iMac can rip a Mac Pro a new one.

[Dr. Stealth]

Originally Posted by lampliter

Thanks guys for not totally giving up on me. The rip a new one in the mac pro thing is not my opinion it was meant to grab attention and I thought it was funny at the time. Merry Christmas and the photo of Will Ferrel with the beer in his hand is priceless.

If you had posted this in the iMac forum most people would have agreed with you and patted you on the back.....

Think about it....

Merry Christmas !

[nigelbb]

The latest iMac may be faster in some circumstances but it's still only a single four core CPU. I see my 2.8GHz 8-core dual CPU 2008 Mac Pro 3,1 maxing out both processors when rendering out in Premiere Pro. To achieve the same throughput the fastest i7 would have to literally have double the performance of my E5462 Xeons never mind the newer 12-core dual CPU Mac Pros.

[thekev]

Originally Posted by derbothaus

You do know that if they tested with driver parity (Windows 7) the iMac's will be slower than the 670 and especially the 680 on the Mac Pro's, right? He is testing on Mac OS X only (which has some real bad performance ports anyway). The kepler based cards running on the Mac Pro have driver issues as they are not supported fully yet. They work but optimizations have not really taken place that I know of yet. OS X will slowly get faster for the same desktop cards as new drivers and OS versions leak out. But put it up against Windows supported drivers (which is what any sane gamer uses anyway) and the story looks much different.

Anything really heavy on floating point math still runs better on Fermi at this point, so outside of games, the results become even more skewed. It's unfortunate that we remain limited on gpu options for Macs. Anyone hoping for a thunderbolt version should read this. The hacked versions up to this point haven't exactly been plug and play. They're more like someone got it to work.

Originally Posted by wonderspark

Ha, I think you hit a nonsense spot, nothing more. That Barefeats test showed the Mac Pro beating the iMac at almost every single task, and that's a single 6-core CPU with the 5870. Upgrade the GPU on the Mac Pro (cheaply, easily done) and it's even worse for the iMac. No thanks.

I updated my 2009 MP to 6-core for $590, and would choose it every time over a new iMac. You're impressed with the new iMac. Good for you. I'm not, because it doesn't cut it for my business. Someday, Apple may make something worthy in the iMac line, but that day is not here yet.

You know that W3680 was an exceptional cpu. Core count and clock speed both increased there. The main point where the imac would definitively pull ahead would be operations that can leverage CUDA vs a mac pro with an AMD card. That aside, you really got some mileage out of that 2009. I thought the quad model was a weak value when it was released, but the cheaper ram and upgrade paths made for excellent longevity.

[Photovore]

That's cute, for sure, but, just me, I feel much safer tossing my Mac Pro (with heavy-duty GPU for OpenCL) into the car, and driving it to a 2-hour show in some random venue, than I would doing so with an iMac (even if it did have a GPU performing at the 2+teraflops required by my task.)...

...If you're just diddling around at home, that's one thing, and, hey, go ahead and have fun!! However, there is a good, real, solid reason why they put the word "Pro" in the name of the thing.... And, frankly, if you're not a "professional" yourself -- by which I mean, if you do not actually make a living using your machine, to earn the food you eat, from day to day, in a no-faults-allowed environment -- then you simply do not understand what "Pro" means in this context. You may think you do, and I understand that; but until you're earning your living from what you do on that machine, which is what "professional" means, you just can't know; you are imagining things that aren't real ... ... but of course we all do that, don't we?...

[All Taken]

Originally Posted by Photovore

That's cute, for sure, but, just me, I feel much safer tossing my Mac Pro (with heavy-duty GPU for OpenCL) into the car, and driving it to a 2-hour show in some random venue, than I would doing so with an iMac (even if it did have a GPU performing at the 2+teraflops required by my task.)...

