IMac vs mac pro for photoshop cs 6

I am considering upgrading my computer because I am working with very large photoshop files (panoramas). Would you suggest a new iMac or the new mac pro tower? I have an NEC calibrated screen already, and an older intel-based macbook pro (13").

Well,
I use a late 2009, 27 inch screen iMac and consistently work with files that are 1-2 GBs in size.
My iMac is only a 3.06 Ghz i3 Core2Duo with 16 GBs of RAM and my files save quicker than an hour.
My Mac can save these size files anywhere between 8-15 Minutes!
Are these PSD files the working layered files or finished Flattned versions?
My working, layered PSD files are large format images that are 1-2 GBs in size and about 300-500 MBs flattened.
Tthe working file launches for me in about 3-5 minutes.
Maybe there is a problem with your MBP's hard drive? Is it too full? Do you use external drives as a scratch drive?
Do you store your finished projects onto an external drive?
iMacs have the faster 7200 RPM drives versus MBP's 5400 RPM notebook drives.
This can have an affect on write/saving speed and times.
Photoshop really needs, at least, a decent speed CPU, lots of RAM and extra, external hard drives for working scratch disc space.

Similar Messages

Imac vs mac pro for FCP?

Hello folks,
Well, my G5 apparently needs a new logic board. I could cry, or be happy at the excuse to get a new computer... I chose the latter!
Bottom line, what is the consensus regarding imac vs mac pro.
I will be using FCP a lot, that's what I do for a living. However, I rarely run other applications at the same time. Occassionally LiveType or Photoshop, but that's about it. No Motion, no After Effects, etc.
I feel that an imac will suffice nicely and that the mac pro is overkill in both cost and amount of computer. It's like getting an Indy car and driving 40 MPH!
Thoughts? Thank you.
Eric P

hmmm, interesting. Of course the mac pro would be better, no doubt. But for my purposes I still wonder if it's worth the cost.
As for Kevan D's inquirey for more info, yes I work with FCP for a living, at least 50% of my work week maybe more is editing. However, silly little ol' weddings have become the vast majority of my work and they will continue to be for at least a few more years I believe. In that time I do not see HD being a factor in my area. So for the forseeable future I expect to be working soley with SD. That bit of info may change some of your minds to thinking that an imac will suffice.
I admit, that's my hope because I would have to take out a loan for the mac pro, and again, I'm just not certain it's worth it for my purposes. On the other hand, I didn't ask the question so that I could hear what I "wanted", I do want honest opinions from other professionals like yourselves. If the experience is that an imac just isn't worth it then so be it.
As far as expandability (is that anything like drinkability??), I understand that, but again for my purposes I suspect that by the time I need to expand to HD or to using the full benefits of a mac pro, a new computer (and equipment) will be in the order anyway. Does that make sense?
Thanks again,
Eric

From iMac to Mac Pro for the good of my Pro Tools 10...

hey guys,
here's the deal : it seems I'm at a turning point with my iMac (27", 3.1 Ghz i5, 4GB memory, 1TB hard drive, lion, PT10) and I'm thinking of buying a mac pro. Problem is, I'm not sure which model is best for my needs. I do postproduction work for television and I often have to work with pretty heavy projects.
My pro tools 10 keeps giving me the same 2 errors --
1- DAE can't get audio from the drive(s) fast enough. Your drive may be too slow, or fragmented, or a firewire drive could be having trouble due to the extra firewire bandwidth or cpu load. (-9073)
2- A CPU overload error occurred. If this happens often, try increasing the "H/W Buffer Size" in the Playback Engine Dialog, or removing some plug-ins. (-6101)
I might add, my Playback Engine's maxed out and I'm barely running any plugins (some 5 or 6 EQ3s, maybe 1 or 2 L2 and a Dorrough).
I have a MOTU Audio Express which is plugged in firewire and I'm running an external drive with my SFX on it, which is also plugged in firewire. The iMac having only one firewire plug (downsizing from the earlier iMac, for some obscure reason), I have a firewire hub.
I get the first error whenever I get too deep into a project and I start having a lot of SFX and I'm looking to add more and I get the second error whenever I try to run Dolby Media Meter.
I'm pretty aware I'm overrunning my iMac, so I'm willing to pay big bucks to get a computer that's best fitted to my needs and which I'll be able to upgrade every once in a while. Now, I'm just wondering what I actually need in a computer.
It's either the 3.2 GHz quad-core intel xeon, 6GB memory, 1TB HD or the two 2.4GHz 6-core intel zeon, 12GB memory, 1TB HD. I gotta say the second one seems kind of a lot... but I don't want to spend so much money and get a tiny upgrade from where I'm at right now.
So please! All of you mac wizards and other knowledgeable folks, HELP!

