[Veltliner]

My white Core 2 Duo 24" iMac is slow, and maxed out with 3 Gb RAM.

For Photoshop, Final Cut Pro, and Capture One (a very demanding application that is so slow on my iMac I don't use it).

My graphics card is a GForce 7600 GT with 256 Mb RAM.

How would a MacBook Pro i5 (still a dual-core), maxed out with 8 GB RAM and running an external monitor, compare?

1. Speed-wise

2. Graphics-wise (the 13" MBP has an integrated graphics card - how will the graphics performance compare - I have the impression the 7600 GT can't handle the advanced features of Photoshop very well. I get blurry looks at some view percentages).

And how is the heat issue? I sometimes have my computer running all day and into the night, 14 hours straight.

Also, the slower 5400 RPM hard disk of the MBP - how much would this slow things down?

I'd go for the 750 Gb drive (would this mean more heat for the MBP? (Solid state drives are simply too expensive for now).

[Eug]

Any reason you don't want to get a Core i5 quad-core iMac when the iMacs get updated in a few months?

Double the cores and much faster clocked, big beautiful screen, and way faster GPU and hard drive. You can even get dual drives in some iMacs. Plus, they're upgradable to 16 GB.

[Veltliner]

I'll probably need a laptop, and buying two computers is not in the cards right now.

[ajprice]

What Eug said. There will be Sandy Bridge iMacs soon and they will be a better option, unless you need a laptop now for work on the move.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by Veltliner 

1. Speed-wise

Mac Benchmarks
Not the end-all speed comparison, but it gives a general idea of the trend.

Your iMac gets 3059; the i5 13" gets 5945.

That should make further questions about CPU comparisons unnecessary.

Also, the new MacBooks Pro can handle 16 GB RAM.

Originally Posted by Veltliner 

2. Graphics-wise (the 13" MBP has an integrated graphics card - how will the graphics performance compare - I have the impression the 7600 GT can't handle the advanced features of Photoshop very well. I get blurry looks at some view percentages).

This, I cannot really assess, but I do know that Photoshop is a lot LESS affected by graphics power than one would expect.

Originally Posted by Veltliner 

And how is the heat issue? I sometimes have my computer running all day and into the night, 14 hours straight.

There is no heat issue. My i7 13" gets warm, but never hot.

As for hard drive: replacing the hard drive at a later date is trivial. You might as well get the stock drive, and throw in something larger and/or faster at a later date - SSD prices are coming down.

[SierraDragon]

Any new MBP will be an improvement from 2006, but IMO the separate 6750M GPU and no-extra-charge 7200 rpm HD of the 2.2.GHz 15" will be well worth the extra money for anyone doing heavy graphics work like Aperture or Capture One.

Personally I bought a 2011 17" with SSD and would consider the top 15" with anti-glare display the minimum I would buy, because glossy displays gag me - but maybe cheaper glossy is ok for you.

Real World Speed Tests for Performance Minded Mac Users has tests. Regarding graphics performance of the 2011 MacBook Pro 2.0 with Radeon 6490M graphics they said that "it performs similarly to the 2010 MacBook Pro with GeForce 330M... In other words, you'll save a little money but lose a lot of graphics power."

Geekbench results ignoring the GPU are available from Primate Labs:
http://www.primatelabs.ca/geekbench/mac-benchmarks/

Most photogs find benefit in portability, and the top new MBPs with 6750M finally allow fully competent portable boxes that will drive apps like Aperture and Capture One well. We no longer need desktop + laptop setups (with the issues involved in running single-user dual setups) because a top MBP can now do both, including driving a large display.

The 6750M is 3x as strong as 13" integrated graphics and the CPU of the 15" is 50% stronger. Although it "works" IMO a 13" MBP is not a good choice for stand alone heavy graphics usage.

If one did want a small notebook-sized laptop for field-only usage I recommend waiting to see the Sandy Bridge MBA. I would not April 2011 buy a 13" MBP without seeing the new MBA first.

Just my 2 cents.

-Allen Wicks

P.S. For the first time, with the new 17" MBP I am using the MBP as a full-on desktop replacement box.

