6 ms·

Either you can or you can't, and I've never seen Apple sell hardware without significant markup. If I had a complete part list I'd be interested in seeing the d

by ddoolin 13y ago

Either you can or you can't, and I've never seen Apple sell hardware without significant markup. If I had a complete part list I'd be interested in seeing the difference as well.

mikeash 13y ago
I've seen plenty of cases where someone said they could build an equivalent PC for less, and then ended up not being able to, because they were thinking of cheaper and worse components than Apple used. I don't know which way it goes with the Mac Pro. But it's certainly not obvious to me that there's any sort of substantial markup on Apple's part here. The CPU alone is going to cost something like 1/3 to 1/2 of the total purchase price. I don't even know what the GPUs cost (can't find any mention of the model Apple lists outside of Mac Pro discussion) but I bet they're not cheap either. Apple stuff is expensive generally because it's high-end, not because there's a huge markup. When people say that e.g. the Mac Pro is too expensive, they generally mean that it has more than they need (e.g. they don't want a Xeon CPU), not that it's overpriced for what it actually has. That's why I preempted the use of non-equivalent parts, because it's really common to start out this sort of comparison with something like, "Well, I don't actually need a Xeon, so I tossed in an i7 instead, and I don't need a workstation GPU so I used a gaming GPU instead, and..." and they end up with something much cheaper but not at all the same.
- jere 13y ago
  This xeon is $343 at retail for 3.5GHz quad core. http://www.neweggbusiness.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=9B-19-116-904 http://www.neweggbusiness.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=9B-1... I know it's not linear, but you really expect Apple to be paying $1000 to $1500 for a 3.7GHz quad core? I'm sure I'm one of those people you're thinking of. I built a PC last year for $1k and it appeared either identical or better than the maxed out iMac which was ~$3k.
  - mikeash 13y ago
    I don't expect Apple to, but I wouldn't be surprised if they were putting in a CPU that we would pay that much for. The CPU you cite is an E3 versus an E5 (not that I have any clue what that means), runs slower, and has less L3 cache. I don't know how much those add but I wouldn't be surprised if it was a lot. Just once, it would be nice if someone making a Mac versus PC price comparison could compare against a part that was better than the one in the Mac....
    - jere 13y ago
      >Just once, it would be nice if someone making a Mac versus PC price comparison could compare against a part that was better than the one in the Mac.... I'm very sorry. I couldn't find a faster xeon for sale and I thought it would suffice to demonstrate how a 200MHz increase most likely isn't worth $1000. I imagine you think it logically impossible that Apple could be marking up the cpu, since I can't currently buy the cpu myself (and thus the cost for me is infinite)... When I'm the most valuable company in the world and not just some guy searching newegg, I'll get back to you.
      - mikeash 13y ago
        As I mentioned, clock speed is only one difference. The cache is not the same, and from a bit of research, it looks like the E5 has double the memory bandwidth over the E3, so it's not at all a trivial difference. > I imagine you think it logically impossible that Apple could be marking up the cpu What would make you think that? I just want to see an actual comparison, not comparisons with parts people think are "close enough". Maybe that's impossible right now, in which case I want people to stop trying instead of coming up with "close enough". The question is, how much does it cost to build a PC "with the same parts"?
      - mturmon 13y ago
        You may not be aware of this, but there has been a years-long practice of people making claims about outrageous markup of Apple hardware versus BYO systems, and not actually using the same hardware. It's irritating. (There certainly are cases of outrageous markup, but in this case, we don't really know yet, and the prices for Xeons are high.)
  - dubyah 13y ago
    While that is not the correct CPU, the overall sentiment is correct; there's no way that the CPU would constitute such a significant portion of the purchase price. Intel's own product page pegs the recommended price as $294 (oem packaging, tray): http://ark.intel.com/products/75779/Intel-Xeon-Processor-E5-1620-v2-10M-Cache-3_70-GHz http://ark.intel.com/products/75779/Intel-Xeon-Processor-E5-... And indeed one may be able to obtain a ready to ship and in stock OEM packaged version of the CPU in the upcoming Mac Pro for $303.99 (+2.99 UPS ground + CA tax as applicable): http://www.superbiiz.com/detail.php?p=E5-1620V2 http://www.superbiiz.com/detail.php?p=E5-1620V2
