iMac or Mac Pro?
by joe.aimonetti - 7/21/09 11:53 AM
What are the advantages and disadvantages to each setup?
Why would someone go with a Mac Pro?
What are you experiences with each system?
ATTENTION: UPDATE to forum outage (3/10/2014): The update to our site has gone on longer than anticipated. So the forums will continue to be in READ ONLY mode until further notice. Please do accept my apologizes for this inconvenience.
--Lee Koo, CNET Community
by: joe.aimonetti July 21, 2009 11:53 AM PDT
1 person likes this thread
Total posts: 16 (Showing page 1 of 1)
You work for Cnet? Does that mean this is a trick question?
Anyways I have had a mac pro (actually power mac). I like it. It is a tower type of desktop which means easy to repair. an iMac is very complicated to repair compared to a mac pro. The iMac on the other hand began with a resemblence to the vintage Pizza Box and has now evolved to almost become a giant laptop...The screen bacame LCD or equivilent and the Hardware became smaller. The hardware items on newer iMacs are very small. This smaller hardware could mean energy efficiency.
This is not a trick question, rather more of a general inquiry. Everyone has their tastes as to what they think is a better Desktop solution. The first Mac I bought was the original lampshade iMac in 2003 (after using Macs throughout school), opting for the all-in-one solution as opposed to the G4 Tower.
One person's advantage is another's disadvantage. Look no further than the Mac v. PC debate for that one. Thanks for your response nonetheless!
Is the LCD is better or Crt for the convenient performance..
Performance (how fast is it) isn't influenced by the screen type. So the answer to your question: it doesn't matter.
I have a Mac Pro and chose it because I wanted to have easy options for expansion. I added extra RAM (now have 5 GB) and three hard drives in addition to a second optical drive. Also, I do a lot of work with Photoshop and I need a monitor (currently a 23" Apple Cinema Display) that can be accurately calibrated. Current iMacs have a glossy screen and, although I have never used one, many photographers complain about the high gloss.
Obviously, your needs may vary so you'll have to draw your own conclusions.
iMac is inexpensive compared to the Mac Pro. Someone on a budget would find the all-in-one design and price very attractive.
It is a seamless product for a user who isn't concerned with upgrading hardware components, who simply wants a competent computer to do run some programs, surf the internet, email, and do a few games.
Like most computers the iMac isn't optimized for games, and the high end games will likely stress its capabilities.
It comes with enough RAM and has the option for additional RAM.
My brother is a professional photographer and finds his iMac to be sufficient for his graphics needs. So it is a competent graphics workstation.
Price and performance, small footprint, and all-in-one form make it a very good small business/home businss and home computer.
Depends on what you need
The replies pretty much sum up the general differences. Most will be quite happy with an iMac while others will opt for the Mac Pro.
I chose the Mac Pro because I needed a machine with the added capabilities of the Mac Pro. I currently have a hardware RAID with 1.3TB in a RAID 5 to store my data. I also added eSATA ports with an internal connector off if the motherboard. I am not sure about the latest models, but my 2008 has an eSATA port on the motherboard. You just need to add a connector cable with two ports (available at macsales.com for around $30 to have external eSATA. This allows even faster I/O with external drives for backups.
The setup that I use for my business has 16GB of memory, but not everyone will need this much.
The iMac is a very capable machine, but the Mac Pro is really a workstation class machine. Not everyone will need (or be able to afford) a Mac Pro for the majority of your computing needs.
i'm looking to upgrade from an old G4 (10.2). 95% of what i do is edit with Final Cut Pro. However, I want to move into editing HD and need to upgrade the entire system.
though the macpro is ideal, is the imac sufficient? i like the idea of upgradability but never did with my G4 so wonder if it's overkill.
Mac Pro tackles demanding computing tasks with lots more style than any Windows-based tower, go for the mac pro if you still want to experience a desktop style pc.
iMac 2.8GHz i7
CPU i7 Upgrade: $200
Memory (4 x 2GB from Apple): $200
Hard Drive (1TB from apple, not user replaceable): included
Graphics Card: included
External 2TB backup system: $280 (OWC Mercury Elite-AL Pro)
Anti-Glare film (ClearCal): $40
Notes: No graphics future card upgrade. Backup is external. No way to add internal cards for eSATA or anything else. Screen somewhat compromised by anti-glare film.
