Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
iMac Quad Core i7=Mac Pro Quad Core i7?
- Thread starter theapplefreak
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
The Mac Pro Quad is not an i7, it's a Intel Xeon Nehalem, the i7 is like a consumer model of the Xeon.
With a lower price and a 27" ips screen the new imac is better than the basic mp. I would hate to be an owner of those. Wow sometimes bleeding edge cuts both ways
Not even remotely. The iMac is not (user) upgradable, it can't expand, it can't have cards added and its a consumer computer.
Yeah, the top-top-end iMac outperforms the entry-level MacPro in terms of sheer processing power. One can go whatever way they choose, considering the iMac is less expensive and comes with its own screen.
Personally, the iMac sounds great as an office/design computer. Lots of desk space freed up thanks to being an AIO. As a high performance computer, its mediocre at best due to its lack of expansion. Some of that expansion can be aided through the ethernet plug (storage being the large thing) but it still can't unfold to the certain preferences of users that demand more then sheer CPU power.
its two different i7's
macpro's has triple channel memory, qpi interface (to interconenct with other cpus), and chipset with more PCIe lines
imac's i7/i5 has dual channel memory, dmi interface (well, doesnt really matter is it qpi or dmi), builtin 16x pcie controller.
macpro's has triple channel memory, qpi interface (to interconenct with other cpus), and chipset with more PCIe lines
imac's i7/i5 has dual channel memory, dmi interface (well, doesnt really matter is it qpi or dmi), builtin 16x pcie controller.
not to mention that i7 has only one core running when hyper threading is active
while the xeon has its 4 cores active
and finally, yes, the high end imac might be powerful but keep in mind that it was released first
once the MP will be updated, it will get the most powerful proc
while the xeon has its 4 cores active
and finally, yes, the high end imac might be powerful but keep in mind that it was released first
once the MP will be updated, it will get the most powerful proc
Ummm, no.
I can attest to you, I own a Core i7. Hyperthreading is enabled at all times across all cores, no matter what.
It shows up to Windows 7 as 8 processors installed, since it is 8 logical processors.
which means...
The MAC PRO(2008/2009) can run circles around any imac thats out there.. remember, no ssd drive support, no ATI Radeon 4890 or 5000 series cards, no upgrades except memory.. you can't even upgrade the processor!
Imac is a dead end, but then again I bitterly hate the imac.
The MAC PRO(2008/2009) can run circles around any imac thats out there.. remember, no ssd drive support, no ATI Radeon 4890 or 5000 series cards, no upgrades except memory.. you can't even upgrade the processor!
Imac is a dead end, but then again I bitterly hate the imac.
The 27.5" i7 iMac is very good value, you can't put a SSD (that I know of, which is a shame) in or a better graphics card (also a shame) but the Mac Pro is much more expensive.
You normally can't upgrade the processor in a Mac Pro, if you do it's very difficult and I'm pretty sure voids your warranty.
I wouldn't say they'd run circles around the iMac, they may be upgradable but that's if you have the money and/or need it,
The 08 Octo would probably compete with the iMac but maybe not since the iMac turboboost's up to 3.46GHz and has faster RAM,
The 09 quad might be a little better, the 09 Octo would be better for multi-tasking obviously, having 16 cores.
Plus on top of that basic 2,500 dollar Mac Pro setup, you need a screen, I'd buy the iMac if I didn't need/want my Mac Pro.
I think with 8GB RAM, 2.8GHz i7, 27.5" screen (2560x1440 res) 4850 512MB GPU is the starter price of the Mac Pro w/o a screen ($2500) (roughly).
If you're asking this question then stay clear of the mac pro. If its advantages over the imac are not clear to you then the advantages the imac has over the mac pro are what you need.
After reading iFixit's breakdown, it looks like it is possible to put an SSD in there... it's probably something I will wait to do 3 years down the road when my AppleCare runs out, though. LOL.
The reasons the mac pro is better seem null and void. Yes you can upgrade the video card; to what?
You can also pay more for inferior hardware in a larger case with no display!
