iMac/PC config side by side

[neodarko]

Hi,

Recently I sold my mbp - was looking forward to buy an imac - but wanted to make sure I am getting my money's worth. Configured a pc at DigitalStorm and then put the iMac config beside the PC one (wanted to configure Mac Pro too - but even with single cpu the price went over 3K within the first 3 clicks - and that's without any display).

Some people say macs are more future-proof. Please tell me how is the iMac more future-proof than the PC? [please keep in mind that not only am I getting Fermi, Usb 3, SSD, BluRay, an excellent motherboard, 12 GB 1600MHz RAM right now - the pc will surely give more upgradability later on as well. And the triple acer setup gives way more screen area - than one single (but gorgeous nonetheless) 27 inch monitor].

Apart from OSX (but to be honest windows 7 is a solid os) - I really can't justify buying the iMac right now.

I have included the two configs. Am i missing something here or are things really that disappointing from a mac user's perspective ???

 

[alust2013]

Holy cow, what are you using this for?

 

[AlphaDogg]

That is a ridiculously powerful PC. What do you need this setup for?

 

[dwarnecke11]

Its all priorities. If yours is gaming, there are much better values to be had elsewhere. A significant chunk of the iMac's value lies in the $1000 27" IPS display which isn't ideal for gamers.

 

[AlphaDogg]

A significant chunk of the iMac's value lies in the $1000 27" IPS display

Yes, which is why the iMac is good for graphic designers.

 

[TMRaven]

Apple's not trying to sell their iMac lineup as a clunky tower setup with multiple monitors. And yeah, a big chunk of the iMac's price comes from the 27" ips panel, which was going for 1000usd on dell's site last I checked.

The only tower computer apple offers at the moment is the mac pro, and yes it's really outdated-- as in it's far from price competitive. Once apple updates the pro, then you should see a bit better comparisons.

 

[neodarko]

Holy cow, what are you using this for?

That is a ridiculously powerful PC. What do you need this setup for?

umm - mail checking, net browsing ...
kidding - I am not using this configuration ...

but that's not the point ... like someone said - a ridiculously powerful pc - with almost everything the iMac has to offer - and a whole lot more ... within the same price range ...

Its all priorities. If yours is gaming, there are much better values to be had elsewhere. A significant chunk of the iMac's value lies in the $1000 27" IPS display which isn't ideal for gamers.

NO - I don't play games (to be honest - I think I have only played NFS) ... But this is something I have never really understood - who told you that you are not allowed to play games on your mac - did you ever really stop to think that maybe there's also a lacking on apple's part that gaming is not popular on mac platform ...

Apple's not trying to sell their iMac lineup as a clunky tower setup with multiple monitors. And yeah, a big chunk of the iMac's price comes from the 27" ips panel, which was going for 1000usd on dell's site last I checked.

The only tower computer apple offers at the moment is the mac pro, and yes it's really outdated-- as in it's far from price competitive. Once apple updates the pro, then you should see a bit better comparisons

Like I said MacPro quickly exceeded the 3K mark and I saw no point in configuring one of those ...

This is what I was afraid of - the aesthetics argument ... Listen - I am all for the beauty of the macs - but the PC configuration simply is too good to ignore and the three panel actually looks pretty cool ...

Yes, which is why the iMac is good for graphic designers.

I am no designer - but aren't you better served with lot more screen area and newer graphics cards than apple has to offer ?

A significant chunk of the iMac's value lies in the $1000 27" IPS display which isn't ideal for gamers.

This is something that can't be denied - LCD price seems to increase exponentially with screen size and the iMac screen is awesome. But single 27 inch vs 3 * 23 inch monitors ? - come on ...

I am just repeating myself here in this post - but the thing is I have heard the 27 inch monitor argument, macs are not for gaming and the aesthetics argument ... but I was actually hoping that people will try to see what they are missing here - instead of repeating the things that have been said over and over again in numerous threads ...

