Forums | MacLife

rbarneydotcom · 2006-05-16 4:39 pm

I am wondering which portable I should buy. I am a graphic design junior and have an i-mac at home but need a more portable, hopefully more powerful, hardware option for taking to class, doing projects on the road etc... I get the student discount which is about 200.00 off the MBP and 50.00 off the MB. I am thinking either the black MB or the low model MBP. I like the footprint and price of the MB, but the power of the MBP. What do you think?

rufio · 2006-05-16 4:59 pm

Your a graphic designer? You need a GRAPHICS card, which is not in the Macbooks. Get the low-end MacBook Pro if at all possible.

jayster · 2006-05-16 4:59 pm

When you say "power" what do you mean the Graphics power? correct me if I'm wrong here but I think the specs on the MB and MB pro are very close.

The huge differences are the graphics and express card slot

same Dual core CPU (2.0), same FSB, same memory, USB 2.0, Firewire 400, sata 5,400 rpm hard drives. DVI video port, Gigabit ethernet

So unless you want to do some portable 3D gaming I'm not sure the performance would differ all that much. I already ordered the low end one today as I only need a portable for email, web surfing, and iLife stuff. This computer is an awsome value, I just priced a Dell with the same hardware specs and it was 100 more! and that does not include the software you get with a mac!

Last edited by jayster (2006-05-16 7:35 pm)

codesamurai · 2006-05-16 5:10 pm

If you have the money, go for the MacBook Pro... However, you'd gonna need the RAM, so if your economical situation isn't so great...
Then go for a MacBook, and get it with Apple's standard 512 MB and replace it with 2GB yourself... it's a lot cheaper than through the Apple Store.

Last edited by codesamurai (2006-05-16 7:00 pm)

MacBoy4139 · 2006-05-16 5:41 pm

rufio wrote:
Your a graphic designer? You need a GRAPHICS card, which is not in the Macbooks. Get the low-end MacBook Pro if at all possible.

I'm trying to remember which graphics app utilizes the graphics card....besides none of Adobe's stuff.....

robco · 2006-05-16 7:19 pm

Aperture and Motion use the GPU. Not to mention the integrated graphics take away some system memory as VRAM. Most graphic designers need all the free memory they can get.

jayster · 2006-05-16 7:33 pm

rufio wrote:
Your a graphic designer? You need a GRAPHICS card, which is not in the Macbooks. Get the low-end MacBook Pro if at all possible.

Neither the MB or MB pro have a "card" one has dedicated graphics while the other has shared graphics both are built on to the motherboard.

The 950 supports OSX's core image, The graphics on the MP Pro are only needed for 3D apps or programs like Apple Aperture that use the GPU.

I don't know of any graphic design software that uses the video card. Like Macboy said non of adobe's stuff uses the video card. Even most video rendering uses the CPU not video card. ATI has some demo stuff that does but its not supported on the mac.

So for standard graphics design stuff you will see no performance increase with the dedicated video.

Keep in mind for the price of the 15" MB pro you could buy a macbook now and buy another one in a few years down the road that will be faster then the MB pro of today. Don't over buy a computer you don't need, it's a waste of money these things hold no value. Get what you need nothing more unless you just have money to burn.

rufio · 2006-05-16 8:59 pm

Macboy and others, core image is supported on the Mac Minis too, but using them even with upgraded ram causes problems on the ones in the store. One of the Mac Minis hooked up to a 20" Cinema Display has to refocus and readjust the display of the screen every time the screen saver is ended or started.

The one thing that really makes a big difference is the graphic card that I've seen. The 20" iMacs don't have that problem, and they have the stock ram and a 20" display to power.

I'm just going by experience here. If your CPU+Ram are doing calculations rendering in Photoshop they are not going to have the "dedicated" freedom to display the rendering as fast on your display. It's not hard to put 2 and 2 together there. Perhaps the application does not use the GPU, but it's always being used by something...

Type_R_Crazy · 2006-05-16 9:00 pm

This is the only thing stopping me from running to the Apple store right now....

I'm going to dabble (not a lot - maybe an hour per week TOPS, most of my work will be in PS, or regular things like word processing, IM, and browsing) in 3dsmax, but the gaming is a little cornern. I'm not a huge gamer but i'd love to play CS, UT, NFSMW, and a few others. Do you guys think it would be a huge problem? I don't think the integrated graphics will cause too much of a problem for me, but I just want to make sure.

jhastings · 2006-05-16 9:27 pm

Speaking of games...
I know that the integrated graphics will cause problems, but if I get the MacBook, I'll try playing Oblivion on it. (Maybe a "try before you buy.") It will probably be horrible, torturous even, but I'll do it anyway.

SpacemanSpiff · 2006-05-17 9:15 am

I think that the Number One difference between the MacBook and the MacBook Pro is this:

Everyone wants a MacBook Pro.

And I'm not sure I fully understand buying "more computer than you need". The more you buy now, the less you'll have to buy later.

Also, be sure to check the Apple Store. They have/had 1.83 MBP for 1599.

Forums | MacLife

#1 2006-05-16 4:39 pm

Macbook vs. Macbook Pro?

#2 2006-05-16 4:59 pm

Re: Macbook vs. Macbook Pro?

#3 2006-05-16 4:59 pm

Re: Macbook vs. Macbook Pro?

#4 2006-05-16 5:10 pm

Re: Macbook vs. Macbook Pro?

#5 2006-05-16 5:41 pm

Re: Macbook vs. Macbook Pro?

rufio wrote:

#6 2006-05-16 7:19 pm

Re: Macbook vs. Macbook Pro?

#7 2006-05-16 7:33 pm

Re: Macbook vs. Macbook Pro?

rufio wrote:

#8 2006-05-16 8:59 pm

Re: Macbook vs. Macbook Pro?

#9 2006-05-16 9:00 pm

Re: Macbook vs. Macbook Pro?

#10 2006-05-16 9:27 pm

Re: Macbook vs. Macbook Pro?

#11 2006-05-17 9:15 am

Re: Macbook vs. Macbook Pro?

Board footer