FPGA developer here. Access to a Linux cluster at work, everyone has 96GB ECC ram, dual Xeon on win 10 as a backup in case of any issues or if they prefer running locally.
Our badass computers were a hair over 10k a piece. I have no idea why anyone would pay what Apple is asking. I remember when it was "counterculture" to give people more compute, for less money - do real work, on machines that made financial sense - that was sticking it to "the Man" (IBM, the suits who thought they knew anything).
Now Microsoft is the counter culture, increasingly open, value for money.
>Renting your office productivity suite for a monthly fee
Meanwhile Apple gives away a spreadsheet, presentation program, and a word processor for ... free. I guess with open source, et. al. that's the mainstream now? I frankly prefer this timeline.
What point are you trying to make? You said your computers are a hair over $10K a piece. The base price of the Mac Pro is $6000. Unless you think that Apple is going to charge $4000 to upgrade from 32GB to 96GB.
On the iMac pro 32 to 128 costs 2k, there is no 96. Then there is storage, display, gpu and the fact that the referenced machine was purchased months or years in the past vs months in the future.
Assuming the user can do basic numeric comparison I'm assuming that his 10k includes substantial extras beyond ram that would also have to be added to the equivalent Mac.
- he didn’t say anything about specs besides the memory and processor
- you can get third party RAM for the iMac Pro.
So the question remains - what point was he trying to make? Unless he like the other poster was bundling the cost of the monitor with the Mac Pro as if you have to buy both.
The 6k config comes with dual Xeons? That might not be a bad deal. I thought that was the base configuration, with dual processors available as an upgrade.
The base just says “8 core”. How many cores are per per processor?
But the point remains - with the specs that he quoted, unless he thinks that upgrading to 96GB of RAM and matching the core count is going to be more than $4000. What point is he trying to prove?
Logically the 8 core option is a single cpu with 8 cores as 2x4 would cost more.
I think the point being made is that apple is and was overpriced. What you could have bought for 10k from apple when user actually purchased his computer would have been a joke by comparison.
New data doesn't lead user to change that assessment given that the $5k base model looks equivalent to a $1k->$2k pc.
You are comparing a pc you can't even buy yet to one that was purchased previously months prior in order to come to the conclusion that there doesn't exist a pricing disparity.
Our badass computers were a hair over 10k a piece. I have no idea why anyone would pay what Apple is asking. I remember when it was "counterculture" to give people more compute, for less money - do real work, on machines that made financial sense - that was sticking it to "the Man" (IBM, the suits who thought they knew anything).
Now Microsoft is the counter culture, increasingly open, value for money.
I don't understand this timeline at all.