Performance wise in CS3 or CS4, is the gap between 27 i7 core still wide with the MacPro ?
Granted, the MacPro will get me around 6000 $, but the performance boost and upgradable capacity might be worth it.
What do you say ?
Maybe I can help as well.
I have the early 2009 Mac Pro. The 2 chip model. Yes, it's faster. But there's also a price/value question.
One major question is the size of the images and files you will be working with.
If they are under 60 MB, in most cases, then the 2.8 GHz i7 iMac will be plenty fast. It's even pretty fast on my daughter's early 2008 3.0.6 GHz 24" iMac.
The 1 TB drive is also adequate. Do you need to Raid two or more drives? Not really. Unless you are a speed freak. An external drive for backup will work well.
The 4850 upgrade graphics card is also fine. Unless you're doing heavy 3D work, then anything faster isn't required.
The new monitors are really good, from what I've seen. The IPS panel is about as good as you're going to get outside of a $2,500 monitor. The glass isn't a problem with a few minor precautions, despite what a small few say, and it gives better blacks contrast, and saturation. There's no 27" display available now that has the high resolution of this one. It's very useful with high rez images, graphics, and publishing, and is tall enough for a full size two page spread.
The Mac Pro has the advantage of two Xeon chips which are somewhat faster. But for the next 18 months or so, CS4 won't be using more than two cores for most functions, and when it uses more, it's not efficient. Even a four core machine will see speed increases when CS5 comes out.
You could take the DP output from one and plug it into the input of the other. It would act as another monitor for the first one. Just set it up in the Monitors panel.
tnx for the answer, mel. however, wouldn't this make one of the machines work as a display only? in such case, one can buy the least expensive 27"-er and use it on and off occasionally, while having another top-ot-the-line use the first as desktop space. this will still require some hassle, use of second keyboard, mouse. one can also add the 24" LED cinema, bit they will look a bit different and perhaps not in line. and that will still be a single imac with an extra display...
nevertheless, would it be possible to somehow make both machinee work as ONE? i.e - turn two quad-cores into a dual-quad core computer with combined ram, HD's, etc? perhaps, wishful thinking, huh?
I have the early 2009 Mac Pro. The 2 chip model. Yes, it's faster. But there's also a price/value question.
One major question is the size of the images and files you will be working with.
If they are under 60 MB, in most cases, then the 2.8 GHz i7 iMac will be plenty fast. It's even pretty fast on my daughter's early 2008 3.0.6 GHz 24" iMac.
The 1 TB drive is also adequate. Do you need to Raid two or more drives? Not really. Unless you are a speed freak. An external drive for backup will work well.
The 4850 upgrade graphics card is also fine. Unless you're doing heavy 3D work, then anything faster isn't required.
The new monitors are really good, from what I've seen. The IPS panel is about as good as you're going to get outside of a $2,500 monitor. The glass isn't a problem with a few minor precautions, despite what a small few say, and it gives better blacks contrast, and saturation. There's no 27" display available now that has the high resolution of this one. It's very useful with high rez images, graphics, and publishing, and is tall enough for a full size two page spread.
The Mac Pro has the advantage of two Xeon chips which are somewhat faster. But for the next 18 months or so, CS4 won't be using more than two cores for most functions, and when it uses more, it's not efficient. Even a four core machine will see speed increases when CS5 comes out.
You pretty much convinced me.
Most of my files are under 60 Mb, except films scans (6*6) which can top 150-200 Mb.
The only thing I notice on my current iMac 3.06 2008 (the same as your daughter's) is
it becomes pretty slouch after a session in Capture 1 Pro or LR3 (not so much with CS3, though).
So much so that I have to PRAM and Onyx it once a week to get it at its snappiest again.
I suspect 4 Mb RAM might be not enough.
My HD is only filled to 20 % and I have no RAID — only 4 external drives of 1 TB each for daily backups of pictures, plus Time Machine 2 Tb constantly running.
I wonder if any machine will get slower after a heavy session with Capture One Pro, for instance.
tnx for the answer, mel. however, wouldn't this make one of the machines work as a display only? in such case, one can buy the least expensive 27"-er and use it on and off occasionally, while having another top-ot-the-line use the first as desktop space. this will still require some hassle, second keyboard, mouse. one can also add the 24" LED cinema, bit they will look a bit different and perhaps not in line. and that will still be a single imac with an extra display...
nevertheless, would it be possible to somehow make both machinee work as ONE? i.e - turn two quad-cores into a dual-quad core computer with combined ram, HD's, etc? perhaps, wishful thinking, huh?
