X5570 / W3540

[superpalmtree]

This is my 2nd post asking this question, I apologize to those that make sure no one posts the same question two times!

I just ordered a Dell Precision T7500 Workstation. It has a Quad X5570 2.93 CPU. Why didn't Apple use this CPU in the Mac Pro? I also have the Quad 2.93 Mac Pro.

The X5570 2x QPI / 6.5 GT/s Takes DDR3 1333 Memory. Retails for $1386.00.

The W3540 1x QPI / 4.8 GT/s DDR3 1066 Memory. Retails for $562.00

The Mac Pro Quad 2.93 cost me $3400.00.
The Dell Precision T7500 2.93 cost me $2600.00

Is OSX the reason why I spent $800 more for the Mac? I'm getting less CPU, 2YR less warranty, and much less exapndability. With The Dell I can drop 192GB RAM, and a 2nd CPU when needed. Not to mention having the choice of endless video card configurations and a bigger power supply.

Or am I wrong on the CPUs?

 

[nanofrog]

This is my 2nd post asking this question, I apologize to those that make sure no one posts the same question two times!

I just ordered a Dell Precision T7500 Workstation. It has a Quad X5570 2.93 CPU. Why didn't Apple use this CPU in the Mac Pro? I also have the Quad 2.93 Mac Pro.

The X5570 2x QPI / 6.5 GT/s Takes DDR3 1333 Memory. Retails for $1386.00.

The W3540 1x QPI / 4.8 GT/s DDR3 1066 Memory. Retails for $562.00

The Mac Pro Quad 2.93 cost me $3400.00.
The Dell Precision T7500 2.93 cost me $2600.00

Is OSX the reason why I spent $800 more for the Mac? I'm getting less CPU, 2YR less warranty, and much less exapndability. With The Dell I can drop 192GB RAM, and a 2nd CPU when needed. Not to mention having the choice of endless video card configurations and a bigger power supply.

Or am I wrong on the CPUs?

Keep in mind, you're considering SP vs. DP parts. (Apple's Quad offerings use SP daughter cards). Upgrading it may be possible, but not nearly as easily, nor as in expensively either. I do think Apple went too high on their pricing this time, and also opted for a DIY build for specific components.

From an upgradeable path POV, the Dell would offer you additional options, and the lower cost is highly appealing. You just lose OS X, unless you hack it.

 

[trancepriest]

With The Dell I can drop 192GB RAM

Pretty cool... when are you going to drop in 192GB RAM? How much RAM do you currently have?

 

[superpalmtree]

Keep in mind, you're considering SP vs. DP parts. (Apple's Quad offerings use SP daughter cards). Upgrading it may be possible, but not nearly as easily, nor as in expensively either. I do think Apple went too high on their pricing this time, and also opted for a DIY build for specific components.

From an upgradeable path POV, the Dell would offer you additional options, and the lower cost is highly appealing. You just lose OS X, unless you hack it.

Thanks. This was a very nice response -- I appreciate that.

I'm not out to diss Apple - I'm typing this on a Mac Pro right now. I just feel software is becoming more transparent to the OS and it amazes me how this Dell with better parts across the board can be so much less.

Thanks again.

 

[superpalmtree]

Pretty cool... when are you going to drop in 192GB RAM? How much RAM do you currently have?

I'm never dropping 192GB RAM in.

BUT...I like the fact I can drop in more than 8GB (16GB Unofficial) -- and I like that I can drop in a 2nd CPU if I want, and I like the fact I have a 3YR Onsite Business Warranty, (No dealing with the Apple Genius Squad) - Barf. And it uses a better CPU, better RAM, better everything. (Except OSX, which is why Apple does this)

 

[Jouhne]

You don't know the chance you have to live in the US.

Here in Belgium:
Apple Quad 2,93 = 3453 euros
Dell T7500 2,93 = 4149,18 euros

Here is the proof with screen (don't forget to add 21% taxes on the dell )

 

[superpalmtree]

You don't know the chance you have to live in the US.

Here in Belgium:
Apple Quad 2,93 = 3453 euros
Dell T7500 2,93 = 4149,18 euros

Here is the proof with screen (don't forget to add 21% taxes on the dell )

Wow, thanks.

I forgot to mention I live in the US. I guess Dell has better prices here.

Although the Dell does use a better CPU and it can accept faster RAM and more of it. Not to mention it has a better warranty, even if the same 3YR, Dell sends out a technician or a new computer within 1 business day, no dragging into your nearest Genius Bar.

Thanks for the screen shots.

 

[Plutonius]

This is my 2nd post asking this question, I apologize to those that make sure no one posts the same question two times!

I just ordered a Dell Precision T7500 Workstation. It has a Quad X5570 2.93 CPU. Why didn't Apple use this CPU in the Mac Pro? I also have the Quad 2.93 Mac Pro.

