Sure, no problem. If you can afford it, have at it. But for someone on a budget it's simply wiser to spend their money elsewhere. (Just not on a MacMini versus a MacPro which was such a funny argument I didn't even want to respond to that.)
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
2.66 Quad vs 2.93 Quad Buyer's Guide (Includes Octos)
- Thread starter tome viewer
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Like VR said, the 640GB in either machine will most likely get you a WD Blue, a CTO with 1TB will always get you a Black, but do NOT go through Apple for this. A two year old can change the drives and your MP comes with everything you need.
Go here:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B001C271MA
It is currently $102.59 with free shipping. They also pack their drives very well unlike NewEgg.
As an Amazon Associate, MacRumors earns a commission from qualifying purchases made through links in this post.
VR did not say "most likely" at all. He said "may" - what is kind of a difference.
And as Apple´s surcharge for a 1TB disk is nearly the same as you pay for the 1TB Black alone elsewhere: get it with the 640GB disk
If it turns out to be a Green: get a Black for system disk (or SSD) and use the Green for backups.
Which is why I retracted it.
(although a MacMini is plenty machine for some users and buying a pro would be a waste just like buying a more expensive Mac Pro is a waste for some).Anyway, I've been a staunch advocate for buying a quad over an octo core unless your workload really justifies it. I see your position is really no different: buy the 2.66GHz cpu unless your workload (and wallet) can really justify it.
At any rate, I don't think you got much credit for compiling the test results... great collection!
VR did not say "most likely" at all. He said "may" - what is kind of a difference.
And as Apple´s surcharge for a 1TB disk is nearly the same as you pay for the 1TB Black alone elsewhere: get it with the 640GB disk
If it turns out to be a Green: get a Black for system disk (or SSD) and use the Green for backups.
Hey, you're pretty smart for catching that. LOL I was the one trying to say will without drawing attention to it. So let's just say it like it is then... Although Apple is known for changing their drives midway, your MP at this point in time will come with a WD 640 Blue in either the 2.66 or 2.93 config. I have never seen anyone receive anything other than the 640 Blue. I would still, however, get your drive from the link I gave you, seeing that if you allow Apple to ship the base drive you essentially now get the 640 for free ($2.59). It is a very reliable drive for TM. And obviously, if you want more than one do not allow Apple to charge you $300 for the additional drives...
2.66 Quad vs 2.26 Octo
Someone asked me how the 2.66 Quad compares to the 2.26 Octo. I figure I'll post my reply here. It's pretty much what you would expect, the Octo beats the Quad in multithreaded tasks, but not by much. And the 2.66 Quad smokes the 2.26 Octo at everything else. I have put some scores from Macworld below. Please note that the 2.66 Quad only has 3GB Ram versus the 6GB in the 2.26 Octo. Thus if equally equipped, the 2.66 would actually post better scores than it already has.
2009 2.26 Octo vs 2008 2.8 Octo
It also seems there is a lot of misinformation in regard to last years 2.8 Octo and the new 2.26 Octo. I have noticed a lot of statements from one particular individual that are similar to this, "A Mac Pro 2.8 beats the pants off of a 2.26 Octad from 2009 (obviously!) and is lots cheeper too."
The truth of the matter is that what he is typically telling others is false. The Macworld scores below speak for themselves:
Just in case I get another F- for presentation (because of an inability to understand and interpret data without a conclusion - lol) I better give my summery...
Unless you specifically need performance for multithreaded apps I feel the 2.66 Quad is the better buy over the 2.26 Octo.
And in regard to the 2.66 Quad versus the 2.93 Quad, the difference in horses is so insignificant your money is better spent else where. I would only get the 2.93 Quad if I were the type who needed the bragging rights or the latest and greatest. Other than that, you're pretty much throwing away your money on next to nothing. The improved CPU architecture, memory bandwidth and reduced latency, is what gives you the significant speed bump, not the choice to shell out more money for the 2.93.
Someone asked me how the 2.66 Quad compares to the 2.26 Octo. I figure I'll post my reply here. It's pretty much what you would expect, the Octo beats the Quad in multithreaded tasks, but not by much. And the 2.66 Quad smokes the 2.26 Octo at everything else. I have put some scores from Macworld below. Please note that the 2.66 Quad only has 3GB Ram versus the 6GB in the 2.26 Octo. Thus if equally equipped, the 2.66 would actually post better scores than it already has.
