Jump to content

iMac or Mac Pro?

Proteo
 Share
26 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Proteo
Proteo
Posted
Posted

Hi all. After more than two years of being a happy hackintosh user, finally I'm gonna bit the apple. My current system has been nothing but a pleasure to use, and the source of all my incomings of this and the past year so I couldn't be more happy or grateful with it, but it is showing its age.

 

Fortunately, switching to a "Mac" allowed me to pick freelance jobs in the local TV industry (you know, they don't like PC guys very much, besides FCS is a must) that gave me the chance to save money and get a real Mac (a very long long dream) but I simply can't make my mind about the right system to get.

 

If I dig a bit in my pocket I can get a Mac Pro (current stock configuration, plus 2 GB third part memory), which I know would the perfect system for what I do (mostly After Effects and FCS apps), and certainly is a better long-term investment. However, spending almost 3000 USD in a computer scares me a bit, since I'm not rich and I could use part of this money to buy other necessary goods for me, my family or even some extra computer equipment like a graphic tablet.

 

On the other side the iMac is a fine computer, has a great looking screen, is much cheaper and is somewhat portable, but looks a bit weak to me. If I go for the iMac, I'd go for the 2.4 Ghz 20" model and then adding 2x2GB memory sticks. 24" is so expensive that the Mac Pro would give me a much better price/value rate, so that's a no go. And even when having another screen would be nice, it is not mandatory, because I already own two. Besides, I have the feeling that new iMacs with penryn processors are not that far away.

 

So, from my point of view these are the pros and cons:

 

Mac Pro

Pros:

  • Lots of raw power (8 cores!), great for dealing with those heavy After Effects renders.
  • New, more future-proof penryn processors (Harpertowns).
  • A bit better graphic card (Radeon 2600 XT).
  • Has 2GB ram stock.
  • Lot of room for upgrades.
  • More robust, sturdier components, made for heavy workloads.

Cons:

  • Very expensive, I couldn't get anything else but the computer.
  • Memory upgrades are pricey, even from third part vendors.
  • Even when is expansible, I don't plan to add more hardware to it, at least not for now.

iMac 2.4 Ghz 20"

Pros:

  • Overall cheaper, and more accesible memory price.
  • Nice glossy screen (useful but not a must).
  • I could get a Wacom graphic tablet along with it, and would remain enough to get a couple of Levi's I need.

Cons:

  • Much less processor power.
  • Not penryn processors available.
  • "Only" Radeon 2600 Pro available.
  • Just 1GB memory stock (but even when I'd need to go for 2x2GB sticks, it's cheaper than 2x1GB of Mac Pro's ram).
  • Aside memory, it is not upgradable at all.
  • Basically a "desktop laptop". Not sure if components will take those 3 or 4 days running work-at-day-render-at-night non-stop sessions very well.

Besides those points, I have these questions that may help me to choose one over the other:

  • Does iMac support dual screens? I'd love to attach it my Dell 2007WFP to it.
  • Does Mac Pro need an extra "memory raiser card" to take other two memory sticks, if I buy it with only the stock 2 GB?

I'll be glad to hear your opinions.

 

Thanks in advance, Proteo.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ongeloof
Ongeloof
Posted
Posted

My Basic, un-upgraded 20"iMac gets the {censored} beaten out of it, with my constant 5-6 day downloading sessions.... and with iFreeMem, it handles it quite well... though if it doesn't, who cares, Time Machine is my mac...

anything goes wrong, i will take it back and replace it...

 

Think Mark

Link to comment
Share on other sites
lessew
lessew
Posted
Posted

Yes, the iMac supports two monitors via the Mini-DVI out. You'll need an adapter from Mini-DVI though, as it doesn't come with one (at least mine didn't). As far as the Mac Pro goes, I'd doubt it needs a raiser card, but I can't affirm or deny. I've got my 20inch refurbed iMac set up with a 1TB hd and 4 gigs of RAM (custom upgrade, voided warranty, but oh well). It gets the {censored} beaten out of it too, as I'm using it as an FTP, Web, and torrent server. And it's still holding up just grand. I do all my photo editing on my MacBook Pro, so I can't really attest to the iMac performance in that area.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
QuietOC
QuietOC
Posted
Posted
  • Aside memory, it is not upgradable at all.

