Mac vs PC

[FnG]magnolia · 13 Sep 2011 at 03:58

This thread turned out even worse than I expected! Note to self - never underestimate the propensity for rabid fanboys to sink to increasingly and hilariously low levels.

You could honestly not make this stuff up.

mrk · 13 Sep 2011 at 03:59

Yes you can.

You've been morbidly deep the past few weeks, best quit it else I'm turning this car around.

bhavv · 13 Sep 2011 at 04:14

Nerusy said:
You know how much non-apple workstation cost? yeah around the same price.

Im not really sure how £1000-£2000(+) less - around the same price:

http://www.dell.com/uk/business/p/precision-t7500/fs

And thats with ATI Fire pro, or Nvidia Quadro graphics cards too.

Brian8bit · 13 Sep 2011 at 04:21

bhavv said:
Im not really sure how £1000-£2000(+) less - around the same price:

http://www.dell.com/uk/business/p/precision-t7500/fs

And thats with ATI Fire pro, or Nvidia Quadro graphics cards too.

It's also only a 2.4 quad core xeon in the Dell. Whereas the Mac Pro has the 2.8 for base. Adding the nearest clocked chip similar to a Mac Pro on the Dell site takes the price up to £1973 that's also excluding VAT and shipping. When those are added on, the price jumps to £2307 for the Dell.

Oh, and look at benches between the 5870 and quadro 4000. Or the quadro 6000. The 5870 sits right under the 6000 but doesn't cost a couple thousand quid. That is possibly the reason they no longer offer those cards in Macs.

bhavv · 13 Sep 2011 at 04:31

A few more reasons why I like PCs more than Macs

The last two are my own:

Aesthetics are very important to me, and you cant put a price on that. The PC wins hands down due to its sheer level of customisability and so many different builds and aethetics being available.

bhavv · 13 Sep 2011 at 04:36

Brian8bit said:
It's also only a 2.4 quad core xeon in the Dell. Whereas the Mac Pro has the 2.8 for base. Adding the nearest clocked chip similar to a Mac Pro on the Dell site takes the price up to £1973 that's also excluding VAT and shipping. When those are added on, the price jumps to £2307 for the Dell.

Oh, and look at benches between the 5870 and quadro 4000. Or the quadro 6000. The 5870 sits right under the 6000 but doesn't cost a couple thousand quid. That is possibly the reason they no longer offer those cards in Macs.

1) So I herd I can buy slower CPUs on the PC and overclock them with an aftermarket cooler to save a lot of money.

2) Even with upgrading the Dell specs to the same as a mac, it still costs around a grand (if not more) less!

3) As the people defending the mac pro already pointed out, this is a workstation not a gaming PC. The Fire GL / Quadro cards are better suited for those purposes. Also, for a very long time that I've been aware of, Apple have been putting mid range cards like the 4870 and 5770 in their Mac Pros, not 5870s (this maybe different now), but even then people arent buying workstations for gaming!

Brian8bit · 13 Sep 2011 at 04:52

bhavv said:
1) So I herd I can buy slower CPUs on the PC and overclock them with an aftermarket cooler to save a lot of money.

2) Even with upgrading the Dell specs to the same as a mac, it still costs around a grand (if not more) less!

3) As the people defending the mac pro already pointed out, this is a workstation not a gaming PC. The Fire GL / Quadro cards are better suited for those purposes. Also, for a very long time that I've been aware of, Apple have been putting mid range cards like the 4870 and 5770 in their Mac Pros, not 5870s (this maybe different now), but even then people arent buying workstations for gaming!

1: Good for you. You're an enthusiast. Most people buying workstations buy them for work and don't bother overclocking.

2: No it doesn't. The Dell you linked to is £1520 for the base spec. Which features a slower CPU than the base spec Mac pro. Bumping the CPU up to the 2.66GHz version on the base Dell brings the price to £1910. That is BEFORE VAT and shipping. It's £2181 after those. The Dell also comes with a poorer card than the base spec Mac Pro. The 2260 is a mid range card. The 5770 is a high end card. See here. And here. The base spec Dell only comes with 320GB HDD. The base spec Mac Pro comes with 1TB. The only plus for the base spec Dell is it comes with 3GB more RAM.

