AlienWare PC or Mac

[Srek]

Alienware is a line of gamer PCs. While graphics oriented this does not mean that they are ideal for 3D work. Usualy you pay a premium with gamer PCs for stuff that you can't use for 3D.
Take a look at the numerous threads on new systems for 3D to get an idea of what might suit you.
Cheers
Björn

[Bullit]

What matters is what is inside the computer and the model history(if it vents well and no problematic component). Its name, brand don't matters much, the difference is if it is a certified system or not. That said for a student you don't need that unless you will be doing simulation engineering work.

You need at least a dedicated graphic card in the laptop for graphics work. Asus,Acer,HP,BoXX,Clevo clones,Toshiba etc, everyone has a notebook model that will work for you.

[The4thAggie]

Between the Alienware and Apple for a desktop computer, I'd go with a dual processor Mac Pro. Alienware will use gaming graphics cards by default (even the top of the line gaming card GTX 285 is slower to a bottom-of-the-line workstation card such as the Quadro FX 1800). Alienwares are built for pure RAW gaming performance, while Macs are built for professional level reliability and workstation performance.

Besides, it's not like you have to choose between computers based on operating systems. The Mac lets you run Windows and OSX.

[CKPinson]

Doesn't Apple also use gaming GPUS as default? Geforce I thought? And having to boot into bootcamp for most apps is extra work for your CPU/RAM right?

[vlad]

...even the top of the line gaming card GTX 285 is slower to a bottom-of-the-line workstation card such as the Quadro FX 1800...

False statement.

[InfernalDarkness]

I think the key is to NOT fall prey to one of the various and preposterous marketing schemes.

Apple will want you to spend too much money for the same hardware you could buy in any other computer, with the "bonus" being that you get to use OS 10. Alienware will want you to spend too much money with the bonus being your computer will look cool.

Every company has to have a marketing ploy, though. No fault in that. Just do a lot of research, which merely takes time, before spending your money.

If you're on a slim budget, get an AMD setup and the most powerful Geforce/Radeon you can afford.

If you're NOT on a slim budget, pick an Intel i7 setup you like and the most powerful Geforce/Radeon you can afford.

Quadros and FireGL cards are pathetic for gaming; even the top-end Quadros won't keep up with the flagship Geforce or Radeon cards, and cost ten times as much.


Quote:
Originally Posted by The4thAggie
...even the top of the line gaming card GTX 285 is slower to a bottom-of-the-line workstation card such as the Quadro FX 1800...



False statement.

Seconded. The Quadros and FireGL cards are simply a massive marketing ploy by Nvidia/ATI and software companies (Autodesk, for example) to sucker people into spending tons of money. They all use the same chips; that is, a Quadro has an identical chip to it's relative Geforce, with only a few hardware mods (if any) and slight driver differences. The only benefit of the Quadro/FireGL cards would be the service their companies provide. Much better than service for the gaming cards.

Under Win7, the Geforce cards (for example) demolish the Quadros, which are buggy and obnoxious even with Win7-specific drivers. This statement pertains to my experience with both lines using Autodesk Maya and Mudbox.

What I strongly suggest is reading as much as you can on the various new hardware lines, and then price each part. Newegg.com is a great place to start, for pricing.

If the sum of your parts = more than an Alienware or Mac, then by all means, go with one of those. But that will never, ever happen. The markup you pay for either brand name is absurd. Other companies like Dell and HP are only slightly nicer about it.

You could save enough money just by putting together your own system to:

1. Pay rent/tuition for a month or three
2. Buy a new car
3. Start a stock portfolio
4. Eat expensive food for months
5. Invest lightly and put your own children through college

Alienwares are built for pure RAW gaming performance, while Macs are built for professional level reliability and workstation performance.

That is hilarious! Nice to see some comedy in the forums again.

[imashination]

Short version:

Alienware make overpriced tacky computers, you can get the same for a fraction of the price.

Apple make decent workstations if youre looking at the dual xeons, if you want a single cpu machine, theyre not so appealing.

The geforce 285 is the fastest gfx card you can buy, it works fine in all major 3d apps

Ignore the quadros unless you have a taste for expensive placebos.

[CKPinson]

False statement.

True statement in Maya and some 3d Apps that support OGL. False in playing games.

[CKPinson]

Short version:

Alienware make overpriced tacky computers, you can get the same for a fraction of the price.

Apple make decent workstations if youre looking at the dual xeons, if you want a single cpu machine, theyre not so appealing.

The geforce 285 is the fastest gfx card you can buy, it works fine in all major 3d apps

Ignore the quadros unless you have a taste for expensive placebos.

There appears to be several contradictions here- Alienware is overpriced but Apple is not? Quadros should be ignored for 3d type work? I thought Quadros were created specifically for this? how about Firegl? Geforce may be faster for certain things but in Maya it's like using a Ferrari to haul Dirt.

Tacky is ones opinion- I think Apple is Tacky, iAnything is Tacky, as well as any other mainstream gimmick which would include Alienware. Alienware and Apple have a lot in common, they are both overpriced, contain a lot of the same hardware and have a few gimmic accessories/components to make them unique such as a case or a mouse or an OS, or a screen.

[InfernalDarkness]

There appears to be several contradictions here- Alienware is overpriced but Apple is not? Quadros should be ignored for 3d type work? I thought Quadros were created specifically for this? how about Firegl? Geforce may be faster for certain things but in Maya it's like using a Ferrari to haul Dirt.

Tacky is ones opinion- I think Apple is Tacky, iAnything is Tacky, as well as any other mainstream gimmick which would include Alienware. Alienware and Apple have a lot in common, they are both overpriced, contain a lot of the same hardware and have a few gimmic accessories/components to make them unique such as a case or a mouse or an OS, or a screen.

