Difference between 3.0 and 3.2?

[Graphis]

PLEASE: Don't try and be smart and say 0.2!

OK, like everyone else, I'm just ecstatic that the beast is here. And it's beautiful, more than I could have hoped for. However, the slight increase in prices now means I have a little less to play with. I had intended to go for the top of the line, the 3.2GHZ, and I was also hoping to get a 30" Cinema Display, NVIDIA GeForce 8800 graphics card, 500GB hard drive, wireless keyboard, and AppleCare. This was the bare minumum. RAM I was going to wait a while for, and get extra RAM from a 3rd party vendor when prices have dropped a little.
Total price for the above specs is approx £4350.

However, I also really need a new printer (approx £200), and if I buy the above I can't afford one.

I could go for the 23" display of course, but I've always wanted a 30". There probably isn't a better time to get one. I really need the 8800 card for the work I do, the AppleCare would be a good idea, and anything I'd save by downgrading the keyboard or hard drive would be negligible.

So I was thinking, if I got the 3.0GHZ instead of the 3.2GHZ, I could save about £500, thus giving me enough for the printer. My reasoning is that surely the difference between the 3.0 and the 3.2 isn't that great? I mean, how much difference could 0.2GHZ really make? Sure, it obviously does make some difference, or they wouldn't make one, but would I really notice it that much? Anybody got any suggestions/advice?

The work I do is primarily graphic design/illustration/3D.

[adamfishercox]

There IS a better time to get a display: wait until after MacWorld when they will probably update them. Perhaps prices will go down.

As for the 3.0 vs. 3.2, it's 200 MHz. You're better off buying more RAM from a third party afterwards then spending more money at Apple for 200 MHz.

[Graphis]

There IS a better time to get a display: wait until after MacWorld when they will probably update them. Perhaps prices will go down.

As for the 3.0 vs. 3.2, it's 200 MHz. You're better off buying more RAM from a third party afterwards then spending more money at Apple for 200 MHz.

Good point: I suppose I could continue with the 23" I've currently got, at least for a couple more months.... but then, is it worth it, if the 200MHZ doesn't make that much difference? What's better to have, extra MHZ or extra desktop space?

[adamfishercox]

MacWorld is in a week, so I'd just wait until after Steve announces the new products to buy anything... who knows, you might want something different.

What I would do is wait until the 15th. See what new products are announced. Then get a 3.0 GHz Mac Pro, with the bare miniumu amount of RAM. With the amount you save on that, go for a 30" (which also might be cheaper) and a printer. If you still have money left over in your budget, by a 4 GB RAM stick or tow for your new Mac pro.

[djejrejk]

What are you doing with your 3.0 Mp? Also, how many gigs of ram are you running? I use a 3.0 mp with 8gb of ram at work (audio stuff) and the MP never slows down.

If you need more speed, you should think about upgrading your ram.

[adamfishercox]

Yeah, in fact, you might even want to keep the processor at 2.8 GHz. With the money you save, you can really add RAM (BUT DO NOT BUY FROM APPLE) and you will see much more speed increases than with 3.0 and not as much RAM.

[dukebound85]

There IS a better time to get a display: wait until after MacWorld when they will probably update them. Perhaps prices will go down.

As for the 3.0 vs. 3.2, it's 200 MHz. You're better off buying more RAM from a third party afterwards then spending more money at Apple for 200 MHz.

200Mhz x 8 cores = 1.6 Ghz!!

[adamfishercox]

Ah, good catch, but still, the money saved could be better put towards RAM.

[Techguy172]

It's not enough of a difference to be too noticeable so get the 3.0 and enjoy your mac.

[Graphis]

Hmmm, I was just looking at Computer Warehouse's site, to compare prices. Prices aren't that much different to Apple (a saving of about £25), BUT they do offer a 'Pay 10% now and the balance within 6 months' deal, which would give me another six months to find the extra cash, which should be easy enough, and would mean I could get my wishlist right away. Could be what I'm looking for?

[adamfishercox]

Go with my advice a few posts up. You wont regret it. In any case, wait until Macworld is all said and done.

[dukebound85]

Ah, good catch, but still, the money saved could be better put towards RAM.

