Mac Pro or Imac?

Discussion in 'Buying Tips and Advice' started by ditzy, Jan 8, 2008.

  1. ditzy macrumors 68000

    ditzy

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2007
    #1
    If you had to choose between the absolute botton spec mac pro. (2.8ghz quad). Or the top spec iMac. Which would you go for?
    As they are now really similar prices does it make more sence to go for the pro? Even though you would have to buy a screen. (or not if you were prepared to put up with your old one.)
    Sorry if this sounds jumbled.
     
  2. psychofreak Retired

    psychofreak

    Joined:
    May 16, 2006
    Location:
    London
    #2
    iMac - I won't need more power, and a horribly big tower isn't very nice at all.
     
  3. je1ani macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2007
    #3
    I'M IN THE EXACT SAME POSITION LOL I think I will stick it out with my iMac... :D
     
  4. WhiteNoiseMaker macrumors regular

    WhiteNoiseMaker

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2007
    #4
    I'm thinking the same thing!! :confused:

    I've already bought 4GB RAM for the iMac that I was planing to get BTO 2.8 GHz with 750GB HDD. Now I've looked at the price for the basic Mac Pro it's got me thinking about buying that, as its going to be close to the iMac's price. At least over course of the year I could upgrade it with more RAM and hard drives.

    If they announce updates to the iMac next week i'll probably just end up with the iMac, but if they don't who knows...
     
  5. aaronw1986 macrumors 68030

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2006
  6. ziwi macrumors 65816

    ziwi

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2004
    Location:
    Right back where I started...
    #6
    Agree, and for it 2 additional cores...
     
  7. valdore macrumors 65816

    valdore

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2007
    Location:
    Kansas City, Missouri. USA
    #7
    Additional six cores now.
     
  8. WhiteNoiseMaker macrumors regular

    WhiteNoiseMaker

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2007
    #8
    [​IMG] [​IMG]


    Add £90 for the 4GB RAM for the iMac and with the Mac Pro I'd have to buy a new monitor for it, as mine is VGA only but I could get a Dell 22" with built-in webcam for £220
     
  9. Gunga Din macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2008
    Location:
    Old Trafford
    #9
    Same boat. I'm leaning towards the Mac Pro now.

    Single Quad Core, 8800 gt card, 1 300gb HD, etc . $2500.
    Later I can add in 3rd party Ram and HD.

    (1) Expandibilty
    (2) 4 core chip instead of 2 (better for mutitasking)
    (3) Better Video Card Option, with chance to upgrade if needed

    I do have my old CRT Monitor and Speaker system I can use. That allows me to save up for a nice Monitor later.

    I'm gonna wait till MWSF first of course, but I can't see them brining in anything new to change my mind. I doubt they will upgrade the iMac anytime soon. Mini Mac dying? Notebook, not really needed plus it would cost me more.

    You just have to look at what options you can come up with. Set a price range etc. Use old monitor / speakers to save money for now. Write it all down and look at the page. It will be right there infront of you when you finish.

    ** Before today the Mac Pro I configured was around 3K, plus I didnt like the video card. Now its 2.5 for me and I like the video card i can get with that. So -$500 and Better Vid Card. At 3k i was going iMac, but at 2.5k the Mac Pro is back on my radar.
     
  10. roland.g macrumors 603

    roland.g

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2005
    Location:
    One mile up and soaring
    #10
    I would most definitely go for the iMac. Having had a G4 tower in the past and recently getting the iMac, the all-in-one is actually nice. I use externals for additional data, great screen, and I have the sexy look of the Pro line with the new iMacs.
     
  11. Artofilm macrumors 6502a

    Artofilm

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2005
    #11
    Get a MacPro.

    You will be able to upgrade all of the components whenever you feel it's necesary. iMacs on the other hand, you can't.

    Also, the MacPro will take longer to become outdated, maybe another full year until the Macpro maybe looks "slow", but the iMac, I'm sure we'll see and update in at least 3 months.

    In other words, with a MacPro, you'll have a more powerful computer for longer, does that sound good?
     
  12. GoKyu macrumors 65816

    GoKyu

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2007
    Location:
    New Orleans
    #12
    Absolutely get a Mac Pro (like I just did :D) - Why did I put down big bucks on a machine like this when I'm not (currently) making money with my computer?

    I'm basically future-proofing myself. A machine like this will last me 5-10 years easily, based on current software requirements. Spending $2800 (incl. tax) is worth having a machine that will last me such a long time :) (OWC also has 2x2gig RAM chips for $200, which isn't bad at all. Added to the current 2 gigs in the machine will give me 6 total....that'll last forever with Photoshop and Lightroom!)

    -Bryan
     
  13. CRAZYBUBBA macrumors 65816

    CRAZYBUBBA

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2007
    Location:
    Toronto/Houston
    #13
    Mac pro.. you can uprade the internals easily and buy a better display.. imac is hard to upgrade the internals and you're stuck with the screen forever (not that it's bad or anything)
     
  14. IEatApples macrumors 6502a

    IEatApples

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2004
    Location:
    Northern Hemisphere (Norway)
    #14
    This is gonna be a really common question…*depending on what they do with the iMac on the 15th…

    I wonder what they can do now that they've put the ATI Radeon HD 2600 XT in the MacPro? I know for sure (;)) that they will NEVER let us have a better card in the iMac then the MacPro! :(

    So… doesn't this look like a sign that they won't update the iMac? … but then again… Even if they don't update it on the 15th, they will have to update it in a "near" future… a future that is WAAAY to close for them to have updated the card in the MacPro… so… :confused:


    Oh, and I'm sorry that I don't have an answer to your question ditzy, but I'm trying to make my mind up about this one myself. :)
     
  15. nxent macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2004
    Location:
    seattle
    #15
    mac pro because it can be upgraded. and it's significantly more powerful than the imac
     
  16. QCassidy352 macrumors G3

    QCassidy352

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2003
    Location:
    Bay Area
    #16
    not if you're talking about the lowest level mac pro (1x quad core).

