Macs aren't overpriced -- I have proof!

[Icyculyr]

Haha, so, I wrote an incredibly long comparison, I'd like to hear all of your thoughts on it. Remember, this has nothing to do with building your own rig, we all know that is going to be cheaper (except maybe for iMac).

This is a spec for spec (or as close as) comparison between a Mac and a pre-built PC or laptop.

Desktop systems

Mac Mini vs Zino HD

Spoiler

• $699 Mac Mini
  • C2D @ 2.4GHz, 2GB 1066MHz RAM, GeForce 320M 256MB, 320GB HD

• ^ $350 Inspiron Zino HD
  • AMD Athlon II X2 P340 Dual Core @ 2.2GHz, 3GB 1333MHz RAM, ATI 4250 integrated graphics, 320GB HD

So, the Mac Mini is $349 more. They obviously aren't exact matches, the Mac Mini is a bit better (particularly the GPU), but nothing that would raise the Zino above an additional $100. FYI the Mac Mini offers more upgrades.

Note that I'm unfamiliar with AMD CPUs, whether this is the equiv. to the C2D or not, I am unsure.

21.5" iMac vs 21.5" HP all-in-one 200xt series

Spoiler

• $1199 iMac
• 21.5" 1920x1080, i3 @ 3.06GHz, 4GB 1333MHz, 4670 256MB, 500GB HD

• ^ $999 HP All-in-One 200xt series
• 21.5" 1920x1080, i3 @ 3.06GHz, 4GB 1333MHz, GeForce GT 230M 1GB, 750GB HD

So, the iMac is $200 more expensive. Note the HPs GPU isn't as good as the iMacs, despite the larger amount of memory.

27" i5 (quad) iMac vs 21.5" HP All-in-One Quad series

Spoiler

• $1999 iMac
• 27" 2560x1440, i5 760 @ 2.8GHz, 4GB 1333MHz, 5750 1GB, 1 TB HD

• ^ $1110 ($1909) HP All-in-One 200 Quad series
• 21.5", i5 760 @ 2.8GHz, 4GB 1333MHz, GT 230M 1GB, 1 TB HD

Now, considering HP doesn't offer a 27" display, we'll just have to add $799 onto the price of the HP to simulate that -- that results in a price of $1909. I chose $799 since Dell's 27" (2560x144) display costs $899, and the HPs display would cost around $100.

Now the iMac's 5750 absolutely destroys the GT 230M, so if you add that in, the price is about the same.

2.8GHz Mac Pro vs 2.8GHz Dell Precision T3500

Spoiler

• $2499 SP Mac Pro
• Quad Xeon @ 2.8GHz, 3GB 1066MHz, 5770 1GB, 1 TB HD

• ^ $1504 Dell Precision T3500
• Quad Xeon @ 2.8GHz, 3GB 1333MHz, ATI FireMV 2260 256MB, 1 TB HD, 3 year basic warranty

So, you save about $1000 here and the Dell comes with the warranty. Call it a saving of $1100 after adding the approx. costs of the warranty and subtracting about $100 for the 5770 GPU.

I believe the saving is about the same for the SP 3.2GHz and 3.33GHz Mac Pro as well.

My theory on why they are $1000 more expensive:

Spoiler

Now, you might say think that Apple is adding that extra $1000 just to get more money, however, it seems more likely that they are trying to separate the high end 27" iMac ($1999) from the base Mac Pro ($2499), if they dropped the price of the Mac Pro, few would buy the iMac, if any.

My theory is also supported by the fact that the dual processor (six-core models) Mac Pro's are actually cheaper than Dell's equivalent (see below), so that extra $1k they are making on the single processor model disappears.

Obviously the $4999 Mac Pro isn't going to cannibalise the $1999 iMac, but as I said, a $1499 Mac Pro would (or even a $1999), and Apple certainly doesn't want to drop the price of their 27" iMacs down $500-$1000.

Not that I'm saying Apple isn't enjoying that extra $1000 of baby fat on the single processor Mac Pro's

Dual Hexa Xeon Mac Pro @ 2.66GHz vs Dual Hexa Xeon Dell Precision T7500

Spoiler

• $4999 DP Mac Pro
• Dual Hexa Xeon @ 2.66GHz, 6GB 1333MHz, 5770 1GB, 1 TB HD

• ^ $5224 Dell Precision T7500
• Dual Hexa Xeon @ 2.66GHz, 6GB 1333MHz, ATI FireMV 2260 256MB, 1 TB HD

So, the Mac Pro is actually $225 cheaper. I believe the dual six-core Mac Pro @ 2.93GHz is about $370 cheaper than the dual six-core Dell @ 2.93GHz as well. The dual quad-core Mac Pro @ 2.4GHz is $350 more expensive than the dual quad-core Dell @ 2.4GHz.