It's not enough of a difference to be too noticeable so get the 3.0 and enjoy your mac.

i agree just stating numbers

even on my cd mb i rarely max out my cpu

[newtech]

Even across 8 cores 3.0 -> 3.2 GHz is only ~ 7% systemic speed increase. Calling 200 MHz X 8 cores 1.6 GHZ is fuzzy math.

[TheThirdMan]

The difference between 2.8 and 3.2 is negligible, let alone between 3.0 and 3.2. I dont get why apple didnt do a 2.4/2.8/3.2 lineup (or along those lines) rather than speeds so close together. I'd save even more money if i were you go for the default 8x2.8.

[dukebound85]

Even across 8 cores 3.0 -> 3.2 GHz is only ~ 7% systemic speed increase. Calling 200 MHz X 8 cores 1.6 GHZ is fuzzy math.

same as saying 3.0->3.2 is only ~7% increase

3/3.2= .93

(3*8)/(3.2*8) = .93

3*8=24 and 3.2*8=25,6 which is a 1.6Ghz difference

guess you are using the same fuzzy math to compare the differences lol

[astrostu]

The difference between 2.8 and 3.2 is negligible, let alone between 3.0 and 3.2. ... I'd save even more money if i were you go for the default 8x2.8.

That's my thinking and why I'm not sweating going for a 2.8 instead of a 3.0 or 3.2 ... I could buy a boatload of RAM or even another monitor for the price difference.

[Graphis]

That's my thinking and why I'm not sweating going for a 2.8 instead of a 3.0 or 3.2 ... I could buy a boatload of RAM or even another monitor for the price difference.

See, that's what I'm starting to think. For the vast majority of my professional work, I use Adobe CS2 (at the moment). While I expect to see an improvement when I switch to MP, I don't expect a days work to only take 2 hours, for example. Where I really expect to see a difference is in 3D rendering times: and I'm wondering if this is where I'd see the benefit of that extra 0.2GHZ, or would it improve rendering times better if I bought a lower spec and filled it up with RAM? Which makes the greatest difference?

[QCassidy352]

If the clock speed is 7% higher, you're going to see at MOST a 7% increase in performance with the 3.2, but that's only if what you're doing maxes out the CPUs. If what you're doing is RAM/drive speed/network speed/graphics card bound, then you're going to see exactly 0% increase with the 3.2.

IMO, going from a 23" to a 30" display will make a lot bigger difference in your experience.

[eclipse]

Can you do some other work while it renders? Or even take a coffee break? While your machine might end up frighteningly fast, we still have 8 fingers, 2 thumbs, and need to attend to various bodily needs and functions. :eek::D

[adamfishercox]

Processor is nothing without RAM. Get RAM over processor. 2.8 Ghz is fine. Plus, sice CS2 isn't Intel Native, theres only so fast you can make it go.

[ktbubster]

I think a 2.8 x 8 would still be frightenly fast for you... unless maybe you are also doing crazy video rendering or something even more processor crazy...

A 2.8 8 core instead ... plus a 30 inch monitor would save you a bundle.. AND with that bundle you could buy your new printer and still have a huge chunk left over to buy yourself TONS of ram, which I think will help your CS2 (or in the future CS3 i guess) times A LOT more then the .4 processor hike will. I hear that stuff is ram ram ram hungry :).... and scratch disc hungry too.

[TheThirdMan]

2.8 Ghz is fine.

A massive understatement!

If you do motion graphics or video, the exra memory will be infinitely more valuable than a 400mhz speed increase per core.

On the increase in clock speed translating to real-world speed, the higher the clock speed, the less speed-per-mhz you are likely to get. CPU calculation efficiency decreases with an increase in speed, and this is doubly so for increase in cores.

This is why an 8 core 3ghz system is not twice the speed as a 4 core 3ghz system in programs which do use all cores (such as 3d).

Anyway, the point being that the % increase from 2.8 to 3.2 will not be as much as you'd think and as i said before, will probably be negligible (that is to say within the margin of error for benchmarking).

[newtech]

200 MHz X 8 cores = 1.6GHz, is far fuzzier math than 7% systemic speed incease. Not every program takes advantage of all 8 cores, also saying 1.6 GHz delta fails to factor in the overhead associated with multiple cores.

Further even with the faster FSB and larger cache speed does not scale linearly the way you want to think of it . Let the Megahertz myth go, even intel has.

Remember a 5.0 liter engine is not automatically twice as fast as a 2.5 liter engine many of the same principals apply. Balanced systems are overall faster than systems with a single overrated component.

