barefeats says get rid of mac pro???

[sbb155]

Has anyone seen the updated www.barefeats.com review of the imac?
Obviously the MP needs an update, hopefully will come this year.
Too bad the imac cant have multiple bays, but with TB maybe it is a great option for people on the fence between the two options.

 

[RebootD]

Has anyone seen the updated www.barefeats.com review of the imac?
Obviously the MP needs an update, hopefully will come this year.
Too bad the imac cant have multiple bays, but with TB maybe it is a great option for people on the fence between the two options.

Not until they offer one with a matte screen. Honestly I cannot invest in a 27in glossy display attached to my hardware. Plus the only affordable solution would be buy the 21in, attach my perfectly good NEC display but then I waste the TB port as a display adapter.

 

[colonelsanders]

Has anyone seen the updated www.barefeats.com review of the imac?
Obviously the MP needs an update, hopefully will come this year.
Too bad the imac cant have multiple bays, but with TB maybe it is a great option for people on the fence between the two options.

Interesting article and comparison. I know barefeats is limited in terms of the number & configuration of machines they have laying around to conduct these tests but I think they missed an opportunity to provide a baseline for people that might be thinking it's time to get rid of their MP.

Rather than comparing a BTO MP that costs roughly $3,899, to a BTO imac that costs $2,299, they could have used the BTO imac and compared it to the base MP that starts at $2,499. I think we would have seen the imac dominate the current quad core MP. Thus illustrating that the imac offers a superior overall value, at similar price to the base MP. Even better would have been to do all three. The BTO highend imac, the low end MP and the six core MP upgrade.

As for people on the fence, i think there is more to the equation than just the bays. Though your point re Thunderbolt is fair, we currently have (as far as i know) no real idea what those external thunderbolt enabled drives are going to sell for or how the consumer non-raid drives will perform in real world application.

I also believe evaluating the imac and MP on benchmarks alone is potentially short sighted. For me the real value proposition is in the MP's graphics cards and that's something that the imac will never be able to match as long as they continue using mobile gpus. For others it might be the dual ethernet ports, ECC ram, current tower form factor or ability to add various PCI components. It all depends on the intended application of the machine.

For me one thing is clear, the MP is in serious need of an update!

 

[philipma1957]

It all depends on your ram needs. 4 8gb sticks cost $2900 for the imac 4 8gb sticks cost 600 for the mac pro. if you have big ram needs the imac comes up short. If you top out at 12 or 14 gb ram for your program the imac comes up a winner.

3700 for the top of the line mac pro hex 1000 for the acd screen and 600 for ram cost 5300. the imac is 2500 plus 2900 cost 5400. the mac pro is a far better deal in this setup. same ram 32gb same screen better graphics and more storage .

but at 3700 plus 1000 plus 200 or 4900 for 16gb ram

vs 2500 plus 200 for 2700 for 16gb ram the imac would be slower but 22 hundred less then the 6 core 3.33ghz.

for base the imac is better it is faster as long as you don't need more then 16gb ram.

 

[TheStrudel]

Pretty sure they didn't actually say that...can we not have thread titles like that?

 

[Diesel-Benz]

Too bad the imac cant have multiple bays, but with TB maybe it is a great option for people on the fence between the two options.

The MacPro is for anyone that needs a real computer.
I'm getting a MP instead of an iMac because I want a more powerful graphics card, USB3.0 (a pcie card), the ability to install two hard drives and the ability to upgrade the CPU or graphics card in a few years without having to completely disassemble the computer.

 

[sbb155]

Pretty sure they didn't actually say that...can we not have thread titles like that?

This is what they said, exact lines:


TIME TO GET RID OF YOUR MAC PRO?
It depends. If you have a older, slower quad-core Mac Pro with a wimpy graphics card, the new crop of iMacs could be all you need -- especially with the Thunderbolt ports providing very fast external storage options.

 

[dh2005]

I, personally, think there's a rather glaring gap in Apple's computer lineup. If not more than one...! But there's one that bothers me.

I'd like for the Mac Pro range to start with a high-end consumer machine. Like, a Sandy Bridge i7, a desktop HD 5870, 8GB 1333MHz. Although I love my iMac, the problem with the integrated computer and screen is that you have to keep them both, or get rid of them both. Plus, I can't get at the components.

Even though I can't really afford it, I feel so strongly about this that I've considered buying a low-end Mac Pro.

 

[scottsjack]

This is what they said, exact lines:


TIME TO GET RID OF YOUR MAC PRO?
It depends. If you have a older, slower quad-core Mac Pro with a wimpy graphics card, the new crop of iMacs could be all you need -- especially with the Thunderbolt ports providing very fast external storage options.

Since you're having trouble understanding the barefeats article let me translate if for you. The point is that if you have an old, weak Mac Pro then maybe an iMac is all you need.

