Is the Mac Pro WAY overpriced?

[gugucom]

I'm pretty much with Tess on this issue. Apple seems to have realized that they did not get the margin they got on other machine types. With the tower segment becoming a niche and enthusiast game they probably realised they are in a fairly inelastic market anyway and adjusted their marketing policy. Good move for share holders, bad for customers. I'm not affected right now because I never buy fancy new towers but try to squeeze value for money out of existing machines unless the new ones are unique. I fell for the unibody and bought one used after 5 month. It is a really sexy machine.

 

[Optimouse^^]

This thread, and the myriad of those like it, can be boiled down to one single element: Apple has no true mid-tier desktop, therefore cost arguments run out of control, and are based on faulty comparisons. Apple sells a repackaged notebook (low end desktop), the iMac, and a true workstation-class computer, the Pro.

Apple, oh Apple, why does thou protest the mid-tier desktop market?

 

[Trev311]

This thread, and the myriad of those like it, can be boiled down to one single element: Apple has no true mid-tier desktop, therefore cost arguments run out of control, and are based on faulty comparisons. Apple sells a repackaged notebook (low end desktop), the iMac, and a true workstation-class computer, the Pro.

Apple, oh Apple, why does thou protest the mid-tier desktop market?

There is yet another problem. Many people have stated that the quad Mac Pro is Apple's attempt to satisfy the mid-tier desktop range. They use a lower class Xenon processor that doesn't even have the ability to go dual socket. This after they touted "8-core Standard" which would seem like it was a step towards a mid-tower (or whatever you want to call it). That is until you look at the price. The '09 models are a disgrace after the '08 (and I'm not just saying that because I have an '08). Hopefully the early 2010 models can shape this up and turn things back around.

 

[sehnsucht77]

way? yeah. affordable? depends on what you compare it to in terms of competitiveness from other manufacturers. warranted? depends if you are a fanboy. are my opinions about the pricepoint valid? yeah. i am neither a fanboy nor a stupid consumer who can't see that i should be getting more for my bucks based on what other competitors are asking for my money. why do i have a Mac? because i need it to run some stuff on OSX but make no mistake, as soon as a b@lls to the w@ll laptop based multiplatform machine is made that can stably run OSX and Windows for less dough, i am all for it. and yes, i;ve tested lots of different machines to do both and none have satisfied me...yet.

been an apple user for years and i still think it isn't "teh sh*t" as much as folks sometimes make it out to be. its got its pluses and minuses like everything else and i make do with what i got for now.

 

[michael.lauden]

This thread, and the myriad of those like it, can be boiled down to one single element: Apple has no true mid-tier desktop, therefore cost arguments run out of control, and are based on faulty comparisons. Apple sells a repackaged notebook (low end desktop), the iMac, and a true workstation-class computer, the Pro.

Apple, oh Apple, why does thou protest the mid-tier desktop market?

I don't see how a dual core, 3.06 GHz processor is mid-range.. but i will agree with you with the fact that if the "workstation class computer" was a little bit cheaper, and then had much much higher options - so people could argue that the desktop line was solid

Mac mini - consumer
iMac - consumer to pro
Mac Pro - pro to ridiculously equipped

 

[Boneoh]

This thread, and the myriad of those like it, can be boiled down to one single element: Apple has no true mid-tier desktop, therefore cost arguments run out of control, and are based on faulty comparisons.

I agree with you, Apple should fill in the gap in the product line. But with the crappy economy, shrinking desktop sales, and their success with iPhone, iPod, and laptops, I doubt that they will do anything soon...

 

[Animalk]

Hi guys,

I have been following this discussion and I thought you guys might enjoy this article over at anandtech which was just posted today.

There is an excellent description of the trade offs of going quad or octo core. Also it correctly points out the huge price difference between both options. The Turbo Mode explanation is really worth reading. There are also several comparisons with the previous Octo Core Mac Pro at 3.0Ghz which I know many will appreciate.

The author is also in disagreement with Apple's pricing and he thinks that Apple should include SSD drives at the very least for these price points.

