3.2Ghz Mac Pro or quad core iMac??

[Will10]

Like many I’ve been struggling with which 2010 Mac Pro to buy. From the different threads I’ve read the 6 Core Westmere is the one I’d really want but I cannot justify the extra £1000 for the Westmere cpu. I need the best machine (in relation to price) for using Final Cut Pro, Photoshop, After Effects CS5 etc, Logic, and Aperture. This will be my first Mac.

So I’ve plumed for the upgrade to the base line model. 3.2 Nehalem, 8gb Ram. I intend to keep the machine for 3 years and sell it just before apple care runs out or upgrade the cpu when the Westmere chip is cheaper.

On top of this I’ll need to get the best colour neutral monitor in the £200 bracket for my Photoshop and editing work (that damn tight budget!!) :(

My question is this. Do I need the Mac Pro? And If I do have I made the right choice?

• A new quad core iMac 27inch with 8gb Ram comes in at £1970.
• My Mac Pro Configuration (3.2 Nehalem 8gb RAM) comes in at £2600 (+200 on top for my monitor).

I see a lot of the 27 imacs in creative suites? The Mac pro (including a new monitor) is coming in at nearly £1000 more than the iMac?? I want the mac pro as ive never been keen on the all in on imac but am i really going to see that extra performance?

Also (forgive my ignorance here) in terms of clock speed the 21inch iMac has a 3.2GHz Intel Core i3 processor? I realise it’s not 4 core but when a lot of software isn't using more than 2 cores yet??

What you guys advise I shall do!! I’ve gone round the houses with this question and I need to decide this week!!! :confused:. I'll be able to get 15 per cent off the rrp when I get a student friend to buy it for me.

Many many thanks and sorry about this ill informed long thread.

[SpookyLars]

First, save some money and don't buy RAM from Apple. Second, iMac is closed system, MP gives great expandability. I had the same dilemma like you and finally I bought a Mac Pro :)

[fensterbme]

Like many I’ve been struggling with which 2010 Mac Pro to buy. From the different threads I’ve read the 6 Core Westmere is the one I’d really want but I cannot justify the extra £1000 for the Westmere cpu. I need the best machine (in relation to price) for using Final Cut Pro, Photoshop, After Effects CS5 etc, Logic, and Aperture. This will be my first Mac.


The big question is how heavy will your workload be? Is it going to be mostly video editing or mostly photoshop/graphic design with some audio, etc. If it's going to be mostly video editing HD video I think the iMac might have some issues (mostly related to storage, not CPU). But if your doing mostly Photoshop and graphic design and audio work the iMac would handle it fine.

The iMac isn't that much slower when compared to the quad core Mac Pro in terms of processing power (pretty much just the clock speed of the CPU i.e. 2.93 vs. 3.2, etc.). Where the iMac has issues for some folks is that it's not as expandable and adding more storage can be frustrating (as external storage moves at firewire and USB2 speeds vs. SATA and eSATA which run much faster), although OWC has an upgrade process that adds an eSATA port onto the iMac. So you might find that the question about how much storage you need and how quickly do you need to be able to access that data as the question that dictates which route you decide to take.


(+200 on top for my monitor).


What monitor are you looking at that is color neutral and accurate for that price? That seems quite inexpensive... unless you want to go quite small it's pretty darn expensive to get a high quality color accurate display (my 30" set me back $2,300 USD)

I think dollar for dollar you are probably better off with an iMac as you get a decently good 27" display and a pretty fast processor for a pretty darn good price. To get a Mac Pro and get a quality 27" display your going to be spending quite a bit more than you would on the iMac.

Again, what you want to do and how much/how quickly you need to access your storage is going to determine which is probably the best choice for you.

First, save some money and don't buy RAM from Apple. Second, iMac is closed system, MP gives great expandability. I had the same dilemma like you and finally I bought a Mac Pro :)

I'll take this a step further, don't buy anything more than you absolutely need from Apple. Apple indeed charges wildly high prices for more/larger hard disks, memory, etc. When I ordered my Mac Pro I ordered a hex core 3.33Ghz. with the bare min on everything else. Buying my memory, hard drives, SSD's, eSATA cards and monitor for 3rd party companies. IMO folks who buy everything from Apple are just wildly foolish with their dollars.

... just my $.02

[johnnymg]

Since this is your first mac I'd recommend either the imac or surprisingly perhaps a MBP + monitor. :p

The simple answer is that the SW you listed doesn't really use multi-cores VERY well yet. In the next year or two hopefully that will change.

Tell us a little more about how you use your current computer(s).

Cheers
JohnG

[alust2013]

First, save some money and don't buy RAM from Apple. Second, iMac is closed system, MP gives great expandability. I had the same dilemma like you and finally I bought a Mac Pro :)

Agreed. You can get RAM for half of apples price elsewhere online. The MP is probably the best system for you, but maybe you should get the 2.8 quad, and spend the extra on a nicer monitor.

As far as the 3.2 i3, even though things aren't so multithreaded yet, the quad still will smoke the i3 (more cache, turbo boost, 4 physical and 4 virtual cores with hyperthreading).

[Will10]

Thanks JohnG.

The simple answer is that the SW you listed doesn't really use multi-cores VERY well yet. In the next year or two hopefully that will change.
Tell us a little more about how you use your current computer(s).

