[ask] iMac VS MBP

Discussion in 'Buying Tips and Advice' started by andy-ch, Mar 30, 2007.

  1. andy-ch macrumors member

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2007
    Location:
    Beeze Shehu Makom Baolam
    #1
    I'm comparing iMac 24" [MA456LL] with MBP 17" [MA611LL/A]
    They had similar specs, which one faster?
    They had the same BUS (667 Mhz)
    And I've heard that iMac is using notebook spare-parts.

    Also I would like to ask, Can I turn on 24/7 my MBP?

    Any comment would greatly appreciated!
     
  2. iW00t macrumors 68040

    iW00t

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2006
    Location:
    Defenders of Apple Guild
    #2
    Do you need portability?

    The MBP costs almost twice as much as the iMac, so why is this even a valid question? It is like comparing an Airbus A350 with a cargo freighter.
     
  3. andy-ch thread starter macrumors member

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2007
    Location:
    Beeze Shehu Makom Baolam
  4. tim2006 macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2006
    #4
    what do you mean? Are you saying the imac is cargo (junk)?
     
  5. crazzyeddie macrumors 68030

    crazzyeddie

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2002
    Location:
    Florida, USA
    #5
    The iMac gives you more for your money and will be faster because of the full-sized hard drive.

    I would suggest getting the 24" iMac with 2GBs of RAM and the GeForce 7600 graphics card. That is the best machine for the money that Apple currently offers.
     
  6. iW00t macrumors 68040

    iW00t

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2006
    Location:
    Defenders of Apple Guild
    #6
    Not really, they probably costs the same to make, but they are just for different purposes.
     
  7. mjstew33 macrumors 601

    mjstew33

    Joined:
    May 29, 2005
    Location:
    Illinois
    #7
    Yes.
    Wrong.
     
  8. andy-ch thread starter macrumors member

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2007
    Location:
    Beeze Shehu Makom Baolam
    #8
    It's not about the price, nor functionability (desktop/portable)
    I just want to compare the speed, and the toughness...

    They had the same FSB 667 Mhz, It's look like they have the same power/speed if we compare:

    iMac 24"
    2.33 Ghz C2D
    2 GB RAM

    MBP 17"
    2.33 Ghz C2D
    2 GB RAM

    Besides... iMac uses the same processor with MBP (T-7400/T-7600 (Laptop Processors: Code-Named: Merom))

    Correct me if I'm wrong.
     
  9. iW00t macrumors 68040

    iW00t

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2006
    Location:
    Defenders of Apple Guild
    #9
    Well performance wise the iMac is probably faster.

    1) Its X1600 is probably not overclocked.
    2) It has a 3.5" hard drive which should be faster than a 2.5" drive.

    Other than that they are pretty much the same.
     
  10. Naimfan macrumors 68040

    Naimfan

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2003
    #10
    Depending on how much faith you put in benchmark tests, the iMac is quite a bit faster than the MBP. Take a look here: http://www.macworld.com/topics/hardware/macsystems/maclaptops/

    and compare the top result with this: http://www.macworld.com/2006/09/firstlooks/imac233bench/index.php

    Obviously they need to be taken with a grain of salt, but they are at least comparing like for like.....

    That said, I went from a 2.16 Ghz C2D MBP to a 2.0 GHz C2D iMac, and the iMac FEELS quite a bit quicker.....

    Hope that helps.....

    Of course, if you need portability, the MBP is going to win hands-down.....

    Bob
     
  11. andy-ch thread starter macrumors member

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2007
    Location:
    Beeze Shehu Makom Baolam
    #11
    The only thing that I'm worries is iMac using the "Merom" or Mobile version of Intel C2D (FSB: 667 Mhz) while the Normal/PC version of Intel C2D should be FSB: 1044 Mhz, so that I think the iMac has the same power with MBP.

    What's your opinion guys?
     
  12. iW00t macrumors 68040

    iW00t

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2006
    Location:
    Defenders of Apple Guild
    #12
    What is our opinion of what?

    The iMac is sleek, consumes under 100W of power, and is extremely quiet. Can't say the same for PeeCees. FSB makes minimal if any differences in performance. The iMac is basically a Macbook Pro in a larger casing, processors do clock down in speed as they get hot, but in the iMac there is greater airflow. That perhaps is your explanation for why an iMac performs better. The GPUs on the iMac also runs at higher clockspeeds than in the Macbook Pros. That again is another explanation.

    If you need raw performance, I'm sorry, there are only 2 options for you.

    http://www.apple.com/macpro/

    http://www.osx86project.org/

    Unfortunately the mythical mid range tower Mac does not exist (and probably never will), so the real question you have to ask yourself is:

    1) Do you need portability?
    2) What are you intending to use it for?

    Apple caters to most people, you might find that your needs fall through the cracks. Too bad. Many of us feel the same too. Personally I think the iMac is a stupid machine, needlessly overpriced for features that are of no benefit or concern to me, but what do I know, I am just a mindless consumer :(
     
  13. andy-ch thread starter macrumors member

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2007
    Location:
    Beeze Shehu Makom Baolam
  14. iW00t macrumors 68040

    iW00t

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2006
    Location:
    Defenders of Apple Guild
    #14
    Read my post again about what options are open to you if raw speeds matter to you that much.

