Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

golby · Oct 24, 2005, 10:36 PM

Anyone else agree that the DC 2.3 is not worth the extra $400? I'm in need of a new Mac desktop and i'm really impressed with the new hardware, pci-e and ddr2, not to mention the 1mb l2 cache per core. However i just dont under the small enhancements you gain bw the 2.3 and 2.0. I would love the quad but there is no way i can afford it.

Any thoughts?

mduell · Oct 24, 2005, 10:49 PM

Yea, I can't see $375 for an extra 300Mhz when you could get an extra 3GB RAM (from Crucial) instead.

golby · Oct 24, 2005, 11:36 PM

Originally Posted by mduell

Yea, I can't see $375 for an extra 300Mhz when you could get an extra 3GB RAM (from Crucial) instead.

Exactly, why do they constantly do this? Why not just release a single 2.3 and then a quad 2.5, just like they have two models of the iMac. Just doesn't make sense.

jamil5454 · Oct 25, 2005, 12:20 AM

Normally you'd gain PCI-X slots and 4 extra RAM slots, but in this case, the PowerMacs are more less equal apart from the processor speeds. I'd say go for the 2.0 and spend the difference on RAM/video card.

mduell · Oct 25, 2005, 12:21 AM

Originally Posted by golby

Exactly, why do they constantly do this? Why not just release a single 2.3 and then a quad 2.5, just like they have two models of the iMac. Just doesn't make sense.

Because they don't want a $2000 gap between their headless systems. I get the feeling that Apple wants to offer PowerMacs at the $1500 and $2000 pricepoints (as they have in the past), but even a 1.8Ghz dualcore at $1500 would eat into $2500 2.3Ghz sales.

Lateralus · Oct 25, 2005, 12:57 AM

I'm betting that the 2.3 is gonna get killed off and Apple will either drop the price of the Quad 2.5 or introduce a second Quad machine in the 2GHz range for around $2,600.

newtech · Oct 25, 2005, 01:59 AM

Possibly Apple wants somwhere to put 2.5GHz 970's that "aren't quite there".

havocidal · Oct 25, 2005, 02:56 AM

http://www.systemshootouts.org/processors.html

check this out guys...

golby · Oct 25, 2005, 04:26 PM

Ordered the dual-core 2.0 today! Just upped the video to 256 for $40 and i will pick up some additional ram from crucial! Excited is me!

tdm71 · Oct 25, 2005, 04:33 PM

I just spent sometime this weekend analysizing this exact same question.

To me the 2.3 is 15% more CPU than the 2.0 but costs 25% more. except for the larger hard drive (which is not much larger and can easily be upped for dirt), I don't see much of a difference?

Does .3 mghz or 15% more cpu make a big difference to warrant the price ??

krisneph · Oct 25, 2005, 04:44 PM

Well it is 15% but that per processor. I am also battling this decision but since am waiting for the 7800 gt by the time it appears maybe well see some benchmarks(I hope).

You know wha they say get the fastest CPU you can get. So I'm personaly leaning toward the Duel Core 2.3

mduell · Oct 25, 2005, 05:15 PM

Originally Posted by krisneph

Well it is 15% but that per processor. I am also battling this decision but since am waiting for the 7800 gt by the time it appears maybe well see some benchmarks(I hope).

You know wha they say get the fastest CPU you can get. So I'm personaly leaning toward the Duel Core 2.3

Yes, it's 15% per processor, but it's also 15% for both processors since both computers have two cores.

Who says get the fastest CPU you can get? I think that's foolish. I chose a slower CPU and more RAM because it makes me more productive.

tdm71 · Oct 25, 2005, 05:27 PM

Just curious, why would you choose a slower cpu with more ram? You wouldn't consider a fater CPU with less ram?

Madrag · Oct 25, 2005, 05:38 PM

I understand the advantages of having lots of RAM, but I wouldn't think it's foolish to consider a faster processor (I know many use the extra money to add RAM, instead of a better CPU, but what about the fastest processor and lots of RAM, that's the best!)

Grrr · Oct 25, 2005, 06:09 PM

Originally Posted by tdm71

Just curious, why would you choose a slower cpu with more ram? You wouldn't consider a fater CPU with less ram?

