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

Difference between 3.0 and 3.2?

G

Graphis

macrumors member
Original poster
Nov 23, 2007
87
0
PLEASE: Don't try and be smart and say 0.2!

OK, like everyone else, I'm just ecstatic that the beast is here. And it's beautiful, more than I could have hoped for. However, the slight increase in prices now means I have a little less to play with. I had intended to go for the top of the line, the 3.2GHZ, and I was also hoping to get a 30" Cinema Display, NVIDIA GeForce 8800 graphics card, 500GB hard drive, wireless keyboard, and AppleCare. This was the bare minumum. RAM I was going to wait a while for, and get extra RAM from a 3rd party vendor when prices have dropped a little.
Total price for the above specs is approx £4350.

However, I also really need a new printer (approx £200), and if I buy the above I can't afford one.

I could go for the 23" display of course, but I've always wanted a 30". There probably isn't a better time to get one. I really need the 8800 card for the work I do, the AppleCare would be a good idea, and anything I'd save by downgrading the keyboard or hard drive would be negligible.

So I was thinking, if I got the 3.0GHZ instead of the 3.2GHZ, I could save about £500, thus giving me enough for the printer. My reasoning is that surely the difference between the 3.0 and the 3.2 isn't that great? I mean, how much difference could 0.2GHZ really make? Sure, it obviously does make some difference, or they wouldn't make one, but would I really notice it that much? Anybody got any suggestions/advice?

The work I do is primarily graphic design/illustration/3D.
 
There IS a better time to get a display: wait until after MacWorld when they will probably update them. Perhaps prices will go down.

As for the 3.0 vs. 3.2, it's 200 MHz. You're better off buying more RAM from a third party afterwards then spending more money at Apple for 200 MHz.
 
adamfishercox said:
There IS a better time to get a display: wait until after MacWorld when they will probably update them. Perhaps prices will go down.

As for the 3.0 vs. 3.2, it's 200 MHz. You're better off buying more RAM from a third party afterwards then spending more money at Apple for 200 MHz.
Click to expand...

Good point: I suppose I could continue with the 23" I've currently got, at least for a couple more months.... but then, is it worth it, if the 200MHZ doesn't make that much difference? What's better to have, extra MHZ or extra desktop space?
 
MacWorld is in a week, so I'd just wait until after Steve announces the new products to buy anything... who knows, you might want something different.

What I would do is wait until the 15th. See what new products are announced. Then get a 3.0 GHz Mac Pro, with the bare miniumu amount of RAM. With the amount you save on that, go for a 30" (which also might be cheaper) and a printer. If you still have money left over in your budget, by a 4 GB RAM stick or tow for your new Mac pro.
 
What are you doing with your 3.0 Mp? Also, how many gigs of ram are you running? I use a 3.0 mp with 8gb of ram at work (audio stuff) and the MP never slows down.

If you need more speed, you should think about upgrading your ram.
 
Yeah, in fact, you might even want to keep the processor at 2.8 GHz. With the money you save, you can really add RAM (BUT DO NOT BUY FROM APPLE) and you will see much more speed increases than with 3.0 and not as much RAM.
 
Hmmm, I was just looking at Computer Warehouse's site, to compare prices. Prices aren't that much different to Apple (a saving of about £25), BUT they do offer a 'Pay 10% now and the balance within 6 months' deal, which would give me another six months to find the extra cash, which should be easy enough, and would mean I could get my wishlist right away. Could be what I'm looking for?
 
Go with my advice a few posts up. You wont regret it. In any case, wait until Macworld is all said and done.
 
Even across 8 cores 3.0 -> 3.2 GHz is only ~ 7% systemic speed increase. Calling 200 MHz X 8 cores 1.6 GHZ is fuzzy math.
 
The difference between 2.8 and 3.2 is negligible, let alone between 3.0 and 3.2. I dont get why apple didnt do a 2.4/2.8/3.2 lineup (or along those lines) rather than speeds so close together. I'd save even more money if i were you go for the default 8x2.8.
 
newtech said:
Even across 8 cores 3.0 -> 3.2 GHz is only ~ 7% systemic speed increase. Calling 200 MHz X 8 cores 1.6 GHZ is fuzzy math.
Click to expand...

same as saying 3.0->3.2 is only ~7% increase

3/3.2= .93

(3*8)/(3.2*8) = .93

3*8=24 and 3.2*8=25,6 which is a 1.6Ghz difference

guess you are using the same fuzzy math to compare the differences lol
 
TheThirdMan said:
The difference between 2.8 and 3.2 is negligible, let alone between 3.0 and 3.2. ... I'd save even more money if i were you go for the default 8x2.8.
Click to expand...

That's my thinking and why I'm not sweating going for a 2.8 instead of a 3.0 or 3.2 ... I could buy a boatload of RAM or even another monitor for the price difference.
 
astrostu said:
That's my thinking and why I'm not sweating going for a 2.8 instead of a 3.0 or 3.2 ... I could buy a boatload of RAM or even another monitor for the price difference.
Click to expand...

See, that's what I'm starting to think. For the vast majority of my professional work, I use Adobe CS2 (at the moment). While I expect to see an improvement when I switch to MP, I don't expect a days work to only take 2 hours, for example. Where I really expect to see a difference is in 3D rendering times: and I'm wondering if this is where I'd see the benefit of that extra 0.2GHZ, or would it improve rendering times better if I bought a lower spec and filled it up with RAM? Which makes the greatest difference?
 
If the clock speed is 7% higher, you're going to see at MOST a 7% increase in performance with the 3.2, but that's only if what you're doing maxes out the CPUs. If what you're doing is RAM/drive speed/network speed/graphics card bound, then you're going to see exactly 0% increase with the 3.2.

IMO, going from a 23" to a 30" display will make a lot bigger difference in your experience.
 
Can you do some other work while it renders? Or even take a coffee break? While your machine might end up frighteningly fast, we still have 8 fingers, 2 thumbs, and need to attend to various bodily needs and functions. :eek::D
 
Processor is nothing without RAM. Get RAM over processor. 2.8 Ghz is fine. Plus, sice CS2 isn't Intel Native, theres only so fast you can make it go.
 
I think a 2.8 x 8 would still be frightenly fast for you... unless maybe you are also doing crazy video rendering or something even more processor crazy...

A 2.8 8 core instead ... plus a 30 inch monitor would save you a bundle.. AND with that bundle you could buy your new printer and still have a huge chunk left over to buy yourself TONS of ram, which I think will help your CS2 (or in the future CS3 i guess) times A LOT more then the .4 processor hike will. I hear that stuff is ram ram ram hungry :).... and scratch disc hungry too.
 
2.8 Ghz is fine.
Click to expand...

A massive understatement!

If you do motion graphics or video, the exra memory will be infinitely more valuable than a 400mhz speed increase per core.

On the increase in clock speed translating to real-world speed, the higher the clock speed, the less speed-per-mhz you are likely to get. CPU calculation efficiency decreases with an increase in speed, and this is doubly so for increase in cores.

This is why an 8 core 3ghz system is not twice the speed as a 4 core 3ghz system in programs which do use all cores (such as 3d).

Anyway, the point being that the % increase from 2.8 to 3.2 will not be as much as you'd think and as i said before, will probably be negligible (that is to say within the margin of error for benchmarking).
 
200 MHz X 8 cores = 1.6GHz, is far fuzzier math than 7% systemic speed incease. Not every program takes advantage of all 8 cores, also saying 1.6 GHz delta fails to factor in the overhead associated with multiple cores.

Further even with the faster FSB and larger cache speed does not scale linearly the way you want to think of it . Let the Megahertz myth go, even intel has.

Remember a 5.0 liter engine is not automatically twice as fast as a 2.5 liter engine many of the same principals apply. Balanced systems are overall faster than systems with a single overrated component.
 
I'm like you, was just thinking "it must be the best" but when I really got to thinking... I sure as hell can't justify that price considering the use of the machine and the real world benefits. You could buy a 30" ACD just with the difference between an octo 2.8 and an octo 3.2!

...And that's just what I plan to do! :D

I would wait until they are refreshed though, they are getting a little long in the tooth. I'd rather more features than another price drop, frankly. I want ONE large display, as I want to run my Mac, plus enjoy movies and console gaming, so I require more inputs!
 
dukebound85 said:
same as saying 3.0->3.2 is only ~7% increase

3/3.2= .93

(3*8)/(3.2*8) = .93

3*8=24 and 3.2*8=25,6 which is a 1.6Ghz difference

guess you are using the same fuzzy math to compare the differences lol
Click to expand...

newtech said:
200 MHz X 8 cores = 1.6GHz, is far fuzzier math than 7% systemic speed incease. Not every program takes advantage of all 8 cores, also saying 1.6 GHz delta fails to factor in the overhead associated with multiple cores.

Further even with the faster FSB and larger cache speed does not scale linearly the way you want to think of it . Let the Megahertz myth go, even intel has.
Click to expand...


you dont get my point. saying 1.6Ghz is fuzzy math and then point to a 7% increase not being fuzzy is wrong. THEY ARE BOTH FUZZY. where do you think that 7% increase comes from....that extra 1.6Ghz if you just go by numbers. i thought my so called proof illustrated this concept......

My point is is that both are fuzzy lol and shouldnt be taken as strict numbers to compare the systems.

there is likeley no noticible difference at all between the 2 setups in computing tasks on a day to day basis
 
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