Considering a 3.2Ghz or 3.0Ghz Mac Pro, is it worth the xtra $800 for the faster Mac?

Discussion in 'Mac Pro' started by jeffreyk, Jun 12, 2008.

  1. jeffreyk macrumors regular

    jeffreyk

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2007
    Location:
    Highlands Ranch, CO, USA
    #1
    I'm a writer; and my main use for my new Mac Pro Desktop would be -- beside the usual web surfing, email, word processing, and video conferencing -- working on various projects which includes the putting together of entire contents of a book from cover to cover and/or desktop publishing projects with using either QuarkXpress or Adobe InDesign CS3 (I haven't decided what program to use yet, but it will be one of these two). I will also be adding 8GB of memory from OWC, as well, to speed things up a bit since the cost of the 8GB of memory is quite excellent at this time. I also would want to leave my options open for working on material that requires video or projects that require faster systems to run this sort of material. Basically, I would like to have a machine which is somewhat future-proof in case I want to work in many different areas over the next few years.

    I know on the Apple Store the faster 3.2Ghz system base price is $800 more than the 3.0Ghz system; so is the extra cost worth it for what I will be using it for (mainly various book projects)?

    This would be my first Mac Computer purchase-ever as I've been a life-long desktop Windows PC user. Thanks in advance for your help!
     
  2. Industries macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2008
    Location:
    North Carolina
    #2
    Why would you need a Mac Pro to write books?
     
  3. Mackilroy macrumors 68040

    Mackilroy

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2006
    #3
    Sounds like an iMac would be more your speed... Mac Pro sounds as though it'd be overkill.
     
  4. echoout macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2007
    Location:
    Austin, Texas
    #4
    I produce motion graphics for film, broadcast, and the web with a 3.0 8-core. I would agree with the others that you are the perfect candidate for an iMac, or a quad-core MacPro at the very most.
     
  5. Mr.Noisy macrumors 65816

    Mr.Noisy

    Joined:
    May 5, 2007
    Location:
    UK™
    #5
    If you set on getting a Mac Pro, go for the 2.8 quad and get a little extra RAM (from a third party supplier) the 3.0 or 3.2 seems a little overkill, that said go for the 2.8 octo get a little something extra, but as has been said, check out the iMac's ;)
     
  6. jeffreyk thread starter macrumors regular

    jeffreyk

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2007
    Location:
    Highlands Ranch, CO, USA
    #6
    I know the iMac is a very good computer, as my parents and brother own iMacs and I've used their iMacs while visiting them on vacation, but I like the flexibility of the Mac Pro especially in regards to monitor size. I'm actually keeping my custom-built Windows system for intensive gaming purposes and will be using my Mac for everything regarding work/productivity. I will be using one monitor for both systems via a dual-link DVI switcher so the flexibility of a Mac Pro is better suited for my purposes.
     
  7. kabunaru Guest

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2008
  8. yeroen macrumors 6502a

    yeroen

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2007
    Location:
    Cambridge, MA
    #8
    Then no, the extra $800 is definitely not worth it since nothing you're doing is going to be computationally intensive. Even if it were, you'd only be shaving off a few seconds here and there.

    In fact, you should save yourself even more money and go with the 2.8 Ghz model. Extra dollars will buy you bragging rights at most, and the thrill will only last as long as it takes Nehalem Mac Pro to enter the scene.
     
  9. Genghis Khan macrumors 65816

    Genghis Khan

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2007
    Location:
    Melbourne, Australia
    #9
    What sort of person earns enough to buy a superfluous computer, but is not seeking out a career in that field?
     
  10. ventro macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2006
    #10
    The 2.8 is actually faster than the 3.0 because the 3.0 is still the older architecture (Clovertown) left over from the previous gen mac-pro and the 2.8 and 3.2 are from the newer architecture (Harpertown)

    Check it out: http://www.barefeats.com/harper.html
     
  11. eXan macrumors 601

    eXan

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2005
    Location:
    Russia
    #11
    lol what? You need to re-read the page you gave a link to.

    To OP: you'd be forever satisfied with a quad-core Mac Pro and 4 GB of RAM. Even Mini will work fine in your case if you don't want a built-in display in the iMac.
     
  12. Mackilroy macrumors 68040

    Mackilroy

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2006
  13. Silencio macrumors 68020

    Silencio

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    NYC
    #13
    There is something to be said about futureproofing (though the future is never guaranteed, of course!), having the ability to easily swap out hard drives, put in a second optical drive, add some PCIe cards, whatever turns you on.

    For your needs, I'd say the low-end single-quad 2.8GHz machine is more than sufficient.
     
  14. ventro macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2006
    #14
    My mistake. This impression came from some of the early threads right after the Early 2008 Mac Pro came out when people who ordered their new Mac Pros reported that they were getting the Clovertown processors with their mac pros instead of Harpertown. Obviously Apple had a few left over and was cleaning stock. But I guess that was only a temporary thing.
     
  15. OMFG HAXX! macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2008
    #15
    8 core? ;)
     
  16. Mackilroy macrumors 68040

    Mackilroy

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2006
    #16
    Hahaha, you're right. I didn't even think about that. I sure did mean 8-core. :)
     
  17. Firefly2002 macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2008
    #17
    I don't think the extra $800 is worth it to anyone, unless you run absolutely time-critical applications and get paid for how fast you can do things.

    As mentioned, you're probably better suited for an iMac, but as you seem to want a Mac Pro, I'd get a Quad 2.8..... or at most an 8-core 2.8. You'd never notice the speed diff between a 2.8 and a 3.2.... in fact, I don't think anyone would.
     
  18. Catfish_Man macrumors 68030

    Catfish_Man

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2001
    Location:
    Portland, OR
    #18

    Future Proofing, v. : Saving enough money to buy a new machine when your current one starts feeling obsolete.
     
  19. schnee macrumors member

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2008
    Location:
    SF
    #19
    I do work that requires far more 'grunt' than you and a single quad-core 2.8 is more than sufficient.

    The faster CPU Pros are cost-effective only for people who make money when their machine is pegged at 100% load for several hours a day - i.e. video, 3d rendering, etc.

    Hope this helps.
     
  20. OMFG HAXX! macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2008
    #20
    LOL, very good description of future proofing :D:D
     
  21. powermac_daddy macrumors 6502

    powermac_daddy

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2005
    Location:
    Philadelphia & Northern California
    #21
    i am using a macbook pro sr 2.4 for 3D modeling. it's slow sometimes, but i get my stuff done. Write book with a 3.2 mac pro? if you have the money, go for it. otherwise, you wanna buy my MBP? i'll preinstall whatever program you want. CS3. web/graphic... you name it.
     
  22. hajime macrumors 68040

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2007
    #22
    I recommend you to buy the highest-end Macbook Pro. You can write books anywhere you like.
     

Share This Page