Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

2.00Ghz with goodies or 2.66Ghz flat

Glenn Wolsey

Glenn Wolsey

macrumors 65816
Original poster
Nov 24, 2005
1,230
2
New Zealand
Simple question here, what would be viewed as the best option between these two configurations. I currently have 2 x 1GB RAM and a 500GB HDD in the mail which would go into a 2.66Ghz machine, however..

2.00Ghz
5GB RAM
150GB Raptor + 500GB + 250GB

2.66Ghz
3GB RAM
250GB + 500GB

Which would you lean toward? The one with more "goodies", or a simple 2.66Ghz machine?
 
Glenn Wolsey said:
Simple question here, what would be viewed as the best option between these two configurations. I currently have 2 x 1GB RAM and a 500GB HDD in the mail which would go into a 2.66Ghz machine, however..

2.00Ghz
5GB RAM
150GB Raptor + 500GB + 250GB

2.66Ghz
3GB RAM
250GB + 500GB

Which would you lean toward? The one with more "goodies", or a simple 2.66Ghz machine?
Click to expand...

2.66Dhz defo, its easy to upgrade RAM and all that in future but its more difficult to bump the processor speed.

Cool blog btw
 
Yeah, Glenn, I agree. Go with the 2.66GHz machine. You can always upgrade the "goodies". The processor is permanent.
 
I also say go with the 2.66. The raptor has a cool name, it's 10K but you don't really see much real life difference in performance, and it's small, noisy and expensive. I have 2 as CS3 scratch but for the same money I could have 2 500GB wd's in RAID that would be alsmost as fast.

Also. the 2.66 is only marginally slower than the 3GHZ. It's FAST.

I know you can put some 8-cores in the future... but so will I. (I don't know if the 2GHzs Power supply is as beefier as the 2.66 and 3Ghz) probably yes... but Apple don't talk about those things.
 
tribe3 said:
Not like RAM but it's doable. It will void the warranty but in a couple of years an 8-core setup will cost 100 bucks or so.
Click to expand...

These are Xeons. The only 8-core upgrade you might find with luck for $100 will be used old CPUs on ebay.
 
cube said:
These are Xeons. The only 8-core upgrade you might find with luck for $100 will be used old CPUs on ebay.
Click to expand...

Yup, these cpus are currently going for over $500 currently. The 3GHZ is currently over $1,000. Crazy stuff.
 
tribe3 said:
I also say go with the 2.66. The raptor has a cool name, it's 10K but you don't really see much real life difference in performance, and it's small, noisy and expensive. I have 2 as CS3 scratch but for the same money I could have 2 500GB wd's in RAID that would be alsmost as fast.

Also. the 2.66 is only marginally slower than the 3GHZ. It's FAST.

I know you can put some 8-cores in the future... but so will I. (I don't know if the 2GHzs Power supply is as beefier as the 2.66 and 3Ghz) probably yes... but Apple don't talk about those things.
Click to expand...

The 2.00Ghz machine saves $540 NZD (around $400 USD) over the 2.66Ghz. So that $400 could be put toward anything, RAM, drives, etc.

Do you still think a 2.66Ghz with 3GB RAM would be better choice than a 2.00Ghz with 5-7GB?
 
Glenn Wolsey said:
The 2.00Ghz machine saves $540 NZD (around $400 USD) over the 2.66Ghz. So that $400 could be put toward anything, RAM, drives, etc.

Do you still think a 2.66Ghz with 3GB RAM would be better choice than a 2.00Ghz with 5-7GB?
Click to expand...

In the long run...yes.
 
Glenn Wolsey said:
The 2.00Ghz machine saves $540 NZD (around $400 USD) over the 2.66Ghz. So that $400 could be put toward anything, RAM, drives, etc.

Do you still think a 2.66Ghz with 3GB RAM would be better choice than a 2.00Ghz with 5-7GB?
Click to expand...

Glenn, If you are tight with money you won't be disappointed with the 2GHZ. Its a fast machine with all the goodies that the other ones have. All the folks I've read here and at other forums with a 2.0GHz machine are very happy.

I don't know what apps you will be running but my experience is that for PS CS3 and Aperture 4GB of RAM is good enough. PS CS3 allow a max of 3GHZ Ram allocation.

Also for video encoding (I don't do a lot) the processors are rarely maxed out.

