Top end iMac or Power Mac??

[cyclotron451]

I'm another PowerMac advocate. I read somewhere that the current generation (Rev.C?) of the flat iMac is almost impossible to maintain (other than in an Apple Service Centre) - something about first remove the LCD then access all other components *from behind* the LCD. A step back from the excellent d.i.y repair possibilities of the Rev.A and .B flat iMacs.

My PowerMac 466 DA is still my main work desktopmachine, I've stuffed it full of ram and HDD's and upped it to an aftermarket Pioneer DVR-108 (superdrive) - it's about to enter its 5th year of service!! I could have bought all sorts of upgraded GPU's or even CPU upgrades. More life expectancy!! More flexibility! I even get reasonable Photoshop work on simple images!

(2006 will be the Multi-core year, this time next Xmas the fashion will be to have so many cores that you might feel unfashionable until you trade your Rev.C iMac in for a Rev. D iMac??)

I'll be buying the intel thin iBook soon

 

[eXan]

but Im afraid it might be an overkill

You're right, for such small files PowerMac is an overkill.

My dad for example is a pro photographer, he uses his 1 ghz 15 inch AlBook for everything "Photo/Other still images", though he has dual 1.8 PowerMac (he uses this baby for HD video editing)

He loves his PowerBook, so i guess you'll be more than happy with iMac!

 

[Danksi]

...I read somewhere that the current generation (Rev.C?) of the flat iMac is almost impossible to maintain (other than in an Apple Service Centre) - something about first remove the LCD then access all other components *from behind* the LCD. A step back from the excellent d.i.y repair possibilities of the Rev.A and .B flat iMacs...

This is something that's playing on my mind at the moment, especially since we live nowhere near an Apple Service Centre and it'd cost $'s and take ages to ship it.

(well any excuse to replace the white box on my desk with a silver box under my desk!)

 

[dollystereo]

PMG5 is way better, dual cpu is a big plus, it has a better video card, more ram BIGGER BUS!
Its 2x times faster than the imac,.
Get the PM

 

[chicagdan]

Its 2x times faster than the imac

Hmm ... 1 mhz bus vs. 700 mhz bus.

Dual core 2 ghz processor v. single core 2.1 ghz processor

533 mhz RAM on both

GeForce 6600 LE vs. Radeon X600, both with 128 megs of video RAM

7200 rpm HD on both

Fact of the matter is, this is a pretty close race. Sure the Power Mac is better, but twice as fast is an absurd comment ... 10 percent faster at best. Unless you're running lots of dual core enabled apps, most won't notice the difference in speed.

Don't get me wrong, there are lots of good reasons to go with the Power Mac, long-term upgradeability being the biggest one, but speed out of the box shouldn't be the deciding factor.

Now, if you really want to see a huge price/performance difference, price the Mac Mini vs. the 17" iMac ... that could be close to a 2X speed difference.

 

[eva01]

Hmm ... 1 mhz bus vs. 700 mhz bus.

Dual core 2 ghz processor v. single core 2.1 ghz processor

533 mhz RAM on both

GeForce 6600 LE vs. Radeon X600, both with 128 megs of video RAM

7200 rpm HD on both

Fact of the matter is, this is a pretty close race. Sure the Power Mac is better, but twice as fast is an absurd comment ... 10 percent faster at best. Unless you're running lots of dual core enabled apps, most won't notice the difference in speed.

Don't get me wrong, there are lots of good reasons to go with the Power Mac, long-term upgradeability being the biggest one, but speed out of the box shouldn't be the deciding factor.

Now, if you really want to see a huge price/performance difference, price the Mac Mini vs. the 17" iMac ... that could be close to a 2X speed difference.

I would say the PM is more than 10% faster (especially since a lot of Apple's apps are dual proc compatible), and also remember you can have a ridiculous amount of RAM in the PM, much better graphics card, and a raptor HD.

