Best Mac choice under $2000?

[Anonymous]

OK - I've tried to figure this out on my own - But I could use some other opinions. I desperately need to replace my Powermac G4/500, but need to keep the price under $2000 for the computer itself (I know extended warranties and options will push it above that price).

I'm leaning towards the MacbookPro 2.2GHz with 2GB ram, that I would use as a desktop computer most of the time, with a 22" (or so) display. I like the mobility of the laptop when I need it.

Will this computer be fast enough?

Should I be looking at an iMac?

These are the questions I'm struggling with:

• The graphics card on the Macbook Pro is the NVIDIA GeForce 8600M GT with 128MB of GDDR3 SDRAM . Will this handle running Archicad 11 and the the second display? Or - would I need to go higher than my $2000 limit (which would be difficult) and look at the MacbookPro 2.4 GHz with the NVIDIA GeForce 8600M GT with 256MB of GDDR3 SDRAM? The 17" Macbook Pro with the high resolution display looks great - but it's too pricey for me. If I have the second display I think I'd be fine with the 15"

• Should even be looking at the iMac, or will the Macbook Pro handle the graphic demands of Archicad better?

• I suppose the Macbook (not Pro) shouldn't even be considered since it doesn't have a dedicated graphics card?

• What resolution should I expect from a second display on the 15" Macbook Pro 2.2 GHz?

Sorry for going on so long - Thanks for any comments or input.

[Aussie John]

You said 2000 for computer alone so for 2400 you can get the top of range imac (24" display, 2.8GHz duo core extreme, 500Gb HD, 256Mb vid card, 2Gb RAM)
No more to pay.
I cant speak for how well it might perform but I cant see why i wouldnt be a good CAD machine.

Next time our office needs a new machine I will consider this (or the next machine below)

[Anonymous]

I came here to ask the same question although with a slightly different slant between an iMac 24" 2.8Ghz or a MacPro 2x 2.66GHz Dual-Core Intel Xeon.
iMac advantages built-in 24" screen that I would have to buy for a MacPro.
disadvantage speed compared to MacPro.
Does anyone have any good ideas on whether there is a BIG difference in performance running Archicad between the two. Personally I think there is but, is the extra cost woth the difference?

[Anonymous]

One site that has given me some good information to help answer this question is http://www.barefeats.com/

They are just about to review the new iMacs, but their test of the previous ones were interesting to me.

This one was helpful it showing a that the upper end iMac can be pretty fast :

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

Stephen

[Brad Elliott]

In the end, unless you are doing nonstop big production work, you will find the speed pretty comparable. As in WAY faster than what you have now.

It's more of a usage question. If you are going to take the laptop to meetings and actually use it with clients then get it. It will drive up to a 24" monitor at 1920x1200 with no problems. If it is going to sit on your desk 99% of the time then you can just pick up and move your iMac the other 1% of the time then go with the iMac and get the better hard drive etc. for less.

FYI I have an old G4 Powerbook that I used as my desktop with an attached monitor until I bought an iMac last year. I still take the Laptop to meetings once or twice a month and can live with it being slower for those events. The clients don't notice. I use my Core2 iMac in the office and move it to the conference Room for those meetings it is very easy to do especially if you get the wireless keyboard and mouse. It has worked well. For everyday work I like the 20" & 24" monitor combination.

So what's it mean? Either way is a good way to go just try to be realistic about your usage and buy that way. A MacBook that just sits on your desk all the time is a waste of money. A MacBook that wows clients in the field is worth the extra money by the second or third meeting. But how will you really work?

[Anonymous]

One more question.

The 2.2 GHz Macbook Pro is a lot cheaper than the 2.4 GHz Macbook Pro, but the 2.2 model has the NVIDIA GeForce 8600M GT with 128MB of GDDR3 memory, the 2.4 Ghz model has the same card, but with 256 MB GDDR3 memory. If I am going to be using a 24" display attached to the Macbook, will the 2.2 model with 128MB less on the graphics card be fast enough?

[Dwight]

The difference between 128 and 256 Megamegz is in the size and complexity of the OpenGL window you can comfortably drive.

For instance, the LARGER the OpenGL window is, the more RAM it requests, and the more OpenGL effects you request demand more of the Video Card.

The lesser card will be "fast enough" with smaller 3D windows.
With equivalent window sizes it will make fewer frames per second resulting in less smoothness while navigating in 3D.

Archicad has many ways to enable lesser systems to make OpenGL. Reducing the texture, smoothness and radius of rendering all contribute to smoother navigation.

[Dwight]

Another factor to consider when buying a combined computer and display is that the display will be technically useful long after you think the processor and ram and hard rive and bus are too slow. I've always felt that unless you can pass the machine on to a family member after its peak productive years it is a foolish economy.

[Dwight]

Of course, now that we are seeing 20" displays in the $200 range, perhaps this concern is old hat.