Mac Pro: Quad 2.66 or 2.93 (Value)

Discussion in 'Buying Tips and Advice' started by superpalmtree, Mar 10, 2009.

?

New Mac Pro

  1. Quad 2.66

    64.3%
  2. Quad 2.93

    21.4%
  3. Dual = Any Config.

    14.3%
  1. superpalmtree macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2009
    Location:
    North Dakota
    #1
    Question: I've decided to buy a Quad Mac Pro to do mid-range tasks: VMWARE, Vista X64, QuickBooks, Office, multitasking, nothing requiring 8 cores. I will not buy anything but the Mac Pro.

    My Question:

    Do you believe the QUAD 2.93 would be a big enough performance boost to justify upgrading from the 2.66? Value Wise? Resell Wise? I don't care about the 8GB Ram Limitation. I think that # is inaccurate anyways.

    SO...who has bought the QUAD? And who has bought the 2.66 vs. 2.93? I know we're all waiting for benchmarks...but wanted to bring it up. I have a Dual 2.26 ordered, but am going to cancel for Quad.

    Thanks for any input.
     
  2. Tesselator macrumors 601

    Tesselator

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2008
    Location:
    Japan
    #2
  3. superpalmtree thread starter macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2009
    Location:
    North Dakota
    #3
  4. 11800506 macrumors 65816

    11800506

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2007
    Location:
    Washington D.C. Area
    #4
    From what you've said you will be doing a quad Mac Pro will almost be overkill for you. I definitely think that a 2.66 Quad core will be a much better value for you since I doubt you will see improved performance from the higher clock speed of the 2.93. The real areas where that will make a difference is in things such as rendering which you don't appear to be doing. For VMs, the "max" (whether true or not) of 8 gb of Ram will likely be enough for you.
     
  5. Tallest Skil macrumors P6

    Tallest Skil

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2006
    Location:
    1 Geostationary Tower Plaza
    #5
    Gonna want to rethink your life, then.
     
  6. dmw007 macrumors G4

    dmw007

    Joined:
    May 26, 2005
    Location:
    Working for MI-6
    #6
    superpalmtree, for your stated needs, the Quad 2.66 Mac Pro will be plenty. :)

    As far as resale value, I don't think that the 2.93 GHz model will maintain its $500 premium long enough to justify spending the extra cash. If you keep the Mac Pro for say two or three years, that $500 premium might become $175-$225 (or less) in terms of extra resale value. Just guessing here though... :)
     
  7. superpalmtree thread starter macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2009
    Location:
    North Dakota
    #7
    Thanks

    I appreciate all the constructive replies.
     
  8. superpalmtree thread starter macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2009
    Location:
    North Dakota
    #8
    Please elaborate:
     
  9. Tallest Skil macrumors P6

    Tallest Skil

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2006
    Location:
    1 Geostationary Tower Plaza
    #9
    What you're doing can easily be done on a 24" iMac with a decent amount of RAM for far less money.

    If you're adamant about a Mac Pro, buy a Harpertown model. It'll be more than you need.
     
  10. hayduke macrumors 65816

    hayduke

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2005
    Location:
    is a state of mind.
    #10
    What a polite way to reply! You might think about a 2008 refurb under the circumstances you've described, otherwise go for the 2.6.
     
  11. superpalmtree thread starter macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2009
    Location:
    North Dakota
    #11
    Thanks for the note. I own several tech companies and am a tech enthusiast. I also own huge LCD monitors, and just bought a 24" Apple LED. To me, a Mac Pro is a must and the only viable option that Apple offers. And when your business is technology an iMac just won't do. BUT..for the majority of people I'm sure an iMac would be more than enough for what I described. Thanks.
     
  12. superpalmtree thread starter macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2009
    Location:
    North Dakota
    #12
    Thank you. From what I'm hearing a Quad 2.66 would be a nice fit. Thanks.
     
  13. Scottsdale macrumors 601

    Scottsdale

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2008
    Location:
    U.S.A.
    #13
    For what you are doing and knowing that you already have a beautiful ACD, I definitely think the Quad Core is going to be an amazing computer. I would love to have one. In the long run, "true professional" software is going to be able to do more with the Octacore, but really the Quad-Core is an amazing Mac for someone who just loves computers and technology.

    I said before it was announced, based on the rumors that it looked like an xMac was coming out, and I had someone tell me how stupid I was for "NOT UNDERSTANDING" the Nehalem architecture. I still think it really did although super powered and with a hefty price tag.

    I truly believe although it is branded a "Mac Pro" the xMac is the "Middle" machine that is meant for the enthusiasts that want high-end caliber components and CPU and the OS X. Perfect for people that already have a really nice Apple Cinema Display and truly very fast in NON "Ultra Professional" Apps. So, the professional will probably see more from a Octa core, but a tech lover who runs NON pro type apps is clearly going to benefit more from this setup as the "Geek Bench" results showed yesterday.

    I love technology too, and to us tech enthusiasts definitely feel like we should have more than an "all in one" iMac. For us, non-professional application users, the xMac is really a great new system... I mean the Quad Core Mac Pro.

    I think the price is out there, but it's really cool to own, I get that.

    So, I wish you the best with your new Mac Pro whichever route you go... although I would recommend the Quad-Core Mac Pro in whichever clock speed you would prefer knowing you're only buying one to begin with. If you can afford it, go ahead and take the leap.

    CHEERS.
     
  14. Igantius macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2007
    #14
    Afraid I’m not adding much to the debate!

    Like Tesselator, I would guess the 2.66GHz model as well. As you said, we’re waiting for the benchmarks but in the absence of these I do tend to compare at the percentage increase in the processor speed and price. For me, the extra 0.27GHz in processor speed isn’t really worth the extra money (but I would still be tempted!).

    With regards to the resale value, I think dmw007’s sounds a reasonable one. I’m rather interested to see how much Snow Leopard will take advantage of multi-cores and wonder how this might affect demand for quad versus octo cores.
     

Share This Page