processors for the mac pro

Discussion in 'Buying Tips and Advice' started by jcvmf214, Jan 22, 2008.

  1. jcvmf214 macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2008
    #1
    Hi all

    I am in the market for a mac pro
    I have 4 choices for processors.
    One 2.8 quad core intel Zeon (8-core)
    two 2.8 quad core intel Zeon (8-core)
    Two 3.0 qad core intel zeon (8-core)


    each .2 increases price 800.00

    my question is what is the difference between 2.8 and 3.0

    Is the cost justified?
    my activities revolve around gaming, watching movies, internet
    What processor would you recommend the quad core 2.8 or 3.0?

    Ram I am only looking at getting 2 gig

    any advice welcome
     
  2. Umbongo macrumors 601

    Umbongo

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2006
    Location:
    England
    #2
    You'd be fine with the single 2.8GHz Quad core.
     
  3. eXan macrumors 601

    eXan

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2005
    Location:
    Russia
    #3
    :rolleyes: are you sure Mac Pro is for you?
     
  4. jcvmf214 thread starter macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2008
    #4
    Thanks .. I really don't see why the extreme price difference in the .2 increments $800.

    What kind of professions demand these processors
    Two 3.0GHz Quad-Core Intel Xeon (8-core) [Add $800]
    Two 3.2GHz Quad-Core Intel Xeon (8-core) [Add $1600]

    I mean next to gaming I am just an average user.

    and this is my first departure from the pc as a major thing for my desktop. I already have a macbook pro.
     
  5. jcvmf214 thread starter macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2008
    #5
    I have been accused of over kill at times .. I am not too sure I like what I see in an imac
     
  6. eXan macrumors 601

    eXan

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2005
    Location:
    Russia
    #6
    3.0 and 3.2 are high-end processors and the price/performance ratio tends to decrease in the highest-end sector.

    Get 4 core. Anything more is just a waste.
     
  7. gazfocus macrumors 68000

    gazfocus

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2008
    Location:
    Liverpool, UK
    #7
    You'd be better off going for something like the quad core and with the extra money, up the graphics card to the 8800GT
     
  8. jcvmf214 thread starter macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2008
    #8

    That I planned on doing. I wanted this card

    Two 2.8GHz Quad-Core Intel Xeon (8-core)
    NVIDIA GeForce 8800 GT 512MB (Two dual-link DVI)

    and a 500 gig hdrive
     
  9. eXan macrumors 601

    eXan

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2005
    Location:
    Russia
    #9
    What do you want 8 core for? NO game in near future will use more than 4 cores. They still need to make games run on at least 4 cores...

    As I said earlier, anything more than 4 cores is a waste in your case.
     
  10. jcvmf214 thread starter macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2008
    #10
    Wouldn't it be wise to get a little more beefy processor now than later? I am averaging about 1 machine per little over a half decade. I want this machine to last. I want to make choices now that I will not regret say in 6 years.

    The only thing I ever want to ever upgrade in one of my machines is the ram or video card.

    And I am considering your idea with the processor. I would like to save 500.00 that is the price difference.
     
  11. eXan macrumors 601

    eXan

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2005
    Location:
    Russia
    #11
    In 6 years it will no longer be a gaming machine.

    Seeing how long it took game developers to optimize their games so they would utilize 2 cores(and still only a minority of games use that), I'm sure games won't run on all 8 cores any time soon.

    Also, if you think you will be able to upgrade the 8800 to something better in a few years, I'm sure you cant do it. Just like Radeon X1900 XT doesnt work in G5 Power Macs, or Radeon X800 doesnt work with G4 Power Macs. There would be nothing to upgrade to, as Apple makes newer generation cards incompatible with older computers.

    Get 4 core, unless you REALLY want to waste money.
     
  12. TheChillPill macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2007
    Location:
    Manchester, UK
    #12
    Out of curiosity (I'm buying at the end of the month) - if you buy the single processor MP, does the motherboard still have the slot for a 2nd one if you want to add it later?

    Also, do the Apple retailer stores stock the graphics cards too?

    (sorry to hijack the thread)
     
  13. Umbongo macrumors 601

    Umbongo

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2006
    Location:
    England
    #13
    It has the socket, though I don't believe anyone has confirmed it works yet (though it likely does). The issue being that you need to find a heat sink. There are threads in the Mac Pro sub-forum discussing this topic.
     
