24" iMac C2D or Intel Core 2 Duo based PC + 23" ACD

[Gorosh]

Hi, this is my first post here.

 

I plan to buy new computer next week. I'm not sure which route to take, so I'm looking for some suggestions, experiences etc...

 

Here's the deal: I'm graphic designer / illustrator and I use following apps: Photoshop, Illustrator, Painter. This is primary function, I'll run those apps everyday, whole day, often at the same time.

 

Second group are 2D animation apps: AfterEffects, TV Paint Animation (Mirage), one of the ink & paint apps (Toon Boom for example). This is not primary, I'll run those apps from time to time, and even then I won't use heavy effects, just some compositing and basic animation (I'll be scanning hand-drawn frames, clean, color and compose them).

 

Third group are audio apps: Ableton Live, some VSTs (Native Instruments etc.). Those apps won't be used proffesionally, you can think of it as substitution for games (which I won't play on this rig).

 

And fourth, I might do some 3D modeling and rendering, but nothing complex (if some 2D project needs 3D implementation for example). Apps: Luxology Modo.

 

I won't be overclocking this PC, and it won't be used for gaming.

 

 

PC would look something like this:

 

Intel Core 2 Duo E6600, 2.4 GHz, 4MB cache

Asus P5B Deluxe Wi-Fi

2 GB 667 / 800MHz ram

320 GB, 16 MB cache, Sata II HDD

ATI 1600 Pro / XT

 

plus

 

Apple Cinema Display 23"

 

-------------------------------

 

Price: ~3300$

 

Optionally, I could take E6400 (2.13 GHz) and 23" Philips, and the price would then be ~2700$.

 

Now I'm not sure if this is better investment over 24" iMac C2D. If I take the upgraded model (2.3GHz) with 7600GT and 2GB ram, the price would be more-or less the same as my first configuration (~3300$). If I take standard 2.13GHz iMac (with 2GB ram) the price would be as my second configuration (~2700). Don't ask about prices - when you add all the taxes for my country, they cost that much. Awful, I know.

 

I can't afford MacPro + ACD at the moment, so these are my options. Does it makes more sense to invest into iMac or PC with 23" display? Here are the pros and cons, as I see it:

 

Intel Core 2 Duo PC + 23" ACD

 

Pros:

 

- ACD is S-IPS based display, therefore much better for image manipulation and color correction, which I will be doing a lot

 

- I will have separate display and computer, so I can upgrade and leave ACD

 

- PC offers much better upgrade options, has more space (I can have 4 discs in Raid 5 / 10, additional optical drives etc.), RAM is less expensive

 

- my workflow is used to Windows, and I use lot of other small Windows apps (for catalogs etc.)

 

- PC itself is cheaper and has better specs than iMac

 

 

Cons:

 

- it's a Windows based PC (although I don't have big problem with that)*

 

 

24" iMac C2D

 

Pros:

 

- it's Mac, therefore much more traditionally suited for my profession

 

- it's compact and relatively mobile solution

 

- I can dual boot OS X and Windows XP*

 

 

Cons:

 

- the 24" screen is based on S-PVA panel

 

- I'm stuck with screen / computer combo

 

- upgrade options are poor, I'm more or less stuck with my initial configuration

 

- it's more expensive solution with lower specs

 

- my main apps (Adobe CS) are not Intel-native (although this will change during 2007)

 

 

Ok, probably there are few more things, but that would be it. I've put asteriks sign because I know that I can theoretically dual boot both configurations, but I'm interested in real world application. Like I said, this rig will be used in professional manner, so my question is: how effectively can I run XP on iMac and vice-versa, Mac OS on PC? I would love to run Mac OS on my computer, for various reasons, so how good / fast would be hackintosh based on those specs? Could I run various apps in professional tasks or not?

 

What do you think will give me more bang for my buck - iMac or PC? Will the PC with this specs be faster in real life situations than iMac? Your opinion?

 

Thanks

[Numberzz]

What you could do is install windows on your iMac and run non-intel-native in windows until they come out for mac. You could even run them in crossover mac. Wouldn't be fast though.

[roscoe13]

Another pro for the 24" iMac is that you can add one of the Cinema HD displays as a second monitor...

 

Peace

[Gorosh]

I forgot to add that I'll be buying 17" (probably) MacBook Pro, sometime during 2007, so I'll have Mac one way or the other. Basically my question is - Which would be better investment and more suitable for graphic design and illustration:

 

a) Intel Core 2 Duo Windows XP PC (2.4 GHz) + MacBook Pro 17"

 

24" iMac (2.3GHz) + Window XP PC laptop

 

c) Intel Core 2 Duo Windows XP PC (2.4 GHz) + PC laptop

 

d) 24" iMac (2.3GHz) + MacBook Pro 17"

 

 

Another pro for the 24" iMac is that you can add one of the Cinema HD displays as a second monitor...

 

Peace

 

Unfortunately that's not an option, my budget is around 3300$ (in that case I would rather squezze 500 more and buy both ACD and Mac Pro). Anyway, it's an option, not a pro in this case, since I can do that on my PC too, and then I'll have dual 24".

 

What you could do is install windows on your iMac and run non-intel-native in windows until they come out for mac. You could even run them in crossover mac. Wouldn't be fast though.

 

I've mentioned that several times in my post. What I'm wondering is what's the quality of performance for iMac with Windows, and for PC with Mac OS.

[GBK.Xscape]

i suggest squeeze out that 500 more becaue you may not have the money now but in the near future you could upgrade your video card and RAM much easier. plus one more small plus for the real mac; no headaches on getting the system to work correclty 100%. squeeze out the extra becuase you wont spend hours scrathing your head over not getting something to work. I think of OSx86 of a taste of what of apple really has to offer becuase we will truly never get 100% efficiency with a hackintosh unless apple backs us up and helps the community(which it should). Good luck

[roscoe13]

I've mentioned that several times in my post. What I'm wondering is what's the quality of performance for iMac with Windows, and for PC with Mac OS.

 

Do yourself a favor, get two real macs. Even if you get the iMac and decide later that you need more than it can provide, on huge advantage that macs have over other PCs is resale value (if you don't belive me, check the going prices on eBay, 20" iMac G5s are still going for $1200 or so...) so you could always sell the 24" iMac in a couple years and buy whatever the high-end desktop is by then. Realistically, with what you say you want to do with the machine, I think the 24" iMac will be more than enough. Realistically, I don't think the small performance difference for the 2.33GHz is worth it either, you're talking a 10% increase in price for a <10% increase in CPU speed that with the same RAM , video & HD speed is going to give you a <<10% increase in actual performance...

 

Peace

[Gorosh]

i suggest squeeze out that 500 more becaue you may not have the money now but in the near future you could upgrade your video card and RAM much easier.

 

I'm sorry, I misspelled - Mac Pro + 23" ACD would cost me 1400$-1500$ more, not 500$, so it's definitely not an option. ~5000$ at the moment is way too much.

[bofors]

Apple Cinema Display 23"

 

This is waste of money and only has a one year warranty. If you must get a display that large (as opposed to two smaller panels instead, which is always a much better deal), try looking at the Dell 2407.

 

Otherwise, since the iMac appears to fit your needs, that should be your choice. Don't worry about upgrade issues so much, you can always sell it later (and recover some of the tax money as well). Macs have very high resale value, just look at eBay.

[Gorosh]

This is waste of money and only has a one year warranty. If you must get a display that large (as opposed to two smaller panels instead, which is always a much better deal), try looking at the Dell 2407.

 

Here's the deal - in my country 24" Dell is only 150$ cheaper than 23" ACD. And I'm not sure if you're aware that Dell uses S-PVA panel, while 23" ACD uses S-IPS panel, which is much more suited for image editing and color correction (this is very important to me, I work with top class fashion photos for print, where right color, differences in texture, shades of black etc. are extremly important and critical for job well done). If I had more money I would invest into one of the Eizo or Nec displays for color correction, but at the moment they are too expensive for me.

 

If 24" iMac used better display, it would be lesser dilemma for me. The other biggest problem is disk space - it has such a poor upgrade options - I would like to have 4 disk in Raid 5 / 10 setup, which is not possible with iMac (without way too much expensive external RAID solutions).

[bofors]

Ok, you need a professional grade display of which the cheapest is the ACD. So actually the iMac does not fit your needs, let's rule it out then. Now, let's consider the board and CPU for your hackintosh:

 

Intel Core 2 Duo E6600, 2.4 GHz, 4MB cache

Asus P5B Deluxe Wi-Fi

 

In short, until Apple releases a 965 based chipset, you want either a 945 or 975 based motherboard for running OSx86. This mean an Asus P5B is not really what you want.