I use a 20" 2.16GHz Core 2 Duo iMac everday for work. I have a Samsung 20" LCD as a second monitor. Photoshop CS3 is very slow with only 3GB of memory--at least with anything else running, and OSX makes it a complete pain to turn off inactive apps. I'd say 4GB still wouldn't be enough. Someone mentioned a rumor of the new Mac Books maybe supporting 4GB SO-DIMMs. 8GB of memory would make the new iMacs much better.

 

Certainly my iMac is a little more upgradeable than what you said: CPU, Hard Drive, probably Optical. I swapped in a WD Raptor (to try to improve massive memory swapping performance) a couple of weeks ago.

 

The new aluminum models might be more difficult to get into, but the new 24" iMac suppossedly uses nVidia's MXM video card modules, so even a video card upgrade should be possible.

 

The question about CPU power is not so simple either. Unless you are running video rendering/transcoding alot the extra processing cores in the Mac Pro are mainly just eating up electricity. The clockspeed/cache size difference between the two is more likely to effect real performance. The high latency of the Mac Pro's memory actually hurts performance, and most applications just can't take any advantage of memory "bandwidth", which is why I am running the 1GB + 2GB in my iMac.

 

If I were to buy a Mac Pro (which is highly unlikely because of the crappy FB-DIMMs). I would find the model with the best price for it's components, sell off the Quad-Core Xeon(s), and buy one of the fastest Dual Core Xeons X5272 3.4GHz. Or better buy a cheaper Xeon and just do a simple BSEL modification to it to boot up on the 1600MHz bus. Hmm, the Xeon E5205 is only ~$250 45nm 7x multiplier would give 2.8GHz... a cheap Mac Pro might be doable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
munky
munky
Posted
Posted

if you go for the Mac Pro, are you going to be stuck with a {censored} screen? what kind of display are you going to hook up to that bad boy?

 

i think i'd go for the iMac, but I know i'd be sorely tempted by the Mac Pro, if I had a semi-decent screen (or two!) to hook to it.

 

how about an iMac plus a cinema display ? :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
rschultz101
rschultz101
Posted
Posted

how much work you going to do at home ???

 

 

i'd say for home, imac,

for work, mac pro

2007wfp is good monitor, get monitor calibration, dual screens is good.

 

if you can't afford it, you don't need it,

if you need it, there is no question.

 

as such, you can get the imac, and upgrade, if you find , you can't live with it,...

 

http://www.barefeats.com/octopro4.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Proteo
Proteo
Posted
  • Author
Posted
My Basic, un-upgraded 20"iMac gets the {censored} beaten out of it, with my constant 5-6 day downloading sessions.... and with iFreeMem, it handles it quite well... though if it doesn't, who cares, Time Machine is my mac...anything goes wrong, i will take it back and replace it...

Think Mark:

Actually I'm more worried about components endurance. I'm in the third world, the computer would be bought in Mexico, then used in Venezuela. Having hardware failures after 6 months of use would let me without computer for two or three months, and that's if I can get Apple Support over here.

 

Yes, the iMac supports two monitors via the Mini-DVI out. You'll need an adapter from Mini-DVI though, as it doesn't come with one (at least mine didn't)

lessew:

Thanks for the info, it is good to know that dual screen is possible. I don't mind to get the connector, I think it is widely available and shouldn't be a problem.

 

Certainly my iMac is a little more upgradeable than what you said: CPU, Hard Drive, probably Optical. I swapped in a WD Raptor (to try to improve massive memory swapping performance) a couple of weeks ago.

QuietOC:

That's new to me. Are you sure you can swap the CPU? If so, it could take a quadcore, for example? And about the HDD, do iMacs use standar 3.5" SATA drives, or laptop 2.5" ones?

 

The question about CPU power is not so simple either. Unless you are running video rendering/transcoding alot the extra processing cores in the Mac Pro are mainly just eating up electricity. The clockspeed/cache size difference between the two is more likely to effect real performance. The high latency of the Mac Pro's memory actually hurts performance, and most applications just can't take any advantage of memory "bandwidth", which is why I am running the 1GB + 2GB in my iMac.

That's a very good comment indeed. I use After Effects a lot, but rendering times are maybe just 1/10 of total time of use (and with 8 cores, I suppose they will be even smaller). Of course, sometimes having such a great horse power can be the difference between delivering in time, or beyond the deathline. Anyway, what you're saying is one important thing to consider.