Sure. The one with the signal being input would be used as a display. But you can toggle that on and off, so that you can switch it over at any time.
Apple does have software to turn two or more Macs into one computing device. But it only runs with software designed to take advantage of it, such as scientific applications, and some graphics rendering apps. It's called Xgrid.
Am I the only one concerned about the temperature sensor on the hard drive? This is actually the first I've heard about it. Prior to this latest refresh, it was easy enough to replace the hard drive on the iMac either with a larger and/or faster HD or even an SSD, which is not currently available as a BTO option. In doing so, it was easy to simply transfer the temp sensor wire to the new drive.
Unfortunately, if the system now REQUIRES a specific temp sensor interface that can't easily be moved to another drive, it effectively limits the upgrade path. 1TB may quickly become inadequate in the near future, and spinning platters simply don't have anywhere near the random I/O performance as a good SSD.
The lack of flexible upgradeability on the HD significantly reduces the iMac's useful life since the HD will presumably run into a storage capacity/performance barrier much earlier than the Core i5/7 CPU or 16GB of RAM.
Am I the only one concerned about the temperature sensor on the hard drive? This is actually the first I've heard about it. Prior to this latest refresh, it was easy enough to replace the hard drive on the iMac either with a larger and/or faster HD or even an SSD, which is not currently available as a BTO option. In doing so, it was easy to simply transfer the temp sensor wire to the new drive.
Unfortunately, if the system now REQUIRES a specific temp sensor interface that can't easily be moved to another drive, it effectively limits the upgrade path. 1TB may quickly become inadequate in the near future, and spinning platters simply don't have anywhere near the random I/O performance as a good SSD.
The lack of flexible upgradeability on the HD significantly reduces the iMac's useful life since the HD will presumably run into a storage capacity/performance barrier much earlier than the Core i5/7 CPU or 16GB of RAM.
Posted from my iPhone.
All computers have these sensors. It only limits you to the same manufacturers drive, and maybe not even that.
Performance wise in CS3 or CS4, is the gap between 27 i7 core still wide with the MacPro ?
Granted, the MacPro will get me around 6000 $, but the performance boost and upgradable capacity might be worth it.
What do you say ?
I have the MacBook Pro, and just put a SSD drive in the unit. Loading CS4 used to take around 40 seconds, now 5 seconds. Cost me $600, but will never go back to a plater based drive.
I have the MacBook Pro, and just put a SSD drive in the unit. Loading CS4 used to take around 40 seconds, now 5 seconds. Cost me $600, but will never go back to a plater based drive.
No such an option on iMac, and SD are limited to 500 Gb, isn't it ?
I have the MacBook Pro, and just put a SSD drive in the unit. Loading CS4 used to take around 40 seconds, now 5 seconds. Cost me $600, but will never go back to a plater based drive.
Just be careful as that drive begins to slow down over time.
No such an option on iMac, and SD are limited to 500 Gb, isn't it ?
I ordered mine from OtherWorldComputing, Crutial 256K. I went back and re-read what your doing. If your working with large'ish files, probably not a good direction. I am an iPhone developer, so don't need that type of space.
they're great, we know that already!!!.... Now please please Apple ship mine??
(<Can't take the wait)
Is that graphic wrong in that it says no expansion slots??
That's boy true. Must be a new person. Of course they have slots or to new of a person reviewing and thinks. All apple=no expansion. Lol. Who knows. But that should be fixed.
3. much of the "glare" you speak of is actually reflection which can be reduced by users who aren't too lazy to make a few adjustments in where the display is placed in a room related to the lights and windows. sometimes a couple of simple tweaks will eliminate the issue.
as for the whole eye strain issue. i love how many of those folks talk about being at the computer for hours non stop and don't consider that such lengthy times is a factor in the fact that they are having strain issues. as much, if not more than the glare.
The 'solution' to reduce glare and reflections, by increasing brigtness (on already over bright displays) creates a huge amount of eye-sore / headaches. I use my professional NEC 2690WUXi on low brightness to combat this.