Slower CPU with tons of ram will be substantially faster than the other mac with a supposedly faster cpu, but low ram.

mduell · Oct 25, 2005, 06:36 PM

Originally Posted by tdm71

Just curious, why would you choose a slower cpu with more ram? You wouldn't consider a fater CPU with less ram?

Because having to swap when you run out of memory gives you a performance penalty greater than you could ever gain from a faster CPU.

When a 15% faster CPU and 600% more RAM cost the same, I'll take the RAM.

Originally Posted by Madrag

I understand the advantages of having lots of RAM, but I wouldn't think it's foolish to consider a faster processor (I know many use the extra money to add RAM, instead of a better CPU, but what about the fastest processor and lots of RAM, that's the best!)

Sure, if you can get everything that's great. The rest of us are limited by budget.

golby · Oct 25, 2005, 07:08 PM

My decision to purchase the DC 2.0 and not the 2.3 was completely based on budget. If i had the money i would not even blink twice about purchasing the quad, but unfortunatley i do not. When looking at the differences bw the 2.3 and 2.0 i couldnt justify the $400 jump, knowing that i could use that money to put towards ram. I have no regrets about this purchase and i can't wait to receive my new G5.

iDaver · Oct 26, 2005, 12:45 AM

Originally Posted by golby

My decision to purchase the DC 2.0 and not the 2.3 was completely based on budget. <snip> I have no regrets about this purchase and i can't wait to receive my new G5.

Congrats on your purchase! I ordered the same over the weekend. I'm expecting the 2.0 to be a wicked-fast computer so I doubt if I would notice any difference with the 2.3. I went for the $50 VRAM upgrade and ordered RAM from Crucial the same day.

Salty · Oct 26, 2005, 01:16 AM

By the time I was done adding HD and upping the video card on my priced out 2.0 I was considering the 2.3 for a lil more.

KarenE · Oct 26, 2005, 11:38 AM

As i noted in another thread now the tahe 7800 graphics cared is available which is a better buy ...a stock 2.3 with the 6600 or a 2.0 with the 250GB HD and the 7800? The price comes out about the same...

KidRed · Oct 26, 2005, 11:53 AM

Well, I got the 2.3 because it's faster, more front side bus, MUCH bigger HD, better graphics card. It was well worth it to me.

mduell · Oct 26, 2005, 12:10 PM

Originally Posted by KarenE

As i noted in another thread now the tahe 7800 graphics cared is available which is a better buy ...a stock 2.3 with the 6600 or a 2.0 with the 250GB HD and the 7800? The price comes out about the same...

Depends what you're doing, but I'd take the stock 2.0 with the 7800. For the $75 upgrade to a 250GB drive you could buy a 200-250GB drive next time CompUSA/Staples/OfficeDepot has a sale.

krisneph · Oct 26, 2005, 01:41 PM

Who says get the fastest CPU you can get? I think that's foolish. I chose a slower CPU and more RAM because it makes me more productive.

My point was I can't afford a Quad Mac so the fastest I might be able to aford is the 2.3, you say you rather spend the difference in RAM. Because you can't update the RAM on the 2.3 later huh.

So my choice is get the 2.3 then get the RAM later. Besides deals come along on RAM anyway so why rush into having 2 gigs of RAM since day one.

mduell · Oct 26, 2005, 02:43 PM

Originally Posted by krisneph

My point was I can't afford a Quad Mac so the fastest I might be able to aford is the 2.3, you say you rather spend the difference in RAM. Because you can't update the RAM on the 2.3 later huh.

You could upgrade the 2.3's RAM later. Or you could enjoy the speed of a 2.0 with lots of RAM now and sell it "later" to get an even faster CPU.

tdm71 · Oct 26, 2005, 07:49 PM

OK my question is,

Aside from the hard drive and different video card, etc.. ........ Will the .3mgz be that NOTICEABLE to warrant another 450 dollars?? Is there a significant difference???

mduell · Oct 26, 2005, 08:29 PM

Originally Posted by tdm71

Aside from the hard drive and different video card, etc.. ........ Will the .3mgz be that NOTICEABLE to warrant another 450 dollars?? Is there a significant difference???

