This discussion is archived
3576 Views 4 Replies Latest reply: Apr 22, 2008 5:41 AM by The hatter
I need speed.
Your words. 3.2 GHz is faster than 2.8 GHz.Mac Pro 2.66 Ghz; MacBook Pro C2D 2.33 Ghz; MacBook Pro 2.16 Ghz, Mac OS X (10.5.2), Intel iMac C2D 17 "; MacBook 2.0 Ghz; 30 GB iPod Video (Black); iPod Nano 2 GB
You might find this article in Bare Feats interesting (especially the last paragraph of the analysis section).
This article from Macworld is also worth a look because it compares how each of these machines stack up when they are upgraded (RAM and hard drives) in equal measures. From this you might gain some insight as to which upgrades suite your needs and where best to put your money.
Hope this helps.Dual quad core 2.8 MacPro 10 gigs NVIDIA GeForce 8800 GT, Mac OS X (10.5.2)
The Mac Pro 2.8 GHz performs so well that you will not notice a difference between the 3.2 nd the 2.8 except that you will be $1600 lighter
I would suggest putting the $1600 savings in a CD and in two years when you need an upgrade you can use that $1600 plus the resale value of the Mac Pro 2.8 to purchase a new Mac Pro model that is twice as fast as anything available now.
I would only purchase the Mac Pro 3.2 GHz if I had money to burn.
Have fun!Mac Pro 2.8, Mac OS X (10.5.2)
You could save on single cpu for your needs; or Apple Store Specials; and be just fine.
Maybe if you run multiple OSs concurrently in a VM like Fusion... ? and even then the stock 2.8.
Time is money, vs money to burnMac Pro 2.0 6GB Nvidia 8600GTS Raptor, Windows Vista, 64-bit RocketRAID 23" ACD 2 APC RS1500