PC vs Mac, Cost vs Performance

HarlanBear

I am starting this thread in order to have an intelligent conversation about the cost vs performance of PCs and Macs. This is not about Steve Jobs, Bill Gates or their respective “cultures”. I don’t care about their culture; I care about the computer as a tool in photography. I am not a computer tech, IT person or high-tech expert. I am a TV and video producer, editor, shooter, etc., and have worked on both PCs and Macs for nearly twenty years both for business use and for media design. The one thing that has always kept me in PCs for home use is the cost between PCs and Macs.

That being said, I have lately heard that, in fact, “for systems with similar specs, Macs are actually cheaper”. My research does not support this statement and one of the things I want to find out pertains to this. I have had no one show this to me, so I’m asking my fellow dgrinners to join in the discussion.

After much research of both PCs and Macs, I recently bought the following system. It is to be used primarily for photo editing and digital art creation using PSCS3 and Painter Essentials. It is also used for the internet, record keeping, email, and the occasional written document.

Hewlett Packard Pavilion a6230n
2.8GHz AMD Athlon 64 X2 Dual Core processor 5600+
3 GB DDR2 SDRAM memory, PC2-5300
400 GB hard drive, 7200RPM SATA, added additional internal 160 GB hard drive
NVIDIA GeForce 6150 SE graphics card
SuperMulti CD/DVD burner (with Lightscribe)
15-in-1 memory card reader
6 x USB 2.0 ports
2 x FireWire ports

Total cost = $650.00 for computer plus $70.00 for additional internal hard drive = $720.00

Does not include a monitor, so there’s that. I currently have a Dell 19” monitor with a PVA panel.

The only tests I have run on this computer are the Fed Miranda and Retouch Pro Benchmark tests referenced here on digital grin. The results are as follows:

Miranda = 16 sec.
Retouch Pro, 16 bit = 37 sec.

To me, this is pretty good performance for the cost. But I am willing to learn what I’m missing or where I’m wrong.

wxwax

Wow, great system at an amazing price. What's not to like?

FWIW, I got the Macbook not based on price, but out of curiosity. After playing with it, I got the MacPro because I like operating system a bunch. It really is less confusing to me, as someone who's easily frightened by malfunctioning computers.

So it wasn't price, but ease-of-use, that guided my decision to make a switch.

dogwood

The motherboards on many pre-assembled PC's aren't always pro-spec-- so that's one thing to consider. You may-- or may not-- notice depending on the extent of editing/computing you do. Cooling systems and power supplies are the same way. I'm a big advocate of building your own PC just so you can make sure you're speccing it properly. But if a pre-built one works for you, nothing wrong with that.

The whole PC vs Mac thing is crazy-- you're going to work fastest on whatever OS you're most comfortable with. If I can't find my files on a Mac (and yeah, I've been using a Mac for over seven years professionally and I still can't find my way around it) it won't make any difference how fast it works. The operator is the limiting factor, I submit, not the OS.

Moogle Pepper

Is that a laptop or desktop?

It's not bad at all for the price you are got it at.

But this sounds like you got a PC and your question of PC v Mac isn't as relevant since you already bought the gear.


But for photo editing and that sort, I hear Macs are better for it than PCs. I use a PC and a gamer, so already my computer has the performance specs.

I prefer PCs. Not just because of the games, but I have the capabilities to build it from the ground up. BEcause I switched to Intel from AMD, and have a PCIexpress videocard port, the price of my system came out to about 1000. Before I went to Intel, the average I would have spent was about 300-400.

DavidTO

Harlan, you might find this interesting.

Also, did you include the cost of the OS in your calculation?

Poseidon

How much is piece of mind worth to you? Statistically virus' and worms etc are WAY MORE prevelent on PC then they are on Mac. Contstant restarts, never ending "security updates" and the occasional lock ups with windows forced me away. Since I switched to Mac, I have had to restart less then half a dozen times, (had the MacPro for about a year) and I have not had ONE not a SINGLE OS lockup! I have had the occasional program lockup, but that is because of having so many things open at once.

When I switched I had just lost a hard drive to IRQ issues, I have since added 3 additional HD's to my MacPro, and you know what, no IRQ issues! Ease of use, and piece of mind are worth a fortune to me!!!

Pupator

I think what Harlan is asking is for some Mac users to post machines of comparable specs and what price was paid. The question is not "are macs better than PCs," but can you really (as is suggested often around here) get a Mac for the same price as a (similar quality) PC.