He also brings up the fact that Apple is charging a little less for processor upgrades than what Intel is charging for the processors per unit. But he seems to miss that Apple is not deducting the price of the dropped processor in the upgrade option. So if I want to upgrade say the 2.66 quad core to the 2.93, i'm essentially paying the price of the 2.66 quad core mac pro and the 2.93 processor and not just a 2.93 quad core mac pro. Kinda greedy on Apple's part if I got this right.

I just finished reading it and I thought you guys would enjoy reading it.

 

[pesos]

The answer is simple.

Is the dual-socket Mac Pro overpriced? No.
Is the single-socket Mac Pro overpriced? Yes.

The single-socket Mac Pro is a poor piece of engineering, with its lack of cpu expansion and 4 dimm slots (4 dimm slots paired with a triple-channel chipset?). That makes the above poster's comparison to the Dell T7500 pointless, because that machine IS far more expandable - it doesn't have the crippled ram limitation of the single-socket Mac Pro and can also add another quad core xeon down the road.

To provide a closer comparison you'd need to use the Dell T3500 single-socket Nehalem workstation:

Xeon 3520 2.66ghz
3 GB ECC 1066 DDR3 Memory
hard drive: 320 Gb (dell) and 640 Gb (apple)
512mb Quadro FX 580 (dell) and 512mb Geforce GT120 (apple)
DVD burner
3 year warranty (stock dell, applecare upgrade)

Dell: $1,501 Apple: $2,748

Difference: $1,247

The T3500 has 6 dimm slots (proper # for the triple channel memory config of x58) for up to 24 GB ram. Apple will only sell you 8 GB of ram in the single socket mac pro. Is it just me or does Apple not offer workstation video cards? All the ones I saw are gaming cards.

Before the fanbois have a fit, remember that this is the single socket comparison only, the dual socket comparison is far closer in price.

Did you guys miss my earlier post, lol? It's not a matter of comparing a "workstation" to a "desktop." Above prices are the single socket Mac Pro vs. the Dell T3500 workstation. Same parts, huge price difference. Also the Dell is not crippled memory-wise like the mac pro is. There is absolutely no case to be made for the single socket Mac Pro - it is a complete waste of money. The dual socket's value is just fine.

 

[jjahshik32]

Compared to other vendors or just in general?

Just in general.

Everytime I look at the Mac Pro prices I think in the back of my head, "c'mon Apple, I know you can do better than that!"

I think the Mac Pro was priced extremely good until the 09 models. 2008 was the best priced IMHO.

 

[Tesselator]

I think the reason I keep coming back to this thread and why it's so interesting to me is that so much of the rhetoric being tossed around is undefinable illusive abstract jargon based on perception almost entirely. That's so foreign to my mind that I'm striving to get a handle on it. It seems to be about a 60|40 split with 60% convinced or convincing by these imaginary ideas - so I can't even take comfort in being part of the majority. (or maybe those just stick out more to me?)

I could go through and pick out the terms and phrases I'm talking about to exemplify it but I think that would just confuse the discussion and bring it down to the point of bickering.

In any case it still comes down to counting and examination for me. I count and examine all things tho. I count build quality (which is a bit on the abstract side itself), individual parts, examine performance, and services rendered and implied. However, I don't count undefinable perceived value. If it's based on perception then when the perception changes so does the value. Perception is externally and internally programmable and way too illusive to be used - for me anyway. I think this is known as being coned in some circles. In yet others it's called sales hype or marketing.

 

[DoFoT9]

this does "appear" to be a rip off, but im not going to make up my mind until some comparisons between other workstations are made (yes a 'dekstop' vs workstation comparison may look the xeons look WAY over-priced, but how many professional users/businesses will get the cheap stuff?? )

i have a question:: why does apple insist on using the xeons for their quad-core machine? they are not loosing any benefits through QPI as there isnt another chip, the loss of ECC memory could be made more 'attractive' if apple put in some nice fast RAM (1600mhz or something?) and it had support for 32/65gb of RAM.
the benefits of using the i7 would be nice, MUCH lower initial cost and MUCH cheaper RAM, the expandability would still be the same. maybe it could be the xMac??