...If you're just diddling around at home, that's one thing, and, hey, go ahead and have fun!! However, there is a good, real, solid reason why they put the word "Pro" in the name of the thing.... And, frankly, if you're not a "professional" yourself -- by which I mean, if you do not actually make a living using your machine, to earn the food you eat, from day to day, in a no-faults-allowed environment -- then you simply do not understand what "Pro" means in this context. You may think you do, and I understand that; but until you're earning your living from what you do on that machine, which is what "professional" means, you just can't know; you are imagining things that aren't real ... ... but of course we all do that, don't we?...

I get the ever so slight hint that you're a working professional?

[-SD-]

Originally Posted by Jake0604

The lack of expandability makes it not worth it for me

Exactly.

I'll be in the market for a new computer for the business early next year and I've been seriously contemplating a 27" iMac. It's certainly powerful enough for all my current needs and realistically, everything in the foreseeable future.

However, once again, Apple are offering a laughable selection of hard drive options. I really don't want to store anything on the computer itself, I'll have everything on an external RAID array, backed-up and secured. Therefore I only need a small internal 64GB SSD, certainly not 768GB @ £1040!!!! Aside from that, the total lack of HDD access is the killer. Even the Mini is quite accessible in comparison. Having recently upgraded the HDD and RAM in mine I'd be confident in doing it again within, say, half an hour. Which is pretty good considering the size of the thing and how tightly packed the internals are.

Replacing the drives in an iMac has always been a little fiddly, but relatively painless, going by the guides. I was always worried about getting it all back together and discovering a hair or dust bunny right in the middle of the screen though. Apple have eliminated that problem by gluing the display to the glass, but in turn made a fiddly job into a near impossible one. Using the suction-cups from your utility-belt is one thing Batfans, getting a heat gun out on your 1700 quid computer is another thing entirely.....

With this in mind I'm more interested in another Mac Pro. As nice as an all-in-one system would be, especially one as nice looking as an iMac, I can't have inaccessible hardware in a business environment. If the OS drive dies I need to be able to pull it, replace it and get things up and running again asap.

I'm really quite looking forward to see what apple offer with next year's redesigned Pro.

[thekev]

Originally Posted by -SD-

Replacing the drives in an iMac has always been a little fiddly, but relatively painless, going by the guides. I was always worried about getting it all back together and discovering a hair or dust bunny right in the middle of the screen though. Apple have eliminated that problem by gluing the display to the glass, but in turn made a fiddly job into a near impossible one. Using the suction-cups from your utility-belt is one thing Batfans, getting a heat gun out on your 1700 quid computer is another thing entirely.....

That is really weird. I'm not sure how Apple services them efficiently with such a design. I initially expected the glass and lcd display would pop off as a single unit.

[HurtinMinorKey]

Originally Posted by nigelbb

The latest iMac may be faster in some circumstances but it's still only a single four core CPU. I see my 2.8GHz 8-core dual CPU 2008 Mac Pro 3,1 maxing out both processors when rendering out in Premiere Pro. To achieve the same throughput the fastest i7 would have to literally have double the performance of my E5462 Xeons never mind the newer 12-core dual CPU Mac Pros.

Is this because the i7s have a smaller cache?

[Dr. Stealth]

Originally Posted by thekev

That is really weird. I'm not sure how Apple services them efficiently with such a design. I initially expected the glass and lcd display would pop off as a single unit.

You are correct. The new iMac is not glued closed.

[Mr. Retrofire]

Originally Posted by HurtinMinorKey

Is this because the i7s have a smaller cache?

The Xeon has probably more transistors. And he said he has two Xeons in his MP.

[Photovore]

Originally Posted by All Taken

I get the ever so slight hint that you're a working professional?

Okay, All Taken; your comment makes me want to come completely clean here. There in fact is a bit of an oil leak around my gasket, so a little smoke is blowing out my tailpipe...

I've only had one real show so far (aside from demos), with just a couple scheduled in the next 2 months. So, I'm looking forward, deliberately thinking as if I'm already in the future.

Aside from that, yes, (1) there is no iMac graphics option powerful enough to do this OpenCL task fast enough for a live show. Also (2) true that I'd feel horribly vulnerable throwing a 27"-diag x 2"-thick glass-fronted iMac into my car regularly. I could roll my Ford Explorer with a Pro inside, and while I (and the car) might croak on the spot, my survivors could fight over the Pro, because it would be just fine.

