If you can live with a Windows/Linux PC or do not shy away from a Hackintosh, you can get great value for money by getting a modern mainstream Intel CPU (desktop i5 if you want the best bang-for-the-bucks, i7 if you don't mind paying 100 bucks more for 30% more speed in maybe 20% of the time), and a midrange to performance gaming GPU depending on your budget. The Nvidia 1070 is a terrific card, but the 1060 is also not bad. The AMD RX480 is less energy efficient, but not a bad card at all.

If you are looking for more multithreading Oomph on the CPU side, you could go with the new AMD Ryzen CPUs... they give you a TON of cores and logical threads for very attractive prices while not being far off the Intel IPC when the applications and games have been optimized for the new architecture.

Of course, if you want to stay on the apple side, you might be out of luck.

Either you cough up the money for a Mac Pro (for which the latest iteration Apple reps have said was a bad decision because of bad thermals and customized mainboard, and a replacement is on the way, but not in 2017), which gives you Pro class hardware costing many times what gamer hardware costs while often not being faster unless the application you are using is optimized for this class of hardware (on the GPU side literally all you get are special drivers and a bigger VRAM, the Pro CPUs have more cores, cache, and more memory channels).

Or you go for the more sanly priced iMacs, which are only equipped with laptop class hardware because of thermal and size constraints. Powerful for laptop hardware, don't get me wrong. Still maybe not what you want in a "budget workstation".

The Mac minis come without GPUs, and the MacBooks are often equipped with Low Power Laptop Hardware like Core-M CPUs.

Now, of course I shouldn't say all of that without reiterating what has been said before. If you want to develop small 2D games, or just simple 3D games, a small laptop is all you need. Any MacBook or iMac, even a Mac Mini is enough for that.

One of the more powerful iMacs will do the job even for more taxing 3D work, though you easely pay double of what you would have paid for a more powerful DYI Windows PC... of course, you get a preassembled machine, a good screen and mouse+KB with the Mac. And as soon as you buy assembled Windows PC, stupid Vendor deicisons outfitting your 2000$ PC with a weedy little GTX 1060 GPU, but the fattest i7 CPU money can get and a 2 TB SSD will kick in, and you will pay a premium for the machine just because you only get a better GPU if you also buy a bigger disk or the super premium casing.

The question really should be: How powerful should the machine be, and what is your budget?

powerful, cheap, Mac.... pick two ;)

The reason I ask is because my focus is mostly high end graphics work. I do like to use real time engines, but I'm mostly focusing on making eye candy with simplistic gameplay.

My laptop, a late 2013 top the line MacBook Pro, has really started to suffer recently as I've ramped up graphics production on it, so hence why I was wondering if there's anything specific people would recommend.

Well, an up to date iMac will most probably be better than your 4 year old MacBook Pro... as long as you don't need the most power you can get, and don't mind spending a premium, an iMac is not a bad choice.

Personally, if you want High End Power, I would either go for a Mac Pro or a PC Workstation.

If you want High End Power on a budget (below 3000$), I fear there currently is no Mac that can REALLY fit the description. Yeah, the high end iMacs are nice, but you will not get one outfitted with GTX 1080 or GTX 1080 Ti class GPUs, nor 95 Watts CPUs. Then there are the Enthusiast class 100+ Watts CPUs available which are pricier than the normal desktop parts, but still not as expensive as the Xeons used in the Mac Pro. Of course an iMac cannot fit these parts, I don't think even a 65 watts CPU could be cooled in an iMac (though I could be wrong).

Again, don't get me wrong, a 2000$ iMac is a fine machine... just nowhere near as powerful as a 2000$ gaming PC. At that price range you might fit in a top of the line GTX 1080 ti, and an intel hexacore or even AMD octacore CPU. This PC will run circles around the iMac.

Hell, I was shocked that Apple actually sells 4000+$ iMacs, still outfitted with weedy AMD mobile GPUs... at that point you could get one of the cheaper Mac Pro configurations! Probably the saner choice, unless the additional screen you now need to buy is too much to swallow.

IDK, I feel Apple has given up on small artists, and even the pros with the big budgets are not that well supported with their Mac Pro Bucket that is not really upgradeable. Lets hope they release a Kickass new Mac Pro in 2018.

The reason I ask is because my focus is mostly high end graphics work. I do like to use real time engines, but I'm mostly focusing on making eye candy with simplistic gameplay.

My laptop, a late 2013 top the line MacBook Pro, has really started to suffer recently as I've ramped up graphics production on it, so hence why I was wondering if there's anything specific people would recommend.

Well, an up to date iMac will most probably be better than your 4 year old MacBook Pro... as long as you don't need the most power you can get, and don't mind spending a premium, an iMac is not a bad choice.

Personally, if you want High End Power, I would either go for a Mac Pro or a PC Workstation.