so as i see it.. the only differences between the corei7 and xeons are:
1. RAM, ECC vs Non-ECC (which could possibly be turned on in a corei7 because there is full support for it there, its just "locked")
2. QPI, the xeon allows two chips to communicate much faster and more reliable then the other method..

thats it, i think.. for that anyway

another comparison that would seem important (at least for me) is the differences in the OS + software. in a business situation where they are using Macs for years and years for their production/calculations/etc then of course they would still purchase the latest and greatest Macs, no matter on the costs because 'switching' would cost even more! personal preference would also come into it i guess.

 

[Freyqq]

this does "appear" to be a rip off, but im not going to make up my mind until some comparisons between other workstations are made (yes a 'dekstop' vs workstation comparison may look the xeons look WAY over-priced, but how many professional users/businesses will get the cheap stuff?? )

i have a question:: why does apple insist on using the xeons for their quad-core machine? they are not loosing any benefits through QPI as there isnt another chip, the loss of ECC memory could be made more 'attractive' if apple put in some nice fast RAM (1600mhz or something?) and it had support for 32/65gb of RAM.
the benefits of using the i7 would be nice, MUCH lower initial cost and MUCH cheaper RAM, the expandability would still be the same. maybe it could be the xMac??

so as i see it.. the only differences between the corei7 and xeons are:
1. RAM, ECC vs Non-ECC (which could possibly be turned on in a corei7 because there is full support for it there, its just "locked")
2. QPI, the xeon allows two chips to communicate much faster and more reliable then the other method..

thats it, i think.. for that anyway

another comparison that would seem important (at least for me) is the differences in the OS + software. in a business situation where they are using Macs for years and years for their production/calculations/etc then of course they would still purchase the latest and greatest Macs, no matter on the costs because 'switching' would cost even more! personal preference would also come into it i guess.

The reason they use xeon in the 2 processor ones is b\c i think core i7 doesn't support 2 processors. Why they use it in the 1 processor is the argument since it seems to be of little benefit beyond keeping apple's margins lower and profits higher?

 

[DoFoT9]

The reason they use xeon in the 2 processor ones is b\c i think core i7 doesn't support 2 processors. Why they use it in the 1 processor is the argument since it seems to be of little benefit beyond keeping apple's margins lower and profits higher?

ahh right so core i7 is only single processor, makes sense. but surely the quad core machines dont need to be xeons.. unless they want to keep everything universal with ECC and all that stuff...

 

[Tesselator]

Actually it doesn't make sense. It's a quad core. There is no second socket for an additional chip and neither the the W3500 series nor the Corei7 desktop CPUs support one. Also they are socket compatible. As said before they are Identical in every other way except ECC. So the only possible reason for using the Xeon part in the quad Mac Pros would be because Apple wanted ECC. Also the two chips are the same price at the same clock rate.

.

 

[Freyqq]

Actually it doesn't make sense. It's a quad core. There is no second socket for an additional chip and neither the the W3500 series nor the Corei7 desktop CPUs support one. Also they are socket compatible. As said before they are Identical in every other way except ECC. So the only possible reason for using the Xeon part in the quad Mac Pros would be because Apple wanted ECC.

Or it is easier to buy processors in bulk

idk they really should release a mid-level tower with i7..it would sell so well =\

 

[DoFoT9]

So the only possible reason for using the Xeon part in the quad Mac Pros would be because Apple wanted ECC....

.....which i doubt hardly anyone would NEED this in order to successfully crunch numbers and whatnot..

Or it is easier to buy processors in bulk

idk they really should release a mid-level tower with i7..it would sell so well =\

maybe they get some sort of discount or have cracked a deal with Intel that we dont know?? (e.g. how they got the Extreme Chips b4 other companies did).

 

[Tesselator]

.....which i doubt hardly anyone would NEED this in order to successfully crunch numbers and whatnot..

Yep, as we discussed back on page three ECC does almost absolutely nothing. It costs more and slows down your RAM and that's it. It's a military specification for operating at high-altitudes and in adverse conditions. There used to be more differences too but as of late (probably for streamlining and tooling pipelines) consumer grade products have assimilated. ECC is supposed to be an error checking and correcting routine that will detect soft errors ONLY and correct them. Soft "bit-flip" RAM errors in an office or home environment are ONLY caused by cosmic rays generated by a star going super-nova or from alpha particles emitted from radioactive isotopes. Extreme heat and EMP can do it too but if that happened you wouldn't want to be anywhere near the source when it did and it would likely destroy the machine as well.

BG radiation or "ground events" can actually be a problem in some parts of the world. For example we dumped 800 tons of U-238 our first few months in Iraq. This is called DU but it's still highly radio active and besides the birth defects and health problems it's causing our troops and Iraqi people it raises the overall level of radiation in an area where it was used which very well could cause soft errors. Some areas like Boulder Colorado, have a naturally high level of BG radiation that could in some rare cases affect a machine or an installation site. But for us plane-dwellers, hill-people, and beach-folks it's like, a zero-issue. And that's it. That's ALL there is to ECC. It serves no other purpose. It won't help with bad ram, system or software malfunction at all.

maybe they get some sort of discount or have cracked a deal with Intel that we dont know?? (e.g. how they got the Extreme Chips b4 other companies did).

This is very likely. Firms are also know to make deals like: We'll give you a deal on the high end parts if you promise to use part-x in your other productions. etc.

 

[DoFoT9]

Yep, as we discussed back on page three ECC does almost absolutely nothing. It costs more and slows down your RAM and that's it. It's a military specification for operating at high-altitudes and in adverse conditions. There used to be more differences too but as of late (probably for streamlining and tooling pipelines) consumer grade products have assimilated. ECC is supposed to be an error checking and correcting routine that will detect soft errors ONLY and correct them.

i read it dont worry so it seems useless to be used in the MPs then doesnt it! if the computer isnt going to be
a) boiling hot
b) used in the Antarctic/desert

then there is no use for it, which im guessing 99.9% of users WONT be experiencing these problems haha! they can get rid of the costs of the xeon processor + ECC RAM all in one. but then they would lose the "workstation" grade computer i guess.

Soft "bit-flip" RAM errors in an office or home environment are ONLY caused by cosmic rays generated by a star going super-nova or from alpha particles emitted from radioactive isotopes.

haha i read that too! it DOESNT seem very likely that our sun will go supernova on our ass anytime soon

Extreme heat and EMP can do it too but if that happened you wouldn't want to be anywhere near the source when it did and it would likely destroy the machine as well.

hardly worth it, most users wouldnt be in that situation.

BG radiation or "ground events" can actually be a problem in some parts of the world. For example we dumped 800 tons of U-238 our first few months in Iraq. This is called DU but it's still highly radio active and besides the birth defects and health problems it's causing our troops and Iraqi people it raises the overall level of radiation in an area where it was used which very well could cause soft errors. Some areas like Boulder Colorado, have a naturally high level of BG radiation that could in some rare cases affect a machine or an installation site. But for us plane-dwellers, hill-people, and beach-folks it's like, a zero-issue. And that's it. That's ALL there is to ECC. It serves no other purpose. It won't help with bad ram, system or software malfunction at all.

ok right that sums it up nicely. its useless for us! i do have a question, somebody said further back that ECC RAM could in some cases fix malfunctioning RAM, not in the sense that it will prevent it from failing - but it could fix the calculation and whatnot. ill try find it

This is very likely. Firms are also know to make deals like: We'll give you a deal on the high end parts if you promise to use part-x in your other productions. etc.

seems highly likely, apple also had the Xeon's out a month or so earlier then other companies did too, IIRC.

p.s. can i ask why you use double spaces at the start of some sentences?? i just found that odd, it suits you

overclocking is an option..and an option only..something of which mac pros do not have the option of enjoying...

i recall an overclocking tool for the old MPs, i wonder if it still works for the newer MPs. (there is a thread here somewhere)

hackintosh is another story of which i have no experience. That may be buggy or take extra time to install etc..maybe someone else on this board could share their experience with it..

i can chime in on this one!! and it is a VERY VERY pleasant experience! it is not hard to do, and its very stable. once you know the hardware that is fully supported its very very easy to install, its really quick to do and there arent any hassles.

