Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Lightroom $4K iMac VS $4K PC performance test

slrlounge.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 71 posts

Re: Lightroom $4K iMac VS $4K PC performance test

#41

Post by p1esk »

HillaryBriss wrote: post #37
bloaf wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If they wanted a more apples to apples comparison in the hardware department, they probably should have added $600 to the monitor price[1] and paid for it by using the same CPU as the iMac (i.e. a 6700k) [1] http://www.amazon.com/Dell-Monitor-UP2715K-27-Inch-LED-Lit/d... Honestly, though, I don't think the point was to do an apples-to-apples hardware comparison. This was on a cost basis only.

The article also leaves out the cost of their IT guy's time to assemble the custom PC components. How much does an hour of Joseph WU's time cost? How many hours did it take for him to order, receive, unpack, and then assemble the components?

My guess would be most of Wu's time was spent researching which components to order, probably several hours. On the other hand, if he's a full time employee, then it does not cost anything extra to have him do his job.

Re: Lightroom $4K iMac VS $4K PC performance test

#42

Post by joshvm »

soared wrote: post #26
batbomb wrote: post #18

60 hours is easily lost when some piece on your custom rig dies and you don't have apple care.

From the article: "The honest truth is, I have spent just as much time in a Apple store at the Genius Counter getting my Apple machines repaired as I have maintaining my well built PCs."

Apple Care does take sweet time, but you don't need to go to the store. They'll pick your machine up by courier to fix, at least they did for my iMac when the hard drive died.

Re: Lightroom $4K iMac VS $4K PC performance test

#43

Post by p1esk »

dbcooper wrote: post #33
stegosaurus wrote: post #5

4000USD is a lot of money. That seems like an odd setup. Not having ever wanted to buy a machine for that amount of cash, I'd expect to do better with multi-socket systems. Anyone care to chime in? I struggled to spend over 1K GBP with my latest machine. (I think 'Extreme Edition' is basically like buying the S version of a car, mind). i7-5820K, 64GB ram. One thing that does stick out is an odd monitor comparison. Th…

That $480 gaming motherboard does seem rather excessive too ...

If you want to have a stable system when overclocking 3GHz --> 4.5Ghz, it's a good choice.

Re: Lightroom $4K iMac VS $4K PC performance test

#44

Post by kylec »

Of course a purpose-built PC will outperform an iMac, dollar for dollar. That's not exactly news. The iMac also has a severe price-to-performance disadvantage here by including an expensive 5K panel, while the PC is tested with a much cheaper 2560x1440 monitor.

However, the disappointing thing to me here is that you can't reach performance parity with the iMac by throwing more money at it. The iMac tested here is a completely maxed out machine.

Re: Lightroom $4K iMac VS $4K PC performance test

#45

Post by coldtea »

KayL wrote: post #30
danfinlay wrote: post #6

A lot of that iMac's cost is its retina display, and you didn't bother buying a retina display for the PC. Running a speed test is silly, there are already major differences in the build. To make this remotely more scientific, you'd either need to buy a 4k monitor for the PC, or use a Mac Pro and just take the monitor out of the equation.

Retina only good at pixels but didn't mean its color accuracy better than others, like EIZO.

Its color accuracy is also better than most -- it has 10-bit screen colors for one. EIZO equivalent quality monitors go for $1500 and higher even for crappy resolutions.

Re: Lightroom $4K iMac VS $4K PC performance test

#46

Post by davidbanham »

musesum wrote: post #38

Final Thoughts > "... Apple is simply adding new products and updating product lines often times without much thought it seems. This can be seen in the horrid pen solution found in the iPad Pro where charging it requires you to have a spear sticking out of your iPad." The above seem like a non-sequitur, but seems apt. I switched from Windows to OSX in 2007 to work exclusively on iOS. In the past year: I abandoned Wat…

Just switched from the OSX ecosystem to a Dell Latitude in the XPS 15" chassis running Ubuntu. Feels so good to be back on real Linux rather than good-enough-if-you-squint OSX-flavoured BSD. I commend it to you.

Re: Lightroom $4K iMac VS $4K PC performance test

#47

Post by coldtea »

soared wrote: post #24

I'm surprised by HN's response here. I always thought it was common knowledge that a custom PC would be faster than a mac. You don't pay for speed with Apple, you pay for user experience.

Not just user experience, lots of things people don't immediately appreciate: construction (e.g. unibody sturdy metal), backlit keyboards, multi-touch trackpads, newest ports, mag safe, better battery life, thinnes, less weight, hi-dpi high quality monitors, seamless "sleep/wake" behavior, etc -- not to mention high resale value.

Re: Lightroom $4K iMac VS $4K PC performance test

#49

Post by wmccullough »

This is a qualitative analysis at best. I live in both the PC and Mac world and I'll say this, Some of what you pay apple for is quality. I understand that many cannot fathom this, but their customer service net promoter score is very admirable. You get a quality machine. Style does matter, and you get style with a Mac as well. If style isn't important, explain to me why builders spend hours deciding on cases, lighting, and cable management. At the end of the day, these types of comparisons aren't going to sway anyone.

Re: Lightroom $4K iMac VS $4K PC performance test

#50

Post by imaginenore »

danfinlay wrote: post #6

A lot of that iMac's cost is its retina display, and you didn't bother buying a retina display for the PC. Running a speed test is silly, there are already major differences in the build. To make this remotely more scientific, you'd either need to buy a 4k monitor for the PC, or use a Mac Pro and just take the monitor out of the equation.

That's a bad argument. They spent $1K on a monitor. That can definitely buy a 4K monitor.
Post reply on HN