Why is MP so expensive compared to imac?

[gpzjock]

Expansion doesn't end at eSata.

The expandability of a Mac Pro doesn't just apply to mass storage ofc.

Upgrading RAM to 32 GB, filling 4 PCI-E slots with GFX cards and running 8 monitors, fitting another Superdrive or even a Blu-Ray internally. All these things are attractive to some sectors of the market that the iMac just can't fulfill.

Personally I found the ability to raise my RAM to 16 GB relatively cheaply, add a SSD with ease and upgrade my GFX card 3 times in 3 years has prevented me from following my 3-4 year replacement cycle that the iMac range forced me to do.
Bizarrely enough this methodology has saved me money not increased my spending on Apple products: £1700 - £2000 every 3 years vs. £2400 in a projected 5 year lifespan. So to me a Mac Pro is cheaper in the long run.
I can also shop around for a non glossy LCD screen of the exact size and price I want.
I don't see myself changing my Pro till it breaks and even then not if I can repair it.

 

[Umbongo]

Quad = Horribly overpriced
8 and 12 Core = Price easily justified by Intel's extravagantly high pricing for dual chip Xeon processors.

The price difference between retail components to get the same features/performance as a quad core Mac Pro (just over $1,000) is similar to that of doing the same with the dual processor Mac Pros. The 8 core uses processors that cost half the price of those uses in the older Mac Pros, yet costs considerably more. Apple just changed their pricing premium is all.

 

[nanofrog]

Quad = Horribly overpriced
8 and 12 Core = Price easily justified by Intel's extravagantly high pricing for dual chip Xeon processors.

That said I bought a Quad (2009) only because it was faster at what I did (non-HD/3D) than the base 2.26 Octo at the time. I still cried a little at the price vs value.

Umbongo's right.

It's not on Intel (current Octad unit is actually cheaper for CPU's; $774 for the pair, not per), but Apple's increased margins that raised the price. Intel isn't designing and manufacturing the boards any longer (Foxconn's doing all of it now, rather than just the final assembly). But there's a price for the low cost, and that's poor engineering and QC (Foxconn isn't well regarded for either in the electronics industry, but they are cheap - that's why they get the bids). Even Apple's validation (OS and firmware) has slipped from the early Intel days, and certainly from what they provided when they still used PPC's under the hood (I still can't forget the fiasco the audio bug was in the 2009 if you're wondering what I'm on about).

 

[jtcedinburgh]

xeon processors are 1k+ a pop also the mp case is pretty complex to manufacturer

I just bought a rather decent Xeon 2.66GHz quad core dell for the equivalent of $600 (although I specced it up with ram and an extended warranty) so your figures are way out. I'd expect Xeon chips at OEM volumes and prices to work out at maybe $100 to $300 depending on what model. Allowing for mark-up, a Xeon shouldn't really add more than $200 to $600 to the cost of a machine with an entry level processor. Of course, motherboards capable of handling the Xeon would add a bit to the price, but Apple's Mac Pro pricing is still eye-wateringly expensive compared to comparable Dells.

Sure, I'd always rather have an Apple than a Dell but at the end of the day they're not so different in terms of architecture and components, so what we see here is perhaps the most extreme example of the 'Apple Tax'.

 

[Transporteur]

Sure, I'd always rather have an Apple than a Dell but at the end of the day they're not so different in terms of architecture and components, so what we see here is perhaps the most extreme example of the 'Apple Tax'.

Except for the gorgeous case design and extremely silent cooling system, a decent Dell workstation beats the crap out of the Pro.
FAR better warranty, better upgradability and considerably cheaper.

If only Windows wasn't a piece of junk.
(No I don't want to play this card right now, I'm just saying that it simply doesn't work for me)

 

[jtcedinburgh]

Except for the gorgeous case design and extremely silent cooling system, a decent Dell workstation beats the crap out of the Pro.
FAR better warranty, better upgradability and considerably cheaper.

If only Windows wasn't a piece of junk.
(No I don't want to play this card right now, I'm just saying that it simply doesn't work for me)

You'll get no arguments from me on the Windows thing, although as a Windows pro developer by trade I can't really avoid it. My Dell is a server (in desktop form) rather than a workstation so it's certainly not silent, and arguably marketed in a different direction from the Mac Pro, but given that I paid around £600 ($900 in your money) for a quad Xeon with 4Gb ram plus 3 year warranty and some other bits, versus £2000 for the cheapest Mac Pro (which is a tad faster - 2.8GHz - but with less ram) means that the pretty case and silence must be adding £1400 to the price.... ummmm... maybe not.

Anyway, I learnt my lesson back in my PowerMac G5 days (had a 2.7 dual) that the iMac is infinitely better value and probably sufficient for 99% of all users. So, I replaced that with the iMac 24" 2.5 years back, and added the i7 a week ago. Now *THAT* machine flies

 

[frocco]

I speced out an HP i7-930 8gig ram, 1.5 tb drive, blu-ray, nvidia 460 for around 1200.00 us.

I have until the 26th to return this, and was thinking of getting the pc for gaming and a MBP for mac apps that I like.

 

[gpzjock]

HP not a good choice.

If you go down the PC workstation route you could do a lot better than HP.
http://www.pcworld.com/article/211074/the_tech_brands_you_can_trust.html
http://www.pcworld.com/article/211074-2/the_tech_brands_you_can_trust.html
If you want a decent GFX card in a PC the newer GTX 570 is a better bet too.

 

[mark28]

I think part of the argument is the high price of a mac pro compared to the "high" price of the imac (i know that sounds weird, i will explain).

One can purchase a 27, i5 Imac for approx 2000usd. If someone wanted to build a windows computer with a 27inch monitor with the same res and all other specs equal it would be close to the same price, if not more!

The iMac is a great value.

On the other hand one can build a mac pro for half the cost. That's a huge premium for os (you can also build a hack) and expandability.

A windows PC with a 27" IPS display is much cheaper and alot more powerful than a $2000 i5 iMac which has laptop components.

Dell uses the same 27" IPS panels from LG Apple uses and they are not expensive.

 

[Hellhammer]

A windows PC with a 27" IPS display is much cheaper and alot more powerful than a $2000 i5 iMac which has laptop components.

The cheapest PC from NewEgg with similar specs what 27" i5 iMac has is 889$. Then add speakers, keyboard, mouse etc and you are very close to iMac's price, or even over it.

And BTW, only GPU and RAM are mobile versions. RAM being mobile doesn't even matter, the performance is the same.

Dell uses the same 27" IPS panels from LG Apple uses and they are not expensive.

Same price as Apple's 27", 999$

http://accessories.us.dell.com/sna/productdetail.aspx?c=us&cs=04&l=en&s=bsd&sku=224-8284&redirect=1

 

[gpzjock]

Dell is cheaper in the UK

Apple's price fixing makes a difference in the UK:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B003A4H17S/ref=asc_df_B003A4H17S1586434?smid=A3P5ROKL5A1OLE&tag=googlecouk06-21&linkCode=asn&creative=22206&creativeASIN=B003A4H17S
http://store.apple.com/uk/product/MC007B/A?fnode=MTY1NDA5OQ&mco=MTkwMzc1NDA