I'll add my PC to the list, which I built myself buying these parts piecemeal when I saw them on sale:

Intel Core 2 Duo Processor E6300 (2 Cores - 1.86 each)
Intel Desktop Board DG965WH (optical 5.1 audio out, everything else you'd expect)
2GB - DDR2 Dual Channel RAM
120 GB SATA HDD (OS & Programs)
500 GB SATA HDD (Data)
DVD+DL Burner w/lightscribe
DVD+-R Burner
9 in 1 Media Reader
NVIDIA GForce 6600 GT Video Card
Hauppauge TV Tuner+Remote
600 Watt Power Supply
Windows Vista Ultimate

$850

20" ViewSonic Flat Panel monitor was $190

HarlanBear

dogwood wrote:

The motherboards on many pre-assembled PC's aren't always pro-spec-- so that's one thing to consider. You may-- or may not-- notice depending on the extent of editing/computing you do. Cooling systems and power supplies are the same way. I'm a big advocate of building your own PC just so you can make sure you're speccing it properly. But if a pre-built one works for you, nothing wrong with that.

This was one area of concern, since my experience is that Mac did run faster, in the past anyway. But you see the test specs for running PS test on this system. Not sure how much faster I need to be.

dogwood wrote:

The whole PC vs Mac thing is crazy-- you're going to work fastest on whatever OS you're most comfortable with. If I can't find my files on a Mac (and yeah, I've been using a Mac for over seven years professionally and I still can't find my way around it) it won't make any difference how fast it works. The operator is the limiting factor, I submit, not the OS.

I know the thing on the file tree, or whatever. My first digital video media experience was with Avid on a 9600 or something and we had a heck of a time finding the component files for building segments. I often ran into the same problem years later running FCP on the G5.

bwg

so this was a comparison I did a week or so ago for my sister in-law (photographer, graphic designer)

Dell XPS 420 - $1,877
Core 2 Duo 2.66Ghz
Vista Ultimate
2GB 667Mhz RAM
320GB 7200RPM SATA HD
22" Flat Panel (this is not their good ultrasharp display, you can bundle a 20" ultrasharp for an additional $100 or select no monitor and save $290. Their 24" ultrasharp will cost you $689 stand alone)
256MB Radeon ATI HD 2600 XT
Bluetooth
802.11g wi-fi (802.11n is the new hotness. g is bobo)

Apple 24" iMac - $1,949
Core 2 Duo 2.4Ghz
Mac OS X Leopard
2GB 667Mhz RAM
320GB 7200RPM SATA HD
Gorgeous 24" display, seriously go to the apple store and look at this thing. its beautiful.
256MB Radeon ATI HD 2600 PRO (I have no idea what the difference between the PRO and the Dell XT version)
Bluetooth
802.11n wi-fi

for $100 less you can have the dell with a low end 22" flat panel. To get the same quality 24" display that is in the iMac the Dell will be $2,276. $327 more than the iMac.

It's a pretty apples to apples comparison (har).

and there's this which admittedly not many people care about but is funny none the less:

HarlanBear

DavidTO wrote:

Harlan, you might find this interesting.

Also, did you include the cost of the OS in your calculation?

Thanks, David. Yea, I saw that article in my research. But the comparison is mostly about notebooks and I wanted a desktop. So somewhat apples (sorry) and oranges.

OS included, Windows Vista. So far so good, but I trust Bill as much as I trust Steve. Which ain't much with 1.0 anything.

DavidTO

bigwebguy wrote:

so this was a comparison I did a week or so ago for my sister in-law (photographer, graphic designer)

That's awesome. TKO, round 1.

I'm done, what's next?

HarlanBear

Moogle Pepper wrote:

But for photo editing and that sort, I hear Macs are better for it than PCs.

This is what I mean. How are they better? I'd like to see an image edited on a Mac and PC by the same level of skill and see the difference in time or quality.

DavidTO

HarlanBear wrote:

This is what I mean. How are they better? I'd like to see an image edited on a Mac and PC by the same level of skill and see the difference in time or quality.

That is old news. I would argue that Macs are better, period, but I would never say they are better for photography per se. That was true years ago, but PS/LR, etc are identical above the hood on both platforms, so I'm not sure where the advantage would lie for Macs. And there is some software available for Windows that you just can't get on a Mac, so there you go on that one.

bwg

HarlanBear wrote:

This is what I mean. How are they better? I'd like to see an image edited on a Mac and PC by the same level of skill and see the difference in time or quality.

I have a pc running vista and a macbook pro running Leopard.

PC is a 3ghz pentium not dual core w/2GB ram and a 500gig SATA drive, 2xATI x1300 video cards each w/256MB RAM one pci express, one pci.