Mac Pro 2.66GHz Quad-core Xeon
CPU i7 Upgrade: not needed
Memory (4 x 2GB from Apple): $250
Hard Drive (640 from apple, 1TB from 3rd party): $80
Graphics card: $200
Internal 2TB backup drive (third party): $175
30" LCD Monitor: $1200
Notes: Large CPU box. Larger anti-glare monitor. RAM and card expandability. No camera or Mic.
how do you accurately calibrate an apple monitor? Where are the RGB gain and bias controls?
Perhaps it would be better to post that as a separate thread
in either the OS X forum or the general discussions area.
I chose the Mac Pro for one simple reason. choice of monitors. My old setup was a G4 Dual 1.42 GHz machine with and 20 inch Apple Cinema Display. I loved that display and the 9 year old box was still running PhotoShop CS2 well. But, alas one day it died. I was originally looking at the iMacs, and any iMac today will be many times faster than my old setup, so it should run PhotoShop just fine. Problem is the monitor, while the Apple Displays are really very nice, I HATE GLOSSY monitors for Photo Editing. My eyes get tired, reflections are an annoyance and I find they don't work well in a scan/edit/print to paper environment. Its a personal preference, but its very important. Even MacBook Pro's used to have the glossy/matter options and that is disappearing as well. So my choice became, a MacBook Pro with an external monitor or a Mac Pro with a non Apple monitor. I opted for spending the bucks on the Mac Pro for the added expandability. My computer also acts as a music/video server and file server on my network and leaving a laptop running 24x7 is probably just going to cause some heat issues etc.
So if you like the iMac display, there is no reason to spend the bucks on the Mac Pro unless you will be doing extensive gaming, extensive video editing, or need the expandability. There is no questions, its a lot more money.
Well you're not taking a poll...
If you are taking a poll, it's not scientific.
I purchased a Mac Pro to replace my 9-year-old G4-400 (Sawtooth) that I had upgraded with a 1GHz Sonnet processor upgrade and 1.5G of system RAM. I purchased what was the fastest Mac Pro Apple makes, because I believe it's a good idea to buy as much processor you can afford because it will last longer.
I dropped some $7,000 on my new Cheese Grater along with an Apple 24" Cinema Display.
Last fall, Apple released a new iMac that gave me pause. It contains a Quad Processor and it runs faster than my Mac Pro. With the same sized hard drive and the fastest processor Apple makes, it costs $2,700, which means I could just about purchase three for the price I paid for my Mac Pro. And the monitor's free. And it's bigger. And it's better technology.
I'm not suffering from buyer's remorse -- I like my Mac Pro. It has room for four internal drives and I have two that run in tandem, a 1.5T drive as my Time Machine backup, a 1T drive for my boot drive and a spare 1T cloned drive. Video is on my array.
If you are doing video applications, a Mac Pro gives you the expandability that you need to get the job done. And if you need a monitor that Apple does not sell (and they do sell good ones), you need a Mac Pro. But if you are doing anything but the most demanding of applications, the iMac is a really great value.
If all I was doing was design work, I'd get the 27 inch Core2Duo iMac. Occasional video with that, the Quad Core iMac. Heavy duty video where you must have an external array and you must have a cloned boot drive as well as a backup of everything, the Mac Pro Cheese Grater.
But that's an answer that really is a question: What are you doing with your Mac and what do you plan on doing? I have edited on Core2Duo iMacs and MacBook Pros and they work just great. But you should keep in mind that Apple's Final Cut Studio applications are still 32-bit applications with access to up to around 2G of system RAM. If you have Motion, Final Cut Pro and Color all open at the same time during your project, you're looking at these applications consuming 6G of system RAM. And these three applications will each use as many processors as are available (though I think Color may be using your GPU a whole lot, instead).
Apple won't make a version of Final Cut that doesn't work on a MacBook Pro. They realize they sell computers that way through their software and there are a lot of copies of Final Cut all over the world working away on their portable Macs in far off locations cutting down raw video for satellite feeds as well as editing outright in the field. But if you're editing a film project, using RED Cine, you should consider something more capable of handling, rotoscoping, compositing and editing really large images on monitors that can display the full color gamut. And for that, you need a Mac Pro.
Final Cut Pro or Premiere Pro
I am inclined to buy a Mac Pro.
Which Software "runs" better?
I'll be doing home video editing for DVD.
Can you give me a idea of how how should have the machine configured -CPU, RAM ect.
ALso it it true that it's better to go with a Non-Apple Monitir because their monitors a glossy, and therefore reflective?
Total posts: 16 (Showing page 1 of 1)