[jnc]

I'm like you, was just thinking "it must be the best" but when I really got to thinking... I sure as hell can't justify that price considering the use of the machine and the real world benefits. You could buy a 30" ACD just with the difference between an octo 2.8 and an octo 3.2!

...And that's just what I plan to do! :D

I would wait until they are refreshed though, they are getting a little long in the tooth. I'd rather more features than another price drop, frankly. I want ONE large display, as I want to run my Mac, plus enjoy movies and console gaming, so I require more inputs!

[dukebound85]

same as saying 3.0->3.2 is only ~7% increase

3/3.2= .93

(3*8)/(3.2*8) = .93

3*8=24 and 3.2*8=25,6 which is a 1.6Ghz difference

guess you are using the same fuzzy math to compare the differences lol

200 MHz X 8 cores = 1.6GHz, is far fuzzier math than 7% systemic speed incease. Not every program takes advantage of all 8 cores, also saying 1.6 GHz delta fails to factor in the overhead associated with multiple cores.

Further even with the faster FSB and larger cache speed does not scale linearly the way you want to think of it . Let the Megahertz myth go, even intel has.


you dont get my point. saying 1.6Ghz is fuzzy math and then point to a 7% increase not being fuzzy is wrong. THEY ARE BOTH FUZZY. where do you think that 7% increase comes from....that extra 1.6Ghz if you just go by numbers. i thought my so called proof illustrated this concept......

My point is is that both are fuzzy lol and shouldnt be taken as strict numbers to compare the systems.

there is likeley no noticible difference at all between the 2 setups in computing tasks on a day to day basis

[Madhawk]

Go for the 3 GHz, it sounds better when you say it and it looks even better on paper...;)

[Graphis]

So, ummmm what exactly is the point of the 3.2 then, if the difference isn't that noticeable?

[jnc]

So, ummmm what exactly is the point of the 3.2 then, if the difference isn't that noticeable?

Serious professional number-crunching.
Being the "I have the best that's out there" person.
Mac Pro Newbie with more money than sense who sees a bigger number and figures they'd better spend the extra to get the most out of the machine (this was me, almost... minus the "more money than sense" bit... I have little of either :p)
Other?

[kirkbross]

Do all the same arguments apply when comparing the 2.8 to the 3.0 ?

[adamfishercox]

Yes, 2.8 GHz with a lot of RAM is tons better than 3.0 Ghz and less RAM.

[Lord Zedd]

If you primarily do lots of CPU bound work then the 200mhz difference could pay for itself in productivity. That's 7% more work done per day, significant if your paycheck depends on how much work gets done.

[CWallace]

In previous Intel CPU families, faster CPUs sometimes had more features or supported faster memory and front-side buses and such.

All three Mac Pro CPUs are identical other then clockspeed and power-draw/heat-generation. They all have 1600MHz FSBs, they all have 12MB combined total caches, and they all use the same .45nm production process.

So the only real decision point is how fast each one does the work you most do.

[Graphis]

Well, thanks guys. You've sold me LOL:D I'm going for the 3.0... and the 30".... and yeah, I'll still wait for MW, after all it's only 6 days now so I might as well, just in case there's any change to pricing or a surprise improvement to the displays.

Thanks for all your advice, I appreciate it.

Hey, have you noticed how chilled everyone is, now it's actually out?:D

[jnc]

Well, thanks guys. You've sold me LOL:D I'm going for the 3.0... and the 30".... and yeah, I'll still wait for MW, after all it's only 6 days now so I might as well, just in case there's any change to pricing or a surprise improvement to the displays.

Thanks for all your advice, I appreciate it.

Hey, have you noticed how chilled everyone is, now it's actually out?:D

It's a weight off my chest as it almost cements the fact that they're making room for something else at MWSF :D

[newtech]

Semanticly 7% is more accurate as the machines are 3.0 and 3.2 GHz, not 24.0 and 25.6 GHz even if you argue 24 Vs. 25.6 is still 7%.

[Umbongo]

So, ummmm what exactly is the point of the 3.2 then, if the difference isn't that noticeable?

There are definatly people who can use that extra processing power, and for whom it even makes financial sense. Apple's large overhead on top of Intel's already larger premium for that extra performance probably makes it less appealing though.

