iMac with 2 Apple Displays or Mac Pro with 3 non-Apple Monitors?

ricky1981

ricky1981

ricky1981

Soldato
Joined
10 Jun 2003
Posts
4,615
Location
New Zealand
I'm in the fortunate position that my boss has offered to buy me a 27" iMac and two 27" Apple Displays (he insists that all the screens need to match).

I'm wondering if I'd get a better setup by getting a Mac Pro and buying 3 27" non-Apple monitors, especially because I prefer matte monitors (my office has windows on 2 sides and bright/reflective walls).

In terms of usage, I will be using it mostly for coding, UI/UX design and the usual email/web stuff so I don't need the Mac Pro's power but it won't hurt I guess and does give me more flexibility in terms of going to 4k monitors at some point. I have the same budget to spend as the iMac + the Apple Displays but am happy to put in a bit of my own cash to get a sweet setup.

Just looking for opinions from anyone whose gone either way and suggestions for monitors if I go the Mac Pro route.

Also, is there any news on whether the Mac Pro is due for an update soon? I got caught out on my last MBP, bought 3 weeks before the CPU/RAM bump :(
 
The new Mac Pro has barely been around 5 minutes...I doubt it's going to get a spec bump anytime soon...I also very much doubt it needs one!

In terms of setup I think for what you're going to use it for I'd go for which ever screens are going to be best for you. You may find that three 27" screens is too much. I use 3 x 24's at work and honestly sometimes I find them giving me a headache and they're a good 2.5-3ft away.

I'd personally try an iMac and an Apple Display and see how you get on with it (in the shop) the iMac displays are gorgeous, truely lovely to work on. I'd consider also maybe going for an iMac and 1 extra screen but making the iMac a Retina version? That would be better for your coding/text based work no doubt.

At home I use a 27" iMac and a 24" as a second screen and find I have a crazy amount of screen space. If that helps at all. I could probably do with a third, but honestly the benefit isn't worth the gain and I don't want headaches!
 
I personally would prefer a mac pro with three non mac monitors, I'm currently using a imac 27" with one apple 27" monitor at work and the resolution, colour, contrast and brightness is hard enough to match each other, let alone if you where to use non apple monitors. Stuff like that drives my crazy then thou I don't work in graphics. Thou many of you won't believe me, my HP 22" monitor at home used with my imac 21.5 is a better display than the internal IPS panel on the imac and I'm always on ebay looking for a second one.

I've prevously used mac book pro with two external 21.5" 1080 monitors and that was a niffy setup as I sometimes needed to go offsite with the laptop.
 
Define "better". Of course, the Mac Pro setup with three displays is "best", however the iMac route along with two external monitors is the best value and the most suitable here.

The "they all have to match" rule is ridiculously silly, for various reasons:
  • Apple monitors are expensive.
  • Apple monitors are not bad, but they aren't as good as the some of the competition now.
  • Apple monitors offer no height adjustment, which wouldn't be a problem...if the iMac and Thunderbolt Display were the same height.
The "mismatch" using a couple of non-Apple monitors would barely be any worse as a result.
 
Last edited:
Thanks everyone for the feedback, leaning towards the Mac Pro option so just need to look around for three 27 (or 24) inch monitors to get an idea of what I can get for the budget.

The "they must match" rule is a bit odd I know but it's the company's money not mine and it's the only caveat my boss has added so I'm happy to roll with it for the sake of a pretty nice hardware upgrade.
 
ricky1981 said:
Thanks everyone for the feedback, leaning towards the Mac Pro option so just need to look around for three 27 (or 24) inch monitors to get an idea of what I can get for the budget.

The "they must match" rule is a bit odd I know but it's the company's money not mine and it's the only caveat my boss has added so I'm happy to roll with it for the sake of a pretty nice hardware upgrade.
Click to expand...
If the budget is a bit of a squeeze I'd really ask him to reconsider requiring them to match. You certainly won't need the power of the Mac Pro nor will you even notice it, therefore I wouldn't be going for an option that requires you to spend your own cash (according to your own post) for work equipment.

Normal iMac with a 1TB Fusion Drive, RAM upgrade, and a couple of mid-range 1440p monitors and you'll be happy.
 
Sorry, I meant that the budget is for a 27" iMac and two 27" Apple monitors so I have that amount available to spend on an equivalent Mac Pro setup (if I go that way).

I am happy to chip in another $500-1000 since I will be using it for 60+ hrs each week and my current very glossy Dell monitors aren't much fun in the afternoon. Also, I've been allowed to keep all previous work equipment once it's retired so any extra money I put in won't be entirely lost (and would be offset by selling the equipment if I don't want to keep it).
 
I'm sure I read somewhere that the top spec iMac outpaces the low end Pro. However in upgrade terms you're at the ceiling. Like you can do much to upgrade Macs these days anyway.

If it's someone else's dime, go Pro. Apple displays are lovely, but there are equally nice screens out there for much more reasonable money.
 
The Apple displays are a very old product now, and completely overpriced. The Mac Pro with 3x displays is a better option all round.

Although I'd rather have a Retina iMac and a 1920x1200 monitor flipped into portrait.
 
Marco Arment has sold all three of his household Mac Pros and replaced them with Retina iMacs.
 
Another thing to bare in mind - the iMac doesn't 'height' match the Apple screens. The Thunderbolt displays will look like it's sat in the centre line of the iMac.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom