Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Hardware - Troubleshooting and Discussion > Mac Notebooks > MBP or MB for Lightroom / PS2/3

MBP or MB for Lightroom / PS2/3
Thread Tools
dmlpbg4
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Mar 2006
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 27, 2008, 05:36 PM
 
Apologizes up front for posting a widely discussed topic (I have been reading the forums) and, perhaps, a subjective one.

I currently use a PB G4 1.67ghz 15inch w/ 2gb RAM. Apart from standard everyday use, my "power" usage is Adobe Lightroom and Photoshop (PS2 not 3), editing usually RAW. I use a FW800 external HD to edit photos (at least it "feels" faster than using my small, internal 5400 rpm HD).

With the recent release of new MB and MBP, I want to upgrade; mostly to improve use with Lightroom and Photoshop. I rarely play games -- the only one I do play is Civ IV which, with my G4 and ATI 9700 (64mb) runs "ok" enough to play.

I would rather get a MBP, but I am not sure if it justifies the $1000+ difference in cost.

Here are the downsides, as I see it to the MB:

(1) Graphic chip -- I use an external 20inch Eizo monitor. Is the integrated graphics sufficient to drive this?

(2) FW800 -- is there any solution since the MB only has FW400? Is there any external option that would provide similar performance with the ports/capabilities of the MB?

(3) No PC card slot.

I don't care about the smaller or glossy screen, per se, b/c any photo work I do needs to be on a color acurrate monitor.

Thoughts appreciated.

David
     
jamil5454
Mac Elite
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Downtown Austin, TX
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 27, 2008, 05:43 PM
 
Coming from a PB, you would most likely regret moving to a MacBook. FW800 is faster than FW400 for external drives. Also, the 6MB cache in the upper-end MBP should help with image processing.

And one more thing: If you ever decide to use Aperture or other CoreImage enabled image processing program (which are becoming more and more common), you will be severely limited by the MB's GPU.

In general, the best advice is to buy the best you can afford at the time you need to purchase if you make any sort of living off your computer. It sounds like you're only thinking about your computer needs NOW (Lightroom, Civ IV) and not 2-3 years into the future. In other words, imagine if you would have purchased an iBook instead of the PB you currently have... you would be limited to a 32MB Radeon 9200, 1.25GB of RAM and no FW800. Would that suit you now? If the answer is no, the right choice would be to get another "pro" machine.
     
dmlpbg4  (op)
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Mar 2006
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 27, 2008, 05:55 PM
 
Good points -- thanks.

Correct, if I had an ibook right now, I would have replaced it well over a year ago. High-end image editing, not gaming, is my only real "future" concern. I only want to "have" to replace my laptop every 3 or 4 years.
     
mduell
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Houston, TX
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 27, 2008, 09:09 PM
 
The MB+external display is fine for Lightroom/Photoshop, but not for Aperture. The biggest issue you'll run into is the inability to connect to high speed storage. I'd go with a refurb last-generation MBP for $1450.
     
Simon
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: in front of my Mac
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 28, 2008, 04:11 AM
 
The new high-end MB is an awesome deal next to the new low-end MBP.

However, since you rely on FW800 I think you should rule out the MB. As others here have suggested the best bang for buck will be a refurbished previous-generation MBP. You'll get a fast and solid Mac that supports FW800 and best of all it will be only a tad more expensive than a MB.
     
dmlpbg4  (op)
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Mar 2006
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 28, 2008, 09:25 AM
 
I've always hesitated with refurb product -- don't trust the quality. But, I suppose if I buy it from the apple site, with a warranty, it might be ok. I would be surprised to find a last gen MBP for $1500.
     
Simon
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: in front of my Mac
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 28, 2008, 09:32 AM
 
I have received numerous refurbished products from Apple and they have all been perfect. The only difference I noticed was the generic brown box. Other than that the products looked like new and worked fine. And you get the same warranty and AC options you otherwise would.

I have received refurbished Apple products with better specs than advertised (RAM, HDD) too. Some people have reported cosmetic issues with refurbs (scratched cases) but I have never experienced or seen that myself.

I don't know where you live, but in the US the Apple Store now has these refurbished 15" models:
MBP 2.20 GHz 2/120/8xSD/128 $1449 (last generation low-end)
MBP 2.33 GHz 2/120/6xSD/256 $1449 (generation before last, high-end)
MBP 2.40 GHz 2/160/8xSD/256 $1649 (last generation high-end)
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 28, 2008, 10:02 AM
 
You will not regret the upgrade.
The MacBook will be worlds faster, trust me. I upgraded my parents from a 1.5 GHz Mac mini (which is roughly as fast as yours) to a 1.83 Core 2 Duo Mac mini and the difference was absolutely incredible. BTW, I have a MacBook Pro.

(1) Yes, it works fine. My best friend drives a 23" ACD HD display with his (in addition to the `puny' 13" screen.
(2) FireWire 400 is your best bet. It's certainly not as fast as FireWire 800, but it's practically faster than USB 2.0. If you own FireWire 800 hardware, you can still use it with a very cheap adapter or using the FireWire 400 ports, it's downward compatible.
(3) Right. Do you need it?
Just one comment: the MacBook Pro doesn't have the same PC card slot you have in your current PowerBook, it's a PCI Express card slot.

The MacBook has a few advantages over its bigger brother: the harddrive is user upgradeable.
(1) I had to pay to have my harddrive upgrade done (otherwise Apple Care would have been voided, not a good idea).
(2) It's smaller.
(3) It doesn't show as much wear (well, at least in my experience).
(4) Since Adobe apps don't make use of the graphics processor as Aperture does, for instance, you won't see much of a speed boost with integrated graphics.

No matter what you get, make sure to max out the RAM.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
dmlpbg4  (op)
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Mar 2006
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 28, 2008, 11:49 AM
 
I've played around with the configurations.

Adding to the purchase price about $115 (for 4 gigs of RAM from OWC):

A Macbook w/ 250 gig HD costs $1600

A Macbook Pro w/ same specs + , of course, better graphics, bigger display, and FW800 costs $2600

The screen doesn't matter for me, I've decided.

So, now I guess I have to determine whether a much better graphics card and FW800 are worth approximately $1100.

Anything I'm missing in my consideration?
     
dmlpbg4  (op)
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Mar 2006
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 28, 2008, 01:02 PM
 
Ok - so here is my concern, based on a review of the Macbook (santa rosa, but still same x3100 graphics) by Ars Technica:

"At work I came across another limitation, this time almost certainly thanks to those integrated graphics. Plugging in my external LCD using the mini DVI-VGA adapter that I purchased separately, I noticed a significant reduction in picture quality compared to what I was used to with the Radeon 9600 in the old PowerBook. Perhaps some of this could be due to the fact that the external monitor was VGA, but the old setup had a DVI-VGA adapter too. Generally, the image on the external display was fuzzier and less acute than I'd like it to be."

SO -- IS IT POSSIBLE THAT THERE IS REDUCED IMAGE QUALITY, AND PERHAPS COLOR ACCURACY ON AN EXTERNAL DISPLAY AS A RESULT OF THE INTEGRATED GRAPHICS CARD ON THE MACBOOK??

This would, unfortunately, based on my needs, be a killer for me. Would have to go to the pro version, which is ok if need be.
     
mduell
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Houston, TX
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 28, 2008, 01:41 PM
 
Why did you rule out refurbs?

$1650 2.4Ghz/160GB MBP refurb + $70 for RAM from Newegg is a great deal compared to either the MB or MBP you listed.

Originally Posted by dmlpbg4 View Post
"At work I came across another limitation, this time almost certainly thanks to those integrated graphics. Plugging in my external LCD using the mini DVI-VGA adapter that I purchased separately, I noticed a significant reduction in picture quality compared to what I was used to with the Radeon 9600 in the old PowerBook. Perhaps some of this could be due to the fact that the external monitor was VGA, but the old setup had a DVI-VGA adapter too. Generally, the image on the external display was fuzzier and less acute than I'd like it to be."

