Testing the so-called ‘Apple tax’ and the new Mac Pro

[Jeff Wexler]

Testing the ‘Apple tax’: What would it cost to build a Windows version of the new Mac Pro?

By Zach Epstein

 

-re-posted from website, article by Zach Epstein

 

The new Mac Pro is the most powerful and flexible computer Apple has ever created, and it’s also extremely expensive — or is it? With a price tag that can climb up around $10,000, Apple’s latest enterprise workhorse clearly isn’t cheap. For businesses with a need for all that muscle, however, is that steep price justifiable or is there a premium “Apple tax” that companies will have to pay? Shortly after the new Mac Pro was finally made available for purchase last week, one PC enthusiast set out to answer that question and in order to do so, he asked another one: How much would it cost to build a comparable Windows 8 machine?

 

Futurelooks editor Stephen Fung started out by configuring a nearly top-of-the-line Mac Pro on Apple’s website. He ended up with a machine that included 64 GB of RAM, a 1TB SSD, two AMD D700 graphics cards and a 2.7GHz 12-core Intel Xeon processor.

 

The cost of this beastly machine? $9,599.

 

“While there is nothing really remarkable about this list of parts, it’s the way that they are integrated that provides both pros and cons,” Fung said of the Mac Pro. “On the pro side, you have all this workstation grade hardware in a cylinder that is less than 10 inches tall and under 7 inches wide, with the power supply inside. This makes it very easy to take it on site or pack with you. So if you are in need of more power, it doesn’t come with the traditional drawbacks of a large tower like the original Mac Pros.”

 

He continued, “But on the list of cons is the fact that you pretty much have to purchase the system configured the way you plan to use it for its lifetime. This is because of the proprietary nature of the primary components which even include the GPUs and possibly the CPU (which looks like it is soldered in or ‘decapped’ like the previous gen). The only things that might see upgrades in the future would possibly be the memory.”

 

So Fung, a do-it-yourself PC specialist, set out to test the Apple tax and see just how much cheaper it would be to build a comparable machine that runs Windows. His findings might surprise you.

 

“After tabulating all the major component costs (plus another $99.99 US for Windows 8 Pro), we are at a total of around $11,530.54 US using today’s prices at retailers that actually stock the hardware,” he wrote. “I’m not afraid to admit that compared to the asking price of $9,599 US, the new Mac Pro seems like one heckuva deal for these components.”

 

The cost of Fung’s Mac Pro rival rang up at a steep 20% over Apple’s Mac Pro, and that doesn’t assign any value to the time it would take to build the machine once you have all the parts.

 

But what about the entry-level version of the Mac Pro? Surely a less powerful version of the rig could be matched by Windows at a more reasonable price point, right? In a follow-up to his first piece, Fung set out to see what it would cost to build the Windows equivalent of Apple’s base Mac Pro.

 

Again, the results were surprising.

 

Fung’s match to Apple’s $2,999 Mac Pro ended up costing $3,994.65 in parts, a whopping 33% more expensive than the Mac Pro. And once again, that price does not include labor. The comparison isn’t quite as direct as it was the first time around though, as Fung noted that his DIY Windows machine has slightly better specs than the Apple box, and there were some other benefits over the Mac Pro as well.

 

Both posts in Futurelooks’ series were interesting reads, and they’re linked below in our source section.

[Chris Woodcock]

Dump the amd cards, they are rubbish

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

[Philip Perkins]

I don't see the point of that test.  I might actually draw the opposite conclusion about the price, which is beside the point in any case.  Apple won't be buying parts for its computers in small quantities, they'll be negotiating screamin deals on special runs just for them, at much lower unit cost I'd guess.  The Mac Pro price is what it is--people who like Macs and /or need them to run the apps they use will buy them even if they are more expensive than they are.

 

philp

[ShubiSnax]

I've been an Nvidia fanboy for some time now, but I hardly think those AMD cards are rubbish.

 

Dump the amd cards, they are rubbish

[Jim Feeley]

Epstein basically glossed/borrowed this article by Fung:

http://www.futurelooks.com/new-apple-mac-pro-can-build-better-cheaper-pc-diy-style/

 

The comments there are interesting (or ranty). But Fung's PC prices do seem inflated because of the economies of scale that Phil mentions, and also because Fung doesn't seem to be a very careful shopper. Also, who really needs the power of those machines? Sure, some people.

 

But my post and vfx/mg buddies who are already 4K-crazy are buying "old" Mac Pros, sticking in newer GPU cards, buying/building hex-core i7 render boxes for under $2K (by living without Xeon processors and ECC memory), buying some more iMacs and MacBooks…and waiting & waiting for the new Mac Pro to actually ship.

