Buying advice for Web design with occasional video editing and 3D

[RoboCop001]

TLDR:
Considering between getting a high end Mac mini with eGPU or mid-range iMac and a lot of RAM in either case.
General concerns: heat limitations and failure rates for intensive projects with Photoshop, After Effects, and Cinema 4D. Most projects will be Photoshop (lots and lots of layers, often using high res images). AE and C4D are less often.
I'd like to get a good 5-7 years out of a machine, with a cost-effectiveness that makes sense every 5-7 years. Perhaps a total spend of around $3.8K - $4.3K Canadian over the life of the machine.


Original post follows:

Hi there!

I had a 27 inch iMac (late 2013) for 6 years, and the GPU died on it last week. So I'm in the market for a new machine (I'll be waiting to see if they announce anything at WWCD).

I've been wondering if it's worth getting a new iMac every 5-7 years, or if I should spend a bit more on a Mac Pro that has replaceable parts. Up front, it's much more expensive. But would it be able to live longer (replaceable parts), and would it be more long-term cost effective?

I imagine I'll be working from home for the foreseeable future, and hopefully permanently if my work decides it's ok to do so. So I'll need a machine that can get the job done and also have a good longevity VS price ratio.

Does anyone here do similar work? I mostly use Photoshop and Illustrator for every day projects. The PSDs can get quite huge (I usually use PSB format). And there's also occasional After Effects work that I do. Less frequently I use Cinema4D, but it's sometimes part of the workflow.

I would love to be able to get a machine that has replaceable parts, but that's only the Mac Pro and it's $8.4K after taxes (Canadian). It might be cheaper getting an iMac every 5-7 years.

But I wanted to see if anyone has advice here in terms of longevity and cost? If the work I'm doing is more likely to burn out an iMac GPU, would it be worth getting an iMac or a Mac Pro? Does the iMac enclosure make the risk of failure higher?

If I did get another iMac, it would likely be the higher-end one with an i9, based on today's specs. I may up the GPU as well. But if it's still going to be a risk with failure, maybe the Mac Pro would be better longterm?

 

[Erehy Dobon]

One alternative that you have not mentioned would be a refurbished Mac mini 2018 paired with an eGPU with a decent graphics card (like a Radeon RX 580). That will give you decent graphics performance while liberating up to 1.5GB of system RAM that the Intel integrated GPU would normally grab.

You'd probably want to spend the extra dollars on cramming as much system RAM as possible for the type of work you do.

Sorry, I have no answers for your other questions.

 

[4sallypat]

I have a 2013 iMac (21.5") that I use daily and never has failed.
But then I use an external SSD Thunderbolt drive to avoid the internal spinning drive.

I'd wait until next week to see what the new iMacs will look like and feature.

 

[RoboCop001]

One alternative that you have not mentioned would be a refurbished Mac mini 2018 paired with an eGPU with a decent graphics card (like a Radeon RX 580). That will give you decent graphics performance while liberating up to 1.5GB of system RAM that the Intel integrated GPU would normally grab.

You'd probably want to spend the extra dollars on cramming as much system RAM as possible for the type of work you do.

Sorry, I have no answers for your other questions.

True! I was thinking about eGPUs. The problem is that if the iMac's internal GPU dies, the machine would fail to boot no matter what, as has happened with mine. But I suppose an eGPU would significantly reduce the amount of strain on the internal GPU, which would then prevent it from failure. Hmmm, something to think about. Thanks!

 

[theluggage]

I've been wondering if it's worth getting a new iMac every 5-7 years, or if I should spend a bit more on a Mac Pro that has replaceable parts. Up front, it's much more expensive. But would it be able to live longer (replaceable parts), and would it be more long-term cost effective?

Well, yes, the Mac Pro is more likely than an iMac or MBP to be still ticking over in 10 years' time, by virtue of it's modularity, but that doesn't mean that, 5 years down the line, you won't have to buy a new one in order to get support for WeHaven'tThoughtOfItYet(tm). That's also getting to the stage where Apple may be dropping OS support (or at least not supporting it with the latest OS and Apps) - especially if they're moving to ARM.

Sure, if the GPU blows - or if 2026's BrandNewShiny(Pat. pending) comes in PCIe form - then you're far better off than with an iMac, but if the logic board, PSU or internal SSD (which AFAIK has to be installed, even if you use other storage) dies then you're still dependent on (probably excruciatingly expensive) Apple spares or hoping something turns up on eBay.

