Few things stoke the emotions of electronic computer fans like a safe Mac - versus - microcomputer smackdown . So after I penned a equivalence of the prices of a Mac Pro and interchangeable Dell PC , I was n’t surprised when my e - mail inbox and Macworld ’s forum thread began filling up . As common , some of that feedback was friendly , others … well , not so much . On both side of the equation , there were readers making valid point — as well as people less concerned in a dispassionate look at the fact .

My rationale

Despite what you might show ondigg , I ’m not an iniquity , Apple - paid propagandist whose sole purpose in sprightliness is to mislead lemming - like Mac drug user by creating bribable comparisons designed to dissipate uninstructed readers into drinking the Kool - Aid . ( bank me , I stood in front of my mirror and discipline . ) No , I ’m someone who ’s just attempt to get some perspective on the relative prices of Apple ’s latest hardware and like hardware from a popular microcomputer vender .

To do so , I had to make some configuration decision — otherwise I ’d have to write about five milliondifferentarticles , each with different set of configurations , and I ’m afraid my tough cause just is n’t big enough for that . Could I have configured the systems more close ? Sure . But to reword my boss , the percentage point of the article was not to configure one , then the other , then back to the first one , then back to the other , until we ’ve got something that ’s “ comparable . ” Rather , it was to take Apple ’s “ stock constellation ” Mac Pro and configure a Dell organization to match it as closely as possible . ( That still required a few minor tweaks to the Mac Pro — for instance , the amount of random memory — to make a mediocre compare , but we leave as much alone as we could . ) And I was careful to explicate the ways in which each system was superior to the other , given my constellation option .

With that pronounce , let ’s run through some of the most common feedback I received , along with my responses . After that , I ’ll do a few more Dell / Mac Pro comparisions , including a bite of “ kick upstairs matching . ”

Common complaints

The video batting order you used in the Dell was much better — and much more expensive — than the one in the Mac Pro .

You ’re good . dim-witted as that . The Quadro FX 3450 I stuck in the Dell provides importantly better performance than the GeForce 7300GT found in the stock Mac Pro , and the Quadro ’s $ 525 cost increase the Dell ’s price unfairly ( although not nearly by $ 1000 + , as some claimed ) .

This was one of those judgment calls : When configure the machine , I was surprised to find that none of Dell ’s less expensive TV poster would support both dual- and single - link simultaneously ; in other countersign , they ca n’t take a 30 - in exhibit along with a 2nd show at the same sentence . have it off a good turn of designers — the kind of people likely to buy a Mac Pro — who habituate such a apparatus , my reaction was , “ But that ’s a major feature ! ” And so I configured the Dell with the least expensive card that could do it . ( I was n’t trying to “ cherry - pick ” a bug in Dell ’s video - visiting card offerings , I foretell . I really think it was a key feature for pro users . )

Part of the incrimination here lies with Dell for not provide anything below the Quadro 3450 that put up such a feature ; if Dell had offered a less expensive card with this functionality , I would have gladly used it or else . And in the clause , I did point out that the Quadro 3450 is a estimable card than the GeForce 7300 GT . But in retrospect , perhaps a good approach would have been to either promote the Mac Pro ’s video card to the much good ATI Radeon X1900 XT ( a $ 350 option , bringing the Dell $ 200 closer to the Mac Pro ) or to configure the Dell with a low - end menu such as the ATI FireGL V3400 ( a $ 75 selection , bringing the Dell $ 475 closer to the Mac ) and then explain in the text that the Dell was equip with a importantly subscript video system . At least that would have given Dell a price fault — without contradict the fact that the Mac Pro is still much less expensive .

Some readers or else argued that I should have upgraded both machines to the NVIDIA Quadro FX 4500 , since it ’s the only card uncommitted for both machines . Although that ’s perhaps a methodologically sound argument , the Quadro FX 4500 is so implausibly expensive—$1450 from Dell , $ 1650 from Apple — that I did n’t think it would make for realistic contour . Still , for those of you who are curious , I ’ll execute just such a pricing experimentation below .

Why did you employ a Dell in your comparison when there are so many other Windows - PC vendors out there ?

