macbook pro vs imac

Discussion in 'iMac' started by coolweirdo, Dec 14, 2011.

  1. coolweirdo macrumors regular

    coolweirdo

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2011
    Location:
    Fl
    #1
    ok so im currently shopping for a new computer i mainly wanna use it for recording music, and a lil video editing need you guys help on decided which computer to get

    i like the macbook pro because of the portability

    in my opinion the imac is a solid unit

    macbook pro vs imac= memory?

    macbook pro vs imac = speed?
     
  2. Sandman1969 macrumors 6502a

    Sandman1969

    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2007
    #2
    Both will do what you need.

    If you want portability. It really is a no brainer.

    The iMAC support memory up to 32GB. The MBP maxes at 16GB as it has 2 memory slots. The iMac has 4 slots.
    The iMac can also include a better video card. The MBP tops at 6770M. The iMac can get the 6970M and up to 2GB VRAM.

    You can get a faster i7 in the iMac. 2.5 vs 3.4. Which surprised me that they haven't bumped the MBP yet with that chip.

    They are pretty close. If you get the MBP I would recommend getting the 7200rpm drive upgrade. Unless of course you want to go SSD.
     
  3. coolweirdo thread starter macrumors regular

    coolweirdo

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2011
    Location:
    Fl
    #3




    so if i go with the MBP i can have a solid portable recording studio with no issues, correct???
     
  4. Sandman1969 macrumors 6502a

    Sandman1969

    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2007
    #4
    Most definitely. I had a buddy that used protools on his and never complained about it. I didn't mess with it much, but looked like a sweet setup. Portability is definitely a plus.
     
  5. coolweirdo thread starter macrumors regular

    coolweirdo

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2011
    Location:
    Fl
    #5
    do you think its possible to cram it into a 13" MBP
    sorry for so many questions
     
  6. jertronic macrumors member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2011
    #6
    if I may offer some non-technical input. Since my computing needs are fairly light I tend to look at ergonomics over technical specs. If portability is a must then the conversation is already over. But, I am 6'1" in height which is by no means a giant. Point being: sitting at my desk staring into the 21 inch display is a hell of a lot more comfortable than hunching over the 13 inch screen of my girlfriend's MBP.

    The iMac is so sweet! Then again, I do not have a need for portability.
     
  7. Sandman1969 macrumors 6502a

    Sandman1969

    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2007
    #7
    jertronic makes a good point. but if that is an issue you can always add a monitor for when you are home.

    Also, the 13" doesn't have as many options as the 15 and 17. They only can get 5400rpm drives or SSD. If you get SSD that doesn't matter. Also, they are limited to the Dual Core i7 and the lower end intel graphics card.


    If you don't need something portable, I love our old iMacs, and I am sure I will love our new ones. As soon as I get to open them at Christmas!!
     
  8. doktordoris macrumors 6502a

    doktordoris

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2009
    #8
    I keep encountering you in these fora sandman, and reading about the iMacs that your little lad "bought" for you, how on earth are you able to resist opening them? you sir are made from stronger stuff than I.
     
  9. cirus macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2011
    #9
    great knowledge of computers.

    One (3.4GHZ) is a desktop chip and uses 95 watts. The other is a mobile chip that uses 45 watts.

    The 3.4 Ghz chip would turn your MPB into an oven
     
  10. heimbachae macrumors regular

    heimbachae

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2011
    #10
    I would say either would work iMac wise. if you're looking for MBP I'd stick to either the 15 or 17 inchers. they have more processing power to handle editing better than the 13" would.

    now, with that said there are new MBPs and iMacs on the horizon and when they arrive a 13" may handle everything you throw at it. we won't know anything for a few months I suspect.
     
  11. Sandman1969 macrumors 6502a

    Sandman1969

    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2007
    #11
    True, I forgot the iMacs use desktop chips and mobile GPUs. However, there are still slightly faster i7 mobile chips available that could have been put into the top of the line BTO.

    However, my statement other than that holds true that the iMac has a considerably faster CPU.

    It mainly comes down to if he needs mobility. If not the iMac makes more sense.
     
