Baseline Mac Pro...

Discussion in 'Mac Pro' started by ArtOfWarfare, May 29, 2008.

  1. ArtOfWarfare macrumors 604

    ArtOfWarfare

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2007
    #1
    Okay... I have this question... who would actually be dumb enough to buy the baseline Mac Pro instead of the top iMac?

    I was just doing a side by side comparison for a friend... I was trying to demonstrate that they really didn't need the Mac Pro. But as I went along... I began to realize something... you pay more for less.

    Here we go...

    Processor:
    3 GHz for the iMac or 2.8 GHz for the Mac Pro.

    Cores:
    Duo iMac or Quad Mac Pro

    RAM:
    2 GB for iMac or Mac Pro

    Graphics Cards:
    Well... I don't know much about how to compare these... but consider that the one in the baseline Mac Pro is the same one as in mid range iMac... and the high end iMac has a different one... I can only assume the one in the high end iMac is better.

    Memory:
    500 GB for iMac or 320 GB for the Mac Pro

    DVD:
    8x for iMac or 16x for Mac Pro

    Footprint:
    Virtually None with the iMac... or you can have that huge ass Mac Pro

    Noise:
    Virtually None with the iMac (there's not even a fan... the only sounds you'll ever hear is occasionally the HD or DVD drive spinning up if you're opening/saving a big file,) or you can have the Mac Pro (which does have a fan which you will hear.)

    Others:
    Camera, mic, speakers, screen, keyboard, and mouse included with the iMac... the Mac Pro just gets a keyboard and a mouse with everything else sold seperately.

    Price:
    $2,200 for the top iMac or $2,800 for the bottom Mac Pro.

    You pay $600 more for what exactly? The bigger footprint? The louder fan? The lack of a screen and camera? The slower processor? Oh, I suppose you'll be able to burn those DVDs a bit faster. What a great tradeoff... oh, and those every now and then programs that actually support more than 2 cores will run faster. Well shoot-da-whoop.

    Seriously, what am I missing here? Or am I right and you really have to be an idiot to buy the base line Mac Pro?
     
  2. Frozonecold macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2005
    #2
    I would say that in most cases it's the other way around. You would have ot be an idiot to get the iMac. The Mac Pro has 8cores vs. the iMac's 2. I am going to assume that you know very little about processors(based on your post)basically having 4 times as many cores means that the Mac Pro can compute a lot faster than the iMac could ever dream of. The Mac Pro is also far more expandable and supports a lot more ram. If you want a computer that will last buy a Mac Pro. iMacs are more disposable if you follow me.
     
  3. Tallest Skil macrumors P6

    Tallest Skil

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2006
    Location:
    1 Geostationary Tower Plaza
    #3
    Seen any benchmarks? The Mac Pro slaughters the iMac. The Mac Pro is for intensive CPU work.
     
  4. richard.mac macrumors 603

    richard.mac

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2007
    Location:
    51.50024, -0.12662
    #4
    :confused: upgradability, xeon server processor, fully buffered 800 MHz RAM, more storage, RAID, doesnt have notebook parts, buy any DVI display they want that isnt glossy + many more reasons.

    The Mac Pro is a professional computer and the iMac is consumer. do you think pros care that they have a big desktop tower?

    the baseline Mac Pro has 1x CPU with 4 cores.
     
  5. Frozonecold macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2005
    #5
    Based on his ignorance, I doubt he cares much about CPU performance.
     
  6. jnc macrumors 68020

    jnc

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2007
    Location:
    Nunya, Business TX
    #6
    No. You're not even close to right. The Mac Pro is a different class of machine to iMac.

    Have fun changing an iMac's graphic card, or installing, say, 12GB RAM. Or twice that, why not. Has the iMac got room spare for a secondary optical drive, perhaps Blu-Ray?

    Can iMac drive two 30" displays as standard, or more than one of any display for that matter?

    Can the iMac accommodate 4 terabytes of internal storage? You must be getting the idea by now.

    You can also get a 4-core model for $2299, that's just $100 more than the high end iMac, and has lots more scope for expansion.
     
  7. ArtOfWarfare thread starter macrumors 604

    ArtOfWarfare

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2007
    #7
    I'm comparing the baseline Mac Pro to the top iMac.