I opt Dell ’s workstation for three reasons . The first , and main , reason is that I was “ testing ” Phil Schiller ’s Dell / Mac price comparison , made during the WWDC tonic . The second is that Dell is the telephone number one figurer vendor in the U.S. The third is that Macs are most frequently liken to dell when someone make the claim that Macs are too expensive .

The Dell include a display , but the Mac Pro does n’t . And Adding an Apple Cinema Display ups the Mac Pro ’s price by $ 700 .

It ’s true , the Dell in my comparison included a 19 - inch presentation — and in the textual matter of the clause , I devote the Dell a lot of deferred payment for this fact . ( I also target out that adding the same showing to the Mac Pro would have increased the Mac Pro ’s toll by $ 250 . ) Why did n’t I bestow the same display to the Mac Pro ? Because the LCD wasfreeas part of a promotion on the 24-hour interval I configured the two organisation ; it ’s quite possible that by the time you show this follow - up , or by next week , it will no longer be free . Then we ’d end up with a Mac Pro with a $ 250 display and a Dell without — and I ’d be getting emails criticise me for not adding a display to the Dell !

As for tot up an Apple display to the Mac Pro , Apple does n’t make a comparable 19 - column inch show , and Apple ’s Cinema Displays are much more expensive ( and of gamey lineament ) than those Dell admit for free during publicity ; I was trying to liken processor prices , not the prices on displays or other supplement . But I ’ve included a twosome display configurations in my keep an eye on - up comparisons , below .

You did n’t give the Mac enough credit for [ bunch up software / security department / design / Mac OS X / etc . ] .

There are many “ intangibles ” I could have mention as advantages for the Mac Pro . But as I mentioned in premature article , it ’s hard to measure such reward in a monetarily meaningful fashion . I cerebrate it ’s clean to say — and all but the most die - hard Dell / Windows fans will probably concede this point — that the Mac has clear and substantial advantages here . If the terms difference between the two systems was little , these advantages might be enough to carry someone towards a Mac . But the nice matter about the Mac Pro , from a Mac fan ’s pointedness of view , is that contribute how much less expensive the Mac Pro is than a like Windows PC , you don’tneedto haggle over such details .

Dell ’s Precision 490 is closer to the Mac Pro than is the Precision 690 .

The Precision 690 has boast the Mac Pro does n’t , but the Mac Pro has key features the 490 does n’t . For example , the 490 does n’t brook dual graphics , a characteristic thatmany“pro ” users call for and one that ’s usable on both the Mac Pro and 690 ; and the 490 tops out at 1.5 TB of entrepot , compared to 2 TB for the Mac Pro and 690 . Overall , the 690 is close to the Mac Pro than is the 490 .

But the Dell can use SAS drive for full drive performance .

True , the 690 doescanbe configured to apply SAS drives instead of SATA ; I even pointed this out in the article . However , to do so would push the Dell into a importantly higher revenue enhancement bracket . For example , to use a 146 GB , 10,000rpm SAS drive alternatively of a 250 GB , 7200rpm SATA driving would increase the 690 ’s price by $ 260 ; a 300 GB SAS drive would be you $ 460 ! ( And the comparative cost increase as you sum more repositing : A 500 GB second SATA drive on the Mac Pro will adjust you back $ 400 ; a300 GB second SAS drive for the 690 would be you another $ 700 . ) It ’s nice to sleep with that the SAS option is there for the minority of hoi polloi who will actually utilise it — and those the great unwashed should definitely go with the Dell — but SAS capability does n’t foreclose the 690 from being the most comparable Dell tug to a Mac Pro .

But the Dell 690 underpin 64 GB of RAM .

I hedged a bit on this specification — and noted so in the article ’s eminence — because the Dell web site was so unclear on exactlyhowyou get the 690 to accept 64 GB of RAM . It turns out that to put up 64 GB of RAM , you want to purchase a peculiar 64 - flake Windows version of the 690 ( which on the face of it also gets you a special RAM riser main ) . Whywouldn’tyou do that ? Mainly because it ’s only worth doing so if your independent apps are 64 - bit . Considering that many apps and peripherals wo n’t even make for with 64 - flake Windows , this is n’t something the distinctive user , even the typical pro user , is going to do . ( And as a side annotation , the Mac Pro ’s logic instrument panel supposedly — on the side — supports 32 GB of RAM right now , and it ’s potential the system will support 64 GB once Leopard , a 64 - bit OS , is released . ) In case you ’re curious , the cost to outfit the 64 - bit Dell 690 with 64 GB of RAM is a paltry $ 49,500 — just for the RAM .

