2.7Ghz or 3.1Ghz CPU?

[slaughteredlamb]

I'm looking to replace my aged iMac with a shiny new one. My current iMac spec is 2.33GHz Intel Core 2 Duo CPU with 3GB RAM. This has been fine for years but now I'm finding it slow when using certain applications like Adobe Lightroom and MacFamily Tree (genealogy program but this is slow because the database file I have for it is nearly 9GB in size).

The two iMac's I'm currently considering are identical except for CPU and graphics card.

iMac 1:
2.7GHz Quad-Core Intel Core i5
8GB RAM
AMD Radeon HD 6770M with 512MB

iMac 2:
3.1GHz Quad-Core Intel Core i5
8GB RAM
AMD Radeon HD 6970M with 1GB

Is it worth going for the 3.1GHz considering that this adds an additional £250 to the bill?

By comparison I also have a MacBook Pro laptop with a 2.4GHz dual-core Intel Core i5 and this runs all the programs I have on the iMac very fast and I have no complaints at all but I do want to try and ensure that this iMac will last 4-5 years (like my current one has).

I don't play games on the Mac, I do some video editing but only occasionally and not HD (yet). I do a hell of a lot of Photo Editing using Photoshop and Lightroom and also Apples Aperture. I do a lot of normal 'office' type stuff and a bit of DTP. I also do some audio editing using programs like ProTools and Logic Pro. I do also use the iMac as a 'Media Center' for music and video.

With that in mind, am I actually going to see a significant performance difference between a 2.7GHz and 3.1Ghz CPU?

[robwhizz]

With that in mind, am I actually going to see a significant performance difference between a 2.7GHz and 3.1Ghz CPU?

No. Not worth it for £250 - although, some of that is graphics card. That might make a difference with video editing if the software supports GPU use (I remember from a previous thread that Tony knows a lot in this area).

The difference between processors is small. Couple that with a huge genealogy database that is probably more dependant on fast RAM and disk, and the difference in graphics card which *might* help with video, but is really a big heavy gamers card and you are better off saving your money (or maybe spending it on more RAM?).

[robwhizz]

Just had a look on the Apple store. Very restrictive options available. If buy a iMac with top end gfx card you can pop in a i7 for an extra £160. I personally would have saved the cost of the gfx card and spent the money on an i7 upgrade. Unfortunately that's not an option. Seems crazy to me?

How does the iMac compare to buying a 'normal' mac and monitor? Would you get more control over the hardware customisation?

[edit] Crikey! Scratch that, I've just looked at the prices for Mac Pros. Ouch.

[slaughteredlamb]

Just had a look on the Apple store. Very restrictive options available. If buy a iMac with top end gfx card you can pop in a i7 for an extra £160. I personally would have saved the cost of the gfx card and spent the money on an i7 upgrade. Unfortunately that's not an option. Seems crazy to me?

How does the iMac compare to buying a 'normal' mac and monitor? Would you get more control over the hardware customisation?

[edit] Crikey! Scratch that, I've just looked at the prices for Mac Pros. Ouch.

Yup, SCARELY expensive. To be honest though, I actually prefer the iMac's over the Mac Pro's. Yes the Mac Pro's are serious work horses and great the serious video stuff etc but for me the iMac's are perfect. Everything in a box with a small footprint and superb performance. I agree that the graphics card is of minimal importance to me and as you say the only way to upgrade to the i7 is by also upgrading the graphics card but the two combined price it beyond what I can really afford/justify.

Cheers for that, pretty much confirmed what I thought.

[samhs]

I've got a 27" 2.8GHz i7 with 12gb RAM and an ATI Radeon 4850 512MB Graphics card. I can report that it's nice and nippy, even after a couple years of heavy use. The 1TB disk has been filled up a couple of times though, and I've only for around 40GB free just now (and that only due to archiving off some older stuff). I think either machine would fit the bill for you to be honest. Mac Pros are less appealing than they used to be as the iMac range is now so capable.

[slaughteredlamb]

Cheer Sam. 12GB RAM, I'm guessing you didn't pay Apple's extortionate RAM prices for that 

I'm just going to buy with 4GB installed and then upgrade to 16GB myself at a cost of £72. Apple want to charge an additional £480 for 16GB!!

[samhs]

Of course not! I bought a 4gb version and stuck an extra 8gb in immediately. I wanted to go to 16gb, but didn't want to throw away 2 x 2gb sticks out the box, so decided to do it staged, and haven't ever got around to getting the extra 2 x 4gb sticks.

