Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

Meadowfield · Jan 11, 2008, 09:39 AM

Hey guys, I need your help...

In the event that Steve doesn't intro a new sub 1,500 amateur tower or new monitors Tuesday, I'll be seriously considering retiring my faithful PM G5 Dual 2.0 w/ 2GB Ram married to the dated Apple aluminum 20 for something a little speedier: The entry $2,300 MacPro with one 2.8 Quad (and keep my monitor) or the $2,300 24" iMac with one 2.8 core 2 Extreme.

I don't game, but increasingly, I find myself annoyed at launch times and GUI sluggishness, and do find the occasional dabble in Elements or especially Aperture incredibly frustrating. Admittedly, things are pretty pokey on the Macbook 2.0 Core 2 too, although I suspect that to be a video card thing, and that's where my eyes begin to gloss over.

Obviously, the Pro is faster at intense tasks, but is the difference significant enough to justify the extra cost relative to what I am accustomed to? I am especially fond of the iMac's larger monitor, and find the inclusion of iSight particularly intriguing.

Thanks!

SierraDragon · Jan 11, 2008, 11:09 AM

I have lots to say about iMac vs. Mac Pro, but let's wait until after Mac Expo next week because any number of things may still yet change.

After Expo what we also need is exactly what apps you think you are likely to be running in the future. If any substantial graphics, especially Aperture, may be in your future a tower is usually most appropriate.

-Allen Wicks

MacosNerd · Jan 11, 2008, 11:56 AM

I think the odds are slim to none that apple would release a tower platform that would sit between the MacPro and the iMac. I'm not questioning the desire for many of us for such a machine, just pointing out that is highly unlikely.

As Allen mentioned your best option is to sit and wait.

If you're getting more serious into aperture and are tired of the spinning beachball of death or sluggish wait times. I'm not sure if the iMac will completely eliminate that.

I've used Aperture on a MacPro and my MacBook Pro and on the MBP, there are wait times. From what I've read the MBP has a faster GPU then the iMacs or at least comparable. If you take that into account then the iMac may not be an ideal machine for your needs. of course you didn't really state what your budget was and that typically is the deciding factor.

SierraDragon · 05:54 PM

IMO "budget" as in "I only have $2k to spend" often leads to inefficient purchase decisions. What really matters is life cycle cost for the apps being run, and that usually makes towers more cost effective than iMacs once graphics usage is involved. Looking to the future RAM capabilities become important, but who knows maybe next week new iMacs will be announced that accept more than 4 GB RAM and don't have glossy displays that add contrast and saturation to images.

-Allen Wicks

MacosNerd · Jan 11, 2008, 06:52 PM

I'm kind of hoping the same thing. I'm finding that it would be nice to have a machine thats just little faster then my MBP, but I don't need the full power (nor the cost) of the MacPro. I'll use my ADC membership to purchase my next computer so that should hopefully the cost will not be a budget buster.

mduell · Jan 11, 2008, 07:40 PM

Originally Posted by SierraDragon

IMO "budget" as in "I only have $2k to spend" often leads to inefficient purchase decisions. What really matters is life cycle cost for the apps being run, and that usually makes towers more cost effective than iMacs once graphics usage is involved. Looking to the future RAM capabilities become important, but who knows maybe next week new iMacs will be announced that accept more than 4 GB RAM and don't have glossy displays that add contrast and saturation to images.

Lifecycle costs are one thing, but cash flow is another.

>4GB RAM would require desktop chipsets today, and I really don't see Apple going there.

Cadaver · Jan 11, 2008, 08:06 PM

>4GB RAM would require desktop chipsets today, and I really don't see Apple going there.

Agreed. If you need more than 4GB of RAM, you should probably be looking at a tower and not an iMac.

Cadaver · Jan 11, 2008, 08:09 PM

Originally Posted by MacosNerd

I've used Aperture on a MacPro and my MacBook Pro and on the MBP, there are wait times. From what I've read the MBP has a faster GPU then the iMacs or at least comparable. If you take that into account then the iMac may not be an ideal machine for your needs.

But an iMac will use a much faster hard drive than a laptop, which will help quite a bit.

MacosNerd · Jan 12, 2008, 10:32 AM

5400 vs. 7200, isnt what I would consider much faster drive but I get your point. The bus speeds are the same between the two. If apple does release an iMac that has more horse power, and/or a better GPU, I may jump on it. the glossy screen may be a tough one though. I prefer matte, especially since I'll be using this for Aperture. I don't see that I'll get much if any advantage iMac over MBP for my coding, where as I suspect the MacPro will really shine - of course the MacPro will outshine any other Macintosh as its the top of the line

Simon · Jan 12, 2008, 10:41 AM

Originally Posted by MacosNerd

5400 vs. 7200, isnt what I would consider much faster drive but I get your point. The bus speeds are the same between the two.

I think you're missing the point. The iMac has a regular 3.5" HDD while the MBP has a thin 2.5" notebook drive. The iMac's HDD is much faster than the MBP's, even if you put a 7200 rpm drive in the MBP.

MacosNerd · Jan 12, 2008, 10:50 AM

I'm not disagreeing, it will be faster, its just hard to quantify "much" All things being equal, I don't see the iMac (for my needs) in its current incarnation giving me any advantage over the MBP - short of a faster HD. The GPU of the iMac may even decrease the performance. If what I've read is true (MBP's GPU > iMac's)

The MacPro on the other hand will but can I even swing the expense and convince the boss (ahem wife)

SierraDragon · Jan 13, 2008, 03:28 PM

Originally Posted by MacosNerd

All things being equal, I don't see the iMac (for my needs) in its current incarnation giving me any advantage over the MBP...

iMacs will real-world perform a bit stronger than a MBP, however the portability of the MBP is a huge, huge benefit. Of course, evaluating "current incarnation' is kind of silly 2 days before Expo.

-Allen Wicks

SierraDragon · Jan 13, 2008, 03:31 PM

Originally Posted by mduell

Lifecycle costs are one thing, but cash flow is another.

That is what credit cards are for...

-Allen Wicks

Meadowfield · Jan 15, 2008, 04:25 PM

Ok, with no new prosumer towers or iMacs announced today, I've decided to go with the new MacPro and hold off on upgrading the monitor. Question is, should I consider going for the dual Quad (+$500), upgrade to the 8800GT (+200) or add some extra 3rd party ram afterwards?

mduell · Jan 15, 2008, 05:19 PM

Aperture user? 8800GT.

SierraDragon · Jan 26, 2008, 02:12 PM

Originally Posted by Meadowfield

Ok, with no new prosumer towers or iMacs announced today, I've decided to go with the new MacPro and hold off on upgrading the monitor. Question is, should I consider going for the dual Quad (+$500), upgrade to the 8800GT (+200) or add some extra 3rd party ram afterwards?

8800 GT and 4x2GB OWC RAM are needed for Aperture; sell the two lame 1 GB Apple DIMMs. Tests at BareFeats.com apparently show the benefits with 4 or 8 matched DIMMs:
Memory Tests: "2008" Mac Pro

-Allen Wicks