2.2 MacBook Pro vs 2.8 Mac Pro

[Teej guy]

I'm about to buy a new computer to run Pro Tools 9 (non-HD.) After lots of research, I am now more confused than ever.

The current baseline Mac Pro (2.8 Quad Nehalem Xeon) has a geekbench score of 8839.
The current baseline 17" MacBook Pro (2.2GHz Quad i7) has a geekbench score of 10045.
I am upgrading from a 15" MacBook Pro (2.6GHz Santa Rosa) from 2007 with a geekbench score of 3326.

Which is the better buy? As I'm not running a TDM system, are the numbers telling the truth in that I'll get more mileage out of the laptop than the tower? Or is the architecture of the workstation CPUs more suited for running Pro Tools/VIs/Effects and actually delivers better real-world performance?

I'm talking about pure mixing performance (plugins, sessions at 24/96.) I am aware of the expandability afforded in a tower VS a laptop.

Thank you...hopefully someone can clear this up for me...

 

[lilcosco08]

New Mac Pros are rumored to be coming soon

 

[thunng8]

I'm about to buy a new computer to run Pro Tools 9 (non-HD.) After lots of research, I am now more confused than ever.

The current baseline Mac Pro (2.8 Quad Nehalem Xeon) has a geekbench score of 8839.
The current baseline 17" MacBook Pro (2.2GHz Quad i7) has a geekbench score of 10045.
I am upgrading from a 15" MacBook Pro (2.6GHz Santa Rosa) from 2007 with a geekbench score of 3326.

Which is the better buy? As I'm not running a TDM system, are the numbers telling the truth in that I'll get more mileage out of the laptop than the tower? Or is the architecture of the workstation CPUs more suited for running Pro Tools/VIs/Effects and actually delivers better real-world performance?

I'm talking about pure mixing performance (plugins, sessions at 24/96.) I am aware of the expandability afforded in a tower VS a laptop.

Thank you...hopefully someone can clear this up for me...

Yep .. strange situation when a laptop has higher CPU performance than a desktop. One of the reasons is the new Sandy Bridge laptop processors have very aggressive turbo boost, so most of the time, it is running a lot higher frquency than the 2.2Ghz base number.

Another thing to consider is that when the Macbook pro is running at full processor utilization, it is very noisy. The fans revs up to 6200rpm and can sound like a mini-hairdryer.

 

[Orlandoech]

"Rumored" to be coming soon, which means prob not till the end of the year ish.

 

[dagamer34]

I'd say it really comes down to what kind of external Thunderbolt hardware gets released. Already, there are announcements of external RAID solutions that you could only dream of having available to you at full speed with a laptop.

There are fewer and fewer reasons to get a Mac Pro.

 

[Orlandoech]

I'd say it really comes down to what kind of external Thunderbolt hardware gets released. Already, there are announcements of external RAID solutions that you could only dream of having available to you at full speed with a laptop.

There are fewer and fewer reasons to get a Mac Pro.

I agree

Except those devices are going to be retarded expensive.

 

[dagamer34]

I agree

Except those devices are going to be retarded expensive.

If you're considering buying a Mac Pro, then "expensive" isn't quite that "expensive" to you. And if this is for work, I doubt it'll matter that much. You gain portability of your work machine, which is worth WAY more than what you'd spend on any peripherals I'd say.

 

[Teej guy]

I'd say it really comes down to what kind of external Thunderbolt hardware gets released. Already, there are announcements of external RAID solutions that you could only dream of having available to you at full speed with a laptop.

There are fewer and fewer reasons to get a Mac Pro.

True. I think I'll get one of the early 2011 2.3 i7 17" refurbs and throw an SSD in it down the road.

Thanks everyone for chiming in!