Base Mac Pro or Top of the Line iMac?

[JoeFkling]

I am in need of an upgrade. My 2011 iMac 21.5" is on its last bit of go. I am eyeing a 27" iMac with the i7 upgrade but then I started peaking into the Mac pro. Its not a huge price difference and within my budget. But is a base model Pro going to be better for me than the iMac?

I mostly do photography. Photo mechanic, Lightroom and photoshop. ALmost no video work and if I do its most iMovie. My raw files are around 30-40mb each and usually dealing with tons of them. Is a mac pro overkill? I am eyeing the iMac pro but with a $5k starting point I think thats just not where I want to put that extra $1500+. I also already own a 2015 Macbook Pro but it only has 8GB of ram and struggles with full on edits. Great for field work but not for heavy stuff at home and if I were to sell it now I would take such a bath on the value that its better to just upgrade the home system and keep the macbook pro for field word.

USB C doesnt really matter to me much so thats not in the equation for me.

So, any thoughts?

 

[Samuelsan2001]

I am in need of an upgrade. My 2011 iMac 21.5" is on its last bit of go. I am eyeing a 27" iMac with the i7 upgrade but then I started peaking into the Mac pro. Its not a huge price difference and within my budget. But is a base model Pro going to be better for me than the iMac?

I mostly do photography. Photo mechanic, Lightroom and photoshop. ALmost no video work and if I do its most iMovie. My raw files are around 30-40mb each and usually dealing with tons of them. Is a mac pro overkill? I am eyeing the iMac pro but with a $5k starting point I think thats just not where I want to put that extra $1500+. I also already own a 2015 Macbook Pro but it only has 8GB of ram and struggles with full on edits. Great for field work but not for heavy stuff at home and if I were to sell it now I would take such a bath on the value that its better to just upgrade the home system and keep the macbook pro for field word.

USB C doesnt really matter to me much so thats not in the equation for me.

So, any thoughts?

The iMac is the better choice for you, unless you are rendering 12 hours a day, the mac pro is beaten in benchmarks by the new iMacs by quite a margin. As to upgrades I would go full ssd, with external storage for photos ,over the i7 but both if you can spend the money and upgrade the RAM yourself (a 16gb kit plus the 8gb already installed for 24gb will see you right for your use case for a decade), go with the 580 GPU its VR ready so should see you through a fair few years.

Most importantly the iMac display is brilliant and to get that on a mac pro will take two display port cables and cost a grand.

 

[Anonymous Freak]

Right now, don't even consider the Mac Pro. It hasn't been updated in four years, and a new one is due next year.

For photo work, an upgraded iMac should do fine, especially with its high-quality display. Go for an SSD as the only internal storage, and as much RAM as you can afford right now. If you get the 27" model, you can always upgrade the RAM yourself later.

 

[Dingster101]

iMac Pro is coming in December... something to think about

 

[theluggage]

am eyeing a 27" iMac with the i7 upgrade

If you're not doing video, pro audio, 3D etc. then think about whether you really need the i7 upgrade. It is, of course, faster than the i5, but mainly earns its keep when doing long jobs like video rendering (at which point the iMac fan cranks up and makes a quite noticeable noise).

Go for an SSD as the only internal storage,

Agree - or if you really, really must have a lot of internal storage, avoid the 1TB (which has a measly 32GB of Flash) and go for the bigger (2TB, 3TB) Fusion drives that come with a larger SSD component.

and as much RAM as you can afford right now.

...not necessarily, since one beauty of the 27" iMac is that you can upgrade the RAM later if you need it.

You certainly don't want to pay Apple's RAM upgrade prices, so only consider the 8GB model. Sweet spot is probably to immediately buy a 16GB upgrade kit from Crucial or suchlike (2 x 8GB sticks that go in the two free slots), which will give you 24GB total for less than Apple charges for an upgrade to 16GB. That's more than enough RAM for most people, but if you turn out not to be "most people" you can later replace the original 8GB from Apple with a 16 or 32GB kit.

 

[JoeFkling]

I was pretty sure the iMac was gonna be the choice just wanted to see what everyone thought. Upgrading the ram 3rd party always makes sense which is what I did to my current one. Replaced drive with SSD and put in 32gb of ram. Ill probably order the i7 because it doesnt break my budget and go with the SSD. Photos are already on large storage externally and I move the gallery I am working on onto the SSD to work it faster.

