Quad iMac undercuts Quad Mac Pro

[lemonade-maker]

Serious whining going on here. Apple gives you few options and its "overpriced". Apple gives you really decent options and you are "undercut". So funny, those doing this just want to complain about something. Just buy something and move on.

 

[Bartman01]

More importantly, potential Mac Pro quad customers may be diverted to the iMac and I wonder if this is Apple's intention. The Mac Pro is already a niche product within the Apple line up and it will become more so unless the next upgrade is major.

If the iMac could support 2 or 3 external displays, I would seriously consider one. It looks like it supports a max of 16GB of (expensive at the moment) RAM. Get the 2x2 GB now, and add 2X4 later (when it is cheaper) for 12GB total.

 

[Spanky Deluxe]

If the iMac could support 2 or 3 external displays, I would seriously consider one. It looks like it supports a max of 16GB of (expensive at the moment) RAM. Get the 2x2 GB now, and add 2X4 later (when it is cheaper) for 12GB total.

If the iMac supports triple channel, which pretty much every i5/i7 machine on the market does, then the best bet would be to get the 2x2GB now and then add 1x2GB pretty much straight away.

The Quad Mac Pro is looking horrendously overpriced right now. It was seriously overpriced before as was the rest of the Mac Pro line but now its just embarrassing. The Xeon's in the quad core line are only marginally more expensive than i7s and the only real benefit they have is ECC memory checking, which isn't of all that much use to most (even professional) people.

The 27" LED display is worth a fortune. If Apple were selling it separately it would probably cost at least $1200.

Even the Octo cores are now looking like an even worse buy than they were before. After all, consider this:

Octo Core 2.66GHz - $4699
2 x iMac 27" 2.66GHz i7 + 1 x Mac OS X Server 10.6 - $4497

With the second setup you'd get the benefit of dual displays using the input option on the second machine and if you hook them up with a gigabit ethernet cable then you could use OS X Server's XGrid component to use both machines for xgrid aware software.

Apple seriously has to do some major price cuts on the Mac Pro line. My guess is that they'll soon be dumping the quad core Mac Pros altogether and will have Octo Mac Pros starting at 2.66Ghz for $3299. Preferably even lower since $3299 is what the 2.66GHz Octo's should have been priced at originally to keep in line with previous profit margins and market competition.

 

[VirtualRain]

If the iMac supports triple channel, which pretty much every i5/i7 machine on the market does, then the best bet would be to get the 2x2GB now and then add 1x2GB pretty much straight away.

The Quad Mac Pro is looking horrendously overpriced right now. It was seriously overpriced before as was the rest of the Mac Pro line but now its just embarrassing. The Xeon's in the quad core line are only marginally more expensive than i7s and the only real benefit they have is ECC memory checking, which isn't of all that much use to most (even professional) people.

The 27" LED display is worth a fortune. If Apple were selling it separately it would probably cost at least $1200.

Even the Octo cores are now looking like an even worse buy than they were before. After all, consider this:

Octo Core 2.66GHz - $4699
2 x iMac 27" 2.66GHz i7 + 1 x Mac OS X Server 10.6 - $4497

With the second setup you'd get the benefit of dual displays using the input option on the second machine and if you hook them up with a gigabit ethernet cable then you could use OS X Server's XGrid component to use both machines for xgrid aware software.

Apple seriously has to do some major price cuts on the Mac Pro line. My guess is that they'll soon be dumping the quad core Mac Pros altogether and will have Octo Mac Pros starting at 2.66Ghz for $3299. Preferably even lower since $3299 is what the 2.66GHz Octo's should have been priced at originally to keep in line with previous profit margins and market competition.

Isn't the iMac using a Lynnfield 1156 CPU? If so, it would be dual-channel.

While I can't argue with your math on the cost of a Mac Pro and the fact you can buy 2 quad-core iMacs with displays for less than an Octo core Mac Pro without display, they are aimed at different markets. Just like it costs me $3000 to fly round-trip to London Mon-Fri but if I stay a Sat. it only costs $1200. Same seat, same airplane, different customer, over twice the cost. 🙁

 

[300D]

If the iMac supports triple channel, which pretty much every i5/i7 machine on the market does

Nope.

