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

imac vs macpro

G

grooveattack

macrumors 6502a
Original poster
Jan 9, 2008
511
1
hey guys,
just a quick one
which is faster/ better: imac with a 3.06 dual core or a macpro on 2.66 quad?

thank you very much.....
 
grooveattack said:
hey guys,
just a quick one
which is faster/ better: imac with a 3.06 dual core or a macpro on 2.66 quad?

thank you very much.....
Click to expand...

Faster? Mac Pro (For any software that is coded by someone on the right side of the bell curve)

Better? Depends what you're doing.
 
dukebound85 said:
not true necessarily......

once again, the imac is faster in some things, the mac pro in others
Click to expand...

The iMac MIGHT be faster on poorly written or single-threaded applications, that's about it.

Added a disclaimer to my original post, happy now?
 
a quick google search

http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/archives/000942.html

quad core does not make it automatically faster than a dual core

is it any coincidence people who build their own systems will choose a faster dual core over a slower quad core if they want the best performance (namely in terms of games)? most apps today still wont utilize 4 cores effectively in which case, for the same archecture chip, a faster dual core chip will outperform a slower quad core
 
dukebound85 said:
a quick google search

http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/archives/000942.html

quad core does not make it automatically faster than a dual core

is it any coincidence people who build their own systems will choose a faster dual core over a slower quad core if they want the best performance (namely in terms of games)? most apps today still wont utilize 4 cores effectively in which case, for the same archecture chip, a faster dual core chip will outperform a slower quad core
Click to expand...

So like I said: Poorly written or single threaded applications.
 
dukebound85 said:
um no

some apps utilize 2 cores better than 4

poorly written? not necessarily
Click to expand...

Pepsi is better than Coke. Prove me wrong.
Regarding the thread. Mac Pro is more expensive and therefore better, faster, and overall more awesome. But the real question is how much awesome do you need? Generally a computer with an awesome rating of 5 or 6 is pretty damn good. The iMac is an easy 7, where areas the Mac Pro usually has an awesomeness of about 9, depending on what monitor you have for it. I've heard of people having Mac Pro's that scored an awesomeness of 18 but those are the folks that have poured more money into their Mac than my car costs.

So I'd easily say get the iMac which is safely awesome, and if you get the 24" (which I recommend) you'll get a totally awesome machine. The Mac Pro is fast, but is expensive. Remember my little rule of thumb "More Awesome = Expensive".
 
Well to the OP what are you going to be doing? Using programs such as Blender, Maya or any 3D work? Doing the casual Word document or surfing MR and the like with iTunes in the background or even doing some video or photo work?
I can only say that if it was me and budget allowed, I get the MP and a nice monitor (or two) because later on having HDDs in your machine is really nice though not mandatory and adding a few other things inside is helpful, those extra slots for your hearts content ;)
I have an iMac and if I had the money back when I bought mine, 3 years ago, I would've bought a MP and still been able to get another few years out of it while then keeping it for a nice backup when the day comes to replace it. I don't or should say didn't use my iMac to it's fullest at first but after the first year I have been putting it through it's paces and it does fine, not fabulous but fine for now. I have started some 3D work and cores really help as does RAM and Aperture 2 along with Flash keeps my iMac busy for the rest of the time :cool:
Hope this helps in the long run.
 
hmmmm ok
so lets say i am doing abit of: final cut pro, motion, photoshop cs4, aperture, gaming and all the standard stuff like internet music etc.

i am drawn to the imac because... well its bloody beautiful but i think the mac pro might be better long term.
any ideas?

oh and these are the configs i would be getting:
iMac 24”
3.06GHz Intel Core 2 Duo
4GB 1066MHz DDR3 SDRAM - 2x2GB
1.0TB Serial ATA Drive
ATI Radeon HD 4850 512MB

or

MacPro
One 2.66GHz Quad-Core Intel Xeon
3GB (3x1GB)
640GB 7200-rpm Serial ATA 3Gb/s
ATI Radeon HD 4870 512MB
 
I'm in the same situation. I've been holding out for the new iMac refreshes and expected at least a BTO option for quadcore, along with an updated LED display. Which means I'm rather disappointed with the latest refresh and I really don't want to put that disappointment on my desk. So after looking at all the options I think I will go for a Mac Pro (currently leaning towards the 8 x 2.26) plus the 24" LED display.

Main use will be heavy graphics editing (Photoshop) and development (XCode, Flash) as well as hardcore Logic Pro / Ableton work.
 
my own view is that it depends not only what you are planning on doing with the machine, but how long you plan on keeping it and how much expandability you want. I tend to keep my machines until they are hopelessly outdated (e.g. 5-6 years) and then do one big upgrade. Others like to buy a new machine ever 2-3 years.

I think imac is the best for most non-professional applications/users, but I really like the idea of being able to upgrade my video card in a couple of years even though I know Apple has a poor track record of making upgrades backwards compatible with their mac pro line. I also like the ability to stuff a lot of internal drives into my case.

That being said the latest mac pro seems a little pricey for what you get and the imac seems a lot beefier than it did a year ago if my memory serves me correctly.
 
I'm having the same debate with the same 2 configurations... But I just do ALL photoshop/indesign/illustrator and web design. Some of the Photoshop files get up to billboard size with the use of a tablet, so they get pretty ***** large.

I'm hoping the 3.06 iMac can handle that, but any advice would be much appreciated... :confused:
 
bvk said:
I'm having the same debate with the same 2 configurations... But I just do ALL photoshop/indesign/illustrator and web design. Some of the Photoshop files get up to billboard size with the use of a tablet, so they get pretty ***** large.

I'm hoping the 3.06 iMac can handle that, but any advice would be much appreciated... :confused:
Click to expand...

If were you, i would go for the high end iMac with the ATI graphics card. After a year of so, i iwould upgrade the ram to 8GB.
 
dukebound85 said:
a quick google search

http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/archives/000942.html

quad core does not make it automatically faster than a dual core

is it any coincidence people who build their own systems will choose a faster dual core over a slower quad core if they want the best performance (namely in terms of games)? most apps today still wont utilize 4 cores effectively in which case, for the same archecture chip, a faster dual core chip will outperform a slower quad core
Click to expand...


Games are far more limited by GPU power than CPU power. You only start to hit CPU limitations if you're playing at extremely low resolutions or settings where the GPU's utilization can't get maxed out. Any multi-threaded app that uses 4 cores will be faster than 2 anyways.
 
You said FCP and Motion and some other apps, which shold utilize those extra cores. The MP is also based on Nehalem (i7 Core) w/ all the benefits of that architecture, whereas, the new iMac has yet to incorporate it. Base on those specs alone and w/ a bit more "future" built-in, the MP wins it for me in this regards. i don't think it would even be a contest. The MP just seems more agile, flexible, durable and darn more powerful. The iMac, to even have a chance would have to get a "lucky" punch in there somewhere in the first couple of rounds. otherwise, the clear champ, in my opinion, is the MP and I think a lot of people would agree with this. it's called a no-brainer.

Of course, this doesn't take into consideration the budget. In addition to the MP, you'd need a good monitor too to use all that horsepower.
 
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