[Tony]

(I remember from a previous thread that Tony knows a lot in this area).

Unless your using premiere pro CS5 and above, then the gfx card won't make a lot of difference, and if you are then you need an Nvidia one with cuda for the full effect of the mercury playback engine.

For everything else, go for processor and RAM.

PC gives more bang for the buck, but iMac is neater

[familychoice]

The iMac's look lovely, and they're a good price -  if I was due a new desktop I'd be tempted by the 27-inch: 2.7GHz and add some RAM in later.

If they're as good a deal in a couple of years time I might jump the PC ship, I've had enough Dell's to last me a lifetime.

[samhs]

Tony - that's not quite right. Photoshop now uses GPU acceleration to speed up rendering and processing. Otherwise, as a general mantra you're right on the button - RAM, then processor, then gfx IMO.





I'll let you off the "your" for "you're"

[Tony]

Tony - that's not quite right. Photoshop now uses GPU acceleration to speed up rendering and processing. Otherwise, as a general mantra you're right on the button - RAM, then processor, then gfx IMO.





I'll let you off the "your" for "you're"

Aye, but PS doesn't need a cuda card, and the half gig one would be enough for most photo editing unless you're processing monster compositions with loads of layers etc. I upgraded this from a half gig ATI card to a 1.25 gig nividia and PS runs about the same - premiere is much better though as it's cuda.

Your welcome

[Dom]

The clock speed of the RAM can also make a big difference; sometimes more of  difference than putting more of it in. But I don't know how much detail the Apple site goes into when it comes to the nitty gritty stuff.

My PC at home, which I built around 6 months ago, is like so:

- Intel i5-2500K CPU running at 3.3GHz (overclocked to 4.4GHz when needed)
- 8Gb of DDR3 RAM running at 1600MHz
- 1Gb nVidia GeForce GTX460
- ASUS P8P67 Pro Motherboard
- Antec 902v3 case

I bought the CPU, RAM, and Mobo as a bundle from Amazon for £400, although it's now £365 - http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/B004TGN6RA

The GFX card I bought when it was just released for £170, although it'd be cheaper now. If I were buying a GFX card now I'd go for a 500-series card for around the same price. I didn't buy the card for my new machine. I took it out of the old one, but I figured I'd mention it.

The case was about £110, but for your needs (i.e. not gaming) you won't anything quite that fancy. The other bits (hard drives, CD drives, etc) I just took out of my old machine as they were all working fine.

So the whole thing cost me £680 if you include the fancy case and the cost of the GFX card (which I actually bought for the previous machine). It's a bit of an animal, and I've yet to find anything that slows it down, games included.

But if you want to pay Mac prices for the shiny Apple logo, then fair do's. But I'd recommend building your own PC any day.

[slaughteredlamb]

But if you want to pay Mac prices for the shiny Apple logo, then fair do's. I'd recommend building your own PC any day.

What and go back to the dark side? Never 

Nah, I used to build PC's all the time, still do for work, but since moving over to Mac's I can honestly say that I have no intention of using one for the home again. My iMac has lasted longer and been far more reliable than any PC I've ever bought or built and far, far, far more importantly it's been sooooo much more enjoyable to use. I'm not saying that PC's are bad just that for me Mac's are far more suited to my needs. Yeah Mac's are rubbish for games but then I'm nearly 40 and rarely play games anymore and even then I'll use my PS3.

[Dom]

Yeah lets not turn this into a PC vs Mac debate (again!). I've never had the opportunity to use a Mac for a long period of time, so it's had for me to compare them properly to PCs. But the last PC I built (before my current one) is 4 and half years old, and still runs like a charm.

I think Vista has caused a few issues at times, but overall it's still a nippy machine. Dual core AMD Athlon CPU @ 3.2GHz, 4Gb of DDR2 RAM. Nothing fancy now, but I've honestly never had any real issues with PCs so I doubt I'd move to a Mac without a good reason. Their cost puts me off as well!

[familychoice]

I think Vista has caused a few issues at times, but overall it's still a nippy machine. Dual core AMD Athlon CPU @ 3.2GHz, 4Gb of DDR2 RAM. Nothing fancy now, but I've honestly never had any real issues with PCs so I doubt I'd move to a Mac without a good reason. Their cost puts me off as well!

The iMac is pretty good value when you factor in the cost of a PC monitor. I didn't realise they were that reasonable, if I had I might not have bought this Dell last year. They also have excellent audio capabilities - the sound on this thing is rancid.

