Advice I received from macforums about 2006 Mac Pro

Discussion in 'Mac Pro' started by lovehaight, Nov 24, 2009.

  1. lovehaight macrumors member

    Jul 22, 2008
    From a macforums moderator (in response to my query about 2006 Pro 2x2gz zen 4gRAM)
    There is no way on this green earth I could ever recommend someone spend what is the equivalent of $1150 U.S. on a 3 year old computer. Don't care what it is or has in it. Save your money.

    For only another £160 you can get a brand new iMac with a 3.06Ghz Core2Duo. Wait another 2-3 months can probably get it as a refurb for only an extra £60 over the price of that 3 year old machine, and have the full Applecare warranty for 12 months.

    Take the cash you have, sell the G4 and the monitor and bet you've got almost enough to step up to the 27" and maybe even to the core i5 processor. Betcha, it'll swallow that 2Ghz zeon.
  2. MrCheeto macrumors 68030


    Nov 2, 2008
    EASY! Not to mention the iMac beats the Mac Pro up and down in cost effectiveness, the display is unbeatable.

    Edit: Have we really reached the point where our pro machines can be supplanted with iMacs?! FINALLY?! ZOAH MEY GAH!!! The last time an iMac competed with traditional machines in power was the release of the original G3's
  3. MrCheeto macrumors 68030


    Nov 2, 2008
    I would NEVER recommend a G5 iMac to anybody, too many known issues.

    Besides, if you're going to go Mac at LEAST go Intel. Intel is SIGNIFICANTLY more efficient AND you are limiting your options when using PowerPC. You can't use Snow Leopard and certain applications. Intel can use BOTH programs, PowerPC or x86-64.

    Just advice.
  4. lovehaight thread starter macrumors member

    Jul 22, 2008
    my mistake, thought it was intel...I have heard both sides .. good arguments..but surely a quad 2gz mac pro is better than any imac? with its 256 video,etc ,,display aside....
  5. nanofrog macrumors G4

    May 6, 2008
    PPC is even worse. They're already stuck with Leopard as the latest (and last) OS that will work with it.

    With your budget restrictions, you might want to consider making a hackintosh. Seriously. It seems the Mac systems you want/need are out of budget.

    You can do a lot with $1150USD in terms of either a ready made system or DIY, if you're up to it. Add OS X for $29USD, and the rest of the parts needed to hack are free.

    There's a few resources to look at:

    It's not all of them, but enough to get you started. ;)
  6. MrCheeto macrumors 68030


    Nov 2, 2008
    For a start, going Intel is the smart route. The most powerful iMac G5 is less than 1/3 as powerful as the LEAST powerful Mac Pro. Even the most powerful PowerMac G5 doesn't touch the lowest Mac Pro.

    The 2.8ghz Aluminum iMac 24" from 2007 surpasses the quad you're talking about by just a hair. For 1,100 clams you're bound to get fixed up quite nice.
  7. lovehaight thread starter macrumors member

    Jul 22, 2008
    i've gotten quite a few people saying the 2006 Pro 2gzx2 Zeon 4gRAM is a good machine for £690 and that it will eat a imac for breakfast
  8. MrCheeto macrumors 68030


    Nov 2, 2008
    True in most cases, but the 2.8ghz 2007 Aluminum iMac outperforms that specific model...

    It's your decision.
  9. Dr.Pants macrumors 65816


    Jan 8, 2009
    Not to mention you can upgrade the processors in the MacPro 1,1 to the Intel 53xx series for faster clocks and dual-quad-core. True, there will be upgrades for the iMac, but its up in the air that the mobo in the iMac will support Westmere (and thus a 6-core processor). Of course, the comparison is all about sheer multithreaded processing power. Something to think about if one ever encodes video or the like.
  10. chrono1081 macrumors 604


    Jan 26, 2008
    Isla Nublar
    Depends on what iMac but if your talking recent

    Plus for that money I would never buy that. Not near enough power. Funny too i just noticed the specs you have listed are what my work machine (running windows) has and I can tell you from personal experience its NOT powerful. My MBP has much more power then my work machine. (Even though its slightly skewed because Mac OS runs much less resource intensive then Win XP).
  11. MrCheeto macrumors 68030


    Nov 2, 2008
    Um...I'm sorry but back up there. Equal hardware is NOT equal performance. Sure your work computer may have equal RAW power but the OS is what decides ultimately what the end user sees.

    It's like a transmission in a car, it can be a huge factor in the speed and power-management your car is capable of, even though the raw power comes from the engine.

    'nix systems smoke Windows every time.

    The original Mac Pro (the model you're wanting) has power about equal to a 2.8ghz Unibody MacBook Pro, considering what I've gotten from my 2.53ghz 13" MacBook Pro I'm going to say it has the power for editing. I don't know what software you're using but in my experience I've NEVER had a hang up and I produce videos on my MacBook Pro all the time while running a heap of other programs as well.

