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

Macbook vs Imac

O

Orge

macrumors member
Original poster
Jun 27, 2004
66
0
Hi,

After the latest updates, I'm seriously considering getting a macbook. Whilst they don't constitute a vast improvement in performance, they are an improvement in value for money. Whilst I'm pretty sold on a replacement laptop, I'm curious how it compares to an imac. To me, it seems like there's very little lost in price/performance between these machines:

Imac
Dedicated Graphics Card
(although I don't believe it can run a larger external display)
Larger/Faster Hard Disk (at least internally)
Up to 3GB of Memory
Firewire 800 on the 24"

Outside of the graphics card, there doesn't seem to be many performance features that are likely to matter to the average user - I can live with 2GB memory, external storage and the hard disk speed. I guess the GMA 950 is going to be most noticeable for gaming, which I'm not particularly bothered about? I don't believe there are any significant differences in bus architecture or is there something I have missed?

It's also noteworthy that the price of a macbook and a 24" Display (Apple or otherwise) is not much more than an imac.

I would be interested to hear other people's opinions on these products.

Cheers,

James
 
Macbook

Better off with the Macbook if you are not going to do any 'gaming'.

flopticalcube said:
Both machines are capable of driving large external displays but the iMac will do a better job at that. It comes down to whether you need the portability of a MacBook or not.
Click to expand...
 
The hard drive makes the biggest difference. Even the fastest 7200rpm notebook drives don't have the read/write speeds of a standard off the shelf 7200rpm desktop drive.

However the new Macbooks are faster than the cheapest 17" iMac, cpu-wise:

Macbook:
4MB shared L2 cache running at full processor speed

17" iMac:
2MB shared L2 cache at full processor speed on iMac with 1.83GHz Intel Core 2 Duo processor
 
the macbook is not capable of running the apple 30" cinema display, and some other brands' big displays, because it uses integrated graphics processing. (neither is the cheapy cheap imac, for the same reason).

also, expect an imac update in the next few weeks (i'm guessing wwdc), which will make the imac better value for money if you're not needing the portability of a laptop, which is not to be sneezed at.

performance-wise, the imacs are better. the current imacs are not so far above the macbooks, because of the update, but i reckon that's about to change.
 
What about video editing? Grant it that the storage space is an issue, but would is is possible/not-slow-enough-to-frustrate to copy DV video (or HDV video from a consumer level HD camcorder) over the firewire, and edit said video in iMovie? Do you get away from the problems with the 5400RPM drive if you're capturing straight to a 7200 external drive?

Also, on that integrated graphics card, would it slow down using a 3D app like Blender? My iMac is aging and I'd like to consider getting a Macbook or Macbook pro with an external monitor myself. I do freelance web development and it would be useful to be able to quickly be able to carry my development environment with me, instead of having to sync across to a laptop, but I also don't want to take a step backwards. However, that's just a LOT of extra money just for the benefit of an aluminum case and a 'real' video card.

I haven't had any problems on the iMac with said apps. Just curious as to what I could expect out of a mobile.

I'm sure by October/November we'll start to see Santa Rosa systems come out (hopefully). Would the X3100 graphics processor do a competitive job with the MBP on apps like Blender or movie editing? The only 'game' I play on the Mac is X-Plane. I've heard that one shouldn't even bother with it on a Macbook, do you guys anticipate the same would be true of X3100?
 
The MBP most likely will not have the X3100, but a discrete graphics card - though it doesnt seem bad from prelim. specs.
 
I don't think the MacBook has the capability to render certain 3D things, or something to that effect. It plays World of Warcraft okay, but not many of 3D games are worth it on a MacBook.

If you don't play games often, go with the MacBook. If you want a great desktop for everything, get the iMac.
 
i figured if mobility is not a factor just go with the imac for the most bang for your buck. i'd be afraid of all the little hands in my house wrecking a macbook (they look so fragile in the store). with the imac, all i worry about is writing on the screen.
 
I have a feeling I'll be eBaying my 1st Generation Intel iMac sometime in the fall after leopard. Currently I have a low-end Macbook also that my wife has been increasingly using. But I've been needing a mobile system more and more these days. It's too difficult to sync files since I can't always use the Macbook and it has a smaller hard drive. I'm leaning toward a MB or MBP to replace the iMac. The choice between the two to be determined by whether or not I feel like I'm stepping backwards capability wise (who knows, maybe the as-yet-non-existent X3100 Santa Rosa MB will render Blender and X-Plane well enough), and how professional I want to look on the go.
 
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