Ive been saving a lot of money for an IMAC but I decided I want a Macpro with a the new 27 inch screen thats going to come out this year. But will the low end macpros that will come out this year be much better than the high end IMACS that will come out in a few months?
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Mac Pro Vs Imac
- Thread starter Jesuslambofgod
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
The Macs you talk about are spelled iMac and Mac Pro.
As we don't know anything about future product updates, we only guess what might be in them. Also you don't state your needs, which is often a good start for us to help you decide, because this
So can you inform us about your needs?
Btw, the "new 27" display from Apple" is only a rumour.
As we don't know anything about future product updates, we only guess what might be in them. Also you don't state your needs, which is often a good start for us to help you decide, because this
can be viewed in a variety of ways. But the most common is the technical specs I assume, if one has a bigger c(l)ock speed as the other.
So can you inform us about your needs?
Btw, the "new 27" display from Apple" is only a rumour.
I am an all around person, I will be gaming, video editing, I have a music studio also which I will record songs. I will be doing everything. I just wonder which one I should get, Im sure the new IMACS and new MACPROS will come out this year in a few more months. Should I just get the high end imac? Or low end macpro and a good screen. A good screen will also cost a grand so ill be spending more, if the low end macpro is going to be WAY better than the IMAC then i might get it, if its a little difference then I dont think spending an extra grand for a monitor and crap will be needed, ill end up settling for imac
to correct the video editing, im not going to do amazing big videos, just the normal youtube videos etc, no designing and what not
If you plan to buy an ImAC or mAC pRO in several months, wouldn't it be better to wait until then to decide and look at the actual machines that have been released then?
Fo you a Mac Pro seems the better choice if you make money with all the activities you describe, because the MP is easier to upgrade and expand.
If not, the iMac is more than fine for your needs.
iMac
Reasons:
1. Your graphics work doesn't seem to be that heavy
2. No indication of earning a living with the system
3. Cheaper, as it has a monitor built-in
sorry im a noob, ive been a hard core microsoft for 12 years. untill i walked into the apple store so i have no idea.
you all forgot about that he wants to play games.
if he will not play casual games or world of warcraft he will run into problems with the ati 4850 and the high resolution of the 27 inch screen.
don´t forget that point.
in this case (and so do i in the near future) i would get a mac pro.
more expandable, better graphics card.... and ok ok ok.. it´s more expensive haha
i also hope that after the steam release for mac apple will suprise us with a "Gamer Mac"
oh god.. let this wish come true.
if he will not play casual games or world of warcraft he will run into problems with the ati 4850 and the high resolution of the 27 inch screen.
don´t forget that point.
in this case (and so do i in the near future) i would get a mac pro.
more expandable, better graphics card.... and ok ok ok.. it´s more expensive haha
i also hope that after the steam release for mac apple will suprise us with a "Gamer Mac"
oh god.. let this wish come true.
Nothing you are doing is all that compute-intensive, and iMacs with i7s are more than good enough. The video card may be a little weak if you are going to run windows games, but it's not worth the extra money to jump to the mac pro.
If you're a smoker, don't buy an Imac or a pro. Apple (applecare) will refuse to service your system even if you're still under warranty.
Just happened to me, a cigar smoker, and I'll never buy a sealed mac again.
Sure, I could quit smoking altogether, I know. But I think I'd rather make those decisions, not Apple.
If your heart's set on a mac, and you smoke; if you can do routine pc type maintenance (open case, can of compressed air, swap cards, etc) then I think I'd recommend the pro.
I sympathize with you, but if they could detect the smoke that means there are carcinogens present in/on the device, and while you are free to risk your own health, it really isn't fair to subject innocent repairfolks to your carcinogens.
One major reason to consider the iMac over the Mac Pro is just how much more competitive to the Mac Pro the iMac has become. When I purchased my Mac Pro (the original stock quad core 2.66 ghz) in spring, 2007, there was no contest between them. The Mac Pro was, conservatively, 30-50% faster than the high end iMac available at the time, on processor intensive tasks, such as games, encoding video, and the like.
Now, the Core i7 is basically comparable to the standard Mac Pro. In fact, if you believe MacWorld's benchmark Speedmark 6, the high end 27" iMac scores slightly higher than the 8 core, 2.26 ghz Nehalem Mac Pro, and is considerably faster than the entry level 4 core Mac Pro. Even the iMac's video card, an ATI 4850, is decent. On this basis, the iMac provides terrific value for the money.
