iMac vs PC?

The goblin

The goblin

<span class="poty">POTY Winner 2015</span></br>
Suspended / Banned
Messages
4,407
Name
Marsha
Edit My Images
Yes
Hi

I've come to the conclusion my PC is now just not up to the job. I have upgraded to the 64bit operating system and tweaked but CS5 is already starting to struggle.

So time to upgrade. I have been looking at the iMacs and they look pretty good. My plan is to quit my present job in two years and do photography as a hobby in the hope I might earn a few pennies here & there. Therefore I want to buy top of the range now while I can. A quick price up on Apple and it's looking at £2600. But being new to Macs I'd need to buy CS5 again, so let's make it £3k:nuts:

Everyone I know says get an iMac, but the cost of a top notch PC is approx £2400!

For you togs out there which would you recommend?

Any Apple experts out there? My main concern is future upgrades? Is it possible to upgrade an iMac or do you really get stung in that area? Apart from my iPhone I know nothing of Macs. But I'm always open minded and let's face it iMacs look awesome!!!
 
I'm pretty sure that "like for like" in terms of actual performance you will pay more for an imac than a pc + monitor.
It mainly depends on if you specifically prefer the mac os and if you want the convenience of the all-in-one solution.
 
that gloss on the screen will introduce an artificial contrast to your images which may not be ideal for colour accurate work.

otherwise an equally high spec mac and pc will be reliable and perform equally well. whatever you choose id go down the separate screen and base unit personally.
 
The goblin said:
Everyone I know says get an iMac, but the cost of a top notch PC is approx £2400!
Click to expand...

Just to make things clear. The £2.4K system is based on the same cost as the IMac, but running an Intel I7 on the new socket 2011, ie 6 core's. Not even sure if photoshop will use all those cores. But it was fun pricing it up :D

I did two set ups, the I7 2011 and a I7 1155. Both systems having SSD's with 16Gb Ram. All connected to a Dell 2711 monitor (must resist). The other components are all decent quality, hence the price of £1800 & £2400.

Both systems are based on my observations that Photoshop likes memory, I7's with Hyperthreading and SSD's. Is this correct? I don't run PS so have no real world basis.
 
Some musings:

  • What is top of the line now won't be in 2 years.
  • PCs are easier to get to the exact spec you want (Apple have the Ford Model T approach - 3 engine sizes and 2 screen sizes).
  • Tower PCs can be upgraded one bit at a time - for example, I can just change the motherboard/processor and (possibly) memory if I want to upgrade to the latest and greatest in 2 years time. Cost will be < £500 if I decide to do it.
  • Macs seem to command a high resale value - if you buy a Mac you can normally sell it a few years later for a fair proportion of what you pay.
  • The O/S's are as stable as each other - do not fall into the mantra that Windows is a piece of .... and crashes hourly/daily/weekly.
  • Macs slow down over time just as PCs do - ask Neil.
  • If you buy a Mac and it breaks, it's expensive. Applecare is your friend - budget for it.
  • Once you are in PS5, the use is the same apart from the windows key becomes the command key. Everything else is the same.
  • I could build a high end, quiet, overclocked PC with 30" screen for (way) less than £2600. I reckon £850 (ebay) for a 30" IPS Dell monitor and £1000 for the base unit would see you with something that would last quite a while and be faster than any iMac available today. Alternatively, a couple for 24" IPS monitors for lower price - depends on desk space.

As you may gather, I'm more pro PC as I think it gives you more options. I also don't like the Mac UI (the one thing that particularly annoys is the menu bar at the top of the screen). Your mileage may vary, but to say one is better than the other is not correct. It's down to personal choice.
 
beanbandit said:
Both systems are based on my observations that Photoshop likes memory, I7's with Hyperthreading and SSD's. Is this correct? I don't run PS so have no real world basis.
Click to expand...
PS likes clock speed and cores - oh and memory. Not sure it utilises the hyperthreading so well. An i5-2500K will be 80-90% the speed of an i7-2600K at the same clock speed. The benchmarks (which run single threaded in places) show the i5-2500K, i7-2600K and i7-3960X as pretty close: http://www.anandtech.com/bench/CPU/25

Clearly the 3960X gets you bragging rights, but you'd probably be better off spending on fast & large SSDs to get data into and out of memory.
 
