2.0 Ghz or 2.66 Ghz Mac Pro ??? Is the additional 0.66 Ghz worth the price?

[khroner]

Hey guys, I'm about to purchase a new Dual core Mac Pro, but not sure if 2.66 Ghz will run that much worse off than the 2.0 Ghz machine. I would like to know if it's worth the extra $300 (I'd like to save a little bit of cash) for the extra 0.66 Ghz. How much of a difference will I actually see? I'm leaning towards the 2.0 Ghz model, but I might be off on this. (Either way I'm getting 4 GB of Ram). Any opinions on what I should do???

Thanks,
Ros

 

[Eidorian]

The processor is something that you can not upgrade on the Mac Pro (Within your warranty at least.) The Dual 2.66 GHz model gives you the best value for processing power.

 

[khroner]

but will i really feel a noticable difference b/w the two processors???

 

[mustard]

I don't think the question is wether or not it is wort the money for the extra .66GHz per core.

But more along the lines of - is it worth saving $299 for a .66GHz (x4 = 2.4GHz difference) hit.

I say down grading isn't cost effective.

 

[khroner]

it's a duo, so it would be 2 x 0.66 Ghz. And while in theory I agree with you, In reality it is still $300 bucks. And if my functions will be running only 1 or 2 seconds faster, at the end of the day it's not a big deal to me at all. I'm not doing motion, but only Photoshop, Indesign & illustrator type of design work. Now if it's more like 5 - 8 seconds slower, I might have an issue there. Is there any benchmark comparison b/w these two setups I could check out somewhere??? I couldn't find any.

 

[pianoman]

it seems that you've already made up your mind and only want us to affirm your decision.

i think you should go for the extra processing power. it might not seem like much now, but it could be the difference between you upgrading in four years or five or six.

 

[xUKHCx]

it's a duo, so it would be 2 x 0.66 Ghz. And while in theory I agree with you, In reality it is still $300 bucks. And if my functions will be running only 1 or 2 seconds faster, at the end of the day it's not a big deal to me at all. I'm not doing motion, but only Photoshop, Indesign & illustrator type of design work. Now if it's more like 5 - 8 seconds slower, I might have an issue there. Is there any benchmark comparison b/w these two setups I could check out somewhere??? I couldn't find any.

It's a dual dual-core system (2 processors with two cores on each), this means there are actually 4 cores all running at either 2.0 or 2.66 ghz.

Resale price is also a factor because when/if you come to resell the Mac Pro generally speaking people will pay a lot more for the 2.66 than the 2.0, paritally because the 2.0 ghz is considered to be the base model and so there is a human factor of "i don't want the slowest mac pro" but also becauase the 2.66 will out perform the 2.0 ghz by a reasonable distance. Can't seem to find any comparisions quickly, highlights that no one really consideres the 2.0 ghz option a worthwhile buy.

 

[khroner]

xUKHCx, that makes sense. Thanks.

I am just wondering actually how much faster it really runs. I wish I could see a one-to-one comparison. But I see your points & agree.

 

[Grimace]

Most performance benchmarks are for Final Cut, Motion, Photoshop, high-end games, etc. -- I'm not sure you will find "general" benchmarks.

 

[xUKHCx]

xUKHCx, that makes sense. Thanks.

I am just wondering actually how much faster it really runs. I wish I could see a one-to-one comparison. But I see your points & agree.

I thought that apple would have a direct comparision on their sit but alas they don't only compare the 2.5 G5 quad to the 2.66 quad or greater, more evidence that even apple don't really like the 2.0ghz option (at least marketing wise)

http://www.apple.com/uk/macpro/performance.html

There are some results over at xbench but it is so badly organised and dependant on the user's set up that the results are very varied and scientifically useless.