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.
2.66 vs 3.0 Quad
- Thread starter LightMast
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
i personally would just get the 2.66 and more RAM.....but if you have the money for the 3.0....i guess it would last longer in the long run
Another vote for more RAM. In a couple of years time you can put some low end quad core 4GHz chips in it to extend its life, and they'll be a couple of hundred each by then. Memory you'll use now.
Check these benchmarks.
http://www.barefeats.com/quad06.html
http://www.apple.com/macpro/performance.html
I say get the 2.66Ghz and more ram.
http://www.barefeats.com/quad06.html
http://www.apple.com/macpro/performance.html
I say get the 2.66Ghz and more ram.
Get the 8 core with no RAM! Dose anyone here search. This is like the bazillianth post of this kind. Hell even I did a similar one yesterday. 
Just one small point....
Sockets change. Chipset requirements change too. While Clovertown is compatible with the current chipset, Penryn-based 45nm server chips might require an updated chipset, and after that there will be a CPU interface change.
I personally decided on the 2.66. The 3 would have been nice but was not worth the price to me. so instead I was able to bump the RAM up to 4 Gigs, so I would vote for the 2.66
This is like the bazillianth post of this kind. Hell even I did a similar one yesterday.
So, ah, hey pot, what color was that kettle again?
I went back and forth between 2.66 and 3.0. I'm upgrading from a G3 for working on photo files, etc. Although the 3.0 has a nice ring to it on paper, saving a few seconds here and there was not enough to justify the $700+ upgrade price. I researched it and researched it, and the overwhelming majority said go for the 2.66.
Could I afford the 3.0ghz? Yes. But the $700 seems better spent on more RAM, the ATI upgrade, monitor calibration tool, camera goodies, etc.
Could I afford the 3.0ghz? Yes. But the $700 seems better spent on more RAM, the ATI upgrade, monitor calibration tool, camera goodies, etc.
I'll add my voice to the chorus...
I too went with the 2.66ghz. Upgraded the RAM, plan on steadily upgrading that as needed.
The other thing - and I never see this mentioned here: the additional cash I saved let me spend more on software. I ended up purchasing CS3 Web Premium instead of the small a la carte selection I had planned.
I too went with the 2.66ghz. Upgraded the RAM, plan on steadily upgrading that as needed.
The other thing - and I never see this mentioned here: the additional cash I saved let me spend more on software. I ended up purchasing CS3 Web Premium instead of the small a la carte selection I had planned.
Thanks, I went and played with a 2.66 running FCP and Motion for a while at the mac store today. It's pretty powerful even with 1gb of Ram!
One thing, when I added a third video track, without changing opacity or anything it would no longer realtime render, it just showed a blue screen saying Not Rendered in the viewer. Can anyone give me any insight on why it would real time render mroe than two tracks?
One thing, when I added a third video track, without changing opacity or anything it would no longer realtime render, it just showed a blue screen saying Not Rendered in the viewer. Can anyone give me any insight on why it would real time render mroe than two tracks?
Get the 8 core with no RAM! Dose anyone here search. This is like the bazillianth post of this kind. Hell even I did a similar one yesterday.
lol@8 Cores with no Ram