Big hesitation between octo 2.26 and octo 2.6

Discussion in 'Mac Pro' started by fredzy, May 6, 2009.

  1. fredzy macrumors newbie

    Mar 29, 2009
    Hi everyone

    I've got quite a big dilemma concerning the macPro i'll choose the next days ....
    I've search the forum, and didn't find any obvious advice about it (but a lot beetween quad VS octo)

    Here's the point :

    - i'm sure the 8 core is the good choice for me, as i often do some 3D rendering (maya and other app), and some AfterEffects

    - i'll also play games like starcraft2 and some heavy FPS

    - i believe next SL and application will take avantage of those core

    So my question is about the clockSpeed of the machine :

    Does the 2,26Ghz will fit my needs, or will be to slow for gaming in high resolutions (as i expect), even with the next gtx 285 ??

    Should i go for the 2.66, even if the 0.4 Ghz are so expensive (1000€ extra)
    Or is this useless ??

    I can afford this one :) but will be eating a lot of pasta and soup :(
  2. Tesselator macrumors 601


    Jan 9, 2008
    I dunno about the games but 400Mhz times 8 is 3.2Ghz extra when rendering a Maya scene. So the 2.66 octad would be about equal to a 10-core 2.26GHz if such a thing existed. :)
  3. Gonk42 macrumors 6502

    Jan 16, 2008
    near Cambridge
    I've been pondering the same question. I'm coming down more on the side of the 2.66 for a couple of reasons.

    1st, though it is a lot extra when looking at the chip price, I'll be buying a monitor, extra drives etc so the increase (as a %) of the system price seems more reasonable.

    It is not just an increase in clock speed, the 2.66 has a faster link both between processors (used when sharing data on caches etc) and the chip set and it also has a faster connection to memory though this is probably wasted with the Mac Pro where all memory is limited to the slower 1066 speed. It may
    emerge that the Pro can, in fact, use faster memory - there doesn't seem
    to be any definitive answers yet.

    Also, if you're spending a lot of money on a system you don't want to be feeling that it is not quite good enough. (I know this is illogical in the sense that the 1000 euros could buy lots of useful extras but you're probably not going to change your system for a few years).

    Rolls Royce used to say that you remember the quality long after you've forgotten the price!:)
  4. PowerPaw macrumors member

    Jan 15, 2009
    Unless you are going to be making money out of this venture rendering all day long, as subtly pointed out by Tesselator, you will essentially be 1000 Euros worse off - that is like getting another top notch computer or for that matter a 30" ACD; what has more bragging rights?

    There are plenty of benchmarks out there now but if there is no cash making bottom line to this, the decision is going to be purely based on user experience and propensity to spend. I can't imagine that its really going to be worth all those hard earned Euros is it - you will certainly notice the missing wad of cash though and will soon get sick of tinned ravioli.

    It does beg the question, were Apple being smart with the psychology behind introducing the 2.26GHz clock speed to the Mac Pro line-up ;-)

    If you are concerned about the games, you may find better advice from the gaming forums BTW.
  5. fredzy thread starter macrumors newbie

    Mar 29, 2009
    it will be a 2.66

    Thanks for your both answers Tesselator & Gonk :)

    It's the best choice for someone who don't want to change his machine in one or two year without been disapointed.

    I think i'll make a big diet :)
  6. fredzy thread starter macrumors newbie

    Mar 29, 2009
    Thanks to you too, PowerPaw

    I'm actually planning to make some monney with this machine, so i think (and hope) i'll find my monney back one day

    I also planned to build some virtual network n machines to make some security tests with different OS

    With those activityies my macBookPro allu became crazy and always ran above the 210° :( so i sold it a good price and plan to by a macPro

    For the ravioli, i'll switch to soupNBread when i'll get sick :)
  7. Abidubi macrumors 6502

    Feb 13, 2009
    CPUs have almost nothing to do with FPS regarding high resolution. The CPU does not work any harder at 640X480 than it does at 1920X1200. CPU speed sets a cap on your maximum FPS, and usually you get higher FPS at lower resolutions.

    If the 2.66 got 75 FPS at high resolution and 120 at low resolution, the 2.26 would probably get 74 FPS at high resolution and 100 FPS at low resolution.

    However, if the game is very CPU demanding (lots of physics), that might mean the 2.66 getting 60FPS at high vs 70 at low, in which case you'd get something like 45FPS at high vs 50 at low.

    I covered my ass for the next 5 years by getting the 2.93 quad. 4 or 8 cores, no and I mean NO game will care. There are barely any games that can take advantage of 2 cores.

Share This Page