 

Since it is clear that you are working within a budget, let's save you money by getting the best value in CPU and motherboard. This means using a E6300, instead of the E6600, overclocking a little if necessary for speed and pairing it with a 945 motherboard. In the USA, using these components would save you about 50% over what you had picked out.

 

The ASUS P5LD2 R2.0 may be an excellent choice for you here: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?...N82E16813131048

 

Alternatively, the Gigabyte GA-945P-S3: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?...N82E16813128015

[Gorosh]

Ok, you need a professional grade display of which the cheapest is the ACD. So actually the iMac does not fit your needs, let's rule it out then. Now, let's consider the board and CPU for your hackintosh:

 

Intel Core 2 Duo E6600, 2.4 GHz, 4MB cache

Asus P5B Deluxe Wi-Fi

 

In short, until Apple releases a 965 based chipset, you want either a 945 or 975 based motherboard for running OSx86. This mean an Asus P5B is not really what you want

 

Hmmm, I guess I didn't clarify things enough - I'm not necessarilly planning to build Hackintosh, since I don't care much about "everything works" or Mac OS itself. It would be cool icing on top of the cake, but it's by no means necessary. I need computer which will be fast enough to use before mentioned apps in professional enviroment. Like I said, I'll need a laptop, so I'm planning to buy Mac Book Pro in 2007, therefore I'll have at least one computer with Mac OS (because I want to have both systems).

 

I was interested in performance itself ie. does 24" iMac outruns E6600 based PC (in tasks I outlined), and how well does Win Xp runs on it (I suppose the answer is no, bu I'm not sure, so I asked). If someone would say 24" iMac is much stronger and more efficient, both in Windows and OS X (in terms of performance, not OS usability) than my listed configuration, than I would consider buying it, and later investing second high quality display.

 

I don't have problem with working in XP - I used Windows it for 10 years, and although they are quite crappy in many segments, in the and apps I use has same options and functions on both systems. I'm also kind of guy who likes to get his hands dirty ie. I like to open my equipment, hack a thing here and there etc., so "everything works" either way. What are benefits of having hackintosh (beside having 2 systems on one PC) in real life task - would Photoshop run faster on OS X hackintosh (once it's native) or on the same computer, but on Win XP? What would you outline as benefits? (remember, I don't have a problem with manually hacking updates, playing with settings and setup problems etc.).

 

Basically, I want to know, considering before mentioned configurations:

 

24" iMac Mac OS X performance vs E6600 PC Windows XP performance

24" iMac Win XP performance vs E6600 PC Windows XP performance

24" iMac Mac OS X performance vs E6600 PC Hack OS X performance

 

I searched various forums and web sites, but I didn't find straight answer.

 

I repeat, next year I'll have one OS X based computer anyway, and at the moment I'm looking for most efficient and strong configuration, no matter which OS it's using.

 

Thanks for your answers.

[bofors]

Hmmm, I guess I didn't clarify things enough - I'm not necessarilly planning to build Hackintosh, since I don't care much about "everything works" or Mac OS itself. It would be cool icing on top of the cake, but it's by no means necessary.

...

I don't have problem with working in XP...

...

I repeat, next year I'll have one OS X based computer anyway, and at the moment I'm looking for most efficient and strong configuration, no matter which OS it's using.

 

I did catch this, but it seems to me that you are "switcher". I think that you will be running OS X exclusively within a year or so. While you are tolerant of Windows related problems now, your attitude will change once you own a Mac (or hackintosh).

 

I was interested in performance itself ie. does 24" iMac outruns E6600 based PC (in tasks I outlined), and how well does Win Xp runs on it (I suppose the answer is no, bu I'm not sure, so I asked).

...

24" iMac Mac OS X performance vs E6600 PC Windows XP performance

24" iMac Win XP performance vs E6600 PC Windows XP performance

24" iMac Mac OS X performance vs E6600 PC Hack OS X performance

 

Any Conroe / Allendale machine will outrun an iMac on the basis of front side bus. The iMac's Merom is only runing at 667 MHz while the E6XXX chips are at 1066. In short, the iMac uses laptop components which have lower performance (and higher cost for SO-DIMMs) than their desktop counterparts. If you are that concerned about performance, than you absolutely should build your own machine and overclock it a little.

 

What are benefits of having hackintosh (beside having 2 systems on one PC) in real life task - would Photoshop run faster on OS X hackintosh (once it's native) or on the same computer, but on Win XP?

 

Once native, Photoshop will likely run at about the same speed on OS X and Windows.

