Should I refund my iMac and get the new macbook pro?

[asdfasdf32]

Hello everyone- sorry im quite desperate at the moment -

I just got my very first iMac a few days ago, and the reason i got this was because it WAS alot more 'powerful' than the macbook pro 2010 (also mb pro's ridiculous price)-
But the new macbook Pro seems like it's raw power is almost as good as my new iMac?? (2.94Ghz i7)

I need both the portability and bigger screen, but since considering the price, mb pro 2010 was bit too inferior compared to the iMac, thats why i chose this-
Considering now, do you think my iMac is still ALOT better in many ways than the mb pro 2011? (my main use - Photoshop/AutoCAD/indesign/gaming)
If not, i was thikning of getting a mb pro 15" plus an additional monitor?

I need to make a decision before its too late so i can get a refund...
also I will prob get a few more upgrades if i end up getting a mb pro, can u prioritise which options to get please? (between 2.2->2.3GHz / 4gb RAM -> 8gb RAM/ or SSD? (and if i get SSD, is it some kind of extra memory i get on top of the basic 750Gb?? or is it just that cus if it is only 256 Gb SSD, thats not enough..?)

Before i finish, what is the difference btween 15" / 17" mb pro? is it only the screen size? or 17" has better cooling/noise control etc?

Thank you very much for your time-

 

[bakura]

I just can't understand... iMac and MacBook Pro have just different usage. You can't compare a netbook with a desktop computer. MacBook Pro has portability, iMac has a bigger screen and a better graphic card. Why does it matter if the new MacBook Pro can encode your video 2 seconds faster than your iMac ?

Seriously, just use and have fun your computer. If you want to have the most powerful computer, just make you a custom PC, for 2000 € you can have something that won't be beat by 2012 iMac ;-).

 

[flipster]

You should refund your imac, wait a month, and then get the new iMac which will be a lot better than the old one, cpu and hopefully gpu wise.

 

[Chris5488]

Well the new Macbook Pro i7's are in fact a bit more powerfull than your iMac i7.
GPU is a bit weaker, but the smaller screen will compromise that, so the new Macbook Pro could be better... depending on which you choose.

But can you live with the smaller screen? It's difficult to compare an iMac to a Macbook Pro because they are 2 totally different machines.
Remember the iMac also will get an upgrade soon, so then that iMac will be even more powerfull then the current Macbook Pro's... you might be getting in a circle you see?

To answer your questions about upgrading the macbook Pro, I would prioritise 8GB RAM, then the CPU upgrade. I wouldn't consider the SSD because you only get the SSD and no extra HDD (and think of the price...). Besides for your needs (Photoshop/AutoCAD/indesign/gaming) the RAM and CPU are more important. SSD speeds up overall system responsiveness, program startup speed, boot and shutdown speeds.

 

[CrAkD]

i would return the imac reguardless either get the MBP or wait for the new imacs. after seeing the power difference in the MBPs im definately waiting.

 

[iMaccore2]

Wait until the last day you can possibly return it-14 days after the purchase. Walk in an exchange it for a new MBP of the same value. Hopefully within 14 days after the MBP purchase the new iMacs will come out, so you can then bring that MBP back and buy the new iMac. It will cost you a few hundred in restocking fees, probably.

 

[asdfasdf32]

I just can't understand... iMac and MacBook Pro have just different usage. You can't compare a netbook with a desktop computer. MacBook Pro has portability, iMac has a bigger screen and a better graphic card. Why does it matter if the new MacBook Pro can encode your video 2 seconds faster than your iMac ?

Seriously, just use and have fun your computer. If you want to have the most powerful computer, just make you a custom PC, for 2000 € you can have something that won't be beat by 2012 iMac ;-).

Sorry-, its just really difficult for me to decide as its just so expensive, and i will be using it for the next few years. and thank you for your comment.

 

[skiltrip]

I think there's a lot of us out there. Those that bought the i7 iMac during the last two weeks. Many of whom would prefer a laptop, but could not compromise the power needed. (for me, it was for producing large audio projects). So we got the iMac, and took great joy in the fact that is was the one Mac that cut into the Mac Pro benchmark scores.

