Having second thoughts about iMac vs. Mac Pro. What would you do?

[Santabean2000]

I agree. I have a late 2009 i5 and only now, have I even considered upgrading to a new iMac.

I wish I would have gotten the i7. I do a lot of video editing and rendering / encoding. If I had the i7 version, I probably would wait one more year for sure with out considering anything.

It still is a fairly capable machine with 16GB RAM, but the lack of an SSD is most certainly a killjoy. I have considered installing a SSD, but SATA II is a real bottleneck and doesn't seem worth my labor to install because of that very reason.

If I do get a new iMac, it'll be for Christmas, but I may just squeeze one more year out of this puppy.

SATA II is not too much of a problem; the speed difference would still be apparent. But iMacs are just such a pain in the a** to get into. This is the reason I'd never buy one again.

In saying that, I did get a free upgrade from Apple from my 2007 C2D to the first i7, so I'm definitely not complaining about the deal I got.

 

[MacOG728893]

SATA II is not too much of a problem; the speed difference would still be apparent. But iMacs are just such a pain in the a** to get into. This is the reason I'd never buy one again.

In saying that, I did get a free upgrade from Apple from my 2007 C2D to the first i7, so I'm definitely not complaining about the deal I got.

Upgradability vs aesthetics has always been a trade off, but I don't see myself switching to a wintel box anytime soon because of that.

As far as opening the iMac up, it's definitely not a problem. I disassemble and reassemble computers everyday. It's a bit more annoying than a standard desktop, but not that much more difficult than some more elaborate windows laptops on the market.

I'm fully aware that my disk speeds would still see some great performance boosts, but the fact that it only has SATA II and an i5 makes me less encouraged to do so. This is why I'm considering an upgrade.

 

[propower]

All about what is appropriate for the given use ---

I was always a MacPro guy starting with a PowerMac 9600! (pro audio). I finally went to a native based system and did not need PICe slots. Went to an i7 mini. It can totally handle the load - but the thermal design puts the CPU at 95degC with 20% load. In audio work constant load is the rule.

I tried out the 27" 3.4GHz late 2013 imac ($1999 model). With a base load of 10% going to 70% CPU load the CPU temp rise is from 50degC to 75degC. Fans at minimum (really quiet - spinning hard drive is louder). I am so encouraged that I ordered an i7 version with 512G PCIe SSD. My typical load should be around 25% for this machine and the SSD should make for a very quiet unit. At ~$3K for maxing out memory the machine should totally meet my needs for now with lots of headroom. I think the new MP would also be great and if I ever run this one so hard that fans start a spinning, I will be allover looking for a hex core MP or better. For pro audio - the graphics onthe imac (GTX775) is plenty. Hi end graphics cards make no difference to me and are not worth any $$.

Be it 2013MP or imac all the external storage goodies are the same for me.

 

[tomnavratil]

I feel the exact opposite.
Seems like all machines are reaching some ceiling. Few years ago, there was a huge gap between the performance of Pro, iMac and Mini. Now they are rougly on par CPU wise, and not much changed since 2011 (top score on geekbench is around 13000 for a few years now). I think in 5 years the iPhone will do 13000 on GB too, and that the MacPro, iMac and Macmini just keep shrinking.

Problem: there is no killer app demanding more. Guess 1080p video editting which was the major force behind the last 5 years, will not be followed by the same adaptation of 4K for home-use. And the attitude changes too. 5 years ago, I saw people making a nice edit of their vacation holiday video's. Today they upload snaps to Facebook and that's it. Most people stopped using the computer for serious creation.

Excellent point.

 

[MJL]

I feel the exact opposite.
Seems like all machines are reaching some ceiling. Few years ago, there was a huge gap between the performance of Pro, iMac and Mini. Now they are rougly on par CPU wise, and not much changed since 2011 (top score on geekbench is around 13000 for a few years now). I think in 5 years the iPhone will do 13000 on GB too, and that the MacPro, iMac and Macmini just keep shrinking.