I don’t have a set workload; I’m currently involved with quite a lot of editing which will involve FinalCut; I’ll also need to produce intro sequences etc in AfterEffects and CS5. Photoshop stuff is always there as well as music based projects in Logic. So I need the machine to multitask well. I’m also buying a Mac to be able to educate myself on new software. It shall be used a lot for all of the listd programmes above.

Thanks Fensterbme:

I think dollar for dollar you are probably better off with an iMac as you get a decently good 27" display and a pretty fast processor for a pretty darn good price. To get a Mac Pro and get a quality 27" display your going to be spending quite a bit more than you would on the iMac.

I saw a thread on here a few weeks ago about best monitors in and around the £200/300 mark. I’m not too worried about having the best calibrated monitor as most of my work is personal projects etc I really just want the best for the money.

Thanks alust2013

Agreed. You can get RAM for half of apples price elsewhere online. The MP is probably the best system for you, but maybe you should get the 2.8 quad, and spend the extra on a nicer monitor.As far as the 3.2 i3, even though things aren't so multithreaded yet, the quad still will smoke the i3 (more cache, turbo boost, 4 physical and 4 virtual cores with hyperthreading).

The extra apple RAM from costs £300. I realise its more expensive but as its my first Mac I like the idea of it all being put together by them so if I have any problems I can say, ‘you did it’. ?

In regards to RAM I found this recommendation posted in another thread by posted by 2Contagious.

“buy 2x4GB RAM sticks from Crucial (http://www.crucial.com/uk/store/mpar...ED9527A5CA7304): £279.64
Reason: The reason in this case is not saving the 20 pounds, but getting two 4GB RAM sticks from Crucial instead of four 2GB RAM sticks from Apple. This means that you will have two RAM slots free and can add another one or two 4GB sticks in the future to upgrade to 12GB or a total of 16GB RAM.”[/COLOR]

Sounds good? What do you chaps think about changing the cpu to the Westmere 6 core in the future? The Nehalem and Westmere MP share the same architecture?

• Both the iMac and Mac Pro have quad core chips but the imac is branded ‘i5’ and the Mac Pros ‘Nehalem’. Is there a difference?

• Do you feel the extra £300 is worth it for the 3.2ghz upgrade from the base model considering the programes I’ll be running


And just too really confuse and contradict everything I had a third option.
Choose the iMac option and with the money saved by this laptop 'Apple Macbook Pro 2.8 GHz 15" MB986LL/A 4GB' for £370 (a friend in china).:confused:

I’m currently leaning towards the MP option but can certainly be pursaded to change my mind.
Thanks for the help again guys. :D

[scottsjack]

It too went through the MP vs iMac discussion with my self. In the End I bought a 3.2GHz cuad MP with 12GB of OWC RAM (currently ~$400. Several issues were important to me;

The MP can perform a lot of work and remain relatively cool. The iMacs at the local Apple store are always really hot after spending all day doing not much of anything.

I want flexibility with internal components, especially HHDs, optical drives and RAM.

I don't want my computer and my personal data or my work data at a repair shop because the monitor or some other part blows up.

Having all five HDDs communicating on the same internal SATA system works far better for me than having external USB FW800 drives, been there, done that.

Bottom line is that while (whilst?) more expensive the MP gives me a more powerful, more reliable, more flexible, and more future proof Mac than an iMac.

[gameface]

Get the 2.8 MP, spend money on more RAM from some place other than Apple and all monitors around $200 suck. Get something that is crap and save your money for a good monitor down the road. Seriously, there is no monitor in your range that will give you accurate color.

[philipma1957]

to get back to the ram .
putting ram in a mac pro is easy.
putting in a hdd is easy.
just buy your hdd's and ram from a good seller.

[Will10]

It too went through the MP vs iMac discussion with my self. In the End I bought a 3.2GHz cuad MP with 12GB of OWC RAM

That machine sounds nice and seems a good balance between everything?:)

Get the 2.8 MP, spend money on more RAM from some place other than Apple and all monitors around $200 suck. Get something that is crap and save your money for a good monitor down the road. Seriously, there is no monitor in your range that will give you accurate color.

That’s very interesting.

Would I be better spending the £300 upgrade for the 3.2Ghz processor or more RAM? I just checked out OWC: 12gb for £399.

putting ram in a mac pro is easy.

They've shown me in store, it's just plug and play? Instant communication? I'm worried I get it out of the box and it just turning in to one big hassle?

Seriously, there is no monitor in your range that will give you accurate color.

I know :( What monitor would you recommed (or best of a bad bunch) around the £300 mark

Sorry for changing my questions all the time. I may as well get it all off my chest now!! Forgive me father for I HAVE SINNED!!! :eek:

I’m currently leaning towards scottsjack’s setup. That sounds like it fits the bill, but the 2.8 with more RAM? And o.k.monitor?

This is excellent help chaps, this is what I was looking for, many thanks.

[johnnymg]

Thanks JohnG.

snip...............

Sounds good? What do you chaps think about changing the cpu to the Westmere 6 core in the future? The Nehalem and Westmere MP share the same architecture?
I’m currently leaning towards the MP option but can certainly be pursaded to change my mind.
Thanks for the help again guys. :D

Greetings again

OK, given your workload it looks like you really will be better served by the MP. :cool:

If you look at my sig you'll see what I'd recommend. :)

You can go light on RAM for a start. 6GB will work fine unless you are dealing with humongous image sizes.

best to you
JohnG

[gameface]

I know :( What monitor would you recommed (or best of a bad bunch) around the £300 mark


Forgot you were talking pounds. I like Dell Ultrasharps for a decent cheaper monitor. I use the 27" for my main display and an HDTV for my viewing monitor.http://accessories.us.dell.com/sna/productdetail.aspx?sku=320-7825&cs=04&c=us&l=en&dgc=SS&cid=27722&lid=628335

Really, you aren't going to get a real color accurate monitor for under 2K and even that is stretching it.


Sorry for changing my questions all the time. I may as well get it all off my chest now!! Forgive me father for I HAVE SINNED!!! :eek:

I’m currently leaning towards scottsjack’s setup. That sounds like it fits the bill, but the 2.8 with more RAM? And o.k.monitor?

This is excellent help chaps, this is what I was looking for, many thanks.

No problem on the questions. It's how you learn:)

I am a professional editor and am running the 2.8 Quad with 16GB RAM. You don't need that much but since I had the cash I spent it. It works fine. For FCP you could practically use a mini but the CS5 and other stuff will need the horsepower of the MP and the extra RAM.

One thing I didn't see you mention and it is important for your budget. More drives... You never want to edit off your system drive so plan on buying at least one more drive to edit from. Plus if you are going all digital procurement and delivery you will want to back that up as well since you won't have the tapes to fall back on if the drive goes down. If you go with the MacPro these can be internal. If you go with the iMac you can use FW800 drives. I like internal because they are cheap. Also, don't get "green" drives or power saver drives. They turn themselves off to conserve power and wreak havoc on FCP and other applications!

[scottsjack]

That machine sounds nice and seems a good balance between everything?:)


It is a good balance. Since a lot of processing still runs on one or two threads clock speed still rules. Granted, the $400 on the upgrade from 2.8GHz to 3.2GHz is probably an Apple-Upgrade-Gouge but it future proofs the machine a bit. The only Mac desktop slower that 3GHz is the C2D mini. Since I don't use eight-thread capable apps I'd rather have a 3.2 cuad than a 2.8 octo.

[johnnymg]

snip.............

They've shown me in store, it's just plug and play? Instant communication? I'm worried I get it out of the box and it just turning in to one big hassle?

snip.............

Setting up a new mac is insanely easy. Plug in, turn ON, one-two minutes to setup the new account and log into your wireless network. Click :apple: tab and update SW............... OK, that takes 10+ minutes. Then you're DONE and ready to load your App SW. Seriously, OSX is super easy on the frustration factor.

Not sure about an inexpensive monitor.............. check the Peripherals forurm on Mac Rumors so some good suggestions: http://forums.macrumors.com/forumdisplay.php?f=77

I'd go light on the RAM and drives for a start. Ultimately, you'll probably get an SSD for the boot drive and blah-blah drive for your data but you will be fine with the base drive as a start.

good luck
JohnG

[Will10]

One thing I didn't see you mention and it is important for your budget. More drives... You never want to edit off your system drive so plan on buying at least one more drive to edit from.

Excellent advice.

I have a question regarding RAM guys (a potentially daft question so forgive my ignorance again). The MP comes with 3g standard RAM (apple describes this as 3 X 1 GB).

The MP has four slots for RAM. Does this mean that the standard MP model comes with 1 GB in three of the slots with a remaining spare slot? If so I could I buy a 4 GB stick from OWC to fill the empty slot giving me a 7 GB machine?:confused:

If I can do that I think I’m gonna go with

3.2 quad Nehalem with 3GB. = £1972 (-my 15% student discount)
+ £136 4GB stick (from OWC).
+ £200 apple care
+ £200 monitor (roughly)
= a grand total of £2310. :)

3.2 ghz, 7GB machine for the tasks I outlined above? As a good starting point that could be upgraded later (more RAM SSD) What do you think? :o

I found this thread regarding monitors. http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=913255
23 inch NEC MultiSync EA231WMi - £224
22 incc Dell UltraSharp 2209WA 22-inch - £190
24 inch Dell U241 £350 (a bit much)

Any opinons? Thankyou very much for your help with this guys. I really needed to nail something down and I feel I've gotten really close to making a decision. :D

[MCHR]

Same question I had just two months ago.

I had/have a 2005 G5 MP, and was looking to move on, so I bit the bullet on a 3.2 MP with 8GB ram and the 5870. Happier now, especially since I'm wading through the multiple ways to configure it, also knowing I'll likely have it for another five years (knock on wood).

That last point was my 'selling' point for the MP. It's upgradable very easily, even with the option of upping the CPU if/when I desire. I'm now running a third party SSD as boot, a RAID array internally as well as a large general storage. So, the MP for me was merely the point of departure and is set up as I use it. Not as an iMac, where it would have been prepackaged and given to me.

Yes, it was more. But I think the additional costs were worth it for my preferences and workflow.

[gabicava83]

Sounds about right regarding the costs, except that the apple care is incredibly reduced for students, should be around £60ish pounds or so.

Good purchase.

For the RAM, you are correct, 7GB in total for the config you are stating.