Laptop systems

13" MacBook Pro vs Envy 13 and Envy 14

Spoiler

• $1199 MacBook Pro
• 13" 1280x800, C2D @ 2.4GHz, 4GB 1066MHz, GeForce 320M 256MB, 250GB 5400 RPM HD, 10 hour battery

• ^ $1000 HP Envy 13 series -- designed more for battery life, like the MacBook Pro
• 13.3" 1366x768, C2D SL9300 @ 1.6GHz, 3GB (MHz ???), ATI 4330 512MB, 250GB 5400 RPM HD, up to 7.5 hours battery life (4-cell)

• ^ $1000 HP Envy 14 series
• 14.5" 1366x768, i3 @ 2.4GHz, 4GB (MHz ???), ATI 5650M 1GB, 320GB 7200 RPM HD, up to 3.75 hours battery life (8-cell)

So, with the Envy 13, you can see it is designed for battery life. The MacBook Pro has a better CPU, same hard drive, and better battery life. The Envy does however, have an ever so slightly better GPU. The battery in the Envy is user replaceable, you can buy an additional 4 cell battery, or an extender goes outside the laptop which provides up to 18.75 hours of battery life (4 cell + 6 cell extender).

Now the Envy 14 offers a slightly larger screen and resolution, a newer (but same clock speed) CPU, a better GPU which gets ~55 FPS w/ a 1600x900 res on Low in Metro 2033 vs 25 FPS w/ a 1280x800 res on low for the 320M -- according to notebookcheck, and a faster RPM HD for a slightly lower price.

So, you can clearly see that the MacBook Pro isn't overpriced, although it is in both cases $200 more expensive.

15" MacBook Pro vs Envy 15 vs Sager 5125

Spoiler

• $1799 MacBook Pro
• 15" 1440x900, i5 @ 2.4GHz, 4GB 1066MHz, GeForce GT 330M 256MB, 320GB 5400 RPM HD, 8-9 hour battery

• ^ $899 Sager NP5125
• 15.6" 1366x768, i5 @ 2.4GHz, 4GB 1066MHz, GT 330M 1GB, 320GB 7200 RPM HD, battery life (???)

The sager seems to be much cheaper than the MBP, although I'm unsure of the battery life of the Sager, nonetheless, it's a lot cheaper.

17" MacBook Pro vs Envy 17

Spoiler

• $2299 MacBook Pro
• 17" 1920x1200, i5 @ 2.53GHz, 4GB 1066MHz, GeForce GT 330M 512MB, 500GB HD, 8-9 hour battery

• $1479 Envy 17
• 17" 1920x1080 Full HD Ultra Brightview, i5 @ 2.53GHz, 6GB (??? MHz), 5850 1GB, 500GB 7200 RPM HD, up to 2.5 hours of battery life (6-cell)

It is ~800 cheaper, but again, the battery life prevails here. Is it worth $800? Well, that's up to you. Personally, I think ~500 is more reasonable, but I'd pay it anyway.

Overall you can see that the "Mac costs 2x more for half the hardware" argument is false, even the 17" MacBook Pro costs no more than 50% more than it's equivalent and it has a lot more battery life compared to the Envy 15.

You can see that the value of battery life by comparing the Envy 14 and 13, in that spoiler -- you can see how much better the Envy 14 is, but the 13 offers significantly better battery life with which the MacBook Pro's exceed.

Yes, I wrote this on another forum, I thought it was so good, that I just had to post it here -- we've not had a Mac discussion in a while -- some of you might've been happy about that

If you'd like to know where I get my information about which GPU is better, it is notebookcheck.

Please let me know if you find any mistakes.

EDIT: Added the Sager 5125, it kills both the 15" MBP and the Dell.
EDIT: Removed the 15" Envy (no longer exists), and added the 17" for comparison with the 17" MBP.

Btw, anyone can post a link to a laptop or all-in-one or desktop, etc., and I'll put it up the top (assuming it is a reasonable comparison) -- I.E, if you've found an equiv. all-in-one to the iMac for like $300 cheaper, etc.,

 

[Zakyath]

But haven't the mac-prices gone down?

 

[Icyculyr]

What do you mean? This is what they are currently.

 

[tooltiperror]

People don't hate macs because they're over priced, people hate macs because they want something to hate. + rep for this list.

 

[Whitesock]

I still think building your own PC trumps all of this, and I don't think mac will sell you any parts to build your own.

