Difference between 3.0 and 3.2?

[edesignuk]

Get a Dell 3007WFP rather than the Apple 30" ACD and save at least £200, problem solved.

edit: Or wait a bit for the new 3008WFP

 

[ZachPruckowski]

I must be dumb... but can anyone link me to some 800MHz DDR2 ECC FB-DIMMs? I the only FB-DIMMs I can find run at 667MHz...

I don't think they're exactly common at this point (Intel only introduced the chips that need them a few weeks ago). Expect the usual Mac memory suspects to have them by the end of the month. I found a site (holy crap that's a messy URL) selling them for a lot of money for a single DIMM.

It's best to wait for the Mac places to get them, because remember that we need the super heat-sinks. Non-heat-sinked FB-DIMMs will cause crashing under heavy prolonged use.

 

[Bastich]

Here's another way of looking at it: most of the Macs in my house are slower than 0.2GHz.



P.S.: Spread over 5 years, the extra speed of a 3.2GHz tower will cost you 44¢ a day.

 

[jnc]

Get a Dell 3007WFP rather than the Apple 30" ACD and save at least £200, problem solved.

edit: Or wait a bit for the new 3008WFP

The 3007s aren't HDCP, am I right? And the WFP-HCs are?

$2,000+ is the sort of price I'm hearing for that 3008. Yowzas
My dream unit is 27-30" with HDMI, Component and DVI, so it's a decent size for gaming and can hook up to the current gen of consoles while also being a dang good monitor.

For half the price of the 3008ss.

My kingdom for a 27 inch 1080p! The closest I can find are the Samsung 275T and Dell 2707, but neither have HDMI! I have a Wii and will be getting a PS3. I suppose I could have Mac through DVI, get a VGA cable for Wii and run PS3 through component...? Nah.

I currently have a 26" 720p Samsung that can only hack 1366 x 768 over VGA. Insufficient resolution at that size to be a good monitor... there are 1920 x 1080 TVs out there, but the smallest is 32", which again is too poor a resolution for the size.

I am stuck I pray Apple will include more inputs with ACDs... if not I am lost!

 

[zmunkz]

200Mhz x 8 cores = 1.6 Ghz!!

There are decreasing returns to scale when you start adding CPUs. 200MHz x 8 is 1.6GHz, but even if you max out your CPUs, you will not actually get 1.6GHz faster performance due to the overhead of communicating between processors, etc.

I doubt a 8x3.2GHz system - even under max load - would measure 1.6GHz faster than a 8x3.0GHz system under max load. I would guess a difference of a few hundred MHz...?

 

[jnc]

I must be dumb... but can anyone link me to some 800MHz DDR2 ECC FB-DIMMs? I the only FB-DIMMs I can find run at 667MHz...

Apple would be your best bet at this moment. not what you want to hear, I'm sure... Give it a while and live with the 2GB for now.

 

[Umbongo]

The Mac Pros are an exception to the "Apple's large overhead" rule. Apple sells Mac Pros (especially when newly revved) for less than the Dell Precision or other comparable workstations. This is because Dell and friends make almost no margin on a lot of their consumer computers and try to make it up in the high-end space (the gaming computers are also pretty bad), while Apple just has 20% margins on everything (except iPods, where the margins are astronomical).

But yes, you really get rocked for that last 0.2 GHz. Intel does that across the board - even on desktops, the mid-high-range is surprisingly affordable, then things just jump up for the top 2-3 chips. It's worse now that AMD can't compete on the high-end. AMD's fastest chip now is a quad-core 2.5 GHz Opteron, and it can't even match Intel clock-for-clock (meaning it loses to a 2.5 GHz Intel chip), much less compete against the 3 GHz models. AMD's flooding the low-end, so you wind up (especially on the desktop) having a lot of options sub $300 (including dual-3.0 for $180-something and a 2.5 GHz Quad at $266)**, but no competition outside that.

That said, 7% off a 12 hour rendering job is 50 minutes. Off a day-long rendering job, it's a hour and a half. That's a big deal.

If you spend half your day compiling (or doing other stuff waiting on the compile)*, a 7% gain on half your workday is solid 15 minutes. 15 minutes/day x 5 days/week x 50 weeks/year = 62.5 hours. 60 hours at $40 an hour ($80k salary for a top developer) is $2400. It pays for itself 3 times over in a year.

* = obviously you're not jousting in the compile-time, but you're far from doing the job you're most efficient at.

** = I hear the new 2.5 GHz Quad might have been delayed until Feb/March. Whatever. You get my point.

Good post, though I'm aware of all that and have preached it a number of times. Stuff like that should be included in a sticky or buyers guide so people can see when the processor upgrades are really worth it. I think alot of people don't really how little or how much processing they do/might do though.

The Apple large overhead bit was really in reference to Intel valuing differences in speed at much lower prices than Apple. 8x2.8GHz at $1600, 8x 3GHz at $2050 and 8x3.2GHz $2550 while Apple are obviously charging alot more than that for 3GHz and 3.2GHz . Though of course as you said Dell and co charge similar or more for such upgrades, you only really get those prices building yourself, still something to take in to account if you aren't OS dependant and are just getting a single system and need power.

 

[Graphis]

Update: my wife's just offered to pay the extra £500 or so to enable me to get the 3.2. So wives do have a use after all

 

[adamfishercox]

Please, please, PLEASE use that $500 for RAM... You will see such a huge speed increase compared to 200 MHz.