I know that I will end up buying the iMac. But this time I will know that the hardware has nothing to do with it - the only reason I will buy the machine is for the os.

Cheers ...

 

[TMRaven]

Like I said MacPro quickly exceeded the 3K mark and I saw no point in configuring one of those ...

This is what I was afraid of - the aesthetics argument ... Listen - I am all for the beauty of the macs - but the PC configuration simply is too good to ignore and the three panel actually looks pretty cool ...

Yes, I said that Apple's at fault on that front. They havn't updated their mac pro in a while. Whenever apple's mac pro line is updated (few and far between) it's a very powerful computer for its time, and is decently price competitive. (Apple's mac pro line were the first consumer computers that featured intel's nehalem architecture)

Well if beauty's not your thing, then why bring an iMac into your argument, right? Moreover, even if the mac pro is overpriced for what it is currently, it'd provide a much better comparison.

I am just repeating myself here in this post - but the thing is I have heard the 27 inch monitor argument, macs are not for gaming and the aesthetics argument ... but I was actually hoping that people will try to see what they are missing here - instead of repeating the things that have been said over and over again in numerous threads ...

On the flip side, I could say I'm repeating myself by saying custom-built windows tower advocates continue to use the price-per-performance argument and are missing out on the aesthetics aspect to the argument.


As a side note, I've never liked multi-monitor setups. I find the bezels of the monitors to be way too distracting.

 

[Spike88]

Perhaps its just me but the 2 machines in the comparison charge are NOT the same "guts". Too many miss-aligned parts to comfortable compare the price of each other.

If using an i7 2.8 Mac, then the Windows box must be a i7 3.4 CPU. Why? Because Windows platform must run background virus detection software - like Microsoft Essentials. Thus, the Windows box must have a FASTER CPU.

Compare 1 TB against 1 TB HDD as well. Comparing SSD to HDD on the other machines isn't a fare comparison.

Compare equal size monitors as well. Comparing Windows 23" to iMac 27" isn't a good comparison. Even going from a Windows 23" to a Windows 27" monitor has a huge price jump. Do compared 27" IPS in Windows platform.

If comparing Windows "included" Blu-Ray then perahaps you may want to include the price of 3rd party external Blu-Ray Reader via USB port for the iMac as well. Thus, showing the true comparison cost of Windows Blu-Ray and iMac Blu-Ray (as a bundled feature) comparison.

Many Windows platforms include multi-card reader. The "new" iMac only has included SD reader. The iMac has built in Camera. Remember to add 3rd party camera on the Windows machine as well.

If one is going to compare 2 different platforms, do include available feature (even if 3rd party inclusions) of each platform. Thus, allowing one to truely compare "Apples to Apples" (sort of speaking).

.

 

[MythicFrost]

The screen on the iMac costs a lot, so if you're happy to go with a smaller screen (or multiple smaller screens) then that's your choice and a PC.

The 27" i7 iMac is only $2199 with a 1 TB HD. 4GB of RAM and no AppleCare. Buying any Mac, I'd get the RAM elsewhere like OWC. For $400-500 you can get 16GB 1066MHz RAM.

 

[AlexisV]

Remember you pay for the form factor and custom components. The iMac does not have an off the shelf ATX motherboard.

Also remember that the iMac will retain its value - you don't need to upgrade it, you just sell it and buy a new one.

The Mac will be worth about twice as much as the PC in 3 years time.

 

[bolen]

I'm not sure about the 23" displays mentioned. But I'll bet they're filthy TN-panel displays. The 27" is a IPS panel - a BIG difference.

You should also take into account that the iMac is more energy efficient than the monster PC. An iMac consumes 49W with display off and about 150W with the display on. I can imagine the power consumption on that custom PC with 3 monitors doest even come close to that.

It's also a bit unfair to compare the new PC with the current iMac which hasn't been updated since last October. I do however feel that Apple should lower the price when getting closer to a refresh. But that's not how Apple roll, so you will have to accept the fact that buying price competitive Mac is done only after a refresh.

