Is Mac Pro that awesome?

[michaelsanford]

I've been looking at getting a Mac Pro:

• Two 2.8GHz Quad-Core Intel Xeon (8-core)
• 4GB (4 x 1GB)
• 1TB 7200-rpm Serial ATA 3Gb/s
• NVIDIA GeForce 8800 GT 512MB (Two dual-link DVI)
• One 16x SuperDrive

Is it really that much awesomer than the iMac? If so, can someone quantify how much awesomer (a benchmark would be nice)?

[eric2006]

23% more awesome

http://db.xbench.com/csi.xhtml?machineTypeID=34
http://db.xbench.com/csi.xhtml?machineTypeID=42

The real question is whether you need the upgradability - 3 drives, card slots, replaceable graphics card, memory, etc

[macbri]

23% more awesome

Now that's an answer Love it!

[michaelsanford]

I do love it! Thanks! I'm kind of surprised it's that low, though, with an 8-core CPU and all. One thing I've always disliked about the computer sales world is that the increase is rarely quantified. "Yeah get more RAM if you'll do more." I mean, come on, I need numbers people... Do I need upgrade-ability? That's a good question. Maybe not, but I do need more graphics ability, RAID is pretty nice too, and the CPU can't be beat...

[Qion]

I'm using a machine with a measly four cores, and it's already ridiculous. Remember the quad-core G5? Yeah, it's faster than that. And in some cases, the new midrange Mac Pro is twice as fast as mine.

[michaelsanford]

Sweet! Thanks for the qualitative analysis

[Mikuro]

Does XBench use multi-core-aware tests? I took a look at some Core Solo and Core Duo tests, and they were remarkably similar. If it doesn't, that would explain the similarity between the iMac and Mac Pro.

Edit: I just looked around the site more, and it looks like it does, but the numbers on the linked pages are averages of all the tests, and not ALL the tests are multi-threaded. Click on the "name" links on those pages for detailed results.

[ScottW]

Is a Mac Pro price or speed justified? That is only a question each of us can answer individually based upon any number of factors, being it finances and expandability and less of an issue of performance. Afterall, if you need the performance, you probably already know you need it and such questions don't come up when you need the power.

My iMac 2.8Ghz is more horse power than I need, I have 4GB of RAM in it, more than I really need, and I have a second display attached that is a 24" display, giving me dual displays. I have two external 750GB drives attached via Firewire. I can easily add more.

To me, the iMac is VERY expandable. However, if tomorrow I had the sudden urge to get a 3rd monitor, I can't hook it up. If tomorrow, I needed 8GB of RAM, I can't purchase it and install it and be off and running. If tomorrow, I want to add or replace my internal HD's, I can't do it. If tomorrow, I need a better graphics card, nothing I can really do. If I need SCSI support, not going to happen.

For many people, the iMac is expandable for their computing needs. However, there are exceptions that I noted above. I know that if any of the exceptions come up for me, chances are, I will be shopping for a new Mac anyhow, never-mind the fact that I have no choice but to do so.

I think if the question is, "Do I need a Mac Pro", chances are, you don't. The key word is "need". Now, when it comes down to "want", then if your pocketbook says it's okay, then more power to you, literally.