Thanks for the the thoughts. Looks like I know what Ill be ordering.

 

[smallcoffee]

I was pretty sure the iMac was gonna be the choice just wanted to see what everyone thought. Upgrading the ram 3rd party always makes sense which is what I did to my current one. Replaced drive with SSD and put in 32gb of ram. Ill probably order the i7 because it doesnt break my budget and go with the SSD. Photos are already on large storage externally and I move the gallery I am working on onto the SSD to work it faster.

Thanks for the the thoughts. Looks like I know what Ill be ordering.

If you can wait for the new iMac Pro! It comes out next month.

 

[ZapNZs]

IIRC, the iMac with the quad core i7-7700k has roughly the same multicore performance as the Mac Pro with the hecta core Xeon across various synthetic benchmarks. But, to my understanding, the iMac has in its favor: far better single-core performance, faster RAM, much faster dGPU, and a much faster SSD. For mission-critical reliability, there may still be some reason to consider the Mac Pro - but the 5k iMacs have been extremely reliable systems, and you are going to eliminate what I would argue is its weakest point (which is the HDD portion that comprises half of the Fusion Drive.)

So, FWIW, based on my first-hand sales/service experience with other Users who use their Macs for heavy editing, I think a 5k iMac with a i7-7700k, a massive internal SSD, and a DIY RAM upgrade will suit you very, very well. You are going to fall in love with that beautiful display...you probably won't want to edit on anything else!

IMO, the i7-7700k is a reasonable performance upgrade over the i5-7600k for the money, and with it brings processing power you can probably put to very good use.

The insanely fast internal SSD the 5k iMac has will certainly work in your favor over the older SSD in the Mac Pro or an even slower external/internal SATA SSD. For this reason, I personally feel investing in a larger 1-2TB SSD size is justifiable, should the budget permit (getting external storage that is equally fast as the internal storage is insanely pricy, and options are currently limited.)

And, since it's not a huge monetary upgrade (IIRC it's only like $100 or $200), you might as well opt for the Radeon Pro 580 GPU, simply on the basis that it sounds like you are willing to invest in a system for a long service life.

(The price of the entry level iMac Pro will be about $1,800 more than a 5k iMac with a 7700k, 580 GPU, 1 TB SSD, and a DIY 32GB RAM upgrade.)

 

[ctrlzone]

I am in need of an upgrade. My 2011 iMac 21.5" is on its last bit of go. I am eyeing a 27" iMac with the i7 upgrade but then I started peaking into the Mac pro. Its not a huge price difference and within my budget. But is a base model Pro going to be better for me than the iMac?

I mostly do photography. Photo mechanic, Lightroom and photoshop. ALmost no video work and if I do its most iMovie. My raw files are around 30-40mb each and usually dealing with tons of them. Is a mac pro overkill? I am eyeing the iMac pro but with a $5k starting point I think thats just not where I want to put that extra $1500+. I also already own a 2015 Macbook Pro but it only has 8GB of ram and struggles with full on edits. Great for field work but not for heavy stuff at home and if I were to sell it now I would take such a bath on the value that its better to just upgrade the home system and keep the macbook pro for field word.

USB C doesnt really matter to me much so thats not in the equation for me.

So, any thoughts?

mac pro costs way more , thats workstation class hardware, and actually useless for you

you really profit from a good screen, a high single core speed (i7 > xeon), and a fast SSD. iMac>mac pro.

iMac 5k, imo the perfect Machine for you.
[doublepost=1510959422][/doublepost]

If you're not doing video, pro audio, 3D etc. then think about whether you really need the i7 upgrade. It is, of course, faster than the i5, but mainly earns its keep when doing long jobs like video rendering (at which point the iMac fan cranks up and makes a quite noticeable noise).


Agree - or if you really, really must have a lot of internal storage, avoid the 1TB (which has a measly 32GB of Flash) and go for the bigger (2TB, 3TB) Fusion drives that come with a larger SSD component.



...not necessarily, since one beauty of the 27" iMac is that you can upgrade the RAM later if you need it.

