4/6 Core Mac Pro or Top of the line iMac?

As a heavy photoshop user I would recommend the Mac Pro. Being able to just pop in a new HD when needed is soo nice. The memory expansion is great for photoshop. I have 18 GB now. Knowing I can also just pop in a new graphic card when needed is sweet.

As far as photoshop only using one core. It all depends on how that part was or needed to be programmed. Many things use all 8 of my cores now. Its so rare I have to wait more than a second on anything. I create files over 2GB with no problems.

Remember a monitor is how you see the digital world and if its not accurate then your then only one that sees what you intended.

I found this article that might help too
http://www.marco.org/868606627
 
That's a helpful article. I'm really wanting to know how much faster the SSD is though.


Only thing is that the article makes a comparison between a 2008 mac pro and a 2008 iMac.....

Pretty silly if you ask me. iMacs were still C2D while Mac Pros were quad core, they didnt have the same RAM capacity like they do now, iMacs were using 5400RPM HDDs back then, etc...
 
That's a helpful article. I'm really wanting to know how much faster the SSD is though.
Its really fast, very noticeable. You just have to find someone with one and try it out.


Only thing is that the article makes a comparison between a 2008 mac pro and a 2008 iMac.....

Pretty silly if you ask me. iMacs were still C2D while Mac Pros were quad core, they didnt have the same RAM capacity like they do now, iMacs were using 5400RPM HDDs back then, etc...

Yes the article is pretty dated but it shows the differences in the two types of machine well.

After rereading the OPs comments I would think that a refurb i7, even the october 2009 ones will still be a great machine and you get a decent monitor. Load with ram and maybe a graphics table you should be good. Will be a much cheaper start and will let you know what you more need in the future.
 
As a heavy photoshop user I would recommend the Mac Pro. Being able to just pop in a new HD when needed is soo nice. The memory expansion is great for photoshop. I have 18 GB now. Knowing I can also just pop in a new graphic card when needed is sweet.

As far as photoshop only using one core. It all depends on how that part was or needed to be programmed. Many things use all 8 of my cores now. Its so rare I have to wait more than a second on anything. I create files over 2GB with no problems.

Remember a monitor is how you see the digital world and if its not accurate then your then only one that sees what you intended.

I found this article that might help too
http://www.marco.org/868606627

Thanks very much for your insights and that article. It's become clear that there are quite a few subtle factors that lean in the Mac Pro's favor and if those factors are worth the extra $1200 or so to me I should go with the Pro. In the end I think the safety afforded from flexibility and expandability makes me go with the Pro. I just can't allow myself the limitations of the iMac in terms of fewer ports, built-in monitor, and zero expansion. I know the iMac is a great machine but the Pro will let me improve upon it as the months and years go by. I originally thought I don't need the expansion but the more I thought about it and what happened with my last computer (ran out of space, used external hd that died and I lost tons of data) it made me realize it's best to be ready to adjust to whatever my future requirements may be. I can also spread the extra expense out by just buying the box now (using my hdtv as monitor for a bit) and then adding more ram and a monitor over the next year. I was hoping the 6 core would fall between the current 4 and 8 core in pricing at about 3k which is probably the max I want to spend next month. If not, maybe a 4 core with an ssd drive...
 
I need to upgrade from my PPC Power Mac G5. It's between the 4 and 6 core now..

I'm a webmaster so mostly photoshop and a little final cut pro. So maybe 4 would be enough .. but hard to pass up a 6 core.

I actually had one of the first Intel iMacs, the white ones. After a year or so. The dvd drive wouldn't always see or burn discs. Very annoying. Not a easy thing to replace in a iMac.

So I bought a used PPC Power Mac G5 last one before the Intel switch. Still using that and it's working great. But some programs are Intel only and I like the option to run windows if it's really need for some odd task.

Not sure if I'll buy a iMac as a main computer again because of that. At least with a Mac Pro you can replace the parts very easily.
 
Apple care is pretty handy...


But yeah, if you're planning on using it for as long as you've used your current workstation, the Mac Pro might be a better investment. And since you're planning on using it for that long, the 6 core might be a good idea, since applications will start to use more cores in the future.
 
iMacs do not use laptop CPUs anymore. The i7 iMac is faster than quad core Mac Pro so you would have to get the 6-core Mac Pro in order to get better than iMac. If you don't take the advantage of Mac Pro's expandability, then you should just get an iMac


Every single post ive seen you write is directing everyone to the imac, haha

Get the mac pro, its far better than any imac, even the quad. If you are making prints the screen will drive you mad.
 
Every single post ive seen you write is directing everyone to the imac, haha

Get the mac pro, its far better than any imac, even the quad. If you are making prints the screen will drive you mad.

