New Switcher: 2.0 vs. 2.3 Powermac

[afsammie]

Hello Everyone,
I've been lurking on this forum for a long time now, stalking my first Mac. Now, I am in a position where my mind is made.

I edit video (AVID, After Effects) and photos (CS) on a PC that I built last year:

AMD 2.8
Abit AN7 MB
1.5 GB Ram
Radeon 9800 Pro
etc.

That being said, I'm through with my PC. I first used a Mac at work -- I'm a lifetime PC user, never used one before -- and I am sold, %100. For the video work that I do, I need Final Cut (like it much more than AVID), and I love the interface, not to mention Logic as opposed to Pro Tools.

I am going to buy a PowerMac after WWDC, regardless.

My question is this:

I think a 2.0Ghz would suffice for the work that I do, but being that I'm coming from a PC that has somewhat similar "power" (I use that loosely), would I be that much better off with the 2.3Ghz?
I'm not on a horribly tight budget, but I'm having trouble justifying the extra $500. (I'm also a little bitter about the 2.5>2.3 thing that Apple pulled, as I was gambling on the 2.5 in that price point, which I would have done in a heartbeat)

Sorry if this post sounds redundant, but I've watched and waited for so long that I could really use some feedback from you guys.

 

[amac4me]

I bought my first Mac last year and it's been great. I too edit video and that was my main reason to switch.

I bought a Dual 2.5 because I wanted the best machine available at the time. I ended up purchasing the "Production Suite".
If the money really isn't an issue, I would recommend the 2.3 as it's faster than the 2.5's ... the review I read gave it an edge because of the newer/faster hard drives in the 2.3. Here's the link:

http://www.macworld.com/2005/05/news/powermacbenchmarks/index.php

From the article:

"More surprising was the dual-2.3GHz system’s performance. Not only did it approach the older dual-2.5GHz Power Mac G5’s times, the slower processors in the new desktop didn’t stop it from barely beating the previous champ in our overall Speedmark suite. The reason? The dual-2.3GHz Power Mac’s speedier 250GB hard drive."

If you decide to get the 2.0, you could use the $500 towards the purchase of Final Cut/Final Cut Studio or any upgrades to the system.

 

[wnameth]

you will notice a difference in speed with the 2.0ghz, personally if i were in your situation, i would get the 2.0ghz and put the extra money into ram and other accessories.

 

[unfaded]

As stated above, I'd think the money would be better spent on RAM. That said, if you can swing both (RAM + 600 mhz of CPU), you'll be that much happier :-D

 

[gangst]

Personally, I have always gone for the fastest in the past, but when looking back think that the extra money spent went to waste slightly when performance gains were not great between two models (eg 2.0 and 2.3), recently I have seen my error in my previous choices and would definately invest in RAM, $500 can get you a hell of a lot.....also as you said about similar 'power' I still think that you will find the 2.0 faster than your old AMD, and the MAC OS/ Final Cut combination will give you extra 'power' and time anyway.

 

[Mord]

get a refurb 2GHz PM make sure it has PCI-X and 8 ram slots, then buy an x800XT.

 

[camomac]

i am very pleased with my dual 2.0. personally i would as hector recommended get a rev. B (the one with PCI-X and up to 8gb ram).

spend the extra money on good quality ram. G5's are picky about what ram they use. Crucial is a good choice, as it is what came with my G5.

Apple also uses Hitachi/Maxtor hard drives. get the new 400gb ones at somewhere like newegg. just make sure they are SATA, not IDE.

 

[keysersoze]

Get the 2.3.

It's Faster.

Simple.

 

[AppleMatt]

get a refurb 2GHz PM make sure it has PCI-X and 8 ram slots, then buy an x800XT.

Completely agree with this. The older rev 2GHz machines have better expansion capabilities than the new ones, and they're (obviously) cheaper.

Then invest the rest of the money in:
- A faster boot drive, such as a raptor (keep your work on a separate drive for best performance).
- More RAM.

Don't bother with the 2.3, it's not *that* much faster to justify the cost. In addition, I strongly believe you'll find yourself wanting a faster drive and more RAM anyway.

AppleMatt

 

[afsammie]

Thanks, Guys

I'm still undecided as to which one (I'm leaning towards the 2.0), but your helpful responses are making me happy to be a switcher, joining the mac community.
Thanks

 

[ArcticFox]

Funny you ask this question, as I'm facing a similar dillema - but the decision isn't really up to me (I'm not paying for the beast).

Just for your interests, here are the two configs and prices I'm looking at, maybe it will help you decide.
-----

Dual 2Ghz
1GB RAM
250GB HD
9600 w/128MB RAM
56k modem
SuperDrive dual-layer
No wireless/bluetooth/extra NIC
$1983
-----

Dual 2.3Ghz
1GB RAM
250GB HD
9600 w/128MB RAM
56k modem
Combo drive
No wireless/bluetooth/extra NIC
$2325

It's a $342 difference - and you trade a faster processor for a combo drive instead of a DVD burner. Personally, if you can scrap it, get the 2.3 config similar to the one I listed and then later on add a FireWire DVD burner.

 

[amac4me]

Nobody has mentioned the following differences between the 2.3 and the 2.0

Dual 2.3GHz PowerPC G5
-----------------------
1.15GHz frontside bus/processor
Expandable to 8GB SDRAM
250GB Serial ATA
Three PCI-X Slots


Dual 2GHz PowerPC G5
----------------------
1GHz frontside bus/processor
Expandable to 4GB SDRAM
160GB Serial ATA
Three PCI Slots


The 2.3 isn't just faster from a processor perspective, it also has a faster bus. Furthermore, you don't get any PCI-X slots in the 2.0 system. Overall, I think it makes sense to get the 2.3

 

[camomac]

The 2.3 isn't just faster from a processor perspective, it also has a faster bus. Furthermore, you don't get any PCI-X slots in the 2.0 system. Overall, I think it makes sense to get the 2.3

I believe that everybody, including myself, said to get the older 2.0, WITH the PCI-X slots, and 8gb ram expandability. Not the newer one.

For the cost difference, the 2.3 is not all that much faster than the Rev.B 2.0.