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

Went for a Macbook Pro Instead

G

Gumpdump

macrumors newbie
Original poster
Jul 15, 2012
21
0
I've been on these forums watching for a good while waiting for an updated iMac to replace my ageing desktop PC and as we all know its not arrived, well not yet anyway. But then I had a think about how I use my current kit and what I will be doing in the future and I've decided to get an Macbook Pro 15" base spec with the higher res screen.

Why I hear you ask they are so different... well are they?

I've got for the Base cMBP 15" so that comes with an i7 processor that's about 25% faster than the current iMac model I was looking at (base 27" i5) so still might be faster than the iMac if they only fit i5's on the base model.

I'm going to add extra memory,swap the drive for a hybrid for a compromise between performance and capacity and buy a new montior, and I get to use the full performance that I need, whether watching TV or when I'm in the office.

It is a compromise but for me and my usage which is non gaming but doing lots of photo / website work I think its going to work better than if I'd waited for the iMac and it arrives next week :D
 
Gumpdump said:
I've got for the Base cMBP 15" so that comes with an i7 processor that's about 25% faster than the current iMac model I was looking at (base 27" i5) so still might be faster than the iMac if they only fit i5's on the base model.
Click to expand...

Mobile i5/i7's and Desktop i5/i7's aren't the same. I'm going to look it up right now, but a Desktop i5 will probably outperform a Mobile i7.

Seriously, I hate Intel's branding scheme right now.
 
It doesn't and yes I've checked.

cMBP 2.3Ghz i7 - Geekbench Score is 11738 - CPU Mark - 8,378
iMac Base 27" i5 2.7Ghz Geekbench is 8557 CPU Mark - 5,213
 
Gumpdump said:
It doesn't and yes I've checked.

cMBP 2.3Ghz i7 - Geekbench Score is 11738 - CPU Mark - 8,378
iMac Base 27" i5 2.7Ghz Geekbench is 8557 CPU Mark - 5,213
Click to expand...

You're comparing Ivy Bridge to Sandy Bridge here. I'm thinking about Ivy Bridge to Ivy Bridge in the 2012 iMacs when they arrive.. Whether the mobile Ivy Bridge i7 is faster than the desktop Ivy Bridge i5 depends on exactly which Ivy Bridge i5 you compare against.

I've been reading here;
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/core-i5-3570-low-power,3204-4.html
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/core-i7-3720qm-ivy-bridge-mobile-ultrabook,3185-2.html
 
HurtinMinorKey said:
The iMac gets you a better graphics card. Nothing on the MBPs comes close to the 6970M, no?
Click to expand...

Correct. The 650M on the current crop of MBP's don't even touch the 6970M, and the 2012 iMac refresh will (presumably) take another step up again.

Even if Apple sticks with what they have now (unlikely), the GPU will be miles better in the iMac.
 
I was never going to go for the top iMac so the gfx comparison for me is pointless. As a comparison to the current base 27" iMac the gfx in the cMBP is faster but not by much.

I don't want or need a games machine so for my comparison I think I've gone a better route and I will have it to play with in days which helps as well.
 
Gumpdump said:
I was never going to go for the top iMac so the gfx comparison for me is pointless. As a comparison to the current base 27" iMac the gfx in the cMBP is faster but not by much.

I don't want or need a games machine so for my comparison I think I've gone a better route and I will have it to play with in days which helps as well.
Click to expand...

I went through the same thought process this time last year and went for a 15" MBP 2.2ghz i7 Sandy Bridge with hires (1gb AMD 6750).


I haven't regretted it one bit.

Congrats, desktop the current mobile 15" machines are powerhouses.
 
forty2j said:
You're comparing Ivy Bridge to Sandy Bridge here. I'm thinking about Ivy Bridge to Ivy Bridge in the 2012 iMacs when they arrive.. Whether the mobile Ivy Bridge i7 is faster than the desktop Ivy Bridge i5 depends on exactly which Ivy Bridge i5 you compare against.

I've been reading here;
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/core-i5-3570-low-power,3204-4.html
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/core-i7-3720qm-ivy-bridge-mobile-ultrabook,3185-2.html
Click to expand...

Ivy bridge are indeed faster than Sandy bridge but it's circa 10% difference for most tasks so it will still be faster if the only move to i5s again.
 
Nice.

I'm honestly thinking of replacing my 2011 iMac with a retina Macbook Pro next year when they get refreshed again. We shall see.
 
Gumpdump said:
I'm going to add extra memory,swap the drive for a hybrid for a compromise between performance and capacity and buy a new montior, and I get to use the full performance that I need, whether watching TV or when I'm in the office.
Click to expand...

Wait, I thought the RAM was soldered onto the board on the rMBPs?
 
jmhart said:
Wait, I thought the RAM was soldered onto the board on the rMBPs?
Click to expand...

Correct it is, but I've gone for a cMBP with the higher res screen and not the retina. My plan ultimately is to ditch the DVD drive and add a second drive though I'm not doing that straight away. Should end up with 1.75tb of storage the rest on my NAS.
 
I bought the base model 13" MBP to hold me over until the new iMac comes, and I love it so much, I had a change of heart on the 2012 iMac. I think I'm willing now to wait it out for Haswell, and really get a boost from my 2009 iMac.
 
It's okay if you're going with a notebook (MBP in this case). But please consider that a computer is more than just CPU and benchmark scores.
Don't just stick to Geekbench scores and simply concludes iMac is a slower machine.

You also need to count in GPU, screen size, HDD, how many on board USB ports, RAM slots and all that. If you care a lot about value and performance, top end 2011 iMac with i7 (albeit outdated) as overall still kicking the hell out of 2012 top end MBP (retina or not).

Mobile CPUs today have annoyingly similar scores to desktop chips in benchmarks. But it's a short term test. You need to note that desktop CPUs work better for a long term, heavy loading and tasking. Desktop chips simply more resistant to heat given they have more space, better cooling, and higher TDP. They just don't need to save power and compromise as much.

With that said though, congratulation on your purchase.
 
I'm going in the complete opposite direction. Upgrading from a 2008 MBP to an iMac/iPad combo. The iMac is a better deal in terms of performance and an iPad does everything I need in a portable device.
 
I'm more than well aware of the difference in performance from desktop to mobile processors.

I do find it a little funny when people also discuss the differing aspects between the iMac and say the MBP as both are a compromise. If you want speed them get a Mac Pro or desktop PC for gaming. Let's face it putting laptop drives in a machine is never going to make it super quick is it, well not unless you add SSD and th iMacs aren't the easiest to upgrade either.

I've not gone for the cMBP because an upgraded iMac isn't out I might add its because when I thought about it this is my best fit for my needs. I've already got an iPad and other PCs an servers in the house but this is my first OSX machine. Interested to see how I get on to be honest.
 
We just ordered a fully-loaded iMac for my wife, who intends to use it for Photoshop, Illustrator, InDesign, and ArcGIS--and she couldn't be happier with the decision. Any gaming in our house happens on an iPad or PS2 (lots of fun games on that platform), so the latest, greatest hardware isn't a necessity.

She is coming from a 2006 IBM ThinkPad, so a 2011 iMac will feel light years ahead of what she's used to.
 
It will be perfect for what she needs and I agree on the games, although I might play a few tycoon games from time to time. :eek::)
 
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
Back