Reasons to Buy a Custom PC Instead of a Mac Pro... (update) Your thoughts?

I'm writing up a document (in Word 2007 beta 2 )  that is basically about how you can get so much more power for the money with a PC than with a Mac.  Tell me what you think, just no flames. 

(link)

(reason 1 is great hardware pricing)

(updated link)

for MORE stable system.
In my experience of Mac in 10 years (OSX also), Windows is more stable than mac even installed mac application is only 4~5. (windows is more than 20 app installed)

Mac re-install cycle: 6 month
Windows XP: 2 years.

Although OSX is changed from bottom to top, system runtime is shorter than Windows XP.

After a quick skim through your document, one thing immediately stood out to me. You claim that a Pentium D at 3.6GHz is faster than a Xeon at 2.66GHz (35% faster, to be exact). That's actually not true. In reality, the Core 2 line of processors is faster than the Pentium D line. A lot faster. After listing the first benchmark, that article states, "The old Intel lineup of Pentium D processors is truly an embarrassment."

So, there's a very good reason why the processors in the Mac Pro cost $760 off the shelf versus the $317 Pentium D in the PC you described: they are much faster. It should also be noted that there's two of those Xeons in the Mac Pro, putting the cost of buying them off the shelf at over $1500.

CyberGeek wrote:

After a quick skim through your document, one thing immediately stood out to me. You claim that a Pentium D at 3.6GHz is faster than a Xeon at 2.66GHz (35% faster, to be exact). That's actually not true. In reality, the Core 2 line of processors is faster than the Pentium D line. A lot faster. After listing the first benchmark, that article states, "The old Intel lineup of Pentium D processors is truly an embarrassment."

So, there's a very good reason why the processors in the Mac Pro cost $760 off the shelf versus the $317 Pentium D in the PC you described: they are much faster. It should also be noted that there's two of those Xeons in the Mac Pro, putting the cost of buying them off the shelf at over $1500.

I claimed that each core  was 35% faster, but I did also say that the Mac Pro has 4 cores. (2 processors times 2 cores each.)  Silly me.  more GHz doesn't always mean more power.

Well, luckily the motherboard is also compatable with Core 2 Duo processors.

But where does the Xeon fall on that chart?

Honestly, don't bother.  Rational debate tends to go right out the window when it comes to OS debates, or hardware debates.

alwaysmc2 wrote:

But where does the Xeon fall on that chart?

It's not listed on the chart. I'm guessing (emphasis on guessing) that the new Xeons would fall slightly higher than the E6700 listed on the chart. Again, that's purely a guess, but it's based off the fact that the Xeon is more expensive than the E6700 and that the Xeon is intended for high-end systems like servers, whereas the E6700 is a desktop processor (I think).

While the motherboard may be compatible with the Core 2 Duo processors (I don't actually know, just taking your word on it) the RAM isn't. While I'm not exactly sure what the terminology means, this review states that the new Xeon chips require DDR2 FB-DIMMs, rather than just plain old DDR2. Newegg lists that kind of RAM as starting at $150. If you intend to lob in the two Xeon processors on your equal-power system, I think that this RAM will actually push the cost of your system above the Mac Pro. You would need to cut a few corners on some of the other components that are slightly more powerful than the Mac Pro equivalents.

alwaysmc2 wrote:

 The Mac has four cores (2 dual-core processors), each 2.66 GHz, with 1GB RAM that is 677MHz.  The PC has two cores (1 dual-core processor), each 3.6GHz, with 1GB RAM that is 800MHz.  Wile the Mac has twice as many cores, the each PC core is 35% faster, and the RAM is 11% faster.  That’s close enough.

Close enough? Hardly. You can't say that a 3.6 GHz Pentium D is 35% faster because of a meaningless indicator like clock speed. From experience, my 1.8 GHz Athlon 64 3000+ can keep up with a 3.0 GHz Xeon in single threaded applications. If someone tried to tell me my Xeon is 67% faster than my Athlon I'd laugh at them. Besides, I would take quad Xeons over a faster dual core system in a heartbeat.

Another nitpick - the Mac Pro uses ECC buffered RAM which is more expensive, but also more reliable than the RAM in your custom systems.

For a fair comparison, put together an equally equipped quad Xeon system on Newegg, they sell the hardware. I can tell you already from past looking that a low-end motherboard alone will cost you over $300.

DoomBringer wrote:

Honestly, don't bother.  Rational debate tends to go right out the window when it comes to OS debates, or hardware debates.