MBP is 2ghz core duo (not the newer core 2 duo), 2GB ram, 100gig SATA drive and ATI x1600 256MB RAM pci express

the mac blows the pc away when using photoshop, lightroom or bridge. blows it away.

I've tried and tried to figure out what could be causing the slowness on my PC and have not been able to get comparable performance.

YMMV, but I finally gave up on the PC.

colourbox

This article came out this week too. May not apply to everyone (I tend to keep systems so many years they're worth nothing by the end) but to some, resale value is part of the equation.

HarlanBear

bigwebguy wrote:

the mac blows the pc away when using photoshop, lightroom or bridge. blows it away.

Blows it away how? You see the photoshop tests from the HP machine and they look very close to the macs that cost 3x as much. Again, I'm looking at cost v performance.

Also, can you tell me why the Dell you looked at is so expensive when the processor, memory and HD size appear better on the HP machine I reference? Can't be the monitor completely, can it. BTW, my Dell matches my prints and matches all web generated images I've seen.

dogwood

bigwebguy wrote:

I've tried and tried to figure out what could be causing the slowness on my PC and have not been able to get comparable performance.

Could be many, many things. Is the RAM specced identically? How about the motherboard? Background applications? Power supply? HD speed and brand? etc, etc.

Funny pic though on the mac and PC and all the freakin' cords. In reality, my work mac looks a bit like that PC though (mbox, graphics tablet, external monitor, headphones, ethernet, card reader, and some other weird stuff the IT dept added).

bwg

HarlanBear wrote:

Blows it away how? You see the photoshop tests from the HP machine and they look very close to the macs that cost 3x as much. Again, I'm looking at cost v performance.

Also, can you tell me why the Dell you looked at is so expensive when the processor, memory and HD size appear better on the HP machine I reference? Can't be the monitor completely, can it. BTW, my Dell matches my prints and matches all web generated images I've seen.

Lightroom and Bridge in particular just suck on the PC. Especially when you start dealing with multiple images or multiple changes in lightroom. The PC just bogs down and will be unresponsive intermittently. The MBP is smooth and fluid no matter what I throw at it. Benchmarks are one thing, but real world usability tests are where its at.

I have no idea why the dell is more expensive than your HP. Better components probably. XPS is Dell's top shelf product line, i'm sure you could get something with similar specs on-paper from them for less.

I really didnt look around that much...she wanted a higher end machine.

Pupator

DavidTO wrote:

That's awesome. TKO, round 1.

I'm done, what's next?

Typical Mac Zealot.

Because one high end Dell configuration was similarly priced to an Apple config the match is over?

Have you considered that Dell might be overpriced when compared to their PC competition on high end PCs? (They are.)

This kind of nonsense is why this kind of discussion is useless on dgrin. I swear, I love dgrin for EVERYTHING else - but these discussions always go the same way.

bwg

dogwood wrote:

Could be many, many things. Is the RAM specced identically? How about the motherboard? Background applications? Power supply? HD speed and brand? etc, etc.

Yeah there are a ton of things that aren't identical. I just wouldn't have expected the performance difference to be so noticeable.

DavidTO

Pupator wrote:

Typical Mac Zealot.

I won't argue that point.

Because one high end Dell configuration was similarly priced to an Apple config the match is over?

Yeah. Apple makes hardware that's better and cheaper than Dell's high end. You can compare to a lower end computer, but the argument is over. We don't have to prove that Macs are cheaper, just comparable, and they are. They compare favorably.

Have you considered that Dell might be overpriced when compared to their PC competition on high end PCs? (They are.)

This kind of nonsense is why this kind of discussion is useless on dgrin. I swear, I love dgrin for EVERYTHING else - but these discussions always go the same way.

Sore loser?

Hey, Pupator, I'm mostly having fun here. I care not if you prefer Windows or can get a better deal for your needs. And I've already admitted Mac shortcomings above. It's definitely not a one-size-fits-all world. I just think it's flat-out wrong to say that Macs cost 3x as much, especially when you're comparing to a bargain bin PC.

But mostly, I was having fun. Didn't mean to get your dander up (well, a little, maybe!)

bwg

Pupator, so you understand my background a bit.

I worked in a windows only shop for 10 years. Windows at home, Windows at work. I work on a windows box 80% of the time to this day.

I experienced a lot of growing pains when I started using a Mac and there are still some things that irritate me on the Mac...still some things I wished worked more like they do in Windows.

That being said, in my opinion the Mac provides a superior experience and all things being equal in terms of when you compare a PC vs. Mac spec wise, I would pay the premium for a superior experience any day. Bonus is that I don't always have to.

