$3500 budget PC Desktop - what would you buy?

[Jeff Kilgroe]

Twice the price is being generous. When I built this Hackentosh, it would have cost 4 times the price to have had a Mac Pro built with the same specs.

Uh... I'm calling bullshit on this one. I build 50 to 100 PCs in a year and if I could build dual Xeon systems for 1/4 the price of what Apple is charging, I could rule the world. So why don't you give us some details?

For what it's worth, I built a dual Xeon system last week for a client. My cost for the CPUs alone was over $2500.

I'm sorry people, but a desktop i7 9xx CPU with 6 cores (12 virtual) is not the same thing as a 12 core Mac Pro. Ever price out a Dell or HP dual Xeon workstation?

Yes, I can build a damn nice PC for $1K or so, give or take. It's not going to be a dual-Xeon Mac Pro replacement.

On the other hand, not everyone needs dual Xeon. And not everyone needs to pay the price for something they don't need. This fully illustrates how Apple has a gaping hole in their product line. They really need a small tower or cube system with a single desktop-class CPU and moderate expandability. Something many of us have been dreaming of for several years. Doubt it's going to happen though.

I'm predominantly a Mac guy these days. I just can't stand Windows anymore. I'm not saying OSX is perfect... Far from it. But Windows sucks. I find it incredibly annoying to use and too many issues to deal with. Microsoft's own endless sea of FAIL has led to an entire industry of add-on bloatware in the form of antivirus, anti-malware, anti-this-and-that software. Stuff that should not even exist. The Mac is not as impervious to these threats as many would like to believe, but if I stumble onto a malicious web site on a Mac, I don't have to worry about it like on a PC. I don't run anti-virus or other such software on most of my PC systems. Not worth the time or cost. But I also completely wipe all my PC systems and do fresh installs on them every 8 to 12 months to keep them running smooth. I'm a unix guy, always have been. Used to do a lot with SGI and Sun systems. I rather liked Windows back in the days of WinNT4 through Win2K. Even WinXP wasn't so bad... Vista was a train wreck. Windows7 fixes most of the big problems, but hasn't improved the experience a whole lot.

That said, I still own and use far more Windows systems than Macs. Lots of software is still Windows only. Still need Windows if I want to take advantage of the latest GPUs for anything specific or if I want to play most games. ...I don't have time to play games these days. I kinda miss it, I used to be a game developer.

 

[Peter Lundström]

Building a Hackintosh is technically illegal isnt it...? You are only legally allowed to install Snow Lepard on a Mac if im correct. Also I personally have had no problems whatsoever with Windows 7 and video editing. Not a single BSOD...

 

[Gavin Greenwalt]

Worrying about malware on Windows is so 2005.

 

[Alexander Ibrahim]

Building a Hackintosh is technically illegal isnt it...? You are only legally allowed to install Snow Lepard on a Mac if im correct.

You are correct.

Again a Hackintosh is a nice hobbyists project... but not a real professional business solution.

Also I personally have had no problems whatsoever with Windows 7 and video editing. Not a single BSOD...

Then you are either incredibly lucky or you don't do much editing.

 

[Alexander Ibrahim]

Worrying about malware on Windows is so 2005.

Funny.

It's still the most common problem with Windows based computers.

Frankly its a ridiculous situation in Windows land with various malware.

I find it highly improbable that you are not aware of the huge problems with Windows. Perhaps you mean to say that you have learned to avoid most of the malware and don't have much trouble on your personal system?

That's believable, this non-sense about not worrying about malware is not at all credible.

 

[Steve Das]

For what it's worth, I built a dual Xeon system last week for a client. My cost for the CPUs alone was over $2500.

...Yes, I can build a damn nice PC for $1K or so, give or take. It's not going to be a dual-Xeon Mac Pro replacement.

Jeff...you seem to be the man on this one.
So how much would it cost to build a
dual-Xeon Mac Pro replacement vs. cost of a Mac Pro?

 

[Michael Olsen]

I am, at this point, pretty much dedicating myself to building a couple of PCs for business use. Adobe has been most impressive recently.

These computers will never touch the internet unless they have to. And then, they will only touch it for what they need - drivers, firmware, and software updates.

 

[Gavin Greenwalt]

That's believable, this non-sense about not worrying about malware is not at all credible.

Chrome, Firefox or IE9. Windows 7 with firewall on and the free Windows Security Essentials installed. Keep up to date on system updates and you should be 99.99% fine.

If you do explicitly say "yes I am certain I want to install Demitri's Computer Scanner!", just System Restore to the day before. Problem solved and it takes about 10 minutes.

