imac vs. macbook & nice lcd

SooTyLaD

SooTyLaD

SooTyLaD

Soldato
Joined
19 Oct 2002
Posts
3,480
i'm am *that* close to buying an imac 2.4GHz/20"/2Gig Ram - but then i had a thought...

why not get a macbook and output to my Samsung 226BW monitor? i could then sell my decent laptop along with my PC and pocket a few more squid...

so my questions...

considering i can live with the small harddrive as i will keep most things on an external anyway, is there going to be a noticable difference in performance between a 2.2GHz macbook and a 2.4 GHz iMac?

i'm interested in the performance differnce in relation to the odd game through bootcamp/XP and also the use of all the adobe applications, primarily flash, photoshop and illustrator?
 
if you want the odd game then iMac as it has a dedicated vid card, which the macbook doesnt, unless its a MBP. and photoshop may run a little better with the bigger HD so it can page more stuff (could be wrong there) and im biased as i have an iMac :D
 
ichabod crane said:
if you want the odd game then iMac as it has a dedicated vid card, which the macbook doesnt, unless its a MBP. and photoshop may run a little better with the bigger HD so it can page more stuff (could be wrong there) and im biased as i have an iMac :D
Click to expand...

It would run better on a machine with more RAM.

The feature you speak of is "scratch drive" where you offload elements to a separate drive, thus speeding up the application.


If you can live on a small MacBook then you'd have the best of both worlds; portability but a decent sized screen when stationary :)

If you're aim is to save money; get a MacBook.
 
theheyes said:
I have an iMac and a MacBook, and I'd wish I'd gone with the MacBook + Monitor combo in the first place.
Click to expand...
could you expand upon that?

if i sell my pc and laptop i could justify the mid range macbook pro (2.4ghz, 2 gig ram, 8600 gt) - but i'm thinking the imac would still be loads more powerful and not far from half the price...

it HAS to be lovely and swift when it comes to photoshop etc, and i would like it to be capable of games such as quake 4 and the likes when running xp through bootcamp (although i know the settings will have to be not so impressive)
 
QuiKsiLVeR said:
could you expand upon that?

if i sell my pc and laptop i could justify the mid range macbook pro (2.4ghz, 2 gig ram, 8600 gt) - but i'm thinking the imac would still be loads more powerful and not far from half the price...

it HAS to be lovely and swift when it comes to photoshop etc, and i would like it to be capable of games such as quake 4 and the likes when running xp through bootcamp (although i know the settings will have to be not so impressive)
Click to expand...
If you want to play Quake 4 then you're looking at a MBP. End.
 
Not saying the iMac wouldn't run Quake4, but the MBP would probably do a better job.

I've not even gamed on my 17" MBP, so I'll have to try that out soon.
 
If i'm not mistaken, you all seem to be saying the mbp would outperform an imac??

how could a laptop, with the same cpu and ram, with a slower hard drive and lesser graphics card possibly outperform the imac?
 
QuiKsiLVeR said:
If i'm not mistaken, you all seem to be saying the mbp would outperform an imac??

how could a laptop, with the same cpu and ram, with a slower hard drive and lesser graphics card possibly outperform the imac?
Click to expand...

We're not.

We're saying we'd take the MBP over the iMac any day.

I certainly would.
 
I reckon the MBP would outperform the iMac.

After all, the resolution would be lower + the graphics card in the iMac sucks, and had bad drivers.

I would like to find a benchmark to prove otherwise though.
 
Yep i'm looking to get a Macbook and a new TFT and run it as a desktop, simply because I can move it about if needed (hook it up to my TV for front row/take it into work when needed etc).
 
jeez this is a toughy... in the past i have always regretted getting a laptop as a primary computer, always wished i had used the money on a desktop which gave me more power for less cash...

the majority of its life if i did get a macbook it would be outputting to my 22" samsung 226BW monitor, so the res would be the same (i think) as the 20 inch imac... so the resolution point is moot for gaming.

all in all, i AM gonna be getting one or the other, just need to hear that the performance loss by getting the MBP over the imac isn't going to be too noticable...
 
QuiKsiLVeR said:
jeez this is a toughy... in the past i have always regretted getting a laptop as a primary computer, always wished i had used the money on a desktop which gave me more power for less cash...
Click to expand...

That rule has less weight in the Mac world though because the pricing is a lot different (read: more expensive) than Beige-box counterparts. Also, the iMacs use mobile-class components.

If you really do want more performance in PS and the odd game the iMac is probably the marginally better choice due to its dedicated graphics card.

I wish I'd gone for the MacBook + monitor to save money. The iMac is hardly used these days but its not a total waste since I use it as a nice little file server and folding box (when the clients behave).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom