When will the Mac Pros be of good value.

Discussion in 'Mac Pro' started by myca, Oct 25, 2009.

  1. myca macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2005
    #1
    So I was just checking out the new iMacs, and the 27" looks a beast, but I'm not a fan of all in ones, which is why my last computer was a hackintosh, and a dual G5 before that.

    One thing that struck me though with the top spec iMac is the amazing disparity of pricing compared to the base Mac Pro, not that the top of the range iMac is cheap. But in comparison to the base Mac Pro for £150 less you get;

    A quicker Nehelem processor
    More Ram
    A better GPU
    A bigger HD
    The new mouse
    Wi-Fi as standard
    A 27" monitor

    Now I thought on release of the Nehelem Mac Pros that the base model was over the odds, which is why I built a hackintosh as I was not happy (nor could I stretch the funds) at paying near £2000 for what is a basically a Core i7 920 in a glorious case.

    But with the new iMacs I can't see how they can keep charging this silly price, or not bump the specs up to dual processors in each model (and maybe even ram slots in multiples of 3). So does anyone else expect a bump, or price drop soon, as paying less for more (minus the expandability) within the companies own line up seems out of whack?
    :confused:
     
  2. UAofE macrumors member

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2009
    #2
    Mac Pro is due for an update, a spec bump. Probably eliminate the low-end choices and put 3.2GHz at the top end. 2.26ghz was a ridiculous decision from the start, even if it is 8 cores.
     
  3. thegoldenmackid macrumors 604

    thegoldenmackid

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2006
    Location:
    dallas, texas
    #3
    GHz ≠ Speed. Just take a look at some benchmarks.


    Most people upgrade the ram and hard drives separately. With that said, the Mac Pro isn't really the most competitive computer in the Apple lineup in comparison to other computers.
     
  4. Umbongo macrumors 601

    Umbongo

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2006
    Location:
    England
    #4
    No changes until they revise them with new processors next year. The difference between building your own system and what Apple charge for similar hardware isn't that different on the iMac or Mac Pro. Both are expensive items. The Mac Pro still has plenty of selling points.
     
  5. UAofE macrumors member

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2009
    #5
    3.2ghz is the "new" processor. It wasn't available when the MP was released.
     
  6. thegoldenmackid macrumors 604

    thegoldenmackid

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2006
    Location:
    dallas, texas
    #6
    It's irrelevant, the 2.26GHz made sense given the circumstances.
     
  7. Umbongo macrumors 601

    Umbongo

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2006
    Location:
    England
    #7
    They were, Apple chose not to use them for some reason.
     
  8. nanofrog macrumors G4

    Joined:
    May 6, 2008
    #8
    The Quads and Octads use different CPU families (35xx & 55xx respectively), so the pricing isn't the same for the clockspeeds. Hence the Octads starting with a lower clock in the base model.

    Apple wasn't willing to lower their margins, so they chose parts that worked with the margins they expected. Otherwise, they could have upped the clocks in the base models.

    The margins are also the likely reason they didn't offer higher clocks as options either. Figure in the profit, and it would have been too expensive to attract enough business. There's another aspect as well. Fewer parts also allows them greater purchasing power with Intel, that can translate into lower cost per unit pricing (they could be getting parts at lower than the publicly released quantity pricing due to a contract; x parts in y time frame).
     

Share This Page