Mac Pro vs. iMac

pigoo3

Well-known member
Staff member
Admin
Joined
May 20, 2008
Messages
44,210
Reaction score
1,418
Points
113
Location
U.S.
Your Mac's Specs
2017 15" MBP, 16gig ram, 1TB SSD, OS 10.15
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
 
Joined
Jul 14, 2008
Messages
675
Reaction score
22
Points
18
Location
Scotland, UK
Your Mac's 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. :)
 
Joined
Jan 8, 2005
Messages
2,789
Reaction score
84
Points
48
Location
A religiously oppressed state
Your Mac's 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.
 
OP
pigoo3

pigoo3

Well-known member
Staff member
Admin
Joined
May 20, 2008
Messages
44,210
Reaction score
1,418
Points
113
Location
U.S.
Your Mac's Specs
2017 15" MBP, 16gig ram, 1TB SSD, OS 10.15
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
 
OP
pigoo3

pigoo3

Well-known member
Staff member
Admin
Joined
May 20, 2008
Messages
44,210
Reaction score
1,418
Points
113
Location
U.S.
Your Mac's Specs
2017 15" MBP, 16gig ram, 1TB SSD, OS 10.15
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
 
Joined
Jan 8, 2005
Messages
2,789
Reaction score
84
Points
48
Location
A religiously oppressed state
Your Mac's Specs
17" MacBook Pro
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 :p
 
Joined
Feb 3, 2008
Messages
76
Reaction score
0
Points
6
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.
 
Joined
Jan 12, 2009
Messages
1,096
Reaction score
19
Points
38
Location
Prague, Czech Republic
Your Mac's Specs
2,4Ghz 15" unibody
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 ...
 
Joined
Jan 10, 2009
Messages
49
Reaction score
0
Points
6
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.
 
Joined
Apr 20, 2006
Messages
2,255
Reaction score
47
Points
48
Your Mac's 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.
 
Joined
Jan 22, 2009
Messages
369
Reaction score
13
Points
18
Your Mac's Specs
Phenom X3 720, Radeon 4870 1GB, 6GB DDR2-800, 32" LCD TV
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.
 
Joined
Apr 20, 2006
Messages
2,255
Reaction score
47
Points
48
Your Mac's 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.
 
Joined
Nov 25, 2005
Messages
282
Reaction score
3
Points
18
Location
Singapore
Your Mac's 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.
 
OP
pigoo3

pigoo3

Well-known member
Staff member
Admin
Joined
May 20, 2008
Messages
44,210
Reaction score
1,418
Points
113
Location
U.S.
Your Mac's Specs
2017 15" MBP, 16gig ram, 1TB SSD, OS 10.15
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
 
Joined
Jul 14, 2008
Messages
675
Reaction score
22
Points
18
Location
Scotland, UK
Your Mac's Specs
nMP 6-core/32Gb/D700/512Gb: rMBP 15" 2.3GHz/16Gb/512Gb: iPhone 6 128Gb: iPad Air 2 128Gb: NEC PA322U
Yeah, great choice. It was a no-brainer really and TBH I wouldn't want a glossy screen.

Unless you have it in a room without a window, presonally I'd go for a nice ACD. Brushed aluminium frame/stand matches the Pro excellently. :)
 
Joined
Apr 13, 2008
Messages
4
Reaction score
0
Points
1
Congrats

Congrats, you will LOVE the machine. Having owned the 24" iMac 2.4ghz since they were first released, I can tell you there is no comparison, the MP is just phenomenally fast! I would bump that GFX card up and pick yourself up a nice speedy hard drive like the WD Caviar Black. Makes a huge difference, and a trivial upgrade.

Best of luck and enjoy! :D
 
OP
pigoo3

pigoo3

Well-known member
Staff member
Admin
Joined
May 20, 2008
Messages
44,210
Reaction score
1,418
Points
113
Location
U.S.
Your Mac's Specs
2017 15" MBP, 16gig ram, 1TB SSD, OS 10.15
Congrats, you will LOVE the machine. Having owned the 24" iMac 2.4ghz since they were first released, I can tell you there is no comparison, the MP is just phenomenally fast! I would bump that GFX card up and pick yourself up a nice speedy hard drive like the WD Caviar Black. Makes a huge difference, and a trivial upgrade.

Best of luck and enjoy! :D

Thanks again for the great replies!

Tom Sawyer (or anyone else)...what would be a decent graphics card to upgrade to from the X-1900 that I currently have?

I don't need anything "super-great" (so don't suggest the best & most expensive card out there)...just a graphics card that would be just "one-level" better than what I have (ATI X-1900).

As far as the hard drive. The current one I have is the stock Western-Digital 230 gig drive (7200 rpm). Is the WD Caviar Black really that much better? If so, what makes it better?

Thanks,

- Nick
 

Shop Amazon


Shop for your Apple, Mac, iPhone and other computer products on Amazon.
We are a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate program designed to provide a means for us to earn fees by linking to Amazon and affiliated sites.
Top