PC or MAC for editing?

You can buy a core i7 machine for the cost of an iMac...

Currently, the iMac is not worth the value of its performance.

Highly recommend a Core i7 machine! Triple channel RAM

I bought a dell quad core system for about $570 and it was the best computer decision I've made in a long time (I've bought mac only for about 14 years). I was used to 8-20 seconds per 100% full 40D jpg exported from RAW in lightroom, now it's 2-3 seconds per photo, and changes I make to exposure and other adjustments are virtually instantaneous. Efficiency is so important with processing large numbers of photos, and it's great to have a computer that can keep up with me.

My last was a Mac dual 800mhz G4 and changes took average 3-10 seconds to refresh in lightroom, plus exporting photos...somewhere around 15-20 seconds or more per photo. This computer is probably at least 8x faster.

form wrote in post #7102788
My last was a Mac dual 800mhz G4...

Well, this explains much of your negative opinion of Macs.

You could consider AMD's Phenom II series, it's powerful enough for most tasks and it's cheaper than a i7 rig. It's on par if not slightly better than the Core 2 series at present.

Personally I would go for it as it would give you more money for more RAM/HD space if you went the PC route.

Tony-S wrote in post #7103260
Well, this explains much of your negative opinion of Macs.

I'm sure it has nothing to do with the additional 2000 bucks for a mac worth buying for image editing . It would be very easy to build a PC that will would blaze through my photo and video editing, gaming performance, ripping music/movies, and all around applications for well under $2500. And I have zero stability or virus issues with my PC (which is what most ppl try to claim Mac's elevate the bar in this department). A lot of money for an Apple logo.

jetboy wrote in post #7103855
I'm sure it has nothing to do with the additional 2000 bucks for a mac worth buying for image editing .

An additional $2,000 would buy you a server-grade Xeon-based 8-core Mac Pro. How much do you think it would take to build a Win PC with a pair of 2.8 ghz Xeon processors?

Gosh, I had no idea. Thanks for enlightening me.

Good for you!

I guess you don't know much about Macs. (Hint - see the locked thread below.)

MacroMAn wrote in post #7099749
I have read a few threads that deal with this same issue, but I thought I would try to get some advice for myself and my individual needs.
I am at a crossroad of deciding to either build a PC with specifics...
Hard Drive
A LOT of RAM
Prossesor
Video Card
ETC, ETC, ETC
OR
just buy an iMac or even a Mac Pro?

I have an IPS Dell monitor that is pretty good. I do not know what the ones for Macs use? (VA, IPS, or TN?) Does anyone out there?

Also Macs are supposed to be the bomb, but if I could build a better photo editing machine with a 640gb hard drive, ATI Radeon 1gb video card, with Vista Ultimate 64bit OS would that not be better?

I am just using it for photo editing, RAW, TIFF, JPegs...no video.

What is the best Processor, Video Card, Hard Drive, RAM if I decide to build like from Puget or just ordering from newegg.com and having it built?

What are the most important factors in the editing process ( I know RAM and Processor are very important!)

As you may have noticed, choosing an OS is a very personal decision. Both Vista and OX X can do what you want of them – PC's are typically cheaper and Mac's are typically built better. No one here can tell you what you'll enjoy more, Vista or OS X. Isn't that what it's all about, enjoying the experience? If you just want pure efficiency then just go purchase a Consumer Reports account and then buy whatever their top pick is for your class of computer.

Should I tell you which car to buy, what house to live in or who you should date? You need to sit (or stand) behind a Vista machine and an OS X machine and use them. Whichever you like best – pick that one. 'Then' worry about what will go in it. Even the cheapest desktop's can now run Photoshop CS4 very quickly and you're not going to be really pushing your computer very hard.

