2.0 or 2.66?

Discussion in 'Mac Pro' started by stimpycat, Jul 31, 2007.

  1. stimpycat macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2007
    #1
    Why is it that the 2.66 mac pro is the default option as opposed to the cheaper 2.0?

    I only ask as I am very close to getting one now - but a 2.0!

    Is there anything drastically wrong with getting a 2.0 rather than the default 2.66?

    I assume everything works the same but slightly slower?
     
  2. mad jew Moderator emeritus

    mad jew

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2004
    Location:
    Adelaide, Australia
    #2
    Who are we to question Apple's marketing... :p

    Yeah, the 2.0GHz machine will be a bit slower but I'd argue most users wouldn't notice. The CPU is rarely the speed limiting factor anymore for the average user.
     
  3. flappo macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2003
    Location:
    in the cubicles
    #3
    in the uk the 2.0 is £190 less than the 2.66 , but the 3.00 is £500 more than the 2.66 , why exactly is utterly beyond me

    it seems like the 2.66 is the sweet spot in the range and the best overall vfm , no wonder apple made it the base point

    as for noticing a speed difference , with 4 xeon cores at work , i don't REALLY think you'll see much difference , unless you really value your time that is

    the 2.00 is still a very powerful bit of kit
     
  4. mad jew Moderator emeritus

    mad jew

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2004
    Location:
    Adelaide, Australia
    #4
    They can charge relatively more for the 3.0GHz machine 'cause they know some people will pay anything to know they've got the top-of-the-range. :D
     
  5. Umbongo macrumors 601

    Umbongo

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2006
    Location:
    England
    #5
    Apple obviously felt the $2,500 pricepoint was the one they wanted to sell at. The 2.66GHz processors fit this price. The 2GHz also offers similar performance to Quad G5s, Apple love to have new systems "11ty Times Faster WooHoo!" than the last ones. It also gives them the opportunity to up or downsell, which they surely make a large profit on; probably around $4-500 per machine with 2GHz or 3GHz instead of 2.66GHz.


    As for whether you want to go for 2GHz or not, remember that alot of things don't or can't take advantage of multiple cores, and perhaps for time sensative work the extra performance offered by the 2.66GHz model could be important. Also as I mentioned above where as with the base mac pro you get a great deal hardware wise, if you go for 2GHz processors, you are paying a premium of over £250 to do so compared what the processors are actually worth, which skews price to performance for Mac Pros.
     
  6. pprior macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2007
    #6
    Check the refurbs - I got a 3ghz for same price as 2.66, and it was just like new.

    Personally I wouldn't buy a 2ghz machine.
     
  7. Father Jack macrumors 68020

    Father Jack

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2007
    Location:
    Ireland
    #7
    The 2.66 is a nice balance of great power at a reasonable cost ... :cool:
     
  8. iBeard macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2005

Share This Page