The eternal desktop dilemma....

First off, I know there will be haters and lovers of mac that will provide biased opinions... Please don't respond if you have nothing to say but flame one brand or the other.

I will soon have the funds (more specifically, credit..but to be paid off well before due date) to purchase a new desktop. I was thinking about a lens, but being that I am getting more into graphic design and video editing I feel like this would be a more utilized item over a lens.

My debate, is a 27in 2011 imac, vs a video pc configured at cyberpowerpc.com. I LOVE the way macs run and operate and very much prefer working with final cut pro over adobe premier. I already have a 6gb i7 dell studio 17. I got it to be a portable workstation, but I find myself more often than not just working at my desk plugging in all sorts of wires, hooking up to my 21" dell monitor w/2 hard drives etc etc. I also have an Iphone 4, so does the gf, so the benefits of ios5 and the icloud collectively are a plus over a pc.

The specs:

Apple 27" imac: $2399 (free shipping)
3.4ghz i7
8gb ram
1tb hd
AMD Radeon HD 6970M 1GB GDDR5

PC (no monitor): $2418 (after shipping + discount)
i7-980 3.33 GHz
12GB DDR3 1600mhz
2 64gb SSDs raid 0 + 2tb sata data
NVIDIA Quadro 600 1GB

CLEARLY the pc offers more power for the money, but if I'm going to spend 2400 on a desktop and go the pc route, I'll just use my current display, not sure of the exact model, but it's like a $300 21.5in 1920x1080 dell. The apple has the benefit of the 27in display, which i've seen in person is gorgeous. I don't build or upgrade my computers usually (unless it's the ram). The Dell ultrasharp is 500. I plan on doing hd video editing, motion graphics, photos and design. I don't do gaming ever.

I would like this desktop to last me 3-5 years. I guess my question is, would I be satisfied with the imac over a more powerful pc with a less-than-quality monitor? I have yet to own a mac and have had alot of frustration getting accurate color representation from my display and my laptop (i know that isn't going to happen lol). Plus I am getting tired of all the superfluous mess that seems to run on my dell.

I was on the same predicament as you until last week. In the end I end up getting the i7 21.5" iMac.

Like you I am a longtime Winx user. The last Apple I've owned was a cloned Apple IIe:p

My main reason for getting the Mac was the Apple branded apps. I want to see the difference. I also want to find some of the pre-made web building and book making capabilities of Aperture as compared to LR3. Some would say it's quite an expensive endeavour just to find the difference. But it's something I can live with. Lastly I don't know how true it is, but one of the "genius" at the Apple store said that I don't need to calibrate my monitor.

So far I am happy with the decision.

That PC is a terrible deal. I can build the same thing (or comparable) for $800. Ram is dirt cheap, and to be honest I doubt you can use more than 8gb, the PC as configured really doesn't have anything on the Mac. The Graphics card in the PC is terrible as well. It's a bottom of the line card.

That being said, I can build a computer as fast as the mac with a 27" IPS monitor for half the price so I wouldn't consider either of them to be a good deal.

Citizen_Insane wrote in post #13128238
That being said, I can build a computer as fast as the mac with a 27" IPS monitor for half the price so I wouldn't consider either of them to be a good deal.

Really? I'd like to see that.

JackFlash19 wrote in post #13127192
First off, I know there will be haters and lovers of mac that will provide biased opinions... Please don't respond if you have nothing to say but flame one brand or the other.

I will soon have the funds (more specifically, credit..but to be paid off well before due date) to purchase a new desktop. I was thinking about a lens, but being that I am getting more into graphic design and video editing I feel like this would be a more utilized item over a lens.

My debate, is a 27in 2011 imac, vs a video pc configured at cyberpowerpc.com. I LOVE the way macs run and operate and very much prefer working with final cut pro over adobe premier. I already have a 6gb i7 dell studio 17. I got it to be a portable workstation, but I find myself more often than not just working at my desk plugging in all sorts of wires, hooking up to my 21" dell monitor w/2 hard drives etc etc. I also have an Iphone 4, so does the gf, so the benefits of ios5 and the icloud collectively are a plus over a pc.

The specs:

Apple 27" imac: $2399 (free shipping)
3.4ghz i7
8gb ram
1tb hd
AMD Radeon HD 6970M 1GB GDDR5

PC (no monitor): $2418 (after shipping + discount)
i7-980 3.33 GHz
12GB DDR3 1600mhz
2 64gb SSDs raid 0 + 2tb sata data
NVIDIA Quadro 600 1GB

CLEARLY the pc offers more power for the money, but if I'm going to spend 2400 on a desktop and go the pc route, I'll just use my current display, not sure of the exact model, but it's like a $300 21.5in 1920x1080 dell. The apple has the benefit of the 27in display, which i've seen in person is gorgeous. I don't build or upgrade my computers usually (unless it's the ram). The Dell ultrasharp is 500. I plan on doing hd video editing, motion graphics, photos and design. I don't do gaming ever.

I would like this desktop to last me 3-5 years. I guess my question is, would I be satisfied with the imac over a more powerful pc with a less-than-quality monitor? I have yet to own a mac and have had alot of frustration getting accurate color representation from my display and my laptop (i know that isn't going to happen lol). Plus I am getting tired of all the superfluous mess that seems to run on my dell.