Adjusting the display position is not always an option for laptops, or for certain office environments - window/desk/light placement is not a free choice for many.
The pictures at the bottom of this review show why I want glossy (scroll over pics to see the problems with glossy screens).
I just purchased this iMac. First Mac in my house. For the first time in my PC life I said to myself that you can not beat this price. I bought the base model 27" straight from Best Buy, $1699. My wife wanted a new desktop and wanted an all in one. We went shopping and compared the HP and Gateway. Both were ok but gimmicky, the Gateway was way cheap but tiny. The 24" HP was $1400 and had the touch screen. Then on a whim I decided to head over to the Mac side and the 27" blew me away, the screen is awesome. To just buy a screen of this magnitude would be $1000 + dollars. Yes it will reflect so I placed it in a good spot in my house and do not have any issues. I have been a windows guy for ever and have always built my PCs so a Mac was never an option. But for what the wife needed and all the iPhones and iTouches in my house, this was a no brainer. I find myself on it all the time now and I love the Magic Mouse. I migrated all the iTunes libraries to this machine with ease and now I can not keep the kids off it and I do not have to worry about them jacking anything up.
You need Sun level brightness to offset glare on glass- that's why. Like a plasma TV - they're all under glass.
AND amazingly, plasma looks better than LCD, hmmm. Would you like a matte windshield on your car too. I'm sitting next to a Sony Trintron 20" under brand new fluorescent lighting, no glare. Glare is a bigger issue on portables not Desktops!
I want a Plasma iMac. Not that 3rd rate technology LCD
AND amazingly, plasma looks better than LCD, hmmm. Would you like a matte windshield on your car too. I'm sitting next to a Sony Trintron 20" under brand new fluorescent lighting, no glare. Glare is a bigger issue on portables not Desktops!
I want a Plasma iMac. Not that 3rd rate technology LCD
Well, plasma is a dead technology. Almost no company is producing them anymore. LCD has caught up in the areas in which it was behind, and is now, with LED backlighting, better in delivering good blacks, an area in which Plasma was always poor. The only plasmas that did deliver good blacks, the last high end, and very expensive Pioneers, were discontinued just 3 months after their introduction, followed shortly after by all of Pioneers plasmas. Pretty much everyone else has followed, or has said they soon will.
Besides, plasma consumes too much power, and gets too hot.
Comments
Performance wise in CS3 or CS4, is the gap between 27 i7 core still wide with the MacPro ?
Granted, the MacPro will get me around 6000 $, but the performance boost and upgradable capacity might be worth it.
What do you say ?
Maybe I can help as well.
I have the early 2009 Mac Pro. The 2 chip model. Yes, it's faster. But there's also a price/value question.
One major question is the size of the images and files you will be working with.
If they are under 60 MB, in most cases, then the 2.8 GHz i7 iMac will be plenty fast. It's even pretty fast on my daughter's early 2008 3.0.6 GHz 24" iMac.
The 1 TB drive is also adequate. Do you need to Raid two or more drives? Not really. Unless you are a speed freak. An external drive for backup will work well.
The 4850 upgrade graphics card is also fine. Unless you're doing heavy 3D work, then anything faster isn't required.
The new monitors are really good, from what I've seen. The IPS panel is about as good as you're going to get outside of a $2,500 monitor. The glass isn't a problem with a few minor precautions, despite what a small few say, and it gives better blacks contrast, and saturation. There's no 27" display available now that has the high resolution of this one. It's very useful with high rez images, graphics, and publishing, and is tall enough for a full size two page spread.
The Mac Pro has the advantage of two Xeon chips which are somewhat faster. But for the next 18 months or so, CS4 won't be using more than two cores for most functions, and when it uses more, it's not efficient. Even a four core machine will see speed increases when CS5 comes out.
You could take the DP output from one and plug it into the input of the other. It would act as another monitor for the first one. Just set it up in the Monitors panel.
tnx for the answer, mel. however, wouldn't this make one of the machines work as a display only? in such case, one can buy the least expensive 27"-er and use it on and off occasionally, while having another top-ot-the-line use the first as desktop space. this will still require some hassle, use of second keyboard, mouse. one can also add the 24" LED cinema, bit they will look a bit different and perhaps not in line. and that will still be a single imac with an extra display...
nevertheless, would it be possible to somehow make both machinee work as ONE? i.e - turn two quad-cores into a dual-quad core computer with combined ram, HD's, etc? perhaps, wishful thinking, huh?
