BEST (NON-APPLE) DESKTOP

So my wife and I each have a desktop and a laptop computer so I suggested that we get one kick ass desktop (she's a graphic designer) for us to share and just use the laptops for other BS - e-mail, POTN, FB, etc.

I seriously THOUGHT about purchasing an Apple desktop computer. I know their laptops are very expensive, yet, I foolishly thought a desktop computer would be less expensive than 2 laptops but, at $2,500 minimum, the Apple MacPro can go to hell!

My question: What is the best bang for the buck desktop computer for a graphic designer and photographer to share? It would have to be high graphics quality with lote of memory and fast processing.

Or am I missing something? Perhaps Apple offers a less expensive desktop option that I am overlooking from the sticker shock?

Your thoughts please.

Build your own, it's not as hard as one would think!

Newegg.com is your best friend.

What software do you plan on using?

iMac 27" apple FTW

Dell or HP are reliable and reasonably priced. Building your own isn't too hard, and i've done it many times, but i'd be tempted to get a prepacked machine next time.

If you don't mind debugging and repairing your own system, building it is the way to go. The thing with buying pre-built system is that you not only buy their product but you buy their support as well. If anything goes wrong, you simply send it back. Not really an option with a custom machine.

DoN_WoN wrote in post #10437084
iMac 27" apple FTW

Seriously? It is obvious that you like your Mac but it's no reason to act juvenile.

I always say "build your own" while it's good (I built mine), it's totally NOT for everyone.

If you don't have the patience nor care about inter-working, debugging and repairing, just don't bother. Factory machines already need a fair deal of debugging and all of your own, custom-made machines aren't going to ease that.

Asking friends/etc to "take a look" when there are problems will only make them hate you.

Naturalist wrote in post #10436414
My question: What is the best bang for the buck desktop computer for a graphic designer and photographer to share? It would have to be high graphics quality with lote of memory and fast processing.

Or am I missing something? Perhaps Apple offers a less expensive desktop option that I am overlooking from the sticker shock?

Best bang for the buck?
Anything with an i5 or i7 8 series processor
4-8GB of RAM.
2 Hard drives (1 for OS, general stuff, and 1 for your designs/photos)
Add a 3rd yourself for an internal back up, and remember external backups as well, so something with eSATA is also nice.

There are lots of options in the market, but remember, you do get what you pay for. A cheaper system will use lower quality parts and be less reliable, less stable and have a shorter life.

Your right about Apples product range.
There is only one desktop option, the Mac Pro. Its expensive because it uses very high end, high quality server grade parts. Its basically a small server in a pretty desk top case.

The next step down is the iMac, which is NOT a desktop replacement. Although the i5 and i7 Models offer great performance they still suffer from the short comings of any All in One.
They have very limited upgradability (Ram only at a user level, HDD only by qualified techs).
Your limited to a single HDD, so no separate scratch for photoshop and no separate internal back up for redundancy.
You can't upgrade or replace the monitor.
You can't upgrade or replace the CPU.
Same with the graphics card (of which there is a limited choice to start with)
There is a limit to how much RAM they can hold (although its more than most users really need).
They look nice, but are designed to either work as a part of a larger network (i.e. with a NAS etc) or to be used at a consumer level for web surfing, home computing, media viewing etc (which they are very, very good at).

Naturalist wrote in post #10436414
I seriously THOUGHT about purchasing an Apple desktop computer. I know their laptops are very expensive, yet, I foolishly thought a desktop computer would be less expensive than 2 laptops but, at $2,500 minimum, the Apple MacPro can go to hell!

You won't find any Xeon-based computer for less than a Mac Pro.

If you are interested in OS X, then you should take a look at the 27" Core i7-based iMac. It has a small foot print, is virtually silent (except when encoding videos!), has a fabulous mouse and is energy efficient, thus will reduce your total cost of operation over time. Don't forget, the cost of your computer does not end when you walk out the door of the store. But your decision should be based on the software you use (e.g., OS, applications, etc.), then decide which hardware will work best for you.

Moppie wrote in post #10438815
The next step down is the iMac, which is NOT a desktop replacement. Although the i5 and i7 Models offer great performance they still suffer from the short comings of any All in One.

Many people value the small foot print and energy efficiency of all-in-one computers. There are advantages and disadvantages to each approach and one must decide what is most important.

Who needs a scratch disk for Photoshop under OS X? CS4 uses high ram as the scratch disk, so all one needs is 8 gb installed. CS5 is 64-bit, so it can use far more RAM for image manipulations. Today, physical scratch disks are overrated, IMO (except for SSD). In addition, I think it's dangerous to have your backup drive as internal. One spike from your PS and you lose both your primary and backup drives. My backup is a 4 TB RAID by Firewire 800 using OS X's built-in Time Machine.

Both models have H-IPS panels, and the 27" is hard to beat.

