Nehalem Pricing: Apple vs Dell vs HP

[rylin]

I'm essentially in this position.

In the comparison I made for myself (2.26 octo with 12GB RAM in the UK) I found that Apple was more expensive than Dell, but with student discount was slightly cheaper but is much less expandable. I'll probably wait for machines to appear on Dell outlet as they will be much cheaper but I think that won't be for a couple of months at least.

If you can, wait and see what Apple do with the upcoming die shrink (Westmere).
By the time it hits (2010), DDR3 should be dirt cheap, and Apple's R&D costs should be less this time 'round.

If you can't wait, something tells me this will have your name on it some time this week.
(Hint: your name is "Refurbished Mac Pro 8-Core 2.8GHz Intel Xeon")

 

[nick9191]

I think we can agree that every Pro workstation Apple has offered since Steve returned to Apple has offered better value for money than its competitors. The 09 still does depending on certain configurations and needs, but not as much as before.

So what's changed?
1. Economic recession
2. Steve left for a few months

1. Apple knows that in the economic recession their sales will be hit. So they increase prices on the Mac Pro because they know pro users are forced to pay. Apple is the only company selling Mac OS X, therefore they can charge what they like. If you need a workstation and you need OS X, you need a Mac Pro.

2. Steve is only overseeing important decisions at Apple. Perhaps if he were there, he would have not allowed the price increase.

You decide which.

 

[Thunderchicken]

Eh, I have roughly the same "invested" in Windows software (SecureCRT, UltraEdit, FlashFXP, RegexBuddy, O2k3) as I do in Mac software (TextMate, VMware, iWork).

What I do pay for is being able to sleep at night, wake up without feeling miserable, and not having to worry about security.
I.e., I don't have to spend every five minutes making sure my tools are in top trim.

In other words, I care more about my workflow than I do my existing software or upgrade path.
Of course, my hobbies and my work don't require expensive software..

It seems like you are more invested in the PC side of the house and maybe it would be in your best interest to stick to a PC, only because the the Mac side of the house seems kind of weak. If you were invested in heavy in Photoshop, or Apple only products then it's kind of a now brainer.

 

[Firefly2002]

Even leaving off any RAM upgrade... a 2.66GHz Octo T7500 with 2GB of RAM starts at $5,320... an Octo Mac Pro with 2.66GHz and 6GB of RAM starts at $4,699. Closer... but Apple is still quite a bit cheaper.

As for getting a 2.93 over a 2.66... it all depends on what you do with the machine. I write massively parallel scientific apps... and pure hardcore speed translates into HOURS a week saved... which not only saves money but let's me meet my milestones faster. Different needs... different machines...

Friedmud

I seriously doubt that. 2.66 vs. 2.26 I can see... but the minimal increase from 2.66 to 2.93 is inane. That's a 400 MHz (15ish percent) increase from 2.2 to 2.6, then a 270 MHz (10% increase). Real world increases will be less than that... probably closer to 7-8%. Hours a week? Unlikely. Maybe a couple... which isn't much. There's 168 hours in a week, let's not forget. It would make more economical sense to buy two 2.26's and link them up than to buy a 2.93; you'd pay (a bit; it's $3.3k for a 2.26, and $2.6k for a 3.93 GHz CPU upgrade) more for the dual 2.26's, but you'd get a lot more done so that way you really would save a good bit of time.

Actually you'd just be better off overclocking the 2.26 or 2.66. You could probably hit 3.06.

 

[cmaier]

I seriously doubt that. 2.66 vs. 2.26 I can see... but the minimal increase from 2.66 to 2.93 is inane. That's a 400 MHz (15ish percent) increase from 2.2 to 2.6, then a 270 MHz (10% increase). Real world increases will be less than that... probably closer to 7-8%. Hours a week? Unlikely. Maybe a couple... which isn't much. There's 168 hours in a week, let's not forget. It would make more economical sense to buy two 2.26's and link them up than to buy a 2.93; you'd pay (a bit; it's $3.3k for a 2.26, and $2.6k for a 3.93 GHz CPU upgrade) more for the dual 2.26's, but you'd get a lot more done so that way you really would save a good bit of time.

