PC or MAC for editing?

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!)

Choose the software you want to use, OS you want to use, then the platform you want to use. There are advantages and disadvantages to each.

Currently the best photo editing machine is a quad core with 4 or more GB of ram, a nice mid range video card (all it needs to do is drive your monitors) and as much HDD space as you need.

That means either get a custom built PC, or a Mac Pro.
Only your budget, OS preference and personal opinion can decide which is better.

I heard the new 2008 Mac monitors are not very good for editing because they are glossy?

MacroMAn wrote in post #7099879
I heard the new 2008 Mac monitors are not very good for editing because they are glossy?

All the Macs except the 17inch Macbook pro come with a glossy screen.

There is lots of debate over how good, or bad they are for photo work, but Apple have stated that they added the matt option to the 17inch MBP because of demand from the photo/graphics industry, which would indicate there is sometimes a problem with them.

From reading around, it would appear that as many people like them, as dis-like them.


But, remember that since you already have a nice monitor, it is not really an issue, as you can use it as the primary monitor for editing on what ever new system you get.

Is Intel Core 2 quad the same as a quad core?

Also in editing why is the quad 4 so much better?
Is an iMac 24" worth the money for video editing or does it lack in prosessor, and RAM? If so can it be easily added?
Also does anyone have a new iMac with the glossy screens and dislike it?
Has anyone heard of or built a sytem through Puget?

I just want an editing machine and have about a 2k budget. I would want to use it for professional use editing RAW mostly, but oters like TIFF and Jpeg as well.

Regardless of the mac vs pc, or windows vs OS X debate. Simple fact is, is that theres a higher percent of people that are happier with their mac's then there are people with pc's. No matter what the reason is, or what excuses there are, it comes down to being satisfied with the product you have. Even if it was just marketing, if the end result is the customer being happy, well then job well done. If your thinking of switching, go for it. Worst comes to worst you coud easily just buy another pc.

Core 2 Quad is just one of intels brand names for thier quad core processors.


Most photo editing programs like photoshop and lightroom etc, are able to access more than 1 core in order to do things.
So having 4 cores means 4 times as much work can be done at once.

If you don't mind I have merged the 2 threads.

stevo8 wrote in post #7100213
Regardless of the mac vs pc, or windows vs OS X debate. Simple fact is, is that theres a higher percent of people that are happier with their mac's then there are people with pc's.

Statistics are not facts, and there is nothing less reliable than customer satisfaction surveys.
If we could keep the rhetoric to a minimum it would be good thanks.

Moppie wrote in post #7100275
If you don't mind I have merged the 2 threads.

Statistics are not facts, and there is nothing less reliable than customer satisfaction surveys.
If we could keep the rhetoric to a minimum it would be good thanks.

Yes Sir, if you say so.

I dont have much experience with Mac.
1.If you build a pc, Many of your components can be recycled as you upgrade (hard drive, video card, possibly memory, dvd burner). sometimes you need to just pop in a new processor. I dont know if this is true with mac
2. There is little argument that you get more processing for a given budget with a pc if you build yourself. Heck, 6 months ago, I bought a quadcore dell, and over clocked to 3 ghz, put a video card in it, and some extra ram, a couple of extra hard drives. the entire set up with 2.25 terabytes on 3 hard drives. very decent video card, 4 gigs of ram, and quadcore processor running at 3ghz cost me less than 600.

Thanks for merging Moppie, and your views were helpful...

Kevindar, where did you get thst for $600?

the quadcore was bought for 400 dell has specials every now and then. came with 2 gigs of ram and a 500 gig hard drive. Then I bought 2 gigs of ram, and a nvidia 8800 (I think) dual dvi from new egg for 130 bucks, with 70 dollars of combined rebate, net cost 60. I bought a tb hard drive for 100, and a 750gig for 50, so final cost 610. I overcloced the processor, as the q6600 runs a native fsb of 1066, and there is a very simple pin mod to make it run at 1333, which the dell motherboard supports, ocing it to 3 ghz. Completely stable for 6 months now. The beauty of the dells also is that they throttle when you dont need processor power. so it runs at around 2ghz, except when its loaded. less heat, less noise, less power consumption. the included powersupply has been able to handle everything.

I have just to remove some more rhetoric, and I will happily remove as much as needed to ensure MacroMAn gets serious answers to a genuine question

MacroMAn can you quantify how much processing you are doing?

For example I might import into LR 200-300 photos after each shoot and then batch process with LR and PS about 80-100 of those.
The LR library has about 50,000 photos in it.


While a dual core (PC, Dell, HP, Mac, etc etc) could handle that work load, I wouldn't be happy with it as I like to do other things on the PC wile it is processing the photos.
This is where the quad core extra RAM and multiple hard drives really comes in handy. I can set the process running then play a game like WoW or lately Far Cry 2, with out any effect on performance.

Which platform are you more familiar with? Do you have any current PC software that you want to keep that you would have to re-purchase to use on a Mac?

I agree that the quad-core processor is the best for photo editing. With Apple this means the Mac Pro. Which means paying a lot more money than you need IMO. A PC will be a lot cheaper. Mainly because the Mac Pro uses Xeon processors which is a server-oriented processor and completely unnecessary for a photo editing desktop. AFAIK they do not offer a regular quad core desktop. The Xeons would be great if you are doing a lot of video editing, but otherwise they just add unnecessary expense.

What I recommend is that you find a good reputable PC dealer and have a system custom built, or build one yourself if you can.

What it really comes down to is which platform you would prefer. Speed wise, there is no advantage either way really. It is easier to upgrade a PC and you can get what you need easier. With Mac's right now there is no mid-range desktop available. It's either a dual core iMac (and I recommend staying away from any all-in-one, PC or Mac), or a dual quad-core Xeon Mac Pro.