New Mac Pro vs new iMac (27 i7) for Graphic Design

[gugucom]

You could probably upgrade the drive in the iMac to a nice SSD for about $500 if you get a qualified technician to do it and then put your 1TB drive in a FW enclosure ($100), so even after dramatically upgrading your storage, you are still about $1K ahead with the iMac.

+1

Mass storage does not need top speed if you have enough external space for it. Only the system, the apps and scratch will need fast drives.

 

[mfka]

What are we talking about anyway?
Generations before us used only scissors, colored paper, pencils and
yet they was able to produce some of the greatest works in history.

Are computers really made us so particular?

I think i7 iMac is really pleasant machine for work. Btw i don’t get statements
where ppl say ”if you ask this you are not serious enough to buy it!”!? I mean come on.
Quality of work can be serious or not, not tools.

 

[nanofrog]

What are we talking about anyway?
Generations before us used only scissors, colored paper, pencils and
yet they was able to produce some of the greatest works in history.

Are computers really made us so particular?

Given the trend of software bloat for digital processing/editing, unfortunately, the answer seems to be Yes.

I keep thinking about Lehman's Law's of Software Evolution.

 

[Macsonic]

I do graphic designing and have used a 2008 iMac, a 2006 Quad MacPro and 2008 Octo MacPro. With the Adobe Creative Suite, I did not see any major speed difference. The Adobe apps usually use only 1-2 cores. I don't know about the new Quad iMac so might be faster. The edge I see in the MacPro is its expandability. And some people get bothered by the glossy screen on the iMac.

 

[nanofrog]

I do graphic designing and have used a 2008 iMac, a 2006 Quad MacPro and 2008 Octo MacPro. With the Adobe Creative Suite, I did not see any major speed difference. The Adobe apps usually use only 1-2 cores. I don't know about the new Quad iMac so might be faster. The edge I see in the MacPro is its expandability. And some people get bothered by the glossy screen on the iMac.

Higher clocks can help. Turbo Boost in the iMac could make a real difference, even in the '09 MP's.

It would come down to what else is used on the system though, and whether or not the expandability is required to keep the machine running to suit it's intended purpose.

Details. Always the details....

 

[dex blaze]

people have told here that mp would be only option for heavy video editing/3d.
is handling multi-layered over 1gb photoshop files (photos shot by most high-end cameras out there - hasselblad, phase one etc.) considered as this heavy using you should not think of doing with new i7 imac?

i'm using now power mac g5 quad (with only 4gb ram) for that and i have to say that sometimes it really tests my nerves espicially when opening/saving files.

what i have read about this battle between imac and mp i think performance-wise new 27" i7 imac with 8gb ram or more could do the job. Only thing that really bothers me is the glossy thing and the ability of integrated monitor in general.

 

[gugucom]

Only thing that really bothers me is the glossy thing and the ability of integrated monitor in general.

Why don't you buy a monitor of your choice then and use it as your primary screen. You are still only approaching the MP budget and you have a 27" screen to do other things like watching movies or browsing the net when your work forces a break.

 

[dex blaze]

Why don't you buy a monitor of your choice then and use it as your primary screen. You are still only approaching the MP budget and you have a 27" screen to do other things like watching movies or browsing the net when your work forces a break.

you're right that's one option but i would still keep my setup as compact but versatile as possible. leaving out the display issue, you're saying performance of the new imac is enough for the work i described in my last post?

 

[nanofrog]

you're right that's one option but i would still keep my setup as compact but versatile as possible. leaving out the display issue, you're saying performance of the new imac is enough for the work i described in my last post?

The new iMac would be fine. The secondary monitor may be a good idea, as you can choose what you need for the photography work (i.e. non glossy).

 

[rickpoet]

what about memory configuration

if I do get the iMac (i7) I'd upgrade it right away to 8 megs...getting four 2 megabyte cards is a lot cheaper than two 4 megabyte cards...will there be a big performance difference between the 2 memory setups?

