I have no need for 27" so that is fine. I am using a 21.5" display for pc now and is perfect. Also i have 19" tv in bedroom and manage fine, no need for bigger
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Macbook Pro OR iMac + Air ??
- Thread starter JR1993
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I have no need for 27" so that is fine. I am using a 21.5" display for pc now and is perfect. Also i have 19" tv in bedroom and manage fine, no need for bigger
If anything, imo it's between macbook pro vs mba + pc.
I really, REALLY see no need to get an iMac strictly for performance. For about $500, you've got yourself more or less, MBP-level performance from a desktop PC (minus the screen). For about $800, you're looking at DOUBLE the MBP's performance. At $1000, you've more or less, maxed out the entire hardware line (not counting the very premium double SLI/CF octacore setups). It'll be comparable to a MBP some 4 years from now.
I really, REALLY see no need to get an iMac strictly for performance. For about $500, you've got yourself more or less, MBP-level performance from a desktop PC (minus the screen). For about $800, you're looking at DOUBLE the MBP's performance. At $1000, you've more or less, maxed out the entire hardware line (not counting the very premium double SLI/CF octacore setups). It'll be comparable to a MBP some 4 years from now.
Why not a MBP with a 27" Cinema Display. It's bigger than 21.5 and you can have all your work with you on a more powerful machine, if you need it.
I would love to see EITHER, an $800 computer that doubles the new macbook pros performance
OR
A fully maxed out PC that can compete with the high end mac pros for $1000
MBP + ACD = $3200
VS
Air= $1400 +
external monitor ($200-$400) OR iMac ($1200) = MUCH cheaper
Last edited:
I would love to see EITHER, an $800 computer that doubles the new macbook pros performance
OR
A fully maxed out PC that can compete with the high end mac pros for $1000
MBP + ACD = $3200
VS
Air= $1400 +
external monitor ($200-$400) OR iMac ($1200) = MUCH cheaper
Thanks for speaking sense. You can tell some people just read the OP and then replied.
This week I have a lot of exams, so im going to stop thinking about it.... until next week.
I would go with the iMac and MacBook Air...you get the best of both worlds really...
You get the power of an iMac, and the portability of the MacBook Air so that you can easily take it to classes.
You get the power of an iMac, and the portability of the MacBook Air so that you can easily take it to classes.
I would love to see EITHER, an $800 computer that doubles the new macbook pros performance
OR
A fully maxed out PC that can compete with the high end mac pros for $1000
MBP + ACD = $3200
VS
Air= $1400 +
external monitor ($200-$400) OR iMac ($1200) = MUCH cheaper
Challenge accepted, I'll do both at once:
Mostly newegg prices
Mobo: ASRock P67 Pro3 LGA1155 - 120
CPU: Intel Core i5-2500k - 220
Video: EVGA superclocked GTX 560 - 185
RAM: G.Skill 8GB - 75
HDD: Samsung F3 1TB - 55
PSU: SeaSonic 620W Certified - 85
Case: CoolerMaster CM690 (4 fans, plenty to OC with) - 75
Total: 120+220+185+75+55+85+75=810
2500k OCs to 4.0+ghz without breaking a sweat on stock cooler; throw in another $20 for a CM 212 and you're looking at 4.7+ ghz. 560 GTX already outperforms the 6970 MOBILE card in the iMac, and trounces on the 6750m. 8 gigs is double what's offered on both the MBP and the iMac.
What's in it for me?
EDIT: Oh, for the remaining $190, you can get yourself a quality 23-inch LED backlit screen. Perhaps better than the iMac's, maybe not, that's outside my realms of yeah... I usually get the ones on sale
Last edited:
$190 will not get you an IPS display that is in the iMac.
That processor does not even come close to DOUBLE the performance of the 15" macbook pro that the OP is considering, it doesn't even match the performance of the high end 27" iMac, much less some of the high end mac pro setups that you claimed.
The low end 27" iMac is close to those specs except for the graphics card (and you can get it for ~$1700 with 16gb ram, almost the same processor, 1tb hdd, etc.), but in your setup you are already at $810 but you still don't have an IPS display, or keyboard/mouse, you don't have an operating system either.
