so i ordered my 3.2ghz mac pro with the 8800 the first week they came out and now after looking at the barefeats.com comparing the 3.2 and the 2.8 i see that for the extra $1250 that i am paying that its not a huge speed bump so i have been debating about downgrading to the 2.8 but i am unsure if this is a wise decesion i will be using this computer for the next 5+ years so its highly unlikely that i will be reselling this machine.. btw with the 1250 i save i would be getting Adobe's Master Collection... any advice if this is a good idea or not? thanks in advance
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
change of mind?
- Thread starter dblester
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Listen, if all your doing is trying to get a better resale value, the $1250 isn't worth it. Not by any means. Think about it. In six years, the $1250 you invest not amount to nearly that much of an increased resale value.
Myself... Even though I could easily use the 3.2, the $1250 isn't worth the difference... even to hold a resale value. I don't mind waiting a few seconds longer here and there and save $1250 for other expenses... like in your case the Adobe Master Collection.
(at least this is how I justified not getting the 3.2
)
Myself... Even though I could easily use the 3.2, the $1250 isn't worth the difference... even to hold a resale value. I don't mind waiting a few seconds longer here and there and save $1250 for other expenses... like in your case the Adobe Master Collection.
(at least this is how I justified not getting the 3.2
)
Very true. If you are trying to justify it when it isn't an absolute *need*, then you shouldn't worry about choosing another option. The 3Ghz config is also a good idea to consider if you still need some extra power in your machine.
well imo from what ive read from barefeats.com the 2.8 is faster then the 3.0 from the speed tests that ive seen. since the 2.8 is harper and the 3.0 is clover.
They only tested the 2.8 and 3.2 on the "Early 2008's"
The 3.0 Clover was last year's machine. And "Yes" the Harper 2.8 beats the 3.0 Clover.
http://www.barefeats.com/harper.html
The 3.0 Clover was last year's machine. And "Yes" the Harper 2.8 beats the 3.0 Clover.
http://www.barefeats.com/harper.html
I also agree, get the 2.8. I've heard there is not that much of a big difference, other than the hefty cost. The extra minutes you would be saving is not really worth the extra cash, for me at least.
Forthe extra $1250 you could get the 2.8 and a macBook for when you are out and about...I do not think it is worth the premium.
And in 5 years there will be something totally mind blowing making your computer resale not so great anyways.
As someone else said, that 3.0 was the OLD machine, the new 3.0 is faster than the new 2.8 of course.
I ordered the 3ghz one. I could take the hit for those 0.2ghz, as it will matter for the singleprocess-applications I use, but the next 0.2ghz to get to 3.2ghz is just not worth it to me.
Very true. I almost jumped on the 3Ghz one, but after the bearfeats and MacWorld benchmarks, i reconsidered. The numbers were too close. Being Im on a budget myself I reconsidered and just went with the 2.8 just to save some cash, otherwise i would have went with the 3.