Hacker News Reader

Comment by 1000100_1000101 | Hacker News Reader

I'm reminded of the time someone actually put the "you could build an identical PC cheaper yourself" to the test back in 2013.

https://www.extremetech.com/computing/173695-apples-new-over...

While I'm sure AMD's latest high-core count chips may be giving us new cheaper options, high priced Macs have typically been reasonably priced for their specs.

More recently when the 27" 5K iMacs came out, I looked at the price of a 27" 5K IPS DCI-P3 monitor on Dell... it was only $100 less than the iMac, despite the Mac having a full computer in it, in addition to the display. People still complained that they were expensive.

View on HN

That article is incorrect; their guess of equivalent GPUs was about $5600 too high.

The FirePro D700 used in the Mac Pro was essentially a rebadged consumer card. (It's surprising, but none of the GPUs in the Mac Pro officially supported ECC.) Instead of two FirePro W9000 cards ($6800), they should have specified two HD7970 6GB cards ($1200).

The PC version: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l_IHSRPVqwQ

I've never used either of these computers, but maxing the specs on a System 76 Thelio Massive gets you:

- 2x Xeon Platinum 8280 (28 Cores each, 2.7 - 4.0 GHz)

- 2x 768 GB ECC DDR4 Memory (6x128GB per CPU, 1.5TB total)

- 1x 2TB NVME drive

- 1x 28TB SSD

- 4x Nvidia GeForce RTX 2080 Ti (11 GB, 4352 CUDA Cores each)

- $ 53,356

I've never used either or anything remotely close to either that or the mac pro, so I could be missing something, but the system76 seems like much better value than the fully maxed Mac Pro at $ 53,899

It may be better value for your particular use case. It depends entirely on the requirements, surely? If you need the faster SSD, hardware disk encryption, ability to run MacOS or some other feature that the Mac Pro has over the system you specified, that might have a different answer than if you need the maximum number of CUDA cores.

The only thing you've mentioned that a mac actually has over any other machine is the ability to (legally) run OS X. Maybe you think that's worth a few thousand euros. Most people don't agree with you.

And, from my understanding, run it with something akin to stability. Am I wrong that Hackintoshes today are still for people who don't mind regularly chasing down pretty significant bugs (like "bluetooth doesn't turn on" style)?

That’s often the case. Apple is way better than Dell and HP on supply chain stuff, but their range is narrower. Dell has like 10000 configurations and Apple has like 100, with 80% of sales being stock SKUs. Even with laptops, they tend to offer at least one model that is an incredible value due to scale. If you need to configure, however, forget it.

Back in 2008/9, I bought about 300 cheese graters at a net savings of about $180k vs other workstations if memory serves. It was a happy coincidence that our need matched Apple’s config.

What I'd contest on this is the fact that almost nobody needs best in spec in every category... Yeah, building the exact spec might not be cheaper, but it's also not what's needed to match the performance in any 1 or more particular use case.

Also, nothing will every justify a $1k monitor desk mount.

Yes, clearly you should take that $1000 to buy the "I Am Rich" phone app instead.

This isn't just in tech.

I am still very surprised vast majority people dont know how to compare. And that is why branding and marketing matters.

I used to be furious at marketing. They are always hype and spin. But the older I get the more appreciate I have for it. Not because I agree with them now, but generally speaking consumers just aren't very good at judging values and knowing what they want. Marketing helps that, and push things forward.

27" 5K iMacs are really low-priced. It's outlier.

> on Dell

That's why :-)

The Dell was the only 5K IPS DCI-P3 monitor I could find. That's why. DCI-P3 was new to consumer space. 5K was new to consumer space. IPS further limited the the ability to find a comparable screen.

A lot of people, even in the HN/tech communities don't seem to understand that all monitors aren't created equally.

Yeah the point is Dell ain't the cheapest. Clearly it is the only one from what you have added. I was making the point that saying something is cheaper than Dell ain't saying much.

Because you're looking at manufacturers that primarily cater to enterprise. There is a big difference if you look at MSI or Acer for monitors generally and build your own PC.

The cheapest Kia is less expensive than a BMW. They both take you from point A to point B.

Are you arguing that Kia is also a luxury brand? Or are you arguing that luxury brands aren't a thing? I honestly can't tell.

Is Dell a luxury brand?

I have never thought that. I would expect better parts from MSI.

I believe Alienware is a premium brand and it's a branch of Dell [1].

P.S. I miss the ridiculous Alienware XP themes [2].

[1] https://www.dell.com/en-us/gaming/alienware

[2] https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-IpMO_Mx-ARM/UYvCW7ikojI/AAAAAAAAA...

I guess alienware is, you're right.

Not like...a desirable luxury brand to me even though I am a professional game developer, but it is a luxury brand.

In the Monitor world, Dell and HP’s business line are among the best in class, and have been for some time.

Except when you actually compare the specs for gaming monitors where refresh rate and response time matter

Except typical MSI and Acer monitors are not remotely on par with the professional monitors mentioned prior. MSI and Acer's professional monitors that are approximately the same specification, amazingly, cost approximately the same price.

Yes they are. Once you look at the actual specs beyond the name brand, you can get much better deal. Dell and Apple monitors are also going to usually be higher response time and lower hz as well, so worse performance for more money.

Response time and frequency are not the metrics that are most important for professional monitors. Colour accuracy, colour space and panel uniformity are the important metrics.

Sony can sell 1080p, 60hz monitors with 5ms response time for $3k because their colour accuracy, colour space support and panel uniformity are unparalleled outside of that price bracket.

Consider https://pro.sony/en_AU/products/broadcastpromonitors/lmd-a24... and https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1029229-REG/sony_lmda... , Sony doesn't even list the pixel response time because it's not important for the market.

> Because you're looking at manufacturers that primarily cater to enterprise.

He was looking at one of the few available remotely comparable display.

They didn't make the profit on the first sale. They made the profit on the next sale after the user finds it nearly impossible to upgrade and buys a new computer instead.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com