1
00:00:00,160 --> 00:00:07,440
when we ordered the imac 2019 for our review we decided that it didn't really

2
00:00:05,440 --> 00:00:12,639
matter which graphics card we configured it with if we were willing to upgrade

3
00:00:09,840 --> 00:00:16,480
later using Thunderbolt 3 which then got us thinking this is after the review

4
00:00:15,759 --> 00:00:20,000
you know the macbook pro has Thunderbolt 3 ports

5
00:00:19,199 --> 00:00:25,920
too which means that for better or for worse

6
00:00:23,039 --> 00:00:29,199
both of these machines actually have similar upgrade paths

7
00:00:28,160 --> 00:00:35,920
so maybe by evaluating the imac solely as a

8
00:00:33,120 --> 00:00:38,879
desktop we missed out on another viable option i mean

9
00:00:37,360 --> 00:00:44,480
if you're giving up a lot of the traditional benefits of a desktop anyway

10
00:00:42,480 --> 00:00:50,960
given that both of these are running high-end core i9 processors

11
00:00:47,280 --> 00:00:53,760
are you better off with an imac

12
00:00:50,960 --> 00:00:59,199
or a macbook well

13
00:00:55,440 --> 00:01:02,800
there's only one way for us to find out

14
00:00:59,199 --> 00:01:04,720
by sitting through this belabored segway

15
00:01:02,800 --> 00:01:08,880
to the message from our sponsor glasswire with glasswire you can

16
00:01:07,040 --> 00:01:12,960
instantly see your current and past network activity detect malware and

17
00:01:10,960 --> 00:01:19,060
block badly behaving apps on your pc or Android device use offer code Linus to

18
00:01:15,040 --> 00:01:24,029
get 25 off glasswire at the link below

19
00:01:27,040 --> 00:01:32,880
so the first thing we'll need to give little mac here a fighting chance

20
00:01:30,479 --> 00:01:37,280
against king hippo is a graphics card

21
00:01:34,560 --> 00:01:42,479
now unfortunately NVIDIA is still in talks with apple to get official GeForce

22
00:01:39,280 --> 00:01:45,040
support under macOS but it's not all

23
00:01:42,479 --> 00:01:50,240
bad news the Radeon 7 which we're going to connect up via a razer core v2

24
00:01:47,200 --> 00:01:52,159
enclosure is still significantly more

25
00:01:50,240 --> 00:01:57,040
powerful than the top-end GPU configurations for either of these

26
00:01:54,479 --> 00:02:01,280
machines and armed with the beta of apple's macOS mojave 10.14.5

27
00:02:00,479 --> 00:02:06,640
we and by we i of course mean Anthony

28
00:02:04,159 --> 00:02:10,000
should be able to get it working now while Anthony's setting that up i want

29
00:02:08,319 --> 00:02:14,239
to answer the burning question that i'm sure is on everyone's mind right now

30
00:02:12,160 --> 00:02:20,720
these two computers here are fundamentally very very different

31
00:02:18,400 --> 00:02:26,239
so why compare them at all and that is a good point except for a few things one

32
00:02:23,840 --> 00:02:31,280
is that they're both actually aimed at a really similar market segment namely

33
00:02:29,040 --> 00:02:35,440
graphics artists and professionals thanks to their high resolution wide

34
00:02:33,040 --> 00:02:38,879
gamut dci p3 displays number two

35
00:02:36,800 --> 00:02:44,640
in both cases our bang for the buck recommended config

36
00:02:41,200 --> 00:02:48,000
includes a dedicated AMD GPU a Radeon

37
00:02:44,640 --> 00:02:51,440
pro 560x in the case of the macbook and

38
00:02:48,000 --> 00:02:53,200
a Radeon pro 580x in our imac

39
00:02:51,440 --> 00:02:57,280
finally number three they both suffer from thermal

40
00:02:55,280 --> 00:03:02,000
constraints that affect their peak performance in ways that you can't

41
00:02:59,360 --> 00:03:05,280
easily read off of a spec sheet so

42
00:03:03,120 --> 00:03:11,680
what we want to know then is if they have similar purposes and design goals

43
00:03:09,120 --> 00:03:16,560
well which one of them should we choose a macbook pro with some upgrades and i

44
00:03:14,640 --> 00:03:20,720
don't know maybe a secondary display or something like that or

45
00:03:18,720 --> 00:03:25,599
an imac which is running faster dedicated graphics and of course a

