So, you get the idea, what do you all think the performance difference would be? Would a refurb dual 2.66 Ghz be comparable to a new single processor 2.8 Ghz quad core for most tasks?
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.
2.8 Ghz Quad Core vrs 2x2.66 Ghz Dual Core
- Thread starter miloblithe
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
It would depend on what your "most tasks" would be. Spec wise, there is most likely a marginal increase. Until some benchmarks are established, this question might not be answered thoroughly.
Anyone out there care to chime in?
I am on a 2.66 MP with 5 GB RAM. I don't feel that I, as a designer using CS3 FCE and iLife apps will really benefit from rev. B machine with 8 cores. I am going to keep on trucking with what I have and I know I'll be happy.
But that's me.
Cheers.
Joseph
Anyone out there care to chime in?
I am on a 2.66 MP with 5 GB RAM. I don't feel that I, as a designer using CS3 FCE and iLife apps will really benefit from rev. B machine with 8 cores. I am going to keep on trucking with what I have and I know I'll be happy.
But that's me.
Cheers.
Joseph
This is with Windows XP, so it may not apply, but an HP workstation with two dual-core CPUs were slower in most tasks then the HP workstation with one quad-core CPU. Clockspeeds were within a few hundred MHz.
I am guessing the overhead of two CPUs slowed down the system.
I am guessing the overhead of two CPUs slowed down the system.
Basically I'm asking because I'm trying to decide between a new 2.8Ghz quad vrs a refurb dual 2.66Ghz dual core. I figure the refurb would be cheaper, and my decision would definitely be swayed by the price difference. The quad 2.8 is $2299. Say the refurb is $1999, and it comes with 1GB of RAM vrs 2 and a 250GB HD vrs 320 on the new model, I think that's sounding like the $300 price difference is worth it for the new model.
I have a feeling that Apple is going to chose a price point that makes getting the newer (and more expensive) model "worth it."
I have a feeling that Apple is going to chose a price point that makes getting the newer (and more expensive) model "worth it."
I'd take the dual-channel FSB of the 2.66 over a single processor 2.8 with SSE4, but it depends how much you saturate the memory channels with what you do. It might be nice to be able to add a 2nd processor (if that is indeed possible) down the road and then you are back to dual channel and you will have 8 cores. I'd find out about the upgrade path and then decide.
Remember too, that if you might upgrade with a 2nd processor in the future, the 2.8 comes with double the RAM, and it is faster RAM at that (and more expensive).
Remember too, that if you might upgrade with a 2nd processor in the future, the 2.8 comes with double the RAM, and it is faster RAM at that (and more expensive).
And a new chipset. It uses the Stoakley platform instead of the old Bensley platform.
Agreed about the image processing and iLife, but if you are doing a lot of video, when it comes time to render, an octo would smoke your quad...and I do mean smoke.
Only $300 difference and one is a refurb? I'd go for the single 2.8 quad in a heartbeat. If at a later date you come across a good deal and can get another quad 2.8 cpu, you can upgrade to 8 cores. Also the baseline video card shoudl be better in the new one too.
The new one would especially be "worth it" if the additional processor could be added later. You would save on electric with the new one as the power requirements are less especially with one proc.
Reminds me of the G5 chipset changes-
I seem to recall that when the G5 PowerMac went from two single core chips to one dual-core chip, there were some situations when having two 1+Ghz FSBs was faster than the shared 1.15+ FSB on the dual cores. Granted there were other architectural changes that made the dual cores appealing to some (like PCI Express).
Interesting question...
I seem to recall that when the G5 PowerMac went from two single core chips to one dual-core chip, there were some situations when having two 1+Ghz FSBs was faster than the shared 1.15+ FSB on the dual cores. Granted there were other architectural changes that made the dual cores appealing to some (like PCI Express).
Interesting question...