Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

saosin · Sep 3, 2006, 02:42 AM

Hello,

I plan to switch to apple once they start to run on core2duo processors.

My dillemma is based off the current specs of both machines.

I am wondering if i need a mbp for my needs or if i should go for a mac book and an eternal display instead.

I do not do any video editing. I plan to use the computer for graphic design (photoshop, illustrator), and for recording music (pro tools).

So then, Will 32mb of builtin vram be enough for running photoshop? Or do i need the 256mb that the mbp offers?

thanks in advance

fdmendez · Sep 3, 2006, 03:02 AM

i'm not a big photo editor, although i have done a bit of work in photoshop, but anyways, i hear that photo editing (or maybe just photoshop) works better with better video cards, i think that's what i've heard, but i do know that the new photoshop coming next year will be of universal binary so that both power pc users and intel users can enjoy photoshop at full speed (current photoshop users see a performance drop with intel processors because it's not built to work with the new intel processors)

Simon · Sep 3, 2006, 03:08 AM

The MB has 64 MB shared VRAM not 32 MB. But if they upgrade to Merom specs will likely change; it's difficult to say now.

From what I've heard PS depends more on the CPU than on the GPU or the VRAM. But double-check that.

If money isn't an issue, I'd get the MBP with a fast HDD and a big external screen. If you're on a budget, I'd consider talking the MB but still getting the screen. I believe screen space is worth more in everyday work than a few MB of VRAM.

mduell · Sep 3, 2006, 09:13 AM

Photoshop makes nearly zero use of the GPU and VRAM; it doesn't make any use of Core Image, and since it's cross-platform, I doubt it will anytime soon.
For Photoshop, Illustrator, and Pro Tools, I think you're better off with a MacBook and 2GB RAM.

fisherKing · Sep 3, 2006, 10:06 AM

Originally Posted by mduell

Photoshop makes nearly zero use of the GPU and VRAM; it doesn't make any use of Core Image, and since it's cross-platform, I doubt it will anytime soon.
For Photoshop, Illustrator, and Pro Tools, I think you're better off with a MacBook and 2GB RAM.

agreed. macbook should be fine, just max out that ram!

FreddyFeatures · Sep 3, 2006, 10:14 AM

Hi,

It's worth remembering that Aperture does use core image (and therefore is graphic card dependant) should you ever plan to dabble with it. It's worth keeping in mind.

Hello everyone btw

saosin · Sep 3, 2006, 05:51 PM

so macbook with 2gb ram should suffice?...Hopefully the next gen macbooks support more ram...

anyone else have a take on this?

Elektrix · Sep 3, 2006, 05:53 PM

One other thing to consider is the larger screen and resolution of the MBP compared to a MB. Outside of the considerations of which graphics card to use, you might find that for photo editing and audio applications, the extra screen real estate could come in handy as well.

saosin · Sep 3, 2006, 06:50 PM

Originally Posted by Elektrix

One other thing to consider is the larger screen and resolution of the MBP compared to a MB. Outside of the considerations of which graphics card to use, you might find that for photo editing and audio applications, the extra screen real estate could come in handy as well.

yeah my tradeoff would be between the larger screen and better performace of a mbp, or the portability of a macbook with a large external display..so i dont think screen realestate is as big of a factor as performance...

Elektrix · Sep 3, 2006, 07:25 PM

Originally Posted by saosin

yeah my tradeoff would be between the larger screen and better performace of a mbp, or the portability of a macbook with a large external display..so i dont think screen realestate is as big of a factor as performance...

Regarding portability; honestly, the size difference between the MB and 15.4" MBP isn't really that significant (if you are in a place where you can put a MacBook on top of and next to a MBP, you'll see that it isn't hugely different in size).

-Zadillo

SierraDragon · Sep 3, 2006, 09:14 PM

Originally Posted by saosin

My dillemma is based off the current specs of both machines. I am wondering if i need a mbp for my needs or if i should go for a mac book and an eternal display instead.

Folks suggesting that the MB is adequate and that Adobe's CS apps do not use the GPU are giving you bad advice, even though it is true that today the MB is adequate and that today Adobe's CS apps do not utilize the GPU except for simple blitting.

However, you buy a new box for future use 2007-2008-2009, and the OS and major graphics apps will be heavily using GPU power over that time frame. E.g. Aperture already is mostly useless on even Quad G5 towers with stock graphics.

The following is from another recent post of mine:
Laptops, even the MBPs, are generally limited (as compared to fully configured pro towers) for heavy graphics apps like CS and Aperture, so when you get a MBP equip it as fully as you can, especially maximum RAM.

And plan on getting a FireWire 800 or Express Card/34 external hard drive for use as a Photoshop scratch disk; it makes a big difference in PS performance. Note that only the 17" version of the existing MBPs has FW 800, but hopefully with the Merom MBPs FW 800 will be available in the 15" models too. USB and FW 400 are poor for hard drive connecting, so for apps that need external disk access either FireWire 800 or Express Card/34 is IMO important. FW 800 external drives are ubiquitous, but Express/34 drives are rare (if there even are any yet).

New "Merom" based MBPs will be announced this month, so it makes sense to wait for that announcement before selecting a box. In any event do not succumb to the lure of the MacBook's lower price if you intend to run Adobe's CS apps. Note too that as to portability the MBs are only 6 ounces lighter, and at the cost of significant screen real estate and pixel count, both important for graphics work.

-Allen Wicks

P.S. I will be buying one of the first Merom MBPs available, and am way ready...

saosin · Sep 3, 2006, 10:02 PM

now that's a convincing arguement back to the mbp,

I still feel like i want a mbp once they laucn the merom ones but hoepfully apple will add more to justify the huge price difference.

It makes a lot of sense when you say that adobe CS of today isnt demanding on video card memory, but who's to say that cs3 will not heavily utilze vram?

And as for the external drive...i already have that covered with a 250gb lacie but its usb...but it does the job.

You also make a good point in that the mbp is only very slightly heavier and has only a slightly bigger footprint. I guess I'll have to wait until the new boxes are released before i can compare mobility.

If the merom macbooks are released with more vram then i'll probably get the macbook as a no brainer money saver and go wtih a large external dispaly.

anyone else have anyu input on this matter? thanks for the reponses in advance.

cmoney · Sep 3, 2006, 11:25 PM

Just switched from a MacBook to a MacBook Pro. The size difference is minimal. Really doesn't make much of a difference at all, especially compared to my 12" PowerBook, both are monsters compared to that.

Unfortunately, performance-wise, the MacBook Pro (2.16GHz) difference is also minimal. I guess in the future it will make a difference especially with Apple's increasing reliance on graphics cards for built-in OS features but for now, the MacBook Pro's performance increase isn't enough to justify the 2x price difference.

The bigger screen isn't really noticeable either!

So why'd I switch? I've had the spontaneous shutdown problem with the MacBook and had to have a laptop with me while I traveled so I picked it up on a whim. Turns out this MBP has absolutely NO flaws like whining, mooing, bad pixels, it's even pretty cool compared to the MB so I've decided to stick with the MacBook Pro once I get back and have the MB repaired. Having the video card and memory along with the slightly bigger screen and performance are added benefits that'll come in handy in the future.