MacPro

imnotatfault

macrumors regular
Original poster
Jan 26, 2004
130
0
So the Dual 2.6 or 3.0?

This seems like a really big (and probably irreversible decision). I'd love to save the 750 or whatever it is on the price of the computer, but I also want something for longevity.

I know there's still some time until they actually ship, but does anyone have any thoughts. I'm seriously considering one and this is probably the biggest thing on my mind--next to deciding whether to keep my 15" Powerbook.

Well, I forgot to mention this, but I use it for photo editing. I'm not a professional photographer by any means, but I do have a minor in Photo and spend a decent amount of time in Photoshop with my D50.

I also purchased the new EyeTV Hybrid, which can record in Digital/Full HD, but is quite processor intensive from what they say.

And lastly, the RAM... 2 512 sticks are standard. Next upgrade is expensive and is 4 512 sticks. Stick with standard and just buy 1GB RAM sticks and install them myself after the fact?
 

jsw

Moderator emeritus
Mar 16, 2004
22,910
41
Andover, MA
If you don't know you need the 3.0, you don't need it. Save your money - the speed difference is negligible compared to the price difference.

imnotatfault said:
Well, I forgot to mention this, but I use it for photo editing. I'm not a professional photographer by any means, but I do have a minor in Photo and spend a decent amount of time in Photoshop with my D50.

I also purchased the new EyeTV Hybrid, which can record in Digital/Full HD, but is quite processor intensive from what they say.

And lastly, the RAM... 2 512 sticks are standard. Next upgrade is expensive and is 4 512 sticks. Stick with standard and just buy 1GB RAM sticks and install them myself after the fact?
Well, first, my "old" dual-2.0 G5 does Photoshop just fine, so I'm sure the Mac Pro stock config will do it even better.

Second, buy your RAM from a reputable 3rd party dealer (OWC, etc.) and save a lot of money.

Third, the Hybrid should be fine - I'm going to run it on my mini duo and MBP, so I'm guessing the Mac Pro can handle it. ;)
 

bigrell486

macrumors 6502
Jul 10, 2006
312
60
Home
Yeah you don't need quad 3.0ghz for photo editing. That spec is manly for hardcore video editing, you'll be fine with 2.66 and even save some money by going to 2.0 you won't notice the difference cause it'll all be faster than a G5 :D
 

imnotatfault

macrumors regular
Original poster
Jan 26, 2004
130
0
Thanks!

Although I heard from the elgato rep that the hybrid won't be shipping for another couple weeks. :(
 

ksz

macrumors 68000
Oct 28, 2003
1,669
60
San Jose, CA
Another vote for the 2.66 GHz model. Here is MacCentral's conclusion:

Because processors represent just one piece of the performance puzzle, we found that the 3GHz machine posted an improvement over the 2.66GHz Mac Pro of about 5 to 6 percent on most tests, even though the 3GHz chips have a 13 percent faster clock speed. With all of our Mac Pro systems sporting the same drives, bus speeds, memory size, and graphics cards, only CPU-intensive tests like our Cinema 4D render times approached that 13 percent improvement.
$800 more for typical 5 to 6 percent improvement? Doesn't make fiscal sense.
 

jsw

Moderator emeritus
Mar 16, 2004
22,910
41
Andover, MA
imnotatfault said:
Although I heard from the elgato rep that the hybrid won't be shipping for another couple weeks. :(
I know. :(

Damn them for tempting us and then withholding the product! ;)