PDA

View Full Version : Mac Pro 2.66Ghz vs. 3.0Ghz?




lac2
Aug 14, 2006, 01:18 PM
Guys, this is my first post here.
I'm seriously considering buying one of these machines in the next week or so.
I've seen a lot of comparisons between the 2.66 Mac Pro against other machines like the G5 etc., but I haven't seen any benchmarks between the new Mac Pro with 2.66Ghz vs. the 3.0Ghz version. Does anybody know of benchies between these CPUs. Or possibly some experience between the two?

Thx



CANEHDN
Aug 14, 2006, 01:25 PM
If you're considering between these 2 you just need to figure out what you will be doing with the machine. If it's a lot of video and image editing or rendering then I would say 3GHz. If it's just a family computer that will be mainly for internet, email, word processing, and some games, I would go with the 2.66Ghz and save yourself some cash. Both computers are so fast it would be really hard to determine whether you are seeing any difference in most applications.

But on either one, I recommend getting at least 2GB of RAM.

CyberPrey
Aug 14, 2006, 01:30 PM
But on either one, I recommend getting at least 2GB of RAM.

I'll second that... I couldn't wait, so I got mine ASAP.. but I can REALLY tell that this needs at LEAST 2gb Ram... The only time I have issues is when I am starting to run out of memory to play with.....

LoveMacMini
Aug 14, 2006, 01:31 PM
if i had a fixed budget i would get the slower procs but with more RAM

CANEHDN
Aug 14, 2006, 01:41 PM
if i had a fixed budget i would get the slower procs but with more RAM

AMEN. You would notice a much bigger increase in speed with more RAM over 400MHz per processor.

ricgnzlzcr
Aug 14, 2006, 01:52 PM
The 3.0ghz is sooo overpriced I can't imagine suggesting them unless you really really need the slight boost of .34ghz. I'm going to be doing a lot of video editing and even I ordered the 2.66.
I really like Apples products but they have made it very clear that they don't mind ripping off their customers when it comes to things like this. I'm still upset by how much they were charging for the powerbook before its replacement, and don't even get me started on their doubling of the price for RAM and hard drives.

Yea, I agree about the ram and some products, but I think that the mac pro pricing is very reasonable for the stock model that maybe they decided to make a bit more profit for the 3.0 ghz model. Maybe there is also a shortage of those chips, but that is the biggest assumption I've made.

Mr. Mister
Aug 14, 2006, 01:52 PM
Yeah, the 3.00 is terribly overpriced and the downgrade to 2.00 is terribly underpriced. The 2.66 is the best speed in the lineup.

kered22
Aug 14, 2006, 02:47 PM
Here are the Geekbench results for the 3Ghz MacPro:
http://www.geekpatrol.ca/blog/136/

lac2
Aug 14, 2006, 04:09 PM
Here are the Geekbench results for the 3Ghz MacPro:
http://www.geekpatrol.ca/blog/136/

From the site
"Overall, the 3.0GHz Mac Pro is 35% faster than the Quad Power Mac G5 (and 28% faster than the 2.66GHz Mac Pro);"

How could there be a 28% improvement over the 2.66 when it's a 10% faster cpu?

MovieCutter
Aug 14, 2006, 04:22 PM
barefeats.com got their 3.0 Ghz today...we'll see how it compares later tonight apparently.

FF_productions
Aug 14, 2006, 04:22 PM
Yeah, the 3.00 is terribly overpriced and the downgrade to 2.00 is terribly underpriced. The 2.66 is the best speed in the lineup.

I agree, for 800 dollars, that is way too much $$ for a performance boost.

On the other hand,
I can tell you though, the G5 Quad is no slouch, it's still holds up against the standard config Mac Pro.