P.P.S. Any of the new boxes will run Adobe's Creative Suite apps fine, because Adobe CS5 still fails to take advantage of advanced GPU support. But who knows, maybe with CS6 (due later this year) Adobe will move into the 21st century and take advantage of the strong graphics cards increasingly available on better boxes.

P.P.P.S Heat is irrelevant to purchase decision-making. I have owned each generation since the Duos, and Mac Laptops have been getting increasingly cooler since the G3s.

[SierraDragon]

Originally Posted by Eug 

Any reason you don't want to get a Core i5 quad-core iMac when the iMacs get updated in a few months?

Yes. [Just my opinion, and I am not the OP]

• iMacs are not portable.

• Glossy-only display gags me. When deskbound I prefer dual displays: an anti-glare MBP plus NEC 2490.

• Dual drives are easy in MBPs.

• Thunderbolt gives desktop i/o to a portable box.

IMO top MBP CPUs are ridiculously strong (10,000 scores on Geekbench), and the graphics are reasonably strong, enough so that the top 2011 MBPs are true desktop replacement boxes. Even if iMacs were here now (and they are not) I would prefer portable.

My last 17" MBP lasted 2006-2011, but I backed it up with a Mac Pro tower. The new 17" MBP CPU is 50% stronger than the tower's and the MBP graphics are also stronger than the tower's. Using it as a DTR box I probably will not get such a long life cycle with this MBP, but the logistics of one box instead of two is a great convenience.

-Allen

[Veltliner]

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

Mac Benchmarks
Not the end-all speed comparison, but it gives a general idea of the trend.

Your iMac gets 3059; the i5 13" gets 5945.

That should make further questions about CPU comparisons unnecessary.

Also, the new MacBooks Pro can handle 16 GB RAM.


This, I cannot really assess, but I do know that Photoshop is a lot LESS affected by graphics power than one would expect.



There is no heat issue. My i7 13" gets warm, but never hot.

As for hard drive: replacing the hard drive at a later date is trivial. You might as well get the stock drive, and throw in something larger and/or faster at a later date - SSD prices are coming down.

So it would be twice as fast as my iMac.

Maybe not fast enough...

The 13" MBP has an 8 Gb max RAM, the 15" can handle 16 Gb.

[Veltliner]

Originally Posted by SierraDragon 

Any new MBP will be an improvement from 2006, but IMO the separate 6750M GPU and no-extra-charge 7200 rpm HD of the 2.2.GHz 15" will be well worth the extra money for anyone doing heavy graphics work like Aperture or Capture One.

Personally I bought a 2011 17" with SSD and would consider the top 15" with anti-glare display the minimum I would buy, because glossy displays gag me - but maybe cheaper glossy is ok for you.

Real World Speed Tests for Performance Minded Mac Users has tests. Regarding graphics performance of the 2011 MacBook Pro 2.0 with Radeon 6490M graphics they said that "it performs similarly to the 2010 MacBook Pro with GeForce 330M... In other words, you'll save a little money but lose a lot of graphics power."

Geekbench results ignoring the GPU are available from Primate Labs:
Mac Benchmarks

Most photogs find benefit in portability, and the top new MBPs with 6750M finally allow fully competent portable boxes that will drive apps like Aperture and Capture One well. We no longer need desktop + laptop setups (with the issues involved in running single-user dual setups) because a top MBP can now do both, including driving a large display.

The 6750M is 3x as strong as 13" integrated graphics and the CPU of the 15" is 50% stronger. Although it "works" IMO a 13" MBP is not a good choice for stand alone heavy graphics usage.

If one did want a small notebook-sized laptop for field-only usage I recommend waiting to see the Sandy Bridge MBA. I would not April 2011 buy a 13" MBP without seeing the new MBA first.

Just my 2 cents.

-Allen Wicks

P.S. For the first time, with the new 17" MBP I am using the MBP as a full-on desktop replacement box.

P.P.S. Any of the new boxes will run Adobe's Creative Suite apps fine, because Adobe CS5 still fails to take advantage of advanced GPU support. But who knows, maybe with CS6 (due later this year) Adobe will move into the 21st century and take advantage of the strong graphics cards increasingly available on better boxes.

P.P.P.S Heat is irrelevant to purchase decision-making. I have owned each generation since the Duos, and Mac Laptops have been getting increasingly cooler since the G3s.

Looks like the 13" laptop is only a solution short term (together with a 24" NEC Wuxi).

I'll definitely look at the new MBA. So far, they were a bit weak. Also, I found that their displays are by far not as good as the MBP's (probably because they are so thin).

[P]

Originally Posted by Veltliner 

My white Core 2 Duo 24" iMac is slow, and maxed out with 3 Gb RAM.

For Photoshop, Final Cut Pro, and Capture One (a very demanding application that is so slow on my iMac I don't use it).

My graphics card is a GForce 7600 GT with 256 Mb RAM.

How would a MacBook Pro i5 (still a dual-core), maxed out with 8 GB RAM and running an external monitor, compare?

1. Speed-wise

As a very general rule with lots of caveats, Intel manages roughly 20% speed improvement clock-for-clock between generations. You are two generations behind, so call it 45% clock-for-clock. You don't mention clockspeeds, but you can do the math from there - don't forget the Turbo boost. Sandy Bridge happens to be a very good generation for mobiles, so maybe that boost is slightly bigger. I know what the tests say, but they vastly overestimate the boost from Hyperthreading IME.

Originally Posted by Veltliner 

2. Graphics-wise (the 13" MBP has an integrated graphics card - how will the graphics performance compare - I have the impression the 7600 GT can't handle the advanced features of Photoshop very well. I get blurry looks at some view percentages).

That 7600 is a very old card by now. From the next generation, the 8x00 for nVidia, the shaders became universal and much more all round capable. Since the integrated graphics in this case are universal as well, they will be much more useful, no matter the actual performance.

Tom's Hardware actually have the two (GMA HD 3000 is the integrated graphics) on the same tier in their "gaming graphics performance" chart.

Originally Posted by Veltliner 

And how is the heat issue? I sometimes have my computer running all day and into the night, 14 hours straight.

Don't worry about it.

Originally Posted by Veltliner 

Also, the slower 5400 RPM hard disk of the MBP - how much would this slow things down?

I'd go for the 750 Gb drive (would this mean more heat for the MBP? (Solid state drives are simply too expensive for now).

It would slow things down a lot. It's one thing that is actually a big step down compared to what you have. Personally I'd rather wait for an SB MBA, but that's just me.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by Veltliner 

The 13" MBP has an 8 Gb max RAM, the 15" can handle 16 Gb.

That is not the case.

[P]

Both Apple and Intel report an 8 GB max on both chips, but there are reports of 16 GB being possible in both models. It makes sense, since the desktop version of each supports 16 GB (and I honestly thought both supported 16 GB officially from Intel), but caveat emptor and all that.

[Veltliner]

Originally Posted by P 

Personally I'd rather wait for an SB MBA, but that's just me.

I'm in no hurry.

I would love an MBA, but so far their performance fell very short of MBPs.

[SierraDragon]

Your iMac gets 3059; the i5 13" gets 5945.
That should make further questions about CPU comparisons unnecessary.

Not really. Twice as good as a 2006 box, but only 60% as good as today's 15" and 17" MBPs that score around 10,000. That is a HUGE performance deficit for the 13" - and the integrated graphics performance is even worse.

The 13" is fine if one just runs easy apps like browsers and office apps, but for heavy graphics like Capture One, Aperture, etc. it simply is a poor choice.

-Allen Wicks

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by SierraDragon 

Not really. Twice as good as a 2006 box, but only 60% as good as today's 15" and 17" MBPs that score around 10,000. That is a HUGE performance deficit for the 13" - and the integrated graphics performance is even worse.

The question about graphics was further down.

The question was how the i5 13" compares to his iMac, not how a computer $700 more expensive compares to his iMac.

It's not a HUGE performance "deficit" for the 13" model - it's a huge performance advantage for the 15" and 17" models, that comes at a massive trade-off - price, weight, and size.

[SierraDragon]

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

The question was how the i5 13" compares to his iMac, not how a computer $700 more expensive compares to his iMac.

IMO the question is brainstorming the purchase of a 2011 i5 MBP running an external monitor "For Photoshop, Final Cut Pro, and Capture One (a very demanding application that is so slow on my iMac I don't use it)." The comparison to a 2006 box is really just a useful frame of reference. Note that for the listed expensive professional RAW conversion and image editing app the 2006 box is so slow as to currently be unusable.

...It's not a HUGE performance "deficit" for the 13" model - it's a huge performance advantage for the 15" and 17" models...

OK, I agree. IMO for 2011-2013 usage of apps like "Photoshop, Final Cut Pro, and Capture One" (the kind of apps I use daily) the 15" and 17" models have a huge performance advantage over the 13" size.

Purchase decision questions always depend upon what a tool may be used for. The 13" MBP driving an external display is a very limiting 2011 choice for that usage, period. Kind of like buying a Min Cooper to haul firewood; not a good choice to haul firewood - but that does not make the Mini Cooper a bad car.

It is always about the right tool for the job. For an executive composing emails in economy airline seating every day a 17" MBP is a very poor tool for the job, while a 13" MBP rocks. Trying to do pro RAW conversion and image editing in airline seating would present a real challenge; I would squish a 15" into the inadequate space, but someone else might choose the 13" size and seriously less-good performance.

...massive trade-off - price, weight, and size.

Always there are trade-offs, but only when we look at usage can we determine if a trade-off is massive or not, or even in which direction the trade-off leans. E.g. larger size is a negative for those folks who spend all day on airplanes, but more screen real estate, more pixels and matte display is a positive for photogs editing and reviewing images with clients in the field.

Price too has multiple aspects to consider. A Mini Cooper may be cheaper than a pickup but that does not make it a better value for hauling firewood. The first box I had that ran Photoshop "well" (actions took minutes and rendering could take hours) was a PPC8500 that cost about $4k; $2300 today for a strong graphics laptop is a great value.

The OP said "I'll probably need a laptop, and buying two computers is not in the cards right now." The cool thing is that a top MBP now really can do it all: be a full mobile graphics box, i/o via Thunderbolt and drive a large display at the office while still not bogging down.

Weight: IMO 0.5 kg (1.1 pound) is definitely not a massive weight difference. The trade off is 1.1 pound of weight to obtain 50% better CPU, 3x stronger graphics, anti-glare display, much more screen real estate and 70% more pixels.

[Salty]

I've got the 13 inch i7 and this thing is blazingly fast. I was working on some high resolution Photoshop files tonight and my processor for the most part looked like it was idling the whole time... I was shocked. The i7 also comes with Hyperthreading so it can process more at the same time. Not to mention Activity Monitor shows it as having four cores so you can feel extra special that way... (seriously psychologically it helps!)

Also if you're worried about speed of the HDD look into a Seagate Momentus XT drive, they incoporate 4 gigs of solid state memory for your most accessed files to quicken things a lot, while still leaving you with 500 gigs. That's what I'm looking at soon.

[P]

Originally Posted by Salty 

Also if you're worried about speed of the HDD look into a Seagate Momentus XT drive, they incoporate 4 gigs of solid state memory for your most accessed files to quicken things a lot, while still leaving you with 500 gigs. That's what I'm looking at soon.

I upgraded my dad's Wintel laptop with a Momentus XT this weekend. It's a huge boost - he can't believe how much faster the computer is because of it. HIGHLY recommended.

[SierraDragon]

Originally Posted by Salty 

I've got the 13 inch i7 and this thing is blazingly fast. I was working on some high resolution Photoshop files...

Agreed that basic PS will work well. We know that CS5 and below fail to use graphics support in any meaningful way, and after 12 versions PS is fairly efficient. Heck, CS3 runs well on my 2006 C2D MBP on basic high rez image files; it does not bog until I get lots of complex layers making for a really large file.

Using a 13" to run apps like Aperture, FCP, Capture One driving external displays I expect to be a different story.

Nice to hear that the Momentus works as advertised. The PR sounded good and I wondered if it really worked. I will be adding a HD into the optical drive slot of my 2011 17" MBP at some point.

-Allen

[Veltliner]

Interesting to hear about your i7 experience, Salty.

I'm very curious about the next generation of the MacBook Air. Used to be the portable notebook with little power. Maybe the next generation comes closer to the MBP and can be taken for more serious tasks and may be an alternative to the MBP.

Well, future will tell.

[Veltliner]

Just saw that the 13" i7 is only a 2-core processor (not 4-core) - see Apple's website.

For $300 more there's the 4-core i7 15" MBP. With an increase to 8 Gb RAm that's 2000 Silver dollars though...

[SierraDragon]

Originally Posted by Veltliner 

I'm very curious about the next generation of the MacBook Air... Maybe the next generation comes closer to the MBP and can be taken for more serious tasks and may be an alternative to the MBP.

I too am very curious about the next generation of the MacBook Air. I think it may knock folks' socks off. What would be way cool would be an added-power DTR dock like the Duos had, which rocked (not holding my breath on that).

Unless Apple intentionally hamstrings Sandy Bridge in the MBA more than just using the low-power chip version I believe it will be able to "be taken for more serious tasks and may be an alternative to the MBP." In fact I think it reaches that place already for the tasks most folks pursue. I set one up for a client and it worked fine for browser and office apps.

IMO MBAs and 13" MBPs are excellent laptops for the appropriate usages. However they are not well-qualified desktop replacement boxes for driving external displays and running heavy apps like the top MBPs are.

-Allen

[Veltliner]

Originally Posted by SierraDragon 

I too am very curious about the next generation of the MacBook Air. I think it may knock folks' socks off. What would be way cool would be an added-power DTR dock like the Duos had, which rocked (not holding my breath on that).

Unless Apple intentionally hamstrings Sandy Bridge in the MBA more than just using the low-power chip version I believe it will be able to "be taken for more serious tasks and may be an alternative to the MBP." In fact I think it reaches that place already for the tasks most folks pursue. I set one up for a client and it worked fine for browser and office apps.

IMO MBAs and 13" MBPs are excellent laptops for the appropriate usages. However they are not well-qualified desktop replacement boxes for driving external displays and running heavy apps like the top MBPs are.

-Allen

Yes, their probably slimmer graphic cards will put limits to desktop attachment.

But how about an external graphics card?

Which would shut circumvent the internal one. This should make the MBA perfectly able to drive an external monitor.

Still, the screens are much lower quality than the MBP in my opinion, probably because they are so thin.

Additionally, solid state hard drives are still very pricey, and I don't think I want to deal with a 256 Gb hard drive.

[SierraDragon]

Originally Posted by Veltliner 

But how about an external graphics card? Which would shut circumvent the internal one. This should make the MBA perfectly able to drive an external monitor.

That is essentially what the Duo Dock did. You slid the closed Duo into the Dock exactly like a cassette into a VCR. The dock then drove a full-sized display, keyboard and mouse. And networked to other Macs.

Imagine a Mac Pro case with a slot to drop an MBA into.

...solid state hard drives are still very pricey, and I don't think I want to deal with a 256 Gb hard drive.

It only cost $100 to CTO 128 GB SSD in my MBP. By the time the SSD fills I will have additional mass storage in the optical drive bay. And SSD prices are falling, so I can upgrade the SSD to larger/faster in the future.

Data (in my case 99% of which are image files; non-image files do not take up much space) requires backup, which means that external HDs are being connected to the MBP minimum daily. Which means that most data need not live on the SSD other than temporarily. My Aperture Library with large Previews lives on the internal drive but Master image files live on externals.

[EDIT] One way or another I strongly recommend that folks building new boxes boot from SSD.

-Allen

[Veltliner]

Originally Posted by SierraDragon 

It only cost $100 to CTO 128 GB SSD in my MBP. By the time the SSD fills I will have additional mass storage in the optical drive bay. And SSD prices are falling, so I can upgrade the SSD to larger/faster in the future.

Data (in my case 99% of which are image files; non-image files do not take up much space) requires backup, which means that external HDs are being connected to the MBP minimum daily. Which means that most data need not live on the SSD other than temporarily. My Aperture Library with large Previews lives on the internal drive but Master image files live on externals.