For me, the ideal iMac configuration is only a few hundred dollars cheaper than the Mac Pro setup I'd get. (I'd use my existing 24" Apple Cinema display.)...when I add in the second hard drive (external) to the iMac the price gets even closer.

 

[Dark Goob]

Mac Pro ALL THE WAY

How is this even a question?

I guess it depends on what kind of graphic design you are doing... but seriously. If you are a professional graphic designer, this is not even a question.

Mac Pro, all the way. Here's why.

#1 - Storage Capacity. I want to live my life without entrusting data to drives with crappy made-in-China data interface &/or ac connectors on the back. Find me a drive that does NOT have EITHER type of crappy connector that will fail on you. Tell me how it's better to have multiple external drives with cables draping everywhere, or to spend $400 on a Drobo that *might* just eat all your data, compared to rolling with drives that are safely inside your machine itself, covered under your AppleCare if you added it BTO ... ? Remember, this is the machine you use for WORK.
#2 - Color reference monitor. Wait, what? Yeah, the iMac has that disgusting glossy screen which will probably drive you to purchase a nail-gun and shoot yourself in the eyes after using it for very long... unless you are already blind or you just do not care about color accuracy. Sure, you could buy a second monitor, but seriously, working with two screens that are different brands and different calibrations (or rather, one that's worth calibrating and one that's not) is not all it's cracked up to be -- obviously these people have never actually done this, they just imagine that it would be "good enough." But I'm here to tell you that even just the presence of a screen that is not properly calibrated can throw you off by being in your peripheral vision for color matching. If you're gonna roll with two screens, you wanna get two IDENTICAL screens. On the iMac, even with the lights off your own reflection will throw you off to an extent for judging color, unless you are black (or paint yourself black) and dress in all black. The idea of "color calibration" on a display which basically has a translucent mirror glued in front of it is a freaking JOKE. No, what you want is to get a Mac Pro and hook up a La Cie color reference monitor (or at least something with wide-gamut and a matte finish) so that, y'know, WYSIWYG!
#3 - You don't need any more reasons than the first two... but here's another one. Dual optical bays. So what? Well, here's so what. I put a Blu Ray in my Mac Pro and now I can back up 23gb of stuff to one disc. Again I dunno what kind of graphic design you do, but in my line of work I often have jobs that are way too big to fit on even an dual-layer DVD. Or I want to fit multiple jobs that were part of a huge project onto one disc for backup or transfer. Blu-ray with up to 50gb per disc on the dual-layer ones is freaking AWESOME and is the wet dream you expect it's gonna be! Plus you can directly copy DVD's without wasting the time to rip them to your HD first... I'm talking about the discs that customers send you media files on, not DVD movies.
#4 - Resale value. Much higher on Mac Pro.
#5 - Encoding things. Maybe you want to do more than just "graphic design" ... the Mac Pro has a lot more room to grow. Maybe you wanted to do some video stuff, encoding something to DVD. Maybe you wanted to get into 3D design. Whatever. Mac Pro = better.

Can't afford it? Get a used one that's still under warranty. Seriously.

-=DG=-

 

[cfitz7111]

if I do get the iMac (i7) I'd upgrade it right away to 8 megs...getting four 2 megabyte cards is a lot cheaper than two 4 megabyte cards...will there be a big performance difference between the 2 memory setups?

For me, the ideal iMac configuration is only a few hundred dollars cheaper than the Mac Pro setup I'd get. (I'd use my existing 24" Apple Cinema display.)...when I add in the second hard drive (external) to the iMac the price gets even closer.

There should not be a difference other then in your wallet

 

[sparkie7]

How is this even a question?

I guess it depends on what kind of graphic design you are doing... but seriously. If you are a professional graphic designer, this is not even a question.

Mac Pro, all the way. Here's why.