Still fail to see how the machine you spec'd meets the original claims that you made.....?
And you are not going to find a wireless kb/m, OEM version of windows, and an IPS display for your remaining $190
The only thing that you really upgraded was the GPU so i'll give you that, but it's stil not double the performance of the mbp for $800... hell, it's not even a full computer setup for >$800...fail
No doubt that a PC is cheaper, and that you can get a much better GPU, I'm not arguing that, but the machine you made does not do what you claim, and still isn't a complete computer for that price.
That processor does not even come close to DOUBLE the performance of the 15" macbook pro that the OP is considering, it doesn't even match the performance of the high end 27" iMac, much less some of the high end mac pro setups that you claimed.
The low end 27" iMac is close to those specs except for the graphics card (and you can get it for ~$1700 with 16gb ram, almost the same processor, 1tb hdd, etc.), but in your setup you are already at $810 but you still don't have an IPS display, or keyboard/mouse, you don't have an operating system either.
Still fail to see how the machine you spec'd meets the original claims that you made.....?
And you are not going to find a wireless kb/m, OEM version of windows, and an IPS display for your remaining $190
The only thing that you really upgraded was the GPU so i'll give you that, but it's stil not double the performance of the mbp for $800... hell, it's not even a full computer setup for >$800...fail
No doubt that a PC is cheaper, and that you can get a much better GPU, I'm not arguing that, but the machine you made does not do what you claim, and still isn't a complete computer for that price.
Last edited:
Wait, wait... I'm confused. Am I being trolled here? Whatever, I'll bite.
Results? Not pretty.
Macbook Pro: http://3dmark.com/search?resultTypeId=232&linkedDisplayAdapters=0&cpuModelId=1207&chipsetId=664
iMac high end 3.1 with 6970m: http://3dmark.com/search?resultTypeId=232&linkedDisplayAdapters=0&cpuModelId=1196&chipsetId=670
2500k with 560 GTX: http://3dmark.com/search?resultTypeId=232&linkedDisplayAdapters=0&cpuModelId=1199&chipsetId=676
3700 vs 7500. That's the $850 PC doubling up on the HIGH END iMac, and quadrupling the MBP.
The low end mac is nowhere near those specs. But since you probably wouldn't know better, drop processor down to AMD Phenom II 955 @ 3.2 quad. Save $100. Drop mobo down to Gigabyte 760G Micro ATX; save $55. Drop video card down to Sapphire 5830; save $75. Drop power supply down to a 520W model; save $25. Drop case down to an Rosewill; save $25. Cut RAM in half; save $35. And if I wanted to be anal, dropping the HDD down to a 500 GB model saves another $15. Total cost: 115+110+65+40+40+60+50=480 Doesn't that mean... yes. It does. It's worth less than $500. But just to be clear, the iMac's 2400S (2.5 i5) is about 20% than the AMD, I felt it's a horrible purchase. With the 2400S, you're getting horrible value for what you're paying for (Apple makes odd hardware decisions pretty often... e.g. 6490m in the base MBP that millions have complained about). So really, I have the option to crush the 2400s for $100, but nah, you can keep it. On the flip side, the desktop 5830 is still much more powerful than iMac's MOBILE 6750m (about 2.5x the 3DMark GPU score). So the overall scores of the resulting two machines? Not pretty.
Here's the base iMac: http://3dmark.com/search?resultTypeId=232&linkedDisplayAdapters=0&cpuModelId=1197&chipsetId=664
Here's the weaker AMD + far superior 5830: http://3dmark.com/search?resultTypeId=232&linkedDisplayAdapters=0&cpuModelId=917&chipsetId=611
Btw, if you think the high HIGH end MBPs fare better, you're sadly mistaken:
iMacs with i7s: http://3dmark.com/search?resultTypeId=232&linkedDisplayAdapters=0&cpuModelId=1202&chipsetId=670
About 10% higher than the 3.1 i5s, which sounds about right.
I understand benchmarks aren't everything, but 1300 vs 5400-5800? Sorry, but there's no case to be had here. Oh, and this $500 POS hardware is still 30% better than the high-end iMacs.