 

[Tesselator]

i can chime in on this one!! and it is a VERY VERY pleasant experience! it is not hard to do, and its very stable. once you know the hardware that is fully supported its very very easy to install, its really quick to do and there arent any hassles.

Do you have a link to a list of the parts that you used - or that are known to be very compatible?

 

[Donar]

My Hackintosh Q9450@3.0GHz with 8 GB DDR Ram runs without problems and is really quiet even when i let it fold proteins (folding@home) for 24 hours. It's no "Workstation" but does the job i build it for really well.

 

[Donar]

Do you have a link to a list of the parts that you used - or that are known to be very compatible?

It's no i7, but maybe a Core2Quad will do the trick... Link

 

[Gonk42]

It is difficult to argue about value for money with Apple because their product is unique.

People have been arguing that it is a "workstation" but they charge more than Dell and don't provide on-site service. If I bought a Pro and it went wrong I'd have to drive with it 20 miles into Cambridge but then I couldn't park so I'd probably have to park-and-ride and lug the heavy machine on a bus and then do the whole thing over again to collect it. With Dell an engineer comes to my house and fixes the machine perhaps a day after it goes wrong (though if you pay extra they'll do it in four hours).

The main thing Apple sells is OS X combined with rigidly controlled hardware to enable a stable system. In the early days of Windows this was a very big plus. Now-a-days Windows is pretty stable for most applications (my machine never goes down) - it is perhaps different for games but then the Mac doesn't really run games so you can't compare.

Apple also produce beautiful machines - a Dell workstation looks ok and is very tough but it is made mainly of steel and plastic and not many people would consider it a thing of beauty!

So Apple produces a product for a creative type who doesn't want to know what happens in a computer, it must just do its job and look beautiful. For such a customer the offering is unique so a price performance comparison can only be done with other Apple products.

For others, like myself, we're attracted by Apple design and like the idea of an operating system based on Unix but with a friendly front end but there is a limit to the amount we're willing to pay for it given the availability of functional alternatives for less.

 

[-hh]

Or it is easier to buy processors in bulk

And it allows for other item purchases to be streamlined too, such as RAM.

And back in hardware/software development, it represents a reduction in the permutations that have to be tested ... saves money yet again.


But the actual retail price for what goes out the door will still depend on their business projections as to how many that they expect to sell in the current business climate. The amortization rates aren't going to be an insignificant portion of the final price.


-hh

 

[DoFoT9]

Do you have a link to a list of the parts that you used - or that are known to be very compatible?

osx86project is a pretty good place for compatibility. here is the HCL (Hardware Compatibility List), and here are a whole bunch of guides.

These are mainly aimed at portable computers, for straight hardware support lists this is a good area - change the link (where the OS version is, i.e."10.5.7") to your desired OS if you wish.

i built a very cheap computer because my old PC packed it in. parts are:
• E4600 (2.4ghz stock) @ 3GHz - temps range in between 25°C@Idle to 45°C@Load
• 2GB 800MHz RAM (i need more i know haha)
• 8500GT 512MB - Have problems with resolution changes, if i load a game that needs to change the resolution i will get a blue screen (not a BSOD, a plain blue screen). i have to restart it to get the screen back to normal. havent found a fix for it yet.
• 500GB Seagate Sata (XP + Data) + 40GB IDE IBM (OSX Boot Drive).
• 2x Optical, 1 x Sata, 1 x IDE.
• Running iAtkosv4 (10.5.4 i think).

this computer cost me $500Aus, and comapres very nicely to my top spec iMac, which cost $3500Aus. so its quite a machine.

i think the hackintosh's can really impact on the MacPro's and iMacs market, but enough of that - this is about the MP purely.

if anyone wants to talk more just give me a PM or something

hope i could be of some help!

 

[Tesselator]

Thanks guys!