  12. thekev macrumors 604

    thekev

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2010
    #12
    I should mention that the "extreme" laptop cpus aren't really that much better. They cost twice as much (meaning Apple would charge quite a lot to maintain their margins), and they have a worse battery life for a moderate cpu gain.

    They come out relatively close on some cpu intensive tests, but it varies. Barefeats did some tests a while ago. This is one. Note the 6 core mac pro did come out okay on well threaded processes (after effects). Audio seem to have a pretty massive range of requirements, but the imac doesn't offer much that you can't do on a macbook pro unless it has superior stability on larger workloads or something of that sort.

    My suggestion would be that that it come down to whether the OP intends to own a laptop either way. I'm just not sure an imac + macbook pro is entirely necessary. As for the mac pros, the single socket models are really overpriced, most likely due to low sales volume. I do really like them, but I wouldn't say the current model is the one to buy.

    http://barefeats.com/imac11f.html

    Just my thoughts...
     
  13. David085 macrumors 6502a

    David085

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2009
    #13
    MBP for portability otherwise get the iMac, whatever you pick enjoy it either way
     
  14. coolweirdo thread starter macrumors regular

    coolweirdo

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2011
    Location:
    Fl
    #14
    i currently own a 2009 13" MBP but i dont think it can handle what i might have in mind, ive been leaning a lil towards the imac and if i needed to travel with it ive seen online pelican had a nice travel case for the imac
     
  15. theSeb macrumors 604

    theSeb

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2010
    Location:
    Poole, England
    #15
    What's surprising you? The one is a mobile CPU and the other is a desktop CPU. If they tried to put that chip into the MBP, then it would melt, never mind the space issue.
     
  16. thekev macrumors 604

    thekev

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2010
    #16
    That's not a bad idea. You mention audio. Just be aware of the imac limitations before you get it. The main one being that there is no way to easily swap out a hard drive. I think you can install one in the SSD bay without fan problems, but it still involves taking off the display panel. The 3.5" HDD is not user serviceable. As soon as you put in a different one the fans will go crazy.
     
  17. leman macrumors 604

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2008
    #17
    Well, both is not quite right... The 2.5 Ghz MBP CPU is the 2860QM, which is kind of top of the line mobile CPU if you don't count the ridiculously priced and only marginally faster Extreme Edition CPUs.

    The desktop 2600 has a default clock of 3.4 Gzh with Turbo clock 3.8 Ghz. The Mobile 2860QM has the default clock of 2.5 Gzh and the Turbo clock of 3.6/3.5/3.3 Ghz. Most of the time, the both CPUs will show comprable performance (with the desktop version being faster on heavy multithreaded computations).
     
  18. coolweirdo thread starter macrumors regular

    coolweirdo

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2011
    Location:
    Fl
    #18

    are there any other imac limitations???
     
  19. derbothaus macrumors 601

    derbothaus

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2010
    #19
    Yes. It is a closed ecosystem desktop. Not meant to be opened by the user and Apple takes steps to ensure this. You need SO-DIMM's for it and it has a mobile GPU. 6970m is 6850 desktop. The only faster chips for the iMac run at a whopping 100MHz faster. The only faster mobile chips for the MBP is again the same chip but set to run at a whopping 200MHz faster BUT they also have higher tdp (power) requirements which means Apple will most likely never use them. No higher than 45W tdp in Macbook Pros.
    Both the MBP and the iMac are fast enough for pretty much anything. If you need portability get the Book. If not, the iMac will be a better call for longevity and speed.
     
  20. dontwalkhand macrumors 601

    dontwalkhand

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2007
    Location:
    Phoenix, AZ
    #20
    I know I shouldn't be saying this on an iMac forum but, have you thought about a MacBook Pro + an external Thunderbolt display (or any other monitor really)?

    It is a setup that works, this way you have the portability, and still have a spacious desktop to work on. (Though the funny thing is that Apple made their laptops more upgradable than the iMac, the MacBook pro you can change the hard drive, and RAM out, while the iMac, you can only change the RAM).
     

Share This Page