Why do people call the Mac Pro expensive?!

[Tr3vor]

Quick question, what the fuck do you mean by 10bit color?

 

as far as I know, 8 bit color is 256 color. Does that make 10 bit 1024 color? >.> Don't our cards do 32 bit color now?

[Puppet]

I am not sure. Some say it does and some say it doesn't. Some have even been able to get 10bit working with the regular Radeon drivers with some registry hacks. I know that both AMD's and Nvidia's cards have supported 10bit color in D3D for ages now (Nvidia started supporting it with the 200 series) but sadly the software isn't there yet in Windows. It seems like 10 bit color is supported in Linux for GeForce cards.

A person from AMD also held an AMA on Tom's Hardware where this was said:

 

I don't see any hardware reason why it wouldn't work.

 

10 bit color is kind of a mess though, even with fully supported hardware and software. Some Adobe programs supports it, and that's basically it. Also, 10 bit does not give you a wider color gamut, just finer steps between colors, so you will at best see a bit less banding (which will appear again in any lossy encoding) and that's pretty much it.

 

Sorry couldn't quote you in my above post without having the forum double post.

 

Yeah the software side of things was all I was interested in, specifically Photoshop, I don't do any editing in LR or Capture One which only support 8-bit anyways. In print you really do notice a difference especially with brushstrokes when making adjustment layers etc for minute color changes. It's kind of a pain, but for the majority of work for web or low end prints it goes unnoticed.

[Lil Chillbil]

Quick question, what the fuck do you mean by 10bit color?

 

as far as I know, 8 bit color is 256 color. Does that make 10 bit 1024 color? >.> Don't our cards do 32 bit color now?

 

Trevor doesn't understand video editing/rendering^ 

 

 

My g5 had a quadro capable of 10 bit color. 

[Victorious Secret]

Quick question, what the fuck do you mean by 10bit color?

 

as far as I know, 8 bit color is 256 color. Does that make 10 bit 1024 color? >.> Don't our cards do 32 bit color now?

 

This is of course an exaggeration 

 

 

Colour gradients. Simply getting a more accurate picture of whats going on in your image, which for people who actually need 10 bit panels is a pretty dig deal when it comes to grading or editing or creating content. 

[Tr3vor]

So 10 bit color now means that each light in a pixel (r g and b have 10 bits of data) so 1024 shades of red blue and green, combine those together and you get a crap ton of colors. So yeah, practially is 30-bit color then. Why have computers had the option for 32-bit color? My windows XP machine has 32-bit color. Either we are being lied to on computers or this 10 bit color isn't so uncommon.

 

Fuck it, brb, gonna buy a VGA card. 8 bit color ftw.

[Ringtail Jax]

If this was discussing the older generation mac pro than it would be easy to explain why, but with the newer model mac pro it's price is well justified, especially with a couple of the new features it supplies such as the massive amount of thunderbolt expansion (in my opinion) . The best part though would be it's form factor (which is where the trash can jokes come into play), the fact that it takes up so little space and packs so much powerful hardware and for a really justifiable price makes it even more appealing to most workers that need that form of convenience.

[Tr3vor]

 the fact that it takes up so little space and packs so much powerful hardware and for a really justifiable price makes it even more appealing to most workers that need that form of convenience.

 

Until you start attaching peripherals, then it just becomes a mess.

[LAwLz]

Quick question, what the fuck do you mean by 10bit color?

 

as far as I know, 8 bit color is 256 color. Does that make 10 bit 1024 color? >.> Don't our cards do 32 bit color now?

It's per channel. With 8 bit color your signal contains 8 bits for red, 8 bits for green and 8 bits for red. That adds up to a total of 2^24 colors. With 10 bit you get 2^30 colors (each channel has 10 bits of info, and there are 3 channels). Most monitors are 6 bit (then use FRC to emulate having 8 bits of color).

 

Not sure why XP let you set it to 32 bits. It probably doesn't refer to the output though. Might be that the internal processing is 32 bits but the output is still 24 bit, or something along those lines.

 

 

 

If this was discussing the older generation mac pro than it would be easy to explain why, but with the newer model mac pro it's price is well justified, especially with a couple of the new features it supplies such as the massive amount of thunderbolt expansion (in my opinion) . The best part though would be it's form factor (which is where the trash can jokes come into play), the fact that it takes up so little space and packs so much powerful hardware and for a really justifiable price makes it even more appealing to most workers that need that form of convenience.

I disagree. The reason why it has so many Thunderbolt ports is because you have to plug in a ton of external stuff to it. It's not convenient and it quickly starts looking like an octopus. Personally I prefer being able to mount hard drives inside the case, and not plug in external ones.

[Mo5]

Because generally Apple products cost more then their PC/Android rivals

[Tr3vor]

What bothers me is why are they using two different standards to classify color depth. It also bothers me why 4k isn't 2160p.

