Which refurb?

[Fogtripper]

Looking to replace my recently deceased PM tower. Rather long in the tooth, the motherboard finally took a poo.

Apple has a few refurbs, and I am stuck trying to decide between these 2:

The 2.8GHz is $100 cheaper, and has a slightly larger drive and 1G more RAM (2x1G). It also has the ATI 2600 XT.

However, I am thinking the better processor of the 3GHz trumps the overpriced RAM and HD in the former.

The pre-installed RAM is not much of a concern, as either way I would be upping it with additional (and much cheaper) 3rd party chips. Most all of my "important" client files are currently residing on an external drive, so the internal is not a huge factor. Both setups are easily expandable.

So, is the 3GHz a better choice for $100 more?

 

[techound1]

IMHO the 3 is the better deal, especially since you're loading up on after-market RAM. If it helps you to think about it this way, you're adding far less than 1% to the cost of the machine for a faster processor.

 

[digitalnicotine]

I agree, go for the faster processor. When it's time to upgrade, all the other options that differ between these systems will allow 3rd party suppliers at lower costs, that will continue to get lower over time, and can easily be swapped out yourself. The processors/heatsinks are harder to find, harder to upgrade (depending on geekiness factor).

The difference may seem minimal on a single or dual proc., but on a quad, I think it will be noticeable, and may potentially extend your use of the system. Good luck to you.

 

[windowpain]

Another vote for the 3 gigHz. The difference in hard disk size is pretty small, and not big enough that it should influence your decision.

like you (and others) have already said, everything else is expandable, the processor isn't.

In a years time you wont look back and feel you could have saved money on a slower processor, thats for sure. Get the faster one!

 

[zainjetha]

Definitely 3.0ghz... processor cant be upgraded like RAM or HDD...

 

[nick9191]

I'm going to vote for the 2.8, its much newer technology than the old one which is from 2006! and although lower in clock speed, it is likely the same speed.

 

[Fogtripper]

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Really? They are both dual quad-core.


Went with the 3GHz.

Should be looking for space to set the gargantuan tower thursday or friday.

 

[NewbieNerd]

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Really? They are both dual quad-core.


Went with the 3GHz.

Should be looking for space to set the gargantuan tower thursday or friday.

http://www.barefeats.com/harper.html

Current 2.8 beats last gen 3.0 in all but one test. Even if the 2.8 is better than the 3.0 only marginally, you still opted to pay more for older technology, less hard drive, worse video card, mostly lower specs (other than the proc speed). I'm sure you will be plenty happy with your 3.0, but I would have gone with the 2.8 myself.

 

[Fogtripper]

http://www.barefeats.com/harper.html

Current 2.8 beats last gen 3.0 in all but one test. Even if the 2.8 is better than the 3.0 only marginally, you still opted to pay more for older technology, less hard drive, worse video card, mostly lower specs (other than the proc speed). I'm sure you will be plenty happy with your 3.0, but I would have gone with the 2.8 myself.

OK, I am left scratching my head here now.
Why is the 3.0 being sold as between the 2.8 and the 3.2?

(Is the 3.0 not a Harpertown?)

Edit:
Spoke with Apple. The 3.0 I was looking at is indeed last years Clover Processor. I switched the order to the (confirmed) Harpertown one:

 

[nick9191]

No its the previous generation Woodcrest. Hence the less RAM, rubbish video card, small hard drive.