arstechnica reviews the new imac -- benchmarks vs other macs

emulatorloo · Post by **emulatorloo** » Sat Aug 11, 2007 9:26 am

http://arstechnica.com/reviews/hardware ... w-imac.ars

Benchmarks vs Mac Pro (2 x 2.66 Xeon 5150 CPU (four cores total)) and Macbook Pro (2.4GHz Core 2 Duo CPU).

http://arstechnica.com/reviews/hardware ... imac.ars/5

--

Frodo · Post by **Frodo** » Sat Aug 11, 2007 1:51 pm

Thanks, 'loo.

I like arstechnica-- pretty cool.

mhschmieder · Post by **mhschmieder** » Sun Aug 12, 2007 2:42 pm

Holy smokes! And just when I had convinced myself the other night that the MacPro would be four times as powerful as the new iMacs.

Yet I was also wondering how many tasks and programs can take advantage of the dual chipset. Apart from that, the new iMacs are fairly close (within 30%) of the MacPro basic models.

This has caused me to rethink on a MacPro vs. a new iMac, if expandability is one of the only main advantages. That isn't wofrth $2000 extra for me (this includes the cost of a separate monitor, of course).

I'm glad they included the older 17" iMac for comparison, as that really puts things into perspective. This new revision seems a major bump up.

Frodo · Post by **Frodo** » Sun Aug 12, 2007 3:03 pm

mhschmieder wrote:This has caused me to rethink on a MacPro vs. a new iMac, if expandability is one of the only main advantages. That isn't wofrth $2000 extra for me (this includes the cost of a separate monitor, of course).

Yeah, the expandablity vs price was an eye opener and no mistake.

This question came up on the VSL forum and initial responses were not favorable in terms of using any iMac for high-end pro use. I think this argument emerged as RAM became the major issue and the *promise* of 10.5's eventual 64-bit capability would render some of what the new iMac has to offer moot.

But the arguments are strong on all sides. Until 32-bit applications are available, the entire 64-bit quandary is rendered moot. The iMac's CPU is certainly up to the task. The price alone makes the iMac a machine which can be used today and less painful to swap out tomorrow should that be needed. As part of a VI network, this machine becomes even more viable where bang-for-buck is concerned.

emulatorloo · Post by **emulatorloo** » Sun Aug 12, 2007 3:55 pm

mhschmieder wrote:Yet I was also wondering how many tasks and programs can take advantage of the dual chipset. Apart from that, the new iMacs are fairly close (within 30%) of the MacPro basic models.

I would expect we will see souped up models of the Mac Pro sooner rather than later.

But yeah, the imac looks good.

-

chadd · Post by **chadd** » Tue Aug 14, 2007 1:05 pm

Doing some quick estimates, buying a MacPro and a decent non-Apple 20" monitor can actually be pretty similar in price to the new iMac, at least for my own particular circumstances.

In addition to the system drive, I would want a dedicated audio drive, and another for VI samples. Internal SATA drives for the MacPro are a lot cheaper than external Firewire 800 drives for the iMac. I can't use my PCI-324 with either machine, but I could cheaply upgrade to a PCIe-424 with the MacPro and continue to use my current interface. The iMac would require buying a new Firewire interface, and hoping that it leaves enough bandwidth for the 2 hard drives.

Of course, either way is still a lot of money, especially considering that all of my software will have to be upgraded to Universal Binary versions...DP, Waves, Adobe Creative Suite, etc. Yeow!

Frodo · Post by **Frodo** » Tue Aug 14, 2007 1:19 pm

Yeah, going from a tower to an iMac only starts to make real sense if you're getting rid of your PCI options...

But don't be blind-sided by the back-end costs of the MacPro. The transition from a G4/G5 tower to an Intel tower is costly enough just to get UB and PCIe up to snuff. But this is where the MacPro's expense only begins to kick in. With Intel RAM averaging +/- $100 per GB, it can turn into a money pit of sorts if you're not careful.

chadd · Post by **chadd** » Tue Aug 14, 2007 1:55 pm

It's beginning to feel like I could buy a new high-end PC with all new applications and a new interface and still spend less that just uprgrading to a faster Mac. Not that I actually want to switch, mind you.

Frodo · Post by **Frodo** » Tue Aug 14, 2007 2:58 pm

chadd wrote:It's beginning to feel like I could buy a new high-end PC with all new applications and a new interface and still spend less that just uprgrading to a faster Mac. Not that I actually want to switch, mind you.

That's where lots of DAWs are right now-- not wanting to switch but considering the sheer expense vs performance. Many Mac users who are running VI networks are opting for PCs as slave machines instead of Macs because it really is cheaper. This way, they get the best of both worlds: a Mac front end with other machines that just sit there sending/receiving MIDI and audio.

