iMac 27" 2012 vs Building a PC

[aggri1]

Out of curiosity, could you show us the components that you would put together to create a PC that is at least as well equipped as the iMac, keeping in mind all the things mentioned here? Since you make it sound so easy, it shouldn't take you too long to put it together here.

You had better be more specific. I've seen a few times people try to make such a comparison, and then someone else inevitably points out "oh but it doesn't have Thunderbolt", or some other niche or picky thing, and say it's not a fair comparison. So, define the important specifications, or you'll end up shooting for several different sets of goal posts, and/or moving them.

Besides, doesn't Tonymac have a whole lot of Mac-compatible parts and combinations listed already? If you're actually interested, surely you'll get a whole lot more info there than jav could reasonably list here...

If I had the know-how, I'd definitely build my own PC next time, and use my iMac as a monitor. Alas, PC-building is not an area of expertise of mine.

Cheers.

 

[omenatarhuri]

You had better be more specific. I've seen a few times people try to make such a comparison, and then someone else inevitably points out "oh but it doesn't have Thunderbolt", or some other niche or picky thing, and say it's not a fair comparison. So, define the important specifications, or you'll end up shooting for several different sets of goal posts, and/or moving them.

Besides, doesn't Tonymac have a whole lot of Mac-compatible parts and combinations listed already? If you're actually interested, surely you'll get a whole lot more info there than jav could reasonably list here...

If I had the know-how, I'd definitely build my own PC next time, and use my iMac as a monitor. Alas, PC-building is not an area of expertise of mine.

Cheers.

Basically include everything that the iMac has. If the PC has more, I guess that's fine. The parts don't need to be OS X compatible, I'm ok with the PC running Windows 8.

I've been to tonymac website quite a few times when I was building a hackintosh last year. Great source of information if that's what you want to do.

I was more so interested in jav's thoughts here since he seems to have a great build on his mind.

 

[aggri1]

Basically include everything that the iMac has. If the PC has more, I guess that's fine. The parts don't need to be OS X compatible, I'm ok with the PC running Windows 8.

I've been to tonymac website quite a few times when I was building a hackintosh last year. Great source of information if that's what you want to do.

I was more so interested in jav's thoughts here since he seems to have a great build on his mind.

"Everything?" ;-) I suspect then that the Thunderbolt requirement specifically will drive up the price of the PC considerably, compared to leaving it out. I suggest that if it's not a feature that the potential iMac-buyer will use, then perhaps it can be omitted from the PC build also, for the sake of assessing the cost-benefit/performance ratio. If this seems unfair, I'd argue that it's just because the Apple selection is so limited, and you have to pay for it whether you'd use it or not.

Then again, the potential iMac-buyer might indeed want it, in which case the PC should have it also...

 

[omenatarhuri]

"Everything?" ;-) I suspect then that the Thunderbolt requirement specifically will drive up the price of the PC considerably, compared to leaving it out. I suggest that if it's not a feature that the potential iMac-buyer will use, then perhaps it can be omitted from the PC build also, for the sake of assessing the cost-benefit/performance ratio. If this seems unfair, I'd argue that it's just because the Apple selection is so limited, and you have to pay for it whether you'd use it or not.

Then again, the potential iMac-buyer might indeed want it, in which case the PC should have it also...

I've thought there was quite a few TB motherboards out there, I don't think it should be that hard.

Most difficulty I've had has been with trying to match the design. iMac being an all-in-one it's difficult to get even close, nevermind trying to have a better looking setup when you have a separate computer case, monitor, webcam, mic, and what-not peripherals running around.

The specs should be quite easy to match since the iMac is already due for an update.

 

[elithrar]

If I had the know-how, I'd definitely build my own PC next time, and use my iMac as a monitor. Alas, PC-building is not an area of expertise of mine.

The "plugging things in" hardware side is easy.

It's the "****, this OS X update messed up my patched kexts and now I can't boot into OS X normally and I'm gonna spend 2-3 hours trawling the OS X x86 forums for someone who has hopefully solved this problem ahead of me."

