Has anyone decided to buy an iMac instead?

[liquid stereo]

iMac = short-term machine

Sadly this is what I am noticing. Of all previous Power Macs and Mac Pros – of which I've purchased close to 20 – only one has had a problem.

I worked at an ad agency type place. After 2-3 years, the iMacs just pile up as junk.

Even if home use is easier, the iMac has a lot of failure points, relies less on fans than using the case to dissipate heat and is kinda hard to repair.

It's obvious that people can use the MacPro for 5+ years as evidenced by how many people here are still running 2006-2009 machines.

If you get an iMac, definitely get the Apple Care, and expect to replace it after about 3 years. YMMV, but...

 

[wildmac]

I worked at an ad agency type place. After 2-3 years, the iMacs just pile up as junk.

Even if home use is easier, the iMac has a lot of failure points, relies less on fans than using the case to dissipate heat and is kinda hard to repair.

It's obvious that people can use the MacPro for 5+ years as evidenced by how many people here are still running 2006-2009 machines.

If you get an iMac, definitely get the Apple Care, and expect to replace it after about 3 years. YMMV, but...

Yep. The iMac is a better deal for those who need to buy a monitor as well, but longevity is an issue.

Although, to be honest, there's no really good solution here.

iMac = near price of nMP for loaded one, suspect longevity, no upgradability
nMP = new tech, no word if GPU updates will ever be available.
cMP = old tech, might not have upgrades available in 2-3 years.
hackMac = one kernel patch away from doom.

 

[iMcLovin]

A maxed out imac costs the same as the lowest end nMP, pretty much. Unless you NEED and have software that exploits the cores, thats a waste of money. Especially since in those single thread programs you most likely get better performance with the maxed out imac than the min spec nMP. And, a lot of pro userss are Adobe users, and Adobe hasn´t done much to optimize their software for multicore machines for the past years, so I doubt it will happen anytime soon. Would be sad spending 5k dollars on a machine that performs less in your pro software than a machine that cost half.

So, maybe the iMac has a shorter lifespan than the nMP because you cant upgrade it, but dont forget the price point. For me a maxed out iMac reaches just below what I´m allowed for a one item purchase I can write off in one year. The nMP on the other hand I would have to write off in 3 years. So, financially, unless I would sit on a pile of money, I´m better off buying a new iMac every second year than buying a nMP and upgrade it every 3rd year. So, that makes the decision easy for me actually.

 

[SuperMatt]

Mac Pro uses workstation processors, RAM, etc. These are built to handle heavy workloads and last a long time. I think if you want to buy a computer to last a long time, the nMP is a good idea. Certainly it might seem like overkill right now, but look at a 5-year old computer right now. It seems slow by today's standards. iMacs are good machines, but they do use consumer level laptop parts; I think workstation components are a good bet to last longer.

 

[unfragile]

Hi,

I decide the opposite.

I've bought an iMac 27 full loaded (and upgraded to 32gb from crucial).

Because it was so difficult to find ram that work well with the iMac I decide to return the iMac.

But I have to be fair, I'm a "Mac Pro" user, I've own G5 dual 1.8ghz, then a Mac Pro 2008 2x2.8ghz, then I tried the iMac, it's a wonderful machine but not for me.

I need to feel that this computer will work for 5 years at least.

Regards,
UnFraGile

 

[wildmac]

A maxed out imac costs the same as the lowest end nMP, pretty much. Unless you NEED and have software that exploits the cores, thats a waste of money. Especially since in those single thread programs you most likely get better performance with the maxed out imac than the min spec nMP. And, a lot of pro userss are Adobe users, and Adobe hasn´t done much to optimize their software for multicore machines for the past years, so I doubt it will happen anytime soon. Would be sad spending 5k dollars on a machine that performs less in your pro software than a machine that cost half.

So, maybe the iMac has a shorter lifespan than the nMP because you cant upgrade it, but dont forget the price point. For me a maxed out iMac reaches just below what I´m allowed for a one item purchase I can write off in one year. The nMP on the other hand I would have to write off in 3 years. So, financially, unless I would sit on a pile of money, I´m better off buying a new iMac every second year than buying a nMP and upgrade it every 3rd year. So, that makes the decision easy for me actually.

???

If you can write off $3500 for a maxxed iMac in one year, why can't you write off $4000 for the nMP in one year? (Unless you are really boosting up that nMP).

But, as has been said already, if you CAN write it off, then longevity is not as much an issue.

