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

Mac Pro 2.8ghz vs. 3.0ghz

J

jjahshik32

macrumors 603
Original poster
Ok, I know what to expect from the 2.8ghz model since you guys can see from my sig of what my previous mac pro setup was like but what do you guys think about the 3.0ghz model?

I remember at times even though the 2.8ghz model was overkill I kind of regretted for a while for not getting the even 3.0ghz.. anyone here whos gotten the 3.0ghz regret it or is it not worth it?
 
m1stake said:
$800 for 200Mhz

HMMMMMMM
Click to expand...

lol.gif


EDIT: Although, in a quad it's more like 800mHz. But still.
 
Looking at this in terms of percentage, we're talking 6.7%. I'm pretty sure that both the 2.8 and 3.0 have identical FSBs and L2 cache sizes, so we're only talking a difference in raw horsepower.

I have a 3.0GHz Mac Pro at work, but it wasn't my money. But I would imagine these differences are only significant when you're consistently doing rendering work that utilizes all 8 cores.
 
I think if the system will pay for itself (meaning you use it to make you money), and your use pushes that machine to it's limits then maybe, just maybe the options above the 2.8 octo could be worth it. Outside of that, the 2.8 is the sane choice.

Unless of course you're just completely minted and dropping a few grand on a computer means about as much to you as buying a sandwich.
 
Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't we talking about the 2008 model? In that case it's 8x200Mhz. Or $0.5 per MHz.
 
edesignuk said:
I think if the system will pay for itself (meaning you use it to make you money), and your use pushes that machine to it's limits then maybe, just maybe the options above the 2.8 octo could be worth it. Outside of that, the 2.8 is the sane choice.

Unless of course you're just completely minted and dropping a few grand on a computer means about as much to you as buying a sandwich.
Click to expand...

Agree 100%. And as far as longevity, if you're not pushing your machine to the limits now, by the time that speed bump makes a difference (if ever), you'll want to upgrade anyway.

And I want to be minted. Where do I apply?
 
What kind of stuff do you do on your computer?

I'd say there is really a pretty small set of activities where you would ever notice a difference. I have the 8x2.8 Mac Pro, and I do a ton of Maya rendering which eats every cpu cycle for days at a time. Even with this being the case, I do not regret saving the money on the lower model (and by 'saving', I mean buying more RAM, but still...).
 
Julien said:
Using ZDNet Clock the 2.8GHz can be faster than the 3.0GHz.
Click to expand...

Bingo. Use the ZDNet tool and get to 3.0 GHz for FREE. Don't pay Apple an extra 800 bucks for something that won't be worth it.

Hell, overclock the 2.8 to 3.2 and get better performance than the stock 3.2.

And don't get any other upgrades than the standard configuration plus the 8800GT. Especially don't get more memory from Apple, because they are a rip-off. Get your memory elsewhere and save $$$
 
disconap said:
Agree 100%. And as far as longevity, if you're not pushing your machine to the limits now, by the time that speed bump makes a difference (if ever), you'll want to upgrade anyway.

And I want to be minted. Where do I apply?
Click to expand...

Exactly. I have the 733Mhz quicksilver G4, which was the equivalent of the quad core low end mac pro now, and you know what? It sucks. But if you look at other more powerful G4s, they suck too. Stick with the basic 2.8.
 
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