The Mac Pro does put the iMac to shame.

[StephenCampbell]

As a Haswell iMac owner and recent convert from the Apple tower lineup, I think it's important for us to recognize that there is no pretending when it comes to the difference between the iMac and the Mac Pro. Every component in the Mac Pro runs circles around its equivalent in the iMac. Many circles.

For anybody who thinks "well, the iMac is a very fast, slick machine, it's not really all that less powerful than the Mac Pro," that's just not the case at all. The iMac is a heavily compromised machine, downgraded in every aspect from a Pro machine with full-size components, suited only for the consumer and occasional prosumer.

Personally I wish I could have the Mac Pro's power, and I may upgrade to the rev 2 Mac Pro trashcan depending on how my finances go over the next year. If my finances don't allow it I do not feel like my $3,500 was wasted on my current machine, it does suffice… but it is a complete and utter joke compared to the Mac Pro. And it is noticeable to me on a daily basis. Just little blips that I know wouldn't happen on the Pro, occasional jitters in intense sections of a video game, a longer-than-desired export time of a QuickTime movie, etc.

Bottom line:

If iMac fits your budget and you are a consumer, go for it.

If your budget allows for the Pro but you're not sure the extra power is worth the money, go with the Pro.

 

[myshkin]

This post is an utter joke.

You don't say what's in your mac pro which is important. I read elsewhere you have a 2006 mac pro. in 2006 SSD was not commonplace, so if you didn't upgrade the HDD my 2013 imac will run circles around your mac pro doing many tasks.
I am sure compared to a 2006 mac pro the new imac is better in many regards.
Besides that glaringly obvious point you are ultimately comparing Apples flagship professional desktop to an all in one with laptop specs. Of course if we took a 2013 mac pro and compared it to a 2013 imac the mac pro will be the more powerful machine. Anyone who needs a mac pro would know this and wouldn't try to pretend the imac is something its not.

The vast majority of users will be completely satisfied with the new imac, especially a imac with your specs. Those who need the power of a mac pro are few and far between.
If you got the money and want the most powerful mac computer then the mac pro is the clear choice, but a maxed out 2013 imac is a great computer for personal and most professional needs.

 

[jordanm86]

This post is an utter joke.

You don't say what's in your mac pro which is important. I read elsewhere you have a 2006 mac pro. in 2006 SSD was not commonplace, so if you didn't upgrade the HDD my 2013 imac will run circles around your mac pro doing many tasks.
I am sure compared to a 2006 mac pro the new imac is better in many regards.
Besides that glaringly obvious point you are ultimately comparing Apples flagship professional desktop to an all in one with laptop specs. Of course if we took a 2013 mac pro and compared it to a 2013 imac the mac pro will be the more powerful machine. Anyone who needs a mac pro would know this and wouldn't try to pretend the imac is something its not.

The vast majority of users will be completely satisfied with the new imac, especially a imac with your specs. Those who need the power of a mac pro are few and far between.
If you got the money and want the most powerful mac computer then the mac pro is the clear choice, but a maxed out 2013 imac is a great computer for personal and most professional needs.

I'm not sure if the OP is just trolling but i'll 'bite'.

SO what your saying is what you deem to be a 'professional' should only use a 'Mac Pro'.... wowser! Now don't get me wrong, I love Apple and Apple products but it looks like someone was a bit eager to drink the cool-aid!

What if you are a professional marketeer? Would you still need a Mac Pro?

I'm a web designer and illustrator and personally, I think the iMac is more than enough for what I need. Yes, I could have waited another month and got a Mac Pro but it would have worked out at over £1000 more for a machine that whilst it has much more power, would have been wasted on what I am doing!

On my old Macbook Pro, Photoshop CC would boot up in 6.56 seconds... on my new iMac... 1.34 seconds

I do agree that if you are a 3D Modeller/Animator or work in Video Editing the Mac Pro is the clear choice if you can afford it... but for those who are still 'professionals' in other industries, is it worth it? Probably not.


