Hi,
I was debating whether to put this in the MacPro or iMac forum.. and at the end I decide to put it here because it seems more people in the iMac forum always wonder about this "Do I need a MacPro or is the iMac enough for me?" (myself included)...
This is not a technical benchmark between the 2, just some tests I ran at the Apple store that gave me a good idea what to expect between the differences of these 2 machines.
iMac 2.93 Ghz, 4Gig ram, Nvidia GT120.
MacPro 2.66 Ghz quad core (single), 3Gig ram, Nvidia GT120.
(typical default built setup)
What I wanted to find out was like many others, do I need a MacPro for the things I need to do and how much difference would it impact me. I like MacPro's upgradability, but a bit over price IMO, especially you need 2 video cards to hook up 2 Apple 24" LCD.. anyway.. Main things I will be doing are video editing and outputing various size and format movies, lots of photo work (cs4, lightroom, aperture, iphoto..etc.) and mass exports (conversion after edits, I find this to be very time consuming currently)... Also I would do 3D work with Maya, Zbrush and all, but I already know those will take a good advantage of multithreading, for rendering in maya and Zbrush is all cpu. So I have my answers for those areas.
As I suggest in the subject, this is a subjective test from my observation so not exact scientific benchmark. This is useful for me because its exactly what I will be using these machines for.
3 tests I did:
1) All the mac machines at the store had final cut pro and the Ducati demo edit project in there, so I render the same output (resolution, codec, mov output) on both machine and see what the differences were.
2) iphoto resize export, I picked the city of paris event and did a batch export on all the photos inside reduced by half and 70% jpg compression.
3) iphoto slideshow movie export, I picked the same event and output a slideshow movie out of it in mov format.
For the Final Cut Pro test, the MacPro was quite a bit faster. I started on the imac first and then started it up on the macpro after about 5 min time, by about 26% on the imac, the macpro had already caught up to that percentage and surpassed it.. Then it just went on and finished it a bit more than 1/2 the time it took the imac. Not crazy faster, but quite a bit faster, I also have the cpu monitor up the whole time during all these tests and on the macpro, all 8 cpu were active, none were full 100% at any time, but all varied and jumped up and down averaging about 50% most of the time on most of the procs...
Then the iphoto tests. I exported the same event group of photos from both machine, resized and compressed to 70% in jpg. The macpro again was quicker to finish but not as big of a lead as Final Cut Pro test, cpu reading seems similar, all cpu were used to some degree on both machines. I do remember the iMac maxing out to 100% sometimes on both cpu and would drop back down but the macpro never seem to peak all the cpu to 100%, all were used and varied during the time... I would say in this round, the macpro probably finished in about 2/3 - 3/4 of the time it took the imac. It didn't feel a whole lot faster but was faster.
Then the last iphoto slideshow export test, The macpro was also faster than the imac, but the gap narrowed even more. The difference was similar or a bit less than the last iphoto test. The macpro was still a little faster.
I don't know how much multithreading these apps can take advantage of, from this I can tell definitely a lot more on Final Cut Pro's rendering. Probably not so much in iphoto. Anything that takes thorough advantage of multithreading, the MacPro will be significantly faster, by a lot... just like what many benchmark already shows.
I know we are NOT comparing apples to oranges. And it wasn't the point of this test I did. I needed to know how much "real" difference would I get going with the latest nehalem cpu in the MacPro versus the iMac on everyday stuff I would do with it and if that difference justifies the (imo, pretty big) price difference.
After this test, for me, I do think the Macpro will be worth it for what I will be doing. The difference is big enough. I wish the Apple store had lightroom on it so I can really try out the multithreaded export on it and really see the difference... oh well..
I still like how compact the iMac is and i don't like having a full tower anymore. But with the MacPro, I can also "easily" put in an SSD drive inside to even speed up the performance more.. that alone is also quite important to me now that I have used an SSD Macbook Air for a few months now and see what differences that makes... decision decision.. and money...
Just wanted to share this experience with you all as some of you may be trying to figure out the same thing. I suggest if you are serious about deciding between these 2 machines, go to your local Apple store and try it out for yourself, give yourself some good time with it, bring your own photo or movies to test it out there if you like too. It can really give you a sense of the difference and what may or may not be what you need. The Apple stores are really great for really being able to try their stuff out and see for yourself.
