PC vs. iMac

For CS3 & working with 500 MB - 1.5 GB images, am I better off with:

 

A.) iMac 24" 3.06GHz Intel Core 2 Duo, 4GB RAM, or

 

B:) HP Pavilion Elite 9260f (Intel Core2 Quad 6700, (2.66 GHz), 4 GB DDR2 800 MHz;

 

Perhaps there are better PCs to compare against the iMac, but this is the one that falls

within my budget and has gotten great reviews.

 

I realize Mac Pro is probably best, but is a little pricey for me at this time.

 

I am a lifelong PC guy but am willing to switch if necessary.

You neglected to mention (or maybe consider) the "Operating System Question". That factor, and its a big one, will have just as much an impact on your daily ops as your hardware.

It's really about the OS, not the hardware...

Working with such huge files, I recommend researching RAID drives arranged for "performance".

 

If speed is part of your quest for "best" RAID is the way to go as opposed to a singe drive system.

Photoshop doesn't take advantage of quad cores. Cpu speed, amount of memory, and

faster drives are more important. Look at this technote from adobe:

 

http://kb.adobe.com/selfservice/viewContent.do?externalId=kb401088&sliceId=1

 

Also don't forget about the monitor and a calibration device.

It also depends on software... if you are going to have to invest more in software to get the mac going the way you need it to, a higher powered PC with software you already own will likely do better.

 

I just built a 2.66 ghz quad 9450 with 8gb of ram, vista 64, velociraptor hard drive for the OS and four 750gb drives in a raid 10 array for images and it seems pretty fast...

 

as others mentioned, photoshop is really hard drive dependant as much as anything, and vista needs lots of ram, so look for fast hard drive and IMHO a little more memory (6gb would be better)

I cannot say much about the specific PC system you mention, but I can tell you that

the 24" iMac with a full spec of RAM and a large hard drive is a very fine Photoshop

system.

 

It is what I use and I'm very happy with the system. If you want to ask any specific

questions about the use of the iMac for PS send me an email.

 

Dan

I dont know anything about PC, but a Imac 24 3ghz 4gig of ram will handle your file no problem...and i know that for sure because i work with the exact same setup most of the time when im not in my studio. Image that come from a P45+ mostly, with layer 16bit etc...

Thanks for all the replies.

 

With the PC I was thinking about XP 64-bit or Vista 64-bit. With the iMac, OS X 10.5

Leopard comes with it, I believe. Would an XP or Vista OS be better on the iMac?

 

Another factor to consider; the iMac only takes 4 GB RAM and this PC system will take

up to 8 GB RAM (w/ Windows 64-bit). Does this give the PC the edge?

>>> Would an XP or Vista OS be better on the iMac?

 

Buy a PC and Windows if you enjoy geeking with computers and protection software.

 

Buy a Mac and use the OS that comes with it if you enjoy working your photos.

 

That's the bottom line for many people...

"It's really about the OS, not the hardware..."

 

Actually Brad, the hardware on a Mac is far superior than on an HP/Dell etc. In

this case, I would say that the hardware would be a consideration. The only way

to own a PC in my opinion is to order top of the line and current parts to

ensure compatibility.

 

R.A. Reynolds, you could build a better/faster PC with the $1400 that HP is

asking for the 9260f. These companies usually cheap out on cases, fans, ram, and

hard drives. They whoo the consumer with spec's yet most don't notice the 300w

power supply or that the SATA II drives are two generation old 8meg cache units

that Maxtor unloaded at a great price. There's no way I'd run a quad-core and

two hard drives off a 300W ps that the 9260f is spec'd with. Becasue of this

300w ps, as a rule, they generally under-clock the cpu as this demonstrates less

warranty returns. Then it comes pro-config'd with Vista and a whack of useless

applications that you didn't order yet run int the background phoning home and

spying on you. One generally gets 8 to 10 months of solid use out of it before

things sideways and attention is needed in some form. Then threads appear here

to the likes of "PC suck, I've never been happier switching to Mac".

 

If you're not savy or don't wish to build your own PC, I'd go for the Mac in

this case. If you have the ability or can have a friend help you out, buying

parts from Newegg etc will result in a better and cleaner PC at a lower cost.

