Decision Help -- Mac Pro vs. maxed-out iMac

[hfg]

Another possibility:

If I were to sell the unopened 12-core Mac Pro for enough to purchase a new 3.33GHz 6-core Mac Pro ... would this be a better solution all around?

I do use Aperture. Does it make use of 12 cores? of 6 cores?



-howard

 

[ssdaytona]

I think so. The 3.3GHz 6 core is much better value.

 

[monkeybagel]

The thing that hurts the iMac - and I have had three, is that it is an AIO. This is a big negative for me. I know most peripherals are going external but, but like you I like the ability to work on my own stuff if I need to. I have never enjoyed opening up an iMac and working on it, and when it gets to the end of its useful life you end up with a large extra LCD screen that can't be used for much else.

The Mac Pro is a very universal machine. In addition to what you listed, it can run Windows XP, Windows Vista, Windows 7, Windows 8, many *nix versions, Snow Leopard, Lion, Mountain Lion, etc., without virtualization.

If you are the "tinkerer" type, I would say the Mac Pro.

 

[ABCDEF-Hex]

You have put me on the fence again

Another possibility:

If I were to sell the unopened 12-core Mac Pro for enough to purchase a new 3.33GHz 6-core Mac Pro ... would this be a better solution all around?

I do use Aperture. Does it make use of 12 cores? of 6 cores?



-howard

I also bought a 12 core deal and thought I was all set - but:

1 - I was going to do some serious crunching with the 12 cores so the GPU issues didn't bother me.
2 - I replaced my dead HD in my iMac and it wasn't any fun - so I prefer the upgradability of the MP.

The sweet spot for me otherwise would be a new Pro entry level model bumped to 6 or 8 core if it will exist.

When I price out the current, basic pro and upgrade it to 6 core and 8 gb it comes to $3074 which would be $500 more that the Best Buy deal.

If they offer this type of setup in a new pro with updated specs that would be ideal (for my needs).

 

[hfg]

Does anyone have any comments regarding the graphics capability?

How does the top Apple HD 5870 graphics card compare to the GTX 680MX in the iMac when running OS X apps and when running under native Windows 7 or 8 on PC games?

Is the graphics memory 1GB vs. 2GB an issue when gaming?



Thanks,
-howard

 

[raysmd]

did you see this from barefeats?


http://barefeats.com/wst10gx.html

 

[hfg]

did you see this from barefeats?


http://barefeats.com/wst10gx.html

That is very interesting ... the 680MX tests pretty good!

I have also been following the threads here on the HD 7970 and the announced Sapphire HD 7950 cards for the Mac Pro. Are they likely to perform better than the 680MX in OS X and Windows?

Thanks for the barefeats link....

It's probably obvious that, after happily using a Mac Pro for the past 7 years, I am preferring a Mac Pro solution over the fantastic iMac I am typing this on. Both of these machines are pretty awesome, which is why the decision is most difficult.



-howard

 

[DPUser]

I think the MP will likely provide you with a solid platform for many years. Thunderbolt is needed only by people who don't have PCI slots on their computers. You can add SATA3 or USB3 easily should such technologies become a requirement in the future, and the new graphics card compatibility under Mountain Lion 10.8.3 offers you greater GPU potential than any current iMac.

And don't forget, you could always do the CPU swap Tutor suggested in the original thread about the Best Buy sale, giving you a 3.33 12 core monster that would be simply wonderful for anything.

 

[macpro2000]

I think the Mac Pros would haves sold out a LOT faster it would have been the 3.33 Hex vs the 2.4 12 core for $2499...even though the 12 core retails for $700 more. Tells you how messed up that product line is.

 

[derbothaus]

Why would someone buy 3 year outdated technology when Apple themself has said an update is coming later this year? If you can not hold off, might as well buy the newest tech you can find (the one OP specified even has a close, if not higher, Geekbench score than the Mac Pro).

32-bit GB.
13000 for iMac
17400 for Mac Pro. Yes. They are close. And 13,000 IS higher than 17,400. At least check instead of guess. /s. 12-cores vs. 4 even with clock difference is not a fair fight. But this does not mean the iMac won't eat that Mac Pro's lunch on MS Word and iTunes. It will.

----------

did you see this from barefeats?


http://barefeats.com/wst10gx.html

Those are for content creation in OS X only. If you are wondering about gaming performance in Windows, the 5870 is still quite a bit faster. Rob's tests are always strangely one-sided as OS X is his only focus and a bunch of software limitations and favoritism go into showing those tests and he seemingly does not broach the subjects.

 

[hfg]

I think the MP will likely provide you with a solid platform for many years. Thunderbolt is needed only by people who don't have PCI slots on their computers. You can add SATA3 or USB3 easily should such technologies become a requirement in the future, and the new graphics card compatibility under Mountain Lion 10.8.3 offers you greater GPU potential than any current iMac.

And don't forget, you could always do the CPU swap Tutor suggested in the original thread about the Best Buy sale, giving you a 3.33 12 core monster that would be simply wonderful for anything.

Yeah ... that CPU upgrade keeps nagging at the back of my mind.

.

 

[B...]

32-bit GB.
13000 for iMac
17400 for Mac Pro. Yes. They are close. And 13,000 IS higher than 17,400. At least check instead of guess. /s. 12-cores vs. 4 even with clock difference is not a fair fight. But this does not mean the iMac won't eat that Mac Pro's lunch on MS Word and iTunes. It will.

I do appologize.I was looking at 64 bit and the 8 core MP and the i7 iMac. My mistake.

 

[hfg]

I think the Mac Pros would haves sold out a LOT faster it would have been the 3.33 Hex vs the 2.4 12 core for $2499...even though the 12 core retails for $700 more. Tells you how messed up that product line is.

Unfortunately, that is a BTO configuration, not stocked by many stores (although B&H has them), so not likely to be part of a "fire-sale".

That sale Monday didn't last very long as it was ... about 6 hours for Amazon!

 

[derbothaus]

I do appologize.I was looking at 64 bit and the 8 core MP and the i7 iMac. My mistake.

It's cool B...

OP, in my opinion you should hock that Mac Pro, keep the iMac and wait for new Pro's. The current 2010-2012 Mac Pro's really should only be bought by Professionals that HAVE to AND who need all the cores. Otherwise you are running a generally slow performing Mac on single thread and office work tasks (Would not have been the case if you bought something with higher clock speed but...). As in slower than a Mac mini/ Macbook slow. Resale won't probably happen either once the new Mac Pro's get released. No one will want them due to the slow SATA and memory and the fact they had 4 years to buy one if they wanted it. I used to but now never hold on to tech stuff for resale. Returns are never what you'd think or my timing was always off.

 

[orthm]

One thing to consider in this is how many activities the OP will be doing that run the CPUs hard for long periods of time. Our Mac Pro (3.33 hex)is utterly silent when running full blast for 40 - 60 minutes at a time (DSLR, GoPRo video, transcoding). Not sure the iMac would be the same. Another thing to consider is how many drives you want connected. I really like not having all the external drives cluttering my desk area. I also don't like glossy displays.