27" iMac vs. 4-core Mac Pro

[CaptainChunk]

Don't the external drives have 2nd connections for daisy-chains? All of mine do, even a portable one for laptop drives. It's all plug-n-play, so you should be able to plug in anywhere, if you have a port available. A hub should be just fine if you need that route.

Most do, but I actually have a couple of FW drives that lack pass-through.

Another consideration is bandwidth. As you add more devices to the chain, things do get slower; keep in mind that every device on the chain would be sharing the same lone FW controller. In critical applications where speed is important, expansion to add an additional FW controller (whether it be PCIe or ExpressCard) is crucial. This is one of the areas where the iMac obviously suffers.

But all in all, I'm pretty impressed with these new top-end iMac offerings. Apple could have been using mobile C2Q chips last year and they finally deliver quad-core with the new Lynnfield chips.

 

[osharp]

The i7 iMac is looking very interesting as a workstation for rendering vs a Mac Pro.

From what i can put together from various Cinebench tests around you are looking at ~15000 for the Quad-Core i7 iMac vs ~25000 for the mid-range Dual 2.66 Quad Core Mac Pro (8 Cores). My 2.5Ghz Macbook Pro got ~5000

So the iMac is ~60% the speed of a Mac Pro but at only ~35% the price (<30% if you don't go with the 2x4GB sticks and stay with 4x2Gb) ... and you get a 27" screen v a 24"

pretty damn attractive. You may still want a bunch of dumb machines just for rendering grunt but as a general workstation it looks pretty good to me

 

[parakiet]

The i7 iMac is looking very interesting as a workstation for rendering vs a Mac Pro.

From what i can put together from various Cinebench tests around you are looking at ~15000 for the Quad-Core i7 iMac vs ~25000 for the mid-range Dual 2.66 Quad Core Mac Pro (8 Cores). My 2.5Ghz Macbook Pro got ~5000

imac quad vs mac pro single quad, that would be a nice test

 

[Nadav35]

ha! try this one..

The i7 iMac is looking very interesting as a workstation for rendering vs a Mac Pro.

From what i can put together from various Cinebench tests around you are looking at ~15000 for the Quad-Core i7 iMac vs ~25000 for the mid-range Dual 2.66 Quad Core Mac Pro (8 Cores). My 2.5Ghz Macbook Pro got ~5000

So the iMac is ~60% the speed of a Mac Pro but at only ~35% the price (<30% if you don't go with the 2x4GB sticks and stay with 4x2Gb) ... and you get a 27" screen v a 24"

pretty damn attractive. You may still want a bunch of dumb machines just for rendering grunt but as a general workstation it looks pretty good to me

Got a 3.2 2008 mac pro.. 32GB memory, with 3 ATI RADEON 4870s installed.. and 4 HUGE SSD drives - i think I can mop the floor with an imac!

 

[Th3Crow]

Mac Pro soon?

So - how long will Apple allow the iMac to sport better processors than the Mac Pros? Will there be an update imminently? Within weeks? Or will it wait until the new year? I would have thought they'd want to keep their Pros at the top of the heap?

 

[Umbongo]

So - how long will Apple allow the iMac to sport better processors than the Mac Pros? Will there be an update imminently? Within weeks? Or will it wait until the new year? I would have thought they'd want to keep their Pros at the top of the heap?

They will wait until the next generation of processors which should come late Q1-Q2 by current rumours and reports. This is not the first time iMacs have had faster processors than the Mac Pro base systems. The Mac Pro is still the better choice for heavy computing usage as well as having a broader set of features and expandability options.

 

[shadow1]

the mac pro is bad value for money now.

 

[300D]

The MP is at the end of its average cycle. It will probably get a speed bump to the 3.2GHz CPU (for the top option) and drop the current low-end 2.66/2.26 options.

 

[Umbongo]

The MP is at the end of its average cycle. It will probably get a speed bump to the 3.2GHz CPU (for the top option) and drop the current low-end 2.66/2.26 options.

No it isn't, the cycle is over a year. The buyer's guide is wrong if that is what you are basing it on. They don't need to do anything with the Mac Pro, it's selling points are no different and if someone chooses an iMac over it Apple don't care.

 

[MRU]

I have a 2006 2.66 Dual Xeon MacPro with 8GB ram & 8800GT + Dell 24" LCD

I'm tempted to buy a i7 27" iMac with 8GB ram, but doubt I'll see any performance increase in my day to day running and that is holding me back.

