First, I've seen tons of information out there in the forum, and have searched a ton. I think the answer is there, but have somewhat been confused by it.
I'm not in the final stages of which Mac Pro to get (upgrading from my 1,1).
I think that I've pretty much come down to getting a quad 3.2 (most likely, with a 5870).
a. I'm not going to get a hex 3.33, even though I'd want it, because the actual cost difference is another $650 at least.
b. I've been close to getting the octo 2.4 (without the upgraded graphics card), even though I know that the hex is the sweet spot, merely because it's within the price range I've set up (just the way the deals seems to be breaking, the octo ends up being within my budget range whereas the hex is outside it. (It's like $200 more than the quad 3.2.)
c. I considered getting an iMac i7 2.93, but in the end didn't want to give up the hard drive bays, etc. (And with a ssd boot drive, was pretty damn pricey anyway.)
d. I didn't consider the base Mac Pro for long, because it would irk me that the iMac is faster for a lot of things.
I'm into photo editing, some video editing, etc. I want the machine to last 4 years, like my last one.
So, the issue is -- I haven't seen tons of testing for the quad 3.2. I assuming it will be faster for most things I care about -- Aperture, CS5, than the iMac. And I'm guessing that it will be on par, more or less, for those types of things with the octo 2.4. But if that's not the case, then it seems like it might be worthwhile for me to get the octo 2.4 and just upgrade the graphics card later, if I need it. Any quad 3.2 owners out there?
I have no intention of upgrading the processors in the future.
Again, the hex 3.33 is just off the table because of price. Although I'd take that one in a second.
Thanks
I'm not in the final stages of which Mac Pro to get (upgrading from my 1,1).
I think that I've pretty much come down to getting a quad 3.2 (most likely, with a 5870).
a. I'm not going to get a hex 3.33, even though I'd want it, because the actual cost difference is another $650 at least.
b. I've been close to getting the octo 2.4 (without the upgraded graphics card), even though I know that the hex is the sweet spot, merely because it's within the price range I've set up (just the way the deals seems to be breaking, the octo ends up being within my budget range whereas the hex is outside it. (It's like $200 more than the quad 3.2.)
c. I considered getting an iMac i7 2.93, but in the end didn't want to give up the hard drive bays, etc. (And with a ssd boot drive, was pretty damn pricey anyway.)
d. I didn't consider the base Mac Pro for long, because it would irk me that the iMac is faster for a lot of things.
I'm into photo editing, some video editing, etc. I want the machine to last 4 years, like my last one.
So, the issue is -- I haven't seen tons of testing for the quad 3.2. I assuming it will be faster for most things I care about -- Aperture, CS5, than the iMac. And I'm guessing that it will be on par, more or less, for those types of things with the octo 2.4. But if that's not the case, then it seems like it might be worthwhile for me to get the octo 2.4 and just upgrade the graphics card later, if I need it. Any quad 3.2 owners out there?
I have no intention of upgrading the processors in the future.
Again, the hex 3.33 is just off the table because of price. Although I'd take that one in a second.
Thanks