    The baseline doesn't come with 8 cores, it comes with quad.

    Edit: you all keep pointing out the advantages of the better Mac Pros.

    However, I am just comparing the very basic one. Sure, it's upgradeable... but you'll have to pay extra for all of it.

    ...

    I guess I'll go configure a Mac Pro to actually match the top iMac right now... I'm willing to bet the price is over $1,000 more...
     
  8. Frozonecold macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2005
    #8
    Read carefully Rich. He said $2,800, the 8 core baseline Mac Pro is $2800. The 4 core model is $2,300.
     
  9. Tallest Skil macrumors P6

    Tallest Skil

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2006
    Location:
    1 Geostationary Tower Plaza
    #9
    Which is still better than two.
     
  10. Frozonecold macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2005
    #10
    Make up your mind. The stock Mac Pro has 8 cores and costs $2,800. In your post however you said 4 cores costs $2,800, while it actually costs $2,300.
     
  11. richard.mac macrumors 603

    richard.mac

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2007
    Location:
    51.50024, -0.12662
    #11
    oh k… whoops sorry! well because of his mistake i made a mistake. still he thinks the base 8 core Mac Pro only has 4 cores so his missing the 4 extra cores in his comparison haha
     
  12. Frozonecold macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2005
    #12
    Since you obviously haven't been reading my posts, I'll include a graphic from Apple's site. We are talking about the stock model not the more expensive model. Don't make me resort to using CAPS.
     

    Attached Files:

  13. Tallest Skil macrumors P6

    Tallest Skil

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2006
    Location:
    1 Geostationary Tower Plaza
    #13
    Which it isn't.

    But it isn't.
     
  14. Frozonecold macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2005
    #14
    I actually didn't notice his mistake until after I saw yours. This is why we shouldn't argue with idiots, they bring you down to their level. :cool:
     
  15. Frozonecold macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2005
    #15
    That depends on what applications you are running. The iMac has a better graphics card than the lowend Mac Pro for gaming.
     
  16. jnc macrumors 68020

    jnc

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2007
    Location:
    Nunya, Business TX
    #16
    $2,800 is for the 8-CORE model. Again, the 4-core is $100 more than the top iMac 24".
     
  17. ArtOfWarfare thread starter macrumors 604

    ArtOfWarfare

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2007
    #17
    OMG!

    I just configured a Mac Pro to meet the top iMac...

    (I went up to the 500 GB HD, got that NVIDIA 8800 graphics card, added the 23" screen (I think it's the same resolution as the iMac's 24",) and gave it the WiFi... which I'm actually amazed isn't a standard... altogether it adds quite a bit.)

    drum roll please...

    $4,748.00!

    Of course we're still having the iMac beat the Mac Pro in several categories...

    the Mac Pro still doesn't have an iSight... I'd say that's worth $50.

    And it still doesn't have speakers (interesting... you don't appear to be able to add that basic item in any way... I'd say that's also worth $50.)

    And then the iMac has a far smaller foot print and is much quieter.

    But maybe you all are right, maybe I'm making some unfair comparisons and underestimating the value of more cores. Let's change the 3 GB 8 core back to just a 2.8 GHz Quad (twice the cores of the iMac... but slower individually...)

    I'm still at $3,448.00!

    Throw in iSight and speakers and... well, I'll undervalue those and say it only comes to $3,500.

    Damn, this is really stupid. For just 2/3 of that price you could get the same thing but a DVD burner that isn't quite so fast, not quite so many cores. But then it's also more easy to set up and quiet.

    Sure, it's more expandable but... not only do you have to pay for the parts you want to expand it with, you have to pay just to be able to expand it.

    God is that Mac Pro overpriced or what?

    Of course I'm not going to try comparing the upper Mac Pros. I understand those. You're getting a lot of special stuff which isn't anywhere near as mass produced so you have to pay a large premium because you want it now rather than 2 years from now when it is readily available.
     
  18. richard.mac macrumors 603

    richard.mac

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2007
    Location:
    51.50024, -0.12662
    #18
    ArtOfWarfare i think you will just appreciate how awesome and powerful the Mac Pros are with time. im not sure how new you are to Macs but i switched in 2006 and used to think the Mac Pros were a waste of money… then i started to realise how powerful they really are actually and how much theyre worth it when hearing other peoples opinions.

    i would love to buy a Mac Pro for the expandability and because ive got an external display but its TOO powerful for me and im afraid i will never even use all let alone HALF of its ability.
     
