iMac 27" or Mac Pro

L

lalugela

Active member
iMac 27" for $1700
tech specs:

  • 3.06GHz Intel Core 2 Duo
  • 4GB 1066MHz DDR3 SDRAM - 2x2GB
  • 1TB Serial ATA Drive
  • ATI Radeon HD 4670 256MB

Mac Pro w/o monitor for $2500
tech specs:

  • One 2.66GHz Quad-Core Intel Xeon
  • 3GB (3x1GB)
  • None
  • 640GB 7200-rpm Serial ATA 3Gb/s
  • None
  • None
  • None
  • NVIDIA GeForce GT 120 512MB
Can someone explain to me the better choice? What are people's thoughts on these new iMacs? I'm looking to buy a new computer exclusively for video editing, and I don't want to spend too much money on it. I will be editing RED. Can the iMac handle that?
 
The new 27inch iMacs are amazing for the money. But if you want to build a professional editing suite forget it.
 
berlinfool said:
The new 27inch iMacs are amazing for the money. But if you want to build a professional editing suite forget it.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I have to agree. I am getting ready to upgrade for HD post production (well, next spring is my time table) and while the New iMacs look good, I am going to have to get the Mac Pro. The flexiblity of the tower form factor, with access to the internal slots is just way to valuable to setting up an editing work station. Internal cards are cheaper than stand alone external drives, I/O devices and the like. I want to probably hook up an SD/HD I/O video card and a higher end audio I/0 card, which should be no big deal on the Mac Pro.
 
i have edited 2 documentaries with a 24inch imac (the version before the one out now). it works for sure and does a great job. i did have about 4 external hard drives running to it though which was clutter... as far as graphics card and what not though, it should all be fine, but in the end, you get more computer if you go with a tower... easier to upgrade
 
Isn't the imac, heaps cheaper than a mac pro? The 27" imac that comes with a quad core is plenty of power for HD. Just add an external hard drive caddy and you're all set. Even a huge raid external harddrive case will be smaller than the tower of a mac pro. I've edited HD just fine on my 24" dual core imac, the 27" should plough through pro-res files.
 
sure you could get quite a bit done with the iMac but the one you listed above will become obsoleted quicker than a quad core mac pro tower...due to the graphics card.

the mediocre 256 graphics card is the problem. it will work now but will fall behind down the road when you want to upgrade software, then you find that it isnt supported anymore.

if you are hot on the iMac package why not look at this one.
http://store.apple.com/us/configure/MB953LL/A?mco=MTMzNzY5NDA
27", QUAD core, 512mb graphics, $2,000. not bad for an iMac IMO.

on the other hand you can get a QUAD core Mac Pro tower for #2,300 from clubmac. when the graphics card (512mb) becomes inadequate you can update it and buy yourself another couple more years of use running the cutting edge software. internal SATA drives will outperform external firewire 800. good argument for a tower.
http://www.clubmac.com/clubmac/fami...IA GeForce GT 120, 18x SuperDrive-Mac Pro.asp

i have a couple of 8 cores. one for me and one for my son. i am looking to update an older G5 dual 2.0ghz that my youngest son uses and i am very temped by the new QUAD iMac. mostly because of the pretty 27" display. i think that the QUAD 27" iMac would survive 2-2.5 years of cutting edge service. the Mac Pro QUAD would be longer since the average 512 card could be upgraded in a couple of years to a newer up to date one.

i know what "i should do". but i have to admit though that i am still temped by the 27" iMac. i know that i would end up regretting it a couple of years down the road though.

david
 
Any way you look at this you still have only one firewire bus and no way to add another one, or eSATA, or internal HDD.

Sorry, don't be dollar foolish and penny wise.
 
DO NOT think about the imac for an editing or any other type of system that is going to be doing any kind of serious crunching. The cooling on them is not very efficient and I know at least one person who's had their logic board damaged because of overheating.

Besides that:

The Mac Pro has EIGHT RAM slots. Ram is the number one most cost effective way to improve system performance, especially when you're trying to keep an aging system serviceable a bit longer.

The Mac Pro has a better and upgradeable video card. Yet another way you can spend a few hundred to bring some life back to the system in a few years when it starts showing its age.

The Mac Pro has PCI/e slots. If you ever want a RAID or a serious monitoring solution or who knows what other peripherals you will need one of these. Again, not an option on the iMac.

The Intel Xeons are server class processors. Not only does the one on the base Mac Pro have twice the cores of the one in the iMac, I would bet money it would pants the heck out of any of the "core" line of processors even with matched specs.

Doing video editing, you are going to need at least one external drive for editing. Realistically, I recommend separate boot, scratch and media disks. That's at least three drives and with the limited peripherals on the iMac, it won't be long before you start daisy chaining them. Not to mention the price and performance of internal drives is far better than those in external enclosures.

In the end, I can't see a justification for getting the iMac for any kind of power user applications.
 
Thanks for your input guys.

All said and done, in my situation... as a college student with no job upon exit... can I make a 27" iMac my dedicated video editing computer? How am I limited aside from convenience? Will a quadcore iMac really be obsolete in 5 years?
 
everything will be obsolete in 5 years time. Get what you can afford. There's many pros out there working on just a macbook pro. Its not what you use, its how you use it that counts.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top