Stil.. the break point on this for anyone doing paid work on the system is probably the display. Do you need a monitor, or not. If you already have good monitor(s), then the iMac may be a waste.

For myself, since I have monitors, and I need the longevity, I'm not going iMac. It will either be the nMP I have on order, or a good used cMP.

 

[PicnicTutorials]

Just wondering if anyone has jumped ship from the big MP wait times and bought an iMac. Is it performing like you thought? Any regrets?

A souped up iMac is HALF the price of the BTO Mac Pro I wanted, so its hard not to consider that option. Especially when there are so many not so thrilled reviews.

I return the MacBook Pro for a suped up imac. Everything toped out but memory. I really liked the laptop but I missed my large screen. And I couldn't wait for a thunderbolt 2 and wasn't buying a version one.

 

[iMcLovin]

???



If you can write off $3500 for a maxxed iMac in one year, why can't you write off $4000 for the nMP in one year? (Unless you are really boosting up that nMP).



But, as has been said already, if you CAN write it off, then longevity is not as much an issue.



Stil.. the break point on this for anyone doing paid work on the system is probably the display. Do you need a monitor, or not. If you already have good monitor(s), then the iMac may be a waste.



For myself, since I have monitors, and I need the longevity, I'm not going iMac. It will either be the nMP I have on order, or a good used cMP.

The maxed out iMac cost pretty much the exact limit in Norway for a 1 year write off. That mean I could not stack the Mac Pro with anything... No more ram, no large ssd... So it would probably perform worse than a maxed out iMac...at least in a lot of the softwares I use (essentially the adobe softwares)... Hence the iMac is a better deal for me

 

[wildmac]

The maxed out iMac cost pretty much the exact limit in Norway for a 1 year write off. That mean I could not stack the Mac Pro with anything... No more ram, no large ssd... So it would probably perform worse than a maxed out iMac...at least in a lot of the softwares I use (essentially the adobe softwares)... Hence the iMac is a better deal for me

Ah... EU taxes. In the US you can do both ways, what's best depends on what you expect your income to do the following years.

 

[iMcLovin]

Ah... EU taxes. In the US you can do both ways, what's best depends on what you expect your income to do the following years.

Yeah

though not only that stops me. I'm extremely disappointed how developers such as adobe hasn't been able to take advantage of multicore processing despite machines have had multiple cores for many years. And I assume a lot of the people buying the Mac Pro works mostly in either photoshop, after effects, premiere or Lightroom. And their softwares are stuck in the 90's and many people don't know it. If adobe would have done like apple did with final cut, actually exploit the double gpu and all the cores, I would have a bigger problem resisting the urge to buy one ( because I. FC u really see the difference). But since the iMac has the same clock speed as the MP and less cores, most likely the Mac Pro won't perform any better in these programs. The irony is that, getting the most expensive CPU on the MP will actually give you the worst performance in any of the adobe programs.

 

[wildmac]

Yeah

though not only that stops me. I'm extremely disappointed how developers such as adobe hasn't been able to take advantage of multicore processing despite machines have had multiple cores for many years. And I assume a lot of the people buying the Mac Pro works mostly in either photoshop, after effects, premiere or Lightroom. And their softwares are stuck in the 90's and many people don't know it. If adobe would have done like apple did with final cut, actually exploit the double gpu and all the cores, I would have a bigger problem resisting the urge to buy one ( because I. FC u really see the difference). But since the iMac has the same clock speed as the MP and less cores, most likely the Mac Pro won't perform any better in these programs. The irony is that, getting the most expensive CPU on the MP will actually give you the worst performance in any of the adobe programs.

That's why I ordered a Quad, and boosted the ram and SSD instead.

 

[WMD]

But since the iMac has the same clock speed as the MP and less cores, most likely the Mac Pro won't perform any better in these programs. The irony is that, getting the most expensive CPU on the MP will actually give you the worst performance in any of the adobe programs.

The 4, 6, and 8-core Mac Pro CPUs all have the same turbo boost levels for at least the first two cores, so they should perform the same if the programs only use that many cores. Yeah, the 12-core will be slower, by a bit - but that's almost a blessing. That's another $1,500 past 8-core!

In any case...I'm not a CS user, but I've read that CS6 and CC have gotten better at utilizing more cores. Probably not 8 or 12 yet, but more than two.

