MacBook Pro vs iMac

Discussion in 'iMac' started by tongzilla, Apr 10, 2008.

  1. tongzilla macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2008
    #1
    is the 2.4GHz ATI Radeon HD 2600 PRO with 256MB iMac faster

    or

    the 2.5GHz NVIDIA GeForce 8600M GT with 512MB MacBook Pro?

    The iMac has higher rpm in hardrive. Assume same RAM.

    thanks.
     
  2. design-is macrumors 65816

    design-is

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2007
    Location:
    London / U.K.
    #2
    They are both great machines. If you need portability get the MacBook Pro. If not, go for the iMac :)
     
  3. nick9191 macrumors 68040

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2008
    Location:
    Britain
    #3
    The Macbook Pro will be faster for CPU related tasks. For loading applications the imac might be a hair faster unless you take the 7200 with the macbook pro. The Macbook Pro will be better at games.

    If I were you I'd get the 2.4 Macbook Pro, take it with the 7200rpm hdd, and buy 4gb of third party ram off newegg. Which still works out cheaper than the 2.5 macbook pro stock.
     
  4. dalvin200 macrumors 68040

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2006
    Location:
    Nottingham, UK
    #4
    not forgetting the 30" ACD of course :p

     
  5. tongzilla thread starter macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2008
    #5
    just because of that extra 0.1GHz?
     
  6. Phil Lee macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2008
    Location:
    Manchester, UK
    #6
    Looking at the benchmarks on Macworld there is very little to choose between them:

    Macbook Pro 15" 2.5GHz, Mac OS X 10.5.2 with 2GB of RAM


    Speedmark 5 Score 222
    Cinema 4D XL 10.5 0:51
    iMovie HD 6 0:46
    iTunes 7.5 1:01
    Photoshop CS3 1:02
    Compressor 1:42
    Unreal Tournament 2004 89.4fps


    iMac 24" 2.4Ghz, Mac OS X 10.5 with 2GB of RAM

    Speedmark 5 Score 245
    Cinema 4D XL 10.5 0:54
    iMovie HD 6 0:47
    iTunes 7.5 0:59
    Photoshop CS3 0:55
    Compressor 1:57
    Unreal Tournament 2004 88.6fps
     
  7. AlexisV macrumors 68000

    AlexisV

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2007
    Location:
    Manchester, UK
    #7
    Are you just wondering, or are you buying one?
     
  8. Lord Zedd macrumors 6502a

    Lord Zedd

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2007
    Location:
    Denver, Colorado
    #8
    Because, except for the hard drive, they both use laptop components. The iMac pretty much is a MBP.
     
  9. trip1ex macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2008
    #9
    Performance is similar enough that I doubt you'll be able to tell the difference without benchmarks.

    iMac is much cheaper though if you don't need portability. The 20" is $500 less. The 24" is $200 less.
     
  10. Lord Zedd macrumors 6502a

    Lord Zedd

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2007
    Location:
    Denver, Colorado
    #10
    Though there is more than $500 less in value because of the screen.
     
  11. trip1ex macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2008
    #11
    MOre than $500 less???
     
  12. Lord Zedd macrumors 6502a

    Lord Zedd

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2007
    Location:
    Denver, Colorado
    #12
    Yes, the 20" screen is bottom of the barrel in quality compared to the 24".
     
  13. netdog macrumors 603

    netdog

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2006
    Location:
    London
    #13
    I don't think you are going to find much of a difference whatever the benchmarks say. I have always thought of the MBP as a portable iMac. Similar parts.
     
  14. hexonxonx macrumors 601

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2007
    Location:
    Denver Colorado
    #14
    I wouldn't say it's bottom of the barrel at all. You make it sound like it's a piece of junk. I would have to say that the 20" actually has a better picture. When I got my iMac last month, I compared a 20" and 24" side by side and the 20" had the better picture. The 24" had uneven lighting.
     
  15. mschmitt macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2007
    #15
    I bought the 24" iMac with ATI HD2600 Pro. At about 1024x768 with low settings, I was getting about 21 FPS in Crysis (via Boot Camp, of course).

    I returned it for various reasons and bought a MacBook Pro (Penryn 2.4) which I connected to a 23" ACD (expensive, I know).

    With the MacBook Pro, I get about 28 FPS in Crysis with medium (and a few high) settings.

    For what it's worth, I like the nVidia drivers better than those for the ATI, at least within Windows. nVidia provides much easier access to dual-monitor settings via their system tray icon. They also provide more options for dual-display arrangements.

    The 5400 RPM drive does make the MacBook Pro feel a little more sluggish than the iMac at times, such as during boot or when loading a new level. For me, the matte screens of the laptop and ACD were worth the tradeoffs.

    Michael

    Edit: Both machines had 4GB Mushkin RAM installed.
     
  16. ucfgrad93 macrumors P6

    ucfgrad93

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2007
    Location:
    Colorado
    #16
    Agreed. The deciding factor is your need for portability. Or you could just bite the bullet and get both!:p
     
  17. trip1ex macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2008
    #17
    Yeah I have a 20" iMac too. I'd take it over the 15" MBP screen.
     
  18. AlexisV macrumors 68000

    AlexisV

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2007
    Location:
    Manchester, UK
    #18
    Were you using the latest drivers for the 2600?
     
  19. design-is macrumors 65816

    design-is

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2007
    Location:
    London / U.K.
    #19
    If money is no problem, get the maxed out MacBook Pro. It has the same number of pixels as a 24" iMac and currently has newer/better technology in it. Costs more, but then you can't fold an iMac away and move it downstairs, to a friends house, to work etc...

    Take my word for it, its a wonderful machine.
     
  20. mschmitt macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2007
    #20

Share This Page