pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: PC recommend compare to imac  (Read 12618 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: May 21, 2014, 11:29 »
0
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


Tror

« Reply #1 on: May 21, 2014, 12:04 »
+1
you'll get much better value if you build your custom machine:
http://www.tonymacx86.com/home.php

« Reply #2 on: May 21, 2014, 12:26 »
0
i think it doesnt matter windows or mac os.. but if i won't get a close deal for pc as performance imac then I may just buy a mac.

i read some comments that imac is more like a consumer pc..and the screen is too glossy?

i wonder what equivalent pc plus a good display cost? any model to recommend?

« Reply #3 on: May 21, 2014, 13:24 »
+1
Just received my iMac 27" i7 16 gigs ram, fusion drive. It rocks. Very fast. Will calibrate the screen and away I go. The glossy screen does bother me a bit. It's the first time I have not had a matt monitor so I will see if it is a problem. Others I spoke to were not bothered by it and my fingers are crossed.

« Reply #4 on: May 21, 2014, 13:26 »
+1
To add to the Mac case ... I  plugged my backup from the old computer into the new iMac and the programs, files, profiles, etc transferred beautifully. Not one problem encountered. When I have tried this with a PC .... different story.

« Reply #5 on: May 21, 2014, 13:31 »
+5
Just received my iMac 27" i7 16 gigs ram, fusion drive. It rocks. Very fast. Will calibrate the screen and away I go. The glossy screen does bother me a bit. It's the first time I have not had a matt monitor so I will see if it is a problem. Others I spoke to were not bothered by it and my fingers are crossed.


I love my iMac. I am converting from PC. The shiny screen needs cleaning a lot. Somehow seems to find spots that are probably from my club soda and spit when I am shouting on the phone >:( ;D

« Reply #6 on: May 21, 2014, 14:14 »
+1
Just received my iMac 27" i7 16 gigs ram, fusion drive. It rocks. Very fast. Will calibrate the screen and away I go. The glossy screen does bother me a bit. It's the first time I have not had a matt monitor so I will see if it is a problem. Others I spoke to were not bothered by it and my fingers are crossed.


I love my iMac. I am converting from PC. The shiny screen needs cleaning a lot. Somehow seems to find spots that are probably from my club soda and spit when I am shouting on the phone >:( ;D

 ;D ;D ;D

« Reply #7 on: May 22, 2014, 09:26 »
0
i checked out some computer shop today, there are many choices of display. got any model to recommend?

since iMac screen is glossy, i guess maybe alternate is mac mini?

I checked out PC, mostly shop assembled unit which won't really be much cheaper.

Beppe Grillo

« Reply #8 on: May 22, 2014, 12:58 »
0
I prefer a Mac Mini.
You put the max of RAM on it.
And you buy the monitor you want (Eizo, Dell)

« Reply #9 on: May 22, 2014, 14:59 »
+1
Beppe I have a mac mini i7 and found it way too slow with LR and PS. It only has 8 gigs of RAM (freak model that cannot be upgraded!)  and I am sure this is part of the problem, but I also know the graphics chip is causing much pain. My new iMac is much, much faster. I don't regret having spent the money on it.

Beppe Grillo

« Reply #10 on: May 23, 2014, 01:17 »
+1
Yes jrwasserman you are right, the "old" Mac Mini is enough slow ;)
But you compare a new iMac with and old Mac Mini, it is not fair.

Then it depends of your speed needs.
With a SSD or a Fusion Drive and 16 GB of RAM and your LR library on an external thunderbolt HD (or even FW 800) it can do the job enough well I think.
http://www.apple.com/mac-mini/features.html

And as I work with photos, for me it is very more important the quality of the monitor than the speed of the machine.
« Last Edit: May 23, 2014, 01:50 by Beppe Grillo »

Beppe Grillo

« Reply #11 on: May 23, 2014, 01:44 »
0
.

« Reply #12 on: May 23, 2014, 05:02 »
+1
All true Beppe. Not really a fair comparison.