Also, OP - which iMac do you have? You say haswell but you don't state i5/i7, RAM, which graphics option, SSD or HDD?

 

[Outrigger]

As a Haswell iMac owner and recent convert from the Apple tower lineup, I think it's important for us to recognize that there is no pretending when it comes to the difference between the iMac and the Mac Pro. Every component in the Mac Pro runs circles around its equivalent in the iMac. Many circles.

For anybody who thinks "well, the iMac is a very fast, slick machine, it's not really all that less powerful than the Mac Pro," that's just not the case at all. The iMac is a heavily compromised machine, downgraded in every aspect from a Pro machine with full-size components, suited only for the consumer and occasional prosumer.

Personally I wish I could have the Mac Pro's power, and I may upgrade to the rev 2 Mac Pro trashcan depending on how my finances go over the next year. If my finances don't allow it I do not feel like my $3,500 was wasted on my current machine, it does suffice… but it is a complete and utter joke compared to the Mac Pro. And it is noticeable to me on a daily basis. Just little blips that I know wouldn't happen on the Pro, occasional jitters in intense sections of a video game, a longer-than-desired export time of a QuickTime movie, etc.

Bottom line:

If iMac fits your budget and you are a consumer, go for it.

If your budget allows for the Pro but you're not sure the extra power is worth the money, go with the Pro.

remind me to send an email to all the pros out there (people who make a living off of what they do) to return all their imacs and get the mac pro regardless if they have the need or not.

 

[NeoCracer]

Bottom line:

If iMac fits your budget and you are a consumer, go for it.

If your budget allows for the Pro but you're not sure the extra power is worth the money, go with the Pro.

I have a top-of-the-line 27" 2013 iMac, with SSD. I am a professional, a graphic designer and photographer. Also some 3D/CAD work with C4D and AutoCAD.

I know the Mac Pro is way faster than my iMac, but I have absolutely no use for a faster mac than the one I have right now. For 3000 euros I have the best iMac, with a gorgeous 27" IPS calibrated screen. 512GB SSD, 32GB.
The same 3000 euros would buy me the 'standard' Mac Pro, which is of course way faster than my iMac, still. But only equipped with 12GB ram and a 256GB SSD.
And no 27" IPS screen or keyboard/mouse included.

Sure, there are professionals who need more power than me, and they will be satisfied with the new Mac Pro. But for many professionals, the high end iMac is just fine for their needs. Sure, you don't have dual videocards, but not many people really need them. Unless you're doing video-design or heavy rendering. But a Mac Pro would have been 'overkill' for me. So I'm really happy with my iMac. Don't call the iMac just a consumer device.

 

[ChrisA]

In the end I expect that many of the new Mac Pros will be bought be by people with more money than common sense and will be used for computer games and watching movies. It's a waste of $3,000 but there are many who can afford to blow $3K on a toy. Maybe even most MPs will be used this way.

 

[Bear]

...
Bottom line:

If iMac fits your budget and you are a consumer, go for it.

If your budget allows for the Pro but you're not sure the extra power is worth the money, go with the Pro.

So you're advocating people buy the Mac Pro whetehr or not they need it? For some people an iMac will more than handle what they need with ease. Adding a display, keyboard and mouse will make the entry level MacPro cost about double a 27" iMac. A few non-pro users will need the power of a MacPro for their hobbies and it would make sense for them to get that if they can easily afford it.

Remember some people budget by what fits on their credit cards. You've given rather bad advice. The best advice is for people to get the machine that will meet their needs for the next 3 years.

 

[Mike Oxard]

As a Haswell iMac owner and recent convert from the Apple tower lineup, I think it's important for us to recognize that there is no pretending when it comes to the difference between the iMac and the Mac Pro. Every component in the Mac Pro runs circles around its equivalent in the iMac. Many circles.