The price difference, in my opinion, isn't enough to offset having to do that (or the risk of doing that) across the 2-3 year lifespan of the machine.

 

[Rian Gray]

USB 3.0 is better than Thunderbolt, and it's much cheaper. So it's not a question of either or/and.

AppleCare, yes spend $234 and get 2 more years worth of warranty. Many of the components in DIY PC building come with 3 years warranty as standard. My Corsair case, PSU and RAM modules each brought in 3, 5 and 5 years respectively. Pretty nice for just components.

So who pays what exactly? DIY PC building is the best thing to do if you know how to. Oh and by the way, Asus, Corsair and ATI all have US based call centers for your inquiries. Nifty no?

You obviously haven't tried to call them. I used to work as a technician, and Asus and Corsair are 2 top worst company which will never pick up your call. And even if they did, it's unlikely they are going to act about it. Assuming if they did, it will at least 3 weeks (sending and receiving) to get replacement.

On top of all of that, if someone is working on a computer that pays well, it's rather economical to get Mac or other Brand PCs, not DIY. You can spend hours and days on building DIY, but if your job pays you enough to compensate 1/3 of "expenses" compared DIY, it's far better to get it.

From my past experiences, unless you just got fired, compensation from working non-DIY workstation is almost always better than DIY. Yes, and you just heard that from a computer repair guy.

 

[malvicus]

To dismiss thunderbolt as an advantage because it's too expensive is a bit harsh. Like I said before, even after the upcoming updates to both USB 3 and Thunderbolt, USB is still half as fast. Plus, TB carries video along with data/audio/power. With an adapter, you can connect another HD, VGA, or DVI monitor or use another minidisplayport monitor. So you are losing out on something significant to save on that alleged 33%.

I'm glad someone else chimed in on the customer service issue. I've had nightmare scenarios when I brought my PC in for repairs. I've heard and seen some unsatisfied Applecare customers but on the whole, the service is top notch. Those guys bend over backwards to get your mac back up and running.

 

[RedRaven571]

I'm too lazy to read all the posts in this thread so someone may have already suggested this but how about a Mac (if you really want OS X) and use a platform (x-box or PS) for gaming.

That became the solution in our house.... we have 3 MBP, 1 iMac and an X-Box 360.

 

[Arfdog]

No, definitely wrong.
OSX is by no means more reliable or powerful than Windows. It looks nicer and parts of it have higher usability, though.

This is quite wrong. OS X, being UNIX-based, has much less overhead than Windows. That's for starters. Scientific applications, university environments, usually use UNIX.

It's also the most connected, most easily administered, most easily used by hundreds, thousands of users. Also a main reason that scientists, engineers, and programmers use it.

 

[bearsworth]

If you have time and want to save money, I suggest making a hackintosh. I've made one from an the aluminum g5 cases and its really nice. Also, you can buy a motherboard with thunderbolt and has been known to have everything working. The only down side is sometimes updates can cause slight issues, but usually if fixable easily. I've had mine for a while now and I love it. Saved soo much money and put in the craziest hardware and is always upgradeable not that you will anytime soon. Overall it's a fun project if time permits - i was also able to get apple wireless and bluetooth using a laptop's hardware.

 

[iSayuSay]

Really?

It's $3406 (£2179) here in the UK!

See? It's the farking tax that gouges people to buy an Apple product outside Uhmerica.
Even when the price in GBP, which should costs like 60% on US$, Apple would not count that in.

An iMac that costs $2000 should translate to £1400. Even with tax it should be around £1700.