Pupator

Dave and BWG -

I understand that it's "all in good fun," but the truth of the matter is that I think Harlan brought up a worthwhile point that isn't being evaluated seriously. I see this often in threads about PCs and Macs on Dgrin - someone makes a legit point for discussion and it turns into speculation, hearsay, and strawmen.

David - your assumption is that Dell actually represents the best cost for a high end PC, that's simply not true. In my case, where I built my own I got a unit with similar specs as the Dell but high quality components for less money. That's something that isn't even possible with a Mac.

I think that it's hard to make a case that Mac hardware can be had at the same $ for spec ratio as a PC. This is because of the large number of PC component manufacturers and the opportunity to choose between lots of options etc. $ per spec Apple cannot touch PC and I think that's the point the OP was trying to make.

However - how useful a statistic is $ per spec? Not very. Real world tests (as was mentioned above) that's where the rubber meets the road. Is the computer stable? Is it fast for the things you use it for? Is it trouble-free? Do you enjoy using the OS? These are things that can't be quantified that matter far more than processor speed or amount of RAM.

At the end of the day I think this is why there is no answer to the Mac vs. PC debate. Things that are really important to me may not matter at all to David. Things that blow me away might not impress BWG at all. My lifelong overwhelmingly positive experience with Windows OSs (Yes I skipped WIN ME) shapes my outlook. BWGs frustrations with Windows shapes his.

My frustration - if there is any - isn't with either of you personally or with Apple. It's that these discussions always get either too far afield from the actual issue or are cut short by "Mac wins - end of story" mentality.

I love my iPod and I love my iPhone (though I HATE iTunes). I hope to get a Mac in the future - I'd love to have one around to tinker with. Unfortunately it's just not in the budget these days.

bwg

Pupator wrote:

My frustration - if there is any - isn't with either of you personally or with Apple. It's that these discussions always get either too far afield from the actual issue or are cut short by "Mac wins - end of story" mentality.

Hm, well I thought my initial post was a fair apples to apples comparision with no bias. I outlined what you got with each system and simply presented facts.

If you're frustrated that these discussions always get off topic, at least recognize that some of that is due to the hypersensitivity of the 'non-apple zealots'.

Pupator

Yeah, I pulled it OT. Or maybe I was the first poster to actually address the issue raised by the OP.

But whatever. You're obviously not concerned with details this evening.

Take care.

wxwax

Good post, Pupator. Seems reasonable to me. I think you accurately captured my explanation for incrementally switching to Macs in my personal life.

It's not about price, it's about the experience.

I do wonder why people get so riled up.

And I realize this is again a hijack from the OP. To his point, this business of the variable quality and price of parts seems to muddy the waters a great deal... perhaps too much to make most comparisons reasonable?

Andy

bigwebguy wrote:

Attention Win peeps! What is your time worth? I'm the sys admin for 6 computers. It takes me literally next to 'no-time' to deal with these machines.

When I had Winders boxes, it was always, fix this, defrag that, repair-registry, cancel/allow, drivers from somewhere, etc etc. Bleh it just sucked. There's a spreadsheet somewhere, talking about the time factor... DavidTO has it. It's not just purchase cost. It's time afterwards, too.

My Macs just work, so I can work. I dig that.

EDIT: Plenty of people can "make" or buy hot-rod PCs. And I'm sure you can cook-up a kick-but Winbox that smokes Apple in various tests. But to me, it's more than the acquisition cost....

Andy

Pupator wrote:

Yeah, I pulled it OT. Or maybe I was the first poster to actually address the issue raised by the OP.

But whatever. You're obviously not concerned with details this evening.

Take care.

Paul - there's plenty of good nuggets in this thread. Why should we all be buttoned up and tight arsed about things when we debate?

Passion is great. You've got it, TO's got it (extra doses!), and a lot of us do.

Now, make your points and carry on :beatwax

patch29

bigwebguy wrote:

and there's this which admittedly not many people care about but is funny none the less:

If you ordered the imac with a bluetooth keyboard and mouse you can eliminate a couple more wires.

bwg

Pupator wrote:

Yeah, I pulled it OT. Or maybe I was the first poster to actually address the issue raised by the OP.

But whatever. You're obviously not concerned with details this evening.

Take care.

I guess, I still don't see how my first post didn't address the topic at hand: comparison of price between similarly equipped apple and PC. Facts only.

:shrug

wxwax

bigwebguy wrote:

I guess, I still don't see how my first post didn't address the topic at hand: comparison of price between similarly equipped apple and PC. Facts only.

:shrug

You're a troublemaker.

Don't think we haven't noticed.