 

[FireCat]

I would not buy a "Mac" for anything in the world. lol

 

[Zakyath]

What do you mean? This is what they are currently.

yes, but aren't the prices lower now than before, when people used to say that they "cost 2x more for half the hardware"?

 

[celerisk]

yes, but aren't the prices lower now than before, when people used to say that they "cost 2x more for half the hardware"?

Not really. The overall cost of hardware has gone down over the years. What hasn't changed though is that a $2000 Mac is worth, at best, $1500 and your iGod adds an extra $500 just for kicks.
It's a psychological thing really. " I paid <large price here>... it MUST be great ". And, well, over the years... people believe anything if they just hear it often enough.

You know, when a mac fanboy tells you how great macs are... what value does that statement have?


It also greatly depends on where you live:
http://blog.cmyplay.com/2010/01/04/apple-macbook-prices-infographic/

 

[DDRtists]

I still think building your own PC trumps all of this, and I don't think mac will sell you any parts to build your own.

This is true...

 

[esb]

I don't see how that proves it's not overpriced. On the contrary, it restates the fact.

But to each their own. You want to spend a lot of money? Go head.
It's like buying an overpriced car. They all do basically the same thing. Some do or don't come with touchscreen GPS or other features, but essentially the main point is that they are a method of transportation.

People like expensive stuff.

 

[Jindo]

The prices of Apple's newest products seem comparatively reasonable; this list however seems to show some bad examples, some of those products look horrendously overpriced. For instance in 17" MacBook Pro vs Envy 17, I would not value an extra 6 hours of battery life at $800.

 

[sqrage]

All I know is that my friend recently spent $3,000 on a Mac Pro. My other friend spent around $800 on the computer he built and the latter out-performs the Mac easily.

 

[Darthfett]

I'm extremely confused. Many of your examples completely say the opposite of the title of the thread.

Desktop systems

Mac Mini vs Zino HD

Spoiler

• $699 Mac Mini
  • C2D @ 2.4GHz, 2GB 1066MHz RAM, GeForce 320M 256MB, 320GB HD

• ^ $350 Inspiron Zino HD
  • AMD Athlon II X2 P340 Dual Core @ 2.2GHz, 3GB 1333MHz RAM, ATI 4250 integrated graphics, 320GB HD

So, the Mac Mini is $349 more. They obviously aren't exact matches, the Mac Mini is a bit better (particularly the GPU), but nothing that would raise the Zino above an additional $100. FYI the Mac Mini offers more upgrades.

Note that I'm unfamiliar with AMD CPUs, whether this is the equiv. to the C2D or not, I am unsure.

This one is NOT overpriced, when it is clearly DOUBLE the price? These aren't even CLOSE matches.

21.5" iMac vs 21.5" HP all-in-one 200xt series

Spoiler

• $1199 iMac
• 21.5" 1920x1080, i3 @ 3.06GHz, 4GB 1333MHz, 4670 256MB, 500GB HD

• ^ $999 HP All-in-One 200xt series
• 21.5" 1920x1080, i3 @ 3.06GHz, 4GB 1333MHz, GeForce GT 230M 1GB, 750GB HD

So, the iMac is $200 more expensive. Note the HPs GPU isn't as good as the iMacs, despite the larger amount of memory.

No comment, other than both computers seem to be high in price. $200 is a Radeon 5830.

27" i5 (quad) iMac vs 21.5" HP All-in-One Quad series

Spoiler

• $1999 iMac
• 27" 2560x1440, i5 760 @ 2.8GHz, 4GB 1333MHz, 5750 1GB, 1 TB HD

• ^ $1110 ($1909) HP All-in-One 200 Quad series
• 21.5", i5 760 @ 2.8GHz, 4GB 1333MHz, GT 230M 1GB, 1 TB HD

Now, considering HP doesn't offer a 27" display, we'll just have to add $799 onto the price of the HP to simulate that -- that results in a price of $1909. I chose $799 since Dell's 27" (2560x144) display costs $899, and the HPs display would cost around $100.

Now the iMac's 5750 absolutely destroys the GT 230M, so if you add that in, the price is about the same.

Don't forget that the HP comes with an LED monitor. The cheapest price on NEWEGG is $200 (for a 1920x1080 (which automatically means that the monitor in a package deal like this would cost much more, but just go with $200)).

2.8GHz Mac Pro vs 2.8GHz Dell Precision T3500

Spoiler

• $2499 SP Mac Pro
• Quad Xeon @ 2.8GHz, 3GB 1066MHz, 5770 1GB, 1 TB HD

• ^ $1504 Dell Precision T3500
• Quad Xeon @ 2.8GHz, 3GB 1333MHz, ATI FireMV 2260 256MB, 1 TB HD, 3 year basic warranty

So, you save about $1000 here and the Dell comes with the warranty. Call it a saving of $1100 after adding the approx. costs of the warranty and subtracting about $100 for the 5770 GPU.