[Graphis]

There are definatly people who can use that extra processing power, and for whom it even makes financial sense.

Who, Pixar?

[jrlcopy]

200Mhz x 8 cores = 1.6 Ghz!!

..., Multi-core cpu's don't work that way...

[Umbongo]

Who, Pixar?

Until they are rendering instantly then more power can always be used. Whether it is worth the upgrade depends on how much time you are wasting waiting for rendering and how best to cut that time down. Faster processors will definatly be helping with this for a number of users in many fields.

In the end there is no reason not to offer faster processors, they aren't going to be a high demand item, then again neither is the Mac Pro, but it is pure profit for Apple. Not to mention helping with their image of having the fastest pro systems.

[dukebound85]

..., Multi-core cpu's don't work that way...

i know. read further along the thread

[Graphis]

Until they are rendering instantly then more power can always be used. Whether it is worth the upgrade depends on how much time you are wasting waiting for rendering and how best to cut that time down.

Well this was my point really. If I'm rendering a low-end 3D image, and it currently takes 3 hours to render on my G4 (as an example. I've also had to do renders which took 36 hours, and even one massive render that took 7 days).
On a 3.0 MP, I'd expect those times to be cut considerably, not by just a few minutes. But if I were to render them on a 3.2, would I see a vast improvement over the 3.0? Maybe not more than a few extra minutes, rather than hours? While it all adds up, and any saving of time is good, it still looks like I can't justify the expense of a 3.2, when I'm not producing work to the same budgets and deadlines as people like Pixar.

[jwt]

Here's another thought: Downgrade to the SP 2.8 GHz model and use the savings toward an upgrade to CS3, which is Intel native.

[ntrigue]

Wait until after the 15th and you will benefit from Geekbench scores for the new Mac Pros. New ACD are almost certainly going to be released and at least we will see the current prices drop.

I would say for the sake of not becoming obsolete quickly that 3.0gHz and 4Gb RAM (2x1Gb in addition to the factory stuff from another source) should be your minimum.

Go to an Apple Store and use the ACD before purchase. And please do not open credit to buy this!

[Umbongo]

Well this was my point really. If I'm rendering a low-end 3D image, and it currently takes 3 hours to render on my G4 (as an example. I've also had to do renders which took 36 hours, and even one massive render that took 7 days).
On a 3.0 MP, I'd expect those times to be cut considerably, not by just a few minutes. But if I were to render them on a 3.2, would I see a vast improvement over the 3.0? Maybe not more than a few extra minutes, rather than hours? While it all adds up, and any saving of time is good, it still looks like I can't justify the expense of a 3.2, when I'm not producing work to the same budgets and deadlines as people like Pixar.

Theoretically if you are doing long renders on a single system or lots of smaller renders and being held up by them then yeah you could see time add up and it might be worth investing in faster processors than the 2.8GHz base. 3GHz seems to be the sweet spot for this in relation to performance and overall cost of the system and I don't think you will regret it.

[ntrigue]

Well this was my point really. If I'm rendering a low-end 3D image, and it currently takes 3 hours to render on my G4 (as an example. I've also had to do renders which took 36 hours, and even one massive render that took 7 days).

First. I would have been in Kinkos renting an adequate machine before a multiple day rendering!

Second. Software is only going to become more processor hungry while you own this machine.

[Graphis]

First. I would have been in Kinkos renting an adequate machine before a multiple day rendering!

Actually, we looked into that one:) It just wasn't feasible; they didn't support the software we had, there were concerns that we may have to take all the original figures/textures/etc with us, in case the new system asked "can't find xxx.obj" etc. In the end, it seemed like it would have taken us 6 days to set up in kinkos then get the render done in one day, and for the hassle involved, (and the cost) it wasn't worth it.

[ZachPruckowski]

There are definatly people who can use that extra processing power, and for whom it even makes financial sense. Apple's large overhead on top of Intel's already larger premium for that extra performance probably makes it less appealing though.

The Mac Pros are an exception to the "Apple's large overhead" rule. Apple sells Mac Pros (especially when newly revved) for less than the Dell Precision or other comparable workstations. This is because Dell and friends make almost no margin on a lot of their consumer computers and try to make it up in the high-end space (the gaming computers are also pretty bad), while Apple just has 20% margins on everything (except iPods, where the margins are astronomical).