In other words , if you require to spend alotmore money , you’re able to absolutely do things with the 690 , in terms of storage and memory , that you ca n’t with the Mac Pro ; the two aren’tperfectlycomparable . However , the 690 is as close as they come in in terms of being capable to volunteer closely all the functionality of the Mac Pro . And , in fact , the Mac Pro / Dell 690 comparing is the best one we ’ve been able to do , in terms of truly comparable system , since Apple switched to Intel processors .

Updating the comparison

Mac Pro vs. Dell Precision 690

Mac Pro “ base ” system include NVidia GeForce 7300 GT telecasting card ; Dell “ stem ” organisation let in 128 MB PCIe x16 nVidia Quadro NVS 285.Cost of upgrades : Dell : ATI FireGL V3400 , $ 75 ; NVIDIA Quadro FX 3450 , $ 525 ; NVIDIA Quadro FX 4500 , $ 1450 ; Dell 19 - column inch display , $ 0 or $ 250 , calculate on furtherance ; Dell 3007WFP display , $ 1899 . Apple : ATI Radeon X1900 , $ 350 ; NVIDIA Quadro FX 4500 , $ 1650 ; Dell 19 - inch exhibit , $ 250 ; Apple 30 - column inch Cinema video display , $ 1999 . * Dell requires upgraded picture card , not reflected in table price , to use 30 - column inch presentation .

I reckon these variation address most of the modified compare readers suggested . After appear at the table , one thing becomes even more clear : The Mac Pro ’s price advantage over the Dell is robust — it maintain up under many unlike “ like ” configurations . Granted , it ’s smaller in some scenarios , but the Dell never even gets within $ 500 .

Where Dell wins

One thing you may notice , from both the original article and this one , is that although the Mac Pro itself is significantly cheaper than the equivalent Dell , Dell ’s upgrades are cheaper . For case , Dell charge $ 300 less to append the same top - of - the - cable television card and a 30 - inch display . Seasoned Mac users are likely nodding their heads knowlingly right now , as this has long been the case : Apple has always charged a agio for such choice , and peculiarly for RAM , compared to both other microcomputer vendors and third - party resellers . In some instances , such as video cards , Apple may have to give vendors more for a Mac - compatible version , but that does n’t make the customer palpate any better after spending importantly more for essentially the same technology than their Windows - microcomputer - owning friends .

Changing the debate

Even taking into account the high terms of RAM rise from Apple ( necessary , in this case , to make the Mac Pro “ equivalent ” to the Dell ) , the above comparisons show that the stock Mac Pro bests the Dell in price , and does so across various configuration proffer from both position of the argument .

Is this a sign of thing to come , specially for other Mac poser , now that Apple and Windows - PC vendors are using the same ironware ? perhaps . But the real significance of the above compare is that the terms — and the musical note — of the Mac / Windows argumentation have changed in a fundamental manner . Over the retiring X , the bragging criticism of Macs has been refer to price : They ’ve been more expensive , sometimes importantly so , than name - brand Windows PCs . That ’s distinctly no longer the typeface . Although those who build their own PC probably wo n’t be carry to buy a Mac , people in the market for a pre - configured computer are discovering that , apart from the feature of speech - miss humbled end , where Apple take not to spiel , Macs are increasingly cost - competitive .

That ’s not to say Macs are always going to be less expensive than a comparable Dell PC . But even when they ’re not , the prices are in the approximate range . And sometimes , as with the Mac Pro , Apple ’s systems will have the cost lead on their Dell combining weight . When ’s the last timethatcould be said about a Mac ?

[ Dan Frakes is a senior editor forMacworldand the elderly reviews editor atPlaylist . ]