You certainly don't want to pay Apple's RAM upgrade prices, so only consider the 8GB model. Sweet spot is probably to immediately buy a 16GB upgrade kit from Crucial or suchlike (2 x 8GB sticks that go in the two free slots), which will give you 24GB total for less than Apple charges for an upgrade to 16GB. That's more than enough RAM for most people, but if you turn out not to be "most people" you can later replace the original 8GB from Apple with a 16 or 32GB kit.

i disagree on the point that an i7 is for video and pro audio, high core count is key for this applications.
the difference between an i5 and a i7 doesn't bring anything significantly to the table there.

while in his use case a i7 makes a significant difference, since highest single clock speed is crucial for smooth operation.

its usually a bad idea to stick different memory sticks in your machine.
i have to disagree on the fusion drive, he should stay away from those.

out of all components the apple SSD brings the most speed for his work and is totally worth it,
btw, the bigger the size, the faster the SSD is.

he should just get 32GB from the start on + the i7.
this way you never need to touch it again, an you can focus on your work, which is far more important than a couple hundred bucks every 7 years or so.

 

[Trusteft]

Well, IF I were you and could wait, I would wait to see the new iMac Pro that is coming out in a month or so.
If I had to get a new system RIGHT NOW and money was not that much of a deal, I would consider getting a Mac Pro for the hell of it and if I already had a good monitor and I was planning on getting a new system later next year. I would love to own a Mac Pro, but as it is now with the iMac Pro coming so soon and the next Mac Pro coming in 2018 and the current Mac Pro being already long in the tooth, I just wouldn't buy one if to use as a main machine for a long time.

 

[alphaod]

The Mac Pro is so old right now...

Those apps you mentioned all run on Windows, do you really need a Mac?

If not, there are tons of powerful options out there or you can built you own that's faster than the Mac Pro. And the video acceleration in Windows is better too should you venture into video.

Personally I'm not a fan of the all-in-one solution that is the iMac.

 

[theluggage]

i disagree on the point that an i7 is for video and pro audio, high core count is key for this applications

...and, unlike the i5, the i7 supports hyperthreading, so you get 8 virtual cores. Not as good as 8 real cores, of course, but often better than 4.

while in his use case a i7 makes a significant difference, since highest single clock speed is crucial for smooth operation.

The difference is about 10%. That is not going to make a noticeable difference in terms of "smooth operation". Now, 10% off a 3-hour video encode job (or more thanks to hyperthreading) or squeezing in another effect in Logic Pro may be valuable - but in general use you're gonna need a stopwatch to notice the difference.

Just for the avoidance of doubt: yes folks, the i7 is faster than the i5 and will pay for itself if you're doing processor-intensive work for money. However, the i5 is quieter and cheaper and probably fast enough for many applications.

its usually a bad idea to stick different memory sticks in your machine.

Nonsense - provided that you always install matching pairs of DIMMS and get the correct speed. The RAM sold by Crucial is the same Micron RAM that Apple uses.

Reality check: 16GB RAM is enough for the majority of people. 24GB RAM (2x4Gb Apple + 2x8GB 3rd Party) is cheaper than 16GB from Apple and is more than enough for most people. Adding surplus RAM can improve performance by acting as a file cache - but you're paying good money for diminishing returns, especially on a SSD machine. If you know that you're in the minority who need more RAM (e.g. pro audio with lots of sample-based instruments) then, by all means, get 32GB or 64GB from the start.

i have to disagree on the fusion drive, he should stay away from those.

...perhaps when I said "if you really, really must have a lot of internal storage" I should have added a third "really", or maybe put "if" in bold, or a red flashing marquee around "internal"? The pertinent fact: the 2TB and 3TB Fusion drives have a more credible 128GB SSD component (big enough to be a system disc in its own right). All-SSD is better and (to me) having your bulk storage external makes sense, but the turkey to avoid is the 1TB Fusion with its feeble 32GB SSD.

this way you never need to touch it again, an you can focus on your work, which is far more important than a couple hundred bucks every 7 years or so.

If you have cash to burn then feel free to buy the absolute top specification - surprise surprise, more is better. In fact, why bother with third party RAM when its only a couple of hundred extra to have Apple pre-fit it? However, some people out there are on a fixed budget or reliant on expensive credit and may want to prioritise. That's their decision, but its useful to have the information.

 

[JoeFkling]

The Mac Pro is so old right now...

Those apps you mentioned all run on Windows, do you really need a Mac?

If not, there are tons of powerful options out there or you can built you own that's faster than the Mac Pro. And the video acceleration in Windows is better too should you venture into video.

