Comments
Apple Mac Pro: 9 Ways It Wows
Newest First  |  Oldest First  |  Threaded View
Page 1 / 3   >   >>
drrjv
100%
0%
drrjv,
User Rank: Apprentice
1/22/2014 | 3:28:24 PM
Re: It's a beast
Surprise, there have been several pricing comparison using the same or very similar components with Windows and the Mac Pro is $1000 or more less expensive!

http://news.yahoo.com/testing-apple-tax-cost-build-windows-version-mac-185551099.html

http://appleinsider.com/articles/13/12/24/apples-new-mac-pro-a-better-value-than-the-sum-of-its-parts

 

 
Susan Fogarty
20%
80%
Susan Fogarty,
User Rank: Author
12/23/2013 | 8:40:45 AM
Re: innovative design, good specs?
GlennG, as a grouch middle-aged woman, I empathize with you. I have owned several computers, and bought many for my children, and can't say I have noticed any longevity difference between the PCs and Macs. I come from a family of Mac lovers, but have always used PCs at work, so I feel like I have a fairly objective opinion and I really don't see that much upside to the Mac (maybe with artists and designers that's a different story). In my opinion, Apple has just developed a very devoted customer base.
Tronman
25%
75%
Tronman,
User Rank: Apprentice
12/23/2013 | 7:24:25 AM
Meh
Anything that can be done on a Mac can be done on a PC for far less $$$. Plus, if you know how to buy PCs (and I'm not talking about stock HPs or Dells), you can get better components than those used by Apple.
samicksha
100%
0%
samicksha,
User Rank: Strategist
12/23/2013 | 3:04:01 AM
Re: innovative design, good specs?
Apple at its best, for layman end user it's more than enough to learn that Mac Pro is available with a 3.7 GHz quad-core Intel Xeon E5 processor with Turbo Boost speeds up to 3.9 GHz, dual AMD FirePro D300 GPUs with 2GB of VRAM each, 12GB of memory, and 256GB of PCIe-based flash storage, i guess this statement and configuration is enough to attract user but cost is still on high part.
GlennG185
80%
20%
GlennG185,
User Rank: Apprentice
12/22/2013 | 5:30:49 PM
Re: innovative design, good specs?
Please excuse the fact that I am going to sound like a grouchy old man. You see, I am a grouchy old man. I am 65 years old and my first Mac was purchased in 1990. It cost me over $3000. Of course PCs were cheaper back then too. And that is why PCs became the favorite of business, buying them in mass quantities for a 200 employee firm was of course cheaper. However, Apple produced products that were consistently of a higher quality and a higher longevity. As new Intel chips emerge and Microsoft Upping the ante as to computer power requirements it became necessary to upgrade your PC every two years. A Macintosh was built for the future. My first Mac, an LC II was replaced by a Quadra to which I added a G3 processor and then a G4 processor. That Quadra was replaced in the year 2007. That is 16 years using only two computers. The cost about $8000 total. In order to have stayed current using a Microsoft PC unit it would have necessitated purchasing at least seven computers at a cost of approximately $15,000. The short-term gain mentality is for MBAs. I will be purchasing the new Macintosh Pro. I hope to have to replace it when I am 75 years old.

And by the way, how do I get, "apprentice" off of my sign on? If I am in apprentice you people are embryos. 
mak63
33%
67%
mak63,
User Rank: Ninja
12/20/2013 | 8:29:44 PM
innovative design, good specs?
I heard someone called the new mac pro: Dark Vader's trash can. In a serious note, I wonder how much trash you can put in the top hole.

Well seriously, and forgive my ignorance, but isn't the Xeon E5 already an old processor. I mean, it's not a Haswell, is it?
stevew928
50%
50%
stevew928,
User Rank: Ninja
12/20/2013 | 1:46:15 PM
Re: It's a beast
Where are you folks all getting this "vastly less" idea? Have you tried adding up the compoenets?

GPUs - ~$1000

CPU? - ?

ECC RAM - ?

SSD of somewhat equal speed and bus config - ?

I seriously doubt you're going to find a competitor system of comparable quality for all that much less than the $3k at the base level. I saw a comparison on another forum at the high end where an HP was $7800 compared to the $9600 Mac Pro, but they weren't exactly the same and everyone knows Apple over-prices their fully maxed-out configs (so we're not surprised at all).

If this were a true pro machine, most any true pro wouldn't blink at that kind of price difference for a OSX box. The cost isn't the issue.
stevew928
0%
100%
stevew928,
User Rank: Ninja
12/20/2013 | 1:34:23 PM
Re: Really?!?!?
Um, it's not a gaming system. Price out the GPUs, then get back to me. ;)
stevew928
50%
50%
stevew928,
User Rank: Ninja
12/20/2013 | 1:33:22 PM
Re: Really?!?!?
It seems to be aimed at prosumers... for example, people like me who do 3D work or CAD, maybe some video editing, etc. who need more than an iMac. I'd love one. If I can cost-justify it, I'll eventually get one. The problem is that many true pros need more... and the new Mac Pro doesn't match other workstation class machines in performance. This leaves the true pros with the hard decision of building a Hackintosh or switching OS. And the performance difference will probably be compelling enough to push that kind of change. Up until now, I think these folks were hoping Apple would release a true successor to the previous line. They didn't.
stevew928
50%
50%
stevew928,
User Rank: Ninja
12/20/2013 | 1:27:59 PM
Re: Vastly too expensive for actual hardware specifications
I'm not sure it's all that overpriced. Considering that even in the base model, the GPUs alone would cost you over $1000... add the CPU and higher-end RAM and SSD, etc. It starts to add up pretty quickly. I saw someone on another forum try to get close in configuration with an HP and it came to like $7800 in comparison to Apple's $9600. I'm sure that margin would substantially narrow on the entry level model (and anyone who has ever followed Apple hardware doesnt' buy the top-end unless they REALLY need it... as they know it's overly-expensive maxed out.)

My concern is if it really fits the true Pro market. The folks who do video editing and rendering, or 3D animation, need as many CPUs/cores as possible and gobs or RAM. They also like to keep up with any moves in the GPU industry as soon as they come out. Since Apple only went 1 CPU, they are automatically 1/2 other high-end workstations, and the DIMM slots are less as well. With built-in GPUs, as awesome as they are, they will be 'out of date' to the true pro in a year or two. And since they are AMD instead of nVidia, they won't work with CUDA acceleration until software does well with OpenCL. If you use such a package, you're talking days instead of hours to finish a project. That's the concern I'm hearing.... NOT pricing.
Page 1 / 3   >   >>


Register for InformationWeek Newsletters
White Papers
Current Issue
InformationWeek Tech Digest, Dec. 9, 2014
Apps will make or break the tablet as a work device, but don't shortchange critical factors related to hardware, security, peripherals, and integration.
Video
Slideshows
Twitter Feed
InformationWeek Radio
Archived InformationWeek Radio
Join us for a roundup of the top stories on InformationWeek.com for the week of December 14, 2014. Be here for the show and for the incredible Friday Afternoon Conversation that runs beside the program.
Sponsored Live Streaming Video
Everything You've Been Told About Mobility Is Wrong
Attend this video symposium with Sean Wisdom, Global Director of Mobility Solutions, and learn about how you can harness powerful new products to mobilize your business potential.