Actually you'd just be better off overclocking the 2.26 or 2.66. You could probably hit 3.06.

Actually, for a lot of scientific and engineering apps, things are pretty much dominated by CPU time, so a 10% clock speed increase is pretty much a 10% increase in throughput. When I was writing EDA software used in designing microprocessors, even a 7.5% speed increase was a major cause for celebration, and meant we could spin the chip 5 or 6 more times per week, shaving weeks off of a tape-out.

 

[davewolfs]

Well if you have time, this is what $1300 bucks can get you. Something that smashes the 2.93 Octo in Single thread apps and comes pretty close to the 2.66 on Cinebench.

CINEBENCH R10
****************************************************

Tester :

Processor : Intel(R) Core(TM) i7 CPU 920 @ 2.67GHz
MHz : 3800
Number of CPUs : 8
Operating System : WINDOWS 64 BIT 6.0.6001

Graphics Card : GeForce GTX 275/PCI/SSE2
Resolution : <fill this out>
Color Depth : <fill this out>

****************************************************

Rendering (Single CPU): 5352 CB-CPU
Rendering (Multiple CPU): 21949 CB-CPU

Multiprocessor Speedup: 4.02

Shading (OpenGL Standard) : 6800 CB-GFX


****************************************************

 

[cmaier]

Well if you have time, this is what $1300 bucks can get you. Something that smashes the 2.93 Octo in Single thread apps and comes pretty close to the 2.66 on Cinebench.

CINEBENCH R10
****************************************************

Tester :

Processor : Intel(R) Core(TM) i7 CPU 920 @ 2.67GHz
MHz : 3800
Number of CPUs : 8
Operating System : WINDOWS 64 BIT 6.0.6001

Graphics Card : GeForce GTX 275/PCI/SSE2
Resolution : <fill this out>
Color Depth : <fill this out>

****************************************************

Rendering (Single CPU): 5352 CB-CPU
Rendering (Multiple CPU): 21949 CB-CPU

Multiprocessor Speedup: 4.02

Shading (OpenGL Standard) : 6800 CB-GFX


****************************************************

Sorry. When I enter into contracts, I live up to my end. And the OS X license agreement is pretty clear. <they're watching. i know they are>

 

[davewolfs]

Sorry. When I enter into contracts, I live up to my end. And the OS X license agreement is pretty clear. <they're watching. i know they are>

Who said anything about running OS X? This is Windows Vista SP1. I couldn't be bothered with OS X.

 

[cmaier]

Who said anything about running OS X? This is Windows Vista SP1. I couldn't be bothered with OS X.

Oh, then that's a non-starter for most folks here.

 

[friedmud]

Seriously... I think people forget that "Pro" word in "Mac Pro". A good amount of us spending $6000+ on these machines are doing so because we use them to generate money.

Yes, if I'm buying a machine for home use... Either for entertainment or hobby... I would probably not spend $6k on a machine. But, when I'm depending on this machine to help me bring in hundreds of thousands or even millions of dollars in funding... Spending that amount of cash to get the fastest and most dependable machine I can is a no brainer. Talking about a DIY workstation for $1300 is completely off-topic.

What we're trying to ascertain here is whether or not, in the space of extreme high end workstations, a Mac Pro is competitive... Which at this point I think we can answer "YES".

Friedmud

 

[Gonk42]

If you can't wait, something tells me this will have your name on it some time this week.
(Hint: your name is "Refurbished Mac Pro 8-Core 2.8GHz Intel Xeon")

Thankyou for the suggestion, I had been looking at the 3.2GHz that is on the store at present. But as I'm a student I get a good discount off new Mac Pros but no discount off refurbs so the cost of the 3.2 is rather more than the octo 2.26. It would be faster in single thread but for what I want to do (run lots of software at once) the newer machine is probably the better bet (it is a very close call).

Also, psychologically if I buy an '08 refurb I'll have to pay what was the new student price for something that I could have got in Jan '08. It may be irrational, but it would feel a bad deal (I'm still stuck in the mind set that technology should get cheaper with time).