I couldn't agree more, my friend. I guess I thought it went without saying that Apples were way overpriced, horribly tacky, and the cream of the mediocrity crop. I didn't state that they weren't overpriced, but my previous post wasn't very detailed I'll admit. I don't feel quite the same about Alienware, because they profess and are up-front about being obnoxiously overpriced and ridiculous to behold, as opposed to Apple's marketing ploy, which is to prey on those who don't like to do research, will believe anything they see on TV if an actor says it, and still think their computers aren't personal computers.

And you're correct, that is my opinion (and we share similar opinions, it seems). But my opinion regarding the Quadro vs. Geforce (or ATI cards, which I simply don't use) is much more educated and based on my real-world experience with Geforce and Quadro cards. A quick trip to the Maya and Mudbox forums and you'll find that this is the general consensus. Although Quadros used to work wonders in Maya, the last few generations have seen much more noticable gaps between the two in terms of price vs. performance. Mudbox runs better on Geforce cards. Maya runs equivalently better when comparing same-GPU cards, and with the Quadros still having all kinds of issues under Win7 and no fix in sight, it doesn't make sense to me to spend that kind of money when the cheaper Geforce flavor of that same GPU does the job without making DWM freak out.

Just my take on things. I make my company buy the Quadros for work, where I don't play games and don't have to worry about my personal budget, but for someone building their own workstation out of their own pocket, I can't recommend a Quadro in good faith.

[imashination]

Alienware is overpriced but Apple is not?

For dual cpu machines theyre quite competative. For single cpu machines theyre very overpriced. Youll find their xeon machines are generally cheaper than identically specced dell, hp or boxx systems.

Quadros should be ignored for 3d type work? I thought Quadros were created specifically for this? how about Firegl?

Hang about, you just tried telling me a few minutes ago that I and someone else were both wrong, now you're asking me if youre right? This has been done to death. quadros are not faster than the cheaper geforce cards in any 3D app, this is confirmed even by those to advocate and sell quadros.

The only difference between them is which glitches you get while using them. Seeing as many thousands of people use the geforce cards without a problem, that sort of suggests buying a quadro gains you nothing but the label they stick on the box.

Tacky is ones opinion- I think Apple is Tacky, iAnything is Tacky, as well as any other mainstream gimmick which would include Alienware.

Apple sell pretty machines, solidly built which have their designs copied by more people than you can shake a stick at. Alienware sell thin plastic bulging cases with flashing green LEDs in the shape of an alien that serve no purpose other than to make 14 year olds get excited.

[vlad]

... Alienware sell thin plastic bulging cases with flashing green LEDs in the shape of an alien that serve no purpose other than to make 14 year olds get excited.

:beer:
Or 14 year old at heart :buttrock:
Seriously disastrous designwise. And those red turbo lights on their laptop models :argh:
Reminds me of those ridiculous Tupperware kits you can dress your 1996 Honda Civic with.
Wont be buying Apple anytime soon, but kudos to them for hiring decent industrial designers.

[imashination]

Wont be buying Apple anytime soon, but kudos to them for hiring decent industrial designers.

Exactly, whether you like thier OS or anything else about the company, they have the most brilliantly engineered desktops money can buy. Ive got an 8 core dual xeon here which has had the cpus pinned at 100% for over a week now rendering. Its virtually silent. The sound of the fridge in the next room is louder than this thing.

The harddrives slot in directly with no cables, the ram is installed on removable daughter boards so you can clip all the chips in easily. The side panel has no screws or sliders, the base at the front is raised 2 inches from the ground so it doesnt take in any fluff and dust on the floor.

And yeah, this says it all:
http://i.dell.com/images/global/products/desktop-alienware/desktop-alienware-highlights/alienware-aurora-alx-design1.jpg

[InfernalDarkness]

they have the most brilliantly engineered desktops money can buy.

At that price premium? Nothing brilliant about it. Having your entire system running on full for seven days? That should be below a minimum requirement, not an achievement of excellence.

Just not a fan of their designs in general and specific; I find them lazy and unnecessarily stylized. They don't much care for form factors or standards at all.

[705]

if you really have to go between this two, go for Apple. Alienware is PC for gamers with fancy lights and style here and there and style. its nice but the price really go for the shapes, not the performance.

[Srek]

At that price premium? Nothing brilliant about it. Having your entire system running on full for seven days? That should be below a minimum requirement, not an achievement of excellence.
Please emphasize the correct word here, which would be should. Because for most PCs it should but isn't, for MacPros it is. Also double check the price tag. Only if you take the single socket MacPros and Apple memory extension you pay a premium. The dual socket systems are conpetitively priced.
They don't much care for form factors or standards at all.
Sadly they have a good reason for this. ATX is simply dated and should have been replaced since years now. Intels proposal of BTX (which is similar to how MacPros are build) failed to penetrate the market, so we are stuck with a 14 years old technology design.
Cheers
Björn

[ThirdEye]

Exactly, whether you like thier OS or anything else about the company, they have the most brilliantly engineered desktops money can buy. Ive got an 8 core dual xeon here which has had the cpus pinned at 100% for over a week now rendering. Its virtually silent. The sound of the fridge in the next room is louder than this thing.

The harddrives slot in directly with no cables, the ram is installed on removable daughter boards so you can clip all the chips in easily. The side panel has no screws or sliders, the base at the front is raised 2 inches from the ground so it doesnt take in any fluff and dust on the floor.

I've never used a Mac Pro, but if they're as well done as the MacBook Pro's they got a winner.