 

If I were to buy a Mac Pro (which is highly unlikely because of the crappy FB-DIMMs). I would find the model with the best price for it's components, sell off the Quad-Core Xeon(s), and buy one of the fastest Dual Core Xeons X5272 3.4GHz. Or better buy a cheaper Xeon and just do a simple BSEL modification to it to boot up on the 1600MHz bus. Hmm, the Xeon E5205 is only ~$250 45nm 7x multiplier would give 2.8GHz... a cheap Mac Pro might be doable.

Doing that kind of modding to a Mac Pro is beyond my abilities, and certainly, the last thing I would do is messing with a computer that worths three months of my salary :wacko:

 

if you go for the Mac Pro, are you going to be stuck with a {censored} screen? what kind of display are you going to hook up to that bad boy?

Munki:

I have a decent (I think) 20" Dell WFP2007. It is not top notch, but more than enough for me. I'm also planning to attach my old 17" Syncmaster as secondary display.

 

Thank you all for your responses.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
QuietOC
QuietOC
Posted
Posted
QuietOC:

That's new to me. Are you sure you can swap the CPU? If so, it could take a quadcore, for example? And about the HDD, do iMacs use standar 3.5" SATA drives, or laptop 2.5" ones?

The iMacs use standard 3.5" SATA desktop harddrives.

 

Yes, the new iMac should take any Socket P mobile processor.

 

2.4 GHz T7700 $330

2.6 GHz T7800 $580

2.6 GHz X7800 $900

2.8 GHz X7900 $???

2.8 GHz, 6MB (45nm) X9000 $1000? --this would be the one least likely to work, but also the fastest and coolest.

 

I don't think Intel makes a Quad Core mobile processor.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Proteo
Proteo
Posted
  • Author
Posted
how much work you going to do at home ???i'd say for home, imac,for work, mac pro2007wfp is good monitor, get monitor calibration, dual screens is good.if you can't afford it, you don't need it,if you need it, there is no question.as such, you can get the imac, and upgrade, if you find , you can't live with it,...http://www.barefeats.com/octopro4.html

rschultz101:

Well, I do all my work at home ;)

 

I guess what I'm trying to figure out is whether I *really* need the extra power a Mac Pro can deliver, or not. It's the computer of my dreams (everyone's dreams I guess) and I know it would make me very happy for the next 4 or 5 years.

 

On the other hand, the iMac looks more appealing if it demonstrates to be enough for my computer needs, and can be a better investment if it can get the job done for the next couple of years. I don't want to spend the extra money a Mac Pro costs just to be on the top of the wave.

 

The iMacs use standard 3.5" SATA desktop harddrives.

 

Yes, the new iMac should take any Socket P mobile processor.

 

2.4 GHz T7700 $330

2.6 GHz T7800 $580

2.6 GHz X7800 $900

2.8 GHz X7900 $???

2.8 GHz, 6MB (45nm) X9000 $1000? --this would be the one least likely to work, but also the fastest and coolest.

 

I don't think Intel makes a Quad Core mobile processor.

QuietOC:

One of my main concerns was precisely the hard drive. I was sure iMacs used laptop drives (you know, slower RPMs, prone to fail under heavy loads). Knowing that they use standard ones is one point more for the iMac.

 

The processor thing is a different story though, I thought they used standard desktop CPUs :P . After seeing these prices, I don't think I'll be likely to upgrade. $580 for .2 extra Ghz doesn't seem like a good deal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
rschultz101
rschultz101
Posted
Posted

third world country ?

 

- it might get stolen sooner than later,...

- you can't get insurance ,...

 

in that case,... get a macbook, and a mac mini, for Xgrid setup,

since you going to depend on it, you need a backup plan !

 

forget the pro, shipping a pro in a cargo back to Venezuela , NO!

imac ok, travel + case, ok,

 

external, dual raid, firewire 800/400 disk

....

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Synaesthesia
Synaesthesia
Posted
Posted

Upgrading the CPU in an iMac is gonna be a major pain in the ass, and not really worth it in my opinion. Rather pay the extra for a 2.4, or 2.8ghz. It doesn't work out better to buy a seperate one, and then you must still sell the old one...

 

Why not get the 2.4ghz with 2600 Pro, or maybe even the 24" iMac...good compromise...

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Proteo
Proteo
Posted
  • Author
Posted
third world country ?

 

- it might get stolen sooner than later,...

- you can't get insurance ,...

 

in that case,... get a macbook, and a mac mini, for Xgrid setup,

since you going to depend on it, you need a backup plan !

