15" rMBP (£1799) or stock 27" iMac (£1699 one)

Discussion in 'Buying Tips and Advice' started by iancapable, Dec 1, 2012.

  1. macrumors 6502

    iancapable

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2006
    Location:
    London, United Kingdom
    #1
    Hi, struggling to choose between these two machines... I don't necessarily have to be mobile (I have my work laptop - windows and my ipad, so I guess I am covered there). I have a set amount of money I can spend, so the choice will be of either of the two off the self versions - The cheaper £1799 macbook pro with retina, or the more expensive 27" iMac (of the two 27" imacs). I am not worried about storage on the macbook, as I have plenty external storage all over the place. I was more worried about memory and hdd speed.

    For example I can spend £100 or so on getting the iMac up to 32GB of ram, but would be stuck with a standard 7200rpm drive that could only achieve a max of 70MBps. Or I take the nice macbook with 256GB SSD that reads and writes around 500MBs, but only has 8GB of ram.

    8GB of ram is probably enough for me, give that I can dual boot on the macbook rather than VM. I have 12GB in my current late 2009 iMac (27")
     
  2. macrumors 6502a

    luffytubby

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2008
    #2
    What do you need to do that you can't do on your normal Laptop??
     
  3. thread starter macrumors 6502

    iancapable

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2006
    Location:
    London, United Kingdom
    #3
    I don't have a "normal" laptop. I have a late 2009 iMac. I want a new computer and I am undecided between the higher spec i5 27" iMac and the 15" macbook pro retina (although considering the standard macbook pro as well).

    I have another laptop provided by work, but I do not use it unless I am at my desk at work as it's heavily encrypted and for "secure" work only -> what I meant by being covered as "mobile" was that I don't need to take a laptop to work and back, as I have my ipad.
     
  4. macrumors 6502a

    luffytubby

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2008
    #4
    Then my recommendation is to go with the Imac. Simply because a laptop has trade offs for its mobility. If you dont need the mobility and carry it around every day, then use the Imac. IMO.
     
  5. thread starter macrumors 6502

    iancapable

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2006
    Location:
    London, United Kingdom
    #5
    I've been leaning that way... Still not totally decided, but at least I have put together a spreadsheet with all my options, and it would seem maxing out the 27" from apple (buy the ram separately), I would end up with beast that should last me another couple years:

    3.4Ghz i7, 1TB fusion (external storage is farily cheap, I would go pure ssd if that was an option, but I refuse to pay £1000 for the 768GB), 2GB 680MX and a further 32GB of ram from crucial.

    Again the other option would be the core: i7 2.6Ghz retina macbook pro with 16GB ram and 256GB ssd (I have another 5TB on external anyway) and a 27" 2560x1440 monitor I found for £300

    The reason I am considering a macbook pro, is that no1: I don't have to give up my machine to my wife when she wants to do accounting work on a big screen (she has a 13" macbook pro - the last core2duo), but I guess it's not the end of the world... Worst case I could get a thunderbolt cable (I hate her leaving her stuff running, she leaves facebook and flash running which chews all my resources and it drives me nuts) or I could just get a bigger second screen...
     
  6. macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2010
    Location:
    American in Pisa (Italy)
    #6
    Mbp

    Isn't the MacBook Pro a quad core i7? Whereas I believe the iMac is a dual core i5?

    And the iMac is not a retina displays, so why get a retina display on the MacBook Pro? With the non-retina display, you can easily and cheaply upgrade to 16 GB of RAM, and if you get a momentous XT 750 Gig drive, these operate at about 90% of the speed of the SSD, but give you incredible storage space, for a fraction of the price. This does basically what a fusion drive does.


    Just a thought
     
  7. thread starter macrumors 6502

    iancapable

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2006
    Location:
    London, United Kingdom
    #7
    No the 27" iMac comes all quad core. I considered the standard macbook pro, upgradable as it is I would actually end up spending more on it than I would like, so my thought was to just take the next best option and go for the new shiny thing and get the nicer screen whilst I am at it.

    As for the 27" iMac not being retina, I would love to see a screen that big go retina, but unless I am right up against it I cannot see the pixels anyway. Mind you I did find this:

    http://www.amazon.co.uk/DGM-IPS-2701WPH-Widescreen-IPS-Monitor/dp/B008PD9BWM/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1354697111&sr=8-1
     
  8. thread starter macrumors 6502

    iancapable

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2006
    Location:
    London, United Kingdom
    #8
    I decided to buy:

    27" iMac
    - 3.4GHz Quad-Core Intel Core i7
    - 8GB 1600MHz DDR3 SDRAM-2X4GB
    - 1TB Fusion Drive
    - NVIDIAGeFrc GTX 680MX 2G GDDR5
    - MAGIC TRACKPAD-Z

    @ £2,179.00

    I will also get 32GB of ram from crucial which should cost £120... That is the most I have EVER spent on a computer. My last iMac only cost me £1500 and I've had that for 2 and a half years...
     
  9. macrumors 6502a

    luffytubby

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2008
    #9
    congrats. Thats serious cash. I hope it will be worth it for you. Its actually an insane amount of money. for some people that right there is more than a years pay.
     
  10. thread starter macrumors 6502

    iancapable

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2006
    Location:
    London, United Kingdom
    #10
    Now you know why I wanted to get a stock machine... It would have probably worked out cheaper if I bought a rMBP... I did go a bit mad!

    So some people are not earning more than 2k a year? Wow...

    ----------

    wow.... I just realised how much I spent compared, to how much the americans would pay for the same computer...

    I paid: $3492.93
    They paid: $2,599.00

    I know straight conversion can't really be done as such, but seriously? I paid $1000 over the odds for the machine. And our government can't kick start the economy when we have to spend that much on IT kit?
     
  11. macrumors 68030

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2004
    #11
    Most Americans paid more than $2600 as you forgot to add in their sales tax. Your sterling figure includes 20% VAT making the difference less than $500.
     
  12. thread starter macrumors 6502

    iancapable

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2006
    Location:
    London, United Kingdom
    #12
    Went through and added it to my cart, didn't add sales tax there. Seems a bit strange that apple don't sell with sales tax added on already... Is it to make things look cheaper?
     
  13. weckart, Dec 11, 2012
    Last edited: Dec 11, 2012

    macrumors 68030

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2004
    #13
    You are in the UK. All prices here include 20% VAT by law as it is a national levy. In the US each state has its own sales tax, so prices are always quoted net of sales tax. Even inside shops as the sales tax is added at the till. That 99c bottle of Poland Spring mineral water ends up costing you something like $1.08 in NY. You need to add 0-10% approx depending upon where you live in the US.

    If you want to compare UK to US prices on the Apple Store, divide the UK prices by 1.2 before making a £ to $ comparison.
     
  14. macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2008
    Location:
    iLondon/iDurban
  15. thread starter macrumors 6502

    iancapable

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2006
    Location:
    London, United Kingdom
    #15
    I get that. But as I don't pass on my VAT and not understanding the tax rules in the states, one naturally assumes that sales tax gets added on...
     

Share This Page