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

mattwolfmatt

macrumors 65816
Original poster
Jun 7, 2008
1,096
216
I've looked all over for this comparison but can't find it . . . how much difference, really, is there between these two machines?

iMac 3.06GHz 4GB RAM 500GB @ 7200 ($1149)
MBP 2.26GHz 4GB RAM (I'll upgrade the RAM myself) 160GB @5400 ($1099)

I don't need the storage space of the 500GB, but I'd like the fastest machine in this price range. Making it a laptop would be nice, but I'm not convinced it's necessary.

In other words, how much difference is there between 3.06 and 2.26 GHz, and does the slower HD really make much difference?

Thanks.
 
That's like asking if a Ferrari is better than an 18-wheeler just because it's faster. What do you use your machine for? If it's just internet browsing and iTunes then it doesn't make any difference.

Photoshop editing will be the biggest hog. Not video editing much.
 
The 3.06 is much faster. But the 2.26 is not slow. If you don't multitask a lot and don't need much CPU horsepower the laptop has the advantage of portability.

Personally the only imac i would consider getting is the 27 inch i7 model.
 
The iMac also has a lot better screen then the 13in MBP, which is worth considering if you are using this machine for mainly photoshop and don't have an external display.
 
Do you need the mobility? If not get the iMac, its faster and has a better screen.
 
Thanks all. I will probably get the imac, as the mobility would be a convenience only the next four months while our newborn sleeps in our bedroom with us (in a bassinet). That's where the computer will be located. After that it'll go in another room (the baby, not the computer). The extra $1000 for a similarly stocked laptop - plus the obligatory external monitor - just isn't worth it for those four months of convenience.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.