[Kai01W]

Unless you have to make absolutely sure your machine will be able to run 24/7 cause you make a living of it I don't see the point in buying a workstation class computer.
Considering it is for college I would just get me a middle class (1000-1500$) i7 desktop, i.e. from dell or others, with lots of RAM and a good geforce card.
Why bother with the expensive workstations like Apple or hardcore gaming rigs like Alienware when you don't really need it? It won't be much slower either and it does not hurt you that much financially when it gets dated in a few years.
I am now using these middle class Desktops since years for learning and training and they never failed on me. Sure, if I had a business that depends on them running 24/7 I would consider buying workstations as well...

-k

[imashination]

At that price premium?

There is no price premium, Apple sell the cheapest prebuilt dual xeon workstations you can buy. You should take a look at their website some day.

Having your entire system running on full for seven days?
Are you planning on taking every sentence out of context for this whole thread or do you apply your selective editing to every other threads too?

The point was that it remains silent and doesnt make a noise no matter how long its left rendering. ie. it has a well engineered cooling system compared to almost every other xeon leaf blower system Ive had to work with.

I find them lazy and unnecessarily stylized.
You're claiming that apple, the holy grail of minimalist design, have 'unnecessarily stylized' products? Really? The company that brought you the one button mouse... the company that even when they did get around to adding more buttons, still did so via a 1 button mouse. Whos keyboards have no fold out feet, multimedia/internet buttons. Are we talking about the same apple here or did you find another one?

They don't much care for form factors or standards at all.

Yes, those pesky non standard pcie slots, sata drive mounts, 5.25" optical drives, ddr3 ram slots.... Grr if only I could connect regular items to this monstrosity of proprietary connectors :-/

Apart from the ill fated ADC plug, what standards do you think theyre missing?

[InfernalDarkness]

Look, I must respectfully tell you that you'll never convince anyone to go with Apple with that kind of attitude. It's the religious-zealot attitude that most users find obnoxiously annoying about Apple, not the actual hardware or software itself.

I didn't take anything out of context. The context is this thread. Think about it.

This thread was posted as a comparison between Apple and Alienware. You can love Apple all you like, sir. I find them silly and toylike in comparison to most of the workstations I've used, and simply would never opt to use one. It's not a personal affront to anyone who uses Apple PC's, so don't take it as such a blow to your ego. You will heal.

I'll admit their switch to Intel hardware was a nice move (otherwise they likely wouldn't be in the PC business anymore), but other than that, I'll retain my bias and you can retain yours.

I will not, under any circumstances, take a look at Apple's website, ever. Their marketing campaign has been based on falsehood, twisted truth, and outright BS since the 80's, and I happen to be immune to BS marketing. But visit their site all you like; nobody's stopping you from fanaticism here.

[imashination]

Look, I must respectfully tell you that you'll never convince anyone to go with Apple with that kind of attitude.

The attitude of pointing out all your errors, not one of which you could refute? And with all due respect, Im not trying to convince anyone of anything, I generally wouldnt recommend he buy an alienware or apple machine. He can do what he needs with a single i7 box and 6 gigs of ram, $1500 from whichever manufacturer you fancy. I was just combating some blind ignorance while doing my daily superhero rounds.

It's the religious-zealot attitude that most users find obnoxiously annoying about Apple, not the actual hardware or software itself.

Which zealots are these? I only run win 7 and xp here. Not an OSX machine in the building.

I will not, under any circumstances, take a look at Apple's website, ever.

Aha, the sign of a great open mind. Close your eyes and stick your fingers in your ears and pretend it doesnt exist. Charles Darwin, you are not.

[705]

Look, I must respectfully tell you that you'll never convince anyone to go with Apple with that kind of attitude. It's the religious-zealot attitude that most users find obnoxiously annoying about Apple, not the actual hardware or software itself.

it seems like you that have this anti-apple kind of attitude. please try to be neutral in this forum. you can have your opinion but stay in very polite way to state that.


I didn't take anything out of context. The context is this thread. Think about it.


This guy ask about apple and alienware, he pointed out the advantage of apple, why is it out of context?


This thread was posted as a comparison between Apple and Alienware. You can love Apple all you like, sir. I find them silly and toylike in comparison to most of the workstations I've used, and simply would never opt to use one. It's not a personal affront to anyone who uses Apple PC's, so don't take it as such a blow to your ego. You will heal.


Im just confused with this statement. You got the point he's trying to compare apple and alienware and yet you did not suggesting apple nor defending alienware. it is you who come up with find other computer that have a better chance to be out of context.


I will not, under any circumstances, take a look at Apple's website, ever. Their marketing campaign has been based on falsehood, twisted truth, and outright BS since the 80's, and I happen to be immune to BS marketing. But visit their site all you like; nobody's stopping you from fanaticism here.

now thats sir, is a skeptical point of view. i couldnt agree more that their ads has been gone far from the fact. but if you already think apple ads is bs then it wouldn't matter for you to take a peek to apple website and try to compare. try to be open minded.

[SantoAnderson]

Speaking from experience, for the past 3+ years I've been working with both an Alienware M51 from 2005, and a Intel based Macbook Pro from 2006.

The reason I had to buy the Macbook Pro was because the damn Alienware would break down and stop working every month. Tech support would make random guesses as to the cause of the problem, often sending me new components, asking me to install them myself, even if they were unrelated to the issue. (They sent me a new optical drive to fix my flickering screen.) Over the course of my three year warranty, I must've sent that laptop back to the factory 7-8 times, and every time it came back, something new wouldn't work. Even now the wireless card, sound card, and optical drive won't work. I bought the Macbook Pro because the Alienware was always heading back to the factory. Little did I know that the Macbook Pro was going to become my primary machine.

