Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

How does Mac Pro compare to iMac?

gugy said:
What really makes me wonder if an iMac is worth it because the AIO configuration. I current have my 30" ACD for several years and still a workhorse and perfect. I would hate to get rid of this 5K display because the innards of the iMac will be outdate in few years but the display amazing still.
Click to expand...

The funny thing is, for the last decade or longer, you're probably right, displays could typically last through at least one computer upgrade. Now, display tech is changing so fast (4K, 5K, 8K displays all coming quickly) and computer performance has really levelled off. I now look forward to a new display more than a new computer.

So I wonder if that display on the iMac may be seriously outclassed by the time the computer portion is tired.
 
VirtualRain said:
The funny thing is, for the last decade or longer, you're probably right, displays could typically last through at least one computer upgrade. Now, display tech is changing so fast (4K, 5K, 8K displays all coming quickly) and computer performance has really levelled off. I now look forward to a new display more than a new computer.

So I wonder if that display on the iMac may be seriously outclassed by the time the computer portion is tired.
Click to expand...

Depends really. I've got two 24" Cinema, a 27" Cinema and two 27" TB and use them all. My office is dimmed so gloss isn't an issue, and the glossy screens are beautiful and clear. Way better than any matte. I do software development so maximum real estate is what counts, not PPI. I have the three 27" on my nMP alone.

So sure they're packing in more pixels per inch but I doubt I want them. My text will look a little clearer - so what? I'm working on digital bits here, I don't need to make it look analog. I also have 16 spaces for all my different tasks, how will that perform with a 5k center monitor? Don't know, and not sure I want to find out. What about a 10k - will we ever need that many pixels? 5k is already out of visual acuity.

Further three monitors is ideal for me. I need many windows up simultaneously and those three 27" partition it perfectly. The only thing that might be better would be a continuous wrap around screen.

Anyhow I don't get the iMac at all. If that's all the computer you need, why don't you just use a laptop? If you could use more, then why not get a Mac Pro for a few hundred more? I can see where it makes sense for some use cases (total simplicity one monitor computer), but if you're serious I don't see the point.
 
VirtualRain said:
The funny thing is, for the last decade or longer, you're probably right, displays could typically last through at least one computer upgrade. Now, display tech is changing so fast (4K, 5K, 8K displays all coming quickly) and computer performance has really levelled off. I now look forward to a new display more than a new computer.

So I wonder if that display on the iMac may be seriously outclassed by the time the computer portion is tired.
Click to expand...

Well, I usually upgrade every 3 years because of Applecare but my current MacPro is 4 years and I am thinking hold for another year. The 30" ACD on the other hand I have since 2005, so it has been a great value and unless it goes down out of nowhere I can still hold it for few more years.
I think it comes down when I upgrade this iMac in 3 years will still be holding a value even though MacPro's are much better doing this.
 
yalag said:
Is that the same for Lightroom? I thought it's all the GPU?

When I say sluggish, I mean that it drop crazy frames when I pan the photo when zoomed in.
Click to expand...

That's because you didn't understand your own requirements. Lightroom is no more taxing on the gpu than any other application.
 
You are comparing Apples and Oranges, they are two entirely different kinds of computers - why not also say that a BMW with loads of extras is better than a finely tuned Porsche - If you take away the 5K display, your Pro blows the new iMac away in terms of performance and upgradability - There is no such thing as 'the best computer' - get one that suits your needs.
 
Last edited:
edry.hilario said:
Same here I need an computer for heavy video editing and photo editing, Im going with either the 6 core or quad core with d500s or do you guys think i should get one of those new imacs?
Click to expand...

If you know your way around a PC then I'd recommend build a hackintosh with a i7-5960X else go with the Mac Pro.
 
megalaser said:
You are comparing Apples and Oranges, they are two entirely different kinds of computers - why not also say that a BMW with loads of extras is better than a finely tuned Porsche - If you take away the 5K display, your Pro blows the new iMac away in terms of performance and upgradability - There is no such thing as 'the best computer' - get one that suits your needs.
Click to expand...

i drive a 2013 5 series and i hate porsches except the panamera
 
megalaser said:
You are comparing Apples and Oranges, they are two entirely different kinds of computers - why not also say that a BMW with loads of extras is better than a finely tuned Porsche - If you take away the 5K display, your Pro blows the new iMac away in terms of performance and upgradability - There is no such thing as 'the best computer' - get one that suits your needs.
Click to expand...

Both the iMac and nMP (Quad) offer similar computing performance and limited upgrades. One is built around a display, the other around a fan.
 
yalag said:
Ok I'm PISSED!

I just bought a mac pro with AMD FirePro D700 6144 MB to photo editing. I noticed that it's a bit sluggish with my 4k Dell monitor. I figured what I can do I already have the best mac there is guess I'll have to live with it.

And then BAM, the new iMac comes out with AMD Radeon R9 M295X. Will it perform better with photo editing?
Click to expand...

Don't be pissed...nMP is still better. is it quad core?
 
