2013 Mac Pros vs iMacs

Discussion in 'Mac Pro' started by Jeremy M., Feb 20, 2013.

  1. Jeremy M. macrumors member

    Mar 7, 2012
    Hey guys,

    Look, I know nothing has been officially released in regards to the 2013 Mac Pro but I feel that I may need one for my field.

    I have a few questions though which relate to money and/or specifics of the Mac Pro vs the iMac.

    1. In regards to what you believe will be the lower-specced Mac Pro ($AU 3000) will the difference between this machine and a comparably priced iMac be negligent? I know it's impossible to tell right now but what does past history foresee?

    2. Is the fan noise under moderate load quite loud on the Mac Pro? At the moment I am running Logic 9 on my MBP 2012 and when under fairly moderate load the fans are at full blast. It really gets hard to hear as I like to monitor my productions with quite low volume.

    3. Absolutely anyone's guess, but when do you think it will be released? :)

    I know there's nowhere near enough info to make a solid or sound conclusion, but I don't mind using prior years as a basis for my evaluation.

    Cheers guys!
  2. Umbongo macrumors 601


    Sep 14, 2006
    1. If they just update the Mac Pro to newer parts then there would be no real performance difference. It would have to be some radical change in parts and pricing to see major performance gains. There are other advantages when you consider the expandability: possibility of a lot more memory support, faster processors, better graphics cards and other discrete card solutions.

    2. Nope and one would only think a redesign would get quieter.

    3. All we have to go on is that they didn't think it worth making minor changes to keep selling in the EU and Tim Cook's comment. The sensible thing would be to assume it won't come until November. We don't know when Intel will ship Ivy Bridge, if Apple will even use that, how long delays will be, or what Tim Cook even meant exactly by "something for professionals" or the time frame ... although at this point it not being a workstation would be very bad PR.
  3. deconstruct60 macrumors 604

    Mar 10, 2009
    There may be some differences but more so driven by Apple's mark-up on BTO iMac parts than fundamental hardware differences.

    Presuming that Mac Pro prices don't drop $100-200 (US $) then driving the iMac up to meet the Mac Pro likely will put the iMac on a SSD footing and the Mac Pro is not. That is likely going to lead to a difference in overall system performance on the iMac side.

    However, if already own 1 or more SSD and will be transferring over to the new Mac Pro then the scale would likely tip the other way.

    The Mac Pro will likely have a slight GHz gap above the iMac but the x86 core count will likely be the same. It isn't going to be a major gap but there is more contributors to overall system performance than just CPU clock speed. The Mac Pro will give you more cost effective flexibility to address non-CPU bottlenecks.

    One question that can influence the call is how much current infrastructure ( disks , I/O capture , etc. ) also is going to pulled to the new machine. Similar on OS infrastructure ( rabid 10.6 fan ? would bias on current Mac Pro). Already have a monitor? If it is a system cost comparison that may be a factor.

    With the revised thermal system on the iMacs neither one is likely anywhere close to the MBP for your kind of workload. Mac Pro probably has an edge but not as large as the gap from the MBP.

    Either relatively soon or relatively close to October. As transition from March to April the latter, circa Q4, timeline becomes dominate. The Sept-Nov framing is bad if measuring against an iMac because it too will be up for renewal around that timeframe. If workload is in the gap between the waiting for both would make sense (if have time to wait).


    That's a toss up. If they are going to embedded a GPU to implement Thunderbolt then any decrease from CPU/chipset TDP reductions might get washed away with the embedded GPU increases.

    The Mac Pro is already pretty low for a workstation class system. Going lower probably isn't a high priority. In fact, going lower would much more likley make the overall system less competitive in that specific market.

Share This Page