2.93 quad or 2.26 oct i7 Mac Pro?

Discussion in 'Mac Pro' started by Cranka, Mar 4, 2009.

  1. Cranka macrumors newbie

    Jan 6, 2009
    Just out of curiosity, since it only a $200 difference, which would get you the better bang for you buck, the 2.93 quad or a 2.26 oct MP?

    I only ask because i'm on the verge of getting ready to order my machine and just want to know what the better deal will be. I plan on doing some heavy editing on this bad boy over the next couple of years, so durability is a plus.

    I know that the quad can only go to 8gb... which kind of sucks... but since you really only need 2 gb per core... will 8 gb suffice?

    What kind of speed differences will there be between using the two in Final Cut Pro?

    I would like to just go for the quad core and max out the ram with the money i save from not buying the oct... but will that computer be powerful enough knowing that there really won't be anything else that I can upgrade in it? (i've already decided that i'm getting the HD 4870) The whole only 8gb cap is kind of worrisome in trying to future proof myself :confused:



  2. jjahshik32 macrumors 603

    Sep 4, 2006
    I think you should get the 2.26ghz because its 8 cores as to 4 + its gainstown.
  3. nicolapo macrumors newbie

    Aug 1, 2006
    My $.02

    If you're going to spend this much money on a computer, at least get one that'll last.

    You really don't want to change Macs in 6 months because the limited RAM and cores can't handle your video editing needs anymore!

    Things like Final Cut Pro are apps that can always benefits from parallel computing. It's not my area so I don't know if the app is already optimized for multicores, but if it's not, it will be eventually.
  4. Cranka thread starter macrumors newbie

    Jan 6, 2009
    hmm, yeah, i was thinking going for the oct and then upgrading it over time to the spec's i want rather than right now....

    new question.

    at the apple store you can get the 2008 2.8ghz oct Mac Pro for $2299...

    should i just save some money and get that, or will there actually be a nice power difference between the 2.8 and the 2.26 oct's???
  5. nanofrog macrumors G4

    May 6, 2008
    If possible, I'd recommend waiting for benchmarks to be published comparing those two machines.

    Given the performance boost of 2.66GHz Xeon 5500 series and 2.8GHz Xeon 5400 series parts, I'd think it's going to be close (2.26 vs. 2.8). If the 2.26 is faster, it won't be by much IMO. If it were, I'd think Apple would have included the results in the performance page.
  6. Tallest Skil macrumors P6

    Tallest Skil

    Aug 13, 2006
    1 Geostationary Tower Plaza
    1. It's not Core i7.
    2. The price/performance ratio drops below optimal with the 2.93 right now, but should pop back up and be better than that of the 2.26 and 2.66 after Snow Leopard.
  7. nanofrog macrumors G4

    May 6, 2008
    Not necessarily, as comparing the '09 and '08 MP's with both running SL, and the same exact benchmarks, performance will still be due to hardware differences.

    All other things being equal, I'm not sure how much of a change on price/performance ratio it will have. The overall performance alone, irrespective of cost, will probably be another story, and the drool will flow. ;) :p
  8. slughead macrumors 68040


    Apr 28, 2004

    If you can, go into your /etc/hosts file and block Apple.com's "performance" page on the Mac Pro. It's full of LIES.

    Benchmarks are the only way of determining performance between processor generations. Also, note that the Quad MP only goes up to 8GB RAM, if that matters to you.
  9. nanofrog macrumors G4

    May 6, 2008
    Not necessarily "LIES". Another term I've seen on the forum today, is "optimistic". :p

    Seriously, it most likely has to do with how the machine was tested. They would use a stripped down machine with the absolute minimum software required to run the test, and tweak any settings possible.

    Unlike the real world, where it has every other driver, application, game, etc. a user would have installed. It makes a difference.

    You can do this yourself if you wish, on any machine. Run a test with the computer stripped to the bone (use as a baseline), and then a second time as you would normally run it. You'd almost certainly get a lower result the second time around.
  10. edgar macrumors newbie

    Mar 7, 2009
    I am worried about the price situation.
    At Dell, I can get a computer with an i7 processor at 2.66GHz for under $900 (instead of $2,500). The price difference between a 2.66 and 2.93GHz processor is usually about $400 just about anywhere. If I want 2x 2.66GHz processors, Apple charges $4,700 or for a bit faster at 2x 2,93GHz it is $5,900.

    Don't get me wrong, I have 8 Apple computers at home and 2 PC and lost track over the number of iPods (I also have 4 teenagers). I am happy to pay more for an Apple product but this becomes hard to justify.
  11. animaxcg macrumors regular

    Sep 10, 2008
    the mac pro have nehalem (gainstown) xeon processor which are Beater then i7. and cost a lot more
  12. Tallest Skil macrumors P6

    Tallest Skil

    Aug 13, 2006
    1 Geostationary Tower Plaza
    The performance increases barely justify the price, and not even on all models.
  13. slughead macrumors 68040


    Apr 28, 2004
    Well yeah, I would imagine they managed to get those numbers out of those machines. However, you have to wonder how many tests they ran, throwing out all but the ones with the best numbers. And, like you said, how many software modifications did they do and how did they favor one machine vs the other.
  14. iMacmatician macrumors 601

    Jul 20, 2008
    My thought too.
  15. nanofrog macrumors G4

    May 6, 2008
    Exactly. Not realistic, in terms of raw performance for users, as most people actually have applications they need installed on the machine. Not just a bare bones OS install and the minimum software to run the benchmark. :p

    Which is why independent 3rd party benchmarking can be more relevant. Especially real world applications testing. ;)

Share This Page