SO -- IS IT POSSIBLE THAT THERE IS REDUCED IMAGE QUALITY, AND PERHAPS COLOR ACCURACY ON AN EXTERNAL DISPLAY AS A RESULT OF THE INTEGRATED GRAPHICS CARD ON THE MACBOOK??
No, the graphics card makes no difference. Using a VGA LCD is stupid and going to be fuzzy. Color accuracy is a matter of calibration, and a DVI LCD is very crisp regardless of the graphics card.
     
iamnotmad
Senior User
Join Date: Mar 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 28, 2008, 01:48 PM
 
That does not seem to make sense to me. I have plugged an SR macbook into an external display, though via DVI, and it looked really great.

The only things I can guess is 1) VGA causing the nastiness? or 2) Sure to cause nastiness is using the non-native resolution of the external display (assuming LCD display).
     
Simon
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: in front of my Mac
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 28, 2008, 03:10 PM
 
Originally Posted by mduell View Post
$1650 2.4Ghz/160GB MBP refurb + $70 for RAM from Newegg is a great deal compared to either the MB or MBP you listed.
QFT. You really should consider this refurb.
     
dmlpbg4  (op)
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Mar 2006
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 28, 2008, 04:03 PM
 
I agree and I am considering. I went to the apple store page (US) and noticed that they also have a "clearance" section which states that the laptops are "new" not refurbished. I like new (I admit it).

I was looking at the prior model 2.4ghz w/ 256meg graphic card and 160 gig hd. I'd upgrade immediately to 4 gig of RAM. With RAM, about $2000, which is still $600 or so less than a brand new one.

So for $600, I lose (1) a little L3 cache, (2) finger gestures (blah) and (3) slightly faster/more efficient CPU.

I think I can live with that.

Everyone's help is appreciated. (I still may get the MB after all of this -- I'm going to go to the apple store and test both out)
     
dmlpbg4  (op)
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Mar 2006
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 28, 2008, 04:04 PM
 
BTW -- I meant to ask, is there a difference (real difference) between refurb and clearance on apple?? There "should" be, but then again...
     
dmlpbg4  (op)
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Mar 2006
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 28, 2008, 04:47 PM
 
And one last question (maybe...)

Radeon 9700 (64megs) vs Intel's x3100: are these going to be roughly equivalent for everyday use with 10.5 and for, as previously discussed, photo editing? Never thought to consider whether going to MB would actually be a downgrade, in some areas, from my PBG4.
     
iamnotmad
Senior User
Join Date: Mar 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 28, 2008, 05:15 PM
 
Originally Posted by dmlpbg4 View Post
And one last question (maybe...)

Radeon 9700 (64megs) vs Intel's x3100: are these going to be roughly equivalent for everyday use with 10.5 and for, as previously discussed, photo editing? Never thought to consider whether going to MB would actually be a downgrade, in some areas, from my PBG4.
The x3100 should be faster than that old 64mb card. While the x3100 is an "integrated" graphics card - it's not totally pathetic by any means. It supports DX 10 and Shader Model 3 even.

Even if card vs. card the x3100 loses, in the actual machines, a new MB with x3100 should handily graphically outperform an old PBG4 with a 64MB Radeon 9700.

*disclaimer - I'm guessing at this performance compare, I don't think there have been any comparisons to that particular model and the x3100.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 29, 2008, 05:28 AM
 
In most aspects, the x3100 is faster. There are other things it will do slower, but for Photoshop and other Adobe apps, the graphics chip is not that important.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
SierraDragon
Mac Elite
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Truckee, CA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 29, 2008, 09:02 AM
 
All laptops are limiting to heavy graphics work. Across the board, for graphics work like CS3 apps and the images handling involved with such graphics work, MBPs are far superior to MBs. MBs of course have strong CPUs, but overall graphics workflow involves much more than simply the CPU.

MBP versus MB
Thinner MBP vs. thicker MB
FW800 v. no FW800
Many more (1440x900 & more) pixels v. less (1280x800) pixels
MBP has much more screen real estate
Decent speakers v. poor speakers
Backlit keyboard v. no backlit keyboard
Strong independent graphics unit v. weaker integrated graphics
Express Card Slot v. no Express Card Slot
The 15" MBP only weighs 6 ounces more
Matte or glossy v. only glossy screen

For graphics work the positive impact of additional pixels and screen real estate is a HUGE benefit.

Whatever you do, max out RAM and upgrade to CS3, which is fast and stable on MacIntels. For now stick with OS 10.4.11 if the new box allows it.

-Allen Wicks
     
Simon
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: in front of my Mac
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 29, 2008, 09:06 AM
 
When it comes to PS there is no difference between a high-end MB and a low-end MBP. They now have the exact same CPU. The GPU is pretty much irrelevant when it comes to CS3. So either you get a high-end MBP or you might as well take the much cheaper MB and max out RAM and disk.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 29, 2008, 09:25 AM
 
The OP said, the screen doesn't matter to him as he intends to use his external screen anyway. For Photoshop et al, the graphics card is not important, it's more about CPU horsepower than anything else. So I don't think ProBooks are far superior with the OPs requirements (which he detailed quite well).

If the OP planned to use Aperture (which is what I use), I would suggest to either reconsider to get a ProBook or an iMac.

One more thing to point out: even though you can (and should!) calibrate your MacBook's or MacBook Pro's screen, its quality (in particular gamut and viewing angle) is nowhere near that of a good external screen, glossy or not. It's `good enough' for quick edits, though.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
dmlpbg4  (op)
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Mar 2006
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 29, 2008, 11:14 AM
 
Well, for starters I need to upgrade from CS2 to CS2 -- seeing as using CS2 with an intel MB or MBP appears to be a bad idea.

That said, I'm not sure how much I'll miss the "feel" of the pro version. The keyboard, aluminum, construction all "feels" better than the MB -- which, for the price, it rightfully should in my mind. So I understand the tradeoffs between the MB and MBP.

I think the question now is the level of "future proofing" I want. Yes, there is no such thing as a "future proof" computer -- i.e. one that will still be considered "fast" in 2 or 3 years. My concern with the MB is not the graphics now, but the everyday OSX graphics requirements or adobe CS/lightroom requirements 2 years from now. I know there is no way to predict, but I feel as though having 512 megs of GeForce will allow me to use the computer 2 or 3 years from now, whereas maybe not so with the MB. I think to my current powerbook G4 -- if I had, 3 years ago, bought an ibook (I don't think it had integrated at that time, but a slower graphics card for sure), would I now be using it for lightroom and CS?? Probably not.

And I continue in circles...
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 29, 2008, 11:23 AM
 
I don't think it'll make any difference. Unless Adobe decides to go for hardware/GPU acceleration with their effects (which I doubt). But even then, you won't be able to take advantage of them, unless you upgrade your software.

CPU-wise, a 2.4 GHz cpu in a MacBook will be exactly as fast as the same 2.4 GHz cpu in a MacBook Pro.

If you have an external screen, I assume you use an external mouse and an external keyboard, so the keyboard itself is probably not as much of an issue. Personally, I like the MacBook's keyboard, although it's not backlit (which I honestly don't need so badly, apart from the geek factor ). Construction-wise, I was happier with my iBooks than with my MacBook Pro (the handrests look awful, and I haven't done anything bad to them, I just use them).

What's your budget? (Keep in mind that in either case, you should definitely upgrade to CS3, this will set you back a pretty penny, too.) Stupid question, but do you really need a portable? I have never heard you say anything about weight requirements … 
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
dmlpbg4  (op)
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Mar 2006
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 29, 2008, 12:56 PM
 
I can afford either -- but it is more a question of whether I really need to spend more for the MBP. Back in the day of the powerbook and ibook, there was a much bigger performance difference.

I like laptops, that is all I have ever owned. No, I am not transporting it around, but I do constantly work in different parts of my condo -- can't do that with a desktop. Anyway, I'm only considering a laptop.

Is this SSE4 something that would ever be used in photoshop/lightroom future versions?

Yes, I need to upgrade to CS3, agreed.
     