    For most people both the iMac and Macbook Pro are perfectly capable machines. Heck, even the Macbooks are fantastic. If your needs are lacking with either machine, you seriously should look elsewhere (Mac Pro), that 5% or so difference in performance between the two of them is negligible.
     
  15. emac82 macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2007
    Location:
    NB, Canada
    #15
    Well, the iMac comes with a faster hard drive (7200 vs. 5400) on the MBP, but you can put a 7200 on the MBP.

    The iMac is definitely the way to go if you need performance with the maximum screen real estate. You can put a bigger hard drive in it as well.

    If you need portability, then go with the MBP, otherwise buy the iMac (and maybe a MacBook if you need some portability)
     
  16. Agent Smith macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2004
    Location:
    Toronto, ON
    #16
    The speed of both machines is roughly the same. The iMac is technically faster because the stock HD is 7200 rpm, whereas the stock HD in the MBP is only 5400 rpm. The speed differential has different degrees of noticability, depending on what you are doing. Obviously, if the programs you are running require constant access of the HD, then the iMac will edge out the MBP.

    Edit: Beaten by emac82! Darn me and my extraneous typing!
     
  17. andy-ch thread starter macrumors member

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2007
    Location:
    Beeze Shehu Makom Baolam
    #17
    Thank you for your replies.

    I think I'll take 17" MBP first, and once I got the extra money, I'll take the 30" Apple HD Cinema Display :D
     
  18. nitynate macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2006
    Location:
    Clearwater, FL
    #18
    I'm not 100% sure the MBP's graphics card can handle the 30" display. :)
     
  19. Erasmus macrumors 68030

    Erasmus

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2006
    Location:
    Hiding from Omnius in Australia
    #19
    The X1600 can power the 30". So 30" is go with MBP, but no go for MB.

    You may have noticed that the MBP has a faster processor. (2.16 vs 2.33)
    I'm sure you have noticed that the iMac has a much better GPU.

    The MBP uses all mobile components. The iMac uses some desktop components, like the hard drive.

    One is not faster than the other. Generally, the iMac will beat the MBP, but I'm sure there are many applications (Matlab maybe?) that would benefit far more from the extra 167 Mhz than the better GPU, and will therefore run better on the MBP than the iMac.

    So it comes down to what are you going to use it for? Or is this a hypothetical question? Well, either way, there's your answer. Take an MBP to work, and keep an iMac at home to game on.
     
  20. andy-ch thread starter macrumors member

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2007
    Location:
    Beeze Shehu Makom Baolam
    #20
    is MBP hot when turned on 24/7 (no sleep, only display sleep when idle) ?
    Is it really okay MBP to be turned on 24/7 ?
    Because I need to online 24/7 at least Yahoo Messenger running connected.

    Has anyone here turned on MBP 24/7 (no sleep, only display sleep when idle) ?
     
  21. Erasmus macrumors 68030

    Erasmus

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2006
    Location:
    Hiding from Omnius in Australia
    #21
    An MBP left on permanently is going to get hot.

    It is not going to damage itself, but if you leave it on your lap, it may damage you. If you don't have kids, but you think that you might any time in the future, use protection. (joke, but they apparently do get uncomfortably, even painfully, excruciatingly hot)

    Anyway, Messenger doesn't use much power, so I imagin that the MBP's CPU will be idle most of the time.
     
  22. andy-ch thread starter macrumors member

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2007
    Location:
    Beeze Shehu Makom Baolam
  23. Erasmus macrumors 68030

    Erasmus

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2006
    Location:
    Hiding from Omnius in Australia
    #23
    A quote from myself:

    "It is not going to damage itself, but if you leave it on your lap, it may damage you."

    If that doesn't answer your question, let me put it this way.

    FOR BASIC READERS:
    A MBP will be fine left on 24/7.
    You will be fine as long as you put your MBP on a desk, or at least on a board.

    FOR ADVANCED READERS:
    It depends on what you're using it for. If youre just using IMs, I would imagine your HDD will remain idle, the GPU will definitely be idling, and the CPU should also be idling. The predominant activity will be data transfers between memory, the CPU, and networks, whether wireless or hard wired. None of these should use much power. So if you want to sit in front of TV with the MBP on your lap chatting to friends, set the MBP to best battery life mode, don't run iTunes in the background (It'll use the HD, and may kick the CPU out of idle), and turn the screen brightness down. Run it using mains power, not the battery, cos that also generates heat when in use. The power brick is alowed to get hot, cos it's not sitting in your crotch. If you want, you could turn off the lights, and dim your screen right down to save even more power (which equals heat), especially if you're running off the battery. If it's still too hot for you, which I doubt it would be, in fact it would probably be quite cool, with all of that, you can always just get up every quarter of an hour or so, walk around, and cool off. Or just use a board.

    Does THAT answer your question?
     
  24. andy-ch thread starter macrumors member

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2007
    Location:
    Beeze Shehu Makom Baolam
    #24
    Thank you for your reply :p
    What I'm worrying is...
    Is my MBP will be fine turned on 24/7,
    But seems I've got the answer from you (above)

    About the heat, I think it's okay...
    Because I'm going to dock my MBP on above notebook cooler on my desk anyways ;)
     
  25. Abstract macrumors Penryn

    Abstract

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2002
    Location:
    Location Location Location
    #25
    Since the performance between the iMac and MBP is similar, get the iMac if you don't need to bring your computer to different places. It's cheaper.

    If you need something portable, get the MBP and pay extra.
     

Share This Page