For the monitor, I would prob go for the dell, considering the saving you are doing on the apple care.

:)

Excellent advice.

I have a question regarding RAM guys (a potentially daft question so forgive my ignorance again). The MP comes with 3g standard RAM (apple describes this as 3 X 1 GB).

The MP has four slots for RAM. Does this mean that the standard MP model comes with 1 GB in three of the slots with a remaining spare slot? If so I could I buy a 4 GB stick from OWC to fill the empty slot giving me a 7 GB machine?:confused:

If I can do that I think I’m gonna go with

3.2 quad Nehalem with 3GB. = £1972 (-my 15% student discount)
+ £136 4GB stick (from OWC).
+ £200 apple care
+ £200 monitor (roughly)
= a grand total of £2310. :)

3.2 ghz, 7GB machine for the tasks I outlined above? As a good starting point that could be upgraded later (more RAM SSD) What do you think? :o

I found this thread regarding monitors. http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=913255
23 inch NEC MultiSync EA231WMi - £224
22 incc Dell UltraSharp 2209WA 22-inch - £190
24 inch Dell U241 £350 (a bit much)

Any opinons? Thankyou very much for your help with this guys. I really needed to nail something down and I feel I've gotten really close to making a decision. :D

[johnnymg]

snip..........
+ £200 apple care

snip......................

Any opinons? Thankyou very much for your help with this guys. I really needed to nail something down and I feel I've gotten really close to making a decision. :D

FYI: You can purchase applecare up to one year following the original purchase date.

JohnG

[Will10]

I think I’m virtually there with this. I’ve pretty much decided to go with the 3.2, 7GB.

Thank you very much for all of your considered help, it’s a minefield making decisions like this when you A – have a really tight budget and B – have little understanding of the issues to consider when buying. Your help has been invaluable.

One final question that still nags: Both the iMac and Mac Pro have quad core chips but the iMac chip is branded ‘i5’ and the Mac Pros ‘Nehalem’. Is there a difference between these chips?

Thanks again
Will

[toxic]

One final question that still nags: Both the iMac and Mac Pro have quad core chips but the iMac chip is branded ‘i5’ and the Mac Pros ‘Nehalem’. Is there a difference between these chips?

Thanks again
Will

Mac Pros use Intel Xeon processors, which are server/workstation processors. iMacs use the consumer version, the i3/5/7. both are based on the Nehalem architecture, Apple just decided to be confusing and use "Nehalem" improperly.

[Will10]

both are based on the Nehalem architecture, Apple just decided to be confusing and use "Nehalem" improperly.

I see:); so they are slightly different then?

[johnnymg]

I see:); so they are slightly different then?

xeon: http://ark.intel.com/Product.aspx?id=39721
i7: http://ark.intel.com/ProductCollection.aspx?familyId=39597

AFAIK, there are some minor differences between the xeon and i7 chip: external memory type, and such. "Performance" wise (benchmarks) they should be virtually identical for the same clock speed chip.

You can't get the fastest i7 processor in the imac at this time.

cheers
JohnG

[Will10]

AFAIK, there are some minor differences between the xeon and i7 chip: external memory type, and such. "Performance" wise (benchmarks) they should be virtually identical for the same clock speed chip.

Mac Pros use Intel Xeon processors, which are server/workstation processors. iMacs use the consumer version, the i3/5/7. both are based on the Nehalem architecture, Apple just decided to be confusing and use "Nehalem" improperly.

Thanks for clearing that up for me chaps :D

I was ready to bite the bullet tomorrow but took another look at the figures.


• iMac 27inch quad core (2.93 Ghz) with 8gb Ram= £1,968,99
• Mac Pro ‘Nehalem’ (3.2 Ghz) With 3gb= £2,319,00
(I Intend to buy a 4gb stick for the 4th RAM slot to give me 7gb).


This is the dilemma I have. I’m spending £400 extra for the the Mac Pro as apposed to a maxed out iMac. I’m o.k with this (for the reasons we’re discussed above)

But; On top of the extra £400 for the MP I’ll also have to pay around £350 for a decent new monitor (something like a Dell 2408wfp). So my Mac Pro will have cost me an extra £750.

I just wonder whether for the money I may be getting a slightly quicker machine but not quite as good monitor; especially when I do have to do Photoshop and editing work. I have seen creative suites editing and photoshoping on iMacs?:confused:

So I wonder whether the Dell 2408wfp 24” is as good a screen as the iMac 27”
And whether financially it’s a sound decision.

Sorry to dither with this chaps, these decisions hey? nightmare!!!:(

[scottsjack]

This discussion shouldn't be primarily about speed/performance but rather about usability. What kind of computer does a user want? A prebuilt package that is barely upgradable or an open chassis that can be easily upgraded. Additionally does a user want the computer to be subject to downtime/repair due to almost all vulnerabilities or to be repairable through component replacement?

Cost is also an issue, flexibility costs.

As an illustration my daughter's iMac 21.5 is the most spectacular, easily operated family computer I've ever used. For me, no way, it's got to be a Mac Pro.

[johnnymg]

snip............

Sorry to dither with this chaps, these decisions hey? nightmare!!!:(

Note: You'll only get MP encouragement on this forum. :p

Here area couple of options for you:
Get a discount: biz, school, or whatever.
Wait for the 2010's to show up in the refurb store in ~2-3 months
Get the 2.8 GHz base model
Buy used ............ check out the for sale MR forum.