  19. jnc macrumors 68020

    jnc

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2007
    Location:
    Nunya, Business TX
  20. iShater macrumors 604

    iShater

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2002
    Location:
    Chicagoland
    #20
    Consumers typically don't appreciate the extra flexibility and power of a workstation-class system. This is not apples to oranges (no pun intended) comparison.

    Although buying the extra things to get the iSight and a display might end up costing you $500 or so up front, the system performance of the extra cores for applications that can use those cores almost doubles. The moment you are ready to add a new HD, upgrade your graphics card, overclock your CPU, etc. you would realize that the $500 you paid up front means you can grow your system to your needs and would allow you to keep your system for far longer.

    I currently have a CD iMac, and I was looking at MPs as my possible future upgrade since I already have the external components to use with my current PowerBook.

    my 2c. :)
     
  21. ArtOfWarfare thread starter macrumors 604

    ArtOfWarfare

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2007
    #21
    I've been using them all my life... I didn't really care about the price or performance though until I bought my first Mac though (about the time when I joined the website... October 2007.) Now as I'm giving other people advice on what they should get for their first computers... I'm realizing, OMG, whose dumb enough to get the lower end Mac Pros?

    It seems like all these things that are either only par with or less than the iMacs shouldn't even be options. I guess the reason they don't do that is so it isn't so obvious that there's a $1000+ price gap between the Mac Pros that it makes sense to get and the iMacs.

    Oh well, I think I've persuaded the person that they don't want a Mac Pro already. Now they're trying to decide between MBP and iMac (I'm suggesting iMac to them since it's not like they travel a lot... and even when they do it's not like they really need a computer with them. They do some 3D graphics and video editing... and so do I and so far this iMac has really blown me away with its speeds... you really can't beat real time.)
     
  22. iShater macrumors 604

    iShater

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2002
    Location:
    Chicagoland
    #22
    Let me try again.

    Lets say you make $100/hr editing videos (simple number for ease of calculation). Lets say you only make money when you are actually editing the work, not when waiting for it to render.

    So a project on a dual-core system takes you 16 hours to finish work, but you can only charge for 8 hours. That will be $800.

    The same project on a quad-core system takes you 8 hours (high-end software can really use the extra threads). You get $800 for the same project in half the time. Or you can work on TWO projects, while one is rendering, you are editing or doing sounds or whatever. You just made an extra $800.

    Do you see where that system would make sense?

    Again, workstation vs. home computer. If time is NOT money, expandability is NOT an issue, and you want the smaller-foot print, blah blah blah, THEN the iMac is a better deal.

    :rolleyes:
     
  23. jnc macrumors 68020

    jnc

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2007
    Location:
    Nunya, Business TX
    #23
    Seriously, if you are calling people whose computer requirements far exceed your own (and likely, those of the people you are recommending Macs) dumb, you are ignorant beyond belief, and shouldn't be giving advice to anyone.
     
  24. Tallest Skil macrumors P6

    Tallest Skil

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2006
    Location:
    1 Geostationary Tower Plaza
    #24
    +1. Nothing more needs said. If you don't understand why someone would need something (in this case, raw computing power), then you don't deserve to criticize them for having it.
     
  25. NRose8989 macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2008
    #25
    Wow......... What is the purpose of your thread? Your trying to compare apples to oranges. Obviously your not going to make mac pro users or future buyers re-think their purchases. The iMac is designed for consumers to some prosumers, while the mac pro is specifically made for professionals or people who want uber amounts of power. Now if someone is considering buying a new mac for only email, internet etc. then yes the iMac would be a better choice but if one needed a lot of processing power for large video encodes or actually makes money by using their computer, then time is money, so why waste it waiting for something to render?. How about capacity? sure the top of line iMac comes with a bigger hard drive but lets see you open it up to put in a new drive, or lets see you set-up a RAID array inside of your iMac. Take a look at some benchmarks from barefeats then comes back and try to state your claim.
     

Share This Page