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

iMac vs Mac Pro

gazfocus

gazfocus

macrumors 68000
Original poster
Jan 3, 2008
1,650
0
Liverpool, UK
I have been trying to make a decision over the past few weeks about which Mac to buy in January (an iMac/MBP/Mac Pro). I've removed the MBP from the equation but now need to decide between an iMac and a Mac Pro.

Basically, I do web development, photo editing, and a little video editing and I have been using a MBP as a portable but a Windows Vista PC as my main computer for the past year or so.

I was all set to buy an iMac but I want your advice first. Either way, I won't be buying until after MWSF but going by the current specs/prices, for £1250 I can get a top of the line 24" 3GHz iMac with 750GB Hard Drive but for an extra £100, I can buy a 4 Core 2.8GHz Mac Pro.

What would you do?
 
Well i may not be all that much help, but i have a top of the line 20" iMac and couldn't be happier. I do a lot of video encoding and have seen no real problems. When purchasing i was a good amount of money away from the bottom of the line mac pro. If i was as close is budget as you are i would go with the mac pro just for the expandability.
 
I was in the same position, and want the computer for almost exactly the same reasons oddly enough. I've chosen to get a top of the line iMac when they come out, because the Pro is a bit excessive for my needs.
 
If you only do light video editing, the iMac will likely service you well. The reason the price is close is because you are paying for the integrated monitor. You need to add the price of a 24" monitor and equal amount of RAM to get a better price comparison.

Even with that, your Mac Pro will have more cores, a faster bus, storage expandability and blow away the iMac with applications that can use multi cores.

I'd look at it from the reverse... why is the iMac priced as high as it is?
 
mcavjame said:
If you only do light video editing, the iMac will likely service you well. The reason the price is close is because you are paying for the integrated monitor. You need to add the price of a 24" monitor and equal amount of RAM to get a better price comparison.

Even with that, your Mac Pro will have more cores, a faster bus, storage expandability and blow away the iMac with applications that can use multi cores.

I'd look at it from the reverse... why is the iMac priced as high as it is?
Click to expand...

In normal circumstances, I would agree however, I already have a 5 month old 23" ACD so the added expense of the screen wouldn't be an issue. The only advantage price wise with the iMac is that I could sell my ACD and raise £400+
 
gazfocus said:
In normal circumstances, I would agree however, I already have a 5 month old 23" ACD so the added expense of the screen wouldn't be an issue. The only advantage price wise with the iMac is that I could sell my ACD and raise £400+
Click to expand...
...or that you would have two huge screens, one of which is LED-backlit.

When I get an iMac next month, I'm tossing the old PC and keeping the 24" monitor.
 
Bad Paper said:
...or that you would have two huge screens, one of which is LED-backlit.

When I get an iMac next month, I'm tossing the old PC and keeping the 24" monitor.
Click to expand...

Yeah...but would it not be wierd having a super glossy display and a matte display next to each other?
 
I'd go with the Mac Pro. Even though the iMac will be 3.0GHz+, it's still a laptop grade processor, not desktop or server grade as the Mac Pro. At the same clock speed, those things will be much faster. If I had the budget, I would have got a Mac Pro just for the fact that it is super expandable and will have a much longer life than the iMac.
 
I suppose if you've got the money, go for the Mac Pro. But you'll have to buy an extra moniter though so take that into account when comparing the prices.

However, for what you'll be doing an iMac will be just fine. I've got the 2.8Ghz version and edit high definition movies and it is blazingly fast no matter how many other programs I have open.

At the end of the day, it's your choice. Simple all-in-one iMac, or a monster expandable Mac Pro beast. Your choice. :apple:
 
I volunteer with a small production company, and we do all of our video editing on two 24" iMacs. Brilliant machines - no need to go up to a MacPro unless you're doing major editing, imo.

I would go for the iMac and put your ACD next to it. Helluva setup...
 
wwooden said:
I'd go with the Mac Pro. Even though the iMac will be 3.0GHz+, it's still a laptop grade processor, not desktop or server grade as the Mac Pro. At the same clock speed, those things will be much faster. If I had the budget, I would have got a Mac Pro just for the fact that it is super expandable and will have a much longer life than the iMac.
Click to expand...

