Photoshop: HP Workstation Z400 or Mac?

[hampuras]

Guys,

Im planning for my next purchase. This will be mainly used for my home use and my Photoshop/Lightroom use as I am a hobbyist photographer.

I am thinking which one is better for this kind of usage; the HP Workstation Z400 series or any one of the Mac? Budget is around USD 1.5-1.8k (not inclusive of monitor & peripherals which I already have an IPS screen and mouse/keyboard).

Please advise. Thanks.

 

[T_Yamamoto]

Perhaps making one?

my school has the Z400. they are amazing with CAD and other 3D programs

Making one would be cheaper for you though and will allow better parts

 

[gmaster456]

Kind of overkill for a Hobbyist photographer. $700 should get you a fine machine for photo editing.

 

[hampuras]

Perhaps making one?

my school has the Z400. they are amazing with CAD and other 3D programs

Making one would be cheaper for you though and will allow better parts

Have u been able to compare the Z400 with any Mac? Is the machine snappy?

I am comfortable with building a system, only that I didnt know consumer level processor and internal hware (mobo, disk etc.) is able to match a workstation level hardware?

 

[hampuras]

Kind of overkill for a Hobbyist photographer. $700 should get you a fine machine for photo editing.

That is true. However I am buying this out of my tax rebate so it wont be a problem .

Plus, better performance wouldnt hurt.

 

[T_Yamamoto]

Yes, ive used both a mac and the z400 for both CAD, photoshop, and other software.
and by far the z400 did the best
(apples products use LAST GEN technology, thats the problem, and the only good part about a mac is their SOFTWARE and OS)

we can help you produce a build that is better, i believe.

i just need help from mfenn on this one.

 

[hampuras]

Yes, ive used both a mac and the z400 for both CAD, photoshop, and other software.
and by far the z400 did the best
(apples products use LAST GEN technology, thats the problem, and the only good part about a mac is their SOFTWARE and OS)

we can help you produce a build that is better, i believe.

i just need help from mfenn on this one.

In your opinion, if i have to choose between the z400 and a mac, which one would u suggest?

 

[T_Yamamoto]

z400 since its newer tech

macs are overpriced piece of plastic filled with last gen technology

But please consider the option of making your own
i promise you that itll be better and cheaper than a z400.

 

[hampuras]

z400 since its newer tech

macs are overpriced piece of plastic filled with last gen technology

But please consider the option of making your own
i promise you that itll be better and cheaper than a z400.

As i said, I have no prblm building one. The problem is I believe, this purchase is to get my tax rebate as in my country we are allowed tax rebate for a new PC every 2 yrs. I remembered that it should be a complete system from recognized vendor.

So building one could be out of the question. But i will re-confirm on that one.

 

[T_Yamamoto]

okay. :/

where do you live?

 

[hampuras]

Malaysia

 

[mfenn]

As i said, I have no prblm building one. The problem is I believe, this purchase is to get my tax rebate as in my country we are allowed tax rebate for a new PC every 2 yrs. I remembered that it should be a complete system from recognized vendor.

So building one could be out of the question. But i will re-confirm on that one.

Free PCs from the gubmint? Sign me up for Malasia!

But in all seriousness, a PC and Mac with similar hardware will perform about the same. The Mac will just cost more. When configuring the Z400, try to get a 6-core, 12GB of RAM, and an SSD.

 

[hampuras]

Free PCs from the gubmint? Sign me up for Malasia!

But in all seriousness, a PC and Mac with similar hardware will perform about the same. The Mac will just cost more. When configuring the Z400, try to get a 6-core, 12GB of RAM, and an SSD.

Its not free, just rebate so that u can get back my money with something else!

Ill try to look for that config, thanks.

 

[theevilsharpie]

Apple doesn't have a competitor to the HP Z400, so if you're looking for computers in that price range, don't bother with Apple. The primary competitor to a Z400 would be a Dell Precision T3500.

As for enthusiast PCs vs. professional workstations, the professional offerings will be of a higher quality. However, the primary difference between the two is software support. High-end content creation applications or other professional computer-intensive application will typically recommend/require a certified computer configuration, and not having that configuration can lead to support headaches. Professional workstation vendors make a substantial effort to certify their configurations with these high-end software vendors.

 

[TheStu]

z400 since its newer tech

macs are overpriced piece of plastic filled with last gen technology

But please consider the option of making your own
i promise you that itll be better and cheaper than a z400.

Psst... look again.

Every Mac sold is running Sandy Bridge with the exception of the Mac Pro. But I don't think (I could be wrong here, I don't keep up with Xeons) that the Xeon has received it's 'Sandy Bridge' update yet.

