It hasn't escaped my notice that the retail price of that second Xeon is more than $500, so it's certainly cheaper to pay for it up front. But as the previous poster said, 8-cores would be overkill. In 5 years whatever is available will be so much better than what I have now, not to mention the fact that I probably can't install any of it in my machine (by then we'll have new CPUs, DDR4, SATA III, etc), that I don't really believe in upgrading. Sell the old machine and buy a new one. Which is why I'm asking about resale value. If the single-cpu machines don't hold their value I didn't save anything by buying one.While he saves $500 and spends it towards other hardware, he can never expand it to 8-Cores without voiding the warranty or tinkering with the machine.
When instead, he should future proof himself with the fastest possible config and worry about upgrades later.
5 years from now won't you wish you had twice the cores?
5 years from now won't you wish you had twice the cores?
That's kind of what I'm thinking. Get a quad, sell in 2 years, buy a 1-CPU octo-core Nehalem, sell in 2 years, buy a 16-core Sandy Bridge, etc. One of the less obvious reasons I want a Pro is that it has ECC memory. Memory configurations are getting so large now that without ECC silent corruption becomes a statistical certainty. As a FileVault user I'm a huge fan of end-to-end data integrity (I can't wait for read-write ZFS).Go Quad now, and get a new Mac Pro in 2/3 years, that sounds like more fun to me.
Get the old woodcrest model which is cheaper than a single cpu harper, then upgrade the hell out of it.