10-02-2007, 02:03 PM

Hey there guys. I am considering a purchase and I wanted to get an idea for what the general consensus wouldbe here. The 2systems I am trying to decide between are a IMac 24" with the Intel Extreme CPU and 2 gigs ram or the base Mac Pro with the 2.66 quad.

The root of my uncertainty is that the Mac Pro may have twice the cores, but they are an older CPU line (not the core 2 duo) so I have no idea what the end result performance will be. Also of course the fact that the Mac pro comes with only 1 gig of ram andthe IMac has 2 gigs. The IMac has twice the HD space and such.

My primary concern is performance. Will the Mac Pro be noticably faster? My use will notbe high end or professional. I will just be running many normal applications at once. I will also only game lightly. IE the only computer based game I play is World of Warcraft. Mostly I will just have many browsers open, RDP client, mail,Adium, ITunes, and Iwork applications.

My problem is just that it really bothers me to have to wait on my computer to process anything so I want to pick the most responsive platform. Oh, and I have my own Dell 24" so if I DO take the Mac Pro I won't sacrafice in the screen realistate area.

10-02-2007, 02:17 PM

For what you've said you'd be doing, the iMac would be fine. If you were using Pro Apps like Photoshop, Logic, or Fnal Cut, etc, I'd get the MacPro.

It has more raw power for things like that. Also, the iMacs have a decent dedicated video card, so WoW will be no issue. (I can play WoW on my G4 iBook no problem).

Do you need upgradability? Then Mac Pro. If you're content with the specs of the iMac, I'd go for that over the MP for cost reasons, but if it's no issue, then I would get the MacPro.

In the end, I'd say the imac.

10-02-2007, 02:27 PM

Expandability is always a plus but the reality is that the only expanding I will do in the mac pro is to change the video card, hard drives or ram. I can already swap the ram in an imac and if I get applecare I would assume hardware failures wont be something I have to worry to much about as they will do any repairs I need.

The specs of the IMAC should be fine for a good long while. Least I would hope so. So, expandability at a steep price point, or integration style and a lack of cables.

I picked up a Mac Pro last night to get a feel for it and noticed right off the lack of a mic, cam, bluetooth, wireless, and felt the limitations of the 1 gig of ram already.

So if I were to keep the Pro in addition to the initial $200 price difference I would have to spend several hundred dollars just to catch up in periferals and that isn't even taking into account the fact that the IMAC included a rather nice LCD in its price.

Honestly I fail to see why the pro costs as much as it does. Almost seems a rip.

10-02-2007, 02:48 PM

The iMac will do you fine for years to come, with the technology that's in it, it's very advanced for an AIO machine. I'd go with that, not to mention how sexy they look. I want the new iMac to have my babies.

10-02-2007, 02:57 PM

I like the pro because of the expandability. I have 4 hard disks and 2 superdrives on mine.

The RAM question isn't that big a deal - you can buy more (for either of them of course).

On the downside, it's a big heavy beast, and as usual with a tower you end up with a spiders web to trawl through under your desk. The Imac is tidier, and what cables there are will tend to be easier to get to.

Performancewise, dunno. Haven't used the Imac, but I have never had any issues with the speed of the quad. You will need at least the extra gb of RAM though, 1gb isn't enough.

10-02-2007, 05:37 PM

"Honestly I fail to see why the pro costs as much as it does. Almost seems a rip."

You're paying for the ability to expand. Depending on what you're doing, it can be worth it. The Mac Pro is definitely a niche product (HD video, heavy music comp, etc). Also, the Mac Pro use Xeon chips (server class CPU), and not Core 2 Duo chips.

10-02-2007, 05:39 PM

Originally Posted by punkr0x0r

...not to mention how sexy they look. I want the new iMac to have my babies.

LOL!

10-02-2007, 06:31 PM

Originally Posted by kfordham281

"Honestly I fail to see why the pro costs as much as it does. Almost seems a rip."

You're paying for the ability to expand. Depending on what you're doing, it can be worth it. The Mac Pro is definitely a niche product (HD video, heavy music comp, etc). Also, the Mac Pro use Xeon chips (server class CPU), and not Core 2 Duo chips.

Try pricing up 2 2.66GHz Xeons! You will have little change from £900 leaving £700 for the rest of the computer!!

Maybe it is time for another Apple Mac to replace the Mac Mini. Maybe 1x quad core processor, 2 internal drives, 1 external drive, smaller size for maybe £1000!

10-02-2007, 06:55 PM

Originally Posted by theonegod

Hey there guys. I am considering a purchase and I wanted to get an idea for what the general consensus wouldbe here. The 2systems I am trying to decide between are a IMac 24" with the Intel Extreme CPU and 2 gigs ram or the base Mac Pro with the 2.66 quad.

The root of my uncertainty is that the Mac Pro may have twice the cores, but they are an older CPU line (not the core 2 duo) so I have no idea what the end result performance will be. Also of course the fact that the Mac pro comes with only 1 gig of ram andthe IMac has 2 gigs. The IMac has twice the HD space and such.

My primary concern is performance. Will the Mac Pro be noticably faster? My use will notbe high end or professional. I will just be running many normal applications at once. I will also only game lightly. IE the only computer based game I play is World of Warcraft. Mostly I will just have many browsers open, RDP client, mail,Adium, ITunes, and Iwork applications.

My problem is just that it really bothers me to have to wait on my computer to process anything so I want to pick the most responsive platform. Oh, and I have my own Dell 24" so if I DO take the Mac Pro I won't sacrafice in the screen realistate area.

I have the Mac Pro and I am running software that displays cpu usage. If I launch Nikon Capture NX, Open Office, Firefox, Garage Band, Safari and Itunes all at the same time, the most cpu load is 18%. If I also launch Parallels and XP, usage is still less than 40%. Any wait is for the really fast SATA drives. Keep this in mind, whichever you decide, you will be using a real computer.