The Irony

Apple themselves with their new iMac have exposed the foolishness of the nMP's basic flaw.

I will be able to run a 5K display on my cMP by dropping a DP 1.3 capable GPU in it when they are released.

nMPs...with Apple's heavy hand resting on their shoulder will be locked into their 2011 era GPUs abilities until they take their trip to the landfill. Values will droop like licorice in the sun when the 7,1 comes out with TB3. Tim and Jony will be toasting with Cristal on their private islands the brilliance of "disposable" computers.
 
Faymus Media said:
I am trying to decide between the new iMac, or the macpro. I use resolve alot for cinema DNG and raw editing and need the power, but also encode h.264 in FCPX as my final delivery in 4k.

I am heavy into video and photo editing.

Here is the machine I plan to buy monday.

8-core 3ghz
32gb ddr3
dual d700's 12gb gddr5
1tb SSD flash drive
thunderbolt 2.5k display while i wait for the 5k thunderbolt to arrive.


Any thoughts?
Click to expand...

4k is still great....5k may be better...but hell....nMP is very loyal to pro users...imac...well.....
 
You CAN push the consumer machines quite hard.

Last week I ran my i7 Mini 100% on all 8 threads for 20h and 57min and 26s, It sounded like a hair dryer but once finished with the rendering (Prime noice reduction of 650 photos in DXO Optics 9) of my photos it went quiet in a few seconds again..

Of course I would love to have the 6c nMP but thats 5x the price of my Mini..
..and even that one will not support 5K+ monitors..

The Retina iMac will give me a slight boost in performance and is very tempting right now :)
 
Celedral said:
I don't know why I still have my Mac Pro after seeing this 5k Behemoth! Why do I have it again?
Click to expand...

Cos it won't sound like a Hovercraft and is useless as a hand air dryer doing renders which that 5k iMac will do running FCPX. I would wait for Broadwell before jumping in, they may put back the target mode option so a nMP can drive it as it seems like Apple have hacked the interface to get it to work with Haswell/AMD. A bit too bleeding edge technology and the 1st gen are as always the guinea pigs.
 
Faymus Media said:
once the thunderbolt 5k display comes out for $1299 it will be an amazing setup.

The R9 M295x has 3.5 teraflops, to drive display 5k and edit. So I bet it only has about 2 terflops left for editing. Macpro has 7+ teraflops, so 3.5 for 3 4k displays/5k retina displays. Then another 3.5 for editing. I guess it is a more powerful machine.
Click to expand...

That's ... not how it works.

Ancient cards from last century could drive a 2048 x 1536 display. It isn't about TFlops/s.
 
ToroidalZeus said:
why hate hackintosh? its like the best of both worlds.
Click to expand...

I like well designed stuff I just care about this stuff, plus ive read a lot about hackingtoshes and them being all buggy and i just want something that works I dont want to be fiddling around with stuff and ugly cases and fans and if its cool enough and just ugh its gross to me.
 
edry.hilario said:
I like well designed stuff I just care about this stuff, plus ive read a lot about hackingtoshes and them being all buggy and i just want something that works I dont want to be fiddling around with stuff and ugly cases and fans and if its cool enough and just ugh its gross to me.
Click to expand...

thats why you use a power mac g5 case

more of a hassle to setup? ya but it's the trade-off for cost.

$3,000 Hackintosh: i7-5960X 8-Core 3.0GHz [overclockable] with 20MB Cache, 16GB of DDR4 RAM and 2 GTX 980 with 4GB of VRAM.
versus
$5,499 Mac Pro: 3.0GHz 8-core with 25MB Cache, 16GB of DDR3 ECC RAM and 2 AMD FirePro with 3GB of VRAM.

Unless you need ECC ram or some feature in the FirePro professional grade GPU you are saving half the price by going with hackintosh.
 
Last edited:
ToroidalZeus said:
thats why you use a power mac g5 case

Unless you need ECC ram or some feature in the FirePro professional grade GPU you are saving half the price by going with hackintosh.
Click to expand...

Not going to lie I've actually spec'd out building a PC and sites like iBuypower etc to see what the cost would be. I could easily put together a better performing system for less cash but as my workstation for my business I just don't trust running a hackinstosh 24/7. For me it's going back to windows but when I use a friends win8 machine I cringe and then convince myself the money is worth it.
 
ToroidalZeus said:
thats why you use a power mac g5 case

more of a hassle to setup? ya but it's the trade-off for cost.
Click to expand...

Only if you don't value your time per hour at all. Some of us do. Looking at the reality of saving £1000 or £2000 pounds on what is going to be a business expense and the prospect of then having to do my own tech support seems downright stupid, frankly.
 
theSeb said:
Only if you don't value your time per hour at all. Some of us do. Looking at the reality of saving £1000 or £2000 pounds on what is going to be a business expense and the prospect of then having to do my own tech support seems downright stupid, frankly.
Click to expand...

Depends on how large your business is.

At 2500 difference and a hefty 60 dollar an hour wage that is 40 hr of labor until you break even.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back