 

Also, my Celeron 500mhz machine with a GeForce 2 MX400 under windows 98 has a 32-bit color option. Morrowind won't run without 32-bit color being set. 

[Victorious Secret]

ITT, a bunch of bitching by guys who weren't buying either solution for workstation use. 

 

In other words, the internet at its finest. Now, where are the cat gifs and boobs? 

[Tr3vor]

ITT, a bunch of bitching by guys who weren't buying either solution for workstation use. 

 

In other words, the internet at its finest. Now, where are the cat gifs and boobs? 

 

You're bitching at the people who are bitching. You're not any better.

 

Also, I don't remember having to be in a certain group to discuss certain products.

[Victorious Secret]

I know I'm bitching too. We are all expert bitchers here. The guys who actually spend with their wallets don't know or care

[SuperShires]

Me this entire thread.

 

[SirReallySam]

This opinion has been shown in a thread before, some people agree some don't.... Get over it.

[Tr3vor]

it is because people are uneducated.

 

Most people who think they know about computers... honestly dont. so...

 

 

It really bugs me when people say things like this. 

*puts on monocle* "Ha ha, these plebeians don't know what it means to have a workstation computer!" *leaves*

 

When it comes to workstation discussion around here, I see a lot of ignorance and pretentiousness. I would really like it if people who knew more about these computers would help those who don't understand. Maybe there would be less bitching all around.

 

Yeah, I know I'm the one to talk posting like an asshole all morning, but still

[minimalist]

Nope I am not hiding behind behind anything subjective, unlike you. Please, look up what subjective means and you will hopefully understand what I have been saying over and over again.

I am going to ask you again, please link top the posts where I moved the goal post. You can't accuse me of moving the goal post and then refuse to explain where it was moved.

 

I am not missing your point about the design. Yes Apple spent money designing it, so what? How does that make it more valuable to consumers? Cooler Master might have spent a lot of money designing their stickers, but that does not mean the cases they include a sticker with becomes better value.

 

You discounting the cost of design and how that should be incorporated into the cost of a pc build to compare it to a Mac Pro is moving the goal posts.  The argument that design doesn't matter is fucking bullshit.  If it didn't then everyone would have a huge ass PC on their desk.  People don't want huge intrusive boxes on their desk or in their workspace.  

 

I'm done talking about this though because I don't have the time or patience to debate this with some random person over the internet.  

 

Also, I'm starting to wonder if you yourself know what the word subjective means.

[LAwLz]

You discounting the cost of design and how that should be incorporated into the cost of a pc build to compare it to a Mac Pro is moving the goal posts.

Nope, that is not what "moving the goal post" means. Moving the goal post would be me being proven wrong, and then change my opinion to something harder to prove. For example: "The Mac Pro doesn't have a Xeon processor" "yes it does" "Oh, what I meant was it doesn't have <insert specific Xeon here>". That would be moving the goal post. Me saying that you shouldn't say the Mac Pro is good value because Apple spent money designing it in every single post is not moving the goal post.

 

 

The argument that design doesn't matter is fucking bullshit.  If it didn't then everyone would have a huge ass PC on their desk.  People don't want huge intrusive boxes on their desk or in their workspace. 

When did I say it didn't matter? What I said was that looks are subjective. Just because you like the looks of something does not mean everyone else does as well, nor does it mean it is better value just because you like how it looks.

Also, you're trying to create a false dilemma here. Just because you don't get a Mac Pro doesn't mean you are getting a huge tower. Having a midi power under your desk will probably give you more work space than having a Mac Pro ontop of your desk. If you put bother computers under your desk then it won't really matter which one you have.

 

 

Also, I'm starting to wonder if you yourself know what the word subjective means.

I do. You don't however, since you think looks aren't subjective. 1 + 1 = 2 is objective. Blue is a nice color is subjective. You like the looks of the Mac Pro and I don't. That makes it subjective. If something is a fact then it's objective. If something is an opinion then it is subjective.

[Almercenary]

It's not expensive, just not practical (from what I've heard)...as this picture sorta explains.  The new mac pro certainly is a pretty technical masterpiece...

 

[TriBeard]

It's impressive that they managed to shove so much hardware in such a small space. I'll give them that. However, as I think is implied by the picture above, it sort of cheats to get to that size. Capture cards, mechanical hard drives, disk drives, etc. are all outside of the system. I could build a pretty small computer too if I was able to have a case custom made and could leave half of the stuff professionals need outside of the case. Also, it remains to be seen how easy and practical upgrades are. Sure, you can swap the parts, but since a lot of them have proprietary interfaces (GPU's in particular) I don't imagine upgrades from apple would be cheap. Heck, there are still people that think macs need special hard drives, or that they only take "apple RAM". This just makes their closed, disposable computer ecosystem even more closed and disposable, which is not something I see as being a particularly attractive option to most people who would buy these for serious work. 