What makes the Mac Pro better? They are about as fast. iMac has slightly faster CPU while Mac Pro has faster GPU. iMac is 300$ cheaper and comes with 27" screen. That's 999$ for Mac Pro. So, I can't figure out any other reasonable reasons why would he get Mac Pro other than these: He needs more speed than the iMac can offer (6, 8 or 12 core) and/or more upgradeability than iMac can offer (PCIe slots, more FW800 ports, HD bays). He said he don't need upgradability so the only reason to get Mac Pro is if he gets the six-core. The screen in iMac is brilliant and you can always add external monitor if the glossy is that bad.

Sure it's he's decision but IMO the quad core Mac Pro isn't worth it unless you NEED and USE the upgradeability
 
What makes the Mac Pro better? They are about as fast. iMac has slightly faster CPU while Mac Pro has faster GPU. iMac is 300$ cheaper and comes with 27" screen. That's 999$ for Mac Pro. So, I can't figure out any other reasonable reasons why would he get Mac Pro other than these: He needs more speed than the iMac can offer (6, 8 or 12 core) and/or more upgradeability than iMac can offer (PCIe slots, more FW800 ports, HD bays). He said he don't need upgradability so the only reason to get Mac Pro is if he gets the six-core. The screen in iMac is brilliant and you can always add external monitor if the glossy is that bad.

Sure it's he's decision but IMO the quad core Mac Pro isn't worth it unless you NEED and USE the upgradeability

I appreciated and think its good advice Hellhammer. I think for those who will replace their computer every 2-3 years, will never need a ton of storage that an external hd can't handle, arent too concerned about one bad component ruining the whole computer, and are comfortable with committing to a 'take it as it is' solution, the iMac is the way to go. In the end I've decided I don't meet any of those criteria.
 
If you're doing professional work in the graphics industry, shouldn't you be more worried about the quality and color accuracy of your monitor (i.e. not the iMac's monitor)?
 
Exaaactly.

I am in a similar dilemma as the original poster, as I guess many are. I don't think I need the expandibility of the Pro, so the imac might seem like a good fit. However, I already have a Dell 3007WPF monitor (it's already 4 years old but still has no problems). Given that I already have a monitor makes me think I would get better "bang for the buck" with the Pro. What are your thoughts?

I'm in the very same situation. I want to keep using my Dell 30" 3007 and I want the ability to upgrade more-so than I would with an iMac. I'm getting the 6-core system with a SSD unless they are reaaaly too expensive. I can always put one in later. This is replacing a Vista PC custom built that I'm ready to BURN!:mad: (should be fun!)
 
Hi All,

I likely do not need the expandability of the Mac Pro but I am willing to pay a bit of a premium to ensure the best long term experience. I'm just not sure there is a solid benefit for the extra cost of the Pro.

I thought this article did a good job of contrasting the differences and explaining why a Mac Pro is worth it to the author. Note, saving money is not one of the reasons.
 
If you're doing professional work in the graphics industry, shouldn't you be more worried about the quality and color accuracy of your monitor (i.e. not the iMac's monitor)?

+1

There's fundamental reasons not to merge monitor and computer. The monitor is the primary interface when operating a computer to create any form of artwork. To designers and photographers it should be the most important part of your (computer) equipment. Whatever you think about glossy screens, it's a reasonable decision not to chain the display to the computer.
 
If you're doing professional work in the graphics industry, shouldn't you be more worried about the quality and color accuracy of your monitor (i.e. not the iMac's monitor)?

"I'm an amateur graphic artist and was working in photoshop constantly for a few years up until about 2007 when my pc couldn't handle the file sizes anymore. ... I plan on picking up where I left off, starting with making pieces for myself and friends and see where it goes from there. I hadn't really considered how important the display will be in this equation. If I get a mac pro (which I'm leaning toward) I was going to start by running it thru my hdtv until I could save up for a cinema display or, pending further research, something else..."


Well, as I said, I'm an amateur. I don't have any experience stressing over the variance between my vision on the screen and what comes from the printer. I don't really know how much I have to avoid the iMac monitor. But it's a moot point now. When the time comes for a monitor I will definitely do the research...
 
6-core vs 8-core

What would be better? Getting the 6-core MacPro or the base 8-Core that will be available?

My question exactly. I can't compare price yet since the 6-core pricing isn't available, but I'll get one of those 2.