But yes, you really get rocked for that last 0.2 GHz. Intel does that across the board - even on desktops, the mid-high-range is surprisingly affordable, then things just jump up for the top 2-3 chips. It's worse now that AMD can't compete on the high-end. AMD's fastest chip now is a quad-core 2.5 GHz Opteron, and it can't even match Intel clock-for-clock (meaning it loses to a 2.5 GHz Intel chip), much less compete against the 3 GHz models. AMD's flooding the low-end, so you wind up (especially on the desktop) having a lot of options sub $300 (including dual-3.0 for $180-something and a 2.5 GHz Quad at $266)**, but no competition outside that.

That said, 7% off a 12 hour rendering job is 50 minutes. Off a day-long rendering job, it's a hour and a half. That's a big deal.

If you spend half your day compiling (or doing other stuff waiting on the compile)*, a 7% gain on half your workday is solid 15 minutes. 15 minutes/day x 5 days/week x 50 weeks/year = 62.5 hours. 60 hours at $40 an hour ($80k salary for a top developer) is $2400. It pays for itself 3 times over in a year.

* = obviously you're not jousting (http://xkcd.com/303/) in the compile-time, but you're far from doing the job you're most efficient at.

** = I hear the new 2.5 GHz Quad might have been delayed until Feb/March. Whatever. You get my point.

[smirk]

I don't have any hard facts to back this up, but just for another point of view consider that you could buy the 2.8 GHz machine with lots of RAM, and then replace the processors with new way faster ones in a couple years. These are just off-the-shelf Intel CPUs, right? So I think in the future you could just drop in a 4.0 GHz CPU (when they're available and the price comes down), couldn't you?

[ZachPruckowski]

I don't have any hard facts to back this up, but just for another point of view consider that you could buy the 2.8 GHz machine with lots of RAM, and then replace the processors with new way faster ones in a couple years. These are just off-the-shelf Intel CPUs, right? So I think in the future you could just drop in a 4.0 GHz CPU (when they're available and the price comes down), couldn't you?

I think these Penryns might be the last of this socket. At some point with at least some Nehalem chips (Q1 2009 or Q4 2008) on the server, Intel is moving to a point-to-point architecture and/or IMC, either of which would require a new socket.

[ill0gical0ne]

I must be dumb... but can anyone link me to some 800MHz DDR2 ECC FB-DIMMs? I the only FB-DIMMs I can find run at 667MHz...

[edesignuk]

Get a Dell 3007WFP (http://www.google.co.uk/products?hl=en&q=dell+3007WFP&cr=countryUK%7CcountryGB&um=1&ie=UTF-8) rather than the Apple 30" ACD and save at least £200, problem solved.

edit: Or wait a bit for the new 3008WFP (http://www.engadget.com/2008/01/08/dell-3008wfp-hands-on/) ;)

[ZachPruckowski]

I must be dumb... but can anyone link me to some 800MHz DDR2 ECC FB-DIMMs? I the only FB-DIMMs I can find run at 667MHz...

I don't think they're exactly common at this point (Intel only introduced the chips that need them a few weeks ago). Expect the usual Mac memory suspects to have them by the end of the month. I found a site (http://www.gamepc.com/shop/product.asp?catalog_name=GamePC+Online+Products&category_name=Memory&product_id=DDR2-800FB-2GB&MSCSProfile=95385A1F52DEA1A229D5B37542054464693F4540905D87589BB002879EB809A4EC474B9D517BEA7683CC352E 7F65B789E7A2702A84529F1B16591F4E705526AE4ED198314824489361CFD773D74C84F636755F5B5C7B4C9D2C77FBFE3425 A467429D746731DAFF3FFCF3F34FAC476F4B94852032F6ADF88F7846D15B1FFFBD957C41C9A2F63C53E2) (holy crap that's a messy URL) selling them for a lot of money for a single DIMM.

It's best to wait for the Mac places to get them, because remember that we need the super heat-sinks. Non-heat-sinked FB-DIMMs will cause crashing under heavy prolonged use.

[Bastich]

Here's another way of looking at it: most of the Macs in my house are slower than 0.2GHz.

:cool:

P.S.: Spread over 5 years, the extra speed of a 3.2GHz tower will cost you 44¢ a day.

