What would be an example of a Windows desktop computer that is as powerful as the MBP

Discussion in 'MacBook Pro' started by galaksy, May 29, 2014.

  1. galaksy macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2014
  2. dextr3k macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2012
    #2
    Anything with similar specs? What do you want to know? MBP use consumer components, so you can price it out yourself. But it won't be a MBP.

    What are you trying to use the system for?
     
  3. galaksy thread starter macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2014
  4. Abacus2039 macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2012
    #4
    Most desktops will outperform an MBP due to full on desktop processors, components less restricted by suze and heat considerations, and so on.

    Most i5/i7 all-in-ones would be comparable to a MBP. But then you'll go through the usual Hackintosh driver pain, assuming you still want to run OSX.

    Why not just buy a used iMac? If you want to save money on recent hardware there are plenty of options, eBay, auctions, etc.
     
  5. galaksy thread starter macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2014
    #5
    I thought iMac might not be as powerful as similarly priced Windows desktop.
     
  6. tillsbury macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2007
    #6
    Not much in it, if you remember to price in a quality screen, wireless mouse, and keyboard. Most Windows desktops come with a $10 special for these.

    The good ones are about the same price. The HP Envy Recline, for example, is about the same price as a mid-spec 21" iMac.
     
  7. galaksy thread starter macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2014
    #7
  8. Freyqq macrumors 68040

    Joined:
    Dec 13, 2004
    #8
    According to geekbench benchmark, a late 2013 15" macbook pro retina's processor (i7-4850HQ) is about as fast as an Intel Core i5-3570K. That's a mid-range desktop processor from last year.

    You're going to have to give us more detail of what you are looking for, as each mac has different options and specs.

    ----------

    You are getting the equivalent of a $800 dell ultrasharp with it, so that changes the equation a bit. It also uses the same desktop processors commonly used in PC desktops, so it's not that different there either. It uses mobile laptop GPUs, though, which is it's weakness. However, the high-end one is a ~100 watt card and performs just a little worse than an Nvidia 660, if I remember correctly.

    Not terrible performance, but it's competitive at least and will run the latest games without a problem. Stiil, for $1200 + $800 screen, you could easily build a faster desktop computer than the $2000 imac.
     
  9. dextr3k macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2012
    #9
    It used to be that for apple's prices, you could price out a much better windows computer. It is still true, for that price you could price out much more powerful hardware.

    But you have to realize, that you did not factor in the apple design, form factor (thin, beautiful, etc), apple's service, and nowadays, the all important screen.

    For a rmbp, if you wanted a desktop, sure you can, but its not comparable. You cant get the screen, portability, design, etc.

    So it depends, are you pricing out a mac pro? Are you debating a rmbp vs a windows desktop? The latter seems ridiculous because blowing $1500 on a desktop will almost always get you better hardware than a rmbp, and if you wanted to save money that way, you shouldn't be looking at a rmbp in the first place.
     
  10. leman macrumors 604

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2008
    #10
    A similar desktop would cost around $600 without display and peripherals, more if you want a good case and extras like thunderbolt.
     
  11. dmccloud macrumors 6502a

    dmccloud

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2009
    Location:
    Anchorage, AK
    #11
    No clue where you got that number from - those $600 desktops are sacrificing things to get to that price range.

    Base rMBP specs:

    2.0 Ghz Intel Core i7 (Turbo Boost up to 3.2 GHz)
    8GB DDR3 - 1600 RAM
    256GB PCIe SSD
    15.4" Retina Display (2880 x 1800 native resolution)
    OS X Mavericks (10.9)

    Price: $1999

    Using Newegg to price out a comparably specced Desktop, it appears that you're hard-pressed to build a comparable model unless you make sacrifices in certain components. I went for performance oriented parts, but not the "extreme"/professional equipment, and not the most expensive either - most of these parts are among the lowest in their category. In the case of the monitor, I went with the closest resolution to the retina display's resolution of 2880 x 1800.

    Intel Core i7-4770 Haswell 3.4GHz LGA 1150 - $299.99
    ASUS MAXIMUS VII HERO LGA 1150 Motherboard - $219.99
    G.SKILL Ripjaws Series 8GB (2 x 4GB) 240-Pin DDR3 SDRAM DDR3 1600 - $79.99
    SAMSUNG 840 Pro Series MZ-7PD256BW 2.5" 256GB SATA III SSD - $199.99
    EVGA SuperClocked 02G-P4-2662-KR GeForce GTX 660 2GB - $219.99
    Corsair Carbide Series 200R ATX Mid Tower Case - $59.99
    Thermaltake ToughPower Grand TPG-0650M - PSU - $109.99
    LG Black Blu-ray Burner SATA WH16NS40 - OEM - $64.99
    Dell U3014 Black 30" LED Backlight LED Monitor (2560 x 1600),IPS panel - $1199.88
    Microsoft Windows 8 Professional 64-bit (Full Version) - OEM - $139.99

    Price: $2594.79

    Keep in mind that you'd still need a mouse, keyboard, and at least 1-2 additional fans inside the case for cooling, plus any other items you might want in the machine. While you could go with a cheaper monitor, you would sacrifice either screen size, resolution, or brand reliability in the process. I included the Blu-Ray burner because you pretty much have to have an optical drive to do anything in Windows, since most Windows software still comes on discs unless you use services like Battle.net, Steam, or Origin for games. There is no true equivalent on the processor side, as the mobile parts have different clock rates, TDPs and even form factors from their desktop counterparts.
     