 

forget the pro, shipping a pro in a cargo back to Venezuela , NO!

imac ok, travel + case, ok,

 

external, dual raid, firewire 800/400 disk

I'll be visiting my family in Mexico next month, and I'd buy the computer in the Apple Store Mexico. They'll deliver it (for free) to my front door in less than a week, or at least they say so. Right now I'm living (and working) in Venezuela, so I'll take it with me when I fly back.

 

Why not get the 2.4ghz with 2600 Pro, or maybe even the 24" iMac...good compromise...

That's actually what I'm planning to get if I go for the iMac. The 24" is outrageously expensive, for $200 bucks more I can get the basic Mac Pro.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Synaesthesia
Synaesthesia
Posted
Posted
That's actually what I'm planning to get if I go for the iMac. The 24" is outrageously expensive, for $200 bucks more I can get the basic Mac Pro.
From the US store, the prices I get are:

20" iMac, 2.0ghz, 2400XT: $1200

20" iMac, 2.4ghz, 2600Pro: $1500

24" iMac, 2.4ghz, 2600Pro: $1800

Cheapest Mac Pro (single quad) :$2300

So that's $500 more for the Mac Pro, which of course excludes a display. Well, that and I was really drooling over the 24" iMac at the store...It's $300 more, but you can buy an additional 20" dell monitor for $300...it's up to you...

All three iMacs seem like good value to me, when I look at this list. Whatever you think is best!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Proteo
Proteo
Posted
  • Author
Posted

I whish I could get those prices :P

 

From Apple Store México:

 

24" iMac, 2.8ghz, 2600Pro: $29,381.99 MX (USD $2,671)

Mac Pro (single quad) : $30,362.00 MX (USD $2,760)

 

I actually meant the 2.8 Ghz iMac, these figures will give you the idea.

 

EDIT:

 

I was browsing some local stores, and I found what looks like a good deal. The local Apple reseller has the earlier stock Mac Pro (2 x 2.66 dual core, 1GB, 7300 GT) at merely 1900. That's more than one thousand bucks less than the new one, and it actually would be cheaper than a 2.4 Ghz 24" iMac. What do you guys think? :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Synaesthesia
Synaesthesia
Posted
Posted
I whish I could get those prices ;)
Me too. Here in South Africa it's damn expensive too!

 

Well that's an actual good price for a Mac Pro. I would seriously consider getting that because the Mac Pro is just a little more future-proof. Although I must say the new Mac Pro is way better than the old one, that does seem like a good deal. It seems worth it, especially as you are a pro!

 

I still think...you should make up your own mind now. You have all the information!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
skyhighmac
skyhighmac
Posted
Posted

About buying the old one, that doesn't seem like a bad deal. You could pop in more memory and you would have a nice system. You might want to look into what nagal did, building his own mac pro. That thread is here. He spent less than a real mac pro configured the same. Just a bit more food for thought. Also, the cpu & gpu on the imac are soldered on. The mac pro's ones arent, just a pain in the but to get the heatsinks off. I would go for the mac pro and save the rest of your money.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
munky
munky
Posted
Posted

colonels is right.. there's a certain economy in buying the very best you can possibly afford. however, its a two-edged sword - take RAM for example - the Mac Pro is going to be much more expandable. *BUT* it takes FB-DIMMs, which are always going to be more expensive than standard RAM.

 

Oh, one thing - dont listen to anyone telling you iMac CPUs are soldered in. That is NOT true - only MacBooks and MacBook Pros have soldered (ie non-replaceable) CPUs. iMacs, Mac minis and Mac Pros you can swap out the CPU.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
MicrosoftKilla
MicrosoftKilla
Posted
Posted

Hey there,

 

I have a MacBook Pro (for writing at School) a iMac as first main computer an an MacPro as second Main Computer. I also have a VAIO but he's only for testing purposes. Specs of them in Sig. (exactly a 14years old guys has all soo many macs... :( )

 

I have to say, an iMac is enough. I'm doing everything, from FCS2, Shake, Aperture, CS3 for Video and Web and Cinema 4D for 3d Animation and Rendering an almost everything I can do on the Mac Pro in affodable time I can do on the iMac 24", too. The MacPro is of course faster, but how much expensive he is, its not worth. The only thing that is a lot better on the Pro is the Cinema HD design. Otherwise, he isn't worth.

 

So,

 

just buy an iMac with Cinema HD and you'll be happy, belive me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...