MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Envato Elements

Author Topic: PC recommend compare to imac  (Read 9012 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« Reply #25 on: May 23, 2014, 20:13 »
-1
Anyone wants to run some benchmarks? :)

I can run something on my PC (like a complicated PS action) and we can compare times, so we have a quantitative measure, not just anecdotal data.


go ahead

Ok, done.

The test is from here and it contains both the file and the action:

http://www.hardwareheaven.com/photoshop.php

My overall result is 128.1 sec.
My configuration (without the monitor) was 955 euro, which means I paid 7.45 euro for a second.


what a big page man, not ready to read it all, how about a smaller version?

Nope.


Beppe Grillo

« Reply #26 on: May 24, 2014, 03:08 »
0
What is better, a machine with a benchmark result of 200 but needing to spend days and days in assistance every year, or hours in hacks, manipulations, re-configurations, restarts, etc
Or a machine with a benchmark result of 600 but just working, always, without ask nothing?

« Last Edit: May 24, 2014, 03:16 by Beppe Grillo »

« Reply #27 on: May 24, 2014, 05:08 »
+1
What is better, a machine with a benchmark result of 200 but needing to spend days and days in assistance every year, or hours in hacks, manipulations, re-configurations, restarts, etc
Or a machine with a benchmark result of 600 but just working, always, without ask nothing?
I don't know, it depends on personal preference and your skills with technology. :)
And why does it have to be a false dichotomy? I've never had a problem with my PC.

Now, does anyone want to run the benchmark, I don't feel like going into a mac vs. pc flame. To each his own.

Beppe Grillo

« Reply #28 on: May 24, 2014, 06:27 »
0
I cannot really tell about my personal experience with PCs because I very rarely used them.
But I have worked in places where there were PC and Mac, and my wife works everyday with both the machines/systems.

For what I have seen and what tells me my wife, the Macs very rarely need of any assistance, some regular software updates/upgrade, generally proposed automatically by the system itself and no more.
With PC it is another story Machines very often in assistance, problems with components (RAM, cards), problems with fonts (I worked with magazines edition), problems with printers, problems with drivers for anything you have to plug, 200 different versions of Windows, etc.

So if I need to spend three time more solving various problems of a PC what is the advantage to have a machine two times faster?
And if I need to produce for work what is the advantage to have a machine costing 20 or 50% less?

Benchmarks are nice instruments to give you an idea of the theoretical possibilities of the machines, but only a continuous and constant use of a machine can give you a valuable verdict.

I repeat, I have used PC very little, so I cannot give a judgement on the base of my personal experience, I can only report what I have seen around me and what people working regularly with both the kind of machines told me.

By the way I understand that everybody has different experiences and different needs, (different churches and different religions), and that is good like this because competitiveness result in progress and profit for the final user.
« Last Edit: May 24, 2014, 06:30 by Beppe Grillo »

« Reply #29 on: May 24, 2014, 07:11 »
+1
Again, to each their own.

When I'm buying a computer, I'm looking at cost effectiveness. Someone else will look at design. I'm not saying mine is better. But I am saying mine is better in cost effectiveness and as this is what I'm looking for, PC is a clear winner.

Also, if you dislike Windows, you can use linux. Ubuntu is pretty nice. But you know what else? You can also build yourself a hackintosh - buy all the components and build a regular PC and then just install Mac OS on it. Then you have both your OS of choice and the best components for the money.

So why buy a Mac then at two or three times the price? :)

Beppe Grillo

« Reply #30 on: May 24, 2014, 08:22 »
0
Then you have both your OS of choice and the best components for the money.


As today's Macs are intel machines you don't need a PC to run window or Unix

Just for the fun:
http://www.cnet.com/news/macbook-pro-declared-best-performing-windows-laptop/

http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2013/04/25/the-best-windows-pc-is-an-apple-mac/

;)

« Reply #31 on: May 24, 2014, 08:31 »
+2
Then you have both your OS of choice and the best components for the money.


As today's Macs are intel machines you don't need a PC to run window or Unix

Just for the fun:
http://www.cnet.com/news/macbook-pro-declared-best-performing-windows-laptop/

http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2013/04/25/the-best-windows-pc-is-an-apple-mac/

;)

I thought we were talking about desktop PCs, not laptops.

The second comparison is between a clean install and a branded laptop with a load of crapware on it. Did you read the article?
In the first article, the best performer is a macbook pro at 1200$ with a score of 1.05 and acer takes the second place with a score od 1.12 for 429$. So acer is a clear winner. And that isn't even with a clean install.

Now, does anyone want to run some benchmarks or just talk about how their OS of choice is somehow superior to the other? :yawn:

« Reply #32 on: May 24, 2014, 11:21 »
-1
I tried running the benchmark test, but my mac was so quick I didn't get the timer going before the whole thing was over and I had an image of a washed out bike. You are measuring in milliseconds, right?

« Reply #33 on: May 24, 2014, 11:33 »
-2
Scarlett Johansson and Judi Dench and both really good at what they do, but who would you rather have sitting on your desk top? Sorry but PCs fall into the only-your-mother-could-love genre.

« Reply #34 on: May 24, 2014, 12:45 »
0
Scarlett Johansson and Judi Dench and both really good at what they do, but who would you rather have sitting on your desk top? Sorry but PCs fall into the only-your-mother-could-love genre.

1) You can install MacOS on your PC for the software look, and regarding hardware appearance, there are some miniATX cases which are quite beautiful (check this one, for example)

Or maybe some of these: http://www.tweaktown.com/news/33151/bitfenix-launches-the-phenom-another-remarkably-beautiful-pc-case/index.html

2) This is mine, just a moment before closing it:


Also, the new mac pro looks like a rubbish bin to me, so I'd rather have mine.


Beppe Grillo

« Reply #35 on: May 24, 2014, 14:17 »
0
Scarlett Johansson and Judi Dench and both really good at what they do, but who would you rather have sitting on your desk top? Sorry but PCs fall into the only-your-mother-could-love genre.

lol


« Reply #36 on: May 24, 2014, 16:23 »
+1
1) You can install MacOS on your PC for the software look


Whilst this might be an interesting thing to geek around with it is not a viable or practical solution for most people with a workflow to maintain. There is also the whole issue of being bothered to do it.

People with a workflow need to know that they are not going to be jumping through hoops to install software updates etc; they are quite likely to want to be registered for the Mac OS X app store; they don't want to have to search a forum to find out why their graphic card isn't being recognised properly after some update or why they cannot get color calibration working etc. Hackintosh is the workflow equivalent of building a kit car.

Mac Mini with 16GB is going to be good enough for most photographers who shoot digitally or get their scans done at the lab. It takes up very little space, looks great, uses very little power and is almost silent.

BTW - for the price of a Mac Pro you cannot buy the same components. That might sound crazy but it is to do with how the supply chain works.

http://appleinsider.com/articles/13/12/24/apples-new-mac-pro-a-better-value-than-the-sum-of-its-parts

« Reply #37 on: May 24, 2014, 16:40 »
0
The question is why would you want to buy the same components when you can get the same (or better) performance/durability for less money? I'm not denying that macs are built well and have good components overall, I'm saying they're too pricey and that one can shop much smarter if cost effectiveness is the key. If someone buys a mac "because it looks good on the desk", there is no point in telling that person anything about the processor or the storage.

Anyway... most people would be completely fine with an i5 pc with an SSD drive (for 600$).

« Reply #38 on: May 24, 2014, 16:56 »
+1
If someone buys a mac "because it looks good on the desk", there is no point in telling that person anything about the processor or the storage.

Anyway... most people would be completely fine with an i5 pc with an SSD drive (for 600$).

Do you really think Apple is buying seconds from Intel or getting technology only after Intel or whoever doles it out to the home builders for PCs?

Once again, it is worth the extra cost for the product to look nice. People spend extra on clothes that look nice, they spend extra on furniture that looks nice, they spend more on homes, and on food that tastes better. They go to places that have more excitement of things to do and they spend more money doing so. And oh, I've even heard stories where they will spend more on unique and special images.

« Reply #39 on: May 24, 2014, 19:14 »
0
Beppe, I have a Mac Mini combined with a NEC Multisync P221W monitor.  Great combination; no problems with either item, and the included Spectraview calibration set-up and software that came with the monitor makes monitor profiling very easy.  You can read more about this monitor here:

http://www.shutterbug.com/content/nec-spectraview-ii-color-system-best-system-price

« Reply #40 on: May 24, 2014, 23:14 »
+1
If someone buys a mac "because it looks good on the desk", there is no point in telling that person anything about the processor or the storage.

Anyway... most people would be completely fine with an i5 pc with an SSD drive (for 600$).

