I just love when the "mindlessly conform or leave the platform" card is used. You people who use Apple solely for the privilege of being associated with the name have no respect for the effort required in a reverse switch. The Dell can't run my programs or use my files because it is not running OSX.
OK then, buy a previous generation Mac Pro. I still think that you will be surprised at the high prices of Dell and HP based 5500 workstations when they come out.
Workstations are not as big a volume product as consumer desktops, they need higher margins.
One's inability to currently understand something does not mean that there is no way to explain it.
You keep stating that these chips are EXACTLY the same in price and construction, except for ECC, but you have shown us no proof that these Nehalem Xeons, which aren't even officially out yet, are the same. The last I read, the prices for the chips were going up dramatically.
OK then, buy a previous generation Mac Pro. I still think that you will be surprised at the high prices of Dell and HP based 5500 workstations when they come out.
Workstations are not as big a volume product as consumer desktops, they need higher margins.
How many times do I have to say this, the price of gainestown core Xeon 5500 machines has nothing to do with bloomfield core xeon 3500 machines.
I just love when the "mindlessly conform or leave the platform" card is used. You people who use Apple solely for the privilege of being associated with the name have no respect for the effort required in a reverse switch. The Dell can't run my programs or use my files because it is not running OSX.
Exactly what programs are you using that won't output to OS-agnostic file types? Are you the one that said you can't move to a Dell because OS X doesn't natively understand how to write to NTFS?
More importantly, to accept what a company offers or to choose a different a different company's product are your only choices. You're doing that now, except you have chosen to botch to complain to a bunch of posters on an internet forum instead of being productive about your assumed dilemma.
Exactly what programs are you using that won't output to OS-agnostic file types? Are you the one that said you can't move to a Dell because OS X doesn't natively understand how to write to NTFS?
More importantly, to accept what a company offers or to choose a different a different company's product are your only choices. You're doing that now, except you have chosen to botch to complain to a bunch of posters on an internet forum instead of being productive about your assumed dilemma.
You have chosen to continuously troll anyone and everyone doesn't quietly accept what Apple gives them without questions. Some of us have actually dignity and don't take things lying down just so other can cling to a flawed belief that Jobs' Apple is somehow perfect. Quite frankly, those of us who came to the Mac for practical purposes are starting to get real tired of the quazi-religion this platform has devolved to. You can't can't enjoy how good the operating system is without the drama.
You have chosen to continuously troll anyone and everyone doesn't quietly accept what Apple gives them without questions.
That is ironicly funny considering you have decided to quote, but no answer, the questions I posted.
Back on topic, what are your choices in a free market? You can decide to buy or not to buy. If you don't buy you can steal or make your own that is equivalent if others don't produce what you want at the price you are willing to pay, but you don't have any other choices that will get you results. Why just complain for the sake of complaining. You don't like that Apple uses certain parts and materials and when cheaper components are adequate enough for your needs. We get it. Most of us would gladly like to have such items, but unless your goal to rally people to somehow force Apple to make the exact machine you want at the price you want you are just wasting your time. Not un-similar to way I'm wasting my time pointing out that your constant complaining achieves a nil result.
You want to be free to castigate Apple for not making the computer you want. You are free to complain, but there is a reason why Apple doesn't make the computer you want. To engage in dialogue about why Apple does not make the computer you want brings up the logic of why it may not be in Apple's best interest. I think your complaints are not about us being Apple drones. And more about the fact that you don't want your rants to have a basis in logical reason.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BenRoethig
You have chosen to continuously troll anyone and everyone doesn't quietly accept what Apple gives them without questions. Some of us have actually dignity and don't take things lying down just so other can cling to a flawed belief that Jobs' Apple is somehow perfect. Quite frankly, those of us who came to the Mac for practical purposes are starting to get real tired of the quazi-religion this platform has devolved to. You can't can't enjoy how good the operating system is without the drama.
For the sake of gaining a more holistic view of Apple products it's imperative that you have the fans and the detractors and everything in between.
At both end of the spectrum you have passion and that's the lifeblood of any great product.
I tend to feel like if I've got room to complain then I'm probably out ahead of the curve provided my reasoning is on solid foundation.
For me the Mac Pro pricing is interesting and i'm curious about how it stacks up to the competition. No I don't want to buy a Dell and I see no reason why I cannot have a superior OS running on top at an acceptable premium.
March 28th (the official Xeon 5500 launch date) will tell us just how big that premium is if any exist.
Oh please, stop it already. You're comparing consumer machines with industrial machines.
I know you're not happy about Apple not having a consumer machine in that price range, but these are not the same machines.
Get over it!
I agree with you here. Apparently a lot of people don't understand that workstations and their components (like the Xeons) are much more expensive than consumer machines, be it Dell, HP, Apple, etc.
Quote:
Originally Posted by e1618978
From the other thread, he thinks that margins are near 100%, his math is suspect.
Nope, not me. What I did suggest is that their margins have risen quite a bit, given that the three 5500 Xeons in the dual-socket Mac Pro cost almost exactly the same as their older counterparts did in the past.
The last I read, the prices for the chips were going up dramatically.
Have to correct you there, assuming I am understanding what you mean. Although as you said it is indeed incorrect to compare the price of a Xeon 55xx with an equivalent Core i7, the actual (tray price) costs of the 3 parts Apple is using in the dual-socket Mac Pro is nearly identical to the previous pricing of their older 54xx counterparts. Obviously we haven't seen the supply contract and so can't possibly know what kind of deal Apple is getting, but if the tray prices are nearly the same Its likely Apple's costs are very similar.
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross
And just HOW are their margins in the stratosphere?
Their gross margins are about 33-34%. That's good, but no where stratospheric. Their profits are between 10 -12%. Again. good, but not nearly a lot....
I apologize for not being more clear. I am talking solely about the speculated margins on the Mac Pro --- which while I will acknowledge that we don't know exactly --- clearly have increased considering the major components of the machine (CPUs, motherboad, memory, GPU etc) have not increased in cost much at all.
I'm with you on not all programs will benefit, but my biggest reason was that it at least has "more" current tech. It supported the 1066 ram as opposed to the 800 ram, and I just havent been able to get much info on the processors and how head to head the old 2.8 I have compares to the 2.26 overall in performance.
I don't think anyone can give a definitive answer to that yet. We'll just have to wait.
Turbo mode helps, the faster memory bus helps.
Will it be faster overall right NOW? Probably not.
Will it hold up better? Sure.
And if you have the money next year, you likely will be able to get faster cpu's to replace the 2.26's. It will be expensive though.
One's inability to currently understand something does not mean that there is no way to explain it. You keep stating that these chips are EXACTLY the same in price and construction, except for ECC, but you have shown us no proof that these Nehalem Xeons, which aren't even officially out yet, are the same. The last I read, the prices for the chips were going up dramatically.
The fact that Ben, and a couple of others are saying that the chips are all the same doesn't make them so.
I've already explained that most of the i7's have a slower QPI than do the Xeons. 4.8 QT/s as opposed to 6.4 QT/s. Only the 3.2 GHz i7 975 has a QPI of that speed, and that one costs $999 in bin pricing as opposed to the $562 of the 950 and below.
They are now, after I brought it up, also pooh poohing the power draw of these chips, even though power draw has always been an issue for PowerMacs with G5's, and the newer Mac Pros.
In fact, the significantly lower power draw of these chips has allowed the new interior design, which makes the accessibility to the chips themselves much easier, rather than having them buried under massive shielding as before.
We're talking about 80w for the Xeons up to the E5540 at 2.53 GHz, and 95W up to the X570 2.93.
The other differences are the memory speeds themselves. The requirement at standard voltages and bus timings for the i7 chips is DDR3 800 all the way through the top 975 model, though with slightly different timings for that model you can go to 1066. All the others are limited to 800, unless you want to go to enthusiasts boards, and play around with all this, which often limits the life of the system,
But the lower E series Xeons run with 1066, and the higher X series that Apple also uses can use 1333 at standard timings, though for some reason (likely cost) Apple is using 1066 right now.
So there are significant differences which will show performance improvements, though mostly with applications that require a fair amount of memory access.
I'm being accused of not understanding these chips, because they see only the ECC difference, which no "real" workstation buyer would do without, which is why these computers they keep touting as equal to the Mac Pro are just cheap home machines, and don't compete at all.
But, it's they who don't understand this technology, because they don't know enough to go beyond the simple fact of how many QPI links there are to find out just what they really do, and how fast they can do it, among other things, such as how the lower power benefits the overall design of the machine.
They just want cheaper machines, and are looking for some excuse to find to show that other companies produce the same machine, but charge much less for it, when this isn't even close to being true.
They have what I call in cases like this, "determined ignorance".
I apologize for not being more clear. I am talking solely about the speculated margins on the Mac Pro --- which while I will acknowledge that we don't know exactly --- clearly have increased considering the major components of the machine (CPUs, motherboad, memory, GPU etc) have not increased in cost much at all.
My contention is that we don't know enough to make that assumption. And if they have increased a bit, as has been said, smaller production equipment usually does have larger margins. That's normal. But the difference wouldn't be great.
And as you can see even there, the Xeons cost appreciably more than the equivalent speed i7s.
Which ones, the X5500 serious or X3500 series? I actually think the Mac Pro 8 cores are reasonably priced high end workstations. The quad core based on the X3500, not so much.
Which ones, the X5500 serious or X3500 series? I actually think the Mac Pro 8 cores are reasonably priced high end workstations. The quad core based on the X3500, not so much.
I don't have a bin price on the x3500 right now.
Actually, I can't find ANYTHING on this. Just the x3500 IGC!
\tAkasa AK-967 Nero Direct Contact Heatpipe CPU Cooler\t\t£31.04
\tSamsung SH-S223Q/RSMN 22x DVD±RW SATA Dual Layel\t\t£22.99
\t\tSub Total t£2,657.8
My son has specced this setup, and tells can do the build.
£1800 cost difference!!!!!
The previous generation Xeon Mac Pros costed out about equal, considering dual socket boards etc, but these look over expensive to me. I need AVCHD, so an upgrade is now urgent.
I may have to jump to Vista!
Or I could buy a second hand 8 core Xeon?
Am I missing something?
Throw something else into the mix: overclock the i7 940. I have a home-made core i7 920 running at 3.2 GHz. Absolutely no heat or stability issues.
Other than that, I truly prefer the Mac OS over anything MS makes.
You seem to possibly be new to mac pro purchasing. NEVER buy made-to-order options unless only Apple offers it. If the 30" Dell is way cheaper than Apple's and you consider it sufficient, buy it instead and save a ton of cash. Like you son found out, 1.5TB drives are cheap. Buy it separately and install it into one of a "stock" Mac Pro's HD slots. The 640GB "standard" drive in the Mac Pro will do fine with it's 1.5TB buddy.
Personally, Apple's keyboards beat the doors of anyone else's keyboards. Try one out at a local dealer. The key action is so much better. I actually have an Apple keyboard on that core-i7 system I mentioned.
I don't get the RAID option. No 2nd hard drive is mentioned in either config. That warps your price comparison. Cut out the RAID.
Another suggestion: If those prices are truly British pounds, you are getting pounded either way. Consider a trip to US or Canada and buy a system there. The price difference will pay for your trip and accommodations. Maybe even a 2nd person with you... It specs out at less than 7,000 Cdn, even with the $2100 30" Apple monitor.
My contention is that we don't know enough to make that assumption. And if they have increased a bit, as has been said, smaller production equipment usually does have larger margins. That's normal. But the difference wouldn't be great.
As I said, we don't know exact figures, but this is the commodity computer parts business.. It doesn't take a genius to see that if Apple's CPU, chipset, memory, and GPU costs haven't changed much at all, then their margins have increased. What am I missing here? It seems like you just want gloss over the issue and repeating the "it's not a Core i7" strawman. Most of the people here who actually know what they are talking about are NOT comparing the 55xx to an i7 --- simply to the 54xx series which has up until the release of the new CPUs have cost almost exactly the same.
As I said, we don't know exact figures, but this is the commodity computer parts business.. It doesn't take a genius to see that if Apple's CPU, chipset, memory, and GPU costs haven't changed much at all, then their margins have increased. What am I missing here? It seems like you just want gloss over the issue and repeating the "it's not a Core i7" strawman. Most of the people here who actually know what they are talking about are NOT comparing the 55xx to an i7 --- simply to the 54xx series which has up until the release of the new CPUs have cost almost exactly the same.
Apple's machines, just like the machines from BOXX, are not commodity. The case, which is one of the best in the industry, according to reports in Computerworld, is expensive. The power supply is custom, as are other parts, such as the mobo, and HDD racks. Workstations don't sell in vast numbers as home machines do, and so don't have the commoditization advantage. Many more servers are sold each year than workstations, but even those are expensive unless they are small, basic, 1 row machines.
