What is better: iMac 27" or 21.5" + separate gaming PC?

[Comosicus]

Hi guys,

Over the last year and a half I worked only on a Mac (MBPro 13" 2011 model) and I got hooked to the environment to the point that I find it awkward to write code on a PC. Although I still have access to the company provided laptop, I am thinking next year to get my own machine and I got my eyes on the new line of iMacs.

On the other hand, I spend a good time gaming and I wouldn't mind being able to try something else than "lowest resolution + lowest settings" doctrine that I had to follow so far. So I am stuck with two possibilities:

1. Get a 27" and max out the video card (will update the memory later, so I plan to start with the default 8GB which should suffice for a while) - aprox. 2230 EURO on Spain Apple Store
Put Windows 7 with Bootcamp and use it as primary workstation and alternate gaming machine

2. Get a 21.5" with maxed 16GB memory (can't be upgraded later) for aprox. 1580 EURO and get a separate PC rig that I would use only for gaming (will also need a new monitor, as I can't use the new iMacs for this purpose with a PC machine).

I have the feeling that the second option will end costing me a lot more (and waste more space with the second monitor). The 700 euro difference doesn't look enough for a good gaming rig and I will have to add extra for the display. Also I am not willing to go only for a PC machine. I love the smell of Photoshop on Mac screen too much.

So, what option is better in your opinion? Or should I just look for a second-hand or refurbished older 21.5" and get the dedicated gaming rig?

[DaveJB]

Modern iMacs actually can be used as a standalone display, through something called Target Display mode. What you could do is buy a 27" iMac now, then 2 years or so down the line throw together a new gaming rig while keeping the iMac around as both a display and a machine to get your work done on.

EDIT - Forget what I said. It seems that last year Apple changed the specs so that only Thunderbolt-equipped devices could use Target Display mode, and frankly I wouldn't put much money on Thunderbolt-equipped video cards appearing even in two years.

[TheFeniX]

Considering the environment is your big issue, is there any reason you couldn't dual boot OSX and Windows on a PC? The OSX bootloader doesn't seem to have issues with it. One thing I don't know is what hardware supports OSX has and what you'd need to get it to run as it's not something I'm personally interested in. That said, I've read a few articles of Hackintosh boxes in the $900 range that would run pretty much any current gen title.

[Tolya]

The problem I think here is, how much do you want to play PC games? There's a huge difference between 21,5'' and 27'', and I couldn't in good conscience recommend a smaller screen for reasons other than financial.

Also, I have no idea what your budget is, but if you could spend a little more, maybe you would consider getting a MacBook Pro? Surely 2,3 Ghz i7 with 8gb ram is sufficient for everything apart from heavy duty video encoding work? With a macbook, you could have a mobile computer which could be hooked to a PC screen via HDMI. And having something you can lug around and use wherever you are is a real treat. Of course without more background on how and where you work and what are your requirements are.

[Comosicus]

I prefer not to complicate with hackintosh. Last time I tried to maximize the amount of RAM in my PC I ended up burning the motherboard. So I prefer to poke my hands in the case as little as possible.

I'm a front end developer and part time web designer and I love both the environment and especially the quality of their displays. I worked on a 27" display for a few months last summer while one of the designers was away and it was great. Today I am using my old PC laptop only for gaming. Everything else (personal work, browsing, IM, etc.) is done on the MBPro. So I look for a solution that will give me an Apple display as big as possible while still being able to indulge the vice of gaming. But the work aspect is more important than gaming.

While working with a laptop is great (and being able to use the work laptop at home is a real treat), I would trade a larger display instead of portability. In terms of work specs, I use a 13", with 2.7GHz I7, 8GB of RAM and Intel 4000 graphic card. It has been enough so far and I only had issues when running multiple resource hungry apps at the same time (Photoshop, Zend Studio, virtual machines for IE testing). All the extra hardware would be for gaming purposes. And a MBPro + a Thunderbolt display would be way too expensive.

[Comosicus]

Can't find the EDIT button. So I have to add a new post.

@Tolya: My gaming can be called casual, as in a play at least an hour or two daily, but not the latest titles. I prefer getting my games during Steam sales and the last couple of ones found me with no money to spend on such things. Also I get a lot of old titles from Good Old Games. I always had lower range specs for my computers so I'm not crazy about 200fps on 1080p screen everything in Ultra details. But I'd like to taste at least partially the fruit that has been forbidden so far. I don't spend much time playing online so BF3 is out but I love to load my Fallout 3 and New Vegas from time to time and I'd love to crank up the specs on it.

So basically I look mainly for a workstation for web design and development and a side gaming platform that is at least medium to higher range. Budget would be topped somewhere around 2500 euro. I entertained a bit the Mac Mini + Thunderbolt display + gaming PC but I ended up too high.

[TheFeniX]

I prefer not to complicate with hackintosh. Last time I tried to maximize the amount of RAM in my PC I ended up burning the motherboard. So I prefer to poke my hands in the case as little as possible.

Fair enough. Though a few years back, some guy had a listing of Brand Name PCs that had great hardware and the BIOS support to run OSX. There may be something out there right now similar you could find. But since you like the display quality, even this may not be an option. You might look into Wine and/or dual-booting Windows on a 27" iMac, as you said. It certainly has the hardware. On that note, a cursory search shows there's a few communities porting games like Fallout 3 to run directly on OSX.

Based on your posts, option 1 looks like your best bet, but I don't know the gaming support or how the emulation works on a Mac system, so I couldn't begin to promise you flawless gaming.

The problem I think here is, how much do you want to play PC games? There's a huge difference between 21,5'' and 27'', and I couldn't in good conscience recommend a smaller screen for reasons other than financial.

21.5" is pretty respectable gaming real-estate. Sure, I love my 24" widescreens, but I could game just as well on a smaller size while only losing a bit of graphics porn space.

[Comosicus]

The problem I think here is, how much do you want to play PC games? There's a huge difference between 21,5'' and 27'', and I couldn't in good conscience recommend a smaller screen for reasons other than financial.

21.5" is pretty respectable gaming real-estate. Sure, I love my 24" widescreens, but I could game just as well on a smaller size while only losing a bit of graphics porn space.

Not only 21.5 has lower spec hardware (graphic cards are now in the top middle range, while 675MX and 680MX are like top 20 and top 5 respectively), but if I make such an investment, I prefer getting the 27" screen. It's great having the screen split: half with the code editor, half with the browser for checking your work. And there's plenty space for Photoshop too.

[Pietia]

Get a Mac Mini and a large (non-Apple) display with HDMI port (I use 28 inches TV). Then you'll have tons of cash for a gaming rig, and a Mac Mini with a lot of RAM is good enough for programming most of the time.

[Todeswind]

Get a Mac Mini and a large (non-Apple) display with HDMI port (I use 28 inches TV). Then you'll have tons of cash for a gaming rig, and a Mac Mini with a lot of RAM is good enough for programming most of the time.

^This.

If what you really want is to be working within the macintosh OS it makes a great deal more sense for you to buy a mac-mini and a very nice screen to use for both it and your gaming PC. The $800 Mac mini comes with

2.3GHz quad-core Intel Core i7
4GB memory
1TB hard drive1
Intel HD Graphics 4000

Which is only 4 gigs less memory and a slightly dumbed down graphics card. For the $500 you saved on it versus the 21" just by yourself a massive monitor for both computers.

[Pietia]

As a bonus - Mac Minis are still possible to upgrade. The CPU in new models is soldered to the motherboard, but you can easily add RAM (2x8GB of cheap, non-Apple RAM you can get under $100).

[Comosicus]

If what you really want is to be working within the macintosh OS it makes a great deal more sense for you to buy a mac-mini and a very nice screen to use for both it and your gaming PC. The $800 Mac mini comes with

2.3GHz quad-core Intel Core i7
4GB memory
1TB hard drive1
Intel HD Graphics 4000

Which is only 4 gigs less memory and a slightly dumbed down graphics card. For the $500 you saved on it versus the 21" just by yourself a massive monitor for both computers.

The graphics card is the same I have on my work MBP and it's good enough for Photoshop. And while I'm talking about prices in EURO, usually it's enough to keep the amount and just swap the currency to get an idea about the price. IIRC it is possible to upgrade the memory in the Mini without paying outrageous prices to Apple so most likely I would choose a starting configuration and upgrade from there.

I was also peeking at MacBook Air, but they seem to have not enough RAM (4GB is the norm - I find 8 a lot better) so I would need to buy a new one and choose the upgrade from the very beginning. And this is already jumping close to 1500 euros, about the same amount as a MBPro. And the components in Air are already downclocked to keep the temperature low.

Now, monitors: ideally I would want an IPS panel that would be also good enough for gaming. Work comes before pleasure here, so color fidelity, luminosity and viewing angle are more important than one extra nanosecond in gaming. I've been reading good things about the DELL Ultra series. I need to do some more research.

Bottom line: it seems that the best approach would be to start small and expand from there. Probably I would start with the Mini and the display, to cover my work needs then build up the gaming part. Then, later, when I'll be rich, I'll be able to buy all the gadgets I want.

Mwahahahahaha!!

Hem! Hem! Disregard the last part. Carry on!

[Tolya]

Dell Ultra series are excellent screens. I have an U2311H and I am pleased as hell - my wife does photo editing/retouche and I play games on it. Don't let the speed nerds fool you - theoretically, 8 ms speed is enough for drawing more frames than you will ever need. 8 ms allows the screen to draw 125 frames per second, while 12 ms is about 80 frames per second. Borderline speed is about 16 ms, above that you may start noticing.

There's a small rub with the response times given by vendors. Basically, you measure two kinds of response times: the black-white-black and grey-grey. The first one is the one you want to look at, because an LCD screen may be advertised as having 8 ms time, which is grey-to-grey, but in reality may have a black-white-black of 25 ms - and that's not good.

Dell's are usually solid nowadays (even their laptops are not made from recycled plastic anymore) so you should be pleased. Just keep in mind that while Dell Ultra's are very good screens, they are not Eizos, and some red tint may become visible when you try to view at an angle.

[phongn]

Dell Ultra series are excellent screens. I have an U2311H and I am pleased as hell - my wife does photo editing/retouche and I play games on it. Don't let the speed nerds fool you - theoretically, 8 ms speed is enough for drawing more frames than you will ever need. 8 ms allows the screen to draw 125 frames per second, while 12 ms is about 80 frames per second. Borderline speed is about 16 ms, above that you may start noticing.

I have a pair of Ultrasharp 2209WA 22" monitors and have nothing but good things to say about them. They're perfectly adequate for gaming and excellent for everything else.