Do you really think Apple is buying seconds from Intel or getting technology only after Intel or whoever doles it out to the home builders for PCs?

Once again, it is worth the extra cost for the product to look nice. People spend extra on clothes that look nice, they spend extra on furniture that looks nice, they spend more on homes, and on food that tastes better. They go to places that have more excitement of things to do and they spend more money doing so. And oh, I've even heard stories where they will spend more on unique and special images.

Strangely, I don't look at my computer. I generally look at what's on the monitor...

Beppe Grillo

« Reply #41 on: May 25, 2014, 01:05 »
0
If someone buys a mac "because it looks good on the desk", there is no point in telling that person anything about the processor or the storage.

Anyway... most people would be completely fine with an i5 pc with an SSD drive (for 600$).

Do you really think Apple is buying seconds from Intel or getting technology only after Intel or whoever doles it out to the home builders for PCs?

Once again, it is worth the extra cost for the product to look nice. People spend extra on clothes that look nice, they spend extra on furniture that looks nice, they spend more on homes, and on food that tastes better. They go to places that have more excitement of things to do and they spend more money doing so. And oh, I've even heard stories where they will spend more on unique and special images.

Strangely, I don't look at my computer. I generally look at what's on the monitor...

Yes, and with the iMac you look to your image reflected by the monitor :D

Well, it is less true with the new versions of the iMac, but I don't understand why they continue to not propose an alternative with a matte monitor.

For this my advice was to buy a Mac Mini + the monitor you want.
You could buy a MacBook Pro + the monitor you want too, it is probably one of the best solution if you have not too much problem of cost


« Reply #42 on: May 25, 2014, 05:01 »
0
If someone buys a mac "because it looks good on the desk", there is no point in telling that person anything about the processor or the storage.

Anyway... most people would be completely fine with an i5 pc with an SSD drive (for 600$).

Do you really think Apple is buying seconds from Intel or getting technology only after Intel or whoever doles it out to the home builders for PCs?

Once again, it is worth the extra cost for the product to look nice. People spend extra on clothes that look nice, they spend extra on furniture that looks nice, they spend more on homes, and on food that tastes better. They go to places that have more excitement of things to do and they spend more money doing so. And oh, I've even heard stories where they will spend more on unique and special images.

Strangely, I don't look at my computer. I generally look at what's on the monitor...

Yes, and with the iMac you look to your image reflected by the monitor :D

Well, it is less true with the new versions of the iMac, but I don't understand why they continue to not propose an alternative with a matte monitor.

For this my advice was to buy a Mac Mini + the monitor you want.
You could buy a MacBook Pro + the monitor you want too, it is probably one of the best solution if you have not too much problem of cost

ok there is a few glare, I would say not much and zero if you close the window curtains, then it becomes perfect

I must say I have never had a mac computer before, I have/had all the other stuff they sell and I must say I am quite impressed with the iMac apart from the wow impression sitting on the desk, still soon to draw many conclusions but you should really see one in action on a dark room to talk about glare

« Reply #43 on: May 25, 2014, 06:03 »
0
The glare was my biggest concern but having used it for a few days now it has not been a problem. I do wish they offered a matt option, though.

« Reply #44 on: May 25, 2014, 10:01 »
0


Strangely, I don't look at my computer. I generally look at what's on the monitor...

And this is one of my points. What's on the monitor, by way of the Windows working environment, are some of the "uglies" I refer to.

« Reply #45 on: May 25, 2014, 14:01 »
+1
And this is one of my points. What's on the monitor, by way of the Windows working environment, are some of the "uglies" I refer to.

I'm concerned with getting the job done and getting the most bang for my buck. I have 8-core 3.6GHz, 32GB RAM, 2 240GB SSD, 2 2TB HDD, 4GB video card for around $1,000 Windows 7 Ultimate. No way that I could afford a Mac with those specs.

Having worked on Macs in the past, I don't find the GUI to be any more attractive, but that's just me. To each his own.

« Reply #46 on: May 25, 2014, 16:01 »
+1


Strangely, I don't look at my computer. I generally look at what's on the monitor...

And this is one of my points. What's on the monitor, by way of the Windows working environment, are some of the "uglies" I refer to.

I think photoshop and lightroom look quite the same in both environments.

