1.83 GHz MacBook Pro vs 1.83 GHz iMac Core Duo

Discussion in 'Mac Pro' started by weldon, Jan 13, 2006.

  1. weldon macrumors 6502a

    weldon

    Joined:
    May 22, 2004
    Location:
    Denver, CO
    #1
    Can anyone comment in general terms about the potential speed difference between the MacBook Pro and the iMac w/ Intel Core Duo? It looks like the only technical differences are the video card and the hard drive.

    Are these two computers going to work at roughly the same speeds in most apps? I really like the iMac, but I'm seriously considering just getting a MacBook Pro and using that as a desktop replacement.
     
  2. Sogo macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2004
    #2
    They will probably work along the same lines if you put the macbook pro at a "best performance" setting since i'm willing to believe that the Imac will be set to max. I also think that the Imac hardrive will be faster, if you dont up the hardrive on the macbook pro. But overall, there will be little difference.
     
  3. wiggy4ever macrumors member

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2005
    #3
    Except for price :D
     
  4. dmw007 macrumors G4

    dmw007

    Joined:
    May 26, 2005
    Location:
    Working for MI-6
    #4
    I think that the iMac will just be slightly faster than the MacBook Pro (slower HDD and I doubt that mobility Radeon X1600 is 100% as fast as the regular Radeon X1600).
     
  5. dmw007 macrumors G4

    dmw007

    Joined:
    May 26, 2005
    Location:
    Working for MI-6
    #5
    Good call- but you have to figure that you are going to have to pay a little (a lot ;) ) extra for the added mobility of the MacBook Pro.
     
  6. QCassidy352 macrumors G3

    QCassidy352

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2003
    Location:
    Bay Area
    #6
    yeah, my thoughts exactly. But they should be awfully close, especially if you get the macbook with a 7200 RPM hard drive.
     
  7. dmw007 macrumors G4

    dmw007

    Joined:
    May 26, 2005
    Location:
    Working for MI-6
    #7
    True, a 7,200 RPM HDD would help level the playing field. :)
     
  8. Little Endian macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2003
    Location:
    Honolulu
    #8
    I think it's likely that the Mobility Radeon X1600 and the imac's X1600 are more or less the same thing. Apple has actually Used chip sets in the imac that borrow more closely from the Mobility and Go series from ATI and Nvidia than the actual desktop type reference cards. If the imac does have the normal chip set it may be underclocked as Apple is renowned for this due to heat constraints in the imac form factors which usually bring down the performance to what we see in Mobile type GPUs.
     
  9. MRU macrumors demi-god

    MRU

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2005
    Location:
    Other
    #9
    Yeah I too suspect that the similarities in hardware specs between the imac and macbookpro leads me to believe that they are the same machine basically in dfferent form factors.

    I suspect the X1600 and motherboard are likely the same on both.

    But hey, if those screenshots people have posted with 17" iMac WoW running with nearly all settings on full except 'Bloom' getting 60 FPS then it would blow my 1.67G4 PB with Radeon 9700 out of the water and keep me happy gaming (well for a least a year until they release a notebook with an X1800 or close to it :D)

    I'm trying to decide between (with Edu discount)
    iMac 20" 2.0Ghz Intel Duo Core, 1Gb DDR 1-stick, 500gb HD, 256mb X1600.... €2,189.27
    or MacBookPro 15.4" 1.83Ghx Intel Duo Core, 1Gb DDR 1-stick, 100Gb 7200rpm, 256mb X1600.... €2,621.08

    €400 more for portability that I don't need but enjoy the knowledge that I can.
     
  10. Morn macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2005
    #10
    Hard drive will help with just with loading times, mostly...
     
  11. weldon thread starter macrumors 6502a

    weldon

    Joined:
    May 22, 2004
    Location:
    Denver, CO
    #11
    I think that Qcassidy352's comment about the 7200RPM drive option on the MacBook Pro makes the call really close. It's going to be quite interesting to see application benchmarks (not just SPECmark) published in February.

    The reason I started the thread is that I just can't get used to the idea that an Apple laptop is going to be just as fast as the desktop machine. I've been using a 12" PowerBook G4 revA (867MHz) for the last three years thinking about upgrading to a G5 based desktop. Trading up to the 1.5GHz PowerBook G4 didn't seem too compelling. But now with the MacBook Pro, I could upgrade to a new laptop that would be just as fast as the desktop machine I would buy from Apple.

    The real kicker for me is that I could replace my Windows machine once we figure out how to install Windows on the new Macs. I've got a couple apps that I don't want to give up completely. These apps will likely even run faster on the MacBook Pro than my 2.4GHz Pentium4 (Asus P4PE board). How can I lose?
     
  12. weldon thread starter macrumors 6502a

    weldon

    Joined:
    May 22, 2004
    Location:
    Denver, CO
    #12
    Just finally noticed the SPECint and SPECfp scores on the product pages for the iMac and MacBook Pro. Here's the breakdown...

    iMac - 32.6 (int) and 27.1 (fp)
    MBP - 30.3 (int) and 25.6 (fp)

    that's fairly consistent with the difference between the clock speeds of the 1.83GHz and 2.0GHz chips.

    I suspect that if you hooked both machines up to an external monitor (to hide the computer from view), most people wouldn't notice any difference at all when using them.
     
  13. dmw007 macrumors G4

    dmw007

    Joined:
    May 26, 2005
    Location:
    Working for MI-6
    #13
    I believe that you are correct weldon- most people would not be able to notice a difference between the two. :)
     
  14. ReanimationLP macrumors 68030

    ReanimationLP

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2005
    Location:
    On the moon.
    #14
    According to Kodawarsian, the video chip in the iMacs is the Mobility Radeon x1600.

    So when you get a 7200rpm, there isnt gonna be a damn difference.
     
  15. Morn macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2005
    #15
    And the only difference you would notice is with loading times anyway.... Which I don't think is a very vital part of performance.
     
  16. jacobj macrumors 65816

    jacobj

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2003
    Location:
    Jersey
    #16
    If we have an intel iMac owner on this thread they should be able to tell us which GPU is actually in it. No?
     
  17. zap2 macrumors 604

    zap2

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2005
    Location:
    Washington D.C
    #17
    Would you really use the mobily of a MacBook Pro? Becuz an iMac would be cheaper and a little faster, so unless you need/really want a laptop i would say get an iMac and buy a low end iBook when they turn intel.
     
  18. Sharewaredemon macrumors 68000

    Sharewaredemon

    Joined:
    May 31, 2004
    Location:
    Cape Breton Island
    #18
    Buying the low end "Mac Book" when it comes out would be within budget if you get the iMac instead of the MacBook Pro because of the money you would save, and two computers are always better than one.
     
  19. weldon thread starter macrumors 6502a

    weldon

    Joined:
    May 22, 2004
    Location:
    Denver, CO
    #19
    This is a good point, but I wasn't really trying to discuss the pros and cons of laptop versus desktop.

    I'm still a bit in awe of the fact that Apple has a laptop that is close (if not equal) in speed/power to some of their dual-cpu G5 PowerMacs. Just writing that statement makes me uncomfortable (even though it is true) because I'm so used to the laptops lagging far behind the desktops.

    It feels like we have a real choice again.
     

Share This Page