They would not keep their value if they were not reliable. Used PC have 0 value. Macs are the most problematic hardware computers you have ever had? What computers have you had? That is a crazy affirmation.
Mac vs PC Comparison: Should You Buy Mac or PC
Any data to back that up? Rarely had blue screens or spinning beach ball of death on any of my systems. The most important measurement is missing - a BitCoin mining capability measure Just kidding ;-. Macs are pretty, but the author of the article is either ignorant or willfully biased. For me rhe extensibility of the PC wins the comparison, for someone else the design, OS or brand of Apple is the deciding factor.
AIOs look great except when complemented with all peripherals you buy over the lifetime of the computer. But it looks pretty. This is showing that the Adobe software has hit performance ceiling. You could use the hardware and make them match but this non-optimized code is not taking advantage of any of the modern processors performance features.
I wouldn't go IAO for that price, asking for trouble imo. That spec machine should be inside a case where it can be properly cooled. Think of those dumb laptops that throttle a CPU when they get a bit hot? They can't run full speed for long, duuuh, because they can't cool the cpu sufficiently in that tight space! I'm sure apple are using hybrid heat pipes for sure, but still;. But all that aside, lets not forget this. Apple don't make this. And thats it. All that performance comes from the high quality parts used. Apple went downhill when they started using intel chips, but seriously, who could live with Windows :P.
Apple had to go over to Intel chips mainly because IBM were not developing the PowerPC chips to the speeds and energy requirements that Apple required. Foregone conclusion. I and many other Mac users use Macs because we prefer using Macs. Nothing else really matters. Yup, No arguement with that. Just like to forego all the hyperbole that this is some fantastical "apple" invention when it is just repackaged "OEM" tech, in an apple casing.
And since what you are really saying is "you like the Mac OS" because macs are PC's under the bonnet - why would anyone have an issue with what OS you prefer, unless they are mental ;-. A few years ago. They have beautiful systems, as does Maingear. Absolutely I prefer Intel and Nvidia over AMD for reason due to higher quality and better in value holding that last longer than losing value fast when get older.
AMD do not hold value long enough and thats a big downside. It lose value quickly within a few years. Its not good for investment its bad. But finally AMD is trying their best to make proper cpu and gpu and its getting there. So it should help to hold value longer. Will see how it influence on market. Alienware only focus on intel and gforce thats it.
Either gaming or workstations with the most options. I would still choose intel and Nvidia. You do realize you are looking at a PC without display and a Mac with pro-quality display, right? Most PC people will already have displays. I use a 49" 4k display i wouldnt need or want another. The more I look into the market, the less I understand why people think Mac being overpriced. If you ask any PC maker to make a laptop like MBPR, they will charge you more for similar spec then throw at you something buggy. One example here is XPS While Dell was not dumping stock, they are about the same price with MBPR but with less metal in body construction.
I personally checked out the display, neither panel looked as good as Apple's. Once teardown, Apple's build quality is way superior too.
For the same price, Apple is offering more. Now, just because you can buy something that seems to have the same specs with cheaper price, doesn't mean the expensive ones are "overpriced". Apple is just not worth it. They also lag behind in adopting the very latest hardware and their innovations are way behind. Reading the comments I feel PC guys are still talking about specs! Who cares?
- iMac Pro vs Custom PC!
- iPad Artists, Don’t Brush Off Adobe Fresco.
- mac cosmetics stores in delhi.
- how do i unmute my mac pro.
- instalar scanjet 3400c en mac!
- mac os x 10 download free?
- CPU, Memory, and Storage Differences.
The iMac Pro is beautiful and will be fantastic. If you can afford it, get it but it is not the only option out there. One thing is for sure, it is not a utility truck where only the specs matter. As for price It's about the looks? Coz you know, spending money on quality components to get "the performance you are paying for" is not important! This article is completely garbage. What are you trying to convey?? It is just the computer he uses. He put it into the mix just for reference. Building your own computer from pieces has existed for decades. What is new about that? The thing is that many of us DON'T want to do that, really.