The reason why Apple's graphics boards cost so much is for the same reason. While a third party board selling to the vast PC market might sell in the hundreds of thousands, or even, for the cheaper boards, millions, Apple likely sells no more than tens of thousands of any board model. Remember that Apple makes these boards. So their costs are higher there too.
It's not my argument that a strawman, but yours, as you refuse to acknowledge the pricing and other performance differences between the Xeons and the i7's, even though I laid out what they are, and you can go check for yourself. You guys are the ones who keep on coming up with these cheap home computer comparisons, not me.
As has been shown on Anandtech and ARs Technica and other sites, Nehalem systems are more expensive than older systems. The boards are more expensive, and the power supplies are too. Apple uses higher quality parts, the same as other workstation manufacturers do.
So far, your arguments haven't persuaded anyone else here except the two or three others who already are complaining.
Apple touts its new machines as PVC free, BFR free, and meets Energy Star 5 ratings. Other electronics manufacturers don't use parts that meet these standards. Then Apple is not using commodity parts.
Quote:
Originally Posted by winterspan
As I said, we don't know exact figures, but this is the commodity computer parts business.. It doesn't take a genius to see that if Apple's CPU, chipset, memory, and GPU costs haven't changed much at all, then their margins have increased. What am I missing here?
Comments
I just love when the "mindlessly conform or leave the platform" card is used. You people who use Apple solely for the privilege of being associated with the name have no respect for the effort required in a reverse switch. The Dell can't run my programs or use my files because it is not running OSX.
OK then, buy a previous generation Mac Pro. I still think that you will be surprised at the high prices of Dell and HP based 5500 workstations when they come out.
Workstations are not as big a volume product as consumer desktops, they need higher margins.
One's inability to currently understand something does not mean that there is no way to explain it.
You keep stating that these chips are EXACTLY the same in price and construction, except for ECC, but you have shown us no proof that these Nehalem Xeons, which aren't even officially out yet, are the same. The last I read, the prices for the chips were going up dramatically.
Google Bloomfield and Nehalem xeon price list.
http://xtreview.com/addcomment-id-69...xx-series.html
OK then, buy a previous generation Mac Pro. I still think that you will be surprised at the high prices of Dell and HP based 5500 workstations when they come out.
Workstations are not as big a volume product as consumer desktops, they need higher margins.
How many times do I have to say this, the price of gainestown core Xeon 5500 machines has nothing to do with bloomfield core xeon 3500 machines.
Xeon w5580 (3.2 GHz) - > $1600;
Xeon x5570 (2.93 GHz) - > $1386;
Xeon x5550 (2.66 GHz) - > $958;
Xeon e5520 (2.26 GHz) - > $373;
Xeon 3540 (2.93 GHz) - > $562;
Xeon w3520 (2.66 GHz) - > $284.
I just love when the "mindlessly conform or leave the platform" card is used. You people who use Apple solely for the privilege of being associated with the name have no respect for the effort required in a reverse switch. The Dell can't run my programs or use my files because it is not running OSX.
Exactly what programs are you using that won't output to OS-agnostic file types? Are you the one that said you can't move to a Dell because OS X doesn't natively understand how to write to NTFS?
More importantly, to accept what a company offers or to choose a different a different company's product are your only choices. You're doing that now, except you have chosen to botch to complain to a bunch of posters on an internet forum instead of being productive about your assumed dilemma.
Exactly what programs are you using that won't output to OS-agnostic file types? Are you the one that said you can't move to a Dell because OS X doesn't natively understand how to write to NTFS?
More importantly, to accept what a company offers or to choose a different a different company's product are your only choices. You're doing that now, except you have chosen to botch to complain to a bunch of posters on an internet forum instead of being productive about your assumed dilemma.
You have chosen to continuously troll anyone and everyone doesn't quietly accept what Apple gives them without questions. Some of us have actually dignity and don't take things lying down just so other can cling to a flawed belief that Jobs' Apple is somehow perfect. Quite frankly, those of us who came to the Mac for practical purposes are starting to get real tired of the quazi-religion this platform has devolved to. You can't can't enjoy how good the operating system is without the drama.
You have chosen to continuously troll anyone and everyone doesn't quietly accept what Apple gives them without questions.