[jnc]

Get a Dell 3007WFP (http://www.google.co.uk/products?hl=en&q=dell+3007WFP&cr=countryUK%7CcountryGB&um=1&ie=UTF-8) rather than the Apple 30" ACD and save at least £200, problem solved.

edit: Or wait a bit for the new 3008WFP (http://www.engadget.com/2008/01/08/dell-3008wfp-hands-on/) ;)

The 3007s aren't HDCP, am I right? And the WFP-HCs are?

$2,000+ is the sort of price I'm hearing for that 3008. Yowzas
My dream unit is 27-30" with HDMI, Component and DVI, so it's a decent size for gaming and can hook up to the current gen of consoles while also being a dang good monitor.

For half the price of the 3008ss. ;)

My kingdom for a 27 inch 1080p! The closest I can find are the Samsung 275T and Dell 2707, but neither have HDMI! I have a Wii and will be getting a PS3. I suppose I could have Mac through DVI, get a VGA cable for Wii and run PS3 through component...? Nah. :p

I currently have a 26" 720p Samsung that can only hack 1366 x 768 over VGA. :( Insufficient resolution at that size to be a good monitor... there are 1920 x 1080 TVs out there, but the smallest is 32", which again is too poor a resolution for the size.

I am stuck :( I pray Apple will include more inputs with ACDs... if not I am lost!

[zmunkz]

200Mhz x 8 cores = 1.6 Ghz!!

There are decreasing returns to scale when you start adding CPUs. 200MHz x 8 is 1.6GHz, but even if you max out your CPUs, you will not actually get 1.6GHz faster performance due to the overhead of communicating between processors, etc.

I doubt a 8x3.2GHz system - even under max load - would measure 1.6GHz faster than a 8x3.0GHz system under max load. I would guess a difference of a few hundred MHz...?

[jnc]

I must be dumb... but can anyone link me to some 800MHz DDR2 ECC FB-DIMMs? I the only FB-DIMMs I can find run at 667MHz...

Apple would be your best bet at this moment. not what you want to hear, I'm sure... ;) Give it a while and live with the 2GB for now.

[Umbongo]

The Mac Pros are an exception to the "Apple's large overhead" rule. Apple sells Mac Pros (especially when newly revved) for less than the Dell Precision or other comparable workstations. This is because Dell and friends make almost no margin on a lot of their consumer computers and try to make it up in the high-end space (the gaming computers are also pretty bad), while Apple just has 20% margins on everything (except iPods, where the margins are astronomical).

But yes, you really get rocked for that last 0.2 GHz. Intel does that across the board - even on desktops, the mid-high-range is surprisingly affordable, then things just jump up for the top 2-3 chips. It's worse now that AMD can't compete on the high-end. AMD's fastest chip now is a quad-core 2.5 GHz Opteron, and it can't even match Intel clock-for-clock (meaning it loses to a 2.5 GHz Intel chip), much less compete against the 3 GHz models. AMD's flooding the low-end, so you wind up (especially on the desktop) having a lot of options sub $300 (including dual-3.0 for $180-something and a 2.5 GHz Quad at $266)**, but no competition outside that.

That said, 7% off a 12 hour rendering job is 50 minutes. Off a day-long rendering job, it's a hour and a half. That's a big deal.

If you spend half your day compiling (or doing other stuff waiting on the compile)*, a 7% gain on half your workday is solid 15 minutes. 15 minutes/day x 5 days/week x 50 weeks/year = 62.5 hours. 60 hours at $40 an hour ($80k salary for a top developer) is $2400. It pays for itself 3 times over in a year.

* = obviously you're not jousting (http://xkcd.com/303/) in the compile-time, but you're far from doing the job you're most efficient at.

** = I hear the new 2.5 GHz Quad might have been delayed until Feb/March. Whatever. You get my point.

Good post, though I'm aware of all that and have preached it a number of times;). Stuff like that should be included in a sticky or buyers guide so people can see when the processor upgrades are really worth it. I think alot of people don't really how little or how much processing they do/might do though.

The Apple large overhead bit was really in reference to Intel valuing differences in speed at much lower prices than Apple. 8x2.8GHz at $1600, 8x 3GHz at $2050 and 8x3.2GHz $2550 while Apple are obviously charging alot more than that for 3GHz and 3.2GHz . Though of course as you said Dell and co charge similar or more for such upgrades, you only really get those prices building yourself, still something to take in to account if you aren't OS dependant and are just getting a single system and need power.