I've had the Macbook Pro for over three years, and the thing is on 12 hours a day, renders overnight at least twice a week. It has palming, a little dent in the side, and the optical drive sounds a tiny bit buzzy on start up, but beyond that it's worked perfectly. It's been incredibly reliable.

The upside of the Alienware? It renders at least twice as fast as the Macbook Pro. I mean, that's all I use it for now. I will set up a scene in Maya on the Apple, and will move it over to the Alienware to render for a few hours. There's no doubt that the Alienware is a powerful machine, but in my experience, is horribly unreliable.

[Srek]

I happen to be immune to BS marketing.
Nope, you are immune to reason and experience.
Mash and i are no Apple fans whatsover, just some guys that had to deal with quite a load of different systems over the years and came to appreciate well build systems that simply work.
You on the other hand claim that ignorance is a virtue and use some zealots as an excuse to not face the facts yourself. Thats not a base for a discussion but for a monolog.

Cheers
Björn

[meleseDESIGN]

We use to work with Apple and self builded PCs.

I don´t know any hugh pro/cons when a discussion about Apple/PC starts.
Both work out fine.
Only the MAC OS X I feel more comfortable as with a Windows OS.
All appclications we use to work with are available for both OS and there is no incompatible between MAC OS and Windows OS applications output format.

You can save a scene from Maya OS X and work with it in Maya for Windows without issues.

[InfernalDarkness]

Quote:
Originally Posted by InfernalDarkness
I didn't take anything out of context. The context is this thread. Think about it.




This guy ask about apple and alienware, he pointed out the advantage of apple, why is it out of context?

Ask him. He's the one who accused me of taking things out of context, not the other way around.


Nope, you are immune to reason and experience.
Mash and i are no Apple fans whatsover, just some guys that had to deal with quite a load of different systems over the years and came to appreciate well build systems that simply work.
You on the other hand claim that ignorance is a virtue and use some zealots as an excuse to not face the facts yourself. Thats not a base for a discussion but for a monolog.


I use Maya, not C4D. Maya on the Mac isn't an option for me or my workflow; I need the flexibility of 64-bit support. I understand that you're trying to be nice about insulting me, and appreciate your intentions and your words.


Speaking from experience, for the past 3+ years I've been working with both an Alienware M51 from 2005, and a Intel based Macbook Pro from 2006.

I appreciate your experience as well. Glad the Mac is more reliable for you, and honestly it is likely a better machine than the Alienware. That said, if the Alien were stable, and with the rendering so much faster...


now thats sir, is a skeptical point of view. i couldnt agree more that their ads has been gone far from the fact. but if you already think apple ads is bs then it wouldn't matter for you to take a peek to apple website and try to compare. try to be open minded.

I apologize for being rude or close-minded about this topic. I'll try to keep an open mind in the future.

[imashination]

I use Maya, not C4D. Maya on the Mac isn't an option for me or my workflow; I need the flexibility of 64-bit support.

Windows 7, 64-bit. Stick the disk in, hit the install button, come back an hour later and you have a 64bit windows workstation with every driver installed ready to go.

You need never watch an apple advert, put up with their ridiculous mice or suffer their very late to the game 64bit OS, just use it for what it is; a well engineered piece of hardware.

[705]

wait up mash, bootcamp not yet fully support win-7
speaking of which, at last a step by step guide for win-7 on mac installation

http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/feature/1563065/installing-windows-intel-mac

minor bugs here and there, but nothing you cant handle with few steps.

[InfernalDarkness]

Windows 7, 64-bit.

I'm with you on that one. Been rockin' Win7 x64 since it emerged, and never looked back on XP (or Vista, for that matter). Most of my scenes wouldn't even open in x86, Mac or Windows.

I guess where we diverge is in the need for such expensive hardware. I believe all of you about Apple producing the cheapest Xeon pre-builts around, though. Not trying to naysay that.

But I work for a small firm, and the budget for hardware is slim, especially since the software we use is so expensive. I can't justify the price of an Apple workstation, but to be fair nor could I possibly justify the cost of an Alienware. I'm certain the bosses would purchase Mac Pros before Alienwares, especially if they saw an Alienware desktop. They'd assume I was spending their (meager) salary gaming all day and night instead of working! I prefer to keep the workstations cheap instead, and use the savings in other areas, but others might not have that option or hindrance.

[imashination]

wait up mash, bootcamp not yet fully support win-7

Why wait for bootcamp? Just slap the disc in and install it. Ive had win 7 running here faultlessly for a couple of months now. Bootcamp it purely an iso disc of windows drivers, the release disc of win 7 includes every driver the mac pro needs bar one, and that was just some small thing like the bluetooth or IR sensor, which can be fixed with a quick google and download.

[Remoth]

Ive been using windows 7 for around 6 months at home on my "workstation". I quoted it because its technically a gaming rig, but I also treat it as my workstation. It works next to flawlessly. I have the 7100 build of Ultimate x64, but will probably be upgrading to the full version (most likely home premium x64) after christmas.

I think a good gaming rig is plenty of a workstation for most people who just do demo work and the odd freelance at home. If you get into heavy freelance or just plain to constant heavy work on your machine, a real Workstation is probably a good idea (Mac pro, HP, Dell, Boxx, whatever.) Unless you are very focused on having OSX, I would say overall, the best home workstations for Part-time home artists is a home-built gaming rig or the new i5 or i7 iMac. Both would end up costing around the same (if you get a premium monitor with the PC, or you could save some money and get a normal monitor, but its your choice).

A Full-on workstation seems like a bit of overkill for someone in college. Others might think differently, but thats my opinion.

[meleseDESIGN]

Something i just want to throw in her.

