These $4,000+ computers go head-to-head in the Mac vs PC Lightroom Showdown
Apr 26, 2016
John Aldred
John Aldred is a photographer with over 25 years of experience in the portrait and commercial worlds. He is based in Scotland and has been an early adopter – and occasional beta tester – of almost every digital imaging technology in that time. As well as his creative visual work, John uses 3D printing, electronics and programming to create his own photography and filmmaking tools and consults for a number of brands across the industry.
Share:
This is one of those debates that’s been around for as long as I can remember. It’s like Nikon vs. Canon, iPhone vs. Android, Ketchup vs. Mayo, and everybody’s going to have their own needs and opinions. There’s generally no right answer in any of these debates, unless you have a specific need that forces you to go one way over another.
For us, when it comes to computers, that need is working with images and maybe video. In what will be a complete shock to some, and absolutely no surprise to others, the PC pretty much annihilated the Mac in each of the tasks performed in SLR Lounge’s $4,000 Mac vs PC Lightroom challenge.
While the testing might not have been quite as scientific as you may find on some websites, they tested real world performance on day to day tasks, which is what’s the most important to many people, and with performance differences ranging from 26% to 114%, it’s hard to argue with the numbers.
Some have posited that the test is a little unfairly balanced towards the custom PC’s favour. For example, that the 5K Retina display of the 27″ Mac is about $2,000 of the Mac’s value, while the PC’s Eizo monitor cost about half of that, allowing for an extra $1,000 to be spent on the PC’s hardware to boost performance.
But that’s part of my issue with Macs, at least the iMac. Once you come to replace your computer, you’re forced to get another monitor because everything’s built into it, effectively doubling the cost of replacing the computer.
In the real world, if I were replacing a PC with the one tested by SLR Lounge, I’d actually be saving at least $1,000 because I wouldn’t have to buy a new monitor, allowing me to buy that better and faster hardware.
If you go with the Mac Pro, it’s a little different, as everything isn’t built into the screen, and you can still use your existing monitors when you buy a new system, but you’re still generally paying far more for your hardware with Apple (at least here in the UK).
My other big issue with Macs is that they come supplied with AMD graphics cards, and half of the software I use on a daily basis either only takes advantage of Nvidia CUDA GPU acceleration, or at least severely underperforms when it comes to AMD, often with CPU rendering being a faster alternative.
Sure, I might be able to replace them (in a Mac Pro, anyway), but why should I be forced to waste money on AMD cards that I’m never going to use?
Don’t get me wrong, Macs are still great computers, and they’re a perfectly viable option for a great number of people out there. There’s no getting around the fact that when you turn them on, they just work (most of the time). That’s the same reason why I prefer iOS devices over Android or Windows Mobile.
For a lot of people, that’s all that matters, and that a bunch of images import in 26 seconds rather than 12 seconds isn’t really a big deal, even for those shooting full time. Sure, it all adds up, but how many of us already just leave things importing or converting while we go off to make a coffee or something? It’s time we wouldn’t really be waiting anyway.
While I generally don’t care on which platform I work, as the software interfaces are basically the same on both, I think when it comes to spending my own money, I’ll be sticking to PCs.
When it comes to smaller devices, for me it’s another matter. I definitely won’t be getting rid of my iPhones or iPads any time soon.
Click here to read SLR Lounge’s full analysis.
John Aldred
John Aldred is a photographer with over 25 years of experience in the portrait and commercial worlds. He is based in Scotland and has been an early adopter – and occasional beta tester – of almost every digital imaging technology in that time. As well as his creative visual work, John uses 3D printing, electronics and programming to create his own photography and filmmaking tools and consults for a number of brands across the industry.
Join the Discussion
DIYP Comment Policy
Be nice, be on-topic, no personal information or flames.
26 responses to “These $4,000+ computers go head-to-head in the Mac vs PC Lightroom Showdown”
better link: https://www.slrlounge.com/lightroom-mac-vs-pc-speed-test-4k-imac-vs-4k-custom-pc-performance-test/
Nothing new here. Everyone already knows, that PC’s are best bang for the buck, when it comes to price/performance. There is a reason, why almost no one serious about something like 3d graphics rendering doesn’t use Mac.
For example currently, when it comes to Mac Pro, that costs ~4000USD – you can get miles faster PC for almost half of the price
In the end – I think, that macs are fine, because you pay for brand and design, that is important for some people.