For anybody who thinks "well, the iMac is a very fast, slick machine, it's not really all that less powerful than the Mac Pro," that's just not the case at all. The iMac is a heavily compromised machine, downgraded in every aspect from a Pro machine with full-size components, suited only for the consumer and occasional prosumer.

Personally I wish I could have the Mac Pro's power, and I may upgrade to the rev 2 Mac Pro trashcan depending on how my finances go over the next year. If my finances don't allow it I do not feel like my $3,500 was wasted on my current machine, it does suffice… but it is a complete and utter joke compared to the Mac Pro. And it is noticeable to me on a daily basis. Just little blips that I know wouldn't happen on the Pro, occasional jitters in intense sections of a video game, a longer-than-desired export time of a QuickTime movie, etc.

Bottom line:

If iMac fits your budget and you are a consumer, go for it.

If your budget allows for the Pro but you're not sure the extra power is worth the money, go with the Pro.

I'll have to tell the wife to pack in working as a photographer as her machine isn't "pro" enough

 

[TwoBytes]

Just little blips that I know wouldn't happen on the Pro, occasional jitters in intense sections of a video game, a longer-than-desired export time of a QuickTime movie, etc.
.

I'm not sure Mac Pros are designed as gaming machines. Even game machines have 'blips'. Even Mac Pros have 'blips'.

 

[dublove]

You have an excellent thought process:

You are comparing the geek bench leak 2013 mac pro with a top spec iMac.
The 12core xeon featured in that benchmark costs more than the 2013 iMac.

I would hope that an $8000 odd dollar 2013 Mac Pro was a fair bit faster than an iMac!!!

As a Haswell iMac owner and recent convert from the Apple tower lineup, I think it's important for us to recognize that there is no pretending when it comes to the difference between the iMac and the Mac Pro. Every component in the Mac Pro runs circles around its equivalent in the iMac. Many circles.

For anybody who thinks "well, the iMac is a very fast, slick machine, it's not really all that less powerful than the Mac Pro," that's just not the case at all. The iMac is a heavily compromised machine, downgraded in every aspect from a Pro machine with full-size components, suited only for the consumer and occasional prosumer.

Personally I wish I could have the Mac Pro's power, and I may upgrade to the rev 2 Mac Pro trashcan depending on how my finances go over the next year. If my finances don't allow it I do not feel like my $3,500 was wasted on my current machine, it does suffice… but it is a complete and utter joke compared to the Mac Pro. And it is noticeable to me on a daily basis. Just little blips that I know wouldn't happen on the Pro, occasional jitters in intense sections of a video game, a longer-than-desired export time of a QuickTime movie, etc.

Bottom line:

If iMac fits your budget and you are a consumer, go for it.

If your budget allows for the Pro but you're not sure the extra power is worth the money, go with the Pro.

 

[Shivetya]

At the price point of the Mac Pro it damn well better be the best machine. However good it is, its still a compromise to the gods of style. No real internal storage, less maximum ram capacity, no true upgrade path once you have it; unless something amazing comes up on release. Will clutter your desk with more cables and power cords than any iMac.

So yeah, that expensive Dyson fan base better have better guts, because it should compromised to get there

 

[StephenCampbell]

I honestly wasn't trolling at all. As some of you know my iMac is the first non-tower Mac I've ever had, and the reason I went with it instead of waiting for the new Mac Pro is because I figured I don't Need the power of the Mac Pro, and I'll need lots of external stuff with the new Mac Pro anyway, so I just sort of figured this iMac would be good enough for me.

But since more info about the new Mac Pro has come out, I've been reminded of all the reasons that I always stuck with the pro machines. Do you realize it's going to be at least five years before an iMac comes out that has the power of the CURRENT Mac Pro?

