MacBook vs MacBookPro

[simonech]

I'm about to buy a MacBook but I'm not sure if the MacBookPro is worth the money for the usage I'm going to do.
I looked around the net but all the discussion about whether the X1600 is better then the Intel GMA950 become a religious war after a few posts.
Maybe here you have a better knowledge of the topic are are able to give me an unbiased advice:

I'm going to use the laptop for 2D graphic, illustration and video editing: photoshop, after effect, premiere, illustrator, but no 3D at all.

The main difference between the MB and the MBP is (let alone the disk size, lcd size, and the case) is the graphic card: the small one has a GMA950 shared memory graphic chip, the bigger has a ATI Radeon X1600. From what I read in the other forums seems that the Intel doesn't have a GPU while the Radeon does.

But since I'll not be doing 3D, do I really need to spend 1000$ more for the PRO?

Simone

 

[Freak'n Big Panda]

No it wont matter at all. Go with the mac book.

 

[digitalwanderer]

How big is the display? And is energy savings (battery life) a consideration?

 

[GMâ„¢]

The Radeon x1600 is hardly a decent 3D performer anyway, but it will have some nice features that would benefit you over the intel solution.

* Its a dedicated solution with its own RAM.
* Nice 2D image quality.
* Hardware accelerated video decoding.
* Decent driver support.
* Faster image processing for apps like PS, Illustrator. It would be more responsive when manipulating large photos, etc.

 

[thana]

also with the ati-card you can use quartz 2d extreme, which should result in better 2d performance (because it uses opengl in the background). the same goes for quartz extreme, although you can use that with the intel chip too, but the dedicated vram on the x1600 alone provides a big performance boost for that (also you have more free memory overall). so for your needs i guess you will see a small, but measureable performance benefit.. if it's worth the money though is another question that you'll have to answer yourself..

 

[simonech]

Thank you to everybody for the answers...
the display size is 13" but I'm going to connect to an external LCD (and for the price of the MBP I can buy MP 2Gb + Cinema Display 23" )

I think I read that the intel solution have some kind of OpenGL and DirectX hw accelleration (http://www.intel.com/products/chipsets/gma950/)

Anyway I think if the performance increase is very small then I'd rather buy the cinema display 23" for the price difference...

 

[Freak'n Big Panda]

Seriously if you're not doing 3d I can guarantee you wont tell a difference between integrated intel and a X1600.

 

[_xxx_]

Simone, DirectX is a Windows only thing.

 

[Tim Murray]

Why would you buy the Apple LCDs? Buy an LCD with the same panel for half the price.

 

[Xmas]

I'd worry more about size, weight, keyboard and (glossy) display than about the graphics chip. For normal desktop use there's practically no difference apart from a few very minor glitches with GMA950 you probably won't even notice.

Simone, DirectX is a Windows only thing.

And a MacBook can run Windows just fine.

 

[CMAN]

I would go with the MacBook if you want a smaller laptop to lug around. If you want a bigger screen (without hooking up a second monitor), then go for the MacBookPro. There are continuously rumors there will be a smaller MacBookPro or larger MacBook, so you could wait until June/July for computer refreshes for college to see if any new Mac laptops are released. I wouldn't hold my breath over it though. In your situation, I'd probably go with the MacBook. When I got my PowerBook G4 there was a large difference between it and the iBook. Such a difference doesn't seem to exist anymore.

Good luck with the purchase!

 

[CMAN]

Why would you buy the Apple LCDs? Buy an LCD with the same panel for half the price.

From what I hear, the Apple LCDs are very very good for color accuracy (especially photography) when coupled with a Mac. I don't think it's out of the range of good price depending on your application.