Personally I'm not a fan of the all-in-one solution that is the iMac.

I prefer to not work in the windows environment. It is just not enjoyable. Too frustrating as I am stuck on one all day at my 9-5 and the frustration builds all day.



As for my choice, Just ordered a 27" i7 and 512 SSD. Gonna get the 2x16 upgrade from OWC for a total of 40 for ram. Thanks for all the thoughts and guidance.

 

[Trusteft]

I prefer to not work in the windows environment. It is just not enjoyable. Too frustrating as I am stuck on one all day at my 9-5 and the frustration builds all day.



As for my choice, Just ordered a 27" i7 and 512 SSD. Gonna get the 2x16 upgrade from OWC for a total of 40 for ram. Thanks for all the thoughts and guidance.

IMO good choice. I hope it serves you well for many years to come.

 

[jaduff46]

Good call! I won’t need that much ram or speed when I upgrade but will be all SSD on another 27” iMac. Will be nice to have Retina on it when it happens.

 

[h9826790]

iMac (not Pro).

For your workflow, all you need is just a fast CPU, a fast SSD, and enough RAM (anything above 16GB is enough).

You won’t benefit (much) from faster GPU, dual GPU, 128GB RAM, high CPU core count, etc. No point to pay for the Pro (either iMac Pro or Mac Pro), but unable to utilise it.

 

[alphaod]

I prefer to not work in the windows environment. It is just not enjoyable. Too frustrating as I am stuck on one all day at my 9-5 and the frustration builds all day.

Fair enough. I only mention it because a lot of people switched to Mac or haven't used Windows in so long they think it's still like the old crappy BSOD days of yesteryears. If you don't like working in the Windows environment, that's totally understandable.

I would hazard to guess your work computer isn't exactly fast at all, probably still uses a traditional HDD, lacks RAM, and has a pokey processor. My work issued laptop is the slowest POS I've used in like the last ten years. It came with 4GB of RAM and a 5400 RPM HDD. I went out and bought a Surface Pro instead, though my job allows me a bit more flexibility in that aspect.

As for my choice, Just ordered a 27" i7 and 512 SSD. Gonna get the 2x16 upgrade from OWC for a total of 40 for ram. Thanks for all the thoughts and guidance.

Congrats, those specs are going to rock.

(But now you'll be even more frustrated with your work computer!)

 

[ctrlzone]

...and, unlike the i5, the i7 supports hyperthreading, so you get 8 virtual cores. Not as good as 8 real cores, of course, but often better than 4.



The difference is about 10%. That is not going to make a noticeable difference in terms of "smooth operation". Now, 10% off a 3-hour video encode job (or more thanks to hyperthreading) or squeezing in another effect in Logic Pro may be valuable - but in general use you're gonna need a stopwatch to notice the difference.

Just for the avoidance of doubt: yes folks, the i7 is faster than the i5 and will pay for itself if you're doing processor-intensive work for money. However, the i5 is quieter and cheaper and probably fast enough for many applications.



Nonsense - provided that you always install matching pairs of DIMMS and get the correct speed. The RAM sold by Crucial is the same Micron RAM that Apple uses.

Reality check: 16GB RAM is enough for the majority of people. 24GB RAM (2x4Gb Apple + 2x8GB 3rd Party) is cheaper than 16GB from Apple and is more than enough for most people. Adding surplus RAM can improve performance by acting as a file cache - but you're paying good money for diminishing returns, especially on a SSD machine. If you know that you're in the minority who need more RAM (e.g. pro audio with lots of sample-based instruments) then, by all means, get 32GB or 64GB from the start.



...perhaps when I said "if you really, really must have a lot of internal storage" I should have added a third "really", or maybe put "if" in bold, or a red flashing marquee around "internal"? The pertinent fact: the 2TB and 3TB Fusion drives have a more credible 128GB SSD component (big enough to be a system disc in its own right). All-SSD is better and (to me) having your bulk storage external makes sense, but the turkey to avoid is the 1TB Fusion with its feeble 32GB SSD.



