Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

New computer build, decided not to go mac.

Zombie Acorn

Zombie Acorn

macrumors 65816
Original poster
Feb 2, 2009
1,307
9,132
Toronto, Ontario
I had a hard decision ahead of me, go mac and pay 2500 dollars for what I needed or go PC and get nearly the same for 700. I went PC, although I still wish mac os x would run on it (think about it steve).

Anyone else feel free to post your rigs, I haven't got the parts yet so I can't yet :mad:

Antec Three Hundred Computer Case
Intel Core2quad Q9400 2.66
Asus striker II Extreme mb
BFG Tech GTX 260 896mb graphics
4gb DDR3 1333
500 g hard drive (already had)

Ive never been so attracted to a motherboard:

asus_striker-ii_extreme_top.jpg
 
Zombie Acorn said:
[snip][blah][dontcare]I had a hard decision ahead of me, go mac and pay 2500 dollars for what I needed or go PC and get nearly the same for 700. [/snip][/blah][/dontcare]
Click to expand...

I would love to see anyone build a Mac Pro similar computer for $700. Actually, if you're able to do that, I'll buy the parts for you. :)

But honestly, the processor they put in the Mac Pro's is over $700. Your Core2Quad is no where near the speed the Xeon Nehalem. Judging from the specs of your build, you should of been looking at the iMac, not the Mac Pro in comparison to the computer you built.
 
imaketouchtheme said:
I would love to see anyone build a Mac Pro similar computer for $700. Actually, if you're able to do that, I'll buy the parts for you. :)

But honestly, the processor they put in the Mac Pro's is over $700. Your Core2Quad is no where near the speed the Xeon Nehalem. Judging from the specs of your build, you should of been looking at the iMac, not the Mac Pro in comparison to the computer you built.
Click to expand...

Yes, a Xeon is not a Core2Quad by any stretch (and even the Core2Quad is yesterday's news by now). However, some people need expandability more than sheer processing oomph, and the Mac Pro is the only thing in Apple's lineup that really offers that.

I'm glad I bought my Mac Pro in 2008. Got the low-end, single quad-core 2.8GHz model. It was a much better bang-for-the-buck system than the current low-end, semi-crippled single quad Mac Pro. It's overkill for my needs from a processing standpoint, but I can pack it with RAM and storage and keep using it for many, many years.

Actually, I wish Apple would drop the Xeons from the low-end Mac Pro model and go with a cheaper Core i7 architecture. On the PC side, there are some really nice bang-for-the-buck systems in the $1,500 range. Save the Xeons for the high-end, dual quad systems.
 
Zombie Acorn said:
I had a hard decision ahead of me, go mac and pay 2500 dollars for what I needed or go PC and get nearly the same for 700. I went PC, although I still wish mac os x would run on it (think about it steve).

Anyone else feel free to post your rigs, I haven't got the parts yet so I can't yet :mad:

Antec Three Hundred Computer Case
Intel Core2quad Q9400 2.66
Asus striker II Extreme mb
BFG Tech GTX 260 896mb graphics
4gb DDR3 1333
500 g hard drive (already had)

Ive never been so attracted to a motherboard:

asus_striker-ii_extreme_top.jpg
Click to expand...

why didn't you get an i7?
 
imaketouchtheme said:
I would love to see anyone build a Mac Pro similar computer for $700. Actually, if you're able to do that, I'll buy the parts for you. :)

But honestly, the processor they put in the Mac Pro's is over $700. Your Core2Quad is no where near the speed the Xeon Nehalem. Judging from the specs of your build, you should of been looking at the iMac, not the Mac Pro in comparison to the computer you built.
Click to expand...

EXACTLY what I think all the time when people claim to build a PC that's either "better" or "the same" as a mac pro.
 
imaketouchtheme said:
I would love to see anyone build a Mac Pro similar computer for $700. Actually, if you're able to do that, I'll buy the parts for you. :)

But honestly, the processor they put in the Mac Pro's is over $700. Your Core2Quad is no where near the speed the Xeon Nehalem. Judging from the specs of your build, you should of been looking at the iMac, not the Mac Pro in comparison to the computer you built.
Click to expand...