MacosNerd
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jun 2007
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 29, 2008, 01:03 PM
 
Originally Posted by dmlpbg4 View Post
No, I am not transporting it around, but I do constantly work in different parts of my condo -- can't do that with a desktop. Anyway, I'm only considering a laptop.
I used photoshop on my mb and to be honest, I felt the screen size a little too constraining. So if you plan on using PS while not hooked up to a larger monitor, I would reconsider the MBP. As I said, I had a MB, felt the screen size too limiting and also difficult to read. I also use aperture and the performance of it on a MB was a little too much to take so I opted for a MBP and I've been very pleased with it since.
     
olePigeon
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 1999
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 29, 2008, 02:40 PM
 
If you haven't bought it yet, I'd suggest visiting an Apple Store if you can. They usually have Adobe CS3 or whatever installed on the MacBooks. Bring in a few of your projects on a little FireWire or USB drive and play around with them, see how the speed works for you.
"…I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than
you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods,
you will understand why I dismiss yours." - Stephen F. Roberts
     
mduell
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Houston, TX
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 29, 2008, 07:00 PM
 
Originally Posted by dmlpbg4 View Post
I was looking at the prior model 2.4ghz w/ 256meg graphic card and 160 gig hd. I'd upgrade immediately to 4 gig of RAM. With RAM, about $2000, which is still $600 or so less than a brand new one.

So for $600, I lose (1) a little L3 cache, (2) finger gestures (blah) and (3) slightly faster/more efficient CPU.
You actually lose 1MB L2 cache (there is no L3 cache) with the newer model; the old 2.4Ghz had 4MB, the new one has 3MB. But it doesn't really matter for performance in most apps.
     
dmlpbg4  (op)
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Mar 2006
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 2, 2008, 02:39 PM
 
Yes, thx, L2 cache.

Well, I thought I would let folks know the final decision, after all the discussion. I found a great deal on a MBP, 2.4ghz, 2gig RAM, 160gig HD, 256mb VRAM. So I jumped on it. For the amount I saved, I got the pro version -- which, deep down, I really wanted -- and did not spend a premium on the new chips.

Thanks for everyone's advice. I will post a review (comparing a G4 PB to a MBP) once I get and use it some.

FYI -- interestly, but perhaps not so surprisingly, the Apple Stores do not load PS or Apeature or other "high end" apps on the MB. Obviously, they don't want something runningly slowly.
     
mduell
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Houston, TX
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 2, 2008, 02:58 PM
 
PS runs the same on the MB as the MBP. Aperture, OTOH, would run much better on the MBP.
     
Simon
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: in front of my Mac
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 3, 2008, 03:41 AM
 
Originally Posted by dmlpbg4 View Post
Well, I thought I would let folks know the final decision, after all the discussion. I found a great deal on a MBP, 2.4ghz, 2gig RAM, 160gig HD, 256mb VRAM.
Excellent choice. Congrats!
     
MacosNerd
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jun 2007
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 3, 2008, 07:30 AM
 
Originally Posted by dmlpbg4 View Post
I found a great deal on a MBP, 2.4ghz, 2gig RAM, 160gig HD, 256mb VRAM. So I jumped on it. For the amount I saved, I got the pro version -- which, deep down, I really wanted -- and did not spend a premium on the new chips.
congrats and enjoy. I don't know about spending a premium for new chips because the speed bump is rather minor. Still enjoy you're new baby.
FYI -- interestly, but perhaps not so surprisingly, the Apple Stores do not load PS or Apeature or other "high end" apps on the MB. Obviously, they don't want something runningly slowly.
I beleive in Aperture's case, the machine does not meet the minimum specifications, but you're right aperture will run very slow on the MB - I know first hand. As for PS, it will actually run pretty close to the MBP because that application is more dependent on the CPU then the GPU. If it runs slow on the MB it would run slow on the MBP (which it doesn't in either case).
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 3, 2008, 08:03 AM
 
Running Aperture on a MacBook is supported, but not recommended, that's the official verdict. Since the OP is using Lightroom, the GPU won't matter much.

Instead, they would like to continue to market the distinction between `pro machines' and `consumer machines'. Some people (e. g. my best friend) have actually switched from a ProBook to a MacBook.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
SierraDragon
Mac Elite
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Truckee, CA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 3, 2008, 07:42 PM
 
To the OP: Congratulations, good choice. Max out the RAM and enjoy!

After RAM is maxxed and you are comfortable with your new MBP give Aperture a thorough trial. IMO it is superior to LR on strong Macs. I use Aperture on a 17" C2D MBP.

