[morganherlocker]

I use a MBPr for general development, have an imac close to top specs and have a beefy windows/linux box. Of the 3, my imac gets the least use, and I will probably be retiring it fairly soon. For development, I really do not need a power house machine.

I code with a focus on TDD and small unit tests, so even though I do mostly statistical computing work, my development tests use small amounts of data and low computing power. When I actually need to run big production stuff, it goes off to the Linux box or a Linux server cluster.

My beef with the imac is that it is not really that much faster than my MBPr, but has terrible heat management. When I am running big jobs on it, it gets a few degrees off from a toaster and heats up my office. A 2.5k linux box would not have this problem and would be way faster.

[wtallis]

Your iMac is not producing any more heat per unit of computational work than your other machines unless it is significantly older and thereby less efficient. The iMac doesn't conduct the heat away from the processors and into the room as quickly as a larger desktop would, so the chips operate at higher temperatures under load. This does not have any effect on the actual amount of energy dissipated into the room over the long run.

[morganherlocker]

That makes sense to me and all... but the difference is quite noticeable. As in, I need to take off some layers if I am doing something on my imac, but not with the others.

If I had to guess, it probably has mostly to do with the imac sitting closer to me while typing, and also that I tend towards using it for more graphics heavy tasks (since it has the largest screen). Also, I am in the southeast, so heat changes are unusually noticeable, especially in the summer.

You are right though, the imac probably is as efficient or even more efficient than my other machines, however it is more noticeable when the heat is in your face instead of blowing out off next to a baseboard.