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

[nanofrog]

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.

A Quad core would be sufficient from what you described (parts I deleted from the quote). Even a refurbished 2009 would suffice, unless you want to get the 3.33GHz model, and run 1333MHz RAM (as it stands, the 2009 systems would keep the memory at 1066Mhz, even if you install 1333Mhz).

As it's not a business system (earning a living with it), then getting your upgrades 3rd party makes more sense (saves on cost, and if there's a problem, though a PITA, you can still manage to deal with getting warranty support from the manfuacturer/supplier you acquired it from).

 

[Block]

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.

Based on the posts by the OP he doesn't seem to be very into the expandability of the Mac Pro, he just wants the ease of mind that he has a "good machine". If he's not doing professional work and is only going to get an entry-level Mac Pro, he might as well just get an iMac.

In my opinion, if he can at least get the hexacore Mac Pro, then it'll be worth it as that is a noticeable step up from the iMac. But if he is going for the entry-level base model, and has very little interest in expandability, then the iMac gives a much better bang for the buck based on his unprofessional needs.

 

[nanofrog]

Based on the posts by the OP he doesn't seem to be very into the expandability of the Mac Pro, he just wants the ease of mind that he has a "good machine". If he's not doing professional work and is only going to get an entry-level Mac Pro, he might as well just get an iMac.

In my opinion, if he can at least get the hexacore Mac Pro, then it'll be worth it as that is a noticeable step up from the iMac. But if he is going for the entry-level base model, and has very little interest in expandability, then the iMac gives a much better bang for the buck based on his unprofessional needs.

From the described usage, a Hex core isn't needed. Not sure about the GPU aspect, but the MP would allow for GPU upgrades over time, which would be of interest given the usage.

I also presume that a decent monitor/s are already on-hand, so the 27" screen isn't needed. May also be an area that an upgrade would be in order.

No way to be sure just yet though, as that's not been mentioned. Please understand, I'm not opposed to the idea of using an iMac. But it's not the best solution over the long term (i.e. OK for 3yrs, but if the system is expected to last longer than that, the GPU alone is a good reason to go with an MP, given the usage described IMO).

Getting some of the information's been like pulling teeth without anesthesia.

 

[Block]

Getting some of the information's been like pulling teeth without anesthesia.

LOL!

Yea, I agree with basically everything you said. The iMac isn't a very long term solution as it's probably meant to be one of those 3-4 year cycle products.

 

[nanofrog]

LOL!

Yea, I agree with basically everything you said. The iMac isn't a very long term solution as it's probably meant to be one of those 3-4 year cycle products.

3yrs is the cycle usually applied to consumer oriented gear. Past that, it's usually on borrowed time (becomes too slow to deal with the inevitable software bloat).

 

[Vylen]

3yrs is the cycle usually applied to consumer oriented gear. Past that, it's usually on borrowed time (becomes too slow to deal with the inevitable software bloat).

Don't I know it..

Currently on an Early '06 iMac and I cry inside every time it slows down when all I want to do is switch application focus. After extended use, it even slows down when just wanting to lower/raise the volume - probably memory switching just to show the stupid graphic on the screen.

Can't wait for the 2010 Mac Pro to be available cause I'm in the market for one now that I do even heavier stuff.

 

[MacSince1985]

Thanks for the very valuable info. Maybe the 8-core is a better choice for me after all.

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.

The budget is not fixed, but not unlimited either. I'll be getting a monitor at the same time (probably Dell U2711-$1000) and an upgrade to CS5 ($1200). So I'd like to keep it all under 6k. Out of the box, any Mac Pro will be light years ahead of my current system. Other updates (RAM, HD, Applecare) can go into next year's budget.

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).

My iMac died a few months ago so I'm now using a 5 year old iMac G5 (ALS) while (im)patiently waiting for the Mac Pro update to come out. Even if I wanted to, there are no upgrades to be made on this system.

 

[Sleephartha]

From the described usage, a Hex core isn't needed. Not sure about the GPU aspect, but the MP would allow for GPU upgrades over time, which would be of interest given the usage.

I also presume that a decent monitor/s are already on-hand, so the 27" screen isn't needed. May also be an area that an upgrade would be in order.

No way to be sure just yet though, as that's not been mentioned. Please understand, I'm not opposed to the idea of using an iMac. But it's not the best solution over the long term (i.e. OK for 3yrs, but if the system is expected to last longer than that, the GPU alone is a good reason to go with an MP, given the usage described IMO).

Getting some of the information's been like pulling teeth without anesthesia.

Maybe you're getting me confused with some of the others who have chimed in with similar concerns as mine? I've said multiple times that I will have to get a monitor eventually and I think I've given as much info as possible on how I will use it, what my priorities are, spending goal, fears, likes, dislikes... If i'm leaving something important out I'm clueless as to what that could be...

 

[nanofrog]

Maybe you're getting me confused with some of the others who have chimed in with similar concerns as mine? I've said multiple times that I will have to get a monitor eventually and I think I've given as much info as possible on how I will use it, what my priorities are, spending goal, fears, likes, dislikes... If i'm leaving something important out I'm clueless as to what that could be...

That can happen.

 

[TheBritishBloke]

iMac all the way. You get a huge screen and don't have a tower in your way.

 

[Chupa Chupa]

iMac all the way. You get a huge screen and don't have a tower in your way.

Tower in your way? Mine is under my desk, very much out of my way. The only thing on my desk is my monitor. Keybd and trackball are in a keyboard drawer.

My problem w/ the iMac is that it's not expandable. You can't really replace the HD (and you are truly screwed if your drive dies -- return to Apple, loss of use for a few days), and you have limited ports and no expansion slots. The video card is soldered on so forget about upgrading. If you are a power user you end up with a bunch of hubs and external drives on your desk. Kinda defeats the point of the all-in-one.

 

[nasabaer]

I would everytime prefer a Mac Pro over a iMac.
All day at work as an technican for apple computer at an ASP i got mainly defective iMac´s and Macbooks. Only a few Mac Pro and Mac Mini (and we also sold this units well) for repair.
I personally would NEVER purchase a iMac if it comes to reliability.
If you are a heavy user an iMac is the worst machine you can buy.
Take the money if availiable and purchase a Mac Pro.

If the prices for the new BTO Mac Pro´s are out in August i will decide wheter i will purchase one or stay with my PC. An iMac ? never ever....

 

[MacSince1985]

Maybe you're getting me confused with some of the others who have chimed in with similar concerns as mine? I've said multiple times that I will have to get a monitor eventually and I think I've given as much info as possible on how I will use it, what my priorities are, spending goal, fears, likes, dislikes... If i'm leaving something important out I'm clueless as to what that could be...

Sorry. I may have hijacked your thread. So I re-read your posts.

As someone who designed posters on a Quadra 950 (33MHz, 256MB RAM), I feel any Mac available today is up to the task.

I have tried using an HDTV as a monitor. It's great for web browsing, playing videos, and everyday uses. But it's terrible for Photoshop work. They're basically impossible to calibrate and the vertical angle of view is such that the same color at the bottom of the screen looks very different from the top. That's true for many LCD screens but more so for TVs which weren't designed for that use. I also got a lot of banding.

So I think you should plan on spending roughly $1k on a good monitor. Add $200 for a back up drive (because even the best Macs fail sometimes). Then choose a computer based on what's left in your budget.

Since this is a new venture for you, instead of a Mac Pro, I suggest you look at a Mac Mini with the goal of keeping it 2 years. If business is booming and the computer can't keep up, you'll have the $$ to buy a Mac Pro then. If business is slow, your bank account won't be depleted and you can keep the Mini a little longer. When you do upgrade, you'll have a perfectly useable Mac as a spare computer to hook up to your HDTV, give to your kids (if you have them), sell or trade in.

 

[Sleephartha]

Sorry. I may have hijacked your thread. So I re-read your posts.

As someone who designed posters on a Quadra 950 (33MHz, 256MB RAM), I feel any Mac available today is up to the task.

I have tried using an HDTV as a monitor. It's great for web browsing, playing videos, and everyday uses. But it's terrible for Photoshop work. They're basically impossible to calibrate and the vertical angle of view is such that the same color at the bottom of the screen looks very different from the top. That's true for many LCD screens but more so for TVs which weren't designed for that use. I also got a lot of banding.

So I think you should plan on spending roughly $1k on a good monitor. Add $200 for a back up drive (because even the best Macs fail sometimes). Then choose a computer based on what's left in your budget.

Since this is a new venture for you, instead of a Mac Pro, I suggest you look at a Mac Mini with the goal of keeping it 2 years. If business is booming and the computer can't keep up, you'll have the $$ to buy a Mac Pro then. If business is slow, your bank account won't be depleted and you can keep the Mini a little longer. When you do upgrade, you'll have a perfectly useable Mac as a spare computer to hook up to your HDTV, give to your kids (if you have them), sell or trade in.

No worries. The HDTV is only a temp solution. I'm glad so many have chimed in on the importance of the monitor. I do plan on spending an extra 1k or so on a monitor either xmas or next year.

