Powermac or Imac?

[nizza]

Hi guys. I am seriously considering the move from PC to MAC and have had a look at the various options. Whilst I love the look of the Imac if I am going to go this way I want a computer that will be relatively future proof and so a fully loaded dual 2.5ghz is also tempting. I will be using it for the usual kind of stuff with some picture and video editing thrown in. So should I splash out on the powermac or buy the iMac and spend the extra on some cool add-ons?

[HiRich]

As both have G5 chips, you can be reasonably confident of a decent life span from either (OS Tiger, due in July, is tuned to the G5, and there's no clear sight of a G6). MacWorld magazine compared the new iMac to the PowerMac 1.8GHz DP. Surprisingly close, except where the relevant application supports dual processors (e.g. Photoshop, Final Cut Pro's compressor). However, the 2.5G PowerMac is quite a large step further on. A few figures (all running 512MB RAM):
Overall speed rating (Speedmark tests):
iMac 1.8G: 163
PM 1.8G: 194
PM 2.5G: 237
iTunes MP3 encoding of a 45 min track (secs):
iMac 1.8G: 113
PM 1.8G: 77
PM 2.5G: 59
If you were to use Final Cut Pro, then the PM 2.5G absolutely mullers the iMac (4 minutes vs 10)

So it comes down to cost vs performance, I guess. Spec up your iMac to the max (lots of RAM, Superdrive, largest HD), then compare it to your PowerMac package (do you need a screen, etc?). If you are going to tend towards the heavyweight stuff (games, movie rendering), that should edge you towards the PowerMac. If not, a well specced iMac should do.

[rico]

I've been having similar thoughts recently. I've used a 15in Powerbook for a while and might chop it in for a newer one soon. Contest is Powerbook (equivalent of Powermac) or Ibook (equivalent of Imac).

I personally feel the Power versions are the more professional versions compared to the iMac and iBook.

I'll be sticking with Powerbooks and Powermacs i think

[hut49]

HiRich said:

As both have G5 chips, you can be reasonably confident of a decent life span from either (OS Tiger, due in July, is tuned to the G5, and there's no clear sight of a G6). MacWorld magazine compared the new iMac to the PowerMac 1.8GHz DP. Surprisingly close, except where the relevant application supports dual processors (e.g. Photoshop, Final Cut Pro's compressor). However, the 2.5G PowerMac is quite a large step further on. A few figures (all running 512MB RAM): Overall speed rating (Speedmark tests): iMac 1.8G: 163 PM 1.8G: 194 PM 2.5G: 237 iTunes MP3 encoding of a 45 min track (secs): iMac 1.8G: 113 PM 1.8G: 77 PM 2.5G: 59 If you were to use Final Cut Pro, then the PM 2.5G absolutely mullers the iMac (4 minutes vs 10) So it comes down to cost vs performance, I guess. Spec up your iMac to the max (lots of RAM, Superdrive, largest HD), then compare it to your PowerMac package (do you need a screen, etc?). If you are going to tend towards the heavyweight stuff (games, movie rendering), that should edge you towards the PowerMac. If not, a well specced iMac should do.

What an incredibly helpful review - nice job!

[nizza]

A lot of useful info there. I think Im edging towards the powermac. I guess I'm growing up a bit because I would normally go for style over substance, but I want to start taking my photography and video hobby a little more seriously and I think that this would be the better option in the long run. A very helpful review HiRich - very much appreciated.

[Muncher]

I thought Imac was used for shaving your legs?

[sjg]

It really depends on what you need - if you won't use FireWire 800, gigabit ethernet, or the expandability of the PowerMac, then you may as well save the cash and get the iMac. It also depends on the kind of performance you would find acceptable - for someone who spends their working day in Final Cut, time spent processing is time you're not earning money. For someone doing the odd video at home, you can go off and make a cup of tea while it churns away.

I'd say it's hard for most to justify the extra outlay of the PowerMac. With the iMac you get an excellent display bundled, you can run an external display fine with the spanning hack (just re-enabling a feature Apple disable), and extra storage can be added easily with external Firewire drives.

Same goes for iBook vs PowerBook - I sit firmly on the "i" side of the fence! The extra power and features just aren't justified most of the time; the extra money is better left in the bank and put towards the next upgrade.

[HiRich]

Yep. Exec summary:

If you will be happy using iPhoto/Photoshop elements for graphics and iMovie for video, stick with the iMac. Spend what you saved on a good espresso machine.

If you expect to use full Photoshop (and I mean really use it), and Final Cut, look carefully at the PowerMac.

It's pretty similar for the iBook/PowerBook choice, although I feel the price difference does buy you some significant benefits other than just chip speed:
- Significantly more RAM potential
- 128MB graphics card
- More connection options (including video/screen options)
- Shiny aluminium case!
But of course, only pay for them if you are really going to use them.