Good luck.
I was debating whether to put this in the MacPro or iMac forum.. and at the end I decide to put it here because it seems more people in the iMac forum always wonder about this "Do I need a MacPro or is the iMac enough for me?" (myself included)...
This is not a technical benchmark between the 2, just some tests I ran at the Apple store that gave me a good idea what to expect between the differences of these 2 machines.
iMac 2.93 Ghz, 4Gig ram, Nvidia GT120.
MacPro 2.66 Ghz quad core (single), 3Gig ram, Nvidia GT120.
(typical default built setup)
What I wanted to find out was like many others, do I need a MacPro for the things I need to do and how much difference would it impact me. I like MacPro's upgradability, but a bit over price IMO, especially you need 2 video cards to hook up 2 Apple 24" LCD.. anyway.. Main things I will be doing are video editing and outputing various size and format movies, lots of photo work (cs4, lightroom, aperture, iphoto..etc.) and mass exports (conversion after edits, I find this to be very time consuming currently)... Also I would do 3D work with Maya, Zbrush and all, but I already know those will take a good advantage of multithreading, for rendering in maya and Zbrush is all cpu. So I have my answers for those areas.
As I suggest in the subject, this is a subjective test from my observation so not exact scientific benchmark. This is useful for me because its exactly what I will be using these machines for.
3 tests I did:
1) All the mac machines at the store had final cut pro and the Ducati demo edit project in there, so I render the same output (resolution, codec, mov output) on both machine and see what the differences were.
2) iphoto resize export, I picked the city of paris event and did a batch export on all the photos inside reduced by half and 70% jpg compression.
3) iphoto slideshow movie export, I picked the same event and output a slideshow movie out of it in mov format.
For the Final Cut Pro test, the MacPro was quite a bit faster. I started on the imac first and then started it up on the macpro after about 5 min time, by about 26% on the imac, the macpro had already caught up to that percentage and surpassed it.. Then it just went on and finished it a bit more than 1/2 the time it took the imac. Not crazy faster, but quite a bit faster, I also have the cpu monitor up the whole time during all these tests and on the macpro, all 8 cpu were active, none were full 100% at any time, but all varied and jumped up and down averaging about 50% most of the time on most of the procs...
Then the iphoto tests. I exported the same event group of photos from both machine, resized and compressed to 70% in jpg. The macpro again was quicker to finish but not as big of a lead as Final Cut Pro test, cpu reading seems similar, all cpu were used to some degree on both machines. I do remember the iMac maxing out to 100% sometimes on both cpu and would drop back down but the macpro never seem to peak all the cpu to 100%, all were used and varied during the time... I would say in this round, the macpro probably finished in about 2/3 - 3/4 of the time it took the imac. It didn't feel a whole lot faster but was faster.
Then the last iphoto slideshow export test, The macpro was also faster than the imac, but the gap narrowed even more. The difference was similar or a bit less than the last iphoto test. The macpro was still a little faster.
I don't know how much multithreading these apps can take advantage of, from this I can tell definitely a lot more on Final Cut Pro's rendering. Probably not so much in iphoto. Anything that takes thorough advantage of multithreading, the MacPro will be significantly faster, by a lot... just like what many benchmark already shows.
I know we are NOT comparing apples to oranges. And it wasn't the point of this test I did. I needed to know how much "real" difference would I get going with the latest nehalem cpu in the MacPro versus the iMac on everyday stuff I would do with it and if that difference justifies the (imo, pretty big) price difference.
After this test, for me, I do think the Macpro will be worth it for what I will be doing. The difference is big enough. I wish the Apple store had lightroom on it so I can really try out the multithreaded export on it and really see the difference... oh well..
I still like how compact the iMac is and i don't like having a full tower anymore. But with the MacPro, I can also "easily" put in an SSD drive inside to even speed up the performance more.. that alone is also quite important to me now that I have used an SSD Macbook Air for a few months now and see what differences that makes... decision decision.. and money... Just wanted to share this experience with you all as some of you may be trying to figure out the same thing. I suggest if you are serious about deciding between these 2 machines, go to your local Apple store and try it out for yourself, give yourself some good time with it, bring your own photo or movies to test it out there if you like too. It can really give you a sense of the difference and what may or may not be what you need. The Apple stores are really great for really being able to try their stuff out and see for yourself.
Good luck.