Building a computer from parts is easier than most imagine and there's a wealth

of info out there now on the net to go step-by-step. When you buy parts like

mobo's, cpu's and hd's, you are entitled to OEM prices of windows software. Many

will include the OS to sweeten the pot. A friend of mine was just buying parts

recently with no intention of getting an OS as he's an avid XP user but the

salesperson on the phone asked him what version of Vista he wanted. They

included Vista64.

 

Photoshop will be offered in 64 bit for Windows first, with Mac catching up at a

later date. The rumours are all over the place on when Mac goes 64 bit, some say

within the release of CS4 and some say they'll be waiting until CS5. With the

price of RAM these days, you might want to consider this as Photoshop on 8 gigs

of ram and a 64 bit OS will show much improvement over the 32 bit version

suffering a cap of 1.7 gig.

"...will show much improvement over the 32 bit version suffering a cap of 1.7 gig."

 

sorry, edit. above, thinking windows 32 bit. I think leopard runs a max of 2.5 gig with PS?

"Buy a PC and Windows if you enjoy geeking with computers and protection software."

 

Or, buy a PC if you enjoy going a heck of a lot faster with 50% savings while

having more hardware and software choices. A decent advantage while only having

to run a $40 Kaspersky app.

 

"Another factor to consider; the iMac only takes 4 GB RAM and this PC system

will take up to 8 GB RAM (w/ Windows 64-bit). Does this give the PC the edge?"

 

In terms of speed, yes, of course.

I have a super Mac Pro with 4 gig of ram, and working everyday on huge mega non sense file i couldtn see why would i need more ram in that machine (also for now CS3 wont take more than 3gig for him anyway)

 

In term of what speed 8gig of ram is faster than a 4gig of ram?

If you go poke about at Bare Feats, you soon see MANY situations where 16 GB of ram is needed. Particularly doing 3D work. They used

a Mac Pro 3.2 GHz with 32 GB ram to open a Photoshop files that was 500MB 31) layers. The machine used 31 GB of ram in that test!

 

http://www.barefeats.com/harper12.html

Carl, i was refering to Garrison comment...i dont see how a 8gig of ram PC will be faster to process a image taht a normal user work on, normal being rarely over 2gig, even 1gig, and for the *real* normal user less than 500meg...and for the rest (the majority) not over 200meg, vs the same machine that have *only* 4gig install.

 

Of course whe are talking about Photoshop here for the photographer user, not for a 3D artist or someone who do serious video conposing of course, but again, if whe go there, whe should also talk about video card and super fast disk..basically a station that cost 20x what the OP want to invest ; )

Patrick, my point was that there are many times when more than 4 gigs of ram is very nice to have. I just bought a new 24" iMac, and

it's limited to 4 gigs, but if I had of gone for the Mac Pro instead, it would have a minimum of 8 gigs. The Bare Feats test didn't say that

everyone needs 32 gigs of ram, the point of the test was that many times more is better. They push equipment for testing purposes,

they are a good resource for what it will actually do, and what it takes to do it. ;o)

>>> Or, buy a PC if you enjoy going a heck of a lot faster with 50% savings while having more hardware and software

choices. A decent advantage while only having to run a $40 Kaspersky app.

 

As I said, if you enjoy geeking with hardware, OS, and protection software, that's the way to go...

"As I said, if you

enjoy geeking with

hardware, OS, and

protection software,

that's the way to

go..."

 

lol, well, first

off, a lot Mac users

do like "geeking"

out. second, buying

a modern expensive

iMac and being stuck

with it's contents

(4 gigs of ram, a 3

generation old video

card, and no pci

slot choices) leaves

you with your arms

crossed and no

choice but to not

geek out. very

limiting system in

this day and age and

a waste of money imo

if you can't upgrade

and improve by

swapping in better

performing parts

over time.

 

How about in these

Mac Vs. PC threads

you could offer some

pros and cons of

both systems to add

value to the thread?

The "if you enjoy

geeking with

computers and

protection software"

single sentence

mantra is tiring

thread after thread.