An i7 3.9GHz would do if you had 32GB RAM, an SSD boot drive, and 2TB hdd.
The sweet spot today on Mac Pro is $1800 4-core special and DIY to W3690 or W3680 6-core 3.33 or higher with 32-48GB RAM. And lots of SSDs and disk drives.
http://store.apple.com/us/browse/home/specialdeals/mac/mac_pro
Refurbished 27-inch iMac 3.4GHz quad-core Intel Core i7
http://store.apple.com/us/browse/home/specialdeals/mac/imac/27
The Mac Pro line is at a - not ready to ship the new 2013 6,1 model / not ready with 10.9 that it will need / and current configuration is really 2010 3 yrs old (but also how well they hold up and mature).
You do not want to give up GHz for more cores. MHz still rules. Only reason would be if you planned to replace the processors for the fastest expensive (use to be, though changing) 4 or 6-core 3.4GHz for total of 8 or 12-cores, but never the 2.4GHz, no way.
The 2009 4,1 used is cheaper and can be found for $1000 and upgraded to 6-core and everything else (dual core upgrades are harder and not good to plan for.
And http://www.barefeats.com has done some tests on iMac and Mac Pro.
Graphics on Mac Pro, RAM and PCIe and SSD, hdd are easy upgrades.
This site has some great tips
http://www.macperformanceguide.com

Imac verses mac pro - for Adobe Creative suite

Reguesting input: Which is better for operating Adobe Creative Suite 6.0 on a professional level, imac or Mac pro?

The raw compute power of today's iMac is more that the reasonably-priced Mac Pro models. But that is not the complete story.
The Mac Pro has:
• replaceable graphics cards and additional PCIe slots
• Error-Correcting Code memory, large memory sizes are attainable and will not be a headache.
• Four internal drive bays as opposed to one internal laptop bay. (except, the Fusion drive option in the iMac is fast and large-capacity)

IMac or Mac Pro for iPhoto albums and home movie editing?

I have a Mac Pro OS X 10.6.8 with iPhoto 7.1.5. This system is now obsolete for ordering iPhoto albums. I need to upgrade to iPhoto 9.5.1 to buy a Mac produced photo album. To upgrade iPhoto I need to buy a new Mac as my 2004 Mac Pro with 2008 Snow Leopard can't be upgraded. I will use the new Mac for email, web surfing, iPhoto, and weekend video editing. I use Final Cut Express on my current Mac Pro. I will also need to transfer videos and about 20,000 photos from my current Mac to a new one.
So, here's the question: For my needs (listed above) which is better,
(1) iMac 27" or (2) new Mac Pro? Then, with the one chosen, how should it be configured to do my basic video editing? I have 100 hours of family video on Hi8 and VCR tapes and will edit these on Final Cut and burn them to DVD's. (I understand both iMac or Mac Pro now require an external DVD set-up.) So, which computer and how should it be configured. Looking to pay between $2500-$3500. Thanks for your help!

What video formats are you talking about? DV, HDV, etc?
Mac Pro is a better solution, regardless. Here's why: Simply upgrading an iMac HD is not enough. You do not want to capture your video to the boot drive. It's too much to ask the drive to manage the OS, your editing software, AND your media. This scenario might work - but is certainly prone to dropping frames. Ideally, you want one drive for OS + editing software & a separate drive to capture media to.
Now, since you can only have a single HD in the iMac, you're demoted to using external capture drives. So let's say you get yourself a FW800 drive for capture and then hook up your camera/deck to an available FW400 port. You'd think you're safe - and again, you may be. But the problem now is that the iMac has ONE and only ONE FireWire bus. So in theory these 2 devices: HD & Camera are battling for the same bandwidth. So you've still got a bottleneck happening.
So DV only would probably work. But it may have issues that the expandability of the Mac Pro can conquer. Hope this helps.

Help configuring Mac Pro for Photoshop CS3

Hi all, this will be my 1st Mac and I'm hoping to get the proper configuration for using the Mac Pro with Photoshop CS3.
Since I'm working with large photos (20" X 24" and even larger) and layers my main concern is speed. The Apple store lists five items in their suggested configuration, any suggestions for what upgrades I need to make will be greatly appreciated!
Start building your Mac Pro with our suggested configuration:
* Two 2.66GHz Dual-Core Intel Xeon “Woodcrest” processors
* 1GB memory (667MHz DDR2 fully-buffered DIMM ECC)
* NVIDIA GeForce 7300 GT graphics with 256MB memory
* 250GB Serial ATA 3Gb/s 7200-rpm hard drive1
* 16x double-layer SuperDrive
thanks!!

Well, with a $US5K budget you should be able get a decent configuration. From the Apple Store I would order…
Mac Pro 2.66GHz 1GB RAM / 250GB HD
ATi Radeon X1900 XT
Apple 23" Cinema Display
Bluetooth & Airport Extreme
… which will cost $US3,726 leaving you plenty for your RAM and drives. I would add AppleCare although you can buy and activate this any time within your standard 1 year warranty period so by buy later you spread your costs.
Now, with RAM I would either buy 4 x 1GB (giving you 5GB and costing approx. $US400) from the manufacturer of your choice else 4 x 2GB (giving you 9GB and costing approx. $US850). The most cost effective is probably the 4 x 1GB as you'll most likely not want more than 8GB RAM in any case.
For your drives you have quite a bit of choice although you need to decide if you want to go RAID and what you're going to do with your backup and/or clone. Photoshop users require fast, small file, disk access which the Maxtor MaxLine Pro excels at and at $US99 each they're quite the bargain. Even though Seagate has chosen to discontinue this drive they're still the best boot/Photoshop drives in the 500GB size.
However, looking larger (750GB or more) such as the Hitachi Deskstar/UltraStar, Western Digital SE16/RE2 or Seagate Barracuda 7200.11/ES.2 You'll find better performance overall simply through their larger sizes. Not to mention you'll be buying current model drives. Be aware that you should buy drives specifically for RAID use if you wish to go that way. It's not a good idea to use desktop class drives in RAID sets hence the two model choices for each manufacturer.

IMac vs Mac Pro for Graphic Design Studio

We are upgrading the macs in our in-house graphics department (3 mac users) and wanted to see if anyone had advice on weather to choose a high end iMac or the new 2014 Mac Pro. To help here is what we do on our macs (currently 20inch iMacs).
Photoshop - Photo retouching, Editing, Compositing sometimes many layers
InDesign - Layout from posters to banners to 100 pg books.
Dreamweaver - Internal and external websites design and maintenance
Illustrator - graphics simple and complicated (large and small illustrator files)
Flash - Some animation
(Video Editing) Final Cut - Conversion from Windows Media Files and editing of short videos
We often have many of these programs open at once in addition to MS Office (outlook word power point).
For a maxed out iMac 27 to a mid range mac Pro there is roughly $2000 difference or so (once you buy the monitor you need for the Mac Pro). Do you think the applications we use above would greatly benefit from the MacPro vs the iMac? We don’t really do any 3D work or rendering. But we do want the computers to last several years and need them to be very reliable. I have to submit proposal and any advice would be helpful!
Thanks,
J

I wish there was a sticky for this as "iMac vs nMP" is common daily question and very much the same basic specs and needs.
https://discussions.apple.com/thread/5772339?tstart=0
As in past, 6 (or maybe 8) cores, base memory so you can save and upgrade from 3rd party.
Monitors vary too much in cost range, and you can do better outside Apple, but are one time cost.
A Mac Pro only needs to be replaced half as often, can be upgraded (cpu, RAM, flash SSD storage, even GPU). Hard to other than Apple stopping support in 5-6 years or software by then catching up or putting more demands on computers.
An iMac is not going to run as cool and quiet and because of its shape has to be allowed to run hotter it seems. You can stress and pound on those Xeon systems all day max it out and it is quiet beast.
See what a graphic and tech professional has in recommendations:
www.macperformanceguide.com
Also, www.barefeats.com has done some app testing and FCP-X is one place where the dual GPU pays off.
the "nMP" is actually called "Late 2013" but I agree, other than a few 10s of t housands sold would better easier to be called an Early 2014 (there could be a Late 2014 as well).
Reliable = Mac Pro - mine is going to be 8 yrs old and is better today than it ever was only if I found the need to run Mountain Lion or above or App Store's newest version of say iPhoto is that an issue (security updates though would be nice to see).

