Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

Macintosh Sauce · Oct 31, 2006, 12:50 AM

I want to get a Mac Pro very soon, but I am trying to decide if the 3.00 GHz configuration is worth the extra charge over the 2.66 GHz version. How much of a difference is there in boot up times, etc.? Any links?

Catfish_Man · Oct 31, 2006, 01:29 AM

I'd be inclined to say no.

derekn · Oct 31, 2006, 01:49 AM

I'd say no too. There is no gain in boottimes or in most operations. About the only reason to get the 3Ghz right now is to say "i have Apples latest and greatest". MacWorld summed it up pretty good. $800 for a 13% increase in clock speed but you'll only get about a 5% increase in performance where there is any.

The MacPro is very much ahead of it's time, so as software gets optimized the 3Ghz may stretch out it's lead a bit but for right now, that $800 is better spent on more RAM. Otherwise, save it and invest it in something else.

EDIT: Here is MacWorlds review and benchmarks:
Macworld: First Look: Benchmarks: 3GHz Mac Pro

And here is barefeats:
Mac Pro 3GHz versus Quad-Core G5/2.5GHz

iMacfan · Oct 31, 2006, 05:03 AM

It's one of those things - if you need to ask the question, then you don't need it. Of course, if you want it, that's a different matter...

Just to give you an idea, my 2.66 Mac Pro boots up in 15-20 seconds. It's so fast that if I switch on my internet connection and Airport express at the same time, I have to manually connect as that takes longer to start up!

David

mac128k-1984 · Oct 31, 2006, 07:43 AM

While the 3Ghz is indeed faster, I don't think the speed increase is worth the extra 800 dollars you're paying for the faster mac. I think the 800 could be better applied by installing more ram and/or upgraiding the video or getting faster drives.

G-Force · Oct 31, 2006, 09:06 AM

I agree. I just bought a mac pro and went with the 2.66. I bought an extra 2GB of ram from crucial.

macgeek2005 · Oct 31, 2006, 10:15 AM

I think the 3.0Ghz Proccessor is a nice thing to get. It's sort of like being in the wave of the future already.

Imagine right now, two people have G4 powerbooks from 2003. One of them has a 867Mhz powerbook, and the other one has a 1.0Ghz.

Which one is gonna feel much more relevant to the present day than the other one?

It's like having a booby trap that's designed to cut someones head off when they walk through, and although the trap can do the job just fine, you want to add just a little more umph into the design.

I'm sorry, I just got up and it's 6:15AM.

But i'd go with the 3.0Ghz. Ram can be upgraded easily later.

Todd Madson · Oct 31, 2006, 10:47 AM

If money is no object, the 3.0 is a no-brainer.

The best "value per dollar" is the 2.66.

MarkLT1 · Oct 31, 2006, 11:52 AM

As others have said, for most people, No, it is not worth it.

That being said, I just made my Mac Pro purchase, and went with the 3.0. Why? The machine is going to be a number cruncher, running simulations, and I need every extra flop I can get. For me, the $800 was worth it, but if I was buying a daily workstation for office/photoshop/etc.. there is no way I'd go with the 3.0.

It comes down to what your needs of the machine are. For my number cruncher, the extra 10-15% in CPU speed will yield simulation runs that are 10-15 hours shorter. Well worth the $800.00. If this was a photoshop machine, and it was going to save me x.xx seconds when doing filtering on an image, I'd be inclined to save the money for something else. Then again, someone who is photoshopping all day, every day, may indeed find the time savings worth the money.

Tuoder · Oct 31, 2006, 03:30 PM

Unless you do alot of video editing or compiling, I doubt you'll even notice the difference, and even then it isn't a huge difference.

wr11 · Oct 31, 2006, 05:13 PM

I'll agree with the crowd and say the 2.66 is the way to go - as long as you get at least 2GB of ram.

The major difference when you're considering multi-core systems like the MacPro is that the gigahertz difference is multiplied by the number of cores. In the case of 2.66 to 3.0 GHz the upgrade is actually about 1.36GHz. Anyways - something to think about.

PowerPc = Pwnage · Oct 31, 2006, 07:29 PM

Amen.

Macintosh Sauce · 03:37 AM

I was trying to decide if I should get a MacBook or MacBook Pro now and get the Mac Pro sometime next year, but I decided I am going to get the Mac Pro @ 3.00 GHz asap.

I have done a lot of reading on forums lately, especially with the rumor that new dual quad core Xeon Mac Pro computers are coming soon. IMO, it is better to have a faster clocked dual core Xeon processor than a slower clocked quad core Xeon processor. The reason being that not all software is multi threaded, and there are less cores in the dual core Xeon configuration that are competing for the same cache. On the whole, I would expect a better experience with the 3.00 GHz configuration.

I will have all the money by the end of next week and then I can order the Mac Pro. I have $2700+ right now - almost there.

Next year, I will get myself a black MacBook (when it is Core 2 Duo) to carry for my new substitute teaching position. Or I might get the MacBook Pro at that time...

I kind of like the new MacBook Pro's thickness.

Macintosh Sauce · Nov 3, 2006, 03:48 AM

Originally Posted by mac128k-1984

While the 3Ghz is indeed faster, I don't think the speed increase is worth the extra 800 dollars you're paying for the faster mac. I think the 800 could be better applied by installing more ram and/or upgraiding the video or getting faster drives.

Right now, it is only $719 to upgrade to the 3.00 GHz Xeon on the Mac Pro. A little better than $800.

