New iMac Reviewed by CNET: Editor's Choice

[Adokimus]

http://reviews.cnet.com/desktops/apple-imac-20-inch/4505-3118_7-32564364.html?tag=bubbl_2

...just in case people were looking for recent reviews.



While I'm here, would people recommend the new iMac or the MacBook Pro as my next purchase? I want to play the occassional game, though mostly older ones like Unreal Tournament, and I'll be doing a few graphics intensive applications.

Thanks!

 

[iStrat]

Nice. Thanks for the info. It really is a fairly well rounded computer. The gaming performance on Quake 4 is about what I expected; playable, but not outstanding. In reference to your question, the MacBook Pro will probably perform a bit better for 3D gaming. However, the new iMac does really well with other graphic/video/photo applications as shown by that review.

 

[megfilmworks]

Tough choice, how bout both?

 

[Grenadier]

It depends - how graphically intensive are you applications ?

On one side, we have the iMac which has a more powerful CPU (up to 2.8GHz), but on the other we have the MacBook Pro with a more powerful GPU.

Both are in the end very similar in power (as long as you get the 2600 Pro)
I would look at other factors - will portability be useful to you ?

As you can see though, the iMac is spectactularly poor at 3D intensive applications - it gets about 40fps @ 1024x768 with the 2400 at Quake 4. Forget anything other than a 3fps slideshow at about 1680x1050, or even better, 1920x1200, with even moderately new game, judging by that review.
However, UT (I assume you are refering to UT1) should run quite well - its a very old game. I would say about 120FPS.

If its at all a option (I dont know your budget though), get the Mac Pro for 3D intensive applications. I do understand that is not a option for all though - me included.

Thanks for the review by the way.

 

[72930]

The bad: No word on means of upgrading to Apple's new Leopard OS when it's released;

Whaa?!

 

[rogersmj]

Nice to see what the "mainstream" reviewers think of the iMac, but it's still clear they don't do enough research or even really pay attention to what they're reviewing. They made it seem like one of the significant updates to this iMac was the fact that it had 802.11n; they spent a whole paragraph on it, even said it was a deciding factor in their Editor's Choice award, and didn't even mention that it was on the last iMac as well as all Code 2 Duo machines from Apple. They also repeatedly said that it has two FireWire 800 ports, even in the caption right below the damn photo where you can clearly see it has only ONE FireWire 800 port.

Makes me wonder what other simple stuff they get wrong when they're reviewing a product I don't already know everything about.

 

[mr_matalino]

Both have pleanty of power to do pretty much anything you need. It depends if you want the mobile factor...

 

[mr_matalino]

Whaa?!

That's Cnet for you

 

[Grenadier]

Both have pleanty of power to do pretty much anything you need. It depends if you want the mobile factor...

I disagree. Both have plenty of CPU horsepower, and while the Macbook Pro has a decent GPU, neither will be excellent at 3D applications - and it appears the OP wants to run demanding graphics applications on his computer.

 

[Kan-O-Z]

The Macbook Pro in my opinion will give you the best of both worlds if you have an external monitor that is. Even if you don't, a decent 20" widescreen is around $200-$300. The only drawback is money. If you really absolutely don't think you would like to take your computer with you around the house, perhaps hook it up to your big screen TV or perhaps take it with you on travel or trips to friends/family then get the iMac. The iMac is a sweet machine but so it the Macbook Pro

I think you have to decide if you want a desktop or a laptop. In either case, you are getting one of the best in each category

Kan-O-Z

 

[slffl]

That's the exact choice I'm trying to make. Price isn't that much of a factor, and portability is mainly between work and home. I was disappointed with the performance on the Arstechnica review. I thought the iMac would outperform the MBP by a lot more.

Right now I'm swaying more towards a decked out 24" and probably going to wait until Oct for Leopard as I like starting fresh with an OS instead of 'upgrading'.

 

[RRK]

If I were you I would stick to the standard rational for desktop vs laptop. Do you need to take it with you? Otherwise I would just assume that the maxed out 24" is going to be the better gaming machine since no real tests are out yet of the 24" 2.8ghz with the 2600 pro. My own searching has only resulted in confusing myself because of this thing about the 2600 pro for the iMac listing GDDR3 memory and I cannot find results for stock 2600 pros with GDDR3. Also there seems to be some idea that this performance could be improved significantly with driver updates due to the fact that the hardware is severely underperforming when compared to the high expectations and new technology.

 

[I'mAMac]

Does anyone know what kind of performance increase the 2.8 C2E would have over the 2.4 C2D?

 

[mustang_dvs]

So why isn't "Both" an option?