Build the best system Apple or PC

Mark D102725

Forum Enthusiast
Messages
356
Reaction score
0
Location
US
This is a call to all computer geeks out there Apple and PC alike. Build the best system that you can within a budget of $2000.00. A couple of rules though:

1) If you are going to comment on one being better than the other have facts and references. In other words I don't want opinions such as I work all day on PC's when I go home I use Apples because it is better. Those comments a personal preference.

2) Storage is not an issue assume that all storage will be external.

3) Throughput is very important due to the demands of processing large amounts os RAW files.

Ok Ladies and Gentlemen lets see what can be built.
 
This is a call to all computer geeks out there Apple and PC alike.
Build the best system that you can within a budget of $2000.00. A
couple of rules though:

1) If you are going to comment on one being better than the other
have facts and references. In other words I don't want opinions
such as I work all day on PC's when I go home I use Apples because
it is better. Those comments a personal preference.

2) Storage is not an issue assume that all storage will be external.

3) Throughput is very important due to the demands of processing
large amounts os RAW files.

Ok Ladies and Gentlemen lets see what can be built.
20" iMac G5 from Amazon ($1794)
1 GB memory from 8004Memory.com (2x512 MB; $150)

There---I'm in under budget...

--Jim--
 
An Imac however pretty and fast is not really upgradeable to raid for the requiered throughput mentioned before. Build a G5 system that addresses throughput for file processing. One 160GB hard drive won't cut it. Monitor is not required.
I do like the new IMacs but not for this purpose.
Try agian
This is a call to all computer geeks out there Apple and PC alike.
Build the best system that you can within a budget of $2000.00. A
couple of rules though:

1) If you are going to comment on one being better than the other
have facts and references. In other words I don't want opinions
such as I work all day on PC's when I go home I use Apples because
it is better. Those comments a personal preference.

2) Storage is not an issue assume that all storage will be external.

3) Throughput is very important due to the demands of processing
large amounts os RAW files.

Ok Ladies and Gentlemen lets see what can be built.
20" iMac G5 from Amazon ($1794)
1 GB memory from 8004Memory.com (2x512 MB; $150)

There---I'm in under budget...

--Jim--
 
This is a call to all computer geeks out there Apple and PC alike.
Build the best system that you can within a budget of $2000.00. A
couple of rules though:

1) If you are going to comment on one being better than the other
have facts and references. In other words I don't want opinions
such as I work all day on PC's when I go home I use Apples because
it is better. Those comments a personal preference.

2) Storage is not an issue assume that all storage will be external.

3) Throughput is very important due to the demands of processing
large amounts os RAW files.

Ok Ladies and Gentlemen lets see what can be built.
20" iMac G5 from Amazon ($1794)
1 GB memory from 8004Memory.com (2x512 MB; $150)

There---I'm in under budget...

--Jim--
I agree, iMac G5 20" with 1GB memory or a eMac G4 1.25 ghz, comes with 17" CRT monitor, 80gb hard drive, then get a 1gb memory upgrade. Total price about $850-$900 USD.
Have fun
Roger J.
 
An Imac however pretty and fast is not really upgradeable to raid
for the requiered throughput mentioned before.
You didn't mention data throughput, and besides RAID is a backup system that is applicable to many types of storage devices.

Your orignal post said don't worry about storage, it's external. An iMac G5 can chain or swap Firewire external drives just fine.
Build a G5 system
that addresses throughput for file processing. One 160GB hard drive
won't cut it. Monitor is not required.
What are we, IT consultants? If you know what you want just do it.
I do like the new IMacs but not for this purpose.
Try agian
Perhaps you need to be more specific about what you want.
 
First off Raid is not a back up system that is one aspect of Raid when you use raid stripping you increase the data throughput. Example if 1 drive has a throughput of 150MB ps 2 drives stripped has a throughput of 300 MB ps.