We know a lot freelancer working in germany. As far as i can remember from talking to freelancers. Most i have meet don´t buy a ready to use full configurated workstation from the big companys, they prefer to buy most parts twice and built them up by self. Instead to have only one workstation they have two for same price they would spend for a workstation from a big company.

I like that idea having two workstations.
If i would be a freelancer, probably i would go the same way.
Two brains are better as one and five are better as two...aso.

[salmonmoose]

I like that idea having two workstations.
If i would be a freelancer, probably i would go the same way.
Two brains are better as one and five are better as two...aso.

If you have the know-how - or know someone who won't charge you too much, hand-built systems are always the best value - markup on off the shelf computers is embarrassing - it's not uncommon to be able to shave 50% off the price of a highend Dell/Apple here - especially if you're after a specialized machine (like a file server).

[meleseDESIGN]

If you have the know-how - or know someone who won't charge you too much, hand-built systems are always the best value - markup on off the shelf computers is embarrassing - it's not uncommon to be able to shave 50% off the price of a highend Dell/Apple here - especially if you're after a specialized machine (like a file server).


Sure, hand-built systems are allways the best value for someone.

An off the shelf computer isn´t embarrassing when it comes to the price, in my opinion.
Don´t forget, big companys have to pay for many hungry workers monthly, so they need to make money somehow.

Building up a workstation by your self for real price is ok, it is another thing. If you want to make money through selling a workstation you have to sell it for higher price, same way like big companys have to.

Big companys spend also a lot money for marketing, so they need to get this money from someone. Sure, they can´t sell a workstation for that price you pay when you build up by your self.

[vlad]

Sure, hand-built systems are allways the best value for someone.

An off the shelf computer isn´t embarrassing when it comes to the price, in my opinion.
Don´t forget, big companys have to pay for many hungry workers monthly, so they need to make money somehow.

Building up a workstation by your self for real price is ok, it is another thing. If you want to make money through selling a workstation you have to sell it for higher price, same way like big companys have to.

Big companys spend also a lot money for marketing, so they need to get this money from someone. Sure, they can´t sell a workstation for that price you pay when you build up by your self.

What I dont understand is how it doesnt work out like that for other products, like appliances, electronics, cars or bicycles for example. If I went out and bought every component of my mountain bike separatly and build it myself, I would end up paying 3 or 4 times more than the same bike off the shelf. For cars parts, it's even worse. Manufacturing companies always have bargain prices on bulk parts purchases. Somehow, it doesnt seem to work like that for computers.

[meleseDESIGN]

What I dont understand is how it doesnt work out like that for other products, like appliances, electronics, cars or bicycles for example. If I went out and bought every component of my mountain bike separatly and build it myself, I would end up paying 3 or 4 times more than the same bike off the shelf. For cars parts, it's even worse. Manufacturing companies always have bargain prices on bulk parts purchases. Somehow, it doesnt seem to work like that for computers.


No, it doesn´t work out like that.

You can pay for a pro bike with label 3000$ right away.
Buying a Lamborghini is 3-4 times more expansive as any midle class car.

Building yourself a higend product will probably allways be cheaper.

[Srek]

Somehow, it doesnt seem to work like that for computers.
Does a VW motor fit into a dodge using a mercedes gearbox and a ford Rearaxle? No.
Does aa EVGA graphics card fit into an ASUS mainboard using Kingston memory and an Intel CPU? Yes.

Theres your answer, standards and multiple companies sticking to them. This allows for much more competitive pricing that will ever be possible with car parts.

Cheers
Björn

[vlad]

You didnt get what I was saying.
I payed my Stumpjumper 3800$ from a pro shop.
Now if I wanted to buy all the parts separately and put it together myself, it would've cost me over 7000$. That's because Specialized buys parts from Shimano, Mavic etc in large quantities so he can get a volume discount and pass the savings down to the consumer.

But if I buy every part of my computer from Newegg or my corner store and build it up myself (which is what I've been doing for a while now), it will end up costing less (sometimes much less) than if I bought a ready built box from whoever.

I'm not talking about standards, high end or anything but volume pricing.

[meleseDESIGN]

You didnt get what I was saying.
I payed my Stumpjumper 3800$ from a pro shop.
Now if I wanted to buy all the parts separately and put it together myself, it would've cost me over 7000$. That's because Specialized buys parts from Shimano, Mavic etc in large quantities so he can get a volume discount and pass the savings down to the consumer.

But if I buy every part of my computer from Newegg or my corner store and build it up myself (which is what I've been doing for a while now), it will end up costing less (sometimes much less) than if I bought a ready built box from whoever.

I'm not talking about standards, high end or anything but volume pricing.

Specialized parts isn´t the only reason for that, it is a specialized market.
There is nothing special about pc hardware, ok, maybe for some Tyan and Supermicro Boards. Same goes for Apple Workstations, they´re specialized builts as well.

[vlad]

Specialized parts isn´t the only reason for that, it is a specialized market.
There is nothing special about pc hardware, ok, maybe for some Tyan and Supermicro Boards. Same goes for Apple Workstations, they´re specialized builts as well.

I ment Specialized as the bike company (http://www.specialized.com/)

[meleseDESIGN]

I ment Specialized as the bike company (http://www.specialized.com/)

Ok, that´s funny.
Sure, buying in large quantities you get a discount.
For higher effort you have to pay more.

[vlad]

...
For higher effort you have to pay more.

I dont follow you...

[meleseDESIGN]

I dont follow you...

The answers are all writen allready in your posts above!

For example:
To order every part separate is an effort for most vendors, instead buying in large quantities. You said allready. If you go in a store and like to buy a special part - for your bike as an example - probably they don´t got it in the shelf right away and they have to order it first. That is an effort YOU have to pay for, that´s why the bike will cost you 7000$ instead of 3500$. Sometimes you even must wait a few days until they got it in store.