In any case, friends don't let friends buy imacs when MP's are available. ;). That is a joke for the imac owning lurkers.

cheers
JohnG

[CaptainChunk]

I see; so they are slightly different then?

Xeons use ECC memory, whereas desktop variants like the i3/i5/17 can't (consumer models). Certain Xeons also allow SMP (in other words, multiple physical CPUs) and the consumer variants are single-CPU only. Xeons undergo more rigorous reliability testing as well, since they're intended for workstaiton and server markets, where downtime is unacceptable.

But other than those differences, Xeons should be virtually identical in performance to their consumer equivalents. Anymore, they all share the same underpinnings.

[you39]

But other than those differences, Xeons should be virtually identical in performance to their consumer equivalents. Anymore, they all share the same underpinnings.

But the i7 build into the current iMac Turbo Boosts up to 3.6GHz, a full 400MHz more than the Xeons of the same base speed...?

Edit: ...same +400MHz for the i5-760 as compared to the Xeon 3530...

[johnnymg]

But the i7 build into the current iMac Turbo Boosts up to 3.6GHz, a full 400MHz more than the Xeons of the same base speed...?

Edit: ...same +400MHz for the i5-760 as compared to the Xeon 3530...

The 3.2 GHz MP kicks the 2.93 GHz imac to the curb: ;)
http://macperformanceguide.com/images/MacProWestmere2010/graph-Cinebench-cpu.gif

[gabicava83]

Only marginally ...

Does the price increase of the whole package justify the performance increase?.....



The 3.2 GHz MP kicks the 2.93 GHz imac to the curb: ;)
http://macperformanceguide.com/images/MacProWestmere2010/graph-Cinebench-cpu.gif

[you39]

The 3.2 GHz MP kicks the 2.93 GHz imac to the curb: ;)
http://macperformanceguide.com/images/MacProWestmere2010/graph-Cinebench-cpu.gif

Yes, but this is not the same base clock speed. And Cinebench does play well with multithreading, so Turbo Boost shouldn't be much of a factor there, when all cores are in use, no? Single threaded a 2.93 i7 would be faster than the xeon of the same clockspeed, wouldn't it?

[tomscott1988]

Excellent advice.

I have a question regarding RAM guys (a potentially daft question so forgive my ignorance again). The MP comes with 3g standard RAM (apple describes this as 3 X 1 GB).

The MP has four slots for RAM. Does this mean that the standard MP model comes with 1 GB in three of the slots with a remaining spare slot? If so I could I buy a 4 GB stick from OWC to fill the empty slot giving me a 7 GB machine?:confused:

If I can do that I think I’m gonna go with

3.2 quad Nehalem with 3GB. = £1972 (-my 15% student discount)
+ £136 4GB stick (from OWC).
+ £200 apple care
+ £200 monitor (roughly)
= a grand total of £2310. :)

3.2 ghz, 7GB machine for the tasks I outlined above? As a good starting point that could be upgraded later (more RAM SSD) What do you think? :o

I found this thread regarding monitors. http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=913255
23 inch NEC MultiSync EA231WMi - £224
22 incc Dell UltraSharp 2209WA 22-inch - £190
24 inch Dell U241 £350 (a bit much)

Any opinons? Thankyou very much for your help with this guys. I really needed to nail something down and I feel I've gotten really close to making a decision. :D

I dont know if anyone has said this because i couldn't be bothered to read through, but if you are a student, and you are in the UK the applecare will be 75% off, my applecare for my mac pro was £30 through student discount and also ringing instead of buying online, they also gave me a few free goodies for being a student moving to professional like free iwork and a few other things! it seems the more you spend the better it is.

The best i got was in 2007 when i bought a 17" mbp it was near enough £2000 but i got a free case that was £100 and i got iwork and obviously applecare for £30. So its well worth talking to a representative! They like new apple users and will give you stuff to make you want to come back!

[johnnymg]

Only marginally ...

Does the price increase of the whole package justify the performance increase?.....

For the people on this forum the answer would likely be yes. Go post that question on the imac forum and you'll likely get a different response. How surprising.......................

JohnG

[gabicava83]

so true :)

I prefer the MP personally.

For the people on this forum the answer would likely be yes. Go post that question on the imac forum and you'll likely get a different response. How surprising.......................

JohnG

[Will10]

A prebuilt package that is barely upgradable or an open chassis that can be easily upgraded. Additionally does a user want the computer to be subject to downtime/repair due to almost all vulnerabilities or to be repairable through component replacement?

I very much agree with you on this one and it’s a biggy. If that 27" display goes your in trouble (but you do have apple care).

The iMac has that lovely 27" IPS panel screen. The best IPS monitors at my budget are

NEC MultiSync EA231WMi = £260
Eizo Flexscan S2243W = £390



So the figures I have are as follows: (Neither price has deducted the student discount).


Mac Pro:
3.2 Ghz, 3 GB RAM = £2319.00
Extra 4 GB stick = £136 (from OWC)
Monitor = (roughly) £260
Total = £2715



iMac
2.937 Ghz, 4 GB RAM =£1808.99
Extra 4GB stick = £94.99
Total = £1903.98



The Mac Pros coming in at roughly £811 more than the iMac. :(

It's a tough one, I feel that the MP is the one I should go for, a slightly quicker machine and can be easily upgraded in the future. But thats a lot more money:confused:

I can only hope that taking a long term view, the ability to upgrade relatively cheaply will give the Mac Pro a longer shelf-life. So (long term) it maybe a closer price match?

but if you are a student, and you are in the UK the applecare will be 75% off

Thanks for the pointer tomscott :)

[stix666]

I've been through all these contortions too

Settled on the Mac pro. If I'd gone for the iMac with SSD preinstalled, it would have come to around £2600. And the options for cheapish performance gains like internal software RAID + SSD for boot are limited (though theoretically doable I think). iMacs are moddable through OWC but I'm not sure what the UK options are, a third party mod means sending it away and losing warranty, and I don't fancy DIY.

Adding ram, hdd, ssd, graphics card, and even new processor chip seem easy for the Mac pro.

[dekka007]

I love the MP and indeed own 1 2009 version and the iMac i7 27"

It really is a tough call. Expandability of the MP I feel is overrated. You are not really future proofing yourself against future: Memory technologies, USB technologies, Processor Technologies.

I say that in that Processor upgrades for example are a nightmare for the MP changing from last years processors to this years is nigh on impossible unless you throw a lot of money at it.

Graphics card upgrades are in the hands of Apple and the drivers for them.

If you take the new imac you have can have the SSD and HD in there and you can upgrade it if you so care with relative ease. And a Firewire800 for your drobo etc. So you have 4 drivebay's instead of 2 internal on the MP. But a 500gb SSD and 2TB internal and drobo on the firewire 800 port - The imac is not that far behind.

It really is a hard call between the i7 imac and the MP.

[tomscott1988]

I love the MP and indeed own 1 2009 version and the iMac i7 27"

It really is a tough call. Expandability of the MP I feel is overrated. You are not really future proofing yourself against future: Memory technologies, USB technologies, Processor Technologies.

I say that in that Processor upgrades for example are a nightmare for the MP changing from last years processors to this years is nigh on impossible unless you throw a lot of money at it.

Graphics card upgrades are in the hands of Apple and the drivers for them.

If you take the new imac you have can have the SSD and HD in there and you can upgrade it if you so care with relative ease. And a Firewire800 for your drobo etc. So you have 4 drivebay's instead of 2 internal on the MP. But a 500gb SSD and 2TB internal and drobo on the firewire 800 port - The imac is not that far behind.

It really is a hard call between the i7 imac and the MP.

Im sorry but you cant compare a firewire 800 drobo to a 4 drive SATA configuration in a mac pro its like a 1/4 the speed! firewire 800 is slow!!!!!!! especially for a professional environment. For back up only.

I dont know why Everyone is pushing you to the 3.2 upgrade it is a waste of money for the speed upgrade you will literally see no benefit from it! the extra £400 you would save could buy you the kick ass monitor you are after! (plus the £400 you are already saving) you arnt future proofing anything by buying the 3.2, its just an ever so slightly faster processor. The only worthwhile processor upgrade in this iteration is the 6 core.

Just look at it this way.. the imac is a consumer machine hence its price. The mac pro is not. Most mac pros outlive their imac equivalents twice over in a professional environment. They will be used until they are literally unusable, and they are designed for this, people get carried away with benchmarks and clock speeds but it is a machine. You will buy it for your need and from what i have read yours is the base machine, put 10gbs ram in it and a decent amount of storage and the thing will keep you going for the long forceable future.

Whereas the imac will be looking very tired in 2-3 years time your pro will still look good. My mac pro the 2008 is still running extremely fast and does all of my professional needs with ease. You need to look at what you need rather than want to make sure it is a sensible monetary decision!

50% of people in these forums buy these machines for bragging rights and thats about it.

[dekka007]

4 drive SATA configuration

Well how about 3 drive SATA configuration in the imac i7. Just make the superdrive external:

2TB 7200RPM
480GB OWC SSD
480GB OWC SSD

so you can get 3 Sata drives internally if you really want to in the new iMac. As opposed to 4 in the MP.

I didn't actually state performance wise firewire 800 was anywhere near Sata speeds. Iam talking capacity is available externally.

Actually i believe there is a company offering a eSATA for the new mac's. (OWC)

However 3 internal Sata bays is pretty competitive with 4 don't you think?

As I stated before the MP / iMac i7 argument is really really a close call.

[MaxiKana]

Well how about 3 drive SATA configuration in the imac i7. Just make the superdrive external:

2TB 7200RPM
480GB OWC SSD
480GB OWC SSD

so you can get 3 Sata drives internally if you really want to in the new iMac. As opposed to 4 in the MP.

I didn't actually state performance wise firewire 800 was anywhere near Sata speeds. Iam talking capacity is available externally.

Actually i believe there is a company offering a eSATA for the new mac's. (OWC)

However 3 internal Sata bays is pretty competitive with 4 don't you think?

As I stated before the MP / iMac i7 argument is really really a close call.

It is quite a close call for many. And if it is the iMac might be the better option.

Properly configured the MacPro does offer much better performance at tasks that require much performance.