A quick look at their graphs illustrates that if you do need a really powerful Mac then the Mac Pro is The machine to get. The OP sounds kind of trollish to me. If you want an iMac then get one. They're really great but they're not Mac Pros. . . different machines for different uses.

 

[AppleDroid]

Yeah the article was mis-quoted and it seems like trolling. Delete?

 

[Pressure]

I, personally, think there's a rather glaring gap in Apple's computer lineup. If not more than one...! But there's one that bothers me.

I'd like for the Mac Pro range to start with a high-end consumer machine. Like, a Sandy Bridge i7, a desktop HD 5870, 8GB 1333MHz. Although I love my iMac, the problem with the integrated computer and screen is that you have to keep them both, or get rid of them both. Plus, I can't get at the components.

Even though I can't really afford it, I feel so strongly about this that I've considered buying a low-end Mac Pro.

Ah yes, the much discussed and fabled xMac.

This have been covered since...well, since the Mac Pro's introduction because PowerMac's were actually cheaper (G5 starting $1,999, G4 even cheaper).

 

[ugru]

Plus the only affordable solution would be buy the 21in, attach my perfectly good NEC display but then I waste the TB port as a display adapter.

You can daisy-chain TB peripherals: you can attach up to 5 external HD bays and still have the option to use your external display...

 

[dh2005]

Ah yes, the much discussed and fabled xMac.

This have been covered since...well, since the Mac Pro's introduction because PowerMac's were actually cheaper (G5 starting $1,999, G4 even cheaper).

Oh, I didn't think I was being original...!

Still, it does seem like an oversight to me. I was kinda press-ganged into getting the iMac, because the Mini's woefully underpowered and the Pro's too effin' expensive. The only thing in-between is an all-in-one that, yes, is very lovely - but I didn't rrrrrreally want an all-in-one...


[sigh]

 

[dcpmark]

This is what they said, exact lines:


TIME TO GET RID OF YOUR MAC PRO?
It depends. If you have a older, slower quad-core Mac Pro with a wimpy graphics card, the new crop of iMacs could be all you need -- especially with the Thunderbolt ports providing very fast external storage options.

And the very next line is:

"But as we have shown in the graphs above, the popular 6-core Westmere Mac Pro is significantly faster than the fastest iMac."

So for those who having difficulty with reading comprehension, the point of that comment is that IF you are in the market for a faster computer, AND you have an older, slower 4-core Mac Pro (as the OP seems to), you might only need the performance that the latest, fastest iMac gives. Just so you understand the performance levels, the latest, fastest 3.4ghz iMac has about the same performance as a 3.2ghz 8-core 08 Mac Pro that's about to be 3 generations old already. And they both cost about the same right now ($2200). But if you have a 4-core 08 Mac Pro or earlier, and you are looking to upgrade, the latest, fastest iMac will give you a nice performance upgrade for less money than a new Mac Pro, if you don't need the extra performance and features that a new Mac Pro provides.

 

[sbb155]

it is a compelling issue. The bottom of line MP does not offer a great value compared to the imac. However, the imac is not very expandable. It will be interesting to see how TB affects this.

It is not an issue for high-end MP users. However, for people on the fence, in which they could go EITHER way, it seems like the imac has closed the gap.

I like barefeats, and I applaud them for calling apple out on this one. However, if you NEED 6 core 3.33 performance, it isnt an issue.

I am a corporate user, but I am probably in that "gray area". I have creative pursuits, but not feature-length movies...

It is an interesting issue.

 

[barmann]

It is an interesting issue.

Maybe that's why it has already been discussed countless times in the past few years .

The iMac has been competitive for quite some time; I suggest that if you have to ask for the reasons to get a tower over an iMac, just get the iMac .
If you need a MacPro, you'll know why .

 

[derbothaus]

It also appears that initial speculation that the i7-2600 would keep pace with the W3680 does not appear to be the case. 6-core abuses the new iMac in everything. This fly's in the face of Windows reviews with i7-2600 holding pace with i7-980X and i7-990X. Including benches done in Cinebench and others. Maybe if there was 3Dmark for OS X... Maybe Apple did something sneaky to make the 2600 slower. Don't know.
http://www.barefeats.com/imac11b.html

 

[sbb155]

Maybe that's why it has already been discussed countless times in the past few years .

The iMac has been competitive for quite some time; I suggest that if you have to ask for the reasons to get a tower over an iMac, just get the iMac .
If you need a MacPro, you'll know why .

It is not as easy as "black and white"
There are people, corporations, and other entities in that "gray" area. I wish it was all black and white, but there are several computer decisions that aren't.