I checked these 2 pages for specs:
http://www.apple.com/macpro/includes/overlay-compare.html#overlay-compare
http://www.apple.com/macpro/specs.html

I've heard that faster individual processors are better than more, slower processors because of the distribution of tasks to different cores. Doing simple math leads to:
Speed - advantage 6-core
6 x 3.33 = 19.98
8 x 2.4 = 19.2

L3 cache - advantage 8-core
6-core = 12MB
8-core = 2 x 12MB

Memory Speed - advantage 6-core
6-core = 1333MHz
8-core = 1066MHz

Memory Slots - advantage 8-core
6-core = 4 slots - 16GB max
8-core = 8 slots - 32GB max

Included Memory - advantage 8-core
6-core = 3GB
8-core = 6GB

Price - advantage ???
6-core = ?
8-core = $3499

I am forgetting anything in my comparison? TIA, Eric
 
iMac i7 over MacPro

"I'm an amateur graphic artist and was working in photoshop constantly for a few years up until about 2007 when my pc couldn't handle the file sizes anymore. ... I plan on picking up where I left off, starting with making pieces for myself and friends and see where it goes from there. I hadn't really considered how important the display will be in this equation. If I get a mac pro (which I'm leaning toward) I was going to start by running it thru my hdtv until I could save up for a cinema display or, pending further research, something else..."


Well, as I said, I'm an amateur. I don't have any experience stressing over the variance between my vision on the screen and what comes from the printer. I don't really know how much I have to avoid the iMac monitor. But it's a moot point now. When the time comes for a monitor I will definitely do the research...

I just decided to buy the i7 over the Macpro, I don't do anything professionally, just home family pictures and home movies and a few photo shoots for friends and family. I was really looking forward to buying the mac pro due to the ability to expand without all the external drives. What made me pick the iMac over the macpro is the fact that I'm not going to be making enough money out of computer to justify the bigger expense. I think you should get the Imac for the lower price and if in 2-3 years you feel the need for a pro, sell the iMac and get the pro then, thats what I plan on doing. "thanks to hellhammer for the idea"
 
My question exactly. I can't compare price yet since the 6-core pricing isn't available, but I'll get one of those 2.

I checked these 2 pages for specs:
http://www.apple.com/macpro/includes/overlay-compare.html#overlay-compare
http://www.apple.com/macpro/specs.html

I've heard that faster individual processors are better than more, slower processors because of the distribution of tasks to different cores.
You need to figure out what your usage is. What I mean is, what applications are you using (in terms of core usage; single threaded and multi-threaded, and for the latter, can they use all the cores, or is it fixed), as well as how much of your time is spent in each.

Then you also need to figure out the total cost of the system (includes upgrades such as RAM requirements, as though 32GB is possible in the SP systems, those sticks are more expensive per GB than other capacity DIMMs).

As it happens, the Hex core model will offer a lot of performance for the money, as it's far faster than the Octad for single threaded performance, and will be similar to the Octad in multi-threaded applications as well (should also be slightly faster). The faster clocks make up for the reduction in core count and cache per core compared to the Octad (RAM would need to be the same capacity for a fair comparison).

As per the 3.33 SP Hex core system cost, the current 3.33GHz Quad is $3699. As the the W3580 and W3680 are the same cost, it won't be below this, and given the fact the Octad went up by $200, it may also get that added for an MSRP of $3899 (realistic IMO). Ultimately, you'll have to wait for the price to be published to be sure.

Combining these bits of information, you should be able to figure out which machine is the better choice for you.
 
Thanks. Most of my work is in Photoshop and Illustrator, and a dual-core would be sufficient for those projects. I also do a fair amount of 3D rendering and video encoding (FCE, QT, MPEG Streamclip), where the additional cores/speed come in handy.

Price will be the deciding factor. At identical price ($3500), I think the 6-core will serve me better. But at $3900, it'll be a much harder decision.
 
"I'm an amateur graphic artist and was working in photoshop constantly for a few years up until about 2007 when my pc couldn't handle the file sizes anymore. ... I plan on picking up where I left off, starting with making pieces for myself and friends and see where it goes from there. I hadn't really considered how important the display will be in this equation. If I get a mac pro (which I'm leaning toward) I was going to start by running it thru my hdtv until I could save up for a cinema display or, pending further research, something else..."


Well, as I said, I'm an amateur. I don't have any experience stressing over the variance between my vision on the screen and what comes from the printer. I don't really know how much I have to avoid the iMac monitor. But it's a moot point now. When the time comes for a monitor I will definitely do the research...

Oh, it sounded like you were an amateur right now but were intending to work at a professional level in the near future. If this isn't the case you won't need anything more than an iMac.
 
Thanks. Most of my work is in Photoshop and Illustrator, and a dual-core would be sufficient for those projects. I also do a fair amount of 3D rendering and video encoding (FCE, QT, MPEG Streamclip), where the additional cores/speed come in handy.
How much time do you spend doing each though?