When you build a PC, $2000 is $2000 .. the tax is practically non existent or included in component price already. Plus you can enjoy some additional discount/bargain while choosing your PC components. Not so much when you click "Buy" on Apple's website

 

[Arfdog]

"Everything?" ;-) I suspect then that the Thunderbolt requirement specifically will drive up the price of the PC considerably, compared to leaving it out. I suggest that if it's not a feature that the potential iMac-buyer will use, then perhaps it can be omitted from the PC build also, for the sake of assessing the cost-benefit/performance ratio. If this seems unfair, I'd argue that it's just because the Apple selection is so limited, and you have to pay for it whether you'd use it or not.

Then again, the potential iMac-buyer might indeed want it, in which case the PC should have it also...

I think you're missing the point of an apples-to-apples comparison. Why not leave out the GPU too since most people don't game or use CAE? Or opt for the i5 in the PC instead of the Mac's i7? Most people don't need that much power.

 

[iSayuSay]

This is quite wrong. OS X, being UNIX-based, has much less overhead than Windows. That's for starters. Scientific applications, university environments, usually use UNIX.

It's also the most connected, most easily administered, most easily used by hundreds, thousands of users. Also a main reason that scientists, engineers, and programmers use it.

Oh really? I find many things on OSX side is oversimplified. Something like Airport Utility is a basic toy compared to web interface of a Cisco/Linksys router, or any other router.

So easy to do simple basic things, impossible to do a bit harder setup, that's what Mac is all about. I can't manage my bandwidth, nor HDCP client filter on Airport Extreme.

Many universal applications almost always perform better on Windows side. SimCity had weird glitches while the Windows version works fine. Same as The Witcher 2 performs like an ape$*** on Mac side. Photoshop also had a few glitches and flicker inducing features, made exclusively for OSX.

My Handbrake encoding results on error while the same video works okay in video converting software for Windows. I can't tweak anything on that either.

Scientific applications and university environment uses Linux. Not even Apple Data Center use OSX for their servers. Yeah, ironic huh?

 

[ravinder08]

That's true, but i can not ignore the os x mountain lion, the design and the fact that the imac also has a good resale price in case I want to change it. What do you think about those things?

Do yourself a favour and get an iMac 27" the things you said above are precisely why you should get the mac. It's a rock solid machine and OS.
Now stop farting about and place your order.

 

[bearsworth]

Do yourself a favour and get an iMac 27" the things you said above are precisely why you should get the mac. It's a rock solid machine and OS.
Now stop farting about and place your order.

If you're UK i'd make hackintosh, US debatable. US you can probably get equivalent specs for much less consider this :

3.4GHz Quad-core Intel Core i7, Turbo Boost up to 3.9GHz
16GB 1600MHz DDR3 SDRAM - 2X8GB
256GB Flash Storage
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 680MX 2GB GDDR5

Costs around 2.8k on apple (before tax)
I could probably make the same for about $1000 and with a NVDIA 760 which is much better than the 680MX. If you were to custom mac it up, then maybe around $1150 before tax which should net you some money to go and buy a 27" monitor. The thing is, they are almost out of stock, so probalby most people like me are fetching a cheapo dell u2713 and then likely to wait for when they release the new cinema displays (i'm praying on this one ; D). All in all I'd say you can make that for $1700 saving you around $1k to do whatever youw ant with. Maybe buy 1000 $1 tacos?

 

[mr.thedaniel]

Indeed, one reason that's hard to quantify is the value that apple products hold over time. You can resell that iMac in a few years for an impressive amount that can be put towards a new machine when needed. The disadvantage of building your own machine is that in almost all cases (aside from things like SSDs), you can't get any decent money for selling the machine or its parts when you eventually decide to upgrade.

I upgrade my computers fairly often, and sticking with macs has been a great value for me, even in scenarios like my desktop, a 27" iMac, where I run Windows 8 for games and development 90% of the time.

And man, that GTX680MX is really impressive for games. Even at native resolution I can max most games, and combined with the display, I make all my gamer friends jealous.