I would go with the PM myself, which is why i have a DP PM instead of a Rev B iMac

 

[chicagdan]

I would say the PM is more than 10% faster (especially since a lot of Apple's apps are dual proc compatible), and also remember you can have a ridiculous amount of RAM in the PM, much better graphics card, and a raptor HD.

I would go with the PM myself, which is why i have a DP PM instead of a Rev B iMac

Yes you CAN have a ridiculous amount of RAM, better graphics card, blah blah blah ... that just makes my point that the PM is more upgradeable and if that's what you want, by all means jump at it.

If you're talking about the system you're paying for out of the box, I don't think the difference is significant. Perhaps 10 percent is low, but it's a helluva lot closer to the truth than 2X. The speed of a computer is not all processor speed. The components used in the iMac are outstanding. True, they may not look so hot in six months, in which time with your PM you can throw in more RAM and a hotter graphics card to keep up and that's a good rationale for the PM.

I'm in this boat too and I haven't made up my mind yet ... I don't photoshop or video edit, so I'm not sure I need the PM horsepower.

 

[eva01]

Yes you CAN have a ridiculous amount of RAM, better graphics card, blah blah blah ... that just makes my point that the PM is more upgradeable and if that's what you want, by all means jump at it.

If you're talking about the system you're paying for out of the box, I don't think the difference is significant. Perhaps 10 percent is low, but it's a helluva lot closer to the truth than 2X. The speed of a computer is not all processor speed. The components used in the iMac are outstanding. True, they may not look so hot in six months, in which time with your PM you can throw in more RAM and a hotter graphics card to keep up and that's a good rationale for the PM.

I'm in this boat too and I haven't made up my mind yet ... I don't photoshop or video edit, so I'm not sure I need the PM horsepower.

The reason i got my PM other than photoshop and web design, is because it will last longer due to the upgradability. I want it to last through my medical school because i know i will be poor then. I already have 2GB of RAM and a 9650 card, next i am getting the raptor HD. I just want the computer to be able to last as long as possible.

 

[Danksi]

Now, if you really want to see a huge price/performance difference, price the Mac Mini vs. the 17" iMac ... that could be close to a 2X speed difference.

Which is one of the reasons I got my iMac and sold my existing monitor at the time.

...The components used in the iMac are outstanding. True, they may not look so hot in six months, in which time with your PM you can throw in more RAM and a hotter graphics card to keep up and that's a good rationale for the PM...

The iMac is almost a 'throw-away' item (well sell and upgrade at least). Assuming it's suitable, buy an iMac now, sell n' upgrade in a couple of years when the technology has improved again (i.e. to Intel)

 

[Rhobes]

Which is one of the reasons I got my iMac and sold my existing monitor at the time.



The iMac is almost a 'throw-away' item (well sell and upgrade at least). Assuming it's suitable, buy an iMac now, sell n' upgrade in a couple of years when the technology has improved again (i.e. to Intel)

I think this is the answer, after crunching all the numbers. I was just quoted $600.00 trade in for my current system and see the same system on e-bay right now at $512.00. I would guess my system will probably still be worth 500 in 2 years.

So I'm going to opt on what someone here suggested see:

http://daystar-tech.com/Apple_Mac_P...h_Products/Mac_CPU_G4_Upgrade_iMac_FP_PS.html

I'll upgrade to the 1.3 GHZ for $500.00 and my iMac should get me through until the new Intels come out. Then I'll go with the Intel Power Macs or whatever they'll call them then. So be it.....

 

[bodeh6]

PowerMac all the way. If you are doing any sort of photoshopping, the extra expandibility will come in handy later. RAM will be a cinch to add up to 16GB whereas the iMac is expensive to get to just 2.5GB. Plus later on you can replace the video card with a faster card and you can easily add a harddrive if you need it.

 

[chicagdan]

The Apple Store on Michigan Ave here in Chicago had some incredible "refreshed" (returned) products for sale today. There was a dual core 2 ghz PowerMac on sale for $1700. A 20 inch Apple display went for $500. There are dozens of returned iPods, many PowerBooks, a few iMacs ... it's a bargain hunter's delight.