The 27" iMac is more than plenty for any camera today or for the intermediate future.

All computers have a ram limit. The iMac is limited to 16 gb.

They are frequently used by professional photographers.

Tony, any links to the energy consumption of the iMACs, you have me curious?

Mike, I haven't tested my i7 iMac yet, but using my Kill-A-Watt my recollection is the 24" iMac was costing about $80 per year and my Q6600 hackintosh was costing about $190 per year. This was done about a year and a half ago with one week of data for each computer. (I'll do the i7 iMac sometime this week.) The biggest difference in consumption was the idle time - the iMac was costing about 12 cents a day while the hackintosh (Antec 550W power supply) was at 33 cents a day during idle ("sleep" in OS X parlance). My wife makes me shut down the Q6600 box when I'm not using it. I didn't test my display (at the time a 22" Samsung) so that would have increased the costs a bit for the hackintosh.

When transcoding video, both machines ramped up their power use. The iMac used less than half the amount of electricity, but the Q6600 was more than twice as fast at encoding, thus that appears to be a wash. Considering the Core i series chips are more energy efficient than the Core 2 series, I wouldn't be surprised if the i7 iMac is only slightly more expensive to run than the 24" iMac, even with its 27" display (which uses LED backlights vs. CCF on the 24" display).

Tony-S wrote in post #10441223
Mike, I haven't tested my i7 iMac yet, but using my Kill-A-Watt my recollection is the 24" iMac was costing about $80 per year and my Q6600 hackintosh was costing about $190 per year. This was done about a year and a half ago with one week of data for each computer. (I'll do the i7 iMac sometime this week.) The biggest difference in consumption was the idle time - the iMac was costing about 12 cents a day while the hackintosh (Antec 550W power supply) was at 33 cents a day during idle ("sleep" in OS X parlance). My wife makes me shut down the Q6600 box when I'm not using it. I didn't test my display (at the time a 22" Samsung) so that would have increased the costs a bit for the hackintosh.

When transcoding video, both machines ramped up their power use. The iMac used less than half the amount of electricity, but the Q6600 was more than twice as fast at encoding, thus that appears to be a wash. Considering the Core i series chips are more energy efficient than the Core 2 series, I wouldn't be surprised if the i7 iMac is only slightly more expensive to run than the 24" iMac, even with its 27" display (which uses LED backlights vs. CCF on the 24" display).

I'd be very interested to see the results of the 27" i7. I did some test on my i7 with a Kill-A-Watt and found results that were surprising, much lower than anticipated! Idle was about 120W and rendering video used only 202W of power (not including monitor). I haven't punched in the kwh costs yet, but I think I might do that to see what it shows. I put mine to sleep when not in use (6W) so that helps a lot no matter which computer you are using!!!

I think the PS and cpus have come a long way in the last couple of years. The software in the OS for energy management is what's been lacking (and which Apple has really focused on). That's part of the reason you can get 10 hours out of the iPad's batteries. How does Win 7 do in terms of energy management?

Tony-S wrote in post #10441410
I think the PS and cpus have come a long way in the last couple of years. The software in the OS for energy management is what's been lacking (and which Apple has really focused on). That's part of the reason you can get 10 hours out of the iPad's batteries. How does Win 7 do in terms of energy management?

Pretty good, although I haven't used it on my i7, still using Vista (Win7 is coming very soon though on that one). Some of the programs from the mobo manufacturers are nice as well!

Naturalist wrote in post #10436414
So my wife and I each have a desktop and a laptop computer so I suggested that we get one kick ass desktop (she's a graphic designer) for us to share and just use the laptops for other BS - e-mail, POTN, FB, etc.

I seriously THOUGHT about purchasing an Apple desktop computer. I know their laptops are very expensive, yet, I foolishly thought a desktop computer would be less expensive than 2 laptops but, at $2,500 minimum, the Apple MacPro can go to hell!

My question: What is the best bang for the buck desktop computer for a graphic designer and photographer to share? It would have to be high graphics quality with lote of memory and fast processing.

Or am I missing something? Perhaps Apple offers a less expensive desktop option that I am overlooking from the sticker shock?

Your thoughts please.

First, Mac Pro's are workstation/server class machines - not just regular desktop computers. Go to Dell or HP and price their workstations with Xeon CPUs. They are about the same if not more expensive. Second, not everyone can afford premium products. Nothing wrong with that. With Apple you're buying looks, durability, reliability, safety and ease of use. You can get a Ford that is faster, has more leg room that is half the price of an Audi - yet, Audi's still sell pretty well.

Now, to answer your question, I'd get a Dell with i5 or i7 CPU and 8GB of RAM. Having two internal drives simply for cacheing is not viable IMO unless the OS drive is super fast like Velociraptor or SSD. Two machines come to mind, Studio XPS 9000 & 8100 (no monitor).