[asodamiac]

Hey guys,

I'm in the market for a new Mac (finally!) and while I was set on purchasing one of the new iMac's (after a refresh), I've learned that it cannot run a 30" display at it's full potential. However, the MBP IS able to run the 30" display.

I was wondering if the MBP would outperform the iMac overall. I mainly work with photos in Photoshop and have recently been doing some video editing (though it's light work.... meaning I edit in iMovie '06). When working on photos in Photoshop, I work with a 12mp digital SLR and 40mb+ scans from my film negatives.

The Mac Pro is another option, but it's not something that I am considering at the moment.

Thanks,

Jason

[ghporter]

Please define "to its full potential." I'm curious, as I have a Core Duo (NOT C2D) MBP and an aluminum iMac.

[asodamiac]

I posted in another forum here and was told that the iMac cannot run a 30" monitor at it's maximum resolution.

Here's a link:

http://forums.macnn.com/57/consumer-...ac-xbox-360-a/

[jucytec]

Originally Posted by asodamiac 

I posted in another forum here and was told that the iMac cannot run a 30" monitor at it's maximum resolution.

Here's a link:

http://forums.macnn.com/57/consumer-...ac-xbox-360-a/

the 20 and 24 inch iMacs have a ATI Radeon HD 2600 PRO... which equates to 2560 x 1600 maximum digital DVI-I resolution... ANY monitors exceeding that resolution will not run the display at its "full potential" The Nvidia 8600GT series will run up to 3840 x 2400... but only at 30Hz Refresh Rate...(30 Hz, is like... half of what most LCD's refresh rate is... and LCD's already have crappy response time... ) which is pretty crappy... and not to mention any LCD's running 3840 x 2400 cost around 3000 to 6000 dollars...

I own a photoshop, not just the application but an actual kodak franchise... and I do a LOT of photo work... while Mac's are nice at video editing, photoshop performance seem quite sluggish Vs. windows. this has been apparent since photoshop 7.0... At least for what I used...

[50leaves.com]

Originally Posted by asodamiac 

I posted in another forum here and was told that the iMac cannot run a 30" monitor at it's maximum resolution.

Here's a link:

http://forums.macnn.com/57/consumer-...ac-xbox-360-a/

Yes you cant run a 30 inch on a iMac native res.

I have (2) 24 inch imac with 2.8ghz core 2 extremes
And (1) 17inch 2.4 ghz core 2 duo

My imac blows my laptop out of the water.

two different chips sets
Laptop is core 2 duo
-----------------
800 MHZ Front side bus
4MB of shared L2 Cache

imac extreme
-----------
1066 MHz front side bus
4 MB of shared L2 cache

But to be honest, for what your using it for, both should be fine.

[asodamiac]

jucytec, the Apple website writes that the iMac can display, "Digital resolutions up to 1920 by 1200." Is this different than what you mentioned? As other's have mentioned in the thread that I linked to, getting a 30" monitor would be a "waste" as I would not be able to use it at 2560x1600.

50leaves.com, thanks. The iMac is my first choice as I already have a Powerbook, but the monitor issue is still bugging me. Since people have been saying 2 different things, I am a bit confused!

Also on the Apple website, it mentions that the MBP can run a monitor at 2560x1600 resolution. ("Dual display and video mirroring: Simultaneously supports full native resolution on the built-in display and up to 2560 by 1600 pixels on an external display, both at millions of colors.")

Jason

[MacosNerd]

It seems from the talk around here the MBP has a better GPU then the current iMac. People have been complaining that apple screwed up when they released the current iMac with such an anemic GPU.

I don't own one, so I cannot comment if those postings are true or not. I do own a MBP and its pretty darn quick. I'm very happy with its performance.

If you need a machine that's portable, the MBP is the way to go. If you have no desire or need for mobility then maybe the iMac might be a good choice.

At least with the iMac you can choose to get a larger hard drive - I mean up to a TB of storage. You mentioned that you'll be working with some large files so the internal storage will come in handy.