Also, every Mac sold is inside an aluminum shell. There are no plastic Macs anymore, the only 'computers' they sell with plastic factoring significantly into the construction are the iPad and the AppleTV 2.

As for which system is better? OP, if you are running the latest version of Photoshop I think it is a little bit faster on a PC than a Mac (last I heard) assuming the hardware is identical. If it is an older version, then it is a wash.

The advantage that the Mac has in this arena are much lower cost alternatives to photoshop (pixelmator, acorn) that do 'one thing well' instead of trying to do everything. The advantage to the PC is more readily available software, and you will have an easier time finding a tech if anything goes wrong.

 

[vbuggy]

Guys,

Im planning for my next purchase. This will be mainly used for my home use and my Photoshop/Lightroom use as I am a hobbyist photographer.

I am thinking which one is better for this kind of usage; the HP Workstation Z400 series or any one of the Mac? Budget is around USD 1.5-1.8k (not inclusive of monitor & peripherals which I already have an IPS screen and mouse/keyboard).

Please advise. Thanks.

Architecturally the Z400 is more a regular PC - it even uses the same chassis as the mainstream business PC's - however it does have separation of airflow between the PSU and the rest of the mobo.

It's a nice stable machine as it stands (actually slightly more so than the flagship dual-processor Mac Pro which itself is the most stable thing Apple makes, if that interests you), but if you're used to a DIY you may find the slot configuration isn't as versatile as you like. Internal expansion in terms of storage is reasonable.

Noisewise it's not bad - it's not silent, but not bad.

I think if you're not inclined to build, the Z400 makes a nice 'normal' PC choice in general which you can reasonably expect to 'just work', depending on the config, backed up by the standard warranty and of course, having been certified to be stable under various demanding software.

If you're going Lightroom, I think you can find better workflow / adjunct software under Windows and not Mac.

 

[T_Yamamoto]

Psst... look again.

Every Mac sold is running Sandy Bridge with the exception of the Mac Pro. But I don't think (I could be wrong here, I don't keep up with Xeons) that the Xeon has received it's 'Sandy Bridge' update yet.

Also, every Mac sold is inside an aluminum shell. There are no plastic Macs anymore, the only 'computers' they sell with plastic factoring significantly into the construction are the iPad and the AppleTV 2.

As for which system is better? OP, if you are running the latest version of Photoshop I think it is a little bit faster on a PC than a Mac (last I heard) assuming the hardware is identical. If it is an older version, then it is a wash.

The advantage that the Mac has in this arena are much lower cost alternatives to photoshop (pixelmator, acorn) that do 'one thing well' instead of trying to do everything. The advantage to the PC is more readily available software, and you will have an easier time finding a tech if anything goes wrong.

theyre still over priced.

 

[vbuggy]

theyre still over priced.

I don't think they are to be honest. If you consider design an important factor, then I think they're not badly priced at all. Part of the issue is from the fact that many 'it's overpriced' PC guys don't understand what they're paying for in a machine.

From my POV, a Mac is actually usually the cheapest machine in any solution I'm looking for. But at the same time, I'm all too mindful that I get what I pay for. One of the problems is if you're actually going to use these everyday as part of something fairly demanding and you do really expect it to 'just work' - then you invariably come across problems. I currently own everything from the 11-inch Air to the Pro's (and have owned pretty much their entire product catalog since 2006), and the only machine I'm in any way happy with is the 11" Air, and that's because I'm not being too picky based on its relatively low price and low weight, as well as the fact that I'm hardly hammering it while moving around. Some of them are Boot Camped, but the use is primarily OS X.

In the case of the iMac, it's all very well to have everything built into a box that you directly face, but in addition to expansion issues there are also problems of heat + acoustics balance, and how the machine deals with it. It's not a factor for many new Mac owners as most are moving from superannuated junks from another era, or a DIY that they've never been aware they can't build properly.

Every Mac fanatic I've worked with has a remarkable ability to pick nits when they're using Windows/PC but to gloss over serious instability completely, and not even apparently acknowledge it to themselves that it happened. Even our great leader, Anand, seems sometimes to fall into this trap - of testing for the results he wants to get - when he's doing his nominally objective reviews.

A lot of Mac fanatics now point to Boot Camp as a panacea for it as a do-everything machine - no it's not. A Boot Camped install is less stable, and in the case of laptops much less optimised than a price-equivalent 'pure Windows' machine in the same class. There's also the nightmare of maintaining two active OS's - why should you do that just to get something simple done?

Bottom line is that if you want, or like the idea of, OS X, you intend to use it as your primary OS and you don't mind relatively crappy but beautifully designed hardware delivered with great *consumer* service, get a Mac. For anything else, you're far better off making an informed choice from the Windows market.

 

[T_Yamamoto]

OS X is very nice.

lets not start a flame war.