QFT

I do think you missed some very important points. Like TimP, the ram is ECC which you haven't taken into account. Clock speeds aren't everything now days. Xeon has 4mb L2 cache, where the Pentium D has only 2mb. Plus whatever else is going on under the covers. I have always treated Xeon was server processors, handling more transactions. Two more points I think are important. Look of the Mac Pro must be worth something!! Build quality, both with the parts used (can't imagine they would use cheap arse motherboards and harddrives. Even the power supply is one of the new cool ones with modular outputs...) and also the way it is put together - anyone saw any cables in the Mac Pro yet?? I would take a Mac Pro over anything (apart from a MacBook Pro)

Building your own PC is always more expensive, you don't have anything like the level of discount that big PC manufacturers do. Spec up a similar system to the Mac from Dell though and it's still cheaper not to go with Apple.

Here's Ars Technica's thoughts about Mac Pro:
The end of one era, the beginning of another

EDIT: LOL I missread the question! These are my grips about dual-booting XP on a Mac Book Pro

We have a bunch here where I work and they work great and the screen is AMAZING.

But here are my top 10:

1. They call the "Delete" key "Backspace" and put it where the backspace goes.
2. They don't provide a real "Delete" key
3. The trackpad has only one button (You have to use FN-Click to get a right-click)
4. The 'hot-spot' is right under your left hand. Gets uncomfortable quickly.
5. There is not 'lip' around the edge of the screen, if you are not carefull it is eacy for a CD or other loose object to slip in when closed and scratch the hell out of your screen.
6. USB support under XP is unstable as hell.
7. Key-travel is extreamly short. It feels like I am typing on a calculator.
8. No hardware power switch for the wireless card (not even a FN-key).
9. The lid-latch is not 'positive' enought for my tastes
10. Still no XP driver for the iSight (and it would be unstable if there was as it is on a usb port.)

Jorgie

PS> I had to install FireFox to post this because I cannot login to C9 with the latest beta of IE7, and when you post from Opera, C9 eat all the paragraph marks.

Oh why did Apple replace the PowerMac's G5 with Xeons rather than Intel's new Core 2 Duo or Extreme processors?


Regards,
Vincent

Seeing as the only way to make the "comparable hardware PC" truly comparable is to use 2 Core 2 Extreme processors.  The problem is I can't find a compatible motherboard on New Egg that supports two processors.
(my search)

So I’m going to take out that PC and just say “Look what you can get for the same price.”  Which is still pretty compelling.  Mac Pro: 250GB PC:2TB sweeeet.   And I'll put in a Core 2 extreem just for kicks.

However, I think that both computers (even with the Pentium D processor) would be able to do just about any home user’s task without skipping a beat. (which is why I said they were comparable.)

TimP wrote:



Another nitpick - the Mac Pro uses ECC buffered RAM which is more expensive, but also more reliable than the RAM in your custom systems.

I noticed that, but seeing as the RAM I put in was faster (800MHz vs 667 MHz), and 800MHz RAM that is also buffered isn't avalable on New Egg I blew it off.

Xaero_Vincent wrote:

Oh why did Apple replace the PowerMac's G5 with Xeons rather than Intel's new Core 2 Duo or Extreme processors?


Regards,
Vincent

Because that would be like... being a PC!!!! (oh, the horor.)

Xaero_Vincent wrote:

Oh why did Apple replace the PowerMac's G5 with Xeons rather than Intel's new Core 2 Duo or Extreme processors?


Regards,
Vincent

The new (Woodcrest) Xeons uses the same core design as the new (Conroe) Core 2 Duos.

Four major (or minor, depending on your view) differences.

1. Woodcrest has a faster FSB 1333 vs. 1066 of Conroe.
2. Woodcrest require the use of FB-DIMM RAM, Conroe is fine with plain DDR2 stuff
3. Woodcrest allows the use of multi-PROCESSOR systems ie. 2 Woodcrests totaling for a total of 4 processor cores, Conroe does not. This was most likely Apple's reason right here.
4. Woodcrest uses a different socket.

Heh its too late for that. As soon as Macs went x86 and allowed Windows to boot, they became PCs with EFI firmware. Besides their iMac, Mac mini, MacBook and MacBook Pro systems all use Intel Core Solo or Duo processors. Why not have their Mac Pro use Core 2 Duo or Extreme processors?

The new Intel Core 2 CPUs improve performance without using much more energy and generating more heat. The Core 2 architecture is more efficent and performance by clock speed is of less significance... something that would be very useful in the power guzzling Quad PowerMac/Mac Pro.

Regards,
Vincent