iMac or Mac Pro

[gazfocus]

I had been saving my money for some time to buy a Macbook Pro (and I was waiting for an update before purchasing), but my ex girlfriend had an accident with my G4 Powerbook before christmas and it has resulted in my insurance company replacing it with a brand new Macbook Pro today.

So...as my main computer is a custom built PC (sorry guys), I'm now thinking of using the money I had saved to replace my windows PC with either an iMac or a Mac Pro.

I have a 22" HP monitor so, buying a Mac Pro without a display wouldn't really be an issure.

I use my PC for the following:

Video Editing (rarely)
Games: Call of Duty 1, 2, and 4(rarely)
Photoshop (frequently) - looking to buy Adobe CS3
Sound recording (occassionaly)
Web Design (frequently)

The applications that I have got (primarily for my MBP), are:

Logic Studio 8
Final Cut Studio 5.1 (universal edition)
Mac Office 2004 (will be upgrading to Mac Office 2008)
Adobe Creative Suite CS2 Premium (will be upgrading to CS3 at some point)
iWork 08

What I'm wondering is, would I be better off buying a high(ish) end iMac (probably the 24" version), or do I buy the low end Mac Pro with the 2 x 2.8GHz CPU's?

Would I really need the power of the Mac Pro?

I considered needing it for hard drive space, etc, but I am planning on buying a 2nd hand G4 PowerMac to use as a file server (or potentially use my old PC for the same job (although not the PC i'm looking to sell)).

 

[CWallace]

Apple does offer a single 2.8GHz CPU Mac Pro for about $500 less (you need to choose the dual-2.8GHz model and then customize it). Such a configuration with 2GB of RAM and a 500GB HDD (and using your HP 22" display) is $100 more then the 2.8GHz 24" iMac with the same RAM and HDD space.

Now, there is much debate as to whether or not you can install a second CPU later on. Some believe the second CPU socket is not present (as in wasn't installed) so you'd be limited to a single CPU in such a case. But if the systemboard does have the second socket, you could add the 2nd CPU later (though right now, it is about $800, so if you think you will want it within the next 6 months, it may be cheaper to just get it now for $500).

 

[zdobson]

Mac Pro. Definitely. You mentioned a lot of pro apps there. Plus, you already have a good monitor, so why be forced to buy one with the iMac? MP is much much more upgradeable and will last you longer.

I have also heard that the single CPU MP does NOT have a 2nd socket, so I wouldn't bother getting that one. Having double the processing capability will allow you to keep your computer for much longer.

 

[gazfocus]

Apple does offer a single 2.8GHz CPU Mac Pro for about $500 less (you need to choose the dual-2.8GHz model and then customize it). Such a configuration with 2GB of RAM and a 500GB HDD (and using your HP 22" display) is $100 more then the 2.8GHz 24" iMac with the same RAM and HDD space.

Now, there is much debate as to whether or not you can install a second CPU later on. Some believe the second CPU socket is not present (as in wasn't installed) so you'd be limited to a single CPU in such a case. But if the systemboard does have the second socket, you could add the 2nd CPU later (though right now, it is about $800, so if you think you will want it within the next 6 months, it may be cheaper to just get it now for $500).

Do you think the Mac Pro would be overkill for my needs? I've seen very conflicting views all over the place. I do like the upgradeability of the Mac Pro's because CPU's, etc are soldered onto the motherboards in the iMac's, but then my thought is, the new iMacs are far nicer to look at than my HP monitor lol...(although, I could save up for an ACD at a later date (maybe when they come with iSight built in)).

As you can imagine, I'm being cautious (hence asking the questions on here) because I'm a university student and only work part time, so the money takes somewhat longer to save, but either machine will still seem like a good deal because at the end of the day, I got my macbook pro for free so will be like 2 for the price of 1

Just looking at the prices in the UK HE Store, and the lower end Mac Pro is
£1340 (With the nVIDIA 8600GT) or £1228 (with the Radeon 2600), where as the 2.8GHz 24" iMac is £1254 which actually works out more expensive

 

[zdobson]

Do you think the Mac Pro would be overkill for my needs? I've seen very conflicting views all over the place. I do like the upgradeability of the Mac Pro's because CPU's, etc are soldered onto the motherboards in the iMac's, but then my thought is, the new iMacs are far nicer to look at than my HP monitor lol...(although, I could save up for an ACD at a later date (maybe when they come with iSight built in)).

As you can imagine, I'm being cautious (hence asking the questions on here) because I'm a university student and only work part time, so the money takes somewhat longer to save, but either machine will still seem like a good deal because at the end of the day, I got my macbook pro for free so will be like 2 for the price of 1

Just looking at the prices in the UK HE Store, and the lower end Mac Pro is
£1340 (With the nVIDIA 8600GT) or £1228 (with the Radeon 2600), where as the 2.8GHz 24" iMac is £1254 which actually works out more expensive

iMac is all notebook components. It would be redundant to buy an iMac since you already have a MBP. Is the MBP enough power for you? If so, don't buy the MP, wait until you need more power. If not, buy the MP.

 

[gazfocus]

iMac is all notebook components. It would be redundant to buy an iMac since you already have a MBP. Is the MBP enough power for you? If so, don't buy the MP, wait until you need more power. If not, buy the MP.

Honestly, I don't know because I haven't taken my MBP out of the box yet. I'm waiting to see what's announced at Macworld and if anything wows me, I'll sell the MBP (and will obviously get slightly more for it in a sealed box).

 

[macgruder]

Absolutely get the MacPro. The 'overkill for my needs' issue is a red-herring because overkill now just means 'it will last for more years'. i.e. Buying a MacPro means you'll be able to use it longer. And years in the future when you replace you can use it as a server or something or sell it on - it should retain more value than an iMac.

 

[GoKyu]

As they say, "buy the best you can afford" - if it takes a bit longer to save for the Mac Pro, I'd do it - you'll probably average at least 4-5 years' life with it (if not longer with some RAM upgrades), and you can sell it for a higher price than you could sell an iMac when you're ready to buy something else.

-Bryan

 

[gazfocus]

Thanks

I also think the fact that an equivelant spec Mac Pro is slightly cheaper than the iMac is a good encouragement (shame I wouldn't be getting the Apple quality screen though).

 

[CWallace]

I bought an Al 24" iMac as soon as they came out. Why I did so was solely because the Mac Pro was about $2000 more - including the cost of the 23" Apple Cinema Display which I needed since my current monitor was 20" and I wanted larger.

If I had already had a 24" display (thereby saving $800), I would have most likely bought the Mac Pro.

 

[gazfocus]

I bought an Al 24" iMac as soon as they came out. Why I did so was solely because the Mac Pro was about $2000 more - including the cost of the 23" Apple Cinema Display which I needed since my current monitor was 20" and I wanted larger.

If I had already had a 24" display (thereby saving $800), I would have most likely bought the Mac Pro.

I bought the 20" Aluminium iMac for work to do video editing on, but I've not really used it much (plus it's got Tiger installed on it).

I think if I end up not selling my MBP, I will use it for a while and see if the performance is enough, but I'm leaning towards the Mac Pro at the moment.

Can anyone comment on how well built the Mac Pro's are? (As is the strength of the case, etc).

Thanks

 

[macgruder]

The top of the line iMac is $2299 and the 'equivalent' Mac Pro is $2449.

So basically the Mac Pro is $150 plus a screen more expensive.

You do not have to buy an Apple Cinema display. There are many other good screens out there that are cheaper and about the same quality. So depending on that you're going to spend on the screen the Mac Pro is between $700 - $1000 dollars more.

For that I guess you'd get 3 years of faster computing and perhaps an extra 2 years, maybe more, of total computing. The Mac Pro should be useable in some form for about a decade. Perhaps even longer as a server when you can just load it up with RAM.

 

[gazfocus]

The top of the line iMac is $2299 and the 'equivalent' Mac Pro is $2449.

So basically the Mac Pro is $150 plus a screen more expensive.

You do not have to buy an Apple Cinema display. There are many other good screens out there that are cheaper and about the same quality. So depending on that you're going to spend on the screen the Mac Pro is between $700 - $1000 dollars more.

For that I guess you'd get 3 years of faster computing and perhaps an extra 2 years, maybe more, of total computing. The Mac Pro should be useable in some form for about a decade. Perhaps even longer as a server when you can just load it up with RAM.

Well as I said in my previous post, on the UK HE Store, the 2.8GHz (Single CPU) Mac Pro is £1228, whereas the 24" 2.8GHz iMac is £1254.

So the Mac Pro actually works out £26 cheaper

And as I already stated, I already hae a 3 month old 22" HP Screen