I didn't like Vista and Windows 7 isn't a massive improvement, so providing I can turn off the blasted mouse acceleration (I experienced on the Macbook Pro) on an iMac I reckon I'll be switching when it's time for a new desktop.

[Dom]

I didn't like Vista and Windows 7 isn't a massive improvement...

I never had too many issues with Vista, but I do think Windows 7 is a vast improvement. Things are just easier to get done, and the little things they've added (like Jumplists, and the funky "shake-the-window-to-minimize-all-the-other-windows" thing) have improved my productivity no end.

Still, to each their own, I guess. I'd like to have a go on a Mac of some kind for a work-related project, just to see how they compare.

[robwhizz]

The iMac is pretty good value when you factor in the cost of a PC monitor.

The iMacs are using LGs LM270WQ1 H-IPS panel (which is superb and NECs implementation is on my shopping list should I ever have the money).
Dell and NEC make monitors with exactly that panel too and they cost around £850-950. That means you are paying about £500 for a 2.7 i5 with 4GB and 1TB drive.
Go to Dell and input those specs and they want £679 (3GHz i5) and that's with a useless gfx card. The one in the apple is actually a very good mid range card. The one in the Dell would struggle to play high quality HD.
If you can build your own PC there shouldn't be any problem building to the Apple spec for the same money (probably even getting a Quadro Cuda card in it too).

I've always thought Macs too expensive compared to their PC counterparts, but clearly the iMacs are very good value for money - and add in SLs comments on compact design, small footprint etc. and I can see the appeal.

[edit] I was looking at the prices for the NEC, but Dell's UltraSharp U2711 can be had for under £600. That would mean you could easily buy or build a more powerful spec PC and have some change left over...

[Matt]

I think Vista has caused a few issues at times, but overall it's still a nippy machine. Dual core AMD Athlon CPU @ 3.2GHz, 4Gb of DDR2 RAM. Nothing fancy now, but I've honestly never had any real issues with PCs so I doubt I'd move to a Mac without a good reason. Their cost puts me off as well!

I didn't like Vista and Windows 7 isn't a massive improvement, so providing I can turn off the blasted mouse acceleration (I experienced on the Macbook Pro) on an iMac I reckon I'll be switching when it's time for a new desktop.

Don't Kid yourself, compared to Windows XP and Windows Vista, Windows 7 is a huge leap forward.

[Dom]

Under the hood, I think Windows 8 will be the same, although that Metro interface.... **unsure face**

[familychoice]

[edit] I was looking at the prices for the NEC, but Dell's UltraSharp U2711 can be had for under £600. That would mean you could easily buy or build a more powerful spec PC and have some change left over...

Maybe, but things like the Apple keyboard and mouse are going to be a much higher quality than the crap that ships with a Dell, and I doubt you'd match the audio capabilities on a Mac without spending a huge wad on pro sound cards. It all adds up, and while I'm sure you *could* get a similar specced PC for the same money it's not going to be a massive saving. That's the shock for me - I was able to swap my £1700 Macbook Pro for a £500 HP with the same spec, but the iMacs are much closer in price.

I think Vista has caused a few issues at times, but overall it's still a nippy machine. Dual core AMD Athlon CPU @ 3.2GHz, 4Gb of DDR2 RAM. Nothing fancy now, but I've honestly never had any real issues with PCs so I doubt I'd move to a Mac without a good reason. Their cost puts me off as well!

I didn't like Vista and Windows 7 isn't a massive improvement, so providing I can turn off the blasted mouse acceleration (I experienced on the Macbook Pro) on an iMac I reckon I'll be switching when it's time for a new desktop.

Don't Kid yourself, compared to Windows XP and Windows Vista, Windows 7 is a huge leap forward.

Maybe technically, but from a usability perspective it aint, not for me anyway. I've been using it a year and still prefer XP.

[samhs]

Not to mention the countless hours saved messing around with Windows trying to get it to play nice. I got fed up of it all 4 or 5 years back and completely swapped to Mac (we'd had several Macs already in the office, but my main machine and servers, laptops etc were PC based). Things just work, leaving me time to get on with work without having to maintain the system. Stuff like hourly differential backup is a god-send, and the fact that the interface is more pleasant, the range of software is more user-centric etc makes it all worthwhile IMO - even if it costs a wee bit more.

[slaughteredlamb]

Not to mention the countless hours saved messing around with Windows trying to get it to play nice. I got fed up of it all 4 or 5 years back and completely swapped to Mac (we'd had several Macs already in the office, but my main machine and servers, laptops etc were PC based). Things just work, leaving me time to get on with work without having to maintain the system. Stuff like hourly differential backup is a god-send, and the fact that the interface is more pleasant, the range of software is more user-centric etc makes it all worthwhile IMO - even if it costs a wee bit more.

