[JohnnyZ]

I'm thinking about replacing my old MDD Powermac with a Mac Pro.

This presents a buyer's dilemma at this point in time though. It has been pointed on on some of the threads here, it seems illogical to buy a Mac Pro when the high end iMac has more basic power at a lower price.

I am a freelance graphics professional, and don't really like the screen of the built in iMac. I have a second mac, an iMac that the family shares, but I have never been able to calibrate the screen on the iMac to where it looks anything like the subtle colors of the Cinema Display I use with my Powermac.

So my dilemma is I don't want the top end 27" iMac with the built in screen... and I don't want to pay almost $400 for a Mac Pro with less power than the iMac.

My question is when are the new Mac Pros likely to be unveiled? Can we assume that the 6 core machine that is speculated will sell for about the same price as the current Mac Pro?

I'm also surprised that the prices on the refurbished Mac Pros don't seem that much lower than new ones. At the Epson rerurb store one can buy scanners that are discounted 50% or 70% sometimes. So a Mac Pro that's only discounted slightly below the educational store price makes one wonder if it's worth buying a refurb.

Any input to this discussion is much appreciated.
I started a new topic because I didn't see a specific Mac Pro thread.

Anyhow... thanks for any enlightenment.

[ezkcdude]

Who told you the iMac outperforms the Mac Pro?

[Miko]

Originally Posted by JohnnyZ I'm thinking about replacing my old MDD Powermac with a Mac Pro. This presents a buyer's dilemma at this point in time though. It has been pointed on on some of the threads here, it seems illogical to buy a Mac Pro when the high end iMac has more basic power at a lower price.

This often comes down to a matter of personal budget, in the past years yes the MacPro was always the de facto for pro, even semi-pro needs, but now seeing how most don't really max out the MacPros to the limit RAM, GPU, HDD etc. The iMac now presents great power to cost value but it's not more powerful than the MacPro.

Originally Posted by JohnnyZ I am a freelance graphics professional, and don't really like the screen of the built in iMac. I have a second mac, an iMac that the family shares, but I have never been able to calibrate the screen on the iMac to where it looks anything like the subtle colors of the Cinema Display I use with my Powermac.

Can't really compare the newer LED iMac screen to the older ones, the new ones are of much better quality in fact I believe they use the same panels as the 24 inch LED cinema displays. Having said that being married to the screen is the price for an all-in-one design as you know. Where the MacPros out shines the iMac is in expandability and the glass is hard to get by coming from the matte world.

Originally Posted by JohnnyZ So my dilemma is I don't want the top end 27" iMac with the built in screen... and I don't want to pay almost $400 for a Mac Pro with less power than the iMac.

Sorry this is a self made dilemma no answers here.

Originally Posted by JohnnyZ My question is when are the new Mac Pros likely to be unveiled? Can we assume that the 6 core machine that is speculated will sell for about the same price as the current Mac Pro?

The MacPros have gone the longest without an update in the current model lineup (I think almost a year) so to buy one now could be considered unwise especially if it's your money. The 12-core model would most likely be the top of the line only and break your budget. My main advice is to always buy the most tech for your needs with a budget you can afford.

Originally Posted by JohnnyZ I'm also surprised that the prices on the refurbished Mac Pros don't seem that much lower than new ones. At the Epson rerurb store one can buy scanners that are discounted 50% or 70% sometimes. So a Mac Pro that's only discounted slightly below the educational store price makes one wonder if it's worth buying a refurb.

Again MacPros are considered professional workstations so they are probably discounted the least, but keep checking as new models drop so will the refurbs prices, fingers crossed.

You're also coming from a MDD PowerMac so anything will be a great improvement over that, I'm also guessing you have universal apps? If not, you of course will be running those in Rosetta on the new iMacs and MacPros.

[Moogs]

Give us a breakdown in hours of which applications you use in a typical 40 hour work week, and any special requirements of the apps themselves. That wil make the decision easy.

[PB PM]

I agree with Moogs, what you do makes a difference. IMO, unless you are rending videos, high resolution photos or audio 40 hours a week a Mac Pro seems like overkill.

[iFerret]

Is it possible to get the iMac and connect the display you already have to it? And then just do colour sensitive (or whatever) work on that secondary display.

It takes up a lot more room, but you do get dual screens (maybe one for the document or image and one for toolbars and palettes). And it does save you that $400.

[psmith2.0]

Now there's an idea. I think iMacs allow that, right? Spanning and so forth...

Horsepower-wise, I have to believe the current iMacs (even the entry-level model) provide enough "juice" for all but the most demanding, hardcore types (not sure where the original poster falls in that whole thing).

Seems like a valid suggestion to consider.

[Wyatt]

Originally Posted by iFerret Is it possible to get the iMac and connect the display you already have to it? And then just do colour sensitive (or whatever) work on that secondary display. It takes up a lot more room, but you do get dual screens (maybe one for the document or image and one for toolbars and palettes). And it does save you that $400.

Yeah, the iMacs have mini DisplayPort, just like all the other Macs. The 27" can actually also act as a monitor if you have another device with mDP outputs. The 21.5" can't do that, but it can definitely use external monitors.