But where only one computer is involved, the decision to switch is huge. If you love DP, it's a tough call.

emulatorloo · Post by **emulatorloo** » Tue Aug 14, 2007 4:59 pm

chadd wrote:It's beginning to feel like I could buy a new high-end PC with all new applications and a new interface and still spend less that just uprgrading to a faster Mac. Not that I actually want to switch, mind you.

Chadd -- price out a similarly configured machine from a reputable manufacturer and you will find out that there is not a big price gap between the two. In some cases the Apple will be cheaper. For example from the mac pro introduction:

---------

--------

And as someone who uses both platforms, don't underestimate the pure "suckiness" of Windows OS, or the poor GUI design of many many Windows apps. You will spend more time doing less.

Trust me, if I NEVER had to touch my Windows machine again it would be too soon.

----
As you say you can get a good non-Apple monitor (I am looking at Samsung 226BW 22inch wide and it is beautiful) and ram costs what ram costs -- be it a DELL or a Mac. Esp if you buy from a good vendor like www.datamem.com

----

chadd · Post by **chadd** » Tue Aug 14, 2007 6:04 pm

emulatorloo wrote:price out a similarly configured machine from a reputable manufacturer and you will find out that there is not a big price gap between the two. In some cases the Apple will be cheaper. For example from the mac pro introduction:

Sure, but what if I don't need a similarly configured machine? The problem is the lack of a middle ground. What if I don't need two woodcrest processors? Looking at the benchmarks, the single Core 2 Duo in the Mac mini would be a huge performance boost over my current machine. Apple doesn't offer one with a PCI bus and room for a couple of internal hard drives, but HP and Dell do, for about $1,000 less than a MacPro. I could buy a lot of software for $1,000.

Alas, the "suckiness" of Windows OS and the poor GUI design of many many Windows apps remains.

emulatorloo · Post by **emulatorloo** » Wed Aug 15, 2007 9:14 am

chadd wrote:
emulatorloo wrote:Looking at the benchmarks, the single Core 2 Duo in the Mac mini would be a huge performance boost over my current machine. Apple doesn't offer one with a PCI bus and room for a couple of internal hard drives, but HP and Dell do, for about $1,000 less than a MacPro. I could buy a lot of software for $1,000.

I am considering the imac/mac mini type route myself for the future -- you are absolutely right that it would be a HUGE upgrade for you.

Here have been my thoughts about it.

"Apple doesn't offer one with a PCI bus" -- we have been thru how many "PCI" standards in the last few years? Two? Three? I have lost count.

It has made me lean pretty hard towards moving away from PCI to firewire. Will firewire go away eventually? Yes. But it seems that it will be with us longer than say PCI-e will be.

"room for a couple of internal hard drives" -- yes a real pain. My thought has been firewire there too. I know that is a compromise . . .

It would be nice if Apple made a midrange box that was more than a mini but less than a pro, but for some reason Jobs does not seem to want this to happen.

Happily I will be able to put this decision off for a while, as I got a really good deal on a dual 2 G5. (I would never advise somebody to get a dual G5 now as IMHO prices are still way to high for something that is more or less equiv to imac core duo performance, but as I say this was a good deal)

Personally when I move to intel macl, I will probably end up going Mac Pro equivalent, but I will shop the hell out of the bargain sites when I do so. I won't buy the top of the line machine. I won't buy the latest model. I am not afraid of refurbs.

Windows though can't ever be an option for me -- for 10 15 years now we have been hearing how it is just as good as Mac OS, and the next iteration is going to surpass it. But for me it still doesn't cut it.

As always JMHO --

Best of luck on your decision.

chadd · Post by **chadd** » Wed Aug 15, 2007 11:14 am

emulatorloo wrote:we have been thru how many "PCI" standards in the last few years? Two? Three? I have lost count.

Me too! Lately, buying a PCI card is similar to buying RAM - don't expect it to be of use in your next computer. Having two independent Firewire busses would be an acceptable alternative to PCI, in my opinion, but I don't think that's likely to happen. Apple used to offer non-iMac midrange options up until a few years ago. I wonder what made them eliminate them? I think I'm going get by with my G4 for a while longer and keep saving up for UB uprades and a new interface.

BlueLakeCosmo · Post by **BlueLakeCosmo** » Tue Aug 28, 2007 7:16 am

The new iMac 2.4 GHZ is faster than the old PM G5 2.7 GHz Dual or the last PM G5 2.5 Dualcore (which was the second fastest Mac after the G5 Quad - just a year ago). The old G5 2.7 even needed liquid cooling which starts to fail now.
Progress! The Intel switch was right.
The iMac is a Pro-machine now.

mhschmieder · Post by **mhschmieder** » Tue Aug 28, 2007 2:24 pm

The September 2007 issue of MacWorld is set to have a long article on the new iMac.