Will you notice if a photoshop filter finishes in 40 seconds instead of 45 seconds?
Will you notice if a piece of code compiles in 4 minutes instead of 4.5 minutes?
Will you notice if a movie transcoding finishes in 40 minutes instead of 45 minutes?
Will you notice if a simulation runs in 4 hours instead of 4.5 hours?

If you said yes to any of the above, is it worth $375?

brokenjago · Oct 26, 2005, 08:52 PM

Does 300 Mhz really cut a simulation by 30 minutes? I could see the 5 seconds in a Photoshop filter, and maybe the code compile, but the last two seem a bit off.

mduell · Oct 26, 2005, 08:59 PM

Originally Posted by brokenjago

Does 300 Mhz really cut a simulation by 30 minutes? I could see the 5 seconds in a Photoshop filter, and maybe the code compile, but the last two seem a bit off.

Cutting 30 minutes off a 4.5 hour simulation is the same as cutting 5 seconds off a 45 second Photoshop filter; it just represents 15% better performance.

tdm71 · Oct 26, 2005, 10:37 PM

Maybe since my line of work is different than most I should state that since I work in the PRO AUDIO field , it really is not a matter of things finishing faster, it is a matter of running more things at the same time without crashes or freezees.

Does .3mgz allow that much more to be done at the SAME TIME to warrant the difference in price? I'm basically asking if it is a big difference or not.

THANKS for the advice.

mousehouse · Oct 27, 2005, 12:51 AM

I'd say you need to go to an Apple store and try these two machines out for yourself. Only then can you determine if the 15% difference is important to you.

OTOH, if the dual-2 won't cut it for you it seems unlikely that the dual-2.3 will...

Sr Speedy · Oct 27, 2005, 11:27 AM

I am in the same situation. My powerbook died and I was in need of new machine since I was then using a Mini as my main machine. Sweated the quad but cannot afford it. Was disappointed it went over the $3k mark but sells for $3k with the educational discount. Ended up ordering a DC 2.0 with the updated video card and an Apple 23" screen with an extra 4 GB of memory from a 3rd party for about the price of a Quad.

rslifka · Oct 28, 2005, 03:31 PM

Anecdotally, I've read that "noticeable" performance improvements start at ~20%. I personally would opt for the 2.0 and the RAM as well.

Rob

darcybaston · Oct 28, 2005, 05:31 PM

So, little importance should be given to PCIe, the 2x1MB cache, multithreading performance improvements, higher RAM limits etc? I figured if one wanted to extend their PPC future in a significant way, these machines are the way to go.

darcybaston · Oct 28, 2005, 05:31 PM

So, little importance should be given to PCIe, the 2x1MB cache, multithreading performance improvements, higher RAM limits etc? I figured if one wanted to extend their PPC future in a significant way, these machines are the way to go.

KarenE · Nov 1, 2005, 12:01 AM

I'm still struggling about buying a new PM...

As I've said, even outside of Rev A issues, i don't want to wait for the MacTels because I have expensive classic apps that i occasionally use that it will never pay to replace, so I want a PM that will be viable for a long while.

To me it seems it is likely still a long time (at least 1.5 - 2 years) before the PMs go over to intel. That makes me think there is a good chance for one more significant update before the switch to keep up sales.

Right now there is so little difference been the 2.0 and 2.3 in performance (though significant one in price) and it's such big jump to the quad (in both performance and price) that I would not surprise me to see the middle of the line get a boost.. Say something like:

Dual 2.0 (with 6800 instead of LE) Dual 2.5 Quad 2.5 (or higher if it becomes available)

or better yet (but less likely) something like:

Dual 2.0 or 2.3 Quad 1.8 or 2.0 Quad 2.5 (or higher if it becomes available)

Since a Quad is out of my price range, a significant boot to the mid PM would be worth waiting for...

BTW I'm not selling my G4 , it would be passed to a relative.

So what do people think? Is it likely that there will be another significant upgrade within the next year?