Look at each component in the Mac Pro, the Xeon E5 processor, the graphics cards, the RAM, etc. Every single one is a beast compared to the equivalent in the iMac. My point with this thread was mainly just to bring awareness to the colossal gulf in ability between the two machines, which is greater than what most people realize I think.

Personally the iMac path might work out for me, because with a Mac Pro, what I do is use it for seven or eight years, because even then it's still as powerful as some of the new Macs coming out. With the iMac, I can upgrade to a new iMac for another $3,500 in four years, and then after eight years I'll have had two machines instead of one, and the latter half of that time I'll have a machine close to as powerful as what I would have had with the second four years with the one Mac Pro.

 

[mossy]

occasional jitters in intense sections of a video game,

Yes - very important for "Pros"

 

[kaellar]

Never seen such a mix of calling an iMac the consumer machine (and putting negative sense to it) and not talking about anything more "professional" than Quicktime movie export or videogames as the load for a "pro" machine in one post before, bravo!
This topic made my day, honestly! It's WAAAY cooler than all of those guys from "waiting haswell rmbps megathread" whining of integrated IrisPro that fits their "pro" needs worse than the mobile gaming dGPU

 

[omeletpants]

To the OP:

If the Mac Pro is so important to you then maybe you should focus on making enough money to afford one. If there is a deficiency it might be in your ability to make money. Spend your time analyzing that.

 

[Mike Oxard]

I honestly wasn't trolling at all. As some of you know my iMac is the first non-tower Mac I've ever had, and the reason I went with it instead of waiting for the new Mac Pro is because I figured I don't Need the power of the Mac Pro, and I'll need lots of external stuff with the new Mac Pro anyway, so I just sort of figured this iMac would be good enough for me.

But since more info about the new Mac Pro has come out, I've been reminded of all the reasons that I always stuck with the pro machines. Do you realize it's going to be at least five years before an iMac comes out that has the power of the CURRENT Mac Pro?

Look at each component in the Mac Pro, the Xeon E5 processor, the graphics cards, the RAM, etc. Every single one is a beast compared to the equivalent in the iMac. My point with this thread was mainly just to bring awareness to the colossal gulf in ability between the two machines, which is greater than what most people realize I think.

Personally the iMac path might work out for me, because with a Mac Pro, what I do is use it for seven or eight years, because even then it's still as powerful as some of the new Macs coming out. With the iMac, I can upgrade to a new iMac for another $3,500 in four years, and then after eight years I'll have had two machines instead of one, and the latter half of that time I'll have a machine close to as powerful as what I would have had with the second four years with the one Mac Pro.

If you'd worded your original post this way it would have made a lot more sense to me why you posted. I can see your point now.

 

[inhalexhale1]

Yes - very important for "Pros"

haha, so true.

 

[iMacUnsure]

So you're advocating people buy the Mac Pro whetehr or not they need it? For some people an iMac will more than handle what they need with ease. Adding a display, keyboard and mouse will make the entry level MacPro cost about double a 27" iMac. A few non-pro users will need the power of a MacPro for their hobbies and it would make sense for them to get that if they can easily afford it.

Remember some people budget by what fits on their credit cards. You've given rather bad advice. The best advice is for people to get the machine that will meet their needs for the next 3 years.

Remember some people budget by what fits on their credit cards.

Wholeheartedly agree. I have the 21.5 that I got in August of 2013 new and for my needs this machine is plenty fast.

 

[StephenCampbell]

To the OP:

If the Mac Pro is so important to you then maybe you should focus on making enough money to afford one. If there is a deficiency it might be in your ability to make money. Spend your time analyzing that.

I can afford the Mac Pro. When I first started the "Let's rev up excitement for the 2013 Mac Pro" thread here in August of 2012, I had 10k set aside for a new system. It's just that I don't need that power (and 10k is a lot for me), so when it turned out to have no internal expandability I decided to go with the iMac. And along the way I sort of got sucked into Apple's marketing of the iMac as a powerful machine. So getting re-acquainted with the difference between laptop and server grade parts has been a kind of wakeup call which reminded me why I always went with towers.