----------

One other underappreciated value of the imac- portability. I bought a carry case for it, and for LAN parties, bringing it to school or work, etc., it's simple to toss it in the bag and bring it like a giant 27" powerhouse laptop. Still just 1 plug

 

[bearsworth]

Indeed, one reason that's hard to quantify is the value that apple products hold over time. You can resell that iMac in a few years for an impressive amount that can be put towards a new machine when needed. The disadvantage of building your own machine is that in almost all cases (aside from things like SSDs), you can't get any decent money for selling the machine or its parts when you eventually decide to upgrade.

I upgrade my computers fairly often, and sticking with macs has been a great value for me, even in scenarios like my desktop, a 27" iMac, where I run Windows 8 for games and development 90% of the time.

And man, that GTX680MX is really impressive for games. Even at native resolution I can max most games, and combined with the display, I make all my gamer friends jealous.

----------

One other underappreciated value of the imac- portability. I bought a carry case for it, and for LAN parties, bringing it to school or work, etc., it's simple to toss it in the bag and bring it like a giant 27" powerhouse laptop. Still just 1 plug

I'd be a bit hesistant to carry that around lol. Something happens and you drop it lol...

 

[mr.thedaniel]

I use a case called an iLugger, it's padded with foam so it's fine for scratches and such, but yea, you wouldn't want to drop it. It is surprisingly easy to carry around though with that case. I buckle it into my car and take it wherever, it's great

Just not to a coffee shop. Don't be that guy.

 

[APhillyApple]

Go with the iMac and keep it moving. They are extremely reliable and powerful machines with great software.

 

[MagicThief83]

iMac 27" 2012 vs Building a PC

I am interested in buying a new personal computer. My first thought was the iMac 27" of 2012 with 3.2GHz, 1TB, Geforce gt 675m with 1GB, 12gb ram which will cost 2000 (2300USD) euro. On the other hand, i can't stop thinking that with the same money a can build a pc much better, that will also be upgratable in the future, with a great LED monitor. Please help.

To be honest, you'll get so much for your money by building a PC. I built a hackintosh with an i5 3.4GHz CPU, 8GB RAM, dual-boot SSDs for Mac OSX and Windows 7, and a 2TB storage HD. I've also equipped it with a GTX 780, which runs all modern games beautifully. I did sell my late 2012 21.5" (immediately and for a great price) iMac to fund my hackintosh. The iMacs do have great resale value and if you just want a stable, out the box, up and running system without the need for any tinkering, then the iMac is the system for you. I felt a bit limited by the iMac and I consider myself a power user and I'm not afraid to tinker, that's why I ended up building a hackintosh and I've been perfectly satisfied so far. System runs great and there have been no instability issues. I did use Tony Mac x86 as a guide and that website was extremely helpful, so if you're considering building a PC/hackintosh, then you should refer to the website as it's a great resource.

 

[harleymhs]

A few years ago I would 100% agree with you. HOWEVER, when push came to call I couldn't find myself willing to spend 400 $ to upgrade a video card on an already outdated system after 2 years. A DIY PC is fast and can easily be upgraded. A Mac is an integrated system and keeps its value.

Here in Holland I sold my first iMac after a few years and got 70% of the value back. Same happened for every mac i owned since then. My old PC's were more or less worthless after 2 - 3 years.

Now I have the i7 - 32 GB - 256 GB SSD - GeForce M 680 MX - iMac 2012 which is very fast. Yes, for the same or less money I could have built my own PC system knowing it would be worthless after 3 years and knowing I could upgrade it after 2 years and still have a worthless systems. IMO Macs just work and can offer great specs in combination with a very stable OS and sleek design.