If the Mac Pro were, say, 30% more than an iMac then it might be a reasonable decision, but when it costs 2x-4x as much as a fully tricked-out iMac to get a MP + display with better-than-iMac performance, it's not very likely that all that modularity/expandability would ever pay for it's keep unless it keeps you going for 15-20 years.

Reality of the Mac Pro is that you've really got to have an application that needs the power of the higher-spec models, today, before it even begins to make sense.

As with all future proofing - guesstimate how many extra years the "future proofing" will buy you and then work out the cost per year.

(Looking at the Mac Pro 1,1 sitting under a cupboard gathering dust and wondering about Aluminium scrap values - I mean, it would make a great server if it didn't guzzle so much more power as my HP mini server... which itself is for the scrapheap once SSD prices drop just a little a bit more and I can dump the hot spinning rust...)

 

[RoboCop001]

Well, yes, the Mac Pro is more likely than an iMac or MBP to be still ticking over in 10 years' time, by virtue of it's modularity, but that doesn't mean that, 5 years down the line, you won't have to buy a new one in order to get support for WeHaven'tThoughtOfItYet(tm). That's also getting to the stage where Apple may be dropping OS support (or at least not supporting it with the latest OS and Apps) - especially if they're moving to ARM.

Sure, if the GPU blows - or if 2026's BrandNewShiny(Pat. pending) comes in PCIe form - then you're far better off than with an iMac, but if the logic board, PSU or internal SSD (which AFAIK has to be installed, even if you use other storage) dies then you're still dependent on (probably excruciatingly expensive) Apple spares or hoping something turns up on eBay.

If the Mac Pro were, say, 30% more than an iMac then it might be a reasonable decision, but when it costs 2x-4x as much as a fully tricked-out iMac to get a MP + display with better-than-iMac performance, it's not very likely that all that modularity/expandability would ever pay for it's keep unless it keeps you going for 15-20 years.

Reality of the Mac Pro is that you've really got to have an application that needs the power of the higher-spec models, today, before it even begins to make sense.

As with all future proofing - guesstimate how many extra years the "future proofing" will buy you and then work out the cost per year.

(Looking at the Mac Pro 1,1 sitting under a cupboard gathering dust and wondering about Aluminium scrap values - I mean, it would make a great server if it didn't guzzle so much more power as my HP mini server... which itself is for the scrapheap once SSD prices drop just a little a bit more and I can dump the hot spinning rust...)

Great points here! I did some more pricing estimates for 5-7 year lifespans, and the iMac still comes out on top if I have to replace the entire unit. Now I'm wondering about a higher specced CPU Mac mini + eGPU + monitor VS similarly specced CPU iMac. I the Mac mini route may be a little cheaper and modular, but I have a hunch that the iMac is still probably better overall. Super curious to see what comes out after WWDC.

I'm hearing that using an eGPU with an iMac using the internal display is kind of inefficient? It was a random reddit thread from a year ago.

 

[Dimwhit]

For web design and light video editing, I think a Mac Pro is way overkill. I agree with the idea of a mac mini. Gives you flexibility with your display choice, and if you need an external GPU, that's on option. But honestly, I have a 2012 mac mini that I use to edit home video, do photo editing, and I've even done some web design. On its own, it does fine. A newer mac mini would be more than plenty.

 

[theluggage]

I'm hearing that using an eGPU with an iMac using the internal display is kind of inefficient? It was a random reddit thread from a year ago.

Well, if you're using the eGPU for, you know, graphics then it makes perfect sense to have the display connected directly to the GPU rather than having to send all the rendered data back down the Thunderbolt cable to the iMac... I know in the past there were fewer compatibility issues when the display was driven directly by the eGPU.

Super curious to see what comes out after WWDC.

Certainly worth waiting for, but I wouldn't hold your breath. Apple's style recently seems to be to launch hardware updates by press release before media events, and if the ARM thing happens as rumoured it will probably be, at best, a lash-up for developers until actual products appear. The iMac does seem to be next in line for a major re-design, though. Which could either be a good or bad thing (I'm not desperate for a T2...)

 

[RoboCop001]

For web design and light video editing, I think a Mac Pro is way overkill. I agree with the idea of a mac mini. Gives you flexibility with your display choice, and if you need an external GPU, that's on option. But honestly, I have a 2012 mac mini that I use to edit home video, do photo editing, and I've even done some web design. On its own, it does fine. A newer mac mini would be more than plenty.