Yes, these are 3DMark scores, which takes into account both the processors and the video card. The video card is really where it makes up ground, but the processors are no slouches. The idea here is that the desktops OC real real easily, and the Sandy Bridges, especially with the unlocked multipliers are built for OC-ing.
So, here are some PCMark scores to ease your pain; do note MBP posted some "glitched" scores that could not be replicated:
High i7 iMac (10k): http://3dmark.com/search?resultTypeId=18&linkedDisplayAdapters=0&cpuModelId=1202&chipsetId=670
High i5 iMac (8.5k): http://3dmark.com/search?resultTypeId=18&linkedDisplayAdapters=0&cpuModelId=1196&chipsetId=670
MBP 2.2 (8k): http://3dmark.com/search?resultTypeId=18&linkedDisplayAdapters=0&cpuModelId=1207&chipsetId=664
2500k @ 4.4ghz (14.5k): http://3dmark.com/search?resultTypeId=18&linkedDisplayAdapters=0&cpuModelId=1199&chipsetId=676
Garbage AMD chip (7k): http://3dmark.com/search?resultTypeId=18&linkedDisplayAdapters=0&cpuModelId=917&chipsetId=611
I've definitely not only proved my claim, I've surpassed my claim.
Keyboard, mouse, that was the best you could come up with?
Windows? Oh please. There's other OSes (Linux). Not to mention, engineering students get W7 for free.
I never mentioned the inclusion of monitors. I specifically mentioned the EXCLUSION of them though. But if you're nitpicking, an IPS sets you back what, 250? 300?
I'm not trying to match everything; some of the stuff Apple throws at you that most consumers don't need. Honestly, do you expect me to match the iMac case too? The paintjob? What about the Apple logo? I'm just covering very broad hardware. Performance was the original claim, not styling, and that's an argument that Macs simply cannot win. You asked, I provided. An 800 dollar machine that performs at twice (or 4x if we're going by 3Dmark) that of the MBP, and matches (or doubles if we're going by 3Dmark) that of the high end iMacs. Heck, even the $500 dollar machine surpasses that of either. Specs matched, point proven, case closed. "fail"
The thing is, I don't see why you're even bothering to argue with me on this one. No one buys Macs for the sake of being cost effective. The spec sheet is way down at #4 or #5 on their priority list, with the first 3 being build quality, design, and a mix of ego/brand name/wanting to fit in. This was step one for me to transition from PCs to Macs. I've accepted it, it's perfectly ok to know I'm getting horrible performance for what I'm paying for; that's not why I bought it. I know that, so it doesn't bother me. If you're happy with your HPs with the same 2720 and a better 6770 at 60% the price, ok, that's cool, I'm just as happy with my MBP.
The way I see it, if people force their "cost-effective" argument on me, it's better to compare apples to apples (pun intended). A MBP, at least to me, is in the same class as a Thinkpad W520 and Dell Precision M4600 [and whatever Sony's come up with; their 15-inch line is very lacking]. Great build quality, above average performance, the focus was clearly on the materials and worksmanship (sort of!); and superior non-consumer line customer service. The focus wasn't to squeeze out every last clock cycle of a chip to build a laptop that WILL overheat/run into problems some 18-24 months down the line, simply because portability and performance are two paths going in opposite directions. And really, I'm paying only a ~10-15% premium over them and for that, I get "premium styling", as well as membership to a very egotistical and ignorant community, which I've come to appreciate.
That's what a Mac is. So this "Macs are cost efficient too! you just need to match the smaller things!" argument isn't going anywhere. PCs, especially when your letting me have my pick of parts, lets me manipulate things to be in my favor every time. Macs were never about that, PCs, on the other hand, were founded on that concept; so why even bother?
If you were trolling me, then consider yourself successful.
You DO realize what's inside that "high end" iMac right? It's a core i5 2400. You're telling me a 2500k with unlocked multipliers is a WEAKER processor, than the cheaper 2400? Nevermind the fact that the 2500k already runs at a higher clock on default than the 2400, but that the 2500k are great processors that are made to be overclocked (heck, that's pretty much what the k stands for). Again, 4.0ghz with a stock cooler is no slouch. 4.5, even 5 ghz with a $20 fan and a repaste.
Results? Not pretty.
Macbook Pro: http://3dmark.com/search?resultTypeId=232&linkedDisplayAdapters=0&cpuModelId=1207&chipsetId=664
iMac high end 3.1 with 6970m: http://3dmark.com/search?resultTypeId=232&linkedDisplayAdapters=0&cpuModelId=1196&chipsetId=670
2500k with 560 GTX: http://3dmark.com/search?resultTypeId=232&linkedDisplayAdapters=0&cpuModelId=1199&chipsetId=676
3700 vs 7500. That's the $850 PC doubling up on the HIGH END iMac, and quadrupling the MBP.
The low end mac is nowhere near those specs. But since you probably wouldn't know better, drop processor down to AMD Phenom II 955 @ 3.2 quad. Save $100. Drop mobo down to Gigabyte 760G Micro ATX; save $55. Drop video card down to Sapphire 5830; save $75. Drop power supply down to a 520W model; save $25. Drop case down to an Rosewill; save $25. Cut RAM in half; save $35. And if I wanted to be anal, dropping the HDD down to a 500 GB model saves another $15. Total cost: 115+110+65+40+40+60+50=480 Doesn't that mean... yes. It does. It's worth less than $500. But just to be clear, the iMac's 2400S (2.5 i5) is about 20% than the AMD, I felt it's a horrible purchase. With the 2400S, you're getting horrible value for what you're paying for (Apple makes odd hardware decisions pretty often... e.g. 6490m in the base MBP that millions have complained about). So really, I have the option to crush the 2400s for $100, but nah, you can keep it. On the flip side, the desktop 5830 is still much more powerful than iMac's MOBILE 6750m (about 2.5x the 3DMark GPU score). So the overall scores of the resulting two machines? Not pretty.
Here's the base iMac: http://3dmark.com/search?resultTypeId=232&linkedDisplayAdapters=0&cpuModelId=1197&chipsetId=664
Here's the weaker AMD + far superior 5830: http://3dmark.com/search?resultTypeId=232&linkedDisplayAdapters=0&cpuModelId=917&chipsetId=611
Btw, if you think the high HIGH end MBPs fare better, you're sadly mistaken:
iMacs with i7s: http://3dmark.com/search?resultTypeId=232&linkedDisplayAdapters=0&cpuModelId=1202&chipsetId=670
About 10% higher than the 3.1 i5s, which sounds about right.
I understand benchmarks aren't everything, but 1300 vs 5400-5800? Sorry, but there's no case to be had here. Oh, and this $500 POS hardware is still 30% better than the high-end iMacs.
Yes, these are 3DMark scores, which takes into account both the processors and the video card. The video card is really where it makes up ground, but the processors are no slouches. The idea here is that the desktops OC real real easily, and the Sandy Bridges, especially with the unlocked multipliers are built for OC-ing.
So, here are some PCMark scores to ease your pain; do note MBP posted some "glitched" scores that could not be replicated:
High i7 iMac (10k): http://3dmark.com/search?resultTypeId=18&linkedDisplayAdapters=0&cpuModelId=1202&chipsetId=670
High i5 iMac (8.5k): http://3dmark.com/search?resultTypeId=18&linkedDisplayAdapters=0&cpuModelId=1196&chipsetId=670
MBP 2.2 (8k): http://3dmark.com/search?resultTypeId=18&linkedDisplayAdapters=0&cpuModelId=1207&chipsetId=664
2500k @ 4.4ghz (14.5k): http://3dmark.com/search?resultTypeId=18&linkedDisplayAdapters=0&cpuModelId=1199&chipsetId=676
Garbage AMD chip (7k): http://3dmark.com/search?resultTypeId=18&linkedDisplayAdapters=0&cpuModelId=917&chipsetId=611
I've definitely not only proved my claim, I've surpassed my claim.
Keyboard, mouse, that was the best you could come up with?
Windows? Oh please. There's other OSes (Linux). Not to mention, engineering students get W7 for free.
I never mentioned the inclusion of monitors. I specifically mentioned the EXCLUSION of them though. But if you're nitpicking, an IPS sets you back what, 250? 300?