  14. TheChillPill macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2007
    Location:
    Manchester, UK
    #14
    Thanks :)
     
  15. ziwi macrumors 65816

    ziwi

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2004
    Location:
    Right back where I started...
    #15
    What about the resale value of the single vs the dual processor machines down the road?

    And if you only have 1 processor does that affect how much ram that one can add? For example does one processor mean only one Riser is active?
     
  16. eXan macrumors 601

    eXan

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2005
    Location:
    Russia
    #16
    it shouldnt be a problem to the OP. Getting a few more $$ from selling the machine is not worth 500$ spent now on something he won't even use.

    And if you only have 1 processor does that affect how much ram that one can add?[/QUOTE]

    No
     
  17. ziwi macrumors 65816

    ziwi

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2004
    Location:
    Right back where I started...
    #17
    Hopefully, we can see some tests of the single 2.8 quad vs the old 2.66 dual dual. That may shed some light on the capabilities.
     
  18. dukeblue91 macrumors 65816

    dukeblue91

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2004
    Location:
    Raleigh, NC
    #18
    That's what I'm waiting on before making a decision on what to get.
     
  19. cydspal macrumors member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2007
    #19
    Would the two make a difference for video editing?
     
  20. netdog macrumors 603

    netdog

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2006
    Location:
    London
    #20
    Honestly, if you can get a 2.66 on the cheap, scoop it up and upgrade the video card.
     
  21. ziwi macrumors 65816

    ziwi

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2004
    Location:
    Right back where I started...
    #21
    That is the real evaluation here - get the old quad 2.66 or the new single quad 2.8, but with the architecture what it is, the benefit of the filled motherboard may be better than the single - just need to see the benchies to make a call.

    Cost being the factor, it is cheaper to get the new single with a 8600 card than to get the old 2.66 and hope they make that work...so I for one hope that the new one measures up.
     
  22. jcvmf214 thread starter macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2008
    #22

    I am also planning on getting this some time around august.



    A little off topic.. what is the deal about this. I cannot see spending this much cash on a video card If I can throw away money than yeah maybe
    but where is the advantage

    NVIDIA Quadro FX 5600 1.5GB (Stereo 3D, two dual-link DVI) [Add $2850]


    i am leaning towards what I wanted in my prior post
    Two 2.8GHz Quad-Core Intel Xeon (8-core)
    NVIDIA GeForce 8800 GT 512MB (Two dual-link DVI)

    I would rather invest a little now then regret it later on
    I like to do a lot of multi tasking as well so I usually have multiple windows open with various things going at once
     
  23. eXan macrumors 601

    eXan

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2005
    Location:
    Russia
    #23
    I dont quite get your post... but I assume you are asking about the advantages of the QUADRO graphics over GeForce? If so, then in regular stuff AND gaming QUADRO is just as fast as 8800. Buy QUADRO only if you need the stereo 3D port on it, or you are a hard-core Maya user.

    Unless by doing multiple things at once refers to After Effects rendering complex effects while Compressor is rendering your feature film, with Handbrake converting a DVD for your iPod, and you want to use Motion with Final Cut Pro without lag, don't get 8 core.

    You'll be surprised how capable 4 core is, just few months ago 8 core was considered extremely high-end option, suitable only for similar uses I mentioned above.

    I suggest you go to some Mac shop and test both out if possible..
     
  24. ziwi macrumors 65816

    ziwi

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2004
    Location:
    Right back where I started...
    #24
    Here you go folks - ask and ye shall recieve...

    http://www.macworld.com/article/131782/2008/01/macprobench2.html

    Looks like the best bang for the buck may be the new 2.8 single quad with the 8800 graphics. It tested quite well to the new 8's and old 4's...that with the unlikely possibliity that you would add the 2nd processor down the pike (unlikely that the price of thre xeon would drop so far while they are still in production to make it worthwhile for the 6% gain in most tasks - notthat one can even find them for sale anywhere...let alone a confirming test of addition) makes this an intriguing decision.

    my mind is almost made up...
     
  25. QuantumLo0p macrumors 6502a

    QuantumLo0p

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2006
    Location:
    U.S.A.
    #25
    Jeez, what an issue.

    What if you really can't use a lot of smp? Such as CAD/CAM?

    The reality is if you need the fastest core in town but can't use multiple core then you're stuck with a wildly expensive system.

    I use multiple cores at home more than I can at work.
     

Share This Page