Hypothetical 2012 iMac and 2012 MBP w/ 27" Cinema Display Comparison

[Jeremy M.]

Okay so I'll make this thread nice and short.

I am a doing music recording as a hobby at the moment and am in need of a faster mac. I run logic on a 13" Macbook Pro.

Because I am not a gamer, I am not too interested in the GPU differences between the unreleased 2012 iMac and the current non-retina display Macbook Pro.
My question relates to the CPU speed differences between a desktop CPU and the comparative mobile CPU.

If I buy a specced out 2012 Macbook Pro with SSD and a 27" thunderbolt ACD, will this give me roughly the same speed as the unreleased 2012 iMac?

Now I know that we don't have any real evidence on the refresh of the 2012 iMac as of yet, however I basically want to know if Ivy Bridge CPU's are similar in speed between the desktop and mobile models.

When working out the costs, it is a little bit more expensive to buy the Macbook Pro, however, I am also able to use the 15" display as extra visual space.

So what do you guys think? Do you think the high-end iMac be substantially more powerful than the Macbook Pro counterpart?

Thanks very much in advance!

 

[themcfly]

If you compared the late 2011 MacCook pro (full spec) with the 2011 iMac (full spec) the iMac was only a 5-10% faster than the macbook pro.

Also, if you look at these leaked benchmarks, that could be a good indicator of which cpu the next generation full spec'd iMac could sport (the MB PRO one was indeed legitimate) you can see that the iMac is only a little fastest in the processor-related tasks.

And I think that that's a bummer... I mean, am I the only one who thinks that desktop cpus should be way faster than mobiles?

 

[iSayuSay]

Key thing about iMac compared to MBP is GPU, storage and RAM capacity. Albeit using mobile GPUs, iMac is much better option in comparison to equivalent MBP. CPU is getting better though, there's only a slight difference between desktop and mobile chips, except maybe desktop chips work better in the long run, like simulation software or hours/days of rendering and decoding. You said you don't care much about gaming, MBP could be a good choice.

But RAM slot also comes into mind. iMac has potentially twice the amount of RAM any MBPs could have. Needed or not, 4x4GB is cheaper than 2x8GB today. Or even worse, rMBP has no upgradeable RAM. It's a Macbook AirPro. You'd end up with whatever you bought the first day.

In short, iMac always give you more bang in term of spec, a $1200 base 21.5" iMac could compete with low end $1700 15" MBP, plus you get more screen estate.

In the end it comes into your own needs, do you go out with your computer often? Do you really need portability? Many people I know end up put their laptop on bedroom's table most of times, which render "portability tax" of a laptop useless. They say their laptop is "heavy" to be carried around and in the end they bought iPad (while still keeping their laptop) .. Point is, you'd end up waste more, pointlessly if that's the case.

I personally use iMac as my primary machine, and base 13" MBA for when I need to go out with my computer (hardly, though). Could be used as target disk mode with my iMac whenever I need it.

Laptop is always about compromise. Size and weight also comes into consideration, which makes it more expensive than desktop with more power and comfortability to begin with.