For some, the limitations of the iMac are too much. And having OWC mod the iMac does cost some money as well.

And with the iMac you're spending at least a couple of hundred on a display, if you already have a nice display and don't need a second that's unnecessary.

[gabicava83]

The processor speed difference is actually around 14% according to mac performance, in the real world, I am not quite sure how much that would actually increase your efficiency by.

The Hex does seem the best option, but there is a huge price increase, specially if you need more than 6gig of ram and extra HD's.

Some people might opt out for the 2.93 from the 2009 batch, seems like a nice one.

One thing that I did notice is how substationally cheaper the RAM is, for the Octo compared the Quad.




Im sorry but you cant compare a firewire 800 drobo to a 4 drive SATA configuration in a mac pro its like a 1/4 the speed! firewire 800 is slow!!!!!!! especially for a professional environment. For back up only.

I dont know why Everyone is pushing you to the 3.2 upgrade it is a waste of money for the speed upgrade you will literally see no benefit from it! the extra £400 you would save could buy you the kick ass monitor you are after! (plus the £400 you are already saving) you arnt future proofing anything by buying the 3.2, its just an ever so slightly faster processor. The only worthwhile processor upgrade in this iteration is the 6 core.

Just look at it this way.. the imac is a consumer machine hence its price. The mac pro is not. Most mac pros outlive their imac equivalents twice over in a professional environment. They will be used until they are literally unusable, and they are designed for this, people get carried away with benchmarks and clock speeds but it is a machine. You will buy it for your need and from what i have read yours is the base machine, put 10gbs ram in it and a decent amount of storage and the thing will keep you going for the long forceable future.

Whereas the imac will be looking very tired in 2-3 years time your pro will still look good. My mac pro the 2008 is still running extremely fast and does all of my professional needs with ease. You need to look at what you need rather than want to make sure it is a sensible monetary decision!

50% of people in these forums buy these machines for bragging rights and thats about it.

[tomscott1988]

The processor speed difference is actually around 14% according to mac performance, in the real world, I am not quite sure how much that would actually increase your efficiency by.

The Hex does seem the best option, but there is a huge price increase, specially if you need more than 6gig of ram and extra HD's.

Some people might opt out for the 2.93 from the 2009 batch, seems like a nice one.

One thing that I did notice is how substationally cheaper the RAM is, for the Octo compared the Quad.

That 14% is usable in multithreaded applications and 90% are not optimized for this anyway, so under calculation/benchmark maybe but in use there will be no noticeable difference. Also is the 14% worth paying the £320 premium for? you have to think of it in a monetary situation.

I completely agree, apple is screwing everyone over with the quads, they are expensive and the memory configuration is ridiculous. But it is there business model you will have to fork out for expensive memory modules to get the same capability of the 8 core version. Also i agree about the 2009 mac pro if you can get hold of one then get one for the price to performance increase the new iteration is not worth it unless you are getting a serious model like a 6-12 core. A small upgrade for a 18 month wait but also the tech is not available so i think the 2010 is the white elephant (in terms of buying one) in the last 4 years of mac pro development and the next one will be better but just my opinion and sorry if anyone disagrees. But i already have a pro but if i was looking to buy my first pro or was upgrading from the 2006 model i would still buy a 2.93 2009 model best bang for buck.

Seen as tho these projects (from what i have read) are personal and not professional (making money from them) the money situation is a big question its easier if your making 50k a year as a designer. So the 1k more than an imac with a poor screen is a hard one. If i was in that situation i would buy the 2.8 base model with the only upgrade being the 5870. The buy 10gbs ram and with the money saved from not upgrading the processor i would get a high quality 24-27" screen.

Also if we are talking sense even the 2.8s scream, its hard to put into perspective because we are spoilt in terms of processor speed and benchmarks with the new apple hardware. But lets be honest it is not the processors that are the bottleneck in todays computing and these processors at full efficiency can move more than 2gb/s so your better off buying an ssd to deal with the speed of moving data and buy 2 or 3 2tb black drives to deal with storage and you would have a pretty slick system!

Dont get me wrong, i am advising this guy for his situation and he needs to think about money, but in my industry as a graphic designer i would go for a 6 or 12 core but the work and money earned from the machines makes this possible. But also as i said i dont think this is a good iteration to buy into if you already own a mac pro (unless it is a 2006)

[tomscott1988]

Also if you are a student in the uk do you not have a login? my cusin is still a uni student and sent me this link the the Leeds University apple store -

http://store.apple.com/uk_edu_5000709

You can buy the base model pro the 2.8 for £1679

the 3.2 for £1948

I did think when you said about your student discount why it was so expensive! these prices make the pros a very tempting buy. The base model is cheaper than the imac!

you can spec a base 2.8 with the 5870 for £1822

I really hope this helps as it would save you a good £1000 than what you were quoting earlier. Also the parts for upgrade are cheaper. you could get a 6 core for £2485!!!!

[Will10]

Hi guys; I stepped away from the vehicle for a few days to gather my thoughts; it was literally causing me sleepless nights. There’s been fantastically helpful and considered advice on this thread, so much so that the better informed I became the harder it was to come down on either side of the argument. :eek:

So THIS IS THE WEEK!!. In terms of my requirements.

