IMac vs Mac Pro ($3500 budget) but need a workhorse

[Mac2012]

There's musicians out there with Macbooks that will WALK the dog on ANYBODY using Mac pros he he... listen, get what you want. Good luck, but I think it's your chops, not your box. Sure these people with tell you to get a Mac Pro but for DP, an iMac will do just fine if your good! If I was rendering out video all day yes, MP all the way but there's Matrox cards that blur the line on that one too so..
There's a LOT more involved than a computer when it comes to music... I think his money is better spent on good mics, conversion, and monitoring systems... not a 6 core Mac pro because if you're careless, you can bring down ANY DAW if you don't know what your doing with resources.

 

[Mac2012]

Bleh I have multiple displays. If I have to send in one, it's annoying, but I can still operate until a replacement comes. If it was a gpu, it depends on warranty status, but assuming I needed it back up and running immediately i'd order a replacement. With the imac you can't even replace the HDD yourself as of 2010 or 2011. I agree with you on burning things in. I haven't heard much in the way of logic board or cpu failure problems from others using mac pros. Has it been more or less common since they switched away from the Intel boards in 2009? Last while I mentioned I don't care for the imac, I did suggest an alternative configuration if he goes that route. I suggested not paying Apple such an asinine amount for those upgrades when you could put that portion of the budget to better use.

You can service an iMac easily... there's TONS of videos how to service them. If it's a logic board or processor, you're burnt even with a MP so whatever...
Any computer can be brought down easily with a DAW so if your just careless, and don't know what you're doing, it doesn't matter! iMacs are a formidable machine. I have a 2009 Nehalem and I do huge projects on it (because I know what I'm doing) and I can open ANY of the projects on my iMac with NO problem so people saying that they aren't fast enough is PURE BS! Anyway, go spend the $3.5K on the 6 core... I doubt your music will sound any better on it compared to an imac... quality before quantity anytime! Conversion, good mics, and great monitors (oh yeah, and the most important) GREAT TALENT is what matters most in the end. An iMac can pull off some serious projects if your skilled.

 

[wonderspark]

What I will be doing is music. I have a studio, using Digital Performer with 3 or 4 plugins running. I also want to do heavy duty video editing in the future.

Hmm... guess he needs more than a laptop, eh? But yeah, maybe he should just walk the dogs instead.

Yeah, in fact you've sold me... I'm selling all my gear and cutting my chops on this:
'Cos I've got skillz.

 

[Mac2012]

Hmm... guess he needs more than a laptop, eh? But yeah, maybe he should just walk the dogs instead.

Yeah, in fact you've sold me... I'm selling all my gear and cutting my chops on this:
'Cos I've got skillz.

Image

Typical!
DP and FCP are FAR from a damn 1980 tape machine but as usual, you get these Einstein's showing off their IQ's here... by the way, could you educate us all since you're so good on what "heavy duty video editing" actually is?
Watch this and tell me if this is fast enough for heavy duty editing: http://youtu.be/3Rw8dQPtwRU
Please, by all means, I'd love to see your proof that a laptop can't possibly edit pro caliber video. You just seen mine. Always some smart ass having to talk **** here on this forum.
Oh, and I will LITERALLY WALK CIRCLES ON YOU with music creation on a computer... literally WALK CIRCLES AROUND YOU! I want you to say a famous person told you off, but, unfortunately... I already did.

 

[chrono1081]

+1 for Mac Pro.

You can upgrade the ram from OWC for MUCH cheaper and it'll handle oodles of stuff. Its the best machine I've ever owned and I've owned plenty of computers.

 

[Mac2012]

yea mac pro man. the imac is not a workhorse because they aren't upgradable. I'm still using my g5 that I bought in 2005 because i was able to upgrade the components. If I had an Imac, i would've been stuck right now.

Ha ha ha... a G5 seriously? My 2.4 4.1 Macbook SLAMS my G5 he he. Whatever man!
Mac Pros have SATA 2... with TB on an iMac you can get WAY FASTER speeds for audio and video editing than any MP. 2011 iMacs have SATA 3 right out of the box so your faster already!!!! A/V is DISK INTENSIVE, not so much processor. You get a UA DSP solution and a TB RAID and lookout he he... sorry, go spend your 3500 dollars on that MP and see that in the end, there's just a VERY, VERY small difference. Oh, but the iMac has a glossy screen... turn your lights down in the room.

----------

+1 for Mac Pro.

You can upgrade the ram from OWC for MUCH cheaper and it'll handle oodles of stuff. Its the best machine I've ever owned and I've owned plenty of computers.

OKAY... go get one then when they come out with a TB version you'll be sorry hehe...
Na, SATA 2 compared to SATA3 are you serious? People don't know what's involved obviously with a DAW and video editing he he... DISK I/O speeds period! You can put extra monitors on an iMac too. I can't WAIT till they come out with a 6 core iMac he he... yeah, "you need a Mac Pro" BS is OVER! Most use VEP and use ethernet to connect another computer to the host... listen, iMacs can CRANK! But then again... I know what I'm talking about!

 

[chrono1081]

Ha ha ha... a G5 seriously? My 2.4 4.1 Macbook SLAMS my G5 he he. Whatever man!
Mac Pros have SATA 2... with TB on an iMac you can get WAY FASTER speeds for audio and video editing than any MP. 2011 iMacs have SATA 3 right out of the box so your faster already!!!! A/V is DISK INTENSIVE, not so much processor. You get a UA DSP solution and a TB RAID and lookout he he... sorry, go spend your 3500 dollars on that MP and see that in the end, there's just a VERY, VERY small difference. Oh, but the iMac has a glossy screen... turn your lights down in the room.

----------


OKAY... go get one then when they come out with a TB version you'll be sorry hehe...
Na, SATA 2 compared to SATA3 are you serious? People don't know what's involved obviously with a DAW and video editing he he... DISK I/O speeds period! You can put extra monitors on an iMac too. I can't WAIT till they come out with a 6 core iMac he he... yeah, "you need a Mac Pro" BS is OVER! Most use VEP and use ethernet to connect another computer to the host... listen, iMacs can CRANK! But then again... I know what I'm talking about!

I really don't think you do, especially when you say things like "AV is not processor intensive". Are you kidding me? Maybe for a home movie or something but if the OP is doing lots of editing and especially any type of effects shot its going to be processor intensive.

Sure, I/O speeds are important but the OP is on a budget and can't drop 20k on a power rig with SSD's in it. If he could, I'm sure he would but the Mac Pro will be the most beneficial in his price range, especially for any multicore aware apps that he may be using. For video editing, its a must. I'm pretty sure the video editors and the sound editors at work would be highly upset if I took their Mac Pro's away.

 

[thekev]

You can service an iMac easily... there's TONS of videos how to service them. If it's a logic board or processor, you're burnt even with a MP so whatever...
Any computer can be brought down easily with a DAW so if your just careless, and don't know what you're doing, it doesn't matter! iMacs are a formidable machine. I have a 2009 Nehalem and I do huge projects on it (because I know what I'm doing) and I can open ANY of the projects on my iMac with NO problem so people saying that they aren't fast enough is PURE BS! Anyway, go spend the $3.5K on the 6 core... I doubt your music will sound any better on it compared to an imac... quality before quantity anytime! Conversion, good mics, and great monitors (oh yeah, and the most important) GREAT TALENT is what matters most in the end. An iMac can pull off some serious projects if your skilled.

Are you even reading my replies you silly troll? I mentioned the exact things that bother me and gave suggestions on how to better budget the imac should he choose to go that route. Apple really doesn't make amazing desktop displays. Every display generation from Apple since the crt days has had one or more major flaws, especially in terms of reliability. With the imac, your computer is tied to that expensive panel. You can't send in the display separately if you require warranty service. The hard drive is not serviceable. It requires a custom part. They've changed it twice. On the first revision people reported success by shorting out the temperature sensor. Now if you install an off the shelf drive your fans go wild. The hard drive is one of the least reliable components in any machine. I zero the drives when I receive them. I do a stress test on the machine to burn in components and test for problems. Drives still die sometimes. I dislike the closed machine aspect there.

I told you that I don't personally feel comfortable with this design. As for the OP, I suggested that the ram upgrade from Apple and $600 SSD are not worth it at that price. There are better ways to budget his upgrades if he decides to go with the imac, and you save several hundred just looking at a refurb. It just looked like poor budgeting. I also stated that with the mac pro, it's not worth stressing an extra $100 or so to budget for a ram upgrade there when the purchase is already so expensive. On price, yeah the markup on the single socket mac pro is high. I've stated that before. The argument that a 6 core imac fixes it is also silly. It was stated with quad core too.

I really don't think you do, especially when you say things like "AV is not processor intensive". Are you kidding me? Maybe for a home movie or something but if the OP is doing lots of editing and especially any type of effects shot its going to be processor intensive.

That part was where I figured he was a troll . The imac definitely isn't worth dropping $3500. The way Apple is going though, perhaps neither machine will exist in a few years . I'm kind of hoping that seeing a lot of great apps ported to OSX (smoke comes to mind) will extend its life. Right now I think they just need to examine what they put out for the line. The 8 core is in kind of a weird spot. If it came down to a setup like 6 core and 12 core models only, they might be able to price them slightly better by shrinking the line somewhat.

 

[derbothaus]

A 4-track Tascam can pull off serious projects if you are even MORE skilled. It all comes down to how fake you are. How many fake instruments and samples and virtual doo-dads. The more fake you are, the more CPU power is needed. I still get great live results with a Metric Halo ULN-2 and MBP Core 2 Duo. Not too much power on that setup.

 

[wonderspark]

Typical!
DP and FCP are FAR from a damn 1980 tape machine but as usual, you get these Einstein's showing off their IQ's here... by the way, could you educate us all since you're so good on what "heavy duty video editing" actually is?
Watch this and tell me if this is fast enough for heavy duty editing: http://youtu.be/3Rw8dQPtwRU
Please, by all means, I'd love to see your proof that a laptop can't possibly edit pro caliber video. You just seen mine. Always some smart ass having to talk **** here on this forum.
Oh, and I will LITERALLY WALK CIRCLES ON YOU with music creation on a computer... literally WALK CIRCLES AROUND YOU! I want you to say a famous person told you off, but, unfortunately... I already did.

You certainly sound excited about yourself, but it's just the Redbull talking, right? Are you really trying to impress us with a video clip of an R6 Pegasus running in RAID0 to achieve about 800MB/second? While that's neat and all, it runs a couple hundred or more slower in RAID5, while I currently run a RAID6 like this:

I'm only using half the ports on my RAID card with eight drives, and even then, I got 1101MB/second read/write when I tested a RAID0 stripe. The only circles you're walking are the ones around your own mind. Running RAID0 is for suckers.

So when you're finished "showing off your proof" with that old ProRes transcoded Audi footage and patting yourself on the back, I'll suggest you educate yourself about editing video, since I'm neither your mommy nor your headmaster. Try running native, unrendered 4.5K (that's 4480x1920) R3D files on your laptop, and come back to wag your tongue about how it felt having your lunch money taken by the other kids at school, McFly. Or as you might say, "Please, by all means, I'd love to see" what resolution you find yourself dropping down to in order to play it smoothly in real-time. Haha! You know where that quarter goes.

 

[wonderspark]

Ha ha ha... a G5 seriously? My 2.4 4.1 Macbook SLAMS my (snippity-snip)... I know what I'm talking about!

I'll throw you a bone, mang. Thunderbolt is pretty cool, and maybe it will make something of itself here fairly soon. I'm not impressed today, but hope to be impressed tomorrow, provided that it delivers. Without you early-adopters and your Kool-aid/Redbull shooters that you throw down, it would take longer for new tech to take off. Props to you.

 

[jsolares]

Greetings

I am wondering a question please. For my budget of $3500 I was looking at these two options. What I will be doing is music. I have a studio, using Digital Performer with 3 or 4 plugins running. I also want to do heavy duty video editing in the future.

