Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Can anyone convince me to get a 3.0 instead of 2.8?

B

big dainjerus

macrumors regular
Original poster
Nov 9, 2007
168
0
Like some, if not all of you, this is going to be a very big purchase for me. There are many different configurations and features to choose from so I am just trying to chip away piece by piece. I know people here will say there is only a 7% performance increase etc, and that the $800 can be better spent elsewhere, and will advocate for the 2.8, but can anyone try to convince me to take the 3.0 over the 2.8?

I will be using this for Logic, cs3, aperture, final cut, soundtracking etc. Possibly some gaming, but mostly heavy music, video, photography editing. I will also have this as my machine for years to come and do not want to regret in any way getting the 2.8 when I could have gone for the 3.0. I am thinking a couple years down the road. I would put a premium on speed and performance. I would hate to have a "what if?" mindset at some point. Peace of mind may be worth the extra cash.

I always believe I have the fastest thing only to realize a year or two later is isn't all that fast (that said I have only owned imacs and powerbooks). I plan on getting some samsung HDs and extra ram from a 3rd party to save cost, and possibly Time Capsule to back up (I would be really bummed if I lost my media files or any drives crashed without backup). I have read about people mirroring their HDs but I feel like with the programs I would use that I wouldn't really have space for that as I would have to dedicate certain drives for specific purposes, leaving only TC or an external for a true back-up, am I just over thinking this?

Obviously there are other factors that will affect this, such as how I will use my HDs, which is another question (or thread) all together, but if someone wants please feel free to chime in how I could best set up my computer knowing my needs above and all the media files that will be on my computer, ie that sample instruments should have their own drive etc (or how I can configure to maximize performance of the apps like logic etc).

Thanks!
 
Well here is a 3.0 argument. The new 3.0 is faster than the last 8 core mac pro but the 2.8 is actually slower than the last 8-core mac pro so if you get the 3.0 you will be moving ahead. When you go to sell the 2.8 people will choose the old 3.0 over yours. Thats my take. That said, you get a free mac mini if you get the 2.8, extra $800 and all. :eek:
 
I too am in the 2.8 vs. 3.0 boat. But I have other concerns:

Some people here feel this issue has been settled, but I have yet to see definite proof that the Penryn part in the new 3.0 MP is the 80W Xeon (E5472) or the hotter 120W version (X5472). Identical except for thermal design. Some people say the X chip doesn't exist and some say "so what" the heat sinks can handle it, but it makes a difference to me. I have seen the X5472 for sale OEM and also when googled next to Mac Pro 3.0 so I'm not convinced Apple never bought any of them, considering they were snatching up all the 1600 FSB chips from Intel last fall.
 
Can you explain the difference between the x and the e, pros or cons regarding the heat or watts? Would the hotter version be louder and more prone to failures or something? Would it also be faster?
 
Honestly the more I think about it the 2.8 sounds better. You KNOW you are getting the 80 watt cpu, its $800 cheaper and its in stock everywhere so you can get it today. Might just pick me up one on the way home from work.
 
I ordered the 2.8GHz model. With the $800 that I saved, I'll buy a ton of extra RAM which will lead to a much larger improvement in performance for most of what I do. Whether a long video encoding job ends after six hours (2.8GHz) or five hours and 36 minutes (3.0GHz, assuming a linear change) isn't as important to, whereas having to wait all the time for memory to be swapped in and out while I am editing does make a big difference.

- Martin
 
macenforcer said:
Honestly the more I think about it the 2.8 sounds better. You KNOW you are getting the 80 watt cpu, its $800 cheaper and its in stock everywhere so you can get it today. Might just pick me up one on the way home from work.
Click to expand...

why is the 80 watt cpu preferred?
 
heat is the biggest killer in computers

2.8 is cool with me

3.0 is 120w

note that the only clarification i have found are these asian sites that claim the X5472 as the mac chip. (120w) and there are a bunch of em. maybe its all coming from one source. but it seems unlikely.

i'll be great with a 2.8. i would be even greater with a 3.0 if it was an 80w chip but it doesn't seem likely. it is not worth getting screwed with the extra 40w when it may not even be worth it for the extra processing power.

think about this...how great is it to get a chip that is guaranteed to run as cool as the 2.8?! i'm decided.
 
I'll just say this... I went from a G4 Dual 800MHz to the new MacPro 2x2.8GHz and the thing is super fast! Soooooo happy with it. Running the same programs you are using. So glad I didn't spend the extra $800 for the 3.0. Now I get to take that $800 and buy memory and internal HDs. Trust me, stick with the 2.8. You'll love it!
 
big dainjerus said:
Is it even possible for a 3.0 to run at 80 watts?
Click to expand...

