MP or MBP

[lcat]

I am going through this dilemma right now MBP or MP.
as the doubts of the future of the MAC PRO line are hanging over our heads and he power of the MBP makes it worthy of the label 'desktop replacement ' I believe this dilemma is tougher then ever. I have been using a MBP 2.33GHz Core 2Duo with the max 3 gig ram for nearly 5 years now (since 2007) and since the advent of Aperture. now with an HD upgrade, running Aperture 3 and CS5 I 'm realizing its time to get a new machine.

I am well aware of the MP benefits with HD space and the scalability, 96 gig ram potential, 2 processors ... however, even after all my research I find the decision a tough one. I prefer the portability of the MBP, but do not want to compromise speed and raw power for portability, at the same time I question just how much of that raw MP power is being utilized by current software, Aperture 3 and CS5 in particular (as well as MS office and others). will there be a noticeable difference in speed between the MBP with 16 gig ram and a couple SSD 's with a thunderbolt external HD - vs - MP with 24 gig ram and two 6core processors, i would also like to get the 27" thunderbolt LED to join my 23" cinema DVI LCD, no problem on the MP, and i think id be able to do it on the MBP as well with the thunderbolt Promise Pegasus in line with the two displays. so there it is, a dilemma I know plagues many minds out there, lets see what the thoughts are on this issue at this present time 2011 to 2012, its a volatile and uncertain time not just in the economic world but in the world of tech.

your thoughts will be helpful, thanks.

 

[miles01110]

but do not want to compromise speed and raw power for portability

Get the Mac Pro then.

 

[eternalife]

I'm having trouble with a recommendation because it isn't even an apples to apples comparison. IMO they aren't even meant to be considered options to decide between. For the average user, the Mac Pro will be WAY more machine than you will ever need.
And after reading your statement...

"I question just how much of that raw MP power is being utilized by current software, Aperture 3 and CS5 in particular (as well as MS office and others)"

I think you may fall into that category. The Mac Pro is designed to scale WAY beyond a MBP (storage, memory, CPUs, etc.). If you struggle envisioning software not taking advantage of all this extra horsepower/storage than you don't need one.

What are your presentation needs (# of monitors) - one to two? Then you don't need one.

What are your storage demands - a couple of TB? Then you don't need one.

What software are you running - Aperture, CS5, MS Office? Then you don't need one.

I think you should be trying to decide between a iMac and a MBP. The MP is WAY more machine than you think it is or envision needing. If I'm wrong in that statement I don't believe you would even ask the question.

 

[iThinkergoiMac]

What software are you running - Aperture, CS5, MS Office? Then you don't need one.

Depending on what OP is doing with CS5, a Mac Pro could most certainly be warranted. Try rendering an AE animation with 50+ 3D layers, multiple sound layers, 5+ effects on each layer, and a few 3D models thrown in there for good measure on a MBP. It'll take that thing to a crawl, while the Mac Pro will crunch through it much better.

Obviously, if the OP is planning on running Office (I don't even know why that was brought into the equation) and some light to medium duty CS5, a MBP will be fine. But saying you don't need a Mac Pro if all you're doing is CS5? Really?

OP, the question really comes down to what you need to do with it and why you think you might need 64 GB RAM or more. I see you use CS5, but for what? Are you editing PS files of 100 MB or 10 GB?

 

[eternalife]

Depending on what OP is doing with CS5, a Mac Pro could most certainly be warranted. Try rendering an AE animation with 50+ 3D layers, multiple sound layers, 5+ effects on each layer, and a few 3D models thrown in there for good measure on a MBP. It'll take that thing to a crawl, while the Mac Pro will crunch through it much better.

In principle I agree with your statement. Based on the OPs question about 'will the software utilize the hardware' I assumed the OP wasn't doing that kind CS5 work. If he was the MBP wouldn't even be in the running.

 

[Fishrrman]

"I'm having trouble with a recommendation because it isn't even an apples to apples comparison. IMO they aren't even meant to be considered options to decide between. For the average user, the Mac Pro will be WAY more machine than you will ever need."

I agree with the above assessment.

No comparison between a "Mac Pro" and a "MacBook Pro".

However, I think a more apt comparison might be a Mac Mini Server vs. the MBPro....

Those little boxes are _very_ capable machines as of late....

 

[lcat]

MP an overkill?

