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

MacBook Pro vs iMac

T

tongzilla

macrumors newbie
Original poster
Apr 6, 2008
21
0
is the 2.4GHz ATI Radeon HD 2600 PRO with 256MB iMac faster

or

the 2.5GHz NVIDIA GeForce 8600M GT with 512MB MacBook Pro?

The iMac has higher rpm in hardrive. Assume same RAM.

thanks.
 
The Macbook Pro will be faster for CPU related tasks. For loading applications the imac might be a hair faster unless you take the 7200 with the macbook pro. The Macbook Pro will be better at games.

If I were you I'd get the 2.4 Macbook Pro, take it with the 7200rpm hdd, and buy 4gb of third party ram off newegg. Which still works out cheaper than the 2.5 macbook pro stock.
 
not forgetting the 30" ACD of course :p

nick9191 said:
The Macbook Pro will be faster for CPU related tasks. For loading applications the imac might be a hair faster unless you take the 7200 with the macbook pro. The Macbook Pro will be better at games.

If I were you I'd get the 2.4 Macbook Pro, take it with the 7200rpm hdd, and buy 4gb of third party ram off newegg. Which still works out cheaper than the 2.5 macbook pro stock.
Click to expand...
 
Looking at the benchmarks on Macworld there is very little to choose between them:

Macbook Pro 15" 2.5GHz, Mac OS X 10.5.2 with 2GB of RAM

Speedmark 5 Score 222
Cinema 4D XL 10.5 0:51
iMovie HD 6 0:46
iTunes 7.5 1:01
Photoshop CS3 1:02
Compressor 1:42
Unreal Tournament 2004 89.4fps


iMac 24" 2.4Ghz, Mac OS X 10.5 with 2GB of RAM

Speedmark 5 Score 245
Cinema 4D XL 10.5 0:54
iMovie HD 6 0:47
iTunes 7.5 0:59
Photoshop CS3 0:55
Compressor 1:57
Unreal Tournament 2004 88.6fps
 
Performance is similar enough that I doubt you'll be able to tell the difference without benchmarks.

iMac is much cheaper though if you don't need portability. The 20" is $500 less. The 24" is $200 less.
 
I don't think you are going to find much of a difference whatever the benchmarks say. I have always thought of the MBP as a portable iMac. Similar parts.
 
Lord Zedd said:
Yes, the 20" screen is bottom of the barrel in quality compared to the 24".
Click to expand...

I wouldn't say it's bottom of the barrel at all. You make it sound like it's a piece of junk. I would have to say that the 20" actually has a better picture. When I got my iMac last month, I compared a 20" and 24" side by side and the 20" had the better picture. The 24" had uneven lighting.
 
I bought the 24" iMac with ATI HD2600 Pro. At about 1024x768 with low settings, I was getting about 21 FPS in Crysis (via Boot Camp, of course).

I returned it for various reasons and bought a MacBook Pro (Penryn 2.4) which I connected to a 23" ACD (expensive, I know).

With the MacBook Pro, I get about 28 FPS in Crysis with medium (and a few high) settings.

For what it's worth, I like the nVidia drivers better than those for the ATI, at least within Windows. nVidia provides much easier access to dual-monitor settings via their system tray icon. They also provide more options for dual-display arrangements.

The 5400 RPM drive does make the MacBook Pro feel a little more sluggish than the iMac at times, such as during boot or when loading a new level. For me, the matte screens of the laptop and ACD were worth the tradeoffs.

Michael

Edit: Both machines had 4GB Mushkin RAM installed.
 
hexonxonx said:
I wouldn't say it's bottom of the barrel at all. You make it sound like it's a piece of junk. I would have to say that the 20" actually has a better picture. When I got my iMac last month, I compared a 20" and 24" side by side and the 20" had the better picture. The 24" had uneven lighting.
Click to expand...

Yeah I have a 20" iMac too. I'd take it over the 15" MBP screen.
 
I bought the 24" iMac with ATI HD2600 Pro. At about 1024x768 with low settings, I was getting about 21 FPS in Crysis (via Boot Camp, of course).

I returned it for various reasons and bought a MacBook Pro (Penryn 2.4) which I connected to a 23" ACD (expensive, I know).

With the MacBook Pro, I get about 28 FPS in Crysis with medium (and a few high) settings.

For what it's worth, I like the nVidia drivers better than those for the ATI, at least within Windows. nVidia provides much easier access to dual-monitor settings via their system tray icon. They also provide more options for dual-display arrangements.
Click to expand...

Were you using the latest drivers for the 2600?
 
If money is no problem, get the maxed out MacBook Pro. It has the same number of pixels as a 24" iMac and currently has newer/better technology in it. Costs more, but then you can't fold an iMac away and move it downstairs, to a friends house, to work etc...

Take my word for it, its a wonderful machine.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back