Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
2.0GHz Mac Pro: If you own one of these, please post performance feedback.
- Thread starter ronni3
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Fewer processors pass the tests at 3GH... Hence Intel charges more for them.
Of course when Intel get their manufacturing process fine-tuned they get more CPUs passing at higher speeds, but just lock them to a lower speed because there is more demand for the less ecpensive CPUs... Getting one of these "underclocked" processors is an over-clocker's dream in the world of build-it-yourself.
Right now the 2.4GHz Core 2 Duo CPUs are great for this (Apple don't use any of these Conroe processors in their current product lineup). People have had them up to 3GHz+ (one enterprising individule took one up to about 3.6GHz with water cooling). Suggests that the Core 2 Duo design has a lot of headroom for the future. Which is good news for future Apple plans.
The prices on procs 'will' drop. I have the 2.0 Ghz, and have yet to max out the procs. I'm figuring that I'll wait a couple of years, and then toss in the Xeon Quads, (already built and tested by someone...maybe Anandtech?) and have 8 cores.
I think the only thing I need to do today, is add more RAM, as I'm running a bunch of apps. I hear the memory access is a little faster too, when you populate both memory risers and get the full 256 bit bandwidth.
I believe it's to cover the overheads in offering alternate processor configurations. All vendors overcharge for the highest end components especially on parts they consider non-user upgradeable. Intel's chip pricing is more inline with performance than Apple's. Theoretically Apple make around $500 each time someone buys a Mac Pro with 2Ghz or 3Ghz chips if you go on the prices you can buy processors for as a consumer. In short it's really because well they can.
Are the demos universal binaries? Not everyone has the full game (I don't have Doom III but have UT2K4).
I don't know if these results from macspeedzone are much better
macreviewzone.com/html/other/comparison_request.shtml#comparisons
Thanks! I bet this will help a lot of people view the difference in performance between the different configurations of the Mac Pro.
I think the 2.0 is just fine
I know you have already decided, but I thought it was smarter to upgrade the ram, video card, and monitor and get the best machine I could get today for a broader range of tasks. I wouldn't get hung up on the processor speed -- for most people it doesn't matter that much. If processor speed does matter, than by all means, get the 2.66. It is the sweet spot in the range. For me, the 4 processors are a nice bump for the one or two applications that can access them efficiently. The incremental speed won't be noticeable for 95% of my tasks.
I know you have already decided, but I thought it was smarter to upgrade the ram, video card, and monitor and get the best machine I could get today for a broader range of tasks. I wouldn't get hung up on the processor speed -- for most people it doesn't matter that much. If processor speed does matter, than by all means, get the 2.66. It is the sweet spot in the range. For me, the 4 processors are a nice bump for the one or two applications that can access them efficiently. The incremental speed won't be noticeable for 95% of my tasks.
I benched UT2K4 on my machine just now. Here are the results:
I am getting a steady 78fps in three tries. Machine is totally stock. To benchmark your own machine you need a retail UT2K4. Change the resolution to 800x600 and change all the graphics settings to defaults (button in lower right corner) because we're not benching the video cards here. Open terminal and type the following:
That will run the benchmark. The results will be in a file in the following directory:
~/Library/Application Support/Unreal Tournament 2004/Benchmark/Results
It'd be nice to see some 2GB+ 2.66 and 3.0 results. I don't think the video card will affect the benchmark since it's not a flyby and the resolution is so low.
Code:
UT2004 Build UT2004_Build_[2005-11-23_16.22]
MacOS 10.4.8
Unknown processor @ 1990 MHz
ATI Radeon X1900 OpenGL Engine
ons-torlan?spectatoronly=true?numbots=12?quickstart=true?attractcam=true -benchmark -seconds=100
11.421361 / 64.143433 / 78.156197 fps rand[1477939570]
Score = 64.163155
Code:
cd /Applications/Unreal\ Tournament\ 2004.app
Contents/MacOS/Unreal\ Tournament\ 2004 ons-torlan?spectatoronly=true?numbots=12?quickstart=true?attractcam=true -benchmark -seconds=100That will run the benchmark. The results will be in a file in the following directory:
~/Library/Application Support/Unreal Tournament 2004/Benchmark/Results
It'd be nice to see some 2GB+ 2.66 and 3.0 results. I don't think the video card will affect the benchmark since it's not a flyby and the resolution is so low.
How did you run a test in Torlan? I think you didnt use standard benchmarking utilities for it, I suggest you try SantaDuck's Toolpak and report back with Antalus botmatch and whatever you like
Are u serious? 78 fps? Should be way better!
Here are my results:
G5 Dual 2.5, 19" Samsung, ATI 9600XT 128mb, 1.5Gb RAM
800x600 Default: 78fps
1280x1024 MAX: 89 fps
iMac 20" Duo 2 Core, ATI 1600XT 256mb, 2Gb RAM
800x600 Default: 186 fps
1280x800 MAX: 170 fps
1680x1050 MAX: 146 fps
That doesn't sound right at all. Your FPS will NOT go up when you make it do more work. Something is wrong with that.
I think you guys should state aferage fps, not maximum.
Just benchmarked my iMac and got
UT2004 Build UT2004_Build_[2005-11-23_16.22]
MacOS 10.4.8
Unknown CPU @ 2000 MHz
ATI Radeon 9600 OpenGL Engine
ons-torlan?spectatoronly=true?numbots=12?quickstart=true?attractcam=true -benchmark -seconds=100
2.777693 / 23.761429 / 50.920036 fps rand[401447694]
Score = 23.768675
So, its 23 FPS.
Quit bashing the 2.0....
For most purposes the 2.0 is fine. It certainly feels zippy in all the applications I run including games (I have 2gb of memory by the way which i do think is worth having). Yes I could have spent more on the CPUs, but then I wanted a 30" display....unless you have endless funds you have to compromise somewhere. It won't be long before even the 3.0 processors are old hat anyway.....
The other way to save is to go for just one 160gb drive and add your own later.
For most purposes the 2.0 is fine. It certainly feels zippy in all the applications I run including games (I have 2gb of memory by the way which i do think is worth having). Yes I could have spent more on the CPUs, but then I wanted a 30" display....unless you have endless funds you have to compromise somewhere. It won't be long before even the 3.0 processors are old hat anyway.....
The other way to save is to go for just one 160gb drive and add your own later.
The issue isn't whether the 2.0 is fine. The issue is that the. cost benefit highly favors the 2.66. for $300 more you get 33% more processing speed. For $800 more than the 2.66 you get a modest 12.4% more processing speed with the 3.0 (or 50% more processing power for the 3.0 vs. the 2.0 for a whopping $1100). Clearly the sweet spot pricewise is the 2.67.
cheers.
I do take your point, but it's still $300! As the OP said he couldnt afford the 2.66 it's irrelevant if it is a good value upgrade. He was asking opinions on the performance of the 2.0 - and in my experience it's a great machine. One day I will treat mine to new CPUs (prob 8 core) and that $300 will come in very handy....
Well here is my experience. I got my Tower (2.0/1Gb/7300) for $1804. Then you figure in taxes for the Republic of Kalifornia. Im not a power user as i just started playing with Macs about 1 yr now (i saw the light). The tower has 1Gb still and the basic graphics card. I have since added a second optical drive and about to add a 500Gb hard drive (just ordered it 5 mins ago). I already had a 23 inch monitor from apple so it was a good deal for me.
I also know someone who has successfully swapped to a 3.0 chip that someday i will inherit as he is always trying to upgrade. It was a win/win situation for me. Like i said im not a power user and im new to macs.
I figure if my Tower can move as fast as the G5 tower w/4gb ram i used in the apple store, i will be happy for several years (it was stupid fast). Good luck with you purchase.
I also know someone who has successfully swapped to a 3.0 chip that someday i will inherit as he is always trying to upgrade. It was a win/win situation for me. Like i said im not a power user and im new to macs.
I figure if my Tower can move as fast as the G5 tower w/4gb ram i used in the apple store, i will be happy for several years (it was stupid fast). Good luck with you purchase.