3: They WERE suited for those purposes. But graphics card tech has changed. If people need those cards, they can easily buy them and add on. But the reality is, most don't. And Quadro cards are expensive for all. Not just Apple users. The Quadro 6000 retails for around £3,500. The 5870 is an upgrade you can make to the base spec Mac Pro. Upgrading to the 5870 brings the price to £2215, which is marginally more expensive than the Dell. But the Mac Pro has the better card. The better CPU (unless you bump it to 2.93GHz). The better HDD. The only thing better about the base spec Dell (with the CPU clock bump) is the RAM.

bhavv · 13 Sep 2011 at 04:56

Compare to the rightmost Dell on the link herp derp :rolleyes:

All the dell specs on the link I posted have 6 Gb ram at least, so you seem to be reading the wrong thing.

Though you know whats funny, I just checked the Apple website for the MacPro prices, and the base specs on those actually do have 3 Gb ram for the £2000 model. I really shouldnt have to say anymore.

The £2000 Dell Workstation has a 2.4 Ghz HEX CORE and 12 GB ECC ram as a base, Whereas the £2000 Mac pro has a 2.8 Ghz QUAD CORE and 3 Gb ECC ram as a base.

On the Dell the price can be reduced by £360 by changing the CPU to a 2.93 Ghz quad core .... Whereas its +£420 to upgrade the Mac Pro from 3 Gb to 12 Gb .... WTH are people defending Apple's prices smoking?

Brian8bit · 13 Sep 2011 at 05:09

I know, that's why I said "the only plus for the base spec dell is it comes with 3GB more RAM".

As for "compare the rightmost Dell on the link" well...

The only 6 core chip Apple offer, is the 3.33GHz, so that immediately takes us to £3,022. But that leaves the Dell with the much slower 2.4GHz CPU. Bumping the Dell chip up to beat (since they don't offer the 3.33GHz chip, instead we'll go with the 3.46GHz) the Mac Pro, the Dell costs £3126. The Dell has 12GB of memory. Add that to the Mac Pro and you get a price of £3442. The Dell still comes with inferior cards. Stick two 5770s in the Mac Pro and you have £3645. But wait, now let's add VAT and shipping to the Dell package annnnnd £3574 for a better CPU. The same amount of RAM. The same size HDD. And two inferior cards compared to the Mac Pro.

So really, the cost of a Dell workstation and a Mac Pro aren't all that different. With that slight of a margin it's down to the user which environment they want to work in. And if they're willing to pay more or less to work in Windows or OSX.

bhavv · 13 Sep 2011 at 05:12

Dont forget that you can build a workstation yourself too if you want to save some extra cash.

IMO apple should simply retire their Mac business, and rather sell their cases and OS separately for OEMs and system builders

When comparing the Dell to the Mac spec for spec like you have done, you are getting the dell for cheaper with a more expensive CPU!

If Apple had an option for the 3.46 Ghz hex core, I'd be able to laugh more at their pricing, but they have a terrible range of customization options.

Brian8bit · 13 Sep 2011 at 05:18

They're workstations. Not enthusiast machines. You are only getting the Dell marginally cheaper. Like I said, it's up to the end user to decide which environment they want to work in. Some will prefer Windows and save cash. Some will prefer OS X and are willing to pay the difference. Not to mention they have Apple CS. Dell CS is ****.

If Apple had an option for the 3.46GHz hex core, it still would only be marginally more expensive than the Dell. Jesus Christ.

bhavv · 13 Sep 2011 at 05:26

The Dell is only marginally cheaper now because Apple have reduced their prices a LOT since last year.

Look up to post 124 which was when I last looked at the Mac Pros, the same spec Dell back then was under £3500 as it is right now compared to a £5000+ Mac Pro.

With the current prices on the Mac Pros, they are ok if you want one of those. But most people dont buy Workstation computers, and Apple make nothing that compares to normal desktop / gaming spec wise.

Brian8bit · 13 Sep 2011 at 05:30

So now you're complaining because Apple LOWERED their prices? Comparing workstations is retarded. The difference between similarly spec'd machines from Dell and Apple will be negligible to the users. It boils down to personal preference. Trying to argue that there's some great saving to be had buying Dell is simply ****ing retarded.

Normal desktop = iMac.

The only thing they don't have in their line is a gaming machine. Though top spec iMacs do alright.

Raikiri · 13 Sep 2011 at 05:31

bhavv said:
The Dell is only marginally cheaper now because Apple have reduced their prices a LOT since last year.

Look up to post 124 which was when I last looked at the Mac Pros, the same spec Dell back then was under £3500 as it is right now compared to a £5000+ Mac Pro.

The one that had a £700 screen (at the time), an extra HDD and the RAM upgraded to 12gb (much to cheaper to upgrade yourself)?

bhavv said:
With the current prices on the Mac Pros, they are ok if you want one of those. But most people dont buy Workstation computers, and Apple make nothing that compares to normal desktop / gaming spec wise.

Which is exactly the point I and others have made many times, when you compare them with something from the same class (be that workstations, all in ones or ultra portables) they're priced quite competitively.

They aren't gaming machines, comparing them to self made gaming PCs is stupid.

bhavv · 13 Sep 2011 at 05:36

Raikiri said:
The one that had a £700 screen (at the time), an extra HDD and the RAM upgraded to 12gb (much to cheaper to upgrade yourself)?

Yes I was comparing them to my PC at the time.

IMacs are pathetic to me. The only thing that comes close to what I would need is a Mac Pro and they cost far too much.

They aren't gaming machines, comparing them to self made gaming PCs is stupid.

It isnt stupid when the Mac Pro is the only thing from Apple that you can compare to a normal desktop PC!

One thing I've always wondered is that what exactly do these workstations, whether they are Apple or Dell offer over a £1000 desktop PC that is worth the excessive expense to people buying them?

Brian8bit said:
The only thing they don't have in their line is a gaming machine. Though top spec iMacs do alright.

But the equivalent desktop PC you can have for the same price stomps all over it.

Brian8bit · 13 Sep 2011 at 05:42

The iMac is Apples normal desktop PC. The Mac Pro is a workstation. A "normal desktop PC" does not mean a gaming orientated self build or a workstation (just because it comes in a tower and looks like what is commonly accepted as a "normal desktop PC" form factor). It means a "normal desktop PC".

Raikiri · 13 Sep 2011 at 05:49

bhavv said:
Yes I was comparing them to my PC at the time.

IMacs are pathetic to me. The only thing that comes close to what I would need is a Mac Pro and they cost far too much.

Don't bloody buy one then? Not being suited to what you want doesn't make them bad or overpriced or inherently 'worse'.

I have a PC that I built myself but I can still see why people would want an iMac.

bhavv said:
It isnt stupid when the Mac Pro is the only thing from Apple that you can compare to a normal desktop PC!

Yes it is. It is a workstaion, not a normal desktop PC.

bhavv said:
One thing I've always wondered is that what exactly do these workstations, whether they are Apple or Dell offer over a £1000 desktop PC that is worth the excessive expense to people buying them?

Generally they're faster (multiple CPUs) and more reliable.

Brian8bit · 13 Sep 2011 at 05:53

The reason I own an iMac was because before I bought it, I was looking for a normal Windows based All-in-one PC. The only companies at the time offering such were Asus and Sony. I'm an Asus fanboy. But the Asus and Sony where around the same price (the Asus) or more expensive (the Sony) for similar or slightly inferior hardware in a not so aesthetically pleasing chassis. So I bought the iMac instead. And still, Asus All-in-ones are similarly spec'd, but don't have the aesthetic of the iMac and they're in and around the same price. I think their 24 inch All-in-one is dual core'd. The only good thing about them really is the 24" screen which I know a lot of Apple users wish the iMac still came in. Oh and blu-ray.

bhavv · 13 Sep 2011 at 06:13

But you have to admit that PCs are still better than an iMac

Generally they're faster (multiple CPUs) and more reliable.

Generally speaking, an overclocked quad core is much faster than a pair of stock speed Hex cores.

You can also build desktop PCs with two hex cores - both Asus and EVGA make dual CPU socket motherboards. You can even overclock these to crazy levels if you want it to go any faster.

As for reliability, I can leave my PC switched on running stress tests 24/7 and it wont crash once, so how exactly do workstation computers get anymore reliable than that?