WEBVTT

00:00:00.160 --> 00:00:07.440
when we ordered the imac 2019 for our review we decided that it didn't really

00:00:05.440 --> 00:00:12.639
matter which graphics card we configured it with if we were willing to upgrade

00:00:09.840 --> 00:00:16.480
later using Thunderbolt 3 which then got us thinking this is after the review

00:00:15.759 --> 00:00:20.000
you know the macbook pro has Thunderbolt 3 ports

00:00:19.199 --> 00:00:25.920
too which means that for better or for worse

00:00:23.039 --> 00:00:29.199
both of these machines actually have similar upgrade paths

00:00:28.160 --> 00:00:35.920
so maybe by evaluating the imac solely as a

00:00:33.120 --> 00:00:38.879
desktop we missed out on another viable option i mean

00:00:37.360 --> 00:00:44.480
if you're giving up a lot of the traditional benefits of a desktop anyway

00:00:42.480 --> 00:00:50.960
given that both of these are running high-end core i9 processors

00:00:47.280 --> 00:00:53.760
are you better off with an imac

00:00:50.960 --> 00:00:59.199
or a macbook well

00:00:55.440 --> 00:01:02.800
there's only one way for us to find out

00:00:59.199 --> 00:01:04.720
by sitting through this belabored segway

00:01:02.800 --> 00:01:08.880
to the message from our sponsor glasswire with glasswire you can

00:01:07.040 --> 00:01:12.960
instantly see your current and past network activity detect malware and

00:01:10.960 --> 00:01:19.060
block badly behaving apps on your pc or Android device use offer code Linus to

00:01:15.040 --> 00:01:24.029
get 25 off glasswire at the link below

00:01:27.040 --> 00:01:32.880
so the first thing we'll need to give little mac here a fighting chance

00:01:30.479 --> 00:01:37.280
against king hippo is a graphics card

00:01:34.560 --> 00:01:42.479
now unfortunately NVIDIA is still in talks with apple to get official GeForce

00:01:39.280 --> 00:01:45.040
support under macOS but it's not all

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

00:01:47.200 --> 00:01:52.159
enclosure is still significantly more

00:01:50.240 --> 00:01:57.040
powerful than the top-end GPU configurations for either of these

00:01:54.479 --> 00:02:01.280
machines and armed with the beta of apple's macOS mojave 10.14.5

00:02:00.479 --> 00:02:06.640
we and by we i of course mean Anthony

00:02:04.159 --> 00:02:10.000
should be able to get it working now while Anthony's setting that up i want

00:02:08.319 --> 00:02:14.239
to answer the burning question that i'm sure is on everyone's mind right now

00:02:12.160 --> 00:02:20.720
these two computers here are fundamentally very very different

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

00:02:23.840 --> 00:02:31.280
is that they're both actually aimed at a really similar market segment namely

00:02:29.040 --> 00:02:35.440
graphics artists and professionals thanks to their high resolution wide

00:02:33.040 --> 00:02:38.879
gamut dci p3 displays number two

00:02:36.800 --> 00:02:44.640
in both cases our bang for the buck recommended config

00:02:41.200 --> 00:02:48.000
includes a dedicated AMD GPU a Radeon

00:02:44.640 --> 00:02:51.440
pro 560x in the case of the macbook and

00:02:48.000 --> 00:02:53.200
a Radeon pro 580x in our imac

00:02:51.440 --> 00:02:57.280
finally number three they both suffer from thermal

00:02:55.280 --> 00:03:02.000
constraints that affect their peak performance in ways that you can't

00:02:59.360 --> 00:03:05.280
easily read off of a spec sheet so

00:03:03.120 --> 00:03:11.680
what we want to know then is if they have similar purposes and design goals

00:03:09.120 --> 00:03:16.560
well which one of them should we choose a macbook pro with some upgrades and i

00:03:14.640 --> 00:03:20.720
don't know maybe a secondary display or something like that or

00:03:18.720 --> 00:03:25.599
an imac which is running faster dedicated graphics and of course a

00:03:23.200 --> 00:03:32.000
larger monitor in the first place furthermore how do the costs pan out and

00:03:28.959 --> 00:03:34.640
is the mobile processor bottleneck going

00:03:32.000 --> 00:03:37.599
to cause real performance problems for professional work

00:03:36.720 --> 00:03:42.959
so what do you think i think for compute we're probably

00:03:41.200 --> 00:03:48.560
looking at a much faster experience with the macbook pro just as a result of the

00:03:45.599 --> 00:03:53.200
much faster Radeon 7 however

00:03:49.599 --> 00:03:54.159
the imac has two more much faster cores

00:03:53.200 --> 00:03:58.799
so depending on how they thermal throttle

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

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

00:04:04.480 --> 00:04:11.280
CPU performance it's worth noting too though that our imac isn't equipped with

00:04:08.959 --> 00:04:16.239
the fastest GPU that it could have had the thing though is that paying for that

00:04:13.360 --> 00:04:21.120
upgrade uh to vega 56 or something yeah vega pro 56 yeah paying for that upgrade