PC Hardware vendors allways buying in large quantities (much larger) as a specialized vendor, that´s why you can build your workstation for allmost half of the price as you would pay for an off the shelf computer from companys like Dell, HP, Apple... aso.

[vlad]

...I give up :sad:

[meleseDESIGN]

...I give up :sad:

It´s probably the best we end this discussion here.
If you still don´t understand why it doesn´t work out like that for other products, like appliances, electronics, cars or bicycles for example, pm me.

[vlad]

I dont wanna be an ass but I think it's you who dont understand.

PC Hardware vendors allways buying in large quantities (much larger) as a specialized vendor, that´s why you can build your workstation for allmost half of the price as you would pay for an off the shelf computer from companys like Dell, HP, Apple... aso.

Why wouldnt HP, who builds x many thousands computers a week, get less of a deal on volume for parts than the street shop I buy from who probably order a tiny fraction (of the same parts from Intel or whatever) of what HP or Dell does?

[meleseDESIGN]

Why wouldnt HP, who builds x many thousands computers a week, get less of a deal on volume for parts than the street shop I buy from who probably order a tiny fraction (of the same parts from Intel or whatever) of what HP or Dell does?

Try to get a motherboard for a Z800 Workstation somewhere in store, then you know what´s going on.

Like Srek told you allready, standards will also decide how much you have to pay, not only volume.

We are talking here about a business and why shouldn´t HP take more money from you, as some other hardware vendors? It isn´t illegal and it seems to work out somehow for HP.

You don´t have to pay for a Lamborghini if you don´t feel comfortable. Alternative buy a Ford and be happy.

[vlad]

I doesnt have anything to do with brands, standards, high end, low end, Lamborghinis or anything.

Computers :
PC manufacturer --> sum of parts --> higher $
Self built --> sum of parts --> lower $

Everything else :
Manufacturer --> sum of parts --> lower $
Self built --> sum of parts --> higher $

Anyway, that question has been asked over and over and there's never been a clear answer.

[meleseDESIGN]

Selling a HP Z800 Workstation for 1500$ would be just a regular Workstation, nothing special.
It´s all about business and keeping an image alive.

[adamlogan]

Hi Zach, I see this thread has kind of become a flamewar on mac vs pc. Sorry to see that.I don't think you mentioned if you were thinking about a laptop or desktop. If you do want a laptop that makes quite a difference. In that case I would definitely go with a Macbook Pro and then it's just a matter of the size and configuration you want. Be sure to avoid the low end one, as it does without a dedicated graphics card. You will definitely want the 15" 2.66GHZ or higher.

If you want a desktop, then you will need to do more research. I think you should look into building your own rig putting together some good components from Newegg (http://www.newegg.com/). If you have a large budget, then check out BOXX (http://www.boxxtech.com/) as they are a company that is specifically targeting the computer graphics professionals niche. If that's out of your budget then again, I would recommend looking into what Apple has to offer.

So the tradeoffs as I see it...

BUILD YOUR OWN PC

PROS
most value for the buck, OS independent IE you can install whatever OS you want natively be it Windows, *nix, freebsd whatever. With difficulty you can even install Mac OS if you want. Clean install (no junk from the manufacturers like what you would get from Fujitsu on a laptop, a non retail windows xp install spanning 7cds with a bunch of awful software.)
CONS
Requires more time, energy, and effort during your free time. Depending on the perspective this is not necessarily a con. You should have someone experienced in building computers with you at all times though, buying the components, putting them together, and setting up.

PREBUILT SYSTEM FROM APPLE
PROS
Simplest solution, and runner up for most value for the buck in my opinion.

Easiest way to use the 3 major OSes on one machine, Mac/Windows/*nix. Bootcamp is great for Windows, Unix is already under the hood in Mac OSX Macports (http://www.macports.org/) and the Fink (http://www.finkproject.org/) project can add even more power to the Mac platform, a friend of mine tells me he has successfully installed Ubuntu natively on his mac as the primary OS (I don't recommend this but it can be done). There is always virtual machines (Virtual Box is recommended if you go that route.)

I like the operating system compared to windows, it is so much more functional and flexible out of the box. I try to use free and opensource (FOSS) 3rd party software whenever possible be it on Windows or Mac, and believe me there is a wealth of FOSS software available on the mac. On the surface the Mac OS is user friendly and intuitive to use, under the surface it has UNIX for awesome command line power.

Today is Black Friday, the online apple store (http://store.apple.com/store/) has discounts which are only good for today. Can save up to 200 bucks. If you don't mind a stock system (not configuring your system) you can get them even cheaper according to an article at macrumors (http://www.macrumors.com/2009/11/26/apples-black-friday-sales-2009-other-major-discounts-on-macs/).

CONS
Depending on what system you get, upgrading the system components is not always possible, and even if it is, it is not nearly as flexible as updating components on a PC. If you want to take full advantage of your hardware with a *nix of your choice, that would be much more difficult on the mac. Limited amount of games for the Mac OSX platform, but that's what bootcamp is for. Even still, everyone knows that games is dominantly Windows territory.

PREBUILT SYSTEM FROM A PC VENDOR IE BOXX or DELL/Alienware
PROS
BOXX makes the most powerful workstations around, even render farms and crazy systems like 4x quadcore cpus and 256gb of memory. Overkill for you most likely.
No actual work is neccesary for you except research and coughing up the dough.
Alienware is targeting gamers, so you would be well suited for developing and testing on the same computer this way. IMO you could do better though.
CONS
Way overpriced, very expensive, for a single workstation, you could build your own for much cheaper.
Dell workstations are not targeting computer graphics, it's more for consumers or businesses.