 

[student_trap]

Please, please, PLEASE use that $500 for RAM... You will see such a huge speed increase compared to 200 MHz.

but surely if his wife has given him the money for a 3.2, then that should be what he gets. it would be a little rude for him to say "well actually, I want something different now".

imo, go for it

 

[adamfishercox]

Well if the wife specifically said for the 3.2, then yes I agree, but if she just offered to pay $500, then get RAM.

 

[esskay]

BTW, don't forget that if you wait for MW to check for ACD announcements then you can decide whether to buy a new one at the same time as your MP so it's covered by the AppleCare you're going to purchase.

 

[snickelfritz]

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.

Check the recommended system configuration specs for your applications.
There are not many that actually require (8) 3.2ghz CPU cores, or the 8800 video chipset.
Personally, I would go for the 3.0 and spend the money saved on as much RAM as possible.
I'd start with 8GB for professional design work; this allows RAM caching to be enabled in Photoshop CS3.

 

[eclipse]

I'd start with 8GB for professional design work; this allows RAM caching to be enabled in Photoshop CS3.

Can you please tell me — in layman's terms — what this does and how it speeds the machine? My wife's running a G5 that's 4 years old and a little slow, and only has 4 gig.

 

[jnc]

Go for the 3 GHz, it sounds better when you say it and it looks even better on paper...

Personally, "£500 saved by buying 8-core 2.8GHz" sounds WAY better than 3GHz

Can you please tell me — in layman's terms — what this does and how it speeds the machine? My wife's running a G5 that's 4 years old and a little slow, and only has 4 gig.

Sounds like it'll assign 1GB to each core for better performance? Someone feel free to correct me

 

[eclipse]

But but but... it's a 4 year old G5... she's only got 2 cores.

 

[snickelfritz]

With more than 4GB of RAM installed, Photoshop CS3 will use the extra free RAM as a "virtual memory buffer".
ie: Photoshop writes scratch data to the RAM buffer as well as to the scratch disk.
Photoshop will access the data stored in this RAM buffer before accessing the same data stored on the scratch disk.
With large files, this can result in a significant improvement in application speed. (150% improvement in some cases, depending on what you're doing)

There's a good reason why Photoshop experts install fast disk arrays and lots of RAM.

 

[eclipse]

Cool... I'll get some RAM upgrades for my wife's machine.

Does that apply to Photoshop's behaviour in CS2 as well? (Will upgrade one day.)

 

[Maddler]

With more than 4GB of RAM installed, Photoshop CS3 will use the extra free RAM as a "virtual memory buffer".
ie: Photoshop writes scratch data to the RAM buffer as well as to the scratch disk.
Photoshop will access the data stored in this RAM buffer before accessing the same data stored on the scratch disk.
With large files, this can result in a significant improvement in application speed. (150% improvement in some cases, depending on what you're doing)

How large of files are we talking about? Today I was animating a 55 layer, 400 GB PSD in Photoshop Extended. I doubt 4 GB of RAM cache would do much for something of that size.

CS3 will run much faster than CS2 on an Intel Mac.

 

[Graphis]

Please, please, PLEASE use that $500 for RAM... You will see such a huge speed increase compared to 200 MHz.

£500 = $1000
Yes, yes, but I can always get extra RAM anytime in the future. Which I fully intend to do. But I'm only gonna get one Mac Pro, so it might as well be the 3.2 now.

And yeah, I'm still waiting for the 16th before I order.

 

[jnc]

£500 = $1000
Yes, yes, but I can always get extra RAM anytime in the future. Which I fully intend to do. But I'm only gonna get one Mac Pro, so it might as well be the 3.2 now.

And yeah, I'm still waiting for the 16th before I order.

Apple are offering 0% finance until the 14th.... I'm taking advantage of it What are you expecting to change at Macworld? Blu Ray? ACD?

...Wouldn't Apple suffer from mass returns should they announce either? I think it'll be all MBP, iPhone, iTuness and Leopard at mwsf...

 

[Graphis]

Apple are offering 0% finance until the 14th.

So are a lot of other retailers... and beyond the 14th too. It's still cheaper buying from Apple resellers than Apple themselves.

 

[jnc]

So are a lot of other retailers... and beyond the 14th too. It's still cheaper buying from Apple resellers than Apple themselves.

If you can find another retailer in the UK with BTO options (well, I just need Airport on the stock Octo 2.8), Higher Education discounts (14-15% off) and 0% 6 month (or hopefully more) financing beyond the 14th, please point me in their direction!

No?

Well okay then. Shh.

 

[bilbo--baggins]

With more than 4GB of RAM installed, Photoshop CS3 will use the extra free RAM as a "virtual memory buffer".

Will this benefit everyone, or just people working with huge files? Most of my Photoshop CS3 files are only up to 30MB. Would 6GB be worth going for. I had been planning to upgrade to 4GB initially, and then consider buying more in future if the price came down / requirements went up.

 

[snickelfritz]

The RAM buffer is really only beneficial for extremely large files that process very slowly. Huge files like this are fairly common in print publishing, but not so common in web publishing or game development.

For example, a 30MB Photoshop file is going run very quickly and use very minimal RAM (about 150-200MB of RAM); adding more RAM will do nothing to noticeably improve it, since HDD accesses for this amount of data is going to run quickly, even on a laptop computer.

Multiply this file size by 10, (300MB) and the picture changes; HDD access for 1-2GB of data is going slow your system to a crawl.
The solution is to install >4GB of RAM, enable RAM caching and big tiles, and install a dedicated high speed HDD or RAID-0 for scratch.
This is the type of work that the Mac Pro is perfect for.