 |
 |
iMac 24" or Power Mac Pro
|
|
|
|
|
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Oct 2006
Status:
Offline
|
|
If you got a choice between the iMac 24" (2.16Ghz, 1GB, 128MB Graphics card, 250GB HD) or the Power Mac Pro (2 Dual Core 2.66Ghz Xeon, 1GB, 250GB HD and 256MB Graphics card) which one would you pick?
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Senior User
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: UK
Status:
Offline
|
|
The Mac Pro, every time - it's like 2.5x the CPU speed, has huge upgradeability. When you figure price into the equation, it's pretty different, but ultimately the Mac Pro is far less disposable, so is worth the extra money if you can afford it.
David
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Aug 2005
Status:
Offline
|
|
I'd definately pick the MacPro 
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mac Elite
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Vancouver, BC
Status:
Offline
|
|
Depends on how much $$ you can spend. If you can afford the Mac Pro it is my choice.
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Regular
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Raleigh
Status:
Offline
|
|
I think the Mac Pro is meant for two kinds of people:
1. Those who NEED the speed, i.e., professionals; or
2. Those who WANT the speed, i.e., people who's egos require that they have the biggest and best computer on the market.
There is certainly nothing wrong with the latter. But, a Mac Pro simply not worth it to everyone. Think about this--you could either buy a Mac Pro every 2 years, or a top-of-the-line iMac nearly every year, and spend roughly the same amount of cash. This is because Mac Pro owners are going to want to replace their monitors ever so often, whereas the iMac has a new monitor built-in each time you replace one. So, while you spend 2 grand on a 24" iMac, you would need to spend $3,500 on the Mac Pro with 23" monitor. Some will say you don't need to replace the monitor, but c'mon, y'all know Apple folks love to have the latest and greatest gear, including displays!
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Toronto Area
Status:
Offline
|
|
in this case, Mac Pro. If you have a disposable income that is.
I went through this debate lately with a MacPro 2.0 and ended up going with a 24" iMac. I went with the 2.16 Proc, upgraded the ram to 2Gb and the video to the 7600GT. In the end I came out with a fairly decent power house at a fraction of the price when you consider you get a moniter and all.
So basically it comes down to what you need? Heavy Video or photo editing and lots of power - MacPro. Or if you need something for web surfing, occasional gaming, and video photo editing - iMac.
Good luck on your choice! Just remember more RAM is your friend 
|
My Heatware
My PC: A64 3500+, SN95G5 XPC, 2x512 OCZ PC3500EB, ATI X800 Pro, 2x74Gb Raptors
My Mac: 15" 1.25Ghz PB , OSX10.3.5, 1Gb Ram, AE, BT, DVD-RW, 40G iPod
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Baninated
Join Date: Oct 2006
Status:
Offline
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Houston, TX
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by heydickhedsquitbanningme
Except, wait, it doesn't since they have the SAME STOCK VIDEO CARD.
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Senior User
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Los Angeles
Status:
Offline
|
|
depends on your budget . . i'd prefer a imac just cuz i don't need that much power
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Baninated
Join Date: Oct 2006
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by mduell
Except, wait, it doesn't since they have the SAME STOCK VIDEO CARD.
The iMac with the 7600 dominates the mac pro with a 7300. Same price. Except you get a 24" lcd with the iMac.
Personally I think the mac pro is a joke. 4 cpus? What app uses that?? None.
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Globetrotting
Status:
Offline
|
|
I'm all about simplification, practicality and power saving. The iMac is one cord going into it assuming you're wireless.
The Mac Pro you'll need two power cords, speakers and the power cord for that. Take on a video cam or iSight and you got a cable mess. For power consumption it's 220W vs 650w (not including display, speakers, etc) max consumptions.
If you're a gamer and get the iMac opt for the 7600 as shown in the aforementioned benchmarks.
If you're not going to be rendering 3D, doing production level audio, etc you probably don't need a Mac Pro. It would be like buying a Hummer as you're daily city gridlock commuter.
|
|
If a group of mimes are miming a forest and one falls down, does he make a sound?
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: San Diego, CA, USA
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by WifeOfCash
Personally I think the mac pro is a joke. 4 cpus? What app uses that?? None.
Few apps use all four at once, but if I want to render a video, rip a CD, run Azureus and do some Photoshop work/play WOW at the same time, I guarantee you the four CPUs will see some good use and the system will run a lot better than an iMac would.
|
|
Chuck
___
"Instead of either 'multi-talented' or 'multitalented' use 'bisexual'."
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Regular
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Raleigh
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by heydickhedsquitbanningme
HAHAHAHA, your name is hilarious!
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mac Elite
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Los Angeles, California
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by Chuckit
Few apps use all four at once, but if I want to render a video, rip a CD, run Azureus and do some Photoshop work/play WOW at the same time, I guarantee you the four CPUs will see some good use and the system will run a lot better than an iMac would.
Amen!
|
|
Linkinus is king.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Senior User
Join Date: Mar 2004
Status:
Offline
|
|
|
|
|
iMac G4 / Macbook
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Ireland
Status:
Offline
|
|
How about this... a 3GHz Mac Pro, 2GB RAM versus a 2.33 GHz iMac, 3GB RAM to run Final Cut Express HD, editing about five hours of footage down into one dvd every two weeks. Ok.. I know the Mac Pro is gonna beat da crap outta da iMac, but the dual processor with 3GB RAM can't be so bad surely?
I'm making this specific comparison because this is my actual choice in real life. I can afford the IMac easy enough, but I would have to swallow whiskey and bite hard on a leather strap to go for the Mac Pro.
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Senior User
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: UK
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by holyharry 
How about this... a 3GHz Mac Pro, 2GB RAM versus a 2.33 GHz iMac, 3GB RAM to run Final Cut Express HD, editing about five hours of footage down into one dvd every two weeks. Ok.. I know the Mac Pro is gonna beat da crap outta da iMac, but the dual processor with 3GB RAM can't be so bad surely?
I'm making this specific comparison because this is my actual choice in real life. I can afford the IMac easy enough, but I would have to swallow whiskey and bite hard on a leather strap to go for the Mac Pro.
Sure, there might not be that much difference now, but the Mac Pro is faster, and much, much more expandable. While the iMac is pretty much set in stone, in a couple of years from now, you could have 2TB of storage, 8Gb RAM, a better GPU, and maybe even newer processors with more cores.
David
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Northern VA
Status:
Offline
|
|
Mac Pro, but since I don't have the budget, I'd rather get the iMac. With the Mac Pro, I'd have to spend more money on the monitor anyway.
|
|
iMac 24" | Core 2 Extreme 2.8GHz | 4GB RAM | 500GB HD
PowerBook G4 15" HR | 1.67GHz | 2GB RAM | 100GB HD
R.I.P 1995 Toyota Supra NA-T
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 
|
|
|
Forum Rules
|
|
|
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Top