#1 - Storage Capacity. I want to live my life without entrusting data to drives with crappy made-in-China data interface &/or ac connectors on the back. Find me a drive that does NOT have EITHER type of crappy connector that will fail on you. Tell me how it's better to have multiple external drives with cables draping everywhere, or to spend $400 on a Drobo that *might* just eat all your data, compared to rolling with drives that are safely inside your machine itself, covered under your AppleCare if you added it BTO ... ? Remember, this is the machine you use for WORK.
#2 - Color reference monitor. Wait, what? Yeah, the iMac has that disgusting glossy screen which will probably drive you to purchase a nail-gun and shoot yourself in the eyes after using it for very long... unless you are already blind or you just do not care about color accuracy. Sure, you could buy a second monitor, but seriously, working with two screens that are different brands and different calibrations (or rather, one that's worth calibrating and one that's not) is not all it's cracked up to be -- obviously these people have never actually done this, they just imagine that it would be "good enough." But I'm here to tell you that even just the presence of a screen that is not properly calibrated can throw you off by being in your peripheral vision for color matching. If you're gonna roll with two screens, you wanna get two IDENTICAL screens. On the iMac, even with the lights off your own reflection will throw you off to an extent for judging color, unless you are black (or paint yourself black) and dress in all black. The idea of "color calibration" on a display which basically has a translucent mirror glued in front of it is a freaking JOKE. No, what you want is to get a Mac Pro and hook up a La Cie color reference monitor (or at least something with wide-gamut and a matte finish) so that, y'know, WYSIWYG!
#3 - You don't need any more reasons than the first two... but here's another one. Dual optical bays. So what? Well, here's so what. I put a Blu Ray in my Mac Pro and now I can back up 23gb of stuff to one disc. Again I dunno what kind of graphic design you do, but in my line of work I often have jobs that are way too big to fit on even an dual-layer DVD. Or I want to fit multiple jobs that were part of a huge project onto one disc for backup or transfer. Blu-ray with up to 50gb per disc on the dual-layer ones is freaking AWESOME and is the wet dream you expect it's gonna be! Plus you can directly copy DVD's without wasting the time to rip them to your HD first... I'm talking about the discs that customers send you media files on, not DVD movies.
#4 - Resale value. Much higher on Mac Pro.
#5 - Encoding things. Maybe you want to do more than just "graphic design" ... the Mac Pro has a lot more room to grow. Maybe you wanted to do some video stuff, encoding something to DVD. Maybe you wanted to get into 3D design. Whatever. Mac Pro = better.

Can't afford it? Get a used one that's still under warranty. Seriously.

-=DG=-

Hear, hear. Spoken like a true Pro. Albeit a rather fascist one. But true nonetheless.

 

[gugucom]

you're right that's one option but i would still keep my setup as compact but versatile as possible. leaving out the display issue, you're saying performance of the new imac is enough for the work i described in my last post?

It is always a question of how much your time is worth. Performance wise nothing beats a Mac Pro. Even with graphic design there are features only a Mac Pro can give you. For instance using 48 GB of six channel RAM with the highest available bandwidth instead of a scratch disk. Having generous mass storage capacities, SSD system and apps drive and internal backup. Those are things that require a tower design, but you need the ability to spend way beyond the budget of an iMac to get that. Massive RAM comes at the penalty of buying high speed octad configs.

 

[nanofrog]

It is always a question of how much your time is worth. Performance wise nothing beats a Mac Pro. Even with graphic design there are features only a Mac Pro can give you. For instance using 48 GB of six channel RAM with the highest available bandwidth instead of a scratch disk. Having generous mass storage capacities, SSD system and apps drive and internal backup. Those are things that require a tower design, but you need the ability to spend way beyond the budget of an iMac to get that. Massive RAM comes at the penalty of buying high speed octad configs.

It's still triple channel though, even in DP model MP's. But by equally dividing the capacity between the IMC's on each CPU, you keep the bandwidth higer most of the time (keeps the memory data from being transfered over the QPI channels which are lower bandwidth to get memory attached to one CPU to the other).

Balancing it out on the DP models is certainly a better way to go.