If, like you say,

that's all there was

to it and it was

that easy, Mac would

have the largest

market share. But

they don't, for some

reason.

"In term of what

speed 8gig of ram is

faster than a 4gig

of ram?"

 

Patrick, on windows

machines, the OS

uses the ram first

before

reading/writing on

the scratch disk.

When Photoshop

demands the data

back from the OS, if

it's readily

available in the

ram, there's a

performance

improvement Vs.

waiting on the data

stored on the

scratch.

Garrison K: I think your example above is somewhat misleading. I recently took delivery of an HP d5000t

desktop system, running Vista 64-bit, with 8gb ram, two 750gb hard drives, nVidia 8800GT video card, Intel

q9550 quad-core processor at 2.8Ghz. 460 watt power supply, asus motherboard. Cost $1900. The hard drives

are the same ones used in the Mac Pro. The video card is the $150 upgrade on the Mac Pro. It's simply not true

that all HP or Dell machines always use cheap parts, or items that are a generation or two behind. Might be the

case on the low-end machines. Before this I've always had computers built locally, where I could spec the parts I

wanted. This time, it wasn't cost-effective. We'll see how the machine performs over time. It was built to run

Vista, so there isn't a problem with drivers, etc.

 

Now, I would love to be able to run OS X on a machine of this sort. I already own an NEC 2490WUXi monitor,

which is better than any of the Apple cinema displays, let alone the monitor in the iMac. But Apple gives us no

choice: either the iMac, or the overkill (for most photography) Mac Pro. By the time you add 8gb ram and an

additional hard drive or two to the Mac Pro, you'll be pushing $3500. Ouch! Why does Apple refuse to sell

a "Mac Maxi?" Seems to me they'd sell a ton of 'em to people who need more than an iMac but less than a Mac

Pro, and they'd sell a lot more monitors too. Plenty of money to be made there. I think about switching over to

gain the benefits of OS X, but the hardware limitations are a big roadblock. And no, I don't want to spend loads of

money on a less powerful MacBook Pro plus a pile of external hard drives, just so I can use a monitor of my own

choosing on my desk at home...

 

That said, I would love to read a calm, reasoned argument for making the switch from a windows pc to the mac,

one without absurd assumptions on either side. I've been in the Apple store four or five times in the past couple

of months. Photoshop looks the same to me. The web looks the same. Word processing looks the same. I'm

not into producing music or video, where the mac would likely look way better. Macs are far less troubled by

virus and malware attacks (so far!), but what else inspires such vociferous support from the Mac users? My pc's

haven't suffered a "blue screen of death" in years. Defragmenting the hard drive takes place over night. Same

with virus scans, which have yet to reveal any infections on my computer. Meanwhile a musician/scientist friend

says her MacBook Pro crashes on her fairly regularly. So what's the deal?

>>> When Photoshop demands the data back from the OS, if it's readily available in the ram, there's a performance

improvement Vs. waiting on the

data stored on the scratch.

 

Yep. so if you're working with gigabyte+ size files there will be a difference. For the rest us, no.

 

>>> buying a modern expensive iMac and being stuck with it's contents (4 gigs of ram, a 3 generation old video card,

and no pci slot choices)

leaves you with your arms crossed and no choice but to not geek out. very limiting system in this day and age and a

waste of money imo if you can't

upgrade and improve by swapping in better performing parts over time.

 

Hardly being stuck - why would you want more? Again, if you enjoy swapping CPUs, vid cards, power supplies and

futzing with the OS, drivers, and

protection software, the PC is the right choice. Especially if the goal is having the baddest computer on the block.

Reminds me of highschool and

messing with cars...

 

For most people though, the differences in real world performance are marginal. Oh, but wait, isn't everybody running

gaussian blur filters on

dozens of 1 GB images?

 

>>> a 3 generation old video card,

 

Which when running photoshop there's no difference compared to running the baddest video gaming card out there.

"Garrison K: I think

your example above

is somewhat

misleading."

 

You're right, Jim. I

was speaking of the

lower end machines.

HP does very well in

the server field

with the Proliants.