Except to get the iMac to $4,000 they had to add an unnecessary flash drive and stupidly buy Ram from Apple. A more honest price is only $2850 for the iMac they tested.
A more interesting test would be (an admittedly more expensive) Pro decked out with the top video card vs. even the PC they used.
Fair point, but from what I’ve seen most mac users aren’t exactly cost conscious and would happily pay more from apple even if the same exact thing was available elsewhere for less.
I believe you are seeing a loyalty to an operating system rather than a spendthrift mentality. Most Mac owners would tell you that they feel that their purchase has been worth the money, for the experience and for the build quality, much as many owners of fine cars would. If the identical machine was available for less, few would spend more just for the privilege of saying it is from Apple.
I’m sure they think their experience is worth the money they paid. That’s not what this is about- it’s about the simple fact that they paid more.
Mac vs. PC battle aside, the assertion that Mac users paid more is flawed, because they paid what they had to. It was not available for less. That they chose a an operating that only runs on equipment with a more expensive up front cost, is more accurate.
“It was not available for less.” But it SHOULD HAVE been available for less. They’re tacking on extra cost because they know people are willing to pay the extra money for the Apple logo.
It’s a simple fact that in terms of hardware, you get the same quality / performance for less money vs a Mac system. This doesn’t speak directly to the merits of either system- only the cost. and it’s a simple fact that you pay more for a mac. They may be fine with that, but its still a fact.
Saying it is a fact repeatedly does not make it so. That you can hobble together a better system from a spec and performance point of view for less money on the PC side is undeniable. That it has the same ROI or experience, or is as likely to happen for a majority of buyers, has oft been the question. You are not a Mac fan, but your “facts” are debatable. It is just possible that that quality costs more, even though cheaper is often good enough.
Saying it’s a fact doesn’t make it so, but it actually being a fact means it is so. Apple has NEVER been known for low prices/great value. They are however known for making good products that people find useful.
“You are not a Mac fan,”
How do you know? Just because I’m writing about how PCs are cheaper for the same hardware, does not mean I don’t like Macs. You can’t dismiss me just because you think I”m a PC fanboy when you don’t really know whether that’s true or not.
This article and thread are all about cost/value, and nothing to do with the actual merits of mac computers vs other computers, or “ROI (return on investment)” The comparison being made here is purely about how much money you’re paying for comparable hardware sold by apple vs non-apple hardare. I’ll repeat that again. How much money you’re paying. Not percieved value, not return on investment, not “macs are better / PCs are better”. This is PURELY about cost and performance and not about any other metric you might care to cite. And it is a simple fact that Mac users pay a larger sum of money for hardware of comparable quality. If those purchasers find that the product in some way gives them a greater ROI or better perceived value, that’s great! That’s simply not what the article, nor my comments are about though. Note you’ll see no discussion of ROI or overall perceived value in the article text.
Also, As the author notes, despite using a PC he uses multiple Apple products. There is no bias here.
Saying you are not a Mac fan is not an attempt at a straw man argument. It is apparent in your argument that you are not fanatical about Macs, no matter how much you may like or admire them.
You assert that Macs have never been known for their value, but that simply is not a fact. This is an old argument, and one that those fanatical about Macs know well. Here are a few non-Mac publications that have said so over the years. A search of Mac TCO will bring up many more.
http://www.cio.com/article/2438339/infrastructure/eight-financial-reasons-why-you-should-use-mac-os.html
http://www.techrepublic.com/blog/apple-in-the-enterprise/imac-vs-a-comparable-windows-box-the-tco-lowdown/
http://www.zdnet.com/article/tco-new-research-finds-macs-in-the-enterprise-easier-cheaper-to-manage-than-windows-pcs/#!
I’m not really certain how your perception that I am “not fanatical about Macs” has any meaning or relevance whatsoever.
I’m not aware of any point in recent history where comparable hardware was available for cheaper on Mac than other PCs. If you can cite a specific example I’ll accept that. And I’m talking about cheaper for end users. Apple had all kinds of deals with schools and such over the years to get their computers into schools for cheaper than consumers could.
But regardless of that, *right now*, barring some kind of sale or weird online promotion, Macs cost more than PCs for the same hardware components. Please post evidence to the contrary. Quite a few die hard OSX fans have put OSX on non-apple hardware either because of the lower cost or to use hardware that Apple itself isn’t offering in its systems (or isn’t offering yet).