Now, the Core i7 is basically comparable to the standard Mac Pro. In fact, if you believe MacWorld's benchmark Speedmark 6, the high end 27" iMac scores slightly higher than the 8 core, 2.26 ghz Nehalem Mac Pro, and is considerably faster than the entry level 4 core Mac Pro. Even the iMac's video card, an ATI 4850, is decent. On this basis, the iMac provides terrific value for the money.
I'm not sure thats entirely accurate. Barefeats.com did a nice comparison between the high end iMacs and 8-core 'early 2009' Mac Pro 2.93GHz with 12G of RAM and Radeon HD 4870 and 30" Cinema LCD display (which would cost $6,399.00, not including the 30" display, which is another $1,799 on the Apple site). While the Mac Pro clearly outpaced the iMac's in frame rates, the iMacs held their own.
That's true, but I've read postings on the Interwebs that the Gulftown processor likely to go into a Mac Pro (the X5650?) is not that much faster than the Nehalem 2.26 (the E5520) for general purposes. In fact, if you search in the Geekbench browser, it doesn't seem that the Gulftown scores that much higher.
Apple sells expensive hardware and ---THEN---, after a year, changed the agreement to exclude smokers from Applecare repairs, and exclude smoker's machines from being repaired at all.
The real world is dusty, and sometimes smoky. Reneging on a service agreement to save money, and deflecting criticism by pointing at recent OSHA reg changes is brilliant, but a typical corporate move to enhance the bottom line. Let's not ascribe higher motive here, Apple is a business first.
Seriously, I've been servicing/building Windows clients and servers for well over a decade. The crap I've pulled out of heat sinks and fans would knock a buzzard off a gut pile. It's the job, smoking is legal, so you do it the best way you can even if you have to replace fans, etc, and then charge the customer. It's. The. Job.
I have Windows systems I built 4 (and more) years ago still operating in this company. Did I mention we're a tobacco shop? And we're smokers? I just clean 'em out, and boot them back up. Replace when necessary. Rinse, repeat.
The fact is the Imac is not robust under real life ( not apple described "normal use" ) Neither is the mini.
So my advice stands: Never buy a sealed system from Apple unless you can be sure the little darlin' will stay in a protective bubble. Or unless it doesn't breathe/circulate air, such as Iphones, or politicians.
By the by, this means ANY smoke. I'm a cigar smoker, but this means you "wake-n-bake" types better think twice. When they pull --your--system apart and see any residue in the dust, they're going to tell you "duuuuude...bummer, but..get out."
Or you can just accept that when you smoke, you affect not only your own health, but the health of others, and just because you choose to accept the risk of working with computers saturated in carcinogens (a small incremental risk because you already smoke) doesn't mean anyone else should have to.
And, again, for them to even know that you smoke means there was enough poisonous residue on the thing to be readily apparent, which means there was more than enough poisonous residue to affect their health.
You say "it's the job." No it's not. Fireman and cops sign up to risk their lives. Not computer repair people.
And, again, for them to even know that you smoke means there was enough poisonous residue on the thing to be readily apparent, which means there was more than enough poisonous residue to affect their health.
You say "it's the job." No it's not. Fireman and cops sign up to risk their lives. Not computer repair people.
You've a point on exposure (presumably the tech didn't have the individual choice to deny without risk of job loss when the policy didn't exist), but unfortunately, I'm of the opinion that the decision, particularly that they activated it retroactively, is based primarily on the bottom line and health concerns would be second.
If the repairs were covered, worst case, a tech can use gloves to handle any contaminated components and a face mask to prevent the inhalation of any contaminated dust. It's not expensive, and the cost of such safety supplies (including any cleaning supplies needed to tidy up the work area) passed to the system owner wouldn't be without reason/expectation (perhaps some notification given prior to beginning the repair that such fees exist).
I'm not sure of the defect rate of smoke vs. non smoke environments, assuming all other factors are equal (temp, humidity, dust in terms of ppm, ...). But the denial of warranty repair saves them money, regardless of the environment the system exists in.
Risk their lives? You're comparing a computer tech with the option of a mask and gloves to a firefighter entering a burning building?
You'd better come up with facts that support that conclusion, or withdraw the comparison and come up with something that approaches reason.
My advice stands. No sealed Macs because Apple will change the warranty terms to be incompatible with real world conditions.