Nevertheless, your

460w power supply is

taxed to the limit.

I'd also check to

see if it's

under-clocked?

 

 

"Now, I would love

to be able to run OS

X on a machine of

this sort."

 

Google "hacintosh".

there's a blog out

there where the

builder used $800 in

pc parts, loaded

Leopard, and it out

performed the iMac.

 

"Apple gives us no

choice:"

 

I know. Yet some

people call this

desire 'geeking out

for the badest

badazz computer in

town'.

 

 

"Brad. Yep. so if

you're working with

gigabyte+ size files

there will be a

difference. For the

rest us, no."

 

Incorrect. Even the

most modest

Photoshop user

notices a gain with

6 or 8 gig ram over

4 gig. Ram is cheap,

takes five minutes

to install, no one

has ever reported it

as a waste of time.

Unless you're

running an iMac of

course and one will

never know.

 

"Hardly being stuck

- why would you want

more? Again, if you

enjoy swapping CPUs,

vid cards, power

supplies and futzing

with the OS,

drivers, and

protection software,

the PC is the right

choice. Especially

if the goal is

having the baddest

computer on the

block."

 

Why would I want

more? Time is worth

money and turn

around for

deliverables can be

tight. In other

words, it can mean

the difference

between a 11pm

bedtime or 1 am

bedtime.

Re swapping parts,

you make it sound

like weekly chore.

In one of my

Antec cases, I'm on

the third build. It

has been a very cost

effective equipment

choice over the

years replacing the

mobo/cpu/ram and

constantly having

an up-to-date

computer. I'd

shudder at the cost

of going G3/G4/G5

instead.

 

"Reminds me of

highschool and

messing with

cars..."

 

There's nothing

wrong with those

that tinker. The

world is a better

place because of

them.

 

 

"For most people

though, the

differences in real

world performance

are marginal. Oh,

but wait, isn't

everybody running

gaussian blur

filters on dozens of

1 GB images?"

 

I think you mean

"for most hobbyists

that may shoot 4 gig

a month, and fiddle

around in PS after

dinner, the

differences in

performance is

marginal."

 

 

>>> a 3 generation

old video card,

 

"Which when running

photoshop there's no

difference compared

to running the

baddest video gaming

card out there."

 

For that kind of

money, you should be

able to play games

and not be limited.

Limited, limited,

limited. That's

Mac's downfall. A

Unix OS is a plus.

The choice of

building with top

quality parts is a

plus. But the

thing's out dated

before it even gets

to the show room.

>>> Incorrect. Even the most modest Photoshop user notices a gain with 6 or 8 gig ram over 4 gig.

 

Again, just not true. Speaking from direct experience here...

 

>>> Time is worth money and turn around for deliverables can be tight.

 

OK, please reveal the details of your specific business - a web link would be great. If you're a design bureau, professional retoucher,

work for a high-end magazine, etc, you buy a MacPro and be done with it. So again, what is your specific business and what size

images do you routinely process.

 

>>> For that kind of money, you should be able to play games and not be limited. Limited, limited, limited. That's Mac's downfall.

 

If you want to play games, get a PC. Simple, no argument there. But please don't suggest that a 3rd gen video card has an advantage

over the latest one for photoshop, like you did above.

war war! ok simmer down.. apple corp does make good machines,

and brand-name computers are usually " made to a price"

this is fine for normal office or business use.

 

going to someone like newegg and purchasing a mid- to high end computer and not ignoring their advice, is easier and saves a lot of money. I say not ignoring as there are pitfalls with casually mixing up parts.

try telling a reputable seller what you are going to do with the computer, get a price and then compare costs.

 

If you are already in the PC world, there will not only be a learning curve, but you will have to replace your software. This can be expensive.

 

is there some secret reason why apple has starting using Intel processors? this is after many years of using other types. instead of Motorola or.

power pc. There are free anti virus prograsms

AVAST ( have not tried it) and AVG ( free but hard to locate on their website)

there is a free firewall zone alarm. and free syybot programs

SPYBOT SEARCH AND DESTROY and ad-aware.

 

I don't know if the apple operating system is bulletproof,