« Reply #13 on: May 23, 2014, 06:35 »
0
All true Beppe. Not really a fair comparison.

While I love my iMac, I don't like having to wait for service. Generally you have to go to a store, schedule a technician to look at your system before they will even consider repair. That can take days. I just had a malfunctioning Apple keyboard and took it back to the store. They would not exchange it until I scheduled time 2 days later with a technician. I waited and they exchanged it.  Then my new one failed. I threw it in the trash and am using my old windows keyboard. That is an area where Apple needs to improve.

« Reply #14 on: May 23, 2014, 06:44 »
0
All true Beppe. Not really a fair comparison.

While I love my iMac, I don't like having to wait for service. Generally you have to go to a store, schedule a technician to look at your system before they will even consider repair. That can take days. I just had a malfunctioning Apple keyboard and took it back to the store. They would not exchange it until I scheduled time 2 days later with a technician. I waited and they exchanged it.  Then my new one failed. I threw it in the trash and am using my old windows keyboard. That is an area where Apple needs to improve.

a lot of bad luck man, just got mine yesterday, still going strong ahah

« Reply #15 on: May 23, 2014, 06:45 »
+2
All true Beppe. Not really a fair comparison.

While I love my iMac, I don't like having to wait for service. Generally you have to go to a store, schedule a technician to look at your system before they will even consider repair. That can take days. I just had a malfunctioning Apple keyboard and took it back to the store. They would not exchange it until I scheduled time 2 days later with a technician. I waited and they exchanged it.  Then my new one failed. I threw it in the trash and am using my old windows keyboard. That is an area where Apple needs to improve.

a lot of bad luck man, just got mine yesterday, still going strong ahah

Don't spit on your monitor...lol

« Reply #16 on: May 23, 2014, 06:50 »
0
All true Beppe. Not really a fair comparison.

While I love my iMac, I don't like having to wait for service. Generally you have to go to a store, schedule a technician to look at your system before they will even consider repair. That can take days. I just had a malfunctioning Apple keyboard and took it back to the store. They would not exchange it until I scheduled time 2 days later with a technician. I waited and they exchanged it.  Then my new one failed. I threw it in the trash and am using my old windows keyboard. That is an area where Apple needs to improve.

a lot of bad luck man, just got mine yesterday, still going strong ahah

Don't spit on your monitor...lol

hahahah

now I have to clean it :o ;D


Beppe Grillo

« Reply #17 on: May 23, 2014, 07:20 »
0
All true Beppe. Not really a fair comparison.


While I love my iMac, I don't like having to wait for service. Generally you have to go to a store, schedule a technician to look at your system before they will even consider repair. That can take days. I just had a malfunctioning Apple keyboard and took it back to the store. They would not exchange it until I scheduled time 2 days later with a technician. I waited and they exchanged it.  Then my new one failed. I threw it in the trash and am using my old windows keyboard. That is an area where Apple needs to improve.


a lot of bad luck man, just got mine yesterday, still going strong ahah


Some long years, some not.
Sorry for your misfortune Mantis.
And my wishes for the future Luis.

I am still using my 7 years old apple Keyboard
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Apple_iMac_Keyboard_A1243.png

But my Apple mouse (the one with the clitoball) left me very fast.
I am a happy user of a Logitech one now.

« Reply #18 on: May 23, 2014, 08:00 »
0
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.

« Reply #19 on: May 23, 2014, 08:10 »
0
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

« Reply #20 on: May 23, 2014, 08:17 »
+1
Just received my iMac 27" i7 16 gigs ram, fusion drive. It rocks. Very fast. Will calibrate the screen and away I go. The glossy screen does bother me a bit. It's the first time I have not had a matt monitor so I will see if it is a problem. Others I spoke to were not bothered by it and my fingers are crossed.

Me too! Same, same with the big vid card. Put my old 30" cinema next to it, which works quite nicely (after buying the dual DVI adapter) then click 2 screens on Lightroom. Works like a charm. Very good for video too. Plays compressed video out of my GoPro and Canon without a hiccup. I didn't even notice the glossy screen.