 

[eXan]

Its 2x times faster than the imac

Well it depends on the task. If it is rendering/encoding, then yes, almost 2x performance. If it is a game, the difference is minor or none at all (but your can buy an awesome gpu for PowerMac, ie GeForce 7800 and blow iMac away), if it is small files in Photoshop, the diff. is minor, if it is Motion or something similar, the difference is big

 

[bursty]

Get the Powermac.

 

[Xephian]

Another vote for the Power Mac.

 

[irrªtiºnal]

Hello

First off, I use photoshop exclusively. I'm having the "slows" and think it's time to upgrade.

At this point I'm thinking to go with the iMac 2.1GHz 20" LCD with the full 2.5GB RAM. Would there be any reason to go to the Power Mac 2GHz, it seems like it would be a downgrade.

Rhobes, ppl, gentlemen, ladies and those in the middle, i have a question, that it seems you can contribute towards its clarification...

i might start getting some Photoshoping myself too, (i;m not entirelly new to graphic design, but i am definitely NOT a Pro, yet) and was thinking of this very issue myself sometime ago...

is the 20" iMac screen good at REAL work? i;ve seen it on display on the shop but never obviously had the time to see the dots on the i;s...

i was posting some issues in the Dell;s monitor post, and it occurred to me this other one, more important i think:

to what extend does Apple make their graphics really take advantage of their intrinsic hardware integration and what would be the differences (graphics-wise, not performance-wise) of using an 20" iMac vs a PowerMac + 20.1" Dell Ultrasharp?

 

[bodeh6]

Rhobes, ppl, gentlemen, ladies and those in the middle, i have a question, that it seems you can contribute towards its clarification...

i might start getting some Photoshoping myself too, (i;m not entirelly new to graphic design, but i am definitely NOT a Pro, yet) and was thinking of this very issue myself sometime ago...

is the 20" iMac screen good at REAL work? i;ve seen it on display on the shop but never obviously had the time to see the dots on the i;s...

i was posting some issues in the Dell;s monitor post, and it occurred to me this other one, more important i think:

to what extend does Apple make their graphics really take advantage of their intrinsic hardware integration and what would be the differences (graphics-wise, not performance-wise) of using an 20" iMac vs a PowerMac + 20.1" Dell Ultrasharp?

The 20" display in the iMac is better now then the 20" ACD in specs.

 

[wnameth]

Hello

First off, I use photoshop exclusively. I'm having the "slows" and think it's time to upgrade.

At this point I'm thinking to go with the iMac 2.1GHz 20" LCD with the full 2.5GB RAM. Would there be any reason to go to the Power Mac 2GHz, it seems like it would be a downgrade.

for the total price of the imac with the ram, it would be probably cheaper to go with a powermac, at the store that i work at a 2Gb stick of ram is like 1,000$

 

[eXan]

for the total price of the imac with the ram, it would be probably cheaper to go with a powermac, at the store that i work at a 2Gb stick of ram is like 1,000$

Yea, thats pretty insane

 

[Danksi]

for the total price of the imac with the ram, it would be probably cheaper to go with a powermac, at the store that i work at a 2Gb stick of ram is like 1,000$

Canadaram is doing the 2Gb sticks for the iMac, for CDN$585+tax and I think that'll come down over time (the 1Gb stick price has dropped a couple of times since the iMac iSight came out). Still a lot of $/Gb though.

You have to include the cost of a screen when price comparing iMac with PowerMac. I'd like to pick up a PowerMac for expandibility, but with Intel around the corner, I'm likely to stick with my iMac for another year or so - I've only had it since October and it does all I need it to, for the moment anyway.

Considering I started looking at the Mini-Mac, then went for the iMac when I realised I could sell my monitor and then only need CDN$400 more to get the iMac instead.