    - jere 13y ago
      Thanks. I wasn't sure how to find that, even though I did do some searches on superbiiz. I'm not sure I understand the discrepancy. Why would the CPU be so cheap ($303.99) compared to the one I posted, which several commenters are claiming is severely under powered in comparison?
      - lhl 13y ago
        These new lower end E5 16xxs are essentially Core i7s and priced about equivalently[1]. The 26xx's are much beefier (I think people were expecting 26xx's across the line but matching specs[2], this is obviously not the case). I'd be pleasantly surprised if the 12C Mac Pro sold for less than $6K but as you can see the big ($1500!) bump is between the 6C/8C and they didn't talk pricing beyond the 6C so if they don't eat the cost you're looking at a $6K 8C and a $7K/$8K 12C. 4C exact match: $294 Xeon E5-1620 v2 4C 3.7GHz/3.9GHz 10MB L3 130W TDP 6C exact match: $583 Xeon E5-1650 v2 6C 3.5GHz/3.9GHz 12MB L3 130W TDP 8C closest match (underclocked?): $2057 Xeon E5-2667 v2 8C 3.3GHz/4GHz 25MB L3 130W TDP 12C exact match: $2614 Xeon E5-2697 v2 12C 2.7GHz/3.5 GHz 30MB L3 130W TDP Tom's Hardware did some superficial (mostly desktop workload) testing on the E5-2697 v2 a couple months ago: http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/ivy-bridge-ep-xeon-e5-2697-v2-benchmarks,3585.html http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/ivy-bridge-ep-xeon-e5-26... [1] http://www.cpu-world.com/news_2013/2013091401_Intel_Xeon_E5-1600_v2_and_E5-2600_v2_CPUs_launched.html http://www.cpu-world.com/news_2013/2013091401_Intel_Xeon_E5-... [2] https://www.apple.com/mac-pro/specs/ https://www.apple.com/mac-pro/specs/ and the description text: "Intel Xeon E5 with 10MB L3 cache and Turbo Boost up to 3.9GHz. Configurable to 3.5GHz 6-core processor with 12MB L3 cache, 3.0GHz 8-core processor with 25MB L3 cache, or 2.7GHz 12-core processor with 30MB L3 cache"
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
- mahyarm 13y ago
  You have to stop thinking that a large OEM such as apple will be as subject to the artificial market segmentation pricing Intel & AMD makes. Intel sells i7 CPUs much cheaper than the equivalent xeon cpus for example. The big advantage of the equivalent xeon is being able to dual socket it and some other cheap-for-intel features being switched on. You can't dual socket CPU this mac pro anyway and GPUs tend to max out at ~$500 each for equivalent consumer GPUs. So in summary, you can make an equivalent performance PC for $1500-$2000 dollars.
  - mikeash 13y ago
    You misunderstand. I'm not thinking that Apple is subject to anything. I'm not talking about their costs at all. I'm merely talking about our costs if we were to try to build an equivalent PC ourselves. Apple probably gets a steep discount on all of its components, but that's completely irrelevant for this comparison. I don't doubt that you can build a much cheaper PC if you go through the whole parts list and substitute cheaper, worse consumer parts for all the workstation parts in the Mac Pro. The question is, can you really build the same thing for the same price? I bet you can't, or at least it's close. Maybe you can, I could be wrong. The question isn't how much a generic PC that's "good enough" costs. The question is how much it costs "with the same parts".
    - vacri 13y ago
      How are 'workstation' GPUs better than good 'gamer' GPUs? Isn't that differentiation basically a big marketing con in the first place? You're shifting the goalposts a little by starting with "building an equivalent PC" then concluding "but it doesn't use the same parts"
      - mikeash 13y ago
        "with the same parts" is a quote from the original comment I was replying to way up there. No goalpost-shifting is occurring on my end.
      - Scramblejams 13y ago
- KVFinn 13y ago
  >I've seen plenty of cases where someone said they could build an equivalent PC for less, and then ended up not being able to, because they were thinking of cheaper and worse components than Apple used. If your needs align exactly with the models Apple offers, and Apple just released a product (what would the comparison look like if you needed to buy a system six months ago?) then sure. The real-world question is to decide what your needs are in terms of specs and then compare the different ways of satisfying those needs. To choose an egregious example: I need an average CPU with a powerful GPU for real time performance. Going with Apple I am pushed into a hardware bracket where I have to spend in excess of $4000 to meet those needs. I could also satisfy those needs with a 700 PC and a 400 GPU.