What is wrong with that? In real work situations stats and specs don't matter. There are companies like Puget Systems who make workstations. I've ordered computer from similar company for my wife, who works in biotech and sometimes uses it for data analysis. How about 2Tb of RAM? Yet every time the talk is all about "Mac is better performing but so expensive ".
There are much more powerful options in PC world, but those companies just do not have Apple or Dell marketing power, so people are comparing sub-optimal options they're aware of.
You can get a full PC as well. And you'll pay a lot less for the same stuff. The problem with this comparison is that it compares a gaming PC with a much better spec'd workstation and the latter, obviously, wins in some tasks. But a typical reader especially coming from the Apple ecosystem might not understand that the parts in iMac are not exclusive to Apple. It's all made by other companies and you can put the same stuff in a PC unlike in the past, when Apple made their own CPUs. So it's all about the choice, really: how much are looks and OSX worth to you? Also, there's a big practical difference between owning an AIO and a traditional case.
AIO wins on space saving at first, but then you need external storage and maybe some other accessories. With a normal case, you're wasting a lot of space, but you can put a lot of things inside - once needed. What's there to reference? It generates no value for people reading it except making people who bought a piece of stupidly overpriced equipment feel good.
That's why the article is garbage. True, specs don't matter if you have infinite budget, but you call that "real work situation"? Man don't you understand what Xeon is for? Its for server! Not just workstation. Workstation as a single computer do not require Xeon CPU processor. Apple is trying making big money for big profit out of it to rip people off. Its ridiculous! Some of the biggest issues for me is having all that hot hardware running beind your screen And a xeon?
Mac Pro vs. Consumer Macs
Then there is the issue of the screen. If it dies, you have to return the computer V's just replacing a screen I would never buy an AIO at this price range for that reason alone. The Mac Pro workstations in those nice aluminium cases FTW any day over this, if you're the fruity sort, or any PC case your heart desires if not. Tristan Jones This is meant to be a workstation - not a benchmark-results-fest for geeks :-P.
People don't OC workstations in general. There are better solutions for such tasks. AIO is a fine approach. Again: it's not a big deal for the intended corporate clients. The Apple price might not be that far off. I searched for the processor specced in the iMac Pro above. No doubt there are some fine details about the actual processor not listed that make a huge cost difference.
For DIY enthusiasts, here goes one at Amazon for retail:. I am not sure if that processor is even identical, but you get the picture. High end CPUs like that are very pricey! So for those that are complaining about an Apple premium in the iMac Pro, it is not nearly as big as you might think And I know, Apple gets them cheaper, but so does everyone except us who buy one at a time. The comparison is silly otherwise. Hardly an unbiased comparison. So is anyone surprised the 8 core CPU wins at rendering?
Perhaps it should have been up against an 8 core i7 or i9 CPU. That might have been a more interesting challenge. Last but not least, no big surprise that desktops trounced the laptop. You don't buy a laptop for processing power, you buy it for portability. You accept the tradepffs to get the portability. Do another test of laptops vs laptops. Are you so sure you need plenty of core to run only one app or two? But for just itself desktop computer you do not really need overkill several cores to do one or two things.
It just getting nonsense today. This i7 K does very good job for most of my work and I do not need too many core to do the job really as it is a regular gaming desktop, not a server and not a workstation. I can understand some people like overkill cores nonsense but I do not. Waste of money really. For a desktop you only need standard i7 unlocked for gaming, photoshop, video editing thats it. You don't need 6 or 8 or 12 or 16 cores to do it, its silly.
Speed Test: iMac Pro vs Alienware PC, Mac Pro and MacBook Pro: Digital Photography Review
I won't question Colin Smith as a photographer. Keep in mind that mobile chips are different than desktop chips! Desktop chips CPUs will almost always kill any mobile chip of the same class and speed. Take for example a Core i7 quad core on a laptop versus a similarly equipped Core i7 quad core CPU in a desktop Mobile processors are optimized for both performance but also battery life.
