how did you choose MP over MBP

[frocco]

Having a hard time deciding on the 2.66 MP and 2.8 17" MBP

What are some good points to consider.

Thanks

[aaquib]

It's performance vs. portability.

The Mac Pro will absolutely trounce the MBP in anything processor intensive, but the MBP is...portable. You can actually take it around with you and do work on the go. You're not exactly bringing your Mac Pro on a plane with you :rolleyes:

[snouter]

Within reason I'm in the same boat and I'm keeping my 2008 15" non-unibody LED 2.4GHz MBP for the time being.

The beyond obvious factors are:

1. do you need the portability?
2. do you need the power?

I want more power, and I value the portability, but... I "want" a Mac Pro more than I need it right now, and I'm not that thrilled with the prices on the Mac Pro lineup.

I'm kind of waiting to see if Snow Leopard forces a slight realignment of the Mac Pro lineup (lose the 2.26 and shift some prices around)

If you do a lot of heavy stuff - games, 3d rendering, video rendering and compressing, audio processing and you want a lot of storage options, then the desktop starts to come into it's own.

If you are just a more normal computer user, some of this, some of that, occassionally render and compress things and would probably use the portablilty... then the laptop.

You really need to look at what you do and how you want to do it...

The Mac Book Pro is quite powerful for most things, and if you'd use the portability, then the choice is more clear.

The Mac Pro is very powerful, but you can't move it easily.

I'm either waiting for a Mac Pro realignment (I'd keep my 2008 MBP for portability?) or the Nehalem/Arrandale? MBPs later this year.

[snouter]

Last year's 2.8 octo is more or less as powerful as the current 2.26 especially with apps that don't thread as well or rely more on pure clock speed, ie Photoshop.

Some things the 2.8 wins, some things the 2.26 wins. So, it's a push in a way.

The 2.66 octo and 2.93 octo are just a wee bit pricey to me right now.

Off the top of my head... it takes 90-120 minutes to Handbrake a movie with a MBP, a MP takes this down to 15-30 minutes.

[frocco]

It would be nice to be portable, but I really may never use it.
Is it worth less power to sit on the couch and browse the internet?

I don't think so.

I like to game with my son mostly and maybe learn mac os programming.
The rest are finances, etc.

My biggest fear is the GPU cannot be upgraded.

I did purchase the 2.8 17" and am having second thoughts.
I have until this Thursday to return it.

[snouter]

What second thoughts?

Even the stock Mac Pro is not a game beast until you pay extra for a video card (4870 or GTX275/285)

The 17" 2.8 MBP is not a slow laptop by any means, but, laptops use lower powered CPUs and GPUs compared to desktops. Always have, always will.

[snouter]

For the price of a Mac Pro with a decent video card you could buy:

1. 13" MacBook Pro laptop
2. build a great gaming desktop PC with i7 and a 4890 video card
3. buy a Playstation 3

so, there's that...

[michael.lauden]

are you really asking why someone bought a computer with 8 cores, over a computer with 2.

do you want power, or do you want to be able to take it around wherever you want.

[UltraNEO*]

Having a hard time deciding on the 2.66 MP and 2.8 17" MBP

What are some good points to consider.

Thanks

Are you serious? :rolleyes:
Your asking about a Laptop vs a Desktop Workstation? :eek:
You should be asking yourself what are your priorities? Whether or not you need portability over work-ability:rolleyes:

I don't think anyone here can truly answer your question in all honesty because our needs will be different from yours. If your like me, and you need both portability and a powerful workstation, then buy both! If you need something to use while your travelling about get a laptop.

Technically you can make a MacPro mobile but it'll mean you'll be lugging about a 20Kg system, a 10~15Kg display, 1Kg DC/AV inverter & noise suppressor or a portable generator. Get my drift?

It's performance vs. portability.

