is an imac more powerful than a macbook pro?

Discussion in 'Buying Tips and Advice' started by plunar, Apr 7, 2007.

  1. plunar macrumors 6502

    plunar

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2003
    #1
    i need a faster machine. macbook is too slow for aperture.
     
  2. netdog macrumors 603

    netdog

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2006
    Location:
    London
    #2
    The only thing that makes the MBP slower, as far as I know, is the underclocked graphics card.
     
  3. Vidd macrumors 6502a

    Vidd

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2006
    #3
    What model exactly have you tried?
     
  4. netdog macrumors 603

    netdog

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2006
    Location:
    London
    #4
    I think it is the integrated graphics on the MB that are bogging him down.
     
  5. plunar thread starter macrumors 6502

    plunar

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2003
    #5
    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.
     
  6. emw macrumors G4

    emw

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2004
    #6
    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.
     
  7. Lord Blackadder macrumors G5

    Lord Blackadder

    Joined:
    May 7, 2004
    Location:
    Sod off
    #7
    Unless you need the portability, I'd suggest the Mac Pro. Big power in a big package.
     
  8. netdog macrumors 603

    netdog

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2006
    Location:
    London
    #8
    Indeed. The Mac Pro will blow the rest away...at a price.
     
  9. plunar thread starter macrumors 6502

    plunar

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2003
    #9
    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).
     
  10. Killyp macrumors 68040

    Killyp

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2006
    #10
    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...
     
  11. Lord Blackadder macrumors G5

    Lord Blackadder

    Joined:
    May 7, 2004
    Location:
    Sod off
    #11
    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.
     
  12. xUKHCx Administrator emeritus

    xUKHCx

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2006
    Location:
    The Kop
    #12
    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

    Specifications

    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
    AirPort Extreme
    Bluetooth 2.0 + EDR

    $3,752.00


    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

    $4,163.00

    The Mac Pro will be much more powerful and comes with a much much better graphics card.
     
  13. Lord Blackadder macrumors G5

    Lord Blackadder

    Joined:
    May 7, 2004
    Location:
    Sod off
    #13
    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.
     
  14. xUKHCx Administrator emeritus

    xUKHCx

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2006
    Location:
    The Kop
    #14

    Was going from memory and didn't check, thanks for correcting me.
     
  15. CanadaRAM macrumors G5

    CanadaRAM

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2004
    Location:
    On the Left Coast - Victoria BC Canada
    #15
    The iMacs have 3.5" hard drives which will always transfer data faster than 2.5" (laptop) hard drives at the same RPM.
     
  16. ender78 macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2005
    #16
    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.
     
  17. Lord Blackadder macrumors G5

    Lord Blackadder

    Joined:
    May 7, 2004
    Location:
    Sod off
    #17
    Good point - not to mention that 2.5" drives offer less capacity and a higher price proportional to 3.5" drives.
     
  18. Jedi128 macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2005
    Location:
    New York, NY
    #18
    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....
     
  19. Lord Blackadder macrumors G5

    Lord Blackadder

    Joined:
    May 7, 2004
    Location:
    Sod off
    #19
    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.
     
  20. zap2 macrumors 604

    zap2

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2005
    Location:
    Washington D.C
    #20
    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.
     
  21. Erasmus macrumors 68030

    Erasmus

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2006
    Location:
    Hiding from Omnius in Australia
    #21
    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.
     
  22. xfiftyfour macrumors 68030

    xfiftyfour

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2006
    Location:
    Clemson, SC
    #22
    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.
     
  23. Erasmus macrumors 68030

    Erasmus

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2006
    Location:
    Hiding from Omnius in Australia
    #23
    Well, in that case, 24" screen beats 15/17" screen. Geforce 7600 easily beats X1600. 250GB HD easily beats 120GB HD. iMac is better.
     
  24. xfiftyfour macrumors 68030

    xfiftyfour

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2006
    Location:
    Clemson, SC
    #24
    See, was that so hard? ;) :p
     
  25. plunar thread starter macrumors 6502

    plunar

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2003
    #25
    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.
     

Share This Page