 

The advantages of a hackintosh over a real Mac include being able to overclock, to build "exactly" what you want and the ability to easily reuse, upgrade or replace components with off the shelf parts. For example, if your iMac motherboard or PSU dies in a few years, replacement Mac parts are more expensive and difficult to aquire than PC parts. If you want to invest in some nice PC components, like a high end aluminum case and a hiqh quality quiet PSU, you can continue to use them long after your motherboard and CPU are obsolete, Macs are not so modular.

 

You may also find that the price of Mac-compatible RAM is more expensive than that for a PC.

[Gehaktbal]

You should know that the iMac does NOT contain the desktop version of the Core 2 Duo (The Conroe) but instead contains the mobile version, the desktop (The Merom)

 

You should be well aware of this, you can't compare them.

In Holland we have a saying that goes: "That's comparing apples with pears"

You can not compare desktop processors with mobile processors and vice versa that easily...

I'd look up some benchmarks if I were you

[bofors]

You should know that the iMac does NOT contain the desktop version of the Core 2 Duo (The Conroe) but instead contains the mobile version, the desktop (The Merom)

 

That's right and it makes a significant difference in performance due to the front side bus differential, as I stated above.

[Gorosh]

Thanks for your answers Bofors. Yes, I am "switcher", although maybe better term would be "expander". I'll know I'll use both systems, although at one moment one OS might be used more often, at other second one. I must add that I'm not new to Mac OS, I've used it on numerous occasions, for a long time, since every design studio where I worked was Mac based. However, I took freelance route recently, and now I need new machine. I would buy Mac Pro without thinking, and wouldn't mention PCs at all, but at the moment I just can't afford it, so until I have means to buy "the real deal" I'm looking for best bang for my buck, and at the moment E6XXX series based PC gives that IMHO.

 

As for Hackintosh, like I said, it's not a must, although it would be cool if I could dual boot Win / OS X. Regarding that, is ATI Radeon 1650 Pro / XT supported for hack?

[bofors]

I would buy Mac Pro without thinking, and wouldn't mention PCs at all, but at the moment I just can't afford it...

 

I want to say a couple words about the Mac Pro. First of all, at $2500 it is a sweet deal, I had expected it to list at $3500 (and at $3300 nobody would have complained about price). However, the use of FB-DIMMs is looking like a rather serious problem, both price and performance stink.

 

Pricewise, I would want 4 x 1 GB, the best price for this right now is $759: http://dealnews.com/memory/prices/systems/...4047/1GBx4.html Even at today's inflated prices, this is almost twice as much as I would pay for 4 GB of DDR2-667 (about $440).

 

But even with quad channel, due to added latency, the bandwidth can be as little as half that for dual channel DDR2. I have posted some of that data here: http://forum.insanelymac.com/index.php?sho...508&st=110#

 

Regarding that, is ATI Radeon 1650 Pro / XT supported for hack?

 

Maybe, as several of the ATI x1XXX cards do work, but the lack of graphics card support is still perhaps the biggest downside to OSx86:

http://forum.insanelymac.com/index.php?showtopic=19806

 

The Asus EAX Silent x1600XT has been the most popular and successful choice for hackintoshs (but that seems to require the right version of the card): http://forum.insanelymac.com/index.php?showtopic=23809

[Gorosh]

I want to say a couple words about the Mac Pro. First of all, at $2500 it is a sweet deal, I had expected it to list at $3500 (and at $3300 nobody would have complained about price). However, the use of FB-DIMMs is looking like a rather serious problem, both price and performance stink.

 

I'm well aware of the downsides of Mac Pro at the moment, and although there are better deals on FB-DIMM ram if you don't buy it directly from Apple, it's still expensive, and slower.

 

I'm also aware that in some tasks C2D outperforms Mac Pro, since not all apps and tasks utilise 4 cores optimally.

 

As for a price, with all the taxes in my country it costs more like 4000-5000$ (depends on the model), so I guess you can understand me when I say that I can't afford it. If it went for 2500$ here, I would be writing this from my Mac Pro.

 

However, I guess that when I'll be investing in Mac Pro, there would be new model out, so some of the performance problems might be gone.

[aliquis]

The iMac of course, imho anyone buying a PC when what they are looking for is an idiot. If you are going to use Apples product pay to Apple and noone else. And if want to complain about specs remember it's a f***ing computer anyway and the development goes fast and in a few years it will be rather worthless compared to a new one no matter which one you get, but atleast with the iMac you helped R&D over at Apple for your next purchase.