 

[gugucom]

The basic flaw of the Mac Pro CPU tray design vs the Asus mobo is the lack of memory slots. In an Asus quad you can run 96 GB triple channel because it assigns 3 slots to each channel. You do not waste CPUs just to get RAM.

 

[nanofrog]

The basic flaw of the Mac Pro CPU tray design vs the Asus mobo is the lack of memory slots. In an Asus quad you can run 96 GB triple channel because it assigns 3 slots to each channel. You do not waste CPUs just to get RAM.

The CPU's still have the same IMC's and channels. It's just that Apple hurt users with 4 DIMM's per CPU, and how they're wired (4th DIMM is interleaved on one channel only, and it slows you down).

They should have done better, but if they had, more would opt for the Quad cores IMO, as the cost of 4GB+ UDIMMs and the DIMM per CPU limit has driven some to use Octads for the cheaper 2GB sticks. The cost analysis works out in favor of the Octads this way. Really lousy way to push the Octad systems Apple...

Other board makers didn't pull a stunt like this. Most have (if not all LGA1366 boards), 6x DIMM's per CPU, and a few have 9x DIMM's per CPU (strictly on DP boards, as there's not enough room on ATX SP boards).

 

[gugucom]

Other board makers didn't pull a stunt like this. Most have (if not all LGA1366 boards), 6x DIMM's per CPU, and a few have 9x DIMM's per CPU (strictly on DP boards, as there's not enough room on ATX SP boards).

You are right on the 6 DIMMs/CPU UP solution. But then you not only get 1333 MHz but also 1600, 1800 and 2000 OC memory freqs. That adds up to incredible bandwidth losses Apple imposes on their users. Tutor demonstrated what you can do with the E5520s when you unleash them properly.

With the 9 DIMMs/CPU DP solutions they just pull away with 192 GB of 1333 MHz RAM. Again incredible memory capacities at higher bandwidth than Apple do.

 

[Gonk42]

You are right on the 6 DIMMs/CPU UP solution. But then you not only get 1333 MHz but also 1600, 1800 and 2000 OC memory freqs. That adds up to incredible bandwidth losses Apple imposes on their users. Tutor demonstrated what you can do with the E5520s when you unleash them properly.

With the 9 DIMMs/CPU DP solutions they just pull away with 192 GB of 1333 MHz RAM. Again incredible memory capacities at higher bandwidth than Apple do.

You'd only get the RAM running at 1333MHz if there was just one per channel and it has to be dual ranked (not quad ranked). You might get 6x8GB = 48GB but it would be very expensive. More reasonable would be 6x4GB. 192GB would require 12x16GB which would run at 800MHz, I think (and also be a bit pricey!).

 

[gugucom]

You'd only get the RAM running at 1333MHz if there was just one per channel and it has to be dual ranked (not quad ranked). You might get 6x8GB = 48GB but it would be very expensive. More reasonable would be 6x4GB. 192GB would require 12x16GB which would run at 800MHz, I think (and also be a bit pricey!).

Yep, I have just done some reading at Intel and the max capacities indeed pull the frequencies down considerably which I wasn't aware of.

http://blogs.sun.com/jnerl/entry/update_to_configuring_and_optimizing

Nevertheless Sun seems to manage dual 1333 MHz slots per channel which would indicate they get 96 GB with 20% higher bandwidth than Apple currently do.

One other limitation I found is the use of ECC RDIMM and ECC UDIMM. You are not supposed to mix them.

http://www.intel.com/cd/channel/reseller/asmo-na/eng/products/server/410125.htm

http://video.intel.com/?fr_story=2954b4b95d140ffd8637df6a41a7f3a9e2ac24e4&rf=bm

For all intends and purposes the most economical Apple quad config with max bandwidth should be 2x8GB ECC RDIMM + 2x4GB ECC RDIMM for 24 GB capacity. Max capacity of 4X8GB ECC RDIMM for 32 GB should see a serious drop in bandwidth but still be way faster than any disk array.

