2.26 vs. 2.66

Discussion in 'Mac Pro' started by tamerlane57, May 24, 2009.

  1. tamerlane57 macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    May 4, 2009
    #1
    I'm getting ready to purchase the MacPro 8 core. This is my first mac and I would like to have it for as long as possible without having to buy another one. My question: How significant is the difference between the 2.26 and the 2.66, i.e., is it worth $1,400. I will be using it for Final Cut Pro.
     
  2. Spanky Deluxe macrumors 601

    Spanky Deluxe

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2005
    Location:
    London, UK
    #2
    For most people the extra $1400 is not worth it. If you spend a lot of time sitting around for jobs to encode/complete etc then the fact that something that would normally take an hour to complete would instead take 51 minutes to complete then it may be worth it.
     
  3. DeepCobalt macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2007
    Location:
    Over and around
    #3
    I think if you can afford the 2.66, I would go with it. My rationale for buying it was as follows: the 2.26 is going to be slow in the near term for non-multi-threaded tasks. As programs become increasingly processor aware, the processor number will begin to be more important, but we're not there yet for many apps. That said, I think the 9% speed increase that the 2.93 octo has over the 2.66 is not necessarily justified, unless you're really time-intensive (as SpankyDeluxe pointed out).

    Hence, for me, the most future proof/value purchase is the 8-core 2.66. You have a machine about as fast as the old 3.2Ghz (at a similar price), but with the Nehalem architecture. You're fast today, and fast tomorrow.
     
  4. Tesselator macrumors 601

    Tesselator

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2008
    Location:
    Japan
    #4
    I agree. For the extra money you could get a 2008 3.2 GHz with 16GB RAM and a 3-Drive RAID 0 + Boot Drive, and a TOL Video card. It would be faster or as fast as the New 2009 2.93 GHz system at most things. So it's up to your sense to wallet ratio. IMO none of the 2009 Mac Pro are worth the asking price because of this. Apple has priced themselves right out of viability in their workstation line.
     
  5. DoNoHarm macrumors 65816

    DoNoHarm

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2008
    Location:
    Maine
    #5
    take the money you'll save, invest it in the stock market, and you'll have a free computer by the time this one is obsolete.
     
  6. seisend macrumors 6502a

    seisend

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2009
    Location:
    Switzerland, ZG
    #6
    I wish I were in the US.

    Here in switzerland is no good deal around for a 2008 Model (well didn't found anything yet!!). If there is any 08 Model to buy... The price of the 08 Model is still very high in the apple authorized shops in CH.
     
  7. Tesselator macrumors 601

    Tesselator

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2008
    Location:
    Japan
    #7
    You can have one shipped to Swiseserland for what? About $450 or $500 ??

    I'll do it for you from Japan where I am if you want. PM me if you're interested.


    EDIT: It looks like they typically go for about ¥250,000 or $2,500 or 285,000 SwF, or 188,000 euros for a 2.8 stock system. :)

    http://page14.auctions.yahoo.co.jp/jp/auction/s132906576?u=shop_hitonami
     
  8. Spanky Deluxe macrumors 601

    Spanky Deluxe

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2005
    Location:
    London, UK
    #8
    Corrected the prices, something's gone wrong with your conversions. If you're using the dashboard converter utility then that might explain it, its been completely messed up for months for me now.

    I agree though, the current Mac Pro pricing is so ridiculous. Every time I look at it I get mad. The time is coming for me to replace my 2006 Mac Pro. I've got about six months before the warranty's up and at that point I'll want a new machine. I'm still hoping that Apple will do the decent thing and bring the pricing grades down by one notch. Refurb 2008 Mac Pros aren't really an option to me since if I buy from Apple (non refurb) then I can get the full higher education discount with extended warranty etc. :(
     
  9. Tesselator macrumors 601

    Tesselator

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2008
    Location:
    Japan
    #9
    Thanks Dr. Deluxe,

    And yes, I was using the dashboard converter thingy. :)

    My personal policy for system replacement is double speed at equal cost. When those conditions are available I upgrade. If they're not then I don't need to upgrade yet. So for me the 2009 machines don't meet either qualification. I'm on a 2006 2.66 that I upgraded to 8 cores @ 2.66 for just about nothing after selling the old CPUs for essentially the same as I paid for the quad core ones.

    Anyway with all the 4 HDDs and new CPUs and 12 GIG RAM I'm into this box for about $3k (a little less maybe). The base price of the machine was $2.6K. So when a base unit is available at something close to $2.6K that is two times the speed on average, I'll go for upgrading. It's getting pretty close right now with roll-your-own overclocked Corei7 configurations. :) They're clocking them at 5.5 GHz or something crazy like that and while only 4 cores that just about 2x on average plus a peppier overall system then even the TOL '09 Mac Pro. And costs are just about in the $2.6K range too. :)

    Anyway, we don't need to get mad at Apple, we can just vote with our wallets like always. If they can't do us right - we just don't do them. :D
     
  10. snouter macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    May 26, 2009
    #10
    I feel ya, and I'm getting used to the sticker shock myself.

    Actually, this is not all Apple's fault. The Xeon processors are just very very expensive.

    What is Apple's fault is not giving us a consumer i7 920 or 940 single core Nehalem options at $1600 or whatever.

    The single core Xeon makes no sense. I can't tell that it's any faster than the regular i7 and it's crazy expensive in comparison.

    The dual CPU models are not really crazy overpriced when you consider the CPU costs.
     