 

[gmaster456]

OS X is very nice.

I personally find it inferior. But to each his own. Thats all I'm going to say.

 

[vbuggy]

Kind of overkill for a Hobbyist photographer. $700 should get you a fine machine for photo editing.

I think a lot of people underestimate the sort of machine they'll need, because they've not had better. I also think a lot of hobbyist computer users underestimate the sort of spec that results in an actually smooth computer-use experience.

Which is actually a large part of why Apple, in the way that they set their base specs, makes a lot of these types of people realise that... only of course, their egos makes them say the machine/OS is better, not that they've been making the wrong decisions about what sort of machine to buy.

Just look at the number of people who really should know better going "Oh my god, this Mac flies in Windows" - remember 'the fastest Vista notebook we've ever had is a Macbook Pro' nonsense?

What Apple gets right in terms of spec is that their computers have the baseline horsepower and features (if not the reliability and versatility for people who do actually know what they're buying) for them to be actually usable for people who expect things to 'just work'. And that if you're spending a *lot* less than a comparable Mac, then maybe you aren't actually getting the optimum Windows experience either.

Having said that of course, comparing against the iMac, you're including the cost of a screen which the OP has specifically said he doesn't want. But I think in that case, you can doubly make the case for buying a genuinely decent machine, which a judiciously configured Z400 would definitely fall into.

I'm happy with the Z400 for the low-end uses that I put them to for my work, which would cover things like photo editing just fine(My normal workstation of choice are however the Z800's - which would be overkill for duties like this). I did however reject both for home use as I wanted a machine as silent as possible, needed more slot flexibility than the Z400 yet also I didn't need the dual processor of the 800 - so I built. Unfortunately I don't get a choice as far as OS X is concerned in terms of a machine with some degree of stability when doing more than writing a blog post, so I have a Pro at home - which is, among other deficiencies, a hell of a lot noisier than the liquid-cooled variants of the Z400 or Z800.

 

[gmaster456]

There's absolutely no need to spend more than 1k on a computer for hobbyist photo editing. I fail to see how what you said was relevant to my post. You lost me after the first paragraph.

 

[vbuggy]

There's absolutely no need to spend more than 1k on a computer for hobbyist photo editing. I fail to see how what you said was relevant to my post. You lost me after the first paragraph.

Oh I'm sorry about that. Perhaps when you have a little more experience you'll be able to keep up.

 

[gmaster456]

Oh I'm sorry about that. Perhaps when you have a little more experience you'll be able to keep up.

Oh, so now I'm inexperienced? You don't have a damn F***ing clue. I use macs and workstations on a regular basis and do quite a bit of photo editing myself. There is absolutely no need for the response you gave. We all have different opinions, and reasons for them and there is no reason whatsoever to take shots at someone like that.

 

[vbuggy]

Oh, so now I'm inexperienced? You don't have a damn F***ing clue. I use macs and workstations on a regular basis and do quite a bit of photo editing myself. There is absolutely no need for the response you gave. We all have different opinions, and reasons for them and there is no reason whatsoever to take shots at someone like that.

Which brings up the question, why you list totally superannuated machines on your sig. I actually do use Macs and workstations, as well as current notebooks on an everyday basis since that's what I buy.

I'm casting aspersions on your level of experience, or more specifically your ability to tell that you don't have the appropriate experience - based on what I use in terms of everyday computing. I wonder if you even have the software that the OP proposes to use and are aware of the loads that various processing that you'd do place on the machine.

I edit the photos I take in Lightroom 3 / CS5.5 primarily on my home machine - an i7-2600K with an all-SSD drive setup. I do photos (and I'm not a pro) on the move with either a Lenovo X201T (with an X25-M) using the same software combo, or a 11/13-inch Macbook Air using Aperture. And the performance on the desktop especially is creatively appropriate, i.e. everything happens at the kind of speed you'd expect.

I have other equipment for taking 'proper' pictures, but my main party-snapshot camera is the Leica X1, which generates 12MP pictures - par for the course even for low-level hobbyists I think and you'd be surprised at the level of hard-disk churn for example that even such DNG's throw up when processing or rapidly thumbing through pictures. A fast QC or better + SSD storage = a photo-processing experience that doesn't 'get in your way'. And this is before we get to general-purpose use.

$700 is not going to buy you that machine, or a machine that performs close to it, especially if you want a genuinely decent piece of kit. The OP has the budget for that class of machine, so why not?

As I said, a lot of users of low-end hardware, especially those which they built themselves, and also those individuals who don't actually run current 'name' software don't realise that level of performance that's actually appropriate to smooth working, be it as a hobbyist or otherwise.

Once again, I'm sorry if you don't get what I said, but there is some benefit in experience.