Maybe I can help as well.
I have the early 2009 Mac Pro. The 2 chip model. Yes, it's faster. But there's also a price/value question.
One major question is the size of the images and files you will be working with.
If they are under 60 MB, in most cases, then the 2.8 GHz i7 iMac will be plenty fast. It's even pretty fast on my daughter's early 2008 3.0.6 GHz 24" iMac.
The 1 TB drive is also adequate. Do you need to Raid two or more drives? Not really. Unless you are a speed freak. An external drive for backup will work well.
The 4850 upgrade graphics card is also fine. Unless you're doing heavy 3D work, then anything faster isn't required.
The new monitors are really good, from what I've seen. The IPS panel is about as good as you're going to get outside of a $2,500 monitor. The glass isn't a problem with a few minor precautions, despite what a small few say, and it gives better blacks contrast, and saturation. There's no 27" display available now that has the high resolution of this one. It's very useful with high rez images, graphics, and publishing, and is tall enough for a full size two page spread.
The Mac Pro has the advantage of two Xeon chips which are somewhat faster. But for the next 18 months or so, CS4 won't be using more than two cores for most functions, and when it uses more, it's not efficient. Even a four core machine will see speed increases when CS5 comes out.
You pretty much convinced me.
Most of my files are under 60 Mb, except films scans (6*6) which can top 150-200 Mb.
The only thing I notice on my current iMac 3.06 2008 (the same as your daughter's) is
it becomes pretty slouch after a session in Capture 1 Pro or LR3 (not so much with CS3, though).
So much so that I have to PRAM and Onyx it once a week to get it at its snappiest again.
I suspect 4 Mb RAM might be not enough.
My HD is only filled to 20 % and I have no RAID — only 4 external drives of 1 TB each for daily backups of pictures, plus Time Machine 2 Tb constantly running.
I wonder if any machine will get slower after a heavy session with Capture One Pro, for instance.
tnx for the answer, mel. however, wouldn't this make one of the machines work as a display only? in such case, one can buy the least expensive 27"-er and use it on and off occasionally, while having another top-ot-the-line use the first as desktop space. this will still require some hassle, second keyboard, mouse. one can also add the 24" LED cinema, bit they will look a bit different and perhaps not in line. and that will still be a single imac with an extra display...
nevertheless, would it be possible to somehow make both machinee work as ONE? i.e - turn two quad-cores into a dual-quad core computer with combined ram, HD's, etc? perhaps, wishful thinking, huh?
Sure. The one with the signal being input would be used as a display. But you can toggle that on and off, so that you can switch it over at any time.
Apple does have software to turn two or more Macs into one computing device. But it only runs with software designed to take advantage of it, such as scientific applications, and some graphics rendering apps. It's called Xgrid.
http://www.apple.com/search/?q=XGrid
Unfortunately, if the system now REQUIRES a specific temp sensor interface that can't easily be moved to another drive, it effectively limits the upgrade path. 1TB may quickly become inadequate in the near future, and spinning platters simply don't have anywhere near the random I/O performance as a good SSD.
The lack of flexible upgradeability on the HD significantly reduces the iMac's useful life since the HD will presumably run into a storage capacity/performance barrier much earlier than the Core i5/7 CPU or 16GB of RAM.
Posted from my iPhone.
Am I the only one concerned about the temperature sensor on the hard drive? This is actually the first I've heard about it. Prior to this latest refresh, it was easy enough to replace the hard drive on the iMac either with a larger and/or faster HD or even an SSD, which is not currently available as a BTO option. In doing so, it was easy to simply transfer the temp sensor wire to the new drive.
Unfortunately, if the system now REQUIRES a specific temp sensor interface that can't easily be moved to another drive, it effectively limits the upgrade path. 1TB may quickly become inadequate in the near future, and spinning platters simply don't have anywhere near the random I/O performance as a good SSD.
The lack of flexible upgradeability on the HD significantly reduces the iMac's useful life since the HD will presumably run into a storage capacity/performance barrier much earlier than the Core i5/7 CPU or 16GB of RAM.