Macs have their issues too. Since Mavricks, there's been plenty of issues of not sleeping FW drives. That seems to be resolved this last upgrade to 10.9.3

I know this is probably silly, but it's really hard to be creative, sitting and working on something as ugly as Windows on a PC. It can even fly faster and farther with fewer problems, but it's just so * ugly. PCs are for engineers with zero aesthetic appreciation.

« Reply #21 on: May 23, 2014, 09:40 »
0
When Macs break it is definitely a problem and the service can be bad. The flip side is that having owned macs for over 15 years, I have only had one hardware issue, which was a fried hard drive. Every Mac I retired was still in good working order ... I was wishing them dead so I could justify an upgrade, but they just kept on ticking. The PCs I have owned are a completely different issue and were always plagued by problems. I love my new iMac!

« Reply #22 on: May 23, 2014, 13:51 »
0
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.
« Last Edit: May 23, 2014, 13:55 by spike »

« Reply #23 on: May 23, 2014, 18:11 »
0
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?

Goofy

« Reply #24 on: May 23, 2014, 19:02 »
0
Never had to clean my screen for spit but I did spell a whole beer directly into my keyboard! I tried to wash it out with hot water but the keys still kept sticking after it dried  :(


« 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 »

« Reply #50 on: May 27, 2014, 15:43 »
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.

That i7 was half of the cost of your computer ;) I'm assuming he went with an AMD chip.

« Reply #51 on: May 28, 2014, 00:48 »
0
Absolutely AMD (FX-8150). Also, I purchased all parts over a period of several months, doing careful research to be sure that I got the best deal possible. I'm sure that there's no way that I could buy everything in a day and get anywhere near that price.

« Reply #52 on: May 28, 2014, 07:46 »
+1
AMD is quite bad for PS/LR, when compared to Intel (http://cpuboss.com/cpus/Intel-Core-i7-4770K-vs-AMD-FX-8150)

« Reply #53 on: May 28, 2014, 10:09 »
0
AMD is quite bad for PS/LR, when compared to Intel (http://cpuboss.com/cpus/Intel-Core-i7-4770K-vs-AMD-FX-8150)


I stood by AMD for quite a long time until they merged with ATI. I'm not sure how their processors have been lately. The prices on those 8 core processors certainly look more appealing than the Intel prices.

« Reply #54 on: May 28, 2014, 13:20 »
0
AMD is quite bad for PS/LR, when compared to Intel (http://cpuboss.com/cpus/Intel-Core-i7-4770K-vs-AMD-FX-8150)


I don't use Lightroom, but have no problems with Photoshop, Illustrator, Dreamweaver, Premiere Pro, SpeedGrade, Audition, Encore, Media Encoder or After Effects.

« Reply #55 on: May 28, 2014, 13:52 »
0
Yeah, I didn't have problems with those on my old rig (Core2Duo), I'm saying performance wise it's probably smarter to buy an Intel if you're a heavy user of PS/LR.

And still nobody ran the benchmark, funny. :D

« Reply #56 on: May 28, 2014, 14:44 »
0
Yeah, I didn't have problems with those on my old rig (Core2Duo), I'm saying performance wise it's probably smarter to buy an Intel if you're a heavy user of PS/LR.

And still nobody ran the benchmark, funny. :D

how about a simple test instead of a 3 pages one?


« Reply #57 on: June 04, 2014, 09:58 »
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.

That i7 was half of the cost of your computer ;) I'm assuming he went with an AMD chip.

Ha! Well, it was only 22% to be precise ($300 out of $1350 total w/o monitor), but your point is well taken. I knew AMD was cheaper than Intel but I didn't know it was that much, for so much more in terms of cores (and perhaps click speed?) Still wouldn't buy one though.

Still curious what elvinstar got with a 4GB video card and for how much, though he makes a good point that he shopped carefully over a period of months. Elvinstar?

« Reply #58 on: June 04, 2014, 15:13 »
0
Yeah, I didn't have problems with those on my old rig (Core2Duo), I'm saying performance wise it's probably smarter to buy an Intel if you're a heavy user of PS/LR.

And still nobody ran the benchmark, funny. :D

how about a simple test instead of a 3 pages one?
It's a simple test.

Much simpler than uploading to istock, alamy, dreamstime & co.

And if you have time for that, you certainly have time for this.

Anyway, this just shows that people aren't really interested in specs. They want the workflow to be pleasant, but don't care about numbers. And I understand that. How it feels is important. But if you want to make a quantitative measure, you need benchmarks.

« Reply #59 on: June 05, 2014, 18:32 »
0
Still curious what elvinstar got with a 4GB video card and for how much, though he makes a good point that he shopped carefully over a period of months. Elvinstar?


Not saying that this is the best (or even really good) video card. Only saying that it gets the job done for me on the cheap.
4GB GeForce GT630 on eBay

And yeah, I already had monitors, keyboard, and mouse.

« Reply #60 on: June 06, 2014, 05:30 »
+1
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.

That's some misleading math you have there... So you are saying that if your time was for example 955 seconds, you would have paid only 1 euro per second and that would be better? :o

« Reply #61 on: June 06, 2014, 05:32 »
+1
you'll get much better value if you build your custom machine:
http://www.tonymacx86.com/home.php


If you are doing photography as a business, you also need to count the hours used in comparing/buying components and time used for building and installing the machine. And that should be multiplied by your hourly rate.

You can buy the latest Mac in almost no time.

« Reply #62 on: June 06, 2014, 07:17 »
-1
If you are doing photography as a business, you also need to count the hours used in comparing/buying components and time used for building and installing the machine. And that should be multiplied by your hourly rate.

You must be incredibly busy if you don't have any spare time at all in which to do research on parts.  ;)

« Reply #63 on: June 06, 2014, 07:54 »
0
If you are doing photography as a business, you also need to count the hours used in comparing/buying components and time used for building and installing the machine. And that should be multiplied by your hourly rate.

You must be incredibly busy if you don't have any spare time at all in which to do research on parts.  ;)
I actually get that you like to research part after part and assemble the whole thing into a working computer. There is a lot of satisfaction in that. I haven't done it for a computer but I've built many things and it's an enjoyable process. You learn a lot too. Without going off on a PC/Mac war, I'm going to assume the same is true for PCs: My latest Mac, which is a month old, took me a few minutes to setup and start working. It cost me about $2500 CND for the upper crust iMac. Say it was a PC, how much would I really save by building my own. Honestly, how much time did you spend researching and assembling, debugging etc. Unless it has some hobby value, I'm guessing it isn't worth it for most people. Some people like to build their own furniture but most of us just head off to Ikea and get a sofa and sit on it.

« Reply #64 on: June 06, 2014, 12:26 »
+1
If you are doing photography as a business, you also need to count the hours used in comparing/buying components and time used for building and installing the machine. And that should be multiplied by your hourly rate.

You must be incredibly busy if you don't have any spare time at all in which to do research on parts.  ;)

If I had spare time, I'd rather shoot and upload some new images :)

« Reply #65 on: June 06, 2014, 13:19 »
0
Honestly, how much time did you spend researching and assembling, debugging etc.

An hour here and an hour there researching, about an hour assembling, and no time debugging. Then of course software installation (Adobe, etc.) which you'd have to do no matter what you bought.

If I had spare time, I'd rather shoot and upload some new images :)

I don't play that game any more. Whatever my old portfolio brings in is what I earn. I'm not saying that building your own computer is for everyone, merely that you can definitely get the most bang for the buck that way.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
MSG Compare

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

82 Replies
19796 Views
Last post January 31, 2009, 13:23
by mantonino
19 Replies
7106 Views
Last post November 25, 2008, 05:51
by Phil
0 Replies
4406 Views
Last post April 01, 2010, 16:53
by dnavarrojr
2 Replies
3095 Views
Last post May 24, 2010, 14:41
by donding
12 Replies
4861 Views
Last post September 27, 2011, 17:54
by qwerty

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors

3100 Posing Cards Bundle