iMac to MacBook Pro

Discussion in 'MacBook Pro' started by Orlandoech, Aug 9, 2012.

  1. Orlandoech macrumors 68040

    Orlandoech

    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2011
    Location:
    Salt Lake City, UT
    #1
    I'm considering selling my iMac to get a MBP 15" Base Model for $1600.

    27-inch: 3.1GHz
    3.1GHz Quad-Core Intel Core i5
    2560 x 1440 resolution
    8GB RAM
    1TB hard drive1
    AMD Radeon HD 6970M with 1GB

    I added 16GB RAM to my iMac, but I would sell it with 8GB or 16GB and I would remove my SSD and add it to my MBP, then add 1600MHz RAM if I went that route and then get a TB Display so I could have the best of both worlds.

    My question is, whats the performance difference between my iMac listed in my sig as its modded and these two MBPs, I dont game at all either;

    13-inch: 2.9 GHz
    2.9GHz dual-core Intel Core i7
    Turbo Boost up to 3.6GHz
    8GB 1600MHz memory
    750GB 5400-rpm hard drive1
    Intel HD Graphics 4000
    Built-in battery (7 hours)2

    vs

    15-inch: 2.3 GHz
    2.3GHz quad-core Intel Core i7
    Turbo Boost up to 3.3GHz
    4GB 1600MHz memory
    500GB 5400-rpm hard drive1
    Intel HD Graphics 4000
    NVIDIA GeForce GT 650M with 512MB of GDDR5 memory
    Built-in battery (7 hours)2


    Which ever MBP I get, I would add 16GB ram then my Corsair Force GT SSD to it.
     
  2. gokart mozart macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2011
    #2
    Seems that they would be close. Although the processor has a faster clockspeed on the iMac, the newer architecture on the MBP is a good bit more efficient.

    Your iMac would be around 11467 and the base 15" MBP would score around 10770. The iMac would still be snappier at intensive tasks, but you'd gain in portability and convenience. However, the high end 15" looks like it would just surpass the iMac. If you really wanted to spend some $, the maxed out high end 15" is an absolute beast.

    http://browser.primatelabs.com/mac-benchmarks

    Of course, those are just benchmarks. It would be hard to quantify the real world performance differences. I would just expect them to be somewhat snappier than each other, with the exception of the maxed out 15" possibly outclassing them. I wouldn't necessarily expect a huge difference between the new MBPs and your iMac, other than portability and screen real-estate.
     
  3. Orlandoech thread starter macrumors 68040

    Orlandoech

    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2011
    Location:
    Salt Lake City, UT
  4. gokart mozart macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2011
    #4
    There's always variance in the scores based on modifications people have made, manufacturing variance in the various parts, and user settings.

    http://browser.primatelabs.com/geek...platform:"Mac+OS+X"+architecture:x86+bits:64+

    Yours seems to be on the average range for a 3.1 GHz iMac from '11. Out of curiosity, what is your GPU settings? Does the iMac have a discrete set up like the MBPs? If so, do you have it turned off and set to the integrated HD3000? That may affect your Geekbench score, but I'm not completely sure it takes the GPU in to account.

    My 15" base retina with 16GB beats the average score for the base retina model, as it should. But there is crazy variance in the charts for that model too. A base non retina 15 inch should top 10000 and probably even get close to 11000.

    But again, benchmarks don't necessarily reflect real life performance. Depends on what you're doing on your computer.
     
  5. docmagoo2 macrumors member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2010
    #5
    Surely the new MBPs are not upgradable in terms of having the memory soldered to the main board etc and using a proprietary ssd connector?
     
  6. Orlandoech thread starter macrumors 68040

    Orlandoech

    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2011
    Location:
    Salt Lake City, UT
    #6
    The new MacBook Pro's are user upgradeable, the Retina version is not.
     
  7. gokart mozart macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2011
    #7
    I think he was assuming you're looking at the retina. The cMBP has scored higher than the retina model, but they are in the same ballpark. The retina model has to divert some resources to scaling for the display. The geekbench scores seem to disprove some of the claims that discrete graphic set up (particularly the GPU) are not up to snuff to power the display. It clearly isn't dragging the system down that much in comparison to the non-retina model.

    I think you should consider getting an upgraded 15". You should see some benefits in the latest generation of i7 processor, and there is still the portability. Or you could just wait for the next wave of iMacs.
     
  8. Orlandoech thread starter macrumors 68040

    Orlandoech

    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2011
    Location:
    Salt Lake City, UT
    #8
    I dont wanna wait for the next waive of iMac and I want the portability but i would grab a refurb TB Display as well when I wanna be at my workstation/desk.

    What version of 15" do you suggest? I was thinking of the 15" Base since a local was selling one for $1600m thats over a $200 savings. I dont game so I dont need the better GPU, and I dont think 300mhz will be that big of a deal since I will be adding 16GB RAM and an SSD to it.
     
  9. gokart mozart macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2011
    #9
    I would go ahead and get that. It seems like a pretty good deal and it meets your needs. Plus, you can probably get some resale value on the iMac towards the TB refurb. Also, the 15" is upgradeable if you want more HD space. You can even get an SSD. Just food for thought. But that certainly is a good deal, and the cost difference will give you the spare cash to spend on an upgrade if you feel the need.
     
  10. Orlandoech thread starter macrumors 68040

    Orlandoech

    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2011
    Location:
    Salt Lake City, UT
    #10
    I have an SSD I would add to the MBP :) 240GB Corsair Force GT and then I would just pick up 16GB 1600MHz RAM for the MBP.
     
  11. Orlandoech thread starter macrumors 68040

    Orlandoech

    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2011
    Location:
    Salt Lake City, UT
    #12
    Anyone else have any input?

    I cant seem to decide.... ughhh...
     

Share This Page