Second it is not a question or a test I see threads all the time one is better than the other I am asking for people that know about computers to build a system that kicks butt for under $2000.00 now I think that is an expensive system. So I am just looking for people to think about what would make a great computer. I not looking for arguments I am not looking to bash any computer just the Imac doesn't fit the bill for a digital designer.
An Imac however pretty and fast is not really upgradeable to raid
for the requiered throughput mentioned before.
You didn't mention data throughput, and besides RAID is a backup
system that is applicable to many types of storage devices.

Your orignal post said don't worry about storage, it's external.
An iMac G5 can chain or swap Firewire external drives just fine.
Build a G5 system
that addresses throughput for file processing. One 160GB hard drive
won't cut it. Monitor is not required.
What are we, IT consultants? If you know what you want just do it.
I do like the new IMacs but not for this purpose.
Try agian
Perhaps you need to be more specific about what you want.
 
An Imac however pretty and fast is not really upgradeable to raid
for the requiered throughput mentioned before. Build a G5 system
that addresses throughput for file processing. One 160GB hard drive
won't cut it. Monitor is not required.
I do like the new IMacs but not for this purpose.
Try agian
Mark,

You said "facts" and not opinions, as well as stated that external storage is a given. And as far as a "monitor" not being required---well, I find that can work for web servers, but it's pretty hard to edit photographs without one.

You then just shot the iMac down with your opinion, and erronous facts. I can easily stick a FireWire RAID on this machine (sure, you'd "uglify" your desk). 1.25 TB for $2400 ( http://www.megamacs.com/v1/index.php?cat=25003&find_only=&action=view&pid=118656 )

--Jim--
 
I not
looking for arguments I am not looking to bash any computer just
the Imac doesn't fit the bill for a digital designer.
Have you used a new iMac yet? At their price point, they are a terrific value for a "digital designer".

--Jim--
 
First off Monitors a very subjective so I wasn't including them in the equation secondly the storage issue was the system doesn't need 250GB storage. The Idea was to build as fast a system as you can for under $2000.00 not including a monitor, Just what can fit in the box.

So if everybody tells me is that the only Mac I can get for under $2000.00 are I macs then I think Apple doesn't give much bang for the buck. So for the purposes of this discussion lets assume the monitor is already Purchased and not part of the equation.

$2400.00 for the raid would put the syystem over the $2000.00 mark.

Please keep the tone civil I am just exploring opinions from people that know both systems. I am glad that Apple has been well represented. Only wish the same was true for PC
An Imac however pretty and fast is not really upgradeable to raid
for the requiered throughput mentioned before. Build a G5 system
that addresses throughput for file processing. One 160GB hard drive
won't cut it. Monitor is not required.
I do like the new IMacs but not for this purpose.
Try agian
Mark,

You said "facts" and not opinions, as well as stated that external
storage is a given. And as far as a "monitor" not being
required---well, I find that can work for web servers, but it's
pretty hard to edit photographs without one.

You then just shot the iMac down with your opinion, and erronous
facts. I can easily stick a FireWire RAID on this machine (sure,
you'd "uglify" your desk). 1.25 TB for $2400

( http://www.megamacs.com/v1/index.php?cat=25003&find_only=&action=view&pid=118656 )

--Jim--
 
Mark, what do you expect us to talk about? Your asking us for our opinions and personal preferences fall under that.

For sheer customization, the PC blows away the Mac. You can't custom build a Mac like you can with a PC.

For operating systems, OS X is arguably king of the mountain.

$2000 is not a lot of scratch to build a monster machine.
This is a call to all computer geeks out there Apple and PC alike.
Build the best system that you can within a budget of $2000.00. A
couple of rules though:

1) If you are going to comment on one being better than the other
have facts and references. In other words I don't want opinions
such as I work all day on PC's when I go home I use Apples because
it is better. Those comments a personal preference.

2) Storage is not an issue assume that all storage will be external.

3) Throughput is very important due to the demands of processing
large amounts os RAW files.