PS. I do a lot of x264 reencoding. Here the 3960X gets a significant boost over the i7-2600K or i5-2500K:

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/CPU/54

That's a good example there. The i7-2600K is effectively a hyperthreaded i5-2500K and it is about 24% faster. The 3960X is a 6 core i7-2600K and is 50% (i.e. 6 vs 4 cores) faster.
 
arad85 said:
Some musings:

  • What is top of the line now won't be in 2 years.
  • PCs are easier to get to the exact spec you want (Apple have the Ford Model T approach - 3 engine sizes and 2 screen sizes).
  • Tower PCs can be upgraded one bit at a time - for example, I can just change the motherboard/processor and (possibly) memory if I want to upgrade to the latest and greatest in 2 years time. Cost will be < £500 if I decide to do it.
  • Macs seem to command a high resale value - if you buy a Mac you can normally sell it a few years later for a fair proportion of what you pay.
  • The O/S's are as stable as each other - do not fall into the mantra that Windows is a piece of .... and crashes hourly/daily/weekly.
  • Macs slow down over time just as PCs do - ask Neil.
  • If you buy a Mac and it breaks, it's expensive. Applecare is your friend - budget for it.
  • Once you are in PS5, the use is the same apart from the windows key becomes the command key. Everything else is the same.
  • I could build a high end, quiet, overclocked PC with 30" screen for (way) less than £2600. I reckon £850 (ebay) for a 30" IPS Dell monitor and £1000 for the base unit would see you with something that would last quite a while and be faster than any iMac available today. Alternatively, a couple for 24" IPS monitors for lower price - depends on desk space.

As you may gather, I'm more pro PC as I think it gives you more options. I also don't like the Mac UI (the one thing that particularly annoys is the menu bar at the top of the screen). Your mileage may vary, but to say one is better than the other is not correct. It's down to personal choice.
Click to expand...

Words of wisdom indeed!
 
arad85 said:
PS likes clock speed and cores - oh and memory. Not sure it utilises the hyperthreading so well. An i5-2500K will be 80-90% the speed of an i7-2600K at the same clock speed. The benchmarks (which run single threaded in places) show the i5-2500K, i7-2600K and i7-3960X as pretty close: http://www.anandtech.com/bench/CPU/25

Clearly the 3960X gets you bragging rights, but you'd probably be better off spending on fast & large SSDs to get data into and out of memory.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the link. The I5 is an option, but i hadn't seen those graphs before, but they are close, will do some more looking tonight.

Any system that The Goblin buys will have a large and fast SSD, its one thing she has specified, especially after seeing what an SSD can do (on my system)
 
beanbandit said:
Any system that The Goblin buys will have a large and fast SSD, its one thing she has specified, especially after seeing what an SSD can do (on my system)
Click to expand...
Apologies if I'm teaching you to suck eggs here, but the larger SSDs (so proportionately more expensive) use more memory channels and get faster.

I was also thinking of an SSD for things like a scratch disk. If you were using it for that, I'd probably not use one based on the SandForce controllers as they get their speed by compressing the data so performance will be data dependant.
 
arad85 said:
PS. I do a lot of x264 reencoding. Here the 3960X gets a significant boost over the i7-2600K or i5-2500K:

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/CPU/54

That's a good example there. The i7-2600K is effectively a hyperthreaded i5-2500K and it is about 24% faster. The 3960X is a 6 core i7-2600K and is 50% (i.e. 6 vs 4 cores) faster.
Click to expand...

Just seen the price of that 3960X, bargain at £850. But interesting bench mark, i knew that video encoding liked Hyperthreading, but not that much.

Yes Marsha, i do understand :)
 
I've got a PC which I've upgraded in bits over the last 4 years. I'm now on an Intel i7 processor with 8gb of RAM and a 128gb SSD as the boot drive holding the Windows 7 OS and key programs like Photoshop and Lightroom. I have another 1tb drive onboard where my pictures live. Display is via 2 EIZO screens with an ATI 4800 dual screen output graphics card.

The thing absolutely flies. The SSD makes such a huge difference to boot speed and program launching, and makes the machine a delight to work with.

I've looked at Macs but just cant be bothered to make the move, especially as iTunes is such a right royal pain in the arse these days I am boycotting new Apple stuff in protest :D.
 
Last edited:
arad85 said:
Apologies if I'm teaching you to suck eggs here, but the larger SSDs (so proportionately more expensive) use more memory channels and get faster.

I was also thinking of an SSD for things like a scratch disk. If you were using it for that, I'd probably not use one based on the SandForce controllers as they get their speed by compressing the data so performance will be data dependant.
Click to expand...

