MacPro 2.66 vs 3.0 - Any suggestions?

[bigcityrecording]

I'm planning on taking the MacPro plunge and am trying to decide between the 2.66 and 3.0. I'll be using it exclusively with DP 5.x and Apogee Symphony system.

The only differences I can find between the 2 macs is:

1. 3.6mhz increase in speed
2. L2 backside cache is 8mb instead of 4mb
3. Oh, and the 3.0 is $700 more....


any thoughts?

[steveninkster]

I'm planning on taking the MacPro plunge and am trying to decide between the 2.66 and 3.0. I'll be using it exclusively with DP 5.x and Apogee Symphony system.

The only differences I can find between the 2 macs is:

1. 3.6mhz increase in speed
2. L2 backside cache is 8mb instead of 4mb
3. Oh, and the 3.0 is $700 more....


any thoughts?

Hi Paul,

here's my approach to spending money - in twelve month's time, are you more likely to miss the $700, or the extra horse-power in the Mac?

Not sure if this will help or make the decision even more stressful!

I personally bought a 3.0GHz Mac Pro recently and have not regretted it for a second.

Steven

[emulatorloo]

http://www.lowendmac.com/musings/06/0810.html

The Mac Pro Value Equation: Where's the Sweet Spot?
Dan Knight - 2006.08.10

More at the link, but here's an example paragraph:

<snip>
There's a $300 difference between the 2.0 GHz and 2.66 GHz models. That's less than 10% of the retail price for a 33% improvement in CPU speed. Unless your budget is especially tight, that's worth the relatively small difference in price.

Going to 3.0 GHz adds $800 to the price. That's almost a 30% increase in price for a 12% boost in speed - just about the opposite of the move from 2.0 to 2.66 GHz. The only way to justify the cost of the 3.0 GHz model is if shaving 10-12% off the time of video work (or anything equally intensive) will significantly increase your billables.
<snip>

---

[bigcityrecording]

[quote="emulatorloo"]The only way to justify the cost of the 3.0 GHz model is if shaving 10-12% off the time of video work (or anything equally intensive) will significantly increase your billables.[/b]

What about resale value related to the placebo effect of it being the "top" mac of its day. In the past, I have always bought the "top" mac of the day so that when I turned around to ebay it 2 years later, I got a better return.

Not sure in this case, though... Maybe I'm the placebo effect!!

[emulatorloo]

What about resale value related to the placebo effect of it being the "top" mac of its day.

Man that is always damn hard to predict, isn't it? I guess sorta depends on how long you keep a machine. If it is a short time, then maybe you will recapture some of that xtra $700.00. Me I tend to keep a machine forever, and that 2.66 model would last me a goooood long time I think -- especially because as I understand it the processor is socketed and I have read somewhere on the net of people dropping new processors in with good results. For example here:

http://www.anandtech.com/mac/showdoc.aspx?i=2832&p=6

I guess one way to try to figure it how the resale might work out is to look at G5 resale right now -- but there is already so many variables there -- PCI vs PCI-X vs PCI-e. Dual processor vs Dual Core Processor etc etc etc.

Best of luck, and HOW EXCITING that you are getting a great new machine.

[Frodo]

I think in this case it may be a wash of sorts. Your TOL strategy worked well for G4s and G5s-- but Intels have changed things somewhat in the sense that it's not a 100% disposable machine. Buyers of "older" Intels now have the option of upgrading the CPU. That means two years from now, someone with a 2.0 could just buy a 3Ghz chip rather than buying an entire 3G machine.

It's not clear what CPU upgrades will cost-- they could be expensive simply because it's Apple, or they could be rather affordable because its made by Intel. I confess to not knowing many details about upgrading an Intel CPU and how the cost might play in the market... but there's an element to the computer market that caters a bit more to the present rather than the future.

The most important thing is to make sure that YOU are getting the most out of your investment while the machine is in your possession. This factors into the value of the machine for YOU-- which must be weighed once the machine will be turned over for resale.

Will the 3G benefit you now? I've thrown a lot more than $700 at my system in hopes of improving its performance. In that context, the 3G sounds like a great deal. However, if 10-12% improvement (or 5-6% by some benchmarks) will prove to be negligible, then the 2.66 is the better deal. When comparing bang to buck, place just as much emphasis on the "bang" aspect. The resale market is really not as predictable as it once was.

On some level it doesn't matter at all when all we want is the machine that will work right and work well with our software combos at any price. For some people, the 2.66 is more than enough for what they're doing. For those upgrading from older G4's, the 2.66 is like paradise at a lower price. For those running a business that relies heavily on their computers, the balance of issues influencing their decision making can be quite different. $700 may not matter in the bigger picture, and resale value may be less important than performance value.

We go into new computers thinking "well, all I need to do is x,y, and z." But we do grow into our systems, and we do outgrow them as well. Further, software bloats and demands more over time. The differences between Puma and Tiger will likely be compounded by Leopard, which you will no doubt get into over the next two years.

For what I know of your work, I'd say get the 3G. But make sure the extra .34Ghz will indeed make the difference.

The 8MB L2 cache on the 3G is the other consideration where the 2.66 is only using 4MB on the L2. Finding out how DP, hard drives, and your plugins make use of the L2 could just be enough to seal the deal.

[emulatorloo]

It's not clear what CPU upgrades will cost-- they could be expensive simply because it's Apple, or they could be rather affordable because its made by Intel. I confess to not knowing many details about upgrading an Intel CPU and how the cost might play in the market... but there's an element to the computer market that caters a bit more to the present rather than the future.

Frodo -- The intel machines basically mean that the days of "Mac Specific"* CPU upgrades are over. Of course caution is in order -- you gotta know which processors are socket compatible. correct FSB speed etc etc w the machine you have, but there is lots of info on the net.

So for example. people who are upgrading their Core Duo intel mac minis are just going to a place like www.newegg.com and buying an intel Core 2 Duo processor -- either retail box or OEM, popping out the old processor and dropping in the new one.

Here's an example page -- Mac Mini Core 2 Duo Upgrade Reports:

http://www.xlr8yourmac.com/systems/mac_ ... l#storytop

The authors of the anandtech article I linked to above actually used a prerelease engineering sample to upgrade their Mac Pro. So it is that standard and predictable . . .

Basically the CPU market at vendors like newegg etc is

-- newest fastest processors cost the most.
-- as newer one get introduced, then the older ones get cheaper
-- eventually intel will go to a diff socket type, and the new socket type processors wont' be compatible.

--
*I can see vendors like sonnet doing some kind of value added packaging to a standard intel processor. But I am not sure what they could really add. . .maybe some kind of pre-testing or something?

[bigcityrecording]

The 8MB L2 cache on the 3G is the other consideration where the 2.66 is only using 4MB on the L2. Finding out how DP, hard drives, and your plugins make use of the L2 could just be enough to seal the deal.

I believe that's it in a nutshell... Oothers I have been talking to are very much emphasizing that L2 8mg cache issue... In their opinion that's more important than the .34 speed increase.

Decision is 99% made - I am planning on 3.0 unless some new info comes in the next 24 hours!