Thanks
- Karen

PS I tried to post this to a new thread but it did not go through

mduell · Nov 1, 2005, 12:18 AM

I think that just like the single 1.8 was switched to a dual 1.8 shortly after the original PowerMac G5s were released, we'll see a "low end quad" soon. Probably in the 1.9 - 2.1Ghz range.

iDaver · Nov 1, 2005, 02:02 AM

I suspect any quads introduced in the future will carry a price premium like the current one. My guess would be that a quad 2.3 might come out next spring for $2900. It might seem like a better deal than the current single DC 2.3 but still too much money for a lot of people. I doubt we'll ever see a quad PPC Power Mac for much less than that.

Big Mac · Nov 1, 2005, 07:24 AM

As others have noted, it's very interesting that with the DC line the entry level does not have a lower-end motherboard with fewer RAM slots as Apple did with the G5 previously. If I were in the market right now, I would likely go with the 2.0 over the 2.3 because 300MHz isn't a great differential. Of course, we all know the Dual DC is where it's at, but that's a huge chunk of change.

golby · Nov 1, 2005, 11:56 AM

Since there was not a "huge" difference between the 2.0 and the 2.3 I opted for the 2.0 w/ the 6600 256 and I ordered 1gb kit from crucial. My new machine should be here by the end of the week. Unless you have the cash for a quad that is the route i would recommend.

Footy · Nov 1, 2005, 11:21 PM

I installed a gig of crucial memory tonight and it's identical to what Apple had shipped in my DC 2.0. Not a huge surprise maybe but it was a lot less money than buying from Apple as you know.

Though I did order 1 gig of ECC from Apple too.

iDaver · Nov 2, 2005, 02:47 AM

Got my new DC 2.0 today. First impression is it's a nice machine but I haven't really done much work on it yet.

Which leads me to my next comment; those who claim that this Mac is practically silent, need to get their ears examined. When I'm doing nothing on the computer there is a definite low hum coming from the fans. It's not too annoying, but in various forums I've seen people comment that the DC 2.0 is silent. Not so!

There's a Western Digital hard drive in this Mac; the second such HD I've owned. Their constant clickity clackity when accessing is obnoxiously loud. As soon as I can, I'm going to replace this hard drive with something bigger and quieter and relegate the WD to backup status. I would never recommend a WD hard drive to anyone.

After I get all my software installed and use the new Mac more, perhaps I'll have more comments. Meanwhile, I'll be curious to hear other impressions.

golby · Nov 2, 2005, 07:57 AM

Originally Posted by Footy

I installed a gig of crucial memory tonight and it's identical to what Apple had shipped in my DC 2.0. Not a huge surprise maybe but it was a lot less money than buying from Apple as you know.

Though I did order 1 gig of ECC from Apple too.

As long as i can remember Apple has always used either Crucial, Hynix or Samsung ram. Two of my personal machines have come with crucial in the past. Apple just slaps their logo on it and doubles the price.

Footy · Nov 2, 2005, 08:34 AM

Originally Posted by iDaver

Got my new DC 2.0 today. First impression is it's a nice machine but I haven't really done much work on it yet.

Which leads me to my next comment; those who claim that this Mac is practically silent, need to get their ears examined. When I'm doing nothing on the computer there is a definite low hum coming from the fans. It's not too annoying, but in various forums I've seen people comment that the DC 2.0 is silent. Not so!

There's a Western Digital hard drive in this Mac; the second such HD I've owned. Their constant clickity clackity when accessing is obnoxiously loud. I'll be curious to hear other impressions.

I'm went from my dual G4 which had many fans in it and it was crazy loud. My DC 2.0 does have a low hum and yes the HD is a bit loud and put in your ear plugs when a CD ROM spins up!

However my new Mac is just above my head and I hear everything. Much much quieter than my old G4 in any case.

Footy · Nov 2, 2005, 08:37 AM

Originally Posted by golby

Apple just slaps their logo on it and doubles the price.

Apple didn't bother waisting money on slapping their logo on these, they are identical to the ones I got from Crucial, stickers and all. Crucial did add their own sticker as well though.

jamil5454 · Nov 2, 2005, 12:21 PM

Hmmm... I always thought my Rev.C Dual 2.0 was a very quiet machine, but then again, I have it sitting on a platform underneath my desk. And I really can't hear my hard drive, except when I bent down and listened for it.