Originally Posted by Simon View Post
When it comes to PS there is no difference between a high-end MB and a low-end MBP.
Sorry Simon but that is very untrue.
• Folks doing graphics usually quickly need additional external mass storage, and MBs' lack of Firewire 800 is a very significant limitation.
• When used portably (which is why folks buy laptops) the MBPs' benefit of much higher pixel count and more screen real estate for graphics work is HUGE.
• Although CPUs are similar, PS actions are ~25% faster on MBPs (see MacBook 2.2GHz versus others - CPU crunch).
• Optimum PS operation requires a physically separate fast hard drive for scratch. When using a laptop in a desktop setup that means a FW800 drive; MBs' FW400 is significantly limiting.

Also, few graphics folks will only use Photoshop during the life of a new laptop. MBP graphics are far superior for apps that take advantage (see MacBook 2.2GHz versus others and MacBook 2.2GHz versus others - pro graphics). Having strong graphics on board is a smart move for future graphics apps, even though PSCS3 today only uses advanced graphics for 3D and for Bridge.

Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
Some people (e. g. my best friend) have actually switched from a ProBook to a MacBook.
Your friend took a major step down if he/she intends graphics work.

-Allen Wicks
( Last edited by SierraDragon; Mar 3, 2008 at 08:01 PM. )
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 4, 2008, 02:04 AM
 
Your benchmarks actually support what we're saying: if you look at the one single PS benchmarks, you notice that the 2.2 GHz ProBook and the 2.2 GHz MacBook take pretty much the same time to complete the benchmark (54 vs. 55 seconds). Ditto for Cinebench and iMove cpu rendering (minimal or no differences). Now, if you compare the 2.4 GHz ProBook with the 2.2 GHz MacBook, then the difference in cpu speed accounts for the difference in the benchmarks -- in other words, the 2.4 GHz ProBook is faster because the clockrate of its cpu is higher, the benchmarks you've posted support Simon's and my claim.

We've always maintained that for people who use apps that actually make use of the graphics chip, the ProBook is (by far) the better choice. Photoshop does not. The OP said he will use only Adobe apps and will have connected a calibrated Eizo lcd most of the time. Screen estate doesn't matter so much in that scenario as your laptops screen will -- at best -- be your secondary screen.

(I have a ProBook and use Aperture on a regular basis, I wouldn't want to get a MacBook.)
( Last edited by OreoCookie; Mar 4, 2008 at 04:41 AM. )
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
Simon
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: in front of my Mac
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 4, 2008, 04:34 AM
 
Originally Posted by SierraDragon View Post
Sorry Simon but that is very untrue.
• Folks doing graphics usually quickly need additional external mass storage, and MBs' lack of Firewire 800 is a very significant limitation.
...
• Optimum PS operation requires a physically separate fast hard drive for scratch. When using a laptop in a desktop setup that means a FW800 drive; MBs' FW400 is significantly limiting.
Umm, yeah, if you had bothered to read the entire thread, you would have noticed that my very first reply to the OP was:
Originally Posted by Simon
However, since you rely on FW800 I think you should rule out the MB.
In the case of the OP FW800 is the key issue. CPU performance is identical and hence the OP's PS performance (apart from a FW800 scratch disk) will be identical.

Originally Posted by SierraDragon View Post
• Although CPUs are similar, PS actions are ~25% faster on MBPs (see MacBook 2.2GHz versus others - CPU crunch).
There are good reasons to recommend a MBP over a MB but the CPU is definitely not one of them.

That benchmark compares old MBPs to old MBs so it's basically useless today. Here's the real deal on today's MBs and MBPs: A simple PS task will take the exact same amount of time on a 2.4 GHz MB as on a 2.4 GHz MBP. Both models use the exact same CPU and PS relies a) on the CPU and b) the amount of RAM. Run both with the same scratch disk and your numbers will be identical.

