Bare Feats has new iMac beating MBP!?

[RedSox]

I tried 6+ iMacs, all of them choked when using the FCP suite that is loaded on all the machines.......(the motorcycle video).

 

I also made sure that there were no other programs running and even ran ifreemem. Still choked when adding any transition.

 

The MBP on the other hand handled all the FX in realtime without a glitch.

 

How can this be? If just one of the 2.4 (even the 2.8 choked) with 2GB ram did not choke, might have purchased an iMac, but chose the MBP not to mention you can add high end EXPRESS audio or eSATA card that you can then raid two Lacie D2 drives.

 

Still, wonder why bare feats has it faster? Didn't they do any realworld FX with FCP?

 

Here is the link:

 

http://www.barefeats.com/imacal4.html

 

PS. From an Apple standpoint its a good machine, but Apples business model would not allow the iMac to be faster than a MBP anyway.

[Numberzz]

the imac also has a extreme decreased boot time

iMac in tiger--28 sec

MacBook Pro in tiger--30 sec

Macbook Pro in leo--23 sec(my time )

[RedSox]

the imac also has a extreme decreased boot timeiMac in tiger--28 secMacBook Pro in tiger--30 secMacbook Pro in leo--23 sec(my time )

Geeeeeeesh, knowones getting it.I guess I will have to BOLD it.I tried 6 iMacs, nothing else running, Ifreemem to clear all memory. Any FX in FCP, the movie stuttered.NOT SO IN MBP.THE GPU is stronger in the MBP, sure the iMAC 2.8 is going to render faster, but the HD 2600 is weak by comparison to the MBP.Think about it. APPLE releasing the iMAC that beats a MBP? Not going to happen.I tested 4 MBP, not one stuttered.Open the motorcycle demo (FCP) add a few dissolves, cross-fades, and play back without render....on playback it stutters, and stops. Not so on MBP. Just my .03 cents.And if you really want the power, why pay for the 2.8 when the Mac Pro blows it away by almost 50% for a cheaper price?Plus rumor has all new displays (and cheap) will be glossy.

 

 

 

EDIT:Okay, re-read the article - this is based on RAM preview NOT real time (rt) FX.Major difference.Note: go into any apple store and add a few FX or transistions and you will see what I mean.Do you think working in audio or video I would be better of though with a iMac than MBP? I have someone willing to give me $1800 tomorrow for mine (less than one month old).I will play around with it some more tomorrow. The iMac. I still think the MBP is more upgradable (ExPRESS slot) and for the 2.8 money, it would be better to spend on Mac Pro but am questioning what to do.

[vbetts]

If the HD2600 in the Imac is also a mobile version like the 8600M, then yes the 8600 does beat it. Now if the 2600 in the Imac is a desktop version, then it might be iffy, but the 8600 desktop version is faster than the 2600. But there's something the Imac has that can easily out perform the MacbookPro cpu wise, and maybe gpu wise depending on how cpu and gpu reliant the app is. The Core 2 duo extreme running at 2.8 ghz per core. Now you can't tell me a 2.4 c2d beats that.New post,For what you pay for with the Imac, and MBP, you can get better with the macpro. Example, though the base cpus for the macpro is only 2.0 ghz, it's a quad core solution. WAY better raid configurations. Video card upgradeable(When Apple releases either the hd2900, or 8800 for the MP), easier upgrades with the ram. Basically put, the Macpro is expandible while the only things you could only really upgrade with the Imac, and MBP, is the ram, and the harddrive. As well as the disk drive. But this is what a lot of people who run benchmarks dual core vs quad core don't tell you, even single core sometimes, is some of these programs weren't made for quad core, while a small amount of programs were designed for single core. The MP is very good for multitasking.

[A Nonny Moose]

What you need to remember is that a desktop will normally beat a laptop, because the laptop is designed for power management, not for raw speed. Look at the Macworld Speedmark scores for overall system usage, scores, btw, and not a retard test that only works over one item. Higher numbers are better:

 

17-inch iMac Core Duo/1.83GHz (Education) 175

20-inch iMac Core 2 Duo/2.4GHz 280

20-inch iMac Core 2 Duo/2GHz 257

24-inch iMac Core 2 Duo/2.4GHz 279

Mac mini Core 2 Duo/1.83GHz 195

Mac mini Core 2 Duo/2GHz 210

Mac Pro/Quad 2.66GHz Xeon 299

 

13-inch MacBook/2.16GHz (black) 202

13-inch MacBook/2.16GHz (white) 195

13-inch MacBook/2GHz 192

15-inch MacBook Pro/2.2GHz 220

15-inch MacBook Pro/2.4GHz 234

17-inch MacBook Pro/2.4GHz 237

[U.C.]

My iMac runs Company Of Heroes at 1680x1050 at High Detail (in XP) easily, donot know the frame rate but it is very smooth. Though I did upgrade to the latest ATI Drivers, 8.40 I believe.

 

 

How does the MBP preform??

 

 

 

BTW I am now teh 1337n355. 1337 Posts

[R2k.]

EFI tested a lot of games on mbp under xp ... i`ve seen that on youtube.

all games work very good.

 

 

 

 

 

~R

[Numberzz]

also, remember that a while back, someone posted that the 8600 GT showed up as 512MB in windows, so, that could be why the macbook pro is faster. all the games on my macbook pro have played at very good framerates, WOW was around 30 when a lot of other players were around. 35-40 in simple landscapes.

 

 

EDIT: 1300 posts :mellow:

[R2k.]

my asus mobo shows in osx86 that i have 4GHz processor... so,is my processor really 4GHz ? :mellow:

of course no ....

 

~R