by ddoolin 13y ago

Either you can or you can't, and I've never seen Apple sell hardware without significant markup. If I had a complete part list I'd be interested in seeing the difference as well.

mikeash 13y ago

I've seen plenty of cases where someone said they could build an equivalent PC for less, and then ended up not being able to, because they were thinking of cheaper and worse components than Apple used. I don't know which way it goes with the Mac Pro. But it's certainly not obvious to me that there's any sort of substantial markup on Apple's part here. The CPU alone is going to cost something like 1/3 to 1/2 of the total purchase price. I don't even know what the GPUs cost (can't find any mention of the model Apple lists outside of Mac Pro discussion) but I bet they're not cheap either. Apple stuff is expensive generally because it's high-end, not because there's a huge markup. When people say that e.g. the Mac Pro is too expensive, they generally mean that it has more than they need (e.g. they don't want a Xeon CPU), not that it's overpriced for what it actually has. That's why I preempted the use of non-equivalent parts, because it's really common to start out this sort of comparison with something like, "Well, I don't actually need a Xeon, so I tossed in an i7 instead, and I don't need a workstation GPU so I used a gaming GPU instead, and..." and they end up with something much cheaper but not at all the same.

jere 13y ago
This xeon is $343 at retail for 3.5GHz quad core. http://www.neweggbusiness.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=9B-19-116-904 http://www.neweggbusiness.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=9B-1... I know it's not linear, but you really expect Apple to be paying $1000 to $1500 for a 3.7GHz quad core? I'm sure I'm one of those people you're thinking of. I built a PC last year for $1k and it appeared either identical or better than the maxed out iMac which was ~$3k.
- mikeash 13y ago
  I don't expect Apple to, but I wouldn't be surprised if they were putting in a CPU that we would pay that much for. The CPU you cite is an E3 versus an E5 (not that I have any clue what that means), runs slower, and has less L3 cache. I don't know how much those add but I wouldn't be surprised if it was a lot. Just once, it would be nice if someone making a Mac versus PC price comparison could compare against a part that was better than the one in the Mac....
  - jere 13y ago
    >Just once, it would be nice if someone making a Mac versus PC price comparison could compare against a part that was better than the one in the Mac.... I'm very sorry. I couldn't find a faster xeon for sale and I thought it would suffice to demonstrate how a 200MHz increase most likely isn't worth $1000. I imagine you think it logically impossible that Apple could be marking up the cpu, since I can't currently buy the cpu myself (and thus the cost for me is infinite)... When I'm the most valuable company in the world and not just some guy searching newegg, I'll get back to you.
    - mikeash 13y ago
      As I mentioned, clock speed is only one difference. The cache is not the same, and from a bit of research, it looks like the E5 has double the memory bandwidth over the E3, so it's not at all a trivial difference. > I imagine you think it logically impossible that Apple could be marking up the cpu What would make you think that? I just want to see an actual comparison, not comparisons with parts people think are "close enough". Maybe that's impossible right now, in which case I want people to stop trying instead of coming up with "close enough". The question is, how much does it cost to build a PC "with the same parts"?
    - mturmon 13y ago
      You may not be aware of this, but there has been a years-long practice of people making claims about outrageous markup of Apple hardware versus BYO systems, and not actually using the same hardware. It's irritating. (There certainly are cases of outrageous markup, but in this case, we don't really know yet, and the prices for Xeons are high.)
- dubyah 13y ago
  While that is not the correct CPU, the overall sentiment is correct; there's no way that the CPU would constitute such a significant portion of the purchase price. Intel's own product page pegs the recommended price as $294 (oem packaging, tray): http://ark.intel.com/products/75779/Intel-Xeon-Processor-E5-1620-v2-10M-Cache-3_70-GHz http://ark.intel.com/products/75779/Intel-Xeon-Processor-E5-... And indeed one may be able to obtain a ready to ship and in stock OEM packaged version of the CPU in the upcoming Mac Pro for $303.99 (+2.99 UPS ground + CA tax as applicable): http://www.superbiiz.com/detail.php?p=E5-1620V2 http://www.superbiiz.com/detail.php?p=E5-1620V2
