11-05-2010, 10:28 PM

im looking into these 2 machines and i have some ?'s
1. is there any any performance gains from the ssd other than quicker boot and a little faster program launch. will it help in encoding video, or ripping dvds with handbrake?
2. how important is the ram speed. the map pro 8 core has the older ram 1066 vs the i7 has 1336.
3. does anyone think the 27 is to big. it looks huge and i wont be that far from it on the desk. i currently am using a 24 inch and a 21 monitor.i wish they still had the 24 and you were able to get the i7.
4. has anyone gotten the 27 and wished they got the pro, or got the pro and wished they got the 27.

i would like some info, i plan on purchasing next thursday.
i know one of the big pluses with the pro is expandability, but thats not that big of a deal with me i think the 2tb in the imac will be fine with a fw800 drive for time machine and all other data will be on my drobofs

11-05-2010, 10:51 PM

Is cost an issue?

With the entry level 27" iMac costing $1699...and an entry level Mac Pro costing $2499...that extra $800 for the Mac Pro can make a BIG difference to some folks. And of course those are just entry level prices...things can go a good bit higher...especially for the Mac Pro.

My personal opinion is most folks don't need the expandability of a Mac Pro...and those that do buy a Mac Pro for it's expandability...many of them only increase the hard drive capacity & amount of ram. Both of which you can upgrade in an iMac.

Hope this helps,

- Nick

11-05-2010, 11:12 PM

cost is not an issue, if the perforance is worth it. the i7 is 2350, with the ssd and 2tb its 3099, and the pro is 3499. so i guess the big factor is the ssd. if the ssd will not gain that much in a desktop(unlike a laptop with battery and mechanical benefits) im looking at 2350 for the imac, or 3499 for the pro. If those are the choices then i mac looks real good, but if 600 more dollars for the ssd will give me a big boost i'm leaning that way. Honestly both of these machines are probably more computer then I need at this moment, but i'm looking toward the future and if I start doing 1080p HD video with my 7d in a year i dont want tot be sorry i didnt get the pro

11-06-2010, 05:19 AM

I can't claim expert technical knowledge or bench results to justify my remarks - only my personal experience.

The SSD on my 27" iMac has made a huge difference in launching and managing "big" and "intensive" programmes like Aperture 3 where I routinely interrogate and edit very large RAW files. The library currently stands at around 80GB.

On my 21.5" iMac with 8GB RAM, the process is slow, slow. On the SSD 27" iMac it is faster than I can keep up with! And this is not due to the extra RAM. Moreover, the 21.5 has a 3.33GHz processor; the 27 "only" 2.93GHz.

I keep all Applications on the SSD and everything else on HD (except Aperture 3 library). Whether moving the A3 library to the HD would make any difference, I don't know.

Your other point is — No, the 27" is not too big. Like you I had a 24", then got the new 21.5" (too small for some things I do) — 27" is perfect.

Hope this helps. It's only my experience.

Ian

11-06-2010, 10:34 AM

i'm starting to think the imac would be a better option since i have the drobofs for storage. i can also add my drives from my current computer into the drobo. but I'm still on the fence about the ssd, the info on the web that im finding says the ssd will only help with boot time and a little quicker app load. But im finding that osx doesnt support trim and that the performance of the ssd will decline rapidly. Also in terms of video encoding file processing in PS that should be deternimed by the processor and hd should not matter.

11-06-2010, 11:14 AM

Originally Posted by lilmill

i'm starting to think the imac would be a better option since i have the drobofs for storage. i can also add my drives from my current computer into the drobo. but I'm still on the fence about the ssd, the info on the web that im finding says the ssd will only help with boot time and a little quicker app load. But im finding that osx doesnt support trim and that the performance of the ssd will decline rapidly. Also in terms of video encoding file processing in PS that should be deternimed by the processor and hd should not matter.

