Which one of these is going to be faster…?

Discussion in 'MacBook Pro' started by rocknblogger, Mar 19, 2012.

  1. rocknblogger macrumors 68020

    rocknblogger

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2011
    Location:
    New Jersey
    #1
    Take mobility out of the equation. Strictly speaking on performance, which is the better computer? Price-wise they're both going to be very similar so that's not a consideration either.

    Will be used for:
    Photoshop
    Illustrator
    Converting videos avi/wmv/mkv to mpeg4
    Ripping DVD's and BD's

    MacBook Pro 17"
    Quad-Core 2.3GHz quad-core Intel Core i7 processor
    16GB 1333MHz DDR3 SDRAM
    256GB Intel 520 SSD + 750GB
    17.4-inch Hi-Res Antiglare widescreen display
    Intel Graphics HD 3000 with AMD Radeon 6750M

    iMac 27"
    Quad-Core Intel Core i5 2.7GHz
    16GB DDR3 SDRAM
    256GB SSD + 1TB SATA HDD
    AMD Radeon HD 6770M

    Thanks in advance for your input :)
     
  2. rocknblogger thread starter macrumors 68020

    rocknblogger

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2011
    Location:
    New Jersey
    #3
    Thanks, according to that page the MacBook Pro is going to be faster, and not just a little but substantially faster. And more than twice as fast as what I have now.
     
  3. Vudoo macrumors 6502a

    Vudoo

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2008
    Location:
    Dallas Metroplex
  4. rocknblogger thread starter macrumors 68020

    rocknblogger

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2011
    Location:
    New Jersey
    #5
    Yeah it is and Macmall has a great deal right now. They have the 2.3GHz i7 with the 750HD and 4GB's RAM for $1979. It's $2499 on Apple.com but it's a 2.4GHz i7. It's a tiny bit faster but not worth the $520 difference.
     
  5. thundersteele macrumors 68030

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2011
    Location:
    Switzerland
    #6
    Ok, I don't see how they are equally priced. Is the MBP a refurb (since the 2.3 GHz model is an older model)?

    Looking at new model prices, the base 17'' MBP will come in at $2500, while the high-end 27'' iMac is priced at $2000, $2200 if you upgrade it to an i7.

    For both models we can assume third party SSDs and third party RAM, for the MBP you need an optibay thingy in addition and you loose the built-in ODD. The iMac GPU plays in a completely different league.

    If you want to go refurb, how about this guy:
    http://store.apple.com/us/product/FC814LL/A

    If mobility is really not an issue, I would go with the iMac - larger screen and better performance for the same price.


    edit: Ok, now at least I understand the low price for the MBP.
     
  6. Prodo123 macrumors 68020

    Prodo123

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2010
    #7
    The MBP is the most obvious and logical choice.
     
  7. rocknblogger thread starter macrumors 68020

    rocknblogger

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2011
    Location:
    New Jersey
    #8
    The problem with refurbs is that you can't add an SSD. You have to buy as is. While I will install my own SSD into the MacBook Pro I would not do it on the iMac. I don't relish taking it apart when brand new.

    I know the GPU is a lot better in the iMac but when converting video files I'm pretty sure I'm not using GPU cores but rather it's all CPU intensive. I don't plan on playing any serious games on it as I have a Windows PC specifically for gaming.

    So for the things I will be doing I honestly think the MacBook will outperform the iMac. You have to admit that $1979 is an excellent price for a 17" MacBook Pro.

    Trust me if I could afford the i7 3.1 or 3.4GHz plus SSD+1TB I would go for it but I'm afraid if I go with the i5 I'll end up being disappointed.

    I'm trying to keep it under $2300 so the best I can do on the iMac is the i5 2.7GHz.

    To be honest I am confused a bit about the i5. I've read on some threads around here that the i5 doesn't have HT and I've read elsewhere that it does. I can't find a definitive answer for that.

    ----------

    Thank you that's exactly what I'm thinking;)
     
  8. simsaladimbamba

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2010
    Location:
    located
    #9
    Maybe Intel's own product specification pages for the i5s used in 2011 iMacs can help and show, that the desktop i5 CPU does not support HT:

    The mobile i5 CPUs support HT though.
     
  9. rocknblogger thread starter macrumors 68020

    rocknblogger

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2011
    Location:
    New Jersey
    #10
    Thanks that cleared it up for me :)
     
  10. thundersteele macrumors 68030

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2011
    Location:
    Switzerland
    #11
    I didn't know that the HDD in the iMac is not user replaceable. That's terrible.

    No HT on the i5:
    http://ark.intel.com/products/52211/Intel-Core-i5-2500S-Processor-(6M-Cache-2_70-GHz)

    Now I understand your preference for the MBP. These are great machines, I have an older 17'' and a new 15.'' One final thing you might want to consider is temperature: The iMac will run at 60-65C, while the Macbook Pro boils water (90C+) when encoding videos.

    Also, you should check other benchmarks besides geekbench. The turbo boost in the mobile CPUs might fake higher performance, while the desktop i5 might still be faster for lengthy tasks.
     
  11. diamond3 macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2005
    #12
    http://www.macworld.com/article/1162105/macworlds_new_speedmark_7_benchmark_suite.html

    This is probably a useful link to give several different kinds of benchmarks. One thing I'm not sure about is if hard drive speed comes into play and they don't have the 2.3GHz processor, just the 2.2 and 2.4.

    It looks like it's not as different as you'd expect unless that 2.3GHz processor is better than the 2.4. Fairly close in a lot of the benchmarks.
     
  12. mrobit macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2012
    #13
    Macmall is new, or at least it should be. I just got a 17" Model similar to the one the OP mentioned (except 2.2GHZ) and the thing is brand spankin' new. And I loooove it.
     
  13. NickZac macrumors 68000

    NickZac

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2010
    #14
    I have the 2.3 and use those apps and the 2.3, especially with 16 gigs of ram and a SSD, is fast like a flaming bat out of hell.
     

Share This Page