Here is interesting comaprison between iMac and MacPro and looks like iMac makes reasonable case against MacPro
http://www.electronista.com/article...s.for.a.tempting.proposition.for.power.users/
I know everyone will not agree with it.
It seems more so oriented toward generating page views (somewhat controversial and narrow merging of info ) than new information.
The same sites review of Mac Pro makes allusions to the high end BTO might turn in results that were interesting in graphics. Well this one brings it and still continues to allude to the results would be interesting. Kind of puzzling.
The entry Mac Pro doesn't come with a complete complement of RAM DIMMs. The top end iMac does. One more DIMM in the Mac Pro and that multithreaded Geekbench score is likely approximately even. A full 4 DIMM setting can bring a 1% difference and that is all that article is making a big deal about on that specific test.
A couple of percentage point swings in Geekbench aren't particularly well ground in evaluating real world application usage. First, it just isn't that precise a measurement instrument under actual usages conditions. It primarily tries to measure the CPU subsystem. Few apps are solely dependent upon just that.
The fully speced out BTO iMac and entry Mac Pro are close. So it isn't particular surprising they are close in performance. Whether one or the other is a better fit is far more likley dependent up other characteristics than the standard 'drag racing' generic benchmarks.
The final odd thing is that the D300 is actually clocked a bit higher than the D500. And yet this article avoids hard D300 numbers like the plague. It keeps referring back to the D500. The D500 is a good candidate to have relatively poor drivers. It is a quirky modified Tahiti XT that AMD has never sold before. Apple opted for a uniquely kneecapped D700 to implement the D500. They had AMD turn off a number of cores probably to hit a cheaper price point ( likley picking up more than few GPU parts that don't pass full testing but a subset of part works 'good enough' to be a D500 ).
The D300 and D700 are more closer to be standard FirePro parts. AMD (and Apple) have a long track record of new config's drivers being non-optimal out of the gate.
And let me make it clear my usage is going to be primarily for digital image editing using LR5 + CS6 and some school level film making. Here is my thought process - I can lease iMac for now and at the end of lease at 2 years, I can go and get MacPro as by that time Apple would have moved to newer architecture on MacPro instead of current ivy-bridge. - what do you think ?
"school evel film making" for school or just the level of expertise? For school not sure leasing makes any sense. The resale value of Macs is typically pretty good. Holding something for two years (that is relatively new) and letting it go has a pretty good chance of being cheaper than a lease.
In two years, the Mac Pro will probably still be about 1 year behind the iMac in Intel x86 microarchitecture implementation. If going to let single threaded Geekbench scores drive your buying decisions you'll still be on iMac on that iteration too.
LR5 and CS6 are mutlithread enough in various common phases that if the mutlithreaded CPU performance is the essentially the same the Mac Pro is likely a better fit. (the SSD is better and the bulk I/O subsystem is better. ).
