[thebunny]

What do you guys think? Most of you are buying the 2.66.

So, saving $300 now towards a 3.0 GHz upgrade down the line or going for the 2.66 right away? It looks like Intel is abandoning the current Xeon platform (well, it's hard to say, the roadmap is a mess):

Intel server strategy crashes as Xeon roadmap changes

If there aren't any higher frequencies than 3.0 (that's if we're super unlucky since all of these chips can hit the 3.4 GHz easy) the prices don't come down either. Any insight?

[Promotiona]

Hello all.
Please, give me link to any AD program - wanna to purchase!!!

Thank you!

[derekn]

Originally Posted by thebunny 

What do you guys think? Most of you are buying the 2.66.

So, saving $300 now towards a 3.0 GHz upgrade down the line or going for the 2.66 right away? It looks like Intel is abandoning the current Xeon platform (well, it's hard to say, the roadmap is a mess):

Intel server strategy crashes as Xeon roadmap changes

If there aren't any higher frequencies than 3.0 (that's if we're super unlucky since all of these chips can hit the 3.4 GHz easy) the prices don't come down either. Any insight?

Well first off, that article is from October 2005. The Core 2 roadmap and beyond is pretty solid, so in that regard at least there isn't much to worry about.

If you're on a budget at the moment, go for the 2Ghz MacPro. If you have the budget, go for the 2.66. Down the road, we're just going to see the performance increase and likely the power consumption get even lower. It shouldn't be any trouble dropping in a new chip, a 4 core Xeon has already been put in the MacPro with no difficulty. And of course, the prices will come down on the faster chips once they start getting out in bulk.

[iMacfan]

Basically, the CPUs are one of the most expensive and tricky components to replace in a Mac Pro. Also, Apple give you a very bad deal on the 2.0s, so if you can afford the 2.66, get it. If you can't, then no one's blaming you.

David

[mac128k-1984]

I think for the increase in price the 2.66 makes sense more so then trying to justify the extra dough to get a 3GHz cpu.

[discotronic]

I purchased the Mac Pro 2.0. My reason for not going the 2.66 route was pure budget. I wanted the 1900XT and more RAM. For my current needs the upgraded RAM and video card are more important than the higher clocked processor.

I figure that when the time comes it will be cheaper to upgrade the processor than to upgrade the video card. Mac video cards have a premium that is just uncalled for. The processors will be available at places like NewEgg and TigerDirect for relatively cheap when I am ready to upgrade.

If you look at the Radeon 9800 Pro's price of $229 to $259 you will see the premium. The same card on the PC side can be found for under $100.

[robby818]

The dual 2.0s refurbed were $1899 on the Apple store a few days ago. They are gone now but will probably return before long. 2.66 is a better buy but if you are on a tight budget then 2.0 is still a very quick machine.

[thebunny]

Originally Posted by derekn 

Well first off, that article is from October 2005. The Core 2 roadmap and beyond is pretty solid, so in that regard at least there isn't much to worry about.

You're right. This is from the Intel Developer Forum 2006:
Fall IDF 2006 wrap - The Tech Report - Page 1

This picture tells 1000 words:


It seems they'll keep using the 5000 chipset (which is in the Mac Pro) so we'll be able to pop in new chips later next year and maybe beyond.

I know 2.66 is a much better deal but budget is budget and now I'm more certain I'll be able to update the chips a year or two down the line.

[iMacfan]

That may be faulty thinking - remember that a chipset is not the same thing as a socket.

David

[mduell]

Buying the 2.0 is handing Apple $500. They only give you back $300 for the downgrade, but they save $800 from Intel.
If you're so cash-strapped that a 2.0 MP seems reasonable, I'd look at an iMac instead.

[discotronic]

Originally Posted by mduell 

Buying the 2.0 is handing Apple $500. They only give you back $300 for the downgrade, but they save $800 from Intel.
If you're so cash-strapped that a 2.0 MP seems reasonable, I'd look at an iMac instead.

Never mind. You are not even worth the comment.