All of our work computers are also behind a hardware firewall (which you SHOULD BE regardless of Windows or Apple if your file servers and company files are attached to internet connected systems.)

 

[Alexander Ibrahim]

Uh... I'm calling bullshit on this one. I build 50 to 100 PCs in a year and if I could build dual Xeon systems for 1/4 the price of what Apple is charging, I could rule the world. So why don't you give us some details?

For what it's worth, I built a dual Xeon system last week for a client. My cost for the CPUs alone was over $2500.

I'm sorry people, but a desktop i7 9xx CPU with 6 cores (12 virtual) is not the same thing as a 12 core Mac Pro. Ever price out a Dell or HP dual Xeon workstation?

Yes, I can build a damn nice PC for $1K or so, give or take. It's not going to be a dual-Xeon Mac Pro replacement.

On the other hand, not everyone needs dual Xeon. And not everyone needs to pay the price for something they don't need. This fully illustrates how Apple has a gaping hole in their product line. They really need a small tower or cube system with a single desktop-class CPU and moderate expandability. Something many of us have been dreaming of for several years. Doubt it's going to happen though.

I'm predominantly a Mac guy these days. I just can't stand Windows anymore. I'm not saying OSX is perfect... Far from it. But Windows sucks.

...

I don't use Windows except when I absolutely have no practical alternatives.

Aside from that I agree with Jeff entirely.

If you really believe that your Core i7 - regardless of the version/stepping, can match up to an 8 Core Mac Pro, you are sadly misinformed.

I don't know how many times I've been called to help out with people who are posting on a well specified gaming machine that has profound performance issues with serious post production.

If you are building a gaming system, you can definitely do better than a Mac Pro. The Core i7 is an excellent choice for gaming- and frankly the latest video card is far more important in that context.

For me, I game on my PS3, when I have time to game at all.\

Soon, I'll play on the internet (for example RedUser) using an iPad 2, and then I'll use the Mac Pro more and more exclusively for work i.e. professional post production.

 

[Michael Olsen]

Jeff...you seem to be the man on this one.
So how much would it cost to build a
dual-Xeon Mac Pro replacement vs. cost of a Mac Pro?

I don't know where Jeff sources his parts - maybe he can get some volume discounts from the sound of it.

Right now, Newegg is listing:

E5640 for $789

That is comprable to the processor(s) in the $4999 2x2.66GHz Quad-Core Mac. So that pair will run you about $1600.

Stepping up to the Six-Core E5650 runs you $1019 a piece, for a total of about $2000.

--

To better match the article that compared an i7 hackintosh to the $2499 Mac Pro with the 1x2.8GHz Nehalem processor. That processor goes for about $1250. OR the entire cost of the "CustomMac Pro".

So this isn't just a case of "Oh, Apple charges so much for everything just because they can." Those processors are actually expensive.

 

[Alexander Ibrahim]

Chrome, Firefox or IE9. Windows 7 with firewall on and the free Windows Security Essentials installed. Keep up to date on system updates and you should be 99.99% fine.

If you do explicitly say "yes I am certain I want to install Demitri's Computer Scanner!", just System Restore to the day before. Problem solved and it takes about 10 minutes.

All of our work computers are also behind a hardware firewall (which you SHOULD BE regardless of Windows or Apple if your file servers and company files are attached to internet connected systems.)

That qualifies as worrying about malware Gavin.

I can directly attach a Mac Pro, right out of the box, to the Internet and it will be fine with no further action from the user.

There is a huge gulf between Windows and OS X on this issue. That isn't the point of the entire conversation though.

I agree about the need not to explicitly allow malware to trash your system- regardless of platform. I also agree about the value of a firewall, especially for enterprise systems.

 

[Gavin Greenwalt]

I consider turning the computer on with default settings as "not worrying". The only thing you *might* want to consider is downloading and installing Security Essentials--but I don't at home.

And I will install IE9 or Chrome regardless of security concerns. IE9 will be the default once it's out of beta. IE8 is fine though too. If you plug a Windows 7 machine straight into the internet and just browse the chances of getting hijacked are remote to 0.

If though you're plugging ANY COMPUTER with sensitive company files onto the internet without a firewall then you're acting recklessly.

 

[Peter Lundström]

You are correct.

Again a Hackintosh is a nice hobbyists project... but not a real professional business solution.



Then you are either incredibly lucky or you don't do much editing.

I edit a LOT, I have no antivirussoftware and my computer is attached to the internet 24/7. Not a single problem when I had Vistax64 or now when I have 7x64.

Should however point out that one should probably not actually have a editing computer connected to the internet for anything other than updates... a 300€ pc with ubuntu could easily be a secondary internet/email machine.

 

[Peter Lundström]

Another thing to consider now is with Adobes Mercury Playback engine you can offload a lot of work onto the GPU even with a lowend Nvidia card, thus the difference between "gaming" and "editing" PCs have lessened dramatically. My Core i7 950 with a GTX460 in Premiere CS5 is noticeably better at doing effects than a friends MacPro dual Xeon system is at doing the same job in FCP. Okay, that will probably change when FCP gets upgraded soon but well worth keeping in mind.

 

[L. Langer]

My Core i7 950 with a GTX460 in Premiere CS5 is noticeably better at doing effects than a friends MacPro dual Xeon system is at doing the same job in FCP. Okay, that will probably change when FCP gets upgraded soon but well worth keeping in mind.

It will change, but Apple has to refine their OS before they can implement the technologies used on the Windows platform, and you're going to see some new software updates in the next year and a half that will bring their platform into parity with Windows in the areas that they have traditionally floundered in compared to Windows.

 

[Peter Lundström]

It will change, but Apple has to refine their OS before they can implement the technologies used on the Windows platform, and you're going to see some new software updates in the next year and a half that will bring their platform into parity with Windows in the areas that they have traditionally floundered in compared to Windows.

Question is where will Windows be then...? Still ahead or falling behind? So far I have yet to see anything I particularly like about the Mac platform that I wouldnt rather use on Linux, but who knows... as for the ops original question has it been answered yet or have we derailed the thread?

 

[Alexander Ibrahim]

Another thing to consider now is with Adobes Mercury Playback engine you can offload a lot of work onto the GPU even with a lowend Nvidia card, thus the difference between "gaming" and "editing" PCs have lessened dramatically. My Core i7 950 with a GTX460 in Premiere CS5 is noticeably better at doing effects than a friends MacPro dual Xeon system is at doing the same job in FCP. Okay, that will probably change when FCP gets upgraded soon but well worth keeping in mind.

That's just so silly, I have to think you have some sort of PC vs. Mac axe to grind.

Next time why don't you compare your Windows Core i7 and Premiere CS5 to a Mac Pro and Premiere CS5? Use the same video card, so you are testing computers not video cards or software.

The Mac Pro is unquestionably faster. That's because it has much faster hardware.

If you want to compete against the hardware of the Mac Pro with a Windows based computer you can. Either custom build a dual Xeon or buy one from a quality vendor like HP.

Your argument is completely without merit.

Bottom line: You need a MB designed to handle lots of sustained throughput to all areas of the system.

 

[Alexander Ibrahim]

It will change, but Apple has to refine their OS before they can implement the technologies used on the Windows platform, and you're going to see some new software updates in the next year and a half that will bring their platform into parity with Windows in the areas that they have traditionally floundered in compared to Windows.

There is certainly not anything at all wrong with OS X or Apple hardware. Typically it leads the technological curve.

The real problem is that "Plundstr" is comparing Final Cut Pro to Premiere CS5 which is so silly its inane.

I should point out to both of you that this is a real names forum.

 

[Peter Lundström]

That's just so silly, I have to think you have some sort of PC vs. Mac axe to grind.

Next time why don't you compare your Windows Core i7 and Premiere CS5 to a Mac Pro and Premiere CS5? Use the same video card, so you are testing computers not video cards or software.

The Mac Pro is unquestionably faster. That's because it has much faster hardware.

If you want to compete against the hardware of the Mac Pro with a Windows based computer you can. Either custom build a dual Xeon or buy one from a quality vendor like HP.

Your argument is completely without merit.

Bottom line: You need a MB designed to handle lots of sustained throughput to all areas of the system.

Silly? No, it would be silly if I said Premiere worked differently on the exact same speced machine... but what I said was that FCP is noticeably slower on a much more expensive machine. Were talking double the price here. IF you get the same gfx card and use Premiere then sure but most people who buy a MacPro get FCP because, well, for some reason if you have a Mac you get FCP...

 

[Peter Lundström]

There is certainly not anything at all wrong with OS X or Apple hardware. Typically it leads the technological curve.

The real problem is that "Plundstr" is comparing Final Cut Pro to Premiere CS5 which is so silly its inane.

I should point out to both of you that this is a real names forum.

Leading the technological curve with several years outadted hardware... yeah, sounds logical. Macs were still using C2D when PCs were equipped with I5/I7s. But okay, for stability reasons Ill give them that.

Also how is it funny to compare Premiere to FCP...? They both edit video...?