iMac or MacBook Pro faster?

[Ja Di ksw]

Assuming both use a SSD and no upgrade to the RAM, would the 2.5 GHz quad-core i7 or the 3.3 GHz quad-core i5 be faster? Not quite sure about the differences between the i5 and i7. Along those same lines, would it be worth the added 300€ to get the 4 GHz i7 over the 3.3 Ghz i5 if I went with the iMac (the more probable choice for me)?

 

[talmy]

According to MacTracker app, the 3.3GHz iMac has a Geekbench score of 10490 while the 4GHz is 15375. For the MBPs, the 2.5 is 13231. So you would need the i7 in the iMac to be faster.

 

[Ja Di ksw]

Awesome, thanks for the info.

 

[maflynn]

Geekbench is showing a 5k iMac having a score of 13081 and on the MBP (15"), I'm seeing score range from 8,000 to 10,000 (with a couple at 12,000). So that benchmark is giving the edge towards the iMac. Please note, I only found one entry for the iMac (in my non-exhaustive search).

Plus, I think the dGPU on the iMac is a faster then the MBPs, so again the nod goes to the iMAc.

I saw some tests where the iMac bested a Mac Pro, so it is a fast computer.

 

[Samuelsan2001]

According to MacTracker app, the 3.3GHz iMac has a Geekbench score of 10490 while the 4GHz is 15375. For the MBPs, the 2.5 is 13231. So you would need the i7 in the iMac to be faster.

This will only be true if the software you are using uses hyper threading, if your software only uses he core or thread it will be down to clock speed so it will almost certainly depend on what software you are using.

 

[talmy]

This will only be true if the software you are using uses hyper threading, if your software only uses he core or thread it will be down to clock speed so it will almost certainly depend on what software you are using.

Everything always depends on the software you are using, but synthetic benchmarks roll everything into one convenient number.

 

[Samuelsan2001]

Everything always depends on the software you are using, but synthetic benchmarks roll everything into one convenient number.

That may or may not be relevant to the use case of the user, yes I understand how they work I just don't think quoting them tells even half the story.

However in this cas I don't think it matters much the OP should choose on portability needs and budget not on performance they'll both be blisteringly quick with an ssd.

 

[gnasher729]

Assuming both use a SSD and no upgrade to the RAM, would the 2.5 GHz quad-core i7 or the 3.3 GHz quad-core i5 be faster? Not quite sure about the differences between the i5 and i7. Along those same lines, would it be worth the added 300€ to get the 4 GHz i7 over the 3.3 Ghz i5 if I went with the iMac (the more probable choice for me)?

The speed doesn't really matter. The MBP is something that you can carry around with you (on the train, on the sofa, in the garden), and the iMac isn't. If that's important to you, the MBP is it and the iMac is out. If the device will stay on the same desk for months, the iMac has a huge screen connected, the iMac makes it possible to have a huge and cheap external drive, and the iMac will run faster if you push both to the limits for a long time, because processor speed is mostly limited by heat and cooling.

The iMac 5K is about the best computer you could buy. And it's no good whatsoever on a train