46
00:03:23,200 --> 00:03:32,000
larger monitor in the first place furthermore how do the costs pan out and

47
00:03:28,959 --> 00:03:34,640
is the mobile processor bottleneck going

48
00:03:32,000 --> 00:03:37,599
to cause real performance problems for professional work

49
00:03:36,720 --> 00:03:42,959
so what do you think i think for compute we're probably

50
00:03:41,200 --> 00:03:48,560
looking at a much faster experience with the macbook pro just as a result of the

51
00:03:45,599 --> 00:03:53,200
much faster Radeon 7 however

52
00:03:49,599 --> 00:03:54,159
the imac has two more much faster cores

53
00:03:53,200 --> 00:03:58,799
so depending on how they thermal throttle

54
00:03:56,560 --> 00:04:02,080
it might be a wash or it might be a win for either of them really before we do

55
00:04:00,560 --> 00:04:07,040
that though we're going to do a quick cinebench run to get a baseline for the

56
00:04:04,480 --> 00:04:11,280
CPU performance it's worth noting too though that our imac isn't equipped with

57
00:04:08,959 --> 00:04:16,239
the fastest GPU that it could have had the thing though is that paying for that

58
00:04:13,360 --> 00:04:21,120
upgrade uh to vega 56 or something yeah vega pro 56 yeah paying for that upgrade

59
00:04:19,120 --> 00:04:26,960
would have gotten us half of the way to a much faster external Radeon 7 anyway

60
00:04:24,560 --> 00:04:31,840
so we just didn't think it made sense so i'm looking at somewhere in the 4100

61
00:04:29,600 --> 00:04:36,320
range and uh what

62
00:04:32,720 --> 00:04:39,759
yeah 2340 on the macbook pro okay so

63
00:04:36,320 --> 00:04:42,880
as expected more cores is more better in

64
00:04:39,759 --> 00:04:44,800
a heavily multi-threaded workload and

65
00:04:42,880 --> 00:04:49,919
furthermore our macbook pro thermal throttled considerably harder than our

66
00:04:46,720 --> 00:04:51,759
imac which widened even our anticipated

67
00:04:49,919 --> 00:04:56,240
performance difference but

68
00:04:53,280 --> 00:04:59,280
of note is the fact that a single threaded score between these two

69
00:04:58,160 --> 00:05:04,560
machines isn't that far off and often your single

70
00:05:02,080 --> 00:05:10,240
threaded performance is more important for light tasks like web browsing

71
00:05:07,039 --> 00:05:12,960
application launching and general use

72
00:05:10,240 --> 00:05:16,800
yeah on that subject actually i also ran blackmagic's disk speed benchmark and

73
00:05:15,120 --> 00:05:20,400
while it's not a great test since it only looks at sequential speeds

74
00:05:18,880 --> 00:05:25,520
it appears that apple is using a similar class of SSD on both of these machines

75
00:05:23,919 --> 00:05:29,120
which probably contributes to the fact that i didn't really notice any chugging

76
00:05:27,600 --> 00:05:33,680
between them that being said the

77
00:05:30,960 --> 00:05:36,320
imac is equipped with a fusion drive which is spinning rust along with the

78
00:05:35,280 --> 00:05:42,000
SSD meaning that after a certain period of time the caching stops and it becomes

79
00:05:40,400 --> 00:05:46,720
slow and that's kind of the thing about macOS isn't it for all its shortcomings

80
00:05:44,560 --> 00:05:52,080
it's really well optimized and you almost need a heavy load in order to

81
00:05:49,919 --> 00:05:57,440
tell the difference between one decently equipped mac and another so with that in

82
00:05:54,960 --> 00:06:03,280
mind we're gonna go full opposite end of the spectrum and hit our machines with

83
00:05:59,520 --> 00:06:05,520
luxmark a GPU dependent 3d rendering

84
00:06:03,280 --> 00:06:10,560
benchmark and this is where things get really interesting so

85
00:06:08,000 --> 00:06:15,280
right out of the box with no upgrades to either machine there is a clear

86
00:06:12,960 --> 00:06:19,680
performance advantage for our desktop i mean we're talking

87
00:06:16,880 --> 00:06:23,440
double the horses here and four hundred dollars cheaper but

88
00:06:21,600 --> 00:06:28,000
that's not to say that if you ran out and buy yourself a macbook pro you are

89
00:06:25,600 --> 00:06:33,199
plumb out of luck if you can afford the graphics card upgrade it can inject a