    It has the power, the price turns me off. If I were you I'd look for an iMac to get a good quality screen, a great form factor and save space.

    Hell as a matter of fact, let me know what you want me to do on my MacBook Pro so that I can time it or benchmark it for you, considering it's less powerful than that Mac Pro I'd figure it's a close measure.
  12. gugucom macrumors 68020


    May 21, 2009
    Munich, Germany
    Christ, this is thread no 4 in 24h on this issue.

    This guy is comparing Apples and bananas. If you compare prices you need to stay in the pricing structure of a country. So if you want to consider to spend on a new iMac you need to check UK prices versus the £690 of the MacPro. You will find that you need to spend 1,600 upwards to get a quad iMac. That is 910 difference. If you spend 200 you will be able to fit used 3,0 GHz Xeons that will beat the 2,66 GHz core i5s in the iMac.

    The display is a totally different matter. If you can find the funds or pay the interest on borrowed money by all means the 27" display makes a new iMac an interesting choice.
  13. Cindori macrumors 68040


    Jan 17, 2008
    690 gbp is a reasonable price for that mac.

    you can't compare mac pro to imac, mac pro uses Xeon processor and ecc ram, so it is more stable, but more expensive.

    btw, stop spamming threads
  14. pastrychef macrumors 601


    Sep 15, 2006
    New York City, NY
    Agreed. I'm tired of seeing new threads about this £690 Mac Pro.

    At this point, I'm inclined to recommend a nice Dell for the guy.
  15. JollyRogers macrumors regular

    Mar 12, 2008
    Until I can replace the video card in an imac I won't buy one. I'll build a hack or buy a MP to replace my current MP... but not that. I don't like laptops but understand their purpose. Hate all in 1's. Regardless, the OP is right, the new iMac is a better deal then a used 06MP.
  16. cryingrobot macrumors regular

    Mar 26, 2008
    From 2006 MacPro owner

    Just my two cents - 2006 2x2.66 can do pretty much anything you need very well though it obviously will not match up well in intensive number crunching exercises compared with the new 09 Mac Pros. I can probably get two more years out of the machine but the end of the road is close.

    I equate 1 year of a computer's life to be equal to 20 years of a humans life. First year is when the computer is in its prime and most fit. In its second year, the computer is still formidable but no longer the top of its class. By the third year, the computer is no longer a contender and simply struggling to find relevance. By the fourth year, the computer is relegated to the most menial tasks. The 2006 Mac Pro is approaching its 4th year and its still formidable.

    You can get a better graphics card (4870) on the 2006 as well. However, forget trying to upgrade the CPU. Upgrading to Octo will cost you another USD600 minimum and the computer might see a dead end anyway if Mac stops supporting E32.

    If you can pick up the Mac Pro for less than USD1000 then it might be worth while.
  17. MrCheeto macrumors 68030


    Nov 2, 2008
    Is it at the point in its life where the Mac Pro will be shoved in a decrepit shelter and forced to live on cat food because Jimmy Carter was wa***ng around with our senior care reform?

    Or is it reaching a time where it's inappropriate for the Mac Pro's granddaughter to sit on his lap even after she's 17?

    In between these times? Not there yet? Where we at?
  18. lovehaight thread starter macrumors member

    Jul 22, 2008
    I went ahead and bought was advertised as 2gz but the post it on it says 2.66 ghz..the serial number is CK7100EUXZS..according one site its actually a 2007 Irish model! can anyone find out for sure? thanks quite excited now
  19. MrCheeto macrumors 68030


    Nov 2, 2008
    It doesn't say anything more than "Mac Pro" at Apple with that serial. What you need is the MODEL number.

    I would imagine EU in CK7100EUXZS means european market model...
  20. cal6n macrumors 68000


    Jul 25, 2004
    Gloucester, UK
    From here

    Are you likely to stop griefing us now and just start getting to love yourMac?

    *edit* Congrats, by the way. A 2.0 GHz would be good at that price. A 2.66 GHz is a steal! What graphics card is in it?
  21. MrCheeto macrumors 68030


    Nov 2, 2008
    Made in Ireland...

    You know what else was made in Ireland?

  22. lovehaight thread starter macrumors member

    Jul 22, 2008
    Yes I promise to love it! one final query, will this model run a 64 bit kernel natively? thanks
  23. MrCheeto macrumors 68030


    Nov 2, 2008
    It's a crap shoot. All of my Macs are 64bit but they boot Snow Leopard in 32 bit mode.

    Some computers will run 32bit better than 64, no matter what you'd like to think 64bit is not always the fixall.

    It doesn't matter, it will automatically boot to whichever is deemed better for your computer by Apple.
  24. lovehaight thread starter macrumors member

    Jul 22, 2008
    OK, was unsure of that..overall I am very pleased, the machine is2.66gz instead of 2gz and is a full year younger than expected.

Share This Page