Posted from my iPhone.
All computers have these sensors. It only limits you to the same manufacturers drive, and maybe not even that.
Now, I can 'justify' getting a new 27.5" one! Yeppeeeee!
Now, if only my original MacBook intel 13" would fail, I could get a new MacBook!
And of course, I would have to get either the Extreme "n" or TimeCapsule with "n"
If only I could push my girlfriend's buttons, like Apple pushes mine!
Have registered only because wanted to reply... I was too emotional
Performance wise in CS3 or CS4, is the gap between 27 i7 core still wide with the MacPro ?
Granted, the MacPro will get me around 6000 $, but the performance boost and upgradable capacity might be worth it.
What do you say ?
I have the MacBook Pro, and just put a SSD drive in the unit. Loading CS4 used to take around 40 seconds, now 5 seconds. Cost me $600, but will never go back to a plater based drive.
I have the MacBook Pro, and just put a SSD drive in the unit. Loading CS4 used to take around 40 seconds, now 5 seconds. Cost me $600, but will never go back to a plater based drive.
No such an option on iMac, and SD are limited to 500 Gb, isn't it ?
I have the MacBook Pro, and just put a SSD drive in the unit. Loading CS4 used to take around 40 seconds, now 5 seconds. Cost me $600, but will never go back to a plater based drive.
Just be careful as that drive begins to slow down over time.
Just be careful as that drive begins to slow down over time.
You wouldn't want to pay for a fast 256 Gb SSD.
No such an option on iMac, and SD are limited to 500 Gb, isn't it ?
I ordered mine from OtherWorldComputing, Crutial 256K. I went back and re-read what your doing. If your working with large'ish files, probably not a good direction. I am an iPhone developer, so don't need that type of space.
they're great, we know that already!!!.... Now please please Apple ship mine??
(
Is that graphic wrong in that it says no expansion slots??
That's boy true. Must be a new person. Of course they have slots or to new of a person reviewing and thinks. All apple=no expansion. Lol. Who knows. But that should be fixed.
3. much of the "glare" you speak of is actually reflection which can be reduced by users who aren't too lazy to make a few adjustments in where the display is placed in a room related to the lights and windows. sometimes a couple of simple tweaks will eliminate the issue.
as for the whole eye strain issue. i love how many of those folks talk about being at the computer for hours non stop and don't consider that such lengthy times is a factor in the fact that they are having strain issues. as much, if not more than the glare.
The 'solution' to reduce glare and reflections, by increasing brigtness (on already over bright displays) creates a huge amount of eye-sore / headaches. I use my professional NEC 2690WUXi on low brightness to combat this.
Adjusting the display position is not always an option for laptops, or for certain office environments - window/desk/light placement is not a free choice for many.
The pictures at the bottom of this review show why I want glossy (scroll over pics to see the problems with glossy screens).
http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/mul...=7-10041-10146
Apple should just offer the freaking option.
FWIW our accountant has the new 27" iMAC, reduce the brightness and she can use it as a mirror - for free.
You need Sun level brightness to offset glare on glass- that's why. Like a plasma TV - they're all under glass.
AND amazingly, plasma looks better than LCD, hmmm. Would you like a matte windshield on your car too. I'm sitting next to a Sony Trintron 20" under brand new fluorescent lighting, no glare. Glare is a bigger issue on portables not Desktops!
I want a Plasma iMac. Not that 3rd rate technology LCD
AND amazingly, plasma looks better than LCD, hmmm. Would you like a matte windshield on your car too. I'm sitting next to a Sony Trintron 20" under brand new fluorescent lighting, no glare. Glare is a bigger issue on portables not Desktops!
I want a Plasma iMac. Not that 3rd rate technology LCD
Well, plasma is a dead technology. Almost no company is producing them anymore. LCD has caught up in the areas in which it was behind, and is now, with LED backlighting, better in delivering good blacks, an area in which Plasma was always poor. The only plasmas that did deliver good blacks, the last high end, and very expensive Pioneers, were discontinued just 3 months after their introduction, followed shortly after by all of Pioneers plasmas. Pretty much everyone else has followed, or has said they soon will.
Besides, plasma consumes too much power, and gets too hot.