  12. maflynn Moderator

    maflynn

    Staff Member

    Joined:
    May 3, 2009
    Location:
    Boston
    #12
    You can get a much more powerful windows machine then a MBP. MBPs are not about raw processing power, but a small thin, well designed, high quality machine. Apple does not use (generally speaking) the fastest processors or desktop processors in laptops to make them blazingly fast.

    My advice is to do some grunt work and research what is out there component wise and compare it to apple.
     
  13. MH01 macrumors G4

    MH01

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2008
    #13
    Big difference.

    Imac is effectively a laptop architecture inside a screen.

    A PC desktop, with a dedicated GPU is going to be much more powerful

    ----------

    A PC desktop by a large margin in regards to performance.

    performance v $$ ratio, you cannot beat a PC desktop. Especially if you know someone who can build one for you, if you buy the parts.

    What's your budget?
     
  14. leman macrumors 604

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2008
    #14
    Well, I did write 'without display and peripherals or extras like TB'. Cut down the GPU (the one you took is more then twice as fast compared to the rMBP), take a cheaper SSD, a budget mainboard, maybe a cheaper CPU - and you will be much closer to the $600-$700 range. I assumed it was matching the base performance under highest budget limits.

    I don't have my laptop here and building a config using the phone is too bothersome, so I'll skip it.

    BTW, last week I was thinking about bying a cheap gaming laptop as my 2012 rMBP starts getting a bit slower in that front. I was really surprized that even the ugliest, heaviest, with abysmal battery life gaming laptop that would be actually worth getting (that is, faster than my current one), still costs 1500 Swiss franks. And that not including an SSD. PCs are not that much cheaper.
     
  15. snaky69 macrumors 603

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2008
    #15
    Depending on if you want to piece it together yourself or buy it from a manufacturer, you could save 50 to 70% of the MBP's cost and have a desktop that is just as powerful.

    If you're willing to spend MBP money for a desktop, said desktop will run circles around a MBP without even remotely breaking a sweat.
     
  16. Abacus2039 macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2012
    #16
    You need to work out what you're looking for.

    Why compare a MBP with a desktop. It's a silly comparison. Do you want a laptop or a desktop? Does it need to be portable or not?

    Will you be happy with Windows or do you want OS X? OSX via Hackintosh is all to often an expressway to tears, unless you're really that kind of stuff.

    What are you going to use it for? Are you trying to build a gaming rig? Video editing? Ir mainly surfing?

    Too many missing variables to really answer your question.
     
  17. happyfrappy macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2007
    Location:
    Location eh?
    #17
    If the OP wants a small-form-factor to mount behind the monitor via VESA mount friendly case, there are plenty of ITX mobos which support desktop CPUs and have a single PCIe 16x slot with onboard bluetooth/wifi... cost wise the OP could easily hit into the mid-priced iMac point.

    Unless the redesign of the iMac changed too much, if the OP expects nice sound a budget for 30W speaker stick/bar would be another expense. (Aluminum iMacs had a nice 24W speaker system--almost close to the convection cooled iMac G3 HK sound)
     
  18. Freyqq macrumors 68040

    Joined:
    Dec 13, 2004
    #18
    That desktop config you are using as a base of comparison is ridiculous. The desktop would be probably 2x faster at many tasks and you're including the cost of a very very fancy monitor... $1200 is more than even an apple display.. you also threw in a blueray drive...and an rmbp doesn't even have a dvd drive.
     
  19. dmccloud macrumors 6502a

    dmccloud

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2009
    Location:
    Anchorage, AK
    #19
    Like I said in the original post, that was the lowest prices Haswell CPU - the desktop frequencies are higher than the mobile variants. Also, you still need an optical drive for a LOT of Windows software. Not sure how you missed that in my post.
     
  20. Freyqq macrumors 68040

    Joined:
    Dec 13, 2004
    #20
    ...you think a 84watt i7 desktop processor is the same as a 45watt laptop i7 processor just because they are both called i7?

    The i7 laptop model cpu is at best as fast as a desktop i5 from last gen

    Also, you can install windows 8 over usb and office is a download. Even so, no windows software is on a blueray...ever.
     
  21. dmccloud macrumors 6502a

    dmccloud

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2009
    Location:
    Anchorage, AK
    #21
    I never said the laptop part was as powerful as the desktop CPU. I said that was the baseline Haswell desktop part, and I acknowledged that there was a clockspeed difference from the beginning. Still not sure how you keep missing that.
     
  22. Freyqq macrumors 68040

    Joined:
    Dec 13, 2004
    #22
    baseline = "a minimum or starting point used for comparisons"

    If you want to compare, then compare with a desktop processor of equal performance.

    Haswell is sold in i3, i5, i7. A more fair comparison based on the performance of the i7 mobile CPU is an i5 desktop CPU, as the performance is more similar.
     
  23. galaksy thread starter macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2014
    #23
    How would this $510 desktop compare to rMBP in processor speed, graphics, audio?

    http://www.bestbuy.com/site/hp-pavilion-desktop-amd-a8-series-8gb-memory-2tb-hard-drive/3199341.p?id=1219088675337&skuId=3199341&st=categoryid$pcmcat212600050008&cp=1&lp=4


    If it wouldn't compare very well, which specific desktop would you recommend getting over this one?
     
  24. snaky69 macrumors 603

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2008
    #24
    Here, I very quickly built you a desktop PC which would have very very similar performance to a base 13'' rMBP, complete with windows 7 64-bit.

    Upgrade any of those components and you very quickly become much more powerful than a 13". Especially processor wise.
     

    Attached Files:

  25. galaksy thread starter macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2014
    #25
    I think I would rather have 4TB HDD and 128 SSD and 16GB
     

Share This Page