[Srek]

I doesnt have anything to do with brands, standards, high end, low end, Lamborghinis or anything.

Computers :
PC manufacturer --> sum of parts --> higher $
Self built --> sum of parts --> lower $

Everything else :
Manufacturer --> sum of parts --> lower $
Self built --> sum of parts --> higher $

Anyway, that question has been asked over and over and there's never been a clear answer.

I think we all kind of missed the real dealbraker.
Different to practically all other items of our daily life computers are developing with an unrivaled pace that allows for no price stability.
The examples with cars and bikes simply don't match, the ressources needed to create a bike frame or a car motor are basicaly the same over time, but the manufacturing process of processors and other electronic parts are beeing reinveted every couple of years.
A four year old high quality bike has the same practical value as a current high quality bike. A four year old car is still a good piece of technology and 100% usefull. A four year old top of the line computer however is a noisy, wastefull snail compared to current ones.
A 3.2 GHz P4 has a CINEBENCH of about 2000. A Core i7 920 scores 16000 and uses less ressources.

Anyone up for another game of apples and oranges? :)

Cheers
Björn

[meleseDESIGN]

PREBUILT SYSTEM FROM A PC VENDOR IE BOXX or DELL/Alienware


CONS
Way overpriced, very expensive, for a single workstation, you could build your own for much cheaper.






Would you build me a Workstation for the same price you spend for all the hardware when your in business?

I don´t understand why you complain about the prices for a prebuilt system!

You´re saying you can build yourself a workstation for much cheaper as some PC vendors. OK, that is fine for you. But can you make a life out of it when you investigate all your time and just sell prebuilded systems for the same price you have spend for all the hardware? NO! As a company you need to take more money for a prebuilt system to make a life out of it, to finance marketing strategies, to pay a good wages to your employees, to build and keep up an good mental image aso.

It is easy to say you can build your own workstation for much cheaper, but it is much more harder to make a business out of it.

[vlad]

I think we all kind of missed the real dealbraker.
Different to practically all other items of our daily life computers are developing with an unrivaled pace that allows for no price stability.
The examples with cars and bikes simply don't match, the ressources needed to create a bike frame or a car motor are basicaly the same over time, but the manufacturing process of processors and other electronic parts are beeing reinveted every couple of years.
A four year old high quality bike has the same practical value as a current high quality bike. A four year old car is still a good piece of technology and 100% usefull. A four year old top of the line computer however is a noisy, wastefull snail compared to current ones.
A 3.2 GHz P4 has a CINEBENCH of about 2000. A Core i7 920 scores 16000 and uses less ressources.

Anyone up for another game of apples and oranges? :)

Cheers
Björn

Actually, the analogy with the bicycle is not that bad. Especially if youlook at moutain bikes. Suspension technology, frame material, pivot design evolves about as steady as computer tech. Position specific damping/compression adjustments and platform pedaling was unheard of 5 years ago. Standards like headset size, crank interface, bolt patterns change every 4-5 years.A good mountain bike cost about the same as a good computer (1500$-4000$) and can be purchased in parts and (relatively) easily built by the consumer. And a 4 year old mountain bike that sees regular and sustained use is, by all means, a dead horse and doesnt worth much more than a 4 year old PC.

[705]

this thread is way out of topic from what the op asked for... :shrug:

[vlad]

this thread is way out of topic from what the op asked for... :shrug:

You got that right. My bad I guess... :blush:

[InfernalDarkness]

this thread is way out of topic from what the op asked for... :shrug:

Possibly, but it would be "off topic", not out of... Point being, the OP's questions have been answered, and were very early on. Our idle speculation regarding the topic in many facets is still constructive generally, as we discuss ideas and exchange information.

Along that vein, I guess I must disagree with Vlad about mountain-bikes as a decent analogy to computers. I think it holds water, up to the point where you mention that a four-year old bike that is heavily used holds far less value and loses performance compared to a new bike. But a four year-old bike that was never used, although maybe not as technically superior as a newer bike, can still perform the same tasks and go almost the same speed. A four year-old computer that had never been used wouldn't have the same qualities as a new one; it would still go a fraction the speed and be worth almost nothing.

I think one could maybe liken it to inventing gear shift systems for bikes, though? Say they didn't have multi-speed bikes four years ago, and now they do... Just tossing out ideas here.

A four-year old Mac or Alienware would be almost worthless in today's world, to put my post back on topic.

[CKPinson]

Ok- So I have to admit- I stopped by the local Apple store and have to say that I liked the 21" iMac- It was very sleak! The only issue I have is that my software is all for windows (XP32) not even 64. So I wonder how difficult it would be to transition and also I know nothing about the graphics cards that come with them and how they'd function with Maya. I've been pricing out Pc's and to get one with the i7 is similarly priced minus the Screen, keyboard and mouse. The 21" was going for $1k.

[InfernalDarkness]

The iMac is not a suitable workstation for Maya, especially at the $1K price point.

I do fondly recall running the original iMac side-by-side with my Pentium 2, circa 1998. Running Bryce 3 on both was kinda fun! And they were close in render speeds too, if I recall. The good ol' days. Not sure, but I think the iMac was running OS 10 back then too.

[ThE_JacO]

The iMac is not a suitable workstation for Maya, especially at the $1K price point.

