Les Brown wrote:
I've been using an Asus laptop with a nvidia gforce 940 mx graphics accelerator for all of my photo work with Adobe CC. I'm gassing up for a desktop that will be great for my photographic hobby. I'm not a pro, and I'm retired on a fixed income from teaching. So, I need to be penny wise. I know you hoggers will give me great advice. I am backing up my work on a Sandisk 1 TB ss external drive.
This site will provide you with lots of data that you can rely on to inform your decisions:
https://www.pugetsystems.com/solutions/content_creation/photo.phpYou can tailor your configuration to fit your performance/budget goals.
I've gone the other direction - from a desktop (that I built), to a laptop for more portability. There is no question that the new (one yr old) laptop is amazingly fast. I spent about $2200 on it, it has an Nvidia 2060, Intel i7 10th generation cpu with 8 cores, 32 gb ram (expandable to 64), 4 TB of storage on two NVME m.2 drives, space for a third SATA drive, and three fast USB C ports for additional expansion. Basically the same computer is available for around the same price this year with an 11th gen cpu and an Nvidia 3080.
As should always be the case - if you are not using Photoshop and Lightroom, check to see what are the recommended (not minimum) configurations for the software you plan to run on it. Gaming machines are built to slightly different criteria, emphasizing a DCI-3P color space (as opposed to RGB), and multiple parallel graphics processors (CUDAs) and lots of VRAM which neither Lightroom nor Photoshop is coded to take advantage of. Also, refresh rates are considerably higher for smoother video rendition, something else that is not necesssary, yet you would be paying for if you went the gaming machine route.
Making some prudent choices to avoid unnecessary expenditure is not going to save you a fortune, but with fixed income, every bit counts.
And no, I don't think an iMAC is a good solution for you. A 27" iMac with i7 10th gen 8 core (last year's cpu), 32 gb ram, 4 SSD storage, and a Radeon Pro 5500 XT with 8GB of GDDR6 memory (less desirable than Nvidia) will set you back about $4100. Not exactly value priced. And you pay a lot for the 27" 5K screen which is an outstanding display in many respects, but not ideal for photo editing, due to DCI-P3 color space and somewhat difficult font scaling in various applications.
By comparision, looking at what's available at MicroCenter - a Windows system build with similar components - Intel i7 10th gen, 32 gb ram (expandable to 128 gb), Nvidia GTX 1660 with 6 GB VRam, 750 w power supply, 4 TB system storage on 2 m.2 drives, DVD, cpu cooler, Win10 Pro - and a Dell S2721DGF 17" display with 10 bit per channel bit depth 2560x1440 resolution, and 130% sRGB 98% DCI-P3 will set you back $2150 if you build it yourself, or slightly more if they build it. The system is modestly configured, but will be just as fast as the $4200 iMac, with a resolution that is less than the 5K offered on the iMac, but easier on the eyes. Bumping up to a 5K display (LG UltraFine 27MD5KL-B) would bring the price to $3000, but I think that would be a lot more cost for little extra benefit.
For the Apple fans, notice, I am not trashing Apple stuff - I am only presenting a comparably performing system with a similar configuration using a Windows platform. It is cheaper, more flexible, user upgradeable. It is neither better nor worse when it comes to performance and user experience. On the other hand, at the same price point ($4200) of the iMac, a custom PC build will be faster, have more capacity, use a preferred AND Ryzen 5900 series cpu with 12 cores - an excellent choice for Lightroom, and more VRAM, system ram, storage and future expansion capability. That comparison would no doubt give the performance edge to the Windows system.