Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

MBP vs Mac Pro?

L

Lightey

macrumors regular
Original poster
Jul 10, 2010
185
2
I have $2500 to spend, and I wanted to know weather to get:

MacBook Pro 15"
2.2 Quad Core i7
8 GB RAM
720 GB HDD

or

Mac Pro
Nehalm
3 GB RAM
1 TB HDD

I'm big into video editing, and the only reason I'm considering the MBP is because I like laptops a lot better than desktops.
 
MP

I own both, and while my new MBP gets geekbench scores close to my MP (which is slower than the one you are considering), the storage and brute power of a Mac Pro is tough to beat for heavy lifting.

For example you can put 10 TB of HDD in one for $400.
 
Lightey said:
I'm big into video editing, and the only reason I'm considering the MBP is because I like laptops a lot better than desktops.
Click to expand...

Well it sounds like you need to go with a laptop. It won't match a desktop's performance, but you'll be satisfied with the portability.
 
Look at your own work flow and decide.

I bought the MBP i7, 500 GBHD 7200 8G Ram last June. I can sit in my easy chair and do whatever I want using CS5 & Lightroom. When I need a bigger monitor I walk into my office and plug in my 30" HP ZR30 using my 17" as a sidekick monitor and hook up 5TB of HD's. It does everything I need it to. I only do photo editing - no video. The next generation of Intel chips are around the corner probably next year I guess. When that happens I will upgrade to another 17" (or maybe a 21" by that time??) who knows.

I like the portability and power of the MBP and I'm not chained to my desk in the office. It works for me.
 
Last edited:
Wait until at least after the iPad 2 keynote next week. Maybe they will update Mac Pro's?
 
if you work in FCP, you might want to hold off a bit until the details of the upcoming FCP update.

If you work in Premiere CS5, I would suggest to go with the Mac Pro and later on add more RAM and swap out the 5770 for one of these NVIDIA cards
http://www.indiev.org/?p=317
 
Last edited:
SoCalRich said:
Look at your own work flow and decide.

I bought the MBP i7, 500 GBHD 7200 8G Ram. I can sit in my easy chair and do whatever I want using CS5 & Lightroom. When I need a bigger monitor I walk into my office and plug in my 30" HP ZR30 using my 17" as a sidekick monitor and hook up 5TB of HD's. It does everything I need it to. I only do photo editing - no video. Sandy Bridge is around the corner probably next year I guess. When that happens I will upgrade to another 17" (or maybe a 21" by that time??) who knows.

I like the portability and power of the MBP and I'm not chained to my desk in the office. It works for me.
Click to expand...

What are you talking about? The 2011 MBP's have Sandy Bridge.
 
Lightey said:
I have $2500 to spend, and I wanted to know weather to get:

MacBook Pro 15"
2.2 Quad Core i7
8 GB RAM
720 GB HDD

or

Mac Pro
Nehalm
3 GB RAM
1 TB HDD

I'm big into video editing, and the only reason I'm considering the MBP is because I like laptops a lot better than desktops.
Click to expand...

With $2500 the answer is definitely the MBP. You will need to spend a lot more for a MP of equivalent 'power'.

Also, the next MP update will be in about 12 months.

cheers
JohnG
 
If you go for the MBP you should seriously consider the 17" ESPECIALLY if you plan to do photo editing on the MBP screen instead of a larger monitor. With the tool bars and side bars (Lightroom) you need the additional real estate. Of course for Adobe RGB 1998 wide spectrum color space you will need to go with an IPS monitor anyway for true color accuracy. $$$$$$$ but worth it.
 
This is considering that the OP is "big into video editing"

The simple thought that even a 17" 2.3 sandy bridge MBP could be a heavy work horse like the low end 2.8 quad mac pro is just plain ignorant. If you truly will use the computer and need the Mac Pro a MBP will not cut it. If you do not need what the Mac Pro offers then the MBP will be fine

what the lowest processor 2.8 Mac Pro offers that the Top of the line MBP does not

Superior graphics including multi monitor support- up to 3 out of the box
Superior heat management
Longevity due to heat management
The ability to run 24 7 without concern- see above two notes
The ability to support 12 terabytes or more internally (MBP can have hope here if TB externals ever get released but at that point TB PCI cards should not be far behind for the Mac Pro)
Upgradeability in terms of processor
RAM capacity of 32GB

This machine makes 5-10% less on Geekbench.. and I promise you that a machine that can process with 5% less power for 24 hours a day will be a better work system than that machine that can process 5% more for only 20 minutes before heat concerns arise.

