MacBook Pro 15'' Retina or iMac 27''?

Discussion in 'iMac' started by TweakOnline, Aug 12, 2013.

  1. TweakOnline macrumors regular

    TweakOnline

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2012
    Location:
    Europe
    #1
    Hey guys,

    Currently I have a MacBook Pro 15'' Retina. I love this MacBook, but for some reasons I would like to have a bigger screen, more space and a better videocard. Since the iMac 27'' is even more powerful than the MacBook Pro Retina, I'm considering to sell my current MacBook to buy the next generation iMac with 3TB harddrive and a good videocard to game with.

    What should I do?

    I think I could sell my MacBook pro Retina for around €2000,- euro's, to buy a iMac for about €2500,- euro's. But is it worth the investment?

    Thanks!
     
  2. tekmoe macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2005
    #2
    I have been using Mac notebooks for the past 8 years. A couple of weeks ago I bought my first iMac 27" and have not had a single regret. DO IT.
     
  3. Eduardot macrumors member

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2013
    #3
    Have both. Use both. Had to keep one, the iMac of course.
     
  4. Commy1 macrumors 6502a

    Commy1

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2013
    #4
    It's not possible to pick up a 27" screen for a few hundred $$$ instead of the entirely new computer?
    It's my experience using Mac and PC, Tablets and smartphones that:
    If I have a desktop, I want a laptop... just incase.
    If I have a laptop, I want a desktop... for the power.
    If I have a tablet, I want either... for the options

    It's your call, if I hadn't dealt the way I did getting myself both iMac and Macbook... I'd still only have the laptop and would probably be happy with it and a secondary screen.
     
  5. Sputnek macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2011
    Location:
    Florida - Ohio
    #5
    I got rid of my MBP and so far am cruising with a MBA 11'' and waiting for an iMac. I used the iMac 27'' for a week at work and cannot wait until the refreshed models come out at the end of this year or early next. If I didn't have the work computer and the MBA to hold me over, I would definitely purchase the 27'' iMac.
     
  6. WilliamG macrumors 604

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2008
    Location:
    Seattle
    #6
    The high-end iMac GPU is in another league than the MacBook Pro with Retina display GPU. Other than that, you probably wouldn't notice any tangible speed differences. So if the screen + GPU is that important to you, do it. Otherwise, if just the screen is important, buy a 27" display and be happy.
     
  7. TweakOnline thread starter macrumors regular

    TweakOnline

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2012
    Location:
    Europe
    #7
    Well, if I would buy an Apple Thunderbolt display, what are the differences between a iMac 27'' and MacBook Pro Retina + 27'' display? The amount of money I have to spent will be quite the same... but the differences?
     
  8. Commy1 macrumors 6502a

    Commy1

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2013
    #8
    Pros:
    Still portable
    Access to incredible Retina display
    Access to 27" display
    Not sure what specs you have in your Macbook, but those are pros
    Cheaper, ish
    Dual display

    Cons:
    Not as much power as an iMac
    Using more desktop space (If you don't use a Backpack or Arc)
    Smaller hard drive (easily remedied)
    Price
    Requires 2 back up drives for separate machines
    Cable management
    File transferring between machines.

    I'm sure I'm missing some but these were what I could think of off the top of my head.
     
  9. stumper macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2006
    #9
    For gaming? Waste of money and time.

    Unless you are gaming for money, a few extra FPS here and there arent gonna get you anything in the long run. Wanna be a better gamer? Play/practice more.

    You dont need an Apple display, you can use any 27" display with your MBPr.

    Although if I was a serious gamer, running a game at maximum resolutions is a great way to slow down gameplay -- no matter what video card you have.

    I would more than likely use a 24" for gaming @ 1920 X 1200. Faster FPS than a 27 @ 2560 X 1440.
     
  10. Dustman macrumors 65816

    Dustman

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2007
    #10
    A cinema display would give you the asthetics and cable management of an iMac. I vote MBPr+ACD.

    Edit: And by Cinema display I mean Thunderbolt Display. Stuck in the past.
     
  11. A Hebrew macrumors 6502a

    A Hebrew

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2012
    Location:
    Minnesota
    #11
    Honestly, if you think you would need a laptop either get a cheap ultrabook/laptop and the 27" iMac. Personally, I have an air and am going to get a 27" iMac and I believe syncing will be a minor annoyance since I will mainly use the iMac.

    The rMBP and the iMac are roughly the same cost (rMBP costing slightly more) and the TBD is 1,000 USD. For 1,000 USD you could get an 11" or refurb 13" air and and iMac that is way more powerful than the MBP.
     
  12. dollystereo macrumors 6502a

    dollystereo

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2004
    Location:
    France
    #12
    way more powerful is exaggerated. The GPU in the imac is faster, but the rMBP has solid state drive, and has a powerful i7 CPU. The difference is not gonna be heaven and hell. I would even say that for a regular user the rMBP is faster.
    For gaming the Imac is way faster. But a cheap PC is faster than both.
     