[Cadaver]

The MacBook Pro (any revision) can run a 30" display at full 2560x1600 resolution.
The iMac cannot. Its limited to 1920x1200 over DVI. Higher over analog, though you'll be hard pressed to find an analog (CRT) display these days that would be capable.

For heavy Photoshop or video editing, the iMac however may perform better due to its faster desktop-class hard drive (versus the slower notebook drive in the MBP).

GPU-wise, I'd say its pretty close. The MBP may have an edge, but doesn't make much difference in terms of Photoshop, video editing or typical productivity apps.

[Cold Warrior]

I say go with the MBP w/ 30" capability. Then get an external ESATA over the ExpressCard slot, or FW800, if you find the MBP's internal too slow or don't want to upgrade to say a 7200 RPM drive.

[asodamiac]

Thanks for clearing this up guys.

What a bummer. I really don't have a need for another laptop. I was planning on getting an iMac, selling the Powerbook for whatever I can (SecondRotation - Sell Your Old Cell Phone, Game Console seems like a good choice), and then use that money towards a Macbook.

Perhaps a Mac Pro might plays its way into the cards soon

(But that would be overkill!)

[Simon]

Originally Posted by 50leaves.com 

imac extreme
-----------
1066 MHz front side bus
4 MB of shared L2 cache

No.

Actually there is no (and there never has been) an Intel Mac with a 1066 MHz FSB.

The iMac — regardless of the CPU option you chose — has the same 800MHz FSB the MBP has. That's because they use the exact same Crestline chipset. The real differences are the 2.8 GHz Core 2 Extreme vs. 2.6 GHz C2D, the iMac's faster HDD and the GPUs.

[Simon]

Originally Posted by Cold Warrior 

I say go with the MBP w/ 30" capability. Then get an external ESATA over the ExpressCard slot, or FW800, if you find the MBP's internal too slow or don't want to upgrade to say a 7200 RPM drive.

Seconded. Get the 2.6 GHz C2D option and a fast external disk.

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by Cadaver 

The MacBook Pro (any revision) can run a 30" display at full 2560x1600 resolution.
The iMac cannot. Its limited to 1920x1200 over DVI.

Is this something to do with the basic engine or just the DVI interface in the video system? Not that I have room for a 30" anything on my desk (I just connected my old 17" Dell LCD to my aluminum 20" iMac as a secondary monitor), but I want to know what it is that hinders the iMac's video performance. The 2560x1600 is a little less than twice the resolution (area-wise) as 1920x1200, so that makes me think it's a bandwidth issue, one way or another.

[Chuckit]

It is a bandwidth thing. You need dual-link DVI (with twice the bandwidth) to get 2560x1600, but the iMac only has a Mini-DVI port that can't do dual-link.

[peeb]

As a snack, do you think I should have an apple, or an orange?

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

It is a bandwidth thing. You need dual-link DVI (with twice the bandwidth) to get 2560x1600, but the iMac only has a Mini-DVI port that can't do dual-link.

Ok, that makes sense. At the moment, a mini-DVI-to-VGA adapter is the most interesting thing I'm going to connect to my iMac. I'm going to have to figure out what all I want on the second screen besides a desktop picture. (And my Dell 17" 4X3 aspect ratio monitor just plain pales in comparison to the iMac's display! )

[asodamiac]

Rather than spending the money on the upgraded MBP, I think I may just go with the Mac Pro option. I really do like the idea of expandability, but to be honest, I believe the Mac Pro would be overkill.

Perhaps I should just go with a 24" monitor and not get greedy. But the 30" monitor sure would be nice. Especially for movies and playing XBOX 360

Thanks for your help guys!

[zaghahzag]

Originally Posted by jucytec 

photoshop performance seem quite sluggish Vs. windows.

this is true and so completely sad. I think this is a large part of why apple wrote applications like aperture.

Adobe has really gone downhill in my estimation. I think photoshop peaked around 3.5 and has gone downhill since.

