Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Buying Tips and Advice' started by plunar, Apr 7, 2007.
i need a faster machine. macbook is too slow for aperture.
The only thing that makes the MBP slower, as far as I know, is the underclocked graphics card.
What model exactly have you tried?
I think it is the integrated graphics on the MB that are bogging him down.
ouch. slower graphics as in slower aperture?
the macbook pro package is nearly $4000 after tax (including a 23" display). It's about $500 more than a 24" iMac.
i have a 2GHz macbook with 2GB RAM right now.
Well, you generally pay more for a laptop than a desktop (similar performance characteristics), so this isn't surprising.
There's always a loser in the portability-low price-high performance triangle. Can't have all three.
Unless you need the portability, I'd suggest the Mac Pro. Big power in a big package.
Indeed. The Mac Pro will blow the rest away...at a price.
i'm not interested in the mac pro. i don't upgrade my hardware, and i don't want an aluminum tank on my desk (or floor or wherever).
And yet you are interested in getting a very high performance machine?
Performance wise it goes like this:
MacMini > MacBook > MacBook Pro > iMac > Mac Pro
If you're using Aperture, I'd look at the Mac Pro, even if you don't care about expandability. You'll get a huge performance increase over an iMac of equivalent price.
If it's a no to the Mac Pro, then get the 24" iMac, HUGE screen for graphic work...
If the Mac pro is unacceptable from a style standpoint, and you are unsatisfied with the MBP's performance, then your only real option is an iMac with the 2.33GHz CPU and plenty of RAM. But don't expect a vast improvement over the MBP.
You may not like the size of the Mac Pro, but if you are talking about speed... well, the Mac Pro is a tank because it packs two Xeons...expandability aside, you will see a big increase in performance over the rest of the Mac lineup with a 2.66/3.0Ghz Mac Pro.
The 24" iMac does come with the option of the 7600 which is better than the X1600 found in the MBP and lower iMacs. (Edit: See below)
So if you are planning on getting the 24" definitely get the upgraded graphics card, it is not very much to pay and it will be worth it.
For your budget you can go all out on the iMac
2.33GHz Intel Core 2 Duo
3GB 667 DDR2 SDRAM - 1x2GB, 1x1GB
750GB Serial ATA Drive
NVIDIA GeForce 7600 GT 256MB SDRAM
SuperDrive 8X (DVD+R DL/DVD±RW/CD-RW)
Apple Wireless Keyboard & wireless Mighty Mouse + Mac OS X (US English)
AppleCare Protection Plan for iMac - Auto-enroll
24-inch widescreen LCD
Bluetooth 2.0 + EDR
Obviously you can save some cash by buying the ram elsewhere for example buying from crucial you can get the price of the system down to $3423
Or the Mac Pro + Screen Configuration you could get (one of a many dffernt configurations)
Two 2.0GHz Dual-Core Intel Xeon
2GB (4 x 512MB)
500GB 7200-rpm Serial ATA 3Gb/s
ATI Radeon X1900 XT 512MB (2 x dual-link DVI)
Apple Cinema HD Display (23" flat panel)
One 16x SuperDrive
Both Bluetooth 2.0+EDR and AirPort Extreme
Apple Wireless Keyboard and Apple wireless Mighty Mouse - U.S. English
Mac OS X - U.S. English
AppleCare Protection Plan for Mac Pro/Power Mac (w/or w/o Display) - Auto-enroll
The Mac Pro will be much more powerful and comes with a much much better graphics card.
Actually, the 7300 is the standard card, and is not faster than the X1600 in the MBP.
However, the optional (only on the 24") GeForce 7600GT is quite a bit faster than the MBP's Radeon, though not as fast as the Mac Pro's Radeon X1900XT.
Was going from memory and didn't check, thanks for correcting me.
The iMacs have 3.5" hard drives which will always transfer data faster than 2.5" (laptop) hard drives at the same RPM.
I recommend that you visit the Apple store and give Aperture a test drive on a Mac Pro. I would be surprised as to what performance boost you see on a fully loaded iMac [I would expect 10-20% an upper limit versus your current machine. Aperture is known to be a pig regardless of hardware. Check out how good the performance is on a Mac Pro with 4GB of RAM.
Good point - not to mention that 2.5" drives offer less capacity and a higher price proportional to 3.5" drives.
I believe that some people have misunderstood this thread, or I have. It seems to me that plunar states that his Macbook (not Pro) is too slow for Aperature, and his question is, which is better an iMac or a Macbook Pro? The point has been made that a desktop will be cheaper and give you more performance, so if that is what you are looking for, go for the iMac. I think that if you max out both systems (iMac and MBP) they are about the same performance wise, however the iMac is cheaper. I would look at a near top end iMac with at least 2GB RAM, and some form of upgraded graphics (at least 256MB VRAM in a Radeon X1600). Right now the integrated graphics of your Macbook is what is holding you back. Obviously a Mac Pro is the best system for Aperature, but if you object, an iMac should still work fine. Actually I'm surprised that your Macbook is "slow" with that much RAM....
I thought the OP owned a MBP...in that case the fastest iMacs are faster than the fastest MBPs, though there is considerable overlap behind the top specced machines in either line.
I disagree with the speed thing(not price!)...the speed difference might not be huge, but with a 3.5'' harddrive, you get more speed there. The graphics card in the iMac will be faster, more harddrive space could help things speed up.
But to the OP, iMac should be faster, if you max both machines out.
But for the price of that machine, get a Mac Pro! Or buy 3rd party RAM, to cut down the price of the iMac.
I'm sorry to be this way, but this is a bit of a stupid thread.
If you need portability, you can't go for an iMac. If you don't, why would you even consider a MBP, when you can get a much, much bigger iMac with a vastly better graphics card and better hard disk, that costs less?
You either pay for the portability, or you don't. It's as simple as that.
I don't think it was as obvious to the OP that the iMac was a better choice, and that the MBPs price included the luxury of portability... hence the question and this thread.
But I'm sure he appreciates the advice.. brash as it was.
Well, in that case, 24" screen beats 15/17" screen. Geforce 7600 easily beats X1600. 250GB HD easily beats 120GB HD. iMac is better.
See, was that so hard?
like i mentioned, i would be getting a mbp with an external 23" monitor to go along with it.
the portability is nice. price really isn't a consideration; we're talking a difference of about $500 in a $3500 purchase. I'm not overly concerned.
i jusr want to get an idea of what kind of performance hit i would get by going with the mbp. for me, that is more important the price difference, which really neglible, even considering 3 gb ram and everything else maxed out in either machine. i also have ample external firewire hd space, so that is not an over riding concern.
as far as the specs go, it seems the only real lack in the mbp is the graphics card. will that result in a noticable lag in aperture compared to the imac? i mean noticiable; ie, i don't care if it's a second or 2 faster. but 30 seconds versus 5 on average is a different story.