No need to apologise, its always good to get confirmation, especially when its someone else's money :D

The SSD's i've been looking at are the Crucial M4's. Will see what Intel have to offer, not sure about the OCZ stuff at the moment. I only found out about the scratch disk yesterday on Adobe's website, they recommend a separate disk form the windows install, so will need to factor that then.

Thanks.
 
arad85 said:
You might find this useful: http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showthread.php?t=18368624

That compares several 120GB SSDs. There's also stuff on anandtech too on SSD benchmarking.
Click to expand...

Yep, read that when they first posted it. Had forgotten about the corsair drives, and I think the intel drives have been added recently.

Thanks for posting the link, I probably would have gone for the M4 (not a bad thing) but always good to go back, especially with the updates.
 
beanbandit said:
Any system that The Goblin buys will have a large and fast SSD, its one thing she has specified, especially after seeing what an SSD can do (on my system)
Click to expand...
I never specified large, just the iMac only has the option of the 256 SSD! I'll be happy with smaller if it turns out that's all I need.
Exactly what do you put on an SSD? This is all new to me.
 
The goblin said:
I never specified large, just the iMac only has the option of the 256 SSD! I'll be happy with smaller if it turns out that's all I need.
Exactly what do you put on an SSD? This is all new to me.
Click to expand...
Tends to be the operating system and scratch disk (although you can put anything on there you like).

Basically, you have a very high performance CPU that typically needs to be fed data. The further you go from the actual CPU, the longer it takes to get at the data. So, in terms of speed you have: L1 cache < L2 cache < L3 cache < main memory < disk cache < disk "platter".

The faster you can make the different elements, the quicker the CPU can get on with the processing. The problem with HDDs is access speeds to data can be 100+ times slower in finding the first bit of data when compared to an SSD once you get to the "platter" read. This (together with 2-5x sequential read performance) is why people see such a benefit. The time you wait for a program to load is significantly reduced.

The problem is SSDs are expensive per GByte when compared to HDDs which is why people are selective about which data they put on them. I have about 15+TBytes of storage here - doing that with SSDs would cost about the cost of a family saloon car!

Back to your build, it might be worth looking at the SSD caching mechanism provided by the X68 boards
 
Worth making sure the latest firmware is on whichever ssd is chosen (especially for the M5's)
AHCI mode is on in the BIOS and check you are getting the throughput you expect with AS SSD Benchmark tool
 
arad85 said:
Tends to be the operating system and scratch disk (although you can put anything on there you like).

Basically, you have a very high performance CPU that typically needs to be fed data. The further you go from the actual CPU, the longer it takes to get at the data. So, in terms of speed you have: L1 cache < L2 cache < L3 cache < main memory < disk cache < disk "platter".

The faster you can make the different elements, the quicker the CPU can get on with the processing. The problem with HDDs is access speeds to data can be 100+ times slower in finding the first bit of data when compared to an SSD once you get to the "platter" read. This (together with 2-5x sequential read performance) is why people see such a benefit. The time you wait for a program to load is significantly reduced.

The problem is SSDs are expensive per GByte when compared to HDDs which is why people are selective about which data they put on them. I have about 15+TBytes of storage here - doing that with SSDs would cost about the cost of a family saloon car!

Back to your build, it might be worth looking at the SSD caching mechanism provided by the X68 boards
Click to expand...

Thanks for the explanation on how SSD's improve system/program start ups. Saves me explaining it to Marsha :)

I need to have a look at the X68's. Not sure how the caching works but always good to know for future builds. Only options I had when I built my pc was the 67 series.
 
Hi Marsha,

I am no expert on computers but I love my Mac it just works. Compared to Windows I find it intuitive and a pleasure to use. It's also extremely well made and the monitor is crystal clear. I decided to look into Macs a couple of years ago when I first got an iPhone impressed by it's functionality and would never revert back. As for the technobable I haven't got a clue......
 
I'd go Mac, I understand all the PC side, dabbled in gaming PC's, self builds etc. But I never enjoyed using it, the Mac is easy, its nice, things 'work', it helps you, it looks better, and I am a little bit of a Fanboy too...

I'd go 27" iMac Refurb.

http://store.apple.com/uk/product/FC814B/A For 1Tb HDD

http://store.apple.com/uk/product/G0M73B/A For top of the line with 256Gb SSD, then run externals via Thunderbolt/Firewire

£1900 max for a blazing fast machine thats quiet, self contained, beautiful and simple.
 