 

[Spanky Deluxe]

Isn't the iMac using a Lynnfield 1156 CPU? If so, it would be dual-channel.

While I can't argue with your math on the cost of a Mac Pro and the fact you can buy 2 quad-core iMacs with displays for less than an Octo core Mac Pro without display, they are aimed at different markets. Just like it costs me $3000 to fly round-trip to London Mon-Fri but if I stay a Sat. it only costs $1200. Same seat, same airplane, different customer, over twice the cost. 🙁

Fair enough on the dual channel. Shame they're limiting it on that front.

Yeah I realise they're aimed at different markets but there's still virtually no reason for someone to get a quad core Mac Pro instead of a quad core iMac. People who are buying Quad Core Mac Pros are already looking at saving a few pennies over the Octo Core Mac Pros and so they're very likely to realise that they can save some more pennies by getting a top spec iMac and getting a hell of a lot more for their money.
I don't think anyone's going to be buying two iMacs instead of an Octo Mac Pro. I was just using that as a comparison of value. I for one have been planning on replacing my 2006 Quad Mac Pro for a newer Octo Mac Pro but was already put off by the bad value back when the Nehalem Mac Pros were released. Now that the new iMacs are out I'd find it even harder to justify getting an Octo core Mac Pro instead of a 27" i7 iMac + an i7 Dell with Ubuntu/Windows on for extra rendering power. In fact a 27" i7 2.8GHz iMac + 2.8GHz i7 Dell would work out to be only about $200 more than a 2.26GHz Octo Mac Pro yet would have a combined processing power of nearly 25% more. The work I do can easily use the extra cores but the current simulation software I use is single threaded and so I run multiple instances. I'll be switching to other software soon that's MPI enabled and could easily be run across two machines. If I'd bought a 23" ACD instead of a 30" ACD back in 2006 then I'd be selling my Mac Pro and ACD and buying exactly that setup in a heartbeat. As it stands, I don't really want to give up 400,000 pixels and 3" of screen space so I'll put it off until the MP line's refreshed.

 

[VirtualRain]

Here's the list of procs (stolen from a thread in the iMac forum)...

It seems the iMac's are using the i7-860 and the i5-750.

Love the Turbo clocks on the 860 - that's a 25% overclock on single-core tasks!!! 😱 😀

 

[Spanky Deluxe]

Here's the list of procs (stolen from a thread in the iMac forum)...

It seems the iMac's are using the i7-860 and the i5-750.

Love the Turbo clocks on the 860 - that's a 25% overclock on single-core tasks!!! 😱 😀

Wow that is impressive! I see they're dual channel but DDR3-1333 so they shouldn't be that much slower than triple channel DDR3-1066 (as in the Mac Pros). It would be interesting to see some benchmarks comparing the two. Hopefully Barefeats will do an iMac i5/i7 vs Quad Mac Pro comparison when the new iMacs ship. My bet is that the 2.8Ghz i7 iMac will outperform the 2.66GHz Quad Mac Pro in nearly all tests and they should perform pretty much equally in memory intensive apps.

 

[VirtualRain]

Now that the new iMacs are out I'd find it even harder to justify getting an Octo core Mac Pro instead of a 27" i7 iMac + an i7 Dell with Ubuntu/Windows on for extra rendering power.

I hear you... I can't see myself recommending a Quad Mac Pro to anyone (and I rarely recommend the Octo anyway!) unless they really want SSD's. That's the only thing keeping me from selling my Mac Pro setup and jumping on the new 27" iMac! If I was doing it all over again right now, it would be one helluva tough decision! 😱

EDIT: A very nice setup would be a 27" iMac 2.8GHz with a Mac Mini Server!!! 😀 (all for about the same as an entry level Mac Pro)! 😱

 

[Spanky Deluxe]

I hear you... I can't see myself recommending a Quad Mac Pro to anyone (and I rarely recommend the Octo anyway!) either unless they really want SSD's. That's the only thing keeping me from selling my Mac Pro setup and jumping on the new 27" iMac! If I was doing it all over again right now, it would be one helluva tough decision! 😱

You could always pay an Apple Certified fellow to install the SSD. I think even Apple Stores will do this for you. That way you'd keep your warranty. Alternatively you could always wait to see what they're like on the inside when places like iFixit get hold of it. It may be such a simple upgrade that you could do it yourself and simply keep the original HDD around in case you need to use the warranty.