 

[myshkin]

I have a week old imac that is I7, 24GB ram, 512gb ssd and 4gb gpu.

The biggest demand I put on a computer is my photography work. I have a nikon d800 which has large files and I do a lot of photo work.

I just started testing the imac yesterday with my photography and so far I couldn't be happier. I have photoshop cs6, lightroom 5 and capture nx 2 all open at the same time. Along with this is usually skype and firefox.

I was able to get my work done on a 2011 mbp but the new imac is a huge improvement.
A mac pro would be even quicker but I certainly don't need it.
I also don't understand how people throw around the word pro in such a vague sense. A macbook air would be far more computer then a pro writer would need. A mbp won't stop a pro photographer from making a living, and I am sure the same is true for music.

The professionals who genuinely need a mac pro is such a small number, and based off your examples you're not one of them.
I would never tell someone not to get it if they have the money and want it but almost no one needs it. I think for most of us the greatest appeal of the mac pro is its upgrade potential.

 

[StephenCampbell]

A mac pro would be even quicker but I certainly don't need it.

This is what I'm talking about. This sentence reveals that you don't realize just how much quicker the Mac Pro would be. We're talking 300% to 500% the performance of the iMac.

 

[Jaben3421]

This is what I'm talking about. This sentence reveals that you don't realize just how much quicker the Mac Pro would be. We're talking 300% to 500% the performance of the iMac.

You're a gamer, so this makes a little more sense for you. But for the rest of us, what does an extra 5-10 minutes, maybe even 20, of being done early with all this added performance really mean? Is it worth it to drop the 10K you had saved up for an extra 5-10 minutes earlier finish every time? For me it didn't make any sense, so I got a new rMBP for $2,600 and it's plenty fast for my photography. Maybe you're into getting everything done at the absolute fastest time possible, but for me I just don't see why that really matters.

 

[StephenCampbell]

You're a gamer, so this makes a little more sense for you. But for the rest of us, what does an extra 5-10 minutes, maybe even 20, of being done early with all this added performance really mean? Is it worth it to drop the 10K you had saved up for an extra 5-10 minutes earlier finish every time? For me it didn't make any sense, so I got a new rMBP for $2,600 and it's plenty fast for my photography. Maybe you're into getting everything done at the absolute fastest time possible, but for me I just don't see why that really matters.

Well I don't need things done in the fastest time possible, and I'm not really a gamer. It's just that ideally everything we do would happen instantly, right? You need something rendered, something exported, something converted, you click a button, it's done.

For the most part, the Pro machines have always had a relationship with the latest software demands that comes close to giving that experience. Of course it's not instant, but it's so powerful that it takes a while to get used to the speed at which it gets things done, and there is an immense satisfaction in having a machine that just grinds through things at such a rapid pace. Relative to the size of the task required vs. the speed with which it completes it, it doesn't really feel like waiting compared to the experience on an iMac or a MBP.

 

[kaellar]

This is what I'm talking about. This sentence reveals that you don't realize just how much quicker the Mac Pro would be. We're talking 300% to 500% the performance of the iMac.

..for 300% to 500% higher price tag
From the nonsense you're saying, it looks like its you who doesn't realize what level of performance new Mac Pro has. And what's more important, is that you definitely have no idea of what types of workload those Mac Pros have been created for.

 

[StephenCampbell]

..for 300% to 500% higher price tag
From the nonsense you're saying, it looks like its you who doesn't realize what level of performance new Mac Pro has. And what's more important, is that you definitely have no idea of what types of workload those Mac Pros have been created for.

I know what they've been created for. It's just like planes and cars. The Mac Pro is a jet plane, the iMac is a decent race car.

Do I need a jet plane to go to the grocery store? No. But it's pretty fun to go to the grocery store in thirty seconds instead of ten minutes!