New Mac Pro for Photoshop

Hi,
I currently have a 2008 Mac Pro 2 x 2.8 Quad Core Intel Xeon that I am thinking of upgrading.
My questions are as follows.
Which set up would be best for photography based work, mainly Photoshops CS6 and Lightroom 4
I use a Drobo as my main working raid style hard drive.
I'm happy to spend money on a quality system but want to know it will be optimum for what I am using and dont want to just go for the 'top of the range' if it is pointless for the type of work I am doing (I never use video software at all)
Would there be a 3rd party company that would be better suited to set it up exactly for photography based work.
Am I right in saying the current Mac Pro's do not have thunderbolt or USB 3.0, so with that in mind, how long do people speculate that the new Mac Pro's will be available.
Thanks in advance.
Jason

YOU can see what Intel says (said?) at the Intel Conference this fall where they lay out for their vendors and everyonne what they plan and have in the oven for the next year.
Intel fell behind last year's plans with the complexity and issues they ran into, plus changes in the landscape. So did Nvidia with their new line. Hence everyone's plans went bonkers. And any IvyBridge Xeon? doesn't look like anything until this time next year, end of 2013. 2014 does have the next tic-toc and improved chips and memory architecture. DDR4 may get out of the labs.
That much is knowable.
But what you can do today: 2010 6-core 3.33 w/ 4x8GB and GTX 670 plus some nice storage hardware.
See this guy's articles and advice, a heavy graphics perspective:
www.macperformanceguide.com
Oh, and just my own personal.... a lot of 2008 owners are not happy campers for various reasons with power, stabilty, sleep/wake/freezes and maybe that 'first Mac Pro w/ EFI64" is showing crack in seams.
2010 for $1800 and up to around $3k - and your system is worth over a grand still once you can move over.

IMac or Mac Pro for video editing?

Should I invest in a Mac Pro or an IMAC for my video editing needs?
I am using Final Cut Pro x (latest version) on my late 2009 model MacBook Pro (with upgrades)
the rendering is obviously slow and lags.
wondering if I should wait for the new Mac Pro (black cylinder) late 2013
Or will a IMAC top of the line (i7 chip, 16-32 ram 1tb HD) due???
Any advice ??

2-3 days a week.
4-5 hrs a day.
Future plans: 4-5 days
5-8 hrs a day
Budget $2,599-3,000

From iMac to Mac Pro for video work.. suggestions please!

Hello all! Soon I'll be upgrading from my 2.66 GHz quad core iMac with 4gb of RAM to a new Mac Pro. The idea is to increase my productivity with applications such as After Effects & Final Cut Pro by hopefully decreasing time spent rendering/buffering/burning. The iMac has been working really well all this time, but a bit faster would be better!
I have about $4,000 to work with for a new machine. I welcome your thoughts on the best bang for my buck, be that a new/refurbished from Apple or used from eBay. Thanks everyone!

The Hatter has provided his insights as well as some excellent links.
The performance of the 2009 and later models is nearly twice that of the previous models with the same specs due to architectural changes including Hyper Threading.
All the Xeon Macs are keeping their value very well, and that means there are very few real deals on eBay.

What is best Mac Pro for photoshop for the money?

I need to purchase a mac pro to use for digital retouching and photography. Which machine will i get the best performance for my money, I am on a budget.

The best would be 6-core 3.33GHz 24GB RAM and would hold up best over time.
http://discussions.apple.com/messageview.jspa?messageID=12296219&stqc=true
MHz matter, and so too does RAM.
This article, and then browse how to choose Mac Pro, benchmarks etc on site:
http://macperformanceguide.com/blog/2010/20100905_HallofFameShame--macpro.html
http://macperformanceguide.com/Reviews-MacProWestmere-CoresExplained.html
There are always good buys from Apple Specials, from $2100 and up, just be careful or totally avoid any of the 8-core / dual processor models.
http://store.apple.com/us/browse/home/specialdeals/mac/mac_pro

Which current Mac Pro for Aperture/Photoshop

After much research and what seems to be chasing my tail, I though I'd ask the forum for some advice on which machine will best suit my needs. I am currently running Aperture and Photoshop CS3 and looking for a fast machine for the job. I sort through around 2500-3000 raw files per week and hope the new Intel Xeons will speed up my workflow. It's the question of "How many cores are better?" that's confusing me as I am unclear on how many Aperture and Photoshop can actually make use of.
I'm looking to upgrade from my 3.06 iMac to a Mac Pro but having trouble choosing between a new 2.66 quad or a refurbished 2.26 8-core. I understand the drop in processor speed might be noticeable in some instances but the from what I have gathered an upgrade to the ATI HD 4870 is a must as is 6GB ram on the 2.66 and 8GB ram on the 2.26. It's not so much the price difference of the two machines (£2200 for the upgraded 2.66 and roughly £2700 for a refurbished 2.26 plus upgrades) it's will my workflow see any great benefits from the 8-core over the quad. The program I use most is Aperture, followed by Photoshop then FotoMagico, iDVD and Toast Titanium. Does Snow Leopard affect the use of cores in these programs?
Any feedback is much appreciated or pointing in the direction of some real world tests as all the bench tests of the 8-core are so impressive but I'll not be using it for 3D/Video at all.
Thanks in advance for your help.

According to the Adobe blog the delay in offering a 64-bit suite for Mac is because the entire suite has to be rewritten in Cocoa (both previous and current offerings are written in Carbon) CS5 will be written in Cocoa and will utilise the full functionality of the Snow Leopard OS (OpenGL, GCD etc) so memory addressing will be a huge step forward on Photoshop (which I use).
I used Photoshop CS4 on a 2008 Mac Pro 2 x 2.8GHz 8 core (dual Xeon 5400 series Quad core CPUs) and just recently switched to a 2009 Mac Pro 2 x 2.26GHz 8 core (Xeon 5500 series Quad core CPUs). I used CS3 on the original Mac Pro 2 x 2.66Ghz (Dual Xeon Dual Core CPUs = 4 cores total). It's not a fair reflection as CS3 ran under Rosetta on the original Mac Pro and CS4 has better integration on the Intel based Macs, but in general, I noticed a much better rate of workflow on the 8 core machines over the 4 core machine.
More importantly, I would point out that running batch process of RAW files in CaptureOne Pro was significantly performing the batch process on the 8 core machines than on the 4 core machine. (250 RAW files {with no corrections] from a Canon EOS 1D MKII into 16-bitt TIFF files). I can't remember the exact figures but the 8 core machines were @ 23 - 25 minutes quicker than the 4 core machine.
I know it's not scientific and software versions were different which could add to the different results in part, but the 8 core machines both out performed the 4 core machine substantially.
However, the 2009 Mac Pro Quad Core is capable of running 2 threads per core (in effect a virtual 8 core machine and as many reviewers have pointed out, perform faster than the 8 core Mac Pro in certain applications (which have not been written to utilise the full multi-CPU-multi-core environment.
The Memory limitation on the Quad Core is 16GB RAM (Apple state 8GB but reviewers have installed 4 x 4GB DIMMs into the Quad Core without issue). Unless you are doing 3D or HD rendering etc you probably won't really need over 16GBs of RAM, however the cost of 4GB memory sticks is expensive. Crucial only offer a 12GB kit for the Quad Core Mac Pro 2009 to make full use of the triple channel memory speeds (DDR3 best performance in multiples of 3) and 12GBs from Crucial is @£771.00 (prices correct at time of writing this. This equates to @ £257 per 4GB.
Total for Quad Mac Pro with 12GB (3 x 4GB RAM) = £2670
Total for Octo Core Mac Pro with 12GB (6 x 2GB RAM) =£2731 (New price not refurb)
Graphics card upgrade etc will be the same on both machines. Memory based on Crucial Memory prices.
So, for a 2009 Mac Pro with 12GB RAM, it is £61 dearer for an 8 core (virtual 16 cores) machine over the Quad Core Mac Pro. The 8 core system will give you further memory expansion once prices of the 4GB memory sticks come down significantly. The Quad Core will only be able to be upgraded with 8GB RAM sticks over the 4GB sticks available now and will cost a huge amount at time of launch.
Buying a refurbishment 2.26 GHz with similar memory upgrade would in my opinion be the way to go. I know the CPU clock speed is lower, but in real time non memory intensive applications the difference will be hardly noticeable.
I went through the same dilemma as you. I opted for the 8 core system with 12GB RAM and the ATI HD4870 graphics (bought as an upgrade kit so was dearer than the build to order option). I am very happy with my purchase.
The other option is to check out eBay there may be a very well spec'd 2008 Mac Pro for sale with warranty, 16GB RAM and the 8800GT graphics card for less than either of the new systems.
Over the long term, the 8 core offers more affordable customisation options over the Quad Core, but it depends on how long you plan to use the machine

Relative Noise Output of Intel iMac and Mac Pro

I run a computer based recording studio. I have been using a Powerbook for the last two or so years and I am thinking of upgrading to an iMac or Mac Pro.
However, noise is a sensitive issue for me. I have enjoyed near silence with the Powerbook, which enables me to hear into every aspect of my sound. I would like to continue enjoying that experience with an iMac or Mac Pro and wondered whether you could tell me how quiet these machines are? And whether there are any stats on the noise output of the Mac range?
Regards,
Stuart

I'm sure there were some noise figures published once for the G5 and MacPro but I've had a quick look and can't find them on the Apple site anymore.
In my experience the G5 is actually quite quiet compared with say a PC Workstation - that is until the Fans ramp up during heavy processing at which point it does get quite noisy. I expect the MacPro is similar in this respect.
Hope that helps a bit.
Rik

Between iMac and Mac Pro

Hi everyone!
I am a lifelong PC user looking to switch to a Mac. Because I like some windows programs and gaming, I am still a little bit reluctant (less since Macs can run windows) to buy an apple computer mainly because i like computer video games.
I feel like if I buy an iMac I would spend a lot of money for the all-in-one design (granted, it's amazing) while I only need a desktop computer without a screen. Also, if I go with a Mac Pro, it's a little bit out of my price range...
Bottom line : do you think apple is developing some product to bridge the difference between an iMac and a Mac Pro for customers like me?
Thank you

OK, first the bad news is that we aren't allowed to speculate on future products real or fictional on this forum, read the Help & Terms of Use to your right.
However that being said you don't mention what games you like to run so it's difficult to speculate if an iMac is the right machine for you or not. Take a look at this link where there is an imbedded link to View of the iMac Graphics chart it describes games performance with different graphics cards:
http://www.apple.com/imac/features.html
If you still feel an iMac doesn't have enough power then you could always purchase a Mac Pro, they start at $2499 which just means you would need to save a little longer to buy one.
There are a lot of people that have switched to Mac's from PC's with similar concerns as yours, I would also recommend searching through the forums to get some additional information and maybe the direction they took. However be forewarned if you do decide to get a Mac you'll probably never want to use Windows again.
Regards,
Roger

2 iMac & 1 Mac Pro render a job of Maya

Hi all!
I have a LAN with 3 machines: 2 iMac 2GHz - 2GRam and MacPro 2.4GHz - 2GRam. And I'm use QMaster2 to render a small project Maya( This project, if batch render with 1 machine just take 1min).
My setting:
first iMac have been setting with: Services and cluster controller.
second iMac and MacPro have been setiing with: Services only.
So, I'm rendered. It is successful.
But i have some problems.
1. How to distribute batch. It seem not distributes in my job.
2. Time to render is very slowly. something wrong??????
3. Just MacPro submit a job to cluster, second iMac didn't add job in QMaster. Why that ???
please help me !!!!!!!!!!
Thank.
Thanh.

An i7 3.9GHz would do if you had 32GB RAM, an SSD boot drive, and 2TB hdd.
The sweet spot today on Mac Pro is $1800 4-core special and DIY to W3690 or W3680 6-core 3.33 or higher with 32-48GB RAM. And lots of SSDs and disk drives.
http://store.apple.com/us/browse/home/specialdeals/mac/mac_pro
Refurbished 27-inch iMac 3.4GHz quad-core Intel Core i7
http://store.apple.com/us/browse/home/specialdeals/mac/imac/27
The Mac Pro line is at a - not ready to ship the new 2013 6,1 model / not ready with 10.9 that it will need / and current configuration is really 2010 3 yrs old (but also how well they hold up and mature).
You do not want to give up GHz for more cores. MHz still rules. Only reason would be if you planned to replace the processors for the fastest expensive (use to be, though changing) 4 or 6-core 3.4GHz for total of 8 or 12-cores, but never the 2.4GHz, no way.
The 2009 4,1 used is cheaper and can be found for $1000 and upgraded to 6-core and everything else (dual core upgrades are harder and not good to plan for.
And http://www.barefeats.com has done some tests on iMac and Mac Pro.
Graphics on Mac Pro, RAM and PCIe and SSD, hdd are easy upgrades.
This site has some great tips
http://www.macperformanceguide.com

IMac vs mac pro for photoshop cs 6

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for