iMac or Mac Pro?

Discussion in 'iMac' started by Matt342, Nov 20, 2007.

  1. Matt342 macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2007
    #1
    Hi!

    I'm planning on buying a new Mac. I'm gonna be doing web browsing, email, instant messaging, garageband, logic express, minor cinema 4d, minor photoshop, minor illustrator, and a little bit of coding (XCode). Should I get the base Mac Pro or the 2.8ghz iMac?
     
  2. wackymacky macrumors 68000

    wackymacky

    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2007
    Location:
    38°39′20″N 27°13′10″W
    #2
    If this means paid work for graphic design, colour matching and gamma control will be of a higher standards on a mac pro (with one of several different displays apple and non apple) rather than the ones built into the new iMacs with their limitations already noted on other threads.
     
  3. zedsdead macrumors 68040

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2007
    #3
    I have the iMac 2.8, and let me tell you, it is powerful... I use Final Cut Studio, although I do mostly HD editing work, not too much graphics intensive stuff. For what you need to do it should be more than powerful enough. If you are getting a Mac Pro, WAIT! Hopefully by Macworld it will finally be updated.
     
  4. Matt342 thread starter macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2007
    #4
    I don't get paid for any graphics stuff. I do this all for a hobby/learning experience. So which one should I get?

    ~Matt

     
  5. ryannel2003 macrumors 68000

    ryannel2003

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2005
    Location:
    Greenville, NC
    #5
    I think the iMac would be sufficient for this. They are extremely powerful machines, and even a 2.4GHz would be great for this. There are some downsides though, mainly not being able to upgrade your screen or graphics cards. If that is important to you, then definitely stick with the Mac Pro. However, if those don't apply then stick with a 24" iMac (the 20" models seem to have more screen issues). But whichever you pick will be more than powerful for your work.
     
  6. pubjoe macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2007
    #6
    Obviously, the mac pro is wayy more expensive... I don't feel that colour matching is enough to justify the greater expense, especially as your usage atm will be hobby work. Maybe upgrade later if you need to.

    As for gamma control.. Why not?

    As a side note, I don't get all the colour matching arguments about the new glossy imacs. The RGB/CMYK issue has always been the problem with screen/print colour matching and this will always remain so. There will never be the same spectrum of colours on screen as there is on print - glossy or matte screens have nothing to do with it. You make this decision on personal preference alone.

    I know serious graphics professionals with inferior screens to the new imacs LCDs who do a good and well paid job. That's what proofs are for.
     
  7. skubish macrumors 68030

    skubish

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2005
    Location:
    Ann Arbor, Michigan
    #7
    iMac unless you have cash to burn.
     
  8. Arjy macrumors member

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2007
    #8
    Go for the iMac. I have a 2.33Ghz 24" and it works wonders for all of those that you mentioned. I'm sure the newer models would work even better. Just make sure you stock up on RAM (at least 2 gigs) because most of those programs after a while tend to take up quite a bit and if you're like me and multi task (Music/movie playing, iChat open, web browser open, while working on whatever, photoshop C4d or any of those) you run out of RAM pretty fast. But the iMac should be plenty for your needs. I have an extra 23'' Cinima Display attached to mine to give me an extra canvas to work on and I tell you, I couldn't be much happier (save for an upgrade to the 2.8Ghz, but we'll see about that later ;] )
     
  9. Kankki macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2007
    Location:
    Österbotten, Finland
    #9
    Why does everybody have to go so overkill?? I'm still using my crappy 1,8ghz PC for some heavy Photoshop use in like 2 years no and hasn't gotten any problems yet.

    (I'm getting an 20" 2.4 iMac though)
     
  10. rotlex macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    May 1, 2003
    Location:
    PA
    #10
    Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows 98; PalmSource/Palm-D052; Blazer/4.5) 16;320x320)

    Go for the iMac. I do a lot of the stuff you mention, and a 2.8 with 4GB ram screams. As far as upgrading? for what you will spend on a Mac Pro, and upgrades over say 3 years? You can just buy a whole new iMac. Just not worth it to go uber high end anymore with how fast technology changes.
     
  11. zweigand macrumors 6502a

    zweigand

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2003
  12. ivan1234 macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2007
  13. mward333 macrumors 6502a

    mward333

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2004
    #13
    I've got both an iMac at home and a Mac Pro at work, and I think that the iMac would fit your needs well. The cost of the Mac Pro is unjustified for what you are doing. You'll be amazed with your iMac. Buy and enjoy! :) I don't feel disappointed at all when I come home from work and use my iMac at home... the iMac is a great machine with plenty of speed and memory for the jobs you're doing.
     
  14. bluefiberoptics macrumors regular

    bluefiberoptics

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2005
    #14
    I'm also in the same boat. A Top iMac or Base Mac Pro.

    It really depends on what an updated Mac Pro and iMac have. :)

    <dream> I hope Steve Jobs surprises everyone at Mac World and announces consumer desktops. </dream>
     
  15. mward333 macrumors 6502a

    mward333

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2004
    #15
    What type of "consumer" desktop are you thinking about? In my opinion, between the Mac Pro, iMac, and Mac Mini, he's got almost everybody's desktop covered. I'm just curious what you are thinking about.... any thoughts on this?
     
  16. zedsdead macrumors 68040

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2007
    #16
    He's talking about the much wanted "Mid-Range Tower" that many of the gamers on this forum are looking for. Desktop Core 2 Quad CPU with Desktop Graphics Chip. Something in between the mobile Core 2 Duo's and the Server Xeon processors and such. A tower that has a user replacable hard drive (2 bays) as well.

    I personally do not see this happening. We all know Jobs does not care about gamers, and the current models are more than fast enough. Also, in 2008, the mobile Quad-Core Penryns should be out so I see no reason for Apple to do the mid range tower at all...
     
  17. Techguy172 macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2007
    Location:
    Ontario Canada
    #17
    Defiantly the iMac , the Mac Pro is overkill for hobbies. the iMac will be more than powerful enough anyways.
     
  18. Hmac macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    May 30, 2007
    Location:
    Midwest USA
    #18
    If money or space are not the object, then Mac Pro all the way. I've never heard anyone complain about their computer being too fast, or too expandable. Personally, I'd want to avoid being locked in to a particular form factor.

    If you're trying to save money, or have a space crunch, then I could see an iMac. Otherwise, Mac Pro.
     
  19. psychofreak Retired

    psychofreak

    Joined:
    May 16, 2006
    Location:
    London
    #19
    The iMac IMO, they'll both be powerful enough, and its so beautiful :)
     
  20. mward333 macrumors 6502a

    mward333

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2004
    #20
    I see exactly what you mean. I always forget about "gamers" since I never play games on the computer! Sorry about that.

    Gamers are definitely an important segment of the market, and you're right--Apple does not cater to gamers at all.
     
  21. zedsdead macrumors 68040

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2007
    #21
    I am not a gamer either...the iMac is great for me...and it does do games fine, but not amazing...there actually seems to be a problem with the Leopard Driver and the ATI Radeon 2600 Pro HD because people have ran tests under Vista with Boot Camp and it performs much better.
     

Share This Page