Problem: there is no killer app demanding more. Guess 1080p video editting which was the major force behind the last 5 years, will not be followed by the same adaptation of 4K for home-use. And the attitude changes too. 5 years ago, I saw people making a nice edit of their vacation holiday video's. Today they upload snaps to Facebook and that's it. Most people stopped using the computer for serious creation.

Totally agree. Have been using computers since '85 and have had laptops from '96 until '08. Lost count but initially I would upgrade every 6 ~ 8 months since performance would have increased so much - memory may have doubled in speed, CPU may have doubled in speed, faster interface to HDD, larger HDD etc. These days it is 10% or so, hardly noticeable. Biggest impact in recent times has been the SSD.

To the OP - I would give thought towards the base Mac mini since you already have a sceen, keyboard and mouse. You might be pleasantly surprised. A screen lasts quite along time these days and I cannot see me using a 27" touch screen, my arms would get lame.

Later you can decide at your leisure when the new Pro comes out and the Mac mini has a good resale value.

 

[jayselle]

The base Mac Pro will blow the doors off the highest end iMac. Mac Pro will probably start at $2500 but will quickly approach $4,000 with a few upgrades and then add a display and you're at $5,000. If you don't think you need a Pro, then you probably don't.

There is some professional AV software that requires massive custom linux builds. The new Mac Pro will be able to push that software but without the accompanying IT department.

 

[kylepro88]

My current dilemma is the I/O of the older Mac Pro's. For $3800 you could easily get a 12-core machine off Ebay and put some upgrades in like SSD, etc. Even with OWC now offering a PCIe Storage solution that gets close to the current MacBook Air and iMac speeds, it's still hindered (the old Mac Pro) by USB2, no TB, etc. That's the one thing that makes me want to hold off on upgrading anything more in my 2009 Mac Pro.

I/O will limit you far before the machine itself likely will. If you were able to hang onto the 2006 Mac Pro for that long (I did, 5 years or so and even then it would've lasted a lot longer), then you don't sound like you need the sort of computing power that others might. However, if you're looking for longevity then a 2010 12-core Mac Pro 2nd hand on Ebay might be a good way to go. The drawback will be I/O over time.

If you want something with up to date (at least current) I/O that'll last a long time, then something with USB3 is your best bet. Odds are TB isn't for you. An 8-core version of the NEW Mac Pro will probably last you for years to come in terms of speed and basic I/O needs. The iMac isn't as likely to last that long, but if you get AppleCare you might be in good shape. Apple products last a really long time, save any display issues on your iMac.

Hope that helps...sorry for writing a book lol.

EDIT: Just saw someone mentioned the Mac Mini. That might be a solid option honestly. Make sure you have an SSD in there. Other then the GPU, it'll run circles around your 2006 Mac Pro.

 

[fig]

I feel the exact opposite.
Seems like all machines are reaching some ceiling. Few years ago, there was a huge gap between the performance of Pro, iMac and Mini. Now they are rougly on par CPU wise, and not much changed since 2011 (top score on geekbench is around 13000 for a few years now). I think in 5 years the iPhone will do 13000 on GB too, and that the MacPro, iMac and Macmini just keep shrinking.

Problem: there is no killer app demanding more. Guess 1080p video editting which was the major force behind the last 5 years, will not be followed by the same adaptation of 4K for home-use. And the attitude changes too. 5 years ago, I saw people making a nice edit of their vacation holiday video's. Today they upload snaps to Facebook and that's it. Most people stopped using the computer for serious creation.

I've tried to make similar points to a lot of people on MacRumors who are doing all sorts of in depth analyzing on iMac vs Mini vs whatever for their basic video editing, graphic design, etc. needs.

You can now build webpages and edit video on a MacBook Air pretty comfortably if you want to, unless you're doing legit professional level work the average user's hardware needs are generally pretty minimal. As excited as you may be about the "next" release, you probably don't actually need it.