Now for 'my' personal opinion; I use both Mac's and PC's, I'm a network admin (IT professional) of a network with thousands of computers and I chose Apple as my personal computer. Why? Well, I like them; I like the 'feel' of the OS, I like not having to bother with tweaking my computer constantly to keep it running optimally. I just love the stability and lack of baggage that come with PCs. I like the look and I like the support. I work a lot with video and Apple's Final Cut is the industry standard. Now, not getting into statistics (which I believe are a valid decision making tool for major purchases), Apple's have a reputation for excellence and thinking like artists and I like purchasing from people that embody the qualities I try to foster in myself.

Tony-S wrote in post #7104048
An additional $2,000 would buy you a server-grade Xeon-based 8-core Mac Pro. How much do you think it would take to build a Win PC with a pair of 2.8 ghz Xeon processors?

Even for a low end iMac (listed at apple store with a whopping 1gb ram and 250gb harddrive) is 1100. My computer cost less than 2/3 that for better specs and performance.

Tony-S wrote in post #7104048
Good for you!

Yes, I'm very pleased with my stability and security of my microsoft system.

Tony-S wrote in post #7104048
I guess you don't know much about Macs. (Hint - see the locked thread below.)

I know and have used macs for imaging enough to know I have zero need to pay more money when the performance isn't there. A mac would not be more stable as I have already said that I have no issues with that. Performance/Price is heavily in a PC's favor. More hardware and software is produced with Windows based systems in mind (or maybe only the larger # of video card options and games is my secondary focus after my image editing gear).

Bottom line is, if you enjoy your mac and have cash to buy one then great for you. Performance and stability can be had at a lesser price tag on the Windows PC front. And most likely, when an bigger better vid card comes out, it will immediately work in my OS. Until I find a reason that a Mac will fill all my computing requirements and the price is justified, I will save that cash for the rug rat and more gear because even a Vista Pc already does that and more.

jetboy wrote in post #7109636
Even for a low end iMac (listed at apple store with a whopping 1gb ram and 250gb harddrive) is 1100. My computer cost less than 2/3 that for better specs and performance.

I notice how you disregarded the cost of Xeon-based PCs. Is that because you discovered they cost the same as Mac Pros?

You're not just paying for "performance" when you buy a Mac. You pay for more expensive chipsets, processors and engineering. I'm curious, though, what exactly are the complete specs of your computer? Could you list them here, hardware and OS?

Since "performance" is a subjective term, how to you calculate it?

My Mac can run any software your Windows PC can. You cannot run all of the software that I can run.

I'm curious, how much does it cost to run your Win PC every year? My 24" iMac is on 24/7 and uses about US$70 per year in electricity. My hackintosh (a Q6600/Asus P5K-E/750 gb HD/Nvidia 8600GT/500w Antec psu) gets less use and uses about $240 of electricity each year if left on 24/7.

disregarding the mac vs PC discussion...

To the OP: I've also looked at a custom built PC and found Puget a little expensive. Checked www.cyberpowerpc.com instead which looks very good, supposed to be reputable and was cheaper. Check it out if you go with a pc..

Mac vs PC......


It doesn't matter, it really doesn't. Make sure both systems can handle the specific uses that you need from them. If they can then, play with the system you're less familiar with for a little bit and see what YOU find easier to use. Base it on that. We're all going to get the same result at the end aren't we?

jetboy wrote in post #7109636
Bottom line is, if you enjoy your mac and have cash to buy one then great for you. Performance and stability can be had at a lesser price tag on the Windows PC front. And most likely, when an bigger better vid card comes out, it will immediately work in my OS. Until I find a reason that a Mac will fill all my computing requirements and the price is justified, I will save that cash for the rug rat and more gear because even a Vista Pc already does that and more.

See now, that bothers me a bit when people assume that if someone pay's more for something they aren't getting their money's worth. It's like those silly street racing videos where a moded Ford Focus beats a stock Ferrari in the 1/2 mile and people then say the Ferrari is just overpriced (and no I'm not calling the Mac a Ferrari).

