MP 2.66 Quad(Original) or MP 2.8(Single processor,Current)?

[Karpfish]

I am considering selling my MBP and buying a MP again. I will be buying used/refurbished. On the refurb store, the original 2.66 Quad and the current 2.8 Quad are the same price in the stock config. Which is a better option? Is there any benefit to having the dual processors of the older generation?

 

[Umbongo]

The 2.8GHz quad is better. You can get a 2.66GHz used for around $1500 though.

 

[Karpfish]

The lower price of the 2.66 is making me lean towards that. I had that one before with 6GB RAM and it was plenty fast.

 

[wheezy]

From what I've figured, other than processor obviously, the main difference is only 2TB max storage on the old 2.66 Quad compared to 4TB on the 2.8, am I mistaken? Is there a firmware update to pull the 2.66 up to 4TB?

I'm in the same boat

 

[Toronto Mike]

I think you can put Tiger on the 2.66 if that is important to you.

Mike

 

[nightfly13]

FYI there's no 2TB storage limit on the 'old' Mac Pro, I've got one. I've read that twice here, no idea where it comes from but it was refuted last time.

They have the same storage capacity (4x1TB - and will likely grow as drive sizes grow).

As for the choice - speed-wise, they're probably similar, but in terms of easy expansion of processing power, having a spare slot for a second (4 core) processor would be nice.

 

[m1stake]

You don't want to upgrade with another four core processor later. They're VERY expensive now, and you have to buy a heat sink for it in addition. Also very expensive. The single quad is still very capable, don't think I'm trying to talk you out of it, just don't think upgrading later is a perk.

 

[Cromulent]

From what I've figured, other than processor obviously, the main difference is only 2TB max storage on the old 2.66 Quad compared to 4TB on the 2.8, am I mistaken?

Yes.

The only reason they stated 2TB max with the 2006 model was because 500GB hard drives were the largest you could get at the time. If they released a 1.25TB hard drive tomorrow you could still stick it in a 2.66Ghz Mac Pro. Just the same as you can stick 32GB of RAM into a 2006 Mac Pro. They just didn't advertise that fact.

 

[wheezy]

Yes.

The only reason they stated 2TB max with the 2006 model was because 500GB hard drives were the largest you could get at the time. If they released a 1.25TB hard drive tomorrow you could still stick it in a 2.66Ghz Mac Pro. Just the same as you can stick 32GB of RAM into a 2006 Mac Pro. They just didn't advertise that fact.

Awesome, that's what I was thinking. Although when I looked at a refurb on the Apple Store it stated 2TB max, so that's why I was wondering. When that proven wrong I think I'll just go for a refurb 2.66 Quad then...

 

[Expired]

I'm just curious, are there any benchmarks between the single quad 2.8GHz and the dual quad 2.66GHz Mac Pros?

 

[Cromulent]

I'm just curious, are there any benchmarks between the single quad 2.8GHz and the dual quad 2.66GHz Mac Pros?

The difference is pretty minimal (oh and its a dual dual core machine, not a dual quad core ). The current Xeons are more of an evolutionary advance rather than revolutionary. I checked out the benchmarks that Apple published when the machine launched (and you would have thought they would be weighted in favour of the new machine) and the difference was too small to justify the upgrade. I'm waiting for the next Mac Pro update to upgrade because of that.

 

[ntux]

The main differences between the 2006 and 2008 mac pros would be:
- improvements on the FSB (speed bump + better handling). But for a single quad, that may not matter much, because that was more a bottleneck for the dual quad than for the dual dual.

- futureproofness (more PCIe lanes on the 2008, 64b vs 32b EFI, but relative, as both mac pros are incompatible with nehalem). I'm not sure apple will provide custom rom for future video cards for the 2006 mac pro (since the mess it was for the 8800gt), but I'm guessing the future pcie cards for the next mac pro will be compatible with the 2008 one (pcie 2.0, 16x and 64b EFI). But with Apple's history with video cards, who knows?

- power consumption. I'm guessing the 2006 will consume more power with 2 cpus than the 2008 with one, but that would have to be confirmed.

Anyway, that depends on the price you can get each one.

 

[Umbongo]

The main differences between the 2006 and 2008 mac pros would be:
- improvements on the FSB (speed bump + better handling). But for a single quad, that may not matter much, because that was more a bottleneck for the dual quad than for the dual dual.

- futureproofness (more PCIe lanes on the 2008, 64b vs 32b EFI, but relative, as both mac pros are incompatible with nehalem). I'm not sure apple will provide custom rom for future video cards for the 2006 mac pro (since the mess it was for the 8800gt), but I'm guessing the future pcie cards for the next mac pro will be compatible with the 2008 one (pcie 2.0, 16x and 64b EFI). But with Apple's history with video cards, who knows?

- power consumption. I'm guessing the 2006 will consume more power with 2 cpus than the 2008 with one, but that would have to be confirmed.

Anyway, that depends on the price you can get each one.

Never considered the power consumption one, but definatly true.

 

[zmttoxics]

Barefeats did a benchmark with the new 2.8 quad, and it compared to the 3.2 dual duo (The old quad). So that is a big enough difference that I would sway that direction.

As for the 2 TB limit, that was because at the time, larger hard drives weren't available so Apple couldn't guarantee them in their rigs. You can easily put 4 x 1TB hard drives for 4TB in that machine.