 

[Hellhammer]

2x23" Acers ~ 500$
27" Dell = 1049$

The display is already a lot more expensive than those crappy Acers. Also, compare the form factors. iMac is AIO while that PC is ATX box which is a lot bigger. Let alone the cable hell all those 3 displays would cause. The iMac has 330W PSU and if you think long time cost, the PC will cost a lot more due heavier power consumption (overclocking makes it suck power).

What are you going to do with it anyway? Most people don't benefit from the speed. Unless you are a HC gamer or do professional 3D stuff or video editing, you will use 1% of the capability of both machines.

It simply ain't fair to compare different two machines with different form factor.

If you need the speed and are fine with Windows, then Mac may not be for you.

 

[Rudy69]

If you really like the look of 3 monitors + a tower go for the PC

Part of what you're paying is for the all in one design (there are some pcs designed like that, I think HP has one, and the prices are similar to the iMac)

 

[daibachin]

I would say most of the money goes to design and form factor. If you are fine with big atx case, cables.. etc.. then of coz PC. In my opinion, mac pro is really meaningless and overpriced.

Pricing of iMac is actually quite competitive comparing to other AIO machine... I think Apple is the only one using aluminum for the case, and it's very important. It helps a lot on the heat and of coz it looks cool =)

 

[Rudy69]

Pricing of iMac is actually quite competitive comparing to other AIO machine... I think Apple is the only one using aluminum for the case, and it's very important. It helps a lot on the heat and of coz it looks cool =)

The Mac Pro is not over priced....it's not a PC but a workstation. Go get a work station form other companies (must have dual socket and xeon cpu) and you'll find out it's about the same price

 

[neo.darko]

Honestly - sometimes it feels like Steve Jobs himself is replying using different alias .

Moreover, even if the mac pro is overpriced for what it is currently, it'd provide a much better comparison.

MacPros are workstations - dual socket, ecc and everything and like you said hasn't been updated for quite a while (more than 500 days). I don't think the PC configuration should be put up against a MacPro (although in its current state - I don't think a single cpu MacPro would be a match for the PC). Besides the iMac is supposed to be the mainstream desktop line for apple isn't it? I do believe the comparison was more than fair.

Well if beauty's not your thing, then why bring an iMac into your argument, right?

On the flip side, I could say I'm repeating myself by saying custom-built windows tower advocates continue to use the price-per-performance argument and are missing out on the aesthetics aspect to the argument.

I like the macs for their design and beauty - we all do. But really - the design and form-factor can get us only so far.

Hmm... "custom-built-windows-tower-advocate" - not advocating anything here - the point was always that whether I can justify spending this amount of money for an iMac for its beauty and above average performance - or am I better off with a PC that will surely give me blazing performance (admittedly with a cable-hell price). [Whether or not I need this much power is a different issue altogether]

Perhaps its just me but the 2 machines in the comparison charge are NOT the same "guts". Too many miss-aligned parts to comfortable compare the price of each other.

- not true.

Also remember that the iMac will retain its value - you don't need to upgrade it, you just sell it and buy a new one.
The Mac will be worth about twice as much as the PC in 3 years time.

It's true - but it really shouldn't. But lets not get into that.

You should also take into account that the iMac is more energy efficient than the monster PC. An iMac consumes 49W with display off and about 150W with the display on. I can imagine the power consumption on that custom PC with 3 monitors doest even come close to that.

Thanks. I really didn't think of that. Agreed. But energy efficiency vs raw cpu power - not sure which one you would pick but I would go for the later one.

What are you going to do with it anyway? Most people don't benefit from the speed. Unless you are a HC gamer or do professional 3D stuff or video editing, you will use 1% of the capability of both machines.

I've said it before - I don't need this much power - I am a developer - not a designer or anything. But it would be nice to know that I could always boot into windows and start playing crysis2 if I ever wanted to [or my nephew could].