Desktops can be tuned either way, but usually are biased towards performance in many cases. It's not quite an apples-to-apples comparison to compare a laptop to a desktop no pun intended. Meltdown makes the CPUs on all machines a bad buy. Best wait until new CPUs are built to address the fault as the patching doesn't seem like a good fit so far.
There's no point in waiting for anything. Of course CPUs will keep improving and in years they'll get back to the performance level we got used to. Compare apples with literally Apples. I did check. So yeah, apples for apples it's not a lot lower in terms of overall cost. Dell then? The iMac looks expensive on paper but then it's no more expensive than workstation alternatives from the likes of HP and Dell. It doesn't make much sense to compare hardware. Then you could just install Bootcamp instead, and practically you would then be evaluating drivers and OS's, not performance per spent amount of cash.
In a critical server environment, Xeons and ECC ram is a great addition, however, for you average, though serious, workstation, it not worth that extra cash in my mind. I know you can build it cheaper for the same or better performance. I said as much myself. I'm not arguing for the iMac - I'm simply saying that's how much it costs for workstation class parts.
Now whether you need a Xeon with ECC RAM is down to the customer but the point is the iMac is not expensive a common criticism thrown at it when compared like-for-like with other workstations. But is that like-for-like comparison relevant, if you cannot feel a difference in performance or stability between systems with usd pricediff?
It is the graphics card on iMac pro that makes the difference. Adobe software use the graphics card heavily. The card on the alienware is cheap. By buying a better graphics card you can get much better results. By building a PC from parts for doing multimedia, you would get even better results per buck used for a PC. This article clearly says that 'raspberry pi' is the best option for stills editing and 3D animation rendering!
People keep saying "so the Mac is faster" but that's not what the article says. It does say "in 3 out of the 4 photoshop tests Colin performed, the PC outperformed all of the Macs. My questions -- and they are the same ones I had when I left PCs in -- are: how's the OS, does the registry still crash in Windows, is the fan still as loud as a jet engine, and what if I don't want a minitower? I'm sticking with Apple, but Windows is getting more tempting for sure.
I have similar thoughts. Four years now with the MacBook and no complaints. Recently upgraded to High Sierra took all of 45 minutes and the MacBook runs as well and as fast as the day I got it. Hardware is also flawless with no issues and I can easily see myself using this MacBook for another 4 years which was unthinkable with my Dell Lattitudes. To make an analogy PC's remind me of American muscle cars.
Certainly capable of tremendous brute performance but not the nicest drive and after a few years they're full of rattles, squeaks and stuff breaking and falling off. You do get what you pay for. I'm sure pure performance, though, comes with a cooling price. Well that sure links the Windows OS to fan loudness. Right, Linux could run the same system. The data on this chart is calculated from Geekbench 4 results users have uploaded to the Geekbench Browser. To make sure the results accurately reflect the average performance of each Mac, the chart only includes Macs with at least five unique results in the Geekbench Browser.
Geekbench 4 scores are calibrated against a baseline score of which is the score of an Intel Core iU. Higher scores are better, with double the score indicating double the performance. Curious how your Mac or PC compares? Download Geekbench 4 and find out how your computer measures up to the Macs on this chart. Toggle navigation Geekbench Browser.
Here's how it ended up:. As you can see, the only place where the Mac Pro blows my Hackintosh out of the water is when it comes time for the processor-intensive work-particularly video encoding-which makes perfect sense, considering the Mac Pro's running two dual core processors versus the Hackintosh's one.
If you do a lot of video work, a Mac Pro will definitely provide a significant boost. On the other hand, you could easily boost the Hackintosh's performance by buying a faster processor, which wouldn't require that much of an increase to the price of your build. Unfortunately I wasn't able to test the Hackintosh against a Mac with similar specs, which would be an interesting test. A comparably spec'd and priced iMac test would be very useful. Alternatively, it's very clear that the Hackintosh bests my MacBook Pro in every test but the startup test.
One thing to note is that my build still requires the install DVD in the drive to boot, which takes at least an extra eight seconds. This can be fixed it just hasn't bothered me enough yet to work up the motivation, but I will update the howto when I do , but even after the boot update the Hackintosh will probably remain the slowest booter.