00:04:19.120 --> 00:04:26.960
would have gotten us half of the way to a much faster external Radeon 7 anyway

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

00:04:29.600 --> 00:04:36.320
range and uh what

00:04:32.720 --> 00:04:39.759
yeah 2340 on the macbook pro okay so

00:04:36.320 --> 00:04:42.880
as expected more cores is more better in

00:04:39.759 --> 00:04:44.800
a heavily multi-threaded workload and

00:04:42.880 --> 00:04:49.919
furthermore our macbook pro thermal throttled considerably harder than our

00:04:46.720 --> 00:04:51.759
imac which widened even our anticipated

00:04:49.919 --> 00:04:56.240
performance difference but

00:04:53.280 --> 00:04:59.280
of note is the fact that a single threaded score between these two

00:04:58.160 --> 00:05:04.560
machines isn't that far off and often your single

00:05:02.080 --> 00:05:10.240
threaded performance is more important for light tasks like web browsing

00:05:07.039 --> 00:05:12.960
application launching and general use

00:05:10.240 --> 00:05:16.800
yeah on that subject actually i also ran blackmagic's disk speed benchmark and

00:05:15.120 --> 00:05:20.400
while it's not a great test since it only looks at sequential speeds

00:05:18.880 --> 00:05:25.520
it appears that apple is using a similar class of SSD on both of these machines

00:05:23.919 --> 00:05:29.120
which probably contributes to the fact that i didn't really notice any chugging

00:05:27.600 --> 00:05:33.680
between them that being said the

00:05:30.960 --> 00:05:36.320
imac is equipped with a fusion drive which is spinning rust along with the

00:05:35.280 --> 00:05:42.000
SSD meaning that after a certain period of time the caching stops and it becomes

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

00:05:44.560 --> 00:05:52.080
it's really well optimized and you almost need a heavy load in order to

00:05:49.919 --> 00:05:57.440
tell the difference between one decently equipped mac and another so with that in

00:05:54.960 --> 00:06:03.280
mind we're gonna go full opposite end of the spectrum and hit our machines with

00:05:59.520 --> 00:06:05.520
luxmark a GPU dependent 3d rendering

00:06:03.280 --> 00:06:10.560
benchmark and this is where things get really interesting so

00:06:08.000 --> 00:06:15.280
right out of the box with no upgrades to either machine there is a clear

00:06:12.960 --> 00:06:19.680
performance advantage for our desktop i mean we're talking

00:06:16.880 --> 00:06:23.440
double the horses here and four hundred dollars cheaper but

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

00:06:25.600 --> 00:06:33.199
plumb out of luck if you can afford the graphics card upgrade it can inject a

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

00:06:36.639 --> 00:06:44.560
equipped model managed anywhere from three to even four times the performance

00:06:42.479 --> 00:06:47.759
of our all-in-one desktop it's worth noting though

00:06:45.919 --> 00:06:50.960
when our imac is similarly kitted out with the Radeon 7 it actually does a

00:06:49.440 --> 00:06:54.720
much better job of combining the power of both the on-board and external

00:06:53.280 --> 00:06:58.880
graphics which allows it to keep performance advantage albeit a much

00:06:56.639 --> 00:07:03.599
smaller one next let's take a look at video editing adobe premiere whether

00:07:01.520 --> 00:07:07.919
it's related to the external nature of our graphics card or the beta version of

00:07:05.919 --> 00:07:12.960
macOS that we're running didn't actually benefit from our

00:07:10.639 --> 00:07:15.919
Radeon 7 GPU upgrade so

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

00:07:19.039 --> 00:07:25.759
difference in export times with what i would describe as

00:07:23.759 --> 00:07:31.680
pretty darn similar on timeline scrubbing performance and

00:07:28.319 --> 00:07:33.840
this is with pretty heavy footage but i

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

00:07:35.520 --> 00:07:41.280
recall correctly is that right brenden yeah

00:07:38.800 --> 00:07:45.360
as for final cut let's go ahead and fire that up

00:07:43.599 --> 00:07:49.520
this is a tricky one to benchmark because apple has a really cool feature

00:07:47.759 --> 00:07:53.440
that pretty much renders your video ahead of time in the background

00:07:51.680 --> 00:07:58.240
while you are cutting it together and this avoids the traditional long wait

00:07:56.160 --> 00:08:02.400
times while your finished project exports what we can do though is we can

00:08:01.280 --> 00:08:07.199
cancel delete our rendering cache and then

00:08:04.639 --> 00:08:11.360
start off the rendering process manually as well as look at our timeline

00:08:08.879 --> 00:08:15.120
performance while doing the render because i've attached four looks to each

00:08:13.440 --> 00:08:20.240
of these yeah so it should be pretty so yeah it's

00:08:18.639 --> 00:08:23.919
it's smooth mousing over i'm getting really quick

00:08:21.840 --> 00:08:27.680
previews what's yours like i think i'm actually faster than you that actually

00:08:25.919 --> 00:08:31.440
does look a touch faster but i've got the fusion drive and these are large

00:08:29.440 --> 00:08:34.880
files that's true so that could be affecting me there

