2.8 vs 3.0?

Discussion in 'Mac Pro' started by ventro, Feb 3, 2008.

  1. ventro macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2006
    #1
    I'm a little confused by what I should choose (2.8 versus 3.0) for a new Mac Pro.

    I've read that the new 2.8 uses a new design compared to the 3.0, which makes it faster than the (old design) 3.0, even though it is 0.2ghz less and $750 less.

    Is this true? Which is faster, the 2.8 or the 3.0? Is the 3.0 option on the Mac Pro now a harper or a clover 3.0?
     
  2. bigbossbmb macrumors 68000

    bigbossbmb

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2004
    Location:
    Pasadena/Hollywood
    #2
    Get the 2.8ghz... The money you save can be put towards RAM and HDs.

    The 2.8 octo (Harper) is very close in speed to the older (Clover) 3.0 octo. Apple doesn't sell the older design other than in the refurb store.
     
  3. ventro thread starter macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2006
    #3
    Wait so the new 3.0 is Harper as well? I thought it was:

    2.8 - Harper
    3.0 - Clover
    3.2 - Harper

    but you are saying they are ALL harper? Then why didn't barefeats benchmark the 3.0 as well?
     
  4. faumble macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2008
    #4
    they are all harper, I think barefeats was comparing it to the old clover 3.0
     
  5. ventro thread starter macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2006
    #5
    Oh. Kinda strange that they would bench 2 new processors and one old one. I want to know how much faster the 3.0 is than the 2.8! It could be closer to the 3.2 side or closer to the 2.8 side! :(
     
  6. fernmeister macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2007
    #6
    The way I see it is, if you have to ask then get the 2.8 As others have said, the price difference will go towards more RAM (and maybe other upgrades) which in the real world will make more difference.
     
  7. bigbossbmb macrumors 68000

    bigbossbmb

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2004
    Location:
    Pasadena/Hollywood
    #7
    It's probably right in the middle. They benched the old 3.0 because it was the fastest offering before the update. Barefeats benched the new 2.8 and 3.2 because they were the base and top ends. No real need to do the 3.0 because you can get a pretty good idea from looking at the 3.2 and 2.8 (which really aren't that far apart).

    IMO people that absolutely need the fastest proc for work-related reasons will grab the 3.2. I think everyone else would be more than satisfied with the 2.8.

    I don't see the reason to drop $700 on speed boost of less than 5% (real world). Getting 8 sticks of RAM and 1TB Samsung F1's are both be a better investments than the extra 200mhz of clock speed.
     
  8. aaronw1986 macrumors 68030

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2006
    #8
    Not worth the difference, 200Mhz more per core...stick with the 2.8
     
  9. ErikAndre macrumors 6502a

    ErikAndre

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2007
    Location:
    Florida
    #9
    True, that's the same thing I said, therefore I went with the 2.8 myself. Of course, when i told him it was only a difference of 200Mhz per core, his response was "Yeah, 200Mhz times eight!" I then had to explain that it really was only a 200Mhz difference based on the numbers, 32/64bit, etc... :rolleyes:
     
  10. krye macrumors 68000

    krye

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2007
    Location:
    USA
    #10
    For $800, the 3.0 is not worth it. I'd rather have the 2.8 and blow $800 on memory and hard drives upgrades. Even and additional 4G of 3rd party memory is around $200 nowadays.

    Yeh, think about it, for about $400, you can have a few more gigs of memory and at least 1 or 2 terrabyte drives (OEM)! I bet with 4G of memory, the 2.8 is actually faster than the 3.0.

    Yeh, I'm going 2.8 and upgrading.
     

Share This Page