Macintosh Sauce · 03:37 AM

Originally Posted by iMacfan

It's one of those things - if you need to ask the question, then you don't need it. Of course, if you want it, that's a different matter...

Just to give you an idea, my 2.66 Mac Pro boots up in 15-20 seconds. It's so fast that if I switch on my internet connection and Airport express at the same time, I have to manually connect as that takes longer to start up!

David

That's pretty fast - much faster than my old Power Mac G4 dual 1.25 GHz (Mirror Drive) with Mac OS X 10.4 Tiger.

Macintosh Sauce · Nov 3, 2006, 03:54 AM

Originally Posted by wr11

I'll agree with the crowd and say the 2.66 is the way to go - as long as you get at least 2GB of ram.

The major difference when you're considering multi-core systems like the MacPro is that the gigahertz difference is multiplied by the number of cores. In the case of 2.66 to 3.0 GHz the upgrade is actually about 1.36GHz. Anyways - something to think about.

That is exactly what I was thinking about...

With a dual core Xeon that is clocked faster, I would expect to get a better experience that a slower clocked quad core Xeon. The reason for this is that in the former only two cores are competing for the cache, instead of four as in the latter.

Catfish_Man · Nov 3, 2006, 12:35 PM

Originally Posted by Macintosh Sauce

That is exactly what I was thinking about...

With a dual core Xeon that is clocked faster, I would expect to get a better experience that a slower clocked quad core Xeon. The reason for this is that in the former only two cores are competing for the cache, instead of four as in the latter.

Your conclusion is likely correct, but the reasoning is flawed. Each core has 2MB of cache; the reason a faster dual might be faster than a slower quad is due to applications not using (possibly not being able to use, some tasks can't) all the available parallelism. There'll also be some contention for main memory, which might slow things a little.

P · Nov 3, 2006, 01:26 PM

Originally Posted by Catfish_Man

Your conclusion is likely correct, but the reasoning is flawed. Each core has 2MB of cache; the reason a faster dual might be faster than a slower quad is due to applications not using (possibly not being able to use, some tasks can't) all the available parallelism. There'll also be some contention for main memory, which might slow things a little.

Your conclusion is correct, but your reasoning is also wrong - slightly. The two cores on the same die have a shared L2 cache. In the current Quad models, there is one die per socket and two sockets. The Quadro Xeons coming down the pipe now have two dies in one package, so there are two dies (or chips) in one socket. An Octo Mac would then have 2 sockets, 2 dies per socket and 2 cores per die. There would be a total of 4 chunks of L2 cache at 4 MB each. The reason the scaling won't be linear even for a well-threaded app is that there will be a larger chance of the active memory page that one core wants is in the L2 cache for another die.

Macintosh Sauce · Nov 3, 2006, 05:24 PM

Originally Posted by P

Your conclusion is correct, but your reasoning is also wrong - slightly. The two cores on the same die have a shared L2 cache. In the current Quad models, there is one die per socket and two sockets. The Quadro Xeons coming down the pipe now have two dies in one package, so there are two dies (or chips) in one socket. An Octo Mac would then have 2 sockets, 2 dies per socket and 2 cores per die. There would be a total of 4 chunks of L2 cache at 4 MB each. The reason the scaling won't be linear even for a well-threaded app is that there will be a larger chance of the active memory page that one core wants is in the L2 cache for another die.

That makes it a little more clear...

dmetzcher · Nov 4, 2006, 07:07 PM

I have decided to get the 2.66GHz model. I cannot personally justify the higher cost of the faster processor. The fact is that some people can, and they should go ahead and get the faster model, but, for most people, the cost-to-performance ratio just doesn't justify the faster processor.

Someone has said that they want to have a more relevant system in years to come, and justified getting the faster processor by reasoning that it will last them longer than the 2.66GHz model. That is true, indeed, but remember that these Xeon processors will most-likely be upgradeable in the future (if one is comfortable doing the upgrade themselves), and one would be able to get an even faster processor, at that time, for the same cost to upgrade now. The machine would be even faster in the future, and would last even longer in terms of the applications it would still be able to run.

The best is not always worth it, and I think this is one of those cases.

Daniel Bayer · Nov 5, 2006, 03:56 PM

Even though the clock speed is faster, for an extra $800, I put my money elsewhere. I went w/ the 2.66, 4 GB of ram, 1900XT video card, two 500 GB drive striped raid, 250GB photoshop scratch disk, Raptor boot drive, etc.

This config. screams, that is what I need it to do so...there you go.

- - e r i k - - · Nov 5, 2006, 06:33 PM

Indeed. I got the X1900XT, 4GB RAM, extra harddrive and a 150GB Raptor for swap and current project files.

The system is a dream now compared to the disappointment it was before the 2 GB RAM and Raptor upgrade.

dpicardi · Nov 7, 2006, 09:52 AM

Originally Posted by Daniel Bayer

Even though the clock speed is faster, for an extra $800, I put my money elsewhere. I went w/ the 2.66, 4 GB of ram, 1900XT video card, two 500 GB drive striped raid, 250GB photoshop scratch disk, Raptor boot drive, etc.

This config. screams, that is what I need it to do so...there you go.

Be interested to know what drives you are using in your raid config. I've read reports that some seagate drives, while speced well, are causing problems in Macs.

Thoughts?

By the way raid seems to be the way to go. Bare feats did a study on this and by making your 2.66 a raid, you can almost match the performance of the 3.oo model.

Thanks!

Dave