Wrong, you can build a PC with similar specs to the cheapest MacPro for about $1,700, meaning that you’re paying $1,300 for a video card with way less performance than a $900 nVidia Titan (or two 780’s in SLI, which give you even more performance.) Apple has tried to convince people that the Mac Pro is actually a bargain, but it isn’t. The cost of the Intel Xeon E5-2630 is a mere $649.99. An equivalent mobo to what Apple offers is about $350. RAM and SSD’s are cheaper on the open market than what Apple charges you for. And unlike with what you buy from Apple, component prices start going down the moment the hardware is released. You do the math…
Also consider that the E5-2630 is NOT a great CPU for audio and that the (much cheaper) 4770k actually beats it where it counts for audio applications, including clock speed and single-core performance. With a Windows workstation, you can choose any CPU you want. With Apple, you’re stuck with what they think you need. And they certainly don’t care that your computer is not used for what they think it should be used… (Like I said, the new MacPro is NOT designed as a DAW machine.)
Don’t believe me? Read this:
Once you overclock the 4770, it will smoke the E5-2630. Particularly in applications where clock speed is king (like audio.) Needless to say, Apple machines can’t be overclocked.
Internal, yes. but this is the paradigm change in the new Mac Pro. I’m actually a fan of the design because not every user needs 3 extra bays or 4 extra bays or whatever and some users need TONS of storage.
Paradigm change? LOL, another useless buzzword invented by Apple (like “ecosystem”) to convince you that internal drives are bad… Unfortunately for Apple, DAW users do need at least three drives, even if you use the “magical” mac. And you certainly don’t want them to be all externals with one or two extra fans per drive. Also consider that Thunderbolt so far has been a huge failure and that USB 3.0 is nowhere near as fast and efficient as SATA III. I use USB 3.0 drives only for backup and turn them off when I record. They’re really not good for DAW use.
The great thing about the new design is you’re not using up chassis space if you don’t need it and you can add as much storage as you want via a thunderbolt chassis like the Blackmagic Multidock.
Great thing? LOL, Apple can convince you of anything… What’s so great about the need to add an external box in a format that few manufacturers have adopted and that it has a ridiculous cost? (Which means it will NEVER become mainstream…) I suppose the great “paradigm change” includes paying $700 just for an EMPTY Thunderbolt box, right? Did you calculate that when you claimed that the MacPro is cheaper than a Windows workstation with lots of internal bays at no additional cost?
But if you go with simple usb 3 external drives, they are hardly more expensive than the bare drive is anyway.
Like I said, USB 3.0 is nowhere near as efficient and fast as SATA III (despite “official” specs) and like I said, every additional external drive is an additional fan or two, an additional eyesore and takes additional room.
This is completely incorrect. Yes you can by cheaper windows machines, but you could also buy an iMac that is cheaper. The point is if you price the SAME hardware (Same Xeon CPU, same RAM, same high-end flash drive), PC’s from HP, Dell, etc. are similar in price and sometimes MORE.
Read this article and you will learn that Apple is fudging the numbers, as they usually do, since their fans just take everything they say as revealed truths and never question them:
Yeah, you can buy an iMac (imagine having to buy a new monitor every time you change your computer, most likely the same exact one…which Apple doesn’t make but just buys from LG and charges you an extra $300…), which is a ridiculously overpriced machine for what it offers. You can build a PC that outperforms the iMac in every way for way way less (see example below.) And it’ll be a more silent and cooler machine (I’m talking temperature, not fashion…) with as many internal drives as you want and as much RAM as you need, because it won’t be soldered to the mobo like Apple does, to make you pay three times for additional memory.
The bottom line is whether you prefer working in windows or OS X. If OS X, get a Mac Pro. If it’s too expensive, get an iMac. If you like working in Windows, get a windows machine. The adage that macs are SOOO much more expensive is simply incorrect
That’s what Apple wants you to believe, but it’s far from the truth. See my example below. Your word (or I should say Apple’s word…) vs. my FACTS.
But as I mentioned before, pick the platform you want to work in, then pick the machine. The cost/performance difference between the two worlds (when equally compared) is not that much.
Just because you’re repeating Apple’s PR lines, it doesn’t mean they automatically become true. There’s still a huge difference in price, not to mention that Apple forces you into buying THEIR idea of a computer (which is certainly far from an ideal DAW), while assembling a PC gives you unlimited flexibility. But hey, when your fans can be convinced of anything (including that internal drives are somehow bad…), there is really no way to make them reason. Like I said, in a few years someone like you will try to convince me that an iPad is the best DAW system. Because Apple will say so once they phase out the mac (and it WILL happen…)
Just try to think about this: how do you explain Apple’s gargantuan profits if, as you said, their machines don’t cost much more than Windows equivalents? Like a certain ex-POTUS would say, “it’s fuzzy math!” Remember that Apple doesn’t make ANY component, they just buy them on the open market like everyone else. And no, they’re definitely NOT sprinkled with magic dust. Which is why Lenovo, ASUS and Toshiba computers are actually more reliable than Apple’s, despite what people in the Apple fandom believe:
What’s really eye-opening about the above is that Apple ONLY sells expensive computers, while all the other manufacturers that best them have plenty of economical lines which use lesser expensive components supposedly less reliable… Despite that, they still beat Apple. Which means their top/business lines are WAY more reliable than anything sold by Apple. But then again, if you’ve ever touched an HP ZBook, you know that it’s way way way better (as in better components and better built) than a MacBook Pro for about the same price.
Coming back to prices, here’s a little demonstration…
512 GB SSD
GTX780M 4GB (crappy GPU, M is for mobile, since the iMac has a small PSU or else it would catch fire…)
8TB storage (Thunderbolt box with 2x 4TB)
grand total: $4,248.95
i7 3.5Ghz $299 (4770k, better than Apple’s 4770s, which is not overclockable)
850W CPU (Corsair or similar) $100 (way better than the TINY PSU in the iMac)
decent mobo (the iMac mobo is nothing special) $150
super-duper copper cooler (way better than Apple’s. iMacs are always so hot…) $80
32 GB RAM (Corsair Vengeance, better than what Apple uses) $325
512 GB SSD $220
GTX780 4GB (the REAL THING, not the crappy mobile version) $500
8 TB internal storage (2x 4TB) $400
Sonata III case (soundproof) $150
27" LG screen $250
Windows 8.1 $69.99
Keyboard + mouse (Logitech or other top brand, you can spend way less, of course): $70
grand total: $2,613.99
And with even BETTER components (as shown in the comments.) And without the GPU (which you don’t need for DAW work), it would be even less at $2,113.99. Can you ask Apple to omit the GPU and let you use the 4770’s built-in graphics? Of course not. Like I said before, flexibility is key…and Apple will NEVER offer you that.
Were you saying about Apple desktops not being much more expensive than a similar Windows system?
Next time you hear something from Cupertino, don’t just assume it’s true: actually research it and try to verify it. You will definitely learn a lot…