Apple(s) to Apples Comparisons.

[Uttamattamakin]

2 hours ago, Sauron said:

So in your mind you need 78TB of storage and a second CPU to meet the function of a mac pro? You're not making any sense.

 

Yes.  I see a lot of people will want to not only Max out what Apple will install in it BUT also add to it.  Otherwise what is the point of an expandable computer?  

 

Further you mention the cloud.  That is a good point.  Yes a lot of things can be put on the cloud but not everything. 

• Maybe your location has crummy internet so the cloud is not practical. 
• Maybe what you want to compute on has to be kept ... in house... for security or privacy reasons. 
• Maybe your company just does not want to rely completely on another company for mission critical infrastructure like computing. To the point where your company does not even physically possess the computers. 

2 hours ago, Sauron said:

Regardless, your original point was that the computer you listed was a direct comparison you could make to determine value, which is obviously and glaringly false.

It is a comparison of a computer that can mee the same functional need.  It need not have the exact same parts.  

 

By that logic one could never compare a computer with an AMD CPU to one from Intel or ARM!   Even if the computers perform similar task for similar markets. 

 

HOWEVER, you are quite right there may be .. closer comparisons.  Thinking that only a 1-1 part for part list is a valid comparison is wrong. 

[Vishera]

1 minute ago, Uttamattamakin said:

Yes.  I see a lot of people will want to not only Max out what Apple will install in it BUT also add to it.  Otherwise what is the point of an expandable computer?  

 

Further you mention the cloud.  That is a good point.  Yes a lot of things can be put on the cloud but not everything. 

• Maybe your location has crummy internet so the cloud is not practical. 
• Maybe what you want to compute on has to be kept ... in house... for security or privacy reasons. 
• Maybe your company just does not want to rely completely on another company for mission critical infrastructure like computing. To the point where your company does not even physically possess the computers. 

It is a comparison of a computer that can mee the same functional need.  It need not have the exact same parts.  

 

By that logic one could never compare a computer with an AMD CPU to one from Intel or ARM!   Even if the computers perform similar task for similar markets. 

 

HOWEVER, you are quite right there may be .. closer comparisons.  Thinking that only a 1-1 part for part list is a valid comparison is wrong. 

Doesn't make any sense,

Also you are going from professional workstation territory to server territory here.

[Uttamattamakin]

2 hours ago, Sauron said:

Dell is a more apt comparison here, and it does turn out their prices are similar for stuff like this - but those have always been niche products and I've never seen a youtuber sing the praises of a Dell 7920 and insist that it's not overpriced and that people should cut Dell some slack. I haven't seen threads comparing the 7920 to significantly faster thelios builds and adamantly defending its price in the name of nebulously defined "creators" and "engineers". There's no denying that the Mac Pro is being presented as a commodity product, no matter how many disclaimers you put at the end of the video saying that "by the way this is just for the enterprise and you should totally not buy it" - you're presenting it as something that is cool to have for an individual as their personal desktop, which is absurd, especially on channels dedicated to diy builds.

Dell or HP, I am sure also compare better to Apple as companies.  They can take advantage of economies of scale to lower cost.  That is another dimension of an Apple(s) to Apple comparison.  Smaller companies may not be 100% comparable...neither is what you can build yourself.  

 

 

YOu think the mac Pro is being presented as a commodity product.  I don't blame you for that... since Apple started sticking "Pro" on everything.  Then everyone else stuck "Pro" on everything.  (It's maybe just a bit more common than the "GAMING!" being on everything).  That is a branding issue, and a matter of just the devaluation of a word that should always have meant ...."This is for professionals to make money."   Now they don't have a Mac Book anymore do they... it's all just Pro which means none of it is really "pro".  /rant. 

[Uttamattamakin]

3 minutes ago, Vishera said:

Doesn't make any sense,

Also you are going from professional workstation territory to server territory here.

He mentioned the cloud.  So I discussed the cloud in my reponse.  Gald you agree with me that it does not make sense to talk about the cloud or the fact that one can just have a datacenter when talking about desktop computers. 

Since IME when you have someone doing things that are experimental, ... maybe not ready for the "big iron" a powerful enough desktop is what they need.  Where enough means as much power as you can stuff into a box and put on the floor next to a desk. 

[Sauron]

3 hours ago, Uttamattamakin said:

Yes.  I see a lot of people will want to not only Max out what Apple will install in it BUT also add to it.  Otherwise what is the point of an expandable computer?  