Edit: If the Mac Mini came in i7 flavours then definitely, however, in this case I think a Dell i7 hidden away under the desk would be a better buy.

 

[bbadalucco]

Wow that is impressive! I see they're dual channel but DDR3-1333 so they shouldn't be that much slower than triple channel DDR3-1066 (as in the Mac Pros). It would be interesting to see some benchmarks comparing the two. Hopefully Barefeats will do an iMac i5/i7 vs Quad Mac Pro comparison when the new iMacs ship. My bet is that the 2.8Ghz i7 iMac will outperform the 2.66GHz Quad Mac Pro in nearly all tests and they should perform pretty much equally in memory intensive apps.

Just because the i7 in the iMac can do DDR3-1333 doesn't mean it does in the iMac...in fact, I'm sure its just 1066. Not saying there would be a huge difference anyway.

 

[phairphan]

Just because the i7 in the iMac can do DDR3-1333 doesn't mean it does in the iMac...in fact, I'm sure its just 1066. Not saying there would be a huge difference anyway.

Yeah, according to the Apple specs they're using 1066.

 

[mcpryon2]

Wow that is impressive! I see they're dual channel but DDR3-1333 so they shouldn't be that much slower than triple channel DDR3-1066 (as in the Mac Pros). It would be interesting to see some benchmarks comparing the two. Hopefully Barefeats will do an iMac i5/i7 vs Quad Mac Pro comparison when the new iMacs ship. My bet is that the 2.8Ghz i7 iMac will outperform the 2.66GHz Quad Mac Pro in nearly all tests and they should perform pretty much equally in memory intensive apps.

I haven't looked at any threads on it yet, but on Apple's site the customization shows all of the RAM is 1066MHz, even on the i7. I'm just thinking out loud at this point.

 

[Umbongo]

Yeah I realise they're aimed at different markets but there's still virtually no reason for someone to get a quad core Mac Pro instead of a quad core iMac.

I can think of a number of reasons and I hope others will add more to cover this issue. Not singling out your comment 🙂.

• 
  Processor
• The Xeon W3540 2.93GHz processor offers more processing power than the Core i7 860. There should be situations in single threaded performance where the 860 does better because of the turbo boost, but we have no idea how they will perform due to the thermal charastaristics of the iMac's enclosure.
  
• Comparing the Core i5 750 and Xeon W3520: the W3520 has hyper-threading. (In it's defense the 750 can technically turboboost higher.)
  
• You can upgrade the processor on the Mac Pro. 3.2GHz processors will shortly replace the 3.06GHz middle tier (formerly 2.93GHz), meaning you can upgrade to 3.2GHz for under a $100 more than Apple charge for 2.93GHz).
  
• There may be issues of performance and noise that should side in the Mac Pro's favour when the processor cores are full strained for lengthy periods.
  
  Memory
• Triple channel provides more bandwidth if needed.
  
• ECC support.
  
• 16GB on the Mac Pro is ~$650 where as 16GB on the iMac is ~$950.
  
• The Mac Pro should support 32GB (still untested).
  
  Storage
  
• Obviously there are a lot of external options these days, but the availabilty of internal drives should not be underestimated.
  
• RAID support.
  
  Graphics cards
• Headless. Obviously you can consider the 27" LED backlit IPS display a benefit, a big one infact, but many do not so I'll add it here.
  
• Multiple graphics card support.
  
• More powerful cards than the 4850 available under OS X.
  
• Graphics card can be upgraded in the future with a faster model.
  
• Any PCI-E card will work if you want to run Windows.
  
  Connectivity
• Out of the Box the Mac Pro has more connectivity options and when you consider the PCI-E slots the iMac can't compete here.

 

[goodcow]

Support
[*]Good luck getting an Apple tech out to your location to service an iMac 😉 (and good luck, but not as much, on a Mac Pro too 🙁)
[/list]

You call up AppleCare and they do an on-site repair. What's so hard about that?

 

[Gloor]

I'm tempted to sell my 2008/2.8 Octo for an upgraded 27" iMac now. Bah.