Obviously there are other issues than just the chipset (screen size, screen quality, FW800 port, Express Card, looks, etc.) which might point a buyer towards one or the other Mac, but when it comes to the CPU there is absolutely zero reason to recommend the $1999 MBP over the $1299 MB. If anything, the OP would have to go with a $2499 MBP which due to it's slightly higher clock speed and doubled L2 cache will really perform better. And actually, if CPU performance is the key issue, then throw in another $250 for the 2.6 GHz upgrade while you're at it.
( Last edited by Simon; Mar 4, 2008 at 05:27 AM. )
     
Simon
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: in front of my Mac
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 4, 2008, 04:49 AM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
We've always maintained that for people who use apps that actually make use of the graphics chip, the ProBook is (by far) the better choice. Photoshop does not. The OP said he will use only Adobe apps and will have connected a calibrated Eizo lcd most of the time. Screen estate doesn't matter so much in that scenario as your laptops screen will -- at best -- be your secondary screen.
This is the Adobe problem. Of course a lot of things about the MBP are superior (I own three so no need to convince me there). But as long as PS depends on CPU and RAM, PS is a really bad app to promote the MBP.

Motion or Aperture are entirely different in this respect. The moment somebody whispers one of those apps, the MB is a no go.
( Last edited by Simon; Mar 4, 2008 at 05:02 AM. )
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 4, 2008, 05:07 AM
 
I agree. As I said, I also own a first-gen ProBook (2 GHz) and for me, a MacBook would seriously degrade my Aperture user experience.

It's kind of sad to see that Adobe does not make effective use of OS X' technologies, they'd rather feed us with what they can do on the Windows side, too, because god forbid, there might be a feature or two that aren't as easily portable to Windows and the user experience of Adobe apps might actually be better on OS X.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
Simon
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: in front of my Mac
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 4, 2008, 05:18 AM
 
That's the one reason why I'd like to see Apple buy Adobe.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 4, 2008, 05:30 AM
 
Oh yeah, that'd be fun.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
mduell
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Houston, TX
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 4, 2008, 11:57 AM
 
Originally Posted by Simon View Post
This is the Adobe problem.
IMO it's a feature, not a bug. It's great to use GPUs for things they're good at (like video compression/decompression... oh wait, Apple doesn't do or support that), but their usage can unnecessarily drive up system requirements and cost while reducing options.Aperture needs a lot more GPU power than Lightroom and what do you get for it?
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 4, 2008, 12:20 PM
 
@mduell
Just a few examples from the top of my head:
(1) All small image previews in Aperture are actually rendered on the fly (unless, with Aperture 2.0, you switch to preview mode) -- this is something Lightroom does not do. Sounds like a nifty little gimmick, but it's not (especially when you have several versions of a picture that differ only in white balance. That was one reason Aperture was slower than Lightroom.
(2) It's damn zippy and frees up cpu power for other things (works very well when you're in book mode or so). Since Apple has decided to integrate it into its framework, every programmer can take advantage of that.
(3) You can apply live filters and transformations to videos without the need to render them.
You can program that yourself (as Adobe has done for Premiere), but it certainly is much better to have it integrated into the OS so everyone can take advantage of it.
(4) GPU-accelerated rendering (Adobe has that, too).

Apple has a great many APIs that would take a lot of time to implement under Windows as there is probably no equivalent for them.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
sogbrightlight
Forum Regular
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Pensacola, FL
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 4, 2008, 12:28 PM
 
Consider durability.

Macbook - Polycarbonate plastic that is prone to chipping in some models. Dirties easily.

Macbook Pro- Anodized Aluminum with a proven sturdy design.

Other things

Macbook - I believe they are available in glossy screen only. The speakers aren't that great.

Macbook Pro - Available in both glossy and anti-glare. Speakers are much better. Also you have multi-touch if you buy new.