    Five yes, 10, certainly not. The pro towers five years ago were high end G4s (G5s by mid '03). The pro towers 10 years ago were beige G3s.


    I would get the imac.

    First, both are absurdly more powerful than I need, so the extra cores/extra RAM capacity isn't doing anything for me.

    Second, the imac is a much cleaner, more elegant, more compact solution.

    Third, I like to upgrade fairly frequently. Call it foolish if you must, but I sell my old machines while they are still worth a good amount, so I don't think I spend that much more than if I waited until my old machine was really a clunker. So upgradability is not that much of a concern for me.
     
  17. jnc macrumors 68020

    jnc

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2007
    Location:
    Nunya, Business TX
    #17
    Mac Pro without question.

    As an all in one, iMac is great - one power supply, unified computer and display... but what if you outgrow the display, or the system's performance?

    Not an issue with the Mac Pro - display of your choosing, and lots of room for expansion. Two optical drives, a hell of a lot more ports and options... and much more power, even in the baseline Quad core 2.8GHz.


    Can't you use a simple DVI - VGA adapter?
     
  18. je1ani macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2007
    #18
    10 years wtf? Windows '98 + Pentium IIIs + AOL 3.0 FTW!
     
  19. themoonisdown09 macrumors 601

    themoonisdown09

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2007
    Location:
    Georgia, USA
    #19
    I also like to update frequently... but this baseline Mac Pro is looking really sexy right now. I'm guessing that the resale on a Mac Pro would be a little better than an iMac... not completely sure though.
     
  20. vtprinz macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2004
    #20

    Not sure on this. I don't know what Apple's philosophy is, but I can certainly see the philosophy that, since the Mac Pro is a pro workstation, they'll put the cheapest card in their as stock and give the pro's the most amount of options to upgrade from that. That way a pro isn't having to spend extra money on a graphics card that he doesn't need for his business.

    The iMac is non-upgradeable, and obviously more of a home-multimedia type system than the Mac Pro. Plus with the recent focus on gaming and all, I could see Apple putting a nicer card into the iMac to match that theme (I would think EA, Id and the like would put pressure on Apple to use better graphics so that their hard work actually runs well). Besides, it's not exactly like a better GPU in an otherwise far inferior system is going to kill many Mac Pro sales.

    But of course, with Apple's reputation, they'll continue to use low end, outdated cards.......
     
  21. miloblithe macrumors 68020

    miloblithe

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2003
    Location:
    Washington, DC
    #21
    10 year old mac could be a 300Mhz G3 with 768MB of RAM running OS 10.2.8. That's useable, to some degree.

    OK, that's a little optimistic, but let's take an 7.5-year old machine:

    dual 500Mhz G4 processors, 2GB RAM, running OS 10.4.11. That's fairly useable, depending on your needs.

    It also seems like the pace of speed improvements is slowing to some degree.

    My eMac is 4.3 years old now and is OK. I'm hoping a Mac Pro (1 x 2.8Ghz quad) lasts me six good years.
     
  22. wordmunger macrumors 603

    wordmunger

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2003
    Location:
    North Carolina
    #22
    To really compare apples to apples, you have to add a 23-inch cinema display to the mac pro.

    Now it's $2299 versus $3198 for the mac pro.

    Of course, the 23-inch cinema display is a lot nicer than the 24-inch iMac display, so maybe that's not fair. If you go with, say an Acer or some such, you might have just a $400 difference between the models. But the iMac still has a bigger HD and Airport built in, plus a nicer form factor.

    And the 2.4 ghz iMac is just $1799. Choices, choices...
     
  23. docprego macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2007
    Location:
    Henderson, NV
    #23
    Having bought a 24" 2.4GHz iMac 3 months ago and seeing the new Mac Pro today, I went through a bit of a mental battle today. I kept debating, should I sell the iMac and get the lowest end Pro? In the end I decided that my Imac is (at least) $1000 less than the Mac Pro/Cinema Display combo and I have not even approached the limits of its abilities. In addition a tower would require a lot more wires to be run and the large size of the tower is an inconvenience. Therefore I decided with certainty and not a bit of hesitation to keep the iMac.

    Not at all saying the Mac Pro is anything less than stellar, I am just saying in my case the iMac is a perfect fit.
     
  24. bluedoggiant macrumors 68030

    bluedoggiant

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2007
    Location:
    MD & ATL,GA
    #24
    Same position, except i have a 2.8, and my dad is getting one, I know there is no way im getting one, even if pay for it, the iMac is so much better for me, though a better video card would be nice
     
  25. IEatApples macrumors 6502a

    IEatApples

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2004
    Location:
    Northern Hemisphere (Norway)
    #25
    Now if they update the mini with Penryn & a decent graphics card… :rolleyes::p:D
     

Share This Page