|
|||||||||
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
May 24th, 2009, 05:32 PM | #1 |
Regular Crew
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Ankara, Turkey
Posts: 136
|
15" MacBook Pro 2.4 or 24" IMac 2.93 ghz ?
hi,
I m currently using fairly slow macbook pro core duo 2.16 17" computer (limited to 2 GB ram) , and planning to get faster mac. for budget reasons, I have 2 options, 15" macbook pro 2,4 ghz, or 24" imac 2.93 ghz ? former has expres34 slot and portability, latter has big canvas and faster processor. but I could not decide ? My biggest concern is processor speed. another cheaper option is 24" 2.66 imac. does geforce 9400M have a open gl support with graphic applications such as after affects ? how about this one compared to ones above ? thanks, alkım. |
May 24th, 2009, 11:45 PM | #2 |
Inner Circle
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Norwich, Norfolk, UK
Posts: 3,531
|
What are you going to use the system for & why is the processor speed so important to you? Any current Mac including the Mac Mini has a more powerful CPU & better graphics than your current MBP. If you don't need to carry the system around then the iMac may be a better buy because of the larger screen.
|
May 25th, 2009, 12:13 AM | #3 |
Wrangler
|
Personally I went the Macbook Pro route because I knew that I would always be hooking it up to a 24" monitor in the office, but still wanted the portability.
If you decide on the 15" Macbook Pro, you may want to: a. step up to the 2.66 Ghz model, with 512 MB of video memory b. upgrade to a 7200rpm system drive c. buy an external swappable eSata enclosure
__________________
"Ultimately, the most extraordinary thing, in a frame, is a human being." - Martin Scorsese |
May 25th, 2009, 01:39 AM | #4 |
Regular Crew
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Milton Keynes, UK
Posts: 166
|
If you don't want portability, I'd go with the 24" for the screen size. 15" on the MBP is to my mind very small for significant editing.
I use a mid-2007 iMac with Final Cut Studio, and it's OK. Wouldn't be fast enough for a pro, but it's fine for me. So either of the iMacs you mentioned would be significantly better, and therefor decent. The one issue with iMacs is no provision for external SAT drives; I don't find that a problem (FW 800 is fine) but, again, that might not apply to a pro |
May 25th, 2009, 02:19 PM | #5 |
Regular Crew
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Ankara, Turkey
Posts: 136
|
I consider speed because I ve heard that 2.4 ghz can't play 1080p avchd files natively. now I can convert any 1080p codec to prores or aic, but playing them natively would be fine.
one of the reasons I think mac book pro is ability to connect matrox mxo2 for color corrected previews.I dont have it yet and I accostomed to work without color corected video, though I plan to jump that area soon. for its price, mac book pro with 2.66 ghz is the same boat with mac pro, so it wont be option for me right now. but if I choose mbp 2.4 ghz, I ll buy 7200rpm hard drive. thanks. alkim.
__________________
www.alkimmedya.com |
| ||||||
|
|