That is ironicly funny considering you have decided to quote, but no answer, the questions I posted.
Back on topic, what are your choices in a free market? You can decide to buy or not to buy. If you don't buy you can steal or make your own that is equivalent if others don't produce what you want at the price you are willing to pay, but you don't have any other choices that will get you results. Why just complain for the sake of complaining. You don't like that Apple uses certain parts and materials and when cheaper components are adequate enough for your needs. We get it. Most of us would gladly like to have such items, but unless your goal to rally people to somehow force Apple to make the exact machine you want at the price you want you are just wasting your time. Not un-similar to way I'm wasting my time pointing out that your constant complaining achieves a nil result.
You have chosen to continuously troll anyone and everyone doesn't quietly accept what Apple gives them without questions. Some of us have actually dignity and don't take things lying down just so other can cling to a flawed belief that Jobs' Apple is somehow perfect. Quite frankly, those of us who came to the Mac for practical purposes are starting to get real tired of the quazi-religion this platform has devolved to. You can't can't enjoy how good the operating system is without the drama.
At both end of the spectrum you have passion and that's the lifeblood of any great product.
I tend to feel like if I've got room to complain then I'm probably out ahead of the curve provided my reasoning is on solid foundation.
For me the Mac Pro pricing is interesting and i'm curious about how it stacks up to the competition. No I don't want to buy a Dell and I see no reason why I cannot have a superior OS running on top at an acceptable premium.
March 28th (the official Xeon 5500 launch date) will tell us just how big that premium is if any exist.
Oh please, stop it already. You're comparing consumer machines with industrial machines.
I know you're not happy about Apple not having a consumer machine in that price range, but these are not the same machines.
Get over it!
I agree with you here. Apparently a lot of people don't understand that workstations and their components (like the Xeons) are much more expensive than consumer machines, be it Dell, HP, Apple, etc.
From the other thread, he thinks that margins are near 100%, his math is suspect.
Nope, not me. What I did suggest is that their margins have risen quite a bit, given that the three 5500 Xeons in the dual-socket Mac Pro cost almost exactly the same as their older counterparts did in the past.
The last I read, the prices for the chips were going up dramatically.
Have to correct you there, assuming I am understanding what you mean. Although as you said it is indeed incorrect to compare the price of a Xeon 55xx with an equivalent Core i7, the actual (tray price) costs of the 3 parts Apple is using in the dual-socket Mac Pro is nearly identical to the previous pricing of their older 54xx counterparts. Obviously we haven't seen the supply contract and so can't possibly know what kind of deal Apple is getting, but if the tray prices are nearly the same Its likely Apple's costs are very similar.
And just HOW are their margins in the stratosphere?
Their gross margins are about 33-34%. That's good, but no where stratospheric. Their profits are between 10 -12%. Again. good, but not nearly a lot....
I apologize for not being more clear. I am talking solely about the speculated margins on the Mac Pro --- which while I will acknowledge that we don't know exactly --- clearly have increased considering the major components of the machine (CPUs, motherboad, memory, GPU etc) have not increased in cost much at all.
I'm with you on not all programs will benefit, but my biggest reason was that it at least has "more" current tech. It supported the 1066 ram as opposed to the 800 ram, and I just havent been able to get much info on the processors and how head to head the old 2.8 I have compares to the 2.26 overall in performance.
I don't think anyone can give a definitive answer to that yet. We'll just have to wait.
Turbo mode helps, the faster memory bus helps.
Will it be faster overall right NOW? Probably not.
Will it hold up better? Sure.
And if you have the money next year, you likely will be able to get faster cpu's to replace the 2.26's. It will be expensive though.
One's inability to currently understand something does not mean that there is no way to explain it. You keep stating that these chips are EXACTLY the same in price and construction, except for ECC, but you have shown us no proof that these Nehalem Xeons, which aren't even officially out yet, are the same. The last I read, the prices for the chips were going up dramatically.
The fact that Ben, and a couple of others are saying that the chips are all the same doesn't make them so.
I've already explained that most of the i7's have a slower QPI than do the Xeons. 4.8 QT/s as opposed to 6.4 QT/s. Only the 3.2 GHz i7 975 has a QPI of that speed, and that one costs $999 in bin pricing as opposed to the $562 of the 950 and below.
They are now, after I brought it up, also pooh poohing the power draw of these chips, even though power draw has always been an issue for PowerMacs with G5's, and the newer Mac Pros.