It simply ain't fair to compare different two machines with different form factor.

Hmm ... not sure if I understand that one correctly. But if iMac is the apple version of so-called PC, then design/form-factor shouldn't be the main distinguishing factor. [besides there are casings out there that look pretty darn cool (of course they are not in the same league as the macs)]. As for the cable-hell - well I really would prefer a ssd over reduced-cable-clutter - but I guess each to his own.

If you need the speed and are fine with Windows, then Mac may not be for you.

Hmm ... I should feel offended by that - that does sound like Steve Jobs - "you are holding it wrong".

I am NOT fine with windows ... OSX is a probably the primary reason people use macs in the first place isn't it ?

27" Dell = 1049$

Yeah - the 27 inch screen is where this argument seems somewhat flimsy...

Listen - I am not trolling or whatever it's called. The point was always that a PC always provides better options/upgradability and will most likely always fare better in terms of price.

And considering everything - the huge screen, the aio solution, osx - to me the premium I am paying for the iMac is not justifiable - the price difference does look unacceptable - especially at this stage when a product hasn't been updated for more than 250 days.

I guess there's no point whining about it here - it's upto apple and steve jobs and I am indeed one unhappy customer.

Cheers ...

 

[Hellhammer]

Thanks. I really didn't think of that. Agreed. But energy efficiency vs raw cpu power - not sure which one you would pick but I would go for the later one.

Most people don't worry about this because you don't know how much you are paying for the computer per month. It should be taken into the consideration but most people prefer speed, including me. In PCs you have more choices and the possibility to over/underclock.

Hmm ... not sure if I understand that one correctly. But if iMac is the apple version of so-called PC, then design/form-factor shouldn't be the main distinguishing factor. [besides there are casings out there that look pretty darn cool (of course they are not in the same league as the macs)]. As for the cable-hell - well I really would prefer a ssd over reduced-cable-clutter - but I guess each to his own.

The form factor is a physical thing. iMac is smaller than a PC but the PC box can easily be hidden. Besides, I've built several miniITX boxes which are faster than high-end iMac is but not much bigger than Mini is. Again, most people couldn't care less about this but it is one of the reasons why iMac is so limited. There are brilliant PC cases available, I personally prefer Fractal Design Define R2.

Hmm ... I should feel offended by that - that does sound like Steve Jobs - "you are holding it wrong".

I am NOT fine with windows ... OSX is a probably the primary reason people use macs in the first place isn't it ?

Yeah, the only reason i got Mac was because Vista was simply pain in my ass. Ubuntu is always a good option as well and so is Hackintosh. Now I would build a PC and hack it and buy 13" MBP if I had a choice.

And considering everything - the huge screen, the aio solution, osx - to me the premium I am paying for the iMac is not justifiable - the price difference does look unacceptable - especially at this stage when a product hasn't been updated for more than 250 days.

I guess there's no point whining about it here - it's upto apple and steve jobs and I am indeed one unhappy customer.

It's a personal preference. IMO you cannot argue about opinions. Both have their own pros and cons anyway. Macs do cost premium when compared to PCs but all Apple stuff does. For some people the OS X is worth more than for the others.

You aren't trolling, your points are valid. Only fanboys ignore the limitations of Macs.

 

[AlexisV]

You've missed one of your list - WANT

I don't want a fridge freezer, but I need one that does the job at the right price.

I want a nice computer though that's a nice object to own. And I don't mind paying a bit extra.

 

[daibachin]

I dunno why u want to look at 3 23" acer monitor.. w/ the same amount of money.. u could have gotten a 32" TV

 

[Hellhammer]

I dunno why u want to look at 3 23" acer monitor.. w/ the same amount of money.. u could have gotten a 32" TV

It's all about the resolution... 32" TV has maximum resolution of 1920x1080. One of those displays have that resolution so you would get 3x 1920x1080, i.e. three times more screen estate