If you want High End Power on a budget (below 3000$), I fear there currently is no Mac that can REALLY fit the description. Yeah, the high end iMacs are nice, but you will not get one outfitted with GTX 1080 or GTX 1080 Ti class GPUs, nor 95 Watts CPUs. Then there are the Enthusiast class 100+ Watts CPUs available which are pricier than the normal desktop parts, but still not as expensive as the Xeons used in the Mac Pro. Of course an iMac cannot fit these parts, I don't think even a 65 watts CPU could be cooled in an iMac (though I could be wrong).

Again, don't get me wrong, a 2000$ iMac is a fine machine... just nowhere near as powerful as a 2000$ gaming PC. At that price range you might fit in a top of the line GTX 1080 ti, and an intel hexacore or even AMD octacore CPU. This PC will run circles around the iMac.

Hell, I was shocked that Apple actually sells 4000+$ iMacs, still outfitted with weedy AMD mobile GPUs... at that point you could get one of the cheaper Mac Pro configurations! Probably the saner choice, unless the additional screen you now need to buy is too much to swallow.

IDK, I feel Apple has given up on small artists, and even the pros with the big budgets are not that well supported with their Mac Pro Bucket that is not really upgradeable. Lets hope they release a Kickass new Mac Pro in 2018.

My Macbook Pro will need to be replaced, but that issue has more or less taken care of itself (long story). The main thing giving me pause about the Mac Pro is that I've heard that it's GPUs were a bit of a mistake (Apple admitted this). I still am interested, just not super sure if I should consider against the Mac Pro.

Personally I'm willing to pay the money for good hardware that can really handle taxing 3d work. At the same time, I do realize that I

a): shouldn't pay top dollar for something that isn't worth its money

b): should be careful about whether I would be using the right software to take advantage of the hardware

c): really do need that kind of hardware

I do expect to use real-time and non-real time rendering engines, but with lots of high res textures, higher poly-count, high end lighting, etc. Generally speaking, I want to be able to handle really high end graphics.

It seems though that an iMac should in theory be able to handle this? Again, I don't mind going for a Mac Pro personally.

I am not against getting a high end gaming rig and converting it into a Hackintosh. I've never personally done it, so I'm a little sketchy on details. I did partition a Mac with Bootcamp though, and it's working out great so far.

The thing with the iMac is the laptop class hardware, COMBINED with the fact that Macs are usually 1-2 years behind the curve on GPU technology, not to speak of never getting the most high end GPUs in the non-Pro models (hey, gotta keep the gap between the iMacs and Mac Pros wide enough to justify the price difference ;)

The current iMacs have AMD mobile chips that are about 3 years old AFAIK... seems to be slower than the GTX 980M, which, while one of the first Nvidia mobile chips that was actually pretty decent compared to desktop chips, is now an old generation and completly outclassed by last years Nvidia Pascal mobile chips.

Will this chip be better for 3D work and gaming than a 4 year old MacBook pro? Yeah of course. The MacBook Pro most propably used the iGPU of the CPU, which is still laughably weak on all CPUs up to the edRAM boosted ones (altough sometimes I am amazed how far they can stretch... was able to run Blender and 3D Coat fine on my weak Core-M3, just with low poly projects, still).

Is it a good idea to pay top dollars for such an outdated and comparatively weak GPU in a desktop in 2017? No. Remember I am looking at the top end iMac specs, we are talking 3000-4000$ here, at least in switzerland. For that you could get gaming PCs with 2 GTX 1080 Ti in SLI... or a Mac Pro with a still outdated and nowhere near top end, but Pro grade GPU.

CPUs are usually less behind the curve in iMacs... I guess Apple and Nvidia have a beef, which makes Apple pick AMD, which had troubles keeping up with Nvidia GPUs in the last few years. The fact that Apple is updating their hardware not often enough does not help.

Anyway, the CPU will be closer to the top-end mainstream desktop CPUs you can get... you most probably get enough CPU power for almost everything. But lets get this straight... these are NOT Workstation class CPUs. You might not run into just as much Waiting and slowdowns compared to the Xeons in the Mac Pro than the Intel and Apple Propaganda wants you to believe... after all, the BIG speedups when comparing a pro grade 6-12 core Xeon with a 4 core top-end laptop Intel CPU normally can only be observed in synthetic benchmarks and very special tasks like video encoding. In normal day work you will see little of this, and I say that as a person who is running an Intel Enthusiast class 6 core CPU next to a mainstream class 4 core CPU since 2012. The only tasks where my 500+$ CPU could really stretch its legs compared to my 200+$ bucks mainstream CPU are pure numbercrunching tasks like lightmap baking, and worldmachine builds... if you bake a lot of lightmaps, getting a CPU with more cores MIGHT be worth the money. Else don't bother.

Now, if you want to spend 3000$ for a desktop with a almost-as-fast-as-a-desktop-CPU Processor in it, only you can answer. I would question myself if that REALLY are 3000$ well spent if I was going for a powerful workstation. And then, lets not forget that you can get Workstation class hardware with some features cut (mostly ECC RAM), and a much nicer pricetag in intels Enthusiast range. You get 6 Cores for around 500$! Of course the total cost for the platform is a little higher as mainboards are more expensive and you usually get more RAM.