Ya there is an E series of this chip (3.0) available, which runs at 80W. Though the question is wether Apple switched there 3.0's (120W) they were using to the newer, cooler chips for the new Mac Pro.
 
big dainjerus said:
I will also have this as my machine for years to come and do not want to regret in any way getting the 2.8 when I could have gone for the 3.0. I am thinking a couple years down the road. I would put a premium on speed and performance. I would hate to have a "what if?" mindset at some point. Peace of mind may be worth the extra cash.
Click to expand...

If you're thinking like that, why stop at the 3.0? Get the 3.2.
 
For what its worth...

With the two 2.8ghz chips you would run at a total electrical power of 160 watts or 1,401 KWH over the course of a year, assuming the system is used at 100% power for 100% of the time. Assuming electricity price of $.14 per KWH, this equates to $196.14.

All things being equal, the 3.0 (if running at 120watts) would consume 2,102 KWH at 100% utilization or $294.28. A nominal increase for most but this also equates to cooler temps, which in the case of those of us with a smaller office or confined space makes it more comfortable for the users. :)
 
macenforcer said:
Well here is a 3.0 argument. The new 3.0 is faster than the last 8 core mac pro but the 2.8 is actually slower than the last 8-core mac pro so if you get the 3.0 you will be moving ahead. When you go to sell the 2.8 people will choose the old 3.0 over yours. Thats my take. That said, you get a free mac mini if you get the 2.8, extra $800 and all. :eek:
Click to expand...

When 10.5.2 comes out, watch for the new 2.8 to be significantly faster than the Clovertown Octo (if Intel is to be believed regarding SSE4)
 
darthraige said:
I'll just say this... I went from a G4 Dual 800MHz to the new MacPro 2x2.8GHz and the thing is super fast! Soooooo happy with it. Running the same programs you are using. So glad I didn't spend the extra $800 for the 3.0. Now I get to take that $800 and buy memory and internal HDs. Trust me, stick with the 2.8. You'll love it!
Click to expand...

Since you are using the same programs as me, would you mind telling me how you plan to configure your HDs etc?
 
So I was perplexed with this same question as I stood at the apple store for an hour. Left with a 2.8 octo and a base white macbook. Total after discount $3600. NOT BAD. Get the 2.8 its a screamer. Using it now.
 
TyleRomeo said:
the 3.0 is a 80W chip, only the 3.2 is 120W. check wiki
Click to expand...

Where in Wiki are you looking?
The following is from Wiki:

Xeon.jpg
 
mmm never looked at the prices...that doesn't make sense that the 2.8 is more expensive...because it isn't more expensive with apple...oh well...too late now...
 
Bass108 said:
mmm never looked at the prices...that doesn't make sense that the 2.8 is more expensive...because it isn't more expensive with apple...oh well...too late now...
Click to expand...

That chart does not show the 2.8
And I wouldn't go by the prices either.
But just for the sake of conversation, the 2.8 in accordance with that chart is $797.
 
Topper said:
Mac Pro, 3.0GHz E5472, 8GB, 1.4TB, 8800 GT
Click to expand...

Am I reading your sig correctly? Do you have -- physically in your possession -- a new dual 3.0 Mac Pro and it definitely has the E5472? ...or... are you still waiting for it to be delivered and are assuming it's the E flavor of the 5472?

EDIT: Nevermind I just noticed the 8800GT so you must be waiting...
 
TyleRomeo said:
the 3.0 is a 80W chip, only the 3.2 is 120W. check wiki
Click to expand...

Topper said:
Where in Wiki are you looking?
The following is from Wiki:

Xeon.jpg
Click to expand...

And if it is on wikipedia, it must be true...right? I've seen a bunch of times in threads like these recently people making claims about either the E5472 or the X5472 not existing and citing wikipedia as their source. Whenever I read this I think of all the times in school someone asked a question that started with "well, on wikipedia it said..." and got laughed at.

I realize that there is no clear info on which processor apple is using in their 3.0 Harpertown, but as far as claiming either the E5472 or the X5472 doesn't exist, try looking on Intel (trust me, they know for sure what chips they make) instead of Wikipedia. While I find myself on wikipedia a lot, I don't claim it is a real source...if you really want to cite something you read on wikipedia, please just look at the source list on the page, then read, then cite those sources. If there aren't sources you can find that info on listed on the page, I really wouldn't count on wikipedia.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back