Spend or Save?

Discussion in 'Buying Tips and Advice' started by iEric, Jan 16, 2006.

  1. iEric macrumors 6502a

    Jun 26, 2003
    Hey y'all, I have an iMac 20" 2.0 Ghz G5 right now.

    I want a laptop but how much faster is a 1.67 or 1.83 Ghz MacBook Pro when compared to the 2.0 Ghz G5?

    The reason I ask, is because I can wait for the laptop and I don't have to rush into anything. So, if the MacBook Pro is the same speed or slower than the iMac, then I will wait for the revision. If it is faster and better than my current iMac G5, then I will trade/sell my iMac G5 for one of the MacBook Pro.

    I know that the MacBook Pro hasn't been released yet (or started shipping, rather), but based on the specs and comparison of the intel iMacs and the MacBook Pro on the Apple site, you can kind of get a sense of "how much faster"

    What do you guys think?
  2. QCassidy352 macrumors G3


    Mar 20, 2003
    Bay Area
    well, SJ claims that, when running apps natively, each core of the intel imac 2 Ghz is faster than the imac G5 2.1 Ghz. IF that is true, then I would imagine that each core of the 1.83 Ghz macbook would also be about the same as, or a little faster then, your imac.

    However, a few things to consider. First, SJ tends to, erm, "exaggerate" new products. Second, the intel macs are not running most apps natively yet, so as long as the rosetta emulation is going on, the increase will be significantly less.

    To make a long story short, my opinion (based on no real world results, yet) is that the macbook, especially the high end one, WILL be faster than your imac. But if you don't need the portability, wait. Because the difference won't be stunning, so if you can afford to wait, by the time you do buy, the apps will all be running natively and the macbook will be even faster.
  3. CanadaRAM macrumors G5


    Oct 11, 2004
    On the Left Coast - Victoria BC Canada
    Basically, no, nobody can give you an accurate answer. There are too many variables.

    It depends greatly on which specific programs you are using, how big your data sets are, how those programs perform under Rosetta. When (and if) the programs are updated, the equation will change again.

    In general, a laptop is going to be slower than an equivalent desktop, because of powersaving and heat concerns, and because of differences in drive performance. 5400 RPM vs 7200 RPM, and even with a BTO 7200 RPM drive, the desktop drive will still win because it's larger diameter means that more bits per second pass under the heads in the outermost 1/2 inch of tracks.

    Your iMac 20" 2.0 has awesome performance for the money. I would wait on the laptop at least until the programs you use most have been updated, and benchmarks using them have been run.
  4. iEric thread starter macrumors 6502a

    Jun 26, 2003
    Fiiiiine...I'll wait.

    I guess I don't need it a lot anyways. And also, I'd rather see what goes wrong with it first :p. hahah j/k

    And hopefully they'll have another iPod/Laptop deal in the summer. I'd get a MacBook Pro for sure then.
  5. adk macrumors 68000


    Nov 11, 2005
    Stuck in the middle with you
    My motto is the sooner you buy that new computer, the sooner that $2000 baby will be obsolete.
  6. iEric thread starter macrumors 6502a

    Jun 26, 2003
    LOL no kidding. But I want it so bad. And I mean, I don't need a desktop. I have a PC desktop if I ever need to use it or windows.

    Right now I'm confined in my room and I love doing my assignments on the dining room table.

    ARG! But I'll wait. I'LL WAIT...i'll keep telling myself that. :eek:

Share This Page