Then there is the new AMD Ryzen platform, which gives you even more cores for the price... a 16 core Ryzen is rumored, for the nice price of 1000$ (which would be a steal compared to 1500$ for a 10 core Intel CPU).

Thus, an iMac is a clear upgrade over your MacBook, but might not be a wise investment if you want Max Power, even if you are ready to pay a premium for the looks, and Apple build quality.

Lets not forget the most important limitation: Upgradability is just not there... besides RAM, you will struggle to upgrade any part. To me that rules the machine out as workstation, as I usually upgrade my GPU about all 2-3 years. Usually getting the best price Nvidia Performance GPU (GTX 670, GTX 970, GTX 1070), which gives me usually a nice upgrade for 400-500$. Double the VRAM, more TFLOPs, without paying for the top end gaming card (or frying my PSU :))...

That is not going to happen in an iMac. Thus either you will struggle with performance of some parts in the last years of its lifecycly, or you will have to switch the machine earlier and pay more in the process. My current Workstation was bought in 2011-2012, for about 2000$ without the periphery (self built, with enthusiast class parts). Aside from 2 GPU upgrades for 500$ each the machine has run fine for 5 years, and will most probably serve me well for another 2 years (that 6 core CPU from 2012 still is not beaten by much by newer Intel CPUs in its price range). If I still had to work with the Original GPU, I most probably would be looking for a replacement now (or got one last year).

Which brings us to the current MacPro... which seems to be a fine machine (not sure if there are really problem with thermals, or if the only problem is that because of thermals upgradeability is restricted, giving I haven't heard much about the former, I would suspect the latter).

But besides the thermals its the custom parts used (4 part mainboard, smaller GPUs, special cooling) that will limit upgradeability. Lets not forget that Apple likes to sell people "Apple approved Hardware", with Vendors selling Apple tested components for a premium. While that can be seen as a good thing (after all, with PC RAM you either have to check a long compatibility list to make sure the RAM you buy runs on your Mainboard, or just take a risk and return it if the PC does not start), it usually contributes to the "behind-the-curve" thing with Mac internals as well as the higher overall price for the hardware. A Mac Pro that can no longer even FIT non-approved parts (which AFAIK run fine in the older Mac Pros as long as MacOS has a driver for them) is of course a good thing in the eye of the Apple of 2013 which tried to tie their customers ever closer to their walled garden.

Of course that would work fine if Apple would then go on to concentrate on working with Vendors to sell customized parts for upgrading your Mac Pro. When you can get a Mac Pro custom variant of most Pro GPUs, and maybe some high end gaming GPUs, for a premium maybe, still as an option, a lot of the Pro MacOS users most probably wouldn't mind the quirky form factor, nor the higher overall price.

But Apple seemingly dropped the Ball there, leaving customers with little upgradeability. When you pay 5000+$ for your workstation, and need cutting edge power from your workstation, that will not be going down well.

But I digress... what does that mean for you? Well, it means that you are paying top dollar for a machine which might not have the ideal configuration for you (which is true for most pre built machines, more so for Apple machines which come in much less different configuration compared to pre built PCs from 20+ different Vendors), and you will be stuck with the configuration you choose (at least in case of the GPU, maybe also CPU) for the lifetime of this new machine. Which, in case of the GPU, can be a very bad thing.

IMO, I would do one of 3 things:

- Either try to find out if you can live with the less powerful iMac hardware. If its powerful enough for the next 3 years, go for a well priced configuration, just be aware to not pay too much. That iMac will not serve you well for 5+ years if you keep working in high end graphics, no matter which config you choose. Not even the top end one for 4000$ has a CPU and GPU that could be seen as powerful in the world of workstations in 2017, lets not talk about how they compare to workstation class hardware in 5 years!

Of course, if you limit your expectations, and live with the limitations, you will still be doing fine with a decent iMac in 5 years. If you don't mind waiting a little bit longer for a bake, and lower the poly count of your high poly sculpts and so on...

- Wait another year to see if a new, more upgradeable Mac Pro drops in 2018. As nice as the Bucket looks, this is not a well designed form factor for a workstation. Not for thermals, not for upgradeability. Both things I would pay a lot of attention to in a Workstation. Next would be to get the GPU I want, so to me Nvidia support would crucial, at least until AMD Vega GPU drop, are actually competetive and can be had for Macs, no matter if we talk about Pro or gaming GPUS.

- Go for a desktop PC. If you can, DIY and order exactly the parts you need. If you do a Hackintosh, or stick with Windows is up to you. Personally, I never found the difference between modern Windows and MacOS OSes enough to loose sleep over, and most big name Applications run on both OSes. But I know for some people that is something more "religious", and yes, I also struggled finding my way around MacOS as a longtime Windows user (Linux Shell to the rescue... good that modern MacOS actually is just a windowing system on top of Linux :)). This will give you the best bang for the buck, and currently the best upgradeability, at the cost of either having to cope with windows or being one of the "Hackintosh bad boys" running an Config not approved by Apple (not idea what the fallout to that could be, but I guess unless you ask Apple for support and they find out, very little is to be feared).