iMac vs. Mac Pro

[Jack Flash]

It looks like I can get a refurb Quad 2.66 GHz Mac Pro for $2000 or a new 2.8 GHz iMac for $1880 (configured with 8800 GS and bluetooth mouse/keyboard)

Which do you think is the route to go? Yes, the iMac does come with a H-IPS monitor built in, but the Mac Pro is more expandable.

 

[aethelbert]

I would personally go for the mac pro. There's more power in it and you've got many more options. But it all depends on what you're gonna be using it for.

 

[Jimmdean]

The real question is how much power do you need. The Mac Pro's are nice, but obviously quite overpowered for the typical consumer. If you don't need a couple more cores or raid or 4TB of storage, go with the iMac.

 

[D4F]

Mac Pro is a system that allows you to upgrade it (IF Apple releases the parts of course). It's a quad core (which is not always better so read about it) and it comes without a monitor.

Now on the other hand you have a iMac with awesome graphics card, 3.06 processor and a pretty damn good monitor.

It all comes to what you need.

I would certainly not go for a refurb Mac Pro. Not good enough to stand aginst the new iMac as a whole package.
BUT I would hide some $$ in my pocked and go with a 2x quad core as it gives you a better investment if I needed some crazy power.

 

[CWallace]

It is a tough one.

When I bought my 2.4GHz iMac this summer, I knew I was going to go to the Mac full-time. I considered the Pro, but it was almost double what the iMac was (when you add in the monitor).

However, I am moving to the Mac Pro roughly 18 months in. I do not regret buying the iMac by any stretch, but now that I have gone "all-in" in a bigger way then expected, I need the power of the Pro.