Is there any situation where someone should buy a Mac or is it just foolish to do so? Should we all then be PC + Vista users then and just be rid of all the others like Apple, IBM, Sony, TI and the plethora of others that use proprietary systems which all cost more than an Intel based PC?

Tony-S wrote in post #7110015
I notice how you disregarded the cost of Xeon-based PCs. Is that because you discovered they cost the same as Mac Pros?

This is because I would have no need, nor, would I pay for a server based system. The price/performance ratio isn't there for me regardless of which OS its running.

Tony-S wrote in post #7110015
You're not just paying for "performance" when you buy a Mac. You pay for more expensive chipsets, processors and engineering. I'm curious, though, what exactly are the complete specs of your computer? Could you list them here, hardware and OS?

Expensive is the key word here. I don't judge how good a system is by the expense. My system is Vista HP x86- AMD 6000+ @ 3.2, 8gb PC2 6400 (4gb set as a ramdrive scratch disk for CS4),Powercolor Radeon HD 3870, 2x WD 320gb, WD 80gb.

Tony-S wrote in post #7110015
Since "performance" is a subjective term, how to you calculate it?

I looked at the photoshop benchmark thread https://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthre​ad.php?t=170063 and I scored 47 seconds. The macs I found to equal this performance are easily more expensive.

Tony-S wrote in post #7110015
My Mac can run any software your Windows PC can. You cannot run all of the software that I can run.

Although, my PC runs all of the software I need. I have yet to find a program that I need or even want that is Mac only. Although, I do notice how Apple addicts hate Microsoft but always list that their Mac can run Microsoft software. This is like buying Canon camera body and fitting it with a Nikon lens. By the way, whats the best video card for gaming/imaging for a Mac? the 8800 from NVidia or i think the 2600 for ATi? A little behind there. But, if it suits you thats great.

Tony-S wrote in post #7110015
I'm curious, how much does it cost to run your Win PC every year? My 24" iMac is on 24/7 and uses about US$70 per year in electricity. My hackintosh (a Q6600/Asus P5K-E/750 gb HD/500w Antec psu) gets less use and uses about $240 of electricity each year if left on 24/7.

I have no ideo how much it costs to run. I don't leave it on all the time but do put it to sleep (around 1-2w power draw) and boot from here is only slowed by waiting for my monitor to turn on (maybe 6 seconds). If I was needing my computer on in less time, then I have horribly mismanaged my time. Although, during gaming and the power hungry processor, drives, video card, ram, and I still use a CRT monitor (until LCD's are cheap enough to make sense to purchase) and my UPS will show around 280w power draw during online gaming.

Once again, if your mac is great for you, fantastic. I'm not here to tell anyone that Mac isn't a great system or even not as good as a PC. I'm saying that I have yet to see anything that justifies the price vs a PC. And when I upgrade, I will mearly need to maybe purchase new components (and there is a higher percentage compatible with a PC system to choose from) and not an entirely new computer. Maybe this is possible with a Mac, but, I wouldn't pay the $1200 for a base computer to even start there (I don't even NEED to have the fastest computer, just one that does what I want easily). I think my last build came out to around $750.

"PC or MAC for editing?" What would you want to drive as a NYC taxi. Cadillac or Ford...

MaxxuM wrote in post #7110399
See now, that bothers me a bit when people assume that if someone pay's more for something they aren't getting their money's worth.

I'm not assuming that Mac users aren't getting their moneys worth. I'm saying, for what I need a computer for, the price/performance isn't justified for me. I can pay less and do as much. Its like why I bought an XSi body. The 50d doesn't offer anything extra for my photography that justifies the cost. It by far does not mean that 50d owners aren't getting their moneys worth. If it does what they want and were willing to pay for it, then for them its a justifiable purchase. I don't need the additions for the extra money, which is also why I built my PC instead of a company built system with cr*p I don't need, or even want for that matter.