If you are not running the MBP to the point where it is getting too hot then you are not using the full capacity of the processor and you are now negating your geekbench score that you are chasing after and the whole argument is now void.

I could go on but I am tired
 
Last edited:
MP is the only way to go for true professional video editing, i.e., not hobbists knocking around w/ FCP, but people that have to punch out quality video fast and on time and use fancy PCI cards. There are some filmmakers that use a MBP to edit on-site but then they take it back to the studio and upload to the MP for final processing.

That said Apple has pretty much shouted off the mountain top that if you buy a MP now you are a moron b/c there will be no PCI Thunderbold cards, at least any time soon. That means we have to wait for the '11 MP update, which I'm pretty sure will drop w/ the new FCP sometime around NAB in late March or early April.
 
One thing to consider however is the thunderbolt port. Sure it isnt like having a couple of pci-express slots but it will allow video editors to add capture cards in the near future. Aja and Blackmagic are already working on thunderbolt capture cards.

MP are nice but they are pretty much locked into one location. If you travel around a lot you are not going to be satisfied with just a MP. It all really depends how you plan on using your machine. If you like to just sit at the same desk all day then a MP is great. Overall it will be a much better machine like everybody above has said.

Benchmarks scores do not tell everything but when it comes to raw cpu performance i do expect the 17" to be pretty darn close to the base MP. Sandybridge is really that much faster. Desktop and mobile cpus have really caught up to the workstation class cpus.
 
rmitchell248 said:
This is considering that the OP is "big into video editing"

The simple thought that even a 17" 2.3 sandy bridge MBP could be a heavy work horse like the low end 2.8 quad mac pro is just plain ignorant. If you truly will use the computer and need the Mac Pro a MBP will not cut it. If you do not need what the Mac Pro offers then the MBP will be fine

what the lowest processor 2.8 Mac Pro offers that the Top of the line MBP does not

Superior graphics including multi monitor support- up to 3 out of the box
Superior heat management
Longevity due to heat management
The ability to run 24 7 without concern- see above two notes
The ability to support 12 terabytes or more internally (MBP can have hope here if TB externals ever get released but at that point TB PCI cards should not be far behind for the Mac Pro)
Upgradeability in terms of processor
RAM capacity of 32GB

This machine makes 5-10% less on Geekbench.. and I promise you that a machine that can process with 5% less power for 24 hours a day will be a better work system than that machine that can process 5% more for only 20 minutes before heat concerns arise.

If you are not running the MBP to the point where it is getting too hot then you are not using the full capacity of the processor and you are now negating your geekbench score that you are chasing after and the whole argument is now void.

I could go on but I am tired
Click to expand...

With all those upgrades the cost will be >$2500. Obviously the BEST is the mac pro, but price to performace with a budget of $2500, you really can't beat the new macbook pros right now.
 
Only you know the value & usefulness of portability. My primary machine is a fully loaded MBP. With a MacPro as secondary for those times when I'm home and don't need to move around. It's also got one dedicated HD to allow me to use it as a server. That versatility is truly handy.
 
smetvid said:
Benchmarks scores do not tell everything but when it comes to raw cpu performance i do expect the 17" to be pretty darn close to the base MP. Sandybridge is really that much faster. Desktop and mobile cpus have really caught up to the workstation class cpus.
Click to expand...

Workstation class CPUs were never really any/much faster than desktop CPUs. At least not for the last few generations. Mostly they were just binned versions with more features enabled (X5550 is sort of just an i7-920 at 95W with more aggressive turbos and a few more features).

What is questionable about the 2720QM vs W3530 object is how synthetic these tests really are. How does the notebook hold up to sustained load, how well can it sustain those turbo frequencies, etc... we don't know all the facts yet. It will be interesting to see.
 
jbg232 said:
With all those upgrades the cost will be >$2500. Obviously the BEST is the mac pro, but price to performace with a budget of $2500, you really can't beat the new macbook pros right now.
Click to expand...


Actually its not because all of the HDD upgrades that would go into the mac pro would go into the MBP VIA a TB HDD stack. The RAM would need upgrading in both machines as well.
 
My Mac Pro encodes video for literally days no end, full bore. I would never want to do that on a Macbook Pro. The poor little fans would cause it to go into orbit and it'd still be sizzling hot.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back