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

New iMac vs Current Macbook Pro

J

jbuba

macrumors member
Original poster
Jun 6, 2005
39
2
I know this is a typical question, but i need some advice on an upgrade...

I currently have a 20" iMac G5 2Ghz which has gotten really slow over the past few years. It can't playback HD videos without lagging and converting videos from xvid/wmv to mp4 (to import into iTunes/iPhone/AppleTV) takes a long time. About 25 minutes for a 30 min show. I read that the newer Intel Macs with the Core 2 Duo processors can do this in around 5-10 minutes.

So the question is, how much faster would the new iMac's be than the current MacBook PRO? I compared the specs and besides being able to upgrade to 2.8 Ghz, the CPU, RAM and GPU all seem to be about the same. If the iMac has a performance advantage over the MacBook Pro, then I'll get that. If the two are the same performance wise, then i think i would get the MacbookPro, so i would have both a desktop and laptop. Any advice is appreciated. Thanks.
 
well.. think of it this way, you can always turn a laptop into a desktop by getting an external screen, mouse and keyboard, but you can never turn a desktop into a laptop.
 
Does anyone know how the 2 graphics cards compare? Which one is better?
 
mkgm1 said:
Does anyone know how the 2 graphics cards compare? Which one is better?
Click to expand...

The MBP video card is loads better then the one in the new iMacs...
I totally suggest the MBP, it looks better, is portable, and as said earlier, it can be made into a desktop, even though it is more expensive then the iMac, almost everything about the MBP is better....
 
Tumeg101 said:
The MBP video card is loads better then the one in the new iMacs...
I totally suggest the MBP, it looks better, is portable, and as said earlier, it can be made into a desktop, even though it is more expensive then the iMac, almost everything about the MBP is better....
Click to expand...

The MBP's video card is worse, the CPU is a good deal slower (desktop CPU vs. laptop), faster HDD on the iMac, larger screen on the iMac. How is everything on the MBP better?

I'd get the MBP, just for portability sake.
 
The processors are the same. The iMac uses Merom, Intel's mobile part, as opposed to Conroe, the desktop part. So at the same clock speed, the iMac and MBP are the same in that regard.

As for the graphics card... it's a little bit up in the air. The Nvidia parts are better in most situations, but the Nvidia parts also cost more. And in some cases, the ATI cards do better than the Nvidia cards. I would expect that if ATI improves its drivers, the difference between the iMac and MBP cards will be a wash, but for right now the advantage is slightly in favor of the MBP.
 
NewSc2 said:
The MBP's video card is worse, the CPU is a good deal slower (desktop CPU vs. laptop), faster HDD on the iMac, larger screen on the iMac. How is everything on the MBP better?

I'd get the MBP, just for portability sake.
Click to expand...
Both computers use mobile processors.

I want to see if the ATi video cards in the iMac are the desktop versions or mobile variants as well. I'd want to see benchmarks first but I'm going to side with the 8600M GT.
 
NewSc2 said:
The MBP's video card is worse, the CPU is a good deal slower (desktop CPU vs. laptop), faster HDD on the iMac, larger screen on the iMac. How is everything on the MBP better?

I'd get the MBP, just for portability sake.
Click to expand...

there are no benchmarks for the hd 2600 pro, only the xt that i've seen

still..it completely depends on whether the card is the desktop or laptop version in the imac. If its the laptop version it'll probably be about even. If it's the desktop version it'll be much faster.

Overall..the imac will be faster on the whole, but it really depends on what you use it for and if you need the portability.
 
Freyqq said:
there are no benchmarks for the hd 2600 pro, only the xt that i've seen

still..it completely depends on whether the card is the desktop or laptop version in the imac. If its the laptop version it'll probably be about even. If it's the desktop version it'll be much faster.

Overall..the imac will be faster on the whole, but it really depends on what you use it for and if you need the portability.
Click to expand...

Gamespot just did a "Video Card Roundup" feature and posted benchmarks for the hd 2600 Pro along with the 8600GT (both desktop not mobile). I dunno if that will help anyone but I thought I'd throw it out there.

As for which is better, I will be getting a new iMac. But I need the screen real estate for video editing, thats my reason.
 
Freyqq said:
there are no benchmarks for the hd 2600 pro, only the xt that i've seen

still..it completely depends on whether the card is the desktop or laptop version in the imac. If its the laptop version it'll probably be about even. If it's the desktop version it'll be much faster.

Overall..the imac will be faster on the whole, but it really depends on what you use it for and if you need the portability.
Click to expand...

i take that back http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,1697,2151673,00.asp

seems like the 8600gt is faster assuming both are laptop versions
 
Its the same components in a different case.

The hard drive is faster in the iMac because its a 7200rpm desktop drive, but the rest is the same.

It just comes down to whether you want a laptop or desktop.
 
straight from Tom's Hardware

Best PCIe Card For ~$115: Tie
GeForce 8600 GT
Codename: G84
Process: 80nm
Universal Shaders: 32
Texture Units: 16
ROPs: 8
Memory Bus: 128-bit
Core Speed MHz: 540
Memory Speed MHz: 700 (1400 effective)
DirectX / Shader Model DX 10 / SM 4.0

Prices of the new midrange DirectX 10 video cards have dropped like a rock in the past month. The 8600 GT was a terrible buy at $150, but now, as it approaches $100, it's much more attractive. The 8600 GT will slightly beat the old 7600 GT and X1650 XT in raw performance in the $115 price category. In addition to speed, the 8600 GT has the added bonus of being DirectX 10 compatible, as well as being a good overclocker.

NOTE: beware of slower DDR2 versions of the 8600 GT! The GDDR3 versions are the recommended cards; DDR2 equipped 8600 GTs will be notably slower.
Radeon HD 2600 XT
Codename: RV630
Process: 65nm
Universal Shaders: 128
Texture Units: 8
ROPs: 4
Memory Bus: 128-bit
Core Speed MHz: 800
Memory Speed MHz: 800 (1600 effective)
DirectX / Shader Model DX 10 / SM 4.0

The performance of the 2600 XT is very close to that of the Geforce 8600 GT, although the Geforce seems to have the edge when antialiasing is enabled. Nevertheless, the 2600 XT has better video acceleration features in Windows XP at this time, and is a viable alternative in this price segment.
 
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