90
00:06:30,639 --> 00:06:38,639
lot of fight into your portable machine so with the Radeon 7 in tow our core i9

91
00:06:36,639 --> 00:06:44,560
equipped model managed anywhere from three to even four times the performance

92
00:06:42,479 --> 00:06:47,759
of our all-in-one desktop it's worth noting though

93
00:06:45,919 --> 00:06:50,960
when our imac is similarly kitted out with the Radeon 7 it actually does a

94
00:06:49,440 --> 00:06:54,720
much better job of combining the power of both the on-board and external

95
00:06:53,280 --> 00:06:58,880
graphics which allows it to keep performance advantage albeit a much

96
00:06:56,639 --> 00:07:03,599
smaller one next let's take a look at video editing adobe premiere whether

97
00:07:01,520 --> 00:07:07,919
it's related to the external nature of our graphics card or the beta version of

98
00:07:05,919 --> 00:07:12,960
macOS that we're running didn't actually benefit from our

99
00:07:10,639 --> 00:07:15,919
Radeon 7 GPU upgrade so

100
00:07:13,680 --> 00:07:21,520
we had to pull it off which means that we're looking at a 20 to 25 performance

101
00:07:19,039 --> 00:07:25,759
difference in export times with what i would describe as

102
00:07:23,759 --> 00:07:31,680
pretty darn similar on timeline scrubbing performance and

103
00:07:28,319 --> 00:07:33,840
this is with pretty heavy footage but i

104
00:07:31,680 --> 00:07:37,440
think you can go a little bit worse this is only twenty to one footage if i

105
00:07:35,520 --> 00:07:41,280
recall correctly is that right brenden yeah

106
00:07:38,800 --> 00:07:45,360
as for final cut let's go ahead and fire that up

107
00:07:43,599 --> 00:07:49,520
this is a tricky one to benchmark because apple has a really cool feature

108
00:07:47,759 --> 00:07:53,440
that pretty much renders your video ahead of time in the background

109
00:07:51,680 --> 00:07:58,240
while you are cutting it together and this avoids the traditional long wait

110
00:07:56,160 --> 00:08:02,400
times while your finished project exports what we can do though is we can

111
00:08:01,280 --> 00:08:07,199
cancel delete our rendering cache and then

112
00:08:04,639 --> 00:08:11,360
start off the rendering process manually as well as look at our timeline

113
00:08:08,879 --> 00:08:15,120
performance while doing the render because i've attached four looks to each

114
00:08:13,440 --> 00:08:20,240
of these yeah so it should be pretty so yeah it's

115
00:08:18,639 --> 00:08:23,919
it's smooth mousing over i'm getting really quick

116
00:08:21,840 --> 00:08:27,680
previews what's yours like i think i'm actually faster than you that actually

117
00:08:25,919 --> 00:08:31,440
does look a touch faster but i've got the fusion drive and these are large

118
00:08:29,440 --> 00:08:34,880
files that's true so that could be affecting me there

119
00:08:33,320 --> 00:08:38,640
interesting also interesting

120
00:08:36,479 --> 00:08:44,800
when we actually did benchmark our renders we found that the imac was about

121
00:08:41,680 --> 00:08:46,800
twice as fast as the macbook pro even

122
00:08:44,800 --> 00:08:51,360
with the external GPU so this seems to be pretty much

123
00:08:48,240 --> 00:08:53,680
purely dependent on multi-threaded CPU

124
00:08:51,360 --> 00:08:57,120
performance finally one more heavy thing that macs are used for pretty often

125
00:08:55,120 --> 00:09:00,240
these days is for programming work so i've taken the liberty of downloading

126
00:08:58,480 --> 00:09:03,200
the mozilla firefox source code onto both of these machines so we can put

127
00:09:01,920 --> 00:09:08,480
them head to head and see just how much of a practical difference those two extra cores on the imac can make one

128
00:09:06,720 --> 00:09:12,399
thing that i had wanted to do was gather results on Windows for both machines but

129
00:09:10,880 --> 00:09:16,320
getting an external GPU running under mojave's bootcamp requires quite a bit

130
00:09:14,320 --> 00:09:20,480
of extra setup and i'm not even sure if it'll work at all with a t2 enabled mac

131
00:09:18,000 --> 00:09:24,480
like our macbook pro right so there's no t2 in the new mac

132
00:09:22,800 --> 00:09:28,240
yeah so that's a point in the imac's favor in my opinion