Couldn't have put it better myself. Without any doubt or exaggeration my productivity increased massively when I switched to Mac about 5 years ago. The amount of 'preventative maintenance' I used to do on the PC such as defragging, virus scans, checkdisk, registry cleaning, driver updates, windows updates etc etc etc, although not a constant thing, did take a not inconsiderable amount of time. In 5 years on the Mac I would say that I've spent maybe 1hr in total repairing disk permissions or resetting params. As Sam says the software is so user-centric that not only does this also increase your productivity but it makes working a genuine pleasure. Every time I use the Mac I do still find myself smiling and enjoying the way it lets me work. But as I say I'm not saying PC's are bad or even not as good just simply that for me they aren't and I've never enjoyed using any PC the way I enjoy using a Mac. I would agree though that Windows 7 is a huge leap forward from XP for the PC (largely because they nicked a lot of features from OSX  ) but, for me, it's still too 'Windows' like.

[sickpuppy]

Stuff like hourly differential backup is a god-send

So Macs are better than PCs if you balls things up on a regular basis. Is that the crux of the matter?

[samhs]

No. If you have hard drive failure, if you accidentally overwrite a file you've been working on and need to roll back an hour, if you value your time over manually maintaining a system To be fair, the last version of windows I used frequently was Vista which was especially bad for driver conflicts, slow-down etc so I might have a jaded view of it all. I do have a Windows 7 netbook, but it's sat gathering dust. It's not just about the software either - the industrial design makes user interaction such a (relative) pleasure compared to using a typical PC/laptop.

There's also a strength benefit - I can report that even an extremely robust drop/fall/inadvertent attempt-to-smash a unibody aluminium MacBook Pro results in the chassis sustaining damage, but protected innards. A few months back a mishap involving a motorbike and a rucksack resulted in my MacBook Pro finding the road at velocity. My series of Dell and Sony laptops would have smashed into several pieces as a result, but the MacBook just laughed it off with a dent. (Feel sad about damaging the beautiful lines though ) The only reason I can see it survived was that the body was a single piece of metal - obviously older Macs wouldn't have lived to tell the tale, but that's symptomatic of the Apple industrial design approach - beautiful and strong.

[robwhizz]

Not to mention the countless hours saved messing around with Windows trying to get it to play nice...  ...Things just work...

This seems to be said a lot and I just don't understand it. When does it not play nice? I can understand if we are talking about Win98 or ME, but 2k and XP have always been fairly solid. Vista is a pain in the bum, definately, but Win7 is good. Unless you are trying to do something really out of the box, it generally does just work. You do get problems with programs going between versions of Windows, but then you also have the exact same problems when Apple release a new OS, or Google update Android, or major updates to Linux etc. That's something every OS will suffer from.

The amount of 'preventative maintenance' I used to do on the PC such as defragging, virus scans, checkdisk, registry cleaning, driver updates, windows updates etc etc etc, although not a constant thing, did take a not inconsiderable amount of time. In 5 years on the Mac I would say that I've spent maybe 1hr in total repairing disk permissions or resetting params.

I'm guessing that this is probably where Sam is coming from. No one can argue with the fact that Windows file systems are a bag of shite compared to most others. Fragmented drives cause me the biggest headaches at work. Resource sapping remnants of removed programs, OEM installed bloatware, temporary files and ever expanding collections of dlls and drivers are another problem for Windows and usually the cause of a PC running pig slow after a year or two.
If you are a tech, it's not a problem. Being careful, installing a proper de-frag tool and looking after your PC will keep it fresh for as long as you can keep it up, but it does mean that you end up spending oodles of time on it. The average user doesn't have a clue and usually ends up with several malicious programs with in 6 months which along with the bloatware, fragmented drive and hundreds of worthless programs installed effectively kills the PC and helps increase hardware sales when the owner thinks they need a new one.
I ran a Red Hat server for a while for PHP testing many years ago and it was a joy to work with. Just wish I had the time to really learn Linux and I would make the switch for day-to-day tasks.

Maybe, but things like the Apple keyboard and mouse are going to be a much higher quality than the crap that ships with a Dell, and I doubt you'd match the audio capabilities on a Mac without spending a huge wad on pro sound cards.

Oh yeah, definately. You have to take that into account. For me as a user, I wouldn't touch a cheapy keyboard and mouse. But I've already got an expensive keyboard and trackball and won't be throwing them out any time soon. If you are coming from some £5 tat thrown in with your PC, then it's a big consideration and one many end users don't think about (to be honest it wasn't something I'd particularly factored into the cost).
On the audio side there is a degree of truth. For a system builder you can pick up motherboards with onboard audio to rival all but the most ludicrously expensive sound cards. For an OEM purchase it can be a lottery unless you really know what you are looking for.
Unless changed recently, iMacs use Realtek onboard audio (ALC662) as found in many PCs. It may be tweaked, and it seems like a decent sound processor, but you could match the sound quality easily enough if you know what to look for.

[familychoice]

The average user doesn't have a clue and usually ends up with several malicious programs with in 6 months which along with the bloatware, fragmented drive and hundreds of worthless programs installed effectively kills the PC and helps increase hardware sales when the owner thinks they need a new one.

That'll be me then, though I can usually keep a PC earning it's keep for at least 3 years before it's retired. This one's a year old and already creaking - although recent malware attacks (courtesy of Mcaffee) have been cleaned up I now have a range of 'missing dll' pop-ups and things running not as they should. I wouldn't even know where to begin to get it back to how it was. My design software seems to be complaining about missing elements too.

Oh yeah, definately. You have to take that into account. For me as a user, I wouldn't touch a cheapy keyboard and mouse. But I've already got an expensive keyboard and trackball and won't be throwing them out any time soon. If you are coming from some £5 tat thrown in with your PC, then it's a big consideration and one many end users don't think about (to be honest it wasn't something I'd particularly factored into the cost).

The keyboards and general build quality look superior to your average Dell job. I changed my mouse but using the keyboard it came with due to my excessive keyboard consumption rate. On this one about 40% of the characters have rubbed off, and I'm impressed by my ability to remember where the letters are.

Unless changed recently, iMacs use Realtek onboard audio (ALC662) as found in many PCs. It may be tweaked, and it seems like a decent sound processor, but you could match the sound quality easily enough if you know what to look for.

Macs generally have low latency levels that PC users can only dream of, and the audio quality itself is usually far superior. If you know how I could match that on a PC I'd be interested to hear it. Maybe they've compromised with the iMac audio - I've got Realtec on this thing and it's shite.

[JasonD]

How did this thread go so long without someone pointing out there are more than two operating systems.

I think the only hardware configuration I did for recent Kubuntu was click a button to install a proprietary video driver and specify which monitor was left and right.

The keyboards and general build quality look superior to your average Dell job.

 I've only used an apple keyboard once, it looked nice (if you like that sort of thing) but wasn't any better to type on than a typical laptop keyboard. That said I am using a Kinesis Advantage (which looks weird, but not particularly nice) which makes most keyboards feel cheap in comparison.

[familychoice]

I've only used an apple keyboard once, it looked nice (if you like that sort of thing) but wasn't any better to type on than a typical laptop keyboard.

That's a good point actually, on closer inspection (I don't have the luxury of being able to pop into town and try one out, though a friend bought one - the bugger - yesterday so I might invite myself over for tea soon) they do look similar to the Macbook Pro keyboard - which I found a bit clicky calculator buttony.

Still, if the characters don't rub off it'll be an improvement on the last 3 keyboards I've purchased...

[robwhizz]

Macs generally have low latency levels that PC users can only dream of, and the audio quality itself is usually far superior. If you know how I could match that on a PC I'd be interested to hear it. Maybe they've compromised with the iMac audio - I've got Realtec on this thing and it's shite.

Interesting... I don't do audio, it's not my thing, so I'll take your word for latency issues. With my limited knowledge of Audio hardware, I'd still assume that differences between apple and PC is down to software/drivers over hardware.
Macs are PCs (allbeit customised), and when it comes down the audio it's still the same (or thereabouts) hardware wise. I would expect that Apples better latency comes from tighter control over the OS and driver programming as it's only got to work with one configuration, whereas PC drivers will have to be flexible for multiple configurations plus motherboards are more flexible to support legacy stuff, add to that the drivers for onboard audio will be focused for general purpose and movies etc rather than audiophile stuff.
It would be interesting to hear the opinion of a system builder who specialises in audio PCs.

[Tony]

Still, if the characters don't rub off it'll be an improvement on the last 3 keyboards I've purchased...

The characters do seem to stay there even if the keyboard is showing signs of wear, the main problem I have with them is the appearance after a while, they don't half start to look grubby, and are a real pain to clean - especially when you have a dozen of the feckin things.