[JohnnyZ]

Thanks for the many thoughtful replies.

Mostly I do photoshop files... which when added into 20 layers or so at 300 dpi and at large page sizes can take a lot of processing time. Then when there are multiple files open and also files open in Illustrator and Indesign, it can slow things down. Also I don't think I'd want to use a USB external drive for backup, since I do backups every 20 minutes sometimes... (a process which has saved my bacon on numerous occasions).

I have two scanners, two printers, a wacom and an external HD. Then there's the question of a scratch disk. I think I've read that assigning a separate scratch disk to a different HD is not quite as critical as it used to be. But still it might be helpful. The two screen option is interesting... I never thought about that.

For some reason I was thinking that March was an expected date when the new Mac Pros would be launched?

Thanks!

[Xaqtly]

It is a mystery! I wouldn't count on any definitive dates, but I'm guessing they will be updated pretty soon. As others have said, the iMacs are not in the same processing power class as the Mac Pros, they use entirely different processors, and more of them.

Right now, with Adobe CS4, I'm guessing you wouldn't see a huge difference between the two - the Mac Pros will still be faster but maybe not so much that it would be worth the extra money to you. However, that will change when CS5 comes out... whenever that happens. CS5 is being rewritten in Cocoa, and will be fully 64-bit, meaning it will be able to address more than 4 GB of RAM and will hopefully use all your processors.

That gives the multi-core Mac Pros a significant advantage, in addition to being able to use more RAM than the iMacs (physical slots). It is worth mentioning that the current Nehalem Mac Pros are the most expensive towers, relative to Apple's previous models, that they've released in a very long time. I mean $5k for a no-option high end tower is getting ridiculous. It's possible whatever the next round of chips Apple uses for these won't cost as much, but who knows.

[709]

You're upgrading from a Windtunnel? Hell, a Mac mini is going to be faster.

You certainly don't need a Mac Pro for the print work you describe. You may be served well enough by a 13"/15" MBP with an external monitor. Having the option to unplug and go meet a client is pretty nice.

[alcimedes]

If you can, I'd wait until the new Mac Pros are released, then decide. For what you're describing the iMac would likely be faster short of a RAID 0 in a Mac Pro. I'm sure the new Pro's will be bumped though, and you actually sound like a low to mid-range tower would be a better fit for your needs.

[Moogs]

Johnny: for Photoshop and the suite, you'll want a machine that makes it easy to feed the apps a lot of RAM going forward, though Photoshop is not necessarily needing 8 cores. iMacs suck when it comes to expanding / installing RAM. For value and timing I would go 4 core Mac Pro and WAIT a few weeks. New models soon are likely and hopefully the won't have the same screwed up 3 channel RAM issue the last ones have, and will have more slots besides.

[PB PM]

From the sounds of things, as Moogs has already alluded, the base model Mac Pro should be enough for you. Its RAM limit right now is silly so hold out for an update though, and hope the price doesn't go up, again this time.

[psmith2.0]

Originally Posted by Moogs iMacs suck when it comes to expanding / installing RAM.

In what way?

They come with 4GB installed, and support up to 16GB.

As for installing, a small cover plate - held in place by one screw - is on the bottom of the unit. Its removal exposes the RAM slots. I've put ram in an iMac in about a minute-and-a-half, including the removal and replacement of the cover plate. It's about the easiest, most straightforward RAM access on any Mac I've owned or used.

[Miko]

RAM isn't so much an issue that's easy on every Mac, (minus the mini), but the iMacs can't hold a candle to the MacPro and you know this.

The I/O on the MacPro is crazy.
PCI slots
Drive bays
Optical drives
Optical Audio

[psmith2.0]

Fine. But it hardly "sucks". I was specifically talking about Moogs' assessment.

But beyond that, if the o.p. is someone who doesn't use or need those things (PCI slots, drive bays, etc.), then what good are they? Spec-wise, yes...the Mac Pro beats the iMac in every way "on paper". But it's up to the user to decide which things are truly important and needed. And whether they're worth the extra money.

A Ferrari is "better" than a Saturn. But it still doesn't appeal to me, and I could never justify having one.

[JohnnyZ]

Thanks everyone... I'm learning lots of new things I wasn't aware of to take into consideration.

I'll definitely wait for the next MP upgrade. My main concern is hopefully to avoid the feeling of once again having spent thousands for a machine that will be going obsolete in 5 years.

:0)

[alcimedes]

Actually no, the new iMacs with the latest intel chips (i5) are faster on a processing power perspective than the Mac Pros are. The RAM would be no issue, you're not going to be using more than 16GB.

The only problems in my book are less I/O ports and you can't RAID drives in the iMac. (well, that and you're stuck paying for an LCD embedded in hardware that will depreciate a lot faster than the screen will.)

Anyway, it sounds like you might benefit from the new low end tower, it certainly wont' hurt to wait.

Originally Posted by JohnnyZ My main concern is hopefully to avoid the feeling of once again having spent thousands for a machine that will be going obsolete in 5 years. :0)

That, unfortunately, is almost impossible when it comes to computer hardware.

