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

2.66 vs 3.0 Quad

L

LightMast

macrumors regular
Original poster
Apr 16, 2007
126
0
Will I see a huge performance increase in FCP and motion between these two processors? The 2.66 will allow me to add significantly more ram to the machine, so I am leaning in that direction.
 
Another vote for more RAM. In a couple of years time you can put some low end quad core 4GHz chips in it to extend its life, and they'll be a couple of hundred each by then. Memory you'll use now.
 
Has anyone confirmed that the chips are user upgradeable in these mac pro's?

Do the 2.66 and 3.0 share the same cache specs?


Thanks for your input guys, it's really a tremendous help.
 
Thanks for your help folks.




Especially Steven Hollman's constructive response, without which I would have been deaf, blind, and dumb.
 
dex22 said:
Another vote for more RAM. In a couple of years time you can put some low end quad core 4GHz chips in it to extend its life, and they'll be a couple of hundred each by then. Memory you'll use now.
Click to expand...

Just one small point....

Sockets change. Chipset requirements change too. While Clovertown is compatible with the current chipset, Penryn-based 45nm server chips might require an updated chipset, and after that there will be a CPU interface change.
 
I personally decided on the 2.66. The 3 would have been nice but was not worth the price to me. so instead I was able to bump the RAM up to 4 Gigs, so I would vote for the 2.66
 
I went back and forth between 2.66 and 3.0. I'm upgrading from a G3 for working on photo files, etc. Although the 3.0 has a nice ring to it on paper, saving a few seconds here and there was not enough to justify the $700+ upgrade price. I researched it and researched it, and the overwhelming majority said go for the 2.66.

Could I afford the 3.0ghz? Yes. But the $700 seems better spent on more RAM, the ATI upgrade, monitor calibration tool, camera goodies, etc.
 
I'll add my voice to the chorus...

I too went with the 2.66ghz. Upgraded the RAM, plan on steadily upgrading that as needed.

The other thing - and I never see this mentioned here: the additional cash I saved let me spend more on software. I ended up purchasing CS3 Web Premium instead of the small a la carte selection I had planned.
 
Thanks, I went and played with a 2.66 running FCP and Motion for a while at the mac store today. It's pretty powerful even with 1gb of Ram!

One thing, when I added a third video track, without changing opacity or anything it would no longer realtime render, it just showed a blue screen saying Not Rendered in the viewer. Can anyone give me any insight on why it would real time render mroe than two tracks?
 
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