[Graphis]

Update: my wife's just offered to pay the extra £500 or so to enable me to get the 3.2. So wives do have a use after all:D

[adamfishercox]

Please, please, PLEASE use that $500 for RAM... You will see such a huge speed increase compared to 200 MHz.

[student_trap]

Please, please, PLEASE use that $500 for RAM... You will see such a huge speed increase compared to 200 MHz.

but surely if his wife has given him the money for a 3.2, then that should be what he gets. it would be a little rude for him to say "well actually, I want something different now".

imo, go for it:D

[adamfishercox]

Well if the wife specifically said for the 3.2, then yes I agree, but if she just offered to pay $500, then get RAM.

[esskay]

BTW, don't forget that if you wait for MW to check for ACD announcements then you can decide whether to buy a new one at the same time as your MP so it's covered by the AppleCare you're going to purchase.

[snickelfritz]

PLEASE: Don't try and be smart and say 0.2!

OK, like everyone else, I'm just ecstatic that the beast is here. And it's beautiful, more than I could have hoped for. However, the slight increase in prices now means I have a little less to play with. I had intended to go for the top of the line, the 3.2GHZ, and I was also hoping to get a 30" Cinema Display, NVIDIA GeForce 8800 graphics card, 500GB hard drive, wireless keyboard, and AppleCare. This was the bare minumum. RAM I was going to wait a while for, and get extra RAM from a 3rd party vendor when prices have dropped a little.
Total price for the above specs is approx £4350.

However, I also really need a new printer (approx £200), and if I buy the above I can't afford one.

I could go for the 23" display of course, but I've always wanted a 30". There probably isn't a better time to get one. I really need the 8800 card for the work I do, the AppleCare would be a good idea, and anything I'd save by downgrading the keyboard or hard drive would be negligible.

So I was thinking, if I got the 3.0GHZ instead of the 3.2GHZ, I could save about £500, thus giving me enough for the printer. My reasoning is that surely the difference between the 3.0 and the 3.2 isn't that great? I mean, how much difference could 0.2GHZ really make? Sure, it obviously does make some difference, or they wouldn't make one, but would I really notice it that much? Anybody got any suggestions/advice?

The work I do is primarily graphic design/illustration/3D.

Check the recommended system configuration specs for your applications.
There are not many that actually require (8) 3.2ghz CPU cores, or the 8800 video chipset.
Personally, I would go for the 3.0 and spend the money saved on as much RAM as possible.
I'd start with 8GB for professional design work; this allows RAM caching to be enabled in Photoshop CS3.

[eclipse]

I'd start with 8GB for professional design work; this allows RAM caching to be enabled in Photoshop CS3.

Can you please tell me — in layman's terms — what this does and how it speeds the machine? My wife's running a G5 that's 4 years old and a little slow, and only has 4 gig.

[jnc]

Go for the 3 GHz, it sounds better when you say it and it looks even better on paper...;)

Personally, "£500 saved by buying 8-core 2.8GHz" sounds WAY better than 3GHz ;)

Can you please tell me — in layman's terms — what this does and how it speeds the machine? My wife's running a G5 that's 4 years old and a little slow, and only has 4 gig.

Sounds like it'll assign 1GB to each core for better performance? Someone feel free to correct me :)

[eclipse]

But but but... it's a 4 year old G5... she's only got 2 cores.

[snickelfritz]

With more than 4GB of RAM installed, Photoshop CS3 will use the extra free RAM as a "virtual memory buffer".
ie: Photoshop writes scratch data to the RAM buffer as well as to the scratch disk.
Photoshop will access the data stored in this RAM buffer before accessing the same data stored on the scratch disk.
With large files, this can result in a significant improvement in application speed. (150% improvement in some cases, depending on what you're doing)

There's a good reason why Photoshop experts install fast disk arrays and lots of RAM.

[eclipse]

Cool... I'll get some RAM upgrades for my wife's machine.

Does that apply to Photoshop's behaviour in CS2 as well? (Will upgrade one day.)

[Maddler]

With more than 4GB of RAM installed, Photoshop CS3 will use the extra free RAM as a "virtual memory buffer".
ie: Photoshop writes scratch data to the RAM buffer as well as to the scratch disk.
Photoshop will access the data stored in this RAM buffer before accessing the same data stored on the scratch disk.
With large files, this can result in a significant improvement in application speed. (150% improvement in some cases, depending on what you're doing)


How large of files are we talking about? Today I was animating a 55 layer, 400 GB PSD in Photoshop Extended. I doubt 4 GB of RAM cache would do much for something of that size.