    Attached Files:

  13. TweakOnline thread starter macrumors regular

    TweakOnline

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2012
    Location:
    Europe
    #13
    Wow, unbelievable! I got the 2,3ghz / 8gb ram / 256 gb ssd edition, but it seems that my MacBook isn't slower than the average iMac 27''. :)

    I think I'm going to buy a Thunderbolt display later this year, it costs a little bit extra, but it reminds me what @Commy1 said, ''If you have a laptop, you want a desktop. If you have a desktop, you want a laptop''. And since I got a pretty decent desktop for gaming, the iMac would be pretty useless. :)
     
  14. macmastersam macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2011
    Location:
    Essex, england
    #14
    May I recommend a secondary 27" monitor if money isn't an issue?

    You will still get the beautiful retina screen on the retina MacBook Pro, and the size of the 27" monitor, you get the best of both worlds, and still maintain portability when you need it IMO.
     
  15. TweakOnline thread starter macrumors regular

    TweakOnline

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2012
    Location:
    Europe
    #15
    Unfortunately money is an issue to me, but in case of investment: I got around €500,- to spent right now. So I could sell my MacBook to buy an iMac, or buy a Thunderbolt display for around €800,- and wait a little longer until the end of this year.

    Like you guys above said, a Thunderbolt display would be a better deal right now. With the coming of OS X 10.9, second display's wouldn't be a real *issue* anymore. :)
     
  16. macmastersam macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2011
    Location:
    Essex, england
    #16
    You could try cheaper 27" alternatives, like dell's offerings, they have the same resolution as apples Thunderbolt Display, but just without the aesthetic, if you just want the extra display to get the job done, then I would highly recommend a third-party that sells what you need at apples quality, but at a third of the price tag :D

    Otherwise, save up those €300 and get apples offerings :D
     
  17. WilliamG macrumors 604

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2008
    Location:
    Seattle
    #17
    The rMBP is in absolutely no way faster than the iMac for regular use. It's not even close. Why? Because of the GPU holding things back. Even regular web-browsing is far, far smoother on the iMac. And I have both systems here with me.

    Will the average person care about the speed difference for "regular" things? Maybe/probably not. But since we're having this discussion, we're obviously not "regular" people. The iMac is noticeably faster in day-to-day usage, not to mention it has a higher "actual" resolution of 2560x1440 vs 1440x900 (effective) on the the retina MacBook Pro. And if you run the rMBP in scaled mode, it runs even slower than it does in 1440x900 retina mode. At that point, even scrolling in Safari is noticeably choppier. 2560x1440 is so much more useful than 1440x900, and is one of the reasons I really don't like the rMBP. The resolution isn't high enough, and scaled modes run noticeably slower than 1440x900 (retina) mode.

    Oh, and then, for gaming, the iMac positively destroys the rMBP.

    The only thing the rMBP has over the iMac is that you can pop the rMBP in your bag.
     
  18. TweakOnline thread starter macrumors regular

    TweakOnline

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2012
    Location:
    Europe
    #18
    I don't agree with that. The rMBP runs everything smooth enough to engine OS X at a scaled resolution of 3840x2400 pixels, but only if you enable the dedicated videocard, the Nvidia 650M. I agree that the Intel HD4000 chip isn't strong enough to handle this resolution. But, I think this MacBook could handle a second display with ease if you enable the dedicated videocard, and if I would close the lid of my MacBook, I don't think there will be any noticeable difference between this rMBP or an iMac 27''. Beside that, Mac computers aren't made for gaming, but for productivity. That's why I have a gaming pc though. :)

    Just my two cents! ;)
     
  19. WilliamG macrumors 604

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2008
    Location:
    Seattle
    #19
    Fair enough. I was just running it as Apple had intended. If it was using the crappy HD4000, that's just silly. Apple should have just disabled it like they did with the iMacs, battery life be damned.

    Then I'd agree with you, for productivity there'd be no difference between the two, except for the resolution. Not sure where you're getting 3840x2400 (eh?). It's 2880x1800. But let's face it, you can't compare a 15.4" display to a 27" display. The iMac is clearly better for everything productivity when you factor in actual space. When you add an external display to the rMBP, that changes things significantly. But at that point, probably better to have gotten the iMac in the first place if portability isn't necessary.
     
  20. fig macrumors 6502a

    fig

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2012
    Location:
    Austin, TX
    #20
    Depending on exactly how much screen space you truly need, you could also pick up a 23" 1080p display pretty inexpensively and look at upgrading the whole system later on.
     
  21. Mac32, Aug 16, 2013
    Last edited: Aug 16, 2013

    Mac32 macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2010
    #21
    I agree with WilliamG. I used MacBooks (various kinds 13-15 inch) for 6-7 years, and didn't have a stationary computer. Then I got the late iMac 27. It's like a different world. Now I hardly even think about retina laptops anymore. It depends on your needs, but the iMac 27'' model is pretty darn amazing. MacBooks are great at what they do, but nothing comes close to working with a 27'' iMac in terms of workflow and enjoyment. :)

    Btw. saying the rMBP is faster than the iMac is misleading, unless you choose the cheapest model of both, then the iMac will only have an old-fashioned HD vs. the rMBP SSD. Buying the iMac with only HD isn't very smart to put it bluntly. ;)
     
  22. sonicrobby macrumors 68020

    sonicrobby

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2013
    Location:
    New Orleans
    #22
    Same situation as you :p
    Because of my travels, Im sticking with my 15" rMBP. But if portability is not an issue for you, go for that gorgeous iMac!
     

Share This Page