You seem to like HP. An HP Z600 workstation configured close to the top-end base configuration for a Mac Pro (dual 2.26 GHz Xeon) costs $3,386. The Mac Pro costs $3,299. At that price the Mac also has a bigger hard drive, a power supply with over double the capacity, and the ability to take 50% more RAM. It also comes with Bluetooth and dual independent gigabit Ethernet, which the HP doesn't, and the base Quadro graphics on the HP are actually cheaper than the base GeForce on the Mac Pro.
Looks like if you have that kind of money your best bet is a Mac purely on power/performance. HP even charges $780 more to upgrade to 2.93 GHz than Apple does.
I don’t have that kind of money. That’s why I look for performance per dollar spent. I would no sooner buy that Z600 than I would a Mac.
Performance/dollar ratio. Am I clear?
I say that if I had that kind of money in a rhetorical sense. I could put together a whole lot more computer than that Z600 or a Mac for less money.
But I’m not going to ever spend that kind of money on a computer. Am I clear?
Macs are simply overpriced. That HP z600 is too. I wouldn’t buy either. Is that clear?