How powerful is the Macbook Pro vs the Mac Pro?

[Gunga Din]

This will be my first Mac. Everyday I switch between the notebook and tower. I'm interested in doing alot of video work, iMotion , iMovie etc. I'm not a professional....yet but i'm interested in perhaps making my own movie. Will the Macbook Pro be powerful enough?

I like the portability a notebook offers, thats the only reason i'm asking this. Do any video/movie professionals just use the Macbook Pro?

How does it run some of the really powerful video editing software?

 

[Eidorian]

http://barefeats.com/rosa02.html

http://barefeats.com/harper.html

CPU crunch tests galore.

 

[heatmiser]

No comparison. One uses eight Xeon processors. The other uses one dual-core laptop chip. One has a 32gb ram limit, which owners frequently take advantage of. The other has an 8gb limit, half of which isn't accessible due to an absence of 4gb ram sticks. Similar differences exist in graphics cards, caches, and more. You do the math.

 

[tstarks33]

No comparison. One uses eight Xeon processors. The other uses one dual-core laptop chip. One has a 32gb ram limit, which owners frequently take advantage of. The other has an 8gb limit, half of which isn't accessible due to an absence of 4gb ram sticks. Similar differences exist in graphics cards, caches, and more. You do the math.

Yeah, you can't really compare the two.

Now, if you want to know if the MBP can handle what you need it to do, then that's probably a different question (that I can't answer )

 

[Pressure]

You will be severely limited by the performance of the 2.5" internal notebook harddrive.

They do not even compare when running processor intensive applications.

 

[Gunga Din]

You will be severely limited by the performance of the 2.5" internal notebook harddrive.

They do not even compare when running processor intensive applications.

Yea, I must have been on crack when i asked this stupid question. Mac Pro FTW.

Though I might just go with the 4 Core and put some $$ into memory and 2 more HD's

 

[ziwi]

Yea, I must have been on crack when i asked this stupid question. Mac Pro FTW.

Though I might just go with the 4 Core and put some $$ into memory and 2 more HD's

Seems to be a decent choice unless you need portability.

The 4 core price is close to the iMac 24" price with the extreme 2.8 chip.

Here are some benchmarks that include the single 4 core chip in action:
http://www.macworld.com/article/131782/2008/01/macprobench2.html

Basically, if you do not want a laptop or a laptop in a box(mini) or a hybrid laptop/desktop (iMac) then the only choice you have is the MacPro which is a really high buy in point (standard is $2799) Reducing the cost by $500 can get you the 4 core, but as others have stated the actual chip price is probably ~ $900 so what are you really saving?

That being said the remaining $500 gets some Ram and HD and as a 4 core machine it still kicks a$$ if you look at the benchmarks.

 

[aiongiant]

mac pro is alot more powerful

macbook pro is 2 cpus at 2ghz or so

mac pro is 8 cpus at 3ghz or so

the difference is huge.. same goes for the price LOL

 

[rsm5068]

Actually, they are comparable in a way. Because, even though the Mac Pro uses 8 cores, the current software that is considered the industry standard only utilizes 2 cores (4 if you are really freaking lucky). There will still be a slight difference between the 2 and 8 cores but the real performance difference that is possible isn't currently being tapped. They should be pretty close once you account for the basic difference in clock speed. But don't get me wrong, the Mac Pro owns all! Nothing else commercially available can handle 32GB RAM and has that nice little FX 5600. However, for your uses they would be pretty comparable as you most likely aren't going to spend $30,000 on a new Mac Pro.

 

[Gunga Din]

Actually, they are comparable in a way. Because, even though the Mac Pro uses 8 cores, the current software that is considered the industry standard only utilizes 2 cores (4 if you are really freaking lucky). There will still be a slight difference between the 2 and 8 cores but the real performance difference that is possible isn't currently being tapped. They should be pretty close once you account for the basic difference in clock speed. But don't get me wrong, the Mac Pro owns all! Nothing else commercially available can handle 32GB RAM and has that nice little FX 5600. However, for your uses they would be pretty comparable as you most likely aren't going to spend $30,000 on a new Mac Pro.

Right, the Macbook Pro would most likely handle what I need. Hmmmm, I'll give it another week or 2 and then decide i guess. No rush, so I might as well see what develops.

 

[theman]

yeah, the MBP is plenty powerful. i would wait for the upgrade though, should be coming out in the next couple weeks (hopefully). my MBP can easily run new 3D games. it's very powerful.

 

[Consultant]

Geekbench:

OS X
Mac Pro (Early 2008) 2.8ghz 2gb ram = 7598 (listed on their web site)
MacBook Pro 2.4ghz Santa Rosa, 4gb ram = 3172 (3 runs, my MBP)

Windows XP with AVG
MacBook Pro 2.4ghz Santa Rosa, 4gb ram (3gb usable for 32bit windows) = 2671
(3 runs each a few minutes after reboot, my MBP) yup, same computer running windows is about 85% speed of OS X.


Of course, many things will be much faster on the Mac Pro, if you set it up correctly.
However, MBP can take external SATA raids with eSATA too if you want to increase its speed.