Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 18
  1. #1

    pigoo3's Avatar
    Member Since
    May 20, 2008
    Location
    U.S.
    Posts
    34,488
    Specs:
    2011 13" MBP 2.3ghz, 8gig ram, OS 10.8.5
    Mac Pro vs. iMac
    So I find myself with a bit of a dilemma.

    I don't have as much money to spend on computers as I used to when I was younger (other priorities: house, wife, cars, etc.)...so I want to make sure I spend the money I have as wisely as possible.

    Two Macs that I'm interested in, and my budget will allow me to purchase, is either a used:

    - Mac Pro, Quad Xeon 2.66ghz, 3 gig ram, X1900 video
    - iMac (aluminum, 2007 release), Intel Core 2 Duo, 2.4ghz, 24" monitor, 1 gig ram, Radeon 2600 graphics

    I can get either of these computers for basically the same price.

    Here are my thoughts:

    - I already have a 22" LCD display. So I don't need to purchase a display if I buy the Mac Pro.
    - I don't REALLY need the expandability of the Mac Pro...but it's always nice.
    - I would think that the 2.66ghz "Quad" processors on the Mac Pro would be better than the 2.4ghz Intel Core 2 Duo processors on the iMac.
    - I like the "Glossy" display on the iMac, and the 24" display (1920 x 1200) would be an upgrade from my 22" monitor.
    - I like the "all in one" design of the iMac (monitor, speakers, isight camera, new slim keyboard, the remote for Front Row, iTunes, etc.).

    I do find the 24" iMac display sort of "awesome"...but I guess that I could eventually purchase a 24" LCD glossy display to go with the Mac Pro.

    I think that I REALLY...want to base my decision on computing performance period.

    I also wanted to mention that my main purpose for the computer is using MS Office, e-mail, internet browsing, AND gaming (both Mac games, and Windows games via bootcamp).

    So basically...am I better off (short-term & long-term) with the slightly older 2.66 "Quad" Mac Pro, or the slightly newer 2.4 intel core 2 duo 24" Aluminum iMac?

    Sorry for the long post...and possible rambling.

    Thanks,

    - Nick

  2. #2


    Member Since
    Jul 14, 2008
    Location
    Scotland, UK
    Posts
    675
    Specs:
    nMP 6-core/32Gb/D700/512Gb: rMBP 15" 2.3GHz/16Gb/512Gb: iPhone 6 128Gb: iPad Air 2 128Gb: NEC PA322U
    Personally, if you can get both for the same price I'd go for the Pro.

    You say you want to play games etc and the ATi 2600 isn't really good enough for the latest games. Also you can upgrade the Pro to a 8800GT which would significantly boost FPS in games.

    As for speed, yes the Xeons will be faster - but only on some applications, specifically multi-treaded ones. Also, since they use special DIMM modules they are more expensive to upgrade (compared to an iMac but that can only go to 4Gb Max).

    So. Long term = Mac Pro, Short term = iMac 24".

    Just my opinion though.

  3. #3

    Benjamindaines's Avatar
    Member Since
    Jan 08, 2005
    Location
    A religiously oppressed state
    Posts
    2,789
    Specs:
    17" MacBook Pro
    The iMac will be fine for everything, except the gaming. If you are looking to play new games (and keep buying new games as they come out) I would definitely go for the Mac Pro with the better graphics card, plus you can upgrade the graphics card in the Mac Pro. If you aren't playing demanding games (say Treasure Mountain) then the iMac should work fine for you.

  4. #4

    pigoo3's Avatar
    Member Since
    May 20, 2008
    Location
    U.S.
    Posts
    34,488
    Specs:
    2011 13" MBP 2.3ghz, 8gig ram, OS 10.8.5
    Quote Originally Posted by martyp View Post

    You say you want to play games etc and the ATi 2600 isn't really good enough for the latest games.