« Reply #47 on: May 25, 2014, 23:04 »
0
Beppe, I have a Mac Mini combined with a NEC Multisync P221W monitor.  Great combination; no problems with either item, and the included Spectraview calibration set-up and software that came with the monitor makes monitor profiling very easy.  You can read more about this monitor here:

http://www.shutterbug.com/content/nec-spectraview-ii-color-system-best-system-price


Great advice. I have an iMac and a Macbook Pro and am very happy with both of them, and feel the SSD drive makes a huge difference in speed and performance, but I have one pet peeve with the iMac which is the tendency to make images look slightly cooler than they really are. When I replaced my 5-year-old iMac with my second one about 1 1/2 years ago, I was unaware of the difference between getting a Mac Mini or a Mac Pro with a better monitor and the all in one iMac. My color prints (using a Canon Pixma, sending them to Millers or Bay Photo or AdoramaPix (and even once to Walmart) have been fine but I would definitely consider a Mac Mini or Mac Pro and separate monitor in the future.

« Reply #48 on: May 27, 2014, 10:47 »
+1
Hi guys, thinking of running lightroom on a bigger screen than my laptop. so i wonder what you guys recommend?

i saw imac as $1299, i would like to know for PC equivalent do i get a better deal? is imac display good for photo editing? if getting a pc, what kind of display screen i should look for? thanks.

21.5-inch: 2.7GHz
Specifications
2.7GHz quad-core Intel Core i5
Turbo Boost up to 3.2GHz
8GB (two 4GB) memory
1TB hard drive1
Intel Iris Pro graphics
$1,299.00

+1 on the custom machine. Since apple went to Intel you can build a similar or even better machine at the same cost. The parts are mostly plug and play, and you can get more memory.

My i5 is still kicking butt after 4 years of heavy use. That's a huge cost savings compared to the i7. I'd focus on more ram, oh ... Get a solid state drive for sure. Even a small one to run your OS and programs on. Save files on a secondary drive. Also, adjusting large files will stress your video card. Just get the best you can afford really.

I really don't think the "Turbo Boost" has much of a benefit. Honestly, in my experience overclocking a processor can provide a short term performance boost but, after heavy use the cpu will get warm and begin to throttle down.

Also, I'd suggest Win7 a million times over Win8. The performance advantages are enough alone. Let alone Win8 makes you feel like you're working from a phone.

« Reply #49 on: May 27, 2014, 15:31 »
0
$1000 for all that? Specs report please.

I'm primarily a Mac user but less than a year ago I built a PC with specs significantly inferior to yours, and was at $1200 (not counting the monitor).

Windows 7 Professional
4-core i7 3.4 Ghz (4770K)
16GB RAM @ 1833 Mhz
120 GB SSD (only 1 of them)
3 TB HDD (only one of them)
2 GB video card (GTX 660 w/ 960 cuda cores)

Granted, I paid for a new case, power supply and motherboard as well ($350 additional), but still, that would have been $850. . . your specs sound a too high-end for a $1k build, even with only the 6 comparable items listed. If I matched your specs, even with the case, PS, MOB, etc., I'd have been looking at around $1700+ instead of $1200 because 4GB is a serious video card. Oh, and 8 core processing isn't cheap either. Your claim of these specs for $1k sounds like an exaggeration. I don't believe it's possible to buy these parts new from retail or online sources for $1k. Did you buy used?

How is it possible you got all you mention for a grand?

And this is one of my points. What's on the monitor, by way of the Windows working environment, are some of the "uglies" I refer to.

I'm concerned with getting the job done and getting the most bang for my buck. I have 8-core 3.6GHz, 32GB RAM, 2 240GB SSD, 2 2TB HDD, 4GB video card for around $1,000 Windows 7 Ultimate. No way that I could afford a Mac with those specs.

Having worked on Macs in the past, I don't find the GUI to be any more attractive, but that's just me. To each his own.
« Last Edit: May 27, 2014, 15:37 by JasonM9 »

Envato ElementsMicrostock Insider

 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
MSG Compare

Started by CofkoCof « 1 2 3 4  All » iStockPhoto.com

82 Replies
17023 Views
Last post January 31, 2009, 13:23
by mantonino
19 Replies
6075 Views
Last post November 25, 2008, 05:51
by Phil
0 Replies
3455 Views
Last post April 01, 2010, 16:53
by dnavarrojr
2 Replies
2251 Views
Last post May 24, 2010, 14:41
by donding
12 Replies
4085 Views
Last post September 27, 2011, 17:54
by qwerty

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors

Envato Elements