$2500 for a base MP gets you
One 2.66GHz Quad-Core Intel Xeon
3GB (3x1GB)
640GB 7200-rpm Serial ATA 3Gb/s
NVIDIA GeForce GT 120 512MB
While $2200 gets you this
2.8GHz Quad-Core Intel Core i7
4GB 1066MHz DDR3 SDRAM - 2x2GB
1TB Serial ATA Drive
ATI Radeon HD 4850 graphics with 512MB
The way I see it, I get a faster computer with a high quality 27" IPS panel for less than a MP. While you may gain some flexibility by being able to replace parts, what can you replace? The video card? FAIL Or the hard drives? I guess that is helpful, but you could just use a raid enclosure to get the same effect.
Both computers have 16gb of ram, similar video cards. (Both underpowered for what you pay, but thats another argument).
In my mind anyone who buys a base MP is a fool.
PS On a side note, I would LOVE some benchmarks between the two CPUs. I would wager a large bit that the 2.8GHz Quad-Core will outpace One 2.66GHz Quad-Core in every category.
You can also pay more for inferior hardware in a larger case with no display!
$2500 for a base MP gets you
One 2.66GHz Quad-Core Intel Xeon
3GB (3x1GB)
640GB 7200-rpm Serial ATA 3Gb/s
NVIDIA GeForce GT 120 512MB
While $2200 gets you this
2.8GHz Quad-Core Intel Core i7
4GB 1066MHz DDR3 SDRAM - 2x2GB
1TB Serial ATA Drive
ATI Radeon HD 4850 graphics with 512MB
The way I see it, I get a faster computer with a high quality 27" IPS panel for less than a MP. While you may gain some flexibility by being able to replace parts, what can you replace? The video card? FAIL Or the hard drives? I guess that is helpful, but you could just use a raid enclosure to get the same effect.
Both computers have 16gb of ram, similar video cards. (Both underpowered for what you pay, but thats another argument).
In my mind anyone who buys a base MP is a fool.
PS On a side note, I would LOVE some benchmarks between the two CPUs. I would wager a large bit that the 2.8GHz Quad-Core will outpace One 2.66GHz Quad-Core in every category.
Well, all I can say that the current imbalance points towards an update. Anybody who would buy one now (who doesn't need it for their job) would be foolhardy. However, a NAS is restricted by how fast ethernet moves data around - 1000Mb/s ethernet only moves 125 MB/s, which does the job for a singular hard drive but a striped set would be bottlenecked. One could move more data around, but Apple isn't going to allow port-teaming on their iMac anytime soon. In addition, there are other things one can put in their PCIe slots other then graphics cards for video capture, audio work, or dedicated RAID instead of relying on software RAID.
Every computer with a SATA port supports an SSD.
Its socketed, you certainly can upgrade it.
The only reason to get the Mac Pro is if you are going to be upgrading it more than you could with the iMac. The only things that would be more upgradable is the video card (limited choices unless you are running under Windows), a faster type of ram (both machines now can hold the same amount), being able to upgrade for more hard drive space and set up a raid, you can also install other cards like USB expansions.
The iMac with the 27" screen is a clear choice, but I would wait if you are not sure because they will be upgrading the Mac Pro here soon, unless you get the 8 core I would wait. Personally I have come to a point where I don't know if I want the iMac or a future quad core Mac Pro. I really want a tower with a separate monitor so I can put all my hard drives in one case.
At the same time it would be nice to have a 27" screen and an All in One machine like my current iMac. I plan on keeping my current iMac so that might weigh in my final decision next year. They usually update the Mac Pro around the Summer time.
The iMac with the 27" screen is a clear choice, but I would wait if you are not sure because they will be upgrading the Mac Pro here soon, unless you get the 8 core I would wait. Personally I have come to a point where I don't know if I want the iMac or a future quad core Mac Pro. I really want a tower with a separate monitor so I can put all my hard drives in one case.
At the same time it would be nice to have a 27" screen and an All in One machine like my current iMac. I plan on keeping my current iMac so that might weigh in my final decision next year. They usually update the Mac Pro around the Summer time.
Screw the Mac Pro I am planning on building a 2.93Ghz i7 iMac with eSata connected to a RAID array
I agree.
I was about to get the 2.93GhZ Mac Pro with Radeon 4870....
but I think that the top of the range iMac makes more sense.
Before anyone starts saying that I am not high-end cool enough...
I have built SCSI arrays, multiple servers and worked quite a bit with dual Xeon setups. It's all about bottlenecks for your task and I do agree that expandability matters, so....