  - jere 13y ago
    Thanks. I wasn't sure how to find that, even though I did do some searches on superbiiz. I'm not sure I understand the discrepancy. Why would the CPU be so cheap ($303.99) compared to the one I posted, which several commenters are claiming is severely under powered in comparison?
    - lhl 13y ago
      These new lower end E5 16xxs are essentially Core i7s and priced about equivalently[1]. The 26xx's are much beefier (I think people were expecting 26xx's across the line but matching specs[2], this is obviously not the case). I'd be pleasantly surprised if the 12C Mac Pro sold for less than $6K but as you can see the big ($1500!) bump is between the 6C/8C and they didn't talk pricing beyond the 6C so if they don't eat the cost you're looking at a $6K 8C and a $7K/$8K 12C. 4C exact match: $294 Xeon E5-1620 v2 4C 3.7GHz/3.9GHz 10MB L3 130W TDP 6C exact match: $583 Xeon E5-1650 v2 6C 3.5GHz/3.9GHz 12MB L3 130W TDP 8C closest match (underclocked?): $2057 Xeon E5-2667 v2 8C 3.3GHz/4GHz 25MB L3 130W TDP 12C exact match: $2614 Xeon E5-2697 v2 12C 2.7GHz/3.5 GHz 30MB L3 130W TDP Tom's Hardware did some superficial (mostly desktop workload) testing on the E5-2697 v2 a couple months ago: http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/ivy-bridge-ep-xeon-e5-2697-v2-benchmarks,3585.html http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/ivy-bridge-ep-xeon-e5-26... [1] http://www.cpu-world.com/news_2013/2013091401_Intel_Xeon_E5-1600_v2_and_E5-2600_v2_CPUs_launched.html http://www.cpu-world.com/news_2013/2013091401_Intel_Xeon_E5-... [2] https://www.apple.com/mac-pro/specs/ https://www.apple.com/mac-pro/specs/ and the description text: "Intel Xeon E5 with 10MB L3 cache and Turbo Boost up to 3.9GHz. Configurable to 3.5GHz 6-core processor with 12MB L3 cache, 3.0GHz 8-core processor with 25MB L3 cache, or 2.7GHz 12-core processor with 30MB L3 cache"
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
mahyarm 13y ago
You have to stop thinking that a large OEM such as apple will be as subject to the artificial market segmentation pricing Intel & AMD makes. Intel sells i7 CPUs much cheaper than the equivalent xeon cpus for example. The big advantage of the equivalent xeon is being able to dual socket it and some other cheap-for-intel features being switched on. You can't dual socket CPU this mac pro anyway and GPUs tend to max out at ~$500 each for equivalent consumer GPUs. So in summary, you can make an equivalent performance PC for $1500-$2000 dollars.
- mikeash 13y ago
  You misunderstand. I'm not thinking that Apple is subject to anything. I'm not talking about their costs at all. I'm merely talking about our costs if we were to try to build an equivalent PC ourselves. Apple probably gets a steep discount on all of its components, but that's completely irrelevant for this comparison. I don't doubt that you can build a much cheaper PC if you go through the whole parts list and substitute cheaper, worse consumer parts for all the workstation parts in the Mac Pro. The question is, can you really build the same thing for the same price? I bet you can't, or at least it's close. Maybe you can, I could be wrong. The question isn't how much a generic PC that's "good enough" costs. The question is how much it costs "with the same parts".
  - vacri 13y ago
    How are 'workstation' GPUs better than good 'gamer' GPUs? Isn't that differentiation basically a big marketing con in the first place? You're shifting the goalposts a little by starting with "building an equivalent PC" then concluding "but it doesn't use the same parts"
    - mikeash 13y ago
      "with the same parts" is a quote from the original comment I was replying to way up there. No goalpost-shifting is occurring on my end.
    - Scramblejams 13y ago
KVFinn 13y ago
>I've seen plenty of cases where someone said they could build an equivalent PC for less, and then ended up not being able to, because they were thinking of cheaper and worse components than Apple used. If your needs align exactly with the models Apple offers, and Apple just released a product (what would the comparison look like if you needed to buy a system six months ago?) then sure. The real-world question is to decide what your needs are in terms of specs and then compare the different ways of satisfying those needs. To choose an egregious example: I need an average CPU with a powerful GPU for real time performance. Going with Apple I am pushed into a hardware bracket where I have to spend in excess of $4000 to meet those needs. I could also satisfy those needs with a 700 PC and a 400 GPU.