Ok on the IMac:

3.4GHz Quad-Core Intel Core i7
16GB 1333MHz DDR3 SDRAM - 4x4GB
1TB Serial ATA Drive + 256GB Solid State Drive

Price $3,400

On the Mac Pro:

One 3.33GHz 6-Core Intel Xeon “Westmere
3GB (3x1GB)
1TB 7200-rpm Serial ATA 3Gb/s hard drive

Price$ 3699


Ok I know on the G5 the processors are way better, but I will get less ram, and not the solid state drive, which I believe would be great for speed.

What are your opinions with what I want to do. Which computer would be best?

Thank You!!!! for any info you can help with!

With the iMac get the ram yourself and not from apple and you save 400$ and can then get the 2GB video card as well.

The difference in performance between them will not be that great, really will depend mostly on what you run.

The biggest difference will be expandability which is easier and for the most part cheaper on the Mac Pro.

Bottom line, if you're going to want to tinker with it at any point get the Mac Pro, if you don't mind being stuck on the same performance for the life of the computer get the iMac.

Edit: Oh and another thing, the Mac Pro is less noisy than the iMac, the iMac at full throttle can be quite noisy, so if you're going to run it in a quiet room get the Pro.

 

[derbothaus]

With the iMac get the ram yourself and not from apple and you save 400$ and can then get the 2GB video card as well.

The difference in performance between them will not be that great, really will depend mostly on what you run.

The biggest difference will be expandability which is easier and for the most part cheaper on the Mac Pro.

Bottom line, if you're going to want to tinker with it at any point get the Mac Pro, if you don't mind being stuck on the same performance for the life of the computer get the iMac.

Edit: Oh and another thing, the Mac Pro is less noisy than the iMac, the iMac at full throttle can be quite noisy, so if you're going to run it in a quiet room get the Pro.

Funny, I thought the biggest difference was the 40% higher track count in Logic Pro vs. the iMac.

 

[jsolares]

Funny, I thought the biggest difference was the 40% higher track count in Logic Pro vs. the iMac.

And that matters why?

 

[derbothaus]

And that matters why?

Because you said the biggest difference is expandability. I was pointing out that power is another difference.

 

[jsolares]

Because you said the biggest difference is expandability. I was pointing out that power is another difference.

And that's opinion

Not that big imho, it'll all depend on what he does and what software he uses. he might not need to run 117 tracks, the 87 the iMac handles might be enough.

Even with vmware fusion i'm not so sure i would need more cpu power than even my lowly i5 for what i do, but noise and storage is making me consider the Mac Pro when it updates.

 

[derbothaus]

And that's opinion

Not that big imho, it'll all depend on what he does and what software he uses. he might not need to run 117 tracks, the 87 the iMac handles might be enough.

Even with vmware fusion i'm not so sure i would need more cpu power than even my lowly i5 for what i do, but noise and storage is making me consider the Mac Pro when it updates.

Not opinion dude. He said Pro-tools and Logic are his main apps and in those the extra cores will win out.
It isn't that big a difference but it is there. You may not need the power but the OP may.
What good is it if you answer "yeah it's faster but you probably don't need the extra speed"? OP needs facts not users to tell them their workflow.
Noise was the other concern and it is pretty unanimous that the iMac is not a quiet system for recording. Again, these are nitpicking things. Both machines are perfectly capable of doing great projects. But like so many things in art the devil is in the details

 

[jsolares]

Not opinion dude. He said Pro-tools and Logic are his main apps and in those the extra cores will win out.
It isn't that big a difference but it is there. You may not need the power but the OP may.
What good is it if you answer "yeah it's faster but you probably don't need the extra speed"? OP needs facts not users to tell them their workflow.
Noise was the other concern and it is pretty unanimous that the iMac is not a quiet system for recording. Again, these are nitpicking things. Both machines are perfectly capable of doing great projects. But like so many things in art the devil is in the details

He did not say pro-tools or logic, might be blind tho.
And yes the devil is always in the details, which we don't have, unless i'm really blind

 

[Tower-Union]

I'd like to chime in on the upgrade-ability. I have a 2006 original Mac Pro, and it still outperforms most machines. I dropped in the Quad core 3.0 Ghz X5365's, beefed up the RAM, put in an SSD, and just recently a 6850 2GB. Will it perform against a new Mac Pro? No, but its 80% of the performance for 30% of the price. As long as you're willing to DIY a little, the ability to upgrade is priceless.