2009 2.26 Octo vs 2008 2.8 Octo
It also seems there is a lot of misinformation in regard to last years 2.8 Octo and the new 2.26 Octo. I have noticed a lot of statements from one particular individual that are similar to this, "A Mac Pro 2.8 beats the pants off of a 2.26 Octad from 2009 (obviously!) and is lots cheeper too."
The truth of the matter is that what he is typically telling others is false. The Macworld scores below speak for themselves:
Just in case I get another F- for presentation (because of an inability to understand and interpret data without a conclusion - lol) I better give my summery...
Unless you specifically need performance for multithreaded apps I feel the 2.66 Quad is the better buy over the 2.26 Octo.
And in regard to the 2.66 Quad versus the 2.93 Quad, the difference in horses is so insignificant your money is better spent else where. I would only get the 2.93 Quad if I were the type who needed the bragging rights or the latest and greatest. Other than that, you're pretty much throwing away your money on next to nothing. The improved CPU architecture, memory bandwidth and reduced latency, is what gives you the significant speed bump, not the choice to shell out more money for the 2.93.
That's why I think the real sleeper of the Mac Pro crop is the octad 2.66. It really gives the most bang for the buck--basically beating the Harpertown 3.2 (or matching it), but pre-SL. It is over $1K cheaper than the 2.93, but only 9% less in clock speed.
I ended up with the Quad 2.66 and used the money I didn't spend on the CPU upgrade on 2X 1TB WD Black drives, 8GB of ram, 1TB External drive to mirror my striped RAID and had enough left to buy a Whopper.
I agree with a lot of the posters on here though that the best money is either:
1. Pro user with mostly single threaded (CS4 etc) Quad 2.66
2. Video editing pro's / research OCTO 2.66. (I wish I could have afforded you)
To me the worst deal is the OCTO 2.26 because if you run any single threaded apps you are 4-8% slower than the -$1k cheaper Quad.
I agree with a lot of the posters on here though that the best money is either:
1. Pro user with mostly single threaded (CS4 etc) Quad 2.66
2. Video editing pro's / research OCTO 2.66. (I wish I could have afforded you)
To me the worst deal is the OCTO 2.26 because if you run any single threaded apps you are 4-8% slower than the -$1k cheaper Quad.
Thanks for your reply. 100% agreement as far as I am concerned.
If I should get a Green with the Mac Pro, it will switch from system to a TM disk.
Or I could put it into my coming Synology NAS.
Going for Black ones and a SSD for the Mac Pro at short term.
Final Suggestions:
As others have stated, the 2.66 is the sweet spot regardless if you are going Quad or Octo. The 2.93 on either end is a waste of money.
Simply, the difference between the 2.66 Quad and 2.93 Quad is imperceptible. If you ask, "But sometimes the 2.66 struggles at some tasks?" Well, if the 2.66 struggles then the 2.93 will struggle the same. The imperceptable speed bump is not going to solve it. Most of the time you can tell when a machine feels "peppier" or "snappier" than another. Not with the Quads. I have never tried the Octos first hand so I cannot say this with certainty, but looking at the scores it appears the story is unchanged.
What about the 2.26 Octo? Look at the scores and you will see the 2.26 Octo is a very poor all around performer next to the 2.66 Quad. So slow, in fact, the machine will feel outdated if not exclusively in multi thread. Make sure, then, that you really need the multi thread performance and you are willing to pay the price. Simply, you would only consider the 2.26 Octo if you could not afford the 2.66 Octo, because in everything else it'll feel outdated and you'll most likely wind up frustrated.
Okay, so if the 2.26 Octo is a very specific needs purchase, and the 2.66 Quad is a pretty remarkable buy, won't the 2.93 Quad be the middle ground, a happy medium between the two? No. It is cut and dry, you either want the 2.66 Quad or 2.66 Octo. There is no medium, because the 2.93 does not warrant the price, Quad or Octo. Get yourself a new Ikea desk and chair if you want to "feel" a difference.
What about the 2.8 Octo everyone is recommending? Honest to God, that is the worst buy of the bunch. The 2.26 Octo already feels outdated next to the 2.66 Quad, which makes the 2.8 Octo even worse. Look at the scores here:
So if you are even considering the 2.8 Octo, get the 2.66 Quad. The 2.66 Quad is an all around better performer, and where the 2.8 Octo is better, it is marginal. Remember, the 2.26 Octo already feels slow next to the 2.66 Quad, so the 2.8 Octo will feel like molasses, seeing that it is even slower than the 2.26 in single threaded apps, and only marginally faster than the 2.66 Quad in a very few multi threaded applications.