 

[analog guy]

The 4, 6, and 8-core Mac Pro CPUs all have the same turbo boost levels for at least the first two cores, so they should perform the same if the programs only use that many cores. Yeah, the 12-core will be slower, by a bit - but that's almost a blessing. That's another $1,500 past 8-core!

In any case...I'm not a CS user, but I've read that CS6 and CC have gotten better at utilizing more cores. Probably not 8 or 12 yet, but more than two.

user VirtualRain was among the first to discover that the Xeons do NOT hit their max rated speed...ever. the manufacturer has to implement the feature that puts the others cores into an idle state, and apple has not implemented this.

so...not all is equal.

not saying it matters, but it is not equal.

 

[iMcLovin]

The 4, 6, and 8-core Mac Pro CPUs all have the same turbo boost levels for at least the first two cores, so they should perform the same if the programs only use that many cores. Yeah, the 12-core will be slower, by a bit - but that's almost a blessing. That's another $1,500 past 8-core!

In any case...I'm not a CS user, but I've read that CS6 and CC have gotten better at utilizing more cores. Probably not 8 or 12 yet, but more than two.

Im afraid thats an overstatement. After effects can use multicore while rendering (though its buggy) but that´s it!. Not while working. And I doubt photshop uses anything more than one core, except when saving actually. Dunno about Premiere, but After Effects is the most computer heavy software they have and it hardly exploits cores or gpu at all. Its like being in the stone age of computer usage. ...sadly.

 

[WMD]

user VirtualRain was among the first to discover that the Xeons do NOT hit their max rated speed...ever.

That's true, they don't; but the turbo speeds they DO hit are about the same, between the chips. (Between 3.6 and 3.7.)

And I doubt photshop uses anything more than one core, except when saving actually.

Photoshop CS6 can use up to four cores, depending on the task. They do need to get to work on GPU stuff, though. (Pixelmator, take note! Opportunity!)

 

[SuperMatt]

Does Parallels take advantage of multiple cores well? For example, if you have 6 cores, can you assign 2 to Parallels and still have 4 cores for all your Mac applications? If so, the multiple cores could be a big plus to people running one or more VMs in the course of a day.

 

[WMD]

Does Parallels take advantage of multiple cores well? For example, if you have 6 cores, can you assign 2 to Parallels and still have 4 cores for all your Mac applications?

Sort of. You can assign two cores to a VM, but they don't get locked down to Parallels only. The Mac could still use them if it really wanted to. Parallels has a priority setting to minimize this, but it's not absolute.

 

[koban4max]

like seriously..who wants icrap when you could get mac pro

 

[tuxon86]

like seriously..who wants icrap when you could get mac pro

Those who don't wan't to over spend on hardware they don't need. I'm still wondering why photographer and graphical design (non-3D) would need a dual GPU, Xeon based workstation in the first place...

 

[analog guy]

T I'm still wondering why photographer and graphical design (non-3D) would need a dual GPU, Xeon based workstation in the first place...

lots of reasons. control over monitors is one reason. if someone doesn't like the iMac's screen (i don't mind it), then the iMac is overpaying for hardware.

some people are taking a bit of a bet on longevity with the mac pro. that may or may not prove to be misguided.

from a photography perspective, although i have not done any huge lifting yet, i am finding that importing photos into my LR catalogue is an activity that is notably faster vs my loaded 2013 iMac.

this pales in comparison to someone doing overnight renders, of course, but i am one to place a high value on responsiveness of my system, and there is a measurable difference for me. (we're talking minutes not hours at this point.)

i'm just one person and my decision to go with the nMP over the iMac had many decision points, but there ARE reasons why a photography use case might choose the nMP.

(i need more cores to run VMs, too.)

 

[wildmac]

Those who don't wan't to over spend on hardware they don't need. I'm still wondering why photographer and graphical design (non-3D) would need a dual GPU, Xeon based workstation in the first place...

Because the only other option is an iMac with a questionable lifespan due to the pancake all-in-one design, or an Mini with underpowered graphics.

Put the i7 and the 780M in a larger Mini, and a lot of designers would be very very happy.

----------

lots of reasons. control over monitors is one reason. if someone doesn't like the iMac's screen (i don't mind it), then the iMac is overpaying for hardware.

some people are taking a bit of a bet on longevity with the mac pro. that may or may not prove to be misguided.

from a photography perspective, although i have not done any huge lifting yet, i am finding that importing photos into my LR catalogue is an activity that is notably faster vs my loaded 2013 iMac.

this pales in comparison to someone doing overnight renders, of course, but i am one to place a high value on responsiveness of my system, and there is a measurable difference for me. (we're talking minutes not hours at this point.)

i'm just one person and my decision to go with the nMP over the iMac had many decision points, but there ARE reasons why a photography use case might choose the nMP.