I'm not necessarily convinced by the argument that Macs are more intuitive to use. Like most people my age I've grown up using Windows and therefore know how to do most things on it. I tried to used my friend's mac to print something the other day and found it really difficult to work out where files were, where the printer control panel was (when it didn't start printing straight away), etc. So although it's really just a familiarity issue, which I'm sure could be overcome with practice, I don't have the desire to be using iOS.
I do like the way that Apple use stylish designs for all their kit though which most off the shelf PCs aren't.
 
3k is a lot of money and honestly think 1.5/2 is plenty!!!

I my self am a pc person as I enjoy the build process and getting 100% what you want.

Build it your self if you know how or look at overclockers UK prebuilt system.

I would look at 6/8gb of ram, 120+ SSD and I7 if you feel you'll ever do video work otherwise I would think I5 would be fine.

To your SSD qestion, basically its a super fast harddrive. Normally you put your windows7 and main tools you use such as cs5 ect ect and then use a normal harddrive for all your images or genral files.

Best of luck!
 
Digitalize said:
£1900 max for a blazing fast machine thats quiet, self contained, beautiful and simple.
Click to expand...

yet I can still buy a better specced pc for less, with everything we need. Taking the £1900 price for a refurb, will still need to buy more memory, £200 (approx) for 16gb. Have you seen the cost of Thunderbolt hard drives? Pretty crazy at the moment. Until the prices come down, they won't be an option.

A new pc is the more affordable option for what she needs.
 
wildsam90 said:
3k is a lot of money and honestly think 1.5/2 is plenty!!!

I my self am a pc person as I enjoy the build process and getting 100% what you want.

Build it your self if you know how or look at overclockers UK prebuilt system.

I would look at 6/8gb of ram, 120+ SSD and I7 if you feel you'll ever do video work otherwise I would think I5 would be fine.

To your SSD qestion, basically its a super fast harddrive. Normally you put your windows7 and main tools you use such as cs5 ect ect and then use a normal harddrive for all your images or genral files.

Best of luck!
Click to expand...

Not sure if you've read the whole thread. 3K was for an all singing all dancing iMac. 2.4K was for an over specced I7 6 core based system, mainly done to match the price of a well specced iMac.

Current plan is to spend 1.8k (probably less, I have a couple of parts that can be donated). I'll be building, I know overclockers and scan do pre-built systems, but I'd rather have full control over everything that goes into the system.
 
Blank_Canvas said:
As for the technobable I haven't got a clue......
Click to expand...
:lol: Nick neither have I! But I'm hoping it means a better computer for a lot less £££'s! I always think buy the best/ newest you can, but let's face it with IT everything is superseded the minute you blink anyway!

How did you get on with the switch? I would need to do some kind of course if I went Mac!

neil_g said:
who had 22/02/11 00:53 on the sweepstake?
:D
Click to expand...
:lol:

Thanks for everyone's opinions, I'm reading along with interest, but mostly :amstupid: bossing aircraft about is clearly easier than IT:nuts:
 
Marsha

Switching to Mac isn't that complicated, in fact it isn't complicated at all. Some things are in different places but Photoshop, Lightroom and a lot of other apps look the same. If you've never used a Mac then a hour or so would I think get you familiar with the way it works.

Why not drop into your Local dealer, I know Oxford doesn't have an Apple store, but Western Computers are authorised dealers. They should let you play and answer any questions.
 
Chappers said:
Some things are in different places but Photoshop, Lightroom and a lot of other apps look the same.
Click to expand...
Which begs the question "why change?".

See my post above. Windows machines work just as well (or as bad) as Macs. Have to say I think TopBanana has it right that they both do the same thing, just a different interface and people are used to Windows, so why change.

Sure, if you feel you want to move to a Mac, that's fine, but there isn't an overriding reason to do so. "Better" is a very subjective statement.
 
Chappers said:
If you've never used a Mac then a hour or so would I think get you familiar with the way it works.

Why not drop into your Local dealer, I know Oxford doesn't have an Apple store, but Western Computers are authorised dealers.
Click to expand...

They've just opened an Apple store in Reading, the guy was VERY helpful (which I expect nothing less if he can persuade you to spend money)

arad85 said:
Which begs the question "why change?".

Sure, if you feel you want to move to a Mac, that's fine, but there isn't an overriding reason to do so. "Better" is a very subjective statement.
Click to expand...

I think I'm pretty sure I'll stick with windows for now. iMacs look fantastic, but the price is a bit bonkers! Not that I understand half of what you've talked about on here but the pc does seem to do more for less £££!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top