In fact, the significantly lower power draw of these chips has allowed the new interior design, which makes the accessibility to the chips themselves much easier, rather than having them buried under massive shielding as before.
We're talking about 80w for the Xeons up to the E5540 at 2.53 GHz, and 95W up to the X570 2.93.
The other differences are the memory speeds themselves. The requirement at standard voltages and bus timings for the i7 chips is DDR3 800 all the way through the top 975 model, though with slightly different timings for that model you can go to 1066. All the others are limited to 800, unless you want to go to enthusiasts boards, and play around with all this, which often limits the life of the system,
But the lower E series Xeons run with 1066, and the higher X series that Apple also uses can use 1333 at standard timings, though for some reason (likely cost) Apple is using 1066 right now.
So there are significant differences which will show performance improvements, though mostly with applications that require a fair amount of memory access.
I'm being accused of not understanding these chips, because they see only the ECC difference, which no "real" workstation buyer would do without, which is why these computers they keep touting as equal to the Mac Pro are just cheap home machines, and don't compete at all.
But, it's they who don't understand this technology, because they don't know enough to go beyond the simple fact of how many QPI links there are to find out just what they really do, and how fast they can do it, among other things, such as how the lower power benefits the overall design of the machine.
They just want cheaper machines, and are looking for some excuse to find to show that other companies produce the same machine, but charge much less for it, when this isn't even close to being true.
They have what I call in cases like this, "determined ignorance".
Google Bloomfield and Nehalem xeon price list.
http://xtreview.com/addcomment-id-69...xx-series.html
And as you can see even there, the Xeons cost appreciably more than the equivalent speed i7s.
I apologize for not being more clear. I am talking solely about the speculated margins on the Mac Pro --- which while I will acknowledge that we don't know exactly --- clearly have increased considering the major components of the machine (CPUs, motherboad, memory, GPU etc) have not increased in cost much at all.
My contention is that we don't know enough to make that assumption. And if they have increased a bit, as has been said, smaller production equipment usually does have larger margins. That's normal. But the difference wouldn't be great.
And as you can see even there, the Xeons cost appreciably more than the equivalent speed i7s.
Which ones, the X5500 serious or X3500 series? I actually think the Mac Pro 8 cores are reasonably priced high end workstations. The quad core based on the X3500, not so much.
Which ones, the X5500 serious or X3500 series? I actually think the Mac Pro 8 cores are reasonably priced high end workstations. The quad core based on the X3500, not so much.
I don't have a bin price on the x3500 right now.
Actually, I can't find ANYTHING on this. Just the x3500 IGC!
Which to buy - I have been waiting to upgrade my dual core G5 running Premier:
Mac Pro:
£4,426.01 incl. VAT Ships: 6-8 weeks Free Shipping
Specifications
One 2.93GHz Quad-Core Intel Xeon
6GB (3x2GB)
Mac Pro RAID Card
1TB 7200-rpm Serial ATA 3Gb/s
ATI Radeon HD 4870 512MB
One 18x SuperDrive
Apple Cinema HD Display (30" flat panel)
Apple Wireless Mighty Mouse
Apple Wireless Keyboard (British) and User's Guide (English)
Vista option:
\tDell Ultrasharp 3008WFP 30" Widescreen LCD Monitor\t\t£1115.49
\tIntel Core i7 940 2.93Ghz (Nehalem) (Socket LGA1366) - Retail\t\t£471.49
\tLian Li TYR PC-X2000 Aluminium Full-Tower - Black (No PSU)\t\t£339.24
\tAsus P6T Deluxe Intel X58 (Socket 1366) PCI-Express DDR3 Motherboard\t\t£243.79
\tCorsair 6GB DDR3 Dominator PC3-12800C8 1600MHz (3x2GB) DDR3 £172.49
\tAkasa AK-P120FG 1200W Xtreme Power Supply\t\t£166.74
\tAsus ATI Radeon HD 4870 512MB "Dark Knight" \t£165.59
\tMicrosoft Windows Vista Ultimate SP1 64-Bit - OEM (66R-02034)\t\t£155.24
\tSeagate Barracuda 7200.11 1.5TB SATA-II 32MB Cache - \t£114.99
\tLogitech Cordless Desktop MX 3200 Laser (967688-0120)\t\t£57.49
\tAkasa AK-967 Nero Direct Contact Heatpipe CPU Cooler\t\t£31.04
\tSamsung SH-S223Q/RSMN 22x DVD±RW SATA Dual Layel\t\t£22.99
\t\tSub Total
My son has specced this setup, and tells can do the build.
