Mac Pro price puzzle

Discussion in 'Buying Tips and Advice' started by mazurka, Dec 17, 2009.

  1. mazurka macrumors member

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2004
    #1
    Maybe I'm just being dense here, but can anyone explain to me why a Mac Pro with a single 3.33GHz Quad-Core Intel Xeon processor and 3GB of RAM is considerably more expensive than a Mac Pro with two 2.26GHz Quad-Core Intel Xeon processors and 6GB of RAM?
     
  2. eawmp1 macrumors 601

    eawmp1

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2008
    Location:
    FL
    #2
    Do a google search...price out the processors...you will get your answer. Processor speed comes at a premium. The RAM cost is negligible.
     
  3. SwiftLives macrumors 65816

    SwiftLives

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2001
    Location:
    Charleston, SC
    #3
    Um...Because Intel prices the more than 1GHz faster 3.33GHz processor considerably higher than than two 2.26GHz processors?
     
  4. mazurka thread starter macrumors member

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2004
    #4
    So which Mac Pro will have the better performance? The single 3.33GHz model or the twin 2.26GHz model?
     
  5. J the Ninja macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2008
    #5
    The 2.26Ghz will win at anything that can get more than 6 or so threads going, I would think.
     
  6. GGJstudios macrumors Westmere

    GGJstudios

    Joined:
    May 16, 2008
    #6
  7. mazurka thread starter macrumors member

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2004
    #7
    So the slower Mac Pro is dearer than the faster Mac Pro? Is that simplifying it too much?
     
  8. GGJstudios macrumors Westmere

    GGJstudios

    Joined:
    May 16, 2008
    #8
    If you're running a CPU-intensive program with one process, the 3.33 will be faster. However, if you're running multiple simultaneous processes, multiple CPUs will have an advantage, since the work is spread over multiple processors. That's oversimplified, but you get the idea.
     
  9. eawmp1 macrumors 601

    eawmp1

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2008
    Location:
    FL
    #9
    Right now, most programs cannot multithread...so in 2009, generally processor speed wins out. However, if and when programs are rewritten to utilize multiple cores at once, more slower processors may beat out one faster one.
     
  10. mazurka thread starter macrumors member

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2004
    #10
    Thanks, understand now. It seems strange, therefore, does it not, that there is such a price disparity? Or are we on the cusp of a CPU upgrade for the 8-core computer that will redress this?
     
  11. GGJstudios macrumors Westmere

    GGJstudios

    Joined:
    May 16, 2008
    #11
    Newer, faster processors always bear premium prices when they're first released. The prices drop quickly as newer, faster processors are released.
     
  12. SwiftLives macrumors 65816

    SwiftLives

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2001
    Location:
    Charleston, SC
    #12
    Yes, but Apple's prices don't drop in tandem with the processor prices. That's why it's rarely a good idea to purchase a new machine at the end of a product cycle.
     
  13. Umbongo macrumors 601

    Umbongo

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2006
    Location:
    England
    #13
    It's about the right tool for the job as has been highlighted and these systems are quite different. The 2.26GHz processors are more suited to a server than a workstation. Intel's pricing structure for more MHz isn't linear, there are large premiums for the fastest processors. There is also a premium for dual socket over single. When you combine these it makes the systems cost the same at retail component pricing (~$2,200).

    In this case the 3.33GHz is more because you are paying Apple's premium on the upgrade ($100) and for the original 2.66GHz processor ($300). Not that Apple probably calculates it like that, but one way to look at it.
     
  14. Theclamshell macrumors 68030

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2009
    #14
    the xeon's are very expensive. To get that one with that clock speed will be a ton. Dont get the xeons confused with i7's
     

Share This Page