To be fair, some day in the next 3-4 years, an iMac may be powerful enough to generate frames at 1024x768, 30 frames a second, which is adequate ... but, on that day, I'll still take the pro machine, put in a then-modern card, and generate HD rez at 60fps! OR, have the option of doing two screens running different graphics from one machine....

[ If this succeeds like my friends in the industry say it should, then it ought to come to a city near you, wherever you are in the "developed" world ... if on the other hand it doesn't, well, then, at least it's the most fun I've ever had working, by far beating writing video games. ]

[Phrygian]

Originally Posted by lampliter

Anyone else been to the Barefeats.com site. It seems the iMac really is a player. Any thoughts?

except the gpu...

[Philscbx]

Anytime I've even considered an iMac - only as a refrigerator magnet.

Apple should simply get on with it - an iFrig with iMac flush into the door.
No wasted counter or cubbyhole stuffed with iMac in the way and now stays cool with on screen real time alerts showing warning - 2 beers left.

[cgk.emu]

Originally Posted by lampliter

Sounds like I hit a soft spot. The whole point is the mac pro in its current form is a total wast of money. Splitting hairs doesnt make it any better. Saying the mac pro is a real killer when using windows makes no fn sence to me and the desktop 680 is not even an apple card. Leave the 5870 in there which is a real looser of a card and where are we then. Saying the next mac pro will kill it makes no sence either. Im just saying I have a mac pro and if I were to buy a new one it is still a dinosaur. Can we not even muster up a small way to go for the iMac without splitting hairs on everything.

I'm guessing you are still in Highschool?

----------

Originally Posted by Photovore

Okay, All Taken; your comment makes me want to come completely clean here. There in fact is a bit of an oil leak around my gasket, so a little smoke is blowing out my tailpipe...

I've only had one real show so far (aside from demos), with just a couple scheduled in the next 2 months. So, I'm looking forward, deliberately thinking as if I'm already in the future.

Aside from that, yes, (1) there is no iMac graphics option powerful enough to do this OpenCL task fast enough for a live show. Also (2) true that I'd feel horribly vulnerable throwing a 27"-diag x 2"-thick glass-fronted iMac into my car regularly. I could roll my Ford Explorer with a Pro inside, and while I (and the car) might croak on the spot, my survivors could fight over the Pro, because it would be just fine.

To be fair, some day in the next 3-4 years, an iMac may be powerful enough to generate frames at 1024x768, 30 frames a second, which is adequate ... but, on that day, I'll still take the pro machine, put in a then-modern card, and generate HD rez at 60fps! OR, have the option of doing two screens running different graphics from one machine....

[ If this succeeds like my friends in the industry say it should, then it ought to come to a city near you, wherever you are in the "developed" world ... if on the other hand it doesn't, well, then, at least it's the most fun I've ever had working, by far beating writing video games. ]

WTH did I just read, man?

[KaraH]

Originally Posted by lampliter

Anyone else been to the Barefeats.com site. It seems the iMac really is a player. Any thoughts?

You are comparing it to what is a 2010 machine (the 'new' release was not really an upgrade as it was just saying they had done something with it).

My current machine is an iMac. My next machine will be whatever the new mac pro will be.

[spoonie1972]

if anything, i'm blown away with the highest spec mac mini. its nutso for what it is.

[All Taken]

Originally Posted by spoonie1972

if anything, i'm blown away with the highest spec mac mini. its nutso for what it is.

Also has a whole host of heat problems in the current design envelope. Quad core in that chassis is a disaster. Don't take my word for it, it's confirmed by any user doing more than viewing photos.

[spoonie1972]

i have no experience with them, thx for the info.

most people i know with any of the new form-factor, dvd or not, use them as HTPC's of some variety.

[MacinJosh]

Originally Posted by Jake0604

The lack of expandability makes it not worth it for me

This. I'm willing to sacrifice some performance for the expandability of the MP.