[PB PM]

Originally Posted by JohnnyZ Thanks everyone... I'm learning lots of new things I wasn't aware of to take into consideration. I'll definitely wait for the next MP upgrade. My main concern is hopefully to avoid the feeling of once again having spent thousands for a machine that will be going obsolete in 5 years. :0)

By the time any computer hardware hits the market it is already obsolete, so get over it. Buy the hardware you need to get the job done, don't worry about the rest or you'll have a lot of sleepless nights.

[Miko]

Originally Posted by JohnnyZ Thanks everyone... I'm learning lots of new things I wasn't aware of to take into consideration. I'll definitely wait for the next MP upgrade. My main concern is hopefully to avoid the feeling of once again having spent thousands for a machine that will be going obsolete in 5 years. :0)

You meant 5 months right or your were being funny? You didn't just say you don't want to spend thousands on a computer to be obsolete in FIVE YEARS!

Wait as long as you are willing then go with a mid range MacPro that will suit you just fine.

[drewprops]

You guys haven't even talked about videocard diffs between the iMacs and Mac Pros.... do so now, I *demand* it!!!


...

[709]

The Mac Pro's are biggar.

[dmegatool]

Size does matter as 709 pointed.

[Dutch Pear]

Originally Posted by dmegatool Size does matter as 709 pointed.

The most important thing is if you use it efficiently. It's what you do with it!

OpenCL FTW!!!

[PB PM]

Originally Posted by drewprops You guys haven't even talked about videocard diffs between the iMacs and Mac Pros.... do so now, I *demand* it!!! ...

The Core i5 iMac has the last generation mid range card, HD4850, while the Mac Pro can be equipped with, again last gen, the higher end HD4870. The stock card, Nvidia GT 120, in the Mac Pro is lower end card than the HD4850 though, and adding the HD4870 costs you an extra $200+. Of course the Mac Pro can also support up to four graphics cards, to support a ton of monitors, if you so desire, while the iMac can only support two.

[Moogs]

Originally Posted by pscates2.0 In what way? They come with 4GB installed, and support up to 16GB. As for installing, a small cover plate - held in place by one screw - is on the bottom of the unit. Its removal exposes the RAM slots. I've put ram in an iMac in about a minute-and-a-half, including the removal and replacement of the cover plate. It's about the easiest, most straightforward RAM access on any Mac I've owned or used.

Apparently I was misinformed. I didn't realize Apple improved the RAM capacity on iMacs / accessibility. Last time I tried it (around 2005 or 2006) I recall thinking the process was a PITA compared to a Mac Pro and that there weren't many slots (like 3 maybe?). Anyway glad they've improved it but as noted by another poster, if you go the 4 Core route there are still other value points you get with a Mac Pro (and a good screen) which you don't get on an iMac. Although for illustration and stuff I think an iMac would be fine. It's video, photo and 3D stuff in particular were the Mac Pro kicks upon the proverbial ass.

[PB PM]

Only the 27" iMacs can take 16GB of RAM (4x4GBs = crazy expensive!), the 21" models max out at 8GBs.

[Xaqtly]

Yeah and the Mac Pro advantage there is that you can put 16GB of RAM into a Pro for a lot less money (lower capacity chips = cheaper per GB). Or put twice as much RAM in using the same capacity chips. Or use 8GB modules and have 64GB of RAM.

As far as video cards, mine has a GTX 285 - but as of right now I don't think Photoshop takes advantage of that. Maybe the CS5 version will.

[Brave Ulysses]

Originally Posted by Moogs Apparently I was misinformed. I didn't realize Apple improved the RAM capacity on iMacs / accessibility. Last time I tried it (around 2005 or 2006) I recall thinking the process was a PITA compared to a Mac Pro and that there weren't many slots (like 3 maybe?). Anyway glad they've improved it but as noted by another poster, if you go the 4 Core route there are still other value points you get with a Mac Pro (and a good screen) which you don't get on an iMac. Although for illustration and stuff I think an iMac would be fine. It's video, photo and 3D stuff in particular were the Mac Pro kicks upon the proverbial ass.

No offense Moogs, but your information and opinion on this matter seems pretty dated. If the guy is looking at the entry level Mac Pro vs the quad core iMac, the iMac is a much better deal and is also faster. I also don't think you should be offering advice and talking negative points if you are basing it on your memories of 5 years ago..... again, not trying to be a prick.... but times have changed.... the 27" quad core iMac is an amazing deal for a professional.

RAM isn't so much an issue that's easy on every Mac, (minus the mini), but the iMacs can't hold a candle to the MacPro and you know this. The I/O on the MacPro is crazy. PCI slots Drive bays Optical drives Optical Audio

The guy didn't need any of that but either way, PCI slots? Increasingly useless for the majority. Drive bays? The same. Optical drives? Who needs more than 1 these days? It's not like you are going to upgrade to Blu-Ray... Apple doesn't even support it. Optical Audio? Also on the iMac.

Really not big points there. For some maybe, but not for what he described his needs were.