Thursday changed everything.

If my iMac was still in the box. Or I had yet to really install or configure anything, I'd probably return and get the MBP.

But that's not the case. I already invested quite a few hours installing, configuring, troubleshooting FireWire daisy chaining issues, transferring files, organizing my desk. You know the drill. To me that's worth something.

If the new MBP were an obvious increase in power, I'd make the exchange. But it's not. The 2.2ghz 15" is probably about equal in real world audio use.

So I'm keeping the iMac. And with it I get to keep my badass 27" IPS display.

 

[Icaras]

Like people have already mentioned in this thread: new iMacs are coming.

If you exchange your iMac now for a new MBP, you may find yourself coming back here again to ask the same question again when the new iMacs get released.

 

[Tyrion]

You should refund your imac, wait a month, and then get the new iMac which will be a lot better than the old one, cpu and hopefully gpu wise.

This is good advice.

 

[kfscoll]

I think there's a lot of us out there. Those that bought the i7 iMac during the last two weeks. Many of whom would prefer a laptop, but could not compromise the power needed. (for me, it was for producing large audio projects). So we got the iMac, and took great joy in the fact that is was the one Mac that cut into the Mac Pro benchmark scores.

Thursday changed everything.

If my iMac was still in the box. Or I had yet to really install or configure anything, I'd probably return and get the MBP.

But that's not the case. I already invested quite a few hours installing, configuring, troubleshooting FireWire daisy chaining issues, transferring files, organizing my desk. You know the drill. To me that's worth something.

If the new MBP were an obvious increase in power, I'd make the exchange. But it's not. The 2.2ghz 15" is probably about equal in real world audio use.

So I'm keeping the iMac. And with it I get to keep my badass 27" IPS display.

I have a late-2009 iMac 27" with the 2.8GHz i7 as well as the new 15" MacBook Pro with the 2.3GHz i7. The MacBook Pro is faster, simple as that. If what's primarily holding you back from replacing your iMac with a MBP is the fact that you think you'll have to reconfigure the MBP from scratch, that's simply not the case. If you have the iMac like you like it, run a Time Machine backup, and then use Migration Assistant along with that TM backup on the new MacBook Pro to get the MBP exactly like your iMac was. I just went through this drill last night with two MBPs (a mid-2009 MBP to the new MBP, and a new MBA to the mid-2009 MBP), and it was painless.

Here are some obligatory Geekbench scores...MBP here and iMac here.

 

[nkd]

doesn't matter. The sandy bridge aren't any faster then the even the i5 760 running at 2.8ghz with turboboost up to 3.33ghz.

Sandybridge runs at 2.0ghz for the beginner chip and you can ofcourse spec it out to a faster on. turbo boost on laptop doesn't run as good as . The main difference is onboard gpu and 32nm. Clock for clock sandy bridge is only about 10% faster in best case scenario.

Keep it, even if the new imac comes out with sandy bridge you cant complain about the performance on current imacs. They are plenty fast enough and will be for a few years to come. Something new will always be around the corner and that doesn't mean you shouldn't buy whats out right now. The new imacs aren't going to be coming any time soon. I really dont think they are coming next month as some people have said.

I really cant believe people are saying that 2.3ghz sandy bridge is faster then 2.8ghz i7. It simply isn't. May be clock for clock it is, but an i5 or i7 clocked 500mhz higher will always beat a sandy bridge. There is a reason intel still calls the Nahlem i7 their upper end.

Again I am not saying sandy bridge is slower, but no way in hell a 2.3ghz sandy bridge is faster then a 2.8ghz i5 or i7 or specially a 2.93ghz i7.

it is faster if you match it to the same clock.

if you can get a macbook that is clock for clock with your i7 then yea it will be faster but you wont be able to make up the 500mhz difference even the i5 760 will be faster running at 2.8 vs 2.3 sandy bridge.