[zaghahzag]

Originally Posted by asodamiac 

Rather than spending the money on the upgraded MBP, I think I may just go with the Mac Pro option. I really do like the idea of expandability, but to be honest, I believe the Mac Pro would be overkill.

Perhaps I should just go with a 24" monitor and not get greedy. But the 30" monitor sure would be nice. Especially for movies and playing XBOX 360

Thanks for your help guys!

you can get monitors from non-apple producers that would work better with an XBOX 360 and are like 1/2 as much money.

[Cold Warrior]

Personally I think you'd be happier with an LCD HDTV for your XBOX. That way you don't have to keep swapping back and forth, and can set it up with your favorite armchair or sofa (unless you set your computers up like that now and not at a desk).

[SierraDragon]

Originally Posted by asodamiac 

I'm in the market for a new Mac (finally!)... I mainly work with photos in Photoshop and have recently been doing some video editing

Running those apps in a new desktop setup such as you consider for 2008-2009-2010-2011 (the life cycle of a new box) and being limited to 4 GB RAM is IMO a big mistake. RAM is cheaper and getting cheaper, the bargain in graphics app performance enhancement today and even moreso for the 2008-2009-2010-2011 future of a new box.

I have lots to say about this, but let's wait 2 weeks until after Mac Expo when new hardware and pricing has changed the Mac landscape. Below is from an earlier post of mine:

---------------------
In December it is appropriate to wait to see what happens at Mac Expo SF in January prior to making major Apple purchases. A plethora of new hardware/software of all types from scores of vendors is introduced at Mac Expo. The Mac landscape always goes through a major evolution whether or not any one specific product is updated.

E.g. note that even if new Mac Pros somehow were not introduced, new graphics cards and/or hard drive solutions will probably become available that would affect the configuration-optimizing of a tower purchase.

I strongly recommend Mac Expo SF to all. Hundreds of Mac vendors and the opportunity to individually talk to folks high up the food chain makes a couple of days there a good annual grounding for understanding the state of the Mac world.

-Allen Wicks

[SierraDragon]

Originally Posted by jucytec 

...I do a LOT of photo work... while Mac's are nice at video editing, photoshop performance seem quite sluggish Vs. windows. this has been apparent since photoshop 7.0... At least for what I used...

Originally Posted by zaghahzag 

I think photoshop peaked around 3.5 and has gone downhill since.

I am guessing neither of you has run PSCS3 on a well-equipped Mac Pro.

-Allen Wicks

[50leaves.com]

Originally Posted by Simon 

No.

Actually there is no (and there never has been) an Intel Mac with a 1066 MHz FSB.

The iMac — regardless of the CPU option you chose — has the same 800MHz FSB the MBP has. That's because they use the exact same Crestline chipset. The real differences are the 2.8 GHz Core 2 Extreme vs. 2.6 GHz C2D, the iMac's faster HDD and the GPUs.

your right my bad, I was looking at intels site for the FSB. But there is a big difference between my laptop speed vs my imac.

[Cadaver]

Originally Posted by asodamiac 

But the 30" monitor sure would be nice. Especially for movies and playing XBOX 360

Not on an Apple 30" (nor a Dell 30" for that matter) you wont. Both the Apple 30" and the Dell 30" have only ONE input - a dual-link DVI. No internal scaler, either, so an HDMI to DVI cable is out.

Gateway, however, sells a 30" display with multiple inputs (dual-link DVI, HDMI and component) and has an internal scaler so you could connect an X-Box or whatever else to it.

[ghporter]

Now that Gateway has arisen from near death, are their big displays in the same class visually with ACDs and Dell's big screens? Those features sound like they put some thought into it, but how are the panels themselves?

[chris v]

Originally Posted by asodamiac 

selling the Powerbook for whatever I can (SecondRotation - Sell Your Old Cell Phone, Game Console seems like a good choice), and then use that money towards a Macbook.

That site has to make a hefty margin between the trade-in value they give you and what they can then retail it for -- I wouldn't go that route. They say my PB 1.25 15" with superdrive and FW800 is worth $250.00. I know for a fact that I could sell it on Craigslist for at least twice that.

