Would an i7 Quad maxed out iMac be "respectable"?

[computerjunkie]

iMac...

# 2.8GHz Quad-Core Intel Core i7
# 8GB 1066MHz DDR3 SDRAM - 4x2GB
# 1TB Serial ATA Drive
# ATI Radeon HD 4850 512MB
# 8x double-layer SuperDrive
# Apple Magic Mouse

$2400

Mac Pro Quad...

# One 2.93GHz Quad-Core Intel Xeon
# 8GB (4x2GB)
# 1TB 7200-rpm Serial ATA 3Gb/s
# ATI Radeon HD 4870 512MB
# One 18x SuperDrive
# Apple LED Cinema Display (24" flat panel)
# Apple Mouse

$4450

I think it's a no brainer!

It occurred to me that I should clarify something on my thought process on this analysis.

My issue is not the $4450 in and of itself. My issue is the DIFFERENCE. One is 2000 bucks higher, but I really don't think I would get 2000 dollars more worth of raw performance increase. Notwithstanding the differences in upgradeability and the like. I am talking "out of the box" performance. But that just lends itself to what others have said...at the moment, for what you get, I think the quad MP is simply overpriced. Even so, I guess it is what it is.

Now if that $4450 got one a 6 core instead of 4...maybe I could see it. Which is another reason I am leaning towards iMac for now, then maybe MP down the road when the "delta" between the iMac and MP is greater.

Regards,

G.

 

[nanofrog]

It occurred to me that I should clarify something on my thought process on this analysis.

My issue is not the $4450 in and of itself. My issue is the DIFFERENCE. One is 2000 bucks higher, but I really don't think I would get 2000 dollars more worth of raw performance increase. Notwithstanding the differences in upgradeability and the like. I am talking "out of the box" performance. But that just lends itself to what others have said...at the moment, for what you get, I think the quad MP is simply overpriced. Even so, I guess it is what it is.

Now if that $4450 got one a 6 core instead of 4...maybe I could see it. Which is another reason I am leaning towards iMac for now, then maybe MP down the road when the "delta" between the iMac and MP is greater.

Regards,

G.

It makes sense to compare the iMac to a base Quad MP, not the highest clocked CPU. The reason is simple. Xeon. The base unit is a $284USD part in Quantity (1k units), vs the top end part is $999 per unit in quantity. BIG difference. The CPU in the iMac is a consumer part, and goes for the same as the base Quad CPU in quantity.

That was the reason I suggested the CPU could be done later (when the prices fall). That said, you'd get more benefit from the improved HDD throughput in a RAID setup vs. a faster clock, as the CPU is waiting on data from the drives. The RAID set is also less expensive than the faster CPU, if you don't go crazy with it. A 4 drive set using OS X's software RAID capability is the cost of the drives. So if you went for 1TB units for example, the drive cost would be ~$400USD.

 

[TennisandMusic]

The iMac i7 860 will be a great machine. In fact it should pretty much outperform the quad mac pro easily, assuming Apple hasn't gimped the turbo mode feature.

Read the benchmarks and tech. discussions on these cpu's. At stock speeds the i7 860 beats the i7 920 in just about everything. Yes it is dual channel as opposed to triple channel, but that only matters largely in benchmarks, and real world differences are nil. Not only that, the Mac Pro quad has 4 slots (which is incredibly stupid). So if you want to run triple channel you can only use 75% of your slots and run 6 gb ram, unless you pay a fortune for 4 gig sticks. Not worth it.

What it comes down to is the form factor. If you want to throw in easy hard drives, and have graphics card options, mac pro all the way. If you want a better performing machine, can live with the built in hard drive only, the graphics are good enough etc, then iMac. Of course this assumes the iMac's wouldn't easily break, which is not something I would personally be willing to count on. But either way, when you're looking at just the cpu's etc, the iMac does have the stronger cpu than the mac pro quad. No question about it.

Also don't listen to those people claiming the fact it's a "xeon" as an advantage. Everyone knows the mac pro quad cpu is basically a rebadged i7 920. Its the same price as a desktop i7 860. The 860 is a better all around chip, period. It should outperform the MP on the cpu end, no question.

 

[goMac]

Read the benchmarks and tech. discussions on these cpu's. At stock speeds the i7 860 beats the i7 920 in just about everything. Yes it is dual channel as opposed to triple channel, but that only matters largely in benchmarks, and real world differences are nil. Not only that, the Mac Pro quad has 4 slots (which is incredibly stupid). So if you want to run triple channel you can only use 75% of your slots and run 6 gb ram, unless you pay a fortune for 4 gig sticks. Not worth it.

Dual channel vs. triple channel is going to make a huge difference in video editing, especially once 64 bit apps come. This is video editing, not gaming.

 

[TennisandMusic]

Dual channel vs. triple channel is going to make a huge difference in video editing, especially once 64 bit apps come. This is video editing, not gaming.

Not really, and I don't game. I program, edit HD video (windows is better at this anyway), music production, heavy duty graphics work etc. Go read the benchmarks and extensive tests. There is pretty much ZERO difference in real world use. Not to mention if you put 8 gigs in the MP you're at dual channel anyway. Synthetic benchmarks will show a difference, but not actual apps. There are plenty of 64 bit apps that have tested this...

So anyway to the OP, this guy is dead wrong, triple channel is CERTAINLY not going to make a "huge difference" in your actual use, and certainly not worth any price premium you would fork out. The iMac i7 should currently be better than the quad Mac Pro.

 

[nanofrog]

Dual channel vs. triple channel is going to make a huge difference in video editing, especially once 64 bit apps come. This is video editing, not gaming.

That will be awhile though, as the software is always behind. I look at it this way; How long have Quad core processors been around now, yet some apps like PS, only work with 2 cores?

 

[goMac]

Not really, and I don't game. I program, edit HD video (windows is better at this anyway), music production, heavy duty graphics work etc. Go read the benchmarks and extensive tests. There is pretty much ZERO difference in real world use. Not to mention if you put 8 gigs in the MP you're at dual channel anyway.

Errrr... if you have multiple gigs of video in memory, or are doing any transcoding that's not CPU bound, it's going to make a difference...

The only benchmarks I can find are people doing very low memory usage tests, which obviously are not going to be affected. Find me a heavy memory usage test that says they're the same.

iTunes encoding and games don't count.

Software doesn't need to be rewritten to take advantage of triple channel.

 

[nanofrog]

Software doesn't need to be rewritten to take advantage of triple channel.

I should have clarified. The compiler need to be written to address the new architecture. OS support helps, but isn't an absolute pre-requisite. But in the end, it's still software.

 

[goMac]

I should have clarified. The compiler need to be written to address the new architecture. OS support helps, but isn't an absolute pre-requisite. But in the end, it's still software.

Actually, the compiler doesn't need to be re-written to use triple channel memory. Memory optimization (at least this sort) is entirely handled on hardware.

 

[TennisandMusic]

Errrr... if you have multiple gigs of video in memory, or are doing any transcoding that's not CPU bound, it's going to make a difference...

The only benchmarks I can find are people doing very low memory usage tests, which obviously are not going to be affected. Find me a heavy memory usage test that says they're the same.

iTunes encoding and games don't count.

Software doesn't need to be rewritten to take advantage of triple channel.

Go look at any multitasking benchmark where they flood the memory and cpu with real world apps, including several very memory intensive apps like 3D rendering all at the same time. Dual channel 860's beat out triple channel 920's. Google is your friend, I'm not going to spend my time scouring the net to find this information for you, when it is readily available. I've already done the "research" so I don't need to do it again. If there were a marked performance advantage to triple channel, I would say so. Unfortunately (because I would have liked to see one), there really just isn't.

Just saying it's triple channel and therefore better, is flat out incorrect. In real world usage you basically see zero advantage, even when running heavily threaded, very cpu and memory intensive applications. The 860 beats out the 920 every time pretty much. This is of course at stock speeds. Assuming it's at a clock for clock comparison you might see a TINY (talking very low single digits, 1-3%) advantage for the triple channel platform. However you can't do this on a Mac. The 860 runs a far more aggressive turbo mode that can clock itself up to 3.4+ghz at stock speeds. And it's base rate is 2.8. The mac pro can get up to 2.8 in it's own turbo mode, but that's it.

I am saying this without bias, and merely trying to help the OP. If the Mac Pro quad were the better machine I would say so. It's not. I imagine as soon as the i7 quads start hitting the shelves you'll see that with both machines at equal memory configs, the i7 will outperform the Mac Pro in just about everything not graphics card related, and even that is assuming a better card in the MP.

To the OP: Buying a mac pro because it is triple channel vs. the iMac's dual channel is a BAD decision. Go read any site that discusses the results of these designs to see why.

 

[goMac]

Go look at any multitasking benchmark where they flood the memory and cpu with real world apps, including several very memory intensive apps like 3D rendering all at the same time. Dual channel 860's beat out triple channel 920's. Google is your friend, I'm not going to spend my time scouring the net to find this information for you, when it is readily available. I've already done the "research" so I don't need to do it again. If there were a marked performance advantage to triple channel, I would say so. Unfortunately (because I would have liked to see one), there really just isn't.