I don't think the term "laptop grade processor" carries the connotation it once did. Laptops have gotten so fast now, they are a suitable desktop replacement for most uses, including HD video editing. The "laptop" grade processor inside the iMac will serve the OP's stated needs quite well for many, many years.
 
If you already have a 6 month old 23 ACD. Your set for the mac pro. Very fast
You can throw huge amounts of work at it. No heat issues what so ever. Even after lengthy renders or video conversions. The fans are still spinning at normal.
You can buy huge amounts of ram. The best part is having multiple hard drives. I have one for windows, one for storage/scratch drive, and one for my main boot drive.

Look to Apples online refurbished store for a good deal
1,999 single quad core
2.399 dual quad core
http://store.apple.com/us/browse/home/specialdeals/mac?mco=MTMzNTY
 
rpaloalto said:
If you already have a 6 month old 23 ACD. Your set for the mac pro. Very fast
You can throw huge amounts of work at it. No heat issues what so ever. Even after lengthy renders or video conversions. The fans are still spinning at normal.
You can buy huge amounts of ram. The best part is having multiple hard drives. I have one for windows, one for storage/scratch drive, and one for my main boot drive.

Look to Apples online refurbished store for a good deal
1,999 single quad core
2.399 dual quad core
http://store.apple.com/us/browse/home/specialdeals/mac?mco=MTMzNTY
Click to expand...

This is very good advice - there are always good deals in the refurb store especially on the Mac Pros. Just remember that there is an "effective price" of going the Mac Pro route, which is the cost of the Mac Pro plus the value of your monitor, since you could always sell it on ebay if you got an iMac.

As you can see by the many varied opinions around here, you really can't go wrong. Both machines will meet your needs, with the usual observation that spending a little more will get you more horsepower. Good luck!
 
I think iMac will be enough for you. the best iMac will have quad-core processor and good nvidia chipset (with at least 512mb). and if you buy mac pro you will need a screen also. that will cost extra few hundreds.
 
Hellhammer said:
I think iMac will be enough for you. the best iMac will have quad-core processor and good nvidia chipset (with at least 512mb). and if you buy mac pro you will need a screen also. that will cost extra few hundreds.
Click to expand...

No quad-cores in an iMac yet, but other than that, I agree with your comments. :)
 
Thanks for your comments. I think IF the iMac sees a quad core (even if it's the highest option iMac, I'll go for that over the Mac Pro. If they still only use dual cores, I think I will opt for the MP.
 
As I have both the Mac Pro and the 24" iMac in my office and my son and daughter both have 20" iMacs I would for the money the 24" iMac is very good value providing that you get the best graphics card. But money no object go for the Mac Pro. I am a doctor so I use the computer mainly for looking at Dicom Slides and various other images. I also use Aperture 2 , Lightroom 2 and Photoshop CS4 which run absolutely fine!!! on both!!! If you are doing any movie editing in FCP or Premier Pro or After Affects then you do notice the difference when applying effects and such like. Also importing HD video is alot, ALOT quicker on the Mac Pro. I mean this may be the difference between the ram on the machines, but I dont know.

If I was in your position, I would go for the the 4 Core Mac Pro with 6GB of Ram and the 8800GT Graphics!!!!
 
Hopefully (if any) the price increase isn't too much and is small as the last post says, the current iMac comes to £1,700ish in its highest configuration (not including software and extras), but any increase taking it drastically over the £2K mark will take it off the shopping list for me, though I probably would get a lower spec or refurbished previous gen iMac. I doubt it would happen, but you never know.
 
gazfocus said:
Yeah...but would it not be wierd having a super glossy display and a matte display next to each other?
Click to expand...

I don't notice it much with my 24" iMac and 21" matte Eizo. That's a personal thing though. For me (graphic designer & illustrator) the productivity gain from more screen real estate is bigger than additional processing power. That said, I definitely prefer the matte Eizo screen, even though it's smaller. Of course, you can also add an additional screen to the Mac Pro later. After all even though I'm happy with my iMac I would recommend the Mac Pro in your situation, for longevity and expandability.
 
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