    Also, since they use special DIMM modules they are more expensive to upgrade (compared to an iMac but that can only go to 4Gb Max).

    Just my opinion though.
    Thank you very much for your opinion!!!

    I don't believe that I said that the iMac Ati 2600 graphics weren't good enough for the latest games (unless I incorrectly read your post)...but if thats true, then that is a big plus for the Mac Pro, since it's graphics are upgradable!

    Yes...the ram for the Mac Pro is much more expensive...but not so bad if it helps keep the Mac Pro "useable"...if for some reason 4 gig of ram in the iMac isn't enough in the near future.

    Thanks again,

    - Nick

  5. #5

    pigoo3's Avatar
    Member Since
    May 20, 2008
    Location
    U.S.
    Posts
    34,488
    Specs:
    2011 13" MBP 2.3ghz, 8gig ram, OS 10.8.5
    So since graphics performance was mentioned...

    How do the iMac ATi 2600 XT Pro 256mb, and the Mac Pro ATi X1900 XT 512mb graphics compare in performance/gaming?

    Thanks,

    - Nick

  6. #6

    Benjamindaines's Avatar
    Member Since
    Jan 08, 2005
    Location
    A religiously oppressed state
    Posts
    2,789
    Specs:
    17" MacBook Pro
    Quote Originally Posted by pigoo3 View Post
    Yes...the ram for the Mac Pro is much more expensive...but not so bad if it helps keep the Mac Pro "useable"...if for some reason 4 gig of ram in the iMac isn't enough in the near future.
    If RAM is what you're after, then the Mac Pro is definitely for you, it will take up to 128GB of RAM

  7. #7


    Member Since
    Feb 03, 2008
    Posts
    76
    I was in the same boat as you when I was shopping. I ended up with an imac since:

    1 - I didn't have a nice monitor and obviously would have had to spend more.
    2 - The "all in one" package was somewhat appealing, iMac is a piece of table art.

    It has served me well so far. Games such as Warcraft 3, WOW, Red Alert 3 etc.. run fine on it, but if you're looking to play more graphic intesive games, Mac Pro would definitely be your best bet.

  8. #8

    scathe's Avatar
    Member Since
    Jan 12, 2009
    Location
    Prague, Czech Republic
    Posts
    1,096
    Specs:
    2,4Ghz 15" unibody
    Quote Originally Posted by pigoo3 View Post
    So since graphics performance was mentioned...

    How do the iMac ATi 2600 XT Pro 256mb, and the Mac Pro ATi X1900 XT 512mb graphics compare in performance/gaming?

    Thanks,

    - Nick

    the difference is in their "age" the 2600 is a newer model with dx10 and pixel shader 4.1 support (e.g HD movices in 1080p), x1900 only support shader 3.0 ...

  9. #9


    Member Since
    Jan 10, 2009
    Posts
    49
    Mac Pro is indeed upgradeable. Based from the usage its not that resource-hog compared to video-editing, photo-editing except for the games.iMac is also well-rounded since they have the Nvidia Geforce 8800 GS. but as you said you can get both at the same price Mac pro would be your best bet.

  10. #10

    Alexis's Avatar
    Member Since
    Apr 20, 2006
    Posts
    2,255
    Specs:
    Al iMac 20" 2.4Ghz Intel Core 2 Duo
    You say you want to play games etc and the ATi 2600 isn't really good enough for the latest games.
    Mine does pretty well. Crysis, Left4Dead, Call of Duty World at War, Guitar Hero all run nicely from where I'm sitting.

    I'd get the Mac Pro, but only with a better graphics card than the X1600.

  11. #11

    Mama Luigi's Avatar
    Member Since
    Jan 22, 2009
    Posts
    369
    Specs:
    Phenom X3 720, Radeon 4870 1GB, 6GB DDR2-800, 32" LCD TV
    Quote Originally Posted by scathe View Post
    the difference is in their "age" the 2600 is a newer model with dx10 and pixel shader 4.1 support (e.g HD movices in 1080p), x1900 only support shader 3.0 ...
    Yes, the 2600 is a newer card, but it is also a slower card. The important number to look at isn't the first, but the second.