For octads you just have to double the figures. So 48 GB at max bandwidth and 64 GB at max capacity are the figures. Relatively poor compared to Sun.

 

[nanofrog]

You are right on the 6 DIMMs/CPU UP solution. But then you not only get 1333 MHz but also 1600, 1800 and 2000 OC memory freqs. That adds up to incredible bandwidth losses Apple imposes on their users. Tutor demonstrated what you can do with the E5520s when you unleash them properly.

I left Over Clocking out, but yes, the PC based systems can utilize the 1333MHz memory. No hamstringing with a locked memory multiplier (stuck to 1066MHz).

But Over Clocking opens it up much further on SP systems. DP, not so much, as I've not spotted an enthusiast DP board. I would have hoped they'd have shown up by now.

With the 9 DIMMs/CPU DP solutions they just pull away with 192 GB of 1333 MHz RAM. Again incredible memory capacities at higher bandwidth than Apple do.

Apple's really doing their customers a disservice with the reduced DIMM per CPU count, and no access to the firmware settings (since the Intels switch here).

 

[AZREOSpecialist]

Hi,

I've been reading threads here comparing the Quad Mac Pro vs the yet to be released iMac 27" i7 and most seem to focus on use as a machine for video editing with Final Cut Pro. I'm a pro-graphic designer using the last model Power Mac G5 and wonder how these two might compare with heavy Photoshop usage and design for print in general.

One of the main issues i think may be drive speed and I'm really not so knowledgeable in terms of the benefits of internal drives in a new Mac Pro vs whatever the best external option would be for the iMac so any insights any has in this area in terms of speed would be highly appreciated. (Is there some super-fast high end external storage option that would suit the iMac will and give me the same performance as a second internal drive on a Mac Pro?)

And what about the memory...I think the ECC option is not available for the iMac...does that mac a huge difference between the two..or am I wrong?

I think either machine would be a huge step forward from my PMG5 (which is doing pretty well still) I'm just wondering if it makes sense for me to wait for the next generation Mac Pro to come out (assuming it's early 2010...yes predicting Apple product releases is an exact science as we all know.)

Thanks in advance for any insights!

Rick

If you bump up the new Core i7 iMacs up to 16 GB RAM, you will have a great computer for graphic design for the foreseeable future. You don't need a Mac Pro for what you're doing. Your iMac will last you a long time. A Core i7 w/ 16 GB RAM should be enough to tackle all sorts of print jobs including large format and trade show displays. I used to do trade show displays on my G5 PowerMac w/ 4 GB RAM, so those jobs should really fly on your new iMac.

Sure, you can customize a Mac Pro w/ RAID, higher end graphics cards, etc., but ask yourself if you've ever needed any of that stuff in the past. If not, go for the iMac. If you need a solid RAID option, or the fastest graphics card, or more than 16 GB RAM, then a Mac Pro may be a better route for you. Only the 8-core Mac Pro will accept more than 16 GB of RAM, so you'll need to spend double what you're spending on your Core i7 iMac to get a Mac Pro that will accommodate more RAM.

I say go with the iMac, max out the RAM (go 3rd party, not Apple), and enjoy your beautiful new 27" LED Core i7 Quad Core iMac goodness!

 

[nanofrog]

Only the 8-core Mac Pro will accept more than 16 GB of RAM...

That figure came out due to the fact that the largest capacity DIMM that's been out awhile, was 4GB. But 8GB sticks are shipping now (so 32GB is currently possible), and 16GB sticks are announced (so the technical limit will be 64GB in a Quad). Of course, the current price on 8GB sticks is the cost of a base '09 MP, and the 16GB sticks will be worse than 2x, given the low demand.

So for large memory requirements, the Octads do make more sense financially as you can use smaller DIMM capacities to achieve the total memory capacity. Even if the additional cores won't be used.