 

Just get the 24" iMac and 7600GT.

 

(or the Mac Pro of course if you want upgradeability, but not a PC.)

[dark4181]

you might also consider a Dell Ultrasharp 24" or 30" monitor for your viewing needs. the picture quality is just as high (if not higher) than the apple cinema display. not to mention the Dell monitors only cost about 2/3 as much... $1400 rather than $2000 for the 30" ...apple does seem to enjoy price gouging as far as peripherals are concerned. but there's no reason to play that game here...

 

my stepdad works at Dell and he has nothing but praise for these monitors. they regularly bring in hardware from other companies to compare and he tells me that they haven't come across anything as good so far

 

as for your computer needs, just save your money and buy a mac pro.. the Dell Ultrasharp has DVI input, so it'll all line up just fine

[Gorosh]

you might also consider a Dell Ultrasharp 24" or 30" monitor for your viewing needs. the picture quality is just as high (if not higher) than the apple cinema display. not to mention the Dell monitors only cost about 2/3 as much... $1400 rather than $2000 for the 30" ...apple does seem to enjoy price gouging as far as peripherals are concerned. but there's no reason to play that game here...

 

my stepdad works at Dell and he has nothing but praise for these monitors. they regularly bring in hardware from other companies to compare and he tells me that they haven't come across anything as good so far

 

as for your computer needs, just save your money and buy a mac pro.. the Dell Ultrasharp has DVI input, so it'll all line up just fine

 

First of all, nothing could be further from the truth in case of Dell vs ACD. If for one thing, ACD use S-IPS panel, which is much more suited for my needs than S-PVA that Dell uses. The ACD has better picture quality, better color accuracy and better viewing angle than that Dell you're mentioning. I need quality display for color-critical work, and none of th Dell models is appropriate for me, or anyone serious about their color work, for that matter.

 

Anyway, I'll be getting 21" NEC 2190UX in the end, since it's much better than both Dell and ACD, although I'll wait for few weeks to see new 26" NEC 2690WUXi, since it will cover 92% of AdobeRGB color space...

 

As for my computer needs, yes, I would buy Mac Pro if I could afford it at the moment. Unfortunately it costs around 4000-5000$ in my country, with all the taxes, and I just can't afford that kind of money right now. For

~3300$ I'll buy C2D E6600 based PC with 21" NEC 2190UX included in the price, and I'll get fast machine (with custom picked components to better suit my needs), with great upgrade options and with superb display, and this is best option at this moment for me. If I had 6000$, I'd buy Mac Pro with 2190UX, but it's not an option really.

 

Like I said, the situation with PC vs 24" iMac, as I see it, is:

 

PC

 

- faster

- custom components tailored for specific tasks and needs

- greater upgrade options

- separate display, of my choice

- more software at disposal

 

iMac

 

- it's Mac

- dual boot Win / Mac OS option

 

Now, for roughly the same price (if I take 2.4 processor and 2GB of ram in iMac) I get faster computer, with great upgrade options (I don't have to spend big $$ for external RAID solutions for example), and I get to pick any screen I want (and as I mentioned before, monitor quality is very important to me, actually better monitor is much more important than difference in speed) if I go for PC solution. I just needed some facts straighten out before my decision, that's why I opened this topic.

 

The iMac pros on the other hand are relative - it IS possible to dual boot Win / Mac OS on PC also, and "it's a Mac" is only a pro in certain aspects.

 

If 24" iMac had superb screen, than I would maybe consider it again, although it's practically non existent upgrade options are quite a big minus - and I don't necessarily mean processor or graphic card upgrades - I'm talking about stuffing computer with additional disks, RAID, 8GB ram etc. For example, Asus P5B Deluxe motherboard I'll be buying has additional PCIe slot, so I can jam in second graphic card and have triple monitor display (since I already have 2 monitors, with new NEC I'll be ready for that kind of setup). iMac is just too closed system for my taste.

 

Anyway, I need a laptop, and somewhere during 2007 (Q2 probably) I'll buy Mac Book Pro, therefore I'll have a MacOS based computer, so there's even less need for iMac in my case.

 

If Mac computer prices in my country were same as in US, I'd be writing this from Mac Pro with 4GB ram, but they are almost twice higher, so you have to understand me when I say that I can't really afford it at the moment.

[RobNyc]

iMac!! get it

[Lostgame]

iMac, duh.