.53 it's $1,500 less than the MP 2.66 octad. The expansion is the most important bit! No matter how much you hope and pray the MP will still only have a measly 4 in the dual and a puny 8 DIMM slots in the octad, and it'll never have 7 PCIe slots.. etc.

No, Apple lagged in 2009 and additionally blew chunks on the price. It's pitiful and sad but that's how it is. Maybe in 2010 they'll make up for it?



.
 
Sure the 'base' price is 1840 for a super stripped down system. Configured with dual 2.66 processors and 12GB of ram that HP is over 5800. A similar MacPro is $5000. Same with the Dell, once a dual Xeon machine is configured similar to the MacPro the price is higher.

Apple does not offer the same number of options (CPU, graphics, etc) as HP and Dell, but for the same equipment the prices are competitive.

While they are ok to compare to Apple with, the online prices for Dell and HP are not the strict prices you pay. Even Joe Schmoe can get them cheaper by talking with a sales rep. Not to mention huge discounts (several thousands off store price) you can get on places like dell.com/outlet.
 
Yup! Very true. For example here's their listed $6,260 3.2 GHz dual processor with Quadro FX4800, 8GB RAM, etc., for $5,370 from: http://www.buy.com/prod/sbuy-z800-w5580-8gb-450gb-fx48/q/loc/101/210929846.html

To configure the Mac pro as close as possible to that spec is like $9,400 and the HP (besides all the "extras") is sporting a pair of 3.2GHz processors - not even available from Apple. That's $3,100 more than HP's list and $4,000 more than the HP from "Buy.com". :p You can add about another grand to the difference if we consider that Apple's machine is only a 2.93 GHz.

I almost feel embarrassed posting this. :eek:
 
It's not really true either. The HP 2.66 8-core is $700 less AND you still get all those extras. And if you go for the 2.53 it's $1,500 less than the MP 2.66 octad. The expansion is the most important bit! No matter how much you hope and pray the MP will still only have a measly 4 in the dual and a puny 8 DIMM slots in the octad, and it'll never have 7 PCIe slots.. etc.

No, Apple lagged in 2009 and additionally blew chunks on the price. It's pitiful and sad but that's how it is. Maybe in 2010 they'll make up for it?



.
How are you coming up with $700 LESS?

I went to the HP site, chose the baseline machine, chose 2 2.66 processors and 12GB ram. Did the same thing for the Mac. Maybe their site calculator is messed up or I inadvertently chose some random high-dollar item.

Been looking at getting a current machine and have been looking at both the Wintel and MAC boxes with 2.66 as the baseline processor (lowest 1333 bus processor). I have yet to see a dual 2.66 box that is even close to the MAC in price (all are several hundred to a couple of thousand more). If I could find one that is 600+ less than the MacPro then I would have to really think about it.

The consumer i7 machines are much cheaper than a single 2.66 macpro, but when talking about the server class dual Xeon machines it seems to be the opposite.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.