 

[kfscoll]

doesn't matter. The sandy bridge aren't any faster then the even the i5 760 running at 2.8ghz with turboboost up to 3.33ghz.

Sandybridge runs at 2.0ghz in laptop, turbo boost on laptop doesn't run as good as . The main difference is onboard gpu and 32nm. Clock for clock sandy bridge is only about 10% faster in best case scenario.

Keep it, even if the new imac comes out with sandy bridge you cant complain about the performance on current imacs. They are plenty fast enough and will be for a few years to come. Something new will always be around the corner and that doesn't mean you shouldn't buy whats out right now. The new imacs aren't going to be coming any time soon. I really dont think they are coming next month as some people have said.

I have no idea where you're getting your info from but you're simply wrong. My new MBP (2.3GHz i7) is faster doing Handbrake encodes than my iMac (2.8GHz i7). 10% difference between Nehalem and Sandy Bridge clock-for-clock my ass. Besides, the Sandy Bridge turbo modes (for both mobile and desktop processors) are waaay more aggressive than Nehalem turbo modes are. Don't pull nonsense out of your butt.

I'll post some Handbrake encode results when I get a chance. In my case, the gap between the MBP and the iMac would widen even more if I had 8GB of RAM in my laptop.

 

[nkd]

I have no idea where you're getting your info from but you're simply wrong. My new MBP (2.3GHz i7) is faster doing Handbrake encodes than my iMac (2.8GHz i7). 10% difference between Nehalem and Sandy Bridge clock-for-clock my ass. Besides, the Sandy Bridge turbo modes (for both mobile and desktop processors) are waaay more aggressive than Nehalem turbo modes are. Don't pull nonsense out of your butt.

I'll post some Handbrake encode results when I get a chance. In my case, the gap between the MBP and the iMac would widen even more if I had 8GB of RAM in my laptop.

I am getting my info from websites like anandtech, hardocp.

sandy bridge running at 2.3ghz vs i7 at 2.8 and beating it may be in a hand picked benchmark.

No way in hell it beats an i7 running 500mhz higher, sorry. Not happening.

No disrespect intended. Every benchmark will behave different on a different architecture, some will take advantage, some wont.
Sandy bridge is faster but not making up for a 500mhz clock difference of the i7, sorry may be it feels faster to you in one benchmark but it will not make up that much difference.

yes it beats the i7 but not at those speeds.

 

[nkd]

I have no idea where you're getting your info from but you're simply wrong. My new MBP (2.3GHz i7) is faster doing Handbrake encodes than my iMac (2.8GHz i7). 10% difference between Nehalem and Sandy Bridge clock-for-clock my ass. Besides, the Sandy Bridge turbo modes (for both mobile and desktop processors) are waaay more aggressive than Nehalem turbo modes are. Don't pull nonsense out of your butt.

I'll post some Handbrake encode results when I get a chance. In my case, the gap between the MBP and the iMac would widen even more if I had 8GB of RAM in my laptop.

It wasn't reflected as a disrespect to anyone, sorry that you happened to take it personal.

I will stick by my points I have made. Sandy bridge will not beat an i7 running at 2.8ghz and make up a clock difference of 500mhz.

may be your turbo boost is kicking in. I know sandy bridge turbo boost is agressive, known that from beginning. may be thats why you are getting better results. I still stick by and will say that clock for clock it will be faster, but if it is truly running at 2.3ghz and i7 at 2.8. it will not beat it.

Yes it is much faster in some of the benchmarks clock for clock, but on average it is anywhere from 10-15% faster.

If you were to ask me if I would get a sandy bridge Imac, hell yeah I would if it comes out soon enough, but I am more then happy with my new imac. I cant complain with the 16 gigs of ram and 2.8ghz quad core i5, this thing does everything I throw at it.

 

[kfscoll]

It wasn't reflected as a disrespect to anyone, sorry that you happened to take it personal.