I own a macbook. It suits my needs but at times I really wish I had gotten the MBP.
Bla Bla Bla
     
MacosNerd
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jun 2007
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 4, 2008, 01:10 PM
 
Originally Posted by sogbrightlight View Post
Macbook - Polycarbonate plastic that is prone to chipping in some models. Dirties easily.
The MB can take a bit more abuse and not have any ill effects

Macbook Pro- Anodized Aluminum with a proven sturdy design.
Aluminum is a soft metal that can easily deform. Just do a search on dents in this forum and you'll see the number of people that are dealing with this "proven sturdy design" I love my MBP but I also know the plastic MB enclosure is more durable then the aluminum MBP enclosure.
     
skew
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: London
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 4, 2008, 01:40 PM
 
Originally Posted by MacosNerd View Post
The MB can take a bit more abuse and not have any ill effects


Aluminum is a soft metal that can easily deform. Just do a search on dents in this forum and you'll see the number of people that are dealing with this "proven sturdy design" I love my MBP but I also know the plastic MB enclosure is more durable then the aluminum MBP enclosure.
In my experience they're about as good / bad as eachother. I've had a PB17" / 1G that did great service but dented easily if knocked. I've also have a MB CD2 that has discoloured and has splintered on the edge of the palm rest like many many others. The CD2 MBP I have is 8 months old as is cosmetically ok apart from a deformed keyboard ( see another post of mine ). YMMV
--wake up--
     
mduell
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Houston, TX
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 4, 2008, 02:53 PM
 
Originally Posted by sogbrightlight View Post
Consider durability.
Macbook - Polycarbonate plastic that is prone to chipping in some models. Dirties easily.
Macbook Pro- Anodized Aluminum with a proven sturdy design.
It's the other way around in my mind. Plastic bounces back from most drops into the original shape, while aluminum is soft and prone to denting with even small drops.
     
SierraDragon
Mac Elite
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Truckee, CA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 4, 2008, 03:15 PM
 
Originally Posted by mduell View Post
Aperture needs a lot more GPU power than Lightroom and what do you get for it?
Substantially faster overall workflow. I come from long usage of Adobe products, especially Photoshop, and have used both Aperture and Lightroom. In spite of my predilection for Adobe products I have found Aperture on a strong Mac far superior to Lightroom.

Originally Posted by Simon View Post
There are good reasons to recommend a MBP over a MB but the CPU is definitely not one of them.
I do not disagree. However one never buys just a CPU. FW 800, EC card slot, display size & pixels, performance of the total architecture are what matter.

-Allen Wicks
     
dmlpbg4  (op)
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Mar 2006
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 4, 2008, 06:44 PM
 
Wow. I leave everyone alone for 2 days and an explosion of conversation.

Looks like I should have my new MBP on Thursday. Very excited. Just bought PS CS3 in preparation, and my 4 gigs of RAM just arrived. In otherwords, I'm ready.

Regarding Lightroom vs. Aperture: Each have features the other does not; I tried both out (a year ago on a friends Mac Pro) and enjoyed Aperture more, based on the way it organized photos and, in my opinion, its simplicity. It seems more logical to me. I also wanted to go with Adobe b/c I have used photoshop for years and know that an adobe to adobe product will maintain compatibility in the future, whereas there is no way to know about an apple product. Plus Adobe has been doing "this sort of thing" for years; Apple is the new guy to the block. I'll go with the more proven company in this area. Seems more "future proof." Either way, stick with whatever program seems to meld to your editing needs.

Here's an interesting question. I've noticed that the new MBP (as compared to my powerbook G4) do not have "full" pc-card slots. So do I have to replace all my pc card adaptors or is there some adaptor that either plugs into the pc card slot of the MBP or a firewire/usb port??
     
dmlpbg4  (op)
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Mar 2006
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 4, 2008, 06:45 PM
 
Correction: enjoyed LIGHTROOM more
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 4, 2008, 06:58 PM
 
It is a PCI Express 34 card slot which is not compatible to earlier PC card slots. It's faster than the old one, too.

By the way, round tripping in Aperture is future proof, all Aperture does is create a copy of the image and launch Photoshop (or your favorite photo editor).
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
dmlpbg4  (op)
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Mar 2006
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 4, 2008, 07:21 PM
 
Agreed, in part, re: Aperture future proof. I think I was speaking more along the lines that I would bet on Lightroom being around longer than Aperture. But who knows. Gota stick with what works for you -- for better or worse I started (and paid for) Lightroom. I'll stick with that until there is a true reason to change. For those that have photography as a serious hobby and have not tried either program, I would highly recommend -- changed the entire way I edit and print and manage my work.
     
   
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 06:38 AM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,