2.0Ghz vs 2.66Ghz

Discussion in 'Mac Pro' started by Mookamoo, Oct 16, 2006.

  1. Mookamoo macrumors member

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2006
    #1
    Hi

    Which set up will work quickest? Just basic print design - Quark/Photoshop/Illustrator etc

    2.0Ghz with 4 gig Ram
    2.66Ghz with 2 gig Ram

    ??

    Cheers
     
  2. Unorthodox macrumors 65816

    Unorthodox

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2006
    Location:
    Not at the beach...
    #2
    2.66Ghz with 2 gig Ram.

    2 Gigs is enough RAM.
     
  3. Spanky Deluxe macrumors 601

    Spanky Deluxe

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2005
    Location:
    London, UK
    #3
    2.66Ghz for sure.

    Photoshop needs Rosetta right now. While its true that Rosetta eats RAM for breakfast, it needs raw processor speed more since its emulating another processor. The 2.0Ghz machine is bad value for money imo.
     
  4. Mookamoo thread starter macrumors member

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2006
    #4
    Cheers - Great help

    One last question before I take the plunge and order

    I am going to add my own RAM (probably from Crucial).

    If I order a standard spec machine with 1Gb RAM - Can I then add another 2 Gb making 3Gb in total?

    I know they have to be installed in pairs - just wondering if they have to go up in even denominations - ie 2, 4, 6 etc

    Thanks!
     
  5. MRU macrumors demi-god

    MRU

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2005
    Location:
    Ireland
    #5
    ^ I've done just that.

    Basically just put the 2x1gb in the lower riser board - slots 1 & 2
     
  6. Mookamoo thread starter macrumors member

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2006
    #6
    oooooooo

    I have credit card - am going hunting........
     
  7. MRU macrumors demi-god

    MRU

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2005
    Location:
    Ireland
    #7
    I have a question in regards to 2 v's 2.66

    So is the difference in 660 mhz per cpu core (of which there are 4) ?? 2.4ghz total between the 2ghz v 2.66ghz

    That would seem very sizeable and I'm sure it's not that big a gap, but would it roughly be about 20-30% faster than the 2ghz machine in RWP ?
     
  8. eXan macrumors 601

    eXan

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2005
    Location:
    Russia
    #8
    Get 2.66, it will last you much longer and you can get RAM later anyway (yes I know you can get a new CPU as well, but it will cost a lot more)

    Judging on the benchmarks, 2.0 GHz is much worse than 2.66, while 3.0 GHz isnt that much better than 2.66. So 2.66 is the best performance/price wise :)
     
  9. Spanky Deluxe macrumors 601

    Spanky Deluxe

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2005
    Location:
    London, UK
    #9
    The simplest comparison is to do the maths:

    The 2.0Ghz machine costs $2199
    The 2.66Ghz machine costs $2499
    The 3.0Ghz machine costs $3299

    The 2.66Ghz machine is 13.6% more expensive than the 2.0Ghz machine but has 33% faster processors.
    The 3.0Ghz machine is 32.0% more expensive than the 2.66Ghz machine but has 12.8% faster processors.

    Or put another way, the bank for buck is:

    $274.87 per Ghz for the 2.0Ghz machine
    $234.87 per Ghz for the 2.66Ghz machine
    $274.92 per Ghz for the 3.0Ghz machine

    The 2.0Ghz model has 8GHz of 'raw processing power'
    The 2.66Ghz model has 10.64Ghz of 'raw processing power'
    The 3.0Ghz model has 12Ghz of 'raw processing power'

    Its pretty obvious imo that 90% of people looking to buy a Mac Pro should go for the 2.66Ghz model. The few that really need the extra power will go for the more expensive one and the few that need to save the pennies and need the extra storage space in the low end Mac Pro vs the 24" iMac will go for the 2.0Ghz model. The 2.66Ghz machine is clearly the best value for money machine, followed by the 3.0Ghz machine and the 2.0Ghz machine comes in bottom in terms of value for money since unlike the 3.0Ghz model, it starts to compete with the iMac 24".

    That's just my opinion though.
     

Share This Page