Mac Pro or iMac 7

[Rafael Amador]

Pro.
Rafael

http://www.nagavideo.com

[Jeff Mueller]

The answer is simple: if you have the money buy the Mac Pro, you will never regret it. If you don’t have the money, the i7 should be a superb machine. This from a guy who is happy to have just upgraded from an old iMac to an old Mac Pro (1st gen quad core). Could have bought a new iMac core duo for the same money, and speed wise it’s about a toss up, but after living with the iMac for several years I recognize it as good value but not really intended for film professionals. It is largely un-expandable, unrepairable, prone to overheating because everything is crammed into close quarters that weren’t intended for 12 hour rendering sessions. Did I mention that it works? I have been editing Pro Res 4:2:2 in FCP 7, building effects in AE, mixing audio in Soundtrack Pro, Grading (the pros might not call it that) in Color, Compressin’ in Compressor and delivering in various formats with a 4 year old 2.16 gHz, 3 GB ram (maxed out) 2 FW400 connectors iMac. So it can be done and if you can’t afford the Mac Pro don’t give up on film making. But I am so glad to move to an expandable machine that was built to run 24/7. The i7 iMacs are 10x the machine I have been working on (I kid you not) and especially if you figure out how to add a second internal drive to the connectors Apple stuck in there for the second SSD option (or better yet add an eSata connection for an external Raid, which I think OWC is doing) there is no better value than the new iMacs. But if you can afford the Mac Pro, buy it.

Jeff Mueller
http://www.ApertureVideos.com
Santa Barbara, CA

[Jeff Mueller]

Raphael beat me to the punch by leaving a lot of words out. I think they call that editing 🙂

Jeff Mueller
http://www.ApertureVideos.com
Santa Barbara, CA

[Walter Biscardi]

Fastest Mac Pro you can afford.

Walter Biscardi, Jr.
Editor, Colorist, Director, Writer, Consultant, Author, Chef.
HD Post and Production
Biscardi Creative Media

“Foul Water, Fiery Serpent” featuring Sigourney Weaver coming soon.

Blog Twitter Facebook

[Rob Fourchalk]

Thanks for the responses thus far fellas. Much appreciated. I was sorta leaning toward the iMac (cost being a slight factor but ultimately not the determining one – if the iMac can get the job done with the only issue being slower render times then why not?). Jeff you provided some really good insight, just a little concerned about what you said re: overheating issues with extended periods of rendering time (sounds kinda scary). Rafael, thanks for weighing in -I’d like to know where your coming from a little in detail, but thanks anyway. Walter, I know from the different threads that you have tons of experience on both machines. Is it just a matter of speed in your opinion when you side with Pro (fastest that can be afforded)? Would the Mac Pro 3.2 quad (albeit not the fastest pro around) be a much wiser investment than the iMac 7?

[Chad Tingle]

I’ll Put it like this.. As the projects get bigger you’re going to require the computer to do more. A Mac Pro is better because it’s a machine you can grow into. If you can only afford 8 gigs of ram right now, I would buy a machine that can support 16 or 32 because eventually you will need it.As you start making films and documentaries you might need a capture card and as you start doing motion graphics your graphics card needs to be able to handle programs like motion and aftereffects. You don’t have to max out the machine right now.. START with a MAC PRO at the price point you can afford but buy with expansion in mind. The Imacs with I7s are great but they’ll max out a lot sooner and you might find yourself in another purchasing decision before you’re ready.

Chad Tingle
Producer/Editor

[Jeff Mueller]

I think everybody’s agreeing that any of the new Mac Pros would be a better long term investment than any of the new iMacs. Buy as fast a processor as you can afford. Everything else can be upgraded. But by my standards the lowliest new quad core will fly.

My iMac (typing on it now) is an older model and so the comparison is not apples to -umh, apples, but if you google around you’ll see that earlier iMacs were prone to overheating. Supposedly this has been addressed in newer machines, but only time will tell and let’s face it the iMac looks sleek but how do you get a lot of air in there? And all the new chips are just going to run faster and faster. The real point is there’s a reason they use the word “Pro” for the Pros and not the iMacs (beyond marketing hype). When I thought my GPU was going out (due to overheating) that was a deep problem, because you can’t replace it. In a 4 year old Mac Pro that would be more like an opportunity to upgrade it to the latest flavor. FWIW smcFanControl made a huge difference in keeping the iMac stable.

I still think that the quad core iMacs are superb value for money and if you’re a video or photography hobbiest there’s probably no real need for the Pro, but there that word just came up again.

Hope this helps, just my 2 cents.

Jeff Mueller
http://www.ApertureVideos.com
Santa Barbara, CA

[Bret Williams]

Why would you want to buy external, expensive, slow FW 800 drives when you can put cheaper, faster, sata drives right inside the Mac pro? Get the pro.

[Anna Chiaretta]

I am in this same debate now months later and I still can’t decide. Money is a big factor, I am trying to get a decent video camera (AX2000 or EX1 if grants come through).

I will be doing a lot of editing of performance documentation jobs, so 1-2 hour videos primarily, and also my own work as an artist (anywhere between 1 minute and 6 hour videos). I feel like it might make more sense to get the 3.6 i5 iMac, since final cut doesn’t do multi-core processing (at least from what I understand on the forums I have read).

Then once I have some money secured and regular clients invest in the MacPro… or is it really really worth it now? like eat ramen all next year worth it?

thanks.