But then again, it's just my opinion

I have to Agree... I just bought a 27" iMac with the same specs but with a 512 SSD and it FLIES! Came from a gaming Acer top of the line and this Imac is OUTSTANDING! Running bootcamp Win 7 and it works just as good as the Acer! JMO

 

[HenryDJP]

To be honest, you'll get so much for your money by building a PC. I built a hackintosh with an i5 3.4GHz CPU, 8GB RAM, dual-boot SSDs for Mac OSX and Windows 7, and a 2TB storage HD. I've also equipped it with a GTX 780, which runs all modern games beautifully. I did sell my late 2012 21.5" (immediately and for a great price) iMac to fund my hackintosh. The iMacs do have great resale value and if you just want a stable, out the box, up and running system without the need for any tinkering, then the iMac is the system for you. I felt a bit limited by the iMac and I consider myself a power user and I'm not afraid to tinker, that's why I ended up building a hackintosh and I've been perfectly satisfied so far. System runs great and there have been no instability issues. I did use Tony Mac x86 as a guide and that website was extremely helpful, so if you're considering building a PC/hackintosh, then you should refer to the website as it's a great resource.

You're not just tinkering, you're hacking and it's not an ideal solution for people. A person building their own PC to run Windows is fine, if that's what floats their boat (imo a complete waste of time and best entertained by teenage boys) but to recommend using hacked software as a primary OS and having to play the game of dodging OS updates in order to keep the system from getting bricked isn't worth it and imo a terrible recommendation to anyone.

 

[MagicThief83]

You're not just tinkering, you're hacking and it's not an ideal solution for people. A person building their own PC to run Windows is fine, if that's what floats their boat (imo a complete waste of time and best entertained by teenage boys) but to recommend using hacked software as a primary OS and having to play the game of dodging OS updates in order to keep the system from getting bricked isn't worth it and imo a terrible recommendation to anyone.

To each his own. You clearly didn't read my post carefully. I said I built a hackintosh, I didn't tell the OP he should build a hackintosh. I explicitly stated that he'd get more for his money by building a PC. You also didn't read the part where I said Macs are stable computers that are up and running out the box. Hackintoshing is undoubtedly a niche hobby and isn't geared for everyone, but building and running a Windows PC also requires "tinkering" and maintenance as well, so it's not a completely hassle-free experience. Have you built a hackintosh? Do you know exactly what the process entails? Unless you have, don't comment on a matter that you don't have any experience with or are extremely ignorant about. Hackintoshes don't utilize "hacked software." They use legal copies of software that have been purchased by their respective end users (or at least they were supposed to unless someone torrents or pirates it).

 

[HenryDJP]

To each his own. You clearly didn't read my post carefully. I said I built a hackintosh, I didn't tell the OP he should build a hackintosh. I explicitly stated that he'd get more for his money by building a PC. You also didn't read the part where I said Macs are stable computers that are up and running out the box. Hackintoshing is undoubtedly a niche hobby and isn't geared for everyone, but building and running a Windows PC also requires "tinkering" and maintenance as well, so it's not a completely hassle-free experience. Have you built a hackintosh? Do you know exactly what the process entails? Unless you have, don't comment on a matter that you don't have any experience with or are extremely ignorant about. Hackintoshes don't utilize "hacked software." They use legal copies of software that have been purchased by their respective end users (or at least they were supposed to unless someone torrents or pirates it).

Uh huh, let me understand this, so you can grab an OS X DVD and just plainly install it on a home built PC just the way you'd do it on a real Mac, right? I didn't think so. I know what it requires and your arrogance is comical at best. Regardless if you didn't actually "recommend" it. This thread is about buying an iMac or building a PC and you talking about how a hackintosh gave you a better experience is suggesting to the OP to do so. Buying a legal copy is "legal", using it on hardware that is against the end-user license can be considered hacking, especially when it's not just a simple install.

 

[cirus]

If you are going to be comparing imac vs pc for pricing then you have to take usage into account.

Answer these questions.

1. Will you run multiple SSD based RAID 0 arrays off of your computer. Or anything else that requires fast access through the PCI bus?
2. If you bought a PC right now would you spend or even consider spending hundreds of dollars additionally for a 1600p display?

If the answer to 1 is no then remove all thunderbolt components from the pc as you don't need them. If the answer to 2 is no then add the display you would buy if you bought a PC to the comparison.

I will say right now that the vast majority of consumers will say no to both questions.