The bottom line is the 2.66 Octo or Quad are the best buys - period - no exceptions - unless you like throwing away money or your ego needs the boost. Contemplating the 2.93 on either end is a waste of money. The 2.26 Octo requires a very specific application and usage to be justified, and the 2.8 Octo is not even worth looking at seeing that the 2.66 Quad takes it at almost everything, and keeps pace with it even in multi thread.
As others have stated, the 2.66 is the sweet spot regardless if you are going Quad or Octo. The 2.93 on either end is a waste of money.
Simply, the difference between the 2.66 Quad and 2.93 Quad is imperceptible. If you ask, "But sometimes the 2.66 struggles at some tasks?" Well, if the 2.66 struggles then the 2.93 will struggle the same. The imperceptable speed bump is not going to solve it. Most of the time you can tell when a machine feels "peppier" or "snappier" than another. Not with the Quads. I have never tried the Octos first hand so I cannot say this with certainty, but looking at the scores it appears the story is unchanged.
What about the 2.26 Octo? Look at the scores and you will see the 2.26 Octo is a very poor all around performer next to the 2.66 Quad. So slow, in fact, the machine will feel outdated if not exclusively in multi thread. Make sure, then, that you really need the multi thread performance and you are willing to pay the price. Simply, you would only consider the 2.26 Octo if you could not afford the 2.66 Octo, because in everything else it'll feel outdated and you'll most likely wind up frustrated.
Okay, so if the 2.26 Octo is a very specific needs purchase, and the 2.66 Quad is a pretty remarkable buy, won't the 2.93 Quad be the middle ground, a happy medium between the two? No. It is cut and dry, you either want the 2.66 Quad or 2.66 Octo. There is no medium, because the 2.93 does not warrant the price, Quad or Octo. Get yourself a new Ikea desk and chair if you want to "feel" a difference.
What about the 2.8 Octo everyone is recommending? Honest to God, that is the worst buy of the bunch. The 2.26 Octo already feels outdated next to the 2.66 Quad, which makes the 2.8 Octo even worse. Look at the scores here:
So if you are even considering the 2.8 Octo, get the 2.66 Quad. The 2.66 Quad is an all around better performer, and where the 2.8 Octo is better, it is marginal. Remember, the 2.26 Octo already feels slow next to the 2.66 Quad, so the 2.8 Octo will feel like molasses, seeing that it is even slower than the 2.26 in single threaded apps, and only marginally faster than the 2.66 Quad in a very few multi threaded applications.
The bottom line is the 2.66 Octo or Quad are the best buys - period - no exceptions - unless you like throwing away money or your ego needs the boost. Contemplating the 2.93 on either end is a waste of money. The 2.26 Octo requires a very specific application and usage to be justified, and the 2.8 Octo is not even worth looking at seeing that the 2.66 Quad takes it at almost everything, and keeps pace with it even in multi thread.
Can you use regular size text like the rest of us?!
Also, you should stop making blanket generalizations. What's good value in your mind is not ideal for everyone. Believe it or not, there are people that place different value on things than you! Just because you can't "feel it" doesn't mean others cannot benefit from it.
As I've said before, there are people who's workload doesn't need more than a Mac Mini... so buying any kind of Mac Pro is a waste. Similarly there are those who would find a Quad sufficient and others who could benefit from an Octo core. And of those who are ideally suited for a quad, some may find value in a high clock speed while others might not. Choice is good. Your posts would be more valueable if you were in tune with the needs of your audience and not just pushing your own values on everyone in 18pt text.
Can you use regular size text like the rest of us?!
Also, you should stop making blanket generalizations. What's good value in your mind is not ideal for everyone. Believe it or not, there are people that place different value on things than you! Just because you can't "feel it" doesn't mean others cannot benefit from it.
As I've said before, there are people who's workload doesn't need more than a Mac Mini... so buying any kind of Mac Pro is a waste. Similarly there are those who would find a Quad sufficient and others who could benefit from an Octo core. And of those who are ideally suited for a quad, some may find value in a high clock speed while others might not. Choice is good. Your posts would be more valueable if you were in tune with the needs of your audience and not just pushing your own values on everyone in 18pt text.