 

I'm passing on an end-of-year computer purchase this year, but will buy something early next. But I don't think I'll rely on Fung's or Epstein's takes to inform my purchase.

[Wandering Ear]

These comparisons are interesting to some. I know a lot of DIT folks who run hackintoshes for reasons like internal raid support. It will never be a true side by side, but can be informative if you are considering a hackintosh.

[Tom Visser]

I have not studied the new Mac Pro, but the older tower Pro utilized a server type board and chipset which utilized ECC error correcting memory.  This memory was much more expensive than typical DDR ram and also ran on a slower RAM buss speed.  The cheaper RAM was actually faster in addition to being more economical.  There were certain instances where for example, you only wanted a single fast 4 or 6 core processor, that you could build a workstation that utilized a high performance single processor main board and cheaper / faster RAM.  Obviously the multi-processor support was great for people who needed large amounts of parallel computational abilities.  I don't know if any of this applies to the new Mac Pro or not, like I said, I haven't studied it - but it is quite apparent that Apple offers competitive and even superior pricing for the parts in question - but some people who like Hackintosh setups may be seeking the ability to use the parts complement of choice, not only the fact that they are seeking price advantages.

[Marc Wielage]

I know that colorists running Resolve are perplexed with the new Mac Pros -- which many are calling the Garbage Can Macs -- because they kind of crippled the GPUs (graphics processing units). That's a real drag. 

 

The good news is that the machines are very small and very quiet, and extremely fast for most applications. Plus, it was discovered today that it's possible for users to upgrade the main processor chips, since they're installed in a socket:

 

http://appleinsider.com/articles/13/12/27/teardown-of-apples-new-mac-pro-reveals-socketed-removable-intel-cpu

 

Maybe at some point, the $3500 12-core chips will come way down in price and it could be possible to buy a stock 2013 MacPro cheap, then drop in a new chip for a fraction of the price. We'll see.

 

A lot of video people are kinda bummed at the lack of expansion slots and the need to hang a whole box of I/O off a Thunderbolt port, because the machine is so small. But for certain things, I think it'll be fine. Still, I would've much rather that they offered a rackmount MacPro with conventional PCIe slots. 

[Glen Trew]

I don't see the point of that test.  I might actually draw the opposite conclusion about the price, which is beside the point in any case.  Apple won't be buying parts for its computers in small quantities, they'll be negotiating screamin deals on special runs just for them, at much lower unit cost I'd guess.  The Mac Pro price is what it is--people who like Macs and /or need them to run the apps they use will buy them even if they are more expensive than they are.

 

philp

I agree with Phil, and don't see a valid point in the comparison, which seemed like justifying the price of a recorder by pricing it's parts and pieces individually.

 

The only factor that needs to be considered in a price are how badly a product is wanted in a given market size (regardless of why) compared to alternative products. The "cool factor" that Apple nurtured over the years is, indeed, being capitalized on at our expense because it makes us want it more: People are willing to pay more to be in the cool club. The success and timing of Apple's cool campaign is consistent with the period of Apple's extraordinary growth. The fact that so many are undeniably willing to pay a higher price to be in the cool club represents the portion of the price that goes beyond material value and justifies the term "Apple Tax".

 

gt

[Jeff Wexler]

Exactly. That's precisely the meaning of ”Apple Tax" --- having to pay more just because it is Apple. I just thought the comparison was sort of interesting but not really meaningful in any big way. For me, of course, I've never worried about the "Apple Tax", have paid way too much for Apple stuff more times than anyone wants to know.

[Glen Trew]

Exactly. That's precisely the meaning of ”Apple Tax" --- having to pay more just because it is Apple. I just thought the comparison was sort of interesting but not really meaningful in any big way. For me, of course, I've never worried about the "Apple Tax", have paid way too much for Apple stuff more times than anyone wants to know.

Of course, being cool is worth a premium for a while, but eventually the cool stuff has to deliver, and Apple has managed to do both pretty well. But when it comes to dollars and sense, consider this: I own about 70 computers, and paid the Apple tax on only 4 of them.

 

gt

[Chris Woodcock]

I've been an Nvidia fanboy for some time now, but I hardly think those AMD cards are rubbish.

OK maybe rubbish is to strong of a word and I guess price for performance for AMD is OK but you can just push Nivida cards far further than AMD.

Bring back Radeons I say :-)

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

[ccsnd]

I was just on newegg and built the version apple has on the front page (6 core xeon, 16gig 1866 ram)

 

a few of the details of the mac weren't available.  In that case I rounded up.  

 

Apple - 3999.00

newegg build (slightly better specs than apple build) 3479.59

 

So about a 500$ difference for a comparable pc build.  or 400 if you add windows 8.1 (I would use fedora)

 

I call shenanigans on this article.