Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Does 2012 MBP13+SSD will trump 2011 21.5" iMac with HDD on performance part?

mjoshi123

mjoshi123

macrumors 6502
Original poster
Apr 14, 2010
451
5
I'm not sure if this is answered or discussed anywhere but want to know if 2012 13" MBP with 2.9GHz dual-core Intel Core i7 Turbo Boost up to 3.6GHz + 16GB RAM + SSD upgrade

will this be faster than iMac with 2.5GHz Quad-Core Intel Core i5
with HDD + 16GB RAM ?

My primary use will be digital photo editing with LR4+CS6 and movie editing using iMovie. No gaming at all involved
 
K

karpich1

macrumors regular
Dec 18, 2007
170
0
Tough call...

CPU-wise, I'd say the iMac will be faster. It may be an i5 but it is a Quad Core... and it too can turbo-boost up nicely for lower-core applications. In fact, I think turbo-boost kicks in if the PC were only using 2 cores which would bring its 2-core speed even closer to the MBP. Also, it's a desktop CPU instead of a mobile CPU.

And most of Apple's apps are made to at least take partial advantage of having all of these cores.

But... it all comes down to whether video editing is extremely I/O intensive... in which case the SSD would stomp on the HDD. And I don't do enough video editing to know how IO intensive that is, though I hear it is.
 
mjoshi123

mjoshi123

macrumors 6502
Original poster
Apr 14, 2010
451
5
karpich1 said:
Tough call...

CPU-wise, I'd say the iMac will be faster. It may be an i5 but it is a Quad Core... and it too can turbo-boost up nicely for lower-core applications. In fact, I think turbo-boost kicks in if the PC were only using 2 cores which would bring its 2-core speed even closer to the MBP. Also, it's a desktop CPU instead of a mobile CPU.

And most of Apple's apps are made to at least take partial advantage of having all of these cores.

But... it all comes down to whether video editing is extremely I/O intensive... in which case the SSD would stomp on the HDD. And I don't do enough video editing to know how IO intensive that is, though I hear it is.
Click to expand...

Thank for your input, actually my current MBP has 256GB SSD and still I dont see any huge performance improvement compared to when I had only 7200RPM HDD. It still takes 40-55 sec for MBP to be up and running where it is available to do work. It still takes 25-30 sec to shut it down. Pushing file from LR4 to CS6 is not that fast it takes atleast 10-15 sec before CS6 opens.
My current config is 256GB SSD + 750GB HDD +8GB RAM + 2.4GHZ Core2duo CPU in MBP13". Video editing part it only done once in a while but digital image editing is done every day and dont like amount of time it takes to fly thru each image
 
xgman

xgman

macrumors 603
Aug 6, 2007
5,672
1,378
mjoshi123 said:
TIt still takes 25-30 sec to shut it down. Pushing file from LR4 to CS6 is not that fast it takes atleast 10-15 sec before CS6 opens.
Click to expand...

Try this:

Open a terminal window and type the following commands:

sudo chown root:admin /

(the system will ask your password to grant access to the sudo chown command as this requires admin privileges)

sudo kextcache -system-prelinked-kernel

sudo kextcache -system-caches


Then go into system preferences and make sure that the startup disk is chosen. Reboot and see if startup time is better.
 
mjoshi123

mjoshi123

macrumors 6502
Original poster
Apr 14, 2010
451
5
xgman said:
Try this:

Open a terminal window and type the following commands:

sudo chown root:admin /

(the system will ask your password to grant access to the sudo chown command as this requires admin privileges)

sudo kextcache -system-prelinked-kernel

sudo kextcache -system-caches


Then go into system preferences and make sure that the startup disk is chosen. Reboot and see if startup time is better.
Click to expand...


wow that made the trick, could not thank you enough. :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom