Mac Pro vs. 2.4 iMac?

[EHUnlucky7x9@ao]

I'm considering making a purchase of a new Mac. I just wanted to know if anyone knows where I can find a speed test between a Woodcrest 4-core versus the new 2.4Ghz iMac?

I do lots of video encoding and my Macbook 2.16 takes HOURS converting avi's and i'd like to know which of the two would be a better investment.

Anyone know?

 

[aaronw1986]

I think it's quite obvious a mac pro would win out for video encoding.

 

[EHUnlucky7x9@ao]

Are you sure? The Mac Pro I'm talking about is the August 2006 2.66Ghz model with the standard nVidia 7300GT GPU... i'm considering buying that or the NEW iMac 2.4Ghz

 

[Igantius]

aaronw1986 is quite right.

The iMac has only a slightly faster bus speed and processor to your MB and the idea that it would offer significantly better CPU-intensive performance (e.g. video encoding) is rather an unrealistically optimistic one.

The Mac Pro has two dual core processors (versus a slower single dual core one), has much higher FSB and can take up to 16GB of Ram (versus 4GB).

In terms of performance, it's a no-brainer, which would be the best.

In terms of an investment, the MP has more maximum RAM, you can upgrade the internal storage, GPU, CPU etc etc. Even allowing for the iMac's newness, the MP would be a

As to the speed test, your best bet is finding somewhere that lists machines in order of benchmarking software scores. However, such software isn't the best way of evaluating real-life performance.

Otherwise, a new machine will generally be compared to other current/recent models - and in any case, a lot of sites/reviewers (e.g. barefeats) wouldn't generally pit a Mac Pro with a consumer model.

 

[heatmiser]

Comparing a Mac Pro to an iMac is like comparing a Macbook Pro to a G4 iBook; there's a huge performance gap.

 

[EHUnlucky7x9@ao]

Well i was looking at Barefeats recently and some articles they have don't use the 2.66Ghz Woodcrest as a standard at all. Their base is not the 3.0 Wood.... and the 3.0Ghz Woodcrest is only slightly faster than the 2.8 iMac based on their findings....but significantly blown away by the Harpertown or Clovertown MP's.

I'm looking at spending probably under 2K for a new Mac, but I JUST can't handle the encoding time on the Macbook... FFMpegX takes upwards to 2 hours encoding and then the whole comp runs sluggish even with the Max 3Gb RAM on my current Macbook.

 

[EHUnlucky7x9@ao]

Would it be fair to pit a 2.4Ghz iMac to a current MBP?

Which would be faster?

 

[aaronw1986]

MBP, barely. For processor stuff they would pretty much be even, but the MBP's have better GPU's.

 

[SaSaSushi]

MBP, barely. For processor stuff they would pretty much be even, but the MBP's have better GPU's.

Personally, I prefer the ATI HD2600XT Mobility GPU in the iMac to the older GeForce 8600M in the MBP.

Here's a review ArsTechnica did of the current iMacs the day they were released where they actually benched against MBPs. The drivers for the 2600XT have come a long way since then and I expect the iMac would perform even better if they benched them again.

 

[afuturestrader]

I'm considering making a purchase of a new Mac. I just wanted to know if anyone knows where I can find a speed test between a Woodcrest 4-core versus the new 2.4Ghz iMac?

I do lots of video encoding and my Macbook 2.16 takes HOURS converting avi's and i'd like to know which of the two would be a better investment.

Anyone know?

http://www.primatelabs.ca/blog/2007/12/mac-performance-december-2007/

It does not appear this test takes the GPU into account but should provide an idea of relative performance - hint, the test shows the Mac Pro to have better performance to the iMac in question.