CS3 will run much faster than CS2 on an Intel Mac.

[Graphis]

Please, please, PLEASE use that $500 for RAM... You will see such a huge speed increase compared to 200 MHz.

£500 = $1000:)
Yes, yes, but I can always get extra RAM anytime in the future. Which I fully intend to do. But I'm only gonna get one Mac Pro, so it might as well be the 3.2 now.

And yeah, I'm still waiting for the 16th before I order.

[jnc]

£500 = $1000:)
Yes, yes, but I can always get extra RAM anytime in the future. Which I fully intend to do. But I'm only gonna get one Mac Pro, so it might as well be the 3.2 now.

And yeah, I'm still waiting for the 16th before I order.

Apple are offering 0% finance until the 14th.... I'm taking advantage of it ;) What are you expecting to change at Macworld? Blu Ray? ACD?

...Wouldn't Apple suffer from mass returns should they announce either? I think it'll be all MBP, iPhone, iTuness and Leopard at mwsf...

[Graphis]

Apple are offering 0% finance until the 14th.
So are a lot of other retailers... and beyond the 14th too. It's still cheaper buying from Apple resellers than Apple themselves.

[jnc]

So are a lot of other retailers... and beyond the 14th too. It's still cheaper buying from Apple resellers than Apple themselves.

If you can find another retailer in the UK with BTO options (well, I just need Airport on the stock Octo 2.8), Higher Education discounts (14-15% off) and 0% 6 month (or hopefully more) financing beyond the 14th, please point me in their direction!

No?

Well okay then. Shh. :cool:

[bilbo--baggins]

With more than 4GB of RAM installed, Photoshop CS3 will use the extra free RAM as a "virtual memory buffer".

Will this benefit everyone, or just people working with huge files? Most of my Photoshop CS3 files are only up to 30MB. Would 6GB be worth going for. I had been planning to upgrade to 4GB initially, and then consider buying more in future if the price came down / requirements went up.

[snickelfritz]

The RAM buffer is really only beneficial for extremely large files that process very slowly. Huge files like this are fairly common in print publishing, but not so common in web publishing or game development.

For example, a 30MB Photoshop file is going run very quickly and use very minimal RAM (about 150-200MB of RAM); adding more RAM will do nothing to noticeably improve it, since HDD accesses for this amount of data is going to run quickly, even on a laptop computer.

Multiply this file size by 10, (300MB) and the picture changes; HDD access for 1-2GB of data is going slow your system to a crawl.
The solution is to install >4GB of RAM, enable RAM caching and big tiles, and install a dedicated high speed HDD or RAID-0 for scratch.
This is the type of work that the Mac Pro is perfect for.

[tribe3]

The only thing that has not been said is that you have 1 year of time to get Applecare. You can get your printer now with that money.

Enjoy your new setup !!

[ZachPruckowski]

CS3 will run much faster than CS2 on an Intel Mac.

This may have been fixed at some point, but I recall that under the original Rosetta under Tiger, there were strange precision errors in CS2.

With the RAM, make sure you get it in 4 sticks. Since the Mac Pro is quad-channel, you definitely want at least 4 sticks. Ideally, you want exactly 4 sticks (to avoid the higher latency on the back-4 sticks), and ideally they should be the same size (but this is less important).

Another thing to consider is hard drives. While I'm not suggesting moving to SAS, getting a Raptor or even moving to a RAID0 (with Time Machine on a 3rd, larger volume) will also help performance. I have a dual-dual Mac Pro, and the RAID0 I have noticeably helps speed.

[Fiveos22]

Can you please tell me — in layman's terms — what this does and how it speeds the machine? My wife's running a G5 that's 4 years old and a little slow, and only has 4 gig.

Surprisingly I found this article (http://xlr8yourmac.com/G5/8GB_RAM_Tests/G5_8GB_ram_tests.html)[xlr8yourmac] as the second result when I Googled your question.

http://xlr8yourmac.com/G5/8GB_RAM_Tests/PS7_RAM_tests.gif

It appears that the difference between 4 and 8 gigs of RAM is negligable in a G5.