Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Help me choose: Mac Pro 2009 or iMac 2012

R

rdej47

macrumors member
Original poster
Jan 24, 2010
34
0
How's it going guys? I'm really torn right now between an iMac 2012 and Mac Pro 2009. I love them both from a design standpoint but the accessibility of the iMac 2012 is insane. Not even the hard drive is accessible (sort of but really difficult) I've had a MacBook Pro since 2011 that has allowed me to upgrade the HD space, dual HD's, and upgrade the ram.

I guess i'm looking for some economic advice, would it be feasible to purchase a 2009 Mac Pro and add some life to it over the next few years with CPU upgrades (6 cores come down), RAM, and HD upgrades to keep it current. Or am I just better off buying a new iMac every couple years and flipping the old one?
 
Hmm let's see, I have had many imacs and mac pros and I lost one imac due to bad cpu, one to bad LCD, one to bad hard drive. Mac pro, still rocking and still faster. They all get way to hot but the pro is cool always. Get a mac pro before they are gone.
 
Hi rdej47. I think it's still feasible to get a 2009 Mac Pro. It's still reliable and tested proven. I have a 2009 Mac Pro and running smoothly. Aside from the firmware, generally its architecture is similar to the 5.1 Mac Pro.

----------
DPUser said:
I like my 2009 "5,1" Hex... the perfect heart of the recording studio, machine room beast, loaded with HDs and SSDs and cool under pressure.

But that's just me.
Click to expand...

It's not just you. :D I am also happy with my 2009 Mac Pro still with 4.1 firmware. It's quiet and steady
 
I've used both and my money is on a Mac Pro. I need more HDD options than just a single drive and a non-replaceable GPU is a no go for me. The hex-core is faster than the most expensive iMac. Plus you are talking well over $2000 for the iMac that is comparable to the hex core Mac Pro.
 
MacMilligan said:
I've used both and my money is on a Mac Pro. I need more HDD options than just a single drive and a non-replaceable GPU is a no go for me. The hex-core is faster than the most expensive iMac. Plus you are talking well over $2000 for the iMac that is comparable to the hex core Mac Pro.
Click to expand...

Have any of you done any CPU upgrades. I'd consider myself very proficient when it comes to taking things apart but it sounded pretty intense.
 
rdej47 said:
Have any of you done any CPU upgrades. I'd consider myself very proficient when it comes to taking things apart but it sounded pretty intense.
Click to expand...

Like DP said, the 2009 dual CPU is the hard one. Singles are about like swapping a PC cpu out.
 
Depends on what you do. The iMac is a pretty awesome computer you just need to buy everything you need up front. There is an excellent aftermarket so swapping every couple years is a good plan that will keep you current with technology. You can't upgrade the motherboard in the Pros so there is always a ceiling to what upgrades you can put in there

That said, if you need a Pro then you need a Pro.
 
From an economic point of view, you're paying for a monitor every time you upgrade an iMac. I've had my 30" ACD for years now and it just keeps on performing well.

Still, Apple doesn't make the best monitors, IMO. I have an NEC as a second monitor on my MP 5,1 and I think it is superior to the ACD in almost every respect. YMMV.
 
tamvly said:
From an economic point of view, you're paying for a monitor every time you upgrade an iMac. I've had my 30" ACD for years now and it just keeps on performing well.

Still, Apple doesn't make the best monitors, IMO. I have an NEC as a second monitor on my MP 5,1 and I think it is superior to the ACD in almost every respect. YMMV.
Click to expand...

Sorry but the economics of the iMac are much better than the current Mac Pro.

I'd go for the iMac unless your needs absolutely drive you to a Mac Pro. It's by far the better value for a typical desktop. And despite what others might realize (or maybe admit) its actually faster for many desktop tasks.
 
I'd say the Mac Pro.

I'd try to get the 2010 model though.

The 2009 Mac Pro uses lidless CPUs for the dual model, and has LGA sockets without the retention mechanism around it (relying on the pressure of the heatsink to keep the CPU seated). This is not only a horrible design decision, but a supreme pain in the ass to deal with if you ever want to upgrade those CPUs.

The 2010 revised this, and accepts heatsinks with the lids. The dual CPU board for the 2010 also has the LGA retention mechanisms around it, and different heatsinks to accommodate that. IMHO, the 2010 is a much better choice if you think you're ever going to be upgrading the CPUs.

-SC
 
I'd get a 2009 Mac Pro single and throw in a 3.2 or 3.3 hex chip in it and a nice video card with some large HDs and be done with it for the price of a new iMac. I just did the CPU upgrade and only paid $315 for a used 3.2 Hex Xeon on eBay.
 
sbarton said:
Sorry but the economics of the iMac are much better than the current Mac Pro.
Click to expand...

Of course the iMac is less expensive. My point was that when you buy an iMac, you're buying the display as well. And that the display is the weak link as far as I'm concerned.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back