Prelude: Two Months with a MacBook Pro

A year ago I tried the notebook as a desktop experiment. The first Arrandale MacBook Pros hit the market and I thought, why not give two cores and four threads a try. I gave it a try for less than a day before having to switch back to the Mac Pro.

Try number two came earlier this year, with the Sandy Bridge MacBook Pro. Twice as many cores and much faster ones at that seemed to be a better recipe for success. Indeed they were. I switched from an 8-core Mac Pro to a 4-core Sandy Bridge MacBook Pro and have stuck with it for two months now.

By the end of this month alone I will have been in the air for 90 hours. Normally I'd have to frantically copy articles, benchmarks, notes and other important documents between machines before I left home for my next flight. Being able to pull an all-nighter testing, grab my notebook and head to the airport without worrying whether or not I forgot to copy something over is pretty sweet.

Regrets? I do have a few.

First, this thing isn't quiet. While my Mac Pro had beefy heatsinks and fans that spun so slowly you could count their fins, the MacBook Pro is a thermally constrained platform. Correction, it's a thermally constrained platform that's always running way too hot. It doesn't matter if the display lid is open or closed, my fans are always annoyingly audible. A lot of this has to do with my workload, I just always have things open that keep the CPU just busy enough that the fans need to work harder. It's frustrating.

Next is GPU performance. I was an early adopter of a multi-monitor setup, but ever since 30-inch displays hit the market I went back to a single display. I never really used the second display enough to justify its existence, it just made me less productive given my workload (I'm more efficient if everything I need is on a single physical screen vs. darting my eyes between two displays). The only complaints I had about 30-inch displays were unimpressive pixel density and a large desktop footprint. The new 27-inch panels started to address those concerns for me so I made the switch last year.

Despite having the upgraded AMD Radeon HD 6750M with 1GB of dedicated GDDR5, the 15-inch MacBook Pro just isn't fast enough to drive the 2560 x 1440 external display when playing most modern games. Even Portal 2 slows down a bit if I'm looking through a portal. Not to mention that the discrete GPU running full tilt causes temperatures to hit their highest and the fans to really spin. I have other machines for gaming and my work computer is mostly for work so this isn't a deal breaker, but it's definitely annoying.

Third, and this is more an issue with Apple's software and not the MacBook Pro hardware, there's still no Quick Sync support in iMovie. As a result all of my video encoding is done on four Sandy Bridge cores instead of eight Nehalem cores in my old Mac Pro. Hmph.

I have other complaints like the sad state of full disk encryption under OS X today since I'm more paranoid about physically losing my data with a notebook. Apple still doesn't offer any support for SSDs with real time hardware encryption so I'm left physically segmenting my data and waiting for Lion. Oh and there aren't enough USB ports. Despite my issues and other than gaming/video encoding, performance isn't an issue. Sandy Bridge is quick and my overall experience is generally quicker than the Mac Pro. Other than video encoding I don't run any heavily threaded applications so a quad-core CPU is the sweet spot for my workload.

Does the added portability make up for the downsides? When I'm traveling a lot - absolutely. It's just so much more convenient. In between trips? Well, that's when it's a lot easier to tempt me back to a desktop.

A couple of weeks ago, this arrived:

It's the new 2011 upgraded 27-inch iMac. More or less it's the 2011 MacBook Pro mated to a 27-inch LED backlit Cinema Display. It's basically my setup but in an all-in-one desktop.

I never liked the iMac. I understood the appeal, but it wasn't for me. The CPUs and GPUs weren't fast enough, there weren't enough drive bays and the display was always worse than what I already had on my desk. However the same series of events that allowed me to dump the Mac Pro and use a Sandy Bridge MacBook Pro have made the iMac that much more interesting.

Moore's Law (or more specifically, hundreds of super smart process and chip engineers) have more or less solved the performance problem in these integrated machines. We've been on the longest run I can remember of software being outpaced by hardware and as a result machines like the iMac look a whole lot more powerful than they did just a few years ago.

SSDs and very high capacity mechanical drives fixed the storage problem, while the advent of 27-inch high resolution LCD panels fixed the display problem. The new iMac can easily be a real workstation for users today, when in the past it was more of a machine you'd give to your parents. To be honest, after using it for a while, I actually like the new iMac.

Two Models

Apple offers two iMacs: a 21.5-inch and a 27-inch model. Just like Apple's notebook strategy, the iMacs are fairly similar in terms of components but primarily differ in screen size/resolution. Of course the larger the screen the higher the likelihood that you'll be doing more with your iMac and thus Apple offers some faster component options in the 27-inch models.

At each screen size Apple has two pre-configured versions: a base and an upgraded model. The upgraded models typically have more upgrades available to them (faster CPUs, faster GPUs, etc...) while the base models are more fixed in their configuration (memory and storage are mostly configurable regardless of system).

Apple sent us the high end 27-inch iMac, which other than its larger display looks like a 21.5-inch iMac with one extra Thunderbolt port. Both systems have four USB 2.0 ports (no USB 3.0 until the Ivy Bridge iMac next summer), audio line in/out, one FireWire 800 port and a Gigabit Ethernet port. There's also integrated WiFi (802.11n) and Bluetooth.

As always, Apple's PC competitors typically win the spec game - particularly when it comes to memory and storage:

All-in-One Comparison
  Apple iMac 21.5-inch Dell Inspiron 2305 HP TouchSmart 610xt Apple iMac 27-inch
CPU Intel Core i5-2400S (2.5GHz quad-core) AMD Athlon II X4 610e (2.3GHz quad-core) Intel Core i5-2400 (3.1GHz, quad-core) Intel Core i5-2500S (2.7GHz quad-core)
GPU AMD Radeon HD 6750M (512MB) ATI Radeon HD 5470 (1GB) AMD Radeon HD 5570 (1GB) AMD Radeon HD 6770M (512MB)
RAM 4GB DDR3-1333 8GB DDR3-1333 6GB DDR3-1066 4GB DDR3-1333
Storage 500GB 7200RPM HDD 1TB 7200RPM HDD 1TB 7200RPM HDD 1TB 7200RPM HDD
Optical Drive 8x SuperDrive (DVD±R DL/DVD±RW/CD-RW) Blu-ray Combo Drive (BD-R, DVD±RW) Blu-ray player & SuperMulti DVD burner 8x SuperDrive (DVD±R DL/DVD±RW/CD-RW)
Display 21.5-inch 1920 x 1080 23-inch 1920 x 1080 23-inch touch enabled 1920 x 1080 27-inch 2560 x 1440
Price $1199 $1149 $1219 $1699

With the exception of the entry level 21.5-inch iMac, Apple always gives you 4GB of RAM (2 x 2GB DDR3-1333) SO-DIMMs and a 1TB HDD. The entry level iMac keeps the 4GB of memory but drops you down to a 500GB HDD.

Dell is significantly slower on the CPU and GPU side, while HP gives you a faster CPU and somewhat slower GPU. Both Dell and HP give you 50 - 100% more memory and twice the HDD capacity for roughly the same cost as Apple's 21.5-inch iMac. The big advantage however is that HP offers even cheaper machines, the TouchSmart line starts at $629.99.

Apple has never been a value player and the fact that the entry level iMac is at least within the same range as a comparable HP or Dell is pretty impressive. The 27-inch iMac is tempting as the display alone is worth $999. For the base 27-inch iMac that means you get a Sandy Bridge Mac integrated for only an additional $699. That's downright Dell pricing.

The big issue with all-in-ones of course is the lack of upgradability. It's arguably even more of an issue when your all-in-one has a pretty sweet 27-inch 2560 x 1440 panel. I've always kept displays through several upgrades, but you can't really do that with an iMac. I'm not really sure how to come to terms with that aspect of what Apple is offering here.

The smartphone and tablet revolution has finally kicked the display makers into high gear. I'm hoping it's a trend and not a fad and that we will see aggressive roadmaps for larger panels as well. So if replacing your 27-inch panel in a couple of years isn't a big deal then the iMac upgrade path isn't quite as painful. Either way, whoever gets your hand-me-downs will get a pretty sweet display.

The CPU Selection
Comments Locked


View All Comments

  • Exodite - Friday, May 27, 2011 - link

    Of course they are, I don't care the slightest about color fidelity or 178 degree viewing angles.

    The way I prefer to set up my displays will undoubtedly destroy and form of color calibration anyway.
  • KoolAidMan1 - Friday, May 27, 2011 - link

    I hate TN panels, they're horrible. You're fortunate in that you don't care how things look, it is definitely cheaper.
  • Exodite - Friday, May 27, 2011 - link

    Strictly speaking I do care about how things look, I just don't consider IPS technology necessarily better for me personally.

    Being more prone to ghosting, and far more expensive, is far more a drawback than the better color fidelity, gamut and viewing angles are advantages. Again, for me personally.

    Unfortunately there are no post-1080P displays targeted at anyone but the graphics professional. It's not just the panel technologies that are more expensive either, 27" - 30" displays tend to incorporate USB hubs, chargers, elaborate stands and exotic connectivity options that are all equally useless for me.

    I'd love to see a minimalistic, matte, 2560x1440/1600 TN display with reasonable pricing.

    Well, I wouldn't mind a IPS, PVA or other type of panel either if those end up more reasonably priced. I just don't particularly care about the advantages.

    Then again I'm the guy that can't easily spot pentile matrix patterns or see any point in high-fidelity audio.

    So I suppose you're right, I'm probably blessed - or at least my wallet thinks so. :)
  • KoolAidMan1 - Friday, May 27, 2011 - link

    Vertical viewing angles are narrow enough and corner-to-corner uniformity is uneven enough to begin with on 23" monitors and the bulk of 13" laptop displays.

    A TN panel on a 27" would make these limitations even more apparent. I think you'd be happier with a higher number of smaller TN panels, as you're doing now. Even if the deficiencies don't bother you, there is a point where increasing size makes them even more obvious. When only a 30% band of the display looks anything close to uniform at any one time, I reckon that would bug nearly anybody. :)

  • Exodite - Saturday, May 28, 2011 - link

    You'd be surprised I suspect, as I can turn the second display quite a bit away before it gets to the point where it matters.

    There are quite a few 27" TN panels on the market already, though only 1080P ones so far, and they do sell so it can't be that bad.

    I'm very happy with my two 19" 1280x1024 displays though, I just wish we'd see more progress in that area.

    I got the displays in 2006, IIRC, and the push for 1920x1200 were going well... and then 1080P came into the picture and the whole market regressed to that and haven't budged since.
  • xSauronx - Friday, May 27, 2011 - link

    Did you even read the article?

    " is the experience with having 2560x1440 resolution over 1920x1080 better then the experience that you get with $1600 worth of hardware over $700? I think I would say No."

    You might, but Anand actually mentioned that he prefers one large monitor over two smaller ones with lower resolutions.

    Id be tempted to agree, but 2 1080p monitors fit into my budget easier than did a 27 or 30" with high resolution.
    /moneys, oh moneys. \
    //mostly happy with these two guys, so oh well
  • kuk - Friday, May 27, 2011 - link

    It's possible to use only the 27" display hooked to another computer (look for target display mode), though there still the space and power penalties, as the whole iMac system has to be running.
  • KoolAidMan1 - Friday, May 27, 2011 - link

    I addressed Target Display Mode in my post below. The Thunderbolt port has changed the requirements for TDM, now you need a Thunderbolt equipped computer to use it as a video source. For the time being the only computers you can use as a secondary source for the iMac display are other 2011 Macs equipped with Thunderbolt.

    I wasn't planning on replacing my current (non-Thunderbolt) 27" iMac, but this more than sealed the deal. Aside from being a Mac, my iMac also functions as the primary display for my gaming PC. The new iMacs are a step backward in this regard, at least until Thunderbolt ports show up in more computers next year or someone releases an adapter.
  • tipoo - Friday, May 27, 2011 - link

    Ah, interesting. That's quite a step backwards IMO. You could always get switcher boards I guess, but that's added cost and not very elegant. And there's no guarantee that even Mac's in 2-4 years will use the same thunderbolt cable.

    Is it possible to go HDMI-Thunderbolt, say for a console or future laptop?
  • tipoo - Friday, May 27, 2011 - link

    Also I've looked this up and someone on the Apple support forums said only the 15 and 17 inch MBP's could drive the iMac's display, is that true? The thunderbolt equipped 13 inch and MBA can't?

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now