(i need more cores to run VMs, too.)

Yep, the iMac is iffy with that monitor, the Mini is way underpowered with the HD4000, and the MacPro is overkill.

So.. would rather buy overpowered than cut corners.

 

[koban4max]

Those who don't wan't to over spend on hardware they don't need. I'm still wondering why photographer and graphical design (non-3D) would need a dual GPU, Xeon based workstation in the first place...

Apparently, pc would do them good.

 

[deconstruct60]

user VirtualRain was among the first to discover that the Xeons do NOT hit their max rated speed...ever.

That was demonstrated as being Xeon specific? I recalled that as just measured on a specific Xeon E5 and as non-long term sustained. That doesn't make it a Xeon wide or Xeon only issue.

None of the modern Intel designs run at a single speed. They aren't designed to. The clocks are suppose to be dynamic. Just like the instruction scheduling.

[ Manual overclocking is an orthogonal issue. The notion of "If I was manually overclocking I would have done it different" is rather moot in the context of what Intel is doing. That isn't an highly relevent evaluation criteria. It is more along the lines of "I would have done it different". ]

 

[Derpage]

Those who don't wan't to over spend on hardware they don't need. I'm still wondering why photographer and graphical design (non-3D) would need a dual GPU, Xeon based workstation in the first place...

Shoot. 3D people have very little use for this set up as it is. The tube is pretty much a final cut pro wundertube at this moment. As far as 3d applications, it's yet to be determined if there is any advantage to this set up as developers aren't harnessing the second card in most realms.

 

[VirtualRain]

Those who don't wan't to over spend on hardware they don't need. I'm still wondering why photographer and graphical design (non-3D) would need a dual GPU, Xeon based workstation in the first place...

See my review and benchmarks from a photography perspective here...
https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/1692536/

Short story: Aperture, Photoshop (and I'm assuming Lightroom, although I don't use it) are very demanding applications. Working with GB libraries of 30MB RAW photos can actually be more demanding than working with HD video. For optimal performance, you need high clocks, multiple cores, tons of RAM, and fast I/O. They also use the GPU for some functions as well, and that will certainly improve over time. The improvements in my workflow coming from a modest 2009 Mac Pro have been substantial.

That was demonstrated as being Xeon specific? I recalled that as just measured on a specific Xeon E5 and as non-long term sustained. That doesn't make it a Xeon wide or Xeon only issue.

None of the modern Intel designs run at a single speed. They aren't designed to. The clocks are suppose to be dynamic. Just like the instruction scheduling.

[ Manual overclocking is an orthogonal issue. The notion of "If I was manually overclocking I would have done it different" is rather moot in the context of what Intel is doing. That isn't an highly relevent evaluation criteria. It is more along the lines of "I would have done it different". ]

The 4, 6, and 8-core Mac Pro CPUs all have the same turbo boost levels for at least the first two cores, so they should perform the same if the programs only use that many cores. Yeah, the 12-core will be slower, by a bit - but that's almost a blessing. That's another $1,500 past 8-core!

In any case...I'm not a CS user, but I've read that CS6 and CC have gotten better at utilizing more cores. Probably not 8 or 12 yet, but more than two.

What I determined through testing, and research is that the top turbo speed is not obtainable unless the system supports putting cores to sleep. Apple doesn't implement these C3/C6 sleep states on any of it's systems, nor do any PCs that I could find. In my research, the only instances where someone was able to get the top-rated turbo speed out of their CPU was by going into the bios for their system and manually disabling all but one core on the CPU. The fact that Apple and even PC vendors don't support this is probably a good thing, since the overhead in sleeping/waking cores would probably impact performance more than an extra 100MHz boost in clock speed would help... especially with the number of threads running at any given time.

You can read more about it in the thread below, but the moral of the story is, do not make any decisions based on the top-rated turbo speed. That is simply not obtainable. Best your system will do with lightly threaded tasks is one rating below max (3.7GHz for 6-core, 3.8GHz for 8-core, 4-core untested as of yet).

https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/1694931/

p.s. It has nothing to do with Xeon or non-Xeon processors. My rMBP behaves exactly the same way as do i7 processors.