I believe the saving is about the same for the SP 3.2GHz and 3.33GHz Mac Pro as well.

My theory on why they are $1000 more expensive:

Spoiler

Now, you might say think that Apple is adding that extra $1000 just to get more money, however, it seems more likely that they are trying to separate the high end 27" iMac ($1999) from the base Mac Pro ($2499), if they dropped the price of the Mac Pro, few would buy the iMac, if any.

My theory is also supported by the fact that the dual processor (six-core models) Mac Pro's are actually cheaper than Dell's equivalent (see below), so that extra $1k they are making on the single processor model disappears.

Obviously the $4999 Mac Pro isn't going to cannibalise the $1999 iMac, but as I said, a $1499 Mac Pro would (or even a $1999), and Apple certainly doesn't want to drop the price of their 27" iMacs down $500-$1000.

Not that I'm saying Apple isn't enjoying that extra $1000 of baby fat on the single processor Mac Pro's

Ridiculous. The only reason someone should separate something by $1000 is to make more money. If no one would by the iMac, because this one is so close in price, then there is no reason the iMac should even exist. I have a similar opinion on Intel's high end of the i7.

I'm not really familiar with the Dual Hexa Xeons, so I'll leave those alone, but the Mac card isn't even a workstation card, and the Dell looks to have an awful workstation card. 6GB is also a very low amount of memory, so I don't see how two processors and an accommodating motherboard can cost anywhere near that amount.

As far as laptops/netbooks go, there is almost no competition, since you cannot build a laptop without a lot of work. Battery life is always a lie (especially with a Dell, my girlfriend's laptop advertises 3 hours, and gets 30 minutes).

I'll also mention that most of the laptops you compare have different speeds in hard drives (7200RPM vs 5400RPM). Most of the time, 7200RPM drives are not intended for battery, but are simply made to be desktop-replacements (I.E. you use them as a desktop, keeping it plugged in, but they are portable). Battery life is greatly affected by this.

Overall, it's not as bad as it used to be, we've already accepted this. However, it's still bad when almost every category tends to be cheaper with a Windows computer. The parts to build your own would be even cheaper, and here lies the evil in Mac:

Mac is evil in its practices. They do not let you build your own computer (by that I mean they don't sell OS software separately). They do not encourage competition (using only Intel processors, the more expensive of the two major manufacturers, and they do not price their products very competitively).

I do not pretend to hate the Mac OS, as I cannot say I have very much experience with it, and neither do I pretend to hate people who openly support Mac. I merely hate the fact that Mac tends to ignore the competition and treat its users as if they are unintelligent.

 

[tooltiperror]

I want to point out that my mac's battery lasts a decent 5 hours with no very consuming (WC3, etc) programs open.

 

[Darthfett]

I want to point out that my mac's battery lasts a decent 5 hours with no very consuming (WC3, etc) programs open.

Mine was a $450 laptop two years ago, with only a 6-cell battery, and lasts a good 4 hours under similar conditions.

I'd just like to point out that the specs are extremely important in a comparison. Mine has a 15.4" screen, using a Pentium Dual Core (I believe T3200), a 5400 RPM HD, and the Intel GMA 4500M.

For all I know, your laptop is actually a 5.4" netbook, with a SSD, 12-cell battery, and uses a slow i3 processor (included graphics in the cpu).

 

[tooltiperror]

It's actually 12" Monitor and 2.2-something GHz processor, and runs with nVidia Graphics Card (forget the exact specs).

 

[Slapshot136]

I skimmed through those comparisons,

but your comparing a $900 sager with a $1800 macbook and calling it a hammer? it's obviously not going to be better if it's half the price

same thing for the netbook, your comparing to something that's double the price - how is something that is consistently double the price, yet still being compared in terms of specs, not overpriced? it's like comparing a Honda to a Porsche

and even if the 17" envy isn't similar to the 17" mac-book, comparing a 15" to a 17" isn't the same, at-least give the envy an extra battery or 2, since that is about the difference between a 15" and a 17"

also, windows computers go on sale fairly frequently and have decent sales, macs almost never do, and never any major sales - for example those HP envy's had a 300 off code this summer

and finally, non-mac computers can be built at home, bringing the minimum price for XXX hardware even lower

Not that I'm saying Apple isn't enjoying that extra $1000 of baby fat on the single processor Mac Pro's

so.. what about other computer manufacturers? they manage to do without the extra $1000 baby fat and have the exact same challenges as apple does

 

[Oninuva]

I don't even know anyone who owns a Mac..