The Mac Pro will absolutely trounce the MBP in anything processor intensive, but the MBP is...portable. You can actually take it around with you and do work on the go. You're not exactly bringing your Mac Pro on a plane with you


http://img.skitch.com/20090622-eau66py2ciauw441nnwwk34s4.jpg
I take my MacPro on the plane with me.. but not as cabin luggage! It's hardly "light" :D

[msmth928]

The MBP's are great, but if you are a perfectionist then the MP is the one for you. Ideally, you'd get both.

I had a new MBP and it was really really nice for a notebook - but it just didn't feel as snappy as my desktop pc even after a 7,200 hard drive upgrade. I now have a new MP, and it feels perfect, much more like my desktop pc and in most areas better.

If you don't really need portability then get a MP. If you do then get a MBP. :apple:

[SolidGun]

Choose?

I had no choice.....damn this addiction of mine..... I ended up getting both and skipped a vacation.

[UltraNEO*]

Choose?

I had no choice.....damn this addiction of mine..... I ended up getting both and skipped a vacation.

Hmm.. Sounds like we both need to Join AA (Apple Anonymous) :D

[iphong]

I got both.

My situation -> I got my MacBook Pro - then External Monitor - then Mac Pro then Another MacBook Pro

[frocco]

Right now, I cannot get both.
I recently lost my job, (one of many) :(

So if I had to have one system first, I am leaning towards the MP because I can later upgrade the video.

I do like the LED screen on the MBP, but would have to buy a cheap monitor up front, around 250.00 dollars.
Thanks

[CaptainChunk]

I have both. As an editor, I need a powerful 8-core workstation in my studio, while I also need a reasonably powerful field machine for lighter work.

OP:

If future upgradability is strong on your list, but you don't do anything that would justify 8 processing cores (3D and video rendering, etc.), also look at the 4-core MP. The 2.66 Quad is $800 cheaper and will be faster across the board than 2.26 Octo in non-multithreaded tasks.

[thepawn]

For me it was processing power and video card options...

I like my laptops to actually be portable (aka, weigh less then 5lbs), so getting one with real performance and battery life was pretty improbable. :)

[UltraNEO*]

Right now, I cannot get both.
I recently lost my job, (one of many) :(

So if I had to have one system first, I am leaning towards the MP because I can later upgrade the video.

I do like the LED screen on the MBP, but would have to buy a cheap monitor up front, around 250.00 dollars.
Thanks

Sorry to hear that:(

Well if your main requirements is mobilbility, why not go for the laptop now and maybe go for the workstation at a later date? or vice versa...

Come to think of it, if you can make do with a MacBook Pro, perhaps you should reconsider on the MacPro Workstation in favour of the 24" iMac? Just an suggestion. They're really are quite powerful nowadays, they'll most definitely run circles around the MacBook Pro's just not as much as the MacPro.

I'm sure as times goes by, either system will only be updated with a faster processor, giving you even better value for money.. Just buy what you need now and add to the collection later! That's what most of us has done.

[SolidGun]

Right now, I cannot get both.
I recently lost my job, (one of many) :(

So if I had to have one system first, I am leaning towards the MP because I can later upgrade the video.

I do like the LED screen on the MBP, but would have to buy a cheap monitor up front, around 250.00 dollars.
Thanks

Indeed terrible to hear this.

You should go with MBP as you will be more versatile with upcoming changes.

[snouter]

Come to think of it, if you can make do with a MacBook Pro, perhaps you should reconsider on the MacPro Workstation in favour of the 24" iMac? Just an suggestion. They're really are quite powerful nowadays, they'll most definitely run circles around the MacBook Pro's just not as much as the MacPro.

What on earth?

iMacs use notebook CPUs and notebook ram?

The only advantage they have is desktop hard drives. That's hardly "running circles" around anything...

[michael.lauden]

What on earth?

iMacs use notebook CPUs and notebook ram?

The only advantage they have is desktop hard drives. That's hardly "running circles" around anything...

i'd rather have the high end iMac 24" than a MBP 17"