(and yes, I’ve read those links and I’m not convinced. ROI varies a lot by what the device is being used for, availability of software for that purpose, and other factors. The first article talks about total cost of ownership but doesn’t do a good job explaining its figures. Total cost of ownership of a computer is simple to determine though, and other than support calls (which any business with a comptent IT person on its staff should be able to prevent), does not really vary. Initial purchase + cost of needed software + cost of training people to use that software + cost of replacement components over time (using mean time before failiure as the basis for rate of replacement). To be fair, unless you are a business and you’re using Mac Pros, many of the core components in a Mac are not replaceable as they are typically mobile hardware and not modular desktop hardware. But that increases TCO in the end because you need to replace the entire system sooner. If you do factor in support calls, I would probably not disagree that microsoft rakes in more money for that purpose than Apple does. But I don’t think that tips the TCO enough in Apple’s favor.
TL;DR it is not a simple matter to assert this stuff, but as I wrote in my previous posts, I’m not giving two farts abotu TCO and ROI. That’s not what I was talking about and it’s not what this article is talking about. This article (and myself) were referring to purchase price only. Nobody was arguing anything about any other aspect of value real or perceived.
The original article and the study it refers to inflated the cost of the iMac to perform a false equivalent test with their PC system. So the real world purchase price of the iMac was considerably less than the $4,000 quoted. That has always been my point.
You said “Apple has NEVER been know for great value” emphasis yours. I gave examples of them being known for just that. You have now moved the goal posts and say that this is currently the case as opposed to historically.
While you did mention cost in the quote I truncated, you also said value. Again you are moving the goal posts when you now say that you were only arguing about purchase price.
I concede that Macs cost more to purchase. I do not agree that the components are identical. Certainly I would agree more if your argument is that you can build a PC with comparable or better specs for less than the purchase price of a Mac. I would argue that the Mac has higher end components and as such a longer shelf life with less frequent repairs than most PCs with comparable specs.
I also do not agree that they are a poorer value. Others, especially Gartner who are not big Apple supporters, also have weighed in on the value of Macs.
It’s not really false, as most people I’ve met with mac hardware bought it directly from apple or an Apple store. While you can save money buying third party components or buying from a reseller, it’s clear many people aren’t doing that.
I won’t deny however, that it would have been a better idea to look at two more economical systems, instead of building the most extravagant PC possible. I agree the specific comparison was flawed however from what I see, the point still holds true for more normal-priced computers.
However, I know quite a few people who will buy an apple product just because it’s apple and not because of any percieved value. I don’t think that attitude is a majority, but it does exist to some degree. These people see Apple as the “chic” or “hot” thing to have, and paying extra just to have that logo on it is totally fine to them. It’s just like some people will swear by name brand ketchup when there’s a store brand with the exact same formulation that costs a fraction of the price.
Such long time that market made the choice between Apple and PC (something like 10% to 90%)… definitely war is over for decades …
PC has got a much wider usable range than any apple machines.. PC just can be twice or more cheaper, twice or more powerful, twice or more lighter, etc …
For photographs that are doing sports events with hundreds riffles, deep macro stackings (100 pictures or more), huge pano etc .. PC definitely will be much more powerful for twice less price than Apple’s machines…
but definitely macbooks are much nicer to look than any PC notebooks.
Why do those tests with an iMac??? I’m happy to volunteer my 2012 12core macpro for any of those tests. Using an iMac for those tests is ridiculous! It’s like comparing apples and oranges.
you don’t like those apples?
i love them. got an iMac myself. i just don’t consider the iMac a power machine while the PC in the test clearly is. Macs are way more expensive than PC’s and power wise you cannot compare them buck for buck
Why not install Mac OSX on the PC architecture too? It can be done. That would give you a true test. Or Put Windows on the Mac and run the same tests?
Yep. I run triple boot; osx, linux, windows. Works really well.
Nope. PCs perform better than macs on the same exact hardware, especially for games. Boot Camp a windows OS and play one of the latest 3D games. Then play the mac version of the same game. It’s like night and day. Partially because it’s common for developers to contract someone out to use a middleware wrapper to translate the directx calls to openGL. It’s not emulation but it still hampers performance a lot- even for those that natively build their mac versions (I’m pretty sure Blizzard does with its games) there is still some performance difference.
iMacs are about the worst they could’ve used for any performance test
On TV they can hack into the nuclear missile secrets 4 seconds faster on a Mac than a PC so there.