 

[Icyculyr]

yes, but aren't the prices lower now than before, when people used to say that they "cost 2x more for half the hardware"?

Correct, but not by that much.

I don't see how that proves it's not overpriced. On the contrary, it restates the fact.

Title probably isn't named that well -- and in some examples it proves that they do cost a lot more. Take the iMac, it's $200 more for the low end model -- and it has a better GPU. That isn't much of a premium to pay if you wanted to use OS X instead of Windows.

The prices of Apple's newest products seem comparatively reasonable; this list however seems to show some bad examples, some of those products look horrendously overpriced. For instance in 17" MacBook Pro vs Envy 17, I would not value an extra 6 hours of battery life at $800.

I'm trying to be unbiased, I agree that the 17" MacBook Pro is too expensive. However, if someone needed a 17" laptop that had some kick in it with plenty of battery life, it might be worth it to them.

Also, I was comparing it to the Envy 15, not the 17.

All I know is that my friend recently spent $3,000 on a Mac Pro. My other friend spent around $800 on the computer he built and the latter out-performs the Mac easily.

Yeah but building them yourself will always be cheaper than a PC or a Mac.

 

[Icyculyr]

I'm extremely confused. Many of your examples completely say the opposite of the title of the thread.

Not necessarily, almost all the Macs are more expensive, but not necessarily overpriced -- although, my connotation to the word is "extremely expensive".

This one is NOT overpriced, when it is clearly DOUBLE the price? These aren't even CLOSE matches.

I found the closest matches I could, and yes it is double the price. However, the Mac Mini does have a better CPU, much better GPU, etc., that has to have some additional value.

No comment, other than both computers seem to be high in price. $200 is a Radeon 5830.

Fair enough, I don't know where to find other all-in-ones, they aren't exactly abundant.

Don't forget that the HP comes with an LED monitor. The cheapest price on NEWEGG is $200 (for a 1920x1080 (which automatically means that the monitor in a package deal like this would cost much more, but just go with $200)).

I factored in $100 for it, but it seems your right, the cheapest on NewEgg is about $200.

Ridiculous. The only reason someone should separate something by $1000 is to make more money. If no one would by the iMac, because this one is so close in price, then there is no reason the iMac should even exist. I have a similar opinion on Intel's high end of the i7.

Well, I don't think it's ridiculous -- we disagree here. I like the iMac, and for consumers, and the general public, many like the simplicity and neatness of an all-in-one.

I'm sure they are enjoying that extra $1k, however, it seems more likely that they don't want to cannibalise the iMac -- which is targeted for consumers.

If Apple was just trying to make money, and only that reason, you'd still see that $1k hanging there with the dual CPU models.

I'm not really familiar with the Dual Hexa Xeons, so I'll leave those alone, but the Mac card isn't even a workstation card, and the Dell looks to have an awful workstation card. 6GB is also a very low amount of memory, so I don't see how two processors and an accommodating motherboard can cost anywhere near that amount.

I know, but it's certainly better than the Dell's card. If you were to build it yourself, it'd probably come in at around $3k.

As far as laptops/netbooks go, there is almost no competition, since you cannot build a laptop without a lot of work. Battery life is always a lie (especially with a Dell, my girlfriend's laptop advertises 3 hours, and gets 30 minutes).

Indeed, but the Mac battery life is pretty impressive. For example, my 2010 13" MacBook Pro with a C2D 2.4GHz, 13" 1280x800 res, 250GB 5400 RPM HD, GeForce 320M (integrated), which is advertised with 10 hours of battery life, gets two hours, with max brightness, playing Crysis: Warhead.

That's pretty impressive -- dropping the brightness to 50% would no doubt give me at least 3, possibly even 4.

I'll also mention that most of the laptops you compare have different speeds in hard drives (7200RPM vs 5400RPM). Most of the time, 7200RPM drives are not intended for battery, but are simply made to be desktop-replacements (I.E. you use them as a desktop, keeping it plugged in, but they are portable). Battery life is greatly affected by this.

This is true, with exception to the Envy. They didn't have 5400 RPM options, although, I'd have a hard time believing that a 7200 RPM drive will have a dramatic impact on battery life.

Mac is evil in its practices. They do not let you build your own computer (by that I mean they don't sell OS software separately). They do not encourage competition (using only Intel processors, the more expensive of the two major manufacturers, and they do not price their products very competitively).

No, one of the reasons Macs are stable is because the OS is tied to the hardware -- Apple would need to support so many different combinations of hardware with OS X -- it'd have problems, just like Windows does.