 

[Dark Goob]

If you bump up the new Core i7 iMacs up to 16 GB RAM, you will have a great computer for graphic design for the foreseeable future. You don't need a Mac Pro for what you're doing. Your iMac will last you a long time. A Core i7 w/ 16 GB RAM should be enough to tackle all sorts of print jobs including large format and trade show displays. I used to do trade show displays on my G5 PowerMac w/ 4 GB RAM, so those jobs should really fly on your new iMac.

Sure, you can customize a Mac Pro w/ RAID, higher end graphics cards, etc., but ask yourself if you've ever needed any of that stuff in the past. If not, go for the iMac. If you need a solid RAID option, or the fastest graphics card, or more than 16 GB RAM, then a Mac Pro may be a better route for you. Only the 8-core Mac Pro will accept more than 16 GB of RAM, so you'll need to spend double what you're spending on your Core i7 iMac to get a Mac Pro that will accommodate more RAM.

I say go with the iMac, max out the RAM (go 3rd party, not Apple), and enjoy your beautiful new 27" LED Core i7 Quad Core iMac goodness!

I am sorry bud.. But this op said he is dealing with images from Hasselblad digital cameras. !!!

Now why would someone spend $20,000+ on their camera, then skimp out on a machine with outdated tech, difficult/impossible to upgrade HD & GPU, can't use a GTX 285 or Quadro, has a sheet of glass before the screen making it impossible to color match properly -- which is by FAR the MOST important feature for a graphics/photography pro?

He said 1GB+ Photoshop files. Now, Photoshop has this little thing called "history" ... That means his undo scratch file can be easily 20GB or more... It makes his G5 whimper. He needs a Mac Pro with an internal RAID, preferably made of SSD's (but 2TB Hitachi drives will do if you leave it half-empty) to open those files fast, and frankly I would put 16gb RAM and take the processor hit in exchange for having all my layers and past few undos in the RAM.

Again, how is this even a question? I may be a fascist but that's who to ask about buying guns, amirite? Hehe

 

[AZREOSpecialist]

I am sorry bud.. But this op said he is dealing with images from Hasselblad digital cameras. !!!

Now why would someone spend $20,000+ on their camera, then skimp out on a machine with outdated tech, difficult/impossible to upgrade HD & GPU, can't use a GTX 285 or Quadro, has a sheet of glass before the screen making it impossible to color match properly -- which is by FAR the MOST important feature for a graphics/photography pro?

He said 1GB+ Photoshop files. Now, Photoshop has this little thing called "history" ... That means his undo scratch file can be easily 20GB or more... It makes his G5 whimper. He needs a Mac Pro with an internal RAID, preferably made of SSD's (but 2TB Hitachi drives will do if you leave it half-empty) to open those files fast, and frankly I would put 16gb RAM and take the processor hit in exchange for having all my layers and past few undos in the RAM.

Again, how is this even a question? I may be a fascist but that's who to ask about buying guns, amirite? Hehe

You may wish to re-read this thread, the OP never said he is using Hasselblad digital cameras! In fact, he said he is still using his PMG5 for his work. You want everyone to believe that you need an 8-core Mac Pro to tackle a workflow that is currently being done satisfactorily with a PowerMac G5? Hogwash! The Core i7 iMac will be more than enough for print design. I used to manipulate digital photos for wall sized trade show panels using my PowerMac G5 Dual 2.5 GHz. I believe your recommendations are overkill. A reflective monitor does not necessarily need to be a hindrance to color matching, you just need to calibrate it correctly and ensure that your room lighting doesn't cause objectionable reflections. As a graphic designer myself, what did we use before LCDs? We used REFLECTIVE CRT screens! And those worked just fine, especially when properly calibrated.

Judging by your post, you think the Core i7 iMac is "outdated tech". You think the Mac Pro isn't outdated too? The minute a computer hits the distribution channel it's outdated! Nobody will ever win this argument, everything is outdated almost from the moment it is introduced because there's always something better in the pipeline. You don't need a RAID w/ SSDs or the top-of-the-line graphics card for print design. What you need is core clock speed, lots of RAM, and good memory bandwidth. The new Core i7 iMac meets all criteria.