I will stick by my points I have made. Sandy bridge will not beat an i7 running at 2.8ghz and make up a clock difference of 500mhz.

may be your turbo boost is kicking in. I know sandy bridge turbo boost is agressive, known that from beginning. may be thats why you are getting better results. I still stick by and will say that clock for clock it will be faster, but if it is truly running at 2.3ghz and i7 at 2.8. it will not beat it.

Yes it is much faster in some of the benchmarks clock for clock, but on average it is anywhere from 10-15% faster.

I agree that if the Sandy Bridge processor is actually running at 2.3GHz it probably won't beat the Nehalem at 2.8GHz. But that's not reflective of real world usage. In real world synthetic benchmarks (Geekbench and CPUmark are just two examples) the SB processor is faster, and in some cases significantly so. Put another way, in real-world usage, a i7-2820QM is faster than an i7-860 (the CPU in my iMac). No one would ever cripple their processor such that it only runs at its nominal rated speed. Part (but not all) of the reason the SB processors show such significant performance gains is because of their aggressive turbo modes. Why wouldn't turbo modes be considered when actually considering real world processor performance?

I'm not taking it personally, I'm just speaking from my own, actual experience since I have both processors. I can tell you unequivocally that my new MBP is faster than my iMac...and my iMac is no slouch.

Again, I'll get those Handbrake benchmarks posted as soon as I get a couple of runs done. You'll see -- in actual use, the MBP is faster.

 

[skiltrip]

I agree that if the Sandy Bridge processor is actually running at 2.3GHz it probably won't beat the Nehalem at 2.8GHz. But that's not reflective of real world usage. In real world synthetic benchmarks (Geekbench and CPUmark are just two examples) the SB processor is faster, and in some cases significantly so. Put another way, in real-world usage, a i7-2820QM is faster than an i7-860 (the CPU in my iMac). No one would ever cripple their processor such that it only runs at its nominal rated speed. Part (but not all) of the reason the SB processors show such significant performance gains is because of their aggressive turbo modes. Why wouldn't turbo modes be considered when actually considering real world processor performance?

I'm not taking it personally, I'm just speaking from my own, actual experience since I have both processors. I can tell you unequivocally that my new MBP is faster than my iMac...and my iMac is no slouch.

Again, I'll get those Handbrake benchmarks posted as soon as I get a couple of runs done. You'll see -- in actual use, the MBP is faster.

What about a usage scenario where you are taxing all 4 cores, like in some heavy audio session. Where turbo boost wasn't as much of a factor because all the cores were being utilized, wouldn't then, the lynnefield iMacs actual surpass the power of the lower clocked sandy bridge cpu?

 

[kfscoll]

What about a usage scenario where you are taxing all 4 cores, like in some heavy audio session. Where turbo boost wasn't as much of a factor because all the cores were being utilized, wouldn't then, the lynnefield iMacs actual surpass the power of the lower clocked sandy bridge cpu?

For all intents and purposes, Handbrakes maxes out all the cores you give it when doing a video encode/transcode. And, even in that usage scenario, my MacBook Pro outperforms my iMac. That's why I keep referring to posting Handbrake encode results -- you'll see a good comparison in a usage case where all cores are heavily taxed.

 

[asdfasdf32]

Thanks all, so they are not too different from one another in the end then?
I chose the iMac because it WAS A LOT more powerful than the 2010 mb pro.. now i may get a refund and get the mb pro 2011. (mbp 15" + bigger monitor?)
the last few days have been so bad not knowing what to do, (tho i still dont know for sure.... )

can anyone also tell me the difference between the 15" and the 17" mb pro? is it just the screen size or does 17" has better cooling/noise control etc?

thank you again everyone.

 

[asdfasdf32]

For all intents and purposes, Handbrakes maxes out all the cores you give it when doing a video encode/transcode. And, even in that usage scenario, my MacBook Pro outperforms my iMac. That's why I keep referring to posting Handbrake encode results -- you'll see a good comparison in a usage case where all cores are heavily taxed.

