I'm planning on buying either a dual 1.8 or dual 2.0 G5. There's about a $500 price jump from the 1.8 to 2.0.. is it really worth it?
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.
Dual 1.8 G5 vs. Dual 2.0 G5... Worth the $500 difference?
- Thread starter believo
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
hmmm...i don't know if it's worth $500, but it's definitely a big change in terms of upgradeability. The PCI-X slots for the future might be valuable...and the max RAM of 8GB might be important...but the processors will behave somewhat similarly...all the ports are the same. it might not be that big of a difference between the two right now, but in terms of future upgradeability, the 2.0 has more potential.
i just bought a rev. A 2.0 w/the 9600 pro from the special deals section for $1999. i think that's heck of a great deal...you might want to check every morning for these specials and then pounce on it when it shows up...they go very fast.
i just bought a rev. A 2.0 w/the 9600 pro from the special deals section for $1999. i think that's heck of a great deal...you might want to check every morning for these specials and then pounce on it when it shows up...they go very fast.
kugino said:
what's the difference between PCI and PCI-X, in terms of real world applications? In other words, what can the PCI-X be used for that the PCI can't?
sorry if that doesn't make since.
PCI is a 64-bit bus, though it is usually implemented as a 32-bit bus. It can run at clock speeds of 33 or 66 MHz. At 32 bits and 33 MHz, it yields a throughput rate of 133 MBps.
PCI-X Short for PCI extended, an enhanced PCI bus. PCI-X is backward-compatible with existing PCI cards. It improves upon the speed of PCI from 133 MBps to as much as 1 GBps.
PCI Express An I/O interconnect bus standard (which includes a protocol and a layered architecture) that expands on and doubles the data transfer rates of original PCI. PCI Express is a two-way, serial connection that carries data in packets along two pairs of point-to-point data lanes, compared to the single parallel data bus of traditional PCI that routes data at a set rate. Initial bit rates for PCI Express reach 2.5Gb/s per lane direction, which equate to data transfer rates of approximately 200MB/s. PCI Express was developed so that high-speed interconnects such as 1394b, USB 2.0, InfiniBand and Gigabit Ethernet would have an I/O architecture suitable for their transfer high speeds.
PCI-X Short for PCI extended, an enhanced PCI bus. PCI-X is backward-compatible with existing PCI cards. It improves upon the speed of PCI from 133 MBps to as much as 1 GBps.
PCI Express An I/O interconnect bus standard (which includes a protocol and a layered architecture) that expands on and doubles the data transfer rates of original PCI. PCI Express is a two-way, serial connection that carries data in packets along two pairs of point-to-point data lanes, compared to the single parallel data bus of traditional PCI that routes data at a set rate. Initial bit rates for PCI Express reach 2.5Gb/s per lane direction, which equate to data transfer rates of approximately 200MB/s. PCI Express was developed so that high-speed interconnects such as 1394b, USB 2.0, InfiniBand and Gigabit Ethernet would have an I/O architecture suitable for their transfer high speeds.
FuzzyBallz said:
so basically, the PCI-X would be an advantage if you planned on using in some sort of super high-speed internet connection or PCI cards that have powered USB ports on them, other than this PCI is pretty similar?
again, sorry if my comment is incorrect, i don't have much experience in this area.
I'll be using it mostly for graphic design (ps, illustrator, etc.) and some music recording... will there be much of a difference in these areas?
thanks
believo said:
One example of a real-world application:
http://www.aja.com/products_kona.html
10-bit uncompressed 4:4:4 HD-SDI input/output, thanks to PCI-X at 133MHz. PCI just couldn't handle the throughput so it had to be PCI-X.
I would suggest that the $500 would be better spent on a faster (10K) boot drive for the OS and Apps, more memory and maybe improving the graphics card - all of which would make a lot more difference in graphics design work than the increase in processor speed. If you need PCI-X then fair enough but otherwise I'd say it probably not worth worrying about.
There is a rule of thumb for Apple computer purchases that I have found to be very true. After researching the options, choose the computer that meets your needs, then buy the next version up. What you end up with is a computer that you can grow into and you will be happy with longer. If the 1.8 will suit your needs today, in a year, will it be long in the tooth when all the newer macs are running at 3 GHz? What happens while the OS is continually optimized to take advantage of the dual processor...Photoshop is already optimized for duals, and with the additional overhead being added to Illustrator, how long before that is optimized with dual processors in mind.
There's a certain mindset you have when using your Mac, that even though the 1.8 may be adequate right now and for a year, the newer models will always be better and faster. At least with the midrange model, you'll get more satisfaction with your purchase, longer. I've had a dual 2GHz since they came out and I plan to use it for at least another 3-4 years. My last Mac was a B/W G3 350 and I still have it running for postscript printing and my wife's use.
There's a certain mindset you have when using your Mac, that even though the 1.8 may be adequate right now and for a year, the newer models will always be better and faster. At least with the midrange model, you'll get more satisfaction with your purchase, longer. I've had a dual 2GHz since they came out and I plan to use it for at least another 3-4 years. My last Mac was a B/W G3 350 and I still have it running for postscript printing and my wife's use.