Just saying it's triple channel and therefore better, is flat out incorrect. In real world usage you basically see zero advantage, even when running heavily threaded, very cpu and memory intensive applications. The 860 beats out the 920 every time pretty much. This is of course at stock speeds. Assuming it's at a clock for clock comparison you might see a TINY (talking very low single digits, 1-3%) advantage for the triple channel platform. However you can't do this on a Mac. The 860 runs a far more aggressive turbo mode that can clock itself up to 3.4+ghz at stock speeds. And it's base rate is 2.8. The mac pro can get up to 2.8 in it's own turbo mode, but that's it.

I am saying this without bias, and merely trying to help the OP. If the Mac Pro quad were the better machine I would say so. It's not. I imagine as soon as the i7 quads start hitting the shelves you'll see that with both machines at equal memory configs, the i7 will outperform the Mac Pro in just about everything not graphics card related, and even that is assuming a better card in the MP.

To the OP: Buying a mac pro because it is triple channel vs. the iMac's dual channel is a BAD decision. Go read any site that discusses the results of these designs to see why.

Ok... first... let's break this down...

You're trying to shoehorn a Xeon's performance on triple channel memory into benchmarks on i7's.

Because the Xeon uses multiple dies on a Quickpath bus, it's going to be able to far more easily take advantage of triple channel memory. Core i7 is limited to a single socket, which means you have another potential choke point.

This is why you don't see triple channel as a recommended configuration on the iMac.

On a machine with lot's of processing power, the bottleneck is always memory (pretty sure we just had a thread about this too.) In those cases, triple channel is going to provide a significant boost.

I actually just sat in on a session with an Intel engineer about this exact topic a few weeks ago.

 

[nanofrog]

Actually, the compiler doesn't need to be re-written to use triple channel memory. Memory optimization (at least this sort) is entirely handled on hardware.

I does if they're using a 32bit compiler, which they did.

Updating the CPU architecture (at least the Intel component architecture) would make sense to do it at the same time, as they can utilize the rest of the features available in it. It probably is dated back to Dual Core based parts. That's been a few years now...

 

[tri3limited]

If you ever want to go serious or become an even better hobbyist with Final Cut Pro you quite simply HAVE to get the Mac Pro.

The expansion slots will allow you to put in Blackmagic/Matrox/AJA Kona cards so you can ingest/playout/monitor your throughput.

I've just ordered the Octo-core on the basis that I can use my Matrox MXO2 - which is also nice and portable with my MBP (with PCIe). No getting around the fact that there is no playing out to Digi, HDCAM or SR without it, which means I couldn't do TV work and ultimately the goal for most people, hobbyists or otherwise, is to get something on TV one day.

 

[VirtualRain]

It occurred to me that I should clarify something on my thought process on this analysis.

My issue is not the $4450 in and of itself. My issue is the DIFFERENCE.

Right, it's also important to note that the difference means the Mac Pro is nearly double the cost of the iMac... which means, rather than upgrade the Mac Pro in a couple of years (spending even MORE money on top of the all ready rediculous initial cash outlay), you can simply buy the latest and greatest iMac.

Let's pretend you upgrade the Mac Pro in a couple of years as follows:

- Upgrade processor $500
- Upgrade graphics card $400
- Upgrade memory $300
- Upgrade to SSD $200

After two years, your total invested in a Mac Pro is

$4450 + $1400 = $5850

After buying two iMac's your total invested is...

$2400 x 2 = $4800

You are still ahead by $1000 and have the latest and greatest screen of the day as well... not to mention you have a two year old iMac to sell or hand down to another member of the family!

Buy the iMac and take your wife on a nice vacation!

 

[Badger^2]

I subscribe to Virtual Rains upgrade guide as well

In my studio I had Dual 1.25 MDDs (paid $1600), then Dual G5 2.0s (paid $1600) -- but then couldnt justify the MPs $2400 starting price, and the HUGE cost of PM ram... so I switched everyone to 20" and 24" 2.4/Radeon 2600Pro/4 gig ram AL iMacs when they first came out.

Huge improvement speed wise over the G5s, and I paid $1600 and less

Now, a little over 2 years later, I will probably switch everyone to 27" iMacs (well, I might wait another 6 months for the next rev, since our current iMacs still work great) -- for $1600 -- and they will be much faster than the original MPs i would have had to pay $2400 + ram for 2+ years ago.

I have no problem spending $1500 every 3 years for new macs. Factor in the resale value on my original iMacs and figure thats only $750...