I dont really understand all these 'technical' talks tbh, so in conclusion- the new mb pro is slightly 'faster'(?) or 'better' than my current iMac?
I will be happy if it is 'as good as' my imac, then ill finally get the 'portability'...lol..

 

[coryndiego]

I dont really understand all these 'technical' talks tbh, so in conclusion- the new mb pro is slightly 'faster'(?) or 'better' than my current iMac?
I will be happy if it is 'as good as' my imac, then ill finally get the 'portability'...lol..

You seem to want the laptop and wont be disappointed as it is measuring up to be faster than the iMac i7 2.93Q (or very similar in daily use speed). Most of the feedback I'm reading and watching shows it to be true with video encoding and benchmark tests. http://www.youtube.com/user/tldtoday watch some of the videos at this link if you havent already. There are a few more sprinkled around youtube if you want to see more.

15" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uSqifuILQQQ


I also just bought an i7 2.93Q and absolutely love it! I knew the updates were coming soon and bought anyway because I thought they would be minimal increases/updates. If the new Macbook Pros are any indication of what the new iMacs will be... Mine's going back on Monday and I'm waiting it out. Envoy has got the best of me... another month or two with my trusty MBP 13 2.26 is worth the wait. Although, it's going to be hard to pack it up and send it back for an undetermined amount of time and a mystery product. Maybe I won't... I hate playing this game with myself.

 

[nkd]

The point I am coming from is that current i5 at 2.8 or i7 at 2.93 are really plenty fast to be honest. Yes you will always see a difference when you are benchmarking but on everyday usage your machine still be blazing fast, and may be you will covert a video 3 mins faster on a sandybridge vs the current gen. I really dont think it would be that much of a difference. Specially knowing that intel had to recall all the sandybridge boards specially for the desktop market. You might not see the new imacs until July where they have good amount of supply. Desktop boards are targeted to be back around mid april for the fixed revision. From what I know imac use desktop processors so you might have to wait until june the earliest for a new imac announcement with the new iphone.

Plus even if I wanted to sell this thing there is plenty of resale value for macs. I sold my last one for a good amount and recovered almost 75% of the value of the computer although I had apple care on it.

I spent 2 grand on this imac with applecare and tax. I am sure I will be able to sell it for 1500 easily.

 

[coryndiego]

The point I am coming from is that current i5 at 2.8 or i7 at 2.93 are really plenty fast to be honest. Yes you will always see a difference when you are benchmarking but on everyday usage your machine still be blazing fast, and may be you will covert a video 3 mins faster on a sandybridge vs the current gen. I really dont think it would be that much of a difference. Specially knowing that intel had to recall all the sandybridge boards specially for the desktop market. You might not see the new imacs until July where they have good amount of supply. Desktop boards are targeted to be back around mid april for the fixed revision. From what I know imac use desktop processors so you might have to wait until june the earliest for a new imac announcement with the new iphone.

Plus even if I wanted to sell this thing there is plenty of resale value for macs. I sold my last one for a good amount and recovered almost 75% of the value of the computer although I had apple care on it.

I spent 2 grand on this imac with applecare and tax. I am sure I will be able to sell it for 1500 easily.

I agree.. minutes of a difference with most tasks and my original plan was to sell if the new ones were impressive. I'm giving myself until the second to make up my mind. I have a refurb too and already saved 180 over the educational discount. hmmmm

 

[nkd]

I agree.. minutes of a difference with most tasks and my original plan was to sell if the new ones were impressive. I'm giving myself until the second to make up my mind. I have a refurb too and already saved 180 over the educational discount. hmmmm

I will be well within my 30 day return policy but if they even announce the new imacs, but I doubt they announce anything new until the iphone announcement.

 

[coryndiego]

I will be well within my 30 day return policy but if they even announce the new imacs, but I doubt they announce anything new until the iphone announcement.

14 days or 30? The website says 14 days for eligible return.?

It would be pretty sweet to get a double resolution or just to fix the bright corners on the display.

Sorry, I'm hijacking the thread... Im done.

asdfasdf32 - let us know what you decide to do.