Has anyone seen comparisons between the 2 GHZ and 2.66 GHZ Mac Pro models? I'd think the 2 GHZ model would work fine for me, being it's a quad, but if it's a significant improvement for what I do, I might as well spend the $300 for the 2.66 GHZ model.
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.
Mac Pro - 2 GHZ and 2.66 GHZ Comparisons
- Thread starter aviationwiz
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
The pricing structure is designed so that the 2.66 ghz model is the most appealing economically. I mean, taking a $300 price cut for a 25% reduction in processing power is ludicrous. Even if you don't think you need the extra
.66 ghz, it works out that getting the 2.66 ghz model is the best deal.
.66 ghz, it works out that getting the 2.66 ghz model is the best deal.
It sure isn't the best deal if you actually don't need the extra processing power.
This can be said for anything, it may only cost X much more, but if you don't need it, why bother.
This can be said for anything, it may only cost X much more, but if you don't need it, why bother.
aviationwiz said:
If it helps, I had originally planned to get the base (2Ghz) Mac Pro, when it was announced. However, having thought about the possible costs involved in upgrading both CPUs, I decided to go the extra for the suggested model.
I did reduce the system hard drive to 160Gbs and used some of the 'savings' to pay for a Bluetooth module, which will be useful. I'll be using seperate larger drive(s) for my media and other docs anyway.
If you really don't think you need the processing power, then, by all means, configure the system that meets your expectations and needs. I was just saying that if you were on the edge about the decision, that the 2.66 would really be the better choice.
aviationwiz said:
I'm in the same situation as yourself, I think this link might help you with your decision. Although they are not detailed tests they give you an idea of the difference between the two processors.
http://www.macworld.com/2006/08/firstlooks/macpro3ghzbench/index.php
apple1984 said:
Just a small quibble, but it's a 25% reduction in clock rate. The reduction in speed will be less than that because speed does not scale 1:1 with GHz. So you could argue it's a 20% reduction in 'speed' for a 12% reduction in price, which must not be confused with 'cost'