The X5570 2x QPI / 6.5 GT/s Takes DDR3 1333 Memory. Retails for $1386.00.

The W3540 1x QPI / 4.8 GT/s DDR3 1066 Memory. Retails for $562.00

The Mac Pro Quad 2.93 cost me $3400.00.
The Dell Precision T7500 2.93 cost me $2600.00

Is OSX the reason why I spent $800 more for the Mac? I'm getting less CPU, 2YR less warranty, and much less exapndability. With The Dell I can drop 192GB RAM, and a 2nd CPU when needed. Not to mention having the choice of endless video card configurations and a bigger power supply.

Or am I wrong on the CPUs?

As mentioned before, much of the cost difference is the cost of going green. If Apple went with the same parts and manufacturing as Dell, the price of the Mac Pro would still be higher then the Dell (Apple tax) but it would be much much closer then it is.

 

[superpalmtree]

As mentioned before, much of the cost difference is the cost of going green. If Apple went with the same parts and manufacturing as Dell, the price of the Mac Pro would still be higher then the Dell (Apple tax) but it would be much much closer then it is.

What parts for going green? They use the same RAM, HD, Video,...I'm guessing just some of the CPUs?

The T7500 conforms to major worldwide energy standards, including ENERGY STAR 5.06, EPEAT Gold and Blue Angel (Der Blauer Engel) 2009.

Due to advanced motherboard and fan design from Dell, the T7500 provides a highly effective and energy efficient chassis capable of operating quietly even when configured for incredibly demanding tasks.

All new Dell Precision Tower Workstations feature 85 PLUS efficient, wide-ranging power supplies for environmentally conscientious computing that doesn't sacrifice on performance.

I wonder how much less energy Apple uses?

 

[nanofrog]

As mentioned before, much of the cost difference is the cost of going green.

In what sense?

I've not quite understood this argument, as RoHS compliance isn't that expensive, nor are any of the components (low power regs and whatnot to reduce power consumption & made without lead, mercury,...). The component industry, and manufacturing side (finished boards) have known about this, and they've all complied/designed parts that use less power. So it's not terribly expensive. Certainly not enough to increase manufacturing by up to $2k USD.

Otherwise, they may not be able to compete in certain markets (importation) due to non compliance to standards with various government agencies.

The Dell would have to be compliant, or it wouldn't be offered.

 

[superpalmtree]

In what sense?

I've not quite understood this argument, as RoHS compliance isn't that expensive, nor are any of the components (low power regs and whatnot to reduce power consumption & made without lead, mercury,...). The component industry, and manufacturing side (finished boards) have known about this, and they've all complied/designed parts that use less power. So it's not terribly expensive. Certainly not enough to increase manufacturing by up to $2k USD.

Otherwise, they may not be able to compete in certain markets (importation) due to non compliance to standards with various government agencies.

The Dell would have to be compliant, or it wouldn't be offered.

Good post!

You got that right, the Dell is certainly compliant and would hold it's own vs. an equally configured Mac Pro. Since the Dell has more expansion room, when you drop in a 2.5GB video card and a 192GB RAM, it might tip the scale a bit.

 

[nanofrog]

Good post!

You got that right, the Dell is certainly compliant and would hold it's own vs. an equally configured Mac Pro. Since the Dell has more expansion room, when you drop in a 2.5GB video card and a 192GB RAM, it might tip the scale a bit.

What gets me, is the whole RoHS bit is a farce as it's been sold to the public in the US. Lead is 100% recyclable, and takes less energy to process it than it's replacement materials. The EPA has published a report on this (energy requirements). As there's no centralized reclamation program, electronics are still very likely to be disposed of in regular trash, and never be processed in a reclamation facility anyway. It doesn't solve the problem as it's supposed to. IIRC, the lead content of the water hasn't been affected by much either (well within acceptable standards), but I'd have to search for information to be sure (tested concentration report).

No idea of the efficacy in other countries though, but I do recall better reclamation plans. (Available facilities).

 

[Umbongo]

This is my 2nd post asking this question, I apologize to those that make sure no one posts the same question two times!

I just ordered a Dell Precision T7500 Workstation. It has a Quad X5570 2.93 CPU. Why didn't Apple use this CPU in the Mac Pro? I also have the Quad 2.93 Mac Pro.

The X5570 2x QPI / 6.5 GT/s Takes DDR3 1333 Memory. Retails for $1386.00.

The W3540 1x QPI / 4.8 GT/s DDR3 1066 Memory. Retails for $562.00

The Mac Pro Quad 2.93 cost me $3400.00.
The Dell Precision T7500 2.93 cost me $2600.00

Is OSX the reason why I spent $800 more for the Mac? I'm getting less CPU, 2YR less warranty, and much less exapndability. With The Dell I can drop 192GB RAM, and a 2nd CPU when needed. Not to mention having the choice of endless video card configurations and a bigger power supply.

