2.0GHz Mac Pro: If you own one of these, please post performance feedback.

Discussion in 'Mac Pro' started by ronni3, Jan 5, 2007.

  1. ronni3 macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2006
    Location:
    Chicago, IL
    #1
    I am considering getting a 2.0GHz mac pro, as I can't afford the 2.66GHz version, but would love to get an idea on its performance. Please post feedback if you own one of these.
     
  2. MovieCutter macrumors 68040

    MovieCutter

    Joined:
    May 3, 2005
    Location:
    Washington, DC
    #2
    Save your money and get the 2.66Ghz. Don't even bother with the 2.0, or get a refurbed 2.66. After next week, the prices may come down anyway. You might also consider the 24" iMac with 7600GT graphics.
     
  3. ronni3 thread starter macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2006
    Location:
    Chicago, IL
    #3
    Why, couldn't I just upgrade it myself when my needs change? Obviously, I would only do such a thing after the warranty is through, whereas I can never upgrade an iMac.
     
  4. Carniphage macrumors 68000

    Carniphage

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2006
    Location:
    Sheffield, England
    #4
    I got the Refurb 2.66 You get a brand-new machine. In a brand new box. With a build time.

    Then with the money you saved, you can put some extra Gigs of RAM in the beast. It needs them.

    C.
     
  5. ronni3 thread starter macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2006
    Location:
    Chicago, IL
    #5
    What brand do you all recommend?
     
  6. MovieCutter macrumors 68040

    MovieCutter

    Joined:
    May 3, 2005
    Location:
    Washington, DC
    #6
    Because it'll cost you almost as much as a new Mac Pro for the two processors you'll need, not to mention it would be stupid to do so and void your warranty...especially when you should buy AppleCare if you plan on keeping it more than a year.
     
  7. ronni3 thread starter macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2006
    Location:
    Chicago, IL
    #7
    One, I don't plan on upgrading anytime soon, and two, I wouldn't do this until sometime after the AppleCare extended warranty has run its course. I would also wait until the price of future chips drop, which they will. The Mac Pro has a significant amount of power and I would be doing very little to it by downsizing on the processor, especially for what I intend to do with it.

    All I asked from this thread was feedback on the performance of these systems, not your opinion on whether you see this being a good choice or not. I know what I am buying and what I am going to do with it. Although, thanks for your opinion!
     
  8. simontarr macrumors 6502

    simontarr

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2006
    Location:
    England
    #8
    Well said.
     
  9. MovieCutter macrumors 68040

    MovieCutter

    Joined:
    May 3, 2005
    Location:
    Washington, DC
    #9
    Have fun with that...personally I think it's foolish to consider the 2.0 considering the relatively small price for a very large increase in speed, but that's just me and a ton of other people. Though, if you spent a few minutes doing a bit of research you'd have found this:

    http://www.macworld.com/2006/08/firstlooks/macpro3ghzbench/index.php

    Not easy to find other benchmarks since nobody is bothering with the bastard child of the Mac Pro lineup
     
  10. ronni3 thread starter macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2006
    Location:
    Chicago, IL
    #10
    Actually, I did see that benchmark. What I am asking for though is for actual user experience with these machines.

    Also, I am sure there are some people out there that can't afford the more expensive setup and that is why they choose whatever they can get. Don't tell me I should get a iMac, when I chose this because of its ease in upgrading.

    Also, why do you feel the need to continue on with this? Didn't I tell you that I know what I am purchasing? I appreciate your opinion, but it is not needed. Thanks!
     
  11. bearbo macrumors 68000

    bearbo

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2006
    #11
    but user experience is subjective, benchmark is objective... one user's experience might be completely different from the user experience of another about the same machine

    and MovieCutter's user experience is that you should spend $200 more to get the mac pro...

    im sure you have a budget, and i respect that, but the point is if you are spending 2000 already, i'm sure (or surely hope) that's not the last 2000 in your bank, aka you probably have another 200... and that 200 (aka upgrade to 2.66 will get you much more than 10% performance boost.

    want to hear or not, this is a public forum, and this is my opinion.
     
  12. MovieCutter macrumors 68040

    MovieCutter

    Joined:
    May 3, 2005
    Location:
    Washington, DC
    #12
    Exactly. Owning both the 2.66 and the 3.0 Mac Pro's I noticed very little difference in speed between the twol, but considering there is a 30+% processor performance increase from the 2.0 to the 2.66Ghz, it seems very foolish to let $200 get in the way of that because I can almost guarantee you that there is a noticeable difference between the two.

    What does it really matter anyway. It all depends on what machine you're coming from. If you're coming from a G4, you'll notice the earth shattering. If you're coming from a G5, you might feel a rumble. It'll be faster than your current system no matter what, it's just a matter of price/performance ratio at this point. 2.0 <<< 2.66 < 3.0. Also, I don't anyone on these forums who has a 2.0. Most everyone who has one has a 2.66 or a 3.0. That doesn't mean they don't exist, but they are in a very small minority.
     
  13. bearbo macrumors 68000

    bearbo

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2006
    #13
    but then again, maybe he's too ignorant to deserve the 2.66 anyway:p perhaps he will never realize what he has missed. but whatever, it's his loss, apple's gain:p
     
  14. MovieCutter macrumors 68040

    MovieCutter

    Joined:
    May 3, 2005
    Location:
    Washington, DC
    #14
    By Tuesday, it might not matter anyway, and he can get an OctoMac 2.0 for the same price.
     
  15. Umbongo macrumors 601

    Umbongo

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2006
    Location:
    England
    #15
    If you buy the 2.0Ghz machine it'll never make financial sense to upgrade to 2.66Ghz. Currently at OEM prices it would cost you $1,400 to get the performance boost. By the time the chips are cheap enough for it to make sense we will be well past 8 core chips moving on to 16 core probably.

    On another note, on the internet you are always going to get people adding in related advice, it's par for the course of discussion on forums. The posters in this thread don't know your level of computing knowledge and were just trying to make sure you didn't make what many consider to be a poor purchasing choice in the 2Ghz Mac Pro. There are much better ways to save money on a Mac Pro. Refurb 2.66Ghz machines are only $2200 for an already mentioned example.
     
  16. ronni3 thread starter macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2006
    Location:
    Chicago, IL
    #16
    I never said I didn't agree that the 2.66GHz Mac Pro wasn't worth it, I was just trying to justify getting the 2.66 over the 2.0. I CAN get the 2.66GHz, but I want to stick to my set price and will not budge. I could get the 2.66Ghz but then I will have to do with only 1GB of Ram which I don't see as being a wise decision. The more Ram the better.

    If you can tell me that getting 1GB of Ram will be sufficient until my needs increase to the point where I need 2GB, then I might go with the 2.66GHz, otherwise no. I do not want to purchase a Mac Pro if I will see some lag, and I don't expect that to happen until I start playing around with Photoshop.

    So, can you assure me I will not see any lag using 1GB of Ram doing daily, rudimentary tasks or while playing games?
     
  17. law guy macrumors 6502a

    law guy

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2003
    Location:
    Western Massachusetts
    #17

    It will be interesting to see what your choices are and at what price points after this Tuesday. If predictions for replacement with 8 core systems at similar price points bear out, neither the 2.0 or 2.6 current offerings may make sense. Of course, along with the announcements, it always interesting to hear Steve say whether the product is "shipping today" or if there will be a bit of lag time.

    In the meantime, here's the Xbench link for lots of Mac Pro runs: http://db.xbench.com/csi.xhtml?machineTypeID=34

    Good luck and have fun shopping.
     
  18. ronni3 thread starter macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2006
    Location:
    Chicago, IL
  19. MovieCutter macrumors 68040

    MovieCutter

    Joined:
    May 3, 2005
    Location:
    Washington, DC
    #19
    You're looking at it the wrong way dude. You buy what you can get that you can't upgrade easier/cheaper later. RAM is cheap and easily upgradeable. Processors are not. Your thinking is backwards. It's your budget, but you being stubborn is going to cost you performance later on down the road. You're making a foolish decision if you're picking the 2.0 because you can get more RAM in it NOW, vs. the 2.66 when you can easily boost your performance later through a minimal RAM purchase if it isn't up to your standards. If you get the 2.0, and you get your 2GB of RAM, and you're finding that you would have been better off with more processor performance for those rendering tasks...well you're **** out of luck.

    EDIT: Oh, and XBench is notoriously unreliable for speed examples. It's all over the map, so I wouldn't make a $2000 purchasing decision based on that.
     
  20. ronni3 thread starter macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2006
    Location:
    Chicago, IL
    #20
    Only now do I see your point, MovieCutter. I will go for a 2.66GHz Mac Pro and then later on upgrade the memory.

    Of course I will wait until after MWSF till I decide because who knows if there might be an Octo waiting. Thanks everyone for your input, especially you MovieCutter. I needed an unrelenting, stubborn person ;) to make me see my error. Thanks again!
     
  21. MovieCutter macrumors 68040

    MovieCutter

    Joined:
    May 3, 2005
    Location:
    Washington, DC
    #21
    That would be me...good call on the change of thinking...
     
  22. ronni3 thread starter macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2006
    Location:
    Chicago, IL
    #22
    Hey MovieCutter,

    I could get a stock 2.66GHz Mac Pro and get the memory aftermarket, or I could get the same Mac Pro, only with the upgraded graphics card. Which would you say would be better? I like the graphics card because it is cheaper @ $199, whereas getting just the part itself is $399. The memory could be upgraded for $239, or I could get memory from Newegg for approx. $180.
     
  23. MovieCutter macrumors 68040

    MovieCutter

    Joined:
    May 3, 2005
    Location:
    Washington, DC
    #23
    If you're willing to stretch your budget to get the best you can and not have to worry about upgrading later, get the x1900 now (or whatever the upgraded card is at MacWorld if there is an announcement) and go third party with the RAM. Be careful what KIND of FB-DIMMS you get, you may want to look at OWC as well. Those heat spreaders may be kind of essential. But looking at $239 for the Apple RAM isn't a bad deal at your pricing...I'd go with that if you want an "all Apple" package.

    With OWC RAM (2x512MB), it's $227, so I'd go with the Apple just for fun.
     
  24. MovieCutter macrumors 68040

    MovieCutter

    Joined:
    May 3, 2005
    Location:
    Washington, DC
  25. eb6 macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2006
    Location:
    yo yo yo
    #25
    If the 3.0 isn't a very large step in speed from the 2.66, and the 2.0 to the 2.66 is huge, why is the price jump to the 3.0 so much more than the jump to the 2.66. (800$ vs. 300$)
     

Share This Page