iMac 2017 i7 or 2013 Mac Pro

Hi all,

I'm using a 2012 'classic' macbook pro, which has served me well, but I'm running out of power, can't open some projects due to a RAM limit - all the usual issues with older machines!

I've held off upgrading for so long with the hopes that there would be a 32gb RAM Apple laptop out, but there isn't and my hand is being forced!

I do a lot of on-site work for composers, so the laptop has always been the most helpful option as I can go to them, and be there at studio sessions with a printable rig. However about 40% of my work is now at my home studio and I can work from there if needed! I won't be able to be at the recording session with a desktop necessarily though. The sort of sessions I'm struggling to run are large orchestral VI sessions with lots of plugins being made on a 12 core 2013 Mac Pro.

That leaves me with either getting an iMac or a Mac Pro. The old cheesegraters don't stack up according to my research using geekbench. Although they can hold their own single and multi-core wise, the cost isn't cheaper and it doesn't have thunderbolt and could be unsupported at any point. If it was half the price, then maybe, but it isn't. It's also definitely not portable!

Looking at Geek Bench, the iMac 2017 4.2 i7 and the 6-8 core Mac Pro 2013s are in roughly the same zone, both financially and power house wise. Here's a screenshot of geekbench:

Obviously the iMac trounces the mac pro on single core, but Logic X is very much multi core supported and the 8 core mac pro still wins even after 4 years.

I can get all 3 discounted:

Mac Pro 2013 - 6 core, 1tb SSD, 64gb RAM - £3,115

Mac Pro 2013 - 8 core, 1tb SSD, 64gb RAM - £3,445

iMac 2017 - i7 4.2gHz, 1tb SSD, 64gb RAM, Radeon 580 - £3,496.33

(iMac inc thunderbolt 3 adapter, keyboard with numpad)

All 3 have a 3 year warranty with their shops.

I'm torn. Mac Pro 2013 is more portable but is 4+ years old, the iMac has fan issues (due to i7 being so hot) and isn't as portable! I have screens already and could travel with the Mac Pro if needed, but the iMac is 2017 tech so should be supported for longer. Is the single core iMac result worth it overall? Or would I be happier with an 8 core Mac Pro that will fit in a backpack if needed?

Help!

Single core values are more important for heavy plugins.

On the Mac Pro you're paying for 2 graphic cards that you don't need!

The cpu is definitely important and the imac is definitely winning on the gHz front. What I’m asking I guess is will it outperform in large VI sessions with a higher clock speed with fewer cores? Will it outperform when bouncing and replacing all tracks? Etc.

Re graphics cards. I’m paying for a graphics card I don’t need on the iMac too, if we assume the one in my 2012 MBP is fine, so that doesn’t seem like something that is specifically a con for the Mac Pro line. I’ve found out it is a D300 in the Mac pros I listed, so it is the cheapest one available anyway.

With further research it seems like the imac has faster ram (DDR4 vs DDR3) a faster clock speed but fewer cores, limited to 64gb ram not 128 and is not portable. Does the ram’s speed affect anything when using heavy VI sessions?

Thanks again!

You're paying for 2 graphic cards on the Mac Pro. It's meant for graphics stuff.

It's almost a 4 year old computer, and you're paying over 3000 bucks for it.

I'd go with the iMac. Faster bus speeds, faster ram, faster CPU.