I do fondly recall running the original iMac side-by-side with my Pentium 2, circa 1998. Running Bryce 3 on both was kinda fun! And they were close in render speeds too, if I recall. The good ol' days. Not sure, but I think the iMac was running OS 10 back then too.
for most of 1998 the imac wasn't even out yet, it was a christmas release in 98 if I remember right (I tend to remember these things relating to what I was doing professionally at the time, so I can easily be off by a quarter or two :) ).
It would have been running on PPC architecture, and its rendering speed would NOT have been comparable at all, it would probably have been in the realm of one fifth or less than a mid-line P2, if not less, and you would have had an absolutely laughable amount of memory and storage between other things :) (the first disco-mac I had to use had a 6GB HDD I believe).

The first imac with OSX was mid 2000s, probably 2004, as at the end of 2004 the imac around was still the G3 (G4 one was Q4 2004 in the States and Q1 2005 in Europe I believe?), before then you would have been usinc macOS 9.x and be happily assigning how much memory each app could use by hand while enjoying non-existent multitasking and a generally awfully flawed architecture and OS.

in fact, due to slow porting and all, you probably would have been doing just that for quite a while after OS-X was out. It didn't exactly take the world by storm the day of release :)
Puma came out in what... 2001 or 2? And at that point they had a rumored but never released compile for intel and only came out with the PPC version, so performance wise you would have still been miles away from intel or AMD CPUs for quite a few years after 98.
Also Initially OS-X was only released as a server build, and then cheetah (largely useless) came out in 2001.

And if you want a random bit of history, the first imac was when the whole iWhatever hype was started, with the 98/99 fisher price look imac crapball.
In their first press release in 98 the i was supposed to stand for internet, because that's what their netdesktop box was supposed to be focusing on, only in their second conference they said it stood for individual actually, internet's I was just a happy coincidence, and the focus of the box was office work and personal computing at home.

P.S.
Yes, I am waiting for stuff at work on a Sunday and am incredibly bored :)
All dates are fuzzy and off the top of my head, but I'm sure somebody somewhere on the web is enough of a fanatic to have some mac timeline site with everything frmo 86 on including red dots for every time Jobs took a crap.

[adamlogan]

Ok- So I have to admit- I stopped by the local Apple store and have to say that I liked the 21" iMac- It was very sleak! The only issue I have is that my software is all for windows (XP32) not even 64. So I wonder how difficult it would be to transition and also I know nothing about the graphics cards that come with them and how they'd function with Maya. I've been pricing out Pc's and to get one with the i7 is similarly priced minus the Screen, keyboard and mouse. The 21" was going for $1k.

I guess you are a student? In the apple educational store online you get practically the same discount as you would on black friday. Make sure you don't get the cheapest one, as games will most likely be unplayable due to the GeForce 9400M. Anything higher will be fine. Any products Autodesk sell works great on the mac. The only issue might be plugins or specialty software like crazybump. Even still, you can stick to Windows if you want on a bootcamp partition. With 4 gigs of ram you could run these programs within the virtual machine without much performance impact, especially if you shell out a few extra bucks for VmWare Fusion (http://www.vmware.com/products/fusion/). This virtual machine program has support for

Windows Aero with WDDM driver for Windows 7 and Windows Vista
DirectX 9.0c with Shader Model 3 support for Windows virtual machines
OpenGL 2.1 support for Windows XP virtual machines

There are so many different excellent computer graphics software available on various operating systems, and you'll find that each OS has something exclusive to offer. Getting a mac lets you use Mac and Windows simultaneously and natively and most importantly painlessly.

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/223112/selectimac.png

[ThE_JacO]

Any products Autodesk sell works great on the mac. The only issue might be plugins or specialty software like crazybump.
With any products you mean maya working with quite a few glitches and mudbox basically running but not dealing too well with the ATI cards you suggest? :)
Of AD's products only Maya will run decently on those platforms. MB is glitchy as all hell on those ATI cards, Softimage and Max don't have an OS-X version at all (the latter might get official fusion support soon though, but that's still a while away and far from being ideal), and obviously enough the comp suites don't run on a mac in general.

While the 9400M is an underpowered card, 4xx0 ATIs are a coin-toss at best when it comes to drivers and stability in Maya.

[InfernalDarkness]

for most of 1998 the imac wasn't even out yet, it was a christmas release in 98 if I remember right (I tend to remember these things relating to what I was doing professionally at the time, so I can easily be off by a quarter or two :) ).
It would have been running on PPC architecture, and its rendering speed would NOT have been comparable at all, it would probably have been in the realm of one fifth or less than a mid-line P2, if not less, and you would have had an absolutely laughable amount of memory and storage between other things :) (the first disco-mac I had to use had a 6GB HDD I believe).

I'm with you on this one, Jaco. You're right, after discussing it briefly with my friend who let me borrow the iMac, it was after my son was born, which would have been the year 2000. But that said, the rendertimes in Bryce 3 were comparable. The iMac he let me borrow for a few months ran at 266; my Pentium 2 ran at 233. So a slight discrepancy is imaginable, but my multiple render-tests at that time ran pretty close. A few seconds towards the Pentium on occasion, but generally they were neck-in-neck.

But please don't feel I was making a comparison with Mac and Windows. I was merely musing about the iMac. Probably shouldn't have posted such musings; at THAT time, I assure you I laughed at the iMac every single waking day. I only had it at my house because my friend needed a place to put it.

To Adam Logan:

Any products Autodesk sell works great on the mac.

I have no idea where you came up with this assessment. Not to overstate the face that there is no 64-bit Maya on the Mac natively in OS-10, but as was also stated the only other product you could use would be Mudbox, which has piles and piles of issues on both platforms still. Visit the Mudbox forums and you'll see all kinds of headaches. Same with Maya. And ATI issues with Maya still abound, especially.

[CGTalk Moderation]

This thread has been automatically closed as it remained inactive for 12 months. If you wish to continue the discussion, please create a new thread in the appropriate forum.