And why would you do that? Mac Pro is faster, will last you longer and you can expand. These new iMacs are just fancy toys but your Mac Pro will outlive them very easily especially when application will start taking advantages of more cores. Keep your Mac Pro and don't be silly. I know that new things from Apple makes us crave it but trust me, Mac Pro is the winner here.

 

[Umbongo]

You call up AppleCare and they do an on-site repair. What's so hard about that?

I was under the impression the iMac is classed differently to the Mac Pro in regards to onsite support, from posts and anecdotes on here and other sites and 2nd hand stories relayed personally. A case of "you can move an iMac easily if you live near an Apple store".

 

[Gloor]

To be honest, looking at how the prices and everything turned out it seems to me that Octo Mac Pro 2008 was the best purchase. Mac Pro 2009 is way more expensive and these new iMacs..... well, you've all said it before me.
I hope that with 2010 or 2011 they will go back to normal pricing like before especially on the Mac Pro. Lets all see. 🙂

 

[gelid]

The 27" LED display is worth a fortune. If Apple were selling it separately it would probably cost at least $1200.

My thoughts exactly. You can even use the 27" iMac as a dedicated display for a Mac Pro. At $1699, it is $100 cheaper than the 30" ACD, plus it is a full computer that can be used for lots of purposes. Yes, as a display it is smaller and lower resolution, but there could be lots of utility in using one of these as a display.

From the Apple website: "The Mini DisplayPort lets you connect an external display, including the Apple LED Cinema Display, to your iMac. On the 27-inch iMac, the same port offers input, too. So you can connect any external source that has DisplayPort output — including a MacBook or MacBook Pro — and use your iMac as a display"

 

[smacman]

I have a new quad care Mac Pro being shipped to me as we speak so I may be a bit biased, but an iMac is an iMac. What you get on day 1 is what you are stuck with. The top end video option Radeon 4850 is nearly obsolete in the gaming world now, and you're stuck with it for as long as you have the machine. Not to mention the hard drive. Apple most definitely had to take a few shortcuts to get all these components into the small enclosure, and usually that means lots of mobile parts (which usually means a small performance hit). The iMac and the Mac Pro are not in the same league. Having said that, I do sort of feel like I may have overpaid for my Mac Pro. I guess that's a totally different story.

 

[Dr.Pants]

I wonder what 30" display Apple cut on to get 27". I also am wondering if its going to have some of the same problems as well. The input is grand and all, but I bet its pulled off with scaling only common 16:9 and 4:3 resolutions. Does the machine have to turned on for this? That would make a world of difference in terms of running the monitor with other inputs.

That said, I'm still going to opt for a MacPro over an iMac because of the expandability (RAID/graphics cards) and ethernet interface (dual ethernet ports). Not to mention The Future as well (refresh with Gulftown, part of me wants to see what'll happen...)

That and I can at least TRY and opt out of MiniDisplayPort.

 

[BlizzardBomb]

I have a new quad care Mac Pro being shipped to me as we speak so I may be a bit biased, but an iMac is an iMac. What you get on day 1 is what you are stuck with. The top end video option Radeon 4850 is nearly obsolete in the gaming world now, and you're stuck with it for as long as you have the machine. Not to mention the hard drive. Apple most definitely had to take a few shortcuts to get all these components into the small enclosure, and usually that means lots of mobile parts (which usually means a small performance hit). The iMac and the Mac Pro are not in the same league. Having said that, I do sort of feel like I may have overpaid for my Mac Pro. I guess that's a totally different story.

Apple isn't really one to throw out many graphics cards options even to Pro users though.

 

[smacman]

Apple isn't really one to throw out many graphics cards options even to Pro users though.

I agree but not many is better than none...

 

[bbadalucco]

Apple isn't really one to throw out many graphics cards options even to Pro users though.

So true...the GTX 285 isn't bad though.

 

[skyline r34]

Maybe 30 inch LED coming soon....

I see that the new iMac's are 27 inch LED 2560x1440 pixels, that means maybe the 30 inch LED for desktops may be coming soon hope so I'm tired of waiting or do you guys think Apple will discontinue the 30 inch al together and release a 27 inch LED for desktops?