    The first number indicates which generation the card is in. The current generation for ATI cards is the HD4000 series. The previous generation was the HD3000 series. Before that was the HD2000 series, then the X1000 series. So the HD2600 is one generation newer than the X1900.

    On the other hand, the second number indicates how good the card is. A second number of 5 or less indicates a low end card (HD2400, X1550, etc.). A second number of 6 or 7 indicates a midrange card (HD2600, HD3650, etc.). A second number of 8 or 9 indicates a high end card (HD4870, X1900).

    The X1900 is a better video card for gaming, period. I bet even a brand-new Radeon HD4350 would be a lot slower just because it's so cheap and slow.

  12. #12

    Alexis's Avatar
    Member Since
    Apr 20, 2006
    Posts
    2,255
    Specs:
    Al iMac 20" 2.4Ghz Intel Core 2 Duo
    I misread. I thought it had the X1600, not the X1900.

    In that case, I'd definitely get the Mac Pro.

  13. #13

    Avenger2SER's Avatar
    Member Since
    Nov 25, 2005
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    282
    Specs:
    Macbook Air 11" (2012), Macbook Pro 15" (Early 2008), Mac Mini i5 (2012)
    if you can get both at the same price, it's a no brainer. The Mac Pro is good value for money considering its raw power and upgradeability. I manage a bunch of 5 year old G5s in my design studio and they're still kicking *** with just minor updates and tweaking.
    Macbook Air 11" 4gb, 128gb SSD (2012)
    Mac Mini i5 16gb, 128gb SSD, 1tb internal, 2x 1tb external (2012)
    MacBook Pro,4gb,128gb SSD (early 2008)
    iMac G3 600, iPad Mini Retina 64gb, iPhone 5, and more.

  14. #14

    pigoo3's Avatar
    Member Since
    May 20, 2008
    Location
    U.S.
    Posts
    34,488
    Specs:
    2011 13" MBP 2.3ghz, 8gig ram, OS 10.8.5
    Thanks a million guys/gals for all of the feedback...including the specific answers regarding the video cards!

    Here's a quick conclusion to the purchase decision. The two options were:

    - 2007 Aluminum iMac 24" display, Core 2 Duo 2.4ghz, 4 gig ram, 320 gig HD, ATI 2600 XT Pro 256mb graphics, with warranty thru 2011

    - 2006 Mac Pro "Quad core" (2 x 2.66 dual core Xeon), 3 gig ram, 230 gig HD, ATI X1900 XT 512 mb graphics card. No remaining warranty.

    Prices (local Craig's List):

    - $1000 for the 24" iMac
    - $1050 for the Mac Pro

    The 24" glossy display of the iMac is beautiful...but I purchased the Mac Pro (guess I can purchase a nice glossy 24" monitor later)!

    Thanks again for all the help,

    - Nick

  15. #15

    brian0's Avatar
    Member Since
    Nov 19, 2008
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    65
    Good choice!

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Comparing mac pro, imac and macbook pro SPEED?
    By kereti in forum Movies and Video
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 09-01-2012, 01:45 AM
  2. iMac... MacBook Pro... or Mac Pro??
    By jazzspot in forum Apple Desktops
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 03-21-2010, 04:42 PM
  3. iMac, Mac Pro or Mac Book pro; for iPhone development
    By BillyA in forum Apple Notebooks
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 09-18-2009, 05:23 PM
  4. pro photogs: imac vs. mac pro
    By tucker44 in forum Apple Desktops
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 03-11-2009, 01:33 AM
  5. iMac v Macbook Pro v Mac Pro
    By Holiday in forum Apple Desktops
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 04-28-2008, 08:31 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •