iMac vs Mac Pro.

Hi all, I don't know if this is the right place to put this, but:

I'm looking to purchase a new computer. I'm a huge AMD fan, but nevertheless, I'm going to purchase a Mac. It's sad that they chose Intel for their processors. Anyway, there are two computers on my mind. A quad core Mac Pro running 2 dual core Intel Xeons or an iMac running one Intel Core 2 Duo dual core processor. Which one is faster when it comes down to each processor core. Is a Core 2 Duo faster than a dual core Xenon? Note I'm not comparing all 4 cores in the Mac pro because obviously it can outperform in terms of SMP (symmetrical multiprocessing). Basically, core vs core, which one is faster?

I've moved this to Mac OS X discussions in the hopes that your thread will get the proper attention it deserves.

I saw it in the general discussion area.

I think the quad individual processors will be faster, and the bus speed definitely is. You get what you pay for. But if you are looking for value rather than the highest-performing machine possible, seriously consider the iMac. I am using mine right now. I got the lowest-priced, slowest 17" first generation intel iMac last February. Once I gave it an extra gig of memory, it because an outstanding computer. I have a G5 2x2.5 GHz IBM processor machine at work. It is only trivially faster than this slowest iMac (1.83 GHz Intel Core Duo). The newer iMacs are significantly better. Unlike the first generation laptops, the iMac has been rock solid. It also has a very pleasant self-contained, compact design. It is also virtually silent. I keep it in the bedroom. The noisiest thing by far is the keyboard. The G5 is huge. I don't know what the new ones sound like, but my IBM one makes a lot of fan noise.

If you need a computer for vectorized numerical computations, don't favor the iMac, but if you just need a computer for every-day tasks and moderate computations (I do a lot of numerical computations on the iMac), then the price is much better.

And just to keep this "on-topic", here is what i386 ubuntu looks like running in Parallels nested within OS X.

Whoah, cool, what about the AMD Dual Core Athlons? How do they compare?

For that, it will just depend on what you compare. The C2Duo processors are quicker in benchmarks, and use less power at load. The dual core Athlons don't perform as fast in benchmarks, but I believe they have significantly lower power consumption at idle. Considering your computer will be idling more often than not, that may come into consideration.

One reason that the C2Duos perform so much better is they are based on a 65nm process. The AMD parts are still based on a 90nm process. I'd expect a jump in performance when AMD releases their 65nm parts.

Henry Rayker said: For that, it will just depend on what you compare. The C2Duo processors are quicker in benchmarks, and use less power at load. The dual core Athlons don't perform as fast in benchmarks, but I believe they have significantly lower power consumption at idle. Considering your computer will be idling more often than not, that may come into consideration.

One reason that the C2Duos perform so much better is they are based on a 65nm process. The AMD parts are still based on a 90nm process. I'd expect a jump in performance when AMD releases their 65nm parts.

Cool. I guess I should wait for the new AMDs. I'm more of an AMD fan. AMD owns. Thanks for replying.

I bought my wife the 20" 2.16ghz Dual Core iMac with 2gb ram. It performs very well. She even runs XP via Parallels and it runs better there than on any standalone hardware we have ever had.

I have th Mac Pro with the 2,66 GHZ processors, 4gb ram and the 30" Cinema display. I run Ubuntu 6.1 and XP Pro via Parallels and again XP runs better there than on my Pentium IV hardware. Ubuntu runs very well there as well. With 4gb ram I can give XP a gig, Ubuntu a gig and still have 2 gb for OS X. I have never owned more stable computers in my life.

FYI I am a retired Systems/LAN manager that started with MS-DOS 2.11.

You will be happy with either machine I assure you. Just get extra ram if you want to run Parallels.

Andy