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.
Why is MP so expensive compared to imac?
- Thread starter frocco
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
One word: Profit. Mac Pro is the only Mac with real upgradeability so people who need that must pay the premium. Apple knows that and looks like they can sell enough MPs to keep it worthwhile.
Just think, if they weren't so expensive, you wouldn't see as many people buying and selling them on ebay. Consumers would be more inclined to just buy new.
Only GPU and RAM are mobility versions in iMac. RAM being mobility doesn't even matter, the performance is the same.
ATI 5750 (aka 5850M) is just underclocked ATI 5770 so there isn't huge difference between them. ATI 5870 is, however, much faster than those two. About twice as fast as 5770
Your money is spent on a larger case that can have stuff plugged in to it. So basically you're paying out the nose for PCIe slots, four accessible HD bays and an inter-changable GPU.
That said, I had a 27" iMac for a few months and rapidly switched back to the towers. Yes the iMac was cheaper, but I missed the expandability.
That said, I had a 27" iMac for a few months and rapidly switched back to the towers. Yes the iMac was cheaper, but I missed the expandability.
The MacPro is more money because it allows upgrades and lots of storage. It also has 3 open pci e slots allowing for easy addons. Up to and more then 60 hdds can be done.
you can put 4 of these
http://store.sansdigital-shop.com/totr5baysato2.html
on one of these
http://eshop.macsales.com/item/Newer Technology/MXPCIE6GRS/
since there are 3 pci e slots open that makes for 3 x 4 x 5 = 60 hdds and what ever is inside like 5 more hdds Imacs are not doing this.
If you want lots of storage and connectivity get a pro. If you want a pretty machine that is fast but trapped in all-in-one form buy an iMac.
If you are a geear freak have a Mac Mini an iMac and a Mac Pro.
you can put 4 of these
http://store.sansdigital-shop.com/totr5baysato2.html
on one of these
http://eshop.macsales.com/item/Newer Technology/MXPCIE6GRS/
since there are 3 pci e slots open that makes for 3 x 4 x 5 = 60 hdds and what ever is inside like 5 more hdds Imacs are not doing this.
If you want lots of storage and connectivity get a pro. If you want a pretty machine that is fast but trapped in all-in-one form buy an iMac.
If you are a geear freak have a Mac Mini an iMac and a Mac Pro.
iMac = consumer, Mac Pro = professional
Apple have always charged a premium for expandable professional towers over their consumer models, even when the initial performance and spec of both has been close.
Having had 3 iMacs in 10 years (G3, G4 and G5) I switched to Intel based Pro towers in 2008 and doubt i will ever return to the gorgeous but limited iMac range.
If they were more expandable they would be more attractive and have a longer usable lifespan for business and design use.
Apple have always charged a premium for expandable professional towers over their consumer models, even when the initial performance and spec of both has been close.
Having had 3 iMacs in 10 years (G3, G4 and G5) I switched to Intel based Pro towers in 2008 and doubt i will ever return to the gorgeous but limited iMac range.
If they were more expandable they would be more attractive and have a longer usable lifespan for business and design use.
Yes, there is a market that will pay for modularity and the expansion capabilities of the MP even though the performance of the high end iMac is similar to the low end MP. If you are comparing the high end iMac to the low end MP, that is the primary difference in my opinion.
It is a shame Imacs need a only add an a few esata jacks to be a really nice machine. I know everyone says it will cut mac pro sales that is b.s. just make the esata jacks only handle 1 device. You would need 2 of them and the iMac would be what is should be a piece of equipment for pros and consumers.
I don't really get your point, but if you're saying that eSATA is the only thing that makes the Pro a choice for professionals, I think it's a little off point.
Fast (100MB/s) storage isn't really a concern for all professional users.
In fact, network storage is much more common than DAS via whatever interface.
The Apple user group really has to come down from the assumption that all "Pro's" are working in audio/video!
no you are not understanding my point. My fault not yours as typing on the net is not the best way to describe what you want to mean or say.
I want 2 esata jacks that are not pm type.. You can order a big hdd for inside the iMac 3tb or so. Then you can add a 3tb on one esata and you can use the second esata as an ssd for osx. non pm esata jacks such as the ones in my mac mini hack are seen as internal jacks by the cpu so those jacks would mean you have a 3 drive machine. while not as good as a pro is this would make the machine really good for any pro user with space needs. lots of pros have small office space and an iMac with 3 hdds so to speak would solve most of their needs. How many times have you heard this about a mac pro set one drive up as your osx one drive as a scratch drive and one drive for storage.
Part of the difference in cost is the Mac Pro case, which is a work of art and is better engineered than even high-end PC cases.
Part, though, is just raw gouging.
The prices for the high-end (octo and 12-core) Mac Pros make sense, because dual-socket processors are ridiculously expensive. But the prices for the quad and hexacore models are just way too high for what you get. The quad should start at $1999 and the hexa at $2499, which would still allow a nice "Apple premium."
The design of everything inside is just awesome. You get much better cooling and better board components to hold up to 24/7 use. If you just jump on for a few hours and then sleep the machine for the rest of the day then the iMac is a much better value.
If you keep the machine busy then you reap the benefits. It is just like the difference between a light duty and heavy duty pickup. If you just get groceries or haul a boat twice a year it doesn't matter. But if you are towing everyday then the increased reliability and ease of maintenance really shines.
Everyone looks at speed but workstations are made for reliability. You can setup a raid, you have ECC memory, you have a CPU that runs cooler, a fan system that keeps all your electronics cooler. Heat kills computers and the iMac will overheat in conditions that the Mac Pro will not.
If you keep the machine busy then you reap the benefits. It is just like the difference between a light duty and heavy duty pickup. If you just get groceries or haul a boat twice a year it doesn't matter. But if you are towing everyday then the increased reliability and ease of maintenance really shines.
Everyone looks at speed but workstations are made for reliability. You can setup a raid, you have ECC memory, you have a CPU that runs cooler, a fan system that keeps all your electronics cooler. Heat kills computers and the iMac will overheat in conditions that the Mac Pro will not.
$
I think part of the argument is the high price of a mac pro compared to the "high" price of the imac (i know that sounds weird, i will explain).
One can purchase a 27, i5 Imac for approx 2000usd. If someone wanted to build a windows computer with a 27inch monitor with the same res and all other specs equal it would be close to the same price, if not more!
The iMac is a great value.
On the other hand one can build a mac pro for half the cost. That's a huge premium for os (you can also build a hack) and expandability.
I think part of the argument is the high price of a mac pro compared to the "high" price of the imac (i know that sounds weird, i will explain).
One can purchase a 27, i5 Imac for approx 2000usd. If someone wanted to build a windows computer with a 27inch monitor with the same res and all other specs equal it would be close to the same price, if not more!
The iMac is a great value.
On the other hand one can build a mac pro for half the cost. That's a huge premium for os (you can also build a hack) and expandability.
Quad = Horribly overpriced
8 and 12 Core = Price easily justified by Intel's extravagantly high pricing for dual chip Xeon processors.
That said I bought a Quad (2009) only because it was faster at what I did (non-HD/3D) than the base 2.26 Octo at the time. I still cried a little at the price vs value.
8 and 12 Core = Price easily justified by Intel's extravagantly high pricing for dual chip Xeon processors.
That said I bought a Quad (2009) only because it was faster at what I did (non-HD/3D) than the base 2.26 Octo at the time. I still cried a little at the price vs value.