2.0Ghz vs 2.66Ghz

Mookamoo

macrumors member
Original poster
Aug 7, 2006
72
0
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
 

Spanky Deluxe

macrumors 601
Mar 17, 2005
4,883
407
London, UK
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.
 

Mookamoo

macrumors member
Original poster
Aug 7, 2006
72
0
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!
 

MRU

Suspended
Aug 23, 2005
25,318
8,813
Other
^ I've done just that.

Basically just put the 2x1gb in the lower riser board - slots 1 & 2
 

MRU

Suspended
Aug 23, 2005
25,318
8,813
Other
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 ?
 

eXan

macrumors 601
Jan 10, 2005
4,714
20
Russia
Mookamoo said:
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
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 :)
 

Spanky Deluxe

macrumors 601
Mar 17, 2005
4,883
407
London, UK
MacRumorUser said:
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 ?
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.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.