133
00:09:26,080 --> 00:09:31,680
you lose the hardware encryption and secure enclave features that apple touts

134
00:09:30,160 --> 00:09:35,040
as benefits but you gain the ability to run Linux

135
00:09:33,760 --> 00:09:40,160
and you stand a much better chance of recovering your data in the event of a

136
00:09:36,959 --> 00:09:41,519
hard drive or a logic board failure

137
00:09:40,160 --> 00:09:46,000
it's kind of important when your machine is constantly overheating so

138
00:09:44,399 --> 00:09:49,360
since we've actually run this before and this is just movie magic i guess we've

139
00:09:47,760 --> 00:09:54,640
got enough data to draw our conclusion then at a price difference of about four

140
00:09:52,560 --> 00:09:59,760
hundred dollars between our core i9 equipped macbook pro over here and our

141
00:09:57,519 --> 00:10:04,240
eight core imac 2019 it's clear you are definitely paying a

142
00:10:01,519 --> 00:10:06,240
mobility tax with the laptop you get two fewer

143
00:10:05,279 --> 00:10:11,279
and overall much slower course you're

144
00:10:08,959 --> 00:10:14,640
getting a weaker included GPU and obviously you're getting a smaller

145
00:10:13,279 --> 00:10:20,000
display furthermore if you were going to buy the

146
00:10:16,800 --> 00:10:22,880
external GPU anyway the extra spend of

147
00:10:20,000 --> 00:10:28,320
about a thousand dollars for a Radeon 7 plus an enclosure is less likely to be

148
00:10:25,519 --> 00:10:32,560
bottlenecked by the more powerful CPU in the imac and

149
00:10:30,160 --> 00:10:38,079
at this time anyway it also happens to team up more cooperatively with the

150
00:10:34,640 --> 00:10:39,360
graphics cores it already has

151
00:10:38,079 --> 00:10:44,399
but and it's a big but the imac

152
00:10:42,079 --> 00:10:49,600
isn't portable and if you need something that is then from our testing you're

153
00:10:46,959 --> 00:10:54,880
actually still getting a lot of bang with our tricked out macbook pro so

154
00:10:52,640 --> 00:11:01,600
if you need a laptop anyway then compared to the prospect of buying a

155
00:10:57,600 --> 00:11:04,240
laptop and an additional desktop an

156
00:11:01,600 --> 00:11:10,560
external GPU upgrade looks like a great way to close the gap since it's a lot

157
00:11:07,200 --> 00:11:13,519
cheaper than even the entry-level imac

158
00:11:10,560 --> 00:11:17,680
by the way guys just one last note we did it but

159
00:11:16,000 --> 00:11:21,519
to be clear we're not actually recommending running beta versions of

160
00:11:19,600 --> 00:11:25,600
your operating system on a machine that you use for professional apps

161
00:11:24,000 --> 00:11:31,200
those crashes are going to get you when you least expect it and poor Anthony

162
00:11:28,720 --> 00:11:33,600
this video was quite a lot of hassle to get done

163
00:11:34,480 --> 00:11:40,480
what's not a lot of hassle though is our sponsor pulseway pulseway is a real-time

164
00:11:39,120 --> 00:11:45,120
remote monitoring and management software that allows you to well manage

165
00:11:42,640 --> 00:11:49,760
and monitor things from just one app it's compatible with Windows mac Linux

166
00:11:47,440 --> 00:11:54,640
and applications and gets you access to real-time status system resources logged

167
00:11:52,399 --> 00:11:59,040
in users network performance Windows updates and more you can fix problems on

168
00:11:57,360 --> 00:12:04,079
the go by sending commands from any mobile device you can create and deploy

169
00:12:01,600 --> 00:12:08,720
custom scripts to automate your it tasks you can scan install and update all your

170
00:12:06,560 --> 00:12:13,279
systems on the go and it even has remote desktop functionality try it for free at

171
00:12:10,959 --> 00:12:16,240
pulseway.com or at the link in the video description

172
00:12:14,560 --> 00:12:20,560
so thanks for watching guys if this video sucked you guys know what to do

173
00:12:18,240 --> 00:12:23,519
but if it was awesome get subscribed hit that like button or check out the link

174
00:12:22,000 --> 00:12:27,120
to where to buy the stuff we featured in the video description also link down

175
00:12:25,519 --> 00:12:31,360
there is our merch store which has cool shirts like this one and and that one

176
00:12:29,279 --> 00:12:35,240
and this one and our community forum which you should totally join