[bballe336]

Originally Posted by chris v 

That site has to make a hefty margin between the trade-in value they give you and what they can then retail it for -- I wouldn't go that route. They say my PB 1.25 15" with superdrive and FW800 is worth $250.00. I know for a fact that I could sell it on Craigslist for at least twice that.

They say my MBP is worth nearly $150 more than I paid for it 8 months ago...

[DCJ001]

Originally Posted by peeb 

As a snack, do you think I should have an apple, or an orange?

I always recommend Apple.

[MacosNerd]

Originally Posted by asodamiac 

. I was planning on getting an iMac, selling the Powerbook for whatever I can (SecondRotation - Sell Your Old Cell Phone, Game Console seems like a good choice),

I'd go with ebay over some other third-party. I'd assume their cut of the action will probably be deeper then what ebay charges. If you don't go ebay, you can always try craigs list.

[asodamiac]

I guess Second Rotation is out. I don't think I can get $500 dollars from either Craigslist or eBay for my Powerbook. It's in pretty good shape, but AppleCare is over in April. Oh well, it's not a bad machine!

As of now, I'm planning on taking the Mac Pro route once it sees a refresh. Also instead of a single 30" monitor, I'm planning on getting a 24" and later adding another.

[zaghahzag]

i netted ~680$ with my PB 12 inch 1.33. granted, apple had replaced the case and HD right before the warrantee ran out, and it was maxed on ram, but still, it's an old machine i would have expected it to go for 500.

Re: PSCS3 on intel: I've used it on my MBP, and I find it is certainly useable. My complaints are probably mostly due to the fact that I hate the UI for photoshop and illustrator. I hate how the floating windows work. I know there were reasons for them, but frankly, I find it annoying to use. That would probably go away if I used them more, but I feel like the genius of photoshop that was so evident in its earlier incarnations has been lost to the bloatmonser.

[DCJ001]

Originally Posted by Cadaver 

The MacBook Pro (any revision) can run a 30" display at full 2560x1600 resolution.
The iMac cannot. Its limited to 1920x1200 over DVI. Higher over analog, though you'll be hard pressed to find an analog (CRT) display these days that would be capable.

For heavy Photoshop or video editing, the iMac however may perform better due to its faster desktop-class hard drive (versus the slower notebook drive in the MBP).

GPU-wise, I'd say its pretty close. The MBP may have an edge, but doesn't make much difference in terms of Photoshop, video editing or typical productivity apps.

I just bought and installed a Hitachi 200GB 7200 RPM hard drive into my MacBook Core 2 Duo along with 4GB of ram. For $270.00, they make a huge difference in performance.

HITACHI Travelstar 7K200 HTS722020K9SA00 0A50940 Hard Drive Bulk at ZipZoomfly

Newegg.com - G.SKILL 4GB (2 x 2GB) 200-Pin DDR2 SO-DIMM DDR2 667 (PC2 5300) Dual Channel Kit Notebook Memory - Retail

[SierraDragon]

Originally Posted by zaghahzag 

...I feel like the genius of photoshop that was so evident in its earlier incarnations has been lost to the bloatmonser.

I agree and have commented to Adobe that PSCS4 would be best with zero new features, instead putting the engineering effort into 64-bit support and other operational coding issues. Of course that will never happen.

-Allen Wicks

[harbinger75]

I agree and have commented to Adobe that PSCS4 would be best with zero new features, instead putting the engineering effort into 64-bit support and other operational coding issues. Of course that will never happen.

-Allen Wicks

I'll have to dig up the article, but a PS spokesperson (can't remember who) was mulling over the same thing for future iterations of PS. He had received overwhelming response in the same manner you're talking about, and wants to streamline the application.

I will try to find it for you...

[harbinger75]

Here it is:

John Nack on Adobe: Photoshop, as seen through Johnny Cash

It's actually John Nack's blog, and CNET covered the same info/story on how Adobe has big plans to make the interface and YOUR individual experience less bloated.

EDIT: ...maybe they can take care of the bloated price, too.