Interesting they compared the new Mac to a workstation.
Older workstations these days are a lot more affordable and can easily be upgraded. Most MACS you're stuck with what you get.
Case in point, I just purchased an HP 8400 workstation for a friend. $320 for a dual proc 2.6GHz quad core Xeon, 16GB RAM, Two 320GB SAS drives in RAID config and ATI Fire V7350 1GB video card. Sure its a pig and isn't the quietest PC in the room, but it completely shreds anything I could find in a retail setting.
Really? $320 for a new machine with that spec? That graphics card alone costed more than that when it was new, did the CPU/storage/power supply come at negative price?
If this was true, it would really explain HP's financial situation /s
I suspected as much, but then it's silly to bring it into a cost/performance comparison against a brand new top of the line 2013 desktop. Yes they are upgradable, but by the time you upgrade them to modern spec it will cost a lot more than $320.
Writing "Mac" in all caps as if the writer obtusely believes it to be an acronym for something is part of the style manual for passive-aggressive platform debate.
Older workstations these days are a lot more affordable and can easily be upgraded. Most MACS you're stuck with what you get.
Case in point, I just purchased an HP 8400 workstation for a friend. $320 for a dual proc 2.6GHz quad core Xeon, 16GB RAM, Two 320GB SAS drives in RAID config and ATI Fire V7350 1GB video card. Sure its a pig and isn't the quietest PC in the room, but it completely shreds anything I could find in a retail setting.