I'm not trying to match everything; some of the stuff Apple throws at you that most consumers don't need. Honestly, do you expect me to match the iMac case too? The paintjob? What about the Apple logo? I'm just covering very broad hardware. Performance was the original claim, not styling, and that's an argument that Macs simply cannot win. You asked, I provided. An 800 dollar machine that performs at twice (or 4x if we're going by 3Dmark) that of the MBP, and matches (or doubles if we're going by 3Dmark) that of the high end iMacs. Heck, even the $500 dollar machine surpasses that of either. Specs matched, point proven, case closed. "fail"
The thing is, I don't see why you're even bothering to argue with me on this one. No one buys Macs for the sake of being cost effective. The spec sheet is way down at #4 or #5 on their priority list, with the first 3 being build quality, design, and a mix of ego/brand name/wanting to fit in. This was step one for me to transition from PCs to Macs. I've accepted it, it's perfectly ok to know I'm getting horrible performance for what I'm paying for; that's not why I bought it. I know that, so it doesn't bother me. If you're happy with your HPs with the same 2720 and a better 6770 at 60% the price, ok, that's cool, I'm just as happy with my MBP.
The way I see it, if people force their "cost-effective" argument on me, it's better to compare apples to apples (pun intended). A MBP, at least to me, is in the same class as a Thinkpad W520 and Dell Precision M4600 [and whatever Sony's come up with; their 15-inch line is very lacking]. Great build quality, above average performance, the focus was clearly on the materials and worksmanship (sort of!); and superior non-consumer line customer service. The focus wasn't to squeeze out every last clock cycle of a chip to build a laptop that WILL overheat/run into problems some 18-24 months down the line, simply because portability and performance are two paths going in opposite directions. And really, I'm paying only a ~10-15% premium over them and for that, I get "premium styling", as well as membership to a very egotistical and ignorant community, which I've come to appreciate.
That's what a Mac is. So this "Macs are cost efficient too! you just need to match the smaller things!" argument isn't going anywhere. PCs, especially when your letting me have my pick of parts, lets me manipulate things to be in my favor every time. Macs were never about that, PCs, on the other hand, were founded on that concept; so why even bother?
If you were trolling me, then consider yourself successful.
Last edited:
Ok here you go
Base 21" iMac ($1200) - 2.5ghz i5 (2400)
Mid 21" iMac ($1500) - 2.7ghz i5 (2500S)
High End 21" iMac ($1700) - 2.8ghz i7 (2600S)
Base 27" iMac ($1700) - 2.7ghz i5 (2500S)
Mid 27" iMac ($2000) - 3.1ghz (2400)
High End 27" iMac ($2200) - 3.4ghz i7 (2600)
The high end iMac has the 2600 in it, which is faster than the 2500K.
Your 3Dmark is obviously going to win, you beefed out the GPU. If you look at other types of benchmarks only comparing the processors, the 2500 is not faster than the 2600. I already told you the GPU is going to win, just because you put a gpu in a PC that can double the performance doesn't mean the computer is double the performance. You probably will double the GAMING performance, I'm not denying that, it's much easier to get good GPU's on PC, I've already said that.
And I didn't ask you to match the case and paint job, but if you are going to compare the machines like that, at least get them fairly close to including the same things. Your machine didn't include an OS, which does cost money and the OP can't use a computer with no OS. The iMac also includes a keyboard/mouse, not really a big deal, but it does add to your price tag, and a monitor, which you definitely should throw in. IPS monitors are more expensive than TN, that's why if you are really trying to compare them, both need IPS panels. Here are dells ultrasharp IPS monitors: http://www.dell.com/content/topics/...trasharp_monitor_offers?c=us&cs=04&l=en&s=bsd
21" is not bad at $230, 24" gets you close to $500, with the 27" clocking in at $1100.
Really my point was that if you take your system at $810, add a 27" IPS monitor (even ACD since it's cheaper at $1000), you are at $1810, then you need a copy of win7 and kb/m so we will bring the total up to $2000 for a machine that's actually comparable. Of course the PC has a much better GPU in it, so if gaming is your task, I'd go with that. The iMac is $2200 and comes in a sleek package and runs OSX, if that's what you are looking for, go with the iMac.
