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.
GeForce 8700 GT or 2.3 GHz
- Thread starter GreenDice
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Just so people are not confused I believe the are referring to the NVIDIA GeForce 7800 GT. And yes I would agree to go for the better graphics over the better processor, however you will not likely see much of a performance increase from the graphics in Aperture or Photoshop because they are almost completely processor and RAM dependent, but if you ever play any games or do any kind of motion graphics you will absolutely love they advantage of the 7800 GT. Both machines look great so either way you can't go wrong but what ever way you go you need to start with at least 1 Gb of RAM and preferably 1.5 or 2 GB to see the machines full potential.
It's 7800GT, by the way.
You can think of it like this: 2.0 vs 2.3 GHz is a roughly 15% overall speed increase for a roughly 20% price increase vs. a similarly specced machine. The 7800GT will get you between 50% and 100% graphics speed increase vs a 6600 (I'd assume you'd get at least the full 6600) for the same roughly 20% price increase.
If you did nothing but number crunching (video encoding, say), then the processor speed would be the better investment. But, since a lot of the OS makes use of the graphics card these days and the 7800 is so much faster, it's probably going to be the better investment in most cases. Not quite sure how much either of the apps you're interested in benefit from the GPU, but it's probably going to help out (particularly Aperature--I'm just guessing, but Apple seems to do well at accellerating 2D apps with the GPU; Motion, which is admittedly somewhat different, sees a huge speed boost).
Of course, you can't upgrade the processors later, but you can put in a new GPU, so that's one more thing to think about...
You can think of it like this: 2.0 vs 2.3 GHz is a roughly 15% overall speed increase for a roughly 20% price increase vs. a similarly specced machine. The 7800GT will get you between 50% and 100% graphics speed increase vs a 6600 (I'd assume you'd get at least the full 6600) for the same roughly 20% price increase.
If you did nothing but number crunching (video encoding, say), then the processor speed would be the better investment. But, since a lot of the OS makes use of the graphics card these days and the 7800 is so much faster, it's probably going to be the better investment in most cases. Not quite sure how much either of the apps you're interested in benefit from the GPU, but it's probably going to help out (particularly Aperature--I'm just guessing, but Apple seems to do well at accellerating 2D apps with the GPU; Motion, which is admittedly somewhat different, sees a huge speed boost).
Of course, you can't upgrade the processors later, but you can put in a new GPU, so that's one more thing to think about...
I would go for the 2.3 Dual. You can always upgrade the video card later, and the 6600 should be more than adequate for Photoshop.
Based on these applications I would say CPU and RAM are critical. Games & Apple's Motion always paired with better video card but as I use of FCP, DVDSP, Photoshop, Nikon Capture and soon Aperture I am not convinced upgrading the card is a priority - though I would definitely get the full Nv6600 which as 256 vs 128mb VRAM.GreenDice said:
GreenDice said:
I'm very interested to hear how you came to the decision on the 2.3. I'm kinda stuck between two extremes.
2.0ghz 2Gb/250Gb Nv250Mb BT/airport
OR
skip 2.3 for barebones Quad - crazy comparison but when I do a BTO 2.3 I can't but help think oh bit more $$$ and I got the cool Quad.
(3rd party 2Gb ram later)
Monyx said:
It is like buying a car. Another $50 a month can get you the better car.
My difference is $300 between 2.0 and 2.3 and another $640 between 2.3 and the quad. However, it is $940 between 2.0 and the quad. That is a big jump from 2.0 to the quad. In addition , I think 2.3 is more than enough for me. So I shell out the extra $300, not $940. I need money for software (Aperture and Photoshop).
GreenDice said:
You just answered your own question - get the 2.3 G5 and stock up on crucial ram. The Quad is serious power that you probably wont utilize ... at least anytimw soon. Use that money for RAM and software.
GreenDice said:
Hmm, Oz similar spec'd 2 to 2.3 difference is US$450, the 2Gb ram Quad is another $800. Relatively speaking, no difference to your choices. But in my currency that US450 becomes AUD$600 that seems too much premium to pay for 0.3Ghz
(For comparison Oz annual weekly earnings are AUD$1k per week before tax)