If you time is mostly spent doing 2D work, the Hex core would be a notable improvement in performance due to the clock speed increase it offers. As you shift more into 3D as the primary usage, the Octad can offer benefits in terms of cheaper RAM, as you've 2x the DIMM slot count, which can allow for smaller capacity DIMM's to be used (I do expect it to be a little slower, but not significantly). But the upgrades may make the Octad more attractive.

Other upgrades, such as solving the HDD bottleneck for example, would be the same.

This is what you have to work out.

Price will be the deciding factor. At identical price ($3500), I think the 6-core will serve me better. But at $3900, it'll be a much harder decision.
They won't be identical. The best you can hope for, is $3699 for the Hex core system, but that's not much of a gap between it and the Octad (would further affect the Octad sales IMO, as you get quite a bit of performance increase for that $200 in single threaded applications). The lower memory capacity in the Hex system will have a negative influence for SMP performance, such as rendering, for the base system however. So to really get the Hex to perform, it would need additional RAM for SMP work (3GB is too little for this). $3899 is more realistic IMO, as it offers additional price separation. Keep in mind, this is just the base system cost, no upgrades from the base configurations.

I don't know what your budget is (if you've set funds asside for upgrades or not), but if it's fixed at $3500 max, you're going to have a hard time of it anyway IMO (nothing left for uprades in the Octad). It wouldn't even cover shipping, let alone Extended Apple Care, which is more of a necessity IMO, given the out of pocket costs if something should go wrong past the basic warranty period.

Nor do I know what you're using currently, as upgrades may make it a sufficient system for awhile yet, while you can continue to put funds away for a system (sufficient funds for the system and upgrades).

Oh, it sounded like you were an amateur right now but were intending to work at a professional level in the near future. If this isn't the case you won't need anything more than an iMac.
There's been no mention of whether or not he's an indpendent, student, enthusiast,... Or specialty hardware that requires PCIe slots that may already be in use.

Just not enough information to really go on yet.
 
There's been no mention of whether or not he's an indpendent, student, enthusiast,... Or specialty hardware that requires PCIe slots that may already be in use.

Just not enough information to really go on yet.

Well, short story is my last PC was 7 years old. I was really advancing in Photoshop and Painter 3d and spending most of my free time outside of work making pieces, learning more and more complex techniques, participating in online art groups and competitions, etc. My desire was to make large pieces for my home, build up a collection, and see if I could eventually sell some pieces.

I also have a preference for getting the best I can, that could potentially even be overkill, if it will ensure that I will be happy for the long haul. I would be miserable with myself if I bought an iMac at 2/3 the cost and became unhappy with some aspect such as speed, overheating, monitor issues, etc 6 months down the road. I feel the Mac Pro is a safer bet if I don't mind laying down the extra $$.

The points others have made about resale value, ease of expansion, and the significance of the monitor have also helped sway me that it's a better long term investment. Odds are I will have this thing for at least 5 years.

I'm thinking that a hexacore may be a bit too pricey and that a quad-core will be enough. And perhaps I could improve performance with an SSD at the onset and then over the next year add more RAM.
 
Put me in the camp for the Mac Pro > iMac.

I dont know why but even when the 27" iMac was released with its gorgeous display (and I dont need color accurate printing done so it'll be more than good enough for me), I still cant pull the trigger on one.

I think for me its due to the computer being built into the display. Usually I always buy one nice big display that I keep longer than any computer(s) and would probably keep to use with a new computer.

I always thought it would be a shame once I buy the 27" iMac and get a perfect display (no dead/stuck pixels, no yellowing, no horrible backlight bleeding) and 2-3 years later when a new iMac is released with a better GPU (ahem, like recently), I'd have to sell the whole monitor + the computer inside the 27" iMac to get another iMac (just for the newer GPU!!).

I returned the 24" LED ACD (awesome display) just recently and I will be waiting for the new 27" LED ACD to be released sometime in September and probably use it with my mac mini for a while.

Probably when Sandy Bridge is released sometime next year, I'll keep my 27" LED ACD and just sell my mac mini and replace it with the Sandy Bridge Mac Pro and all is good! Then a couple years later I'd sell the Sandy Bridge Mac Pro and upgrade the mac while keeping my 27" display!
 
Logically, the iMac will do ya fine. As someone who has always had PowerMacs and whatever for a laptop, I can say I don't think I'd ever want an iMac, but I may buy one if that's all I can afford when the time comes to buy a new desktop.

The iMacs are alright, but I can say from experience that if you leave it on 24/7 for a couple of years, after year 3 or 4 it'll start to have bad video artifacting (very likely). The all in one design gets pretty damn hot at the top (where the power supply and various other crap is), but not that hot where it matters (the cpu/gpu area). *shrug* Just saying.

They're still solid machines. You can crank 8+ years out of a PM or Mac Pro however, only problem is that since the G5s they either last forever, or they randomly crap out after 3 years.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Back
Top