If the SSD helps or doesn't help...it won't matter whether you get the iMac or Mac Pro (it would help or not help in either case). The decision on whether to get the iMac or Mac Pro should probably be based on other factors such as:

- needing to run more than 2 monitors (Mac Pro is the better choice)
- needing more than 4 cores (Mac Pro is the better choice)
- needing more than 16 gig of ram (Mac Pro is the better choice)
- needing more than one internal HD (Mac Pro is the better choice)

- needing a nice big 27" monitor (iMac is the better choice)
- would like a lower price tag (iMac is the better choice)
- want an "all-in-one" form factor (iMac is the better choice)

I would tend to agree that the iMac would be the better choice. Unless you NEED more than 4 cores, more than 16 gig of ram, or need to run more than 2 monitors...the iMac is probably the better choice.

- Nick

11-06-2010, 12:26 PM

What a great summing up by Nick (pigoo3).

He prioritizes based on science & common sense. My effort was an amateur's experience. Between the two, I hope you have your answer.

Ian

11-06-2010, 12:34 PM

does anyone know it i am just surfing the web and doing email will it spin down the 2 tb drive or is it always spinning full speed, i'm thinking if the spinner stops then less heat will be produced. The computer will be in a sun room and it gets ho back there?

11-06-2010, 01:37 PM

Found this article and leaning towards SSd
Review: Apple iMac 27-inch SSD|Tech Alps

11-06-2010, 01:56 PM

Here's an article speaking to how the transition from a traditional HD to an SSD in the new Macbook Air improved things:

MacBook Air Benchmarks: Fast Enough For Everyday Use, But The Slow Processor Does Hurt Performance

This article lists how fast the SSD can be compared to a traditional HD when duplicating a file:

MacBook Air Benchmarks In - I4U News

And here's another article mentioning how the SSD helps overall performance.

New Benchmarks Show 13-Inch MacBook Air Rivaling Its MacBook Pro Counterpart - Mac Rumors

Basically what many of these articles are saying is...with the SSD in the new Macbook Air...the SSD actually helps the computer achieve higher benchmarks then you would expect from the processor in it. Basically the SSD helps the computer do things better/faster than a laptop with a slightly faster processor (but still has a traditional hard drive).

Probably something to do with the fact that the Mac OS uses a lot of virtual memory (which requires hard drive space, accessing, reading/writing)...so this is where the SSD's speed can help the computer do things faster.

Personally...given the current cost/gigabyte of SSD storage...I would still stick with a traditional HD. But for folks who have the $$$...and want every ounce of performance...go for it!

Also be aware that SSD devices eventually fail or wear-out. It's supposed to be something like 100,000 access cycles to each "cell" on the chips:

The SSD failure debate | ZDNet

I'm really not sure how this compares to traditional HD's...just something to be aware of...but this is one of the reasons why USB "thumbdrives" fail.

- Nick

11-06-2010, 05:19 PM

That article about SSD failure is from 2008. Now most SSDs are rated for 100 years given average computer usage.
Even if an SSD failed within 10 years, it'd still be far longer than the average lifespan of your casual HDD, which is only 5 or so years. HDDs are usually the first thing to go on a computer.

11-06-2010, 05:41 PM

Go with the Mac Pro.

GeekBench Tests of the 2.98GHz 17 iMac and the 2x2.98GHz Mac Pro reveal the following.

The iMac has a bench speed test of 9,292. The Mac Pro has the bench test speed of 22,510. Plus the Mac Pro is more upgradeable regarding drives including optical, graphics etc.

You can access these bench speed tests by downloading a little application called Mactracker.

http://www.mactracker.ca/

11-06-2010, 09:09 PM

personally i would never get one for the price but the pro is the better choice. its more future insurance with its ability to be expand. i never thought the freedom to expand was a negative.

i dont know if the pro can house 2 drives but if it can you could get both a ssd for booting and a large standard hdd for storage.

11-06-2010, 11:03 PM

Mac Pros take up to four internal hard drives and you can install a fifth in the second optical drive port if needed.

A 120GB Mercury Extreme SSD is the way I intend going, with a 2TB HDD for storage on my Mac Pro. Then perhaps do away with external drive for SuperDuper backup and install in position three.

11-07-2010, 07:51 PM

harry the 2x2.98GHz Mac Pro better score higher its 6200 dollars compared to 2200 for the imac