Ok Ladies and Gentlemen lets see what can be built.
--
Just shoot! =)
 
I haven't But I think they would be great to interact with a client. I love dual monitors is that possible with the IMacs.
I not
looking for arguments I am not looking to bash any computer just
the Imac doesn't fit the bill for a digital designer.
Have you used a new iMac yet? At their price point, they are a
terrific value for a "digital designer".

--Jim--
 
Ok then lets say the ceiling for the PC is $2000.00 and the ceilling for the Apple is $3500.00 to take into account for the King of the mountian operating system.
For sheer customization, the PC blows away the Mac. You can't
custom build a Mac like you can with a PC.

For operating systems, OS X is arguably king of the mountain.

$2000 is not a lot of scratch to build a monster machine.
This is a call to all computer geeks out there Apple and PC alike.
Build the best system that you can within a budget of $2000.00. A
couple of rules though:

1) If you are going to comment on one being better than the other
have facts and references. In other words I don't want opinions
such as I work all day on PC's when I go home I use Apples because
it is better. Those comments a personal preference.

2) Storage is not an issue assume that all storage will be external.

3) Throughput is very important due to the demands of processing
large amounts os RAW files.

Ok Ladies and Gentlemen lets see what can be built.
--
Just shoot! =)
 
This is a call to all computer geeks out there Apple and PC alike.
Build the best system that you can within a budget of $2000.00. A
couple of rules though:

1) If you are going to comment on one being better than the other
have facts and references. In other words I don't want opinions
such as I work all day on PC's when I go home I use Apples because
it is better. Those comments a personal preference.

2) Storage is not an issue assume that all storage will be external.

3) Throughput is very important due to the demands of processing
large amounts os RAW files.

Ok Ladies and Gentlemen lets see what can be built.
For processing lots of RAW files, you want to deal with two bottlenecks: CPU and disk throughput. CPU is easy, get an Athlon 64, or if you like to pay more, a G5. My suggestion would be an Asus K8V SE Deluxe MoBo, with the fastest socket 754 Athlon 64 you can afford. A Gig of RAM, of course.

For disk throughput, a RAID 0 array will help, a lot. But that doubles your chances of data loss from drive failure. However, with some MoBo's, you can do a RAID 0 + 1 array, striped and mirrored. Then you need two simultaneous drive failures to lose data. Backing up frequently will preserve the speed of RAID 0, RAID 0+1 makes backing up less urgent, but loses a bit of speed.

Interestingly, RAID 0 brings no speed advantage for most typical computing tasks, including gaming. For that reason, I'd put the system and the apps on a non-RAID boot drive, either a WD Caviar 7200rpm, or if you want to go extreme, on a 10K RPM Raptor. Then put the photos on a RAID array.

This is what I came up with when faced with a similar desire. My current system: Athlon 64 3200+ (the sweet spot on the price/performance curve), Asus K8V SE Deluxe, 4x WD 200Gb drives in a RAID 0+1 array, and a WD 100GB drive for boot and apps. It just screams.

I know that you said external storage, but I've been down that road, with external USB2 and Firewire drives. They have a number of advantages, but speed is very much not one of them. Internal drives are just faster, and not by a little. RAID 0 is faster yet, and not a slight difference. I would make an educated guess that you might see your RAW conversion times cut in half going from ANY external drives to an internal RAID setup.

Another good A64 MoBo is the MSI K8 Neo Platinum. Not as many IDE and SATA ports, but a better bet for overclocking.

You also didn't mention OS concerns. I feel that the appropriate OS makes a real difference in productivity. What is an "appropriate" OS? One that fits the way you want to work, the one that's easy for you to use. I use both Mac and PC, and I feel that with OSX, Apple has actually made an OS that is both harder to use and less intuitive than Windows XP. I think that's why all the techies love OSX, it's for them, not for "the rest of us", a market Apple seems to have given over to M$. On the other hand, OSX is very very pretty, much prettier than Windows. But if you've ever dated the "prettiest girl", you may have learned that the prettiest one isn't necessariy the one you want to settle down with.