 

[TennisandMusic]

I would everytime prefer a Mac Pro over a iMac.
All day at work as an technican for apple computer at an ASP i got mainly defective iMac´s and Macbooks. Only a few Mac Pro and Mac Mini (and we also sold this units well) for repair.
I personally would NEVER purchase a iMac if it comes to reliability.
If you are a heavy user an iMac is the worst machine you can buy.
Take the money if availiable and purchase a Mac Pro.

If the prices for the new BTO Mac Pro´s are out in August i will decide wheter i will purchase one or stay with my PC. An iMac ? never ever....

Well I hope not...I am a "heavy user" and I just bought an iMac 21.5", 1499 model.

Also, John Romero uses an iMac for programming, so if he thinks it's good enough, then it should work for me. Then again I can't afford all the iMacs I want.

 

[MacSince1985]

Well I hope not...I am a "heavy user" and I just bought an iMac 21.5", 1499 model.

Also, John Romero uses an iMac for programming, so if he thinks it's good enough, then it should work for me. Then again I can't afford all the iMacs I want.

Programming is not "heavy use", even if you use it all day. "Heavy use" describes task that max out the processor, like Photoshop filters, 3D rendering or video encoding.

The Mac Pro is better built than the iMac, and the tight spacing inside the iMac make cooling difficult. But I think nasabaer sees more of them because they're harder for the end user to repair. And Mac Pro owners do more of their own repairs/upgrades.

I've owned 3 iMacs over the year:
a 2002 iMac G4: still running smoothly.
a 2005 iMac G5 (ALS): still running smoothly after a power supply replacement (under extended repl program)
a 2005 iMac G5 (iSight): hard drive failed after 4 years. Motherboard failed after 5.

The one that failed is the one I used the most heavily. I think your iMac will serve you well.

 

[xraydoc]

I've only owned tower Macs since the PowerComputing clone days, but earlier this morning (around midnight) I ordered myself a 27" 2.93GHz Core i7 iMac as my system upgrade (from the 2006 Mac Pro in my sig). I configured it with a 2TB hard drive and the 256GB SSD for the OS and apps. It'll be my first iMac ever.

I'm not doing professional video encoding or 2GB+ Photoshop composites, though - mostly desktop-type apps... lots of Keynote and word processing, web/iCal/email, iPhoto with Pixelmator for touch-ups, some iMovie/iDVD, some Handbrake (mainly ripping my DVD collection for use on the Apple TVs and iPad), some Windows VMs in Parallels and some Osirix (medical DICOM).

I used to be a multi-monitor user (two 20" @ 1600x1200), but current 30" displays (incl. the 27" iMac display) are sufficient for me to be back down to one.

I don't think I would significantly benefit from greater than 4 cores, especially since my current Mac Pro could probably sustain me for another year if I really needed it to. Most of the time my computer waits for me, not me waiting for it. But I wanted a "snapper" OS experience, which the new machine should deliver in spades - faster single-thread operation and a solid state boot drive.

I strongly considered a 6-core Mac Pro, but I'm tired of maintaining this giant tower to my left, getting all dusty on the floor, cables everywhere.... Time to simplify.

And as for storage, since again I'm not doing video editing for my livelihood nor do I need dedicated ultra-high speed Photoshop swap, I think the iMac's 2TB internal hard drive will do quite nicely combined with a 2.5TB networked Drobo FS for media files (60GB of iTunes music, 400GB of iTunes video) and Time Machine backups.

True, if something dies in the iMac I'll be down a few days until it's back up and running, but I've got a 2.0GHz Mac mini, a unibody MacBook and an iPad to keep me working until then.

If I were 100% dependent on my Mac to earn my living, and pre-press quality output was necessary, I'd probably stick with a Mac Pro. For anything else, I think the modern iMacs are totally sufficient.

 

[gazwas]

Anyone working the visual arts/photography/design world who considers the computer to be more of a priority over the screen is just stupid!

The screen should be the most important part of the equation rather than the number of cores your PC has? One print/poster run (what ever it is you do) gone wrong will cost you a lot of money and using an HDTV is several steps closer to that grim reality. Potentially more money than the cost of the screen.

IMO as price does seem to be a major factor (or you would be buying a MacPro and monitor at the same time rather than next year) an iMac seems the only logical solution. You don't need a MacPro to run Photoshop well. There are many benefits to owning a MacPro but from a processor speed point of view, (used within Photoshop) its not as night and day.

Using an HDTV and a NEC/Eizo/Lacie is night and day!

High end iMac and second (dual) screen for the important colour stuff will speed up your workflow and reduce the difference in processor speed as you can get stuff done faster with less screen clutter.

IMO your asking questions to the wrong people here. This is a Apple lovers tech forum and not people who work in your industry. As someone who understands where your coming from its iMac, quality monitor all the way.....