2.00Ghz with goodies or 2.66Ghz flat

Discussion in 'Mac Pro' started by Glenn Wolsey, Jun 23, 2007.

  1. Glenn Wolsey macrumors 65816

    Glenn Wolsey

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2005
    Location:
    New Zealand
    #1
    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?
     
  2. daneoni macrumors G4

    daneoni

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2006
    #2
    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
     
  3. Caitlyn macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2005
    #3
    Yeah, Glenn, I agree. Go with the 2.66GHz machine. You can always upgrade the "goodies". The processor is permanent.
     
  4. Airforce macrumors 6502a

    Airforce

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2006
    #4
    Mac Pro CPUs aren't user removable?
     
  5. tribe3 macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2005
    Location:
    Vienna, VA - USA
    #5
    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.
     
  6. daneoni macrumors G4

    daneoni

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2006
    #6
    They're but are a complete hassle to deal with and more importantly can be expensive to upgrade
     
  7. tribe3 macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2005
    Location:
    Vienna, VA - USA
    #7
    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.
     
  8. cube macrumors G4

    Joined:
    May 10, 2004
    #8
    These are Xeons. The only 8-core upgrade you might find with luck for $100 will be used old CPUs on ebay.
     
  9. Airforce macrumors 6502a

    Airforce

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2006
    #9
    Yup, these cpus are currently going for over $500 currently. The 3GHZ is currently over $1,000. Crazy stuff.
     
  10. Glenn Wolsey thread starter macrumors 65816

    Glenn Wolsey

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2005
    Location:
    New Zealand
    #10
    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?
     
  11. daneoni macrumors G4

    daneoni

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2006
    #11
    In the long run...yes.
     
  12. tribe3 macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2005
    Location:
    Vienna, VA - USA
    #12
    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.
     
  13. Caitlyn macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2005
    #13
    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.
     
  14. macenforcer macrumors 65816

    macenforcer

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2004
    Location:
    Colorado
    #14
    Are you nuts????? 2.66ghz without a doubt. 2ghz is too slow.
     
  15. mad jew Moderator emeritus

    mad jew

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2004
    Location:
    Adelaide, Australia
    #15
    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?
     
  16. CRAZYBUBBA macrumors 65816

    CRAZYBUBBA

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2007
    Location:
    Toronto/Houston
    #16
    Another vote for 2.66

    If its a machine that you will hold onto, as mac pros are, you want to buy the best processor that $$ can buy.
     
  17. crazzyeddie macrumors 68030

    crazzyeddie

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2002
    Location:
    Florida, USA
    #17
    2.66 definitely. You can buy RAM and hard drive space over time.
     
  18. Anonymous Freak macrumors 601

    Anonymous Freak

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2002
    Location:
    Cascadia
    #18
    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.
     
  19. Caitlyn macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2005
    #19
    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?
     
  20. Counter macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2005
    #20
    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.
     
  21. Counter macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2005
    #21
    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.
     
  22. Glenn Wolsey thread starter macrumors 65816

    Glenn Wolsey

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2005
    Location:
    New Zealand
    #22
    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.
     
  23. Anonymous Freak macrumors 601

    Anonymous Freak

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2002
    Location:
    Cascadia
    #23
    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.)
     
  24. daneoni macrumors G4

    daneoni

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2006
    #24
    A 2.66GHz Mac Pro would definately grow with you :D
     
  25. Scannall macrumors member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2007
    #25
    Personally, I'd upgrade the video card. The 7300 is just really not very good at all.
     

Share This Page