And for those who love OSX and take issue with my comments, note that I was, for years, a Mac advocate. For many years I've switched back and forth, depending on which I liked better and which worked better for me at that point in time. Right now, I feel that Win XP has the lead in usability and ease of use, but that could change any time.

Lisa
 
What about using Scssi 360 raid with drive 0 being the OS program drive and 2 stripped drives for processing and Swap drive.
This is a call to all computer geeks out there Apple and PC alike.
Build the best system that you can within a budget of $2000.00. A
couple of rules though:

1) If you are going to comment on one being better than the other
have facts and references. In other words I don't want opinions
such as I work all day on PC's when I go home I use Apples because
it is better. Those comments a personal preference.

2) Storage is not an issue assume that all storage will be external.

3) Throughput is very important due to the demands of processing
large amounts os RAW files.

Ok Ladies and Gentlemen lets see what can be built.
For processing lots of RAW files, you want to deal with two
bottlenecks: CPU and disk throughput. CPU is easy, get an Athlon
64, or if you like to pay more, a G5. My suggestion would be an
Asus K8V SE Deluxe MoBo, with the fastest socket 754 Athlon 64 you
can afford. A Gig of RAM, of course.

For disk throughput, a RAID 0 array will help, a lot. But that
doubles your chances of data loss from drive failure. However,
with some MoBo's, you can do a RAID 0 + 1 array, striped and
mirrored. Then you need two simultaneous drive failures to lose
data. Backing up frequently will preserve the speed of RAID 0,
RAID 0+1 makes backing up less urgent, but loses a bit of speed.

Interestingly, RAID 0 brings no speed advantage for most typical
computing tasks, including gaming. For that reason, I'd put the
system and the apps on a non-RAID boot drive, either a WD Caviar
7200rpm, or if you want to go extreme, on a 10K RPM Raptor. Then
put the photos on a RAID array.

This is what I came up with when faced with a similar desire. My
current system: Athlon 64 3200+ (the sweet spot on the
price/performance curve), Asus K8V SE Deluxe, 4x WD 200Gb drives in
a RAID 0+1 array, and a WD 100GB drive for boot and apps. It just
screams.

I know that you said external storage, but I've been down that
road, with external USB2 and Firewire drives. They have a number
of advantages, but speed is very much not one of them. Internal
drives are just faster, and not by a little. RAID 0 is faster yet,
and not a slight difference. I would make an educated guess that
you might see your RAW conversion times cut in half going from ANY
external drives to an internal RAID setup.

Another good A64 MoBo is the MSI K8 Neo Platinum. Not as many IDE
and SATA ports, but a better bet for overclocking.

You also didn't mention OS concerns. I feel that the appropriate
OS makes a real difference in productivity. What is an
"appropriate" OS? One that fits the way you want to work, the one
that's easy for you to use. I use both Mac and PC, and I feel that
with OSX, Apple has actually made an OS that is both harder to use
and less intuitive than Windows XP. I think that's why all the
techies love OSX, it's for them, not for "the rest of us", a market
Apple seems to have given over to M$. On the other hand, OSX is
very very pretty, much prettier than Windows. But if you've ever
dated the "prettiest girl", you may have learned that the prettiest
one isn't necessariy the one you want to settle down with.

And for those who love OSX and take issue with my comments, note
that I was, for years, a Mac advocate. For many years I've
switched back and forth, depending on which I liked better and
which worked better for me at that point in time. Right now, I
feel that Win XP has the lead in usability and ease of use, but
that could change any time.

Lisa
 
Please keep the tone civil .
My response to you would be "same to you, pal..." :-)

Mark, you seem to take "issue" with many of the Mac differences here. If you're serious about this, as opposed to this being an academic question, I'd say for $2K I would wait for the Apple Refurb Dual 1.8 GHz to come available at the AppleStore ($1800, w/512 MB, 160 GB, Superdrive). I'd then add a gig of memory to that machine. You can watch for deals at dealmac.com

I'm not sure what "throughput" issue you're worried about. Unless you process lots of RAW files in batches, you aren't going to notice much difference between these drives. If you were doing digital video, that'd be another issue. You could probably pop in a faster HD, but that'd bring you over the $2K limit.

--
--Jim--
 
I do process about 2000 Raw images a week weddings and Portraiture. So that is the necessity for throughput. With the next generation of Digital cameras coming in at between 8MP and 16MP throughput is going to be huge. The computer will be essientially non useable during large batch processing, so the idea is to minimise that downtime.
Please keep the tone civil .
My response to you would be "same to you, pal..." :-)

Mark, you seem to take "issue" with many of the Mac differences
here. If you're serious about this, as opposed to this being an
academic question, I'd say for $2K I would wait for the Apple
Refurb Dual 1.8 GHz to come available at the AppleStore ($1800,
w/512 MB, 160 GB, Superdrive). I'd then add a gig of memory to that
machine. You can watch for deals at dealmac.com

I'm not sure what "throughput" issue you're worried about. Unless
you process lots of RAW files in batches, you aren't going to
notice much difference between these drives. If you were doing
digital video, that'd be another issue. You could probably pop in a
faster HD, but that'd bring you over the $2K limit.

--
--Jim--
 
If you can deal with Windows, I would get a PC just so you can upgrade as you would like. Unfortunately with Macs, you can't swap out motherboards, processors and etc. Macs are great, but the cost is prohibitive. Now some will use the tired quote: Some people know the price of everything but the value of nothing.

But when you are dealing with $$$, and are on a budget, the PC adds a plethora of options that is just not possible with the Mac.

Hope that helps.
For sheer customization, the PC blows away the Mac. You can't
custom build a Mac like you can with a PC.

For operating systems, OS X is arguably king of the mountain.

$2000 is not a lot of scratch to build a monster machine.
This is a call to all computer geeks out there Apple and PC alike.
Build the best system that you can within a budget of $2000.00. A
couple of rules though:

1) If you are going to comment on one being better than the other
have facts and references. In other words I don't want opinions
such as I work all day on PC's when I go home I use Apples because
it is better. Those comments a personal preference.

2) Storage is not an issue assume that all storage will be external.

3) Throughput is very important due to the demands of processing
large amounts os RAW files.

Ok Ladies and Gentlemen lets see what can be built.
--
Just shoot! =)
--
Just shoot! =)
 
Well thanks for the honesty. I think when you take into account all the expenses involved with running a business you can't spend $3000.00 to $4000.00 dollars every year to year and half. It is tough enough prying the money out for new cameras. See I just don't know enough about Apples. I didn't know that you can't change out the motherboard and processor. So upgrading means adding another machine in the apple enviroment.
But when you are dealing with $$$, and are on a budget, the PC adds
a plethora of options that is just not possible with the Mac.

Hope that helps.
For sheer customization, the PC blows away the Mac. You can't
custom build a Mac like you can with a PC.

For operating systems, OS X is arguably king of the mountain.

$2000 is not a lot of scratch to build a monster machine.
This is a call to all computer geeks out there Apple and PC alike.
Build the best system that you can within a budget of $2000.00. A
couple of rules though:

1) If you are going to comment on one being better than the other
have facts and references. In other words I don't want opinions
such as I work all day on PC's when I go home I use Apples because
it is better. Those comments a personal preference.

2) Storage is not an issue assume that all storage will be external.

3) Throughput is very important due to the demands of processing
large amounts os RAW files.

Ok Ladies and Gentlemen lets see what can be built.
--
Just shoot! =)
--
Just shoot! =)
 
here's the only fact u need to know:

on Rob Galbraith's last RAW processing and image editing benchmark tests, the PC smoked the G5 on 58/77 tests (75%).

that means in C1, in Photoshop etc etc the dual Xeon setup u buy will process your files faster. multiply that by 300 shots/day if you shoot a lot, and u get the point.
 

Keyboard shortcuts

Back
Top