Mine's a WDC WD1600JD-41HBC0.

I've got Samsung RAM originally in mine, then I added 2x512 Crucial recently and it works great. I just wish I had more slots so I don't have to pull RAM out to put more in.

Todd Madson · Nov 2, 2005, 01:01 PM

I should mention that part of what makes a macintosh fast would be the video card.

For instance, I was able to significantly improve my Cinebench scores simply by
overclocking my video card. It's a 9600 XT - I'm told the PC version runs at
500 mhz with memory at 300 mhz but the Mac version is underclocked, perhaps
for thermal reasons, perhaps for other reasons. Setting my card to the settings
the PC version employs did work.

Did I notice an improvement in speed overall? Possibly just a bit.
It would be most noticeable in gaming applications I suspect but the user
interface speeded up with 10.43 anyway.

But an X800 or X850 would be far more noticeable improvement without the
potential of hardware damage from overclocking.

But what really sped up my 2.5 dual was adding 2.5 gigabytes of ram.
Huge improvement.

A further option would be to add a 10,000 rpm SATA drive and use it as a boot drive.
They are typically smaller than the 7200 rpm mechanisms but if speed is needed..

CAS2 ram would be a further option for speedups.

Ultimately you want what's going to let you be productive without the CPU
catching on fire really.

Look at your budget - the previous generation of dual CPU machines are still a
great value but if you have to get the latest and greatest, then go and get it.
The PCI-E video standard offers some intriguing possibilities, especially for
those who require faster video.

mduell · Nov 2, 2005, 01:53 PM

Originally Posted by Todd Madson

CAS2 ram would be a further option for speedups.

TechReport recently reviewed lower latency RAM (here), and found that it didn't make much of a difference in performance.
I think the difference would be even smaller in a G5 given their miserable memory controller latency.

hardcat1970 · Nov 3, 2005, 01:47 AM

Originally Posted by jamil5454

Hmmm... I always thought my Rev.C Dual 2.0 was a very quiet machine, but then again, I have it sitting on a platform underneath my desk. And I really can't hear my hard drive, except when I bent down and listened for it.

Mine's a WDC WD1600JD-41HBC0.

I've got Samsung RAM originally in mine, then I added 2x512 Crucial recently and it works great. I just wish I had more slots so I don't have to pull RAM out to put more in.

i got my new dual 2.0 and have the same hard drive. It does make noise but it is not too loud. However the optical drive really bothers me because it is really loud and so are the optical drive on my other powerbooks. I wonder why all optical drives from apple sounded so loud. I bought my pioneer dvd drive from new egg few years ago didn't make any noise at all.

darcybaston · Nov 4, 2005, 03:35 PM

Which leads me to my next comment; those who claim that this Mac is practically silent, need to get their ears examined. When I'm doing nothing on the computer there is a definite low hum coming from the fans. It's not too annoying, but in various forums I've seen people comment that the DC 2.0 is silent. Not so!

When I mentioned silence, I was using the word relatively to the fan noise on my iBook. Of course it makes "some" noise. I barely notice it tucked under my desk though. I'm extremely pleased with it.

Slimride99 · Nov 6, 2005, 02:25 PM

Originally Posted by iDaver

Got my new DC 2.0 today. First impression is it's a nice machine but I haven't really done much work on it yet.

Hey all, I can't wait much longer, jumping out of my skin to update my G4 1GHz. Was going to wait until the Macintels but you all say they won't be out until 2007.

I'm about to pull the trigger on the DC 2.0. Will upgrade the vid card to the 256 meg. Will buy more RAM from Crucial (see...I've been paying attention). How about you guys who have had a DC 2.0 for a little bit now - what do you think? Any problems? Are you crazy happy? I'm a tightwad and need encouragement to part with my money!

Anyone have a reason that I should wait and see more reviews or to find out if there are any probs w/the machine? I go all the way back to MacPlus, never had a major prob, but I'M NERVOUS! HELP!