[barrkel]

You should do the homework yourself, rather than relying on an article whose motivations you can't be sure of.

It's awkward to match the Apple machine exactly because of the non-standard graphics hardware. The D300/500 are approximately cut-down versions of W7000/8000 with reduced VRAM.

I specced up a machine on newegg and other sources for the CPU. E5-1660 V2 (3.7Ghz with 15M cache), LGA 2011 motherboard, 64G ECC RAM, 2xW7000 graphics, 480G PCIe SSD (2x240G), and a CPU cooler / case / power supply to round it out (not looking to buy the most expensive options here). Came to about $4800.

An Apple.com Mac Pro machine with 3.5Ghz / 12M cache CPU (worse), 64G memory, dual D500 GPU (worse) and 256G PCIe (worse) comes to $5200.

On the pro Apple side, you get a very nice case and a lot of integrated wireless stuff, Thunderbolt etc. On the anti Apple side, you get much better expandability (the option to go dual socket in particular) and upgradability, and an overall more powerful system for nearly 10% less.

[marknutter]

From this article, going with the D700 saves you over $6000: http://architosh.com/2013/10/the-mac-pro-so-whats-a-d300-d50...

The D700 is equivelant to the AMD FirePro W9000 which is listed at $3,399.99 on Amazon.com: http://www.amazon.com/AMD-FirePro-Retail-Graphics-100-505632...

AMD really wanted their cards in this machine I guess..

[wmf]

Or maybe the D700 is equivalent to a 7970.

[KVFinn]

>Or maybe the D700 is equivalent to a 7970.

The 300 - 500 dollar range consumer cards seem to crush all over the $4,000 cards for anything I might use. Are there popular apps that are locked to the Pro series cards or something? Vegas rendering, Autocad, Folding@Home, Unity Dev, etc.

Why would I want the >$3,000 D700 in the Mac over a 290x, even if the 290x wasn't 1/6th the price, since the 290x is faster? What's the market for these cards?

[sounds]

What are you using the GPU for? An actual Vegas, Maya, or proprietary in-house rendering engine user could easily answer your question–

• Enough VRAM to load their entire dataset on the GPU (yes, the Mac Pro skimps on this)

• Hardware optimized for pro-level GPGPU (e.g. ECC RAM, but the Mac Pro skimps on this)

• Dedicated pro-level support from AMD and a pro-level expectation of QA before you buy it; think of those proprietary in-house tools here (you're not likely to get AMD support for the D300 since it is custom to the Mac Pro)

If none of those seem that important to you (you're just mining altcoins or playing BF4), you really _don't_ benefit from a $4,000 card. AMD knows that.

For the guys that need it every day to get their work done, $4,000 is a pittance for what they get in return.

Obviously, I concluded that the Mac Pro GPUs fail in all respects to compete at the pro level.

[arrrg]

So … you are saying the markup is anything but large. It’s a tiny markup, especially considering the case you get. (I wonder what noise your built PC will make.)

[epmatsw]

Yep. $400 on a $5000 machine? For me, that'd easily be covered by the case, acoustics, and ability to use OSX. Not to mention the knowledge that I've got warranty on the full machine, not just on each individual part. My custom-built desktop is fine for gaming, but if I'm dropping $5k for a professional machine, I want some guarantees.

[AmVess]

My built PC is pleasantly quiet. It's also almost .00008% as sexy as this little Mac Pro.