What are you even talking about? We're comparing market prices, if you factor in aftermarket upgrades the comparison makes no sense... surely you can see that...? I feel like I'm explaining that 1+1 = 2 here.

3 hours ago, Uttamattamakin said:

Further you mention the cloud.  That is a good point.  Yes a lot of things can be put on the cloud but not everything. 

• Maybe your location has crummy internet so the cloud is not practical. 
• Maybe what you want to compute on has to be kept ... in house... for security or privacy reasons. 
• Maybe your company just does not want to rely completely on another company for mission critical infrastructure like computing. To the point where your company does not even physically possess the computers. 

Nah dude, if you're in an enterprise environment or even a self employed professional who does media work you don't have the option of having a slow connection. Furthermore you don't necessarily need a fast connection to offload work to a cloud server - a lot of heavy workloads don't rely on massive chunks of local data and they don't require direct interaction by the user outside of starting it and collecting the results.

 

Security is guaranteed by any serious company that offers cloud services and if it turned out they didn't they'd have to pay massive fines as well as pay all their clients for damages. If that weren't the case then nobody would trust the cloud with anything, and yet all major companies do.

 

Possessing the physical computers is completely irrelevant. Even if you do you still rely on whatever company you're buying them from for support, maintenance and upgrades - after all that's the whole reason you're buying prebuilt machines, to get support. It's a lot easier to migrate from one cloud platform to another than it is to swap out all your physical servers, too, so in a way you're much less dependent on who is providing that service.

3 hours ago, Uttamattamakin said:

It is a comparison of a computer that can mee the same functional need.  It need not have the exact same parts.  

No, it needs to at the very least perform about the same. I wouldn't use a Ferrari as an example to justify the price of a BMW.

3 hours ago, Uttamattamakin said:

By that logic one could never compare a computer with an AMD CPU to one from Intel or ARM!   Even if the computers perform similar task for similar markets. 

Again, the comparison is made on the basis of similar performance, not on the basis that they're both servers.

[Uttamattamakin]

2 hours ago, Sauron said:

What are you even talking about? We're comparing market prices, if you factor in aftermarket upgrades the comparison makes no sense... surely you can see that...? I feel like I'm explaining that 1+1 = 2 here.

 

In determining if something is "expensive" you have to  consider the totality of it.  The fact that it is an expandable upgrade-able Macintosh computer.   It does not matter that Apple may not provide one particular component since plenty of people will buy it and add that one thing. 

 

2 hours ago, Sauron said:

Nah dude, if you're in an enterprise environment or even a self employed professional who does media work you don't have the option of having a slow connection. Furthermore you don't necessarily need a fast connection to offload work to a cloud server - a lot of heavy workloads don't rely on massive chunks of local data and they don't require direct interaction by the user outside of starting it and collecting the results.

Really? Many MANY enterprises run with internet that would be fast if it was for a single home.  However that  Fiber optic line into the building might be split up with 100 or 1000 people.  Plus off site connections out of the intranet often have to go through one firewall.  Both for security and monitoring.  

That is if your internal network isn't airgapped from the outside.  By which I mean, not connected to the internet at all.  Lots of security conscious companies do not connect their internal network to the external internet at all.   I am sure since the Sony hack that even includes movie studios these days. 

 

The idea that the cloud can replace having your own physical computer is a fantasy.  

For example Wolfram Computing's Computational cloud does not support Nvidia CUDA operations built into Mathematica.   Wolfram Mathematica is a system used for scientific computing.  There are others there is Matlab but just as an example of a cloud that does not support all the same stuff as a local install does.    

 

Furthermore there are the access and security concerns I raised earlier.    There are many other reasons that the cloud will not replace local computing anytime soon, if ever, for certain applications.  (i.e. Scientific computing that relies on real time data input from sensors and output to the user. ) 

2 hours ago, Sauron said:

No, it needs to at the very least perform about the same. I wouldn't use a Ferrari as an example to justify the price of a BMW.

Again, the comparison is made on the basis of similar performance, not on the basis that they're both servers.

That's what I have been doing.   Like I said my example need not have been the most perfect part for part match to be a good example of a similar enough computer that is not an apple that people who would consider the MacPro might also take a look at.    

This isn't a thread about who can make a list on PC part picker, this is about the value of a given computer for its purpose.  High performance professional computing with the end goal of making money for the user, or of producing knowledge.... for which the user is paid.