[airdeano]

ok, enough fan/anti-fan, OP asked about expense and we are getting personal opinions that are way off-topic.

draw it back-in and back on topic.

[DJHoro]

I really don't get why people call the Mac Pro expensive... It's actually the cheapest Mac in existence... You pay a lot of money for it, but you get up to a 12-Core Xeon and FirePro D700 (W9000 PCIe version). The PCIe SSD and ECC RAM don't cost a small amount of money either... Try to build a Mac Pro by yourself, with the same aucoustics and size...

 

Over here in The Netherlands you pay this for all the highest end Mac Pro build by yourself (without case and cooling):

 

Xeon E5-2697 - 2.400

2x AMD FirePro W9000 - 6.700

64 GB ECC RAM 1866Mhz - 880

OWC Mercury Accelsior E2 960 GB was the closest I could find for SSD's - 1.000

And I couldn't find a motherboard which could handle this all with six Thunderbolt 2 ports and four USB 3 ports.

 

Total: 10.980 without motherboard and OS

Mac Pro: 9.599

 

I think that the Mac Pro is about the only computer for extreme professionals who need this amount of power.

People say its expensive because it is. 10,000$ is alot. There is a difference between expensive and getting what you pay for though. Like you said, you pay alot but you get a very powerful work station. Premium comes at a price whether its a Custom built pc workstation or a Mac.

[Lord Gaben]

Because it is, see

http://www.google.co.nz/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CCcQtwIwAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fm.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DKeIW7PAi6_o&ei=LLc8U6OeFInVkgXMw4CgCA&usg=AFQjCNHU57QoJRJkZRmXGpcRLfgYGbUOCg&sig2=kCdhmlsh0WZx1VWlZmkGIg

[smjpl]

Here is something you have to realize... You can't make a 100% comparable computer. Mac fanboys always does this when you try to reason with them. They ask you to build a desktop the same as Apple offers, and no matter how much better the computer you show them is, then will nitpick stuff like "yeah it has twice the RAM, a much better GPU, is upgradable, has a better CPU, is cheaper but the case is not aluminum and it doesn't have Thunderbolt!".

So first thing first, drop the idea that it has to be as similar as possible. What you should compare instead is what other type of computer you could get for the same price.

As soon as you stop trying to make it as much as a Mac Pro as possible, the performance per dollar quickly ramps up.

Oh and yes... It is overpriced. Just because the parts in it are expensive by themselves does not mean you are getting a good deal when buying a Mac Pro. Both the Xeon processor and the FirePro cards are overpriced. You can get the same or better performance for significantly less with more consumer oriented cards. Hell, it's even possible to install the FirePro drivers on your Radeon card, so with that you can save literally thousands of dollars.

 

How much of a comparison is needed then? 95%, 80% or 50%? Hell why not just get an old PC for free that someone is throwing out. Performance/$ would be infinitely better. The thing is it depends what you need. If you need thunderbolt, can you build better for cheaper?

 

Oh and yes you can use consumer products but what if you can't afford to have equipment fail. There is a higher chance of that happening with consumer parts than with workstation parts. How much is that worth to you? What about warranties when things do go wrong? How much is it worth to have to troubleshoot the problems yourself?

 

So lets say someone asks you to build them something better than a Mac (with as close specs as possible). How much are you going to charge them? Remember you have to build it, troubleshoot it whenever there is a problem and make a profit on that. Throw up a parts list with all of that and see how expensive it is. If people could build better for cheaper, don't you think there would be a company doing just that? Yes an individual might be able to slightly beat them (without 100% comparison) but throw service and profit on that and they are done.

[ThatOneGuyThatOnlyPlaysPC]

Here is something you have to realize... You can't make a 100% comparable computer. Mac fanboys always does this when you try to reason with them. They ask you to build a desktop the same as Apple offers, and no matter how much better the computer you show them is, then will nitpick stuff like "yeah it has twice the RAM, a much better GPU, is upgradable, has a better CPU, is cheaper but the case is not aluminum and it doesn't have Thunderbolt!".

So first thing first, drop the idea that it has to be as similar as possible. What you should compare instead is what other type of computer you could get for the same price.

As soon as you stop trying to make it as much as a Mac Pro as possible, the performance per dollar quickly ramps up.

Oh and yes... It is overpriced. Just because the parts in it are expensive by themselves does not mean you are getting a good deal when buying a Mac Pro. Both the Xeon processor and the FirePro cards are overpriced. You can get the same or better performance for significantly less with more consumer oriented cards. Hell, it's even possible to install the FirePro drivers on your Radeon card, so with that you can save literally thousands of dollars

When you said "and it doesn't have thunderbolt" there are some motherboards that you can build a pc with that have thunderbolt like this one https://www.asus.com/Motherboards/P8Z77V_PREMIUM/