You are going to be happy;)

I love your blog,

Bests.
 
I'm sure you'd be happy with a 2GHz, but I know you, Glenn, and you'll probably wish you'd gone to the fullest potential you could have, right?

Again, I agree with daneoni. In the long run, the extra .66GHz will be more valuable.
 
If you're anything like me and you have Mail, iTunes and Safari running simultaneously, you'll need the 2.66GHz processor and at least 8-10GB of RAM, especially if you're going to have up to ten tabs in Safari at any one time.

That reminds me, what're you going to be using it for?
 
I'll join the sheep, but also suggest that instead of a Raptor, look into the latest high-capacity drives. The 750 GB and 1 TB drives benchmark as fast as, or even faster than, the Raptor in most tests, and you get SIGNIFICANTLY more storage space.
 
Glenn, think about it. It's not just .66GHz. But it's like .66GHz four times...because you're getting the four core computer, correct?
 
What are you using the machine for? Nobody asked that. :rolleyes:

Unless you're maxing out the procs 24/7, and the time difference in encoding or whatever you're doing between the 2.0 and the 2.66 = cash money, then why go 2.66?

You're talking about a 15% increase in umph going 2.66 over 2.0.

You can upgrade the CPU later of course (especially when the 3.0ghz drop in price). I'd get a tech (non-apple) to do it so doing it wouldn't be an issue at all.
 
mad jew said:
If you're anything like me and you have Mail, iTunes and Safari running simultaneously, you'll need the 2.66GHz processor and at least 8-10GB of RAM, especially if you're going to have up to ten tabs in Safari at any one time.

That reminds me, what're you going to be using it for?
Click to expand...

That's hilarious.

You can run Firefox, Mail, iTunes, and throw Photoshop in for good measure at the same time on a G4 400mhz with a gig of ram. Pick one up on ebay for a hundred bucks or something.

Sure, it's not gonna be snappy in Photoshop, but jesus christ you do not need a quad core 2.66ghz Mac Pro with 8-10 gig of ram to run Safari, iTunes and Mail at the same time. Mac Mini will do that perfectly.

You need the 2.66ghz if you'd be maxing out the 2.0ghz often and the difference bothered you.
 
To aid in helping me between the 2.00 and 2.66 machines, I'll give a brief overview of what the machine will be used for. As a writer/student the main tasks of the Mac will be pretty simple. Such as Mail, Safari, Pages, etc.

However I'm slowly getting into Digital Media and want a machine which I can grow with, I use Aperture rather frequently, and Final Cut isn't out of the question down the line. I know a Mac Pro is a little bit of an overkill for my needs and uses, though as I stated above, I want a machine which can grow with me rather than another iMac.
 
Counter said:
What are you using the machine for? Nobody asked that. :rolleyes:

Unless you're maxing out the procs 24/7, and the time difference in encoding or whatever you're doing between the 2.0 and the 2.66 = cash money, then why go 2.66?

You're talking about a 15% increase in umph going 2.66 over 2.0.

You can upgrade the CPU later of course (especially when the 3.0ghz drop in price). I'd get a tech (non-apple) to do it so doing it wouldn't be an issue at all.
Click to expand...

heh. The CPU upgradeability is possible, but hard. Will 2.66 GHz be exactly enough for you, where 2.0 GHz wouldn't be? You can upgrade to quad-core 3.0 GHz chips, which are a ridiculously expensive upgrade now, but will likely go down later.

Although, the price differential Apple charges for 2.0 to 2.66 is *LESS* than the street price differential between the two on the open market, so if you do the upgrade from Apple, you spend less than upgrading (now.)
 
Glenn Wolsey said:
........However I'm slowly getting into Digital Media and want a machine which I can grow with, I use Aperture rather frequently, and Final Cut isn't out of the question down the line...........though as I stated above, I want a machine which can grow with me rather than another iMac.......
Click to expand...

A 2.66GHz Mac Pro would definately grow with you :D
 
Glenn Wolsey said:
However I'm slowly getting into Digital Media and want a machine which I can grow with, I use Aperture rather frequently, and Final Cut isn't out of the question down the line. I know a Mac Pro is a little bit of an overkill for my needs and uses, though as I stated above, I want a machine which can grow with me rather than another iMac.
Click to expand...

Personally, I'd upgrade the video card. The 7300 is just really not very good at all.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back