It's just a really sexy iMac and the screen estate is a bonus.....

 

[njean777]

I wouldn't buy the iMac unless you get the quad core variant. Just not worth getting a dual core now considering it's nearly 2010 and we are so close to the release of a 6 core cpu from intel. Dual core is just so 2006.

However, not sure what AMD is doing with their new 5 series and the mobile gpu space. Would've been nice to see a mobile 5850 in the imacs which would be on par with the gtx 285. Oh well.

The problem with your statement is that not very many programs use 4 cores yet. Other then photoshop, maya, and Final cut. Not a lot of programs uses 4 cores. Games still run better on dual cores. I dont think 4 cores will be useful for most people until maybe 2012. By then you will be able to get a computer with 8gb of ram stock lol. Also paying 1700+ for a quad core is really pushing it. I could build my own pc for sub 1000 with a meaty quad core. I personally unless you absolutely need a quad core for professional work believe that there is no point for them right now. Sure its cool to say hey i have a quad core but unless you are running professional programs its a waste.

 

[MTI]

The problem with your statement is that not very many programs use 4 cores yet.

The same line was used when Apple switched from Core Duo to Core 2 Duo . . . from Core 2 Duo to Quad in the Pro . . . et cetera.

If an owner is going to keep their computer for a few years (not just product cycles), then the bet is that software, including SL's Grand Central and the Turbo mode built into the Quad, will justify the extra $ today.

 

[Inno]

The same line was used when Apple switched from Core Duo to Core 2 Duo . . . from Core 2 Duo to Quad in the Pro . . . et cetera.

If an owner is going to keep their computer for a few years (not just product cycles), then the bet is that software, including SL's Grand Central and the Turbo mode built into the Quad, will justify the extra $ today.

Exactly on point. Especially for an iMac that can't have several of the components upgraded, you have to be thinking of what its going to be doing in at least 1 year, and into 2 years, and hopefully 3 years.

Unless you are made of money, you surely could hope to get 2, and even better 3-4 years out of the purchase.

I am assuming, and I could of course be wrong, that Apple is going to eat their own dogfood and start using GCD heavily in the Finder, the OS guts, QuickTime, Core Animation, and etc, and I want a system that is ready to spread that love around in 1-2 years when that starts to sink in.

 

[AppleThis&That]

After this iMac update, I'm sure the Mac Pros will get theirs. Pros will always be better.

 

[andyOSX]

I'll admit, I'm having a lot of difficulty resisting the charms of the top-end 27". I currently have a 2GHz 1st-gen Mac Pro, and it would be a nice bump up in speed and capability, but there are two main things that might keep me from buying the iMac:

1) No SSD option. I'm currently booting both my Mac Pro and my unibody MacBook from SSDs, and am loathe to go back to platter-based storage for the OS/Applications.

I agree with you there, I have been saving up for a nice Mac Pro but now that I can get an i7 iMac with such a gorgeous display for so cheap, I am going to go that route.

I agonized over the lack of SSD options as well, but think I have found a solution. I am going to keep the internal SATA drive as my media drive, and install an X25 M G2 in the optical bay using this and use it as my boot drive.

Apparently it will work in the new 27" iMac as well according to iFixit. Does anyone know if I connect it to the optical bay SATA connector will I still get the full 3gbps of throughput?

I am not going to install it myself. I'm going to pay one of the local Apple dealers to do it. Hope it won't void my warranty but haven't been able to get confirmation on that yet. No way I am crippling that i7 with a slow-ass HDD so I will do it regardless, but losing the warranty status would be a shame.

Update: from what I've read now, apparently there is no permanent changes made by taking off the glass, so even if it technically may void the warranty, if you put everything back where it was successfully there should be no way to tell.

 

[thermodynamic]

The Mac Pro still has 3 main advantages, at least IMHO:

1) Greater expandability (moot point to some)
2) Xeon vs. Core i5/i7 (how much difference is this, anyway?)
3) Ability to have dual EXACTLY MATCHED monitors (big deal to me - if they're not exactly the same, I don't want two, but if you have a 27" do you really need two?)

Then again, you save $500 AND get a 27" display, all in one snazzy unit. I think I could live with these "compromises."

1. VERY true (it also means direct SATA speeds; firewire cannot begin to match and USB for drive transfer? LOL )
2. Xeon is made from better quality wafers and supports ECC RAM. Otherwise, no difference.
3. True

That 27" display is nice, but I've found the expandability of the Pro to be well worth it.