Why am I going for the iMac???
- Processor is socketed (reason I would never buy an octo MP by the way) and there is more head room for turbo than MP
- same amount of RAM (albeit dual channel)
- GPU is socketed
- storage, fairly sure I can get 2xSSD striped in software which should give 800MB/sec + (remember striping doesn't use much CPU, it's proper RAID 5, 10 etc that reallly benefit from hardware RAID.
Performance... I think it will be about 5-10% slower on I/O than a Mac Pro and probably about the same as far as processor (unless it is a very memory intensive task which will probably see the MP about 20% faster). In fact, I think with turbo on poorly threaded tasks (still most UI tasks by the way) the iMac may even beat the Quad MP as far as raw speed, but we'll have to wait for benchmarks to be sure.
What is lacking?
PCIe of course.... but I don't really need it, most things are fine over SATA, ethernet or firewire.
ECC, not an issue for the vast majority of tasks that I will be running, at the moment production servers should never run OS X, that's what linux does best.
The MP just doesn't stack up (not to mention the crazy prices in Aus)
I was about to get the 2.93GhZ Mac Pro with Radeon 4870....
but I think that the top of the range iMac makes more sense.
Before anyone starts saying that I am not high-end cool enough...
I have built SCSI arrays, multiple servers and worked quite a bit with dual Xeon setups. It's all about bottlenecks for your task and I do agree that expandability matters, so....
Why am I going for the iMac???
- Processor is socketed (reason I would never buy an octo MP by the way) and there is more head room for turbo than MP
- same amount of RAM (albeit dual channel)
- GPU is socketed
- storage, fairly sure I can get 2xSSD striped in software which should give 800MB/sec + (remember striping doesn't use much CPU, it's proper RAID 5, 10 etc that reallly benefit from hardware RAID.
Performance... I think it will be about 5-10% slower on I/O than a Mac Pro and probably about the same as far as processor (unless it is a very memory intensive task which will probably see the MP about 20% faster). In fact, I think with turbo on poorly threaded tasks (still most UI tasks by the way) the iMac may even beat the Quad MP as far as raw speed, but we'll have to wait for benchmarks to be sure.
What is lacking?
PCIe of course.... but I don't really need it, most things are fine over SATA, ethernet or firewire.
ECC, not an issue for the vast majority of tasks that I will be running, at the moment production servers should never run OS X, that's what linux does best.
The MP just doesn't stack up (not to mention the crazy prices in Aus)
Actually the only reason for 95% of Mac users to buy a Mac Pro is if they like to throw their money awa in which that case they can send their money to me. Although that seems to be the type of thing many Mac users like to do unfortunately..and were supposedly "smarter" than PC users. Anyways I digress. The Mac Pro is overpriced, and chances are next month when bench marks come in we will either see nearly no difference in performance of the $2,500 Mac Pro and iMac i7, OR the i7 will actually run slightly better. The Xeon itself can actually be slower in some consumer software, specifically gaming because of what the processors are for. Probably the only benefit to the Pro is it might be stronger built and therefore last long, that and upgradeable, but considering you can only upgrade the RAM (can do that in any mac), HD (but how in the hell could you fill up 1TB/2TB anyways, in conjunction with having an external?), CPU MAYBE, and graphics, but look at the crappy graphics options for Mac Pro and your just better off getting a badass iMac. Oh yeah and it has a 27in' LED monitor.
Wow, there's some serious amount of crap spoken in this thread.
The Pro is more expensive because it's upgradable. There's 4 HDD slots, 1 or 2 quad core chips, expansion slots, more RAM slots. Plus you're not stuck with the supplied monitor. Those all make the Pro worth the extra.
Buying an iMac you're pretty much stuck with what you've got unless you start hanging stuff off the back, or are prepare to spend a fortune upgrading the guts which voids any warranty and probably compromises the internal cooling.
The Pro is more expensive because it's upgradable. There's 4 HDD slots, 1 or 2 quad core chips, expansion slots, more RAM slots. Plus you're not stuck with the supplied monitor. Those all make the Pro worth the extra.
Buying an iMac you're pretty much stuck with what you've got unless you start hanging stuff off the back, or are prepare to spend a fortune upgrading the guts which voids any warranty and probably compromises the internal cooling.