Yeah lol A Mac Pro would be overkill power-wise. I'm not seriously considering it anymore.. I mean, I upgraded my 2013 iMac with an SSD 3 months ago, and it made such a huge difference. It was a totally different machine! I was hoping to get another 3 years out of it, but I guess the GPU decided to retire early lol
[automerge]1592571489[/automerge]

Well, if you're using the eGPU for, you know, graphics then it makes perfect sense to have the display connected directly to the GPU rather than having to send all the rendered data back down the Thunderbolt cable to the iMac... I know in the past there were fewer compatibility issues when the display was driven directly by the eGPU.



Certainly worth waiting for, but I wouldn't hold your breath. Apple's style recently seems to be to launch hardware updates by press release before media events, and if the ARM thing happens as rumoured it will probably be, at best, a lash-up for developers until actual products appear. The iMac does seem to be next in line for a major re-design, though. Which could either be a good or bad thing (I'm not desperate for a T2...)

Good point, it does make more sense for the display to be connected directly to the GPU. That would mean if I got an iMac, I'd have the second display be the primary display. That seems awkward for me, I'd want the iMac display to be the main one lol. Maybe that's a little OCD on my part.

I'm also a bit worried that any new iMacs will now have soldered RAM and soldered SSDs. So you'd have to buy them as you need them from the factory, like the MacBooks. Which I don't like.

 

[hobowankenobi]

Would be worth waiting at this point as there is a good possibility of a new iMac soon.

As far as performance/reliability, while it is true there have been some iMac failures...statistically, I would not worry about hardware failure or heat issues with the most recent models generally speaking.

Go with a 27" and you can swap RAM, as of now. Be sure to get only SSD (no Fusion Drive). eGPU can be added to any new Mac. You won't need for 2D work. The big question is...should you spend more on a higher-end iMac with a better GPU now, and will it be adequate (at least for a couple of years) for 3D work?

Which brings us back to: it may make sense to wait and see what new iMac CPU/GPU/storage options and are.

 

[RoboCop001]

Would be worth waiting at this point as there is a good possibility of a new iMac soon.

As far as performance/reliability, while it is true there have been some iMac failures...statistically, I would not worry about hardware failure or heat issues with the most recent models generally speaking.

Go with a 27" and you can swap RAM, as of now. Be sure to get only SSD (no Fusion Drive). eGPU can be added to any new Mac. You won't need for 2D work. The big question is...should you spend more on a higher-end iMac with a better GPU now, and will it be adequate (at least for a couple of years) for 3D work?

Which brings us back to: it may make sense to wait and see what new iMac CPU/GPU/storage options and are.

Yeah that's what I'm debating too, do I go with the higher end. My 2013 iMac did very well and it was a stock midrange model at the time. After I swapped out the HDD for an SSD (3 months before it died lol), it ran better than it ever has. I hope the new iMacs will still use SATA because I'd love to be able to just move my SSD to the new one.

 

[hobowankenobi]

I expect Apple to commit to zero spinning HDs. Overdue.

I expect there is a good chance they will go with M.2 type slot....smaller, and faster than SATA. But one never knows.

 

[RoboCop001]

I just had a thought. I tried Googling around but couldn't find a straight up answer. Is it possible to have only a PCIe SSD in the iMac, meaning I'd have just the one SSD and the SATA cable wouldn't be connected to anything?

 

[hobowankenobi]

It depends on the model. As of previous 27" (2017 model), it has PCIe solid-state only, so: yes.

I should have been more clear above: Solid-state only is already PCIe (M.2 style); second drive is SATA.

You can add a SATA SSD, but that requires surgery. Good info here. Probably the same for current models, but you would want to know before proceeding.

 

[RoboCop001]

It depends on the model. As of previous 27" (2017 model), it has PCIe solid-state only, so: yes.

I should have been more clear above: Solid-state only is already PCIe (M.2 style); second drive is SATA.

You can add a SATA SSD, but that requires surgery. Good info here. Probably the same for current models, but you would want to know before proceeding.

Thanks! Good to know. When I upgraded my iMac from HDD to SSD (on SATA), I did it myself (which was a little scary lol) by following OWC's videos. But when I saw how to replace the PCIe SSD, that's not something I'd be comfortable doing. Literally have to take everything apart!

I suppose there's a chance that the redesigned iMac won't have SATA. Which means I can't put my SSD into it. I guess I'd have to just use it as a backup drive or something.

Then again, maybe if I just grabbed a 2019 model and upgraded to Apple Silicon in a few years, that would work for me.