Now obviously if you go with a cheap monitor, the price will be lower, making the PC look like a much better deal. If you don't care about IPS then great, the PC is going to save a lot of money, I'm not denying that, but if you are trying to compare them fairly, they are actually very similar in price and performance.
Base 21" iMac ($1200) - 2.5ghz i5 (2400)
Mid 21" iMac ($1500) - 2.7ghz i5 (2500S)
High End 21" iMac ($1700) - 2.8ghz i7 (2600S)
Base 27" iMac ($1700) - 2.7ghz i5 (2500S)
Mid 27" iMac ($2000) - 3.1ghz (2400)
High End 27" iMac ($2200) - 3.4ghz i7 (2600)
The high end iMac has the 2600 in it, which is faster than the 2500K.
Your 3Dmark is obviously going to win, you beefed out the GPU. If you look at other types of benchmarks only comparing the processors, the 2500 is not faster than the 2600. I already told you the GPU is going to win, just because you put a gpu in a PC that can double the performance doesn't mean the computer is double the performance. You probably will double the GAMING performance, I'm not denying that, it's much easier to get good GPU's on PC, I've already said that.
And I didn't ask you to match the case and paint job, but if you are going to compare the machines like that, at least get them fairly close to including the same things. Your machine didn't include an OS, which does cost money and the OP can't use a computer with no OS. The iMac also includes a keyboard/mouse, not really a big deal, but it does add to your price tag, and a monitor, which you definitely should throw in. IPS monitors are more expensive than TN, that's why if you are really trying to compare them, both need IPS panels. Here are dells ultrasharp IPS monitors: http://www.dell.com/content/topics/...trasharp_monitor_offers?c=us&cs=04&l=en&s=bsd
21" is not bad at $230, 24" gets you close to $500, with the 27" clocking in at $1100.
Really my point was that if you take your system at $810, add a 27" IPS monitor (even ACD since it's cheaper at $1000), you are at $1810, then you need a copy of win7 and kb/m so we will bring the total up to $2000 for a machine that's actually comparable. Of course the PC has a much better GPU in it, so if gaming is your task, I'd go with that. The iMac is $2200 and comes in a sleek package and runs OSX, if that's what you are looking for, go with the iMac.
Now obviously if you go with a cheap monitor, the price will be lower, making the PC look like a much better deal. If you don't care about IPS then great, the PC is going to save a lot of money, I'm not denying that, but if you are trying to compare them fairly, they are actually very similar in price and performance.
What do you guys think about a MBA + PC combo?
I currently have a PC with the following:
Q9550 2.83GHz, OC'd to 3.6GHz
4GB DDR2 RAM
Gainward golden sample GTX 260
22" Asus monitor
I would save money, as I wouldnt have to sell and replace this. I love the MBA, and if it comes out in black like I have heard, I dont think I would need to think twice!
I currently have a PC with the following:
Q9550 2.83GHz, OC'd to 3.6GHz
4GB DDR2 RAM
Gainward golden sample GTX 260
22" Asus monitor
I would save money, as I wouldnt have to sell and replace this. I love the MBA, and if it comes out in black like I have heard, I dont think I would need to think twice!
I don't even really see what you are going to be doing that will require a high performance machine anyways. I personally think you can do just fine with the MBA, it is a pretty quick little machine, will only be better after the SNB update, and shouldn't have any problems.
The PC definitely makes things cheaper, and would be great to leave in your dorm.
Sometimes can be a pain to get files from one to the other, and might have to deal with inconsistencies with formatting or dealing with changing file formats to get compatibility, but overall it isn't too bad.
My .02, start with the cheapest option and see if you need more after that. College is expensive, don't go out and buy all kinds of new computers because you are afraid yours is too slow. Call the uni and see what kind of software you are going to need to run for your major. Get a machine that can run that software, and be done with it. I personally see no need for 2 or 3 computers while you are in college.
The PC definitely makes things cheaper, and would be great to leave in your dorm.
Sometimes can be a pain to get files from one to the other, and might have to deal with inconsistencies with formatting or dealing with changing file formats to get compatibility, but overall it isn't too bad.
My .02, start with the cheapest option and see if you need more after that. College is expensive, don't go out and buy all kinds of new computers because you are afraid yours is too slow. Call the uni and see what kind of software you are going to need to run for your major. Get a machine that can run that software, and be done with it. I personally see no need for 2 or 3 computers while you are in college.
I agree with what you say. Lately I have been thinking of just getting the new MBA when they come out. I would use it for a while and see how it went. If within the return period it isnt good enough, I can take it back. However, if it is fine, I will keep it, and if I feel the need, upgrade to an external monitor. I plan to buy this laptop and keep it for 3-4 years to last my whole uni.
I think you need to stick with one machine for now because Apple doesn't really play that well with multi-Mac homes. For example, if you have an iPhone, which computer do you sync it to? Where is your music located? Photos? Do you want to sync on the go or only at home? What about your documents? Where are those located?
While it appears that some of these problems might be solved by iCloud, I wouldn't base a hardware decision on an Apple solution when they've really failed at cloud networking time and time again over the last 10 years.
While it appears that some of these problems might be solved by iCloud, I wouldn't base a hardware decision on an Apple solution when they've really failed at cloud networking time and time again over the last 10 years.
2600 IS faster than a 2500k. However, I would LOVE you see to try OC'ing your 2600 (with a locked multiplier btw) housed in an iMac. You can't. 2500k with a slight OC would eat up the 2600. I've mentioned this multiple times; the 2500k is made to be overclocked. I'll say it again: the 2500k is made to be overclocked. And again, the 2500k is made to be overclocked. What's the point of comparing stock options?
You can double the performance in any aspect you like. Naturally, the two most important components when it comes to raw power is the CPU/GPU, so I targetted those. It depends on your needs, obviously, that's the point. PCs allow you to customize. Macs throw a bunch of stuff at you that you don't really need, but are forced to pay for anyway. That's what makes them cost ineffective.
Case one: what if I don't want an IPS screen? Well too bad! You're getting one! What if I don't want the abysmal cost : performance 2400S? Again, too bad. Can I please have a desktop version video card? No way! I don't want to pay for iWork and all that non-sense. Again, you have to.
You do a lot of processing? Easy, you can double "performance" by just shelling out an extra $100 for a 2600k and save $100 elsewhere, OC that badboy to 4.7 and once again, twice the power. You uh... copy files alot? Dual SSD that bitch in RAID 0. Customization. PC. Hand in hand. I don't need to match everything spec for spec, because quite frankly, over 50% of the stuff included is worthless, and 25% of it is less than optimal choices (e.g. a mobile card).
You paying retail for a non-Apple product? Shame on you. I see a Viewsonic IPS 23 inch for 290, no tax. I see an LG 23 for 240. But the main thing to take from this is, what if I don't want an IPS screen? What if, for strange reason, me and my target audience tend to look at the screen straight on instead of from a 175 degree angle? It's a computer after all.
@op: Invest in a external. That PC will last you a while. Upgrade as you see fit. Wait for MBA refresh. Processor's a bit outdated, but I don't see any reason for you to upgrade with what you do. If it feels sluggish, go for it. Honestly, you've got a PC that's at least 80-90% as good as the new iMacs all things considered. And obviously, you do do a bit of gaming I recognize the premium mid-range setup back in 2008 (I would know, I had the same setup, but with 3.4 OC and a 4870). Honestly, if when you say power/performance you mean gaming, then you've got a machine that's probably more capable than even the high end iMacs. The mobile card REALLY hurts it in that regard. Sandy Bridge are slightly better for MATLAB, but even then, that depends on how you use it and what you're majoring in. For programming, you're fine even with a Pentium. Unless you somehow get advanced to the point where you're making real world applications, either as freeware/shareware, then it's time to get yourself a dedicated machine. Even then, it depends on what you're making. The need for performance strictly comes from a few, very specific sources: gaming, simulations, and processor grunt work that I don't want to dive into.
However, given your final "last me 4 years bit", I don't quite think a MBA would do it. A buddy of mine uses a MBA and it runs extremely hot, especially while surfing Java enabled webpages (aka all of them) and youtube. And heat + hardware = short life. Not to mention, ultimately a MBA is a ultraportable, and will never exceed the specs of an entry level notebook or something. So as such, take a look at the entry level notebooks offered in 2007-2008 and see if they're usable today to extrapolate.
You can double the performance in any aspect you like. Naturally, the two most important components when it comes to raw power is the CPU/GPU, so I targetted those. It depends on your needs, obviously, that's the point. PCs allow you to customize. Macs throw a bunch of stuff at you that you don't really need, but are forced to pay for anyway. That's what makes them cost ineffective.
Case one: what if I don't want an IPS screen? Well too bad! You're getting one! What if I don't want the abysmal cost : performance 2400S? Again, too bad. Can I please have a desktop version video card? No way! I don't want to pay for iWork and all that non-sense. Again, you have to.
You do a lot of processing? Easy, you can double "performance" by just shelling out an extra $100 for a 2600k and save $100 elsewhere, OC that badboy to 4.7 and once again, twice the power. You uh... copy files alot? Dual SSD that bitch in RAID 0. Customization. PC. Hand in hand. I don't need to match everything spec for spec, because quite frankly, over 50% of the stuff included is worthless, and 25% of it is less than optimal choices (e.g. a mobile card).
You paying retail for a non-Apple product? Shame on you. I see a Viewsonic IPS 23 inch for 290, no tax. I see an LG 23 for 240. But the main thing to take from this is, what if I don't want an IPS screen? What if, for strange reason, me and my target audience tend to look at the screen straight on instead of from a 175 degree angle? It's a computer after all.
@op: Invest in a external. That PC will last you a while. Upgrade as you see fit. Wait for MBA refresh. Processor's a bit outdated, but I don't see any reason for you to upgrade with what you do. If it feels sluggish, go for it. Honestly, you've got a PC that's at least 80-90% as good as the new iMacs all things considered. And obviously, you do do a bit of gaming
I recognize the premium mid-range setup back in 2008 (I would know, I had the same setup, but with 3.4 OC and a 4870). Honestly, if when you say power/performance you mean gaming, then you've got a machine that's probably more capable than even the high end iMacs. The mobile card REALLY hurts it in that regard. Sandy Bridge are slightly better for MATLAB, but even then, that depends on how you use it and what you're majoring in. For programming, you're fine even with a Pentium. Unless you somehow get advanced to the point where you're making real world applications, either as freeware/shareware, then it's time to get yourself a dedicated machine. Even then, it depends on what you're making. The need for performance strictly comes from a few, very specific sources: gaming, simulations, and processor grunt work that I don't want to dive into.However, given your final "last me 4 years bit", I don't quite think a MBA would do it. A buddy of mine uses a MBA and it runs extremely hot, especially while surfing Java enabled webpages (aka all of them) and youtube. And heat + hardware = short life. Not to mention, ultimately a MBA is a ultraportable, and will never exceed the specs of an entry level notebook or something. So as such, take a look at the entry level notebooks offered in 2007-2008 and see if they're usable today to extrapolate.
Last edited:
I'd go for iMac and Macbook Air only 1 flaw the Air due to be refreshed soon so yea.
I have a MacBook Pro 15" 2.3 ghz i7 but when it comes to the time to replace it, I will go the iMac and MacBook Air route, or at least, if they are still on the go when I do so. This MacBook Pro is a replacement for a two year old MacBook Pro that went faulty on me. Thank goodness for AppleCare!
Well, the iMac has the grunt to do processor intensive stuff and the Air has the convenience of size, speed at start up, doesn't have a spinning disc hdd to get damaged if it get a knock and is capable of some serious work too. Instant start up too, and once Lion comes out, you'll have iCloud as a means to back up on the go too.
Cheers, Macjim.
Thanks for that reply, it helps quite a lot.
Im not sure how happy I would be with using a laptop all of the time, I quite like normal keyboards and can type fast on them, but im slower on a laptop. Hence why im thinking of the imac. PC + Air seems too much hastle to have everything synced.
Will iCloud cost anything? Or will it be free for files?