Or am I wrong on the CPUs?

Apple are using the W3540 (and W3520) on the quad core Mac Pro because they can buy them cheaper and thus make more profit on those systems. There is no reason to offer the 5500 Xeons in single processor configurations as Apple dont support upgrading processors. The quad systems are priced as if they did have Xeon 5500s probably to put them above them iMac in Apple's range, and because they can sell them for that much. I'm not sure how you got the Dell for $2,600 as without discount a single 2.93GHz T7500 is over $3,200.

 

[gzfelix]

I don't know how you can get this price for your Dell T7500 configuration. I live in Canada and I just did a quick configuration for such a Dell workstation. But it requires me $4,700 before tax, with even less powerful CPU X5550 (2.66GHz). Well, maybe I could get a worse graphics card by phone. But it does not judge the $1700 difference.

 

[superpalmtree]

Apple are using the W3540 (and W3520) on the quad core Mac Pro because they can buy them cheaper and thus make more profit on those systems. There is no reason to offer the 5500 Xeons in single processor configurations as Apple dont support upgrading processors. The quad systems are priced as if they did have Xeon 5500s probably to put them above them iMac in Apple's range, and because they can sell them for that much. I'm not sure how you got the Dell for $2,600 as without discount a single 2.93GHz T7500 is over $3,200.

Sorry, I forgot I was in a special pricing section. It was actually $2400. So for the average consumer it would be $3200 - which regardless is still a better deal unless of course you need OSX which I'm guessing most people here do. Thanks for pointing that out.

 

[superpalmtree]

I don't know how you can get this price for your Dell T7500 configuration. I live in Canada and I just did a quick configuration for such a Dell workstation. But it requires me $4,700 before tax, with even less powerful CPU X5550 (2.66GHz). Well, maybe I could get a worse graphics card by phone. But it does not judge the $1700 difference.

Sorry about that, I didn't realize I was in a special pricing segment. I still think the Dell is a better buy unless you need OSX. The Dell like I have said many times in this thread uses a better CPU, better RAM capability, more RAM allowed, more RAM slots, a bigger PSU, a better Warranty, better GPU options. Well, I sound like a Dell Fanboy, I'm not I just use them for most of my clients. I like Apple too.

 

[Thunderchicken]

When I looked at it the only way he could have done it for 3400 before tax is upgrade to 3Gb of memory and kept the very low HD, and standard Video Card . For the money the Apple is a better buy even if it is in stock trim for 2500.

 

[superpalmtree]

When I looked at it the only way he could have done it for 3400 before tax is upgrade to 3Gb of memory and kept the very low HD, and standard Video Card . For the money the Apple is a better buy even if it is in stock trim for 2500.

How is the Apple Quad a better buy?

It makes sense to leave stock. You can jump to 24GB of DDR 1333 for a very reasonable cost. Also...I like buying my own hard drives. The video card with the Dell you have at least 10+ options online, and if you like you could use a GTX 295 or any other high end card. The warrany from Dell is a 3YR w/Complete Care, Apple is a 1YR, drag it to the g. bar. The Dell you can drop a 2nd CPU anytime. The Dell also uses a higher end more expensive CPU to start. Do you want me to keep going or do you really think the Apple is a better buy? The only thing Apple has is OSX, and that argument is getting weak unless you do video editing or require an Apple only app.

 

[superpalmtree]

When I looked at it the only way he could have done it for 3400 before tax is upgrade to 3Gb of memory and kept the very low HD, and standard Video Card . For the money the Apple is a better buy even if it is in stock trim for 2500.

The Dell also allows for this:

For even more stunning levels of performance the optional NVIDIA® TeslaTM C1060 GPU card can be added, creating your own “personal supercomputer” for CUDA enabled applications.

And these are real Pro Video Cards...Apple's card selection is weak!
ATI FireProTM V8700
ATI FireProTM V5700
ATI FireProTM V3750
ATI FireProTM V3600
NVIDIA Quadro® FX 5800
NVIDIA Quadro® FX 4800
NVIDIA Quadro® FX 3800
NVIDIA Quadro® FX 1800
NVIDIA Quadro® FX 580
NVIDIA Quadro® NVS 295

 

[Thunderchicken]

How is the Apple Quad a better buy?

It makes sense to leave stock. You can jump to 24GB of DDR 1333 for a very reasonable cost. Also...I like buying my own hard drives. The video card with the Dell you have at least 10+ options online, and if you like you could use a GTX 295 or any other high end card. The warrany from Dell is a 3YR w/Complete Care, Apple is a 1YR, drag it to the g. bar. The Dell you can drop a 2nd CPU anytime. The Dell also uses a higher end more expensive CPU to start. Do you want me to keep going or do you really think the Apple is a better buy? The only thing Apple has is OSX, and that argument is getting weak unless you do video editing or require an Apple only app.

Just because you can drop a 2nd processor in, or warranty doesn't make it better. It's like saying that a Kia is better because it has a 10 yr 100,000 mile warranty over a Honda that has a 3 yr 36,000 mile warranty.

The end user isn't going to notice the difference between the w3540 and the x5570 in quad form. Plus the users that need the power of 2 processors aren't going to buy a quad in hopes to upgrade in the future and void a perfect warranty.

Most professional users don't bother with upgrading processors, yes they will add HD's, Memory, and maybe videocard if it will help them be more productive. Far as processor they will hang on to the machine until it becomes unreliable, or when software demands that they need to do so.

So the money saved on the w35xx series can be applied to the new software that hopefully takes advantage of intels HT. Farther more a Octo user wouldn't buy a quad if his needs are that of a octo.

 

[Tesselator]

I do think Apple went too high on their pricing this time, and also opted for a DIY build for specific components.

From an upgradeable path POV, the Dell would offer you additional options, and the lower cost is highly appealing. You just lose OS X, unless you hack it.

Hehehe, you're so shy and understated.

As mentioned before, much of the cost difference is the cost of going green.

In what sense?

I've not quite understood this argument,
Certainly not enough to increase manufacturing by up to $2k USD.

No one understands it. It doesn't make any sense.


But yeah, I too feel Apple went too high on their prices. In fact, I think a person would be hard pressed to find a worse deal than any of the 09 mac pros. This almost makes me cry because Apple is such a cool company (I think) and the Mac Pros are pretty neat-o designs. Unless the Apple fanatics have no discretion or powers of discernment Apple is going to eat it on 2009 MP sales.

That's interesting about the DELL though. Much better parts for a lot less money. I guess as companies start rolling out their Nehalem lines we're going to be seeing a lot of this.


.

 

[Umbongo]

Sorry, I forgot I was in a special pricing section. It was actually $2400. So for the average consumer it would be $3200 - which regardless is still a better deal unless of course you need OSX which I'm guessing most people here do. Thanks for pointing that out.

Form a herdware perspective, yeah dell is still the better option. Your discount almost makes it a no brainer if you aren't that bothered about OSX. Incase you weren't aware you can only use 6 memory slots with one processor and if you use more than 3 then you will not get 1333MHz memory speeds so you may as well just buy 1066MHz memory if that was your plan.

 

[trancepriest]

I'm never dropping 192GB RAM in.

Sucks that you will never put 192GB in it. What's stopping you?

 

[superpalmtree]

Form a herdware perspective, yeah dell is still the better option. Your discount almost makes it a no brainer if you aren't that bothered about OSX. Incase you weren't aware you can only use 6 memory slots with one processor and if you use more than 3 then you will not get 1333MHz memory speeds so you may as well just buy 1066MHz memory if that was your plan.

Thanks, no I wasn't aware of that regarding the memory. Thank you.

And you're right about the hardware perspective - but I suppose lots of other variables also need to be accounted for. If I made my living using Mac software I'm sure my thinking would be much different.

Thanks for the insight -

 

[nanofrog]

Hehehe, you're so shy and understated.

This almost makes me cry because Apple is such a cool company (I think) and the Mac Pros are pretty neat-o designs. Unless the Apple fanatics have no discretion or powers of discernment Apple is going to eat it on 2009 MP sales.

Apple, or I should say Jonathan Ives is good at industrial design, and the internals are kept neat and tidy. But the compromises produce proprietary parts, and that's more expensive. Not that much from Apple's POV, but for an individual needing a quantity of one, it is. IIRC, the iPass cables used in the '08 were almost $70USD from macpalace.com.

But the sales may suffer this time around. Only time will tell, but it seems more people are monitoring their finances closely these days.

That's interesting about the DELL though. Much better parts for a lot less money. I guess as companies start rolling out their Nehalem lines we're going to be seeing a lot of this.
.

With competition, usually comes lower prices. If Dell gets too greedy, HP or another vendor would be happy to make extra sales.

Form a herdware perspective, yeah dell is still the better option. Your discount almost makes it a no brainer if you aren't that bothered about OSX. Incase you weren't aware you can only use 6 memory slots with one processor and if you use more than 3 then you will not get 1333MHz memory speeds so you may as well just buy 1066MHz memory if that was your plan.

Good point, as not everyone may realize this.

If I made my living using Mac software I'm sure my thinking would be much different.

This is the heart of the argument IMO. Mac users may not have a choice, as they've likely spent more on the OS X software than the machine, and switching to something else is really a lot more expensive than the machine.

Not that bad for a Windows user to switch, since Macs can run Windows. It's only the box, not everything.