MacBook Pro + external display vs comparable iMac

jinet wrote:

I do believe a Mac Mini would be underpowered for my needs (I tend to be hard on machines, run several programs at once), so what I should compare is a MacBook 14 with the current 24" iMac. My MB14 is not top of the line but pretty close in terms of specs. I have been waiting for an iMac 32 inch to appear. I realize that comparisons betting on future machines is not informative. But as I mentioned, i did find that iMacs in the past were more capable than equivalent MacBooks.

If you think that a base Mac mini would be underpowered for your needs, I would recommend avoiding all of the following:

• 13" M1 MacBook Pro – older version, same chip
• 13" M2 MacBook Pro– same chip
• 14" M3 MacBook Pro with a base M3 chip – newer chip, but similar limitations
• 24" M1 iMac – screen is great for its size, but you're telling us you'd be unhappy with the processing power
• 24" M2 iMac – screen is great for its size, but you're telling us you'd be unhappy with the processing power

If your budget can take it, the combination of a 27" 5K Apple Studio Display and any of the following

• 14" M3 Pro MacBook Pro
• 14" M3 Max MacBook Pro
• M2 Pro Mac mini
• M2 Max Mac Studio

might be nice. It would have roughly the same quality as the 24" iMac monitor, but in a larger size. If there's no room for that monitor (which costs almost as much as a 27" 5K Retina Intel iMac) in the budget, you could look into third-party monitors (mostly lower resolution, but also mostly a lot less expensive).

jinet wrote:

Sorry, I did not mean use the iMac as a separate display, but rather to use another external display. I'm asking (budget and touchpad id aside) whether a MacBook Pro is as powerful as an iMac if both have the same configuration/specs. In the past, iMacs seemed to have an edge. the new MacBooks are pretty powerful. And whether there's any other reason not to go with a 2 component system over an all-in-one system.

It would depend on the particular Macs in question. The MacBook Pro lines span the range from models with

• base M1/M2/M3 chips (equivalent to the chips in 24" iMacs, MacBook Airs, and many Mac minis)
• M2 Pro chips (equivalent to the chips in M2 Pro Mac minis)
• M1/M2/M3 Max chips (equivalent to the chips in M1/M2 Max Mac Studios)

The iMacs don't currently have anything above base chips. You must go to a Mac mini or a Mac Studio to get a desktop with a Pro or Max chip.

If you exactly match the configurations, including

• Processor chip generation – M1/M2/M3
• Processor chip level – base/Pro/Max/Ultra – this has a major effect on RAM, expansion, and display options
• Amount of RAM
• Amount of SSD space

then I think the notebook version would

• Closely match performance when power and cooling were not an issue
• Have some drop-off in performance if you started doing really heavy work that stressed the CPU/GPU/etc. and generated lots of heat

I don't believe there will be another new 27" iMac except for a Mac Studio and its Studio 27" display at anywhere from $3600 to $5600 depending on configuration. .

The following, from MacTracker, are the comparison of processor speeds for a new Mac Mini M2 vs a new iMac 24":

Budgets aside, the Mac Studio top line is about the same for the single core but excels for multi core and Metal by a whole lot. But you're looking at $4000 - $5000 price tag plus monitor. The tricked out Mac Mini at $1400 + a 27" LG monitor w/speakers and webcam for about $290 or a 32" LG monitor w/speakers for $300.

Just some food for thought.

jinet wrote:

I just downloaded Mactracker but am not seeing processor speed tabs (or performance). Where do you find this? tx

However this site: https://browser.geekbench.com/mac-benchmarks indicates that the new MacBook Pros are faster (and I suppose? more powerful) than current iMacs

Many of the 14" and 16" MacBook Pros have 'Pro' and 'Max' chips with extra CPU cores, and/or a higher ratio of 'performance' cores to 'efficiency' cores.

The base M1/M2/M3 processors can almost match the single-core performance of the higher-end ones – given enough RAM for the workload. This makes them bargains if your effective performance depends on single-core speed (as much interactive application use does). When you've got a lengthy batch job and the software knows how to make good use of multiple cores, the Pro and Max processors have an advantage.

Think of highways with one, two, and three lanes in each direction. If it is just you traveling in a car, and there is not much traffic, the two- and three-lane highways won't get you to your destination any faster. After all, you only have one car. If you have an entire fleet of trucks loaded with things you need to send somewhere, then oh yes, that three-lane highway will offer better 'performance' because trucks can go down three lanes at the same time.

jinet wrote:

Terrifically helpful. Thanks.

BTW, the only downside for me of the iMac 24" is the display size. A 32" iMac if it ever appears might be the perfect blend—apart from the concern that machines die sooner than displays (which could be wrong; my current 27" iMac is from 2015; I've just decided to ditch it to use my M1 MBP and the 21.5 " LG Ultrafine that I bought some time ago).

For me, the decision to pass over the 24" iMac wasn't just about display size. It was also about expansion ports and computing power. If you're happy with those aspects of the 24" M3 iMac, you could consider getting one of those iMacs and an external monitor.

You can get 27" 4K monitors with IPS panels and near-100% coverage of sRGB for as little as $300 – $350. One of those running in Retina "like 2560x1440" mode would not be quite as sharp as the 24" 4.5K iMac screen – but would give you a lot of extra space. If the monitor came with a stand that allowed it to run in portrait orientation, that could give you a very tall but narrow screen (good for word processing documents, etc.) to set alongside of a 24" iMac screen.

Just a thought …

Apple Silicon Macs cannot use an existing iMac as a display alternative. Simply not supported. Cut to the chase and purchase a 27 or 32-inch LG display that falls within your budget and connect to it with a premium Belkin HDMI 2.1 Ultra-Speed cable such as the one that I use.

If you are wanting a 2 component system with a large display or two. Consider getting a Mac mini or a Mac Studio and a couple of 27" or 32" external displays instead of a 24" iMac.

Mac mini - Apple

Mac Studio - Apple

In the General section double click on your model and then scroll down to the Processor speed and click on it.

jinet wrote:

What a great tool this app is. Thanks very much.

It is very informative.