Which 13" MBP will = my current iMac performance?

Discussion in 'Buying Tips and Advice' started by Qwerty11, Jan 4, 2016.

  1. Qwerty11 macrumors regular

    Sep 1, 2010
    I am wanting to replace my iMac with a 13" Retina MBP. Which model will give me similar performance as my current iMac?

    My current iMac specs are:
    iMac (27-inch, Late 2009)
    Processor: 2.66 GHz Intel Core i5
    Memory: 16 GB 1333 MHz DDR3
    Graphics: ATI Radeon HD 4850 512 MB
    Storage:Fusion Drive, 1TB HD, 128GB SSD
  2. zhaoxin macrumors regular

    Jan 28, 2015
    According to Mactracker, you can download it from App Store. Your iMac CPU score is 6454. The base model of current 2015 early MacBook Pro 13 is 7858, 2014 Mid is 7599.

    So either one is good enough for you.
  3. maflynn Moderator


    Staff Member

    May 3, 2009
    I wonder though if you'll have better performance with your GPU vs. the integrated GPU that comes with the 13" MBP. With that said, Intel has made a lot of progress with the GPUs over the years and it may be up to snuff.
  4. T'hain Esh Kelch macrumors 601

    T'hain Esh Kelch

    Aug 5, 2001
    Any Mac Apple sells at the moment will be faster than you iMac.
  5. RedCroissant Suspended

    Aug 13, 2011
    I think none of them. Even though the retina Macbook Pro is nice with a great display the limitation to a dual core i5 and sharing system memory with an integrated CPU that still has to handle the retinaness of the display is not going to be what you need. I honestly think that no 13" mbp is going to equal the performance that you have unless you spend around 2,700 to get the DUAL i7/16GB RAM/1TB SSD and even that will barely approach what you are accustomed to and still be limited by the integrated GPU.

    But I think you should abandon the 13" MBP idea and go with a 15" from 2012 to the present. They are all quad-core i7s and will be more powerful than your iMac.
    --- Post Merged, Jan 5, 2016 ---
    Yes, all of them except for the retina macbook, macbook Air, 13" non-retina macbook Pro and the dual i5 retina macbook pros.
  6. zhaoxin macrumors regular

    Jan 28, 2015
    I don't think you are correct. According to this, the GPU used in MacBook Pro 13 2015 early, is 13% faster than the iMac's 4850.

    The retina display 13" is 2560*1600, which is almost the same as iMac 27" 2560*1440. 1600/1440 = 11%. So there is still 2% faster.
  7. RedCroissant Suspended

    Aug 13, 2011
    It's a close call basically and the processor benchmarks are close as well especially given that the imac is a quad versus the mbp being a dual i5. The GPU is faster of course and it supports 4k but that comes at a price due to the fact that it is integrated and uses system resources. If this was a question about which 15" MBP would give similar performance it would have been much easier to answer for sure because every 15" MBP since 2012 is amazing. As it stands, the 13" rMBP base model performs close to the imac but the iMac still beats it in my opinion(barely).

    OP, I think the best thing would be either to get a 15" rMBP. But if the 13" form factor is the most important thing, then getting the upgraded i7 would be the way to get similar and better performance.
  8. zhaoxin macrumors regular

    Jan 28, 2015
    iMac's cpu is four cores. That is true. But it doesn't mean it is faster. According to this. i5-750 is 17% slower than i5-5257U. Also, if you just believe that a 2007 year 4-core cpu is still faster than a 2015 year 2-core cpu. The i7 you recommend is still 2 cores. It is i7, but still 2 cores.
  9. RedCroissant Suspended

    Aug 13, 2011
    I know that it doesn't necessarily mean that it's faster just based on the fact that there are 4 cores instead of 2. If I really believed that then I would also be in the position to say that my PowerMac G5 Quad is better than any dual core; which it most certainly is not.

    I am fully aware of that and I know the limitations of that machine as well as the limitations of the 2015 rMBP. I've seen the specs and I agree that the dual i5 performs better but that also might depend on what else the OP would be doing that might not always translate to faster performance. Anyway, I agree that the dual i5 is faster than the 2009 quad i7.

    I did however make allowances for the 5th gen dual CPUs in stating that the dual i7 would be the only way to get a 13" MBP that would do the job properly in my opinion but would also come at a ridiculous cost to the OP in order to make that happen and why I recommended the 2012-2015 15" MBP. After all, I would not spend $1300 on the base model 13" rMBP that would be a marginal increase in performance when the 15" of any of those years is an amazing increase in performance.

Share This Page