It really depends on TB... if TB is all they say it is, it will be very hard to justify the huge premium for the low end MP as a value. However, if TB is more like the mobileme mess-up, then the MP looks eminently better. We'll see. Is anyone else on the fence?

 

[dh2005]

Is anyone else on the fence?

Oh, for sure. I don't like the idea of buying computers that I can't upgrade. Pisses me off something terrible, actually. As I've said previously, I only bought this iMac because a). I wanted a Mac, and b). I wasn't willing to shell-out three grand for a Mac Pro and an Apple Cinema Display.


But, God, this iMac is annoying me, right now. The GPU is getting exposed by newer games, the CPU doesn't get video processing done as quickly as I'd like... and my only option is to sell it, lose money, and buy a whole new computer.


It's the only thing I miss about my PC days - being able to get my hands on the components.

 

[sbb155]

Oh, for sure. I don't like the idea of buying computers that I can't upgrade. Pisses me off something terrible, actually. As I've said previously, I only bought this iMac because a). I wanted a Mac, and b). I wasn't willing to shell-out three grand for a Mac Pro and an Apple Cinema Display.


But, God, this iMac is annoying me, right now. The GPU is getting exposed by newer games, the CPU doesn't get video processing done as quickly as I'd like... and my only option is to sell it, lose money, and buy a whole new computer.


It's the only thing I miss about my PC days - being able to get my hands on the components.

I am not gamer, so I dont know the answer. In your sig you put the i5, if I went imac I would get the i7 at this point, which is well into the MP performance as far as geekbench goes. Upgradeable components have always been a downside of macs, though, I here you.

 

[vohdoun]

The difference that gamers spoke of between the i5 and i7 was minimal. They said the i7 shines with video work, Photoshop/media stuff and the likes.

As for your 5850, what games is it struggling in? it's nothing but shoddy console ports these days, sadly.

 

[dh2005]

Agreed. An i7 might help me out with editing, but I'm still very much a hobbyist at that. The i5's mostly fine, at the moment.


The GPU is actually a 5850m - which is more like a 5750. Doesn't run anything remotely challenging at 1440p, and some stuff (like that lazily-programmed bag of crap, Crysis...) doesn't even run that well at 1080p.

But it's more about my ability to 'move with the times'. With an iMac, I just can't. I can't swap out the bits - and it kills me.


The only thing that hurts about my move to the Mac (which has been, mostly, joyous), has been that, it seems, I'm no longer allowed to have control over my preferred hardware. Is this a price that cannot but be paid...?

 

[Eidorian]

Ah yes, the much discussed and fabled xMac.

This have been covered since...well, since the Mac Pro's introduction because PowerMac's were actually cheaper (G5 starting $1,999, G4 even cheaper).

In the year twenty o' five...

$1,499 - 2.0 GHz iMac G5
$1,499 - 1.8 GHz SP Power Mac G5

It is happening all over again.

 

[bearcatrp]

It's obvious apple is trying to push folks to the iMac. Who can afford a new Mac pro? My last Mac pro was a 2008 2.8. Great machine. 8 real cores. A new comparable one is a quad core with hyperthreading running about the same price. I still own a 2006 24 inch iMac. Still working great for basic stuff. But purchased the Mac pro to video edit with multiple internal drives I can replace when needed. If apple would ever make a iMac with accessible drives and graphics cards I can replace, AND a matte screen, I would get another. But since I couldn't afford a newer Mac pro, I built my own for allot less and just as powerful. Looks like the Mac pro's are targeted for businesses with deep pockets. If I did have deep pockets, I would get another, but have to go where I can afford. Funny thing though, not missing it. Win7 isn't as bad as some folks say.

 

[dh2005]

It's obvious apple is trying to push folks to the iMac. Who can afford a new Mac pro? My last Mac pro was a 2008 2.8. Great machine. 8 real cores. A new comparable one is a quad core with hyperthreading running about the same price. I still own a 2006 24 inch iMac. Still working great for basic stuff. But purchased the Mac pro to video edit with multiple internal drives I can replace when needed. If apple would ever make a iMac with accessible drives and graphics cards I can replace, AND a matte screen, I would get another. But since I couldn't afford a newer Mac pro, I built my own for allot less and just as powerful. Looks like the Mac pro's are targeted for businesses with deep pockets. If I did have deep pockets, I would get another, but have to go where I can afford. Funny thing though, not missing it. Win7 isn't as bad as some folks say.

Much truth.

It's a drag, though, that Apple are forcing me to buy something I don't want... when, honestly, I'd spend as much, if not more, on a different Mac. I feel like my needs aren't being catered for.

I hear you about the 'accessible' iMac - but I don't ever see it happening. It sells too well, as it is. And as Macs become increasingly 'consumer' devices, this will only become more so.


And Windows 7 is fine... though I prefer OS X.