I see, you are taking it personal all over again, which explains your constant insulting reactions, which you seem to withdraw when you feel it makes you look bad. Buddy, this is merely a voice of reason based on benchmarks. Unlike the voice of your ego which keeps insisting the 2.93 is the only way, and tries to rub it in everyone's face. You have even done this in this thread. Many are professionals here, and they work for a living. They are realistic and practical, not out to make themselves feel better than others by the power of their computer, nor spend all of their days posting on a forum to appear as a Mac god or guru to themselves and others. Don't worry I will be out of here soon, you will have your territory back. I only wanted to post some information for the professionals who need to make a quick decision. The reason for the larger font is so those who do want the information can find it quickly. No other reason. And BTW, I was asked to post this, you just have no idea by whom.
Final Suggestions:
As others have stated, the 2.66 is the sweet spot regardless if you are going Quad or Octo. The 2.93 on either end is a waste of money.
Simply, the difference between the 2.66 Quad and 2.93 Quad is imperceptible. If you ask, "But sometimes the 2.66 struggles at some tasks?" Well, if the 2.66 struggles then the 2.93 will struggle the same. The imperceptable speed bump is not going to solve it. Most of the time you can tell when a machine feels "peppier" or "snappier" than another. Not with the Quads. I have never tried the Octos first hand so I cannot say this with certainty, but looking at the scores it appears the story is unchanged.
What about the 2.26 Octo? Look at the scores and you will see the 2.26 Octo is a very poor all around performer next to the 2.66 Quad. So slow, in fact, the machine will feel outdated if not exclusively in multi thread. Make sure, then, that you really need the multi thread performance and you are willing to pay the price. Simply, you would only consider the 2.26 Octo if you could not afford the 2.66 Octo, because in everything else it'll feel outdated and you'll most likely wind up frustrated.
Okay, so if the 2.26 Octo is a very specific needs purchase, and the 2.66 Quad is a pretty remarkable buy, won't the 2.93 Quad be the middle ground, a happy medium between the two? No. It is cut and dry, you either want the 2.66 Quad or 2.66 Octo. There is no medium, because the 2.93 does not warrant the price, Quad or Octo. Get yourself a new Ikea desk and chair if you want to "feel" a difference.
What about the 2.8 Octo everyone is recommending? Honest to God, that is the worst buy of the bunch. The 2.26 Octo already feels outdated next to the 2.66 Quad, which makes the 2.8 Octo even worse. Look at the scores here:
So if you are even considering the 2.8 Octo, get the 2.66 Quad. The 2.66 Quad is an all around better performer, and where the 2.8 Octo is better, it is marginal. Remember, the 2.26 Octo already feels slow next to the 2.66 Quad, so the 2.8 Octo will feel like molasses, seeing that it is even slower than the 2.26 in single threaded apps, and only marginally faster than the 2.66 Quad in a very few multi threaded applications.
The bottom line is the 2.66 Octo or Quad are the best buys - period - no exceptions - unless you like throwing away money or your ego needs the boost. Contemplating the 2.93 on either end is a waste of money. The 2.26 Octo requires a very specific application and usage to be justified, and the 2.8 Octo is not even worth looking at seeing that the 2.66 Quad takes it at almost everything, and keeps pace with it even in multi thread.
I agree 100%. Too bad this has come out so late in the process...
I know what you mean, I wish I did it sooner when I was asked (weeks ago). I hope it helps someone, though...
I'm not taking it personally. I simply don't agree with some of what you are saying (and how you are saying it). Healthy debate is good in my opinion. I appologize if you feel I'm attacking you personally... that's not what I'm trying to do.
I do strongly encourage people to look at the quad (particularly the 2.93GHz quad) before jumping for an Octo machine unless their workload can really justify it. I think this is wise for the same reason you are trying to point out that people should carefully consider the 2.66 before spending more.
As with any purchase, there are diminishing returns. The Mac Pro line is no different. The best bang for the buck might be the 2.66 GHz Quad, but not everyone here is seeking the best bang for the buck. Some are seeking the top single-threaded performance (cost no object) while others are seeking the top multi-threaded performance (cost no object). To make a statement that these machines are a waste really just proves you don't understand the full extent of the audience in these forums.
That's hilarious. You are very good at trying to appear humble and calm aren't you? LOL I sure wish I kept your reply where you said I should get a mac mini if that's how I feel about the 2.93. Boy, you certainly were personally insulted by this thread even though I don't know you. It must be speaking to you. Ever heard the saying, what you are speaks so loud I can't hear a word you're saying? Hmmm, I think that's applicable.
