2.66 vs 3.0 Quad

Discussion in 'Mac Pro' started by LightMast, Apr 16, 2007.

  1. LightMast macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2007
    #1
    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.
     
  2. twoodcc macrumors P6

    twoodcc

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2005
    Location:
    Right side of wrong
    #2
    i personally would just get the 2.66 and more RAM.....but if you have the money for the 3.0....i guess it would last longer in the long run
     
  3. dex22 macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2003
    Location:
    Round Rock, TX
    #3
    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.
     
  4. LightMast thread starter macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2007
    #5
    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.
     
  5. Fearless Leader macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2006
    Location:
    Hoosiertown
    #6
    processors are most diffidently user replaceable.
     
  6. sdhollman macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2005
    Location:
    Toronto, Ontario
    #7
    Get the 8 core with no RAM! Dose anyone here search. This is like the bazillianth post of this kind. Hell even I did a similar one yesterday. :(
     
  7. LightMast thread starter macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2007
    #8
    Thanks for your help folks.




    Especially Steven Hollman's constructive response, without which I would have been deaf, blind, and dumb.
     
  8. Silentwave macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    May 26, 2006
    Location:
    Gainesville, FL
    #10
    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.
     
  9. nurfen macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2007
    #11
    Of course 2.66 with more RAM. 3 GHz is too expensive for the performance bump.
     
  10. Father Jack macrumors 68020

    Father Jack

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2007
    Location:
    Ireland
    #12
    I totally agree, that's why I went for the 2.66 GHz and 6 Gb of ram. :)

    FJ
     
  11. synth3tik macrumors 68040

    synth3tik

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2006
    Location:
    Minneapolis, MN
    #13
    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
     
  12. synth3tik macrumors 68040

    synth3tik

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2006
    Location:
    Minneapolis, MN
    #14

    So, ah, hey pot, what color was that kettle again?:D
     
  13. speekez macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2003
    #15
    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.
     
  14. homestar macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2007
    #16
    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.
     
  15. LightMast thread starter macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2007
    #17
    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?
     
  16. Tattoo macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2005
    Location:
    Miami, Florida
    #18

    lol@8 Cores with no Ram ;) :D
     

Share This Page