 

[TheStrudel]

Many of you are assuming that FCP can actually use all of these resources (it can't right now) or that the OP is working with higher quality footage than it probably is. I don't know what format he could conceivably working in that demands higher bandwidth than FW 800 provides.

I know for a fact that FCP can only tap about a quarter of my Mac Pro (08)'s resources currently. Other software can do better, but he is basing his needs around FCP. Again, FCP 8 should address this, but the OP by no means appears to be editing high grade footage or on the bleeding edge of technology (again, correct me if I'm wrong).

The OP therefore gains the greatest value from the iMac because of attached screen and better bang for buck; he has not expressed a specific need for the expandability. I don't see him as a Matrox owner or likely to need PCIe cards at this juncture.

Memory performance is, at this time, essentially irrelevant for video editing at the level he professes to work at. CPU performance is likewise more than adequate for what he appears to be doing.

 

[goMac]

Many of you are assuming that FCP can actually use all of these resources (it can't right now) or that the OP is working with higher quality footage than it probably is. I don't know what format he could conceivably working in that demands higher bandwidth than FW 800 provides.

I know for a fact that FCP can only tap about a quarter of my Mac Pro (08)'s resources currently. Other software can do better, but he is basing his needs around FCP. Again, FCP 8 should address this, but the OP by no means appears to be editing high grade footage or on the bleeding edge of technology (again, correct me if I'm wrong).

The OP therefore gains the greatest value from the iMac because of attached screen and better bang for buck; he has not expressed a specific need for the expandability. I don't see him as a Matrox owner or likely to need PCIe cards at this juncture.

Memory performance is, at this time, essentially irrelevant for video editing at the level he professes to work at. CPU performance is likewise more than adequate for what he appears to be doing.

He's already mentioned he's running other software which I personally use on a Mac Pro at work which I know can heavily tap the CPU and the GPU.

Again, if he's not serious about video editing, it may not be an issue. But Magic Bullet Looks specifically can tap at least a 4850 fully. It can even tap a Quadro.

 

[Virtuoso]

The new iMacs look great - i7 Quads with a 2650x1440 screen. I'm sold on getting one as a second machine.

However, for FCP, drive speed is a very important factor, exponentially more so if you're editing high def. You may get away with a single track at 720p, but start trying to composite multiple tracks or move to 1080p and the system will choke to death.

Yes, you can use low res proxies, or wait and render the sections which won't play in realtime, but if you want to edit HD in realtime, realistically you need a 3 or 4 drive RAID0/5.

 

[VirtualRain]

The new iMacs look great - i7 Quads with a 2650x1440 screen. I'm sold on getting one as a second machine.

However, for FCP, drive speed is a very important factor, exponentially more so if you're editing high def. You may get away with a single track at 720p, but start trying to composite multiple tracks or move to 1080p and the system will choke to death.

Yes, you can use low res proxies, or wait and render the sections which won't play in realtime, but if you want to edit HD in realtime, realistically you need a 3 or 4 drive RAID0/5.

I agree, but it does depend a lot on the size of the video project. I have a buddy that does a lot of FCP editing on a MacBook Pro... small projects mind-you (eg. under 5 minutes in length).

Don't a lot of serious folks edit on FW800 drives?

Another option is to swap out the built-in SATA drive to a 160GB SSD which should be sufficient for modest sized video jobs... then use FW800 for project archival.

 

[Dr.Pants]

Another option is to swap out the built-in SATA drive to a 160GB SSD which should be sufficient for modest sized video jobs.

Unless modest video job requires live capture, which the SSD would be pushed to its limits at least to write depending on quality, depending on the drive. The read speeds are awesome. The write speeds, garbage collection, and UBE aren't up to par with the other expensive drive type out there known as SAS. Even consumer-line SATA drives has better UBE ratings then SSD.

However, in the OPs case, FW800 will most likely do the job well, or a RAIDed NAS.

 

[yoak]

I used to own the first 24" iMac that came out. I used it to edit hdv footage from my canon xl-H1 and xdcam ex HD from the Sony ex-1. This worked fine as I'm a cameraman and only edit on the side. Motion and color didn't work well ofcourse. I think the op will be happy with the iMac. It sounds like a while before he needs the expandability of the pro. We even used the iMac as a secondary machine when we edited 4 30min tv shows. The only place he will suffer is when rendering, but that takes time anyhow.
Get the iMac and if you feel you out grow it a couple of years down the road, just sell it. I sold mine to get the mbp and the 3 years newer mbp feels slower than my old iMac by the way