Seen as tho these projects (from what i have read) are personal and not professional (making money from them) the money situation is a big question its easier if your making 50k a year as a designer. So the 1k more than an imac with a poor screen is a hard one. If i was in that situation i would buy the 2.8 base model with the only upgrade being the 5870. The buy 10gbs ram and with the money saved from not upgrading the processor i would get a high quality 24-27" screen.


Just to illuminate you more about what I need from my new machine. Though I will be using this machine for personal projects these projects are intended to further my professional career/life. I’m self employed and My PC is (I’m afraid to say) my life. It’s the first thing I switch on in the morning and it’s on all day, everyday, I’m constantly at my workstation.

Also if we are talking sense even the 2.8s scream, its hard to put into perspective because we are spoilt in terms of processor speed and benchmarks with the new apple hardware

I dont know why Everyone is pushing you to the 3.2 upgrade it is a waste of money for the speed upgrade you will literally see no benefit from it! the extra £400 you would save could buy you the kick ass monitor you are after! (plus the £400 you are already saving) you arnt future proofing anything by buying the 3.2, its just an ever so slightly faster processor. The only worthwhile processor upgrade in this iteration is the 6 core.

Just look at it this way.. the imac is a consumer machine hence its price. The mac pro is not. Most mac pros outlive their imac equivalents twice over in a professional environment. They will be used until they are literally unusable, and they are designed for this, people get carried away with benchmarks and clock speeds but it is a machine.

Because of this I think the Mac Pro option is the safer choice than the quad iMac because it is designed to be a professional machine and the CPU are Intel’s server/commercial chip? As opposed to the i7?

In light of what says TomScott says I was thinking of just going for the base 2.8ghz Quad and instead of spending the extra £300 on the 3.2ghz, spending it on more RAM going to 10GB.


I was going to go for the 5870 as well based purely on your advice but if I’m honest I’m ignorant as to the advantages of the 5870? I thought that the 5770 was an upgrade from the 2009 MP?


I want the machine to last me up to 4 years. I feel the iMac will need replacing sooner but thats my feeling as apposed to my knowledge. I understand the desire to get the daddy machine, I’m with it, but stepping away for a few days and thinking about real world application the 2.8ghz quad is still a quick machine (but not as quick as last years 2.9ghz?) and should be good for four years?

So
MP 2.8 ghz, 3GB, + 5780 = £1880
+
NEC Monitor £250
= £2300

iMac 2.93 4GB = £1600

So what do you think chaps? Theres still nearly a grand difference same situation as I was in before but in light of what I’ve written above? you tell me what to do guys and I’ll do it. I WANT THIS OVER!!!!! :confused:

Many many thanks :D
Will

p.s

I have one final question (possibly my most ignorant question as well). The one thing as a PC user I find fantastic is that when ever I need a piece of software like a screengrabber, fonts, file converter, youtube file grabber etc etc I can just type my needs into Google and a number of freeware software downloads pop up. Is it the same for Mac?

[gameface]

I have one final question (possibly my most ignorant question as well). The one thing as a PC user I find fantastic is that when ever I need a piece of software like a screengrabber, fonts, file converter, youtube file grabber etc etc I can just type my needs into Google and a number of freeware software downloads pop up. Is it the same for Mac?

Versiontracker

[stix666]

I just got a Mac pro, after facing the same dilemma as you. It's the first time I've added multiple HDDs and a SSD to any computer - easy peasy, with the SDD cheaper than the one offered for the iMac. You can improve expandability with the iMac, but it's so much hassle compared to the Mac pro that it's not worth it to me.

I paid around £1800 for the Mac pro with trackpad, around £800 for the 27in cinema display (no yellow screen, dead pixels or backlight prob) and around£400 for 2tb drive, 120gb ssd and 4gb extra ram (single stick). The best iMac with apple SSD and 2tb hard drive, but no extra RAM goes for over £2500. So the iMac would have been an inferior system but slightly cheaper.

As a bonus, the HDD in an external enclosure that died 2 years ago worked in the Mac pro. I don't think I'd have bothered doing anything with that HDD if I'd got the iMac. Lazy me I guess

[johnnymg]

Hi guys; I stepped away from the vehicle for a few days to gather my thoughts; it was literally causing me sleepless nights. There’s been fantastically helpful and considered advice on this thread, so much so that the better informed I became the harder it was to come down on either side of the argument. :eek:

So THIS IS THE WEEK!!. In terms of my requirements.

Just to illuminate you more about what I need from my new machine. Though I will be using this machine for personal projects these projects are intended to further my professional career/life. I’m self employed and My PC is (I’m afraid to say) my life. It’s the first thing I switch on in the morning and it’s on all day, everyday, I’m constantly at my workstation.

snip.....................



You're now getting a LOT of differing opinions on what to do. My suggestion is to indeed step back and think about what you'll be doing with this machine.

JMO, but none of your intended uses screams out for anything more than either the base or upgraded Quad. Either machine will be more than adequate and the only reason to go for the upgrade is if you want a bit more speed. If you want to be conservative with your funds get the base model with the assumption that you could upgrade the processor in 1-2 years, thereby minimizing your initial investment. The sad fact remains that MOST current SW doesn't take advantage of multicore systems so why pay upfront for HW that will just sit idle ................... for the most part.

Also: Look in your local country refurb store for great deals on these MP's.

regards
JohnG