 

[Music_Producer]

The HDD on my iMac failed a few days ago. Of course I have everything backed up, but just imagine not being able to access your music/video projects. I have a macbook pro as a backup, so I was able to start work on it, but it was a lot of time spent.

If this had happened to a Mac Pro, I could have just swapped the drive with a new one, restored the backup and resumed work. Of course, anything can go wrong with a mac pro as well (logic board failures, etc) but with the iMac, the hard drive can't be replaced easily.

The iMac's terrific as a production station, but this hard drive nonsense has put me off. Definitely buying a mac pro in the future.

 

[derbothaus]

He did not say pro-tools or logic, might be blind tho.
And yes the devil is always in the details, which we don't have, unless i'm really blind

No. I'm blind. Sorry. I think I had 2 threads going and confused the answers or for some reason I wanted to see that
DP has good multicore support as well according to it's users which I am not.
I hang my head in shame

 

[Mac2012]

You certainly sound excited about yourself, but it's just the Redbull talking, right? Are you really trying to impress us with a video clip of an R6 Pegasus running in RAID0 to achieve about 800MB/second? While that's neat and all, it runs a couple hundred or more slower in RAID5, while I currently run a RAID6 like this:

Image

I'm only using half the ports on my RAID card with eight drives, and even then, I got 1101MB/second read/write when I tested a RAID0 stripe. The only circles you're walking are the ones around your own mind. Running RAID0 is for suckers.

So when you're finished "showing off your proof" with that old ProRes transcoded Audi footage and patting yourself on the back, I'll suggest you educate yourself about editing video, since I'm neither your mommy nor your headmaster. Try running native, unrendered 4.5K (that's 4480x1920) R3D files on your laptop, and come back to wag your tongue about how it felt having your lunch money taken by the other kids at school, McFly. Or as you might say, "Please, by all means, I'd love to see" what resolution you find yourself dropping down to in order to play it smoothly in real-time. Haha! You know where that quarter goes.

Who in the hell would run a RAID 5 for performance he he... For backups yes, but for performance, I'd just use it as a scratch disk to work off of... you're LOADED he he! You obviously don't do anything pro he he... RAID 5 he he... RIGHT!

 

[wonderspark]

Who in the hell would run a RAID 5 for performance he he... For backups yes, but for performance, I'd just use it as a scratch disk to work off of... you're LOADED he he! You obviously don't do anything pro he he... RAID 5 he he... RIGHT!

Well, now I know for certain that you have no idea what you're talking about. He he. Good luck, famous guy!

 

[Mac2012]

You certainly sound excited about yourself, but it's just the Redbull talking, right? Are you really trying to impress us with a video clip of an R6 Pegasus running in RAID0 to achieve about 800MB/second? While that's neat and all, it runs a couple hundred or more slower in RAID5, while I currently run a RAID6 like this:

Image

I'm only using half the ports on my RAID card with eight drives, and even then, I got 1101MB/second read/write when I tested a RAID0 stripe. The only circles you're walking are the ones around your own mind. Running RAID0 is for suckers.

So when you're finished "showing off your proof" with that old ProRes transcoded Audi footage and patting yourself on the back, I'll suggest you educate yourself about editing video, since I'm neither your mommy nor your headmaster. Try running native, unrendered 4.5K (that's 4480x1920) R3D files on your laptop, and come back to wag your tongue about how it felt having your lunch money taken by the other kids at school, McFly. Or as you might say, "Please, by all means, I'd love to see" what resolution you find yourself dropping down to in order to play it smoothly in real-time. Haha! You know where that quarter goes.

You said LAPTOP brick skull he he... remember? That's all I stated. Ok, now... what's you're skills like? Anything like your memory? Funny how people FORGET what the **** they were talking about like this quote: "Originally Posted by wonderspark
Hmm... guess he needs more than a laptop, eh?" For a mobile rig, if you got some good talent, you can do wonders...

 

[wonderspark]

I suggested a Mac Pro is better for heavy duty video editing than a laptop. Seems it's YOU that lost the plot on the dance floor, DJ.