If you have cash to burn then feel free to buy the absolute top specification - surprise surprise, more is better. In fact, why bother with third party RAM when its only a couple of hundred extra to have Apple pre-fit it? However, some people out there are on a fixed budget or reliant on expensive credit and may want to prioritise. That's their decision, but its useful to have the information.

this mostly makes all sense to me, besides the i7 and memory, do not use unmatched or different matched pairs!
even if you use 4 sticks of the same ram, same manufacturer and so on, you still not sure to get a smooth running stable system, you need matched rams to be on the safe side.
to me original apple or OWC is the the only way to go. its only a couple hundred extra and well worth it, and i the long run cheaper.

the difference between i7 and i5 is way more than just 10%, and i also disagree on the fact that is quieter, its not, its literally the same , hyper threading is pretty much useless for him tho

 

[MacGizmo]

iMac Pro or Mac Pro (both the old one, and the one Apple will eventually release in the future) are both a complete waste of money for anyone that doesn't do HEAVY video work, audio encoding, 3D rendering, etc.

i7 vs i5 is a little more difficult. There is a noticeable difference between them when doing Photoshop work. But not enough that I would ever pay for it on a laptop (the i7 uses quite a bit more battery than the i5, even when the processor isn't doing anything). On an iMac though, I would definitely pay for it.

Pure SSD storage drive, 32GB of RAM minimum, and the highest end video card upgrade that is available at purchase time are the best things a designer/photographer can pay for to maximize their investment.

 

[theluggage]

to me original apple or OWC is the the only way to go. its only a couple hundred extra and well worth it, and i the long run cheaper.

No, in the long run its still paying more money up front for exactly the same RAM chips that you'd get from (say) Crucial as and when you needed it.

Unless you have any sources to the contrary, the only rule is to get the correct speed DIMMS and install it in matched pairs.

...we're talking about guaranteed RAM from reputable suppliers here - not something iffy for $too-good-to-be-true off fleaBay.

 

[JoeFkling]

New system arrived yesterday. Pretty easy to pick up the store even though it was black friday. Then headed off to micro center for some additional ram. Plugged right in and as a stop gap I got a USB-C to HDMI adapter until I can decide on what USB-C/TB3 dock I want. Short on USB ports as always.

 

[TheTruth101]

iMac, no question asked.

 

[theluggage]

So - debating point - is that the optimum configuration for mixed-sized RAM modules? I know that for optimum results that pairs of modules need to be matched across channels to allow dual-channel access, but how that actually corresponds to physical slots is the subject of many online articles which are magnificent in their ambiguity...

I have (according to the same dialog on my machine):

(4 GB) (4 Gb)
(8 GB) (8 GB)

...which shows up in the full system report as:

Bank0/Dimm0: 4GB
Bank0/Dimm1: 8GB
Bank1/Dimm0: 4GB
Bank1/Dimm1: 8GB

...mainly on the strength of that arrangement eaving the original pair of 4GBs where they shipped, which was presumably optimum. @JoeFkling's screen capture, tough, looks like its the opposite way round.

Self-evidently, both arrangements work - but is one of us squandering our geekbench points with sub-optimal RAM configuration? Does anybody have a link to something authoritative that says - without ambiguity or obfuscation - which pairs of actual slots should contain matching modules?

Or does it just not matter?

 

[h9826790]

So - debating point - is that the optimum configuration for mixed-sized RAM modules? I know that for optimum results that pairs of modules need to be matched across channels to allow dual-channel access, but how that actually corresponds to physical slots is the subject of many online articles which are magnificent in their ambiguity...

I have (according to the same dialog on my machine):

(4 GB) (4 Gb)
(8 GB) (8 GB)

...which shows up in the full system report as:

Bank0/Dimm0: 4GB
Bank0/Dimm1: 8GB
Bank1/Dimm0: 4GB
Bank1/Dimm1: 8GB

...mainly on the strength of that arrangement eaving the original pair of 4GBs where they shipped, which was presumably optimum. @JoeFkling's screen capture, tough, looks like its the opposite way round.

Self-evidently, both arrangements work - but is one of us squandering our geekbench points with sub-optimal RAM configuration? Does anybody have a link to something authoritative that says - without ambiguity or obfuscation - which pairs of actual slots should contain matching modules?

Or does it just not matter?

Don't worry, if it's not optimum, the system will pop up a notification and ask you to swap the DIMM accordingly.

 

[wonderdoggie]

Hey guys sorry for reviving an old thread but I'm also having this dilemma right now because the local mac reseller just put the entry level mac pro at 50% off.

Given that new info, will that make it a good buy now in 2018? ~$1500

Appreciate any comments