Mac Pro Octad 3.2 (2008) or Mac Pro Octad 2.66 (2009)?

[DeepCobalt]

So I can get an old 3.2 for $3800 (NEW, edu pricing) from the apple store near me, or a new (2009) Octad 2.66. According to the stats, these machines are very comparable. I looked w/edu pricing, that the machines come out roughly even pricewise when configured as I want. The 2009 is like a couple hundred more-- $4300 vs $4500.

Which is the better bet?

 

[KD7IWP]

Get the 2009 Nehalem. All the benchmarks I've seen so far show that it is significantly faster, even at a lower clock speed. For only $200, I'd say it's worth it. Especially since the Nehalem's have hyper threading which really helps. It might even be worthwhile to look at a 2.93 Quad 2009.

 

[Genghis Khan]

Go for the the Nehalem one

the few times that the 3.2GHz may be faster will be compensated by the future proofing.

 

[MCHR]

So I can get an old 3.2 for $3800 (NEW, edu pricing) from the apple store near me, or a new (2009) Octad 2.66. According to the stats, these machines are very comparable. I looked w/edu pricing, that the machines come out roughly even pricewise when configured as I want. The 2009 is like a couple hundred more-- $4300 vs $4500.

Which is the better bet?

Beat your store down further on pricing. Seriously. An Apple rep near me has four 3.2s, asking $3499, and that's just the discounted pricing since the 2009s have been released.

Online, they're even cheaper.

But I'm in the same dilemma, considering the 3.2 vs. the 2.66 octo.

I might justify the 3.2 savings now, but if I keep this Mac Pro for 4-5 years, that savings is spread out over that time, making the Nehalem more future proof and current.