That's hilarious. You are very good at trying to appear humble and calm aren't you? LOL I sure wish I kept your reply where you said I should get a mac mini if that's how I feel about the 2.93. Boy, you certainly were personally insulted by this thread even though I don't know you. It must be speaking to you. Ever heard the saying, what you are speaks so loud I can't hear a word you're saying? Hmmm, I think that's applicable.
Stop this bull s h i t. If anyone's personally insulted in this thread its you
The guy makes perfect sense in what he says.
WOW! You guys are really nuts. LOLStop this bull s h i t. If anyone's personally insulted in this thread its you
The guy makes perfect sense in what he says.
What's up with the 16 digit percentages? 13-14 of them are pretty much useless.
I wonder what the prices of the dual 2.8 GHz Harpertown are now.
If you guys don't like the conclusions he draws, just ignore them and draw your own. He is entitled to his opinions, just as you are to yours.
Regardless, I appreciate the benchmarks. It's going to help me make my decision later... whether or not the OP thinks it's a waste or not, that'll be up to me and my money to ultimately decide.
Regardless, I appreciate the benchmarks. It's going to help me make my decision later... whether or not the OP thinks it's a waste or not, that'll be up to me and my money to ultimately decide.
Great info.THANKS!!!!
Great info, I'm glad i went with the 2.66ghz and upped my ram to 6gb and upped my hd to 1tb and also upped to ATI radeon 4870.
Can't wait till it gets here
Great info, I'm glad i went with the 2.66ghz and upped my ram to 6gb and upped my hd to 1tb and also upped to ATI radeon 4870.
Can't wait till it gets here
Right then. I've started to hear the same things again and again... (namely "don't get the 2.93"!) and I'm convinced.
2.66 it is, Octo though as I want more than 8GB (which I can easily afford if I don't go for 2.93.... the more I think about it, the more silly I realise it'd be to drop that much money on such a small real world gains over the 2.66)
Probably won't be moving until Snow Leopard has proved itself (I'm interested in seeing how CS4 runs under SL as I'm on CS3), but here's the dream config:
Two 2.66GHz Quad-Core Intel Xeon
12GB (6x2GB)
1TB 7200-rpm Serial ATA 3Gb/s
ATI Radeon HD 4870 512MB
One 18x SuperDrive
Apple Wireless Mighty Mouse
Apple Keyboard with Numeric Keypad (British) and User's Guide (English)
AirPort Extreme Wi-Fi Card with 802.11n
£4153
2.66 it is, Octo though as I want more than 8GB (which I can easily afford if I don't go for 2.93.... the more I think about it, the more silly I realise it'd be to drop that much money on such a small real world gains over the 2.66)
Probably won't be moving until Snow Leopard has proved itself (I'm interested in seeing how CS4 runs under SL as I'm on CS3), but here's the dream config:
Two 2.66GHz Quad-Core Intel Xeon
12GB (6x2GB)
1TB 7200-rpm Serial ATA 3Gb/s
ATI Radeon HD 4870 512MB
One 18x SuperDrive
Apple Wireless Mighty Mouse
Apple Keyboard with Numeric Keypad (British) and User's Guide (English)
AirPort Extreme Wi-Fi Card with 802.11n
£4153
You can always work on HDD throughput with some sort of RAID implementation at a later time. It would give more of an overall performance boost than the higher clocked processors anyway, unless your applications are CPU dependent only.Right then. I've started to hear the same things again and again... (namely "don't get the 2.93"!) and I'm convinced.
2.66 it is, Octo though as I want more than 8GB (which I can easily afford if I don't go for 2.93.... the more I think about it, the more silly I realise it'd be to drop that much money on such a small real world gains over the 2.66)
Probably won't be moving until Snow Leopard has proved itself (I'm interested in seeing how CS4 runs under SL as I'm on CS3), but here's the dream config:
Two 2.66GHz Quad-Core Intel Xeon
12GB (6x2GB)
1TB 7200-rpm Serial ATA 3Gb/s
ATI Radeon HD 4870 512MB
One 18x SuperDrive
Apple Wireless Mighty Mouse
Apple Keyboard with Numeric Keypad (British) and User's Guide (English)
AirPort Extreme Wi-Fi Card with 802.11n
£4153
Must_feed_the_CPU's.