Maybe you're right, the Mac Pro very well could be an overkill for me, I hope that is the case, however, I prefer having a bit of an overkill that will last then spending the money on something that wont.

As for what I use my machine for, I am a heavy Aperture and photoshop user, my aperture library contains just over a terabyte of raw images and growing. I find that my current machine is inadequate to handle even trivial image manipulations I perform now. I also do web development and work on some print quality images that could exceed a gig and do some light video editing. I am looking for a machine that would handle these tasks with no issues and would give me the ability to multitask with several apps. I imagine that 16 gigs of ram would be sufficient for that, but not sure if aperture and photoshop would benefit greatly from double or even triple that. Also looking at a new camera with 36 megapixels, so all of a sudden we have much larger files to deal.
I would like to have two displays hooked up ...
I am still wondering if I could do the thunderbolt 27" display - thunderbolt Promise Pegasus 6bay HD and then my 23" LCD. if anyone has tried this setup please let me know!

 

[SDColorado]

If you are leaning toward the MP, you may also want to consider whether the 12-core is a worthwhile investment for your needs. There have been some benchmarks that would indicate is not. You might be better served spending the price difference elsewhere.

 

[lcat]

dual processor or single

If you are leaning toward the MP, you may also want to consider whether the 12-core is a worthwhile investment for your needs. There have been some benchmarks that would indicate is not. You might be better served spending the price difference elsewhere.

Yes, I have read that it may be better to just stick with one processor and max out on the cores rather then the dual processor solution, in some applications. I think that even when the apps are designed to use multiple processors or even multiple cores they are still not well optimized to use them efficiently. perhaps its the bottle neck somewhere in the configuration rather then the ability to utilize the processing power, but regardless there are limitations with most apps out there.

 

[SDColorado]

Yes, I have read that it may be better to just stick with one processor and max out on the cores rather then the dual processor solution, in some applications. I think that even when the apps are designed to use multiple processors or even multiple cores they are still not well optimized to use them efficiently. perhaps its the bottle neck somewhere in the configuration rather then the ability to utilize the processing power, but regardless there are limitations with most apps out there.

I had a friend contact me recently asking if she could use my MP for some software testing, because they have been having an issue with people who are using 6+ core machines. Apparently the software has been very slow, with lags and freezes with 6+ core machines. Her machine is only a core 2 duo and it runs fine. I forgot to ask her what software it was. I could find out, but I don't suppose it is really relevant, unless you use that software. It was some kind of publishing software if I recall similar to InDesign, I think. That may be wrong. I just said "sure" and didn't bother to get the details 🙂 Long story short, it seems that it isn't just CS5 that seems to have issues with more than 4-6 cores.

 

[thekev]

Maybe you're right, the Mac Pro very well could be an overkill for me, I hope that is the case, however, I prefer having a bit of an overkill that will last then spending the money on something that wont.

As for what I use my machine for, I am a heavy Aperture and photoshop user, my aperture library contains just over a terabyte of raw images and growing. I find that my current machine is inadequate to handle even trivial image manipulations I perform now. I also do web development and work on some print quality images that could exceed a gig and do some light video editing. I am looking for a machine that would handle these tasks with no issues and would give me the ability to multitask with several apps. I imagine that 16 gigs of ram would be sufficient for that, but not sure if aperture and photoshop would benefit greatly from double or even triple that. Also looking at a new camera with 36 megapixels, so all of a sudden we have much larger files to deal.
I would like to have two displays hooked up ...
I am still wondering if I could do the thunderbolt 27" display - thunderbolt Promise Pegasus 6bay HD and then my 23" LCD. if anyone has tried this setup please let me know!

Well you can't use the thunderbolt peripherals on a mac pro (yet). 16 GB is totally usable on larger files, especially if you ever work at 16 bits per channel (coincidental number, some people work at that bit depth and it does consume more ram). The thing about large amounts of ram for something like photoshop is that it won't necessarily speed everything up, but it makes a big difference on certain things. Most stuff in that application is near instant these days anyway. The big files are really more ram than cpu intensive. If you have enough ram to prevent photoshop from constantly having to write to the scratch disk, it makes for a much smoother process.

If you're a photographer you should really look at other display options too before you settle on the Apple. If you go with the Apple be careful on choosing a profiling device/software combination. Many of them do not profile that display well at all, and the colorimeters on the market do a somewhat sub par job with LED backlighting. The i1 Display Pro is supposed to address that, but I haven't tested it, and Xrite software sucks.