[EDIT] One way or another I strongly recommend that folks building new boxes boot from SSD.

-Allen

What do you mean by "mass storage in the optical drive bay"? I haven't heard of installing two hard drives on a MBP, or did you just mean you'd use an external hard drive?

[Spheric Harlot]

Google "optibay".

[Veltliner]

This seems to be an excellent solution.

$200 for a 750Gb 7200 rpm drive seems to be a bargain.

Or was I missing something. The store is a little bit weird.

[SierraDragon]

MCE is a good vendor. I used their products in my G3 Powerbook IIRC. They do have a solution for using the removed Superdrive externally. OWC has optical drive solutions, but it will be a while (a few months?) before they have an external setup for the removed Superdrive.

The falling prices and improving performance of SSDs have me thinking I may even put a second SSD rather than a hard drive in my new MBP's optical drive bay when the boot SSD fills up.

-Allen Wicks

[Veltliner]

A second SSD would be nice.

But I still like the idea of having a 750 Gb second hard drive better.

I have a growing iTunes library, and for that one I need the bigger drive.

I will wait until the MBA comes out and see what I'll do.

Chances are I will upgrade to a new desktop AND get an 11" MBA for being on the road.

On the other hand, just was at the studio of a photographer friend today and he has a nice set-up with a 17" MBP and one of the non-glossy cinema displays.

It's definitely a good option.

[Mojo]

Photographers considering a MacBook Air should read these articles regarding the MBA display:

On 2010’s MacBook Air: Screen Quality + Can It Finally Replace the Pro? | iLounge Backstage

On 2010’s MacBook Air, Part 2: 11” Air Is (For Us) The Much Smarter Pick | iLounge Backstage

If the MBP "glassy" gags you like it does me, Techrestore offer an anti-glare LCD replacement for the 13" for $200, which is comparable to what Apple charges for an anti-glare BTO for the 15". An anti-glare replacement for the MBA from Techrestore is reportedly in the works... Perhaps it will be an improvement over the stock MBA display.

And regarding the NVDIA 7600 GT GPU... Some users are reporting problems using Aperture 3 on Macs that use that video card. It appears to be a driver problem, but as of this writing Apple has not been able to determine the exact cause of the problem.

[SierraDragon]

Originally Posted by Mojo 

Photographers considering a MacBook Air should read these articles...

What photographers considering a MacBook Air should do is WAIT to see what new Sandy Bridge MBAs are like.

- Allen

[Mojo]

Allen, did you even bother to read the linked articles or at least their titles?

The image rendering capability of the current MBAs should be of some interest to photographers planning on editing images on an MBA.

BTW, I agree that folks should wait and see if the rumored MBA updates show up in the next couple of months... Unless you need an MBA sooner than later.

[SierraDragon]

Originally Posted by Mojo 

Allen, did you even bother to read the linked articles or at least their titles?

The image rendering capability of the current MBAs should be of some interest to photographers planning on editing images on an MBA.

Yes I read the articles.

As a pro photog, long time Aperture/Photoshop user and a Mac geek I largely disagree with the author. The current MBAs are IMO lame and inappropriate for stand alone usage for heavy graphics apps like the OP's "Photoshop, Final Cut Pro, and Capture One."

I did not want to comment on the inappropriatness of the MBA premise right now, because new Sandy Bridge MBAs may or may not be a different story. So I simply said "WAIT" to save keystrokes and arguing about last year's tech.

Current MBAs lack in everything important for heavy graphics work: CPU, GPU, RAM and i/o. And that is if one was to find the small glossy display acceptable.

-Allen

[Mojo]

[QUOTE=SierraDragon;4072074]Yes I read the articles.

I should know better than question the resident expert... Now where is that genuflecting emoticon when you really need it???

From the 13" MBA link:

"Having sunk my own cash into the new Air, my personal suggestion is this: if you’re the sort of “pro” who does photographic work or needs accurate colors on your portable monitor, the new MacBook Air probably isn’t for you."

Kindly note that this is in the last paragraph of an article that goes into considerable depth analyzing the MBA display...

[Veltliner]

The MBA display seems to be much below the MBP display, quality-wise.