We'll see when I get done overclocking and benchmarking. The current imac wouldn't be able to touch this computer even in stock condition. Way underpowered graphics, still running core 2 duo and I can easily overclock faster.

Also the xeon processor in the mac pro offered now only passmarks 1000 over my processor in stock conditions.
 
Zombie Acorn said:
We'll see when I get done overclocking and benchmarking. The current imac wouldn't be able to touch this computer even in stock condition. Way underpowered graphics, still running core 2 duo and I can easily overclock faster.

Also the xeon processor in the mac pro offered now only passmarks 1000 over my processor in stock conditions.
Click to expand...

Only 1,000? :rolleyes:
 
elfxmilhouse said:
EXACTLY what I think all the time when people claim to build a PC that's either "better" or "the same" as a mac pro.
Click to expand...

The question, of course, is your use. Sure, the Xeon Mac Pro has a lot more "theoretical" computing power than a PC with a Core2Quad, or even a non-Xeon i7. But that's theoretical. PRACTICALLY speaking, for most users, the PC with the Quad or i7 will be as fast, or potentially faster.

Bottom line is, absent high end workstation type applications, not much software can actually take advantage of the computing power of the Mac Pro. Even those CPU-intensive tasks that consumers engage in, like gaming, won't really take advantage of a Xeon. They'll be as fast, or faster, on a regular i7.

Frankly, whatever people on this forum or at Apple think, there is a SIGNIFICANT market I call the "prosumer desktop market." These are people who want a HIGH END, EXPANDABLE desktop. Not a mini-supercomputer, not a "scientific workstation," but a normal desktop with high end components and expandability.

Apple flat doesn't make one. The iMac is an all-in-one with laptop parts and a not so great video card and zero expandability, and the Mac Pro is a workstation class computer.

I don't blame the OP. For any normal person's uses, the PC he built for $700 is cheaper and substantially faster than an iMac, and is "as good as" a Mac Pro, while remaining fully expandable. It's hard to pick Apple when you are in his market segment. My best friend was recently making a computer decision, and he made the same choice the OP did. Apple can have the best software in the world, but if they don't have hardware that meets your needs, then people will look elsewhere. Personally, if I weren't a laptop person, I'd probably be going back to Windows too!
 
Azmordean said:
The question, of course, is your use. Sure, the Xeon Mac Pro has a lot more "theoretical" computing power than a PC with a Core2Quad, or even a non-Xeon i7. But that's theoretical. PRACTICALLY speaking, for most users, the PC with the Quad or i7 will be as fast, or potentially faster.

Bottom line is, absent high end workstation type applications, not much software can actually take advantage of the computing power of the Mac Pro. Even those CPU-intensive tasks that consumers engage in, like gaming, won't really take advantage of a Xeon. They'll be as fast, or faster, on a regular i7.

Frankly, whatever people on this forum or at Apple think, there is a SIGNIFICANT market I call the "prosumer desktop market." These are people who want a HIGH END, EXPANDABLE desktop. Not a mini-supercomputer, not a "scientific workstation," but a normal desktop with high end components and expandability.

Apple flat doesn't make one. The iMac is an all-in-one with laptop parts and a not so great video card and zero expandability, and the Mac Pro is a workstation class computer.

I don't blame the OP. For any normal person's uses, the PC he built for $700 is cheaper and substantially faster than an iMac, and is "as good as" a Mac Pro, while remaining fully expandable. It's hard to pick Apple when you are in his market segment. My best friend was recently making a computer decision, and he made the same choice the OP did. Apple can have the best software in the world, but if they don't have hardware that meets your needs, then people will look elsewhere. Personally, if I weren't a laptop person, I'd probably be going back to Windows too!
Click to expand...

My thoughts exactly. I love mac os x but am left with a choice between an underpowered iMac with a screen I don't need or an overpriced mac pro which looks and performs badass but not 2500 dollars worth for me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back