Don't ever pay Apple for RAM upgrades. It's exceedingly easy to upgrade the RAM yourself. You can get 8GB for <$80 which would give you a total of 12GB.

I have a macbook, I didnt like the OSX I have windows 7 on it. If you much rather have OSX than speed then go for the iMac (assuming it comes with a 27inch IPS screen). If it doesnt have an IPS screen then you will need one for your work, asumming you want your work to be anywhere near "decent".

You could probably get a very fast PC build with about a $1000, but if you are doing graphic/video editing you don't want to reuse an old dell monitor. Unless it is already an 8bit IPS screen. Other wise I say buy an IPS monitor with the savings over the iMac. With out an 8bit IPS (6 bit at the LEAST) your video/graphic editing will be quite horrible, since you wont actually know what it looks like...

You also need to consider the cost of upgrading in the future.

If you invest in a display that offers the same quality as the iMac, you will be shelling out 800-900 dollars anyway. If you are someone who upgrades their computer very often, an iMac is probably not for you. If you are someone who can live with the same machine for 5 or 6 years, go with the iMac, but know that you will also be replacing a monitor when you replace your computer.

I notice you have compared a computer with no monitor to the iMac, which isn't a fair comparison when saying you can clearly get more power for the same price. With the iMac you really do need to consider the cost of a 27 inch IPS display, and subtract that from the price and then build a computer to the same spec as the iMac and compare the prices at that point. You will find it isn't too different. If you don't care about OS X vs Windows, get a windows machine, invest in a display, and be happy that you can upgrade for less in the future.

I wish I could recommend a mac mini, but for the price and performance, it isn't the best choice.

Marcus X wrote in post #13128332
Really? I'd like to see that.

Ok, I lied just a little bit. I thought I'd seen an IPS 27" for $400. I was probably either dreaming or my reading comprehension sucks. Total build cost is $1660 after rebates.

Either way, overclock this 2500K to 4.5Ghz on air and you'll have no problems spanking that Mac:

http://secure.newegg.c​om …x?WishListNumbe​r=17404665

4.5Ghz Sandy Bridge, 16gb DDR3, 2TB 7200RPM HDD, 27" IPS 2560 x 1440.

Worth saving over $750? Probably. Unless you need OSX.

Amd A8 Vision APU +16gb ram Corsair 1600mhz+motherboard Asrock A75 pro4 +2hdd in raid...cheap and very fast !!and monitor:dell or eizo.

With that PC setup you're spending a lot of extra money to get a small amount of extra performance. RAID'd SSDs are unnecessary. An i7 2600K is probably cheaper and probably faster than that older generation chip you have there. The Quadro is probably unnecessary even for video work, will it really give you a huge advantage? You can probably reduce the price by 25-50% and only reduce the performance by 10%. Save the money for your next build in 2-3 years, that machine will be 2-3 times faster than this one at the same cost.

If you like Mac OS just make a hackintosh.

The two systems you mention are great systems, it just seems to me that if you want something to last 3-5 years and you have the money and you need the speed, the Mac Pro for $2,400 would be the longest lasting option for that price. No monitor with Mac Pro, but your Dell my work for now. This, to me, is a graphics designers dream machine.

If you are using the Adobe Suite for Premiere / After Effects etc. for your video / motion graphics, remember that these applications are optinised for nVIDIA graphics cards and the Mac range (other than Mac Pro) use ATI so you cannot utilise the hardware acceleration available via these cards on a Mac.

PC is way overpriced.

Citizen_Insane wrote in post #13128806
Worth saving over $750? Probably. Unless you need OSX.

Apple doesn't play in the low-end market, thus your use of lesser parts (e.g., video card that's $200 cheaper than the iMac's) and leaving out other standard features of all iMacs (802.11n, bluetooth, keyboard, multitouch BT mouse, Thunderbolt, HDCP-compliant display that has an H-IPS panel instead of the lower performing S-IPS panel of your listed display, etc., etc.) contributes to the lower cost. You also don't have an OS on your list. Win 7 Ultimate ($180) is most similar to Lion. So while you can build a PC for less than a iMac, it usually doesn't have the same features, and when you add those features you get very close to the cost of an iMac.

Apple knows that customer experience trumps all else, and you get great support from Apple. That's why they're the most valuable company on Earth. The OP also wants to do video. Right now only Final Cut X can use Open CL and Grand Central (Adobe Premier doesn't and is tied to NVIDIA gpus), so rendering will be much faster on the iMac.

Citizen_Insane wrote in post #13128806
Ok, I lied just a little bit. I thought I'd seen an IPS 27" for $400. I was probably either dreaming or my reading comprehension sucks. Total build cost is $1660 after rebates.

Either way, overclock this 2500K to 4.5Ghz on air and you'll have no problems spanking that Mac:

http://secure.newegg.c​om …x?WishListNumbe​r=17404665

4.5Ghz Sandy Bridge, 16gb DDR3, 2TB 7200RPM HDD, 27" IPS 2560 x 1440.

Worth saving over $750? Probably. Unless you need OSX.

The 2500K is only an i5, so you miss out on HyperThreading, which is occasionally useful. The price difference is pretty negligible, from what I remember, though. The graphics card should be a Radeon 6850 to be more of a match, but it's still a minor price difference.

I got the Core i7 27", and it was $2,079. That was with the academic price, however, so that's $120 or so off. Still a discount of $400, though, although the iMac has a few other features which may or may not be of any importance to anyone.