00:08:33.320 --> 00:08:38.640
interesting also interesting

00:08:36.479 --> 00:08:44.800
when we actually did benchmark our renders we found that the imac was about

00:08:41.680 --> 00:08:46.800
twice as fast as the macbook pro even

00:08:44.800 --> 00:08:51.360
with the external GPU so this seems to be pretty much

00:08:48.240 --> 00:08:53.680
purely dependent on multi-threaded CPU

00:08:51.360 --> 00:08:57.120
performance finally one more heavy thing that macs are used for pretty often

00:08:55.120 --> 00:09:00.240
these days is for programming work so i've taken the liberty of downloading

00:08:58.480 --> 00:09:03.200
the mozilla firefox source code onto both of these machines so we can put

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

00:09:06.720 --> 00:09:12.399
thing that i had wanted to do was gather results on Windows for both machines but

00:09:10.880 --> 00:09:16.320
getting an external GPU running under mojave's bootcamp requires quite a bit

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

00:09:18.000 --> 00:09:24.480
like our macbook pro right so there's no t2 in the new mac

00:09:22.800 --> 00:09:28.240
yeah so that's a point in the imac's favor in my opinion

00:09:26.080 --> 00:09:31.680
you lose the hardware encryption and secure enclave features that apple touts

00:09:30.160 --> 00:09:35.040
as benefits but you gain the ability to run Linux

00:09:33.760 --> 00:09:40.160
and you stand a much better chance of recovering your data in the event of a

00:09:36.959 --> 00:09:41.519
hard drive or a logic board failure

00:09:40.160 --> 00:09:46.000
it's kind of important when your machine is constantly overheating so

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

00:09:47.760 --> 00:09:54.640
got enough data to draw our conclusion then at a price difference of about four

00:09:52.560 --> 00:09:59.760
hundred dollars between our core i9 equipped macbook pro over here and our

00:09:57.519 --> 00:10:04.240
eight core imac 2019 it's clear you are definitely paying a

00:10:01.519 --> 00:10:06.240
mobility tax with the laptop you get two fewer

00:10:05.279 --> 00:10:11.279
and overall much slower course you're

00:10:08.959 --> 00:10:14.640
getting a weaker included GPU and obviously you're getting a smaller

00:10:13.279 --> 00:10:20.000
display furthermore if you were going to buy the

00:10:16.800 --> 00:10:22.880
external GPU anyway the extra spend of

00:10:20.000 --> 00:10:28.320
about a thousand dollars for a Radeon 7 plus an enclosure is less likely to be

00:10:25.519 --> 00:10:32.560
bottlenecked by the more powerful CPU in the imac and

00:10:30.160 --> 00:10:38.079
at this time anyway it also happens to team up more cooperatively with the

00:10:34.640 --> 00:10:39.360
graphics cores it already has

00:10:38.079 --> 00:10:44.399
but and it's a big but the imac

00:10:42.079 --> 00:10:49.600
isn't portable and if you need something that is then from our testing you're

00:10:46.959 --> 00:10:54.880
actually still getting a lot of bang with our tricked out macbook pro so

00:10:52.640 --> 00:11:01.600
if you need a laptop anyway then compared to the prospect of buying a

00:10:57.600 --> 00:11:04.240
laptop and an additional desktop an

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

00:11:07.200 --> 00:11:13.519
cheaper than even the entry-level imac

00:11:10.560 --> 00:11:17.680
by the way guys just one last note we did it but

00:11:16.000 --> 00:11:21.519
to be clear we're not actually recommending running beta versions of

00:11:19.600 --> 00:11:25.600
your operating system on a machine that you use for professional apps

00:11:24.000 --> 00:11:31.200
those crashes are going to get you when you least expect it and poor Anthony

00:11:28.720 --> 00:11:33.600
this video was quite a lot of hassle to get done

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

00:11:39.120 --> 00:11:45.120
remote monitoring and management software that allows you to well manage

00:11:42.640 --> 00:11:49.760
and monitor things from just one app it's compatible with Windows mac Linux

00:11:47.440 --> 00:11:54.640
and applications and gets you access to real-time status system resources logged

00:11:52.399 --> 00:11:59.040
in users network performance Windows updates and more you can fix problems on

00:11:57.360 --> 00:12:04.079
the go by sending commands from any mobile device you can create and deploy

00:12:01.600 --> 00:12:08.720
custom scripts to automate your it tasks you can scan install and update all your

00:12:06.560 --> 00:12:13.279
systems on the go and it even has remote desktop functionality try it for free at

00:12:10.959 --> 00:12:16.240
pulseway.com or at the link in the video description

00:12:14.560 --> 00:12:20.560
so thanks for watching guys if this video sucked you guys know what to do

00:12:18.240 --> 00:12:23.519
but if it was awesome get subscribed hit that like button or check out the link

00:12:22.000 --> 00:12:27.120
to where to buy the stuff we featured in the video description also link down

00:12:25.519 --> 00:12:31.360
there is our merch store which has cool shirts like this one and and that one

00:12:29.279 --> 00:12:35.240
and this one and our community forum which you should totally join