  11. Spanky Deluxe macrumors 601

    Spanky Deluxe

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2005
    Location:
    London, UK
    #11
    I know what you mean. My upgrade requirements aren't quite as strict as yours. I'd happily buy an Octo 2.66GHz if it were at the 2.26GHz price mark. I'm on a quad 2006 2.66GHz Mac Pro right now and I know that a 2.66GHz Nehalem will be faster clock per clock. I'd also like the eight cores because it would be helpful in my line of work. I'm not going to go the hackintosh route. I played around with it years ago when the Intel Developer Transition machines were out and it just goes against the whole "It just works" OS X ethos.
    I know that the 2.66GHz Octo Mac Pro would be faster in every respect to my current machine. Faster in single threaded apps, much faster in memory dependent apps and for me, I could run twice the number of things at the same time. 2.26GHz is too much of a step down in megahertz for me to feel comfortable with it being faster on all accounts.

    I'm afraid the dual CPU models *are* crazy overpriced when you consider the CPU costs. That's my biggest problem with the new Mac Pros.

    Lets have a look at the processor costs of the "standard" or at least "most popular" models in Apple's Mac Pro lineup over the years.

    When Apple launched the 2.66GHz 2006 Mac Pro, the Woodcrest Xeon processors cost $690 each (so total of $1380 in a $2499 machine).

    When Apple launched the 2.8GHz 2008 Mac Pro, the Harpertown Xeon processors cost $797 each (so a total of $1594 in a $2799 machine).

    When Apple launched the 2.26GHz 2009 Mac Pro, the Gainestown Xeon processors cost $373 each (so a total of $746 in a $3299 machine).

    See what I mean? The cost of the rest of the components in the system are largely constant throughout, logic board, power supply etc - that won't be any more than it was for any of the other machines.
    The nuts and bolts of it is that Apple sold the 2008 Mac Pro for $300 more than the 2006 Mac Pro with processors that cost $214 more - no biggie. Apple is selling the 2009 Mac Pro for $500 more than the 2008 Mac Pro with processors that cost $848 LESS. So, its pretty easy to see that Apple's increased their profits-per-machine by something of the order of $1000 to $1300 compared to the previous two generations of Mac Pro.

    If Apple had put the 2.66GHz chips ($958 each) into the same price bracket then they'd be charging $500 more for a machine where the chips cost $322 more than the previous machine, which would have been far more reasonable.
     
  12. crazzyeddie macrumors 68030

    crazzyeddie

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2002
    Location:
    Florida, USA
    #12
    Your prices are wrong. The L5520, which is what Apple is using, costs $800+ per unit. The lowest price I've seen quoted by Intel for 1000 unit purchases is $530, which is significantly higher than what you quote. That mean that $1100 out of $3300 is just the CPUs, which is almost exactly 1/3 of the cost, which is inline with other manufacturers.
     
  13. Spanky Deluxe macrumors 601

    Spanky Deluxe

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2005
    Location:
    London, UK
    #13
    The L5520 is the low power version, not the E5520 which is what Apple is using. The L5520 is $530 whereas the E5520 is $373.

    Apple is using the E5520, E5550 and X5570 in its eight core Mac Pros.
     
  14. snouter macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    May 26, 2009
    #14
    Yeah, here is the 2.26 model @ $399

    http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819117185

    So, that's $800 of a machine that costs $3300.

    I stand corrected, those margins are a bit much, even for Apple.
     
  15. Spanky Deluxe macrumors 601

    Spanky Deluxe

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2005
    Location:
    London, UK
    #15
    Yup, hence the issue. $373 was also the price on launch. In six months time when Apple will likely not have reduced their prices, they'll be making even more of a profit. Yeah, the 2.26GHz 8 core has about the same performance per dollar as the 2.8GHz 8 core model but since when has hardware that's a year newer and with a revolutionary new design (Nehalem) meant to have the same performance per dollar?
     
  16. snouter macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    May 26, 2009
    #16
    I see new 2.8 Harpertown 8 cores for $2250... starting to think that's the direction I need to go... Even $2700 Apple refurb 2.26 8-cores don't seem all that great a deal...

    I really want to lose the FSB and have the faster memory though, but, at what price?
     
  17. Spanky Deluxe macrumors 601

    Spanky Deluxe

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2005
    Location:
    London, UK
    #17
    Exactly. Even worse, on the UK Apple Refurb store they're selling 3.2GHz 8 core Harpertowns for £2499 - the same cost as the 2.26GHz 8 core Gainestown. Those are substantially faster in nearly everything. If Apple offered student discounts on their refurb products then I wouldn't hesitate. Has anyone ever got any cash knocked off a refurb purchase? I've never called up to try to haggle before, don't know if its an option. When I do come to purchase, I'll be wanting to purchase direct from Apple since I can get the HE discount and claim back the tax.
     
  18. nanofrog macrumors G4

    Joined:
    May 6, 2008
    #18
    This was the route I took. :D

    Pricing was terrible when thinking in terms of RAID. I tried an '08 base model, but fitting the RAID in was my biggest requirement, and external was the only real solution. It was just too expensive. I also had an issue with trying to run the windows software/hardware via VM. (Test bench equipment didn't work properly with LabView, and I couldn't get it sorted with NI's tech support). It went back, and I waited for Core i7/Nehalem gear to ship.

    I haven't yet hacked it, as I decided to wait for SL, given the fact I can afford to be patient. :eek: Patience...what a strange concept. :D :p
    The Xeon 5500 DP models are, but not the SP versions (3500 series). The latter sell in quantity for the same price as their Core i7 counterparts for the same clock.

    That's because they're really the same chip. The difference being, that the W35xx parts will operate with ECC memory. The X58 chipset can identify the CPU ID, and enable this function, so long as it's not been disabled via firmware.

    Arguable, but it certainly has more merit. ;) :p
     

Share This Page