[carterx]

We have a department here at work that want to get a "High End" Mac for dealing with student work files that come into their hands and since a lot of the work "Graphic Design / Photography" are rather large images & files they want a high end computer. I mentioned the high end 27" iMac 2.93GHz Intel Core i7 with 8GB memory. They want a super high end Mac Pro. They do not want it because of the extra hard drive space or card space but for power. They think that a suited up iMac will not do and that they need a Mac Pro.

So .... i'm curious myself to see where a "27" iMac 2.93GHz Intel Core i7 with 8GB memory" would stand with a Mac Pro.

Thanks,



[Leonard]

Unless they're running something that uses all the cores, I can't see why an iMac wouldn't do, if you don't need the hard drive space. Are they worried about RAM capacity or expandability? Are they worried about having the monitor built-in? I personally hate all-in-ones, and don't mind paying a little more, plus I seem to be using the HD space now-adays.

I think you can google and find some good performance comparisons. MacWorld has done a few (this one is a few pages long) Mac Performance Guide: Apple Mac Pro “Westmere” (August 2010) — Introduction

[carterx]

I'm all for going for a Mac Pro when it calls for it but if you don't need the use of extra hard drives large amounts of memory and the need of adding extra card then an iMac is ideal and not near as costly.



[P]

By "Super high-end Mac Pro" I assume you mean the 12-core, dual socket model? If so, then there is quite a bit of difference between them. 12 cores is more than 4, the top GPU is way better and the RAM ceiling is twice that of the iMac, but I think the question is if they really need those extra cores. It is not going to be faster on a single thread, beyond that indicated by the clockspeed. If they run multithreaded code or want the absolute fastest graphics card, then yes, the top MP might be worth it. That is not a common case though.

[mduell]

4 cores vs 12
8GB vs 32
Multiple SSDs, RAID card

Umm yea, not even close.

[SierraDragon]

IMO in the world of "Graphic Design / Photography" the iMac's only-glossy-available display is rather undesirable. Most (not all) graphics professionals agree. Personally as a photo pro the glossy displays gag me. If I had to work on one every day I would retrofit one of those funky thin films, or maybe bring my own display to work.

I would suggest a tower for sure, not because of simple processing power (which the top iMac is strong in) so much as real-images work-load-handling power. Student project graphics files can be HUGE, especially if layered for instructor comment; i/o handling is essential and that is what towers are designed for (and iMacs are poor at). Also there are good value third party matte displays available (e.g. NEC).

Do not disregard the hard drives issue. When dealing with huge graphics files on a routine basis multiple SATA hard drives capacity is essential. Even attached to a fast network it is ideal to have very substantial mass storage inside the box.

I do not agree about "super high end" within the range of towers unless the need for absolute maximum processing power is proven. For value best is the stock Octo core to achieve 8 RAM slots; and, older boxes tend to be better value. Some general benchmarks are available at Mac Benchmarks.

Note that you can put a strong graphics card in any of the towers.

-Allen Wicks