 

[Krevnik]

To the OP - I would give thought towards the base Mac mini since you already have a sceen, keyboard and mouse. You might be pleasantly surprised. A screen lasts quite along time these days and I cannot see me using a 27" touch screen, my arms would get lame.

Later you can decide at your leisure when the new Pro comes out and the Mac mini has a good resale value.

This is not a bad idea if you need the machine right now, and are willing to budget for a MacPro later.

The base Mac Pro will blow the doors off the highest end iMac. Mac Pro will probably start at $2500 but will quickly approach $4,000 with a few upgrades and then add a display and you're at $5,000. If you don't think you need a Pro, then you probably don't.

This somewhat depends on exactly what chip is in the base MacPro. If it is a quad? Nah, not really. An 8-core would certainly do it though. At least in multi-core perf. Maybe the GPU if the entry model doesn't use some low end FirePro that's aimed at business users that just need an accelerated display.

That said, the advice is still sound. With the pricing of the current MacPros, even if it stays consistent, I expect that for a MacPro that will stomp on the iMac, you are looking at spending quite a bit. A lot more than what I spent on my 2008.

I wound up going with the iMac instead of the MacPro to replace my 2008. My home workload just isn't demanding enough to push the current Xeons. In 2008, they were the only way to get the level of multicore perf I needed and remain on the Mac platform. Today, I'm still happy with that level of performance, and the current i7 stomps all over my old machine in single-thread performance.

Although I will say that maxing out the iMac like that isn't really a good spend of money if you are looking for bang/buck. You have nearly 400$ easily wrapped up in minor upgrades to the CPU and GPU. That along with your existing display might tip the balance in favor of a basic MacPro when it comes along.

 

[fastlanephil]

The iMac has been competitive with the Mac Pro for many users but the nMac Pro will have dual pro GPU processors which looks like to be a very significant feature. Utilizing them with apps written in OpenCL could be more significant than future CPU upgrades.

OpenCL will no doubt take a while to be implemented as it requires recoding but that 2013 nMac Pro could still be a fairly powerful machine in five years compared to a 2013 iMac which by then will probably be only good for basic tasks and maybe a backup computer.

If you do music like I do, you are dealing with multiple copy protection schemes and touchy hardware/software setups. The longer I can avoid setting it all up again the better.

 

[Krevnik]

The iMac has been competitive with the Mac Pro for many users but the nMac Pro will have dual pro GPU processors which looks like to be a very significant feature. Utilizing them with apps written in OpenCL could be more significant than future CPU upgrades.

OpenCL will no doubt take a while to be implemented as it requires recoding but that 2013 nMac Pro could still be a fairly powerful machine in five years compared to a 2013 iMac which by then will probably be only good for basic tasks and maybe a backup computer.

It could be more significant, depending on what you do. It only works out if you have a workload that OpenCL can provide benefit to. Compilers? Nope. Audio/Video DSP? Sure. Home use apps? No, in most cases.

With what you do, yes, I can see your angle. But not everyone has the same workload, unfortunately.

 

[propower]

- "nMP blows the doors off --- "?? In benchmarks sure but for actual use - probably only to a very specific subset of users (the targeted users .

- Buying a machine based on what programs "may" utilize years from now makes some sense but for me - I buy a new one every 2 to 4 years. I'd probably rather have the current one at that time.

- Its about how hard you run your machine. If an i7 2.6GHz mini is getting it done why change? If not do you need more Cores or more speed? From a thermal design POV, mini=worst, imac=good and the "old and hopefully the new" MP = best. If you need to run 80% load on 6 cores day after day the MP line is what ya need!

I am a protools audio kind of guy -
IMHO- the nMP looks great! If it was here today I probably would have bought it. The heavy emphasis on graphics though is of no importance to me. From a computing engine POV it will have to be at least a hex core to differentiate itself from the imac. Sadly - I don't "need" a hex core so today - its an imac for me