Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

soon2bmac · Apr 1, 2007, 05:18 PM

Is it worth the extra money to get the 3.0 GHz processors? Anyone seen any good tests on the exact amount of difference between the speeds? I just dont see how $800 bucks is worth .34 x 2.

Thanks

applgeek · Apr 1, 2007, 05:34 PM

Nope. the system is fast enough. an extra 1 gig isnt worth 800 bucks. Even as a standalne processor, 1 gig isnt worth 800 bucks.

It is not worthwhile to pay the extra $$ for it.

skacoreimplore · Apr 1, 2007, 05:36 PM

seeing 3.0 GHZ x2 is just easier on the eyes

applgeek · Apr 1, 2007, 05:40 PM

Originally Posted by skacoreimplore

seeing 3.0 GHZ x2 is just easier on the eyes

It's not better on my eyes, because my eyes also see the extra cost

mac128k-1984 · Apr 1, 2007, 07:37 PM

The cost increase for going to 3.0GHz really does not justify the speed you'll get, I agree with applegeek in that the money will be better used towards ram, but I wouldn't get apple ram. Check out OWC you can get 6 gig for 719 and its the same ram that apple uses and the same heat spreaders. You can also find even cheaper ram elsewhere.

imitchellg5 · Apr 1, 2007, 07:43 PM

Think of it like this: The 3.0 GHz model is the fastest Mac ever, the 2.66 GHz model is the second fastest Mac ever (seriously). I'd be more than happy to have the 2nd fastest Mac ever (actually I'd be happy to break the 600 MHz mark

)

soon2bmac · Apr 1, 2007, 11:24 PM

Thanks guys, that is what I was thinking but I wanted to know from a couple people that had used them.

brokenjago · Apr 1, 2007, 11:56 PM

I got the 3.0Ghz cause I like that number.

I also had the money to pay for it.

applgeek · 02:12 PM

Originally Posted by soon2bmac

Thanks guys, that is what I was thinking but I wanted to know from a couple people that had used them.

Are you trying to say i have not used them?

i found that in video rendering, it shaved off up to 10 percent of render time. Now the 3 gig machine had an extra gig of ram too.....

I still find the 2.66 more appealing. For my wallet anyways.

mfbernstein · Apr 2, 2007, 01:16 PM

It really depends on what you're going to do with the machine. If you've got an incredibly important CPU bound process that you depend on, the maybe a 10% speedup is worth $800 and you should get the 3GHZ machine. If, on the other hand, you have a memory bound process, or what you're doing isn't quite so time-critical, save the $800, buy yourself a few gigs of RAM and pocket the difference.

Most people, I think, fall into the latter category. Let's put it this way: the 3GHZ MacPro can be at most 10% faster than an upgraded 2.66GHZ costing around $600 less. Do the math for your needs.

Eug · Apr 2, 2007, 01:41 PM

Originally Posted by brokenjago

I got the 3.0Ghz cause I like that number.

Welcome to 2004.

Just joking.

But yeah, I agree with the others. Unless you absolutely need the Hz, just get the 2.66 and put the rest towards RAM.

brokenjago · Apr 2, 2007, 04:46 PM

That was actually one of my reasons for getting it: finally, a 3.0Ghz Pro-level Mac! And I have one!

imitchellg5 · Apr 2, 2007, 04:47 PM

Originally Posted by applgeek

Are you trying to say i have not used them?

i found that in video rendering, it shaved off up to 10 percent of render time. Now the 3 gig machine had an extra gig of ram too.....

I still find the 2.66 more appealing. For my wallet anyways.

The RAM would have made more of a difference, not processor. By the way applgeek you have been acting pretty pissy. Read the thread more carefully. Nowhere did the OP say that he didn't think you had used them. In fact he said thanks for the advice!

applgeek · Apr 2, 2007, 05:44 PM

Originally Posted by soon2bmac

Thanks guys, that is what I was thinking but I wanted to know from a couple people that had used them.

hmm, sure implies that i do not use them. Although, i didnt really state performance in my first post.

Does it really matter?

imitchellg5 · Apr 2, 2007, 10:02 PM

Believe what you want. Just don't get offended.

mac128k-1984 · Apr 3, 2007, 09:11 AM

I agree with imitchellg5, you're going to see a more perceptible increase in performance with a ram upgrade then the processor upgrade. Of course if you do both you'll see an even better increase

Cadaver · Apr 4, 2007, 10:46 AM

Agreed. Unless you're income is dependent on the fastest video encoding or number crunching you can do, the difference between 2x2.66GHz and 2x3.0GHz isn't much. Under most circumstances, you'd be better off spending the price difference on more RAM or a faster video card (depending on what you do with the machine).

I have a 2x2.66GHz machine with 4GB of RAM, and its plenty fast.

dpicardi · Apr 4, 2007, 03:46 PM

Barefeats reported not long ago that you could get 3ghz-like performance out of 2.66 machines by configuring a striped raid. (I'm paraphrasing here but you get the point. Extra ram and a striped Raid and you can "in essence" have the speed of a "stadard" 3GHz machine.)