£1800 cost difference!!!!!
The previous generation Xeon Mac Pros costed out about equal, considering dual socket boards etc, but these look over expensive to me. I need AVCHD, so an upgrade is now urgent.
I may have to jump to Vista!
Or I could buy a second hand 8 core Xeon?
Am I missing something?
Throw something else into the mix: overclock the i7 940. I have a home-made core i7 920 running at 3.2 GHz. Absolutely no heat or stability issues.
Other than that, I truly prefer the Mac OS over anything MS makes.
You seem to possibly be new to mac pro purchasing. NEVER buy made-to-order options unless only Apple offers it. If the 30" Dell is way cheaper than Apple's and you consider it sufficient, buy it instead and save a ton of cash. Like you son found out, 1.5TB drives are cheap. Buy it separately and install it into one of a "stock" Mac Pro's HD slots. The 640GB "standard" drive in the Mac Pro will do fine with it's 1.5TB buddy.
Personally, Apple's keyboards beat the doors of anyone else's keyboards. Try one out at a local dealer. The key action is so much better. I actually have an Apple keyboard on that core-i7 system I mentioned.
I don't get the RAID option. No 2nd hard drive is mentioned in either config. That warps your price comparison. Cut out the RAID.
Another suggestion: If those prices are truly British pounds, you are getting pounded either way. Consider a trip to US or Canada and buy a system there. The price difference will pay for your trip and accommodations. Maybe even a 2nd person with you... It specs out at less than 7,000 Cdn, even with the $2100 30" Apple monitor.
My contention is that we don't know enough to make that assumption. And if they have increased a bit, as has been said, smaller production equipment usually does have larger margins. That's normal. But the difference wouldn't be great.
As I said, we don't know exact figures, but this is the commodity computer parts business.. It doesn't take a genius to see that if Apple's CPU, chipset, memory, and GPU costs haven't changed much at all, then their margins have increased. What am I missing here? It seems like you just want gloss over the issue and repeating the "it's not a Core i7" strawman. Most of the people here who actually know what they are talking about are NOT comparing the 55xx to an i7 --- simply to the 54xx series which has up until the release of the new CPUs have cost almost exactly the same.
As I said, we don't know exact figures, but this is the commodity computer parts business.. It doesn't take a genius to see that if Apple's CPU, chipset, memory, and GPU costs haven't changed much at all, then their margins have increased. What am I missing here? It seems like you just want gloss over the issue and repeating the "it's not a Core i7" strawman. Most of the people here who actually know what they are talking about are NOT comparing the 55xx to an i7 --- simply to the 54xx series which has up until the release of the new CPUs have cost almost exactly the same.
Apple's machines, just like the machines from BOXX, are not commodity. The case, which is one of the best in the industry, according to reports in Computerworld, is expensive. The power supply is custom, as are other parts, such as the mobo, and HDD racks. Workstations don't sell in vast numbers as home machines do, and so don't have the commoditization advantage. Many more servers are sold each year than workstations, but even those are expensive unless they are small, basic, 1 row machines.
The reason why Apple's graphics boards cost so much is for the same reason. While a third party board selling to the vast PC market might sell in the hundreds of thousands, or even, for the cheaper boards, millions, Apple likely sells no more than tens of thousands of any board model. Remember that Apple makes these boards. So their costs are higher there too.
It's not my argument that a strawman, but yours, as you refuse to acknowledge the pricing and other performance differences between the Xeons and the i7's, even though I laid out what they are, and you can go check for yourself. You guys are the ones who keep on coming up with these cheap home computer comparisons, not me.
As has been shown on Anandtech and ARs Technica and other sites, Nehalem systems are more expensive than older systems. The boards are more expensive, and the power supplies are too. Apple uses higher quality parts, the same as other workstation manufacturers do.
So far, your arguments haven't persuaded anyone else here except the two or three others who already are complaining.
As I said, we don't know exact figures, but this is the commodity computer parts business.. It doesn't take a genius to see that if Apple's CPU, chipset, memory, and GPU costs haven't changed much at all, then their margins have increased. What am I missing here?